20130653 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report_2014_20150414

Muddy Run H Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year] Monitoring Report- Duplin County, North Carolina • January 2015
MUDDY RUN II STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION
PROJECT
FINAL - MONITORING REPORT
MONITORING YEAR I
DUPLIN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, PROJECT # 95354
Prepared for:
ti
.0dj
l'��11�I C ,Rent
rR0G*^M
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
January 2015
WK Dickson & Co., Inc.

Muddy Run H Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year] Monitoring Report- Duplin County, North Carolina • January 2015
Muddy Run II
Duplin County, North Carolina
EEP Project ID 95354
Cape Fear River Basin
HUC 0030007060010
Prepared by:
,t
Environmental Banc & Exchange
909 Capability Drive, Suite 3100
Raleigh, NC 27606
919 - 829 -9909
WDICKSON
community infrastructure consultants
WK Dickson & Co., Inc.
720 Corporate Center Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
919 - 782 -0495
WK Dickson & Co., Inc. ii

Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year] Monitoring Report- Duplin County, North Carolina • January 2015
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration Project is located within an agricultural
watershed in Duplin County, North Carolina, approximately six miles south of Beulaville. The stream
channels were heavily impacted by channelization and agricultural practices. The project involved the
restoration and protection of streams in the Muddy Creek watershed. The purpose of this restoration
project was to restore and enhance a stream/wetland complex located within the Cape Fear River
Basin.
The project lies within USGS Hydrologic Unit Code 03030007060010 (USGS, 1998) and within the
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) Cape Fear River Subbasin 03 -06 -22
(NCDENR, 2002). The project consists of six unnamed tributaries to Muddy Creek, but the project
has been divided into nine distinct reaches for design purposes. Reach 1 is one of the upstream -most
portions of the project; it begins on the edge of an existing agricultural field and extends to STA
04 +48. Similarly, Reach 2 is one of the upper -most portions of the stream project. It begins in a
disturbed forest corridor between several agricultural fields and extends to STA 19 +14. Reach 3a
starts at the confluence of Reaches 1 and 2 (STA 00 +00) and flows north north -west through a
disturbed hardwood buffer and several agricultural fields before being partially diverted to enter
Reach 3b near STA 37 +23. Reach 3b flows to the north and west where it flows into Reach 3c at STA
57 +92. Reach 3c flows through a pine plantation to STA 65 +30, where it flows into Reach 3 of the
Muddy Run project. Reach 4 is a perennial channel that flows through a forested area from a ditch
draining an agricultural field. Reach 4 flows into Reach 3A at STA 18 +76. Reach 5a consists of the
main stem beginning at STA 00 +00 where it adjoins with Reach 1C of the Muddy Run project. Reach
5a flows north and flows into Reach 5b at STA 19 +59. Reach 5b is the most downstream reach of the
project, ending at the right -of -way for State Highway 41. Reach 6 begins in a forested area south of
Reach 5 and flows in a northerly direction to the confluence with Reach 5a near STA 9 +20. Two
areas containing drained hydric soil were identified for restoration, located along Reach 3b and Reach
5a.
This Year 1 Annual Monitoring Report presents the data from 28 vegetation monitoring plots, four
manual crest gauges, four auto crest gauges, an auto - logging rain gauge, seven wetland restoration
groundwater gauges, three reference groundwater gauges, 59 stream cross sections, 20 sets of bank
pins, and photo reference locations, as required by the approved Mitigation Plan for the site.
The Muddy Run II Year 1 Monitoring activities were completed in December 2014. All Year 1
monitoring data is present below and in the appendices. Data presented shows the site has localized
areas of bed and bank erosion; however, the site is on track to meeting stream, wetland and vegetation
interim success criteria.
Throughout the Year 1 monitoring season, the majority of restored stream channel remained stable
and continued to provide the intended habitat and hydrologic functions. Minimal changes were
noticed for most Year 1 cross section surveys resulting from stable bed and bank conditions. Six out
of 59 cross sections showed noticeable changes resulting from aggradation or degradation. Multiple
bankfull events have been observed during Year 1 monitoring activities on three of the four crest
gauges. During several site visits throughout Year 1, each stream reach was noted to be flowing
during normal conditions.
Eight stream problem areas were observed during the Year 1 monitoring period. The problem areas
observed during Year 1 monitoring activities consist of bank erosion due to structure failure and
unstable bed and banks. Each stream problem area is addressed in this report detailing the severity of
the problem and recommended adaptive management.
WK Dickson & Co., Inc. iii

Muddy Run H Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year] Monitoring Report- Duplin County, North Carolina • January 2015
Four of the seven wetland gauges (AW1, AW2, AW4, and AW6) achieved the success criteria by
remaining continuously within 12 inches of the soil surface for at least nine percent of the growing
season. Since wetland hydrology was only monitored for the last half of the growing season, it is
difficult to determine success of the remaining three gauges. Groundwater gauge data indicate the
hydroperiods being very responsive to rainfall events. Year 2 wetland hydrology monitoring data will
represent the first full growing season.
The Year 1 vegetation monitoring observations for Muddy Run II Site are summarized in this report.
Planted -stem survival for Monitoring Year 1 for all 28 Vegetation Plots (VP) at Muddy Run was
above the interim success criterion of 320 trees per acre at the end of Monitoring Year 3. The average
stem density (excluding live stakes) across all vegetation plots was 616 stems per acre. Few volunteer
tree species were noted during Monitoring Year 1. Vegetation problem areas noted during Monitoring
Year 1 include Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) along portions of Reach 2, Reach 3a, Reach 3c,
and Reach 5b and three areas that had sparse tree cover due to lack of planting or mortality due to low
soil fertility. There was also tree mortality and evidence of vehicles accessing the easement in two
areas; these issues are being addressed by restricting vehicle access and replanting these areas in
January/February. These problem areas will continue to be observed during Monitoring Year 2;
however, these areas pose little threat to achieving the vegetation success criteria. The Muddy Run II
Site is on track to meet the Year 3 vegetation survival success criterion of 320 trees per acre as
specified in the Mitigation Plan.
WK Dickson & Co., Inc. iv

Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year] Monitoring Report- Duplin County, North Carolina • January 2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 PROJECT GOALS, BACKGROUND AND ATTRIBUTES ......................... ............................... 3
1.1 Location and Setting ................................................................................. ..............................3
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives .................................................................... ..............................3
1.3 Project Structure ...................................................................................... ............................... 4
1.3.1 Restoration Type and Approach ....................................................... ..............................4
1.4 Project History, Contacts and Attribute Data .......................................... ...............................
7
1.4.1 Project History .................................................................................. ..............................7
1.4.2 Project Watersheds ........................................................................... ..............................7
2 SUCCESS CRITERIA .................................................................................... ............................... 8
2.1 Stream Restoration .................................................................................. ...............................
8
2.1.1 Bankfull Events ............................................................................... ...............................
8
2.1.2 Cross Sections ................................................................................. ...............................
8
2.1.3 Digital Image Stations ..................................................................... ...............................
8
2.2 Wetland Restoration ................................................................................ ............................... 8
2.3 Vegetation ............................................................................................... ............................... 9
2.4 Scheduling /Reporting .............................................................................. ...............................
9
3 MONITORING PLAN .................................................................................... ............................... 9
3.1 Stream Restoration .................................................................................. ............................... 9
3.1.1 As -Built Survey ............................................................................... ...............................
9
3.1.2 Bankfull Events ............................................................................... ...............................
9
3.1.3 Cross Sections ................................................................................. .............................10
3.1.4 Digital Image Stations ..................................................................... .............................10
3.1.5 Bank Pin Arrays .............................................................................. .............................10
3.1.6 Visual Assessment Monitoring ........................................................ .............................10
3.1.7 Surface Flow .................................................................................. ...............................
11
3.2 Wetland Hydrology ................................................................................. .............................11
3.3 Vegetation ............................................................................................... .............................11
4 Maintenance and Contingency plan .............................................................. ...............................
11
4.1 Stream ...................................................................................................... .............................11
4.2 Wetlands .................................................................................................. .............................12
4.3 Vegetation ............................................................................................... .............................12
5 YEAR 1 MONITORING CONDITIONS ( MY1) ......................................... ...............................
13
5.1 Year 1 Monitoring Data Collection ......................................................... .............................13
5.1.1 Morphological State of the Channel ................................................ .............................13
5.1.2 Vegetation ........................................................................................ .............................13
5.1.3 Photo Documentation ...................................................................... .............................14
5.1.4 Stream Hydrology ........................................................................... .............................14
5.1.5 Wetland Hydrology ......................................................................... .............................14
6 REFERENCES .............................................................................................. ...............................
14
WK Dickson & Co., Inc. v

Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year] Monitoring Report- Duplin County, North Carolina • January 2015
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Project Background Data and Maps
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2. Project Activity and reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts
Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Project USGS Map
Appendix B. Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3. Current Conditions Plan View Map (CCPV)
Table 5. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Table 7. Stream Problem Areas
Table 8. Vegetation Problem Areas
Stream Photos
Vegetation Photos
Stream and Vegetation Problem Photos
Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 9a. Planted Stem Count Summary
Table 9b. Planted Species Totals
Table 9c. Planted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot)
Appendix D. Stream Geomorphology Data
Table 10. Morphological Parameters Summary Data
Table 11. Dimensional Morphology Summary — Cross Sections Data
Table 12. Bank Pin Array Summary Data
Cross Section Plots
Appendix E. Hydrology Data
Table 13. Documentation of Geomorphologically Significant Flow Events
Table 14. Rainfall Summary
Table 15. Wetland Hydrology Criteria Attainment
Chart 1. 2014 Precipitation Data for Muddy Run II Site
Chart 2. 2014 Groundwater Monitoring Gauge Hydrographs
Crest Gauge Verification Photos
WK Dickson & Co., Inc. vi

Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 1 Monitoring Report• Duplin County, North Carolina • January 2015
1 PROJECT GOALS, BACKGROUND AND ATTRIBUTES
1.1 Location and Setting
The Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration Site is located in Duplin County approximately
1.4 miles east of Chinquapin, NC (Figure 1). The project is in the Cape Fear River Basin (8 -digit
USGS HUC 03030007,14-digit USGS RUC 0303007060010) (USGS, 1998) and the NCDWQ Cape
Fear 03 -06 -22 sub -basin ( NCDWQ, 2002). To access the Site from the town of Chinquapin, travel
east on Highway 50, take the first left onto Pickett Bay Road (SR 1819), go 1.1 miles, then turn left
onto Kenney Crawley Road. This private road is gravel and will split just past the residential house on
the right. Keeping to the left will take you to the Reaches 3b, 3c, 5b, and 6. Going to the right at the
split will take you to Reaches 1, 2, 3a, and 4.
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives
The Muddy Run I1 stream and wetland mitigation project will provide numerous ecological and water
quality benefits within the Cape Fear River Basin. While many of these benefits are limited to the
project area, others, such as pollutant removal and improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat, have more
far - reaching effects. Expected improvements to water quality, hydrology, and habitat are outlined
below.
Design Goals and Objectives
Benefits Related to Water Quality
Benefit will be achieved through filtering of runoff from adjacent CAFOs through buffer areas, the
Nutrient removal
conversion of active farm fields to forested buffers, improved denitrification and nutrient uptake
through buffer zones, and installation of BMPs at the headwaters of selected reaches and ditch outlets.
Benefit will be achieved through the stabilization of eroding stream banks and reduction of sediment
Sediment removal
loss from field areas due to lack of vegetative cover. Channel velocities will also be decreased through
a reduction in slope, therefore decreasing erosive forces.
Increase dissolved oxygen
Benefit will be achieved through the construction of instream structures to increase turbulence and
concentration
dissolved oxygen concentrations and lower water temperature to increase dissolved oxygen capacity.
Runoff filtration
Benefit will be achieved through the restoration of buffer areas that will receive and filter runoff,
thereby reducing nutrients and sediment concentrations reaching water bodies downstream.
Benefits to Flood Attenuation
Water storage
Benefit will be achieved through the restoration of buffer areas which will infiltrate more water during
precipitation events than under current site conditions.
Improved groundwater
Benefit will be achieved through the increased storage of precipitation in buffer areas, ephemeral
recharge
depressions, and reconnection of existing floodplain. Greater storage of water will lead to improved
infiltration and groundwater recharge.
Improved /restored
Benefit will be achieved by restoring the stream to a natural meandering pattern with an appropriately
hydrologic connections
sized channel, such that the channel's floodplain will be flooded more frequently at flows greater than
the bankfull stage.
Benefits Related to Ecological Processes
Restoration of habitats
Benefit will be achieved by restoring riparian buffer habitat to appropriate bottomland hardwood
ecosystem.
Improved substrate and
Benefit will be achieved through the construction of instream structures designed to improve bedfonn
instream cover
diversity and to trap detritus. Substrate will become more coarse as a result of the stabilization of
stream banks and an overall decrease in the amount of fine materials deposited in the stream.
WK Dickson & Co., Inc.

Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 1 Monitoring Report• Duplin County, North Carolina • January 2015
Addition of large woody
Benefit will be achieved through the addition of wood structures as part of the restoration design.
debris
Such structures may include log vanes, root wads, and log weirs.
Reduced temperature of
water due to shading
Benefit will be achieved through the restoration of canopy tree species to the stream buffer areas.
Restoration of terrestrial
habitat
Benefit will be achieved through the restoration of riparian buffer bottomland hardwood habitats.
1.3 Project Structure
Table 1. Muddy Run II Project Components- Stream Mitigation
Reach 5a
Reach 5b
Reach 6
P1 Restoration
Enhancement II
Enhancement II
As -Built
Existing
As -Built
Mitigation
Reach
Mitigation Type
Stationing
Length
Length
Ratio
SMUs
(LF)
(LF)
Reach 1
Headwater Valley
0 +00 to 4 +48
438
398
1:1
398
Reach 2
Headwater Valley
0 +00 to 5 +04
504
504
1:1
504
Reach 2
P1 Restoration
5 +04 to 19 +14
1,223
1,410
1:1
1,410
Reach 3a
P1 Restoration
0 +00 to 37 +23
3,301
3,586
1:1
3,586
Reach 3b
P1 Restoration
37 +23 to 57 +92
NA
1,979
1:1
1,979
Reach 3c
Enhancement I
57 +92 to 65 +30
737
708
1:1.5
472
Reach 4
P1 Restoration
0 +44 to 2 +17
120
173
1:1
173
Reach 5a
Reach 5b
Reach 6
P1 Restoration
Enhancement II
Enhancement II
0 +00 to 19 +59
19 +59 to 23 +68
9 +02 to 12 +19
1,602
401
317
1,926
409
318
1:1 1,926
1:2.5 164
1:2.5 127
8,643
11,411
10,739
Table 2. Muddy Run II Project Components —
Wetland Mitigation
Mitigation
Mitigation
Wetland
Mitigation Type
WMUs
Area (ac)
Ratio
WA
Restoration
3.60
1:1
3.60
WB
Restoration
1.32
1:1
1.32
Total
4.92
4.92
1.3.1 Restoration Type and Approach
Reach 1
Headwater valley restoration approach was performed along Reach 1. The existing channel /ditch was
backfilled, and flow has been directed from its current position along the tree line back to within the
historic valley location down to the confluence with Reaches 2 and 3a. A 100 foot wide forested
buffer has been planted throughout the reach. The upstream limit of Reach 1 ties into an existing
headwater valley system comprised of intermittent sections of single and multiple channels. This
WK Dickson & Co., Inc. 4

Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 1 Monitoring Report• Duplin County, North Carolina • January 2015
system will be used as a reference site for incorporating a small baseflow channel into the headwater
valley restoration design.
Reach 2
Similar to Reach 1, headwater valley restoration was performed along the upper section of Reach 2.
The existing channel was backfilled with existing spoil material located along the channel, a result of
previous dredging activities. Areas within the 100 foot buffer that were disturbed or lack riparian
vegetation were planted. Grade control structures were installed along three ditches that enter Reach 2
at the upstream end of the project. These structures raised the upstream channel bed elevations
slightly to tie into existing ditches to the project reach. An existing CMP culvert located along the
upstream section was removed and replaced outside the easement (upstream) to continue to allow the
landowner access to all areas of his property. Priority 1 restoration was performed for the majority of
Reach 2. Restoration activities involved relocating the channel to the north through an existing
wooded area consisting primarily of pines and a few hardwoods. Existing spoil piles located along the
channel banks were removed and used to fill the existing ditch. Diffuse flow structures have been
installed along several ditches that outlet to the reach from both the north and south. The structures
will attenuate and disperse flows as the existing ditches enter the proposed easement.
Reach 3a
Priority Level I restoration was performed on Reach 3a. The restoration approach on this reach
included relocating the channel on either side of its current location to follow the natural valley and
removing the adjacent roadbed to allow continuous access to the floodplain. Two existing 36" CMP
culvert crossings were located along this reach. Each culvert was removed and replaced in -line with
the proposed stream to allow the landowners to access portions of their respective properties to the
west of the project site. Reach 3a now flows in a northwesterly direction until it reaches a property
line. At this point, the existing ditch that continued to flow in a northerly direction was plugged and a
diversion structure was installed. The structure is designed to pass 100 percent of baseflow and small
storms through the project, and divert up to 70 percent of storms larger than the 25 -yr storm to the
existing ditch and offsite. See Section 7.3.1.1 (Stream Hydrologic Analysis) for hydraulic analysis
details.
Just downstream of the diversion structure, the channel was relocated south of several turkey houses,
and now flows in a westerly direction as Reach 3b. The network of ditches surrounding the turkey
houses appear to cross a small ridge, directing flow away from the project area. An additional culvert
crossing was constructed where flow will be diverted to the west at the turkey houses. Priority I
restoration is appropriate for this channel because it is the only mitigation approach that addresses bed
and bank instability, establishes a forested riparian buffer, and significantly enhances aquatic habitat.
Diffuse flow structures were constructed where existing agricultural ditches enter the easement area.
The diversion structure was constructed at the downstream end of Reach 3a to alleviate and prevent
flooding caused by rerouting flow and increased drainage areas, to provide continued flow through
the existing ditch for storms larger than bankfull (design) events, and to reduce impacts from
proposed grading activities. Per discussions with Mr. Lanier (owner of parcel northwest of proposed
structure), larger storm events overtop the existing ditch flowing to the north. This flooding may be
attributed to inefficiencies with existing structures and ditch alignments in conjunction with low
gradients. The culvert associated with the gravel access road that leads from Ludie Brown Road to the
turkey houses outlets perpendicular to the receiving ditch that flows to the northeast and under Ludie
Brown Road. This ditch continues to the northeast and crosses Route 111, where it flows to the north
into Muddy Creek. By diverting up to 70 percent of higher flows through the existing ditch and
offsite, existing flooding issues will be reduced adjacent to the turkey houses. This diversion also
decreases potential flooding impacts that would occur if 100 percent of storm events were passed
WK Dickson & Co., Inc.

Muddy Run H Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 1 Monitoring Report• Duplin County, North Carolina • January 2015
through the proposed channel, Reach 3b. There are several residential parcels within zero to 200 feet
of the proposed easement along Reach 3b. Because the topography is very flat through this area, the
flooding associated with the majority of storm events greater than bankfull would negatively impact
these parcels.
Finally, by diverting a percentage of the proposed higher flows, flooding impacts will also be reduced
along Reaches 5a and 5b and at the existing HWY 41culvert at the downstream end of the project.
Currently, agricultural fields are present along the north side of Reach 5a. By reducing high flows, the
flooding extent and duration will be reduced; thus, preventing adverse impacts to crops. If 100
percent of higher storm events were allowed to pass through the project, significant grading would be
required to cut floodplain terraces/benches to relieve flooding of the adjacent agricultural fields.
Approximately 1,611 LF of the existing ditch that flows to the north from the Reach 3a/3b diversion
structure will be impacted (dewatered). This length includes the segment of the ditch from the
diversion structure downstream to the Muddy Creek floodplain. The channel impacts resulting from
the proposed channel relocation will be addressed in the ensuing NWP application.
Reach 3b
Priority Level I restoration was performed on Reach 3b. The restoration approach on this reach
included relocating the channel in a westerly direction through an open pasture. The pasture area has
been extensively modified and substantial grading was required. The design then moves the channel
to a historic drainage way as observed on LiDAR and historical aerial photographs.The flow path is
now connected to a small relic channel identified in the forested area west of the pasture. Subsequent
topographic survey confirmed positive drainage along the relic channel which follows a low lying
feature observed on LiDAR. The restoration approach included some minor grading to enlarge the
existing channel and to create a diverse bed habitat by constructing pools. Log grade control
structures were installed at the confluence with Reach 3c and at the connection to the relic channel.
Small, mechanical equipment and hand tools were used to minimize damage to the existing forested
buffer. A livestock protected culvert crossing was constructed near the existing pasture along an
existing farm path to allow the landowner uninterrupted access to his property.
Reach 3c
Enhancement I was performed on Reach 3c as it flows through a forested area downstream from
Reach 3b to Reach 3 of the Muddy Run Stream Mitigation Project. A grade control structure was
installed at the upstream end to stabilize the transition from an existing agricultural ditch to the stable
channel. A crossing was constructed along the upper section to allow the landowner access to both
sides of his property. Enhancement activities included removing portions of exising spoil piles
located along top of banks, cutting floodplain benches and laying back banks, and installing woody
debris habitat structures. Diffuse flow structures were also constructed at the downstream limit where
existing agricultural ditches enter the easement area. Invasive species management was performed
throughout the buffer, and any bare or disturbed areas were planted with native riparian vegetation.
Reach 4
Priority 1 restoration was performed on the downstream end of Reach 4 as it flows through a forested
area below a ditch draining an agricultural field. A grade control structure was installed at the
upstream end to transition from the existing ditch to a stable channel. The lower section of the reach
was constructed into an E -type channel before its confluence with Reach 3a. Invasive species
management was performed throughout the buffer, and any bare or disturbed areas were planted with
native riparian vegetation.
Reach 5a
WK Dickson & Co., Inc.

Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 1 Monitoring Report• Duplin County, North Carolina • January 2015
Priority Level I restoration was performed on Reach 5a. The channel was relocated north of its
current location into the adjacent agricultural field. The existing ditch was backfilled and plugged at
any locations that may cross the proposed channel. The upstream end of the reach ties into Reach 1C
of the Muddy Run Stream Mitigation Project. The single - thread channel will flows through proposed
wetland WB beginning approximately 300 feet downstream of the Muddy Run project. A CMP
culvert crossing was installed in -line with the proposed design near the middle of the reach to allow
the landowners access to the adjacent parcels. Priority I restoration is appropriate for this channel
because it is the only mitigation approach that addresses bed and bank instability, establishes a
forested riparian buffer, and significantly enhances aquatic habitat.
Reach 5b
Enhancement Level II was performed on Reach 5b. Several log grade controls and woody debris
structures were installed along the bed to increase aquatic habitat and bed diversity. The right bank
along the reach was laid back and spoil piles along the tops of banks were removed using small
equipment to minimize impacts to the existing buffer. Additionally, invasive species management
was performed throughout the buffer, and any bare or disturbed areas were planted with native
riparian vegetation.
Reach 6
Enhancement Level II was performed on the downstream section of Reach 6 (STA 9 +02 to STA
12 +19). The right and left banks were laid back, and the channel was backfilled using spoil located
adjacent to the channel such that positive drainage is maintained throughout the reach down to the
confluence with Reach 5a. Invasive species management was performed throughout the buffer where
enhancement took place, and any bare or disturbed areas were planted with native riparian vegetation.
A 50 foot wide buffer was provided along the upper section of Reach 6 (STA 0 +00 to STA 9 +02);
however, no enhancement activities were performed through this section other than filling portions of
the channel. This additional easement was provided to account for any hydrologic impacts that may
occur as a result of the proposed enhancement activities.
1.4 Project History, Contacts and Attribute Data
1.4.1 Project History
The Muddy Run Restoration Site was restored by Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC (EBX)
through a full - delivery contract awarded by NCEEP in 2011. Tables 2, 3, and 4 in Appendix A
provide a time sequence and information pertaining to the project activities, history, contacts, and
baseline information.
1.4.2 Project Watersheds
The easement totals 37.6 acres and is broken into nine reaches. Reach 1 has a drainage area of 68
acres; it begins at the start of the restoration project (STA 0 +00) and extends west to STA 4 +48.
Reach 2 has a drainage area of 114 acres; it begins at STA 0 +00 and extends to STA 19 +14. Reach 3a
(Sta. 0 +00 to 37 +23) begins at the confluence of Reaches 1 and 2 and has a drainage area of 227
acres. Reach 3b has a drainage area of 333 acres and flows west into Reach 3c; it begins at STA
37 +23 and extends to STA 57 +92. Reach 3c has a drainage area of 370 acres extending north to south
and flows into Reach 3 of the Muddy Run project; it begins at STA 57 +92 and extends to STA
65 +30. Reach 4 has a drainage area of 46 acres and flows from the east into Reach 3a; it begins at
STA 0 +44 and extends to STA STA 2 +17. Reach 5a begins at the downstream limit of the Muddy
Run project, flows into Reach 5b, and has a drainage area of 774 acres; it begins at STA 0 +00 and
extends to STA 19 +59. Reach 5b has a drainage area of 908 acres; it starts at STA 19 +59 and extends
WK Dickson & Co., Inc.

Muddy Run H Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 1 Monitoring Report• Duplin County, North Carolina • January 2015
to STA 23 +68. Reach 6 has a drainage area of 318 acres and flows from the south into Reach 5a; it
starts at STA 9 +02 and extends to STA 12 +19 (Figure 2). The land use in the project watershed is
approximately 38 percent cultivated, 32 percent evergreen forest, 15 percent shrub /scrub, 6 percent
bottomland forest/hardwood swamp, 5 percent mixed forest, 2 percent developed, and 2 percent
managed herbaceous cover.
2 SUCCESS CRITERIA
The success criteria for the Muddy Run Site stream restoration will follow accepted and approved
success criteria presented in the USACE Stream Mitigation Guidelines and subsequent NCEEP and
agency guidance. Specific success criteria components are presented below.
2.1 Stream Restoration
2.1.1 Bankfull Events
Two bankfull flow events must be documented within the
bankfull events must occur in separate years. Otherwise, th e
two bankfull events have been documented in separate year
using crest gauges, auto - logging crest gauges, photographs,
debris rack lines.
2.1.2 Cross Sections
five -year monitoring period. The two
stream monitoring will continue until
s. Bankfull events will be documented
and visual assessments for evidence of
There should be little change in as -built cross - sections. If changes do take place, they should be
evaluated to determine if they represent a movement toward a less stable condition (for example
down - cutting or erosion), or are minor changes that represent an increase in stability (for example
settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio). Cross -
sections shall be classified using the Rosgen stream classification method, and all monitored cross -
sections should fall within the quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream type.
2.1.3 Digital Image Stations
Digital images will be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank erosion,
success of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures. Longitudinal images
should not indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or an excessive increase in
channel depth. Lateral images should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the
banks over time. A series of images over time should indicate successional maturation of riparian
vegetation.
2.2 Wetland Restoration
The NRCS does not have a current WETS table for Duplin County upon which to base a normal
rainfall amount and average growing season. The closest comparable data was determined to be from
Sampson County. The growing season for Sampson County is 242 days long, extending from March
17 to November 14, and is based on a daily minimum temperature greater than 28 degrees Fahrenheit
occurring in five of ten years.
Because of the surface roughing and shallow depressions, a range of hydroperiods are expected. The
water balance indicates that the site will have a positive water balance in the early part of the growing
season for four to five weeks, on average. The hydrology success criterion for the site is to restore the
water table at the site so that it will remain continuously within 12 inches of the soil surface for at
WK Dickson & Co., Inc.

Muddy Run H Stream and Wetland Restoration - USGS HUC 03030007
Year 1 Monitoring Report• Duplin County, North Carolina • January 2015
least nine percent of the growing season (approximately 22 days) at each groundwater gauge location
during normal rainfall years. Overbank flooding events will provide additional inputs that may extend
the hydroperiod in some years.
Gauge data will be compared to reference wetland well data in growing seasons with less than normal
rainfall. In periods of low rainfall, if a restoration gauge hydroperiod exceeds the reference gauge
hydroperiod, and both exceed five percent of the growing season, then the gauge will be deemed
successful. If a gauge location fails to meet these success criteria in the five year monitoring period,
then monitoring may be extended, remedial actions may be undertaken, or the limits of wetland
restoration will be determined.
2.3 Vegetation
Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density within the riparian buffers on the site will
follow NCEEP Guidance. Vegetation monitoring plots are 0.02 acres in size, and cover greater than
two percent of the planted area. Vegetation monitoring will occur annually in the fall of each year.
The interim measures of vegetative success for the site will be the survival of at least 320 three -year-
old trees per acre at the end of Year 3, and the final vegetative success criteria will be 260 trees per
acre at the end of Year 5. Invasive species on the site will be monitored and controlled if necessary
throughout the required vegetation monitoring period.
2.4 Scheduling/Reporting
The monitoring program will be implemented to document system development and progress toward
achieving the success criteria. The restored stream morphology will be assessed to determine the
success of the mitigation. The monitoring program will be undertaken for five years or until the final
success criteria are achieved, whichever is longer.
Monitoring reports will be prepared in the fall of each year of monitoring and submitted to NCEEP.
The monitoring reports will include all information, and will be in the format required by NCEEP in
Version 2.0 of the NCEEP Monitoring Report Template.
3 MONITORING PLAN
Annual monitoring shall be conducted for stream, wetland, and vegetation monitoring parameters as
noted below for five years prior to completion of construction or until success criteria have been met.
3.1 Stream Restoration
3.1.1 As -Built Survey
An as -built survey was conducted following construction to document channel size, condition, and
location. The survey includes a complete profile of thalweg, top of bank, and in stream channel
structures to compare with future geomorphic data. Longitudinal profiles will not be required in
annual monitoring reports unless requested by NCEEP or USACE.
3.1.2 Bankfull Events
Four sets of manual and auto - logging crest gauges were installed on the site, one along Reach 2, one
along Reach 3a, one along Reach 3b, and one along Reach 5a. The auto logging crest gauges were
installed within the channel and will continuously record flow conditions at an hourly interval.
Manual crest gauges were installed on the bank at bankfull elevation. Crest gauges will be checked
WX Dickson & Co., Inc.

Muddy Run H Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 1 Monitoring Report• Duplin County, North Carolina • January 2015
during each site visit to determine if a bankfull event has occurred since the last site visit. Crest gauge
readings and debris rack lines will be photographed to document evidence of bankfull events.
3.1.3 Cross Sections
A total of 59 permanent cross sections were installed to monitor channel dimensions and stability.
Four cross sections were installed along Reach 1 and ten cross sections were installed along Reach 2.
There were 21 cross sections (nine runs, nine pools, and three riffles) installed along Reach 3A and
six cross sections installed along Reach 3B. Four cross sections were installed along Reach 3C and
two cross sections were installed along Reach 4. Reach 5A had eight cross sections installed, while
Reach 5B and 6 each had two cross sections installed. Cross sections were typically located at
representative shallow and pool sections along each stream reach. Each cross section was
permanently marked with 3/8 rebar pin to establish a monument location at each end. A marker pole
was also installed at both ends of each cross section to allow ease locating during monitoring
activities. Cross section surveys will be performed once a year during annual monitoring and will
include all breaks in slope including top of bank, bottom of bank, streambed, edge of water, and
thalweg.
3.1.4 Digital Image Stations
Digital photographs will be taken at least once a year to visually document stream and vegetation
conditions. This monitoring practice will continue for five years following construction and planting.
Permanent photo point locations at cross sections and vegetation plots have been established so that
the same directional view and location may be repeated each monitoring year. Monitoring
photographs will also be used to document any stream and vegetation problematic areas such as
erosion, stream and bank instability, easement encroachment and vegetation damage.
3.1.5 Bank Pin Arrays
Twenty bank pin arrays have been installed at cross sections located on meander pools. These bank
pin arrays were installed along the upstream and downstream third of the meander. Bank pins are a
minimum of three feet long, and have been installed just above the water surface and every two feet
above the lowest pin. Bank pin exposure will be recorded at each monitoring event, and the exposed
pin will be driven flush with the bank.
3.1.6 Visual Assessment Monitoring
Visual monitoring of all mitigation areas will be conducted a minimum of twice per monitoring year
by qualified individuals. The visual assessments will include vegetation density, vigor, invasive
species, and easement encroachments. Visual assessments of stream stability will include a complete
stream walk and structure inspection. Digital images will be taken at fixed representative locations to
record each monitoring event as well as any noted problem areas or areas of concern. Results of
visual monitoring will be presented in a plan view exhibit with a brief description of problem areas
and digital images. Photographs will be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or
degradation, bank erosion, success of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control
measures. Longitudinal photos should indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or
an excessive increase in channel depth. Lateral photos should not indicate excessive erosion or
continuing degradation of the banks over time. A series of photos over time should indicate
successional maturation of riparian vegetation.
WX Dickson & Co., Inc. 10

Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 1 Monitoring Report• Duplin County, North Carolina • January 2015
3.1.7 Surface Flow
Headwater valley restoration areas will be monitored to document intermittent or seasonal surface
flow. This will be accomplished through direct observation, photo documentation of hydrology
conditions, and dye tests if necessary.
3.2 Wetland Hydrology
Wetland hydrology will be monitored to document hydric conditions in the wetland restoration
areas. Seven automatic recording pressure transducer gauges were installed in representative
locations across the restoration areas and an additional three gauges were installed in reference
wetlands. The gauges will be downloaded quarterly and wetland hydroperiods will be calculated
during the growing season. Gauge installation followed current regulatory and EEP guidance. Visual
observations of primary and secondary wetland hydrology indicators will also be recorded during
quarterly site visits.
3.3 Vegetation
A total of 28 vegetation plots were randomly established within the planted stream riparian buffer
easement. Each vegetation plot measures 22 feet by 40 feet (0.02 acres) and has all four corners
marked with PVC posts. Planted woody vegetation was assessed within each plot to establish a
baseline dataset. Within each vegetation plot, each planted stem was identified for species, "X" and
"Y" origin located, and measured for height. Reference digital photographs were also captured to
document baseline conditions. Species composition, density, growth patterns, damaged stems, and
survival ratios will be measured and reported on an annual basis. Vegetation plot data will be reported
for each plot as well as an overall site average.
4 MAINTENANCE AND CONTINGENCY PLAN
All identified problematic areas or areas of concern such as stream bank erosion/instability,
aggradation/degradation, lack of targeted vegetation, and invasive /exotic species which prevent the
site from meeting performance success criteria will be evaluated on a case by case basis. These areas
will be documented and adaptive management will be discussed with NCEEP staff. If it is determined
remedial action is required, a plan will be provided.
4.1 Stream
Eight stream problem areas were noted during the Year 1 monitoring period. The problem areas
observed during Year 1 monitoring activities consist of minor bank erosion to failing structures with
unstable bed and banks. These problem areas have been mapped on the Current Conditions Plan View
(CCPV). Reach 1 had one problem with a loose grade control toe log at station 3 +25 which has
become undercut; however, the bed is stable and it will continue to be monitored. Reach 3A has one
problem at the very upstream log grade control structure. Concentrated flow has created bank erosion
around the left toe log. The structure is stable; however, the scour will be repaired and a coir log will
be installed to divert flow around the structure. Two stream problem areas are located on Reach 3B.
At station 37 +22, concentrated flow has eroded a gully on the left bank behind the diversion structure.
The scour pool will be graded on the left floodplain with a level spreader or stable swale to redirect
overland flow. The area will be livestaked once the erosion is repaired. The second problem area on
Reach 3B is located at the downstream portion from station 57 +30 to 57 +80. This area has five log
structures that have failed due to improper installation. Both bed and banks in this area need to be
repaired. Bed and banks will be repaired, new log grade control structures will be installed, livestakes
will be planted along the banks. This area may also benefit from a floodplain bench to reduce high
energy flow within the channel for larger flow events. Reach 3C has one stream problem area with
WK Dickson & Co., Inc. 11

Muddy Run H Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 1 Monitoring Report• Duplin County, North Carolina • January 2015
minor left bank erosion located at stations 60 +00 and 61 +00. These areas consist of two headcuts
forming on the left bank and will be repaired by installing a coir log to divert concentrated flow from
these areas. Reach 5A has the remaining three stream problem areas. Stream problem area six
(SPA6) is a segment from station 13 +25 to 16 +50 where stream structures have failed and become
unstable due to improper installation. This area has localized areas of bank erosion on both sides. To
repair problem area 6, new rock/log structures will be installed and a floodplain bench will be created.
After all repair work is completed, the area will be replanted and livestaked. Stream problem area 7
(SPAT) is an area with minor bank erosion located on the right bank at station 14 +00. This stream
problem is a small scour and will be repaired by installing a coir log to divert concentrated flow from
this area. The last stream problem area (SPAR) on Reach 5A is a segment from station 16 +50 to
19 +50. Log structures along this portion are unstable and have failed due to improper installation.
Both streambed and banks are eroding at a rapid pace due to sandy soil cohesion in this problem area.
Repair work for problem area 8 will include installing new rock/log structures and re- grading the bed
and banks. A floodplain bench will be created along with replanting and livestaking the banks. All
stream problem areas have been mapped on the Current Conditions Plan View (CCPV) along with a
table and photos for each area that are described in more detail in Appendix B. Stream problem areas
requiring adaptive management occupy less than five percent of the total channel length. Overall the
system is performing as designed and no systematic problems exist.
4.2 Wetlands
No wetland problem areas were noted during the Year 1 monitoring period. Wetland hydrology and
vegetation represent typical conditions of a site in Year 1 post construction monitoring. If any
wetland problem areas are identified during post construction monitoring activities in the future, they
will be documented and mapped on the Current Conditions Plan View (CCPV) as part of the annual
stream and wetland monitoring report. Wetland hydrology gauges were installed in early July and
documented hydrology conditions for approximately 55 percent of the total growing season. Four of
the seven wetland gauges achieved the success criteria by remaining continuously within 12 inches of
the soil surface for at least nine percent of the growing season. Since wetland construction occurred
in the early growing season and wetland hydrology was only monitored for the last half of the
growing season, it is difficult to determine success of the remaining three gauges. Year 2 wetland
hydrology monitoring data will represent the first full growing season.
4.3 Vegetation
Ten vegetation problem areas were identified during the Year 1 monitoring period and have been
mapped on the CCPV. Invasive Chinese privet was observed along portions of Reach 2, Reach 3a,
Reach 3c, and Reach 5b (VPA1, VPA2, VPA3, VPA8, and VPA10); management will consist of
continued clearing and stump treatment for these areas. One area along the right bank floodplain of
Reach 3a is sparsely vegetated and has evidence of vehicles driving through the easement (VPA4); it
approximately 80 trees will be planted in two rows in this area and vehicle access to the easement will
be restricted. One area along Reach 3a was never planted (VPA5); approximately 400 trees will be
planted in this area. One area along Reach 3b is sparsely vegetated, likely due to low soil fertility and
compaction (VPA6); approximately 300 trees will be planted in this area; preferably fast growing
species. Another area along Reach 3b is sparsely vegetated, likely due to low planting density
(VPA7); approximately 250 trees will be planted in this area. The last problem area is along the right
bank floodplain of Reach 5a. This area is sparsely vegetated and has evidence of vehicles driving
through the easement (VPA9); approximately 80 trees will be planted in two rows in this area and
vehicle access to the easement will be restricted. Landowners will be communicated with to aid in
the prevention of future easement encroachment issues. These issues are described in Appendix B.
WK Dickson & Co., Inc. 12

Muddy Run H Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 1 Monitoring Report• Duplin County, North Carolina • January 2015
5 YEAR 1 MONITORING CONDITIONS (MY1)
The Muddy Run II Year 1 Monitoring activities were completed in December 2014. All Year 1
monitoring data is present below and in the appendices. Data presented shows the site has localized
areas of bed and bank erosion; however, the site is on track to meeting stream, wetland and vegetation
interim success criteria.
5.1 Year 1 Monitoring Data Collection
5.1.1 Morphological State of the Channel
All morphological stream data for the Year 1 survey and dimensions were collected during the annual
monitoring survey performed during November and December 2014. Appendix D includes summary
data tables, morphological parameters, cross section plots, and bank pin array tables.
Profile
The baseline (MY -0) profiles closely matches the proposed design profiles. The plotted longitudinal
profiles can be found on the As -Built Drawings. Longitudinal profiles will not be performed in annual
monitoring reports unless requested by NCEEP or USACE. Morphological summary data tables can
be found in Appendix D.
Dimension
The Year 1 (MY -1) cross sectional dimensions closely matches the baseline cross section parameters.
Minimal changes were noticed for most Year 1 cross section surveys resulting from stable bed and
bank conditions. Only six out of 59 cross sections showed noticeable changes resulting from
aggradation or degradation. Cross sections 43 (Reach 3C), 56 and 57 (Reach 5B) showed evidence of
slight - aggradation. Cross sections 52, 54, and 55 all located on Reach 5A, exhibited down cutting
and/or widening. All cross section plots and data tables can be found in Appendix D.
Sediment Transport
The Year 1 conditions show that shear stress and velocities have been reduced for all six restoration
reaches. Pre - construction conditions documented all six reaches as sand bed channels and remain
classified as sand bed channels post - construction. Visual assessments (Appendix B) show the
channels are transporting sediment as designed and will continue to be monitored for aggradation and
degradation. Areas of excessive erosion appear due to improper structure installation and unstable
soil conditions.
Bank Pin Arrays
Ten pool cross section locations with bank pin arrays were observed and measured for bank erosion
located on the outside meander bends. If bank pin exposure was noticeable, it was measured,
recorded, photographed, and then driven flush with the bank at each monitoring location. Three bank
pin array locations had measurable readings during annual Year 1 monitoring activities. Bank pins
located at cross sections 40 and 49 showed minimal erosion with readings of 0.2 and 0.6 feet; cross
section 54 had a reading of 1.0 feet on the bottom downstream bank pin. Bank pin array data tables
can be found in Appendix D.
5.1.2 Vegetation
The Year 1 monitoring (MY -1) vegetation survey was completed in early December 2014. The Year
1 vegetation monitoring on the Muddy Run Stream Restoration Site resulted in an average of 616
planted stems per acre, which is above the interim survival density of 320 stems per acre at the end of
Year 3 monitoring. The average stems per vegetation plot was 12.3 planted stems. The minimum
WX Dickson & Co., Inc. 13

Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 1 Monitoring Report• Duplin County, North Carolina • January 2015
planted stem per plot was 7 stems and the maximum was 17 stems per plot. There was one tulip
poplar (Liriodendron tulipidera) volunteer in Plot 22. Vegetation summary data tables can be found
in Appendix C and vegetation plot photos in Appendix B.
5.1.3 Photo Documentation
Permanent photo point locations have been established at cross sections, vegetation plots, stream
crossings, and stream structures by WK Dickson staff. Any additional problem areas or areas of
concern have been documented with a digital photograph during monitoring activities. All stream
and vegetation digital photographs can be found in Appendix B.
5.1.4 Stream Hydrology
Multiple bankfull events have been observed during Year 1 monitoring activities on three of the four
crest gauges. Four sets of manual and auto - logging crest gauges are installed on the site, one along
Reach 2, one along Reach 3A, one along Reach 313, and one along Reach 5A to document flow
conditions. Crest gauges 1 and 2 both recorded their maximum bankfull flow event on August 1st;
however, crest gauge 4 recorded its maximum reading on September 12th. During several site visits
throughout Year 1, each stream reach was noted to be flowing during normal conditions. Crest gauge
and rainfall data is presented in Appendix E.
5.1.5 Wetland Hydrology
Seven wetland hydrology gauges were installed in early July 2014 and documented hydrology
conditions for approximately 55 percent of the total growing season. Four of the seven wetland
gauges (AW 1, AW2, AW4, and AW6) achieved the success criteria by remaining continuously
within 12 inches of the soil surface for at least nine percent of the growing season. Since wetland
hydrology was only monitored for the last half of the growing season, it is difficult to determine if the
remaining three gauges were successful. Groundwater gauge data indicate the hydroperiods being
responsive to rainfall events. One reference gauge (RAW 1) met the nine percent success criteria
while the remaining two (RAW2 and RAW3) had hydroperiods of four and eight percent of the
growing season. Year 2 wetland hydrology monitoring data will represent the first full growing
season. Wetland gauge and rainfall data is presented in Appendix E.
6 REFERENCES
Chow, Ven Te. 1959. Open- Channel Hydraulics, McGraw -Hill, New York.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological
Services, FWS /OBS- 79/31. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.
Environmental Banc & Exchange (2012). Muddy Run Stream Restoration Project Final Mitigation
Plan. North Carolina Ecosystems Enhancement Program, Raleigh, NC.
Horton, J. Wright Jr. and Victor A. Zullo. 1991. The Geology of the Carolinas, Carolina Geological
Society Fiftieth Anniversary Volume. The University of Tennessee Press. Knoxville, TN.
Johnson PA. 2006. Assessing stream channel stability at bridges in physiographic regions.
U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. Report Number
FHWA- HRT -05 -072.
WK Dickson & Co., Inc. 14

Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 1 Monitoring Report• Duplin County, North Carolina • January 2015
Krstolic, J.L., and Chaplin, J.J. 2007. Bankfull regional curves for streams in the non - urban,
non -tidal Coastal Plain Physiographic Province, Virginia and Maryland: U.S. Geological
Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007 -5162, 48 p.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr. and S.P. Hall, eds. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal
Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North
Carolina.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS). 2007. Stream Restoration Design Handbook (NEH
654), USDA
NCDENR. "Water Quality Stream Classifications for Streams in North Carolina." Water Quality
Section. http: //h2o.enr.state.nc.us /wqhome /html (June 2005).
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and F.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina, Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, NCDENR, Raleigh, NC.
Sweet, William V. and Jens W. Geratz. 2003. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships and
Recurrence Intervals for North Carolina's Coastal Plain. J. of the American Water Resources
Association (JAWRA) 39(4):861 -871.
Tweedy, K. A Methodology for Predicting Channel Form in Coastal Plain Headwater Systems.
Stream Restoration in the Southeast: Advancing the Science and Practice, November 2008, Asheville,
NC. Unpublished Conference Paper, 2008.
http: / /www.bae.ncsu. edu/ programs / extension /wqg /srp /2008conference /tweedy _paper.pdf
WK Dickson & Co., Inc. 15

Appendix A
Project Background Data and Maps
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2. Project Activity and reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts
Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Project USGS Map

Appendix A. General Tables and Figures
Table 1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Monitoring Report Year 1
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration/NCEEP Project # NC -95354
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Ri par ian Wetland
Non-riparian Wetland
Buffer
Nitrogen
Nutrient Offset
Phosphorous
Nutrient Offset
Type
R
RE
R
RE
R
RE
Totals
10,739
4.92
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Project Components
Project Component -or- Reach ID
As -Built
Stationing/Location (LF)
Existing
Footage /Acreage
Approach
(PI, PII etc.)
Restoration -or-
Restoration
Equivalent
Restoration
Footage or
Acreage
Mitigation Ratio
Reach 1
0+00-4+48
438
HWV
Restoration
398
1 : 1
Reach 2
0+00-5+04
504
MW
Restoration
504
1 : 1
Reach 2
5+04-19+14
1,223
PI
Restoration
1,410
1 : 1
Reach 3A
0+00-37+23
3,301
P1
Restoration
3,586
1 : 1
Reach 3B
37 +23 —57+92
NA
P1
Restoration
1,979
1 : 1
Reach 3C
57 +92 —65+30
737
Enh. I
Rest. Equivalent
708
1 : 1.5
Reach 4
0+44-2+17
120
PI
Restoration
173
1: 1
Reach 5A
0+00-19+59
1,602
P1
Restoration
1,926
1 : 1
Reach 5B
19 +59 —23+68
401
Enh. II
Rest. Equivalent
409
1 : 2.5
Reach 6
9+02-12+19
317
Enh. 11
Rest. Equivalent
318
1 : 2.5
Component Summation
Restoration Level
Stream
(linear feet)
Riparian Wetland
(acres)
Non - riparian Wetland
(acres)
Buffer
(square feet)
Upland
(acres)
Riverime
Non - Riverine
Restoration
9,074
4.92
Headwater Valley
902
Enhancement
Enhancement 1
708
Enhancement II
727
Creation
Preservation
High Quality
Preservation
BMP Elements
Element
Location
Purpose /Function
Notes
BMP Elements
BR = Bioretention Cell; SF = Sand Filter; SW = Stormwater Wetland; WDP = Wet Detention Pond; DDP = Dry Detention Pond; FS = Filter Strip; S = Grassed
Swale; LS = Level Spreader; NI = Natural Infiltration Area; FB = Forested Buffer

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Project Activity and Reporting History
Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration / EEP Project #NC -95354
Activity or Report
Data Collection
Complete
Completion or
Delivery
Mitigation Plan
NA
January 2014
Final Design — Construction Plans
NA
March 2014
Construction Completed
NA
May 2014
Site Planting Completed
NA
May 2014
Baseline Monitoring Document Year 0 Monitoring — baseline
June 2014
August 2014
Year 1 Monitoring
December 2014
December 2014
Year 2 Monitoring
H&J Forestry
Year 3 Monitoring
Seeding Contractor
Rain Services, Inc.
Year 4 Monitoring
upe Cruz
Seed Mix Sources
Year 5 Monitoring
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Arbogen
Table 3. Project Contacts
Project Contacts Table
Muddy Run Stream Restoration /EEP Project # 95354
Designer
WK Dickson and Co., Inc.
720 Corporate Center Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(919) 782 -0495
Frasier Mullen, PE
Construction Contractor
GP Jenkins
6566 HWY 55 W
Kinston, NC 28504
(252) 569 -1222
Gary Jenkins
Planting Contractor
H&J Forestry
Matt Hitch
Seeding Contractor
Rain Services, Inc.
upe Cruz
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resource
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Arbogen
Full Delivery Provider
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
909 Capability Drive, Suite 3100
Raleigh, NC 27606
(919) 829 -9909
Project Manager:
David Godley
Monitoring Performers
WK Dickson and Co., Inc.
720 Corporate Center Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(919) 782 -0495
Project Manager:
Paniel Ingram

Table 4. Project Information
Project Information
Project Name
Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration
County
Duplin
Project Area (acres)
37.6
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
34.8308430 N, - 77.792838 ° W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Coastal Plain
River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-
digit
03030007
USGS Hydrologic
Unit 14-digit
0303007060010
DWQ Sub -basin
03 -06 -22
Project Drainage Area (acres)
908
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
<1%
CGIA Land Use Classification
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3a
Reach 3b
Reach 3c
Reach 4
Reach 5a
Reach 5b
Reach 6
Length of Reach (linear feet)
398
1914
3586
1979
708
173
1926
409
318
Valley Classification
Drainage Area (acres)
68
114
227
333
370
46
774
908
77
NCDWQ Stream Identification
24.75
24.75
36.5
NA
40.5
32.0
35.5
37.5
20.75
NCDWQ Water Quality
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Morphological Description (stream
Evolutionary Trend
Underlying Mapped Soils
Rains
Rains
Goldsboro/
Rains
Goldsboro/
Rains
Goldsboro/
Rains
Goldsboro/
Rains
Goldsboro /
Rains
Goldsboro
Goldsboro /
Rains
Drainage Class
- --
- --
- --
- --
- --
Soil Hydric Status
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Slope
0.0043
0.0021
0.0016
0.0023
0.0022
0.0034
0.0024
0.0015
0.0024
FEMA Classification
Zone X
Zone X
Zone X
Zone X
Zone X
Zone X
Zone X
Zone X
Zone X
Native Vegetation Community
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swam
Percent Composition of Exotic
0%
0%
0% 0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0%
land So ry Information
Parameters
Wetland A
Wetland B
Size of Wetland (acres)
3.60
1.32
Wetland Type (non-riparian, riparian riverine or riparian
Riparian
Riparian
Mapped Soil Series
Goldsboro
Rains
Drainage class
Moderately Well
Poorly
Soil Hydric Status
Yes
Yes
Source of Hydrology
RunofFOverbank Flows
Runoff/Overbank Flows
Hydrologic Im airment
Ditched/Incised Channel
Ditched/Incised Channel
Native vegetation community
Cultivated
Cultivated
Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation
NA
NA
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States — Section 404
X
X
USACE NWP 27
Waters of the United States — Section 401
X
X
401 Water Quality Cert.
Endangered Species Act
X
X
USFWS (Corr. Letter)
Historic Preservation Act
X
X
SHPO (Corr. Letter)
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/ Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)
N/A
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Essential Fisheries Habitat
N/A
N/A
N/A

d�
N 3 0 0
o> t e R °�► � �
0
5`m�e X80 v N
Sta e Road 1 04
� Roa
t
� Road 7
9 sad s
2 ^ a • a1
Muddy Run II Site
s Qo S /VC °ad 1967 N /9hway to
rn4j / to R
°m e Mh d 196 0
v, a W
8>> o
0
ad 1 1
1715
State R
o �
� ae
?-006
49
Of
m
State h
State aoa 182
0
0
State N
oad — 0 0
Legend ateR a
NC Highway
State Roads a
Streams
a �
Muddy Run II Easement
Pierce Ln da
Waterbody
HUC 03030007060010 J
Figure 1.
Project Vicinity Map
Muddy Run 11 Mitigation Site
Miles Scale: NTS
1 inch = 1.5 miles

Drainage Area = 1.4 mi
r
,I
�
I
6A/
117 7.
r
pin
ti• 4 '_ ',,.
cs,�l
C }-
I
�d
Bid 149 r ;> _— - I' / •_
C
f .
J$A f
F19t leaet 4i - r f
ena'n'sville Lyman
USGS Topograp ic,Quadrangles
ri: JI t
Exhibit 2.
Proposed Streams
USGS /Watershed Map waterbodies
Muddy Run II Site
O Muddy Run II Easement
>'
0 1,000 2,000
4,000 Muddy Run Easement
a y
1 inch = 2,000 feet
Feet
C3 Drainage Area

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3. Current Conditions Plan View Map (CCPV)
Table 5. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Table 7. Stream Problem Areas
Table 8. Vegetation Problem Areas
Stream Photos
Vegetation Photos

Figure 3a.
Muddy Run II
Mitigation Site
Current Conditions Map
Duplin County, NC
Legend
Easement Boundary
Cross Sections
Stream Structures
P1 Restoration
HWV Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Vegetation Plots
Reach Breaks
ED Crest Gauges
Riparian Buffer Conditions
Target Community
w Present Marginal Absent
A)
U Absent No Fill
CL
U)
Present
N IIIII
R
c Common __

Figure 3b.
Muddy Run II
Mitigation Site
Current Conditions Map
Duplin County, NC
' EFL
Legend
Easement Boundary
Cross Sections
Stream Structures
P1 Restoration
HWV Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
- Vegetation Plots
Wetland Restoration
Encroachment Area
Reach Breaks
0
Crest Gauges
Well
Hydroperiod
®
< 5%
®
5 -8%
®
> 9%
Riparian Buffer Conditions
Target Community
w Present Mar inal Absent
A)
d Absent No Fill
Q
h
>
Present
N VIII
Common

Figure 3c.
Muddy Run II
Mitigation Site
Current Conditions Map
Duplin County, NC
■
Legend
Easement Boundary
Cross Sections
Stream Structures
P1 Restoration
HWV Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Vegetation Plots
Riparian Buffer Conditions
Target Community
w Present Mar inal Absent
A)
d Absent No Fill
Q
h
Present
II
N VIII
R - - -_
E Common
Wetland Restoration
Reach Breaks
Crest Gauges
Well Hydroperiod
®
< 5%
®
5 -8%
®
> 9%
Riparian Buffer Conditions
Target Community
w Present Mar inal Absent
A)
d Absent No Fill
Q
h
Present
II
N VIII
R - - -_
E Common

Figure 3d.
Muddy Run II
Mitigation Site
Current Conditions Map
Duplin County, NC
p4w
Legend
® Easement Boundary
Cross Sections
Stream Structures
P1 Restoration
HWV Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Vegetation Plots
® Wetland Restoration
Encroachment Area
Crest Gauges
Reach Breaks
Well Hydroperiod
® < 5%
® 5 -8%
® > 9%
Riparian Buffer Conditions
Target Community
w Present Mar inal Absent
A)
d Absent No Fill
Q
h
Present
II
N VIII
R - - -_
E Common

Table 5a Visual Stream Morpholocily Stability Assessment
Reach ID Reach 1
Assessed Length 398
' Bed - Coastal plain sand bed channels have a mobile bed along their entire length during geomorphically significant flows. Therefore, the number of shallows and pools,
bedform shape, and thalweg position will vary by monitoring event and are not suitable indicators of stability or function.
2 Percentage based on visual assessment of channel bed condition.
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
Footage with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable 2,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate o
Sub-Cateciory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Seciments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aegradation - Bar formation /growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture /Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
NA
NA
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
—
NA
NA
100%
2. Length appropriate ( >30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
NA
NA
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
NA
NA
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
NA
NA
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured /Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and /or
scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
3
4
o
75%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
4
4
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
4
4
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
0
0
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads /logs providing some cover at base -flow.
0
0
o
100 /o
' Bed - Coastal plain sand bed channels have a mobile bed along their entire length during geomorphically significant flows. Therefore, the number of shallows and pools,
bedform shape, and thalweg position will vary by monitoring event and are not suitable indicators of stability or function.
2 Percentage based on visual assessment of channel bed condition.

Table 5b Visual Stream Morpholocily Stability Assessment
Reach ID Reach 2
Assessed Length 1914
' Bed - Coastal plain sand bed channels have a mobile bed along their entire length during geomorphically significant flows. Therefore, the number of shallows and pools,
bedform shape, and thalweg position will vary by monitoring event and are not suitable indicators of stability or function.
2 Percentage based on visual assessment of channel bed condition.
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
Footage with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable 2,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate o
Sub-Cateciory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Seciments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aegradation - Bar formation /growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture /Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
NA
NA
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
—
NA
NA
100%
2. Length appropriate ( >30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
NA
NA
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
NA
NA
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
NA
NA
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured /Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and /or
scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
14
14
°
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
13
13
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
14
14
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15°%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
0
0
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads /logs providing some cover at base -flow.
1
1
o
100 /o
' Bed - Coastal plain sand bed channels have a mobile bed along their entire length during geomorphically significant flows. Therefore, the number of shallows and pools,
bedform shape, and thalweg position will vary by monitoring event and are not suitable indicators of stability or function.
2 Percentage based on visual assessment of channel bed condition.

Table 5c Visual Stream Morpholocily Stability Assessment
Reach ID Reach 3A
Assessed Length 3586
1 Bed - Coastal plain sand bed channels have a mobile bed along their entire length during geomorphically significant flows. Therefore, the number of shallows and pools,
bedform shape, and thalweg position will vary by monitoring event and are not suitable indicators of stability or function.
2 Percentage based on visual assessment of channel bed condition.
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
Footage with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable 2,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate o
Sub-Cateciory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Seciments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aegradation - Bar formation /growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture /Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
NA
NA
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
—
NA
NA
100%
2. Length appropriate ( >30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
NA
NA
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
NA
NA
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
NA
NA
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured /Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and /or
scour and erosion
2
15
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
2
15
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
21
21
°
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
11
11
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
19
21
90%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15°%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
1
1
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads /logs providing some cover at base -flow.
10
10
o
100 /o
1 Bed - Coastal plain sand bed channels have a mobile bed along their entire length during geomorphically significant flows. Therefore, the number of shallows and pools,
bedform shape, and thalweg position will vary by monitoring event and are not suitable indicators of stability or function.
2 Percentage based on visual assessment of channel bed condition.

Table 5d Visual Stream Morpholocily Stability Assessment
Reach ID Reach 3B
Assessed Length 1979
1 Bed - Coastal plain sand bed channels have a mobile bed along their entire length during geomorphically significant flows. Therefore, the number of shallows and pools,
bedform shape, and thalweg position will vary by monitoring event and are not suitable indicators of stability or function.
2 Percentage based on visual assessment of channel bed condition.
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
Footage with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable 2,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate o
Sub-Cateciory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Seciments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aegradation - Bar formation /growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
1
50
97%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture /Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
NA
NA
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
—
NA
NA
100%
2. Length appropriate ( >30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
NA
NA
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
NA
NA
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
NA
NA
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured /Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and /or
scour and erosion
1
50
99%
0
0
99%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
1
30
99%
0
0
99%
Totals
2
80
98%
0
0
98%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
12
17
71%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
4
9
44%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
12
17
71
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
1
1
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads /logs providing some cover at base -flow.
7
7
o
100 /o
1 Bed - Coastal plain sand bed channels have a mobile bed along their entire length during geomorphically significant flows. Therefore, the number of shallows and pools,
bedform shape, and thalweg position will vary by monitoring event and are not suitable indicators of stability or function.
2 Percentage based on visual assessment of channel bed condition.

Table 5e Visual Stream Morpholocily Stability Assessment
Reach ID Reach 3C
Assessed Length 708
' Bed - Coastal plain sand bed channels have a mobile bed along their entire length during geomorphically significant flows. Therefore, the number of shallows and pools,
bedform shape, and thalweg position will vary by monitoring event and are not suitable indicators of stability or function.
2 Percentage based on visual assessment of channel bed condition.
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
Footage with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable 2,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate o
Sub-Cateciory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Seciments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aegradation - Bar formation /growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture /Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
NA
NA
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
—
NA
NA
100%
2. Length appropriate ( >30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
NA
NA
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
NA
NA
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
NA
NA
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured /Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and /or
scour and erosion
2
15
99%
2
10
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
2
15
99%
2
10
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
5
5
°
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
3
3
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
5
5
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
0
0
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads /logs providing some cover at base -flow.
2
2
o
100 /o
' Bed - Coastal plain sand bed channels have a mobile bed along their entire length during geomorphically significant flows. Therefore, the number of shallows and pools,
bedform shape, and thalweg position will vary by monitoring event and are not suitable indicators of stability or function.
2 Percentage based on visual assessment of channel bed condition.

Table 5f Visual Stream Morpholocily Stability Assessment
Reach ID Reach 4
Assessed Length 173
' Bed - Coastal plain sand bed channels have a mobile bed along their entire length during geomorphically significant flows. Therefore, the number of shallows and pools,
bedform shape, and thalweg position will vary by monitoring event and are not suitable indicators of stability or function.
2 Percentage based on visual assessment of channel bed condition.
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
Footage with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable 2,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate o
Sub-Cateciory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Seciments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aegradation - Bar formation /growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture /Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
NA
NA
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
—
NA
NA
100%
2. Length appropriate ( >30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
NA
NA
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
NA
NA
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
NA
NA
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured /Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and /or
scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
3
3
°
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
2
2
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
3
3
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
0
0
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads /logs providing some cover at base -flow.
1
1
o
100 /o
' Bed - Coastal plain sand bed channels have a mobile bed along their entire length during geomorphically significant flows. Therefore, the number of shallows and pools,
bedform shape, and thalweg position will vary by monitoring event and are not suitable indicators of stability or function.
2 Percentage based on visual assessment of channel bed condition.

Table 5g Visual Stream Morpholocily Stability Assessment
Reach ID Reach 5A
Assessed Length 1926
' Bed - Coastal plain sand bed channels have a mobile bed along their entire length during geomorphically significant flows. Therefore, the number of shallows and pools,
bedform shape, and thalweg position will vary by monitoring event and are not suitable indicators of stability or function.
2 Percentage based on visual assessment of channel bed condition.
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
Footage with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable 2,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate o
Sub-Cateciory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Seciments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aegradation - Bar formation /growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
1
550
71%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture /Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
NA
NA
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
—
NA
NA
100%
2. Length appropriate ( >30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
NA
NA
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
NA
NA
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
NA
NA
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured /Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and /or
scour and erosion
1
10
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
1
250
94%
0
0
94%
Totals
2
260
93%
0
0
93%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
14
22
o
64%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
9
16
56%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
13
22
59%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
0
0
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads /logs providing some cover at base -flow.
4
6
o
67 /o
' Bed - Coastal plain sand bed channels have a mobile bed along their entire length during geomorphically significant flows. Therefore, the number of shallows and pools,
bedform shape, and thalweg position will vary by monitoring event and are not suitable indicators of stability or function.
2 Percentage based on visual assessment of channel bed condition.

Table 5h Visual Stream Morpholocily Stability Assessment
Reach ID Reach 5B
Assessed Length 409
' Bed - Coastal plain sand bed channels have a mobile bed along their entire length during geomorphically significant flows. Therefore, the number of shallows and pools,
bedform shape, and thalweg position will vary by monitoring event and are not suitable indicators of stability or function.
2 Percentage based on visual assessment of channel bed condition.
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
Footage with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable 2,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate o
Sub-Cateciory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Seciments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aegradation - Bar formation /growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture /Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
NA
NA
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
—
NA
NA
100%
2. Length appropriate ( >30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
NA
NA
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
NA
NA
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
NA
NA
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured /Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and /or
scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
1
1
°
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
1
1
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
1
1
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
0
0
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads /logs providing some cover at base -flow.
0
0
o
100 /o
' Bed - Coastal plain sand bed channels have a mobile bed along their entire length during geomorphically significant flows. Therefore, the number of shallows and pools,
bedform shape, and thalweg position will vary by monitoring event and are not suitable indicators of stability or function.
2 Percentage based on visual assessment of channel bed condition.

Table 5a Visual Stream Morpholocily Stability Assessment
Reach ID Reach 6
Assessed Length 318
' Bed - Coastal plain sand bed channels have a mobile bed along their entire length during geomorphically significant flows. Therefore, the number of shallows and pools,
bedform shape, and thalweg position will vary by monitoring event and are not suitable indicators of stability or function.
2 Percentage based on visual assessment of channel bed condition.
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
Footage with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable 2,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate o
Sub-Cateciory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Seciments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aegradation - Bar formation /growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture /Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
NA
NA
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
—
NA
NA
100%
2. Length appropriate ( >30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
NA
NA
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
NA
NA
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
NA
NA
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured /Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and /or
scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
2
2
°
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
2
2
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
2
2
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
0
0
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads /logs providing some cover at base -flow.
0
0
o
100 /o
' Bed - Coastal plain sand bed channels have a mobile bed along their entire length during geomorphically significant flows. Therefore, the number of shallows and pools,
bedform shape, and thalweg position will vary by monitoring event and are not suitable indicators of stability or function.
2 Percentage based on visual assessment of channel bed condition.

Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Planted Acreage 17
Easement Acreaae' 37.6
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Pol ons
_Acreage
Acrea e
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
De iction
Pol ons
Acreage
Acreage
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.
0.1 acres
0
0.00
0.0%
4. Invasive Areas of Concern ""
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1000 SF
❑
■
7
2. Low Stem Density Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria.
0.1 acres
5
2.42
14.2%
5. Easement Encroachment Areas"
Total
5
2.42
14.2%
0.38
2.2%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year.
0.25 acres
0
0.00
0.0%
Cumulative Total7
5
2.42
14.2%
Easement Acreaae' 37.6
1 = Enter the planted acreage within the easement. This number is calculated as the easement acreage minus any existing mature tree stands that were not subject to supplemental planting of the understory, the channel acreage,
crossings or any other elements not directly planted as part of the project effort.
2 = The acreage within the easement boundaries
3 = Encroachment may occur within or outside of planted areas and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. In the event a polygon is cataloged into items 1, 2 or 3 in the table and is the result of encroachment,
the associated acreage should be tallied in the relevant item (i.e., item 1,2 or 3) as well as a parallel tally in item 5.
4 = Invasives may occur in or out of planted areas, but still within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. Invasives of concern /interest are listed below. The list of high concern spcies are
those with the potential to directly outcompete native, young, woody stems in the short-term (e.g. monitoring period or shortly thereafter) or affect the community structure for existing, more established tree /shrub stands over timeframes
that are slightly longer (e.g. 1 -2 decades). The low /moderate concern group are those species that generally do not have this capacity over the timeframes discussed and therefore are not expected to be mapped with regularity, but can
be mapped, if in the judgement of the observer their coverage, density or distribution is suppressing the viability, density, or growth of planted woody stems. Decisions as to whether remediation will be needed are based on the integration
of risk factors by EEP such as species present, their coverage, distribution relative to native biomass, and the practicality of treatment. For example, even modest amounts of Kudzu or Japanese Knotweed early in the projects history will
warrant control, but potentially large coverages of Microstegium in the herb layer will not likley trigger control because of the limited capacities to impact tree /shrub layers within the timeframes discussed and the potential impacts of
treating extensive amounts of ground cover. Those species with the "watch list" designator in gray shade are of interest as well, but have yet to be observed across the state with any frequency. Those in red italics are of particular
interest given their extreme risk/threat level for mapping as points where isolated specimens are found, particularly ealry in a projects monitoring history. However, areas of discreet, dense patches will of course be mapped as polygons.
The symbology scheme below was one that was found to be helpful for symbolzing invasives polygons, particulalry for situations where the conditon for an area is somewhere between isolated specimens and dense, discreet patches. In
any case, the point or polygon /area feature can be symbolized to describe things like high or low concern and species can be listed as a map inset, in legend items if the number of species are limited or in the narrative section of the
executive summary.
% of
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Easement
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
De iction
Pol ons
Acreage
Acreage
4. Invasive Areas of Concern ""
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1000 SF
❑
■
7
1.56
4.1%
5. Easement Encroachment Areas"
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
2
0.38
2.2%
1 = Enter the planted acreage within the easement. This number is calculated as the easement acreage minus any existing mature tree stands that were not subject to supplemental planting of the understory, the channel acreage,
crossings or any other elements not directly planted as part of the project effort.
2 = The acreage within the easement boundaries
3 = Encroachment may occur within or outside of planted areas and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. In the event a polygon is cataloged into items 1, 2 or 3 in the table and is the result of encroachment,
the associated acreage should be tallied in the relevant item (i.e., item 1,2 or 3) as well as a parallel tally in item 5.
4 = Invasives may occur in or out of planted areas, but still within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. Invasives of concern /interest are listed below. The list of high concern spcies are
those with the potential to directly outcompete native, young, woody stems in the short-term (e.g. monitoring period or shortly thereafter) or affect the community structure for existing, more established tree /shrub stands over timeframes
that are slightly longer (e.g. 1 -2 decades). The low /moderate concern group are those species that generally do not have this capacity over the timeframes discussed and therefore are not expected to be mapped with regularity, but can
be mapped, if in the judgement of the observer their coverage, density or distribution is suppressing the viability, density, or growth of planted woody stems. Decisions as to whether remediation will be needed are based on the integration
of risk factors by EEP such as species present, their coverage, distribution relative to native biomass, and the practicality of treatment. For example, even modest amounts of Kudzu or Japanese Knotweed early in the projects history will
warrant control, but potentially large coverages of Microstegium in the herb layer will not likley trigger control because of the limited capacities to impact tree /shrub layers within the timeframes discussed and the potential impacts of
treating extensive amounts of ground cover. Those species with the "watch list" designator in gray shade are of interest as well, but have yet to be observed across the state with any frequency. Those in red italics are of particular
interest given their extreme risk/threat level for mapping as points where isolated specimens are found, particularly ealry in a projects monitoring history. However, areas of discreet, dense patches will of course be mapped as polygons.
The symbology scheme below was one that was found to be helpful for symbolzing invasives polygons, particulalry for situations where the conditon for an area is somewhere between isolated specimens and dense, discreet patches. In
any case, the point or polygon /area feature can be symbolized to describe things like high or low concern and species can be listed as a map inset, in legend items if the number of species are limited or in the narrative section of the
executive summary.

Table 7. Stream Problem Areas
Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration Project - Project # 95354
Feature Issue
Station # / Range
Suspected Cause; Repair
Photo Number
Loose grade control toe log
Reach 1 @ 3 +25
Concentrated flow; Log toe is undercut, but bed
SPA 1
structure
3 +00
is stable; Will continue to monitor
VPAI
Erosion around grade control
Concentrated flow; Repair scour on left bank
Reach 3A @ 0 +25
around log structure and install coir log to divert
SPA2
toe log
-16+00
concentrated flow from left bank.
VPA2
Left bank erosion behind flow
Concentrated flow; Grade scour pool on left
Reach 3B @ 37 +22
floodplain with level spreader or stable Swale to
SPAS
diversion structure
areas- see plan view
channel, repair bank, livestake
VpA3
Failed grade control structures
Reach 3B @ 57 +30 to
Improper installation; Bed/bank repair, install
SPA4
at 3C confluence
57 +80
new grade controls, bench floodplain, livestake
VPA4
Minor left bank erosion (Head
Reach 3C @ 60 +00
Concentrated flow; Repair scour on left bank
cut forming)
and 61 +00
and install coir log to divert concentrated flow
SPAS
Missing ows of trees
g
-33+75
from left bank.
VPA5
Failed grade control structures
Reach 5A @ Sta 13 +25
proper installation; Install rock/log structures
Sparse target community
Reach 3B @ Sta 38 +50
and repair banks, bench floodplain, livestake,
SPA6
and bank erosion
16 +50
replant
Reach 3B @ Sta 44 +50
Concentrated flow; Repair scour on right bank
Minor right bank erosion
Reach 5A @ Sta 14 +00
and install coir log to divert concentrated flow
SPAT
Reach 3C- localized
From right bank.
Failed grade control structures;
Reach 5A @ Sta 16 +50
Irnproper installation; Install rock/log structures
VPA8
and repair banks, bench floodplain, livestake,
SPA8
bed and banks unstable
19 +50
replant
Table 8. Vegetation Problem Areas
Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration Project - Project # 95354
Feature Category
Station Numbers
Suspected Cause; Repair
Photo Number
Reach 2 @ Sta 0 +50 -
Ligustrum: encroachment from outside
Invasive /Exotic Populations
3 +00
easement; Continued clearing and stump
VPAI
treatment.
Reach 3A @ Sta 11 +00
Ligustrum: encroachment from outside
Invasive/Exotic Populations
-16+00
easement; Continued clearing and stump
VPA2
treatment.
Reach 3A- localized
Ligustrum; Continued clearing and stump
Invasive /Exotic Populations
areas- see plan view
treatment.
VpA3
Vehicles driving in the easement; Plant
Sparse vegetation/ Easement
Reach 3A @ Sta 19 +00
approximately 80 trees in 2 rows and restrict
VPA4
encroachment
- Sta 23 +00
vehicle access to the easement.
Reach 3A @ Sta 28 +50
Trees were never planted; Plant approximately
Missing ows of trees
g
-33+75
400 trees.
VPA5
Mortality due to low soil fertility, possibly due
Sparse target community
Reach 3B @ Sta 38 +50
to compaction; Plant approximately 300 trees.
VPA6
-42+00
Reach 3B @ Sta 44 +50
Low planting density; Plant approximately 250
Missing rows of trees
-47+12
trees.
VpA7
Reach 3C- localized
Ligustrum: encroachment from outside
Invasive/Exotic Populations
areas- see plan view
easement; Continued clearing and stump
VPA8
treatment.
Vehicles driving in the easement; Plant
Sparse vegetation/ Easement
Reach 5A @ Sta 4 +50 -
approximately 80 trees in 2 rows and restrict
VPA9
encroachment
9 +25
vehicle access to the easement.
Reach 5B @ Sta 19 +60
Ligustrum: encroachment from outside
Invasive/Exotic Populations
-23+68
easement; Continued clearing and stump
VPA10
treatment.

Appendix B -Stream Photos
Reach 1— Looking Downstream - Sta.1 +25 - MY1 Reach 1— Looking Downstream - Sta. 1+25 — MY1
(06/02/2014) (12/02/2014)
Reach 2 Looking Downstream Sta. 16 +35
Post - Construction (05/22/2014)
Reach 2 Looking Downstream Sta. 16+35 -
MY 1 (12/02/2014)
Reach 3A Looking Downstream Sta. 19 +80
Post - Construction (06/02/2014)
Reach 3A Looking Downstream Sta. 19+80 -
MY1 (11/13/2014)

Reach 3A Looking Downstream Sta. 7 +50 During
Construction (06/02/2014)
Reach 3A Looking Downstream Sta. 7 +50- MY1
(12/02/2014)
Reach 3B Sta. 44 +75 Looking Downstream During Reach 3B Sta. 44 +75 Looking Downstream- MY
Construction (04/03/2014) (12/03/2014)
Reach 3B Looking Upstream Sta. 48 +70 Post -
Construction (06/18/2014)
Reach 3B Looking Downstream Sta. 48 +70 -MY1
(11/13/2014)

Reach 3C Looking Downstream Sta. 64 +00
Reach 3C Looking Downstream Sta. 64 +00- MY1
(12/03/2014)
Reach 4 Looking Downstream Sta. 0 +65- Post
Construction (06/02/2014)
Reach 4 Looking Downstream Sta. 0 +50- MY1
(12/03/2014)
Reach 5a Looking Upstream Sta. 13 +50- Post
Construction (06/04/2014)
Reach 5a Looking Upstream Sta. 13 +50 - MY1-
(11/12/2014)

Reach 5A Looking Downstream Sta. 17 +80 Post-
Reach 5A Looking Downstream Sta. 17 +80 —
MY1 Post - Construction (12/02/2014)
Reach 5B Looking Downstream Sta. 20 +05 During Reach 5B Looking Downstream Sta. 20 +05- MY1
Construction (04/23/2014) (12/03/2014)
Reach 5B Looking Upstream Sta. 23 +10 Post -
Construction (06/02/2014)
Reach 5B Looking Upstream Sta. 23 +10 —MY 1
(12/03/2014)

Reach 6 Looking downstream Sta. 8 +00 During
Construction (03/12/2014)
Reach 6 Looking downstream Sta. 8 +00- MY
During Construction (12/03/2014)
Crest Gauge 1- Reach 2 (12/04/2014)
Crest Gauge 2- Reach 3A (12/03/2014)
Crest Gauge 3- Reach 3B (12/03/2014)
Crest Gauge 4 — Reach 5B (12/03/2014)

Appendix B- Vegetation Plot Photos
I
v
Vegetation Plot 1 (12/04/2014)
V
Vegetation Plot 2 (12/04/2014)
r�
Vegetation Plot 3 (12/04/2014) Vegetation Plot 4 (12/04/2014)
Vegetation Plot 5 (12/04/2014)
Vegetation Plot 6 (12/04/2014)

Vegetation Plot 7 (12/03/2014)
Vegetation Plot 8 (12/03/2014)
Vegetation Plot 9 (12/03/2014)
n
Vegetation Plot 10 (12/03/2014)
Vegetation Plot 11 (12/03/2014)
Vegetation Plot 12 (12/03/2014)

Vegetation Plot 13 (12/03/2014)
■
Vegetation Plot 14 (12/03/2014)
Vegetation Plot 15 (12/03/2014)
V�
Vegetation Plot 16 (12/03/2014)
1
IP
1S
a
Vegetation Plot 17 (12/03/2014) Vegetation Plot 18 (07/03/2014)

Vegetation Plot 19 (12/03/2014)
Vegetation Plot 20 (12/03/2014)
Vegetation Plot 21 (12/03/2014)
Vegetation Plot 22 (12/03/2014)
Vegetation Plot 23 (12/03/2014)
Vegetation Plot 24 (07/03/2014)

Vegetation Plot 25 (12/03/2014)
Vegetation Plot 26 (12/03/2014)
Vegetation Plot 27 (12/03/2014)
Vegetation Plot 28 (12/03/2014)

Appendix B - Stream Problem Area Photos
SPA1- Loose grade control toe log structure -
Reach 2 @ Sta 3 +25
SPA2- Erosion around grade control log - Reach
3A @ Sta 0 +25
SPA3- Left bank erosion behind flow diversion
SPA4- Failed grade control structures- Reach 3B @
Sta 57 +30 — 57 +80
SPA5- Minor left bank erosion —Reach 3C @ Sta
60 +00 and 61 +00
SPA6- Failed grade control structures and bank
erosion- Reach 5A @ Sta 13 +25- Sta 16 +50

SPAT- Minor right bank erosion- Reach 5A @ Sta
SPAS- Failed grade control structures, bed/bank
14 +00 erosion- Reach 5A @ Sta 16 +50- 19 +50

Appendix B - Vegetation Problem Area Photos
VPA1- Invasive population: Ligustrum along
Reach 2 @ Sta 0 +50 — Sta 3 +00.
VPA2- Invasive population: Ligustrum along
Reach 3a @ Sta 11 +00 — Sta 16 +00.
VPA3- Localized invasive populations: Ligustrum VPA4- Missing rows of trees and vehicles through
along Reach 3a easement along Reach 3a @ Sta 19 +00 - Sta 23 +00
VPA5- Missing rows of trees along Reach 3a @ VPA6- Missing trees along Reach 3b @ Sta 38+50 -
Sta 28 +50 — Sta 33 +75. Sta 42 +00.

VPA7- Missing trees along Reach 3b @ Sta 44+50 -
Sta 47 +12.
VPA8- Localized invasive populations: Ligustrum
along Reach 3c
VPA9- Missing trees and vehicles through
easement along Reach 5a @ Sta 4 +50 — Sta 9 +25.
VPA10- Invasive population: Ligustrum along
Reach 5b @ Sta 19 +60 — Sta 23 +68.

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data
Table 9a. Baseline Planted Stem Count Summary
Table 9b. Planted Species Totals
Table 9c. Planted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot)

Table 9a. Monitorina Year 1 Stem Count Summary
* One Liriodendeon tulipifera volunteer in Plot 22.
Table 9b. Planted Species Totals
Species
Baseline
Year 1
Vegetation
Plot
Stems
Planted
Stems /Acre
Baseline
Living
Stems
Stems /Acre
Year 1
1
16
800
16
800
2
17
850
14
700
3
15
750
13
650
4
14
700
12
600
5
16
800
12
600
6
17
850
14
700
7
15
750
13
650
8
16
800
14
700
9
17
850
11
550
10
14
700
9
450
11
13
650
13
650
12
15
1 750
9
450
13
16
800
14
700
14
14
700
10
500
15
15
750
13
650
16
16
800
15
750
17
15
1 750
10
500
18
14
700
14
700
19
9
450
8
400
20
10
500
7
350
21
18
900
16
800
22
16
1 800
13
650
23
13
650
11
550
24
17
850
11
550
25
16
800
12
600
26
11
550
7
350
27
19
950
1 17
850
28
17
1 850
17
850
Average
15.0
752
12.3
616
Mn
9
450
7
350
Max
19
950
17
850
* One Liriodendeon tulipifera volunteer in Plot 22.
Table 9b. Planted Species Totals
Species
Common Name
Trees - Bare Root
Taxodium distichum
Bald Cypress
1,800
Fraxinus pen nsylvanica
Green Ash
1,900
Quercus lyrata
Overcup Oak
1,800
Betula nigra
River birch
1,800
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
2,200
Nyssa b flora
Swamp Tupelo
2,000
Plantanus occidentalis
American Sycamore
2,200
Quercus laurifolia
Laurel Oak
1,800
Total
15,500

Table 9c. Planted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot)
Vegetation Plot 1
Vegetation Plot 2
Vegetation Plot 3
Vegetation Plot 4
Vegetation Plot 5
Species
Common Name
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Taxodium distichum
Bald Cypress
3
3
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
1
1
Quercus sp.
Unknown Oak sp.
2
2
1
1
1
1
Quercus lyrata
Overcup Oak
2
1
8
8
4
4
1 1
1
8
7
Betula nigra
River birch
6
1 6
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1 2
1
1
1
1
1
6
1
1
1 2
1 1
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
2
1 2
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
Nyssa biflora
Swamp Tupelo
4
1
4
4
3
3
2
1
4
2
Plantanus occidentalis
American Sycamore
1
1
2
1
3
3
5
5
1
1
Quercus laurifolia
Laurel Oak
4
4
1
0
3
1
4
4
2
3
Species Count
5
5
1
5
4
1
6
6
1
1
5
4
1
1
1
1
7
6
Stem Count
16
16
1
1
17
14
1
15
13
1
1
14
12
1
1
1
1
16
12
Stems per Acre
1 800
800
1
1
1
850
700
1
1
1
750
650
1
1
1
700
600
1
1
1
1
800
1 600
Vegetation Plot 6
Vegetation Plot 7
Vegetation Plot 8
Vegetation Plot 9
Vegetation Plot 10
Species
Common Name
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Taxodium distichum
Bald Cypress
6
6
5
5
5
5
1
1
2
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
1
1
Quercus sp.
Unknown Oak sp.
1
1
1
Quercus lyrata
Overcup Oak
2
1
1 3
3
2
2
1 1
1
3
2
Betula nigra
River birch
3
3
1
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
10
6
3
1
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
7
7
1
5
5
7
6
1
6
5
Nyssa biflora
Swamp Tupelo
4
1
1
1
3
3
9
6
4
2
Plantanus occidentalis
American Sycamore
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
Quercus laurifolia
Laurel Oak
5
3
3
2
4
4
3
3
Species Count
5
5
1
6
5
1
6
5
1
1
4
3
1
1
1
1
5
5
Stem Count
17
14
1
1
1 15
13
1
16
14
1
1
17
11
1
1
1
1
14
9
Stems per Acre
850
700
1
1
1
1 750
650
1
1
1
800
700
1
1
1
850
550
1
1
1
1
700
450
Vegetation Plot 11
Vegetation Plot 12
Vegetation Plot 13
Vegetation Plot 14
Vegetation Plot 15
Species
Common Name
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Taxodium distichum
Bald Cypress
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
2
2
1
1
2
2
3
3
1
1
Quercus sp.
Unknown Oak sp.
2
1
Quercus lyrata
Overcup Oak
2
2
3
3
1 1
1
Betula nigra
River birch
1
1
1
1
1 3
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
7
7
1
5
5
7
6
1
6
5
Nyssa biflora
Swamp Tupelo
4
4
4
2
4
4
9
6
3
3
Plantanus occidentalis
American Sycamore
1
1
2
1
5
5
1
1
Quercus laurifolia
Laurel Oak
3
3
1
Species Count
6
6
1
6
4
1
6
1 5
1
1
1 4
1 3
1
1
1
1
1 7
1 6
Stem Count
13
13
1
15
1 9
1
16
1 14
1
1
14
1 10
1
1
1
1
1 15
1 13
Stems per Acre
650
650
1
1
750
1 450
1
1
1
1 800
1 700
1
1
1
700
1 500
1
1
1
1
1 750
1 650
Vegetation Plot 16
Vegetation Plot 17
Vegetation Plot 18
Vegetation Plot 19
Vegetation Plot 20
Species
Common Name
MYO
MY1
MY21
MY31
MY4
MY5
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Taxodium distichum
Bald Cypress
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
6
6
1
Quercus sp.
Unknown Oak sp.
1
Quercus lyrata
Overcup Oak
1
3
3
1 1
1
Betula nigra
River birch
6
4
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
7
7
1
1
1
1
2
3
Nyssa biflora
Swamp Tupelo
8
8
4
2
4
4
6
3
Plantanus occidentalis
American Sycamore
3
3
5
5
2
1
Quercus laurifolia
Laurel Oak
I 1
Species Count
3
2
5
4
4
4
1
5
4
3
3
Stem Count
16
15
1 15
10
1
14
1 14
1
9
8
10
1 7
Stems per Acre
800
750
1
1 750
500
1
700
1 700
1
1
450
400
1
500
350

Table 9c continued. Planted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot)
Taxodium distichum
Fraxinus pennsylvank
Quercus sp.
Quercus lyrata
Common Name
Bald Cypress
Green Ash
Unknown Oak sp.
OvercuD Oak
Betula nigra
Vegetation Plot 16
Vegetation Plot 17
Vegetation Plot 18
Vegetation Plot 19
Vegetation Plot 20
Species
Common Name
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Taxodium distichum
Bald Cypress
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
9
9
1
1
Quercus sp.
Unknown Oak sp.
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
6
6
4
4
1
1
4
4
Quercus sp.
Unknown Oak sp.
Betula nigra
River birch
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
2
2
1
1
Quercus lyrata
Overcup Oak
1
1
1
Nyssa biflora
Swamp Tupelo
3
1
3
3
1 1
1
Plantanus occidentalis
American Sycamore
Betula nigra
River birch
1
1
6
4
7
7
1
1
Quercus laurifolia
Laurel Oak
1
1
7
6
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
7
7
Species Count
1
1
5
1
5
5
2
3
11
7
Nyssa biflora
Swamp Tupelo
8
1 8
1
4
2
1
1
4
4
550
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 850
1
1
6
3
1 850
850
Plantanus occidentalis
American Sycamore
3
3
5
5
2
1
Quercus laurifolia
Laurel Oak
1
Species Count
3
2
5
4
4
4
5
4
3
3
Stem Count
16
15
15
10
14
14
9
8
10
7
Stems per Acre
800
750
750
500
700
700
450
400
500
350
Taxodium distichum
Fraxinus pennsylvank
Quercus sp.
Quercus lyrata
Common Name
Bald Cypress
Green Ash
Unknown Oak sp.
OvercuD Oak
Betula nigra
River birch
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Nyssa biflora
Swamp Tupelo
Plantanus occidentalis
American Sycamore
Quercus laurifolia
Laurel Oak
Count
Stem Count
Stems oer Acre
Vegetation Plot 21
Vegetation Plot 22
Vegetation Plot 23
Vegetation Plot 24
Vegetation Plot 25
Common Name
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Taxodium distichum
Bald Cypress
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
9
9
Quercus sp.
Unknown Oak sp.
Quercus lyrata
Overcup Oak
4
4
1
4
4
Betula nigra
River birch
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
2
2
1
1
1
1
Nyssa biflora
Swamp Tupelo
3
1
Plantanus occidentalis
American Sycamore
1
1
1
7
7
Quercus laurifolia
Laurel Oak
7
6
4
4
Species Count
5
3
5
4
5
5
Stem Count
11
7
19
17
17
17
Stems per Acre
550
350
1
1
1
1
1 950
1 850
1
1
1
1 850
850
Vegetation Plot 26
Vegetation Plot 27
Vegetation Plot 28
Species
Common Name
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Taxodium distichum
Bald Cypress
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
9
9
Quercus sp.
Unknown Oak sp.
Quercus lyrata
Overcup Oak
4
4
1
4
4
Betula nigra
River birch
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
2
2
1
1
1
1
Nyssa biflora
Swamp Tupelo
3
1
Plantanus occidentalis
American Sycamore
1
1
1
7
7
Quercus laurifolia
Laurel Oak
7
6
4
4
Species Count
5
3
5
4
5
5
Stem Count
11
7
19
17
17
17
Stems per Acre
550
350
1
1
1
1
1 950
1 850
1
1
1
1 850
850

Appendix D
Stream Geomorphology Data
Table 10. Morphological Parameters Summary Data
Table 11. Dimensional Morphology Summary — Cross Sections Data
Table 12. Bank Pin Array Summary Data
Cross Section Plots

Muddy Run 11 Stream and Wetland Restoration • USCS HUC 03030007
Yearl Monitoring Report- Duplin County, North Carolina - December 2014
1, Brian S. Hockett, certify that this horizontal and vertical control survey was completed to the Class A.
standard under my direct and responsible charge from an actual survey performed on December 2nd 2014.
Cross sectional survey plots and morphological parameter tables located in Appendix D of "the Muddy
Run 11 Stream and Wetland Restoration Project Year I Monitoring Report were drawn and produced under
my supervision.
Brian S. Hackett, PLS L -5165
0� ► C A R l /�ri
'C .. . C7 r
CL S$AL
p2 A
Ne
1- 1 2_,i '-a IY

Appendix D. Table 10 - Morphological Paramters Summary Data
Project Name/Number: Muddy Run II Mitigation Project /95354
9.2 12.4 9 5.6 15 9
>10 >10 >10 >10 >40 >
Bankfull stage was estimated using NC Regional Curve equations and existing conditions data
Existin t'Z
Design
As- Built/Baseline
Reference Reach
MRII 1
MRII 2
MRII 3A
MRII 3B
MRII 3C
I MRII 4
MRII 5A
MRII 5B
MRII 6
MRII 2
MRII 3A /S
MRII 3A /S
MRII 3B
MRII 4
MRII 5A
MRII 1
MRII 2
NMI 3A /S
MRII 3A /S
MRII 3B
MRII 4
MRII 5A
Pool
Run
Shallow
Run
Run
Run
Run
Run
Run
Run
Run
Run
Shallow
Shallow
Shallow
Shallow
Shallow
Shallow
Shallow
Shallow
Shallow
Shallow
Shallow
Shallow
Shallow
286
286
286
68
115
227
NA/313
74/360
45
424/774
583/909
77
115
209
254
333
45
774
68
115
209
254
333
45
774
9.3
3
5
8
NA/10
4/11
2
13/18
16/21
4
- --
--
--
--
--
--
- --
- --
- --
- --
- --
--
- --
---
- --
13
- --
- --
- --
- --
- --
- --
- --
I - --
- --
7
14
16
10
5
40
5
7
14
16
10
5
40
9.2 12.4 9 5.6 15 9
>10 >10 >10 >10 >40 >
Bankfull stage was estimated using NC Regional Curve equations and existing conditions data

Appendix A Table 11 - Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
Project Name /Number: Muddy Run
II Mitigation Project /95354
Cross Section 1 (Riffle)
Cross Section 2 (Pool)
Cross Section 3 (Pool)
Cross Section 4 (Riffle)
Cross Section 5 (Run)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation'
Base
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
53.7
53.7
54.1
54.1
53.3
53.3
53.3
53.3
58.0
58.0
Bankfull Width (ft)
6.3
4.9
6.4
5.6
6.3
6.2
6.9
6.7
14.8
14.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
30.0
30.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
35.0
35.0
45.0
45.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.4
1
1
0.7
0.6
1
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.6
1.1
1.0
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.8
0.7
1.3
1.1
1.4
1.2
1.1
1.1
2.0
1.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area LL
2.7
2.0
4.7
3.5
5.0
4.0
4.6
4.3
15.6
14.5
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
14.4
12.2
8.8
8.7
7.9
9.6
10.7
10.4
14.0
13.7
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Cross Section 6 (Run)
Cross Section 7 (Riffle)
Cross Section 8 (Pool)
Cross Section 9 (Riffle)
Cross Section 10 (Pool)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation'
Base
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
56.6
56.6
55.8
55.8
55.5
55.5
55.3
55.3
54.8
54.8
Bankfull Width (ft)
13.5
13.4
8.4
7.6
9.4
8.8
9.8
9.5
7.0
6.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.7
1.0
0.9
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.6
1.5
1.3
1.2
1.6
1.4
1.9
1.8
1.9
1.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
12.7
11.5
6.1
5.6
9.7
7.8
11.3
10.2
8.0
7.1
Bankfull Width /Depth Ratio
14.5
15.7
11.5
10.2
9.0
10.0
8.5
8.8
6.1
6.3
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Cross Section 11 (Riffle)
Cross Section 12 (Pool)
Cross Section 13 (Riffle)
Cross Section 14 (Pool)
Cross Section 15 (Run)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation'
Base
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY'
Record elevation (datum) used
53.9
53.9
54.3
54.3
53.3
53.3
52.8
52.8
53.0
53.0
Bankfull Width (ft)
9.0
7.2
11.3
10.2
12.1
10.2
9.0
7.8
11.8
11.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.7
0.8
1.4
1.2
0.7
0.8
1.0
0.9
1.2
1.1
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.3
1.2
2.6
2.3
1.5
1.5
2.0
1.8
1.8
1.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area LL
6.7
5.6
15.5
12.7
1
8.7
1 8.2
8.9
7.8
13.7
1 12.9
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
12.2
9.4
8.3
8.2
17.0
12.8
9.2
9.9
10.2
10.9
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
L0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Cross Section 16 (Run)
Cross Section 17 (Run)
Cross Section 18 (Pool)
Cross Section 19 (Run)
Cross Section 20 (Riffle)
1
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
52.3
52.3
50.8
50.8
50.1
50.1
50.5
50.5
50.5
50.5
Bankfull Width (ft)
11.3
11.6
10.5
10.5
10.6
9.9
11.4
11.1
9.3
8.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.9
0.9
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.1
1.3
1.0
1.2
1.2
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.9
1.7
1.8
2.0
2.0
1.8
2.0
1.7
2.0
2.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
9.8
9.9
12.4
12.7
14.2
11.3
14.2
11.1
11.3
10.3
Bankfull Width /Depth Ratio
13.0
13.6
8.9
8.6
7.9
8.7
9.1
11.1
7.7
7.7
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
Bankfull Bank Height Ratiol
1.0
1 1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1 = Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum used
for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary."

Appendix A Table 11 - Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
Project Name /Number: Muddy Run
II Mitigation Project /95354
Cross Section 21 (Pool)
Cross Section 22 (Pool)
Cross Section 23 (Riffle)
Cross Section 24 (Riffle)
Cross Section 25 (Pool)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation'
Base
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
50.3
50.3
49.0
49.0
49.3
49.3
48.8
48.8
48.7
48.7
Bankfull Width (ft)
11.7
9.1
9.3
9.3
7.8
7.7
11.7
11.8
14.1
13.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.7
0.9
1.3
1.6
1
1
1.1
1.0
1.5
1.4
1.8
1.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.7
1.7
2.2
2.4
1.7
1.8
2.1
2.0
3.1
2.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area LL
8.6
8.1
12.3
14.5
8.3
7.9
18.0
17.1
25.0
24.3
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
16.0
10.2
7.0
6.0
7.4
7.5
7.6
8.2
7.9
8.0
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Cross Section 26 (Pool)
Cross Section 27 (Run)
Cross Section 28 (Pool)
Cross Section 29 (Run)
Cross Section 30 (Pool)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation'
Base
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
48.6
48.6
48.8
48.8
48.4
48.4
48.3
48.3
47.4
47.4
Bankfull Width (ft)
14.9
15.7
12.7
12.4
13.4
13.3
13.4
13.7
12.9
13.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.8
1.7
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.3
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
3.2
3.1
2.3
2.3
2.9
2.9
2.1
2.3
2.3
2.2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ftZ
24.9
25.7
19.4
18.9
24.6
23.2
19.8
19.7
18.4
17.4
Bankfull Width /Depth Ratio
8.9
9.6
8.3
8.1
7.3
7.6
9.1
9.5
9.1
9.8
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Cross Section 31 (Run)
Cross Section 32 (Run)
Cross Section 33 (Pool)
Cross Section 34 (Pool)
Cross Section 35 (Run)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation'
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY'
Record elevation (datum) used
47.5
47.5
47.7
47.7
47.7
47.7
47.2
47.2
46.9
46.9
Bankfull Width (ft)
13.7
14.2
10.5
10.7
11.5
12.0
10.4
10.5
9.5
8.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.2
1.0
1.3
1.3
1.7
1.6
2.1
1.9
1.3
1.3
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.1
1.9
2.2
2.0
3.1
2.9
3.1
3.0
2.0
1.9
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area LL
15.8
14.6
13.8
1 13.4
1
19.5
1 19.0
21.4
20.5
12.1
11.7
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
11.9
13.8
8.0
8.5
6.8
7.6
5.0
5.4
7.4
6.7
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
L0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
L0
1.0
1.0
Cross Section 36 (Pool)
Cross Section 37 (Run)
Cross Section 38 (Pool)
Cross Section 39 (Run)
Cross Section 40 (Pool)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
45.6
45.6
45.5
45.5
45.4
45.4
45.2
45.2
45.0
45.0
Bankfull Width (ft)
9.3
9.0
12.4
11.9
10.0
8.8
8.2
7.2
10.3
10.3
Floodprone Width (ft)
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.9
0.9
0.5
0.5
1.3
1.1
0.9
0.9
1.4
1.1
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.7
1.5
1.0
1.1
2.0
1.8
1.5
1.5
2.5
2.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area 112
8.7
8.1
6.1
5.8
12.6
9.2
7.6
6.5
14.3
11.7
Bankfull Width /Depth Ratio
9.9
10.1
25.4
24.4
7.9
8.4
8.7
7.9
7.4
9.0
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1 = Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum used
for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary."

Appendix A Table 11 - Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
Project Name /Number: Muddy Run
II Mitigation Project /95354
Cross Section 41 (Run)
Cross Section 42 (Run)
Cross Section 43 (Run)
Cross Section 44 (Run)
Cross Section 45 (Run)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation'
Base
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
45.1
45.1
44.0
44.0
41.3
41.3
41.5
41.5
41.4
41.4
Bankfull Width (ft)
8.9
8.5
23.5
24.1
9.4
9.2
13.72
13.5
11.8
11.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
29.0
29.0
22.0
22.0
35.3
35.3
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.1
1.1
1.7
1.5
1
1
1.4
0.7
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.2
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.9
1.8
3.8
3.7
2.2
0.9
2.0
2.0
1.9
2.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area LL
10.2
9.0
39.7
35.7
13.2
6.5
19.6
18.0
14.6
13.8
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
7.8
8.0
13.9
16.2
6.7
13.2
9.6
10.1
9.5
9.6
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>2.2
>2.2
2.1
2.1
>2.2
>2.2
1.6
1.6
>2.2
>2.2
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Cross Section 46 (Run)
Cross Section 47 (Pool)
Cross Section 48 (Riffle)
Cross Section 49 (Pool)
Cross Section 50 (Pool)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation'
Base
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
49.3
49.3
48.2
48.2
41.0
41.0
40.5
40.5
40.0
40.0
Bankfull Width (ft)
8.4
7.2
6.7
6.3
15.1
15.0
16.6
17.0
18.5
17.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
42.5
42.5
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.8
0.7
0.9
1 0.8
1.7
1 1.7
1.7
1.7
1.8
1 1.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.5
1.2
1.8
1.5
2.6
2.7
3.1
3.1
3.2
3.1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ftZ
6.3
5.1
6.0
5.3
25.3
24.8
27.4
28.5
32.9
30.7
Bankfull Width /Depth Ratio
11.1
10.2
7.3
7.4
9.0
9.1
10.0
10.2
10.4
10.2
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Cross Section 51 (Riffle)
Cross Section 52 (Run)
Cross Section 53 (Pool)
Cross Section 54 (Pool)
Cross Section 55 (Riffle)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation'
Base
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY'
Record elevation (datum) used
40.0
40.0
39.8
39.8
39.7
39.7
38.8
38.8
38.0
38.0
Bankfull Width (ft)
16.2
16.1
17.7
17.8
17.4
17.9
15.7
16.7
9.7
14.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.5
1.4
1.8
2.1
1.9
2.1
1.7
2.0
1.4
2.2
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.4
2.3
3.1
4.5
3.5
3.8
2.9
4.0
2.2
3.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area LL
24.7
23.2
31.8
1 36.9
1
33.8
1 37.1
26.1
32.7
13.6
1 33.3
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
10.6
11.2
9.9
8.6
9.0
8.6
9.5
8.5
7.0
6.6
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Cross Section 56 (Run)
Cross Section 57 (Run)
Cross Section 58 (Run)
Cross Section 59 (Run)
1
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
37.3
37.3
35.7
35.7
41.0
41.0
39.5
39.5
Bankfull Width (ft)
17.6
17.0
17.0
16.8
14.2
13.7
13.5
12.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
50.0
50.0
37.5
37.5
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
2.6
2.2
1.8
1.3
2.4
2.3
1.1
0.9
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
3.7
3.2
2.6
2.1
3.4
3.3
2.2
1.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
45.3
38.0
30.7
22.4
33.9
31.7
15.2
11.3
Bankfull Width /Depth Ratio
6.9
7.6
9.4
12.5
6.0
6.0
11.9
13.8
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>2.2
>2.2
2.2
2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1 = Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum used
for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary."

Table 12.Muddy Run II Bank Pin Array Summary
Year 1
Cross Section Location Position Reading
XS 2 @ Sta. 1 +35
Reach 1
US
Top
0.0
Bottom
0.0
DS
Top
0.0
Bottom
0.0
XS 3 @ Sta. 3 +45
Reach 1
US
Top
0.0
Bottom
0.0
DS
Top
0.0
Bottom
0.0
XS 8 @ Sta. 8 +55
Reach 2
US
Top
0.0
Bottom
0.0
DS
Top
0.0
Bottom
0.0
XS 10 @ Sta.
11 +70 Reach 2
US
Top
0.0
Bottom
0.0
DS
Top
0.0
Bottom
0.0
XS 12 @ Sta.
16 +40 Reach 2
US
Top
0.0
Bottom
0.0
DS
Top
0.0
Bottom
0.0
XS 18 @ Sta.
8 +40 Reach 3A
US
Top
0.0
Bottom
0.0
DS
Top
0.0
Bottom
0.0
XS 21 @ Sta.
11 +20 Reach 3A
US
Top
0.0
Bottom
0.0
DS
Top
0.0
Bottom
0.0
XS 25 @ Sta.
19 +80 Reach 3A
US
Top
0.0
Bottom
0.0
DS
Top
0.0
Bottom
0.0
XS 26 @ Sta.
25 +90 Reach 3A
US
Top
0.0
Bottom
0.0
DS
Top
0.0
Bottom
0.0
XS 28 @ Sta.
31 +40 Reach 3A
US
Top
0.0
Bottom
0.0
DS
Top
0.0
Bottom
0.0
Notes:
US - Upstream from cross section
DS - Downstream from cross section
Year 1
Cross Section Location Position Reading
XS 30 @ Sta.
35 +60 Reach 3A
US
Top
0.0
Bottom
0.0
DS
Top
0.0
Bottom
0.0
XS 33 @ Sta.
40 +90 Reach 3B
US
Top
0.0
Bottom
0.0
DS
Top
0.0
Bottom
0.0
XS 36 @ Sta.
48 +90 Reach 3B
US
Top
0.0
Bottom
0.0
DS
Top
0.0
Bottom
0.0
XS 38 @ Sta.
52 +10 Reach 3B
US
Top
0.0
Bottom
0.0
DS
Top
0.0
Bottom
0.0
XS 40 @ Sta.
54 +15 Reach 3B
US
Top
0.0
Bottom
0.0
DS
Top
0.2
Bottom
0.0
XS 47 @ Sta. 1 +90
Reach 4
US
Top
0.0
Bottom
0.0
DS
Top
0.0
Bottom
0.0
XS 49 @ Sta. 2 +40
Reach 5A
US
Top
0.0
Bottom
0.0
DS
Top
0.6
Bottom
0.0
XS 50 @ Sta. 8 +20
Reach 5A
US
Top
0.0
Bottom
0.0
DS
Top
0.0
Bottom
0.0
XS 53 @ Sta.
13 +90 Reach 5A
US
Top
0.0
Bottom
0.0
DS
Top
0.0
Bottom
0.0
XS 54 @ Sta.
17 +35 Reach 5A
US
Top
0.0
Bottom
0.0
DS
Top
0.0
Bottom
1.0

Upstream
Downstream
Muddy Run II Reach 1 Cross Section 1 - Riffle
58
57
56
c
° 55
a
w 54
53
-
52
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area Year 1

57
56
55
c
0
.@
w
54
53
52
Upstream
Muddy Run II Reach 1 Cross Section 2 - Pool
Downstream
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream Downstream
Muddy Run II Reach 1 Cross Section 3 - Pool
56
55
54
c
0
53
w
52
51
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
Downstream
Muddy Run II Reach 1 Cross Section 4 - Riffle
56
55.5
55
54.5
c
° 54
w
53.5
53
52.5
52
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
Downstream
Muddy Run II Reach 2 Cross Section 5 - Run
62
61
60
59
c
0
`� 58
a�
w
57
56
-
55
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

c
0
0
w
60
59
58
57
56
55
54
Upstream
Muddy Run II Reach 2 Cross Section 6 - Run
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

M
c
0
a�
w
58
57.5
57
56.5
56
55.5
55
54.5
54
Upstream
Muddy Run II Reach 2 Cross Section 7 - Riffle
Downstream
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
50

Upstream
Y
Y11rg�11 •_��1
A
Downstream
Muddy Run II Reach 2 Cross Section 8 - Pool
58
57.5
57
56.5
—
56
c
° 55.5
° 55
w
54.5
54
53.5
53
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
Downstream
Muddy Run II Reach 2 Cross Section 9 - Riffle
58
57.5
-
57
56.5
56
c
° 55.5
° 55
w
54.5
54
53.5
-
53
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

E
c
0
a�
w
57
56
55
54
53
52
Upstream
Muddy Run II Reach 2 Cross Section 10 - Pool
Downstream
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
50
t
Muddy Run II Reach 2 Cross Section 10 - Pool
Downstream
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
50

56
55
° 54
°
w
53
52
Upstream
Muddy Run II Reach 2 Cross Section 11 - Riffle
Downstream
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
Downstream
Muddy Run II Reach 2 Cross Section 12 - Pool
58
57
56
55
c
0
m 54
a�
w
53
52
51
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
Downstream
Muddy Run II Reach 2 Cross Section 13 - Riffle
56
55.5
55
54.5
54
c
°- 53.5
—
CD 53
W
52.5
52
51.5
51
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream Downstream
Muddy Run II Reach 2 Cross Section 14 - Pool
56
55
54 —
c
° 53
.@
a
w 52 -
51
50
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
Downstream
Muddy Run II Reach 3A Cross Section 15 - Run
56
55.5
55
54.5
54
c
°- 53.5
Z6
53
W
52.5
52
51.5
51
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
Downstream
Muddy Run II Reach 3A Cross Section 16 - Run
55
54.5
54
53.5
53
c
° 52.5
.@
(D 52
w
51.5
51
50.5
50
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream Downstream
Muddy Run II Reach 3A Cross Section 17 - Run
54
53
52
c
° 51
.@
>
a
w 50 -
49
48
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
Downstream
Muddy Run II Reach 3A Cross Section 18 - Pool
54
53
52
0 51
.@
a
w 50
49
48
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
Downstream
Muddy Run II Reach 3A Cross Section 19 - Run
54
53
52
c
° 51
.@
a
w 50
-
49
48
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

IA �
Upstream
Downstream
Muddy Run II Reach 3A Cross Section 20 - Riffle
54
53
52
c
°- 51
m
w 50
49
48
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline YR1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
Downstream
Muddy Run II Reach 3A Cross Section 21 - Pool
53
52.5
52
51.5
i 51
c
°—
50.5
50
w
49.5
49
48.5
48
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

52
51
50
c
°2 49
aD
w 48
47
46
Upstream
Muddy Run II Reach 3A Cross Section 22 - Pool
Downstream
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

52
51
50
c
0
(D 49
w
48
47
0
Upstream
Muddy Run II Reach 3A Cross Section 23 - Riffle
Downstream
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
50

Upstream
Downstream
Muddy Run II Reach 3A Cross Section 24 - Riffle
53
52
4k se
Downstream
Muddy Run II Reach 3A Cross Section 24 - Riffle
53
52
51
i 50
c
"
0
(D 49
w
48
47
46
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
Downstream
Muddy Run II Reach 3A Cross Section 25 - Pool
53
52
51
50
c
°— 49
m
48
w
47
46
45
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
r �
Downstream
Muddy Run II Reach 3A Cross Section 26 - Pool
53
52
51
—
i 50
c
°— 49
m
48
w
47
46
45
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream Downstream
Muddy Run II Reach 3A Cross Section 27 - Run
53
52
51
c
50
0
.6
>� 49
w
48
47
46
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
Downstream
Muddy Run II Reach 3A Cross Section 28 - Pool
53
52
-
51
50
i
-
—
49
0
>
48
m
w 47
46
45
44
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
Downstream
Muddy Run II Reach 3A Cross Section 29 - Run
52
51
50
49
c
0
_6
(D 48
w
47
46
45
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
Downstream
Muddy Run II Reach 3A Cross Section 30 - Pool
52
51
50
49
i
c
°— 48
m
47
w
46
45
44
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
Downstream
Muddy Run II Reach 3A Cross Section 31 - Run
52
51
50
iR
49
c
0
Z6
48
w
47
46
71
-
45
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
P
RR 4
Downstream
Muddy Run II Reach 3A Cross Section 32 - Run
52
51
50
i 49
°— 48
m
47
w
46
45
44
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
Downstream
52
Muddy Run II Reach 3A Cross Section 33 - Pool
51
50
49
—
c
°
48
.6
aD
47
w
46
45
44
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
Downstream
52
Muddy Run II Reach 3A Cross Section 34 - Pool
51
50
-
—
49
i
48
0
>
m
w
47
46
45
44
43
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

c
0
m
w
51
50
49
48
47
46
45
44
Upstream
Muddy Run II Reach 3A Cross Section 35 - Run
Downstream
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
50

Upstream
Downstream
Muddy Run II Reach 313 Cross Section 36 - Pool
50
49
48
47
c
0
.6
(D 46
w
45
44
43
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream Downstream
Muddy Run II Reach 3B Cross Section 37 - Run
49
48 —
47
c
0
m
(D 46
w
45
44
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
Downstream
Muddy Run II Reach 313 Cross Section 38 - Pool
49
48
47
iR
46
c
0
Z6
1
(D 45
w
44
43
42
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

F.
w� r
.3
48
47
46
c
0
(D 45
w
44
43
0
i� ra
Upstream
Muddy Run II Reach 3B Cross Section 39 - Run
Downstream
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
5
;
Muddy Run II Reach 3B Cross Section 39 - Run
Downstream
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

0
Cz
0
w
48
47
46
45
44
43
42
Upstream
Muddy Run II Reach 313 Cross Section 40 - Pool
Downstream
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
_ `

L
E
C
0
a�
w
48
47
46
45
44
43
42
Upstream
Muddy Run II Reach 3B Cross Section 41 - Run
Downstream
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
Nis
�_
&i.. f - - Z
Downstream
Muddy Run II Reach 3C Cross Section 42 - Run
49
48
47
46
45
c
° 44
.@
43
w
42
41 -
40
39
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
Downstream
Muddy Run II Reach 3C Cross Section 43 - Run
46
45
44
43
c
° 42
41
w ..
40
39
38
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
Downstream
Muddy Run II Reach 3C Cross Section 44 - Run
48
47
46
45
44
c
° 43
42
w
41
40
39
38
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
Downstream
Muddy Run II Reach 3C Cross Section 45 - Run
47
46
45
44
c
0 43
75
w 42
41
40
39
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

M�
f q
t
53
52
51
c
°— 50
a�
W 49
48
47
Upstream
W.
Muddy Run II Reach 4 Cross Section 46 - Run
Downstream
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream Downstream
Muddy Run II Reach 4 Cross Section 47 - Pool
52
51
50
c
°— 49
>
a�
W 48
47
46
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
Downstream
Muddy Run II Reach 5A Cross Section 48 - Riffle
45
44
43
42
c
0
m 41
a�
w
40
39
38
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
Downstream
Muddy Run II Reach 5A Cross Section 49 - Pool
45
44
43
42
41
0
40
a�
w 39
38
37
36
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream Downstream
Muddy Run II Reach 5A Cross Section 50 - Pool
45
44
43 -
42
41 - - -
0 40
.@
>
39
w
38
37
36
35
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
Downstream
Muddy Run II Reach 5A Cross Section 51 - Riffle
45
44
43
42
41
0
> 40
a�
w 39
38
37
36
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

44
42
c 40
0
a�
w 38
36
34
Upstream
Muddy Run II Reach 5A Cross Section 52 - Run
Downstream
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
50

Upstream
Downstream
Muddy Run II Reach 5A Cross Section 53 - Pool
45
44
43
42
—
41
c
° 40
—
>
39
w
38
37
36
35
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
Downstream
Muddy Run II Reach 5A Cross Section 54 - Pool
43
42
41
40
39
0
38
a
w 37
36
35
34
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
Downstream
Muddy Run II Reach 5A Cross Section 55 - Riffle
43
42
41
40
39
0
38
>
a�
w
37
36
35
34
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
Downstream
Muddy Run II Reach 5B Cross Section 56 - Run
43
42
41
40
39
C
° 38
(D 37
..
w
36
35
34
33
—
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
Downstream
Muddy Run II Reach 5B Cross Section 57 - Run
41
40
39
—
38
37
0
36
a�
w 35
17
-
34
-
33
32
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
Downstream
Muddy Run II Reach 6 Cross Section 58 - Run
46
45
-
44
43
42
c
° 41
.@
40
w
39
38
37
36
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
Downstream
Muddy Run II Reach 6 Cross Section 59 - Run
44
43
42
41
c
0
m 40
a
w
39
38
37
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Appendix E
Hydrology Data
Table 13. Documentation of Geomorphologically Significant Flow Events
Table 14. Rainfall Summary
Table 15. Wetland Hydrology Criteria Attainment
Chart 1. 2014 Precipitation Data for Muddy Run II Site
Chart 2. 2014 Groundwater Monitoring Gauge Hydrographs
Crest Gauge Verification Photos

Table 13. Documentation of Geomorphologically Significant Flow Events
Crest Gauge
Number of
Bankfull Events
Date of Highest
Bankfull Event
Maximum Bankfull
Height (ft.)
Photo
Number
Crest Gauge 1
1
8/1/2014
0.4
1
Crest Gauge 2
8
8/1/2014
1.5
2
Crest Gauge 3
0
NA
NA
NA
Crest Gauge 4
2
9/12/2014
0.45
3
Table 14. Rainfall Summary
Month
Average
Normal Limits
Wallace
Station
Precipitation
On -Site Auto
Rain Gauge
30
Percent
70
Percent
January
4.33
3.32
5.03
1.68
- --
February
3.23
2.14
3.87
1.89
- --
March
4.50
3.23
5.32
5.68
- --
April
3.16
1.70
3.85
5.23
4.11
May
3.68
2.69
4.34
2.10
2.85
June
4.49
3.11
5.34
6.96
3.73
July
6.06
4.16
7.22
4.31
10.50
August
5.40
3.12
6.56
6.69
9.35
September
5.00
2.04
6.07
7.27
7.24
October
3.21
1.62
3.92
1.49
1.64
November
2.89
1.83
3.49
3.45
4.85
December
3.24
2.14
3.88
Total
49.19
31.10
58.89
46.75
44.27

Table 15. Wetland Hydrology Criteria Attainment
2014 Max Hydroperiod (Growing Season 17-Mar through 14-Nov, 242 days)
Well Data for 3-July through 14-November
Success Criterion 9% = 22 Consecutive Days
Gaume
Consecutive
Cumulative
Occurrences
Days
Percent of
growing
Season
Days
Percent of
growing
Season
AW1
22
9
75
31
10
AW2
22
9
72
30
10
AW3
13
5
60
25
11
AW4
67
28
129
53
2
AW5
7
3
26
11
14
AW6
43
18
92
38
6
AW7
5
2
8
3
4
RAWI
22
9
56
23
7
RAW2
10
4
25
10
4
RAW3
20
8
42
17
8
Well data represents only 134 days (-55%) during the total growing season from July 3 ,d to November 14 th
Chart 1. 2014 Precipitation Data for Muddy Run 11 Site
2014 Precipitation Data for Muddy Run 11 Site
9.00
IA
L
5.09
5.00
O
U 400
0.
%
—00
D.OD
A
-A
J
F
M A
ki i i A 5 C N D
Months
�WalUmDaflyRmtafl
R>� Growing. Season
-- Owsae Auto Ram Gauge —WalkamMonMVRaWa& ------- MhMh Pewmula

Chart 2. 2014 Muddy Run II Site Groundwater Monitoring Gauge Hydrographs
2014 Muddy Run II Groundwater Gauges
+o
10.0
Growing Se on
�K
`
0
11
_I
l�
8.0
-10
-
---------
-------------- --- ---- --
---
---
--
-----
7.a
L
V
c
_
-20
=
-
80 t
O
U
C
m
C
-3v
s.a a
w
19
r
a
�
a -d0
4.0 JJ
c
a
°
t�
so
f
3.0
20
-Fi0
- -
1.9
J F ki a rs J J A G
N D
Months
�wallace Do" Rafnrnll MW nW l — MHO Awl MROW
MHII Aw4
2014 Muddy Run 11 Groundwater Gauges
90
10.DD
Growing Sabson
D
9.00
6:00
-70
--- - - - - --
- - — - - - - - - - - - -
-
--
-
--
- --
47
t
V
c
7.00
8.00 t
-:0
c
O
U
C
�+
N
W
O
Q
a.00
� -4o
e
ei
{7
2 ll
-50
30
-70
-
iLi A]
-L
1 (.
rj
J F m A m J J .A S C rl
C
Months
lwaWdte kAl+i Raln{all --MFII AWS MPJI AM URII AW7 —c-nd Fla 00-

Appendix E — Crest Gauge Verification Photos
Photo 1. Crest Gauge 1 (Reach 2 - 0.4 ft. —
8/l/2014)
Photo 2a. Crest Gauge 2 (Reach 3A - 1.5 ft. —
8/l/2014)
Photo 2b. Crest Gauge 2 (Reach 3A - 1.3 ft. —
11 /26/2014)
Photo 3. Crest Gauge 4 (Reach 5A - 0.45 ft. —
9/ 12/2014)