20130653 Ver 1_Year 6 Monitoring Report_2019_20200205

ID#* 20112191 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Mac Haupt
Initial Review Completed Date 02/05/2020
Mitigation Project Submittal - 2/5/2020
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* r Yes r No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
V Stream Pr Wetlands r- Buffer r- Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
LINDSAY CROCKER
Project Information
...................................................................................
ID#:* 20112191
Existing IDY
Project Type:
Project Name:
County:
r DMS r Mitigation Bank
Muddy Run II
Duplin
Document Information
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:
*1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: Muddy Run II_ 95354_MY6 2019.pdf 13.07MB
Rease upload only one RDFcf the conplete file that needs to be subnitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Lindsay Crocker
Signature:*

MUDDY RUN II STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION
PROJECT
MONITORING REPORT
MONITORING YEAR 6
FINAL
DUPLIN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DMS CONTRACT NO. 004631 – DMS PROJECT NO. 95354
SAW-2011-02191
DWR 2013-0653

Prepared for:

Division of Mitigation Services
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

January 2020

302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605

Corporate Headquarters
6575 West Loop South, Suite 300
Bellaire, TX 77401
Main: 713.520.5400

res.us

January 30, 2020

Lindsay Crocker
NC DEQ Division of Mitigation Services
217 West Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27604

RE: Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration Site: MY6 Monitoring Report
(NCDMS ID 95354)

Listed below are comments provided by DMS on December 23, 2019 regarding the Muddy Run
II Stream and Wetland Restoration Site: Year 6 Monitoring Report and RES’ responses.

1. Table 1. Remove ** footnote about contracted site credits.
This footnote has been removed.

2. Table 8. Update spelling of easement. If there was a small encroachment, please document
in the monitoring results section and include size of area, and how it was resolved.
The spelling of “easement” has been corrected. A description of the encroachment on Reach 5b
has been documented in Section 4.2 of the monitoring report.

3. Vegetation table. The stem densities for MY4 and MY5 appear very high when including
volunteers. Is there a minimum height set for counting volunteers? Check that this is accurate.
The minimum height for recordable volunteer species is 10cm; however, the majority of these
seedlings end up getting shaded out due to light competition with planted stems and other
vegetation.

4. Section 5.1.5. Wetland Hydrology. It may be useful to describe that the 2018-19 antecedent
rain was low, and that the rainfall for the year was consistently below 30% of the normal rainfall
as shown in Table 14.
A sentence has been added to Section 5.1.5 addressing the low rainfall levels throughout the
2018-19 season.

5. Table 9a. Header. Update to say MY6 or remove reference to MY5.
The header to the table has been updated to reflect MY6.
Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 6 Monitoring Report • Duplin County, North Carolina • January 2020
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC

i

Muddy Run II
Duplin County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID 95354

Cape Fear River Basin
HUC 0030007060010

Prepared by:

Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
919-209-1061

Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 6 Monitoring Report • Duplin County, North Carolina • January 2020
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 PROJECT GOALS, BACKGROUND AND ATTRIBUTES........................................................ 1
1.1 Location and Setting................................................................................................................1
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives...................................................................................................1
1.3 Project Structure .....................................................................................................................3
1.3.1 Restoration Type and Approach.....................................................................................3
1.4 Project History, Contacts and Attribute Data .........................................................................6
1.4.1 Project History................................................................................................................6
1.4.2 Project Watersheds .........................................................................................................6
2 SUCCESS CRITERIA ................................................................................................................... 7
2.1 Stream Restoration .................................................................................................................7
2.1.1 Bankfull Events ..............................................................................................................7
2.1.2 Cross Sections ................................................................................................................7
2.1.3 Digital Image Stations ....................................................................................................7
2.2 Vegetation ..............................................................................................................................8
2.3 Scheduling/Reporting.............................................................................................................8
3 MONITORING PLAN................................................................................................................... 8
3.1 Stream Restoration .................................................................................................................8
3.1.1 As-Built Survey..............................................................................................................8
3.1.2 Bankfull Events ..............................................................................................................8
3.1.3 Cross Sections ................................................................................................................9
3.1.4 Digital Image Stations ....................................................................................................9
3.1.5 Bank Pin Arrays .............................................................................................................9
3.1.6 Visual Assessment Monitoring.......................................................................................9
3.1.7 Surface Flow...................................................................................................................9
3.2 Vegetation ..............................................................................................................................10
4 Maintenance and Contingency plan ............................................................................................... 10
4.1 Stream.....................................................................................................................................10
4.2 Vegetation ..............................................................................................................................10
5 YEAR 6 MONITORING CONDITIONS (MY6) .......................................................................... 12
5.1 Year 6 Monitoring Data Collection........................................................................................12
5.1.1 Vegetation.......................................................................................................................12
5.1.2 Photo Documentation .....................................................................................................12
5.1.3 Hydrology........................................................................................................................13
6 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................. 14

Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 6 Monitoring Report • Duplin County, North Carolina • January 2020
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC

iii
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 3a-c. 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
Figure 4. Vegetation Photos
Figure 5. Stream and Vegetation Problem Photos

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

Appendix D. Stream Geomorphology Data
Cross Section 52-54 Plots

Appendix E. Hydrology Data
Table 13. Documentation of Geomorphologically Significant Flow Events
Table 14. Rainfall Summary
Table 15a. Wetland Hydrology Criteria Attainment
Table 15b. MY1-MY6 Wetland Hydrology Gauges Summary
2019 Groundwater Monitoring Gauge Hydrographs
Figure 6. Crest Gauge Verification Photos

Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 6 Monitoring Report • Duplin County, North Carolina • January 2020

Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
3
1 PROJECT GOALS, BACKGROUND AND ATTRIBUTES
1.1 Location and Setting
The Muddy Run Stream Site (“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 HUC 03030007060010) (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 II stream and wetland mitigation project provides 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
Nutrient removal
Benefit will be achieved through filtering of runoff from adjacent CAFOs through buffer areas, the
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.
Sediment removal
Benefit will be achieved through the stabilization of eroding stream banks and reduction of sediment
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
concentration
Benefit will be achieved through the construction of instream structures to increase turbulence and
dissolved oxygen concentrations and riparian canopy restoration to 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
recharge
Benefit will be achieved through the increased storage of precipitation in buffer areas, ephemeral
depressions, and reconnection of existing floodplain. Greater storage of water will lead to improved
infiltration and groundwater recharge.
Improved/restored
hydrologic connections
Benefit will be achieved by restoring the stream to a natural meandering pattern with an
appropriately 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
instream cover
Benefit will be achieved through the construction of instream structures designed to improve
bedform diversity and to trap detritus. Stream will be designed with the appropriate channel
dimension and will prevent aggradation and sedimentation within the channel. Substrate will
become coarser as a result of the stabilization of stream banks and an overall decrease in the amount
fine materials deposited in the stream.
Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 6 Monitoring Report • Duplin County, North Carolina • January 2020

Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
4
Addition of large woody
debris
Benefit will be achieved through the addition of wood structures as part of the restoration design.
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
Following 2016 monitoring the NCIRT requested a review of the differential between the Approved
Mitigation Plan and Baseline Monitoring Report. The table below details the discrepancies by reach.
The primary cause of the 5% increase in baseline SMUs is survey methodology (thalweg vs. centerline).
The Mitigation Plan lengths were based on centerline. Wetland credits are unchanged from Mitigation
Plan to Baseline Monitoring Report.

Table 1. Muddy Run II Project Components – Stream Mitigation
Reach Mitigation Type Proposed
Length (LF)*
Mitigation
Ratio
Proposed
SMUs
Baseline
SMUs
Reach 1 Headwater Valley 401 1:1 401 398
Reach 2 Headwater Valley 504 1:1 504 504
Reach 2 P1 Restoration 1,369 1:1 1,369 1,410
Reach 3a P1 Restoration 3,440 1:1 3,440 3,586
Reach
3b P1 Restoration 1,852 1:1 1,852 1,979
Reach 3c Enhancement I 707 1:1.5 471 472
Reach 4 P1 Restoration 172 1:1 172 173
Reach 5a P1 Restoration 1,774 1:1 1,774 1,926
Reach
5b Enhancement II 401 1:2.5 160 164
Reach 6 Enhancement II 317 1:2.5 127 127
Total 11,411 10,270 10,739
*The proposed lengths represent the total proposed channel length minus the length of the proposed channel associated with crossings
(easement breaks).

Table 2. Muddy Run II Project Components – Wetland Mitigation
Wetland Mitigation Type Mitigation
Area (ac)
Mitigation
Ratio WMUs
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 system will be
Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 6 Monitoring Report • Duplin County, North Carolina • January 2020

Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
5
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 through the proposed
channel, Reach 3b. There are several residential parcels within zero to 200 feet of the proposed
Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 6 Monitoring Report • Duplin County, North Carolina • January 2020

Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
6
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 41 culvert 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 existing 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
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
Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 6 Monitoring Report • Duplin County, North Carolina • January 2020

Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
7
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 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 Site was restored by Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC (EBX) through a full-delivery contract
awarded by NCDMS in 2011. EBX was acquired by Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC (RES)
in 2014 and now oversees the project tasks. 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 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
Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 6 Monitoring Report • Duplin County, North Carolina • January 2020

Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
8
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 Site stream restoration was assembled from the NCDMS Monitoring
Requirements and Performance Standards Guidance for Stream and-or Wetland Mitigation
(11/07/2011). 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 seven-year monitoring period. The two
bankfull events must occur in separate years. Otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue until two
bankfull events have been documented in separate years. Bankfull events will be documented using
stage recorders, photographs, and visual assessments for evidence of debris rack lines.
2.1.2 Cross Sections
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 are
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 are 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
At the time of the development of mitigation plan, the NRCS did 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 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.

Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 6 Monitoring Report • Duplin County, North Carolina • January 2020

Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
9
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 seven-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 NCDMS 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, 260 trees per acre at the end of Year 5, and the final vegetative
success criteria will be 210 trees per acre at the end of Year 7. Invasive species on the site will be
monitored and treated 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 seven 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 NCDMS.
The monitoring reports will include all information, and will be in the format required by NCDMS in
Version 2.0 of the NCDMS Monitoring Report Template.
3 MONITORING PLAN
Annual monitoring data will be reported using the NCDMS monitoring template. Annual monitoring
shall be conducted for stream, wetland, and vegetation monitoring parameters as noted below.
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 included a complete profile of thalweg, water surface, bankfull, and top of bank
to compare with future geomorphic data. Longitudinal profiles will not be required in annual
monitoring reports unless requested by NCDMS or USACE.
3.1.2 Bankfull Events
Four sets of continuous stage recorders were installed on the site, one along Reach 2, one along Reach
3a, one along Reach 3b, and one along Reach 5a. The stage recorders are made up of an auto logging
flow gauge and a manual crest gauge. Auto logging flow gauges were installed within the channel and
continuously record water level conditions at an hourly interval. Manual crest gauges were installed on
the bank at bankfull elevation and record bankfull height using ground cork. Crest gauges are checked
during each site visit to determine if a bankfull event has occurred since the last site visit. The auto
logging flow gauges are used to record the bankfull readings that the manual crest gauges miss. Crest
gauge readings and debris rack lines are photographed to document evidence of bankfull events.
Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 6 Monitoring Report • Duplin County, North Carolina • January 2020

Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
10
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 in monitoring years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 and will include all breaks in slope including top of
bank, bottom of bank, streambed, edge of water, and thalweg. Cross sections 52-55 were monitored in
Year 6 to provide additional data after the repair of this reach in Year 3.
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 seven 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.
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.
Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 6 Monitoring Report • Duplin County, North Carolina • January 2020

Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
11
3.2 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.
3.3 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 NCDMS guidance. Visual observations of
primary and secondary wetland hydrology indicators will also be recorded during quarterly site visits.
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 remedial actions will be discussed amongst NCDMS staff to determine a plan of
action. If it is determined remedial action is required, a plan will be provided.
4.1 Stream
During the Year 6 monitoring activities, no stream problem areas were documented. The series of
beaver dams on Reach 5A, that were reported in the Year 5 monitoring report, were removed in
February 2019. No signs of beavers were observed during the October 2019 monitoring event.
4.2 Vegetation
Two vegetation problem areas were identified during monitoring Year 6 activities. The first, was a
small fire that accidentally spread into the easement and the NC Forest Service had to use a fire plow
to extinguish it. They created a small fire break (about 0.10 acres) along the right top of bank on Reach
5b (Figure 3b). The fire break was seeded and, as of January 2020, has complete herbaceous ground
cover. The second, is a small (0.04 acre) area of encroachment where the farmer mistook an erroneous
piece of rebar for an easement corner. RES will clearly mark the correct easement in this area and
delineate it with horse tape and easement signs.
4.3 Wetlands
No wetland problem areas were noted during the Year 6 monitoring period. All pressure transducers
were replaced prior to the 2019 growing season.

Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 6 Monitoring Report • Duplin County, North Carolina • January 2020

Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
12
5 YEAR 6 MONITORING CONDITIONS (MY6)
The Muddy Run II Year 6 Monitoring activities were completed in July and October 2019. All Year 6
monitoring data is presented below and in the appendices. Data presented shows the site is on track to
meet stream, wetland, and vegetation interim success criteria.
5.1 Year 6 Monitoring Data Collection
5.1.1 Morphological State of the Channel
Morphological stream data was only collected on Cross Sections 52, 53, 54, and 55 in Year 6 because
this reach was rebuilt in Year 3. Appendix D includes the cross section plots and morphological
parameters for this year.

Profile
The baseline (MY-0) profiles closely matched 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 NCDMS or USACE. Morphological summary data tables can
be found in Appendix D.

Dimension
The Year 6 cross sectional dimensions for Cross Sections 52-55 closely matches the Year 3 cross
section parameters. Cross section plots and data tables for these cross sections can be found in
Appendix D.

Sediment Transport
The Year 6 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.

Bank Pin Arrays
Bank pin arrays were not monitored in Year 6 per the Approved Mitigation Plan.
5.1.2 Vegetation
The Year 6 monitoring vegetation survey was completed in October 2019 and resulted in an average of
613 planted stems per acre, well above the interim survival density of 210 stems per acre at the end of
Year 7 monitoring. The average stems per vegetation plot was 12 planted stems. The minimum planted
stems per plot was 8 stems and the maximum was 20 stems per plot. The average planted stem height
was 9.7 feet. Volunteer tree species were noted throughout the site during MY6 activities. Abundant
herbaceous ground cover may have prevented the observance of these species in previous monitoring
years. Vegetation summary data tables and plot photos can be found in Appendix C.
5.1.3 Photo Documentation
Permanent photo point locations have been established at cross sections, vegetation plots, stream
crossings, and stream structures by RES staff. Any additional problem areas or areas of concern will
also be documented with a digital photograph during monitoring activities. Stream digital photographs
can be found in Appendix B and Appendix C for vegetation photos.
Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 6 Monitoring Report • Duplin County, North Carolina • January 2020

Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
13
5.1.4 Stream Hydrology
Four sets of continuous stage recorders were installed on the site, one along Reach 2, one along Reach
3a, one along Reach 3b, and one along Reach 5b. Two of the four stage recorders documented bankfull
events during the Year 6 monitoring period. Stage Recorder 2, which is located on Reach 3a,
documented 1 bankfull event during MY6 with a highest reading of 0.63 feet. Stage Recorder 4 (Reach
5b) logged 5 bankfull events during MY6 with a reading of 2.4 feet above bankfull elevation. Stage
recorder summary data and photo documentation of the bankfull events can be found in Appendix D.
5.1.5 Wetland Hydrology
Six of the seven wetland restoration gauges achieved the success criteria by remaining continuously
within 12 inches of the soil surface for at least nine percent of the growing season. AW7 fell below the
success criteria with a five percent hydroperiod. Groundwater gauge data indicates the hydroperiods
being very responsive to rainfall events. Prior to the 2018-19 growing season, rainfall levels were low
and continued to fall consistently below 30% of the normal rainfall levels throughout the year (Table
14). Of the three reference wetlands gauges, only one (RAW1) met success criteria in MY5. RAW2
and RAW3 had three and six percent hydroperiods, respectively. All pressure transducers were replaced
prior to the 2019 growing season. Wetland gauge and rainfall data is presented in Appendix D.

Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 6 Monitoring Report • Duplin County, North Carolina • January 2020

Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
14
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.

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 (NRCS). 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

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 6

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation
Credits
Mitigation Credits

Stream

Riparian Wetland

Non-riparianWetland

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 HWV Restoration 504 1 : 1
Reach 2 5+04 – 19+14 1,223 P1 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 P1 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. II 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)
Riverine Non-Riverine
Restoration 9,074 4.92
Headwater Valley 902
Enhancement
Enhancement I 708
Enhancement II 727
Creation
Preservation
High Quality
Preservation
BMP
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
*The upper portion of Reach 6 (893 ft) and the side channel (307 ft) that confluences with it were given a 50 ft buffer and are included in the easement to account for hydrologic
impacts. No credit was generated from these channels.
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Project Activity and Reporting History
Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration / NCDMS Project #95354

Activity or Report
Data Collection
Complete
Completion or
Delivery
Mitigation Plan NAJanuary 2014
Final Design – Construction Plans NA March 2014
Construction Completed NAMay 2014
Site Planting Completed NAMay 2014
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0 Monitoring –baseline)June 2014 August 2014
Year 1 Monitoring December 2014 December 2014
Year 2 Monitoring December 2015 February 2016
Adaptive Management Repair and Supplemental Replanting*--- April 2016
Invasive Species Control --- October 2016
Year 3 Monitoring November 2016 February 2017
Year 4 Monitoring November 2017 February 2018
Structure Repair and Addressing Bare Area/Encroachment --- June 2018
Year 5 Monitoring XS: June 2018
VP: October 2018 November 2018
Beaver Management --- February 2019
Year 6 Monitoring XS 52-55: July 2019
VP: October 2019 January 2020
*4,400 trees

Table 3. Project Contacts
Project Contacts Table
Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration /NCDMS Project # 95354
Designer

WK Dickson and Co., Inc.
720 Corporate Center Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
[phone]
Frasier Mullen, PE
Construction Contractor

GP Jenkins
6566 HWY 55 W
Kinston, NC 28504
[phone]
Gary Jenkins
Planting Contractor

H&J Forestry
Matt Hitch
Seeding Contractor

Rain Services, Inc.
Lupe Cruz
Seed Mix Sources Green Resource
Nursery Stock Suppliers Arbogen
Full Delivery Provider

Project Manager:
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
[phone]
Brad Breslow
Monitoring Performers

Project Manager:
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
302 Jefferson Street. Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
[phone]
Ryan Medric

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) 34.830843⁰N , -77.792838 ⁰W
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 Swamp
Percent Composition of Exotic 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Wetland Summary 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 Runoff/Overbank Flows Runoff/Overbank Flows
Hydrologic Impairment 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 XX USACE NWP 27
Waters of the United States – Section 401 X X 401 Water Quality Cert.
Endangered Species Act XX USFWS (Corr. Letter)
Historic Preservation Act XX 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
NC Highway 41State Roa
d

1
8
2
7
Sta
te
Road
1828State Road 1801NC High
w
a
y

1
1
1
State

R
o
a
d

1
8
0
0
State Road 1715State
Road 1802State Road 1964N
C

H
i
g
h
w
a
y

5
0
Stat
e

R
o
a
d

1
8
1
7State Road 1961State Road 1953State Road 1816State Road 19
7
7
State R
o
a
d

1
8
3
0State Road 1970State Road 1804
State Road 1812State Road 1975State Road 1980
State Road 1967
State Road 181
8
State Road 1807
State
R
o
a
d

1
8
0
9
Daisy LnSta
t
e

R
o
a
d

1
8
1
9
State Roa
d

1
9
6
8
Washout LnSt
a
t
e
R
o
a
d

1
8
3
1
State Road 1966State Road 1965David Walker LnState Road 19
7
1
State Road 1972St
a
t
e

R
o
a
d

1
8
1
4
State Road 1979Titu
s
Ln
Brinkley
M
h
p

L
n
Riley LnBuck Pierce Ln St
a
t
e
R
o
a
d

1
7
1
5
NC H
i
g
hw
a
y

5
0
Figure 1.Project Vicinity MapMuddy Run II Mitigation Site
p
DUPLIN COUNTYScale: NTS
Muddy Run II Site
Haw

R
i
v
e
r
Legend
NC Highway
State Roads
Streams
Muddy Run II Easement
Waterbody
HUC 03030007060010
1 inch = 1.5 miles
0 1.5 30.75 Miles
Muddy Creek
UV111
UV50
UV41
5041 111
0 2,000 4,0001,000 Feet
Figure 2.USGS/Watershed Map Muddy Run II Mitigation Site
p
1 inch = 2,000 feet
Proposed Streams
Waterbodies
Muddy Run II Easement
Muddy Run Easement
Drainage Area
Drainage Area = 1.4 mi2
Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3a-c. 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
Figure 4. Vegetation Photos
Figure 5. Stream and Vegetation Problem Photos
!P
!P!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!.
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
XS-1
NC Center for Geographic Information & Analysis
Figure 3a.Muddy Run IIMitigation SiteCurrent Conditions MapDuplin County, NCMY6 2019t
0 500250
Feet
Reach 2
Reach 1Reach 6Reach 3a-2Reach 4
Reach 3b
Reach 3cR
e
a
c
h 5
a
R
e
a
c
h
5
b
Legend
Reach 3a-1Muddy Run II Easem ent
Vegetation Plot
>210 stems/acre
Cross Sections
P1 R estoration
HWV Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Channel - No Credit
Pre-Construction Channel
Muddy Run Easement
!>Stage Recorder
!P Reach Breaks
!Agricultural BMP
!.Rain Gauge
Wetland Success
!>>9%
!>5-8%
!><5%
WA
WB
Vegetation Condition Assessment
AbsentPresentMarginal
Absent
Present
Target Community
Invasive SpeciesNo Fill
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!P
!P
!P
!P
!>
!>
!>
!
!
!
!
!
VP 12
VP 17
VP 16
VP 15
VP 14
VP 13
VP 20
VP 19
VP 18
VP 22
VP 21
VP 28
VP 24
VP 27
VP 26
VP 25
VP 23 4044 415437
42
5559
58 5043
39
30
575338
5127
5 2
48
45
33
36
49343556263 1
2 82932
Reach 6Reach 5b Reach 3cReach 5a
R each 3b
R
e
a
c
h 3
a-2
AW7
AW6
AW5
REFAW3
REFAW2
REFAW1 AW1
AW2
AW3
AW4
NC Center for Geographic Information & Analysis
Figure 3b.Muddy Run IIMitigation SiteCurrent Conditions MapDuplin County, NCMY6 2019t
0 500250
Feet
LegendMuddy Run II Easement
Wetland Restoration Area
Vegetation Plot
>210 stems/acre
Cross Sections
P1 Restoration
HWV Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Channel - No Credit
Muddy Run Easement
Pre-Construction Channel
!Agricultural BMP
!>Stage Recorder
!P Reach Breaks
Wetland Success
!>>9%
!>5-8%
!><5%
WA
WB
Encroachment
Vegetation Condition Assessment
Abse ntPresentMarginal
Absent
Prese nt
Target Community
Invasive SpeciesNo Fill
!>
!>
!>
!>
!P
!P
!P
!P
!>
!>
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!.
VP 7
VP 6 VP 5
VP 1
VP 4
VP 3
VP 2
VP 9
VP 8
VP 12
VP 11
VP 10
VP 17
VP 16
VP 15
VP 14
VP 13
VP 1832
1
43
29
23
21
1713201
8
82511 61
2
1
0
145191522 7162430
27
47263 1
2 829
46Reach 3b
Reach 4
Reach 3b
R
e
a
c
h 3
a-1
Reach 1Reach 3a-2R e a c h 2
R
e
a
c
h 3
a-1
R
e
a
c
h 3
a-2
AW1
AW2
AW3
AW4
NC Center for Geographic Information & Analysis
Figure 3c.Muddy Run IIMitigation SiteCurrent Conditions MapDuplin County, NCMY6 2019t
0 500250
Feet
Legend
Muddy Run II E asement
Wetland Restoration Area
Vegetation Plot
>210 stems/acre
P1 Restoration
HWV Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Channel - No Credit
Muddy Run Easement
Cross Sections
Pre-Construction Channel
!Agricultural BMP
!>Stage Recorder
!P Reach Breaks
!.Rain Gauge
Wetland Success
!>>9%
!>5-8%
!><5%
WA
Vegetation Condition Assessment
Abse ntPresentMarginal
Absent
Prese nt
Target Community
Invasive SpeciesNo Fill
Encroachment
Table 5a Visual Stream Morphology Stability AssessmentReach IDReach 1Assessed Length 3981. Bed 1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run units)1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point bars)0 0 100%2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting0 0 100%2. Riffle Condition1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrateNA NA 100%3. Meander Pool Condition1. 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 Position1. 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/ErodingBank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion0 0 100% 0 0 100%2. UndercutBanks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat.0 0 100% 0 0 100%3. Mass WastingBank slumping, calving, or collapse0 0 100% 0 0 100%0 0 100% 0 0 100%3. Engineered Structures1. Overall IntegrityStructures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.4 4 100%2. Grade ControlGrade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 4 4 100%2a. PipingStructures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.4 4 100%3. Bank ProtectionBank 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. HabitatPool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow.0 0 100%2 Percentage based on visual assessment of channel bed condition.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.TotalsMajor Channel CategoryChannel Sub-Category MetricNumber 1 Stable, Performing as IntendedTotal 1 Number in As-builtNumber of Unstable SegmentsAmount of Unstable Footage% Stable 2, Performing as IntendedNumber with Stabilizing Woody VegetationFootage with Stabilizing Woody VegetationAdjusted % for Stabilizing Woody Vegetation
Table 5b Visual Stream Morphology Stability AssessmentReach IDReach 2Assessed Length 19141. Bed 1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run units)1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point bars)0 0 100%2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting0 0 100%2. Riffle Condition1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrateNA NA 100%3. Meander Pool Condition1. 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 Position1. 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/ErodingBank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion0 0 100% 0 0 100%2. UndercutBanks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat.0 0 100% 0 0 100%3. Mass WastingBank slumping, calving, or collapse0 0 100% 0 0 100%0 0 100% 0 0 100%3. Engineered Structures1. Overall IntegrityStructures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.14 14 100%2. Grade ControlGrade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 13 13 100%2a. PipingStructures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.14 14 100%3. Bank ProtectionBank 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. HabitatPool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow.1 1 100%2 Percentage based on visual assessment of channel bed condition.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.TotalsMajor Channel CategoryChannel Sub-Category MetricNumber 1 Stable, Performing as IntendedTotal 1 Number in As-builtNumber of Unstable SegmentsAmount of Unstable Footage% Stable 2, Performing as IntendedNumber with Stabilizing Woody VegetationFootage with Stabilizing Woody VegetationAdjusted % for Stabilizing Woody Vegetation
Table 5c Visual Stream Morphology Stability AssessmentReach IDReach 3AAssessed Length 35861. Bed 1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run units)1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point bars)0 0 100%2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting0 0 100%2. Riffle Condition1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrateNA NA 100%3. Meander Pool Condition1. 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 Position1. 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/ErodingBank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion0 0 100% 0 0 100%2. UndercutBanks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat.0 0 100% 0 0 100%3. Mass WastingBank slumping, calving, or collapse0 0 100% 0 0 100%0 0 100% 0 0 100%3. Engineered Structures1. Overall IntegrityStructures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.21 21 100%2. Grade ControlGrade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 11 11 100%2a. PipingStructures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.21 21 100%3. Bank ProtectionBank 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. HabitatPool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow.10 10 100%2 Percentage based on visual assessment of channel bed condition.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.TotalsMajor Channel CategoryChannel Sub-Category MetricNumber 1 Stable, Performing as IntendedTotal 1 Number in As-builtNumber of Unstable SegmentsAmount of Unstable Footage% Stable 2, Performing as IntendedNumber with Stabilizing Woody VegetationFootage with Stabilizing Woody VegetationAdjusted % for Stabilizing Woody Vegetation
Table 5d Visual Stream Morphology Stability AssessmentReach IDReach 3BAssessed Length 19791. Bed 1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run units)1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point bars)0 0 100%2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting0 0 100%2. Riffle Condition1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrateNA NA 100%3. Meander Pool Condition1. 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 Position1. 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/ErodingBank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion0 0 100% 0 0 100%2. UndercutBanks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat.0 0 100% 0 0 100%3. Mass WastingBank slumping, calving, or collapse0 0 100% 0 0 100%0 0 100% 0 0 100%3. Engineered Structures1. Overall IntegrityStructures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.17 17 100%2. Grade ControlGrade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 9 9 100%2a. PipingStructures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.17 17 100%3. Bank ProtectionBank 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. HabitatPool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow.7 7 100%2 Percentage based on visual assessment of channel bed condition.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.TotalsMajor Channel CategoryChannel Sub-Category MetricNumber 1 Stable, Performing as IntendedTotal 1 Number in As-builtNumber of Unstable SegmentsAmount of Unstable Footage% Stable 2, Performing as IntendedNumber with Stabilizing Woody VegetationFootage with Stabilizing Woody VegetationAdjusted % for Stabilizing Woody Vegetation
Table 5e Visual Stream Morphology Stability AssessmentReach IDReach 3CAssessed Length 7081. Bed 1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run units)1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point bars)0 0 100%2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting0 0 100%2. Riffle Condition1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrateNA NA 100%3. Meander Pool Condition1. 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 Position1. 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/ErodingBank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion0 0 100% 0 0 100%2. UndercutBanks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat.0 0 100% 0 0 100%3. Mass WastingBank slumping, calving, or collapse0 0 100% 0 0 100%0 0 100% 0 0 100%3. Engineered Structures1. Overall IntegrityStructures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.5 5 100%2. Grade ControlGrade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 3 3 100%2a. PipingStructures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.5 5 100%3. Bank ProtectionBank 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. HabitatPool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow.2 2 100%2 Percentage based on visual assessment of channel bed condition.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.TotalsMajor Channel CategoryChannel Sub-Category MetricNumber 1 Stable, Performing as IntendedTotal 1 Number in As-builtNumber of Unstable SegmentsAmount of Unstable Footage% Stable 2, Performing as IntendedNumber with Stabilizing Woody VegetationFootage with Stabilizing Woody VegetationAdjusted % for Stabilizing Woody Vegetation
Table 5f Visual Stream Morphology Stability AssessmentReach IDReach 4Assessed Length 1731. Bed 1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run units)1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point bars)0 0 100%2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting0 0 100%2. Riffle Condition1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrateNA NA 100%3. Meander Pool Condition1. 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 Position1. 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/ErodingBank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion0 0 100% 0 0 100%2. UndercutBanks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat.0 0 100% 0 0 100%3. Mass WastingBank slumping, calving, or collapse0 0 100% 0 0 100%0 0 100% 0 0 100%3. Engineered Structures1. Overall IntegrityStructures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.3 3 100%2. Grade ControlGrade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 2 2 100%2a. PipingStructures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.3 3 100%3. Bank ProtectionBank 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. HabitatPool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow.1 1 100%2 Percentage based on visual assessment of channel bed condition.Major Channel CategoryChannel Sub-Category MetricNumber 1 Stable, Performing as IntendedTotal 1 Number in As-builtNumber of Unstable SegmentsAmount of Unstable Footage% Stable 2, Performing as IntendedNumber with Stabilizing Woody VegetationFootage with Stabilizing Woody VegetationAdjusted % for Stabilizing Woody VegetationTotals1 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.
Table 5g Visual Stream Morphology Stability AssessmentReach IDReach 5AAssessed Length 19261. Bed 1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run units)1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point bars)0 0 100%2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting0 0 100%2. Riffle Condition1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrateNA NA 100%3. Meander Pool Condition1. 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 Position1. 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/ErodingBank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion0 0 100% 0 0 100%2. UndercutBanks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat.0 0 100% 0 0 100%3. Mass WastingBank slumping, calving, or collapse0 0 100% 0 0 100%0 0 100% 0 0 100%3. Engineered Structures1. Overall IntegrityStructures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.22 22 100%2. Grade ControlGrade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 16 16 100%2a. PipingStructures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.22 22 100%3. Bank ProtectionBank 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. HabitatPool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow.6 6 100%2 Percentage based on visual assessment of channel bed condition.Major Channel CategoryChannel Sub-Category MetricNumber 1 Stable, Performing as IntendedTotal 1 Number in As-builtNumber of Unstable SegmentsAmount of Unstable Footage% Stable 2, Performing as IntendedNumber with Stabilizing Woody VegetationFootage with Stabilizing Woody VegetationAdjusted % for Stabilizing Woody VegetationTotals1 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.
Table 5h Visual Stream Morphology Stability AssessmentReach IDReach 5BAssessed Length 4091. Bed 1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run units)1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point bars)0 0 100%2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting0 0 100%2. Riffle Condition1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrateNA NA 100%3. Meander Pool Condition1. 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 Position1. 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/ErodingBank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion0 0 100% 0 0 100%2. UndercutBanks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat.0 0 100% 0 0 100%3. Mass WastingBank slumping, calving, or collapse0 0 100% 0 0 100%0 0 100% 0 0 100%3. Engineered Structures1. Overall IntegrityStructures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.1 1 100%2. Grade ControlGrade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 1 1 100%2a. PipingStructures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.1 1 100%3. Bank ProtectionBank 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. HabitatPool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow.0 0 100%2 Percentage based on visual assessment of channel bed condition.Major Channel CategoryChannel Sub-Category MetricNumber 1 Stable, Performing as IntendedTotal 1 Number in As-builtNumber of Unstable SegmentsAmount of Unstable Footage% Stable 2, Performing as IntendedNumber with Stabilizing Woody VegetationFootage with Stabilizing Woody VegetationAdjusted % for Stabilizing Woody VegetationTotals1 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.
Table 5a Visual Stream Morphology Stability AssessmentReach IDReach 6Assessed Length 3181. Bed 1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run units)1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point bars)0 0 100%2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting0 0 100%2. Riffle Condition1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrateNA NA 100%3. Meander Pool Condition1. 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 Position1. 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/ErodingBank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion0 0 100% 0 0 100%2. UndercutBanks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat.0 0 100% 0 0 100%3. Mass WastingBank slumping, calving, or collapse0 0 100% 0 0 100%0 0 100% 0 0 100%3. Engineered Structures1. Overall IntegrityStructures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.2 2 100%2. Grade ControlGrade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 2 2 100%2a. PipingStructures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.2 2 100%3. Bank ProtectionBank 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. HabitatPool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow.0 0 100%2 Percentage based on visual assessment of channel bed condition.Major Channel CategoryChannel Sub-Category MetricNumber 1 Stable, Performing as IntendedTotal 1 Number in As-builtNumber of Unstable SegmentsAmount of Unstable Footage% Stable 2, Performing as IntendedNumber with Stabilizing Woody VegetationFootage with Stabilizing Woody VegetationAdjusted % for Stabilizing Woody VegetationTotals1 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.
Table 6 Vegetation Condition AssessmentPlanted Acreage1171. Bare AreasVery limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material. 0.1 acres Red Lines 0 0.00 0.0%2. Low Stem Density AreasWoody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria. 0.1 acres Orange Lines 0 0.00 0.0%0 0.00 0.0%3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or VigorAreas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year. 0.25 acres Orange Lines 0 0.00 0.0%0 0.00 0.0%Easement Acreage237.64. Invasive Areas of Concern4Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale). 1000 SFYellow Crosshatch0 0.00 0.0%5. Easement Encroachment Areas3Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale). none Red Lines 1 0.10 0.6%Combined Acreage% of Planted AcreageTotalCumulative TotalVegetation Category DefinitionsMapping ThresholdCCPV DepictionNumber of PolygonsCombined Acreage% of Easement AcreageVegetation Category DefinitionsMapping ThresholdCCPV DepictionNumber of Polygons1= Enter the planted acreage within the easement. This number is calculatedas the easement acreage minus any existing mature tree stands that were notsubject to supplemental planting of the understory, the channel acreage,crossings or any other elements not directly planted as part of the projecteffort.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 arethose 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 timeframesthat 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 canbe 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 integrationof 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 projectshistorywillwarrant 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 oftreating extensive amounts of ground cover. Those species with the "watchlist" designator in gray shade are of interest as well, but have yet to be observed across the state with any frequency. Those inred italicsare of particularinterest 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. Inany 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 oftheexecutive summary.
Feature Issue Station # / Range Suspected Cause; Repair Photo Number
N/A N/A N/A N/A
Feature Category Station Numbers Suspected Cause; Repair Photo Number
Encroachment RB Reach 5b Fire plow; Natural regeneration VPA1
Encroachment WA Mowing; Physical barrier VPA2
Table 7. Stream Problem Areas
Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration Project - Project # 95354
Table 8. Vegetation Problem Areas
Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration Project - Project # 95354
Figure 4. Vegetation Plot Photos

Vegetation Plot 1 Vegetation Plot 2
Vegetation Plot 3 Vegetation Plot 4
Vegetation Plot 5 Vegetation Plot 6
Vegetation Plot 7 Vegetation Plot 8
Vegetation Plot 9 Vegetation Plot 10
Vegetation Plot 11 Vegetation Plot 12

Vegetation Plot 13 Vegetation Plot 14
Vegetation Plot 15 Vegetation Plot 16
Vegetation Plot 17 Vegetation Plot 18

Vegetation Plot 19 Vegetation Plot 20
Vegetation Plot 21 Vegetation Plot 22
Vegetation Plot 23 Vegetation Plot 24

Vegetation Plot 25 Vegetation Plot 26
Vegetation Plot 27 Vegetation Plot 28

Figure 5. Stream and Vegetation Problem Area Photos

Stream Problem Area Photos
N/A
Vegetation Problem Areas Photos

Encroachment along the right bank of Reach 5b

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

Vegetation Plot
Stems
Planted
Stems/Acre
Baseline Living Stems
Stems/Acre
Year 1
Living
Stems
Stems/Acre
Year 2
Living
Stems
Total Stems/Acre
Year 2
Living
Stems
Stems/Acre
Year 3 Living Stems
Total Stems/Acre
Year 3
Living
Stems
Stems/Acre
Year 3 Living Stems
Total Stems/Acre
Year 4
Living
Stems
Stems/Acre
Year 5 Living Stems
Total Stems/Acre
Year 5
Living
Stems
Stems/Acre
Year 5 Living Stems
Total
Stems/Acre
Year 5
1 16 800 16 800 0 0 1 750 13 650 50 3150 13 650 186 9950 13 650 86 4950 12 600 2 700
2 17 850 14 700 0 0 --550 11 550 0 550 11 550 43 2700 11 550 9 1000 11 550 0 550
3 15 750 13 650 0 0 --550 11 550 0 550 10 500 53 3150 9 450 6 750 9 450 4 650
4 14 700 12 600 0 0 --400 13 650 5 900 13 650 34 2350 13 650 6 950 13 650 0 650
5 16 800 12 600 0 0 --500 11 550 0 550 13 650 21 1700 13 650 2 750 13 650 6 950
6 17 850 14 700 0 0 --650 13 650 0 650 13 650 7 1000 13 650 0 650 13 650 0 650
7 15 750 13 650 0 0 --600 12 600 0 600 12 600 0 600 12 600 0 600 12 600 0 600
8 16 800 14 700 0 0 --600 13 650 0 650 13 650 63 3800 13 650 131 7200 13 650 6 950
9 17 850 11 550 10 500 --500 17 850 0 850 13 650 7 1000 12 600 2 700 13 650 5 900
10 14 700 9 450 0 0 1 350 6 300 1 350 8 400 2 500 8 400 0 400 8 400 1 450
11 13 650 13 650 0 0 --550 11 550 0 550 12 600 19 1550 10 500 0 500 10 500 4 700
12 15 750 9 450 0 0 --550 13 650 0 650 13 650 3 800 13 650 0 650 13 650 0 650
13 16 800 14 700 0 0 --650 14 700 0 700 13 650 16 1450 13 650 38 2550 13 650 2 750
14 14 700 10 500 0 0 --500 9 450 0 450 9 450 129 6900 9 450 23 1600 9 450 4 650
15 15 750 13 650 13 650 5 900 19 950 0 950 20 1000 65 4250 20 1000 12 1600 20 1000 7 1350
16 16 800 15 750 0 0 --700 12 600 0 600 12 600 71 4150 12 600 73 4250 12 600 1 650
17 15 750 10 500 11 550 1 600 12 600 0 600 12 600 7 950 12 600 4 800 14 700 0 700
18 14 700 14 700 13 650 1 700 14 700 0 700 14 700 71 4250 13 650 45 2900 13 650 0 650
19 9 450 8 400 0 0 --550 13 650 0 650 9 450 168 8850 9 450 48 2850 9 450 10 950
20 10 500 7 350 0 0 --250 8 400 1 450 8 400 76 4200 8 400 0 400 8 400 2 500
21 18 900 16 800 15 750 --750 12 600 0 600 13 650 12 1250 13 650 4 850 13 650 0 650
22 16 800 13 650 12 600 --600 11 550 0 550 11 550 23 1700 11 550 18 1450 11 550 0 550
23 13 650 11 550 12 600 --600 14 700 35 2450 14 700 60 3700 15 750 66 4050 15 750 12 1350
24 17 850 11 550 8 400 --400 8 400 0 400 8 400 33 2050 8 400 39 2350 8 400 10 900
25 16 800 12 600 11 550 --550 21 1050 0 1050 21 1050 4 1250 20 1000 0 1000 15 750 0 750
26 11 550 7 350 6 300 --300 20 1000 34 2700 18 900 64 4100 17 850 3 1000 15 750 11 1300
27 19 950 17 850 16 800 --800 16 800 0 800 16 800 12 1400 16 800 7 1150 13 650 0 650
28 17 850 17 850 15 750 --750 14 700 0 700 15 750 68 4150 15 750 0 750 15 750 0 750
Average 15.0 752 12.3 616 5.1 254 2 577 12.9 645 5 870 12.8 638 47 2989 12.5 627 22 1738 12.3 613 3 768
Min 9 450 7 350 0 0 1 250 6 300 0 350 8 400 0 500 8 400 0 400 8 400 0 450
Max 19 950 17 850 16 800 5 900 21 1050 50 2700 21 1050 186 9950 20 1000 131 7200 20 1000 12 1350
Plot Size = 40 X 22 feet = 0.020 Acres
Number Trees/Acres = # of Trees * 50
Year 4
Planted Volunteers
Year 5
Planted Volunteers
Year 6
Planted Volunteers
Table 9a. Monitoring Year 6 Stem Count Summary
Baseline Year 1
Planted Planted
* Calculations include volunteer species
Volunteers
Year 2
Planted
Year 3
Planted Volunteers
Table 9b. Planted Species Totals
Species Common Name
Total
Planted
Taxodium distichum Bald Cypress 1,800
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 1,900
Quercus lyrata Overcup Oak 1,800
Betula nigra River birch 1,800
Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak 2,200
Nyssa biflora Swamp Tupelo 2,000
Plantanus occidentalis American Sycamore 2,200
Quercus laurifolia Laurel Oak 1,800
Total 15,500
Trees - Bare Root
Salix nigra Black Willow 3,000
Total 3,000
Live Stakes

Table 9c. Planted Stem Counts (Species by Plot)
Species Common Name MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6
Taxodium distichum Bald Cypress 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 5 5 9 9 9 9 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Quercus sp.Unknown Oak sp.2 2 1 1 1 1
Quercus lyrata Overcup Oak 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 8 7 8 6 6 8 8
Betula nigra River birch 6 6 5 5 5 5 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Nyssa biflora Swamp Tupelo 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Plantanus occidentalis American Sycamore 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 5 5 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1
Quercus laurifolia Laurel Oak 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 2 2
Quercus nigra Water Oak
Quercus phellos Willow Oak
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip poplar
Species Count 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 6 6 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 7 6 5 6 7 6 6
Stem Count 16 16 13 13 13 13 12 17 14 11 11 11 11 11 15 13 9 11 10 9 9 14 12 13 13 13 13 13 16 12 12 11 13 13 13
Stems per Acre 800 800 650 650 650 650 600 850 700 550 550 550 550 550 750 650 450 550 500 450 450 700 600 650 650 650 650 650 800 600 600 550 650 650 650
Species Common Name MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6
Taxodium distichum Bald Cypress 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1
Quercus sp.Unknown Oak sp.1 1 1
Quercus lyrata Overcup Oak 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 1 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 2
Betula nigra River birch 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 10 6 6 6 6 6 6 3 1 1 1 1 1 1
Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak
Nyssa biflora Swamp Tupelo 1 1 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 4 2
Plantanus occidentalis American Sycamore 1 1 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Quercus laurifolia Laurel Oak 5 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 4 4 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3
Quercus nigra Water Oak
Quercus phellos Willow Oak
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip poplar
Species Count 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 5 4 4 4 4 4 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 3 3 5 4 3 4 5 5 4 4 5 5 5
Stem Count 17 14 13 14 13 13 13 15 13 12 12 12 12 12 16 14 13 13 13 13 13 17 11 12 17 13 12 13 14 9 7 6 8 8 8
Stems per Acre 850 700 650 700 650 650 650 750 650 600 600 600 600 600 800 700 650 650 650 650 650 850 550 600 850 650 600 650 700 450 350 300 400 400 400
Species Common Name MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6
Taxodium distichum Bald Cypress 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 3
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Quercus sp.Unknown Oak sp.2 1
Quercus lyrata Overcup Oak 1 1 1 2 2 5 5 5 5 5
Betula nigra River birch 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 2
Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 7 6 5 5 5 5 5 6 5 3 2 3 3 3
Nyssa biflora Swamp Tupelo 4 4 1 2 2 1 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 9 6 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 1 2 1 1 1
Plantanus occidentalis American Sycamore 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 7 8 8
Quercus laurifolia Laurel Oak 3 3 1 3 2 1 1 1
Quercus nigra Water Oak
Quercus phellos Willow Oak 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip poplar
Species Count 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 8 7 6 7 7 7 7
Stem Count 13 13 8 11 12 10 10 15 9 13 13 13 13 13 16 14 13 14 13 13 13 14 10 8 9 9 9 9 16 14 10 19 18 20 20
Stems per Acre 650 650 400 550 600 500 500 750 450 650 650 650 650 650 800 700 650 700 650 650 650 700 500 400 450 450 450 450 800 700 500 950 900 1000 1000
Vegetation Plot 6 Vegetation Plot 7 Vegetation Plot 8 Vegetation Plot 10Vegetation Plot 9
Vegetation Plot 1 Vegetation Plot 4 Vegetation Plot 5Vegetation Plot 3Vegetation Plot 2
Vegetation Plot 11 Vegetation Plot 12 Vegetation Plot 13 Vegetation Plot 14 Vegetation Plot 15

Table 9c. Planted Stem Counts (Species by Plot) Continued
Species Common Name MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6
Taxodium distichum Bald Cypress 1 1 2 1 2 2 2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 6 6 7 6 7 7 7 1 1 2 2 2 2
Quercus sp.Unknown Oak sp.1
Quercus lyrata Overcup Oak 4 1 1 1 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 3 1 3 3 3 1
Betula nigra River birch 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1
Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 2 2 2 2
Nyssa biflora Swamp Tupelo 8 8 6 6 6 6 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 1 3 2 1 1 6 3 1
Plantanus occidentalis American Sycamore 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 5 5 0 5 2 1
Quercus laurifolia Laurel Oak 1 2
Quercus nigra Water Oak 1 1 1
Quercus phellos Willow Oak 2 2 2
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip poplar
Species Count 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 5 6 4 4 4 3 3 2 5 5 5 5
Stem Count 16 15 12 12 12 12 12 15 10 15 12 12 12 14 14 14 13 14 14 13 13 9 8 9 12 9 9 9 10 7 3 8 8 8 8
Stems per Acre 800 750 600 600 600 600 600 750 500 750 600 600 600 700 700 700 650 700 700 650 650 450 400 450 600 450 450 450 500 350 150 400 400 400 400
Species Common Name MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6
Taxodium distichum Bald Cypress 2 3 3 3 3 3 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 1 4 4 4 4
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 6 6 5 4 5 5 5 7 6 2 6 2 2 2 1 2 2 1
Quercus sp.Unknown Oak sp.1 1 1
Quercus lyrata Overcup Oak 3 4 2 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Betula nigra River birch 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 1 1 1 1 1
Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 5 4 2 2 1 2 2
Nyssa biflora Swamp Tupelo 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 6 5 0 0
Plantanus occidentalis American Sycamore 1 1 1 1 7 8 7 3
Quercus laurifolia Laurel Oak 4 1 1 1 1 5 2 0 2 1 3 2 3 3 3 6 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 2 2 2
Quercus nigra Water Oak 1 1
Quercus phellos Willow Oak 1
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip poplar
Species Count 6 5 3 4 5 5 5 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 5 4 4 5 7 8 8 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 7 8 9 8
Stem Count 18 16 9 12 13 13 13 16 13 11 11 11 11 11 13 11 9 14 15 15 15 17 11 8 8 8 8 8 16 12 3 21 20 20 15
Stems per Acre 900 800 450 600 650 650 650 800 650 550 550 550 550 550 650 550 450 700 750 750 750 850 550 400 400 400 400 400 800 600 150 1050 1000 1000 750
Species Common Name MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6
Taxodium distichum Bald Cypress
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 4 4 4 4 9 9 9 9 9 9 8
Quercus sp.Unknown Oak sp.4
Quercus lyrata Overcup Oak 4 4 3 5 4 3 3 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Betula nigra River birch 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Nyssa biflora Swamp Tupelo 3 1
Plantanus occidentalis American Sycamore 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 7 6 6 6 6 6
Quercus laurifolia Laurel Oak 2 1 1 1 7 6 5 5 4 5 4 4 4 3 2 3 3 3
Quercus nigra Water Oak 1 1 1
Quercus phellos Willow Oak 1 1 1
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar 2 2 1
Species Count 5 3 2 7 9 9 8 5 4 4 4 4 4 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Stem Count 11 7 6 20 18 17 15 19 17 16 16 15 16 13 17 17 15 14 15 15 15
Stems per Acre 550 350 300 1000 900 850 750 950 850 800 800 750 800 650 850 850 750 700 750 750 750
Vegetation Plot 20Vegetation Plot 19Vegetation Plot 18Vegetation Plot 17Vegetation Plot 16
Vegetation Plot 25Vegetation Plot 24Vegetation Plot 23Vegetation Plot 22Vegetation Plot 21
Vegetation Plot 28Vegetation Plot 27Vegetation Plot 26
Appendix D
Stream Geomorphology Data
Cross Section Plots 52-55
Upstream DownstreamNote: Starting in MY6, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect the 2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers. 343536373839400 3 6 9 12151821242730333639424548Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Muddy Run II Reach 5A Cross Section 52 - Run - Reach Rebuilt in Year 3 Year 3Year 5Year 6Approx. BankfullFloodprone AreaLow TOBBase MY1 MY2 MY3* MY5 MY6 MY7Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA139.8 39.8 39.8 37.0 36.8 36.9Bankfull Width (ft)117.7 17.8 19.3 10.6 8.1 8.8Floodprone Width (ft)150.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 >49.7Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.8 2.1 2.7 1.4 1.8 -Bankfull Max Depth (ft)23.1 4.5 5.9 2.1 2.3 2.5Low Bank Elevation - - - - - 37.0Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)231.8 36.9 52.3 14.6 14.6 15.5Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 9.9 8.6 7.1 7.7 4.5 -Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1>2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >6.1 >5.7Bankfull Bank Height Ratio11.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0Cross Section 52 (Run)
Upstream DownstreamNote: Starting in MY6, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect the 2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers. 3334353637383940036912151821242730333639424548Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Muddy Run II Reach 5A Cross Section 53 - Pool - Reach Rebuilt in Year 3 Year 3Year 5Year 6Approx. BankfullLow TOBBase MY1 MY2 MY3* MY5 MY6 MY7Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA139.7 39.7 39.7 36.9 36.9 36.9Bankfull Width (ft)117.4 17.9 18.1 8.9 7.7 N/AFloodprone Width (ft)150.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 45.0 N/ABankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.9 2.1 2.2 1.5 1.8 -Bankfull Max Depth (ft)23.5 3.8 4.1 3.4 3.1 3.5Low Bank Elevation - - - - N/A 37.2Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)233.8 37.1 39.0 13.6 13.6 15.8Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 9.0 8.6 8.4 5.8 4.3 -Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1>2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 N/A N/ABankfull Bank Height Ratio11.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 N/A N/ACross Section 53 (Pool)
Upstream DownstreamNote: Starting in MY6, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect the 2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers. 323334353637383940036912151821242730333639424548Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Muddy Run II Reach 5A Cross Section 54 - Pool - Reach Rebuilt in Year 3 Year 3Year 5Year 6Approx. BankfullLow TOBBase MY1 MY2 MY3* MY5 MY6 MY7Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA138.8 38.8 38.8 35.9 34.4 34.3Bankfull Width (ft)115.7 16.7 20.3 11.5 7.0 N/AFloodprone Width (ft)150.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 34.0 N/ABankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.7 2.0 2.2 1.0 1.7 -Bankfull Max Depth (ft)22.9 4.0 4.4 1.7 2.3 3.9Low Bank Elevation - - - - N/A 36.0Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)226.1 32.7 45.2 11.7 11.7 27.9Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 9.5 8.5 9.1 11.3 4.2 -Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1>2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 N/A N/ABankfull Bank Height Ratio11.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 N/A N/ACross Section 54 (Pool)
Upstream DownstreamNote: Starting in MY6, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect the 2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers. 333435363738390 3 6 9 12151821242730333639424548Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Muddy Run II Reach 5A Cross Section 55 - Riffle - Reach Rebuilt in Year 3 Year 3Year 5Year 6Approx. BankfullFloodprone AreaLow TOBBase MY1 MY2 MY3* MY5 MY6 MY7Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA138.0 38.0 38.0 35.6 35.7 35.5Bankfull Width (ft)19.7 14.8 20.8 10.2 12.7 6.9Floodprone Width (ft)150.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 43.0 >42.9Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.4 2.2 2.1 1.0 0.8 -Bankfull Max Depth (ft)22.2 3.0 3.3 1.7 1.8 2.5Low Bank Elevation - - - - - 35.9Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)213.6 33.3 44.4 10.5 10.5 13.8Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 7.0 6.6 9.7 9.9 15.4 -Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1>2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >3.4 >6.2Bankfull Bank Height Ratio11.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.2Cross Section 55 (Riffle)
Appendix E
Hydrology Data
Table 13. Documentation of Geomorphologically Significant Flow Events
Table 14. Rainfall Summary
Table 15a. Wetland Hydrology Criteria Attainment
Table 15b. Wetland Hydrology Gauges Summary
2019 Groundwater Monitoring Gauge Hydrographs
Crest Gauge Verification Photos
Table 13. Documentation of Geomorphically Significant Flow Events 

Table 14. Rainfall Summary

MY1 2014 1
MY2 2015 1
MY3 2016 4
MY4 2017 5
MY5 2018 6
MY6 2019 0
MY1 2014 8
MY2 2015 19
MY3 2016 8
MY4 2017 7
MY5 2018 10
MY6 2019 1
MY1 2014 0
MY2 2015 4
MY3 2016 2
MY4 2017 0
MY5 2018 1
MY6 2019 0
MY1 2014 2
MY2 2015 1
MY3 2016 1
MY4 2017 8
MY5 2018 6
MY6 2019 5
0.63
---
2.40
3.75
Stage Recorder 3 (Reach 3b)
---
0.20
2.18
---
0.65
Stage Recorder 4 (Reach 5b)
0.45
0.40
3.80
2.80
Stage Recorder Number of Bankfull
Events Maximum Bankfull Height (ft.)
3.50
Stage Recorder 1 (Reach 2)
0.40
0.60
1.60
1.10
2.45
Stage Recorder 2 (Reach 3a)
1.50
2.00
2.00
2.00
---
30 Percent 70 Percent
January 4.33 3.32 5.03 2.46 ---
February 3.23 2.14 3.87 2.17 0.56
March 4.50 3.23 5.32 2.67 1.95
April 3.16 1.70 3.85 5.70 4.74
May 3.68 2.69 4.34 1.04 0.76
June 4.49 3.11 5.34 2.32 1.21
July 6.06 4.16 7.22 3.51 5.09
August 5.40 3.12 6.56 5.95 5.52
September 5.00 2.04 6.07 6.8 8.58
October 3.21 1.62 3.92 2.71 2.41
November 2.89 1.83 3.49 --- ---
December 3.24 2.14 3.88 --- ---
Total 49.19 31.10 58.89 35.33 30.82
Month Average
Normal Limits Wallace
Station
On-Site Auto
Rain Gauage
Table 15a. Wetland Hydrology Criteria Attainment
Days
Percent of
growing
Season
Days
Percent of
growing
Season
AW1 24 10 43 18 4
AW2 42 17 48 20 2
AW3 25 10 42 17 4
AW4 24 10 40 17 3
AW5 28 11 72 30 13
AW6 24 10 73 30 13
AW7 13 5 44 18 9
RAW1 25 10 43 18 3
RAW2 831464
RAW3 15 6 33 14 5
<5% 5-8%≥9%
Consecutive Cumulative
2019 Max Hydroperiod (Growing Season 17-Mar through 14-Nov, 242 days)
Success Criterion 9%
Gauge Occurrences
Table 15b. Wetland Hydrology Gauge Summary       DaysPercent of growing SeasonDaysPercent of growing SeasonDaysPercent of growing SeasonDaysPercent of growing SeasonDaysPercent of growing SeasonDaysPercent of growing SeasonAW122 9 63 26 22 9 49 20 19 8 24 10AW222 9 41 17 21 9 26 11 46 19 42 17AW3135 38163213522147192510AW467 28 77 32 95 39 69 28 20 8 24 10AW57 3 38 16 32 13 55 23 49 20 28 11AW643 18 65 27 22 9 55 23 49 20 24 10AW75 2 72 30 36 15 59 24 59 24 13 5RAW1*229 492033133313******2510RAW210 4 19 8 15 6 6 2 *** *** 8 3RAW3208 411732133414461915 6**Gauge data after June 7, 2018 was determined to be unreliable due to inconsitent ambient pressure data***Gauge malfunctioned in 2018MY6-2019ConsecutiveMY5-2018**ConsecutiveMY4-2017Consecutive*MY4-2017 data only represents March 17, 2017 - May 2, 2017MY3-2016ConsecutiveGaugeConsecutive ConsecutiveMY2-2015MY1-2014
0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.09.010.0-50-40-30-20-100102030JFMAMJJASONDPrecipitation (inches)Groundwater Elevation (inches)Months2019 Muddy Run II Groundwater Gauge AW1On-site Daily RainfallMRII AW1Growing Season
0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.09.010.0-35-30-25-20-15-10-5051015JFMAMJJASONDPrecipitation (inches)Groundwater Elevation (inches)Months2019 Muddy Run II Groundwater Gauge AW2On-site Daily RainfallMRII AW2Growing Season
0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.09.010.0-50-40-30-20-10010JFMAMJJASONDPrecipitation (inches)Groundwater Elevation (inches)Months2019 Muddy Run II Groundwater Gauge AW3On-site Daily RainfallMRII AW3Growing Season
0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.09.010.0-60-50-40-30-20-1001020JFMAMJJASONDPrecipitation (inches)Groundwater Elevation (inches)Months2019 Muddy Run II Groundwater Gauge AW4On-site Daily RainfallMRII AW4Growing Season
0.001.002.003.004.005.006.007.008.009.0010.00-40-30-20-1001020JFMAMJJASONDPrecipitation (inches)Groundwater Elevation (inches)Months2019 Muddy Run II Groundwater Gauge AW5On-site Daily RainfallMRII AW5Ground ElevationGrowing Season
0.001.002.003.004.005.006.007.008.009.0010.00-40-30-20-1001020JFMAMJJASONDPrecipitation (inches)Groundwater Elevation (inches)Months2019 Muddy Run II Groundwater Gauge AW6On-site Daily RainfallMRII AW6Ground ElevationGrowing Season
0.001.002.003.004.005.006.007.008.009.0010.00-40-30-20-1001020JFMAMJJASONDPrecipitation (inches)Groundwater Elevation (inches)Months2019 Muddy Run II Groundwater Gauge AW7On-site Daily RainfallMRII AW7Ground ElevationGrowing Season
0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.09.010.0-45-40-35-30-25-20-15-10-505JFMAMJJASONDPrecipitation (inches)Groundwater Elevation (inches)Months2019 Muddy Run II Groundwater Gauge REFAW1On-site Daily RainfallMRII REF AW1Growing Season
0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.09.010.0-70-60-50-40-30-20-10010JFMAMJJASONDPrecipitation (inches)Groundwater Elevation (inches)Months2019 Muddy Run II Groundwater Gauge REFAW2On-site Daily RainfallMRII REF AW2Growing Season
0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.09.010.0-45-40-35-30-25-20-15-10-50JFMAMJJASONDPrecipitation (inches)Groundwater Elevation (inches)Months2019 Muddy Run II Groundwater Gauge REFAW3On-site Daily RainfallMRII REF AW3Growing Season
Appendix E – Crest Gauge Verification Photos Photo 1. Crest Gauge 2 (Reach 3a – 0.63 ft. – 9/5/2019) Photo 2. Crest Gauge 4 (Reach 5b – 2.40 ft. – 9/5/2019)