Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20141127 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report_20200204ID#* 20141127 Version* 1 Select Reviewer:* Mac Haupt Initial Review Completed Date 02/05/2020 Mitigation Project Submittal - 2/4/2020 Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* r Yes r No Type of Mitigation Project:* V Stream r Wetlands r- Buffer r- Nutrient Offset (Select all that apply) Project Contact Information Contact Name:* Jeremiah Dow Project Information ........................................................................................................................................................................... ID#:* 20141127 Existing IDY Project Type: r DMS r Mitigation Bank Project Name: Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site County: Chatham Document Information Email Address:* jeremiah.dow@ncdenr.gov Version: *1 Existing Version Mitigation Document Type:* Mitigation Monitoring Report File Upload: MudLickCreek_93482_MY2_2020-02-04.pdf 6.76MB Rease upload only one RDFcf the conplete file that needs to be subnitted... Signature Print Name:* Jeremiah Dow Signature:* FINAL MONITORING REPORT YEAR 2 (2019) MUD LICK CREEK MITIGATION SITE Chatham County, North Carolina NCDMS Project No. 93482 Contract No. 7683 USACE Action ID No. SAW-2014-00736 & DWR Project No 2014-1127 SCO No. 1209857-01 Data Collection: September 2019 Submission: January 2020 PREPARED FOR: N.C. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES 1601 MAIL SERVICE CENTER RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1601 FINAL MONITORING REPORT YEAR 2 (2019) MUD LICK CREEK MITIGATION SITE Chatham County, North Carolina NCDMS Project No. 93482 Contract No. 7683 USACE Action ID No. SAW-2014-00736 & DWR Project No 2014-1127 SCO No. 1209857-01 Data Collection: September 2019 Submission: January 2020 PREPARED BY: AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. 218 SNOW AVENUE RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27603 Axiom Environmental, Inc. 218 Snow Avenue, Raleigh, NC 27603 919-215-1693 January 29, 2020 Mr. Jeremiah Dow North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Mitigation Services 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652 RE: Mud Lick Creek Monitoring (DMS Project # 93482, Contract #7683) Final MY2 (2019) Annual Monitoring Report Dear Mr. Dow: Axiom Environmental, Inc. (AXE) is pleased to provide you with one hard copy and a CD of digital files for the Final Mud Lick Creek MY2 (2019) Annual Monitoring Report. We received your comments via email on January 9, 2020 and have addressed them as follows: 1. Section 1.0: a. Under the Vegetation heading, please delete the last sentence of paragraph 4 that states “No additional vegetation data was collected during year 2 (2019).” This is somewhat confusing. This sentence was deleted. 2. Appendix D: a. Table 11 – Please verify BF Cross Sectional Areas. All cross sectional areas are identical for MY0 through MY2 for all cross sections which seems highly unlikely, specifically, for example, cross sections 2, 7, 8, & 9. According to the Industry Technical Work Group memorandum, the bankfull cross- sectional areas are fixed at MY0, and that area is used to calculate bank height ratio for the remainder of the monitoring period. A separate row was added to the summary data on the cross-section plots and tables 11A-11F showing the Low Bank Area for the current monitoring year. Additionally, during a 1/28/20 phone conversation with DMS staff, it was determined that entrenchment ratio will no longer be reported and tied to success criteria, in accordance with the Industry Technical Work Group memorandum. These values were removed from the MY2 data on the cross-section graphs and tables 11A-F, and a footnote was added to explain. b. Please add an additional line to riffle cross sections which shows the bankfull line based on MY0 cross sectional area applied to the current year cross section. The MY0 bankfull line was added to the riffle cross section graphs. c. XS-7 has a BHR of 1.1 but the channel appears to be narrowing while maintaining the same depth which, with the new BHR calculation method, would be expected to be a BHR <1. During MY0, the bankfull maximum depth and low bank height of XS-7 were set to an obvious bankfull shelf on the left bank of the channel. This depth was 1.2 feet. Between MY0 and MY2, the channel narrowed, and that bankfull shelf disappeared, so the new low bank height increased to 1.4 feet. Keeping to the method of using fixed bankfull cross-sectional area, the bankfull depth became 1.3 feet in MY2, giving a bank height ratio of 1.1. d. Please include a footnote in either the cross section figures or Table 11 that indicates that bank height ratios (BHR) were calculated using the methods specified in the Industry Technical Work group memorandum. The following footnote was added to tables 11A, 11C, and 11E: “Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built (MY0) cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group consisting of the NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioners in NC (9/2018).” e. The cross sections identified on the pebble count charts appear to be incorrect. The cross-section labels were updated on the pebble count charts. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments regarding any component of this submittal. Thank you for the opportunity to continue to assist the Division of Mitigation Services with this important project. Sincerely, AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC Kenan Jernigan Attachments: 1 hard copy Final MY2 (2019) Mud Lick Creek Annual Monitoring Report 1 CD containing digital support files 2019 MY2 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Executive Summary page i Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482) PROJECT SUMMARY The North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) has established the Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (Site) located within the Cape Fear River Basin Cataloging Unit (CU) 03030003 in the Upper Rocky River local watershed planning (LWP) area and 14-digit HUC 03030003070010. The Site was identified as a priority mitigation project in the Detailed Assessment and Targeting of Management Report (Tetra Tech 2005). The main stressors to aquatic resources identified during the watershed assessments described in the LWP documents include the following. • Nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorous) loading from farming; • Sediment loading from overland runoff, disturbed surfaces, and streambank erosion; • Cattle access to streams increasing bank erosion and fecal coliform contamination; and • Insufficient bank vegetation. The project will contribute to meeting management recommendations to offset these stressors as described above for the LWP area by accomplishing the following primary goals. • Control and reduce nutrient sources from the Site; • Reduce sediment loads from disturbed areas on the Site and from eroding stream banks; • Increased aeration of flows within the project extent promoting increases in dissolved oxygen concentrations; • Reduce sources of fecal coliform pollution; • Improve instream habitat; • Reduce thermal loadings; • Reconnect channels with floodplains and raise local water table; and • Restore riparian habitat. These goals will be accomplished through the following objectives: • Restore riparian vegetation on the Site and thereby reduce sediment loads to streams from stream banks and existing pastures, increase on-Site retention of sediment and nutrients, create riparian habitat, and provide shade for streams to reduce thermal loadings; • Stabilize eroding streambanks to reduce sediment inputs; • Install fencing around the perimeter of the conservation easement to eliminate livestock access to streams, thereby reducing sediment, nutrient, and fecal coliform inputs; • Plant restored and stabilized streambanks with native species to improve stability and habitat; • Install instream structures to improve stability, create habitat, and help aerate stream flows; • Raise streambeds to reconnect restored channels to floodplains and raise local water tables; and • Restore streams and vegetation so the Site looks natural and aesthetically pleasing. Stream Success Criteria: The stream restoration performance criteria for the Site will follow approved performance criteria presented in the 2015 Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan as described below. Stream Dimension: Riffle cross-sections on the restoration reaches and enhancement II reaches, where banks were re-graded (three reaches of Mud Lick Creek), should be stable and should show little change in bankfull area, maximum depth, and width-to-depth ratio. Bank-height-ratios shall not exceed 1.2 and entrenchment ratios shall be at least 2.2 for restored channels to be considered stable. All riffle cross- sections should fall within the parameters defined for channels of the appropriate stream type. If any changes do occur, these changes will be evaluated to assess whether the stream channel is showing signs of instability. Indicators of instability include a vertically incising thalweg or eroding channel banks. Changes in the channel that indicate a movement toward stability or enhanced habitat include a decrease in 2019 MY2 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Executive Summary page ii Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482) the width-to-depth ratio in meandering channels or an increase in pool depth. Remedial action would not be taken if channel changes indicate a movement toward stability. Stream Pattern and Profile: The as-built survey will include a longitudinal profile for the baseline monitoring report. Longitudinal profile surveys will not be conducted during the seven-year monitoring period unless other indicators during the annual monitoring indicate a trend toward vertical and lateral instability. Substrate: Substrate materials in the restoration reaches should indicate a progression towards or the maintenance of coarser materials in the riffle features and smaller particles in the pool features. Hydraulics: Two bankfull flow events, in separate monitoring years, must be documented on the restoration reaches and enhancement II reaches where banks were re-graded (three reaches of Mud Lick Creek) within the seven-year monitoring period. Vegetation Success Criteria: The final vegetative success criteria will be the survival of 210 planted stems per acre in the riparian corridor along restored and enhanced reaches at the end of the required monitoring period (year seven). The interim measure of vegetative success for the Site will be the survival of at least 320 planted stems per acre at the end of the third monitoring year and at least 260 stems per acre at the end of the fifth year of monitoring. If this performance standard is met by year five and stem density is trending towards success (i.e., no less than 260 stems/acre), monitoring of vegetation on the Site may be terminated with written approval by the USACE in consultation with the NC Interagency Review Team. The extent of invasive species coverage will also be monitored and controlled as necessary throughout he required monitoring period (seven years). Photo Documentation: Photographs should illustrate the Site’s vegetation and morphological stability on an annual basis. Cross-section photos should demonstrate no excessive erosion or degradation of the banks. Longitudinal photos should indicate the absence of persistent bars within the channel or vertical incision. Grade control structures should remain stable. Deposition of sediment on the bank side of vane arms is preferable. Maintenance of scour pools on the channel side of vane arms is expected. Visual Assessments: Visual assessments should support performance standards as described above. As per Sections 7.2 and 12.4 of the Mitigation Plan, physio-chemical and biological parameters were included as part of specialized monitoring, depending on the data that could be obtained during the baseline period. Monitoring of these parameters was for investigative purposes only and not tied to mitigation success or credit. The sample size and variability of the pre-construction physio-chemical data was inadequate for the purposes of post-construction comparison and therefore, these will not be monitored moving forward. However, fish and macrobenthos will be monitored at the stations indicated in the asset and monitoring features map (Figure 2, Appendix B). Site Background: The Site is located in northwestern Chatham County, north of Siler City and northwest of Silk Hope (Figure 1, Appendix B). The Site is located within United States Geological Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Unit and Targeted Local Watershed 03030003070010 (North Carolina Division of Water Resources Subbasin 03-06-12) of the Cape Fear River Basin. Prior to construction, the Site was used for agricultural livestock production. The proposed project will improve water quality as well as provide numerous ecological benefits within the Cape Fear River Basin. The project will help meet management recommendations of the Upper Rocky River Local Watershed Plan by restoring a vegetated riparian buffer zone, stabilizing eroding stream banks, and removing livestock from streams and riparian zones. These activities will result in reduced nutrient, sediment, and fecal coliform inputs; improved aquatic and riparian habitat, and other ecological benefits. 2019 MY2 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Executive Summary page iii Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482) Mitigation Components: Project mitigation efforts will generate 2832 Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs) as the result of the following (Table 1, Appendix A & Figure 2, Appendix B). • Restoration of 1215 linear feet of Site streams • Enhancement (Level II) of 2426 linear feet of Site streams Site design was completed in June 2015. Site construction occurred May 24–August 25, 2017 (final walkthrough) and the Site was planted in February 2018. Completed project activities, reporting history, completion dates, project contacts, and project attributes are summarized in Tables 1-4 (Appendix A). The assets and credits in the report and shown in Table 1 are based upon approved as-built numbers as approved by the IRT on 11/1/2018. 2019 MY2 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Table of Contents page i Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482) TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 METHODS ....................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................. 3 APPENDICES Appendix A. Background Tables Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Units Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History Table 3. Project Contacts Table Table 4. Project Attributes Table Appendix B. Visual Assessment Data Figure 1. Vicinity Map Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View Tables 5A-5C. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Vegetation Plot Photographs Warranty Plot Photographs Appendix C. Vegetation Data Table 7. Planted Woody Vegetation Table 8. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species Appendix D. Stream Geomorphology Data Tables 10a-10c. Baseline Stream Data Summary Tables 11a-11f. Monitoring Data-Dimensional Data Summary Cross-section Plots Substrate Plots Appendix E. Hydrology Data Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events Appendix F. Warranty Replant Information 2019 MY2 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Page 1 Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482) 1.0 METHODS Monitoring of restoration efforts will be performed for seven years, or until success criteria are fulfilled. Monitoring is proposed for the stream channel and vegetation. In general, the restoration success criteria, and required remediation actions, are based on the Stream Mitigation Guidelines (USACE et al. 2003). Monitoring features are summarized in the following table and described below; monitoring features are depicted on Figure 2 (Appendix B). Monitoring Summary Parameter Monitoring Feature Quantity Frequency Streams Dimension Cross-sections 7 riffles & 3 pools annually Substrate Pebble counts 3 riffles annually Hydrology Crest gauges 3 annually Vegetation Vegetation Plots 12 annually Warranty Plots 10 MY1 Visual assessments Entire Site biannually Exotic & nuisance species Entire Site annually Project boundary Entire Site annually Reference photographs 22 annually Supplemental Monitoring Biological Macrobenthos 5 sites (Preconstruction only) 3 sites (MY3, MY5, & MY7) Fish 3 sites (Preconstruction only) 2 sites (MY4 & MY7) Streams The restored stream reaches are proposed to be monitored for geometric activity as follows. • 7 permanent riffle cross-sections • 3 permanent pool cross-sections • 3 riffle pebble count samples for substrate analysis • 3 stream crest gauges The data will be presented in graphic and tabular format. Data to be presented will include 1) cross- sectional area, 2) bankfull width, 3) average depth, 4) maximum depth, and 5) width-to-depth ratio. Substrate analysis will be evaluated through pebble counts at three riffle cross-sections and data presented as a D50 for stream classification and tracking purposes. The stream will subsequently be classified according to stream geometry and substrate (Rosgen 1996). Significant changes in channel morphology including bank-height-ratios and entrenchment ratios will be tracked and reported by comparing data to asbuilt measurements in addition to each successive monitoring year. Annual photographs will include 22 fixed station photographs (12 vegetation plots and 10 cross-sections) (Appendix B). In addition, the Site contains three stream crest gauges to assist with documentation of bankfull events. Two bankfull events were documented during monitoring year 2 (2019), making a total of 3 bankfull events over the monitoring period to date (Table 12, Appendix E). Three stream areas of concern were observed during monitoring year 2 (2019). Stream Area of Concern #1 was previously documented during year 1 (2018) along Mud Lick Creek R2 where approximately 50 2019 MY2 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Page 2 Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482) feet of the right bank and 20 feet of the left bank had eroded to the point of bank sloughing. This area remains unchanged from year 1 (2018). Two additional areas of instability were documented during a site visit early in year 2 (2019). Area of Concern #2 was confined to approximately ten feet of an outer bend in the lower portion of Mud Lick Creek R1 that has sloughed, this area remains relatively unchanged from the previous site visit. Area of Concern #3 consists of scour and sloughing along an outer bend immediately downstream of cross-section 1. These areas of instability can be attributed to the impacts from storm events during the fall of 2018 (year 1). Stream areas of concern were only observed within enhancement II stream reaches; stream reaches generating restoration credit were stable throughout and functioning as designed. These areas are depicted on Figure 2 in Appendix B. Vegetation Restoration monitoring procedures for vegetation will monitor plant survival and species diversity. Planting occurred within the entire Site. After planting of the area was completed, 12 vegetation plots were installed and monitored at the Site; annual results can be found in Appendix C. Annual measurements of vegetation will consist of the following. • 10 plant warranty inspection plots (only MY1) • 12 CVS vegetation plots A photographic record of plant growth should be included in each annual monitoring report; baseline photographs are included in Appendix B. During the first year, vegetation will receive a cursory, visual evaluation on a periodic basis to ascertain the degree of overtopping of planted elements by nuisance species. Subsequently, quantitative sampling of vegetation will be performed as outlined in the CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.2 (Lee et al. 2008) in late fall/early winter of the first monitoring year and annually toward the end of the growing for the remainder of the monitoring period until vegetation success criteria are achieved. Locations of exotic and nuisance vegetation will be documented and depicted on Figure 2 (Appendix B). Measurements of temporary warranty plots and permanent CVS plots in Year 1 (2018) resulted in a total of 210 living planted stems in 22 plots (392 planted living stems per acre). Therefore, DMS sent a letter to the planting contractor invoking the warranty on survivability of planted stems. Approximately 700 bare roots were planted in five targeted areas within the site during January 2019. A map of these area as well as a plant list are provided in Appendix F. Year 2 (2019) stem count measurements for 12 permanent CVS plots indicate the planted stem density across the Site is 340 planted stems per acre. Ten individual CVS plots met success criteria based on planted stems alone (Table 8, Appendix C). Several areas remain below success criteria primarily due to herbaceous competition. Additionally, several populations of dense Chinese pivet (Ligustrum sinense) and tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima) were observed scattered throughout the Site. These are depicted on Figure 2 (Appendix B). Project Boundaries & Visual Assessments Locations of any fence damage, vegetation damage, boundary encroachments, etc. will be documented and included on mapping. Visual assessments will be performed along all streams on a bi-annual basis during the seven-year monitoring period. Problem areas will be noted such as channel instability (i.e. lateral and/or vertical instability, in-stream structure failure/instability and/or piping, headcuts), vegetated buffer health (i.e. low 2019 MY2 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Page 3 Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482) stem density, vegetation mortality, invasive species or encroachment), beaver activity, or livestock access. Areas of concern will be mapped and photographed accompanied by a written description in the annual report. Problem areas will be re-evaluated during each subsequent visual assessment. Supplementary Monitoring Supplemental monitoring will include biological monitoring in the Spring as follows. • 3 benthos sampling sites (MY3, MY5, & MY7) • 2 fish sampling sites (MY4 & MY7) These parameters are being monitored for analytical purposes and are not tied to mitigation success and associated credit releases. The primary criteria for indication of improvement for the benthos and fish will be an increase of at least one bioclassification between the pre-con assessment and the post-con monitoring. Richness and EPT metrics will be analyzed as well. 2.0 REFERENCES Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation. Version 4.2. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Ecosystem Enhancement Program. Raleigh, North Carolina. North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) 2015. Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan. Rosgen D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, Colorado. Tetra Tech, 2005. Upper Rocky River Local Watershed Plan Preliminary Findings Report. Prepared for the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program. United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. State of North Carolina. 2019 MY2 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Appendices Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482) Appendix A. Background Tables Table 1. Project Mitigation Components Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History Table 3. Project Contacts Table Table 4. Project Attributes Table Table 1.  Mud Lick Creek (ID‐93482)  ‐ Mitigation Assets and Components**Project Wetland ExistingStationingMitigationAs-BuiltRestoration Approach Mitigation MitigationComponent Position and Footage PlanFootageLevel Priority Ratio (X:1) Credits(reach ID, etc.) HydroType Footage*Level Notes/CommentsNorth Branch R1 318100+10 - 103+28327318EII - 1.5 212.000Planting, fencingNorth Branch R2 522103+28 - 108+66520538R PI 1 538.000North Branch R3 351108+66 - 111+51303265R P2 1 265.00020 LF of restoration was removed from North Branch Reach 2 in order to account for an easement breakEast Branch R1 165200+05 - 201+69168164EII - 1.5 109.333Planting, fencingEast Branch R2315 201+69 - 205+81409412R P2 1 412.000Mud Lick Creek R1525 300+72 - 306+23623551EII - 1.5 367.333Planting, fencing, bank repairsMud Lick Creek R2718 306+23 - 313+14693660EII - 1.5 440.000Planting, fencing, bank repairs; 31 LF of enhancement II was removed from Mud Lick Creek Reach 2 in order to account for an easement breakMud Lick Creek R3 733313+14 - 320+47748733EII - 1.5 488.667Planting, fencing, bank repairsLength and Area Summations by Mitigation CategoryOverall Assets SummaryStreamNon-riparian WetlandOverall(linear feet) (acres)CreditsRiverine Non-Riverine2,832.333Restoration 1215EnhancementEnhancement IEnhancement II 2426CreationPreservationHigh Quality PresStream*Reach start and end stationing may differ slightly from the mitigation plan due to removal of stream lengths that are outside the conservation easement. The upstream ends of Mud Lick Creek, North Branch, and East Branch experienced footage reductions of 72’, 10’, and 5’ respectively, while the downstream end of Mud Lick Creek experienced a footage reduction of 17’.Restoration LevelRiparian Wetland(acres)Asset Category**The assets and credits in the report and shown in Table 1 are based upon approved as-built numbers as approved by the IRT on 11/1/2018 2019 MY2 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Appendices Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482) Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History Mud Lick Creek (ID-93482) Elapsed Time Since Grading Complete: 2 years 2 months Elapsed Time Since Planting Complete: 1 year 8 months Number of Reporting Years: 2 Activity or Deliverable Data Collection Complete Completion or Delivery Project Institution -- February 13, 2013 Mitigation Plan -- December 2015 404 Permit Date -- March 25, 2016 Final Design – Construction Plans -- June 2015 Construction -- August 25, 2017 Bare Root; Containerized; and B&B Plantings for the Entire Project Site February 2018 February 2018 Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0 Monitoring Baseline) July 2018 September 2018 Monitoring Year 1 (2018) Document December 2018 December 2018 Monitoring Year 2 (2019) Document September 2019 January 2020 Table 3. Project Contact Table Mud Lick Creek (ID-93482) Designer Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (License No. F-0831) 312 West Millbrook Rd, Suite 225 Raleigh, NC 27609 Angela N. Allen, PE (919) 851-9986 Construction Plans and Sediment and Erosion Control Plans Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (License No. F-0831) 312 West Millbrook Rd, Suite 225 Raleigh, NC 27609 Angela N. Allen, PE (919) 851-9986 Construction Contractor North State Environmental, Inc. 2889 Lowery Street Winston Salem, NC 27101 Michael Anderson (336) 725-2010 Planting Contractor North State Environmental, Inc. 2889 Lowery Street Winston Salem, NC 27101 Stephen Joyce (336) 725-2010 As-built Surveyors Allied Associates, PA 4720 Kester Mill Road Winston Salem, NC 27103 David Alley (336) 765-2377 Baseline Data Collection Axiom Environmental, Inc. 218 Snow Avenue Raleigh, NC 27603 Grant Lewis (919) 215-1693 2019 MY2 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Appendices Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482) Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes Mud Lick Creek (ID-93482) Project Information Project name Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site Project county Chatham County, North Carolina Project area (Acres) 11.2 Project coordinates (lat/long) 35.8128°N, 79.4350°W Planted Acres 9.6 Project Watershed Summary Information Physiographic region Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province Project river basin Cape Fear River Basin USGS hydrologic unit (8 digit/14- digit) 03030003/03030003070010 NCDWR Sub-basin 03-06-12 Project drainage area (mi2) 3.64 % Drainage area impervious < 1% CGIA land use classification Developed, Forested/Scrubland, Agriculture/Managed Herb., Open Water Reach Summary Information Parameters Mud Lick Creek – R1 Mud Lick Creek – R2 Mud Lick Creek – R3 North Branch – R1 North Branch – R2 East Branch Restored length (linear feet) 551 660 733 856 265 576 Valley confinement Slightly confined - unconfined Drainage area (acres/mi2) 1747/2.73 2170/3.39 2330/3.64 236.8/0.37 416/0.65 172.8/0.27 Perennial (P), Intermittent (I) P P P P P P NCDWR water quality classification WS-III, CA Stream Classification (existing) E4 C4 E4 E4 B4c B4c Stream Classification (proposed) E4 C4 E4 C4 C4 C4 Evolutionary trend (Simon & Hupp) IV/V IV/V IV/V IV IV IV FEMA classification AE AE AE AE AE AE Regulatory Considerations Regulation Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Documentation Waters of the US – Section 404 Yes Yes SAW-2014-00736 Waters of the US – Section 401 Yes Yes SAW-2014-00736 Endangered Species Act Yes Yes No Effect – CE Document Historic Preservation Act No NA CE Document Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA/CAMA) No NA NA FEMA Floodplain Compliance Yes Yes Chatham County Floodplain Development Permit #14-001 Essential Fisheries Habitat No NA NA 2019 MY2 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Appendices Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482) Appendix B Visual Assessment Data Figure 1. Site Location Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View Tables 5A-5C. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Vegetation Plot Photographs SITE LOCATIONMUD LICK CREEK MITIGATION SITE DMS PROJECT NUMBER 93482Chatham County, North Carolina Dwn. by. Date: Project: FIGURE1CLF July 2018 12-004.22 Axiom Environmental218 Snow AvenueRaleigh, NC 27603(919) 215-1693 ³ 0 2 41Miles Site Location35.8128, -79.4350 Directions from Silk Hope:-Take Silk Hope-Liberty Road west for 4.1 miles-Turn right on Siler City-Snow Camp Road; travel 0.2 mile-The Site/farm entrance is located on the left/east side of the road £¤64 £¤421 Siler City-Snow Camp RoadSilk Hope-Liberty Road Siler City ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ 1 1 1 + 0 0 311+00 110+00 100+00 319+00318+00317+00316+003 1 5 + 0 0 314+003 1 3 +0 032 0 + 0 0 3 1 0 + 0 0 309+00 308+00307+00 3 0 6 + 0 0302+00301+00 3 0 0 +0 0 204+002 0 2 +0 0 201+00200+00106+00109+00108+00 102+00 105+00 104+00 103+00 111+51.55 320+64.01 312+00 3 0 5 + 0 0304+00303+00 205+00203+00101+00 107+00 2 0 5 + 7 7.2 3 XS 2R XS 7RXS 3P X S 1 0 R XS-9rX S 6 R XS 1RXS-8pXS 5P XS 4RT-2 T-9T-1 T-8 T-7 T-6 T-5 T-4 T-3 T-1 0 5 4 3 2 1 9 3 4 6 5 7 1 8 2 11 10 12 So urc e: Es ri, DigitalGlo be, GeoEy e, Ea rthstar Geograph ic s, C NES/A irbus DS , USDA, USGS, Ae roGRID, IGN, a nd the GIS Us er Commun ity FIGURE Dra wn b y: Da te: Sca le : Pro jec t N o.: PHP, CLF Oct 2019 12-004.22 Tit le: Pro jec t: Pre pa red fo r: DMS P roject Number 93482Chatham County, NC MUD LICK CRE EK MITIGATIONSITE CURRE NT CONDITIONSPLANVIEW 2 ³ 1:1,500 0 250 500125Feet No rth Ca rol inaDepartment ofEnvironmentalQuality Div isio n o fMitigation S erv ice s Legend Conservation Easement Stream Restoration Stream Enhancement (Level I I) Stationing Structures Graded Sections of Mud Li ck Cr eek Cross-section Locat ions Crest Gauge CVS Plots Meeting Success Crit eria during year 2 (2019) CVS Plots Not Meeting Success Cr iteri a dur ing year 2 (2019) ^_CVS Plot Origins ^_Plant Warranty Transect Ori gi n ^_Fish & Benthic Sites 2019 Supplemental Planting Area Dense Tree of Heaven - 0.09 ac Dense Chinese Privet - 0.10 ac Stream Area of Concer n Siler City-Snow Camp RoadSilk H o p e-Lib erty R o a d Mud Lick Cre ek R 3 MudLickCreekR1 N orthB ran ch R 3Stream Area ofConcern #1MudLickCreekR2 NorthBranchR2EastBranchR2 NorthBranchR1EastBranchR1 Stream Area of Conce rn #2 Stream Area ofConcern #3 Table 5A Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Reach ID North Branch R-2 Assessed Length 538 1. Bank 1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion 0 0 100%0 0 100% 2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 0 100%0 0 100% 3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100%0 0 100% 0 0 100%0 0 100% 2. Engineered Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.8 8 100% 2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 8 8 100% 2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.8 8 100% 3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document) 8 8 100% 4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow.8 8 100% Number of Unstable Segments Adjusted % for Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Amount of Unstable Footage Totals % Stable, Performing as Intended Number with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Footage with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As-built Table 5B Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Reach ID North Branch R-3 Assessed Length 265 1. Bank 1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion 0 0 100%0 0 100% 2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 0 100%0 0 100% 3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100%0 0 100% 0 0 100%0 0 100% 2. Engineered Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.3 3 100% 2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 3 3 100% 2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.3 3 100% 3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document) 3 3 100% 4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow.3 3 100% Totals Amount of Unstable Footage % Stable, Performing as Intended Number with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Footage with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Adjusted % for Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As-built Number of Unstable Segments Table 5C Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Reach ID East Branch R-2 Assessed Length 412 1. Bank 1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion 0 0 100%0 0 100% 2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 0 100%0 0 100% 3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100%0 0 100% 0 0 100%0 0 100% 2. Engineered Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.5 5 100% 2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 5 5 100% 2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.5 5 100% 3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document) 5 5 100% 4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow.5 5 100% Totals Amount of Unstable Footage % Stable, Performing as Intended Number with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Footage with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Adjusted % for Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As-built Number of Unstable Segments Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment Planted Acreage 9.6 1. Bare Areas None 0.1 acres None 0 0.00 0.0% 2. Low Stem Density Areas None 0.1 acres None 0 0.00 0.0% 0 0.00 0.0% 3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor None 0.25 acres None 0 0.00 0.0% 0 0.00 0.0% Easement Acreage 11.2 4. Invasive Areas of Concern Several small areas of dense Chinese privet and dense tree of heaven 200 SF green and yellow polygons 12 0.19 1.7% 5. Easement Encroachment Areas None none None 0 0.00 0.0% CCPV Depiction Number of Polygons Combined Acreage % of Easement AcreageVegetation Category Definitions Mapping Threshold % of Planted Acreage Total Cumulative Total Vegetation Category Definitions Number of Polygons Mapping Threshold CCPV Depiction Combined Acreage 2019 MY2 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Appendices Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482) Mud Lick Creek Stream Restoration Site MY-02 Vegetation Monitoring Photographs Taken September 2019 Plot 1 Plot 2 Plot 3 Plot 5 Plot 6 Plot 4 Plot 7 Plot 8 2019 MY2 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Appendices Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482) Mud Lick Creek Stream Restoration Site MY-02 Vegetation Monitoring Photographs Taken September 2019 Plot 10 Plot 9 Plot 11 Plot 12 2019 MY2 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Appendices Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482) Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data Table 7. Planted Woody Vegetation Table 8. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species 2019 MY2 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Appendices Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482) Table 7. Planted Woody Vegetation Mud Lick Creek Restoration Project (#93482) Species Quantity Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) 300 Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) 400 Eastern Redbud (Cercis canadensis) 400 Cottonwood (Populus deltoides) 300 River birch (Betula nigra) 300 Hackberry (Celtis occidentalis) 300 Black Gum (Nyssa sylvatica) 300 American Elm (Ulmus americana) 300 Eastern Hophornbeam (Ostrya virginica) 300 Elderberry (Sambucus spp.) 300 Black Locust (Robinia psuedoaccia) 300 Silky Dogwood (Cornus ammomum) 300 Witch Hazel (Hamamelis virginica) 550 Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) 300 Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana) 300 Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana) 400 Swamp Tupelo (Nyssa biflora) 100 Swamp Chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii) 100 Water oak (Quercus nigra) 100 Tulip Poplar (Liridendron tulipifera) 300 TOTAL 5950 Table 8. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species EEP Project Code 93482. Project Name: Mud Lick Creek PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T Acer negundo boxelder Tree 1 1 2 Acer rubrum red maple Tree Alnus alder Shrub Baccharis halimifolia eastern baccharis Shrub 1 Betula nigra river birch Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 5 Carya hickory Tree Celtis laevigata sugarberry Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 Celtis occidentalis common hackberry Tree Cephalanthus occidentalis common buttonbush Shrub 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cercis canadensis eastern redbud Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree 1 1 1 Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 7 7 Juglans nigra black walnut Tree 2 Liquidambar styraciflua sweetgum Tree 9 3 18 23 Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 4 Nyssa tupelo Tree Nyssa biflora swamp tupelo Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ostrya virginiana hophornbeam Tree 2 2 2 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree 1 1 1 4 4 4 1 1 1 4 4 4 Populus deltoides eastern cottonwood Tree 1 1 1 Quercus oak Tree Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree 3 3 3 Quercus nigra water oak Tree 1 1 1 Robinia pseudoacacia black locust Tree Ulmus americana American elm Tree 3 3 3 2 2 2 Ulmus rubra slippery elm Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 Unknown Shrub or Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 7 7 9 9 9 8 8 9 10 10 10 8 8 10 6 6 16 8 8 11 9 9 30 10 10 36 6 6 6 6 6 6 4 4 5 8 8 8 2 2 3 5 5 7 4 4 5 5 5 8 6 6 7 283.3 283.3 283.3 364.2 364.2 364.2 323.7 323.7 364.2 404.7 404.7 404.7 323.7 323.7 404.7 242.8 242.8 647.5 323.7 323.7 445.2 364.2 364.2 1214 404.7 404.7 1457 Color for Density PnoLS = Planted excluding livestakes Exceeds requirements by 10%P-all = Planting including livestakes Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%T includes natural recruits Fails to meet requirements by more than 10% Current Plot Data (MY2 2019) 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02size (ACRES) Species count Stems per ACRE 1 0.02 0.02 93482-01-0007 93482-01-0008 93482-01-000993482-01-0003 93482-01-0004 Stem count size (ares)1 11 Scientific Name Common Name Species Type 93482-01-0001 93482-01-0002 93482-01-0005 93482-01-0006 Table 8. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species (continued) EEP Project Code 93482. Project Name: Mud Lick Creek PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T Acer negundo boxelder Tree 4 1 1 3 1 1 10 Acer rubrum red maple Tree 2 10 Alnus alder Shrub 3 Baccharis halimifolia eastern baccharis Shrub 1 2 Betula nigra river birch Tree 8 8 8 6 6 6 4 4 4 Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam Tree 1 1 1 2 2 2 11 11 11 12 12 12 15 15 15 Carya hickory Tree 1 Celtis laevigata sugarberry Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 Celtis occidentalis common hackberry Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Cephalanthus occidentalis common buttonbush Shrub 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 Cercis canadensis eastern redbud Tree 3 3 3 8 8 8 6 6 6 Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub 1 1 1 2 2 2 9 9 9 9 9 9 8 8 8 Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 5 4 4 4 5 5 5 Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree 1 1 1 11 11 11 14 14 15 12 12 13 Juglans nigra black walnut Tree 2 4 1 5 Liquidambar styraciflua sweetgum Tree 20 13 12 98 19 10 Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree 4 4 7 Nyssa tupelo Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 Nyssa biflora swamp tupelo Tree 1 1 1 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 Ostrya virginiana hophornbeam Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree 1 1 3 11 11 13 7 7 7 7 7 7 Populus deltoides eastern cottonwood Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 Quercus oak Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 Quercus nigra water oak Tree 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 Robinia pseudoacacia black locust Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ulmus americana American elm Tree 5 5 5 4 4 5 Ulmus rubra slippery elm Tree 2 2 2 Unknown Shrub or Tree 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 8 8 30 10 10 24 8 8 22 101 101 214 97 97 123 90 90 129 6 6 7 10 10 12 6 6 8 22 22 26 19 19 22 18 18 23 323.7 323.7 1214 404.7 404.7 971.2 323.7 323.7 890.3 340.6 340.6 721.7 327.1 327.1 414.8 303.5 303.5 435 Color for Density PnoLS = Planted excluding livestakes Exceeds requirements by 10%P-all = Planting including livestakes Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%T includes natural recruits Fails to meet requirements by more than 10% Current Plot Data (MY2 2019) 0.300.02 1 0.02 12 0.30 12 0.300.02size (ACRES) Annual Means MY2 (2019)MY1 (2018)MY0 (2018) 12 93482-01-0010 93482-01-0011 93482-01-0012 1 1 Stem count size (ares) Species count Stems per ACRE Scientific Name Common Name Species Type 2019 MY2 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Appendices Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482) Appendix D. Stream Geomorphology Data Tables 10a-10c. Baseline Stream Data Summary Tables 11a-11f. Monitoring Data-Dimensional Data Summary Cross-section Plots Substrate Plots Parameter Gauge Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL Eq.Min Mean Med Max SD Min Mean Med Max SD Min Max Med Min Mean Med Max SD n BF Width (ft)18.2 22.0 24.6 5.3 10.8 12.3 18.3 19.8 21 3 Floodprone Width (ft)250.0 306.0 378.0 14 60 125 100 100 100 3 BF Mean Depth (ft)1.9 2.1 2.3 0.8 1.0 1.8 1.6 2.0 2.7 3 BF Max Depth (ft)3.0 4.0 4.2 1.0 1.5 2.6 3.6 3.7 3.8 3 BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)41.3 46.3 47.5 5.4 10.6 19.7 33.0 40.4 49.8 3 Width/Depth Ratio 8.0 10.5 12.8 5.2 8.6 14.4 6.8 9.9 13.1 3 Entrenchment Ratio 12.4 13.7 17.2 1.7 4.3 >10.2 4.8 5.1 5.5 3 Bank Height Ratio 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.3 3 Riffle length (ft) Riffle slope (ft/ft)0.0040 0.0188 0.0704 Pool length (ft) Pool Max depth (ft)3.7 4.4 5.2 1.2 1.8 3.3 Pool spacing (ft)9.0 46.0 73.0 Channel Beltwidth (ft)26.1 52.9 69.9 10 41 102 Radius of Curvature (ft)9.9 24.8 58.8 11 21 85 Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)0.5 1.1 2.39 1.3 2 9.1 Meander Wavelength (ft)59.9 159.6 244.4 --- Meander Width ratio 1.4 2.2 3.8 1.6 4.4 8.9 Transport parameters Reach Shear Stress (competency) lbs/ft2 Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2 Rosgen Classification Bankfull Velocity (fps) Bankfull Discharge (cfs) Valley Length (ft) Channel Thalweg Length (ft) Sinuosity Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) BF slope (ft/ft) Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres) % of Reach with Eroding Banks Channel Stability or Habitat Metric Biological or Other 1.20 - 1.37 1.0 - 2.3 3.0 - 3.4 2.2 - 5.6 123.9 - 157.42 20 -97 Monitoring Baseline (Mud Lick Creek) Additional Reach Parameters E/C4 E/C4 E/C-type Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project Number 93482 Profile Pattern Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Mud Lick Creek) Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition (Mud Lick Creek)Reference Reach(es) Data Design (Mud Lick Creek) Parameter Gauge Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL Eq.Min Mean Med Max SD Min Mean Med Max SD Min Max Med Min Mean Med Max SD n BF Width (ft)8.3 10.4 5.3 10.8 12.3 13.8 14.0 14.6 16.2 17.7 2 Floodprone Width (ft)33.3 80.0 14 60 125 30 70 100 100 100 2 BF Mean Depth (ft)0.7 1.5 0.8 1.0 1.8 1.0 1.2 0.8 0.9 1.0 2 BF Max Depth (ft)1.5 2.3 1.0 1.5 2.6 1.3 2.0 1.8 1.8 1.8 2 BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)7.7 12.7 5.4 10.6 19.7 14.4 16.3 14.2 14.4 14.5 2 Width/Depth Ratio 5.4 14.0 5.2 8.6 14.4 12.0 13.0 14.6 18.4 22.1 2 Entrenchment Ratio 1.9 10.1 1.7 4.3 >10.2 2.2 5.0 5.6 6.2 6.8 2 Bank Height Ratio 1.7 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2 Riffle length (ft) Riffle slope (ft/ft)0.0040 0.0188 0.0704 0.0060 0.0340 Pool length (ft) Pool Max depth (ft)2.1 2.7 1.2 1.8 3.3 1.3 4.7 Pool spacing (ft)9.0 46.0 73.0 19.0 92.0 Channel Beltwidth (ft)11 26 38.5 10 41 102 41 125 Radius of Curvature (ft)6.1 17 37 11 21 85 25 42 Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)0.73 1.6 4.46 1.3 2 9.1 1.8 3 Meander Wavelength (ft)37.9 64.1 100.6 ---41 168 Meander Width ratio 1.1 2.8 4.6 1.6 4.4 8.9 3 15 Transport parameters Reach Shear Stress (competency) lbs/ft2 Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2 Rosgen Classification Bankfull Velocity (fps) Bankfull Discharge (cfs) Valley Length (ft) Channel Thalweg Length (ft) Sinuosity Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) BF slope (ft/ft) Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres) % of Reach with Eroding Banks Channel Stability or Habitat Metric Biological or Other 1.22 - 1.32 1.0 - 2.3 1.2 - 1.3 3.3 - 3.5 2.2 - 5.6 2.4 - 4.3 25.41 - 44.45 20 -97 34.6 - 70.1 Additional Reach Parameters E5/B5c E/C4 C4 C-type Profile Pattern Table 10b. Baseline Stream Data Summary (North Branch) Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project Number 93482 Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition (North Branch)Reference Reach(es) Data Design (North Branch)Monitoring Baseline (North Branch) Parameter Gauge Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL Eq.Min Mean Med Max SD Min Mean Med Max SD Min Max Med Min Mean Med Max SD n BF Width (ft)4.3 5.3 10.8 12.3 11.0 8.9 12.8 16.6 2 Floodprone Width (ft)23.0 14 60 125 24 55 100 100 100 2 BF Mean Depth (ft)1.1 0.8 1.0 1.8 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.8 2 BF Max Depth (ft)1.4 1.0 1.5 2.6 0.9 1.5 1.2 1.4 1.5 2 BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)4.8 5.4 10.6 19.7 9.7 6.7 8.7 10.6 2 Width/Depth Ratio 3.9 5.2 8.6 14.4 12.4 11.1 19.4 27.7 2 Entrenchment Ratio 2.1 1.7 4.3 >10.2 2.2 5.0 6.0 8.6 11.2 2 Bank Height Ratio 1.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2 Riffle length (ft) Riffle slope (ft/ft)0.0040 0.0188 0.0704 0.0156 0.0442 Pool length (ft) Pool Max depth (ft)1.6 1.2 1.8 3.3 1.0 3.5 Pool spacing (ft)9.0 46.0 73.0 15.0 73.0 Channel Beltwidth (ft) --10 41 102 22 98 Radius of Curvature (ft) --11 21 85 20 30 Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) --1.3 2 9.1 1.8 3 Meander Wavelength (ft) -----33 132 Meander Width ratio --1.6 4.4 8.9 3 12 Transport parameters Reach Shear Stress (competency) lbs/ft2 Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2 Rosgen Classification Bankfull Velocity (fps) Bankfull Discharge (cfs) Valley Length (ft) Channel Thalweg Length (ft) Sinuosity Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) BF slope (ft/ft) Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres) % of Reach with Eroding Banks Channel Stability or Habitat Metric Biological or Other Table 10c. Baseline Stream Data Summary (East Branch) Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project Number 93482 Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition (East Branch)Reference Reach(es) Data Design (East Branch)Monitoring Baseline (East Branch) Profile Pattern Additional Reach Parameters B4c E/C4 C4 C-type 4.2 2.2 - 5.6 3.3 20.2 20 -97 32 1 1.0 - 2.3 1.20 -1.30 Dimension MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY5+MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY5+MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY5+ BF Width (ft)18.3 18.8 18.6 21.0 22.0 14.9 19.8 19.6 18.9 Floodprone Width (ft) (approx)100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 BF Mean Depth (ft)2.7 2.6 2.7 1.6 1.5 2.2 2.0 2.1 2.1 BF Max Depth (ft)3.8 3.8 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.3 3.6 3.4 3.5 Low Bank Height 5.0 5.1 5.0 3.7 3.6 3.9 3.6 3.4 3.7 BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)49.8 49.8 49.8 33.0 33.0 33.0 40.4 40.4 40.4 Area at Low Bank (ft2)49.8 NA 75.8 33.0 NA 42.6 40.4 NA 43.2 Width/Depth Ratio 6.7 7.1 6.9 13.4 14.7 6.7 9.7 9.5 8.8 Entrenchment Ratio 5.5 5.3 NA**4.8 4.5 NA**5.1 5.1 NA** Bank Height Ratio*1.3 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.1 d50 (mm)9.9 4.4 4.3 9.9 4.4 4.3 9.9 4.4 4.3 *Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built (MY0) cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group consisting of the NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioners in NC (9/2018). ** Based on the technical industry work group consisting of the NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioners in NC (9/2018), entrenchment ratio is no longer reported for success criteria. Parameter Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n BF Width (ft)18.3 19.8 21 3 18.8 19.6 22 3 14.9 18.6 18.9 3 Floodprone Width (ft)100 100 100 3 100 100.0 100 3 100 100 100 3 BF Mean Depth (ft)1.6 2.0 2.7 3 1.5 2.1 2.7 3 2.1 2.2 2.7 3 BF Max Depth (ft)3.6 3.7 3.8 3 3.4 3.6 3.8 3 3.3 3.5 3.8 3 BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)33.0 40.4 49.8 3 33.0 40.4 49.8 3 33.0 40.4 49.8 3 Area at Low Bank (ft2)33.0 40.4 49.8 3 NA NA NA NA 42.6 43.2 75.8 3 Width/Depth Ratio 6.8 9.9 13.1 3 7.0 9.3 14.7 3 6.8 6.9 9.0 3 Entrenchment Ratio 4.8 5.1 5.5 3 4.5 5.1 5.3 3 5.3 5.4 6.7 3 Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.3 3 1.0 1.0 1.3 3 1.1 1.2 1.3 3 Riffle length (ft) Riffle slope (ft/ft) Pool length (ft) Pool Max depth (ft) Pool spacing (ft) Channel Beltwidth (ft) Radius of Curvature (ft) Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) Meander Wavelength (ft) Meander Width ratio Rosgen Classification Channel Thalweg Length (ft) Sinuosity Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) BF slope (ft/ft) Ri%/RU%P%G%/S% SC%/SA%/G%/C%/B%BE% d16/d35/d50/d84/d95 % of Reach with Eroding Banks Channel Stability or Habitat Metric Biological or Other Ce-typeC-type Ce-type MY-5 (Mud Lick Creek) Pattern Additional Reach Parameters Baseline (Mud Lick Creek)MY-1 (Mud Lick Creek)MY-2 (Mud Lick Creek)MY-3 (Mud Lick Creek)MY-4 (Mud Lick Creek) Table 11b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project Number 93482 Riffle Riffle Cross Section 10 (Mud Lick Cr) Riffle Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project Number 93482 Parameter Table 11a. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections) Cross Section 1 (Mud Lick Cr)Cross Section 2 (Mud Lick Cr) Dimension MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY5+MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY5+MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY5+MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY5+ BF Width (ft)14.2 13.7 13.3 17.7 22.7 20.7 14.2 14.6 15.1 14.6 15.1 14.8 Floodprone Width (ft) (approx)NA NA NA 100.0 100.0 100.0 NA NA NA 100.0 100.0 100.0 BF Mean Depth (ft)1.1 1.1 1.2 0.8 0.6 0.7 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 BF Max Depth (ft)2.2 2.1 2.2 1.8 1.9 1.8 2.6 2.6 2.7 1.8 1.8 1.8 Low Bank Height 2.2 2.1 2.3 1.8 1.9 1.8 2.6 2.6 2.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)15.5 15.5 15.5 14.2 14.2 14.2 18.6 18.6 18.6 14.5 14.5 14.5 Area at Low Bank (ft2)15.5 NA 18.0 14.2 NA 14.2 18.6 NA 20.3 14.5 NA 15.0 Width/Depth Ratio NA NA NA 22.1 36.3 30.2 NA NA NA 14.7 15.7 15.1 Entrenchment Ratio NA NA NA 5.6 4.4 NA**NA NA NA 6.8 6.6 NA** Bank Height Ratio*1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 d50 (mm) -- -- --18.8 8.0 8.4 -- -- --18.8 8.0 8.4 *Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built (MY0) cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group consisting of the NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioners in NC (9/2018). ** Based on the technical industry work group consisting of the NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioners in NC (9/2018), entrenchment ratio is no longer reported for success criteria. Parameter Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n BF Width (ft)14.6 16.2 17.7 2 15.1 18.9 22.7 2 14.8 17.8 20.7 2 Floodprone Width (ft)100 100 100 2 100 100.0 100 2 100 100 100 2 BF Mean Depth (ft)0.8 0.9 1.0 2 0.6 0.8 1.0 2 0.7 0.9 1.0 2 BF Max Depth (ft)1.8 1.8 1.8 2 1.8 1.9 1.9 2 1.8 1.8 1.8 2 BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)14.2 14.4 14.5 2 14.2 14.4 14.5 2 14.2 14.4 14.5 2 Area at Low Bank (ft2)14.2 14.4 14.5 2 NA NA NA NA 14.2 14.6 15.0 2 Width/Depth Ratio 14.6 18.4 22.1 2 15.1 26.5 37.8 2 14.8 17.8 20.7 2 Entrenchment Ratio 5.6 6.2 6.8 2 4.4 5.5 6.6 2 4.8 5.8 6.8 2 Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 2 Riffle length (ft) Riffle slope (ft/ft) Pool length (ft) Pool Max depth (ft) Pool spacing (ft) Channel Beltwidth (ft) Radius of Curvature (ft) Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) Meander Wavelength (ft) Meander Width ratio Rosgen Classification Channel Thalweg Length (ft) Sinuosity Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) BF slope (ft/ft) Ri%/RU%P%G%/S% SC%/SA%/G%/C%/B%BE% d16/d35/d50/d84/d95 % of Reach with Eroding Banks Channel Stability or Habitat Metric Biological or Other Table 11c. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections) Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project Number 93482 Parameter Cross Section 3 (North Branch)Cross Section 4 (North Branch)Cross Section 5 (North Branch) Pool Riffle Pool Table 11d. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project Number 93482 Baseline (North Branch)MY-1 (North Branch)MY-2 (North Branch)MY-3 (North Branch)MY-4 (North Branch)MY-5 (North Branch) Profile Pattern Additional Reach Parameters C-type C-type C-type Cross Section 6 (North Branch) Riffle Dimension MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY5+MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY5+MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY5+ BF Width (ft)8.9 11.1 10.2 7.6 10.8 8.2 16.6 21.1 18.6 Floodprone Width (ft) (approx)100.0 100.0 100.0 NA NA NA 100.0 100.0 100.0 BF Mean Depth (ft)0.8 0.6 0.7 1.4 1.0 1.3 0.6 0.5 0.6 BF Max Depth (ft)1.2 1.4 1.3 2.4 1.5 2.1 1.5 1.6 1.5 Low Bank Height 1.2 1.4 1.4 2.4 1.5 2.2 1.5 1.6 1.5 BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)6.7 6.7 6.7 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.6 10.6 10.6 Area at Low Bank (ft2)6.7 NA 7.5 10.5 NA 11.7 10.6 NA 10.7 Width/Depth Ratio 11.8 18.4 15.5 NA NA NA 26.0 42.0 32.6 Entrenchment Ratio 11.2 9.0 NA**NA NA NA 6.0 4.7 NA** Bank Height Ratio*1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 d50 (mm)14.3 3.7 5.4 -- -- --14.3 3.7 5.4 *Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built (MY0) cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group consisting of the NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioners in NC (9/2018). ** Based on the technical industry work group consisting of the NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioners in NC (9/2018), entrenchment ratio is no longer reported for success criteria. Parameter Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n BF Width (ft)8.9 12.8 16.6 2 11.1 16.2 21.2 2 10.2 14.5 18.7 2 Floodprone Width (ft)100 100 100 2 100 100 100 2 100 100 100 2 BF Mean Depth (ft)0.6 0.7 0.8 2 0.5 0.6 0.6 2 0.6 0.7 0.7 2 BF Max Depth (ft)1.2 1.4 1.5 2 1.4 1.5 1.6 2 1.3 1.4 1.5 2 BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)6.7 8.7 10.6 2 6.7 8.7 10.6 2 6.7 8.7 10.6 2 Area at Low Bank (ft2)6.7 8.7 10.6 2 NA NA NA NA 7.5 9.1 10.7 2 Width/Depth Ratio 11.1 19.4 27.7 2 18.5 30.5 42.2 2 14.6 22.9 31.2 2 Entrenchment Ratio 6.0 8.6 11.2 2 4.7 6.9 9 2 5.3 7.6 9.8 2 Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0 2 1 1 1 2 1.0 1.0 1.1 2 Riffle length (ft) Riffle slope (ft/ft) Pool length (ft) Pool Max depth (ft) Pool spacing (ft) Channel Beltwidth (ft) Radius of Curvature (ft) Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) Meander Wavelength (ft) Meander Width ratio Rosgen Classification Channel Thalweg Length (ft) Sinuosity Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) BF slope (ft/ft) Ri%/RU%P%G%/S% SC%/SA%/G%/C%/B%BE% d16/d35/d50/d84/d95 % of Reach with Eroding Banks Channel Stability or Habitat Metric Biological or Other Table 11e. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections) Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project Number 93482 Parameter Cross Section 7 (East Branch)Cross Section 8 (East Branch)Cross Section 9 (East Branch) Riffle Pool Riffle Table 11f. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project Number 93482 Baseline (East Branch)MY-1 (East Branch)MY-2 (East Branch)MY-3 (East Branch)MY-4 (East Branch)MY-5 (East Branch) Profile Pattern Additional Reach Parameters C-type C-type C-type Station Elevation -0.50 99.89 97.3 1.70 99.96 49.8 6.81 99.99 75.8 10.24 99.76 18.8 12.04 98.94 98.5 13.63 98.11 100.0 15.68 97.33 3.8 18.07 96.16 5.0 19.15 95.47 2.6 20.14 94.81 7.1 21.08 94.31 NA 22.06 94.13 1.3 E 24.39 94.02 25.04 93.80 26.26 93.78 27.70 93.72 28.96 93.44 30.34 93.69 32.00 93.78 32.87 93.70 33.70 96.65 34.91 97.64 38.08 98.46 41.18 98.81 45.02 98.97 47.45 99.27 Stream Type Flood Prone Width: Max Depth at Bankfull: Mean Depth at Bankfull: W / D Ratio: Entrenchment Ratio: Bank Height Ratio: Low Bank Height: SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: Bankfull Width: Flood Prone Area Elevation: Area at Low Bank: Drainage Area (sq mi):3.64 Date:9/18/2019 Field Crew:Perkinson, Radecki River Basin:Cape Fear Site Name Mud Lick Creek XS ID XS - 1, Riffle (Mud Lick Cr) 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50Elevation (feet)Station (feet) Cape Fear River Basin, Mud Lick Creek, XS -1, Riffle (Mud Lick Cr) Bankfull MY2 Bankfull MY0 Flood Prone Area MY-00 7/25/18 MY-01 12/06/18 MY-02 9/18/19 Station Elevation 0.10 99.23 96.7 5.27 99.10 33.0 9.75 98.69 42.6 11.90 98.21 14.9 14.40 97.30 97.3 16.86 96.56 100.0 18.65 95.14 3.3 19.96 94.05 3.9 21.32 93.57 2.2 22.36 93.68 6.7 23.56 93.65 NA 24.51 93.56 1.2 E 25.83 93.41 26.78 93.60 27.42 93.90 28.89 94.36 29.45 95.80 31.38 96.82 33.95 97.29 36.83 97.61 39.67 97.41 Scouring on the right bank of this cross-section is apparent, howerver this is an EII reach and localized at this location. Bankfull Elevation: Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: Bankfull Width: Flood Prone Area Elevation: Area at Low Bank: Stream Type Flood Prone Width: Max Depth at Bankfull: Mean Depth at Bankfull: Entrenchment Ratio: Bank Height Ratio: Low Bank Height: Drainage Area (sq mi):3.64 Date:9/18/2019 Field Crew:Perkinson, Radecki River Basin:Cape Fear Site Name Mud Lick Creek XS ID XS - 2, Riffle (Mud Lick Cr) SUMMARY DATA W / D Ratio: 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45Elevation (feet)Station (feet) Cape Fear River Basin, Mud Lick Creek, XS -2, Riffle (Mud Lick Cr) Bankfull MY2 Bankfull MY0 Flood Prone Area MY-00 7/25/18 MY-01 12/06/18 MY-02 9/18/19 Station Elevation 0.00 98.50 98.3 2.16 98.49 15.5 4.90 98.61 18.0 7.30 98.51 13.3 9.87 98.39 NA 11.90 98.09 NA 13.60 97.69 2.2 14.60 97.16 2.3 15.04 96.87 1.2 15.82 96.37 NA 16.73 96.23 NA 17.93 96.17 1.0 E 19.15 96.21 20.29 96.71 21.65 97.47 22.78 98.06 24.53 98.77 26.46 98.88 29.12 98.86 31.78 98.98 34.54 99.15 Stream Type Mean Depth at Bankfull: Entrenchment Ratio: Bank Height Ratio: W / D Ratio: Max Depth at Bankfull: Bankfull Width: Flood Prone Area Elevation: Cape Fear Mud Lick Creek XS - 3, Pool (North Branch) 9/18/2019 Perkinson, Radecki Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: Area at Low Bank: Date: Field Crew: 0.65 Flood Prone Width: Low Bank Height: Bankfull Elevation: SUMMARY DATA River Basin: Site Name XS ID Drainage Area (sq mi): 95 96 97 98 99 100 0 10 20 30 40Elevation (feet)Station (feet) Cape Fear River Basin, Mud Lick Creek, XS -3, Pool (North Branch) Bankfull MY2 MY-00 7/25/18 MY-01 12/06/18 MY-02 9/18/19 Station Elevation -0.20 98.73 98.9 1.77 98.90 14.2 4.40 98.84 14.2 6.39 98.57 20.7 8.07 98.44 98.9 9.74 98.29 100.0 11.45 98.20 1.8 11.70 97.98 1.8 12.66 97.60 0.7 13.20 97.45 30.2 13.51 97.15 NA 14.89 97.15 1.0 C 15.84 97.33 17.40 97.89 19.60 98.48 21.47 98.83 24.05 99.07 26.67 99.18 River Basin:Cape Fear Site Name Mud Lick Creek XS ID XS - 4, Riffle (North Branch) Drainage Area (sq mi):0.65 Date:9/18/2019 Field Crew:Perkinson, Radecki SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: Bankfull Width: Flood Prone Area Elevation: Area at Low Bank: Stream Type Flood Prone Width: Max Depth at Bankfull: Mean Depth at Bankfull: W / D Ratio: Entrenchment Ratio: Bank Height Ratio: Low Bank Height: 96 97 98 99 100 101 0 5 10 15 20 25 30Elevation (feet)Station (feet) Cape Fear River Basin, Mud Lick Creek, XS -4, Riffle (North Branch) Bankfull MY2 Bankfull MY0 Flood Prone Area MY-00 7/25/18 MY-01 12/06/18 MY-02 9/18/19 Station Elevation -0.10 98.13 97.8 2.99 98.19 18.6 5.86 98.13 20.3 7.35 97.57 15.1 9.00 96.93 NA 9.99 96.31 NA 10.64 95.82 2.7 10.99 95.44 2.8 11.39 95.18 1.2 12.19 95.29 NA 13.34 95.30 NA 14.12 95.51 1.0 C 15.18 95.46 15.65 96.39 16.87 96.93 18.16 97.31 19.65 97.71 21.74 97.85 24.17 97.95 26.72 98.19 River Basin:Cape Fear Site Name Mud Lick Creek XS ID XS - 5, Pool (North Branch) Drainage Area (sq mi):0.65 Date:9/18/2019 Field Crew:Perkinson, Radecki SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: Bankfull Width: Flood Prone Area Elevation: Area at Low Bank: Stream Type Flood Prone Width: Max Depth at Bankfull: Mean Depth at Bankfull: W / D Ratio: Entrenchment Ratio: Bank Height Ratio: Low Bank Height: 95 96 97 98 99 0 10 20 30 40Elevation (feet)Station (feet) Cape Fear River Basin, Mud Lick Creek, XS -5, Pool (North Branch) Bankfull MY-00 7/25/18 MY-01 12/06/18 MY-02 9/18/19 Station Elevation -0.20 98.04 97.9 3.23 98.17 14.5 5.69 97.97 15.0 7.21 97.68 14.8 8.54 97.17 98.0 10.11 96.85 100.0 10.98 96.63 1.8 11.90 96.42 1.8 13.11 96.47 1.0 13.99 96.18 15.1 14.79 96.13 NA 16.01 96.13 1.0 C 16.43 96.64 17.52 97.11 18.94 97.55 20.03 97.78 21.81 98.24 23.68 98.10 25.88 98.24 27.61 98.11 29.15 98.13 River Basin:Cape Fear Site Name Mud Lick Creek XS ID XS - 6, Riffle (North Branch) Drainage Area (sq mi):0.65 Date:9/18/2019 Field Crew:Perkinson, Radecki SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: Bankfull Width: Flood Prone Area Elevation: Area at Low Bank: Stream Type Flood Prone Width: Max Depth at Bankfull: Mean Depth at Bankfull: W / D Ratio: Entrenchment Ratio: Bank Height Ratio: Low Bank Height: 95 96 97 98 99 100 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Elevation (feet)Station (feet) Cape Fear River Basin, Mud Lick Creek, XS -6, Riffle (North Branch) Bankfull MY2 Bankfull MY0 Flood Prone Area MY-00 7/25/18 MY-01 12/06/18 MY-02 9/18/19 Station Elevation 0.30 99.16 98.8 2.17 99.27 6.7 3.53 99.11 7.5 5.04 99.11 10.2 6.44 98.87 98.9 7.69 98.58 100.0 8.43 98.27 1.3 9.08 97.92 1.4 9.64 97.76 0.7 10.72 97.52 15.5 11.36 97.52 NA 12.23 97.58 1.1 C 12.85 97.75 13.65 98.18 14.68 98.49 16.02 98.67 17.38 98.87 19.08 98.88 21.68 98.89 24.20 98.97 River Basin:Cape Fear Site Name Mud Lick Creek XS ID XS - 7, Riffle (East Branch) Drainage Area (sq mi):0.27 Date:9/18/2019 Field Crew:Perkinson, Radecki SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: Bankfull Width: Flood Prone Area Elevation: Area at Low Bank: Stream Type Flood Prone Width: Max Depth at Bankfull: Mean Depth at Bankfull: W / D Ratio: Entrenchment Ratio: Bank Height Ratio: Low Bank Height: 97 98 99 100 101 0 5 10 15 20 25 30Elevation (feet)Station (feet) Cape Fear River Basin, Mud Lick Creek, XS -7, Riffle (East Branch) Bankfull MY2 Bankfull MY0 Flood Prone Area MY-00 7/25/18 MY-01 12/06/18 MY-02 9/18/19 Station Elevation 0.00 101.28 100.4 2.22 101.30 10.5 4.19 101.16 11.7 6.31 100.87 8.2 8.08 100.72 NA 9.35 100.18 NA 10.46 99.44 2.1 11.18 99.24 2.2 11.71 99.08 1.3 12.28 98.76 NA 12.88 98.30 NA 14.08 98.40 1.0 C 15.03 98.60 15.84 98.83 17.17 100.37 18.28 100.55 20.11 100.73 21.77 100.89 24.32 100.93 27.14 101.18 River Basin:Cape Fear Site Name Mud Lick Creek XS ID XS - 8, Pool (East Branch) Drainage Area (sq mi):0.27 Date:9/18/2019 Field Crew:Perkinson, Radecki SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: Bankfull Width: Flood Prone Area Elevation: Area at Low Bank: Stream Type Flood Prone Width: Max Depth at Bankfull: Mean Depth at Bankfull: W / D Ratio: Entrenchment Ratio: Bank Height Ratio: Low Bank Height: 97 98 99 100 101 102 0 10 20 30 40Elevation (feet)Station (feet) Cape Fear River Basin, Mud Lick Creek, XS -8, Pool (East Branch) Bankfull MY-00 7/25/18 MY-01 12/06/18 MY-02 9/18/19 Station Elevation -0.30 101.37 101.1 -0.10 101.26 10.6 2.20 101.17 10.7 4.71 101.16 18.7 6.83 101.14 101.2 9.11 100.93 100.0 11.26 100.63 1.5 12.53 100.33 1.5 13.09 100.01 0.6 13.61 99.85 33.0 14.22 99.67 NA 15.62 99.64 1.0 C 16.29 100.10 16.77 100.50 17.86 100.24 19.30 100.58 20.93 100.86 23.39 100.95 25.64 101.19 27.62 101.25 29.75 101.16 River Basin:Cape Fear Site Name Mud Lick Creek XS ID XS - 9, Riffle (East Branch) Drainage Area (sq mi):0.27 Date:9/18/2019 Field Crew:Perkinson, Radecki SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: Bankfull Width: Flood Prone Area Elevation: Area at Low Bank: Stream Type Flood Prone Width: Max Depth at Bankfull: Mean Depth at Bankfull: W / D Ratio: Entrenchment Ratio: Bank Height Ratio: Low Bank Height: 99 100 101 102 103 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Elevation (feet)Station (feet) Cape Fear River Basin, Mud Lick Creek, XS -9, Riffle (East Branch) Bankfull MY2 Bankfull MY0 Flood Prone Area MY-00 7/25/18 MY-01 12/06/18 MY-02 9/18/19 Station Elevation 0.10 97.84 97.4 3.29 97.89 40.4 5.18 97.75 43.2 6.95 96.77 18.9 8.16 95.96 97.5 9.54 95.11 100.0 10.73 94.58 3.5 11.64 93.91 3.7 13.85 93.89 2.1 15.57 94.05 8.8 16.83 94.31 NA 17.74 94.62 1.1 E 19.17 95.16 20.66 95.78 20.74 95.78 22.60 96.41 25.61 97.83 28.26 98.71 30.28 99.25 33.03 99.25 34.79 99.18 River Basin:Cape Fear Site Name Mud Lick Creek XS ID XS - 10, Riffle (Mud Lick Cr) Drainage Area (sq mi):3.64 Date:9/18/2019 Field Crew:Perkinson, Radecki SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: Bankfull Width: Flood Prone Area Elevation: Area at Low Bank: Stream Type Flood Prone Width: Max Depth at Bankfull: Mean Depth at Bankfull: W / D Ratio: Entrenchment Ratio: Bank Height Ratio: Low Bank Height: 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Elevation (feet)Station (feet) Cape Fear River Basin, Mud Lick Creek, XS -10, Riffle (Mud Lick Cr) Bankfull MY2 Bankfull MY0 Flood Prone Area MY-00 7/25/18 MY-01 12/06/18 MY-02 9/18/19 Description Material Size (mm)Total #Item %Cum % Silt/Clay silt/clay 0.062 6 12%12% very fine sand 0.125 2 4%16% fine sand 0.250 1 2%18% medium sand 0.50 0 0%18% coarse sand 1.00 7 14%32% very coarse sand 2.0 0 0%32% very fine gravel 4.0 8 16%48% fine gravel 5.7 6 12%60% fine gravel 8.0 0 0%60% medium gravel 11.3 3 6%66% medium gravel 16.0 3 6%72% course gravel 22.3 4 8%80% course gravel 32.0 0 0%80% very coarse gravel 45 4 8%88% very coarse gravel 64 3 6%94% small cobble 90 2 4%98% medium cobble 128 1 2%100% large cobble 180 0 0%100% very large cobble 256 0 0%100% small boulder 362 0 0%100% small boulder 512 0 0%100% medium boulder 1024 0 0%100% large boulder 2048 0 0%100% Bedrock bedrock 40096 0 0%100% 50 100%100% D16 0.125 D35 2.28 D50 4.3 D84 38 D95 70 TOTAL % of whole count Feature: Riffle Cross-Section: 2 Project Name: Mudlick Creek Summary Data 2019 Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Cumulative PercentParticle Size (mm) Cumulative Percent MY0-2018 MY1-2018 MY2-2019 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Individual Class PercentParticle Size (mm) Individual Class Percent MY0-2018 MY1-2018 MY2-2019 Description Material Size (mm)Total #Item %Cum % Silt/Clay silt/clay 0.062 10 18%18% very fine sand 0.125 3 5%24% fine sand 0.250 3 5%29% medium sand 0.50 5 9%38% coarse sand 1.00 0 0%38% very coarse sand 2.0 2 4%42% very fine gravel 4.0 1 2%44% fine gravel 5.7 3 5%49% fine gravel 8.0 0 0%49% medium gravel 11.3 3 5%55% medium gravel 16.0 4 7%62% course gravel 22.3 1 2%64% course gravel 32.0 6 11%75% very coarse gravel 45 2 4%78% very coarse gravel 64 6 11%89% small cobble 90 4 7%96% medium cobble 128 0 0%96% large cobble 180 2 4%100% very large cobble 256 0 0%100% small boulder 362 0 0%100% small boulder 512 0 0%100% medium boulder 1024 0 0%100% large boulder 2048 0 0%100% Bedrock bedrock 40096 0 0%100% 55 100%100% D16 NA D35 0.39 D50 8.4 D84 54 D95 84 Gravel Cobble Boulder TOTAL % of whole count Summary Data Project Name: North Branch Cross-Section: 4 Feature: Riffle 2019 Sand 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Cumulative PercentParticle Size (mm) Cumulative Percent MY0-2018 MY1-2018 MY2-2019 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Individual Class PercentParticle Size (mm) Individual Class Percent MY0-2018 MY1-2018 MY2-2019 Description Material Size (mm)Total #Item %Cum % Silt/Clay silt/clay 0.062 10 21%21% very fine sand 0.125 3 6%27% fine sand 0.250 1 2%29% medium sand 0.50 3 6%35% coarse sand 1.00 1 2%38% very coarse sand 2.0 5 10%48% very fine gravel 4.0 3 6%54% fine gravel 5.7 2 4%58% fine gravel 8.0 2 4%63% medium gravel 11.3 3 6%69% medium gravel 16.0 2 4%73% course gravel 22.3 2 4%77% course gravel 32.0 2 4%81% very coarse gravel 45 4 8%90% very coarse gravel 64 2 4%94% small cobble 90 3 6%100% medium cobble 128 0 0%100% large cobble 180 0 0%100% very large cobble 256 0 0%100% small boulder 362 0 0%100% small boulder 512 0 0%100% medium boulder 1024 0 0%100% large boulder 2048 0 0%100% Bedrock bedrock 40096 0 0%100% 48 100%100% D16 0.075 D35 1.35 D50 5.4 D84 55 D95 103 Gravel Cobble Boulder TOTAL % of whole count Summary Data Project Name: East Branch Cross-Section: 7 Feature: Riffle 2019 Sand 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Cumulative PercentParticle Size (mm) Cumulative Percent MY0-2018 MY1-2018 MY2-2019 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Individual Class PercentParticle Size (mm) Individual Class Percent MY0-2018MY1-2018MY2-2019 2019 MY2 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Appendices Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482) Appendix E. Hydrology Data Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events 2019 MY2 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Appendices Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482) Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events Mud Lick Creek Restoration Site (DMS Project No. 93482 Date of Data Collection Date of Occurrence Method Photo (if available) December 6, 2018 October 16-17, 2018 Observations throughout floodplain and crest gauge indicate a bankfull event after 4.61 inches of rain fell over 48 hours. 1-2 May 8, 2019 February 24, 2019 Observation of wrack in floodplain and crest gauge data indicate a bankfull event after 2.27 inches of rain fell over 48 hours. 3 September 18, 2019 July 24, 2019 Observation of wrack on floodplain fences and crest gauge data indicate a bankfull event after 3.02 inches of rain fell over 48 hours. 4 Photo-1 Photo-2 Photo-3 Photo-4 2019 MY2 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Appendices Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482) Appendix F. 2019 Warranty Replant Information Dykes & Son Nursery 825 Maude Etter Rd TN 37110 Ship To NORTH STATE ENVII20NMENTAL 2889 LOWERY ST WINSTON SALEM, NC 27101 P.O. No. Ship Via FOB Project Lmud:lick/green tryon 1/7/2019 Quantity Item Code Description Mud Lick Creek 175 Bare Root River Birch 12-18" 175 Bare Root Tulip Poplar 12-18" 175 Bare Root Sycamore 1248" 175 Bare Root Red Bud 1248" Greens of Tryon 100 Bare Root Poplar 12-18" 50 Bare Root Sycamore 12-18" 50 Bare Root River Birch 12-18" 1 Freight UPS Charges 1 Packing Packing No claims, errors, shortages, etc. will be considered unless made within 10 days of receipt.