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.