20120383 Ver 1_Year 4 Monitoring Report_2019_20200306

ID#* 20120383 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Mac Haupt
Initial Review Completed Date 03/06/2020
Mitigation Project Submittal - 3/6/2020
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:*
Matthew Reid
Project Information
..................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20120383
Existing IDY
Project Type: r DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Middle South Muddy
County: McDowell
Document Information
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:
*1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: MiddleSouthMuddy_93875_MY04_2019.pdf 13.49MB
Rease upload only one RDFcf the conplete file that needs to be subnitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Matthew Reid
Signature:*

Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5
FINAL
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Site
NCDMS Contract No.: 6783
NCDMS Project No.: 93875
McDowell County, North Carolina
Data Collected: February - October 2019
Date Submitted: March 5, 2020
Submitted to:
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
NCDEQ-DMS, 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh NC 27699-1652

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

EQUINOX
holance through properpionning
February 18, 2020
Matthew Reid
Western Project Manager
NCDENR - Division of Mitigation Services 5
Ravenscroft Dr., Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
[phone] Mobile
[e-mail]
Re: DMS Draft MonitoringYear4 Report
Review forthe Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Site
Catawba River Basin - CU# 03050101
McDowell County, North Carolina
NCEEP Project #93875
Contract No. 6783
Dear Mr. Reid,
I have outlined our responses to the comments on the Draft Monitoring Year 4 report for the Middle
South Muddy Stream Restoration Site in (Blue).
1.4.2. Stream Geomorphology
• The structure at STA 108+83 was noted in previous monitoring efforts as being stressed and
removed in subsequent years because it has remained stable. DMS will continue to monitorthis
structure throughout the upcoming year to document any changes. Additional live stakes and
seeding may be installed to help stabilize the erosional areas thiswinter. Additional text added
to clarify this option.
1.4.1. Vegetation
® Invasive treatment occurred at the site in July and October 2019. Please update this section to
include these dates. Text added
Table 2
® Update table to include the invasive treatments that occurred in July and October2019. T
2. updated
Table 9
® Table 9 indicates the MY4 annual mean is 467; however, section 1.4.1 Vegetation and the
digital files show 453 as the MY4 annual mean. Please verify and update as necessary. Table 9
and text updated.
37 Haywood Street, Suite 100 Asheville NC 28801 828.253.6856 www.equinoxenvironmental.com

EQU I NOX
balance through properplonning
Appendix F:
® Please include the attached invasive species treatment logs in a new AppendixF. Attached
Digital Deliverable File Review:
DMS is conductingdigitaI file audits on all projects. Below are missing or incomplete digital deliverables
for the project. If you have any questions or need clarification regarding these items, please contact
Greg Melia.
® Digital files are up to date for Middle South Muddy. Please submit updated files with final
deliverable. Attached

Prepared by:
EQUINOX
balance through proper planning
37 Haywood Street, Suite 100
Asheville, North Carolina 28801

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Contents
1.0 Project Summary............................................................................................................................... I
1.1. Goals and Objectives....................................................................................................................
I
1.2. Success Criteria.............................................................................................................................
I
1.3. Project Setting and Background....................................................................................................2
1.4. Project Performance......................................................................................................................
3
2.0 Methods.............................................................................................................................................5
3.0 References.........................................................................................................................................6
Appendix A General Tables and Figures......................................................................................................
7
Appendix B Visual Assessment Data.........................................................................................................17
AppendixC Vegetation Plot Data.............................................................................................................477
Appendix D Stream Geomorphology Data...............................................................................................
576
AppendixE Hydrologic Data....................................................................................................................
910
Appendix F Invasive Vegetation Treatment.............................................................................................918

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
1.1. Goals and Objectives
The following goals were established to guide the restoration process for the project as outlined in the
Final Mitigation Plan:
• Improve local water quality within the restored channel reaches as well as the downstream
watercourses through: (a) the reduction of current channel sediment loads by restoring
appropriately sized channels with stable beds and banks, (b) the reduction of nutrient loads from
adjacent agricultural fields with a restored riparian buffer, and (c) the reduction of water
temperatures provided through shading of the channel by canopy species along with the resultant
increase in oxygen content.
• Improve local aquatic and terrestrial habitat and diversity within the restored channels and their
vicinity through: (a) the restoration of appropriate bed form to provide habitat for fish, amphibian,
and benthic species, (b) the restoration of a suitable riparian buffer corridor in order to provide both
vertical and horizontal structure and connectivity with adjacent upland areas, and (c) the restoration
of understory and canopy species in order to provide forage, cover, and nesting for a variety of
mammals, reptiles, and avian species.
• Preclude land disturbing activities including the construction of additional infrastructure, future
mining activities, and agricultural practices including cattle grazing and the application of
pesticides and fertilizer within the riparian buffer area by providing a permanent conservation
easement.
The following objectives were proposed for accomplishing the above listed goals as outlined in the Final
Mitigation Plan:
• Provide approximately 3,281 stream mitigation units (SMU's) through Priority I and II restoration
of approximately 1,989 linear feet of stream, enhancement of approximately 196 linear feet of
stream, and preservation of approximately 5,836 linear feet of stream threatened by mining
activities.
• Restore natural stable channel morphology and proper sediment transport capacity.
• Create and/or improve bed form diversity and improve aquatic and benthic macroinvertebrate
habitat.
• Construct a floodplain bench that is accessible at the proposed bankfull discharge.
• Improve channel and stream bank stabilization by integrating in -stream structures and native bank
vegetation.
• Provide approximately 5.87 acres of riparian buffer restoration by establishing a native forested
and herbaceous riparian buffer plant community with a minimum width of 30 feet from the edge
of the restored channels. This new community will be established in conjunction with the
eradication of any existing exotic and/or undesirable plant species.
• Construct barricades on an existing dirt road network on the Haney Tract to prevent future vehicular
trespassing.
1.2. Success Criteria
1.2.1. Morphological Parameters and Channel Stability
Restored and enhanced streams should demonstrate morphologic stability to be considered successful.
Stability does not equate to an absence of change, but rather to sustainable rates of change or stable
patterns of variation. Restored streams often demonstrate some level of initial adjustment in the several
months that follow construction and some change/variation subsequent to that period is also to be
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 1 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

expected. However, the observed change should not be unidirectional such that it represents a robust
trend. If some trend is evident, it should be very modest or indicate migration to a stable form.
Dimension - Cross-section measurements should indicate little change from the as -built cross -
sections. If changes do occur, they will be evaluated to determine whether the adjustments are
associated with increased stability or whether they indicate movement towards an unstable
condition.
Pattern and Profile — Measurements and calculated values should indicate stability with little
deviation from as -built conditions and established morphological ranges from the restored
stream type. Annual measurements should indicate stable bed form features with little change
from the as -built survey. The pools should maintain their depth with flatter water surface slopes,
while riffles should remain shallower and steeper.
Substrate - Calculated D5o and D84 values should indicate coarser size class distribution of bed
materials in riffles and finer size class distribution in pools. Generally, it is anticipated that the
bed material will coarsen over time.
Sediment Transport - Depositional features should be consistent with a stable stream that is
effectively managing its sediment load. Point bar and inner berm features, if present, should
develop without excessive encroachment of the channel. Lateral and mid -channel bar features
should typically not be present and if so only in isolated instances. Bar features may be more
prevalent in sand bed channels but should be transient in nature and should occupy no more than
20% of the cross -sectional area.
1.2.2. Surface Water Hydrology
Monitoring of stream surface water stages should indicate recurrence of bankfull flows on average every
1 to 2 years. At a minimum, throughout the monitoring period, the surface water stage should achieve
bankfull or greater elevations at least twice. The bankfull events must occur during separate monitoring
years.
1.2.3. Vegetation
Riparian vegetation monitoring shall be conducted for a minimum of five years to ensure that success
criteria are met per USACE guidelines. Accordingly, success criteria will consist of a minimum survival
of 320 stems per acre by the end of the Year 3 monitoring period and a minimum of 260 stems per acre at
the end of Year 5. If monitoring indicates either that the specified survival is not being met or the
development of detrimental conditions (i.e., invasive species, diseased vegetation), appropriate corrective
actions will be developed and implemented.
1.3. Project Setting and Background
The Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Site (MSM) is located in the Catawba River Basin
(NCDWQ sub -basin 03-08-30 and HUC 03050101040020) approximately 9.5 miles southeast of Marion,
NC in southeast McDowell County at latitude 35.5635' N and longitude 81.9249' W. MSM is composed
of two tracts, the Middle South Muddy Creek tract, which encompasses approximately 5.87 acres of
predominately agricultural and forested land, and the 41.05 acre Haney Preservation Tract, which is
predominately forested. The Middle South Muddy Creek Tract consists of portions of three streams, Iva
Branch (462 feet), Sprouse Branch (635 feet), and South Muddy Creek (1,088 feet). The Haney Tract
consists of approximately 5,836 linear feet of stream. The tract is comprised of portions of South Muddy
Creek and approximately four tributaries, including Jackson Branch and Moores Branch. MSM is located
within the Muddy Creek Local Watershed planning area and the Site's watershed was identified as a
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 2 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) in DMS' 2009 Upper Catawba River Basin Restoration Priority report
(RBRP).
Historic land use at MSM consisted primarily of agriculture, livestock grazing, and mining operations.
Livestock previously had unrestricted access to the majority of the streams on site, resulting in significant
local disturbance to stream banks (Table 4). Additional land use practices, including the maintenance and
removal of riparian vegetation, and the relocating, dredging, and straightening of on -site streams
contributed to the degraded water quality and unstable channel characteristics on the site.
During the As -built Baseline Monitoring Report, stream lengths in the Haney Tract was increased by
3,960 LF from the approved Mitigation Plan length of 5,836 LF to a total of 9,796 LF. The increase in
length was due to mapping of streams within the conservation easement during the As -built Baseline
Monitoring field work data collection stage. Upon verification, DMS determined that many of the
included streams have been highly manipulated by past land use (mining) and were not candidates for
preservation credit. These streams (UT1-8 and UT-10) were removed by DMS from credit calculations.
DMS and IRT viewed the remaining streams within the easement (UT9, UT11, Jackson Branch, Moores
Branch and South Muddy Creek). These streams were impacted less by past use and both DMS and IRT
agreed they would be suitable for preservation credit. In lieu of breaking out stream reaches and applying
different ratios for preservation credit based on quality and function, the IRT and DMS agreed that
reverting to the approved Mitigation Plan preservation length assets would be acceptable. The MY2
Monitoring Report has been updated to reflect the change in the preservation assets for the Haney Tract to
5,836 LF at a 5:1 ratio for a total of 1,167 SMUs as found in the Mitigation Plan. The total number of
SMUs for the Middle South Muddy site has also been changed to 3,281 SMUs to reflect the Mitigation
Plan as well.
1.4. Project Performance
Monitoring Year 4 (MY4) data was collected from February to October 2019. Monitoring activities
included visual assessment of all reaches and the surrounding easement, collection of images at 31
permanent photo stations, inventory of five permanent vegetation monitoring plots, surveying of 10 cross -
sections, conducting three pebble counts, and collection of longitudinal profile survey data for
approximately 2,166 linear feet of stream channel.
Summary information/data related to the occurrence of items such as beaver or encroachment and
statistics related to performance of various project and monitoring elements can be found in the tables and
figures in the report appendices. Narrative background and supporting information formerly found in
these reports can be found in the Baseline Monitoring Report (formerly Mitigation Plan) and in the
Mitigation Plan (formerly Restoration Plan) documents available on the NCDMS website
(http://portal.NCDEQ.org/web/eep). All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices is
available from DMS upon request.
1.4.1. Vegetation
Visual assessment of vegetation outside of the monitoring plots (Appendix B — Table 6) indicates that the
herbaceous vegetation is becoming established throughout the project. Small areas of invasive exotic
vegetation noted (n = 3) totaling 0.01 acre in the MY3 report were treated. Carolina Silvics, Inc. treated
the described areas during two visits, July 25 and October 16, 2019. Carolina Silvics pesticide application
log is located in Appendix F. The site will continue to be monitored for invasive exotic vegetation.
Monitoring of the permanent vegetation plots (n = 5; VP) was completed in October 2019. Summary
tables and photographs associated with MY4 vegetation monitoring are located in Appendix C. MY4
monitoring data indicates that all vegetation plots met the MY3 interim success criteria of 320 planted
stems per acre. Planted stem densities among plots ranged from 364 to 607 planted stems per acre with
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 3 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

an annual mean of 453 planted stems per acre across all plots. A total of 10 species were documented
within the plots. When volunteer stems are included, the mean annual total stems per acre rose to 769 and
ranged between 364 and 1,376 stems per acre.
1.4.2. Stream Geomorphology
Visual assessment of the stream channel was performed to document signs of instability, such as eroding
banks, structural instability, or excessive sedimentation. One problem area was noted on South Muddy
Creek during MY3 associated with the structure at STA 108+83. Displacement of backfill material
exposed the backer log and filter fabric which resulted in piping through the structure. The structure has
remained stable into MY4, but some bank failure occurring immediately downstream on the right bank
and scouring of the bankfull bench approximately 25 feet downstream (Table 5). Additional seeding and
live staking of erosional zones is an option for this area if deemed necessary. On Iva Branch, the boulder
step structure at STA 303+67, has failed. High flows with contributing runoff from the BMP just
upstream have scoured around the LDB of the arm of the top 3 boulder arches undermining the structure.
Material from the pools of the boulder steps has migrated downstream to fill in the riffle at STA 303+75
(Appendix D: Iva Branch Longitudinal Profile). The boulder arches located at STA 301+94 and 303+07
in the upstream portions of Iva Branch remain relatively intact however, the material from these structures
has also migrated into the downstream riffle, causing aggradation at STA 302+25 and 303+25 (Appendix
D: Iva Branch Longitudinal Profile). These problem areas on Iva Branch occurred prior to MY3 as a
result of intermittent, flashy flows. Problem areas on Iva Branch noted in the MY3 report remain but
have not worsened in MY4. All of these areas listed above will be monitored during future site visits for
signs of deterioration.
Geomorphic data for MY4 was collected from March through October 2019. Summary tables and cross-
section data plots related to stream morphology are located in Appendix D. Little noticeable change in
the cross-section data between MY3 and MY4 occurred at cross -sections four through seven located on
South Muddy Creek (Appendix D, Table 1 la/b). The pool at cross section 6 has filled in some, but the
bed material is sand size and highly mobile. Overall, the stream dimensions indicate channel stability.
Riffle dimensions remained relatively similar between MY3 and MY4 on Sprouse Branch. The most
notable change was that the width/depth ratio decreased by 4.5. Riffle dimensions on Iva Branch also
remained stable from MY3 to MY4. No notable changes for Iva Branch can be reported, please refer to
Table 1 lb and cross -sectional overlays for cross -sectional data.
Generally, South Muddy Creek longitudinal profile data (Appendix B, Table 1 lb) indicated relatively
little change in riffle and pool dimensions between MY3 and MY4. The debris jam at STA 103+01 noted
in MY3, has continued to increase the pool depth. This change has created great habitat and this section
of stream appears in a stable condition. The filling in of the pool at XS 6 resulted in one (1) additional
riffle. Profile dimensions for Sprouse Branch changed very little between MY3 and MY4. It should be
noted that vegetation within the channel may have obscured some structures and features, preventing
them from being depicted within the longitudinal profile survey. Iva Branch again had surface water
present in the channel upstream of the culvert beginning at STA 304+34. Structures at STA 305+30 and
305+35 are present but were not included in the longitudinal profile as this section of the reach did not
have surface water present at the time of the survey. A water surface slope was not generated for Upper
Iva Branch.
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 4 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

1.4.3. Stream Hydrology
Since project completion in December 2015, five bankfull events have been documented on South Muddy
Creek and Sprouse Branch and four bankfull events have been documented on Iva Branch. Based on
precipitation data, the suspected dates are February 2"d, 2016 (MY1), October 231d, 2017 (MY2), February
11ffi, 2018 (MY3), October 18'h, 2018 (MY3), and May 9 h, 2019 (MY4). The crest gauge on South
Muddy Creek was damaged during multiple events during MY3. The crest gauge was reconfigured
during the MY3 final walkthrough in November and seems to be functioning but did not capture bankfull
event which was evidenced by wrack lines.
Two continuous stage recorders were installed during MYO on Iva Branch to document surface flow.
One gauge was installed in the perennial section and another was installed on the intermittent section to
document 30 consecutive days of flow. The gauge in the perennial section has successfully demonstrated
continuous flow, while the gauge in the intermittent section does not show signs of surface flow. During
the MY4 monitoring year the intermittent section only saw approximately seven days of consecutive
surface flow while the perennial section shows multiple stretches of 30+ days of flow during MY4
monitoring (Appendix E). The continuous stage recorders will be monitored in subsequent site visits.
2.0 METHODS
The visual assessment of the project was performed at the beginning and end of each monitoring year.
Permanent photo station photos were taken during the initial visual assessment when leaf -off conditions
exist. Additional photos of vegetation or stream problem areas were taken as needed.
Geomorphic measurements were taken during low flow conditions using a Nikon® NPR 332 Total
Station. Three-dimensional coordinates associated with cross-section and profile data were collected in
the field and geo-referenced (NAD83 State Plane feet FIPS 3200). Morphological data were collected at
10 cross -sections. Survey data was imported into CAD, ArcGIS®, and Microsoft Excel® for data
processing and analysis. Channel substrate was characterized using a Wolman Pebble Count as outlined
in Harrelson et al. (1994) and processed using Microsoft Excel.
Vegetation success is being monitored at 5 permanent monitoring plots. Vegetation monitoring follows
the CVS-EEP Level 2 Protocol for Recording Vegetation, version 4.2 (Lee et al. 2008) and includes
analysis of species composition and density of planted species. Data is processed using the CVS data
entry tool. In the field, the four corners of each plot were permanently marked with rebar and photos of
each plot are taken from the origin each monitoring year.
Precipitation data was reported from the NCCRONOS station NGRF in Marion, NC. Bankfull events
were documented with two crest gauges, one located on South Muddy Creek and another on Sprouse
Branch. Crest gauges will be monitored semi-annually. The height of the corklines was recorded and
cross-referenced with known bankfull elevations at each crest gauge.
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 5 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

3.0 REFERENCES
Equinox Environmental. 2008. Muddy Creek Local Watershed Plan. Report prepared for
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality.
September.
Harrelson, Cheryl, C. Rawlins and J. Potyondy. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated
Guide to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-245. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station. USDA Forest Service. Fort Collins, Colorado
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP). February 2009. Upper Catawba River Basin
Restoration Priorities 2009. https://ncdenr.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-
public/PublicFolder/Work°/o20With/Watershed%20Planners/Upper_Catawba RBRP 2009.pd£
Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation. Version 4.2. hgp://cvs.bio.unc.edu/methods.htm; accessed November 2008.
Wolf Creek Engineering. 2012. Final Mitigation Plan Middle South Muddy Creek Restoration.
Prepared for North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Ecosystem
Enhancement Program. Final Mitigation Plan, Middle South Muddy Restoration, McDowell County.
EEP Project No: 93875
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 6 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

Appendix A
General Tables and Figures

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

❑rivinr Uireciions: From Ashc%illc drive call un 1-40 and Iakc exit 5.3.
V
-1 urn right onto Ashworth Road after 09 miles turn right ono i'S-221-
PoRow US-221 for 4.5 miles tlwm turn left onto Polly' Spout Road. Ulcr
1.7 mi1cs non IeR onw Vow Id eunta in Road. FL7110ty 1,: in hiounlaiu Read
for 2.6 miles and then turn ri e&tt onto Bra iced 'I --own Road. the .Ll iddle
South hl itigation Site wi 11 he on the Iefl after about 1 mile,
•Ihc "bjcat projcci sit, in an cmironmcnial restoration site of the
kit is
Ri I)b1S and encompassed by a recorded conservation easensem54
�
horde rn by lmid with privatc ouncnhip. �7ucesaing tha situ m
tmvcmi ng areas naar or along the ea. iricnt boundary and th 705
to the general pub lie is not perm ittod, Access by anthorized per
stale and fvJeral agencies or their designec.'mntraMrnx imtrls'ad
dcvclnpMcnt, os•cn iFjit, and sl nvardch ip of the rcO4 tinn 00
perm died within the tonne and timefrmn x of their damned role.
inl -nded sii, I mhatiml •+I activity by any parson muxi& of th m
pr-i—ly sanel ianLA r.drs and acl i vil ill.11 U1res pri ur —rdio
KCD]IS.
00
V
•�` SIC I
r
Middle South Muddy
!VIil;p:11;[,» Sall:
L� t �-
4 r {
�
Aiq
1 Q�
ram. Roads Sae t,
Streams
a Mitigation Sites`
Figure 1
Middle South Muddy Mitigation Site Ilrt; J she
Vicinity Map
EQUINOX
Miles
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 9 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Figure 2. Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Pre p ared for
�. j
Easement
' `�_.• Thalweg Vegetation Plots
Hook -Log Run
Middle South Muddy
T' Cross -Section
'N_. Top of Bank " Vegetation Plot Criteria Met
Stream Restoration Project
Structure
Contour(l ft) Invasive -Exotic Vegetation
Invasive—StatusQ
Hook Run
Long Pro Start/End
Monitonng Year 4
*
Photo Point
® Treated
Boulder -Arch
McDowell County, NC
Crest Gauge
Stream Problem Areas
NCDMS Contract No.: 00006783
A,
Control Point
Aggradation
Boulder -Arch
Log
Environmental
December 2019
•
Continuous Stage Recorder
T� Bank Erosion
Failed Structure
with
Armored Riffle
Quality
Sheet 1 of 2
Log Vane Notes:
with Hook 1) Baseline Data Provided by Turner Land
Log Sill
Log Sill
no Baffle
Brush Toe
Prepared by
AV
EQUINOX

riyure c. Inteyratea current uonaltlon rlan view
O
o oo 0+00
o '' Pk30
UT-11'
P52+fi3- + co
PS., � �• _ � .. .. ✓A
j52+00 moo � � 'I
\
`° PP-31
1 y1+00 �I
r'
\ 50+00
49+00
DPP-28
V8+00
00
-10
!on Branch
pp . ooX ^Lo
o=­
000UT-8 UT-7
RI'�" M M M 4+
CDO M ° UT-9 �`11; N O\ 2+
O +
+ UT-6, 0+00
O `•
�`�.�� o PP 2 z6 0
+ Xo 2+00
��•� �� �o w RXpO �O
;` i• � r
t' fy �+ - s
2;
\ l0
O O
21+00 of of
br
N Q
\
\
s-
1 5+00
�\ 4+00
1 3+00
t 'a 1 2+00
Moores Bra
10
jUT-
4F-•
-�J. 0+00
�
o 0
;� ;�
N UT-3 !
f
+
! p
°
1
+ ^
f O O
—Q•_
10
o p'24
_ o
O N o
t�
South Muddy Creek10
r
M
PP; 25
_ .
0 250
500 '
Prepared for
Hook -Log Run
Middle South Muddy
11J Easement
�i Preservation Streams
Hook Run
Stream Restoration Project
T. Cross -Section
Top of Bank
Monitoring Year 4
Long Pro Start/End
Contour (1 ft)
Boulder -Arch
McDowell County, NC
C Photo Point
Invasive -Exotic Vegetation
Environmental
Quality
NCDMS Contract No.: 00006783
December 2019
Sheet 2 of 2
Crest Gauge
0 Control Point
Invasive —Status
® Treated
Failed Structure
Boulder -Arch
with Log
Armored Riffle
Log Vane I Notes:
with Hook 1) Baseline Data Provided by Turner Land
5 PP-23
` +oo
UT-1
1,00
F of
ft RID,
Prepared by
Log Sill
r
Log Sill
no Baffle
�Nw
Brush Toe
EQUINOX

Table 1. Project Mitigation Components and Summation
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Site
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non -riparian Wetland
Buffer
Nitrogen
Phosphorous Nutrient Offset
Nutrient Offset
Type
R
RE
R
RE
R
RE
Totals
2,114
1,167
Project Components
ME
Project Component -or- Reach ID
Stationing/Location
Existing
Footage/Acreage
Restoration
Footage or
Acreage
Restoration -or-
Restoration
Ecptivalent
Approach
Mitigation
Ratio
Mitigation
Credits
Footage Excluded
due to Easement
Crossing/Break
(PI, PH etc.)
South Muddy Creek
101+00 — 110+91
931
916
R
PII
1:1
916
75
L— South Muddy Creek
110+91 — 112+63
177
172
R
EI
1.5:1
115
-
Upper Sprouse Branch
201+50 — 201+74
24
24
R
EII
2.5:1
10
-
Middle and Lower Sprouse Branch
201+74— 208+04
598
611
R
PII
1:1
611
19
Upper andl,— Iva Branch
302+14 — 306+96
471
462
R
PI
1:1
462
20
Haney Tract
5,836
5,836
RE
Preservation
5:1
1,167
-
Component Summation
Restoration
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non -riparian Wetland
Buffer
Upland
Level
(linear feet)
(acres)
(acres)
(square feet)
(acres)
Riverine
Non-Riverine
Restoration
1,989
Enhancement
Enhancement I
172
Enhancement II
24
Creation
Preservation
5,836
High Quality
Preservation
BMW Dements
Element
Location
Purpose/Function
Notes
FB
Entire Site
Protect Stream Channel
BMP Elements
BR — Bioretention Cell; SF — Sand Filter; SW — Stormwater Wetland; WDP — Wet Detention Pond; DDP — Dry Detention Pond; FS — Filter Strip; S — Grassed Swale; LS
NI — Natural Infiltration Area; FB — Forested Buffer
— Level Spreader;
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 13 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Site
Activity or Report
Data
Collection
Complete
Completion
or Delivery
Mitigation Plan
Feb - 2012
Mar - 2012
Final Design - Construction Plans
N/A
Nov - 2012
Construction
N/A
Dec - 2015
Permanent Seed Mix Applied
-
Mar - 2016
Live Stake Plantings
-
Mar - 2016
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0 Monitoring - Baseline)
May - 2016
June -2016
Year 1 Monitoring
Dec - 2016
Jan - 2017
Year 1 Geomorphology Monitoring
Dec - 2016
-
Year 1 Vegetation Monitoring
Oct - 2016
-
Year 2 Monitoring
Oct - 2017
Nov - 2017
Year 2 Geomorphology Monitoring
June - 2017
-
Year 2 Vegetation Monitoring
Sept - 2017
-
Year 3 Monitoring
Nov - 2018
Nov - 2018
Year 3 Vegetation Monitoring
Sept - 2018
-
Year 3 Geomorphology Monitoring
Oct - 2018
-
Year 4 Invasive vegetation treatment
Jul-2019
Year 4 Invasive vegetation secondary treatment
Oct-2019
Year 4 Monitoring
Oct - 2019
Dec- 2019
Year 5 Monitoring
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 14 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

Table 3. Project Contacts
Middle
South Muddy Stream Restoration Site
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
217 W Jones Street Suite 3000a
Prime Contractor
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Matthew Reid [phone]
Wolf Creek Engineering
12 1/2 Wall Street Suite C
Designer
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
S. Grant Ginn [phone]
River Works, Inc
Construction
6105 Chapel Hill Road
Contractor
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Jon Harrell [phone]
River Works, Inc
6105 Chapel Hill Road
Seeding Contractor
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Jon Harrell [phone]
River Works, Inc
6105 Chapel Hill Road
Planing Contractor
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Jon Harrell [phone]
Turner Land Surveying
3719 Benson Drive
As -built Surveys
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
David Turner [phone]
Green Resource
5204 Highreen Court
Seeding Mx Source
Colfax, North Carolina 27235
[phone]
Foggy Mountain Nursery
797 Helton Creek Road
Live Stakes
Lansing, North Carolina
[phone]
Equinox Environmental
Monitoring Performers
37 Haywood St.
(MYO-MY4)
2016 - 2019
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
Drew Alderman [phone]
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 15 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
Project Information
Project Name
Middle South Muddy Creek
County
McDowell
Project Area (acres)
5.87
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
35.5635° N, 81.9249° W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Blue Ridge
River Basin
Catawba River
USCS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit 1 3050101
US(S Hydrologic Unit 14-digit
03050101040020
DWR Subbasm
03-08-30
Project Drainage Area (acres)
2,893
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
> 1%
CQA Land Use Classification
2.03.01.01
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
South Muddy Creek
I- Branch
Sprouse Branch
Length of reach (linear feet)
1,108
471
622
Valley classification (Rosgen)
Valley Type VIIIb
Valley Type II
Valley Type H
Drainage area (acres)
3,002
27
29
NCDWQ stream identification score
44
31
34
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification
C
C
C
Morphological Description (stream type) (Rosgen)
G4
G5
G5
Evolutionary trend (Rosgen)
F4
G5
G5
Underlying mapped soils
Iotla, Flayesville Clay
Iotla, Flayesville Clay
Iotla, Flayesville Clay
Drainage class
Poorly drained
Poorly drained
Poorly drained
Soil Hydric status
Non-hydric
Non-hydric
Non-hydric
Slope
0.40%
4.60%
2.20%
FEMA classification
Lirruted Detail
N/A
N/A
Native vegetation community
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation
<1%
<1%
<1%
Wetland Sunmlary Information
Parameters
W etland 1
Wetland 2
Wetland 3
Size of W etland (acres)
-
-
-
Wetland Type (non -riparian, riparian riverine or riparian non-riverine)
-
-
-
Mapped Soil Series
-
-
-
Drainage class
Soil Hydric Status
-
-
-
Source of Hydrology
-
-
-
Hydrologic Impairment
-
-
-
Native vegetation community
-
-
-
Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation
-
-
-
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting
Documentation
Waters of the United States —Section 404
Yes
Yes
NW 27
2011-02233
Waters of the United States — Section 401
Yes
Yes
401 Certification
WR# 12-0383
Endangered Species Act
No
N/A
FBTR
Historic Preservation Act
No
N/A
FBTR
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMAY Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)
No
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes
yes
Case #:
14-04-0367R
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 16 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Table 5. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Site -South Muddy Creek
Assessed Length 1,088 feet
Major Channel
Category
Channel
Sub Category
Metric
Number
Stable
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As -built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Number
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted%
for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aearadation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly
deflect flow laterally (not to include point bars).
0
0
100%
2. Deffadation -Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coaxer substrate.
5
5
100%
3. Meander Pool
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth :Mean Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6).
5
5
100%
Condition
2. Lenath appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstream riffle).
5
5
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run).
5
5
100%
4. Thalweg Position
[2, Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide).
5
5
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
and/or scour and erosion.
2
36
98%
0
0
98%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appeal
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
sustainable and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping calving, or collapse.
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
2
36
99%
0
0
93%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
5
5
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
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%.
5
5
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining- Mac Pool Depth : Mean
4. Habitat
Bankfull Depth Ratio> 1.6. Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
5
5
100%
base -flow.
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 19 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

Table 5 Cont'd. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project - Sprouse Branch
Assessed Len th 611 feet
Major Channel
Category
Channel
Sub Category
Metric
Number
Stable
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As -built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Number
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted%
for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aearadation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly
deflect flow laterally (not to include point bars).
0
0
100%
2. Deffadation -Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coaxer substrate.
14
14
100%
3. Meander Pool
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth :Mean Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6).
16
16
100%
Condition
2. Lenath appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstream riffle).
16
16
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run).
16
16
100%
4. Thalweg Position
[2, Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide).
16
16
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured / Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
and/or scour and erosion.
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appeal
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
sustainable and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping calving, or collapse.
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
18
18
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
18
18
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
18
18
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does NOT
exceed 15%.
18
18
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining- Mac Pool Depth : Mean
4. Habitat
Bankfull Depth Ratio> 1.6. Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
18
18
100%
base -flow.
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 20 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

Table 5 Cont'd. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project - Iva Branch
Assessed Len th 462 feet
Major Channel
Category
Channel
Sub Category
Metric
Number
Stable
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As -built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Number
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted%
for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aearadation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly
deflect flow laterally (not to include point bars).
3
15
96%
2. Deffadation -Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coaxer substrate.
9
9
100%
3. Meander Pool
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth :Mean Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6).
9
9
100%
Condition
2. Lenath appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstream riffle).
9
9
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run).
9
9
100%
4. Thalweg Position
[2, Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide).
9
9
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured / Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
and/or scour and erosion.
1
15
98%
0
0
98%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appeal
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
sustainable and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping calving, or collapse.
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
1
15
98%
0
0
98%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
9
10
90%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
9
10
90%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
9
10
90%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does NOT
exceed 15%.
9
10
90%
Pool forming structures maintaining- Mac Pool Depth : Mean
4. Habitat
Bankfull Depth Ratio> 1.6. Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
9
10
90%
base -flow.
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 21 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Site
Planted Acreage: 5.87
% of
Number of
Combined
Vegetation Category
Definitions
CCPV Depiction
Planted
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material_
N/A
0
0.00
0%
2. Low Stem Densitv Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3,
N/A
0
0.00
0%
4, or 5 stem count criteria.
Totals
0
0.00
0%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small
N/A
0
0.00
0%
given the monitoring y ear.
Cumulative Totals
0
0.00
0%
Easement Acreage: 5.87
% of
Number of
Combined
Vegetation Category
Definitions
CCPV Depiction
Easement
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
Cross Hatch
3
0.01
<1%
(Red - Dense/Yellow - Present)
5. Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
N/A
0
0.00
0%
N/A - Item does not apply.
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 22 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

Upper Sprouse Branch — Permanent Photo Station 1
Upper Sprouse Branch — Permanent Photo Station 2
Looking Downstream
i
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 23 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

Lower Sprouse Branch — Permanent Photo Station 3
Looking Downstream at Cross -Section 1
_ 3x
�r .t 8fs
ice! A
Lower Sprouse Branch — Permanent Photo Station 4
Looking Downstream, Northwest- 292 degrees
i
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 24 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

Lower Sprouse Branch — Permanent Photo Station 4
Looking Upstream; South 182 degrees
h-, ' . - r`i "�`y-#"✓� 3 -.:firA X
Lower Sprouse Branch — Permanent Photo Station 5
Looking Downstream at Cross -Section 2
i
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 25 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

u
N a lia.
-
ZLM
Ai
!M -
a,

Lower Sprouse Branch — Permanent Photo Station 8
South Muddy Creek — Permanent Photo Station 8
Station 101+50 -Looking Downstream
i
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 27 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

South Muddy Creek — Permanent Photo Station 8
South Muddy Creek — Permanent Photo Station 9
Station 102+75 - Looking Downstream at Cross -Section 4
i
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 28 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

South Muddy Creek — Permanent Photo Station 10
South Muddy Creek — Permanent Photo Station 10
Station 104+75 - Looking Downstream from Bridge
i
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 29 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

South Muddy Creek — Permanent Photo Station ll
South Muddy Creek — Permanent Photo Station 12
Station 108+58- Looking Downstream at Cross -Section 6
i
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 30 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

South Muddy Creek — Permanent Photo Station 13
Lower South Muddy Creek — Permanent Photo Station 14
Station 111+20 - Looking Upstream
i
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 31 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

Lower South Muddy Creek — Permanent Photo Station 14
Lower Iva Branch — Permanent Photo Station 14
Station 111+20 - Looking Upstream from Confluence
i
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 32 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

Lower South Muddy Creek — Permanent Photo Station 15
Upper Iva Branch — Permanent Photo Station 16
Station 300+50 - Looking Downstream
i
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 33 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

Upper Iva Branch — Permanent Photo Station 17
Upper Iva Branch — Permanent Photo Station 18
Station 302+82 - Looking Downstream at Cross -Section 9
i
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 34 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

ui
`.�
y
� r
1 8 '•,

4r
41
4 _
g-�:
€ y
1
s
-

x
f
Olt
m, At
� - ��R tr�'S �"^•`�� '�.} as ,,�� a�
l
c
i
x
sue.
,

rM `f �
._� •� ''° r r ,.i~ fit'` ;
.' t
1 xi 1'MV
y.
`�"'�"- ' _ ;may

�4� T[
•�.4 }� i4
a�
100
M
r�
R'
-
_
4 - It ..
_ k -
�1
w
.��_. 40,
ti
Ap
ra; '
,a

.� 7 �
rY J1 f
n
.f
t 1
low
*4vlw6-,- ' !f
Haney Permanent Photo
Looking Downstream South Muddy Creek
y�
' - � T.• z ` oaf «SYL"'
- ,G,. #-.•N�,��,, � _tom ,�� - �--,:` 3
4 may.
• may, ... ,. � �,�` •.� .� ��P �°Sxf -1r�
61 i g .
i

•,r
s d4 i r
it's

A
��4 n' r
r r �
Y
� - _.- -. y�, �" -mow►• _,� a �_.. ._ '}'1 `i -Lam-.? _'

Ar
°�i' rwr r ` "i' ry ✓ o r;grj 7
r a i
NkZ
�i
S
1 a (

Problem Area Photos
Failed Stricture — Iva Branch STA 303+67 (looking upstream)
Bank Scour LDB— South Muddy Creek 109+00 (looking upstream)
i
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 45 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

Problem Area Photos
Bank Scour RDB— South Muddy Creek 109+00 (looking upstream)
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 46 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Middle South Muddy Stream
Restoration Site
Vegetation Plot ID
Vegetation
Survival
Threshold
Met?
Tract Mean
1
Yes
100%
2
Yes
3
Yes
4
Yes
5
Yes
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 49 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Site
Report Prepared By
Owen Carson
Date Prepared
11/20/2019 15:50
database name
Equinox 2019_A_Middle SouthMuddy_MY4.mdb
database location
Z:\ES\NRI&M\EEP Monitoring\Middle South Muddy\MY4-
2019\Data\Veg
computer name
FIELDTECH3-PC
file size
60854272
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT ------------
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of
project(s) and project data.
Pro', planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year.
This excludes live stakes.
Pro', total stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This
includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural/volunteer stems.
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead
stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor bSpp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and
percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and
SPP
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each
plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and
natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and missing stems are
excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY -------------------------------------
Project Code
93875
project Name
Middle South Middy
Description
River Basin
Catawba
Sampled Plots
5
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 50 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

Table 9. Total Planted Stem Counts (Stems by Plot)
Middle Suth Muddy Stream Restoration Project
Current Plot Data (MY4 2019)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
93875-01-0001
93875-01-0002
93875-01-0003
93875-01-0004
93875-01-0005
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
Acer rubrum var. rubrum
red maple
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
7
7
Betulanigra
river birch
Tree
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
2
2
2
Celtis occidentalis
common hackberry
Tree
2
2
2
Cercis canadensis
eastern redbud
Tree
1
1
1
Cornusamomum
silkydogwood
Shrub
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
4
4
4
2
2
2
Juniperusvirginiana
eastern redcedar
Tree
2
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
4
41
4
71
71
7
11
11
1
61
6
211
2
2
7
Platanus occidentalisvar.
Sycamore, Plane-treiTree
Rhus aromatica
fragrant sumac
Shrub
Rhus copallinum
flameleaf sumac
shrub
Rhus glabra
smooth sumac
shrub
16
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
2
2
2
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
91
91
9
151
151
16
81
81
8
111
111
28
131
13
34
1
1
1
1
1
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
41
4
4
5
5
6
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
4
5
364.2
364.2
364.2
607
607
647.5
323.7
323.7
323.7
445.2
445.2
1133
526.11
526.11
1376
IPnoLS: No livestakes included in tally, P-all: All planted stems included in tally ; T: Total stems including recruitment.
Table 9. Total Planted Stem Counts (Annual Means)
Middle Suth Muddy Stream Restoration Project
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
Annual Means
MY4 (2019)
MY3 (2018)
MY2 (2017)
MY1(2016)
MYO (2016)
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
Acer rubrum var. rubrum
red maple
Tree
2
Betulanigra
river birch
Tree
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
8
8
8
8
8
8
7
7
7
7
7
7
5
5
5
Celtis occidentalis
common hackberry
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
Cerciscanadensis
eastern redbud
Tree
2
2
2
Cornusamomum
silkydogwood
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
1
Juniperusvirginiana
eastern redcedar
Tree
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
2
Platanus occidentalis var.
Sycamore, Plane-trei
Tree
20
20
40
20
20
47
20
20
20
201
20
20
20
20
20
Rhus aromatica
fragrant sumac
Shrub
19
Rhus copallinum
flameleaf sumac
shrub
11
Rhus glabra
smooth sumac
ishrub
11
Ulmus americana
American elm
ITree
16
12
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
21
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
6
6
6
7
7
7
561
561
95
57
57
97
58
58
89
601
601
71
601
601
60
5
5
5
5
5
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
81
81
111
71
7
9
7
7
9
7
7
8
7
7
7
453.2
453.2
768.9
461.3
461.3
785.1
469.4
469.4
720 :11
485.61
485.61
574.7
485.61
485.6
485.6
IPnoLS: No livestakes included in tally , P-all: All planted stems included in tally ; T: Total stems including recruitment.
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 51 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

� 3
,a � t. „�, . %�' - .`�„►; ;
ti

Middle South Muddy - Vegetation Monitoring Plot 3
October 24th, 2019
Middle South Muddy - Vegetation Monitoring Plot 4
October 24', 2019
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 54 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

Middle South Muddy - Vegetation Monitoring Plot 5
October 24', 2019
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 55 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 56 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

Appendix D
Stream Geomorphology Data

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Table 10. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Middle South Mudd - South Muddy Creek / Lower South Muddy Creek (1,088 feet
Parameter Regional Curse Pre-Edsting Condition Reference Reach Data Design As -Built / Baseline
Dimension & Substrate -Rifle,
LL
LL
Eq.
Mn
Mean
Med
Max
SD
N
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
N
Mn
Mean
Max
Mn
Mean
Med
Max
SD
N
Bankfull Width (ft)
-
30.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
19.4
-
-
36.6
-
-
-
30.8
-
30.7
31.1
31.0
31.6
0.5
3
Floodprone Width (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
30.0
-
-
65.0
-
-
-
65.0
-
65.0
84.7
88.0
101.0
18.2
3
BankfullMem Depth (ft)
-
1.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.6
-
-
1.6
-
-
-
1.7
-
1.6
1.9
1.9
2.1
0.3
3
Bankfull M ax Depth (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.0
-
-
2.2
-
-
-
2.2
-
2.3
2.7
2.8
2.9
0.4
3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft'")
51.
-
-
-
-
-
-
30.2
-
-
36.6
-
-
-
52.2
-
50.5
58.1
59.0
64.9
7.2
3
Width/Depth Ratio
-
-
-
-
-
-
12.3
-
-
14.9
-
-
-
19.1
-
14.8
16.8
1 15.9
19.8
2.6
3
Entrenchment Ratio
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.3
-
-
2.8
-
-
-
2.1
-
2.1
2.7
1 2.8
3.3
0.6
3
Bank Height Ratio
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.0
-
-
1.2
-
-
-
1.0
-
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
3
d50 (mm)
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
29.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
17.7
-
-
64.0
-
-
-
-
-
54.4
109.6
85.4
229.5
68.9
5
Riffle Slope(ft/ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.77
-
-
3.60
-
-
-
-
-
0.001
0.003
0.003
0.005
0.001
5
Pool Length (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
12.0
-
-
36.0
-
-
-
-
-
34.8
50.8
51.3
66.3
12.4
5
Pool M ax Depth (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.3
-
-
2.9
-
-
-
3.3
-
3.2
4.6
4.5
6.0
0.9
6
Pool Sp acing(ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
97.5
-
-
193.0
-
-
154.5
-
220.7
112.6
196.3
187.9
323.2
89.4
5
Pattern
Channel Belt Width (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
100.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
63.72
86.44
92.6
103
20.34
3
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
32.0
-
514.0
-
-
-
61.0
-
102.1
114.7
120.1
121.8
10.9
3
Rc: B ankfWl Width (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.3
3.7
3.9
3.9
0.4
3
M eander Wavelength (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
300.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
466.5
495.0
497.3
521.1
27.4
3
M eander Width Ratio
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4.3
-
-
-
-
-
3.2
-
2.0
2.8
3.0
3.3
0.7
3
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri% /Ru%/P%/G%/S%
-
-
55%/ 11%/26%/8%/0%
SC% /Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
-
1%/ 8%/ 72%/17%/1%/1%
dl6/d35/d50/d84/d95/di/di- (mm)
-
7.2 / 20 / 29/ 42/ 69/ 120
Reach Shear Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ft2
-
0.857
-
-
M ax Part Siz a (mm) M obiliz ed at Bankfull
-
760
-
-
Stream Power (Transport Capacity) W/rn2
-
-
-
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (nit)
-
3.33
4.7
Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
-
-
-
Rosgen Classification
-
C4
C4
C4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
-
-
3.9
-
BankfullDischarge(cfs)
-
-
143.0
-
Valley Length (ft)
-
550
1,136
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
-
600
1,161
1,163
Sinuosity
-
1.10
1.03
1.03
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
-
-
0.003
0.003
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
-
-
0.003
0.002
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
-
-
Proportion Over Wide (%)
-
-
Entrenchment Class (ER RmW)
-
-
Incision Class (BHR Range)
-
-
BEHI
Channel Stability or Habitat M etric
-
-
Biological or other
I-
-
Information unavailable.
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 59 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

Table 10 Cont'd. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Middle South Mudd - Middle Sprouse Branch 177 feet
Parameter
Regional Curve
Pre-Edsting Condition
Reference Reach Data
Design
As -Built/ Baseline
Dimension&Substrate -Rime
LL
It,
Eq.
Mtn
Mean
Med
Max
SD
N
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
N
Mtn
Mean
Max
Mn
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Bankfull Width(ft)
-
4.8
-
23.4
-
-
24.7
-
-
-
4.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Floodprone Width (ft)
43.0
-
-
52.0
-
-
-
15.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
BankfWlMcan Depth (ft)
-
0.5
-
1.3
-
-
1.5
-
-
-
0.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
BankfullMaxDepth(ft)
1.8
-
-
2.2
-
-
-
0.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
BankfWl Cross Sectional Area (ft')
0.5
33.4
-
-
34.6
-
-
-
1.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Width/DepthRatio
15.8
-
-
18A
-
-
-
14.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Entrenchment Ratio
1.8
-
-
2.2
-
-
-
3.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
BankHeightRatio
1.4
-
-
1.6
-
-
-
1.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
d50 (mm)
_
45.0
Profile
Riffle Length(ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
20.0
-
-
40.0
-
-
-
-
-
15.2
20.0
16.1
28.8
7.6
3
Riffle Slope(ft/ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.500
-
-
4.300
-
-
-
-
-
0.005
0.007
0.008
0.010
0.002
3
Pool Length(ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.0
-
-
42.0
-
-
-
-
-
3.7
9.2
82
16.5
5.3
4
Pool M ax Depth (It)
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.3
-
-
2.3
-
-
-
0.8
-
1.6
2.0
1.8
2.7
0.5
4
Pool Spacing (It)
-
-
-
-
-
-
51.0
-
-
113.0
-
-
15.9
-
22.7
43.0
49.1
44.4
60.1
9.5
3
Pattern
Channel Belt Width (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
43.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.1
7.9
7.8
8.9
0.9
Radius of Cutvature (It)
-
-
-
-
-
-
44.0
-
-
103.0
-
-
-
-
-
8.2
15.0
14.0
23.8
6.9
4
Rc: Bankfull Width(ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.7
3.1
2.9
5.0
1.4
4
M eander Wavelength(ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
100.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
20.4
26.3
27.1
30.7
4.5
4
M sander Width Ratio
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.8
-
-
-
-
-
2.3
-
1.5
1.7
1.6
1.9
0.2
3
S ubstmte, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
-
-
39%/0%/24%
8%/29%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
-
1%/l0%/48%/41%/0%/1%
d16/d35/ 150/ 184/ 195/di°/di`P(mm)
-
5.2
/ 22 / 45/ 75/ 130/ 190/-l-
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ft2
-
1.947
-
-
M ax Part Siz a (mm) M obilized at Bankfull
-
91
-
-
StreamPower (Transport Capacity) W/m�
-
-
-
Addi6onal Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (me)
-
2.77
0.03
Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
-
-
-
Rosgen Clmsification
-
B4
B5
B5
BankfWl Velocity (fps)
-
-
6.1
-
BankfWl Discharge (cfs)
-
-
210.0
-
Valley Length (ft)
-
380
187
Channel Thalweg Leogth (ft)
-
400
177
177
Sinuosity
-
1.1
1.06
1.01
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
-
-
0.031
0.029
BankfWl Slope (ft/ft)
-
-
0.031
0.029
Bankfull Floodplain Arm (a )
-
-
Proportion Over Wide (%)
-
-
Entrenchment Class (ER Range)
-
-
Incision Class (BHR Range)
-
-
BEHI
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-
-
Biologicalor other
-
-
- Information rmavailable.
Non -Applicable. '
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 60 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

Table 10 Cont'd. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Middle South Mudd - Lower Sprouse Branch 434 feet
Parameter Regional Curve Pre -I fisting Condition Reference Reach Daha Design As -Built/ Baseline
Dimension&Substrate -Rime
LL
tL
Eq.
Mtn
Mean
Med
Max
SD
N
Mn
Mean
Med
Max
SD
N
Mtn
Mean
Max
Mn
Mean
Med
Max
SD
N
Bankfull Width (ft)
-
5.3
-
23.4
-
-
24.7
-
-
-
5.2
-
5.1
5.3
5.3
5.4
0.2
2
Floodprone Width (ft)
43.0
-
-
52.0
-
-
-
15.0
-
14.0
19.0
19.0
24.0
3.5
2
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
-
0.5
-
1.3
-
-
1.5
-
-
-
0.4
-
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.0
2
Bankfull Max Depth(ft)
1.8
-
-
2.2
-
-
-
0.6
-
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.0
2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft')
33.4
-
-
34.6
-
-
-
1.9
-
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.8
0.0
2
Width/Depth Ratio
15.8
-
-
18A
1
14.3
-
15.1
15.9
1 15.9
16.7
1.1
2
Entrenchment Ratio
1.8
-
-
2.2
-
-
-
2.9
-
2.6
3.6
3.6
4.5
1.3
2
Bank Height Ratio
1.4
-
-
1.6
-
-
-
1.0
-
1.0
0.0
2
d50 (mm)
_
45.0
Profile
Riffle Length(ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
20.0
-
-
40.0
-
-
-
-
-
6.0
16.2
14.2
32.2
9.3
9
Riffle Slope(I/ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
L5
-
-
4.3
-
-
-
-
-
0.003
0.011
0.011
0.025
0.007
9
Pool Length (11)
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.0
-
-
42.0
-
-
-
-
-
3.4
8.7
9.0
12.1
3.1
11
PoolMax Depth(ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.3
-
-
2.3
-
-
-
0.8
-
1.3
1.8
1.8
2.3
0.3
11
Pool Spacing (11)
-
-
-
-
-
-
51.0
-
-
113.0
-
-
18.1
-
25.8
19.0
32.9
32.2
55.1
10.5
10
Pattern
Channel Belt Width (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
43.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
10.1
10.4
10.4
10.6
0.3
3
Radius of Cutvature (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
44.0
-
-
103.0
-
-
-
-
-
8.8
10.6
10.6
12.5
1.9
4
Rc: Bankfull Width (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.7
2.0
2.0
2.4
0.4
4
M eander Wavelength(ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
100.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
33.2
38.1
38.5
42.9
3.5
5
M eander Width Ratio
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.8
-
-
-
-
-
3.1
-
1.9
2.0
2.0
2.0
0.0
3
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri% /Ru%/P%/G%/S%
-
-
41%/6%/27%/9%/ 17%
SC % / Sa% / G%/ C%/B%/Be%
-
1%/ 10%/48%/41%/0%/ 1%
dl6/d35/d50/d84/d95/di°/,E'(mm)
-
5.2/22/45/75/130/190/-l-
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ft2
-
1.947
-
-
M ax Part Siz a (mm) M obilized at Bankfull
-
91
-
-
StreamPower (Transport Capacity) W/m�
-
-
-
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (me)
-
2.77
004
Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
-
-
-
Rosgen Classification
-
B4
B5
B5
BankfWl Velocity (fps)
-
-
6.1
-
BankfWl Discharge (cfs)
-
-
210.0
-
Valley Length (ft)
-
380.0
422
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
-
400.0
453
453
Sinuosity
-
1.1
1.07
1.07
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
-
-
0.014
0.017
BankfWl Slope (ft/ft)
-
-
0.014
0.017
Bankfull Floodplain Area (=es)
-
-
Proportion Over Wide (%)
-
-
Entrenchment Class (ER RmW)
-
-
Incision Class (BHR Raoge)
-
-
BEHI
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-
-
Biologicalor Other
-
-
- Information rmavailable.
Non -Applicable. '
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 61 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

Table 10 Cont'd. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Middle South Mudd - Upper Iva Branch 326 feet
Parameter Regional Curse Pre -fisting Condition Reference Reach Data Design As -Built/ Baseline
Dimension&Substrate -Riffle
LL
L"L
Eq.
Mn
Mean
Med
Max
SD
N
M.
Mean
Med
Max
SD
N
Mn
Mean
Max
Nan
Mean
Med
Max
SD
N
Bankfull Width (ft)
-
4.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
23.4
-
-
24.7
-
-
-
4.8
-
4.6
4.9
4.9
5.3
0.5
2
Floodprone Width (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
43.0
-
-
52
-
-
-
15.0
-
14.0
15.5
15.5
17.0
2.1
2
Bankfufl M can Depth (ft)
-
0.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.3
-
-
1.5
-
-
-
0.3
-
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.0
2
Bankfufl M ax Depth (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.8
-
-
2.2
-
-
-
0.5
-
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.1
2
Bankfufl Cross Sectional Area (ft'")
1.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
33.4
-
-
34.6
-
-
-
1.6
-
1.9
2.0
2.0
2.1
0.1
2
Width/Depth Ratio
-
-
-
-
-
-
15.8
-
-
18.4
-
-
-
14.1
-
11.0
12.2
1 122
13.3
1.6
2
Entrenchment Ratio
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.8
-
-
2.2
-
-
-
3.2
-
3.0
3.1
1 3.1
3.2
0.1
2
Bank Height Ratio
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.4
-
-
1.6
-
-
-
1.0
-
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
d50 (mm)
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
45.0
Profile
Riffle Longth(ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
20.0
-
-
40.0
-
-
-
-
-
26.7
48.8
40.1
90.6
24.6
5
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.50
-
-
4.30
-
-
-
-
-
0.001
0.004
0.002
0.009
0.003
5
Pool Length (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.0
-
-
42.0
-
-
-
-
-
2.1
2.8
2.7
3.4
0.6
4
PoolMax Depth(ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.3
-
-
2.3
-
-
-
0.%
-
0.5
0.8
0.8
1.2
0.3
4
Pool Spacing (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
51.0
-
-
113.0
-
-
15.9
-
22.7
47.1
55.5
59.0
60.4
7.3
3
Pattern
Channel Belt Width (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
43.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
11.9
14.8
14.8
17.6
4.0
2
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
44.0
-
-
103.0
-
-
-
-
-
7.6
9.4
8.4
13.2
2.6
4
Rc: Bankfull Width (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.5
1.9
1.7
2.7
0.5
4
M eander Wavelength (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
100.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
43.2
48.1
47.7
53.8
5.0
4
Meander Width Ratio
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.8
-
-
-
-
-
2.5
-
2.4
3.0
3.0
3.5
0.8
2
S ubstrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri% /Ru%/P%/G%/S%
-
-
80%/O%/4%/2%/ 14%
SC% /Sa% /G%/C%/B%/Be%
-
1%/ 10%/48%/41%/0%/ 1%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/dF/di- (mm)
-
5.2 / 22 / 45/ 75/ 130/ 190/-/-
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ft2
-
1.947
-
-
M ax Part Size (mm) M obilized at Bankfall
-
91
-
-
Stream Power (Transport Capacity) W/m2
-
-
-
AddtOonal Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (min)
-
2.77
0.03
Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
-
-
-
Rosgen Classification
-
B4
B5
B5
Bankfufl Velocity (fps)
-
-
6.1
-
Bankfufl Discharge (cfs)
-
-
210.0
-
Valley Length (ft)
-
380
424
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
-
400
326
326
Sinuosity
-
1.10
1.09
1.10
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
-
-
0.058
0.056
Bankfufl Slope (ft/ft)
-
-
0.058
0.056
Bankfufl Floodplam Area (acres)
-
-
Proportion Over Wide (%)
-
-
Entrenchment Class (ERRange)
-
-
Incision Class (BHR Range)
-
-
BEHI
Channel Stability or Habitat M etric
-
-
Biological or Other
-
-
- ln£ormatiou mavailable.
Non -Applicable. -
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 62 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

Table 10 Cont'd. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Middle South Mudd - Lower Iva Branch 136 feet
Parameter
Regional Cum
Pre -fisting Condition
Reference Reach Data
Design
As -Built/ Baseline
Dinrensi on& Sulmn ate - Riffle
IL
DI.
Eq.
Mn
Mean
Med
Max
SD
N
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
N
Min
Mean
Max
Mn
Mean
Med
Max
SD
N
Bankfull Width (ft)
-
5.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
23.4
-
-
24.7
-
-
-
5.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Floodprone Width (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
43.0
-
-
52
-
-
-
15.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
BankfullMeanDepth(ft)
-
0.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.3
-
-
1.5
-
-
-
0.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
BankfullMaxDepth(ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.8
-
-
2.2
-
-
-
0.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
BankfullCrossSectionalArea(ft)
2.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
33.4
-
-
34.6
-
-
-
2.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Width/DepthRatio
-
-
-
-
-
-
15.8
-
-
18.4
-
-
-
14.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
Entrenchment Ratio
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.8
-
-
2.2
-
-
-
2.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
BankHeightRatio
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.4
-
-
1.6
-
-
-
1.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
d50 (mm)
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
45.0
Pro81e
Riffle Length (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
20.0
-
-
40.0
-
-
-
-
-
9.4
11.8
11.8
14.3
3.5
2
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.50
-
-
4.30
-
-
-
-
-
0.010
0.021
0.021
0.033
0.016
2
Pool Length (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.0
-
-
42.0
-
-
-
-
-
5.8
9.4
9.4
12.9
3.3
4
Pool M as Depth (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.3
-
-
2.3
-
-
-
0.9
-
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.2
0.1
4
Pool Spacing (8)
-
-
-
-
-
-
51.0
-
-
113.0
-
-
19.3
-
27.5
20.%
25.9
20.%
36.1
%.9
3-
P. fter.
Channel Belt Width (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
43.0
-
-
-
-
8.9
9.6
9.6
10.3
1.0
2
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
44.0
-
-
1113.11
-
-
12.2
12.5
12.5
12.8
0.4
2
Rc: Bankfull Width (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.2
2.3
2.3
2.3
0.1
2
M eander Wavelength (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
100.0
-
-
-
-
23.0
27.4
25.5
33.6
5.6
3
M eander Width Ratio
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.8
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.9
0.2
S ubstrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri% /Ru%/P%/G%/S%
-
-
24%/ 17%/38%/20%/0%
SC% /Sa% /G%/C%/B%/Be%
-
1%/ 10%/48%/41%/0%/ 1%
d16/135/150/184/195/di/di- (mam
-
5.2 / 22 / 45/ 75/ 130/ 190/-l-
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2
-
1.947
-
-
M as Part Size (mm) M obilized at Bankf hII
-
91
-
-
Stream Power (Transport Capacity) W/m2
-
-
-
AM H onal Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (mi')
-
2.77
0.046
Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
-
-
-
Rosgm Classification
-
B4
B5
B5
Bankfu8 Velocity (fps)
-
-
6.1
-
Bankfu8 Discharge (cfs)
-
-
210.0
-
Valley Length (8)
-
380.0
151
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
-
400.0
156
156
Sinuosity
-
1.10
1.02
1.03
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
-
-
0.026
0.032
Bankfu8 Slope (ft/ft)
-
-
0.026
0.035
Bankfu8 Floodplam Area (acres)
-
-
Proportion Over Wide (%)
-
-
Entrenchment Class (ER Range)
-
-
Incision Class (BHR Range)
-
-
BEHI
Channel Stability or Habitat M etric
-
-
Biological or Other
-
-
- Information anavailable.
Non -Applicable.
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 63 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Table lla. Baseline Morphology & Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Site
Cross -Section 1 (Riffle)
Lower Sprouse Branch
Cross -Section 2 (Riffle)
Lower Sprouse Branch
Cross -Section 3 (Pool)
Lower Sprouse Branch
Cross -Section 4 (Riffle)
South Muddy Creek
Cross -Section 5 (Riffle)
South Muddy Creek
Dimension
Base
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Base
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Base
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Base
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Base
W1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Record Elevation (datum) Used
1,278.1
1,278.1
1,278.1
1,278.2
1,278.1
1,275.8
1,275.8
1,275.8
1,276.0
1,275.9
1,273.7
1,273.7
1,273.7
1,273.8
1,273.7
1,269.4
1,269.4
1,269.4
1,269.5
1,269.4
1,267.9
1,267.9
1,267.9
1,268.1
1,268.0
Low Bank Height Elevation (datum) Used
-
-
-
1,278.1
1,278.4
-
-
-
1,275.9
1,276.0
-
-
-
1,273.7
1,273.6
-
-
-
1,269.4
1,269.5
-
-
-
1,268.4
168.6
Bankfull Width (ft)
5.4
6.1
6.3
5.5
5.5
5.1
5.3
5.4
6.3
6.0
6.1
6.8
6.8
8.0
7.2
31.6
32.6
31.8
30.2
29.0
30.7
30.6
31.8
29.6
29.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
14.0
14.0
1 14.0
14.0
1 14.0
1 23.0
23.0
1 23.0
23.0
23.0
32.0
1 32.0
32.0
1 32.0
32.0
65.0
1 65.0
65.0
1 65.0
65.0
1
101.0
101.0
101.0
101.0
101.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
1 0.3
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.8
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.9
1.9
1.9
2.0
2.0
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.5
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.3
1 1.6
2.3
2.6
2.6
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
3.0
3.3
3.4
Bankftxll Cross Sectional Area(ft)
1.8
1.5
1.5
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.3
1.2
1.7
1.7
5.9
6.3
6.3
5.9
5.9
50.5
54.1
52.8
50.5
50.5
59.0
57.9
61.3
59.0
59.0
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
16.7
25.4
25.8
17.4
17.0
15.1
21.5
23.7
23.3
21.2
6.3
7.5
7.3
10.9
8.7
19.8
19.7
19.1
18.0
16.7
15.9
16.2
16.4
14.9
14.3
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
2.6
2.3
2.2
2.5
2.5
4.5
4.3
4.3
3.7
3.9
1
5.3
4.7
1 4.7
4.0
4.5
2.1
2.0
1 2.0
22
1 2.2
3.3
3.3
3.2
3.4
3.5
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio*
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.5
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.2
1.0
1.1
1 1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1 1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.2
Low Top of Bank Height Depth (ft)
-
-
-
0.4
0.9
-
0.6
0.6
-
-
-
1.2
1.5
-
-
-
2.7
1
2.2
3.6
1 3.5
d50 (mm)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
I N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
14.0
27.0
27.0
44.0
N/A
18.0
15.0
16.0
1 2.4
Cross -Section 6 (Pool)
South Muddy Creek
Cross -Section 7 (Riffle)
South Muddy Creek
Cross -Section 8 (Pool)
Upper Iva Branch
Cross -Section 9 (Riffle)
Upper Iva Branch
Cross -Section 10 (Riffle)
Upper Iva Branch
Dimension
Base
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Base
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Base
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Base
W1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Base
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MYS
Record Elevation (datum) Used
1,268.0
1,268.0
1,268.0
1,268.1
1,268.2
1,267.3
1,267.3
1,267.3
1,267.5
1,267.6
1,286.1
1,286.1
1,286.1
1,286.2
1,286.1
1,285.3
1,285.3
1,285.3
1,285.2
1,285.3
1,277.1
1,277.1
1,277.1
1,277.2
1,277.1
Low Bank Height Elevation (datum) Used
-
- -
1,268.5
1,268.4
-
-
-
1,267.4
1,267.3
-
-
-
1,286.0
1,285.9
-
-
-
1,285.2
1,285.2
-
-
-
1,277.2
1,277.2
Bankfull Width (ft)
35.3
35.9
36.7
31.7
31.7
31.0
31.2
34.0
29.9
36.2
5.5
5.8
5.6
7.2
5.6
4.6
4.2
4.1
6.0
6.7
5.3
5.6
5.8
4.2
3.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
166.0
166.0
166.0
166.0
166.0
88.0
88.0
88.0
1 88.0
88.0
1
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
1 14.0
14.0
1 14.0
14.0
14.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.7
2.7
2.1
2.2
2.0
2.2
1.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.3
Bankftxll Max Depth (ft)
4.0
3.9
3.9
4.3
3.7
2.9
3.0
3.1
3.4
3.5
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.4
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.7
1 0.6
0.6
0.6
1 0.6
0.8
1 0.5
Bankftxll Cross Sectional Area (ft)
85.7
86.3
89.2
85.7
85.7
64.9
67.7
67.9
64.3
64.9
5.7
5.6
5.6
5.7
4.6
1.9
1.8
2.1
1.9
2.1
2.1
1.9
2.5
2.1
1.2
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
14.5
14.9
15.1
11.7
11.8
14.8
14.4
17.0
13.9
20.2
5.4
6.1
5.5
9.0
6.7
11.0
9.8
8.0
18.7
21.5
13.3
16.7
13.3
8.4
11.2
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
4.7
4.6
4.5
5.2
5.2
2.8
2.8
2.6
2.9
2.4
3.1
2.9
3.1
2.4
3.0
3.0
3.3
3.5
2.3
2.1
3.2
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.6
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio*
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.3
11
Low Top of Bank Height Depth (ft)
-
-
-
4.7
3.9
3.3
3.2
1.3
1 1.3
-
0.7
0.6
-
-
-
0.8
0.6
d50(mm)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.91
1.3
18.0
6.2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
I N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A - Item does not apply.
* Beginning in MY3 (2018), the bankfull elevation and channel cross-section dimensions have been calculated using a fixed Abkf as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter provided by NCIRT and NCDM S (9/2018)
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 65 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

Table llb. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Site - South Muddy Creek 1,088 feet
Parameter
Baseline
MY -1
MY-2
MY-3
MY-4
MY-5
Dimension & Substrate -Riffle
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
Bankfull Width (ft)
30.7
31.1
31.0
31.6
0.5
3
30.6
31.5
31.2
32.6
1.0
3
31.8
32.5
31.8
34.0
1.3
3
29.6
29.9
29.9
30.2
0.3
3
29.0
31.4
29.0
36.2
4.1
3
Floodprone Width (ft)
65.0
84.7
88.0
101.0
18.2
3
65.0
84.7
88.0
101.0
18.2
3
65.0
84.7
88.0
101.0
18.2
3
65.0
84.7
88.0
101.0
18.2
3
65.0
84.7
88.0
101.0
18.2
3
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.6
1.9
1.9
2.1
0.3
3
1.7
1.9
1.9
2.2
0.3
3
1.7
1.9
1.9
2.0
0.2
3
1.7
1.9
2.0
2.2
0.2
3
1 1.7
1.9
1.8
2.0
0.2
3
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.3
2.7
2.8
2.9
0.4
3
2.6
2.8
2.8
3.0
0.2
3
2.6
2.9
3.0
3.1
0.3
3
2.8
3.2
3.3
3.4
0.3
3
2.8
3.2
3.4
3.5
0.4
3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ftz)
50.5
58.1
59.0
1 64.9
7.2
1 3
1 54.1
1 59.9
1 57.9
67.7
7.0
3
52.8
60.7
61.3
67.9
7.5
3
50.5
1 57.9
59.0
64.3
6.9
3
50.5
58.1
59.0
64.9
7.3
3
Width/Depth Ratio
14.8
16.8
15.9
19.8
2.6
3
14.4
16.7
162
19.7
2.7
3
16.4
17.5
17.0
19.1
1.4
3
13.9
15.6
14.9
18.0
22
3
14.3
17.1
16.7
20.2
3.0
3
Entrenchment Ratio
2.1
2.7
2.8
3.3
0.6
3
2.0
2.7
2.8
3.3
0.7
3
2.0
2.6
2.6
3.2
0.6
3
2.2
2.8
2.9
3.4
0.6
-3
22
2.7
2.4
3.5
0.7
3
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
0.1
3
0.9
1.1
1.1
1.2
0.1
1 3
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
54.4
109.6
85.4
229.5
68.9
5
64.1
111.4
90.3
203.5
56.0
5
58.0
108.2
99.1
202.2
57.7
5
70.2
102.6
77.4
206.9
58.7
5
44.4
114.6
113.4
203.3
55.8
6
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.001
0.003
0.003
0.005
0.001
5
0.001
0.005
0.004
0.009
0.003
5
0.001
0.004
0.003
0.008
0.003
5
0.000
0.004
0.001
0.013
0.005
5
0.002
0.004
0.003
0.007
0.002
6
Pool Length (ft)
34.8
50.8
51.3
66.3
12.4
5
17.8
56.4
48.5
96.8
30.1
5
23.4
56.0
56.9
95.7
26.5
5
26.0
55.6
54.3
91.7
24.8
5
21.8
42.6
37.4
67.6
17.1
5
Pool Max Depth (ft)
32
4.6
4.5
6.0
0.9
6
3.4
4.1
3.8
5.4
0.8
5
3.7
4.6
4.4
5.8
0.8
5
3.0
4.7
4.6
62
1.4
5
3.9
5.4
5.4
7.5
1.3
5
Pool Spacing (ft)
112.6
196.3
187.9
323.2
89.4
5
177.1
247.4
239.1
334.2
68.6
4
179.1
249.1
230.1
3572
81.2
4
139.1
248.7
229.5
396.8
112.5
4
69.1
212.7
256.5
268.6
96.1
t 4
Pattern
Channel Belt Width (ft)
63.7
86.4
92.6
103.0
20.34
3
Radius of Curvature (ft)
102.1
114.7
120.1
121.8
10.94
3
Re: Bankfall Width (ft/ft)
3.28
3.7
3.86
3.92
0.35
3
Meander Wavelength (ft)
466.5
495.0
497.3
521.1
27.38
3
Meander Width Ratio
2.0
2.8
3.0
3.3
0.65
3
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4
C4
C4
C4
C4
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,163
1,158
1,174
1,151
1,141
Sinuosity (ft)
1.03
1.03
1.05
1.03
1.02
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.003
0.0033
0.0033
0.0027
0.0033
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.002
0.0029
0.0037
0.0031
0.0034
Ri% /Ru% /P% /G% /S%
55% 11% 1 26% 1 8% 1 0% 1
1 56% 1 6% 1 28% 1 9% 1 0% 1
1 54% 1 10% 1 28% T 8% 0%
53% 11% 29% 1 8% 1 0% 1
640/o6%1 20% 10% 0%
- Information Unavailable
N/A - Information does not apply.
Ri = Riffle / Ru = Run / P = Pool / G = Glide / S = Step
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 66 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

Table llb Cont'd. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Site - Middle Sprouse Branch 177 feet
Parameter
Baseline
MY -1
MY-2
MY-3
NW-4
NW- 5
Dimension & Substrate - Riffle
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
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft)
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
t--4
--
Bank Height Ratio
-
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
15.2
20.0
16.1
28.8
7.6
3
18.1
27.3
23.6
40.1
11.5
3
16.9
24.0
19.6
35.5
10.0
3
16.3
23.9
18.4
37.0
11.4
3
16.3
29.6
32.5
37.0
9.5
3
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.005
0.007
0.008
0.010
0.002
3
0.003
0.008
0.009
0.013
0.005
3
0.002
0.010
0.011
0.017
0.008
3
0.007
0.010
0.009
0.013
0.003
3
0.007
0.013
0.012
0.019
0.005
3
Pool Length (ft)
3.7
9.2
8.2
16.5
5.3
4
6.5
9.4
9.9
11.5
2.2
4
5.7
8.1
7.4
11.9
2.7
4
6.0
8.5
8.2
11.7
2.4
4
8.44
11.04
10.99
13.72
2.22
4
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.6
2.0
1.8
2.7
0.5
4
1.1
1.8
1.8
2.4
0.6
4
1.3
1.8
1.7
2.4
0.5
4
1.2
1.5
1.6
1.8
0.2
4
1.22
1.55
1.57
1.80
0.22
4
Pool Spacing (ft),
43.0
49.1
44.4
60.1
9.5
3
52.3
58.9
52.6
71.7
11.1
3
42.4
49.3
47.2
58.3
8.2
3
42.2
48.9
47.8
56.5
7.2
3
42.23
48.86
47.81
56.53
7.21
3
Pattern
Channel Belt Width (ft)
7.1
7.9
7.8
8.9
0.9
3
Radius of Curvature (ft)
8.2
15.0
14.0
23.8
6.9
4
Re: Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
1.7
3.1
2.9
5.0
1.4
4
Meander Wavelength (ft)
20.4
26.3
27.1
30.7
4.5
4
Meander Width Ratio
1.5
1.7
1.6
1.9
0.2
3
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
B5
B5
B5
B5
B5
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
177
159
160
158
156
Sinuosity (ft)
1.01
1.02
1.03
1.02
1.01
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.029
0.028
0.029
0.030
0.02
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.029
0.025
0.026
0.023
0.021
Ri% /Ru% /P% /G% /S%
39% 1 0% 1 24% 1 8% 1 29%
44% 0% 20% 1 7% 28%
46% 0% 21% 1 7% 27%
45% 0% 21% 1 5% 28% 1
1 49% 0% 18% 13% 21%
- Information Unavailable
N/A - Information does not apply.
Ri = Riffle / Ru = Run / P = Pool / G = Glide / S = Step
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 67 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

Table I I b Cont'd. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Middle South uddy Stream Restoration Site - Lower S rouse Branch 434 feet
Parameter
Baseline
MY-1
MY-2
MY-3
MY-4
MY-5
Dimension & Substrate -Riffle
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
Bankfull Width (ft)
5.1
5.3
5.3
5.4
0.2
2
5.3
5.7
5.7
6.1
0.6
2
5.4
5.8
5.8
6.3
0.6
2
5.5
5.9
5.9
6.3
0.5
2
5.5
5.7
5.7
6.0
0.3
2
Floodprone Width (ft)
14.0
19.0
19.0
24.0
3.5
2
14.0
18.5
18.5
23.0
6.4
2
14.0
18.5
18.5
23.0
6.4
2
14.0
18.5
18.5
23.0
6.4
2
14.0
18.5
18.5
23.0
6.4
2
BankfullMean Depth (ft)
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.0
2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.0
2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.0
2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.0
2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.0
2
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.0
2
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.1
2
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.1
2
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.1
2
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.0
2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
1.7
1.7
1 1.7
1.8
0.0
2
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.5
0.1
2
1.2
1.4
1.4
1.5
0.2
2
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.8
0.0
2
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.8
0.1
2
Width/Depth Ratio
15.1
15.9
15.9
16.7
1.1
2
21.5
23.4
23.4
25.4
2.8
2
23.7
24.8
24.8
25.8
1.5
2
17.4
20.3
20.3
23.3
4.1
2
17.0
19.1
19.1
21.2
3.0
2
Entrenchment Ratio
2.6
3.6
3.6
4.5
1.3
2
2.3
3.3
1 3.3
4.3
1.4
2
2.2
3.2
3.2
4.3
1.4
2
2.5
3.1
3.1
3.7
0.8
2
2.5
3.2
3.2
3.9
0.9
2
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
2
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.0
2
1.2
1.4
1.4
1.5
0.3
2
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
6.0
16.2
14.2
32.2
9.3
9
7.6
19.1
14.2
39.7
11.0
9
5.3
15.1
10.6
30.2
9.2
9
6.4
16.2
12.2
32.5
10.6
6
8.8
19.9
14.8
37.0
11.4
6
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.003
0.011
0.011
0.025
0.007
9
0.004
0.009
0.009
0.016
0.004
9
0.004
0.012
0.010
0.025
0.007
9
0.007
0.014
0.011
0.030
0.008
6
0.005
0.010
0.010
0.017
0.005
6
Pool Length (ft)
3.4
8.7
9.0
12.1
3.1
11
5.2
10.4
10.4
15.7
3.6
11
3.8
9.3
9.1
15.5
4.2
11
5.4
9.4
9.1
17.8
3.6
11
3.1
12.1
10.7
35.9
7.3
11
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.3
1.8
1.8
2.3
0.3
11
1.0
1.8
1.9
2.3
0.4
11
1.4
1.7
1.7
2.1
0.3
11
1.2
1.6
1.6
2.0
0.3
11
1.2
1.6
1.6
2.0
0.3
11
Pool Spacing (ft)
19.0
32.9
32.2
55.1
10.5
10
26.3
39.2
38.6
62.5
10.8
10
17.3
32.9
33.0
54.6
10.1
10
19.4
32.8
34.3
55.2
10.9
10
19.4
29.8
29.2
42.2
8.4
10
Patte rn
Channel Belt Width (ft)
10.1
10.4
10.4
10.6
0.3
3
Radius of Curvature (ft)
8.8
10.6
10.6
12.5
1.9
4
Re: Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
1.7
2.0
2.0
2.4
0.4
4
Meander Wavelength (ft)
33.2
38.1
38.5
42.9
3.5
5
Meander Width Ratio
1.9
2.0
2.0
2.0
0.0
3
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
B5
B5
B5
B5
B5
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
453
465
463
466
469
Sinuosity (ft)
1.07
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.05
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.017
0.014
0.017
0.018
0.020
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.017
0.016
0.020
0.020
0.021
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
41% 1 6% 1 27% 1 9% 1 17%
41% 6% 27% 1 9% 16%
39% 6% 29% 1 10% 16%
28% 8% 29% 1 12% 1 22% 1
1 30% 13% 27% 13% 17%
- Information Unavailable
N/A - Information does not apply.
Ri = Riffle / Ru = Run / P = Pool / G= Glide / S= Step
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 68 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

Table llb Cont'd. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Middle South Mudd Stream Restoration Site - Upper Iva Branch 326 feet
Parameter
Baseline
MY-1
MY- 2
1 MY- 3
MY- 4
MY- 5
Dimension & Substrate - Riffle
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
Bankfull Width (ft)
4.6
4.9
4.9
5.3
0.5
2
4.2
4.9
4.9
5.6
1.0
2
4.1
4.9
4.9
5.8
1.2
2
4.2
5.1
5.1
6.0
1.2
2
3.7
5.2
5.2
6.7
2.2
2
Floodprone Width (11)
14.0
15.5
15.5
17.0
2.1
2
14.0
15.5
15.5
17.0
2.1
2
14.0
15.5
15.5
17.0
2.1
2
14.0
15.5
15.5
17.0
2.1
2
14.0
15.5
15.5
17.0
2.1
2
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.0
2
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.1
2
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.1
2
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.1
2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.0
2
BankfullMax Depth (ft)
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.1
2
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.1
2
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.1
2
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.1
2
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.1
2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft)
1.9
2.0
1 2.0
1 2.1
1 0.1
1 2
1 1.8
1 1.9
1 1.9
1 1.9
1 0.0
1 2
2.1
2.3
2.3
2.5
1 0.3
1 2
1.9
2.0
2.0
1 2.1
0.2
1 2
1.2
1.7
1 1.7
2.1
0.6
2
Width/Depth Ratio
11.0
122
1 12.2
13.3
1.6
2
9.8
13.2
13.2
16.7
4.9
2
8.0
1 10.6
1 10.6
13.3
3.7
2
1 8.4
1 13.6
13.6
18.7
7.3
2
11.2
16.4
16.4
1 21.5
1 7.3
2
Entrenchment Ratio
3.0
3.1
3.1
3.2
0.1
2
3.0
3.2
3.2
3.3
0.2
2
3.0
3.2
3.2
3.5
0.4
2
2.3
3.2
3.2
4.0
1.2
2
2.1
3.4
3.4
4.6
1.8
2
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
2
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.1
2
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.1
0.1
2
Profile
Riffle Length (11)
26.7
48.8
40.1
90.6
24.6
5
21.8
46.1
37.7
88.5
25.5
5
23.6
46.3
35.6
87.7
25.1
5
26.6
46.6
32.3
83.9
24.6
5
13.0
30.5
27.2
49.3
15.2
5
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.001
0.004
0.002
0.009
0.003
5
0.005
0.007
0.007
0.011
0.002
5
0.006
0.008
0.007
0.011
0.002
5
0.011
0.022
0.023
0.033
0.010
5
0.007
0.015
0.014
0.024
0.006
5
Pool Length (ft)
2.1
2.8
2.7
3.4
0.6
4
3.2
4.5
4.1
6.7
1.7
4
1.6
4.2
4.2
6.9
2.3
4
6.2
6.7
6.3
7.9
0.8
4
7.6
15.7
19.1
20.5
7.1
3
Pool Max Depth (ft)
0.5
0.8
0.8
1.2
0.3
4
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.8
0.2
4
0.3
0.5
0.4
1.0
0.3
4
0.4
0.6
0.4
1.0
0.4
3
0.2
0.9
0.3
3.7
1.5
5
Pool Spacing (ft)
47.1
55.5
59.0
60.4
7.3
3
49.6
54.9
54.9
60.1
5.3
3
48.2
54.8
53.9
62.3
7.1
3
41.3
55.5
43.5
81.7
22.7
3
45.0
60.9
60.9
76.8
22.5
2
Pattern
Channel Belt Width (ft)
11.9
14.8
14.8
17.6
4.0
2
Radius of Curvature (ft)
7.6
9.4
8.4
13.2
2.6
4
Re: Bankfill Width (ft/ft)
1.5
1.9
1.7
2.7
0.5
4
Meander Wavelength (ft)
43.2
48.1
47.7
53.8
5.0
4
Meander Width Ratio
2.4
3.0
3.0
3.5
0.8
2
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
135
135
135
135
135
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
326
330
328
332
325
Sinuosity (ft)
1.10
1.11
1.11
1.12
1.09
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.056
-
-
0.0532
-
Bankftxll Slope (ft/ft)
0.056
0.0598
0.0595
0.0670
0.047
12i°/u / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
80% 0% 4% 2% 14%
75% 0% 6% 4% 15%
75% 0% 5% 4% 15%
77% 0% 9% 3% 11%
66% 0% 20% 0% 14%
- Information Unavailable
N/A - Information does not apply.
Ri = Riffle / Ru = Run / P = Pool / G = Glide / S = Step
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 69 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

Table llb Cont'd. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Site - Lower Iva Branch 136 feet
Parameter
Baseline
MY -1
MY-2
NW-3
MY-4
NW- 5
Dimension & Substrate - Riffle
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
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankftill Mean Depth (ft)
Bankftill Max Depth (ft)
Bankftill Cross -Sectional Area (ft)
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
9.4
11.8
11.8
14.3
3.5
2
10.4
16.5
16.5
22.7
8.7
2
11.6
17.2
17.2
22.8
7.9
2
6.7
12.7
12.7
18.7
8.5
2
6.7
27.3
19.2
64.1
25.2
2
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.010
0.021
0.021
0.033
0.016
2
0.005
0.015
0.015
0.026
0.015
2
0.009
0.015
0.015
OA20
0.007
2
0.009
0.022
0.022
0.035
0.019
2
0.005
0.016
0.011
0.035
0.013
2
Pool Length (ft)
5.8
9.4
9.4
12.9
3.3
4
2.9
5.3
5.0
8.3
2.7
4
3.4
5.8
4.9
10.0
31
4
3.5
7.1
7.5
9.8
2.9
4
3.8
12.4
12.5
20.7
8.2
4
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.2
0.1
4
0.6
1.0
1.0
1.5
0.3
4
0.5
1.1
1.0
1.7
0.5
4
0.3
0.9
0.9
1.5
0.5
4
0.3
0.8
0.7
1.5
0.5
4
Pool Spacing (ft)
20.8
25.9
20.8
36.1
8.9
3
18.0
23.4
24.4
27.8
5.0
3
18.9
23.8
25.0
27.6
4.5
3
21.3
25.2
25.5
28.8
3.8
3
24.8
49.2
42.6
80.1
28.2
3
Pattern
Channel Belt Width (ft)
8.9
9.6
9.6
10.3
1.0
2
Radius of Curvature (ft)
12.2
12.5
12.5
12.8
0.4
2
Re: Bankftill Width (ft/ft)
2.2
2.3
2.3
2.3
0.1
2
Meander Wavelength (ft)
23.0
27.4
25.5
33.6
5.6
3
Meander Width Ratio
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.9
0.2
2
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
135
135
135
135
135
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
156
154
159
158
153
Sinuosity (ft)
1.03
1.03
1.07
1.06
1.03
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.032
-
-
0.0503
0.03
Bankftill Slope (ft/ft)
0.035
0.026
0.033
0.034
0.042
Ri°/u/Ru% /P% /G% /S%
24% 1 17% 1 38% 1 20% 0%
43% 17% 28% 1 14% 0%
45% 14% 30% 1 11% 0%
34% 13% 38% 1 16% 1 0% 1
1 56% 6% 33% 5% 0%
- Information Unavailable
N/A - Information does not apply.
Ri = Riffle / Ru = Run / P = Pool / G = Glide / S = Step
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 70 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

Project Name: Middle South Muddy XS Number: 1 Station: 203+60
Reach Name: Lower Sprouse Branch XS Type: Riffle
1285
1284
1283
1282
1281
c 1280
1279
LP
b 1278
1277
1276
1275
0+00 0+05 0+10 0+15 0+20 0+25
Station (feet)
MYO MYl MY2 MY3
0+30 0+35 0+40
MY4 - - - - - BKF
CHANNEL DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
AJY7
Bankful Width (ft)
5.4
6.1
6.3
5.0
5.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
14.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft)
1.8
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.8
Width/Depth Ratio
16.7
25.4
25.8
17.4
17.0
Entrenchment Ratio
2.6
2.3
2.2
2.8
2.5
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.5
1.5
Low Top of Bank Depth (ft)
-
0.4
0.9
Left Descending Bank
Right Descending Bank
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 71 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

Project Name: Middle South Muddy XS Number: 2 Station: 204+72
Reach Name: Lower Sprouse Branch XS Type: Riffle
1282
1281
1280
1279
1278
c 1277
1276
-
b 1275
1274
1273
1272
0+00 0+05 0+10 0+15 0+20 0+25 0+30 0+35 0+40
Station (feet)
MYO MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 - - - - - BKF
CHANNEL DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
AJY7
Bankful Width (ft)
5.1
5.3
5.4
4.0
6.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft)
1.7
1.3
1.2
0.9
1.7
Width/Depth Ratio
15.1
21.5
23.7
18.3
21.2
Entrenchment Ratio
4.5
4.3
4.3
5.8
3.9
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.2
1.2
Low Top of Bank Depth (ft)
-
-
-
0.4
0.6
Left Descending Bank
Right Descending Bank
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 72 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

Project Name: Middle South Muddy XS Number: 3 Station: 205+79
Reach Name: Lower Sprouse Branch XS Tvue: Pool
1280
1279
- 1278
1277
1276
1275
1274
--------------------------
----------
--------
--- -----
--------------------------
-------------
b 1273
1272
1271
1270
0+00 0+05 0+10 0+15 0+20 0+25
Station (feet)
MYO MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 -----
0+30 0+35 0+40
BKF
CHANNEL DIMENS IONS SUMMARY
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
nlYS
MY6
AIY7
Bankful Width (ft)
6.1
6.8
6.8
7.3
7.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.8
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.2
1.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft )
5.9
6.3
6.3
5.3
5.9
Width/Depth Ratio
6.3
7.5
7.3
10.1
8.7
Entrenchment Ratio
5.3
4.7
4.7
4.4
4.5
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
0.9
Low Top of Bank Depth (ft)
-
1.2
1.5
Left Descending Bank
RigLit Descending Baiilc
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 73 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

Project Name: Middle South Muddy XS Number. 4 Station: 102+79
Reach Name: South Muddy Creek XS Type: Riffle
1278
1276
1274
OW
1272
c 1270
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
--------------------
-----
-----
-----------------
-----
-----
1268
OW
E�
1266
1264
1262
0+00 0+05 0+10 0+15 0+20 0+25 0+30
MYO MY1
0+35 0+40 0+45 0+50 0+55 0+60 0+65 0+70 0+75 0+80 0+85 0+90
Station (feet)
MY2 MY3 MY4 ----- BKF
CHANNEL DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
AIYS
NlY6
AIY7
Bankful Width (ft)
31.6
32.6
31.8
29.5
29.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
65.0
65.0
65.0
65.0
65.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.3
2.6
2.6
2.7
2.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft
)
50.5
54.1
52.8
46.9
50.5
Width/Depth Ratio
19.8
19.7
19.1
18.6
16.7
Entrenchment Ratio
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.2
2.2
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.1
Low Top ofBank Depth (ft)
-
-
-
2.7
2.2
Left Descending Bank
Right Descending Bank
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 74 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

Project Name: Middle South Muddy XS Number: 5 Station: 107+45
Reach Name: South Muddy Creek XS Type: Riffle
1276
1274
1272
OW
1270
c 1268
1266
b 1264
1262
1260
0+00 0+05 0+10 0+15 0+20 0+25 0+30 0+35 0+40 0+45 0+50 0+55 0+60 0+65 0+70 0+75 0+80 0+85 0+90 0+95
Station (feet)
MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 ----- BKF
CHANNELDIlVIENSIONS SUMMARY
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
AJYS
MY6
AJY7
Bankful Width (ft)
30.7
30.6
31.8
28.4
29.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
101.0
101.0
101.0
101.0
101.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
2.0
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.8
2.8
3.0
3.1
3.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft)
59.0
57.9
61.3
52.9
59.0
Width/Depth Ratio
15.9
16.2
16.4
15.3
14.3
Entrenchment Ratio
3.3
3.3
3.2
3.6
3.5
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.2
Low Top of Bank Depth (ft)
-
-
-
3.6
3.5
Left Descending Bank
Right Descending Bank
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 75 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

Project Name: Middle South Muddy XS Number: 6 Station: 108+57
Reach Name: South Muddy Creek XS Type: Pool
1274
1272
1270
w
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
0
'�
1266
1264
1262
1260
0+00 0+05 0+10 0+15 0+20 0+25 0+30 0+35 0+40 0+45 0+50 0+55 0+60 0+65 0+70 0+75 0+80 0+85 0+90 0+95
Station (feet)
MYO MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 - - -BKF
CHANNEL DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
AJYS
MY6
AJY7
Bankful Width (ft)
35.3
35.9
36.7
31.4
31.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
166.0
166.0
166.0
166.0
166.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.7
2.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
4.0
3.9
3.9
4.2
3.7
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (11)
85.7
86.3
89.2
84.0
85.7
Width/Depth Ratio
14.5
14.9
15.1
11.7
11.8
Entrenchment Ratio
4.7
4.6
4.5
5.3
5.2
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
Low Top of Bank Depth (ft)
-
-
4.7
3.9
Left Descending Bank
Right Descending Bank
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 76 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

Project Name: Middle South Muddy XS Number: 7
Reach Name: South Muddy Creek XS Type: Riffle
Station: 109+57
1274
1272
a 1270
w
1268
0
-----
----
----
-----
----
--
----------
----
----
----
--
-
--
----
----
----------
----
0 1266
b 1264
1262
1260
0+00 0+05 0+10 0+15 0+20 0+25 0+30 0+35 0+40 0+45 0+50 0+55 0+60 0+65 0+70 0+75 0+80 0+85 0+90 0+95
Station (feet)
MYO MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 ----- BKF
CHANNEL DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
MX7
Bankful Width (ft)
31.0
31.2
34.0
29.1
36.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
88.0
88.0
88.0
88.0
88.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
2.1
2.2
2.0
2.0
1.8
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.9
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.5
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft)
64.9
67.7
67.9
57.9
64.9
Width/Depth Ratio
14.8
14.4
17.0
14.6
20.2
Entrenchment Ratio
2.8
2.8
2.6
3.0
2.4
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
Low Top of Bank Depth (ft)
-
-
-
3.3
3.2
Left Descending Bank
Right Descending Bank
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 77 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

Project Name: Middle South Muddy XS Number: 8 Station: 302+13
Reach Name: Upper Iva Branch XS Type: Pool
1292
1291
1290
1289
1288
c 1287
1286
--------------
----------------
--------
---------
--------------
--------------
---------------
AV
1285
1284
1283
1282
0+00 0+05 0+10
MYO MYl
0+15 0+20
Station (feet)
MY2 MY3
0+25 0+30 0+35
MY4 - - - - - BKF
CHANNEL DIMENS IONS SUMMARY
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
\rY5
'\rY6
'\rY7
Bankful Width (ft)
5.5
5.8
5.6
6.4
6.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
BankfullMean Depth (ft)
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.8
Bankfull Max Depth (11)
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.5
1.5
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (11)
5.7
5.6
5.6
5.0
5.7
Width/Depth Ratio
5.4
6.1
5.5
8.1
8.3
Entrenchment Ratio
3.1
2.9
3.1
2.7
2.5
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.8
Low Top of Bank Depth (ft)
-
-
-
1.3
1.2
Left Descending Bank
Right Descending Bank
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 78 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

Project Name: Middle South Muddy XS Number: 9 Station: 302+82
Reach Name: Upper Iva Branch XS Type: Riffle
1291
1290
1289
1288
1287
c 1286
1285
--------------
-----
----------
------------
--------------
--------------
---------------
1284
1283
1282
1281
0+00 0+05 0+10
MYO MYl
0+15 0+20
Station (feet)
MY2 MY3 MY4 -
0+25 0+30 0+35
- - - - BKF
CHANNELDIM[ENSIONS SUMMARY
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
DIYS
DIY6
DIY7
Bankful Width (ft)
4.6
4.2
4.1
7.3
6.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
14.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.3
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft)
1.9
1.8
2.1
2.7
1.9
Width/Depth Ratio
11.0
9.8
8.0
20.2
21.3
Entrenchment Ratio
3.0
3.3
3.5
1.9
2.2
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
0.989
0.897
0.9
0.9
Low Top of Bank Depth (ft)
-
-
-
0.7
0.5
Left Descending Bank
Right Descending Bank
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 79 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

Project Name: Middle South Muddy
Reach Name: Upper Iva Branch
XS Number: 10
XS Type: Riffle
Station: 304+20
1283
1282
1281
1280
1279
c 1278
1277
-----------
-----------
--- --------
--------
-----------
-----------------------
1276
1275
1274
1273
0+00 0+05 0+10 0+15
MYO MYl
0+20 0+25
Station (feet)
MY2 MY3
0+30
MY4 -
0+35 0+40 0+45
- - - - BKF
CHANNEL DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
DIYS
DIY6
DIY7
Bankful Width (ft)
5.3
5.6
5.8
3.8
5.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.7
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft
)
2.1
1.9
2.5
1.7
2.1
Width/Depth Ratio
13.3
16.7
13.3
8.7
12.6
Entrenchment Ratio
3.2
3.0
3.0
4.4
3.3
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
Low Top of Bank Depth (ft)
-
-
0.8
0.6
Left Descending Bank
Right Descending Bank
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 80 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

1275
1274
1273
1272
1271
1270
1269
1268
1267
1266
A 1265
0
1264
m
W 1263
1262
1261
1260
1259
1258
1257
1256
1255
XS4-R
IW/W
Easement
Middle South Muddy
South Muddy Creek
Longitudinal Profile
Staioning 101+00 to 112+75.16
xss-a
z-T --
XS7-R
■ MAN
- - _ ��■
11*sx
Station (feet)
TW - MYO 5/18/2016
TW - MY1111OV2O16 TW -MY2 6/2912017
TW -MY3 10/24/2018 MY4
Structure - MYO • BKF - - - - WS
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project
81
Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875
Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

W
1290
1289
1288
1287
1286
1285
1284
1283
1282
1281
1280
1279
1278
1277
1276
1275
1274
1273
1272
1271
1270
1269
1268
1267
1266
1265
1264
1263
1262
1261
1260
Middle South Muddy
Sprouse Branch
Longitudinal Profile
Staioning 201+72.34 to 208+91.81
jaV, 1o;?X zoa zoVX MO X-to 1o�x�o 10 �a zo�x�a
Station (feet)
TW-MYU TW-MYl TW-MY2 TW-MY3-TW-MY4 o Structure-MYO ■ BET ---- Ws.
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 82 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

1295
1294
1293
1292
1291
1290
1289
1288
1287
1286
1285
1284
1283
1282
1281
1280
y 1279
1278
c 1277
r 1276
y 1275
W 1274
1273
1272
1271
1270
1269
1268
1267
1266
1265
1264
1263
1262
1261
1260
Middle South Muddy
Iva Branch
Longitudinal Profile
Staioning 300+79.55 to 307+17.78
lie Lower lv0
305+40
A Y-
O00 00 "019 "
D aa x00 00
Station (feet)
TW-MYO511812016 TW-MY11110312016 TW-MY27/122017 TW - MY3 10124/2018 tTW-MY4 4 Structure-MYO A BKF ---- W5
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 83 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Middle South Mudd
Cross Section 4 - Riffle
Monitoring Year - 2019; MY4
Bed Surface Material
Particle Size Class (mm)
Number
%
Individual
%
Cumulative
0 - 0.062
0
0.0%
0%
0.062 - 0.125
0
0.0%
0%
0.125 - 0.25
1
1.0%
1 %
0.25 - 0.5
1
1.0%
2%
0.5 - 1.0
0
0.0%
2%
1 - 2
12
11.4%
13%
2-4
0
0.0%
13%
4-8
4
3.8%
17%
8 - 16
6
5.7%
23%
16 - 32
14
13.3%
36%
32 - 64
42
40.0%
76%
64-128
23
21.9%
98%
128-256
2
1.9%
100%
256-512
0
0.0%
100%
512-1024
0
0.0%
100%
1024-2048
0
0.0%
100%
2048-4096
0
0.0%
100%
Bedrock
0
0.0%
100%
Total
105
100%
1 100%
Summary Data
D50
44
D84
78
D95
110
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Proj ect 85 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

Middle South Muddy
PebbW C'GIIItI - P4rCPDI C HWILIAUVC
C mm . s-Secllon J - Riffle
100%
qG%
8A
10%
b
�u
x 4�,
� nffr
`o
]OY.
e 096
SL196
❑%
O• (•. a off• m y6' 3�' �°' ,�$ �y�• y�-y � x y�� `
a
Particle Size Groups
NIfildle Soul AIUACl
Pebble Coudi PerceulIhdh'idual
Cross—SmItoel3 - KIM,
1fK]AS
O�7.b
80%
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 86 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

Middle South Mudd
Cross Section 5 - Riffle
Monitoring Year - 2019; MY4
Bed Surface Material
Particle Size Class (mm)
Number
%
Individual
%
Cumulative
0 - 0.062
5
4.8%
5%
0.062 - 0.125
1
1.0%
6%
0.125 - 0.25
7
6.7%
12%
0.25 - 0.5
6
5.7%
18%
0.5 - 1.0
3
2.9%
21 %
1 - 2
30
28.6%
50%
2-4
2
1.9%
51%
4-8
5
4.8%
56%
8 - 16
13
12.4%
69%
16 - 32
13
12.4%
81 %
32 - 64
9
8.6%
90%
64-128
11
10.5%
100%
128-256
0
0.0%
100%
256-512
0
0.0%
100%
512-1024
0
0.0%
100%
1024-2048
0
0.0%
100%
2048-4096
0
0.0%
100%
Bedrock
0
0.0%
100%
Total
105
100%
1 100%
Summary Data
D50
2.4
D84
46
D95
89
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Proj ect 87 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

Middle South Muddv
Pebble Couat • PercentCumulalh•e
Cross-SCCllorr S - It1111r
i r ercr
9UN
Film
]Q76 -
a
2
u
60% -
40%
� I
30%
20% -
MIM
nvs
a
o °I;ti o a v ti yti �� ti� vF
Particle Sli Groups
lilddle SOB lh N1 u ddy
Pebble COB ul -Perre ul indhirlaal
Cl'Oi5 SeCllau5 WrIle
1011%
99.4
809E
a
i7
� 5p9L
Rd% -
3gi6
V0,
1 d76
_ I L I A IL 6L�i Cp_
rt.c� �c7 4,
'1. ti b ¢ ^T y
Pa "leis sire Groups
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 88
NCDMS Project No. 93875
Monitoring Year 4 of 5
a MYl %by Siie Group
a IVY2 %by Site Group
- iMfY3-%-h"iL--GrOup_ ..
■ MY4 % 6y Sire Group
Equinox
Annual Monitoring Report

Middle South Mudd
Cross Section 7 - Riffle
Monitoring Year - 2019; MY4
Bed Surface Material
Particle Size Class (mm)
Number
%
Individual
%
Cumulative
0 - 0.062
5
4.8%
5%
0.062 - 0.125
4
3.8%
9%
0.125 - 0.25
8
7.6%
16%
0.25 - 0.5
5
4.8%
21 %
0.5 - 1.0
2
1.9%
23%
1 - 2
22
21.0%
44%
2-4
3
2.9%
47%
4-8
8
7.6%
54%
8 - 16
20
19.0%
73%
16 - 32
13
12.4%
86%
32 - 64
9
8.6%
94%
64-128
5
4.8%
99%
128-256
1
1.0%
100%
256-512
0
0.0%
100%
512-1024
0
0.0%
100%
1024-2048
0
0.0%
100%
2048-4096
0
0.0%
100%
Bedrock
0
0.0%
100%
Total
105
100%
1 100%
Summary Data
D50
6.2
D84
30
D95
68
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Proj ect 89 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

Middle South Muddc
Pebhlecount Prrreo[c¢muladve
Crass-Src gun 7 - Riffle
Iw%
90% -
SU%
7V46 -
a
2
u
-
.T
40%
2C
30%
20% -
10%
nx
❑� ❑''� y °^� �y °�' ❑`•' � '*ry tip °' � $ ti6 1�,� �ti,�' �'�� y�,ti`� `'� �°'�b �:°°� �e�
Pankle Sire Groups
lm%
9t}M
FIM ..
a
7W1,
E
u
g I' M
a
5EK
r
� atrir
3iYAi
11 kIw soukh maddy
Peb hir Cwi1r! - Pe rre ul Indly W o a I
C m*-Sertion 7 - Riffle
+ Myf %by Siee Group
■ MV 7G lIy See croup
a MV3 % by SO a Group
■ }Y Y4%fly Sim Group
o°'� e'�`' o'� ,�.°`' ❑y,�° "-� �,'° e'er $;6 46;�'� �ry� �1�� ��e�`P `''� ,nti' b,� ° a�
Pazlkle size Groups
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 90 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

Appendix E
Hydrologic Data

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project
South Muddy Creek
Date of Data Collection
Date of Occurrence
Method
Feet Above
Bankfull
Elevation
Photo #
(if available)
2/25/2016
Unknown'
Wrack Lines
Unknown
-
10/27/2017
Unknown
Wrack Lines
Unknown
-
2/13/2018
Unknown'
Wrack Lines
Unknown
-
11/1/2018
Unknown'
Wrack Lines
Unknown
-
5/9/2019
Unknowns
Wrack Lines
Unknown
1
Sprouse
Branch
Date of Data Collection
Date of Occurrence
Method
Feet Above
Bankfull
Elevation
Photo #
(if available)
3/23/2016
Unknown'
Wrack Lines
Unknown
-
10/27/2017
Unknown
Crest Gauge
1.08
-
2/13/2018
Unknown'
Crest Gauge
0.1
-
11/1/2018
Unknown'
Crest Gauge
0.4
-
5/9/2019
Unknowns
Crest Gauge
0.33
2
Iva Branch
Date of Data Collection
Date of Occurrence
Method
Feet Above
Bankfull
Elevation
Photo #
(if available)
2/25/2016
Unknown'
Wrack Lines
Unknown
-
10/27/2017
Unknown
Wrack Lines
Unknown
-
2/13/2018
Unknown'
Wrack Lines
Unknown
-
11/1/2018
Unknown'
Wrack Lines
Unknown
-
'Potential Date is 2/2/2016
2Potential Date is 10/23/2017
'Potential Date is 2/11/2018
'Potential Date is 10/18/2018
5Potential Date is 2/18/2019
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 93 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

'n M
Photo Verification of Bankfull Events
Photo 41 - South Muddy Creek Wrack Lines
Photo 42 — Sprouse Branch Crest Gauge at 13 inches (recorded bankfull is 9")
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 94 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

Photo 43 — South Muddy Creek Crest Gauge at 14 inches
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 95 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

Figure 1. Daily Precipitation Totals for the Middle South Muddv Stream Restoration Site Proiect
3.5
3
2.5
Sus
ected
2
Bainkfull
°
(0218/19)
1.5
All
L
a
A
0.5
0
O O O O O O O O O O O O
N N N N N N N N N N N N
Figure 2. Monthly Precipitation Data Compared to 30" and 70" Percentiles for McDowell County
10.0
N
W
t
L7
C 6.0
O
2.0
OA
Jan-19 Feb-19 Mar-19 Apr-19 May-19 Jun-19 Jul-19 Aug-19 Sep-19 Oct-19 Now19 Dec-19
+M GonerM NY RI M .----aemwe.ir. — — 7RhIYe.ti. A-0
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 96 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

Middle South Muddy Iva Branch Perrenial Gauge
5.0
N
0.0
t�
C
�i
L
O
Thalweg -10.0L.
O
t
-15.0 d
-20.0
CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N N N N N n M N N G N
N N M M LO ZG 1z 1- 0s w 8 M O
Middle South Muddy Iva Branch Intermittent Gauge
5.0
0.0
N
N
V -5.0
O
-10.0
n�
15.0
7
O
L
U' -20.0
O
+�+ 25.0
Q
N
0
-30.0
-35.0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N N N N �i N Z6 n M N N G N
N N M M LO ZG 1z 1- 0s w 8 M O
i_
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 97 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Appendix F
Invasive Vegetation Treatment

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Garelina 9ihrics, fnc. NsticideApplic-ati❑-1 Log
C3r,Sily - NN
aierrt
Projer_t gI1P.
LIM
Stsrt Time
Or 1y PA!_ for Site f{x This nay'-2
Gky Cf yew
Wad ❑irerll)n
Pppicamm
Application method
Herbicide
Hwbiticb Rate -,r%)
�urfamanf orAdjuva7[ (1)
SufactanVAdiudivurit 1 P-ta
M)
Otlior
plW MdWArrlt
Dswan1
ToU Sdirtipn
815wiea C<Wdled
Area 4-Maipjon
Addiliomal Comma xE Its
NC Dibision of Uitjra-icn 3ery c&
."�-.C,A) MUdc1y Cftmk
15-13-201 t
'9;00
Yea
F-rd Tkno
If NO. 1hir} ig PAL W
'arthj Clop::y Temp -P
V-?NW w;rd SpGori
J=hua G ,vlw-ri;t iNC ii2-3,33717J
Grainger Co! qht cy iNC 020-34£' 21
Casa' 8:1�
-0tl-:ar (se,3 comrr-.N91
15 Total Concwytrati�
1 IJP. Dye
Diesel fJ�,l
3 API
64
(;-10 rr mn
bT.5:1 r)z
Cidkvy Pear
.fa;._ Hon3)-aUC,.kle
Prw- $pp.
t.Aukifi F;;�
W31kc the entire riK.atlan area. We stir some . eyrovrth 3ose pro F�vct f! �m
"r a last 1't53trrt ,rt. There xwere ai--/-, lamer spec. irren Pri'-t atoJ Rc -,=- thrt app=sd
to la13 Dien misted from '.hLi previo ig #rrla;n r. t_ %AIe al=_a ��alkatl ''a lov. r haF
4rf .-ie pres.'.rv,Vior::oadi_ The inva3:a spec:ca presant ws.:� Rcfae Ord Pr vet. The.-
wduc ,-sry smaA cost: Stcirlding G ireheE to one [.co ;till.
Middle South Muddy Stream Restoration Project 101 Equinox
NCDMS Project No. 93875 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 5