The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20141127 Ver 1_Year 3 Monitoring Report_2020_20210115ID#* 20141127 Version* 1 Select Reviewer:* Erin Davis Initial Review Completed Date 01/15/2021 Mitigation Project Submittal - 1/15/2021 Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* r Yes r No Type of Mitigation Project:* V Stream r Wetlands r- Buffer r- Nutrient Offset (Select all that apply) Project Contact Information Contact Name:* Jeremiah Dow Project Information ........................................................................................................................................................................... ID#:* 20141127 Existing IDY Project Type: r DMS r Mitigation Bank Project Name: Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site County: Chatham Document Information Email Address:* jeremiah.dow@ncdenr.gov Version: *1 Existing Version Mitigation Document Type:* Mitigation Monitoring Report File Upload: MudLickCreek_93482_MY3_2020.pdf 11.96MB Rease upload only one RDFcf the conplete file that needs to be subnitted... Signature Print Name:* Jeremiah Dow Signature:* FINAL MONITORING REPORT YEAR 3 (2020) MUD LICK CREEK MITIGATION SITE Chatham County, North Carolina NCDMS Project No. 93482 Contract No. 7683 USACE Action ID No. SAW-2014-00736 & DWR Project No 2014-1127 SCO No. 1209857-01 Data Collection: September 2020 Submission: January 2021 PREPARED FOR: N.C. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES 1601 MAIL SERVICE CENTER RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1601 FINAL MONITORING REPORT YEAR 3 (2020) MUD LICK CREEK MITIGATION SITE Chatham County, North Carolina NCDMS Project No. 93482 Contract No. 7683 USACE Action ID No. SAW-2014-00736 & DWR Project No 2014-1127 SCO No. 1209857-01 Data Collection: September 2020 Submission: January 2021 PREPARED BY: AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. 218 SNOW AVENUE RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27603 Axiom Environmental. Inc. 218 Snow Avenue, Raleigh, NC 27603 919-215-1693 Axiom Environmental, Inc. January 4, 2021 Mr. Jeremiah Dow North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Mitigation Services 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652 RE: Mud Lick Creek Monitoring (DMS Project 9 93482, Contract 97683) Final MY3 (2020) Annual Monitoring Report Dear Mr. Dow: Axiom Environmental, Inc. (AXE) is pleased to provide you with one hard copy and a CD of digital files for the Final Mud Lick Creek MY3 (2020) Annual Monitoring Report. We received your comments via email on December 18, 2020 and have addressed them as follows: 1. Please verify the restoration reaches that had bankfull events. Was it both restoration reaches that had bankfull events in 2019 and 2020? Table 12 was updated to indicate where wrack, etc. was observed and which crest gauges indicated bankfull events. For all events documented in 2019 and 2020, all crest gauges indicated a bankfull event had occurred even when other indicators were observed only on individual reaches. 2. Please add a brief discussion of the beaver activity observed in the Visual Assessment section and include that the beavers were trapped and the six dams removed by the USDA on November 4 A brief discussion of beaver management activities was included in the "Project Boundaries & Visual Assessments " section of the report. 3. Please add removed beaver dam location to the Figure 2 CCPV. The locations of the 2 larger removed dams were included on Figure 2. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments regarding any component of this submittal. Thank you for the opportunity to continue to assist the Division of Mitigation Services with this important project. Sincerely, AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC Kenan Jernigan Attachments: 1 hard copy Final MY3 (2020) Mud Lick Creek Annual Monitoring Report I CD containing digital support files PROJECT SUMMARY The North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) has established the Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (Site) located within the Cape Fear River Basin Cataloging Unit (CU) 03030003 in the Upper Rocky River local watershed planning (LWP) area and 14-digit HUC 03030003070010. The Site was identified as a priority mitigation project in the Detailed Assessment and Targeting of Management Report (Tetra Tech 2005). The main stressors to aquatic resources identified during the watershed assessments described in the LWP documents include the following. • Nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorous) loading from farming; • Sediment loading from overland runoff, disturbed surfaces, and streambank erosion; • Cattle access to streams increasing bank erosion and fecal coliform contamination; and • Insufficient bank vegetation. The project will contribute to meeting management recommendations to offset these stressors as described above for the LWP area by accomplishing the following primary goals. • Control and reduce nutrient sources from the Site; • Reduce sediment loads from disturbed areas on the Site and from eroding stream banks; • Increased aeration of flows within the project extent promoting increases in dissolved oxygen concentrations; • Reduce sources of fecal coliform pollution; • Improve instream habitat; • Reduce thermal loadings; • Reconnect channels with floodplains and raise local water table; and • Restore riparian habitat. These goals will be accomplished through the following objectives: • Restore riparian vegetation on the Site and thereby reduce sediment loads to streams from stream banks and existing pastures, increase on -Site retention of sediment and nutrients, create riparian habitat, and provide shade for streams to reduce thermal loadings; • Stabilize eroding streambanks to reduce sediment inputs; • Install fencing around the perimeter of the conservation easement to eliminate livestock access to streams, thereby reducing sediment, nutrient, and fecal coliform inputs; • Plant restored and stabilized streambanks with native species to improve stability and habitat; • Install instream structures to improve stability, create habitat, and help aerate stream flows; • Raise streambeds to reconnect restored channels to floodplains and raise local water tables; and • Restore streams and vegetation so the Site looks natural and aesthetically pleasing. Stream Success Criteria: The stream restoration performance criteria for the Site will follow approved performance criteria presented in the 2015 Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan as described below. Stream Dimension: Riffle cross -sections on the restoration reaches and enhancement II reaches, where banks were re -graded (three reaches of Mud Lick Creek), should be stable and should show little change in bankfull area, maximum depth, and width -to -depth ratio. Bank -height -ratios shall not exceed 1.2 and entrenchment ratios shall be at least 2.2 for restored channels to be considered stable. All riffle cross - sections should fall within the parameters defined for channels of the appropriate stream type. If any changes do occur, these changes will be evaluated to assess whether the stream channel is showing signs of instability. Indicators of instability include a vertically incising thalweg or eroding channel banks. Changes in the channel that indicate a movement toward stability or enhanced habitat include a decrease in 2020 MY3 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Executive Summary page i Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482) the width -to -depth ratio in meandering channels or an increase in pool depth. Remedial action would not be taken if channel changes indicate a movement toward stability. Stream Pattern and Profile: The as -built survey will include a longitudinal profile for the baseline monitoring report. Longitudinal profile surveys will not be conducted during the seven-year monitoring period unless other indicators during the annual monitoring indicate a trend toward vertical and lateral instability. Substrate: Substrate materials in the restoration reaches should indicate a progression towards or the maintenance of coarser materials in the riffle features and smaller particles in the pool features. Hydraulics: Two bankfull flow events, in separate monitoring years, must be documented on the restoration reaches and enhancement II reaches where banks were re -graded (three reaches of Mud Lick Creek) within the seven-year monitoring period. Vegetation Success Criteria: The final vegetative success criteria will be the survival of 210 planted stems per acre in the riparian corridor along restored and enhanced reaches at the end of the required monitoring period (year seven). The interim measure of vegetative success for the Site will be the survival of at least 320 planted stems per acre at the end of the third monitoring year and at least 260 stems per acre at the end of the fifth year of monitoring. If this performance standard is met by year five and stem density is trending towards success (i.e., no less than 260 stems/acre), monitoring of vegetation on the Site may be terminated with written approval by the USACE in consultation with the NC Interagency Review Team. The extent of invasive species coverage will also be monitored and controlled as necessary throughout he required monitoring period (seven years). Photo Documentation: Photographs should illustrate the Site's vegetation and morphological stability on an annual basis. Cross-section photos should demonstrate no excessive erosion or degradation of the banks. Longitudinal photos should indicate the absence of persistent bars within the channel or vertical incision. Grade control structures should remain stable. Deposition of sediment on the bank side of vane arms is preferable. Maintenance of scour pools on the channel side of vane arms is expected. Visual Assessments: Visual assessments should support performance standards as described above. As per Sections 7.2 and 12.4 of the Mitigation Plan, physio-chemical and biological parameters were included as part of specialized monitoring, depending on the data that could be obtained during the baseline period. Monitoring of these parameters was for investigative purposes only and not tied to mitigation success or credit. The sample size and variability of the pre -construction physio-chemical data was inadequate for the purposes of post -construction comparison and therefore, these will not be monitored moving forward. However, fish and macrobenthos will be monitored at the stations indicated in the asset and monitoring features map (Figure 2, Appendix B). Site Background: The Site is located in northwestern Chatham County, north of Siler City and northwest of Silk Hope (Figure 1, Appendix B). The Site is located within United States Geological Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Unit and Targeted Local Watershed 03030003070010 (North Carolina Division of Water Resources Subbasin 03-06-12) of the Cape Fear River Basin. Prior to construction, the Site was used for agricultural livestock production. The proposed project will improve water quality as well as provide numerous ecological benefits within the Cape Fear River Basin. The project will help meet management recommendations of the Upper Rocky River Local Watershed Plan by restoring a vegetated riparian buffer zone, stabilizing eroding stream banks, and removing livestock from streams and riparian zones. These activities will result in reduced nutrient, sediment, and fecal coliform inputs; improved aquatic and riparian habitat, and other ecological benefits. 2020 MY3 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Executive Summary page ii Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482) Mitigation Components: Project mitigation efforts will generate 2832 Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs) as the result of the following (Table 1, Appendix A & Figure 2, Appendix B). • Restoration of 1215 linear feet of Site streams • Enhancement (Level II) of 2426 linear feet of Site streams Site design was completed in June 2015. Site construction occurred May 24—August 25, 2017 (final walkthrough) and the Site was planted in February 2018. Completed project activities, reporting history, completion dates, project contacts, and project attributes are summarized in Tables 1-4 (Appendix A). The assets and credits in the report and shown in Table 1 are based upon approved as -built numbers as approved by the IRT on 11/1/2018. 2020 MY3 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482) Executive Summary page iii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 METHODS.......................................................................................................................................1 2.0 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................4 APPENDICES Appendix A. Background Tables Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Units Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History Table 3. Project Contacts Table Table 4. Project Attributes Table Appendix B. Visual Assessment Data Figure 1. Vicinity Map Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View Tables 5A-5C. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Vegetation Plot Photographs Warranty Plot Photographs Appendix C. Vegetation Data Table 7. Planted Woody Vegetation Table 8. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species Appendix D. Stream Geomorphology Data Tables lOa-10c. Baseline Stream Data Summary Tables l la-1 lf. Monitoring Data -Dimensional Data Summary Cross-section Plots Substrate Plots Appendix E. Hydrology Data Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events Appendix F. Warranty Replant Information Appendix G. 2020 Benthic Data Results Habitat Assessment Forms 2020 MY3 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482) Table of Contents page i 1.0 METHODS Monitoring of restoration efforts will be performed for seven years, or until success criteria are fulfilled. Monitoring is proposed for the stream channel and vegetation. In general, the restoration success criteria, and required remediation actions, are based on the Stream Mitigation Guidelines (USACE et al. 2003). Monitoring features are summarized in the following table and described below; monitoring features are depicted on Figure 2 (Appendix B). Monitoring Summary Parameter Monitoring Feature I Quantity Frequency Streams Dimension Cross -sections 7 riffles & 3 pools annually Substrate Pebble counts 3 riffles annually Hydrology Crest gauges 3 annually Vegetation Vegetation Plots 12 annually Warranty Plots 10 MY1 Visual assessments Entire Site biannually Exotic & nuisance species Entire Site annually Project boundary Entire Site annually Reference photographs 22 annually Supplement I Monitoring Biological Macrobenthos 5 sites (Pre construction only) 3 sites (MY3, MY5, & MY7) Fish 3 sites (Preconstruction only) 2 sites (MY4 & MY7) Streams The restored stream reaches are proposed to be monitored for geometric activity as follows. • 7 permanent riffle cross -sections • 3 permanent pool cross -sections • 3 riffle pebble count samples for substrate analysis • 3 stream crest gauges The data will be presented in graphic and tabular format. Data to be presented will include 1) cross - sectional area, 2) bankfull width, 3) average depth, 4) maximum depth, and 5) width -to -depth ratio. Substrate analysis will be evaluated through pebble counts at three riffle cross -sections and data presented as a D50 for stream classification and tracking purposes. The stream will subsequently be classified according to stream geometry and substrate (Rosgen 1996). Significant changes in channel morphology including bank -height -ratios and entrenchment ratios will be tracked and reported by comparing data to asbuilt measurements in addition to each successive monitoring year. Annual photographs will include 22 fixed station photographs (12 vegetation plots and 10 cross -sections) (Appendix B). In addition, the Site contains three stream crest gauges to assist with documentation of bankfull events. Two bankfull events were documented during monitoring year 3 (2020), making a total of 5 bankfull events over the monitoring period to date (Table 12, Appendix E). Two stream areas of concern were observed during monitoring year 3 (2020). Stream Area of Concern 91 was previously documented during years 1 and 2 (2018 and 2019) along Mud Lick Creek R2 where 2020 MY3 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Page 1 Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482) approximately 50 feet of the right bank and 20 feet of the left bank had eroded to the point of bank sloughing. This area remains unchanged from year 1 (2018); however, with the establishment of some herbaceous vegetation, appears relatively stable. Stream Area of Concern #2 consists of scour and sloughing along an outer bend along Mud Lick Creek R3, immediately downstream from cross-section 1. It was noted during year 3 (2020) that the material that had sloughed form the bank was stable and well - vegetated. Both stream areas of concern were observed within enhancement II stream reaches; stream reaches generating restoration credit were stable throughout and functioning as designed. These areas are depicted on Figure 2 in Appendix B. Vegetation Restoration monitoring procedures for vegetation will monitor plant survival and species diversity. Planting occurred within the entire Site. After planting of the area was completed, 12 vegetation plots were installed and monitored at the Site; annual results can be found in Appendix C. Annual measurements of vegetation will consist of the following. • 10 plant warranty inspection plots (only MY I) • 12 CVS vegetation plots A photographic record of plant growth should be included in each annual monitoring report; baseline photographs are included in Appendix B. During the first year, vegetation will receive a cursory, visual evaluation on a periodic basis to ascertain the degree of overtopping of planted elements by nuisance species. Subsequently, quantitative sampling of vegetation will be performed as outlined in the CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.2 (Lee et al. 2008) in late fall/early winter of the first monitoring year and annually toward the end of the growing for the remainder of the monitoring period until vegetation success criteria are achieved. Locations of exotic and nuisance vegetation will be documented and depicted on Figure 2 (Appendix B). Measurements of temporary warranty plots and permanent CVS plots in Year 1 (2018) resulted in a total of 210 living planted stems in 22 plots (392 planted living stems per acre). Therefore, DMS sent a letter to the planting contractor invoking the warranty on survivability of planted stems. Approximately 700 bare roots were planted in five targeted areas within the site during January 2019. A map of these area as well as a plant list are provided in Appendix F. Year 3 (2020) stem count measurements for twelve permanent CVS plots indicate the planted stem density across the Site is 323 planted stems per acre. Eight of the twelve individual CVS plots met success criteria based on planted stems alone; however, when including naturally recruited stems of black walnut (Juglans nigra), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), and box elder (Acer negundo), the stem densities of plots 6, 7, and 12 are above success criteria (Table 8, Appendix Q. Several areas remain below success criteria primarily due to herbaceous competition. Additionally, several populations of dense Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima) were observed scattered throughout the Site. These are depicted on Figure 2 (Appendix B). Proiect Boundaries & Visual Assessments Locations of any fence damage, vegetation damage, boundary encroachments, etc. will be documented and included on mapping. Visual assessments will be performed along all streams on a bi-annual basis during the seven-year monitoring period. Problem areas will be noted such as channel instability (i.e. lateral and/or vertical 2020 MY3 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Page 2 Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482) instability, in -stream structure failure/instability and/or piping, headcuts), vegetated buffer health (i.e. low stem density, vegetation mortality, invasive species or encroachment), beaver activity, or livestock access. Areas of concern will be mapped and photographed accompanied by a written description in the annual report. Problem areas will be re-evaluated during each subsequent visual assessment. During year 3 (2020) monitoring, onsite beaver activity was observed including a dam along North Branch R3, a dam along Mud Lick Creek R2, and several smaller dams throughout the Site. In response, on November 4, 2020, USDA trapped beaver and removed six dams. Beaver activity will continue to be closely monitored throughout the remaining monitoring period. The locations of the two major removed dams are depicted on Figure 2 (Appendix B). Supplementary Monitoring Supplemental monitoring will include biological monitoring in the Spring as follows. • 3 benthos sampling sites (MY3, MY5, & MY7) • 2 fish sampling sites (MY4 & MY7) These parameters are being monitored for analytical purposes and are not tied to mitigation success and associated credit releases. The primary criteria for indication of improvement for the benthos and fish will be an increase of at least one bioclassification between the pre -con assessment and the post -con monitoring. Richness and EPT metrics will be analyzed as well. Benthic results for MY3 (2020) are included in Appendix G. A summary of benthic results including preconstruction Habitat Field Data Assessment Sheets and Biotic Index values from laboratory analysis results is presented below. Site MLC-2 MLC-3 MLC-5 Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet Data Precon (2015) W 3 (2020) Precon (2015) W 3 (2020) Precon (2015) W 3 (2020) Channel Modification 5 3 5 3 4 5 Instream Habitat 11 14 11 11 9 18 Bottom Substrate 3 8 3 11 1 11 Pool Variety 4 10 6 10 0 10 Riffle Habitats 7 14 7 10 0 16 Bank Stability and Veg 8 4 13 6 10 14 Light Penetration 7 7 7 7 2 2 Riparian Veg Zone Width 2 10 1 10 12 10 Total Score 47 70 53 68 26 86 Biotic Index 6.01 8.05 6.64 6.31 6.90 5.90 Based on values tabulated on Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheets, benthic macroinvertebrate habitat appears to be improving at the Site. Overall values for the data sheets improved by 15 to 60 points. In addition, each independent variable on the data sheets show improvement, except for channel modification. Biotic index (tolerance of a stream benthic community) has not shown significant improvement, with station MLC-2 shifting from a Fairly Poor to Very Poor designation. The other two stations appear to have biotic indices showing improving water quality shifting from Poor to Fairly Poor. 2020 MY3 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Page 3 Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482) 2.0 REFERENCES Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation. Version 4.2. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Ecosystem Enhancement Program. Raleigh, North Carolina. North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) 2015. Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan. Rosgen D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, Colorado. Tetra Tech, 2005. Upper Rocky River Local Watershed Plan Preliminary Findings Report. Prepared for the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program. United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS), and North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. State of North Carolina. 2020 MY3 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Page 4 Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482) Appendix A. Background Tables Table 1. Project Mitigation Components Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History Table 3. Project Contacts Table Table 4. Project Attributes Table 2020 MY3 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Appendices Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482) Table 1. Mud Lick Creek (ID-93482) - Mitigation Assets and Components" Project Component (reach ID, etc.) Wetland Position and HydroType Existing Footage Stationing Mitigation Plan Footage As -Built Footage Restoration Level Approach Priority Level Mitigation Ratio (X:1) Mitigation Credits Notes/Comments North Branch R1 318 100+10 - 103+28 327 318 Ell 1.5 212.000 Planting, fencing North Branch R2 522 103+28-108+66 520 538 R PI 1 538.000 North Branch R3 351 108+66 - 111+51 303 265 R P2 1 265.000 20 LF of restoration was removed from North Branch Reach 2 in order to account for an easement break East Branch R1 165 200+05 - 201+69 168 164 Ell 1.5 109.333 Planting, fencing East Branch R2 315 201+69 - 205+81 409 412 R P2 1 412.000 Mud Lick Creek R1 525 300+72 - 306+23 623 1 551 Ell 1.5 367.333 Planting, fencing, bank repairs Mud Lick Creek R2 718 306+23 - 313+14 693 660 Ell 1.5 440.000 Planting, fencing, bank repairs, 31 LF of enhancement II was removed from Mud Lick Creek Reach 2 in order to account for an easement break Mud Lick Creek R3 733 313+14 - 320+47 748 733 Ell 1.5 488.667 Planting, fencing, bank repairs `Reach start and end stationing may differ slightly from the mitigation plan due to removal of stream lengths that are outside the conservation easement. The upstream ends of Mud Lick Creek, North Branch, and East Branch experienced footage reductions of 72', 10', and 5' respectively, while the downstream end of Mud Lick Creek experienced a footage reduction of 17'. The assets and credits in the report and shown in Table 1 are based upon approved as -built numbers as approved by the IRT on 11/1/2018 Length and Area Summations by Mitigation Category Overall Assets Summary Restoration Level Stream (linear feet) Riparian Wetland (acres) Non -riparian Wetland (acres) Riverine Non-Riverine Restoration 1215 Enhancement Enhancement Enhancementll 2426 Creation Preservation High Quality Pres Overall Asset Category Credits Stream 2,832.333 Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History Mud Lick Creek (ID-93482) Elapsed Time Since Grading Complete: 3 years 5 months Elapsed Time Since Planting Complete: 2 year 11 months Number of Reporting Years: 3 Activity or Deliverable Data Collection Complete Completion or Delivery Project Institution -- February 13, 2013 Mitigation Plan -- December 2015 404 Permit Date -- March 25, 2016 Final Design — Construction Plans -- June 2015 Construction -- August 25, 2017 Bare Root; Containerized; and B&B Plantings for the Entire Project Site February 2018 February 2018 Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0 Monitoring Baseline) July 2018 September 2018 Monitoring Year 1 2018 Document December 2018 December 2018 Monitoring Year 2 (2019) Document September 2019 January 2020 Monitoring Year 3 (2020) Document September/October 2020 January 2021 Table 3. Project Contact Table Mud Lick Creek (ID-93482) Designer Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (License No. F-0831) 312 West Millbrook Rd, Suite 225 Raleigh, NC 27609 Angela N. Allen, PE 919 851-9986 Construction Plans and Sediment and Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (License No. F-0831) Erosion Control Plans 312 West Millbrook Rd, Suite 225 Raleigh, NC 27609 Angela N. Allen, PE 919 851-9986 Construction Contractor North State Environmental, Inc. 2889 Lowery Street Winston Salem, NC 27101 Michael Anderson 336 725-2010 Planting Contractor North State Environmental, Inc. 2889 Lowery Street Winston Salem, NC 27101 Stephen Joyce 336 725-2010 As -built Surveyors Allied Associates, PA 4720 Kester Mill Road Winston Salem, NC 27103 David Alley 336 765-2377 Baseline Data Collection Axiom Environmental, Inc. 218 Snow Avenue Raleigh, NC 27603 Grant Lewis 919 215-1693 2020 MY3 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482) Appendices Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes Mud Lick Creek (ID-93482) Project Information Project name Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site Project county Chatham County, North Carolina Project area (Acres) 11.2 Project coordinates (lat/lon) 35.8128°N, 79.4350°W Planted Acres 9.6 Project Watershed Summary Information Ph sio ra hic region Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province Project river basin Cape Fear River Basin USGS hydrologic unit (8 digit/14- digit) 03030003/03030003070010 NCDWR Sub -basin 03-06-12 Project drainage area mil 3.64 % Drainage area impervious < 1% CGIA land use classification Developed, Forested/Scrubland, Agriculture/Managed Herb., Open Water Reach Summary Information Parameters Mud Lick Creek— R1 Mud Lick Creek— R2 Mud Lick Creek— R3 North Branch— R1 North Branch — R2 East Branch Restored length linear feet 551 660 733 856 265 576 Valley confinement lightly confined - unconfined Drainage area (acres/mil) 1747/2.73 2170/3.39 2330/3.64 236.8/0.37 416/0.65 172.8/0.27 Perennial (P), Intermittent (I) P P P P P P NCDWR water quality classification WS-III, CA Stream Classification (existing) E4 C4 E4 E4 134c 134c Stream Classification (proposed) E4 C4 E4 C4 C4 C4 Evolutionary trend (Simon & Hu IV/V IV/V IV/V IV IV IV FEMA classification AE AE AE AE AE AE Reg latory Considerations Regulation Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Documentation Waters of the US — Section 404 Yes Yes SAW-2014-00736 Waters of the US — Section 401 Yes Yes SAW-2014-00736 Endangered Species Act Yes Yes No Effect — CE Document Historic Preservation Act No NA CE Document Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA/CAMA) No NA NA FEMA Floodplain Compliance Yes Yes Chatham County Floodplain Development Permit # 14-001 Essential Fisheries Habitat No NA NA 2020 MY3 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482) Appendices Appendix B Visual Assessment Data Figure 1. Site Location Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View Tables 5A-5C. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Vegetation Plot Photographs 2020 MY3 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482) Appendices Site Location •r,r f "' r'' 35.8128,-79.4350 - - t - eY ' a ty 7. T y —J 21 �:�'r � 4 - 71 i _� .64 - {t A. 0 1 2 4 Siler.Cityf" - -x Lei Miles -' Directions from Silk Hope: -Take Silk Hope -Liberty Road west for 4.1 miles -Turn right on Siler City -Snow Camp Road; travel 0.2 mile -The Site/farm entrance is located on the left/east side of the road Axiom Environmental 218 Snow Avenue Raleigh, NC 27603 (919) 215-1693 Axiom Environmental, Inc. SITE LOCATION MUD LICK CREEK MITIGATION SITE DMS PROJECT NUMBER 93482 Chatham County, North Carolina Dwn. by. CLF FIGURE Date: July 2018 Project: 12-004.22 IC101Wil Reach ID Assessed Length Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment North Branch R-2 538 Number Number with Footage with Adjusted % for Major Stable, Total Number of Amount of % Stable, Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing Channel Channel Performing Number in Unstable Unstable Performing as Woody Woody Woody Category Sub-Catego Metric I as Intended I As -built I Segments I Footage I Intended I Vegetation I Vegetation I Ve etation 1. Bank 1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion 0 0 100% 0 0 100% Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. 2. Undercut Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are 0 0 100% 0 0 100% providing habitat. 3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100% Totals 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 2. Engineered Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs. 8 8 100% 2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 8 8 100% 2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms. 8 8 100% 3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document) 8 8 100% 4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow. 8 8 ° 100/o Reach ID Assessed Length Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment North Branch R-3 265 Number Number with Footage with Adjusted % for Major Stable, Total Number of Amount of % Stable, Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing Channel Channel Performing Number in Unstable Unstable Performing as Woody Woody Woody Category Sub-Catego Metric I as Intended I As -built I Segments I Footage I Intended I Vegetation I Vegetation I Ve etation 1. Bank 1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion 0 0 100% 0 0 100% Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. 2. Undercut Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are 0 0 100% 0 0 100% providing habitat. 3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100% Totals 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 2. Engineered Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs. 3 3 100% 2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 3 3 100% 2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms. 3 3 100% 3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document) 3 3 100% 4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow. 3 3 ° 100/o Table 5C Reach ID Assessed Length Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment East Branch R-2 412 Number Number with Footage with Adjusted % for Major Stable, Total Number of Amount of % Stable, Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing Channel Channel Performing Number in Unstable Unstable Performing as Woody Woody Woody Category Sub-Catego Metric I as Intended I As -built I Segments I Footage I Intended I Vegetation I Vegetation I Ve etation 1. Bank 1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion 0 0 100% 0 0 100% Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. 2. Undercut Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are 0 0 100% 0 0 100% providing habitat. 3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100% Totals 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 2. Engineered Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs. 5 5 100% 2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 5 5 100% 2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms. 5 5 100% 3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document) 5 5 100% 4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow. 5 5 ° 100/o Table 6 Planted Acreage Vegetation Condition Assessment Ea: Vegetation Cateaory Definitions Mapping I Threshold CCPV I Depiction Number of I Polvaons Combined Acrea a % of Planted I Acreage 1. Bare Areas None 0.1 acres None 0 0.00 0.0% 2. Low Stem Density Areas None 0.1 acres None 0 0.00 0.0% Total 0 0.00 0.0% 3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor None 0.25 acres None 0 0.00 0.0% Cumulative Total 0 0.00 0.0% Easement Acreage 11.2 % Of Mapping CCPV Number of Combined Easement Ve etation Cateaory Definitions Threshold Depiction Polvaons Acrea a Acrea e 4. Invasive Areas of Concern Several small areas of dense Chinese privet and dense tree of heaven 200 SF green and yellow polygons 13 0.20 1.8% 5. Easement Encroachment Areas None none None 0 0.00 0.0% Mud Lick Creek Stream Restoration Site MY-03 Vegetation Monitoring Photographs Taken July 2020 2020 MY3 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Appendices Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482) Mud Lick Creek Stream Restoration Site MY-03 Vegetation Monitoring Photographs Taken July 2020 2020 MY3 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Appendices Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482) Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data Table 7. Planted Woody Vegetation Table 8. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species 2020 MY3 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482) Appendices Table 7. Planted Woody Vegetation Mud Lick Creek Restoration Proiect W93482) Species Quantity Green Ash (Fraxinus enns lvanica) 300 Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) 400 Eastern Redbud (Cercis canadensis) 400 Cottonwood (Po ulus deltoides) 300 River birch (Betula ni ra) 300 Hackbe (Celtis occidentalis) 300 Black Gum (N ssa s lvatica) 300 American Elm (Ulmus americana) 300 Eastem Ho hornbeam (Ostr a vir inica) 300 Elderberry (Sambucus s ) 300 Black Locust (Robinia suedoaccia) 300 Silky Dogwood (Cornus ammomum) 300 Witch Hazel (Hamamelis vir inica) 550 Buttonbush (Ce halanthus occidentalis) 300 Persimmon (Diospyros vir iniana) 300 Ironwood (Car inus caroliniana) 400 Swamp Tupelo (N ssa bi ora) 100 Swamp Chestnut oak uercus michauxiz 100 Water oak uercus ni ra 100 Tulip Poplar Liridendron tuli i era 300 TOTAL 5950 2020 MY3 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482) Appendices Table 8. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species Project Code 93482. Project Name: Mud Lick Creek Current Plot Data (MY3 2020) Scientific Name Common Name Species Type 93482-01-0001 93482-01-0002 93482-01-0003 93482-01-0004 93482-01-0005 93482-01-0006 93482-01-0007 93482-01-0008 PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T Acer negundo boxelder Tree 1 3 3 1 Acer rubrum red maple Tree Alnus alder Shrub Baccharis halimifolia eastern baccharis Shrub Betula nigra river birch Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam Tree 1 11 1 1 1 1 Carya hickory Tree Celtis laevigata sugarberry Tree 2 2 2 Celtis occidentalis common hackberry Tree Cephalanthus occidentalis common buttonbush Shrub 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cercis canadensis eastern redbud Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub 3 31 3 1 1 1 1 1 Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree 1 1 1 Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 8 8 1 Juglans nigra black walnut Tree Liquidambar styraciflua sweetgum Tree 1 14 17 Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1 Nyssa tupelo Tree Nyssa biflora swamp tupelo Tree 3 3 3 1 1 1 Ostrya virginiana hophornbeam Tree 2 2 2 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree 5 5 5 1 11 1 2 4 4 4 Populus deltoides eastern cottonwood Tree Quercus oak Tree Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree 3 3 3 Quercus nigra water oak Tree Robinia pseudoacacia black locust Tree Ulmus americana American elm Tree 3 3 3 2 2 2 Ulmus rubra slippery elm Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 Unknown Shrub or Tree 1 1 1 Viburnum dentatum southern arrowwood IShrub 2 2 2 Stem count size (ares) size (ACRES) Species count Stems per ACRE 5 5 5 10 10 10 8 8 9 10 10 10 9 9 12 5 5 25 7 7 8 9 9 26 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 3 3 3 5 5 5 3 3 4 8 8 8 2 2 3 4 4 8 3 3 4 5 5 6 202.3 202.3 202.3 404.7 404.7 404.7 323.7 323.7 364.2 404.7 404.71 404.7 364.2 364.2 485.6 202.3 202.3 1012 283.3 283.3 323.7 364.2 364.2 1052 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% Pnol-S = Planted excluding livestakes P-all = Planting including livestakes T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes T includes natural recruits Table 8. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species (continued) Project Code 93482. Project Name: Mud Lick Creek Current Plot Data (MY3 2020) Annual Means Scientific Name Common Name Species Type 93482-01-0009 93482-01-0010 93482-01-0011 93482-01-0012 MY3 (2020) MY2 (2019) MY1(2018) MYO (2018) PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T Acer negundo boxelder Tree 8 4 1 1 3 1 1 10 Acer rubrum red maple Tree 3 3 2 10 Alnus alder Shrub 3 Baccharis halimifolia eastern baccharis Shrub 2 Betula nigra river birch Tree 1 1 1 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 6 6 4 4 4 Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam Tree 5 5 5 1 1 1 2 2 2 10 10 10 11 11 11 12 12 12 15 15 15 Carya hickory Tree 1 Celtis laevigata sugarberry Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 Celtis occidentalis common hackberry Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Cephalanthus occidentalis common buttonbush Shrub 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 Cercis canadensis eastern redbud Tree 2 2 2 3 3 3 8 8 8 6 6 6 Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub 1 1 1 2 2 2 7 7 7 9 9 9 9 9 9 8 8 8 Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree 1 1 1 2 2 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 7 7 8 5 5 5 4 4 4 5 5 5 Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree 1 1 1 11 11 12 11 11 11 14 14 15 12 12 13 Juglans nigra black walnut Tree 3 3 4 1 5 Liquidambar styraciflua sweetgum Tree 6 50 30 7 124 98 19 10 Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree 1 1 4 1 4 4 8 4 4 7 Nyssa tupelo Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 Nyssa biflora swamp tupelo Tree 1 1 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 Ostrya virginiana hophornbeam Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree 1 1 1 11 11 13 12 12 14 7 7 7 7 7 7 Populus deltoides eastern cottonwood Tree 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 Quercus oak Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 Quercus nigra water oak Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 obinia pseudoacacia black locust Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 lmus americana American elm Tree 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 lmus rubra I slippery elm Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2 nknown Shrub or Tree 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 Viburnum dentatum southern arrowwood Shrub fl 2 2 2 Stem count size (ares) size (ACRES) Species count Stems per ACRE 10 1H18 8 8 60 8 8 38 7 96 96 242 102 102 215 97 97 123 90 90 129 1 1 1 12 12 12 12 0.020.02 0.02 00.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 6 6 6 8 7 7 8 5 221 221 26 22 22 26 19 19 22 18 18 23 404.7 404.7 890.3 323.7 323.7 2428 323.7 323.7 1538 283.3 283.3 688 323.7 323.7 816.1 344 344 725.1 327.1 327.1 414.8 303.5 303.5 435 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% Pnol-S = Planted excluding livestakes P-all = Planting including livestakes T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes T includes natural recruits Appendix D. Stream Geomorphology Data Tables lOa-10c. Baseline Stream Data Summary Tables l la-11£ Monitoring Data -Dimensional Data Summary Cross-section Plots Substrate Plots 2020 MY3 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482) Appendices Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Mud Lick Creek) Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project Number 93482 Parameter Gauge Regional Curve Pre -Existing Condition (Mud Lick Creek) Reference Reach(es) Data Design (Mud Lick Creek) Monitoring Baseline (Mud Lick Creek) Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL E . Min Mean Med Max SD Min Mean Med Max SD Min Max Med Min Mean Med Max SD n BF Width (ft) 18.2 22.0 24.6 5.3 10.8 12.3 18.3 19.8 21 3 Flood rove Width ft 250.0 306.0 378.0 14 60 125 100 100 100 3 BF Mean Depth ft 1.9 2.1 2.3 0.8 1.0 1.8 1.6 2.0 2.7 3 BF Max Depth ft 3.0 4.0 4.2 1.0 1.5 2.6 3.6 3.7 3.8 3 BF Cross Sectional Area (ft) 41.3 46.3 47.5 5.4 10.6 19.7 33.0 40.4 49.8 3 Width/Depth Ratio 8.0 10.5 12.8 5.2 8.6 14.4 6.8 9.9 13.1 3 Entrenchment Ratio 12.4 13.7 17.2 1.7 4.3 > 10.2 4.8 5.1 5.5 3 Bank Height Ratio 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.0 1 1.1 1.0 1 1.0 1.3 3 Profile Riffle length ft Riffle slope ft/ft 0.0040 0.0188 0.0704 Pool length ft Pool Max depth ft 3.7 4.4 5.2 1.2 1.8 3.3 Pool spacing (ft) 9.0 46.0 73.0 Pattern Channel Beltwidth ft 26.1 52.9 69.9 10 41 102 Radius of Curvature ft 9.9 24.8 58.8 11 21 85 Rc:Bankfull width ft/ft 0.5 1.1 2.39 1.3 2 9.1 Meander Wavelength ft 59.9 159.6 244.4 - - - Meander Width ratio 1.4 2.2 3.8 1.6 4.4 8.9 Transport parameters Reach Shear Stress (competency) lbs/ft2 Max part size mm mobilized at bankfull Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2 Additional Reach Parameters Ros en Classification E/C4 E/C4 E/C-type Bankfull Velocity (fps) 3.0 - 3.4 2.2 - 5.6 Bankfull Discharge cfs 123.9 - 157.42 20 -97 Valley Length ft Channel Thalweg Length ft Sinuosity 1.20 - 1.37 1.0 - 2.3 Water Surface Slo e ft/ft BF slo e ft/ft Bankfull Flood lain Area acres % of Reach with Eroding Banks Channel Stability or Habitat Metric Biolo ical or Other Table 10b. Baseline Stream Data Summary (North Branch) Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project Number 93482 Parameter Gauge Regional Curve Pre -Existing Condition (North Branch) Reference Reach(es) Data Design (North Branch) Monitoring Baseline (North Branch) Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL E . Min Mean Med Max SD Min Mean Med Max SD Min Max Med Min Mean Med Max SD n BF Width (ft) 8.3 10.4 5.3 10.8 12.3 13.8 14.0 14.6 16.2 17.7 2 Flood rove Width ft 33.3 80.0 14 60 125 30 70 100 100 100 2 BF Mean Depth ft 0.7 1.5 0.8 1.0 1.8 1.0 1.2 0.8 0.9 1.0 2 BF Max Depth ft 1.5 2.3 1.0 1.5 2.6 1.3 2.0 1.8 1.8 1.8 2 BF Cross Sectional Area (ft) 7.7 12.7 5.4 10.6 19.7 14.4 16.3 14.2 14.4 14.5 2 Width/Depth Ratio 5.4 14.0 5.2 8.6 14.4 12.0 13.0 14.6 18.4 22.1 2 Entrenchment Ratio 1.9 10.1 1.7 4.3 > 10.2 2.2 5.0 5.6 6.2 6.8 2 Bank Height Ratio 1.7 1 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2 Profile Riffle length ft Riffle slope ft/ft 0.0040 0.0188 0.0704 0.0060 0.0340 Pool length ft Pool Max depth ft 2.1 2.7 1.2 1.8 3.3 1.3 4.7 Pool spacing (ft) 9.0 46.0 73.0 19.0 92.0 Pattern Channel Beltwidth ft 11 26 38.5 10 41 102 41 125 Radius of Curvature ft 6.1 17 37 11 21 85 25 42 Rc:Bankfull width ft/ft 0.73 1.6 4.46 1.3 2 9.1 1.8 3 Meander Wavelength ft 37.9 64.1 100.6 - - - 41 168 Meander Width ratio 1.1 2.8 4.6 1.6 4.4 8.9 3 15 Transport parameters Reach Shear Stress (competency) lbs/ft2 Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2 Additional Reach Parameters Ros en Classification E5B5c E/C4 C4 Gtype Bankfull Velocity (fps) 3.3 - 3.5 2.2 - 5.6 2.4 - 4.3 Bankfull Discharge cfs 25.41 - 44.45 20 -97 34.6 - 70.1 Valley Length ft Channel Thalweg Length ft Sinuosity 1.22 - 1.32 1.0 - 2.3 1.2 - 1.3 Water Surface Slo e ft/ft BF slope ft/ft Bankfull Flood lain Area acres % of Reach with Eroding Banks Channel Stability or Habitat Metric Biolo ical or Other Table 10c. Baseline Stream Data Summary (East Branch) Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project Number 93482 Parameter Gauge Regional Curve Pre -Existing Condition (East Branch) Reference Reach(es) Data Design (East Branch) Monitoring Baseline (East Branch) Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL E . Min Mean Med Max SD Min Mean Med Max SD Min Max Med Min Mean Med Max SD n BF Width (ft) 4.3 5.3 10.8 12.3 11.0 8.9 12.8 16.6 2 Flood rove Width ft 23.0 14 60 125 24 55 100 100 100 2 BF Mean Depth ft 1.1 0.8 1.0 1.8 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.8 2 BF Max Depth ft 1.4 1.0 1.5 2.6 0.9 1.5 1.2 1.4 1.5 2 BF Cross Sectional Area (ft) 4.8 5.4 10.6 19.7 9.7 6.7 8.7 10.6 2 Width/Depth Ratio 3.9 5.2 8.6 14.4 12.4 11.1 19.4 27.7 2 Entrenchment Ratio 2.1 1.7 4.3 > 10.2 2.2 5.0 6.0 8.6 11.2 2 Bank Height Ratio 1.9 1 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2 Profile Riffle length ft Riffle slope ft/ft 0.0040 0.0188 0.0704 0.0156 0.0442 Pool length ft Pool Max depth ft 1.6 1.2 1.8 3.3 1.0 3.5 Pool spacing (ft) 9.0 46.0 73.0 15.0 73.0 Pattern Channel Beltwidth ft -- 10 41 102 22 98 Radius of Curvature ft -- 11 21 85 20 30 Rc:Bankfull width ft/ft -- 1.3 2 9.1 1.8 3 Meander Wavelength ft -- - - - 33 132 Meander Width ratio -- 1.6 4.4 8.9 3 12 Transport parameters Reach Shear Stress (competency) lbs/ft2 Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2 Additional Reach Parameters Ros en Classification B4c E/C4 C4 C-type Bankfull Velocity (fps) 4.2 2.2 - 5.6 3.3 Bankfull Discharge cfs 20.2 20 -97 32 Valley Length ft Channel Thalweg Length ft Sinuosity 1 1.0 - 2.3 1.20 -1.30 Water Surface Slo e ft/ft BF slo e ft/ft Bankfull Flood lain Area acres % of Reach with Erodin2 Banks Channel Stability or Habitat Metric Biolo ical or Other Table Ila. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections) Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Proiect - NCDMS Proiect Number 93482 Cross Section 1 Mud Lick Cr Cross Section 2 ad Lick Cr Cross Section 10 Mad Lick Cr Parameter Riffle Riffle Riffle Dimension MYO MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY5+ MY MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY5+ MYO MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY5+ BF Width fr 18.3 18.8 18.6 19.1 21.0 22.0 14.9 15.9 19.8 19.6 18.9 18.4 Floodprone Width (ft) (approx) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 BF Mean Depth fr 2.7 2.6 2.7 2.6 1.6 1.5 2.2 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.2 BF Max Depth ft 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.6 3.7 3.6 3.3 3.5 3.6 3.4 3.5 3.7 Low Bank Height 5.0 5.1 5.0 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.9 4.0 3.6 3.4 3.7 3.8 BF Cross Sectional Area ftZ 49.8 49.8 49.8 49.8 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 40.4 40.4 40.4 40.4 Area at Low Bank frZ 49.8 NA 75.8 75.8 33.0 NA 42.6 42.6 40.4 NA 43.2 43.2 Width/Depth Ratio 6.7 7.1 6.9 7.3 13.4 14.7 6.7 7.7 9.7 9.5 1 8.8 8.4 Entrenchment Ratio 5.5 5.3 NA** NA** 4.8 4.5 NA** NA** 5.1 5.1 NA** NA** Bank Hei ht Ratio* 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 d50 mm 9.9 4.4 4.3 4.3 9.9 4.4 4.3 4.3 9.9 4.4 4.3 4.3 *Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built(MYO) cross -sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group consisting of the NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioners in NC (9/2018). ** Based on the technical industry work group consisting of the NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioners in NC (9/2018), entrenchment ratio is no longer reported for success criteria. Table Ilb. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Proiect - NCDMS Proiect Number 93482 Floodprone Riffle slope (ft/ft) Pool length (ft) Re Bankfull width (ft/ft) Meander Wavelength (ft) Additional Reach Parameters Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) BF slope ' dI'1 d8 ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ Eroding Banks Table I1c. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections) Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Proiect - NCDMS Proiect Number 93482 Cross Section 3 North Branch Cross Section 4(North Branch Cross Section 5 North Branch Cross Section 6(North Branch Parameter Pool Riffle Pool Riffle Dimension MYO MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY5+ MYO MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY5+ MYO WI MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY5+ MYO MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY5+ BF Width fr 14.2 13.7 13.3 13.2 17.7 22.7 20.7 22.1 14.2 14.6 15.1 14.2 14.6 15.1 14.8 19.4 Floodprone Width (ft) (approx) NA NA NA NA 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 NA NA NA NA 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 BF Mean Depth fr 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.6 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.7 BF Max Depth ft 2.2 2.1 2.2 2.3 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.8 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.9 Low Bank Height 2.2 2.1 2.3 2.5 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.8 2.6 2.6 2.8 2.9 1.8 1.8 1.8 2.1 BF Cross Sectional Area ftZ 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 18.6 18.6 18.6 18.6 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 Area at Low Bank frZ 15.5 NA 18.0 18.0 14.2 NA 14.2 14.2 18.6 NA 20.3 20.3 14.5 NA 1 15.0 15.0 Width/Depth Ratio NA NA NA NA 22.1 36.3 30.2 34.4 NA NA NA NA 14.7 15.7 15.1 26.0 Entrenchment Ratio NA NA NA NA 5.6 4.4 NA** NA** NA NA NA NA 6.8 6.6 NA** NA** Bank Height Ratio* 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 d50 mm -- 18.8 8.0 8.4 4.0 18.8 8.0 8.4 4.0 *Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built(MYO) cross -sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group consisting of the NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioners in NC (9/2018). ** Based on the technical industry work group consisting of the NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioners in NC (9/2018), entrenchment ratio is no longer reported for success criteria. Table IId. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Proiect - NCDMS Proiect Number 93482 ,,,, ,` Table Ile. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections) Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Proiect - NCDMS Proiect Number 93482 Cross Section 7 East Branch Cross Section 8 East Branch Cross Section 9 East Branch Parameter Riffle Pool Riffle Dimension MYO MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY5+ MYO MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY5+ MYO MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY5+ BF Width fr 8.9 11.1 10.2 14.4 7.6 10.8 8.2 7.5 16.6 21.1 18.6 24.6 Floodprone Width (ft) (approx) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 NA NA NA NA 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 BF Mean Depth fr 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.5 1.4 1.0 1.3 1.4 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.4 BF Max Depth ft 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.4 2.4 1.5 2.1 2.4 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.5 Low Bank Height 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.4 2.4 1.5 2.2 2.4 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.5 BF Cross Sectional Area ftZ 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.6 10.6 10.6 10.6 Area at Low Bank ft 6.7 NA 7.5 7.5 10.5 NA 11.7 11.7 10.6 NA 10.7 10.7 Width/Depth Ratio 11.8 18.4 15.5 30.9 NA NA NA NA 26.0 42.0 32.6 57.1 Entrenchment Ratio 11.2 9.0 NA** NA** NA NA NA NA 6.0 4.7 NA** NA** Bank Hei ht Ratio* 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 TO 1.0 1.0 d50 mm 14.3 3.7 5.4 2.5 14.3 3.7 5.4 2.5 *Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built(MYO) cross -sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group consisting of the NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioners in NC (9/2018). ** Based on the technical industry work group consisting of the NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioners in NC (9/2018), entrenchment ratio is no longer reported for success criteria. Table IIL Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Proiect - NCDMS Proiect Number 93482 ,,,, ,` Riffle slope (ft/ft) Pool length (ft) Re Bankfull width (ft/ft) Meander Wavelength (ft) Additional Reach Parameters Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) BF slope d5't`8 Eroding Banks 3 y" *z Stream Type E Cape Fear River Basin, Mud Lick Creek, XS - 1, Riffle (Mud Lick Cr) 102 101 100 99 98 0 97 ° 96 ti W 95 94 ft 93 92 '0 t�01 0 10 20 30 40 60 .s Station(feet) River Basin: Cae Fear Site Name Mud Lick Creek XS ID XS - 1, Riffleud Lick CrDramaa Areasmi:3.64 Date: 9/28/2020 Field Crew: Perkinson, Keith Station Elevation-0.50 99.897.95 99.9310.76 99.5412.61 98.7013.50 98.2714.35 97.4416.36 97.2417.71 96.6619.50 95.5321.09 94.6922.29 93.9323.85 94.1125.53 93.59 26.28 93.58 28.55 93.6030.63 93.83 32.92 93.6834.60 96.6336.35 97.81 38.01 98.3442.54 98.8348.43 99.24 SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: 97.2 Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area: 49.8 Area at Low Bank: 75.8 Bankfull Width: 19.1 Flood Prone Area Elevation: 98.5 Flood Prone Width: 100.0 Max De that Bankfull: 3.6 Low Bank Heiht: 3.7 Mean Deth at Bankfull• 2.6 W / D Ratio• 7.3 Entrencment Ratio: NA Bank Height Ratio: 1.0 ----------------------------------------------------------- Bankfull r�-ooTos FloodProne Area MY-00 7/25/18 MY-01 17J06/18 MY02 9/18/19 Stream Type E Cape Fear River Basin, Mud Lick Creek, XS - 2, Riffle (Mud Lick Cr) 101 100 99 98 0 97 _-Bankfull ti 96 River Basin: Cape ad. Ali i j .•' lwM ""-"K( aF' _ ir' a Stream Type E Cape Fear River Basin, Mud Lick Creek, XS - 3, Pool (North Branch) 100 99 w :atirara:� ar a arriaea�a a �:a�uara:� ar :a�uara:� arriaea�a a �:a�uara:� arriaea�a 98 0 0 97 sou __ _ MY-oo Tos W MY-00 7/25/18 96 MY-01 12/06/18 MY-02 9/18/19 95 t MY-03 9/28/20 0 10 20 30 ■ MY-03 LTos 40 Station (feet) Fear Site Name Mud Lick Creek XS ID XS - 3, Pool (North Branch Drama a Area s mi : 0.65 Date: 9/28/2020 Field Crew: Perkinson, Keith Station Elevation 0.00 98.51 6.99 98.44 10.55 98.35 11.67 98.02 13.33 97.75 14.26 97.73 15.69 96.24 16.70 96.16 17.53 96.03 18.55 95.90 19.51 96.12 20.31 96.53 2L17 97.25 22.22 97.62 23.72 97.97 24.31 98.42 24.64 98.59 27.49 98.80 33.24 99.00 37.31 98.84 40.91 98.97 SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: 98.2 Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area: 15.5 Area at Low Bank: 18.0 Bankfull Width: 13.2 Flood Prone Area Elevation: NA Flood Prone Width: NA Max Depth at Bankfull: 2.3 Low Bank Height: 2.5 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 1.2 W / D Ratio: NA Entrenchment Ratio: NA Bank Height Ratio: 1.1 River Basin: Cape Stream Type C Cape Fear River Basin, Mud Lick Creek, XS - 4, Riffle (North Branch) 101 100 99 RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR RR O Air- Bankfull 98 - - MY-00 TOB W Flood Prone Area 97 MY-00 7/25/18 MY-01 12/06/18 MY-02 9/18/19 96 t MY-03 9�2�30 0 5 10 15 20 MY-o3 L Station (feet) Fear Site Name Mud Lick Creek XS ID XS - 4, Riffle (North Branch) Drainage Area s z 0.65 Date: 9/28/2020 Field Crew: Perkinson, Keith Station Elevation -0.20 98.44 3.59 98.86 5.51 98.51 8.94 98.36 11.36 98.27 12.25 97.77 12.79 97.69 13.26 97.05 13.82 97.18 14.66 97.10 15.30 97.22 15.83 97.44 16.69 97.96 17.34 98.10 18.63 98.18 20.34 98.69 22.28 98.93 24.56 99.07 26.44 99.25 SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: 98.9 Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area: 14.2 Area at Low Bank: 14.2 Bankfull Width: 22.1 Flood Prone Area Elevation: 98.9 Flood Prone Width: 100.0 Max Depth at BankfulL• 1.8 Low Bank Height: 1.8 Mean Depth at BankfulL• 0.6 W / D Ratio• 34.4 Entrenchment Ratio: NA Bank Height Ratio: 1.0 River Basin: Cape 4 gq I 66■■VV II - .. Stream Type C Cape Fear River Basin, Mud Lick Creek, XS - 5, Pool (North Branch) 99 98 OIL 0 97 o----sou a ti -� - MY-oo Tos W 96 MY-00 7/25/18 MY-01 12/06/18 MY-02 9/18/19 95 t MY-03 9/28/20 0 10 20 30 ■ MY-03 LTOB 40 Station (feet) Fear Site Name Mud Lick Creek XS ID XS - 5, Pool (North Branch Drainage Area s mi : 0.65 Date: 9/28/2020 Field Crew: Perkinson, Keith Station Elevation -0.10 98.09 4.25 98.29 5.80 98.20 8.13 97.66 9.38 96.96 9.99 96.02 11.24 95.30 12.66 95.27 13.57 95.17 14.82 95.17 15.14 95.54 15.75 97.08 16.71 97.34 19.08 97.86 21.62 98.07 24.78 98.18 26.71 98.18 SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: 98.0 Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area: 18.6 Area at Low Bank: 20.3 Bankfull Width: 14.2 Flood Prone Area Elevation: NA Flood Prone Width: NA Max Depth at Bankfull: 2.8 Low Bank Height: 2.9 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 1.3 W / D Ratio: NA Entrenchment Ratio: NA Bank Height Ratio: 1.0 River Basin: Cape A. 5 Stream Type C Cape Fear River Basin, Mud Lick Creek, XS - 6, Riffle (North Branch) 100 ------------------------------------------------------------- 99 98 ____ _---------- _� ____-______ 0 Bankfull 97 - - MY-00 TOB Flood Prone Area 96 MY-00 7/25/18 MY-01 12/06/18 MY-02 9/18/19 95 f MY-03 9/28/20 0 5 10 15 20 25 35 0 MY-03 LTOB Station (feet) Fear Site Name Mud Lick Creek XS ID XS - 6, Riffle (North Branch) Drainage Area s mi : 0.65 Date: 9/28/2020 Field Crew: Perkinson, Keith Station Elevation -0.20 98.10 4.05 97.76 6.00 97.69 7.84 97.26 10.24 96.82 12.06 96.49 12.15 96.48 12.35 96.49 13.51 96.34 14.23 95.91 15.53 95.96 15.85 96.20 16.27 96.70 17.55 96.98 18.03 97.20 20.07 97.56 25.05 98.02 29.00 97.97 SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: 97.8 Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area: 14.5 Area at Low Bank: 15.0 Bankfull Width: 19.4 Flood Prone Area Elevation: Flood Prone Width: Max De that BankfulL• Low Bank Heiht: Mean Deth at BankfulL• jjfl W / D Ratio• Entrenchmentatio: Bank Height Ratio: River Basin: Cape # f. z , Stream Type C Cape Fear River Basin, Mud Lick Creek, XS - 7, Riffle (East Branch) 101 ------------------------------------------------------------ 100 w 2 99------------- ____________________ Bankfull - - MY-00 Tos W 98 Flood Prone Area MY-00 7/25/18 MY-MY12/06/18 MY-02 9/18/19 97 t MY-03 9/28/20 0 5 10 15 20 30 0 MY-03 LTOB Station (feet) Fear Site Name Mud Lick Creek XS ID XS - 7, Riffle (East Branch Drama a Area s mi : 0.27 Date: 9/28/2020 Field Crew: Perkinson, Keith Station Elevation 0.30 99.10 4.13 99.19 6.89 98.86 8.07 98.61 9.19 98.25 10.01 97.88 10.54 97.77 10.97 97.62 11.73 97.53 12.29 97.68 12.85 98.04 13.62 98.26 14.32 98.42 15.63 98.48 16.50 98.69 17.64 98.93 20.35 98.88 22.62 98.83 24.42 98.95 SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: 98.9 Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area: 6.7 Area at Low Bank: 7.5 Bankfull Width: 14.4 Flood Prone Area Elevation: 98.9 Flood Prone Width: 100.0 Max Depth at Bankfull: 1.4 Low Bank Height: 1.4 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.5 W / D Ratio: 30.9 Entrenchment Ratio: NA Bank Height Ratio: 1.0 River Basin: Cape Fear Site Name Mud Lick Creek XS ID XS - 8, Pool(East Branch Drainage Area s mi : 0.27 Date: 9/28/2020 Field Crew: Perkinson, Keith Station Elevation 0.00 101.28 3.84 101.10 6.16 100.84 8.40 100.62 9.56 100.02 10.69 99.30 11.90 98.96 13.02 97.77 14.02 97.60 15.37 98.14 16.25 98.45 17.13 100.06 18.46 100.76 19.76 100.85 22.83 100.83 24.75 100.90 26.93 101.04 SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: 100.0 Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area: 10.5 Area at Low Bank: 11.7 Bankfull Width: 7.5 Flood Prone Area Elevation: NA Flood Prone Width: NA Max Depth at Bankfull: 2.4 Low Bank Height: 2.4 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 1.4 W / D Ratio: NA Entrenchment Ratio: NA Bank Height Ratio: 1.0 Stream Type C River Basin: Cape Stream Type C Cape Fear River Basin, Mud Lick Creek, XS - 9, Riffle (East Branch) 103 102 w 0 101 Bankfull a � - - MY-oo TOB W 100 Flood Prone Area MY-00 7/25/18 MY-MY12/06/18 MY-02 9/18/19 99 t MY-03 9/28/20 0 5 10 15 20 25 35 ■ MY-03 LTOB Station (feet) Fear Site Name Mud Lick Creek XS ID XS - 9, Riffle (East Branch Drainage Area s mi : 0.27 Date: 9/28/2020 Field Crew: Perkinson, Keith Station Elevation -0.30 101.06 4.47 101.21 8.05 100.98 10.06 100.70 12.00 100.57 12.93 100.21 13.51 99.92 13.89 99.71 14.65 99.69 15.16 99.75 15.74 100.18 16.50 100.54 17.43 100.59 19.10 100.59 22.59 101.10 26.25 101.32 29.39 101.16 SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: 101.2 Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area: 10.6 Area at Low Bank: AtIO1.2 10.7 Bankfull Width: 24.7 Flood Prone Area Elevation: Flood Prone Width: 100.0 Max De that Bankfull: 1.5 Low Bank Height: 1.5 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.4 W / D Ratio: 57.6 Entrenchment Ratio: NA Bank Height Ratio: 1.0 r> Stream Type E Cape Fear River Basin, Mud Lick Creek, XS - 10, Riffle (Mud Lick Cr) 102 101 100 w 99 98 _________ _ 2020 Saud very fine sand 0.125 2 4% 16% fine sand 0.250 1 2% 18% medium sand 0.50 0 0% 18% coarse sand 1.00 7 14% 32% very coarse sand 2.0 0 0% 32% Gravel very fine gravel 4.0 8 16% 48% fine gravel 5.7 6 12% 60% fine gravel 8.0 1 0 0% 60% medium gravel 11.3 3 6% 66% medium gravel 16.0 3 6% 72% course gravel 22.3 4 8% 80% course gravel 32.0 0 0% 80% very coarse gravel 45 4 8% 88% very coarse gravel 64 3 6% 94% Cobble small cobble 90 2 4% 98% medium cobble 128 1 2% 100% large cobble 180 0 0% 100% very large cobble 256 0 0% 100% Boulder small boulder 362 0 0% 100% small boulder 512 0 0% 100% medium boulder 1024 0 0% 100% large boulder 2048 0 0% 100% Bedrock bedrock 40096 0 0% 100% TOTAL % ofwhole count 50 100°/u 100% Summary Data D16 0.125 D35 2.28 D50 4.3 D84 38 D95 70 Cumulative Percent 100% 90% 80% a 70% 60% t 50% ' 40% 30% U 20% 10% 0% �1 �MY0.2018 �MY]-2018 �MS'2-2019 �MY3-2020 Individual Class Percent 100% 90% 80% 70% p 60% 50% U 40% 30% 20% to% 0% �MY0.2018 �hll ]-2018 •MY2-2019 •MY3-2020 Project Name: North Branch Cross Section: 4 Feature: Riffle Cumulative Percent 100% 2020 Description Material Size min Total # Item % Cum % SHVCIa silt/clay 0.062 8 19% 19% 90% Saud very fine sand 0.125 4 10% 29% 80 fine sand 0.250 3 7% 36% 70% medium sand 0.50 1 2% 38% 60% coarse sand 1.00 0 0% 38% a 50% very coarse sand 2.0 2 5% 43% > 40% Gravel very fine gravel 4.0 3 7% 50% 30 fine gravel 5.7 2 5% 55% 20% fine gravel 8.0 2 5% 60% U 10% medium gravel 11.3 2 5% 64% 0% medium gravel 16.0 5 12% 76% ti 11 �MY0.2018 �MY]-2018 �MY2-2019 �MY3-2020 course gravel 22.3 2 5% 81% course gravel 32.0 2 5% 86% very coarse gravel 45 2 5% 90% very coarse gravel 64 3 7% 98% Cobble small cobble 90 0 0% 98% Individual Class Percent 100% medium cobble 128 0 0% 98% large cobble 180 1 2% 100% very large cobble 256 0 0% 100% Boulder small boulder 362 0 0% 100% 90% small boulder 512 0 0o 100% 80% medium boulder 1024 0 0% 100% 70% large boulder 2048 0 0% 100 o w 60% Bedrock bedrock 40096 0 0% 100% 50% U TOTAL % ofwhole count 42 100% 100% 40% a 30% a Summary Data 220% 19 D16 NA 10% EL D35 0.39 0% O��`LO`,�'� V OS ♦ "y R "^ 3 \'? 6 ^,r"`Sti R4' b� 9� �`L� �� ..56 �"L �`v QrtiR �3�Ob ti u �MY0.2018 �MY]-2018 •MY2-2019 D50 8.4 D84 54 D95 84 Project Name: East Branch Cross -Section: 7 Feature: Riffle Cumulative Percent 2020 Description Material Size min Total # Item % Cum SHVCIa silt/clay 0.062 10 21% 21% 190% Saud very fine sand 0.125 3 6% 27% 90% fine sand 0.250 1 2% 29% 80 medium sand 0.50 3 6% 35% 70% coarse sand 1.00 1 2% 38% 60% °" very coarse sand 2.0 5 10% 48% 50% > Gravel very fine gravel 4.0 3 6% 54% 400 fine gravel 5.7 2 4% 58% 30 fine gravel 8.0 2 4% 63% v 20% medium gravel 11.3 3 6% 69% 10%0a medium gravel 16.0 2 4% 73% course gravel 22.3 2 4% 77% -ivn'o--cols �Mr] �o1s �Mr� ao19 pis-zozo course gravel 32.0 2 1 4% 1 81% very coarse gravel 45 4 8% 90% very coarse gravel 64 2 4% 94% Cobble small cobble 90 3 6% 100% Individual Class Percent 100% medium cobble 128 0 0% 100% large cobble 180 0 0% 100% very large cobble 256 0 0% 100% Boulder small boulder 362 0 0% 100% 90% small boulder 512 0 0% 100% 80% medium boulder 1024 0 0% 100% 70% large boulder 2048 0 0% 100 0 w 60% Bedrock bedrock 40096 0 0% 100% 50% U TOTAL % ofwhole count 48 100% 100% 40% a 30% a "> 20% 10% 0% O��`LO`,�'� O� OS ♦ ,y R .^ 3 \'? 6 ^,r"`Sti R4' b, 9� Part��lP C��a /.r.r1 �MYO-2018 �MY 1-2018 mMY 2019 •MY3-2020 Summary Data D16 0.075 D35 1.35 D50 5.4 D84 55 D95 103 Appendix E. Hydrology Data Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events 2020 MY3 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482) Appendices Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events Mud Tick Greek Restoration Site (DMS Proiect No. 93482 Date of Data Date of Method Photo (if Collection Occurrence available) December 6, 2018 October 16-17, Observations throughout floodplain and crest gauge indicate 1, 2 2018 a bankfull event after 4.61 inches of rain fell over 48 hours. Observation of wrack in floodplain along North Branch R2 May 8, 2019 February 24, 2019 and crest gauge data from all site crest gauges indicate a 3 bankfull event after 2.27 inches of rain fell over 48 hours. Observation of wrack on Mud Lick Creek R2 floodplain September 18, 2019 July 24, 2019 fences and crest gauge data from all site crest gauges indicate 4 a bankfull event after 3.02 inches of rain fell over 48 hours. Observations of wrack throughout site along all stream May 29, 2020 February 7, 2020 reaches, and crest gauge data from all site crest gauges 5, 6, 7 indicate a bankfull event after approximately 3.59 inches of rain fell over 24-hour period. Observations of wrack throughout site along all stream November 16, 2020 November 12, 2020 reaches, and crest gauge data from all site crest gauges 8,9 indicate a bankfull event after approximately 4.60 inches of rain fell over 48-hour period. Photo-3 Air 2020 MY3 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482) Appendices rPhoto-5 r , s Photo-7 -r f zi .. w �A v p 4 0 / s `e F 2020 MY3 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482) Appendices 2020 MY3 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Appendices Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482) Appendix F. 2019 Warranty Replant Information 2020 MY3 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Appendices Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482) Dykes & Son Nursery 825 Maude Etter Rd TN 37110 Date Invoice # 1/7/2019 23341 Ship To NORTH STATE ENVIRONMENTAL 2889 LOWERY ST WINSTON SALEM, NC 27101 P.O. No. Ship Via FOB Project mud lick/green tryon 1/7/2019 Quantity Item Code Description Mud Lick Creek 175 Bare Root River Birch 12-18" 175 Bare Root Tulip Poplar 12-18" 175 Bare Root Sycamore 12-18" 175 Bare Root Red Bud 12-18" Greens of Tryon 100 Bare Root Poplar 12-18" 50 Bare Root Sycamore 12-18" 50 Bare Root River Birch 12-18" 1 Freight UPS Charges 1 Packing Packing No claims, errors, shortages, etc. will be considered unless made within 10 days of receipt. Appendix G. 2020 Benthic Data Results Habitat Assessment Forms 2020 MY3 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Appendices Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482) AXIOM, MUD LICK CREEK, CHATHAM COUNTY, NC, BENTHIC MACRO INVERTEBRATES COLLECTED 6/5 AND 6/9/2020. PAI ID NO 53930 53931 53932 STATION M LC-3 M LC-5 M LC-2 DATE SPECIES T.V. F.F.G. ANNELIDA Clitellata Oligochaeta CG Naididae CG Tubificinae w.o.h.c. CG 1 Lumbriculida Lumbriculidae CG 2 ARTHROPODA Crustacea Amphipoda CG Crangonyctidae Crangonyx sp. 7.2 CG 1 Decapoda Cambaridae Procambarus sp. 9.3 SH 1 Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae CG 1 Leptophlebiidae CG Paraleptophlebia sp. 1.2 CG 1 1 Odonata Coenagrionidae P 1 Enallagma sp. 8.5 P 1 Corduliidae Neurocordulia sp. 5.3 5 Plecoptera Pe rl id ae P Perlesta placida 2.9 P 4 Perlesta sp. 2.9 P 4 1 Hemiptera Corixidae PI 1 1 Megaloptera Sialidae P Sialis sp. 7 P 2 Trichoptera Hydropsychidae FC Cheumatopsyche sp. 6.6 FC 2 Coleoptera Curculionidae 1 Elmidae CG Stenelmis sp. 5.6 SC 1 PAI, Inc. Page 1 of 2 axiom mud lick ck 6 20cl.xlsx AXIOM, MUD LICK CREEK, CHATHAM COUNTY, NC, BENTHIC MACRO INVERTEBRATES COLLECTED 6/5 AND 6/9/2020. PAI ID NO 53930 53931 53932 STATION M LC-3 M LC-5 M LC-2 DATE SPECIES T.V. F.F.G. Hydrophilidae P Tropisternus sp. 9.3 P 1 Noteridae P Hydrocanthus sp. P 1 Diptera Chironomidae Chironomus sp. 9.3 CG 1 Conchapelopia sp. 8.4 P 5 4 5 Cricotopus bicinctus 8.7 CG 4 4 Microtendipes pedellus gp. 3.9 CG 1 1 1 Natarsia sp. 9.6 P 2 1 3 Parakiefferiella sp. 4.8 CG 1 Polypedilum illinoense gp. 8.7 SH 6 Tanytarsus sp. 6.6 FC 1 Culicidae FC Anopheles sp. 8.6 FC 1 Ephydridae PI 2 Simuliidae FC simulium sp. 4.9 FC 11 TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS 32 39 17 TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 14 17 8 EPT TAXA 3 3 1 BIOTIC INDEX ASSIGNED VALUES 6.31 5.90 8.05 PAI, Inc. Page 2 of 2 axiom mud lick ck 6 20cl.xlsx kti L. G 3/06 Revision 6 Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet Mountain/ Piedmont Streams Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ TOTAL SCORE Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters with 200 meters preferred of stream, preferably in an upstream direction starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average stream conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two descriptions, select an intermediate score. A final habitat score is deternvned by adding the results from the different metrics. Stream y� f Lrc V ('Ilk Location/road: C e�i r # J S (Road NameSwo / (r.r},)County 014 W. v.til Date n ,04 01 �CC# 0 ; 0 3 10 d � _ _Basin Cr! (IQ �@a, Subbasin d 3- () 6 — (7 F Observers) r �"� Type of Study: ❑ Fish Menthos ❑ Basinwide ❑Special Study (Describe) Latitude _ 5_� 3A3 Longitude 7l..g3yldy Ecoregion: ❑ MT l ] P ❑ Slate Belt ❑ Triassic Basin Water Quality: Temperature °C DO mg/l Conductivity (corr.) µS/cm pH Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include what you estimate driving thru the watershed in watershed land use. Visible Land Use: _(L%Forest %Residential 70 %Active Pasture % Active Crops %Fallow Fields % Commercial %Industrial %Other - Describe: Watershed land use : ❑Forest ❑Agriculture ❑Urban ❑ Animal operations upstream Width: (meters) Stream 3 Channel (at top of bank) � Stream Depth: (m) Avg • Max ❑ Width variable ❑ Large river >25m wide Bank Height (from deepest part of riffle to top of bank -first flat surface you stand on): (m) ' k Bank Angle: 90 ° or ❑ NA (Vertical is 90°, horizontal is 0°. Angles > 900 indicate slope is towards mid -channel, < 90' indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.) ❑ Channelized Ditch reply incised -steep, straight banks ❑Both banks undercut at bend ❑Channel filled in with sediment ❑ Recent overbank deposits ❑Bar development ❑Buried structures ❑Exposed bedrock ❑ Excessive periphyton growth ❑ Heavy filamentous algae growth ❑Green tinge ❑ Sewage smell Mamnade Stabilization:12K ❑Y: ❑Rip -rap, cement, gabions ❑ Sediment/grade-control structure ❑Bemi/levee Flow conditions: ❑High .QNormal ❑Low Turbidity: ❑Clear J2-Slightly Turbid ❑Turbid ❑Tannic ❑Milky ❑Colored (from dyes) Good potential for Wetlands Restoration Project?? _O' tS ONO Details Channel Flow Status Useful especially under abnormal or low flow conditions. A. Water reaches base of both lower banks, minimal channel substrate exposed ............................ Ci- B. Water fills >75% of available channel, or <25% of channel substrate is exposed ........................ ❑ C. Water fills 25-75% of available channel, many logs/snags exposed ............................................. ❑ D. Root mats out of water................................................................................................................... ❑ E. Very little water in cha el, rmostly present as standing pools ..................................................... [3Weather Conditions: �d4o 40 `l' Photos: ❑N ❑Y ❑ Digital 035mm v r 119a - z-(K 4W kAct-S L kuwat I Ll r A EtIN'w-C U5 � I C4 L 6,.5 a J W llv'Q S(oC IT ate.., e, t 4 I. Channel Modification Score A: channel natural, frequent bends........................................................................................................ 5 B. channel natural, infrequent bends (channelization could be old) ...................................................... 4 C. some channelization present.............................................................................................................. 3 D. more extensive channelization, >40% of stream disrupted............................................................... E. no bends, completely channelized or rip rapped or gabioned, etc .................................................... 0 ❑ Evidence of dredging ❑Evidence of desnagging=no large woody debris in stream ❑Banks of uniform shape/height Remarks Subtotal_ H. Instream Habitat: Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover. If >70% of the reach is rocks, 1 type is present, circle the score of 17. Defmition: leafpacks consist of older leaves that are rciced ,14Deth0 and have begun to decay (not piles of leaves in pool areas). Mark as Rare, Corrimonor Abundant. Rocks Macrophytes Sticks and leafpacks /Snags and logs Undercut banks or root mats AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER 1 >70% 40-70% 20-40% <20% Score Score Score Score 4 or 5 types present ................. 20 16 12 8 ... 3 types present ...................... 19 15 11 7 2 types present ......................... 18 1 10 6 1 type present ........................... 17 13 9 5 No types present ....................... 0 ❑ No woody vegetation in riparian zone Remarks Subtotal III. Bottom Substrate (silt, sand, detritus, gravel, cobble, boulder) Look at entire reach for substrate scoring, but only look at riffle for embeddedness, and use rocks from all parts of riffle -look for "mud line" or difficulty extracting rocks. A. substrate with good mix of gravel, cobble and boulders Score 1. embeddedness <20% (very little sand, usually only behind large boulders).............:e.:........ 15 2. embeddedness 20-40%.......................................... :............................................................... 12 3. embeddedness 4040%.......................................................................................................... 8 4. embeddedness>80%............................................................................................................. 3 B. substrate gravel and cobble . r' 1. embeddedness<20%............................................................................................................ ` 14 2. embeddedness 20-40%......................................................................................................... 11 3. embeddedness 40-80%........................................................................................................ 6 4. embeddedness>80%............................................................................................................ 2 C. substrate mostly gravel 1. embeddedness<50%............................................................................................................ 2. embeddedness>50%............................................................................................................ 4 D. substrate homogeneous 1. substrate nearly all bedrock................................................................................................... 3 2. substrate nearly all sand........................................................................................................ 3 3. substrate nearly all detritus.................................................................................................... 2 4. substrate nearly all silt/ clay................................................................................................... 1 Remarks Subtotal IV. Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence. Water velocities associated with pools are always slow. Pools may take the form of "pocket water", small pools behind boulders or obstructions, in large high gradient, streams, or side eddies. A. Pools present �, ? . , +„; Score 1. Pools Frequent (>30% of 200m area surveyed) a. variety of pggl §i es ..... ................:................... �,.:........�.. t.. ., �..::... �i t t.............. ..qi..tj Ye, �``F'' .'�....-f'.1 I1"• . t . 8 b. pools about the, same -size indicates pools fil�'ing m� �.... .. :. . 2. Pools Infrequent (�30% of the 20bin ared. surve}� dy. a. variety of pool sizes............................................................................................................... 6 b. pools about the same size...................................................................................................... 4 B. Pools absent.......................................................................................................................................... 0 to Subtotal ❑ Pool bottom boulder-cobble=hard ❑ Bottom sandy -sink as you walk Silt bottom ❑ Some pools over wader depth Remarks 5 Page Total 40 V. Riffle Habitats Definition: Riffle is area of reaeration-can be debris dam, or narrow channel area. Riffles Frequent Riffles Infrequent Score Score A. well defined riffle and run, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream.... 16 12 B. riffle as wide as stream but riffle length is not 2X stream width ................................... 7 C. riffle not as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X stream width ............................. 0 3 D. riffles absent................................................................................................................... 0 eTypical ❑Steep=fast ! C Channel Slope: for area flow Mow --like a coastal stream Subtotal VI. Bank Stability and Vegetation FACE UPSTREAM Left Bank Rt. Bank Score Score A. Banks stable 1. little evidence of erosion or bank failure(except outside of bends), little potential for erosion.. 7 7 B. Erosion areas present 1. diverse trees, shrubs, grass; plants healthy with good root systems ..................................... 6 6 2. few trees or small trees and shrubs; vegetation appears generally healthy ........................... 5 5 3. sparse mixed vegetation; plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil binding ................. 4. mostly grasses, few if any trees and shrubs, high erosion and failure potential at high flow.. (2 J 5. little or no bank vegetation, mass erosion and bank failure evident ........................................... 0 Total Remarks VII. Light Penetration Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface. Canopy would block out sunlight when the sun is directly overhead. Note shading from mountains, but not use to score this metric. Score A. Stream with good canopy with some breaks for light penetration ............................................. 10 B. Stream with full canopy - breaks for light penetration absent ..................................................... C. Stream with partial canopy - sunlight and shading are essentially equal .................................... 7 D. Stream with minimal canopy - full sun in all but a few areas ....................................................... 2 E. No canopy and no shading............................................................................................................. 0 Remarks Subtotal 7 VIII. Riparian Vegetative Zone Width Definition: Riparian zone for this form is area of natural vegetation adjacent to stream (can go beyond floodplain). Definition: A break in the riparian zone is any place on the stream banks which allows sediment or pollutants to directly enter the stream, such as paths down to stream, storm drains, uprooted trees, otter slides, etc. FACE UPSTREAM Lft. Bank Rt. Bank Dominant vegetation: El -Trees shrubs M-Grasses J2r*eeds/old field ❑Exotics (kudzu, etc) Score Score A. Riparian zone intact (no breaks) 1. width > 18 meters..................................................................................... 2. width 12-18 meters................................................................................... 4 4 3. width 6-12 meters..................................................................................... 3 3 4. width < 6 meters...................................................................................... 2 2 B. Riparian zone not intact (breaks) 1. breaks rare a. width > 18 meters......................................................................... 4 4 b. width 12-18,Metersq.....................................,................ 3..... - 3x c. width 6-12 meters....................................................................... r= 2 d. width < 6 meters ............ . �.4.: ,....., .,.1.:,........... s 1. 1 f 2. breaks common a. width > 18 meters......................................................................... 3 3 b. width 12-18 meters.................................................:.................... 2 2 c. width 6-12 meters....................................................................... 1 1 d. width < 6 meters......................................f ...................} ......... 0 0 r�- �7 Remarks Total Page Total ❑ Disclaimer -form filled out, but score doesn't match subjective opinion -atypical stream TOTAL SCORE 41 Supplement for Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet Diagram to determine bank angle: t. 900 450 J Site Sketch: Other comments: Typical Stream Cross-section 1350 This side is 45' bank angle. 4 40- c % alC ftAt I Prof IfC6t,. b.tw hr _ /F,00- V 5. 42 3/06 Revision 6 3 Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet Mountain/ Piedmont Streams Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ OTAL SCORE Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters with 200 meters preferred of stream, preferably in an upstream direction starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average stream conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two descriptions, select an intermediate score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics. Stream 1yy J /r 1 ��t �[_ I `3 Location/road: t� a 5 a4�} (Road fame }County C Date CC#_ d_)QOdj Basin CCW'? Subbasin 0C99 Observer(s) �� i`� Type of Study: ❑ Fish ,Menthos ❑ Basinwide ❑Special Study (Describe) Latitude Longitude Ecoregion: ❑ MT ❑ Slate Belt ❑ Triassic Basin Water Quality: Temperature °C DO mg/l Conductivity (corr.) µS/cm pH _ Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include what you estimate driving thru the watershed in watershed land use. Visible Land Use: 30 0/.Forest %Residential 'Obi Active Pasture 10 % Active Crops %Fallow Fields % Commercial %Industrial %Other - Describe: Watershed land use : ,Forest JZJAgriculture ❑Urban ❑ Animal operations upstream Width: (meters) Streamk___ Channel (at top of bank) Stream Depth: (m) Avg ' Z Max / ❑ Width variable ❑ Large river >25m wide Bank Height (from deepest part of riffle to top of bank -first flat surface you stand on): (m) Bank Angle: ° or ❑ NA (Vertical is 90°, horizontal is 0°. Angles > 90° indicate slope is towards mid -channel, < 900 indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.) ❑ Channelized Ditch ❑Deeply incised -steep, straight banks ❑Both banks undercut at bend ❑Channel filled in with sediment ❑ Recent overbank deposits ❑Bar development ❑Buried structures ❑Exposed bedrock ❑ Excessive periphyton gr wth ❑ Heavy filamentous algae growth ❑Green tinge ❑ Sewage smell Manmade Stabilization: Y: ❑Rip -rap, cement, gabions ❑ Sediment/grade-control structure ❑Berm/levee Flow conditions: OHigh BNormal ❑Low Turbidity: ❑Clear .0'Shghtly Turbid ❑Turbid ❑Tannic ❑Milky ❑Colored (from dyes) Good potential for Wetlands Restoration Project?? 2"VES ONO Details Channel Flow Status Useful especially under abnormal or low flow conditions. A. Water reaches base of both lower banks, minimal channel substrate exposed ............................ ❑ B. Water fills >75% of available channel, or <25% of channel substrate is exposed ........................ ❑ C. Water fills 25-75% of available channel, many logs/snags exposed ............................................. ❑ D. Root mats out of water................................................................................................................... ❑ E. Very little water in channel, mostly present as standing pools_�.... ❑ ................................................ Weather Conditions: rrZ Z�iI'�'1�174 Photos: ON ❑W❑ Digital 1135mm Remarks: )'t —r-r) v" �'�- l e rr. r tn_ lAj f t, ... r k 14 n 1. _ c . 0 Q -1 4*U \ Jr), 39 I. Channel Modification Score A: channel natural, frequent bends........................................................................................................ 5 B. channel natural, infrequent bends (channelization could be old) ...................................................... C. some channelization present.............................................................................................................. 3 D. more extensive channelization, >40% of stream disrupted............................................................... 2 E. no bends, completely channelized or rip rapped or gabioned, etc .................................................... 0 ❑ Evidence of dredging ❑Evidence of desnagging--no large woody debris in stream ❑Banks of uniform shape/height Remarks Subtotal H. Instream Habitat: Consider the percentagg of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover. If >70% of the reach is rocks, I type is present, circle11*sao1re,8*fT7'.* betinition: leafpacks consist of older leaves thit`dreyp rge J4?pther nd have begun to decay (not piles of leaves in pool areas). Mark as Rare, Common, or Abundant. x Rocks Macrophytes ticks and leafpacksSnags and logs Undercut banks or root mats AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER >70% 40-70% 20-40% <20% Score Score Score Score 4 or 5 types present ................. 20 16 8 3 types present ......................... 19 15 1 7 2 types present ......................... 18 14 10 6 1 type present ........................... 17 13 9 5 No types present.................. 0 � ❑ No woody vegetation in riparian tone Remarks. Subtotal III. Bottom Substrate (silt, sand, detritus, gravel, cobble, boulder) Look at entire reach for substrate scoring, but only look at riffle for embeddedness, and use rocks from all parts of riffle -look for "mud line" or difficulty extracting rocks. A. substrate with good.mix of gravel, cobble and boulders Score 1. embeddedness <20% (very little sand, usually onjy behind large boulders) ........................ 15 2. embeddedness 20-40%.................... 4 3. embeddedness 40-80%.......................................................................................................... 8 4. embeddedness>80%............................................................................................................. 3 B. substrate gravel and cobble ". 1. embeddedness<20%............................................................................................................ 2. embeddedness 20-40%......................................................................................................... 11 3. embeddedness 40-80%...........................•............................................................................. 6 4. embeddedness>80%............................................................................................................ 2 C. substrate mostly gravel 1. embeddedness<50%............................................................................................................ 8 2. embeddedness>50%:........................................................................................................... 4 D. substrate homogeneous 1. substrate nearly all bedrock................................................................................................... ' 3 2. substrate nearly all sand.................................................................................................... 3 3. substrate nearly all detritus.................................................................................................... 2 4. substrate nearly all silt/ clay................................................................................................... 1 Remarks _ Subtotal IV. Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence. Water velocities associated with pools are always slow. Pools may take the form of "pocket water", small pools behind boulders or obstructions, in large high gradient streams, or side eddies. A. Pools present t i : • ; S . , Score 1. Pools Frequent (>30% of 20(hm area surveyed) a. variety of pool sizes............................................................................................................... b. pools about the same size (indicates pools filling in)............................................................ 2. Pools Infrequent (<30% of the 200m area surveyed) a. variety of pool sizes............................................................................................................... 6 b. pools about the same size...................................................................................................... 4 B. Pools absent............................................................................................................................................ 0 `t) 13 Pool bottom boulder-cobble=hard Bottom sandy -sink as you walk ❑ Silt bottom Remarks V1LC 3 40 Subtotal ❑ Some pools over wader depth Page Total 3 V. Riffle Habitats Definition: Riffle is area of reaeration-can be debris dam, or narrow channel area. Riffles Frequent Riffles Infrequent Score Score A. well defined riffle and run, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream... 16 12 B. riffle as wide as stream but riffle length is not 2X stream width .................................... 14 C. riffle not as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X stream width ............................. 7 3 D. riffles ab ent................................................................................................................... `lf Channel Slope: Typical for area ❑Steep=fast flow ❑Low=like Subtotal(/ a coastal stream VI. Bank Stability and Vegetation FACE UPSTREAM Left Bank Rt. Bank Score Score A. Banks stable 1. little evidence of erosion or bank failure(except outside of bends), little potential for erosion.. 7 7 B. Erosion areas present 1. diverse trees, shrubs, grass; plants healthy with good root systems .........:........................... 6 6 2. few trees or small trees and shrubs; vegetation appears generally healthy ........................... 3. sparse mixed vegetation; plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil binding ................. 5 G¢ 4. mostly grasses, few if any trees and shrubs, high erosion and failure potential at high flow.. 2 2 5. little or no bank vegetation, mass erosion and bank failure evident ........................................... 0 0 6 Total Remarks VII. Light Penetration Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface. Canopy would block out sunlight when the sun is directly overhead. Note shading from mountains, but not use to score this metric. Score A. Stream with good canopy with some breaks for light penetration ............................................. 10 B. Stream with full canopy - breaks for light penetration absent.....................................................j C. Stream with partial canopy - sunlight and shading are essentially equal ...........:........:............ (7 f D. Stream with minimal canopy - full sun in all but a few areas ................ E. No canopy and no shading............................................................................................................. 0 Remarks_ _ Subtotal VIII. Riparian Vegetative Zone Width Definition: Riparian zone for this form is area of natural vegetation adjacent to stream (can go beyond floodplain). Definition: A break in the riparian zone is any place on the stream banks which allows sediment or pollutants to directly enter the stream, such as paths down to stream, storm drains, uprooted trees, otter slides, etc. FACE UPSTREAM Lft. Bank Rt. Bank Dominant vegetation: CKTrees J!rSfimbs Grasses ❑ Weeds/old field ❑Exotics (kudzu, etc) Score Score A. Riparian zone intact (no breaks) 1. width > 18 meters..................................................................................... ( J 2. width 12-18 meters................................................................................... 4 4 3. width 6-12 meters .................................................. .... .... I.......................... 3 3 4. width < 6 meters...................................................................................... 2 2 B. Riparian zone not intact (breaks) 1. breaks rare a. width > 18 meters......................................................................... 4 4 b. width 12-18 meters....................................................................... 3 3 c. width 6-12 meters....................................................................... 2 2 d. width < 6 meters......................................................................... 1 1 2. breaks common a. width > 18 meters......................................................................... 3 3 b. width 12-18 meters...................................................................... 2 2 c. width 6-12 meters....................................................................... 1 1 d. width < 6 meters .. .......................................................% Remark/eu Lin M4 a� /l 0 0 `V nn Total v cicl L 47 P t (iJ do tt S " �� ` !�'% Page Total 33 ❑ Disclaimer -form filled out, but score doesn't match subjective opinion -atypical stream TOTAL SCORE_ 6 41 Supplement for Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet Diagram to determine bank angle: 900 450 Site Sketch: Other comments: Tvnical Stream Cross-section 42 1350 This side is 45° bank angle. w!C C-4 S-' 3/06 Revision.6 A �. ,+ �� Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet a Mountain/ Piedmont Streams Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ OTAL SCORE Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters with 200 meters preferred of stream, preferably in an upstream direction starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average stream conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream.,o complptge theform, select the description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat i'�1n between two descriptions, select an intermediate score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics. Stream ''y m i�/L 3 Location/road: _(Road Name ]Co-unty Ck « �� 3 Date N CC# 0303000Basin a/),G N24i Subbasin C 3- Ore ✓�� Observer(s) Type of Study: ❑ Fish D%Menthos ❑ Basinwide ❑Special Study (Describe) Latitude 3Sr f 1 Longitude- .,��Ecoregion: ❑ MT P ❑ Slate Belt P Triassic Basin Water Quality: Temperature °C DO mg/1 Conductivity (con.) µS/cm pH_ Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include what you estimate driving thru the watershed in watershed land use. / Visible Land Use: 30%Forest %Residential 76 l %Active Pasture % Active Crops %Fallow Fields % Commercial %Industrial %Other - Describe: Watershed land use : ❑Forest ❑Agriculture ❑Urban ❑ Animal operations upstream Width: (meters) Stream • V" Channel (at top of bank)_ Stream Depth: (m) Avg—. Max • r ❑ Width variable ❑ Large river >25m wide Bank Height (from deepest part of riffle to top of bank -first flat surface you stand on): (m) Bank Angle: 130 ° or ❑ NA (Vertical is 900, horizontal is 00. Angles > 900 indicate slope is towards mid -channel, < 90' indicate slope, is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.) ❑ Channelized Ditch ❑Deeply incised -steep, straight banks ❑Both banks undercut at bend ❑Channel filled in with sediment ❑ Recent overbank deposits ❑Bar development ❑Buried structures ❑Exposed bedrock ❑ Excessive periphyton growth ❑ Heavy filamentous algae growth ❑Green tinge ❑ Sewage smell Manmade Stabilization: ❑N 45Ti ❑Rip -rap, cement, gabions ❑ Sediment/grade-control structure ❑Berm/levee Flow conditions: ❑High BNonnal ❑Low Turbidity: ❑Clear .;-Slightly Turbid ❑Turbid ❑Tannic ❑Milky ❑Colored (from dyes) Good potential for Wetlands Restoration Project?? 'YES ONO Details Channel Flow Status Useful especially under abnormal or low flow conditions. A. Water reaches base of both lower banks, minimal channel substrate exposed ............................ B. Water fills >75% of available channel, or <25% of channel substrate is exposed ........................ ❑ C. Water fills 25-75% of available channel, many logs/snags exposed ............................................. ❑ D. Root mats out of water................................................................................................................... ❑ E. Very little water in channel, mostly )present as standing pools ..................................................... ❑ eather Conditions: lo��,�� k r! /�Il (� Photos: ON ,lam ❑ Digital 1335mm 110 Remarks: -eq r d i.. r� 6 7-Q��-rt lqe l —rt ! U W't .�� # R 39 I. Channel Modification Score A. channel natural, frequent bends................................................................................................... . qls� B. channel natural, infrequent bends (channelization could be old) ...................................................... r C. some channelization present..........................................................................................................: t. 3 D. more extensive channelization, >40% of stream disrupted............................................................... 2 E. no bends, completely channelized or rip rapped or gabioned, etc ..................................................... 0 ❑ Evidence of dredging ❑Evidence of desnagging=no large woody debris in stream ❑Banks of uniform shap0beight Remarks /Vi�j -r / L� 4.oc u _ Subtotal H. Instream Habitat: Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover. If >70% of the reach is rocks; 1 type is present, circle the score of 17. Definition: leafpacks consist of older leaves that arepygcked,w4*jeand have begun to decay (not piles of leaves in pool areas). Mark as Rare, Common, or Abundant. ✓Rocks Macrophytes sticks and leafpacks Snags and logs Undercut banks or root mats AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER >70% 40-70% 20-40% <20% Score Score Score Score 4 or 5 types present ................. 20 16 12 8 3 types present ......................... 19 15 11 7 2 types present ......................... (3' 14 10 6 1 type present ........................... 17 13 9 5 No types present ....................... 0 ❑ No woody vegetation in riparian zone Remarks Subtotal d i� III. Bottom Substrate (silt, sand, detritus, gravel, cobble, boulder) Look at entire reach for substrate scoring, but only look at riffle for embeddedness, and use rocks from all parts of riffle -look for "mud line" or difficulty extracting rocks. A. substrate with good mix of gravel, cobble and boulders Score 1. VInbeddedness Q0% (very little sand, usually only behind large boulders) ....................... 15 2. embeddedness 20-40%.......................................................................................................... 12 3. embeddedness 40-80%.......................................................................................................... 8 4. embeddedness>80%............................................................................................................. 3 B. substrate gravel and cobble '� ;s ' 1. embeddedness<20%............................................................................................................ 14 2. embeddedness 2040%......................................................................................................... OP 3. embeddedness 40-80%........................................................................................................ 6 4. embeddedness>80%............................................................................................................ 2 C. substrate mostly gravel 1. embeddedness<50%............................................................................................................ 8 2. embeddedness>50%............................................................................................................ 4 D. substrate homogeneous 1. substrate nearly all bedrock................................................................................................... 3 2. substrate nearly all sand........................................................................................................ 3 3. substrate nearly all detritus.................................................................................................... 2 4. substrate nearly all silt/ clay................................................................................................... 1 Remarks _ Subtotal IV. Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence. Water velocities associated with pools are always slow. Pools may take the form of "pocket water", small pools behind boulders or obstructions, in large high gradient streams, or side eddies. A. Pools present j;,k ., R ,!, �,i, ` Score 1. Pools Frequent 30% of 200m area surveyed) ` a. vane o€poolsizes..........,..........................................�............`:.,...,.....:..;..,,............ r , b. pools about the same size (aldicates pools filling in,):,..,....w..,,. ;�. .............. 8 ' le 0 2. Pools Infrequenf (<30% of the'2'0'(lrtn irea`surveyed) t' "'" s' ° a. variety of pool sizes................................................................................:.:.,,.�.�.�s...s..y.. : '61 b. pools about the same size...................................................................................................... 4 %j B. Pools absent........: . �.............. .-R-4. ........................... �� .... ;y , _ .,:...... `.... ,.�, .,.....rP. .Q '�V � :' ku6tal M, ool bottom boulder -cobble --hard ❑ Bottom sandy -sink as you walk ❑ Silt bottorra G S1432e pobl . over-Nr✓adef dto,& Remarks Page Total 40 V. Riffle Habitats Definition: Riffle is area of reaeration-can be debris dam, or narrow channel area. Riffles Frequent Riffles Infrequent Score Score A. well defined riffle and run, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream... (ice 12 B. riffle as wide as stream but riffle length is not 2X stream width .................................... 4 7 C. riffle not as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X stream width ............................. 10 3 D. riffles absent................................................................................................................... 0 Channel Slope: QX-ypical for area ❑Steep=fast flow ❑Low=like a coastal Subtotal stream VI. Bank Stability and Vegetation FACE UPSTREAM Left Bank Rt. Bank Score Score A. Banks stable 1. little evidence of erosion or bank failure(except outside of bends), little potential for erosion B. Erosion areas present 1. diverse trees, shrubs, grass; plants healthy with good root systems ..................................... 6 6 2. few trees or small trees and shrubs; vegetation appears generally healthy ........................... 5 5 3. sparse mixed vegetation; plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil binding ................. 3 3 4. mostly grasses, few if any trees and shrubs, high erosion and failure potential at high flow.. 2 2 5. little or no bank vegetation, mass erosion and bank failure evident ........................................... 0 0 TotalRemarks VII. Light Penetration Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface. Canopy would block out sunlight when the sun is directly overhead. Note shading from mountains, but not use to score this metric. Remarks Score A. Stream with good canopy with some breaks for light penetration ............................................. 10 B. Stream with full canopy - breaks for light penetration absent ..................................................... 8 C. Stream with partial canopy - sunlight and shading are essentially equal..::: ............................... �7, D. Stream with minimal canopy - full sun in all but a few areas ................ V E. No canopy and no shading............................................................................................................ 0 Subtotal VIII. Riparian Vegetative Zone Width Definition: Riparian zone for this form is area of natural vegetation adjacent to stream (can go beyond floodplain). Definition: A break in the riparian zone is any place on the stream banks which allows sediment or pollutants to directly enter the stream, such as paths down to stream, storm drains, uprooted trees, otter slides, etc. FACE UPSTREAM Lft. Bank Rt, Bank Dominant vegetation: ❑ Trees ❑ Shrubs ❑ Grasses ❑ Weeds/old field ❑Exotics (kudzu, etc) Score Score A. Riparian zone intact (no breaks) 1. width > 18 meters..................................................................................... 5 2. width 12-18 meters................................................................................... 4 4 3. width 6-12 meters..................................................................................... 3 3 4. width < 6 meters...................................................................................... 2 2 B. Riparian zone not intact (breaks) 1. breaks rare a. width > 18 meters......................................................................... 4 4 b. width 12-18 meters....................................................................... 3 3 c. width 6-12 meters....................................................................... 2 2 d. width < 6 meters......................................................................... 1 1 2. breaks common a. width > 18 meters...:................:.................................................... 3 3 b. width 12-18 meters...................................................................... 2 2 c. width 6-12 meters....................................................................... 1 1 d. width < 6 meters ................... ........... ....}.................................. 0 0 I Remarks r(IV - t a... Z e"P a /J�"A t J�4 �s d .64 Total f � pf'b- � &L, ( `f _C Page Total ❑ Disclaimer -form filled out, but score doesn't match subjective opinion -atypical stream. TOTAL SCORE J 0 41 Supplement for Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet Diagram to determine bank angle:,,, ID � I --- 4L 90° 450 Site Sketch: Other comments: Typical Stream Cross-secti n 42 1350 This side is 45' bank angle.