20080586 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report_20130405

46 058
South Muddy Creek Stream Restoration Project
Year 1 Monitoring Report
McDowell Countv, North Carolina
NCEEP Project Number — 737
Project Info: Monitoring Year: 1 of LV
Year of Data Collection: 2012
Year of Completed Construction: 2011
NCEEP Project Manager: Paul Wiesner V-7'-!AN Dc'fdfi- ►M1rUEi?CUriL��Y
Submission Date: November 30`h, 2012 DStiND S1Mr- )V;gTR B'AR,, H
Submitted To: NCDENR - Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1625 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
NCDENR Contract ID No. 004522
Stem
r�rerae.unnn

South Muddy Creek Stream Restoration Project
Year 1 Monitoring Report
McDowell Countv, North Carolina
Report Prepared and Submitted by Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
NC Professional Engineering License # F -1048
cott Gregory
Project Manager
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Road
Suite 201
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Mucky Cler ons
Office Principal

Table of Contents
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................... ........................................................................ 1
2.0 METHODOLOGY ........................ ...............................
21 Stream Assessment
2 1 1 Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability
212 Hydrology
2 13 Photographic Documentation of Site
2 1 4 Visual Stream Morphological Stability Assessment
22 Vegetation Assessment
.......................3
3
3
4
4
5
3.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. ..............................7
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC, EEP PROJECT NO - 737 I
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
NOVEMBER 2012, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 5
Appendices
Appendix A
Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Figure 1 Vicinity Map and Directions
_
Table 1 Project Components
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 Project Contacts Table
Table 4 Project Attribute Table
Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Technical Memorandum — Site Assessment Report for Monitoring Year 1
Figure 2 Current Condition Plan View (CCPV)
Table 5a Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 5b Stream Problem Areas (SPAS)
Table 6a Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Table 6b Vegetation Problem Areas (VPAs)
Stream Station Photos
Stream Problem Area Photos
Vegetation Plot Photos
Vegetation Problem Area Photos
Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 8 CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9 CVS Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot and Species
Appendix D
Stream Survey Data
Figure 3 Year 1 Cross - sections with Annual Overlays
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC, EEP PROJECT NO - 737 I
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
NOVEMBER 2012, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 5

Figure 4
Figure 5
Table 10
Table 11 a
Table 11 b
Appendix E Hydrologic L
Table 12
Appendices
Year 1 Longitudinal Profiles with Annual Overlays
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution with Annual Overlays
Baseline Stream Data Summary Tables
Cross - section Morphology Data Table
Stream Reach Morphology Data Table
rata
Verification of Bankfull Events
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC, EEP PROJECT NO - 737 II
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
NOVEMBER 2012, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 5

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The South Muddy Creek Restoration Project (Project) was restored by Michael Baker Engineering, Inc
(Baker) through an on -call design and construction services contract with the North Carolina Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (NCEEP) This report documents and presents Year 1 monitoring data as required
during the five -year monitoring period
The specific goals for the South Muddy Creek Restoration Project were as follows
• Create geomorphically stable conditions on the Project site,
• Improve and restore hydrologic connections between the streams and their floodplains,
• Improve water quality in the South Muddy Creek watershed, and
• Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat along the Project corridor
To accomplish these goals the following objectives were implemented
• Excavate a wide floodplain bench and construct a new channel with stable dimension and pattern,
• Restore channel access the floodplain during bankfull or larger storm events to increase hydrologic
connections and alleviate erosive shear stresses,
• Incorporate bedform diversity with vaned in- stream structures to provide a variety of aquatic habitats,
• Treat the floodplain for invasive species vegetation, and
• Reestablish a riparian buffer with native vegetation to improve terrestrial habitat and eliminate
excessive sedimentation from erosion
The Project site is located approximately nine miles southeast of Marion in McDowell County, North
Carolina, as shown in Figure 1 in Appendix A The Project is situated in the Catawba River Basin, within the
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) sub -basin 03 -08 -30 and United States Geologic Survey
(USGS) hydrologic unit 03050101040 -020 Directions to the Project site can be found in Figure 1 of
Appendix A
South Muddy Creek lies within the Piedmont physiographic province Its watershed is predominately
forested, supporting some isolated rural residential housing, chicken farms, agricultural lands, nurseries, and
several small rural residential developments In the early 1960's the McDowell County Natural Resource
Conservation Service (MRCS) constructed a flood control structure within South Muddy Creek approximately
three miles upstream from the Project area This structure controls flows from approximately 12 4 square
miles of the watershed and is located on privately -owned land that is maintained by the NRCS
The land surrounding the Project site has been used predominantly for crop cultivation and the stream channel
has been impacted from past channelization, the channel became disconnected from its floodplain by channel
incision over time and excessive shear stress forces on the bed and banks had caused erosion The Project
involved the restoration of 2,787 linear feet (LF) of stream along South Muddy Creek at Sain Road using a
Rosgen Priority 2 restoration approach The Priority 2 channel design approach entailed the excavation of
bankfull benches to alleviate shear stress on stream banks, re- establishment of channel pattern to dissipate
flow velocities in meander bends while creating in- stream habitat with riffle -pool sequences and the strategic
placement of in- stream structures Approximately 14 1 acres of associated riparian buffer were
restored/enhanced throughout the Project area and a conservation easement consisting of 17 1 acres will
protect and preserve all stream reaches and riparian buffers in perpetuity
Table 6a in Appendix B summarizes the vegetation condition of the Project site The planted acreage
performance categories were functioning at 100% with no bare areas or low stem density areas to report
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC, EEP PROJECT NO - 737
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
NOVEMBER 2012, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 5

Invasive areas of concern were observed and documented accordingly in Table 6a and as vegetation problem
areas (VPAs) in Figure 2 and Table 6b (Appendix B) Ten discrete areas of invasive species were
documented throughout the site and totaled approximately 1 acre, or 5 7% of the total easement acreage A
more detailed summary of the results for the vegetation condition assessment can be found in Appendix B
which includes a technical memorandum, current condition planview (CCPV) figures, supporting data tables,
and photo logs, the contents of Appendix B was submitted to NCEEP in June 2012 and served as the interim
visual site assessment report
The success criteria or survival threshold for all 12 vegetation monitoring plots were attained and are
summarized in Tables 7 and 9 of Appendix C The average density of total planted stems or tract mean
(including volunteers), based on data collected from the 12 monitoring plots during Year 1 monitoring, is 725
stems per acre, this further indicates that the Project site is on track for meeting the minimum success interim
criteria of 320 trees per acre by the end of Year 3 and the final success criteria of 260 trees per acre by the end
of Year 5 It should be noted that most vegetation plots exhibiting a lower planted stem density count are
offset by the presence of thriving volunteer species, thereby boosting or increasing the stem density for a
given plot and the tract in general upon inclusion of volunteers for total stems per acre
Table 5a in Appendix B indicates the South Muddy Creek site was geomorphically stable overall and
performing at 100% for the majority of parameters evaluated within the lateral /vertical stability and in- stream
structure performance categories The four sub - categones receiving scores of less than 100% correspond to
the three stream problem areas (SPAs) documented and summarized in Table 5b (Appendix B) The three
SPAs were characterized by localized areas of bank scour and were all located upstream of the Sam Road
bndge A more detailed summary of the results for the visual stream stability assessment can be found in
Appendix B which includes a technical memorandum, CCPV figures, supporting data tables, and photo logs
The four permanent cross - sections in Appendix D show that there has been little adjustment to stream
dimension within the Project reach since construction In general, riffles appeared to have narrowed in width
slightly while pools appeared to have slightly increased in (maximum) depth The longitudinal profile
indicates that the bed features are generally stable and that grade control structures (constructed riffles and j-
hooks) continue to help maintain the overall profile desired Pool lengths and depths appear to have been
maintained with minor localized adjustments Aggradation is evident within the downstream limits of the
Project reach profile, primarily along the meander bend beginning at station 36 +00 where the maximum depth
of the pool has aggraded approximately two feet The maintenance or stability of pools (from scour)
throughout the remainder of the Project reach upstream as indicated by the profile, and the shift from finer to
coarser bed load material as indicated by the pebble count data, suggests that this aggraded area is localized
and may be due to the transport and deposition of finer particles from further upstream (where the sediment
sample was collected) The bed load material analysis shown in Figure 5 of Appendix D illustrates this stable i
transition whereby larger pebbles are making up a greater percentage of the bed material since construction
was completed and the baseline condition pebble count was conducted prior to the apparent flush of fines
downstream Scour within the aggraded meander bend, from larger, subsequent storm flows, should flush the
aggraded material downstream and help to re- establish a deeper pool over time The site was found to have
had at least two bankfull events based on crest gauge readings Information on these events is provided in
Table 12 of Appendix E
Summary information/data related to the occurrence of items such as beaver or encroachment, and statistics
related to performance of various project and monitoring elements can be found in the tables and figures in
the report appendices Narrative background and supporting information formerly found in these reports can
be found in the Baseline Monitoring Report (formerly Mitigation Plan) and in the Mitigation Plan (formerly
Restoration Plan) documents available on EEP's website It should be noted that the Baseline Monitoring
Report and Mitigation Plan for this Project includes the summary of constructed design approaches for South
Fork Hoppers Creek (EEP Project No 92251), a nearby project site that was designed and constructed in
conjunction with the South Muddy Creekproject as part of the same EEP on -call design and construction
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC, EEP PROJECT NO - 737
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
NOVEMBER 2012, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 5

services contract All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices is available from EEP
upon request
2.0 METHODOLOGY
The five -year monitoring plan for the Project site Includes criteria to evaluate the success of the vegetation
and stream components of the project The methodology and report template used to evaluate these two
components adheres to the EEP monitoring guidance document dated November 7, 2011, which will continue
to serve as the template for subsequent monitoring years The specific locations of monitoring features, such
as vegetation plots, permanent cross - sections, reference photo stations and crest gauges, are shown on the
CCPV sheets found in Figure 2 of Appendix B
The majority of Year 1 monitoring data was collected in May 2012 and September 2012 All visual site
assessment data contained in Appendix B was collected on May 18'' except for the vegetation plot data and
corresponding plot photos which were collected on May 24h All stream survey (channel dimension and
profile) and sediment data were collected between September 10`' and 12`i' Stream survey data was collected
using a Topcon GRS -1 network Rover GPS unit which collects point data with an accuracy of less than one
tenth of a foot
2.1 Stream Assessment
Geomorphic monitoring of restored stream reaches is being conducted for five years to evaluate the
effectiveness of the restoration practices installed Monitored stream parameters include channel dimension
(cross - sections), profile (longitudinal survey), bed composition, bank and channel stability, bankfull flows,
and reference sites documented by photographs A crest gauge, as well as high flow marks, will be used to
document the occurrence of bankfull events The methods used and any related success criteria are described
below for each parameter For monitoring stream success criteria, 4 permanent cross - sections, 1 crest gauge,
and 20 photo identification points were installed
2.1.1 Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability
2.1.1.1 Dimension
Four permanent cross - sections were installed throughout the entire project area Cross - sections
selected for monitoring were located in representative riffle and pool facets and each cross - section
was marked on both banks with permanent pins to establish the exact transect used The two pairs of
riffle and pool cross - sections are all located upstream of the Sam Road bridge crossing A common
benchmark will be used for cross - sections and consistently referenced to facilitate comparison of
year -to -year data The cross - sectional surveys will include points measured at mayor breaks in slope,
including top of bank, bankfull, inner berm, edge of water, and thalweg, if the features are present
Riffle cross - sections were classified using the Rosgen Stream Classification System ( Rosgen, 1994),
_ and all monitored cross - sections should fall within the quantitative parameters defined for channels of
the design stream type
There should be little change in as-built cross - sections If changes do take place, they will be
evaluated to determine if they represent a movement toward a more unstable condition (e g, down-
cutting or erosion) or a movement toward increased stability (e g, settling, vegetative changes,
deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio) Cross - sectional data is presented in
Figure 3 of Appendix D
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC, EEP PROJECT NO - 737
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
NOVEMBER 2012, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 5

2.1.1.2 Longitudinal Profile
One longitudinal profile was surveyed for the entire project length of the Project reach and is
provided in Figure 4 of Appendix D Longitudinal profiles will be replicated annually during the five
year monitoring period
Measurements taken during longitudinal profiles include thalweg, water surface, and the top of low
bank All measurements were taken at the head of each feature (e g, riffle, run, pool, glide) and the
maximum pool depth Elevations of grade control structures were also included in the longitudinal
profiles surveyed Surveys were tied to a permanent benchmark
The pools should remain relatively deep with flat water surface slopes, and the riffles should remain
steeper and shallower than the pools Bed form observations should be consistent with those
observed for channels of the design stream type as well as other design information
2.1.1.3 Substrate and Sediment Transport
Bed load material analysis consists of a pebble count taken in the same constructed riffle (at cross -
section X4) during annual geomorphic surveys of the Project site This sample, combined with
evidence provided by changes in cross - section and profile data will reveal changes in sediment
gradation that occur over time as the stream adjusts to upstream sediment loads Significant changes
in sediment gradation will be evaluated with respect to stream stability and watershed changes Bed
material distribution data is located in Figure 5 of Appendix D
2.1.2 Hydrology
2.1.2.1 Streams
The occurrence of bankfull events within the monitoring period will be documented by the use of
crest gauges and photographs One crest gauge was installed on the floodplain at the bankfull
elevation along the left top of bank at station 22 +00 The bottom of the crest gauge coincides with
the top of bank (bankfull) elevation The crest gauges record the highest watermark between site
visits, and are checked at each site visit to determine if a bankfull event has occurred Photographs
are used to document the occurrence of debris lines and sediment deposition on the floodplam during
monitoring site visits
Two bankfull flow events must be documented at the crest gauge within the 5 -year monitoring period
The two bankfull events must occur in separate years, otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue
until two bankfull events have been documented in separate years or until the monitoring period ends
If two bankfull events have not been documented at the end of 5 years the Interagency Review Team
(IRT) will have to decide on an appropriate course of action
2.1.3 Photographic Documentation of Site
Photographs will be used to document restoration success visually Reference stations were photographed
during the as -built survey, this will be repeated for at least five years following construction Reference
photos are taken once a year, from a height of approximately five to six feet Permanent markers will
ensure that the same locations (and view directions) are utilized during each monitoring period Selected
site photographs are shown in Appendix B
2.1.3.1 Lateral Reference Photos
Reference photo transects were taken of the right and left banks at each permanent cross - section A
survey tape was captured in most photographs which represents the cross - section line located
perpendicular to the channel flow The water line was located in the lower edge of the frame in order
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC, EEP PROJECT NO - 737
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
NOVEMBER 2012, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 5

to document bank and riparian conditions Photographers will make an effort to consistently maintain
the same area In each photo over time
2.1.3.2 Structure Photos
Photographs of primary grade control structures (I a vanes and weirs), along the restored streams are
Included within the photographs taken at reference photo stations Photographers will make every
effort to consistently maintain the same area in each photo over time
Lateral and structure photographs are used to evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank erosion,
success of riparian vegetation, structure function, and stability, and effectiveness of erosion control measures
subjectively Lateral photos should not Indicate excessive erosion or degradation of the banks A series of
photos over time should indicate successive maturation of riparian vegetation and consistent structure
function
2.1.4 Visual Stream Morphological Stability Assessment
The visual stream morphological stability assessment Involves the qualitative evaluation of lateral and vertical
channel stability, and the Integrity and overall performance of in- stream structures throughout the Project
reach as a whole Habitat parameters, such as riffle embeddedness and pool depth maintenance, are also
measured and scored The entire project reach was walked, noting geomorphic conditions of the stream bed
profile (riffle /pool facets), both stream banks, and engineered In- stream structures Photos were taken at
every stream photo reference station as discussed in the previous section, and in locations of potential SPAS
which were documented m the field for subsequent mapping on the CCPV figures A more detailed summary
of the methodology and results for the visual stream stability assessment can be found in Appendix B which
includes a technical memorandum, supporting data tables, and SPA photos
2.2 Vegetation Assessment
Successful restoration of the vegetation on a mitigation site is dependent upon hydrologic restoration, active
planting of preferred canopy species, and volunteer regeneration of the native plant community In order to
determine If the criteria are achieved, twelve vegetation monitoring quadrants were Installed across the
Project site The total number of quadrants was calculated using the CVS -NCEEP Entry Tool Database
version 2 2 7 (CVS - NCEEP, 2007) The size of individual quadrants vanes from 100- square meters for tree
species to 1- square meter for herbaceous vegetation Level 1 CVS vegetation monitoring will occur In spnng,
after leaf -out has occurred, or in the fall prior to leaf fall At the end of the first growing season during
baseline surveys, species composition, density, and survival were evaluated Individual quadrant data
provided during subsequent monitoring events will Include diameter, height, density, and coverage quantities
Relative values will be calculated, and importance values will be determined Individual seedlings will be
marked to ensure that they can be found in succeeding monitoring years Mortality will be determined from
the difference between the previous year's living, planted seedlings and the current year's living, planted
seedlings
The interim measure of vegetative success for the site is the survival of at least 320, 3 -year old, planted trees
per acre at the end of Year 3 of the monitoring period The final vegetative success criteria is the survival of
260, 5 -year old, planted trees per acre at the end of Year 5 of the monitoring period
Photographs are used to visually document vegetation success In sample plots Reference photos of tree and
herbaceous condition within plots are taken at least once per year As part of the visual site assessment
conducted on May 18th, 2012, the vegetation condition of planted vegetation along stream banks, floodplains,
and terraces were qualitatively evaluated for performance, this also included the documentation of invasive
species and potential WAS which were recorded in the field for subsequent mapping on the CCPV figures A
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC, EEP PROJECT NO - 737 5
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
NOVEMBER 2012, MONITORING YEAR l OF 5

more detailed summary of the methodology and results for the vegetation condition assessment can be found
In Appendix B which includes a technical memorandum, supporting data tables, and photo logs
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC, EEP PROJECT NO - 737
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
NOVEMBER 2012, MONITORING YEAR I OF 5
6

3.0 REFERENCES
Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) and NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) 2007 CVS -NCEEP
Data Entry Tool v 2 2 7 University of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC
Lee, M, Peet R, Roberts, S, Wentworth, T 2007 CVS -NCEEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version
41
- Rosgen, D L 1994 A Classification of Natural Rivers Catena 22 169 -199
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC, EEP PROJECT NO - 737 7
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
NOVEMBER 2012, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 5

APPENDIX A
PROJECT VICINITY MAP AND BACKGROUND TABLES

The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of the NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) and is encompassed
by a recorded conservation easement, but is bordered by land under private ownership. Accessing the site may require traversing areas near or along
the easement boundary and therefore access by the general public is not permitted. Access by authorized personnel of state and federal agencies
or their designees /contractors involved in the development, oversight and stewardship of the restoration site is permitted within the terms and
timeframes of their defined roles. Any intended site visitation or activity by any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles and activities
requires prior coordination with EEP.
Directions to the South Muddy Creek Site: VER
• From I -40, take State Route 226 South (I -40 exit 86).
• Continue approximately 10 miles south.
• Turn left onto Trinity Church Loop.
• Turn left onto Dysartville Road. Continue approximately 1 mile. j f
• Turn left onto Sain Road. , s
Continue approximately 0.5 mile to the bridge at South Muddy Creek.! o ,. -__��� j CALD
uce Oil
ROAD
t:
CATA 13A
CA
MCDOWE L ro
FRENCH BR AD w
04-03-0 x CAT
!►fir
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
South Muddy Creek Stream Restoration Project
McDowell County, NC
NCEEP Project No.: 737
November 2012
McDowell County, NC
�,cosystem
9 South Muddy Creek
HUC 03050
LEGEND:
Project Area
i_ NCDWQ Sub -basin
USGS Hydrologic Unit
Ell, Counties
0 2.5 5
Miles

Table 1 Project Components
South Muddy Creek Mitigation Plan EEP Project No 737
Project Segment or Reach *
* L
Mitigation Type A
Approach A
Linear Footage or
Stationing C
Comment
South Muddy Creek 2
2,593 R
R P
P2 2
2,787 1
10 +00 - 38+77 ** e
Installed in- stream structures to protect the stream bank from
* Existing reach breaks and design reach breaks varied based on initial geomorphic differences and design requirements
** Stationing includes 20 ft of faun crossing above Sam Rd and 70 It of Sam Rd bridge crossing, but is not reflected in the reach length
Component Summations
Restoration Level (
Stream R
Riparian N
Non -Ripar U
Upland
, R
Rrverme N
Non- Rrvenne
Restoration 2
2,787 -
- -
- -
- -
-
Enhancement
Enhancement [
Enhancement 11 -
- -
- _ W
W­ Wr JAW �
�
0

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
South Muddy Creek Mitigation Plan: EEP Project No.737
Elapsed Time Since Grading/Planting Complete: 1 year 8 Months
Number of Reporting Years: 1
Activity or Report
Scheduled
Completion
Data Collection
Complete
Actual
Completion or
Delivery
Restoration Plan Prepared
N/A
N/A
Jul -07
Restoration Plan Amended
N/A
N/A
Jan-08
Restoration Plan Approved
N/A
N/A
Aug -08
Final Design — (at least 90% complete)
N/A
N/A
Jun -09
Construction Begins
Jun -10
N/A
Jun -10
Temporary S &E mix applied to entire project area
N/A
N/A
N/A
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area
Nov -10
N/A
Jan -11
Planting of live stakes
Mar -11
N/A
Mar-I 1
Planting of bare root trees
Mar-I 1
N/A
Mar-11
End of Construction
Mar- I 1
N/A
Jun -11
Survey of As -built conditions (Year 0 Monitoring - baseline)
Nov -10
N/A
Jun -11
Year 1 Monitoring
Dec -12
Sep -12
Nov -12
Year 2 Monitoring
Dec -13
N/A
N/A
Year 3 Monitoring
Dec -14
N/A
N/A
Year 4 Monitoring
Dec -15
N/A
N/A
Year 5 Monitoring
Dec -16
N/A
N/A

Table 3.
Project Contacts Table
South Muddy Creek Mitigation Plan: EEP Project No. 737
Designer
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc
5550 Seventy -Seven Center Dr, Ste 320
Charlotte, NC 28217
Contact
Scott Hunt, Tel 919 - 459 -9003
Construction Contractor
Carolina Environmental Contracting, Inc
150 Pine Ridge Road
Mount Airy, NC 27030
Contact
Stephen James, Tel 919 - 921 -1116
Planting Contractor
Carolina Environmental Contracting, Inc
150 Pine Ridge Road
Mount Airy, NC 27030
Contact
Stephen James, Tel 919 - 921 -1116
Seeding Contractor
Carolina Environmental Contracting, Inc
150 Pine Ridge Road
Mount Airy, NC 27030
12/11/2012
Contact
Stephen James, Tel 919 - 921 -1116
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resources, Tel 336 - 855 -6363
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Foggy Mountain Nursery, Tel 336 - 384 -5323
Profession Land Surveyor
Turner Land Survey, PLLC
3201 Glenridge Drive
Raleigh, NC 27604
Contact
Profession Land Surveyor
David Turner, Tel 919 - 875 -1378
As -Built Plan Set Production
Lissa Turner, Tel 919 - 875 -1378
Monitoring Performers
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc
797 Haywood Road, Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
Contact
Stream Monitoring Point of Contact
Carmen McIntyre, Tel 828 - 350 -1408
Vegetation Monitoring Point of Contact
Carmen McIntyre, Tel 828 - 350 -1409
Wetland Monitoring Point of Contact
Carmen McIntyre, Tel [phone]

Table 4. Project Attribute Table
South Muddy Creek Mitigation Plan: EEP Project No. 737
Project County
McDowell County, NC
Physiogra hic Region
Piedmont
Ecoregion
Inner Piedmont Belt
Project River Basin
Catawba
USGS HUC for Project and Reference sites
Project 03050101040020, References 03040103050 -090 (Spencer
Creek), -080 (Barnes Creek), 03030002060 -070 (Morgan Creek),
03020201080 -020 (Sal's Branch)
NCDWQ Sub -basin for Protect and Reference
Project 03- 08 -30, References 03-07-09 (Spencer Creek and Barnes Creek),
03 -06 -06 (Morgan Creek), 03 -04 -02 (Sal 's Branch)
Within extent of EEP Watershed Plan ?
Muddy Creek Local Watershed Plan (LWP), 2003
WRC Class (Warm, Cool, Cold)
Warm
% of project easement fenced or demarcated
100%
Beaver activity observed during design p base ?
None
Restoration Component
Attribute Table
South Muddy
Drainage area (s q. mi.)
188
Stream order
4th
Restored length
2,787
Perennial or Intermittent
Perennial
Watershed type (Rural, Urban, Developing etc.)
Rural
Watershed LULC Distribution (e..)
Developed Low - Medium Intense
37
Ag- Cultivated Crops
06
Ag-Pasture/Hay
105
Forested
774
Other (Open water, Grassland, Etc.)
78
Watershed impervious cover %)
U
NCDWQ AU /Index number
03 -08 -30
NCDWQ classification
C
303d listed ?
No
Upstream of a 303d listed segment?
No
Reasons for 303d listing or stressor
N/A
Total acreage of easment
171
Total planted arceage as part of the restoration
141
Rosgen classification of re- existing
G4c
Ros en classification of As -built
C4
Valley type
Alluvial
Valley sloe
0 0017 ft/ft
Valley side slope range e.g. 2 -3 %)
U
Valley toe slope range (e.g. 2 -3 %)
U
Cowardin classification
Rivercne, Upper Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom, Cobble - Gravel
Trout waters designation
No
Species of concern, endangered etc.? (Y ?N)
No
Dominant soil series and characteristics
Series
IoA
Depth
10
Clay %
18
K
0 15
TJ
5

APPENDIX B
VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA

Site Assessment Report — Monitoring Year 1
South Muddy Creek Stream Restoration Project
McDowell County, North Carolina
June 2012
Submitted To: NCDENR - Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1625 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
NCDENR Contract ID No. 004522
Submitted By: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Avenue, Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
License: F -1084, Baker Project No. 128221
r a
,FcoV$yem
PROGRAM
Year 1 Site Assessment Report — South Muddy Creek North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. June 26, 2012
Page 1 of 6

1. Introduction
1.1 Purpose
This report summarizes overall stream and vegetation conditions as part of an interim site
assessment conducted in conjunction with the Year 1 monitoring services for the South
Muddy Creek Stream Restoration Project site located in McDowell County, NC This site
assessment will be included as part of a more comprehensive annual monitoring report to be
completed and submitted later this year (fall 2012) The report describes project objectives,
discusses the assessment methodology, summarizes assessment results, and documents
potential stream and vegetation problem areas (SPAS and VPAs respectively)
1.2 Objectives
The objectives of the site assessment were to
• provide a general overview of stream morphological stability,
• provide a general overview of vegetation conditions,
• identify and document potential SPAS and VPAs
1.3 Supporting Data
Supporting data and information are provided following the narrative portion of this rep ort
and include
• current condition plan view (CCPV) figures (Figure 2, sheets 1 and 2),
• visual stream morphology stability assessment table (Table 5a),
• SPA inventory table (Table 5b),
• vegetation condition assessment table (Table 6a),
• VPA inventory table (Table 6b),
• stream station photos,
• SPA photos,
• vegetation monitoring plot photos,
• VPA photos
2 Methodology
The methodology used for assessing overall stream and vegetation conditions at the South
Muddy Creek Stream Restoration Project site adhered to the most recent NCEEP monitoring
guidance documents (dated November 7, 2011) The site assessment was comprised of two
components, a visual stream morphology stability assessment and a vegetation condition
assessment, both of which are described in more detail in the following sections of this
report The assessment was strictly qualitative except for that of the vegetation monitoring
plot counts, which were conducted in order to determine whether or not the success criteria
Year 1 Site Assessment Report — South Muddy Creek North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc June 26, 2012
Page 2 of 6

were met per plot for illustrative purposes on the CCPV figures All other vegetation
monitoring plot data (tables) will be included in Appendix C of the Year 1 annual monitoring
report to be submitted later this year
The South Muddy Creek Stream Restoration Protect site was evaluated as one project reach
for each of the two components (SPA and VPA) This was done since the stream and
riparian corridor are contained within one contiguous section along the mamstem of South
Muddy Creek, site conditions appeared uniform allowing for an assessment as one reach and
the project was assessed as one reach for the Final Baseline Monitoring Document/As -Built
Report Baker performed the visual site assessment on May 18th, 2012 and collected
vegetation monitoring plot data on May 24th, 2012
2.1 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
The visual stream morphology stability assessment involved the evaluation of lateral and
vertical channel stability, and the integrity and overall performance of m- stream structures
throughout the project reach as a whole Habitat parameters, such as riffle embeddedness and
pool depth maintenance, were also measured and scored The entire 2,787 Imear foot reach
was walked, noting geomorphic conditions of the stream bed profile (riffle /pool facets), both
stream banks, and engineered in- stream structures Photos were taken at every existing
stream photo point station (from the as- built) and in locations of potential SPAs which were
recorded in the field for subsequent mapping on the CCPV figures
2.2 Vegetation Condition Assessment
The vegetation condition assessment involved the evaluation of vegetation within the 17 1
acre conservation easement and included assessing the performance of planted vegetation
along stream banks, floodplains, and terraces as well as the documentation of invasive
species The assessment of planted vegetation was confined to the 14 1 acres of riparian
buffer planting zones within the easement boundary as part of the restoration design whereas
invasive vegetation and encroachment areas of invasive species were evaluated for the entire
17 1 acre easement boundary Vegetation plot data was collected as part of this assessment
to determine the success criteria for illustrative purposes on the CCPV figures Photos were
recorded at each vegetation monitoring plot and in locations of potential VPAs throughout
the easement, such as areas exhibiting sparse or slow growth /vigor, low stem density, and
areas of invasive vegetation concern
2.3 Post - processing of Field Data
The post - processing of field data consisted of the download and organization of photos into
respective photo logs (stream and vegetation), creating the CCPV figures in GIS and
AutoCAD using the field- mapped SPAs and VPAs, populating the SPA and VPA tables, and
finally scoring the performance of the reach in terms of stream morphology stability and
vegetation condition using assessment forms provided by NCEEP
Year 1 Site Assessment Report — South Muddy Creek North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc June 26, 2012
Page 3 of 6

3 Summary of Results
3.1 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 5a summarizes the performance of the South Muddy Creek Stream Restoration Project
reach in terms of lateral (stream bank) and vertical (channel bed) stability while evaluating
the functionality and integrity of in -stream structures Engineered in- stream structures
evaluated for the assessment of this project reach consisted of constructed riffles, rock/log ,j-
hooks, log vanes, root wads, geo lifts, and brush mattresses Constructed riffles were justified
for inclusion in the evaluation of structures since they are the predominant grade control
structure used throughout the site, however, they were only assessed for the `overall
integrity' and `grade control' parameter categories in Table 5a
As Table 5a indicates, the South Muddy Creek site was geomorphically stable overall and
performing at 100% as the design intended for the majority of parameters evaluated within
the lateral /vertical stability and in-stream structure performance categories The four sub-
categories receiving scores of less than 100% corresponded to the three SPAS that were
documented and summarized in Table 5b
The three SPAS were characterized by localized areas of bank scour and were all located
upstream of the Sam Road bridge SPA1 consists of a short length of brush mattress
compromised by an undercut bank between station 21 +20 and 21 +30, it is located along the
right bank at the beginning of a meander bend The brush mattress (and a portion of the
staked and matted bank) appears to be separating from the right bank and overhanging from a
combination of poor soil compaction and scour along the toe of bank The brush originally
installed behind the matting to armor the bank has washed away leaving the bank exposed
and vulnerable to subsequent erosion The scour could potentially be a result of the lack of
centering of the thalweg immediately upstream of the meander bend where a riffle transitions
to a run, and was noted accordingly in Table 5a The bank protection provided by the
remaining length of brush mattress along the right bank may become compromised and less
effective over time if SPA is not stabilized and the scour (and instability) is allowed to
continue to migrate further downstream by undermining the brush
SPA2 and SPA3 consist of scoured portions of the left bank located within the first
constructed riffle section upstream of the Sam Road bridge Bank scour along these two
adjacent problem areas appears to be caused by the lack of centering of the thalweg
immediately downstream of the upstream meander bend As a result, some velocity vectors
within the riffle have been redirected toward the left bank instead of being centered in the
riffle, thereby increasing near bank stress and causing the bank to erode Bank erosion within
SPA2 is moderate but more severe than that of SPA3 due to a deeper near bank third and thus
higher near bank stress as the thalweg is located closer the toe of bank, the stream bank of
SPA3 is vertical, exposed and devoid of vegetation and matted protection SPA2 exhibits
mild erosion but maintains a low bank angle and some surface protection in the form of
existing mattmg, herbaceous vegetative cover, and scattered riprap material along the toe
Year 1 Site Assessment Report — South Muddy Creek North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc June 26, 2012
Page 4 of 6

3.2 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Table 6a summarizes the vegetation condition of the South Muddy Creek Stream Restoration
site The planted acreage performance categories were functioning at 100% with no bare
areas, low stem density areas, or areas of poor growth rates /vigor to report The success -
criteria or survival threshold for all 12 vegetation monitoring plots were attained Invasive
areas of concern were observed and documented accordingly in Table 6a and as VPAs in
Figure 2 and Table 6b
Ten discrete areas of mvasive species were documented throughout the site and totaled
approximately 1 acre, or 5 7% of the total easement acreage This resulted in 8 VPAs since
two adjacent pairs of mapped polygons, exhibrtmg uniform mvasive species compositions
conditions, were combined into two individual VPAs
The largest VPA and most critical in warranting treatment is VPA6, which is located in the
right terrace downstream of the Sam Road bridge, and is comprised of kudzu (Pueraria
lobata) Kudzu is considered by NCEEP to be a `high concern' invasive vme because of its
potential to proliferate rapidly and out - compete other native species planted within the
easement buffer It was difficult discerning the source of the kudzu but may be originating
from the existing tree cluster on the terrace where other invasive species, such as privet
(Ligustrum smense) and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), were documented for VPA5
VPA6 occupies a large width of the right terrace between the top of terrace and the easement
boundary fence lme and was observed extending down the terrace slopes toward the right
floodplam bench
VPA2 represents the second largest VPA and consists of trumpet creeper vines (Campsis
radicans) located in and around vegetation monitoring plots 4 and 5 These areas were
previously identified in the Final Baseline Monitoring Document/As -Built Report as areas of
concern and were recently scheduled for treatment and removal prior to this assessment The
vines look as though they may have been treated but new growth was observed and are still
persisting
VPA3, VPA4, and VPA5 comprise the next largest VPAs and are characterized as existing
tree stands containing persisting invasive vegetation Privet and multiflora rose was observed
m all three VPAs while Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicerajaponica) was only documented in
VPA4 Existing tree stands precluded from removal during construction (that originally
contained invasive species) can often be a source of invasive vegetation even after treatment
since the soil matrix is undisturbed leaving roots and seeds intact These areas were
previously treated but were exhibiting new growth and are still persisting
VPA I, VPA7, and VPA8 represent the smallest VPAs and are part of existing tree stands
located around the periphery of the easement These areas appear to have been previously
treated but are also still persisting with new growth
As an update to additional areas of concern reported in the Final Baseline Monitoring
Document/As -Built Report, there were no signs of kudzu in the right floodplain upstream of
Year 1 Site Assessment Report — South Muddy Creek North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc June 26, 2012
Page 5 of 6

the Sam Road bridge, this area was previously scheduled for treatment and removal of kudzu
prior to the assessment No mimosa trees were observed encroaching into the easement
along the right terrace from the nursery immediately bordering the easement However,
Canadian thistle (Cirsrum arvense) was observed flourishing in the nursery in close proximity
to the easement boundary fence line in the right terrace dust upstream of the Sam Road
bridge, and should continue to be monitored to minimize encroachment and invasion of the
site
Year 1 Site Assessment Report — South Muddy Creek North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc June 26, 2012
Page 6 of 6

GEE= � .
— Ts re —
X —#
F _vp]
O
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
VEG PLOT
ID
VEGETATION
PROBLEM AREA (VPA)
■
ASBUILT
CENTERLINE
2
INVASIVE SPECIES
PRESENT
3
ASBUILT
ASBUILT
TOP OF BANK
CHANNEL
■
VEGETATION
PLOT MEETING CRITERIA
5
FENCE
850/688
6
(ALL PLOTS
CURRENTLY MEETING CRITERIA)
CROSS
SECTION
■
VEGETATION
PLOT NOT MEETING CRITERIA
PHOTO
ID POINT
VEGETATION PLOT
/i
15 ��
to ..
STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
UNDERCUT BANKS
STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
BANKS WITH EVIDENT SCOUR /EROSION
STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
BANK SLUMPING /CALVINGICOLLAPSE
(NO AREAS EXHIBITING PRROBLEM)
VEG PLOT CRITERIA ATTAINMENT
VEG PLOT
ID
SURVIVAL
THRESHOLD
MET?
TOTAL /PLANTED
STEM COUNT
1
Y
567/486
2
Y
2023/809
3
Y
769/809
4
Y
647/728
5
Y
850/688
6
Y
850/486
• • POST
`:
— -_ '— _. i. �, ` • • FORD PIDt i.� •ti �_`
•'M'_ — A F:,� �. rJC. �r' SiREAMi^" \.
CROSS
ING
Y
Per 0� •
Ts ` J Y VP4
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK
CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW
YEAR 1 MONITORING
STA. 10 +00 -25 +00
I 1 1 11
1=01 __
IMAGE SOURCE: NC STATEWIDE ORTHOIMAGERY. 2010
D
0
r
Z
FTl
fJ
Is
O
O
F6
cn
u
aZ
F-1
10
i
Z
U 0
W CC
0 U
UJ
LLJ CL
� Z �
U 0
OF'-Z
O
suJo
fQ JJ
cy: W
W >
U S0
U
m
OD
P
W
11/27/12 DESIGNEDD: :
DRAWN: �jQ$
APPROVED: MMC
1 of 2

-----CE --------- CE - - - -- CONSERVATION EASEMENT
— — — •— •— • —• —•— ASBUILT CENTERLINE
TB T® ASBUILT TOP OF BANK
ASBUILT CHANNEL
FENCE
X -# CROSS SECTION
O PHOTO ID POINT
F-vpl VEGETATION PLOT
�I
D
n
T
''<6,
�\ PID1
50 0 50 190
VEGETATION PROBLEM AREA (VPA)
INVASIVE SPECIES PRESENT
■VEGETATION PLOT MEETING CRITERIA
(ALL PLOTS CURRENTLY MEETING CRITERIA)
■ VEGETATION PLOT NOT MEETING CRITERIA
7
v I�
I I
GATE
-SCE - --
VP 10
llll`'
38+76.58
END AS —BUILT
\ o pipl LONGITUDINAL PROFILE
VP 11 P1DIr / ���iii Yr �^
: JA
-iB
/
i
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK
CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW
YEAR 1 MONITORING
STA. 25 +00 -38 +77
6S
IMAGE L =. STITEWi.nT OF"Hi�LA4GESr, 2010
��d
r�
�N QS
� s
w= c
z ^�
CI
W
nm
Q
Z
UJ
W Q of
U
Lu CL
X Z
U Q
C3
MQF-
� H Z
Sce°
0 4m
of
of
?
N o
U
V,
r�
it T6 m
a n .i
U LL
N
8N
W
,2822,
)at.:
11/27/12
DESIGNED: - --
DRAWN: �1(Z
APPROVED: MMC
of 2
STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
VEG PLOT CRITERIA ATTAINMENT
UNDERCUT BANKS
F]
STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
BANKS WITH EVIDENT SCOUR /EROSION
SURVIVAL TOTAL /PLANTED
VEG PLOT THRESHOLD
ID MET? STEM
COUNT
■STREAM
PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
BANK SLUMPING/CALVING/COLLAPSE
7 Y
607/526
(NO AREAS EXHIBITING PROBLEM)
8 Y
486/688
9 Y
405/445
10 Y
567/688
11 Y
445/445
12 Y
486/728
Olh, k"
..1125
38+76.58
END AS —BUILT
\ o pipl LONGITUDINAL PROFILE
VP 11 P1DIr / ���iii Yr �^
: JA
-iB
/
i
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK
CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW
YEAR 1 MONITORING
STA. 25 +00 -38 +77
6S
IMAGE L =. STITEWi.nT OF"Hi�LA4GESr, 2010
��d
r�
�N QS
� s
w= c
z ^�
CI
W
nm
Q
Z
UJ
W Q of
U
Lu CL
X Z
U Q
C3
MQF-
� H Z
Sce°
0 4m
of
of
?
N o
U
V,
r�
it T6 m
a n .i
U LL
N
8N
W
,2822,
)at.:
11/27/12
DESIGNED: - --
DRAWN: �1(Z
APPROVED: MMC
of 2

Table Sa Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID South Muddy Creek
nasrss.0 ­ny
t—)
ci of
Major Channel
Channel Sub-
Number Stable,
Total
Number of
moun of
e,
Numbe r wt
oo age wi
jus e a for
Category
Category
Performing
Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Metric
as Intended
er As -Built
Segments
Footage
Intended
Wood Ve
Wood Ve
Wood Ve
1 Bed
1 Vertical Stability
1 Aggradation
0
0
100%
2 Degradation
0
0
100%
2 Riffle Condition
1 Texture /Substrate
11
11
100%
3 Meander Pool
1 Depth 1
12
1 12
100%
2 Length
12
12
100%
4 Thalweg position
1 Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend Run
11
12
92%
2 Thalweg centenn at downstream of meander Glide
10
11
91%
2 Bank
1 Scoured /Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
NUNN=
and /or scour and erosion
2
60
99%
0
0
99%
2 Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting
lapp ears likely
MEW
1
10
100%
0
0
100%
3 Mass Wasting
Bank slumping calving or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
3
70
99%
0
0
99%
3 Engineering
1 Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or log
37
38
97%
Structures
2 Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across
-ii -Piping
the sill
11
11
100%
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms
9
9
100%
Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
rank
exceed 15%
27
27
100°x6
4 Habitat
jPool forming structures main aining - Max Pool Deptt
9
9
100%

Table 5b Stream Problem Areas
South Muddy Creek Restoration Project Project No 737
South Muddy Creek 2,787 LF
Feature Issue
Station No
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
Right bank (including brush mattress and
matting) separating and beginning to slump at
21 +20 to 21 +30
beginning of outer meander bend from a
SPA 1
combination of poor compaction and scour
along the toe of bank
Bank Scour
Localized scour along left bank resulting in
27 +90 to 28 +10
raw, vertical bank, devoid of vegetation and
matted protection Cause appears to be
SPA2
localized eddying within the nffle
Localized scour along left bank from what
28 +40 to 28 +80
appears to be localized eddying within the
SPA3
riffle

Table 6a Vegetation Condition Assessment
Reach ID South Muddy Creek °
i'lantea Acreage
141
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
1 Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material
0 1 acres
NA
0
000
0%
2 Low Stem Density Areas
Woody stem densities clearly e ow target levels based on MY3, 4, or
Areas or points if too small to render as po f Xpons at mag scale
5 stem count criteria
0 1 acres
I NA 1
0
000
0%
U.
3 Areas of Poor Growth Rates
Areas with woody stems OT a size class that are obviously sma given
Areas
or Vi or
the monitoring year
0 25 acres
NA
0
000
0%
slow, NUMM1,01
mamma= I
easement Acreage
-it i
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Easement
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
4 Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or points if too small to render as po f Xpons at mag scale
1000 SF
see fi ure
10
097
57%
5 Easement Encroachment
Areas
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale)
none
NA
0

Table 6b Vegetation Problem Areas
South Muddy Creek Restoration Project Project No 737
South Muddy Creek
Feature Issue
Station No
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
17 +25 (right terrace)
Rosa mule ora persisting after treatment
VPA1
18 +00 to 21 +00 (right flood bench)
Campsis radicans persisting after treatment
VPA2
20 +50 to 23 +00 (left flood bench)
Rosa multiflora and Ligustrum srnense
21 +75 to 23 +75 (left terrace slope)
persisting after treatment within existing tree
VPA3
stand
Rosa multiflora, Lrgustrum srnense and
25 +50 to 28 +50 (left terrace slope)
Lonrcera japonica persisting after treatment
VPA4
within existing tree stand
Rosa multiflora and Lrgustrum srnense
Invasive/Exotic Populations
35 +00 to 36 +50 (right terrace)
persisting after treatment within existing tree
VPA5
stand
Puerarra lobata persisting after treatment
35 +00 to 37 +25 (right terrace)
within existing tree stand, terrace, and terrace
VPA6
slope
38 +75 (downstream project limits
along right bank/terrace)
Rosa multiflora and L+gustrum srnense
persisting after treatment within existing tree
I stand
VPA7
-
38 +75 (downstream project limits
along left bank/terrace)
Lonrcerajaponrca persisting after treatment
within existing tree stand/potential
encroachment from outside
VPA8

South Muddy Creek
Stream Station Photos
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC, EEP PROJECT NO - 737
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 1 MONITORING DOCUMENT
JUNE 2012, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 5

I
.s t 2
South Muddy Creek PID I — J -Hook near upstream end
;+ nC
South Muddy Creek PID 2 — Constructed Riffle,
South Muddy Creek PID 5 — Log Vane in Meander
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., EEP PROJECT NO. - 737
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR I MONITORING DOCUMENT
JUNE 2012, MONITORING YEAR I OF 5
South Muddy Creek PID 6 — Constructed Riffle

South Muddy Creek PID 7 — J -Hook in Meander
South Muddy Creek PID 8 — Constructed Riffle
South Muddy Creek PID 9 — Log Vane in Meander
South Muddy Creek PID 10 — Stream Crossing
South Muddy Creek PID 11 — Constructed Riffle
South Muddy Creek PID 12 — Log Vane and Root Wad
in Meander
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., EEP PROJECT NO. - 737
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 1 MONITORING DOCUMENT
JUNE 2012, MONITORING YEAR I OF 5

South Muddy Creek PID 13 — Constructed Riffle
South Muddy Creek PID 14 — Immediately upstream of
South Muddy Creek PID 15 — Constructed Riffle
South Muddy Creek PID 16
South Muddy Creek PID 17 — Log Vane in Meander
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., EEP PROJECT NO. - 737
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR I MONITORING DOCUMENT
JUNE 2012, MONITORING YEAR I OF 5
South Muddy Creek PID 18 — Constructed Riffle

South Muddy Creek PID 19
South Muddy Creek PID 20 — J -Hook near downstream
end of project
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., EEP PROJECT NO. - 737
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 1 MONITORING DOCUMENT
JUNE 2012, MONITORING YEAR I OF 5

South Muddy Creek
Stream Problem Area (SPA) Photos
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC, EEP PROJECT NO - 737
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 1 MONITORING DOCUMENT
JUNE 2012, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 5
J

SPAT — Right bank separating /overhanging from poor
compaction and scour along toe of bank (looking
SPA3 — Localized scour along left bank from eddying
within the riffle (looking upstream)
SPA2 — Localized scour along left bank from eddying
within the riffle (looking downstream)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., EEP PROJECT NO. - 737
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR I MONITORING DOCUMENT
JUNE 2012, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 5

South Muddy Creek
Vegetation Plot Photos
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC, EEP PROJECT NO - 737
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 1 MONITORING DOCUMENT
JUNE 2012, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 5

South Muddy Creek Stream Restoration Project
Year 1 Monitoring - Vegetation Plot Photo Log
Notes:
1. Herbaceous plot located in foreground of each photo.
5/24/2012 - Photo 1: Veg Plot 1 5/24/2012 - Photo 2: Veg Plot 1: Herbaceous Plot
5/24/2012 - Photo 3: Veg Plot 2 5/24/2012 - Photo 4: Veg Plot 2: Herbaceous Plot
5/24/2012 - Photo 5: Veg Plot 3 5/24/2012 - Photo 6: Veg Plot 3: Herbaceous Plot
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., EEP PROJECT NO. — 737
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 1 MONITORING DOCUMENT REPORT
JUNE 2012, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 5

South Muddy Creek Stream Restoration Project
Year 1 Monitoring - Vegetation Plot Photo Log
5/24/2012 - Photo 7: Veg Plot 4
5/24/2012 - Photo 8: Veg Plot 4: Herbaceous Plot
5/24/2012 - Photo 9: Veg Plot 5
5/24/2012 - Photo 10: Veg Plot 5: Herbaceous Plot
5/24/2012 - Photo Point 11: Veg Plot 6
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., EEP PROJECT NO. — 737
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 1 MONITORING DOCUMENT REPORT
JUNE 2012, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 5
5/24/2012 - Photo Point 12: Veg Plot 6: Herbaceous Plot

South Muddy Creek Stream Restoration Project
Year 1 Monitoring - Vegetation Plot Photo Log
5/24/2012 - Photo Point 13: Veg Plot 7 5/24/2012 - Photo Point 14: Veg Plot 7: Herbaceous Plot
5/24/2012 - Photo Point 15: Veg Plot 8 5/24/2012 - Photo Point 16: Veg Plot 8: Herbaceous Plot
5/24/2012 - Photo Point 17: Veg Plot 9
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., EEP PROJECT NO. — 737
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR I MONITORING DOCUMENT REPORT
JUNE 2012, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 5
5/24/2012 - Photo Point 18: Veg Plot 9: Herbaceous Plot

South Muddy Creek Stream Restoration Project
Year 1 Monitoring - Vegetation Plot Photo Log
5/24/2012 - Photo Point 19: Veg Plot 10
5/24/2012 - Photo Point 20: Veg Plot 10: Herbaceous Plot
5/24/2012 - Photo Point 21: Veg Plot 11
5/24/2012 - Photo Point 22: Veg Plot 11: Herbaceous Plot
5/24/2012 - Photo Point 23: Veg Plot 12
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., EEP PROJECT NO. — 737
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 1 MONITORING DOCUMENT REPORT
JUNE 2012, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 5
5/24/2012 - Photo Point 24: Veg Plot 12: Herbaceous Plot

South Muddy Creek
Vegetation Problem Area (VPA) Photos
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC, EEP PROJECT NO - 737
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 1 MONITORING DOCUMENT
JUNE 2012, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 5

VPAI — Multiflora Rose
VPA3 — Multiflora Rose and Chinese Privet
VPA2 — Trumpet vine persisting after treatmcnt
VPAS - Multiflora Rose and Chinese Privet
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., EEP PROJECT NO. — 737
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 1 MONITORING DOCUMENT
JUNE 2012, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 5
VPA6 — Kudzu persisting after treatment

VPA7 - Multiflora Rose and Chinese Privet
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., EEP PROJECT NO. - 737
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 1 MONITORING DOCUMENT
JUNE 2012, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 5
VPA8 — Japanese Honeysuckle

APPENDIX C
VEGETATION PLOT DATA

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
South Muddy Creek Mitigation Plan: EEP Project No. 737
Vegetation
Plot ID
Vegetation Survival Threshold Met. '
Total/Plan
ted Stem
Count*
Tract Mean
1
Y
567/486
725
2
Y
2023/809
3
Y
769/809
4
Y
647/728
5
Y
850/688
6
Y
850/486
7
Y
607/526
8
Y
486/688
9
Y
405/445
10
Y
567/688
11
Y
445/445
12
Y
486/728
Note *Total/Planted Stem Count reflects the changes in stem density based on the density of
stems at the time of the As -Built Survey (Planted) and the current total density of planted stems
including volunteers (Total)
9

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
South Muddy Creek Mitigation Plan: EEP Project No. 737
Report Prepared By
Carmen Horne - McIntyre
Date Prepared
6/6/2012 12 18
Database name
cvs -eep- entrytool -v2 2 7—South Muddy_Hoppers mdb
Database location
L \Monitoring \Monitoring Guidance \Vegetation \CVS EEP Entrytool V2 2 7
Computer name
ASHEWCMCINTYR
File size
128475392
DESCRIPTION OF,WORKSHEETS IN THISDOCUMENT
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data
Proj, planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year This excludes live stakes
Proj, total stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and
all natural /volunteer stems
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc )
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot, dead and missing stems are excluded
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code
92251
Project Name
South Muddy Cr Stream Restoration
Description
This mitigation project consists of 7,389 LF of stream restoration and preservation efforts on South Muddy Creek and
South Fork Hoppers (including 1 unnamed tributary) at the Melton Farm
River Basin
Catawba
Length(ft)
7389
Stream -to -edge width (ft)
120
Area (sq m)
164733 86
Required Plots (calculated)
24
Sampled Plots
112

Table 9 CVS Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot and Species (with Annual Means)
South Muddy Creek Mitigation Plan EEP Protect No 737
a_
a
1 °, K If t Current Data (NW1 2012) _' °y
g
Annual Means
Plot -Ir
- "Plot 2
Plot 3
Plot 4
Plot 5,_
Plot 6� ?
v Plot�7
Plot 8
riPlot 9
ri Plot 10
P,lot)l�l °°
Plot 12
Current Mean
AB 2011
MY2 2013)
MY3 2014)
MY4 2015)
MY5 2016
P
3' T
P'�
- T.`
P`°
Te
P
T
P,
T
P`
T_
;? Pi
T
P °"
T
P
T
P
T_
P4'
� T'11
P
T'
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree
1 I
1
2
2
5
3
5
1
1
0
5
4
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
qx .
r
#
Celtis laevi ata
Sugarberry
Shrub
3
2
1
1
4
1
2
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
2
1
2
,,�2
'
Diospyros vii inrana
Persimmon
Tree
0
3
0
3
1
0
3
0
1
0
3
0
3
2°
' =,2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
4
4
2
1 1
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
0
4
4
5
5
2
2
2
3
2 a,
, 2t�
Y
Ju lans nigra
Black Walnut
Tree
1 1
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
'2`1,
a'2-9
�'V!V' °
Driodendron tulipfera
Tulip Po lar
Tree
4
3
6
5
5
5
5
5
2
1
3
2
3
2
1
1
4
1
4
3
4
a-
N ssa sylvalica
Black gum
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
A
141—ii,�-A
� V
11
Platanus occrdentahs
Sycamore
Tree
1
0
4
4
7
7
3
3
3
5
2
2
4
4
1
0
4
4
4
4
9
5
4
3
-4
4. "`
: c'
r. s;
41'
n r� ��
`t
•a' u�
r'
Ouercus pagoda
Cherrybark Oak
Tree
0
3
0
3
; 0
0
Ouercus palustris
Pm Oak
Tree
3
0
2
0
2
2
2
0
3
3
1
3
1
2
0
1
0
1
0
3
1
2
1
2
2.
Ouercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
0
4
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
­1
1
Pp,
"14
o,�
Ouercus rubra
N Red Oak
Shrub
0
2
3
0
1
0
3
2
6
2
7
5
3
2
4T-4
iztItyntee 4A
- '
r "
m
p;, ��
f
'
cer rubrum
Red Maple
Tree
t
Diospyros vii iniana
Persimmon
Tree
u laps nigra
Black Walnut
Tree
2
4
3
Driodendron tulipfera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
2
5
1
1
2
2
Platanus occrdentahs
Sycamore
Tree
1
25
1
12
10
Ouercus rubra
N Red Oak
Tree
1
1
I
1
Plot area acres
0 025
0 025
0 025
0 025
0 025
0 025
0 025
0 025
0 025
0 025
0 025
0 025
Species Count
5
6
6
7
5
5
7
6
7
8
5
6
7
9
6
6
5
4
4
3
6
5
4
5
6
6
6 u
6°
m
Planted Stems/Plot
12
8
20
19
20
18
18
15
17
17
12
9
13
13
17
10
11
10
17
14
11
10
18
12
16
13
-16 _
W'16 �
P= Planted
Total Stems/Plot
12
14
20
50
20
19
18
16
17
21
12
21
13
15
17
12
11
10
17
14
11
11
18
12
16
18
4 6
--16t
"
1
T =Total
Planted Stems Per Acre
486
324
809
769
809
728
728
607
688
688
486
364
526
526
688
405
445
405
688
567
445
405
728
486
627
523
627 f
627—
1`0 1
Total Stems Per Acre.
(including volunteers)
567
2023
769
647
850
850
607
486
405
567
445
486
725627
a 627"
Notes CVS Level 1 Survey performed In most cases, the volunteers observed were less than 10 cm in height The information presented is purely for providing information about the species of trees that may occupy the riparian area that were not planted In Plot 2, multiple sycamore seedlings
noted, counting stopped at 25
i

APPENDIX D
STREAM SURVEY DATA

South Muddy Creek
Permanent Cross Section X1
(Year 1 Monitoring - September 2012)
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK
Feature
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
W/D
BH
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
Ratio
Riffle
C
100.5
40.78
1 2.46
4.06
16.54
1.1
2.2
1124.16
1124.72
X1 Riffle
1129
-
1128
1127
= 1126
1125
1124
-------------------------------------------
w 1123
1122
1121
1120
1119
95
115
135 155 175 195
Station
f Yr 1 Monitoring 2012 * Asbuilt 2010
-- o- -- Bankfull

South Muddy Creek
Permanent Cross Section X2
(Year 1 Monitoring - September 2012)
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK
Stream BKF BKF BKF Max BKF TOB
Feature W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev
Type Area Width Depth Depth I I I Elev
Pool 1 115.8 43.06 2.69 5.38 1 16.01 1 1.1 1 2 1124.12 1124.7
113C
112E
c 1126
d 1124
w
1122
1120
1118
X2 Pool
95
1 1 IJJ IJJ Ito
Station
A Yr 1 Monitoring 2012 * Asbuilt 2010 -- 0- -- Bankfull

South Muddy Creek
Permanent Cross Section X3
(Year 1 Monitoring - September 2012)
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK
Feature
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF
TOB
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
Elev
Elev
Pool
129
43.08
2.99
5.05
14.39
1
2.2
1122.2
1122.27
X3 Pool
1127
1126
1125
1124
a
1123
�a1122
----------------------------------------------
1121
U'
1120
1119
1118
1117
1116
95
115 135
155 175 195
Station
—L Yr 1 Monitoring 2012
—* Asbuilt 2010 -- o- -- Bankfull

South Muddy Creek
Permanent Cross Section X4
(Year 1 Monitoring - September 2012)
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK
Feature
Stream
BKF
I BKF
BKF
I Max BKF
WAD
I
BH Ratio
ER
BKF
TOB Elev
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
Elev
Riffle
C
113.3
r 40.89
1 2.77
4.16
1 14.75
1 1
1 2.3
11121.981
1122.03
X4 Riffle
1127
—
—
1126
1125
1124
0
1123
>
1122
--------------------------------------------
---,t:
w
1121
1120
1119
1118
1117
95
115 135
155 175 195
Station
A Yr 1 Monitoring 2012
—0 Asbuilt 2010 - --o- -- Bankfull

South Muddy Creek
Profile Chart
Year 1 Monitoring - September 2012
1134
—
—s TWG -YR 1 2012 tTWG- Asbuilt 2010
1132
_
--a-- Top of Bank — +*—WSF
o J -HOOKS
1130
1128
1126
1124
c
O
r
ca
d
w 1122
X1 Riffle X2 Pool
1120
X3 Pool X4 Riffle
1118
1116
kv
1114
1112
990 1490 1990 2490 2990 3490
Station

Figure 5. Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution with Annual Overlays
Cummulative
BAKER PROJECT NO. 128221
SITE OR PROJECT:
South Muddy Creek Stream Restoration Project
REACH /LOCATION:
South Muddy Creek - Cross - section 4 (Riffle)
DATE COLLECTED:
9/12/2012
FIELD COLLECTION BY:
mw re
IDATA ENTRY BY:
mw re
Cummulative
PARTICLE CLASS COUNT
Summary
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Riffle
Class %
% Cum
SILT /CLAY
Silt / Clay
< .063
D,00 =
362-512
0%
SAND
Very Fine
.063- .125
90%
0%
Fine
-125 - .25
0%
Medium
.25 - .50
0%
Coarse
.50 - 1.0
0%
Very Coarse
1.0 - 2.0
1
1 %
1 %
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
1 %
Very Fine
2.8-4.0
1 %
Fine
4.0 -5.6
50%
AB (2010)
1%
Fine
5.6-8.0
1
1 %
2%
Medium
8.0 - 11.0
4
4%
6%
GRAVEL
Medium
11.0 - 16.0
6%
Coarse
16.0-22.6
4
4%
10%
Coarse
22.6-32
4
4%
14%
Very Coarse
32-45
j 9
9%
j 23%
Very Coarse
45-64
11
11%
34%
COBBLE
Small
64-90
27
27%
61%
Small
90-128
18
18%
79%
Large
128-180
13
13%
92%
Large
180-256
4
4%
96%
Small
256-362
2
2%
98%
Small
362-512
2
2%
100%
BOULDER
Medium
512-1024
Large -Very Large
1024-2048
BEDROCK
Bedrock
> 2048
Total
100
100%
100%
Cummulative
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
34.5
D35 =
64.8
D50 =
78.3
D, =
145.9
1395 =
234.4
D,00 =
362-512
South Muddy Creek
Riffle Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
100%
South Muddy Creek
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
- --
90%
■ AB (2010)
80%
■ MY 1 (2012)
90%
70%
60%
a+
50%
AB (2010)
y
U
a
40%
30%
80%
0 MY 1 (2012)
ea
U
20%
10%
0%
9:o co � Nq�� b �bti b��, D, lb
70%
Particle Size Class (mm)
60%
C
50%
40%
IIL
R 30%
5
20%
U
10%
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
South Muddy Creek
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
- --
90%
■ AB (2010)
80%
■ MY 1 (2012)
70%
60%
a+
50%
y
U
a
40%
30%
ea
U
20%
10%
0%
9:o co � Nq�� b �bti b��, D, lb
Particle Size Class (mm)

Table 10 Baseline Stream Summary
South Muddy Creek h'hhgation Plan EEP Project No 737
c....11 a.._11_, .,W
Parameter
USGS
Gauge
Regional Curve Intenal
(Harmer et aL 1999)'
pre•Ezting Condition
u
Morgan Creek
Reference
Reach(es) Data
Barnes Creek
Design
Monitoring Baseline (As -built)
Dimension and Substrate - RiMe
LL UL Eq
Mm
Mean
Med Mae SD
n
Mm
Mean
Med Max SD
n
Mm Mean
Med Max SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
Mm
Mean
Med
Mac
SD
n
BF Width (R)
—
230 goo 420
24 1
323
— 512 —
5
332
—
— 335 —
2
607 —
— 69 —
2
—
432
— — —
I
414
—
—
422
—
2
Floodprone Width (ft)
—
— — —
296
448
— 727 —
5
775
—
— 868 —
2
219 —
— 220 —
2
—
210+
— — —
1
907
—
—
936
—
2
BF Mean Depth (ft)
—
23 58 38
19
27
— 30 —
5
23
—
— 24 —
2
29 —
— 38 —
2
—
30
— — —
1
27
—
—
28
—
2
BF Max Depth (ft)
—
— — —
33
36
— 40 —
5
28
—
— 29 —
2
39 —
— 52 —
2
—
42
— — —
1
42
—
—
44
—
2
BF Cross - sectional Area (ft
—
800 3000 1576
72 8
83 8
— 972 —
5
75 1
—
— 799 —
2
199 —
— 288 —
2
—
1285
— — —
1
1108
—
—
1159
—
2
Width/Depth Ratio
—
— — —
8 1
129
— 269 —
5
141
—
— 147 —
2
16 —
— 23 8 —
2
—
144
— — —
1
154
—
—
15 5
—
2
Entrenchment Ratio
—
— — —
1 1
14
— 17 —
5
23
—
— 26 —
2
32 —
— 36 —
2
—
49+
— — —
1
22
—
—
22
—
2
Bank Height Ratio
—
— — —
24
28
— 2 8 —
5+
—
10
— — —
2
— —
— — —
—
—
10
— — —
1
10
—
—
10
—
2
d50 (mm)
—
— — —
—
40
— — —
I
—
30
— — —
1
— 60
— — —
l
—
—
— -- —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Pattern
Channel Beltw rdth (ft)
—
— —
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
— —
— — —
—
1280
—
— 2090 —
9
1430
1683
1640
2440
322
8
Radius of Curvature (ft)
—
— — —
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
— —
— — —
—
840
—
— 1380 —
9
960
1212
1140
1520
189
9
Re Bankfull width (fVft )
—
— — —
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
— —
— — —
—
19
—
— 32 —
9
23
29
27
36
05
9
Meander Wavelength (ft)
—
— — —
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
— —
— — —
—
3450
—
— 5060 —
6
3870
4008
3965
4180
129
6
Meander Width Ratio
—
— — —
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
— —
— — —
—
30
—
— 49 —
9
34
40
39
58
08
8
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
—
— — —
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
— —
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
61
80
88
122
23
Riffle Slope (fVft )
—
— — —
0 003
0 004
— 0 006 —
3
001
—
— 002 —
2
—
— —
00034
—
— 00054 —
7
0 000
0 006
0 000
0 011
0 004
3
Pool Length (11)
—
— — —
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
— —
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Pool Spacing (ft)
—
— — —
80
163
— 240 —
4
46
—
— 277 —
2
—
— — —
1540
—
— 3270 —
10
167
272
257
335
53
3
Pool Max Depth (ft)
—
— — —
3 8
48
— 5 8 —
4
—
4 1
— — —
1
— —
— — —
62
—
— 103 —
I 1
—
—
—
—
Pool Volume (ft')
—
— — —
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
— —
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri% /Ru% /P% /G % /S%
—
— — —
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
— —
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
SC% /So %IG% /B% /Be%
—
— — —
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
— —
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
dl6/d35/d50/d84/d95
—
— — —
<006102/ 4/ 25/ 44
N /A/ 12/ 3/ 77/800
04/11/60/512/12048
—
—
— — —
—
015/5/52/135/190
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/9
—
— — —
0 is
—
— 03 —
5
—
—
— — —
—
— —
— — —
—
—
028
— — —
—
—
—
—
—
—
Max part stzo (mm) mobilized at bankfull ( Rosgen Curve)
—
— — —
—
950
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
— —
— — —
—
—
900
— — —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Stream Power (tmnsport capacity) W /m'
—
— — —
108
—
— 24 —
5
—
—
— — —
—
— —
— — —
—
—
126
— — —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
—
— — —
—
—
— 188 —
—
—
—
— 84 —
—
— —
— 230 —
—
—
—
— 188 —
—
—
—
—
18 8
—
—
Impervious cover estimate (%)
—
— — —
—
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
— —
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Rosgen Classification
—
—
G4c
C4
— —
C4
—
—
C4
—
—
C5
—
—
—
BF Velocrh (fps)
—
— — —
41
—
— 5 s —
5
—
7
— — —
—
— —
— — —
—
—
3 1
— — —
—
—
30
—
—
—
—
BF Discharge (cfs)
—
2900 20000 741 1
—
400
— — —
—
—
5240
— — —
—
— —
— — —
—
—
4000
— — —
—
—
3400
—
—
—
—
Vallev Len
—
— — —
2446
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
— —
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
—
2409
—
—
—
—
Channel length (ft)
—
— — —
—
2593
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
— —
— — —
—
—
2842
— — —
—
—
2787
—
—
—
—
Smuosity
—
— — —
—
106
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
— —
— — —
—
—
120
— — —
—
—
118
—
—
—
—
Water Surface Slopc (Channel) (ft/ft)
—
— — —
00016
— — —
—
—
00070
— — —
—
— —
— — —
—
—
00017
— — —
—
—
00016
—
—
—
—
BF slope (ft/ft)
—
— — —
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
— —
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Bankfull Floodplam Anra (acres)
—
— — —
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
— —
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
BEHIVL % /L % /M % /H% /VH% /E%
—
— — —
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
— —
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
—
— — —
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
— —
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
—
—
—
Biological or Other
• il— WA Q Jm ge.JM ft— DR U— LO SI.w AO Jeewp 1R Ewhen and RE Smrh 1999 BwLf.11 hrdnulm —.— mlaaamhips
for N Cvolme
saevne Wddlmd H•dmloav AWRA S —posmm Pm-3,,p DS 01. end JP Pory & ed Amancm Watm Resw—Aivoneaon
June 10 Jill 3 1999 Borxmm MT

Table l la Cross - section Morphology Data Table
South Muddy Creek Mitigation Plan EEP Project No 737
South Muddy Creek 2,787 LF)
Cross - section I Riffle
Cross - section 2 Pool
Cross - section 3 (Pool)
Cross - section 4 (Riffle)
Dimension and substrate
Base
MYI MY2 MY3
MY4 MY5
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Base
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5
Base
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Based'on,jized baseline bankf6ll elevation,,
Record Elevation (Datum) Used (ft)
11242
11242
11241 11241
11222
11222
11220
11220
BF Width (ft)
414
408
42 1 43 1
442
43 1
422
409
BF Mean Depth (ft)
27
25
28 27
29
30
28
28
Width/Depth Ratio
155
165
153 160
154
144
154
148
BF Cross - sectional Area (ft')
1108
1005
1158 1158
1265
1290
1159
113 3
BF Max Depth (R)
44
41
5 1 54
45
5 1
42
42
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
907
898
856 859
953
95 1
936
935
Entrenchment Ratio
22
22
N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
22
23
Bank Height Ratio
10
10
10 1 1
1 0
10
10
10
Wetted Perimeter (R)
468
457
476 484
499
491
477
464
Hydraulic Radius ft
24
22
24 24
25.
2 6
24
24

Table llb Baseline Stream Summary
South Muddr Creek Mitigation Plan EEP Project No 737
Zinn
lyrnaay Ireea IL /8/ ")
Parameter
Monitoring Baseline (As -butt)
MY -1
MY -2
MY -3
MY4
MY-5
Dimension and Substrate=Rdlle <.-.- ,° rsT,
Mm _ "Mew' Met h Macx SD :, °-4 w
Mmr- Mean, a Mod' .vRMac3 -SD- >. n _-a+
Min " =blest° `Met 9Mns X44 SDag' Wn y
P Mm MmZ4 Med�I^ May ft eSD n
_Mme! Mean ie S Med Ma-e -�; �?�SD3 �' n�
BF Width (fl)
414 — — 422 — 2
408 — — 409 — 2
Floodprone Width (ft )
907 — — 936 — 2
89 8 — — 935 — 2
BF Mean Depth (ft )
27 — — 2 8 — 2
25 — — 29 — 2
BF Max Depth (ft)
42 — — 44 — 2
41 — — 42 — 2
BF Cross-sectional Amu (ft'
1108 — — 1159 — 2
1005 — — 1133 — 2
Width/Depth Rau
154 — — 15 5 — 2
148 — — 165 — 2
Entrenchmcm Rah
22 — — 22 — 2
22 — — 23 — 2
Bank Height Rah
10 1 0 2
l 0 10 2
ENAOR - �_. w
,n .'I .�
#; ' "4 ., -` m1 .,sue -
Channel Beltwidth (ft
1430 1683 1640 2410 322 B
-,
tom.
rJ, ��
Rodrus of Cun mum (ft
960 1212 1140 152 0 I B 9 9
Re Bmkfull width (fM
23 29 27 36 05 9
a
Meander Wm elength (ft
_ Meander Width Ratic
387 0 4008 3965 4190 129 6
34 40 39 58 08
�101� 133_
yam..
-
nh
RtBe Length (fl
61 BO 88 122 23 3
72 96 li3 30610456 3
F, le Slope (fVft )
0 000 0 006 0 005 0 011 0 004 3
0 002 0 005 0 005 0 009 0 004 3
Pool Length (ft)
— — — — — —
— — — — — —
Pool Spacing (ft
167 272 257 335 53 3
209 251 253 290 41 3
Pool Mac Depth (ft)
—
—
— — — -
Sub_s.t.r.MM...e T.wr.�n (f rrot....P.a�ro f
.�
. .a..n..d .» . -".• . vm...e..t_�,.i r.
it1 6 /d35 I d S0 / d84/d95
,»d aa.F
013/5/32/13 5/ 190
x r
345/64 R/763/1459/2344
j
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f
— — — — — —
— — — — — —
Stmam Power (transport capacity) W/m
— — — — — —
— — — — —
Addij,jg,Bench
— — — 198 — —
_
Drainage Area (SM
— — — 188 — —
Rosgen Classd'icmio
— C5 — — — —
— C3 — — — —
BF Velocity (fps
— 30 — — — —
— 30 — — — —
BF Discharge (cfs
— 3400 — — — —
— 3180 — — — —
Valley Lcngt
— 2409 — — — —
— 2409 — — — —
Channel length (ft
— 2787 — — — —
— 2787 — — — —
Smuom
— 118 — — — —
— 118 — — — —
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (f /ft
— 00016 — — — —
— 00016 — — — —
BF slope (f /ft

APPENDIX E
HYDROLOGIC DATA

Table 12. Verification of Bankfull or Greater than Bankfull Events
South Muddy Creek Mitigation Plan EEP Project No 737
Date of Data
Gauge Watermark Height
Collection
Date of Event
Method of Data Collection
(feet above bankfull)
May 18, 2012
September 2010 (crest gauge installation for
Gauge measurement
0 17
asbuilt ) - May 18th, 2012
August 1, 2012
May 18th -August 1st 2012*
1 Gauge measurement
008
* Date of event(s) occurred sometime between the date range specified