20080586 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report_20140117

[**" �� -us8L
South Muddy Creek Stream Restoration Project
Year 2 Monitoring Report
McDowell Countv, North Carolina
NCEEP Project Number — 737
Project Info: Monitoring Year: 2 of 5
Year of Data Collection: 2013
Year of Completed Construction: 2011
NCEEP Project Manager: Paul Wiesner
Submission Date: December 201', 2013
Submitted To: NCDENR - Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1625 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
NCDENR Contract 1D No. 004522
3 9�p Os St'([enl
1 PROC NAM
D
JAN 77 2014 I

South Muddy Creek Stream Restoration Project
Year 2 Monitoring Report
McDowell Countv, North Carolina
Report Prepared and Submitted by Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
NC Professional Engineering License # F -1048
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Road
Suite 201
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Matthew Reid Micky Cle lmons
Project Manager- Office Principal

Table of Contents
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................. ..............................1
2.0 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................... ..............................3
21 Stream Assessment 3
2 1 1 Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability 3
212 Hydrology 4
2 13 Photographic Documentation of Site 4
2 14 Visual Stream Morphological Stability Assessment 5
22 Vegetation Assessment 5
3.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. ..............................6
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC, EEP PROJECT NO - 737 I
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
DECEMBER 2013, MONITORING YEAR 2 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
d
Figure 2 Current Condition Plan View (CCPV)
Table 5a Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
i�
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 2 Cross - sections with Annual Overlays
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC, EEP PROJECT NO - 737 I
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
DECEMBER 2013, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 5

Figure 4
Figure 5
Table 10
Table 11 a
Table 11 b
Appendix E Hydrologic L
Table 12
Appendices
Year 2 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 2 MONITORING REPORT
DECEMBER 2013, MONITORING YEAR 2 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 2 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 floodplam 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 floodplam 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 (NRCS) 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 floodplam 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 Sam 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 raffle -pool sequences and the strategic
placement of in- stream structures Approximately 14 1 acres of associated riparian buffer were restored or
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 2 MONITORING REPORT
DECEMBER 2013. MONITORING YEAR 2 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) Eighteen discrete areas of invasive species were -
documented throughout the site and totaled approximately 126 acres, or 7 4 percent 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 plan view (CCPV) figures,
supporting data tables, and photo logs, the contents of Appendix B was submitted to NCEEP in May 2013 I
and served as the interim visual site assessment report -
A NCEEP licensed contractor conducted exotic invasive plant control on the project site during the 2013
growing season In addition, exotic invasive plant species will also be treated on the project site during the
2014 growing season
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 2 monitoring, is 651
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 is 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 six sub - categories receiving scores of less than 100% correspond to the
five stream problem areas (SPAS) documented and summarized in Table 5b (Appendix B) The five SPAS I
were characterized by localized areas of bank scour and were all located upstream of the Sam Road bridge 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 show little to no change 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 The Aggradation noted in the Year 1 Monitoring Report within the downstream limits
of the Project reach profile along the meander bend beginning at station 36 +00 has begun to scour and return
to a more stable maximum depth Scour within the aggraded meander bend, from larger, subsequent storm
flows, should continue to flush the aggraded material downstream and help to re- establish a deeper pool over j
time The site was found to have had at least one bankfull event based on crest gauge readings Information -
on bankfull 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 Creek project as part of the same EEP on -call design and construction
services contract All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices is available from EEP
upon request
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC, EEP PROJECT NO - 737
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
DECEMBER 2013, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 5

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 2 monitoring data was collected in May 2013 and September 2013 All visual site
assessment data contained in Appendix B was collected on May I" except for the vegetation plot data and
corresponding plot photos which were collected on September 19th All stream survey (channel dimension
and profile) and sediment data were collected on August 15'h 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
nffle 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
' 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
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC , EEP PROJECT NO - 737
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
DECEMBER 2013, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 5

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 I
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 floodplain 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
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
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC, EEP PROJECT NO - 737 4
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
DECEMBER 2013, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 5
i
�_I

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 in 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 varies from 100 - square meters for tree species to 1-
square meter for herbaceous vegetation Level 1 CVS vegetation monitoring will occur in spring, 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 trees 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 trees and the current year's living, planted trees
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 the Year 5 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 1, 2013, 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
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 2 MONITORING REPORT
DECEMBER 2013, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 5

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
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
DECEMBER 2013, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 5
6

APPENDIX A
PROJECT VICINITY MAP AND BACKGROUND TABLES

IVJ
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. r
Directions to the South Muddy Creek Site: 1
- From I -40, take State Route 226 South (I40 exit 86). Cr e f
- Continue approximately 10 miles south. / t
• Turn left onto Trinity Church Loop.
• Turn left onto Dysartville Road. Continue approximately 1 mile. % - ` ° -
• Turn left onto Sain Road.
Continue approximately 0.5 mile to the bridge at South Muddy Creek. yam` A
F � B A ANE
4 03-
REN D 1
04 -0 4
88 t
FRENCH BR AD
04-03 -
Montrea�
r
�1
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
South Muddy Creek Stream Restoration Project
' ^ McDowell County, NC
NCEEP Project No.: 737
November 2013
McDowell County, NC
lsllV en
FAIL-.
t
J
c
cATAi�v
\ eaA , ..a,
3
03 -0830
CATAWB
r� 03 -08-
L
South Muddy Creek
HUC 0305010
a
LEGEND: A
Project Area A
i" ; NCDWQ Sub -basin
USGS Hydrologic Unit
® Counties
0 2.5 5
Miles

Table l Project Components
South Muddy Creek Mitigation Plan EEP Project No 737
Project Segment or Reach
ID
Existing Feet /Acres „
Mitigation Type
Approach
Linear Footage or
Acreage*
Mitigation
Ratio
Mitigation
Units
Stationing
Comment
South Muddy Creek
2,593
R
P2
2,787
1 1
2,787
10+00 - 38 +77 **
Installed in- stream structures to protect the stream bank from
erosion and to provide aquatic habitat Priority 2 was implemented
to connect the channel to a newly evacated floodplam bench
* Existing reach breaks and design reach breaks vaned based on initial geomorphic differences and design requirements
** Stationing includes 20 R of farm crossing above Sam
Rd and 70 ft of Sam Rd bridge crossing, but is not reflected in the reach length
Component
Stream
(LF)
2,787
2,787
2,787
Summations
Riparian Non -Ripar Upland
Wetland (Ac) (Ac) (Ac)
Rrvenne Non- Rrvenne AWIMM &LI e M
M Aw"WI "M
-
Restoration Level
Restoration
Enhancement
Enhancement [
Enhancement 11
Creation
Preservation
HQ Preservation
Totals
Total Project Mitigation Units

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
South Muddy Creek Mitigation Plan: EEP Project No.737
Elapsed Time Since Grading/Planting Complete: 2 year 6 Months
Number of Reporting Years: 2
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 -11
Planting of bare root trees
Mar -11
N/A
Mar -11
End of Construction
Mar -11
N/A
Jun -11
Survey of As -built conditions (Year 0 Monitoring - baseline)
Nov -10
N/A
Jun -11
Year I Monitoring
Dec -12
Sep-12
Nov -12
Invasive Treatment
NA
NA
Aug -13
Year 2 Monitoring
Dec -13
Sep -13
Nov -13
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
Joanne Cheatham, Tel 336 - 320 -3849
Planting Contractor
Carolina Environmental Contracting, Inc
150 Pine Ridge Road
Mount Airy, NC 27030
Contact
Joanne Cheatham, Tel 336 - 320 -3849
Seeding Contractor
Carolina Environmental Contracting, Inc
150 Pine Ridge Road
Mount Airy, NC 27030
12/11/2012
Contact
Joanne Cheatham, Tel 336 - 320 -3849
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 Glenndge Drive
Raleigh, NC 27604
Contact
Profession Land Surveyor
David Turner, Tel [phone]
As -Built Plan Set Production
Lissa Turner, Tel [phone]
Monitoring Performers
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc
797 Haywood Road, Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
Contact
Stream Monitoring Point of Contact
Matthew Reid, Tel [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring Point of Contact
Matthew Reid, Tel 828 - 350 -1408
Wetland Monitoring Point of Contact
Matthew Reid, Tel 828 - 350 -1408

Table 4 Project Attribute Table
South Muddy Creek Mitigation Plan EEP Project No 737
Project County
McDowell County, NC
Ph sio ra hrc 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 Project 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 9
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 phase 91NOne
e z� i
, ate'
Restoration Component
Attribute Table
South Muddy
Drainage area (sq mr
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 Intensity
37
A -Cultivated Crops
06
A -Pasture/Hay Ag-PasturetHay
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 9
No
Upstream of a 303d listed segment9
No
Reasons for 303d listing or stressor
N/A
Total acreage of easment
171
Total planted arcea a as part of the restoration
141
Ros en classification of pre-existing
G4c
Ros en classification of As -built
C4
Valley tVDe
Alluvial
Valley sloe
0 0017 ft/ft
Valley side slope ranee g 2-3%)
U
Valley toe slope ranee g 2 -3 %)
U
Cowardrn classification
Rrvenne, Upper Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom, Cobble - Gravel
Trout waters designation
No
Species of concern, endangered etc 9 (Y9N )
No
Dominant sod series and characteristics
Series
IoA
Depth
10
Clay %
18
K
0 15
T
5
I `
I

APPENDIX B
VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA

Site Assessment Report — Monitoring Year 2
South Muddy Creek (Randolph/Duncan Properties) Stream Restoration
Project
McDowell County, North Carolina
May 2013
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
Waker
tell],
PROGRAM
Year 2 Site Assessment Report — South Muddy Creek North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. May 31, 2013
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 2 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 2013) 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 report
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,
• 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 Vegetation monitoring plot counts were
excluded from this assessment but will be conducted after July 2013, this data will be
Year 2 Site Assessment Report — South Muddy Creek North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc May 31, 2013
Page 2 of 6

summarized in Appendix C and the CCPV figure of the Year 2 annual monitoring report to
be submitted in late November of this year
The South Muddy Creek Stream Restoration Project 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 mainstem 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 1", 2013
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 in- 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 2,7871mear 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 Photos were recorded 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 2 Site Assessment Report — South Muddy Creek North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc May 31, 2013
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, geolifts, 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 percent as the design intended for the majority of parameters evaluated
within the lateral /vertical stability and m- stream structure performance categories The five
sub- categories receiving scores of less than 100 percent corresponded to the five SPAS that
i
were documented and summarized in Table 5b
All 5 SPAs were characterized by localized areas of bank scour and were all located
upstream of the Sam Road bridge Two of the five SPAs documented in Table 5b, SPA1 -1
and SPA1 -2, were SPAs persisting from the Year 1 monitoring assessment (and are
referenced as such by the first number in the SPA naming convention) SPA 1 -1 consists of a
portion of undermined brush mattress along the right bank in an outer meander bend that has
resulted in bank erosion The length of undercut and eroded bank along SPA1 -1 has
increased from 10 linear feet (LF) to 80 LF, migrating 70 LF downstream in approximately
one year or since this SPA was first documented in the Year 1 visual assessment The
structural integrity of this brush mattress has become compromised Lateral instability along
this outer meander bend is likely to continue migrating downstream if left unchecked over
- time
SPA 1-2 was still unstable laterally, but remained unchanged in length or severity of bank
- erosion since it was first reported a year ago It appears that some aggraded riffle material at
the head of riffle was splitting and directing flow toward the left bank (SPA1 -2) causing the
bank to erode Regrading and uniformly distributing the aggraded riffle material throughout
the riffle may prevent the diversion of flow toward the left bank thereby alleviating scour
along this bank
SPA1 -3 is no longer deemed an SPA due to a combination of vegetation growth holding the
bank and erosional and depositional processes that have reduced the bank angle thereby
improving bank stability in this area within the past year
SPA2 -1 is an area of localized scour and bank erosion along both banks located within the
upstream project reach limits between station 12 +30 and 12 +60 Bank instability was caused
by high near bank stress from the diversion of flow around a recently removed beaver dam
Year 2 Site Assessment Report — South Muddy Creek North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc May 31, 2013
Page 4 of 6

Erosion along the right bank is larger in magnitude and severity than the left bank since that
portion of the right bank coincides with the transition between the outer meander bend and a
riffle where higher velocities tend to be concentrated and near bank stress tends to be
greater
SPA2 -2 consists of a 60 LF length of brush mattress compromised by an undercut bank t
between station 16 +70 and 17 +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 Some of the brush originally installed behind
the matting to armor the bank has washed away leaving the bank exposed and vulnerable to
subsequent erosion The bank protection provided by the remaining length of brush mattress
along the right bank may become compromised and less effective over time if SPA2 -2 is not
stabilized and the scour (and instability) is allowed to continue to migrate further downstream
by undermining the brush
- SPA2 -3 consists of an area of localized scour along the right bank located downstream of an
outer meander bend between station 12 +30 and 12 +60 Bank scour could potentially be a
result of the lack of centering of the thalweg immediately downstream of the upstream
meander bend (and was noted accordingly in Table 5a) As a result, some velocity vectors
within the riffle have been redirected toward the right bank instead of being centered in the
riffle, thereby increasing near bank stress and causing the bank to erode The bank is
vertical, exposed, devoid of vegetation and matted protection, and is mild to moderately
eroded
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 percent with no
bare areas, low stem density areas, or areas of poor growth rates /vigor to report Invasive
areas of concern were observed and documented accordingly in Table 6a and as VPAs in
Figure 2 and Table 6b There were a total of 15 VPAs, 8 of which were identified last year
during the Year 1 visual assessment and 7 that were newly identified during this current
assessment VPAs documented last year were included in this assessment since there has
been no treatment implemented to date (although treatment is scheduled sometime this year)
As with the SPAS, the first number in the VPA naming convention references the monitoring
year in which the VPA was identified during the visual assessment Because the VPAs
reported from last year's assessment remained unchanged in size and species composition
when observed during this assessment, they will not be discussed in this memorandum, but
all are included in the scoring of easement acreage performance categories in Table 6a, and
are also summarized in Table 6b, Figure 2 (CCPV), and the VPA photolog
Eighteen discrete areas of invasive species were documented throughout the site and totaled
approximately 126 acres, or 7 4 percent of the total easement acreage (Table 6a) This
resulted in 15 VPAs since three adjacent pairs of mapped polygons, exhibiting uniform
Year 2 Site Assessment Report — South Muddy Creek North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc May 31, 2013
Page 5 of 6

invasive species compositions conditions, were combined into three individual VPAs
Invasive species comprised approximately 0 29 acres more of the easement acreage area
during this current visual assessment compared to last year's, or an increase of 1 7 percent in
easement acreage area
VPAs newly identified during this assessment (VPA2 -1 through VPA2 -7) were either
composed of multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), privet (Ligustrum smense), or Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicerajaponica), or a combination of those invasive species Multiflora rose
and Japanese honeysuckle were the most prevalent invasive species observed within the
VPAs and were found within six of the seven newly identified VPAs The 4 largest VPAs
documented were VPA2 -2, VPA2 -6, VPA2 -1, and VPA2 -3 (in decreasing order by area)
which are all located in the left terrace near the periphery of the easement boundary, these
areas are susceptible to the encroachment of mvasives from outside the easement These 4
VPAs make up approximately 90 percent of the newly identified VPA acreage within the
easement, VPA2 -4 is also located in the left terrace along the periphery of the easement
boundary near the downstream side of the Sam Road bridge The persistence of invasive
vegetation from within existing tree stands after prior treatment appears to be the other
primary cause for the proliferation of invasive vegetation, and is the potential cause for
VPA2 -5 and VPA2 -7 located in the left terrace downstream of the Sam Road bridge An
existing tree stand is not apparent for VPA2 -5 on the CCPV in Figure 2, but it is situated
around a power pole that was protected during construction and thus is surrounded by an
undisturbed soil matrix likely containing intact roots and seeds of multiflora rose and
Japanese honeysuckle
As an update to additional areas of concern reported in the Year 1 Monitoring Report, there
were no signs of kudzu in the left or right floodplains upstream of the Sam Road bridge,
however, kudzu was observed outside the easement in those areas between the easement
boundary and Sam Road
Year 2 Site Assessment Report — South Muddy Creek North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc May 31, 2013
Page 6 of 6

----- cE--------- CE - - - --
— - — • — • — • — • — • — • —
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
ASBUILT CENTERLINE
VEGETATION PROBLEM AREA (VPA)
INVASIVE SPECIES PRESENT
■
STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
UNDERCUT BANKS
TB re
— —
ASBUILT TOP OF BANK
ASBUILT CHANNEL
VEGETATION
PLOT MEETING CRITERIA
F]
STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
BANKS WITH EVIDENT SCOUR /EROSION
Y
FENCE
(ALL PLOTS
CURRENTLY MEETING CRITERIA)
486/728
5
Y
X —#
CROSS SECTION
Y
688/486
STREAM PROBLEM AREA (
O
PHOTO ID POINT
■ VEGETATION
PLOT NOT MEETING CRITERIA
■
//SPA)
ING /CSLUMPING/CALVING/COLLAPSE
QNO
AREAS EXHIBITING
PIP
VEGETATION PLOT
�
t■ ■t
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK
CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW
YEAR 2 MONITORING
STA. 10 +00 -25 +00
VEG PLOT CRITERIA ATTAINMENT
VEG PLOT
ID
SURVIVAL THRESHOLD
MET?
TOTAL /PLANTED
STEM COUNT
1
Y
526/486
2
Y
1619/809
3
Y
850/809
4
Y
486/728
5
Y
728/688
6
Y
688/486
IMAGE SOURCE: INC STATEWIDE ORTHOIMAGERY, 2010
a
C N
$ LLB -
A= °m'
� Zm�
mm�
C W = t `C°
'! Zr ali
ON
a
z
F- J
00
W �
-� Q
U
Ui -1
w d
af Z
U p of
O
0 F- Z
D
� O
w O
� � U
J
Q W
Lu F- O
U) O
U
�r
IL T6 ro
&W
RIP
W
737
a ar rolec o_
128221
>et:
5/28/2013
DESIGNED: - --
DRAWN: MDR
1 of 2

---- -CE --------- CE - - - -- CONSERVATION EASEMENT VEGETATION PROBLEM AREA (VPA) ■ STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA) g-s
UNDERCUT BANKS = °Nm
— •— •— •— •— • —• —•— ASBUILT CENTERLINE INVASIVE SPECIES PRESENT :LLrm
TB TB ASBUILT TOP OF BANK c- Q$
ASBUILT CHANNEL ■ ❑ STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA) W 3
VEGETATION PLOT MEETING CRITERIA -�
BANKS WITH EVIDENT SCOUR /EROSION q
FENCE (ALL PLOTS CURRENTLY MEETING CRITERIA) zwo
= m�C6
X -# m m —..N
W C � j mdp
CROSS SECTION ■ STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
.0'.0g r+r
VEGETATION PLOT NOT MEETING CRITERIA BANK SLUMPING /CALVING /COLLAPSE f z aLL
O PHOTO ID POINT (NO AREAS EXHIBITING PROBLEM)
VP VEGETATION PLOT
D y
_ `
(ZF VPA2 -6 i•, ill 3'.
a. 1
U
CD VPA2—
LLJ
VPA2 7
-\ - - 9 +76.59 W Q'
VPA1 -4 f VPA2 -5 _ - - -FM� Al 3 0 AS - ©UiLT W d =
"� _ _LONGITUDINAL PROFILE
.a
0
2 H
5 3pyg5 �--
\ i _ 4- - -111 RFFFLE.49— ,�. ENC / ' _ U) �
PID1 PIDt / / 0 2 J
U) w W
f— 0
PID1
�� J
_ -- _ — -� - -- FENCE - - --
GATE CE -3
i
- GATE
PL
a �Va U
Cq
IMAGE S'TJRCF: NC STATEWIDE ORTHOIMAGERY, 2010 W
Ef
otect
737
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK Baker roe o.
128221
CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW Date:
5/28/2013
YEAR 2 MONITORING DESIGNED: ---
DRAWN: MDR
APPROVED:
50 0 50 100 STA. 25 +00 -38 +77 Monftoring Year.
2 of 5
P
s sneer.
2 of 2
VEG PLOT CRITERIA ATTAINMENT
VEG PLOT
ID
SURVIVAL
THRESHOLD
MET?
TOTAL /PLANTED
STEM COUNT
7
Y
607/526
8
Y
486/688
9
Y
405/445
10
Y
567/688
11
Y
364/445
12
Y
445/728

Table 5a Visual Stream Momholoav Stability Assessment
Reach ID South Muddy Creek
esncu .n9...
J—r
Major Channel
Channel Sub.
Number Stable,
Total
Number of
moun of
Stable,
Numberwi
oo age w
use or
Category
Category
Performing
Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Metric
as Intended
per As -Bulk
Se ments
Footage
Intended
Woody Veq
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
12
12
100%
Condition
2 Length
12
12
100%
4 Thalweg position
1 Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend Run
12
12
100%
2 Thalwe centerm at downstream of meander Glide'
10
11
91 °h
2 Bank
1 Scoured /Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
and/or scour and erosion
3
105
98%
0
0
98%
2 Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting
appears likely
2
140
97%
0
0
97%
3 Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
5
245
96%
0
0
96%
3 Engineering
1 Overall Integrity
Structures
Structures h srcell mlacl with no dislod ed boulders or logs
36
38
95%
2 Grade Control
ra a con structures ex i 'ting maintenance of grade across
the sill
11
11
100%
2a Piping
Structures lacking an y substantial flow underneath sills or arms
9
9
100%
3 Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
exceed 15 %
25
27
93 %
4 Habitat
o0 miming s ruc ures main aining - ax oo ep
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
beginning of outer meander bend from a
21 +20 to 22 +00
combination of poor compaction and scour
along the toe of bank Bank scour appears to
SPA1 -1
have migrated further downstream along the
outer meander bend, eroding an additional 70
linear feet within the past year of monitoring
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
SPA 1-2
localized eddying within the riffle
Localized scour and bank erosion along right
bank and a small portion of the left bank across
12 +30 to 12 +60
the channel Caused by high near bank stress
SPA2 -1
Bank Scour
from the diversion of flow around a recently
removed beaverdam
Right bank (including brush mattress and
matting) separating and beginning to slump at
16 +70 to 17 +30
beginning of outer meander bend from a
SPA2 -2
combination of poor compaction and scour
along the toe of bank
Localized scour along the right bank of a nf11e
resulting in raw, vertical bank, devoid of
vegetation and matted protection Appears to
be caused by high near bank stress as the
17 +95 to 18 +50
thalweg appears to have migrated toward the
SPA2 -3
near bank third of the channel within the nffle
(lack of centering of thalweg downstream of
meander bend) Vegetation and rootmass along
that portion of bank is sparse
'Note The first digit in the Photo Number column references the monitoring year and the second digit references the problem area or photo (which would be identical to a prior years
problem area/photo number when persisting from a previous monitoring year) ,
i
-i
s
I �
C I
I J

Table 6a Vegetation Condition Assessment
Reach ID South Muddy Creek
rsameo Acreage
141
Mapping
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
1 Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both wil 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
isee fi ure
18
126
74%
5 stem count criteria
0 1 acres
NA
0
000
0%
Q.
5 Easement Encroachment
3 Areas of Poor Growth Rates
reas wifn woody stems ot a size class Trial are o vious y small given
Areas
or Vi or
the monitoring year
0 25 acres
NA
0
000
0%
Casement Acreage
11 1
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Easement
Ve etation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
4 Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or Roints if too small to render as Roluons at ma scale)
1000 SF
isee fi ure
18
126
74%
5 Easement Encroachment
Areas
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale)
none
NA
0
000
00%

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 multi flora persisting after treatment
VPA 1 -1
18 +00 to 21 +00 (right flood bench)
Campsis radicans persisting after treatment
VPAI -2
20 +50 to 23 +00 (left flood bench)
Rosa multi flora and Lrgustrum srnense
21 +75 to 23 +75 (left terrace slope)
persisting after treatment within existing tree
VPA1 -3
stand
Rosa multrJlora, Lrgustrum srnense and
25 +50 to 28 +50 (left terrace slope)
Lonicerajaponica persisting after treatment
VPAl -4
within existing tree stand
Rosa multi fora and Lrgustrum srnense
35 +00 to 36 +50 (right terrace)
persisting after treatment within existing tree
VPAi -5
stand
Pueraria lohata persisting after treatment
35 +00 to 37 +25 (right terrace)
within existing tree stand, terrace, and terrace
VPAi -6
slope
38 +75 (downstream project limits
Rosa multi flora and Lrgustrum srnense
along right bank/terrace)
persisting after treatment within existing tree
VPAI -7
Invasive/Exotic Populations
stand
38 +75 (downstream project limits
Lonicerajaponica persisting after treatment
along left bank/terrace)
within existing tree stand/potential
VPAl -8
encroachment from outside
See Plan View Figure
Rosa multiflora and Lonrcerajaponica
VPA2 1
potential encroachment from outside
See Plan View Figure
Rosa multifora potential encroachment from
VPA2 2
outside
See Plan View Figure
Rosa multiflora and Lomcerajaponica
VPA2 3
potential encroachment from outside
See Plan View Figure
Lonicerajaponica potential encroachment
VPA2 4
from outside
See Plan View Figure
Rosa multiflora and Lonicera/aponica
VpA2 5
persisting after treatment
Multi flora rose, Chinese privet, and Lonrcera
See Plan View Figure
Japonica persisting after treatment within
VPA2 -6
existing tree stand/potential encroachment from
outside
Multiora rose, Chinese privet, and Lonrcera
See Plan View Figure
japonica persisting after treatment within
VPA2 -7
existing tree stand
-ivore i ne rirst Digit in me rnoto rvumoer coiumn reierences me monitoring year anD me secona Digit reierences me prooiem area or pnoto twmcn wows oe iaenncai to a prior years
problem area/photo number when persisting from a previous monitoring year)

South Muddy Creek
Stream Station Photos

South Muddy Creek PID I — J -Hook near upstream end
South Muddy Creek PID 2 — Constructed Riffle,
South Muddy Creek PID 5 — Log Vane in Meander
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

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
South Muddy Creek PID 18 — Constructed Riffle

South Muddy Creek PID 19
South Muddy Creek PID 20 — J -Hook near downstream
end of project

South Muddy Creek
Stream Problem Area (SPA) Photos

SPA 1 -1— Right bank/brush mattress separating from
poor compaction and scour along toe of bank (looking
downstream from left bank to right bank)
SPA 1 -2 — Localized scour along left bank from eddying
within the riffle (looking downstream)
SPA2 -1 — Localized scour along right bank from flow
diversion around a recently removed beaverdam
SPA2 -3 — Localized scour along right bank within a
riffle from the lack of thalweg centering downstream of
a meander bend (looking downstream from left to right
bank)
SPA2 -2 — Right bank/brush mattress separating from
poor compaction and scour along toe of bank (looking
downstream from left bank to right bank)

SOUTH MUDDY CREEK
VEGETATION PLOT PHOTOS

South Muddy Creek Stream Restoration Project
Year 2 Monitoring - Vegetation Plot Photo Log
Notes:
1. Herbaceous plot located in foreground of each photo.
9/19/2013 - Photo 1: Veg Plot 1 9/19/2013 - Photo 2: Veg Plot 1: Herbaceous Plot
9/19/2013 - Photo 3: Veg Plot 2 9/19/2013 - Photo 4: Veg Plot 2: Herbaceous Plot
9/19/2013 - Photo 5: Veg Plot 3 9/19/2013 - Photo 6: Veg Plot 3: Herbaceous Plot

South Muddy Creek Stream Restoration Project
Year 2 Monitoring - Vegetation Plot Photo Log
9/19/2013 - Photo 7: Veg Plot 4
9/19/2013 - Photo 8: Veg Plot 4: Herbaceous Plot
9/19/2013 - Photo 9: Veg Plot 5
9/19/2013 - Photo 10: Veg Plot 5: Herbaceous Plot
9/19/2013 - Photo Point 11: Veg Plot 6
9/19/2013 - Photo Point 12: Veg Plot 6: Herbaceous Plot

South Muddy Creek Stream Restoration Project
Year 2 Monitoring - Vegetation Plot Photo Log
9/19/2013 - Photo Point 13: Veg Plot 7 9/19/2013 - Photo Point 14: Veg Plot 7: Herbaceous Plot
9/19/2013 - Photo Point 15: Veg Plot 8 9/19/2013 - Photo Point 16: Veg Plot 8: Herbaceous Plot
9/19/2013 - Photo Point 17: Veg Plot 9
9/19/2013 - Photo Point 18: Veg Plot 9: Herbaceous Plot

South Muddy Creek Stream Restoration Project
Year 2 Monitoring - Vegetation Plot Photo Log
9/19/2013 - Photo Point 19: Veg Plot 10
9/19/2013 - Photo Point 20: Veg Plot 10: Herbaceous Plot
9/19/2013 - Photo Point 21: Veg Plot 11
9/19/2013 - Photo Point 22: Veg Plot 11: Herbaceous Plot
9/19/2013 - Photo Point 23: Veg Plot 12
9/19/2013 - Photo Point 24: Veg Plot 12: Herbaceous Plot

I J1
South Muddy Creek
Vegetation Problem Area (VPA) Photos

VPA 1 -1 — Multiflora Rose
VPA1 -2 — Trumpet vine persisting after treatment
VPA1 -3 — Multiflora Rose and Chinese Privet
VPA1 -4 — Multiflora Rose, Chinese Privet, Japanese
Honeysuckle
VPA1 -5 - Multiflora Rose and Chinese Privet
VPA1 -6 — Kudzu persisting after treatment (photo from
MY 1)

VPA1 -7 - Multiflora Rose and Chinese Privet
VPAl -8 — Japanese Honeysuckle
VPA2 -1 - Multiflora Rose and Japanese Honeysuckle
VPA2 -2 — Multiflora Rose
VPA2 -3 - Multiflora Rose and Japanese Honeysuckle
VPA2 -4 — Japanese I- loneysuckle

VPA2 -5 - Multiflora Rose and Japanese Honeysuckle
VPA2 -7 - Multiflora Rose, Chinese Privet, Japanese
Honeysuckle
VPA2 -6 — Multiflora Rose, Chinese Privet, 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
526/486
651
2
Y
1619/809
3
Y
850/809
4
Y
486/728
5
Y
728/688
6
Y
688/486
7
Y
647/526
8
Y
486/688
9
Y
405/445
10
Y
567/688
11
Y
364/445
12
Y
445/728
Note *TotaUPlanted 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)

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
South Muddy Creek Mitigation Plan: EEP Project No. 737
Report Prepared By
Matthew Reid
Date Prepared
9/30/2013 12 16
Database name
cvs- eep- entrytool -v2 3 1 South Muddy_Hoppers mdb
Database location
L \Momtormg \Momtormg Guidance \Vegetation \CVS EEP Entrytool V2 3 1
Computer name
JASHEWMDREID2
File size
128475392
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS
DOCUMENT "{ 'J
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
PROJECVSUMMARY '�",
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

Table9 CVS Stem Count Tufd md Muted b) Plot andSiumie. (nuth Ammul Meam)
®
0000mm000
©0000
©ammmma
©mmoo
®
®
®
®v
®
®��®
m���o
©000
©mmo
©mm0000mmmmmmmmoo
®®
®
®
®�
®®
�m•mmmmmmmmo
©oommmmmmmmmmmmoo
®
®®
�
®�
�m•mmo
©0000mmmmoomm0000mmoo
©©
®
®e
®
®
®�
®�
®mmmmmmmmoommo
©mmmmmmmmmma©
®
®
®�����
�samt
m•
e©
oo©©
00000
©mmmmo
©mm000000
®0m�
®��
®
®
®�
��®
mmmmmmoommmmmmmmmmmmmmmm0000
®
®����
®®
¢ �m•
mm0000ea
©
©mma
©oomm0000
©
©oo
®oo
®mt����®
c��m•
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm00
®oo
®�����®
�m•
mmmm000
©00000
©000
©mm000000000
®������
�m•
mmmmmmmmmmmmoommoommmmmmoo
®o
®
®������
��mm©©
mmmmmmo
©mmo
©mmo
©mmmma
©vvo
®�����s
mm
m
��m•
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm�����������
�m•
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm����������®
�m•
m©
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
©���������®
�mtm•
mom©
mmmmmommm
©mammmmmmmmm
©����������
�m•
m©
m®
m
©mmm
©mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmo�������s�®
®
m©
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
©����������
��
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
m�����������
•
©
000a
©oaoo
©000
©a000
©000000
©v
©0�����®
•
oommmmmmmmoomm
®mm
®mmoommm
®mmtmt
®�����
•
ommmmmmmmmommm
®mmmmmoommm
®m
®
®
®����®
mmmmmmmmmmm�
®m
®
®
®mmmmmmm
®
®mtmt�
®�
®����
Notes CVS Level I Survey performed In—most cases the volunteers observed were less than 10 cm in he%lu The information presented is purely for providing information about the species oftrees that may occupy the riparian area that were not planted In Plot 2 multiple sycamore seedlings
noted counting stopped at 20

EL
APPENDIX D
f
STREAM SURVEY DATA

South Muddy Creek
Permanent Cross Section X1
(Year 2 Monitoring - August 2013)
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK
Feature
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
WAD
BH'
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
Ratio
Riffle
C
101.1
42.85
2.36
4.26
18.15
1 1.1
2.1
1124.2
1124.51
X1 Riffle
1129
1128
1127
1126
1125
1124
--------------------------------------------
w 1123
1122
1121
1120
1119
95
115
135 155 175 195
Station
)— Yr 2 2013 — A Yr 1 2012 AsbuiIt 2010 -- J -- Bankfull

South Muddy Creek
Permanent Cross Section X2
(Year 2 Monitoring - August 2013)
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
Stream BKF BKF BKF Max BKF TOB
Feature W/D BH Ratio ER I BKF Elev
Type Area Width Depth Depth I I I Elev
Pool 1 109.8 43.51 2.52 5.32 1 17.24 1 1 1 2 1 1124.12 11124.271
1130
1128
c 1126
1124
w
1122
1120
1118
95
X2 Pool
1,15 l35 100 I/D
Station
-�� YR 2 2013 —A Yr 1 2012 t Asbuilt 2010 - --& -- Bankfull

South Muddy Creek
Permanent Cross Section X3
(Year 2 Monitoring - August 2013)
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
134.8
42.5
3.17
4.8
13.39
1.1
2.2
1122.2
1122.5
X3 Pool
1127
1126
1125
1124
0 1123
1122
--------------------------------------------
1121
w 1120
1119
1118
1117
1116
95
115
135 155 175 195
Station
x Yr 2 2013 —A Yr 1 2012 — * Asbuilt 2010 -- O -- Bankfull

South Muddy Creek
Permanent Cross Section X4
(Year 2 Monitoring - August 2013)
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK
Feature
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
WAD
BH Ratio
ER
BKF
TOB Elev
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
Elev
Riffle
C
111
39.89
2.78
4.36
14.34
1.1
2.3
1122
1122.3
X4 Riffle
1127
1126
1125
1124
=
0 1123
r
> 1122
-----------------------------------------
w 1121
1120
1119
1118
1117
95
115
135 155 175 195
Station
—x Yr 2 2013
A Yr 1 2012 $ Asbuilt 2010 - --o- -- Bankfull

1134
1132
1130
1128
1126
c 1124
O
m
W 1122
1120
1118
1116
1114
1112
South Muddy Creek
Profile Chart
Year 2 Monitoring - August 2013
990 1490 1990 2490 2990 3490
Station

Figure 5. Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution with Annual Overlays
Cummulative
Channel materials (mm)
Dre = 26.0
DI= 54.7
D. = 73.9
D& = 144.9
Des = 287.3
Drop = 512 -1024
BAKER PROJECT NO. 128221
SITE OR PROJECT:
South Muddy Creek Stream Restoration Project
REACH/LOCATION:
South Muddy Creek - Cross-section 4 (Riffle)
DATE COLLECTED:
8/16/2013
FIELD COLLECTION BY:
MDR
DATA ENTRY BY:
MDR
Cummulative
Channel materials (mm)
Dre = 26.0
DI= 54.7
D. = 73.9
D& = 144.9
Des = 287.3
Drop = 512 -1024
PARTICLE CLASS COUNT
Summary
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Riffle
Class
SILT /CLAY
Silt /Clay
<.063
2
2%
2%
SAND
Very Fine
.063-125
30%
U
2%
Fine
.125 -.25
1111MEN
2%
Medium
.25 -.50
111111■■1111111VEIRlllll■
0%
p�� p11y p� p7 1:5 lip 'Y'
Particle Size Class (mm)
2%
Coarse
.50 -1.0
2%
■1111111
Very Coarse
1.0 -2.0
4
4%
6%
GRAVEL
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
■
■11111`I�/
6%
Very Fine
2.8-4.0
6%
Fine
4.0.5.6
1
6%
Fine
5.6 -8.0
■1111111■
6%
Medium
8.0 -11.0
S
5%
11%
Medium
11.0 -16.0
■1111111■
11%
coarse
16.0 -22.6
3
3%
14%
Coarse
22.6 -32
5
5%
19%
Very Coarse
32-45
11
11%
30%
Very Coarse
45-64
9
9%
39%
COBBLE
Small
64 -90
26
26%
65%
Smell
90-128
15
15%
80%
Large
128-180
) I
11%
91%
Large
180 -256
3%
94%
BOULDER
Small
256 -362
3
3%
1 97%
Small
362 -512
2
2%
99%
Medium
512 -1024
1
1%
100%
Large -Very Large
1024-2048
BEDROCK
Bedrock
> 2048
Total
100
100%
100%
Cummulative
Channel materials (mm)
Dre = 26.0
DI= 54.7
D. = 73.9
D& = 144.9
Des = 287.3
Drop = 512 -1024
South Muddy Creek
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
1 nTr2i i
■ AB (2010)
I1
.MY 1 (2012)
III MY2 2013
60
u 50
V
y 40
m
30%
U
r_...,,,,,■
1111MEN
10%
111111■■1111111VEIRlllll■
0%
p�� p11y p� p7 1:5 lip 'Y'
Particle Size Class (mm)
■1111111
1■
1111111■
■1111111
■
■11111`I�/
■1111111■
■1111111
1
.,,,
1
L__....e,..J
■1111111■
■1111111■
■111111
I
■1111111■
■1111111
'
■■
1111111
■■
1111111
■■
1111111■
■1111
►1:�
■1111111■
■1111111
''
■
■1111111■
■1111111
■■
1111111
■
■Ill�lil■
■1111111■
■1111111
=
■■
1111111
■■
1111111■
■1111111
■�:�II�II■
■111111■
■1111111
.,
■■
1111111
■
■1111111■�::�u�l■
■11%;111■
■1111111■
■1111111
'
■■
1111111
■��IIIIII
■■
1111111
■
■ /11111■
■1111111■
■111111
'
■
■Illllllr
■1111111■
■1111111
■,��111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
■1111111
■
■111�i11
■
■�Illnl■:Iii�i1�;W
■1111111■
■1111111■
,.
1 I 1 1 11 111 1111
South Muddy Creek
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100
90%
ao%
70%
■ AB (2010)
.MY 1 (2012)
III MY2 2013
60
u 50
V
y 40
m
30%
U
20
10%
0%
p�� p11y p� p7 1:5 lip 'Y'
Particle Size Class (mm)

136414 me3 AfHp. LIHIp SUOm Sammy)
som Al crm4 Wa n.n KU P.el.n
II W 1Cmrr l.r.m
Pm[r431q GwdlWe
eCrmY ReMmce Rem6(nI
HYU Wenn Craet
0.rlp
MwRwlq WrYn (ArhaWl
em4n rnd 6ahunu NI-
LLIWw UL111m� GI
36 I1u SG
Alm A4w b4J FW o
AW Auw AId YMx SU
m Akm Afd Ylm SU
AW Alew I.4J 1.4x SU
BF WWO IB
—
231 Wu a 0
it J l — 51_ — 5
— — JJS —
W> — — — 1
Flmdlnarc WdOlB
Z,.1.
—
2i)
3
HF Afmv
—
.3 39
— — 3
— — — 2
— — JY —
— — — —
— — — I
HF MU Il ."
BFCnsracwrslNa(H
—
—
1516
— —
— — )9B —
J9 2
— — —
116
— — — —
— — —
-
WdU✓I4pWR
FaoercbmwlRn
269
IB
la) —
— — 3l9 — 2
—
—
It- lfm9hl
— —
—
nn
CbamWi41rvd16(H
RYdrm .1--
—
— — —
— — — — — —
— — — — — —
— — — — — —
I19U — — 190 — 9
D — — —
IIYO
la)0 'U 1630 122
1 1I40 1520 IIY
Y619
— 9
3] OS 9
Stl]J 0 V0U1 1965
3i 40 3Y i51 101 Y
ft.nk RJ(k
J
RrBle SlopllNll
—
— — —
—
—
OW
OOM J
— —
— — — —
ISiU — — J })o — 10
61 ] 21 57 3J5 — —
PoulAfuQegh(M1l
Pm1\uieme(n
umdl P Pr—Rrf /RWt /P% /US
i1 — 53 — a
— it — — — 1
— — — — —
62 — — 103 — 11
— — — —
dIb SJJt /QW /JN /d95
RuWr Shm 3vmr (cumPmnrryll6 /F
—
—
—
— — —
.UW /OSIa /251 a1
UIY — Ol — 3
N /A /13IJ I]) 1 8W
— — — — — —
0 I II1 W131
— — — — — —
— 1 1 — — — —
U IS /3 /5311)51150
— — — — — —
IWaI¢n.hPu� erenmP
RmgwCWURm
_ _ —
-
8t \dunry lfrc
B1 Orec6m9e(c4
—
—
— — �
al — — 5
— — — — —
—
— 4.
—
— — — —
— — — — —
Wrlc Smfrre Slope (Chumell(NB
—
— — —
OW16 — — — —
— — — — —
— — — — — —
'12
—
udorN r
—

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 1 (Riffle)
Cross - section 2 (Pool)
Cross - section 3 (Pool)
Cross - section 4 (Riffle)
Dimension and substrate
Base
MYI
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5
Base MYI MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Base
MYI
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Base
MYI
MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS
Based on`6zed1baselme bankfull elevaLOn
� ''�'Y,�_ as
�aK,�3d5 � - r te",
a
��G'PPL r..��'rG,y ft 8 " u ,
`" s SYSF+ ,r„' nrS41"A
Record Elevation (Datum) Used (ft)
11242
11242
11242
11241 11241 11241
11222
11222 11222
1122 0 1122 0 1122 0
BF Width (11)
414
408
429
42 1 43 1 4351
442
43 1
425
422
409
399
BF Mean Depth (ft)
27
25
24
28 27 25
29
30
32
28
28
28
Width/DepthRatio
155
165
182
153 160 172
154
144
134
154
148
143
BF Cross - sectional Area (ft2)
1108
1005
101 1
1158 1158 1098
1265
1290
1348
1159
113 3
111
BF Max Depth (ft)
44
41
43
51 54 53
45
51
48
42
42
44
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
907
898
907
856 859 858
953
951
952
936
935
935
Entrenchment Ratio
22
22
21
N/A N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
22
23
23
Bank Height Ratio
10
to
1 1
10 1 1 1
10
10
1 1
10
10
1 1
Wetted Perimeter (fl)
468
457
476
476 484 486
499
49 1
488
477
464
455
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
24
22
21
24 24 23
25
26
28
24
24
24

s..w mwu3l ...t uwplw el.r Rar ly.Jm x. u)
M 3.F)
I.ImUwAt B.�Ilee 1.3•I•mll
31Vi
OR
FkNryv.
1 71 7 Sd 3
en'M
—
-
—
OlAbw4pw(4
el wAlxwn(n
41 42 z
u
— — —
II55
— — —
165
-
\Vi.4M>epUR.0
F
ISR — — —
13t — — 165 —
J 2
I,� — — — 2
uNmm
Bu�k
Al3vwn Y _ 2 �S S.�
—
— — —
I mv.amm
—CunDra lM1
RV13an4NRvWN(Nd
141 IN3 Ibto +uo 3 t
1212 1134 I,ZU IB9 9
9 27 36 Us 9
D90
a
- 1ca,
.{r y�
� Al iy_r'13A
''��
�'J`�._
/'"'
r •'
AJaNe3 w. di U, 10
boMe UWU,R
3Wt 396, ❑4 129 6
l9 3,8
-
]���
"'
s a
i ¢.
Rdw<�
.r.
IS
1 3 ° e�,.e "&.
'�.^�"` we.:..... c-�"Y��°: «w�,- ,`.'�i.�...n m.
.'ww'i «w.wsF'F+
NiDk try (R
Rwk SWP IN33
ed
61
UW4 UW6 4WS 0411 DUW 3
Ill 346103
4W OW, OW, U449 UUW�
11 1.,— IM 17J1 -13
4W3 DW6 UWS UUW DWl J
rcm(0
PouISPCVyW
161 'i_ ri1 Jas sl 3
2U9 31 )33 xW 41 3
19 S, 262 t, J
1Mn ikgh n
'W!w :4�1. wdT.mpen �wAY',`
=aim
J16 /J)5 /JSUIdIUJ)5
415x5 /5 /135 /190
335163 Y1Y)113, 9/^N1
64 /SA 1A139/lu9/J]3
r
—
Sueam UlrN')UM
mom
"RVyenClssnf
-
dF\elouryllP
— 3U — — — —
— 30 — — — —
— — — — —
V�leSienb
'31. — — — —
31
CAwsIlmtN(I3
— — — —
U.eeSUfre 64ye (Ctanrll(N-
BF• INfl
— — — — —
— — — — —
— — — — —

APPENDIX E
HYDROLOGIC DATA

Table 12 Verification of Bankfull or Greater than Bankfull Events
South Muddy Creek Mitigation Plan EEP Protect No 737
Gauge Watermark Height
Date of Data Collection
Date of Event
Method of Data Collection
(feet above bankfull)
May 1, 2013
December 31, 2012 - May 1, 2013*
Gauge measurement
007
December 31, 2012
August 1, 2012 - December 31, 2012*
Gauge measurement
006
August 1, 2012
May 18, 2012 - August 1, 2012*
Gauge measurement
017
May 18, 2012
September 2010 (crest gauge installation for
Gauge measurement
008
asbuilt) - May 18, 2012
* Date of event(s) occurred sometime between the date range specified