20141127 Ver 1_Year 4 Monitoring Report_2021_20220124

ID#* 20141127
Select Reviewer:
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 01/24/2022
Mitigation Project Submittal - 1/24/2022
Version* 1
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?*
Type of Mitigation Project:*
Stream Wetlands Buffer Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Jeremiah Dow
Project Information
ID#:* 20141127
Existing ID#
Project Type: • DMS Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site
County: Chatham
Document Information
O Yes O No
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:* 1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: MudLickCreek_93482_MY4_2021.pdf 16.9MB
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Jeremiah Dow
Signature: *

FINAL
MONITORING REPORT
YEAR 4 (2021)
MUD LICK CREEK MITIGATION SITE
Chatham County, North Carolina
NCDMS Project No. 93482
Contract No. 7683
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2014-00736 & DWR Project No 2014-1127
SCO No. 1209857-01
Data Collection: April -October 2021
Submission: January 2022
PREPARED FOR:
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1601 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1601

FINAL
MONITORING REPORT
YEAR 4 (2021)
MUD LICK CREEK MITIGATION SITE
Chatham County, North Carolina
NCDMS Project No. 93482
Contract No. 7683
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2014-00736 & DWR Project No 2014-1127
SCO No. 1209857-01
Data Collection: April -October 2021
Submission: January 2022
PREPARED BY:
AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
218 SNOW AVENUE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27603

Axiom EnvirionmentaL Inc.
218 Snow Avenue, Raleigh, NC 27603 919-215-1693
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
January 6, 2022
Mr. Jeremiah Dow
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
RE: Mud Lick Creek Monitoring (DMS Project # 93482, Contract 97683)
Final MY4 (2021) Annual Monitoring Report
Dear Mr. Dow:
Axiom Environmental, Inc. (AXE) is pleased to provide you with the Final Mud Lick Creek MY4 (2021)
Annual Monitoring Report. We received your comments via email on January 4, 2022, and have addressed
them as follows:
1. In the fish sampling report in Appendix F, it appears that the Reach 2 baseline NCIBI score of 20 was
summed incorrectly and should have been 24. We don't expect you to have Three Oaks change the report
but simply wanted to note it for the record so it can be corrected for the next round of fish monitoring.
This has been noted and will be corrected during MY7 fish monitoring.
2. Please submit the stream areas of concern features as lines and ensure that these areas are reflected in
Table 5.
A stream areas of concern line feature has been included in the digital submittal. These areas were not
included on Table 5 due to the fact that they occur on Enhancement II reaches.
3. Please ensure that areas outside of the main channel (determined by the low bank height) are excluded
from the cross sectional area calculation before the bankfull elevation is adjusted to achieve the MYO
cross sectional area. For example, XS-4 should have a BHR less than 1.0 when these points are excluded.
Areas outside the main channel were excluded from the cross -sectional areas prior to adjusting the
bankfull elevation for all cross -sections. Cross-section 4 has a low bank height of 2.047941 and BF max
depth of 2.063948, making its bank height ratio 0.99, which was rounded to 1.0.
4. We recommend removing the green dotted line on all cross sections. Also, it may make analysis easier
to display the MY-04 LTOB as a line instead of a point. We also recommend not reporting BHR on
pools, and we really only need to see LTOB identified on pool features.
The MYO TOB line was removed from all cross-section figures. The MY-04 LTOB point was changed
to a line. BHR values were removed from pool cross -sections.
Please let me know if you have any questions or comments regarding any component of this submittal. Thank
you for the opportunity to continue to assist the Division of Mitigation Services with this important project.
Sincerely,
AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC
Kenan Jernigan

PROJECT SUMMARY
The North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) has established the Mud Lick Creek
Mitigation Site (Site) located within the Cape Fear River Basin Cataloging Unit (CU) 03030003 in the
Upper Rocky River local watershed planning (LWP) area and 14-digit HUC 03030003070010. The Site
was identified as a priority mitigation project in the Detailed Assessment and Targeting of Management
Report (Tetra Tech 2005). The main stressors to aquatic resources identified during the watershed
assessments described in the LWP documents include the following.
• Nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorous) loading from farming;
• Sediment loading from overland runoff, disturbed surfaces, and streambank erosion;
• Cattle access to streams increasing bank erosion and fecal coliform contamination; and
• Insufficient bank vegetation.
The project will contribute to meeting management recommendations to offset these stressors as
described above for the LWP area by accomplishing the following primary goals.
• Control and reduce nutrient sources from the Site;
• Reduce sediment loads from disturbed areas on the Site and from eroding stream banks;
• Increased aeration of flows within the project extent promoting increases in dissolved oxygen
concentrations;
• Reduce sources of fecal coliform pollution;
• Improve instream habitat;
• Reduce thermal loadings;
• Reconnect channels with floodplains and raise local water table; and
• Restore riparian habitat.
These goals will be accomplished through the following objectives:
• Restore riparian vegetation on the Site and thereby reduce sediment loads to streams from stream
banks and existing pastures, increase on -Site retention of sediment and nutrients, create riparian
habitat, and provide shade for streams to reduce thermal loadings;
• Stabilize eroding streambanks to reduce sediment inputs;
• Install fencing around the perimeter of the conservation easement to eliminate livestock access
to streams, thereby reducing sediment, nutrient, and fecal coliform inputs;
• Plant restored and stabilized streambanks with native species to improve stability and habitat;
• Install instream structures to improve stability, create habitat, and help aerate stream flows;
• Raise streambeds to reconnect restored channels to floodplains and raise local water tables; and
• Restore streams and vegetation so the Site looks natural and aesthetically pleasing.
Stream Success Criteria: The stream restoration performance criteria for the Site will follow approved
performance criteria presented in the 2015 Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan as
described below.
Stream Dimension: Riffle cross -sections on the restoration reaches and enhancement II reaches, where
banks were re -graded (three reaches of Mud Lick Creek), should be stable and should show little change in
bankfull area, maximum depth, and width -to -depth ratio. Bank -height -ratios shall not exceed 1.2 and
entrenchment ratios shall be at least 2.2 for restored channels to be considered stable. All riffle cross -
sections should fall within the parameters defined for channels of the appropriate stream type. If any
changes do occur, these changes will be evaluated to assess whether the stream channel is showing signs
of instability. Indicators of instability include a vertically incising thalweg or eroding channel banks.
Changes in the channel that indicate a movement toward stability or enhanced habitat include a decrease in
2021 MY4 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Executive Summary page i
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)

the width -to -depth ratio in meandering channels or an increase in pool depth. Remedial action would not
be taken if channel changes indicate a movement toward stability.
Stream Pattern and Profile: The as -built survey will include a longitudinal profile for the baseline
monitoring report. Longitudinal profile surveys will not be conducted during the seven-year monitoring
period unless other indicators during the annual monitoring indicate a trend toward vertical and lateral
instability.
Substrate: Substrate materials in the restoration reaches should indicate a progression towards or the
maintenance of coarser materials in the riffle features and smaller particles in the pool features.
Hydraulics: Two bankfull flow events, in separate monitoring years, must be documented on the restoration
reaches and enhancement II reaches where banks were re -graded (three reaches of Mud Lick Creek) within
the seven-year monitoring period.
Vegetation Success Criteria: The final vegetative success criteria will be the survival of 210 planted
stems per acre in the riparian corridor along restored and enhanced reaches at the end of the required
monitoring period (year seven). The interim measure of vegetative success for the Site will be the survival
of at least 320 planted stems per acre at the end of the third monitoring year and at least 260 stems per acre
at the end of the fifth year of monitoring. If this performance standard is met by year five and stem density
is trending towards success (i.e., no less than 260 stems/acre), monitoring of vegetation on the Site may be
terminated with written approval by the USACE in consultation with the NC Interagency Review Team.
The extent of invasive species coverage will also be monitored and controlled as necessary throughout he
required monitoring period (seven years).
Photo Documentation: Photographs should illustrate the Site's vegetation and morphological stability on
an annual basis. Cross-section photos should demonstrate no excessive erosion or degradation of the banks.
Longitudinal photos should indicate the absence of persistent bars within the channel or vertical incision.
Grade control structures should remain stable. Deposition of sediment on the bank side of vane arms is
preferable. Maintenance of scour pools on the channel side of vane arms is expected.
Visual Assessments: Visual assessments should support performance standards as described above.
As per Sections 7.2 and 12.4 of the Mitigation Plan, physio-chemical and biological parameters were
included as part of specialized monitoring, depending on the data that could be obtained during the baseline
period. Monitoring of these parameters was for investigative purposes only and not tied to mitigation
success or credit. The sample size and variability of the pre -construction physio-chemical data was
inadequate for the purposes of post -construction comparison and therefore, these will not be monitored
moving forward. However, fish and macrobenthos will be monitored at the stations indicated in the asset
and monitoring features map (Figure 2, Appendix B).
Site Background: The Site is located in northwestern Chatham County, north of Siler City and northwest
of Silk Hope (Figure 1, Appendix B). The Site is located within United States Geological Survey (USGS)
Hydrologic Unit and Targeted Local Watershed 03030003070010 (North Carolina Division of Water
Resources Subbasin 03-06-12) of the Cape Fear River Basin. Prior to construction, the Site was used for
agricultural livestock production. The proposed project will improve water quality as well as provide
numerous ecological benefits within the Cape Fear River Basin. The project will help meet management
recommendations of the Upper Rocky River Local Watershed Plan by restoring a vegetated riparian buffer
zone, stabilizing eroding stream banks, and removing livestock from streams and riparian zones. These
activities will result in reduced nutrient, sediment, and fecal coliform inputs; improved aquatic and riparian
habitat, and other ecological benefits.
2021 MY4 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Executive Summary page ii
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)

Mitigation Components: Project mitigation efforts will generate 2832 Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs)
as the result of the following (Table 1, Appendix A & Figure 2, Appendix B).
• Restoration of 1215 linear feet of Site streams
• Enhancement (Level II) of 2426 linear feet of Site streams
Site design was completed in June 2015. Site construction occurred May 24—August 25, 2017 (final
walkthrough) and the Site was planted in February 2018. Completed project activities, reporting history,
completion dates, project contacts, and project attributes are summarized in Tables 1-4 (Appendix A). The
assets and credits in the report and shown in Table 1 are based upon approved as -built numbers as approved
by the IRT on 11/1/2018.
2021 MY4 Annual Monitoring Report (Final)
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)
Executive Summary page iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 METHODS.......................................................................................................................................1
2.0 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................5
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Background Tables
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Units
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Attributes Table
Appendix B. Visual Assessment Data
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View
Tables 5A-5C. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Appendix C. Vegetation Data
Table 7. Planted Woody Vegetation
Table 8. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species
Appendix D. Stream Geomorphology Data
Tables lOa-10c. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Tables l la-1 lf. Monitoring Data -Dimensional Data Summary
Cross-section Plots
Substrate Plots
Appendix E. Hydrology Data
Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
Appendix F. 2021 Fish Survey Report
Appendix G. Random Veg Transect Data
2021 MY4 Annual Monitoring Report (Final)
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)
Table of Contents page i

1.0 METHODS
Monitoring of restoration efforts will be performed for seven years, or until success criteria are fulfilled.
Monitoring is proposed for the stream channel and vegetation. In general, the restoration success criteria,
and required remediation actions, are based on the Stream Mitigation Guidelines (USACE et al. 2003).
Monitoring features are summarized in the following table and described below; monitoring features are
depicted on Figure 2 (Appendix B).
Monitoring Summary
Parameter Monitoring Feature I Quantity Frequency
Streams
Dimension
Cross -sections
7 riffles & 3 pools
annually
Substrate
Pebble counts
3 riffles
annually
Hydrology
Crest gauges
3
annually
Vegetation
Vegetation Plots
12
annually
Warranty Plots
10
MY1
Visual assessments
Entire Site
biannually
Exotic & nuisance species
Entire Site
annually
Project boundary
Entire Site
annually
Reference photographs
22
annually
Supplement I Monitoring
Biological
Macrobenthos
5 sites (Pre construction only)
3 sites (MY3, MY5, & MY7)
Fish
3 sites (Preconstruction only)
2 sites (MY4 & MY7)
Streams
The restored stream reaches are proposed to be monitored for geometric activity as follows.
• 7 permanent riffle cross -sections
• 3 permanent pool cross -sections
• 3 riffle pebble count samples for substrate analysis
• 3 stream crest gauges
The data will be presented in graphic and tabular format. Data to be presented will include 1) cross -
sectional area, 2) bankfull width, 3) average depth, 4) maximum depth, and 5) width -to -depth ratio.
Substrate analysis will be evaluated through pebble counts at three riffle cross -sections and data presented
as a D50 for stream classification and tracking purposes. The stream will subsequently be classified
according to stream geometry and substrate (Rosgen 1996). Significant changes in channel morphology
including bank -height -ratios and entrenchment ratios will be tracked and reported by comparing data to
asbuilt measurements in addition to each successive monitoring year. Annual photographs will include 22
fixed station photographs (12 vegetation plots and 10 cross -sections) (Appendix B). The Site contains three
stream crest gauges to assist with documentation of bankfull events. No bankfull events were documented
during monitoring year 4 (2021), lack of bankfull events is attributed to a relatively dry year and lack of
tropical systems that have historically trigged these events. A of total of five bankfull events have been
documented over the monitoring period to date (Table 12, Appendix E).
2021 MY4 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Page 1
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)

Year 4 cross-section 8 data are characterized by a bank height ratio of less than 1. Pool cross -sections (like
cross-section 8) are typically not monitored for bank -height -ratio because they are naturally sediment
storage and transport areas within a stream. This is apparent in review of the varying D.., and LBH values
exhibited by cross-section 8 throughout the monitoring period. Bank erosion has not been noted within or
adjacent to cross-section 8, and overall, the reach appears stable. Cross-section 2 has been characterized
by in increased bank height ratio for the past several monitoring years. This cross-section is located within
an Enhancement (Level II) reach of stream that has scoured in previous years; however, the scour appears
to have been minimized and the cross section has remained relatively consistent and stable for the past 3
monitoring years. All site cross -sections are meeting success criteria during year 4 (2021).
Two stream areas of concern were observed during monitoring year 4 (2021); both were documented during
previous monitoring years. Stream Area of Concern 91 is located along Mud Lick Creek R2 where
approximately 50 feet of the right bank and 20 feet of the left bank have eroded to the point of bank
sloughing. This area remains relatively unchanged from year 1 (2018); the establishment of dense
herbaceous vegetation and lack of high discharge events have allowed this area to continue to stabilize.
Stream Area of Concern #2 consists of scour and sloughing along an outer bend along Mud Lick Creek R3,
immediately downstream from cross-section 1. It was noted during year 4 (2021) that the material that had
sloughed from the bank was generally stable and herbaceous vegetation was vigorous. Both stream areas
of concern are located within enhancement II stream reaches; all stream reaches generating restoration
credit are stable throughout and functioning as designed. Stream areas of concern are depicted on Figure 2
in Appendix B.
Vegetation
Restoration monitoring procedures for vegetation health will monitor plant survival and species diversity.
After planting of the area was completed, 12 permanent vegetation plots were installed and monitored at
the Site; annual results are in Appendix C. Annual measurements of vegetation will consist of the
following.
• 10 plant warranty inspection plots (only MY I)
• 12 CVS vegetation plots
A photographic record of plant growth should be included in each annual monitoring report; baseline
photographs are included in Appendix B. During the first year, vegetation will receive a cursory, visual
evaluation on a periodic basis to ascertain the degree of overtopping of planted elements by nuisance
species. Subsequently, quantitative sampling of vegetation will be performed as outlined in the CVS-EEP
Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.2 (Lee et al. 2008) in late fall/early winter of the first
monitoring year and annually toward the end of the growing for the remainder of the monitoring period
until vegetation success criteria are achieved.
Locations of exotic and nuisance vegetation are documented and depicted on Figure 2 (Appendix B).
Year 4 (2021) stem count measurements for twelve permanent CVS plots indicate the planted stem density
across the Site is 300 planted stems per acre. Eight of the twelve individual CVS plots met success criteria
based on planted stems alone; however, when including naturally recruited stems of American sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis) the stem densities of plots 6 and 10 are above success criteria (Table 8, Appendix
Q. Plot 1 was one stem shy of success, likely due to herbaceous competition. Plot 11 was two stems shy
of success criteria. This plot is dominated by dense herbaceous vegetation and many natural recruits of
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua). Areas within the site remaining below success criteria are primarily
due to herbaceous competition with dense fescue (festuca spp.). There are several isolated areas of dense
2021 MY4 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Page 2
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)

sweetgum along North Branch R2 that are likely out competing more desirable tree species. During
vegetation data collection an abundance of deer browse was documented in all permanent CVS plots.
Additionally, several populations of dense Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and tree of heaven (Ailanthus
altissima) were observed scattered throughout the Site, these areas are relatively unchanged from previous
years. Invasive populations are depicted on Figure 2 (Appendix B). Overall, the site is trending towards
success. It is expected that desirable hardwood species recruits will continue to establish and planted stems
will continue to thrive.
Proiect Boundaries & Visual Assessments
Locations of any fence damage, vegetation damage, boundary encroachments, etc. will be documented and
included on mapping.
Visual assessments will be performed along all streams on a bi-annual basis during the seven-year
monitoring period. Problem areas will be noted such as channel instability (i.e. lateral and/or vertical
instability, in -stream structure failure/instability and/or piping, headcuts), vegetated buffer health (i.e. low
stem density, vegetation mortality, invasive species or encroachment), beaver activity, or livestock access.
Areas of concern will be mapped and photographed accompanied by a written description in the annual
report. Problem areas will be re-evaluated during each subsequent visual assessment.
During year 3 (2020) monitoring, onsite beaver activity was observed including a significant dam along
North Branch R3, a dam along Mud Lick Creek R2, and several smaller dams throughout the Site. In
response, on November 4, 2020, USDA trapped beaver and removed six dams. Beaver activity was not
observed during year 4 (2021) monitoring period.
Supplementary Monitoring
Supplemental monitoring will include biological monitoring in the Spring as follows.
• 3 benthos sampling sites (MY3, MY5, & MY7)
• 2 fish sampling sites (MY4 & MY7)
Additional parameters are being monitored for analytical purposes and are not tied to mitigation success
and associated credit releases. The primary criteria for indication of improvement for the benthos and fish
will be an increase of at least one bioclassification between the pre -con assessment and the post -con
monitoring. Richness and EPT metrics will be analyzed as well. Based on values tabulated on Habitat
Assessment Field Data Sheets, benthic macroinvertebrate habitat appears to be improving at the Site.
Overall values for the data sheets improved by 15 to 60 points. In addition, each independent variable on
the data sheets show improvement, except for channel modification. Biotic index (tolerance of a stream
benthic community) has not shown significant improvement, with station MLC-2 shifting from a Fairly
Poor to Very Poor designation. The other two stations appear to have biotic indices showing improving
water quality shifting from Poor to Fairly Poor. Fish sampling was conducted in May of 2021, there was a
slight improvement in the community from pre -construction sampling. The report is included in Appendix
F. A summary of benthic results including preconstruction Habitat Field Data Assessment Sheets and
Biotic Index values from laboratory analysis results is presented below.
2021 MY4 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Page 3
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)

Site
MLC-2
MLC-3
MLC-5
Habitat Assessment
Field Data Sheet Data
Precon
(2015)
MY 3
(2020)
Precon
(2015)
MY 3
(2020)
Precon
(2015)
MY 3
(2020)
Channel Modification
5
3
5
3
4
5
Instream Habitat
11
14
11
11
9
18
Bottom Substrate
3
8
3
11
1
11
Pool Variety
4
10
6
10
0
10
Riffle Habitats
7
14
7
10
0
16
Bank Stability and Veg
8
4
13
6
10
14
Light Penetration
7
7
7
7
2
2
Riparian Veg Zone Width
2
10
1
10
1 12
10
Total Score
47
70
53
68
26
86
Biotic Index
6.01
8.05
6.64
6.31
6.90
5.90
2021 MY4 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Page 4
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)

2.0 REFERENCES
Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation. Version 4.2. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Ecosystem Enhancement Program. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) 2015. Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site Final
Mitigation Plan.
Rosgen D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, Colorado.
Tetra Tech, 2005. Upper Rocky River Local Watershed Plan Preliminary Findings Report. Prepared for
the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA), North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), Natural Resources
Conservation Service (MRCS), and North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2003.
Stream Mitigation Guidelines. State of North Carolina.
2021 MY4 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Page 5
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)

Appendix A.
Background Tables
Table 1. Project Mitigation Components
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Attributes Table
2021 MY4 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Appendices
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)

2
o
E
°
> Y
O
c_
E
N
N C
L
m
�
3 E
C a7
L
C
a) a)
E C
�
�
L
U
� w
C C
0
O
Z
O O
O
E
°
W m
O
J O
>
M
O w
to
fA -
N
E°
m
0 0
m
fA C
3 E
E
Y
C
Y L
C U
Y
C
N
O
w
C
N
C
w
C
w
C
w
C Y
w
C
E
E
U
O
U
C
U
C
U
C
U
C
E
O
w
o
w
w
w U
w
U
N
w
C
`o
=
w
C
w
C
Y
w U
C J
ai
C
(D
C
LL
J O
C
C
C 'O
5
O
O U
a7
a7
a7 O
N
Z
a.N
a7
a
a
a 2'
a
c
o w
w O
U
N
N
O
CO
LO
O
(0M LO
N
CO
w
O
O
N_
7
CO
I-
M
O
O
7
COO
o
cco
V
c
o X
w O
LO
LO
_Lo.
U T _
N
N
d J
O
,u
O >
5 J
W
W
W
W
W
a)
r �
m x
co
co
CO
((00
(IO
N
((00
co
N O
M
in
N
7
LO
(0
I-
Q Ll
c �
O
C 0
_w d
N
co
ON
u)
O
M
(�
O
O
7
N
(O
m
(0
co
V
I-
� W
N
(m0
(f)
(w0
c0
N
V
w
c
co
O
co+
O
+
O
(n
O
(O
O
co
O
N
C
O
N
O
N
(0
M
co
co
co
O
M
O
W
O
O
ON
+O
ON
O
O
CO
MmwN
(O
O
co
M
w a)
E N
W L0
c0
M
N
(N
M
LO
O
lf)
M
LO
(N
c0
M
r-
� a)
� � d
c 0
O O
co
N
Y
Y
Y
c
c
c
U
U
U
U O. L
m
m
m
m
m
J
J
J
'o E
a c i °
z°
z°
z°
w
w
c
(0 �
d g N
� � U
c
z
c
a)
�
a7
�
O
O
C U
(0 a7
d
�
�
c
E w
m
�
�
N
U)
N
N
>
J
C
C
C
a
C
°
T
O
o
E
E
E
�
R
a7
a7
U
U
U
O
O
c
c
c
a7
N
0
L
fn
N
L
L
L
w
w
w
Q
a

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Mud Lick Creek (ID-93482)
Elapsed Time Since Grading Complete: 4 years 5 months
Elapsed Time Since Planting Complete: 3 years 11 months
Number of Reporting Years: 4
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Completion
Complete
or Delivery
Project Institution
--
February 13, 2013
Mitigation Plan
--
December 2015
404 Permit Date
--
March 25, 2016
Final Design — Construction Plans
--
June 2015
Construction
--
August 25, 2017
Bare Root; Containerized; and B&B Plantings for
February 2018
February 2018
the Entire Project Site
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0 Monitoring
July 2018
September 2018
Baseline)
Monitoring Year 1 2018 Document
December 2018
December 2018
Monitoring Year 2 (2019) Document
September 2019
January 2020
Monitoring Year 3 (2020) Document
September/October
January 2021
2020
Monitoring Year 4 (2021) Document
October 2021
January 2022
2021 MY4 Annual Monitoring Report (Final)
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)
Appendices

Table 3. Project Contact Table
Mud Lick Creek (ID-93482)
Designer
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (License No. F-0831)
312 West Millbrook Rd, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Angela N. Allen, PE 919 851-9986
Construction Plans and Sediment and
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (License No. F-0831)
Erosion Control Plans
312 West Millbrook Rd, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Angela N. Allen, PE 919 851-9986
Construction Contractor
North State Environmental, Inc.
2889 Lowery Street
Winston Salem, NC 27101
Michael Anderson 336 725-2010
Planting Contractor
North State Environmental, Inc.
2889 Lowery Street
Winston Salem, NC 27101
Stephen Joyce 336 725-2010
As -built Surveyors
Allied Associates, PA
4720 Kester Mill Road
Winston Salem, NC 27103
David Alley 336 765-2377
Baseline Data Collection
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
Grant Lewis [phone]
2021 MY4 Annual Monitoring Report (Final)
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)
Appendices

Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
Mud Lick Creek (ID-93482)
Project Information
Project name
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site
Project county
Chatham County, North Carolina
Project area (Acres)
11.2
Project coordinates lat/long)
35.8128°N, 79.4350°W
Planted Acres
9.6
Project Watershed Summary Information
Ph sio ra hic region
Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province
Project river basin
Cape Fear River Basin
USGS hydrologic unit (8 digit/14-
digit)
03030003/03030003070010
NCDWR Sub -basin
03-06-12
Project drainage area mil
3.64
% Drainage area impervious
< 1%
CGIA land use classification
Developed, Forested/Scrubland, Agriculture/Managed Herb., Open Water
Reach
Summary Information
Parameters
Mud Lick
Creek—
R1
Mud Lick
Creek—
R2
Mud Lick
Creek—
R3
North
Branch —
R1
North
Branch —
R2
East
Branch
Restored length linear feet
551
660
733
856
265
576
Valley confinement
Slightly confined - unconfined
Drainage area (acres/mil)
1747/2.73
2170/3.39
2330/3.64
236.8/0.37
416/0.65
172.8/0.27
Perennial (P), Intermittent (I)
P
P
P
P
P
P
NCDWR water quality
classification
WS-III, CA
Stream Classification (existing)
E4
C4
E4
E4
134c
134c
Stream Classification (proposed)
E4
C4
E4
C4
C4
C4
Evolutionary trend (Simon &
Hu
IV/V
IV/V
IV/V
IV
IV
IV
FEMA classification
AE
AE
AE
AE
AE
AE
Reg latory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the US — Section 404
Yes
Yes
SAW-2014-00736
Waters of the US — Section 401
Yes
Yes
SAW-2014-00736
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
No Effect —
CE Document
Historic Preservation Act
No
NA
CE Document
Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA/CAMA)
No
NA
NA
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes
Yes
Chatham County Floodplain
Development Permit # 14-001
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
NA
NA
2021 MY4 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Appendices
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Figure 1. Site Location
Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View
Tables 5A-5C. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Vegetation Plot Photographs
2021 MY4 Annual Monitoring Report (Final)
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)
Appendices

Site Location
•r,r f "' r'' 35.8128,-79.4350
- - t -
ti it
:dl
F ✓JY — �t
41
Silk Elope
421
i _�
c 1 Cvr t J M1 M1 f r
40
0 1 2 4 Siler.Cityf"
Miles -'
Directions from Silk Hope:
-Take Silk Hope -Liberty Road west for 4.1 miles
-Turn right on Siler City -Snow Camp Road; travel 0.2 mile
-The Site/farm entrance is located on the left/east side of the road
Axiom Environmental
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
[phone]
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
SITE LOCATION
MUD LICK CREEK MITIGATION SITE
DMS PROJECT NUMBER 93482
Chatham County, North Carolina
Dwn. by.
CLF
FIGURE
Date:
July 2018
Project:
12-004.22

7Go
)G
_
E
±
}�
|
\ \ \ \
\
\
\
\
/m >
\f0
& 0 k
k
o
0
0
0
0cn >
Rk 8)
o
0
0
0
j���
2E
/ /
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
$
�
'6
2]
0 0
o
0
0
0
'6
) t E
o
0
0
0
36A
_f§
]
§ E/
e
e
e
e
e
z
E M 0)
e
e
e
e
e
Z(n
�@
\;
){
][
-
-
}%
\
\46§
{
(
xw
*(
\
}\
\{
-
«
}(
\j
)0
-_
_
-
\z
o
_
2
-
),
&
_
/\ /)[ /
/
/
/
/\
/\
af
0
;
LU
0
�§
£
;
>
$
:
-
§ 3
�kj
�®
2
/K
�§d
w
w2

_
E
±
}�
|
\ \ \ \
\
\
\
\
/m >
\f0
& 0 k
k
o
0
0
0
0cn >
Rk 8)
o
0
0
0
j���
2E
/ /
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
$
�
'6
2]
0 0
o
0
0
0
'6
) t E
o
0
0
0
36A
_f§
]
§h
n
n
n
n
n
§
z
E M 0)
n
n
n
n
n
Z(n
�@
2
-
]
\;
){
E ][
-46-
}%
\
\46§
{
(
xw
*(
\
}\
\{
-
«
}(
S.
\j
)0
-
\z
o
_
2
-
),
&
_
/\ /)[ /
/
/
/
/\
/\
0
f
;
LU
0
�§
£
;
3
$
:
-
§ 3
�kj
�§d
w
w2

2
m
w\
_
E
±
}�
|
\ \ \ \
\
\
\
\
/m >
\f0
& 0 k
k
o
0
0
0
0cn >
Rk 8)
o
0
0
0
j���
2E
/ /
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
$
�
'6
2]
0 0
o
0
0
0
'6
) t E
o
0
0
0
36A
_f§
]
§§h
z
E M 0)
U)
U)
U)
U)
U)
Z(n
�@
2
-
]
\;
){
E ][
-46-
}%
\
\46§
{
(
xw
*(
\
}\
\{
-
«
}(
S.
\j
)0
-_
_
-
\0
th
_
),
&
co / ) [ /
/
/
/
/ \
/ \
0
f
;
k16
�§
£
;
>
$
C
:
-
§ 3
j
w
r
w
N
w
�kj
�®
2
/K
�§d
w
w2

M
M
/
/
/
/
/
\U
o
0
0
\
E ]
\
\
\
\
\k
Ego
0
0
]�
>)
o
k
o
k
/
)
)
/
S�
z
�
]
ME
°
2 ]
§
£/
3
3
§
/
0
)
)
)
k
i
�
m
J
%
o
R
d
k
2
|
2#
G
0
2
0
w
#
Ȥ2
+
o )
_
/
/
0
\k
°
E
]�
�)
}0
S%
!/
�
76
>
®
�
£/
o
3
o
k
/
)
/
\
a
§
0
§
o
)
§
-
}
ui
$

Mud Lick Creek Stream Restoration Site
MY-04 Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken August 2021
2021 MY4 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Appendices
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)

Mud Lick Creek Stream Restoration Site
MY-04 Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken August 2021
2021 MY4 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Appendices
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)

Appendix C.
Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7. Planted Woody Vegetation
Table 8. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species
2021 MY4 Annual Monitoring Report (Final)
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)
Appendices

Table 7. Planted Woody Vegetation
Mud Lick Creek Restoration Proiect W93482)
Species
Quantity
Green Ash (Fraxinus enns lvanica)
300
Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)
400
Eastern Redbud (Cercis canadensis)
400
Cottonwood (Po ulus deltoides)
300
River birch (Betula ni ra)
300
Hackbe (Celtis occidentalis)
300
Black Gum (N ssa s lvatica)
300
American Elm (Ulmus americana)
300
Eastem Ho hornbeam (Ostr a vir inica)
300
Elderberry (Sambucus s )
300
Black Locust (Robinia suedoaccia)
300
Silky Dogwood (Cornus ammomum)
300
Witch Hazel (Hamamelis vir inica)
550
Buttonbush (Ce halanthus occidentalis)
300
Persimmon (Diospyros vir iniana)
300
Ironwood (Car inus caroliniana)
400
Swamp Tupelo (N ssa bi ora)
100
Swamp Chestnut oak uercus michauxiz
100
Water oak uercus ni ra
100
Tulip Poplar Liridendron tuli i era
300
TOTAL
5950
2021 MY4 Annual Monitoring Report (Final)
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)
Appendices

F a
o�
N a
00
c
a
O
�
00
�
o
o -
m
�n ry
�
N a
00
o
m
m in
m
TT ry
m O
c
�
�
n
ry a
m
a ry
�
,N, d
v in
m
m o
a
ry a
n
m m
m
W
^'
�
o
o �
a
m
N d
00
m in
vi
a m
N
O
G
N
N
�
C
of
01
ry t0
o
o
N a
o
m
v n
m
ry
�
v
e+ o
y
m
�
V
ry
�
� a
o
m
m
m o
ry
m
ry
N d
00
m
7
o
m
n
m 77
m o
c
a
m
m
N
ry
0
m
o�
ui n
N d
00
o
m
77
m o
ry
o �
a oq
ry
O f0
�
ry
N d
00
o
v J
m
m o
a
LF
777 V
a
N
o
u
N
o V
o
fl-
N
�
: �, V
Q
a °J
a
v
y
•_ y
N
v v
v v
v v
v
v
v
v v
v v
v v
v v
v v
v v
v v
v
O
O
O
O
N
E�
�
O
Y
O
c
E E,
°°
a
a
°
m
z
u
o
_
c
.o
`° o
I
.�
=
_
p
_
Y
+•
v�
._
c
�, .•
ro a
o
t ro
a u
c
N N
t�i
i
+' O_
i
a
i 0
- �
a a
I
m
m V
v
V V
V V
V V
V o
LL
s
z z
o p
O

F a
0o H
ry m
a
in
c
a
m a
ry
,ti ry
m
ry m
m
o
7 7
o
ry
� y
m
n
m .+
c
a
^�
^'
c
m
m
�
77
} a
o
cVf
Q
c
c
a
of N
ry
m m
m m
m
N
ry m
ry ry
m N
l0 ry
N m
rv77
o
ry V
ry m
o �
a
ry
�
N
0
`. m
o
ry
m m
ry n
n
'+
a
ry
ry
rvw
7Fry
n
C
c
a
m
ry m
^�
^'
F
n
m
m
m
ry a
m
N
0
m
i
o
ry
ip
ry
a
ry m
ry
ry
m
m
o
� in
c
o
N
O H
�
�
o -
m
a
m in
n
77 m
N
O
pi p
c
y
m
�
N
V
a
Fl
O
of
of vl
�
•...
O H
w
t0
l0 of
D
_
O m
N
~ O
N
G
O
a
ce+
y
V Vf
'^
o
c
a
tp
tp o0
N
V
O
O H
�
a
O m
~
ry
N G
00
O
� J77
M
m O
a
70
ul W
�
O
N
fl'
N
O
U
: �, V
O V
o Q
a °J
v
�
y
•_ m
a
G
v v
9 9
v v
v v
9
v
9
v
9
v
v v
v v
v v
v v
v v
v v
v v
9
v
9
N
N V
N
N
i
O
o
Y
o
_
N
i 9
N
E
o
o
O
O
Z
E
O
O
E
9
t
u O
i
L 9
m
t O_
e
C
E
v
p'
Y
9
c
O
Y
vE
7 O
N
c
E
v a
c
`_
9 .c
°'
9
V
c
V
v E
Y
Y
E E,
a
E
Y
v`°
a
v
a
�°
°°
a°
v
-
a
a
Y
a
a
9° v
v'
t
v
nn 9
t
v o
3
9
°
E
=
E
m
u
o
c
.o
`° o
c
=
_
o
_
Y+•
v E._.-c
�, .•
roa
o
t roa
u
c
9
-
-
o'
Nf
C
?
vi
t0 N
9
>
vi
vi p
c
N N-
tUi
v�O_
a
a a
o
ro ro
i-
E
E
E Y
9
ml m
m V
V V
V V
V V
V o
LL
s
z z
O a
a0 O
3
O O
o
z0 >
o p
O

Appendix D.
Stream Geomorphology Data
Tables lOa-10c. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Tables l la-11£ Monitoring Data -Dimensional Data Summary
Cross-section Plots
Substrate Plots
2021 MY4 Annual Monitoring Report (Final)
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)
Appendices

O
m m
m m
m
m m
m
L
a
k
_
G
G
L
r
G
y
S�OYY
�
9
ty
A
a
b�0 U
A
G
N
A
k
M
N
O
'may
/•
00
O b
o v,
r. r.
O
00 zt.
R
iYl
G
O
W
N
N
O
G
L
R
�i
5m
�000�
N�o
O
0
�
A
a
M
N
y7
N
O
�
m
G
pp
R
A
N
O
In
k
W
Qi
W
U
R
O
I -a
O
Q Q
h
W
24 O
24
3
a a
a
ro
°�'
a.
U>
w
o
CQ
CQ
E
R
°
aa�F•
p��
R
��
�a
w
ro
R
�
G
O
�
�
R
F•
O
9
�i
Pr
Pr
F
Q'

G
N N
N N
N
N N
N
s
L
q
s
G
NNR
bL
G
R
Z'
O
O
S
R
y�
L
N �
q
o
q
q
�
o
/•
iYl
G
O
W
N 0
(J
O
O
L
�
�i
O
O
s
`o
q
v,
L
�
N
R
V
N
bL
Y,
k
a
W
U
R
O
a
IflHil
�
W
d
.�
Hil
�
77777�+
wWWv
77777
w w�+
~ W
W "
yC�
N
Q�i
Q�i
ywN�' ,
�
ttl
O
a
t3
R
G
O
�
�
F•
R
O
9
q
a
a
F

G
N N
N N
N
N N
N
s
G
R
q
�
G
R
bL
G
G
C
O
R
�
O
R
v
O
O
�
p
vl
W O
m m
N
�
[n N
•�
N
0
q
h
q
O
Y
G
N
G
R
C.
O
0
s
G
q
�
L
k
R
R
G
N N
9
O
U
p
G
k
W
0.i
W
7
U
o
,W7
C4
.a
a
U
.�
•o
k,
o
G
��
o
p C
y
' '�
� o
0
R
p,
O
X b
R

IIIIII■III
illlll■III
IIIIII■,91
111101■�01
111119■�19
illlll■III
IIIIII■III
111199■,19
111199■�19
111101■iB0
111099■,II
111191■,19
IIIIII■�91
IIIII
I��
9�
IIIII
IIIII
i11�11191
�I�
III
i11�11991
�I�
III
�II�11111
�I�
IIIII
IIIII
IIIII
IIIII
111
�II�IIIII
�I�
III
�II�IIIII
�I�
III
,11�11191
�I�
III
�Ilmlllll
�I�
IIIII
IIIII
IIIII
IIIII
111
M1N11191
�I�
III
illIIlllll
IIIII
III
�11�11119
�I�
111
IIIII
IIIII
IIIII
IIIII
�11,11191
�I�
III
�@I�19191
�I�
III
ill�lllll
�I�
111
�II�11111
�I�
111
�II�11111
�I�
IIIII
IIIII
IIIII
IIIII
11111
11111111
III
�II�IIIII
�I�
III
i11,10991
IIIII
III
,II�1i991
�I�
111
MINOR
IIIII

illlll■III
IIIIII■,il
191111■,II
IIIIII■III
�IIIII'�II
IIIIII■III
IIIIII■,II
191910■,II
IIIIII■,II
illlll■III
IIIIII■III
IIIIII
BI
IIIIIIIIII
191BII■,II
IIIIII'
��
a:.
,II,11111
�I�
III
�I
�II�IIIII
�I�
IIIII
III
�I
,II,@IIII
IIIII
�I
il1i11191
�I�
III
�I
11111111
MIlfs�l��
MI,11111
IIIII
IIIII
�I
0111111111
III
�I
III!@@III
IIIII
11111
�11,11991
�I�
III
III
�I
i11�11901
�I�
�I
ill�lllll
�I�
III
�I
�91lIIBII
�I�
III
�I
III
III,@IIII
�I�
�I
,IIlB9BII
�I�
III
�I
0111111111
11111
111

IIIIII■III
IIIIII■III
IIIIII■,II
111199■�00
IIIIIBI
�asoov.�'o
1911111
!I
IIIIIIIIII
�asvoo.�'�
111190■,BI
I�I��'II
e`e
ez
e
a
5 a
z z
�iioiiiiioioiiiii
iii
,II,11111
�I�
IIIII
IIIII
IIIII
�����
IIIII
III
�II�IIIII
�I�
III
i11,90101
�I�
III
��IIIIIII
��0
���
i91,10991
�I�
III
�II,11111
�I�
IIIII
IIIII
�����
IIIII
IIIII
111
�II�IIIII
�I�
III
�II�I�II�
��0
���
�II�IIIII
�I�
III
,91�11991
�I�
III
,II,11111
�I�
IIIII
�����
IIIII
IIIII
IIIII
111
��I��II��
��0
���
�I1i01191
�I�
III
ill�lllll
�I�
III
�91�09111
�I�
111
�����
IIIII
IIIII
IIIII
IIIII
���f�l���
0�0
���
�II�11111
�I�
III
�IIm09991
�I�
III
ill�lllll
�I�
111
�Il,11191
�I�
111
�II,11111
�I�
IIIII
IIIII
niii
niii
�����
III
�II�IIIII
�I�
III
��e�aan'
�i�
ni
,0"0000'
�i�
ni
'�If���ll
0�0
���

O
+3
l0
C� O
I
I
I
O
�
V
O
e
�
O
$y
rL
V
G
O
O
a
N
L�
CC
�Q
L
�
O
a
:r
w
U_
V
N U
OW
in
M V r- N 00 N 0 O W O 00 W r M W
•�
•
I� W M to O V M 00 I� W V 02. N I- O O
W
lC � �
•w OM � °� --� °� W Vl --i l0 l� l� M l� l0 °� l�
W�yy
ILL A A W
�
o
0
�1
�I
�I
'1
1
'1
1
'1
1
1
'1
1
'1
1
'1
1
�I
1
'1
1
�1
1
�I
1
�1
1
I'
1
1
�1
1
�1
1
n
1
u
1
�I
�I
1

a
I
I
M
Ij
G
O
0
0
W ;w
U
M
�
'b
O
F
o
W
N
tl
s,
U
3
0
;w
a
w
w
x
°J
o0 h
01 01 01
�c
01 01 01 01
to
`� N
W
(;aafi U011DA01a
.a
0
U
in
C O W S O Ln V 0 0 0 M O 0 M 0 M
•
O 00 V N N O M Ln M M— O 00 I— 'IT
C
00 00 00 I- 0 o M M M M I-Lo CO I— r
W 0-) 0-) 0-) 0-) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0-)W
W
•�
y 'Z' A � y ^O
O� O��� N N N N N N OM M�
�
�y �'C
V A A W
�
o
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
I,
1
1/
1
1
1
1
�
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
I1
1
1
1
1
I1
I1
1
1
1

��^�NzzNN�zzz
�
o
0
I�
II
II
II
1
II o
l
1
1
I'
1
1
�
O
Z
0
O
M
'
1
I
�
I
U
1
c�
1
a
I I
'
b
o
I
s,
1
1
a
1
'
w
a
�
1
U
�
1
1
1
1
0
0
0,
oo
(;aa� uoe�nnapg

� skin
�
i
c o
H
< a
'u
U
Z
s.
CQ
0
Z
m
L
uo
�Q
L
CC
U
�
�z o
0
N U
Now
(1aafi u01 D wl y
awi
0
U�Co��
N N - M I- 00 Lo Lo O CO N O LO 00 I— O 00 LO
•�
•
CO O I- LO M O LO LOO O 00 O MO V I—O
00 00 00 00 00 00 I� r CO r CO M r r 00 00 00 00 O
W
� � 3
�000No�v�,��,000
I
�y ,
W .1A A W
�o
z�
O
0
l l l l
i i
{11
�
1
j1
11
1
t�
1
1�
11
1
1

�°°�NzzNN�zzz
�
o
0
WW
�
r�ii

U
F�
U
�z
U
N N
0°,,

a;
r a a^
*
r-
�4
C
Gi
l
sue.
CA
U
x, w
o
U
U
N N
0
•p
� N � O O Ln � 00 V M M V CO
� V I� O 00
I� O
W
�
�y
ILL A A W
00
��0000
O
M
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
0
_
u
1
iMM.,l
FBI
as
'
1
W
'
'
I 1
�
1
1
1
�1
u
1
1
�
1
1
u
1
1 0
1
1
�
1
1
•�
1
1
y
�
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
�
1
�1
�
C�
1
1
�
1
1
1
�1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0, oo �
o, o,
(;aafi u0e1nn01g

\\\r**g7t***
a22m--222
\
k
)
{
)
d
Q§-=G4¥-=•
a2
\))\))))jk/j)

N
o,�ooNoo��o�z
o0
O
�
o
aw��3
0
0
=rr'�;a
3w�
co CO LO 001001-o1o',20 o
rnrnrn�
�I� NIM �I� \O I00 OIM IN I4
N N N N
M
a e
1 1 ,
L
�
�
N
W
'
U
L
U
,
�
�
�
1 /
r
a
�
�
a
w
a
,
,
0 0
0
o
0
(100fi
U011nn01a

�o
,a
6
}
tr
F
s.
17C
;w
~
V
U
O
CQ
;w
a
o
w
�
U_
a
V
N
O NO
ct
(1aafi U011DA01g
0
in
O O O Lo 0 0 I— O N O 0 00 I- O
•�
•�
00 O 00 M N 00 00 CO 00 Ln N O r
N N
I� W CO Ln V M M M M Ln CO r W
O O
W
O �
••" � � O M � � vNi � M o0 cn 0�0 OM
�
N �
N
�
M M
�y 'YC
W V A A W
�
0
a
1
1
1
1
1
�1
1
1
1
�1
1
1
1
�1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
�1
1
II
1
1
1
1
II
1
1
1
II
1
1
1
II
1
1
1
�1
1
1
�1
1
1
1
1
�1
1
1
�1
1
1
1
1
�1
1
1
�1
1
1
1
�1
1
1
1
�1
1
1
1
�1
1
1
1
�1
1
1
1
�1
1
1
II
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

n
�b
Or
n�
°r
rrS
c�
9S,
/ly
i
U
Cf.
r
�
n o
r
S
O
S�
S
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
[uz=d
sw[D
IunPNTPul
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N a N N oo a a, w o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
U
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O
7 N O N 0 O O O O C, O 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0I
O
F
L
1
� q
3
4' R
O �
0
0

%
§
(
«
|
l
z §
§
§
/
\ |
\ }
w
` )
)
\ \ §
\
)) |
®
c
/
/
j
NJ
`
_a_alunP
_,
_*__a
cr�aasssssssssss
cz
-
-
-zz
umrrr
d
d
d
I
1
d
ems=
®cc,
«t§
)
2%z@99e9mZ°2©-=7a°g©77IS,
`
%%
\
�
\\
)
\
)
§
)
=z
=
=w

�l
l�
E
d'
E
DUI
2IS'
O�
2�
JS
�
8r
�j
E9
N
Sh
❑p
p �
�
N
o
N
p>
m
sI c7,
iC
■
�S
E
j
t
S ■
O
S1
c�
Is
S
j.
O
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
G
o 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
{II2�12d
2AI�E�iIIllR�
luz3]zd
s mID tunPuTPII[
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
c
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E
�O
7
�O
N
o0
00
7
0o
N
N
�O
O
o0
7
�O
IO
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
7
--i
N
N
M
M
7
Vi
Vi
�O
h
h
o0
00
01
01
01
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
o
0
0
0
O
o
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
c
O
O
p
�O
c
7
7
7
7
m
�O
N
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
R
O
o7
7
--i
M
M
Vi
M
N
N
Vi
N
N
7
M
—
O
d
0
0
0
0
F
�
s
N
R
O a
7
d
N
p
3
4'
O
R
�
0
0

Appendix E.
Hydrology Data
Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
2021 MY4 Annual Monitoring Report (Final)
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)
Appendices

Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
Mud Tick Greek Restoration Site (DMS Proiect No. 93482)
Date of Data
Date of
Method
Photo (if
Collection
Occurrence
available)
December 6, 2018
October 16-17,
Observations throughout floodplain and crest gauge indicate
1, 2
2018
a bankfull event after 4.61 inches of rain fell over 48 hours.
Observation of wrack in floodplain along North Branch R2
May 8, 2019
February 24, 2019
and crest gauge data from all site crest gauges indicate a
3
bankfull event after 2.27 inches of rain fell over 48 hours.
Observation of wrack on Mud Lick Creek R2 floodplain
September 18, 2019
July 24, 2019
fences and crest gauge data from all site crest gauges indicate
4
a bankfull event after 3.02 inches of rain fell over 48 hours.
Observations of wrack throughout site along all stream
May 29, 2020
February 7, 2020
reaches, and crest gauge data from all site crest gauges
5, 6, 7
indicate a bankfull event after approximately 3.59 inches of
rain fell over 24-hour period.
Observations of wrack throughout site along all stream
November 16, 2020
November 12, 2020
reaches, and crest gauge data from all site crest gauges
8,9
indicate a bankfull event after approximately 4.60 inches of
rain fell over 48-hour period.
Photo-3
.11 t
2021 MY4 Annual Monitoring Report (Final)
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)
Appendices

r °S�
Photo-7
2021 MY4 Annual Monitoring Report (Final)
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)
Appendices

a1 it
k tom.
't�:i• �k 1!"`. �'� >E}

Appendix F.
2021 Fish Survey Report
2021 MY4 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Appendices
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)

Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site Monitoring:
Year 04 Fish Community Sampling
Chatham County, North Carolina
Mud Lick Creek Reach I MY-04
Prepared for:
Environmental
Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
217 West Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
July 12, 2021

Prepared By:
Three Oaks Engineering
324 Blackwell Street, Suite 1200
Durham, NC 27701

Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................1
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTIONS....................................................................................................1
3.0 FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLING.................................................................................2
3.1 Fish Community Sampling Methods...........................................................................2
3.1.1 Field Methods....................................................................................................... 3
3.1.2 Water Chemistry ................................................................................................... 3
3.1.3 Habitat Assessment............................................................................................... 3
4.0 RESULTS........................................................................................................................ 3
4.1 Reach 1 Mud Lick Creek............................................................................................. 3
4.2 Reach 2 Mud Lick Creek............................................................................................. 5
4.3 Reach 3 North Branch.................................................................................................. 6
4.4 Water Chemistry ..........................................................................................................6
4.5 Habitat Assessment Scores........................................................................................... 7
5.0 DISCUSSION..................................................................................................................7
6.0 LITERATURE CITED.................................................................................................... 9
Appendix A. Figures:
Figure 1: Project Vicinity & Survey Reach
Appendix B. Data Forms:
Fish Community Habitat Assessment Data Sheets

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (The Site) is a North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) project designed to restore
and enhance a total of 3,750 linear feet (LF) of perennial stream in Chatham County, NC.
The Site is located in the Upper Rocky River Watershed within Cape Fear River Basin
Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03030003 (Cape Fear 03) and within the Upper Rocky River
local watershed planning area (LWP) identified as a priority for mitigation. Restoration and
enhancement activities have been performed on Mud Lick Creek and two unnamed tributaries
referred to as North Branch and East Branch. Three Oaks Engineering (Three Oaks) was
retained in 2015 to evaluate the baseline condition of these streams and conducted water
quality monitoring, benthic macroinvertebrate community sampling, and fish community
sampling within the Site. Following restoration, Three Oaks was tasked with conducting fish
community sampling in monitoring years (MY) 04 and 07.
This report details MY-04 fish community results conducted May 18, 2021.
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTIONS
Fish community sampling was conducted in Mud Lick Creek (Reach 1 and 2) and a
qualitative survey was conducted in North Branch.
Mud Lick Reach 1 (MLDN encompassing Baseline Site 3). This reach is located just
upstream of the Silk Hope Liberty Road crossing. Stream width ranged from three to six
meters (m), with an average depth of .15 m and a max depth of .75 m in pools. Banks were
between .75 and 1.5 m with moderate erosion in portions of the reach. The creek was
characterized by low velocity flow with limited riffle and run habitat present. Instream habitat
such as woody debris, leaf packs, snags and undercut banks were common. Substrate
consisted primarily of silt and sand, with areas of gravel and cobble associated with riffle and
run habitats. The riparian zone consisted of grasses, shrubs and scattered mature trees creating
a partial canopy. Active pastureland borders the enclosed riparian conservation area.
Mud Lick Reach 2 (MLWC and MLUP encompassing Baseline Site 2). Mud Lick Creek
Site 1 is the most upstream site sampled for the project. Stream width ranged between two and
five m, with an average depth of .25 m and a maximum depth of .75 m in pools. Bank height
ranged between one and two m high with moderate erosion observed throughout the reach.
The creek was characterized primarily by a run with some areas of pool and riffle. Log veins,
added through restoration efforts, have created additional riffle habitat. In stream habitat
consisted of woody debris, leaf packs, snags and undercut banks. Restoration has also added
macrophytes, present throughout the reach. Substrate was comprised primarily of silt, sand
and gravel. Significant algal growth was noted throughout the reach. The riparian zone
consisted primarily of grasses and shrubs with scattered mature and immature trees providing
some canopy cover of the reach. Active pasture borders the riparian zone with fencing
providing a barrier.
Mud Lick Creek W-04 Fish Monitoring Report 1 July 2021

Site 3 (NBDN). Site 3 is located just upstream of North Branch's confluence with Mud Lick
Creek on North Branch. The stream ranged from 0.75 to 1.5 m wide with banks .3 to one m
high. The reach has been restored with log veins within the stream channel creating some
riffle and pool structure; maximum water depth was .3 m. Substrate consisted mostly of silt
and sand with some gravel and cobble present. Matting and revegetation on the banks was
observed, erosion was minimal within the reach. The riparian zone consisted of grasses and
shrubs. Similar to Reach 1 and 2, the riparian zone was bordered by active pasture.
3.0 FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLING
The freshwater fish populations in the Cape Fear River Basin have been sampled extensively
over the years and 95 species have been recorded (Rhode et al. 1994, Menhenick 1991). The
health and diversity of the fish fauna is reflective of the water quality of a particular water
body and monitoring of the fish fauna is a useful tool in tracking and understanding water
quality trends over time.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Resources
(NCDWR) has developed a method of assessing water quality by establishing an Index of
Biotic Integrity rating, which is based upon the evaluation of the fish community of a
particular water body. The evaluation results in a numerical score, which is called the North
Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI). The NCIBI evaluates 12 metrics (parameters)
pertaining to species richness and composition, trophic composition, and fish abundance and
condition. Each metric value is converted into a score of 1, 3, or 5, with 5 representing
conditions expected for a relatively undisturbed reference stream in the specific river basin or
ecoregion (NCDENR 2013). The NCIBI score translates to biodiversity ratings of Excellent,
Good, Good -Fair, Fair and Poor. Currently, Excellent, Good, or Good -Fair ratings indicate
that the stream is Fully Supporting its Aquatic Life Use Support classification. A Fair or Poor
rating is Not Supporting its Life Use Support stream classification and the water quality
standard is not being met.
The study area is within the Outer Piedmont of the Cape Fear River Basin ecoregion for
which NCIBI reference indices have been established. These reference indices are needed in
order to apply the NCIBI protocol to a given waterbody. In addition, protocol collection
methodology and data analysis must be strictly followed.
The purpose of applying the NCIBI methodology is not solely to compare scores generated at
each of the monitoring sites with other streams in the reference ecoregion, but also to compare
scores generated at the monitoring sites overtime to monitor changes in fish community
composition in response to natural or human -induced factors.
3.1 Fish Community Sampling Methods
Fish community surveys were conducted on May 18, 2021 by the Three Oaks team of Tom
Dickinson (NC Wildlife Resources Commission Permit 21-SFC00057), Lizzy-Stokes Cawley,
and Nathan Howell.
Mud Lick Creek W-04 Fish Monitoring Report 2 July 2021

3.1.1 Field Methods
A standard 600 linear feet of stream were surveyed with backpack electrofishing equipment
and dip nets at each of the three sites in Mud Lick Creek. Survey methodology, data analysis,
and interpretation (scoring) essentially follow procedures outlined in Standard Operating
Procedures Biological Monitoring Stream Fish Community Assessment (NCDENR 2013).
3.1.2 Water Chemistry
Water chemistry was measured at each site in conjunction with fish sampling using a YSI-Pro
Plus multiparameter water quality meter. Parameters measured were temperature, dissolved
oxygen, conductivity, and pH (Table 6).
3.1.3 Habitat Assessment
The habitat assessment method developed by NCDWR was used to evaluate the physical
structure and conditions of the stream and surrounding area. Parameters are numerically rated
based on current stream conditions and include land use, stream width and depth, bank
structure and stability, instream habitat, substrate, habitat, and riparian zone attributes. A total
of 12 parameters are individually allotted scores with a possible maximum score for a site of
100 (Table 7).
4.0 RESULTS
Five species of fish were collected during the MY-04 survey efforts. The survey results and
associated IBI scoring are provided below by site.
4.1 Reach I Mud Lick Creek
A total of 1,894 seconds of electro-shocking time was used during the 2021 surveys.
Table 1. Reach 1 Species List
Baseline
MY-04
May 6, 2015
May 18, 2021
Scientific Name
Common
Tolerance
Tropic
Count
# of Size
Count
# of Size
Name
Rating
Guild
Classes
Classes
Gambusia holbrooki
Eastern
Tolerant
Insectivore
115
6
10
2
Mos uitofish
Lepomis cyanellus
Green sunfish
Tolerant
Insectivore
15
5
95
7
Lepomis
Bluegill
Intermediate
Insectivore
—
—
4
2
macrochirus
Micropterus
Largemouth
Intermediate
Piscivore
—
1
1
salmoides
Bass
Notemigonus
Golden shiner
Tolerant
Omnivore
—
9
2
cr soleucas
Table 2. NCIBI Score Mud Lick Creek Reach 1
Mud Lick Creek MY-04 Fish Monitoring Report 3 July 2021

Baseline
ay 6, 2015
MY-04 May 18, 2021
Metric/score criteria
Site Metric #
SitS oreric
Site Metric #
SitS orec
No. of species
2
1
5
1
> 16 species = 5
10-15 species = 3
<10 species = 1
No. of fish
130
1
119
1
> 225 fish = 5
150-224 fish = 3
<150 fish = 1
No. of species of darters
0
1
0
1
> 3 species = 5
1-2 species = 3
0 species = 1
No. of species of sunfish
1
1
2
1
> 4 species = 5
3 species = 3
0-2 species = 1
No. of species of suckers
0
1
0
1
> 3 species = 5
1-2 species = 3
0 species = 1
No. of intolerant species
0
1
0
1
> 3 species = 5
1-2 species = 3
0 species = 1
% of tolerant individuals
100%
1
95.8%
1
<35%=5
36-50% = 3
>50% = 1
% of omnivorous and herbivorous individuals
0%
1
7.6%
1
10-35% = 5
36-50% = 3
>50% or <10% = 1
% of insectivorous individuals
100%
1
91.6%
1
65-90% = 5
45-64% = 3
<45% or >90% = 1
% of piscivorous individuals
0.0%
1
0.1 %
1
1.4-15% = 5
0.4-1.3% = 3
<0.4% or >15% = 1
% of diseased fish
0.00%
5
0.00%
5
<1.75% = 5
1.76-2.75% = 3
>2.75% = 1
% of species with multiple age groups
100%
5
80.0%
5
>50% = 5
35-49% = 3
<35% = 1
NCIBI Score
20 Poor
20 (Poor)
Mud Lick Creek W-04 Fish Monitoring Report 4 July 2021

4.2 Reach 2 Mud Lick Creek
A total of 1,865 seconds of electro-shocking time was used in 2021 surveys.
Table 3. Reach 2 Species List
Baseline May 6,
MY-04 May 18,
2015
2021
Common
Tolerance
Tropic
# of Size
# of Size
Scientific Name
Count
Count
Name
RatingGuild
Classes
Classes
Gambusia
Eastern
Tolerant
Insectivore
60
6
22
4
holbrooki
Mos uitofish
Lepomis cyanellus
Green Sunfish
Tolerant
Insectivore
18
9
46
9
Lepomis
Bluegill
Intermediate
Insectivore
—
—
2
1
macrochirus
Notemigonus
Golden shiner
Tolerant
Omnivore
10
2
cr soleucas
Table 4. NCIBI Score Mud Lick Creek Reach 2
Baseline
ay 6, 2015
MY-04 May 18, 2021
Metric/score criteria
Site Metric #
SitS orec
Site Metric #
Metr
SitS orec
No. of species
2
1
4
1
> 16 species = 5
10-15 species = 3
<10 species = 1
No. of fish
78
1
80
1
> 225 fish = 5
150-224 fish = 3
<150 fish = 1
No. of species of darters
0
1
0
1
> 3 species = 5
1-2 species = 3
0 species = 1
No. of species of sunfish
1
1
2
1
> 4 species = 5
3 species = 3
0-2 species = 1
No. of species of suckers
0
1
0
1
> 3 species = 5
1-2 species = 3
0 species = 1
No. of intolerant species
0
1
0
1
> 3 species = 5
1-2 species = 3
0 species = 1
% of tolerant individuals
100%
1
97.5%
1
<35%=5
36-50% = 3
>50% = 1
% of omnivorous and herbivorous individuals
0.0%
1
12.5%
5
10-35% = 5
Mud Lick Creek MY-04 Fish Monitoring Report 5 July 2021

Baseline
ay 6, 2015
MY-04 May 18, 2021
Metric/score criteria
Site Metric #
SitS orec
Site Metric #
SitS orec
36-50% = 3
>50% or <10% = 1
% of insectivorous individuals
100%
5
87.5%
5
65-90% = 5
45-64% = 3
<45% or >90% = 1
% of piscivorous individuals
0.0%
1
0.0%
1
1.4-15% = 5
0.4-1.3% = 3
<0.4% or >15% = 1
% of diseased fish
1.28%
5
1.25%
5
<1.75% = 5
1.76-2.75% = 3
>2.75% = 1
% of species with multiple age groups
100%
5
75%
5
>50% = 5
35-49% = 3
<35% = 1
NCIBI Score
20 Poor
28 (Poor)
4.3 Reach 3 North Branch
A short qualitative survey was conducted in North Branch in which three species were
identified.
Table 5. Site 3 Species List
Scientific Name
Common Name
Tolerance Rating
Tropic Guild
Count
Gambusia holbrooki
Eastern Mosquitofish
Tolerant
Insectivore
Common
Lepomis cyanellus
Green Sunfish
Tolerant
Insectivore
Common
Micro terns salmoides
Largemouth Bass
Intermediate
Piscivore
Rare
4.4 Water Chemistry
Water chemistry data measured during the fish sampling are listed in Table 6.
Table 6. Physicochemical data collected -Mud Lick Creek
Baseline May 6, 2015
MY-04 May 18, 2021
Parameter
Reach 1
(Site 3)
Reach 2
(Site 2)
Reach 1
Reach 2
Water Temp (C)
15.5
16.4
15.4
17.6
pH
7.40
6.56
6.31
6.51
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) (mg/L)
8.20
8.75
5.82*
12.20*
Specific Conductivity (uS/cm)
89.3
91.8
117.4
111.7
*Dissolved Oxygen was resampled on May 241 due to DO YSI malfimction May 181
Mud Lick Creek MY-04 Fish Monitoring Report 6 July 2021

4.5 Habitat Assessment Scores
Habitat scores were determined using the Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet for Mountain/
Piedmont Streams (NCDENR 2013) and are shown in Table 7 and Appendix B. These visual -
based habitat evaluation scores consist of eight parameters that rate channel modification, in -
stream habitat, bottom substrate, pool variety, riffle habitats, bank stability and vegetation,
light penetration, and riparian vegetation zone width for each sampling reach. A numerical
score is used to rate each parameter and the total score gives a relative measure of overall
habitat quality.
Table 7. Habitat assessment scores -Mud Lick Creek Fish Sam ling Sites
Baseline May 6, 2015
W-04 May 18, 2021
Reach 1
(Site 3)
Reach 2
(Site 2)
Reach 1
Reach 2
Highest Possible Score
1. Channel Modification
4
5
4
4
5
2. Instream Habitat
10
16
15
16
20
3. Bottom Substrate
8
4
4
4
15
4. Pool Variety
4
8
4
8
10
5. Riffle Habitats
3
7
3
3
16
6. Bank Stability and Vegetation
7
2
5
5
14
7. Light Penetration
2
2
7
2
10
8. Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
4
0
8
8
10
Total
42
44
50
50
100
5.0 DISCUSSION
These efforts provide current fish community and habitat data for Mud Lick Creek in two
distinct reaches as well as qualitative data for North Branch. The data documents stressed fish
communities in both reaches, with Mud Lick Branch Reach 1 scoring 20 (poor) and Reach 2
receiving a score of 28 (poor). NCIBI scores were similar to baseline results in which Reach I
(Site 3) scored 20 (poor) and Reach 2 (Site 2) scored 20 (poor). Fish counts were similar for
Reach I and 2 compared to the baseline, however, species richness increased, with five
species recorded in Reach I and four in Reach 2 during MY-04 efforts; only two species were
captured during the baseline efforts at each site. Additional species detected in MY-04
included Largemouth Bass, Bluegill and Golden Shiner. However, the tolerant Eastern
Mosquitofish and the non-native Green Sunfish were the most prevalent species detected in
the three reaches.
Water quality parameters measured were temperature, pH, DO, and conductivity.
Temperature, DO, pH, and conductivity readings were within the normal range of conditions
for streams. The high dissolved oxygen levels observed in Reach 2 are likely influenced by
the presence of algae in the reach that are contributing to fluxes in DO as a result of
photosynthesis occurring during daylight hours.
Mud Lick Creek W-04 Fish Monitoring Report 7 July 2021

The rated stream habitat field assessment parameters were channel modification, in -stream
habitat, bottom substrate, pool variety, riffle habitats, bank stability and vegetation, light
penetration, and riparian vegetation zone width. Following restoration overall habitat scores
improved in both reaches. Reach 1 saw moderate improvement for instream habitat from
baseline scores as undercut banks, snags and logs were common throughout the reach. Pool
variety and riffle habitat in Reach 1 and Reach 2 scored the same as baseline values. Stream
restoration activity has created more structure for instream habitat through placement of log
veins and macrophyte plantings. Instream restoration was more apparent in Reach 2 and North
Branch where an increase in habitat and riffle and pool was noted. Growth of mature trees
provided additional stream shading and increased scores for light penetration in Reach 1.
Scores for both Reach 1 and Reach 2 increased from baseline for riparian vegetative zone
width as the exclusion of grazing cattle, and tree and shrub plantings has allowed for a
riparian buffer to be established in all assessed reaches. Reach I scored a 50 in MY-04
surveys, an improvement from baseline survey score of 42. Reach 2 scored 50 in MY-04
surveys, an improvement from baseline survey score of 44. The score is on a 100-point scale,
with 100 indicating highest quality stream habitat.
These efforts provide monitoring data for comparison to previous baseline efforts. While the
assessment indicates a stressed fish community, there is potential for future improvement as
riparian buffers become more established and additional species and abundance can
recolonize newly created habitat. Further fish sampling is planned for MY-07.
Mud Lick Creek W-04 Fish Monitoring Report 8 July 2021

6.0 LITERATURE CITED
Menhinick, E.F., 1991. The freshwater fishes of North Carolina. NC Wildlife Resources
Commission, Raleigh, NC. 227 pp.
NCDENR. 2013. Standard Operating Procedures for Biological Monitoring Stream Fish
Community Assessment Program, Version 5. December 2013. North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality. Division of Water Resources, Water Sciences
Section, Biological Assessment Branch. 52 pp.
Rhode, F. C., R.G. Arndt, D.L. Lindquist and J. F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the
Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland and Delaware. The Univ. North Carolina Press, Chapel
Hill.
Mud Lick Creek W-04 Fish Monitoring Report 9 July 2021

Appendix A. Figure 1
Mud Lick Creek W-04 Fish Monitoring Report 10 July 2021

Qualitative Fish Survey
Fish Survey Reach -'
Approximate Stream Location
Road
�4
r
Alba Lick creel;
y
1
�7
X
4k
v
Prepared For:
S �,ItiEER/y�,r
d+331t Mitigation services
.ENVIRONNENTALOUAI. i'
II Reach 2 a.
t' "op�
' Reach 3
=A
40
`tid
Mud Lick Creek
Mitigation Site
Sampling Locations
Chatham County, North Carolina
Date: June 2021
Scale 0 50 100 Feet
I I I
Job No.:
21-309
Drawn By
Checked By:
KEMS
TED
Figure

Appendix B: Fish Community Habitat Assessment Data Sheets
Mud Lick Creek MY-04 Fish Monitoring Report 12 July 2021

Appendix 5. Habitat assessment field data sheet -- Mountain/Piedmont streams.
] lfl:1 3t.evssiun 8
(4abitat Assessment Reld Data Sheet
M,airntaind Piedmont Streams
Iliolagical Assessment Br•aneb, DWR rrOTAL SC[)RFF, r-
I}iecctiaft'; fcw uNCL At ohKTver ir, to sttn eyx minimum of too meters with 206 awlers preferncd or stream_ preftrably in an
upat rratn dirmtion starting above the bridge pool and the egad ngM-of-way. The, wg unt which i€ assessed should rvp 'regent average
s:reacn couditiintu. To perform atsmpe habitat v.-Pl ation Or obser%w needs to pei into the streaaL Tcf tgmptelc the tntm, se ed the
description w,•bich test fits the obwrvod habitats and awn circa the secgv. Ifgltr ohftrvtad 11imbitai falk in bem -een two dcsCtfptinstn, tir`,Cct
an intcrmcdiaie score, A final habitat qew is determined by mdding the Tmilts from the differm metrics..
Stream
M�� Li�.IIC tc'�.�tiott�°road: �e�� I (itt,adNane�,��c��,-
Date ZUZ) C(# Bakin l_okj'(- 1 fA r 3ubhaain [ l� _ j �1 �7�S �'1
T7 LS C, N - -- --®
ObcTvicef 5) Type of Study. d Fikh C ftnihns 13 Bwistttide ❑Specie! Study fDesenbe)
l atitude35" GG pp H- 1391
0 (1 D�SLerngituds 13 Eroregion; 0 L' J'I C] P 0 91ve Rdt 13 Tries-rc Basin
Water'uality; I`amperatarc' �'tiC DO tmg,'l Cundtrxivitvltctrr.] lIg�ti+cm pH • 3 I
2.,631
FhydealChu rartertrxtions Vigible land lost refers to trsmedinte area that yea can sec from Kxnjpting hteatirs6 - Include What wOu
enll*wlt driving thro the wMershed in watershed lied use.
Visible Larsd Una: e� �%Forent %ResidIal _� (3 %AatiVe R&Owre % ActivC C 1
%Fallow Fiekts %C'ommcrcial %indua[rr-1l--'%.Atthcr- Desctibc_2 6 T r'v\ S-C fV'kT
Wstershcd laud use t f.3Foresr LiJ4ttresulmrt C31Jrban 0 Amniaopennioru upALrftm
`` WN
Width: ((.meters) Streashi3 j Clt? ncl (a+ lop rof bank) �tM Stream Depth. (;u) AVg
Q Width wariable. C Large river -°2isn wide
Brut, Might (from deepest part of riffle to u)r of bank-ftinj llat surtwe ynu stand cm): fm} hr1
Back Atigle: -1 T " or ❑ NA (VC-3ti,a8l is W, 1106200111 etc W. Angle% > 9tt" rndicnk slope is towards mid-ehatuieL 9V
m4w;sic sla)c is away from obannel_ RJA ifbasik is tots low tor ban'; aogie is matter.)
0 Cban=lized Ditcb
ElOwply trierscd=atcep, �t aighl banks Oftoth hsalk-s undeecut mt b,: eul OCImnnel tilled in with scdimem
0 Rrceat oveTbenk depDsits ❑tear 4e16*Iv,menl OBuricd structures QFx,,,,d t dmrk
13 Exm.%jve pewiphytmn growth 13 Heavy filatncntnus algae graatb L3C»+ n tinge ❑ Sewage smell
Manma le- Ntabilitatim- CIN 0Y: ORip-rap, cethel t, Rabit— Q Scdunenttgr.edc-cornrot structure DBertivievie
Fla" conditions: O igh ONOr=1 OLt,w
Tueisidit}. QClvm D SNAdly Turbid ©ttrbid Marnsic 1314(ilkc ❑(lt rctl ufrrxn ctyr-s)
Good patent lsll for '�edands ktsturalitnt rroject'?10 ' YEN ONO Detall6 �f �-tn
iChanatel tIgw Slretlos
UxFul especially under abnormal car kJW fltn+ A;Qnditiona
A. Watts rearbcs h.3e of lxtth 141urr banks minimal channel -.�ubssrate espnscd ............. (3
fi.'i #W- fill, $ r % of available channel. Or -'!W. of ClIatrtael uuilwa ± tc e•posrdt
C.Water Ells i 5-75% of awailsb'z channel, rnitny lorp"m ors ex" Cd _...... . ......................_.. f3
D.Ratcttsmatsoututwaw,........ ....
....................._....._..._........._.- ......._........_..._.._....... C3
L Very Int►e wns" to Channd, nsosdy prrstint ws %IwAinalxxrl.......... ... .. .... .:.... ,.. -....
nt e
Weather C:unditian-'4:vJe'rCS Photos: CIS %� C'14ittic.l 03,rnn,
!Remarks.
December 01, 2013 42
Version 5

Appendix 5 (continued).
I. Chalind Madillimflon Scom,
A. charriWl nalwal, firqwnt bends ............................. ..................... ................
�i clunrcl natural, infrequent boodq 4citilmnelizedon Could be V14) ...................... ,,- ...................... (45
C. anme chutneti2st" prrxot .................... .................. -, ............................................... ...... ....... .. 3
D. max extensiw channelizatim ,4fN' of swmin &vupled .... ..................... ........ . ... .................... 2
F. fr ben-dA-, coltipleft]) elawtawlinit or rip rappoll or gallomed, eie- ........... 11
0 Evidcoce of dredging Mkidance nfdomgzinp--fio %qLjwydfbwig in wol" E3381ILN of Uniform Awpe,-height
Renawlas- sttwital I
[I. Instrvarn Habits v If>7U%*jdie mach
i> rocks, I type is Prt"j- circk- the Score, of 17. DefiviriM, lealpacks consist of older kaws Cho are packed itmethcrand have begun to
Mark w_; HillS, Qg1tw4i, OrAbumdont,
_Rorki 11*1wraphytes I s Rnd lop
Sticks Rod leafpseks )-/ 4inpg �Uatdervmt bwaks or rem mats
AMOULM'OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COL ONIZAXION OR COVER
>7011%
40-?0%
2040'11.
�2fto
5,corr -
San
---
$ "Ire
4 or 3 types rm-wt....... .........
3 ................
20
19
U
13
12
11
P.
7
2 qrcs Present ............
is
10
6
1 IYPC
17
13
9
5
No types P"Knt .......................
0
0 No ur*wh wegoArioo in rittwiva ztrx Reqn;tTles-
IM Bottom Substrate foll,sand, detritus, gravvcobhk, boaldvr-) LoA- &I entire izze6ki roTsubstmic wring, but on'Ly look .1 nftlel&
emheddWw%,, and sise rocks from all part-. oftlif0ckook for "mud line 'at difficult) wwacting mclus.
A. substrilip w1rh gaud m.[L% of gravel, cobble and lbonWirrs
Stir
I ambcdtledneu <20% (%,cry wqmlly only behind large boul&-rs)
2 embedde-dom 204fA6 ....... .... ...... .. .......................... ............. ...... ................ ................
12
3- embodkWntms 44)�WA . ........ . ........................... -- .............. ................................. ...
8
4 cinbmWedness >8fj%� ... .................... .. . . . . ........... . . .................................. .......... .........
I
B. substrate gravel and robhor
1. ewh=jgdnc*5 <24D%,,-... .............. ................ ......... .. ..................... —.-- ........ . ..............
14
2, cmbcd&-dncs8 20640P,;,..-...-,-,...,,..",.Ll,, I . .......... ....... ....... 1.1 ... I ------
11
1 eMbed&dness .- .- -.- ..................... ............ .............................
6
4. ewht%kWnrss 7'M ................. -- .............
2
C. subsMte mostly gravel
L. fmbeddedneiq -q�i4 ................................................... ............................... ... . . . ... ...
&
2. cmbed4edoess =-150% ......... ................ ........................... . .. . ... ....... ­r . . . .... ..... ­­ ...
0
substrate 1,ow0getteopl
1. A1119ftale swirly all bedroclL. .......... ........................................... . . ...
3
2, wbhtwe nearly all sacl ........... ........... .... . . ... ... ... . . ............... .... . . . .. --- .........
3
3. substrate teatty all t)ctfltua, .1, .......................................................................... . . . ..
.
4. Nubztrw oczAy all silt! clay ....... ........... .................. .......
I
]
.-Subtotal
IV. Pool V2titt% PLK:JK Are VTM Of dtMCT than averave "tAX rMwln depths 'Aith little CV no wfiLce tudywc1h;c. walm wimWes
*-zwri2a,H Mth pools are always slo". PDok rray takt the roan of"gKxAm unict".. Kruall poob. behikid lwKi1AcrN
ru obstructic,im in Jarj:e
high gradient wvatma tit side cd4i,,
X. reall Present
1. Pooli Freqwnt -w, 100ri area surveyrd i
a. VariLlyllfrmlsim ............................................ . . . . ...... . .....
b P001F about the sank, ime fine Kalcs pooLs fillJ4 ......... ................................ . .
8
2. Pools Is& equem (-710% or ohr 2Mu areA suwevCd)
Pt. variety vi,pool 5izc5............ . ....... . ...... . — . ..... ............. .......... . . . . . . ........ ..............
b P001.4 ShOill rite Alne $j�'r. . . .— ......... ... ....... . . .............................. --­ .
li
o
..................... . ... ........ ................ . . . ... ...........
0 llkxa' bottom boukier zoWlr-Aard 0 Rximn s;wdy-Kink as}xw wn]L 0.50-1 tx4lons U Soros pooh owt Uddu dtplb
Remarks _
Page Total
December 01, 2013 43
Version 5

Appendix 5 (continued).
V. 1 iMe hlabitsts
Definition: Riffle is area of'reaevatkm-cart be- (ldwi,dam, of nsr owchanvgel lima Riffles Fregnrrtl l2iFilc Infreq u nl
A. well definrd riffle and nun, nfile as w kk— as stream and *mc 2X ,vidtlt pi sri irrtr,., �ot� 13
SctlrL"
S. riffic as wide us ztrcam but riffle length is not 2X strestu width ..... ........... ---- ....... _._ 14
. riffk not as -wide as Stream and rif r. Length h not 2X ktream width...... ........... In i�
.......... .
1). riffles absent 4
Channel S)Dpe: ❑'ijrpttal forams, Meep !];Nt fltvn ❑hoK�Eiko a trastat stream Sufrwtal
%11. Bank Stability and %liMetption
A. EM11311
1. lv'i,, +at very INC, erosion pn;^ient. ..................
2. Erosion Mostly at vulst{k of meander'.
6
3_ I.es`; than 4f044 of backs rrodirtg..,.,..,.,.
4_ nia.:sivv erosion ................................. - .....
fa
Finaynn Scam0,
Bank Veptatkun
l_ Mtar)y rrr;atnt-or trees f>12" DllH) presem.. ..........................
7
2. NlsmtEY small tress I k 12" OKI) Preset, large trees rare.
"". 5
3. .ND tR`ek on bank, c;" J1 a%re some shrub' And V'rass s.
4. Moistly raxsw.- or mosses out bank ..,.,.
.
2
2
S. Little or no brisk re ciaiion.bttrt soil ctrry vftrrr _._...
RC[n7ark,�.
VeyetAGon Sct,ra L
J
%'11. Light Penetration {:annpy.- tc def inoal a+ tire: m %Tgrdative covet dirteily above the stream's surface ctt"opy u+euld black erne
sunlight whirr the wn is dirtcilti uve-rfir:att. Note shading front twuntains, but not use to scure this mcrcic.
A. Stream with and c �firt
k. aatctlry with sme breaks ft,r light pcncusrinn ....... . . .............................. l4
B. Stream with full Unopx - lveak>r for light )ac1"ttta1i6m ipbmnt, ,.,........................... {t
C. Sore -am witb partied "nopy - sunlight and ,harltrtg are essential Iv equol. . . . . . .................... Q
D. Stream with mitrimal canopy - full sun in all but a few areas....
........................._. .
..>'r7 t' n+�ps grid no 'fh ll, ..... .....................-.........-__.... 0
Rrmark-'P
'troll.. Riparian Veaetathr. Goat Width
5uba-rta:l q
1306nition: RiPAtinn rtont rorthi4 form ux area of*imtuml 4ege Lion sr31n ant to strcarnlcali po beryontl fload}rlairt). I3teftnuinn: A bits} us
tlrt rilu riAn 7xw is any place on the stream, banks which alinwx sexlimem oc pollutxuts to 41TVCIIY cntct the stream, such as Path:'. (koun w
Xttram.: ;otm drains. uprr)<rtad tree%. utter slidtx. etc
FACE UPSTRRAM 1.fr. Bank 12r. _Flank
Dominant regclattion ❑?nt C1 4hrubs ❑ Uri— t:.11 Wor0old lied ❑111xi tits.. (kutim rici suwe Score
A. R.iparian -I- inttMeo Inca brsal y)
1 width > I g nsesen.................
2. width 12.IR meter,:. ................
3. width 6-12 meters ....................
4. width = b rtrtcr:...............................................
0, Riparian zone not lnerarl (breaks)
1. hrraks rare
a. widticz. ix meters .................
b %lidth 12-18 ineturx,.,-, , , , .--- ....................
i. w•i,ddi 6-12 meters .....................................
.................. .
,. '9s, eu1, common
a. width> 19 mcters.... ............................
..........
b. +Width 12-1a mciet,,_. , ,-...........
G width 6-12 nivivrs... . ....................
........--, .
d. width r o meter .................... .
❑ TDi u 1_amerdam filled out, bw K:nre dmsn't match'uhirctjvr npinion-styTjcnl saran,
5 5
3
2
2
1
Subtotal
1 qr Total
TOTAL SC(>RE �) 0
December 01, 2013 44
Version 5

P',( ci- C,h 2—
Appendix 5. Habitat assessment field data sheet -- Mountain/Piedmont streams.
11,113 Ittvision 0
Habitat Assessment Reld Data Sheet
Matintallat PkAsninat Stream 4
Violqrsl Asoessment Br*At&, DWR M
Ditectionsfort o3v. Thitobsermi-istoconveys minimuntaftoo meten with 20a *Wierv; prtlerndofstrinm preferably intut
vWrv*m direction starting 8110"M the bMSe "I and the Mad rO-of-tvvy, The segment which is assessed Axxdd qvprmnt average
stream carodifiorks. To peifom apniM habitat evaluation the obserier veetts to got W6 the sutatki. Ti, c9inplatc;bc form. select the
descriptibo, which bea.fits %lv4obwrvvd habitats and Lbw circle the ttcom. Ifthc observed farbilm fates m between tyro descripikins, *kv
A:6nal habitat score it datetmit;oed by *ddiag the results from the different medics.
V- Grelgel
Stream Huo Cte LV-ocatiowroadz tRd Name C.,
Date C)C* Basin. f- r SubbaMt,
6C
Obwrvtf(s) T.* ^ 013
of Study. ab ctillius 0 Basinuide 05pecial Study (D=616c)
Lx1tafte 3i� �34 Econ,66 0 ,�E] Statr Belt E3 Triw*4iBmin
WattrQualltv Tcmperaturr�*t DO-5,Dffit'l. C-anductivily(on,)_JjL JaSivin pH
%,'h;bk [And we n4m to immediate area thfil"a ant wet (mm womp4ingkication - Include what you
cmt1matc. 4riving thru the watershed to watershed land use.
Visible Lam Use.: — %forest — %R01id.60 9L02"etille POW % Activv Crops
-%F-allow Fickh; %Cottimcrcial %Imthowl:11
Watershed Land use t E]Forvm DA(-rkvltuiv'OuTban UAffijmOPM601U UpOdtAnt
Width: (vactcav) Sareaval QC�- Channel (at top of kwtk)_j5:E Stream Dtpth., tol} Ava ��+ MAX
OWidth variable 0 Large river >25m wide
Book filet irt tfrom decpm pan of riMe to top of b4tjl,-fr%t not sknixe you stand on): (m) H 4-
Gauk Amgk:'9,(3 1) or ONA {Vertical is W. horizontal istf. Anjj1,eN:- 9w, nidicaft slope is towards Mid-ejk3M0ek
mikcgla $[we is awayfromchannel. NA if bank is tan low far binge m*k to matter,)
13 Chone Iixod Ditch
O1)ftPlY imind-strov, siraight banks 1311oth banks undftcut a K-rw;l EXImmid fitkd in with sediment
13 Remit oveTbank deposits A*W 4evlopmeni Matted wwwm OExpoged lv;,ir*rA-
0 Excessive periphym gmwtb '-011cavy filameafts *[PC growth Ocircelt tinge El Scwmgc smell
NisnAlAda UN -DY: ORip-rap. cettak"t Pbim% Cl structure 1313cimAcvto
Tarr vonditions: CHP4 tAN"vtnvsI Ot-ow
T*rMdjty: OCtw JXSlightly Turbid OTurbid 07rarukic t3Mi lky 13Q)ltvtd
COW PUttlitill to' Wedaftdl ReSIOMIkin Project?? 0 YUS ONO Details
Pq
Channel 11trw status
0--.ful vpecially underaboormal or low flaw �,wdjjjons.
AL WOW fftcbtO bW *fb0lh lower bwgm, minimal citumet s,ttxrtratc vEposcd ..... .....................
FL Wiftr fills'- 0% of avatiable clhajuicL of e15% of channel substrata is - _.- -01-1
. . ......... ............ El
D. Root mats out ofwaser- ....... - ................ a
L. Vety little -w;ikr in channel... mostly present w, standing POOL ................................................ 13
Weatber ConditleaA, —PIN at..' ON 04[tjitill E1,11m.
Remarks. VtTevl %P
f U
December 01, 2013 42
Version 5

Appendix 5 (continued).
1. Channel Modification
A. chM1rWil nalwal. fregwat bends ............. ...................................... 5
R channel natural, infretltsettt hentlF_tctlarrneiization could be uLd)......... ............ ...........
C50tne ehaibn h2htiun prE..�cnt............ ..................._ ..._...,_,..,...,... ,.............._..-.................., , , .... 3
D. tntrre exec ssise chata,-ttlization, --4MY of tram dLquptsd.................... , ,
F- W-bcnd& contplftly chann"lizrit or riv rappod or gabiontd, ert...... i]
l3 EodctKc t4 drvj;,1r F �E+idscr nfde napttlt uc t-ape v�wil] detxis in s mn OBanka of unifatn. JimPLAright
Rcmarl s
_. Subtiilt+l
IL Instrcam Habitat: Consmrr the perrentzge ofthe mach Ow is fa+•arable for beathns calrmizarion or fv;hco%ef. If 17t)%of the reach
crocks, I nrpe ix praww. cirekc the score of 17. Defrnilicni: Icafpacks corniist of older k%ves dial are packed L,%erlterand have begun to
dcz-ay (V<* pilm ofleaves in pool amax). Mark Inc BAM&gRllnrjL cv Ahundti
,Rocks �iIwropbytea X Sticks xnd Ieafpacks -)/- gongs yand logs 6adrtnut lrxaks or root mats
A14 OU1 I' M REACH FAVORABLE FOR +['+i:3(.[_i[�il7.t 1'lt�N OR Ct VER
--70% 40.70% 20-'���0";
-C200/P
5coI.t-_ _ S'- rt 1=T_—_
4 or 3 tvp? -,4 ra nt............... 20 16 12
.S6ilre
F
3 t 1w{ pmsnt....... .................. 19 1. 11
7
2 types ptescur.............. ...... . 18 l4 10
6
1 type present..,-,.. ,.. ...... 17 13 0
5
'No ty K'cFent................ .._._.. it
© h0—A ',n6j60A in
I
rip uiarc c¢.-.e R.rinuTks- _
�;uhlrNal
IIf. Bottom SubStrate (milt,+fond, dctritas gravel cobble, Imuldrr) Lwk- at entire to-h fqw substmic scaring, but only look at,nfile iur
etnheddedm-%, and asc rocks from all pate of rif Ir-Imrk for "aiud line' or dilrcAlt,,- cxtn, cling ro:kc,
A. substrate wlth goad mta of gravel, cobble and boulders
r;, ma
I. cmbW$cdncts <29ai (very litd= :.;iY'', itswlly only behind lai rs bvul&m) ..... ..............
15
entbeddedntss204fi................... ..............................._..,.......,.. ..,..........................
li
3. =1Xd&'dntw4C-RMA._........................ ...............•..... .................................. ...
.... ...., R
B, substrate gravel and eehltlr
G. ewbc-:.rdedncsF <20.............. ..------------- ..... ..... .,.
2, smbeddzdac55 20 4(ft..._...................„......................................,,,..................__....._._
11
3. wibedrdGdnE34.t(}-S1,; n ...,.............. ... _.__........................ .......................................
6
4, errthr`. 1ellnexx := Rn"u..................._.................... .. ....._..._.__.......... _._.....,.
a \
C. substrate mo913� gravel
i. L nbeckkilnr xz •-; ' •w.....................
g
ti. .............................. ...... :.......... _......... ... _......... ;:.. ,
..........
D. substrate Imnogetteoak
I . substrate nearry ,ll bedmch .............................. . ............... .............._.,-....,
. ,.. 3
2 aFtrkionle nearlg all ssud .................._.. ,.., .... _........_._._..... -
_. 3
3. Bubatralc near:,, all 4 lntus. ....................................................................................
'_
4. xuirr b>ate nettri)' all AL' cla±^,--............................................................., ..-..............._._.
... . .. .
I
..+,uk+tptal
T{Ktn:ttka
9
W. Pool 1 atitrty PL-Ix are arrwL ofdeTerthan average maximum depths with little w no surface turbttictm c waku -clocilies
av�ociwcd -with pcK& arc always aleµ. Punit may kake the fonu of "pix:ket -wzAlet" ,m731 pools 6chind brxih:vt+ or c_ tntctionx in t$r r
high pradicru sticabc-i. err side ecWie
. Pools Present
I. Pools Frte.tent (--3U%-ot 300m arra surveyed)
f3. VA6rly 4rfPool !iiErs..................
b PoalF Shout dtc stint Aizr (indxatcspoots filling in)...... ................. ._............................ /�
2. Pool; Inficyw ut r<16 s pt th4 IMD atr-a sunny eai CD
a. vadclyosptwl sizes....- ............... , ........ 6
x perol5 alrclul dse Y11-le stye. , ...... .
B. Pock abletir...... _ ._ t! 1U
"trthwtal
© t't" b mrn bwlder cx)WrAard q RMtnn, Ir v sink as ym danit 0 5i 1 t,ygjvnt 0 SL uunis �+ti�Cr u�¢cr �� d`_t
Rxmark�
Page Total 2-
December 01, 2013 43
Version 5

Appendix 5 (continued).
V. Riffle Habilatx
Definition: Riffle is area nf'rr�rratic�t-fan he tlrbTic darn. or minuw cha pe I nrcn Riffles Frequent FUfiim infrequrnl
A. well defined riffle and run, n6le as wide as'streztna and elterads 2X width H stream..,, 16 12
B, riffic as wide as Nircmu C-x, riffle knsth is TKA 2X stream width ........... ............. ............ 14
C. riffle rwt a"wide as stream and riffle length is not 2 k strr:am w idth in el)')
V
1). riffles absent............. 0 3Channel Slope. OTvprcal (br arcs ❑Steep fazt 11ou Cii.o�c�hke a csatStal stream Su'hnrtal
*":L RookStability and Is,NriRlion
A. Emlon
I. No, tv Very little, erosion irrMeot, ,.....................................
7
- Enssion mostly at en;slKttk c►Fmeandcrs._......._„.......... ........._._
6
3_ LM titan 50% of banks erodtng ...
4. NIat mY erosion.....
]
it. aank't`c�eiatlrrtl
1. Mostly rn;ttwv Imes (> f 2" DH 111 raestait .............. .............
7
2. Moistly small trees fe12" I)(411) prtsestt, large trews rnrc
3. No feces an hank, con 1sa.2 setae ahndaa and grasses............
4. MOsttybruxs*.scrmosses cost bunk ................
3
................ .,...,,0
a' Little or no bsi k wee �',tion. but sail vorrywil rr ,...........
- 0
Remarks,
Firrvnn Srore 3
Vegetation Sarre 2-
_ 5tibtautl
;air.. l.igbt Penetration ICWVDPyp is dtiined as utc cur rrgetatitrc rover directly above the stream's surface. Cmiapy would block (n,t
sunlight whcr the mun isdirccfly owthes..ta, Mote shading front rntmmittins, but not use To score thin metric.
A. Strtam -Ault gourd canopy with sauteuk brt!s for ligbt pertetraiion . . . ..................... arc
_......., to
B. Strearn kith fall canopy- b-4 Fbr light M-rettatiun xb"ur"................................ 1.,,,1..... t6
C. Stream with partial canopy aunligtu and - Wing arc essential ty equal ..... .......................... 7
D. Strratn with minimal canopy -full sun in all but a feu arCa}................................................... Q
F. Nit t-t+rtupy and no shading_ ..................... 0 .................................................................... .....
RmaTk-s
Subuwal 2
V1111, Riparian Veltviati-ve Zoar Width
Definition: Riparian anna for this f'brut is arra tut' natural v gemiein adlnrent to Stream (cars pit beyond
floodplain). T)Lfinition: A break ur
dsc rifsarimi torte 'ts airy place on ttu a (roam banks w]Liv h allow% Kedinrrnt X Pollutants to directly antes the sueam, such as paths datma nr
stream, r: orm drains, urtetxatM trees, t+ttel SIl1es, cig,
FACE UPSTREAM
Dominant %'c9clation. El roes C] &rub, ❑ Gar..% CI Wm 41old field OEt.MiL.' (kutirrr etc)
t_St. Bank Rt. Flank
SCirre Score
A. Riparian zome, infuse (no break;)
Iwidth r- 18 nmers.................._........._................... ......................
5 s
2. width 12,19 meters'........................... .... . . ..........__._._._.....
Q
3. width b-12 meters .................. ... ........._..................,.... . , ......................
. 3
a- width £ 6 nxtetf...................................
D, Riparian zone flat lnt,nrt (breaks)
I. hr"ks rare
a. width t- IA rnetcr ...........................„,.,..,......_....._......_..._....,.,.....,
4 #
h vfjdth 12-18 anewta... . . . ............................... . .......................
3 3
c. n'idth 6-12 nneterT ..........................._.........,......_.-.............
g ,
d. width zC 6 meter; .......... ............
I bteAt;. common
a. width - lit ani:i . ......................... ... ............................ .........
3 3
b. width 12-18tucter+..,-....,.. ...
,
e width 6-12 ureters . . . .............................. . ... __...................._..
1 I
d. width r b ttseters.....................
Retmarlo;
0 d (
Subtotal u
i'uge'Icrta[
❑ Dixclaimm-lbrtn filled slut, Imp xa;otr'arsnt snatch suhamfire TOTAL SCORE
December 01, 2013 44
Version 5

Appendix G.
Random Veg Transect Data
2021 MY4 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Appendices
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)

N
c-I
O
V1
I-
O
--
't
c-
I-
lD
N
M
rl
oo
rl
ci
rl
oo
aJ
H
c
oo
OA
d
O
N
c-I
O
I-
O
c-I
M
Ql
c-I
Q
J
p
�--I
rl
ci
Lf1
M
C
a
rl
ci
N
c-I
rl
lD
lf1
00
H
N
H
c
O
N
J
c-I
rl
N
c-I
V1
N
W
p
O
i
C
a
O
c-I
V1
M
lD
H
oo
oo
oo
O
Ln
M
J
c-I
Ln
N
rj
N
j
O
O
O
oo
00
N
�
v
a
Cr
N
Ln
Ln
c-I
N
N
V1
oo
c
Q
M
f�0
H
c
O
VI
N
V1
V1
rl
N
V1
V1
00
Q
�
O
J
O
a
�
a
.�
rl
M
N
c-I
N
Ql
V1
I-
y
N
H
M
3
ry�
M
O
v)c-I
J
M
N
c-I
N
CT)O
V1
I�
N
O
M
C
a
rl
N
Ln
rl
M
Ln
N
H
rl
n
�
N
M
N
J
c-I
N
c-I
'T
oo
O
Ol
p
O
N
C
a
M
r
oo
M
O
H
N
r
M
J
M
c-I
oo
M
0
O
O
N
C
a
a!
C of C uj
1
O
H
7 uj 7
u a
a
u :� tJ
EIv
w
aJ
aJ
7
7
w
w
aJ
aJ
aJ
7
aJ
7
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
aJ
aJ
aJ
7
E
H
H
In
v)
H
H
H
H
H
v)
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
v)
N
a!
?
L
7
p
O
N
O
Y
6
in
a
aJ
v
E
O
O
0
p
3
Z
o°
N
E
3
3
C
O
U
L
u
m
j
o
p0
aJ
o
aJ
O_
E
m
aJ
u
T
o
aJ
vl
E
aJ
E
E
o
i
£
a
fB
te,
T
L
�
v
3
-
p
E
Y
L
Y
c
7
L
v
E
N
a
m
O
a
U
T
N
��
O
O
C
nn
O
O
m
a
3
pp
a
aJ
O_
U
O
u
O_
a
O
u
O
U-
T
E
aJ
v
E
v
aj
v
Y
E
E°
T
E
a-,
s
E
t
a
°
E
a
v
nn
a
c�%
o
a>
E
o
o
a
Y
o°
a
u
°>
a
'73
73
3
o
E
3
s
a
E
°
o
v
m
aj
Q
773
u
u
a,
u
nn
Q
a
o
3
a
a,
m
m
f6
cm
j
m
u
e
�
E
a,
-
m
E
E
a7
Z
O
to
'p
in
'u
in
to
>
to
Q
m
cm
X
u
7
to
to
p
7
.O
vTi
sT+
C
al
-O
7
p
1
E
N
O
—
O
f6
C
vl
aJ
E
OD
C
+7+
—
'C
.2
*O
L
f6
-O
u
C
-p
C
E
7
L
a)
-p
.0
7
L
-p
fB
O
E
>
7
aJ
O_
m
i
m
C
O
m
O
tlD
u
u
p
s+
u
E
O
7
aJ
N—
—
a)
-o
tl7D
N
C
C
m
m
p
*E
Q
E
Q
E
O
u
in
j
7
in
toN>
777
7
7
to
mOo
O_
T
ue
NU
7�
Liuto
p
UJ
E
-
6
O
'
�
T
�
T
vl
p777y
aJ
aJ
aJ
pE
E
2
Q
Q
f6
O]
O]
f6
U
f6
U
aJ
U
aJ
U
aJ
U
aJ
U
O
U
LL
J
J
Z
Z
O
D_
D_
"""
"`
>>
Q
I I
o �
O
T 7
c r-
aj ai
E E
ai ai
7 7
6 6
ai ai
_0 _0
ai ai
ai ai
U U
x x
W W
c
E
73
6
ai
aj
ai
E
O
Il

„
` ✓
kit
LO
, Xv,
LO
00
pt
ar
�F
Y f
c,
�.,,< <s�c°” - � _� 1� •.•t"`� .fir - r
{'iAMM,+
c�
G
0
� C
L G
0)
U)
cu
() L
U) =3
L
0 �
aa)
N
rn
U)
E
p
M
a�
�
U
�
LU
U
U
a)
cu
U U
Z°�
2-10)
x
a)
U)
i aD
c
E E
E
d d
o
U
F-
u u o
J
OO 00UU
U)
w M��
O
�C
vA a
L
JE