HomeMy WebLinkAbout20141127 Ver 1_MudLickCreek_93482_MY6_2023_20240208FINAL
MONITORING REPORT
YEAR 6 (2023)
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-September 2023
Submission: February 2024
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 6 (2023)
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-September 2023
Submission: February 2024
PREPARED BY:
AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
218 SNOW AVENUE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27603
2023 MY6 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Executive Summary page i
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)
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
2023 MY6 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Executive Summary page ii
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 the
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.
2023 MY6 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Executive Summary page iii
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.
2023 MY6 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Table of Contents page i
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)
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. Supplemental Planting List
Table 9. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species
Table 10. Temporary Transect Data
Appendix D. Stream Geomorphology Data
Tables 11a-11c. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Tables 12a-12f. Monitoring Data-Dimensional Data Summary
Cross-section Plots
Appendix E. Hydrology Data
Table 13. Verification of Bankfull Events
Appendix F. Adaptive Management
Attachment 1: Adaptive Management Plan
2023 MY6 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Page 1
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)
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 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
Supplemental Monitoring
Biological
Macrobenthos 5 sites (Preconstruction 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. One bankfull event was documented
during monitoring year 6 (2023), making a total of seven bankfull events documented over the monitoring
period to date (Table 13, Appendix E).
Year 6 cross-section data indicate little change from as-built conditions and that the streams are functioning
as designed, overall, with the exception of cross-section 2, a riffle on Mud Lick Creek. Pool cross-sections,
2023 MY6 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Page 2
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)
such as 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 Dmax 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 1 has been
characterized by increased bank height ratio for the past several monitoring years. It 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 channel has reformed natural top-of-bank indicators within the dimensional
parameters of the channel. Cross-section 1 has remained relatively consistent and stable for the past 3
monitoring years. Cross-section 2 has an increased bank-height ratio of 1.29 due to heavy scouring along
the inner bend (right bank). This scour was first observed during year 2 (2019) but remained stable through
year 5 (2022). It appears the scour was increased by beaver activity during year 6, and it is now considered
an area of concern. All site cross-sections, except for cross-section 2, meet success criteria during year 6
(2023).
Three stream areas of concern were observed during monitoring year 6 (2023), two of which were
documented during previous monitoring years. Stream Area of Concern #1 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 has only slightly increased in size due to the erosive nature of the soils,
lack of woody vegetation, and continued storm flows. Stream Area of Concern #2 consists of scouring and
sloughing along an outer bend along Mud Lick Creek R3, immediately downstream from cross-section 1.
This was initially attributed to significant storm events that occurred during 2018, however, subsequent
high discharge events have continued to erode the outer bend. Stream area of Concern #3 consists of the
aforementioned scour on the inner bend at cross-section 2; approximately 30 feet in total. All stream areas
of concern are located within enhancement II reaches. No areas of erosion or instability were observed in
restoration reaches of North and East Branch. All structures were stable and banks were well-vegetated
with live stakes and herbaceous vegetation. All stream reaches generating restoration credit are functioning
as designed and are stable throughout. 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 MY1)
12 CVS vegetation plots
A photographic record of plant growth should be included in each annual monitoring report; vegetation plot
photographs from year 6 (2023) 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 season for the remainder of the
monitoring period until vegetation success criteria are achieved.
Year 6 (2023) stem count measurements for twelve permanent CVS plots indicate the planted stem density
across the Site is 270 planted stems per acre, exceeding the Year 7 stem density success criteria of 210
stems per acre. Nine of the twelve individual CVS plots met success criteria based on planted stems alone;
however, when including naturally recruited stems of American elm (Ulmus americana) and American
2023 MY6 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Page 3
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), the stem densities of plots 6 and 11 are above success criteria. Plot 1
was one stem shy of success. This plot experienced mortality of two stems between MY3 and MY4 and
one more between MY4 and MY5. There are no natural recruits in the plot (Table 9, Appendix C). Plot
11 is dominated by dense herbaceous vegetation and high numbers of naturally recruited American
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), increasing competition with planted stems. Additionally, several small
but dense populations of Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima) were
observed scattered throughout the Site. Although invasive treatments have been ongoing, these areas remain
previous years. Invasive species populations are depicted on Figure 2 (Appendix B).
Due to decreasing Site stem density and continued observation of deer browse and competition with
herbaceous species, DMS implemented an adaptive management that includes supplementally planting 1-
and 3-gallon containerized trees across 2.04 acres of the Site. Supplemental planting areas are depicted on
Figure 2 (Appendix B), the supplemental planting list is in Table 8 (Appendix C), and the adaptive
management plan is detailed in Appendix F. As a part of the adaptive management plan, three temporary
transects were requested by the DMS in areas that were replanted. All three transects met success criteria
with an average of 418 stems per acre. Transect locations are depicted on Figure 2 (Appendix B), and
results are in Table 10 (Appendix C).
Project Boundaries & Visual Assessments
Locations of any fence damage, vegetation damage, boundary encroachments, etc. will be documented and
included in the mapping. No boundary encroachments were observed during Year 6 (2023) monitoring.
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. Results of the year 6
(2023) visual assessment are summarized in Tables 5A-C and 6 (Appendix B).
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 beavers and removed six dams. A small beaver dam was
observed during year 5 (2022) along North Branch R2. The stream was dry at the time of assessment,
therefore, it was unclear if there were active beaver populations still within the site. During year 6 (2023),
a large beaver dam was located just downstream of XS-5 on North Branch R2. Most of the dam was
removed, but there was a large beaver lodge in the vicinity of the dam. It was unclear if there is still an
active beaver population on the site, and perhaps the dam was overlooked during beaver trapping efforts.
APHIS was contracted in 2023 to visit the site quarterly and manage beaver as necessary through project
closeout.
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 bio classification between the pre-con assessment and the post-con
2023 MY6 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Page 4
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)
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 have improved by 10 to 54 points since preconstruction. In addition, each
independent variable on the data sheets has shown improvement over the monitoring period, 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, station MLC-3
shifting from Poor to Very Poor, and station NBR-5 remaining within the Poor range. A summary of
benthic results including Habitat Field Data Assessment Sheet scores and Biotic Index values from
laboratory analysis results (preconstruction to MY5) is presented below.
Site MLC-2 MLC-3 MLC-5
Habitat Assessment
Field Data Sheet Data
Precon
(2015)
MY3
(2020)
MY 5
(2022)
Precon
(2015)
MY3
(2020)
MY5
(2022)
Precon
(2015)
MY3
(2020)
MY5
(2022)
Channel Modification 5 3 4 5 3 3 4 5 5
Instream Habitat 11 14 11 11 11 11 9 18 15
Bottom Substrate 3 8 4 3 11 8 1 11 6
Pool Variety 4 10 6 6 10 6 0 10 6
Riffle Habitats 7 14 7 7 10 7 0 16 16
Bank Stability and Veg 8 4 10 13 6 11 10 14 12
Light Penetration 7 7 10 7 7 7 2 2 10
Riparian Veg Zone
Width 2 10 10 1 10 10 12 10 10
Total Score 47 70 62 53 68 63 26 86 81
Biotic Index 6.01 8.05 8.25 6.64 6.68 7.70 6.90 5.90 7.70
2023 MY6 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Page 5
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 (NRCS), and North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2003.
Stream Mitigation Guidelines. State of North Carolina.
2023 MY6 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Appendices
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
Project Wetland Existing Stationing Mitigation As-Built Restoration Approach Mitigation Mitigation
Component Position and Footage Plan Footage Level Priority Ratio (X:1) Credits
(reach ID, etc.) HydroType Footage * Level Notes/Comments
North Branch R1 318 100+10 - 103+28 327 318 EII - 1.5 212.000 Planting, fencing
North Branch R2 522 103+28 - 108+66 520 538 R PI 1 538.000
North Branch R3 351 108+66 - 111+51 303 265 R P2 1 265.000
20 LF of restoration was removed from North Branch Reach 2 in order to
account for an easement break
East Branch R1 165 200+05 - 201+69 168 164 EII - 1.5 109.333 Planting, fencing
East Branch R2 315 201+69 - 205+81 409 412 R P2 1 412.000
Mud Lick Creek R1 525 300+72 - 306+23 623 551 EII - 1.5 367.333 Planting, fencing, bank repairs
Mud Lick Creek R2 718 306+23 - 313+14 693 660 EII - 1.5 440.000
Planting, fencing, bank repairs; 31 LF of enhancement II was removed from
Mud Lick Creek Reach 2 in order to account for an easement break
Mud Lick Creek R3 733 313+14 - 320+47 748 733 EII - 1.5 488.667 Planting, fencing, bank repairs
Overall Assets Summary
Overall
Credits
Riverine Non-Riverine 2,832.333
Restoration 1215
Enhancement
Enhancement I
Enhancement II 2426
Creation
Preservation
High Quality Pres
Table 1. Mud Lick Creek (ID-93482) - Mitigation Assets and Components**
Length and Area Summations by Mitigation Category
Stream
*Reach start and end stationing may differ slightly from the mitigation plan due to removal of stream lengths that are outside the conservation easement. The upstream ends of Mud Lick Creek, North Branch, and East Branch experienced footage
reductions of 72’, 10’, and 5’ respectively, while the downstream end of Mud Lick Creek experienced a footage reduction of 17’.
Restoration Level
Asset Category
**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.
Non-riparian
Wetland
(acres)
Riparian Wetland (acres)Stream (linear
feet)
2023 MY6 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Appendices
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Mud Lick Creek (ID-93482)
Elapsed Time Since Grading Complete: 6 years 6 months
Elapsed Time Since Planting Complete: 6 years 0 months
Number of Reporting Years: 6
Activity or Deliverable Data Collection
Complete
Completion
or Delivery
Project Institution -- February 13, 2013
Mitigation Plan -- December 2015
404 Permit Date -- March 25, 2016
Final Design – Construction Plans -- June 2015
Construction -- August 25, 2017
Bare Root; Containerized; and B&B Plantings for
the Entire Project Site February 2018 February 2018
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0
Monitoring Baseline) July 2018 September 2018
Monitoring Year 1 (2018) Document December 2018 December 2018
Monitoring Year 2 (2019) Document September 2019 January 2020
Monitoring Year 3 (2020) Document September/October 2020 January 2021
Monitoring Year 4 (2021) Document October 2021 December 2021
Monitoring Year 5 (2022) Document September 2022 January 2023
Monitoring Year 6 (2023) Document September 2023 February 2024
2023 MY6 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Appendices
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)
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
Erosion Control Plans
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (License No. F-0831)
312 West Millbrook Rd, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Angela N. Allen, PE (919) 851-9986
Construction Contractor
North State Environmental, Inc.
2889 Lowery Street
Winston Salem, NC 27101
Michael Anderson (336) 725-2010
Planting Contractor
North State Environmental, Inc.
2889 Lowery Street
Winston Salem, NC 27101
Stephen Joyce (336) 725-2010
As-built Surveyors Allied Associates, PA
4720 Kester Mill Road
Winston Salem, NC 27103
David Alley (336) 765-2377
Baseline Data Collection Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
Grant Lewis (919) 215-1693
2023 MY6 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Appendices
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)
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
Physiographic 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 (mi2) 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/mi2) 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 B4c B4c
Stream Classification (proposed) E4 C4 E4 C4 C4 C4
Evolutionary trend (Simon &
Hupp) IV/V IV/V IV/V IV IV IV
FEMA classification AE AE AE AE AE AE
Regulatory 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
2023 MY6 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Appendices
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)
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
SITE LOCATIONMUD LICK CREEK MITIGATION SITE DMS PROJECT NUMBER 93482Chatham County, North Carolina
Dwn. by.
Date:
Project:
FIGURE1CLF
July 2018
12-004.22
Axiom Environmental218 Snow AvenueRaleigh, NC 27603(919) 215-1693
³
0 2 41Miles
Site Location35.8128, -79.4350
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
£¤64
£¤421
Siler City-Snow Camp Road Silk Hope-Liberty Road
Siler City
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
1
1
1
+
0
0
311+00
110+00
100+00
319+00
318+00
317+00
3
1
6
+
0
0
3
1
5
+
0
0
314+00
3 1 3 +0 032
0
+
0
0
3
1
0
+
0
0
309+00
308+00
307+00
3
0
6
+
0
0
302+00301+00
3 0 0 +0 0
2
0
4
+
0
0
2 0 2 +0 0
201+00
200+00
106+00
1
0
9
+
0
0
108+00
102+00
105+00
104+00
103+00
111+51.55
320+64.01
312+00
3
0
5
+
0
0
304+00
303+00
2
0
5
+
0
0
2 0 3 +0 0
101+00
107+00
2
0
5
+
7
7.2
3
XS 2R
XS 7R
XS 3P
X S 1 0 R
XS-9r
X S 6 R
X
S
1
R
XS-8p
XS 5P
XS 4R
1
3
2
5
4
3
2
1
9
3
4
6
5
7
1
8
2
11
10
12
FIGU R E
Dra wn b y:
Da te:
Sca le :
Pro jec t N o.:
PHP
Dec 2023
12-004.22
Tit le:
Pro jec t:
Pre pa red fo r:
DMS P roject Number 93482Chatham County, N C
MUD LICK CRE EK MITIGATIONSITE
CUR RE NT COND ITIONSPLANVIEW
2
³
1:1,500
0 25 0 50 0125Fe e t
No rth Ca rol inaDepartment ofEnvironmentalQuality
Div isio n o fMitigation S erv ice s
Leg en d
Co nse rv ati on Ea se me nt
Str ea m R es to ra tio n
Str ea m E nh an ce m en t (Le v el II)
Sta tio nin g
Str uct ure s
Gra de d Se ctio ns o f M ud Li ck Cr ee k
Cro ss -se ct ion Lo ca tio ns
Cre st Ga ug e
CV S P lo ts Me et ing Su cc es s C rit eri a d ur ing ye ar 6 (20 23 )
CV S P lo ts No t M ee tin g S u cce ss C rite ria du rin g y ea r 6 (2 02 3)
Ye ar 6 (20 23 ) Te mp or ary Tran se cts M ee tin g S uc ce ss Cr ite ria
^_CV S P lo t O rig ins
^_Fis h & B en th ic S ite s
De nse Tree o f H ea ve n
De nse C hin es e Pri ve t
202 3 Su pp lem e nta l P lan tin g A re as
Str ea m A re as of Co nc er n
Be ave r D a m 2 02 3
S
i
l
e
r
C
i
t
y
-
S
n
o
w
C
a
m
p
R
o
a
d
Silk H
o
p
e-Lib
erty R
o
a
d
Mud Lick Cre e k R 3
MudLickCreekR1
N o rt h B r a n c h R 3
Str eam Ar ea ofConcern #1
MudLickCreekR2
North BranchR2
EastBranchR2
North
Branch
R1
EastBranchR1
Str eam Ar ea ofConcern #2
Benthics & Fish Supple me ntal Monitoring
Pre-con MY3 MY4 MY5 MY71Benthics & Fi sh xBenthicsx x x xFish x x xBenthicsxxxxFish x x x4Benthicsx5Benthicsxxxx
2
3
Fre que ncyMonitoring FeatureSite
Str eam Ar ea ofConcern #3
Table 5A Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID North Branch R-2
Assessed Length 538
1. Bank 1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion 0 0 100%0 0 100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat.0 0 100%0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100%0 0 100%
0 0 100%0 0 100%
2. Engineered
Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.8 8 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 8 8 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.8 8 100%
3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document) 8 8 100%
4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow.8 8 100%
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Adjusted % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
Totals
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Major
Channel
Category
Channel
Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As-built
Table 5B Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID North Branch R-3
Assessed Length 265
1. Bank 1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion 0 0 100%0 0 100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat.0 0 100%0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100%0 0 100%
0 0 100%0 0 100%
2. Engineered
Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.3 3 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 3 3 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.3 3 100%
3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document) 3 3 100%
4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow.3 3 100%
Totals
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Major
Channel
Category
Channel
Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As-built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Table 5C Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID East Branch R-2
Assessed Length 412
1. Bank 1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion 0 0 100%0 0 100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat.0 0 100%0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100%0 0 100%
0 0 100%0 0 100%
2. Engineered
Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.5 5 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 5 5 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.5 5 100%
3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document) 5 5 100%
4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow.5 5 100%
Totals
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Major
Channel
Category
Channel
Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As-built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Planted Acreage 9.6
1. Bare Areas None 0.1 acres None 0 0.00 0.0%
2. Low Stem Density Areas None 0.1 acres None 0 0.00 0.0%
0 0.00 0.0%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor None 0.25 acres None 0 0.00 0.0%
0 0.00 0.0%
Easement Acreage 11.2
4. Invasive Areas of Concern Several small areas of dense Chinese privet and dense tree of heaven. Treatment is ongoing.200 SF blue and yellow polygons 13 0.20 1.8%
5. Easement Encroachment Areas None none None 0 0.00 0.0%
CCPV
Depiction
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of
Easement
AcreageVegetation Category Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
% of Planted
Acreage
Total
Cumulative Total
Vegetation Category Definitions
Number of
Polygons
Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
Depiction
Combined
Acreage
2023 MY6 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Appendices
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)
Mud Lick Creek Stream Restoration Site
MY-06 Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken July 2023
Plot 1 Plot 2
Plot 3
Plot 5 Plot 6
Plot 4
Plot 7 Plot 8
2023 MY6 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Appendices
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)
Mud Lick Creek Stream Restoration Site
MY-06 Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken August 2023
Plot 10 Plot 9
Plot 11 Plot 12
Transect 1 Transect 2
Transect 3
2023 MY6 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. Supplemental Planting List
Table 9. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species
Table 10. Temporary Transect Data
2023 MY6 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Appendices
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)
Table 7. Planted Woody Vegetation
Mud Lick Creek Restoration Project (#93482)
Species Quantity
Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) 300
Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) 400
Eastern Redbud (Cercis canadensis) 400
Cottonwood (Populus deltoides) 300
River birch (Betula nigra) 300
Hackberry (Celtis occidentalis) 300
Black Gum (Nyssa sylvatica) 300
American Elm (Ulmus americana) 300
Eastern Hophornbeam (Ostrya virginica) 300
Elderberry (Sambucus spp.) 300
Black Locust (Robinia psuedoaccia) 300
Silky Dogwood (Cornus ammomum) 300
Witch Hazel (Hamamelis virginica) 550
Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) 300
Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana) 300
Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana) 400
Swamp Tupelo (Nyssa biflora) 100
Swamp Chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii) 100
Water oak (Quercus nigra) 100
Tulip Poplar (Liridendron tulipifera) 300
TOTAL 5950
Table 8. Supplemental Planting List 2023
Species Quantity Size (gallon)
Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) 50 3
Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) 50 3
Cottonwood (Populus deltoides) 50 3
River birch (Betula nigra) 50 3
Elderberry (Sambucus spp.) 50 3
Silky Dogwood (Cornus ammomum) 50 1
Witch Hazel (Hamamelis virginica) 50 1
Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana) 50 1
Swamp Chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii) 50 3
Tulip Poplar (Liridendron tulipifera) 50 3
TOTAL 50 3
Table 9. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species
PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T
Acer negundo boxelder Tree
Acer rubrum red maple Tree
Alnus alder Shrub
Baccharis halimifolia eastern baccharis Shrub
Betula nigra river birch Tree 111111111 333111
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam Tree 111444
Carya hickory Tree
Celtis laevigata sugarberry Tree 2 2 2
Celtis occidentalis common hackberry Tree 111
Cephalanthus occidentalis common buttonbush Shrub 111
Cercis canadensis eastern redbud Tree 111
Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub 333 111 111111
Corylus americana American hazelnut Shrub 1 1 1
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree 111 111222
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree 111111 1118811111 4
Juglans nigra black walnut Tree
Liquidambar styraciflua sweetgum Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree 112 111
Nyssa tupelo Tree 111
Nyssa biflora swamp tupelo Tree 1 1 1
Ostrya virginiana hophornbeam Tree 222
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree 2 2 2 555111 444 118
Populus deltoides eastern cottonwood Tree
Quercus oak Tree
Quercus lyrata overcup oak Tree
Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree 1 1 1 333 111
Quercus nigra water oak Tree 111111
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree
Rhus copallinum flameleaf sumac shrub
Robinia pseudoacacia black locust Tree
Ulmus americana American elm Tree 333111 1
Ulmus rubra slippery elm Tree 1 1 1 111
Unknown Shrub or Tree
Viburnum dentatum southern arrowwood Shrub
55577777788899124467779999997718
333555333666222445333555666667
202.3 202.3 202.3 283.3 283.3 283.3 283.3 283.3 283.3 323.7 323.7 323.7 364.2 364.2 485.6 161.9 161.9 242.8 283.3 283.3 283.3 364.2 364.2 364.2 364.2 364.2 364.2 283.3 283.3 728.4
Color for Density PnoLS = Planted excluding livestakes
P‐all = Planting including livestakes
T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
T includes natural recruits
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
DMS Project Code 93482. Project Name: Mud Lick Creek
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
93482‐01‐0001 93482‐01‐0002 93482‐01‐0003 93482‐01‐0004 93482‐01‐0005 93482‐01‐0006 93482‐01‐0007 93482‐01‐0010
1
0.02
Current Plot Data (MY6 2023)
1
0.02
93482‐01‐0008 93482‐01‐0009
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
Table 9. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species (continued)
PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T
Acer negundo boxelder Tree 1 2 8 41131110
Acer rubrum red maple Tree 3210
Alnus alder Shrub 3
Baccharis halimifolia eastern baccharis Shrub 22
Betula nigra river birch Tree 777777888888888666444
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam Tree 222777999101010101010111111121212151515
Carya hickory Tree 1
Celtis laevigata sugarberry Tree 222222222222222222111
Celtis occidentalis common hackberry Tree 111333222333333333333
Cephalanthus occidentalis common buttonbush Shrub 111222222333333333444
Cercis canadensis eastern redbud Tree 111113222222333888666
Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub 222888778777777999999888
Corylus americana American hazelnut Shrub 111111111
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree 111555667666778555444555
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree 1 1 1 13 13 20 12 12 17 12 12 12 11 11 12 11 11 11 14 14 15 12 12 13
Juglans nigra black walnut Tree 233415
Liquidambar styraciflua sweetgum Tree 153 278 124 98 19 10
Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree 223229223448447
Nyssa tupelo Tree 111111 111222
Nyssa biflora swamp tupelo Tree 111333444555555666666
Ostrya virginiana hophornbeam Tree 222222222222222111111
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree 10 13 13 30 13 13 18 13 13 36 11 11 13 12 12 14 777777
Populus deltoides eastern cottonwood Tree 333444333
Quercus oak Tree 1 1 111111111
Quercus lyrata overcup oak Tree 1 1 1 111111
Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree 111666666666666666666777
Quercus nigra water oak Tree 222222222222222333333
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree 1 1
Rhus copallinum flameleaf sumac shrub 1
Robinia pseudoacacia black locust Tree 111111111111
Ulmus americana American elm Tree 445445555555555445
Ulmus rubra slippery elm Tree 222222222222222
Unknown Shrub or Tree 111222333333
Viburnum dentatum southern arrowwood Shrub 222
1 1 12 7 7 8 80 80 108 86 86 265 89 89 398 96 96 242 102 102 215 97 97 123 90 90 129
113556202022202024191923222226222226191922181823
40.47 40.47 485.6 283.3 283.3 323.7 269.8 269.8 364.2 290 290 893.7 300.1 300.1 1342 323.7 323.7 816.1 344 344 725.1 327.1 327.1 414.8 303.5 303.5 435
Color for Density PnoLS = Planted excluding livestakes
P‐all = Planting including livestakes
T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
T includes natural recruits
12
0.30
12
0.30
12
0.30
12
0.30
12
0.30
12
0.30
12
0.30
Annual Means
MY6 (2023) MY5 (2022) MY4 (2021) MY3 (2020) MY2 (2019) MY1 (2018) MY0 (2018)
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
DMS Project Code 93482. Project Name: Mud Lick Creek
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
93482‐01‐0011 93482‐01‐0012
1
0.02
1
0.02
Current Plot Data (MY6 2023)
2023 MY6 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Appendices
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)
Table 10. Temporary Transect Data
Mud Lick Creek Adaptive Management Plan Transects
50m x 2m Temporary Plot
Species T-1 T-2 T-3
River birch (Betula nigra) 1 1
Silky Dogwood (Cornus ammomum) 1 2
Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana) 1 2
Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) 4
Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) 2 3
Swamp Chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii) 7
Quercus spp. 2
American Elm (Ulmus americana) 1 2 2
Total Stems 10 11 10
Total Stems/Acre 405 445 405
Plot Height Average (ft) 4 3.4 4.2
2023 MY6 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Appendices
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)
Appendix D.
Stream Geomorphology Data
Tables 11a-11c. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Tables 12a-12f. Monitoring Data-Dimensional Data Summary
Cross-section Plots
Parameter Gauge
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL Eq.Min Mean Med Max SD Min Mean Med Max SD Min Max Med Min Mean Med Max SD n
BF Width (ft)18.2 22.0 24.6 5.3 10.8 12.3 18.3 19.8 21 3
Floodprone Width (ft)250.0 306.0 378.0 14 60 125 100 100 100 3
BF Mean Depth (ft)1.9 2.1 2.3 0.8 1.0 1.8 1.6 2.0 2.7 3
BF Max Depth (ft)3.0 4.0 4.2 1.0 1.5 2.6 3.6 3.7 3.8 3
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)41.3 46.3 47.5 5.4 10.6 19.7 33.0 40.4 49.8 3
Width/Depth Ratio 8.0 10.5 12.8 5.2 8.6 14.4 6.8 9.9 13.1 3
Entrenchment Ratio 12.4 13.7 17.2 1.7 4.3 >10.2 4.8 5.1 5.5 3
Bank Height Ratio 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.3 3
Riffle length (ft)
Riffle slope (ft/ft)0.0040 0.0188 0.0704
Pool length (ft)
Pool Max depth (ft)3.7 4.4 5.2 1.2 1.8 3.3
Pool spacing (ft)9.0 46.0 73.0
Channel Beltwidth (ft)26.1 52.9 69.9 10 41 102
Radius of Curvature (ft)9.9 24.8 58.8 11 21 85
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)0.5 1.1 2.39 1.3 2 9.1
Meander Wavelength (ft)59.9 159.6 244.4 ---
Meander Width ratio 1.4 2.2 3.8 1.6 4.4 8.9
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lbs/ft2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Valley Length (ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
BF slope (ft/ft)
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Table 11a. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Mud Lick Creek)
Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition (Mud Lick
Creek)Reference Reach(es) Data Design (Mud Lick
Creek)
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project Number 93482
Profile
Pattern
Monitoring Baseline (Mud Lick Creek)
Additional Reach Parameters
E/C4 E/C4 E/C-type
3.0 - 3.4 2.2 - 5.6
123.9 - 157.42 20 -97
1.20 - 1.37 1.0 - 2.3
Parameter Gauge
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL Eq.Min Mean Med Max SD Min Mean Med Max SD Min Max Med Min Mean Med Max SD n
BF Width (ft)8.3 10.4 5.3 10.8 12.3 13.8 14.0 14.6 16.2 17.7 2
Floodprone Width (ft)33.3 80.0 14 60 125 30 70 100 100 100 2
BF Mean Depth (ft)0.7 1.5 0.8 1.0 1.8 1.0 1.2 0.8 0.9 1.0 2
BF Max Depth (ft)1.5 2.3 1.0 1.5 2.6 1.3 2.0 1.8 1.8 1.8 2
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)7.7 12.7 5.4 10.6 19.7 14.4 16.3 14.2 14.4 14.5 2
Width/Depth Ratio 5.4 14.0 5.2 8.6 14.4 12.0 13.0 14.6 18.4 22.1 2
Entrenchment Ratio 1.9 10.1 1.7 4.3 >10.2 2.2 5.0 5.6 6.2 6.8 2
Bank Height Ratio 1.7 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2
Riffle length (ft)
Riffle slope (ft/ft)0.0040 0.0188 0.0704 0.0060 0.0340
Pool length (ft)
Pool Max depth (ft)2.1 2.7 1.2 1.8 3.3 1.3 4.7
Pool spacing (ft)9.0 46.0 73.0 19.0 92.0
Channel Beltwidth (ft)11 26 38.5 10 41 102 41 125
Radius of Curvature (ft)6.1 17 37 11 21 85 25 42
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)0.73 1.6 4.46 1.3 2 9.1 1.8 3
Meander Wavelength (ft)37.9 64.1 100.6 ---41 168
Meander Width ratio 1.1 2.8 4.6 1.6 4.4 8.9 3 15
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lbs/ft2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Valley Length (ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
BF slope (ft/ft)
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Table 11b. Baseline Stream Data Summary (North Branch)
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project Number 93482
Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition (North Branch)Reference Reach(es) Data Design (North Branch)Monitoring Baseline (North Branch)
Profile
Pattern
Additional Reach Parameters
E5/B5c E/C4 C4 C-type
3.3 - 3.5 2.2 - 5.6 2.4 - 4.3
25.41 - 44.45 20 -97 34.6 - 70.1
1.22 - 1.32 1.0 - 2.3 1.2 - 1.3
Parameter Gauge
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL Eq.Min Mean Med Max SD Min Mean Med Max SD Min Max Med Min Mean Med Max SD n
BF Width (ft)4.3 5.3 10.8 12.3 11.0 8.9 12.8 16.6 2
Floodprone Width (ft)23.0 14 60 125 24 55 100 100 100 2
BF Mean Depth (ft)1.1 0.8 1.0 1.8 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.8 2
BF Max Depth (ft)1.4 1.0 1.5 2.6 0.9 1.5 1.2 1.4 1.5 2
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)4.8 5.4 10.6 19.7 9.7 6.7 8.7 10.6 2
Width/Depth Ratio 3.9 5.2 8.6 14.4 12.4 11.1 19.4 27.7 2
Entrenchment Ratio 2.1 1.7 4.3 >10.2 2.2 5.0 6.0 8.6 11.2 2
Bank Height Ratio 1.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2
Riffle length (ft)
Riffle slope (ft/ft)0.0040 0.0188 0.0704 0.0156 0.0442
Pool length (ft)
Pool Max depth (ft)1.6 1.2 1.8 3.3 1.0 3.5
Pool spacing (ft)9.0 46.0 73.0 15.0 73.0
Channel Beltwidth (ft) --10 41 102 22 98
Radius of Curvature (ft) --11 21 85 20 30
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) --1.3 2 9.1 1.8 3
Meander Wavelength (ft) -----33 132
Meander Width ratio --1.6 4.4 8.9 3 12
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lbs/ft2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Valley Length (ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
BF slope (ft/ft)
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
1 1.0 - 2.3 1.20 -1.30
4.2 2.2 - 5.6 3.3
20.2 20 -97 32
Additional Reach Parameters
B4c E/C4 C4 C-type
Profile
Pattern
Table 11c. Baseline Stream Data Summary (East Branch)
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project Number 93482
Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition (East Branch)Reference Reach(es) Data Design (East Branch)Monitoring Baseline (East Branch)
Dimension MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY6+MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY6+MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY6+
BF Width (ft)18.3 18.8 18.6 19.1 18.0 17.4 17.5 21.0 22.0 14.9 15.9 14.6 15.0 18.0 19.8 19.6 18.9 18.4 18.1 18.2 18.3
Floodprone Width (ft) (approx)100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
BF Mean Depth (ft)2.7 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.8 2.9 2.8441 1.6 1.5 2.2 2.1 2.3 2.2 1.8 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2
BF Max Depth (ft)3.8 3.8 3.8 3.6 3.7 4.0 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.3 3.5 3.3 3.4 2.295 3.6 3.4 3.5 3.7 3.8 3.8 4.1
Low Bank Height 5.0 5.1 5.0 3.7 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.7 3.6 3.9 4.0 3.7 3.5 2.956 3.6 3.4 3.7 3.8 4.0 4.1 4.1
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)49.8 49.8 49.8 49.8 49.8 49.8 49.8 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.023 40.4 40.4 40.4 40.4 40.4 40.4 40.4
Area at Low Bank (ft2)49.8 NA 75.8 75.8 52.5 48.0 52.3 33.0 NA 42.6 42.6 39.8 34.4 45.208 40.4 NA 43.2 43.2 45.9 45.3 41.2
Width/Depth Ratio 6.7 7.1 6.9 7.3 6.5 6.1 6.2 13.4 14.7 6.7 7.7 6.5 6.8 9.8 9.7 9.5 8.8 8.4 8.1 8.2 8.3
Entrenchment Ratio 5.5 5.3 NA**NA**NA**NA**NA**4.8 4.5 NA**NA**NA**NA**NA**5.1 5.1 NA**NA**NA**NA**NA**
Bank Height Ratio*1.3 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.04 0.97 1.04 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.13 1.0 1.29 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.08 1.07 1.01
d50 (mm)9.9 4.4 4.3 4.3 3.8 NA^NA^9.9 4.4 4.3 4.3 3.8 NA^NA^9.9 4.4 4.3 4.3 3.8 NA^NA^
*Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built (MY0) cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group consisting of the NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioners in NC (9/2018).
** Based on the technical industry work group consisting of the NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioners in NC (9/2018), entrenchment ratio is no longer reported for success criteria.
^ Based on 2021 discussion with the NCIRT and NCDMS, it was determined that substrate data (d50) will no longer be reported.
Parameter
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n
BF Width (ft)18.3 19.8 21 3 18.8 19.6 22 3 14.9 18.6 18.9 3 15.9 18.4 19.1 3 14.6 18.0 18.1 3 15.0 17.4 18.2 3
Floodprone Width (ft)100 100 100 3 100 100.0 100 3 100 100 100 3 100 100 100 3 100 100 100 3 100 100 100 3
BF Mean Depth (ft)1.6 2.0 2.7 3 1.5 2.1 2.7 3 2.1 2.2 2.7 3 2.1 2.2 2.6 3 2.2 2.3 2.8 3 2.2 2.2 2.9 3
BF Max Depth (ft)3.6 3.7 3.8 3 3.4 3.6 3.8 3 3.3 3.5 3.8 3 3.5 3.6 3.7 3 3.3 3.7 3.8 3 3.4 3.8 4.0 3
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)33.0 40.4 49.8 3 33.0 40.4 49.8 3 33.0 40.4 49.8 3 33.0 40.4 49.8 3 33.0 40.4 49.8 3 33.0 40.4 49.8 3
Area at Low Bank (ft2)33.0 40.4 49.8 3 NA NA NA NA 42.6 43.2 75.8 3 42.6 43.2 75.8 3 48.4 54.9 71.2 3 34.4 45.3 48.0 3
Width/Depth Ratio 6.8 9.9 13.1 3 7.0 9.3 14.7 3 6.8 6.9 9.0 3 7.3 7.6 8.4 3 6.4 6.5 8.1 3 6.1 6.8 8.2 3
Entrenchment Ratio 4.8 5.1 5.5 3 4.5 5.1 5.3 3 NA**NA**NA**3 NA**NA**NA**3 NA**NA**NA**3 NA**NA**NA**3
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.3 3 1.0 1.0 1.3 3 1.1 1.2 1.3 3 1.0 1.0 1.1 3 1.0 1.1 1.1 3 1.0 1.0 1.1 3
Riffle length (ft)
Riffle slope (ft/ft)
Pool length (ft)
Pool Max depth (ft)
Pool spacing (ft)
Riffle length (ft)
Riffle slope (ft/ft)
Pool length (ft)
Pool Max depth (ft)
Pool spacing (ft)
Riffle length (ft)
Riffle slope (ft/ft)
Pool length (ft)
Pool Max depth (ft)
Pool spacing (ft)
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Meander Width ratio
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
BF slope (ft/ft)
Ri%/RU%P%G%/S%
SC%/SA%/G%/C%/B%BE%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Ce-typeCe-typeCe-type
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project Number 93482
Table 12a. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
Table 12b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project Number 93482
Ce-type
Cross Section 10 (Mud Lick Cr)Cross Section 2 (Mud Lick Cr)Cross Section 1 (Mud Lick Cr)Parameter
MY-5 (Mud Lick Creek)
Profile
Pattern
Additional Reach Parameters
Profile - Reach 2
Profile - Reach 3
Baseline (Mud Lick Creek)MY-1 (Mud Lick Creek)MY-2 (Mud Lick Creek)MY-3 (Mud Lick Creek)MY-4 (Mud Lick Creek)
Riffle Riffle Riffle
Ce-typeC-type
Dimension MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
BF Width (ft)14.2 13.7 13.3 13.2 12.0 12.7 11.7 17.7 22.7 20.7 22.1 19.8 16.9 24.5 14.2 14.6 15.1 14.2 12.4 11.6 10.9 14.6 15.1 14.8 19.4 17.2 14.6 15.9
Floodprone Width (ft) (approx)NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
BF Mean Depth (ft)1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.3 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.6 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.9
BF Max Depth (ft)2.2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.4 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.8 2.1 1.9 2.0 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.7 2.9 2.7 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 1.9
Low Bank Height 2.2 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.4 2.4 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.8 2.0 1.8 1.9 2.6 2.6 2.8 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.9 1.8 1.8 1.8 2.1 2.2 2.1 2.1
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 18.6 18.6 18.6 18.6 18.6 18.6 18.6 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5
Area at Low Bank (ft2)15.5 NA 18.0 18.0 19.9 16.1 41.2 14.2 NA 14.2 14.2 13.8 12.3 15.3 18.6 NA 20.3 20.3 19.7 17.7 20.2 14.5 NA 15.0 15.0 16.9 14.2 16.9
Width/Depth Ratio NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 22.1 36.3 30.2 34.4 27.6 20.1 42.5 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 14.7 15.7 15.1 26.0 20.4 14.8 17.4
Entrenchment Ratio NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5.6 4.4 NA**NA**NA**NA**NA**NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 6.8 6.6 NA**NA**NA**NA**NA**
Bank Height Ratio*NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.94 0.98 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.11 1.06 1.0 1.07
d50 (mm) -- -- -- -- -- -- --18.8 8.0 8.4 4.0 4.9 NA^NA^ -- -- -- -- -- -- --18.8 8.0 8.4 4.0 4.9 NA^NA^
*Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built (MY0) cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group consisting of the NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioners in NC (9/2018).
** Based on the technical industry work group consisting of the NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioners in NC (9/2018), entrenchment ratio is no longer reported for success criteria.
^ Based on 2021 discussion with the NCIRT and NCDMS, it was determined that substrate data (d50) will no longer be reported.
Parameter
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n
BF Width (ft)14.6 16.2 17.7 2 15.1 18.9 22.7 2 14.8 17.8 20.7 2 19.4 20.8 22.1 2 17.2 18.5 19.8 2 14.6 15.8 16.9 2
Floodprone Width (ft)100 100 100 2 100 100.0 100 2 100 100 100 2 100 100 100 2 100 100 100 2 100 100 100 2
BF Mean Depth (ft)0.8 0.9 1.0 2 0.6 0.8 1.0 2 0.7 0.9 1.0 2 0.6 0.8 1.0 2 0.7 0.8 0.8 2 0.8 0.9 1.0 2
BF Max Depth (ft)1.8 1.8 1.8 2 1.8 1.9 1.9 2 1.8 1.8 1.8 2 1.8 1.8 1.9 2 2.0 2.1 2.1 2 1.9 2.0 2.1 2
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)14.2 14.4 14.5 2 14.2 14.4 14.5 2 14.2 14.4 14.5 2 14.2 14.4 14.5 2 14.2 14.4 14.5 2 14.2 14.4 14.5 2
Area at Low Bank (ft2)14.2 14.4 14.5 2 NA NA NA NA 14.2 14.6 15.0 2 14.2 14.6 15.0 2 11.6 11.6 13.8 2 12.3 13.3 14.2 2
Width/Depth Ratio 14.6 18.4 22.1 2 15.1 26.5 37.8 2 14.8 17.8 20.7 2 19.4 28.1 36.8 2 20.4 24.0 27.7 2 14.8 26.5 20.1 2
Entrenchment Ratio 5.6 6.2 6.8 2 4.4 5.5 6.6 2 NA**NA**NA**2 NA**NA**NA**2 NA**NA**NA**2 NA**NA**NA**2
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 2 1.0 1.1 1.1 2 1.0 1.0 1.1 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 2
Riffle length (ft)
Riffle slope (ft/ft)
Pool length (ft)
Pool Max depth (ft)
Pool spacing (ft)
Riffle length (ft)
Riffle slope (ft/ft)
Pool length (ft)
Pool Max depth (ft)
Pool spacing (ft)
Riffle length (ft)
Riffle slope (ft/ft)
Pool length (ft)
Pool Max depth (ft)
Pool spacing (ft)
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Meander Width ratio
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
BF slope (ft/ft)
Ri%/RU%P%G%/S%
SC%/SA%/G%/C%/B%BE%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Profile - Reach 3
Pattern
Additional Reach Parameters
C-type C-type C-type C-type C-type C-type
MY-4 (North Branch)MY-5 (North Branch)
Profile
Profile - Reach 2
Table 12d. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project Number 93482
Pool
Baseline (North Branch)MY-1 (North Branch)MY-2 (North Branch)MY-3 (North Branch)
Cross Section 6 (North Branch)
Riffle
Table 12c. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project Number 93482
Parameter RifflePool
Cross Section 3 (North Branch)Cross Section 4 (North Branch)Cross Section 5 (North Branch)
Dimension MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
BF Width (ft)8.9 11.1 10.2 14.4 9.4 11.0 9.9 7.6 10.8 8.2 7.5 9.7 8.1 8.3 16.6 21.1 18.6 24.6 21.9 18.6 19.6
Floodprone Width (ft) (approx)100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
BF Mean Depth (ft)0.8 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.7 1.4 1.0 1.3 1.4 1.1 1.3 1.3 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.5
BF Max Depth (ft)1.2 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 2.4 1.5 2.1 2.4 2.0 2.2 2.1 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.6 1.6
Low Bank Height 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.5 1.5 2.4 1.5 2.2 2.4 1.6 2.7 2.4 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.6 1.6
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.6 10.6 10.6 10.6 10.6 10.6 10.6
Area at Low Bank (ft2)6.7 NA 7.5 7.5 8.4 7.5 7.8 10.5 NA 11.7 11.7 7.6 15.1 13.1 10.6 NA 10.7 10.7 10.2 10.3 10.9
Width/Depth Ratio 11.8 18.4 15.5 30.9 13.2 18.0 14.7 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 26.0 42.0 32.6 57.1 45.2 32.8 36.2
Entrenchment Ratio 11.2 9.0 NA**NA**NA**NA**NA**NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 6.0 4.7 NA**NA**NA**NA**NA**
Bank Height Ratio*1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.12 1.05 1.06 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.01
d50 (mm)14.3 3.7 5.4 2.5 2.5 NA^NA^ -- -- -- -- -- -- --14.3 3.7 5.4 2.5 2.5 NA^NA^
*Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built (MY0) cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group consisting of the NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioners in NC (9/2018).
** Based on the technical industry work group consisting of the NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioners in NC (9/2018), entrenchment ratio is no longer reported for success criteria.
^ Based on 2021 discussion with the NCIRT and NCDMS, it was determined that substrate data (d50) will no longer be reported.
Parameter
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n
BF Width (ft)8.9 12.8 16.6 2 11.1 16.2 21.2 2 10.2 14.5 18.7 2 14.4 19.5 24.6 2 9.4 15.6 21.9 2 11.0 14.8 18.6 2
Floodprone Width (ft)100 100 100 2 100 100 100 2 100 100 100 2 100 100 100 2 100 100 100 2 100 100.0 100 2
BF Mean Depth (ft)0.6 0.7 0.8 2 0.5 0.6 0.6 2 0.6 0.7 0.7 2 0.4 0.5 0.5 2 0.5 0.6 0.7 2 0.6 0.6 0.6 2
BF Max Depth (ft)1.2 1.4 1.5 2 1.4 1.5 1.6 2 1.3 1.4 1.5 2 1.4 1.5 1.5 2 1.4 1.6 1.7 2 1.4 1.5 1.6 2
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)6.7 8.7 10.6 2 6.7 8.7 10.6 2 6.7 8.7 10.6 2 6.7 8.7 10.6 2 6.7 8.7 10.6 2 6.7 8.7 10.6 2
Area at Low Bank (ft2)6.7 8.7 10.6 2 NA NA NA NA 7.5 9.1 10.7 2 7.5 9.1 10.7 2 8.4 8.6 8.8 2 7.5 8.9 10.3 2
Width/Depth Ratio 11.1 19.4 27.7 2 18.5 30.5 42.2 2 14.6 22.9 31.2 2 28.8 45.2 61.5 2 13.1 29.1 45.1 2 18.0 25.4 32.8 2
Entrenchment Ratio 6.0 8.6 11.2 2 4.7 6.9 9 2 NA**NA**NA**2 NA**NA**NA**2 NA**NA**NA**2 NA**NA**NA**2
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0 2 1 1 1 2 1.0 1.0 1.1 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 2 1.0 1.0 1.1 2 1.0 1.0 1.1 2
Riffle length (ft)
Riffle slope (ft/ft)
Pool length (ft)
Pool Max depth (ft)
Pool spacing (ft)
Riffle length (ft)
Riffle slope (ft/ft)
Pool length (ft)
Pool Max depth (ft)
Pool spacing (ft)
Riffle length (ft)
Riffle slope (ft/ft)
Pool length (ft)
Pool Max depth (ft)
Pool spacing (ft)
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Meander Width ratio
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
BF slope (ft/ft)
Ri%/RU%P%G%/S%
SC%/SA%/G%/C%/B%BE%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
C-typeC-type C-type C-type C-type C-type
Profile - Reach 2
Profile - Reach 3
Pattern
Additional Reach Parameters
MY-3 (East Branch)MY-4 (East Branch)MY-5 (East Branch)
Profile
Table 12f. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project Number 93482
Baseline (East Branch)MY-1 (East Branch)MY-2 (East Branch)
Table 12e. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project Number 93482
Parameter Riffle
Cross Section 9 (East Branch)Cross Section 8 (East Branch)Cross Section 7 (East Branch)
RifflePool
Station Elevation
-0.60 99.71 97.1
6.16 99.83 49.8
10.34 99.67 52.3
12.08 98.79 17.5
13.97 97.50 100.8
16.54 97.19 100.0
18.87 95.37 3.7
20.51 94.43 3.9
22.06 94.07 2.8
24.47 93.91 6.2
26.53 93.73 NA
28.44 93.52 1.04 E
31.16 93.32
33.36 93.41
34.30 97.27
36.57 98.10
38.93 98.56
43.69 98.81
47.72 99.09
River Basin:Cape Fear
Site Name Mud Lick Creek
XS ID XS - 1, Riffle (Mud Lick Cr)
Drainage Area (sq mi):3.64
Date:5/10/2023
Field Crew:P. Perkinson, K. Jernigan
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
Bankfull Width:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
Area at Low Bank:
Stream Type
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
Bank Height Ratio:
Low Bank Height:
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Cape Fear River Basin, Mud Lick Creek, XS - 1, Riffle (Mud Lick Cr)
Bankfull
Flood Prone Area
MY-06 LTOB
MY-00 7/25/18
MY-01 12/06/18
MY-02 9/18/19
MY-03 9/28/20
MY-04 4/6/21
MY-05 8/12/22
MY-06 5/10/23
Station Elevation
0.80 98.99 95.5
6.20 98.81 33.0
10.03 98.62 45.2
12.48 97.91 18.0
13.54 97.40 97.8
15.21 96.76 100.0
16.84 96.21 2.3
17.80 94.65 3.0
19.65 93.50 1.8
20.97 93.77 9.8
22.12 93.46 NA
23.48 93.41 1.29 E
25.31 93.25
26.95 93.29
28.46 93.36
30.61 93.49
32.07 93.77
33.70 94.23
34.64 94.51
36.48 97.52
38.14 97.34
40.27 97.53
Scouring on the right bank of this cross-section is apparent, howerver this is an EII reach and localized at this location.
W / D Ratio:
River Basin:Cape Fear
Site Name Mud Lick Creek
XS ID XS - 2, Riffle (Mud Lick Cr)
Drainage Area (sq mi):3.64
Date:5/10/2023
Field Crew:P. Perkinson, K. Jernigan
Stream Type
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
Entrenchment Ratio:
Bank Height Ratio:
Low Bank Height:
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
Bankfull Width:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
Area at Low Bank:
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Cape Fear River Basin, Mud Lick Creek, XS - 2, Riffle (Mud Lick Cr)
Bankfull
Flood Prone Area
MY-06 LTOB
MY-00 7/25/18
MY-01 12/06/18
MY-02 9/18/19
MY-03 9/28/20
MY-04 4/6/21
MY-05 8/12/22
MY-06 5/10/23
Station Elevation
0.00 98.56 98.1
4.29 98.44 15.5
11.71 98.12 41.2
13.87 97.59 11.7
14.88 96.40 NA
16.24 96.13 NA
17.48 95.81 2.4
18.39 95.84 2.4
19.16 95.74 1.3
20.64 96.47 NA
21.77 97.56 NA
22.75 97.97 NA E
23.86 98.59
29.49 98.57
31.63 98.83
35.28 98.91
Low Bank Height:
Bankfull Elevation:
SUMMARY DATA
River Basin:
Site Name
XS ID
Drainage Area (sq mi):
Date:
Field Crew:
0.65
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
Bankfull Width:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
Cape Fear
Mud Lick Creek
XS - 3, Pool (North Branch)
5/10/2023
P. Perkinson, K. Jernigan
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
Area at Low Bank:
Stream Type
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
Entrenchment Ratio:
Bank Height Ratio:
W / D Ratio:
95
96
97
98
99
100
0 10 20 30 40
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Cape Fear River Basin, Mud Lick Creek, XS - 3, Pool (North Branch)
Bankfull
MY-06 LTOB
MY-00 7/25/18
MY-01 12/06/18
MY-02 9/18/19
MY-03 9/28/20
MY-04 4/6/21
MY-05 8/12/22
MY-06 5/10/23
Station Elevation
-0.10 98.73 98.8
4.15 98.75 14.2
9.34 98.38 15.3
11.22 98.06 24.5
12.04 97.66 100.8
12.52 97.45 100.0
13.18 96.86 2.0
13.97 96.85 1.9
14.62 96.84 0.6
15.56 96.82 42.5
16.64 97.76 NA
20.17 98.49 0.98 C
22.98 98.69
26.40 98.93
Stream Type
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
Bank Height Ratio:
Low Bank Height:
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
Bankfull Width:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
Area at Low Bank:
Drainage Area (sq mi):0.65
Date:5/10/2023
Field Crew:P. Perkinson, K. Jernigan
River Basin:Cape Fear
Site Name Mud Lick Creek
XS ID XS - 4, Riffle (North Branch)
96
97
98
99
100
101
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Cape Fear River Basin, Mud Lick Creek, XS - 4, Riffle (North Branch)
Bankfull
Flood Prone Area
MY-06 LTOB
MY-00 7/25/18
MY-01 12/06/18
MY-02 9/18/19
MY-03 9/28/20
MY-04 4/6/21
MY-05 8/12/22
MY-06 5/10/23
Station Elevation
0.10 98.06 97.7
5.11 98.39 18.6
7.77 97.86 20.2
11.07 95.16 10.9
12.53 94.98 NA
14.48 95.17 NA
15.56 95.76 2.7
17.04 96.59 2.9
18.60 97.63 1.7
20.32 98.21 NA
23.34 97.86 NA
27.23 98.18 NA CStream Type
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
Bank Height Ratio:
Low Bank Height:
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
Bankfull Width:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
Area at Low Bank:
Drainage Area (sq mi):0.65
Date:5/10/2023
Field Crew:P. Perkinson, K. Jernigan
River Basin:Cape Fear
Site Name Mud Lick Creek
XS ID XS - 5, Pool (North Branch)
94
95
96
97
98
99
0 10 20 30
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Cape Fear River Basin, Mud Lick Creek, XS - 5, Pool (North Branch)
Bankfull
MY-06 LTOB
MY-00 7/25/18
MY-01 12/06/18
MY-02 9/18/19
MY-03 9/28/20
MY-04 4/6/21
MY-05 8/12/22
MY-06 5/10/23
Station Elevation
0.40 98.07 97.7
2.68 97.77 14.5
6.93 97.42 16.9
9.92 96.85 15.9
11.53 96.49 99.6
13.25 95.88 100.0
14.65 95.81 1.9
15.51 95.72 2.1
16.56 95.99 0.9
17.99 96.91 17.4
20.22 97.77 NA
23.47 98.37 1.07 C
26.74 97.89
29.09 98.01
Stream Type
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
Bank Height Ratio:
Low Bank Height:
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
Bankfull Width:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
Area at Low Bank:
Drainage Area (sq mi):0.65
Date:5/10/2023
Field Crew:P. Perkinson, K. Jernigan
River Basin:Cape Fear
Site Name Mud Lick Creek
XS ID XS - 6, Riffle (North Branch)
95
96
97
98
99
100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Cape Fear River Basin, Mud Lick Creek, XS - 6, Riffle (North Branch)
Bankfull
Flood Prone Area
MY-06 LTOB
MY-00 7/25/18
MY-01 12/06/18
MY-02 9/18/19
MY-03 9/28/20
MY-04 4/6/21
MY-05 8/12/22
MY-06 5/10/23
Station Elevation
0.50 99.00 98.6
3.90 99.08 6.7
6.25 98.94 7.8
7.35 98.82 9.9
8.21 98.26 100.0
9.20 97.93 100.0
9.88 97.42 1.4
11.04 97.46 1.5
11.84 97.17 0.7
13.09 97.45 14.7
13.97 98.12 NA
15.95 98.42 1.06 C
18.47 98.68
21.78 98.61
24.78 98.79
Stream Type
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
Bank Height Ratio:
Low Bank Height:
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
Bankfull Width:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
Area at Low Bank:
Drainage Area (sq mi):0.27
Date:5/10/2023
Field Crew:P. Perkinson, K. Jernigan
River Basin:Cape Fear
Site Name Mud Lick Creek
XS ID XS - 7, Riffle (East Branch)
97
98
99
100
101
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Cape Fear River Basin, Mud Lick Creek, XS - 7, Riffle (East Branch)
Bankfull
Flood Prone Area
MY-06 LTOB
MY-00 7/25/18
MY-01 12/06/18
MY-02 9/18/19
MY-03 9/28/20
MY-04 4/6/21
MY-05 8/12/22
MY-06 5/10/23
Station Elevation
0.80 101.10 100.1
4.66 100.77 10.5
7.69 100.62 13.1
9.27 100.36 8.3
10.10 99.92 NA
10.96 99.42 NA
11.67 98.73 2.1
12.92 98.15 2.4
13.99 98.00 1.3
14.89 98.19 NA
15.71 98.52 NA
16.81 99.02 NA C
17.80 99.92
19.38 100.67
21.69 100.80
25.44 100.67
27.64 100.75
Stream Type
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
Bank Height Ratio:
Low Bank Height:
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
Bankfull Width:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
Area at Low Bank:
Drainage Area (sq mi):0.27
Date:5/10/2023
Field Crew:P. Perkinson, K. Jernigan
River Basin:Cape Fear
Site Name Mud Lick Creek
XS ID XS - 8, Pool (East Branch)
97
98
99
100
101
102
0 10 20 30 40
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Cape Fear River Basin, Mud Lick Creek, XS - 8, Pool (East Branch)
Bankfull
MY-06 LTOB
MY-00 7/25/18
MY-01 12/06/18
MY-02 9/18/19
MY-03 9/28/20
MY-04 4/6/21
MY-05 8/12/22
MY-06 5/10/23
Station Elevation
0.00 101.10 101.1
4.47 101.16 10.6
9.82 100.64 10.9
11.55 100.69 19.6
12.39 100.16 102.7
13.74 99.75 100.0
14.62 99.46 1.6
15.50 99.52 1.6
16.24 99.67 0.5
17.14 100.34 36.2
18.26 100.53 NA
21.66 100.99 1.01 C
25.33 101.10
29.65 101.16
Stream Type
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
Bank Height Ratio:
Low Bank Height:
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
Bankfull Width:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
Area at Low Bank:
Drainage Area (sq mi):0.27
Date:5/10/2023
Field Crew:P. Perkinson, K. Jernigan
River Basin:Cape Fear
Site Name Mud Lick Creek
XS ID XS - 9, Riffle (East Branch)
99
100
101
102
103
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Cape Fear River Basin, Mud Lick Creek, XS - 9, Riffle (East Branch)
Bankfull
Flood Prone Area
MY-06 LTOB
MY-00 7/25/18
MY-01 12/06/18
MY-02 9/18/19
MY-03 9/28/20
MY-04 4/6/21
MY-05 8/12/22
MY-06 5/10/23
Station Elevation
0.50 97.89 97.5
3.34 97.96 40.4
5.70 97.76 41.2
7.13 97.09 18.3
8.48 96.32 101.5
10.63 95.09 100.0
13.09 94.70 4.1
15.09 94.22 4.1
16.23 93.43 2.2
17.73 93.53 8.3
18.83 94.07 NA
20.51 95.59 1.01 E
22.21 96.23
24.69 97.53
27.30 98.47
29.17 98.77
32.05 99.08
34.99 99.03
Stream Type
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
Bank Height Ratio:
Low Bank Height:
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
Bankfull Width:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
Area at Low Bank:
Drainage Area (sq mi):3.64
Date:5/10/2023
Field Crew:P. Perkinson, K. Jernigan
River Basin:Cape Fear
Site Name Mud Lick Creek
XS ID XS - 10, Riffle (Mud Lick Cr)
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Cape Fear River Basin, Mud Lick Creek, XS - 10, Riffle (Mud Lick Cr)
Bankfull
Flood Prone Area
MY-06 LTOB
MY-00 7/25/18
MY-01 12/06/18
MY-02 9/18/19
MY-03 9/28/20
MY-04 4/6/21
MY-05 8/12/22
MY-06 5/10/23
2023 MY6 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Appendices
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)
Appendix E.
Hydrology Data
Table 13. Verification of Bankfull Events
2023 MY6 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Appendices
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)
Table 13. Verification of Bankfull Events
Mud Lick Creek Restoration Site (DMS Project No. 93482)
Date of Data
Collection Date of Occurrence Method Photo (if
available)
December 6, 2018 October 16-17, 2018 Observations throughout floodplain and crest gauge indicate
a bankfull event after 4.61 inches of rain fell over 48 hours. 1, 2
May 8, 2019 February 24, 2019
Observation of wrack in floodplain along North Branch R2
and crest gauge data from all site crest gauges indicate a
bankfull event after 2.27 inches of rain fell over 48 hours.
3
September 18, 2019 July 24, 2019
Observation of wrack on Mud Lick Creek R2 floodplain
fences and crest gauge data from all site crest gauges
indicate a bankfull event after 3.02 inches of rain fell over 48
hours.
4
May 29, 2020 February 7, 2020
Observations of wrack throughout site along all stream
reaches, and crest gauge data from all site crest gauges
indicate a bankfull event after approximately 3.59 inches of
rain fell over 24-hour period.
5, 6, 7
November 16, 2020 November 12, 2020
Observations of wrack throughout site along all stream
reaches, and crest gauge data from all site crest gauges
indicate a bankfull event after approximately 4.60 inches of
rain fell over 48-hour period.
8, 9
August 12, 2022 July 9, 2022
Observation of wrack in floodplain along North Branch R2
and crest gauge data from all site crest gauges indicate a
bankfull event after 2.80 inches of rain fell over 48 hours.
10
May 10, 2023 April 8, 2023
Observation of wrack in floodplain along East Branch R2
and crest gauge data from all site crest gauges indicate a
bankfull event after 3.96 inches of rain fell over 48 hours.
11, 12, 13
Photo-1 Photo-2
2023 MY6 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Appendices
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)
Photo-3 Photo-4
Photo-5 Photo-6
2023 MY6 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Appendices
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)
Photo-7
Photo-8
2023 MY6 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Appendices
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)
Photo-10
Photo-9
2023 MY6 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Appendices
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)
Photo-11
Photo-12 Photo-13
2023 MY6 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Appendices
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)
Appendix F.
Adaptive Management
Attachment 1: Adaptive Management Plan
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 25, 2022
TO: IRT Members
FROM: DMS, Jeremiah Dow
RE: Mud Lick Creek Project Request for IRT Approval of Adaptive Management Plan for Supplemental Planting
Mud Lick Creek is a design-bid-build stream project that was instituted on 2/13/2013. Wildlands Engineering, Inc. prepared the mitigation plan in 2015 and Axiom Environmental, Inc. was contracted to perform project monitoring. In 2021 DMS contracted Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) to manage invasive and nuisance vegetation. Baker will also provide the supplemental planting services. The project is currently in monitoring year 5. In MY4, four veg plots – 1, 6, 10, & 11 – out of 12 plots did not meet success criteria
On 6/4/2021, the IRT and DMS conducted a credit release site visit where areas of low density and/or low vigor were identified. No additional management activities were prescribed at that time and the IRT recommended continued monitoring of problematic areas with an understanding that supplemental planting may be necessary. Baker was contracted to manage fescue in low vigor areas and thin sweet gum on the eastern side of the project to reduce competition with existing planted stems. On August 30, 2022 DMS personnel visited the site to assess the invasive and nuisance vegetation management efforts and low stem density/vigor areas. During that site visit it was determined that supplemental planting would be necessary, and targeted planting areas were mapped with GPS.
Due to competition with dense herbaceous vegetation and sweet gum, and evidence of widespread deer browse, it was decided that the site should be supplementally planted with 1 gallon and 3 gallon containerized trees. Proposed planting list is attached. All listed species are from the approved Mitigation Plan.
2.04 acres are proposed for supplemental planting out of 9.6 total acres planted which accounts for 21% of the total planted area.
Supplemental planting will include the following:
Size Species Quantity 3 Gall. Fraxinus pennsylvanica (Green Ash) 50 3 Gall. Platanus occidentalis (Sycamore) 50 3 Gall. Populus deltoides (E. Cottonwood) 50 3 Gall. Betula nigra (River Birch) 50 3 Gall. Sambucus canadensis (Elderberry) 50 1 Gall. Cornus amomum (Silky Dogwood) 50 1 Gall. Hamamelis virginiana (Witch Hazel) 50 1 Gall. Diospyros virginiana (Persimmon) 50 3 Gall. Quercus michauxii (Swamp Chestnut Oak) 50 3 Gall. Liriodendron tulipifera (Tulip Poplar) 50
9
3
4
6
5
7
1
8
2
11
10
12
NCCGIA, NC 911 Board
Legend
Beaver Dam
Low Stem D ensity (2.04 acres)
XY MLC Reach Breaks
^_Fish/Benthic Site
Structures
Ve g Plots
Did Not M eet in 20 21
Met Success in 2021
Mitigation Appr oa ch
E2
R
0 100 200 30050Feet
Ü