20080586 Ver 1_Year 4 Monitoring Report_20151203

South Muddy Creek Stream Restoration Project
Year 4 Monitoring Report

McDowell County, North Carolina
NCDMS Project Number – 737

Project Info: Monitoring Year: 4 of 5
Year of Data Collection: 2015
Year of Completed Construction: 2011
NCDMS Project Manager: Matthew Reid
Submission Date: December 2, 2015

Submitted To: NCDEQ – Division of Mitigation Services
1625 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
NCDEQ Contract ID No. 004522

FINAL

South Muddy Creek Stream Restoration Project
Year 4 Monitoring Report

McDowell County, North Carolina

Report Prepared and Submitted by Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
NC Professional Engineering License # F-1048

Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
5550 Seventy-seven Center Dr., Ste.320
Charlotte, NC 28217

Kristi Suggs
Project Manager

Jacob Byers, PE
NC Ecosystem Services Manager

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. - 737
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - FINAL
DECEMBER 2015, MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 5

I
Table of Contents
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ 1
2.0 METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Stream Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 4
2.1.1 Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability ........................................................................................ 4
2.1.2 Hydrology .................................................................................................................................................. 5
2.1.3 Photographic Documentation of Site ......................................................................................................... 5
2.1.4 Visual Stream Morphological Stability Assessment .................................................................................. 6
2.2 Vegetation Assessment ............................................................................................................................... 6
3.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................... 7

Appendices
Appendix A Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Figure 1 Vicinity Map and Directions
Table 1 Project Components
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 Project Contacts Table
Table 4 Project Attribute Table
Appendix B Visual Assessment Data
Technical Memorandum – Site Assessment Report for Monitoring Year 4
Figure 2 Current Condition Plan View (CCPV)
Table 5a Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 5b Stream Problem Areas (SPAs)
Table 6a Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Table 6b Vegetation Problem Areas (VPAs)
Stream Station Photos
Stream Problem Area Photos
Stream Maintenance Area Photos
Vegetation Plot Photos
Vegetation Problem Area Photos
Appendix C Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 8 CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9 CVS Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot and Species
Appendix D Stream Survey Data
Figure 3 Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. - 737
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - FINAL
DECEMBER 2015, MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 5

II
Appendices
Figure 4 Longitudinal Profile with Annual Overlays
Figure 5 Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution with Annual Overlays
Table 10 Baseline Stream Data Summary Tables
Table 11a Cross-section Morphology Data Table
Table 11b Stream Reach Morphology Data Table
Appendix E Hydrologic Data
Table 12 Verification of Bankfull Events

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. - 737
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - FINAL
DECEMBER 2015, MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 5

1
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The South Muddy Creek Restoration Project (Project) was restored by Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
(Baker) through an on-call design and construction services contract with the North Carolina Division of
Mitigation Services (NCDMS). This report documents and presents Year 4 monitoring data as required
during the five-year monitoring period.
The specific goals for the South Muddy Creek Restoration Project were as follows:
 Create geomorphically stable conditions on the Project site,
 Improve and restore hydrologic connections between the streams and their floodplains,
 Improve water quality in the South Muddy Creek watershed, and
 Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat along the Project corridor.
To accomplish these goals the following objectives were implemented:
 Excavate a wide floodplain bench and construct a new channel with stable dimension and pattern,
 Restore channel access the floodplain during bankfull or larger storm events to increase hydrologic
connections and alleviate erosive shear stresses,
 Incorporate bedform diversity with varied in-stream structures to provide a variety of aquatic habitats,
 Treat the floodplain for invasive species vegetation, and
 Reestablish a riparian buffer with native vegetation to improve terrestrial habitat and eliminate
excessive sedimentation from erosion.
The Project site is located approximately nine miles southeast of Marion in McDowell County, North
Carolina, as shown in Figure 1 in Appendix A. The Project is situated in the Catawba River Basin, within the
United States Geologic Survey (USGS) hydrologic unit 03050101040-020. Directions to the Project site can
be found in Figure 1 of Appendix A.
South Muddy Creek lies within the Piedmont physiographic province. Its watershed is predominately
forested, supporting some isolated rural residential housing, chicken farms, agricultural lands, nurseries, and
several small rural residential developments. In the early 1960’s the McDowell County Natural Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS) constructed a flood control structure within South Muddy Creek approximately
three miles upstream from the Project area. This structure controls flows from approximately 12.4 square
miles of the watershed and is located on privately-owned land that is maintained by the NRCS.
The land surrounding the Project site has been used predominantly for crop cultivation. Impacts from past
channelization of the stream have allowed the channel to incise over time and become disconnected from its
floodplain; thereby, promoting excessive shear stress forces on the bed and banks which led to subsequent
erosion. The Project involved the restoration of 2,787 linear feet (LF) of stream along South Muddy Creek at
Sain Road using a Rosgen Priority 2 restoration approach. The Priority 2 channel design approach included
the excavation of bankfull benches to alleviate shear stress on stream banks and to re-establish channel pattern
to dissipate flow velocities in meander bends while creating in-stream habitat with riffle-pool sequences and
allowing for the strategic placement of in-stream structures. Approximately 14.1 acres of associated riparian
buffer were restored or enhanced throughout the Project area and a conservation easement consisting of 17.1
acres will protect and preserve all stream reaches and riparian buffers in perpetuity.
Table 6a in Appendix B summarizes the vegetation condition of the Project site. The planted acreage
performance categories were functioning at 99.2% with only one area consisting of limited coverage of both
woody and herbaceous material. Invasive areas of concern were observed and documented accordingly in

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. - 737
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - FINAL
DECEMBER 2015, MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 5

2
Table 6a and as vegetation problem areas (VPAs) in Figure 2 and Table 6b (Appendix B). Twelve discrete
areas of invasive species were documented throughout the site and totaled approximately 0.52 acres, or 3
percent of the total easement acreage. Multiple treatment control applications for exotic invasive species
were conducted between October 2013 and August 2014 for Ligustrum sinese, Rosa multiflora, Lonicera
japonica, Sorghum halepense, and Pueraria montana var. lobata by a NCDMS licensed contractor; however,
some of the previously treated areas as documented in Table 6b have continued to persist after treatment and
were subsequently treated November 2015. Invasive species will continue to be monitored and treated as
needed.
The average density of total planted stems per plot ranges from 283 – 688 stems per acre with a tract mean
(including volunteers) of 452 stems per acre. Volunteer species continue to thrive throughout the vegetation
plots. The Project site is on track for meeting the final success criteria of 260 trees per acre by the end of
Year 5. Vegetation stem counts are summarized in Tables 7 and 9 of Appendix C.
Table 5a in Appendix B, indicates the South Muddy Creek site is generally geomorphically stable overall and
performing at 90 - 100% for the majority of parameters evaluated within the lateral/vertical stability and in-
stream structure performance categories. The six sub-categories receiving scores of less than 100%
correspond to ten of the stream problem areas (SPAs) documented and summarized in Table 5b (Appendix
B).
Ten of the SPAs were characterized by localized areas of bank erosion, while one was a newly located
beaverdam. Of the eleven SPAs documented in Table 5b, two were SPAs persisting from the Year 1
monitoring assessment, two were from Year 2, two were from Year 3, and the remaining four were
documented from Year 4. Four of the new SPAs that were identified were characterized as localized areas of
bank scour caused by a large beaver dam around Station 28+25 that was obstructing high velocity flows from
remaining centered along the channel. SPA4-5 was added from Year 4 monitoring to document the location
of an additional beaverdam at Station 38+10.
Three of the four permanent cross-sections in Appendix D show that there has been little adjustment to stream
dimension throughout the majority of the Project reach since construction. However, cross-section four
reveals evidence of lateral bank erosion caused by high volume and velocity stream flows being directed
around the beaver dam located upstream of the Sain Road bridge. This blockage resulted in approximately 60
linear feet of damage to the left bank of S. Muddy Creek in April 2015.
The USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) was contracted to remove any beavers and
their dams and to monitor the site on a monthly basis for beaver activity. Between May 2015 and September
2015, APHIS has removed twelve beavers and seven dams from the site. A contractor was hired, and the
bank was repaired on November 10, 2015. The repair consisted of reestablishing the bank, installing live
stakes and transplants, and reseeding and replanting the disturbed area. Maintenance photos are located in
Appendix B.
While the riffle material along cross-section X4 has coarsened up considerably in Year 4 to conditions that are
more similar to the as-built sample, the profile downstream of cross-section X4 depicts the pools are filling
with sediment. This is most likely caused from large storm events moving a high influx of sediment through
the system as result of the previously mentioned area of lateral erosion. Therefore, subsequent monitoring
during Year 5 should provide a better assessment as to whether or not the channel bed is aggrading.
The site was found to have had at least three bankfull event based on crest gauge readings. Information on
bankfull events is provided in Table 12 of Appendix E.
A more detailed summary of the results for the vegetation condition assessment and the visual stream stability
assessment can be found in Appendix B which includes a technical memorandum, current condition plan view
(CCPV) figures, supporting data tables, and photo logs. The contents of Appendix B were submitted to
NCDMS in May 2015 and served as the interim visual site assessment report.

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. - 737
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - FINAL
DECEMBER 2015, MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 5

3
Summary information/data related to the occurrence of items such as beaver or encroachment, and statistics
related to performance of various project and monitoring elements can be found in the tables and figures in
the report appendices. Narrative background and supporting information formerly found in these reports can
be found in the Baseline Monitoring Report (formerly Mitigation Plan) and in the Mitigation Plan (formerly
Restoration Plan) documents available on DMS’s website. It should be noted that the Baseline Monitoring
Report and Mitigation Plan for this Project includes the summary of constructed design approaches for South
Fork Hoppers Creek (DMS Project No. 92251), a nearby project site that was designed and constructed in
conjunction with the South Muddy Creek project as part of the same DMS on-call design and construction
services contract. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices is available from DMS
upon request.

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. - 737
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - FINAL
DECEMBER 2015, MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 5

4
2.0 METHODOLOGY
The five-year monitoring plan for the Project site includes criteria to evaluate the success of the vegetation
and stream components of the project. The methodology and report template used to evaluate these two
components adheres to the DMS monitoring guidance document dated November 7, 2011, which will
continue to serve as the template for subsequent monitoring years. The specific locations of monitoring
features, such as vegetation plots, permanent cross-sections, reference photo stations and crest gauges, are
shown on the CCPV sheets found in Figure 2 of Appendix B.
The majority of Year 4 monitoring data was collected in May, September, and October 2015. All visual site
assessment data contained in Appendix B was collected on May 5th except for the vegetation plot data and
corresponding plot photos which were collected on October 13th and 14th. All stream survey (channel
dimension and profile) and sediment data were collected on September 28th and 29th. Stream survey data was
collected to a minimum of Class C Vertical and Class A Horizontal Accuracy using Leica TS06 Total Station
and was geo-referenced to the NAD83 State Plane Coordinate System, FIPS3200 in US Survey Feet, which
was derived from the South Muddy Creek As-built Survey.
2.1 Stream Assessment
Geomorphic monitoring of restored stream reaches is being conducted for five years to evaluate the
effectiveness of the restoration practices installed. Monitored stream parameters include channel dimension
(cross-sections), profile (longitudinal survey), bed composition, bank and channel stability, bankfull flows,
and reference sites documented by photographs. A crest gauge, as well as high flow marks, will be used to
document the occurrence of bankfull events. The methods used and any related success criteria are described
below for each parameter. For monitoring stream success criteria, 4 permanent cross-sections, 1 crest gauge,
and 20 photo identification points were installed.
2.1.1 Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability
2.1.1.1 Dimension
Four permanent cross-sections were installed throughout the entire project area. Cross-sections
selected for monitoring were located in representative riffle and pool facets and each cross-section
was marked on both banks with permanent pins to establish the exact transect used. The two pairs of
riffle and pool cross-sections are all located upstream of the Sain Road bridge crossing. A common
benchmark will be used for cross-sections and consistently referenced to facilitate comparison of
year-to-year data. The cross-sectional surveys will include points measured at major breaks in slope,
including top of bank, bankfull, inner berm, edge of water, and thalweg, if the features are present.
Riffle cross-sections were classified using the Rosgen Stream Classification System (Rosgen, 1994),
and all monitored cross-sections should fall within the quantitative parameters defined for channels of
the design stream type.
There should be little change in as-built cross-sections. If changes do take place, they will be
evaluated to determine if they represent a movement toward a more unstable condition (e.g., down-
cutting or erosion) or a movement toward increased stability (e.g., settling, vegetative changes,
deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio). Cross-sectional data is presented in
Figure 3 of Appendix D.

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. - 737
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - FINAL
DECEMBER 2015, MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 5

5
2.1.1.2 Longitudinal Profile
One longitudinal profile was surveyed for the entire project length of the Project reach and is
provided in Figure 4 of Appendix D. Longitudinal profiles will be replicated annually during the five
year monitoring period.
Measurements taken during longitudinal profiles include thalweg, water surface, and the top of low
bank. All measurements were taken at the head of each feature (e.g., riffle, run, pool, glide) and the
maximum pool depth. Elevations of grade control structures were also included in the longitudinal
profiles surveyed. Surveys were tied to a permanent benchmark.
The pools should remain relatively deep with flat water surface slopes, and the riffles should remain
steeper and shallower than the pools. Bed form observations should be consistent with those
observed for channels of the design stream type as well as other design information.
2.1.1.3 Substrate and Sediment Transport
Bed load material analysis consists of a pebble count taken in the same constructed riffle (at cross-
section X4) during annual geomorphic surveys of the Project site. This sample, combined with
evidence provided by changes in cross-section and profile data will reveal changes in sediment
gradation that occur over time as the stream adjusts to upstream sediment loads. Significant changes
in sediment gradation will be evaluated with respect to stream stability and watershed changes. Bed
material distribution data is located in Figure 5 of Appendix D.
2.1.2 Hydrology
2.1.2.1 Streams
The occurrence of bankfull events within the monitoring period will be documented by the use of
crest gauges and photographs. One crest gauge was installed on the floodplain at the bankfull
elevation along the left top of bank at station 22+00. The bottom of the crest gauge coincides with
the top of bank (bankfull) elevation. The crest gauges record the highest watermark between site
visits, and are checked at each site visit to determine if a bankfull event has occurred. Photographs
are used to document the occurrence of debris lines and sediment deposition on the floodplain during
monitoring site visits.
Two bankfull flow events must be documented at the crest gauge within the 5-year monitoring period.
The two bankfull events must occur in separate years; otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue
until two bankfull events have been documented in separate years or until the monitoring period ends.
If two bankfull events have not been documented at the end of 5 years the Interagency Review Team
(IRT) will have to decide on an appropriate course of action.
2.1.3 Photographic Documentation of Site
Photographs will be used to document restoration success visually. Reference stations were photographed
during the as-built survey; this will be repeated for at least five years following construction. Reference
photos are taken once a year, from a height of approximately five to six feet. Permanent markers will
ensure that the same locations (and view directions) are utilized during each monitoring period. Selected
site photographs are shown in Appendix B.
2.1.3.1 Lateral Reference Photos
Reference photo transects were taken of the right and left banks at each permanent cross-section. A
survey tape, which was captured in the cross section photographs, represents the cross-section line
located perpendicular to the channel flow. The water line was located in the lower edge of the frame

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. - 737
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - FINAL
DECEMBER 2015, MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 5

6
in order to document bank and riparian conditions. Photographers will make an effort to consistently
maintain the same area in each photo over time.
2.1.3.2 Structure Photos
Photographs of primary grade control structures (i.e. vanes and weirs), along the restored streams are
included within the photographs taken at reference photo stations. Photographers will make every
effort to consistently maintain the same area in each photo over time.
Lateral and structure photographs are used to evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank erosion,
success of riparian vegetation, structure function, and stability, and effectiveness of erosion control measures
subjectively. Lateral photos should not indicate excessive erosion or degradation of the banks. A series of
photos over time should indicate successive maturation of riparian vegetation and consistent structure
function.
2.1.4 Visual Stream Morphological Stability Assessment
The visual stream morphological stability assessment involves the qualitative evaluation of lateral and vertical
channel stability, and the integrity and overall performance of in-stream structures throughout the Project
reach as a whole. Habitat parameters, such as riffle embeddedness and pool depth maintenance, are also
measured and scored. The entire project reach was walked, noting geomorphic conditions of the stream bed
profile (riffle/pool facets), both stream banks, and engineered in-stream structures. Photos were taken at
every stream photo reference station as discussed in the previous section, and in locations of potential SPAs
which were documented in the field for subsequent mapping on the CCPV figures. A more detailed summary
of the methodology and results for the visual stream stability assessment can be found in Appendix B which
includes a technical memorandum, supporting data tables, and SPA photos.
2.2 Vegetation Assessment
Successful restoration of the vegetation on a mitigation site is dependent upon hydrologic restoration, active
planting of preferred canopy species, and volunteer regeneration of the native plant community. In order to
determine if the criteria are achieved, twelve vegetation monitoring quadrants were installed across the project
site. The total number of quadrants was calculated using the CVS-NCEEP Entry Tool Database version 2.2.7
(CVS-NCEEP, 2007). The size of individual quadrants varies from 100-square meters for tree species to 1-
square meter for herbaceous vegetation. Level 1 CVS vegetation monitoring will occur in spring, after leaf-
out has occurred, or in the fall prior to leaf fall. At the end of the first growing season during baseline
surveys, species composition, density, and survival were evaluated. Individual quadrant data provided during
subsequent monitoring events will include diameter, height, density, and coverage quantities. Relative values
will be calculated, and importance values will be determined. Individual trees will be marked to ensure that
they can be found in succeeding monitoring years. Mortality will be determined from the difference between
the previous year’s living, planted trees and the current year’s living, planted trees.
The interim measure of vegetative success for the site is the survival of at least 320, 3-year old, planted trees
per acre at the end of Year 3 of the monitoring period. The final vegetative success criteria is the survival of
260, 5-year old, planted trees per acre at the end of the Year 5 monitoring period.
Photographs are used to visually document vegetation success in sample plots. Reference photos of tree and
herbaceous condition within plots are taken at least once per year. As part of the visual site assessment
conducted on May 5, 2015, the vegetation condition of planted vegetation along stream banks, floodplains,
and terraces were qualitatively evaluated for performance; this also included the documentation of invasive
species and potential VPAs which were recorded in the field for subsequent mapping on the CCPV figures. A
more detailed summary of the methodology and results for the vegetation condition assessment can be found
in Appendix B which includes a technical memorandum, supporting data tables, and photo logs.

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. - 737
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - FINAL
DECEMBER 2015, MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 5

7
3.0 REFERENCES
Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) and NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). 2007. CVS-NCEEP
Data Entry Tool v. 2.2.7. University of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC.
Lee, M., Peet R., Roberts, S., Wentworth, T. 2007. CVS-NCEEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version
4.1.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22:169-199.

APPENDIX A

PROJECT VICINITY MAP AND BACKGROUND TABLES

South Muddy Creek
HUC 03050101040020
128
194
226
80197
19
226 261
183
£¤194
£¤105
90
181
194
105
£¤221
£¤64
£¤70
181
197
£¤80
126
§¨¦40
Lake Lure
Morganton
Marion
Black Mountain
Spruce Pine
Montreat
Glen Alpine
Chimney Rock Village
Sugar Mountain
Burnsville
Old Fort
Seven Devils
Newland
Grandfather Village
Bakersville Crossnore
Rutherfordton
Banner Elk
BURKE
MCDOWELL
YANCEY
AVERY
RUTHERFORD
MITCHELL
BUNCOMBE
CALDWELL
HENDERSON
WATAUGA
POLK
CLEVELAND
CATAWBA03-08-31
BROAD03-08-04
CATAWBA03-08-30
BROAD03-08-01
BROAD03-08-02
FRENCH BROAD04-03-07
FRENCH BROAD04-03-06
FRENCH BROAD04-03-02
WATAUGA04-02-01
FRENCH BROAD04-03-04
BROAD03-08-03
OMap Vicinity
McDowell County, NC
LEGEND:Project Area
NC River Basins
USGS Hydrologic Unit
Counties
0 52.5 Miles
South Muddy Creek Stream Restoration Project
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
McDowell County, NC
NCDMS Project No.: 737 December 2015
The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) and is encompassedby a recorded conservation easement, but is bordered by land under private ownership. Accessing the site may require traversing areas near or alongthe easement boundary and therefore access by the general public is not permitted. Access by authorized personnel of state and federal agenciesor their designees/contractors involved in the development, oversight and stewardship of the restoration site is permitted within the terms andtimeframes of their defined roles. Any intended site visitation or activity by any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles and activitiesrequires prior coordination with DMS.
• From I-40, take State Route 226 South (I-40 exit 86). • Continue approximately 10 miles south. o Turn left onto Trinity Church Loop. o Turn left onto Dysartville Road. Continue approximately 1 mile. o Turn left onto Sain Road.Continue approximately 0.5 mile to the bridge at South Muddy Creek.
Directions to the South Muddy Creek Site:
Project Segment or Reach
ID Existing Feet/Acres*Mitigation Type Approach Linear Footage or
Acreage*
Mitigation
Ratio
Mitigation
Units Stationing Comment
South Muddy Creek 2,593 R P2 2,787 1:1 2,787 10+00 - 38+77**
Installed in-stream structures to protect the stream bank from
erosion and to provide aquatic habitat. Priority 2 was
implemented to connect the channel to a newly evacated
floodplain bench.
Stream
(LF)
Non-Ripar
(Ac)
Upland
(Ac)
Riverine Non-Riverine
2,787 ----
----
-
-
----
-----
-----
--
2,787 --
2,787
Table 1. Project Components
South Muddy Creek Stream Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 737
* Existing reach breaks and design reach breaks varied based on initial geomorphic differences and design requirements.
** Stationing includes 20 ft. of farm crossing above Sain Rd. and 70 ft. of Sain Rd. bridge crossing, but is not reflected in the reach length.
Restoration Level Riparian
Wetland (Ac)
Component Summations
-
Restoration
Enhancement
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Creation
Preservation
HQ Preservation
Totals
Total Project Mitigation Units
Activity or Report Scheduled
Completion
Data Collection
Complete
Actual
Completion or
Delivery
Restoration Plan Prepared N/A N/A Jul-07
Restoration Plan Amended N/A N/A Jan-08
Restoration Plan Approved N/A N/A Aug-08
Final Design – (at least 90% complete)N/A N/A Jun-09
Construction Begins Jun-10 N/A Jun-10
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area N/A N/A N/A
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area Nov-10 N/A Jan-11
Planting of live stakes Mar-11 N/A Mar-11
Planting of bare root trees Mar-11 N/A Mar-11
End of Construction Mar-11 N/A Jun-11
Survey of As-built conditions (Year 0 Monitoring-baseline)Nov-10 N/A Jun-11
Year 1 Monitoring Dec-12 Sep-12 Nov-12
Invasive Treatment N/A N/A Oct-13
Year 2 Monitoring Dec-13 Sep-13 Nov-13
Year 3 Monitoring Dec-14 Sep-14 Nov-14
Invasive Treatment N/A N/A Aug-14
Beaver / Dam Removal N/A N/A Sep-15
Year 4 Monitoring Dec-15 Oct-15 Dec-15
Maintenance - Bank Repair & Planting N/A N/A Nov-15
Invasive Treatment N/A N/A Nov-15
Year 5 Monitoring Dec-16 N/A N/A
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
South Muddy Creek Stream Restoration Project: DMS Project No.737
Elapsed Time Since Grading/Planting Complete: 4 year 6 Months
Number of Reporting Years: 4
Contact:
Contact:
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
South Muddy Creek Stream Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 737
Designer
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. 5550 Seventy-Seven Center Dr., Ste.320
Charlotte, NC 28217
Contact:
Kristi Suggs, Tel. [phone]
Construction Contractor
Contact:
Carolina Environmental Contracting, Inc. 150 Pine Ridge Road
Mount Airy, NC 27030
Contact:
Joanne Cheatham, Tel. [phone]
Planting Contractor
Carolina Environmental Contracting, Inc. 150 Pine Ridge Road
Mount Airy, NC 27030
Joanne Cheatham, Tel. [phone]
Seeding Contractor
Carolina Environmental Contracting, Inc. 150 Pine Ridge Road
Mount Airy, NC 27030
12/11/2012 Contact:
Joanne Cheatham, Tel. [phone]
Seed Mix Sources Green Resources, Tel. [phone]
Nursery Stock Suppliers Foggy Mountain Nursery, Tel. [phone]
Profession Land Surveyor
Turner Land Survey, PLLC.3201 Glenridge Drive
Raleigh, NC 27604
Profession Land Surveyor David Turner, Tel. [phone]
As-Built Plan Set Production Lissa Turner, Tel. [phone]
Monitoring Performers
Wetland Monitoring Point of Contact:Kristi Suggs, Tel. [phone]
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. 5550 Seventy-Seven Center Dr., Ste.320
Charlotte, NC 28217
Stream Monitoring Point of Contact:Kristi Suggs, Tel. [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring Point of Contact:Kristi Suggs, Tel. [phone]
Project County McDowell County, NC
Physiographic Region Piedmont
Ecoregion Inner Piedmont Belt
Project River Basin Catawba
USGS HUC for Project and Reference sites
Project: 03050101040020; References: 03040103050 -090 (Spencer
Creek), -080 (Barnes Creek); 03030002060 -070 (Morgan Creek);
03020201080 -020 (Sal's Branch)
NCDWR Sub-basin for Project and Reference Project: 03-08-30; References: 03-07-09 (Spencer Creek and Barnes
Creek); 03-06-06 (Morgan Creek); 03-04-02 (Sal's Branch)
Within extent of EEP Watershed Plan ? Muddy Creek Local Watershed Plan (LWP), 2003
WRC Class (Warm, Cool, Cold) Warm
% of project easement fenced or demarcated 100%
Beaver activity observed during design phase ? None
South Muddy
Drainage area (sq. mi.)18.8
Stream order 4th
Restored length 2,787
Perennial or Intermittent Perennial
Watershed type (Rural, Urban, Developing etc.) Rural
Watershed LULC Distribution (e.g.)
Developed Low-Medium Intensity 3.7
Ag-Cultivated Crops 0.6
Ag-Pasture/Hay 10.5
Forested 77.4
Other (Open water, Grassland, Etc.)7.8
Watershed impervious cover (%) U
NCDWR AU/Index number 03-08-30
NCDWQ classification C
303d listed ? No
Upstream of a 303d listed segment? No
Reasons for 303d listing or stressor N/A
Total acreage of easment 17.1
Total planted arceage as part of the restoration 14.1
Rosgen classification of pre-existing G4c
Rosgen classification of As-built C4
Valley type Alluvial
Valley slope 0.0017 ft/ft
Valley side slope range (e.g. 2-3%) U
Valley toe slope range (e.g. 2-3%) U
Cowardin classification Riverine, Upper Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom, Cobble-Gravel
Trout waters designation No
Species of concern, endangered etc.? (Y?N) No
Dominant soil series and characteristics
Series IoA
Depth 10
Clay % 18
K 0.15
T 5
Table 4. Project Attribute Table
South Muddy Creek Stream Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 737
Restoration Component Attribute Table

APPENDIX B

VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA

Year 4 Site Assessment Report – South Muddy Creek (737) NCDEQ – Division of Mitigation Services
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. May 2015
Page 1 of 6

Site Assessment Report – Monitoring Year 4

South Muddy Creek (Randolph/Duncan Properties) Stream Restoration
Project
McDowell County, North Carolina
May 2015

Submitted To: NCDEQ – Division of Mitigation Services
1625 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
NCDEQ Contract ID No. 004522
NCDEQ Project ID No. 00737

Submitted By: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Avenue, Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
License: F-1084, Baker Project No. 128221

Year 4 Site Assessment Report – South Muddy Creek (737) NCDEQ – Division of Mitigation Services
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. May 2015
Page 2 of 6

1. Introduction

1.1 Purpose

This report summarizes overall stream and vegetation conditions as part of an interim site
assessment conducted in conjunction with the Year 4 monitoring services for the South
Muddy Creek Stream Restoration Project site located in McDowell County, NC. This site
assessment will be included as part of a more comprehensive annual monitoring report to be
completed and submitted later this year (Fall 2015). The report describes project objectives,
discusses the assessment methodology, summarizes assessment results, and documents
potential stream and vegetation problem areas (SPAs and VPAs respectively).
1.2 Objectives
The objectives of the site assessment were to:
 Provide a general overview of stream morphological stability;
 Provide a general overview of vegetation conditions;
 Identify and document potential SPAs and VPAs.
1.3 Supporting Data
Supporting data and information are provided following the narrative portion of this report
and include:
 Current condition plan view (CCPV) figures (Figure 2, sheets 1 and 2);
 Visual stream morphology stability assessment table (Table 5 a);
 SPA inventory table (Table 5b);
 Vegetation condition assessment table (Table 6a);
 VPA inventory table (Table 6b);
 Stream station photos;
 SPA photos;
 VPA photos.

2 Methodology
The methodology used for assessing overall stream and vegetation conditions at the South
Muddy Creek Stream Restoration Project site adhered to the most recent NCDEQ DMS
monitoring guidance documents (dated November 7, 2011). The site assessment was
comprised of two components, a visual stream morphology stability assessment and a
vegetation condition assessment, both of which are described in more detai l in the following
sections of this report. The assessment was strictly qualitative. Vegetation monitoring plot
counts were excluded from this assessment but will be conducted after July 2015; this data
will be summarized in Appendix C and the CCPV figure of the Year 4 annual monitoring
report to be submitted in late November of this year.

Year 4 Site Assessment Report – South Muddy Creek (737) NCDEQ – Division of Mitigation Services
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. May 2015
Page 3 of 6

The South Muddy Creek Stream Restoration Project site was evaluated as one project reach
for each of the two components (SPA and VPA). This was done since the stream and
riparian corridor are contained within one contiguous section along the mainstem of South
Muddy Creek. Site conditions appeared uniform allowing for an assessment as one reach,
and the project was assessed as one reach for the Final Baseline Monitoring Document/As-
Built Report. Baker performed the visual site assessment on May 5, 2015.
2.1 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
The visual stream morphology stability assessment involved the evaluation of lateral and
vertical channel stability, as well as the integrity and overall performance of in-stream
structures throughout the project reach as a whole. Habitat parameters, such as riffle
embeddedness and pool depth maintenance, were also measured and scored. The entire
2,787 linear foot reach was walked while noting geomorphic conditions of the stream bed
profile (riffle/pool facets), both stream banks, and engineered in-stream structures. Photos
were taken at every existing stream photo point station (from the as-built) and in locations of
potential SPAs which were recorded in the field for subsequent mapping on the CCPV
figures.
2.2 Vegetation Condition Assessment
The vegetation condition assessment involved the evaluation of vegetation within the 17.1
acre conservation easement and included assessing the performance of planted vegetation
along stream banks, floodplains, and terraces, as well as the documentation of invasive
species. The assessment of planted vegetation was confined to the 14.1 acres of riparian
buffer planting zones within the easement boundary as part of the restoration design, whereas
invasive vegetation and encroachment areas of invasive speci es were evaluated for the entire
17.1 acre easement boundary. Photos were recorded in locations of potential VPAs
throughout the easement, such as areas exhibiting sparse or slow growth/vigor, low stem
density, and areas of invasive vegetation concern.
2.3 Post-processing of Field Data
The post-processing of field data consisted of the download and organization of photos into
respective photo logs (stream and vegetation), creating the CCPV figures in GIS and
AutoCAD using the field-mapped SPAs and VPAs, populating the SPA and VPA tables, and
finally scoring the performance of the reach in terms of stream morphology stability and
vegetation condition using assessment forms provided by NCDEQ DMS.

3 Summary of Results
3.1 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 5a summarizes the performance of the South Muddy Creek Stream Restoration Project
reach in terms of lateral (stream bank) and vertical (channel bed) stability while evaluating
the functionality and integrity of in-stream structures. Engineered in-stream structures
evaluated for the assessment of this project reach consisted of constructed riffles, rock/log j-

Year 4 Site Assessment Report – South Muddy Creek (737) NCDEQ – Division of Mitigation Services
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. May 2015
Page 4 of 6

hooks, log vanes, root wads, geolifts, and brush mattresses. Constructed riffles were justified
for inclusion in the evaluation of structures since they are the predominant grade control
structure used throughout the site; however, they were only assessed for the ‘overall
integrity’ and ‘grade control’ parameter categories in Table 5a.

As Table 5a indicates, the South Muddy Creek site was generally geomorphically stable
overall within the lateral/vertical stability and in-stream structure performance categories.
The seven sub-categories receiving scores of less than 100 percent corresponded to the ten
SPAs that were documented and summarized in Table 5b.

All ten SPAs were characterized by localized areas of bank erosion. Two of the ten SPAs
documented in Table 5b, SPA1-1 and SPA1-2, were SPAs persisting from the Year 1
monitoring assessment, two of the ten are from Year 2, and two of the ten are from Year 3
(and are referenced as such by the first number in the SPA naming convention). Four new
SPAs were identified during the Year 4 monitoring assessment.

SPA1-1 consists of a portion of undermined brush mattress along the right bank in an outer
meander bend that has resulted in bank erosion. The length of undercut and eroded bank
along SPA1-1 has remained approximately 80 LF since this SPA was first documented in the
Year 1 visual assessment. Slumping along the stream bank appears to have subsided and the
toe is slowly being populated with native vegetation. Lateral instability along this outer
meander bend may continue migrating downstream if left unchecked over time.

SPA1-2 was still unstable laterally, but remained unchanged in length or severity of bank
erosion since it was first reported in the Year 1 visual assessment. Accumulation of aggraded
riffle material and woody debris at the head of riffle was splitting and directing flow toward
the left bank (SPA1-2) causing the bank to erode. Regrading and uniformly distributing the
aggraded riffle material throughout the riffle may prevent the diversion of flow toward the
left bank; thereby, alleviating subsequent scour along this bank.

SPA2-2 consists of a 60 LF length of brush mattress compromised by an undercut bank
between station 16+70 and 17+30. It is located along the right bank at the beginning of a
meander bend. The brush mattress (and a portion of the staked and matted bank) appears to
be separating from the right bank and hanging loosely away from the bank face. This is most
likely resulting from a combination of poor soil compaction and scour along the toe of the
bank. Some of the brush originally installed behind the matting to armor the bank has
washed away leaving the bank exposed and vulnerable to subsequent erosion. The bank
protection provided by the remaining length of brush mattress along the right bank may
become compromised and less effective over time if the area (SPA2-2) is not stabilized and
the scour (and instability) is allowed to continue to migrate further downstream by
undermining the brush.

SPA2-3 consists of an area of localized scour along the right bank located downstream of an
outer meander bend between station 12+30 and 12+60. Bank scour in this area is likely the
result of the laterally migrating thalweg located immediately downstream of the upstream
meander bend (and was noted accordingly in Table 5a). As a result, velocity vectors within

Year 4 Site Assessment Report – South Muddy Creek (737) NCDEQ – Division of Mitigation Services
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. May 2015
Page 5 of 6

the riffle have been redirected toward the right bank; thereby, increasing near bank stress and
causing the bank to erode. The bank is vertical, exposed, devoid of vegetation and matted
protection, and is mild to moderately eroded.

SPA3-1 is an area of erosion on the left bank between station 29+30 and 29+50. This area
primarily consists of bank erosion upstream of and between rootwads and a log vane.
Eddying water behind rootwads has eroded the bank. The rootwads and log vane are
functioning correctly, but the area should be monitored to determine if repairs are needed.
Native herbaceous vegetation is slowly populating the bank helping to stabilize the erosion.

SPA3-2 is an area of localized scour along an outside meander bend on the right bank located
downstream of the Sain Road bridge between station 31+80 and 32+06. This scour is a result
of high water velocity from the steep riffle directly upstream. There are no bank protection
structures in the meander, and the erosion has left the bank vertical with very little vegetative
protection. It is actively eroding and slumping and remained unchecked could progress
downstream.

SPA4-1 is a localized area of bank erosion behind a rootwad on the right bank. The erosion
is being caused by overbank flows scouring the area behind the rootwad. The rootwad is still
functioning as moderate bank protection, but could become dislodged if further erosion
occurs.

SPA4-2 is a localized area of bank erosion behind a rootwad on the right bank. The erosion
appears to be caused by overbank flows scouring the area behind the rootwad. However,
because of the uniform nature of the problem and the presence of beavers in the area this
SPA may be a location of a beaver den. The rootwad is still functioning as bank protection.
Filling the void and mounding behind the rootwad would remedy the issue.

SPA4-3 is a localized are of bank erosion along the right bank between stations 28+67 and
28+90. Flood flows were being directed around a beaverdam that was removed in May 2015
causing erosion on the right bank. Heavy woody vegetation is helping to stabilize and protect
the bank. However, further instability and erosion could occur if the banks continue to
erode/slump or if the beaverdam is rebuilt.

SPA4-4 is a large erosion area on the left bank between stations 28+40 and 28+90. The
erosion is the direct result of a recently removed beaverdam. Flood flows were being
directed around a beaverdam that was removed in May 2015 causing massive erosion on the
left bank. If the problem area is not repaired further erosion and instability is immine nt
potentially causing structure failure and bridge abutment concerns.
3.2 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Table 6a summarizes the vegetation condition of the South Muddy Creek Stream Restoration
site. The planted acreage performance categories were functioning close to 100 percent with
no low stem density areas or areas of poor growth rates/vigor to report. Invasive areas of
concern were observed and documented accordingly in Table 6a and as VPAs in Figure 2 and

Year 4 Site Assessment Report – South Muddy Creek (737) NCDEQ – Division of Mitigation Services
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. May 2015
Page 6 of 6

Table 6b. There were a total of ten VPAs, four of which were identified during the Year 1
visual assessment, four that were identified during the Year 2 visual assessment, one during
the Year 3 visual assessment, and one during the Year 4 visual assessment. VPAs
documented in past years were included in this assessment since they still persist even after
treatment implemented in 2013. Those VPA’s documented in past reports that have not
changed will not be described below. As with the SPAs, the first number in the VPA naming
convention references the monitoring year in which the VPA was identified during the visual
assessment. All VPA’s are included in the scoring of easement acreage performance
categories in Table 6a and are also summarized in Table 6b, Figure 2 (CCPV), and the VPA
photolog.

Ten discrete VPA’s were documented throughout the site and totaled approximately 0.52
acres, or 3.0 percent of the total easement acreage (Table 6a). Invasive species comprised
approximately 1.01 acres less of the easement acreage area during this current visual
assessment compared to last year’s, or a decrease of 5.9 percent in easement acreage area.

VPA1-2 was noted in the Year 3 visual assessment as including Trumpet Vine (Campsis
radicans). During the Year 4 assessment Trumpet Vine was noted, but the size of the VPA
had reduced in size. This VPA is caused by persistence of invasive species following
treatment.

VPA1-5 was noted in the Year 3 visual assessment as including Kudzu (Pueraria lobata),
Multiflora Rose (Rosa multiflora), and Chinese Privet (Ligustrum sinense). During the Year
4 visual assessment, Chinese Privet continued to persist around a patch of trees after
treatment. The size of the invasive area has been reduced dramatically. This is either due to
successful treatment of the invasives or a misidentification of plant species during previous
year’s assessments.

VPA3-2 was noted in the Year 3 visual assessment as including Multiflora Rose. During the
Year 4 visual assessment Multiflora Rose and Chinese Privet were noted in this VPA and the
size of the invasive area was noted smaller. Both Multiflora Rose and Chinese Privet have
mostly likely persisted after treatment. The reduction in the size of the VPA could be
attributed to successful invasive treatment or misidentification of invasive species in previous
years.

VPA 4-1 identified during the Year 4 visual assessment only included an area of sparse
herbaceous cover. No new large areas of invasive species were noted during this assessment.
This problem area only accounts for 0.11 acres or 0.8% of the planted acreage. It is unclear
why this area exists. However, it may be present because of poor soil conditions in the area
or high overbank flooding is carrying away seed sources.

Invasive species treatment occurred in August of 2013. Invasive species density has been
reduced, but VPAs from previous year’s visual assessments still persist. Additional treatment
will be necessary to control invasive species within the Conservation Easement.

1130
11281128
1128
1128
1128
1128
1126
1126
1126
1126
1126
112
6
1126
1126
1126
1126
1126
11241124
1124
1124
1124
1124
1124
11241124
1124
1124
11
2
4
1124
11
2
2
1122
112
2
1122
11
2
2
1122
1122
112
2
112
2
112
2
1122
112
2
1122
112
2
1122
1120
11
2
0
1120
11
2
0
1120
112
0
1120
112
0
1120
11
2
0
1120
112
0
1118
11
1
8
1118
1118
1128
1136
113411321130
1
1
3
0
1130
1130
1128
1126
1122
1120
1120
1118
1128
1
1
2
7
1127
1127
1123
1123
11291129
112
9
11
3
1
1
1
3
1
1123
1123
1119
10
+
0
0
10+
5
0
1
1
+
0
0
11
+
5
0
12+0
0
12+
5
0
13+
0
0
13
+
5
0
1
4
+
0
0
14
+
5
0
15+
0
0
15+5
0
16+0
0
16+5
0
17
+
0
0
1
7
+
5
0
18+
0
0
18+
5
0
19
+
0
0
19+
5
0
20+
0
0
20+50
21+00
21+
5
0
2
2
+
0
0
22+
5
0
23
+
0
0
23+50
2
4
+
0
0
24
+
5
0
25+0
0
25+
5
0
26+0
0
26+
5
0
27
+
0
0
2
7
+
5
0
2
8
+
0
0
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XXXXXXX
X
X
X X X X X X X X X X X X X
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
T
B
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB TB
T
B
TB TB
TB
TB TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
CECECECECECECECECECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE
10+00BEGIN AS-BUILTLONGITUDINAL PROFILE
FENCE
Post
PID 1
PID 2 PID 3
PID 4
PID 5
PID 6
PID 7
PID 8
PID 9
PID 11
PID 10
PID 12
SPA 2-2
SP
A

1
-
1
SPA
2
-
3
SPA 1-2
SPA4-1 SPA 4-2
X - 1
X

-

2
VP3
VP4
VP1 VP2
VP6
VP5
Copyright:© 2013 ESRI, i-cubed, GeoEye
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E

2
5
+
0
0
IMAGE SOURCE: ESRI WORLD IMAGERY 2D, 2013
³NAD

8
3
50 0 50 10025
Feet
SOUTH MUDDY CREEKCURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEWYEAR 4 MONITORINGSTA. 10+00 - 25+00
Mi
c
h
a
e
l

B
a
k
e
r

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
,

I
n
c
.
NC

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

L
i
c
e
n
s
e

F
-
1
0
8
4
55
5
0

S
e
v
e
n
t
y
-
s
e
v
e
n

C
e
n
t
e
r

D
r
.

St
e
.

3
2
0
Ch
a
r
l
o
t
t
e
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

2
8
2
1
7
Ph
o
n
e
:

7
0
4
.
6
6
5
.
2
2
0
6
SO
U
T
H

M
U
D
D
Y

C
R
E
E
K
ST
R
E
A
M

R
E
S
T
O
R
A
T
I
O
N

P
R
O
J
E
C
T
MC
D
O
W
E
L
L

C
O
U
N
T
Y
,

N
O
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
d

F
o
r
:
No
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t

o
f

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n

o
f

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
16
2
5

M
a
i
l

S
e
r
v
i
c
e

C
e
n
t
e
r
Ra
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
9
9
Ph
o
n
e
:

9
1
9
-
7
0
7
-
8
9
7
6
DMS Project No.
00737
Baker Project No.
128221
Date:12/02/2015
APPROVED:
DRAWN:
DESIGNED:------KLS
JB
Monitoring Year:
Sheet:
4 of 5
1 of 2
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
AS-BUILT CENTERLINE
AS-BUILT TOP OF BANK
AS-BUILT CHANNEL
}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}FENCE
CROSS SECTION
TB TB
CE CE
X - #
PHOTO ID POINT
VEGETATION PLOTVP
VEGETATION PROBLEM AREA (VPA)INVASIVE SPECIES PRESENT
VEGETATION PROBLEM AREA (VPA)SPARSE HERBACEOUS COVER
STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)UNDERCUT BANKS
STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)BANKS WITH EVIDENT SCOUR / EROSION
STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)BANK SLUMPING / CALVING / COLLAPSE
FI
G
U
R
E

2
1126
1126
1126
1126
1124
1124
1124
1124
1122
11
2
2
1122
112
2
1122
1122
112
2
1122
1122
1120
11
2
0
1120
1120
112
0
1120
1118
11
1
8
1118
1118
11
2
6
1124
1124
1124
1124
1124
1122
1122
1122
1122
1122
11
2
0
1120
1120
1120
112
0
1120
111
8
1118
1118
1118
11
1
8 1118
1116
1116
1124
1124
1124
1116
1116
1124
1122
1120 1118
1124
1118
1124
112
2
1118
1118
1126
1116
1128
1114
1125
1125
1125
1123
1125
11
2
5
1125
11
2
5
11
2
5
1127
1127
1125
11211122
11
2
5
1125
1120
22+
5
0
23
+
0
0
23+50
2
4
+
0
0
24
+
5
0
25+0
0
25+
5
0
26+0
0
26+
5
0
27
+
0
0
2
7
+
5
0
2
8
+
0
0
2
8
+
5
0
2
9
+
0
0
29
+
5
0
3
0
+
0
0
30
+
5
0
31
+
0
0
3
1
+
5
0
3
2
+
0
0
3
2
+
5
0
33
+
0
0
3
3
+
5
0
34
+
0
0
34+
5
0
35+0
0
35+5
0
36+0
0
36
+
5
0
3
7
+
0
0
3
7
+
5
0
38
+
0
0
3
8
+
5
0
X
XXXXXXXXX
X X X X X X X X
X
X
X X X X X X X X X
X
X
X
X
X
X X X X X X
X
X
X
X
TB
TB
TB TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TBTB TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TBTB
CE
CE
CE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECE
CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE
CE
CE
CE
1140
1136
SA
I
N

R
O
A
D
SR

#
1
7
6
8
(U
N
P
A
V
E
D
)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
38+76.58END AS-BUILTLONGITUDINAL PROFILE
FENCE
GATE
GATE
BR
I
D
G
E
SA
I
N

R
D
.
PID 9
PID 11
PID 10
PID 12
PID 13 PID 14
PID 15
PID 16
PID 17
PID 18
PID 19
PID 20
SPA 4-4
SPA 3-1
SPA 1-
2
SPA 3-2
SPA 4-3
SPA 4-2
VPA 4-1
VPA 2-6
VPA 1-4
VPA 1-3
VPA 1-5
VPA 1-5
VPA 2-3 VPA 2-4
X

-

3
X
-

4
VP7
VP8
VP9
VP11
VP12
VP10
Copyright:© 2013 ESRI, i-cubed, GeoEye
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E

2
5
+
0
0
IMAGE SOURCE: ESRI WORLD IMAGERY 2D, 2013
³NAD

8
3
50 0 50 10025
Feet
SOUTH MUDDY CREEKCURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEWYEAR 4 MONITORINGSTA. 25+00 - 38+77
Mi
c
h
a
e
l

B
a
k
e
r

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
,

I
n
c
.
NC

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

L
i
c
e
n
s
e

F
-
1
0
8
4
55
5
0

S
e
v
e
n
t
y
-
s
e
v
e
n

C
e
n
t
e
r

D
r
.
,

St
e
.

3
2
0
Ch
a
r
l
o
t
t
e
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

2
8
2
1
7
Ph
o
n
e
:

7
0
4
.
6
6
5
.
2
2
0
6
SO
U
T
H

M
U
D
D
Y

C
R
E
E
K
ST
R
E
A
M

R
E
S
T
O
R
A
T
I
O
N

P
R
O
J
E
C
T
MC
D
O
W
E
L
L

C
O
U
N
T
Y
,

N
O
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
d

F
o
r
:
No
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t

o
f

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n

o
f

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
16
2
5

M
a
i
l

S
e
r
v
i
c
e

C
e
n
t
e
r
Ra
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
9
9
Ph
o
n
e
:

9
1
9
-
7
0
7
-
8
9
7
6
DMS Project No.
00737
Baker Project No.
128221
Date:12/02/2015
APPROVED:
DRAWN:
DESIGNED:------KLS
JB
Monitoring Year:
Sheet:
4 of 5
2 of 2
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
AS-BUILT CENTERLINE
AS-BUILT TOP OF BANK
AS-BUILT CHANNEL
}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}FENCE
CROSS SECTION
TB TB
CE CE
X - #
PHOTO ID POINT
VEGETATION PLOTVP
VEGETATION PROBLEM AREA (VPA)INVASIVE SPECIES PRESENT
VEGETATION PROBLEM AREA (VPA)SPARSE HERBACEOUS COVER
STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)UNDERCUT BANKS
STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)BANKS WITH EVIDENT SCOUR / EROSION
STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)BANK SLUMPING / CALVING / COLLAPSE
STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)REMNANT BEAVER DAM
FI
G
U
R
E

2
Assessed Length (LF)2,787
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub-
Category Metric
Number Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number
per As-Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
Adjusted %
for Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
1. Aggradation 1 60 98%
2. Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture/Substrate 10 11 91%
1. Depth 12 12 100%
2. Length 12 12 100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)12 12 100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)9 11 82%
1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
and/or scour and erosion 6 221 96%0 0 96%
2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting
appears likely 0 0 100%0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100%0 0 100%
6 221 96%0 0 96%
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 35 38 92%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across
the sill.11 11 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms 9 9 100%
3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
exceed 15%24 27 89%
4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth 9 9 100%
3. Engineering
Structures
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
3. Meander Pool
Condition
4. Thalweg position
Table 5a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
South Muddy Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 737
South Muddy Creek
2. Bank
Totals
Feature Issue Station No.Suspected Cause Photo Number*
21+20 to 22+00
Right bank (including brush mattress and
matting) slumping at beginning of outer
meander bend from a combination of poor
compaction and scour along the toe of bank.
Bank appears to have subsided slumping and
toe is slowly being populated with native
vegetation.
SPA1-1
27+90 to 28+10
Localized scour along left bank resulting in
raw, vertical bank, devoid of vegetation and
matted protection. Cause appears to be
localized eddying within the riffle.
SPA1-2
16+70 to 17+30
Right bank (including brush mattress and
matting) separating and scouring at beginning
of outer meander bend from a combination of
poor compaction and scour along the toe of
bank. Slowly stabilizing with native
vegetation.
SPA2-2
17+95 to 18+50
Localized scour along the right bank of a riffle
resulting in raw, vertical bank, devoid of
vegetation and matted protection. Appears to
be caused by high near bank stress and poorly
compacted soil. Vegetation and rootmass
along that portion of bank is sparse.
SPA2-3
29+30 to 29+50
Localized scour along the left bank behind
rootwads. Appears to be caused by high near
bank stress during high water. Rootwads
appear to functioning and bank vegetation is
slowly reestablishing.
SPA3-1
31+80 to 32+06
Localized scour along right bank downstream
of Sain Rd. Bridge. Cause is due to high water
velocites created by steep riffle just
downstream of bridge.
SPA3-2
17+75 to 17+88
Localized scour behind rootwad. Appears to
be caused by high near bank stress during high
water. Rootwads appear to functioning and
bank vegetation is slowly reestablishing.
SPA4-1
22+63 to 22+75
Localized scour behind rootwad. Appears to
be caused by high near bank stress during high
water or from animal activity. Rootwads
appear to functioning.
SPA4-2
28+80 to 28+86
Beaverdam obstructing flow in center of
channel. High flow event days later removed
beaverdam. Most likely beaver will build back
the dam.
SPA4-3
28+40 to 28+90
Large area of bank erosion and scour on left
bank. Cause is flow diversion around
beaverdam during low and high flow events.
SPA4-4
38 + 10 Remnant beaver dam that was removed in
October 2015.SPA4-5
*Note: The first digit in the Photo Number column references the monitoring year and the second digit references the problem area or photo (which would be identical to a prior years
problem area/photo number when persisting from a previous monitoring year).
Table 5b. Stream Problem Areas
South Muddy Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 737
South Muddy Creek (2,787 LF)
Bank Scour
Planted Acreage 14.1
Vegetation Category Definitions Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
Depiction
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of Planted
Acreage
1. Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.0.1 acres see figure 1 0.11 0.8%
2. Low Stem Density Areas Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5
stem count criteria.0.1 acres NA 0 0.00 0.0%
1 0.11 0.8%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates
or Vigor
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given
the monitoring year.0.25 acres NA 0 0.00 0.0%
1 0.11 0.8%
Easement Acreage 17.1
Vegetation Category Definitions Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
Depiction
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of Easement
Acreage
4. Invasive Areas of Concern Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).1,000 SF see figure 12 0.52 3.0%
5. Easement Encroachment
Areas Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).none NA 0 0.00 0.0%
Table 6a. Vegetation Condition Assessment
South Muddy Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 737
South Muddy Creek
Total
Cumulative Total
Feature Issue Station No.Suspected Cause Photo Number*
18+00 to 21+00 (right flood plain)
21+00 to 22+75 (left flood plain)
21+75 to 23+75 (left terrace slope)
Rosa multiflora and Ligustrum sinense :
persisting after treatment within existing tree
stand
VPA1-3
25+50 to 28+75 (left terrace slope)
Rosa multiflora, Ligustrum sinense, and
Lonicera japonica : persisting after treatment
within existing tree stand
VPA1-4
36+00 to 37+00 (right terrace)Ligustrum sinense : persisting after treatment
within existing tree stands.VPA1-5
See Plan View Figure Rosa multiflora and Lonicera japonica :
potential encroachment from outside VPA2-1
See Plan View Figure Rosa multiflora and Lonicera japonica :
potential encroachment from outside VPA2-3
See Plan View Figure Lonicera japonica : potential encroachment
from outside VPA2-4
See Plan View Figure
Rosa multiflora , Ligustrum sinense, and
Lonicera japonica : persisting after treatment
within existing tree stand/potential
encroachment from outside
VPA2-6
See Plan View Figure Rosa multiflora and Lonicera japonica :
potential encroachment from outside.VPA3-2
Sparse Herbaceous Cover See Plan View Figure Unknown VPA4-1
*Note: The first digit in the Photo Number column references the monitoring year and the second digit references the problem area or photo (which would be identical to a prior
years problem area/photo number when persisting from a previous monitoring year).
Table 6b. Vegetation Problem Areas
South Muddy Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 737
South Muddy Creek
VPA1-2Campsis radicans persisting after treatment
Invasive/Exotic Populations

South Muddy Creek
Stream Station Photos

South Muddy Creek PID 1 – J-Hook near upstream end
of project
South Muddy Creek PID 2 –Constructed Riffle,

South Muddy Creek PID 3 – Log Vane in Meander South Muddy Creek PID 4 – Constructed Riffle

South Muddy Creek PID 5 – Log Vane in Meander South Muddy Creek PID 6 – Constructed Riffle

South Muddy Creek PID 7 – J-Hook in Meander South Muddy Creek PID 8 – Constructed Riffle

South Muddy Creek PID 9 – Log Vane in Meander South Muddy Creek PID 10 – Stream Crossing

South Muddy Creek PID 11 – Constructed Riffle South Muddy Creek PID 12 – Log Vane and Root Wad
in Meander

South Muddy Creek PID 13 – Constructed Riffle South Muddy Creek PID 14 – Immediately upstream of
Sain Road crossing

South Muddy Creek PID 15 – Constructed Riffle
downstream of Sain Road crossing
South Muddy Creek PID 16

South Muddy Creek PID 17 – Log Vane in Meander South Muddy Creek PID 18 – Constructed Riffle

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

South Muddy Creek
Stream Problem Area (SPA) Photos

SPA1-1 – Right bank/brush mattress separating from
poor compaction and scour along toe of bank (looking
downstream). Appears to be stabilizing with vegetation.
SPA1-2 – Localized scour along left bank from eddying
within the riffle (looking downstream)

SPA2-2 – Right bank/brush mattress separating from
poor compaction and scour along toe of bank (looking
downstream from right bank)

SPA2-3 – Localized scour along right bank within a
riffle from the lack of thalweg centering downstream of
a meander bend (looking downstream from right bank)

SPA3-1 – Localized scour along left bank behind
rootwads (looking across from right to left bank)
SPA3-2 – Localized scour along right bank downstream
of Sain Rd. Bridge. Result of high shear stress caused
by steep riffle (looking downstream from right bank)

SPA4-1 – Localized scour along right bank behind
rootwads (looking downstream from right bank)
SPA4-2 – Localized scour along right bank behind
rootwads (looking downstream from right bank).
Possibly caused by animals.

SPA4-3 – Area of right bank erosion caused by flow
diversion around beaverdam.
SPA4-4 – Large area of left bank erosion caused by
flow diversion around beaverdam.

SPA4-5 – Remnant beaver dam that was removed in
October 2015.

South Muddy Creek
Stream Maintenance Area Photos

Location of beaver dam (prior to its removal) that
caused approximately 60 linear feet of damage to the
left bank along South Muddy Creek.
Area of bank erosion prior to implementation of
maintenance work in November 2015.

Downstream photo of bank repair completed in
November 2015.

Upstream photo of bank repair completed in November
2015.

Floodplain view of repair area and plantings.

South Muddy Creek
Vegetation Problem Area (VPA) Photos

VPA1-2 – Trumpet vine persisting after treatment VPA1-3 – Multiflora Rose and Chinese Privet

VPA1-4 – Multiflora Rose, Chinese Privet, Japanese
Honeysuckle
VPA1-5 - Chinese Privet

VPA2-1 - Multiflora Rose and Japanese Honeysuckle VPA2-3 - Japanese Honeysuckle

VPA2-4 – Japanese Honeysuckle

VPA2-6 – Chinese Privet and Japanese Honeysuckle

VPA3-2 – Japanese Honeysuckle and sparse areas of
Multiflora Rose

VPA4-1 – Sparse herbaceous cover in right
floodplain

SOUTH MUDDY CREEK
VEG PLOT PHOTOS
South Muddy Creek Stream Restoration Project
Year 4 Monitoring - Vegetation Plot Photo Log
10/14/2015 - Veg Plot 5
10/14/2015 - Veg Plot 3
10/13/2015 - Veg Plot 6
10/14/2015 - Veg Plot 1 10/13/2015 - Veg Plot 2
10/13/2015 - Veg Plot 4
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., NCDMS PROJECT NO. – 737
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 4 MONITORING DOCUMENT REPORT - FINAL
DECEMBER 2015, MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 5
10/14/2015 - Veg Plot 7 10/13/2015 - Veg Plot 8
10/13/2015 - Veg Plot 1010/13/2015 - Veg Plot 9
10/13/2015 - Veg Plot 12
South Muddy Creek Stream Restoration Project
Year 4 Monitoring - Vegetation Plot Photo Log
10/13/2015 - Veg Plot 11
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., NCDMS PROJECT NO. – 737
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 4 MONITORING DOCUMENT REPORT - FINAL
DECEMBER 2015, MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 5

APPENDIX C

VEGETATION PLOT DATA

Vegetation
Plot ID
Total/Planted
Stem Count*
1 324/324
2 567/567
3 688/688
4 445/445
5 526/526
6 283/283
7 486/486
8 405/405
9 405/364
10 486/486
11 364/364
12 445/445
Note: *Total/Planted Stem Count reflects the changes in stem density based on the density of
stems at the time of the As-Built Survey (Planted) and the current total density of planted stems
including volunteers (Total).
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
South Muddy Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 737
Vegetation Survival Threshold Met?Tract Mean
Yes
452
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Report Prepared By Kristi Suggs
Date Prepared 11/2/2015 11:33
Database name 00737_S.Muddy_Yr2-5_cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.3.1.mdb
Database location C:\CVS\S.Muddy
Computer name CHABLKSUGGS
File size 46481408
Metadata Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Proj, planted Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year.
Proj, total stems Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural/volunteer stems.
Plots List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
Project Code 737
Project Name South Muddy Creek Restoration Project
Description The project involved the Priority II Restoration of 2,787 linear feet of stream along South Muddy Creek at Sain Rd.
River Basin Catawba
Length(ft)2787
Stream-to-edge width (ft)70
Area (sq m)36245.24
Required Plots (calculated)10
Sampled Plots 12
Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
South Muddy Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 737
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT
PROJECT SUMMARY
P T P T P T P T P T P T P T P T P T P T P T P T P T P T P T P T P T P T
Betula nigra River Birch Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1
Carpinus caroliniana American Hornbeam Tree 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Celtis laevigata Sugarberry Shrub 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1
Diospyros virginiana Persimmon Tree 2 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 0 3 2 2 2 2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Tree 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 5 5 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2
Juglans nigra Black Walnut Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1
Liriodendron tulipfera Tulip Poplar Tree 3 3 3 3 6 6 3 3 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 2
Nyssa sylvatica Blackgum Tree 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 1 1 4 4 6 6 2 2 3 3 2 2 4 4 4 4 3 3 6 6 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 3
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak Tree 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 1
Quercus palustris Pin Oak Tree 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1
Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2
Quercus rubra N. Red Oak Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 4 4 3 2 3 3 2 2
Volunteers
Acer rubrum Red Maple Tree
Betula nigra River Birch Tree 5
Diospyros virginiana Persimmon Tree
Juglans nigra Black Walnut Tree 2
Liriodendron tulipfera Tulip Poplar Tree 2 1
Nyssa sylvatica Blackgum Tree 1
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 7 4
Prunus serotina Black Cherry Tree 0 5
Quercus rubra N. Red Oak Tree 2 2
Vaccinium corymbosum highbush blueberry Shrub 0 1 1
5 5 6 6 4 4 5 5 6 6 4 4 8 8 4 4 6 6 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 5 5 6 6
8 8 14 14 17 17 11 11 13 13 7 7 12 12 10 10 9 9 12 12 9 9 11 11 11 11 16 16 16 13 12 12 10 10
P=Planted 8 8 14 14 17 17 11 11 13 13 7 7 12 12 10 10 9 10 12 12 9 9 11 11 11 11 16 16 16 18 12 16 10 13
T=Total 324 324 567 567 688 688 445 445 526 526 283 283 486 486 405 405 364 405 486 486 364 364 445 445 449 452 627 627 627 523 482 651 411 509
509627
Table 9. CVS Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot and Species (with Annual Means)
South Muddy Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 737
Tree Species Common Name Type
Current Data (MY4 2015)Annual Means
Plot 1 Plot 2 Plot 3 MY1 (2012)Plot 4 Plot 5 Plot 6 MY2 (2013)MY3 (2014)MY5 (2016)Current Mean AB (2011)
Plot area (acres)
Plot 10 Plot 11 Plot 12Plot 9Plot 7 Plot 8
Species Count
Planted Stems/Plot
Total Stems/Plot
Planted Stems Per Acre
Total Stems Per Acre (including volunteers)
Notes: CVS Level 1 Survey performed. In most cases, the volunteers observed were approximately 50 - 150 cm in height but not counted.
405 405 486 364 445 452567688445526283486324 725 651

APPENDIX D

STREAM SURVEY DATA

Feature Stream
Type BKF Area BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH
Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle C 90.5 37.77 2.4 4.12 15.76 1 2.4 1123.94 1123.96
5104
5106
5107
5108
5108
5109
5110
5111
5112
5097
Figure 3. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
South Muddy Creek
Permanent Cross Section X1
(Year 4 Monitoring - September 2015)
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
95 115 135 155 175 195
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

Station
X1 Riffle
Asbuilt 2010 Yr 1 2012 Yr 2 2013 Yr 3 2014 Yr 4 2015 Bankfull
Feature Stream
Type
BKF
Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB
Elev
Pool 104.9 42.69 2.46 5.18 17.37 1.1 2 1124.12 1124.58
South Muddy Creek
Permanent Cross Section X2
(Year 4 Monitoring - September 2015)
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK
1116
1118
1120
1122
1124
1126
1128
1130
95 115 135 155 175
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

Station
X2 Pool
Asbuilt 2010 Yr 1 2012 Yr 2 2013 Yr 3 2014 Yr 4 2015 Bankfull
Feature Stream
Type BKF Area BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF
Elev
TOB
Elev
Pool 135.6 43.43 3.12 4.55 13.91 1 2.2 1122.2 1122.34
South Muddy Creek
Permanent Cross Section X3
(Year 4 Monitoring - September 2015)
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
95 115 135 155 175 195
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

Station
X3 Pool
Asbuilt 2010 Yr 1 2012 Yr 2 2013 Yr 3 2014 Yr 4 2015 Bankfull
Feature Stream
Type
BKF
Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF
Elev TOB Elev
Riffle B 171.2 49.48 3.46 5.1 14.3 1.1 1.9 1121.98 1122.38
South Muddy Creek
Permanent Cross Section X4
(Year 4 Monitoring - September 2015)
RIGHT BANKLEFT BANK
1115
1117
1119
1121
1123
1125
1127
95 115 135 155 175 195
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

Station
X4 Riffle
Asbuilt 2010 Yr 1 2012 Yr 2 2013 Yr 3 2014 Yr 4 2015 Bankfull
Note: Cross-section X4 was surveyed in September 2015 prior to the repairs, which were completed in November 2015.
Figure 4. Longitudinal Profile with Annual Overlays
1112
1114
1116
1118
1120
1122
1124
1126
1128
1130
990 1490 1990 2490 2990 3490
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

Station
South Muddy Creek
Profile Chart
Year 4 Monitoring - September 2015
TOP OF BANK
WATER SURFACE
TWG-ASBUILT 2010
TWG-YR1 2012
TWG-YR2 2013
TWG-YR3 2014
TWG-YR4 2015
CROSS SECTION
J-HOOK
X2
X1
X3
X4
SAIN RD. BRIDGE
BAKER PROJECT NO.
SITE OR PROJECT:South Muddy Creek Stream Restoration Project
REACH/LOCATION:South Muddy Creek - Cross-section 4 (Riffle)
DATE COLLECTED:9/29/2015
FIELD COLLECTION BY:Jason Nolan
DATA ENTRY BY:Jon Boyd
PARTICLE CLASS COUNT
MATERIAL PARTICLE SIZE (mm)Riffle Class %% Cum
Silt / Clay < .063 2 2%2%
Very Fine .063 - .125 2%
Fine .125 - .25 2%
Medium .25 - .50 2%
Coarse .50 - 1.0 2%
Very Coarse 1.0 - 2.0 5 5%7%
Very Fine 2.0 - 2.8 7%
Very Fine 2.8 - 4.0 7%
Fine 4.0 - 5.6 7%
Fine 5.6 - 8.0 7%
Medium 8.0 - 11.0 5 5%12%
Medium 11.0 - 16.0 12%
Coarse 16.0 - 22.6 3 3%15%
Coarse 22.6 - 32 5 5%20%
Very Coarse 32 - 45 11 11%31%
Very Coarse 45 - 64 9 9%40%
Small 64 - 90 23 23%63%
Small 90 - 128 15 15%78%
Large 128 - 180 11 11%89%
Large 180 - 256 4 4%93%
Small 256 - 362 4 4%97%
Small 362 - 512 2 2%99%
Medium 512 - 1024 1 1%100%
Large-Very Large 1024 - 2048 100%
Bedrock > 2048 100%
Total 100 100%100%
D16 = 0.4
D35 = 1.0
D50 = 7.5
D84 = 125.0
D95 = 165.0
D100 = 350.0
Figure 5. Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution with Annual Overlays
Channel materials (mm)
Cummulative
128221
Summary
SA
N
D
SILT/CLAY
SAND
GRAVEL
COBBLE
BOULDER
BEDROCK
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

P
e
r
c
e
n
t

Particle Size (mm)
South Muddy Creek
Riffle Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
AB (2010)
MY 1 (2012)
MY 2 (2013)
MY 3 (2014)
MY 4 (2015)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Cl
a
s
s

P
e
r
c
e
n
t

Particle Size Class (mm)
South Muddy Creek
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
AB (2010)MY 1 (2012)MY 2 (2013)MY3 (2014)MY 4 (2015)
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle LL UL Eq.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)-----23.0 80.0 42.0 24.1 32.3 -----51.2 -----5 33.2 ----------33.5 -----2 60.7 ----------69 -----2 -----43.2 ---------------1 41.4 ----------42.2 -----2
Floodprone Width (ft)--------------------29.6 44.8 -----72.7 -----5 77.5 ----------86.8 -----2 219 ----------220 -----2 -----210+---------------1 90.7 ----------93.6 -----2
BF Mean Depth (ft)-----2.3 5.8 3.8 1.9 2.7 -----3.0 -----5 2.3 ----------2.4 -----2 2.9 ----------3.8 -----2 -----3.0 ---------------1 2.7 ----------2.8 -----2
BF Max Depth (ft)--------------------3.3 3.6 -----4.0 -----5 2.8 ----------2.9 -----2 3.9 ----------5.2 -----2 -----4.2 ---------------1 4.2 ----------4.4 -----2
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²)-----80.0 300.0 157.6 72.8 83.8 -----97.2 -----5 75.1 ----------79.8 -----2 199 ----------288 -----2 -----128.5 ---------------1 110.8 ----------115.9 -----2
Width/Depth Ratio --------------------8.1 12.9 -----26.9 -----5 14.1 ----------14.7 -----2 16 ----------23.8 -----2 -----14.4 ---------------1 15.4 ----------15.5 -----2
Entrenchment Ratio --------------------1.1 1.4 -----1.7 -----5 2.3 ----------2.6 -----2 3.2 ----------3.6 -----2 -----4.9+---------------1 2.2 ----------2.2 -----2
Bank Height Ratio --------------------2.4 2.8 -----2.8 -----5+-----1.0 ---------------2 -----------------------------------1.0 ---------------1 1.0 ----------1.0 -----2
d50 (mm)-------------------------4.0 ---------------1 -----3.0 ---------------1 -----60 ---------------1 ------------------------------------------------------------
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------128.0 ----------209.0 -----9 143.0 168.3 164.0 244.0 32.2 8
Radius of Curvature (ft)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------84.0 ----------138.0 -----9 96.0 121.2 114.0 152.0 18.9 9
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1.9 ----------3.2 -----9 2.3 2.9 2.7 3.6 0.5 9
Meander Wavelength (ft)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------345.0 ----------506.0 -----6 387.0 400.8 396.5 418.0 12.9 6
Meander Width Ratio --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3.0 ----------4.8 -----9 3.4 4.0 3.9 5.8 0.8 8
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------61 80 88 122 23 3
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)--------------------0.003 0.004 -----0.006 -----3 0.01 ----------0.02 -----2 ---------------0.0034 ----------0.0054 -----7 0.000 0.006 0.005 0.011 0.004 3
Pool Length (ft)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pool Spacing (ft)--------------------80 163 -----240 -----4 46 ----------277 -----2 --------------------154.0 ----------327.0 -----10 167 272 257 335 53 3
Pool Max Depth (ft)--------------------3.8 4.8 -----5.8 -----4 -----4.1 ---------------1 -------------------------6.2 ----------10.3 -----11 --------------------
Pool Volume (ft3)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 --------------------------------------------------
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f²--------------------0.18 ----------0.3 -----5 -----------------------------------------------------------------0.28 --------------------------------------------------
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)-------------------------95.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------90.0 --------------------------------------------------
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m²--------------------10.8 ----------24 -----5 -----------------------------------------------------------------12.6 --------------------------------------------------
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)-----------------------------------18.8 -------------------------8.4 -------------------------23.0 -------------------------18.8 -------------------------18.8 ----------
Impervious cover estimate (%)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rosgen Classification -------------------------G4c -------------------------C4 -------------------------C4 -------------------------C4 -------------------------C5 --------------------
BF Velocity (fps)--------------------4.1 ----------5.5 -----5 -----7 -------------------------------------------------------3.1 -------------------------3.0 --------------------
BF Discharge (cfs)-----290.0 2000.0 741.1 -----400 -------------------------524.0 -------------------------------------------------------400.0 -------------------------340.0 --------------------
Valley Length --------------------2446 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2409 --------------------
Channel length (ft)-------------------------2593 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2842 -------------------------2787 --------------------
Sinuosity -------------------------1.06 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1.20 -------------------------1.18 --------------------
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)--------------------0.0016 -------------------------0.0070 -------------------------------------------------------0.0017 -------------------------0.0016 --------------------
BF slope (ft/ft)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biological or Other --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R. Everhart, and R.E. Smith. 1999. Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water Resources Association. June 30-July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
Table 10. Baseline Stream Summary
South Muddy Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 737
South Muddy Creek (2,787 LF)
Parameter USGS
Gauge
Regional Curve Interval
(Harman et al, 1999)1 Pre-Existing Condition Reference Reach(es) Data Design Monitoring Baseline (As-built)Morgan Creek Barnes Creek
<0.06 / 0.2 / 4 / 25 / 44 N/A / 1.2 / 3 / 77 / 800 0.4 / 11 / 60 / 512 / >2048 0.15 / 5 / 52 / 135 / 190
South Muddy Creek (2,787 LF)
Dimension and substrate Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4*MY5
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
Record Elevation (Datum) Used (ft)1124.2 1124.2 1124.2 1124.2 1124.2 1124.1 1124.1 1124.1 1124.1 1124.1 1122.2 1122.2 1122.2 1122.2 1122.2 1122.0 1122.0 1122.0 1122.0 1122.0
BF Width (ft)41.4 40.8 42.9 41.7 37.8 42.1 43.1 43.5 42.3 42.7 44.2 43.1 42.5 43.2 43.4 42.2 40.9 39.9 40.3 49.5
BF Mean Depth (ft)2.7 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.8 2.7 2.5 2.8 2.5 2.9 3.0 3.2 3.2 3.1 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 3.5
Width/Depth Ratio 15.5 16.5 18.2 17.4 15.8 15.3 16.0 17.2 15.3 17.4 15.4 14.4 13.4 13.5 13.9 15.4 14.8 14.3 14.6 14.3
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²)110.8 100.5 101.1 100.0 90.5 115.8 115.8 109.8 116.9 104.9 126.5 129.0 134.8 137.8 135.6 115.9 113.3 111 111.5 171.2
BF Max Depth (ft)4.4 4.1 4.3 4.2 4.1 5.1 5.4 5.3 5.73 5.2 4.5 5.1 4.8 4.9 4.6 4.2 4.2 4.4 4.4 5.1
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)90.7 89.8 90.7 90.6 89.0 85.6 85.9 85.8 85.7 85.8 95.3 95.1 95.2 95.1 95.2 93.6 93.5 93.5 93.5 93.5
Entrenchment Ratio 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.2 2.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 1.9
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1 1.1
Wetted Perimeter (ft)46.8 45.7 47.6 46.5 42.6 47.6 48.4 48.6 47.8 47.6 49.9 49.1 48.8 49.6 49.7 47.7 46.4 45.5 45.9 56.4
Hydraulic Radius (ft)2.4 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.2 2.5 2.6 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 3.0
* MY4 Cross-section X4 is located where the damage from the beaver dam was located, and was surveyed prior to the completion of the repair that was completed in November 2015.
Table 11a. Cross-section Morphology Data Table
South Muddy Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 737
Cross-section 1 (Riffle)Cross-section 2 (Pool)Cross-section 3 (Pool)Cross-section 4 (Riffle)
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle 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)41.4 ----------42.2 -----2 40.8 ----------40.9 -----2 39.9 ----------42.9 -----2 40.3 ----------41.7 -----2 37.8 ----------49.5 -----2
Floodprone Width (ft)90.7 ----------93.6 -----2 89.8 ----------93.5 -----2 90.7 ----------93.5 -----2 90.6 ----------93.5 -----2 89.0 ----------93.5 -----2
BF Mean Depth (ft)2.7 ----------2.8 -----2 2.5 ----------2.8 -----2 2.4 ----------2.8 -----2 2.4 ----------2.8 -----2 2.4 ----------3.5 -----2
BF Max Depth (ft)4.2 ----------4.4 -----2 4.1 ----------4.2 -----2 4.3 ----------4.4 -----2 4.2 ----------4.4 -----2 4.1 ----------5.1 -----2
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²)110.8 ----------115.9 -----2 100.5 ----------113.3 -----2 101.1 ----------111 -----2 100.0 ----------111.5 -----2 90.5 ----------171.2 -----2
Width/Depth Ratio 15.4 ----------15.5 -----2 14.8 ----------16.5 -----2 14.3 ----------18.2 -----2 14.6 ----------17.4 -----2 14.3 ----------15.8 -----2
Entrenchment Ratio 2.2 ----------2.2 -----2 2.2 ----------2.3 -----2 2.1 ----------2.3 -----2 2.2 ----------2.3 -----2 1.9 ----------2.4 -----2
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 ----------1.0 -----2 1.0 ----------1.0 -----2 1.1 ----------1.1 -----2 1 ----------1.1 -----2 1.0 ----------1.1 -----2
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)143.0 168.3 164.0 244.0 32.2 8
Radius of Curvature (ft)96.0 121.2 114.0 152.0 18.9 9
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)2.3 2.9 2.7 3.6 0.5 9
Meander Wavelength (ft)387.0 400.8 396.5 418.0 12.9 6
Meander Width Ratio 3.4 4.0 3.9 5.8 0.8 8
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)61 80 88 122 23 3 72 101 98 133 30.610456 3 71 100.66667 106 125 27.392213 3 70 97.333333 91 131 30.989245 3 66 86 81 109 15 9
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.000 0.006 0.005 0.011 0.004 3 0.002 0.005 0.005 0.009 0.004 3 0.003 0.006 0.005 0.009 0.003 3 0.002 0.006 0.005 0.009 0.004 3 0.003 0.006 0.005 0.008 0.002 9
Pool Length (ft)------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pool Spacing (ft)167 272 257 335 53 3 209 251 253 290 41 3 219 255 262 285 34 3 204 251 257 293 45 3 119 220 238 321 69 12
Pool Max Depth (ft)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Substrate and Transport Parameters
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f²------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m²------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)---------------18.8 -------------------------18.8 -------------------------18.8 -------------------------18.8 --------------------18.8 ----------
Rosgen Classification -----C5 -------------------------C5 -------------------------C5 -------------------------C5 -------------------------C4/B4 --------------------
BF Velocity (fps)-----3.0 -------------------------3.0 -------------------------3.0 -------------------------3.0 -------------------------3.0 --------------------
BF Discharge (cfs)-----340.0 -------------------------318.0 -------------------------318.0 -------------------------318.0 -------------------------392.6 --------------------
Valley Length -----2409 -------------------------2409 -------------------------2409 -------------------------2409 -------------------------2409 --------------------
Channel length (ft)-----2787 -------------------------2787 -------------------------2787 -------------------------2787 -------------------------2864 --------------------
Sinuosity -----1.18 -------------------------1.18 -------------------------1.18 -------------------------1.18 -------------------------1.28 --------------------
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)-----0.0016 -------------------------0.0016 -------------------------0.0016 -------------------------0.0016 -------------------------0.0017 --------------------
BF slope (ft/ft)------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 11b. Baseline Stream Summary
South Muddy Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 737
South Muddy Creek (2,787 LF)
Parameter Monitoring Baseline (As-built)MY-1 MY-2 MY-3 MY-4 MY-5
0.15 / 5 / 52 / 135 / 190 34.5 / 64.8/78.3 / 145.9 / 234.4 26.0 / 54.7 / 73.9 / 144.9 / 287.3 0.4 / 1.0 / 7.5 / 125.0 / 165.024.2 / 52.6 / 74.2 / 154.1 / 304.4

APPENDIX E

HYDROLOGIC DATA

Location Date of Data
Collection
Date of Occurence of
Bankfull Event Method of Data Collection Gage Height (feet)
South Muddy (Station 22+00)5/18/2012 Unknown Crest Gauge 0.13
South Muddy (Station 22+00)5/11/2015 Unknown Crest Gauge 1.00
South Muddy (Station 22+00)11/16/2015 Unknown Crest Gauge 1.08
Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
South Muddy Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 737