20130653 Ver 1_Year 4 Monitoring Report 2017_20180201

MUDDY RUN II STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION
PROJECT
MONITORING REPORT
MONITORING YEAR 4
FINAL
DUPLIN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
CONTRACT No. 004631 -PROJECT No. 95354
Prepared for:
Division of Mitigation Services
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
February 2018

fires
February 6, 2018
Lindsay Crocker
NC DEQ Division of Mitigation Services
217 West Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Corporate Headquarters
5020 Montrose Blvd. Suite 650
Houston, TX 77006
Main: 713.520.5400
RE: Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration Site: MY4 Monitoring Report
(NCDMS ID 95354)
Listed below are comments provided by DMS on January 17, 2018 regarding the Muddy Run II
Stream and Wetland Restoration Site: Year 4 Monitoring Report and RES' responses.
At the 2016 IRT credit release, this project was released as proposed with the following notes:
"Adjust as needed at the 2017 credit release. Explain in detail differences in stream footage
from Mitigation Plan to As -Built. Were there changes to this easement?" Please provide
response to these questions in the Monitoring report and be ready to discuss at credit release.
Thalweg vs. centerline survey and construction field adjustments account for the 5% increase in
stream footage from Mitigation Plan to As -Built. There were no changes to the easement. This
has been added to the report.
It is understood that morphology was not captured on this site for this monitoring year. This
information below is for your understanding and preparation for credit release. Cross sections /
cross section tables — A couple of methods are currently being utilized to calculate the BHR
from year to year. To compare subsequent monitoring years to the As -built condition one can
hold the bankfull depth static (denominator) while allowing the Low TOB max depth (numerator)
to vary. Another method that has been proposed and is being evaluated is to hold the As -built
cross-sectional area static within each years' new cross section and allow that to determine the
max bankfull depth for each year. However, if there are large changes in the W/D ratio either
method can make for somewhat distorted BHR values depending upon the direction and
magnitude of the change in the W/D ratio. Please update calculations to reflect changes
observed in the overlays and explain in detail as a table footnote how the calculations were
made. Be prepared to defend the method used for credit release and justify through context if
any changes observed in a cross section represent an issue.
CCPV and asset table 1:
a. Stream credit shapefile. The shapefile that DMS has for stream credit doesn't match the
lengths shown in the report, although the total length is longer than reported in as -built
(it's in the ballpark). Please provide the correct shapefile for the stream asset (divided
by reach). This should match credit (within reason) and not include areas of road
breaks.
Done.
res.us

0
b. Reach 6 credit: the map shows the upper portion of reach 6 as having Ell credit, but the
Mitigation plan shows this as a non-credit area. I think you could list the upper portion of
this reach and the side channel as additional stream, not for credit. Please update
CCPV.
The upper portion of Reach 6 (893 ft) and the side channel (307 ft) that confluences with
it are now shown as "Channel — No Credit" on the CCPV and a footnote about them has
been added to Table 1. Reach 6 is also is discussed in Section 1.3.1.
Please provide a footnote with the number of trees replanted in 2016 under table 2 or under
your vegetation table.
4,400 trees were replanted in 2016. This has been added as a footnote under Table 2.
Page 7, please state what monitoring guidance was used for this project (i.e. 2003 IRT stream
mitigation guidelines). The report is not specific.
The monitoring guidance used was the EEP Monitoring Requirements and Performance
Standards Guidance for Stream and -or Wetland Mitigation (11/07/2011). This has been added
to the report.
Page 11, Section 5.1.2: the 260 trees per acre standard is for MY5, please revise.
Done.
Table 10. Are these all the bankfull events or just 2017? It may be helpful to show number by
monitoring year for context. I understand this is a shallow channel that regularly gets out of
bank.
These were all bankfull events for just 2017. The table has been updated to include bankfull
events from each monitoring year.
What is RES doing to address the minor encroachment noted on the report? Update to
describe.
In the areas of minor encroachment RES will communicate with landowners and install
additional signage. This has been added to the report.
Table 12. Some of the hydroperiods shown for this MY do not match their table below (Table
12A does not match table 12B for MY4). Correct and update.
Done.
As RES explained and we discussed in the field, there will need to be a strategy for repairing
the isolated bank and floodplain scour on Reach 5A, including ensuring the encroachment is
eliminated as soon as possible.
RES plans to address the floodplain scour by seeding and matting the bare areas and hand
grading and livestaking the head cuts. The bank scour will be remedied by adding rip rap behind
the structure and livestakes to the bank. Additional t -posts with easement markers will be added
to the encroachment area to deter any vehicle use through the easement. This has been added
to the report.

Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 4 Monitoring Report • Duplin County, North Carolina • February 2018
Muddy Run II
Duplin County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID 95354
Cape Fear River Basin
HUC 0030007060010
Prepared by:
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
919-209-1061
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC

Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 4 Monitoring Report • Duplin County, North Carolina • February 2018
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration Project is located within an agricultural
watershed in Duplin County, North Carolina, approximately six miles south of Beulaville. The stream
channels were heavily impacted by channelization and agricultural practices. The project involved the
restoration and protection of streams in the Muddy Creek watershed. The purpose of this restoration
project was to restore and enhance a stream/wetland complex located within the Cape Fear River
Basin.
The project lies within USGS Hydrologic Unit Code 03030007060010 (USGS, 1998) and within the
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-22
(NCDENR, 2002). The project consists of six unnamed tributaries to Muddy Creek, but the project
has been divided into nine distinct reaches for design purposes. Reach 1 is one of the upstream -most
portions of the project; it begins on the edge of an existing agricultural field and extends to STA
04+48. Similarly, Reach 2 is one of the upper -most portions of the stream project. It begins in a
disturbed forest corridor between several agricultural fields and extends to STA 19+14. Reach 3a
starts at the confluence of Reaches 1 and 2 (STA 00+00) and flows north north-west through a
disturbed hardwood buffer and several agricultural fields before being partially diverted to enter
Reach 3b near STA 37+23. Reach 3b flows to the north and west where it flows into Reach 3c at STA
57+92. Reach 3c flows through a pine plantation to STA 65+30, where it flows into Reach 3 of the
Muddy Run project. Reach 4 is a perennial channel that flows through a forested area from a ditch
draining an agricultural field. Reach 4 flows into Reach 3A at STA 18+76. Reach 5a consists of the
main stem beginning at STA 00+00 where it adjoins with Reach 1C of the Muddy Run project. Reach
5a flows north and flows into Reach 5b at STA 19+59. Reach 5b is the most downstream reach of the
project, ending at the right-of-way for State Highway 41. Reach 6 begins in a forested area south of
Reach 5 and flows in a northerly direction to the confluence with Reach 5a near STA 9+20. Two
areas containing drained hydric soil were identified for restoration, located along Reach 3b and Reach
5a.
The Muddy Run I Mitigation Project is located upstream of Reach 5A and downstream of Reach 3C.
Muddy Run II was constructed immediately following Muddy Run.
This Year 4 Annual Monitoring Report presents the data from 28 vegetation monitoring plots, four
manual crest gauges, four auto crest gauges, an auto -logging rain gauge, seven wetland restoration
groundwater gauges, three reference groundwater gauges, 59 stream cross sections, 20 sets of bank
pins, and photo reference locations, as required by the approved Mitigation Plan for the site.
The Year 4 vegetation monitoring observations for Muddy Run II Site are summarized in this report.
Planted -stem survival for Monitoring Year 4 for all 28 Vegetation Plots (VP) at Muddy Run II was
above the interim success criterion of 260 trees per acre at the end of Monitoring Year 4. The average
stem density (excluding live stakes) across all vegetation plots was 638 stems per acre. Invasive
Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) was observed along small portions of Reach 1B during Year 3
monitoring. Invasive treatment was performed in this area during July 2017. This area will continue
to be monitored for invasive species. The Muddy Run II Site has met the Year 4 vegetation survival
success criterion of 260 trees per acre as specified in the Mitigation Plan.
During the Year 4 monitoring season, the restored stream channel remained stable and continued to
provide the intended habitat and hydrologic functions. Monitoring Year 4 activities confirmed the
stream reaches are stable and the banks are well vegetated. One stream area of concern was noted during
the MY4 activities.
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC ii

Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 4 Monitoring Report • Duplin County, North Carolina • February 2018
All seven wetland gauges achieved the success criteria by remaining continuously within 12 inches of
the soil surface for at least nine percent of the growing season. Groundwater gauge data indicates the
hydroperiods being very responsive to rainfall events.
Following 2016 monitoring the NCIRT requested a review of the differential between the Approved
Mitigation Plan and Baseline Monitoring Report. The table below details the discrepancies by reach.
The primary cause of the 5% increase in baseline SMUs is survey methodology (thalweg vs. centerline).
The Mitigation Plan lengths were based on centerline. Wetland credits are unchanged from Mitigation
Plan to Baseline Monitoring Report.
Reach
Mitigation Type
Proposed
Length LF)*
Mitigation
Ratio
Proposed
SMUs
Baseline
SMUs
Reach 1
Headwater Valley
401
1:1
401
398
Reach 2
Headwater Valley
504
1:1
504
504
Reach 2
P1 Restoration
1,369
1:1
1,369
1,410
Reach 3a
P1 Restoration
3,440
1:1
3,440
3,586
Reach
P1 Restoration
1,852
1:1
1,852
1,979
3b
Reach 3c
Enhancement I
707
1:1.5
471
472
Reach 4
P 1 Restoration
172
1:1
172
173
Reach 5a
P1 Restoration
1,774
1:1
1,774
1,926
Reach
Enhancement 11
401
1:2.5
160
164
5b
Reach 6
Enhancement 11
317
1:2.5
127
127
Total
11,411
10,270
10,739**
*The proposed lengths represent the total proposed channel length minus the length of the proposed channel associated with crossings
(easement breaks).
**The contracted amount of credits for this Site was 10,375 SMUs.
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC iii

Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 4 Monitoring Report • Duplin County, North Carolina • February 2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 PROJECT GOALS, BACKGROUND AND ATTRIBUTES........................................................
1
1.1 Location and Setting................................................................................................................1
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives...................................................................................................1
1.3 Project Structure.....................................................................................................................2
1.3.1 Restoration Type and Approach.....................................................................................2
1.4 Project History, Contacts and Attribute Data.........................................................................5
1.4.1 Project History ................................................................................................................5
1.4.2 Project Watersheds.........................................................................................................5
2 SUCCESS CRITERIA...................................................................................................................
5
2.1 Stream Restoration.................................................................................................................5
2.1.1 Bankfull Events..............................................................................................................5
2.1.2 Cross Sections................................................................................................................6
2.1.3 Digital Image Stations....................................................................................................6
2.2 Vegetation..............................................................................................................................6
2.3 Scheduling/Reporting.............................................................................................................6
3 MONITORING PLAN................................................................................................................... 6
3.1 Stream Restoration.................................................................................................................6
3. 1.1 As -Built Survey..............................................................................................................6
3.1.2 Bankfull Events..............................................................................................................7
3.1.3 Cross Sections................................................................................................................7
3.1.4 Digital Image Stations....................................................................................................7
3.1.5 Bank Pin Arrays.............................................................................................................7
3.1.6 Visual Assessment Monitoring.......................................................................................7
3.1.7 Surface Flow...................................................................................................................8
3.2 Vegetation..............................................................................................................................8
4 Maintenance and Contingency plan............................................................................................... 8
4.1 Stream.....................................................................................................................................8
4.2 Vegetation..............................................................................................................................8
5 YEAR 4 MONITORING CONDITIONS (MY4).......................................................................... 8
5.1 Year 4 Monitoring Data Collection........................................................................................9
5. 1.1 Vegetation.......................................................................................................................9
5.1.2 Photo Documentation.....................................................................................................9
5.1.3 Hydrology.....................................................................................................................10
6 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................. 10
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC iv

Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 4 Monitoring Report • Duplin County, North Carolina • February 2018
Appendix A. Project Background Data and Maps
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2. Project Activity and reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts
Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Project USGS Map
Appendix B. Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3. Current Conditions Plan View Map (CCPV)
Table 5. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Table 7. Stream Problem Areas
Table 8. Vegetation Problem Areas
Figure 4. Vegetation Photos
Figure 5. Stream and Vegetation Problem Photos
Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 9a. Planted Stem Count Summary
Table 9b. Planted Species Totals
Table 9c. Planted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot)
Appendix D. Hydrology Data
Table 10. Documentation of Geomorphologically Significant Flow Events
Table 11. Rainfall Summary
Table 12a. Wetland Hydrology Criteria Attainment
Table 12b. MY1-MY4 Wetland Hydrology Gauges Summary
Chart 1. 2017 Precipitation Data for Muddy Run II Site
Chart 2. 2017 Groundwater Monitoring Gauge Hydrographs
Figure 6. Crest Gauge Verification Photos
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC v

Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 4 Monitoring Report • Duplin County, North Carolina • February 2018
1 PROJECT GOALS, BACKGROUND AND ATTRIBUTES
1.1 Location and Setting
The Muddy Run Stream Site ("Site") is located in Duplin County approximately 1.4 miles east of
Chinquapin, NC (Figure 1). The project is in the Cape Fear River Basin (8 -digit USGS HUC 03030007,
14 -digit USGS HUC 03030007060010) (USGS, 1998) and the NCDWQ Cape Fear 03-06-22 sub -basin
(NCDWQ, 2002). To access the Site from the town of Chinquapin, travel east on Highway 50, take the
first left onto Pickett Bay Road (SR 1819), go 1.1 miles, then turn left onto Kenney Crawley Road. This
private road is gravel and will split just past the residential house on the right. Keeping to the left will
take you to the Reaches 3b, 3c, 5b, and 6. Going to the right at the split will take you to Reaches 1, 2,
3a, and 4.
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives
The Muddy Run II stream and wetland mitigation project will provide numerous ecological and water
quality benefits within the Cape Fear River Basin. While many of these benefits are limited to the
project area, others, such as pollutant removal and improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat, have more
far-reaching effects. Expected improvements to water quality, hydrology, and habitat are outlined
below.
Design Goals and Objectives
Benefits Related to Water Quality
Benefit will be achieved through filtering of runoff from adjacent CAFOs through buffer areas, the
Nutrient removal
conversion of active farm fields to forested buffers, improved denitrification and nutrient uptake
through buffer zones, and installation of BMPs at the headwaters of selected reaches and ditch
outlets.
Benefit will be achieved through the stabilization of eroding stream banks and reduction of sediment
Sediment removal
loss from field areas due to lack of vegetative cover. Channel velocities will also be decreased
through a reduction in slope, therefore decreasing erosive forces.
Increase dissolved oxygen
Benefit will be achieved through the construction of instream structures to increase turbulence and
concentration
dissolved oxygen concentrations and riparian canopy restoration to lower water temperature to
increase dissolved oxygen capacity.
Runoff filtration
Benefit will be achieved through the restoration of buffer areas that will receive and filter runoff,
thereby reducing nutrients and sediment concentrations reaching water bodies downstream.
Benefits to Flood Attenuation IF
Water storage
Benefit will be achieved through the restoration of buffer areas which will infiltrate more water
during precipitation events than under current site conditions.
Improved groundwater
Benefit will be achieved through the increased storage of precipitation in buffer areas, ephemeral
recharge
depressions, and reconnection of existing floodplain. Greater storage of water will lead to improved
infiltration and groundwater recharge.
Improved/restored
Benefit will be achieved by restoring the stream to a natural meandering pattern with an
hydrologic connections
appropriately sized channel, such that the channel's floodplain will be flooded more frequently at
flows greater than the bankfull stage.
Benefits Related to Ecological Processes
Restoration of habitats
Benefit will be achieved by restoring riparian buffer habitat to appropriate bottomland hardwood
ecosystem.
Benefit will be achieved through the construction of instream structures designed to improve
Improved substrate and
bedform diversity and to trap detritus. Stream will be designed with the appropriate channel
instream cover
dimension and will prevent aggradation and sedimentation within the channel. Substrate will
become coarser as a result of the stabilization of stream banks and an overall decrease in the amount
fine materials deposited in the stream.
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC

Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 4 Monitoring Report • Duplin County, North Carolina • February 2018
Addition of large woody
Benefit will be achieved through the addition of wood structures as part of the restoration design.
debris
Such structures may include log vanes, root wads, and log weirs.
Reduced temperature of
water due to shading
Benefit will be achieved through the restoration of canopy tree species to the stream buffer areas.
Restoration of terrestrial
habitat
Benefit will be achieved through the restoration of riparian buffer bottomland hardwood habitats.
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC

Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 4 Monitoring Report • Duplin County, North Carolina • February 2018
1.3
Project Structure
Mitigation
Wetland Mitigation Type
Table 1. Muddy Run II Project
Components —
Stream Miti ation
Ratio
WA Restoration
Reach
Mitigation Type
Proposed
Existing
As -Built
Mitigation
SMUs
Total
4.92
Stationing
Length (LF)
Length (LF)
Ratio
Reach 1
Headwater Valley
0+00 to 4+48
438
398
1:1
398
Reach 2
Headwater Valley
0+00 to 5+04
504
504
1:1
504
Reach 2
P1 Restoration
5+04 to 19+14
1,223
1,410
1:1
1,410
Reach 3a
P1 Restoration
0+00 to 37+23
3,301
3,586
1:1
3,586
Reach 3b
P1 Restoration
37+23 to 57+92
NA
1,979
1:1
1,979
Reach 3c
Enhancement I
57+92 to 65+30
737
708
1:1.5
472
Reach 4
P1 Restoration
0+44 to 2+17
120
173
1:1
173
Reach 5a
P1 Restoration
0+00 to 19+59
1,602
1,926
1:1
1,926
Reach 5b
Enhancement II
19+59 to 23+68
401
409
1:2.5
164
Reach 6
Enhancement II
9+02 to 12+19
317
318
1:2.5
127
Total
8,643
11,411
10,739
*As -Built length does not include channel in easement breaks.
** SMUs does not include channel in irrigation access areas inside easement
Table 2. Muddv Run II Proiect Comuonents — Wetland Mitigation
1.3.1 Restoration Type and Approach
Reach 1
Headwater valley restoration approach was performed along Reach 1. The existing channel/ditch was
backfilled, and flow has been directed from its current position along the tree line back to within the
historic valley location down to the confluence with Reaches 2 and 3a. A 100 foot wide forested buffer
has been planted throughout the reach. The upstream limit of Reach 1 ties into an existing headwater
valley system comprised of intermittent sections of single and multiple channels. This system will be
used as a reference site for incorporating a small baseflow channel into the headwater valley restoration
design.
Reach 2
Similar to Reach 1, headwater valley restoration was performed along the upper section of Reach 2.
The existing channel was backfilled with existing spoil material located along the channel, a result of
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC 3
Mitigation
Mitigation
Wetland Mitigation Type
WMUs
Area (ac)
Ratio
WA Restoration
3.60
1:1
3.60
WB Restoration
1.32
1:1
1.32
Total
4.92
4.92
1.3.1 Restoration Type and Approach
Reach 1
Headwater valley restoration approach was performed along Reach 1. The existing channel/ditch was
backfilled, and flow has been directed from its current position along the tree line back to within the
historic valley location down to the confluence with Reaches 2 and 3a. A 100 foot wide forested buffer
has been planted throughout the reach. The upstream limit of Reach 1 ties into an existing headwater
valley system comprised of intermittent sections of single and multiple channels. This system will be
used as a reference site for incorporating a small baseflow channel into the headwater valley restoration
design.
Reach 2
Similar to Reach 1, headwater valley restoration was performed along the upper section of Reach 2.
The existing channel was backfilled with existing spoil material located along the channel, a result of
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC 3

Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 4 Monitoring Report • Duplin County, North Carolina • February 2018
previous dredging activities. Areas within the 100 foot buffer that were disturbed or lack riparian
vegetation were planted. Grade control structures were installed along three ditches that enter Reach 2
at the upstream end of the project. These structures raised the upstream channel bed elevations slightly
to tie into existing ditches to the project reach. An existing CMP culvert located along the upstream
section was removed and replaced outside the easement (upstream) to continue to allow the landowner
access to all areas of his property. Priority I restoration was performed for the majority of Reach 2.
Restoration activities involved relocating the channel to the north through an existing wooded area
consisting primarily of pines and a few hardwoods. Existing spoil piles located along the channel banks
were removed and used to fill the existing ditch. Diffuse flow structures have been installed along
several ditches that outlet to the reach from both the north and south. The structures will attenuate and
disperse flows as the existing ditches enter the proposed easement.
Reach 3a
Priority Level I restoration was performed on Reach 3a. The restoration approach on this reach included
relocating the channel on either side of its current location to follow the natural valley and removing
the adjacent roadbed to allow continuous access to the floodplain. Two existing 36" CMP culvert
crossings were located along this reach. Each culvert was removed and replaced in-line with the
proposed stream to allow the landowners to access portions of their respective properties to the west of
the project site. Reach 3a now flows in a northwesterly direction until it reaches a property line. At this
point, the existing ditch that continued to flow in a northerly direction was plugged and a diversion
structure was installed. The structure is designed to pass 100 percent of baseflow and small storms
through the project, and divert up to 70 percent of storms larger than the 25 -yr storm to the existing
ditch and offsite. See Section 7.3.1.1 (Stream Hydrologic Analysis) for hydraulic analysis details.
Just downstream of the diversion structure, the channel was relocated south of several turkey houses,
and now flows in a westerly direction as Reach 3b. The network of ditches surrounding the turkey
houses appear to cross a small ridge, directing flow away from the project area. An additional culvert
crossing was constructed where flow will be diverted to the west at the turkey houses. Priority I
restoration is appropriate for this channel because it is the only mitigation approach that addresses bed
and bank instability, establishes a forested riparian buffer, and significantly enhances aquatic habitat.
Diffuse flow structures were constructed where existing agricultural ditches enter the easement area.
The diversion structure was constructed at the downstream end of Reach 3a to alleviate and prevent
flooding caused by rerouting flow and increased drainage areas, to provide continued flow through the
existing ditch for storms larger than bankfull (design) events, and to reduce impacts from proposed
grading activities. Per discussions with Mr. Lanier (owner of parcel northwest of proposed structure),
larger storm events overtop the existing ditch flowing to the north. This flooding may be attributed to
inefficiencies with existing structures and ditch alignments in conjunction with low gradients. The
culvert associated with the gravel access road that leads from Ludie Brown Road to the turkey houses
outlets perpendicular to the receiving ditch that flows to the northeast and under Ludie Brown Road.
This ditch continues to the northeast and crosses Route 111, where it flows to the north into Muddy
Creek. By diverting up to 70 percent of higher flows through the existing ditch and offsite, existing
flooding issues will be reduced adjacent to the turkey houses. This diversion also decreases potential
flooding impacts that would occur if 100 percent of storm events were passed through the proposed
channel, Reach 3b. There are several residential parcels within zero to 200 feet of the proposed
easement along Reach 3b. Because the topography is very flat through this area, the flooding associated
with the majority of storm events greater than bankfull would negatively impact these parcels.
Finally, by diverting a percentage of the proposed higher flows, flooding impacts will also be reduced
along Reaches 5a and 5b and at the existing HWY 41 culvert at the downstream end of the project.
Currently, agricultural fields are present along the north side of Reach 5a. By reducing high flows, the
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC

Muddy Run H Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 4 Monitoring Report • Duplin County, North Carolina • February 2018
flooding extent and duration will be reduced; thus, preventing adverse impacts to crops. If 100 percent
of higher storm events were allowed to pass through the project, significant grading would be required
to cut floodplain terraces/benches to relieve flooding of the adjacent agricultural fields.
Approximately 1,611 LF of the existing ditch that flows to the north from the Reach 3a/3b diversion
structure will be impacted (dewatered). This length includes the segment of the ditch from the diversion
structure downstream to the Muddy Creek floodplain. The channel impacts resulting from the proposed
channel relocation will be addressed in the ensuing NWP application.
Reach 3b
Priority Level I restoration was performed on Reach 3b. The restoration approach on this reach included
relocating the channel in a westerly direction through an open pasture. The pasture area has been
extensively modified and substantial grading was required. The design then moves the channel to a
historic drainage way as observed on LiDAR and historical aerial photographs. The flow path is now
connected to a small relic channel identified in the forested area west of the pasture. Subsequent
topographic survey confirmed positive drainage along the relic channel which follows a low lying
feature observed on LiDAR. The restoration approach included some minor grading to enlarge the
existing channel and to create a diverse bed habitat by constructing pools. Log grade control structures
were installed at the confluence with Reach 3c and at the connection to the relic channel. Small,
mechanical equipment and hand tools were used to minimize damage to the existing forested buffer. A
livestock protected culvert crossing was constructed near the existing pasture along an existing farm
path to allow the landowner uninterrupted access to his property.
Reach 3c
Enhancement I was performed on Reach 3c as it flows through a forested area downstream from Reach
3b to Reach 3 of the Muddy Run Stream Mitigation Project. A grade control structure was installed at
the upstream end to stabilize the transition from an existing agricultural ditch to the stable channel. A
crossing was constructed along the upper section to allow the landowner access to both sides of his
property. Enhancement activities included removing portions of existing spoil piles located along top
of banks, cutting floodplain benches and laying back banks, and installing woody debris habitat
structures. Diffuse flow structures were also constructed at the downstream limit where existing
agricultural ditches enter the easement area. Invasive species management was performed throughout
the buffer, and any bare or disturbed areas were planted with native riparian vegetation.
Reach 4
Priority 1 restoration was performed on the downstream end of Reach 4 as it flows through a forested
area below a ditch draining an agricultural field. A grade control structure was installed at the upstream
end to transition from the existing ditch to a stable channel. The lower section of the reach was
constructed into an E -type channel before its confluence with Reach 3a. Invasive species management
was performed throughout the buffer, and any bare or disturbed areas were planted with native riparian
vegetation.
Reach 5a
Priority Level I restoration was performed on Reach 5a. The channel was relocated north of its current
location into the adjacent agricultural field. The existing ditch was backfilled and plugged at any
locations that may cross the proposed channel. The upstream end of the reach ties into Reach 1 C of the
Muddy Run Stream Mitigation Project. The single -thread channel will flows through proposed wetland
WB beginning approximately 300 feet downstream of the Muddy Run project. A CMP culvert crossing
was installed in-line with the proposed design near the middle of the reach to allow the landowners
access to the adjacent parcels. Priority I restoration is appropriate for this channel because it is the only
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC

Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 4 Monitoring Report • Duplin County, North Carolina • February 2018
mitigation approach that addresses bed and bank instability, establishes a forested riparian buffer, and
significantly enhances aquatic habitat.
Reach 5b
Enhancement Level II was performed on Reach 5b. Several log grade controls and woody debris
structures were installed along the bed to increase aquatic habitat and bed diversity. The right bank
along the reach was laid back and spoil piles along the tops of banks were removed using small
equipment to minimize impacts to the existing buffer. Additionally, invasive species management was
performed throughout the buffer, and any bare or disturbed areas were planted with native riparian
vegetation.
Reach 6
Enhancement Level II was performed on the downstream section of Reach 6 (STA 9+02 to STA
12+19). The right and left banks were laid back, and the channel was backfilled using spoil located
adjacent to the channel such that positive drainage is maintained throughout the reach down to the
confluence with Reach 5a. Invasive species management was performed throughout the buffer where
enhancement took place, and any bare or disturbed areas were planted with native riparian vegetation.
A 50 foot wide buffer was provided along the upper section of Reach 6 (STA 0+00 to STA 9+02);
however, no enhancement activities were performed through this section other than filling portions of
the channel. This additional easement was provided to account for any hydrologic impacts that may
occur as a result of the proposed enhancement activities.
1.4 Project History, Contacts and Attribute Data
1.4.1 Project History
The Site was restored by Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC (EBX) through a full -delivery contract
awarded by NCDMS in 2011. EBX was acquired by Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC (RES)
in 2014 and now oversees the project tasks. Tables 2, 3, and 4 in Appendix A provide a time sequence
and information pertaining to the project activities, history, contacts, and baseline information.
1.4.2 Project Watersheds
The easement totals 37.6 acres and is broken into nine reaches. Reach 1 has a drainage area of 68 acres;
it begins at the start of the restoration project (STA 0+00) and extends west to STA 4+48. Reach 2 has
a drainage area of 114 acres; it begins at STA 0+00 and extends to STA 19+14. Reach 3a (Sta. 0+00 to
37+23) begins at the confluence of Reaches 1 and 2 and has a drainage area of 227 acres. Reach 3b has
a drainage area of 333 acres and flows west into Reach 3c; it begins at STA 37+23 and extends to STA
57+92. Reach 3c has a drainage area of 370 acres extending north to south and flows into Reach 3 of
the Muddy Run project; it begins at STA 57+92 and extends to STA 65+30. Reach 4 has a drainage
area of 46 acres and flows from the east into Reach 3a; it begins at STA 0+44 and extends to STA STA
2+17. Reach 5a begins at the downstream limit of the Muddy Run project, flows into Reach 5b, and
has a drainage area of 774 acres; it begins at STA 0+00 and extends to STA 19+59. Reach 5b has a
drainage area of 908 acres; it starts at STA 19+59 and extends to STA 23+68. Reach 6 has a drainage
area of 318 acres and flows from the south into Reach 5a; it starts at STA 9+02 and extends to STA
12+19 (Figure 2). The land use in the project watershed is approximately 38 percent cultivated, 32
percent evergreen forest, 15 percent shrub/scrub, 6 percent bottomland forest/hardwood swamp, 5
percent mixed forest, 2 percent developed, and 2 percent managed herbaceous cover.
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC

Muddy Run H Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 4 Monitoring Report • Duplin County, North Carolina • February 2018
2 Success Criteria
The success criteria for the Site stream restoration was assembled from the EEP Monitoring
Requirements and Performance Standards Guidance for Stream and -or Wetland Mitigation
(11/07/2011). Specific success criteria components are presented below.
2.1 Stream Restoration
2.1.1 Bankfull Events
Two bankfull flow events must be documented within the seven-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. Bankfull events will be documented using
crest gauges, auto -logging crest gauges, photographs, and visual assessments for evidence of debris
rack lines.
2.1.2 Cross Sections
There should be little change in as -built cross-sections. If changes do take place, they should be
evaluated to determine if they represent a movement toward a less stable condition (for example down -
cutting or erosion), or are minor changes that represent an increase in stability (for example settling,
vegetative changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio). Cross-sections are
classified using the Rosgen stream classification method, and all monitored cross-sections should fall
within the quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream type.
2.1.3 Digital Image Stations
Digital images are used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank erosion,
success of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures. Longitudinal images
should not indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or an excessive increase in
channel depth. Lateral images should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the
banks over time. A series of images over time should indicate successional maturation of riparian
vegetation.
2.2 Wetland Restoration
The NRCS does not have a current WETS table for Duplin County upon which to base a normal rainfall
amount and average growing season. The closest comparable data was determined to be from Sampson
County. The growing season for Sampson County is 242 days long, extending from March 17 to
November 14, and is based on a daily minimum temperature greater than 28 degrees Fahrenheit
occurring in five of ten years.
Because of the surface roughing and shallow depressions, a range of hydroperiods are expected. The
water balance indicates that the site will have a positive water balance in the early part of the growing
season for four to five weeks, on average. The hydrology success criterion for the site is to restore the
water table at the site so that it will remain continuously within 12 inches of the soil surface for at least
nine percent of the growing season (approximately 22 days) at each groundwater gauge location during
normal rainfall years. Overbank flooding events will provide additional inputs that may extend the
hydroperiod in some years.
Gauge data will be compared to reference wetland well data in growing seasons with less than normal
rainfall. In periods of low rainfall, if a restoration gauge hydroperiod exceeds the reference gauge
hydroperiod, and both exceed five percent of the growing season, then the gauge will be deemed
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC

Muddy Run H Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 4 Monitoring Report • Duplin County, North Carolina • February 2018
successful. If a gauge location fails to meet these success criteria in the seven year monitoring period,
then monitoring may be extended, remedial actions may be undertaken, or the limits of wetland
restoration will be determined.
2.3 Vegetation
Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density within the riparian buffers on the site will
follow NCDMS Guidance. Vegetation monitoring plots are 0.02 acres in size, and cover greater than
two percent of the planted area. Vegetation monitoring will occur annually in the fall of each year. The
interim measures of vegetative success for the site will be the survival of at least 320 three-year-old
trees per acre at the end of Year 3, 260 trees per acre at the end of Year 5, and the final vegetative
success criteria will be 210 trees per acre at the end of Year 7. Invasive species on the site will be
monitored and treated if necessary throughout the required vegetation monitoring period.
2.4 Scheduling/Reporting
The monitoring program will be implemented to document system development and progress toward
achieving the success criteria. The restored stream morphology will be assessed to determine the
success of the mitigation. The monitoring program will be undertaken for seven years or until the final
success criteria are achieved, whichever is longer.
Monitoring reports will be prepared in the fall of each year of monitoring and submitted to NCDMS.
The monitoring reports will include all information, and will be in the format required by NCDMS in
Version 2.0 of the NCDMS Monitoring Report Template.
3 MONITORING PLAN
Annual monitoring data will be reported using the DMS monitoring template. Annual monitoring shall
be conducted for stream, wetland, and vegetation monitoring parameters as noted below.
3.1 Stream Restoration
3.1.1 As -Built Survey
An as -built survey was conducted following construction to document channel size, condition, and
location. The survey will include a complete profile of thalweg, water surface, bankfull, and top of bank
to compare with future geomorphic data. Longitudinal profiles will not be required in annual
monitoring reports unless requested by NCDMS or USACE.
3.1.2 Bankfull Events
Four sets of manual and auto -logging crest gauges were installed on the site, one along Reach 2, one
along Reach 3a, one along Reach 3b, and one along Reach 5a. The auto logging crest gauges were
installed within the channel and will continuously record flow conditions at an hourly interval. Manual
crest gauges were installed on the bank at bankfull elevation. Crest gauges will be checked during each
site visit to determine if a bankfull event has occurred since the last site visit. Crest gauge readings and
debris rack lines will be photographed to document evidence of bankfull events.
3.1.3 Cross Sections
A total of 59 permanent cross sections were installed to monitor channel dimensions and stability. Four
cross sections were installed along Reach 1 and ten cross sections were installed along Reach 2. There
were 21 cross sections (nine runs, nine pools, and three riffles) installed along Reach 3A and six cross
sections installed along Reach 313. Four cross sections were installed along Reach 3C and two cross
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC

Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 4 Monitoring Report • Duplin County, North Carolina • February 2018
sections were installed along Reach 4. Reach 5A had eight cross sections installed, while Reach 5B and
6 each had two cross sections installed. Cross sections were typically located at representative shallow
and pool sections along each stream reach. Each cross section was permanently marked with 3/8 rebar
pin to establish a monument location at each end. A marker pole was also installed at both ends of each
cross section to allow ease locating during monitoring activities. Cross section surveys will be
performed in monitoring years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 and will include all breaks in slope including top of
bank, bottom of bank, streambed, edge of water, and thalweg.
3.1.4 Digital Image Stations
Digital photographs will be taken at least once a year to visually document stream and vegetation
conditions. This monitoring practice will continue for seven years following construction and planting.
Permanent photo point locations at cross sections and vegetation plots have been established so that the
same directional view and location may be repeated each monitoring year. Monitoring photographs will
also be used to document any stream and vegetation problematic areas such as erosion, stream and bank
instability, easement encroachment and vegetation damage.
3.1.5 Bank Pin Arrays
Twenty bank pin arrays have been installed at cross sections located on meander pools. These bank pin
arrays were installed along the upstream and downstream third of the meander. Bank pins are a
minimum of three feet long, and have been installed just above the water surface and every two feet
above the lowest pin. Bank pin exposure will be recorded at each monitoring event, and the exposed
pin will be driven flush with the bank.
3.1.6 Visual Assessment Monitoring
Visual monitoring of all mitigation areas will be conducted a minimum of twice per monitoring year
by qualified individuals. The visual assessments will include vegetation density, vigor, invasive species,
and easement encroachments. Visual assessments of stream stability will include a complete stream
walk and structure inspection. Digital images will be taken at fixed representative locations to record
each monitoring event as well as any noted problem areas or areas of concern. Results of visual
monitoring will be presented in a plan view exhibit with a brief description of problem areas and digital
images. Photographs will be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank
erosion, success of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures. Longitudinal
photos should indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or an excessive increase in
channel depth. Lateral photos should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the
banks over time. A series of photos over time should indicate successional maturation of riparian
vegetation.
3.1.7 Surface Flow
Headwater valley restoration areas will be monitored to document intermittent or seasonal surface flow.
This will be accomplished through direct observation, photo documentation of hydrology conditions,
and dye tests if necessary.
3.2 Vegetation
A total of 28 vegetation plots were randomly established within the planted stream riparian buffer
easement. Each vegetation plot measures 22 feet by 40 feet (0.02 acres) and has all four corners marked
with PVC posts. Planted woody vegetation was assessed within each plot to establish a baseline dataset.
Within each vegetation plot, each planted stem was identified for species, "X" and "Y" origin located,
and measured for height. Reference digital photographs were also captured to document baseline
conditions. Species composition, density, growth patterns, damaged stems, and survival ratios will be
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC

Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 4 Monitoring Report • Duplin County, North Carolina • February 2018
measured and reported on an annual basis. Vegetation plot data will be reported for each plot as well
as an overall site average.
3.3 Wetland Hydrology
Wetland hydrology will be monitored to document hydric conditions in the wetland restoration areas.
Seven automatic recording pressure transducer gauges were installed in representative locations across
the restoration areas and an additional three gauges were installed in reference wetlands. The gauges
will be downloaded quarterly and wetland hydroperiods will be calculated during the growing
season. Gauge installation followed current regulatory and NCDMS guidance. Visual observations of
primary and secondary wetland hydrology indicators will also be recorded during quarterly site visits.
4 MAINTENANCE AND CONTINGENCY PLAN
All identified problematic areas or areas of concern such as stream bank erosion/instability,
aggradation/degradation, lack of targeted vegetation, and invasive/exotic species which prevent the site
from meeting performance success criteria will be evaluated on a case by case basis. These areas will
be documented and remedial actions will be discussed amongst NCDMS staff to determine a plan of
action. If it is determined remedial action is required, a plan will be provided.
4.1 Stream
During the Year 4 monitoring activities, one stream problem area was documented. This area (SPA 1)
is located on Reach 5A at station 19+50 and consists of right bank erosion caused by a dislodged
structure from the toe of the bank. This area is mapped on the CCPV figure in Appendix B. Stream
problem area 1 (SPA1) will be addressed by adding rip rap behind the dislodged structure and
livestaking the bank to reduce further erosion. Stream problem areas identified during MY3 were
inspected during MY4. Formerly SPA1, is now considered a vegetation problem area (see VPA2
below). The stream problem area is localized and the overall condition of the project streams on site
are stable. Stream issues are described in Appendix B.
4.2 Vegetation
Two vegetation problem areas were identified during monitoring Year 4 activities and is mapped on
the CCPV figures. Vegetation problem area 1 (VPA1) is an area where encroachment from the adjacent
farming operation occurred. This area is approximately a tenth of an acre in size and occurs on Reach
3A. RES will communicate with landowners and install additional signage in this area to prevent future
issues. Vegetation problem area 2 (VPA2, formerly SPAT in MY3), is a bare slope with gully and rill
erosion on Reach 5A. RES plans to reseed and mat this area as well as hand grade and livestake the
associated headcuts. The two vegetation problem areas from MY4 are small and do not pose a threat to
vegetation success criteria being met. All vegetation issues are described in Appendix B.
4.3 Wetlands
No wetland problem areas were noted during the Year 4 monitoring period. During the 2017 growing
season, all seven wells recorded water continuously within 12 inches of the soil surface for at least nine
percent of the growing season. If any wetland problem areas are noted in the future, they will be
documented and mapped on the Current Conditions Plan View (CCPV) as part of the annual stream
and wetland monitoring report. Detailed wetland hydrology data is provided in Appendix D.
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC 10

Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 4 Monitoring Report • Duplin County, North Carolina • February 2018
5 YEAR 4 MONITORING CONDITIONS (MY4)
The Muddy Run II Year 4 Monitoring activities were completed in November 2017. All Year 4
monitoring data is present below and in the appendices. Data presented shows the site has one stream
problem areas and two vegetation problem areas; however, the site is on track to meeting stream,
wetland and vegetation interim success criteria.
5.1 Year 4 Monitoring Data Collection
5.1.1 Morphological State of the Channel
Visual assessment of the stream channel was performed to document signs of instability, such as
eroding banks, structural instability, or excessive sedimentation. No indication of instability was
observed during visual assessment and all structures are functioning as designed.
Stream geomorphic data, including cross-sections, pebble counts, and bank pin arrays were not
collected during Monitoring Year 4 activities per the monitoring guidance and schedule stated in the
Mitigation Plan and As -Built Baseline Documents. This data will be collected in Monitoring Year 5
and documented in the MY5 report.
5.1.2 Vegetation
The Year 4 monitoring (MY -4) vegetation survey was completed in November 2017 and resulted in an
average of 638 planted stems per acre, well above the interim survival density of 260 stems per acre at
the end of Year 5 monitoring. The average stems per vegetation plot was 13 planted stems. The
minimum planted stems per plot was 8 stems and the maximum was 21 stems per plot. Sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda), Winged Sumac (Rhus copallinum), Tulip
Poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), Serviceberry (Amelanchier arborea), and Red Maple (Acer rubrum)
were noted volunteers during MY4 activities. Abundant herbaceous ground cover may have prevented
the observance of these species in previous monitoring years. Vegetation summary data tables and plot
photos can be found in Appendix C.
5.1.3 Photo Documentation
Permanent photo point locations have been established at cross sections, vegetation plots, stream
crossings, and stream structures by RES staff. Any additional problem areas or areas of concern will
also be documented with a digital photograph during monitoring activities. Stream digital photographs
can be found in Appendix B and Appendix C for vegetation photos.
5.1.4 Stream Hydrology
Four sets of manual and auto -logging crest gauges were installed on the site, one along Reach 2, one
along Reach 3a, one along Reach 3b, and one along Reach 5b. The auto logging crest gauges were
installed within the channel and continuously record flow conditions at hourly intervals. Reaches 2, 3a,
and 5b documented bankfull events during the Year 4 monitoring period. Crest gauge 1, which is
located on Reach 2, documented five out of bank events during MY4 with a highest reading of 1.1 feet.
Crest gauge 2 (Reach 3a) logged seven bankfull event during monitoring year 4 with a reading of 2.0
feet above bankfull elevation. Crest gauge 3 (Reach 3b) had no bankfull event readings during
monitoring year 4. Crest gauge 4 (Reach 5b) documented eight bankfull events during MY4 with a
highest reading of 2.8 feet. Crest gauge summary data and photo documentation of the bankfull events
can be found in Appendix D.
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC 11

Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 4 Monitoring Report • Duplin County, North Carolina • February 2018
5.1.5 Wetland Hydrology
All seven wetland restoration gauges achieved the success criteria by remaining continuously within
12 inches of the soil surface for at least nine percent of the growing season. Groundwater gauge data
indicate the hydroperiods being very responsive to rainfall events. Of the three reference wetlands
gauges, only one (RAW2) did not meet success criteria, documenting 6 consecutive days (2%)
throughout the growing season. Wetland gauge and rainfall data is presented in Appendix D.
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC 12

Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 4 Monitoring Report • Duplin County, North Carolina • February 2018
6 REFERENCES
Chow, Ven Te. 1959. Open -Channel Hydraulics, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological
Services, FWS/OBS-79/31. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.
Environmental Banc & Exchange (2012). Muddy Run Stream Restoration Project Final Mitigation
Plan. North Carolina Ecosystems Enhancement Program, Raleigh, NC.
Horton, J. Wright Jr. and Victor A. Zullo. 1991. The Geology of the Carolinas, Carolina Geological
Society Fiftieth Anniversary Volume. The University of Tennessee Press. Knoxville, TN.
Johnson PA. 2006. Assessing stream channel stability at bridges in physiographic regions. U.S.
Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. Report Number FHWA-HRT-05-
072.
Krstolic, J.L., and Chaplin, J.J. 2007. Bankfull regional curves for streams in the non -urban, non -tidal
Coastal Plain Physiographic Province, Virginia and Maryland: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific
Investigations Report 2007-5162, 48 p.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr. and S.P. Hall, eds. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal
Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North
Carolina.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS). 2007. Stream Restoration Design Handbook (NEH
654), USDA
NCDENR. "Water Quality Stream Classifications for Streams in North Carolina." Water Quality
Section. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wqhome/html (June 2005).
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and F.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina, Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, NCDENR, Raleigh, NC.
Sweet, William V. and Jens W. Geratz. 2003. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships and
Recurrence Intervals for North Carolina's Coastal Plain. J. of the American Water Resources
Association (JAWRA) 39(4):861-871.
Tweedy, K. A Methodology for Predicting Channel Form in Coastal Plain Headwater Systems.
Stream Restoration in the Southeast: Advancing the Science and Practice, November 2008, Asheville,
NC. Unpublished Conference Paper, 2008.
http://www.bae.ncsu. edu/programs/extension/wqg/srp/2008conference/tweedy_paper.pdf
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC 13

Appendix A
Project Background Data and Maps
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2. Project Activity and reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts
Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Project USGS Map

Appendix A. General Tables and Figures
Table 1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Monitoring Report Year 4
*The upper portion of Reach 6 (893 ft) and the side channel (307 ft) that confluences with it were given a 50 ft buffer and are included in the easement to account for hydrologic
impacts. No credit was generated from these channels.
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation
Credits
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non-ripan Wetland
Buffer
Nitrogen
Nutrient Offset
Phosphorous
Nutrient Offset
Type
R
RE R
RE
R=
RE
10,739
4.92
N/A
N/A
I N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Project Components
Project Component -or- Reach ID
As -Built
Stationing/Location LF
Existing
Footage/Acreage
Approach
PI, PII etc.
Restoration -or-
Restoration
Equivalent
Restoratio
n Footage
or Acreage
Mitigation Ratio
Reach 1
0+00-4+48
438
MW
Restoration
398
1 : 1
Reach 2
0+00-5+04
504
MW
Restoration
504
1 : 1
Reach 2
5+04-19+14
1,223
P1
Restoration
1,410
1 : 1
Reach 3A
0+00-37+23
3,301
P1
Restoration
3,586
1 : 1
Reach 3B
37+23 —57+92
NA
P1
Restoration
1,979
1 :1
Reach 3C
57+92 —65+30
737
Enh. I
Rest. Equivalent
708
1: 1.5
Reach 4
0+44-2+17
120
P1
Restoration
173
1 :1
Reach 5A
0+00-19+59
1,602
P1
Restoration
1,926
1 :1
Reach 5B
19+59 —23+68
401
Enh. II
Rest. Equivalent
409
1 : 2.5
Reach 6*
9+02-12+19
317
Enh. II
Rest. Equivalent
318
1 : 2.5
Component Summation
Restoration Level
Stream
(linear feet)
Riparian Wetland Non -riparian Wetland
(acres) (acres)
Buffer
(square feet)
Upland
(acres)
Riverine Non-Riverine
Restoration
9,074
4.92
Headwater Valley
902
Enhancement
Enhancement I
708
Enhancement II
727
Creation
Preservation
High Quality
Preservation
BMP
Element
Location
Purpose/Function
Notes
BMP Elements
BR = Bioretention Cell; SF = Sand Filter; SW = Stormwater Wetland; WDP = Wet Detention Pond; DDP = Dry Detention Pond; FS = Filter Strip; S = Grassed
Swale; LS = Level Spreader; NI = Natural Infiltration Area; FB = Forested Buffer
*The upper portion of Reach 6 (893 ft) and the side channel (307 ft) that confluences with it were given a 50 ft buffer and are included in the easement to account for hydrologic
impacts. No credit was generated from these channels.

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Project Activity and Reporting History
Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration / NCDMS Project #95354
Activity or Report
Data Collection
Complete
Completion or
Delivery
Mitigation Plan
NA
January 2014
Final Design — Construction Plans
NA
March 2014
Construction Completed
NA
May 2014
Site Planting Completed
NA
May 2014
Baseline Monitoring Document Year 0 Monitoring — baseline
June 2014
August 2014
Year 1 Monitoring
December 2014
December 2014
Year 2 Monitoring
December 2015
February 2016
Adaptive Management Repair and Supplemental Replanting*
Seeding Contractor
Aril 2016
Invasive Species Control
Lupe Cruz
October 2016
Year 3 Monitoring
November 2016
February 2017
Year 4 Monitoring
November 2017
February 2018
Year 5 Monitoring
Raleigh, NC 27605
*4,400 trees
Table 3. Project Contacts
Project Contacts Table
Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration /NCDMS Project # 95354
Designer
WK Dickson and Co., Inc.
720 Corporate Center Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
[phone]
Frasier Mullen, PE
Construction Contractor
GP Jenkins
6566 HWY 55 W
Kinston, NC 28504
[phone]
Gary Jenkins
Planting Contractor
H&J Forestry
Matt Hitch
Seeding Contractor
Rain Services, Inc.
Lupe Cruz
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resource
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Arbogen
Full Delivery Provider
Resource Environmental Solutions
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
[phone]
Project Manager:
Daniel Ingram
Monitoring Performers
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
302 Jefferson Street. Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
[phone]
[Project Manager:
Ryan Medric

Table 4. Project Information
Project Information
Pro'ectName
Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration
County
Duplin
Project Area acres
37.6
Project Coordinates latitude and longitude)
34.8308430 N, -77.792838 ° W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Coastal Plain
River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-
digit
03030007
USGS Hydrologic
Unit 14 -digit
0303007060010
DWQ Sub -basin
03-06-22
Project Drainage Area acres
908
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
<1%
CGIA Land Use Classification
Reach Summary Information
Parameters Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3a Reach 3b Reach 3c Reach 4
Reach 5a Reach 5b Reach 6
Length of Reach (linear feet) 398
1914
3586 1979 708 173
1926 409 318
Valley Classification
Drainage Area (acres) 68
114
227 333 370 46
774 908 77
NCDWQ Stream Identification 24.75
24.75
36.5 NA 40.5 32.0
35.5 37.5 20.75
NCDWQ Water Quality NA
NA
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA
Morphological Description (stream
Evolutionary Trend
Underlying Mapped Soils Rains
Rains
Goldsboro/ Goldsboro/ Goldsboro/ Goldsboro/ Goldsboro / Goldsboro Goldsboro /
Rains Rains Rains Rains Rains Rains
Drainage Class ---
---
---
Soil Hydric Status Hydric
Hydric
Hydric Hydric Hydric Hydric
Hydric Hydric Hydric
Slope 0.0043
0.0021
0.0016 0.0023 0.0022 0.0034
0.0024 0.0015 0.0024
FEMA Classification Zone X
Zone X
Zone X Zone X Zone X Zone X
Zone X Zone X Zone X
Native Vegetation Community
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swam
Percent Composition of Exotic 0%
0%u 1 0%u 1 0% 1 0% 0%
0% 0 0%
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters
Wetland A
Wetland B
Size of Wetland acres
3.60
1.32
Wetland Type (non -riparian, riparian riverine or riparian
Riparian
Riparian
Mapped Soil Series
Goldsboro
Rains
Drainage class
Moderately Well
Poorly
Soil Hydric Status
Yes
Yes
Source of Hydrology
Runoff/Overbank Flows
Runoff/Overbank Flows
Hydrologic Im airment
Ditched/Incised Channel
Ditched/Incised Channel
Native vegetation community
Cultivated
Cultivated
Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation
NA
NA
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable? Resolved?
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States — Section 404
X X
USACE NWP 27
Waters of the United States — Section 401
X X
401 Water Quality Cert.
Endangered Species Act
X X
USFWS (Corr. Letter)
Historic Preservation Act
X X
SHPO (Corr. Letter)
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/ Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) N/A N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Essential Fisheries Habitat
N/A N/A
N/A

04
r
Legend
INC Highway
State Roads
— Streams
Muddy Run II Easement
- waterbody
HUC 03030007060010
W's
'..*,
l
imr<w
via
Road
� J t Std to R
od
ate Road
o°
s
ck Pierce Ln
J
Figure 1.
Project Vicinity Map
Muddy Run II Mitigation Site
0 0.75 1.5 3
Miles
1 inch = 1.5 miles
State R �
1715
DUPLIN COUNTY
Scale: NTS

IL
IL
�L k � {f 111 r} •°, +
xf ` + x 41
Drainage Area = 1.4 mi
�",f.Gi• - � f^�� I orf,+ ?}�}, 7 F �'
k? i
tiN.
•y -i •I Is'd" t —'I ys
NJ
a L X3tab
Figure 2. Proposed Streams
USGS/Watershed Map waterbodies
res Muddy Run II Mitigation Site Muddy Run II Easement
0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Muddy Run Easement
Feet
1 inch = 2,000 feet Drainage Area

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3. Current Conditions Plan View Map (CCPV)
Table 5. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Table 7. Stream Problem Areas
Table 8. Vegetation Problem Areas
Figure 4. Vegetation Photos
Figure 5. Stream and Vegetation Problem Photos

Figure 3a.
Muddy Run II
Mitigation Site
Current Conditions Map
Duplin County, NC
MY4 2017
Ores
Legend
Easement Boundary
Cross Sections
• Crest Gauges
o Reach Breaks
P1 Restoration
HWV Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Channel - No Credit
® Wetland Restoration Area
Agricultural BMP
Vegetation Plots
Met Year 4 Success
Yes
No
Well Hydroperiod
® < 5%
® 5-8%
® > 9%

Figure 3b.
Muddy Run II
Mitigation Site
Current Conditions Map
Duplin County, NC
MY4 2017
fires
Legend
Easement Boundary
Cross Sections
Stream Structures
Reach Breaks
0 Crest Gauges
Mitigation
P1 Restoration
HWV Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement 11
Channel - No Credit
Agricultural BMP
Vegetation Plots
Met Year 4 Success
Yes
No
Well Hydroperiod
® < 5%
® 5-8%
® > 9%
Riparian Buffer Conditions
Target Community
Present Mar inal Absent
m
L) Absent No Fill
Q
N
> Present
N
R
common _—

Figure 3c.
Muddy Run II
Mitigation Site
Current Conditions Map
Duplin County, NC
MY4 2017
Ores
Legend
Easement Boundary
Agricultural BMP
Crest Gauges
Cross Sections
Stream Structures
Reach Breaks
Mitigation
P1 Restoration
HWV Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement 11
Channel - No Credit
Wetland Restoration
Vegetation Plots
Met Year 4 Success
Yes
No
Well Hydroperiod
® < 5%
(D 5-8%
® > 9%
Riparian Buffer Conditions
Target Community
w Present Marginal Absent
m
•L) Absent No Fill
Q
NV I I I
>Present
N hill
Common

Figure 3d.
Muddy Run II
Mitigation Site
Current Conditions Map
Duplin County, NC
MY4 2017
Ores
Legend
Easement Boundary
Cross Sections
Q Reach Breaks
Stream Structures
Vegetation Plots
® Crest Gauges
Mitigation
P1 Restoration
HWV Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Channel - No Credit
Vegetation Plots
Met Year 4 Success
Yes
No
Well Hydroperiod
® < 5%
® 5-8%
® > 9%
Riparian Buffer Conditions
Target Community
Present Marginal Absent
m
•L) Absent No Fill
Q
NIIIIII
> Present
•y V I I I
common

Figure 3e.
Muddy Run II
Mitigation Site
Current Conditions Map
Duplin County, NC
MY4 2017
Ores
end
LEasement
Boundary
Cross Sections
Q Reach Breaks
Stream Structures
Crest Gauges
Mitigation
P1 Restoration
HWV Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Channel - No Credit
Wetland Restoration
Agricultural BMP
Vegetation Plots
Met Year 4 Success
Yes
No
Well Hydroperiod
® < 5%
® 5-8%
® > 9%
Riparian Buffer Conditions
Target Community
H Present Marginal Absent
m
•L) Absent No Fill
a
N IIIII
> Present
•y IIIII
m ----
c Common —___

Table 5a Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Reach 1
Assessed Length 398
' Bed - Coastal plain sand bed channels have a mobile bed along their entire length during geomorphically significant flows. Therefore, the number of shallows and pools,
bedform shape, and thalweg position will vary by monitoring event and are not suitable indicators of stability or function.
z Percentage based on visual assessment of channel bed condition.
Footage
Adjusted °%
Number'
Number with
with
for
Major
Stable,
Total t
Number of
Amount of
°% Stable',
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Sub -Category
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
NA
NA
100%
NA
NA
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth> 1.6)
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
NA
NA
100%
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
NA
NA
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
NA
NA
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
scour and erosion
Banks undercuUoverhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
sustainable and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
100%
0
0
100%
0 0
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
4
4
o
100/o
Structures
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
4
4
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
4
4
100%
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
3. Bank Protection
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance
0
0
100%
document)
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
0
0
100%
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
' Bed - Coastal plain sand bed channels have a mobile bed along their entire length during geomorphically significant flows. Therefore, the number of shallows and pools,
bedform shape, and thalweg position will vary by monitoring event and are not suitable indicators of stability or function.
z Percentage based on visual assessment of channel bed condition.

Table 5b Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Reach 2
Assessed Length 1914
Bed - Coastal plain sand bed channels have a mobile bed along their entire length during geomorphically significant flows. Therefore, the number of shallows and pools,
bedform shape, and thalweg position will vary by monitoring event and are not suitable indicators of stability or function.
z Percentage based on visual assessment of channel bed condition.
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
Footage with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable 2,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate o
Sub-Cateqory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Ve etation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
NA
NA
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth> 1.6)
-
NA
NA
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
NA
NA
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
NA
NA
100%
�2Th,lweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
NA
NA
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
14
14
°
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
13
13
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
14
14
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence doesnot exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
0
0
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
1
1
°
100/o
Bed - Coastal plain sand bed channels have a mobile bed along their entire length during geomorphically significant flows. Therefore, the number of shallows and pools,
bedform shape, and thalweg position will vary by monitoring event and are not suitable indicators of stability or function.
z Percentage based on visual assessment of channel bed condition.

Table 5c Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Reach 3A
Assessed Length 3586
Bed - Coastal plain sand bed channels have a mobile bed along their entire length during geomorphically significant flows. Therefore, the number of shallows and pools,
bedform shape, and thalweg position will vary by monitoring event and are not suitable indicators of stability or function.
z Percentage based on visual assessment of channel bed condition.
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
Footage with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable 2,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate o
Sub-Cateqory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Ve etation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
NA
NA
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth> 1.6)
-
NA
NA
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
NA
NA
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
NA
NA
100%
�2Th,lweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
NA
NA
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
21
21
°
100%
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.
20
21
95%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence doesnot exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
1
1
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
10
10
°
100/o
Bed - Coastal plain sand bed channels have a mobile bed along their entire length during geomorphically significant flows. Therefore, the number of shallows and pools,
bedform shape, and thalweg position will vary by monitoring event and are not suitable indicators of stability or function.
z Percentage based on visual assessment of channel bed condition.

Table 5d Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Reach 3B
Assessed Length 1979
Bed - Coastal plain sand bed channels have a mobile bed along their entire length during geomorphically significant flows. Therefore, the number of shallows and pools,
bedform shape, and thalweg position will vary by monitoring event and are not suitable indicators of stability or function.
z Percentage based on visual assessment of channel bed condition.
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
Footage with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable 2,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate o
Sub-Cateqory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Ve etation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
NA
NA
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth> 1.6)
-
NA
NA
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
NA
NA
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
NA
NA
100%
�2Th,lweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
NA
NA
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
17
17
°
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
9
9
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
17
17
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence doesnot exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
1
1
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
7
7
°
100/o
Bed - Coastal plain sand bed channels have a mobile bed along their entire length during geomorphically significant flows. Therefore, the number of shallows and pools,
bedform shape, and thalweg position will vary by monitoring event and are not suitable indicators of stability or function.
z Percentage based on visual assessment of channel bed condition.

Table 5e Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Reach 3C
Assessed Length 708
Bed - Coastal plain sand bed channels have a mobile bed along their entire length during geomorphically significant flows. Therefore, the number of shallows and pools,
bedform shape, and thalweg position will vary by monitoring event and are not suitable indicators of stability or function.
2 Percentage based on visual assessment of channel bed condition.
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
Footage with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable 2,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate o
Sub-Cateqory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Ve etation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
NA
NA
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth> 1.6)
-
NA
NA
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
NA
NA
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
NA
NA
100%
�2Th,lweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
NA
NA
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. 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.
3
3
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 doesnot exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
0
0
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
2
2
°
100/o
Bed - Coastal plain sand bed channels have a mobile bed along their entire length during geomorphically significant flows. Therefore, the number of shallows and pools,
bedform shape, and thalweg position will vary by monitoring event and are not suitable indicators of stability or function.
2 Percentage based on visual assessment of channel bed condition.

Table 5f Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Reach 4
Assessed Length 173
Bed - Coastal plain sand bed channels have a mobile bed along their entire length during geomorphically significant flows. Therefore, the number of shallows and pools,
bedform shape, and thalweg position will vary by monitoring event and are not suitable indicators of stability or function.
z Percentage based on visual assessment of channel bed condition.
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
Footage with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable 2,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate o
Sub-Cateqory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Ve etation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
NA
NA
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth> 1.6)
-
NA
NA
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
NA
NA
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
NA
NA
100%
�2Th,lweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
NA
NA
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. 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.
2
2
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 doesnot exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
0
0
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
1
1
°
100/o
Bed - Coastal plain sand bed channels have a mobile bed along their entire length during geomorphically significant flows. Therefore, the number of shallows and pools,
bedform shape, and thalweg position will vary by monitoring event and are not suitable indicators of stability or function.
z Percentage based on visual assessment of channel bed condition.

Table 5g Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Reach 5A
Assessed Length 1926
' Bed - Coastal plain sand bed channels have a mobile bed along their entire length during geomorphically significant flows. Therefore, the number of shallows and pools,
bedform shape, and thalweg position will vary by monitoring event and are not suitable indicators of stability or function.
z Percentage based on visual assessment of channel bed condition.
Footage
Adjusted °%
Number'
Number with
with
for
Major
Stable,
Total t
Number of
Amount of
°% Stable 2,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Sub -Category
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
NA
NA
100%
NA
NA
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth> 1.6)
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
NA
NA
100%
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
NA
NA
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
NA
NA
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
1
10
100%
0
0
100%
scour and erosion
Banks undercuUoverhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
sustainable and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
100%
0
0
100%
0 0
1
10
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
21
22
o
95/o
Structures
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
16
16
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
22
22
100%
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
3. Bank Protection
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance
0
0
100%
document)
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
6
6
100%
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
' Bed - Coastal plain sand bed channels have a mobile bed along their entire length during geomorphically significant flows. Therefore, the number of shallows and pools,
bedform shape, and thalweg position will vary by monitoring event and are not suitable indicators of stability or function.
z Percentage based on visual assessment of channel bed condition.

Table 5h Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Reach 5B
Assessed Length 409
Bed - Coastal plain sand bed channels have a mobile bed along their entire length during geomorphically significant flows. Therefore, the number of shallows and pools,
bedform shape, and thalweg position will vary by monitoring event and are not suitable indicators of stability or function.
z Percentage based on visual assessment of channel bed condition.
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
Footage with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable 2,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate o
Sub-Cateqory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Ve etation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
NA
NA
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth> 1.6)
-
NA
NA
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
NA
NA
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
NA
NA
100%
�2Th,lweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
NA
NA
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
1
1
°
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
1
1
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
1
1
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence doesnot exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
0
0
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
0
0
°
100/o
Bed - Coastal plain sand bed channels have a mobile bed along their entire length during geomorphically significant flows. Therefore, the number of shallows and pools,
bedform shape, and thalweg position will vary by monitoring event and are not suitable indicators of stability or function.
z Percentage based on visual assessment of channel bed condition.

Table 5a Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Reach 6
Assessed Length 318
Bed - Coastal plain sand bed channels have a mobile bed along their entire length during geomorphically significant flows. Therefore, the number of shallows and pools,
bedform shape, and thalweg position will vary by monitoring event and are not suitable indicators of stability or function.
z Percentage based on visual assessment of channel bed condition.
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
Footage with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable 2,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate o
Sub-Cateqory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Ve etation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
NA
NA
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth> 1.6)
-
NA
NA
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
NA
NA
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
NA
NA
100%
�2Th,lweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
NA
NA
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
2
2
°
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
2
2
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
2
2
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence doesnot exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
0
0
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
0
0
°
100/o
Bed - Coastal plain sand bed channels have a mobile bed along their entire length during geomorphically significant flows. Therefore, the number of shallows and pools,
bedform shape, and thalweg position will vary by monitoring event and are not suitable indicators of stability or function.
z Percentage based on visual assessment of channel bed condition.

Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Planted Acreage 17
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
-
1
0.08
0.5
2. Low Stem Density Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria.
0.1 acres
0
0.00
0.0
ITDee¶iction
Total
1
0.08
0.5%
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
no
0
0.00
0.0
0
0.00
Cumulative Total
1
0.08
0.5
Easement Acreage 37.6
1 = Enter the planted acreage within the easement. This number is calculated as the easement acreage minus any existing mature tree stands that were not subject to supplemental planting of the understory, the channel acreage,
crossings or any other elements not directly planted as part of the project effort.
2 = The acreage within the easement boundaries.
3 = Encroachment may occur within or outside of planted areas and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. In the event a polygon is cataloged into items 1, 2 or 3 in the table and is the result of encroachment,
the associated acreage should be tallied in the relevant item (i.e., item 1,2 or 3) as well as a parallel tally in item 5.
4 = Invasives may occur in or out of planted areas, but still within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. Invasives of concern/interest are listed below. The list of high concern spcies are
those with the potential to directly outcompete native, young, woody stems in the short-term (e.g. monitoring period or shortly thereafter) or affect the community structure for existing, more established tree/shrub stands over timeframes
that are slightly longer (e.g. 1-2 decades). The low/moderate concern group are those species that generally do not have this capacity over the timeframes discussed and therefore are not expected to be mapped with regularity, but can
be mapped, if in the judgement of the observer their coverage, density or distribution is suppressing the viability, density, or growth of planted woody stems. Decisions as to whether remediation will be needed are based on the integration
of risk factors by EEP such as species present, their coverage, distribution relative to native biomass, and the practicality of treatment. For example, even modest amounts of Kudzu or Japanese Knotweed early in the projects history will
warrant control, but potentially large coverages of Microstegium in the herb layer will not likley trigger control because of the limited capacities to impact tree/shrub layers within the timeframes discussed and the potential impacts of
treating extensive amounts of ground cover. Those species with the "watch list" designator in gray shade are of interest as well, but have yet to be observed across the state with any frequency. Those in red italics are of particular
interest given their extreme risk/threat level for mapping as points where isolated specimens are found, particularly ealry in a projects monitoring history. However, areas of discreet, dense patches will of course be mapped as polygons.
The symbology scheme below was one that was found to be helpful for symbolzing invasives polygons, particulalry for situations where the conditon for an area is somewhere between isolated specimens and dense, discreet patches. In
any case, the point or polygon/area feature can be symbolized to describe things like high or low concern and species can be listed as a map inset, in legend items if the number of species are limited or in the narrative section of the
executive summary.
of
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Easement
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
ITDee¶iction
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1000 SF
l� I I
�I
IIIIIII
0
0.00
0.0
5. Easement Encroachment Areas' Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
®
1
0.11
0.7
1 = Enter the planted acreage within the easement. This number is calculated as the easement acreage minus any existing mature tree stands that were not subject to supplemental planting of the understory, the channel acreage,
crossings or any other elements not directly planted as part of the project effort.
2 = The acreage within the easement boundaries.
3 = Encroachment may occur within or outside of planted areas and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. In the event a polygon is cataloged into items 1, 2 or 3 in the table and is the result of encroachment,
the associated acreage should be tallied in the relevant item (i.e., item 1,2 or 3) as well as a parallel tally in item 5.
4 = Invasives may occur in or out of planted areas, but still within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. Invasives of concern/interest are listed below. The list of high concern spcies are
those with the potential to directly outcompete native, young, woody stems in the short-term (e.g. monitoring period or shortly thereafter) or affect the community structure for existing, more established tree/shrub stands over timeframes
that are slightly longer (e.g. 1-2 decades). The low/moderate concern group are those species that generally do not have this capacity over the timeframes discussed and therefore are not expected to be mapped with regularity, but can
be mapped, if in the judgement of the observer their coverage, density or distribution is suppressing the viability, density, or growth of planted woody stems. Decisions as to whether remediation will be needed are based on the integration
of risk factors by EEP such as species present, their coverage, distribution relative to native biomass, and the practicality of treatment. For example, even modest amounts of Kudzu or Japanese Knotweed early in the projects history will
warrant control, but potentially large coverages of Microstegium in the herb layer will not likley trigger control because of the limited capacities to impact tree/shrub layers within the timeframes discussed and the potential impacts of
treating extensive amounts of ground cover. Those species with the "watch list" designator in gray shade are of interest as well, but have yet to be observed across the state with any frequency. Those in red italics are of particular
interest given their extreme risk/threat level for mapping as points where isolated specimens are found, particularly ealry in a projects monitoring history. However, areas of discreet, dense patches will of course be mapped as polygons.
The symbology scheme below was one that was found to be helpful for symbolzing invasives polygons, particulalry for situations where the conditon for an area is somewhere between isolated specimens and dense, discreet patches. In
any case, the point or polygon/area feature can be symbolized to describe things like high or low concern and species can be listed as a map inset, in legend items if the number of species are limited or in the narrative section of the
executive summary.

Table 7. Stream Problem Areas
Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration Project - Project # 95354
Feature Issue
Station # / Range
Suspected Cause; Repair
Photo Number
Reach 5A @ Sta.
Structure from drainage feature dislodged
Right Bank Erosion
Sta. 1+00 to 9+97
causing water to flow behind it and scour the
SPA1
Encroachment
19+50
right bank; continue to monitor
VPA1
Table 8. Vegetation Problem Areas
Muddy Run II Stream and Wetland Restoration Project - Project # 95354
Feature Category
Station Numbers
Suspected Cause; Repair
Photo Number
Reach 1 & 3A at
Sta. 1+00 to 9+97
Apparent mowing behind easement markers;
Encroachment
(Reach 1) &
continue to monitor and notify landowner
VPA1
3+00 to 18+73(Reach
3A)
Slopes are sandy, and the area lacks
Bare Area/Head Cut Erosion
Reach 5A at Sta.
substantial herbaceous vegetation; seed area
14+50 to 18+00
and/or establish live stakes to minimize
additional erosion.
VPA2

Figure 4. Vegetation Plot Photos
Vegetation PI

1
�dq�n
Vegetation Plot 11 (11/8/2017) Vegetation Plot 12 (11/7/2017)

'�It
�aa,•x,.� •y iR � a 'i,
� � 5
d
-
it"
1
'�It
�aa,•x,.� •y iR � a 'i,
� � 5

Vegetation Plot 23 (11/9/2017)
Vegetation Plot 24 (11/9/2017)

2:

Figure 5. Stream and Vegetation Problem Area Photos
Stream Problem Area Photos
h
MY4 — SPA1 — Right Bank Erosion on Reach 5A at
Sta. 19+50

Vegetation Problem Areas Photos
MY4 — VPA1 — Encroachment on Reach 1 & 3A at
Sta. 1+00 to 9+97 (Reach 1) &
3+00 to 18+73(Reach 3A)
MY4 — VPA2 — Bare Area/ Head Cut Erosion
Reach 5A at Sta. 17+40
MY4 — VPA2 — Bare Area/ Head Cut Erosion
Reach 5A at Sta. 14+50 to 18+00

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data
Table 9a. Planted Stem Count Summary
Table 9b. Planted Species Totals
Table 9c. Planted Stem Counts (Species by Plot)

Appendix C - Vegetation Plot Data
Table 9a. Monitoring Year 4 Stem Count Summary
Table 9b. Planted Species Totals
ALI Species
Common Name
Haselml
Planted
NEYear
1
lanted 9r
Taxodium distichum
Planted
Year 2
Volunteers
Green Ash
Planted
Year 3
Volunteers
1,800
Planted
Year 4
Volunteers
1,800
Vegetation
Stems
Planted
Stems/Acre
N ssa bi ora
Stems/Acre
Living
ms
Stems/Acre
Year 2
Living
Stems
Total Stems/Acre
Year 2
Living
Stems
Stems/Acre
Year 3
Living Stems
Total Stems/Acre
Year 3
Living
ms
Stems/Acre
Year 3
Total Stems/Acre
Living Stems Year 4
1
16
800
16
800
13
650
1
750
13
650
50
3150
13
650
186
9950
2
17
850
14
700
11
550
--
550
11
550
0
550
11
550
43
2700
3
15
750
13
650
11
550
550
11
550
0
550
10
500
53
3150
4
14
1 700
12
600
8
400
400
13
650
5
900
13
650 1
34
2350
5
16
800
12
600
10
500
1
500
ll
550
0
550
13
650
21
1700
6
17
850
14
700
13
650
650
13
650
0
650
13
650
7
1000
7
15
750
13
650
12
600
600
12
600
0
600
12
600
0
600
8
16
800
14
700
12
600
600
13
650
0
650
13
650
63
3800
9
17
850
11
550
10
500
500
17
850
0
850
13
650
7
1000
10
14
700
9
450
6
300
1
350
6
300
1
350
R
400
2
500
11
13
650
13
650
11
550
--
550
II
550
0
550
12
1 600
19
1550
12
15
750
9
450
11
550
550
1 -,
650
0
650
13
650
3
800
13
16
800
14
700
14
700
650
14
700
0
700
13
650
16
1450
14
14
700
10
500
10
500
500
9
450
0
450
9
450
129
6900
15
15
750
13
650
13
650
900
19
950
0
950
20
1000
65
3350
16
16
800
15
750
14
700
700
12
600
0
600
12
600
71
4150
17
15
750
10
500
11
550
1
600
12
600
0
600
12
600
7
950
18
14
700
14
700
13
650
1
700
14
700
0
700
14
700
71
4250
19
9
450
8
400
11
550
--
550
13
650
0
650
9
450
168
8850
20
10
500
7
350
5
250
--
250
8
400
1
450
8
400
76
4200
21
18
900
16
800
15
750
--
750
12
600
0
600
13
650
12
1250
22
16
800
13
650
12
600
--
600
It
550
0
550
11
550
23
1700
23
13
650
11
550
12
600
600
14
700
35
2450
14
700
60
3700
24
17
850
11
550
8
400
--
400
8
400
0
400
8
400
33
2050
25
16
800
12
600
11
550
--
550
21
1050
0
1050
21
1050
4
1250
26
11
550
7
350
6
300
—
300
20
1000
34
2700
is
900
64
4100
27
19
950
17
850
16
800
--
800
16
800
0
800
16
800 1
12
1400
28
17
850
17
850
15
750
--
750
14
700
0
700
15
750 1
68
4150
Average
15.0
752
12.3
616
11.2
561
2
577
12.9
645
5
870
12.8
638
47
2957
Min
9
450
7
350
5
250
1
250
6
300
0
350
8
400
0
500
Max
19
950
17
850
16
800
5
900
21
1050
50
2700
21
1050
186
9950
Table 9b. Planted Species Totals
ALI Species
Common Name
Total
Planted
Trees - Bare Root
Taxodium distichum
Bald Cypress
1,800
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
1,900
Quercus lyrata
Overcup Oak
1,800
Betula nigra
River birch
1,800
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
2,200
N ssa bi ora
Swamp Tupelo
2,000
Plantanus occidentalis
American Sycamore
2,200
Quercus lauri olia
Laurel Oak
1,800
Total
1 15,500
Live Stakes
Salix nigra Black Willow 3,000
Total 3,000

Appendix C - Vegetation Plot Data
Table 9c. Planted Stem Counts (Species by Plot)
Vegetation Plot 1
Vegetation Plot 2
Vegetation Plot 3
Vegetation Plot 14
Vegetation Plot 4
Vegetation Plot 15
Vegetation Plot 5
Species
Species
Common Name
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5 MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5 MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5 MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4 MY
Taxodium distichum
Bald Cypress
3
3
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
5
5
4
9
9
1
1
1
l
1
Quercus sp.
Unknown Oak sp.
2
2
1
2
l
1
1
l
Quercus lyrata
Overcup Oak
2
1
2
2
2
8
8
8
8
8
4
4
2
4
4
1
I
8
7
6
6
6
Betula nigra
River birch
6
1 6
5
5
5
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
10
6
1 6
6
6
2
l
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
3
Nyssa bii lora
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
Nyssa bii lora
Swamp Tupelo
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
4
2
1
2
1
Plantanus occidentalis
American Sycamore
1
I
I
1
1
5
5
5
1
3
3
3
3
2
7
5
5
2
'
2
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus laurifolia
Laurel Oak
4
4
3
3
3
1
0
3
1
2
2
3
Quercus nigra
4
4
3
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
Quercus nigra
Water Oak
1
I
I
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
1
Species Count
5
1 5
1 5
5
5
5 1
4
3
3
3
6
6
1 4
1 4
4
6
1 5
4
4
4
4
1 7
6
1 5
1 6
7
5
Stem Count
16
16
13
13
13
17
14
11
11
11
15
13
9
11
10
13
14
12
8
13 1
13
16
12
10
11
13
14
Stems per Acre
800
800
650
650
650
850
700
550
550 1
550
750
650
450
550
500
500
700
600
400
650 1
650
800
600
500
550
650
Vegetation Plot 6
Vegetation Plot 7
Vegetation Plot 8
Vegetation Plot 14
Vegetation Plot 9
Vegetation Plot 15
Vegetation Plot 10
Species
Species
Common Name
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MIA
MY5 MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4 MY5
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5 MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4 MY5
Taxodium distichum
Bald Cypress
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
1
2
2
1
2
3
3
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus sp.
Unknown Oak sp.
1
Quercus sp.
Unknown Oak sp.
2
1
1
1
I
Quercus lyrata
Overcup Oak
Quercus lyrata
Overcup Oak
2
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
I
1 3
2
2
2
2
Betula nigra
River birch
3
1 3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
1
3
3
3
1
1
10
6
1 6
6
6
3
l
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
5
5
5
7
6
5
5
5
1
1
1
6
5
3
2
3
Nyssa bii lora
Swamp Tupelo
4
4
2
2
2
4
Nyssa bii lora
Swamp Tupelo
2
2
4
4
4
1
1
9
6
6
3
3
2
2
2
2
1
Plantanus occidentalis
American Sycamore
1
1
4
2
1
2
1
Plantanus occidentalis
American Sycamore
1
1
1 2
2
5
5
5
1
2
2
1
2
2
7
2
1
1
4
4
1
1
1
I 1
1
Quercus laurifolia
Laurel Oak
5
3
2
I
1
3
2
2
2
3
Quercus nigra
4
4
3
3
2
3
3
2
2
3
Quercus nigra
Water Oak
1
I
I
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
1
Species Count
5
5
5
5
5
6
5
4
4
4
6
5
5
5
5
6
4
3
1 3
5
4
5
5
4
4
5
5
Stem Count
17
14
14
14
13
15
13
12
12
12
16
14
1 12
1 13
13
13
17
11
10
17 1
13
14
9
6
6
8
14
Stems per Acre
850
700
700
700
650
750
650
600
1 600
600
800
700
1 600
1 650
650
500
850
550
5001
850 1
650
700
450
300
300
400
Vegetation Plot 11
Vegetation Plot 12
Vegetation Plot 13
Vegetation Plot 14
Vegetation Plot 15
Species
Common Name
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5 MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4 MY5
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5 MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5 MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4 MY5
Taxodium distichum
Bald Cypress
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus sp.
Unknown Oak sp.
2
1
Quercus lyrata
Overcup Oak
1
2
2
5
5
5
3
3
4
4
4
1
1
3
1
3
1
Betula nigra
River birch
1
1
1
1
l
3
4
4
4
4
1
]
1
I
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
7
7
7
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
7
6
5
5
5
1
1
1
6
5
3
2
3
Nyssa bii lora
Swamp Tupelo
4
4
2
2
2
4
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
9
6
6
2
2
3
3
2
2
1
Plantanus occidentalis
American Sycamore
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
8
7
Quercus laurifolia
Laurel Oak
3
3
2
3
2
1
2
Quercus nigra
Water Oak
1
I
I
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
1
I
Species Count
6
6
6
6
7
6
4
4
4
4
6
5
5
5
5
4
3
3
4
4
7
6
7
7
7
Stem Count
13
13
10
11
12
15
9
12
13
13
16
14
14
14
13
14
10
12
9
9
15
13
11
19
18
Stems per Acre
650
650
500
550
600
750
450
600
650
650
800
700
700
700
650
700
500
600
450
450
750
650
550
950
900
Vegetation Plot 16
Vegetation Plot 17
Vegetation Plot 18
Vegetation Plot 19
Vegetation Plot 20
Species
Common Name
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5 MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4 MY5
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5 MYO
I MYl
I MY2
MY31
MY41
MY5 MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY41 MY5
Taxodium distichum
Bald Cypress
1
1 1
2
1
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
6
6
7
6
7
1
1
2
2
Quercus sp.
Unknown Oak sp.
1
Quercus lyrata
Overcup Oak
1
1
1
3
3
4
4
4
1
1
3
1
3
1
Betula nigra
River birch
1
6
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
7
7
7
6
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
3
2
2
Nyssa bora
Swamp Tupelo
8
8
7
6
6
4
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
112
6
3
1
Plantanus occidentalis
American Sycamore
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
2
1
Quercus laurifolia
Laurel Oak
1
2
Quercus nigra
Water Oak
I
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
2
Species Count
3
2
2
2
2
5
4
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
5
6
4
3
3
2
5
5
Stem Count
16
15
14
12
12
15
10
12
12
12
14
14
16
14
14
9
1 8
14
12
9
10
7
4
8
8
Stems per Acre
800
750
700
600
600
750
500
600
600
600
700
700
800
700
700
450
400
700
600
450
500
350
200
1 400
400

Appendix C - Vegetation Plot Data
Table 9c. Planted Stem Counts (Species by Plot) Continued
Vegetation Plot 21
Vegetation Plot 22
Vegetation Plot 23
Species
Common Name
Vegetation Plot 24
MYl
MY2
MY3
Vegetation Plot 25
MY5 MYO
Species
Common Name
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5 MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5 MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5 MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5 MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4 MY5
Taxodium distichum
Bald Cypress
2
3
4
3
3
8
8
8
8
8
2
2
2
3
3
1
1
4
4
4
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
6
6
6
4
5
Overcup Oak
4
4
3
5
7
6
6
6
2
4
4
4
4
4
Betula nigra
River birch
1
2
Quercus sp.
Unknown Oak sp.
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus l rata
Overcup Oak
3
4
2
3
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Betula nigra
River birch
1
1
1
7
7
3
3
3
3
3
2
1
1 6
1 3
3
3
3 1
4
1 3
3
1
1
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
2
2
3
2
2
1
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
5
4
4
2
1
Nyssa hi lora
Swamp Tupelo
Liriodendron tuli i era
Tulip Poplar
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
6
5
4
Species Count
5
Plantanus occidentalis
American Sycamore
7
9
5
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
1
11
1
6
20
18
19
17
16
16
7
8
Quercus laurifolia
Laurel Oak
4
1
Stems per Acre
1
5
2
1
900
950
2
1
3
2
3
6
3
1
1
1
1
5
2
Quercus nigra
Water Oak
I
I
I
1
Species Count
6
5
3
4
5
3
3
3
2
2
5
4
4
5 1
7
5
5
4
4
4
4
3
3
7
8
Stem Count
18
16
11
12
13
16
13
12
11
11
13
11
13
14 1
15
17
11
1 8
8
8
16
1 12
1 11
21
20
Stems per Acre
900
800
550
600
650
800
650
600
550
550
650
550
650
700 1
750
850
550
1 400
400
400
800
1 600
1 550
1050
1000
Vegetation Plot 26
Vegetation Plot 27
Ve etation Plot 28
Species
Common Name
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5 MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4 MY5
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4 MY5
Taxodium distichum
Bald Cypress
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
4
4
9
9
9
9
9
Quercus sp.
Unknown Oak sp.
4
Quercus lyrata
Overcup Oak
4
4
3
5
4
1
4
4
4
4
4
Betula nigra
River birch
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Nyssa biflora
Swamp Tupelo
3
1
Plantanus occidentalis
American Sycamore
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
7
6
6
6
Quercus laurifolia
Laurel Oak
2
1
7
6
5
5
4
4
4
3
2
3
Quercus nigra
Water Oak
1
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
1
Liriodendron tuli i era
Tulip Poplar
2
Species Count
5
3
2
7
9
5
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
Stem Count
11
7
6
20
18
19
17
16
16
15
17
17
15
1 14
15
Stems per Acre
550
350
300
1000
900
950
850
800
800
750
850
850
750
1 700
750

Appendix D
Hydrology Data
Table 10. Documentation of Geomorphologically Significant Flow Events
Table 11. Rainfall Summary
Table 12a. Wetland Hydrology Criteria Attainment
Table 12b. MY 1-MY4 Wetland Hydrology Gauges Summary
Chart 1. 2017 Precipitation Data for Muddy Run II Site
Chart 2. 2017 Groundwater Monitoring Gauge Hydrographs
Figure 6. Crest Gauge Verification Photos

Table 10. Documentation Significant Flow Events
Crest Gauge
Number of Bankfull Events
Maximum Bankfull Height (ft.)
Crest Gauge 1
On -Site Auto
Rain Gaua e
January
MY1
1
0.40
MY2
1
0.60
MY3
4
1.60
MY4
5
1.10
Crest Gauge 2
3.23
5.32
MY1
8
1.50
MY2
19
2.00
MY3
8
2.00
MY4
7
2.00
Crest Gauge 3
June
MY1
0
N/A
MY2
4
0.20
MY3
2
2.18
MY4
0
N/A
Crest Gauge 4
3.12
6.56
MY1
2
0.45
MY2
1
0.40
MY3
1
3.80
MY4
8
2.80
Table 11. Rainfall Summary
Month
Average
Normal Limits
30 Percent 70 Percent
Wallace Station
Precipitation
On -Site Auto
Rain Gaua e
January
4.33
3.32
5.03
4.26
4.21
February
3.23
2.14
3.87
1.82
0.28
March
4.50
3.23
5.32
2.85
0.55
April
3.16
1.70
3.85
7.74
0.55
May
3.68
2.69
4.34
5.47
June
4.49
3.11
5.34
5.67
July
6.06
4.16
7.22
5.22
1.15
August
5.40
3.12
6.56
8.21
9.24
September
5.00
2.04
6.07
5.86
4.54
October
3.21
1.62
3.92
2.51
2.95
November
2.89
1.83
3.49
0.76
0.32
December
3.24
2.14
3.88
---
Total
49.19
31.10
58.89
50.37
23.78
*No data collected during May or June. On -Site Rain Gauge failed and was replaced in July.

Table 12a. Wetland Hydrology Criteria Attainment
2017 Max Hydroperiod (Growing Season 17 -Mar through 14 -Nov, 242 days)
Success Criterion 9% = 22 Consecutive Days
Gauge
Consecutive
Cumulative
Occurrences
Percent of
Days growing
Season
Percent of
Days growing
Season
AWl
49
20
131
54
19
AW2
26
11
96
40
19
AW3
52
21
149
61
17
AW4
69
28
222
92
6
AW5
55
23
160
66
15
AW6
55
23
184
76
13
AW7
59
24
215
89
8
RAW1 *
33
13
41
17
2
RAW2
6
2
28
12
14
RAW3
34
14
87
36
9
*Data only represents March 17, 2017 - May 2, 2017
Table 12b. MYl-MY4 Wetland Hydrology Gauge Summary
*MY4-2017 data only represents March 17, 2017 - May 2, 2017
MY1-2014
MY2-2015
MY3-2016
MY4-2017
Consecutive
Consecutive
Consecutive
Consecutive
Gauge
Days
Percent of
growing
Season
Days
Percent of
growing
Season
Days
Percent of
growing
Season
Days
Percent of
growing
Season
AW1
22
9
63
26
22
9
49
20
AW2
22
9
41
17
21
9
26
11
AW3
13
5
38
16
32
13
52
21
AW4
67
28
77
32
95
39
69
28
AW5
7
3
38
16
32
13
55
23
AW6
43
18
65
27
22
9
55
23
AW7
5
2
72
30
36
15
59
24
RAW1*
22
9
49
20
33
13
33
13
RAW2
10
4
19
8
15
6
6
2
RAW3
20
8
41
17
32
1 13
34
14
*MY4-2017 data only represents March 17, 2017 - May 2, 2017

Chart 1. 2017 Precipitation Data for Muddy Run 11 Site
2017 Precipitation Data for Muddy Run 11 Site
10.00
Growing Season
9.00
-
8.00 -
7.00
6.00 -
L)
%
0 5.00 -
4.00 -
IL
3.00
-
2.00
-
1.00
LRI
0.001 ..1 ... ..... ....
J F m A m i i A S 0 N D
Months
�Wallace Daily Rainfall Growing Season --0— On-site Auto Rain Gauge --&-- Wallace Monthly Rainfall — 30th(70th Percentile

Chart 2. Muddy Run II Groundwater Monitoring Gauge Hydrographs
2017 Muddy Run II Groundwater Gauge AW1
10 10.0
Growing Season
9.0
0
8.0
-10
------- i--
N
—
—
--
—
— — — — —— -- — —
------7.0
t
V
-20
N
6.0 t
c
o
�
m
y
5.0 p
-30
W
i
++
w
Y
C.
4.0
-40
i
c
a
3
0
3.0
C7
-50
2.0
-60
1.0
1 Liu
-70 0.0
J F M A M J J A S O N D
Months
Wallace Daily Rainfall-MRIIAWI

2017 Muddy Run II Groundwater Gauge AW2
10
10.0
ii
Growing Season
H
H
H
9.0
0
8.0
-10
N7.0
N
t
V
C
-20
N
6.0 L
O
C1
C
W
p
-30
5.0
W
W
Wa
IT;
4.0 'v
-40
`
C
a
3
O
3.0
U'
-50
2.0
-60
1.0
-70L
'
0.0
J
F M A M J J A S O N D
Months
Wallace Daily Rainfall-MRIIAW2

2017 Muddy Run II Groundwater Gauge AW3
10
10.0
Growing Season
9.0
0
i
I
8.0
-10
�
Q
7.0
y
=
-20
ii
u
6.0 t
O
ii
V
m
y
-30
5.0 p
W
II
++
m
3
11
II
_L Z
4.0
-40
;;
m
L
c
IL
O
3.0
-50
II
it
ii
ii
2.0
-60
II
ii
ii
1.0
-70
i
0.0
J
F M A M J J A S O
N D
Months
IIIIIIIIIIIIIWallace Daily Rainfall -MRII AW3

2017 Muddy Run II Groundwater Gauge AW4
10
10.0
i
Growing Seaso
9.0
0
8.0
-10
---------
-------
-----
-------- --
------
LA
7.0
t
v
H
-20
6.0 t
O
V
C
y
p
-30
5.0
W
L
m
W
a
3
4.0 'V
-40
d
L
C_
a
0
L
3.0
C7
-50
2.0
-60
I'
Li Idi i
1.0
-70
J III J1 ull, I A
0.0
J
F M A M J J A S O N D
Months
Wallace Daily Rainfall MRII AW4

2017 Muddy Run II Groundwater Gauge AW5
10 10.00
Growing Seaso
11
9.00
0
61k,
1",
T8.00
-10
--------
----
--
-
-
------ -
------
7.00
s
v
N
-20
c
6.00 L
O
w
V
C
y -30
5.00 p
W
r
d
Q
O
4.00
i
-40
c
d
3
O
�
3.00
(�
-50
2.00
-60
1.00
-70 0.00
J F M A M J J A S O N D
Months
Wallace Daily Rainfall -MRII AW5 -Ground Elevation

2017 Muddy Run II Groundwater Gauge AW6
10 10.00
Growing Season
9.00
0
V
8.00
-10
-------
N
N
--- —
--
7.00
t
V
-20
C
6.00 L
O
V
C
Y
yr
d
5.00 p
-30
LU
+'
L
W
W
•Q.
4.00
3 -40
00)
OL
3.00
-50
2.00
-60
1.00
Idw
-70 0.00
J F M A M J J A S O N D
Months
Wallace Daily Rainfall MRII AW6 -Ground Elevation

2017 Muddy Run II Groundwater Gauge AW7
10 10.00
Growing Season
9.00
0
Tv
V
8.00
-10
---------
y
-------
------
7.00
t
V
-20
C
6.00 L
O
V
C
d
5.00 p
-30
W
L
++
y
W
.
Q
4.00
-40
`
c
a
OL
3.00
-50
2.00
-60
1.00
-70 0.00
J F M A M J J A S O N D
Months
llllllllllllllllllllWallace Daily Rainfall MRII AW7 Ground Elevation

*Groundwater gauge failed May -Nov 2017
2017 Muddy Run II Groundwater Gauge REFAW1
10
10.0
Ild Growing Season
9.0
0
8.0
-10
-------
---
---——————————————
———— -----------
7.0
t
V
_
fn
=
-20
6.0 s
o
-
R
N
-30
5.0 2
W
L
Y
y�
Q
m
4.0 'v
�3
-40
`
c
a
3
3.0
(�
-50
2.0
-60
L41.0
-70
0.0
J
F M A M J J A S O N D
Months
Wallace Daily Rainfall-MRIIREFAWI
*Groundwater gauge failed May -Nov 2017

2017 Muddy Run II Groundwater Gauge REFAW2
10 10.0
Growing Season
9.0
0
8.0
-10 --
-- —
---
—
—
---———— — — ----
— — — --—
— — — — ——
v,
d
7.0
s
C
to
-20
6.0 t
O
w
V
C
m
y -30
7-
5.0 p
W
:r
.Q
m
4.0 'V
-40
vyi
c
a
O`
3.0
-50
2.0
-60
1.0
fill-70 0.0
J F M A M J J A S O N D
Months
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiWallace Daily Rainfall-MRIIREFAW2

2017 Muddy Run II Groundwater Gauge REFAW3
10 10.0
Growing Season
9.0
0
k-I
8.0
-10
N7.0
v-20M
=
6.0 t
O
Y
V
C
y
p
-30
5.0
W
L
W
ca
?:-40
4.0 'v
`
C
d
z
p
3.0
'L^
V
-50
1
1
2.0
-60
1.0
i
1,
-70 J ARAI 0.0
J F M A M J J A S O N D
Months
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiWallace Daily Rainfall-MRIIREFAW3

Figure 6. Crest Gauge Verification Photos
Photo 1. Crest Gauge 1 (Reach 2 — 1.1 ft. — 4/24/17)
Photo 3. Crest Gauge 4 (Reach 5A — 2.8 ft. — 4/24/17)
Photo 2. Crest Gauge 2 (Reach 3A — 2.0 ft. — 4/24/17)