20141127 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report_2018_20190103

ID#* 20141127
Select Reviewer:*
Mac Haupt
Initial Review
Completed Date
01/04/2019
Mitigation Project Submittal -1/3/2019
Version* 1
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?*
Type of Mitigation Project:*
W Stream r Wetlands r Buffer r Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Jeff Schaffer
Project Information
Existing 20141127
(DWR) (nunbers only no dash)
I D#: *
Project Name: Mud Lick Creek - Thomas Site
County: Chatham
Document Information
r Yes r No
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Existing 1
Version: (nun-bersonly)
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: MLC_ 93482_MY1_2018.pdf 12.62MB
Rease upload only one RDF of the complete file that needs to be subnitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Jeff Schaffer
Signature:*
Xf Neo,

FINAL
MONITORING REPORT
YEAR 1 (2018)
MUD LICK CREEK MITIGATION SITE
Chatham County, North Carolina
NCDMS Project No. 93482
Contract No. 7683
USACE Action ID No. SAW -2014-00736 & DWR Project No 2014-1127
SCO No. 1209857-01
Data Collection: December 2018
Submission: December 2018
PREPARED FOR:
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1601 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1601

FINAL
MONITORING REPORT
YEAR 1 (2018)
MUD LICK CREEK MITIGATION SITE
Chatham County, North Carolina
NCDMS Project No. 93482
Contract No. 7683
USACE Action ID No. SAW -2014-00736 & DWR Project No 2014-1127
SCO No. 1209857-01
Data Collection: December 2018
Submission: December 2018
PREPARED BY:
AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
218 SNOW AVENUE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27603

F-1
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
December 20, 2018
Mr. Jeff Schaffer
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue, Raleigh, NC 27603 919-215-1693
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
RE: Mud Lick Creek Monitoring (DMS Project # 93482, Contract #7683
Final MY (2019) Annual Monitoring Report
Dear Mr. Schaffer:
Axiom Environmental, Inc. (AXE) is pleased to provide you with three hard copies and a CD of
digital files for the Final Mud Lick Creek Annual Monitoring Report. We received your comments
via email on December 19, 2018 and have addressed them as follows:
1. The digital data and drawings have been reviewed and determined to meet DMS
requirements.
2. The pdf copy of the report has two (2) figure 2s, with one having more information shown.
Please identify which is the correct figure and replace in the final hardcopy as well. This has
been addressed; the appropriate figure has been inserted into the final document.
3. Project Summary: Under Mitigation Components on page iii, add a sentence stating, "The
assets and credits in the report and shown in Table 1 are based upon approved as -built
numbers as approved by the IRT on 11/1/2018." Sentence added to the last paragraph of
Mitigations Components section.
4. Section 1.0: Add statement to last paragraph on page 2 under vegetation section that states
"DMS has sent a letter to the planting contractor invoking the warranty on survivability of
planted stems. Warranty replant to be completed prior to March 1, 2019." Sentence added to
last paragraph in vegetation section.
5. Appendix A, Table 1: Add footnote to table stating, "The assets and credits in the report and
shown in Table 1 are based upon approved as -built numbers as approved by the IRT on
11/1/2018." Footnote was added to the table.

6. Appendix D, Table 11: Based upon the guidance prepared by the Technical Workgroup sent
out by the IRT regarding the method to be used to calculate Bank Height Ratio (BHR), it
appears that cross- sections 7 and 9 would be better candidates for a BHR of less than 1 given
the reduction in cross- sectional area from MYO to MYL Please verify. After reviewing cross-
srL.,,unal data between As -built and Year 1 monitoring for Crass sections 7 and 9, it was determined
that the BHR should remain at 1.0. This results from the ban) fVl cross-sectional area (using best fit
methodology) remaining within the boundaries of the channel. Therefore, the low bank height also
remains within the channel. The bankfull elevation did.shift upwards on cross section las the best fit
method would require; however, so did the top of bank. If you compare cross-section 7 as -built with
Year 1 the top of bank is reasonably situated in both cross-sections. Ijwou would like to review the
cross-sections together please let us know. However, we believe it is justifiable to report a bank height
ratio of 1.0 for both cross sections.
Please let me know if you have any questions or comments regarding any component of this
submittal. Thank you for the opportunity to continue to assist the Division of Mitigation Services
with this important project.
Sincerely,
AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC
Phillip Perkinson
Attachments: 3 hardcopies Final Mud Lick Creek Annual Monitoring Report
1 CD Containing digital support files

PROJECT SUMMARY
The North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) has established the Mud Lick Creek
Mitigation Site (Site) located within the Cape Fear River Basin Cataloging Unit (CU) 03030003 in the
Upper Rocky River local watershed planning (LWP) area and 14 -digit HUC 03030003070010. The Site
was identified as a priority mitigation project in the Detailed Assessment and Targeting of Management
Report (Tetra Tech 2005). The main stressors to aquatic resources identified during the watershed
assessments described in the LWP documents include the following.
• Nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorous) loading from farming;
• Sediment loading from overland runoff, disturbed surfaces, and streambank erosion;
• Cattle access to streams increasing bank erosion and fecal coliform contamination; and
• Insufficient bank vegetation.
The project will contribute to meeting management recommendations to offset these stressors as
described above for the LWP area by accomplishing the following primary goals.
• Control and reduce nutrient sources from the Site;
• Reduce sediment loads from disturbed areas on the Site and from eroding stream banks;
• Increased aeration of flows within the project extent promoting increases in dissolved oxygen
concentrations;
• Reduce sources of fecal coliform pollution;
• Improve instream habitat;
• Reduce thermal loadings;
• Reconnect channels with floodplains and raise local water table; and
• Restore riparian habitat.
These goals will be accomplished through the following objectives:
• Restore riparian vegetation on the Site and thereby reduce sediment loads to streams from stream
banks and existing pastures, increase on -Site retention of sediment and nutrients, create riparian
habitat, and provide shade for streams to reduce thermal loadings;
• Stabilize eroding streambanks to reduce sediment inputs;
• Install fencing around the perimeter of the conservation easement to eliminate livestock access
to streams, thereby reducing sediment, nutrient, and fecal coliform inputs;
• Plant restored and stabilized streambanks with native species to improve stability and habitat;
• Install instream structures to improve stability, create habitat, and help aerate stream flows;
• Raise streambeds to reconnect restored channels to floodplains and raise local water tables; and
• Restore streams and vegetation so the Site looks natural and aesthetically pleasing.
Stream Success Criteria: The stream restoration performance criteria for the Site will follow approved
performance criteria presented in the 2015 Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan as
described below.
Stream Dimension: Riffle cross-sections on the restoration reaches and enhancement II reaches, where
banks were re -graded (three reaches of Mud Lick Creek), should be stable and should show little change in
bankfull area, maximum depth, and width -to -depth ratio. Bank -height -ratios shall not exceed 1.2 and
entrenchment ratios shall be at least 2.2 for restored channels to be considered stable. All riffle cross-
sections should fall within the parameters defined for channels of the appropriate stream type. If any
changes do occur, these changes will be evaluated to assess whether the stream channel is showing signs
of instability. Indicators of instability include a vertically incising thalweg or eroding channel banks.
Changes in the channel that indicate a movement toward stability or enhanced habitat include a decrease in
2018 MY1 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Executive Summary page i
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)

the width -to -depth ratio in meandering channels or an increase in pool depth. Remedial action would not
be taken if channel changes indicate a movement toward stability.
Stream Pattern and Profile: The as -built survey will include a longitudinal profile for the baseline
monitoring report. Longitudinal profile surveys will not be conducted during the seven-year monitoring
period unless other indicators during the annual monitoring indicate a trend toward vertical and lateral
instability.
Substrate: Substrate materials in the restoration reaches should indicate a progression towards or the
maintenance of coarser materials in the riffle features and smaller particles in the pool features.
Hydraulics: Two bankfull flow events, in separate monitoring years, must be documented on the restoration
reaches and enhancement Il reaches where banks were re -graded (three reaches of Mud Lick Creek) within
the seven-year monitoring period.
Vegetation Success Criteria: The final vegetative success criteria will be the survival of 210 planted
stems per acre in the riparian corridor along restored and enhanced reaches at the end of the required
monitoring period (year seven). The interim measure of vegetative success for the Site will be the survival
of at least 320 planted stems per acre at the end of the third monitoring year and at least 260 stems per acre
at the end of the fifth year of monitoring. If this performance standard is met by year five and stem density
is trending towards success (i.e., no less than 260 stems/acre), monitoring of vegetation on the Site may be
terminated with written approval by the USACE in consultation with the NC Interagency Review Team.
The extent of invasive species coverage will also be monitored and controlled as necessary throughout he
required monitoring period (seven years).
Photo Documentation: Photographs should illustrate the Site's vegetation and morphological stability on
an annual basis. Cross-section photos should demonstrate no excessive erosion or degradation of the banks.
Longitudinal photos should indicate the absence of persistent bars within the channel or vertical incision.
Grade control structures should remain stable. Deposition of sediment on the bank side of vane arms is
preferable. Maintenance of scour pools on the channel side of vane arms is expected.
Visual Assessments: Visual assessments should support performance standards as described above.
As per Sections 7.2 and 12.4 of the Mitigation Plan, physio -chemical and biological parameters may have
been included as part of specialized monitoring, depending on the data that could be obtained during the
baseline period. Monitoring of these parameters was for investigative purposes only and not tied to
mitigation success or credit. The sample size and variability of the pre -construction physio -chemical data
was inadequate for the purposes of post -construction comparison and therefore, these will not be monitored
moving forward. However, fish and macrobenthos will be monitored at the stations indicated in the asset
and monitoring features map (Figure 2, Appendix B).
Site Background: The Site is located in northwestern Chatham County, north of Siler City and northwest
of Silk Hope (Figure 1, Appendix B). The Site is located within United States Geological Survey (USGS)
Hydrologic Unit and Targeted Local Watershed 03030003070010 (North Carolina Division of Water
Resources Subbasin 03-06-12) of the Cape Fear River Basin. Prior to construction, the Site was used for
agricultural livestock production. The proposed project will improve water quality as well as provide
numerous ecological benefits within the Cape Fear River Basin. The project will help meet management
recommendations of the Upper Rocky River Local Watershed Plan by restoring a vegetated riparian buffer
zone, stabilizing eroding stream banks, and removing livestock from streams and riparian zones. These
activities will result in reduced nutrient, sediment, and fecal coliform inputs; improved aquatic and riparian
habitat, and other ecological benefits.
2018 MY1 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Executive Summary page ii
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)

Mitigation Components: Project mitigation efforts will generate 2832 Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs)
as the result of the following (Table 1, Appendix A & Figure 2, Appendix B).
• Restoration of 1215 linear feet of Site streams
• Enhancement (Level II) of 2426 linear feet of Site streams
Site design was completed in June 2015. Site construction occurred May 24—August 25, 2017 (final
walkthrough) and the Site was planted in February 2018. Completed project activities, reporting history,
completion dates, project contacts, and project attributes are summarized in Tables 1-4 (Appendix A). The
assets and credits in the report and shown in Table 1 are based upon approved as -built numbers as approved
by the IRT on 11/1/2018.
2018 MY1 Annual Monitoring Report (Final) Executive Summary page iii
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 METHODS.................................................................
2.0 REFERENCES...........................................................
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Background Tables
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Units
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Attributes Table
Appendix B. Visual Assessment Data
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View
Tables 5A -5C. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Warranty Plot Photographs
Appendix C. Vegetation Data
Table 7. Planted Woody Vegetation
Table 8. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species
Table 9. Year 1 (2018) Warranty Plot Planted Living Stems Per Acre
Appendix D. Stream Geomorphology Data
Tables IOa- IOc. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Tables 11 a-11 f Monitoring Data -Dimensional Data Summary
Cross-section Plots
Substrate Plots
Appendix E. Hydrology Data
Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
..................................1
.................................. 3
Year 1 (2018) Monitoring Report (Final) Table of Contents page i
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)

1.0 METHODS
Monitoring of restoration efforts will be performed for seven years, or until success criteria are fulfilled.
Monitoring is proposed for the stream channel and vegetation. In general, the restoration success criteria,
and required remediation actions, are based on the Stream Mitigation Guidelines (USACE et al. 2003).
Monitoring features are summarized in the following table and described below; monitoring features are
depicted on Figure 2 (Appendix B).
Monitoring Summary
Parameter Monitoring Feature I Quantity Frequency
Streams
Dimension Cross-sections
7 riffles & 3 pools annually
Substrate Pebble counts
3 riffles annually
Hydrology Crest gauges
3 annually
Vegetation Vegetation Plots
Warranty Plots
12 annually
10 MY1
Visual assessments
Entire Site biannually
Exotic & nuisancespecies
Entire Site annually
Project boundary
Entire Site annually
Reference photographs
22 annually
Supplement Monitorin
Biological
Macrobenthos
5 sites (Preconstruction only)
3 sites (MY3, MY5, & MY7)
Fish
3 sites (Preconstruction only)
2 sites (MY4 & MY7)
Streams
The restored stream reaches are proposed to be monitored for geometric activity as follows.
• 7 permanent riffle cross-sections
• 3 permanent pool cross-sections
• 3 riffle pebble count samples for substrate analysis
• 3 stream crest gauges
The data will be presented in graphic and tabular format. Data to be presented will include 1) cross-
sectional area, 2) bankfull width, 3) average depth, 4) maximum depth, and 5) width -to -depth ratio.
Substrate analysis will be evaluated through pebble counts at three riffle cross-sections and data presented
as a D50 for stream classification and tracking purposes. The stream will subsequently be classified
according to stream geometry and substrate (Rosgen 1996). Significant changes in channel morphology
including bank -height -ratios and entrenchment ratios will be tracked and reported by comparing data to
asbuilt measurements in addition to each successive monitoring year. Annual photographs will include 22
fixed station photographs (12 vegetation plots and 10 cross-sections) (Appendix B). In addition, the Site
contains three stream crest gauges to assist with documentation of bankfull events. One bankfull event was
documented during monitoring year 1 (2018) (Table 12, Appendix E).
One stream area of concern was observed along a large bend in Mud Lick Creek Reach 2 (Figure 2,
Appendix B). Approximately 50 feet of the right bank and 20 feet of the left bank have eroded to the point
of bank sloughing due to several historical storm events during MY -01. This area is relatively unstable,
Year 1 (2018) Monitoring Report (Final) Page 1
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)

additional erosion and sloughing will be documented during subsequent visits throughout the monitoring
period.
Vegetation
Restoration monitoring procedures for vegetation will monitor plant survival and species diversity.
Planting occurred within the entire Site. After planting of the area was completed, 12 vegetation plots were
installed and monitored at the Site; annual results can be found in Appendix C. Annual measurements of
vegetation will consist of the following.
• 10 plant warranty inspection plots (only MY 1)
• 12 CVS vegetation plots
A photographic record of plant growth should be included in each annual monitoring report; baseline
photographs are included in Appendix B. During the first year, vegetation will receive a cursory, visual
evaluation on a periodic basis to ascertain the degree of overtopping of planted elements by nuisance
species. Subsequently, quantitative sampling of vegetation will be performed as outlined in the CVS-EEP
Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.2 (Lee et al. 2008) in late fall/early winter of the first
monitoring year and annually toward the end of the growing for the remainder of the monitoring period
until vegetation success criteria are achieved.
Locations of exotic and nuisance vegetation will be documented and depicted on the CCPV (Figure -2).
Year 1 stem count measurements for 12 permanent CVS plots indicate the planted stem density across the
Site is 327 planted stems per acre. Eight individual CVS plots met success criteria based on planted stems
alone (Table 8, Appendix Q. Several areas are below success criteria primarily due to herbaceous
competition.
In addition to the 12 permanent CVS plots, 10 plant warranty inspection plots were completed on September
11, 2018. Each warranty plot is 50m x 2m or 25m x 4m in size; plots were established randomly throughout
planted areas. Warranty plot locations are depicted on Figure 2, Appendix B. The living planted stem
density for warranty plots is 457 planted stems per acre; all warranty plots except Plot 8 met success criteria
(Table 9, Appendix Q.
Measurements of temporary warranty plots and permanent CVS plots resulted in a total of 210 living
planted stems in 22 plots (392 planted living stems per acre). DMS has sent a letter to the planting contractor
invoking the warranty on survivability of planted stems. Warranty replanting will be completed prior to
March 1, 2019.
Proiect Boundaries & Visual Assessments
Locations of any fence damage, vegetation damage, boundary encroachments, etc. will be documented and
included on mapping.
Visual assessments will be performed along all streams on a bi-annual basis during the seven-year
monitoring period. Problem areas will be noted such as channel instability (i.e. lateral and/or vertical
instability, in -stream structure failure/instability and/or piping, headcuts), vegetated buffer health (i.e. low
stem density, vegetation mortality, invasive species or encroachment), beaver activity, or livestock access.
Areas of concern will be mapped and photographed accompanied by a written description in the annual
report. Problem areas will be re-evaluated during each subsequent visual assessment.
Year 1 (2018) Monitoring Report (Final) Page 2
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)

Supplementary Monitoring
Supplemental monitoring will include biological monitoring in the Spring as follows.
• 3 benthos sampling sites (MY3, MY5, & MY7)
• 2 fish sampling sites (MY4 & MY7)
These parameters are being monitored for analytical purposes and are not tied to mitigation success and
associated credit releases. The primary criteria for indication of improvement for the benthos and fish will
be an increase of at least one bioclassification between the pre -con assessment and the post -con monitoring.
Richness and EPT metrics will be analyzed as well.
2.0 REFERENCES
Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation. Version 4.2. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Ecosystem Enhancement Program. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) 2015. Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site Final
Mitigation Plan.
Rosgen D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, Colorado.
Tetra Tech, 2005. Upper Rocky River Local Watershed Plan Preliminary Findings Report. Prepared for
the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA), North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), Natural Resources
Conservation Service (MRCS), and North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2003.
Stream Mitigation Guidelines. State of North Carolina.
Year 1 (2018) Monitoring Report (Final) Page 3
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)

Appendix A.
Background Tables
Table 1. Project Mitigation Components
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Attributes Table
Year 1 (2018) Monitoring Report (Final) Appendices
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)

Table 1. Mud Lick Creek (ID -93482) - Mitigation Assets and Components"
Project
Component
(reach ID, etc.)
Wetland
Position and
HydroType
Existing
Footage
Stationing
Mitigation
Plan
Footage
As -Built
Footage
Restoration
Level
Approach
Priority
Level
Mitigation
Ratio (X:1)
Mitigation
Credits
Notes/Comments
North Branch R1
Enhancement
318
100+10 - 103+28
327
318
Ell
1.5
212.000
Planting, fencing
North Branch R2
522
103+28 - 108+66
520
538
R
PI
1
538.000
North Branch R3
351
108+66 - 111+51
303
265
R
P2
1
265.000
20 LF of restoration was removed from North Branch Reach 2 in order to
account for an easement break
East Branch R1
165
200+05 - 201+69
168
164
Ell
1.5
109.333
Planting, fencing
East Branch R2
315
201+69 - 205+81
409
412
R
P2
1
412.000
Mud Lick Creek R1
525
300+72 - 306+23
623
551
Ell
1.5
367.333
Planting, fencing, bank repairs
Mud Lick Creek R2
718
306+23 - 313+14
693
660
Ell
1.5
440.000
Planting, fencing, bank repairs; 31 LF of enhancement II was removed from
Mud Lick Creek Reach 2 in order to account for an easement break
Mud Lick Creek R3
733
313+14 - 320+47
748
733
Ell
1.5
488.667
Planting, fencing, bank repairs
*Reach start and end stationing may differ slightly from the mitigation plan due to removal of stream lengths that are outside the conservation easement. The upstream ends of Mud Lick Creek, North Branch, and East Branch
experienced footage reductions of 72', 10', and 5' respectively, while the downstream end of Mud Lick Creek experienced a footage reduction of 17'.
*`The assets and credits in the report and shown in Table 1 are based upon approved as -built numbers as approved by the IRT on 11/1/2018.
Length and Area Summations by Mitigation Category
Restoration Level
Stream
(linearfeet)
Riparian Wetland
(acres)
Non -riparian
Wetland
(acres)
Riverine Non-Riverine
Restoration
1215
Enhancement
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
2426
Creation
Preservation
High Quality Pres
Overall Assets Summary
Overall
Asset Category Credits
Stream 2,832.333

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Mud Lick Creek (ID -93482)
Elapsed Time Since Grading Complete: 1 year 4 months
Elapsed Time Since Planting Complete: 11 months
Number of Reporting Years: 1
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Complete
Completion
or Deliver
Project Institution
--
February 13, 2013
Mitigation Plan
--
December 2015
404 Permit Date
--
March 25, 2016
Final Design — Construction Plans
--
June 2015
Construction
--
August 25, 2017
Bare Root; Containerized; and B&B Plantings for the
Entire Project Site
February 2018
February 2018
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0 Monitoring
Baseline
July 2018
September 2018
Monitoring Year 1 2018 Document
I December 2018
1 December 2018
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Mud Lick Creek ID -93482
Designer
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (License No. F-0831)
312 West Millbrook Rd, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Angela N. Allen, PE 919 851-9986
Construction Plans and Sediment and
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (License No. F-0831)
Erosion Control Plans
312 West Millbrook Rd, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Angela N. Allen, PE 919 851-9986
Construction Contractor
North State Environmental, Inc.
2889 Lowery Street
Winston Salem, NC 27101
Michael Anderson 336 725-2010
Planting Contractor
North State Environmental, Inc.
2889 Lowery Street
Winston Salem, NC 27101
Stephen Joyce 336 725-2010
As -built Surveyors
Allied Associates, PA
4720 Kester Mill Road
Winston Salem, NC 27103
David Alley 336 765-2377
Baseline Data Collection
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
Grant Lewis 919 215-1693
Year 1 (2018) Monitoring Report (Final) Appendices
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)

Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
Mud Lick Creek (ID -93482)
Project Information
Project name Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site
Project county Chatham County, North Carolina
Project area Acres 11.2
Project coordinates lat/long) 35.8128°N, 79.4350°W
Planted Acres 9.6
Project Watershed Summary Information
Ph sio ra hic region
Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province
Project river basin
Cape Fear River Basin
USGS hydrologic unit (8 digit/14-
digit)
03030003/03030003070010
NCDWR Sub -basin
03-06-12
Project drainage area mit
3.64
% Drainage area impervious
< 1%
CGIA land use classification
Developed, Forested/Scrubland, Agriculture/Managed Herb., Open Water
Reach
Summary Information
Parameters
Mud Lick
Creek —
R1
Mud Lick
Creek —
R2
Mud Lick
Creek —
R3
North
Branch —
R1
North
Branch —
R2
East
Branch
Restored length linear feet
551
660
733
856
265
576
Valley confinement
Slijzhtly confined - unconfined
Drainage area acres/mit
1747/2.73
2170/3.39
2330/3.64
236.8/0.37
416/0.65
172.8/0.27
Perennial P, Intermittent I
P
P
P
P
P
P
NCDWR water quality
classification
WS -III, CA
Stream Classification(existing)
E4
C4
E4
E4
134c
134c
Stream Classification (proposed)
E4
C4
E4
C4
C4
C4
Evolutionary trend (Simon &
Hu
IV/V
IV/V
IV/V
IV
IV
IV
FEMA classification
AE
AE
AE
AE
AE
AE
Reg latoKy Considerations
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the US — Section 404
Yes
Yes
SAW -2014-00736
Waters of the US — Section 401
Yes
Yes
SAW -2014-00736
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
No Effect —
CE Document
Historic Preservation Act
No
NA
CE Document
Coastal Zone Management Act
CZMA/CAMA
No
NA
NA
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes
Yes
Chatham County Floodplain
Development Permit 414-001
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
NA
NA
Year 1 (2018) Monitoring Report (Final) Appendices
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Figure 1. Site Location
Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View
Tables 5A -5C. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Warranty Plot Photographs
Year 1 (2018) Monitoring Report (Final) Appendices
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)

' - Himhv{rrir?AgG = : x _ Site Location
-'y � 35.8128, -79.4350
Cwth
{""l
4
51Ek kipps 1
.� 421
t �❑ 4 j .
)6
0 1 2 4 Siler.City
,.
Miles
Directions from Silk Hope: ` :' .
-Take Silk Hope -Liberty Road west for 4.1 miles
-Turn right on Siler City -Snow Camp Road; travel 0.2 mile
-The Site/farm entrance is located on the left/east side of the road
Axiom Environmental
218 Snow Avenue
i Raleigh, NC 27603
/ [phone]
U
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
SITE LOCATION
MUD LICK CREEK MITIGATION SITE
DMS PROJECT NUMBER 93482
Chatham County, North Carolina
Dwn. by.
CLF
FIGURE
Date:
July 2018
Project:
12-004.22

Table 5A Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID North Branch R-2
Assessed Length 538
Number
Number with
Footage with
Adjusted % for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
I
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Sub -Category
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments
Foota a
Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Ve etation
1. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
2. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
8
8
°
100/o
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
8
8
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
8
8
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%.
(See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
8
8
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth
ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
8
8
100%

Table 5B Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID North Branch R-3
Assessed Length 265
Number
Number with
Footage with
Adjusted % for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
I
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Sub -Category
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments
Foota a
Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Ve etation
1. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
2. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
3
3
°
100/o
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
3
3
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
3
3
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%.
(See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
3
3
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth
ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
3
3
100%

Table 5C Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID East Branch R-2
Assessed Length 412
Number
Number with
Footage with
Adjusted % for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
I
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Sub -Category
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments
Foota a
Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Ve etation
1. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
2. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
5
5
o
100/o
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
5
5
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
5
5
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%.
(See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
5
5
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth
ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
5
5
100%

Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Planted Acreaqe 9.6
Ve etation Cateaory
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
De iction
Number of
Polvaons
Combined
Acreage
% of Planted
Acreage
1. Bare Areas
None
0.1 acres
None
0
0.00
0.0%
2. Low Stem Density Areas
None
0.1 acres
None
0
0.00
0.0%
Total
0
0.00
0.0%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
None
0.25 acres
None
0
0.00
0.0%
Cumulative Total
0
0.00
0.0%
Easement Acreaqe 11.2
% Of
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Easement
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Pol onsAcrea
a
Acrea e
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
Several small areas of dense Chinese privet and dense tree of heaven
200 SF
green and
9
0.15
1.3°%
yellow
5. Easement Encroachment Areas
None
none
None
0
0.00
0.0°/

Mud Lick Creek Stream Restoration Site
MY -01 Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken December 2018
Plot 1
Year 1 (2018) Monitoring Report (Final)
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)
Appendices

Mud Lick Creek Stream Restoration Site
MY -01 Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken December 2018
Year 1 (2018) Monitoring Report (Final) Appendices
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)

Mud Lick Creek (DMS Project # 93482)
Warranty Vegetation Plot Photographs
Taken September 11, 2018
Year 1 (2018) Monitoring Report (Final) Appendices
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)

Mud Lick Creek (DMS Project # 93482)
Warranty Vegetation Plot Photographs
Taken September 11, 2018
(continued)
Year 1 (2018) Monitoring Report (Final) Appendices
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)
q
I 5111.
�I
�j
Year 1 (2018) Monitoring Report (Final) Appendices
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)

Appendix C.
Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7. Planted Woody Vegetation
Table 8. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species
Table 9. Year 1 (2018) Warranty Plot Planted Living Stems Per Acre
Year 1 (2018) Monitoring Report (Final) Appendices
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)

Table 7. Planted Woody Vegetation
Mud Lick Creek Restoration Proiect 0934821
Species
Quantity
Green Ash Fraxinus enns lvanica
300
Sycamore Platanus occidentalis
400
Eastern Redbud Cercis canadensis
400
Cottonwood Po ulus deltoides
300
River birch Betula nigra)
300
Hackbe Celtis occidentalis
300
Black Gum ssa s lvatica
300
American Elm lmus americana
300
Eastern Ho hornbeam (Ostrya vir inica
300
Elderberry Sambucus s
300
Black Locust Robinia suedoaccia
300
Silky Dogwood Cornus ammomum
300
Witch Hazel Hamamelis vir inica
550
Buttonbush Ce halanthus occidentalis
300
Persimmon (Diospyros vir iniana
300
Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana
400
Swamp Tupelo ssa bi ora
100
Swamp Chestnut oak(Quercus michauxii
100
Water oak(Quercus nigra)
100
Tulip Poplar Liridendron tuli i era
300
TOTAL
5950
Year 1 (2018) Monitoring Report (Final) Appendices
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)

Table 8. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species
EEP Proiect Code 93482. Proiect Name: Mud Lick Creek
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Pnol-S = Planted excluding livestakes
P -all = Planting including livestakes
T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
T includes natural recruits
Current Plot Data (MYI 2018)
Annual Means
93482-01-0001
93482-01-0002
93482-01-0003
93482-01-0004
93482-01-0005
93482-01-0006
93482-01-0007
93482-01-0008
93482-01-0009
93482-01-0010
93482-01-0011
93482-01-0012
MY1(2018)
MYO(2018)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type PnoLS P -all T
PnoLS P -all T
PnoLS P -all T
PnoLS P -all T
PnoLS P -all T
PnoLS P -all T
PnoLS P -all T
PnoLS P -all T
PnoLS P -all T
PnoLS P -all T
PnoLS P -all T
PnoLS P -all T
PnoLS P -all T
PnoLS P -all T
Acer negundo
boxelder
Tree
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
3
1
1
10
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
2
2
10
Alnus
alder
Shrub
3
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1 1
1 1
1
1
1 1
1
2
2
2 1 1
1
6
6
6
4
4
4
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
1 1
1
1 1
1 1 1
1 1
1
1 5 5
5
1
1
1
2
2
2
12
12
12
15
15
15
Carya
hickory
Tree
1
Celtis laevigata
sugarberry
Tree
1 1
1 1
1
1
2
2
2
11
11
1
Celtis occidentalis
common hackberry
Tree
2 2
2 1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
1 1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
3
3
3
4
4
4
Cercis canadensis
eastern redbud
Tree
2 2
2 1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1
1 1 1 1
1 1
1
1
1
1
8
8
8
6
6
6
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
11
11
3
3
3
9
9
9
8
8
8
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
I
1
1
2 2
2 1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
5
5
5
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
2 2
2 1
1
1
1
1
1 9 9 10
1
1
1
141
141
15
12
12
13
Juglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
1
1
5
Liquidambarstyraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
9
10
19
10
Nyssa biflora
swamp tupelo
Tree
3
3
3
1 1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
6
6
6
6
6
6
Ostrya virginiana
hophornbeam
Tree
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1 1
1
4 4
4 1
1
1
1 1
1
7
7
7
7
7
7
Populus deltoides
eastern cottonwood
Tree
1 1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
4
4
3
3
3
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
3
3
3
1 1
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
6
7
7
7
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
1 1
1
1 1
1 1 1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
Robinia pseudoacacia
black locust
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
3
3
4
1 1
1
4
4
5
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
1
1
1
2 2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
Stem count
7 7
7 10
10
11
8 8
9 8
8
8 101 101 11
61 61
6 51 5
8 9
9
9 7 7
7 9 9
9 8
8
17
10
10
21
97
97
123
90
90
129
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
12
12
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.30
0.30
Species count
51 51
51 61
61
61
51 51
61 61
6
6 21 21 2
51 51
5 5 51
71 61
61
61 31 31
31 7 71
71 8
81
91
61
61
81
191
191
221
181
181
23
Stems per ACRE 283.3 283.3 283.3 404.7 404.7 445.2 323.7 323.7 364.2 323.7 323.7 323.7 404.7 404.7 445.2 242.8 242.8 242.8 202.3 202.3 323.7 364.2 364.2 364.2 283.3 283.3 283.3 364.2 364.2 364.2 323.7 323.7
688 404.7 404.7 849.8 327.1 327.1 414.8 303.5 303.5
435
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Pnol-S = Planted excluding livestakes
P -all = Planting including livestakes
T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
T includes natural recruits

Table 9. Year 1 (2018) Warranty Plot Planted Living Stems Per Acre
Completed September 11, 2018
Mud Lick Creek (ID -93482)
Plot
Plot Size
Bearing from
Plot Origin
Living Planted
Stem Count
Living Planted
Stems per
Acre
Success
Criteria Met
T-1
50m x 2m
83
19
769
Yes
T-2
50m x 2m
80
14
567
Yes
T-3
25m x 4m
90
8
L 324
Yes, barely
T-4
25m x 4m
82
10
405
Yes
T-5
50m x 2m
344
12
486
Yes
T-6
50m x 2m
342
12
486
Yes
T-7
50m x 2m
28
10
405
Yes
T-8
50m x 2m
82
4
162
No
T-9
25m x 4m
66
10
405
Yes
T-10
25m x 4m
237
14
567
Yes
Total Stems per Acre
457
Yes
Year 1 (2018) Monitoring Report (Final) Appendices
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)

Appendix D.
Stream Geomorphology Data
Tables IOa- IOc. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Tables 11 a-11 f. Monitoring Data -Dimensional Data Summary
Cross-section Plots
Substrate Plots
Year 1 (2018) Monitoring Report (Final) Appendices
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)

Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Mud Lick Creek)
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project Number 93482
Parameter Gauge Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition (Mud Lick
Creek)
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design (Mud Lick
Creek)
Monitoring Baseline (Mud Lick Creek)
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL Eq.
Min
Mean Med
Max SD
Min
Mean Med
Max SD
Min Max Med
Min
Mean Med
Max SD
n
BF Width (ft)
18.2
22.0
24.6
5.3
10.8
12.3
18.3
19.8
21
3
Floodprone Width ft)
250.0
306.0
378.0
14
60
125
100
100
100
3
BF Mean Depth ft
1.9
2.1
2.3
0.8
1.0
1.8
1.6
2.0
2.7
3
BF Max Depth (ft)
3.0
4.0
4.2
1.0
1.5
2.6
3.6
3.7
3.8
3
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft')
41.3
46.3
47.5
5.4
10.6
19.7
33.0
40.4
49.8
3
Width/Depth Ratio
8.0
10.5
12.8
5.2
8.6
14.4
6.8
9.9
13.1
3
Entrenchment Ratio
12.4
13.7
17.2
1.7
4.3
>10.2
4.8
5.1
5.5
3
Bank Height Ratiol 1
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.0 1
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.3
3
Profile
Riffle length ft
Riffle slope ft/ft
0.0040
0.0188
0.0704
Pool length ft
Pool Max depth ft
3.7
4.4
5.2
1.2
1.8
3.3
Pool spacing (ft)
9.0
46.0
73.0
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
26.1
52.9
69.9
10
41
102
Radius of Curvature ft
9.9
24.8
58.8
11
21
85
Rc:Bankfull width ft/ft
0.5
1.1
2.39
1.3
2
9.1
Meander Wavelength ft
59.9
159.6
244.4
-
-
-
Meander Width ratiol
1.4
2.2
3.8
1.6
4.4
8.9
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lbs/ft2
Max part size mm mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Ros en Classification
E/C4
E/C4
E/C-type
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.0-3.4
2.2-5.6
Bankfull Discharge cfs
123.9 - 157.42
20-97
Valley Length ft
Channel Thalweg Length 11
Sinuosity
1.20 - 1.37
1.0-2.3
Water Surface Slope ft/ft
BF slope ft/ft
Bankfull Floodplain Area acres
% of Reach with ErodingBanks
Channel Stabilityor Habitat Metric
Biolo ical or Other

Table 10b. Baseline Stream Data Summary (North Branch)
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project Number 93482
Parameter Gauge Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition (North Branch)
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design (North Branch)
Monitoring Baseline (North Branch)
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL Eq.
Min
Mean Med Max SD
Min
Mean Med
Max
SD Min
Max Med
Min
Mean Med
Max SD
n
BF Width (ft)
8.3
10.4
5.3
10.8
12.3
13.8
14.0
14.6
16.2
17.7
2
Flood ronc Width ft
33.3
80.0
14
60
125
30
70
100
100
100
2
BF Mean Depth ft
0.7
1.5
0.8
1.0
1.8
1.0
1.2
0.8
0.9
1.0
2
BF Max Depth ft
1.5
2.3
1.0
1.5
2.6
1.3
2.0
1.8
1.8
1.8
2
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft 2)
7.7
12.7
5.4
10.6
19.7
14.4
16.3
14.2
14.4
14.5
2
Width/Depth Ratio
5.4
14.0
5.2
8.6
14.4
12.0
13.0
14.6
18.4
22.1 1
2
Entrenchment Ratio
1.9
10.1
1.7
4.3
>10.2
2.2
5.0
5.6
6.2
6.8
2
Bank Height Ratiol 1
1.7
2.0 1
1.0
1.0
1 1.1 1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0 1
1.0
2
Profile
Riffle length ft
Riffle slope ft/ft
0.0040
0.0188
0.0704
0.0060
0.0340
Pool length ft
Pool Max depth ft
2.1
2.7
1.2
1.8
3.3
1.3
4.7
Pool spacing (ft)
9.0
46.0
73.0
19.0
92.0
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
11
26 38.5
10
41
102
41
125
Radius of Curvature ft
6.1
17 37
11
21
85
25
42
Rc:Bankfull width ft/ft
0.73
1.6 4.46
1.3
2
9.1
1.8
3
Meander Wavelength ft
37.9
64.1 100.6
-
-
-
41
168
Meander Width ratio
1.1
6. 2.8 4.6
1.6
4.4
8.9
3
15
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lbs/ft2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport ca acit W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Ros en Classification
E5/B5c
E/C4
C4
C-type
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.3 -3.5
2.2-5.6
2.4-4.3
Bankfull Discharge cfs
25.41 - 44.45
20-97
34.6-70.1
Valley Length ft
Channel Thalweg Length ft
Sinuosity
1.22-1.32
1.0-2.3
1.2 - 1.3
Water Surface Slope ft/ft
BF slope ft/ft
Bankfull Floodplain Area acres
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biolo ical or Other

Table I Oc. Baseline Stream Data Summary (East Branch)
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project Number 93482
Parameter Gauge Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition (East Branch)
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design (East Branch)
Monitoring Baseline (East Branch)
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL Eq.
Min Mean
Med Max SD
Min
Mean Med
Max
SD Min
Max
Med
Min
Mean Med
Max SD
n
BF Width (ft)
4.3
5.3
10.8
12.3
11.0
8.9
12.8
16.6
2
Floodprone Width ft
23.0
14
60
125
24
55
100
100
100
2
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.1
0.8
1.0
1.8
0.9
0.6
0.7
0.8
2
BF Max Depth ft
1.4
1.0
1.5
2.6
0.9
1.5
1.2
1.4
1.5
2
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft 2)
4.8
5.4
10.6
19.7
9.7
6.7
8.7
10.6
2
Width/Depth Ratio
3.9
5.2
8.6
14.4
12.4
11.1
19.4
27.7
2
Entrenchment Ratio
2.1
1.7
4.3
>10.2
2.2
5.0
6.0
8.6
11.2
2
Bank Height Ratio
1.9
1
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1 1.0
2
Profile
Riffle length ft
Riffle slope ft/ft
0.0040
0.0188
0.0704
0.0156
0.0442
Pool length ft
Pool Max depth ft
1.6
1.2
1.8
3.3
1.0
3.5
Pool spacing (ft)
9.0
46.0
73.0
15.0
73.0
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
--
10
41
102
22
98
Radius of Curvature 11
--
11
21
85
20
30
Rc:Bankfull width ft/ft
--
1.3
2
9.1
1.8
3
Meander Wavelength 11
--
-
-
-
33
132
Meander Width ratio
--
1.6
4.4
8.9
3
12
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lbs/ftp
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport ca acit W/mZ
Additional Reach Parameters
Ros en Classification
B4c
E/C4
C4
C-type
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
4.2
2.2-5.6
3.3
Bankfull Discharge cfs
20.2
20-97
32
Valley Length ft
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
1
1.0-2.3
1.20-1.30
Water Surface Slope ft/ft
BF slope ft/ft
Bankfull Floodplain Area acres
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biolo ical or Other

Table lla. Monitoring Data -Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Proiect - NCDMS Proiect Number 93482
Table llb. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project Number 93482
Cross Section 1 Mud Lick Cr
Cross Section 2 Mud Lick Cr
Cross Section 10 Mud Lick Cr
Parameter
Riffle
Riffle
Riffle
Dimension
MYO
MY]
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY5+ MYO
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY5+
MYO
MY] MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY5+
BF Width ft
18.3
18.8
21.0
22.0
19.8
19.6
Floodprone Width (ft)(approx)
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
BF Mean Depth ft
2.7
2.6
1.6
1.5
2.0
2.1
BF Max Depth (ft)
3.8
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.6
3.4
Low Bank Height
5.0
5.1
3.7
3.6
3.6
3.4
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft)
49.8
49.8
1
33.0
33.0
40.4
40.4
Width/Depth Ratio
6.7
7.1
13.4
14.7
9.7
9.5
Entrenchment Ratio
5.5
5.3
4.8
4.5
5.1
5.1
Bank Fi ht Ratio
1.3
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
d50 mm
9.9
4.4
9.9
4.4
9.9
4.4
Table llb. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project Number 93482
BF Width
Floodprone
11
11 11 -®
11
11 1 11 -©------------------------
BF MeanDepth
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft)
Width/Depth Ratio
Channel
Meander Wavelength
Meander Width ratio
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thalweq Length (11)
'
I'll', :'•
------------------------------------

Table llc. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Proiect - NCDMS Proiect Number 93482
Table lld. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project Number 93482
Cross Section 3 North Branch
Cross Section 4 (North Branch)
Cross Section 5 North Branch
Cross Section 6 North Branch
Parameter
Pool
Rillle
Pool
Riffle
BF Width (ft)
Dimension
MYO
MY] MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY5+ MYO
MY] MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY5+
MYO
MY] MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY5+
MYO
MY] MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY5+
BF Width ft
14.2
13.7
17.7
22.7
14.2
14.6
14.6
15.1
Floodprone Width (ft) (approx)
NA
NA
100.0
100.0
NA
NA
100.0
100.0
BF Mean Depth ft
1.1
1.1
0.8
0.6
1.3
1.3
1.0
1.0
BF Max Depth (ft)
2.2
2.1
1.8
1.9
2.6
2.6
1.8
1.8
Low Bank Height
2.2
2.1
1.8
1.9
2.6
2.6
1.8
1.8
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft)
15.5
15.5 1
14.2
14.2
18.6
18.6
14.5
14.5
Width/Depth Ratio
NA
NA
22.1
36.3
NA
NA
14.7
15.7
Entrenchment Ratio
NA
NA
5.6
4.4
NA
NA
6.8
6.6
Bank Hei ht Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
d50 mm
18.8
8.0
Pool Max depth (ft)
18.8
8.0
Table lld. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project Number 93482
BF Width (ft)
Floodprone
11
11 11 -©
11
11 1 11 -©------------------------
BF Mean Depth (11)
BF Cross Sectio.alArca(ft)
Width/Depth Ratio
Pool Max depth (ft)
Rc:BankfUIl width (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Meander Width ratio
Additional Reach Parameters
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
'
I'll'•:'• •
------------------------------------
% of Reach with Eroding
StabilityChannel ,

Table 11c. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Proiect - NCDMS Proiect Number 93482
Table 11L Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project Number 93482
Cross Section 7 East Branch
Cross Section 8 East Branch
Cross Section 9 East Branch
Parameter
Riffle
Pool
Riffle
Dimension
MYO
MY] MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY5+ MYO
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY5+
MYO
MY] MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY5+
BF Width ft
8.9
11.1
7.6
10.8
16.6
21.1
Floodprone Width (ft) (approx)
100.0
100.0
NA
NA
100.0
100.0
BF Mean Depth ft
0.8
0.6
1.4
1.0
0.6
0.5
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.2
1.4
2.4
1.5
1.5
1.6
Low Bank Height
1.2
1.4
2.4
1.5
1.5
1.6
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft)
6.7
6.7 1
10.5
10.5
10.6
10.6
Width/Depth Ratio
11.8
18.4
NA
NA
26.0
42.0
Entrenchment Ratio
11.2
9.0
NA
NA
6.0
4.7
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
d50 mm
14.3
3.7
14.3
3.7
Table 11L Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project Number 93482
BF Width (ft)
..d. -
11
11 11 -©
11-
11 11-©------------------------
BF Mea, Depth�
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft)
Width/Depth Ratio
Channel Beftwidth (ft)
Radios of Cratre (ft)
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Meander Width ratio
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thalweq Length (11)
'
I'll', :'•
------------------------------------

River Basin:
Cape Fear
Site Name
Mud Lick Creek
XS ID
XS - 1, Riffle Mud Lick Cr
Drainage Area (s mi):
3.64
Date:
12/6/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Radecki
Station
Elevation
-0.50
99.81
1.97
99.99
7.63
99.91
10.79
99.59
13.43
98.11
17.05
96.62
19.18
95.42
20.85
94.48
23.46
94.00
26.71
93.83
29.49
93.34
31.88
93.61
33.01
93.83
34.64
97.44
38.63
98.62
43.45
98.90
47.42
99.17
- Flood Prone Area
94
93
MY -00 7/25/18
--s-MY-01 12/06/1 8
92
0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
97.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
49.8
Bankfull Width:
18.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
101.0
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.8
Low Bank Height:
3.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.6
W / D Ratio:
7.1
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.3
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type E
Cape Fear River Basin, Mud Lick Creek, XS - 1, Riffle (Mud Lick Cr)
102
101
100
ti
99
0
98
---------------------
------------------------- ------------------
97
96
W 95
----Bankfull
- Flood Prone Area
94
93
MY -00 7/25/18
--s-MY-01 12/06/1 8
92
0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Station (feet)

River Basin:
Cape Fear
Site Name
Mud Lick Creek
XS ID
XS - 2, Riffle Mud Lick Cr
111'erkinson,
Drainage Area (sq 1
3.64
Date:
12/6/2018
Field Crew:
Radecki
Station
Elevation
0.20
99.28
5.14
99.19
9.41
98.90
11.77
98.12
14.28
97.33
16.31
96.51
17.93
95.86
19.50
94.46
20.56
93.75
22.10
93.72
23.74
93.88
25.30
94.28
26.15
95.49
27.74
96.45
30.43
96.89
33.02
97.30
36.31
97.48
37.68
97.14
39.59
97.40
98
-- ---
97
- - - - Bankfull
----Flood Prone Area
W9
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
97.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
33.0
Bankfull Width:
19.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
100.7
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.4
Low Bank Height:
3.4
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.7
W / D Ratio:
11.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.1
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type E
Cape Fear River Basin, Mud Lick Creek, XS - 2, Riffle (Mud Lick Cr)
102
101 ---------------------------------------------------------------
100
ti
99
98
-- ---
97
- - - - Bankfull
----Flood Prone Area
W9
t MY -00 7/25/18
955
MY -01 12/06/18
94
93
0
5 10 15 20 25 30
35 40 45
Station (feet)

River Basin:
Elevation
Cape Fear
98.55
4.51
Site Name
Area (s mi):
Mud Lick Creek
Date:
12/6/2018
XS ID
Perkinson, Radecki
XS - 3, Pool (North Branch
97.69
14.19
Drainage
14.73
96.97
15.51
96.50
17.39
96.18
18.53
96.17
19.74
96.32
21.33
96.80
22.50
97.83
24.05
98.38
25.51
s
28.65
98.73
32.31
98.93
.
99.09
3
Stream Type E
Cape Fear River Basin, Mud Lick Creek, XS - 3, Pool (North Branch)
100
99
----------------
----------------------
--------------------
98
0
97
y
- - Bankfull
W
t MY -00 7/25/18
96
MY -01 12/06/18
95
0
10
20 30 40
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.00
98.55
4.51
98.55
Area (s mi):
0.65
Date:
12/6/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Radecki
Station
Elevation
0.00
98.55
4.51
98.55
8.66
98.37
10.58
98.16
11.79
98.00
13.26
97.69
14.19
97.25
14.73
96.97
15.51
96.50
17.39
96.18
18.53
96.17
19.74
96.32
21.33
96.80
22.50
97.83
24.05
98.38
25.51
98.94
28.65
98.73
32.31
98.93
35.00
99.09
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
98.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
15.5
Bankfull Width:
13.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
100.3
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.1
Low Bank Height:
2.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
��AV7.3
Bank Height Ratio:

9:=
Stream Type C
Cape Fear River Basin, Mud Lick Creek, XS - 4, Riffle (North Branch)
101
-----------------------------------------------------------------
100
99 - - -------------------------------------------
0
98 ----Bankfull
W Flood Prone Area
97 MY-00 7/25/18
MY-01 12/06/18
96
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Station (feet)
River Basin: Cape Fear
Site Name Mud Lick Creek
XS ID XS - 4, Riffle (NAVIRIONOW
orth Branch
Drainage
Station
Elevation
-0.20
98.67
4.00
98.87
Area (s mi):
0.65
Date:
12/6/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Radecki
9:=
Stream Type C
Cape Fear River Basin, Mud Lick Creek, XS - 4, Riffle (North Branch)
101
-----------------------------------------------------------------
100
99 - - -------------------------------------------
0
98 ----Bankfull
W Flood Prone Area
97 MY-00 7/25/18
MY-01 12/06/18
96
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Station (feet)
River Basin: Cape Fear
Site Name Mud Lick Creek
XS ID XS - 4, Riffle (NAVIRIONOW
orth Branch
Drainage
Station
Elevation
-0.20
98.67
4.00
98.87
8.27
98.46
10.87
98.18
11.58
98.01
12.42
97.74
13.09
97.46
13.34
97.32
14.14
97.01
15.02
97.12
15.73
97.29
16.23
97.44
17.14
97.81
18.97
98.10
20.73
98.65
23.48
99.00
27.20
99.14
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
98.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
14.2
Bankfull Width:
22.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
100.8
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.9
Low Bank Height:
1.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
36.3
Entrenchment Ratio:
4.4
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

River Basin:Ca
e Fear
Site Name
Mud Lick Creek
XS ID
XS - 5, Pool (North Branch
Drainage Area (s mi):
0.65
Date:
12/6/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Radecki
Station
Elevation
-0.40
98.10
3.19
98.18
5.29
98.21
6.92
97.70
8.40
97.04
9.28
96.64
9.99
96.31
10.68
95.66
12.46
95.24
13.78
95.18
15.39
95.63
16.76
96.81
18.59
97.30
20.39
97.63
23.36
97.98
26.78
98.12
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
97.7
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
18.6
Bankfull Width:
14.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
100.3
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.6
Low Bank Height:
2.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.3
W / D Ratio:
11.5
Entrenchment Ratio:
6.8
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type C
Cape Fear River Basin, Mud Lick Creek, XS - 5, Pool (North Branch)
99
98
----------- ---------------
0 97
- - - - Bankfull
W 96 t MY -00 7/25/18
MY -01 12/06/18
95
0 10 20 30 40
Station (feet)

River Basin:Ca
e Fear
Site Name
Mud Lick Creek
XS ID
XS - 6, Riffle (North Branch
Drainage Area (s mi):
0.65
Date:
12/6/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Radecki
Station
Elevation
0.00
97.97
4.13
98.07
6.58
97.69
8.39
97.22
10.27
96.74
11.20
96.48
12.39
96.27
13.69
96.05
14.63
96.09
15.53
96.19
16.70
96.77
17.63
97.25
19.67
97.72
21.67
98.18
25.14
98.17
28.89
98.06
95
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
97.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
14.5
Bankfull Width:
15.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
99.7
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.8
Low Bank Height:
1.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
W / D Ratio:
15.7
Entrenchment Ratio:
6.6
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type C
Cape Fear River Basin, Mud Lick Creek, XS - 6, Riffle (North Branch)
100
-----------------------------------------------------------
99
y
98
--------- ----------------------- ----------------
0
97
----Bankfull
W
Flood Prone Area
96
--o- MY -00 7/25/18
MY -01 12/06/18
95
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Station (feet)

�p k
%
Stream Type C
Cape Fear River Basin, Mud Lick Creek, XS - 7, Riffle (East Branch)
101
----------------------------------------------------------
100
ti
0 99 ------------- -------------------
Bankfull
W 98---�FloodProneArea
MY -00 7/25/18
MY -01 12/06/18
97
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Station (feet)
River Basin: Cape Fear
Site Name Mud Lick Creek
XS ID XS - 7, Riffle East Branch
Drainage
Station
Elevation
0.30
99.14
3.41
99.12
Area (s mi):
0.27
Date:
12/6/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Radecki
�p k
%
Stream Type C
Cape Fear River Basin, Mud Lick Creek, XS - 7, Riffle (East Branch)
101
----------------------------------------------------------
100
ti
0 99 ------------- -------------------
Bankfull
W 98---�FloodProneArea
MY -00 7/25/18
MY -01 12/06/18
97
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Station (feet)
River Basin: Cape Fear
Site Name Mud Lick Creek
XS ID XS - 7, Riffle East Branch
Drainage
Station
Elevation
0.30
99.14
3.41
99.12
6.66
98.89
8.81
98.40
9.56
97.79
10.98
97.49
12.01
97.74
13.05
97.94
14.29
98.44
15.90
98.71
18.82
98.97
22.06
98.96
24.40
98.94
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
98.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
6.7
Bankfull Width:
11.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
100.3
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.4
Low Bank Height:
1.4
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
18.4
Entrenchment Ratio:
9.0
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

y rW4a, V
n r
i
fi v.z�
T \ r
`'
�¢ -
Stream Type C
Cape Fear River Basin, Mud Lick Creek, XS - 8, Pool (East Branch)
102
101
100
0
99
y----Banldiill
W --4-- MY -00 7/25/18
98
MY -01 12/06/18
97
0 10 20 30 40
Station (feet)
River Basin: Cape Fear
Site Name Mud Lick Creek
XS ID XS - 8, Pool East Branch
Drainage
Station
Elevation
0.00
101.28
3.73
101.27
Area (s m
0.27
Date:
12/6/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Radecki
y rW4a, V
n r
i
fi v.z�
T \ r
`'
�¢ -
Stream Type C
Cape Fear River Basin, Mud Lick Creek, XS - 8, Pool (East Branch)
102
101
100
0
99
y----Banldiill
W --4-- MY -00 7/25/18
98
MY -01 12/06/18
97
0 10 20 30 40
Station (feet)
River Basin: Cape Fear
Site Name Mud Lick Creek
XS ID XS - 8, Pool East Branch
Drainage
Station
Elevation
0.00
101.28
3.73
101.27
7.04
101.06
8.59
100.47
9.58
100.16
10.52
99.22
13.32
99.14
14.59
99.21
16.60
99.43
17.12
100.35
18.94
100.64
2135
101.02
24.29
100.97
27.02
101.19
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
100.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
10.5
Bankfull Width:
10.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
102.1
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.5
Low Bank Height:
1.5
Mean De th at Bankfull:
1.0
W / D Ratio:
11.1
Entrenchment Ratio:
9.3
Bank Height Ratio: E�jw
1.0

River Basin:
Cape Fear
Site Name
Mud Lick Creek
XS ID
XS - 9, Riffle East Branch
Drainage Area (smi):
0.27
Date:
12/6/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Radecki
Station
Elevation
-0.30
101.18
3.26
101.15
7.25
101.07
10.05
100.75
11.73
100.44
12.91
99.98
13.49
99.78
14.02
99.70
14.72
99.55
15.47
99.70
15.82
100.02
16.58
100.54
18.24
100.41
20.59
100.73
22.88
100.98
26.70
101.25
29.76
101.10
Bankfull
W
100
- Flood Prone Area
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
101.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
10.6
Bankfull Width:
21.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
102.7
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.6
Low Bank Height:
1.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
42.4
Entrenchment Ratio:
4.7
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type C
Cape Fear River Basin, Mud Lick Creek, XS - 9, Riffle (East Branch)
103
-------------------------------------------------------------
102
ti
0
101---
-----------------------------
Bankfull
W
100
- Flood Prone Area
MY -00 7/25/18
MY -01 12/06/18
99
0 5 10 15 20 25
30 35
Station (feet)

River Basin:
Cape Fear
Site Name
d Lick Creek
XS ID
- 10, Riffle Mud Lick Cr
Drainage Area (s;mi):JF3Date:
97.77
7.54
/2018
Field Crew:
inson, Radecki
Station
Elevation
0.10
97.74
3.34
97.67
5.32
97.77
7.54
96.72
8.59
95.86
9.71
95.26
11.06
94.66
12.48
94.47
12.74
94.25
15.82
94.39
17.11
94.16
18.89
95.06
20.13
95.82
21.36
96.27
22.99
96.60
24.08
97.27
26.10
97.86
27.31
98.48
29.43
99.00
30.96
99.46
33.00
99.30
34.79
99.27
97
- - - - Bankfull
----Flood Prone Area
W96
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
97.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
40.4
Bankfull Width:
19.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
101.0
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.4
Low Bank Height:
3.4
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.1
W / D Ratio:
9.5
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.1
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type E
Cape Fear River Basin, Mud Lick Creek, XS -10, Riffle (Mud Lick Cr)
102
101
100
ti
99
o
98
-------------------------------
77 :; ----------------
97
- - - - Bankfull
----Flood Prone Area
W96
t MY -00 7/25/18
95
MY -01 12/06/18
94
93
0
5 10 15 20 25
30 35 40
Station (feet)

Summary Data
Feature: Riffle
0.59
D35
2.6
D504.4
D84
47
2018
86
Description
Material
Size (mm)
Total #
Item %
Cum %
Silt/Clay
silt/clay
0.062
4
8%
8%
Sand
very fine sand
0.125
1
2%
10%
fine sand 0.250 1 2%
13%
medium sand 0.50 0 0%
13%
coarse sand 1.00 7 15%
27%
very coarse sand 2.0 0 0%
27%
Gravel
very fine gravel
4.0
10
21%
48%
fine gravel 5.7 4 8%
56%
fine gravel 8.0 0 0%
56%
medium gravel 11.3 4 8%
65%
medium gravel 16.0 1 2%
67%
course gravel 22.3 4 8%
75%
course gravel 32.0 0 0%
75%
very coarse gravel 45 4 8%
83%
very coarse gravel 64 3 6%
90%
Cobble
small cobble
90
3
6%
96%
medium cobble 128 2 4%
100%
large cobble 180 0 0%
100%
very large cobble 256 0 0%
100%
Boulder
small boulder
362
0
0%
100%
small boulder 512 0 0%
100%
medium boulder 1024 0 0%
100%
large boulder 1 2048 0 0%
100%
Bedrock
bedrock
40096
0
0%
100%
TOTAL % of whole count
0%
48
100%
100%
Summary Data
D16
0.59
D35
2.6
D504.4
D84
47
D95
86
Cumulative Percent
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
a
50%
40%
30%
U
20%
10%
0%
OKI
Particle Size (mm)
-ew0-2018 -WI-2018
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
80%
d 70%
a 60%
50
U 40%
v 30%
S 20%
ro
s 10%
0%
OOb`L'l5 oti5 O? '� ti A �'� g "> tib n:'L A5 bA q0 1,y6 �O ,LSb �b`Y 'L,O.1,A TOA�AOOgb
Particle Size (mm)

Summary Data
Feature: Riffle
NA
D35
0.42
D50
8
D84
53
2018
75
Description
Material
Size (mm)
Total #
Item %
Cum %
Silt/Clay
silt/clay
0.062
11
21%
21%
Sand
very fine sand
0.125
1
2%
23%
fine sand 0.250 1 2%
25%
medium sand 0.50 7 13%
38%
coarse sand 1.00 0 0%
38%
very coarse sand 2.0 0 0%
38%
Gravel
very fine gravel
4.0
4
8%
46%
fine gravel 5.7 2 4%
50%
fine gravel 8.0 0 0%
50%
medium gravel 11.3 3 6%
56%
medium gravel 16.0 2 4%
60%
course gravel 22.3 0 0%
60%
course gravel 32.0 8 15%
75%
very coarse gravel 45 2 4%
79%
very coarse gravel 64 6 12%
90%
Cobble
small cobble
90
5
10%
100%
medium cobble 128 0 0%
100%
large cobble 180 0 0%
100%
very large cobble 256 0 0%
100%
Boulder
small boulder
362
0
0%
100%
small boulder 512 0 0%
100%
medium boulder 1024 0 0%
100%
large boulder 2048 0 0%
100%
Bedrock
bedrock
40096
0
0%
100%
TOTAL % of whole count
0%
52
100%
100%
Summary Data
D16
NA
D35
0.42
D50
8
D84
53
D95
75
Cumulative Percent
100%
90%
80
70%
60%
a
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
1 M1
0%
Oil O, 1 10 1�0 11K,
Particle Size (mm)
-ew°-2ms-.Y1-2m8
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
80%
d 70%
a 60%
50
U 40%
v 30%
S 20%
ro
s 10%
0%
Particle Size (mm)

Summary Data
Feature: Riffle
0.063
D35
0.58
D503.7
D84
34
2018
67
Description
Material
Size (mm)
Total #
Item %
Cum %
Silt/Clay
silt/clay
0.062
8
15%
15%
Sand
very fine sand
0.125
5
9%
25%
fine sand 0.250 3 6%
30%
medium sand 0.50 1 2%
32%
coarse sand 1.00 4 8%
40%
very coarse sand 2.0 0 0%
40%
Gravel
very fine gravel
4.0
5
9%
49%
fine gravel 5.7 0 0%
49%
fine gravel 8.0 0 0%
49%
medium gravel 11.3 6 11%
60%
medium gravel 16.0 4 8%
68%
course gravel 22.3 0 0%
68%
course gravel 32.0 6 11%
79%
very coarse gravel 45 6 11%
91%
very coarse gravel 64 0 0%
91%
Cobble
small cobble
90
3
6%
96%
medium cobble 128 2 4%
100%
large cobble 180 0 0%
100%
very large cobble 256 0 0%
100%
Boulder
small boulder
362
0
0%
100%
small boulder 512 0 0%
100%
medium boulder 1024 0 0%
100%
large boulder 1 2048 0 0%
100%
Bedrock
bedrock
40096
0
0%
100%
TOTAL % of whole count
53
100%
100%
Summary Data
D16
0.063
D35
0.58
D503.7
D84
34
D95
67
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
80%
d 70
a 60%
50%
U 40%
v 30%
S 20%
ro
S 10%
0%
q0 1,y6 P ry5b ,�b`L' S�'L,o•1,A �oA�A�gb
Particle Size (mm)
Cumulative Percent
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
a
50%
00
40%
oo
30%
oo
20%
10%
0%
KO
11
Particle Size (mm)
--.-M.-IM-2ma
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
80%
d 70
a 60%
50%
U 40%
v 30%
S 20%
ro
S 10%
0%
q0 1,y6 P ry5b ,�b`L' S�'L,o•1,A �oA�A�gb
Particle Size (mm)

Appendix E.
Hydrology Data
Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
Year 1 (2018) Monitoring Report (Final) Appendices
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)

Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
Mud Lick Creek Restoration Site (DMS Proiect No. 93482
Date of Data
Photo (if
Date of Occurrence
Method
Collection
available
Observations throughout flood plain and crest gauge indicate
12-06-2018
October 16-17, 2018
1-2
a bankfull event after 4.61 inches of rain fell over 48 hours.
Year 1 (2018) Monitoring Report (Final) Appendices
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project # 93482)