HoppersCreekCloseoutReport_20170701

Hoppers Creek — Melton Farm
DMS ID (92251)
USACE ACTION ID #SAW-2008-0890
CLOSEOUT REPORT: Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Project Setting & Classifications
Meeting XY Coordinates:
Lat: 35.57893, Long:-81.88089
County
McDowell Count
General Location
Marion, NC
River Basin:
Catawba River Basin
Ph sio ra hic Region:
Piedmont
Ecoregion:
45e - Northern Inner
Piedmont
USGS Hydro Unit:
03050101040020
NCDWQ Sub -basin:
03-08-30
Wetland Classification
Riparian
Thermal Regime:
Warm
Trout Water:
N
Project Performers
Source A enc :
DMS
Provider:
Michael Baker Eng. Inc.
Designer:
Michael Baker Eng. inc.
Monitoring Firm
Michael Baker Eng. inc.
Channel Remediation
NIA
Plant remediation
Carolina Environmental
Contracting, Inc.
Approved for transfer
to Stewardship
Yes
Stewards
NC DEQ
Project Activities and Timeline
Milestone
Month -Year
Restoration Plan Approved
Aug-08
Jurisdictional
Determination
Oct-07
Construction Initiated
Jun-10
Planting
Mar-11
Construction Completed
Jun-11
As -built survey
Jun-11
Baseline Report
Jun-11
Monitoring Year-1
Nov-12
Invasive Treatment
Aug-13
Monitoring Year-2
Dec-13
Monitoring Year 3
Dec-14
Invasive Treatment
Sept-15
monitoring Y
Dec-15
Monitorifig Year 5
Jan-17
Beaver and Dam Remov I
Mar-17
Closeout ubmissio
Jul-17

DMS Planning Context:
The Hoppers Creek — Melton Farm restoration project is located within HUC 03050101040020, the South Muddy Creek
watershed, which is listed as a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) in the 2009 Upper Catawba River Basin Restoration
Priorities (RBRP) plan. The project is also located within the Muddy Creek Local Watershed Plan (LWP). The Hoppers
Creek — Melton Farm restoration project is currently one of six DMS project in this TLW (Hoppers Creek — Melton Farm,
Middle South Muddy Creek, Muddy Creek [Randolph/Duncan Properties], North Muddy Creek, South Fork Hopper, and
South Muddy Creek). Including this project, there are a total of 13 DMS projects within the Muddy Creek LWP: Bobs
Creek, Neighbors Branch/Walton Crawley Branch, Shadrick Creek, Thompson's Fork and Tributary, UT to Goose Creek
(Coats), UT to North Muddy (Allen) and UT to North Muddy (Haney), in addition to the six previously mentioned
projects.
The project's main stem reach is on South Fork Hoppers Creek. South Fork Hoppers Creek drains to South Muddy Creek,
which joins North Muddy Creek to form Muddy Creek, which in turn flows into the Catawba River (Morganton's primary
drinking water source) just below Lake James in western Burke County. South Fork Hoppers Creek has been classified as
a Class C water by the NC Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). Class C waters are protected for uses such as
secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish consumption, aquatic life including propagation, survival and maintenance of
biological integrity, and agriculture.
The 2009 RBRP indicates that the South Muddy Creek watershed's land use is 75% forested and 19% agricultural, with
several animal operations and 20% degraded riparian buffers. Very little land within the watershed (less than 1 %) is in
conservation. Major goals for HUC 03050101 established in the 2009 Upper Catawba RBRP include restoration of
nutrient- and sediment -impaired waters (including tributary streams) of the Catawba River mainstem lakes, protection of
riparian buffers and aquatic habitat within headwater reaches, and implementation of agricultural and urban stormwater
Best Management Practices (BMPs).
Although DMS is not formally involved in the Muddy Creek Partnership (which formed in 1998 to complete the LWP), it
has implemented priority projects identified by the Muddy Creek LWP since 2004. In 2008, DMS contracted with
Equinox Environmental to develop a detailed project atlas of stream restoration and preservation projects and to perform
landowner outreach for priority projects. Key stressors in the Muddy Creek watershed include stream bank erosion, lack
of adequate forested buffer, stream channelization, impervious cover, upland erosion, livestock access to streams, urban
toxicants, nutrients, and fecal coliform bacteria. Management strategies recommended in the LWP include stream and
riparian buffer restoration, preservation of headwater forest and riparian areas, livestock exclusion, and implementation of
agricultural and urban stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs).
The goals of the Hoppers Creek — Melton Farm project are consistent with DMS watershed planning goals. The project
excludes livestock from directly accessing the channel, which removes direct inputs of nutrients and fecal coliform, and
reduces sediment inputs from hoof shear on stream banks. Restoration and enhancement of the channel results in stable
geomorphology, reduced shear stress, and a reduction of sediment input from bank erosion. Improved riparian buffers also
intercept and mitigate stormwater runoff, which improves water quality by reducing sediment and nutrient inputs. Lastly,
the project preserves several functional stream reaches, and preserves and protects improved reaches and habitat within
the project boundaries through a perpetual conservation easement.
Project Setting and Background Summary
The Hoppers Creek — Melton Farm Stream Restoration Project (Project) was restored by Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
(Baker) through and on -call design and construction services contract with the North Carolina Division of Mitigation
Services (NCDMS). The Project site is located approximately 10 miles southeast of Marion in McDowell County, North
Carolina. The Project is situated in the Catawba River Basin, within the United States Geologic Survey (USGS)
hydrologic unit 03050101040020. South Fork Hoppers Creek lies within the Piedmont physiographic province. Its
watershed is predominately forested, supporting some isolated rural residential housing, chicken farms, agricultural lands,
nurseries, and several small rural residential developments. The land surrounding the Project site has been used
historically for agriculture was recently used as pasture for livestock grazing. Some forestland is located in the upstream
extents of UTl, UT2, and UT3.

South Fork Hoppers Creek and its tributaries had been impacted by livestock, were incised, and exhibiting active erosion.
Channel incision along South Fork Hoppers Creek resulted in the lowering of the water table; thereby, dewatering floodplain
wetlands. The Project involved the restoration or enhancement of 3,550 linear feet (LF) of stream along South Fork Hoppers
Creek, and portions of UT1 and UT2 using Rosgen Priority I restoration and Level II enhancement approaches. An
additional 1,071 LF of stream along portions of UT1 and UT3 was placed in preservation. The Project also included the
restoration and enhancement of 1.56 acres of riparian wetland abutting South Fork Hoppers Creek and UTl of which 1.23
acres comprised restoration and 0.33 acres comprised enhancement. The Priority I channel design approach entailed raising
the elevation of the channel to establish greater connectivity to the floodplain and to restore the hydrologic relationship
between South Fork Hoppers Creek, its tributaries, and riparian wetland areas. Channel pattern was re-established to
dissipate flow velocities in meander bends. In -stream habitat was created using riffle -pool sequences and the strategic
placement of in -stream structures. Approximately 5.7 acres of associated riparian buffer were restored/enhanced throughout
the Project area and a conservation easement consisting of 10.1 acres will protect and preserve all stream reaches, wetland
areas, and riparian buffers in perpetuity. In addition, the Project included several agricultural upgrades. These upgrades
included decommissioning a hog lot adjacent to Reach UT2A, livestock fencing, and waters.
No beaver activity was documented during most of the five year monitoring period. However, in March 2017, NCDMS
contracted the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to remove beavers and a total of three dams
along Reach 1 and Reach 2. NCDMS and APHIS continue to monitor the site until closeout.
No stream repair has been needed throughout the Project area during the monitoring period, and Project reaches continue
to remain stable. When present, areas of bed degradation and aggradation have been minor and have been able to
subsequently stabilize themselves with either the growth of vegetation or the movement of sediment through the system
and/or into the floodplain. Easement fencing was damaged in mid- to late-2016 from logging equipment accessing wooded
areas adjacent the Project. During this time, no livestock were present in adjacent pastures; therefore the property owner
completed the logging activities prior to repairing the fence in 2017.
Vegetation conditions throughout the Project area have performed well throughout the 5 Year Monitoring period. Bare
areas have been minimal and control applications for exotic and/or invasive species have significantly reduced and
controlled densities to individual stems and/or localized populations within the easement. These species consist primarily
of Lonicera japonica (Japanese honeysuckle), Ligustrum sinese (Chinese privet), Pueraria lobate (kudzu) and Rosa
mult flora (multi -flora rose). Invasive species will also be monitored through closeout and treated as needed.
During the five years of monitoring at this site, we have observed the site becoming more stable and wetland areas
continuing to exhibit seasonal saturation even during years of less than average rainfall. This work has provided functional
uplift by restoring channel access to the historic floodplain to increase hydrologic connections and alleviate erosive shear
stresses, incorporating bedform diversity with varied in -stream structures to provide a variety of aquatic habitats, and
reestablishing native species in the riparian buffer to improve terrestrial habitat.

Goals and Objectives:
Goals
Objectives
Create geomorphically stable conditions for the Project
Stabilize eroding channel banks by implementing a
site.
combination of Priority I Restoration and Enhancement 11
approaches.
Improve and restore hydrologic connections between the
Increase floodplain connectivity to restore historic
streams, the wetlands, and their floodplains.
floodplain and restore and enhance existing floodplain
wetlands, where feasible.
Improve water quality in the South Fork Hoppers Creek
Improve water quality by establishing buffers for nutrient
watershed.
removal from runoff, by stabilizing stream banks to reduce
bank erosion and sediment contribution to creek flows, and
by fencing out livestock.
Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat along the Project
Improve in -stream habitat by providing a more diverse
corridor.
bedform with riffles and pools, creating deeper pools and
areas of water re -aeration, providing woody debris for
habitat, and reducing bank erosion.
Establish native stream bank and floodplain vegetation in a
permanent conservation easement to increase storm water
runoff filtering capacity, improve bank stability, provide
shading to decrease water temperature and provide cover,
and im rove wildlife habitat
Protect the South Fork Hoppers Creek watershed from
Restored/enhance riparian buffer with native stream bank,
nearby rapid development.
wetland, and floodplain vegetation throughout the Project
area. Implement a conservation easement throughout the
Project area to protect and preserve all stream reaches,
wetland areas, and riparian buffers in perpetuity
Success Criteria:
Success Criteria
Measured Parameter
Criteria Met
Stream:
The occurrence of bankfull events within
Yes — Between May 2012 and October
Bankfull Events - Two bankfull events
the monitoring period have been
2016, the site has experienced at least ten
must be documented at the crest gauge
documented by the use of crest gauges and
documented bankfull events during the
within the 5-year monitoring period. The
photographs. A crest gauge was installed on
five year monitoring period. With at least
bankfull events must occur in separate
the floodplain at bankfull elevation at
two of those events occurring in separated
years.
Station 15+10 on Reach 1. Photographs
monitoring years, the site has met its
were taken to confirm the presence of
hydrologic success criteria.
debris lines and sediment deposition on the
banks.
Stream:
Six permanent cross -sections were installed
Yes — The surveyed cross -sections show
Cross -sections — There should be little
throughout the Project area. Cross -sections
that there has been little adjustment to
change in the as -built cross -sections. If
were installed at 1 riffle and 1 pool on each
overall stream dimension since
changes do take place, they will be
reach along Reaches 1, 2, and UT1B.
construction.
evaluated to determine if they represent a
Cross -sections were surveyed every
movement toward a more unstable
monitoring year.
condition or a movement toward
increased stability.
Stream:
Longitudinal profiles were surveyed for the
Yes — Longitudinal profiles show that bed
Longitudinal Profile and Pattern — Pools
entire lengths of Reaches 1 and 2, as well as
features are stable. Pools are well -
should remain deep with flat water surface
UTB. These reaches were surveyed every
maintained with only minor filling in the
slopes, and riffles should remain steeper
monitoring year,
upstream sections of Reach I and UT1B.
and shallower than the pools. Bed form
Grade control structures continue to help
observations should be consistent with
maintain the overall profile desired.
those observed for channels of the design
stream type as well as other design
information.

Success Criteria
Measured Parameter
Criteria Met
Stream:
One pebble count survey was conducted
Yes — Visual observations and pebble
Channel Substrate — Pebble count
annually at the same riffle cross-section on
count data indicate that sediment transport
information, combined with evidence
each of the three restored reaches (X5, X7,
functions are intact and that the stream is
provided by changes in cross -sectional
and X9) for a total of 3 sediment samples
effectively moving fines through the
and profile data, will reveal changes in
per monitoring year.
system.
sediment gradation that occur over time as
the stream adjusts to upstream sediment
loads. Significant changes in sediment
gradation will be evaluated with respect to
stream stability and watershed changes.
Stream:
Photographs were taken annually at 38
Yes — Photographic documentation of the
Photographic Documentation — Lateral
reference points along Reaches 1, 2, UTl B,
site through Monitoring Year 5 reflects
and structure photos were used to evaluate
and UT2. Permanent markers were
stable site conditions on restored
aggradation or degradation, bank erosion,
established at each photo reference station
channels, as well as healthy stands of
success of riparian vegetation, structure
to ensure that the same locations and view
herbaceous and woody vegetation in the
function, and stability and effectiveness of
directions were captured each year,
riparian corridors.
erosion control measures. Lateral photos
should not indicate excessive erosion or
degradation of the banks. A series of
photos over time should indicate
successive maturation of riparian
vegetation and consistent structure
function.
Vegetation:
12 permanent vegetation plots (100 m2)
Yes — Density of total planted stems per
Vegetation — The interim measure of
were established across the Project site.
acre in Monitoring Year 5 ranged from
vegetative success for the site was the
Level I1 CVS vegetation monitoring was
445-971 planted stems per acre with a
survival of at least 320, three-year old,
conducted between spring and the end of
tract mean of 617 planted stems per acre.
planted trees per acre at the end of Year 3
fall each monitoring year. At the end of the
The site has met the Year 5 vegetative
of the monitoring period. The final
first growing season, during baseline
success criteria of 260 trees per acre.
vegetative success criterion was the
surveys, species composition, density, and
Volunteer species continue to thrive
survival of 260, five-year old, planted
survival were evaluated. Yearly data for
throughout the easement as well.
trees per acre at the end of Year 5 of the
each plot were compiled and compared to
monitoring period.
evaluate veg plot performance.
Wetland:
Four groundwater monitoring stations were
Yes — Based on ground water data
Wetland Assessment — Wetland
installed in restored/enhanced wetland
collected during the five growing seasons
monitoring data should show that the site
areas to document hydrologic conditions at
following site construction (March 30,
has been saturated within 12 inches of the
the Project site.
2011 - November 2, 2016), the site has
soil surface for at least 9% of the growing
successfully met the success criteria for
season (or 19 consecutive days) as
wetland hydrology of soil saturation
indicated by the DRAINMOD model and
within 12 inches of the soil surface for at
that the site has exhibited an increased
- '
least 9% of the growing season, or 19
frequency of flooding.
consecutive days.

'
'
S
S
o'
a•
a
CD
O'
+
CD
.
n
7roC' C/l
m
>
oo
a
O
O
d X
m
o
w
O
A
ENO
O
6W1
J
�
t„
Existing
Oo
00
N
ON
d
N
O
Feet/Acres*
�
n
S
�
w
m-�
m
m
�
b
m
-c
�
70
Mitigation
Type
N'
Approach
°
Linear
x
10
�
(A
w
o
Footage or
°
-
LA
Acreage*
ra
Mitigation
—
--
.-
Ratio
f9
p
°
N
o
rn
CDA
Mitigation
'°
o
w
uA
D
N
v,
�'
Units
O �
p
�p
p
+
+
W
+
NJ
J
�
t
O
�s3
t o
+
'
N
StfftlORlOg
°ty
+
NJ
+
0
O
O
+
�
V
+
!D O
_tz
C➢
O N
Q �'
Y ��F
.�.' (~D W
�n r_n
?1
'd
i4
("� yd
G.
n7
-n ,-p
-(p,
-o
,�
„d
•,d
Sr'1ii
o S
LY S
n �
S Sr
7
r�
(G
O
l9
cc
ry
f0
3.
`m•..'. O
@ Q
(C p,
p„
dap.
cNp'
pip
cNp•
on a,
[Np.
W
1 �.
0 A.
9 R.
� O.
" 4,
55' 2.
vs �
� ?.
O
[O�pp,
S
[C�ppy,
ro S
�R�pp,
w S[
o'
O
O
7
�
r
Cr
ur
W P
O 0. �'
O �, mCD
r*
w
?, w�
O-
Q 77,
q
�p
p�•
G
G.
0.
1
oa �'
n s'
cnn
Q
O
.*
°
c
O
-*
n
n
n
b
0
uO1c
p l9
E
9
fb
t a
m
o
o
C �_
�
�_
�
o
CD"
°
m
CO
�n f�
00
,�„
O P. a
p PL a
S O�
r 'O
W
iddi
o-9
n
g
7'
o'
O
70
0.
R
O
•�
O
F �,
m
G
.b
'c3pp
•w..b
p.
p�
V
fD
.Ny"..
•O.
c
Cr
o�
w
q4
co
9•cs
7r
b �
7. O.
a'
b
d G
G
^h
w
`C
r0•.
"CJ
.'2 ^I
FI ^�
Q
O
P-
'
o O
~
8 w
Q
w
w
a_.
O
Q.
p+
OG
��p
f�D S
S
ID
O �..py
r'�•r
{gip
G.
pi
C-
3'
, =
8
6
7
�
O•
O
7
O
pyfm
a7
c"S
riqfG
f4
S
rR
w
P-
ao
co
'm
m
w
y
m

r
CD
CD
CD
O
C
r_ m
m
p
R
p
r
d
�
a
rn
w
w
_
eD
m
m
to
Cs
eo
$
m
o
C1
�
dR
i
m
A 90
G3.
ti
m
C
A
c
O
m
�e
4-
tj
"oo
c
I
ro
R
?
Z
n �
o�
.5
°
Existing
A
Feet/Acres*
,�
o
0 o
Mitigation
o a
Type
m
Approach
=
Linear
Footage or
o. w
Acreage*
Mitigation
n
°
Ratio
� o
�
Mitigation
E:
Units
A
a' G7
0RC
QQ
bv' m A
�
R �
�n
n.
Stationing
b °
�
ICI
r
L
a
n.
N
w
;n
E
Q
N
f7
O
n
m
n
o'
v
n.
a

0v mq rn n�- o w o o a
0 c o a
Z to S Uli n 7 ,�. uroi n w ul
0
N N W O ro O n ID w m O .r. .•,
x' ro a a 2 n: m c oro, r �, to [n fl
O w � 3 C a -. m a' p a. I
m 3
m ° c ; - Ip n i9 ur r
CL
r ro -a° 0
fl a m
cu
10
o m w rF
j IL
Wft,
LYN
.%. ID 6 y p
r^
10 `
r ;' •• to b
�s S CD
m
n
oaro
3 fi D 4t r
Z b rom N f.
O 'O
h-
O O W O
o �
03
z ,*
co N
N i „�

0
m }
0 g g m _0m� rn h> T c> cn c� n-0
o
f 5-.�P
M
m c o m c S
Z H 3 N_ ff C3'i N C�7 N N O
1 N 6t fp O r�r A CDp
^ 1D IN N O
m c a o M c to
r�•r S � 7 7 C QL
Q l O 6i ••r M �] C
m _ [p et . . Im i ,
rb
m
CL
c
CD
a O ✓�j k g a03
- -� • - 'ram py�r �� � :,
yr.�' , Il•..
CA
('1
D w \1 l VIA
d
0 o m
N
Z I0D y �i a I1 `ry
p 7c ID 1.
S
n�� w 1 S
p�rJ1.
u
6=1 /pa Q a \ / ' p
o v oo
CD
m
i
2.
m ~ n 0
� Z n
Z O
O
00
N N
N �
A

_ O
7
n
W
II
0
Ch
G
O
fD v
O
(D n O
(0
z �(%
c
+
0
c
3 -
d 0
0 1
x
m = N
0
-
o�
z�m
0 N
x s. 7r
=r ?
o 3 n
a
w
E
@
�
ro
G1
m
v ro' ro
ro n n
0
,n-,
n
0 CD A
g
•-
z
z
o
cn
o
m y m
m @ cn
°
co
N Ca
N
co
N
(r
3
0
A
'
a
A
�
/7
a
r
PA
a �•i�72,ii►l�l
f1
W

0
3 x
a M nd � D O x ro m — m
_ m �, w Z w s
o = N M U2 m � o =
�m O 1 = o
m 2 a < C(a Q- 0< � m
m 6C m y a m" W m ..
I^ m m � '* o. p 1
M '*
_ O IT m 7 _
O RI N fD (ny a (D
m < ooi m m m m
� < n0 m
cD
o o rn 3 ,�. n
I:f o N
a
CA
N
f.n
2
O
C
+
3
-n
n -
o
0
0
— p O
W
;}
0 o a
n
0 n
()
Z��D
N
{
o
=r
o n
N
z
ID
O O
IT,
v
to
@
cIO
O
m
�
Z
Z
0
f Sa
o
1"
a
N
�
W
pN
A
s
r
1
n �
~ ,y
1L O C
s �
� N F
WN
A
� ro
m
C n
O
n

z
�
m
0
z
� '
min§ \
o• m o 0 7
z 3
> ' k k CD
k k t 2 �
» `• �
, .
/ e
. % n n
m m ] Q a
§ { { 2 ; /
z Q a @ @
2 � Ln m = & E
2 - E F) o �
m �
� cli .�
k §
3 ......,:�
§ 0 a �.
° 2
nag z'• \�2
E}k m� f
m : : k .
22�3 ) Sr
z -0, @ # _ �� a
\CL
\ \ � uu
o 2 at
0 / \.
a 0 k. \ t 3
-n ` —
« / > /
x ,
@ �
00 w Q \ %
) F 7 q \ Z
CU
@ z a \ f
k
# � �

0
14
XS-7 1e
XS-8
,s
- 16
XS-10
15
I XS-5 XS-6
J
1 Reach 1 1
Reach 2
Reach UT1 B
Beaver Dam Removal (2017) Fence Line \\� Reach UT1A
Invasive Removal (2015) Wetland Enhancement (0.33 acres)
Invasive Removal (2013) Wetland Restoration (1.23 acres)
Fence Repair (2017) Conservation Easement
Baker N Figure 4B - Remediation Map DMS Project No. 52251
Michael 0 62.5 125 Baker Project No. 128244
Feet k
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm
I N T E R H A T 1 0 N A L 1 inch = 125 feet Restoration Project Date: 2017
McDowell County, North Carolina Drawn By: KLS

�A
Elevation
~
§
ƒ
ƒ
--4
a
(A Ln a a
«
�
#
§
7
w
C)
E
<
®
�
k\@
6\
c
�
7
|
x o
\
3
|
;
m
o
�
.
|
�
2
�
ƒ
k
8
$
|
$
ku
z
}
,
Elevation
ƒ ƒ
\
0 S rQ U k
r
k
k
% /
§
e w
99
0
\ \
G
|
■
,
■
§
% X
Ln
|
■
a)
cn
§
_
|
§
|
6 E
0)
�k
ƒ
■
o Ifi
.
■
0 0
m 4
■
— W
§\
°
�
2
®
|
2
,
(A
■
Ln
o
(D
-n
§
|
W
[ w
,
� §
�
% #
�
Elevation
ƒ
ƒ
co
0)<
o
>
Cc
cr
n
\
P
§
;
■
■
ƒ
ƒ
2
,
)
;0®
a
�
|
3�
§§
®
|
63
a�
R
. |
&f
|
��
& %
2%
|
o
i
|
pr
.
!
|
|
�
k
|
0
)
|
§
7
K
2
} \
\ §
Elevation
k k d k \
§
�
\ /
.
a e
|
o
f
|
rr
} )
01
K
§§@
|
s$
ono
�-
(67
ƒ ƒ
M
U)
"
c «
•
§_ o
§
|
�
7
�
§
\
0
|
�
|
2
,
e
|
°
|
|
$
ƒ
|
- §
k
2 #

Elevation
f /
co
\
_
o
a
} �
a
g
\ ;
o §
§
W
ƒ ƒ
L)
° $i
§ �
■
■
�.
c w
|
Pw
@�
■
� _
f
,
f
E %
o
/ § �
|
k
|
�
®
n
,
■
k
|
|
g
ƒ
�
� «
■
�
■
SL
00
0 k
|
;
..
Elevation
a
a o o
m
<ƒ I
-b.S
,
2
|
g
a §
■
0 _
|
�
■
�
�ƒ
$$
|
m— &
■
■
§\
|�
co
©g
\ƒ0
0o
|
0pr
E)
_
¢\ k
■
I
0
|
�
�
■
■
|
0
03
%
�ƒ
|
ƒ)
|
Ee
■
|
j) (C)no
, #,

Elevation
A A A CCn Ul UI (NlI UI 0)
A CA CO O N A CA CO O
(Reach Break)
X
cn rr
C•
N
O ;7
0 N x
0 O V
O A
f6
cc
X
;0
23 n
N
� H
o
11 Q
OT
CS
uI �
N
O
W
O
C
3 Vy
Cm11 N
O
1
A
4
CD �
R1 ;0
A
N
6
Elevation
Ln
Ln Ln M 0) 0) 0)
O
N
A 0 Ou O N
A
w
O
g
X
o
O
Q1 c
O
rn
O
O
Tl
X
O
3
N
C
rlr
3
1
N
x
m
60
7C
O
N
1M
O
a
rn N
V
Q
+
g
o
W
Q
�
Vo
X
C
I
�a
ra
n pt
o
N �
C �
N
7 W
UPI N
O
J
A
J
C.
(3
0
CU
.l]
� A
3
N
� N
�
CO
CO
0
Q
Cm
(Reach Break)
rr
r! unno � � � s

9
0
0
m
N
Cn
N
R
Elevation
[NTIi U (A 0) m w rn
N O Go O N A O
�
D
Z1
C71
C
N
O
nJ
0
S�
II
I
<
T
T
N
�^J
V
N
O
+
o
0
cn
Gi
N
x
w
�
m
T
C
0
0
O
�
W
N
0
s
A
I
A
N
'
01
�
I
(ri
Np
+
8"
W
m
m
Elevation
1 J J J i 1 J
pN� pNp�� N N N N N
N A
� D
�] N
(TF C
J O
J
0
i
,AJ
V
N
O
(
N
O
0 O G)
� W
N
O
A
j
I
}
1
NA
D
�
I

Cross-section Morpholol_y Tables:
South Fork Hoppers Creek Reach l 783
LF
Cross-section 5
Cros"ectlon 6(Pool)
-m-771
Dimension and substrate
Base MYl I MY2 I MY3 I Nn 4 1775
Base MY2 I i1'IY3 I MY4 I 1il'S
Based on nixed baseline bankfull elevation
Record Elevation (Datum) Used (ft)
BF Width (ft)
BF Mean Depth (ft)
Width/Depth Ratio
BF Gross -sectional Area (W)
BF Max Depth (ft)
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
Hvdran)ic Radius ft
1260.2
1260.2
1260.2
1260.2
1260.2
1260,2
1260.1
1260.1
1260.]
1260.1
1260.1
1260.1
13.1
12.1
12.3
12.2
13.2
12.9
14.6
13.5
13.4
13.4
11.2
11.4
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.0
1.2
11.5
12.5
13.1
13.5
13.1
11.5
11.8
10.7
10.7
10.7
11.2
9.3
15.0
11.8
11.6
11.0
13.2
14.6
18.0
17.1
16.7
16.8
1 1. 2
14.0
1.7
1.6
1 7
1.5
1.8
1.7
2.4
2.7
2.8
2.7
2.2
2.9
62.9
62.9
62.8
62.8
62.8
62.9
65.9
66.0
66.0
65.9
66.0
62.1
4.8
5.2
5.1
5.2
4.8
4.9
N/A
NIA
N/A
NIA
NIA
NIA
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
15.4
14.1
14.2
14.0
15.2
15.2
17.1
16.0
15.9
15.9
13.2
13.9
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
0.8
1.0
South Fork Hoppers Creek Reach 2 (445
LF)
Cross-section 7 (Riffle)
Cross-section 8 (Pool)
Dimension and substrate
Base Nn'l MY2 MY3 MY4 A11'S
Base h1Y1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Based on fixed baseline banldull elevation
Record Elevation (Datum) Used (ft)
BF Width (ft)
BF Mean Depth (ft)
Width/Depth Ratio
BF Cross -sectional Area (ft)
BF Max Depth (ft)
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
Hydraulic Radius ft
1255.17
1255.1'
1255.1
1255.1
1255.2
1255.2
1252.9
1252.9
1252.9
1252.9
1252.9
1253.0
13.3
14.1
12.8
12.7
13.4
13.7
17.5
15.2
12.8
13.7
14.2
13.4
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.1
0.9
Ll
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
13.1
13.3
11.1
10.9
11.2
12.6
19.0
13.9
13.3
13.9
14.7
13.4
13.5
14.8
14.8
14.8
16.0
15.0
16.0
16.6
12.3
13.6
13.7
13.5
1.5
1.7
1.9
1.8
1.9
1.9
2.1
2.5
1.7
1.8
2.0
2.3
629
62.9
62.9
62.8
62.9
629
71.0
71.1
71.1
71.1
71.1
70.9
4.7
4.5
4.9
i9
4.7
4.6
NIA
NIA
NIA
N/A
NIA
NIA
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.0
15.4
16.2
15.1
1 >.0
15.8
15.9
19.3
17A
14.7
15.7
16.1
15.4
0.9
0.9
1.0
I.0
1.0
0.9
1 0.8
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
• A lowerbankfull elevation datum was used in calulatmg banktul dimension values tot MY i instead of using the oaseune nanKtali elevation datum wnicn nomaumca me data nrrwren in two
monitoring periods thereby reducing data anomalies and enabled a more accurate repteseulatioa and comparison of dimension parameters.
"A higher baokfutt elevation datum was used in calubding bankSil dimension values for MY5 instead ofusing the baseline bankfull elevation datum which normalized the dalabet, vcn the
monitoring periods thereby reducing data anomalies and enabled a more accurate representation and comparison of dimension parameters.
UTIB 1,065 L
Cross-section 9
Cross-section 10 Pool
Dimension and substrate
Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Base NIY1 AfY2 MY3 I 17Y4 I MY5
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
Record Elevation (Datum) Used (ft)
BF Width (ft)
BF Mean Depth (ft)
Width/Depth Radio
BF Cross -sectional Area (W)
BF Max Depth (ft)
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
Hydraulic Radius ft
1258,6
1258.6
1258.6
1258.6
1258,E
1 1258-8
1258.4
1258.4
1258A
1258,4
1258.4
11258.44
7.0
5.5
5.4
6.S
7.1
6.1
10.2
9.1
8.9
9.9
11.1
12.7
0.5
0.5
0.4
0A
0.4
0.4
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
1 0.5
13.3
11.4
13.6
15.9
17.8
16,1
13.3
16.3
14.5
18.2
19.3
1 26.2
3.7
2.6
2.2
2.9
2.8
2.3
7.9
5.1
5.5
5A
6.4
6.2
1.1
0.8
0.8
1 1.0
1.0
0.8
1.6
1.4
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.7
51.0
51.0
47.5
19.8
51.0
50.9
62.0
62.0
62.0
62.0
62.0
62.1
7.3
8.8
8.8
7.3
7.2
8.1
NIA
NIA
NIA
N/A
NIA
NIA
1.0
1.2
L2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
8.1
6.4
6.2
7.7
T9
6.9
11.8
10.2
10.1
11.0
12.3
13.7
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Bankfull Event Verification Table:
Location
Date of Data
Collection
Date of (kcurence of
Bankfull Event
Method of Data Collection
Cage Ileight (feet)
South Fork Iloppurs ('reek (Station 15 F 10)
5 '0 2012
Unknovin
Crest Gauge
0.55
South Fork 1 toppers ('reek Station 13 i 10
8 1 2012
1'nknown
Crest Gaulte
0.10
South Fork lloPpot% Creek (Station 15, 10)
1231: 2012
1Tnknow°n
Crest Gauge
0.55
South Fork Ilopp,.r. Oval (Station 151 10)
51/2013
Unknown
Crest Gaugc
0.10
South Fork I loppurs Creel: (Station I5+10)
4 16'2014
Unknown
Crest Gau o
0.60
South Fork Ho cxs C'rcek (Station 15+ 10)
5'6G'2015
Lln)MOwn
Crest Gau c
0.25
South Fork Hop tun, Crock- IS(ation 15+ 10)
9 24 2015
1'nknoun
Crest Gauge
0.25
South Fork llopptzs Crv&- (Station 154 10)
1 1116 2015
1'nknown
CITMI Gau c
0.20
South Fork Ho ors Crock (Station 15+ 10)
1 5 162016
L!nknown
Cresl Gauge
0.08
South Fork I loppas Creek tMation 15 1 10
10 192016
1 Unknown
0 r:st Gauge
0.15

Bankfull Event Verification Photos:
Crest Gauge — 05/30/2012
Crest Gauge 04/16/2014
Crest Gauge — 09/24/2015
Crest Gauge — 12/3 1/2012
Crest Gauge — 05/06/2015
Crest Gauge — 11 / 16/2015

Bankfull Event — 05/16/2016
Crest Gauge — 10/16/2016
Figure 8. Historic Average vs. Observed Rainfall
Monthly Rainfall near Morganton, NC vs. AveraRe Rainfall Ihda
(May 2011 - Novemher 28, 2016)
19
18
17 — ---- -
16
15
14
13 -
.. 12 --
'� 11
10
t3
5
4 ♦""'-- -----�-
3
2
j
0
Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May 16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug 16 Sep 16 Oct lr� Nov 10
Month - Year
r-- ) MY 5 Monthly RalnIWl MY4 Monthly RalnTalI O MY3 Monthly RalnTall aaram MY2 Monthly RaInTall
tEs MYl Monthly RAIMaII 301h Percentile —e— 70th Percentile --4- Average Rainfall
Wetland Gauge Attainment Data:
Summary of Groundwater Gauge Results for MY1-MY5
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)
Gauge
MY 1 2011
MY2 2012)
MY3 2013
MY4 2014
MY4 2015
MYS 201
Gauge ]
Noll days (5%)
Yea/25 days (12%)
Yes/218 days
o
Yes/2? days (12 /o)*
Yes/176 days
Yes/95 days
(100%)
(81 %)
(44%)
Gauge 2
Yes/218 days
Yes/218 days (100%)
Yes/218 days
Yes/47 days
Yes/218 days
Yes/79 days
(100%)
(1000/0)
(22%)*
(100°h)
(36%)**
Gauge 3
Yes/188 days (86%)
Yes/218 days (100%)
Yes/218 days
Yes/218 days
Yes/218 days
Yes/218 days
(10(%)
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
Gauge 4
Yes/200 days (92%)
Yes/218 days (100%)
Yes/218 days
Yes/218 days
Yes/218 days
Yes/79 days
1 (1000/0)
(1000/0)
(100'/°)
(36%)**
*Gauge I and 2 were not working properly during much of the 2014 growing season.
**Gauge 2 and 4 were not working properly during much of the 2016 growing season.
c_ OS ecc3 /
J � D

Vc2dation Data:
I%f S-2016
11I4-2015
M 3-2014
Plot
Planted
Stems
Planted
Stems:Ac
Total
Stems
Total
Stems,'Ac
Planted
Stems
Planted
StemsAc
Total
Stems
Total
Stems.'Ac
Planted
Stems
Planted
StemsAc
Total
Stems
Total
Stem&"Ac
13
19
769
39
1578
19
769
39
1578
19
769
29
1174
14
22
890
36
1457
22
890
36
1457
20
809
27
1093
is
11
445
19
769
12
486
20
809
5
202
5
202
16
8
325
10
405
7
284
9
364
7
283
7
283
17
15
609
15
607
15
609
15
607
14
567
16
647
18
13
528
13
526
14
567
14
567
9
365
9
364
19
11
445
11
445
9
365
9
364
7
283
7
283
20
14
567
14
567
18
729
18
728
14
567
14
567
21
22
890
22
890
24
972
24
971
26
1053
36
1457
22
13
528
20
809
14
567
21
850
16
609
24
971
23
15
607
46
1862
16
609
47
1902
17
689
17
688
A1T'L1
11
445
12
486
11
445
12
486
9
365
10
405
I*fv2 - 2013
\il'i - 2012
M 0 - 2012
Plot
Planted
Stems
Planted
Stems-3e
Total
Stems
Total
Stems.':1c
Planted
Stems
Planted
Stems•':Lc
Total
Stems
Total
Stems;'Ac
Planted
Stems
Planted
Stems-Ac
Total
Stems
Total
Stemsf-kc
13
19
769
39
1578
18
729
60
2428
18
729
18
729
14
18
729
33
1335
21
850
65
2671
21
851
21
851
15
9
365
16
647
14
567
30
1214
14
567
14
567
16
5
202
15
607
16
647
29
1174
16
648
16
648
17
16
647
21
850
22
890
26
1052
22
891
22
891
18
9
365
9
364
14
567
22
890
14
567
14
567
19
9
365
9
364
12
486
13
526
12
486
12
486
20
11
445
17
688
15
607
22
890
15
608
15
608
21
27
1093
27
1093
33
1337
34
1376
33
1337
33
1337
22
17
688
33
1335
23
932
50
2023
23
932
23
932
23
9
364
12
486
25
1013
31
1255
25
1013
25
1013
XVPLI
11
445
21
850
16
647
46
1862
16
648
16
648

Annual Iotals
Scientific Name
C ommon Name
Species Ty
IFY5 2016
MY4 2015
AM 2014
An-2 2013
NIA-1 2012
►11-0 2012
P
I
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
I
P
T
dlurrs serrrrlara
Hazel Alder
ree
17
37
17
37
15
15
3
Betrrla +dgm
River Birch
ree
15
16
18
19
20
20
21
21
28
29
-19
25
Carphirn rarolndmtrt
American Hornbeam
ree
1
1
Cerds lnerfgara
Sugarben•s
Tree
7
7
6
6
6
6
3
3
3
9
3
3
Comm autoruuut
Silks- Dogwood
Shrub
2
3
6
1 4
6
Diosjn,ros rirgintana
Persimmon
Tree
36
38
42
44
30
36
1
27
1
57
1
1
Fraxinrrspearrssh-anica
Green Asti
Tree
24
25
'
26
23
23
22
22
30
31
30
30
n lans rrigra
Black Walnut
Tree
4
4
3
6
6
10
10
10 1
10
riodendron ruli fern
Tulip Poplar
Tret
16
55
16
55
16
33
19
45
22
64
22 1
22
vssa ss•lrarica
Blac
tee
6
6
4
4
l
1
3
3
r.
5
5
5
rtrain+s orriderrralis
Ssramore
Tree
+
24
21
22
16
16
19
27
21
24
21
21
Qnerrrn falcarn
Southern Red Oak
Tree
1
1
1
I
+errus gada
C'herr•cbarkOak
ree
Querfas poliostris
Pin Oak
Tree
8
8
9
12
12
25
25
40
44
40
40
+errus pheflos
Willow Oak
Tree
?
?
1
1
3
3
24
24
40
40
40
40
+errus rs+bra
\, Red Oak
Tree
1
1
7
7
16
16
26
25
25
Saltti seriren
5i1kz ►►'iposr
Shrub
6
1
5
1
3
22
1
37
1
1
Sahvnigra
Black Willow
Shrub
3
4
'
3
1
1
Smnbarns eareadensis
Elderberry
Shrub
1
I
1
1
Unknown
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
2
2
C7++srs_durerirarsn
Ame=icanElm
ree
1
1
dcrr rnbrna
Red NLale
Irl,ee
7
20
'
20
2
13
10
46
Stem C•oun 174 257 181 264 163 201 160 252 229 429 229 229
ludes coltmieer; Size (ares) I2 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
0101 fus Den-irs Plot Size (acrts) 0.30 03D 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0,30 0.30 030 030 0.30
teed::+,TUfemerit5 by t(ro Species Conn 17 17 19 19 17 17 12 1 14 14 16 14 14
seeds requirements. butte) less than IV. Srne te% per A,c 59t 867 T0` 890 678 850 1447 772
ail: r meet regiu:emert bti le-,-, than IV.
dial JJJ
, ors � G f1t at-5
!v AA`� If

DMS Recommendation and Conclusion
Monitoring surveys in each of the five years post -construction reveal that the Hoppers Creek — Melton Farm Project is
performing as designed. Dimension, pattern, and profile parameters suggest that the stream channel has remained stable
since construction with minimal to no change in any of the major morphological components. Ground water data have
shown that the wetland areas of the Project have continually trended toward meeting and exceeding the established success
criteria for soil saturation during the growing season. The Year 5 vegetation monitoring indicated a survivability range of
445 to 971 planted stems per acres with an overall average of 617 planted stems per acre, while volunteers also continue to
thrive. Herbicidal treatments throughout the monitoring years have been effective in lowering the densities of the
undesirable vegetation within the Project's easement area; thus, allowing for native species to spread and proliferate
throughout the buffer. Overall, the Project continues to perform as desired with little to no change observed in form and
function.
The accompanying data and the information provided over the last 5 years in annual monitoring reports support our
conclusion that restoration at this site has improved geomorphic, hydrologic, and ecological function throughout the Project
area. Project goals and objectives for which stream and wetland mitigation credit has been requested have been met by
stabilizing eroding banks, implementing in -stream structures for habitat and bedform diversity, improving floodplain
connectivity, restoring wetland hydrology, and establishing a good quality riparian buffer with a diverse population of trees.
A minimum 30-foot conservation easement will protect the Project in perpetuity. These improvements merit recognizing
the site as mitigation for negative impacts to other watershed streams and wetlands. NCDMS respectfully requests closure
of all 4,621 linear feet of stream and 1.56 acres of wetland for the Hoppers Creek — Melton Farm Project and the successful
implementation of 2,892 stream mitigation units (SMUs) and 1.40 wetland mitigation units (WMUs) as proposed by
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Contingencies
There are no contingency issues identified at this time.

5
'b
O
y'h
c.

m
F-
r
«�,
I
d
R
�
y -
p

b
IV
El
m
b
G
r
9

Appendix A: Property Ownership Information & Verification of Protection Mechanism
The site protection instrument for this mitigation project includes the following document(s), available at the specified
County Register of Deeds office, and is linked to the property portfolio at:
http://ncdenr.s3.a mazonaws.coms3fs-
public/Mitigation%20Services/Document%20Mana eement%20Libra_ry/Property/Property%2DPortfolio 92251 HoppersC
reek-MeltonFarm PD 2008.pdf
Project Name County IGrantor Name I Recordation info I Property Rights
lHoppers Creek - Melton Farm iMcDowell Isteven w. Melton DB CRP 981, P 643 lConservation Easement
Long-term stewardship of this property is managed by the NC DEQ Stewardship Program.

APPENDIX B: Permits and Jurisdictional Determination
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action 11). SAW-2008-0890 County: McDowell USGS Quad: Glen Alpine
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
Property Owner / Authorized Agent: „NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program, Attu* Salam Murt_a_da
Address: 1652 Mail Service Center
Raleip--h. NC 27699-1619
Telephone No.: 919-715-1972
Size and location of property (water body, road name/number, town, ctc.). South Muddy Creek Stream Restoration
Project incorporating approximately 7160 linear feet of South Muddy Creek and South Fork Hoppers Creek on
approximately 27 acres located off Sain Road and Landis Lane southeast of Marion.
Description of projects area and activity: _Enhancement of 1168 linear feet, preservation of 1090 linear feet and
restoration of 4913 linear feet of stream channel. Enhancement of 0.33 acres and restoration of 1.29 acres of
wetland. Work will include channel relocation and resizing, construction of floodplain benches, construction of log
vanes, step pools and riffles, root wad revetments and brush mattresses, reshaping and stabilizing stre_ambanks,
establishment and revegetation of stream buffers, fencing of livestock, plugging/filling of old channels, diversion of
surface flow, regrading and revegetation of wetlands.
Applicable Law: X Section 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1344)
❑ Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 USC 403)
Authorization: Regional General Permit Number:
Nationwide Permit Numbers: 27
Your work is authorized by the above referenced permit provided it is accomplished in strict accordance with the attached
conditions and your submitted plans. Any violation of the attached conditions or deviation from your submitted plans may subject the
permittee to a stop work order, a restoration order and/or appropriate legal action.
This verification will remain valid until the expiration date identified below unless the nationwide authorization is modified,
suspended or revoked. If, prior to the expiration date 'identified below, the nationwide permit authorization is reissued and/or
modified, this verification will remain valid until the expiration date identified below, provided it complies with all requirements of
the modified nationwide permit, if the nationwide permit authorization expires or is suspended, revoked, or is modified, such that the
activity would no longer comply with the terms and conditions of the nationwide permit, activities which have commenced (i.e., are
under construction) or are under contract to commence in reliance upon the nationwide permit, will remain authorized provided the
activity is completed within twelve months of the date of the nationwide permit's expiration, modification or revocation, unless
discretionary authority has been exercised on a case -by -case basis to modify, suspend or revoke the authorization.
Activities subject to Section 404 (as indicated above) may also require an individual Section 401 Water Quality Certification. You
should contact the NC Division of Water Quality (telephone [phone]) to determine Section 401 requirements.
For activities occurring within the twenty coastal counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act (CAM A),
prior to beginning work you must contact the N.C. Division of Coastal Management .
This Department of the Army verification does not relieve the permittec of the responsibility to obtain any other required Federal,
State or local approvals/permits.
If there are any questions regarding this verification, any of the conditions of the Permit, or the Corps of Engineers regulatory
program, please contact Steven Lund at telephone [phone].
Corps Regulatory Official: Steven Lund iS W -,'/— Date: April 30, 2008
Expiration Date of Verification: _April 30, 2010
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support 10 the public. To help us ensure we continue to do so,
please complete the attached customer Satisfaction Survey or visit httpalwww.saw.usace.army.mil/WE'I'LANDS/index.htmi to
complete the survey online.

Determination of Jurisdiction:
❑ Based on preliminary information, there appear to be waters of the US including wetlands within the above described project area.
This preliminary determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process
( Reference 33 CFR Part 331).
❑ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification,
X There are waters of the US and/or wetlands within the above described project area subject to the permit requirements of Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (CWAX33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ The jurisdictional areas within the above described project area have been identified tinder a previous action. Please reference
jurisdictional determination issued . Action ID
Basis of Jurisdictional Determination: South Muddy Creek and South Fork Hoppers Creek are perennial streams (RPWs!
flowine to the Catawba River, a_traditionalh, navieable water 1TNW). Wetlands abut the RI'Ws.
Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations.)
Attached to this verification is an approved jurisdictional determination. If you are not in agrecmteni with that approved jurisdictional
determination, you can make an administrative appeal under 33 CFR 331. Enclosed you will find a Notification of Appeal Process
(NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this determination you must submit a completed RFA
form to the following address;
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division
Attn: Steven W. Lund, Project Manager
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for appeal
under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the District Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP. Should you
decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by 1 /2/2008.
"It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the District Office if you do not object to the determination in this correspondence.'"
Corps Regulatory Official: Steven Lund t ti j
Date April3D 2008
SURVEY PLATS, FIELD SKETCH, WETLAND DELINEATION FORMS, PROJECT PLANS, ETC., MUST BE
ATTACHED TO THE FILE COPY OF THIS FORM, IF REQUIRED OR AVAILABLE.
Copy Fumished: NIA

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. 007-1174 County: McDowell U.S.G.S, Quad: DysartsvaELe
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Property Owner/Agent: BBake Aginfe ina NY. INC.
Address: 2835 DrafldLwlMt Road
Suite 200
30341
Telephone No.:
Property description:
Size (acres) 9.2 Nearest Town Dvsartsville
Nearest Waterway S. HoDgers Creek, aggtli Muday fr. River Basin Catawba
USGS HUC Coordinates N 35.6235 W 81.8604
Location description South Muddy Creek.Rgtoration P SiLc-tc_t
Indicate Which of the Following -Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
Based on preliminary information, there may be wetlands on the above described property. We strongly suggest you have
W this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Army (DA) jurisdiction. To be considered final, a
jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action
under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process ( Reference 33 CFR Part 331).
B. Approved Determination
There art Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law or
our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
X There are waters of the U.S. including wetlands on the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
We strongly suggest you have the wetlands on your property delineated. Due to the size of your property and/or our
present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner. For a more timely
delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any delineation must be verified by the Corps.
X The waters of the U.S. including wetland on your project area have been delineated and the delineation has been
verified by the Corps. We strongly suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be
reviewed and verified by the Corps. Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to
CWA jurisdiction on your property which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be
relied upon for a period not to exceed five years.
_ The wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the Corps
Regulatory Official identified below on . Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
_ There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described property which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.

_ The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Washington, NC, at [phone] to determine
their requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). If you have any questions regarding this
determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Steve Chapin at [phone] x224.
C. Basis For Determination
South Fork Hoppers Creek>South Muddy Creek>Muddy Creek>Catawbs River which is navigable-in-f.%et at Lij,k
Wylie.
D. Remarks
E. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in
R. above)
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site. If you object to this
determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR part 331 Enclosed you will find a
Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this
determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division
Amr:Steve Chapin, Project Manager,
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for
appeal under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the District Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP.
Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by 10 61 .
**It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the District Office if you do not object to the determination in this
correspondence.*
Corps Regulatory Official: s
Date 10116/20.07
Expiration Date 10/16/2012
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we continue to
do so, please complete the attached customer Satisfaction Survey or visit
littp://www.saw.usace,army.mil/WETLANDS/index.htm] to complete the survey online.

March 14, 2007
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Attn: Mr. Steve Chapin
Baker Engineering NY, INC.
2835 Brandywine Road
Suite 200
Atlanta, Georgia 30341
678-459-1010
FAX [phone]
Re: Jurisdictional Wetland Confirmation; South Muddy Creek Restoration Project; McDowell
County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Chapin:
The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) has proposed to restore or enhance
approximately 4,100 linear feet of stream along South Fork Hoppers Creek and its tributaries and restore
another 3,000 linear feet of stream along South Muddy Creek. Both sites are considered to be one project and
are located near Dysartsville, NC. The mitigation will be utilized under the NCEEP program, and Baker
Engineering of NY is under contract to design and permit the project. Attached with this letter is a general
location map with both sites indicated, USGS quadrangle map for each site, a soils map for the South Fork
Hoppers Creek site, a hydrologic features map for the South Fork Hoppers Creek site, two copies of a sealed
survey for the South Fork Hoppers Creek site and the wetland delineation forms.
The two sites are both located in the Catawba River Basin, within North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ) sub -basin 03-08-30 and United States Geologic Survey (USGS) hydrologic unit 03050101040020.
The South Fork Hoppers Creek site is approximately 8.2 acres in size. The latitude and longitude points for
this project taken near the west property line are 35' 34' 36.25471"N and 81° 52' 49.4667"W. The South
Muddy Creek site is approximately 15.5 acres in size. The latitude / longitude points for this project taken
upstream of the Sain Road bridge are 350 37' 33.27558"N and 81° 51' 26.75878"W. One wetland was
identified at the South Fork Hoppers Creek site and no wetlands were identified at the South Muddy Creek
site. At this time, Baker Engineering is requesting a jurisdictional determination within the project study area.
The recent land use for the South Fork Hoppers Creek site has been primarily pasture for cattle and hay
production. A jurisdictional wetland delineation for the project site was conducted on January 30 and 31,
2007. Jurisdictional "Waters of the United States" were identified within the project area in the form of
wetlands and streams. South Fork Hoppers Creek flows through the project site and is labeled a "blue -line"
stream, as shown on the USGS topographic quadrangle. Unnamed Tributary 1 (UTl) which flows into the
site from the south is shown on the USGS quadrangle as an intermittent stream. Unnamed Tributary 2 (UT 2)
is not shown on the USGS quadrangle as a stream, but is shown on the McDowell County Soil survey as a
stream.
Based on field evaluations of intermittent / perennial status, South Fork Hoppers Creek, UT1 and UT2
through the project site are all three considered to be perennial using NCDWQ stream assessment protocols.
The channel that flows from north to south on the eastern edge of the project was assessed and broken into

two sections: the lower intermittent stream and upper ephemeral channel. The dividing line is a severely
eroded headcut located approximately 150 feet upstream from the channel's confluence with South Fork
Hoppers Creek. The existing lengths of South Fork Hopper Creek, UT 1, and UT2 on the project property are
approximately 1300 linear feet, 1700 linear feet and 1100 linear feet, respectively.
One wetland site was identified and flagged within the South Fork Hoppers Creek project study site and is
shown in the attached South Fork hoppers Creek Wetland Location Map. Based on the "Classification of
Wetlands and DeepwaterHabitats of the United States" (Cowardin,1979), the wetland would be classified as
palustrine scrub shrub seasonally flooded wetland. There are approximately 143,454 square feet (0.33 acres)
of jurisdictional wetlands located within the South Fork Hoppers Creek study area.
The recent land use for South Muddy Creek has been primarily hay production. South Muddy Creek flows
through the project site and is labeled as a "blue -line" stream as shown on the USGS topographic quadrangle.
Based on field evaluations of intermittent / perennial status, South Muddy Creek is considered to be perennial
using NCDWQ stream assessment protocols. The existing length of South Muddy Creek on the project
property is approximately 3,000 linear feet. No wetlands were identified within the project boundaries of the
South Muddy Creek project site.
Methodolosy
The proposed project area was reviewed for the presence of wetlands and waters of the United States in
accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 11990, the Clean Water Act, and subsequent federal
regulations. The areas in the project site that displayed one or more wetland characteristics were reviewed to
determine the presence of wetlands. The wetland characteristics included:
1) Prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation;
2) Permanent or periodic inundation or saturation; and
3) Hydric soils.
Following an in -office review of the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) map, Natural Resource Conservation
Service (NRCS) Soil Survey, and United States Geological Survey (USGS) Quadrangle map, a pedestrian
survey of the project area was made to investigate the suspect areas and to delineate all wetlands and waters
of the U. S. The project area was examined utilizing the jurisdictional definition further detailed in the
criteria and methods contained in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental
Laboratory, 1987). Supplementary information to further support wetland determinations was found in the
National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Southeast (Region 2) (Reed, 1988).
The USGS quadrangle indicates that the project study area is primarily located within the floodplain of South
Fork Hoppers Creek. The NWI map shows a riverine system in the form of South Fork Hoppers Creek within
the project study area, but identifies no wetlands within the project study area. According to the Soil Survey
of McDowell County, North Carolina, there are five soil units that lie within the project study area (see
attached Soils Map). Individual soil units within the project study area are described in the table below.

Symbol
Soil Unit Name
Oeiketill QharacteriStiCs
The Iotla series consists of very deep, somewhat poorly-
1oA
lotla sandy loam
drained soils with moderately rapid permeability on
oodplains. They formed in loamy, recent alluvium.
Slopes range from 0 to 3 percent.
e Evard-Cowee complex is composed of very deep, well -
drained, moderately permeable soils on ridges and side
EwE
Evard-Cowee Complex
lopes. They formed in residuum affected by soil creep in
e upper part and weathered from felsic to mafsc, igneous
d high-grade metamorphic rocks. Slopes range from 2 to
5 percent.
e Hayesville-Evard complex (HeD) consists of very deep
ell -drained soils on gently sloping to very steep ridges.
They most commonly formed in residuum weathered from
igneous and high-grade metamorphic rocks such as granite,
HeD
Hayesville-Evard complex
granodiorite, mica gneiss and schist; but in some places
formed from thickly -bedded metagraywacke and
etasandstone. On steeper slopes the upper part of some
edons may have some colluvial influence. Slopes range
om 2 to 60 percent.
c Hayesville series consists of very deep, well drained
oils on gently sloping to very steep ridges and side slopes
f the Southern Appalachian Mountains. They most
HcC2
Hayesville clay loam, 6-
=unonly formed in residuum weathered from igneous and
15% slopes
igh-grade metamorphic rocks such as granite,
�ranodiorite, mica gneiss and schist; but in some places
formed from thickly -bedded metagraywacke and
etasandstone. Sla s range from 2 to 60 percent.
The Hayesville series consists of very deep, well drained
oils on gently sloping to very steep ridges and side slopes
f the Southern Appalachian Mountains. They most
mmonly formed in residuum weathered from igneous and
E IaC
Hayesville Loam, 6-15%
igh-grade metamorphic rocks such as granite,
slopes
nodiorite, mica gneiss and schist; but in some places
ormed from thickly -bedded metagraywacke and
etasandstone. On steeper slopes the upper part of some
dons may have some colluvial influence. Slopes range
om 2 to 60 percent.
Wetland Delineation
On -site surveys of the project area were conducted on January 30 and 31, 2007 to determine the extent of
COE jurisdiction in the project area. One jurisdictional wetland area was identified within the project limits.
This area is shown in the attached hydrologic features map. The wetland data sheets are also attached. The
following paragraph describes COE jurisdictional areas found in the project area.

South Fork Hoppers Creek Wetland #1
Wetland 1 was an emergent scrub shrub toe of slope/floodplain wetland that is located adjacent to South
Fork Hoppers Creek. This wetland was relatively small and has been impacted due to agricultural
activities. Vegetation within this wetland was dominated by herbaceous species with no woody species
identified. Vegetation primarily consisted of soft rush (Juncus effusus) and fescue (Festuca elatior).
Soils were sandy loams and were very dark grayish browns with slight yellowish red mottles in color.
Wetland hydrology indicators included saturation in the wettest portions. This wetland appears to gain
the majority of its hydrology from the adjacent slope.
Wetland Delineation Summary
Based on a review ofpublished information and field investigations Baker Engineering identified and flagged
"Waters of the U.S." in the form of palustrine scrub shrub seasonally flooded wetlands and surface waters
within the project study area. There are three surface water bodies within the project study area. The first
surface water body is named as South Fork Hoppers Creek and flows through the center of the study area_
The other two surface water bodies are unnamed tributaries to South Fork Hoppers Creek. Based on a survey
of the wetland boundary limits, there are approximately 14,354 square feet (0.33 acres) of jurisdictional
wetlands located within the study area.
Baker Engineering is requesting a jurisdictional wetland determination within the project study area. If a
formal JD can not be issued, we would like to be notified informally concerning the status of your review. If
you would like to set up a site visit just drop me a line. After a review of the attached information, please
give me a call at [phone] if you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely, 10
&
W(
Steve Glickauf
Environmental Scientist

DATA FORM WETLAND SITE: SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK W/L 1
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL)
Project Site: South Fork Hoppers Creek Mitigation Plan
Applicant/Owner: Baker Engineering
Investigator: Steve Glickauf Baker Engineering
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No
Is the area a potential Problem Area? (Describe in Remarks)
VEGETATION
Date: January 30-31, 2007
County: McDowell
State: North Carolina
Community ID:
TransectID:
Yes No Plot ID: Hoppers Creek
W/L l
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Occasional Plant _Species Stratum Indicator
1. Juncus effusus Herb FACW+ 9.
2. Festuca elatior Herb FAC- 10.
3. 11.
4. 12.
S. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that arc OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-) 50%
Remarks: Due to grazing and hay production; vegetation within this wetland was extremely limited.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in upper 12 inches
Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetland
Field Observations: Secondary Wetland Hydrology Indicators
(2 or more required)
Depth of Surface Water: none (in.) x Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
_ Water -Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: none (in.) x Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) x Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Soils were distinctly hydric within the wetland area. Hydrology indicators at the time of the survey were limited,
most likely due to weather and impacts from cattle. Areas which may have had standing water at other times of the year
were frozen at the surface.

SOILS
Hoppers Creek W/I. I Cont.
Map Unit Name:
(Series and Phase): lotla sandy loam
Drainage Class: Occasionally flooded
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Aquic Udifluvents
Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors
Mottle Texture, Concretions
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist),
Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-16 Bl 10 YR 4/2 5 YR 4/6
7% Loamy sand
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Concretions
Histosol
High Organic Content in Surface
I istic Epipedon
Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor
_ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
x Aquic Moisture Regime
x Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions
x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Soils are hydric.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Ilydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
1s this sampling point within a wetland? Yes No
Remarks: Wetland is an emergent wetland located adjacent to the South Fork of Hoppers Creek. Soils were distinctly
hydric. Vegetation in places was monoculture soft rush which is most likely due to heavy grazing and hay production.
Approved by HQUSA CE 3192

DATA FORM WETLAND SITE: SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK Upland
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL)
Project Site: South Fork Hoppers Creek Mitigation Plan
Date: Jan. 30-31, 2007
Applicant/Owner: Michael Baker Corporation
County: McDowell
Investigator: Steve Glickauf Michael Baker Corporation
State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No
Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No
Transect ID.
Is the area a potential Problem Area? (Describe in Remarks) Yes No
Plot ID: Hoppers Creel
Upland
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
l . Festuca elatior Herb FAC-
Occasional Plant Sgccies
9.
2.
10.
3.
11.
4.
12.
5.
13.
6.
14.
7.
15.
8.
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-) 0%
Remarks: Upland grazing/hay field.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available
Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water: none (in.)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: none (in.)
Depth to Saturated Soil: none (in.)
Remarks: No wetland hydrology evident.
Stratum Indicator
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
_ Inundated
Saturated in upper 12 inches
T Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetland
Secondary Wetland Hydrology Indicators
(2 or more required)
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
_ Water -Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)

SOILS
Hoppers Creek Upland cant
Map Unit Name:
(Series and Phase): Iotla sandy loam
Drainage Class: Occasionally flooded
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Aquic Udifluvents
Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors
Mottle Texture, Concretions
inches Horizon (Mansell Moist) (Munsell Moist)
Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-8 B 1 10 YR 4/4 5 YR 4/6
5% Loamy sand
8-16 B1 10 YR 4/4 5 YR 4/6
15% Loamy sand
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Concretions
Histosol
^ High Organic Content in Surface
Histic Epipedon
Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor
_ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime
x Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions
x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Although iotla sandy loams are listed as hydric, this
upland data point showed no evidence of hydric soils,
hydrology or wetland vegetation. Area is not a wetland.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
lydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this sampling point within a wetland? Yes No
Remarks: No wetland vegetation, sails or hydrology wcrc present within this data point.
Approved by HQUSA CE 3192

r
r t
x
i_:...D�. _".y v •J 71 a; 177„'!*1:;

z as t
Ffr..F
i; 7
U J�
p.
r ✓ � u +
Legend South Fork Hoppers Creek
Study Area Map
r South Muddy Creek
South Fork Hoppers Creek Project Reaches Stream Restoration Project
McDowell County, NC
ti'�e1niit
�:11
0 250 500 1,000 1,50 Feet A ft
w

I , r1 �1L-'��y
i" Y � f � ��,� �I \ `�'' ,.. n -.� � s, 5 F �,•� r f a wil4 �lLt� �� .
E - F . f - `o r �'�W , , fir, \ \•., x ✓ 4'
d
*Xt
•ry.',,
-�,f/�}�r f �Y-may rav ' ! �� �, r ' "^�' �A •- r1 „ - _ ; y�,4 ! �y � �s s
// I ,� �.�iYt I ,l -t'F� !` �� - ry� � Ill - �°�w..-,..✓ J �'' I"%-{,f'} ~` f~/ 15��/��
x1
`
al AM
!� dr�� ! �• �, I 1 4 • � !1�` `i } 1,,1 ��' r�r� _ I r r rs ``
a . /A.- , 11? - A ''t ,;.-. 1r4'� 'I. '� I� ;y'� ti ,- `4-•-• "I
\•'. ,�,}�; \ II �•� ,�i i' ii •'�,1 �Ff' �� I - � �� � � It`.! p�, �" •�,�'S� /rf �'✓ � ���� � r .•rr
South Muddy Creek
Legend Study Area Map
r~
�■ South Mudd Creek Project Reach South Muddy Creek
Y 1 Stream Restoration Project
s�stem
McDowell Caunty, NC
�
cn�ent
PRoo��M
0 750 t500 3,000 4,500
Feet Al

m
i
cop
�� �Af +aeeaao• .r ..:
r,'����1�ac09rE�.s�'•
If
u
;sue
r—'
II
l
N N�
I���
N
N N.
4$$
T$
IA
N
L
YI YNI
w Q
Q 9=
YNNI
n
"1 t�Il!
+GN
�
ptla
JCI
Il1+G
NOtl�Je
pr(aN�
fsrt�'i
N
00
wo
rj

1 �•� ` M1�S ` t `� � 1
A
Y�
Legend
i South Fork Hoppers Creek Project Reaches
Streamsem
iil a 'eine] it
HOORAH
0 150 300 600 900
Feet
4.�
�I
South Fork Hoppers
Creek Hydrological Features
Wetland 1 South Muddy Creek
Stream Restoration Project
McDowell County, NC
• r

DATA FORM WETLAND SITE: SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK W/L 1
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL)
Project Site: South Fork Hoppers Creek Mitigation Plan
Date: Oct. 26-27, 2004
Applicant/Owner: Michael Baker Corporation
County: McDowell
Investigator: Steve Glickauf Michael Baker Corporation
State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No
Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No
Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? (Describe in Remarks) Yes No
Plot ID: Hoppers Creek
W/L 1
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Juncus e,Jjusus Herb FACW+
Occasional Plant Species
9.
2. Festuca elatior Herb FAC-
10.
3.
11.
4.
12.
5.
13,
6.
14,
7.
15.
8.
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-) 50%
Stratum Indicator
Remarks: Due to grazing and hay production; vegetation within this wetland was extremely limited.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available
Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water: none (in.)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: none (in.)
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in upper 12 inches
Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetland
Secondary Wetland Hydrology Indicators
(2 or more required)
x Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Water -Stained Leaves
x Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
x Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Soils were distinctly hydric within the wetland area. Hydrology indicators at the time of the survey were limited,
most likely due to weather and impacts from cattle. Areas which may have had standing water at other times of the year
were frozen at the surface.

SOILS
Hoppers Creek W/L 1 cunt.
Map Unit Name:
(Series and Phase): Iotla sandy loam
Drainage Class: Occasionally flooded
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Aquic Udifluvents
Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors
Mottle Texture, Concretions
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist)
Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-16 B I 10 YR 4/2 5 YR 4/6
7% Loamy sand
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Concretions
Histosol
_ High Organic Content in Surface
Histic Epipedon
Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor
_ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
x Aquic Moisture Regime
x Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions
x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Soils are hydric.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Is this sampling point within a wetland? Yes No
Remarks: Wetland is an emergent wetland located adjacent to the South Fork of Hoppers Creek. Soils were distinctly
hydric. Vegetation in places was monoculture soft rush which is most likely due to heavy grazing and hay production.
Approved by HQUSA CE 3192

.c1r04'CJ
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream identification Form; Version 3.1
Project: iect:
/0 n
� .moo ��+ 1'1:.,1.i,� Latitude:
Evaluator: F: %�� site: .,. }, NP �p {15?Longltwde:
ant)
Total Points: other
Stream is at toast intermittent q County: G oo we- [ 0.g, Quad !Jame:
if z 19 or ererrnlar if 2:30 r i
A. Geomorphology Subtotal
Absent I
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1". Continuous bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity (d;4el y /5it„ 6J
0
2
3
3. In -channel structure: rifflejopol sequence
0
1
2
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting
0
1
2
5. Activelrelic floodplain
0
1
2
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1M
3
7. Braided channel
0
2
3
8. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
3
9*Natural levees (1tin M.;i kit r, n
1
2
3
10. Headcuts
1
2
3
11 Grade controls
0
0.5
1
1.5
12. Natural valley or drains eway
0
1
13. Second or greater order channel on existing-�
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
Yes 3
Ci 1.turrrnlnrn, rCiihrnral - Jf_ �i 1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge
0
1
2
3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, 1Z
Water in channel -- dry or qroWnR season
0
1
2
16. t-eaflitter
1.5
0.5
0
17. Sediment on plants or debris
0
.5
1.5
1 a. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines)
0
0.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present?
CN6=0=
Yes = 1.5
f : Rihtnhtil rCi iYsrnf�l -- 1S .i� 1
20 . Fibrous roots in channel
3
2
1
0
21 b. Rooted ants in channel
1
0
22, Crayfish
5
1
1.5
23. Bivalves
24. Fish
1
2
3
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Amphibians
0
t
1.5
26. Nfacrobenthos (note diversity and atwndance)
0
0.5
1.5
27. Filamentous al ae; eriph on
M
1
2
3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fun us.
0.5
1
1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed
FAC = 0.5; FACW = . 5: OBL = 1.6 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, item 29 focuses on the presence or aquaw or weuana pants.
Sketch:
1Notes: (use back sidle of this form for additional notes.)
R. i S b 1 AFL\ `7 '�f'r ra �lWv4
iz Qrlcin ALr"

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: � / . { / 0 =f . Project: jr 110 o 441, % sr s Latitude;
Evaluator: .`I_ i, //a, $'te: 1-11.AJ,s F"T,.k Longltude:
Total Points: Other
Stream is at least intermittent 3 County: ! " rn ► r (3 p vJG (j e.g. Quad Name:
it 2 19 or perenniai it a 30
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 1,Y
l _.
1 °. Continuous bed and bank
2. Sinuosity
3, In -channel structure: riffle -pool sequence
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting
5. Active/relic floodplain
6. Depositional bars or benches
7. Braided channel
8. Recent alluvial deposits
9' Natural levees
10. Headcuts
11. Grade controls
12. Natural valley or drainageway
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
�MCA_�`��
IlMiaiM
wq.
Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
R I-Iurirninnu lSirhtnt2l - :t_ C 1
14. Groundwater llowldischar e
0
1
2
IL3.
15. Water in channef and > 48 hrs since rain. Qr
Water in channel -- dry or growing season
9
1
2
16. Leaflitfer
1.5
0.5
0
17. Sediment on plants or debris
0
.5
1
1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles jWrack lines
1
1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present?
No a 0
Yes - 1.5
r`. Rintnnu tfii rhtntal = -0 _ C� 1
20 . Fibrous roots in channel
3
2
1
0
21 Hooted plants in channel
2
1
0
22. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Bivalves
A,
2
3
24. Fish
0
t
1.5
25. Amphibians _ _
0
r66
1
1.5
_
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1.5
27. Filamentous al ae; periph on
0
Itf
3
28. Iron oxidizingbacterialfungus.
0
1.5
2g . Wetland plants in streambed
FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; 0131- - 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
Items 20 and 21 focus on M presence of upland plants, Rem 29 tocuses on ins presence or aquatic or weaana prams.
Skolch:
(dotes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
Site's a&w 4 t-A ` 1
t� q sjf%l 1 n. V Ppt+T �� �rL _y n wo 1-31
S 1

_.o i s 'J 4.".7A j
North Carolina Division of Water Quality -• Stream Identification Forst; Version 3.1
Date: 0
Evaluator: / f, R-
Project: f,,.4k (Yi
Site: i„u•rt�'4 Pet-em
JJS� I tJ/S ,o.n
11 D G 5 0 Latitude:
;:.') (A\ Longitude:
1 QUH FUM15. Other
stream is at least iniermittent County: (� c �� L(
if k 19 or perennial if 2 30 - e g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = d
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1'. Continuous bed and bank
0
1
2
2. Sinuosity
0
1
2
3. In -channel structure: riffle of sequence
0
2
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting
o
1
2
5. Activelrelic floodp lain
0
1
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
3
7. Braided channel
M1
3
8. Recent alluvial deposits
61
3
9° Natural levees - tAe,, - ,r, 4,1
1
2
3
10.1-ieadcuts
1
2
3
11. Grade controls -
0
0.5
1
1.5
12, Natural valley or d inagewdy
0
13. Second or greater order channel on a6isting
tlSGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
Yes = 3
Q LJ.rA-1-m. /C�iF�4n#el Q
14. Groundwater ilow/discharge
0
1
2
15. Water in channel and a 48 hrs since rain, gr
season
Water in channel -- d or growing0
t
2
r'1
03
16. Leaflitter
1.5
1
0.5
0
17. Sediment on plants or debris
0
1
1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines}
0
1
1.5
19. H dric soils redoxirnorphic features) present?
No =
Yes = 1.5
r Rinlnrnr 1Ci�h#nt�l - 'I r, 1
20 . Fibrous roots in channel
3
2
1
0
21 Rooted plants in channel - -T.i At it, .t
3
1
0
22. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Bivalves
i
2
3
2C Fish
0.5
1
1.5
26. Amphibians
0
.5
1
1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
0.5
1
1.
27. Filamentous ae; riphyton
1
2
3
28. Iron oxidizing bacterWfungus.
0.5
1
1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed
FAC 1-0. 5: FACW = 0,75; OBL T 1.5 SAV = 2.0, Other = 0
" Items 20 and 21 foafa on the presence of upland plants, Rem 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or weuwm prams.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
" t"eCk•Gir�. � a G�'.1G• �rf �'�•�11t`I� it+l�}l c, "ir � L�-{ _
A:

Sru:,s
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: / 17 l -7-
Evaluator: _T G 11 41.
Total Points: �,
Stream is at least intermittent j , .�
it it 19 or perennial if z 30
Project:
site: ` r
County:
Latitude:
Longitude:
Other
e g. Quad Name:
A. Geomor holy (Subtotal.
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1°. Continuous bed and bank
0
1
2
2, Sinuosit
0
2
3
3. In -channel structure: riffle -pool sequence
0
2
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting
0
1
2
5- Activelrelic ftoodplain
0
1
3 ,
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
2
3
7. Braided channel
1
2
3
8. Recent alluvial deposits
(2
2
3
90 Natural levees
1
2
3
10. Head cuts
1
2
3
11. Grade controlsa., ., e -ii r
0
0.
1
1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway
0
1
1.5
13, Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or MRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0Yes
-
= 3
Ft Hvelrnlnnv Mihtntai
14. Groundwater flow/discharge
0
1
2
3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season
0
1
2
16. Leaflitter
1.5
1
0.5
0
17. Sediment on plants or debris
0
1
1.5
1 B. Organic debris lines or plies (Wrack lines)
0
1
1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present?
No; ON
Yes - 1.5
r Rininnv tSiihtntsl 1
20 . Fibrous roots in channel
3
2
1
0
210, Rooted plants in channel
2
1
0
22. Crayfish
23. Bivalves
0.5
1
1.5
1
2
3
24. Fish
0
4.5
1
1.5
25. Amphibians
0
1.5
26, M4acrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
0.5
1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton
1
2
3
28. Iron oxidizing bacterialfun us,
0.5
1
1.5
29 . Wetland plants in strearnbed
FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; 08L z 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
..•..i,� r.0 4.�� �. .�.u..0 vi. ..... p..+..v �.�v v. v,.r.v.�.. r...... � w... �............... ...... ... '......... .�.. ......., .,...-� �� �. _.._ � ..__.
Sketch;
Notes; (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
1c.n15 fAO5S ftin irIC'i.. C
A
-)Vf t 4.."Cd, PooJ,g -AAA(. CR,J

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -- Stream Identification form; Version 3.1
Date: / /0 4 project: S,),,,r,, f`+. s �'�� l jo (, fo latitude:
Evaluator: �f,� f Site: ° • 1 longitude:
is
Total Points. Other
Stream isatleastinlermittent County: f'�� Corsi �j e.g. Quad Name'
if z 19 or cerennial it 2 30
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal
Absent
weak
Moderate
Strong
18. Continuous bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2, Sinuosity
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: riffle -pool sequence
0
2
3
4. Soil texture or stream Substrate sorting
0
(1j_
2
3
5. Activelrelic floodplain ,E.� _�. •i
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Braided channel
Obt
_
2
3
8. Recent a)tuvial deposits
0
1
2
3
9 a Natural levees
0
1
2
3
10.I-ieadcuts P. U_$
0
1
2
11. Grade controls
0
0.5
1
.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway
0
0.5
1
1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
11SGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
Nn = 0
Yes = 3
" Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
n u.,rlrr.7r.rE., IC„hfr.Ml _ i 1
14, Groundwater Clow/discharge
15. Water in channel and > 46 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel dry ar growing season
0
1
2
3
0
r; 1
�'�
2
3
_
16. treatlitter
1.5
1
0.5
0
17 Sediment on plants or debris
0.5
1
1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines)
0
0,5
1
1.5
19. Hydric soils redoximorphic features) present?
No - o ,
Yes = 1 5
C. Biology (Subtotal = 63
20n, Fibrous roots in channel
21 Rooted plants in channel
22. Crayfish
23, Bivalves
24. Fish
25. Amphibians
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
27. Ramentous algae; periphyton
28. Iron oxidizing bacierialfungus.
29 . Wetland plants in strearnbed
2
1
0
----
2
1
0
0,5
1
1.5
02
1
2
3
0.5
1
1.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
a.5
1
1.5
0
1
2
3
0
0.5
1
FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0,75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Stern 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
See.0 LA
5

North Carolina Division of Water Ouallty -- Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: f 20 Project: 5OA fork j-},&(s Latitude:
Evaluator: Site:.Use„^S Longitude:
Total Points: f� Other
Stream rs at feast intermittent 9, county: C 1Jmw4-
if k 19 or perennial if a 3o a g. Quad Name:
A. GOOMO!phology Subtotal S. S
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
f" Continuous bed and bank
0
2
3
2. Sinuosity
0
2
3
3. In -channel structure: riffle -pool sequence
Mt
2
3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting $4,..,,
0
2
3
S. Active/relic floodplain
6. Depositional bars or benches
1
2
3
0
1
2
3
7. Braided channel
i
2
3
8. Recent alluvial deposits
1
2
3
9 a Natural levees
1
2
3
10. Headcuts
0
2
3
11 Grade controls
0
0.5
1
1.5
12. N2turat valley or draina2eway
0
0.5
1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
t15GS or NRC$ map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
Yes = 3
R I-hrrirnlnnv lCiihtnt�l � � 1
14, Groundwater flow/diSchar e
0
1
2
3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, pr
Water in channel -- d or growingseason
0
1
2
3
16. Leallitter
1.5
015
0
17. Sediment on plants or debris
0.5
1
1.5
ta. Organic debris lines or piles Wrack lines)
0.5
1
1.5
19.Hi dricsoils redoximor hicfeatures)present?
QNo 0N
Yes= t.5
(`. Rinlnnv Nirhtntal 1 `
20°. Fibrous roots in channel
3
2
i
0
_
21'57 Rooted plants in channel
3
Mi
0
22. Crayfish
1
1.5
23_ Ewvalves
1
2
3
24. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
25. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
26. Niacrobenthos (note diveraHy and abundance)
0
0.5
1
1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton
1
2
3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus.
_
tFAC
0.5
1
1.5�
28 Wetland plants in streambed
= 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 $AV = 2.0; Other : 0
Items 20 and 21 locus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 tocoses on Ins presence of aquaaa or weaana plants.
Sketch:
Notw (use back aide of this form for additional notes.)

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Dais: elf 18/0-- Project: 110651) Latitude;
Evaluator: Z,G /M Site: d" ';J acrrs -��' _ ,:., Longitude:
Total Points: �'} k Other
Stream is at least intermittent �} CgUflty: t l G D D wGt � KI [-
Hz 19 or perennial if_z 30 )3.51 1 e.g. Quad Name;
k Geomorphology (Subtotal = 11.5
Absent Weak I
Moderate
Strong
1a. Continuous bad and bank
0 1
3
2. Sinuosity Vrr,rn{',n �JwE a
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: riffle -pool sequence
0
2
1 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting _
5. Active/relic floodplain
I 0
1
CP
1 3
0
1)
2
3
8. Depositional bars or benches
0 02
2
3
7. Braided channel
0 1
2
3
8. Recent alluvial deposits
9' Natural levees
5 10. Headcuts
421
2
3
02
1
2
3
0
1
3
11 Grade controls
0
0.5
1.5
12. Natural valley ordrainageway
0
OS
1 .5
113. Second or greater order channel on axistin
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
ev€dence.
No = 6
Yes = 3
R Hvctroinov fSuhtotal = 1
14. Groundwater flowidischarge 0
1
2
3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or 0
Water in channel - dry or growing season
1
3
16. Leatiitter 1.5
1
0.5
a
17. Sediment on plants or debris
0.5
1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) jQQ 0.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No =
1 1.5
Yes =1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal = 4. L )
Fibrous roots In channel -
210 Rooted plants in channel
22. Crayfish
23, Bivalves - -
24. Fish
25. Amphibians - -
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton
3
3
0
- 0
0
0
0
M
2
0.5
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
1
1
0
1
0
C17
1.5
2
3
1 1
1.5
1
1.5
1
1.
2
3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus Cw 0.5 1 1.5
29 . Vistiand plants in streatnbed I=AC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; 05L =1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
Hems 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29f_b4MW9 on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
• UCa.f�p�`C Or��tw_"f5 `• rD� }M1•��St �C SC.'. t] �� 'i�C•��FJ+/
I,j4o.. r.w1�.---clefs $V•�";: to►i ..n .n pnr�.s+tif
I l�
• o4,gA a 0.M p,�, Q-'-}
1 lra 1 ! r i t% C-1y`,tk.A4( S
f
•LfB�v`* SVn, �'�cra5. 5a1o6;*na,,A191f pbS:r•.e�

Q
Z
10
ED
@
3
3
in
012.
(2
m
m
>
0
p
3
a
a
7
o
m
rrto
7
7
a)
W
N
m
w
m
a)p
Du
v
m
O
m
K
m
o
a
..
to
7
CD
p
m
m
rV
rJ
N
N
1
N
N
r-7
N
-0
a
Cr
3
O
O
O
O
CO
0
O
0
0
1
n
O
d
3
�_
1
N
N
N
(3�
O
W
W
Z
%
'
01
ay
CD(h
N
0)w
v
1
CD
O
at
3
M
N
C
a
0
a+
m
@
a
N
NO
O
N
D
N
Q
Q
—_
N
O
W
n
(D
N
NO
O
O
m
co
W
CD-O
(O
O
O
w
O
o
m
N
cn
0
0
O
`
GD
O
W
0
N
00
N
n
W
N
W
w
7
O
M
N
W
O_
O
V
M
O
w 0
0
Q7
O
O
O
"
W
N
N
3 nx
nzzgz0
z7
z�zM
In
z
n�i
ki
t.J
CAo�
od
o_o
1
w o
�O�
OHO;
x70.-.0�
m m���o.N
w �_
10
4
0
0
CD
A
A A
(o
y
(p
rj
O
N
N
(�
p
N
N
3
C7
xl
N
Z
3
3
a D
m
or
m
D
y
_
CIDCn
m
-u
n
n
a<
IUDC
a
N
ro
3
n. U1
N
—
p
m
ro
A
N
CO
N
N
N
N
Stream
O
O
O
A
V
(c
LO
O
W
1
to
W
Restoration
0
0w
M
O
O
O
O
C
(O
O
O
O
i
m
w
to
Stream
0
0
90
w
A
I
rj
Enhancement II
O
O
D)
A
of
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
Stream
N
07
c_D
N
0
�+
Preservation
00
O
A
l
O
o
O
O
N
CIO
CD
0"
O
O
4
0
0
0
0
O
o
1
Riparian
0
CD
cc,A
CW7
hi
w
Restoration
0
0
O
O
COD
O
O
Q
O
Riparian
Creation
Riparian
o
0
0
0
y
o
Enhancement
0
o
a
CD
w
0
o
w
w
w
Riparian
Preservation
Nonriparian
Restoration
Nonriparian
Creation
Nonriparian
Enhancement
Nonriparian
Preservation
Coastal Marsh
Restoration
Coastal Marsh
Creation
Coastal Marsh
Enhancement
Coastal Marsh
Preservation
a
m
a
Q
a
m
o'
0
CD
3
17'
A
a
7Q
r9
1