MuddyCreekCloseoutReport_20170701

Muddy Creek (Randolph/Duncan) Properties
DMS ID 737
USACE ACTION ID #SAW-2008-0890
CLOSEOUT REPORT: Stream Mitigation
Project Setting & Classifications
Meeting XY Coordinates:
Lat: 35.6261, Long:-81.8575
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
NCDWR Sub -basin:
03-08-30
Wetland Classification
Riparian
Thermal Regime:
Warm
Trout Water:
N
Project Performers
Source Agency:
DMS
Provider:
Michael Baker Eng. Inc.
Designer:
Michael Baker Eng. Inc.
Monitoring Firm
Michael Baker Eng. Inc.
Channel Remediation
Carolina Environmental
Contracting, Inc.
Plant Remediation
Carolina Environmental
Contracting, Inc.
Approved for transfer
to Stewardship
Yes
Stewards
I NC DEQ
Project Activities and Timeline
Milestone
Month -Year
Restoration Plan Final
Aug-08
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
Oct-13
Monitoring Year-2
Dec-13
Monitoring Year-3
Nov-14
Invasive Treatment
Aug-14
Beaver Dam Removal
Sept-15
Monitoring Year 4
Dec-15
Maintenance; Bank
Repair and Planting
Nov-15
Invasive Treatment
Nov-15
Beaver Dam Removal
Mar-16
Invasive Treatment
Jun-16
Invasive Tr
Aug-16
Moniton g Year 5
Jan-17
Closeout Submissio
Jul-17

DMS Plannine Context:
The Muddy Creek (Randolph/Duncan) Properties 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
Muddy Creek 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 (Hancy), in addition to the six previously mentioned projects.
The project's main stem reach is on South Muddy Creek. South Muddy Creek and its tributaries drain 40 square miles of
forest and agricultural lands in Southeastern McDowell and southwestern Burke counties. It 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 Muddy 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 BMPs.
The goals of the Muddy Creek project are consistent with DMS watershed planning goals. The project restores the channel
to geomorphically stable conditions, which alleviates shear stress and reduces sediment inputs from bank erosion while
improving aquatic habitat. Restored riparian buffers intercept nutrient and sediment inputs from the uplands, and introduce
woody debris to the channel, which also improves instream habitat.
Project Setting and Background Summary
The Muddy Creek (Randolph/Duncan) Properties (Project) was restored by Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker)
through an on -call design and construction services contract with the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
(NCDMS). The Project site is located approximately nine 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 Muddy Creek lies within the Piedmont physiographic province. Its watershed is predominately
forested, supporting some isolated rural residential housing, chicken farms, agricultural lands, nurseries, and several small
rural residential developments. In the early 1960's the McDowell County Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)
constructed a flood control structure within South Muddy Creek approximately three miles upstream from the Project area.
This structure controls flows from approximately 12.4 square miles of the watershed and is located on privately -owned land
that is maintained by the NRCS. The Project has a drainage area of 18.8 square miles at the downstream end. The design
of the Project involved modeling of the flood control structure and is discussed in the approved Restoration Plan (2008).
The land surrounding the Project site has been used predominantly for crop cultivation and limited livestock production.
Impacts from past channelization of the stream have allowed the channel to incise over time and become disconnected from

its floodplain; thereby, promoting excessive shear stress forces on the bed and banks which led to subsequent erosion. The
Project involved the restoration of 2,787 linear feet (LF) of stream along South Muddy Creek at Sain Road using a Rosgen
Priority 2 restoration approach. The Priority 2 channel design approach included the excavation of bankfull benches to
alleviate shear stress on stream banks and to re-establish channel pattern to dissipate flow velocities in meander bends while
creating in -stream habitat with riffle -pool sequences and allowing for the strategic placement of in -stream structures.
Approximately 14.1 acres of associated riparian buffer were restored or enhanced throughout the Project area and a
c nservation easement consisting of 17.1 acres will protect and preserve all stream reaches and riparian buffers in perpetuity.
Beaver activity w ommon theme throughout the five year monitoring period at the South Muddy Creek site, and
ontracted the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to remove beavers and their dams on
multiple occasions. Most of the time, beaver activity throughout the site did not cause any irreparable damage to the
Project's performance and/or stability. However in Monitoring Year 4, a beaver dam that was located just upstream of
cross-section four (X4) diverted high stream flow volumes and velocities into the left bank from approximately Station
28+40 to 28+90 and caused severe lateral erosion within this area. Subsequent to the removal of the beavers and their dam,
APHIS' contract was revised to include monthly monito -and removal of beaver activit thr lc�'>t.
M�7 ¢ o u
A contractor was hired and the bank was repaired November 2015. a repair corxsristed o r constructing the bank,
installing live stakes and transplants, and reseeding isturbed area. oss-section survey of this area in MY5 depicts
a cross -sectional dimension similar to as -built conditions, and it continues to remain stable. Permanent cross -sections and
longitudinal profiles throughout remainder of the site show that there has been little adjustment to stream dimension and
that bed features and grade control structures have remained stable since construction.
Treatment control applications for exotic invasive species have been conducted on multiple occasions throughout Years 2,
3, 4, and 5. These applications have significantly reduced and controlled invasive species densities to individual stems
and/or localized populations in the easement. These species consist primarily of young saplings of Pyrus calleryana
(Bradfor�), Ligustrum sinese (Chinese privet), Pueraria lobate (kudzu) and Rosa multiflora (multi -flora rose).
An existing overhead utility easement and corresponding power line bisect South Muddy Creek just downstream of the Sain
Bridge Crossing. Due to this encroachment across the Project site, a fifty percent (50%) credit reduction has been applied
to 20 linear feet of the Project that lies within the utility easement, This reduction is reflected in the total number of Stream
Mitigation Units (SMUs) outlined in the Asset Table below. A depiction of the utility line and the easement offset is included
in the attached Asset Map.
During the five years of monitoring at this site, we have observed the site becoming more stable. This work 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
Excavate a wide floodplain bench and construct a new
site.
channel with stable dimension and pattern.
Improve and restore hydrologic connections between
Restore channel access the floodplain during bankfull or
creek and floodplain.
larger storm events to increase hydrologic connections and
alleviate erosive shear stresses.
Improve the water quality in the South Muddy 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 creels
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 improve wildlife habitat
Success Criteria
Success Criteria
Measured Parameter
Criteria Met
Stream:
The occurrence of bankfull events
Yes — Between June 2011 and October
Bankf ill Events - Two bankfull events must be
within the monitoring period have
2016, the site experienced at least four
documented at the crest gauge within the 5-year
been documented by the use of
bankfull events, three of which were in
monitoring period. The bankfull events must
crest gauges and photographs. A
separate years, according to
occur in separate years.
crest gauge was installed on the
measurements taken by the installed crest
floodplain at bankfull elevation at
gauge.
Station 22+00. Photographs were
taken to confirm the presence of
debris lines and sediment
deposition on the banks.
Stream:
Four permanent cross -sections
Yes — The surveyed cross -sections show
Cross -sections — There should be little change in
were installed throughout the
that there has been little adjustment to
the as -built cross -sections. If changes do take
entire project area.
overall stream dimension since
place, they will be evaluated to determine if they
construction. Though cross-section four
represent a movement toward a more unstable
Cross -sections were installed at
had previously exhibited evidence of
condition or a movement toward increased
two pool and two riffles upstream
lateral bank erosion in Monitoring Year 4
stability.
of the Sain Rd. crossing.
due to large beaver dam, repair work
conducted in November 2015 has
The cross -sections were surveyed
reestablished the cross -sectional
every monitoring year.
dimension similar to as -built conditions,
and it is remaining stable. Therefore, as
currently indicated in Figure 5, all four
cross -sectional measurements are
geomorphically similar to as -built
conditions and do not indicate any stream
bank or channel stability issues.

Success Criteria
Stream:
Longitudinal Profile and Pattern — Pools should
remain deep with flat water surface slopes, and
riffles should remain steeper and shallower than
the pools. Bed form observations should be
consistent with those observed for channels of the
design stream type as well as other design
information.
Stream:
Channel Substrate — Pebble count information,
combined with evidence provided by changes in
cross -sectional and profile data, will reveal
changes in sediment gradation that occur over
time as the stream adjusts to upstream sediment
loads. Significant changes in sediment gradation
will be evaluated with respect to stream stability
and watershed changes.
Stream:
Photographic Documentation — Lateral and
structure photos were used to evaluate
aggradation or degradation, bank erosion, success
of riparian vegetation, structure function, and
stability and effectiveness of 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:
Vegetation — The interim measure of vegetative
success for the site was the survival of at least
320, three-year old, planted trees per acre at the
end of Year 3 of the monitoring period. The final
vegetative success criterion was the survival of
260, five-year old, planted trees per acre at the
end of Year 5 of the monitoring period.
Measured Parameter
A longitudinal profile was
surveyed for the entire project
length of the Project reach every
monitoring year.
One pebble count survey was
conducted annually at the same
riffle cross-section at X4.
Photographs were taken annually
at 20 reference points along the
project reach. Permanent markers
were established at each photo
reference station to ensure that the
same locations and view
directions were captured each
year.
12 permanent vegetation plots
(1O0 m2) were established across
the project site. Level II CVS
vegetation monitoring was
between spring and the end of fall
each monitoring year. At the end
of the first growing season, during
baseline surveys, species
composition, density, and survival
were evaluated. Yearly data for
each plot were compiled and
compared to evaluate veg plot
Criteria Met
Yes — Longitudinal profiles show that
bed features are stable. The majority of
pools are well maintained with only
minimal downstream migrations
occurring. These adjustments are likely
do the natural movement of sediment
through the system, do not indicate
stability issues. Grade control structures
(constructed riffles, j-hooks, and log
vanes) continue to help maintain the
overall profile desired. Overall, the
longitudinal profile has remained
geomorphically stable throughout the
post -construction five year monitoring
Yes — Visual observations and pebble
count data indicate that riffle material
along cross-section X4 has normalized
and also shows that the channel bed is
maintaining bed form stability. The bed
material is made up of a mix of material.
Yes — Photographic documentation of the
site through Monitoring Year 5
monitoring reflects stable site conditions
on restored channels as well as healthy
stands of herbaceous and woody
vegetation in the riparian corridors.
Yes — Acreage density of total stems per
acre in Monitoring Year 5 ranged from
324 stems per acre to 1052 stems per
acres with an overall average of 553
stems per acre. The site has met the Year
5 vegetative success criteria of 260 trees
per acre. Volunteer species continue to
thrive throughout the veg plots as well.

�
�
°a
o•
coo
a
r
N
VQQ
a
C
�
o
^y
d
�
v
�
O
R
�
o
n
�(•G;
fE
ti
c
v�
B
O
N
m
J
Rr
J
(�
J
�
A
Oro
0.
cr
K
0
O.
N
C CA
w
w
con�
0
cITI
y
Ln
in.
G
ro
F.
N
O•h
ro•
Iv
n r
o
O.
Q-
W.
y m
O
5
O
o
Fcr
.T
N
y
F�
J
UQQ
Cp
�•
�
a
�
00
cra.
n CD E; cn
�
0.Im
c
� p
A
O
n a •*
c�
c. a.
M
w

Z
m
z
'
a
a
•
,
r
d
Ul
--:WON
II
(n
C
O
SD
O
'4
W
p
0
CD
a
ro a
^*
c
p
c
.,,
...
►
00
N
O
m
m
3
3tv
C m
n .t X Ql z
R
CD
. +u
w v 0 T
r O O
W
rr
(CA Z 0 ro

z •
o °y m chi w * - -
r N () m N OD
= m �
°1 � m � m m m
> > < < a a
z rn a— — Ci o 0
m o x x
m or ftl ID r n n
3 m < n °m m m m
3 a 3o
o r m 3 0 0
a C� 3
ro o N -
o cn m
CD C'n
n
sy 'r m ` v C' o
zr m o o
CA
II A M N U7 p
CDP
C cn SD
m p
OD
O
n
-n o _ yy
1
n �
EL
= K
O o m
C CD W
7 N
N
a m N• • t•i v 1w ".4ti'.r�
-
.r
a W +
a ,o
1 S
N
v a) Q
m m
co
00
• ti -
w =
N V
.'rne n
rn ra

� N
Ch
CA
@ ., • ' r,
jf
N
t
0 o 3 3 3 ,.
3 s a cD cD o o o
fL] m < v
3 3 m
s
a N CL vQi N w 0 1 _o
0 {7 O O N Qn 1• /
x CD
z CD
=r
y
O @ A) (D @
.fin. @ (U 0 0�r � J .—. V. A'+
a '+ Y
[7 W d CD �] 0 s r
� s � 0�-. � •rliltz\S _
ten Z o �. ,
o V 4• �,
ra L4 - + � •t1.a 1 .

J
fA
i JElevation
0■ O N A W W
i
O
{
D
iA
(fl
U
C
0�
i
N
:
d
•
7p
•
C
Cn
:
19
:
•
r 3
w
I
0
T
p gG
C
•
Q
O
a
_
V
:
�
:
-n
I
{
'
w
v
3
o
°i
7
A
m
Z{{
Eevatlon
J J
W
A
FF
CA O
•
O
� •
•
'
Li
J
:
y
3
M
NNJ
O
O s J
4b
o
�
� 7
a '
:
p y
X O
7 N
•
=r
l0
C
•
� p
t
— w
o.
a
•
•a
3
`
'
�0
• ♦
7 �
•
•
p
7C
IT
Z
F T {
•
'
g
o w
Ca
A
a
Elevation
1p O
N W A LA M
V 0N7 W
A
G
[h
N
o
N
n
Cn
O
:
0r1
o
.
GI
o
•
y
•
.iJ 1
L
p
0
J
•
'C
bd
1
=
;
cn
W
�
ca
w
i
E(
•
/l
.i
7
N
C�71
=
Q.
w
f
�
:
IG
•
v
C71
'
■
�
.
S
w
•
a
N
o
:
o
A
can
IJ
Elevation
IjP
Tj
J
rn co
J s s J J J
N
A
n
•
01
}
C
•
•.
CS
O
= •
O �
Ol
N
i •
� _
W
t•t
x.
3
a
CL
C_
p
V1
1 •
Y�
•
n
•
V
(Ji
;
r
•
6
�
w
•
a
A
'

ITI
Elevation
Elevation
§
§ § § mOp
CD
)
�
' I
� |
2
/ §
@
�
.
§
c
§
§
§
hi
� |
(
§
�
x
-
2
)
§
F.
x
� §
w
�
=r
~
E
�3
®
�
�g
B06
\
/
■
]
o
®
co
E
k
E
E
2
\
\
j \
o
§ [
q
q §
]
z
2
%
�
a
\
�
■
§
§
7
�

�
y
y
V1
C/)
V7
✓:
c.
"-43N•
7N•
n •
_
N
N
N
e
c
•e
dto
n
�
Mi
aa.
b�
O~Ii
L�1
L
Li
6
R
A
�f9
wCL
�
M
3
rip
000
Gs
r�7
n
NN
a
w
7s' � •s�� P �� ra ^C�y
O•
ro
r n [D
P-
+�^^gip:^^
o o o
m
m
N
N
7
Cn�C>
W
�NtJ
rn
N
~
N
Zko
P
00cTa'D~�pOU[`•)NN
TJ
N
O
N
A
Z
4-
W
W
A
7
v
JO���j01��0—
N
N
Np�AOoZv�i
NWi�W
N
J
�
N
J
�••'
N
�n
-14
W
A
:.j
J
N�^�00NN
N
N
w
A
N
O
A
i,
to
r•
O
r
W
LA
O
uN©r
SOW
JONN
v�
0
tz
8
o
a
od
c
cr
Md
eD
s
O
rt
�+
� j
7
C
S
A
O
N
J
A
00
u
+]
A
N
C
O.
N
r
N
004�-
O
N
O
N
N�ON0�"Av,'A00A
0
N
N
J
W~
N
A'o
N
N^
Ow•,
~
0'
O
tQ
N
A
O
v
N
N
N
�
�• b
A
00
W
�'
y
✓S'
.nr O
C
N
'-'
C
A
C
`"'
�n
•ODD
A
DOJO
�
N
pJp
J d
N
W
C
w
pp
N
p
U
A
to
. H
d
N
O•
N�4,
1-'z00N
so
b
N000*'Zc�i,lrU�NW
N
O
O
�]
�tnv�tn�NN
A
O>
W
00
W
f-
W
C
N
J
�-•
zNt�
��NNN
r-
N'ON
y60IV
tV�rZLA��DO�N�N

w
8
r.
w
vo
c�
W
8
r,
w
c�rr
CD
I
N
O
LA
i
C
r+
N
N
O

i
r.�
i
s
+. h
J+
W
I J
�+
O
tJ
►w+
O
�O
GO
--!
R
u,
�►
W
I J
r
_
+--
`�
_
{•
b
0
+-
�
'J�
MJ
06
d
R
J
B�
I J
�'
'�
1 J
O
N
r1
N
""7
{�w+
pw
+QQn�
1Q�
yip+
+�
R
r �
Q
h
GO
- i
I)
1 4
a
J
O
r �
1+
O
e'�° �
G
�!'
p
GO
O
w
OI
O
v�
r J
O
.fa
CA
O
�+
O
O
i,
CA
O
I.J
40
b
�,
Cob
ipa
O
iQ►�
O�
+ ,
r J
O
ero
P ro
'e' +
o
O
Q
O
i0
G�
O
<D
C?
Cs
.
o
14
.-.
..-.
.r
.+
r
r
IJ
.A
N
Q
�
'-I
{y{{......
4pp+��
pp✓,�+
iQ.
�+
O�
--1
1>•
pyp�
lh
a
00
pw�
LA
C
O
4
Q
00
00
%A
O
Ji
!
O
1 j
C
.!1
O
Goo
N
C
Cpps,,
i/� �
w �
•r1 i q,
Ob
w
P.
-_I
�.�
rJ
-J
00
FJ
O
N
C.
^
.-
+D
tJ
`�
CDtJ
--1
W
.•-
..J
�.
o°
41
n0
+y
CL
� o
ty
}.
R
� J
0O0
0Op0
4+
A
� ^�
3l..�
UJ
R
y.
CA
4,J
p,
4r
y
1 J
lJl
J
p�
VI
oCp
aOOo
C>
oC>
ryy
OOC�
40000
OOOR
I J
►•
�
rib
'J
r1 rr
I%
1.J
�
hJ
V1
IJ
`
�
y
O
J
�OOO~pppr�O
p
p�
p,
Spry
p
104
O
OS
kA
t0
N
N
!y)
i►'
Y
n
n
b
w
r+
■+
w
+r
Ow
N
d
I+J'r
%o
t�+
-1
DvI�
fJ
tit
►-
O+N
"9 A
�ro
ry
- J
o
{{��
b
Cti
00
CT
00
lh
Ilio
�n
S
l
o
00
S
w
S
o
J
{{--
S
Vs
gi
1�
00
i J
a
4+
o
1.
!Qd
S
}�
9
a
F
o
o
o
'o'
'J
I
r
00
...
r+
r
-1
r+
r
r
-J
�-+
W
F+
W
r-a
41
O6
! J
00
1 d
A O
�
r+
h+
►+
I J
...•
�► »
M
O
O
- J
IJ
,gyp+.
��p`
qpp�
iJr
N
- a
N
GO
oo
pp
�' VY
w
v.
IJ
W
N
Ut
N
Ut
tJ
ad
pp
1
t J
1 .+
}.

?�1
�
�
•�
rf��±
Yam.` p �
�en}y
�
�
i
�a'
(�y In1
'�
[p�'
� �
P
�'
can'
�H�
•-I
.-1
.-i
.�i
H
+i
H
H
• 1
H
H
H
'Y �
n v n
•�
14
�.i
IJ
�;
o
o
�i�
ii
y.
;
•a
o.
I1
c
°�
ro p
b �tl
r
ro
n ✓;
oa
1,
}
ti
G
-�
I s
1
In
W
I]
i
�•
1 1
C3
�
1
'21
y
N
0
p
_
ro
IJ
w
ff
.-
<)
U
6
W
H
W
Q
t+
uj
d
I I
M
d
rJ
O
W
W
H-1-
-
l i
r J
Fes+
##
p]li
r4
CD
f�
N
Q
..a
•
-
r•+
f-)
C
W
I-J
W
j.
Y
a
I J
I J
N
r]
I J
J.

DMS Recommendation and Conclusion
DMS recommends the closure of all 2,787 linear feet of the South Muddy Creek Restoration Project and the successful
implementation of 2,777 stream mitigation credits as proposed by Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Monitoring surveys in each of the five years post -construction reveal that the South Muddy Creek Restoration Project is
performing as designed with minimal to no change in any of the major morphological components. Dimension, pattern,
profile parameters suggest that the stream channel has remained stable since construction and after experiencing at least
four documented bank full events. Constructed stream structures remain stable and performing as desired. The Year 5
vegetation monitoring indicated a survivability range of 324 stems per acre to 1052 stems per acres with an overall average
of 553 stems per acre. Therefore, the project site has met the Year 5 vegetative success criteria of 260 trees per acre.
Invasive vegetation treatments throughout the monitoring years have been effective in lowering the densities of the
undesirable vegetation within the project's easement area. Overall, the project continues to perform as desired with little to
no change observed in form and function.
Contingencies
There are no contingency issues identified at this time.
6 Y�3

5
i
i
I
d
C1
api
"C

E.
b
Q
l J
Af
Cq
51
b
l7
W
V
tw
w
0
rn
n
0
R
y
G
A
o'
R
04.
O
4n
n
O
R
P.P.
A
Z.

i
C/1
b
0-0
N
i
5
CA
C
C
a
�i
a
A
s�
Ct'

mo
y�I
V
f
ICI
�R is
r�7
r

Cll

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.amazonaws.com/Aafs-
public/Mitigation%20Services/Document%20Management%20Libra_.rV/Property/Property%20Portfolio/737_Muddycree
k(Randolph-DuncanProperties) PD 2007.pdf
Project Name
County
Grantor Name
Recordation
Info
property Rights
Muddy Creek Randol h Duncan
McDowell
Larry Randolph and Jerry Randolph
DB CRP 969, P
443
f Conservation
]Easement
Pro Lertiesl
IMuddy Creek Randol h Duncan
McDowell
Sherwood C. Tate, Margaret Byrd,
�(Rommulus Duncan) al 1968
DB CRP 979, P
Conservation
Easement
Pro erties
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 1D. SAW-2008-0890 County: McDowell
USGS Quad: Glen Alpine
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
Property Owner / Authorized Agent: NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program, Attn: Salam Murtad_a_
Address: 1652 Mail Service Center
RaleiEh, NC 27699-1619
Telephone No.: 919-715-1972
Size and location of property (water body, road name/number, town, etc.): _ South Muddy Creek Stream Restoration
Protect incorporating agoroximately 7160 linear feet of South Mudd Creek and South Fork Hoppers Creek on
aRproximately 27 acres located off Sain Road and Landis Lane southeast of Marion.
Description of projects area and activity: Enhancement of 1168 linear feet reservation of 1080 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 stabilizine streambanks,
establishment and revepetation of stream buffers, fencing of livestock, plauinfilling of old channels, diversion of
surface flow, regrading and reveeetation 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 (CAMA),
prior to beginning work you must contact the N.C. Division of Coastal Management ,
This Department of the Army verification does not relieve the permittee 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 ,,,4, W -;(—
Expiration Date of Verification: April 30, 2010
Date: April 30, 2008
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 Surveyor visit hgp://www.saw.usace.army.mil/WETLANDS/index.btml 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 (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.
❑ The jurisdictional areas within the above described project area have been identified under a previous action. Please reference
jurisdictional determination issued . Action ID
Basis of Jurisdictional Determination: South Muddy Creek and South Fork Hoppers Creek are erennial streams RPWs
flowine to the Catawba River, a traditionally navigable water TNW, Wetlands abut the RPWs.
Appeals_ Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations.)
Attached to this verification is an approved jurisdictional determination. If you are not in agreement 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
Date April 30, 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 Furnished: N/A

Action ID Number: SAW-2008-0890 County: McDowell
Permittee: NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program, Attn: Salam Murtada
NW 27, South Muddy Creek Stream Restoration
Date Permit Issued: April 30, 2008
Project Manager: Lund
Upon completion of the activity authorized by this permit and any mitigation required by the permit,
sign this certification and return it to the following address:
US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
ASHEVILLE REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
151 PATTON AVENUE, ROOM 208
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28801-5006
Please note that your permitted activity is subject to a compliance inspection by a U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers representative. If you fail to comply with this permit you are subject to permit suspension,
modification, or revocation.
I hereby certify that the work authorized by the above referenced permit has been completed in
accordance with the terms and condition of the said permit, and required mitigation was completed in
accordance with the permit conditions.
Signature of Permittee Date

NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE- APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR API)EAL
_
A licant: NC Ecos tern Enhancement
File Number: 2008- 0890
Date: Apr 30, 008
Attached
is:
See Section below
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of
A
permission)
PROFFERED PERMIT Standard Permit or Letter of ermission
B
PERMIT DENIAL
C
X
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
D
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
E
SECTION I - The following identifies your ri'his and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above
decision. Additional information may be found at http://www,usace.ariny.nnillint/functions/ew/ceewo/rem or
Co s regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request that the
permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section Il of this form and return the form to the district engineer. Your
objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal
the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the
permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify the permit
having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the district engineer
will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you
may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section I] of this form
and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of
this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer
within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or
provide new information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of
this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by
the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.

E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps
regarding the preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved
JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new
information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD.
SECTION I1- RE UEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your
objections to an initial proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to
this form to clarify where your reasons or objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps
memorandum for the record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the
review officer has determined is needed to clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps
may add new information or analyses to the record. However, you may provide additional information to clarify
the location of information that is already in the administrative record.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you
and/or the appeal process you may contact:
may also contact:
Mr. Steven Lund, Project Manager
CESAW-RG-A
US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any
government consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You
will be provided a 15 day notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site
investigations.
Date:
Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.
DIVISION ENGINEER:
Commander
U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic
60 Forsyth Street, Room 9M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3490

0
7
0
3
v
4A
N
v
rD
Cr
r
a
ao
ro
a
a
m
Q
O
V
O
rz
N
O
f+
V
D
z
CuW
3
EEn
v
m
'°
a
a
v
0
7
(CI
3
tsa
rr
ffl
7
(0
N
W
m
a
CA
a
W
ci
3
o)
v
m
3
m
3
w
m
m
A
j
v
m
m
r'
N
N
R
a
CD
n
N
""
%
..
A
3
a
aR
_
�
•"
y
N
�,
7
•
7
Q
N
w
z
::
O
Q
a
N
(3)
D
a=
a
c
n
n
a
'ro
D
a
N
in
n
a
n
L
y
N
n
rn
m
M
r:
y
0
o
D
0
0
CDn
A
=,
C'
0
w
0
O
p
0
O
N
* z
x
�f
z
CL
—'m
ro
Z)0T�
m
a
y
`I
n
o
v
�7
O
m
m
�
N
o
Z
a
D
3
ro
z
C�
rn
N
a]
N
V
N
V
Q
o
A
N
v
v
RestcYatlO
Q
Q
o
Q
OD
c0
O
O
C
O
Stream
Enhancment I
Stream
Enhancement 11
Stream
Preservation
Riparian
Restoration
Riparian
Creation
Riparian
Enhancement
Riparian
Preservation
Nonriparian
Restoration
Nonriparian
Creation
Nonriparian
Enhancement
Nonriparian
Preservation
Coastal Marsh
Restoration
Coastal Marsh
Creation
Coastal Marsh
Enhancement
Coastal Marsh
Preservation
0;avr.a
a
m•A ao r6
rfl
3
2 o
rL
rt
r
rD
rL
^1
A
a
3
R
2.
a
n
3
� n
m a
Q
O
n
CUP ro
0
y