20071764 Ver 1_Closeout Report_20140930

North Muddy Creek Restoration
EEP Project # 92611
FDP CONTRACT NUMBER D06115 -A
USACE ACTION ID # SAW- 2007 - 03380 -359
DWQ 401 # 07 -1764
2014 CLOSEOUT REPORT
PROJECT TYPE: Stream & Wetland
IRT Meeting Location Coordinate: 35.696689, - 81.860779
Table la. Project
Attributes
Project County
McDowell / Burke
General Location
Marion
Physiographic Region
Piedmont
Ecoregion
Northern Inner
Planting Completed
Piedmont
Project River Basin
Catawba
USGS HUC for Project
3050101040020
(14 digit)
Dec -09
NCDWQ Sub -Basin for
03 -08 -30
Project
Feb -10
WRC Class (Warm,
Warm
Cool, Cold)
Trout Waters
N/A
Designation
Jun/Jul -11
Project Performers
Source Agency
Ecosystem
Enhancement Program
Provider
Environmental Banc &
Exchange, LLC
Designer
Kimley -Horn and
Associates, Inc.
Dec -13
Equinox Environmental
Monitoring Firm
Consultation and
Design, Inc.
Channel Remediation
RFG Construction Inc.
Plant Remediation
Superior Wildlife
Services
Property Interest Holder
State of North Carolina
Table lb. Project History
Completion
Activity or Deliverable
or Deliver
Sep -07
Restoration Plan
Sep -08
Construction Completed
Dec -08
Planting Completed
Mar -09
Supplemental Planting
Apr -09
Mitigation Plan / As -Built
Report
Dec -09
Year 1 Annual Monitoring
Report
Feb -10
UT6 Repairs Completed
Dec -10
Year 2 Annual Monitoring
Report
Apr -11
Supplemental Planting
Jun/Jul -11
Exotic Invasive Plant Control
Dec -11
Year 3 Annual Monitoring
Report
Jan/Jul -12
Supplemental Planting &
Exotic Invasive Plant Control
Dec -12
Year 4 Annual Monitoring
Report
Dec -13
Year 5 Annual Monitoring
Report

Protect Setting and Background Summary
The North Muddy Creek project consists of five separate stream reaches (all unnamed tributaries) and three wetland areas, with all but one of the project reaches /areas located within Hydrologic Unit (HU)
0.050101040020, the South Muddy Creek watershed. {The UT2 preservation reach is located within HU 0.050101040010, the North Muddy Creek watershed.} Both Hus are listed as Targeted Local Watersheds
(TLWs) in EEP's 2009 Upper Catawba River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) plan and both fall within the Muddy Creek Local Watershed Plan (LWP) area. For additional information on local watershed
characteristics, including key watershed stressors and planning goals, see Appendix A.
The mitigation site consists of five distinct streams totaling 7,960 linear feet and three adjacent wetland areas encompassing 20.2 acres. The five distinct unnamed tributaries (UT) are identified as UT1, UT2,
UT4, UT5, and UT6 (Figure 1). UT is located just north of Interstate 40 on the McDowell /Burke County line, whereas UT2, UT4, UT5, and UT6 are located south of Interstate at the same location. UT drains
to Muddy Creek, UT2 drains to North Muddy, and the remaining streams drain to South Muddy Creek. All five reaches drain watersheds consisting of predominately forested and agricultural land. On -site
topography, soils, and existing wetlands demonstrated that the site historically supported wetlands (Figure 3 -4). The site is defined by conservation easements surrounding the streams and adjacent riparian buffers
that total approximately 34.8 acres.
Prior to restoration UT1 and adjacent wetlands were highly disturbed due to livestock encroachment, channelization, and ditching. The lower reach of UT5 had been channelized and portions of the riparian
wetland had been impaired due to row cropping. Channelization, ditching, and riparian disturbances associated with historical agricultural practices also had severely degraded UT6 and the associated wetlands.
Channel restoration (improved pattern, dimension, and longitudinal profile) was completed on UT1, UT6, and the lower portion of UT5 (Figure 1). Stream enhancement activities (improved dimension and
longitudinal profile) were limited to the middle reach of UT5. The headwater reaches of UT2, UT4, and UT5 were protected under preservation criteria.
Over the five -year monitoring period of the North Muddy Creek Restoration Site adaptive management involving stream repair and supplemental planting, beaver dam removal, and invasive species control were
performed. Activities related to these issues are outlined below:
• During MY1, high flows damaged structures on the downstream end of UT6, near the confluence of South Muddy. Repairs on this section were completed during early MY2.
• A comprehensive inventory of invasive exotic plants occurring within the easement was performed in 2010. Initial treatments occurred in the summer and fall of 2011 with follow -up treatments
occurring in 2012 and final treatments ending in late fall of 2013. Populations of privet (Ligustrum sinense), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and kudzu
(Pueraria montana var. lobata) were found in the easement.
• A beaver dam was documented at the downstream end of UT6, shortly before the confluence with South Muddy, during the fall of MY5 and removed shortly thereafter.
• Several areas of misaligned fencing were identified during 2013. These areas were delineated in the field and relocated corresponding with the easement boundary.
• Due to frost heave occurring shortly after the initial planting supplemental planting was required in and around the wetlands located along UT6. As a preventative measure supplemental planting was also
undertaken in and around the wetlands of UT 1 at the same time. Supplemental planting was undertaken on UT6 with 3 gallon containerized stock and whips in 2011 with species more tolerant of the
saturated conditions present in the wetlands. A final supplemental plating on UT6 occurred in the spring of 2012 with 3 containerized stock in and around VP4.
Page 2 of 36

Goals and Obiectives
The goals of the restoration project are to improve water quality, function, and habitat by:
• Removing excess nutrients and sediment through the use of vegetative buffers
• Increasing dissolved oxygen concentrations through the use of in- stream structures and the turbulence they produce in pools
• Stabilizing the stream bank using natural channel design techniques
• Improving substrate through the use of structures and the elimination of major sediment sources from the stream
• Creating habitat diversity by introducing woody structures such as log vanes and/or root wads
• Reducing temperature by restoring canopy in the buffer areas
• Reconnecting streams to their adjacent floodplains and wetlands
• Raising groundwater levels in adjacent streams by raising adjacent channel bed elevation
• Removing/plugging ditches used to drain historic wetlands
• Creating micro- topography by regrading and ripping wetlands
• Breaking up historically compacted soils by cattle to allow the groundwater to come to the surface and wetland vegetation to flourish
• Improving crossings by replacing pipes and/or stabilizing outfalls
• Controlling the invasive exotics by removing them during construction
• Preserving stable on -site streams, wetlands, and riparian buffers draining into the enhancement/restoration reaches
• Excluding livestock through fencing
• Re- vegetating the stream banks, wetlands, and riparian area to improve bio- diversity and ecology
Success Criteria
• Stream- Stream geometry will be considered successful if the cross - section geometry, profile, and sinuosity are stable or reach a dynamic equilibrium. While the channels may not adhere to the design or
reference ratios of stream geometry, the streams will be considered stable if the following key indicators are present:
• Stream Type: Maintenance of the design stream type or progression toward or conversion to a stable stream type such as B, C, or E will indicate stability.
• Bank Height Ratio: Bank height ratio between 1.0 and 1.2 will indicate that flood flows have access to the active floodplain and that higher flows do not apply excessive stresses to stream banks.
• Stream Hydrology- A minimum of two bankfull events, occurring in separate monitoring years, is required during the 5 -year monitoring period.
• Riparian Buffer and Wetlands Vegetation- Success of riparian and wetland vegetation planting will be gauged by stem counts of planted species. Vegetation will be considered successful with the survival
of 260 planted stems per acre at the end of MY5.
• Wetland Hydrology- Success will be based on comparison of monitoring gauge data from restoration sites to that of enhancement sites. Enhancement areas, prior to construction, exhibited appropriate
groundwater hydrology to be considered jurisdictional by the USACE; however, lacked wetland vegetation. Additionally, hydrologic success will be based on a 7% hydroperiod during the growing season
(4/28 - 11/4).
• The Site is meeting success criteria for channel stability, wetland hydrology, and vegetative survival as outlined in the original mitigation plan. EEP recommends submitting the project for regulatory
closure.
Page 3 of 36

Table 2. Project Mitigation Structure and Objectives
Reach
Name
Pre-
Construction
(acreage/linear
feet)
Mitigation
Approach
Watershed
Acreage
As -Built Linear
Footage /Acreage
Mitigation
Ratio
Mitigation
Units
(SMU/WMU)
Stream
2.6
16.4
-
-
UT1
2,257
R
129.9
2,257
1
2,257
UT2
1,172
P
33.5
1,172
5
234
UT4
1,421
P
6.6
1,421
5
284
UT5
556
R
68.8
550
1
550
UT5
673
EI
45.8
337
1.5
225
UT5
EII
30.6
336
2.5
134
UT5
720
P
1 55.9
720
1 5
144
UT6
882
R
163.5
1,167
1
1,167
Total
4,996
Wetland
UT1
6.1
R
-
3.3
1
3
UTl
E
-
3
2
2
UT1
P
-
0.3
5
0.1
UT5
2.0
E
-
0.7
2
0.4
UT5
P
-
2.2
5
0.4
UT6
10.7
R
-
10.7
1
11
Total
16.4
Table 3. Project Mitigation Unit Totals
Stream Mitigation Units
(SMU)
Riparian Wetland
Units
Non - Riparian Wetland
Units
Total Wetland Units
(WMU)
Riparian
Buffer
Nutrient
Offset
4,996
13.8
2.6
16.4
-
-
Page 4 of 36

Figure 1. Project Assets for the North Muddy Creek Restoration Site
UTI- Stream
1
UT1- Wetland
r
•'F
L
r -
�\.
A� vv
4
/
I--.
Legend
Conservation Easement
Stream
y Restoration
y Enhancement I
� Enhancement II
Preservation
`'Vetalud
Restoration Riparian
Restoration Non- Riparian
Enhancement
_ .y Preservation
North Muddy Creek NC OneMap 2010 Areial Photo
UT1 Assets 0 100 Sao 4OD
Feet
Burke and McDowell Counties, NC
Page 5 of 36

Figure 1 cont'd. Project Assets for the North Muddy Creek Restoration Site
North Muddy Creek
UT-2, 4 & S Assets
Burke and McDowell Com ies, NC
Page 6 of 36
NC OneMap 2010 Areial Photo
D 10D 200 400 GOO Boo
z Feet

Figure 1 cont'd. Project Assets for the North Muddy Creek Restoration Site
North Muddy Creek NC OneMap 2010Areial Photo
UT-6 Assets �Z �� 20Feet
Burke and McDowell Counties, NC
Page 7 of 36

Figure 2. Monitoring Features for the North Muddy Creek Restoration Site
Legend
Photo Point
Wetland Gauge
Cross Section
Longitudinal Profile
Stream
Vegetation Plot
North Muddy_Wetland Assets
Boundary
UT1- Wetland
-�
04U7
UTI- Stream
a
f
XS -2
UTl -Upper
T1 -i
,i-an
L-T1 -Lo-i ,n
North Muddy Creek NC OneMap 2010 Areial Photo
UT 1 Monitoring Features icu 200 4DO
Feet
Burke and McDowell aunties, NC
Page 8 of 36

Figure 2 cont'd. Monitoring Features for the North Muddy Creek Restoration Site
i
1 � a
UT -4 Stream
Legend
'r t Photo Point
,.. F LI
Stream
Easement Boundary x
- .�► ric one 7a
North Muddy Creek NC OneMap 2010 Areial Photo
UT -2 & UT -4 Monitoring Features z o ,flo 200 40 Feet Burke and McDowell Counties, NC
Page 9 of 36

Figure 2 cont'd. Monitoring Features for the North Muddy Creek Restoration Site
`' l•� _ UT -5 Stream' n
r
Af
xs-i
.. x5 -2
I UT5 -2
~ UT5 -1 �.
x�+4�•J *r � u. 1 4 �� � f� i� A��R M ��� �F
4 UT -5 Wetland
At
IL
M
Legend
Photo Point
Wetland Gauge
Cross Section
00*%*/ Longitudinal Profile
j Vegetation Plot
Stream
Easement Boundary
f, Wetland
North Muddy Creek NC ©neMap 2010 Areial Photo
UT-5 Monitoring Features toff 200
Feet
Burke and McDowell Counties, NC
Page 10 of 36

Figure 2 cont'd. Monitoring Features for the North Muddy Creek Restoration Site
xS -1—
�UT6 -1 '4�
�UT6 -3
wUT6 -_
xS
UT6- Stream
s
UT�lcl
Legend
Photo Point
[� Wetland Gauge
Cross Section
Om\i Longitudinal Profile
Stream
® Vegetation Plot
Boundary
Wetland
North Muddy Creek NC OneMap 2010Areial Photo
UT-6 Monitoring Features z 0 100 ZO Feet
Burke and McDowell Counties, NC
Page 11 of 36

Figure 3. Topographic Features in the Vicinity of the North Muddy Creek Restoration Site
D
UT2
ydd Cr �+
O�
tell
'�►��— ,/ J
low
�� ■ tit • `� _� �i'!
r-
� UT 1
UT4
-�
X43
♦ e
�r
JJ
(North Muddy Creek
Topographic
Burke & McDoure- _
UT5
fit' ., ,
I UT6 L
Iwo
V—�f
Geograph cSocieN i -cubed
Stream (✓Easement
N 0 500 1.000 27000
Fezt
Topographic Data Source:National Geographic
Society; USA Topo Maps
Page 12 of 36

Figure 4. Soil Series in the Vicinity of the North Muddy Creek Restoration Site
HcC':
HeD
c :a
HaC
s
BrD2
] Iza C
%IcD
HeD lUT1 �.
i�
BrE
�i
■
to
,i
UT4
EWE
FaC:
F-,D:
FaC:
\I v. C
A
FaD:
HcC2 / PhF Fa('-'
HeD; Boa
� ► FaD:
ri
i+
HeD
EWE
r
Or
FaC
2 RHE
f: ~rr
V HaC
EWE , �
■ Ic.?
UT6
IoA It-
HeD
FIeC''
H ED
HeD --
rr
North Muddy Creek
Proj ect Area S oils
Burke & McDowell Counties, IBC
it Series
AaA - Arkaqua loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
BoB - Biltmore loamy sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes
BrB2 - Braddock clay loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes
BrD2 - Braddock clay loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes
CoA - Colvard loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
EwE - Evard -Cowee complex, 25 to 60 percent slopes
FaC2 - Fairview sandy clay loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
FaD2 - Fairview sandy clay loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes
HaC - Hayesville loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes
N -- Stream l�Easement OHydric Soil
0 500 1;000 2,000
Feet
Soil Data Source: MRCS Web Soil Survey 2014
HcC2 - Hayesville clay loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes
HeD - Hayesville - Evard complex, 15 to 25 percent slopes
IoA - Iotla sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
MeD - Meadowfield- Fairview complex, 15 to 25 percent slopes
MoE - Meadowfield- Rhodhiss complex, 25 to 60 percent slopes
MwC - Meadow field - Woolwine complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes
RhE - Rhodhiss sandy loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes
UnC - Unison fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
W - Water
Page 13 of 36

Figure 5 . Current Condition Plan View for the North Muddy Creek Restoration Site
North Muddy Creek NC flneMap 2010 Areial Photo
UT-1 Remediation Map Z 0 100 200 40Feet
Burke and McDowell Counties, NC
Page 14 of 36

Figure 5 cont'd . Current Condition Plan View for the North Muddy Creek Restoration Site
,..
,may
"'i' UT -4 Stream
�1
Legend
­41#,/ Stream
Treated Exotic - Invasive Vegetation
,r
Eas em ent B oun dary
y
':[-etland
North Muddy Creek NC OneMap 2010 Areial Photo
UT-4 & UT-5 Remediation Map Z ° , °° 200 40Feet
Burke and McDowell Counties, NC
Page 15 of 36

Figure 5 cont'd . Current Condition Plan View for the North Muddy Creek Restoration Site
UT -5 Stream
f
s
?4
N
4
� R
AL
_ e
Legend
0-\I Stream
T ® Treated Exotic - Invasive Vegetation
Easement Boundary
Wetland
North Muddy Creek NC OneMap 2010 Areial Photo
UT-5 Remediation Map zoo
Feet
Burke and McDowell Counties, NC
Page 16 of 36

Figure 5 cont'd . Current Condition Plan View for the North Muddy Creek Restoration Site
North Muddy Creek NC OneMap 2010 Areial Photo
UT-6 Monitoring Features z 0 IOU 200
Burke and McDowell Counties, NC mmmmmmmmmmK=== Feet
Page 17 of 36

Figure 6. Cross - Section Overlays; MYO -MY5
North Muddy UT1- Upper
Cross - Section 1 -Pool
1106
1104
1102
e
r 1100
W
1098
1096
1094
0+00 0 +10 0 +20 0 +30 0+40
Station (feet)
_MYO —MY] —MY2 —'—MY3 —MY4 —MY5 - -- Bkf
North Muddy UTl -Upper
Cross - Section 2 - Riffle
1106
1104
1102
° 1100
w
1098
1096
1094
0 +00 0 +10 0 +20 0 +30 0+40
Station (feet)
_MYO —MY1 —MY2 —MY3 —MY4 —MY5 - -- Bkf
Page 18 of 36
1078
G 1076
W
1074
1072 4—
0+00
1080
1078
•a°
1076
w
1074
IIIJE
North Muddy UTl - Lower
Cross - Section 1 - Riffle
0 +10 0 +20 0 +30 0+40 0+90
Station (feet)
—MYO - -MY1 —MY2 TMY3 —MY4 —MY5
North Muddy UTl - Lower
Cross - Section 2 - Pool
0+00 0 +10 0 +20 0 +30 0+40 0+50
Station (feet)
___0 _MY1 —MY2 —MY3 —MY4 —MY5 - -- Bkf

1088
1086
1084
0
w 1082
1080
1078
0+00
Figure 6. Cross - Section Overlays; MYO -MY5
North Muddy UT5
Cross - Section 1 -Pool
1088
1086
C 1084
O
w 1082
1080
1078
0 +10 0 +20 0 +30 0+40 0+50 0+60
Station (feet)
MY0 T MYl -MY2 - MY3 -MY4 - MY5 - -- Bkf
North Muddy UT5
Cross-Section 2 - Riffle
0+00 0 +10 0 +20 0 +30 0+40 0+50 0+60
Station (feet)
_MYO TMYI -MY2 TMY3 -MY4 -MYS
Page 19 of 36
North Muddy UT6
Cross - Section 2 - Pool
1090
1088
C 1086
0
t
> l
W 1084
l
1082
1080
0+00 0+10 0 +20 0 +30 0+40 0+50 0+60 0 +70 0 +80
Station (feet)
FMYO TMYl -MY2 -MY3 -MY4 -MY5 - -- Bkf
North Muddy UT6
Cross - Section 3 - Riffle
1090
1088
^ 1086
G
•a°
W 1084
1082
1080
0+00 0 +10 0 +20 0 +30 0+40 0+50 0+60 0 +70 0 +80
Station (feet)
_MYO -MYI -MY2 TMY3 -MY4 -MYS - - - Bkf

Figure 7. North Muddy Creek Longitudinal Profile- UT1 Upper
North Muddy Creek UT1 -Upper
Longitudinal Profile
1108
1107
1106
1105
1104
1103
1102
1101
1100
1099
1098
1097
1096
1095
1094
1093
1092
JQO
!moo
!oJ J�f !or !p2
!off
Jo3
!9
Station (feet)
�etY011 /19/08
6/18109 N-10 2/23/11 MV6-12 — MY32/20113 • Bkf -----
- - - -WS o SbvROrce
Lt. —(Bkl)
Figure 7 cont'd. North Muddy Creek Longitudinal Profile- UT1 -Lower
North Muddy Creek UTl -Lower
Longitudinal Profile
1090
1089
1088
1087
1086
1085
1084
1083
1082
w
1081--
0 1080
d
1079
1078
1077
...........................
•
1076
..........._ .............
..
1075
1074
1073
1072
XS1 -R X52 -P
1071
1070
Station (feet)
—MY011/19/08 —MYl 6 /18/09 — MY23/19/10 MY32/23/11 —MY428/12 — MY52/20/13 • Bkf """"'WS 0 Structures — Li .... (nw
Page 20 of 36

c
W
Figure 7 cont'd. North Muddy Creek Longitudinal Profile- UT5
North Muddy Creek UT5
Longitudinal Profile
087
Jri: J�p
S'ZJ
JrG J�J
c0J c�c ccj
GAB G�.D c!O
086
Station (feet)
Li— (Bkf)
— MYO 11/18/08 MY1 6/16/09 — MY2 3/16/10
— MY3 2/24/11 — MY4 2/7112 — MY5 3/7/13
• Bkf -'------'WS o Structures
085
084
— MY24/21/10
J— MY32/24/11
— MY42/1/12 — MY52/22/13 • Bkf --'------WS
o Structures Linear (Bkf)
083
082
-.
081
080
+ +
079
X51 -P X52 -R
078
077
076
075
074
073
072
1095
1094
1093
1092
1091
1090
1089
1088
1087
a 1086
e 1085
1084
�7
1083
1082
1081
1080
1079
1078
1077
1076
1075
Jf0 ��l Jrd
Jri: J�p
S'ZJ
JrG J�J
c0J c�c ccj
GAB G�.D c!O
Station (feet)
Li— (Bkf)
— MYO 11/18/08 MY1 6/16/09 — MY2 3/16/10
— MY3 2/24/11 — MY4 2/7112 — MY5 3/7/13
• Bkf -'------'WS o Structures
Figure 7 cont'd. North Muddy Creek Longitudinal Profile- UT6
North Muddy Creek UT6
Longitudinal Profile
cpO col
c��
c03
ccy
c0J c�c ccj
GAB G�.D c!O
Station (feet)
— MY0108/08
—MYl 6 /16809
— MY24/21/10
J— MY32/24/11
— MY42/1/12 — MY52/22/13 • Bkf --'------WS
o Structures Linear (Bkf)
Page 21 of 36
6r

Table 4. Cross - Section Dimensional Summary
Unnamed Tributary 1 - Upper Reach
Parameter
Cross Section 1
Pool
Cross Section 2
Riffle
Dimension
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
BF Width ft
9.2
9.3
9.5
9.6
9.2
8.5
6.0
5.8
5.8
5.6
5.8
5.6
Flood prone Width ft
23.4
24.1
23.7
23.8
23.8
23.8
21.0
21.5
20.5
20.3
20.6
20.0
BKF Cross - Section Area (ft
9.0
8.7
8.8
9.0
8.7
8.6
4.2
4.2
3.9
3.5
3.6
3.4
BF Mean Depth ft
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
BF Max Depth ft
2.0
1.7
1.9
1.9
1.7
1.8
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
Width/Depth Ratio
9.3
9.9
10.3
10.3
9.9
8.4
8.6
8.0
8.5
8.9
9.3
9.1
Entrenchment Ratio
2.5
2.6
2.5
2.5
2.6
>2.8
3.5
3.7
3.6
3.6
3.5
3.6
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
10.3
10.2
10.5
10.8
10.2
9.5
6.6
6.4
6.3
6.1
6.3
6.0
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
Low Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1 1.0
1 1.0
1 1.0
1 1.0
1.0
1 1.0
1 1.0
1 1.0
1 1.0
1.0
Unnamed Tributary 1- Lower Reach
Parameter
Cross Section 1
Riffle
Cross Section 2
Pool
Dimension
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
BF Width (ft)
5.5
6.2
6.4
6.5
6.0
5.7
15.7
15.0
16.7
17.2
17.3
16.9
Flood prone Width (ft)
>50.0
>50.0
>50.0
>50.0
>50.0
>50.0
>50.0
>50.0
>50.0
>50.0
>50.0
>50.0
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft)
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.0
3.0
2.7
13.2
13.2
13.3
12.9
13.0
13.5
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
2.2
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.9
2.2
Width/Depth Ratio
9.9
12.2
12.9
14.3
12.0
11.8
18.7
17.0
21.0
22.8
23.0
21.2
Entrenchment Ratio
>9.0
>8.1
>7.9
>7.6
>8.3
>8.8
>3.2
>3.3
>3.0
>2.9
>2.9
>3.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
5.9
6.6
6.7
6.9
6.3
6.0
16.6
15.9
17.6
18.0
18.0
17.8
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.8
Low Bank Hei ht Ratio
1_10_1_1.0
1 1.0
1 1.0
1 1.0
1 1.0-1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Unnamed Tributary 5
Parameter
Cross Section 1
Pool
Cross Section 2
Riffle
Dimension
Base
MY1
MY
MY3
MY4
MY5
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
BF Width (ft)
15.4
15.7
15.6
15.9
15.8
15.4
7.2
7.2
7.6
8.5
8.2
7.3
Floodprone Width (ft)
>50.0
>50.0
>50.0
>50.0
>50.0
>50.0
>60.0
>60.0
>60.0
>60.0
>60.0
>60.0
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft)
13.4
13.1
11.2
11.8
11.8
10.9
5.4
5.0
5.0
5.1
5.1
5.0
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.7
BF Max Depth (ft)
2.1
2.1
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.3
Width/Depth Ratio
17.6
18.8
21.7
21.4
21.2
21.8
9.7
10.3
11.6
14.0
13.3
10.7
Entrenchment Ratio
>3.3
>3.2
>3.2
>3.1
>3.2
>3.2
>8.3
>8.4
>7.9
>7.1
>7.3
>8.2
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
16.2
16.5
16.3
16.6
16.7
16.3
7.6
7.6
8.1
8.9
8.6
7.7
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
Low Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1 1.0
1.0
1 1.0
1.0
1 1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Page 22 of 36

Table 4 cont'd. Cross - Section Dimensional Summary
Unnamed Tributary 6
UT 1
(ft above bkf)
Cross Section 1
Riffle
Cross Section 2
Pool
Cross Section 3
Riffle
Dimension
0.00
0.05
January 2010
>4.00
3.50
�n
N
>4.00
N
M
7
N
N
M
V"5
BF Width (ft)
9.3
9.8
9.8
10.5
10.6
9.5
17.6
17.6
17.3
17.9
17.6
17.4
11.6
11.1
11.7
11.2
11.1
11.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
BF Cross Sectional Area(ft2)
6.5
6.1
6.3
6.3
6.6
6.3
20.9
19.5
18.8
17.8
17.5
17.9
5.6
9.2
9.0
8.9
8.8
8.3
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.2
1.2
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.4
3.0
2.5
2.4
2.2
2.2
2.4
1.4
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.8
1.7
Width/Depth Ratio
13.3
15.9
15.3
17.3
16.9
14.1
14.8
15.9
15.9
18.1
17.7
16.9
15.7
13.5
15.1
14.1
14.0
15.8
Entrenchment Ratio
>10.7
>10.2
>10.2
>9.6
>9.5
>10.6
>5.7
>5.7
>5.8
>5.6
>5.7
>5.7
>8.6
>9.0
>8.6
>8.9
>9.0
>8.7
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
9.7
10.3
10.4
11.1
11.2
10.2
19.0
18.8
18.5
19.1
19.1
18.7
12.1
11.6
12.2
11.8
11.8
12.4
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
1.1
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.7
Low Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Table 5. Crest Gauge Data Recorded on the North Muddy Restoration Site
Month/Year Recorded
UT 1
(ft above bkf)
UT5
(ft above bkf)
UT6
(ft above bkf)
May 2009
0.00
0.00
0.05
January 2010
>4.00
3.50
>4.00
May (13) 2013
>4.00
>4.00
>4.00
Page 23 of 36

Table 6. Planting Totals by Species and Zone on the North Muddy Creek Restoration Site
Planting Zone
Zone 1:
Stream
Bank
Zone 2:
Riparian/
Bankfull
Bench
Zone 2:
Riparian/
Bankfull
Bench
Zone 3:
Transitional
Zone 4:
Wettand
Zone 5:
Supplemental
Community
Piedmont/
Mountain
Levee
Forest
Piedmont/
Mountain
Forest
Piedmont/
Mountain
Swam
Piedmont/
Mountain
Forest
Acreage
0.7
1.5
5
2.2
15.8
4.4
Canopy
Scientific Name
250011800
Totals
Acer
saccharinum
Betula
ni ra
200
400
200
crus alli
cordiformis
Cratea us
-Garya
rya
ovata
300
300
-Ca
Celtis
laevi ata
150
200
680
1030
Dios ros
W.r iniana
400
600
1000
Fraxinus
I pennsylvanica
150
200
600
950
Ju lans
ni ra
L onia
Uriodendron
tuli ifera
Magnolia
acuminata
_Ostlya
Physocar us
N ssa
s lvatica
300
600
900
Po ulus
hetero h lla
Rhus
Platanus
occidentalis
Rosa
Quercus
michauxii
200
250
200
1200
400
2250
Quercus
ni ra
250
200
450
Quercus
pagoda
1200
400
1600
Quercus
phellos
250
1200
400
1850
Quercus
shumardii
250
1
1
1
1 250
Salix
nl ra
Vaccinium
Ulmus
alata
Viburnum
Ulmus
I americana
1200
1 120
1 1320
Understory
Aesculus
s lvatica
Xanthorhiza
sim licissima
Alnus
serrulata
Aronla
arbutifolia
Asimina
triloba
200
1 600
1
400
1200
Callicar a
americana
200
200
caroliniana
_Catpinus
Cephalanthus
occidentalis
2500
1800
250011800
Comus
amomum
americana
400
400
-Corylus
Crate us
crus alli
Cratea us
flava
Hamamelis
vir iniana
Ilex
o aca
Ilex
verticillata
Lindera
benzoin
L onia
li ushina
vir iniana
_Ostlya
Physocar us
o ulifolius
Rhododendron
perk! enoldes
Rhus
glabra
Rosa
carolina
Rosa
palusths
Rubus
cuneifolius
Sambucus
canadensis
2500
200
2500/200
Sassafras
albidum
Sta h lea
trifalia
Vaccinium
corymbosum
Viburnum
dentatum
Viburnum
nudum
Xanthorhiza
sim licissima
Page 24 of 36

Table 7. Monitoring Year 5 Vegetation Results
Page 25 of 36
Current Plot Data (MY5 2013)
Scientific Name
CommouName
SpeciesType
Virgmia
Platanusoccidentalisvar.
Sycamore, Plane-tree
Prunus 1
__-
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Quercus pagoda
'cherrybark oak
Quercusphellos
Stem
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems •
0000
��
�•
��
®�
.1
�m
®
®�
���
��m
�M
Page 25 of 36

Table 8. Mean Annual Vegetation Results across All Plots
Page 26 of 36
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
MY5 (2013)
MY4 (2012)
MY3 (2011)
MY2 (2010)
MY1 (2009)
MYO (2009)
J
o
a
a
1--
J
o
a
d
J
o
a
d
J
o
a
"R
d
J
o
a
J
o
a
d
Acer ne undo
boxelder
Tree
46
14
19
Acer ne undo var. ne undo
boxelder
Tree
14
60
28
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
21
18
Acer rubrum var. rubrum
red maple
Tree
52
12
3
Alnus serrulata
hazel alder
Shrub
15
5
16
7
11
Asimina triloba
pawpaw
Tree
6
6
6
6
6
6
10
10
10
11
11
11
18
18
18
38
38
38
Betula ni ra
riverbirch
Tree
15
15
41
14
14
22
15
15
17
9
9
36
9
9
10
10
10
10
Car inus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
10
Car inus caroliniana var. car
Coastal American Horn
Tree
11
Cara ovata
shagbark hickory
Tree
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
11
11
11
Ce halanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
49
49
53
50
50
62
51
51
65
53
53
152
54
54
64
60
60
60
Cornus amomum
silk do wood
Shrub
9
5
1
Diospyros vir iniana
common per simmon
Tree
1
1
1
3
1
1
4
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
19
19
113
21
21
111
19
19
73
11
11
323
10
10
81
9
9
9
Hibiscus
rosemallow
Shrub
12
Li uidambarst raciflua
sweet um
Tree
26
17
7
6
15
Liriodendron tuli ifera var. t
Tuli -tree, Yellow Po I
Tree
22
29
14
36
6
Pinus
pine
Tree
1
Pinus vir iniana
Virginia pine
Tree
7
7
Platanus occidentalis var. oc
Sycamore, Plane -tree
Tree
12
12
38
12
12
30
12
12
51
12
12
112
12
12
131
9
9
9
Prunus serotina
black cherry
Tree
18
9
Prunus serotina var. serotina
black cherry
Tree
9
1
5
Quercus
oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnutoak
Tree
23
23
26
26
26
28
28
28
28
21
21
21
22
22
22
32
32
32
Quercus ni ra
wateroak
Tree
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
11
11
11
5
5
5
Quercus pagoda
cherr bark oak
Tree
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
7
7
7
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
32
32
32
32
32
34
40
40
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
53
53
53
Rhus co allinum var. co aIIi
flameleaf sumac
shrub
45
Rhus glabra
smooth sumac
shrub
21
18
7
2
Robinia pseudoacacia
black locust
Tree
10
Rosa palustris
swamp rose
Shrub
13
Salixni ra
black willow
Tree
3
4
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
IShrub
11
1
10
1 1
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems er ACRE
175
175
631
179
179
476
194
194
408
179
179
850
187
187
463
238
238
238
11
11
11
11
11
11
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
12
12
27
10
10
�24
11
21
10
10
18
10
10
19
11
11
11
644
644
2 321
659
659
1
714
1,501
659
659
3,127
688
688
1 703
876
876
876
Page 26 of 36

Table 9. Hydroperiod Statistics for the North Muddy Creek Restoration Site
Maximum Hydroperiod (Growing Season March 28 - November 4, 222 Days)
Year 5
Year 4
Year 3
Year 2
Year 1
Gauge ID
Days
Percent of
Growing
Season
Days
Percent
of
Growing
Season
Days
Percent
of
Growing
Season
Days
Percent
of
Growing
Season
Days
Percent of
Growing
Season
UT1 -1
222
100.0
65
29.3
67
30.2
42
18.9
51
23
UTl -2
222
100.0
222
100
71
32
41
18.5
88
39.6
UTl - 3
46
20.7
18
8.1
35
15.8
14
6.3
22
9.9
UT5 -1
222
100.0
117
52.7
74
33.3
74
33.3
96
43.2
UT5 - 2
222
100.0
62
27.9
66
29.7
82
36.9
89
40.1
UT6-1
222
100.0
222
100
153
68.9
222
100
112
50.5
UT6 - 2
222
100.0
92
41.4
157
70.7
222
100
115
51.8
UT6 - 3
222
100.0
115
51.8
136
61.3
222
100
111
50
Hydrologic Success is based on a 7% hydroperiod during the growing season.
Figure 8. 2013 On -site and Countv Precipitation Totals
20.0
Growing Season
18.0
16.0
14.0
C 12.0
O
10.0
Q ,
d i i
>_ 8.0
6.0 -
T� m
4.0
2.0 - - -
i
0.0
Jan -13 Feb -13 Mar -13 Apr -13 May -13 Jun -13 Jul -13 Aug -13 Sep -13 Oct -13 Nov -13 Dec -13
o Bridgewater Monthly Rainfall r_ UTt Monthly Rainfall - UT5 Monthly Rainfall
C== UT6 Monthly Rainfall - - - • 30th Percentile - - 70th Percentile
Page 27 of 36

EEP Recommendation and Conclusion
The overall condition of the North Muddy Creek easement has improved as a result of
restoration activities. Both herbaceous and woody vegetation has become well established in all
restoration and enhancement areas with the exception of one small area on the upstream end of
UT6 where a depauperate, bare bench with low stem densitites persists (Figure 5); however, this
accounts for a very small area ( -0.04 acres acres) of the total easement. The remaining easement
on UT6 and all other easement areas are heavily vegetated. Repairs to structures on the
downstream end of UT6, made in MY2, have remained stable; however, two structures have
been stressed from high flows in South Muddy Creek during MY5 (Figure 5). Vegetation
around these structures is well established and is stabilizing the structures. Aggressive invasive
species control, initiated after a 2010 comprehensive survey, has shown good efficacy with all
populations within the easement receiving multiple treatments. The beaver dam at the bottom of
UT6 has been removed with little impact to the channel and the vegetation which was impacted
by the impoundment is recovering. Encroachment related to fencing and mowing has been
resolved and vegetation in the new areas is establishing.
Morphologic data and observations of stream conditions at the site indicate generally stable
conditions between as -built year and Year 5 monitoring (Table 4 and Figures 5 -7). All reaches
are maintaining a C -type channel (UT5, UT6, and UT 1- Lower) or B -type (UT 1- Upper) as
outlined in the mitigation plan. Also, reaches have maintained a low -bank height ratio of 1.0
throughout the monitoring period. Two bankfull events were documented on UT and UT5
(2010 and 2013), as well as three on UT6 (2009, 2010, and 2013) (Table 5).
With the exception of UT 1 -3, monitoring well data indicated that all wetland areas met the
hydrologic success criteria of a 7% hydroperiod during the growing season (Table 9). Data from
UT1 -3 failed to meet the success criteria during MY2, which was 0.7% short of the 7%
hydroperiod criteria; however, the area met 4 out of 5 monitoring years. Comparing restoration
site hydrology to reference hydrology (UT1 -1 and UT5 -2), restored wetlands exceeded or
maintained similar hydroperiods to the reference wetlands. At UT I, the restoration wetland
adjacent to the mainstem of UT1 tracked closely with the reference well. However, the
northernmost parcel of wetland restoration on UT 1 consistently had a lower hydroperiod than the
on -site reference. Restoration wetlands at UT5 consistently tracked or had longer hydroperiods
than the reference. Although UT6 did not have a reference on site, it consistently had longer
hydroperiods than both the reference wells at UT 1 and UT5.
Overall, planted stems survived well at the project site. A total of 29 different species were
documented in the vegetation plots. Densities of planted stems for the entire restoration site for
2013 ranged between 324 and 931 stems per acre and averaged 644 stems per acre (Table 7).
Survival between MY2 and MY3 showed an increase due to supplemental plantings. Likewise,
plot 4 at UT6 showed an increase in survival between MY3 and MY4. All vegetation
monitoring plots meet the final success criteria of 260 planted stems per acre.
In summary, the North Muddy Creek Restoration Site is meeting success criteria for channel
stability, wetland hydrology, and vegetative survival as outlined in the original mitigation plan.
EEP recommends submitting the project for regulatory closure and requests a total of 4, 996
SMUs and 16.4 WMUs.
Contingencies
There are no contingencies for closure of this site.
Page 28 of 36

Pre - Construction — 2007
Post Construction — 2009 -2013
Page 29 of 36

Appendix A: Watershed Planning Summary
92611— North Muddy Creek
Watershed Characteristics Overview
The North Muddy Creek project is located along the McDowell -Burke County line,
approximately seven miles east of Marion in the upper Catawba River Basin. It consists of five
separate stream reaches (all unnamed tributaries, or UTs) and three wetland areas, with all but
one of the project reaches /areas located within 03050101040020, the South Muddy Creek
watershed. [The UT2 preservation reach is located within 03050101040010, the North Muddy
Creek watershed.] Both HUCs are listed as Targeted Local Watersheds (TLWs) in the 2009
Upper Catawba River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) plan and both fall within the Muddv
Creek Local Watershed Plan (LWP) area. [The Muddy Creek LWP is a non -EEP plan that was
initiated by the Muddy Creek Restoration Partnership in 1998.]
The 40- square mile South Muddy Creek TLW is characterized by 19% agricultural land use,
75% forested cover (including wetlands), 0.5% impervious cover and 14 permitted animal
operations. There are no High Quality Waters (HQW) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW)
in this watershed, but 29 Natural Heritage Element Occurrences (NHEOs) have been
documented. Significant Natural Heritage Areas (SNHAs) comprise 0.9% of the TLW area and
only 0.4% of the watershed is in protected conservation areas (2009 Upper Catawba RBRP).
South and North Muddy Creeks flow into Muddy Creek just below the most downstream project
reach (UT 1). Neither South Muddy nor North Muddy Creek are impaired according to the 2012
North Carolina 303(d) list; however, as noted below, significant stressors have been identified
within both these watersheds. The North and South Muddy Creek TLWs comprise an important
sub - drainage of the upper Catawba River and the Lake Rhodhiss water supply watershed. The
project - specific features and additional projects in the TLW noted below all contribute
synergistically to improvements in downstream water quality and aquatic habitat within the
larger Lake Rhodhiss watershed.
Links to Watershed Goals and Objectives
Major problems identified within this TLW, as noted in Muddy Creek LWP documents (2003-
2011) and the 2009 Upper Catawba RBRP, are summarized in the Table below, along with
LWP- recommended management strategies. The third column of the table summarizes stressor-
related objectives achieved by the North Muddy Creek Stream and Wetland Project. Overall, the
project restored a total of approximately 4,000 linear feet of stream, enhanced over 670 linear
feet and preserved approximately 3,300 linear feet on UTs to South and North Muddy Creek.
The project also restored, enhanced or preserved over 20 acres of wetland.
Stressors and Issues
Management Strategies
North Muddy Creek Project
Stream bank erosion
Stream channel and riparian buffer
• Restored /enhanced stream channels and
restoration; livestock exclusion
riparian buffers; installed livestock exclusion
fencing
Degraded riparian
Stream channel and riparian buffer
a Established native vegetation in buffers;
buffers
restoration /enhancement and preservation
preserved headwater streams and buffers
Stream channelization
Stream channel restoration
• Restored stream channels; hydrologically re-
and incision
connected streams to floodplains
Upland erosion, including
Agriculture and forestry BMPs; preservation
. Preserved headwater reaches (streams and
eroding farm roads
of headwater forests and streams
buffers); restored non - riparian wetlands

Livestock access
Livestock exclusion (+ alternate water)
0 Installed livestock exclusion fencing
Nutrients and fecal
Agricultural BMPs (e.g., livestock fencing);
• Installed livestock exclusion fencing;
coliform bacteria
riparian buffer restoration /enhancement;
restored /enhanced stream buffers; restored
riparian wetlands restoration and
and preserved riparian wetlands
preservation
Watershed Summary
There are five other EEP mitigation projects within this HU. Moving from south to north
(upstream to downstream), these are: 93875 — Middle South Muddy Creek; 92251 — Hoppers
Creek - Melton Farm; 347 — South Fork Hopper; 737 — Muddy Creek (Randolph/Duncan); and
348 — South Muddy Creek. There are also five agricultural BMP sites (documented by the NC
Division of Soil and Water Conservation in 2014) and one NC DWR 319 project. The
agricultural BMPs include stock trail stabilization, alternate watering sources (troughs, tanks,
wells), stabilizing animal heavy -use areas, long -term no till acreage and prescribed grazing areas.
The 319 - funded work is a 2005 stream restoration /enhancement project on a tributary to Hoppers
Creek.
kt.,m,
Legend
G Agricultural BM Ps
4 CWMTF Projects
319 Projects
(D EEP Projects (Ter 1) 2014 Closeouts
• EEP Projects (Ter 1)
r7 Catalog Units
County Boundaries
QEEP Local Watershed Plans
EEPTargeted Local Watersheds
9�
Thompson`s Fork
&Tributary
�a
i
uddy Creek LW
r � ,� North Muddy Creek
a o as
a
+"
y4 a
g
MR e�
$'� ea58`Er
7 \_axq
5hS k C­ k
5 "A
ZF
ti
J-
EEP 2014 Project Closeouts
North Muddy Creek and Thompson's Fork & Trib. ° © -75 1 5
(Catawba 03050101)
o�
3�
1 M iles

APPENDIX B — Land Ownership and Protection
SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT
The land required for the construction, management, and stewardship of this mitigation project includes
the following parcel:
LONG -TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon approval for close -out by the Interagency Review Team (IRT), the NC DENR Stewardship
Program will be responsible for periodic inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the
conservation easement are upheld.
PDF property documents including the recorded deeds and plats associated with this site are
located on the EEP portal at:
http: / /portal.ncdenr. orb /c /documenta library/get _ file ?p 1 id= 60409 &f6lderld = 11706724 &name=
DLFE- 64749.pdf
Total
Site Protection
Deed Book &
Acreage
Grantor
County
Instrument
Page Number
protected
James Benefield
McDowell
Conservation
1767/461
34.66
Easement
Conservation
David Connelly and wife,
McDowell
Easement
964/363
34.66
Betty Jean Connelly
Conservation
Robert Eugene Price
Burke
Easement
963/442
34.66
Conservation
James Benefield
Burkc
Easement
963/434
34.66
LONG -TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon approval for close -out by the Interagency Review Team (IRT), the NC DENR Stewardship
Program will be responsible for periodic inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the
conservation easement are upheld.
PDF property documents including the recorded deeds and plats associated with this site are
located on the EEP portal at:
http: / /portal.ncdenr. orb /c /documenta library/get _ file ?p 1 id= 60409 &f6lderld = 11706724 &name=
DLFE- 64749.pdf

APPENDIX C — Jurisdictional Determinations and Permits
F VqA
�a 9OL Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
F_ North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
O C Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
November 13, 2007
DWQ Project 4 07 -1764
McDowell/Burke County
Mr. Norton Webster
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
909 Capability Drive, Suite 3100
Raleigh, NC 27606 l�
Subject Property: North Muddy Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration - NOL�� �01 owO
Muddy Creek [030830, 11- 32- (0.5), C]
Approval of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions (� ��--
i iAvc,t
Dear Mr. Webster;
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to place fill
within or otherwise impact 3,695 linear feet of perennial stream, as described in your undated and
unsigned application, received by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) on October 17, 2007, to perform
the proposed wetland enhancement and stream restoration project at the site. After reviewing your
application, we have decided that the impacts are covered by General Water Quality Certification
Number(s) 3626 (GC3626). The Certification(s) allows you to use Nationwide Permit(s) 27 (NW27),
when issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). In addition, you should obtain or otherwise
comply with any other required federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your project
including (but not limited to) Erosion and Sediment Control, and Non - discharge regulations. Also, this
approval to proceed with your proposed impacts or to conduct impacts to waters as depicted in
your application shall expire upon expiration of the 404 or CAMA Permit.
This approval is for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you change your
project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application, If the property is sold,
the new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for
complying with all conditions. If total fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre of
wetland or 150 linear feet of stream, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A
NCAC 2H.0506 (h). This approval requires you to follow the conditions listed in the attached
certification and any additional conditions listed below.
The Additional Conditions of the Certification are:
1. Impacts Approved
The following impacts are hereby approved as long as all of the other specific and general
conditions of this Certification (or Isolated Wetland Permit) are met. No other impacts are
approved including incidental impacts:
Type of Impact Amount Approved Units Plan Location or Reference
Stream - perennial 3,695 (linear feet) PCN page 5 of 9
401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, . Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh; North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: http;//h2o.enr.state.nc.us/newetiands
An Equal Opportunity /Affirmative Action Employer — 50% Recycled/10% Post Cpnsumer Paper
Page 32 of 36

APPENDIX C — Jurisdictional Determinations and Permits
Environmental Bane & Exchange, LLC
Page 3 of 3
November 13, 2007
Violations of any condition herein set forth may result in revocation of this Certification and may result in
criminal and/or civil penalties. The authorization to proceed with your proposed impacts or to conduct
impacts to waters as depicted in your application and as authorized by this Certification, shall expire upon
expiration of the 404 or CAMA Permit.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this Certification (associated with the approved wetland or
stream impacts), you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that
you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition, which conforms to Chapter 150B of
the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, N.C. 27699 -6714. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a
hearing.
Any disputes over determinations regarding this Authorization Certificate (associated with the approved
buffer impacts) shall be referred in writing to the Director for a decision. The Director's decision is
subject to review as provided in Articles 3 and 4 of G.S. 150B.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the lean Water
Act. If you have any questions, please telephone Cyndi Karoly or Ian McMillan at 19 -7 178 6.
Sinc ly,
Coleen H. Sullins
CHS /gym
Enclosures: GC 3627
Certificate of Completion
cc: USACE Asheville Regulatory Field Office
Kevin Barnett, DWQ Asheville Regional Office
DLR Asheville Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
Tommy Cousins, Kimley -Horn and Associates, 4651 Charlotte Park Drive, Suite 300,
Charlotte, NC 28217
Hume: 071 764NorthMuddyStreamwetIandResto ration(McDowelIBurke)401
Page 33 of 36

APPENDIX C — Jurisdictional Determinations and Permits
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action ID. SAW- 2007 - 03380 -359 County: McDowell / Burke USGS Quad: Sugar Hill
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
Property Owner / Authorized Agent: Environmental Banc & Exchange, Att'n: Norton Webster
Address: 909 Capability Drive, Suite 3100
Ralei h NC 27606
Telephone No.:
Size and location of property (water body, road name /number, town, etc.): North Muddy Creek
Restoration located in the vicinity of exit 94 (1-40) and Dvsartsville Road; near Marion
Description of projects area and activity: Restore 3,695 LF of UT -s - Muddy Creek by forming an
appropriate pattern and profile, reestablishing connection to the floodplain and adding grade
control structures. The entire project will create and restore 4,267 LF of channel The project is a
full delivery stream mitigation project being built under contract with NCEEP.
Applicable Law: ® Section 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1344)
❑ Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 USC 403)
Authorization: Regional General Permit Number:
Nationwide Permit Number: 27
Your work is authorized by the above referenced permit provided it is accomplished in strict accordance with the
attached conditions, those conditions outlined in the enclosed NCWRC letter,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 (LAMA), 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 Steve Chapin at 828 -271 -7980.
Corps Regulatory Official Steve Chapin
v \
Date: November 2007 t\�
Expiration Date of Verification: November 28, 2009
Page 34 of 36

APPENDIX C — Jurisdictional Determinations and Permits
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
http://www.saw.usace.arriiy.mil/WETLANDS/l*ndex.htmI to complete the survey online.
Determination of Jurisdiction:
A. ❑ 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).
B. ❑ 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.
C. ED 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.
D. ❑ 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: The site contains stream channels that exhibit indicators of ordinary high
water marks. The stream channels on the project properties are unnamed tributaries to North Muddy Creek which
flow into Muddy Creek which flows into the Catawba River and ultimately flows to the Atlantic Ocean through the
Catawba river system. The Catawba River is navigable -in -fact at Lake Wylie in NC.
Appeals Information: (This information does not apply to preliminary determinations as indicated by paragraph A.
above).
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 Program
Attn: Steve Chapin, Project Manager
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
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 Division 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 within 60
days from the Issue Date below.
* *It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this
correspondence. **
Corps Regulatory Official: Stever
Issue Date: November 28, 2007 Expiration Date: Five years from Issue Date
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:
Kimley -Horn and Associates (Tommy Cousins), 4651 Charlotte Park Drive, Suite 300, Charlotte,
NC 28217
Page 35 of 36

Mitigation Project Name North Muddy Creek
EEP IMS ID 92611
River Basin CATAWBA
Cataloging Unit 03050101
Applied Credit Ratios: 1:1 1.5:1 2.5:1 5:1 1:1 3:1 2:1 5:1 1:1 3:1 2:1 5:1 1:1 3:1 2:1 5:1
Information from EEP Debit Ledger dated 08/13/2014
C
E'
C
E w
c
E °i
O
£
CO
a
t0
d
O
m
l0 O
t0
o
tO N
£
io 0
N CO
m . _
LVLI
m o
LVLI
w E
LVLI 0
m
d£
v v
m °E'
m i'
.£
U
m
.� Z
a
a�
c u
c Z
`°
�
m cdi
m
O d
O
O
O
0 d
y
0 U
N l L e
Vo
VR ✓y d +
1
W
zn:
z
z W
Z
O K
o
W
o a
U
E
Beginning Balance (feet and acres)
3,974.001
337.00
336.00
3,313.00
11.401
3.70
2.501
2.60
Beginning Balance (mitigation credits)
3,974.00
224.67
134.40
662.60
11.40
1.85
0.50
2.60
NCDOT Pre -EEP Debits (feet and acres): Not Applicable
EEP Debits (feet and acres):
DWQ Permits
USACE Action IDs
Impact Project Name
NCDOT TIP R -2206 B /
2004 -1024
2004 -31320
C - NC 16 Widening
3,334.00
3.998
2.221
NCDOT TIP R -2206 B /
C Additional - NC 16
2004 -1024
Widening
1
0.09
2008 - 00378 -214
SR 1799 - Division 11
110.00
NCDOT TIP U -2408 -
2004 -31321
NC 274 Widening
530.00
51.00
NCDOT TIP U -3447 -
2008- 02902 -360
NC 51 Widening
187.50
312.50
0.19
NCDOT TIP B -3822 -
2004 -31383
Bridge 8 on SR 1706
548.00
NCDOT TIP B -4041 -
2006 -30362
Bridge 57 on SR 1244
800.00
2005 -30027
SR 1311 - Division 12
79.00
NCDOT TIP B -4200 -
2011 -01153
Bridge 100 on SR 2120
0.09
0.45
2012 -00359
SR 1310 - Division 12
250.00
NCDOT TIP U -2211 B
Additional - SR 1001
2006 -32042
Improvements
0.24
NCDOT TIP B -5110 -
2013 -01333
Bridge 129 on SR 1626
200.00
NCDOT TIP 1 -4928 -1-85
Northbound Weigh
2010 -00031
Station
690.00
Statewide ILF Credit Purchase
2.521
1
Remaining Balance (feet and acres)
0.001
98.50
23.501
746.00
4.272
1 3.70
2.05
0.379
Remaining Balance (mitigation credits)
0.001
65.67
9.401
149.20
4.272
1.85
0.41
0.379
Information from EEP Debit Ledger dated 08/13/2014

Mitigation Project Name North Muddy Creek
EEP IMS ID 92611
River Basin CATAWBA
Cataloging Unit 03050101
Comment: This ledger shows the debits for the amount of mitigation that the Statewide ILF Program purchased from the NCDOT ILF Program.
The beginning balance represents the amount purchased and not the total mitigation credits available on the site.
Applied Credit Ratios: 1:1 1.5:1 2.5:1 5:1 1:1 3:1 2:1 5:1 1:1 3:1 2:1 5:1 1:1 3:1 2:1 5:1
Information from EEP Debit Ledger dated 08/13/2014
E
E
E
=
E
? =
E
o
m
c c
c 0c
m
2
E o
m
@ o
.@
o
E
m o
v
m O
2
2-
o
a
Z d
N
c
c
N
a
_
y
_
_
c
N
a
cc
O N
z W
c
O U
z
c t6
O L
z c
C 0
O v
z a
N N
R v
o W
M
�v U
o
N @
�y L
o c
N
�y d
o a
w
w
w
w
v
v
v w
v
Beginning Balance (feet and acres)
2.521
1
Beginning Balance (mitigation credits)
2.52
NCDOT Pre -EEP Debits (feet and acres): Not Applicable
EEP Debits (feet and acres):
DWQ Permits
USACE Action IDs
Impact Project Name
Paddy Creek Dam
2004 -1583
2003 -31252
Improvements
1.330
2005 -33132
Silver Hammer Pond
0.490
Charlotte Douglas Airport
2000 -1195
2006 - 32521 -360
Parallel Runway
0.053
NCDOT TIP R- 2248BB /
R -2488C R -2248D -
North Charlotte Outer
2001 -1231
2001 -31321
Loop
0.005
2005 -0261
2006 -30218
Ballantyne South
0.641
Remaining Balance (feet and acres)
0.000
Remaining Balance (mitigation credits)
0.00
Information from EEP Debit Ledger dated 08/13/2014