20070494 Ver 2_Closeout Report_20140918

MORGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION SITE
EEP ID # 92531
FDP CONTRACT NUMBER D06035 -A
USACE ACTION ID 2008 -01057
DWQ 401 # 2007 -0494
CLOSEOUT REPORT
PROJECT TYPE: STREAM & WETLAND
. u
a •��1 -e- � r a r
Proiect Setting & Classifications
Location: 35.688292, - 82.954816
County
Haywood
General Location
10 mi NE Waynesville
Basin:
French Broad
Physiographic Region:
Mountains
Ecoregion:
Blue Ridge
USGS Hydro Unit:
06010106020040
NCDWQ Sub - basin:
04 -03 -05
Wetland Classification
Riparian Non - Riverine
Thermal Regime:
Cold
Trout Water:
No
Project Performers
Monitoring Year 4
Source Agency:
EEP
Provider:
Restoration Systems
Designer:
Wolf Creek En g.
Monitoring Firm
Wolf Creek Eng.
(stream),
Equinox Env.
Vegetation)
Channel Remediation
North State Env.
Plant remediation
North State Env.
Property Interest
Holder
DENR Stewardship
Overall Project Activities and Timeline
Milestone
Month -Year
Restoration Plan
January 2008
Construction Plans - Final
July 2008
Construction Completed
January 2009
Planting Complete
January 2009
Mitigation Plan / As -Built
January 2009
Monitoring Year -1
December 2009
Supplemental Planting
December 2009
Monitoring Year -2
November 2010
Monitoring Year 3
September 2011
Monitoring Year 4
November 2012
Monitoring Year 5
October 2013
Closeout Presentation
September 2014
Page 1 of 26

Project Setting and Background Summary
The Morgan Creek project was conducted for the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) full delivery program. The site is within the French Broad River Basin and is
within the targeted local watershed #06010106020040. Approximately 4,254 linear feet of stream was restored with approximately 9.8 acres of riparian buffers and approximately 1.06 acres of
wetlands was restored/enhanced as part of the project. The Site was previously used to pasture cattle with highly degraded conditions due to unrestricted livestock access, channelization
activities, and lack of riparian vegetation. The restoration approach restored proper channel dimension and allowed for appropriate sediment transport. In- stream structures were integrated to
provide grade control, maintain stable stream banks during riparian vegetation development, and to provide in- stream habitat. The site has demonstrated excellent performance requiring minimal
repairs however, stem loss occurred following baseline monitoring and was attributed to livestock encroachment and mowing. Supplemental planting occurred during the Year 1 (2009)
monitoring season within areas that had experienced stem loss. Vegetation recovery was successful and the encroachment issues were eliminated.
The Morgan Creek project is located in northeast Haywood County, approximately 12 miles north of Waynesville, in the French Broad River Basin. It is located within HUC 06010106020040,
the Fines Creek watershed, which is listed as a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) in the 2009 French Broad River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) plan. Major problems noted within this
TLW (2009 RBRP) include degraded (non- forested) riparian buffers, agricultural stressors (pasture and livestock), high nutrient and sediment loads and impaired aquatic habitat.
Goals and Objectives
The primary goals of the Morgan Creek Stream Restoration Project as stated in the Mitigation (Restoration) Plan are to:
1.) Improve local water quality within the restored channel reaches as well as the downstream watercourses through:
(a) the reduction of current channel and off -sit sediment loads by restoring appropriately sized channels with stable beds and banks,
(b) the reduction of nutrient loads from adjacent agricultural fields with restored riparian wetlands and a restored riparian buffer,
(c) the reduction of water temperatures provided through shading of the channel by canopy species along with the resultant increase in oxygen content, and
(d) restoration of select stream reaches away from adjacent roads thereby providing an appropriate buffer to reduce contaminants from vehicular traffic.
2.) Improve local aquatic and terrestrial habitat and diversity within the restored channels and their vicinity through:
(a) the restoration of appropriate bed form to provide habitat for fish, amphibian, and benthic species,
(b) the restoration of riparian wetlands along the stream corridor to provide additional landscape and habitat diversity,
(c) the restoration of a suitable riparian buffer corridor in order to provide both vertical and horizontal structure and connectivity with adjacent upland areas, and
(d) the restoration of understory and canopy species in order to provide forage, cover, and nesting for a variety of mammals, reptiles, and avian species.
3.) Preclude the construction of additional infrastructure and the combination of agricultural practices including cattle grazing and the application of pesticides and
Page 2 of 26

fertilizer within the riparian buffer area by providing a permanent conservation easement.
Through the proposed restoration activities, the following objectives will be accomplished:
1.) Provide approximately 3,748 stream mitigation units (SMU's) through Priority 1 and 2 restoration of approximately 3,483 linear feet of stream and enhancement of
approximately 530 linear feet of stream.
2.) Restore natural stable channel morphology and proper sediment transport capacity.
3.) Create and/or improve bed form diversity and improve aquatic and benthic macroinvertebrate habitat.
4.) Construct a floodplain (or local bankfull bench) that is accessible at the proposed bankfull channel elevation.
5.) Improve channel and stream bank stabilization by integrating in- stream structures and native bank vegetation.
6.) Provide approximately 0.83 wetland mitigation units (WMU's) through restoration of approximately 0.60 acres of wetlands and enhancement of 0.46 acres of wetlands.
7.) Provide approximately 9.5 acres of riparian buffer by establishing a native forested and herbaceous riparian buffer plant community within a minimum width of 30 feet
from the edge of the restored channels. This new community will be established in conjunction with the eradication of any existing exotic and/or undesirable plant species.
8.) Improve water quality within the subject channels and the downstream receiving waters.
9.) Supplement the education and conservation efforts for natural resources in Haywood County as indicated in program goals for the local Soil & Water Conservation District
and the NC Cooperative Extension Service.
Success Criteria
Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability
Success criteria context provided by NCEEP Mitigation Plan Document Guidance:
Restored and enhanced streams should demonstrate morphologic stability to be considered successful. Stability does not equate to an absence of change, but rather to sustainable rates of change
or stable patterns of variation. Restored streams often demonstrate some level of initial adjustment in the several months that follow construction and some change /variation subsequent to that is
also to be expected. However, the observed change should not be unidirectional such that it represents a robust trend. If some trend is evident, it should be very modest or indicate migration to
another stable form. 2. 1.1 Dimension Cross - section measurements should indicate little change from the as -built cross - sections. If changes do occur, they will be evaluated to determine whether
the adjustments are associated with settling and increased stability or whether they indicate movement towards an unstable condition. The following thresholds will be considered indicators of
concern:
• Width/depth ratio increases more than 10 percent,
Page 3 of 26

• Bank height ratio increases more than 25 percent.
Pattern and Profile
Measurements and calculated values should indicate stability with little deviation from as -built conditions and established morphological ranges for the restored stream type. Annual
measurements should indicate stable bed -form features with little change from the as -built survey. The pools should maintain their depth with flatter water surface slopes, while the riffles should
remain shallower and steeper. The following thresholds will be considered indicators of concern:
• Riffle slope increases more than 50 percent,
• Profile scarp formation greater than 20 percent of mean depth,
• Pool maximum depth decreases more than 20 percent,
• Pool /riffle feature shifts along the profile of more than the equivalent of one bankfull width.
Substrate
Calculated D5o and D84 values should indicate coarser size class distribution of bed materials in riffles and finer size class distribution in pools. Generally, it is anticipated that the bed material
will coarsen over time. The following thresholds will be considered indicators of concern:
• D50 or D84 value decreases more than 30 percent,
• Percent sand increases more than 50 percent.
Sediment Transport
Depositional features should be consistent with a stable stream that is effectively managing its sediment load. Point bar and inner berm features, if present, should develop without excessive
encroachment of the channel. Lateral and mid - channel bar features should typically not be present and if so only in isolated instances.
Vegetation
Riparian vegetation monitoring shall be conducted for a minimum of five years to ensure that success criteria are met per USACE guidelines. Accordingly, success criteria will consist of a
minimum survival of 320 stems per acre by the end of the Year 3 monitoring period and a minimum of 260 stems per acre at the end of Year 5. If monitoring indicates either that the specified
survival rate is not being met or the development of detrimental conditions (i.e., invasive species, diseased vegetation), appropriate corrective actions will be developed and implemented.
Hydrology
Surface water monitored data and calculated return intervals should indicate the occurrence of a bankfull event during a minimum of two of the five monitored years. It
should be noted that Tropical Storm Fay (August 2008) produced an approximate 3/4 bankfull flow event while construction was underway. The project also experienced a
half- bankfull event on December 11, 2008. Ground water hydrology success criteria for the five -year monitoring period will include
a minimum regulatory criterion, comprising saturation (free water) within one foot of the soil surface for 5 percent of the growing season.
Page 4 of 26

Asset Table
Restoration
Segment /Reach
Pre —
Construction
(acreage /linear
feet)
Mitigation
Approach
Watershed
Acreage
As -Built Linear
Footage /Acreage
Mitigation Ratio
Mitigation Units
(SMU /WMU)
STREAM
Wetland
Buffer
Nutrient Offset
Units
Units
Morgan Creek
892
R
454
900
1.0
900
Morgan Creek
340
R
454
340
1.0
340
Morgan Creek
1402
R
454
1438
1.0
1438
Morgan Creek
141
E1
454
141
1.5
94
Morgan Creek
213
R
454
212
1.0
212
North Branch
288
R
77
296
1.0
296
North Branch
63
R
77
66
1.0
66
Lower North Branch
2
R
115
254
1.0
254
Middle Branch
148
E1
2.6
148
1.5
99
Middle Branch
154
E1
2.6
154
1.5
102
South Branch
197
R
3.8
205
1.0
205
South Branch
115
E1
3.8
115
1.5
77
WETLAND
Restored Areas
NS
R
NS
0.6
1.0
0.6
Enhanced Areas
NS
E
NS
0.46
2.0
0.23
MITIGATION UNIT TOTALS
Stream Mitigation
Riparian
Non - riparian
Total
Riparian
Units (SMU)
Wetland
Wetland
Wetland
Buffer
Nutrient Offset
Units
Units
(WMU)
4,083
0.83
0
0.83
0
0
Page 5 of 26

.: •- -..' '�� i .. PREPARED FOR.
Y 4•
.. x ® r ° •, . . rI PREPARED BY:
so
N^ • '• .r ,
MIDDLE BRANCH
•1J s BRANCH
MORGAN
+1
' I @
CREEK
AND BY:
IF
MORGAN
CREEK ,1
KIRKPATRICK COVE ROAD i Frcun
y � f
LOWER NORTH ` 4E)(8IS CHIP � NJ-'-, STREAM RESTORATION
BRANCH ' ' i.if
EXISTING 60" x 36"
ELLIPTICAL CMP
EXISTING t �: LEVEL I ENHANCEMENT
42" CMP G. 1E A
r r STREAM CROSSING
(FORD)
STREAM CROSSING
(PIPED)
NORTH
BRANCH
EASEMENTT ON
4
SITE MAP
200 0 200 600
MORGAN CREEK RESTORATION SITE
.- s� T HAYWOOD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
SCALE IN FEET 'r" ' FIGURE 2

t'
!tires' 1' �• �� {, _ � •
ku
G" e
eh
PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY: AND BY: SCALE WATERSHED MAP
<� 500 0 1000 3000
MORGAN CREEK RESTORATION SITE
em "Y•oif re_e HAYWOOD COUNTY. NORTH CAROLINA
l'.n rnctzi r / FEET FIGURE 2
Page 7 of 26

PREPARED FOR:
wwPREPARED BY:
KV
I= nE2
)2 FnE2
GXA
Fn E2
LEGEND
�\ EXISTING
STREAM
SOIL BOUNDARY
APPROXIMATE
PROJECT
BOUNDARY
Page 8 of 26
CxA Cullowhee— Nikwasi
Ds6 Dillsboro Loom
EVE EVard —Cowee Complex
FnE2 Fannin Loam
HoD2 Hayesville Clay Loom
SdD Sounook Loam
Ud Udorthents
r �
}
SOIL MAP
200 0 200 Z 60C
MORGAN CREEK RESTORATION SITE
. . -
HAYWOOD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
SCALE IN FEET
FIGURE 3
Page 8 of 26

—SDLrrH ORANCIA
P-4,
NO. 4
EXTH EMCH
vam I R-
usom "
HEAD Off
r
INDMWO
9DLffH 3 PO r —_ TH&WEG
14
.. . I -FiTH ER Q"
0. /J
EXTH EMCH
vam I R-
usom "
r/
HrP"T Yi 4
1}; wo -A
t
Rf
FWF"T WE
1}; in. A
;.1—
A,.!4
-ma smxnm
M EMOMFE
m pw
1&E', FLDT-
MDMVRK
Mims CHEDf.
MR m -
'k
HT
L
rtur Al
Trilrr PPLA
zc� DN
PlIffiffolcl
PD&T i ou
wmww, in
vam I R-
usom "
pp9
HrP"T Yi 4
1}; wo -A
mUft
Rf
FWF"T WE
1}; in. A
;.1—
A,.!4
-ma smxnm
M EMOMFE
m pw
ULM
STMLE
m-L .
-K-r' ff ' L
UMMATE CMWW�
6
ma cmm4m
MA LT
193- i_.
T"Ll
nA M
MIL )L!L
TDA S I S!
msv.!bLm
rm
ncmrmT a
Tmw 41
4;v&,o
.-�c
m
NCFWW Q i
77i LW 15
-
Page 9 of 26
-UMUL
Dpu4u-
0&-EIMLT TWLM
W—WLT &INK
AF,411JLT Fjw
DEWA EMMUME
FMm-1 REMTM
AMAK MHMWMbM
-ma smxnm
M EMOMFE
m pw
ULM
STMLE
ON DWMRM
0
UMMATE CMWW�
6
ma cmm4m

e-E,.T OTLAN CFEEII
-74LI&T
FFE—"DHSTRUCnDPJ
WORCAM MEEK
Page 10 of 26
NO AREki= OF '—'Kr
"Ch THS SHEET
.L��
Oxiol UMME
GMANAL 7dYM12
AS-DAT THWE
-,c-BXT
EMY
.qis-mLr rip
[F-CU CDffSLhE
vEnA4D RMI-Wnh
)*TUM 004&EUDrr
ROM 9MUME
= STkMIRE
0
Inn W-111
cum
IMPLE
Lavi owuw
WA31ATE COKSM
HIGH MKOM

LcNm3 lc REAM m
wim
A!3-& r
f
f "I
cR£FF5 � 'I
k
+r
i
ft'
rm w
Rif PS faA
f4T1u ¢TI
Dam III}
9.E51M n
Q3 V
� I-plA£
)ZDW.M
mamMm
mail
R P
A REM
X34M:
sumlu
WI;?M
Pia
P{aa6i7 PIM
)]La1TiD
Q 174
W41M
PM LT
FARE IT.
)ROMP
W5M4J'4
2144Si
F*� Rj
i s
)www
MUZ#de
3k aM
PR 5
°I -i%T AM
TM-2.4
*5114 6'
I M"."
PH LT
-:Li;
7.''}F'fW'
1 37aA
KI If
L-1
ram ,+
mmo-a,
I a&"
FFa
I 1 -r FT M0. !
.mvA3r
I m*jb ,w
Page 11 of 26
�'• w AFE
{1 c
1
5 1
_ -E_ F E
y'S 1M -, -HEEE
—
LECENI
3A ME
DRUW1COMA
-
M -r.LLT TH"U.
-
A&-3ILT FJMP.
*—ELIT Ff °
—
DEWA E£+TPUI#
Q gmm:1 PESmTm
WMAM� rh w rmw
55'�Y
vkrxi- :D,WDeE
Ip(-. qI- IIfRIVE
ECH WD
0
rnsLE
ON OYCE:w
WAI CMUM4

z
9
Morgan Creek Stream Restoration Site
Hay—.d County., NC
Profile - Morgan Creek
Profile
1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 1400 1450 1500
'reek Stream Restor
Haywood County, NC
Profile - Morgan Creek
Profile
iz
w
2560
2555
2550
—As -Built bed
Year 2 Bed 2
Year 3 Bed
Yea r4 Bed
—Y— 5 Bed stalloq (111
2000 2050 2100 2150 2200 2250 2300 2350 24170 24EO 2500
2505
Morgan Creek Stream Restoration Site
2580
Haywood Counry, NC
2595
2590
2570
25&5
__.
2585
—AS -Built Bed
Profile
—Yea r2 Bed
2
Yea r3 Bed
2575
Yea r4 Bed
x
a
—Year 5 Bed staii
257&
1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 1400 1450 1500
'reek Stream Restor
Haywood County, NC
Profile - Morgan Creek
Profile
iz
w
2560
2555
2550
—As -Built bed
Year 2 Bed 2
Year 3 Bed
Yea r4 Bed
—Y— 5 Bed stalloq (111
2000 2050 2100 2150 2200 2250 2300 2350 24170 24EO 2500
Morgan Creek Stream Restoration Site
Haywood County, NC
Profile - Morgan Creek
Profile
� r
IL
2545
2540
—AS -Built Bed 2�'
—Year2 Bed
-Year3 Bed 2530
Year4 Bed _ 2525
—Year 5 Bed Stan.. (H)
2500 2550 2600 2650 2700 2750 2000 2,350 2900 2950 3000
Page 12 of 26
Morgan Creek Stream Restoration Site
Haywood Counry, NC
Pofile - Morgan Creek
2570
25&5
—AS -Built Bed
Profile
2`'�
—Year3 Bed
Year4 Bed
x
a
(�
1500 1550 1600
1650 1700 1750 1800 1850
1900 1950 2000
Morgan Creek Stream Restoration Site
Haywood County, NC
Profile - Morgan Creek
Profile
� r
IL
2545
2540
—AS -Built Bed 2�'
—Year2 Bed
-Year3 Bed 2530
Year4 Bed _ 2525
—Year 5 Bed Stan.. (H)
2500 2550 2600 2650 2700 2750 2000 2,350 2900 2950 3000
Page 12 of 26
2500—
— 2575
�.
2570
25&5
—AS -Built Bed
—Year2 Bed —
2`'�
—Year3 Bed
Year4 Bed
—Year 5 9ed 5€a0
(�
Morgan Creek Stream Restoration Site
Haywood County, NC
Profile - Morgan Creek
Profile
� r
IL
2545
2540
—AS -Built Bed 2�'
—Year2 Bed
-Year3 Bed 2530
Year4 Bed _ 2525
—Year 5 Bed Stan.. (H)
2500 2550 2600 2650 2700 2750 2000 2,350 2900 2950 3000
Page 12 of 26

:reek Stream Restor
Haywood County, NC
R.N. - Margan Creek
Prohle
x'
6
353§
3534
2525
2520
— A,BUitt D. 15
—Year 2 Bed 2510 -
Year 3 Bed
Year Bed 2545
—Year 5 Bed SLffiio 611 2506
3000 3050 3100 3150 3200 3250 3390 3350 3400 3450 3500
Morgan Creek Stream Restoration Site
Haywood County, NC
P.M. - Margan Creek
Profile
x
2514.
—^ 2 §10
2505
— AS -BUitt Betl 2500
—Year 2 Bed 2495
Yea r3 Bed Year4 2
Bed 490
- - - 2485 -
—Year 5 Bed Sta[ion�' Iffy
3500 3550 3600 3859 3700 3750 3800 3 &80 3900 3950 4
000
Morgan Creek Stream Restoration Site
Ha}"WOad COanty, NC
Profile Reach 7 -North Branch
North 13ranetr Profile
262(1
2618 � —As -Built Bed
Year 2 Bed
2616 Year 3 Bed
2614 � Year4 Bed
2
—Yew 5 Bed
2612
a 261D
a
V, 2608
2606
2604 � r
2692
26D6 -
1000 1020 1040 1660 1080 1100 1120 114
0 1166 1180 1200 7220
5[ation {ft)
Page 13 of 26
Morgan Creek Stream Restoration Site
Haywood County, NC
Year 3 Bed
'
Profile - Morgan Creek
Profile
—Years Betl 9
9[aDO. (
X2530
42525
2520
2515
2510
2505
2500
—AS -Built Bed
2495
Year2 Bed
2490
2485
2d80
4000 4050 4100 4150 4200 4250 4300 4350 4400 4450 4500
Morgan Creek Stream Restoration Site
Haywood County, NC
P.M. - Margan Creek
Profile
x
2514.
—^ 2 §10
2505
— AS -BUitt Betl 2500
—Year 2 Bed 2495
Yea r3 Bed Year4 2
Bed 490
- - - 2485 -
—Year 5 Bed Sta[ion�' Iffy
3500 3550 3600 3859 3700 3750 3800 3 &80 3900 3950 4
000
Morgan Creek Stream Restoration Site
Ha}"WOad COanty, NC
Profile Reach 7 -North Branch
North 13ranetr Profile
262(1
2618 � —As -Built Bed
Year 2 Bed
2616 Year 3 Bed
2614 � Year4 Bed
2
—Yew 5 Bed
2612
a 261D
a
V, 2608
2606
2604 � r
2692
26D6 -
1000 1020 1040 1660 1080 1100 1120 114
0 1166 1180 1200 7220
5[ation {ft)
Page 13 of 26
Year 3 Bed
'
Year4 Bed
—Years Betl 9
9[aDO. (
(�
000
Morgan Creek Stream Restoration Site
Ha}"WOad COanty, NC
Profile Reach 7 -North Branch
North 13ranetr Profile
262(1
2618 � —As -Built Bed
Year 2 Bed
2616 Year 3 Bed
2614 � Year4 Bed
2
—Yew 5 Bed
2612
a 261D
a
V, 2608
2606
2604 � r
2692
26D6 -
1000 1020 1040 1660 1080 1100 1120 114
0 1166 1180 1200 7220
5[ation {ft)
Page 13 of 26
0 1166 1180 1200 7220
5[ation {ft)
Page 13 of 26
Page 13 of 26

ia
L
v
w
Riffle Cass Section
-40 -31 27 C 0 10 20 351 40 50
Station (ft)
--As -built
—Year 1
—Year 2
— Year 3
Year 4
—Year 5
—BKF
C
C
iR
c
v
w
Pool Crc" 8aation
-25 -11 5 5 15 25 35 45 55 65 7E
#Lion to
Pool Cross Section
-25 15 35 55 75
Station {ft}
Page 14 of 26
—,jo�III:
vw •1
wear 2
Yew 3
Yew 4
— Ifew 5
@ L=
—As-built
—Year 1
—Year 2
—Year 3
Year 4
—Year 5
—BKF
2562
=
• 2KF
25513
2556
-25 15 35 55 75
Station {ft}
Page 14 of 26
—,jo�III:
vw •1
wear 2
Yew 3
Yew 4
— Ifew 5
@ L=
—As-built
—Year 1
—Year 2
—Year 3
Year 4
—Year 5
—BKF

i•A
C
.c
w
Riffle Cross Section
-17 -7 13 23 33 43 53
Station (ft)
—As -built
—Year 1
aK
—Year 2
—Year 3
m
Year 4
w
—Year 5
—BKF
2536
Pool Cross Section
-7 3 133 33 43 53 63 73
Station (ft)
Page 15 of 26
Foal Grc" Seatfon
i31,8 E
-
5f3
75
Mail o r, I tt}
As-built
--- Year 1
Year 2
—Year 3
Year4
—Year 5
— BKF
—A
V ear 1
Y eY i
Yem 3
v 5m 4
�Yem�
BK

2612 . -KF
2610
_ W i
Riffle Cross Section
ZkD
26 IV
I 2CI K 40
—As=guilt
Date of Occurrence o
Bankfull Event
—Year 1_
Method of Data Collection
—Year 2
Spring 2009
—Year 3
t}
Year4
}
0.8
W:
year F
Simmier 2009
6KF
Crest Gauge
Table VIII. Verification of Bankfull Events
Pawl Cross Section.
• BK:
8 .8 2& 3: 4.
Station (ft)
Date of Data
Collection
Date of Occurrence o
Bankfull Event
Height Above
Bankfull (ft)
Method of Data Collection
6/16/09
Spring 2009
At Bankfall
Debris evidence at bartkfall
719109
7/8/09
0.8
crest Gauge
10/6109
Simmier 2009
0.6
Crest Gauge
9/7111
Stuiatner 2011
0.3
Crest Gauge and Debris evidence
9/18/13
Simmer 2013
0.8
Crest Gauge and Debris evidence
Page 16 of 26
—As-built
—Year 1
—Year 2
— Year 3
Year 4
—Year 5
BKF

Table VII. Morphology and Hydraulic llotutoring Summary
Morgan C:reek Stream Restoration Site (DO6035 -A)
Reach 1: A10rg.an Creek
Parameter
Gross Section RF1
Riffle
Cross Section PL1
Pool
Dime3Aon
MYl MY2 ViY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
MiYl MY2 MY3 1`•fY4 MY5 MY+
Dimension
MYl MY'_ MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
MYl MY2 ViY3 MY4 MY5 1.1'1 -
Bkf Width (ft)
12.9
13
14.2
12.4
9.8
15.6
14.0
13.9
15.1
15.2
9.8
33
Floodprone Width (ft)
63
63
63
63
63
-
-
-
-
-
-
10.6
Bkf Gross Sectional Area (ft')
11.4
11.6
8.7
6
9.1
19.9
13.4
12.5
10.8
11.6
9.8
0.7
BE Mean Depth (ft)
0.9
0.9
0.6
0.5
0.9
1.3
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.7
1.5
Bkf V1ax D (ft)
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.2
1.9
-
1.5
1.4
1.7
1.7
2
19.8
Width,-Depth Ratio
14.6
14.6
23.3
25.9
10.6
-
-
-
-
-
1 2.5
Entrenchment Ratio
4.9
4.9
4.4
5.1
6.4
-
-
1.0
1.0
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1
1
-
-
Wetted Perim* (ft)
H ydraulic Radius (ft)
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
Substrate
Substrate
D, (mni )
51
26
Di,a (mm )
94
17.6
6.7
0.1
14.9
D64 (mm )
139
109
D64 (M-1
207
122
81
1
1 127
Table VII. 3lorphologr- and H ydraulic Monitoring Sumrnar%
Alorgan C:reek Stream Restoration Site (DO6035 -?L)
Reach 2: Morgan Creek
Parameter
Cross SectionRF2
Piffle
Cross Section PL2
Pool
Dime3Aon
MYl MY2 ViY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
MiYl MY2 MY3 1`•fY4 MY5 MY+
Bkf Width (ft)
13.3
14.1
13.5
13.9
13.8
14 -9
151
16.3
15.6
16.3
1; .1
14.5
FloodproBe Width (ft)
33
33
33
33
33
36
-
-
-
-
-
-
Bkf Gross Sectional Area (ft`)
12
10.6
9.8
112
9.9
12.4
21.8
111.2
19.9
18.5
12.2
9.5
BU Mean De (ft)
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.8
1.4
1.2
1.3
1.1
0.7
0.`+
Bkf Vlax D . (ft)
1.6
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.8
' ,
2.1
-
1.7
1.9
1.5
Width;Depth Ratio
14.8
19.8
18.9
17.2
19.1
18
22.8
22.3
-
-
-
Entrencbment Ratio
2.5
1 2.5
2.4
1 2.4
2.4
2.4
1 2.1
2.2
-
Bank Heisht Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1
1.0
1.0
1.0
-
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
H ydraulic Radius (ft)
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
Substrate
Subsmate
D, (mni )
51
26
20
1.3
47
is
2
51
D64 (mm )
139
109
104
151
113
98
100
109
Table VH. Nlorpholog4- and Hydraulic Monitoring Summat•y
llorgau C:reek Stream Restoration Site (D06035 -A)
Reach 3: Morgan Creek
Parameter
Gross Section RF3
Riffle
Crass Section PL3
Pool
Dimension
MYl MY2 NIY3 &f§'4 MYS MY+
MY1 MY2 VIY3 MY4 MY5 MY-
Bkf Width (ft)
14.6
14.9
14 -9
17.1
16.5
14.9
13.4
14.5
15.6
14.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
36
36
36
36
36
-
-
-
-
-
Bkf Cross Sectional Area (ftj
15.3
12 -3
12.4
12.8
12.3
11.8
10
9.5
9.7
8.4
BE Mean Depth (ft)
1
O.S
0.8
0 -7
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.`+
0.6
0.6
Bkf Niax Depth (ft)
1.9
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.1
12
1.1
1.5
1.5
1.4
Width,De th Ratio
14
13
18
22.8
22.3
-
-
-
-
-
FntrenfibuaentRatio
2.5
1 -1.5
2.4
1 2.1
2.2
-
-
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
-
-
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
Subsmate
Dso(mm )
44
39
is
2
51
D64 (mm)
132
104
98
100
109
Page 17 of 26

Table VII. Morphology and Hydraulic Alonitoring Summary
Mor g"tn C reek Stream Restoration Site (DO6035 - -i.)
Reach 4 Morgan Creek
Par' a lnetel
C4nss SectionRM
Riffle
Cross Section PL4
Pool
Dimension
MY1 MY2 MY3 1wfY4 MY5 MY-
NfY1 MY2 -� 3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Bkf Width (ft)
15.7
15.7
153
16.1
15.6
15A
16.9
16:9
17
16.4
Floor one Width (ft)
44
44
44
44
44
-
-
-
-
-
Bkf Cross Sectional Area Fftx)
14.1
18.2
183
17.5
16.1
1 183
24.5
1 5
19.2
16.9
Bkf Mean D (ft)
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.1
1
1.2
1.2
1 -:
1.1
1
Bkf Max De (ft)
2.0
1.9
2
1.8
2.4
2 1
2.4
8.6
2.3
2..3
Width.'De th Ratio
12.9
13.5
12.8
14.8
15
-
-
-
-
-
Entrenchment Ratio
2.8
1 2:8
2.9
1 2.7
2.8
-
-
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.4
1.0
1.4
-
-
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
Substrate
D,, (mm)
50
50
14
1
60
DS4 (nom )
144
103
63
75
47
Table NM. Morphology and Hydraulic Alonitoring Summai -a.
_Morgan. Creek Stream Restoration Site {DO6035A)
Reach 5: North Branch
Paz ameten
CSoss Section RF5
Rime
Cross Section PL5
Pool
Dimension
MY1 MY' MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
NfY'1 hf42 - Y3 MY4 MY5 hfY-+
BU Width (ft)
8.6
1.1
7.5
9 -5
9.3
8 -4
7.9
8.2
10
7.6
Flood rune Width (ft)
22
22
22
22
22
-
-
-
-
-
Bkf Cross Sectional tires (ft)
4.5
3.9
4 -1
2.9
8 -7
6.7
7.8
4.2
5.6
Bkf Mean De (ft)
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
1.0
0.9
1
0.6
4.7
Bkf Max Depth (lt)
1.0
0.9
1.1
1.1
1
1.9
1.4
8.6
1.1
1.3
Width-'Depth Ratio
16.5
12.9
15.2
22.1
29.9
-
-
-
-
-
Entrenchment Ratio
2.6
1 2.6
2.9
1 2 -2
2.36
-
-
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
-
-
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
H *aulic Radius (11)
Substrate
D, (ram)
31
51
23
0.1
28
Ds¢ Form
177
160
108
4
57
Page 18 of 26

Vegetation Data
BARE ROOT PI—ANTINGS
Botanical Name
Common Name
Total Stems
Planted
Acer saccharum
Sugar Maple
425
Amelanchier laevis
Smooth. Serviceberry
425
Aronia arbutifolia
CIiokeberiy
125
Betula nigra
River Birch
100
Ca inns carohniana
Ironwood
525
Comus amotnum
SU), Dogwood
125
Fa us grandifolia var. grandifOlin
American Beech
425
Halesia tehaptera var. tetra sera
Common SilveTbell
425
Hamarnelis virginiana
Witch Hazel
700
Lindera benzoin var. benzoin
Spicebush
700
Liriodendron tulipffera var. tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
525
Platanus occiden talis var. occidentahs
Sycamore
100
aiercus m on tana
Chestnut 0,91-
425
Querc-us nibra var. nibra
Nwthem Red Oak-
425
Sassaftas albidian
Sassafras
425
Dim americans
Basswood
425
Tsuga canadensis
Eastern Hemlock
300
LIVE STAKES
Botanical Name
Common Name
Total Stems
Planted
Cornus amotnum
S , Dogwood
700
salix nigra
Black Willow
700
Satnbucus canadensis
ElderbeiTy
300
Plot
Date Sarnoed
Planted
Living
Stems
)ead UT
Missing
Stems
Volunteer
7tfms
101.11
Uing
�Iem:
Avenge
rem- Per
AC re
= �pedes
10/312013
0
12
4,96
8
2
io/2/2on
is
2
1
19
769
8
3
10/3/2013
9
2
0
9
364
5
4
10/x/2013
7
3
0
7
293
6
5
10POM
1fl
2
0
10
-ICIS
6
6
10!jx0l{
1C
0
C,
- ®1
-Ios
0
Page 19 of 26

Wetland Data:
Year 5 (2013)Well Data
Summary of Wetland Criteria Attainment
Well Hydrology Threshold Met?
11-ell
consecutlV a
2011
2012
2013
% of
Comment
GW #1
Hydrology
Day s of
Y/146/83%
Tract
M ell ID
GW #2
Grog ilig
N/7/24%
Y/60/34%
I ireshold
Hydrology
GW #3
Y/21/39%
N/5/12%
Y/9/5%
season ile#
Y/86/93%
Met`'
Met
ci'VV1
Yes
1�5
100
Y/15/37%
Installed 2013
GW #6
Y/15/37%
Installed 2013
Summary of Wetland Criteria Attainment
Well Hydrology Threshold Met?
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
(Threshold Met (Y or N) /Consecutive Days of Hydrodolgy Met/ % of
Growing Season Met
Comment
GW #1
Y/175/100%
Y/176/100%
Y/146/83%
Y/127/94%
Y/175/100%
GW #2
N/0/0%
N/7/24%
Y/60/34%
Y/79/59%
Y/17/74%
GW #3
Y/21/39%
N/5/12%
Y/9/5%
Y/47/35%
Y/86/93%
GW #4
N/A
Y/33/35%
Well installed (2012)
but failed
GW #5
Y/15/37%
Installed 2013
GW #6
Y/15/37%
Installed 2013
Page 20 of 26

EEP Recommendation and Conclusion
Hydrology
Following the completion of construction in January of 2009, the Site has been subjected to at
least five bankfull or greater events. The portions of the southwest region of the state
experienced rainfall well above normal during the spring of 2009. In July of 2009 a high rainfall
event resulted in high water at 0.8 ft. above bankfull or 1.6 times maximum channel depth. No
bankfull or greater- than - bankfull flows were recorded during the second year of monitoring
(2010). One greater- than - bankfull flow was recorded during the third year of monitoring (2011).
No greater- than - bankfull events were recorded during the fourth year of monitoring (2012). One
greater- than - bankfull flow was recorded during the fifth year of monitoring (2013).
Stream
The stream reaches have managed the high -flow events of the first five years. Visual inspection
of the Site following the bankfull event in June of 2009 revealed no noticeable adjustments in the
bed or bank. The overbank event in July of 2009 resulted in noticeable adjustments in many of
the riffles. The overall grade of the channel has been maintained, while there are numerous local
adjustments in the riffles and pools. These adjustments appear to be consistent with the channel
form and have generally not affected structure stability or function. The Year 5 monitoring visit
showed that the bed has remained stable since the Year 4 monitoring visit.
Vegetation
Native woody and herbaceous species were used to establish, at minimum, a thirty -foot riparian
buffer on each side of the restored reach. Herbaceous species have successfully established
throughout the entire site. On -site sod transplants used to reconstruct the channel banks are well
established and show evidence of vigorous growth. Riparian buffer planting exhibits a high
survival rate, with an average density for planted living stems at the end of Monitoring Year 5 of
425 stems per acre.
Wetland
Wetland hydrology criteria was met on two of three groundwater gauges in the first year of
monitoring, one of the three gauges in the second year, three out of three the third year and
fourth year. The newly installed groundwater gauge (GW4) was installed in the spring of 2011.
Although a maintenance site visit was conducted to service the groundwater gauge during Year
4, no data was recovered due to gauge failure. During the fifth year of monitoring, groundwater
gauge four was replaced and two new gauges were installed (See Appendix A for gauge
locations). Five out of six gauges met criteria during the fifth year of monitoring. Overall, the
Site has met wetland hydrology criteria.
In summary, The Morgan Creek restoration site has successfully met the performance criteria
outlined in the original mitigation plan as a result of restoration activities. EEP recommends
submitting the project for regulatory closure to generate 4,083 SMUs and 0.83 riparian WMUs.
Contingencies
There are no contingencies at this time.
Page 21 of 26

Pre - Construction Photos
Pre Construction 2008
Post - Construction Photos
Post Construction 2013
Page 22 of 26

Appendix A: Watershed Planning Summary
92531— Morgan Creek (French Broad)
Watershed Characteristics Overview
The Morgan Creek project is located in northeast Haywood County, approximately 12 miles
north of Waynesville, in the French Broad River Basin. It is located within HUC
06010106020040, the Fines Creek watershed, which is listed as a Targeted Local Watershed
(TLW) in the 2009 French Broad River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) plan.
Morgan Creek flows into Fines Creek approximately 300 feet downstream of the project site;
Fines Creek then flows approximately 3.5 miles downstream, where it enters the Pigeon River.
Neither Morgan Creek nor Fines Creek is on the 2012 North Carolina 303(d) list of impaired
waters. However, the 2014 Draft 303(d) list includes the full length (9.7 miles) of Fines Creek
as impaired due to a low (fair) fish community rating. There are no High Quality Waters
(HQWs) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORWs) in the Fines Creek TLW. Seven percent of
the watershed area is in protected Conservation Areas. The 2009 RBRP identified 12 Natural
Heritage Element Occurrences (occurrences of rare plants and animals or unique natural
communities) within the TLW. The 35- square mile TLW is 15% agricultural, 80% forested
(including wetland areas) and four percent developed.
Major problems noted within this TLW (2009 RBRP) include degraded (non- forested) riparian
buffers, agricultural stressors (pasture and livestock), high nutrient and sediment loads and
impaired aquatic habitat.
Links to Watershed Goals and Objectives
The Morgan Creek project includes stream and buffer restoration and enhancement along
approximately 4,000 linear feet of Morgan Creek (pre- restoration length), as well as riparian
wetland restoration/enhancement amounting to approximately 1 acre. The Morgan Creek
Restoration Plan (Restoration Systems and Wolf Creek Engineering, 2008) addresses several
project - specific stressors, including incised stream channels (historically dredged /straightened),
impacted riparian buffers, livestock grazing (and historical access to streams), land clearing for
new residential development, and degraded in- stream habitat. The project contributes to the
following goals and objectives:
- Increasing filtration/removal of sediment and nutrients through riparian buffer
establishment and reconnection of the stream channel to its floodplain;
- Improving local aquatic and terrestrial habitat through restoration of riparian
wetlands, restoration of the riparian buffer corridor and restoration of in- stream bed
form;
- Stabilizing channels and stream banks, and reconnecting stream to floodplain;
- Restoring stable channel morphology and sediment transport capacity;
- Establishing riparian buffer through planting of a native forest and herbaceous plant
community.
These project - specific actions, combined with the agricultural BMPs noted below, should
contribute to significant water quality and aquatic habitat improvements within Morgan Creek
and throughout the entire Fines Creek watershed.

Watershed Summary
There are no other EEP mitigation projects within this HU. There are eight agricultural BMP
sites in the watershed (per 2014 documentation by the NC Division of Soil and Water
Conservation), including five pasture renovation projects, a stock trail upgrade project, alternate
watering sources (trough or tank) and stabilization of an animal heavy -use area.
f Card s w6+9S 0.-
'aa ewe
eV5 P �b rn�
P11— River ( 'a
rirrrrceme meek � � L �
^ate
Morgan Creek
a— C-1, ❑ 'o"C,eek C— C. k ��Cryaf
._,cg— Pdrer P '-� - field Fork
tam . a
Legend aReaene h�a °�
h an 4
Q EEP Projects (Tier 1) 2614 Closeouts `-"` C,•a P'�'Fn��
e 5 U
EEP Projects (Tier 10
C Agricultural BM Ps 2
s
♦ CWMTF Projects
a °
319 Projects h q C
Catalog Units
EE P Lo cal Watershed P fans EEP 2014 Project Closeout
EEPTargeted Local Watersheds 0 0.75 1.5 3 r
Morgan Creek (French Broad 06010106) Miles
County Boundaries 1 "c Jsyste111

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:
Grantor
County
Site Protection
Instrument
Deed Book &
Page Number
Acreage
protected
James M. Ferguson
Haywood
Conservation
692/548
10.24
Easement
M IWeRa 104 19 UV IU IFReKT44 04 ►A I WII l`►1
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 .org /c /documents library /get file ?p 1 id= 60409 &f6lderld = 11706724 &name=
DLFE- 64775.pdf

APPENDIX C - Jurisdictional Determination & Permits
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action ID. 2008 -01057 County: Haywood
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
Property Owner / Authorized Agent: Restoration Systems, LLC, Attn: Mr. John Prever
Address: 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, NC 27604
Telephone No.: (919) 755 -9490
Size and location of property (water body, road narne /number, town, etc.): The project area is located
on Kirkpatrick Road near Waynesville, Haywood County, North Carolfuna. Coordinates for the
site are 35.6881 north and 82.9547 west.
Description of projects area and activity: The permittee is authorized to impact 0.051 acre of wetlands
and 3,813 linear feet of streams (Morgan Creek, South Branch, Middle Branch, and North Branch)
in order to perform enhancement and restoration activities. All work will be conducted in
accordance with the restoration plan dated January 23, 2008, and all supporting information
sumbitted with this plan.
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, the conditions in the attached letter from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,
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 pf the conditions of the Permit, or the Corps of
Engineers regulatory program, please contact Lori Beckwid,fat 828 - 271 -7980.
Corps Regulatory Official: uLori Beckwith f Date: June 2 2_008
Expiration Date of Verification: June 2,

-2-
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 detemrination may be relied upon for a
period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
C. ® 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 wetlands as determined by the USACE 1987 Wetland
Delineation Manual and they abut stream channels that exhibit indicators of ordinary high water marks. The stream
channels on the property are Morgan Creek, South Branch, Middle Branch, North Branch; these waters flow into the
French Broad River. The French Broad River is a Section 10 water.
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: Lori Beckwith, 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: Lori Beckwith
Issue Date: June 2, 2008 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: Restoration Systems, LLC, Attn: Mr. M. Randall Turner, 1101 Hayes Street, Suite 211,
Raleigh, NC 27604
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 visit ht tp : / /regulatory.usacesurvey.com/ to complete the survey online.

Permit Number: 2008 -01057
Permit Type: NW27
Name of County: Haywood
Name of Permittee: Restoration Systems, LLC, Attn: Mr. John Preyer
Date of Issuance: June 2, 2008
Project Manager: Lori Beckwith
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:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Attention: CESAW -RG -A
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801 -5006
Please note that your permitted activity is subject to a compliance inspection by an 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 conditions of the said permit, and required mitigation was
completed in accordance with the pen-nit conditions.
Signature of Permittee Date

G
Applicant: Restoration Systems, LLC, Attn: File Number: 2008 -01057 Date: June 2, 2008
Mr. John Pre er
Attached is:
See Section below
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of
A
ermission)
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission)
B
PERMIT DENIAL
C
X APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
D
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
E
e+ t t �. n ui a'fii 4 h �.' x
SECIOIy I�Phel1ou mg Iclenhfies yourIghts;an� �optlop regarding an admlmstrative
'�' •r i P }�.',�a.3'"
r }� �{
a peal °Qfthe above
{k'i
dec s ptl ,ddltronal mfolmat n map¢ba £o�n d at hltp / /wuwusace armv�nill�net/fimctions
i5
ew /eecwo/re� or
o
sr :aiorisl`at33CR,Part331z,:.
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 II 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 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.
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 H 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.
° '#3� i'3 % 1".."'Mk'h k ° 0- .Ck i i+'� A.0 'y t: .. Al
IONSTQAIIITIAO%lE%)PETb
SIG�T)ON Ix gE Tr)OR,< QB OF
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Descri be 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.
7?OINT�FCOI�7®RESTNS OINFORiY1EiTI�T1;r'
� ES.}
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process
appeal process you may contact:
you may also contact:
Lori Beckwith, Project Manager
Mr. Michael F. Bell,
USAGE, Asheville Regulatory Field Office
Administrative Appeal Review Officer
151 Patton Ave, Room 208
CESAD- ET -CO -R
Asheville, NC 28806
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
828 -271 -7980
60 Forsyth Street, Room 9M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 -8801
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.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits and approved Jurisdictional Determinations send
this form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn:Lori Beckwith, Project Manager,
Asheville Regulatory Field Office, 151 Patton Avenue, Room 208, Asheville, NC 28801.
For Permit denials and Proffered Permits send this form to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr.
Mike Bell, Administrative Appeal Officer, CESAD- ET -CO -R, 60 Forsyth Street, Room
9M15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303 -8801

`o�DF W A7'F90
� r
O
Mr. John Preyer
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, NC, 27604
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
June 2, 2008
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
DWQ Project # 2007 -0494 Version 2
Haywood County
Subject Property: Morgan Creek II, Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
Morgan Creek, S -32 -7, Class C
Approval of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions
Dear Mr. Preyer:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to cut 0.051
acres of wetlands and to pursue cut and fill activities in 3,813 feet of streams for the purpose of
conducting wetland and stream mitigation activities at the subject property, as described within your
application dated March 19, 2008 and received by the N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ) on March
19, 2008, and in additional correspondence received June 2, 2008. After reviewing your application, we
have decided that the impacts are covered by General Water Quality Certification Number(s) 3689
(GC3689). The Certification(s) allows you to use Nationwide Permit(s) 27 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, Non - discharge, and other applicable 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 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:
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 919 - 733 -6893 / Internet: litty' /lh2o.enr.state.nc.us/iicwetlmds
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer — 50% Recycled /10 %Post Consumer Paper
Npw
hCarolina a
Amount Approved Units
Plan Location or Reference
Stream
3,813 (feet)
PCN form
404 Wetlands
0.051 (acres)
PCN form
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 919 - 733 -6893 / Internet: litty' /lh2o.enr.state.nc.us/iicwetlmds
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer — 50% Recycled /10 %Post Consumer Paper
Npw
hCarolina a

Morgan Creek II Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
Page 2 of 3
June 2, 2008
2. Erosion & Sediment Control Practices
Erosion and sediment control practices must be in full compliance with all specifications
governing the proper design, installation and operation and maintenance of such Best
Management Practices in order to protect surface waters standards:
a. The erosion and sediment control measures for the project must be designed, installed,
operated, and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the North Carolina
Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual.
b. The design, installation, operation, and maintenance of the sediment and erosion control
measures must be such that they equal, or exceed, the requirements specified in the most
recent version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Manual. The devices
shall be maintained on all construction sites, borrow sites, and waste pile (spoil) projects,
including contractor -owned or leased borrow pits associated with the project.
c. For borrow pit sites, the erosion and sediment control measures must be designed, installed,
operated, and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the North Carolina
Surface Mining Manual.
d. The reclamation measures and implementation must comply with the reclamation in
accordance with the requirements of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act.
3. No Waste, Spoil, Solids, or Fill of Any Kind
No waste, spoil, solids, or fill of any kind shall occur in wetlands, waters, or riparian areas beyond
the footprint of the impacts depicted in the Pre - Construction Notification. All construction
activities, including the design, installation, operation, and maintenance of sediment and erosion
control Best Management Practices, shall be performed so that no violations of state water quality
standards, statutes, or rules occur.
4. No Sediment & Erosion Control Measures w/n Wetlands or Waters
Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or waters to the maximum
extent practicable. If placement of sediment and erosion control devices in wetlands and waters
is unavoidable, they shall be removed and the natural grade restored within six months of the date
that the Division of Land Resources has released the project.
S. Certificate of Completion
Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification or applicable
Buffer Rules, and any subsequent modifications, the applicant is required to return the attached
certificate of completion to the 401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit, North Carolina
Division of Water Quality, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699 -1650.
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 Permit.

Morgan Creek 11 Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
Page 3 of 3
June 2, 2008
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.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act. If you have any questions, please telephone Cyndi Karoly in the Central Office in Raleigh at 919-
733 -9721 or Kevin Barnett in the DWQ Asheville Regional Office at 828 - 296 -4500.
Sincerely,
Coleen Sullins
A WK/cbk
Enclosures: GC 3689
Certificate of Completion
cc: Randy Turner, Restoration Systems, 1101 Haynes St., Suite 211, Raleigh, NC, 27604
USACE Asheville Regulatory Field Office
DWQ Asheville Regional Office
DLR Asheville Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
Filename: 20070494 V2MorganCreek(Haywood)401

Mitigation Project Name
EEP IMS ID
River Basin
Cataloging Unit
Morgan Creek (French Broad)
92531
FRENCH BROAD
06010106
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
p
t0
C
E
U
0
m
U
O
m
i
O
m
O
O
O
O
C
C O
O
O
y
a c
w O
O
O
d
G O
O N
C O
g 0
N C
O
N
N
N O
N O
N
41
N "'
O
.-,
O
m
y
t0
IE
N
N
d
ii
10 E
N
y
d
N N
U
C
E
10 d
10 i
O
E
i
C
m O
d
m E
=
d
C VI
N v
a
_
C—
d
D.
C
p, C
d
= 0
IO
= C
= y
�0 O
.�, d
N
E 2
`p
E d
T
i U
E
W
W
E
C
IC
10
10
L
C N
O N
zo
O.
C R
O L
z
C N
O `
za
N N
N d
N
10 ii
N
10 L
N N
IC `
M
E
M O
i IV
Z O
N V
`
a
W
W
0
c.)
v W
c�a
wL
�
A
U)
(n
N
y
CL
R
Of
o
K
o
z
w
3
m
0
F
Beginning Balance (feet and acres)
3,711.00
558.00
0.60
0.46
Beginning Balance (mitigation credits)
3,711.00
372.00
0.60
0.23
NCDOT Pre -EEP Debits (feet and acres): Not Applicable
EEP Debits (feet and acres):
DWQ Permit No
USACE Action IDs
Impact Project Name
2007 - 0946 -344
SR 1326 - Division 14
50.00
2007 - 0956 -344
SR 1209 - Division 14
40.00
2007 - 0659 -344
SR 1260 - Division 14
296.00
2007 -00659
SR 1260 - Division 14
57.00
2007 - 01873 -344
SR 1330 - Division 14
60.00
Lime Kiln Lane - Division
2007 - 02371 -388
14
20.00
2008 - 01805 -344
SR 1338 - Division 14
40.00
2008 - 01897 -344
SR 1147 - Division 14
95.00
2008 - 02899 -344
SR 1336 - Division 14
188.00
2008 -01844
SR 1870 - Division 14
143.00
NCDOT TIP U -4412 - SR
2012 -01509
1184 Widening
139.00
0.03
0.14
SR 1818 - Bridge 194 -
2012 -01944
Division 14
90.00
NCDOT TIP K -5002 - US
23 / 74 Southbound Rest
2013 -00402
Area
78.00
SR 1311 - Bridge 328 -
2013 -00415
Division 14
96.00
SR 1513 - Bridge 165 -
2013 -00960
Division 14
72.00
SR 1863 - Bridge 368 -
2013 -01084
Division 14
84.00
NCDOT TIP B -4763 -
2013 -01249
Bridge 35 on SR 1503
194.00
SR 1820 - Bridge 321 -
1
1
2013 -01522
Division 14
114.001
Information from EEP Debit Ledger dated 08/13/2014

Mitigation Project Name
EEP IMS ID
River Basin
Cataloging Unit
Morgan Creek (French Broad)
92531
FRENCH BROAD
06010106
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
c
E
E°
E
=
c
E°
E
g
E
c
m m
m o
-
m E
a
o
c c
m 0
m m
c
m 0
m •-
c
C E
m a
c o
m .�
m
s
c
o
m
s
m o
s
a
m E
y
s
o
m
`o
y
R
c
N
m
v
c
m`
v
N
m p
a
jp
`m m
a
`m v
ac
10
`m >
_aa
0
a o
N
a
a,
c
7
o-
•- a
N
m `o
N N
m 10
`
N
m c
N O
m a
N O
N
in r
w
N N
c
N
a
R N
Q: U
d' L
w
`
a
c
O N
zW
c
O U
z
c
O c
z W
C
O
za
10 d
W
M U
N L
W
A
W
t0
co
ti
tia
Beginning Balance (feet and acres)
326.00
0.57
Beginning Balance (mitigation credits)
326.00
0.57
NCDOT Pre -EEP Debits (feet and acres): Not Applicable
EEP Debits (feet and acres):
DWQ Permits
USACE Action IDs
Impact Project Name
City of Albemarle Landfill
2004 -30314
Expansion
Remaining Balance (feet and acres)
326.00
0.571
1
Remaining Balance (mitigation credits)
Information from EEP Debit Ledger dated 08/13/2014