20141127 Ver 1_Draft Mitigation Plans_20141023

DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site
Chatham County, North Carolina
DENR Contract No. D14001i
SCO No. 1209857 -01
EEP ID No. 93482
Cape Fear River Basin
HUC 03030003
Prepared for:
k1bo 'I%,-
is stew
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
October, 2014

DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site
Chatham County, North Carolina
DENR Contract No. D14001i
SCO No. 1209857 -01
EEP ID No. 93482
Cape Fear River Basin
HUC 03030003
Prepared for:
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
Prepared by:
% ww
W1LDLANDS
E N G I N E E R I N G
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
5605 Chapel Hill Road, Suite 122
Raleigh, NC 27607
Phone — 919 - 851 -9986
October, 2014

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. ( Wildlands) is completing a stream restoration and enhancement
project at the Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (Site) for the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) to restore and enhance a total of 3,750 linear feet (LF) of perennial stream in
Chatham County, NC. The Site is proposed to generate 2,938 Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs).
This site is located in the Upper Rocky River Watershed within Cape Fear River Basin Hydrologic
Unit Code (HUC) 03030003 (Cape Fear 03). Restoration and enhancement activities will be
performed on Mud Lick Creek and two unnamed tributaries hereafter referred to as North Branch
and East Branch.
Mud Lick Creek has been classified by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (NCDENR) as a Class WS -III; CA surface water (DENR, 2004). The proposed project will
improve water quality as well as provide numerous ecological benefits within the Cape Fear River
Basin. The project will help meet management recommendations of the Upper Rocky River Local
Watershed Plan by restoring a vegetated riparian buffer zone, stabilizing eroding stream banks,
and removing livestock from streams and riparian zones. These activities will result in reduced
nutrient, sediment, and fecal coliform inputs; improved aquatic and riparian habitat, and other
ecological benefits.
This mitigation plan has been written in conformance with the requirements of the following:
• Federal rule for compensatory mitigation project sites as described in the Federal Register
Title 33 Navigation and Navigable Waters Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section § 332.8 paragraphs
(c)(2) through (c)(14).
• NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program In -Lieu Fee Instrument signed and dated July
28, 2010.
These documents govern EEP operations and procedures for the delivery of compensatory
mitigation.
w
Mud Lick Creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..
1.0
RESTORATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES .....................................
............................... 1
2.0
PROJECT SITE LOCATION AND SELECTION .................................................
............................... 1
2.1
DIRECTIONS TO PROJECT SITE ............................................................................
............................... 1
2.2
SITE SELECTION AND PROJECT COMPONENTS .......................................................
............................... 2
3.0
SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT ................................................................
............................... 2
4.0
BASELINE INFORMATION ...........................................................................
............................... 2
4.1
WATERSHED EXISTING CONDITIONS ....................................................................
............................... 2
4.2
WATERSHED HISTORICAL LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT TRENDS ............................
............................... 3
4.3
PHYSIOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, AND SOILS ................................................................
............................... 3
4.4
VALLEY CLASSIFICATION ....................................................................................
............................... 4
4.5
SURFACE WATER CLASSIFICATION AND WATER QUALITY ........................................
............................... 4
4.6
EXISTING STREAM CONDITION ...........................................................................
............................... 5
4.7
CHANNEL EVOLUTION ......................................................................................
............................... 8
4.8
CHANNEL STABILITY ..........................................................................................
..............................9
4.9
UTILITIES AND SITE ACCESS .............................................................................
............................... 10
5.0
REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS ..............................................................
............................... 11
5.1
401 / 404 ....................................................................................................
............................... 11
5.2
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED S PECIES ...........................................................
............................... 13
5.3
FEDERALLY DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT ........................................................
............................... 15
5.4
CULTURAL RESOURCES ...................................................................................
............................... 15
5.5
SITE EVALUATION METHODOLOGY ...................................................................
............................... 15
5.6
SHPO /THPO CONCURRENCE .........................................................................
............................... 16
5.7
FEMA FLOODPLAIN COMPLIANCE AND HYDROLOGIC TRESPASS .............................
............................... 16
6.0
REFERENCE SITES .....................................................................................
............................... 16
6.1
REFERENCE STREAMS .....................................................................................
............................... 16
6.2
CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY AND CLASSIFICATION OF REFERENCE STREAMS ..................
............................... 16
6.3
REFERENCE STREAMS VEGETATION COMMUNITY TYPES DESCRIPTIONS ....................
............................... 17
7.0
DETERMINATION OF CREDITS ..................................................................
............................... 20
8.0
CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE .....................................................................
............................... 22
8.1
INITIAL ALLOCATION OF RELEASED CREDITS ........................................................
............................... 22
8.2
SUBSEQUENT CREDIT RELEASES .......................................................................
............................... 23
9.0
PROJECT SITE MITIGATION PLAN .............................................................
............................... 23
9.1
JUSTIFICATION FOR PROPOSED INTERVENTION ....................................................
............................... 23
9.2
STREAM RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT DESIGN OVERVIEW ............................
............................... 23
9.3
DESIGN BANKFULL DISCHARGE ANALYSIS ...........................................................
............................... 24
9.4
DESIGN CHANNEL MORPHOLOGIC PARAMETERS .................................................
............................... 25
9.5
SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ANALYSIS .....................................................................
............................... 27
9.6
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION .............................................................................
............................... 29
10.0
MAINTENANCE PLAN ...............................................................................
............................... 30
11.0
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ....................................................................
............................... 31
11.1
STREAMS ....................................................................................................... .............................32
11.2
VEGETATION ................................................................................................ ............................... 33
11.3
VISUAL ASSESSMENTS ......................................................................................
.............................33
12.0
MONITORING PLAN ..................................................................................
............................... 33
12.1
SITE SPECIFIC MONITORING ............................................................................
............................... 33
12.2
STREAMS .......................................................................................................
.............................34
w
Mud Lick Creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page ii

12.3 VISUAL ASSESSMENTS .................................................................................... ............................... 36
12.4 SUPPLEMENTARY MONITORING PROGRAM ........................................................ ............................... 36
13.0 LONG -TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN .......................................................... ............................... 38
14.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN .............................................................. ............................... 38
15.0 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES .......................................................................... ............................... 38
16.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................... .............................39
TABLES
TABLE 1.
SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT ................................................................ ............................... 2
TABLE 2.
PROJECT AND WATERSHED INFORMATION ............................................... ...............................
2
TABLE 3.
FLOODPLAIN SOIL TYPES AND DESCRIPTIONS ........................................... ...............................
4
TABLE 4.
REACH SUMMARY INFORMATION ............................................................. ...............................
5
TABLE 5A.
EXISTING STREAM CONDITIONS — MUD LICK CREEK .................................. ...............................
6
TABLE 5B.
EXISTING STREAM CONDITIONS — NORTH BRANCH AND EAST BRANCH ... ...............................
8
TABLE 6.
EXISTING CONDITIONS CHANNEL STABILITY ASSESSMENT RESULTS ....... ...............................
10
TABLE 7.
WETLAND SUMMARY INFORMATION ...................................................... ...............................
12
TABLE 8.
LISTED THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES IN CHATHAM COUNTY, NC ......................
14
TABLE 11A.
SUMMARY OF REFERENCE REACH GEOMORPHIC PARAMETERS ............ ...............................
17
TABLE 11B.
SUMMARY OF REFERENCE REACH GEOMORPHIC PARAMETERS ............ ...............................
18
TABLE 12.
DETERMINATION OF CREDITS .................................................................. ...............................
21
TABLE 13.
CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE — STREAM CREDITS ...................................... ...............................
22
TABLE 14.
DESIGN BANKFULL DISCHARGE ANALYSIS SUMMARY ............................. ...............................
25
TABLE 15.
DESIGN MORPHOLOGIC PARAMETERS .................................................... ...............................
25
TABLE 16.
COMPETENCE ANALYSIS RESULTS ............................................................ ...............................
28
TABLE 17.
CAPACITY ANALYSIS RESULTS ................................................................... ...............................
28
FIGURES
FIGURE 1
VICINITY MAP
FIGURE 2
SITE EXISTING CONDITIONS MAP
FIGURE 3
USGS TOPO MAP
FIGURE 4
WATERSHED MAP
FIGURE 5
SITE SOIL SURVEY MAP
FIGURE 6
HYDRO FEATURES MAP
FIGURE 7
REFERENCE SITES VICINITY MAP
FIGURE 8
DESIGN OVERVIEW MAP
FIGURE 9
REGIONAL CURVES AND DISCHARGE ESTIMATES DATA
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1
PROJECT SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
APPENDIX 2
HISTORIC AERIAL PHOTOS
APPENDIX 3
NCDWQ STREAM CLASSIFICATION FORMS
APPENDIX 4
EXISTING CONDITIONS GEOMORPHIC DATA
APPENDIX 5
USACE WETLAND DATA FORMS
APPENDIX 6
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
APPENDIX 7
RESOURCE AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE
APPENDIX 8
FLOODPLAIN CHECK LIST
w
Mud Lick Creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page iii

1.0 Restoration Project Goals and Objectives
The Mud Lick Creek project site is located within the Cape Fear River Basin in Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)
03030003. The site is also within the Upper Rocky River local watershed planning (LWP) area and was
identified as a priority mitigation project in the Detailed Assessment and Targeting of Management Report
(Tetra Tech, 2005). The main stressors to aquatic resources identified during the watershed assessments
described in the in the LWP documents include:
• Nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorous) loading from farming;
• Sediment loading from overland runoff, disturbed surfaces, and streambank erosion;
• Cattle access to streams resulting in increased bank erosion and fecal coliform contamination,
and
• Insufficient bank vegetation.
The project will contribute to meeting management recommendations to offset these stressors as
described above for the LWP area by accomplishing the following primary goals:
• Control and reduce nutrient sources from the site;
• Reduce sediment loads from disturbed areas on the site and from eroding stream banks;
• Increased aeration of flows within the project extent promoting increases in dissolved oxygen
concentrations;
• Reduce sources of fecal coliform pollution;
• Improve instream habitat;
• Reduce thermal loadings;
• Reconnect channels with floodplains and raise local water table; and
• Restore riparian habitat.
These goals will be accomplished through the following objectives:
• Restore riparian vegetation on the site and thereby reduce sediment loads to streams from
stream banks and existing pastures, increase on -site retention of sediment and nutrients, create
riparian habitat, and provide shade for streams to reduce thermal loadings;
• Stabilize eroding streambanks to reduce sediment inputs;
• Install fencing around the perimeter of the conservation easement to eliminate livestock access
to streams. This will reduce sediment, nutrient, and fecal coliform inputs.
• Plant restored and stabilized streambanks with native species to improve stability and habitat.
• Install instream structures to improve stability, create habitat, and help aerate streamflows;
• Raise streambeds to reconnect restored channels to floodplains and raise local water tables; and
• Restore streams and vegetation so that the site looks natural and aesthetically pleasing.
2.0 Project Site Location and Selection
2.1 Directions to Project Site
The Site is located in northwestern Chatham County, north of Siler City and northwest of Silk Hope (Figure
1). From Silk Hope take Silk Hope- Liberty Road west for 4.1 miles. Turn right on Siler City -Snow Camp
Road. Travel 0.2 miles. The farm entrance to the project is located on the left side of the road.
W
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 1

2.2 Site Selection and Project Components
The site was selected to provide stream mitigation units (SMUs) in the Cape Fear Basin based on the
current degraded condition of the onsite streams and the potential for functional restoration described
in Section 1.0. Credit determinations are presented in Section 9.0.
Streams proposed for restoration and enhancement include Mud Lick Creek and two unnamed tributaries
hereafter referred to as North Branch and East Branch (Figure 2). Photographs of the project site area
included in Appendix 1.
3.0 Site Protection Instrument
The land required for construction, management, and stewardship of the mitigation project includes
portions of the parcel(s) listed in Table 1. A conservation easement was recorded on the parcel in 2006.
Additional acreage was added to the easement to accommodate the updated site design.
Table 1. Site Protection Instrument
Landowner
PIN
County
Site Protection
Deed Book and
Acreage
Physiographic Region
Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province
Ecoregion
Instrument
Page Number
Protected
Thomas Grayson Heirs
8775 -11 -1240
Chatham
Conservation
DB: 1233 PG: 8491
11.23
MLC -R2
MLC -R3
NB -R1
Easement
EB
Drainage Area (acres)
1. Deed Book and Page Number provided for conservation easement.
All site protection instruments require 60 -day advance notification to the U.S Army Corps of Engineers
and the State prior to any action to void, amend, or modify the document. No such action shall take place
unless approved by the State.
4.0 Baseline Information
4.1 Watershed Existing Conditions
Table 2 presents the project information and baseline watershed information. The watershed areas were
delineated using a combination of site existing conditions survey, Chatham County GIS data and USGS 7.5-
minute topographic quadrangles (Figure 3).
Table 2. Project and Watershed Information
Project County
Chatham County
Easement Area (acres)
11.2
Project Coordinates
35° 48'46" N, 79° 26'6"W
Physiographic Region
Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province
Ecoregion
Piedmont
River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS HUC (8 digit, 14 digit)
03030003, 03030003070010
NCDWQ Sub -basin
03 -06 -12
Reaches
MLC -R1
MLC -R2
MLC -R3
NB -R1
NB -R2
EB
Drainage Area (acres)
1,747
2,170
2,330
236.8
416
172.8
W
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 2

Drainage Area (miles')
2.73
3.39
3.64
0.37
0.65
0.27
NCCGIA Land Cover Classification
Developed
5%
5%
6%
4%
6%
9°%
Forested /Scrubland
44%
42%
41%
31%
32%
33%
Agriculture /Managed Herb.
50%
52%
52%
65%
62%
57%
Open Water
1%
1%
1%
0%
0%
1%
Watershed Impervious Cover
< 1%
< 1%
< 1%
< 1%
< 1%
< 1%
4.2 Watershed Historical Land Use and Development Trends
The Mud Lick Creek Watershed (Figure 4) is located in the rural countryside approximately 4 miles
northwest of Silk Hope. Topography can be described as somewhat hilly to gently rolling. The stream
valleys within the watershed and on site are characterized by relatively narrow floodplains and
moderately steep side slopes.
A review of historical aerials of the Site and immediately adjacent parcels from 1973, 1983, 1993, 1999,
2005, 2006, and 2008 (Appendix 2) revealed that the project site has been used for agricultural livestock
production since before 1973. Sometime between 1973 and 1983 the riparian buffers were removed in
order to expand livestock access on Site; however, since 1983 the land use on site has remained constant.
Further investigation was done on landuse throughout the entire watershed using the aerial photographs
listed above and additional aerials from Google Earth (1993- 2012). The most common landuse types are
silviculture, livestock grazing, and crop production. Wildlands conducted a watershed reconnaissance
visit to verify current land uses observed from the aerial photography and to identify potential stressors.
Consistent with information depicted in aerial photography, land use within the Mud Lick Creek watershed
is predominantly forest and agricultural production. Disturbed areas within the watershed consist
primarily of tillage for new crop planting. As this is a long -term, on -going practice (dating to before 1973)
it is not considered a new stressor to the watershed. There are no signs of impending land use changes
or development pressure that would impact the project evident in the Mud Lick Creek Watershed. The
Conservation Easement will eliminate potential for future development or agricultural use in the
immediate area of the onsite streams.
4.3 Physiography, Geology, and Soils
The Project is located in the Slate Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province. The Piedmont Province is
characterized by gently rolling, well rounded hills with long low ridges, with elevations ranging from 300-
1,500 feet above sea level. The Carolina Slate Belt consists of heated and deformed volcanic and
sedimentary rocks. Specifically, the proposed restoration site is located in the felsic metavolcanic rock
(mapped CZfv) of the Carolina Slate Belt. This unit consists of light gray to greenish gray, felsic
metavolcanic rock interbedded with mafic and intermediate metavolcanic rock, meta - argillite, and
metamudstone (NCGS, 2009). Note: This information was obtained from geologic mapping; no field
investigations of rock lithology were performed.
Soil mapping units are based on the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation
Service (NRCS) Soil Survey for Chatham County. Soil types within the study area were mapped with the
NRCS Web Soil Survey and are described below in Table 3. A soils map based on this information is
provided in Figure 5. Note: No field mapping of soils was performed for this project.
W
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 3

Table 3_ Floodnlain Soil Tvnes and Descrintions
Soil Name
Location
Description
Chewacla soils are somewhat poorly drained
soils located in floodplains, which flood
Chewacla and Wehadkee soils, 0 -2% slopes
Mud Lick Creek-
frequently. Wehadkee soils are poorly drained
R3 near culvert
soils located in depressions on floodplains,
which flood frequently. Both have high water
capacities.
Mud Lick Creek-
Cid and Lignum soils are moderately well
Cid - Lignum Complex, 2 -6% slopes
R2, Mud Lick
drained soils located in Interfluves with low
Creek- R3
water capacity. This soil is not subject to
flooding.
Mud Lick Creek -
R1, Mud Lick
Nanford -Badin complexes are well drained
Nanford -Badin Complex, 6 -10% slopes
Creek -112, North
soils located on hillsides on ridges with low
Branch -111,
water capacity. This soil is not frequently
North Branch-
subject to flooding.
R2, East Branch
Floodplain of
Georgeville silt loam is a well- drained soil
silt loam, 2 -6% slopes
M M
Mud Lick Creek-
located in interfluves with a high water
and Mud Lick
Mud
capacity. This soil is not subject to flooding.
Creek
Source: NRCS Web Soil Survey
4.4 Valley Classification
The topography around the project site primarily consists of gently rolling hills interspersed with narrow
valleys. The stream valleys on site are characterized by relatively narrow floodplains with side slopes
ranging from 8% - 20% and valley slopes ranging from 0.1% to 1 %. The project streams flow through
alluvial valleys in a fluvial- dissected landscape.
4.5 Surface Water Classification and Water Quality
On August 22, 2013 Wildlands investigated on -site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. using the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers ( USACE) Routine On -Site Determination Method. This method is defined in the 1987
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and subsequent Eastern Mountain and Piedmont
Regional Supplement. Determination methods included stream classification utilizing the NCDWQStream
Identification Form and the USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet. Potential jurisdictional
wetland areas were classified using the USACE Wetland Determination Data Form (refer to Section 5.1
below for information on jurisdictional wetlands).
The results of the on -site field investigation indicate that there are five jurisdictional stream channels
located within the proposed project area including Mud Lick Creek and four tributaries to Mud Lick Creek.
Figure 6 shows the hydrologic features on the site. Stream classification forms representative of on -site
jurisdictional stream channels have been enclosed in Appendix 3 (SCP1- SCP5). Site photographs are
included in Appendix 1.
W
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 4

The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) assigns best usage classifications to State Waters
that reflect water quality conditions and potential resource usage. Mud Lick Creek has been classified by
the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) as a Class -III; CA surface
water (DENR, 2011). It is a Critical Area for water supply.
4.6 Existing Stream Condition
An existing conditions assessment was performed on Mud Lick Creek, North Branch, and East Branch in
September, 2013. The purposes of the assessment were to characterize the existing morphology of the
site; identify problems such as incision, bank erosion, lack of native vegetation, sedimentation, and poor
habitat conditions; and to provide a basis for developing a design to enhance the ecological function of
the site. During existing conditions assessments, Mud Lick Creek was separated into three reaches based
on differences in channel conditions: Mud Lick Creek -R1, Mud Lick Creek -R2 and Mud Lick Creek -R3. North
Branch was separated into two reaches up and downstream of the confluence with East Branch: North
Branch -R1 and North Branch -R2. East Branch is considered a single reach. The locations of the project
reaches and surveyed cross sections are shown in Figure 6. Existing conditions geomorphic survey data
are included in Appendix 4. Table 4 presents the reach summary information.
Table 4. Reach Summary Information
Mud Lick Creek
The channel slopes and valley slopes for Mud Lick Creek are typical for Piedmont streams in similar valley
types (Table 4). The bed of Mud Lick Creek is characterized by short riffles, long pools, mid - channel bars,
large debris dams, and macrophyte communities at certain locations in the channel bed. In many areas,
the density of macrophytes has caused accretion of the channel bed and the development of a bench
feature. The substrate coarsens somewhat in the downstream direction, from sand in Reach 1 to fine
gravel in Reaches 2 and 3. While the dominant substrate size is small gravel, bedrock outcrops and some
larger gravel and small cobble were observed throughout the site. There is a double box culvert at the
downstream end that sets base level.
W
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 5
Mud Lick
Creek -
R1
Mud Lick
Creek —
R2
Mud Lick
Creek —
R3
North
Branch-
R1
North
Branch-
R2
East
Branch
Restored Length (LF)
623
693
748
656
S77
296
Valley Slope (feet/ foot)
0.0031
0.0043
0.001
0.0048
0.0076
0.0098
Drainage Area (acres)
1,747
2,170
2,330
236.8
416
172.8
Drainage Area (mileS2)
2.73
3.39
3.64
0.37
0.65
0.27
NCDWQ Stream ID Score
48
48
48
47
47
54
Perennial or Intermittent
P
P
P
P
P
P
NCDWQ Classification
WS-
III /CA
Rosgen Classification of Existing
Conditions
E4
C4
E4
E4
134c
B4c
Simon Evolutionary Stage
IV /V
IV /V
IV /V
IV
IV
IV
FEMA zone Classification
AE
AE
AE
AE
AE
AE
Mud Lick Creek
The channel slopes and valley slopes for Mud Lick Creek are typical for Piedmont streams in similar valley
types (Table 4). The bed of Mud Lick Creek is characterized by short riffles, long pools, mid - channel bars,
large debris dams, and macrophyte communities at certain locations in the channel bed. In many areas,
the density of macrophytes has caused accretion of the channel bed and the development of a bench
feature. The substrate coarsens somewhat in the downstream direction, from sand in Reach 1 to fine
gravel in Reaches 2 and 3. While the dominant substrate size is small gravel, bedrock outcrops and some
larger gravel and small cobble were observed throughout the site. There is a double box culvert at the
downstream end that sets base level.
W
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 5

Though Mud Lick Creek is only slightly incised, the bed and banks of the stream are severely impacted by
historic and continued livestock access and fluvial erosion. Wallow areas and on -going bank trampling
continue to destabilize banks along large portions of the reach. There is some mass wasting of bank
material and areas where trees have fallen into the stream. The bank trampling has likely contributed to
the fining of bed material. The sinuosity of the each reach is fairly high and the pattern of the stream and
its location within the valley appear to indicate that the alignment has not been greatly altered by past
land owners. The riparian vegetation is predominantly pasture grasses with a few large trees such as
hickory (Carya spp.), river birch (eetula nigra), red maple (Acer rubrum), green ash (Froxinus
pennsylvanica), and red cedar (Juniperus virginiana) with some areas dominated by Chinese privet
(Ligustrum sinense). Results of the existing conditions morphologic survey of Mud Lick Creek are
summarized in Table 5a. Morphologic survey data are included in Appendix 4.
Table 5a. Existina Stream Conditions - Mud Lick Creek
Parameter
Notation
Units
Mud Lick Creek-
111
Mud Lick Creek -
R2
Mud Lick Creek -
R3
min
max
min
max
min
max
stream type
E4
C4
E4
drainage area
DA
sq mi
2.73
3.39
3.64
bankfull cross - sectional area
Abkf
SF
41.3
47.5
46.3
avg velocity during bankfull event
Vbkf
fps
3
3
3.4
width at bankfull
Wbkf
feet
18.2
24.6
22
maximum depth at bankfull
dmax
feet
4.2
3
4
mean depth at bankfull
dbkf
feet
2.3
1.9
2.1
bankfull width to depth ratio
Wbkf /dbkf
8
12.8
10.5
low bank height
feet
5.2
3.4
4.7
bank height ratio
BHR
1.2
1.1
1.2
max pool depth at bankfull
dpool
feet
4.4
3.7
5.2
pool depth ratio
dpool /dbkf
1.1
1.2
1.3
pool width at bankfull
Wpool
feet
19.1
25.9
24.7
pool width ratio
Wpool /Wbkf
1.05
1.05
1.1
Bkf pool cross - sectional area
Apool
SF
58.1
65.5
69.7
pool area ratio
Apool /Abkf
1.4
1.4
1.5
floodprone area width
Wfpa
feet
250
306
378
entrenchment ratio
ER
13.7
12.4
17.2
valley slope
Svalley
feet/ foot
0.0031
0.0043
0.001
channel slope'
Schannel
feet/ foot
0.002
0.002
0.003
sinuosity
K
1.37
1.35
1.2
belt width
Wblt
feet
26.1
69.9
38.8
67.0
33.0
67.0
meander width ratio
Wblt /Wbkf
1.4
3.8
1.6
2.7
1.5
3.0
meander length
Lm
feet
144.9
244.4
59.9
208.7
70.5
174.2
meander length ratio
Lm /Wbkf
8.0
13.4
2.4
8.5
3.2
7.9
radius of curvature
Re
feet
9.9
36.7
12.9
58.8
10.9
38.5
radius of curvature ratio
Re/ Wbkf
0.54
2.01
0.53
2.39
0.50
1.75
Particle Size Distribution from Reachwide Pebble Count
W
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 6

Parameter
Notation
Units
Mud Lick Creek-
R1
Mud Lick Creek -
R2
Mud Lick Creek -
R3
min
I max
min
max
min
max
Particle Size Distribution from Reachwide Pebble Count
dso Description
very fine gravel
medium gravel
fine gravel
d16
mm
Sand'
Sande
Sand'
d35
mm
Sand'
2.8
Sand'
dso
mm
1.7
8
6
d84
mm
15
21
28
des
mm
36
76
58
dloo
mm
bedrock
362
bedrock
1. Channel slopes are specific to the length of profile studied
2. Sand particles were not measured. Bed material size distributions including D16 and D35 values for riffle bulk
samples are included in Appendix 4.
North Branch
North Branch is separated into upstream (Reach 1) and downstream (Reach 2) reaches. The valley slope
is gentler in Reach 1 and increases in Reach 2. North Branch becomes more incised in the downstream
direction, i.e. is deeper relative to the floodplain at the downstream end compared to the upstream end.
This results in a channel slope that is higher than valley slope. In addition, the bank height ratios are high
and increase from the Reach 1 reach to Reach 2 indicating significant and increasing incision. The degree
of bank erosion also increases in the downstream direction. The bed is characterized by long riffles and
runs with little bedform variation. While there are large bedrock seams in the channel, it is dominated by
a sand and fine gravel substrate. The sinuosity of the Reach 1 channel is less than that of the Reach 2
channel. Reach 1 runs along the northwestern edge of its valley and the left floodplain is much more
extensive than the right floodplain. Reach 2 moves more to the center of its valley as it approaches the
confluence with Mud Lick Creek. It is unclear if the channel has been straightened or relocated in the
past. Livestock access to North Branch has been prohibited in Reach 1 in recent years. As a result, the
riparian zone is characterized by young early successional trees such as sweetgum (Liquidambar
styraciflua) and red maple. The Reach 2 riparian zone is more sparsely vegetated with a few trees such as
sweetgum, red maple, river birch, and sycamore (Platanus occidentalis). Chinese privet is also common
along this reach. Results of the existing conditions morphologic survey of North Branch are summarized
in Table 5b. Morphologic survey data are included in Appendix 4.
East Branch
The valley slope and the channel slope for this reach are the steepest of any of the project reaches. This
reach has been recently fenced to prohibit cattle access and contains young early successional trees
dominated by sweetgum and red maple. While there is significant evidence of channel degradation from
past livestock access, sections of the reach have begun to stabilize and become vegetated. This channel
is narrow and deep and is severely incised. The bed is mostly sand and fine gravel, though there is some
larger gravel and cobble material, and the bedforms are dominated by riffles and runs with a few shallow
pools. The valley floor is narrow at the upstream end and widens significantly near the confluence with
North Branch. The channel is very straight and there is a remnant channel near the downstream section
indicating that this reach has been straightened and moved in the past. Results of the existing conditions
morphologic survey of East Branch are summarized in Table 5b. Morphologic survey data are included in
Appendix 4.
W
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 7

Table 5b. Existing Stream Conditions - North Branch and East Branch
Parameter
Notation
Units
North Branch -R1
North Branch -R2
East Branch
min
max
min
max
stream type
E5
B5c
64c
drainage area
DA
sq mi
0.37
0.65
0.27
bankfull cross - sectional area
Abkf
SF
7.7
12.7
4.8
avg velocity during bankfull
Vbkf
fps
3.3
3.5
4.2
width at bankfull
Wbkf
feet
10.4
8.3
4.3
maximum depth at bankfull
dmax
feet
1.5
2.3
1.4
mean depth at bankfull
dbkf
feet
0.7
1.5
1.1
bankfull width to depth ratio
Wbkf /dbkf
14
5.4
3.9
low bank height
feet
2.6
4.6
2.7
bank height ratio
BHR
1.7
2.0
1.9
max pool depth at bankfull
dpool
feet
2.1
2.7
1.6
pool depth ratio
dpool /dbkf
1.4
1.17
1.1
pool width at bankfull
Wpool
feet
6.3
9.3
6.1
pool width ratio
Wpool /Wbkf
0.6
1.12
1.4
Bkf pool cross - sectional area
Apool
SF
8.2
16.2
7.2
pool area ratio
Apool /Abkf
1.1
1.3
1.5
floodprone area width
Wfpa
feet
33.3
80
23
entrenchment ratio
ER
10.1
1.9
2.1
valley slope
Svalley
feet/
0.0048
0.0076
0.0098
channel slope'
Schannel
feet/
0.01
0.005
0.013
sinuosity
K
1.22
1.32
1
belt width
wblt
feet
11
35
17
38.5
-
meander width ratio
Wblt /Wbkf
1.1
3.4
2
4.6
-
meander length
Lm
feet
39.9
100.6
37.9
88.3
-
meander length ratio
Lm /Wbkf
3.8
9.7
4.6
10.6
-
radius of curvature
R,
feet
10.7
23.2
6.1
37
-
radius of curvature ratio
Rc/ Wbl<f
1.03
2.23
0.73
4.46
-
Particle
Size Distribution from
Reachwide Pebble Count
d5o Description
Sand
Medium
Gravel
d16
mm
Sand'
Sand'
d35
mm
Sand'
6.1
d5o
mm
Sand'
10
d84
mm
8
15
d9s
mm
15
27
dloo
mm
32
64
Channel slopes are specific to the length of profile.
Sand particles were not measured.
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 8

4.7 Channel Evolution
The evolution of the project streams has been analyzed and is described here in terms of the channel
evolution model (Simon, 1989). The project streams were surrounded by forest in 1973 (see aerial photos
in Appendix 2) but it is unknown if the site was previously cleared for logging or agriculture. The road at
the downstream end of Mud Lick Creek on the project site was in its current configuration in 1973 and
the culvert under that road is likely the one that remains there today. That culvert invert sets the local
base level for the project site. It seems likely that the streams incised long ago, either as a result of historic
land uses on the site and downstream or as a result of the culvert installation moving the channel from
Stage I (Equilibrium) of the channel evolution model through Stage III (Degradation). At some point
between 1973 and 1983, the forest on the site was almost completely cleared and the land use was
converted to livestock grazing. In the years following clearing of the vegetation, the channels began to
erode laterally (Stage IV- Degradation and Widening). The widening process has been mostly driven by
cattle trampling the banks, though there are some areas where fluvial erosion is apparent. These
processes have continued for years and in the current condition, the streams are severely degraded.
Without intervention, the streams will not re- stabilize and reach a new equilibrium state (Stage VI).
Mud Lick Creek appears to have stopped incising. Certain areas of this stream continue to have bank
failure and widening (Stage IV) while other areas have begun to aggrade forming new inner berms and
bankfull features (Stage V- Aggradation and Widening). Mud Lick Creek is sinuous and it is not clear if it
has been channelized in the past (it remains in a similar alignment to that at the time of clearing). North
Branch followed a similar evolutionary pattern post- disturbance. The degree of channel incision is greater
than Mud Lick Creek and it has not yet moved beyond Stage IV. East Branch appears to have been
channelized at some point in the past and has a similar degree of incision as North Branch. The stream
was recently fenced and livestock access has been prohibited, therefore, some banks have begun to
stabilize. However, there are few new bankfull features forming and the stream is at the beginning of
Stage IV.
4.8 Channel Stability
Wildlands utilized a modified version of the Rapid Assessment of Channel Stability as described in
Hydrologic Engineering Circular (HEC) -20 (Lagasse, 2001). The method is semi - quantitative and
incorporates thirteen stability indicators that are evaluated in the field. In a 2006 publication, the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) updated the method for HEC -20 by modifying the metrics included in the
assessment and incorporating a stream type determination. The result is an assessment method that can
be rapidly applied on a variety of stream types in different physiographic settings with a range of bed and
bank materials.
The Channel Stability Assessment protocol was designed to evaluate 13 parameters. Once all parameters
are scored, the stability of the stream is then classified as Excellent, Good, Fair, or Poor. As the protocol
was designed to assess stream channel stability near bridges, two minor modifications were made to the
methodology to make it more applicable to project specific conditions. The first modification involved
adjusting the scoring so that naturally meandering streams score lower (better condition) than straight
and /or engineered channels. Because straight, engineered channels are hydraulically efficient and
necessary for bridge protection, they score low (excellent to good rating) with the original methodology.
Secondly, the last assessment parameter— upstream distance to bridge — was removed from the protocol
because it relates directly to the potential effects of instability on a bridge and should not influence
stability ratings for the streams assessed for this project. The final scores and corresponding ratings were
W
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 9

based on the twelve remaining parameters. The rating adjectives were assigned to the streams based on
the FHWA guidelines for pool - riffle stream types.
The HEC -20 manual also describes both lateral and vertical components of overall channel stability which
can be separated with this assessment methodology. Some of the parameters described above relate
specifically to either vertical or horizontal stability. When all parameter scores for the vertical category
or all parameter scores for the horizontal category are summed and normalized by the total possible
scores for their respective categories, a vertical or horizontal fraction is produced. These fractions may
then be compared to one another determine if the channel is more vertically or horizontally unstable.
The assessment results for the streams on the Mud Lick Creek site indicate that all of the streams are all
rated fair (the second to lowest category). These results indicate that the stream channel exhibit signs of
instability and that increased erosion of the channels is likely. For every stream assessed, the lateral
fraction was greater than the vertical fraction indicating that the streams are more laterally unstable than
vertically unstable. This is mostly because of cattle impacts. The streams are also incised and have large
amounts of fine material in the bed substrate resulting in scores that indicate some vertical instability.
Total scores, stability ratings, and vertical and horizontal fractions are provided in Table 6.
Table 6. Existina Conditions Channel Stabilitv Assessment Results
Parameter
Mud Lick
Mud Lick
Mud Lick
North
North
East
1. Watershed characteristics
4
4
4
4
4
4
2. Flow habit
3
3
3
3
3
3
3. Channel pattern
3
3
4
5
6
7
4. Entrenchment
9
9
8
8
10
8
5. Bed material
9
10
10
6
6
6
6. Bar development
6
6
7
4
6
6
7. Obstructions
7
9
8
5
5
5
8. Bank soil texture and
5
5
5
5
5
5
9. Average bank slope angle
9
9
9
8
9
8
10. Bank protection
11
11
9
7
9
9
11. Bank cutting
9
10
10
9
8
9
12. Mass wasting or bank
9
10
10
9
6
3
Score
84
89
87
73
77
73
Ranking
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Lateral Score
43
45
43
38
37
34
Vertical Score
24
25
25
18
22
20
Lateral Fraction
71.7%
75.0%
71.7%
63.3%
61.7%
56.7%
Vertical Fraction
66.7%
69.4%
69.4%
50.0%
61.1%
55.6%
Possible range of score for each parameter: Excellent (1 -3), Good (4 -6), Fair (7 -9), Poor (10 -12)
4.9 Utilities and Site Access
There are no underground or overhead utilities on the project site. There are existing culverts under state
maintained roads at the upstream end of North Branch and East Branch and at the downstream end of
Mud Lick Creek. The project will not affect these culverts; they will remain in place in their current
configuration once the project is complete.
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 10

The site can be easily accessed from a driveway off of Siler City -Snow Camp Road (SR 1004). Two 20 foot
breaks in the conservation easement are proposed to provide the farmer access to the fields as depicted
on Figure 2. A ford stream crossing will be provided on Mud Lick Creek due to the size of the channel. A
culvert stream crossing will be provided along North Branch. Each crossing will be fenced and gated to
prevent livestock from wallowing in the streams. The farmer will be required to maintain these crossings.
No mitigation credit is requested for the portions of the streams that are outside of the conservation
easement.
5.0 Regulatory Considerations
5.1 4011404
On August 22, 2013 and April 22, 2014 Wildlands delineated jurisdictional waters of the U.S. within the
project easement area. Potential jurisdictional areas were delineated using the USACE Routine On -Site
Determination Method. Routine On -Site Data Forms have been included in Appendix 5. The results of
the on -site jurisdictional determination indicate that there are six jurisdictional wetlands located within
the project easement. These wetlands (Wetlands A — F) are relatively small, ranging in size from 0.01 to
0.08 acres (see Table 7) and are located within maintained agricultural fields (Figure 6). Wetlands A and
F exhibited pockets of shallow inundation, saturation within the upper twelve inches of the soil profile,
and low chroma soils (10YR 4/2 to 2.5Y 6/2). Vegetation within Wetlands A and F is entirely herbaceous
due to cattle grazing activities. Wetlands B and C are small linear depressions in the pasture that are
inundated for long periods. These wetlands exhibited inundation of a foot or more, aquatic fauna,
saturation within the upper twelve inches of the soil profile, and low chroma soils (10YR 5/1 to 2.5Y 5/2)
with distinct mottles (7.5YR 4/6). Due to long term inundation and grazing herbaceous vegetation is
primarily only along the edges of these two wetland areas. Wetland D is a mix of herbaceous pasture and
grazed woods. Wetland E exhibited shallow inundation, water - stained leaves, and low chroma soils (10YR
5/2) with distinct mottles (10YR 3/4). This wetland is entirely herbaceous due to cattle grazing.
Using the North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method ( NCWAM) and best professional judgment,
Wetlands A and F were classified as bottomland hardwood forest. Wetlands B and C were classified as
floodplain pools and Wetland D and E as headwater forest wetland types. The NCWAM was also used to
assess the level of hydrologic function, water quality, and habitat condition of on -site wetlands. The on-
site wetlands scored out as moderate (Wetlands A, D, E, and F) to high (Wetlands B and C) functioning
systems when compared to reference conditions. All on -site wetlands have been heavily impacted by
vegetation management and, therefore, all had low habitat function ratings with poor connections to
adjacent natural habitats. NCWAM Wetland Rating Sheets representative of these jurisdictional wetland
areas are included in Appendix 5. Table 7 presents the project information and baseline wetland
information. The date of the approved Jurisdictional Determination is June 19, 2014.
w
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 11

Table 7. Wetland Summary Information
W
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 12
Wetland A
Wetland B
Wetland C
Size of Wetland (acres)
0.04
0.01
0.08
Wetland Type (non- riparian,
riparian riverine, or riparian) non-
Riparian
Riparian
Riparian
riverine)
Mapped Soil Series
Nanford -Badin
Nanford -Badin
Cid- Lignum complex
complex
complex
and Georgeville
Drainage Class
Well drained
Well drained
Moderate to well
drained
Soil Hydric Series
N/A
N/A
N/A
Source of Hydrology
Groundwater,
Groundwater,
Groundwater,
overbank flooding
overbank flooding
overbank flooding
Hydrologic Impairment
Ditching
N/A
N/A
Piedmont Alluvial
Piedmont Alluvial
Piedmont Alluvial
Native vegetation community
Forest
Forest
Forest
% exotic invasive vegetation
0%
0%
0%
W
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 12

5.2 Threatened and Endangered Species
5.2.1 Site Evaluation Methodology
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), defines protection for
species with the Federal Classification of Threatened (T) or Endangered (E). An "Endangered Species" is
defined as "any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range"
and a "Threatened Species" is defined as "any species which is likely to become an Endangered Species
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range" (16 U.S.C. 1532).
Wildlands utilized the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(NHP) databases in order to identify federally listed Threatened and Endangered plant and animal species
for Chatham County, NC (USFWS, 2010 and NHP, 2013). Four federally listed species are currently listed
in Chatham County (Table 8): red - cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), the bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus), Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas), and harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum). The
Categorical Exclusion (included in Appendix 6) has been approved by the Federal Highway Administration.
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 13
Wetland D
Wetland E
Wetland F
Size of Wetland (acres)
0.03
0.02
0.005
Wetland Type (non- riparian,
riparian riverine, or riparian non -
Riparian
Riparian
Riparian
Mapped Soil Series
Chewacla and
Wehadkee
Nanford -Badin
complex
Cid- Lignum complex
Drainage Class
Somewhat poorly
drained
Well drained
Moderate to well drained
Soil Hydric Series
Chewacla and
Wehadkee
N/A
N/A
Source of Hydrology
Groundwater,
overbank flooding
Groundwater,
overbank flooding
Groundwater, overbank
flooding
Hydrologic Impairment
N/A
N/A
N/A
Native vegetation community
Piedmont Alluvial
Forest
Piedmont Alluvial
Forest
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
% exotic invasive vegetation
0%
0%
0%
5.2 Threatened and Endangered Species
5.2.1 Site Evaluation Methodology
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), defines protection for
species with the Federal Classification of Threatened (T) or Endangered (E). An "Endangered Species" is
defined as "any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range"
and a "Threatened Species" is defined as "any species which is likely to become an Endangered Species
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range" (16 U.S.C. 1532).
Wildlands utilized the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(NHP) databases in order to identify federally listed Threatened and Endangered plant and animal species
for Chatham County, NC (USFWS, 2010 and NHP, 2013). Four federally listed species are currently listed
in Chatham County (Table 8): red - cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), the bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus), Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas), and harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum). The
Categorical Exclusion (included in Appendix 6) has been approved by the Federal Highway Administration.
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 13

Table 8. Listed Threatened and Endangered Species in Chatham County, NC
Species
Federal
Habitat
Biological Conclusion
Status
Vertebrate
Red - cockaded woodpecker
E
Open stands of mature pines
No effect
(Picoides borealis)
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus
BGPA
Near large open water bodies:
No effect
leucocephalus)
lakes, marshes, seacoasts, and
rivers
Cape Fear shiner (Notropis
Pools, riffles, and runs of rocky,
mekistocholas)
E
clean freshwater streams
No effect
Vascular Plant
Harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum)
E
Rocky or gravely shoals of clear
No effect
swift - moving streams
T (S /A) = Threatened due to similarity of appearance, BGPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
5.2.2 Threatened and Endangered Species Descriptions
Red - cockaded woodpecker
The red - cockaded woodpecker is a medium -sized woodpecker species (8 to 9 inches in length). Distinctive
coloration includes black and white feathers with a large white cheek patch and a black back with a white
barred pattern. This species is typically found year -round in large open stands of pines with mature trees
of 60+ years in age. The foraging habitat for this species may include pine hardwood stands of longleaf
and southern pine, 30+ years in age. Occurrences of the red - cockaded woodpecker are listed as historic
within Chatham County.
Bald Eagle
The bald eagle is a very large raptor species, typically 28 to 38 inches in length. Adult individuals are
brown in color with a very distinctive white head and tail. Bald eagles typically live near large bodies of
open water with suitable fish habitat including: lakes, marshes, seacoasts, and rivers. This species
generally requires tall, mature tree species for nesting and roosting. Bald eagles were de- listed from the
Endangered Species List in June 2007; however, this species remains under the protection of the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGPA). This species is known to
occur in every U.S. state except Hawaii.
Cape Fear Shiner
The Cape Fear shiner is a small minnow fish species, typically 6 centimeters in length. This species is pale
silvery yellow in color with a black stripe along each side and yellow fins. Water willow beds in flowing
areas of creeks and rivers appear to be part of the essential habitat for this species. Individuals can be
found in pools, riffles, and slow runs of clean, rocky streams composed of gravel, cobble, and boulder
substrates. Critical habitat for this species within Chatham County includes approximately 4.1 miles of
the Rocky River from the NC -902 bridge downstream to the County Road 1010 Bridge. Additional critical
habitat includes 0.5 mile of Bear Creek from the County Road 2156 bridge downstream to the Rocky River
and 4.2 miles downstream within the Rocky River to 2.6 miles of the Deep River.
W
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 14

Harparella
Harperella is an obligate, annual vascular plant ranging in height from 6 to 36 inches. This plant exhibits
small white clusters of flowers at the stem tops similar to Queen Anne's lace. This species typically flowers
from May until the first frost. Ideal habitat for this species includes pond and riverine areas with gravelly
shoals of clear, swift - flowing streams. These areas typically require moderately intensive spring floods to
scour gravel bars and rock crevices to remove any competing vegetation. Known population occurrences
of harperella have been observed in Chatham County within the past 20 years.
5.2.3 Biological Conclusion
Based on a pedestrian survey of the project area performed August 22, 2013, no individual species, critical
habitat, nor suitable habitat was found to exist on the site. It is determined that the proposed restoration
and enhancement activities will have "no effect" on the federally listed threatened and endangered
species.
5.2.4 USFWS Concurrence
Wildlands requested review and comment from the USFWS on July 24, 2013, regarding the project's
potential impacts on threatened or endangered species. USFWS responded on August 29, 2013 and stated
that the proposed project is "not likely to adversely affect any federally - listed endangered or threatened
species, their formally designated critical habitat, or species currently proposed for listing" and that the
requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act "have been satisfied" for the project. All
correspondence with USFWS is included in Appendix 7.
5.3 Federally Designated Critical Habitat
The USFWS has designated Chatham County as exhibiting critical habitat for the Cape Fear shiner. This
Critical Habitat includes approximately 4.1 miles of the Rocky River from the NC -902 Bridge downstream
to the County Road 1010 Bridge. Additional critical habitat includes the following three sections of stream:
0.5 miles of Bear Creek from the County Road 2156 Bridge downstream to the confluence with the Rocky
River, 4.2 miles downstream of the Rocky River downstream of Bear Creek to where it joins the Deep
River, followed by 2.6 miles of the Deep River downstream of the confluence with the Rocky River. These
Critical Habitat locations, however, do not fall within the Lacys Creek — Rocky River watershed in which
Mud Lick Creek is located.
Clean, rocky streams composed of gravel, cobble, and boulder substrates with water willow beds in the
flowing areas of creeks and rivers appear to be part of the essential habitat for this species. The results
of the pedestrian survey performed on August 22, 2013 indicate that in- stream habitat exhibits poor
conditions for the presence of Cape Fear shiner. No Critical Habitat for the listed species exists within the
project areas.
5.4 Cultural Resources
5.5 Site Evaluation Methodology
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470), defines the policy of
historic preservation to protect, restore, and reuse districts, sites, structures, and objects significant in
American history, architecture, and culture. Section 106 of the NHPA mandates that federal agencies take
W
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 15

into account the effect of an undertaking on any property that is included in, or is eligible for inclusion in,
the National Register of Historic Places.
5.6 SHPO /THPO Concurrence
A letter was sent to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on July 24, 2013,
requesting review and comment for the potential of cultural resources potentially affected by the Project.
SHPO responded on September 3, 2013, and stated they were aware of no historic resources which would
be affected by the project. All correspondence with SHPO is included in Appendix 7.
5.7 FEMA Floodplain Compliance and Hydrologic Trespass
The entire length of Mud Lick Creek, North Branch, and East Branch on the project site are within a FEMA
Zone AE floodplain on FIRM panel 8764. Mud Lick Creek is a modeled stream. North Branch and East
Branch are in the "flood fringe" of Mud Lick Creek but are not modeled. It was confirmed through
conversations with the local floodplain administrator that no hydraulic analysis or floodplain development
permit is required for the project. The EEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist is included in Appendix 8
and has been submitted to the Chatham County floodplain administrator.
6.0 Reference Sites
6.1 Reference Streams
Reference reaches are used to provide geomorphic parameters of stable streams of similar type in similar
landscapes that are used as a source of information to develop design parameters. Four reference reaches
were identified near the Site and used to support the design of the proposed restoration and
enhancement measures (Figure 7). These reference reaches were chosen because of their similarity to
the project streams including drainage area, valley slope, morphology, and bed material. The reference
reaches are within the Carolina Slate Belt region of the Piedmont with the exception of UT to Cane Creek.
Geomorphic parameters for these reference reaches are summarized in Tables 11a and 11b.
6.2 Channel Morphology and Classification of Reference Streams
Spencer Creek is located in western Montgomery County near the town of Ophir. This site consists of two
reaches (Spencer Creek Reach 1 and Reach 2) that classified as E4 stream types situated within a mature
forest (Buck Engineering, 2004). Wildlands visited Spencer Creek Reach 1 in March, 2012 and visually
confirmed that the land use is unchanged and that the stream is laterally and vertically stable. Wildlands
conducted a detailed survey of Spencer Creek Reach 2 in March, 2012. Spencer Creek is an E4 stream
type.
The UT to Cane Creek reference is located in northeastern Rutherford County. The dataset was used as a
reference stream for the Cane Creek Restoration prepared by Restoration Systems and Axiom
Environmental in 2007. The reach is located in mature forest and is classified as a C4 /E4 stream type.
The UT to Polecat Creek reference reach is located in northern Randolph County. The site was identified
by Wolf Creek Engineering and used as a reference reach for the Holly Grove Restoration Site (Wolf Creek
Engineering, 2007). Wildlands conducted a site visit and reference reach survey in March, 2013 to confirm
the geomorphic parameters listed on the Holly Grove Restoration Plan. The UT to polecat Creek reference
reach is classified as an E4 stream type.
w
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 16

6.3 Reference Streams Vegetation Community Types Descriptions
Restored riparian vegetation communities will be similar to that found along the upstream reaches of
Mud Lick Creek that have been fenced off from cattle. The upstream reach is surrounded by mature
hardwood forest composed of typical piedmont bottomland riparian forest tree species. Dominant canopy
species in this area include green ash, river birch (eetula nigra), sycamore, box elder (Acer negundo), and
red maple.
Table l l a. Summary of Reference Reach Geomorphic Parameters
W
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 17
UT to Polecat Creek
Spencer Creek 1
Parameter
Notation
Units
min
max
min
max
stream type
E4
E4
drainage area
DA
sq mi
0.41
0.96
bankfull discharge
Qbkf
cfs
20
97
bankfull cross - sectional area
Abkf
SF
5.4
12.4
17.8
19.7
average bankfull velocity
Vbkf
fps
2.2
3.5
4.9
5.4
Cross Section
width at bankfull
Wbkf
feet
5.3
10.9
10.7
11.2
maximum depth at bankfull
dmax
feet
1.4
1.7
2.1
2.6
mean depth at bankfull
dbkf
feet
1.0
1.1
1.6
1.8
bankfull width to depth ratio
Wbkf /dbkf
5.2
9.6
5.8
7.1
depth ratio
dmax /dbkf
1.4
1.7
1.3
1.4
bank height ratio
BHR
1.0
1.1
1.0
floodprone area width
Wfpa
feet
25
65
60
>114
entrenchment ratio
ER
3.2
8.3
5.5
>10.2
Slope
valley slope
Svalley
ft /ft
0.017
0.0109
channel slope
Schannel
ft /ft
0.012
0.0047
Profile
riffle slope
Sriffle
ft /ft
0.004
0.047
0.013
riffle slope ratio
Sriffle /Schannel
0.3
4
2.8
pool slope
Spool
ft /ft
0.017
0.0007
0.0009
W
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 17

Table 11 b. Summary of Reference Reach Geomorphic Parameters
UT to Polecat Creek
Spencer Creek 1
Parameter
Notation
Units
min
max
min
max
pool slope ratio
Spool /Schannel
1.4
0.15
0.19
pool -to -pool spacing
Lp_p
feet
34
52
71
pool spacing ratio
Lp_p/Wbkf
40
0.3
3.2
6.3
6.6
pool cross - sectional area at
bankfull
Apoo,
SF
9.3
24.5
pool area ratio
Apool/Abkf
0.8
1.7
1.2
1.4
maximum pool depth at
bankfull
dpoo,
feet
1.8
3.3
pool depth ratio
dpool/dbkf
1.6
1.8
1.8
2.0
pool width at bankfull
Wpool
feet
8
17.5
pool width ratio
Wpool/Wbkf
0.7
1.5
1.6
Pattern
sinuosity
K
1.4
2.3
belt width
Wb,t
feet
28
50
38
41
meander width ratio
Wblt /Wbkf
3.0
5.3
3.4
3.6
linear wavelength
Lm
feet
56
85
46
48
linear wavelength ratio
Lm /wbkf
6.0
9.0
4.1
4.4
meander length
feet
--
--
--
--
meander length ratio
--
--
--
--
radius of curvature
Rc
feet
19
50
11
15
radius of curvature ratio
RJ Wbkf
2.0
5.3
1.3
1.4
Table 11 b. Summary of Reference Reach Geomorphic Parameters
W
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 18
Spencer Creek 2
UT To Cane Creek
Parameter
Notation
Units
min
max
min
max
stream type
E4
C4 /E4
drainage area
DA
sq mi
0.37
0.29
bankfull discharge
Qbkf
cfs
35
40
W
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 18

Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 19
Spencer Creek 2
UT To Cane Creek
Parameter
Notation
Units
min
max
min
max
bankfull cross - sectional
area
Abkf
SF
6.6
8.7
8.9
12.2
average velocity during
bankfull event
Vbkf
fps
5
5.6
3.8
Cross - Section
width at bankfull
Wbkf
feet
6.3
9.3
11.5
12.3
maximum depth at
bankfull
dmax
feet
1
1.2
1.2
1.6
mean depth at bankfull
dbkf
feet
o.8
1.0
o.8
1.0
bankfull width to depth
ratio
Wbkf /dbkf
7.9
9.3
12.3
14.4
depth ratio
dmax/dbkf
1.2
1.3
1.7
bank height ratio
BHR
1.0
1.0
floodprone area width
Wfpa
feet
14
125
31
entrenchment ratio
ER
1.7
4.3
>2.5
Slope
valley slope
Svalley
ft /ft
0.022
0.031
0.0262
channel slope
Schannel
ft/ft
0.019
0.022
0.015
Profile
riffle slope
Sriffle
ft/ft
o.o184
0.0343
o.o188
0.0704
riffle slope ratio
Sriffle /Schannel
1
1.6
1.3
4.7
pool slope
Spool
ft /ft
0.0007
0.014
0.0005
o.olo8
pool slope ratio
Spool /Schannel
0
o.6
0
0.72
pool -to -pool spacing
Lp_p
feet
9
46
27
73
pool spacing ratio
Lp_p /Wbkf
1.4
4.9
2.3
6.1
pool cross - sectional area
at bankfull
Apool
SF
6.5
9.8
11.9
pool area ratio
Apool /Abkf
1
1.1
1
1.3
maximum pool depth at
bankfull
dpool
feet
1.2
1.8
2.6
pool depth ratio
dpool /dbkf
1.5
1.8
1.7
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 19

7.0 Determination of Credits
Mitigation credits presented in Table 12 are projections based upon site design. Upon completion of site
construction, the project components and credits data will be revised to be consistent with the as -built
condition. The proposed ratio for the enhancement II on the project site is 1.5:1 based on the following:
1. The extensive bank repair work proposed on Mud Lick Creek is well beyond typical enhancement
II treatments. Fencing and planting will also be done along this reach.
Adding constructed riffles to the enhancement II sections of North Branch and East Branch will
raise the channel bed and improve bed form in those reaches which is also beyond typical Ell
practices. Fencing and planting will also be done along theses reaches.
An expanded monitoring program is proposed to document uplift and the advancement of project
goals. Depending on the results of post- construction biological and water quality monitoring,
consideration of an increased ratio of 1:1 may be appropriate if ecosystem restoration is
documented. Sustained improvement in one or more biological indices and /or 2 or more physico-
chemical parameters would be proposed for 1:1 credit. An absence of improvement in any of
these parameters would result in a ratio of 1.5:1 given justification of items 1 and 2 above and
also due to the assessment of these parameters to learn of the relative functional yields of
differing approaches under differing conditions. In the event there is an absence of improvement
in any of the physico - chemical or biological parameters and one or more parameters demonstrate
W
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 20
Spencer Creek 2
UT To Cane Creek
Parameter
Notation
Units
min
max
min
max
pool width at bankfull
wpool
feet
6
12
8.5
pool width ratio
wpool /wbkf
1.0
1.3
0.7
Pattern
sinuosity
K
1.0
1.3
1.4
belt width
wbit
feet
10
50
102
meander width ratio
wblt /wbkf
1.6
5.4
8.3
8.9
linear wavelength
(formerly meander
Lm
feet
55
142
45
81
linear wavelength ratio
(formerly meander
Lm /wbkf
8.7
15.3
3.9
6.6
meander length
feet
53
178
meander length ratio
8.4
19.1
radius of curvature
Rc
feet
12
85
23
38
radius of curvature ratio
R,/ wbkf
1.9
9.1
2
3.1
7.0 Determination of Credits
Mitigation credits presented in Table 12 are projections based upon site design. Upon completion of site
construction, the project components and credits data will be revised to be consistent with the as -built
condition. The proposed ratio for the enhancement II on the project site is 1.5:1 based on the following:
1. The extensive bank repair work proposed on Mud Lick Creek is well beyond typical enhancement
II treatments. Fencing and planting will also be done along this reach.
Adding constructed riffles to the enhancement II sections of North Branch and East Branch will
raise the channel bed and improve bed form in those reaches which is also beyond typical Ell
practices. Fencing and planting will also be done along theses reaches.
An expanded monitoring program is proposed to document uplift and the advancement of project
goals. Depending on the results of post- construction biological and water quality monitoring,
consideration of an increased ratio of 1:1 may be appropriate if ecosystem restoration is
documented. Sustained improvement in one or more biological indices and /or 2 or more physico-
chemical parameters would be proposed for 1:1 credit. An absence of improvement in any of
these parameters would result in a ratio of 1.5:1 given justification of items 1 and 2 above and
also due to the assessment of these parameters to learn of the relative functional yields of
differing approaches under differing conditions. In the event there is an absence of improvement
in any of the physico - chemical or biological parameters and one or more parameters demonstrate
W
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 20

reduced function a lower credit yield will result. However, water quality measurement will be
taken above the project reaches at each designated monitoring interval and results will be
evaluated to provide a watershed context to the variations in results from sampling points within
the project extent. These measurements will need to be taken into account when considering
improvement and degree of success.
Table 12. Determination of Credits
Mitigation Credits
Project
Component
or Reach ID
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non - riparian
Wetland
Buffer
Nitrogen
Nutrient Offset
Phosphorus
Nutrient Offset
Type
R
RE
R
RE
R
RE
1.5:1"
218
North
Branch R1
Totals
2,938
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Project Components
Project
Component
or Reach ID
Existing
Footage /
Acreage
Proposed
Stationing /Location
Approach (P1,
P2, etc.)
Restoration (R)
or Restoration
Equivalent (RE)
Restoration
Footage or
Acreage
Mitigation
Ratio
Proposed
Credit
North
Branch R1
327
100 +00 to 103 +27
Planting, fencing
R
327
1.5:1"
218
North
Branch R1
297
103 +27 to 108 +47
P1
R
520
1:1
520
North
Branch R2
577
108 +47 to 111 +50
P2
R
303
1:1
303
East Branch
168
200 +00 to 201 +68
Planting, fencing
R
168
1.5:1*
112
East Branch
317
201 +68 to 205 +77
P2
R
409
1:1
409
Mud Lick
Creek R1
623
300 +00 to 306 +23
Planting, fencing
R
623
1.5:1'
415.3
Mud Lick
Creek R2
693
306 +23 to 313 +16
Planting, fencing
R
693
1.5:1*
462
Mud Lick
Creek R3
748
313 +16 to
320 +64
Planting, fencing,
bank repairs
R
748
1.5:1`
498.7
Component Summation
Restoration
Level
Stream (linear
feet )
Riparian Wetland
(acres
Non - Riparian
Wetland acres
Buffer (square
feet
Upland (acres)
Restoration
1,232
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Enhancement
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Enhancement I
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Enhancement 11
2,559
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Creation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Preservation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
"The credit ratio for Enhancement II activities is may be changed based on monitoring results as explained above.
W
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 21

8.0 Credit Release Schedule
All credit releases will be based on the total credit generated as reported by the as -built survey of the
mitigation site. Under no circumstances shall any mitigation project be debited until the necessary DA
authorization has been received for its construction or the District Engineer (DE) has otherwise provided
written approval for the project in the case where no DA authorization is required for construction of the
mitigation project. The DE, in consultation with the Interagency Review Team (IRT), will determine if
performance standards have been satisfied sufficiently to meet the requirements of the release schedules
below. In cases where some performance standards have not been met, credits may still be released
depending on the specifics of the case. Monitoring may be required to restart or be extended, depending
on the extent to which the site fails to meet the specified performance standard. The release of project
credits will be subject to the criteria described as follows:
Table 13. Credit Release Schedule — Stream Credits
Monitoring
Interim
Total
Year
Credit Release Activity
Release
Released
0
Initial Allocation — see requirements below
30%
30%
1
First year monitoring report demonstrates performance
10%
40%
standards are being met
2
Second year monitoring report demonstrates performance
10%
50%
standards are being met
(60 % *)
3
Third year monitoring report demonstrates performance
10%
60%
standards are being met
(70 % *)
4
Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
5%
65%
standards are being met
(75 % *)
5
Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
10%
75%
standards are being met
(85 % *)
6
Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are
5%
80%
being met
(90 %)
7
Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
10%
90%
are being met and the project has received closeout approval
(100 %)
8.1 Initial Allocation of Released Credits
The initial allocation of released credits, as specified in the mitigation plan can be released by the NCEEP
without prior written approval of the DE upon satisfactory completion of the following activities:
a. Approval of the final Mitigation Plan
b. Recordation of the preservation mechanism, as well as a title opinion acceptable to the USACE
covering the property
c. Completion of project construction (the initial physical and biological improvements to the
mitigation site) pursuant to the mitigation plan; Per the NCEEP Instrument, construction means
that a mitigation site has been constructed in its entirety, to include planting, and an as -built
report has been produced. As -built reports must be sealed by an engineer prior to project
closeout, if appropriate but not prior to the initial allocation of released credits.
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 22

d. Receipt of necessary DA permit authorization or written DA approval for projects where DA
permit issuance is not required.
8.2 Subsequent Credit Releases
All subsequent credit releases must be approved by the DE, in consultation with the IRT, based on a
determination that required performance standards have been achieved. For stream projects a reserve
of 15% of a site's total stream credits shall be released after two bank -full events have occurred, in
separate years, provided the channel is stable and all other performance standards are met. In the event
that less than two bank -full events occur during the monitoring period, release of these reserve credits
shall be at the discretion of the IRT. As projects approach milestones associated with credit release, the
NCEEP will submit a request for credit release to the DE along with documentation substantiating
achievement of criteria required for release to occur. This documentation will be included with the annual
monitoring report.
9.0 Project Site Mitigation Plan
9.1 Justification for Proposed Intervention
The primary goals and objectives of the proposed project described in Section 1.0 are all part of improving
the ecological function of the project site. This site provides an excellent opportunity to alleviate stressors
identified in the Upper Rocky River local watershed plan. The existing conditions assessments
demonstrate that the streams on the property have been degraded due to livestock access, removal of
riparian vegetation, and, in the case of East Branch, channelization and relocation. The bedforms of the
channels are highly degraded due to trampling by cattle, fining of the bed material due to bank erosion,
mass wasting of bank material, and growth of macrophytes on the streambed. The stream banks have
been trampled and there is active fluvial erosion that is quite severe along some portions of the project.
The riparian vegetation has largely been removed and Chinese privet has been allowed to grow up along
portions of the streams. However, only East Branch shows significant indications of past channelization
and relocation. Though North Branch and East Branch are severely incised and over - enlarged, most of
Mud Lick Creek on the site is only slightly incised.
Intervention is needed to rectify these problems; however, full restoration of all of the project reaches is
not necessary in this case. Wildlands proposes to use minimal intervention to reestablish functional
stream and riparian ecosystems and protect them from future damage. Stream enhancement techniques
will be used in cases where most appropriate. Enhancement reaches include all of Mud Lick Creek, which
is only slightly incised and has a natural, sinuous pattern and the upstream ends of both North Branch and
East Branch. Full restoration is proposed for the downstream portions of North Branch and East Branch
where incision is greater and, in the case of East Branch, where past channelization is apparent.
9.2 Stream Restoration and Enhancement Design Overview
The project consists of stream restoration and enhancement (Figure 8). All three reaches of Mud Lick
Creek (Sta. 300 +00 to 320 +64) and the upstream ends of both North Branch (Sta. 100 +00 to 103 +27) and
East Branch (Sta. 200 +00 to 201 +89) will be treated as enhancement II. The enhancement II designs
include replanting riparian buffers, fencing out of livestock, and limited bank stabilization. The designs
for portions of North Branch (Sta. 103 +27 to 108 +47) and East Branch (Sta. 201 +89 to 205 +77) are a
combination of Priority 1 and Priority 2 stream restoration. The stream restoration includes of full
W
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 23

redesign of the stream channels with natural channel design techniques. A more complete description of
the enhancement II and restoration components of the project are described below in Section 9.6.
9.3 Design eankfull Discharge Analysis
Multiple methods were used to develop bankfull discharges estimates for each of the project restoration
reaches. The resulting values were compared and concurrence between the estimates and best
professional judgment were used to determine the specific design discharge for each restoration reach.
The methods to estimate discharge are described below and the results are summarized in Table 14 and
on Figure 9.
9.3.1 NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve Predictions
The published NC rural Piedmont curve (Harman et al., 1999) was used to estimate discharge based on
drainage area.
9.3.2 Provisional Updated NC Piedmont /Mountain Regional Curve Predictions
Design discharges using the draft updated curve for rural Piedmont and mountain streams (Walker,
unpublished) were estimated based on drainage area.
9.3.3 Drainage Area - Discharge Relationships from Reference Reaches
Four reference reaches were identified for this project. Each reference reach was surveyed to develop
information for analyzing drainage area - discharge relationships as well as development of design
parameters. Stable cross - sectional dimensions and channel slopes were used to compute a bankfull
discharge with Manning's equation for each reference reach. The resulting discharge values were plotted
with drainage area and compared to the regional curve datasets described in Sections 9.3.1 and 9.3.2
(Figure 9).
9.3.4 Regional Flood Frequency Analysis
Four USGS stream gage sites were identified within reasonable proximity of the project site for use in
development of a project specific regional flood frequency analysis as described by Dalrymple (1960). The
gages used were:
• 02123567 — Dutchman's Creek near Uwharrie, NC (drainage area 3.44 square miles);
• 0212467595 — Goose Creek near Indian Trail, NC (drainage area 11 square miles);
• 0210166029 — Rocky River near Crutchfield Crossroads, NC (drainage area 7.42 square miles);
• 02096846 — Cane Creek near Orange Grove, NC (drainage area 7.54 square miles).
Flood frequency curves were developed for the 1.2 year and 1.5 year recurrence interval discharges. These
relationships can be used to estimate discharge of those recurrence intervals for ungauged streams in the
same hydrologic region and were solved for discharge with the drainage area for each project reach as
the input.
9.3.5 USGS Flood Frequency Equations for Rural Watersheds in North Carolina
USGS flood frequency equations for rural watersheds in North Carolina (Weaver et al., 2009) were used
to estimate peak discharges for each reach for floods with a recurrence interval of two years.
W
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 24

Table 14. Design Bankfull Discharge Analysis Summary
Discharge Estimate Analysis
Parameter
North Branch
North Branch
East
East Branch
Min
R1
R2
Branch
Drainage Area
(sq. mi.)
0.37
0.65
0.27
USGS rural flood frequency 2 -year
2 -yr
83
120
68
discharge (Weaver et al., 2009)
Discharge
0.65
0.27
design discharge
Piedmont Regional Curve (Harman et al.,
Bankfull
43
65
35
1999)
Discharge
SF
14.4
16.3
Piedmont /Mountain Regional Curve
Bankfull
25
40
20
(Walker, unpublished)
Discharge
Cross - Section
width at bankfull
Wbkf
feet
1.2 -yr
18
33
13
Regional Flood Frequency Analysis
Discharge
1.3
1 1.8
1.4
1.5 -yr
24
43
18
dbkf
feet
Discharge
1.2
0.9
Reference Reach Curve
Bankfull
37
57
29
Discharge
Final Design Q
Bankfull
35
67
32
Discharge
9.4 Design Channel Morphologic Parameters
Design parameters were developed for the restoration reaches based on the design bankfull discharge,
the dimensionless ratios from the reference reach data, and professional judgment of the designers. The
restoration reaches were designed to be similar to type C streams according to the Rosgen classification
system ( Rosgen, 1996). Type C streams are slightly entrenched, meandering streams with access to the
floodplain (entrenchment ratios >2.2) and channel slopes of 2% or less. They occur within a wide range of
valley types and are appropriate for the project landscape. The design morphologic parameters are shown
in Table 15.
Table 15. Design Mor holo is Parameters
w
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 25
Notation
Units
North Branch -
Reach 1
North Branch -
Reach 2
East Branch
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
stream type
C4
C4
C4
drainage area
DA
sq mi
0.37
0.65
0.27
design discharge
Q
cfs
35.0
67.0
32.0
bankfull cross - sectional area
Abkf
SF
14.4
16.3
9.7
average velocity during
bankfull event
vbkf
fps
2.4
4.3
3.3
Cross - Section
width at bankfull
Wbkf
feet
13.8
14.0
11.0
maximum depth at bankfull
dmax
feet
1.3
1 1.8
1.4
2.0
0.9
1 1.5
mean depth at bankfull
dbkf
feet
1.0
1.2
0.9
w
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 25

Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 26
Notation
Units
North Branch -
Reach 1
North Branch -
Reach 2
East Branch
Min
Max
Min
TMax
Min
Max
bankfull width to depth ratio
Wbkf /dbkf
13.0
12.0
12.4
depth ratio
feet
1.2
1.7
1.2
1.7
1.2
1.7
bank height ratio
BHR
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
floodprone area width
Wfpa
feet
30
69
31
70
24
55
entrenchment ratio
ER
2.2
5.0
2.2
5.0
2.2
5.0
Slope
valley slope
S�alieY
feet/
foot
0.0048
0.0076
0.0098
channel slope
Schnl
feet/
foot
0.0100
0.0100
0.0050
0.0050
0.0130
0.0130
Profile
riffle slope
Sriffle
feet/
foot
0.0120
0.0340
0.0060
0.0170
0.0156
0.0442
riffle slope ratio
Sriffle /Schnl
1.2
3.4
1.2
3.4
1.2
3.4
pool slope
Sp
feet/
foot
0.0000
0.0040
0.0000
0.0020
0.0000
0.0052
pool slope ratio
Sp /Schnl
0.00
0.40
0.00
0.40
0.00
0.40
pool -to -pool spacing
Lp_p
feet
19
91
20
92
15
73
pool spacing ratio
Lp_p /Wbkf
1.4
6.6
1.4
6.6
1.4
6.6
pool cross - sectional area
SF
16.6
28.9
17.9
32.6
9.8
20.0
pool area ratio
1.2
2.0
1.1
2.0
1.1
2.0
maximum pool depth
feet
1.3
3.1
1.4
4.7
1.0
3.5
pool depth ratio
1.2
3.0
1.2
4.0
1.2
4.0
pool width at bankfull
feet
13.8
22.1
14.0
22.4
11.0
17.6
pool width ratio
1.0
1.6
1.0
1..6
1.0
1.6
Pattern
sinuosity
K
1.20
1.30
1.20
1.30
1.20
1.30
belt width
Wblf
feet
41
123
42
125
22
98
meander width ratio
Wblt /Wbkf
3.0
8.9
3.0
8.9
2.0
8.9
linear wavelength (formerly
meander length)
L m
feet
41
207
42
210
30
165
linear wavelength ratio
(formerly meander length
ratio)
Lm /Wbkf
3.0
15.0
3.0
15.0
3.0
15.0
meander length
feet
41
166
42
168
33
132
meander length ratio
3.0
12.0
3.0
15.0
3.0
12.0
radius of curvature
Rc
feet
25
41
25
42
20
33
radius of curvature ratio
Rc/ Wbkf
1.8
3.0
1.8
3.0
1.8
3.0
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 26

9.5 Sediment Transport Analysis
A sediment transport analysis was performed for the restoration reaches. For gravel bed channels, it is
important to analyze both sediment transport competence and capacity and both were analyzed for this
project. HEC -RAS models were developed for the existing and proposed conditions of each restoration
reach in order to perform the sediment transport calculations.
As an initial step in the sediment transport analysis, Wildlands performed an assessment of the existing
watershed and stream channels as well as a determination of expected changes to the watershed during
the life of the project. This is necessary to qualitatively understand the sediment supply for the design
reaches and to determine what level of transport analysis is needed to properly design the system. In
unstable or rapidly changing watersheds or for streams with visual signs of high bedload supply, detailed
analysis including field data collection may be necessary to ensure a proper design. A watershed
assessment was conducted for this project as described in Sections 4.1 and 4.2 of this document.
Historical land use changes within the watershed were analyzed through aerial photo review, the existing
conditions were evaluated on the ground, and future land use changes were determined to be minor
based on historical trends and the rural character of the surrounding area. The watershed was therefore
determined to be stable and is expected to remain stable for the foreseeable future. In addition, the
existing stream channels on the project site do not show signs of significant deposition or aggradation.
This assessment indicates that the Mud Lick Creek system has a relatively low bedload supply and,
therefore, no bedload monitoring was performed. The competence and capacity analyses are described
below.
9.5.1 Competence Analysis
A competence analysis was performed for each of the design reaches by comparing shear stresses along
the channel at the design bankfull discharge with the size distribution of the bed material. The proposed
conditions HEC -RAS model for each restoration reach was used to generate bankfull shear stresses at
cross sections throughout each restoration reach. These shear stresses were compared with the critical
shear stresses obtained from the revised Shields Diagram (Rosgen, 2013), shown in Table 16, to provide a
rough estimate of the degree to which shear stress in the proposed stream will be able to move the bed
material. The results in Table 16 indicate that the proposed North Branch channel will have enough shear
stress to move both the D5o and Dioo particle sizes and that East Branch will have enough shear stress to
move the D5o but not enough to move the Dloo. These results indicate that the existing bed material sizes
(which are not expected to change significantly after construction) will be entrained at higher flows and
that channel aggradation will not become a problem. Grade control will also be installed in both streams
to prevent incision (see Section 9.6). It should be noted that, although the upstream sediment supply is
not expected to change as described above, fine bed materials from fluvial erosion and trampling of the
banks will be reduced after construction resulting in some coarsening of bed materials. This will not result
in changes of larger sized particles.
W
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 27

Table 16. Competence Analysis Results
9.5.2 Capacity Analysis
Based on the watershed assessment described above, the project streams currently appear to be supply
limited, or in other words, have at least enough capacity to transport the sediment loads supplied to them.
In addition, the sediment loads are not expected to change significantly in the future. In this case, an
appropriate transport capacity analysis is to compare the capacity of the existing channels to that of the
proposed. If the proposed channels have similar or greater capacity to move sediment supply as the
existing channels, they will not be expected to aggrade. Excess capacity that might cause incision can be
controlled by grade control structures.
This analysis was done with the sediment transport capacity module of HEC -RAS. HEC -RAS models were
built for existing and proposed conditions of both design reaches. The sediment transport capacity
module uses the hydraulic models along with bed material data to estimate capacity. Various capacity
equations can be used to analyze a stream reach but should be carefully selected with consideration of
channel size and slope, bed material size ranges, channel velocities, and other variables. For this analysis,
the Meyer- Peter - Muller equation was used to calculate an average capacity value each existing and
proposed model. For information on this and other equations please consult the HEC -RAS user's manual
(HEC, 2010). These average results for each existing reach and the proposed reach are shown in Table 17.
Table 17. Capacity Analysis Results
Avg. Boundary
Shear Stress Required
Shear Stress Required
Stream
Shear Stress
to Move D50 (Ib /ftz)
to Move Dioo (lb /ft')
(tons /day)
(Ib /ftZ)
25.2
37.4
North Branch
0.5
0.0075
0.5
East Branch
0.4
0.15
0.9
9.5.2 Capacity Analysis
Based on the watershed assessment described above, the project streams currently appear to be supply
limited, or in other words, have at least enough capacity to transport the sediment loads supplied to them.
In addition, the sediment loads are not expected to change significantly in the future. In this case, an
appropriate transport capacity analysis is to compare the capacity of the existing channels to that of the
proposed. If the proposed channels have similar or greater capacity to move sediment supply as the
existing channels, they will not be expected to aggrade. Excess capacity that might cause incision can be
controlled by grade control structures.
This analysis was done with the sediment transport capacity module of HEC -RAS. HEC -RAS models were
built for existing and proposed conditions of both design reaches. The sediment transport capacity
module uses the hydraulic models along with bed material data to estimate capacity. Various capacity
equations can be used to analyze a stream reach but should be carefully selected with consideration of
channel size and slope, bed material size ranges, channel velocities, and other variables. For this analysis,
the Meyer- Peter - Muller equation was used to calculate an average capacity value each existing and
proposed model. For information on this and other equations please consult the HEC -RAS user's manual
(HEC, 2010). These average results for each existing reach and the proposed reach are shown in Table 17.
Table 17. Capacity Analysis Results
The results in Table 17 indicate that the sediment transport capacity for North Branch will increase
significantly when the proposed design is implemented. These results indicate that aggradation is not a
likely problem and any excess stream power will be controlled through grade control to reduce the
potential for bed degradation. Grade control structures are described in Section 9.6. However, the results
indicate that the capacity of East Branch will be significantly reduced, primarily due to an increase in
channel length and corresponding decrease in slope and channel velocities (which are quite high in the
existing condition). This would be a concern if there were indications that the bedload supply to the
stream was high. But, in this case, assessments of the channel and watershed do not indicate a high
bedload system and the existing condition likely has excess capacity. East Branch above the project site
is surrounded by a mature buffer for approximately 2,000 feet and the stream is impounded above that.
There is no reason to believe that a disturbance in the East Branch watershed that would increase the
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 28
Existing
Proposed
Capacity
Capacity
Reach
(tons /day)
(tons /day)
North Branch
25.2
37.4
East Branch
344.2
150.4
The results in Table 17 indicate that the sediment transport capacity for North Branch will increase
significantly when the proposed design is implemented. These results indicate that aggradation is not a
likely problem and any excess stream power will be controlled through grade control to reduce the
potential for bed degradation. Grade control structures are described in Section 9.6. However, the results
indicate that the capacity of East Branch will be significantly reduced, primarily due to an increase in
channel length and corresponding decrease in slope and channel velocities (which are quite high in the
existing condition). This would be a concern if there were indications that the bedload supply to the
stream was high. But, in this case, assessments of the channel and watershed do not indicate a high
bedload system and the existing condition likely has excess capacity. East Branch above the project site
is surrounded by a mature buffer for approximately 2,000 feet and the stream is impounded above that.
There is no reason to believe that a disturbance in the East Branch watershed that would increase the
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 28

sediment yield is likely in the foreseeable future. In this case, the reduction of the very high channel
capacity will be a positive change and will create a more stable condition. The proposed designs of both
streams are expected to remain stable.
9.6 Project Implementation
9.6.1 Grading and Installation of Structures
Mud Lick Creek and the upstream portions of North Branch and East Branch will be improved through
enhancement II techniques. Treatments for these areas will include replanting the riparian buffer with
native tree species, fencing out livestock, and treatment of invasive species. On Mud Lick Creek an
additional component of the design will be repair of actively eroding banks in limited locations.
Constructed riffles will be added to the beds of downstream ends of enhancement II reaches on North
Branch and East Branch in order to tie into raised bed elevations of the restoration sections of these
streams. There will be no alterations to floodplain grades or to the streambed on Mud Lick Creek. Channel
dimensions will not be altered for these sections of stream.
The majority of North Branch and East Branch will be stream restoration. Beginning at the downstream
ends of enhancement II sections on each of these two streams, new channels will be constructed (mostly
offline). The channels will be reconstructed as a combination of Priority 1 and Priority 2 restoration. The
new North Branch channel will then tie back into a similar location and elevation on Mud Lick Creek. East
Branch will tie into a new elevation and location on North Branch. The beds of the channels will be raised
so that the floodplains are inundated during flow events larger than the design bankfull discharge. The
cross - sectional dimensions of the channels will be reconstructed to the appropriate dimensions. The
streambeds will be composed of alternating riffle -pool sequences. The channel banks will be
reconstructed with stable side slopes, and matted and planted with native vegetation for long -term
stability. Brush toe and root wad revetments built from on -site materials will be used to protect banks.
The sinuous planform of the channel will be built to mimic a natural Piedmont stream.
Instream structures will primarily include constructed riffles, angled log sills, and log vanes. Several types
of constructed riffles will be utilized in the restoration reaches to establish a varied flow pattern, habitat,
and grade control while providing a source of carbon for nutrient cycling. Native rock of various sizes
(cobble, gravel, and fines) harvested from the site will be utilized as much as possible to create these
riffles. Types of riffles proposed for this site include:
• Woody riffles with brush and logs compacted into the bed of native rock to increase woody
material in the channel.
• Chunky riffles with larger (small boulder) rock embedded throughout the length of the native rock
riffle to provide additional habitat as well as grade control.
• Log roll riffles to increase woody material and meander the thalweg.
w
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 29

Heterogeneity and complexity of materials and form will be stressed on all constructed riffles. In longer
riffle sections, micropools and pocket water will be established along their length to provide diversity of
habitat and more accurately mimic the appearance and function of natural systems.
9.6.2 Riparian Planting
As a final stage of construction, riparian buffers of restoration and enhancement reaches will be planted
with native trees. The natural community immediately upstream of the project easement can be classified
as Piedmont bottomland forest (Schafale and Weakley, 1990). The species to be planted were selected
based on this community type, observations of the occurrence of species in the upstream forest, and best
professional judgment on species establishment and anticipated site conditions in the early years
following project implementation. The riparian buffers areas will be planted with bare root seedlings. In
addition, the stream banks will be planted with live stakes and the channel toe will be planted with plugs
of juncus effusus. Permanent herbaceous seed will be placed on stream banks, floodplain areas, and all
disturbed areas within the project easement. Proposed plant species are shown in the plan set.
To help ensure tree growth and survival, soil amendments will be added to areas of floodplain cut along
North Branch and East Branch. Topsoil will be stockpiled, reapplied, and disked. In addition, soil tests will
be performed in areas of cut and fertilizer and lime will be applied based on the results of the soils test to
encourage growth of hardwood tree species.
Species planted as bare roots will be spaced at an initial density of 605 plants per acre based on 12 feet
by 6 feet spacing (targeted densities after monitoring year 3 are 320 woody stems per acre). Live stakes
will be planted on channel banks at 2 -foot to 3 -foot spacing on the outside of meander bends and 6 -foot
to 8 -foot spacing on tangent sections.
9.6.3 Supplementary Monitoring Program Implementation
This project offers a unique opportunity to collect and analyze pre- and post- construction monitoring data
on different approaches to stream mitigation on the same site. To facilitate such an analysis, EEP specified
a more comprehensive monitoring program that is more rigorous than that required by USACE to be
conducted as part of the implementation and monitoring of this site. The program includes monitoring
of lateral bank erosion on re- vegetated enhancement reaches, bed material distributions, benthic
macroinvertebrate sampling, fish community sampling and water quality sampling. This program (further
described in Section 12.4) was designed to provide valuable information for the following purposes:
1. To document ecological response to different mitigation practices (i.e. full restoration and
reduced intervention enhancement)
2. To provide information to evaluate the level of ecological improvements provided from reduced
intervention.
Due to the reasons specified in section 7, a credit range is proposed for the Ell based on outcomes. Table
12 — utilizes a credit ratio of 1.5:1 at this stage, but will be ultimately dependent upon the degree of
functional improvement.
10.0 Maintenance Plan
NCEEP shall monitor the site on a regular basis and shall conduct a physical inspection of the site a
minimum of once per year throughout the post- construction monitoring period until performance
W
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 30

standards are met. These site inspections may identify site components and features that require routine
maintenance. Routine maintenance should be expected most often in the first two years following site
construction and may include the components listed in Table 18.
Table 18. Maintenance Plan Components
Component / Feature
Maintenance Through Project Close -Out
Stream
Stream — Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include
chinking of in- stream structures to prevent piping, securing of loose coir
matting, and supplemental installations of live stakes and other target
vegetation along the channel. Areas where stormwater and floodplain flows
intercept the channel may also require maintenance to prevent bank failures
and head - cutting.
Vegetation
Vegetation shall be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted
plant community. Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may
include supplemental planting, pruning, mulching, and fertilizing. Exotic
invasive plant species shall be controlled by mechanical and /or chemical
methods. Any vegetation control requiring herbicide application will be
performed in accordance with NC Department of Agriculture (NCDA) rules and
regulations.
Site Boundary
Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction
between the mitigation site and adjacent properties. Boundaries may be
identified by fence, marker, bollard, post, tree - blazing, or other means as
allowed by site conditions and /or conservation easement. Boundary markers
disturbed, damaged, or destroyed will be repaired and /or replaced on an as
needed basis.
Ford Crossing
Ford crossings within the site may be maintained only as allowed by
Conservation Easement or existing easement, deed restrictions, rights -of -way,
or corridor agreements.
Road Crossing
Road crossings within the site may be maintained only as allowed by
Conservation Easement or existing easement, deed restrictions, rights -of -way,
or corridor agreements.
Beaver Management
If beaver dams are observed on site, NCEEP will remove the dams and attempt
to remove the beavers from the site.
11.0 Performance Standards
The stream restoration performance criteria for the project site will follow approved performance criteria
presented in the EEP Mitigation Plan Template (6/08/2012), the EEP Annual Monitoring and Closeout
Template (2/2014), and the Stream Mitigation Guidelines issued in April 2003 by the USACE and NCDWQ.
EEP will oversee annual monitoring of channel stability and vegetation to assess the condition of the
finished project for seven years, or until success criteria are met. Stream and vegetation success criteria
are described in more detail below.
W
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 31

11.1 Streams
11.1.1 Dimension
Riffle cross - sections on the restoration reaches should be stable and should show little change in bankfull
area, maximum depth ratio, and width -to -depth ratio. Bank height ratios shall not exceed 1.2 and
entrenchment ratios shall be at least 2.2 for restored channels to be considered stable. All riffle cross -
sections should fall within the parameters defined for channels of the appropriate stream type. If any
changes do occur, these changes will be evaluated to assess whether the stream channel is showing signs
of instability. Indicators of instability include a vertically incising thalweg or eroding channel banks.
Changes in the channel that indicate a movement toward stability or enhanced habitat include a decrease
in the width -to -depth ratio in meandering channels or an increase in pool depth. Remedial action would
not be taken if channel changes indicate a movement toward stability.
11.1.2 Pattern and Profile
The as -built survey will include a longitudinal profile for the baseline monitoring report. Longitudinal
profile surveys will not be conducted during the seven year monitoring period unless other indicators
during the annual monitoring indicate a trend toward vertical and lateral instability.
11.1.3 Substrate
Substrate materials in the restoration reaches should indicate a progression towards or the maintenance
of coarser materials in the riffle features and smaller particles in the pool features.
11.1.4 Bankfull Events
Two bankfull flow events must be documented on the restoration reaches within the seven -year
monitoring period. The two bankfull events must occur in separate years. Stream monitoring will
continue until success criteria in the form of two bankfull events in separate years have been documented.
11.1.5 Water Quality
It is expected that water quality should improve as a result of the treatments applied. To obtain the
highest credit level, measureable, sustained improvements over baseline conditions should be
observed in keeping with the criteria, conditions and caveats specified in section 7.
11.1.6 Aquatic Biology
Improved habitat and improved water quality should result in improvements in aquatic communities.
To obtain the highest credit level, measureable, sustained improvements over baseline conditions
should be observed in keeping with the criteria, conditions and caveats specified in section 7.
11.1.7 Photo Documentation
Photographs should illustrate the site's vegetation and morphological stability on an annual basis. Cross -
section photos should demonstrate no excessive erosion or degradation of the banks. Longitudinal photos
should indicate the absence of persistent bars within the channel or vertical incision. Grade control
structures should remain stable. Deposition of sediment on the bank side of vane arms is preferable.
Maintenance of scour pools on the channel side of vane arms is expected.
W
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 32

11.2 Vegetation
The final vegetative success criteria will be the survival of 210 planted stems per acre in the riparian
corridor along restored and enhanced reaches at the end of the required monitoring period (year seven).
The interim measure of vegetative success for the site will be the survival of at least 320 planted stems
per acre at the end of the third monitoring year and at least 260 stems per acre at the end of the fifth year
of monitoring. Planted vegetation must average 10 feet in height in each plot at the end of the seventh
year of monitoring. If this performance standard is met by year five and stem density is trending towards
success (i.e., no less than 260 five year old stems /acre), monitoring of vegetation on the site may be
terminated with written approval by the USACE in consultation with the NC Interagency Review Team.
The extent of invasive species coverage will also be monitored and controlled as necessary throughout
the required monitoring period (seven years).
11.3 Visual Assessments
Visual assessments should support the specific performance standards for each metric as described
above.
12.0 Monitoring Plan
Annual monitoring data will be reported using the EEP Monitoring Report Template (2/2014). The
monitoring report shall provide a project data chronology that will facilitate an understanding of project
status and trends, population of EEP databases for analysis, research purposes, and assist in decision
making regarding close -out. The monitoring period will extend seven years beyond completion of
construction or until performance criteria have been met. All survey will be tied to grid.
12.1 Site Specific Monitoring
Following the EEP As -Built Baseline Monitoring Plan Template (2/2014), a baseline monitoring document
and as -built record drawings of the project will be developed within 60 days of the planting completion
and monitoring installation on the restored site. As -built drawings will follow the EEP Format, Data
Requirements, and Content Guidance for Digital Drawings Submitted to EEP (version 1.0, 03/27/08).
Monitoring reports will be prepared in the fall of each year of monitoring and submitted to EEP. These
reports will be based on the EEP Monitoring Report Template (2/2014). The monitoring period will extend
seven years beyond completion of construction or until performance criteria have been met per the
criteria stated in EEP Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and /or Wetland
Mitigation and the Stream Mitigation Guidelines issued in April 2003 by the USACE and NCDWQ. Project
monitoring requirements are listed in more detail in Tables 19.
Table 19_ Monitorina Reauirements
w
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 33
Quantity/ Length by Reach
Monitoring
Parameter
Frequency
Notes
Feature
Mud Lick
Mud Lick
Mud Lick
North
North
East
Creek R1
Creek R2
Creek R3
Branch R1
Branch R2
Branch
Riffle Cross
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
1
1
Sections
Dimension
Annual
1
Pool Cross
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
1
1
Section
w
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 33

Notes:
1. Cross - sections will be permanently marked with rebar to establish location. Surveys will include points measured at all breaks in slope,
including top of bank, bankfull, edge of water, and thalweg. The number of cross- sections proposed was established using 1 cross - section
per 20 bankfull widths.
2. Entire profile will be surveyed during the as -built for all project streams.
3. One crest gage will be installed along each stream. Where there is more than one approach applied to a reach, the crest gage will be
installed in a central location to capture bankfull events for both design approaches. Device will be inspected quarterly or semi - annually,
evidence of bankfull will be documented with a photo.
4. Locations of exotic and nuisance vegetation will be recorded using a GPS and mapped.
5. Locations offence damage, vegetation damage, boundary encroachments, etc. will be recorded using a GPS and mapped.
6. Markers will be established and recorded using a GPS so that the same locations and view directions on the site are monitored.
12.2 Streams
12.2.1 Dimension
In order to monitor the channel dimension, permanent cross - sections will be installed along riffle and pool
sections in proportion to EEP guidance. One permanent cross - section will be installed per 20 bankfull
channel widths along the restored streams. Each cross - section will be permanently marked with pins to
establish its location. Cross - section surveys will include points measured at all breaks in slope, including
top of bank, bankfull, edge of water, and thalweg. Cross - sections will be surveyed annually for the seven
year monitoring period.
w
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 34
Quantity/ Length by Reach
Monitoring
Parameter
Frequency
Notes
Feature
Mud Lick
Mud Lick
Mud Lick
North
North
East
Creek R1
Creek R2
Creek R3
Branch R1
Branch R2
Branch
Pattern
Pattern
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
n/a
2
Profile
Longitudinal
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
n/a
Profile
Reach wide
(RW), Riffle
1 RW,
1 RW,
1 RW,
Substrate
(RF) 100
N/A
N/A
N/A
1 RF
1 RF
1 RF
Annual
pebble
Hydrology
Crest Gage
1
1
1
Annual
3
Vegetation
Vegetation
12
Annual
Plots
Visual
All Streams
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Bi- annual
Assessment
Exotic and
nuisance
Annual
4
vegetation
Project
Annual
5
Boundary
Reference
Photos
19
Annual
6
Photos
Notes:
1. Cross - sections will be permanently marked with rebar to establish location. Surveys will include points measured at all breaks in slope,
including top of bank, bankfull, edge of water, and thalweg. The number of cross- sections proposed was established using 1 cross - section
per 20 bankfull widths.
2. Entire profile will be surveyed during the as -built for all project streams.
3. One crest gage will be installed along each stream. Where there is more than one approach applied to a reach, the crest gage will be
installed in a central location to capture bankfull events for both design approaches. Device will be inspected quarterly or semi - annually,
evidence of bankfull will be documented with a photo.
4. Locations of exotic and nuisance vegetation will be recorded using a GPS and mapped.
5. Locations offence damage, vegetation damage, boundary encroachments, etc. will be recorded using a GPS and mapped.
6. Markers will be established and recorded using a GPS so that the same locations and view directions on the site are monitored.
12.2 Streams
12.2.1 Dimension
In order to monitor the channel dimension, permanent cross - sections will be installed along riffle and pool
sections in proportion to EEP guidance. One permanent cross - section will be installed per 20 bankfull
channel widths along the restored streams. Each cross - section will be permanently marked with pins to
establish its location. Cross - section surveys will include points measured at all breaks in slope, including
top of bank, bankfull, edge of water, and thalweg. Cross - sections will be surveyed annually for the seven
year monitoring period.
w
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 34

12.2.2 Pattern and Profile
The as -built survey will include a longitudinal profile for the baseline monitoring report. Longitudinal
profile surveys will not be conducted during the seven year monitoring period unless other indicators
during the annual monitoring indicate a trend toward vertical and lateral instability. If a longitudinal
profile is deemed necessary, monitoring will follow standards as described in the EEP Monitoring Report
Template (2/2014) and the 2003 USACE and NCDWQ Stream Mitigation Guidance for the necessary
reaches.
12.2.3 Substrate
A reach -wide pebble count will be performed in each restoration reach (North Branch Reaches 1 and 2
and East Branch) each year for classification purposes. A pebble count will be performed at each surveyed
riffle to characterize the bed material during the years of the cross section survey.
12.2.4 Bankfull Events
Bankfull events will be documented using a crest gage, photographs, and visual assessments such as debris
lines. Three crest gages will be installed: one on Mud Lick Creek (for information purposes only), one on
North Branch, and one on East Branch. The crest gages will be installed within a riffle cross - section of the
restored channels in surveyed riffle cross - sections. The gages will be checked at each site visit to
determine if a bankfull event has occurred. Photographs will be used to document the occurrence of
debris lines and sediment deposition.
12.2.5 Photo Documentation
Photographs will be taken once a year to visually document stability for seven years following
construction. Permanent markers will be established and located with GPS equipment so that the same
locations and view directions on the site are photographed each year. Photos will be used to monitor
stream restoration and enhancement reaches as well as vegetation plots.
Longitudinal reference photos will be established at the tail of riffles approximately every 200 LF along
the channel by taking a photo looking upstream and downstream. Cross - sectional photos will be taken of
each permanent cross - section looking upstream and downstream. Reference photos will also be taken
for each of the vegetation plots. Representative digital photos of each permanent photo point, cross -
section and vegetation plot will be taken on the same day of the stream and vegetation assessments are
conducted. The photographer will make every effort to consistently maintain the same area in each photo
over time.
12.2.6 Vegetation
Vegetation monitoring plots will be installed and evaluated within the restoration and enhancement areas
to measure the survival of the planted trees. EEP wishes to use random, rotating 40th acre plots for
vegetation monitoring at this site. The number of plots specified will be based on guidance described in
the EEP monitoring guidance documents.
The initial baseline survey will be conducted within 21 days from completion of site planting and used for
subsequent monitoring year comparisons. The first annual vegetation monitoring activities will
commence at the end of the first growing season, during the month of September. The restoration and
enhancement sites will then be evaluated each subsequent year between June 1 and September 31.
W
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 35

Species composition, density, and survival rates will be evaluated on an annual basis by plot and for the
entire site. Individual plot data will be provided and will include height, density, vigor, damage (if any),
and survival. Planted woody stems will be marked annually as needed and given a coordinate, based off
of a known origin, so they can be found in succeeding monitoring years. Mortality will be determined
from the difference between the previous year's living planted stems and the current year's living planted
stems.
12.3 Visual Assessments
Visual assessments will be performed along all streams on a bi- annual basis during the seven year
monitoring period. Problem areas will be noted such as channel instability (i.e. lateral and /or vertical
instability, in- stream structure failure /instability and /or piping, headcuts), vegetated buffer health (i.e.
low stem density, vegetation mortality, invasive species or encroachment), beaver activity, or livestock
access. Areas of concern will be mapped and photographed accompanied by a written description in the
annual report. Problem areas will be re- evaluated during each subsequent visual assessment. Should
remedial actions be required, recommendations will be provided in the annual monitoring report. A
habitat assessment along each restoration and enhancement reach will also be conducted at the time of
the visual assessments to document project uplift.
12.4 Supplementary Monitoring Program
As discussed in Section 9.6.3, additions to the above required monitoring protocols are being proposed.
This supplementary data will allow for analysis of pre- and post- construction data for different mitigation
activities on the same site. The data and analysis will be included in the annual monitoring reports.
Additional monitoring protocols are discussed below.
12.4.1 Bank Pins
In order to evaluate the difference in lateral bank erosion between restoration and enhancement reaches,
six cross sections will be monitored for erosion for one year prior to construction and as part of the post -
construction monitoring program. The cross sections monitored will include the following locations:
a. Two locations on Mud Lick Creek within the project limits
b. One location on Mud Lick Creek upstream of the project limits
c. Two locations on North Branch
d. One location on East Branch
For the pre- construction monitoring, the chosen locations shall include an array with sufficient lateral
and vertical coverage to represent the variability of apparent erosion rates.
Bank and toe pins will be installed at each cross section. A rain gauge will be set up on the site and one
stage monitoring station (a pressure transducer installed on the stream bed) will be established on Mud
Lick Creek. A bank profile will be surveyed at each location at the time of the installation of the bank and
toe pins. The profile will be resurveyed one year after installation so that an annual erosion rate can be
determined. The bank pins will be monitored quarterly for one year after installation. The stage
monitoring station will be downloaded at the time of each bank pin measurement. Erosion indicated by
pin measurements will be compared to the stage record for the quarter to relate the erosion rates to high
flows. The rain gauge data will be used to determine if precipitation levels are above, at, or below normal
during the pre- and post- construction monitoring period.
W
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 36

After construction, lateral erosion rates will be monitored by cross - section dimension surveys (Section
12.2.1). If areas of erosion develop during the post- construction monitoring period, bank pins will be
installed and monitored similar to the pre- construction program described above to characterize the
range of rates.
12.4.2 Biological Sampling
Biological sampling will be completed in order to better assess functional uplift of stream reaches.
Macroinvertebrate sampling will be conducted at one location on Mud Lick Creek within the project limits
and at one location on North Branch. Fish community sampling will be conducted on Mud Lick Creek
within the project limits. Sampling will initially be done once prior to construction in the spring at these
locations according to NCDWR procedures. Post - construction monitoring will be completed three times
after construction during monitoring year 2, monitoring year 4, and monitoring year 7. This monitoring
will be done during the spring of each year according to NCDWR procedures.
12.4.3 Water Quality
As this site is an active cattle pasture, water quality is a concern. In order to assess water quality over time
and for different management approaches the following sampling protocol will be used. Sampling will
occur at one site on Mud Lick Creek and at one site on North Branch. Sampling events will occur eight
times during one year prior to construction at each site, with sampling occurring approximately twice per
season. Four of the eight events will occur during high flow and four will occur during base flow. At each
site visit, grab samples will be collected and physical parameters will be measured at the downstream
extent of the reach. Samples will be analyzed for the following parameters:
a. Total Nitrogen
b. Total Phosphorus
c. Fecal Coliform
d. Turbidity
e. Temperature
f. pH
g. Dissolved Oxygen
h. Conductivity
In addition, field parameters (temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, and conductivity) will be collected at
one location on Mud Lick Creek above the project site and one location on North Branch above the project
site to provide a watershed context for the on -site monitoring results. The same sampling schedule
(sampling twice per season) will be followed after construction during monitoring years 2, 4, and 7 at
similar locations. During these post- construction monitoring events, the same parameters a through h
above will be monitored at the downstream extent of each reach. Parameters a through c above will be
collected as grab samples and analyzed by a State - certified water quality lab. Items d through h (field
parameters) will be measured with calibrated water quality meters in the field. During post- construction
monitoring, field parameters will be collected at the downstream extent of Mud Lick Creek and North
Branch and above the project site on both locations.
w
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 37

13.0 Long -Term Management Plan
Upon approval for close -out by the Interagency Review Team (IRT) the site will be transferred to the
NCDENR Division of Natural Resource Planning and Conservation's Stewardship Program. This party shall
be responsible for periodic inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the conservation
easement or the deed restriction document(s) are upheld. Endowment funds required to uphold
easement and deed restrictions shall be negotiated prior to site transfer to the responsible party.
The NCDENR Division of Natural Resource Planning and Conservation's Stewardship Program currently
houses EEP stewardship endowments within the non - reverting, interest - bearing Conservation Lands
Stewardship Endowment Account. The use of funds from the Endowment Account is governed by North
Carolina General Statue GS 113A- 232(d)(3). Interest gained by the endowment fund may be used only for
the purpose of stewardship, monitoring, stewardship administration, and land transaction costs, if
applicable. The NCDENR Stewardship Program intends to manage the account as a non - wasting
endowment. Only interest generated from the endowment funds will be used to steward the
compensatory mitigation sites. Interest funds not used for those purposes will be re- invested in the
Endowment Account to offset losses due to inflation.
14.0 Adaptive Management Plan
Upon completion of site construction EEP will implement the post- construction monitoring protocols
previously defined in this document. Project maintenance will be performed as described previously in
this document. If, during the course of annual monitoring it is determined the site's ability to achieve site
performance standards are jeopardized, EEP will notify the USACE of the need to develop a Plan of
Corrective Action. The Plan of Corrective Action may be prepared using in -house technical staff or may
require engineering and consulting services. Once the Corrective Action Plan is prepared and finalized
EEP will:
• Notify the USACE as required by the Nationwide 27 permit general conditions.
• Revise performance standards, maintenance requirements, and monitoring requirements as
necessary and /or required by the USACE.
• Obtain other permits as necessary.
• Implement the Corrective Action Plan.
• Provide the USACE a Record Drawing of Corrective Actions. This document shall depict the
extent and nature of the work performed.
15.0 Financial Assurances
Pursuant to Section IV H and Appendix III of the Ecosystem Enhancement Program's In -Lieu Fee
Instrument dated July 28, 2010, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
has provided the US Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District with a formal commitment to fund
projects to satisfy mitigation requirements assumed by EEP. This commitment provides financial
assurance for all mitigation projects implemented by the program.
w
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 38

16.0 References
Buck Engineering, 2004. UT to Barnes Creek Restoration Plan: Montgomery County, NC.
Harman, W.H. et. al. 2000. Bankfull Regional Curves for North Carolina Mountain Streams.
Lagasse, P.F., Schall, J.D., Johnson, F., Richardson, E.V., Richardson, J.R., and Chang, F., 2001. Stream
Stability at Highway Structures, Second Edition. U.S. Department of Transportation, Report No. FHWA-
IP -90 -014, HEC- 20 -ED -2. Washington, DC.: Federal Highway Administration, 132 p.
Dalrymple, T. 1960. Flood - Frequency Analyses. Manual of Hydrology: Part 3. Flood -Flow Techniques. USGS
Water Supply Paper #1543 -a. USGPO, 1960.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), 2011. Surface Water Classifications. Retrieved from:
http: / /Portal.ncdenr.org /web /wq /ps /csu /classifications
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books.
Rosgen, D.L. 2013. DRAFT Natural Channel Design for River Restoration. Wildland Hydrology, Fort Collins,
CO.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, 3rd
approx. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Simon, A. 1989. A model of channel response in disturbed alluvial channels. Earth Surface Processes and
Landforms 14(1):11 -26.
Tetra Tech, 2005. Upper Rocky River Local Watershed Plan Preliminary Findings Report. Prepared for
the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program. 157 p.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC), zoio. HEC -RAS River Analysis
System User's Manual, Version 4.1. Accessed online at: http: / /www.hec.usace.army.mil /software /hec-
ras /documentation /HEC -RAS 4.1 Users Manual.pdf
Walker, Alan, unpublished. NC Rural Mountain and Piedmont Regional Curve. Personal communication.
Weaver, J.C., et al. 2009. Magnitude and Frequency of Rural Floods in the Southeastern United States,
through 2006: Volume 2, North Carolina. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009-
5158, 111 p.
Wolf Creek, 2007. Holly Grove Restoration Site Restoration Plan. Prepared for the North Carolina
Ecosystem Enhancement Program. 14 p.
W
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page 39

FIGURES

)30X 002 ' �I Y
C" =
03030002040070. yl
5 030300004
I
1
Alt r7
1 1lv.
030300030L_;
61
L o-a v
t
i
030
le
0080 ,
k% r
el "reenact
^rport
- - - - - --
I
II 30300 Oi
I
- Project Location
H drolo is Unit (14-Digit)
)
EEP Targeted Local Watershed
NCDWQ Subbasin 03 -06 -12
Airports
O Natural Heritage Element Occurrences
Significant Natural Heritage Areas
03030002050050
I I].I II 'l' r. 11Lill IN
;ll il�i t. 11 it II(l
03030002050070
Project Location
--
C. . 030300020500, (1-1-
AQ" fY3i�36 70020 03030003076
C
vrl•I
03030003020030 �4 030300033020070
cit Ile
r` /
I
003 G
xi
Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEO, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp.,
GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance
Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, and the GIS
User Community �� j.-�`^03030003070050 (0 3 030701
kt� W I L D L A N D S 0 1 2 Miles
E N G I N E E R I N G
I I 1—J
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site
Mitigation Plan
EEP #93482
Chatham County, NC

Project Location Project Streams i
Easement Area ° Mud Lick Creek Reach 1
Parcels ° Mud Lick Creek Reach 2
Livestock Impacts Mud Lick Creek Reach 3
North Branch Reach 1 _
North Branch
North Branch Reach 2
i
® East Branch i
. • r.
Reach 1
ioP�
rl
Reach
/
1
Ga
� r i
u
GreeK 1 ' �
Mud ��f 1 t I
Reach 3 �,. ` Easement 1
Easement j
�•` Break
� 1
/ r6
i 1
� 1
Figure 2 Existing Conditions Map
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site
W I L D L A N D S 0 200 400 Feet Mitigation Plan
lk§�Jf I I I I I EEP #93482
ENGINEERING
Chatham County, NC

J
m Project Location
_ Easement Area j
3 —
CO
6 e�
ILI
E *tea 1,
- N
I v .yam
_ ��-J-- Mud Lick �re _ ;� ' . ♦. 43 - `-
ck_ o /
Crutr fie
I
USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle: Crutchfield Crossroads
Copyright: © 2013 National Geographic Society \
Figure 3 USGS Topographic Map
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site
W I L D L A N D S 0 500 1,000 2,000 Feet Mitigation Plan
kt/ EEP #93482
ENGINEERING
Chatham County, NC

Figure 4 Watershed Map
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site
W I L D L A N D S 0 800 1,600 Feet Mitigation Plan
1 V I I I EEP #93482
ENGINEERING
Chatham County, NC

NIMIMIt
I Project Location Project Streams
Easement Area ° Mud Lick Creek Reach 1
Parcels Mud Lick Creek Reach 2
Soils Mud Lick Creek Reach 3
ChA, Chewacla and Wehadkee soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes North Branch Reach 1
North Branch Reach 2
CmB, Cid- Lignum complex, 2 to 6 percent slopes
East Branch
GaB, Georgeville silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes -
_ NaC, Nanford -Badin complex, 6 to 10 percent slopes
Reach
Reach 1 \ X
NaC
i -
Reach 2
� I
NO1 1
Mud Lick 1
Reach 3 GaB CmB
GaB„
CIA CmB
Easemei
` Break
i
w
1 Norfhp
s
liy
1k
Reach 1
i
! NaC o 1
I
i
1
Easement 1
Break 1
1
i
i
I
is
i
i
I
1�
1
b �
1
i
1 to
i
i
% PW I L D L A N D S o 200 400 Feet
ENGINEERING
1/
Figure 5 Site Soil Survey Map
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site
Mitigation Plan
EEP #93482
Chatham County, NC

! 1.1.1 !
n Project Location Project Streams
A.I.I Ml
11.1.1!
! Easement Area Mud Lick Creek Reach 1
°
Parcels ° Mud Lick Creek Reach 2
Existing Wetlands Mud Lick Creek Reach 3
_
North Branch Reach 1
North Branch Reach 2
® East Branch
1
Reach 3
0 .. }
v
1
Reach 1
XSIO
POoj
Xsv R,ci
Reach 2 1e 1
/ 1
o i��"
�o i 1
� 1
qty A i _._ _•_,_.
A• �1
riffle 1
1
LiG ore Easement
Break
I
�I
' 1
1
Easement _ , � i
Break � `
1
1
1k tw
" Ik%
Figure 6 Hydrologic Features Map
�j Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site
W I L D L A N D S 0 200 400 Feet III Mitigation Plan
65 I I I I I EEP #93482
ENGINEERING
Chatham County, NC

V I rarlotte�.
Q Reference Reach > t,e3 - Draft
i• P
I 2'.9 m
Q
�' 4a• F u�,f Q 1 � ' t"
Madlsol
t Heights
=� Hollins
V J Bluefield Blacksburg
Dave Spring
Radford Christiansburg
It t v"r
h:lartinsville
�..
p 9.8 n, Danville
tWin\stqnSa1c kee � Eden
National Forest ti O Mud Lick Creek Project Location
'l I rd 533 rr
G �� m Kerner-,,,rifl,
v ,,?
I l'I.mi
t, 7lemmon . } Fr,I, I
Lenoir +Irham
UT to Polecat l el l
Pisgahf L <.ur ll -II Hill
Nationai II.,r,,anton Ca ry Raleigh
Ili I i late_ ill -
Fo re st �
UT to Cane Creek ` -..Ili bury I. Garner ;I
f 1 lla Fuquay -Varna
662 2 '
Lincolnloii Sanford Spencer Creek 1 & 2 I� 11 Albemarle
' ' o.--U ni F I,I t
King, Charlotte PII1?-
3 m - — — - — .1ounlain -� Bragg
Klatthew s Fayetteville
Gaffney \, Hope
re, Spartanburg Rock klonroe
h9ills C'
rwIlie
Sumter
National
Forest
I Newberry
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
- — - — - - - - Laurinburg s
:I
Lumberton
Florence
Forest Aces
n.
Figure 7 Reference Reach Vicinity Map
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site
0 510 20 Miles Mitigation Plan
V --�-�� EEP #93482
Chatham County, NC

1 _...
Project Location i
4. MLr
Easement Area 1
Parcels i
I
Streams
i ' s
Stream Design Approach ! °y
I ,
Restoration i
Enhancement II 1 `
Tr
i
i
♦ i
♦♦ i
♦ Reach 1
Reach 2 j 1
Reach 1 j
1
Reach 2 �' � J • �•` 1
Reach 3 � �.�•�• ' Easement 1
I Break 1
V 4k. 1
� � I
Easement
Break
I '1 1
� � 1
•` i `v
kt� WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Figure 8 Design Overview Map
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site
0 200 400 Feet Mitigation Plan
I I I I I EEP #93482
Chatham County, NC

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Figure 9 Regional Curves and Discharge Estimate Data
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site
Mitigation Plan
EEP #93482
Chatham County, NC
10000
I
y = 89.039xo.�zzs
I
RZ = 0.9069
I
III
♦
y = 55.699xo.�ass
I
IL
I
III
1000
R�
= 0.9931
I I
I
I
I
/
I
I
I
I
/ /
I
I
I
I
y
w
U
N
100
m
t
U
_y
10
1
• Rural NC Piedmont. Regional Curve Data (Harman, et al.,
1999)
—Rural NC Regional Curve Upper 95% Limit
—Rural NC Regional Curve Lower 95% Limit
• Reference Reach BKF Q Estimates
• Regional Flood Frequency 1.2 -yr Q Estimates
• Regional Flood Frequency 1.5 -yr Q Estimates
■ Rual NC Piedmont/Mountain Regional Curve Data (Walker,
unpublished)
♦ Design Discharges
I
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Drainage Area (square miles)
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Figure 9 Regional Curves and Discharge Estimate Data
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site
Mitigation Plan
EEP #93482
Chatham County, NC
I
y = 89.039xo.�zzs
I
RZ = 0.9069
I
III
♦
y = 55.699xo.�ass
I
III
R�
= 0.9931
I I
I
I
I
/
I
I
I
I
/ /
I
I
I
I
• Rural NC Piedmont. Regional Curve Data (Harman, et al.,
1999)
—Rural NC Regional Curve Upper 95% Limit
—Rural NC Regional Curve Lower 95% Limit
• Reference Reach BKF Q Estimates
• Regional Flood Frequency 1.2 -yr Q Estimates
• Regional Flood Frequency 1.5 -yr Q Estimates
■ Rual NC Piedmont/Mountain Regional Curve Data (Walker,
unpublished)
♦ Design Discharges
I
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Figure 9 Regional Curves and Discharge Estimate Data
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site
Mitigation Plan
EEP #93482
Chatham County, NC

APPENDIX 1: Project Site Photographs

Photo 1. Mud Lick Creek— Reach 1
Photo 2. Mud Lick Creek — Reach 2

Photo 3. Mud Lick Creek— Reach 3
Photo 4. Double box culvert at downstream end of project
�?r
h

� \
e \«
� Zw.
Photos Existing wetland feature adjacent to Mud Lick Creek
£
«� \
�2
Photo E North Branch — Reach 1 (Enhancement %

vLe
�t r
Photo 7. North Branch — Reach 1 (Restoration)
Photo 8. North Branch — Reach 2

Photo 9. East Branch (Enhancement II)
Photo 10. East Branch (Restoration)

APPENDIX 2: Historic Aerial Photographs

7-
3 F
Ilk-
AA
i I = 500'
I

�: �, f V A � _ �A i a •ll •tF • - � Veit F(M
1.7
19
JL
y 9
++���li, • ;.�:e ,- � +' it ��i r •'•� •• �F. � r� -, ' � j A!
It
•' - � �- `� 3 _ .f a �- � �'� '� `. R -
r 3
INQUIRY M 3673576.5
YEAR: 1983
= 500,

r ;.4
F' a �•'�� r '`� �'�:, � -
ti iii .F / ��, .t:• 'vJ }'3 � i���h.a.^•, ih,«• ^. y�i -
f
UP
Ui, _ A der AA
«-� i, � ' � * �' - � +.1 •�' 11 � �' ��,, � -� �.«�. _
.A
- i 4N•
ri T
t'
,I
Y,
• •yy _
f J ml
At
_ e
e
«' t
a
� 'k t

V
A
'Al
pit 4.
-WOW
it
iL
INQUIRY M 3673576.5
YEAR: 1999
i I = 750'
0

jf
IN
fit
%toe
L
Jr
k
eiv
06
•v
■
=` I

i7b,
4A 1
j<
TAW
A.
T kW
. . . . . . . . . . . ....
INQUIRY M 3673576.5
YEAR: 2006
1 1 = rnn,
.420
P7

INQUIRY M 3673576.5
YEAR: 2008
500'
LO
ift-o"V%
16
?M* ;v love
1, 41

APPENDIX 3: NCDWQ Stream Forms

S1
NC DW Q Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: �/ � 3
ProjectfSite: fyluj Lick Cre.;:k
Latitude: 35, 9136w"N
Evaluator: T j lff /4 Kr
County: C 11N&4_k4' W1
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Determination (cir Ie a
Other Sc-io I - (AuJ
if a 19 or perennial if ? 30'
Ephemeral Intermitter erenn
e,g. Quad Name: j, ; jk Cr
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =_91 L 5 ]
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
sequence
0
1
t.-I \
QlJ
3
-ripple-pool
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Activelrellct floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
:
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1,5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
° artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = IR ., _r,. i
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
C. Biologv (Subtotal= 11
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
C3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75, OBL = 1.5
Other = 0
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Dotes: P - CNke'riz'1 AL
�►, � t �. '
� s t-r �, w. +�
Sketch:

PVC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Efate: E! gall-
ProjectlSte: MU3 (tic Creek
Latitude: 35. ,9N-Z68')/q
Evaluator: -T„JiC /A k1•
County: ����u;n,,,
Longitude:77 .�3_W
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Determination (ci a
Other .5LPa� ` No. +k
a
if ? 13 or erennialif? 30'
Ephemeral lntermitten Perennia
e.g. Quad Name: S r.:'^C'
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = /-")j-L) l
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
1
1
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Activelrelict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
B. Headcuts
CO-
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. HArolow (Subtotal= R. 57 l
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
7
0.5
0'
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
CO .5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
G. Bioloav (Subtotal= /0.5 1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
1
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
COD
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FAGW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Cot7her =
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
V

S3
NC DW Q Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: f
Project/Site: ri ,/;i Ltr-k
Latitude: a'�„fir -19SL40nc
Evaluator: ,e/A i <T
County: C �,�����
Longitude: 49- 33 ,5,:T_ "
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Determination {cfr ane
Ephemeral
->
Other�CP� _ Ep..s+
if ;t 19 or perennial if ? 30"
lntermittent Perennia
e.g, Quad Name:
ch.n C ih
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
I "` Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
S
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step - pool„
ripple-pool sequence
0
1
2
<
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
1.5
5. Activelrelict floodplain
0
1
(:2�T
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
D
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1 )
2
3
8. Headcuts
Cy
1
2
3
9. Grade control
1 0
0.5
1
1.5
14. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = -0'75
Yes = 3
"artificiai ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloqv (Subtotal= 8 )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0 _
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
C. Biolopv (Subtotal= Lf s S ]
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3 )
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streantbed
3
2 3
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75: OBL = 1.5 Other = D
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch: I 1f
��LC:�"ZS ��"�"[ ._3� ��M^1�� ,i,N^�►dv�x�
1
� W�.�'Ca3'�G�C�'tCitin.+'�r.,
4 1L
C,t+��c4�5' -�r�y ���'�1i�A i:.7,��
I 1
G.4ti�i c!
A �-

IS 4
NC DWQ Stream Identification Forms Version 4.11
Date: 0
Project/Site: MUJ U cI< C.rr�.� {C
Latitude: -7. 911648ON
Evaluator: -
County: ck.-�,,_ W�.
Longitude: "!:79,4356014t.
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent Q
stream Determination (ci
Ephemeral
n i
Other SC l r.6 u
if k 19 or perennial if? 34' "`� V
Intermittent erennial
e.g. Quad Name: G, ,,A C'kA
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a, Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
C o
1
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
0.5
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict fioodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
O
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
CO
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0 )
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = _q__)
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
�J
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
2
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland ,plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2 '
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
C12
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Coffier =
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch.
1.1[�7iC:.�� LLS - SLi:ti�1� Gf �ZF .7"�i�+..sP'''� Goy L��`,•��'�'l�'�CL�,j �'�t7 5�.� i � ��" ���s�
i� fy I rj� y ji
t�t1O� �1�1l ifQV4'�..Wr
A A 44 401 F1 � 4 C )L !
tN

S5
NC DW¢ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 20 3
Project/Site: MJ U ck (Cr"
Latitude: 35, gf Jo0q_ "'
Evaluator: -Z-)iF/,4KT'
County: 'Ly �u. -[-�a w';
Longitude:'_4 !'q 6;:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Determination (cjWdaaQe
Other SCr' S
if ? 19 or perennial if ? 30*
Ephemeral Intermitter PerenniaO
e.g. Quad Name: L/ i
`r
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= j
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1$ Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
CO)
1
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle - ,pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
1
1
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
TJ
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
(.012
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5 2
1 1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No =
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 4._a )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
s=3
U Bolo (Subtotal= cY"
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
CD
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
CV
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
2
3
22, Fish
0
0.5
1
1
23. Crayfish
CO-)
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75, OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
"perennial streams may also be ldentlfed using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
C �\C+_gvw_k SCsst'� n.;� Ca.� 5,. S i.n vn► ea: �a
• c.s� t +c c! c3 i 5 i rt . c-cti- �S ��- �n r� i a S`- 4uS,
S 'r ��
GV
'%tl

APPENDIX 4: Existing Conditions Geomorphic Data

592
591
590
589
588
0 587
586
CO
585
W 584
583
582
581
0 10
Elevation (ft)
Bankfull Dimensions
41.3
x- section area (ft.sq.)
18.2
width (ft)
2.3
mean depth (ft)
4.2
max depth (ft)
21.2
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.9
hyd radi (ft)
8.0
width -depth ratio
Bankfull
Flow
3.0 velocity (ft/s)
122.6 discharge rate (cfs)
0.37 Froude number
Mud Lick Creek Reach 1 Riffle
20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
Flood Dimensions
250.0
W flood prone area (ft)
13.7
entrenchment ratio
5.2
low bank height (ft)
1.2
low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
u.u35
Manning's roughness
0.11
D'Arcy- Weisbach fric.
14.4
resistance factor u /u*
90.9
relative roughness
60
70 80 90
Materials
1.6
D50 Riffle (mm)
7.6
D84 Riffle (mm)
12
threshold grain size (mm):
Rosgen Stream Type
C5 /E5
Forces &
Power
0.2
channel slope ( %)
0.24
shear stress (lb /sq.ft.)
0.35
shear velocity (ft/s)
0.84
unit strm power (lb /ft/s)

Mud Lick Creek Reach 1 Pool
590
589
588
587
c 586
0
.6 585
w 584
583
582
581
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials
58.1
x- section area (ft.sq.)
19.1
width (ft)
3.0
mean depth (ft)
4.4
max depth (ft)
22.4
wetted parimeter (ft)
2.6
hyd radi (ft)
6.3
width -depth ratio
Bankfull
Flow
- -- W flood prone area (ft)
- -- entrenchment ratio
- -- low bank height (ft)
- -- low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
1.6 D50 Riffle (mm)
7.6 D84 Riffle (mm)
16 threshold grain size (mm):
Rosgen Stream Type
Forces & Power
3.6 velocity (ft/s) 0.035 Manning's roughness 0.2 channel slope ( %)
209.0 discharge rate (cfs) 0.04 D'Arcy- Weisbach fric. 0.32 shear stress (lb /sq.ft.)
0.39 Froude number 14.9 resistance factor u /u* 0.41 shear velocity (ft/s)
122.1 relative roughness 1.37 unit strm power (lb /ft/s)
E

Cross
Reach
•
Mud Lick Creek Reach 2 Pool
591
590
589
588
587
_
c 586
0
585
584
w 583
582
581
580
0
20
40
60
80
100 120
Width (ft)
Bankfull
Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
Materials
65.5
x- section area (ft.sq.)
- --
W flood prone area (ft)
1.6
D50 Riffle (mm)
25.9
width (ft)
- --
entrenchment ratio
7.6
D84 Riffle (mm)
2.5
mean depth (ft)
3.7
low bank height (ft)
14
threshold grain size (mm):
3.7
max depth (ft)
1.0
low bank height ratio
27.9
wetted parimeter (ft)
Rosgen Stream Type
2.4
hyd radi (ft)
/
10.3
width -depth ratio
Bankfull
Flow
Flow Resistance
Forces &
Power
3.4
velocity (ft /s)
0.035
Manning's roughness
0.2
channel slope ( %)
220.4
discharge rate (cfs)
0.10
D'Arcy- Weisbach fric.
0.29
shear stress (lb /sq.ft.)
0.39
Froude number
14.6
resistance factor u /u*
0.39
shear velocity (ft/s)
101.3
relative roughness
1.06
unit strm power (lb /ft /s)

590
589
588
587
c 586
0
is 585
m
w 584
583
582
581
0
20
Bankfull Dimensions
47.5
x- section area (ft.sq.)
24.6
width (ft)
1.9
mean depth (ft)
3.0
max depth (ft)
26.1
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.8
hyd radi (ft)
12.8
width -depth ratio
Bankfull
Flow
3.0 velocity (ft/s)
142.7 discharge rate (cfs)
0.39 Froude number
Mud Lick Creek Reach 2 Riffle
40
60 80
100
120 140
Width (ft)
Flood Dimensions
Materials
371.0
W flood prone area (ft)
1.6
D50 Riffle (mm)
15.1
entrenchment ratio
7.6
D84 Riffle (mm)
3.4
low bank height (ft)
11
threshold grain size (mm):
1.1
low bank height ratio
Rosgen Stream Type
C4
Flow Resistance
Forces &
Power
0.033
Manning's roughness
0.2
channel slope ( %)
0.10
D'Arcy- Weisbach fric.
0.23
shear stress (lb /sq.ft.)
14.0
resistance factor u /u*
0.34
shear velocity (ft/s)
77.3
relative roughness
0.72
unit strm power (lb /ft/s)

589
588
587
Z' 586
585
584
W
583
582
581
0
20
Bankfull Dimensions
12.8
x- section area (ft.sq.)
7.7
width (ft)
1.7
mean depth (ft)
2.8
max depth (ft)
10.1
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.3
hyd radi (ft)
4.7
width -depth ratio
Bankfull
Flow
3.5 velocity (ft/s)
45.3 discharge rate (cfs)
0.55 Froude number
North Branch Reach 2 Pool
40
60 80
100
120 140
Width (ft)
Flood Dimensions
Materials
80.0
W flood prone area (ft)
1.6
D50 Riffle (mm)
10.3
entrenchment ratio
7.6
D84 Riffle (mm)
5.5
low bank height (ft)
20
threshold grain size (mm):
1.997
low bank height ratio
Rosgen Stream Type
Flow Resistance
Forces &
Power
0.035
Manning's roughness
0.5
channel slope ( %)
0.13
D'Arcy- Weisbach fric.
0.40
shear stress (lb /sq.ft.)
13.3
resistance factor u /u*
0.45
shear velocity (ft/s)
66.5
relative roughness
1.83
unit strm power (lb /ft/s)

Ciam Sedwrt
•
North Branch Reach 2 Riffle
589
588 -
587
----------------------------------------------------
- - - - --
- - - - -- -------------------------------------------------
586
0
585
m
W 584
583
582
0
20
40
60
80
100 120
Width (ft)
Bankfull
Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
Materials
16.2
x- section area (ft.sq.)
15.2
W flood prone area (ft)
1.6
D50 Riffle (mm)
9.3
width (ft)
1.6
entrenchment ratio
7.6
D84 Riffle (mm)
1.7
mean depth (ft)
4.6
low bank height (ft)
22
threshold grain size (mm):
2.7
max depth (ft)
1.7
low bank height ratio
11.4
wetted parimeter (ft)
Rosgen Stream Type
1.4
hyd radi (ft)
B5c
5.3
width -depth ratio
Bankfull
Flow
Flow Resistance
Forces &
Power
3.8
velocity (ft/s)
0.035
Manning's roughness
0.5
channel slope ( %)
61.9
discharge rate (cfs)
0.13
D'Arcy- Weisbach fric.
0.45
shear stress (lb /sq.ft.)
0.56
Froude number
13.5
resistance factor u /u*
0.48
shear velocity (ft/s)
70.2
relative roughness
2.1
unit strm power (lb /ft/s)

598
596
594
592
w 590
588
586
0 20
Bankfull Dimensions
7.2
x- section area (ft.sq.)
6.1
width (ft)
1.2
mean depth (ft)
1.6
max depth (ft)
7.4
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.0
hyd radi (ft)
5.2
width -depth ratio
Bankfull
Flow
4.8 velocity (ft/s)
34.1 discharge rate (cfs)
0.85 Froude number
East Branch Pool
40
60 80
Width (ft)
Flood Dimensions
23.0
W flood prone area (ft)
3.8
entrenchment ratio
2.5
low bank height (ft)
1.6
low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
0.035
Manning's roughness
0.14
D'Arcy- Weisbach fric.
12.4
resistance factor u /u*
47.1
relative roughness
Materials
1.6 D50 Riffle (mm)
7.6 D84 Riffle (mm)
39 threshold grain size (mm):
Rosgen Stream Type
Forces & Power
1.3 channel slope ( %)
0.79 shear stress (lb /sq.ft.)
0.64 shear velocity (ft/s)
4.5 unit strm power (lb /ft/s)

592
591
590
589
0
588
a�
w 587
586
585
0 10
Elevation (ft)
Bankfull Dimensions
4.8
x- section area (ft.sq.)
4.3
width (ft)
1.1
mean depth (ft)
1.4
max depth (ft)
6.0
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.8
hyd radi (ft)
3.9
width -depth ratio
Bankfull
Flow
4.2 velocity (ft/s)
20.3 discharge rate (cfs)
0.82 Froude number
East Branch Riffle
20 30
Width (ft)
Flood Dimensions
8.9
W flood prone area (ft)
2.1
entrenchment ratio
2.7
low bank height (ft)
2.0
low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
0.035
Manning's roughness
0.14
D'Arcy- Weisbach fric.
12.0
resistance factor u /u*
44.8
relative roughness
40
50
Materials
1.6 D50 Riffle (mm)
7.6 D84 Riffle (mm)
32 threshold grain size (mm):
Rosgen Stream Type
E4
Forces & Power
1.3 channel slope ( %)
0.65 shear stress (lb /sq.ft.)
0.58 shear velocity (ft/s)
3.8 unit strm power (lb /ft/s)
.�

595
594
593
592
591
c
.2 590
m 589
— --- - - - - -- ---- - - - - --
w 588
587
586
585
0 10
Bankfull Dimensions
7.7
x- section area (ft.sq.)
10.4
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.5
max depth (ft)
11.4
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.7
hyd radi (ft)
14.0
width -depth ratio
Bankfull
Flow
3.3 velocity (ft/s)
25.2 discharge rate (cfs)
0.70 Froude number
North Branch Reach 1 Riffle
20 30
40
Materials
Width (ft)
Flood Dimensions
33.3
W flood prone area (ft)
3.2
entrenchment ratio
2.6
low bank height (ft)
1.7
low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
1
0.035
Manning's roughness
0.14
D'Arcy- Weisbach fric.
11.8
resistance factor u /u*
29.7
relative roughness
50 60
70 80
Materials
1.6
D50 Riffle (mm)
7.6
D84 Riffle (mm)
21
threshold grain size (mm):
Rosgen Stream Type
C5
Forces & Power
1
channel slope ( %)
0.42
shear stress (lb /sq.ft.)
0.47
shear velocity (ft/s)
1.52
unit strm power (lb /ft/s)

North Branch Reach 1 Pool
593
592
591
590
c 589
0
m 588
m
w 587
586
585
584
0
10 20
30
40
50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
Bankfull Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
Materials
8.2
x- section area (ft.sq.)
28.0
W flood prone area (ft)
1.6 D50 Riffle (mm)
6.3
width (ft)
4.5
entrenchment ratio
7.6 D84 Riffle (mm)
1.3
mean depth (ft)
3.8
low bank height (ft)
30 threshold grain size (mm):
2.1
max depth (ft)
1.8
low bank height ratio
8.5
wetted parimeter (ft)
Rosgen Stream Type
1.0
hyd radi (ft)
/
4.8
width -depth ratio
Bankfull Flow
Flow Resistance
Forces & Power
4.2
velocity (ft /s)
0.035
Manning's roughness
1 channel slope ( %)
33.9
discharge rate (cfs)
0.14
D'Arcy- Weisbach fric.
0.60 shear stress (lb /sq.ft.)
0.75
Froude number
12.6
resistance factor u /u*
0.56 shear velocity (ft/s)
52.1
relative roughness
3.4 unit strm power (lb /ft/s)

589
588
587
586
w 585
c 584
0
583
w
582
581
580
579
578
*------------------------------------- - - - - --
0
20
Bankfull Dimensions
69.7
x- section area (ft.sq.)
24.7
width (ft)
2.8
mean depth (ft)
5.2
max depth (ft)
29.1
wetted parimeter (ft)
2.4
hyd radi (ft)
8.8
width -depth ratio
Bankfull
Flow
- -- velocity (ft/s)
- -- discharge rate (cfs)
- -- Froude number
Mud Lick Creek Reach 3 Pool
40 60
Width (ft)
Flood Dimensions
- -- W flood prone area (ft)
- -- entrenchment ratio
3.6 low bank height (ft)
0.7 low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
u.u1u
manning's roughness
0.04
D'Arcy- Weisbach fric.
14.9
resistance factor u /u*
113.1
relative roughness
80 100 120
Materials
1.6 D50 Riffle (mm)
7.6 D84 Riffle (mm)
- -- threshold grain size (mm):
Rosgen Stream Type
Forces & Power
- -- channel slope ( %)
- -- shear stress (lb /sq.ft.)
- -- shear velocity (ft/s)
- -- unit strm power (lb /ft/s)
140

589
588
587
586
585
c
g 584
.8
583
w 582
581
580
579
0
20
Bankfull Dimensions
46.3
x- section area (ft.sq.)
22.0
width (ft)
2.1
mean depth (ft)
4.0
max depth (ft)
26.0
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.8
hyd radi (ft)
10.5
width -depth ratio
Bankfull Flow
3.4 velocity (ft/s)
158.3 discharge rate (cfs)
0.45 Froude number
Mud Lick Creek Reach 3 Riffle
40
60 80
100
120 140
Width (ft)
Flood Dimensions
Materials
336.0
W flood prone area (ft)
1.6
D50 Riffle (mm)
15.2
entrenchment ratio
7.6
D84 Riffle (mm)
4.7
low bank height (ft)
16
threshold grain size (mm):
1.2
low bank height ratio
Rosgen Stream Type
C4 /E4
Flow Resistance
Forces &
Power
0.035
Manning's roughness
0.3
channel slope ( %)
0.12
D'Arcy- Weisbach fric.
0.33
shear stress (lb /sq.ft.)
14.2
resistance factor u /u*
0.41
shear velocity (ft /s)
84.1
relative roughness
1.34
unit strm power (lb /ft /s)

Mud Lick Creek Upstream of Project Site, Riffle
96
95
94
0 93
CO
92
W
91
90
89
0
10 20
30
40
50
60 70
Width
Bankfull
Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
Materials
25.0
x- section area (ft.sq.)
22.0
W flood prone area (ft)
- --
D50 (mm)
17.6
width (ft)
1.2
entrenchment ratio
- --
D84 (mm)
1.4
mean depth (ft)
5.1
low bank height (ft)
8
threshold grain size (mm):
1.8
max depth (ft)
2.7
low bank height ratio
19.1
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.3
hyd radi (ft)
12.4
width -depth ratio
Bankfull
Flow
Flow Resistance
Forces &
Power
2.1
velocity (ft /s)
0.038
Manning's roughness
0.2
channel slope ( %)
52.6
discharge rate (cfs)
0.15
D'Arcy- Weisbach fric.
0.16
shear stress (lb /sq.ft.)
0.32
Froude number
- --
resistance factor u /u*
0.29
shear velocity (ft /s)
- --
relative roughness
0.37
unit strm power (lb /ft/s)

97
96
95
0 94
.6
93
W
92
91
90
0
10
Bankfull Dimensions
22.6
x- section area (ft.sq.)
14.9
width (ft)
1.5
mean depth (ft)
1.8
max depth (ft)
16.9
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.3
hyd radi (ft)
9.9
width -depth ratio
Bankfull Flow
2.2 velocity (ft /s)
49.3 discharge rate (cfs)
0.33 Froude number
Mud Lick Creek Upstream of Project Site, Riffle
20 30 40 50
Width
Flood Dimensions
Materials
41.3
W flood prone area (ft)
- --
D50 (mm)
2.8
entrenchment ratio
- --
D84 (mm)
4.8
low bank height (ft)
8
threshold grain size (mm):
2.6
low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
Forces &
Power
0.037
Manning's roughness
0.2
channel slope ( %)
0.14
D'Arcy- Weisbach fric.
0.17
shear stress (lb /sq.ft.)
- --
resistance factor u /u*
0.29
shear velocity (ft /s)
- --
relative roughness
0.41
unit strm power (lb /ft/s)
V

97
96
95
c
94
0
93
(D
w 92
91
90
89
0
10
Bankfull Dimensions
29.6
x- section area (ft.sq.)
20.6
width (ft)
1.4
mean depth (ft)
2.8
max depth (ft)
22.6
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.3
hyd radi (ft)
14.3
width -depth ratio
Bankfull
Flow
2.2 velocity (ft /s)
63.7 discharge rate (cfs)
0.33 Froude number
Mud Lick Creek Upstream of Project Site, Pool
20
30 40
50
60
Width
Flood Dimensions
Materials
25.8
W flood prone area (ft)
- --
D50 (mm)
1.3
entrenchment ratio
- --
D84 (mm)
5.5
low bank height (ft)
8
threshold grain size (mm):
2.0
low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
Forces &
Power
0.037
Manning's roughness
0.2
channel slope ( %)
0.15
D'Arcy- Weisbach fric.
0.16
shear stress (lb /sq.ft.)
- --
resistance factor u /u*
0.29
shear velocity (ft /s)
- --
relative roughness
0.39
unit strm power (lb /ft/s)
70

- - -- - - - -- - -- - -- —
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Weighted pebble count by bed features Mud Lick Creek R1
20% riffle 80% pool
--m—weighted percent — Riffle
Pool — Run
- Glide
# of particles
100% silt/clay sand
qravel cobbIe
Wooer-
boulder
14%
90%
12%
80%
D
70%
10%
CD
Q
`-
60%
8%
cD
50%
CD
40%
6%
o
30%
4%
n
20%
CD
(n
2%
10%
v
0%
0%
m
0.01 0.1 1
10 100
1000
10000
particle size (mm)
U /°
Size (mm)
Size Distribution
Type
D16 0.15
mean 1.5
silt/clay
11%
bedrock
1 %
D35 0.49
dispersion 10.1
sand
41%
D50 1.7
skewness -0.04
gravel
45%
D65 6.9
cobble
2%
D84 15
boulder
0%
D95 36
- - -- - - - -- - -- - -- —
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Weighted pebble count by bed features Mud Lick Creek R2
40% riffle 60% pool
--m—weighted percent — Riffle
Pool — Run - Glide
# of particles
100%
silt/clay sand
gravel cobble
boulder
14%
90%
--
- - - - -- - - - - - -
- - - - -
12%
80%
L
m
70%
10%
CD
Q
`-
�
60%
8%
5D
50%
40%
6%
o
Q-
30%
4%
n
20%
CD
2%
10%
v
0%
0%
CD
0.01
0.1 1
10 100
1000
10000
particle size (mm)
U /°
Size (mm)
Size Distribution
Type
D16 0.13
mean 1.7
silt/clay
8%
D35 2.8
dispersion 32.1
sand
25%
D50 8
skewness -0.46
gravel
61%
D65 12
cobble
5%
D84 21
boulder
1%
D95 76

I
I
I -
I
I
I I
I I
I
I I
I I
I I
I
Weighted pebble count by bed features Mud Lick Creek R3
20% riffle 80% pool
--m—weighted percent — Riffle
Pool — Run - Glide
# of particles
100%
silt/clay sand
gravel co le
boulder
30%
90%
80%
25%
g
m
(Q"
70%
20%
cD
Q
60%
CCD
c
50%
15%
0
40%
10%
30%
20%
CD
5%
10%
v
0%
0%
CD
0.01
0.1 1
10 100
1000
10000
particle size (mm)
U r°
Size (mm)
Size Distribution
Type
D16 0.062
mean 1.3
silt/clay
24%
bedrock
8%
D35 0.33
dispersion 50.7
sand
18%
D50 6
skewness -0.40
gravel
46%
D65 12
cobble
4%
D84 28
boulder
0%
D95 58
I
I
I -
I
I
I I
I I
I
I I
I I
I I
I

- - -- --- - - - - -- -- --
I
I
Weighted pebble count by bed features North Branch
30% riffle 70% pool
--m—weighted percent — Riffle
Pool — Run
- Glide
# of particles
100% silt/clay sand
gravel co
le
boulder
20%
90%
18%
80%
16%
T.
70%
14%
CD
Q
60%
12%
c
CD
50%
10%
CD
m
v
40%
8%
0+1
am
Q
_0
v
30%
6%
20%
4%
ch
5"
10%
2%
v
0%
0%
m
0.01 0.1 1
10 100
1000
10000
particle size (mm)
U ro
Size (mm)
Size Distribution
Type
D16 0.062
mean 1.0
silt/clay
19%
bedrock
1 %
D35 0.24
dispersion 19.0
sand
37%
D50 0.5
skewness 0.18
gravel
40%
D65 8
cobble
4%
D84 15
boulder
0%
D95 32
- - -- --- - - - - -- -- --
I
I

I
I
I
I j
I I -
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
Weighted pebble count by bed features East Branch
60% riffle 40% pool
--m—weighted percent — Riffle
Pool — Run
- Glide
# of particles
100% silt/clay sand
gravel cobble
boulder
16%
90%
14%
80%
12%
cQ"
70%
10%
CD
60%
-a
CCD
c
50%
8%
M
40%
6%
30%
4%
n
20%
10%
2%
0%
0%
m
0.01 0.1 1
10 100
1000
10000
particle size (mm)
U r°
Size (mm)
Size Distribution
Type
D16 0.42
mean 3.4
silt/clay
4%
bedrock
3%
D35 6.1
dispersion 13.3
sand
23%
D50 10
skewness -0.35
gravel
65%
D65 15
cobble
5%
D84 27
boulder
0%
D95 64
I
I
I
I j
I I -
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I

SINCE
rkp FROEHLING & ROBERTSONy INC.
1681
Project No: 66S -0148
Client: Wildlands Engineering
Project: Mud Lick Creek
City /State: Chatam Co. NC
100
95
90
85
80
75
t 70
cn
65
a
60
L
i 55
v 50
v
a 45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
GRAIN SIZE
DISTRIBUTION
U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER
6 4 3 2 1.5 1 3/4 1/23/8 3 4 6 810 1416 20 30 40 50 60 100 140 200
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.0
Grain Size (mm)
COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY
coarse I fine coarse medium I fine
Sample No.
•
01 at
X
02 at
03 at
*
04 at
Y
Sample No.
•
01 at
2 m
02 at
5i
n A
03 at
Z
a *
04 at
Depth
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Depth 13100
0.0 128
0.0 25.4
0.0 25.4
0.0 25.4
Location
Mud Lick Creek Reach 1 Pavement
Mud Lick Creek Reach 1 Subpavement
Mud Lick Creek Reach 2 Pavement
Mud Lick Creek Reach 2 Subpavement
D60 D30 D10
9.193 2.739
11.049 5.08
10.888 5.937 2.396
5.707
131
Cu
4.54
%Clay
LL
PL
PI
Cc
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
1.35
NP
NP
NP
%Gravel
%Sand
%Silt
47.2
71.9
78.8
47.5
131
Cu
4.54
%Clay

CSINCE
r& FROEHLING & ROBERTSON3 INC.
1 1661
GRAIN SIZE
DISTRIBUTION
Project No: 66S -0148
Client: Wildlands Engineering
Project: Mud Lick Creek
City /State: Chatam Co. NC
U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
6 4 3 2 1.5 1 3/4 1/23/8 3 4 6 810 1416 20 30 40 50 60 100140200
100
95 IIIJ11ii 11111 1 111-- 11
90
85
80
75
70
65
T
O7 60
v
LL 55
cu 50
v
a 45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size (mm)
COBBLES
GRAVEL
SAND
SILT OR CLAY
coarse fine
coarse I medium fine
Sample No.
Depth
Location
LL
Cc
Cu
•
05
at
0.0
Mud Lick Creek Reach 3 Pavement
NP
JtN
M
06
at
0.0
Mud Lick Creek Reach 3 Subpavement
NP
A
07
at
0.0
North Branch Reach 1 Pavement
NP
*
08
at
0.0
North Branch 1 Subpavement
NP
NP
NP
Sample No.
Depth
D100
D60
D30
D10
%Gravel
%Sand
%Silt
%Clay
•
05
at
0.0
64
13.265
4.362
68.2
to
06
at
0.0
64
15.371
2.293
62.4
07
at
0.0
25.4
7.704
52.8
*
08
at
0.0
64
6.629
45.6

CSINCE
C& FROEHLING & ROBEFZTSON7 INC. GRAIN SIZE
1 DISTRIBUTION
1681
Project No: 66S -0148
Client: Wildlands Engineering
Project: Mud Lick Creek
J
City /State: Chatam Co. NC
U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER
6 4 3 2 1.5 1 3/4 1/23/8 3 4 -6 810 1416 20 30 40 50 60 100140200
100
SAND
SILT OR CLAY
coarse fine
coarse medium fine
95
90
85
80
75
70
m
65
a
`n
60
L
LL 55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size (mm)
Sample No. Depth
Location LL
PL
PI
Cc
Cu
•
09 at 0.0
North Branch Reach 2 Pavement NP
NP
NP
m
10 at 0.0
North Branch Reach 2 Subpavement
A
11 at 0.0
East Branch Reach 1 Pavement NP
NP
NP
*
12 at 0.0
East Branch Reach 1 Subpavement NP
NP
NP
Sample No. Depth
D100
D60
D30
D10
-%/.Gravel
%Sand
%Silt
%Clay
o •
09 at 0.0
25.4
9.136
4.558
68.2
T m
10 at 0.0
25.4
4.12
35.9
v, A
11 at 0.0
25.4
10.209
4.095
65.5
*
12 at 0.0
128
12.954
2.273
39.7
COBBLES
G AVEL
SAND
SILT OR CLAY
coarse fine
coarse medium fine

APPENDIX 5: USACE Wetland Data Forms

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site City /County: Chatham Sampling Date: 8/22/13
Applicant/Owner: Wildlands Engineering State: NC Sampling Point: Wetland A- DP1
Investigator(s): Ian Eckardt Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope ( %): 0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 136 Lat: N 35.812806 Long: W 79.434493 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Nanford -Badin complex (NaC) NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No ✓
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No
Remarks:
Sampling point located in the left floodplain of Mud Lick Creek. The vegetation has been routinely
managed at the sampling location.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
— Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (816)
Water Marks (B1)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (133)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
✓ Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water- Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (inches): 2
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches): -
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches): <12
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Wetland A - DP1
Sampling Point:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Feature is located in a maintained farm field. Routine maintenance has removed tree strata.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3•
Species Across All Strata: (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
8
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
= Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15,
)
FACW species x 2 =
1.
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
2.
3.
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
4.
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
3 - Prevalence Index is 553.0'
10.
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
5�
= Total Cover
_
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1 Polygonum pensylvanicum
50 Yes FACW
—
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2 Eleocharis spp. 20 Yes FACW -OBL
3 Ludwigia spp. 20 Yes FACW -OBL
q Fescue spp.
10 No FAC
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
6
7.
height.
8.
Sapling /Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
g.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
10.
Herb – All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
12.
Woody vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
100 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
)
height.
1.
Hydrophytic
2.
3.
4.
5
Vegetation
6,
Present? Yes No
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Feature is located in a maintained farm field. Routine maintenance has removed tree strata.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version

SOIL Sampling Point: Wetland A - DP1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type' Loc2
Texture Remarks
0 -8 10YR 4/2 85
7.5YR 4/6 15 C PL
clay loam
8 -12 2.5Y 6/3 90
7.5YR 4/6 10 C PL
clay loam
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5)
! Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site City /County: Chatham Sampling Date: 8/22/13
Applicant/Owner: Wildlands Engineering State: NC Sampling Point: Upland - DP2
Investigator(s): Ian Eckardt Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope ( %): 0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 136 Lat: N 35.812971 Long: W 79.434552 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Nanford -Badin complex (NaC) NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No ✓
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area /
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No y
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Sampling point located in the left floodplain of Mud Lick Creek. The vegetation has been routinely
managed at the sampling location.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
— Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (816)
Water Marks (B1)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water- Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (inches): -
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches): -
V(
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches): -
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: Upland - DP2
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Feature is located in a maintained farm field. Routine maintenance has removed tree strata.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3•
Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
8
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
= Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15,
)
FACW species x 2 =
1.
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
2.
3.
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
4.
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
3 - Prevalence Index is 553.0'
10.
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
5�
= Total Cover
_
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1 Eulalia viminea
79 Yes FAC
-
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2 Festuca spp. 20 Yes FAC
3 Solanum carolinense 1 No FACU
4.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
6
7.
height.
8.
Sapling /Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
10.
Herb - All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
12.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
100 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
)
height.
1.
Hydrophytic
2.
3.
4.
5
Vegetation
6,
Present? Yes No
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Feature is located in a maintained farm field. Routine maintenance has removed tree strata.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version

SOIL
Sampling Point: Upland - DP2
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type' Loc2
Texture Remarks
0 -5 10YR 5/3 95
7YR 4/6 5 C PL
clay loam
5 -12 10YR 5/4 100
loam
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site City /County: Chatham Sampling Date: 8/22/13
Applicant/Owner: Wildlands Engineering State: NC Sampling Point: Upland - DP3
Investigator(s): Ian Eckardt Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope ( %): 0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 136 Lat: N 35.813487 Long: W 79.435312 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Nanford -Badin complex (NaC) NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No ✓
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area /
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No y
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Sampling point located in the right floodplain of Mud Lick Creek. The vegetation has been routinely
managed at the sampling location.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
— Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (816)
Water Marks (B1)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water- Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (inches): -
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches): -
V(
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches): -
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: Upland - DP3
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Feature is located in a maintained farm field. Routine maintenance has removed tree strata.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3•
Species Across All Strata: 1 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
8
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
= Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15,
)
FACW species x 2 =
1.
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
2.
3.
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
4.
5.
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
3 - Prevalence Index is 553.0'
10.
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
5�
= Total Cover
_
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1 Festuca spp.
100 Yes FAC
-
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
2.
3.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
4.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
6
7.
height.
8.
Sapling /Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
g.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
10.
Herb - All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
12.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
100 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
)
height.
1.
Hydrophytic
2.
3.
4.
5
Vegetation
6,
Present? Yes No
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Feature is located in a maintained farm field. Routine maintenance has removed tree strata.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version

SOIL
Sampling Point: Upland - DP3
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type' Loc2
Texture Remarks
0 -7 7.5YR 5/3 100
loam
7 -12 10YR 6/4 100
loam
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site City /County: Chatham Sampling Date: 8/22/13
Applicant/Owner: Wildlands Engineering State: NC Sampling Point: Wetland B - DP4
Investigator(s): Ian Eckardt Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope ( %): 0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 136 Lat: N 35.813199 Long: W 79.435076 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Nanford -Badin complex (NaC) NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No ✓
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No
Remarks:
Sampling point located in the right floodplain of Mud Lick Creek. The feature is a linear concave
depression that has standing water over a foot deep. Hydrophytic vegetation is present along the
edge of the feature but doesn't account for more than 10% of the total cover.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
✓ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
— Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (816)
Water Marks (B1)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (133)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
✓ Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water- Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (inches): 12
Water Table Present? Yes No
✓ Depth (inches): -
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches): <12
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring
well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Wetland B - DP4
Sampling Point:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
The feature is located in a linear concave depression that was inundated with over a foot of water.
Hydrophytic vegetation is present along the water's edge but doesn't account for more than 10% of
the total cover.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3•
Species Across All Strata: (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
8
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
= Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15,
)
FACW species x 2 =
1.
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
2.
3.
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
4.
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
3 - Prevalence Index is 553.0'
10.
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
5�
= Total Cover
_
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1 Juncus effusus
5 Yes FACW
-
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
2 Ludwigia spp. 5 Yes FACW -OBL
3.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
4.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
6
7.
height.
8.
Sapling /Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
g.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
10.
Herb - All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
12.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
10 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
)
height.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
5
Vegetation
6,
Present? Yes No
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
The feature is located in a linear concave depression that was inundated with over a foot of water.
Hydrophytic vegetation is present along the water's edge but doesn't account for more than 10% of
the total cover.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version

SOIL Sampling Point: Wetland B - DP4
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type' Loc2
Texture Remarks
0 -12 2.5Y 5/2 95
7.5YR 4/6 5 C PL
clay silt
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5)
! Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Foust Creek Mitigation Site City /County: Chatham Sampling Date: 8/22/13
Applicant/Owner: Wildlands Engineering State: NC Sampling Point: Upland - DP5
Investigator(s): Ian Eckardt Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope ( %): 0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 136 Lat: N 35.812575 Long: W 79.435253 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Cid- Lignum complex (CmB) NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No ✓
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area /
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No y
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Sampling point located in the right floodplain of Mud Lick Creek. The vegetation has been routinely
managed at the sampling location.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
— Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (816)
Water Marks (B1)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water- Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (inches): -
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches): -
V(
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches): -
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: Upland - DP5
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Feature is located in a maintained farm field. Routine maintenance has removed tree strata.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3•
Species Across All Strata: 1 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5•
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
8
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
= Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15,
)
FACW species x 2 =
1.
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
2.
3.
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
4.
5.
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
3 - Prevalence Index is 553.0'
10.
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
5�
= Total Cover
_
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1 Festuca spp.
100 Yes FAC
-
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
2.
3.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
4.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
6
7.
height.
8.
Sapling /Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
g.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
10.
Herb - All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
12.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
100 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
)
height.
1.
Hydrophytic
2.
3.
4.
5
Vegetation
6,
Present? Yes No
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Feature is located in a maintained farm field. Routine maintenance has removed tree strata.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version

SOIL
Sampling Point: Upland - DP5
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type' Loc2
Texture Remarks
0 -5 10YR 5/2 85
7.5YR 4/6 15 C PL
loam
5 -12 10YR 6/6 100
loam
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5)
! Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site City /County: Chatham Sampling Date: 8/22/13
Applicant/Owner: Wildlands Engineering State: NC Sampling Point: wetland c - DP6
Investigator(s): Ian Eckardt Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope ( %): 0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 136 Lat: N 35.812417 Long: W 79.435465 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Cid- Lignum complex (CmB) NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No ✓
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No
Remarks:
Sampling point located in the right floodplain of Mud Lick Creek. The feature is a linear concave
depression that has standing water over a foot deep. Hydrophytic vegetation is present along the
edge of the feature but doesn't account for more than 15% of the total cover.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
✓ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
— Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (816)
Water Marks (B1)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (133)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water- Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (inches): 12
Water Table Present? Yes No
✓ Depth (inches): -
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches): <12
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring
well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Wetland C - DP6
Sampling Point:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
The feature is located in a linear concave depression that was inundated with over a foot of water.
Hydrophytic vegetation is present along the water's edge but doesn't account for more than 15% of
the total cover.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3•
Species Across All Strata: (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
8
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
= Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15,
)
FACW species x 2 =
1.
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
2.
3.
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
4.
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
3 - Prevalence Index is 553.0'
10.
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
5�
= Total Cover
_
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1 Juncus effusus
5 Yes FACW
—
'Indicators of soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2 Ludwigia spp. 5 Yes FACW -OBL
3 Polygonum pensylvanicum 5 Yes FACW
4.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
6
7.
height.
8.
Sapling /Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
g.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
10.
Herb – All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
12.
Woody vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
15 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
)
height.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
5
Vegetation
6,
Present? Yes No
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
The feature is located in a linear concave depression that was inundated with over a foot of water.
Hydrophytic vegetation is present along the water's edge but doesn't account for more than 15% of
the total cover.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version

SOIL Sampling Point: Wetland C - DP6
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type' Loc2
Texture Remarks
0 -12 10YR 5/1 100
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5)
! Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Foust Creek Mitigation Site City /County: Chatham Sampling Date: 8/22/13
Applicant/Owner: Wildlands Engineering State: NC Sampling Point: Upland - DP7
Investigator(s): Ian Eckardt Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope ( %): 0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 136 Lat: N 35.811936 Long: W 79.437361 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Chewacla and Wehadkee soils (ChA) NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No ✓
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area /
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No y
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Sampling point located in the right floodplain of Mud Lick Creek. The vegetation has been routinely
managed at the sampling location.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
— Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (816)
Water Marks (B1)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water- Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (inches): -
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches): -
V(
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches): -
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: Upland - DP7
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Feature is located in a maintained farm field. Routine maintenance has removed tree strata.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3•
Species Across All Strata: 1 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
8
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
= Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15,
)
FACW species x 2 =
1.
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
2.
3.
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
4.
5.
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
3 - Prevalence Index is 553.0'
10.
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
5�
= Total Cover
_
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1 Festuca spp.
100 Yes FAC
-
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
2.
3.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
4.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
6
7.
height.
8.
Sapling /Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
g.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
10.
Herb - All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
12.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
100 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
)
height.
1.
Hydrophytic
2.
3.
4.
5
Vegetation
6,
Present? Yes No
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Feature is located in a maintained farm field. Routine maintenance has removed tree strata.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version

SOIL
Sampling Point: Upland - DP7
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type' Loc2
Texture Remarks
0 -5 10YR 4/3 95
7.5YR 4/6 5 C PL
loam
5 -12 10YR 5/4 80
7.5YR 4/6 20 C PL
loam
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site City /County: Chatham Sampling Date: 8/22/13
Applicant/Owner: Wildlands Engineering State: NC Sampling Point: wetland D - DP8
Investigator(s): Ian Eckardt Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope ( %): 0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 136 Lat: N 35.811983 Long: W 79.437510 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Chewacla and Wehadkee soils (ChA) NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No ✓
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No
Remarks:
Sampling point located in the right floodplain of Mud Lick Creek. The feature is located on the edge
of a maintained cattle pasture and wooded area. Half of the vegetation has been routinely
maintained and the tree strata has been removed in that portion of the feature.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
— Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (816)
Water Marks (B1)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (133)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
✓ Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water- Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (inches): 2
Water Table Present? Yes No
✓ Depth (inches): -
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches): <12
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring
well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Wetland D - DP8
Sampling Point:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
% Cover
Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1
Acer rubrum
10
Yes FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)
2
Carpinus caroliniana
10
Yes FACW
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Fraxinus enns Ivanica
p y
1
No FACW
Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
8
21
= Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15,
)
FACW species x 2 =
1
Ilex opaca
5
Yes FAC
FAC species x 3 =
2.
FACU species x 4 =
3.
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
4.
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
3 - Prevalence Index is 553.0'
10.
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
5'
5
= Total Cover
—
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb
Stratum (Plot size: )
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1
Eulalia viminea
30
Yes FAC
—
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2 Pontederia cordata 5 No OBL
3 Saggitaria spp. 5 No OBL
4
Lobelia cardinalis
1
No FACW
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
6
7.
height.
8.
Sapling /Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
g.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
10.
Herb – All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
12.
Woody vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
41 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
)
height.
1
Smilax rotundifolia
10
Yes FAC
2.
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
5
Vegetation
6,
Present? Yes No
10
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version

SOIL Sampling Point: Wetland D - DP8
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type' Loc2
Texture Remarks
0 -7 2.5Y 6/1 85
7.5YR 4/6 15 C PL
Clay loam
7 -12 2.5Y 6/1 80
7.5YR 4/6 20 C PL
Clay loam
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5)
! Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

APPENDIX 6: Categorical Exclusion

Categorical Exclusion Form for Ecosystem Enhancement
Program Projects
Version 1.4
Note: Only Appendix A should to be submitted (along with any supporting documentation) as the
environmental document.
Part 1: General Project Information
Project Name: Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site
Count Name: Chatham County
EEP Number: #93482
Pro'eet Sponsor: Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Project Contact Name: Andrea S. Eckardt
Project Contact Address: 1430 S. Mint Street, Suite 104 Charlotte, INC 28203
Project Contact E -mail: aeckardt @wildlandsinacom
EEP Pro ect Mana er: Per Su99
Project Description
.he Mud Lick Mitigation site is a stream mitigation project located in northwest Chatham County, NC
The project is located on Mud nick Creek and two unnamed tributaries.
The project will provide
stream mitigation units to NCEEP in the Cape Fear River Basin
(03030003). The mitigation project
involves a combination of stream restoration and enhancement.
For Official Use Only
Revvii�ewed By:�7
)I - C,0 I3
Date
E
Conditional Approved By:
Date
For Division Administrator
FHWA
❑ Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval By:
tJ - -13
Date
or Division Administrator
FHWA

Categorical Exclusion Form for Ecosystem Enhancement
Program Projects
Version 1.4
Note: Only Appendix A should to be submitted (along with any supporting documentation) as the
environmental document.
Project Name:
County Name:
EEP Number:
Project Sponsor:
Project Contact Name:
Project Contact Address:
Project Contact E -mail:
EEP Proiect Manaaer:
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site
Chatham County
# 93482
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Andrea S. Eckardt
1430 S. Mint Street, Suite 104 Charlotte, NC 28203
aeckardt @wildlandsinc.com
Perry Sugg
Mud Lick Mitigation site is a stream mitigation project located in northwest Chatham County, NC.
project is located on Mud Lick Creek and two unnamed tributaries. The project will provide
stream mitigation units to NCEEP in the Cape Fear River Basin (03030003). The mitigation project
involves a combination of stream restoration and enhancement.
Reviewed By:
Date
Conditional Approved By:
Date
❑ Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval By:
Date
EEP Project Manager
For Division Administrator
FHWA
For Division Administrator
FHWA

Part 2: All Projects
Regulation/Question ..
Coastal Zone Management Act CZMA
1. Is the project located in a CAMA county?
❑ Yes
❑✓ No
2. Does the project involve ground- disturbing activities within a CAMA Area of
❑ Yes
Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ No
✓❑ N/A
3. Has a CAMA permit been secured?
❑ Yes
❑ No
✓❑ N/A
4. Has NCDCM agreed that the project is consistent with the NC Coastal Management
❑ Yes
Program?
❑ No
✓❑ N/A
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liabilit Act CERCLA
1. Is this a "full- delivery" project?
❑ Yes
[Z] No
2. Has the zoning /land use of the subject property and adjacent properties ever been
❑ Yes
designated as commercial or industrial?
❑ No
❑ N/A
3. As a result of a limited Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential
❑ Yes
hazardous waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
❑ No
❑ N/A
4. As a result of a Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
❑ Yes
waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
❑ No
❑ N/A
5. As a result of a Phase 11 Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
❑ Yes
waste sites within the project area?
❑ No
[Z] N/A
6. Is there an approved hazardous mitigation plan?
❑ Yes
❑ No
[Z] N/A
National Historic Preservation Act Section 106
1. Are there properties listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of
❑ Yes
Historic Places in the project area?
[Z] No
2. Does the project affect such properties and does the SHPO /THPO concur?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
3. If the effects are adverse, have they been resolved?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act Uniform
Act
1. Is this a "full- delivery" project?
❑ Yes
❑ No
2. Does the project require the acquisition of real estate?
❑ Yes
❑ No
✓❑ N/A
3. Was the property acquisition completed prior to the intent to use federal funds?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
4. Has the owner of the property been informed:
❑ Yes
• prior to making an offer that the agency does not have condemnation authority; and
❑ No
• what the fair market value is believed to be?
❑ N/A
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site Categorical Exclusion Documentation

Part 3: Ground-Disturbing Activities
Regulation/Question ..
American Indian Religious Freedom Act AIRFA
1. Is the project located in a county claimed as "territory' by the Eastern Band of ❑ Yes
Cherokee Indians? ❑✓ No
2. Is the site of religious importance to American Indians?
❑ Yes
❑ No
✓❑ N/A
3. Is the project listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic
❑ Yes
Places?
❑ No
✓❑ N/A
4. Have the effects of the project on this site been considered?
❑ Yes
❑ No
[Z] N/A
Antiquities Act AA
1. Is the project located on Federal lands?
❑ Yes
0 No
2. Will there be loss or destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments or objects
❑ Yes
of antiquity?
❑ No
0 N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained?
❑ Yes
❑ No
0 N/A
Archaeological Resources Protection Act ARPA
1. Is the project located on federal or Indian lands (reservation)?
❑ Yes
0 No
2. Will there be a loss or destruction of archaeological resources?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required?
❑ Yes
❑ No
0 N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained?
❑ Yes
❑ No
0 N/A
Endangered Species Act ESA
1. Are federal Threatened and Endangered species and /or Designated Critical Habitat
0 Yes
listed for the county?
❑ No
2. Is Designated Critical Habitat or suitable habitat present for listed species?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ N/A
3. Are T &E species present or is the project being conducted in Designated Critical
❑ Yes
Habitat?
❑ No
[Z] N/A
4. Is the project "likely to adversely affect' the species and /or "likely to adversely modify'
❑ Yes
Designated Critical Habitat?
❑ No
0 N/A
5. Does the USFWS /NOAH- Fisheries concur in the effects determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
0 N/A
6. Has the USFWS /NOAA- Fisheries rendered a "jeopardy" determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
0 N/A
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site Categorical Exclusion Documentation

Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites
1. Is the project located on Federal lands that are within a county claimed as "territory"
❑ Yes
by the EBCI?
0 No
2. Has the EBCI indicated that Indian sacred sites may be impacted by the proposed
❑ Yes
project?
❑ No
0 N/A
3. Have accommodations been made for access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred
❑ Yes
sites?
❑ No
Q N/A
Farmland Protection Policy Act FPPA
1. Will real estate be acquired?
❑ Yes
0 No
2. Has NRCS determined that the project contains prime, unique, statewide or locally
❑ Yes
important farmland?
❑ No
0 N/A
3. Has the completed Form AD -1006 been submitted to NRCS?
❑ Yes
❑ No
✓❑ N/A
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act FWCA
1. Will the project impound, divert, channel deepen, or otherwise control /modify any
0 Yes
water body?
❑ No
2. Have the USFWS and the NCWRC been consulted?
0 Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act Section 6
1. Will the project require the conversion of such property to a use other than public,
❑ Yes
outdoor recreation?
0 No
2. Has the NPS approved of the conversion?
❑ Yes
❑ No
✓❑ N/A
Mag nuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish
Habitat
1. Is the project located in an estuarine system?
❑ Yes
0 No
2. Is suitable habitat present for EFH- protected species?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
3. Is sufficient design information available to make a determination of the effect of the
❑ Yes
project on EFH?
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
4. Will the project adversely affect EFH?
❑ Yes
❑ No
0 N/A
5. Has consultation with NOAA- Fisheries occurred?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Q N/A
Mi-gratory Bird Treat Act MBTA
1. Does the USFWS have any recommendations with the project relative to the MBTA?
❑ Yes
0 No
2. Have the USFWS recommendations been incorporated?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Q N/A
Wilderness Act
1. Is the project in a Wilderness area?
❑ Yes
0 No
2. Has a special use permit and /or easement been obtained from the maintaining
❑ Yes
federal agency?
❑ No
Q N/A
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site Categorical Exclusion Documentation

National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106)
The National Historic Preservation Act declares a national policy of historic preservation to protect,
rehabilitate, restore, and reuse districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects significant in American
architecture, history, archaeology and culture, and Section 106 mandates that federal agencies take into
account the effect of an undertaking on a property which is included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the
National Register of Historic Places.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) requested review and comment from the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) with respect to any archeological and architectural resources related to the
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site on July 24, 2013. SHPO responded on September 3, 2013, and stated
they were aware of no historic resources that would be affected by the project. All correspondence
related to Section 106 is included in the Appendix.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Section 7 of the ESA requires federal agencies, in consultation with and with the assistance of the
Secretary of the Interior or of Commerce, as appropriate, to ensure that actions they authorize, fund or
carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species or
result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for these species.
Wildlands requested review and comments from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS) on
July 24, 2013, in respect to the Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site and its potential impacts on threatened or
endangered species. USFWS responded on August 29, 2013 and stated that the proposed project is "not
likely to adversely affect any federally - listed endangered or threatened species, their formally
designated critical habitat, or species currently proposed for listing" and that the requirements of
section 7(a)(2) of the Act "have been satisfied" for the project.
Based on a pedestrian survey performed August 22, 2013 of the project area, no individual species,
critical habitat, nor suitable habitat was found to exist on the site. It is Wildlands' position that for the
Chatham County listed endangered species (the bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus (BGPA), Cape
Fear shiner Notropis mekistocholas, red - cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis, and harperella
Ptilimnium nodosum) the Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site's biological conclusion is "no effect ". All
correspondence with USFWS is included in the Appendix.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA)
The FWCA requires consultation with the USFWS and the appropriate state wildlife agency on projects
that alter or modify a water body. Reports and recommendations prepared by these agencies
document project effects on wildlife and identify measures that may be adopted to prevent loss or
damage to wildlife resources.
The Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site includes stream restoration and enhancement; Wildlands requested
comment on the project from both the USFWS and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
( NCWRC) on July 24, 2013. NCWRC responded on August 2, 2013, and stated they "do not anticipate the
project to result in significant adverse impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources." USFWS
responded on August 29, 2013 and recommended adequate sedimentation and erosion control
measures be implemented. All correspondence with the two agencies is included in the Appendix.
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site Categorical Exclusion Documentation

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
The MBTA makes it unlawful for anyone to kill, capture, collect, possess, buy, sell, trade, ship, import, or
export any migratory bird. The indirect killing of birds by destroying their nests and eggs is covered by
this act, so construction in nesting areas during nesting seasons can constitute a taking.
Wildlands requested comment on the Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site from the USFWS in regards to
migratory birds on July 24, 2013. USFWS had no comments regarding migratory birds in their response
dated August 29, 2013. All correspondence with USFWS is included in the Appendix.
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site Categorical Exclusion Documentation

Mud lick Creek Mitigation Site
Categorical Exclusion
Appendix

%OIWV
WILD LAND S
E N G I N E E R I N G
July 24, 2013
Renee Gledhill - Earley
State Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -4617
Subject: EEP Stream Mitigation Project in Chatham County.
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Project
Dear Ms. Gledhill - Earley,
The Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) requests review and comment on any possible issues that
might emerge with respect to archaeological or cultural resources associated with a potential stream
restoration project on the attached site (USGS site map with approximate areas of potential ground
disturbance is enclosed).
The Mud Lick Creek site has been identified for the purpose of providing in -kind mitigation for
unavoidable stream channel impacts. Several sections of channel have been identified as significantly
degraded. No architectural structures or archeological artifacts have been observed or noted during
preliminary surveys of the site for restoration purposes. The majority of the site has historically been
disturbed due to agricultural purposes.
We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine the presence of any
historic properties.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact us with
any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project.
Sincerely,
Andrea S. Eckardt
Senior Environmental Planner

5TR7Z q,
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Pat McCrory
Secretary Susan Kluttz
September 3, 2013
Andrea Eckardt
Wildlands Engineering
1430 South Mint Street, 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Re: Mud Lick Creek Mitigation, Chatham County, ER 13 -1556
Dear Ms. Eckardt:
Thank you for your letter of July 24, 2013, concerning the above project.
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by
the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill- Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919- 807 -6579 or renee.gledhill-
earle y a,ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced
tracking number.
Sincerely,
Ramona M. Bartos
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699 -4617 Telephone /Fax: (919) 807 - 6570/807 -6599
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Pat McCrory
Secretary Susan Kluttz
September 3, 2013
Andrea Eckardt
Wildlands Engineering
1430 South Mint Street, 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Re: Mud Lick Creek Mitigation, Chatham County, ER 13 -1556
Dear Ms. Eckardt:
Thank you for your letter of July 24, 2013, concerning the above project.
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by
the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill- Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919- 807 -6579 or renee.gledhill-
earle y a,ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced
tracking number.
Sincerely,
Ramona M. Bartos
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699 -4617 Telephone /Fax: (919) 807 - 6570/807 -6599

WILDLANDS
E N GIN E ER I N G
July 24, 2013
Mr. Dale Suiter
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh Field Office
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636
Subject: Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site, Chatham County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Suiter,
The Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site has been identified for the purpose of providing in -kind
mitigation for unavoidable stream channel impacts. Several sections of channel throughout the
site have been identified as significantly degraded as a result of past agricultural activities.
We have already obtained an updated species list for Chatham County from your web site
(http: / /www.fws.gov /raleigh/ species /cntylist /nc_counties.html). The threatened or
endangered species for this county are: the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) (BGPA), Cape
Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas), red - cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), and
harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum). We are requesting that you please provide any known
information for each species in the county. The USFWS will be contacted if suitable habitat for
any listed species is found or if we determine that the project may affect one or more federally
listed species or designated critical habitat.
Please provide comments on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to endangered
species, migratory birds or other trust resources from the construction of a stream and wetland
restoration project on the subject properties. A USGS map (Figure 1) showing the approximate
areas of potential ground disturbance is enclosed. Figure 1 was prepared from the Crutchfield
Crossroads, NC 7.5- Minute Topographic Quadrangle.
If we have not heard from you in 30 days we will assume that our species list and site
determination are correct, that you do not have any comments regarding associated laws, and
that you do not have any information relevant to this project at the current time.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact
us with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated
with this project.
Sincerely,
ot4_0t�!�' Lk-a�u
Andrea S. Eckardt
Senior Environmental Planner
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. - 1430 S. Mint St - Charlotte, NC 28203 - 704 - 332 -7754

United States Departments ®p the ffnterjoR-
Andrea Eckardt
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 S. Mint Street
Charlotte, NC 28203
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636 -3726
August 29, 2013
Re: Mud Lick Creel. Miitigati— Site- Chatham. Co;irty, It.0
Dear Ms. Eckardt:
This letter is to inform you that a list of all federally - protected endangered and threatened species
with known occurrences in North Carolina is now available on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's (Service) web page at http: / /www.fws.goi,/raleigh. Therefore, if you have projects that
occur within the Raleigh Field Office's area of responsibility (see attached county list), you no
Ionge-r.need to contact the Raleigh Field Office for a list of federally- protected species.
Our web page contains -a complete and frequently updated list of all endangered and threatened, -
species protected by the. provisions�pf the Endangered.Species Act of 1973, as amended (16'
U.S.C. 1531 et•seq )(Act), and a list of federal species of concerns that are known toIoccur in
each county in North Carolina.
Section 7 of the Act requires that all federal agencies (or their designated non - federal
representative), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action federally authorized,
funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
federally - listed endangered or threatened species. A biological assessment ore valuation maybe
prepared to fulfill that requirement and in determining whether additional consultation with the
Service is necessary. In addition to the federally - protected species list, information on the
species' life histories and habitats and information on completing a biological assessment or
evaluation and can be found on our web page at http: / /www.fws.gov /raleigh. Please check the
web site often for updated information or changes.
1- Thelerm "federal species of concern" re. ers to those species "hich the Service, believes might be in need of
concentrated; conservation actions.Jederal species of concern receive no.lecral protection aind theiCdesignation does
not necessarily imply that the species will eventually be "proposed for listing —as a federally endangered or threateined
species. However, we recommend that all practicable measures betaken to avoid or minimize adverse unpacts to
f'e'deral species of concern.

If your project contains suitable habitat for any of the federally - listed species known to be
present within the county where your project occurs, the proposed action has the potential to
adversely affect those species. As such, we recommend that surveys be conducted to determine
the species' presence or absence within the project area. The use of North Carolina Natural
Heritage program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys.
If you determine that the proposed action may affect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely
to adversely affect) a federally - protected species, you should notify this office with your
determination, the results of your surveys, survey methodologies, and an analysis of the effects
of the action on listed species, including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects,
before conducting any activities that might affect the species. If you determine that the proposed
action will have no effect (i.e., no beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect effect) on federally
listed species, then you are not required to contact our office for concurrence (unless an
Environmental Impact Statement is prepared). However, you should maintain a complete record
of the assessment, including steps leading to your determination of effect, the qualified personnel
conducting the assessment, habitat conditions, site photographs, and any other related articles.
With regard to the above - referenced project, we offer the following remarks. Our comments are
submitted pursuant to, and in accordance with, provisions of the Endangered Species Act.
Based on the information provided and other information available, it appears that the proposed
action is not likely to adversely affect any federally - listed endangered or threatened species, their
formally designated critical habitat, or species currently proposed for listing under the Act at
these sites. We believe that the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act have been satisfied for
your project. Please remember that obligations under section 7 consultation must be
reconsidered if. (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect
listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2) this action is
subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; or, (3) a new species
is listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected by the identified action.
However, the Service is concerned about the potential impacts the proposed action might have
on aquatic species. Aquatic resources are highly susceptible to sedimentation. Therefore, we
recommend that all practicable measures be taken to avoid adverse impacts to aquatic species,
including implementing directional boring methods and stringent sediment and erosion control
measures. An erosion and sedimentation control plan should be submitted to and approved by
the North Carolina Division of Land Resources, Land Quality Section prior to construction.
Erosion and sedimentation controls should be installed and maintained between the construction
site and any nearby down - gradient surface waters. In addition, we recommend maintaining
natural, vegetated buffers on all streams and creeks adjacent to the project site.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has developed a Guidance Memorandum (a
copy can be found on our website at (http: / /www.fws.gov /raleigh) to address and mitigate
secondary and cumulative impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources and water quality.
We recommend that you consider this document in the development of your projects and in
completing an initiation package for consultation (if necessary).
2

We hope you find our web page useful and informative and that following the process described
above will reduce the time required, and eliminate the need, for general correspondence for
species' lists. If you have any questions or comments, please contact John Ellis of this office at
(919) 856 -4520 ext. 26.
Sincerely,
Pete Benjamin.
Field Supervisor

List of Counties in the Service's Raleigh Field Office Area of Responsibility
Alamance
Beaufort
Bertie
Bladen
Brunswick
Camden
Carteret
Caswell
Chatham
Chowan
Columbus
Craven
Cumberland
Currituck
Dare
Duplin
Durham
Edgecombe
Franklin
Gates
Granville
Greene
Guilford
Halifax
Harnett
Hertford
Hoke
Hyde
Johnston
Jones
Lee
Lenoir
Martin
Montgomery
Moore
Nash
New Hanover
Northampton
Onslow
Orange
Pamlico
Pasquotank
Pender
rd
Perquimans
Person
Pitt
Randolph
Richmond
Robeson
Rockingham
Sampson
Scotland
Tyrrell
Vance
Wake
Warren
Washington
Wayne
Wilson

WILDLANDS
F -NCINFF RI N
July 24, 2013
Shannon Deaton
North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission
Division of Inland Fisheries
1721 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Subject: Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site
Chatham County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Deaton,
The purpose of this letter is to request review and comment on any possible issues that
might emerge with respect to fish and wildlife issues associated with a potential stream
restoration project on the attached site. A USGS map (Figure 1) showing the
approximate area of potential ground disturbance is enclosed. Figure 1 was prepared
from the Crutchfield Crossroads, NC 7.5- Minute Topographic Quadrangle.
The Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site has been identified for the purpose of providing in-
kind mitigation for unavoidable stream channel impacts. Several sections of channel
throughout the site have been identified as significantly degraded as a result of past
agricultural activities.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to
contact us with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site
disturbance associated with this project.
Sincerely,
Andrea S. Eckardt
Senior Environmental Planner
Attachment:
Figure 1. USGS Topographic Map
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. - 1430 South Mint Street Suite 104 - Charlotte, NC 28203 — 704- 332 -7754

® Forth Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission K�
Gordan Myers, Executive Director
2 August 2013
Andrea S. Eckardt, Senior Environmental Planner
Wildlands Engineering
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Subject: Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site, Chatham County, North Carolina.
Dear Ms. Eckardt:
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the subject
information. Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 -667e) and North Carolina General Statutes (G.S. 113 -131 et seq.).
The proposed project would provide in -kind mitigation for unavoidable stream channel impacts.
Several sections of channel throughout the site have been identified as significantly degraded from past
agricultural activities. The project site includes Mud Lick Creek and tributaries to Mud Lick Creek. Mud Lick
Creek is a tributary to Rocky River in the Cape Fear River basin. There are records for the federal species of
concern and state endangered Carolina creekshell (Villosa vaughaniana), the state special concern notched
rainbow (Villosa constricta), and the state significantly rare Eastern creekshell (Villosa delumbis) in Rocky
River.
Stream restoration projects often improve water quality and aquatic habitat. Establishing native,
forested buffers in riparian areas will help protect water quality, improve aquatic and terrestrial habitats, and
provide a travel corridor for wildlife species. Provided measures are taken to minimize erosion and
sedimentation from construction/restoration activities, we do not anticipate the project to result in significant
adverse impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this proposed project. If we can provide further assistance,
please contact our office at (336) 449 -7625 or [e-mail] .
Sincerely,
Shari L. Bryant
Piedmont Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
ec: Ryan Heise, NCWRC
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center - Raleigh, NC 27694 -1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

Mud lick Creek Mitigation Site
Categorical Exclusion
Figures

Estimated Limits of Disturbance
0
i
Cv y
Ck
Crutchfie
s
Crutchfield Crossroads, USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic QuNdrangles
A Copyright:© 2011 National Geographic Society, i -cubed
Figure z Site Map
W I L ll L A N D 5 Mud Lick Creek
ENGINEERING 0 1,000 Feet
I I I I I Chatham County, NC

APPENDIX 7: Resource Agency Correspondence

%OIWV
WILD LAND S
E N G I N E E R I N G
July 24, 2013
Renee Gledhill - Earley
State Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -4617
Subject: EEP Stream Mitigation Project in Chatham County.
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Project
Dear Ms. Gledhill - Earley,
The Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) requests review and comment on any possible issues that
might emerge with respect to archaeological or cultural resources associated with a potential stream
restoration project on the attached site (USGS site map with approximate areas of potential ground
disturbance is enclosed).
The Mud Lick Creek site has been identified for the purpose of providing in -kind mitigation for
unavoidable stream channel impacts. Several sections of channel have been identified as significantly
degraded. No architectural structures or archeological artifacts have been observed or noted during
preliminary surveys of the site for restoration purposes. The majority of the site has historically been
disturbed due to agricultural purposes.
We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine the presence of any
historic properties.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact us with
any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project.
Sincerely,
Andrea S. Eckardt
Senior Environmental Planner

5TR7Z q,
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Pat McCrory
Secretary Susan Kluttz
September 3, 2013
Andrea Eckardt
Wildlands Engineering
1430 South Mint Street, 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Re: Mud Lick Creek Mitigation, Chatham County, ER 13 -1556
Dear Ms. Eckardt:
Thank you for your letter of July 24, 2013, concerning the above project.
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by
the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill- Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919- 807 -6579 or renee.gledhill-
earle y a,ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced
tracking number.
Sincerely,
Ramona M. Bartos
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699 -4617 Telephone /Fax: (919) 807 - 6570/807 -6599
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Pat McCrory
Secretary Susan Kluttz
September 3, 2013
Andrea Eckardt
Wildlands Engineering
1430 South Mint Street, 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Re: Mud Lick Creek Mitigation, Chatham County, ER 13 -1556
Dear Ms. Eckardt:
Thank you for your letter of July 24, 2013, concerning the above project.
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by
the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill- Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919- 807 -6579 or renee.gledhill-
earle y a,ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced
tracking number.
Sincerely,
Ramona M. Bartos
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699 -4617 Telephone /Fax: (919) 807 - 6570/807 -6599

WILDLANDS
E N GIN E ER I N G
July 24, 2013
Mr. Dale Suiter
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh Field Office
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636
Subject: Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site, Chatham County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Suiter,
The Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site has been identified for the purpose of providing in -kind
mitigation for unavoidable stream channel impacts. Several sections of channel throughout the
site have been identified as significantly degraded as a result of past agricultural activities.
We have already obtained an updated species list for Chatham County from your web site
(http: / /www.fws.gov /raleigh/ species /cntylist /nc_counties.html). The threatened or
endangered species for this county are: the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) (BGPA), Cape
Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas), red - cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), and
harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum). We are requesting that you please provide any known
information for each species in the county. The USFWS will be contacted if suitable habitat for
any listed species is found or if we determine that the project may affect one or more federally
listed species or designated critical habitat.
Please provide comments on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to endangered
species, migratory birds or other trust resources from the construction of a stream and wetland
restoration project on the subject properties. A USGS map (Figure 1) showing the approximate
areas of potential ground disturbance is enclosed. Figure 1 was prepared from the Crutchfield
Crossroads, NC 7.5- Minute Topographic Quadrangle.
If we have not heard from you in 30 days we will assume that our species list and site
determination are correct, that you do not have any comments regarding associated laws, and
that you do not have any information relevant to this project at the current time.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact
us with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated
with this project.
Sincerely,
ot4_0t�!�' Lk-a�u
Andrea S. Eckardt
Senior Environmental Planner
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. - 1430 S. Mint St - Charlotte, NC 28203 - 704 - 332 -7754

United States Departments ®p the ffnterjoR-
Andrea Eckardt
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 S. Mint Street
Charlotte, NC 28203
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636 -3726
August 29, 2013
Re: Mud Lick Creel. Miitigati— Site- Chatham. Co;irty, It.0
Dear Ms. Eckardt:
This letter is to inform you that a list of all federally - protected endangered and threatened species
with known occurrences in North Carolina is now available on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's (Service) web page at http: / /www.fws.goi,/raleigh. Therefore, if you have projects that
occur within the Raleigh Field Office's area of responsibility (see attached county list), you no
Ionge-r.need to contact the Raleigh Field Office for a list of federally- protected species.
Our web page contains -a complete and frequently updated list of all endangered and threatened, -
species protected by the. provisions�pf the Endangered.Species Act of 1973, as amended (16'
U.S.C. 1531 et•seq )(Act), and a list of federal species of concerns that are known toIoccur in
each county in North Carolina.
Section 7 of the Act requires that all federal agencies (or their designated non - federal
representative), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action federally authorized,
funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
federally - listed endangered or threatened species. A biological assessment ore valuation maybe
prepared to fulfill that requirement and in determining whether additional consultation with the
Service is necessary. In addition to the federally - protected species list, information on the
species' life histories and habitats and information on completing a biological assessment or
evaluation and can be found on our web page at http: / /www.fws.gov /raleigh. Please check the
web site often for updated information or changes.
1- Thelerm "federal species of concern" re. ers to those species "hich the Service, believes might be in need of
concentrated; conservation actions.Jederal species of concern receive no.lecral protection aind theiCdesignation does
not necessarily imply that the species will eventually be "proposed for listing —as a federally endangered or threateined
species. However, we recommend that all practicable measures betaken to avoid or minimize adverse unpacts to
f'e'deral species of concern.

If your project contains suitable habitat for any of the federally - listed species known to be
present within the county where your project occurs, the proposed action has the potential to
adversely affect those species. As such, we recommend that surveys be conducted to determine
the species' presence or absence within the project area. The use of North Carolina Natural
Heritage program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys.
If you determine that the proposed action may affect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely
to adversely affect) a federally - protected species, you should notify this office with your
determination, the results of your surveys, survey methodologies, and an analysis of the effects
of the action on listed species, including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects,
before conducting any activities that might affect the species. If you determine that the proposed
action will have no effect (i.e., no beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect effect) on federally
listed species, then you are not required to contact our office for concurrence (unless an
Environmental Impact Statement is prepared). However, you should maintain a complete record
of the assessment, including steps leading to your determination of effect, the qualified personnel
conducting the assessment, habitat conditions, site photographs, and any other related articles.
With regard to the above - referenced project, we offer the following remarks. Our comments are
submitted pursuant to, and in accordance with, provisions of the Endangered Species Act.
Based on the information provided and other information available, it appears that the proposed
action is not likely to adversely affect any federally - listed endangered or threatened species, their
formally designated critical habitat, or species currently proposed for listing under the Act at
these sites. We believe that the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act have been satisfied for
your project. Please remember that obligations under section 7 consultation must be
reconsidered if. (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect
listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2) this action is
subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; or, (3) a new species
is listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected by the identified action.
However, the Service is concerned about the potential impacts the proposed action might have
on aquatic species. Aquatic resources are highly susceptible to sedimentation. Therefore, we
recommend that all practicable measures be taken to avoid adverse impacts to aquatic species,
including implementing directional boring methods and stringent sediment and erosion control
measures. An erosion and sedimentation control plan should be submitted to and approved by
the North Carolina Division of Land Resources, Land Quality Section prior to construction.
Erosion and sedimentation controls should be installed and maintained between the construction
site and any nearby down - gradient surface waters. In addition, we recommend maintaining
natural, vegetated buffers on all streams and creeks adjacent to the project site.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has developed a Guidance Memorandum (a
copy can be found on our website at (http: / /www.fws.gov /raleigh) to address and mitigate
secondary and cumulative impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources and water quality.
We recommend that you consider this document in the development of your projects and in
completing an initiation package for consultation (if necessary).
2

We hope you find our web page useful and informative and that following the process described
above will reduce the time required, and eliminate the need, for general correspondence for
species' lists. If you have any questions or comments, please contact John Ellis of this office at
(919) 856 -4520 ext. 26.
Sincerely,
Pete Benjamin.
Field Supervisor

List of Counties in the Service's Raleigh Field Office Area of Responsibility
Alamance
Beaufort
Bertie
Bladen
Brunswick
Camden
Carteret
Caswell
Chatham
Chowan
Columbus
Craven
Cumberland
Currituck
Dare
Duplin
Durham
Edgecombe
Franklin
Gates
Granville
Greene
Guilford
Halifax
Harnett
Hertford
Hoke
Hyde
Johnston
Jones
Lee
Lenoir
Martin
Montgomery
Moore
Nash
New Hanover
Northampton
Onslow
Orange
Pamlico
Pasquotank
Pender
rd
Perquimans
Person
Pitt
Randolph
Richmond
Robeson
Rockingham
Sampson
Scotland
Tyrrell
Vance
Wake
Warren
Washington
Wayne
Wilson

WILDLANDS
F -NCINFF RI N
July 24, 2013
Shannon Deaton
North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission
Division of Inland Fisheries
1721 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Subject: Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site
Chatham County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Deaton,
The purpose of this letter is to request review and comment on any possible issues that
might emerge with respect to fish and wildlife issues associated with a potential stream
restoration project on the attached site. A USGS map (Figure 1) showing the
approximate area of potential ground disturbance is enclosed. Figure 1 was prepared
from the Crutchfield Crossroads, NC 7.5- Minute Topographic Quadrangle.
The Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site has been identified for the purpose of providing in-
kind mitigation for unavoidable stream channel impacts. Several sections of channel
throughout the site have been identified as significantly degraded as a result of past
agricultural activities.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to
contact us with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site
disturbance associated with this project.
Sincerely,
Andrea S. Eckardt
Senior Environmental Planner
Attachment:
Figure 1. USGS Topographic Map
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. - 1430 South Mint Street Suite 104 - Charlotte, NC 28203 — 704- 332 -7754

® Forth Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission K�
Gordan Myers, Executive Director
2 August 2013
Andrea S. Eckardt, Senior Environmental Planner
Wildlands Engineering
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Subject: Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site, Chatham County, North Carolina.
Dear Ms. Eckardt:
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the subject
information. Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 -667e) and North Carolina General Statutes (G.S. 113 -131 et seq.).
The proposed project would provide in -kind mitigation for unavoidable stream channel impacts.
Several sections of channel throughout the site have been identified as significantly degraded from past
agricultural activities. The project site includes Mud Lick Creek and tributaries to Mud Lick Creek. Mud Lick
Creek is a tributary to Rocky River in the Cape Fear River basin. There are records for the federal species of
concern and state endangered Carolina creekshell (Villosa vaughaniana), the state special concern notched
rainbow (Villosa constricta), and the state significantly rare Eastern creekshell (Villosa delumbis) in Rocky
River.
Stream restoration projects often improve water quality and aquatic habitat. Establishing native,
forested buffers in riparian areas will help protect water quality, improve aquatic and terrestrial habitats, and
provide a travel corridor for wildlife species. Provided measures are taken to minimize erosion and
sedimentation from construction/restoration activities, we do not anticipate the project to result in significant
adverse impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this proposed project. If we can provide further assistance,
please contact our office at (336) 449 -7625 or [e-mail] .
Sincerely,
Shari L. Bryant
Piedmont Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
ec: Ryan Heise, NCWRC
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center - Raleigh, NC 27694 -1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

APPENDIX 8: Floodplain Checklist

ssm
0 yy t
PROGRAM
EEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist
This form was developed by the National Flood Insurance program, NC Floodplain
Mapping program and Ecosystem Enhancement Program to be filled for all EEP projects.
The form is intended to summarize the floodplain requirements during the design phase
of the projects. The form should be submitted to the Local Floodplain Administrator
with three copies submitted to NFIP (attn. State NFIP Engineer), NC Floodplain Mapping
Unit (attn. State NFIP Coordinator) and NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program.
Project Location
Name of project:
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site
Name if stream or feature:
Mud Lick Creek
County:
Chatham
Name of river basin:
Cape Fear
Is project urban or rural?
Rural
Name of Jurisdictional
municipality /county:
Chatham County
DFIRM panel number for
entire site:
8764
Consultant name:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Phone number:
919 -851 -9986
Address:
5605 Chapel Hill Road, Suite 122
Raleigh, NC 27607
FEMA Floodplain_ Checklist -Mud Lick Creek Page 1 of 4

Design Information
Provide a general description of project (one paragraph). Include project limits on a
reference orthophotograph at a scale of 1" = 500 ".
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. ( Wildlands) is completing a stream restoration and
enhancement project at the Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site (Site) for the North Carolina
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) to restore and enhance a total of 3,750 linear
feet (LF) of perennial stream in Chatham County, NC. The Site is proposed to generate
2,806 Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs). This site is located in the Upper Rocky River
Watershed within Cape Fear River Basin Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03030003 (Cape
Fear 03). Restoration and enhancement activities will be performed on Mud Lick Creek
and two unnamed tributaries hereafter referred to as North Branch and East Branch.
Summarize stream reaches or wetland areas according to their restoration priority.
Reach
Length
Priority
North Branch RI
327
Enhancement II
North Branch R2
520
Priority 112
North Branch R2
303
Priority 112
East Branch
168
Enhancement II
East Branch
409
Priority 112
Mud Lick Creek RI
623
Enhancement II
Mud Lick Creek R2
693
Enhancement II
Mud Lick Creek R3
748
Enhancement II
Floodplain Information
Is project located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)?
r Yes ("` No
If project is located in a SFHA, check how it was determined:
r Redelineation
r Detailed Study
W Limited Detail Study
Approximate Study
r Don't know
List flood zone designation:
FEMA Floodplain_Checklist -Mud Lick Creek Page 2 of 4

Check if applies:
r AE Zone
r' Floodway
Non - Encroachment
r None
r A Zone
r-• Local Setbacks Required
C No Local Setbacks Required
If local setbacks are required, list how many feet: N/A
Does proposed channel boundary encroach outside floodway /non-
encroachment /setbacks?
r Yes 0' No
Land Acquisition (Check)
r State owned (fee simple)
l+� Conservation easment (Design Bid Build)
r Conservation Easement (Full Delivery Project)
Note: if the project property is state - owned, then all requirements should be addressed to
the Department of Administration, State Construction Office (attn: Herbert Neily,
(919) 807 -4101)
Is community /county participating in the NFIP program?
CW Yes C' No
Note: if community is not participating, then all requirements should be addressed to
NFIP (attn: State NFIP Engineer, (919) 715 -8000)
Name of Local Floodplain Administrator: Dan LaMontagne
Phone Number: 919 -542 -5516
Floodplain Requirements
This section to be filled by designer /applicant following verification with the LFPA
r- No Action
r No Rise
r Letter of Map Revision
r Conditional Letter of Map Revision
FEMA Floodplain_ Checklist -Mud Lick Creek Page 3 of 4

lV Other Requirements
List other requirements:
Chatham County Floodplain Administrator required that a Floodplain Development
permit be applied for and issued. The permit has been submitted and written approval is
expected August 2014
Comments: Activities in the floodplain of Mud Lick Creek will include only planting,
fencing, bank, stabilization, and very minor cut.
Name: A t
Title: (Zwrgg, Fe
Signature: ,
Date: id t
FEMA Floodplain_Checklist -Mud Lick Creek Page 4 of 4

Dan LaMontagne, P.E., Environmental Quality Director
Application for Permit to Develop in a Floodplain Area
The undersigned hereby makes application for a permit to develop in a designated floodplain area. The
work to be performed is described below and in attachments hereto. The undersigned agrees that all
such work shall be done in accordance with the requirements of Chatham of County Flood Damage
Prevention Ordinance and with all other applicable local, State, and Federal regulations. This application
does not create liability on the part of Chatham County or any officer or employee thereof for any flood
damage that results from reliance on this application or any administrative decision made lawfully
thereunder.
Owner: Billie Lassiter
Builder: TBD by NCEEP (Will update County when
Builder is selected)
Environmental Quality Department
Phone: [phone]
Post Office Box 54
/ \ Fax: 919 - 542 -2698
80 -A East Street — Dunlap Building
CHATHAM COUNTY
Pittsboro, NC 27312 -0054
NORTH CAROLINA
Dan LaMontagne, P.E., Environmental Quality Director
Application for Permit to Develop in a Floodplain Area
The undersigned hereby makes application for a permit to develop in a designated floodplain area. The
work to be performed is described below and in attachments hereto. The undersigned agrees that all
such work shall be done in accordance with the requirements of Chatham of County Flood Damage
Prevention Ordinance and with all other applicable local, State, and Federal regulations. This application
does not create liability on the part of Chatham County or any officer or employee thereof for any flood
damage that results from reliance on this application or any administrative decision made lawfully
thereunder.
Owner: Billie Lassiter
Builder: TBD by NCEEP (Will update County when
Builder is selected)
Address: C/O Billie Lassiter
Address:
319 Augusta Drive
Statesville, NC 28625
Telephone:[phone]
Telephone:
Address of Property: Northwestern portion of intersection at Siler City Snow Camp Mo ad
and Silk Hope Liberty Road
1) Description of Work (Complete for ENTIRE Project)
A) Proposed Development Description (circle one):
® New Building
® Manufactured Home
® Improvement to Existing Building
® Filling
X Other Grading and enhancement
B) Size and location of proposed development (attach site plan):
Limits of disturbance of grading activities within FEMA Zone AE is approximately 4 3 acres
C) Is the proposed development in a Special Flood Hazard Area (Zones A, AE, Al -A30, AH, or
AO)?
Yes
No

Environmental Quality Department
Post Office Box 54
80 -A East Street - Dunlap Building
Piltsboro, NC 27312 -0054
Phone: 919 - 545 -8394
Fax: 919 - 542 -2698
CHATHAM COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
Dan LaMontagne, P.E., Environmental Quality Director
D) Per the floodplain map, what is the zone and panel number of the area in the proposed
development:
Zone: AE Panel Number: 87641 Effective Date February 2, 2007
E) Have other Federal, State, or local permits been obtained?
Yes M
• ICI
Type(s):
Categorical Exclusion (NCDENR), 401, 404. Erosion Control Permit to be obtained prior to
commencement of construction activities.
F) Is the proposed development in an identified floodway?
Yes
No M
G) If 'Yes', is a "No Rise Certification: with supporting data attached?
Yes
No
2) Complete for New Structures and Building Sites:
Base Flood Elevation at the site: feet NGVD
Required lowest flood elevation (include basement): feet NGVD
Elevation to which all attendant utilities, including all heating and electrical equipment will be protected
from flood damage: feet NGVD
3) Complete for Alterations, Additions, or Improvements to Existing Structures:
What is the estimated market value of the existing structure: $
What is the cost of the proposed construction: $ N/A
* If the cost of the proposed construction equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the
structure, then the substantial improvements provisions shall apply.

Environmental Quality Department
Post Office Box 54
80 -A East Street — Dunlap Building
Pittsboro, NC 27312 -0054
Phone: 919 - 545 -8394
Fax: [phone]
CHATHAM COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
Dan LaMontagne, P.E., Environmental Quality Director
4) Complete for Subdivisions and Planned Unit Developments:
Will the subdivision or other development contain 50 lots or 5 acres?
Yes
No
If `Yes', does the plat or proposal clearly identify base flood elevations?
Yes
No
Are the 100 Year Floodplain and Floodway delineated on the site plan?
Yes M
No
ADMINISTRATIVE
Permit: Approved M Denied ® (Statement attached)
Elevation Certificate Attached: Yes No
As -built lowest floor elevation: N/A feet NGVD
Work inspected
Local Administrator Signatu
Applicant
� 24

Chatham County, NC
FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
(Internal use only (Permit Number 14 -001 Issuance Date 08/4/2014 AKPAR 83307
In accordance with the Chatham County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, a Floodplain
Development Permit is hereby granted to:
Wildlands Engineering and Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
to conduct development activities within the area of special flood hazard on property located at:
Northwest portion of intersection at Siler City Snow Camp Rd, and Silk Hope Liberty Rd.
recorded in Book 1233 , Page 0849 Registry of Chatham County.
This Permit is issued to the aforementioned individual, firm, partnership, etc, for the purpose noted
below and in accordance with the Chatham County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, Floodplain
Development Permit No. 14 -001 and attachments thereto; and is subject to the following
modifications and /or performance reservations:
1. Permit issued for the following development only:
Excavation: X Fill: _ Grading: X Utility Construction:
Road Construction: Residential Construction: Nonresidential
Construction: Addition: Renovation: Other /notes (specify): _
Stream Restoration and Enhancement prolect
2. The lowest floor and all attendant utilities shall be at or above N/A feet Mean Sea Level
(MSL),
3, Pursuant to Section B (3) (a) or (b) of the Chatham County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, it
shall be the duty of the permit holder to submit to the Floodplain Administrator the Elevation or
Floodproofing Certification, if applicable.
4. Fill material shall not encroach into the floodway of Mud Lick Creek
5. Proper Erosion and Sediment control measures shall be installed and maintained in accordance
with Chatham County Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance, revised December 2,
2008.

All provisions applicable to this permit apply pursuant to the Chatham County Flood Damage
Prevention Ordinance.
Upon completion of any foundation construction, contact Building Inspection Division for
foundation inspection.
Failure to comply with the Chatham County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance including any
modifications and /or performance reservations could result in a misdemeanor conviction and shall be
punished at the discretion of the court.
Issued this 4th day of August, 2014.
Dan J. ontagne, P.E.
Floodplain Administrator for Chatham County, NC