HomeMy WebLinkAbout20141127 Ver 1_DRAFT Mit Plan Rev Sup Monitoring Info_20150202
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
January, 2015
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:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
5605 Chapel Hill Road, Suite 122
Raleigh, NC 27607
Phone – 919‐851‐9986
January, 2015
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 1
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.
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... 1
1.0 RESTORATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES..................................................................... 4
2.0 PROJECT SITE LOCATION AND SELECTION ................................................................................ 5
2.1 DIRECTIONS TO PROJECT SITE ........................................................................................................... 5
2.2 SITE SELECTION AND PROJECT COMPONENTS ....................................................................................... 5
3.0 SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT ............................................................................................... 5
4.0 BASELINE INFORMATION .......................................................................................................... 5
4.1 WATERSHED EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................... 5
4.2 WATERSHED HISTORICAL LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT TRENDS ........................................................... 6
4.3 PHYSIOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, AND SOILS ............................................................................................... 7
4.4 VALLEY CLASSIFICATION ................................................................................................................... 7
4.5 SURFACE WATER CLASSIFICATION AND WATER QUALITY ........................................................................ 8
4.6 EXISTING STREAM CONDITION .......................................................................................................... 8
4.7 CHANNEL EVOLUTION ................................................................................................................... 12
4.8 CHANNEL STABILITY ...................................................................................................................... 13
4.9 UTILITIES AND SITE ACCESS ............................................................................................................ 14
5.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................................. 14
5.1 401/404 ................................................................................................................................... 14
5.2 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES .......................................................................................... 16
5.3 FEDERALLY DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT ....................................................................................... 18
5.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES .................................................................................................................. 18
5.5 SITE EVALUATION METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................. 18
5.6 SHPO/THPO CONCURRENCE ........................................................................................................ 19
5.7 FEMA FLOODPLAIN COMPLIANCE AND HYDROLOGIC TRESPASS ............................................................ 19
6.0 REFERENCE SITES ..................................................................................................................... 19
6.1 REFERENCE STREAMS .................................................................................................................... 19
6.2 CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY AND CLASSIFICATION OF REFERENCE STREAMS ................................................. 19
6.3 REFERENCE STREAMS VEGETATION COMMUNITY TYPES DESCRIPTIONS ................................................... 20
7.0 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS ................................................................................................. 23
8.0 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE .................................................................................................... 25
8.1 INITIAL ALLOCATION OF RELEASED CREDITS ....................................................................................... 26
8.2 SUBSEQUENT CREDIT RELEASES ....................................................................................................... 26
9.0 PROJECT SITE MITIGATION PLAN ............................................................................................ 26
9.1 JUSTIFICATION FOR PROPOSED INTERVENTION ................................................................................... 26
9.2 STREAM RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT DESIGN OVERVIEW ........................................................... 27
9.3 DESIGN BANKFULL DISCHARGE ANALYSIS .......................................................................................... 27
9.4 DESIGN CHANNEL MORPHOLOGIC PARAMETERS ................................................................................ 28
9.5 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ANALYSIS .................................................................................................... 30
9.6 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................ 32
10.0 MAINTENANCE PLAN .............................................................................................................. 33
11.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ................................................................................................... 34
11.1 STREAMS .................................................................................................................................... 35
11.2 VEGETATION ............................................................................................................................... 35
11.3 VISUAL ASSESSMENTS ................................................................................................................... 36
12.0 MONITORING PLAN ................................................................................................................. 36
12.1 REGULATORY MONITORING PARAMETERS FOR MITIGATION SUCCESS ..................................................... 36
12.2 STREAMS .................................................................................................................................... 37
12.3 VISUAL ASSESSMENTS ................................................................................................................... 39
12.4 SUPPLEMENTARY MONITORING ...................................................................................................... 39
13.0 LONG‐TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN ......................................................................................... 43
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 3
14.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN ............................................................................................. 43
15.0 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES ......................................................................................................... 44
16.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 45
TABLES
TABLE 1. SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT ................................................................................................... 5
TABLE 2. PROJECT AND WATERSHED INFORMATION .................................................................................. 6
TABLE 3. FLOODPLAIN SOIL TYPES AND DESCRIPTIONS ............................................................................... 7
TABLE 4. REACH SUMMARY INFORMATION ................................................................................................ 8
TABLE 5A. EXISTING STREAM CONDITIONS – MUD LICK CREEK .................................................................. 9
TABLE 5B. EXISTING STREAM CONDITIONS – NORTH BRANCH AND EAST BRANCH .................................. 11
TABLE 6. EXISTING CONDITIONS CHANNEL STABILITY ASSESSMENT RESULTS .......................................... 13
TABLE 7. WETLAND SUMMARY INFORMATION ......................................................................................... 15
TABLE 8. LISTED THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES IN CHATHAM COUNTY, NC .......................... 17
TABLE 11A. SUMMARY OF REFERENCE REACH GEOMORPHIC PARAMETERS ........................................... 20
TABLE 11B. SUMMARY OF REFERENCE REACH GEOMORPHIC PARAMETERS ........................................... 21
TABLE 13. CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE – STREAM CREDITS ....................................................................... 25
TABLE 14. DESIGN BANKFULL DISCHARGE ANALYSIS SUMMARY .............................................................. 28
TABLE 15. DESIGN MORPHOLOGIC PARAMETERS ..................................................................................... 29
TABLE 16. COMPETENCE ANALYSIS RESULTS ............................................................................................. 31
TABLE 17. CAPACITY ANALYSIS RESULTS .................................................................................................... 31
TABLE 18. MAINTENANCE PLAN COMPONENTS ........................................................................................ 34
TABLE 19. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................................. 36
TABLE 20. PARAMETERS AND SAMPLING FREQUENCY BY STATION ......................................................... 41
TABLE 21. PARAMETER LIMITS, RANGES, AND IMPROVEMENT CRITERIA ................................................. 42
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
FIGURE 10 SUPPLEMENTARY MONITORING STATIONS
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
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 4
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.
Additional credits are proposed to cover the costs of supplemental monitoring of additional water
quality and biological parameters. These data are intended to contribute to a dataset from multiple
projects over the ensuing years to help characterize the combinations of site and watershed
characteristics that will help:
Identify thresholds for detection of improvements in higher functions within the constraints of
typical mitigation monitoring timeframes.
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 5
Calibrate expectations regarding what levels of improvement can be observed in those
timeframes for different levels of restoration.
Tailor goals and success criteria.
Given the investigative nature of these data, these parameters will not be used in determination of
mitigation success and associated crediting; rather credits in an amount proportional to the actual
monitoring costs (estimated to equate to 300‐500 SMUs) will be issued.
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.
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
Instrument
Deed Book and
Page Number
Acreage
Protected
Thomas Grayson Heirs 8775‐11‐1240 Chatham Conservation
Easement
DB: 1233 PG: 8491 11.23
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).
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 6
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
Drainage Area (miles2) 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 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.
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 7
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.
Table 3. Floodplain Soil Types and Descriptions
Soil Name Location Description
Chewacla and Wehadkee soils, 0‐2% slopes Mud Lick Creek‐R3
near culvert
Chewacla soils are somewhat poorly drained
soils located in floodplains, which flood
frequently. Wehadkee soils are poorly drained
soils located in depressions on floodplains,
which flood frequently. Both have high water
capacities.
Cid‐Lignum Complex, 2‐6% slopes Mud Lick Creek‐R2,
Mud Lick Creek‐ R3
Cid and Lignum soils are moderately well
drained soils located in Interfluves with low
water capacity. This soil is not subject to
flooding.
Nanford‐Badin Complex, 6‐10% slopes
Mud Lick Creek‐R1,
Mud Lick Creek‐R2,
North Branch‐R1,
North Branch‐R2,
East Branch
Nanford‐Badin complexes are well drained
soils located on hillsides on ridges with low
water capacity. This soil is not frequently
subject to flooding.
Georgeville silt loam, 2‐6% slopes
Floodplain of Mud
Lick Creek‐R2 and
Mud Lick Creek‐R3
Georgeville silt loam is a well‐drained soil
located in interfluves with a high water
capacity. This soil is not subject to flooding.
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.
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 8
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 NCDWQ Stream
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.
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWR) 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 ‐
R1
Mud Lick
Creek –
R2
Mud Lick
Creek –
R3
North
Branch‐
R1
North
Branch‐
R2
East
Branch
Restored Length (LF) 623 693 748 656 577 296
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 B4c B4c
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 9
Mud Lick
Creek ‐
R1
Mud Lick
Creek –
R2
Mud Lick
Creek –
R3
North
Branch‐
R1
North
Branch‐
R2
East
Branch
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.
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 (Betula nigra), red maple (Acer rubrum), green ash (Fraxinus
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. Existing Stream Conditions – Mud Lick Creek
Parameter Notation Units
Mud Lick Creek‐
R1
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
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 10
Parameter Notation Units
Mud Lick Creek‐
R1
Mud Lick Creek ‐
R2
Mud Lick Creek‐
R3
min max min max min max
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 slope1 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 Rc feet 9.9 36.7 12.9 58.8 10.9 38.5
radius of curvature ratio Rc/ wbkf 0.54 2.01 0.53 2.39 0.50 1.75
Particle Size Distribution from Reachwide Pebble Count
d50 Description very fine gravel medium gravel fine gravel
d16 mm Sand2 Sand2 Sand2
d35 mm Sand2 2.8 Sand2
d50 mm 1.7 8 6
d84 mm 15 21 28
d95 mm 36 76 58
d100 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
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 11
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.
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 B4c
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 slope1 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 ‐‐
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 12
Parameter Notation Units North Branch‐R1 North Branch‐R2 East Branch
min max min max
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 Rc feet 10.7 23.2 6.1 37 ‐‐
radius of curvature ratio Rc/ wbkf 1.03 2.23 0.73 4.46 ‐‐
Particle Size Distribution from Reachwide Pebble Count
d50 Description Sand Medium
Gravel
d16 mm Sand2 Sand2
d35 mm Sand2 6.1
d50 mm Sand2 10
d84 mm 8 15
d95 mm 15 27
d100 mm 32 64
1. Channel slopes are specific to the length of profile.
2. Sand particles were not measured.
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.
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 13
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
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. Existing Conditions Channel Stability 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
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 14
Parameter Mud Lick Mud Lick Mud Lick North North East
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.
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
5.1 401/404
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
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 15
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.
Table 7. Wetland Summary Information
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‐
riverine)
Riparian Riparian Riparian
Mapped Soil Series Nanford‐Badin
complex
Nanford‐Badin
complex
Cid‐Lignum 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,
overbank flooding
Groundwater,
overbank flooding
Groundwater,
overbank flooding
Hydrologic Impairment Ditching N/A N/A
Native vegetation community Piedmont Alluvial
Forest
Piedmont Alluvial
Forest
Piedmont Alluvial
Forest
% exotic invasive vegetation 0% 0% 0%
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 16
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.
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‐
ii)
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%
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 17
Table 8. Listed Threatened and Endangered Species in Chatham County, NC
Species Federal
Status
Habitat Biological Conclusion
Vertebrate
Red‐cockaded woodpecker
(Picoides borealis)
E Open stands of mature pines No effect
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus) BGPA Near large open water bodies:
lakes, marshes, seacoasts, and
rivers
No effect
Cape Fear shiner (Notropis
mekistocholas) E Pools, riffles, and runs of rocky,
clean freshwater streams No effect
Vascular Plant
Harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum) E Rocky or gravely shoals of clear
swift‐moving streams
No effect
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.
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 18
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
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.
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 19
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. EEP will also
attempt to find a water quality reference site and measure the physico‐chemical parameters in
association with the supplementary monitoring described in section 12.
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.
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 20
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 (Betula nigra), sycamore, box elder (Acer negundo), and
red maple.
Table 11a. Summary of Reference Reach Geomorphic Parameters
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
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 21
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 0.3 3.2 6.3 6.6
pool cross‐sectional area at
bankfull
Apool SF 9.3 24.5
pool area ratio Apool/Abkf 0.8 1.7 1.2 1.4
maximum pool depth at
bankfull
dpool 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 wblt 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 Rc/ wbkf 2.0 5.3 1.3 1.4
Table 11b. Summary of Reference Reach Geomorphic Parameters
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
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 22
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 0.8 1.0 0.8 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 0.0184 0.0343 0.0188 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 0.0108
pool slope ratio Spool/Schannel 0 0.6 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 23
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 wblt feet 10 50 102
meander width ratio wblt/wbkf 1.6 5.4 8.3 8.9
linear wavelength
(formerly meander
lh
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 Rc/ 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 credit data will be adjusted, if necessary, to be consistent with
the as‐built condition.
7.1 The proposed ratio for the enhancement II on the project site is 1.5:1 based on the following:
7.1.1 The extensive bank stabilization work proposed on Mud Lick Creek is well beyond typical
enhancement II treatments. Instream habitat will also be enhanced. Livestock will be fenced
out of the easement and a forested buffer will be installed along this reach.
7.1.2 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
EII practices. Fencing and planting will also be implemented along theses reaches.
7.2 Additional credits are proposed to cover the costs of supplemental monitoring of additional water
quality and biological parameters. These data are intended to contribute to a dataset from multiple
projects over the ensuing years to help characterize the combinations of site and watershed
characteristics that will help:
7.2.1 Identify thresholds for detection of improvements in higher functions within the constraints
of typical mitigation monitoring timeframes.
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 24
7.2.2 Calibrate expectations regarding what levels of improvement can be observed in those
timeframes for different levels of restoration.
7.2.3 Tailor goals and success criteria.
Given the investigative nature of these data, these parameters will not be used in determination of
mitigation success and associated crediting; rather credits in an amount proportional to the actual
monitoring costs (estimated to equate to 300‐500 SMUs) will be issued. However, the pre‐con
monitoring may inform the parameters that are ultimately measured and result in refinements to the
monitoring plan accordingly. These credits will be released at the end of the monitoring period upon
completion of a data summary and a short report. The report will summarize the results and describe
what was learned regarding items 7.2.1 – 7.2.3 for projects with site and watershed characteristics in
the range of those observed for the Mud Lick Creek project. A more detailed discussion of the
proposed monitoring plan can be found in section 12.
Table 12. Determination of Credits
Mitigation Credits
Stream Riparian Wetland Non‐riparian
Wetland
Buffer Nitrogen
Nutrient Offset
Phosphorus
Nutrient Offset
Type R RE R RE R RE
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
Level
Restoration
Footage or
Acreage
Mitigation
Ratio
Proposed
Credit
North
Branch R1
327 100+00 to 103+27 Planting,
fencing
R EII 327 1.5:1 218
North
Branch R1
297 103+27 to 108+47 P1 R R 520 1:1 520
North
Branch R2
577 108+47 to 111+50 P2 R R 303 1:1 303
East Branch 168 200+00 to 201+68 Planting,
fencing
R EII 168 1.5:1 112
East Branch 317 201+68 to 205+77 P2 R R 409 1:1 409
Mud Lick
Creek R1
623 300+00 to 306+23 Planting,
fencing
R EII 623 1.5:1 415.3
Mud Lick
Creek R2
693 306+23 to 313+16 Planting,
fencing
R EII 693 1.5:1 462
Mud Lick
Creek R3 748 313+16 to
320+64
Planting,
fencing,
bank repairs
R EII 748 1.5:1 498.7
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 25
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 II 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
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
Year
Credit Release Activity
Interim
Release
Total
Released
0 Initial Allocation – see requirements below 30% 30%
1 First year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met 10% 40%
2 Second year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met 10% 50%
(60%*)
3 Third year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met 10% 60
(70%*)
4 Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met 5% 65%
(75%*)
5 Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met 10% 75%
(85%*)
6
Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are
being met 5% 80%
(90%)
7 Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
are being met and the project has received closeout approval 10% 90%
(100%)
8 Supplementary monitoring described in section 12 upon completion of
associated closeout report attachment (estimated 300‐500 SMU). TBD ‐
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 26
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.
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. Upon completion of the final item in table 12, the credits indicated will be released
upon submission of a closeout report attachment. It will summarize the supplementary monitoring data
described in section 12.4 and any inferences which can be made about the ability to detect uplift in water
quality support functions for projects with site and watershed characteristics within the range of Mud Lick
Creek.
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.
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 27
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
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 Bankfull 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).
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 28
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.
Table 14. Design Bankfull Discharge Analysis Summary
Discharge Estimate Analysis Parameter North Branch
R1
North Branch
R2
East
Branch
Drainage Area (sq. mi.)0.37 0.65 0.27
USGS rural flood frequency 2‐year
discharge (Weaver et al., 2009)
2‐yr
Discharge
83 120 68
Piedmont Regional Curve (Harman et al.,
1999)
Bankfull
Discharge
43 65 35
Piedmont/Mountain Regional Curve
(Walker, unpublished)
Bankfull
Discharge
25 40 20
Regional Flood Frequency Analysis
1.2‐yr
Discharge
18 33 13
1.5‐yr
Discharge
24 43 18
Reference Reach Curve Bankfull
Discharge
37 57 29
Final Design Q Bankfull
Discharge
35 67 32
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
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 29
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 Morphologic Parameters
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 1.8 1.4 2.0 0.9 1.5
mean depth at bankfull dbkf feet 1.0 1.2 0.9
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 Svalley 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
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 30
Notation Units
North Branch ‐
Reach 1
North Branch ‐
Reach 2 East Branch
Min Max Min Max Min Max
Pattern
sinuosity K 1.20 1.30 1.20 1.30 1.20 1.30
belt width wblt 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) Lm 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
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
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 31
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 D50 and D100 particle sizes and that East Branch will have enough shear stress to
move the D50 but not enough to move the D100. 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.
Table 16. Competence Analysis Results
Stream
Avg. Boundary
Shear Stress
(lb/ft2)
Shear Stress Required
to Move D50 (lb/ft2)
Shear Stress Required
to Move D100 (lb/ft2)
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
Reach
Existing
Capacity
(tons/day)
Proposed
Capacity
(tons/day)
North Branch 25.2 37.4
East Branch 344.2 150.4
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 32
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
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.
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 33
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.
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.
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
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.
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 34
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.
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 35
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 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.
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. 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).
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 36
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, 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 Regulatory Monitoring parameters for Mitigation Success
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 2.0, 09/2014).
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. Monitoring Requirements
Parameter Monitoring
Feature
Quantity/ Length by Reach
Frequency Notes
Mud Lick
Creek R1
Mud Lick
Creek R2
Mud Lick
Creek R3
North
Branch R1
North
Branch R2
East
Branch
Dimension
Riffle Cross
Sections N/A N/A N/A 1 1 1
Annual 1
Pool Cross
Section N/A N/A N/A 1 1 1
Pattern Pattern N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A n/a
2
Profile Longitudinal
Profile N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A n/a
Substrate
Reach wide
(RW), Riffle
(RF) 100
pebble
t
N/A N/A N/A 1 RW,
1 RF
1 RW,
1 RF
1 RW,
1 RF Annual
Hydrology Crest Gage 1 1 1 Annual 3
Vegetation Vegetation
Plots 12 Annual
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 37
Parameter Monitoring
Feature
Quantity/ Length by Reach
Frequency Notes
Mud Lick
Creek R1
Mud Lick
Creek R2
Mud Lick
Creek R3
North
Branch R1
North
Branch R2
East
Branch
Visual
Assessment All Streams Y Y Y Y Y Y Bi‐annual
Exotic and
nuisance
vegetation
Annual 4
Project
Boundary Annual 5
Reference
Photos Photos 19 Annual 6
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 of fence 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.
12.2.2 Bank Pins – Rates of lateral migration
In order to try and evaluate the current rates of erosion and the difference in lateral bank erosion between
restoration and enhancement reaches, six cross sections will be monitored for approximately one year
prior to construction in order to observe any response after exposure to flows capable of doing
geomorphologic work. Similar measurements will take place as part of the post‐construction monitoring
period. 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
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 38
For the pre‐construction monitoring, the locations chosen 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 approximately one year after installation or after at least 2 events
of geomorphological significance (whichever comes first), 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.
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.
12.2.3 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.
12.2.4 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.
12.2.5 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.
12.2.6 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.
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 39
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.
12.2.7 Vegetation
Vegetation monitoring plots will be installed and evaluated within the restoration and enhancement areas
to measure the survival of the planted trees and track the occurrence of volunteer species as well.
Vegetation plots will be established for repeat survey.
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.
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
These parameters are being monitored for analytical purposes and are not tied to mitigation success and
associated credit releases. See section 7.0 for crediting information.
12.4.1 Justification and Objectives
As this site is an active cattle pasture, water quality is a concern. EEP seeks to monitor parameters that
will characterize improvements in higher functions. Higher system functions refer to the processes that
contribute to the regulation of the physico‐chemical parameters that characterize water quality and in
turn support biological communities. Using the terminology of the Functional Pyramid system these would
be represented by functional levels 4 and 5 (Harman et. al. 2012). The challenges to developing
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 40
appropriate project goals and performance criteria when attempting to characterize improvement in
higher system functions relates to the uncertainties surrounding the following:
The thresholds for detection of improvements in higher functions are dependent upon
various combinations of site and watershed characteristics. Examples include:
a. The proportion of the drainage or drainage network encompassed by the project
b. The degree of impairment within the project compared to that of the contributing
drainage
c. The restoration treatments implemented
d. The timeframe available for monitoring/evaluation
e. Expected biomass of the buffer relative to the size of the channel within that
timeframe.
The sources of variability in parameters and their measurement and the number of
measurements needed for reliable characterization of their distributions.
The uncertainties described above can limit practitioners in terms of assessing restoration potential and
optimizing the level of intervention. EEP is proposing to monitor additional parameters to help
characterize the functional lift at these levels, to see if they are detectable, and to help understand the
degree of uplift that occurs within the monitoring timeframe from the treatments applied at Mud Lick
Creek. These data are intended to contribute to a dataset from multiple projects over the ensuing years
to help characterize the combinations of site and watershed characteristics that will help:
Identify thresholds for detection of improvements in higher functions within the constraints of
typical mitigation monitoring timeframes.
Calibrate expectations regarding what levels of improvement can be observed in those
timeframes for different levels of restoration.
Tailor goals and success criteria.
12.4.2 Supplementary Monitoring Plan
The supplementary monitoring and assessment plan will include the parameters as indicated in Table 20
below at the station locations in Figure 10. The locations above the project on Mud Lick and North Branch
will serve as watershed control points to provide a watershed water quality context to the variations in
results from sampling points within the project extent. These measurements will be taken into account
when assessing the measurements observed from within the project extent.
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 41
Table 20. Parameters and Sampling Frequency by Station
Site Parameters
Phys‐Chem
Baseflow
Samples Per
Interval
Phys‐Chem
Stormflow
Samples Per
Interval
Macro‐
benthos
Samplings
per
Interval
Fish
Samplings
per
Interval Measurement
Interval/Year
1_MLWC PC,M,F 4 4 1 1 Pre, 2,4,7
2_MLUP PC,M,F 4 4 1 1 Pre, 2,4,7
3_MLDN PC,M,F 4 4 1 1 Pre, 2,4,7
4_NBWC PC,M 4 4 1 Pre, 2,4,7
5_NBDN PC,M 4 4 1 Pre, 2,4,7
PC – Physico‐Chemical Parameters (see parameter list below; grabs,)
M – Macrobenthos (NCBI, EPT%, abundance and diversity; NCDWR Qual 4 Method; Spring Sampling)
F – Fish (IBI, abundance and diversity; NCDWR Sampling Method; Spring Sampling)
The physico‐chemical parameters that will be measured include the following
a. Total Nitrogen
b. Total Phosphorus
c. Fecal Coliform
d. TSS
e. Turbidity
f. Temperature
g. pH
h. Dissolved Oxygen and % Saturation
i. Conductivity
Parameters a through d above will be collected as grab samples for base and elevated flows and will be
analyzed by a State‐certified water quality lab. Items d through i (field parameters) will be measured with
water quality meters in the field using appropriate calibration procedures as per NCDWR methodologies.
12.4.3 Assessment of Functional Changes
Physico‐chemical parameters (Level 4 parameters)
Changes in physico‐chemical parameters will be assessed by comparing statistical distributions from the
pre‐construction (precon) phase to the post‐construction (postcon) monitoring data. The precon baseline
will be compared to each subsequent monitoring year as well as to the postcon data set as a whole. The
results for baseflow and elevated flow measurements will be analyzed independently and together as a
single data set for the precon and postcon conditions. Simple statistical hypothesis testing will be
employed; however, if the variance limits the statistical power then means or, in the case of fecal coliform,
geometric means will simply be compared for % change and plotted. A functional improvement will be
determined when the statistical comparisons for a given parameter indicate improvement for 2 of the
postcon monitoring intervals or for year 7 alone. The latter would be considered a detectable
improvement given that it is possible that some or all of these parameters may require the entire
monitoring period given some of the combinations of site and watershed characteristics as described
above. In the event the statistical power is inadequate, the means will be compared and will need to
demonstrate improvements in the directions described in Table 21 below for 2 of the post‐con
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 42
measurements, one of which must include the year 7 measurement. The greater uncertainty absent
adequate statistical power will require this additional rigor.
Biological parameters (Level 5 parameters)
The primary criteria for indication of improvement for the benthos and fish will be an increase of at least
one bioclassification between the pre‐con assessment and the post‐con monitoring intervals for 2 of the
3 postcon intervals one of which must include year 7. Richness and EPT metrics will be analyzed as well.
Interpretation of Functional Change
The pre‐construction monitoring due to take place over the 2015 calendar year will in part inform the
potential for improvement. Although these channels have poor buffers and are impacted by cattle, it is
possible that certain parameters may demonstrate values that are acceptable/functional even under
current conditions. The table below includes a column titled “High Function Threshold Value.” The values
in this column indicate a level for that parameter, which will likely leave little opportunity for improvement
based on the data references footnoted below the table. This criterion indicates reasonably high quality
in the current condition for the parameter in question. These references included data ranges indicative
of the project ecoregion. This may impact the practical need/ability to examine certain parameters for
functional improvement. EEP anticipates that all of the listed parameters will be measured to characterize
any change regardless. However, it is important to understand that, since these parameters have yet to
be measured, it is possible that the monitoring and analytical plan may need to be adapted to the
observed pre‐construction values. If any changes do arise that reduce the scope and associated cost then
the credit sought will be adjusted proportionally downward as described in Section 7. The table below
also includes NC regulatory limits for the water quality parameters. Collectively, this information is
intended to provide a quality scale. Lastly, the measured values of these parameters will be evaluated at
each interval in the context of the watershed control stations above Mud Lick and above North Branch.
Ultimately, some interpretation will be needed to determine whether observations within the reach can
be attributed to the restoration measures employed or whether they represent fluctuations in influences
from the watershed.
Table 21. Parameter Limits, Ranges, and Improvement Criteria
Parameter Units
NC Regulatory
Standard/Limit
High Function
Threshold Value7
Mud Lick
Improvement Criteria7
Physico‐chem
TN mg/L ‐ <0.7 3,4 Statistical hyp. or reduction in mean
TP ug/L ‐ <35 3,4 Statistical hyp. or reduction in mean
Fecal CFU/100 ml 200 <30 Statistical hyp. or reduction in mean
Turbidity NTU 50 <10 Statistical hyp. or reduction in mean
Temperature C 32 ‐Statistical hyp. or reduction in mean
pH SU 6‐9 >6.5 ‐ <7.8 Statistical hyp. or movement of mean towards
ideal range
DO conc mg/L 4/56 >7.5 Statistical hyp. or increase in mean
DO % Saturation % ‐ >67%8 Statistical hyp. or increase in mean
Conductivity Umhos/cm @ 25C ‐<80 3,4,5 Statistical hyp. or increase in mean
Biology
Benthos Biotic Index1 NA >Good‐Fair >Good Bioclassification moves up at least one class
Fish IBI2 NA >Good‐Fair >Good Bioclassification moves up at least one class
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 43
1 ‐‐Biotic Index – NCDENR ‐ DWQ (2009) Small Stream Biocriteria Development
2 –Index of Biotic Integrity NCDENR – DWR (2013) Stream Fish Community Assessment Program SOP
3 –NCDENR‐DWQ (2004) Technical Memorandum “Rocky River Water Quality Survey – Chatham County”
4 ‐‐USEPA (2000) 822‐B‐00‐019 Ambient Water Quality Criteria Recommendations, Stream Nutrient Criteria for
Ecoregion IX
5 ‐‐NCDENR‐DWQ (2011) “Explorations of Relationships Between Specific Conductance Values and Benthic
Macroinvertebrate Community Bioclassifications in NC
6 ‐‐4 mg/L is instantaneous Standard, 5 mg/L is the daily average
7 ‐‐See explanation of these fields in the narrative immediately above table.
8 ‐‐FDEP (2013) Technical Support Document: “Derivation of Dissolved Oxygen Criteria to Protect Aquatic Life in
Florida’s Fresh and Marine Waters”. Percent Sat criteria utilized for Western Panhandle compatible overlap
with Ecoregion 9 subregion 65.
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.
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 44
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.
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 45
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.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), 2013. Technical Support Document: Derivation
of Dissolved Oxygen Criteria to Protect Aquatic Life in Florida’s Fresh and Marine Waters. Retrieved from:
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/docs/tr_review/do_tsd_032813.pdf
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), 2011. Surface Water Classifications. Retrieved from:
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/csu/classifications
NCDWQ, 2009. Biocriteria for the Small Streams of the North Carolina Mountains and Piedmont:
Memorandum. NC Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. May 29,
2009.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR), 2013. Standard Operating Procedures for
Collection and Analysis of Macroinvertebrates. Retrieved from:
http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=255ca6f8‐02ac‐402f‐98c3‐
caab1fbb931b&groupId=38364
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR), 2013. Standard Operating Procedure Biological
Monitoring – Stream Fish Community Assessment Program. Retrieved from:
http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?p_l_id=1169848&folderId=125626&name=DLFE‐
78577.pdf
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.
Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 46
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC), 2010. HEC‐RAS River Analysis System
User’s Manual, Version 4.1. Retrieved from: http://www.hec.usace.army.mil/software/hec‐
ras/documentation/HEC‐RAS_4.1_Users_Manual.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2000. Ambient Water Quality Criteria Recommendations,
Stream Nutrient Criteria for Ecoregion IX. Retrieved from:
http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/rivers9.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.
Mud Lick Creek
E
a
st
B
r
a
n
c
h
N o r t h B r a n c h
Mud Lick Creek
N orth Branch
M u d L i c k C r e e k
South Branch
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 1
Reach 1
Reach 2
EasementBreak
EasementBreak
S
i
l
e
r
C
i
t
y
S
n
o
w
C
a
m
p
R
d
Silk H
o
p
e Lib
erty R
d
B
a
i
l
e
y
D
u
n
c
a
n
R
d
Tom Stevens Rd
4_NBWC
3_MLDN
2_MLUP
5_NBDN
1_MLWC
Project Location
Easement
Parcels
Streams
Stream Design
Restoration
Enhancement II
SupplementaryMonitoring Stations
Figure 10 Supplementary Monitoring StationsMud Lick Creek Mitigation SiteMitigation PlanEEP #93482
Chatham County, NC0400200Feet