20141127 Ver 1_Mit Plan Revision_20160323

Strickland, Bev
From:Melia, Gregory
Sent:Wednesday, March 23, 2016 6:01 AM
To:Baker, Virginia; Andrea Hughes ([e-mail]); Haupt, Mac
Cc:Schaffer, Jeff; Jeff Keaton ([e-mail]); Russell, Periann
Subject:RE: meeting
Attachments:Mud Lick Creek Mit Plan 3-23-2016 Revision.docx
Folks,

The attached includes sections highlighted in yellow that are relevant to our discussion the other day.

Note:
The Qual 4 reference was already in the footnote of table 20
There was a reference to the stage recorder and rain gage is section 12.2.2, but I beefed things up on this topic in
section 12.2.5
I removed some of the detail we discussed.

Once you are OK with the revisions here I can PDF this and integrate this with the existing version and make sure all
parties get a copy.

Hopefully this will permit issuance of the permit by Friday.

I will be in the field through mid-afternoon and then back in the office.

Thanks,

Greg

From: Baker, Virginia
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 4:39 PM
To: Melia, Gregory <[e-mail]>
Cc: Higgins, Karen <[e-mail]>; Haupt, Mac <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: meeting

Hi Greg,
I will be working part of the day tomorrow at home so if the revisions to the Mudlick Plan are done please send them to
th
me. Otherwise I will review them when I get back on Apr 4, I’m not sure of Mac will want to issue this before then.
th
Please, see my comments below in your March 18 email. I was going to see if Karen had any other input, but she has
not had a chance to get back to me.
Ginny

From: Melia, Gregory
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 8:46 PM
To: Baker, Virginia <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: meeting

Thanks Ginny
1

OK, that makes sense. I could see you wanting that in the permit language

Have a good weekend

Please Note our new Department Name Below

Greg Melia
Stream Sciences and Monitoring Specialist | Science & Analysis Section |
NC Dept of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services |
Mail: 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 | Office: 217 West Jones St, Suite 3000A, Raleigh, NC 27603
Office: 919.707.8919 | Fax: [phone] | Mobile: [phone] | http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/eep
Parking and visitor access information

E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to

third parties.

From: Baker, Virginia
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 6:14 PM
To: Melia, Gregory <[e-mail]>
Cc: Haupt, Mac <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: meeting

Hey Greg, Thanks for checking on the base samples Wildlands collected. Since the plan will need to have some flexibility
in regards to base samples, assuming the results direct you to move forward I wanted to check with Karen on my
response to item 3. We can permit the plan as is, you are right there, but we might want to put some kind of a
“disclaimer” in our permit conditions regarding the extra wq monitoring methodology. I should be able to get back to
you early next week when I hear back from Karen. Number 1 and 2 are clear since we discussed.

Ginny
From: Melia, Gregory
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 11:15 AM
To: Baker, Virginia <[e-mail]>
Cc: Haupt, Mac <[e-mail]>; Schaffer, Jeff <[e-mail]>; Andrea Hughes
([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: meeting

Ginny,

Just glancing at the Wildlands pre-work it looks like the results were a lot better organized than I thought, but it looks
they have 4 base flow and 4 storm flow samples at this point for the physico-chemical parameters. That’s not enough
obviously, but I would like to leave it open because I’m hoping that I will be able to get out with our summer interns or
tech and get more samples. Bet estimate for construction is October-Nov. Alternatively I may be able to locate a
neighboring disturbed site further up in the watershed that will serve as a “disturbed proxy” and we could collect
supplemental data from to pool with the data we’ve already collected to characterize the pre-con condition.

My thought on using another site further upstream as a “disturbed proxy” seems to be an approach that should be
avoided. I would think this would introduce too much variability into your sample design and analysis, although I would
be open to hearing what Jamie and your contacts at NC State think about that.
2

Collecting some additional baseline data this summer with an intern would be more useful and seems to be a better
approach. Could language be added to your revision of the methodology (even if these are potential plans) along these
lines?

From my point of view, the language in the mit plan and the above makes 3 things clear:

1.The supplemental credit sought is contingent upon the cost, so the exact amount will never be known in

advance, only that it will not exceed 10% (and will in all likelihood be substantially less than that) Yes

2.The pre-con and/or disturbed data set will inform the final scope, which now looks like we won’t know for sure

at least until the fall based on my discussion above. (Yes, see above)

3.The supplemental credit being sought exists outside the mitigation per se and the permit is really to properly

consider and account for impacts and to some extent approve the mitigation/mitigation approach. It seems
what we are proposing here is “firewalled” from those functions of the permitting process, so should it matter if
we move forward with some uncertainty given what is spelled out in the plan? As I mentioned before since the
water quality methodology is still in this “flexible” state and the fact that the whole sampling may or may not
move forward DWR would probably put a “disclaimer” in our approval conditions. Generally I am more
comfortable with the macroinvertebrate and fish methodology (and success criteria) that was proposed since
those are DWR methods that have been tested and used for a number of years. Please be sure to reference the
methodology and mention the Qual 4 macroinvertebrate procedure you plan to use since there are four
methods in that SOP for macroinverts. Larry Eaton had expressed some concern about who would do the IDs
and also I think about carrying out the procedure correctly. It is possible someone from the lab could answer
questions or do some brief training on the Qual 4 procedures.

Again, I don’t have a lot of the regulatory perspective on this, but given what I’ve stated above, let us know your
thoughts.

Thanks,

Greg

Please Note our new Department Name Below

Greg Melia
Stream Sciences and Monitoring Specialist | Science & Analysis Section |
NC Dept of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services |
Mail: 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 | Office: 217 West Jones St, Suite 3000A, Raleigh, NC 27603
Office: 919.707.8919 | Fax: [phone] | Mobile: [phone] | http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/eep
Parking and visitor access information

E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to

third parties.

3

From: Baker, Virginia
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 5:48 PM
To: Melia, Gregory <[e-mail]>
Cc: Haupt, Mac <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: meeting

Hi Greg, Thanks, I’m sure if you are going on vacation as I am you have a number of things to get done before you leave
so I understand.

I think your saying that no extra credit would be sought if the pre –data indicated the effort was not worthwhile may
have been in there and I missed it, but we discussed that in the meeting so that part is clear. I was kind of wandering
about the number of event samples for the pre data, if you ended up obtaining too few (<12-14? Jamie had mentioned
17?) would you then move forward or not? I know you were also going to look at the WQ results in making your
decision, but I was not real clear on exactly what the deciding factor would be.

I’m not 100% certain about moving forward with the permit when the extra credits are hinging on the baseline results
being evaluated first, I’m also too new to the regulatory world and have not issued permits to have an answer to your
question on flexibility. That one so I might like to have Mac confer with Karen first before issuing the 401 while these
prelim results are pending. This is also a unique project so there’s that too. Since it sounds like you will have the data
assessed and we will still be within the 60d window (although not the 30d window) it may not be an issue.
Ginny

From: Melia, Gregory
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 3:38 PM
To: Baker, Virginia <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: meeting

Thanks, Ginny

Yes, I will try and get a look at that as soon as I can, but I’m out the week after next and I’ve got a ton to get done on
many fronts before then. So, I can get the revised mit plan text by next week, but I’m not sure about the assessment of
the pre-data.

Doesn’t my language in the narrative that indicates that the pre-data once assessed will help inform the final monitoring
plan (which can range from nothing, to implementing the full plan) kind of address the concern?

Again, I don’t have the regulatory perspective in mind a lot of the time, so is there a problem with the mit plan moving
forward with this kind of flexibility?

If so, let me know

Thanks,

Greg

Please Note our new Department Name Below

Greg Melia
Stream Sciences and Monitoring Specialist | Science & Analysis Section |
NC Dept of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services |
4

Mail: 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 | Office: 217 West Jones St, Suite 3000A, Raleigh, NC 27603
Office: 919.707.8919 | Fax: [phone] | Mobile: [phone] | http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/eep
Parking and visitor access information

E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to

third parties.

From: Baker, Virginia
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 2:54 PM
To: Melia, Gregory <[e-mail]>
Cc: Haupt, Mac <[e-mail]>; Hughes, Andrea W SAW <[e-mail]>; Schaffer, Jeff
<[e-mail]>
Subject: meeting

Hey Greg, thanks again for planning the meeting today, I felt much more comfortable with my questions being answered
and your approach moving forward. If you are able to get the revisions out by next Wed before I go on vacation that
would be much appreciated. Also, if you are able, to can you let me know the number of sample events (base and storm
flow) that occurred for the baseline conditions. You had indicated the wq baseline is complete now, right (?), but it will
be 2-3 more weeks before the baseline is reviewed and you know if this extra sampling will go forward.

Thanks!

Ginny Baker
Transportation Permitting Unit
NCDEQ-Division of Water Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Phone-[phone], Fax-[phone]

5

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

October, 2014

DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN

Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site
Chatham County, North Carolina
DENR Contract No. D14001i
SCO No. 1209857-01
EEP ID No. 93482

Cape Fear River Basin
HUC 03030003

Prepared for:

NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

Prepared by:

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
5605 Chapel Hill Road, Suite 122
Raleigh, NC 27607
Phone – 919-851-9986

October, 2014

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

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

Register Title 33 Navigation and Navigable Waters Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section § 332.8
paragraphs (c)(2) through (c)(14).

NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program In-Lieu Fee Instrument signed and dated July

28, 2010.
These documents govern EEP operations and procedures for the delivery of compensatory
mitigation.

Mud Lick Creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................... I

1.0RESTORATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES.................................................................. 1

2.0PROJECT SITE LOCATION AND SELECTION ............................................................................. 2

2.1DPS ...................................................................................................... 2
IRECTIONS TO ROJECT ITE

2.2SSPC ................................................................................... 2
ITE ELECTION AND ROJECT OMPONENTS

3.0SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT ........................................................................................... 2

4.0BASELINE INFORMATION...................................................................................................... 3

4.1WEC .............................................................................................. 3
ATERSHED XISTING ONDITIONS

4.2WHLUDT ......................................................... 3
ATERSHED ISTORICAL AND SE AND EVELOPMENT RENDS

4.3P,G,S ........................................................................................... 4
HYSIOGRAPHY EOLOGY AND OILS

4.4VC.............................................................................................................. 5
ALLEY LASSIFICATION

4.5SWCWQ .................................................................... 5
URFACE ATER LASSIFICATION AND ATER UALITY

4.6ESC ..................................................................................................... 5
XISTING TREAM ONDITION

4.7CE ................................................................................................................ 9
HANNEL VOLUTION

4.8CS ................................................................................................................. 10
HANNEL TABILITY

4.9USA ....................................................................................................... 11
TILITIES AND ITE CCESS

5.0REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS ......................................................................................... 11

5.1401/404 ............................................................................................................................. 11

5.2TES ...................................................................................... 13
HREATENED AND NDANGERED PECIES

5.3FDCH ................................................................................... 15
EDERALLY ESIGNATED RITICAL ABITAT

5.4CR ............................................................................................................. 15
ULTURAL ESOURCES

5.5SEM .............................................................................................. 15
ITE VALUATION ETHODOLOGY

5.6SHPO/THPOC ................................................................................................... 16
ONCURRENCE

5.7FEMAFCHT ......................................................... 16
LOODPLAIN OMPLIANCE AND YDROLOGIC RESPASS

6.0REFERENCE SITES ............................................................................................................... 16

6.1RS ............................................................................................................... 16
EFERENCE TREAMS

6.2CMCRS ............................................... 16
HANNEL ORPHOLOGY AND LASSIFICATION OF EFERENCE TREAMS

6.3RSVCTD ................................................ 17
EFERENCE TREAMS EGETATION OMMUNITY YPES ESCRIPTIONS

7.0DETERMINATION OF CREDITS ............................................................................................. 20

8.0CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE ................................................................................................ 22

8.1IARC ................................................................................... 23
NITIAL LLOCATION OF ELEASED REDITS

8.2SCR .................................................................................................. 23
UBSEQUENT REDIT ELEASES

9.0PROJECT SITE MITIGATION PLAN ........................................................................................ 23

9.1JPI ................................................................................ 23
USTIFICATION FOR ROPOSED NTERVENTION

9.2SREDO ........................................................ 24
TREAM ESTORATION AND NHANCEMENT ESIGN VERVIEW

9.3DBDA ...................................................................................... 24
ESIGN ANKFULL ISCHARGE NALYSIS

9.4DCMP ............................................................................. 25
ESIGN HANNEL ORPHOLOGIC ARAMETERS

9.5STA ................................................................................................ 27
EDIMENT RANSPORT NALYSIS

9.6PI ....................................................................................................... 29
ROJECT MPLEMENTATION

10.0MAINTENANCE PLAN ......................................................................................................... 30

11.0PERFORMANCE STANDARDS .............................................................................................. 31

11.1S .............................................................................................................................. 32
TREAMS

11.2V.......................................................................................................................... 32
EGETATION

11.3VA .............................................................................................................. 33
ISUAL SSESSMENTS

12.0MONITORING PLAN ............................................................................................................ 33

12.1SSM..............................................................E!B.
ITE PECIFIC ONITORINGRROR OOKMARK NOT DEFINED

12.2S .............................................................................................................................. 34
TREAMS

Mud Lick Creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page ii

12.3VA .............................................................................................................. 36
ISUAL SSESSMENTS

12.4SMP ................................................................................... 37
UPPLEMENTARY ONITORING ROGRAM

13.0LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN ..................................................................................... 39

14.0ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN ......................................................................................... 39

15.0FINANCIAL ASSURANCES .................................................................................................... 40

16.0REFERENCES....................................................................................................................... 41

TABLES

TABLE 1. SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT ........................................................................................... 2

TABLE 2.PROJECT AND WATERSHED INFORMATION........................................................................... 3

TABLE 3.FLOODPLAIN SOIL TYPES AND DESCRIPTIONS ....................................................................... 4

TABLE 4.REACH SUMMARY INFORMATION ........................................................................................ 5

TABLE 5A.EXISTING STREAM CONDITIONS – MUD LICK CREEK .............................................................. 6

TABLE 5B.EXISTING STREAM CONDITIONS – NORTH BRANCH AND EAST BRANCH ................................ 8

TABLE 6.EXISTING CONDITIONS CHANNEL STABILITY ASSESSMENT RESULTS .................................... 11

TABLE 7.WETLAND SUMMARY INFORMATION ................................................................................. 12

TABLE 8.LISTED THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES IN CHATHAM COUNTY, NC ..................... 14

TABLE 11A.SUMMARY OF REFERENCE REACH GEOMORPHIC PARAMETERS .......................................... 17

TABLE 11B.SUMMARY OF REFERENCE REACH GEOMORPHIC PARAMETERS .......................................... 18

TABLE 12.DETERMINATION OF CREDITS ............................................................................................. 20

TABLE 13.CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE – STREAM CREDITS .................................................................. 22

TABLE 14.DESIGN BANKFULL DISCHARGE ANALYSIS SUMMARY.......................................................... 25

TABLE 15. DESIGN MORPHOLOGIC PARAMETERS................................................................................ 26

TABLE 16. COMPETENCE ANALYSIS RESULTS ....................................................................................... 28

TABLE 17. CAPACITY ANALYSIS RESULTS ............................................................................................. 29

FIGURES
FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP
FIGURE 2 SITE EXISTING CONDITIONS MAP
FIGURE 3 USGS TOPO MAP
FIGURE 4 WATERSHED MAP
FIGURE 5 SITE SOIL SURVEY MAP
FIGURE 6 HYDRO FEATURES MAP
FIGURE 7 REFERENCE SITES VICINITY MAP
FIGURE 8 DESIGN OVERVIEW MAP
FIGURE 9 REGIONAL CURVES AND DISCHARGE ESTIMATES DATA

APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1 PROJECT SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
APPENDIX 2 HISTORIC AERIAL PHOTOS
APPENDIX 3 NCDWQ STREAM CLASSIFICATION FORMS
APPENDIX 4 EXISTING CONDITIONS GEOMORPHIC DATA
APPENDIX 5 USACE WETLAND DATA FORMS
APPENDIX 6 CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
APPENDIX 7 RESOURCE AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE

APPENDIX 8 FLOODPLAIN CHECK LIST

Mud Lick Creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page iii

1.0Restoration 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 1


Calibrate expectations regarding what levels of improvement can be observed in those

timeframes for different levels of restoration.

Better tailor goals and performance standards in the future.

Given the investigative nature of these data, these parameters will not be used in determination of
mitigation success and associated crediting; rather credits will be issued in an amount proportional to
the actual monitoring costs, not to exceed 10% of the total mitigation credit yield. The supplemental
credits will only be sought and issued when there is confidence that the data collected permits a reliable
comparison between the pre-con and post-con condition.

2.0Project Site Location and Selection

2.1Directions 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.
2.2Site 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.
3.0Site Protection Instrument

The land required for construction, management, and stewardship of the mitigation project includes
portions of the parcel(s) listed in Table 1. A conservation easement was recorded on the parcel in 2006.
Additional acreage was added to the easement to accommodate the updated site design.
Table 1. Site Protection Instrument
Landowner PIN County Site Protection Deed Book and Acreage
Instrument Page Number Protected
Thomas Grayson Heirs 8775-11-1240 Chatham Conservation DB: 1233 PG: 849 1 11.23
Easement
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.

Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 2

4.0Baseline Information

4.1 Watershed Existing Conditions

Table 2 presents the project information and baseline watershed information. The watershed areas
were delineated using a combination of site existing conditions survey, Chatham County GIS data and
USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles (Figure 3).
Table 2. Project and Watershed Information
Project County Chatham County
Easement Area (acres) 11.2
Project Coordinates 35° 48’ 46’’ N, 79° 26’ 6’’W
Physiographic Region Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province
Ecoregion Piedmont
River Basin Cape Fear
USGS HUC (8 digit, 14 digit) 03030003, 03030003070010
NCDWQ Sub-basin 03-06-12
Reaches MLC-R1 MLC-R2 MLC-R3 NB-R1 NB-R2 EB
Drainage Area (acres 1,747 2,170 2,330 236.8 416 172.8
)
Drainage Area (miles 2) 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%

4.2Watershed 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

Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 3

potential stressors. Consistent with information depicted in aerial photography, land use within the
Mud Lick Creek watershed is predominantly forest and agricultural production. Disturbed areas within
the watershed consist primarily of tillage for new crop planting. As this is a long-term, on-going practice
(dating to before 1973) it is not considered a new stressor to the watershed. There are no signs of
impending land use changes or development pressure that would impact the project evident in the Mud
Lick Creek Watershed. The Conservation Easement will eliminate potential for future development or
agricultural use in the immediate area of the onsite streams.
4.3Physiography, 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 soils are somewhat poorly drained
soils located in floodplains, which flood
Mud Lick Creek-R3 frequently. Wehadkee soils are poorly drained
Chewacla and Wehadkee soils, 0-2% slopes
near culvert soils located in depressions on floodplains,
which flood frequently. Both have high water
capacities.
Cid and Lignum soils are moderately well
Mud Lick Creek-R2, drained soils located in Interfluves with low
Cid-Lignum Complex, 2-6% slopes
Mud Lick Creek- R3 water capacity. This soil is not subject to
flooding.
Mud Lick Creek-R1,
Nanford-Badin complexes are well drained
Mud Lick Creek-R2,
soils located on hillsides on ridges with low
Nanford-Badin Complex, 6-10% slopes North Branch-R1,
water capacity. This soil is not frequently
North Branch-R2,
subject to flooding.
East Branch
Floodplain of Mud Georgeville silt loam is a well-drained soil
Georgeville silt loam, 2-6% slopes Lick Creek-R2 and located in interfluves with a high water
Mud Lick Creek-R3 capacity. This soil is not subject to flooding.

Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 4

Source: NRCS Web Soil Survey

4.4Valley Classification

The topography around the project site primarily consists of gently rolling hills interspersed with narrow
valleys. The stream valleys on site are characterized by relatively narrow floodplains with side slopes
ranging from 8% - 20% and valley slopes ranging from 0.1% to 1%. The project streams flow through
alluvial valleys in a fluvial-dissected landscape.
4.5Surface 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.
4.6Existing 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 Mud Lick Mud Lick North North
East

Creek -Creek –Creek –Branch-Branch-
Branch
R1 R2 R3 R1 R2
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

Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 5

Mud Lick Mud Lick Mud Lick North North
East

Creek -Creek –Creek –Branch-Branch-
Branch
R1 R2 R3 R1 R2
Drainage Area (acres) 1,747 2,170 2,330 236.8 416 172.8
Drainage Area (miles 2) 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 E4 C4 E4 E4 B4c B4c
Conditions
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
Mud Lick Creek-Mud Lick Creek -Mud Lick Creek-
Parameter Notation Units
R1 R2 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 A SF 41.3 47.5 46.3
bkf
avg velocity during bankfull event v fps 3 3 3.4
bkf
width at bankfull w feet 18.2 24.6 22
bkf

Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 6

Mud Lick Creek-Mud Lick Creek -Mud Lick Creek-
Parameter Notation Units
R1 R2 R3
min max min max min max
maximum depth at bankfull d feet 4.2 3 4
max
mean depth at bankfull d feet 2.3 1.9 2.1
bkf
bankfull width to depth ratio w/d 8 12.8 10.5
bkfbkf
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 d feet 4.4 3.7 5.2
pool
pool depth ratio d/d 1.1 1.2 1.3
poolbkf
pool width at bankfull w feet 19.1 25.9 24.7
pool
pool width ratio w/w 1.05 1.05 1.1
poolbkf
Bkf pool cross-sectional area A SF 58.1 65.5 69.7
pool
pool area ratio A/A 1.4 1.4 1.5
poolbkf
floodprone area width w feet 250 306 378
fpa
entrenchment ratio ER 13.7 12.4 17.2
valley slope S feet/ foot 0.0031 0.0043 0.001
valley
channel slope 1 S feet/ foot 0.002 0.002 0.003
channel
sinuosity K 1.37 1.35 1.2
belt width w feet 26.1 69.9 38.8 67.0 33.0 67.0
blt
meander width ratio w/w 1.4 3.8 1.6 2.7 1.5 3.0
bltbkf
meander length L feet 144.9 244.4 59.9 208.7 70.5 174.2
m
meander length ratio L/w 8.0 13.4 2.4 8.5 3.2 7.9
mbkf
radius of curvature R feet 9.9 36.7 12.9 58.8 10.9 38.5
c
radius of curvature ratio R/ w 0.54 2.01 0.53 2.39 0.50 1.75
cbkf
Particle Size Distribution from Reachwide Pebble Count
d Description very fine gravel medium gravel fine gravel
50
d mm Sand 2 Sand 2 Sand 2
16
d mm Sand 2 2.8 Sand 2
35
d mm 1.7 8 6
50
d mm 15 21 28
84
d mm 36 76 58
95
d mm bedrock 362 bedrock
100
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

Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 7

dominated by a sand and fine gravel substrate. The sinuosity of the Reach 1 channel is less than that of
the Reach 2 channel. Reach 1 runs along the northwestern edge of its valley and the left floodplain is
much more extensive than the right floodplain. Reach 2 moves more to the center of its valley as it
approaches the confluence with Mud Lick Creek. It is unclear if the channel has been straightened or
relocated in the past. Livestock access to North Branch has been prohibited in Reach 1 in recent years.
As a result, the riparian zone is characterized by young early successional trees such as sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua) and red maple. The Reach 2 riparian zone is more sparsely vegetated with a
few trees such as sweetgum, red maple, river birch, and sycamore (Platanus occidentalis). Chinese
privet is also common along this reach. Results of the existing conditions morphologic survey of North
Branch are summarized in Table 5b. Morphologic survey data are included in Appendix 4.
East Branch
The valley slope and the channel slope for this reach are the steepest of any of the project reaches. This
reach has been recently fenced to prohibit cattle access and contains young early successional trees
dominated by sweetgum and red maple. While there is significant evidence of channel degradation
from past livestock access, sections of the reach have begun to stabilize and become vegetated. This
channel is narrow and deep and is severely incised. The bed is mostly sand and fine gravel, though there
is some larger gravel and cobble material, and the bedforms are dominated by riffles and runs with a
few shallow pools. The valley floor is narrow at the upstream end and widens significantly near the
confluence with North Branch. The channel is very straight and there is a remnant channel near the
downstream section indicating that this reach has been straightened and moved in the past. Results of
the existing conditions morphologic survey of East Branch are summarized in Table 5b. Morphologic
survey data are included in Appendix 4.

Table 5b. Existing Stream Conditions – North Branch and East Branch
North Branch-R1 North Branch-R2 East Branch
Parameter Notation Units
min max min max
stream type E5 B5c B4c
drainage area DA sq mi 0.37 0.65 0.27
bankfull cross-sectional area A SF 7.7 12.7 4.8
bkf
avg velocity during bankfull v fps 3.3 3.5 4.2
bkf
event
width at bankfull w feet 10.4 8.3 4.3
bkf
maximum depth at bankfull d feet 1.5 2.3 1.4
max
mean depth at bankfull d feet 0.7 1.5 1.1
bkf
bankfull width to depth ratio w/d 14 5.4 3.9
bkfbkf
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 d feet 2.1 2.7 1.6
pool
pool depth ratio d/d 1.4 1.17 1.1
poolbkf
pool width at bankfull w feet 6.3 9.3 6.1
pool
pool width ratio w/w 0.6 1.12 1.4
poolbkf
Bkf pool cross-sectional area A SF 8.2 16.2 7.2
pool
pool area ratio A/A 1.1 1.3 1.5
poolbkf
floodprone area width w feet 33.3 80 23
fpa

Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 8

North Branch-R1 North Branch-R2 East Branch
Parameter Notation Units
min max min max
entrenchment ratio ER 10.1 1.9 2.1
valley slope S feet/ 0.0048 0.0076 0.0098
valley
foot
channel slope 1 S feet/ 0.01 0.005 0.013
channel
foot
sinuosity K 1.22 1.32 1
belt width w feet 11 35 17 38.5 --
blt
meander width ratio w/w 1.1 3.4 2 4.6 --
bltbkf
meander length L feet 39.9 100.6 37.9 88.3 --
m
meander length ratio L/w 3.8 9.7 4.6 10.6 --
mbkf
radius of curvature R feet 10.7 23.2 6.1 37 --
c
radius of curvature ratio R/ w 1.03 2.23 0.73 4.46 --
cbkf
Particle Size Distribution from Reachwide Pebble Count
Medium
d Description Sand
50
Gravel

d mm Sand 2 Sand 2
16
d mm Sand 2 6.1
35
d mm Sand 2 10
50
d mm 8 15
84
d mm 15 27
95
d mm 32 64
100
1. Channel slopes are specific to the length of profile.

2.Sand particles were not measured.

4.7Channel 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

Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 9

Branch followed a similar evolutionary pattern post-disturbance. The degree of channel incision is
greater than Mud Lick Creek and it has not yet moved beyond Stage IV. East Branch appears to have
been channelized at some point in the past and has a similar degree of incision as North Branch. The
stream was recently fenced and livestock access has been prohibited, therefore, some banks have begun
to stabilize. However, there are few new bankfull features forming and the stream is at the beginning of
Stage IV.
4.8Channel 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.

Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 10

Table 6. Existing Conditions Channel Stability Assessment Results
Parameter Mud Lick Mud Lick Mud Lick North North East
Creek R1 Creek R2 Creek R3 Branch R1 Branch R2 Branch
1. Watershed characteristics 4 4 4 4 4 4
2. Flow habit 3 3 3 3 3 3
3. Channel pattern 3 3 4 5 6 7
4. Entrenchment 9 9 8 8 10 8
5. Bed material 9 10 10 6 6 6
6. Bar development 6 6 7 4 6 6
7. Obstructions 7 9 8 5 5 5
8. Bank soil texture and 5 5 5 5 5 5
coherence
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
failure
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)
4.9Utilities 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.
5.0Regulatory Considerations

5.1401/404

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

Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 11

F exhibited pockets of shallow inundation, saturation within the upper twelve inches of the soil profile,
and low chroma soils (10YR 4/2 to 2.5Y 6/2). Vegetation within Wetlands A and F is entirely herbaceous
due to cattle grazing activities. Wetlands B and C are small linear depressions in the pasture that are
inundated for long periods. These wetlands exhibited inundation of a foot or more, aquatic fauna,
saturation within the upper twelve inches of the soil profile, and low chroma soils (10YR 5/1 to 2.5Y 5/2)
with distinct mottles (7.5YR 4/6). Due to long term inundation and grazing herbaceous vegetation is
primarily only along the edges of these two wetland areas. Wetland D is a mix of herbaceous pasture
and grazed woods. Wetland E exhibited shallow inundation, water-stained leaves, and low chroma soils
(10YR 5/2) with distinct mottles (10YR 3/4). This wetland is entirely herbaceous due to cattle grazing.
Using the North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NCWAM) and best professional judgment,
Wetlands A and F were classified as bottomland hardwood forest. Wetlands B and C were classified as
floodplain pools and Wetland D and E as headwater forest wetland types. The NCWAM was also used to
assess the level of hydrologic function, water quality, and habitat condition of on-site wetlands. The on-
site wetlands scored out as moderate (Wetlands A, D, E, and F) to high (Wetlands B and C) functioning
systems when compared to reference conditions. All on-site wetlands have been heavily impacted by
vegetation management and, therefore, all had low habitat function ratings with poor connections to
adjacent natural habitats. NCWAM Wetland Rating Sheets representative of these jurisdictional wetland
areas are included in Appendix 5. Table 7 presents the project information and baseline wetland
information. The date of the approved Jurisdictional Determination is June 19, 2014.
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-Riparian Riparian Riparian
riverine)
Nanford-Badin Nanford-Badin Cid-Lignum complex
Mapped Soil Series
complex complex and Georgeville
Moderate to well
Drainage Class Well drained Well drained
drained
Soil Hydric Series N/A N/A N/A
Groundwater, Groundwater, Groundwater,
Source of Hydrology
overbank flooding overbank flooding overbank flooding
Hydrologic Impairment Ditching N/A N/A
Piedmont Alluvial Piedmont Alluvial Piedmont Alluvial
Native vegetation community
Forest Forest Forest
% exotic invasive vegetation 0% 0% 0%

Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 12

Wetland D Wetland E Wetland F
Size of Wetland (acres) 0.03 0.02 0.005
Wetland Type (non-riparian,
Riparian Riparian Riparian
riparian riverine, or riparian non-
riverine)
Chewacla and Nanford-Badin
Mapped Soil Series Cid-Lignum complex
Wehadkee complex
Somewhat poorly
Drainage Class Well drained Moderate to well drained
drained
Chewacla and
Soil Hydric Series N/A N/A
Wehadkee
Groundwater, Groundwater, Groundwater, overbank
Source of Hydrology
overbank flooding overbank flooding flooding
Hydrologic Impairment N/A N/A N/A
Piedmont Alluvial Piedmont Alluvial
Native vegetation community Piedmont Alluvial Forest
Forest Forest
% exotic invasive vegetation 0% 0% 0%

5.2Threatened and Endangered Species

5.2.1Site Evaluation Methodology

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), defines protection for
species with the Federal Classification of Threatened (T) or Endangered (E). An “Endangered Species” is
defined as “any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range” and a “Threatened Species” is defined as “any species which is likely to become an Endangered
Species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range” (16 U.S.C.
1532).
Wildlands utilized the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program (NHP) databases in order to identify federally listed Threatened and Endangered plant and
animal species for Chatham County, NC (USFWS, 2010 and NHP, 2013). Four federally listed species are
currently listed in Chatham County (Table 8): red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), the bald
eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas), and harperella (Ptilimnium
nodosum). The Categorical Exclusion (included in Appendix 6) has been approved by the Federal
Highway Administration.

Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 13

Table 8. Listed Threatened and Endangered Species in Chatham County, NC
Federal
Species Habitat Biological Conclusion
Status
Vertebrate
Red-cockaded woodpecker
E Open stands of mature pines No effect
(Picoides borealis)
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus Near large open water bodies:
BGPA No effect
leucocephalus) lakes, marshes, seacoasts, and
rivers
Cape Fear shiner (Notropis Pools, riffles, and runs of rocky,
E No effect
mekistocholas) clean freshwater streams
Vascular Plant
Rocky or gravely shoals of clear
Harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum) E No effect
swift-moving streams
T (S/A) =Threatened due to similarity of appearance, BGPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
5.2.2Threatened 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 14

Harparella
Harperella is an obligate, annual vascular plant ranging in height from 6 to 36 inches. This plant exhibits
small white clusters of flowers at the stem tops similar to Queen Anne’s lace. This species typically
flowers from May until the first frost. Ideal habitat for this species includes pond and riverine areas with
gravelly shoals of clear, swift-flowing streams. These areas typically require moderately intensive spring
floods to scour gravel bars and rock crevices to remove any competing vegetation. Known population
occurrences of harperella have been observed in Chatham County within the past 20 years.
5.2.3Biological 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.
5.2.4USFWS 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.
5.3Federally 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.
5.4Cultural Resources

5.5Site 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 15

5.6SHPO/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.
5.7FEMA 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.
6.0Reference Sites

6.1Reference 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.
6.2Channel 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 16

6.3Reference 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 Q cfs 20 97
bkf
bankfull cross-sectional area A SF 5.4 12.4 17.8 19.7
bkf
average bankfull velocity v fps 2.2 3.5 4.9 5.4
bkf
Cross Section
width at bankfull w feet 5.3 10.9 10.7 11.2
bkf
maximum depth at bankfull d feet 1.4 1.7 2.1 2.6
max
mean depth at bankfull d feet 1.0 1.1 1.6 1.8
bkf
bankfull width to depth ratio w/d 5.2 9.6 5.8 7.1
bkfbkf

depth ratio d/d 1.4 1.7 1.3 1.4
maxbkf

bank height ratio BHR 1.0 1.1 1.0

floodprone area width w feet 25 65 60 >114
fpa
entrenchment ratio ER 3.2 8.3 5.5 >10.2

Slope
valley slope S ft/ft 0.017 0.0109
valley
channel slope S ft/ft 0.012 0.0047
channel
Profile
riffle slope S ft/ft 0.004 0.047 0.013
riffle
riffle slope ratio S/S 0.3 4 2.8
rifflechannel

pool slope S ft/ft 0.017 0.0007 0.0009
pool

Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 17

UT to Polecat Creek Spencer Creek 1
Parameter Notation Units min max min max
pool slope ratio Sl/S 1.4 0.15 0.19
poochannel

pool-to-pool spacing L feet 34 52 71
p-p
pool spacing ratio L/w 0.3 3.2 6.3 6.6
p-pbkf

pool cross-sectional area at A SF 9.3 24.5
pool
bankfull
pool area ratio A/A 0.8 1.7 1.2 1.4
poolbkf

maximum pool depth at
d feet 1.8 3.3
pool
bankfull
pool depth ratio d/d 1.6 1.8 1.8 2.0
poolbkf

pool width at bankfull w feet 8 17.5
pool
pool width ratio w/w 0.7 1.5 1.6
poolbkf

Pattern
sinuosity K 1.4 2.3

belt width w feet 28 50 38 41
blt
meander width ratio w/w 3.0 5.3 3.4 3.6
bltbkf

linear wavelength L feet 56 85 46 48
m
linear wavelength ratio L/w 6.0 9.0 4.1 4.4
mbkf

meander length feet -- -- -- --

meander length ratio -- -- -- --

radius of curvature R feet 19 50 11 15
c
radius of curvature ratio R/ w 2.0 5.3 1.3 1.4
cbkf

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 Q cfs 35 40
bkf

Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 18

Spencer Creek 2 UT To Cane Creek
Parameter Notation Units min max min max
bankfull cross-sectional
A SF 6.6 8.7 8.9 12.2
bkf
area
average velocity during
v fps 5 5.6 3.8
bkf
bankfull event
Cross-Section
width at bankfull w feet 6.3 9.3 11.5 12.3
bkf
maximum depth at
d feet 1 1.2 1.2 1.6
max
bankfull
mean depth at bankfull d feet 0.8 1.0 0.8 1.0
bkf
bankfull width to depth
w/d 7.9 9.3 12.3 14.4
bkfbkf
ratio
depth ratio d/d 1.2 1.3 1.7
maxbkf
bank height ratio BHR 1.0 1.0 -- --
floodprone area width w feet 14 125 31
fpa
entrenchment ratio ER 1.7 4.3 >2.5
Slope
valley slope S ft/ft 0.022 0.031 0.0262
valley
channel slope S ft/ft 0.019 0.022 0.015
channel
Profile
riffle slope S ft/ft 0.0184 0.0343 0.0188 0.0704
riffle
riffle slope ratio S/S 1 1.6 1.3 4.7
rifflechannel
pool slope S ft/ft 0.0007 0.014 0.0005 0.0108
pool
pool slope ratio Sl/S 0 0.6 0 0.72
poochannel
pool-to-pool spacing L feet 9 46 27 73
p-p
pool spacing ratio L/w 1.4 4.9 2.3 6.1
p-pbkf
pool cross-sectional area A SF 6.5 9.8 11.9
pool
at bankfull
pool area ratio A/A 1 1.1 1 1.3
poolbkf
maximum pool depth at d feet 1.2 1.8 2.6
pool
bankfull
pool depth ratio d/d 1.5 1.8 1.7
poolbkf

Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 19

Spencer Creek 2 UT To Cane Creek
Parameter Notation Units min max min max
pool width at bankfull w feet 6 12 8.5
pool
pool width ratio w/w 1.0 1.3 0.7
poolbkf
Pattern
sinuosity K 1.0 1.3 1.4
belt width w feet 10 50 102
blt
meander width ratio w/w 1.6 5.4 8.3 8.9
bltbkf
linear wavelength
L feet 55 142 45 81
m
(formerly meander
length)
linear wavelength ratio
L/w 8.7 15.3 3.9 6.6
mbkf
(formerly meander
length ratio)
meander length feet 53 178 -- --
meander length ratio 8.4 19.1 -- --
radius of curvature R feet 12 85 23 38
c
radius of curvature ratio R/ w 1.9 9.1 2 3.1
cbkf

7.0Determination 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 20

7.2.2 Calibrate expectations regarding what levels of improvement can be observed in those
timeframes for different levels of restoration.
7.2.3 Better tailor project 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 will be issued in an amount
proportional to the actual monitoring costs, not to exceed 10% of the credit yield. However, the
pre-con monitoring will inform the parameters that are ultimately measured and result in
refinements to the monitoring plan accordingly. In the event samples of sufficient number and/or
variance prior to construction cannot be obtained or pre-con distributions indicate little room for
improvement, the viability of the entire supplemental monitoring effort will be evaluated. If these
factors dictate scaling back or eliminating the supplemental monitoring, then the associated credits
will not be sought by DMS. This determination cannot be made until the complete set of samples
that represent pre-construction conditions can be evaluated. If the supplemental monitoring does
proceed, then the associated credits will be released at the end of the monitoring period upon
completion of a report that summarizes the results and costs. The report will 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.
Table 12. Determination of Credits
Mitigation Credits
Non-riparian Nitrogen Phosphorus
Stream Riparian Wetland Buffer
Wetland Nutrient Offset 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
Restoration or Restoration
Existing Approach (P1, Mitigation Proposed
Restoration Footage or

Reach ID FootageProposed P2, etc.) Restoration Ratio Credit

Equivalent Acreage
Stationing Level
North Br R1 327 100+00 to 103+27 Planting, fencing R EII 327 1.5:1 218
North Br R1 297 103+27 to 108+47 P1 R R 520 1:1 520
North Br 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

623 300+00 to 306+23 Planting, fencing R EII 623 1.5:1415
R1
Mud Lick

693 306+23 to 313+16 Planting, fencing R EII 6931.5:1462
R2
Mud Lick Planting, fencing,

748 313+16 to 20+64 R EII 748 1.5:1499
R3 bank repairs

Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 21

Component Summation
Restoration Stream (linear Riparian Wetland Non-Riparian Wetland Buffer (square Upland (acres)
Level feet) (acres) (acres) feet)
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

8.0Credit Release Schedule

All credit releases will be based on the total credit generated as reported by the as-built survey of the
mitigation site. Under no circumstances shall any mitigation project be debited until the necessary DA
authorization has been received for its construction or the District Engineer (DE) has otherwise provided
written approval for the project in the case where no DA authorization is required for construction of
the mitigation project. The DE, in consultation with the Interagency Review Team (IRT), will determine if
performance standards have been satisfied sufficiently to meet the requirements of the release
schedules below. In cases where some performance standards have not been met, credits may still be
released depending on the specifics of the case. Monitoring may be required to restart or be extended,
depending on the extent to which the site fails to meet the specified performance standard. The release
of project credits will be subject to the criteria described as follows:
Table 13. Credit Release Schedule – Stream Credits

Monitoring
Interim Total
Year Credit Release Activity
Release Released

Initial Allocation – see requirements below 30% 30%
0
First year monitoring report demonstrates performance
1 10% 40%
standards are being met
Second year monitoring report demonstrates performance
50%
2 10%
standards are being met
(60%*)
Third year monitoring report demonstrates performance
60
3 10%
standards are being met
(70%*)
Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
65%
4 5%
standards are being met
(75%*)
Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
75%
5 10%
standards are being met
(85%*)
6 Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are 80%
5%
being met (90%)
Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards 90%
7 10%
are being met and the project has received closeout approval (100%)
Supplementary monitoring described in section 12 upon completion of
8 TBD -
associated monitoring and cost summary (Not to exceed 10%).

Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 22

8.1Initial 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.
8.2Subsequent 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.
9.0Project Site Mitigation Plan

9.1Justification 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 23

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.
9.2Stream 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.
9.3Design 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.
9.3.2Provisional 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.
9.3.3Drainage 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 24

9.3.4Regional 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.
9.3.5USGS 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
North Branch North Branch East
Discharge Estimate Analysis Parameter
R1 R2 Branch
Drainage Area (sq. mi.) 0.37 0.65 0.27
USGS rural flood frequency 2-year 2-yr
83 120 68
discharge (Weaver et al., 2009) Discharge
Piedmont Regional Curve (Harman et al., Bankfull
43 65 35
1999) Discharge
Piedmont/Mountain Regional Curve Bankfull
25 40 20
(Walker, unpublished) Discharge
1.2-yr
18 33 13
Discharge
Regional Flood Frequency Analysis
1.5-yr
24 43 18
Discharge
Bankfull
Reference Reach Curve 37 57 29
Discharge
Bankfull
Final Design Q 35 67 32
Discharge

9.4Design 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

Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 25

access to the floodplain (entrenchment ratios >2.2) and channel slopes of 2% or less. They occur within a
wide range of valley types and are appropriate for the project landscape. The design morphologic
parameters are shown in Table 15.
Table 15. Design Morphologic Parameters
North Branch - North Branch -
East Branch
Reach 1 Reach 2
Notation Units
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 A SF 14.4 16.3 9.7
bkf
average velocity during
v fps 2.4 4.3 3.3
bkf
bankfull event
Cross-Section
width at bankfull w feet 13.8 14.0 11.0
bkf
maximum depth at bankfull d feet 1.3 1.8 1.4 2.0 0.9 1.5
max
mean depth at bankfull d feet 1.0 1.2 0.9
bkf
bankfull width to depth ratio w/d 13.0 12.0 12.4
bkfbkf
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 w feet 30 69 31 70 24 55
fpa
entrenchment ratio ER 2.2 5.0 2.2 5.0 2.2 5.0
Slope
feet/
valley slope S 0.0048 0.0076 0.0098
valley
foot
feet/
channel slope S 0.0100 0.0100 0.0050 0.0050 0.0130 0.0130
chnl
foot
Profile
feet/
riffle slope S 0.0120 0.0340 0.0060 0.0170 0.0156 0.0442
riffle
foot
riffle slope ratio S/S 1.2 3.4 1.2 3.4 1.2 3.4
rifflechnl
feet/
pool slope S 0.0000 0.0040 0.0000 0.0020 0.0000 0.0052
p
foot
pool slope ratio S/S 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.40
pchnl
pool-to-pool spacing L feet 19 91 20 92 15 73
p-p
pool spacing ratio L/w 1.4 6.6 1.4 6.6 1.4 6.6
p-pbkf
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 26

North Branch - North Branch -
East Branch
Reach 1 Reach 2
Notation Units
Min Max Min Max Min Max
Pattern
sinuosity K 1.20 1.30 1.20 1.30 1.20 1.30
belt width w feet 41 123 42 125 22 98
blt
meander width ratio w/w 3.0 8.9 3.0 8.9 2.0 8.9
bltbkf
linear wavelength (formerly
L feet 41 207 42 210 30 165
m
meander length)
linear wavelength ratio
(formerly meander length L/w 3.0 15.0 3.0 15.0 3.0 15.0
mbkf
ratio)
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 R feet 25 41 25 42 20 33
c
radius of curvature ratio R/ w 1.8 3.0 1.8 3.0 1.8 3.0
cbkf

9.5Sediment 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.

Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 27

9.5.1 Competence Analysis
A competence analysis was performed for each of the design reaches by comparing shear stresses along
the channel at the design bankfull discharge with the size distribution of the bed material. The
proposed conditions HEC-RAS model for each restoration reach was used to generate bankfull shear
stresses at cross sections throughout each restoration reach. These shear stresses were compared with
the critical shear stresses obtained from the revised Shields Diagram (Rosgen, 2013), shown in Table 16,
to provide a rough estimate of the degree to which shear stress in the proposed stream will be able to
move the bed material. The results in Table 16 indicate that the proposed North Branch channel will
have enough shear stress to move both the D and D particle sizes and that East Branch will have
50100
enough shear stress to move the Dbut not enough to move the D. These results indicate that the
50 100
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
Avg. Boundary
Shear Stress Required Shear Stress Required
Stream Shear Stress
22
to Move D (lb/ft) to Move D (lb/ft)
50100
2
(lb/ft)
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.

Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 28

Table 17. Capacity Analysis Results
Existing Proposed
Capacity Capacity
Reach (tons/day) (tons/day)
North Branch 25.2 37.4
East Branch 344.2 150.4

The results in Table 17 indicate that the sediment transport capacity for North Branch will increase
significantly when the proposed design is implemented. These results indicate that aggradation is not a
likely problem and any excess stream power will be controlled through grade control to reduce the
potential for bed degradation. Grade control structures are described in Section 9.6. However, the
results indicate that the capacity of East Branch will be significantly reduced, primarily due to an
increase in channel length and corresponding decrease in slope and channel velocities (which are quite
high in the existing condition). This would be a concern if there were indications that the bedload
supply to the stream was high. But, in this case, assessments of the channel and watershed do not
indicate a high bedload system and the existing condition likely has excess capacity. East Branch above
the project site is surrounded by a mature buffer for approximately 2,000 feet and the stream is
impounded above that. There is no reason to believe that a disturbance in the East Branch watershed
that would increase the 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.
9.6Project Implementation

9.6.1Grading 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.

Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 29

Instream structures will primarily include constructed riffles, angled log sills, and log vanes. Several
types of constructed riffles will be utilized in the restoration reaches to establish a varied flow pattern,
habitat, and grade control while providing a source of carbon for nutrient cycling. Native rock of various
sizes (cobble, gravel, and fines) harvested from the site will be utilized as much as possible to create
these riffles. Types of riffles proposed for this site include:

Woody riffles with brush and logs compacted into the bed of native rock to increase woody

material in the channel.

Chunky riffles with larger (small boulder) rock embedded throughout the length of the native

rock riffle to provide additional habitat as well as grade control.

Log roll riffles to increase woody material and meander the thalweg.

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.
9.6.2Riparian 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.

10.0Maintenance 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 30

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.

11.0Performance 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

Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 31

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.
11.1Streams

11.1.1Dimension

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.
11.1.2Pattern 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.
11.1.3Substrate

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.
11.1.4Bankfull 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.
11.1.5Photo 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.
11.2Vegetation

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

Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 32

towards success (i.e., no less than 260 five year old stems/acre), monitoring of vegetation on the site
may be terminated with written approval by the USACE in consultation with the NC Interagency Review
Team. The extent of invasive species coverage will also be monitored and controlled as necessary
throughout the required monitoring period (seven years).
11.3Visual Assessments

Visual assessments should support the specific performance standards for each metric as described
above.
12.0Monitoring 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.
12.1Regulatory 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
Quantity/ Length by Reach
Monitoring
Parameter Frequency Notes
Feature
Mud Lick Mud Lick Mud Lick North North East
Creek R1 Creek R2 Creek R3 Branch R1 Branch R2 Branch
Riffle Cross
N/A N/A N/A 1 1 1
Sections
Dimension Annual 1
Pool Cross

N/AN/AN/A1 1 1
Section

Pattern Pattern N/AN/AN/AN/A N/A N/A n/a
2
Longitudinal

Profile N/AN/AN/AN/A N/A N/A n/a
Profile

Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 33

Quantity/ Length by Reach
Monitoring
Parameter Frequency Notes
Feature
Mud Lick Mud Lick Mud Lick North North East
Creek R1 Creek R2 Creek R3 Branch R1 Branch R2 Branch
Reach wide
(RW), Riffle
1 RW, 1 RW, 1 RW,

Substrate N/AN/AN/AAnnual
(RF) 100
1 RF 1 RF 1 RF
pebble
count
Hydrology Crest Gage 1 1 1 Annual 3
Vegetation
Vegetation 12 Annual
Plots
Visual
All Streams Y Y Y Y Y Y Bi-annual
Assessment
Exotic and
nuisance Annual 4

vegetation
Project
Annual 5
Boundary
Reference
Photos 19 Annual 6
Photos
Notes:
1.
Cross-sections will be permanently marked with rebar to establish location. Surveys will include points measured at all breaks in slope,
including top of bank, bankfull, edge of water, and thalweg. The number of cross-sections proposed was established using 1 cross-section
per 20 bankfull widths.
2.
Entire profile will be surveyed during the as-built for all project streams.
3.
One crest gage will be installed along each stream. Where there is more than one approach applied to a reach, the crest gage will be
installed in a central location to capture bankfull events for both design approaches. Device will be inspected quarterly or semi-annually,
evidence of bankfull will be documented with a photo.
4.
Locations of exotic and nuisance vegetation will be recorded using a GPS and mapped.
5.
Locations 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.
12.2Streams

12.2.1Dimension

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

Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 34

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 -

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.
12.2.3Pattern 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.
12.2.4Substrate

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.
12.2.5Hydrology - Bankfull Events

Flow stage and bankfull events will be documented using the continuous stage recorder described in
section 12.2.2 on Mud lick with crest gages and stage plates at surveyed cross sections in proximity to
the water quality sampling stations described in section 12.4 below. The gages will be installed within a
surveyed riffle cross-section of the restored channels and will be checked at each site visit to determine
flow magnitudes. In addition to documenting the bankfull requirements, these data will provide flow
context to the physico-chemical parameters described in section 12.4 below.

Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 35

12.2.6Photo Documentation

Photographs will be taken once a year to visually document stability for seven years following
construction. Permanent markers will be established and located with GPS equipment so that the same
locations and view directions on the site are photographed each year. Photos will be used to monitor
stream restoration and enhancement reaches as well as vegetation plots.
Longitudinal reference photos will be established at the tail of riffles approximately every 200 LF along
the channel by taking a photo looking upstream and downstream. Cross-sectional photos will be taken
of each permanent cross-section looking upstream and downstream. Reference photos will also be
taken for each of the vegetation plots. Representative digital photos of each permanent photo point,
cross-section and vegetation plot will be taken on the same day of the stream and vegetation
assessments are conducted. The photographer will make every effort to consistently maintain the same
area in each photo over time.
12.2.7Vegetation

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.
12.3Visual 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.

Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 36

12.4Supplementary 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
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. Assuming an adequate baseline inclusive of storm flows can be
obtained DMS 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.

Better tailor project goals and success criteria.

12.4.2 Supplementary Monitoring Plan
The supplementary monitoring and assessment plan will include the parameters as indicated in the
table below at the station locations in Figure 10. The locations above the project on Mud Lick and North

Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 37

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.

Table 20. Parameters and Sampling Periods
Parameters and Sampling Frequencies by Station
Phys-Chem Phys-Chem Macro-Fish
Baseflow Stormflow benthos Samplings
Samples Per Samples Per Samplings per Measurement
Site Parameters Period Period per Period Period Periods
1_MLWC PC,M,F 15 15 2 1 Pre, Years 4-7
2_MLUP PC,M,F 15 15 2 1 Pre, Years 4-7
3_MLDN PC,M,F 15 15 2 1 Pre, Years 4-7
4_NBWC PC,M 15 15 2 Pre, Years 4-7
5_NBDN PC,M 15 15 2 Pre, Years 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 (NOx + TKN)

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 e through i (field parameters) will be measured
with water quality meters in the field using appropriate calibration procedures as per NCDWR
methodologies. As per the table above, there will be two primary periods of measurement, pre-
construction and years 4-7 post-construction. DMS will attempt to collect the number of samples
indicated in the table above to adequately characterize the distributions for each time period.
However, as previously indicated, in the event DMS is unable to collect an adequate number of samples
pre-construction to confidently characterize the distributions, the post construction monitoring may
have to be abandoned and any associated credits will not be sought. If pre-construction monitoring
indicates little room for improvement for certain parameters, then those parameters may not remain
part of the post construction monitoring plan. In the even that a sufficient number of samples cannot
be obtained onsite before construction is scheduled to begin, then DMS will attempt to find a location in

Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 38

the watershed that can serve as a proxy that will permit characterization of the pre-con condition even
after construction has begun. The proxy location would have to have similar site and drainage
characteristics and sources of impairment in order to contribute to the pre-con data set.
12.4.3 Assessment of Functional Changes
Changes in the above physico-chemical parameters will be assessed by comparing the distributions from
the pre-construction (precon) phase to the post- construction (postcon) monitoring data. As indicated
above, implementation of the post-con supplemental monitoring may be altered or abandoned based
on what is learned from the pre-con baseline. No credit will be sought associated with this work if the
pre-con monitoring indicates post-con monitoring will not be of value. 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. Richness and EPT metrics will be
assessed as well.

13.0Long-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.
14.0Adaptive 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.

Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 39


Revise performance standards, maintenance requirements, and monitoring requirements as

necessary and/or required by the USACE.

Obtain other permits as necessary.


Implement the Corrective Action Plan.


Provide the USACE a Record Drawing of Corrective Actions. This document shall depict the

extent and nature of the work performed.
15.0Financial 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 40

16.0References

Buck Engineering, 2004. UT to Barnes Creek Restoration Plan: Montgomery County, NC.
Harman, W.H. et. al. 2000. Bankfull Regional Curves for North Carolina Mountain Streams.
Lagasse, P.F., Schall, J.D., Johnson, F., Richardson, E.V., Richardson, J.R., and Chang, F., 2001. Stream
Stability at Highway Structures, Second Edition. U.S. Department of Transportation, Report No. FHWA-
IP-90-014, HEC-20-ED-2. Washington, DC.: Federal Highway Administration, 132 p.
Dalrymple, T. 1960. Flood-Frequency Analyses. Manual of Hydrology: Part 3. Flood-Flow Techniques.
USGS Water Supply Paper #1543-a. USGPO, 1960.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), 2011. Surface Water Classifications. Retrieved from:
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/csu/classifications
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books.
Rosgen, D.L. 2013. DRAFT Natural Channel Design for River Restoration. Wildland Hydrology, Fort
Collins, CO.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, 3rd
approx. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Simon, A. 1989. A model of channel response in disturbed alluvial channels. Earth Surface Processes and
Landforms 14(1):11-26.
Tetra Tech, 2005. Upper Rocky River Local Watershed Plan Preliminary Findings Report. Prepared for
the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program. 157 p.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC), 2010. HEC-RAS River Analysis
System User’s Manual, Version 4.1. Accessed online at: http://www.hec.usace.army.mil/software/hec-
ras/documentation/HEC-RAS_4.1_Users_Manual.pdf
Walker, Alan, unpublished. NC Rural Mountain and Piedmont Regional Curve. Personal communication.
Weaver, J.C., et al. 2009. Magnitude and Frequency of Rural Floods in the Southeastern United States,
through 2006: Volume 2, North Carolina. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009-
5158, 111 p.
Wolf Creek, 2007. Holly Grove Restoration Site Restoration Plan. Prepared for the North Carolina
Ecosystem Enhancement Program. 14 p.

Mud Lick creek Stream Restoration Project
Draft Mitigation Plan Page 41