20080587 Ver 1_Restoration Plan_20080319

South Muddy Creek Stream Restoration
McDowell County, North Carolina
NCDENR Contract D07032S
SCO Project No. 050666701
Prepared For
R~CEII~ED
FEB 2 1 2008
NC ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENTPROGRAM
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
2090 US 70 Highway
Swannanoa, NC 28778
FINAL Restoration Plan
Submission Date: January 2008
~~
This document was printed using 100% recycled paper
0 ~~15CI V L5
MAR 7 2008
MAR 1 9 2008 _wATERQU+~n
SAND STDRMNIATER 6~ AND STORMWA~ER BRANCH
WETLANDS
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING JANUARY 2008
South Muddy Creek
South Fork Hoppers Creek

South Muddy Creek Stream Restoration
McDowell County, North Carolina
NCDENR Contract D07032S
SCO Project No. 050666701
Report Prepared for
Report Prepared and Submitted by
Baker Engineering NY, Inc.
~~i~
Christine Miller, Environmental Scientist
Project Manager
sue'
Kevin Tweedy, PE
Project Engineer
Baker Engineering NY, Inc.
1447 South Tryon Street, Suite 200
Charlotte, NC 28203
Phone: [phone]
Direct Dial: 704-319-7898
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING JANUARY 2008

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) proposes to restore, enhance, and preserve 7,499 linear feet
(LF) of stream in the South Muddy Creek watershed in McDowell County, NC. The project includes work at
two sites: 2,842 LF of South Muddy Creek at Sain Road and 4,657 LF of South Fork Hoppers Creek and three
tributaries at the Landis Farm. The sites are located within the Muddy Creek LWP, identified by the Muddy
Creek Partnership. A wetland area adjacent to South Fork Hoppers Creek will also be enhanced and restored.
The project sites are located on agricultural tracts in the rural foothills near Marion, NC, as shown in Figure
l.l.
A summary of goals and objectives for each site part of this restoration project are as follows:
South Muddy Creek Site
o South Muddy Creek was historically straightened for agricultural purposes. The channel is
currently incised and disconnected from the floodplain. Shear stress forces on the bed and
banks have caused erosion. The goals for this project site are to restore the channel to
geomorphically stable conditions, restore connectivity to a floodplain, improve water quality
in the watershed, and improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat. A wide floodplain bench will be
excavated and a new channel with stable dimension and pattern will be constructed. The
channel will access the floodplain during bankfull or larger storm events, increasing
hydrologic connections between the creek and floodplain and alleviating erosive shear
stresses. Bedform diversity and varied structures will be incorporated into the design to
provide a variety of aquatic habitats. The floodplain will be treated for invasive species and
planted with a native riparian buffer to improve terrestrial habitat. Together, the increased
infiltration provided through floodplain access and a healthy riparian community, combined
with the elimination of excessive sedimentation from erosion, will improve water quality in
the South Muddy Creek watershed.
South Fork Hoppers Creek Site
o The South Fork Hoppers Creek site has historically operated as a farm, and the majority of
the site is currently in pasture. Channels throughout the site have been impacted by livestock
and are incised and eroding. As the stream incised, the water table dropped, dewatering
floodplain wetlands. The goals for the project site are to create geomorphically stable
channels, restore connectivity to the floodplain, restore wetlands in a Piedmont/Low
Mountain Alluvial forest, increase water quality, and improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat.
To accomplish these goals, a combination of restoration and enhancement will be used.
Restoration and enhancement will stabilize the eroding channel. Areas where Priority 1
restoration is used will result in increased connectivity with the floodplain and will restore
historic floodplain wetlands. Both restoration and enhancement activities will diversify the
bedform to improve aquatic habitat, and native revegetation of the floodplain will improve
terrestrial habitat. Existing floodplain wetlands will be enhanced, and floodplain wetlands
will be restored, where feasible. Removal of cattle and pigs, increased floodplain infiltration,
and reduced sedimentation will improve water quality in the South Muddy Creek watershed.
Additionally, the South Fork Creek watershed is threatened by nearby rapid development, so
early natural resource protection in areas such as these is of critical importance.
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION
BAKER ENGINEERING
FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
JANUARY 2008
PAGE III

Table ES.1 Restoration Plan Overview
South Muddy Creek Restoration Plan
Prnject ~'e~tnre ~
S3t~ ~g
~~tlition `design
+Co$d3E>rob . 'x~rproac~,
South Muddy Creek Sain Road 2,593 LF 2,842 LF Rosgen Priority 2
Restoration
South Fork Hoppers
Creek Landis Farm 1,350 LF 1,244 LF Rosgen Priority 1
Restoration
UT1- Reach A Landis Farm 782 LF 782 LF Preservation
UT1- Reach B Landis Farm 970 LF 1,169 LF Rosgen Priority 1
Restoration
UT2- Reach A Landis Farm 366 LF 362 LF Enhancement [[
UT2- Reach B Landis Farm 802 LF 802 LF Enhancement [I
UT3 Landis Farm 298 LF 298 LF Preservation
Total Stream 7,161 LF 7,499 LF
Wetland 1 Landis Farm 0.33 acre 0.33 acre Enhancement
l .29 acre Restoration
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION
BAKER ENGINEERING
FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
JANUARY 2008
PAGE IV

Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction, Goals, and Location .............................................................................1-1
1.1 Project Description ............................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.2 Goals ................................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.3 Directions to the Project Site .............................................................................................................. 1-2
1.4 USGS Hydrologic Unit Code and NCDWQ River Basin Designations ............................................. 1-2
2.0 Watershed Characterization ....................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Watershed Delineation ........................................................................................................................2-1
2.2 Surface Water Classification/ Water Quality ...................................................................................... 2-1
2.3 Physiography, Geology and Soils .......................................................................................................2-1
2.4 Historic Land Use and Development Trends ...................................................................................... 2-2
2.5 Endangered/Threatened Species ......................................................................................................... 2-3
2.6 Cultural Resources ..............................................................................................................................2-8
2.7 Potential Constraints ........................................................................................................................... 2-8
3.0 Project Site Streams (Existing Conditions) ............................................................... 3-1
3.1 Existing Channel Geomorphic Characterization and Classification ...................................................3-1
3.2 Channel Stability Assessment ............................................................................................................. 3-7
3.3 Bankfull Verification ........................................................................................................................3-11
3.4 Vegetation and Habitat Descriptions ................................................................................................ 3-16
4.0 Reference Streams Summary ......................................................................................4-1
5.0 Project Site Wetlands (Existing Conditions) ............................................................. 5-1
5.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands .......................................................................................................................5-1
5.2 Climatic Conditions ............................................................................................................................5-1
5.3 Water Table Hydrology ...................................................................................................................... 5-2
5.4 Hydrologic Modeling .......................................................................................................................... 5-2
5.5 Hydric Soils ........................................................................................................................................ 5-4
6.0 Reference Wetlands Summary ................................................................................... 6-1
7.0 Project Site Stream Restoration Plan ........................................................................ 7-1
7.1 Restoration Project Goals and Objectives ........................................................................................... 7-1
7.2 Design Criteria Selection for Stream Restoration ............................................................................... 7-1
7.3 Design Parameters .............................................................................................................................. 7-2
7.4 Design Reaches ................................................................................................................................... 7-3
7.5 Sediment Transport ............................................................................................................................. 7-7
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING JANUARY 2008
PAGE V

7.6 In-Stream Structures ......................................................................................................................... 7-13
7.7 Soil Restoration ...............................................:................................................................................. 7-15
8.0 Project Wetland and Vegetation Restoration Plan ................................................... 8-1
8.1 Restoration of Wetland Hydrology ..................................................................................................... 8-1
8.2 Hydrologic Modeling Analyses .......................................................................................................... 8-1
8.3 Natural Plant Community Restoration ................................................................................................ 8-2
8.4 Additional Site Improvements ............................................................................................................ 8-5
9.0 Performance Criteria ................................................................................................... 9-1
9.1 Stream Monitoring .............................................................................................................................. 9-1
9.2 Storm Water BMP Monitoring and Success Criteria .......................................................................... 9-2
9.3 Wetland Monitoring ............................................................................................................................ 9-2
9.4 Vegetation Monitoring ........................................................................................................................ 9-3
9.5 Maintenance Issues ............................................................................................................................. 9-3
9.6 Schedule/Reporting .............................................................................................................................9-3
10.0 References ...................................................................................................................10-1
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION
BAKER ENGINEERING
FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
JANUARY 2008
PAGE VI

List of Tables
Table ES.1 Restoration Plan Overview
Table 1.1 Latitude and Longitude of Project Sites
Table 2.1 Drainage Areas by Reach
Table 2.2 Watershed Land Use
Table 2.3 Species of Federal and State Status in McDowell County, NC
Table 3.1 Existing Geomorphic Characteristics of South Muddy Creek
Table 3.2 Existing Geomorphic Characteristics of South Fork Hoppers Creek and UTs
Table 3.3 Stability Indicators- South Muddy Creek Site
Table 3.4 Bank Pin Study- South Muddy Creek Site
Table 3.5 Stability Indicators- South Fork Hoppers Creek Site
Table 3.6 Existing Geomorphic Characteristics of South Muddy Creek Upstream and
Downstream of the Impoundment
Table 3.7 Existing HydroCAD Model Results
Table 3.8 South Muddy Creek Bankfull Discharge Determination
Table 3.9 USGS Regression Estimations at the South Muddy Impoundment
Table 3.10 South Fork Hoppers Creek Site Bankfull Discharge Determination
Table 4.1 Reference Reach Geomorphic Parameters
Table 5.1 South Fork Hoppers Creek Site Precipitation Summary
Table 5.2 Existing Conditions Water Balance Data (Gage AWl)
Table 7.1 Project Design Stream Types
Table 7.2 Existing and Proposed Geomorphic Characteristics
Table 7.3 Existing Boundary Shear Stresses and Stream Power -South Muddy Creek
Table 7.4 Proposed Boundary Shear Stresses and Stream Power -South Muddy Creek
Table 7.5 Existing Boundary Shear Stresses and Stream Power -South Fork Hoppers
Creek and UT1B
Table 7.6 Proposed Boundary Shear Stresses and Stream Power -South Fork Hoppers
Creek and UT1B
Table 7.7 Proposed In-Stream Structure Types and Locations
Table 8.1 Proposed Conditions Water Balance Data
Table 8.2 Proposed Floodplain & Wetland Vegetation
Table 8.3 Proposed Riparian Seed Mixture
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
JANUARY 2008
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, I NC.
PAGE VII

List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Project Vicinity Map
Figure 1.2 South Muddy Creek Reach Location Map
Figure 1.3 South Fork Hoppers Creek Reach and Wetland Location Map
Figure 2.1 South Muddy Creek Watershed Map and Impoundment Location
Figure 2.2 South Fork Hoppers Creek Watershed Map
Figure 2.3 South Muddy Creek Site Soils Map
Figure 2.4 South Fork Hoppers Creek Site Soils Map
Figure 2.5 South Muddy Creek FEMA Map
Figure 2.6 South Fork Hoppers Creek FEMA Map
Figure 3.1 South Muddy Creek Existing Conditions Cross-Sections
Figure 3.2 South Fork Hoppers Creek Existing Conditions Cross-Sections
Figure 3.3 Simon Channel Evolution Model
Figure 3.4 NC Piedmont Regional Curves with Project Reach Data
Figure 3.5 South Muddy Creek Impoundment Study
Figure 3.6 Gage Stations, Reference Reach, and Reference Wetland Locations
Figure 7.1 South Muddy Creek Proposed Stream Restoration Design
Figure 7.2 South Fork Hoppers Creek Proposed Restoration Design
Figure 7.3 Shield's Curve Modified with Colorado Data
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.
FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
JANUARY 2008
PAGE VIII

List of Appendices
Appendix 1 Restoration Site Photographs
Appendix 2 Restoration Site USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms
Appendix 3 Restoration Site NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms
Appendix 4 Reference Site USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms
Appendix 5 Hydrologic Gage Data Summary and Groundwater Information
Appendix 6 Bankfull Verification Gage Analysis
Appendix 7 McDowell County Floodplain Administrator Correspondence
Appendix 8 DARINMOD Input Files
Appendix 9 Agency Correspondence
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.
FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
JANUARY 2008
PAGE IX

1.0 INTRODUCTION, GOALS, AND LOCATION
1.1 Project Description
The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) proposes to restore, enhance, and preserve 7,499
linear feet (LF) of stream in McDowell County, NC. The South Muddy Creek Stream Restoration project
includes two project sites: the South Muddy Creek site located off of Sain Road and the South Fork Hoppers
Creek site located off of Landis Lane. Figure 1.1 illustrates site locations. The streams proposed for
restoration include approximately 2,593 LF of existing stream length along South Muddy Creek as shown in
Figure 1.2 and 4,568 LF of existing stream length along South Fork Hoppers Creek and associated tributaries
as shown in Figure 1.3. This project will also include the enhancement of up to 0.33 acre of riverine wetlands
and the restoration of up to 1.29 acres of riverine wetlands. This project represents a unique opportunity to
restore portions of the South Muddy Creek watershed as a part of the greater South Muddy Creek Watershed
Initiative.
1.2 Goals
This project has been selected by EEP because the project sites are degraded and have high potential for
restoration and enhancement of both streams and wetlands. The channels proposed for restoration are incised
and have actively eroding banks. These reaches are disconnected from their historic floodplains and will
continue to undergo bank erosion and degradation until a new floodplain forms at a lower elevation. The
stream incision has caused the water table level to drop at Landis Farm, thus causing the riverine wetlands
associated with the historic floodplain to shrink and lose function. Both project sites have been maintained
for agricultural purposes. At both the South Muddy Creek and the Landis Farm site, fields are maintained up
to the edge of the channel, preventing valuable riparian species from moving in to stabilize the banks. At the
Landis site, cattle and pigs have free access to the stream channel. Bank instability from hoof shear is
common, as is animal waste in the channel and riparian zone. The stream and riparian habitat values are
impaired from agricultural encroachment, sediment loading into the stream, and the spread of invasive species
within the riparian zone. In addition to agricultural encroachment, the South Fork Hoppers Creek watershed
is threatened by development. Adjacent watersheds are rapidly developing, and protecting natural resources
within the South Fork Hoppers Creek watershed is essential now before development endangers them.
The goals for the restoration project are as follows:
• Create geomorphically stable conditions for the streams on the project site.
• Enhance and restore wetland functions.
• Improve and restore hydrologic connections between creek and floodplain.
• Improve the water quality in the South Muddy Creek watershed.
• Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat along the project corridor.
• Restore wetlands within aPiedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest (Schaflale and Weakley, 1990)
To accomplish these goals, we recommend the following:
• Restore the existing incised, eroding, and channelized streams by creating stable channels with access
to a floodplain.
• Restore wetland hydrology on the South Fork Hoppers site by providing a Rosgen Priority 1 stream
restoration approach to raise the water table near to the existing floodplain.
• Improve water quality by establishing buffers for nutrient removal from runoff, by stabilizing stream
banks to reduce bank erosion and sediment contribution to creek flows, and by fencing out livestock.
• Improve in-stream habitat by providing a more diverse bedform with riffles and pools, creating
deeper pools and areas of water re-aeration, providing woody debris for habitat, and reducing bank
erosion.
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC. JANUARY 2008
PAGE 1-1

• Improve terrestrial habitat by planting riparian areas and wetland areas with native plant species.
• Establish native stream bank and floodplain vegetation in a permanent conservation easement to
' increase storm water runoff filtering capacity, improve bank stability, provide shading to decrease
water temperature and provide cover, and improve wildlife habitat.
' 1.3 Directions to the Project Site
The South Muddy Creek Restoration project includes work at two sites: South Muddy Creek at Sain Road and
South Fork Hoppers Creek and its tributaries at Landis Farm. Both project sites are near Marion, NC, as
shown in Figure 1.1. The latitude and longitude at the center of each site are provided in Table 1.1
able 1.1 Latitude and Longitude of Project Sites
South Muddy Creek Restoration Plan
roject Site Latitude , Longitude
South Muddy Creek at Sain Road 35° 37' 31.33" N 81° 51' 29.47" W
South Fork Hoppers Creek at Landis Farm 35° 34' 38.18" N 81 ° 52' 45.82" W
1.3.1 Directions to South Muddy Creek
The South Muddy Creek stream restoration site is located approximately nine miles southeast of Marion
in McDowell County, North Carolina, as shown in Figure 1.1.
Driving directions to the project site are as follows.
From [-40, take State Route 226 South (I-40 exit 86).
Continue approximately 10 miles south.
o Turn left onto Trinity Church Loop.
o Turn left onto Dysartville Road. Continue approximately I mile.
o Turn left onto Sain Road (this road is an unpaved road). Continue approximately
0.5 mile to the bridge at South Muddy Creek.
1.3.2 Directions to South Fork Hoppers Creek
The South Fork Hoppers Creek stream and wetlands restoration site is located approximately 10 miles
southeast of Marion in McDowell County, North Carolina, as shown in Figure 1.1.
Driving directions to the project site are as follows.
From [-40, take State Route 226 South (I-40 exit 86).
Continue approximately 10 miles south.
o Turn right onto Landis Lane. Continue approximately 1 mile. Bear right at a
fork in the road to stay on Landis Lane. Continue approximately 2 miles.
o Landis Farm will be on the left, at sharp curve to the right.
' 1.4 USGS H drolo is Unit Code and NCDW River Basin Desi nations
Y g Q g
The South Muddy Creek Stream Restoration project is located in the Catawba River Basin. The site lies
within the NCDWQ sub-basin 03-08-30 and hydrologic unit 03050101040020. Figure 1.1 depicts the basin
boundaries and HUC's for the project reach.
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING JANUARY 2008
' PAGE 1-2

2.0 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION
2.1 Watershed Delineation '
Table 2.1 displays the drainage areas for the stream reaches within the project boundaries. Figures 2.1 and
2.2 depict the drainage areas for each project reach. '
able 2.1 Drainage Areas By Reach
South Muddy Creek Restoration Plan
each Acres Square Miles
South Muddy Creek 12,032.0 18.8
South Fork Hoppers Creek 332.8 0.52
T 1 A - UT of South Fork Hoppers Creek 48.6 0.06
T1 B - UT of South Fork Hoppers Creek 35.2 0.08
T2A - UT of South Fork Hoppers Creek 25.6 0.04
T2B - UT of South Fork Hoppers Creek 44.8 0.07
T3 - UT of South Fork Hoppers Creek 12.0 0.02
2.2 Surface Water Classification/ Water Quality
NCDWQ designates surface water classifications for water bodies such as streams, rivers, and lakes which
define the best uses to be protected within these waters (e.g., swimming, fishing, and drinking water supply).
These classifications are associated with water quality standards that govern those uses. All surface waters in
North Carolina must meet the minimum standards for fishable/swimmable waters (Class C). The other
classifications provide additional levels of protection for primary water contact recreation (Class B) and
drinking water supplies (WS). Class C waters are protected for secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish
and aquatic life propagation and survival, agriculture, and other uses. Classifications and their associated
protection standards may also be designated to protect the free-flowing nature of a stream or other special
characteristics.
Both South Muddy Creek and South Fork Hoppers Creek are classified by the NCDWQ as Class C waters
(DWQ Index No. 11-32-2 and 11-32-2-9-1, respectively). Based on North Carolina's tributary rule, the
tributaries would also be considered Class "C" waters. South Muddy Creek has seen improving water quality
in the past monitoring cycle as demonstrated by the benthic macroinvertebrate Use Support rating increase
from `supporting but threatened' in 1998 to `supporting' in 2004. However, the Catawba River Sub-basin
Plan (NCDENR, 2004) continues to identify the Muddy Creek watershed as impacted by excessive sediment
loads and notes that this watershed is a prime candidate for restoration and enhancements.
2.3 Physiography, Geology and Soils
South Muddy Creek and South Fork Hoppers Creek lie within the Piedmont physiographic province. Medina
et al.'s Physiography ofNorth Carolina map (2004) describes the Piedmont province as
...consist(ing) of generally rolling, well-rounded hills and ridges with a few hundred feet
of elevation difference between the hills and valleys. Elevations in the Piedmont range
from 300 to 600 feet above sea level near its border with the Coastal Plain to 1,500 feet at
the foot of the Blue Ridge. Resistant knobs and hills, called monadnocks, which occur in
the Piedmont Province, include the Sauratown, South, and Uwharrie Mountains.
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING JANUARY 2008
PAGE 2-1 ,

Within the Piedmont physiographic province, the South Muddy Creek and South Fork Hoppers Creek sites lie
within the Inner Piedmont Belt, which is comprised mainly of thinly layered mica and biotite gneiss. The
geology within the South Muddy Creek is mapped as migmatitic granitoid gneiss that is described as medium-
to coarse-grained, gray, thickly layered gneissic biotite granite to quartz diorite. The South Fork Hoppers
Creek site is mostly underlain by migmatitic granitoid gneiss with lesser amounts of schist, quartzite, and
' inequigranular biotite gneiss mapped along or close to the western edge of the South Fork Hoppers Creek site
in the vicinity of UT2 (Goldsmith, 1988).
The soils surrounding the South Muddy and South Fork Hoppers sites are primarily Hayesville clay loam,
Hayesville-Evard Complex, and Iotla sandy loam. Within the South Muddy Creek project boundary, Iotla
sandy loam dominates with a small portion of the site consisting of Evard-Cowee complex (Figure 2.3). [otla
sandy foams are very deep, somewhat poorly drained soils. Permeability is moderately rapid and shrink-swell
' potential is low with the potential for occasional flooding. Evard-Cowee complex soils form in residuum
from granite, schist, and gneiss. Evard soils are very deep and well drained. Permeability is moderate and
shrink-swell potential is low. Cowee soils are moderately deep and well drained. Soft bedrock is within a
' depth of 20 to 40 inches. Permeability is moderate and shrink-swell potential is low.
The soils within the South Fork Hoppers Creek site boundaries are dominated by [otla sandy foams with small
portions of Evard-Cowee, Hayesville loam, and Hayesville clay loam (Figure 2.4). Hayesville foams are
' strongly sloping, very deep, and well drained soils on uplands. They formed in residuum from. granite, gneiss,
and schist. Permeability is moderate and shrink-swell potential is low. Hayesville clay foams are strongly
sloping, very deep, well drained, eroded soils on uplands. They also form the in residuum from granite,
' gneiss, and schist. Permeability is moderate and shrink-swell potential is low.
2.4 Historic Land Use and Development Trends
' The South Muddy Creek watershed is predominately forested, supporting some isolated rural residential
housing, chicken farms, agricultural lands, nurseries, and several small rural residential developments. The
majority of residences located within the watershed appear to have been built in the mid- to late twentieth
century and there is no evidence of rapid future development. Table 2.2 presents the land use percentages
within the South Muddy Creek watershed upstream of the project location. In the early 1960's the McDowell
County Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) constructed a flood control structure within South
Muddy Creek approximately three miles upstream from the project boundary. This structure controls flows
from approximately 12.4 square miles of the watershed and is located on privately-owned land and is
maintained by the NRCS (for further information, see Section 3.3).
' Within the project boundary, the land surrounding the South Muddy Creek site has been used predominantly
for crop cultivation. A small percentage of land near the upstream and downstream extents of the project
boundary is forested. Figure 1.2 depicts the agricultural area surrounding the project.
The South Fork Hoppers Creek watershed is predominately forested. Isolated rural residential houses, a
chicken farm, and agricultural lands are located along Joe Branch Road, a road which follows the ridgeline of
the watershed. Within the overall South Fork Hoppers Creek watershed, UTl drains predominately forested
' land in addition to three newly constructed residential homes located at the upstream extent of the watershed.
UT2 drains predominately forested land and a small fallow field. Table 2.2 presents the land use percentages
within the South Fork Hoppers Creek site watershed upstream of the project location.

Within the project boundary, the dominant land use surrounding South Fork Hoppers Creek, UT1, and UT2 is
agricultural pasture with some forested land at the upstream extents of UTI, UT2 and UT3. The development
trend within the watershed appears to be slow residential growth with no impending threat of large scale
residential subdivisions, commercial development, or industrial development; however, adjacent watersheds
are seeing rapid residential growth. The proximity of rapid development highlights the importance of natural
resource protection in the South Fork Hoppers Creek watershed.
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
' BAKER ENGINEERING JANUARY 2008
PAGE 2-2

Table 2.2 Watershed Land Use
South Muddy Creek Restoration Plan
Ssttth P4udd'v CreekS~e Watershed Lamed ~3se
Land Use Cate o Area {acres) Percent Area
Deciduous Forest 7,982 66.4
Pasture/Ha 1,267 10.5
Ever reen Forest 1,182 9.8
Shrub/Scrub 634 5.3
Develo ed O en S ace 434 3.6
Grassland/Herbaceous 204 1.7
Mixed Forest 143 l.2
Cultivated Cro s 70 0.6
Wood Wetlands 65 0.5
Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Cla) 29 0.2
O en Water l0 0.1
Develo ed Low Intensi 10 0.1
South Fork Ho ers Creel{ Site Watershed Land Use
Land Use Cate or Area (acres Percent Area
Deciduous Forest 195 59.7
Pasture/Ha 50 15.3
Shrub/Scrub 3 8 11.6
Grassland/Herbaceous 22 6.7
Develo ed O en S ace 12 3.5
Cultivated Cro s 5 1.5
Ever reen Forest 4 I.1
Barren Land Rock/Sand/Cla 2 0.6
2.5 Endangered/Threatened Species
Some populations of plants and animals are declining because of either natural forces or their inability to
compete for resources with the encroachment of humans. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(NHP) and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists of rare and protected animal and plant
species contain five federally listed species known to exist in McDowell County (USFWS, 2006 and NCNHP,
2001).
Legal protection for federally listed species, Threatened (T) or Endangered (E) status, is conferred by the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1534). This act makes illegal the killing,
harming, harassing, or removing of any federally listed animal species from the wild; plants are similarly
protected but only on federal lands. Section 7 of this act requires federal agencies to ensure that actions they
fund or authorize do not jeopardize any federally listed species.
Organisms that are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) on the NHP list of Rare
Plant and Animal Species are afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the North
Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING JANUARY 2008
PAGE 23 ,

Species that the NHP and USFWS list under federal protection for McDowell County as of February 6, 2007,
are listed in Table 2.3. A brief description of the characteristics and habitat requirements of the federally
protected species is included in the following section, along with a conclusion regarding potential project
impacts.
Table 2.3 Species of Federal and State Status in McDowell County, NC
South Mudd Creek Restoration Plan
Family S~iientific Corumste "Federal State Habitat Present ~:l3ioiagi~ ;
Name" Name Status Status ~onciu~ion
Vertebrates
Sciuridae Claacomys Carolina E E No/No Effect
sabrirrus Northern
colorafi<s Flying
Squirrel
Emydidae Glyplemys Bog Turtle T T No on South Muddy Creek site/ No
muhlenbergii Effect
Suitable Habitat on South Eork
Hoppers Creek site/ Not Likely To
Affect
Accipitridae Haliaeetus Bald Eagle T T No/No Effect
leacocephalus
Vascular Plants
Cistaceae Hudsoaia Mountain T E No/No Effect
monlana golden heather
Orchidaceae Isolria Small whorled T E Suitable HabitatMo Effect
medeoloides pogonia
Note:
E An Endangered species is one whose continued existence as a viable component of the state's flora or
fauna is determined to be in jeopardy.
T Threatened
2.5.1 Site Evaluation Methodology
A pedestrian survey of the project area was conducted in January 2007 for the species listed in Table
2.3. A second survey was conducted in May 2007 for the small whorled pogonia during its blooming
season. No federal protected species were observed in or adjacent to the project area during the field
surveys.
2.5.2 Federally-Protected Species
2.5.2.1 Vertebrates
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus (Carolina Northern Flying Squirrel)
Federal Status: Endangered
Animal Family: Sciuridae
Federally Listed: July 1, 1985
The northern flying squirrel is a small, nocturnal mammal that inhabits the high elevation ecotone
between coniferous and northern hardwood forest. This high elevation habitat usually occurs above
5,500 feet of elevation. These squirrels are 10 to 12 inches long and weigh 3 to 5 ounces. Adults
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION
BAKER ENGINEERING
FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
JANUARY 2008
PAGE 2-4

are gray with a light brown to reddish cast on their backs and light gray to white or buff undersides.
The broad tails and folds of skin between the wrist and ankles form wing-like surfaces that enable
these animals to glide downward from tree to tree or tree to ground. These mammals eat a wide
variety of foods such as lichens, mushrooms, seeds, nuts, insects, and fruit. These squirrels nest in
tree cavities such as woodpecker holes and usually produce one litter in the early spring.
The highest elevation on the South Muddy Creek restoration site is approximately 1,170 feet above
Mean Sea Level (MSL), well below the location of the hardwood forest to coniferous forest ecotone
preferred by this species. Appropriate habitat for these squirrels is not available in the study area.
A search of the NHP database of rare species and unique habitats conducted in January 2007 shows
no occurrences of this species in the project areas; it is therefore concluded that this project will not
impact this species.
The highest elevation on the South Fork Hoppers restoration site is approximately 1,320 feet above
Mean Sea Level (MSL), well below the location of the hardwood forest to coniferous forest ecotone
preferred by this species. Appropriate habitat for these squirrels is not available in the study area.
A search of the NHP database of rare species and unique habitats conducted in January 2007 shows
no occurrences of this species in the project areas; it is therefore concluded that this project will not
impact this species.
Glyptemys muhlenbergii (Bog turtle)
Federal Status: Threatened Due to Similar Appearance
Animal Family: Emydidae
Federally Listed: November 4, 1997
Bog turtles are small (3 to 4.5 inches) turtles with aweakly-keeled carapace (upper shell) that
ranges from light brown to ebony in color. The species is readily distinguished from other turtles
by a large, conspicuous bright orange to yellow blotch on each side of its head. Mating occurs from
late April to early June. Eggs hatch in late July to early September.
Bog turtles are semi-aquatic and are only infrequently active above their muddy habitats during
specific times of year and temperature ranges. They can be found during the mating season from
June to July and at other times from April to October when the humidity is high, such as after a rain
event, and when temperatures are in the seventies. Bog turtle habitat consists of bogs, swamps,
marshy meadows, and other wet environments, specifically those that have soft, muddy bottoms.
Its habitat usually contains an abundance of grassy or mossy cover. The turtles depend on a mosaic
of microhabitats for foraging, nesting, basking, hibernation, and shelter (USFWS, 2000).
"Unfragmented riparian systems that allow for the natural creation of open habitat are needed to
compensate for ecological succession" (USFWS, 2000). Beaver, deer, and cattle may be
instrumental in maintaining the essential open-canopy wetlands (USFWS, 2000).
The bog turtle is not nearly as rare as once thought, though it is still uncommon and adversely
affected by continual habitat destruction and over-collection. The southern populations of bog
turtles (in VA, TN, NC, SC, and GA) are listed as threatened due to similar appearance to northern
bog turtles that are listed as threatened.
No suitable habitat exists for the bog turtle in the South Muddy Creek project area. The North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database of rare species and unique habitats, checked in
January 2007, indicates no records of occurrences in the study area. No bog turtles were observed
or recorded in or near the study area, and the suitable habitat that exists within the project area is
marginal. Therefore, it is anticipated that project construction will not affect the bog turtle.
The NHP files indicate a known population of bog turtles (first recorded in May 1993)
approximately 3.5 miles southeast of the South Fork Hoppers Creek project area in a marshy
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION
BAKER ENGINEERING
FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
JANUARY 2008
PAGE 2-5

meadow or degraded Southern Appalachian bog ("Vein Mountain Meadow Bog") adjacent to
Second Broad River and SR 1781 in McDowell County approximately 0.5 mile (0.8 kilometer)
south of SR 1802 junction.
Extremely marginal bog turtle habitat exists within the South Fork Hoppers Creek project area.
One small wetland was identified and only portions of this wetland could be considered suitable
habitat for the bog turtle. The entire wetland is located within an actively grazed field which has
been disturbed and trampled, and the substrate at the time of the survey was thought to be marginal
habitat for the bog turtle. Again, the bog turtle is listed as a result of similarity of appearance and
populations are not in decline in the southeast region. We believe that restoration efforts are not
likely to affect this species.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (Bald eagle)
Federal Status: Threatened (Proposed for Delisting)
Animal Family: Accipitridae
Federally Listed: March 11, 1967; Proposed for Delisting: July 6, 1999

Bald eagles are large raptors, 32-43 inches (81-109 centimeters) long, with a white head, white tail,
yellow bill, yellow eyes and feet. The lower section of the leg has no feathers. Wingspread is
about 7 feet (2.1 meters). The characteristic plumage of adults is dark brown to black with young
birds completely dark brown. Juveniles have a dark bill, pale markings on the belly, tail, and under
the wings and do not develop the white head and tail until 5-6 years old (North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program (NHP), 2001).
Bald eagles in the Southeast frequently build their nests in the transition zone between forest and
marsh or open water. Nests are cone-shaped, 6-8 feet (1.8-2.4 meters) from top to bottom, and 6
feet (1.8 meters) or more in diameter. They are typically constructed of sticks lined with a
combination of leaves, grasses, and Spanish moss. Nests are built in dominant live pines or cypress
trees that provide a good view and clear flight path, usually less than 0.5 miles (0.8 kilometer) from
open water. Winter roosts are usually in dominant trees, similar to nesting trees, but may be
somewhat farther from water. In North Carolina, nest building takes place in December and
January, with egg laying (clutch of 1-3 eggs) in February and hatching in March. Bald eagles are
opportunistic feeders consuming a variety of living prey and carrion. Up to 80% of their diet is
fish; self caught, scavenged, or robbed from osprey. They may also take various small mammals
and birds, especially those weakened by injury or disease (NHP, 2001).
No suitable nesting or legitimate foraging habitat exists within either the South Muddy Creek or the
South Fork Hoppers Creek site. Pine trees large enough to support bald eagle nests were not found
in potential restoration areas, and were very limited in areas outside of the potential restoration
areas. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database of rare species and unique
habitats, checked in January 2007, indicates no records of occurrences in the study area. No bald
eagle nests or individuals were observed or recorded in or near the study area, and no potential
habitat exists near either project area. Therefore, it is anticipated that project construction will have
no effect on the bald eagle.
2.5.2.2 Vascular Plants
Hudsonia montana (Mountain golden heather)
Federal Status: Threatened
Plant family: Cistaceae
Federally Listed: October 20, 1980
Mountain golden heather is a low, needle-leaved shrub with yellow flowers and long-stalked fruit
capsules. It usually grows in clumps of 4 to 8 inches across and about 6 inches high and sometimes
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION
BAKER ENGINEERING
FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
JANUARY 2008
PAGE 2-6

is seen in larger patches of a foot or two across. The plants have the general aspect of a big moss or
a low juniper, but their branching is more open, their leaves are about 0.25 inches long, and the
plant is often somewhat yellow-green in color, especially in shade. The leaves from previous years
persist scale-like on the older branches. The flowers appear in early or mid-June, and are yellow,
nearly an inch across, with five blunt-tipped petals and 20 to 30 stamens. The fruit capsules are on
0.5-inch stalks, roundish, and with three projecting points at the tips. These fruits often persist after
opening, and may be seen at any time of the year. Mountain golden heather begins flowering in
about its third year, and roots vegetatively at the edges once they form well-rounded clumps, after
perhaps 10 years. Large, well-rooted clones may become fragmented into separate, self-
maintaining plants. The majority of the existing plants appear to have developed in this manner
(USFWS, 2002).
This plant is found only in Burke and McDowell Counties, North Carolina, at elevations of 2,800 to
4,000 feet. Originally discovered on Table Rock Mountain in 1816, mountain golden heather has
since been found at several other sites in Linville Gorge and on Woods Mountain. All sites are on
public land within the Pisgah National Forest. Mountain golden heather is known from several
localities within its range with the total number of plants possibly numbering 2,000 to 2,500.
Monitoring is needed to determine if the plant's abundance may be cyclic (USFWS, 2002).
Mountain golden heather grows on exposed quartzite ledges in an ecotone between bare rock and
leiophyllum dominated heath balds that merge into pine/oak forest. The plant persists for some
time in the partial shade of pines, but it appears less healthy than in open areas.
No potential habitat exists at either the South Muddy Creek or the South Fork Hoppers Creek site
for the mountain golden heather. The known populations are found in elevations well above the
project area elevations. Also no heath balds are present within either project area. A search of the
NHP database of rare species and unique habitats, conducted in January 2007, shows no
occurrences of this species in the project area. Therefore, no impacts to this species are anticipated
during the project construction.
Isotria medeoloides (Small whorled pogonia)
Federal Status: Threatened
Plant Family: Orchidaceae
Federally Listed: September 9, 1982
Small whorled pogonia is a small perennial member of the Orchidaceae. These plants arise from
long slender roots with hollow stems terminating in a whorl of five or six light green leaves. The
single flower is approximately one inch long, with yellowish-green to white petals and three longer
green sepals. This orchid blooms in late spring from mid-May to mid-June. Populations of this
plant are reported to have extended periods of dormancy and to bloom sporadically. This small
spring ephemeral orchid is not observable outside of the spring growing season. When not in
flower, young plants of Indian cucumber-root (~ledeola virginiana) also resemble small whorled
pogonia. However, the hollow stout stem of Isotria will separate it from the genus ~ledeola, which
has a solid, more slender stem (USFWS, 1996).
Small whorled pogonia may occur in young as well as maturing forests, but typically grows in
open, dry deciduous woods and areas along streams with acidic soil. It also grows in rich, mesic
woods in association with white pine and rhododendron (Russo, 2000).
A search of the NHP database of rare species and unique habitats, conducted in January 2007,
shows no occurrences of this species in either project area. Habitat does exist for the small whorled
pogonia within the South Muddy Creek project area. The wooded bottomland hardwood forest area
in the northeast portion of the project would be considered habitat for the small whorled pogonia.
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION
BAKER ENGINEERING
FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
JANUARY 2008
PAGE 2-7

Suitable habitat also is present within the South Fork Hoppers for the small whorled pogonia. The
forested areas along UT1 and UT2 would be considered habitat for the small whorled pogonia.
An intensive field survey was conducted on May 21, 2007, during the species blooming season, to
determine the presence of small whorled pogonia in the project area. No species were observed at
either site within the project boundaries during the field survey; therefore no impacts to this species
are anticipated during project construction.
2.5.3 USFWS Concurrence
' The USFWS was notified of the project via letter on January 18, 2007, on March 7, 2007 regarding the
results of the initial pedestrian survey, and again on May 24, 2007 regarding the second pedestrian
survey. Baker Engineering has not received any comments from the USFWS at this point in time.
' 2.6 Cultural Resources
A letter was sent to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on January 18, 2007,
requesting review and comment for the potential of cultural resources in the vicinity of the project. Baker
Engineering received a letter dated March 6, 2007, from SHPO recommending an archaeological survey of
the site.
Due to the project's location within the aboriginal territory of the Cherokee people, a letter was also sent to
the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) on January 18, 2007,
requesting their comment and review on the project. THPO responded with a letter dated March 19, 2007,
' requesting an archaeological survey of the site.
EEP has instructed Baker Engineering to continue with the project; EEP will reconcile SHPO and THPO
responses.
2.7 Potential Constraints
Baker assessed the South Muddy Creek Restoration project site in regards to potential fatal flaws and site
constraints. No fatal flaws have been identified during project design development.
2.7.1 Environmental Screening
An Environmental Data Resources, Inc (EDR) Radius Map Report that identifies and maps real or
potential hazardous environmental sites within the distance required by the American Society of
' Testing and Materials Transaction Screening Process (ASTM E1528) was prepared for the site on
January 22, 2007. Based on the EDR report, there are no known or potential hazardous waste sites
within or adjacent to the project area. During field data collection, there was no evidence of any
potential hazardous environmental sites in the proposed project area.
2.7.2 Utilities and Easements
Due to the project's remote rural location, utilities and easements are minimal. An overhead utility line
parallels Sain Road, crossing South Muddy Creek approximately 50 feet downstream of the Sain Road
bridge. No other utilities are present within the project boundaries. The Rutherford EMC electric
cooperative will be contacted once a final design alignment is prepared for the South Muddy Creek site.
' We anticipate that one pole and guy wire will need to be moved and re-installed away from the stream's
top of bank.

2.7.3 Property Ownership and Site Access
The land involved in the South Muddy Creek site is currently owned by Mr. Romulus Duncan and Mr.
Larry Randolph. The land involved in the South Fork Hoppers Creek site is currently owned by Mr.
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION
BAKER ENGINEERING
PAGE 2-8
FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
JANUARY 2008

Steve Melton. EEP has informed Baker Engineering that the conservation easement for the South
Muddy Creek site is being pursued, and the conservation easement option for the South Fork Hoppers
Creek site is in the process of being renewed. As a result of shifting the creek alignments during
restoration, portions of the existing South Fork Hoppers Creek and UT1 B are located outside the
proposed conservation easement. A temporary construction easement will be used to fill the existing
channels after construction of the new meandering channels.
2.7.4 Hydrological Trespass and FEMA Flood Mapping
A Rosgen Priority 1 restoration is not feasible on the South Muddy Creek site, largely due to hydrologic
trespass issues. The creek is too deeply incised to re-connect with its original floodplain without
causing flooding upstream of the project boundary. A Rosgen Priority 2 restoration approach is feasible
which will leave the channel at its existing elevation but will excavate bankfull benches to alleviate
shear stress. Because additional conveyance area will be supplied by the excavated benches, we do not
anticipate that the restored reach will flood more frequently or to greater extents than the existing
condition.
Panel 200 of the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for McDowell County, NC (Community
Number 37111) indicates that the South Muddy Creek site is located in Zone A of the regulatory
floodplain. Figure 2.5 illustrates the FEMA mapping at the South Muddy Creek site.
Zone A is the flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to the I-percent annual chance flood; this
floodplain area is determined in the Flood Insurance Study by approximate methods of analysis.
Because detailed hydraulic analyses are not performed for such areas, no Base Flood Elevations (BFE)
or depths are shown within this zone. Based on communication with the McDowell County local
floodplain administrator, no formal submittal will be required to document grading in the floodplain. A
copy of this correspondence is included in Appendix 7.
The State of NC is currently preparing updated mapping for the state; base flood elevations will be
established for this area once the updated maps are adopted. EEP may be required to complete a Letter
of Map Revision following construction of the project at this site. Mapping available from the NC
Flood Mapping Program indicates that this site on South Muddy will have a Zone AE flood
designation, indicating that base flood elevations are being developed for this site. The Flood Mapping
Program indicates that maps in this area are post-preliminary but are not yet effective.
Baker Engineering plans to pursue a Rosgen Priority 1 restoration on the South Fork Hoppers Creek
mainstem. A transition zone will be required at the upstream project limits to gradually tie the channel
back into its floodplain. The length of the transition zone will be designed to avoid hydrologic trespass
onto the upstream property.
The topography of UT1 B supports a Rosgen Priority 1 restoration design without creating the potential
for hydrologic trespass. There is low potential for offsite backwater effects upstream of UT1B because
the Priority 1 design stops 782 LF short of the project boundary. The reach upstream of UT1 B, UT1 A,
is slated for preservation. Restoring connectivity between the streambed and its floodplain will cause
the floodplain adjacent to the restored reaches to flood more frequently and to greater extents than that
of the existing condition. The flooding may extend outside of the proposed conservation easement
boundaries.
FIRM Panel 200 for McDowell County indicates that there is no regulatory floodplain associated with
the project on South Fork Hoppers Creek. No formal submittals will be required to document grading
in the floodplain for this site. Figure 2.6 illustrates the currently effective FEMA mapping near the
South Fork Hoppers Creek site. Mapping available from the NC Flood Mapping Program indicates that
this site on South Fork Hoppers Creek will remain unmapped.
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION
BAKER ENGINEERING
FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
JANUARY 2008
PAGE 2-9

3.0 PROJECT SITE STREAMS (EXISTING CONDITIONS)

3.1 Existing Channel Geomorphic Characterization and Classification
South Muddy Creek is a perennial channel and a USGS blue-line stream. On February 7, 2007, onsite
perennial and intermittent stream calls were made at the South Fork Hoppers Creek site following the scoring
criteria from the North Carolina Division of Water Quality. South Fork Hoppers Creek, UTI, UT2, and UT3
were identified as perennial streams. Stream classification forms are included in Appendix 3.
Baker Engineering performed representative longitudinal and cross-section surveys of the stream reaches to
assess the current condition and overall stability of the channels. Baker Engineering also performed pebble
counts and collected substrate samples to characterize stream sediments. Figures 3.1 and 3.2 illustrate the
locations ofcross-section surveys on the South Muddy Creek site and the South Fork Hoppers Creek site,
respectively. The following sections of this report summarize the survey results for the stream reaches
proposed for work. A photo log of the sites is included in Appendix 1.
3.1.1 South Muddy Creek
The South Muddy Creek site is depicted in Figure 1.2 and is comprised of one reach. South Muddy
Creek flows through a broad, alluvial floodplain characteristic of a Rosgen Valley Type VII[. Alluvial
terraces typically present in a Valley Type VIII were not observed along South Muddy Creek; however
historic agricultural manipulation of the floodplain in the form of filling, grading, and plowing has
likely altered the topography of the area. The overall valley slope is 0.0017 feet per foot (ft/ft).
Within the project limits, South Muddy Creek was historically straightened to maximize available
agricultural land. South Muddy runs against the steep, forested right valley wall for the first 300 LF.
The channel is slightly sinuous and has defined riffle-pool sequences. Depositional features such as
point bars are common in this upper section of the channel. South Muddy Creek departs from the
valley wall and the channel is straight throughout the rest of the project area. Moderate riffle-pool
sequences are present, however few depositional features were observed. A log debris jam,
downstream of Sain Road bridge, has created backwater that extends 1,000 LF upstream. The baseflow
water surface slope through the backwatered area is 0.0006 ft/ft. Below the debris jam, riffles and pools
are well-defined. The overall channel slope is 0.0016 ft/ft.
Cross sections were surveyed at five riffle sections and four pools to characterize the channel. The
channel has a low width-to-depth ratio, is incised as evidenced by bank height ratios of 2.4 to 3.2, and
does not have access to a floodplain at bankfull stage. A reach-wide pebble count classified the overall
channel materials as fine gravel. Within the project limits, South Muddy Creek is classified as a
Rosgen stream type G4c. This channel type is commonly seen in Valley Type VIII throughout the
Piedmont where agricultural activities have directly impacted the channel and riparian zone, resulting in
an unstable system. One cross section, X 1 A, was noted as atypical of the rest of the reach. This cross
section, located at the head of the project, has channel dimensions more typical of an F4 channel with a
width-to-depth ratio is 26.9. This suggests that the first few hundred feet of the project reach are a
transition zone between a different channel type upstream and the G4c channel type observed
downstream.
Table 3.1 summarizes the geomorphic parameters of South Muddy Creek.
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION
BAKER ENGINEERING
FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
JANUARY 2008
' PAGE 3-1

Table 3.1 Existing Geomorphic Characteristics of South
M
dd
C
k S~c-utli Mudr}y-Creel<c ,
u
y
ree
South Muddy Creek Restoration Plan ~~- -~411ax Ayg n*
1. Stream Type G4c
2. Drainage Area - miZ l 8.8
3. Bankfull Width (woke) - ~ 24. l 5 L2 32.3 5
4. Bankfull Mean Depth (dbke) - ~ 1.9 3.0 2.7 5
5. Width/Depth Ratio (w/d ratio) 8.1 26.9 12.9 5
6. Cross-sectional Area (Abke) -ftZ 72.8 97.2 83.8 5
7. Bankfull Max Depth (dmeke) - ft 3.3 4.0 3.6 5
g• dmbkf / dbkf ratio 1.2 1.7 1.4 5
9. Low Bank Height to dmbke ratio 2.4 3.2 2.8 5+
10. Floodprone Area Width (wepa) - ft 29.6 72.7 44.8 ~
11. Entrenchment Ratio (ER) 1.1 l.7 1.4 5
12. Meander length (Lm) - ft No feature -straightened
13. Ratio of meander length to bankfull width (Lmhvbke) No feature -straightened
14. Radius of curvature (R~) - ft No feature -straightened
l5. Ratio of radius of curvature to bankfull width (R~ /weke) No feature -straightened
16. Belt width (wbic) - ft No feature -straightened
17. Meander Width Ratio (wb1t/Wbkf) No feature -straightened
18. Sinuosity (K) stream length /valley length 1.06
19. Valley Slope -ft/ft O.OOl7
20. Average Channel Slope (Sbke) -ft/ft O.OOIb
21. Pool Slope (spool) -ft/ft 0.0000 0.0003 0.0001 6
22. Ratio of Pool Slope to Average Slope (Spool /Sbke) 0.0 0.2 0.1 6
23. Maximum Pool Depth (dPooi) - ft 3.8 5.8 4.8 4
24. Ratio of Pool Depth to Average Bankfull Depth (dPooi/dbkf) 1.4 2.1 1.8 4
2~. Pool Width (wpooi) - ft 28. l 39.9 32.3 4
26. Ratio of Pool Width-to-Bankfull Width (wPooi / wbkt) 0.9 1.2 1.0 4
27. Pool Area (APooi) -ftZ 85.9 103.7 96.2 4
28. Ratio of Pool Area to Bankfull Area (Apooi/Abke) 1.0 1.2 1.1 4
29. Pool-to-Pool Spacing (p-p) - ft 80.0 240.0 163.0 4
30. Ratio of Pool-to-Pool Spacing to Bankfull Width (p-p/wbke) 2.5 7.4 5.0 4
31. Riffle Slope (srirne) -f~ft 0.0025 0.0061 0.0043 3
32. Ratio of Riffle Slope to Average Slope (s~~~/ sbke) 1.6 3.8 2.7 3
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION
BAKER ENGINEERING
FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
JANUARY 2008
PAGE 3-2

Table 3.1 Existing Geomorphic Characteristics of South ixiuth t~tuddy Creek
Muddy Creek
South Muddy Creek Restoration Plan
111in
~iaa
Awg
n*
Channel Materials (Particle Size Index - dso) Fine Gravel
d,b - mm <0.06
d35 _- mm 0.2
d5p - mm 4
d84 - mm 25
d95 - mm 44
n* -This column represents the number of data points used where a range or mean is specified.
The South Muddy Creek reach is located approximately 2.6 miles downstream from an in-line flood
control structure. This structure (referred to hereafter as the impoundment) is located on private land in
McDowell County and is operated by the NRCS. The impoundment was built in the early 1960's in
response to downstream flooding and is well maintained and functional today. The riser structure is
designed to pass the base flow from the 12.4 square mile watershed, retaining water during flows higher
than baseflow conditions. Because of the size of the impoundment, Baker Engineering studied the
impoundment's effect on bankfull geometry and discharge. Please refer to Section 3.3.1 for detailed
information.
3.1.2 South Fork Hoppers Creek - Mainstem
The mainstem of South Fork Hoppers Creek is depicted in Figure 1.3 and is comprised of one 1,350 LF
reach. The overall valley slope is 0.0115 ft/ft and the overall channel slope is 0.0101 ft/ft. The area has
a history of pasture and general agricultural usage. Cattle are allowed to graze on the banks and access
the channels. The streams on the project site have been channelized and riparian vegetation has been
cleared in most locations. Both the left and right banks of the channel are eroded and the channel is
incised. Much of the mainstem was straightened for agricultural purposes, which resulted in a
vertically and horizontally unstable channel.
The mainstem of South Fork Hoppers Creek has channel dimensions typical of an E stream type in the
Rosgen classification system, but the stream is incised and lacks access to the floodplain. This reach
functions as a GSc. Table 3.2 summarizes the geomorphic parameters of the mainstem of South Fork
Hoppers Creek and the two unnamed tributaries.
3.1.3 UT1A
UT 1 A begins at the southern property line of the Landis Farm and continues approximately 782 LF
downstream to a pasture clearing. This reach has extremely well-vegetated banks and a mature forested
floodplain. Due to the stable conditions of the floodplain, this reach is proposed for preservation only.
No geomorphic data were collected on this reach.
3.1.4 UT1B
UT 1 B begins just upstream of the southern edge of a pasture clearing and continues 970 LF
downstream to South Fork Hoppers Creek. The channel has an overall valley slope of 0.023 ft/ft and a
channel slope of 0.019 ft/ft. The channel has been straightened for agricultural purposes and
subsequently incised and widened in an attempt to recreate a floodplain at a lower elevation. This
channel has a bank height ratio of approximately 2 in most areas and does not have access to the
historic floodplain during bankfull events. The floodplain is currently grazed and both the left and right
banks show signs of recent bank erosion due to cattle access.
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING JANUARY 2008
PAGE 3-3

The channel has an extremely low width-to-depth ratio and is classified as an incised ES Rosgen stream
type. Table 3.2 summarizes the geomorphic parameters of UT1B.
3.1.5 UT2A
UT2A begins at the northwestern property line and continues 366 LF to the downstream end of the pig
pen and the upstream end of a pasture clearing. The channel has an overall valley slope of 0.034 ft/ft
and an overall channel slope of 0.030 ft/ft. UT2A is incised with a low width-to-depth ratio and is
classified as a GS channel. Mature woody vegetation is established on the top of banks of the channel;
however shear banks are present throughout the reach. A 15 foot headcut has formed in a wet weather
ditch near the upstream terminus of this reach. Frequent access by pigs within the pig pen area has
caused mass erosion on the left and right banks and has destroyed bed and bank definition. Upstream
of the property boundary, two large headcuts continue to erode the headwaters of UT2. Table 3.2
summarizes the geomorphic parameters of UT2A.
3.1.6 UT2B
UT2B begins at the top of the pasture clearing and continues 802 LF to the confluence with South Fork
Hoppers Creek. On the downstream portion of the channel, the creek centerline serves as the properly
line for approximately 317 LF to the confluence with South Fork Hoppers Creek. UT2B is marked by a
distinct change in valley and channel slope from UT2A; UT2B has an overall valley slope of 0.023 ft/ft
and a channel slope of 0.019 ft/ft. UT2B has been maintained for agricultural purposes. This channel
is incised and is disconnected from the historic floodplain. Bankfull bench features are beginning to
form throughout much of the reach. UT2B has a very low width-to-depth ratio and currently functions
as GSc. Table 3.2 summarizes the geomorphic parameters of UT2B.
3.1.7 UT3
UT3 is a headwater tributary to South Fork Hoppers Creek. Within the project limits, UT3 is
approximately 298 LF in length and has a drainage area of 0.02 square miles. This channel is located in
the southeast corner of the site and is slated for preservation only. A geomorphic assessment was not
performed on this reach.
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION
BAKER ENGINEERING
FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
JANUARY 2008
PAGE 3-4

Table 3.2 Existing Geomorphic South Fork Mainstem UTl$ UT2A UT~13
Characteristics of South Fork Hoppers
Creek and Unnamed Tributaries
South Muddy Creek Restoration Plan
Min
Max
Avg.
n*
Min
Max
Avg
.n*
Min
Max
Awg
n*
IVti~r
,1VJCax
Avg
>n
1. Stream Type GSc ES GS GSc
2. Drainage Area - miZ 0.52 0.08 0.04 0.07
3. Bankfull Width (woke) - ft 7.4 14.4 10.5 3 3.4 5.7 4.6 2 5.9 1 5.5 6.2 5.7 2
4. Bankfull Mean Depth (dbkf) - ft 1.0 1.6 1.2 3 0.6 1.0 0.8 2 1.1 1 0.9 1.1 1.0 2
5. Width/Depth Ratio (w/d ratio) 6.1 14.4 9.3 3 3.4 9.5 6.5 2 5.4 1 5.0 6.2 5.6 2
6. Cross-sectional Area (Abkf) - ft2 7.4 15.6 12.5 3 3.4 3.5 3.5 2 6.1 1 5.4 6.1 5.8 2
7. Bankfull Max Depth (d,nbkf) - ft 1.7 2.0 1.9 3 1.3 1.6 1.4 2 1.4 1 1.3 1.5 1.4 2
8. dmbkf /dbkf ratio 1.2 1.9 1.6 3 1.4 2.1 1.8 2 1.3 1 1.4 1.4 1.4 2
9. Low Bank Height to dmbkf ratio 1.3 2.6 2.2 5+ 1.1 4.5 2.0 5+ 2.7 7.1 5.2 5+ 1.0 3.9 2.2 5+
10. Floodprone Area Width (wtpa) -feet 16.8 33.0 26.2 3 9.8 92.5 51.1 2 7.9 1 9.6 15.0 12.3 2
11. Entrenchment Ratio (ER) 2.0 3.4 2.6 3 2.9 16.2 9.5 2 1.4 1 1.7 2.7 2.2 2
12. Meander length (L,n) - ft No well-defined features -
Straightened No well-defined features
Straightened Limited pattern due to
narrow valley No well-defined features
Straightened
13. Ratio of meander length to bankfull
width (L,n/wbkf) No well-defined features -
Straightened No well-defined features
Straightened Limited pattern due to
narrow valley No well-defined features
Straightened
14. Radius of curvature (R~) - ft No well-defined features -
Straightened No well-defined features
Straightened Limited pattern due to
narrow valley No well-defined features
Straightened
15. Ratio of radius of Curvature to
bankfull width (R~ /wbkf) No well-defined features -
Straightened No well-defined features
Straightened Limited pattern due to
narrow valley No well-defined features
Straightened
16. Belt width (wbii) - ft No well-defined features -
Straightened No well-defined features
Straightened Limited pattern due to
narrow valley No well-defined features
Straightened

17. Meander Width Ratio (wbit/Wbkr) No well-defined features -
Straightened No well-defined features
Straightened Limited pattern due to
narrow valley No well-defined features
Straightened
18. Sinuosity (K) stream length /valley
length 1.14 1.18 1.14 1.22
19. Valley Slope -ft/ft 0.0115 0.0228 0.0344 0.0230
20. Average Channel Slope (Sbkf) -ft/ft 0.0101 0.0193 0.0302 0.0189
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION
BAKER ENGINEERING
PAGE 3-5
FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
JANUARY 2008

Table 3.2 Existing Geomorphic -South Fork Mainstem UTl$ UT2A UT2B
Characteristics of South Fork Hoppers
Creek and Unnamed Tributaries
South Muddy Creek Restoration Plan
Min
Max
Avg
n*
Min
Max
Avg
Q*
Min
Max.
Avg
n*
Min
14Iax
Avg
in*
21. Pool Slope (spool) -ft/ft 0.000 0.004 0.001 17 0.000 0.005 0.002 11 0.000 0.012 0.004 9 0.000 0.014 0.007 9
/22. Ratio of Pool Slope to Average Slope
lspool /Sbkf) 0.0 0.4 0.1 17 0.0 0.3 0.1 I 1 0.0 0.4 0.1 9 0.0 0.7 0.4 9
23. Maximum Pool Depth (dp~~l) - ft 2.1 2.4 2.2 3 1.3 1.6 1.5 2 2.6 1 1.7 1.9 1.8 2
24. Ratio of Pool Depth to Average
Bankfull Depth (dpool/db>it-) 1.8 2.0 l .8 3 1.6 2.0 1.8 2 2.4 1 1.7 1.9 1.8 2
25. Pool Width (wpo~l) - ft 7.7 14.0 10.2 3 4.0 7.7 5.9 2 5.0 1 6.2 12.4 9.3 2
26. Ratio of Pool Width to Bankfull
Wldth (Wpool / ~'bkf) 0.7 l .3 1.0 3 0.9 1.7 1.3 2 0.8 1 1.1 2.2 1.6 2
27. Pool Area (Ap~~l) - ft' 11.6 14.8 13.2 3 3.4 4.3 3.9 2 9.4 1 5.9 8.7 7.3 2
28. Ratio of Pool Area to Bankfull Area
(Apool/Abkf) 0.9 l .2 1. I 3 1.0 1.2 l .1 2 1.5 1 l .0 1.5 1.3 2
29. Pool-to-Pool Spacing (p-p) - ft 27 161 66 14 14 1 10 52 9 14 48 31 8 15 127 64 10
30. Ratio of Pool-to-Pool Spacing to
Bankfull Width (p-p/wbkf) 2 6 15.3 6.3 14 3.0 23.9 11.3 9 2.4 8.1 5.3 8 2.6 22.3 11.2 10
31. Riffle Slope (s~;,ne) -ft/ft 0.015 0.035 0.025 15 0.033 0.564 0.127 19 0.029 0.345 0.123 11 0.028 0.113 0.057 7
32. Ratio of Riffle Slope to Average
Slope (Srifne/ Sbkf) 1.5 3.5 2.5 15 1.7 29.2 6.6 19 1.0 1 1.4 4.1 1 l 1.5 6.0 3.0 7
Channel Materials (Particle Size Index -
dso) Coarse sand Medium sand Coarse sand
dig - mm 0.20 0.17 0.14
d35_- mm 0.38 0.33 0.35
dso - mm 0.69 0.46 0.60
d8,, - mm 26 22 23
d95 - mm 67 56 59
* n -This column represents the number o f data points used where a range or mean is specified.
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION
BAKER ENGINEERING
PAGE 3-6
FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
JANUARY 2008

3.2 Channel Stability Assessment
A naturally stable stream must be able to transport the sediment load supplied by its watershed while
maintaining dimension, pattern, and profile over time so that it does not degrade or aggrade (Rosgen, 1994).
Stable streams migrate across alluvial landscapes slowly, over long periods, while maintaining their form and
function. Instability occurs when scouring causes the channel to incise (degrade) or excessive deposition
causes the channel bed to rise (aggrade). A generalized relationship of stream stability was proposed by Lane
(1955) that states the product of sediment load and sediment size is proportional to the product of stream
slope and discharge, or stream power. A change in any one of these variables causes a rapid physical
adjustment in the stream channel.
3.2.1 Channel Evolution Process
A common sequence of physical adjustments has been observed in many streams following disturbance.
This adjustment process is often referred to as channel evolution. Disturbance can result from
channelization, increase in runoff due to build-out in the watershed, removal of streamside vegetation,
and other changes that negatively affect stream stability. All of these disturbances occur in both urban
and rural environments. Several models have been used to describe this process of physical adjustment
for a stream. The Simon Channel Evolution Model (1989) characterizes evolution in six steps,
including:
1. Sinuous, pre-modified
' 2. Channelized
3. Degradation
4. Degradation and widening
5. Aggradation and widening
6. Quasi-equilibrium.
Figure 3.3 illustrates the six steps of the Simon Channel Evolution Model.
The channel evolution process is initiated once a stable, well-vegetated stream that interacts frequently
with its floodplain is disturbed. Disturbance commonly results in an increase in stream power that
causes degradation, often referred to as channel incision (Lane, 1955). Incision eventually leads to
over-steepening of the banks and, when critical bank heights are exceeded, the banks begin to fail and
mass wasting of soil and rock leads to channel widening. Incision and widening continue moving
upstream in the form of a head-cut. Eventually the mass wasting slows, and the stream begins to
' aggrade. Anew, low-flow channel begins to form in the sediment deposits. By the end of the
evolutionary process, a stable stream with dimension, pattern, and profile similar to those of
undisturbed channels forms in the deposited alluvium. The new channel is at a lower elevation than its
' original form, with a new floodplain constructed of alluvial material (FISRWG, 1998).
3.2.2 South Muddy Creek Site- Channel Stability Discussion
South Muddy Creek is a perennial, channelized stream with a flow regime dominated by stormwater
' runoff from a watershed that is approximately 78% forested, 11 % agricultural, 4% developed, and
approximately 7% mixed grasslands and open space. A flood control structure upstream impacts the
flow regime by decreasing peak flows as described in Section 3.3.1. South Muddy Creek is incised
' and vertically unstable as evidenced by the bank height ratios of 2.4 to 3.2. The channel is laterally
constrained and has an entrenchment ratio of 1.1 to 1.7. Table 3.3 summarizes the geomorphic values
associated with channel stability.

SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION
BAKER ENGINEERING
PAGE 3-7
FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
JANUARY 2008

Table 3.3 Stability Indicators -South Muddy Creek Site
South Muddy Creek Restoration Plan

e ~auYh muddy +Cre~k
Pat~net
r _
~CL~` '
Y i
X3
X$
Stream Type G4c -+ F4 G4c G4c G4c G4c
Mature forested Mature Mature Mature Mature
buffer 3 to 5 forested buffer forested buffer forested buffer forested buffer
feet wide on the 3 to 5 feet 3 to 5 feet on on left bank. on left bank.
left bank, wide on the both banks, Mature Mature
followed by left bank, followed by forested buffer forested buffer
Riparian cropland. followed by cropland. 3 to 5 feet 3 to 5 feet
Vegetation Mature forested cropland. wide on right wide on right
valley wall on Mature bank followed bank followed
right bank. forested valley by pasture and by ornamental
wall on right patches of horticulture.
bank. forest.
Channel Dimension
Bankfull Area 97
2 89.6 81.5 77.7 72.8
(SF) .
Width/Depth 9
26 10
9 9.8 8.6 8.1
Ratio . .
Channel Pattern
Meander Width N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Ratio
Sinuosity 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06
Vertical Stability
Bank Height 2
3 2.6 2.9 2.4 2.8
Ratio (BHR) .
Entrenchment 1
4 1.7 1.4 1.1 1.2
Ratio (ER) .
Evolution
Scenario E-Gc-F-C-E E-Gc-F-C-E E-Gc-F-C-E E-Gc-F-C-E E-Gc-F-C-E
Simon Evolution IV V IV III III
Stage
Notes:
1. N/A: Meander Width Ratio not measured because channel has been straightened.
2. Simon Channel Evolution; see Fi ure 3.3.
3.2.2.1 Bank Pin Study
Equinox Environmental has established three bank pin study sites within the South Muddy Creek
site to monitor bank erosion. Bank pins were installed on June 29, 2001, and monitored on
September 15, 2003. Raw data were supplied to Baker. Table 3.4 presents a summary of linear
feet of lateral bank erosion occurring per year at each study site. These data suggest that, within the
project limits, South Muddy Creek experiences between 3 to 7 inches of lateral bank erosion per
year, with localized erosion up to 1.2 feet per year. This rapid erosion rate corresponds to tall,
steep, and unvegetated banks observed throughout the project area.
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION
BAKER ENGINEERING
FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
JANUARY 2008
PAGE 3-8

Table 3.4 Bank Pin Study -South Muddy Creek Site
South Muddy Creek Restoration Plan
BankPinStudy Site Range ofbfloc~l~ized ~
ErosiurvYeac/Site nfeet Averageof_
~ Erosion/YearlSxtein feet
BP 28 0.0-1.2 0.58
BP 29 0.0-1.1 0.47
BP 30 0.0-0.6 0.28

3.2.3 South Fork Hoppers Creek Site- Channel Stability Discussion
The following section discusses channel stability on the South Fork Hoppers Creek site, including the
project reaches slated for improvement on South Fork Hoppers Creek, UT1, and UT2. Table 3.5
summarizes the geomorphic parameters related to channel stability.
Table 3.5 Stability Indicators -South Fork Hoppers Creek Site
South Muddy Creek Restoration Plan
Parameter Stream Re~c1i
South Fork
Hoppers Creek UT1B llT2A '.UT2B
Stream Type GSc ES GS GSc
Riparian Vegetation Fescue pasture
with narrow
(average 5-foot
wide) buffer of
alder. Fescue pasture
with narrow
(average 5-foot
wide) buffer of
alder. Mature forest; no
understory. Roots
do not penetrate to
lower banks. Primarily fescue
pasture; forested
right bank near
downstream end of
reach.
Channel Dimension
Bankfull Area (SF) 7.4 - 14.4 3.4 - 3.5 6.1 5.5 - 6.2
W idth/Depth Ratio 6.1-14.4 3.4 - 9.5 5.4 5.0 - 6.2
Channel Pattern
Meander Width Ratio N/A- channel has
been straightened N/A- channel has
been straightened N/A- narrow, steep
valley does not
allow for pattern N/A- narrow, steep
valley does not
allow for pattern
Sinuosity 1.14 1.18 1.14 1.22
Vertical Stability
Bank Height Ratio (BHR) 1.3 - 2.6 1.1 - 4.5 2.7 - 7.1 1.0 - 3.9
Entrenchment Ratio (ER) 2.0 - 3.4 2.9 -16.2 1.3 1.7 - 2.7
Evolution Scenario E -Gc-F-C-E E -Gc-F-C-E B-G-Fb-B B-G-Fb-B
Simon Evolution Stage III to [V QI [I[ III to IV
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION
BAKER ENGINEERING
FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
JANUARY 2008
' PAGE 3-9

3.2.3.1 South Fork Hoppers Creek
The South Fork Hoppers Creek channel within the project area is a perennial, channelized stream
with a flow regime dominated by stormwater runoff from a forested and agricultural watershed. The
channel has historically been straightened to maximize productive agricultural land. A narrow five-
foot wide woody buffer is present at the top of the bank, primarily composed of alder (Alnrrs
serrulala). Beyond this narrow buffer the reach is surrounded by actively-grazed pastureland with
fescue (Festuca ela~ior) as the dominant vegetation. Cattle have full access to the channel and
continuously trample the banks, causing bank erosion. One severe bend has formed at the
downstream end of the reach, at the old road crossing and primary cattle crossing location. This
sharp bend is the only pattern feature for the reach and is the reason for a sinuosity measurement of
1.08.
The stream has become vertically incised as evidenced by bank height ratios in the 1.5 to 2.5 range.
The channel has remained fairly narrow; width-to-depth ratios were calculated in the 6.0 to 7.5
range for two surveyed cross-sections and at 14.4 for the upstream-most cross-section. With
respect to Simon's channel evolution model, this reach is approximately at Stage III to IV: it has
been channelized, is incising, and is widening.
3.2.3.2 UT1B
The UT 1 B channel flows through an active cattle grazing area. The headwaters of this watershed
have seen recent residential development; based on landowner observations, bankfull events have
occurred at a more frequent recurrence interval over the past three to five years. A narrow flue-foot
wide buffer is present at top of bank, primarily composed of alder (Alizasserrulala). Beyond this
narrow buffer, the reach is surrounded by actively-grazed pastureland, with fescue (Festr~ca elalior)
as the dominant vegetation.
Like the South Fork Hoppers reach, the channel has been straightened and woody vegetation has
been managed to maximize productive agricultural land. The stream is located slightly right of the
lowest point of the valley, indicating that the stream has been relocated from where it would
naturally flow. The lower 200 LF of the reach, from the 24" CMP culvert crossing to the
confluence with South Fork Hoppers, has down cut to meet the lowered grade of South Fork
Hoppers Creek. The culvert provides vertical grade control for the upper portion of this reach, but
the lower portion of the reach will continue to incise as South Fork Hoppers continues to degrade.
Bank height ratios at the survey cross section were measured as 1.4 and 2.5 for the UT1 B project
reach. With respect to Simon's channel evolution model, this reach is approximately at Stage [II: it
has been channelized and is incising.
3.2.3.3 UT2A
UT2A is a small, steep channel located in a narrow valley. The average channel slope exceeds 3%.
The stream banks and valley walls are steep, sparsely-vegetated clay embankments. The
surrounding area is steep and forested, but few tree roots penetrate to the lower stream banks. The
channel does not have access to a floodprone area. [t is unlikely that the channel has been
straightened; the lack of pattern appears to be a function of the narrow valley and steep slopes. The
lower portion of UT2A flows through a pen where hogs are kept. The hogs have full access to the
creek and for 100 LF, the system is severely over-wide, trampled, and lacks a distinct low-flow
channel. This area is devoid of vegetation.
With respect to Simon's channel evolution model, this reach is approximately at Stage III: it has
been impacted by livestock and is incising due to lack of vertical grade control. The channel likely
began as a B channel, due to steep grade and narrow valley. Now that it is incised, the reach
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION
BAKER ENGINEERING
FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
JANUARY 2008
PAGE 3-10

appears to be functioning like a G. We predict that left unchecked, the channel would continue to
incise, then widen slightly, then re-form as a B at a lower elevation.
' 3.2.3.4 UT2B
UT2B flows from the pig pen area down to the confluence with South Fork Hoppers Creek. The
valley widens through this reach and the channel slope decreases to less than 2%. Banks continue
to be steep and sparsely vegetated. The channel is incised, as evidenced by bank height ratios of
3.5 and 3.9 at the surveyed cross-section locations. The channel is in a transition zone, is incising
' to meet the grade of South Fork Hoppers Creek, and has begun to widen. The channel is in Stage
III to IV of Simon's evolution model. Like UT2A, due to the narrow, steep valley, we predict that
this channel started as a B channel. The reach has incised and begun to widen. It is functioning as
a G channel but is moving toward an F channel.
3.3 Bankfull Verification
' Baker Engineering used several methods to verify the bankfull stage and corresponding discharge of the
restoration reaches of the South Muddy Creek Restoration project. Bankfull stage was identified during the
existing condition survey using geomorphic indicators. Estimates of discharge were made by using survey
1 data, mathematical equations, hydrologic and hydraulic modeling, and regional relationships. Gage station
data were used to further verify the findings. Each method reinforces the ultimate conclusion of a bankfull
discharge.
3.3.1 South Muddy Creek
3.3.1.1 Bankfull Area
' Bankfull stage throughout the reach was identified in the field; indicators included a break in slope,
a flat depositional feature, and a consistent scour line. Surveyed riffle cross sections with bankfull
indicators were plotted on the North Carolina Regional Curve (Harman et al, 1999) as shown in
Figure 3.4. The bankfull cross sectional areas for South Muddy Creek plotted below the regional
' curve. This is likely caused by the reduction in flow from the upstream impoundment.
In order to verify the impoundment's impacts on the downstream channel Baker Engineering
conducted a site visit on April 13, 2007 to the structure to assess the condition of the dam and
spillway as well as the condition of South Muddy Creek upstream and downstream of the dam. The
structure was functioning well and effectively passed the baseflow of the stream. A channel cross
' section was surveyed upstream of the impoundment, above backwater effects, as well as
immediately downstream of the impoundment. Bankfull features for both cross sections were
identified by consistent sand deposition on flats with established vegetation. Table 3.6 below
' details the geomorphic parameters obtained from the cross sections. The location of the cross-
sections is shown in Figure 3.5
Table 3.6 Existing Geomorphic Characteristics of South South Muddy Creek
Muddy Creek Upstream and Downstream of the
Impoundment
South Muddy Creek Restoration Plan
Upstream of
Impoundment
Downstream of
Impoundment
1. Stream Type E G
2. Drainage Area -mil 12.0 12.4
3. Bankfull Width (wnkr) - ft 27.8 21.0
4. Bankfull Mean Depth (dbke) - ft 3.7 2.0
5. Width/Depth Ratio (w/d ratio) 7.5 10.5
6. Cross-sectional Area (Abke) - ftZ 102.4 41.1
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING JANUARY 2008
PAGE 3-11

Table 3.6 Existing Geomorphic Characteristics of South SvBth ~duddy Greek
Muddy Creek Upstream and Downstream of the
Impoundment
South Muddy Creek Restoration Plan -
~lpstreamuf
Inipn~adatent `""' -
Ibwnstream of
~mltouadn3ent
7. Bankfull Max Depth (dmbkf) - ft 4.6 2.3
g• dmbkf ~ dbkf ratio 1.2 1.2
9. Low Bank Height to dmbkf ratio 1.0 3.0
10. Floodprone Area Width (wfpa) -feet (>100.0)* 26.5
11. Entrenchment Ratio (ER) (>3.6) 1.3
* Floodprone Area Width was not collected for theAboiecross section because the channel was completely
connected to a wide, historic floodplain.
** Only one cross section was taken for each reach
Bankfull cross sectional areas below the impoundment were slightly less than one half the cross
sectional area observed upstream. This significant decrease in bankfull area verified the
impoundment's effect on bankfull discharge and consequently cross sectional area. Computer
models were developed from observations and measurements obtained from site visits in order to
gain a more thorough understanding of the hydrology and hydraulics.
3.3.1.2 Bankfull Discharge
Preliminary Modeling
Preliminary modeling was performed to determine the impact of the impoundment on the proposed
South Muddy Creek restoration reach. The as-built plans for the impoundment, dated July 31,
1961, were obtained from NRCS. An existing conditions HydroCAD model was developed using
as-built pond information, typical cross sections, and basic watershed information retrieved from
aerials and topographic maps. An SCS Type I[ 24-hour rainfall distribution was used for the
hydrology analysis. Baker Engineering adjusted the rainfall amount to bring the watershed
discharges near the North Carolina Piedmont Regional Curve's prediction. The model was then
analyzed at the bankfull stage. Table 3.7 shows the model results compared to regional curve
predictions.
Table 3.7 Existing HydroCAD Model
Drainage Area Regional Curve HydroCAD
Results
(square .miles). Discharge Model Discharge
South Mudd Creek Restoration Plan Prediction (cfs Prediction cfs
Watershed above the impoundment 12.4 546 548
Channel below the impoundment 12.4 546 65
Watershed below the impoundment 6.4 339 339
Restoration reach 18.8 736 376
The volume of storage in the pond is approximately 210 acre-feet (ac-ft) at the crest of the primary
riser and 5,232 ac-ft at the crest of the emergency spillway. Storage is extensive, and the 30-inch
outlet structure limits pond outflow. During a modeled bankfull event in the watershed of 548 cfs,
peak discharge from the pond is limited to 65 cfs. This decreases the downstream discharges at the
South Muddy Creek restoration site to almost one half the predicted bankfull discharge. Analysis
confirmed that the impoundment decreased bankfull flows, and therefore will have an impact on
bankfull cross sectional areas as well.
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION
BAKER ENGINEERING
FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
JANUARY 2008
PAGE 3-12

' A preliminary HEC-RAS model was created for the restoration reach. Survey data were
incorporated into the model. A steady state hydraulic analysis was performed for existing channel
' dimensions with both the regional curve discharges and the HydroCAD model results. Modeled
bankfull water surface elevations for the HydroCAD predicted discharges followed bankfull field
indicators. This RAS model further verified field bankfull determinations.
' In addition to creating a HydroCAD and HEC-RAS model to determine bankfull flows, Manning's
equation was used to calculate discharge for the existing riffle cross sections. Manning's roughness
coefficients were selected based on channel materials, channel type, and by using friction
' factor/relative roughness relationships for each cross section. The estimated discharges were then
compared to that calculated through computer modeling. The insight gained from the field
identified bankfull indicators, the Manning's discharge estimation methods, and the models further
' confirmed that the discharge value at the South Muddy Creek site is significantly less than that
predicted by the regional curve.
Table 3.8 summarizes the design discharge calculations at South Muddy Creek.
Table 3.8 South Muddy Creek Bankfull Discharge Determination
South Muddy Creek Restoration Plan
Q, Manning 's Formula
DA Q
Rural -
.' Q
Friction Q,

Cross: , .
.
..
"
" , Design Q
Stream (square Regional Roughness n
from Factorl~elative HydroCAD
Section
miles)
Curve (cfs)
Coefficient
Stream
Roughness
(cfs)
(cfs)
Type
X1A 18.8 736 314 257 318 376 400
Xl 18.8 736 331 291 338 376 400
South
Muddy X3 18.8 736 346 222 387 376 400
Creek X8 18.8 736 311 221 308 376 400
X9 18.8 736 243 205 248 376 400
' As a final verification of these discharges, the NC USGS rural regression equation was used to
estimate the 1.25-, 1.5- and 1.75-year discharge. The generally accepted recurrence interval of a
bankfull event is between 1 and 2 years, and often between approximately 1.25 and 1.5 years.
' Because of the known impact of the dam on the downstream discharge, the 1.25-, 1.5- and 1.75-
year storm events were calculated independently for the watershed above the pond and below the
pond. These storm events were processed through the HydroCAD model to determine the amount
of flow received by the study reach during these return interval storms. Results are represented in
Table 3.9 below. These results indicate that the estimated bankfull discharge of 400 cfs falls within
the expected recurrence interval for bankfull events.
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION
BAKER ENGINEERING
FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
JANUARY 2008
PAGE 3-13

Table 3.9 USGS Regression Estimations at the South Muddy Impoundment
South Mudd Creek Restoration Plan
DA square i,25-Year [.5-Year ] .75-Year
~V~tershed
miles) `'~tcxm Stort~~ Storan
Above Dam 12.4 501 611 705
Below Dam to South Muddy Creek 6.4 305 378 440
Restoration Reach
Pond Outflow -HydroCAD (cfs) 12.4 64 67 70
South Muddy Creek Restoration 18.8 344 418 480
Reach - H droCAD cfs
Corresponding Rainfall in HydroCAD (in) 1.60 1.69 1.76
3.3.2 South Fork Hoppers Creek
3.3.2.1 Bankfull Area
At the South Fork Hoppers Creek site, the bankfull stages on the mainstem channel and the UT
channels were identified in the field; the indicators included a break in slope on a flat, depositional
feature and a high scour line. These indicators were consistent with other NC rural Piedmont
streams. Bankfull data for the project reach was then compared with the NC Piedmont regional
curve in Figure 3.4. The bankfull cross sectional areas consistently plotted slightly below the
regional curve, however all were within the 95% confidence interval.
Gage Analysis
In order to verify that the Piedmont regional curve is appropriate to use in this region, we assessed
the continuing stability on one USGS gage that was surveyed during the development of the
regional curve, and surveyed cross sections and a longitudinal profile at a second USGS gauging
station in January 2004. The Norwood Creek gage (USGS Gage 0214253830), which was
surveyed for the NC Piedmont rural regional curve, is located about 50 miles east-northeast of the
South Fork Hoppers Creek site. The second gage, on Jacob Fork (USGS Gage 02143040), is
located approximately 15 miles to the east of the project site, and has 42 years of peak annual
discharge record. The gage locations are illustrated in Figure 3.6. Appendix 6 contains the Jacob
Fork survey information, 9-207 gage data analysis, stage-discharge rating table, and the log Pearson
discharge analysis. The reader is directed to Harman et al. (1999) for information related to the
Norwood Creek gage analysis.
The Norwood site is located in the same 8-digit HUC as the project site (03050101). The Jacob
Fork gage is located in the adjacent 8-digit HUC (03050102). Drainage area is 7.2 square miles at
the Norwood Creek gage site and 25.7 square miles at the Jacob Fork site. Both creeks have small
drainage areas in comparison to most active USGS gages, supporting the low end of the regional
curve as applicable to this region.
The top of bank was a very consistent bankfull indicator at the Norwood Creek site. Sandy
deposition and wrack lines in the floodplain indicated that the creek overtops its banks on a
frequent basis. A visual assessment of the gage site indicated that the creek has maintained a stable
dimension, pattern, and profile since it was surveyed for the regional curve development. Because
of this observed stability on the site, the information obtained from the survey during the regional
curve development was used to verify drainage area versus bankfull cross-sectional area and
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION
BAKER ENGINEERING
FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
JANUARY 2008
PAGE 3-14

' discharge relationships for this watershed. The average bankfull cross-sectional area for Norwood
Creek is 99 SF. The bankfull discharge is estimated to be 254 cfs.
' Bankfull indicators at the Jacob Fork site consisted of a scour line and depositional features that
were typically observed approximately 4.5 feet above water surface at the time of the survey. The
stream has experienced some incision in the past and has abandoned a relic floodplain and created a
' new one at a lower elevation. Sandy deposition and wrack lines in the active floodplain indicated
that the creek overtops its banks on a frequent basis. The thalweg, water surface, bankfull, and top
of bank were surveyed for 850 LF through the gage and compared to the stage at the bankfull
' indicator (estimated based on a trend line through all the surveyed bankfull indicators) to the stage-
discharge table listed for the gage. From the stage-discharge relationship, we estimated that the
recurrence interval for the discharge of Jacob Fork related to the bankfull stage to be about 1.23
years. A log Pearson analysis was performed on the 42 years of available peak annual flow data.
The bankfull recurrence interval for the rural Piedmont region is normally 1.09 to 1.8 years, with an
average return interval of 1.4 years (Harman et al., 1999). The Jacob Fork return interval is within
the range of data used to develop the NC Piedmont rural regional curve.
The average bankfull cross-sectional area for Jacob Fork (290 SF) plots slightly above the
regression line on the NC Piedmont regional curve (Harman et al., 1999), as illustrated in Figure
3.4, which is typical of streams that are partially incised. Bankfull discharge was estimated, as
discussed above, by comparing the stage at the bankfull indicator (estimated based on a trend line
through all bankfull indicators) to the stage-discharge table listed for the gage. The bankfull
' discharge for Jacob Fork is approximately 1,140 cfs. The bankfull discharge was cross-referenced
with the regional curve, as shown in Figure 3.4. The discharge plotted within the range of other
data points used to develop the curve.
' These gage analyses indicate that bankfull stage was correctly identified at the project site and that
the NC Piedmont regional curve is applicable to these gage sites located near the South Fork
Hoppers Creek site.
3.3.2.2 Bankfull Discharge
Several estimation methods were employed to verify bankfull discharge on South Fork Hoppers and
the associated tributaries.
Bankfull discharges were calculated at riffle cross sections surveyed for the project using
Manning's equation. Manning's roughness coefficients were selected based on channel materials,
channel type, and by using friction factor/relative roughness of each cross section. Calculated
discharges ranged from 31 cfs to 75 cfs on the mainstem, from 12 to 18 cfs on UT1, and from 23 to
35 cfs on UT2. Variations in flow estimates are attributable to the increasing drainage area and
variations of channel dimension.
For further verification of these discharges, the NC USGS rural regression equation was used to
estimate the 1.25-, 1.5-, 1.75-, and 2-year discharges. The generally accepted recurrence interval of
a bankfull event is between 1 and 2 years, and often between approximately 1.25 and 1.5 years.
The bankfull discharges calculated using Manning's equation fall in the 1- to 2-year discharges
predicted by the regression equation. These results indicate that the estimated bankfull discharge
range falls within the expected recurrence interval for bankfull events.
The USGS gauging station analyses performed at Norwood Creek and Jacob Fork indicated that the
regional curve provides a reliable estimation of discharge based on drainage area within the region.
Regional curve estimations were within the range of Manning's results and between the 1-and 2-
year storm events. The insight gained from the comparison of all employed methods helped
determine the design discharge values. Bankfull discharge for each reach was plotted on the
' regional curve, as shown on Figure 3.4.
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
' BAKER ENGINEERING JANUARY 2008
PAGE 3-15

Table 3.10 summarizes the design discharge by reach.
Table 3.10 South Fork Hoppers Creek Site Bankfull Discharge Determination
South Muddy Creek Restoration Ptan

i
IAA
Q, Rural
Piaclmonf Q, M8rtI11l1g~S ~118t1Oi1
(cfs)
Q;~'ric#~on ..' `
1"aCtor/itel7ti~+
e : Q Regre3Sl~;n EquatlanS
bets) '

Stream CCUS3

.section,
~squa~

rniles;
Re$s~tal

Curve
Roughness

Cuafticient
"n"

~fr,~ .
Roug#mess

x.25-

1.5-

.7~- ~)C~igtt Q ;
~cfs)
{cfs} Stream 1~fr) ~ ear ~ ear v ear
4'ype
XS 0.52 55.6 71.2 52.5 73.3 45.8 60.6 73.1 50

South
Fork X7 0.52 55.6 31.2 24.6 31.0 45.8 60.6 73.1 50
Ho
ers
pp
X l0 0.52 55.6 75.2 69.3 66.9 45.8 60.6 73. l 50
X2 0.08 13.9 11.7 15.5 17.1 10.4 14.8 18.4 14
1
UT
B
X4 0.08 13.9 18.4 13.5 44.7 10.4 14.8 18.4 14
UT2A X11 0.04 8.8 35.0 35.0 30.6 6.3 9.2 11.6 8
X 14 0.07 13. I 30.4 28.0 29.2 9.8 13.9 17.4 12

UT2B
X l 6 0.07 13.1 31.6 23.3 31.8 9.8 l 3.9 17.4 12
3.4 Vegetation and Habitat Descriptions
The habitat within and adjacent to the proposed South Muddy Creek site consists of Piedmont/Low Mountain
Alluvial Forest, Northern Hardwood Forest, and agricultural fields as described by Schafale and Weakley
(1990). The majority of the riparian buffer within the South Muddy Creek project area is very disturbed with
the exception of two wooded areas at the northeastern and southwestern edges of the project area.
The habitat within and adjacent to the proposed South Fork Hopper Creek site consists of Piedmont/Low
Mountain Alluvial Forest, Northern Hardwood Forest, and fallow agricultural fields as described by Schafale
and Weakley (1990). The riparian areas ranged from relatively disturbed to very disturbed.
3.4.1 Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
Within the South Muddy Creek site, the Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest areas cover
approximately 30 percent of the project area and are located in the northeast and southwest portions of
the site. Within these areas, the forested riparian stream buffer varies, but is generally greater than 50
feet in width. Canopy species consists of a mixture of bottomland and mesophytic trees including
American sycamore (Plataaus occidentalis), yellow poplar (Liriodendron ti~lipifera), river birch (Betula
nigra), white ash (Fraxinusamericana), red maple (Acerr~tbrum), sweetgum (Ligaidambar
slyrac~iea), black cherry (Prurzusserotijra), and American beech (Fagusgrandifolia). Understory trees
and shrubs include box elder (Acerr~egr~ndo), red maple, spicebush (Lindera benzoirz), black cherry,
Chinese privet (Ligustrumsinense), flowering dogwood (Cornrrsflorida), and American holly (Ilex
opaca). Herbaceous and vine species consist of blackberry (Rarbusspp.), raspberry (Rubes
occideatalis), Indian strawberry (Dachesneaindica), violets (Uolaspp.), Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicerajaponica), poison ivy (Toxicodendronradicans), giant cane grass (Arundinariagigantea),
greenbrier (Smilaxspp.), and multiflora rose (Rosamultiflora).
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION
BAKER ENGINEERING
FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
JANUARY 2008
PAGE 3-16

The South Muddy Creek riparian buffer adjacent to the agricultural fields ranges from 5 to 10 feet in
width and is sparse at best in many places. Species found within this limited riparian buffer zone in the
' agricultural fields area are similar to those found within the forested area as previously described with
the addition of black willow (Saiixnigra) and alder (Ainusserruiata).
Within the South Fork Hoppers Creek project area the Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
' .ecological community composes the riparian stream buffer, which is limited to narrow corridors of 5 to
10 feet in width along the majority of the stream banks. Species found within this limited riparian
buffer zone adjacent to the agricultural fields include red maple (Acerrubrum), sweetgum
(Li~uidambars~yraciflua), river birch (Be~ula nigra), yellow poplar (Liriodendron tuiipifera), alder
(Alnusserrula~a), grape (Ulisspp.), multiflora rose (Rosamul~iflora), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
Japonica), Chinese privet (Ligus~rumsinense), Virginia pine (Pines virginiana), and red cedar
(Juniperus virginiana). It should be noted that along the banks of UT2 and South Fork Hoppers Creek,
alder is the predominant species and can be considered a viable species to transplant during project
implementation.
3.4.2 Northern Hardwood Forest
"~ Within the South Muddy Creek site the Northern Hardwood Forest community covers approximately 1
percent of the area and is located on slopes at the southwestern edge of the site. Canopy species include
red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), yellow poplar (Liriodendron luiipifera), hemlock (Tsuga canadensis),
black cherry (Prunusserotina), Virginia pine (Pines virginiana), and river birch (Betulanigra).
Understory, shrub, and herbaceous species include ironwood (Carpinus caroiiniana), black cherry, dog
hobble (Leucothoe e~li~orum), sourwood (Oxydendrum arboretum), and Christmas fern (Polys~ichum
acrastichoia'es).
' Within the South Fork Hoppers Creek site the Northern Hardwood Forest habitat type is found at the
upstream ends of both UT 1 and UT2 and comprises approximately 15 percent of the project area. This
habitat type is primarily found along steeper grades and higher elevations within the project area.
Overstory species composition consisted of red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), sourwood (Oxydendrum
arboreum), hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), red maple (Acerrubrum), yellow poplar (Liriodendron
~i~iipifera), American beech (Fagusamericana), pignut hickory (Caryatomenlosa), southern red oak
(Quercusfaicata), white pine (Pinuss~robus), Virginia pine (Pi~zus virginiana), and white oak (Quercus
' aiba). Understory, shrub and herbaceous species consist of sourwood, Chinese privet (Ligus~rtrm
sinense), American holly (Ilex opaca), mountain laurel (Kalmia iatifolia), rhododendron
(Rhododendron maximum), alder (Alnusserrulata), poison ivy (Toxicodendronradicans), Christmas
~ fern (Po ystichum acros~ichoides), and ground cedar (Lycopodium obscirrrrm).
3.4.3 Agricultural Fields
' Within the South Muddy Creek site agricultural is the most dominant community and covers
approximately 70 percent of the project area. The fields have been used for various agricultural
purposes including grazing, hay production, cultivating landscaping trees and shrubs, and crop
' production. Otherwise, vegetation within these fields primarily consists of herbaceous species, with a
few shrub species, including red maple (Acerrubn~m), sedges (Carexspp.), soft rush (Juncuseffirsus),
asters (Asterspp.), beggars tick (Bidensfrondosa), blackberry (Rubusspp.), multiflora rose (Rosa
mui~iflora), fescue (Festuca elatior) and little bluestem (Schizachyriumscoparium).
Within the South Fork Hoppers Creek site the agricultural community is also the most dominant and
' covers approximately 85 percent of the project area. The fields have been used for grazing and hay
production. Vegetation within these fields primarily consists of herbaceous species, with a few shrub
species, including Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), sedges (Carex spp.), soft rush (Juncos effusus),
r
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
' BAKER ENGINEERING JANUARY 2008
PAGE 3-17

asters (Asterspp.), beggars tick (Bidensfrondosa), blackberry (Rubusspp.), multiflora rose (Rasa
~ultiflora), fescue (Fes~r~ca ela~ior) and little bluestem (Schizachyriumscopariuyrr).
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION
BAKER ENGINEERING
FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
JANUARY 2008
PAGE 3-18

4.0 REFERENCE STREAMS SUMMARY
Reference reach surveys are valuable tools to river designers. Reference reaches are stable rivers within a
specific valley type (Rosgen, 1998). Their morphology dimension, pattern, and profile can be used as a
template for design of a stable stream in a similar valley type with similar bed material. In order to extract the
morphological relationships observed in a stable system, dimensionless ratios are developed from the
surveyed reference reach. These ratios can be applied to a stream design to allow the designer to `mimic' the
natural, stable form of the target channel type.
While reference reaches can be used as an aid in designing channel dimension, pattern, and profile, there are
limitations. The pattern for most reference reach quality streams is controlled by large trees and other woody
vegetation. Therefore, the pattern is not "free to form" based on fluvial processes, but instead is formed by
the vegetation. Parameters such as radius of curvature are especially affected by vegetation control, often
resulting in very tight bends. Therefore, pattern ratios observed in reference reaches are often adjusted in the
design criteria to create more conservative designs that are less likely to erode after construction, before the
permanent vegetation is established.
Assigning an appropriate stream type for the corresponding valley type was considered conceptually prior to
selecting reference reach streams. South Muddy Creek, South Fork Hoppers Creek, and UT 1 B all have valley
types that would support C/E channel types. Because South Muddy Creek has a large drainage area, it was
determined that more conservative design ratios would be used. Therefore, C type reference reaches were
researched for the South Muddy Creek design. On the South Fork Hoppers Creek site, drainage areas are
much smaller, and therefore it was determined that some more aggressive ratios would be incorporated into
the design. Therefore, E type reference reaches were researched for the designs at the South Fork Hoppers
site.
Two reference reach databases were consulted for potential design parameters. Four reference reach datasets
were selected from the databases: a survey of Morgan Creek (Doll, 1999) and Barnes Creek (Clinton, 1998)
for the South Muddy design and Sal's Branch (Clinton, 1998) and Spencer Creek (Clinton, 1998) for the
South Fork Hoppers Creek and UTs designs. The geomorphic survey summaries are included in Table 4.1.
The location of these reference reaches is included on Figure 3.6.
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
' BAKER ENGINEERING JANUARY 2008
PAGE 4-1

Table 4.1 Reference Reach Geomorphic Parameters
South Muddy Creek Restoration Plan
4outh ivfuddt' Creek Site South Fork ! Top pers creek Site

... Margsn C'teek Barnes .(:.~e1~ ..
•. Sai's Aranch
:. ` ~1?enr~ec t'.iaek
;Downstresni..
;, ,. ,. ~Mlfl~, l~flt fl* It-Ili1 1V~K, fl~ 11~Itn ~aX ~~ 'iVfln Ibfa\ ~*
1. Stream Type C4 C4 E4 E4
2. Drainage Area-square miles 8.4 23.0 0.20 1.0
3. Bankfull Width (woke) -feet 33.2 33.5 2 60.7 69.0 2 8.7 I 10.7 1
4. Bankfull Mean Depth (dbke) -feet 2.3 2.4 2 2.9 3.8 2 1.2 1 1.6 1
5. Width/Depth Ratio (w/d ratio) 14.1 14.7 2 16.0 23.8 2 7.3 l 5.7 1
6. Cross-sectional Area (Abkf) - SF 75.1 79.8 2 288.0 199.0 2 10.4 1 17.8 1
7. Bankfull Mean Velocity (vbke) -fps 7.0 Not Available Not Available 5.4
8. Bankfull Discharge (Qbkf) - cfs 524 Not Available Not Available 97
9. Bankfull Max Depth (dmbke) -feet 2.8 2.9 2 3.9 5.2 2 2.4 1 2.1 1
10. dmbke /dbke ratio 1.2 1.2 2 Not Available 2.6 l l.3 1
11. Low Bank Height to dmbke Ratio 1,0 2 Not Available 1 2 1 1.0 I
12. Floodprone Area Width (wfpa) -feet 77.5 86.8 2 219.0 220.0 2 163.0 l 60.0 1
13. Entrenchment Ratio (ER) 2.3 2.6 2 3.2 3.6 2 18.7 1 5.5 1
14. Meander length (Lm) -feet Not Available Not Available 38.0 45.0 3 46.0 48.0 2
15. Ratio of meander length to Bankfull
width (Lm/wbkf) Not Available Not Available 4.4 5.2 3 4.1 4.4 2
16. Radius of curvature (R~) -feet Not Available Not Available 13.1 29.6 4 10.9 14.6 5
l7. Ratio of radius of curvature to Bankfull
Width (R~/wbkf) Not Available Not Available 1.5 3.4 4 1.3 1.4 5
18. Belt width (wbi~) -feet Not Available Not Available 10.0 16.0 4 38.3 40.8 2
19. Meander Width Ratio (wbi~/Wbkf) Not Available Not Available 1.2 1.8 4 3.4 3.6 2
20. Sinuosity (K) Stream Length/ Valley
Distance Not Available Not Available 1.19 2.3
21. Valley Slope -feet per foot Not Available Not Available 0.0115 0.0109
22. Channel Slope (scnanne~) -feet per foot 0.0070 0.0039 0.0109 0.0047
23. Pool Slope (spnni) -feet per foot 0.0001 1 0.0 1 0.0 4 0.0007 2
24. Ratio of Pool Slope to Average Slope
(Spool / Schannel) 0.01 1 0.0 1 0.0 4 0.2 2
25. Maximum Pool Depth (dpnoi) -feet 4.1 1 6.8 1 3. l l 3.3 1
26. Ratio of Pool Depth to Average
Bankfull Depth (dponl/dbke) l.8 1 2.0 1 2.6 1 2.1 1
27. Pool Width (wpooi) -feet 25.9 1 48.5 1 5.6 1 17.5 1
28. Ratio of Pool Width to Bankfull Width
(~'~'pool / ~'~'bkf) 0.8 1 0.8 1 0.64 1 1.6 1
29. Pool Area (Apooi) -square feet 88.9 1 133.1 1 10.3 1 24.5 1
30. Ratio of Pool Area to Bankfull Area
(Apool/Abkf) 1 2 1 0.6 1 0.99 1 1.4 1
31. Pool-to-Pool Spacing -feet 46.0 277.0 2 Not Available 35.5 47 3 71.0 5
32. Ratio of Pool-to-Pool Spacing to
Bankfull Width (p-p/wbkf) 4.4 8.3 2 Not Available 4.1 5.4 3 6.6 5
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION
BAKER ENGINEERING
FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
JANUARY 2008
PAGE 4-2

Table 4.1 Reference Reach Geomorphic Parameters
South Muddy Creek Restoration Plan
South Viu~1<iy t.'ro~k Site Sot,th }?ork E4ors Creek Site
tikxi;an Creek.. ,
` Barnes Crs'ek 5a1's Branch '."panc~r t":r~~k
~ Dc>x'nurCanl.
lV9in Max n* Min Max n* I~~tin Max n* Min Aiak n*
33. Riffle Slope c4~ (s~~e) -feet per foot 0.014 0.024 2 0.021 0.030 2 0.027 0.04 4 0.013 2
/34. Ratio of Riffle Slope to Average Slope
lSriftl~ Sbkf) 2 0 3.4 2 5.3 7.7 2 2.5 3.7 4 1.4 2
Particle Size Distribution of Riffle Material
Material (d50) Very Fine Gravel Gravel Medium Gravel Medium Gravel
d,~ - mm Not Available 0.4 4.8 <0.062
d;s - mm 1.2 11 Not Available 3
d50 - mm 3 60 9.5 8.8
d84 - mm 77 512 30 42
d~5 - mm 800 >2048 Not Available 90

* n -This column represents the number of data points used where a range or mean is specified.
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
' BAKER ENGINEERING JANUARY 2008
PAGE 4-3

5.0 PROJECT SITE WETLANDS (EXISTING CONDITIONS)
This section discusses the existing jurisdictional wetlands on site, the ambient climactic conditions,
hydrological characterization, and soil characterization.
5.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands
Onsite surveys of the project areas were conducted on January 30 and 31, 2007, to identify potential USACE
jurisdictional wetland locations (JD Action number is 2007-1174). Wetland presence was determined by
evaluating existing hydrology, soils, and hydrophytic vegetation (where appropriate) within the project
reaches. No wetlands were identified within the project area of the South Muddy Creek site. One
jurisdictional wetland was identified within the South Fork Hoppers Creek project area. The USACE Routine
Wetland Determination Data form for this wetland is included in Appendix 2. The location of the wetland
identified within the project area is shown on Figure 3.2.
Wetland 1 is an emergent, toe-of-slope/floodplain wetland that is located adjacent to South Fork Hoppers
Creek. This wetland is 0.33 acres in size and has been impacted by agricultural activities. Vegetation within
this wetland is dominated by herbaceous species with no woody species identified. Vegetation primarily
consists of soft rush (Juncrts effiisus) and fescue (Festuca elatior). Soils are sandy loams and are very dark
grayish browns with slight yellowish red mottles in color. Wetland hydrology indicators include saturation in
the wettest portions. This wetland appears to gain the majority of its water input through groundwater
seepage from the adjacent slope. This wetland will only sustain impacts associated with enhancement
activities.
5.2 Climatic Conditions
McDowell County has an average annual rainfall of 53.97 inches (NRCS, 1995) and a growing season that is
222 days long, beginning on March 28 and ending on November 4. Baker Engineering collected rainfall data
for the monitoring period from the nearest automated weather station, located in Marion, approximately 9
miles northwest of the project site (Marion, NC UCAN: 14204, COOP: 315340). Monthly precipitation
amounts from January 2006 through May 2007 are compared with McDowell County NRCS WETS table
long term average monthly rainfall, in Table 5.1. These data indicate that over the entire period, total rainfall
was slightly above normal, which is attributed to a particularly wet November and December.
Table 5.1 South Fork Hoppers Creek Site Precipitation Summary
South Muddy Creek Restoration Plan
Month-Year Observed
Precipitation (in) WETS Table Average
Monthly Precipitation (in) Deviatiop of Observed
:From Average (~#-)
January-06 2.89 4.23 -1.34
February-06 2.0 5.46 -3.46
March-06 0.89 4.43 -3.54
April-06 3.87 4.41 -0.54
May-06 0.96 5.40 -4.44
June-06 4.18 4.70 -0.52
July-06 3.41 4.28 -0.87
August-06 5.52 4.24 1.28
September-06 7.15 4.48 2.67
October-06 2.72 3.95 -1.23
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING JANUARY 2008
PAGE 5-1

Table 5.1 South Fork Hoppers Creek Site Precipitation Summary
South Muddy Creek Restoration Plan
1Vionth-Year ('3bs~rn ed
~"recip~tafon (in) 'VETS Tal#~e ~,vera~e >
,IVionthiy Precipitation ~inl l~et~iataari of Observed
from. Average (iia)
November-06 10.47 4.43 6.04
December-06 17.52 3.96 13.56
January-07 1.37 4.23 -2.86
February-07 3.58 5.46 -1.88
March-07 8.88 4.43 4.45
April-07 3.66 4.41 -0.75
May-07 1.86 5.40 -3.54
Total 80.93 77.90 3.03
' S.3 Water Table Hydrology
Ditching and channelization has occurred throughout the site. During conversion of the site, stream channels
and wetland systems through the site were channelized and ditched to improve drainage. There is some
evidence of land leveling but it does not appear that significant fill was placed within the wetland boundary.
' Baker Engineering began collecting water table data from the field on the south side of South Fork Hoppers
Creek from two automated gages in April 2007. Data collection is expected to continue at least through the
2007 growing season. Two automated gages were installed at the locations shown in Figure 3.2. Automated
' Gage 1 (AW 1) is located adjacent to the existing wetland between the wetland boundary and the creek
channel. Automated Gage 2 (AW2) is located just west of the existing wetland area. The automated Ecotone
pressure transducer gages were installed to a depth of 40 inches, and were programmed to record water table
levels every 12 hours. A wetland must have 12 consecutive days (5% of the growing season) of ground
saturation (water table within 12 inches of ground surface) based on the WETS table for McDowell County
(Marion, NC 5340) to meet minimum wetland hydrology criteria set forth in the Corpsof~'ngineers Gltetlands
I~elineation~lanua!(Environmental Laboratory, 1987).
The data from the two automated gages on the site are provided in Appendix 5. Precipitation data collected
during the monitoring period (April-07 through May-07) indicate that lower than average rainfall occurred.
Both gages exhibited rapid increases in water table elevation following rainfall events, with the water table
dropping relatively quickly following the rainfall events. Both gages are located within approximately 30 to
40 feet of the existing incised creek channel, which is approximately 3 to 4 feet deep. Therefore, the rapid
decrease in the water table following rainfall events is most likely due to the drainage effect of the nearby
' stream. The area around AW2 has a lower average water table elevation than the location of AW 1 adjacent to
the existing wetland area. It is likely that water table levels are higher at the location of AW 1 due to
additional water inputs that are supplied by the adjacent wetland. During the period of monitoring, both gage
' AW 1 or AW2 exhibited hydrologic conditions much drier than would be expected for a jurisdictional
wetland. Gage data will continue to be collected and recorded, since the drought conditions hindered the
existing condition wetlands assessment.
' S.4 Hydrologic Modeling
To further investigate the current hydrologic status of the site and provide a means for evaluating proposed
' restoration plans, Baker Engineering developed hydrologic models to simulate site hydrology. DRA[NMOD
(version 5.1) was used to develop hydrologic simulation models to represent conditions at a variety of
locations across the proposed restoration area. DRAINMOD was identified as an approved hydrologic tool
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
' BAKER ENGINEERING JANUARY 2008
PAGE 5-2

for assessing wetland hydrology by the NRCS (1997). For more information on DRAINMOD and its
application to high water table soils, the reader is referred to Skaggs (1980).
Model parameters were selected based on field measurements and professional judgment of site conditions.
Rainfall and air temperature information were collected from the Marion automated weather station. Rainfall
data points that were missing from the Marion station data set were replaced with points from nearby weather
stations at Morganton (KMRN Morganton/ Lenoir Airport) and Rutherford airport (KRQD -Rutherford
County Airport).
Measured field parameters were entered into the model, and initial model simulations were compared with
observed data collected from the monitoring gages. To calibrate the model, parameters not measured in the
field were adjusted within the limits typically encountered under similar soil and geomorphic conditions until
model simulations most closely matched observed gage data.
Trends in the observed data were well represented by the model simulations; however, it should be noted that
a limited amount of observed data was available for comparison. It is important to note that DRA[NMOD
uses simplifying assumptions in the estimation of water table depths. It should also be noted that
DRAINMOD does not allow the modeling of groundwater and seepage inputs which will be important to the
hydrology of the South Fork Hoppers Creek system, as evidenced by the existing wetland area that is fed by
hillslope seepage. When applied to a site such as the South Fork Hoppers Creek system with complex
hydrologic processes, the model can be used to assess overall trends and relationships but is unlikely to offer
exact predictions of water table hydrology
DRAINMOD computes daily water balance information and outputs summaries that describe the loss
pathways for rainfall over the model simulation period. Table 5.2 summarizes the average annual amount of
rainfall, infiltration, drainage, run-off, and evapotranspiration estimated for the existing condition of the
project area, based on 45-year simulations. The average amounts for the simulated area, as well as the
minimum and maximum values, are presented in the table for gage AW 1. Water balance sums were similar
for gage AW2. Infiltration represents the amount of water that percolates into the soil and is lost via drainage
or runoff. Drainage is the loss of infiltrated water that travels through the soil profile and is discharged to
drainage ditches or underlying aquifers. Runoff is water that flows overland and reaches drainage ditches
before infiltration. Evapotranspiration is water that is lost through direct evaporation of water from the soil or
through the transpiration of plants.
From the data provided, it is clear that a significant amount of the rainfall on the site is lost to evapo-
transpiration, which is typical for farm fields in the Southeastern US. Drainage is the largest loss pathway for
water under the existing farm conditions, primarily due to the soil profile and incised condition of South Fork
Hoppers Creek through the project site. Restoration of the site will involve raising the bottom elevation of the
stream and increasing the amount of surface storage available to pond water. In this way, the respective
amounts of drainage and run-off are decreased, and the excess water allows the water table to remain higher
throughout the year, thus restoring wetland hydrology.
Table 5.2 Existing Conditions Water Balance Data (Gage AW1)
South Muddy Creek Restoration Plan

Precipitation 136.5 (84.5 to 201.2) 100
Drainage 68.5 (37.2 to 102.3) 50.2 (27.2 to 74.9)
Runoff 12.0 (0.0 to 34.5) 8.8 (0.0 to 25.3)
Evapotranspiration 58.6 (36.6 to 70.4) 42.9 (26.8 to 51.6)
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING JANUARY 2008
PAGE 5-3 '

5.5 Hydric Soils
The project soils are mapped as Iotla sandy loam according to the McDowell County Soil Survey. The Iotla
soil series is on the hydric B list for McDowell County. The soil survey indicates that these areas contain
hydric inclusions. The Iotla series is described as a nearly level, somewhat poorly-drained soil on flood
plains adjacent to streams. Permeability is moderately rapid, and surface runoff is slow. The seasonal high
water table is at a depth of 1.5 to 3.5 feet from November through April. The [otla series is mapped for the
entire wetland restoration project area. A description of other, non-hydric soils on the upland areas of the
project site is provided in Section 2.3, and a soils map for the site is provided as Figure 2.4.
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION
BAKER ENGINEERING
FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
JANUARY 2008
PAGE 5-4

6.0 REFERENCE WETLANDS SUMMARY
An existing wetland and stream system that is similar to the system to be restored was identified for a past
EEP project, the South Fork Hoppers Creek Restoration Project. This site is located within one mile of the
current South Fork Hoppers Creek site and falls within the same climatic, physiographic, and ecological
region as the proposed restoration site. The same reference wetland data used for the past project will be used
for this current project. Figure 3.6 illustrates the location of the site.
The reference site is located on two adjacent parcels on Connelly Street near the Town of Glen Alpine,
approximately 11 miles northeast of the South Fork Hoppers Creek restoration site. The stream associated
with the wetland system is an unnamed tributary to Little Silver Creek. The reference site is most similar to a
"Piedmont/ Low Mountain Alluvial Forest" as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). These systems
exist on river and stream floodplains. Hydrology of these systems is palustrine which are intermittently or
seasonally flooded. Flows tend to be highly variable, with occasional flooding.
The site classifies as a wetland, utilizing criteria identified in the USACE 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual.
These criteria include the FAC Neutral Test, oxidized root channels, and local soil survey data. Climatic
conditions of the reference site are the same as those described for the project site.
The reference site has experienced disturbances in the past, primarily due to its proximity to Connelly Street,
Interstate 40, and a maintained power line easement. The disturbance is most evident in the existing
vegetation. An extensive search of the area surrounding the South Fork Hoppers Creek site was conducted
and no undisturbed sites were located. The hydrology of the reference site does not appear to be disturbed.
Two automatic water level recorders were previously installed in the reference site to monitor the hydrology.
Soils, hydrology, and vegetation of the site are described in the sections that follow. A wetland data form is
included in Appendix 4.
6.1.1 Soils
Arkaqua is the primary series mapped on the reference site. The Arkaqua series consists of somewhat
poorly drained soils that formed in loamy alluvium along nearly level floodplains and creeks. The soils
of the reference site were investigated, and onsite soil samples were taken. Soils within the proposed
reference wetland area exhibited hydric indicators, specifically a depleted matrix with a value of 4 and
chroma of 1 with redox concentrations. Soil texture within the profiles ranged from clay loam to sandy
clay loam.
6.1.2 Hydrology
The hydrology of the wetland varies across the site due to relative changes in topography and soil
conditions. These conditions are typical of an alluvial forest system. The site hydrology is controlled
primarily by groundwater discharge, overland flow, and overbank flooding captured in depressional
areas. Standing surface water has been observed during both site visits which have been conducted.
This hydrologic regime matches closely with the anticipated hydrologic conditions of the restoration
site. There is a small stream which flows through the reference site that is not incised and floods
regularly. Hydrology of the site is also fed from groundwater discharge and hillslope seepage, similar
to the conditions observed on the restoration site.
6.1.3 Vegetation
The canopy of the system is dominated by various bottomland species. The reference site is comprised
of greater than 83% facultative and wetter species and therefore, meets the hydrophytic vegetation
requirement. Vegetation within the reference wetland area primarily consists of red maple (Ater
rubrum), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), privet (Liguslrirm sinense), American holly (Ilex opaca),
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING JANUARY 2008
PAGE 6-1 '

tag alder (Al~r~sserrulata), elderberry (Sambucirs canadensis), Christmas fern (Polystichum
acroslichoides), and honeysuckle (Lonicerajaponica).

SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING JANUARY 2008
PAGE 6-2

7.0 PROJECT SITE STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
An overall watershed management approach was used in developing the stream restoration designs on the
South Muddy Creek project sites. The designs take into consideration site constraints, watershed land uses,
hydrologic controls, and reference conditions specific to each reach.
These project sites are appropriate candidates for restoration because the streams currently fall short of their
hydraulic and ecological potential. Nearly all of the channel reaches are incised and sediment transport
competency analyses indicate that the channels are prone to further degradation. Bed and bank erosion will
continue to contribute sediment to the areas downstream of the project sites and to the widening of the
streams. Bedform diversity is moderate throughout the project reaches and historic land use has degraded
both the ecological and biological function of the streams and riparian areas. Restoration can help to stabilize
the channels, halt incision and widening, significantly diminish bank erosion, and restore riparian habitat.
7.1 Restoration Project Goals and Objectives
The primary restoration goal is to create natural, geomorphically stable stream types within the proper valley
type. The next goal is to improve and restore hydrologic connections between the streams and their
floodplains. The final goals are to improve water quality and aquatic and terrestrial habitat throughout the
project areas. In brief, these design objectives will be achieved by providing stable channels using natural
channel design with bankfull floodplain access wherever possible. In-stream habitat will be enhanced by
creating ariffle-pool sequence and structure placement. Terrestrial habitat will be enhanced through selection
of appropriate riparian vegetation for planting along the project corridor. By providing the channel access to
a floodplain, the benefits of flood attenuation, increased groundwater infiltration, and alleviation of bank
stress and erosion will work together to improve water quality in the South Muddy Creek watershed.
7.2 Design Criteria Selection for Stream Restoration
Selection of a general restoration approach is the first step in selecting design criteria at the South Muddy
Creek Restoration project sites. The approach was based on the reach's potential for restoration, as
determined during the site assessment. The design philosophy for project streams is to use conservative
values for the design ratios and to allow the stream to evolve to values exhibited by reference reaches with
mature bottomland hardwood forests. This evolution will occur over time with flooding and the
establishment of permanent vegetation.
Design criteria were selected based on the bankfull discharge, bankfull cross sectional area determination,
range of the reference data, evaluation of past project performance, and professional judgment. Design
criteria refinements were made to accommodate the existing valley morphology, to avoid encroachment of the
valley wall, and to minimize unnecessary disturbance of the existing riparian forest. The proposed stream
types for the project are summarized in Table 7.1.
Table 7.1 Project Design Stream Types
South Muddy Creek Restoration Plan
Proposed
Stream Stream :Rationale
Type
South Rosgen Priority 2 restoration will be used to increase sinuosity, riffle-pool
Muddy C4 development, and reestablish connection with a floodplain. Native re-vegetation
Creek throughout the project will improve habitat and stabilize the banks.
South Rosgen Priority 1 restoration will increase sinuosity, riffle-pool development, and
Fork CS reestablish connection with the historic floodplain. Native re-vegetation will
Hoppers
Creek improve habitat and stabilize the banks.
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING JANUARY 2008
PAGE 7-1 '

Table 7.1 Project Design Stream Types
South Muddy Creek Restoration Plan
Proposed
Stream Stream l~ti~aale
Type.
UT 1 A B Preservation.
Rosgen Priority 1 restoration will increase sinuosity, riffle-pool development, and
UT1 B CS reestablish connection with the floodplain. Native re-vegetation will improve
habitat and stabilize the banks.
Enhancement will help to stabilize the channel and banks to decrease further
UT2A GS/BS incision and bank erosion. Rosgen Priority 1 restoration will be used through the
pig pen to reconnect the channel with the natural floodplain and to enhance bed
diversity. The steep, confined valley limits the feasibility of further work.
Enhancement will help to stabilize the channel and banks to decrease further
incision and bank erosion. The steep, confined valley limits the feasibility of
UT2B GSc further work. For the downstream portion of the reach, the creek serves as the
property line and work will be limited to stabilization to improve stability on the
left bank.
UT3 B Preservation.
7.3 Design Parameters
The primary objective of the stream restoration effort is to design and construct a stream with stable
dimension, pattern, and profile that has access to a floodplain at the bankfull stage when feasible. The
proposed design for the South Muddy Creek site is illustrated in Figure 7.1 and the proposed design for the
South Fork Hoppers site is illustrated in Figure 7.2.
The design rationale and design parameters for the design reaches are presented below.
Dimension

Throughout the proposed design, the bankfull dimensions were adjusted to convey the design
discharges and reduce velocities and boundary shear stress. The selected design parameters also
eliminate incision and restore access to a floodplain. A value at the low to medium range of width-to-
depth ratios was chosen for C-type channels. These values allow the constructed channels to evolve
into typical E-type morphology over time. Due to the lack of established vegetation after construction,
low width-depth ratio E-type channels are difficult to construct and highly vulnerability to bank erosion
immediately following construction. A bank height ratio (BHR) of 1.0 was incorporated into the design
to develop a channel that would allow bankfull and greater flow events access to the floodplain.
Typical cross sections are shown on the plan sheets. Additionally, each channel cross section was
designed in conjunction with the channel slope to ensure sediment transport competency and capacity.
Pattern
The proposed channel alignment is designed to increase sinuosity in order to decrease the average
channel slope and improve bedform diversity. A reduction in slope will reduce the likelihood of future
incision. Meander width ratios throughout the project range from 3.0 to 8.4 times the bankfull width.
Higher meander width ratios are incorporated into the designs to allow for lateral dissipation of energy
through appropriate pool to pool spacing and riffles that across the floodplain. [n areas where the valley
is narrow, the meander width ratio necessarily decreases. In these areas, energy is dissipated through
step pools bedforms. Radii of curvature have been designed throughout the project to fall into the range
of approximately 2.0 to 4.0 times the channel's proposed bankfull width. Radii up to 6. i times the
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION
BAKER ENGINEERING
PAGE 7-2
FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
JANUARY 2008

bankfull width are used at the downstream extent of South Fork Hoppers in order to gradually reconnect
the proposed channel with the existing channel.
Profile/Bedform
Bedform will be diversified throughout the project reaches through facet development (riffle, run, pool,
glide, and step-pool) mimicking those characteristics of the reference reaches. Channel slopes have
been designed to allow for proper sediment transport capacity and competency and have been kept in
the appropriate range for the proposed channel type.
Riffle slopes throughout the design reaches are typically between 1.4 and 4.0 times the average slope of
the channel. The maximum pool depth is proposed to be constructed from the meander curve apex to a
point one-third of the distance along the profile from the apex to the head of the next downstream riffle,
ortwo-thirds of the distance along the profile from the tail of riffle to the downstream head of riffle.
(Copeland et al., 2001). The longitudinal profile was optimized in conjunction with structure placement
for aquatic habitat.
7.4
Design Reaches
7.4.1 South Muddy Creek
This reach is designed as a Rosgen C4. The existing floodplain is to be excavated down to the existing
bankfull elevation and the new channel alignment will meander across the wide floodplain.
A Rosgen Priority 2 restoration approach was determined to be the highest level of restoration that
could be achieved on South Muddy Creek given site constraints. The current stream banks are
approximately ten feet high, and reconnection of the channel to the historic floodplain (Rosgen Priority
1) could not be achieved without creating backwater conditions on adjoining properties. The new
channel also needs to rejoin the existing stream channel approximately two thirds down the length of
the restoration reach in order to pass under the Sain Road bridge. In light of these constraints, a new
floodplain and meandering channel will be excavated at the existing bankfull elevation. The channel
will straighten for approximately 60 LF upstream and downstream of the Sain Road bridge crossing.
Two small drainage ditches will be tied into the constructed channel at the tails of pools. Table 7.2
summarizes the design parameters for this reach.
A variety of in-stream structures will be installed in this reach including angled log step pools, log
vanes and log j-hook vanes that will serve to provide vertical grade control and improve habitat quality.
Geolifts, brush mattresses (if constructed during the dormant season), and root wads will serve to
protect the stream bank and to provide habitat. See Section 7.6 for information on use of structures.
Cut materials from the floodplain and channel excavations will be used to backfill the original channel.
A vegetated buffer will be installed on both sides of the stream for a minimum width of 30 feet from top
of bank to protect the restored channel. Fencing will be placed along the easement boundary on both
banks to restrict cattle from entering the channel. A ford crossing will be established at Station 23+00
to allow access to both sides of the creek upstream of Sain Road bridge. Figure 7.1 illustrates the
proposed restoration and conservation easement.
7.4.2 South Fork Hoppers Creek
Rosgen Priority 1 restoration, which includes relocation of the channel onto the historic floodplain, is
the selected restoration method for this channel. The upstream 400 LF of South Fork Hoppers Creek
has been designed as a meandering channel with minimal slope to transition to a Priority 1 restoration
as quickly as possible. A minimum average slope of 0.004 feet/foot was calculated as the critical slope
required to avoid aggradation in the reach. This minimum average slope was adopted for the transition
reach. Riffles are steeper than the average slope, but range from 1.2 to 1.5 times average slope rather
than the 2.0 to 3.0 times average slope used for the remainder of the reach.
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION
BAKER ENGINEERING
FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
JANUARY 2008
PAGE 73

1
1

This transition zone allows the stream to re-connect with the existing floodplain elevation near the
upstream extent of the existing wetland area. Therefore, no grading will be required in the existing
wetland area, and wetland hydrology will be enhanced by raising the water table adjacent to the stream
and increasing overbank flood events.
Two riffle cross sections were designed for this reach; one for the length of the channel above the
confluence of South Fork Hoppers with UT1 (Reach 1) and one for below (Reach 2). Reach 1 was
designed as a C/E channel. The width-to-depth ratio is at the small end of a C-channel (13.2) but not
less than 12 to classify as an E-channel. Sinuosity is low (approximately 1.2), which is the minimum
for a meandering stream. The goal is to set up a stable channel that can narrow to an E dimension over
time as vegetation is established along the banks. Angled log step pools and constructed riffles will be
used to hold grade, protect banks and create bedform diversity. Below the confluence, Reach 2 was
designed as a C channel with a steeper channel slope than Reach 1. Across section with a higher width
to depth ratio was selected to lower the potential for degradation and to ease the transition between the
proposed and the existing channel. Constructed riffles will be used where necessary to protect against
degradation.
Minimal floodplain grading will be required to achieve bank height ratios of 1.0 for the proposed
channel. A 30 foot planted buffer will be installed to protect the restored channel. Fencing will be
placed along the easement to restrict cattle from entering the channel. One ford crossing is located near
Station 19+00 for access to pastures on both sides of the stream. Figure 7.2 shows the proposed stream
approach and a recommended easement for the project.
7.4.3 UT1A
UTIA flows through a mature forest. The stream is geomorphically stable and exhibits well defined
riffle-pool sequences. This reach will be preserved in its current condition. A conservation easement
will be placed 30 feet to 100 feet off the right and left stream banks. The exact easement width within
this range will be determined by EEP at a later date.
7.4.4 UT1B
As with the mainstem reach, a Rosgen Priority 1 restoration is the selected approach for this channel.
This channel will be constructed as a meandering channel with proper dimension, pattern and profile.
The proposed channel will be moved closer to the existing forested area on the existing left bank to the
lowest part of the valley. A bankfull bench will be constructed on the right bank for the first 100 LF of
the reach. Where the proposed alignment encroaches upon the transverse valley slope, a floodplain will
be excavated. Structures, including brush mattresses, constructed riffles and angled log step pools will
be used to increase habitat diversity.
A conservation easement will be placed on both sides of the stream to protect the restored channel. The
easement will average 30 feet from the outside meander bend top of bank. Fencing will be placed along
the right bank easement to restrict cattle access. One ford crossing is located near Station 18+70 for
access to pastures on both sides of the stream.
' 7.4.5 UT2A
Enhancement Level [[, beginning at the upstream project boundary and extending downstream to the
' pasture, is proposed for this channel. The proposed work will be considered a combination of Rosgen
Priority 2, 3, and 4 approaches. The banks along the reach are steep with localized erosion. Bank
erosion will be repaired where construction access is feasible. The channel will be reestablished as a
' step pool channel through the pig pen, and the surrounding landscape will be planted with live stakes
and shade tolerant vegetation. A conservation easement will be placed on both sides of the stream to
protect the enhanced channel. Fencing will be placed along the easement to restrict pig access.
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING JANUARY 2008
PAGE 7-4

Although outside the conservation easement, the severely eroded drainage ditch that joins the channel
near the upstream extent was identified as a large source of sediment. This ditch will be graded to a
stable slope and stabilized with shade tolerant vegetation.
7.4.6 UT2B
Enhancement Level II will be implemented on this reach. The pattern and profile of this reach are fair;
however bank erosion was noted throughout the reach. Bank grading and planting will improve
stability along this reach. For the downstream 317 LF of UT2B, the creek centerline represents the
property line. The left bank only will be graded to a 3:1 slope and planted for stabilization. A
conservation easement will be placed on the Landis Farm-owned bank(s) of the stream to protect the
restored channel. A permanent ford crossing will be established at the existing location. Fencing will
be placed along the easement boundary to restrict cattle from entering the channel.
7.4.7 UT3
UT3 flows through a mature forest in a steep valley. The stream is geomorphically stable and exhibits
well defined riffle-pool sequences. This reach will be preserved in its current condition. A
conservation easement will be placed 30 feet to 100 feet off the right and left stream banks. The exact
easement width within this range will be determined by EEP as the project continues.
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION
BAKER ENGINEERING
FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
JANUARY 2008
PAGE 7-5

1

1

1

Table 7,2 Existing and Proposed Geomorphic Characteristics
South Muddy Creek Restoration Plan
South. Mudd y Creek South Fork Hopp ers Creek • Reach i South Fork Ho pper s Creek•Reaeh 2 U' I'18 U T213
hxistin ~ Pro osed Existin Pro osed Existin Pro osed Existin Pto osed Existin Pro used

1. Stream Type Min Max nw Min Max n* Mia Max n* Min Max n* Min Max n* Min Max n* Min biax n* Min Max n* Min Max n* Min Max n*
2. Drainage Area-min G4c - C4 - GSc - CS - GSc CS - ES - CS GSc - BSc

3. Bankfull Width (wekr)-ft 18.80 - 18.8 - 0.52 - 0.52 - 0.52 0.52 - 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.07

4. Bankfull Mean Depth (dekr)-ft 24.] 51.2 5 43.2 ] 7.4 14.4 3 13.2 1 7.4 14.4 3 14.2 I 3.4 5.7 2 7.0 1 5.5 6.2 2 6.5 1

5. WidthlDepth Ratio (w/d ratio) 1.9 3.0
8
1 5 3.0 1 1.0 1.6 3 ].0 ] 1.0 1.6 3 0.9 1 0.6 1.0 2 O.S 1 0.9 1.1 2 0.4 1

6
Cross-sectional Area (A
)
ft~ .
26.9 5 14.4 1 6.1 14.4 3 13.2 1 6.1 14.4 3 15.8 1 3.4 9.5 2 13.8 I 5.0 6.2 2 15.0 1
.
ekt
-
7. Bankfull Mean Velocity (v
) - ft/sec 72.8 97.2 5 128.5 ] 7.4 15.6 3 13.8 1 7.4 15.6 3 12.7 1 3.4 3.5 2 3.6 1 5.4 6.1 2 2.8 1
ekf
8. Bankfull Discharge (Qekf)-ft3lsec 4.1 5.5 5 3.1 1 3.2 6.8 3 3.6 I 3.2 6.8 3 3.9 1 4.0 4.1 2 4.2 I 2.0 2.2 2 4.3 1

9. Bankfull Max Depth (d
) - ft
e 400.0 - 400 - 50 3 50 1 50 3 50 - l4 14 12 12 1
m
kr
]0
ratio
d
/d 33 4.0 5 4.2 1 1.7 2.0 3 1.3 1 ].7 2.0 3 1.2 1 ].3 1.6 2 0.8 1 13 1.5 2 0.5 1
.
robkP
bke
1 I. Low Bank Height to d
ratio 1.2 1.7 5 1.4 I 1.2 1.9 3 1.3 ] 1.2 1.9 3 1.3 I ].4 2.1 2 16 1 1.4 1.4 2 L2 I
mbkf
12. FloodproneAreaWidth(w
)-feet 2.4 3.2 5+ ].0 1 1.3 2.6 5+ 1.0 1 t.3 2.6 5+ 1.0 1 I.1 4.5 5+ 1.0 1 LO 3.9 5+ LO l
~18
13. Entrenchment Ratio (ER) 29.6
1 72.7 5 210+ 10 16.8 33.0 3 50+ 8 ]6.8 33.0 3 50+ 2 9.8 92.5 2 30+ 16 9.6 15.0 2 ]0.0 22.0 5

14. Meander length (L
) - ft .1 1.7 5 4. 9+ 10 2.0 3.4 3 3. 8+ 8 2.0 3.4 3 3. 8+ 2 2.9 16.2 2 4.3+ 16 l.7 2.7 2 1.5 3.4 5
m Strai htened - 345 506 6 Strai htened - 130 177 6 Strai htened - 179 313 1 Strai htened - 58 134 13 St
i h
d

]5. Ratio of meander length to bankfull width ra
tene Nat A licable
-
(Lm/wekr)
16. Radius of curvature (R
) - ft Strai htened - 8.0 11.7 6 Strai htened - 9.8 13.4 6 Strai htened - 12.6 22.0 1 Strai htened - 8.3 19.1 13 Strai htened Not A licable
~ Strai htened - 84 138 9 Strai htened - 37 53 8 Strai htened - 45 87 3 Strai htened - 14 24 16 St
i ht
d

17. Ratio of radius of curvature to bankfull width ra
ene Not A licable
-
(R° / wekf)
18. Belt width(w
)-fl Strai htened - 1.9 3.2 9 Strai htened - 2.8 4.0 8 Strai htened - 3,2 6. ] 3 Strai htened - 2.0 3.4 16 Strai htened Not A licable
h1t
19. Meander Width Ratio (w
/W
) Strai htened - 128 209 9 Strai htened - 54 78 8 Strai htened - 62 62 3 Strai htened - 32 59 16 Strai htened NotA licable
61t
ekf
20. Sinuosity (K) stream length /valle
len
th Strai htened - 3.0 4.8 9 Strai htened - 4. ] 5.9 8 Strai htened - 4.4 4.4 3 Strai htened 4.6 8.4 16 Strai htened
- Not A licable
-
y
g
21. Valley Slope I.1 - 12 - 1.14 - 1.2 - 1.14 - 1.1 - 1.18 - 1.6 - 1.22 1.0

22. Average Channel Slo
e (S
) 0.0017 - 0.002 - 0.0115 - 0.0095 - 0.0115 - 0.0017 - 0.0228 - 0.0228 0.0230 0.0293
p
ekf
23. Pool Slope (s
) 0.0016 - 0.0017 - 0.0101 - 0.0077 - 0.0101 - 0.0016 - 0.0193 0.0144 0.0189 0.0293
pool 0.0000 0.0003 6 0.0 0.005 I I 0.0 0.004 17 0.0 0.00]8 8 0.0 0.004 17 0.0011 0.0018 3 0.0000 0
0050 11 0
0 0
0028 16 0
0 0
0143 9 0
0 0

24. Ratio of Pool Slope to Average Slope (SPoQi I . . . . . . .0089 5
Sekf)

25. Maximum Pool De
th (d
) - ft 0.0 0.2 6 0.0 0.3 I ] 0.0 0.4 17 0.0 0.2 8 0.0 0.4 17 0.07 0.1 3 0.0 0.3 11 0.0 0.2 l6 0.0 0.8 9 0.0 0.3 5
p
pooi 3.8 5.8 4 6.2 10.3 11 2.1 2.4 3 2.0 9 2.1 2.4 3 2.5 2.7 3 13 l
b 2 I
0 2
0 16 1
7 ]
9

26. Ratio of Pool Depth to Average Bankfull . .
. . . 2 1.8 1
Depth (dpooi/dekr) 1.4 2.1 4 2.1 3.4 11 1.8 2.0 3 2.0 9 1.8 2.0 3 2.8 3.0 3 1.6 2
0 2 2
0 4
0 ] 6 1
7 1
9 2

27. Pool Width(wrooi)-ft
28.1
39
9
4
46
0
1
7
7
14 . .
. . . 4.5 1
. . . .0 3 IS I 7.7 14.0 3 15.0 1 4
0 7
7 2 9
3 I 6
2 12
4 2

28. Ratio of Pool Width to Bankfull Width (wPooi / . . . . . 8.0 1
~'bkf)

29. Pool Area (A
ooi) - ft2 0,9 ].2 4 1.1 1 0,7 1.3 3 1.1 1 0.7 1.3 3 1.1 l 0.9 1.7 2 ]3 1 1.1 2.2 2 1.2 1
r 85.9 ] 03.7 4 ] 68 177 11 11.6 14.8 3 19 1 11.6 14.8 3 19.0 1 3.4 43 2 6
9 1 5
9 8
7 2 4

30. Ratio of Pool Area to Bankfull Area . . . .5 1
(Ar°oi/AskF)
31. Pool-to-Pool Spacing (p-p) - ft L0 1.2 4 1.3 ].4 11 0.9 1.2 3 1.4 1 0.9 1.2 3 1.5 1 1.0 1.2 2 1.9 1 1.0 1.5 2 2.0 1

32
Ratio of Pool-to-Pool S
i
B
kf
ll 80.0 240.0 4 154 327 ] 0 27.0 161.0 14 82 118 7 27.0 161.0 ] 4 138 176 2 14.0 110.0 9 42 105 15 ] 5.0 127.0 10 19.0 25.0 4
.
pac
ng to
an
u
Width (p-p/wee)
33
Rif 2.5 7.4 4 3.6 7.6 10 2.6 15.3 14 6.2 8.9 7 2.6 15.3 14 9.7 12.4 2 3.0 23.9 9 6.0 15
0 15 2
6 22
3 ]0 2
9 3
8 4
.
fle Slope (s~~e) 0.0025 0.0061 3 0.0034 0.0054 7 0.0150 0.0350 15 O.O130 0.0305 6 0.0150 0.0350 IS 0.0275 0.033 3 0.033 0.564 19 0.0198 .
0.0371 12 .
0
0281 .
0
113 7 .
0
039 .
0
052 5
34. Ratio of Riffle Slope to Average Slope (s~~~/ . . . .
SbkP)
1.6 3.8 3 2.0 3.2 7 ].5 3.5 ]5 1.7 4.0 6 LS 3.5 15 1.7 2.1 3 1.7 29.2 19 1.4 3.5 12 1.5 6.0 7 1.3 1.8 5
auu i n muuur c;HttK STREAM RESTORATION
BAKER ENGINEERING
PAGE 7.6
FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
JANUARY 2009

7.5 Sediment Transport
7.5.1 Methodology
' The purpose of sediment transport analysis is to check whether the stream restoration design can be
expected to create a stable channel that does not aggrade or degrade over time, but adjust within its
stable limits. The overriding assumption is that the project reaches designed as C and E type channels
' should be transporting all the sediment delivered from upstream sources, thereby being considered a
"transport" reach.
' Sediment transport competency is measured in terms of the relationship between critical and actual
depth at a given slope, and occurs when the critical depth produces enough shear stress to move the
largest (dioo) subpavement particle. Stream restoration designs must be tested to ensure that the new
' channel dimensions (in particular, the design bankfull mean depth) create a stream that has the ability to
move its sediment load without aggrading or degrading over long periods of time. Sediment transport
is assessed through two measures: sediment transport competency and sediment transport capacity.
' Competency is the ability of a stream to move particles of a given size and is a measurement of force,
often expressed as units of pounds per square foot (lbs/ft2). Sediment transport capacity is the ability of
a stream to move a quantity of sediment and is a measurement of stream power per area, often
expressed in units of watts/square meter.
The total volume of sediment transported through across-section consists of bedload plus suspended
load fractions. Suspended load is normally composed of fine sand, silt, and clay particles transported in
the water column. Bedload is generally composed of larger particles, such as course sand, gravels, and
cobbles, which are transported by rolling, sliding, or hopping (saltation) along the bed.
' ~ Project reaches were separated for sediment transport analyses based on median particle size and
channel slope and dimension. Because the riffle materials were coarse sands to gravels for each of the
project reaches, both competency and capacity were checked.
7.5.1.1 Competency Analysis
Median substrate size has an important influence on the mobility of particles in stream beds.
Critical dimensionless shear stress (T~;) is the measure of force required to initiate general
movement of particles in a bed of a given composition. At shear stresses exceeding this critical
value, essentially all grain sizes are transported at rates in proportion to their presence in the bed
(Wohl, 2000). Critical dimensionless shear stress can be calculated for gravel-bed stream reaches
' using surface and subsurface particle samples from a stable, representative riffle in the reach
(Andrews, 1983). The following equations are used to determine the critical dimensionless shear
stress required to mobilize and transport the largest particle from the bar sample (or subpavement
sample) (Rosgen, 2001 a).
a) Calculate the ratio dso/dsso
' where: dso =median diameter of the riffle bed (from 100 count in riffle or pavement sample)
dsso = median diameter of the bar sample (or subpavement)
' If the ratio dso/dsso is between the values of 3.0 and 7.0, then calculate the critical dimensionless
shear stress using Equation 1.
~~; = 0.0834(dso/dsso)-0872 (Equation 1)
b) [f the ratio dso/dsso is not between the values of 3.0 and 7.0, then calculate the ratio of
D;/dso
where: D; =largest particle from the bar sample (or subpavement)
dso =median diameter of the riffle bed (from 100 count in the riffle or pavement sample
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING JANUARY 2008
' PAGE 7-7

If the ratio D;/d50 is between the values of 1.3 and 3.0, then calculate the critical dimensionless '
shear stress using Equation 2.
~~; = 0.0384(D;/d50)-o.sa~
7.5.1.2 Aggradational Analysis
(Equation 2)
The aggradation analysis is based on calculations of the required depth and slope needed to
transport large sediment particles, in this case defined as the largest particle of the riffle
subpavement sample. Required depth can be compared with the existing/design mean riffle depth,
and required slope can be compared to the existing and design slopes to verify that the stream has
sufficient competency to move large particles (and thus prevent thalweg aggradation). The required
depth and slope are calculated by:
d _ 1.65i~;D;
S~
1.65i~;D;
s~ = d
e
(Equation 3)
(Equation 4)
where: d~ =required bankfull mean depth (ft)
de= design bankfull mean depth (ft)
1.65 =sediment density (submerged specific weight)
= density of sediment (2.65) -density of water (1.0)
t~; =critical dimensionless shear stress
D; =largest particle from bar sample (or subpavement) (ft)
s~ =required bankfull water surface slope (ft/ft)
Se =design bankfull water surface slope (ft/ft)
The aggradation analysis is used to assess both existing and design conditions; for example, if the
calculated value for the existing critical depth is significantly larger than the measured maximum
bankfull depth, this indicates that the stream is aggrading. Alternately, if the proposed design depth
significantly differs from the calculated critical depth, and the analysis is deemed appropriate for
the site conditions, the design dimensions should be revised accordingly.
7.5.1.3 Competency Analysis using Shields Curve
As a complement to the required depth and slope calculations, boundary shear stresses for a design
riffle cross-section can be compared with a modified Shields curve to predict sediment transport
competency. The shear stress placed on the sediment particles is the force that entrains and moves
the particles and is given by:
t = yRs (Equation 5)
where: i =shear stress (lb/ftz)
r =specific gravity of water (62.4 lb/ft3)
R =hydraulic radius (ft)
s =average channel slope (ft/ft)
The boundary shear stress can be estimated for the design cross-section and plotted on a critical
shear stress curve, as shown in Figure 7.3. The particle size that CO curve predicts will be moved
is compared to the D; of the site subpavement. The CO curve is used rather than the Leopold et al
curves because data collected from NC more closely matches this relationship. The CO curve
predicts whether the design conditions will have enough shear stress to move a particle larger than
the largest subpavement particle found in the creek and prevent aggradation.
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION
BAKER ENGINEERING
FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
JANUARY 2008
PAGE 7-8

7.5.1.4 Degradation Analysis
A degradation analysis is performed in order to assess whether the design cross-sections will result
in scour and bed downcutting. The potential for degradation may be evaluated by examining the
upper competency limits for design cross-sections and by reviewing existing and design grade
control at the site. The calculated shear stress discussed in Section 7.5.1.3 can be used to describe
the upper competency limits for the design channel. The calculated shear stress is compared to the
CO curve, as illustrated in Figure 7.3, to determine the largest particle size that stress value will
move. This value should be comparable to the D84 to D~5 values from the reach-wide pebble count.
7.5.1.5 Sediment Transport Capacity
For sand bed streams, sediment transport capacity is much more important than competency.
Sediment transport capacity refers to the ability of a stream to move a mass of sediment past a
cross-section per unit of time in pounds/second or tons/year. Sediment transport capacity can be
assessed directly using actual monitored data from bankfull events if a sediment transport rating
curve has been developed for the project site. Since this curve development is extremely difficult,
other empirical relationships are used to assess sediment transport capacity. The most common
capacity equation is stream power. Stream power can be calculated a number of ways, but the most
common is:
(~ = Qs~Wbkf
(Equation 6)
where: w =mean stream power (W/m')
y =specific weight of water 9,810 N/m;); y = pg, where p is the density of the water-
sediment mixture (1,000 kg/m;) and g is the acceleration due to gravity 9.81 m/s'-)
Q =bankfull discharge (m~/s)
S =design channel slope (m/m)
Wbkf =bankfull channel width (m)
Note: 1 ft-lb/sec/ft2 = 14.56 W/m2
Equation 6 describes the ability of the stream to accomplish work, i.e., move sediment. Calculated
stream power values are compared to reference and published values. [f deviations from known
stable values for similar stream types and slopes are observed, the design should be reassessed to
confirm that sediment will be adequately transported through the system without containing excess
energy in the channel.
7.5.2 South Muddy Creek Sediment Transport Analysis
Table 7.3 summarizes the existing sediment competence calculations for South Muddy Creek. Cross
section X 1 A has an existing depth of 1.9 ft and slope of 0.0016 ft/ft. The existing conditions are in
excess of the depth (1.3 ft) and slope (0.0009) required to move the D 100 of the subpavement . This
portion of the channel is therefore capable of moving a much larger particle size than the D100 and is
' degradational. The first 500 LF of the project are a transition zone between the G4c stream type
downstream and the F channel upstream.
Cross Section X 1 has an existing depth and slope less than the critical depth and slope required to move
the D100. This indicates that this portion of the channel is aggradational and is not adequately
transporting the sediment supplied to it. The presence of a lateral sand bar at this location supports this
analysis. Cross Section X3 has an existing depth and slope in great excess of the critical depth and
' slope required to move the D100. This portion of the channel is highly degradational and is classified
as a Rosgen G4c.
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING JANUARY 2008
PAGE 7-9

Cross Section X8 and X9 were analyzed using a steeper channel slope than the upstream cross sections
because the reach is below the backwater effects of the debris jam. A slope of 0.0020 ft/ft was used to
calculate sediment transport rates. Both Cross Section X8 and X9 have greater depth than the critical
values required to move the D100. This portion of the channel is highly degradational and is classified
as a Rosgen G4c.
Capacity, measured by unit stream power, steadily increases in the downstream direction. This
corresponds to the observed transition from an F type channel at the upstream boundary to a Gc type
channel downstream. F channels are aggradational due to higher width-to-depth ratios and lower
velocities while Gc channels are degradational due to lower width-to-depth ratios and generally higher
velocities.
Table 7.3 Existing Boundary Shear Stresses and Stream Power -South Muddy
Creek
South Muddy Creek Restoration Plan
Parameter X1A X1 X3 X8
Bankfull Discharge, Q (cfs) 400 400 400 400 400
Bankfull Area (square feet) 97.2 89.6 81.5 77.7 72.8
Mean Bankfull Velocity (fps) 4.1 4.5 4.9 5.1 5.5
Bankfull Width, W (feet) 51.2 31.5 28.5 25.8 24.3
Bankfull Mean Depth, D (feet) 1.9 2.9 2.9 3.0 3.0
Width to Depth Ratio, w/d (feet/
foot) 26.9 10.9 9.8 8.6 8.1
Wetted Perimeter (feet) 55.0 37.3 34.3 3 l.8 30.3
Hydraulic Radius, R (feet) 1.8 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4
Channel Slope (feet/ foot) 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.0020 0.0020
Boundary Shear Stress, z (lbs/ft`) 0.180 0.240 0.240 0.300 0.300
Subpavement Dino (mm) 33 80 18 51 65
Largest Moveable Particle (mm)
per Shield's Curve (Rosgen Curve 30-70 40-90 40-90 45-95 45-95
Critical Depth (feet) 1.3 4.2 0.6 2.0 2.5
Critical Slope (feet/ foot) 0.0009 0.0030 0.0004 0.0013 0.0023
Unit Stream Power
(Watts/ sq meter) 10.8 15.6 17.1 22.5 24.0
Table 7.4 summarizes the proposed channel dimensions and critical depths and slopes for the proposed
conditions. The proposed South Muddy Creek design has a depth and slope similar to the critical
values, and is estimated to be competent to move the supplied sediment load without aggrading or
degrading. Unit stream power for the proposed reach falls between values calculated at XlA and Xl,
corresponding to the capacity value between an aggradational and a degradational channel. As an
added measure to protect against degradation, grade control structures and constructed riffles will be
used.
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION
BAKER ENGINEERING
FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
JANUARY 2008
PAGE 7-10

Table 7.4 Proposed Boundary Shear Stresses and Stream Power -
South Muddy Creek
South Muddy Creek Restoration Plan
P'ar»~neter South i!-luddy Creek-
Bankfull Discharge, Q (cfs) 400.0
Bankfull Area (square feet) 128.5
Mean Bankfull Velocity (fps) 3.1
Bankfull Width, W (feet) 43.2
Bankfull Mean Depth, D (feet) 3.0
Width-to-Depth Ratio, w/d (feet/
foot) 14.4
Wetted Perimeter (feet) 49.2
Hydraulic Radius, R (feet) 2.6
Channel Slope (feet/ foot) 0.0017
Boundary Shear Stress, t (lbs/ftz) 0.28
Subpavement D,oo (mm) 51.0
Largest Moveable Particle (mm)
per CO Curve 45-90
Critical Depth (feet) 2.4
Critical Slope (feet/ foot) 0.0013
Unit Stream Power
(Watts/ sq meter) 12.6
7.5.2.1 South Fork Hoppers Creek Sediment Transport Analysis
Table 7.5 summarizes the existing sediment transport calculations for South Fork Hoppers Creek
and UT1 B, which are the two reaches on the Landis Farm site slated for restoration. The analysis
of the existing cross sections on South Fork Hoppers Creek indicates that the channel has the
competence to move a larger particle size than that found in the channel substrate. The critical
depth and critical slope are higher than needed for transport equilibrium. It should be noted that the
data used to develop these relationships came from much larger rivers and are not directly
applicable to these streams. Therefore, this analysis is only used as a guide, rather than a final
determination of channel size and slope. Unit stream power is in the 27.6 to 48.2 Watts per square
meter (W/mZ) range. The average stream power for stable streams in a study by Bledsoe is 30
W/mz for the 2-year storm event (2002). The 1.5-year recurrence interval event in the Bledsoe
channels is estimated to create stream power in the 20 W/mZ range. The bankfull discharges for all
reaches on the South Fork Hoppers site are near the 1.5 year return interval (see Table 3.10) and
therefore 20 W/mz was determined to be the required unit stream power to avoid aggradation. The
analysis of existing cross sections on South Fork Hoppers Creek indicates that the channel has more
sediment competency and capacity than needed for a stable stream.
The analysis of the existing cross sections on UT1 B indicates that the channel has the competence to move a
larger particle size than that found in the channel substrate. The critical depth and critical slope are higher
than needed for transport equilibrium. Unit stream power is in the 34.5 to 45.5 W/mz range. The analysis of
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION
BAKER ENGINEERING
FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
JANUARY 2008
PAGE 7-11

existing cross sections on UTl B indicates that the channel has more sediment competency and capacity than
needed for a stable stream.
Table 7.5 Existing Boundary Shear Stresses and Stream Power -South Fork
Hoppers Creek and UT1B
South Muddy Creek Restoration Plan
S, ~out~ , Scn~th
.Fork F Fork .1CTI'.1.1~ UTiB
+Cross Cross Crass ;Cs Cross
Section Section. :Section °Sectxo~ .. .Section
Parameter X5 .~",~ X10 '.: ~L2 .. X4
Bankfull Discharge, Q (cfs) 50 50 50 14 14
Bankfull Area (square feet) 14.5 7.4 15.6 3.4 3.5
Mean Bankfull Velocity (cfs) 3.4 6.8 3.2 4.1 4.0
Bankfull Width, W (feet) 14.4 7.4 9.7 3.4 5.7
Bankfull Mean Depth, D (feet) 1.0 1.0 1.6 1.0 0.6
Width-to-Depth Ratio, w/d (feet/ 14.4 7.4 6.1 3.4 9.4
foot)
Wetted Perimeter (feet) 16.4 9.4 12.9 5.4 6.9
Hydraulic Radius, R (feet) 0.9 0.8 1.2 0.6 0.5
Channel Slope (feet/ foot) 0.0101 0.0101 0.0101 0.0193 0.0193
Boundary Shear Stress, T (lbs/ftz) 0.56 0.50 0.76 0.77 0.61
Subpavement Dloo (mm) 28 25 42 64 16
Largest Moveable Particle (m-n) 60-180 60- l 80 65-200 65-200 60- 180
per Shield's Curve (Rosgen Curve
Critical Depth (feet) 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.04
Critical Slope (feet/ foot) 0.0040 0.0033 0.0041 0.0053 0.0003
Unit Stream Power 27.9 48.8 35.6 45.5 34.5
(Watts/ sq meter)
N/A: sediment ratio values were not in correct range to allow for use of critical depth and
critical slope equations.
Table 7.6 summarizes the proposed channel dimensions and critical depths and slopes given the
proposed conditions. The proposed South Fork Hoppers Creek Reach 1 design has a depth and
slope slightly higher than the critical design values. The design depth and slope will still have the
competency to move particles equal to or larger than the largest Subpavement particle sampled in
the channel. Stream power will decrease to approximately 22.9 W/m2, which is lower than existing
conditions and near the estimated stable value of 20 W/mZ (Bledsoe, 2002). While the design
conditions are an improvement over the existing conditions, the sediment transport analysis
indicates that degradation is a design consideration. In order to protect against degradation,
structures such as constructed riffles and angled log step pools will be installed. These features will
control vertical stability so that the channel will not degrade. The South Fork Hoppers Creek Reach
2 design has a unit stream power comparable to the existing conditions, therefore all riffles
throughout this reach will be constructed to protect against degradation. This will also serve to
provide grade control and protect against headcuts that could migrate upstream due to downstream
channel instability.
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION
BAKER ENGINEERING
FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
JANUARY 2008
PAGE 7-12

The proposed UT1B design results in a design depth and slope very close to the critical depth and
slope indicated by sediment transport calculations. According to the CO curve, the channel will be
able to move a particle within the same size class as the largest particle sampled. Shear stress is
significantly decreased in the design channel. The design stream power will also be decreased to
22.8 W/m2, much closer to the estimated stable value of 20 W/mz (Bledsoe 2002). These results
indicate that the design channel should possess the competency and capacity to move its sediment
load without excessive aggradation or degradation. As with South Fork Hoppers Creek, grade
control structures will be used to maintain vertical stability on the reach.
Table 7.6 Proposed Boundary Shear Stresses and Stream Power -South Fork Hoppers Creek
and UT1B
South Muddy Creek Restoration Plan
Parameter South Fork
liappers Creek - .
Reach 1 South Fork
Hoppers Creek
Reath 2 UT1B
Bankfull Discharge, Q (cfs) 50 50 14
Bankfull Area (square feet) 13.8 12.7 3.6
Mean Bankfull Velocity (cfs) 3.6 3.9 3.9
Bankfull Width, W (feet) 13.2 14.2 7.0
Bankfull Mean Depth, D (feet) 1.0 0.9 0.5
Width-to-Depth Ratio, w/d (feet/
foot) 13.2 15.8 13.8
Wetted Perimeter (feet) 15.3 16.0 8.0
Hydraulic Radius, R (feet) 0.9 0.8 0.4
Channel Slope (feet/ foot) 0.0077 0.0155 0.0144
Boundary Shear Stress, t (Ibs/ft~) 0.43 0.77 0.40
Subpavement D~oo (mm) 25-42 25-42 16-64
Largest Moveable Particle (mm)
per Shield's Curve (Rosgen) 50-100 80-175 I 1-20
Critical Depth (feet) 0.4-0.8 0.2-0.4 0.4
Critical Slope (feet/ foot) 0.0032-0.0062 0.0037-0.0072 0.0106
Unit Stream Power
(Watts/ sq meter) 22.9 44.0 22.8
' 7.6 In-Stream Str r
uctu es
A variety of in-stream structures are proposed for the South Muddy Creek restoration project. Structures such
as root wads, constructed riffles, angled log step pools, geolifts, and brush mattresses will be used to stabilize
the newly-restored streams. Wood structures will dominate because of the materials observed in the existing
' systems. A substantial amount of wood will be generated through the construction of the project at the South
Muddy Creek site; less will be generated at the South Fork Hoppers Creek site. Table 7.7 summarizes the use
of in-stream structures at the site.
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING JANUARY 2008
' PAGE 7-13

Table 7.7 Proposed In-Stream Structure Types and Locations
South Muddy Creek Restoration Plan
Structure Type Location
Root Wad Outside bank of smaller radius meander bends.
Brush Mattress Outside bank of meander bends that are located offline of the existing
channel.
Geolifts Outside bank of meander bends that intercept the existing channel
Log J-Hook Vane In meander bends to help turn water, encourage scour pool development,
and increase available habitat.
Log Vane [n meander bends to turn water.
Cover Log In pools to provide habitat features.
Angled Log Step Pool [n steeper riffles to provide grade control, diversify the thalweg path, and
to provide micro-pool habitat.
Root Wad
Root wads are placed at the toe of the stream bank in the outside of meander bends for the creation of
habitat and for stream bank protection. Root wads include the root mass or root ball of a tree plus a
portion of the trunk. They are used to armor a stream bank by deflecting stream flows away from the
bank. In addition to stream bank protection, they provide structural support to the stream bank and
habitat for fish and other aquatic animals. They also serve as a food source for aquatic insects. Root
wads will be placed throughout South Muddy Creek and South Fork Hoppers Creek.
Brush Mattress
Brush mattresses are placed on bank slopes on the outside of meander bends for stream bank protection.
Layers of live, woody cuttings are wired together and staked into the bank. Brush mattresses help to
establish vegetation on the bank to secure the soil. Once the vegetation is established, the cover also
provides habitat for fish and macroinvertebrates. Depending on availability of suitable vegetation
onsite, brush mattresses may be used interchangeably with alder and willow transplants, at the
discretion of the onsite engineer.
Log J-Hook Vane
Log J-hook vanes are used to protect the stream bank and encourage pool scour and habitat diversity.
The length of the vane arm can span one half to two thirds the bankfull channel width. J-hooks are
located either upstream or downstream along a meander bend and function to redirect the flow energies
away from the bank, keep the thalweg in the center of the channel, and protect the stream bank.
Boulders placed in the "J" portion of the structure produce lateral and vertical flow diversity at low
flows. At bankfull flows, the boulders serve as energy dissipation features, adding to the overall bed
roughness and providing local downstream eddy microhabitat. This structure will be placed in
meander bends to help turn the water. A J-hook vane will also be included at the end of South Muddy
Creek restoration reach to center the thalweg as the proposed channel rejoins the existing channel.
Log Vane
A log vane is used to protect the stream bank. The length of a single vane structure can span one-half to
two-thirds the bankfull channel width. Vanes are located either upstream or downstream along a
meander bend and function to initiate or complete the redirecting of flow energies resulting in reduced
near bank shear stress and alignment maintenance. Vanes are located just downstream of the point
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION
BAKER ENGINEERING
FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
JANUARY 2008
PAGE 7-14

where the stream flow intercepts the bank at acute angles. Log vanes are proposed on South Muddy
Creek.

Cover Log
A cover log is placed in the outside of a meander bend to provide habitat in the pool area. The log is
buried into the outside bank of the meander bend; the opposite end extends through the deepest part of
the pool and may be buried in the inside of the meander bend, in the bottom of the point bar. The
placement of the cover log near the bottom of the bank slope on the outside of the bend encourages
scour in the pool. This increased scour provides a deeper pool for bedform variability. Cover logs will
be used on all reaches.
Angled Log Step Pool

1

Angled log step pools consist of a header log and a footer log placed in the bed of the stream channel,
perpendicular to stream flow. The logs extend into the stream banks on both sides of the structure to
prevent erosion and bypassing of the structure. The logs are installed flush with the channel bottom
upstream of the log. The footer log is placed to the depth of scour expected, to prevent the structure
from being undermined. The logs are placed at alternating angles to the bank to diversify the low flow
path and allow micro pool habitats to form between steps. This structure provides bedform diversity,
maintains the channel profile, and provides pool and cover habitat. Angled log step pools will be used
in steeper riffles on all reaches throughout the project sites.
7.7 Soil Restoration
7.7.1 Narrative & Soil Preparation and Amendment
Soil composition is vitally important to the success of newly planted riparian vegetation. Technical
specifications will require the contractor to perform pre-construction soil tests to determine the existing
soil composition. Soil amendments necessary to support the growth of proposed herbaceous and woody
riparian species shall be added prior to planting.
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION
BAKER ENGINEERING
FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
JANUARY 2008
' PAGE 7-15

S.0 PROJECT WETLAND AND VEGETATION RESTORATION PLAN
This section discusses the design criteria selected for potential wetland restoration on the South Muddy Creek
project sites.
8.1 Restoration of Wetland Hydrology
The existing agricultural fields across the site are currently drained by the channelized and incised condition
of South Fork Hoppers Creek. To restore wetland hydrology to the site the stream will be restored and the old
channel will be fully to partially filled. When complete filling of the stream is not possible, channel plugs
will be constructed using compacted earth along the length of the abandoned channel at roughly 50-foot
intervals. Channel plugs will also be used in locations where the restored stream channel will cross the
existing stream channel. In these locations, the existing stream will be plugged for at least 50 feet on both
sides of the restored channel to prevent drainage losses and channel avulsion.
Surface flows from the adjacent hillslopes will be diverted into the restored wetland area where topography
allows. Overland flow will be diverted over the floodplain area, where it will be intercepted by wetland micro
topography (surface storage areas) and allowed to infiltrate into the soil column, maintaining a higher water
table.
Grading activities will focus primarily on creating microtopography within the wetland boundary and
adjusting surface flow patterns to improve hydrologic inputs to the site. Site grading will also remove any
historic drain tiles, field crowns, surface drains, or swales that were imposed during conversion of the land for
agriculture. Surface roughening will be the final step of the grading operations to maximize surface storage
potential at the site.
The topography of the restored site will be patterned after natural floodplain wetland reference sites and will
include the restoration of minor depressions and tip mounds (microtopography) that promote diversity of
hydrologic conditions and habitats common to natural wetland areas. These techniques will be instrumental
to the restoration of site hydrology by promoting surface ponding and infiltration, decreasing drainage
capacity, and imposing higher water table conditions across the restoration site. Microtopography contributes
to the properties of forest soils and to the diversity and patterns of plant communities (Lutz, 1940; Stephens,
1956; Bratton, 1976; Ehrnfeld, 1995). Microtopography will be established after floodplain areas have been
restored to design grades.
8.2 Hydrologic Modeling Analyses
The DRAINMOD simulations that were developed to evaluate the current hydrologic status of the restoration
site were modified to estimate the hydrologic conditions of the site under the proposed restoration practices.
Model parameters that describe the depth of stream and topographic surface storage were changed to values
representative of the described restoration practices; for example, drain depths were reduced to represent
average water levels in the restored, meandering channel. Surface storage parameters were increased, within
a range of two to three centimeters, to represent soil scarification practices and grading. Input files that
describe cropping conditions were changed to represent forested conditions.
Several model scenarios were simulated to evaluate the restored hydrologic conditions for the restoration
areas. Hydrologic simulations were run at 25, 75, and 150 feet from the proposed stream channel. These
three simulations indicate a range of hydrologic conditions that will be imposed across the restored site. The
simulation at 75 feet can be assumed to represent average conditions across the site, with the majority of the
restored acreage on the site being represented by this hydrologic scenario. The remaining two scenarios
represent areas of increased and decreased wetness, such as low-lying, depressional areas, or areas of higher
elevation near the edge of the site, respectively. It is important to note that the hydrology of the targeted
restored wetland system is highly variable across a given site, supporting the ecological and functional
diversity that makes these systems so valuable. Forty-five year simulations were run following the
procedures described in Section 5.4, and DRAINMOD input files are provided in Appendix 8.
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING JANUARY 2008
PAGE 8-i

A water balance for average restored conditions (75 feet from the proposed stream channel) is presented in
Table 8.1. The proposed water balance illustrates a decrease in runoff and drainage, resulting in more water
infiltrating into the soil profile, allowing the water table to remain higher throughout the year and thus
restoring wetland hydrology.
Table S.1 Proposed Conditions Water Balance Data
South Muddy Creek Restoration Plan
~ ~ ~
~
~ ~ ~
~ ~
'• i
Precipitation 136.5 (84.5 to 201.2) 100
Drainage 36.2 (8.8 to 64.0) 26.5 (6.4 to 46.9)
Runoff 30.4 (4.5 to 68.4) 22.3 (3.3 to 50.1)
Evapotranspiration 69.8 (50.8 to 83.9) S 1. l (37.2 to 61.5)
The results of the simulations indicate that hydrologic conditions imposed across the restored site will vary
' from location to location, depending on the distance from the restored stream channel or center of wetland
area and topographic variability. The simulations for the wetland area show that the 25-foot scenario is
influenced most by the drainage effect of the stream channel and is, therefore, predicted to experience drier
' conditions than the 75- and 150-foot scenarios. In locations near the stream channel, hydrology will primarily
be controlled by the baseflow water level in the restored stream and overbank flooding. In areas farther from
the restored stream, the drainage effect becomes less significant, and evapotranspiration and runoff are the
' primary water loss pathways. Hydrology of these areas will be restored by the restoration of an overbank
flooding regime and by topographic manipulations imposed to increase surface storage and infiltration of
water on the site.

i

These modeled scenarios provide an indication of the hydrologic conditions that are expected across the
restored site. The data indicate that the areas closest to the stream and the edges of the wetland will typically
exhibit wetland hydrology for a smaller percentage of the growing season than the depressional areas further
from the restored channel. Under average conditions, wetland hydrology will occur for approximately 6-12%
of the growing season across the restored wetland site. Since no wetland system is homogeneous throughout,
hydrology will vary across the restored site. Factors that will affect hydrology in any particular location
include seepage inputs and outputs, degree of ponding, frequency of stream flooding events, local soil and
subsoil conditions, runoff, and run-on.
8.3 Natural Plant Community Restoration
Native riparian and wetland vegetation will be established in the restored stream buffer and wetland areas.
Also, areas of invasive kudzu on the South Muddy Creek site will be managed so as not to threaten the newly-
established native plants within the conservation easement.
8.3.1 Stream Buffer and Wetland Vegetation
Bare-root trees, live stakes, and permanent seeding will be planted within designated areas of the
conservation easement. A minimum 30-foot buffer will be established along all restored stream
reaches. [n general, bare-root vegetation will be planted at a target density of 680 stems per acre, or an
8 foot by 8 foot grid. Planting of bare-root trees and live stakes will be conducted during the dormant
season.
Species selection for re-vegetation of the site will generally follow those suggested by Schafale and
Weakley (1990) and tolerances cited in the US Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Research Program
(USAGE WRP) Technical Note VN-RS-4.1 (USAGE WRP, 1997). Selected species for hardwood re-
vegetation are presented in Table 8.2. Species selection may change due to availability at the time of
planting.
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING JANUARY 2008
PAGE 8-2

Tree species selected for wetland and stream restoration areas will be generally weak to tolerant of
flooding. Weakly tolerant species are able to survive and grow in areas where the soil is saturated or
flooded for relatively short periods of time. Moderately tolerant species are able to survive in soils that
are saturated or flooded for several months during the growing season. Flood tolerant species are able
to survive on sites in which the soil is saturated or flooded for extended periods during the growing .
season (USAGE, 1997).
Observations will be made during construction of the site regarding the relative wetness of areas to be
planted. Planting zones will be determined based on these observations, and planted species will be
matched according to their wetness tolerance and the anticipated wetness of the planting area.
Once trees are transported to the site, they will be planted within two days. "Soils across the site will be
sufficiently disked and loosened prior to planting. Trees will be planted by manual labor using a dibble
bar, mattock, planting bar, or other approved method. Planting holes for the trees will be sufficiently
deep to allow the roots to spread out and down without "J-rooting." Soil will be loosely compacted
around trees once they have been planted to avoid drying out.
Live stakes will be installed randomly two to three feet apart using triangular spacing or at a density of
160 to 360 stakes per 1,000 square feet along the stream banks between the toe of the stream bank and
bankfull elevation. Site variations may require slightly different spacing.
Table 8.2 Proposed Floodplain and Wetland Vegetation
South Muddy Creek Restoration Plan
Commas Name ' Scientific Name lPercen't Planted lby"°Specaes
Upper Slope Floodplain Areas
Sugarberry Celtis laecigata 10%
Persimmon I>iospyros v~rgin~mra 15%
Green ash Fraxi>zuspeimsylvairica 20%
Tulip poplar Liriodefrdrofr tul~pifera 15%
Sycamore Platarurs occideatalis 10%
Swamp chestnut oak Qrrercasmicharu-ii l5%
Southern red oak paercasrahra I S%
Floodplain Buffer
River birch Bctrelarrigra l0%
Sugarberry Celtislaevigata 5%
Persimmon Deospyros virgiaiarla 10%
Green ash Frariru<sperrrrsylvarrica 15%
Black walnut Juglairsaigra 5%
Tulip poplar Lirioderrdron tulipifera 15%
Blackgum Nyssa sylvatica 5%
Sycamore Platamrs occ~de~rtalis 20%
Swamp chestnut oak Qaercasmicharcrii 8%
Willow oak Qi~ercasphellos 7%
Stream Banks- Live Stakes
Silky dogwood Cor~rasamomam 40%
N inebark Physocarpas opalifolius 15%
Silky willow Salrxsencea 30%
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION
BAKER ENGINEERING
FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
JANUARY 2008
PAGE 8-3

Table 8.2 Proposed Floodplain and Wetland Vegetation
South Muddy Creek Restoration Plan
Common Natne Scientific Name Percent;Pi~©tecl by Species
Elderberry Sambucus canadensis 15%
Wetland Enhancement and Restoration Areas
River birch Betula nigra 15%
Persimmon Diospyros virginiana 10%
Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 17%
Black walnut Juglans nigra 13%
Blackgum Nyssa sylvatica 10%
Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 20%
Willow oak Quercus phellos 10%
Black willow Salix nigra 5%
Permanent seed mixtures will be applied to all disturbed areas of the project site. Table 8.3 lists the
species, mixtures, and application rates which will be used. Species selection may change due to
availability at the time of planting. The permanent seed mixture specified for floodplain areas will be
applied to all disturbed areas outside the banks of the restored stream channel and is intended to provide
rapid growth of herbaceous ground cover and biological habitat value. The species provided are deep-
rooted and have been shown to proliferate along restored stream channels, providing long-term
stability.
Mixtures will also include temporary seeding (rye grain or browntop millet). Temporary seeding will
' be applied to all disturbed areas of the site that are susceptible to erosion. These areas include
constructed stream banks, access roads, side slopes, and spoil piles. If temporary seeding is applied
from November through April, rye grain will be used and applied at a rate of 130 pounds per acre. If
' applied from May through October, temporary seeding will consist of browntop millet, applied at a rate
of 45 pounds per acre.
Table 8.3 Proposed Riparian Seed Mixture
South Muddy Creek Restoration Plan
Common Name Scientific Name Percent of
Mixture
Red top Agrostis alba 5%
Virginia wildrye Elymus virginicus 10%
Switchgrass Panicum virgatum 15%
Gamma grass Tripsicum dactyloides 15%
Smartweed Polygonum pennsylvanicum 5%
Little bluestem Schizachyrium scoparium 5%
Soft rush Juncus effi~sus 5%
Beggars tick Biden frondosa (or aristosa) 10%
Lance-leaf coreopsis Coreopsis lanceolata 10%
Deertongue Dichathelium clandestinum ] 0%
Big bluestem Andropogon gerardii 5%
Indian grass Sorgastrum nutans 5%
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION
BAKER ENGINEERING
FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
JANUARY 2008
PAGE 8-4

8.3.2 Invasive Species Removal
The South Muddy Creek site has an extensive infestation of kudzu on the right bank upstream and
downstream of Sain Road. Much of this area will be excavated during construction of the Priority 2
floodplain bench. The surrounding areas will be treated and should continue to be monitored so that the
kudzu does not threaten the newly-planted riparian vegetation. Stripped kudzu material will need to be
burned or disposed off-site.
Isolated invasive plants, such as mimosa and multiflora rose, will also be removed during grading
activities.
8.4 Additional Site Improvements
At the Landis Farm site, unstable areas contributing sediment to South Fork Hoppers Creek will be addressed.
An unpaved farm road has become compacted so that vegetation is unable to grow and storm water becomes
concentrated flow on this low topographic feature and carries sediment into the creek from the road. A ditch
also enters South Fork Hoppers Creek near the old road location. The ditch is vertically unstable with a 4-
foot head cut migrating upstream and causing extensive erosion. Both of these features will be addressed in
final design, likely by filling with extra soil and planting to create a more stable area.
A wet weather ditch carries runoff through the woods at the southern edge of the site and onto the field
adjacent to the existing wetland. This surface flow path will be protected and stabilized with a rock crossing
at an existing farm road crossing.
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION
BAKER ENGINEERING
FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
JANUARY 2008
PAGE 6-5

' 9.0 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
Specific success criteria components are presented below. Baker Engineering will set up baseline as-built
records; EEP will continue monitoring for five years following construction.
' 9.1 Stream Monitoring
Channel stability and vegetation survival will be monitored on the project site. Post-restoration monitoring
' will be conducted for five years following the completion of construction to document project success.
Geomorphic monitoring of restored stream reaches will be conducted for five years to evaluate the
effectiveness of the restoration practices. Monitored stream parameters include stream dimension (cross
sections), pattern (longitudinal survey), profile (profile survey), and photographic documentation. The
methods used and any related success criteria are described below for each parameter.
9.1.1 Bankfull Events
~ The occurrence of bankfull events within the monitoring period will be documented by the use of a
crest gage and photographs. One crest gage will be installed on the South Muddy Creek site and one
' crest gage will be installed at the South Fork Hoppers Creek site on the floodplain within 10 feet of the
restored channel. The crest gage will record the highest watermark between site visits, and the gage
will be checked each time there is a site visit to determine if a bankfull event has occurred.
' Photographs will be used to document the occurrence of debris lines and sediment deposition on the
floodplain during monitoring site visits.
Two bankfull flow events in separate years must be documented within the five-year monitoring period.
' Otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue until two bankfull events have been documented in
separate years.
9.1.2 Cross Sections
^ Two riffle and two pool cross-sections will be established on the South Muddy Creek site. Six cross-
sections will be installed at the South Fork Hoppers Creek site: one riffle and one pool on South Fork
' Hoppers Creek, on UT1B, and on UT2. Each cross-section will be marked on both banks with
permanent pins to establish the exact transect used. A common benchmark will be used for cross
sections and consistently used to facilitate easy comparison of year-to-year data. The annual cross-
' section survey will include points measured at all breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, inner
berm, edge of water, and thalweg, if the features are present. Riffle cross sections will be classified
using the Rosgen Stream Classification System.
There should be little change in as-built cross sections. [f changes do take place, they should be
evaluated to determine if they represent a movement toward a more unstable condition (e.g., down-
cutting or erosion) or a movement toward increased stability (e.g., settling, vegetative changes,
' deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio). Cross sections will be classified using the
Rosgen Stream Classification System, and all monitored cross sections should fall within the
quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream type.
9.1.3 Longitudinal Profile
A longitudinal profile will be surveyed immediately after construction and once every year thereafter
' for the duration of the five-year monitoring period. The restored channels at South Muddy Creek,
South Fork Hoppers Creek, UT1B, and UT2 will be surveyed and included in monitoring. At least
3,000 feet of channel will be surveyed each year for the longitudinal survey. Measurements will
include thalweg, water surface, right and left edge of channel, and right and left top of bank. Each of
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING JANUARY 2008
PAGE 9-1

these measurements will be taken at the head of each feature (e.g., riffle, pool) and at the maximum
pool depth. The survey will be tied to a permanent benchmark to facilitate comparison of data year-to-
year.
The longitudinal profiles should show that the bedform features are remaining stable; i.e., they are not
aggrading or degrading. The pools should remain deep, with flat water surface slopes, and the riffles
should remain steeper, and shallower than the pools. Bedform observed should be consistent with those
observed for channels of the design stream type.
9.1.4 Bed Material Analyses
A reach-wide pebble count will be conducted for each restored reach (South Muddy Creek, South Fork
Hoppers Creek, UT1 B, and UT2. Pebble counts will be conducted immediately after construction and
at a two-year interval thereafter at the time the longitudinal surveys are performed (years three and five)
throughout the five year monitoring period. Pebble count data will be plotted on semi-log paper and
compared with data from pervious years.
9.1.5 Photo Reference Sites
Photographs will be used to visually document restoration success. Reference stations will be
photographed before construction and continued annually for at least five years following construction.
Photographs will be taken from a height of approximately five to six feet. Permanent markers will be
established to ensure that the same locations (and view directions) on the site are monitored in each
monitoring period.
Lateral reference photos. Reference photo transects will be taken at each permanent cross-section.
Photographs will be taken of both banks at each cross-section. The survey tape will be centered in the
photographs of the bank. The water line will be located in the lower edge of the frame, and as much of
the bank as possible will be included in each photo. Photographers should make an effort to
consistently maintain the same area in each photo over time.
Photographs will be used to evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank erosion, success of
riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures subjectively. Lateral photos should
not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the banks. A series of photos over time
should indicate successive maturation of riparian vegetation.
9.2 Storm Water BMP Monitoring and Success Criteria
No storm water BMPs are proposed at the South Muddy Creek stream restoration project.
9.3 Wetland Monitoring
Groundwater monitoring stations will be installed in the wetland restoration area to document hydrologic
conditions of the restored site. Four automated groundwater monitoring stations will be installed.
Groundwater monitoring stations will follow the USACE standard methods found in WRP Technical Notes
ERDC TN-WRAP-00-02 (July 2000).
In order to determine if the rainfall is normal for the given year, rainfall amounts will be tallied using data
obtained from the Marion automated weather station, located approximately 12 miles northwest of the project
site.
The monitoring data should show that the site has been saturated within 12 inches of the soil surface for at
least 9% of the growing season, and that the site has exhibited an increased frequency of flooding. These
criteria are based on the modeling analysis presented in Section 8.2.
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION
BAKER ENGINEERING
FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
JANUARY 2008
PAGE 9-2

' The restored site will be compared to reference site data. In addition, the restored site's hydrology will be
compared to pre-restoration conditions, both in terms of groundwater and frequency of overbank events.
' 9.4 Vegetation Monitoring
Successful restoration of the vegetation on a site is dependent upon hydrologic restoration, active planting of
' preferred canopy species, and volunteer regeneration of the native plant community. In order to determine if
the criteria are achieved, vegetation monitoring quadrats will be installed across the restoration site for woody
tree species monitoring. Twelve quadrats will be installed on the South Muddy Creek site and twelve
' quadrats will be installed on the South Fork Hoppers Creek site (consisting of 11 plots for stream restoration
monitoring and 1 plot for wetland restoration and enhancement monitoring). The size of individual quadrats
will be 10 meters by 10 meters. Vegetation monitoring will occur in spring, after leaf-out has occurred.
' Individual quadrat data will be provided and will include diameter and height measurements. Individual
seedlings may be marked to ensure that they can be found in succeeding monitoring years. Mortality will be
determined from the difference between the previous year's living, planted seedlings and the current year's
' living, planted seedlings.
At the end of the first growing season, species composition and survival will be evaluated. For each
subsequent year, until the final success criteria are achieved, the restored site will be evaluated between July
' and November.
Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density on the project site will be based on the
recommendations found in the WRP Technical Note (USAGE, 1997) and past project experience.
' The interim measure of vegetative success for the site will be the survival of at least 320, 3-year old, planted
trees per acre at the end of year three of the monitoring period. The final vegetative success criteria will be
' the survival of 260, 5-year old, planted trees per acre at the end of year five of the monitoring period. While
measuring species density is the current accepted methodology for evaluating vegetation success on
restoration projects, species density alone may be inadequate for assessing plant community health. For this
' reason, the vegetation monitoring plan will incorporate the evaluation of additional plant community indices
to assess overall vegetative success.
9.5 Maintenance Issues
' Maintenance requirements vary from site to site and are generally driven by the following conditions:
• Projects without established, woody floodplain vegetation are more susceptible to erosion from floods
' than those with a mature, hardwood forest.
• Wet weather during construction can make accurate channel and floodplain excavations difficult.
• Extreme and/or frequent flooding can cause floodplain and channel erosion.
' • Extreme hot, cold, wet, or dry weather during and after construction can limit vegetation growth,
particularly temporary and permanent seed.
• The presence and aggressiveness of invasive species can affect the extent to which a native buffer can
be established.
Maintenance issues and recommended remediation measures will be detailed and documented in the as-built
and monitoring reports. The conditions listed above and any other factors that may have necessitated
' maintenance will be discussed.
9.6 Schedule/Reporting
' Annual monitoring reports containing the information defined herein will be submitted to EEP by December
31 of the year during which the monitoring was conducted. Project success criteria must be met by the fifth
' monitoring year, or monitoring will continue until all success criteria are met.
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING JANUARY 2008
PAGE 9-3

10.0 REFERENCES
Andrews, E. D. 1983. Entrainment of gravel from naturally sorted river bed material. Geological Society of
America Bulletin 94: 1225-1231.
Bledsoe, Brian P., C. C. Watson, and D. S. Biedenharn. 2002. Quantification of incised channel evolution and
equilibrium. JAWRA, vol. 38, No 3, 861-870.
Bratton, S. P. 1976. Resource division in an understory herb community: Responses to temporal and
microtopographic gradients. The American Naturalist 110 (974): 679-693.
Brinson, M. M. 1993. A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands. US Army Corps of Engineers,
Waterways Exp. Stn. Tech. Rep. WRP-DE-4. Washington, DC. 79 pp. + app.
Copeland, R.R, D.N. McComas, C.R. Thorne, P.J. Soar, M.M. Jones, and J.B. Fripp. 2001. United States
Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE). Hydraulic Design of Stream Restoration Projects.
Washington, DC.
Ehrnfeld, J. G. 1995. Microsite differences in surface substrate characteristics in Chamaecyparis swamps of
the New Jersey pinelands. Wetlands 15(2):183-189.
Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (F[SRWG). 1998. Stream corridor restoration:
Principles, processes and practices. National Technical Information Service. Springfield, VA.
Goldsmith, R., Milton, D.J., and Horton, J.W. 1988. Geologic Map of the Charlotte 1° x 2° Quadrangle,
North Carolina and South Carolina. USGS Map I-1251-E, 3p.
Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R. Everhart, and R.E.
Smith. 1999. Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland
Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water
Resources Association. June 30-July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality. 2004. Catawba River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Raleigh, NC.
Lane, E. W. 1955. Design of stable channels. Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers.
Paper No. 2776: 1234-1279.
Lutz, H. J. 1940. Disturbance of forest soil resulting from the uprooting of trees. Yale University School of
Forestry. Bulletin No. 45.
Medina, M.A., Reid, J.C., and Carpenter, R.H. 2004. Physiography of North Carolina Map. North Carolina
Geological Survey, Division of Land Resources.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP). 2001. Guide to Federally Listed Endangered and
Threatened Species of North Carolina. NCDEHNR. Raleigh, North Carolina, USA, 95p, 119p.
Reed, Jr., and Porter B. 1988. National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: National Summary.
US Fish & Wildlife Service. Biol. Rep. 88(24). 244 pp.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
_. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books.
_. 1997. A geomorphological approach to restoration of incised rivers. Proceedings of the Conference on
Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision. Wang, S.S.Y, E.J. Langendoen, and F.D.
Shields, Jr., eds. 12-22.
_. 1998. The reference reach - A blueprint for natural channel design (draft). ASCE Conference on River
Restoration. Denver CO. March, 1998. ASCE. Reston, VA.
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING JANUARY 2008
PAGE 10-1

' _. 2001a. A stream channel stability assessment methodology. Proceedings of the Federal Interagency
Sediment Conference. Reno, NV. March, 2001.
' _. 2001 b. The cross-vane, w-weir and j-hook vane structures...their description, design and application
for stream stabilization and river restoration. ASCE conference. Reno, NV. August, 2001.
' Russo, Mary. 2000. Threatened and Endangered Species in Forests of North Carolina. International Paper
Company.
Schafale, M. P., and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina, third
' approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Division of Parks and Recreation,
NCDEHNR. Raleigh, NC.
Simon, A. 1989. A model of channel response in disturbed alluvial channels. Earth Surface Processes and
' Landforms 14(1):11-26.
Skaggs, R. W. 1980. DRAINMOD reference report: Methods for design and evaluation of drainage-water
management systems for soils with high water tables. US Department of Agriculture. Soil
Conservation Service. 329 pp.
Sprecher, S. W. 2000. Installing Monitoring Wells/Piezometers in Wetlands. WRAP Technical Notes
1 Collection, ERDC TM-WRAP-00-02. US Army Engineer Research and Development Center,
Vicksburg, MS. http://www.wes.army.mil/el/wrap~/pdf/tnwrap00-2 pdf
' Stephens, E. P. 1956. The uprooting of trees: a forest process. Soil Science Society of America
Proceedings 20:1 13-116.
US Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report
' Y-87-1. Environmental Laboratory. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg,
MS.
US Army Corps of Engineers. 1997. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Research Program. Technical Note VN-
' rs-4.1. Environmental Laboratory. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg,
MS.
US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS). 1997. Part 650, Chapter
19 of the NRCS Engineering Field Handbook: Hydrology Tools for Wetland Determination.
_. 1995. WETS Table Documentation. Water and Climate Center. Portland, OR.
' _. 1996. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States. G.W. Hurt, Whited, P.M., and Pringle,
R.F., eds. Fort Worth, TX.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). Web Soil Survey
of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/
WebSoilSurvey.aspx
' U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1996. Endangered and Threatened Species of the Southeastern
United States (the Red Book) FWS Region 4 Small Whorled Pogonia (Isotria medeoloides).
_. 2000. Bog Turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii), Northern Population Recovery Plan. Agency Draft. Hadley,
Massachusetts. viii +90 pp.
' _. 2002. http://nc-es.fws.gov/es/countyfr html.
_. 2006. Threatened and Endangered Species m North Carolina. Available URL: "http://www.fws.gov/nc-
es/es/countyfr.html".
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING JANUARY 2008
PAGE 10-2

Wohl, E.E. 2000. Mountain Rivers. American Geophysics. Union Press. 320 pp.
SOUTH MUDDY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION
BAKER ENGINEERING
FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
JANUARY 2008
PAGE 10-3

~` _. rsv~l t
I
' i
j ~~i
C,` _~ r
4 '~~
f ~
~r -, - .~
r'' x
ao ~1rT.~4W 8A-1 , _ _
03-b8s3O 4 r'`
rx ~ -~,
i
5 4 `\
I
'~• MCDOWE~L ~o ~ dr;~ • t
~, ~~
~ ~
01.1 Fo,3f 1. ._~..~_ ~ ~._
}~ 2 J ~ r~ 221
~~`
~" iiU 0 X050101

Y
t CAT
""~' i ~ ~~1~ ~ ~]' South
~~~ 0308-02
`~,\` ~~j 03-0 RUT FO `
H RS N` j ~ l
~~~,i Lake Lur'
[feel: `
Map Inset
LEGEND:
Figure LI: Project ~'icin it} '?l r;.
T~-~-r,-.._~-
r ~--a ~ ~ T~

~
j ~~ NCDWQ Sub-basin
l CODUtICS South Muddy Crec6
Stream Restoration Proj.-
EF.P Project D0703?~
'
'
~ l_~ AC
~tilcDowell Caunq
~';COS~StE'IlI ~ ,
_ _
~
; ~ USGS Hydrologic Unit ,
,
m.o~,-.,n c„~~ ~ur Miles ~~r

x,3-0
~5
~./

,y ~ Y
6 0. _ ~
~ ~ { a~
Ae • ~
~~
r 4 R
~~ ~ .
r
!~
., ~~~
~"
"1~k
s~ , .
~~ ; ' .
x ,~: ,
~.
a
0
a
. _ . .n r~s~~_
~' ,~:"
.~+R.

'` ~.~
.~ .\ ~ K
~~ ~'
T +.
9 ~ ~ 3 A R
~ ; 'if's f ~ ', -' ,;
~ ~ x~ ~ ~ ~ ~^~ ~ t
Ay~ `
6 ~' ~".
T P
~ 4~I `. s ~ '~' '{ ~ ~ ~ ~.n "6$ ~ * ~ ~, may. ~iW
,~ s ~ i may, .# ~ ,b ~ ~s~ '*` ~, ~
..., .. ~ '~ r. .. .~ ..mil ~. .=xe. ~°'~~°4~ ~" ;,. '~~~~.. s d: 3 #~ .:
LEGEND: Figure L2: South Muddy Creek
Reach Location Map
Proposed Conservation Easement Streams sontn Muddy creek
~- Stream Restoration Project
~ Pro ect Reach To o ra hic Lines EEP Project D117032S
~ p g p Mcllowell County, NC
~'.(.'OS~r'Stf'lll -'-'- Property Boundaries
~~ .. ,~ ( I50 301 ~ ~ •
~~eel ~ ~

t
,r~ "f' ~ ~
^ ~,~ ~ - ~ ~
Ah
,; _
,~ u'~*y
_ ~ .. , ~, ~ . T i ~ ~ # :: . ....~ ~}Fib
€' ~ ~ t•`
,. ~_
~, ..
.. ,
~ n ti't:~; p . ,~' ~wa~~ ~,y ~ ~ ~„ ~~ ~ r '-'l~EV, ~~ , , .yam,
'S. .1
,. ^
~ ..
+M. - F ~t3`.JyM` aO .~ ~ ~ S~~c
~\ ° ~ ~ _~,,.-~P ~s ,.~,~ ~r~w,,t,~.,,,,,; kid '~:~
,. ~ ,
n
., "
~\:, ~ ~~,y~ ~~~ ~ ~ oaf ~.,. ~' "` "
~~ ~`'~ `"~~'""~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ray ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ..
~ ~ t.; ~re~~/ ro -'''~ ~ ~~
~ ~ up~'e L } °l,
,1, I , "
y~ttt ,~ ~ ~ r,
~~,1 ' ~:.
t ~, ~~"~~
4 ~ ~ ' f -
~t ~ ~~
% 77 I
.'. ,
~, '~~
:~ ~
e ~ ~~, .- I
~ ~ z - ~ ~
i
~ ~
~, /
~,
W
I'EGEN~' Figure 1.3: South Fork E~Ioppers Creek
Reach and Welland Location Map
Streams ~ UTIA ~ South Fork Hoppers Creek South Muddv Creek
Stream Restoration Yrojecl
~~ -° Approximate Property Boundary O Uf 1 B 0 UT3 F.F.P Prgject D07032S
Final Conservation Casement ~ UI'2A McDowell County, NC
('.C(?SVStL'lll Topograpnic Linee ®uTZ6
'~~~ Existing Weiland ~ ~ ~ ~
0 2511 511(1
Feet

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
'1
n ~ .~ ' ~ .,
~ ~' a
o~ ~ 6~`~ _
G`Q as ! `~~h°
- - ~ SRS yg , - ~ v _ y~~\^bU rya, ~,
8
a ~ ~:
~9 ~ J'
~' ~4~ y
~ c V
.sqa p
„~ ` w.nm ig## ~ q
Nuntyviae "fuwer lid ~/j ~b
~~
4
`~ r 7
5
- ~\/\
~~7 - \. :S 1 :~ 1~ hair Rd
Vein NorYntain R ~'. _ ~ _,
tiR#lSO~~ ~~
~..,^ ~~`, sunt77
O
~ X10°°~' \ ~ c SR#/))3 0
e~. 11 ~~~../// ~ r
Iraq ,~ a ~~e R
-.'~a
~ (~ a ~qA
~ ~\
' gR#I7 SR#lAU2 z
~/ y` ~S
s / r
r
r ~~ %
o`p` ~ D ~
p `b
»~
C / '
~` r
~~- ~ ,rR z
~~
s` ~
p
.. / ~
a s
`ja
sr ~
~s
LEGEND: Figure 2. L• South Muddy Creek
Watershed Map & Impoundment Location
~- ~ Project Reach Streams South Muddy Creek
Stream Restoration Project
Drainage Areas Roads EEP Project D07032S
~~~~~}~~~~~ McDowell County, NC
l ~ NRCS In-line flood constrol structure (Impoundment)
,.~ 0 O.S 1Miles ~ ~ ~ •
i

r, ~,
~~ ~ ..,
~~
.. ~ . . ~.
,,
.f
.. .
,.
°~
E
~ ~ ~ a ~.
. ; : , ~~ e
71
,~~„ a r
• i ..~~ ~, ~k ft_b. ~' ,~ ~' .per'
~,~ ;,, . ~ z e.
. ~., +'" . ~ ;~~ a ' x ~.
>~ `4 ~~, ,r: ,.
,.„ _.
~.. { ~ "'+x rya ~y. ~.'.
+ ._
,. ~. ~~ .
.~•
Y ~ a
~ a
` • . ~ ``w C ~+ + '~.
N
Y ~'~ ,
S„utj` _ i
~~- > '~;:
~ r
Q M~ 3' t
,.
.. ,
y ,i ~'
t ~ 4 ~ r ~ ':
e
ac ,
} ~ § ~ ''"
,.. I= '.
~ ~"E ~ r ~ gs r ..
,~ .~
.~ , .,
~,~, , f<
l.. ~ ,
a
y ;
~._
LEGEND' Figure 2.2: South Fork Hoppers Creek
Streams Project Reaches Watershed Map
Soulh Muddy Creek
`' -South Fork Hoppers Main
-" Approximate Property Boundary Stream Restoration Projecl

5
~UTIA EEP Project D07032
McDowell County
NC
' Drainage Areas
DUTIB ,
f~
,cc~s~,~sterl~ Existin
Wetland -
'
'
r:.
g
U
I
2A
~~ UT2B ~
0 500 1,0~,e ~ ~
et
®UT3

-,• -~~
Soils ~ "
~BrC2 -Braddock clay loam, 6-IS% slopes ~ ~ ~` ~~` ~' ~ ~;~ .~
i^
~EwE - Evard-Cowee complex, 25-h0% slopes ~¢ ~~ ~ - i ~ - ~ ~ ,
~HaC - Hayesville loam, 6-15% slopes ~ ~;~, ~ r> ~~ ~"'~
i' ~
®HcC2 - Ilayesville clay loam, 6-15% slopes ,~.~
~IoA- lotla sandy loam. 0-2~r slopes ~iy '~,~' 'I ~~~ ~
'`. `~ i'.i, sM
~'
,t ~.
z: "~
p ~, ~ ,~
«~
~ ~~ ~ "y-
-
_.s
,p i
. , ~ _: ,.
`v ,. ~!u p~ i ~ r .
a i r
k ~ • r
:~ ~
I
- i
w tin ~ ~ ~~ ~,
~ °'~ ~ ~` t
~t~ ~~ '~~ ~ ~.;
\ J
.` A„ /.~.
~~ •~
_.
r , ~ ~.
\ .~
i~ ' ~ ~
-~ ~~ ~/
,\ [ :z, ~ -
~` , ~ "` '
~~
~~ 1 ~ ~ ,~
.~ ~ ~
r. I
4
/ . ~ i * '.~ ~ m.
.. ~~ ..
LE(iF.ND: Figure 2.3: South Muddy ('reek

'~-
~ Prgject Reach Site Soils Map
South Muddy Creek
.Strealfl5 Stream Restoration Project
F.EP Project D07032S
~~jj ,,~~ }} PCO~OSe(I Conservation ~aSelTlellt McDowell County, NC
LA,~~SYSLeII1
°~"`~"•" _._. Property Boundaries
0 III 300 ~~
~ •
poet

~,

,+,
• ~.
Soils
^ EwE -Evard-Cowee complex, 25-60% slopes
^ HaC -Hayesville loam, 6-15% slopes
HcC2 - Hayesvill clay loam, 6-15% slopes -
^ HeD -Hayesville Evard complex, 15-25% slopes
^ IoA - Iotla sandy loam, 0-2% slopes
LEIiL''ND: figure 2.J: South Fnrk ^oppen Leek
Streams -UT I A Sile Soils Map
.- -- South Muddy Creck
~' Approximate Property Boundary DUTIB Stream Restoration Project
EEP Project D07032S
~UTZA McDowell County, NC
Final Conservation Easement
Existing Wetland ~
°`.,`" ®UT3 0 250 SOIQ ~ ~ ~
~$Onlil Fork Hoppers Creek eet

.-~
-. -__
_.. ~ ~ ' a
~~(
oar \ ~~ ~ ~ p-c
8~ 17M \ ~~ APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
~ \ w'';, _ ir~~ zooo o zooo
Ct7 ~ ~-ti.. ~
Z ~ ~ ~i.~ .
cn 0 ~,,M ~ ~ ~ - _
c e` ~rt~ '
~ ~~ ,~
Z ~ / ~_ .,~ ~ ""^~` . 2 i' ' NAiIONAI Ft010 INSYiAMCE -iIOCA~Y
~. I
a -1
a ~~ ~ ~ ~
a J .~ ~'` ; i ^rs , I C I. FARM
F ~,~ ~~-.` ~ '1* ra :. ~ ,t' ~~ ~ FLOOD INSURANCE BATE MAP
' ` ~a ~ ;; ;
~ V n a~ z`~~~'~ ` I MCDOWELL COUNTY,
~. a " la ~ NORTH CAROLINA AND
^° ch - ~~~ t ~ ~~'~ l ~ I INCORPORATED AREAS
ii ~
`3.
'~> ~ ~ ~~~ ~ _ % a ~ ~ ~ P~f~P~~O o~n r~wnEts aor ealnTem
~~ ~ ZONE X l" " ' ~ coruws
• ~~ `~ I I caww+m 7wrefR PMFl SIiFp
,.. ~~ 9 1
/~' i },4 ~_~~ i Uf/1NCLNPOk~1lU AilRS 7TOI18 0200 B
/'
pO x ~ , ~ PAHEL LpCAnOa
p0 II 7.:. ~
~~ ~ fl ~ ~ ` I I -
~'a_~.=sue b ~ 1
d ~a~b~ I i
kuty d
/! \ i ~ I
I' ! MAP NUMBER:
,!
creek ~ ~i it 3711100200 B
~ \ z ~ ~ EFFECTIVE DATE:
ass - IUIY L5, 1988
II
u
-~ ~``
a ~ z. n J 2 ~ h 1772 ~~ Federal Fmetgemty Ataeegem®t AjLn y
C N >. Y,..
$ '9 x = T• s ~ 7hle la an ,Bias oow or a Portiar, or the abaw rererencad rood maP. it
F ` N ~ j C .} ~ extractetl uurtg F-MIT On-Lire. Thla map tloes not reflect changes
`~^, O mendmeMS which may have been made subseQueM to the date on the
~ r ~ I S ` _ ,' - btlc dock. FOr t110 later[ Product Ir,brmaUOn about NSiotfal Flootl Ineuroncc
o " ~ ~ ~ I ~`~,-~'_~~' Frogram sootl maps chec< tie FEMA Float Map Store at www mcc temagov
3 C ~ /~ S' C
J r ~ 7
~ W ~ ry
2
L N F
~ r/i ~.
A
.. F

J z UCLI
E?a4
�JZZ= wu $x = Stu
o �C �ro�=
w r
O z fio �ZZ im �I I EiEj1
n
MR *�M
N S��yE
qq $
?`oaa
COQ C
p yy
9 0
#N
C
X / - w
w - Z
Z O
Yam O N
vy
0
a
0
LEGEND' Figure 2.6 South Fork Hoppers
Creek FEMA Map
South Muddy Creek
South Fork Hoppers Creek Project Reaches Stream Restoration Project
EEP Project S
McDowell Countyunty,, NC
hcosystem
f� ai Hement
OGRAM � � .

R.. i^ ~~ ..~ W,
4
_..+ ,~~ ~
.` '~ ~.~ .` a y~ .,~ # ,~;'~ 1~~~ r ,,,
~' . `. ,
~a ~ ~ - - '~
y ~
~' wi
.~
{~- / t ,,:
~ - ~ ~ ' ~
,.
'.; ,~ ~ ,~
L1'.GLVD: figure 3. L• South Muddy Crock
'xisting Conditions Cross-Sections Ma
~ Project Reach -~-~- Property Boundaries South Muddy Creek
Stream Restoration Project
Streams Proposed Conservation Easement EEP Project D070325
r~
McDowell County, NC
~',(,'(~Sti~St~Tll Cross-Section ~ Bank Pins-By Others
1
~ ~
~~ ~ . " 0 150 30~ ~ ~ •
cot

~. ~' . ,. a
e.t . .
.~ . » ti:
R, w ~ ..
_ ,~, ,
~., tw s * ~' ~ # ~'~,,,~ . ~ - { Uzi
•~ ~ ~'~ 1 ~~ ~~ ~y,4`c~f~'' S~;o ;~,A~'~~~ ~ ~ ~k~ $ ..~ in C',~r ..r
,`m\ ~:~ ,~',~,/ifR i s ~.~,r? '~ ~ ~~ a '. ate' 'x Yi
~ - ~w~. ,
a'' '. .. - ~ - 4
._
l ~ di a.,
•~ -~ ~
,..
~ ,~ ~ a• 'w

~- %S
.
,
~

~-
A:Y

~,

".

i
ti+.~.~ v
~~ I
.~.` /

LGl1Gl9 I/:
~
Streams -South Pork Ho
ers (
'reek
Figure 3.2: South Fork Hoppers Creek
.
pp Existing Conditions Cross-Sections Mai
~- ~'~' Approximate Property Boundary ®UTIA South Muddy Creek
Stream Restoration Project

('toss-Section UT 16 E[•;P Project D117(1325
McDowell County, NC

~t.L~~~~Slel~l
l Final Conservation Easement ~UTZA
~ Wetland Gages ~UTZB ~
0 ?SII SUIT
Existing Wetland -U~pj I cct ~ •

Class I. Sinuous, Premodified
h<hc
h
Class II. Channelized
h<hc
floodplain
h
he =critical bank height
=direction of bank or
bed movement
Class II1. Degradation Class IV. Degradation and Widening
h<hc h>hc
terrace
I ~ ~
h h
i i
slumped material
Class V. Aggradation and Widening Class VI. Gluasi Equilibrium
h>hc h<hc
terrace terrace
~' h bans
h ~ ~ ~_ _ _b_an_k_fi
1 slumped
material
aggraded material <
Class I Class III
primary Class IV
nickpoint
material
top bank Class V
precursor
rnckpoint dire ~ Class VI
coon o _ ow
b 1__~
secondary t,~~_
nickpoint C -'~'-----
oversteepened reach aggradation zone aggraded material
Source: Simon, 1989; US Army Corps of Engineers, 1990.
Fig. 7.14 - Chatmel evolution model..
[n Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices, 10/98.
Irsteragerscy Scream Restoration Working Group (FISRWGx l5 Federal agencies of rise US).
!•'igure 3.3
Simon Channel Evolution Model
South Muddy Creek Stream Restoration Plan
EEP Project D07032S
Source: Simon, 1989 McDowell County, hIC

IINNI
Ninth Caitilina Piedmont Regional Curve: CiYiss-Sectional Air a
with South Muddy Creek Restoration Plan Data

v IINI
A
C
O
N
G
(.~
III
r~

IINI
Drainage Areu (sy mi )
• Ufian Data • Rural Data ^ S Fork X5 ^ S Fork X7 • S Fork Xlll ^ S Fork Design
• U"I'lBX2 • UTIBX~i p UTIBDesign • U'f2AXl1 o U"r?ADesign • U'I'26X14
• UTZBXI6 O Ur26 Design x S Muddy XI x S Muddy X3 x S Muddy XS x S Mudd}' X9
x S Muddy XRI M S Muddy Design O Norwood (3ige O Jacob ForkCdige -Rural Regression -Urban Regression
IoulNl
IINIO
~;
u
v
~ IIIII
'~
10
North Carolina Piedn>MZnt Regional CIU'Vl': Dischar);e
with South Muddv Creek Restoration Plan Data
NNI
,, ,
_i ,. _
I fi~l~
IL111
0.1 I 111 11111 101
• Urban Dala • Rural Dala ^ ti Fork Monning's n • S fork USGS Ij-Year O ti Fork Design
• U'I'IRMannings n • U"flliUti(iti LS-Year p U'flBDesign • U'I'2A Manning's n • U'12A USGS I S-Year
O UI?A Ucsign • UJ'26 Manning's n • U'r26 USGS L5-Year O U'I'26 Ucsign x S Muddy Manning'. n
x S Muddy US(i5 15-Year ~~ S Muddy Ucsign O Nonvoud Gage O .Inaib Pork Gage -1'o wcr(Rural Uala)
- PuwcrlUrban Uala)
Figure 3.4
NC Piedmont Regional Curves with Project Reach Data
Sonlh Muddy Creek Stream Restoration Plan
EEP Project D07032S
McDowell County, NC
Note: Project data were
not considered in regional
curve development.

102
100
98
96
..,
c
0
.~
a~
w 94
92
90
88
0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Station (ft)
Figure 3.5
South Muddy Creek Impoundment Study
South .Muddy G•eek Sb•eam Resta•ation Plan
EEP Project D07032S
McDowell County, NC
South Muddy Creek Impoundment Study
Cross Sections Above and Below the Impoundment

.~
~.R
r
BURKE
DOWEL
/ ..~ ~-
~ ~^'~'l-~^~__
-~~ `~ ,.
Pro ect Site
-- '~+
I _,
ROTHERFORD
I
•~ ' CLEVELAND
i
OLK' ~ ~ ~ r
~~
N
-~-~-
STOKES ! ,
ir!1
'. ~
'~
~`~
~.
~ ) j SAMFSON
~ i ~ RI HMONG i HOKE i(
~ ~ Gfy U IOI] = AN N ~ _ ~uiA
~ _
~~ us:. \~ i SCOTL: ~G `
Map Inset LEGEND Figure 3.6: Gage Stations, Reference
Reac6,aod Reference

_ ~--~
0 Reference Reach Sites ~_a Counties ~i'etland Locations
Suuth Muddy Creek
~" 1~
~
l~'` ~~
- Wetland Reference Sites ~'' Municipal Boundaries Stream Restoration Pro'ect
EEP Project DO7O32S
'~ ti
f
Sit
G
L
Q B
kf
ll R D1cDowell County
1•~~~«system ons
age
oca
an
u
e
erence
e

• ~ ~ ~ - ~

Nur~h Carvlina p
0 12.5 25 Miles / a,
l~ - -
~ ~
~~'"
ROCKt~G~~AM
,..._
I
" i
._r_
- --
i
--
~. ~

..,
~ ~
,.
~ ~ y
" w'"~,
t ~ ~~~' `'
~'+~~ ~•
~. ~ ~
Jl '`~ a
., ~ ~,.
~~~ .
S~,a ~ .
t .,
cJ' '
~+. j ,
~ u
o ~j ~z ~
~ ~
~ a
~ , t ~`"
~~,,: ~
"`
~.
~'~ (`
,` r « t,`A
.` ~ ~~
.` ~
~. ; rt
'~ ~~ : y,~s~ ~ ' _ ~~.
•~ % •~' t.% ~e
~ ~ '~ ~
E ii ~.. „~~~ ~,d ~ ~ ~'"'~ ~
1 ., ~~ ,
. ~,
.„
~ '~ ~ .. - t
,,
V •..
r
w .~ m~
~ ~ ~' ~'
~r Y ~
Irf., .. i
l figure 7. L• tiuulh 1luddv (7cck
LEGEND: Proposed Restoration Design
South Muddv Creek
~-- ~ Proposed Restoration Design ___.. Property [3oundaries Stream Restoration Projcct
EEP Project D070325
Proposed Conservation Easement Streams McDowell County, NC
~F~cos~stcm
,~.,,.~. a iso 3o~R
eet ~~ ~

~ i ~~ •4
~ `T `~ ~
4
b ~ 4
Y ~ ,
e'
~'
~L } ~
~~ ~ . { ~ ~ .~a '~ ~. " ~« 4 ~ ~i. . c~ ° stw.. ts~ ~` «y~ fir. t ~~'G
~ ,
~,.~, R . w .. = ~ 5 . ms`s '°; P
r~
~~ -`yyy~~~_ * ; # ~1 4~ {, t `i ~+f. rk rW _.~'9M
x }
Ii1F• ~W
~. ~
.. ~ .•
"y lF ~~ii-+`'~~/w ~^; ~ .M0. My~,i ~ ~~ a ~.'~` u r~.•
,, ~ ~ ~
~.?r 9 iii ~ a r"
,~ .~
~ ~C Y ~,~ai ~ ' aaUZh Fna.,t. / P ~ a~~„~ '>`
\ 1~~~ s qG~ ,~~ ~ ;~a~~~ 4^ .. !on/aar~. °C'ree~ ^~~k .i'° '
r
•,
. _,
,~ ~«,~
\ '.Z ~ ~~.
,~ z Y L..t~.. ,~ r
• ~ i !
~4 ,~
,t. ~ ~~~~`~ a ~.r` I
. ,
~ ,- _ ~
' '~ , . ' ~ i
~' ~ 1
'~
\a,.
'.
s
' ~ _ ~ ~Wwb..,.
1.~~i~Nn: H'igure 7.2: South Fork Hoppers Creek
Streams Proposed Uesign Proposed Restoration Uesign
~'" -•-'• A roximate Pro ert Boundar ~ Restordio^ South Muddy Creek
~~ PP P Y Y Stream Restoration Project
© Enhancement Lcvel II EEP Pro eet DU7032S
Final Conservation Easement ~
~ Stabilization McDowell County, NC
l ~ t~osyStC1~1 ®Wetland Restoration ~ Preservation
~'`,l ~ Wetland Enhancement _
,..,....
0 Z50 SU~ ~ •
i cct
i

~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~
000
100
a
E
.~
m
~ 10
0
u
u
r
m
a
c
.~
(7
1
~ .__
i
I ~ I ~ I
~ i
i I ~ ~ I I
O Leopold, Wdman & Miller, 1964
~ Leopold, Wdman & Miiler, 1964 (upper outliers)
0
Trendline (Cdorado Date + Upper outliers: Leopdd,
Wdman & Miller, 1964) C
Trendline (Leopold, Wdman & Miller, 1964) O
Cdorado Data + upper outliers:
Leopod, Wolman & Miller, 1964 /
Power Trendline
Dia.(mm) = 253.7 t~°ss~.
R~=0.9511 / ~ O ~,
Leopdd, Wolman i~ Miller, 1964 / O O
Power Trendline
Dia.(mm) = 77.966 t~' saz
R2= 0.9336 O
E _ ~ 'iI
~~
- - - I ~,
'I
- - - - /
_~ ~ ~ ' L
_ -. __~
-- -
/0
o _ ~ _ _-
o --
o ~~!~, i ;
`^ ~' 0.001
3mA ~
d ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ s
~ ~ ~ ~
~ry• ~ ~
n A ^ R!
~ p O G C.
J ~
Z N p ~ J
C~ C/] ~ w W
c ~
r~
~~
~~
~~
0.1
~~
0.01 0.1 1 10
'[~ = Gitical Shear Stress l Ibs / SgFt. )

APPENDIX 1
Restoration Site Photographs

~r~3. - r
~,
•~~ ~~,r
k}r, ,,~~<..
n,.~ ,q a
• ?i
y ...~Z'~
5;, i£ .
7a1 ~
. e=
- ~fk1~~. ~. ~ ~' cR-sue;. ,,,,, -,,.
~iw ~ =~+~
.r.?: _, Y e~ ..
.,
~„ _~

~~ ~~

Fea
ture
Stream 7•v' c BKF Area BKF Width
BKF De th Mar BKF
De th
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Rifllc G4c ->F-l 97.2 ~ I? L9 3.3 2(,.9 3? I.-l 1123.3 113(IJ
1132
1130
c 1128 ~
1126 -•-•----------•--•--•---
~ 1124
--------

1122 ---------
1120
1118

100 I50 200 250 300 350
Station • - o • - I3ankFull - • o - • Floodprone
South Muddy Creek Site -South Muddy G•eek
Cross-section Data: X1A Riffle

~.r ,
.~
:',~.
~- ,~

i
e

Feature Stream
'C e
BKF Area
BKF Width
BKF Ue th Max BKF
De th
W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev 'COB Elev
Pool 1(111.5 39.x) 2 i 5.0 16.U 2.6 1122.b 11311.6
1145 _- -..._ _ _

1140
1135
0
> 1130

w 1125
1120
1115

100 150 200 25U 300 35 0
Station - - o - - Bankfull
South Muddy G•eek Site - &iuth Muddy Creek
Cross-section Date: X1B Pool

South Muddy Crock Site -South Muddy Creek
Cross-section llata: X1 Riffle
~~;~
Stream Max BKf
feature l' e [3KF Area 13KF Width BKP De th De th W/D BH Ratio I~:R [3KF Elev fOB Glev
Rilflc Gac 59.6 ll.~ 2.9 x.11 IIL9 2.6 IJ 1133? 1129)
1145 --
1140
1 135
c
0
1130
v
W
1125
1120
1115
150
......................
160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250
Station • - O - - Bankfull • - 4 - • Floodprone

1145
1140
c 1135
0
> 1130
v
"'t 1 125
1120
1115
100
South Muddy Creek Site -South Muddy Creek
Cross-section Data: X2 Pool
Max BKF
I~Pnfh
3.1
150
200
Station
250 300
- - o - - Bankfull

.-tai.: '}
'.i~ .~
~:- .,,.
~~:. ,
P.~ _ ".. -
South Muddy Creek Site -South Muddy Creek
Cross-section Data: X3 Rit'fle
~
'
'~ ~
~
~
~ `
'
' ~
~
~1
F
~
,
ti ~. 1r
~
, s .~
iE,'
,
,
.
-4'1 ~r~ ~
7 Y t~'I Y ,
~ `
~
~
1
~
.E"
a ~ ry ~ f ~ ~
-'Y~p~~ s~`r'~:'a R` ..
~ ` ~t.
c
}'
`
i
Z~f

s~ ~ ~ - .~ K

. ~tiri ~P~+°"=r yir. .~
Stream Max [3KF
Feature T e 13KF Area BKF Width BKF De th De th W/D BH Ratio ER f3KI~ I'lec TOB F.lev
Riffle G4c 51S ?`~.~ '.9 3,~ 9.8 ? 9 L~l I I_'I ' I Ci.S
1130
1128
1126
C
.~
°- 1124
1122
w
1120
1118
1116
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
Station - • o • • Bankfull • - o • - Floodprone

South Muddy Creek Site -South Muddy Creek
Cross-section llata: X4 Pool
Stream Max 6KF
Feature f ~ e BKF Area BKF Width 13KF De th De th W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Poul 8i.9 28.1 ~. I i.7 ~l. I 2.U 112 L I 1126.(,
1130 -
1128
1126
°0 1124
i° 1122
tid 1120
1118
1116
1114
100
150 200 250 300 350
Station • • o • - Bankfull

South Muddy Creek Site -South Muddy Creek
Cross-section Data: X7 Poo1

Stream Max aKF
Feature I' e BKF Area BKF Wicith BKF De th Pe xh W/D B11 Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool 103.7 30.6 3.d - 9.11 2.0 1119.6 1125.4
1128
1126
1124
°0 1122
> 1120
y
w 1118
1116
11]4
1112
100
-~
120 140 160
180 200 220 240 260 280
Station - - o - - Bankfull
a.
' °~
r; :z
. ~~
,, .,~,.
:~ .~.
s ,':.:
~~~ :~~.

South Muddy Creek Site -South Muddy Creek
Cross-section Data: X8 Riffle
Stream Max 13KF
Feature I-v e BKF Area BKF Width [3KF Depth I)c xh WD f3H Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
RiFFlc G 1c 77.7 2~.5 i.11 2. l I.1 1 1 19.1 1 1 12~.U
1128
1126
1124
c
.~
1122
?? 1120
1118
1116
1114
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260
Station • • o • - Bankfull - - o - • Floodprone

South Muddy Creek Site -South Muddy Creek
Cross-section Data: X9 Riffle
Stream Max BKF
Feature T e BKF Area BKF Width BKF De th De th W/D Bt1 Ratio FR BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riftle G-lc 72.h 2d.3 3.11 3> b.l 2.ti 1.2 118J 1125.(1
1126 ----..__- ------- -.
1124
[ 1122 •--•---•----..•.
0
> 1120
w 1118 _--_.....-.
1116
1114
100 150 200 250
Station - • o - • gankfull • • o - - Floodprone

Pool ~ ~ 4.3 ~ 4 ~ 1.1 ~ 1.6 ~ 3.6 ~ 2.8 ~ ~ 1269.5 ~ 1272.3 ~
1280
1278
1276
~_
1274
0
.~
1272
w
1270
1268
1266
100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Station (ft) - - o - - Bankfull
South Fork Hoppers Site - UT1B

Rifle I E$ I 3A I 3.4 I I I 1.4 I 3.4 I 2.5 I ? 9 I 1368.7 I 1270.9
1282
1280
L278
~ 1276
•°^ 1274
v 1272
w 1270
1268
1266
100
120 140
160 180 200 220
Station (ft) • - o • - Bankfull - - o - • Floodprone
South Fork Hoppers Site - UT1B
Cross-section Data: Y2 Riffle

South Fork Hoppers Site - UT1B
Cross-section Data: X3 Pool
Stream Max BKF
Feature Tv e BKF urea BKF Width BKF De th De th W/D BH Katio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool ?.~ 7J (1.-3 1.3 19.3 2.U 125fiJ 1?(,U.I
1261.5
1261
1260.5
1260
0 1259.5
1259
w 1258.5
1258
1257.5
1257
100
120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260
StaCion (ft) • • o • - Bankfull

~ wrfle ~ Es ~ 3.s ~ s.7 I u.a I t.~ I ~~s I i.a I i~,? I i2sr,? I i25~,.ts
1258.5
1258
,1 1257.5
x
~ 1257
•~ 1256.5
1256
w
1255.5
1255
1254.5
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260
Station (ft) ~ a I3ank(ull ~~ I~I~xxlpn~nc
South Fork Hoppers Site - U"I' l B
Cross-section Date: X4 Riftle

Sork Fork Hoppers Site -South Fork Hoppers
Cross-section Data: XS Rit'tle

Sork Mork Hoppers Site -South Fork Hoppers
Cross-section Dat-: X6 Yool
Stream Max F3KF
Feature T e BKF Arca 13KF Width E3KF D~ nth Dc uh WiD BH Ratio GR BKF Elev "IY)B I?Icv
Pool 14.21 14 I.I ~.I I?J L~) 13h0.~ I?(,?.i
1265
1264
~ 1263
c 1262
> 1261
w 1260
1259
1255
I O(1
120 140 160 180 20U 220 240
Station (Ft) • - o • - Bankfull

Sork Fork Hoppers Site -South Fork Hoppers
Cross-section Data: X7 Riffle
Stream BKF Max BKF
Feature T e BKF Area BKF Width De th De th W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle G5c 7.4 7.4 1.0 1.7 7.4 2.5 2.3 1256.0 1258.7
1263 --
1262
1261
~ 1260
c 1259
1258 ...-....
,', 1257
w 1256 ~
1255
1254 I
1253
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260
Station (ft) - • o • • Bankfull - - o - - Floodprone

Sork Fork Hoppers Site -South Fork Hoppers
Cross-section Data: X8 Pool
1
Stream Max BKF
Feature Tv fit RKF Arca I3KF Width BKF De th De th W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Piu~l L ~ ? ~.~~ 1 S 2.4 5.9 3.3 1254.1 (257.1
1260 -
I259
1258
1257
°0 1256
1255
1254
1253
1252
1251
100
120 140 160
180 200 220 240 260 280
Station (Ft) - - o - - Bankfull

~~ ~ ~
~.: ~`~
r`
C z
Pool ~ ~ 11.6 ~ 7.7 ~ I.5 ~ 2. I ~ 5.1 ~ 2.3 ~ ~ 125 L6 ~ 125.5
1262 -- --- - - - - ----- ------
i
1260
,~ 1258
0 1256
> 124
w 1252 ___
I
1250
1248
100 120 140 160 180 200
Station (Ft) - - o - • Bankfull
Sork Fork Hoppers Site -South Fork Hoppers
Cross-section Data: X9 Pool

Sork Fork Hoppers Site -South Fork Hoppers
Cross-section Data: X10 Riffle
Stream Max BKF
Feature T ~ e BKF Area BKF Width BKF De th Dc th W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev "I'OB Elev
Riffle G~c I ~.~, ~1J L6 2.U 6.1 l.? 3.d 12~U.11 l2~ L I
1258 ---
1257
1256
~ 1255
--~ 1254
0 1253
~ 1252 ---------------------- - -
°: 1251
w 1250
1249
1248
1247
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 l90
Station (ft) - - o - - Bankfull • - ~ • • Fioodprone

Elevation (ft) z ~'
_ _ _ _ _
N N N N '+~ W _W
Gc Oo .D ~J O O
O Vi C cn O C.n O
o ; ^ ~ ~
-~~ ~
t~
0
A
C
w
j C
=-n
~ O
~~
. N
~-
o
~ N
N -
O
A

Q
C']
?,, ~,`#.
~~ ~ ~`.
ly ^~ ~~
?`
j, • ,
'~
%yti ~
l.'
0
C
O ~]
~, . U "C'!
.. #, ~
A
•..~
O
"C
f ti~
~4 ~ ~
C (~
.. ,,._
r ~
I~y~~ V1
/V T
A
y
N
a

South Fork Hoppers Creek Site - UT2A
Cross-section Data: X12 Pool
Stream Max BKP
Feature Tye E3KF Area BKF Width BKF' De th De th W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Clev TOB Elev
Pool 9.1 i LEI 2.6 2.ti 2J l3~ l.7 12S~1.1
1310 - ----------
1305
1300
~ i
•° 1295 ~
w 1290
1285
1280
100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Station (ft) - - o • - Bankfull

South Fork Hoppers Creek Site - U'I'2B
Cross-section llata: X13 Pool
Stream Max BKF
Feature Tv e BKF flrea BKF Width BKF De th De th WiD BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB F.lev
Pool ~.~1 6.2 LU I J 6? 3? 1271.4 1271.2
~_ _
1288 ---- ____._........_.------- -------..--_-. ,
1286
1284
~ 1282
a 1280
•~ 1278
1276 ~
w 1274
1272
1270
1268
100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Station (ft) - - o • - Bankfull

South Fork Hoppers Creek Site - U'I'2B
Cross-section Data: X14 Rif'f1e
Stream Max BKF
Feature T e BKF Area BKF Width BKF Dc th De th W/D B[-1 Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle GSc (~.I ~.> I.i I.5 5.U 3.9 3.7 12711.7 1275.1
1279 - - ----- ---- ------
1278
1277
-. 1276
~ 1275
0 1274
1273
°' 1272 .............
w 1271
1270 --
1269
1268
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190
Station (ft) • - o - - Qankfull • - o - - Floodprone

South Fork Hoppers Creek Site - UT2B
Cross-section Data: X15 Pool
Stream Ma.e RKF
Feature T e 6KF Area F3KF Width BKF De th Dc th W/D [3H Ratio I~.R [3KF 1?Icv IY)B Elev
Pool S.7 I2.i U.7 L~1 17.7 L~~ I'ha.7 I_'n~.~
1273
1272
_ 1271
~ 1270
0 1269
1268
w 1267
1266
1265
1264
100
120 110
160 180 20U 220 240
Station (ft) - - o - • Bankfull

South Fork Hoppers Creek Site - UT2B
Cross-section Data: X16 Riffle
Stream Max BKF
Feature "C e BKF Area BKF Width BKF De th De th W/D QIi Ratio ER BKF Elev TO[3 Elev
Riffle GSc S.d 5.8 11.x) 1.3 6.~ 3S 1.7 1263.7 126ZU
1269 --- ---
126H
1267
z
c 1266
v 1265 ----
w
1264
1263
1262
lllll 12U 14(1 16(1 1811 200 220
Station (ft) - • O - - Bankfull - - O - - Floodprone

r
APPENDIX 2
1
Wetland Forms
1

' DATA FORM WETLAND SITE: SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK Upland
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(19$7 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL)
Project Site: South Fork Hoppers Creek Mitigation Plan Date: Oct. 26-27, 2004
Applicant/Owner: Michael Baker Corporation County: McDowell
Investigator: Steve Glickauf Michael Baker Corporation State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? (Describe in Remarks) Yes No Plot ID: Hoppers Creek
Upland
VEGETATION
' Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Occasional Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Festuca elatior Herb FAC- 9.
2. 10.
3. 11.
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-) 0%
' Remarks: Upland grazing/hay field.

HYDROLOGY
' _ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
_ Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge _ Inundated
' _ Aerial Photographs _ Saturated in upper 12 inches
~, Other _ Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
x No Recorded Data Available _ Sediment Deposits
' Drainage Patterns in Wetland
' Field Observations: Secondary Wetland Hydrology Indicators
(2 or more required)
Depth of Surface Water: none (in.) _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Water-Stained Leaves
' Depth to Free Water in Pit: none (in.) =
Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test

' Depth to Saturated Soil: none (in.) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)

t Remarks: No wetland hydrology evident.

SOILS
Ho ers Creek U land cont. ~
Map Unit Name:
(Series and Phase): Iotla sandy loam Drainage Class: Occasionally flooded
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Aquic Udifluvents Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions
inches Horizon f Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-S B1 10 YR 4/4 5 YR 4/6 5% Loamy sand
8-16 B1 10 YR 4/4 5 YR 4/6 15% Loamy sand
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Concretions
_ Histosol _ High Organic Content in Surface
_ Histic Epipedon Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime x Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Although Iotla sandy loams are listed as hydric, this upland data point showed no evidence of hydric soils,
hydrology or wetland vegetation. Area is not a wetland.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this sampling point within a wetland? Yes No
Remarks: Wetland is an emergent wetland located adjacent to the South Fork of Hoppers Creek. Soils were distinctly
hydric. Vegetation in places was monoculture soft rush which is most likely due to heavy grazing and hay production.
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92

' DATA FORM WETLAND SITE: SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK W/L 1
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL)
Project Site: South Fork Hoppers Creek Mitigation Plan Date: Oct. 26-27, 2004
_ Applicant/Owner: Michael Baker Corporation County: McDowell
Investigator: Steve Glickauf Michael Baker Corporation State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID:
' Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? (Describe in Remarks) Yes No Plot ID: Hoppers Creek
W/L 1
^
VEGETATION
' Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Occasional Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Juncus effusus Herb FACW+ 9.
2. Festuca elatior Herb FAC- 10.
3. 11.
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
' Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-) 50%
' Remarks: Due to grazing and hay production; vegetation within this wetland was extremely limited.

HYDROLOGY
' _ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
_ Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge _ Inundated
' _ Aerial Photographs _ Saturated in upper 12 inches
Other _ Water Marks
Drift Lines
x No Recorded Data Available Sediment Deposits
' =
Drainage Patterns in Wetland
Field Observations: Secondary Wetland Hydrology Indicators
' (2 or more required)
Depth of Surface Water: none (in.) x Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
_ Water-Stained Leaves
' Depth to Free Water in Pit: none (in.) x Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test

t Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) x Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Soils were distinctly hydric within the wetland area. Hydrology indicators at the time of the survey were limited,
most likely due to weather and impacts from cattle. Areas which may have had standing water at other times of the year
' were frozen at the surface.

SOILS
I-~nnnPrc ("raPk W/T 1 rent
Map Unit Name:
(Series and Phase): Iotla sandy loam Drainage Class: Occasionally flooded
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Aquic Udifluvents Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions
inches Horizon (Munsell Moistl (Munsell Moist Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-16 Bl 10 YR 4/2 5 YR 4/6 7% Loamy sand
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Concretions
_ Histosol _ High Organic Content in Surface
_ Histic Epipedon Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
x Aquic Moisture Regime x Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Soils are hydric.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No '
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this sampling point within a wetland? Yes No ~
Remarks: Wetland is an emergent wetland located adjacent to the South Fork of Hoppers Creek. Soils were distinctly
hydric. Vegetation in places was monoculture soft rush which is most likely due to heavy grazing and hay production.
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92

APPENDIX 3
Restoration Site NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms
1

1
1

1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1... ,_,.
1
North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: ~ / -~ ~Q'~-I/- Project: 1 ~~~ J"'~:•~i:r. Latttude•
b,s ~ •
Evaluator. ~ ~ / ~~}~ Slta: ~.a~~:; .. ~. ~; ~o P , US~Longftude:
Total Points: Other
Stream is at feast interrmttent '{(~ .~ County: ~ t. O b w c
if x Z9 or renruaf if ~+ 30 J s-9• Quad Name:
A. Gt3omo bolo Subtotal = Absent Weak 11Aoderate Strong
#'. Continuous bed and bank 0 3 2 3
2. Sinuosity Lr~~-lci~.1 /ps,•;, !*.,S ,ao~di• 0 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 t 2
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sortin 0 t 2
5. Adivelrelic floodplain 0 t 2
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 3
7. Braided channel 0 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 t 3
9' Natural levees ~ (" l+~R MMr~ 'air. ~ t 2 3
10. Headcuts t 2 3
11 Grade controls - de.b,, s M z 0 0.5 t 1.5
12. Natural vaNey or draina away 0 #
13. Second or greater order channel on exlStlilq
USGS or NRCS reap or other documented
evidence.
No = 0 •--
Yes = 3
- nnan-mace aucnes are not rated; see discussions in marwat
B. Hvdrolorn- (Subtotal ~ R. S l
t4. Groundwater fbw/dischar e 0 1 2 3
t 5. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, gr
Water in channel -- d or rowi season 0 t 2
i8. Leailitter 1.5 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 .5 1.5
t 8.Organic debris lines or 'lee Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soil (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes = t.5
C. Biolaw SSubrotal . R .(~ 1
20 . Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel t 0
22. Crayfish .5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 1 1.5
26. lVlacrobenthos (note divers'~y and abundance) 0 0.5 1.5
27. Filamentous e; 'ph on 1 2 8
28. Iron oxidizing bacterialfun us. 0.5 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in sireambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = . 5; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0: Other = 0
- items Zo ana 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
IVOtes: (use bads side of this brm for addidonai notes.) Sketch:

North Caraiina Oi-fision of Water Quality -Stream Identification Farm; Version 3.1
ti
a~IS u,~,;~ . ,~
Inc o~:i~<<•~~
--- -- __
aat8: a ~ -~ ~~ .~_ ~rojeat: ~~~ ~~ ~U ~~~~ /$o r¢r s Lacituae:
Evaluator: 7 r: ~~ (~ Site: j~an~, ~ ~,,~:,~ (,r`~'- Z. Longitude:
Total Points: other
Stream rs at toast irttemrittent 3 ~ County: ~ ~ f J ~ v~~ ~ ~ e.g. Quad Name•
if z 19 or ennra! if Z 30 •
A. Geomor halo (Subtotal = Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1 a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 a
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2
3. !n-channel structure: riHie-pool sequence 0 1 3
4. Soli texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1
5. Active/relic itoodplain 0 1 2 &
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2
7. Braided channel 0 1 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits t 3
9 a Natural levees 0 1 3
10. Headcuts 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 t.5
13. Second or greater order channel on exi in
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
Yes = 3
° Manmade ditches are not rated; see discussans in manual
14.'Groundwater ffow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Wa#er in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, Qr
Water in channe! -- dry or growin season 0 1 2
16. Leaflltter _ 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants ar debris 0 .5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines} 1 1.5
19. Hydric soAs (redoximorphic #eatures} present? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
~~..qy ~-•~ w
f, Qi..lnn.~ !C`~~htn471 _ Sl_ "1 ~
20° Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
2t Rooted plants in channel 2 1 0
22. Cray#ish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 2 3
24. Fish 0 1 # .5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 t.5
26. Macrobenthes (Hate diversity and abundance} 0 •1 1.5
27. Filamentous ae; psriphyton 0 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0. 1 i.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; fiACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
Items 20 and 21 focus an the presence of upland plants, uem 29 focuses on the presence or aquatic yr weuanu ~na~ iw.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back stiyde of This form For additional notes.}
Shy on ypPLr Q.rk.. n l ~ n WoaJS)
1+ ~ L
.. ~vT't,i2.~~b..,v to~c..:Y r

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Farm; Version 3.1
Date: a ._ :~ _ ~ ~.. Project: ,~'~,,,+~ f h „d,~, + f } ©G > ~) iatltude:
Evaluator: ~ ~ ~~„~~ Site: t°"..`~`~` ~'"'"`~ Longitude:
i u/ n~ it ; ~1.~ ~}
Iota! Paints: Other
Stream is at ~easttntermfttent 3~~, County: ~~aowG{! e.g. QuadlVarr+e•
if 2 t 9 w renr+iat it z 3Q '
A. Geomor holo Subtotal ~ 1..~ Absent Weak Illioderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2
2. Sinuosit o 1 2
3. In-channel strodure: riffle- once 0 2
4. Sal texture or sveam subsvate sorting 0 t 2
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1
6. Qeposidonal bars or benches 0 1 3
7. Braided channel 1 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1 3
9' Natural Levees - roan ~ ,; G 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 1 2 3
11. Grade controls - ,; 0 0.5 1 1.5
f 2. Natural volts or draina w 0 0.5 1 1.
13. Second or greater order channel on exi 'n
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
Yes = 3
Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in mant~tl
B. Nvdrolrxw tSuhtotal . Q 1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2
t 5. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- d or rowin season 0 1 2 ~'^'~
L,J
i 6. Leaflitter t .5 1 0.5 0
t7. Sediment on ants or debris 0 .5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines} 0 1 1.5
19. dric soils redoximorphic features) present? No = Yes = 1.5
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = '~ • a )
20 . Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 t 0
21 Rooied ants in channel - `T4 At ~• .~ ~~ ~... 3 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 t .5
25. Am hibians 0 .5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance} 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Fli amentous e; h on 1 2
28. Iron oxidizi bacteria/fungus. _ 0.5 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBI. = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
" fteme 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use bads side of this form for additional rwtes.) Sketch:
i"~,ea.~.'~r, ~ a cam. a.~ ,,~ ~-~ i~» ~~;4 ~. -~~+: s ~ ,~r n
(r~` t ~ ~ ~ ~ r } .~a a1 4 ~ 1'1 ~ i C.~
V 1' ~~,~ 5't~~:.(;.5~ a t*: ~' tT r~. ~"ri:,.:4~:~AE ~ I~ i~ ~ ,,~. ~ ~ S ~-
~ ~
e j~

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream identification Form; Version 3.1

Date: ~ / ..~ f ~ :.~- Project: JU(.r{41 / ~~ ~, ~rv/1 latitude:
Evaluator: ~ 1"• /~.i ~_ Site: .`a.F. Y. C ~= ~ ,i. r~ fy-, fAngitude:
S ,E' P u._r; u.,
Tota! Points: ~ n other
Stream is at least intermittent ~r~,,, .1 County ~ L'r,,,y n Lv c: ~ ~ s.g. Quad Name:
i/ 2 29 or ronniai it z 30
A. Geomor holy Subtotal = Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1°. Cont;nuous bed and bank 0 1 2
2. Sinuosity 0 2 3
3. 1n-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 2
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2
5. Active/relic fioodplain 0 1 3'~
8. Depositional bars or benches 0 2 3
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1 2 3
9' Natural levees 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 1 2 3
11. Grade controls { • ~d,,.. a, c ~ i,or 0 0. 1 1.5
12. Natural valley ar drainageway ' 0 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence. -. -
No = 0~
--
Yes = 3
'Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
14. Groundwater fkn+v/dischar e 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dr or rovui season o 1 2 ~3~
16.leaflitter - 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 1 1.5
i8. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines} 0 1 t.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic featuies} present? No = 0 Yes =1.5
/'~ Q:nlnna lC`uh4nl~1 ~_y1 1
~-
20 .Fibrous roots in channel
3
2
1
0
21°. Rooted plants in channel 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 i 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 1.5
26. Macrobenthos {note diversity and abundance} 0 0:5 1.5
27. Filamentous al ae; periphyton 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacterialfungus. 0.5 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; Oi3L = 1.5 SAV = 2.0: Other = 0
"Items 20 and 21 focus ~ the presence of upland plants. [tem [y il)CUSeS on \rta presence of ay\rnac ur vrvua~n+ t+ta~iw.
Sketch:
N~o3tes:.i{use back side of this form for additional notes.) 4
t[ ~&_nls ,• ~l9S.S t1~1 r9~Ct~.s ~} ~ ~o~.J'~,,Lr~`Ft~a~ /~°[x.11 .~..,.1 Cc..~.
~Ir.nknrlC ~~n~r SO[.r~y.bdt r"bp____~~tJG~G ~~`S 1

North Carolina Dlvlslon of Wa#er Quality -- Stream Identiflcatlon Form; Version 3.t
Date: ,2 ~ .~ ~i) ;~- Project: Su.. ~ ~ ~S•: ~, r,~ ! 1 « 1, S j Latitude:
Evaluator: 1 ~ f f?,r~ Site: t- . ~ ~".,~'t Longitude:
~~xa..,. :~: i-t~.. r,i
~ Total Pants: Other
Steam Is at least inf ermitteat ~~ . ~ County: f''t ` ~ .~.,'1 <<
it a 19 or iaf if 230 a-9- Quad Name:
A. Geomor bolo Subtotal = ! Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1'. Contirwous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosit 0 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 2 3
4. Sal texture or stream substrate sorb 0 2 3
5. Active/talk: #bodplain - .e..~„ t. •i~ 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches t 2 3
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposit 0 t 2 3
9' Natural levees 0 1 2 3
t0. Headcuts ,~ ~~, 0 t 2
t 1. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 .5
12. Natural valle or draina a 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on we 'sting
USGS or NRCS map or outer documented
evidence.
No = 0
Yes = 3
'Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
8. Hvdroloav (Subtotal . ~ 1
t4. Groundwater_flow/cflschar e 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and ~ 48 hrs sir-ce roan, 2
Water in channel -- d or rowi season 0 ~ 2 3
t 8. t.eaflitter t .5 1 0.5 0
t 7 Sediment on ants or debris .5 1 1.5
18.Organic debris litres or piles (Wrack lines '0.5 t 1.5
t9. tic soils (redoximorphic features} present? a = 0 Yes ~ 1 5
C. Bioloav {Subtotal ~ ~f.5 t
20°. Fibrous roots in channel 2 1 0
21 Rooted ants in channel 2 1 0
22. Cra tsh 0.5 t 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Am hibiarts 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobertthos (rate diversity and abaxtdancej ~.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous as; peri on 1 2 3

28. Iron oxidizi bacteria/iun us.
0
0.5
1 _
1.5~
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC z 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV a 2.0; Outer = 0
-items zv and Zl ipCUS On the pr@sence Ot upland plarKS, item 29 fdCU588 on the presence at aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) t }
Sl?e~ arnr,.,c •~-n r1Zj'.~.r ~.a' ~acc ~,~ y~.~r,5c,.~
t~j ~ a
4°`n1F• ~-9`~,~[1SG : r~t^.ra,.;~~i. ~'~.~i`reL•.~• ~@.s e,.
1

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream identification Form; Version 3.1
date: ~ - ~~ - (~ ~. Project: arb'Aln rock ~~~rS Latttude:
Evaluator. ~ ~~ Site: p,tG~ {/S ~" ~~` l.orfgttude:
t"~.IM
Total Points: nt~ Other
Stream is at feast intermittent q~ ~ County: ~ ~ UD~„rG
it t i 9 or slat if z 3o e. g. Quad Narrie:
A. Geomor t1olo Subtotal = S.5 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
t' Continuous bed and bank 0 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle- of sequence 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting $0.,,. ~ 0 2 3
S. Active/relic floodplain 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or beaches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1 2 3
9a Natural levees 1 2 3
td. Headcuts 0 2 3
11 Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
1 Z. Natural va~ey or drainagewa 0 0.5 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existir
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
Yes = 3
-Man-made ditches are not rates; Se6 discussrons in manual
R Nvrirnlnrnr lGuhtntal ~ ~ 1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
t5. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- d or cowls season (~
L/ 1 2 3
t8. Leaflitter 1.5 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 1 1.5
18.Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lutes} 0.5 1 1.5
19. H dric soils redoxirno hic features} present? No a 0 Yes = t .5
~.._._~
C_ Rinlnnv fSuhtntal = ~ 1
24b. l=ibrouS roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 Rooted plants in channel 3 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 t 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
_
24. Fish __._ ~~ 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance} 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous a ae; riphyton _ 0 1 2 3
28. trop axidizi bacteriai/fu s. 0.5 1 1.5
29 Wetland lasts in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBl = 1.5 SAV = 2A; Other = 0
-Hems zo and zt focus on the presence of upland plants, uem zs focuses on me presence or aquauc ar weaana p~arxs.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
5;~~.~~. x,~a,t~1 ~.~~u.J. , ~ d:~t~.,

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification i=orm; Version 3.1
gate: 4j i~/tai- project il~G~a C;..~,.S.s~ Latitude:
Evaluator: Y~/~,~. Site ~atS: '-k0 a.ares -{r;~:d..~,, Longitude:
?'otal points: Omer
Slroanr is of Maat frttermKtsrN a~ 5 County: ~ o wc..~ ~ J N G
Nt 78 or remilal ll_ 30 ~ e.~ Quad Nama:
A. Geomo h01o Subtotal = l1.5 Absent Weak 1 ll~oderat+e Strung
1°. Continuous bed and bank. S,,L}or*',. ; ~ tita: 0 1 3
2.,, Sinl,IOS{ty Vts,r ~or.r n U,,~t¢ 0 1 2 3
~. In~hannel structure: riffle-poo{ sequence 0 2 3
~ 4. Soil 1Jexture or stream substrata sgr6ng _
~
_ 0 1 ~ 3
_
.
5: Activehelic fioodpiatn 0~ 1 2 ~ 3
t3;_ Qgtposilfonal bare or benches I 0 , 2 _ 3
7.: Braided channel 0 1 2 3
B Recent alluvia! deposits ~ ' 1 2 3
8s Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts ...__..~._._ ~ 0 1 2 3
1 i A Grade controls; j t) 0.5 i 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainagevray 0 0.5 1 1.
13. Second or greater order channel on existi"o
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
Yes = s
Mats-made ddches are nditated; Sea 0iseusslons he manual
R Hvrtrnlmv l:Suhtntal. ~.:5 1
14. Groundwater8owidlscherge 0 ~ 1~ ,~,. _ 2 3
15: Water In channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or 0
.Water in channel - d or rowin season 1 ~ 3
18.I:eafiitter ~ 1.5 1 0:5 0
17: Sed'wnent on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18.:0 anic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines O.S 1 1.5 ~
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? (. No = Yes =1.5 ~ _I
`C. BitSloav. (Subtatal = ~_.~ }
' 0 . Fibrous roots in channel 3 t' ` 0 ___
~
21 ,Rooted pfanta_in dianne[ ~ 9 2 '~ ~
22. Crayfish Q 0:5 .1 1.5
23. Bivalves _ ~~ 7 ~ 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 ! fi 1.5
25. Am ibiana ~ i 05 ~ ~ 1,5
s 29. tulacraberi(Frota mote d'ivertky and abundance Q
~ O.S ? 1
~7. Rili-inentous al ae;~ ri h n. 1` Z_ ~._.,. ;~ .T.~~.e~
28.1ron oxidizii~ [~aofcrr»l~ g a t),S 1 ~ 1.5 !.
29 : Wsttand lasts in streambed ; SAC = 0.5; FACW = 0:75; OBL =1.5 SAV = 2.¢', Other= 0
Items 30 and; Z7 focus on the prss~nce of upland plants. Item 29 bases on the presence :of aquatk a w4ttArW prarris.
3kata:
Notes: (use back side of this form for addRioml notes.}
+tJCan~S~ gcx~fi.:"tf ''rp'... ~ni\~51•;C 34'?..i! ~ryL. ~tf;ilr~~
~-
~ ,
• ~~w:n~t ~ o4S SVa'l:c.t~i.,~ :I~ pa~'i`+sn5
• ~ td~GT0.n @ 0.tk0r.~ D~ ~ B.h`W fit, ~!"t t r./- C.a~'-tA/14:f`.
rr t ~
• l.,i'(~V `~'~ Slt+~ /RR4TO S ~ $0.~0.M tt,n,st S (1~t9.St-drU &
~~ ~,

APPENDIX 4
Reference Wetland Forms

' DATA FORM WETLAND SITE: REFERENCE W/L
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL)
Project Site: Reference Wetland
Applicant/Owner: EBX
Investigator: Jessica Rohrbach, Julie Elmore Buck Engineering
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No
Is the area a potential Problem Area? (Describe in Remarks) Yes No
VF('_F.T A TTfl1V
Date: March 1, 2005
County: Burke
State: North Carolina
Community ID:
Transect ID:
Plot ID: Reference
Wetland
' Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Occasional Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Acer rubrum Tree FAC 9. Ilex opaca Mid FAC
2. Platanus occidentalis Tree FACW- 10. Sambucus canadensis Mid FACW-
3. Ligustrum sinense Mid FAC 11.
4. Lonicera japonica Herb/Vine FAC- 12.
5. Alnus serrulata Mid FACW 13.
6. Polystichum acrostichoides Herb FAC 14.
'7. 15.
g. 16.
' Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-) 83%
' Remarks: Vegetation is hydric.

FTViIR(1T.(1(iV
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
_ Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge x Inundated
Aerial Photographs x Saturated in upper 12 inches
Other _ Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
x No Recorded Data Available _ Sediment Deposits
_ Drainage Patterns in Wetland
Field Observations: Secondary Wetland Hydrology Indicators
(2 or more required)
Depth of Surface Water: 2 (in.) _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
_ Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 0 (in.) x Local Soil Survey Data
x FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Soils are Hydric B -Soil has hydric inclusions.

SOILS
Reference W/T. cnnt
Map Unit Name:
(Series and Phase): Arkaqua Drainage Class: somewhat poorly drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): mesic Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts Field Observations -Hydric inclusions
Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions
inches Horizon f Munsell Moistl ~Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-5 B1 10 YR 3/3 Sandy Loam
5-14 B2 10 YR 4/1 Sandy Loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Concretions
_ Histosol _ High Organic Content in Surface
Histic Epipedon Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime x Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Soils are hydric (listed Hydric B).
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this sampling point within a wetland? Yes No
Remarks: This wetland is riverine in nature. Wetland hydrology appears to be provided through a combination of
flooding of the adjacent creek, surface runoff and ground water. The wetland vegetation is somewhat disturbed due to its
proximity to power line and road right of ways
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92

i

APPENDIX 5
' Hydrologic Gage Data Summary and Groundwater
Information

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Landis Site
Auto Well #2
0
-5
-10
-15
.-.
c
-20
d
d
J
-25
3
-30
-35
-40
-45
3/9/07 0:00
t Reference Gauge
3/19/07 0:00 3/29/07 0:00 4/8/07 0:00 4/18/07 0:00 4/28/07 0:00 5/8/07 0:00 5/18/07 0:00 5/28/07 0:00
Date

APPENDIX 6
Bankfull Verification Gage Analysis
Jacob Fork

' UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
' GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
WATER RESOURCES
Revised by: R.G. Barker 02/07/2001
DESCRIPTION OF GAGING STATION 02143040 ON JACOB FORK AT RAMSSY, NC
LOCATION.--Lat 35"35'26", long 81"34'02", Burke County, Hydrologic Unit 03050102, on left bank
16 ft downstream from bridge on Secondary Road 1924, 0.6 mile downstream from Queens Creek,
and 0.6 mile north of Ramsey.
ESTABLISHMENT.--October 1, 1961.
DRAINAGE AREA.--25.7 miZ (Casar quadrangle 7-1/2 min).
HISTORY.--June 1960 to September 30, 1961 operated as a low-flow partial-record gaging station.
GAGE.--Data collection platform (Sutron 8200), referred to electric tape gage in 30" corrugated metal pipe
well with aluminum half shelter. Lower well door 1.8 x 1.8 with lower sill at elevation 10.13 ft.
Well connected to river by two intake pipes. Lower intake, 2" pipe 18 ft long with gate valve, 2-1/2"
riser pipe 10 ft long, and plunger flushing device. Upper intake is 2-1/2 inch pipe 12 ft long. Access
to shelter is by wooden deck walkway 3 ft long. Outside staff gage is in three sections: section 0.0-
3.3 on streamward face of intake headwall; section 3.4 - 6.7 on CMP well facing river; section 6.8-
16.9' on face of concrete bridge wingwall at upstream side of gage. Twelve ft galvanized steel
ladder in well.
Bottom of lower intake at river end 1.06 ft.
Bottom of upper intake at river end 1.50 ft.
Bottom of lower intake in well 0.91 ft.
Bottom of upper intake in well 1.58 ft.
Floor of well 0.44 ft.
Sill of well door 10.13 ft.
Floor of walkway 19.76 ft.
Top of instrument shelf 22.53 ft.
Bottom of upper inspection door 20.88 ft.
Top of shelter
ETG index (OS-02-96) 22.519 ft.

DESCRIPTION OF GAGING STATION 02143040 ON JACOB FORK AT RAMSEY, NC
(continued).
CHANNEL AND CONTROL.--The channel bed is sand, gravel, and broken rock with occasional
ledgerock outcrops. Both banks are fairly steep with rock outcrops above and below the gage.
Channel is relatively straight above and below the gage. Banks are wooded with little overflow
except at high stages. Low water control is ledgerock on right side and broken rock and packed
gravel on left. Control is probably subject to slight shifting. High-water control is channel.
DISCHARGE MEASUREMENTS.--Wading measurements are made in vincinity of gage at low stages.
Medium to high stage measurements are made from cableway located 205 ft below the gage. Cable
is 1.0" galvanized 6X25 FW EIPS IWRC with a span of 261 ft. The cable is supported by hillside
anchor blocks on both banks. Cable is marked for soundings at 5 ft intervals, with the initial point at
the left anchor. Anew 2 ft turnbuckle is at right anchor. Access to new aluminum cable car is by
path on right bank of river. Left bank anchor block has 11.2 cu yds of concrete and was constructed
February 1964. Right bank anchor block was replaced Sept. 24, 1993 with 22 cu yds of concrete.
The cableway was certified for use by Curtis Weaver after it was rebuilt and load tested.
FLOODS: -Local resident, Mrs. Flavie Pruitt, home on right bank 100 ft below bridge, identified mark in
front yard as peak of the August 1940 flood. The 1940 crest-stage elevation 39.2 ft (gage datum)
and is considered reliable within 0.5 ft. Resident advised no floods since 1940 have reached bridge
girders (20.5 ft). Flood of July 1916 reached a stage of about 19 ft from information by N.C. State
Highway Commission. Flood of August 11, 1970 reached a stage of 16.92 ft (4520 cfs). Flood of
October 17, 1975 reached a stage of 19.74 ft (7220 cfs).
POINT OF ZERO FLOW.--About plus 0.86 ft (KRT, 9-29-61).
WINTER FLOW.--Intermittent ice effect in cold winters.
REGULATIONS AND DIVERSIONS.--None.
ACCURACY.--Good.
COOPERATION.--North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
REFERENCE MARKS.--
BM 1:Chisel square cut in left downstream bridge
curb 0.3 ft from left end of bridge.
Elevation 24.375 ft BASE
BM 4:Chiseled square in bed rock on right bank 10' below
gage house.
Elevation 3.803 ft (05-02-96)
DESCRIPTION OP GAGING STATION 02143040 ON JACOB FORK AT RAffiSEY NC
(continued)

REFERENCE MARKS--(Continued)
USGS BM:Chisel square on abutment at southeast end of bridge.
Publication description: Ramsey, 0.7 mi NW along
old State Highway 18, SE, end of concrete bridge
over Jacob Fork River, on concrete abutment; chisel
square 1126.89 ft above mean sea level, datum of
1929, Southeastern Supplementary adjustment of 1936.
Elevation 23.89 ft gage datum
1126.89 ft above mean sea level
23.872 ft gage datum (1982)
RP on bridge:Top of chisel arrow in downstream handrai125 ft
from left end.
Elevation 27.58 ft
BM S:Chiseled square on left downstream wingwall, 2 ft.
downstream from left end of bridge.
Established 4-29-71.
Elevation 23.791 ft (OS-02-96)
BM 6:Chiseled square on top of headwall.
established 4-29-71
Elevation 3.961 ft (OS-02-96)
RM 1:Chiseled square on downstream bridge handrail.
Established OS-02-96
Elevation 27.534 ft
ET index:Elevation, 22.519 ft (OS-02-96)

Jacob Fork Survev Summary Sheet
Trendline for bankfull runs through 6.9 feet on the gage staff. A discharge of 1140
cfs was selected by comparing this stage to the rating table. Cross sectional area is
290 ft2. Both numbers fall within 95% confidence intervals for the Rural Piedmont
Regional Curve. A return interval of 1.23 years was selected based off a a log
Pearson analysis of the gage annual maximum series.
Summary Table for the Project Reach
Parameter Minimum Maximum Avers e
Ros en Stream T e -- -- FJC4
Drainage Area (sq mi) - -- 25.70
Reach Length Surveyed (ft) -- -- 847.04
Bankfull Width (ft) 54.2 66.1 61.3
BankfuN Mean Depth (ft) 4.7 4.8 4.7
Width/Depth Ratio 11.3 14.2 13.0
BankfuN Areas ft 261.1 307.8 290.3
BankfuN Max De th ft 5.5 6.2 5.8
Width of Fbod rove Area ft 94.9 113.8 104.3
~
0 Entrenchment Ratio 1.5 2.1 1.8
~~ Max Pool De th ft
E
p Ratio of Max Pool Depth to
BankfuN De th
Pool Width (ft)
Ratio of Pool Width to Bankfull
Width
Pool to Pool S acin ft
Ratio of Pool to Pool Spacing to
BankfuN Width
Bank Hei ht Ratio 1.0 1.8 1.3
Meander Len th ft)
Meander Len th Ratio
E Radius of Curvature (ft)
~ Radius of Curvature Ratio
ti Meander Belt Width (ft)
Meander Vlfidth Ratio
Sinuosi - - 1.06
Valle Sb ft/ft) - - 0.0026
d WS Slo ft/ft - - 0.0025
o Pool Sb ft/ft)
a
Ratio of Pool Sbpe to WS Slope
Summary of Cross-section Data
Cross-Section Descri for X1 X2 X3
Feature Riffle Riffle Riffle
Ros en Stream T E4 C4 C4
Bankfull Width (ft) 54.2 66.1 63.6
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 4.8 4.7 4.8
Width/Depth Ratio 11.3 14.2 13.4
Bankfull Area ft 261.1 307.8 302.0
Bankfull Max De th ft 5.7 5.5 6.2
Width of Flood tune Area ft 114 >80 95
Entrenchment Ratio 2.1 >1.2 1.5
Bank Hei ht Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.8
Longitudinal Station of Cross-
section
62
275
704
Summary of Bed Material Analyses
Size Distribution mm
D16 0.2
D35 6.8
D50 19.0
D84 88.9
D95 >2048

r• ~ ~ r a, ~ is r• >r ~ ~ ~ r• s ri
Jacob Fork Gage Survey
Longitudinal Profile
16
14
12
10
c 8
0
m 6
W
4
2
0
-2
0
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Station (ft)

i i r i >• i! ! i r i i i i i i i! i i
Jacob Fork Gage Station Cross-Section 1

Feature Stream
Ty a
BKF Area
BKF Width BKF
Depth Max BKF
De th
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle E4 261.1 54.2 4.8 5.7 11.3 1.0 2.1 7.9 7.9
Jacob Fork Gage Station
Cross-Section 1
16 -----------~------- ____.._-..._..- - -------- ._ ------- --- _ -------- ----------------- -- __---
12
~
..,
c
0 8
..
ea
d
w 4

0
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Station (ft) - - o - - Bankfull - - o - - Floodprone

Jacob Fork Gage Station Cross-Section 2

Feature Stream
Ty a
BKF Area
BKF Width BKF
De th Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle C4 307.8 66.1 4.7 5.5 14.2 1.0 >1.2 7.6 7.6
Jacob Fork Gage Station
Cross-Section 2
16 -- --- -- - -----
- -
------------------------------------------ ------------------o
$ 12
.~
c
8 ..
.
ca
---------------------------•--
-----------_
--
m

w 4

0
100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Station (ft)
- - o - - gankfull - - o - - Floodprone

Jacob Fork Gage Station Cross-Section 3

Feature Stream
T e
BKF Area
BKF Width BKF
Depth Max BKF
De th
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle C4 302.0 63.6 4.8 6.2 13.4 1.8 1.5 6.7 11.6
Jacob Fork Gage Station
Cross-Section 3
25 - -- ---

.-. 20

c 15

> 10
d
w
5 •------------------------------
0

100 1 20 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 28 0
Station (ft)
_ _ ~ . - gankfull - - o - - Floodprone

Jacob Fork Sediment Distribution
100
90
80
70
so
Cumulative Percent
^ Class Percent
50
d
a
40
30
20
10
O I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ I~~_w_~ I I 11~-~-~~-1~ I~"t~r~ ~ IT~-~~i-i~l .,Ih I I^ I I III
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size Class (mm)
Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock
~---~

Exceedance Probability
Jacob Fork Gage

~ . . . •
. • • •
.
•

.

•

.

•

•

• . . . . . . .
.
•

100 80 60 40 20 0
Exceedance Probability
10,000

as
1,000
0
100

Recurrence Interval vs. Discharge
Jacob Fork Gage
10,000

100
as
1,000
._
0
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 100
10 y = 1646.8Ln(x) + 806.56
Recurrence Interval (years) R2 = 0.974

Log Pearson Analysis
Jacob Creek
9100

8100

7100

6100

.
.
.

~ 5100

L

= 4100
,

0 3100

2100

1100

100
0.
1
Observed Peak
Log Pearson
Frequency
USGS 1993 j
Unweighted Estimate
• USGS 1993 Estimate
• Unweighted G
Estimates
0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1
Non-Exceedance (Probability)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Jacob Fork 9-207 Data
Discharge vs Width
1000
y = 17.38x°' ~ s
R2 = 0.72
• Width Power (Width) Power (Width)
.-.
~ 100
.a
•
10 -f-
0.1
1 10 100
Discharge (cfs)
1000 10000

Jacob Fork 9-207 Data
Discharge vs Area
1000
~/ _rJ.12x0.55
R2 = 0.91
• Area Power (Area)

.-.
a
100
co
d
L
a
.•
. ~•

10
1 10 100 1000
Discharge (cfs)
100001

APPENDIX 7
McDowell County Floodplain Administrator Correspondence

McDowell Count
Y
June 29, 200G
Buck Engineering
Aaron Earley
1447 South Tryon Street
Suite 200
Cnariatne; ivt: "<-a~v3
60 East Court Street • Marion, North Carolina 28752
Teiepisane: {828) 652.7121 • Fax: [phone]$4
Website: mcdoweii.main.ncnsl mcdoweW
Re: South Muddy Creek Restoration Project FEMA Zone A
Mr. Eazley:
Thank you for allowing McDowell County to comment on this project. The area
of South Muddy Creek you reference is not only in FEMA Flood Zane A it is also in the
McDowell County Watershed. Neither the :vlcDowell County Flood Plain Ordinance nor
the McDowell County Watershed Ordinance addresses stream enhancement or
restoration.
Permits for this scope of work as applicable should be obtained through the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR}.
If you have any other questions please da not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,
.ferry livers
McDowell County Floodplain Administrator
Ronald H. Harmon
McDowell County VJatersheci Administrator
Cc: Chuck Abernathy, McDowell County Malinger

APPENDIX 8
1
DRAINMOD Input Files

.GEN DRAINMOD File Used to Model Existing Hydrologic Conditions at Gage AW1
' (LANDISWELLI-EXIST.GEN)
South Muddy Creek Project
*** Job Title ***
Landis, well location 1, CORN YIELD, PORTSMOUTH-E SOIL
NC WEATHER DATA
*** Printout and Input Control ***
3 101 C:\Drainmod\outputs
' *** Climate ***
1 C:\DRAINMOD\INPUTS\LANDIS\LANDIS RAIN.RAI
1 C:\DRAINMOD\INPUTS\LANDIS\LANDIS TEMP.TEM
2006 1 2007 12 3541 75 0
' 2.01 2.32 2.10 1.72 1.23 1.00 .86 .82 .92 1.05 1.22 1.44
*** Drainage System Design ***
122.00 86.60 2745.00 .75 2.50 .50 6.90 44.00
' 0 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00
0 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00
0 100.000000 180.000000 1375.000000 30.000000
' 182.00 1.50 .00
1120 1120 1120 1120 1120 1120 1120 1120 1120 1120 1120 1120
*** Soils ***
215.00 10.00
70. 3.00 215. 1.00 0. .00 0. .00 0. .00
99 .00
*** Trafficability ***
4 1 5 1 820 3.9 1.2 2.0
' 12321232 820 3.9 1.2 2.0
*** Crop ***
.170
410 818 30.00
' 410 818
11
1 1 3.00 416 3.00 5 4 4.00 517 15.00 6 1 25.00 620 30.00 718 30.00 820 20.00
924 10.00 925 3.001231 3.00
' *** Wastewater Irrigation ***
0 111016
00 00 00 00
7.00000 1.00000 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40
' WET *** Wetlands Information ***
1
87 308
30.0 12
COM *** Combo Drainage Weir Settings ***
000 .0
000 .0
000 .0
' 000 .0
000 .0
000 .0
000 .0
000 .0
000 .0
000 .0
000 .0
' 000 .0
000 .0
000 .0

000.0
000.0
000.0
000.0
000.0
000.0
000.0
000.0
000.0
000.0
FPE *** Fixed Avg Daily PET for the month(cm) ***
.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
MRA *** Monthly Ranking ***
0
FAC *** Daily PET Factors ***
0
STM *** Soil Temperature ***
ZA ZB TKA TKB TB TLAG TSNOW TMELT CDEG CICE
.000 .000 .000 .000 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
Initial Soil Temperature
0
Initial snow depth(m) & density(kg/m3)
.00 .00
Freezing characteristic curve
0

' i H r l i n i i n t AW2
.GEN DRAINMOD File Used to Model Exist ng yd o og c Co d t o s a Gage
' (LANDISWELL2-EXIST.GEN)
South Muddy Creek Project
*** Job Title ***
' Landis, well location 2, CORN YIELD, PORTSMOUTH-E SOIL
NC WEATHER DATA
*** Printout and Input Control ***
3 101 C:\Drainmod\outputs
' *** Climate ***
1 C:\DRAINMOD\INPUTS\LANDIS\LANDIS RAIN.RAI
1 C:\DRAINMOD\INPUTS\LANDIS\LANDIS TEMP.TEM
2005 1 2007 12 3541 75 0
' 2.01 2.32 2.10 1.72 1.23 1.00 .86 .82 .92 1.05 1.22 1.44
*** Drainage System Design ***
115.00 91.88 2682.00 .75 2.50 .50 6.69 75.00
' 0 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00
0 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00
0 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00
182.00 1.50 .00
' 112011201120112011201120112011201120112011201120
*** Soils ***
215.00 10.00
' 70.10.00 150. 3.00 215. 1.00 0. .00 0. .00
99 .00
*** Trafficability *"*
4 1 5 1 820 3.9 1.2 2.0
' 12321232 820 3.9 1.2 2.0
*** Crop ***
.170
410 818 30.00
410 818
11
1 1 3.00 416 3.00 5 4 4.00 517 15.00 6 1 25.00 620 30.00 718 30.00 820 20.00
924 10.00 925 3.001231 3.00
*** Wastewater Irrigation ***
0 11 10 1 6
00 00 00 00
7.00000 1.00000 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40
' WET *** Wetlands Information ***
1
87 308
30.0 12
' COM *** Combo Drainage Weir Settings ***
000 .0
0 0 0 .0
000 .0
' 000 .0
000 .0
000 .0
000 .0
' 000 .0
000 .0
000 .0
000 .0
' 000 .0
000 .0
000 .0

000 .0
000 .0
000 .0
000 .0
000 .0
000 .0
000 .0
000 .0
000 .0
000 .0
FPE *** Fixed Avg Daily PET for the month(cm) ***
.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
MRA *** Monthly Ranking ***
0
FAC *** Daily PET Factors ***
0
STM *** Soil Temperature ***
ZA ZB TKA TKB TB TLAG TSNOW TMELT CDEG CICE
.000 .000 .000 .000 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
Initial Soil Temperature
0
Initial snow depth(m) & density(kg/m3)
.00 .00
Freezing characteristic curve
0

.GEN DRAINMOD File Used to Model Proposed Hydrologic Condition 25 ft From Restored
' Stream Channel
(LANDISREST 25FT.GEN)
South Muddy Creek Project
*** Job Title ***
Landis, well location 1, CORN YIELD, PORTSMOUTH-E SOIL
NC WEATHER DATA
' *** Printout and Input Control ***
3 100 C:\Drainmod\outputs
*** Climate ***
1 C:\DRAINMOD\INPUTS\LANDIS\LANDIS RAIN.RAI
' 1 C:\DRAINMOD\INPUTS\LANDIS\LANDIS TEMP.TEM
1954 1 2000 12 3541 75 0
2.01 2.32 2.10 1.72 1.23 1.00 .86 .82 .92 1.05 1.22 1.44
*** Drainage System Design ***
3
38.00 121.57 1524.00 4.00 2.50 2.00 3.81 44.00
0 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00
0 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00
' 0 100.000000 180.000000 1375.000000 30.000000
182.00 1.50 .00
1120 1120 1120 1120 1120 1120 1120 1120 1120 1120 1120 1120
*** Soils ***
' 215.00 10.00
70. 3.00 215. 1.00 0. .00 0. .00 0. .00
99 .00
*** Trafficability ***
' 4 1 5 1 820 3.9 1.2 2.0
12321232 820 3.9 1.2 2.0
*** Crop ***
.170
' 410 818 30.00
410 818
11
1 1 3.00 416 3.00 5 4 4.00 517 15.00 6 1 25.00 620 30.00 718 30.00 820 20.00
924 10.00 925 3.001231 3.00
*** Wastewater Irrigation ***
0 11 10 1 6
' 00 00 00 00
7.00000 1.00000 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40
WET *** Wetlands Information ***
1
' 87 308
30.0 15
COM *** Combo Drainage Weir Settings ***
0 0 0 .0
' 000 .0
000 .0
000 .0
000 .0
' 000 .0
000 .0
000 .0
000 .0
' 000 .0
000 .0
000 .0

000.0
000.0
000.0
000.0
000.0
000.0
000.0
000.0
000.0
000.0
000.0
000.0
FPE *** Fixed Avg Daily PET for the month(cm) ***
.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
MRA *** Monthly Ranking ***
0
FAC *** Daily PET Factors ***
0
STM *** Soil Temperature ***
ZA ZB TKA TKB TB TLAG TSNOW TMELT CDEG CICE
.000 .000 .000 .000 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
Initial Soil Temperature
0
Initial snow depth(m) & density(kg/m3)
.00 .00
Freezing characteristic curve
0

.GEN DRAINMOD File Used to Model .Proposed Hydrologic Condition 25 ft From Restored
' Stream Channel
(LANDISREST 75FT.GEN)
South Muddy Creek Project
' *** Job Title ***
Landis, well location 1, CORN YIELD, PORTSMOUTH-E SOIL
NC WEATHER DATA
' *** Printout and Input Control ***
3 100 C:\Drainmod\outputs
*** Climate ***
1 C:\DRAINMOD\INPUTS\LANDIS\LANDIS RAIN.RAI
' 1 C:\DRAINMOD\INPUTS\LANDIS\LANDIS TEMP.TEM
1954 1 2000 12 3541 75 0
2.01 2.32 2.10 1.72 1.23 1.00 .86 .82 .92 1.05 1.22 1.44
*** Drainage System Design ***
' 3
38.00 154.16 4572.00 2.00 2.50 1.00 3.81 44.00
0 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00
0 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00
' 0 100.000000 180.000000 1375.000000 30.000000
182.00 1.50 .00
1120 1120 1120 1120 1120 1120 1120 1120 1120 1120 1120 1120
*** Soils ***
' 215.00 10.00
70. 3.00 215. 1.00 0. .00 0. .00 0. .00
99 .00
*** Trafficability ***
' 4 1 5 1 820 3.9 1.2 2.0
12321232 820 3.9 1.2 2.0
*** Crop ***
.170
' 410 818 30.00
410 818
11
1 1 3.00 416 3.00 5 4 4.00 517 15.00 6 1 25.00 620 30.00 718 30.00 820 20.00
924 10.00 925 3.001231 3.00
*** Wastewater Irrigation ***
0 11 10 1 6
00 00 00 00
' 7.00000 1.00000 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40
WET *** Wetlands Information ***
1
87 308
' 30.0 27
COM *** Combo Drainage Weir Settings ***
000 .0
000 .0
' 000 .0
000 .0
000 .0
' 000 .0
000 .0
000 .0
000 .0
' 000 .0
000 .0
000 .0
000 .0
1

000 .0
000 .0
000 .0
000 .0
000 .0
000 .0
000 .0
000 .0
000 .0
000 .0
000 .0
FPE *** Fixed Avg Daily PET for the month(cm) ***
.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
MRA *** Monthly Ranking ***
0
FAC *** Daily PET Factors ***
0
STM *** Soil Temperature ***
ZA ZB TKA TKB TB TLAG TSNOW TMELT CDEG CICE
.000 .000 .000 .000 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
Initial Soil Temperature
0
Initial snow depth(m) & density(kg/m3)
.00 .00
Freezing characteristic curve
0

.GEN DRAINMOD File Used to Model Proposed Hydrologic Condition 25 ft From Restored
' Stream Channel
(LANDISREST 150FT.GEN)
South Muddy Creek Project
' *** Job Title ***
Landis, well location 1, CORN YIELD, PORTSMOUTH-E SOIL
NC WEATHER DATA
' *** Printout and Input Control ***
3 100 C:\Drainmod\outputs
*** Climate ***
1 C:\DRAINMOD\INPUTS\LANDIS\LANDIS RAIN.RAI
1 C:\DRAINMOD\INPUTS\LANDIS\LANDIS TEMP.TEM
1954 1 2000 12 3541 75 0
2.01 2.32 2.10 1.72 1.23 1.00 .86 .82 .92 1.05 1.22 1.44
*** Drainage System Design ***
38.00 164.88 9144.00 2.00 2.50 1.00 3.81 44.00
0 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00
0 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00
0 100.000000 180.000000 1375.000000 30.000000
182.00 1.50 .00
1120 1120 1120 1120 1120 1120 1120 1120 1120 1120 1120 1120
*** Soils ***
215.00 10.00
70. 3.00 215. 1.00 0. .00 0. .00 0. .00
99 .00
*** Trafficability ***
4 1 5 1 820 3.9 1.2 2.0
12321232 820 3.9 1.2 2.0
*** Crop ***
.170
410 818 30.00
410 818
11
1 1 3.00 416 3.00 5 4 4.00 517 15.00 6 1 25.00 620 30.00 718 30.00 820 20.00
924 10.00 925 3.001231 3.00
*** Wastewater Irrigation ***
0 11 10 1 6
00 00 00 00
7.00000 1.00000 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40
WET *** Wetlands Information ***
1
87 308
30.0 37
COM *** Combo Drainage Weir Settings ***
000 .0
000 .0
000 .0
000 .0
000 .0
000 .0
000 .0
000 .0
000 .0
000 .0
000 .0
000.0
000 .0

000.0
000.0
000.0
000.0
000.0
000.0
000.0
000.0
000.0
000.0
000.0
FPE *** Fixed Avg Daily PET for the month(cm) ***
. 00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
MRA *** Monthly Ranking ***
0
FAC *** Daily PET Factors ***
0
STM *** Soil Temperature ***
ZA ZB TKA TKB TB TLAG TSNOW TMELT CDEG CICE
.000 .000 .000 .000 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
Initial Soil Temperature
0
Initial snow depth(m) & density(kg/m3)
.00 .00
Freezing characteristic curve
0

APPENDIX 9
Agency Correspondence

January 18, 2UU7
Renee Gledhill-Earley
' State Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4617
' Subject: North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program,
South Muddy Creek Stream Restoration Project,
' McDowell County, NC
Buck Engineering
A Unit of Michael Baker
1447 S. Tryon St.
Charlotte, NC 28203
704-334-4454
FAX [phone]
' Dear Ms. Gledhill-Earley:
The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) requests review and comment on any
possible issues that might emerge with respect to archaeological or cultural resources associated with a
' potential stream restoration project on the attached site {a vicinity map, a USGS map of potential ground
disturbance areas, and two soil maps are enclosed).
The South Muddy Creek site has been identified for the purpose of providing in-kind mitigation for
unavoidable stream channel impacts. The project will include one reach of South Muddy Creek, one reach
of South Fork Hoppers Creek and three unnamed tributaries ro South Eork Hoppers Creek, all of which
have sections of channel that are identified as significantly degraded. No architectural structures or
archeological artifacts have been observed or noted during preliminary surveys of the site fat restoration
purposes. In addition, the majority of the site has historically been disturbed due to agricultural purposes
such as straightening, tilling, and cattle grazing.
~ We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine the presence of historic
properties. Thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact us
with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of the site disturbance associated with this
project.
' Sincerely, (//,~/j/~
' Andrea Spangler
Buck Engineering
A Unit of Michael Baker
' [e-mail]
704-319-7884

p~STA7~ d
~a ~,,,, ».o„ 4~
r~ •+~ ~,~
qMM
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation OtTice
Aaa D. Sandlxck, Adroinistralor
Michael F. Easley, Govcmor
Lisbcth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
March 6, 2007
Andrea Spangles
Buck Engineering
1447 S. Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28203
Re: EEP, South Muddy Creels Stream Restoration, Mcllowell County, F.R 07-0237
Dear Ms. Spatagler;
Thank you for your letter of f anuary l8, 2007, concerning the above project.
Office of Archives and ldistory
Division of HiMOrical Resources
David Brook, Director

MAR 1 ~ 2~?
f'r3 C31 SSB~Itf Ht3~_.
There are no known recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries. However, the project area has
never been systematically surveyed to detexmine the location or significance of archaeological resources. Based on
the topographic and hydrological situation, there is a high probability for the presence of prehistoric or historic
archaeological sites.
We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist to identify and evaluate
the significance of archaeological remains that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed project. Potential
effects on unknown resources must be assessed prior to the initiation of construction activities.
Two copies of the resulting archaeological survey report, as well as one copy of the appzopriate site forms, should
be forwarded to, us far review and comment as soon as they are available and well in advance of any construction
aCttVltlCS.
A list of archaeological consultants who have conducted or expressed an interest in contract work in North Carolina
is available at www.arch.dcr.srate.nc.us/cc~nsults.htm. The archaeologists listed, or any other experienced
archaeologist, may be contacted to conduct the recommended survey.
The above cotnmcnts axe made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR fart 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment, contact
Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763 ext. 246. In all future communication
concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
~~~~~~
Peter Sandbeck
Location Mailing Address TcicphoaetFax
1[D INIS7RATIUH 507 M DEount Street, Raleigh NC 4b17 Mail Service Center, Ratcigh NC 27699-4617 {919)733-47b31733-8653 ,
.STt?RATION 515 N. Dlouut Stmt, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC z7699.46i7 {919)733-6547/715-4&Ol
SURYBY & YLANN{NG 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Rekigh NC 27699-x617 {919)933-G545f715-aSOI

Buck Engineering
A Unit of MiChaet Baker
' Januar 19 2QQ7
Y
Tyler Howe
' Tribal Historic Preservation Specialist
Eastern Band of Cherokee lndians
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
' P.O. Box 45S
Cherokee, NC 287x9
Subject: North Catalina Ecosystem Enhancement Program,
South Muddy Creek Stream Restoration Project,
McDowell County, NC
Dear Mr. Howe:
1447 S. Tryon St.
Charlotte, NC 28203
704-334.4454
FAX [phone]
The Ecosystem Enhancement Program {EEP) requests review and comment on any possible
issues that might emerge with respect to archaeological or religious resourcxs associated with a
potential wetland and stream restoration project on the attached site (a vicinity map and a USGS
site map with approximate areas of potential ground disturbance are enclosed).
A similar letter has been sent to the North Carolina State Preservation Office for compliance
with Section 1Q6 of the Historic Preservation Act.
The South Muddy Creek site has been identified for the purpose of providing in-kind mitigation
for unavoidable stream channel impacts. The project will include one reach of South Muddy
Creek, one reach of South Fork Hoppers Creek and three unnamed tributaries to South Fork
Hoppers Creek, all of which have sections of channel that are identified` as significantly
degraded. No architectural structures or archeological artifacts have been observed or noted
during preliminary surveys of the site far restoration purposes. In addition, the majority of the
site has historically been disturbed due to agricultural purposes such as straightening, tilling, and
cattle grazing.
We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine if you know of
any existing resources that we need to know about. In addition, please let us know the level your
future involvement with this project needs to be {if any}.
Ci-aNenge~~.

We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact
the below referenced EEP Project Manager with any questions that you may have concerning the
extent of site disturbance associated with this project.
Sincerely,
,~
Andrea Spangler ~ l
Buck Engineering t
A Unit of Michael Baker
[e-mail]
704319-7884
cc: Guy Pearce
EEP Project Manager
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
C~talleng~Js.

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
Tribal Historic Preservation Off ce
P.O. Box 455
Cherokee, NC 28719
Ph: 828-554-6852 Fax [phone]
TO: FHWA, NG Division
Donnie Brew
Environmental Protection Specialist
EEP Liaison
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
PROJECT: Proposed streambank restoration, Sauth Muddy Creek,
McDowell County, North Carolina.
The Tribal Historic Preservation Office of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians is in
receipt of the above-referenced project information and appreciates the invitation to
participate as a consulting party in compliance with 36 C.F.R. 800.
Because the site is located close to riverine and topographic environments that contained
prehistoric and historic Native American habitation, the EBGI TI-iP0 requests a phase I
archaeological survey. This area may have cultural, archaeological, or religious
significance to the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. These potential cultural resources
may be impacted due to the nature ofground-disturbance required for this undertaking.
Disturbance of ethnographic sites, such as traditional Native American camp sites or
town sites can reduce the cultural and 'interpretative significance for bath sovexeign
American Indian nations and the United States. Therefore, the EBGI THPO requests a
phase I archaeological survey be conducted. This should be done throughout the Area of
Potential Effect (AFE} before we can offer our concurrence that the proposed undertaking
will not have an effect on known or unknown cultural resources significant to our tribe.
' As a consulting party we request that you send aIi information pertaining to cultural
resources within the above-referenced project's APE forwarded to the North Carolina
Historic Preservation Office be sent to this office for our review, comment.
' If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at (828} 554-6852.
Sincerely,
Tyler B. Howe - '~
' Tribal Historic Preservation Specialist
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians ~~~ ~ ~ ~t17
' Cc: Andrea Spangler
YN4kLNA,(:l41at0
DATE: 19 -March - 07

Buck Engineering
A Unit of Michael Baker
January 18, 2007
Morello Buncick
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Field Office
I G(} Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801
1447 S. Tryon St.
Charlotte, NC 28243
7fl4-334-4454
FAX [phone]
Subject: North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP}
South Muddy Creek Stream Restoration Project, McDowell County, NC
Dear Ms. Buncick,
The South Muddy Creek site has been identified for the purpose of providing in-kind mitigation for
unavoidable stream channel impacts. The project will include one reach of South Muddy Creek, one reach
of South Fork Hoppers Creek and three unnamed tributaries to South Fork Hoppers Creek, all of which
have sections of channel that are identified as significantly degraded. This stream restoration site was
selected based on its probability to restore high quality stream habitat where it has ceased to exist.
We have obtained an updated species list for McDowell County from your web site htt ;nc~;
es.fws.gov/es/countyfr.html). The threatened or endangered species for this county are: bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephakrs), bog turtle (Clemmys mtthlenber~gii), Carolina northern flying squirrel
{Claa~comys sabrinus coloraius), mountain golden heather {I~'t~dsonia Montana}, and small whorled
pogonia {Isotria tnedeoloides). We are requesting that you please provide any known information for each
species in the county. The USFWS will 6e contacted if suitable habitat for any listed species is found or if
we determine that the project may affect one or more federally listed species or designated critical habitat.
Please provide comments on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to endangered species,
migratory birds or other trust resources from the construction of a wetland and stream restoration project
on the subject property. A vicinity map, USGS map, and two soil maps of the project site have been
enclosed.
tf we have not heard From you in 30 days we will assume that our species list is correct, that you do not
have any comments regarding associated laws, and that you do not have any information relevant to this
project at the current time.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact us with any
questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project (704-
319-7884).
Si cerely,
~~~ ~
Andrea Spangler
Buck Engineering, a Unit of Michael Baker

.~ .
March 7, 2007
Marella Buncick
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Suck. Engineering
A Unit of M'schael Baker
1447 S. Tryon St.
Charlotte, NC 28203
704-334-4454
FAX [phone]
Subject: North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP)
South Muddy Creek Stream Restoration Project, Mclbwell County, NC
Dear Ms. Buncick,
The South Muddy Creek Stream Restoration Project has been identified for the purpose of providing in-
kind mitigation for unavoidable stream channel impacts. The project includes restoration. on two streams:
South Muddy Creek and South Fork Hoppers Creek. Both of which have sections of channel that are
identified as significantly degraded. We first notified your office of the South Muddy Creek Project on
January 18, 2807.
We performed a pedestrian survey of the site on January 3t), 2007 far the five threatened or endangered
species for this county: bald eagle (Haliaeetus IeucocephalaGS), bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenhergii),
Carolina northern flying squirrel (Clatrcomys sahrinus calorahes), mountain golden headier (Hudsvnia
Montana), and small whorled pogonia (Isvtria medevloides). No federal protected species were observed
in or adjacent to the project area. during this field survey. No suitable habitat was found for the bald eagle,
Carolina northern flying squirrel, or mountain golden heather; therefore it is anticipated that the project
construction will have no effect on those three species.
Along South Fork Hoppers Creek, there is one wetland located within an actively grazed field which has
been disturbed and trampled, and the substrate at the time of the survey was thought to be marginal habitat
for the bog turtle. The bog turtle is listed as a result of similarity of appearance and populations are not in
decline in the southeast region. We believe that restoration efforts may affect, but are not likely to affect
' this species.
Suitable habitat does exist far the small whorled pogonia within the South Muddy Creak project area. An
' intensive field survey will be conducted in mid-May to June to determine the presence of small whorled
pogonia in both project areas. We will submit the results to your office once the survey has been
completed.
' We would like your concurrence on the biological conclusions drawn on the bald eagle, Carolina northern
flying squirrel, mountain golden heather, and bog turtle. We thank you in advance for your timely
' response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact us with any questions that you may have concerning
the extent of site disturbance associated with this project {704-319-7884).
Sincerely,
....:
Andrea Spangler ,~
Buck Engineering, a Unit o~'Michael Baker

1447 S. Tryon St.
Charlotte, NC 28203
704-334-4454
FAX [phone]
May 24, 2007
Marella Buncick
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28841
Subject: North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP)
South Muddy Creek Stream Restoration Project, McDowell County, NC
Dear Ms. Buncick,
The South Muddy Creek Stream Restoration Project has been identified for the purpose of providing in-
kind mitigation for unavoidable stream. channel impacts. The project includes restoration on two streams:
South Muddy Creek and South Fork Hoppers Creek. Both of which have sections of channel that are
identified as significantly degraded. We first notified your office of the South Muddy Creek Project on
3anuary 28, 20f}7. We notified your office again on March 7, 2447 regarding the results of our pedestrian
survey. At that time suitable habitat was determined to exist for the small whorled pogonia and the bog
turtle.
Along South Fork Hoppers Creek, there is one wetland located within an actively grazed field which has
been disturbed and trampled, and the substrate at the time of the survey was thought to be marginal habitat
far the bog turtle. The bog turtle is listed as a result of similarity of appearance and populations are not in
decline in the southeast region, We believe that restoration efforts may affect, but are not likely to affect
this species.
Suitable habitat does exist for the small whorled pogonia within the South Muddy Creek project area. An
intensive field survey was conducted an May 21, 200'7 to determine the presence of the species in both
project areas. No species were observed in the project area during this survey; therefore we believe that
restoration efforts will have no effect on the small whorled pogonia.
We would like your concurrence on the biological conclusions drawn. We thank you in advance for your
timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact us with any questions that you may have
concerning the extent of site disturbance associt-ted with this project (704-319-7884),
Sincerely,
~'i
Andrea Spangler
Baker Engineering NY, c

' ,~ Buck Engineering
~ A Unit of Michaet Baker
1447 S. Tryon St.
' Charlotte,ldC 28203
January 19, 2007 704-334-4454
FAX [phone]
Mr. Stephen Banner
Soil Conservationist
County Administrative Annex Room 200
15"' N. Garden Street
' Marian, NC 28752
Subject: North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program,
South Muddy Creek Stream Restoration Project,
' McDowell County, NC
Dear Mr. Banner:
The purposed of this letter is to request your assistance in completing a Farmland Conversion Impact
' Rating form for the subject site. Enclosed please find a copy of the form, vicinity map, USGS topographic
map, and soils maps of the project site. For this stream restoration project, ground disturbing activities are
indicated by the areas bounded in black on the enclosed soil maps. These areas include 18.7 acres of Iotla
sandy loam, 1.2 Hayesvilie-Evard complex, 1.1 acres of Evard-Cowee complex, 0.5 acre of Hayesville clay
' loam, and 0.1 acre of Hayesville loam. Based on our evaluation, we estimate that 2L6 acres of Prime
Farmland will be converted to nonagricultural use by this action.
We know that you have more familiarity with the region and we will be happy to make any changes to the
form that you deem appropriate. Please return the form to us with your determinations and we will fill out
the remainder of the form. Our Fax number is {704) 334-4492.
if you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at [phone] or aspangler~;r)ml~akercorp.com.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
^ Sincerely,
i
Andre~~ Spangler
Buck Engineering
A Unit of Michael Baker

U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING '
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) Date Of Land Evaluation Request 1/19/07
Name Of Project South Muddy Creek Federal Agency Involved FHWA/EEP ,
Proposed Land Use Stream Restoration County And State McDowell County, NC
PART II (To be completed by NRCS) - Date Request Received By NRCS .
Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes No
(If no, the FPPA does not apply - do not complete additional parts of this form}. ^ ^
~ Aaes Irrigated Average Farm Size
Malor Crop(s) Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction
Acres: % Amount Of Farmland AS Defined in FPPA
Acres:
Name Of Land Evaluation System Used Name Oriocal Site Assessment System Date Land Evaluation Returned By NRCS
PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency) Alternative Site Ratin
Site A Site B Site C Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly 21.6
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly 0.0
C. Total Acres In Site 21.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland ~
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted
D. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value
PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to 1 DD Points)
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Site Assessment Criteria (These aiteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(b) Maximum
Points
1. Area In Nonurban Use
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use
3. Percent OF Site Being Farmed
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services
10. On-Farm Investments
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 0 0 0 0
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100
Total Site Assessment (From Part VI above or a local
site assessment) 160 0 0 0 0
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2lines) 260 0 0 0 0

Site Selected:
Date Of Selection W as A Local Site Assessment Used?
Yes ~ No
Reason For Selection: ,
(See Instructions on reverse slde) Form AD-1006 (10-83)
This form was electronically produced by National Production Services Staff

tluited States DeparNnent of pgricuiture
o MRCS
Natural Resources Conservaiiors Service
589 Raccoon Road, Suite 246
Waynesvipe, NC 2$786
Phone [phone] ext. 5 FAX [phone]
February 20, 2007
Andrea Spangler
Buck Engineering
' 144'7 S, Tryon St.
Charlotte, NC 28203
' Re: USDA Farmland Conversion Impact Rating.Form {AD-100b}
South Muddy Creek Stream Restoration--McDowell County, NC
' Ms. Spangler:
Attached you will find two copies of the completed AD-1Q0G. Based on the location map that
' was provided, it appears that 18.7 acres of prime farmland and O.b acres of statewide important
farmland will be impacted by the proposed stream restoration project.
' If l can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact me.
M. Kent Clary
' Area Resource Soil Scientist
USDA-NRCS

' cc: Stephen Banner, Soii Conservationist, USDA-MRCS, Marion, NC

' E} ~~r
c~~
' The f3atural Resources Conservation Servke provides leadership in a partnership effort to help people
conserve, maintain, and improve our natural resources and environment.
An Equal Opportunity Provider and idmpto}rer

U.S. fAepartment o(Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION 1MPAGT RATING
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency} oats O! land Evaluation Request 1 /19/07
Name Ofprc~ect South Muddy Creek ~fedetalA~ncY.ltwdved fHWAIE~P
P1°~d l2r~d flee Stream Restoration i Cout>ryAnd State McDowell County;.NC

MajorGrop(&)
------~ ~
FarTYL{~d (nSC+c~t:JurisdJCfivcs
Ac~f>~ ,. ,. q6', ___..
Amount Of farmland /LS;O,efu~ed in FPPA.
Ades: ~_.~_- %~i.~
IJarile:Of land Evaluatic~A System tJsetl .. Nape Qf.Locat ate. R~ssess+neni System Date Land 4 •Retumed; By i~&tCS .,
Federal A
PART Ill (To be zompleted by
enc
)
.
g
y
__ _
A. Total Acres To lie Converted I]irsctiy ~ .
W
Sfie A
21.6
Site 8
S' C~ - --- -
S~e D-~ ._

-
B. Total Acres Ta Be•Convertsd Indirectly ~ 0.0 ~~-~ - -----'~.
C. Total Aces 1n Site ~--- 21:6 0.0 0.0 __.___..
1 r....._..._..~~'~~~"
0.0
P/4~(~.©~be-canmplet~ofttylJRrk$~; a7i~Ewdluatldrr~'tf~` •' • s
G •.7. of G
k4
y~ 7^ cwt, M.1 A
c
~ 17t':-. t~lCi~liri't~~N,lt,M~ . `~, LY ~~ = 1 ~
~ __
~.
B':~~~Acres S#ate+ii+4'd~~hdL Famtlz~nd: ~, ;>::p ~.
C`; .;;. ~~atmt~-c~'; a1? - . ~ •~O~'~~soe~~ab~k~`fS~To 6e•~~on"veried
..
.
. Relsstive Value
D; P(agtr OGPBrihltit[ti ~. ; .. `~
( .. _ .. .~t~1,,u'``,at1`!
d
~
. •
•. 'i" .. _._____
,~
y,
~
PAR7`1~~I~e1atN@&~~3~~ ,$w E ~kY~vnSa9rtOn
.
a
PART VI (Ta be cornplefed by Federal .Agency}
Ile Assessment Cnleria (7lYese uiteria are sxp/elnsd fn 7 CFR 858.5(b}
S
Points
_
1. Area In Nonurban Ilse ~~
2. Pet#meterln Nont~an!tJse ___.__._.
3. Percent Of Sfte e ' Farmed'
4: Protec~itsn Provided. By.State An+:i.Larai. Government. __~.
._._ 5. OistaTUae From Urt~ars l3utitup Atrea" l ~ ~ ~.!

8. Distance To Urhatt Support.Servioes
_
~~. _
~_
7. Size Of Present FaTm.Unit Compared To Average ( _
8. EreaGort df Norrlarmatile FartYtiand - ---^------
9. Ava~at>ili ; O(Farm Sport Services : ""'
10. OtrFarm Investments
11. Effects Of~Conversion On Farm.S~tpport:Servlces: ____.
12. t,,ompatibillty With Factsting Agricxiltus'al (J§e'
TOTAL SITE ASSirSSMENT PO1M'S:~ - 1 ti4 0 0 ~ 0 --
PART VI! (i'o be completed by Federal Agency)
~
~-
W^-.-_~
Relative Value Of Farmlarxi°(From Part'1~ I
100
Y ~
. -.'.'"_. ~_
• dotal a As~ment (From Part Y! above or a ioc'al ~ 160 0 ~.""
1 ~ .___
O . _.__... ._.
Q
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 fines) ~ 280 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 0
was A tocai site Assessment uses?
Site Selected: _~~ Date OF Selection Yes © ~--No O .-.._.._._.....
Reason For SeleG6on:
{Sae Instruc~tfons on reverse side) Form AI7~1006 (1083}
Thit farm was daCVONcaMT DfOfNiaed try tJStJonal PIOWrCllpl Sarvicea Stab

U.5. t7epartrnerr# of Agriculture
FARMLAND GONVERSlQN iMPAGT RATfNG
PART E jTo be completed by Federal Agency) t Oate of !.arid Evaiuatfoni Request 1!19107
Name Or protect South Muddy Creek ~ Federal Agency lnvdved FHWAIEEA
Proposed ~"d trse Stream Restoration ~ C01"h' And State McDowe~ County, NC .
cecs?i,ir,; r;p.~maleiad~b,rlS~~si~ I data Request Recelwed ~x;NRCS. Z 2:, :ti...~~'
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Qoes the site~eontaln pr]tne. 0~~ue,-statawEde ~f ~ farti~an[4? Y,e„s,/~ t~10 Acres Irrigated Rv 'Farrn Size

• r
1fre~FPPA does i~t b~, do t~bf ~te~xrddt ; a! pajis of this form) (N
lze-w
,
MatorC+opjs) ~aP~,~ 4n;Coyt...surisdidron :.- Amastnt Qt Farmland it's"Oefirted in t'PPA.,
Armes:, ; ~„ %:. Atxas. ~`T
~
l3Y MRCS
r~rne Ot t.and Evaftyatlorl'Sysier~ Used . i+lahte_C~J;tocat; B Assessrnenl System .'. ~ > Date i_and n ~ n Ret

PART Ill (7o be completed by Feder! A'gancy) - ~~- ~ ~..___ ...
- Slte A Slte Ske C ~ She O
_~__.....-
A. Iota! Acres To 68 ConvertedOiredly ~ 29.8 .~__~
~
B. Total Acres ro Be-Converted IndireGiy .. 0:0
-~ _..._._
C. Total Acres In Site 21'.6 a_a aA 0.0
FART` iV (ja be"oOrXknfete~~ytY~T~$},~,1f~fvatUn 1rtf~a+ion "
~ is yr
* ~ ?"' ~~w4 • h•' K~

t
ats+aild~
•. 1~~ ':
' '•
a+ess
t
~
l
A
&--~iGo , ; .
~~
yy
y.
y~
~.,,{y{
~f• y~
j
~
t
/
i`.^"'
~
Y
U
~hr 4
~ w
n
.~
a'
!
f
v
~
~ 4
}
w
i
.
.
. {
L
'-+~/~w..t V
. ~I :A !.. ._..._.
i
"
`
~
'~.pr~
µ
~
..
~
~~`p~
'
~
y
~
j
c
i
!- ~y~(yJ.y[
~
~
j
f '4% .:X'RP,~M1!..!r2/`. ~7-al ~lnfHM ~t~ i'~,~Z.^..... t~.'_^ ~e[PYfa YOI~
r~~In
carYrpiat
~~m~
Pi~[R7` 11'~oa
~
'T~
g
~C~e ~O-fGt~i~ Pac+t~)
PARr w jTo be raomplered by Fede~r;a~rcy) Maximum
Sde Assessment Crgeria jmese atterla ere eirplalned in ]' CFR 868:5jti) Points _~,
S. Area in Norwrban Use• ---.
2. Perimeter Int~lvnurhartllse
3. Fervent Of Site $errrg FamAed ---
4. Frotectlon Provided 8 State Andlocal Goverranen# ~.
5. Olstance From Urtiarr Bii~tiap'4Ahsa ~~ __..._._
6. Distance To Urban $u 'Services 1 ._-
7. Size O! Present Farm Unit Co To Ave a .._~.._ _..-.._._...
8. Creation Cf Noni~rna6le~FatTniand __
8. Ayailabilfty:Ot FattrrSupport Services' ~_ ---.
_
1U. On-FatTn investments -.- .
11. Etleds OI Conversion On Farm Su :Services ,:
12. Damp With Fisting `culti>«'ai-Use ~ .~._.._..
TOTAL. SiT;=.ASSESSMEi~lTpO1M'S ' „ 160 a a 0 0
PART VIi (To be competed by Federafpgency) II
i ~ _,.,,,._._....-.
Relative Value OlFarmtand'(Fmm Aart'V) E #aa
-
-
. .
Total SEte Assessment !From Pats VJ abov~9 ora local ~ 160 0 0 r0 ------ 0 ---
-
m
site assessmern
TOTAL pQrNTS (Total of above 2 lines) j 260 0 ~ 0 i 0 a
was A Local Stte Assessment Used?
Site Selected: f Date Qt Selactian ~ Yes © No Q_-~ ~~
Reason For 5~eetlon:
jsee lnstructivns an reverse skte) Form AO.1086 {i p-83)
This corm was axUOnicalh oroducad by wGonsl P~oGUdfan 5arviors S3aN
_ _ ......
_ _~..~_

Buck Engineering
A Unit of Michael Baker
March 5, 2007
Mr. M. Kent Clary
Area Resource Soil Scientist
Natural Resources Conservation Service
S89 Raccoon Road, Suite 246
Waynesville, NC 2878b
Subject: Prime and Important Farmlands
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program,
South Muddy Creek Stream Restoration Project,
McDowell County, NC
Dear Mr. Clary:
1447 S. Tryon St.
Charlotte, NC 28203
704-334-4454
FAX [phone]
Thank you far your assistance in completing a Farmland Conversion Impact Rating form for the subject
site. Enclosed please f nd a copy of the completed form.
We know that you have more familiarity with the site, so we will be happy to make any changes to the
form that you deem appropriate. Please return the form to us if changes are needed. Our Fax number is
(7t?4) 334-4492. Otherwise we will send a Dopy of the completed form. to NCEEP as part of the
categaricat exclusion document.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at [phone] or s~.spangler~~mbakercorp.com.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
{~ ~ f -
Andrea Spangler ``
Buck Engineering ~`
A Unit of Michael Baker

tl.S. t~epartment of Agriculture
- FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPAGT RATING
PART i (Tv be completed by Federal Agency) ~ Oate OF land Evaluation Request 1/19/07
Name or Project South Muddy Creek ~ federal Agency lnvdved FIiWA/EEP
Proposed Land ~~ Stream Restoration ~ County And Shoe McDovvep County, NC
Date RegtleSt P~ ~MRC$ . ~ .~: G'.. ,
PART1(i 1"rg be ~-ted'~~~r;~~s1, , . ~; ~r...
. '+~.. ~ :' i ~ t3 r r
i~OeS tfle Site QOAt$~rT. uttl~ie~StAtewide~or;lbc~ f'dlTrtlarKl~ '~.
R
{
. 05° ..l(`N~ A~.r'P.S Itlitl~ .Faft~1:$IZB
~
~
S ~~
fll id,.tlfe"I=PPA do~
"'~M'/ ..~
~~ ~ ~~ ~S Qf thl$ "^,' ~Y
I W . a
: Fshn~-mod ,radvl.Juriadics<oc- Iks~ta+4 pf nQ/C§-Qe(inet3 nFPPA.
~
Evak~tion tlssd<
' (Verne Of Land NaMe ~f;rsoCat Assessrnenl System Date t.arrd~ v _ , Rettmred ey. NR(:.S
rr
VJG L~-c- r'2-~ ~ ..
PART (il (To be Completed by federal Agency} - ~~ A ~ e S e C ~ Sig D
A, Total Acres To Be Convertedflirectly 24.6 ~ ~_.
~
-- - --
B. Total Acres To Be~Gatverted indireaty ~_~,
.
,
0.0
1
C. Total Acres !n Sit= _
_ 21.6 0.0 0.0 1 0.0
' ~. ~. ,:. it ~_ ....,... :rr i Es ~ '~
~ ~ w ~. . :..
pAaT,,, ~To tS~'cavr~,!efed~! , A'CSr,d~f.~@-tr,,~~
..., ._
. ..
~:'A:: TDtA(Ac~eg`.Rrirn6,AntJ tg4te' n.. ~ . ~ ` r
a.:: Wit: a:..~ c1~to~~aiia-A . ~r~~si~Jrr;nixtarat ~FArrrrAni:~ ~ ~ ...;0 : ,
<ive. Value E)EF.i'~if8i~d:T~:~:GbnvectecY (i
PART Vi {.To be cc>rnplete+d by Feder~I Agency)
site Assessment Criteria (t7tese alt8rka are exp~ed !rt r CFR
1 a Area lrt Nontxban tjsa
2. Perirrl~~lnNonut#~anlJse
3. Peroer-t Ot Site t3em~ t=s-med
,~ 4. Protection Provided By State And tACal Govemn
t% Distance From lhban Bu~tirp Area
6. [stance To Urban Support Services
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Averag
8. Geatior- 0€ Ntxrfamtable Farmland
9. Avat~ebitlty tJf Farm Support Services:
10. an-Farm Investments
11. Effects t7f Conversion On Farm Support.Servip~
~12, CampatiflllitY NiAth P~n~ ~ tlse
70TAt. SiTir.ASSF,SSMENT POINTS:
PAR7'Ylt (Tn btt completed by
Relative Value Of t=armianii (From Par#V)
spa seassessrn~l {Pram Par1V! abotie pr a
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines)
Site Selected:
Reasor: for Selection:
late Ol Selection
160 0
~ 100
160 0
i 260 0
~0 10 ,0
- ~ Was A tacal site Assessment useclT
Yes ~1 No
{See 1nsKructlons on revana stria) farm At)•1Ut)t3 (1Q-83)
Tlrs corm was aaaroMeaar ProAuud by llstloniE ProwWOn Servioaa Stair
T 8 :`ivsx-veryad ti i
..... ~..
9~fteleave V81ue
~ ~:::::
ItAawimurn
Pants

~r .
January 18, 2{H}7
Shannon Deaton,
North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission
Division of Inland Fisheries
1721 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Buck Engineering
A Unit of Michael Baiter
1447 S. Tryon St.
Charlotte, NC 28203
704-334-4454
FAX [phone]
Subject: North. Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program {NCEEP)
South Muddy Creek Stream Restoration Project
McDowell County, NC
Dear Ms. Denton,
The purpose of this letter is to request review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge with
respect to fish and wildlife issues associated with a stream restoration project on the attached site (a USGS
site map with approximate areas of potential ground disturbance are enclosed).
The South Muddy Creek site has been identified for the purpose of providing in-kind mitigation far
unavoidable stream channel impacts. The project will include one reach of South Muddy Creek, one reach
of South Fork Hoppers Creek and three unnamed tributaries to South Fork Hoppers Creek, ail of which
have sections of channel that are identified as significantly degraded. This stream restoration site was
selected based on its probability to restore high quality stream habitat where it has ceased to exist.
We have enclosed a copy of the vicinity map and USGS topo map that includes the proposed stream
restoration project site. We ask that you review this site based on the USGS topo map in your office to
determine the presence of any constraints concerning trout waters or protected species.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact us with any
questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance ~~ssociated with this project {704-
319-7884}.
Sincerely,
Andrea Spangler
Buck Engineering
A Unit of Michael Baker

r, -
t• b' ..>.. >.
I North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission ~~1
Richard B. Hamilton, Executive Director
I January 26, 2007
Andrea Spangler
I Buck Engineering
1447 South Tryon Street, Suite 200
Charlotte, NC 28203
I SUBJECT: EEP Stream Mitigation Project in McDowell County
South Muddy Creek
Dear Ms. Spangler:
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (Commission) received your letter
dated January 18, 2007 regarding the Ecosystem Enl-ancement Program project on South Muddy Creek in
McDowell County. Comments from the Commission are provided under provisions of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 1.6 U.S.C~ dG1 et seq.).
McDowell County is a "trout county" per an agreement between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
{ACOE) and the Commission. As such, Commission biologists review all Nationwide Permit
applications here and make recommendations to minimize the adverse effects associated with some
activities, including restoration work. Once a permit application is prepared for this project, a copy must
be sent to me in order to solicit Commission concurrence and recommendations for consideration by the
ACOE.
The Commission does not anticipate any major resource concerns with this project provided
sedimen#ation from construction is minimized. Also, the stream channel dimensions, patterns, and
profiles should reflect stable, reference conditions. Overly and. unnaturally sinuous stream channels
should be avoided. The use of balled ar container grown trees is recommended in the outside of channel
bends to expedite Long-term bank stability.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If there are any questions regarding
these comments, please contact me at (828} 452-2546 ext. 24.
Sincerely,
%~'
Dave McHenry
Mountain Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
s ~ ~~
~6 2 ?~~c
~' ;~
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mait Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: (919} 707-0220 • Fax: [phone]

r
' Categorical Exclusion Form fior Ecosystem Enhancement
Program Projects

~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ • i
Pro'ect Name: South Mudd Creek Stream Restoration
Coun Name: McDowell Coun
EEP Number: SCO Pr " ct No. 050666701
Pro ect S onsor: Baker n ineeri NY, Inc.
Project Contact Name: Christine Miller
Project Contact A dress: 1447 S. T on St. Suite 200, Charlotte NC 28203
Project Contact E-mail: chdmiller mbakerco .com
EEP Project Mana er: Ju ie Vann
• - ~- • •
The South Muddy Creek Stream Restoration Project is located in southeastern
McDowell County, approximately 10 miles southeast of the City of Marion in the
Catawba River Basin (Figure 1). The project includes one reach of South Muddy
Creek, one reach of South Fork Hoppers Creek and three unnamed tributaries to
South Fork Hoppers Creek. Almost all streams have sections of channel that are
ident~ed as significantly degraded. Between the two sites, the project includes 7,499
LF of stream for restoration, enhancement, and preservation, and 1.62 acre of wetland
restoration and enhancement for the purpose of obtaining stream and wetland
miti ation credit for the NC Ecos stem Enhancement Pro ram.
• - •
Reviewed By:
l off- r~
Date EP Project Manager
Conditional Approved By:
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
^ Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval By:
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA

American Indian Rel sous Freedom Act AIRFA
1. Is the project located in a county claimed as "territory" by the Eastern Band of Yes
Cherokee Indians? ^ No
2. Is the site of religious importance to American Indians? Yes
X No
^ N/A
3. Is the project listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic Yes
Places? No
N!A
4. Have the effects of the project on this site been considered? X Yes
^ No
^ N/A
Anti uities Act AA
1. Is the project located on Federal lands? Yes
® No
2. Will there be loss or destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments or objects Yes
of antiquity? ^ No
® NIA
3. Willa permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required? Yes
^ No
® N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained? Yes
^ No
® N!A
Archaeolo ical Resources Protection Act ARPA
1. Is the project located on federal or Indian lands (reservation)? Yes
® No
2. Will there be a loss or destruction of archaeological resources? Yes
^ No
® N!A
3. Willa permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required? Yes
^ No
® N!A
4. Hasa permit been obtained? Yes
^ No
® N/A
Endan Bred S ies Act ESA
1. Are federal Threatened and Endangered species and/or Designated Critical Habitat Yes
listed for the count ? ^ No
2. Is Designated Critical Habitat or suitable habitat present for listed species? Yes
^ No
^ N!A
3. Are T&E species present or is the project being conducted in Designated Critical Yes
Habitat? ® No
^ N/A
4. is the project "likely to adversely affect" the specie and/or "likely to adversely modify" Yes
Designated Critical Habitat? ® No
^ NIA
5. Does the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries concur in the effects determination? Yes
^ No
^ NIA
6. Has the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries rendered a °jeopardy" determination? Yes
® No
^ N/A

Executive Order 13007 In Ian Sacred Sites
1. Is the project located on Federal lands that are within a county claimed as °territory" Yes
b the EBCI? ®No
2. Has the EBCI indicated that Indian sacred sites may be impacted by die proposed Yes
project? ^ No
® NIA
3. Have accommodations been made for access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred Yes
sites? ^ No
®WA
Farmland Protection Polic Act FPPA
1. Will real estate be acquired? Yes
^ No
2. Has NRCS determined that the project contains prime, unique, statewide or local Yes
important farmland? ^ No
^ N/A
3. Has the completed Form AD-1006 been submitted to NRCS? Yes
^ No
^ NIA
Fish and Wildlife Coo ina ton Act FWCA
1. Will the project impound, divert, channel deepen, or otherwise controUmodify any Yes
water bod ? ^ No
2. Have the USFWS and the NCWRC been consulted? Yes
^ No
^ NIA
Land and Water Conservation F nd Ac Section 6
1. Will the project require the conversion of such property to a use other than public, Yes
outdoor recreation? ® No
2. Has the NPS approved of the conversion? Yes
^ No
® N/A
Ma muson-S evens Fiche Conservation and Mana ement Act Essen 'al Fish Ha bitat
1. Is the project located in an estuarine system? Yes
® No
2. Is suitable habitat present for EFH-protected species? Yes
^ No
® N/A
3. Is sufficient design information available to make a determination of the effect of the Yes
project on EFH? ^ No
® NIA
4. Will the project adversely affect EFH? Yes
^ No
® N/A
5. Has consultation with NOAA-Fisheries occurred? Yes
^ No
® NIA
M' rato Bi Tre Act META
1. Does the USFWS have any recommendations with the project relative to the MBTA? Yes
® No
2. Have the USFWS recommendations been inr~rporated? Yes
^ No
® N/A
Wildernes Act
1. Is the project in a Wilderness area? Yes
No
2. Has a special use permit and/or easement been obtained from the maintaining Yes
federal agency? ^ No
® N/A