20141149 Ver 1_Mitigation Bank Information_20141028

Natural Resource
Restoration & Conservation
22 October 2014
Mr. David Bailey
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
Wilmington District
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
20141148
RECEIVED
OCT 28 2014
DENR -LAND QUALITY
STORMWATER PERMITTING
RE: FINAL PROSPECTUS FOR CAPE FEAR 02 UMBRELLA STREAM MITIGATION
BANK
Dear Mr. Bailey,
It is with great pleasure that Restoration Systems LLC submits the accompanying
Final Prospectus ( "Prospectus ") for the Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Stream Mitigation
Bank ( "Bank "). The Bank is proposed as a multi -phase project: eight sites constitute
"Phase I "; all future phases will consist of sites that have not yet been secured or
identified. The accompanying Prospectus provides preliminary descriptions of
existing and proposed conditions at all Phase I sites. In addition, the Prospectus
discusses a series of general provisions and requirements of the proposed umbrella
banking instrument.
We recognize that an umbrella stream mitigation bank is an uncommon occurrence in
the Wilmington District. We have therefore attempted to provide as much
information as possible at this stage in the process. We hope that you find the
Prospectus's contents adequate and complete.
We are prepared to assist you in coordinating site visits for our Phase I properties.
Please keep in mind that there are eight Phase I sites; therefore the field visits will
likely require two days. Please reach out to us with suggested dates at your earliest
convenience.
Pilot Mill • 1101 Haynes St., Suite 211 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • www.restorationsystems.com • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone]

Finally, hardcopies of the Prospectus have been shipped directly to each project IRT
member copied at the bottom of this letter. Please contact Adam Riggsbee (512 -970-
3062) or Worth Creech (919- 389 -3888) to make field site visit arrangements and any
other needs relating to the Prospectus that you may have. Thank you in advance for
your consideration of our Prospectus. We look forward to receiving IRT comments in
approximately 90 -days.
Sincerely,
John Preyer
President
Enclosure
cc: Ms. Jean Gibby, USACE
Mr. Todd Bowers, EPA
Ms. Cindy Karoly, NCDWR
Ms. Kathy Matthews, FWS
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Fritz Rohde, NOAA
Ms. Renee Gledhill- Earley, SHPO
Mr. Worth Creech, Restoration Systems LLC
Dr. Adam Riggsbee, RiverBank Consultants LLC

From: (919) 755 -9490
Office Manager
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes St.
Suite 211
Raleigh, NC 27604
Origin ID: RZZA
SHIP TO: (919) 807 -6476
Cindy Karoly
Division of Water Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
RALEIGH, NC 27699
Fed&.
xpress
E
BILL SENDER
Ship Date: 240CT14
ActWgt: 2.0 LB
CAD: 93918181INET3550
Bar Code
Delivery Address
III IIII ItlI�M11I II111I11I11I111IIIInIIIIIII��M�NI AYIB
Invoice #
D. ..1e RECEIVED
OCT 28 2014
ULNR -LAND QUALITY
STQRMWATER PERMI1 TING
TRK# 77161446 6503
0201
22 SOPA
TUE- 28 OCT AA
** 2DAY **
27699
NC -US
RDU
II 1111111111 1� 111111 11111111111 111111111 INI
After printing this label:
1. Use the 'Print' button on this page to print your label to your laser or inkjet printer.
2. Fold the printed page along the horizontal line.
3. Place label in shipping pouch and affix it to your shipment so that the barcode portion of the label can be read and scanned.
Warning: Use only the printed original label for shipping. Using a photocopy of this label for shipping purposes is fraudulent and could result
in additional billing charges, along with the cancellation of your FedEx account number.
Use of this system constitutes your agreement to the service conditions in the current FedEx Service Guide, available on fedex.com.FedEx
will not be responsible for any claim in excess of $100 per package, whether the result of loss, damage, delay, non - delivery,misdelivery,or
misinformation, unless you declare a higher value, pay an additional charge, document your actual loss and file a timely claim.Limitations
found in the current FedEx Service Guide apply. Your right to recover from FedEx for any loss, including intrinsic value of the package, loss
of sales, income interest, profit, attorney's fees, costs, and other forms of damage whether direct, incidental,consequential, or special is
limited to the greater of $100 or the authorized declared value. Recovery cannot exceed actual documented Ioss.Maximum for items of
extraordinary value is $1,000, e.g. jewelry, precious metals, negotiable instruments and other items listed in our ServiceGuide. Written
claims must be filed within strict time limits, see current FedEx Service Guide.

20141149
CAPE FEAR 02 UMBRELLA MITIGATION BANK
FINAL PROSPECTUS
OCTOBER 2014
Sponsored by:
RESTORATION SYSTEMS LLC
Prepared by:
Axiom Environmental Inc and RiverBank Consultants LLC
i
TV
RiverBank
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
RECEIVED
OCT 2 8 2014
DENR -LAND QUALITY
STORMWATER PERMITTING

CAPE FEAR 02 UMBRELLA LITIGATION BANK
PROSPECTUS
OCTOBER 2014
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... ..............................1
1.1 Projeet Objectives ........................................................................:::......... ..............................2
1.2 Bank Sponsor and Contact Information ........................................... :.............................3
2 ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION ...............................:.:..:.:...... ................................ 3
2.1 Umbrella Mitigation,Banking Instrument ...............:......:..:............. .....:........................3
2.2 Credit Determination ...........................................................:..:..:.:........... ....:.........................4
2.3 Riparian Buffer.and Nutrient Offset Credits ..................:................ ..............................4
2.4 Credit Release Schedule ...............................................:..:....:................. ..............................4
3 GEOGRAPHIC SERVICE AREA AND USE OF CREDITS.- ............... ..............................4
4 WATERSHED CONSIDERATIONS .....................................:::.....w..... ..............................5
4.1 Watershed Environmental Concerns and Mitigation Needs ...... ..............................5
4.2 Bank Site Selection ...................................................................:.............. ..............................6
5 OWNERSHIP AND LONG -TERM MANAGEMENT ....................... ...............................
6
6 QUALIFICATIONS OF SPONSOR ..................................................... ...............................
7
7 ECOL061CAL,SUITABILITY OF SITES ............................................ ..............................8
8 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES ........................................ .-: ......... .: ...........................................
8
9 EXISTING, CONDIT, IONS ...................................................................... ...................:.........'9
9.1 Motes ,Creek ..................... ..................................................................... ..............................9
9 1 1 Physiography, Topography, and Land Use .
9
912 Water Quality
9
913 Vegetation
10
914 Soils -
10
9 1 5 Hydrology.
11
9 1 6 Fluvial Geomorphology .......12
91.7 FEMA- .. . ........... ........
12
9.2 Benton Branch .......................................................................................... .............................12
9 2 1 Physiography, Topography, and Land Use .
13
9.22 Water Quality......... ...
13
9 2 3 Vegetation
13
924 Soils
14
9 2 5 Hydrology..
14
'926 F1'uvial,Geomorphology .. _
16
9 2 7 FEMA- ...16
9.3 Orphan. Creek ........................................................................................... .............................16
9 3 1 Physiography, Topography and Land Use
16
9 3 2 Water Quality
17
9 3 3 Vegetation .........17
934 Soils ...
17

9 3 5
Hydrology
18
9 3 6
Fluvial Geomorphology
.19
9 3 7
FEMA
19
9.4 Chico
Branch ..............................................:.............................................. .............................19
941
Physiography, Topography and Land Use
20
942
Water Quality
20
943
Vegetation
20
944
Soils
21
9 4 5'
Hydrology
21
946
Fluvial Geomorphology
22
947
FEMA
22
9.5 Major Hill ................................................................................................ ............................... 22
9 5 1
Physiography, Topography and Land Use
2 -3
9 5 2
Water Quality .
..23
9 5 3
Vegetation
23
9 5 4
Soils
24
9 5 5
Hydrology
24
9 5 6
Fluvial Geomorphology
25`
9 5 7
FEMA.
,26
9.6 Maple Hill Farm ........................................................................................
.............................26
9 6 1
Physiography, Topography and Land Use
26
9 6 2
Water Quality
26
9 6 3
Vegetation
27
964
Soils
27
9.65
Hydrology
28
966
Fluvial Geomorphology
29
9 6 7
FEMA
29
9.7 Rocky
Top .................................. .-... ....................................................................................
..:... 30
9 7 1
Physiography, Topography and Land Use
30,
9 7 2
Water - Quality
- 30
9-73
Vegetation
- '30,
974
Soils
31
9 7 5
Hydrology
31
9 7 6
Fluvial Geomorphology
_ 32
9 7 7
FEMA
32
9.8 Slingshot Creek .......................................................................................
.............................32
9 8 1
Physiography, Topography =and Land Use
.32
9 8 2
Water Quality
33
9 8 3
Vegetation
33
984
Soils
-33
9.85
Hydrology
34
986
Fluvial Geomorphology.
35
987
FEMA .
35
10 RESTORATION PLAN.......................................
10.1 Reference Data ................... - ............................
1011 Stream, Reference. ... . . .
10.12 Reference Forest Ecosystem
10.2 Site Work Plans ............... ...............................
10.2 1 Motes Creek .
............................. ............................... 35
................ ............................... ..............,36
. .............. 36
,36
.......... ............................... . .................. 37
37
Restoration Systems LLC 11 Cape Feai 02 Umbrella Prospectus

1022 Benton Branch
38
1023 Orphan Creek. - -
38
10-24 Chico Branch
39
1025 Major Hill
39
1026 Maple Hill Farm
40
1027 Rocky Top
40
1028 Slingshot Creek
41
10.3 Stream Restoration ........................................................................... ...............................
41
1031 Belt -width Preparation and Grading
41
1032 Channel Excavations
42
1033 Channel Plugs
42
1034 Channel Backfillmg
42
1035 Piped Stream Crossing
42
1036 In- stream Structures
43
10.4 Riparian Restoration .......................................................................... .............................43
10.5 Stream Enhancement I & II ...................................................... _.......................................
45
105 1 Stream Enhancement I
45
1052 Stream Enhancement.11
45
11 MONITORING,PLAN ..................................................................... ...............................
45
11.1 Stream, Monitoring .............................................................................. .............................45
11.2 Vegetation Monitoring ....................................................................... .............................46
11.3 Visual, Monitoring ................................................................................ .............................46
11.4 Water Quality-and Macroinvertebrate Monitoring ................ ...............................
46
114 1 Water Quality Monitoring
47
1142 Macroinvertebrate Monitoring
47
12 ADAPTIVE MANAGMENT AND REMEDIAL MEASURES ..... ...............................
47
12.1 Stream Instability ................................................................................ .............................47
12.2 Vegetation ............................................................................................ ...............................
48
12.3 Invasive Species .................................................... : ...... ... ...................... ........................
48
13 HISTORICAL,AND ARCHEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS .... ...............................
48
14 ENDANGERED AND PROTECTED SPECIES ............................ ...............................
48
14.1 Motes Creek, Orphan Creek,,and Maple Hill Farm .................... .............................48
14.2 Benton, Branch ...................................................................................... .............................49
14.3 Chico Branch and Slingshot Creek ............................................... ...............................
49
15 CONCL" USIONS .......................................................:..........:................ .............................50
16 REFERENCES ........................................................... : ...... : .... :.........................................
52
Restoration Systems LLC m Cape Fear 02 Umbi ella Pi ospectus

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Phase I Site Locations ........................................................ ............................... 54
Figure2: HUC Map ................................................................................. ............................... 55
Figure3: Geographic Service Area ................................................... ............................... 56
Figure 4A: Motes Creek Site Features ............................................. ............................... 57
Figure4B: Motes Creek Topography .............................................. ............................... 58
Figure 4C: Motes Creek Drainage Area ........................................... ...............................
59
Figure41): Motes Creek Soils ............................................................. ...............................
60
Figure 5A: Benton Branch Site Features ........................................ ...............................
61
Figure5B: Benton Branch Topography ......................................... ...............................
62
Figure 5C: Benton Branch Drainage Area ........................................ .............................63
76
Figure 6A: Orphan Creek Site Features .......................................... ...............................
64
Figure 6B: Orphan Creek Topography ........................................... ...............................
65
Figure 6C: Orphan Creek Drainage Area ....................................... ...............................
66
Figure 61): Orphan Creek Soils .......................................................... ............................... 67
Figure 7A: Chico Branch Site Features ........................................... ............................... 68
Figure 7B: Chico Branch Topography ............................................. ............................... 69
Figure 7C: Chico Branch Drainage Area ......................................... ............................... 70
Figure 71): Chico Branch Soils ............................................................ ............................... 71
Figure 8A: Major Hill Site Features .................................................. ...............................
72
Figure 8B: Major Hill Topography ..................................... :.:.....-...... .:.............................
73
Figure 8C: Major Hill Drainage Area ............................................... ...............................
74
Figure 81): Major'Hill Soils .................................................................. ...............................
75
Figure 9A: Maple Hill Farm Site Features .........................:............ ...............................
76
Figure 9B: Maple Hill Farm Topography ....................................... ...............................
77
Figure 9C: Maple Hill Farm Drainage Area ........................ :.........................................
78
Figure 91): Maple Hill Farm Soils ...................................................... ...............................
79
1 Figure 10A: Rocky Top Site Features .............................................. ...............................
80
Figure 1OB: Rocky Top Topography ................................................ ...............................
81
l Figure 1OC: Rocky Top Drainage Area ............................................ ...............................
82
Figure 1OD: Rocky Top Soils .................................... ;.......................................................
83
Figure 11A: Slingshot Creek Site Features .................................... ...............................
84
Restoration Systems LLC ry Cape Fear 02 Umbi ella Pi ospeaus

Figure 1113: Slingshot Creek Topography ...................................... ...............................
85
Figure 11C: Slingshot Creek Drainage Area .................................. ...............................
86
Figure 111): Slingshot Creek Soils .................................................... ...............................
87
Figure 12A: Motes Creek Restoration Plan .......................... :.......................................
88
Figure 1213: Benton Branch Restoration Plan .............................. ...............................
89
Figure 12C: Orphan Creek Restoration Plan ................................ ...............................
90
Figure 12D:, Chico Branch Restoration Plan ..................:.............. ...............................
91
Figure 12E: Major Hill Restoration Plan ........................................ ...............................
92
Figure 1217: Maple Hill Restoration Plan ............... :.......................................................
93
Figure 12 G: Rocky Top Restoration Plan ...................................... ...............................
94
Figure 121-1: Slingshot Creek Restoration Plan ............................ ...............................
95
LIST OF PHOTOS
Photo1: Motes Creek ............................................................................ .............a................. 96
Photo2: Benton Branch, ................... ............................... ............. ...............................
97
Photo3: Orphan Creek ........................................................................ ...............................
98
Photo4: Chico Branch .......................................................................... ...............................
99
Photo5: Major Hill .................................................. ............................... ......:.............:.......100
Photo6: Maple Hill Farm ...................................... ............................... ............................101
Photo7: Rocky Top ................................................. ............................... ............................102
Photo8: Slingshot Creek ........................................ ............................... ...........................103,
LIST OFTABLES
Table 1:,Phase I Site Summary ...................................................... ..............................1
Table 2: Hydrological Function Objectives and Proposed Actions :...................... 2
Table 3: Water Quality Function Objectives and Proposed Actions .....................3
Table 4: Habitat Function Objectives and Proposed- Actions ... ..............................3
Table 5: Population Growth in Cape Fear 02 .............................. ..............................5
Table 6: NCEEP Stream Mitigation Requests for Proposals in Cape Fear 02.......6
Table 7: Motes Creek Site Soils .................................................... .............................11
Table 8: Motes Creek Existing Stream Flow Regime ................ .............................12
Table 9: Benton Branch Site Soils ............................................... .............................14
Restoration Systems LLC v Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Pt ospa.tuS

Table 10: Benton Branch.Existing Stream Flow" Regime ......... .............................15
Table 11: Orphan Creek Site, Soils .............................................. .............................18
Table 12: Orphan Creek Existing Stream Flow Regime ........... .............................19
Table 13: Chico Branch Site Soils ................................................ .............................21
Table 14: Chico Branch Existing Stream Flow Regime .......... ...............................
22
Table 15: Major Hill Sites Soils :.................................:................... .............................24
Table 16: Major Hill Existing Stream Flow Regime .................. .............................25
Table 17: Maple Hill Farm Site Soils ........................................... .............................28
Table 18: Maple Hill Farm Existing Stream Flow Regime ..... ...............................
29
Table 19: Rocky Top Site Soils ..................................................... .............................31
Table 20: Rocky Top Existing Stream Flow Regime ................. .........:...................31
Table, 21: Slingshot Creek Site, Soils ............................................ .............................34
Table 22: Slingshot Creek Existing Stream Flow Regime ........ .............................35
Table 23: Reference Forest Ecosystem Species ...................... ............................... 37
Table 24: Motes Creek Work Plan Summary .......................... ............................... 37
Table 25: Benton Branch Work Plan Summary ........................ .........:.......:...........38
Table 26: Orphan,Creek Work Plan Summary ..................:....... .............................39
Table 27: Chico Branch Work Plan Summary ........................... .............................39
Table 28: Major I4111 Work Plan Summary ................................. .............................40
Table 29: Maple Hill Farm Work Plan Summary ...................... .............................40
Table 30: Rocky Top Work Plan Summary ................................ .............................41
Table 31: Slingshot Creek Work Plan Summary ....................... .............................41
Table 32: Federal Species of Concern, Alamance)County, NC . .............................48
Table 33: Phase I Site Summary .................................................. .............................51
Restoration Systems LLC vi Cape Fear 02 Umbi ella Pi ospectus

I INTRODUCTION
Restoration Systems, LLC ( "the Sponsor ") is ,pleased to propose the Cape Fear
03030002 (Cape Fear 02) Umbrella Mitigation Bank ( "the Bank "). The proposed
umbrella structure of the Bank is designed to initially permit the establishment of
eight stream mitigation sites (collectively referred to as "Phase F'),, while enabling
the establishment of future mitigation sites not yet identified All Phase I sites are
located in North Carolina and consist of the following- 1) Motes Creek in Alamance
County, 2) Benton Branch in Caswell County, 3) Orphan Creek in Alamance County,
4) Chico Branch in Rockingham County, 5) Maple Hill Farm in Alamance County, 6)
Major Hill in Alamance County, 7) Rocky Top in Alamance County, and 8) Slingshot
Creek in Rockingham County (Figure 1; Table 1).
Table 1 Phase,l Site Summary
Hydro Existing Length Miti Approx.,Final
Stream Site Status* (LF) gation Type Length (LF)
Benton Branch Per /Int 8,843 Restoration, 10,343
Enhancement
Chico Branch Per /Int 2,295 Restoration 2,805
Maple Hill per /Int 3,990 Restoration, 4,493
Farm Enhancement
=Ml
;Restoration,
Enhancement
Slingshot Creek Per
3,907
Restoration,
4,777
Enhancement
Totals
31,073
36,625
* Per = perennial, Int = intermittent
The Phase I sites, and all future,sites,,,are located in the Upper Cape Fear River basin
( "Cape Fear 02 "; Figure 2). Motes Creek is located approximately 8 miles southeast'
of Burlington Benton Branch is located approximately 4 miles north of Burlington.
Orphan Creek is located approximately 2 miles north of Saxapahaw and 7 miles

southeast of Graham. Chico Branch is located approximately 6 miles south of
Reidsville Major Hillis located approximately 5 miles southwest of Saxapahaw and
3 miles east of Snow Camp Maple Hill Farm is 16cated approximately 4' miles west bf
Saxapahaw -and; 9 - miles- ,south. of- Graham: Rocky Top .,is - located - approximately- 6
miles southwest of, °saxajiahaw and= 2 =miles east of --Snow Camp. Slingshot -Creek is
located - approximately, 2rmiles ,wtest�of =Reidsville:,_
1.1 Prdject- Objectivesy ,
The overall objectives,ofltlie Bank are to �restore;,or.offierwise improv a the following, I
p'L functions: 1) hydrological;,2)',water quality,rand'3)ehabitat .,Table "s,2:4;prouide an,
+.n' ^ e " . , 'Y'JL,3 ;- .
overview of the Ban k's,objectives and ,thesp'ecific;actions,,proposed toiaccomplish, -
thdm
Table 2 Hydrological Function Objectives and Proposed Actions
-FunctionalTImprovement Objectives Propbsed Actions
E►oodplam Resistance , Plant,woody rips" ianrbuffers, increase=
microtopography
Channels-constructed or raised to historic
Surface and Subs urface;Storage and floodplain elevations, increased floodplain
Retention hydraulic resistance by-pi anti ng,woody vegetation
and increasing microtopography
(Remainder of page intended to be blank)
Restoration Systems LLC 2 Cape Fear 02 Unibiella Prospectus

Table 3 Water Quality Function Objectives and Proposed Actions
Functional Improvement Objectives Proposed Actions
Upland Pollutant Filtration
Plant woody riparian buffers, construct marsh
treatmentyfeatures °intercepting overland Flows
Thermal Regulation Plant woody riparian buffers to provide shade
Table 4. Habitat Function Objectives and Proposed Actions
Functional linprovemeni Objectives Proposed Actions
Plant native, woody riparian buffers providing
Riparian Habitat and Structure foraging, nesting and-cover for- terrestrtal,species
as well as refugia for aquatic species
1.2 -Bank Sponsor and Contact'Information,
Restoration Systems, LLC
John,Preyer
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, NC 27604
jpreyer @restorationsystems com
919.755.9490
2 ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION
2.1 Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument
The Sponsor is proposing to permit the Bank using an umbrella mitigation banking
instrument ( "UMBI ") As proposed, the UMBI would,allow for the establishment and
i
operation of multiple phases. Phase I is described in this prospectus and, if
Restoration Systems LLC 3 Cape Feat 02 Umbi ella Prospectus
d:

approved, will serve as the Bank's first source of mitigation credit The Sponsor also
proposes the incorporation into the Bank of additional sites not yet identified
(within the Geographic Service Area described in the next section), following
Interagency Review Team ( "IRT ") review and approval
2.2 Credit Determination
Credit for Phase I, and all additional phases, shall be based on the U S Army Corps of
Engineers (USAGE) most current mitigation credit determination methodology.
Presently, the USACE is utilizing the Stream Mitigation Guidelines (USACE 2003) to
quantify mitigation project credit potential If other methods are released and
become de facto requirements for stream mitigation projects in the USACE, future
phases will utilize these methods, as appropriate.
2.3 Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Credits
In April 2013, the Sponsor+and.the North Carolina Department -of Environment and
Natural °Resources ( "NCDENR ") entered into an Agreement to Establish an Umbrella
Mitigation Banking Instrument in the Cape Fear River Basin for Riparian Buffer and
Nutrient Offset Mitigation Credits Pursuant to the Jordan Lake Nutrient Strategy
( "Buffer UMBI ") The Sponsor may choose to generate and sell buffer or nutrient
credits from any site(s) permitted under the UMBI proposed here Such generation
and sale of buffer or nutrient credits must be approved by NCDENR, and shall be
pursuant to all terms and conditions of the Sponsor's Buffer UMBI
2.4 Credit Release Schedule
Credits generated by actions, described and "approved in the Bank's final UMBI shall
be released,in predetermined increments according to the milestones agreed to by
the Sponsor and the'I,RT in the UMBI's credit release schedule. The Sponsor will use
the credit release schedule detailed.for stream mitigation banks in USACE (2013)
3 GEOGRAPHIC SERVICE AREA AND USE OF CREDIT'S
Located, within the Piedmont level III ecoregion and the Upper Cape Fear River
basin, the Bank's geographic service area ( "GSA ") is defined. by the United States
Geological Survey (USGS) 8 -digit Hydrological Unit Code ( "HUC ") within which the
Bank's sites are located, the Cape Fear 02 (Figure 3)
The Bank's credits are proposed to be used to offset unavoidable, permitted impacts
within the Bank's GSA Use of the Bank's credits outside of its GSA may be
permissible with approval by the USACE, which will be considered on a case -by -case
basis.
Restoration Systems LLC 4 Cape Fear 02 Unibiella Prospectus

4 WATERSHED CONSIDERATIONS
4.1 Watershed Environmental Concerns and Mitigation Needs
The Cape Fear River basin is one of four rivers in North Carolina completely
contained within the state's boundaries. Comprised of five major drainages —Haw
River, Deep River, Northeast Cape Fear River, Black River and the Cape Fear River —
the basin drains portions of 26 counties and 115 municipalities with a total of 6,386
stream miles The most populated portions of the basin are located in the Triad, the
Triangle, Fayetteville, and Wilmington (NCDWQ 2005).
Nearly all of the Cape Fear 02 drains into B ,Everett Jordan Lake ( "Jordan Lake "),
which is designated as impaired due to excessive levels of chlorophyll a according to
state water quality standards Stressors to Jordan Lake's water quality are
associated with nitrogen and phosphorus inputs from point sources, especially
municipal wastewater, and non -point sources such as urban stormwater runoff'arfd
rural agricultural runoff Most of the impaired streams, in the Cape Fear- 02 are
located in heavily urbanized,areas
Between the 2000 and 2010 censuses, the Cape Fear 02 population increased
approximately 17 percent (Table 5). The general trend of population growth
appears to be continuing according to recent population estimates, which indicate
Guilford, Orange, Chatham and Durham counties are all growing at faster annual
rates than the state's 102 percent (,USCB 20,13) These data suggest land
development activities will increase in frequency, as will aquatic ecosystem impacts
related to such development Therefore, there is an immediate and prolonged need
for compensatory stream mitigation in the watershed. Of further benefit, aquatic
ecosystem restoration projects are capable of reducing nutrient loading in sensitive
downstream receiving waters such as Jordan Lake.
Table 5 Population Growth in Cape +Fear 02
Municipality 2000 Population 2010 Population Percent Increase
Greensboro
'223,891
269,666
20
Burlington
44,917
49,963
11
Chapel Hill
48,715
57,233
17
Durham*
187;035
228,330
22
Rest of,Guilford County
421,048
488;406
11
Rest ofAlamance,County
130;800
151,131
18
Rest of Orange County
118;227
133,801
10
Chatham County
49,329
63,505
29
Rest of Durham County*
223,314
267,587
8
Totals
942,718
1,104,430
17
*Some portions of,Durham (city) an&Durham County are located,imthe Cape Fear 02, the majority of these areas are located in
the Neuse,River basin
Historically, the Cape Fear 02 has experienced relatively high stream mitigation
demand. Bass Mountain and Cripple Creek are the only active stream mitigation
banks in the watershed Current stream mitigation credit inventory relative to North
Restoration Systems LLC 5 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Pi ospectW,

Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program ( NCEEP) demand is exceptionally low
Since 2002, the NCEEP has requested 155,000 Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs) in
the Cape Fear 02 (Table 6) Available inventory,is approximately 482 SMUs
Table 6 NCEEP Stream Mitigation Requests for Proposals in Cape Fear 02
Request For Proposals
SMU&Requested
October 26, 2005
90;000
November 22, 2006
17,000
November 24, 2009
5;000
October 30; 2013
43,000
Total
155,000
4.2 Bank Site Selection
Based on the analysts presented in Section 41, the Cape Fear 02 was targeted as a
watershed in need of stream mitigation The Sponsor and its consultant, Axiom
Environmental, Inc (Axiom), conducted a search for sites possessing stream
restoration and enhancement opportunities. Identified sites were prioritized based
on geomorphic condition and land use, and the necessary landowners were
contacted to gauge their interest in participating ,in a stream mitigation project. Sites
with willing landowners were then pursued further As real estate in the area is
generally well subdivided, many of the identified opportunities are not currently
feasible because such sites require the cooperation' of several landowners in order
to achieve sufficient ecological and economic-scale. Therefore, selection of the Phase
I properties was based on a combination of geomorphic condition, land use, and the
willingness of landowners to participate
5 OWNERSHIP AND LONG -TERM MANAGEMENT
The Phase I properties are an assemblage of portions of larger holdings currently
owned by the following people, or organizations,
Motes Creek - Thomas, Roger, and Patricia Dodson of Alamance County;
Benton Branch - Dennis Simmons of Caswell County;
Orphan Creek - Mr and'Mrs Williamson of Alamance County,
Chico Branch - Billingsley & Associates of Rockingham County;
Major Hill - Jim Lamm of Alamance,County;
Maple Hill Farm'- Joe and Tish Murray of Alamance County,;
Rocky Top - Jim Lamm of Alamance County; and
Slingshot Creek - Robert Wheless of Rockingham County
Hereafter, these owners will collectively be referred to as "the,Landowners.
The Sponsor and the Landowners have executed separate Agreements for Purchase
and Sale of Conservation Easements coveting approximately 19 -acres along Motes
Creek, 30 -acres along Benton Branch, 14.5 -acres along Orphan Branch, 8 -acres
Restoration Systems LLC 6 Cape Fear 02 Umbi ella Pi ospectus

along Chico Creek, 11 1 -acres along Maple Hill Farm, 10 -acres along Major Hill, 5 2-
acres along Rocky Top, and 13 -acres along Slingshot Creek. Following USACE
approval of the UMBI and the Phase I Mitigation Plan, the Sponsor will exercise its
rights provided under the above - referenced agreements.
The Phase I properties will be protected in perpetuity by conservation easements
approved by the USACE. At a minimum, conservation easements will be written to
prohibit incompatible uses that might jeopardize objectives of the Bank During the
operational period of each site,:the Sponsor may hold the conservation easements.
Once a Bank site is closed out, easements will be transferred to a-qualified land trust,
such as ,the North Carolina Wildlife Habltat,Foundatlon, to be held in +perpetuity The
Sponsor will provide the land trust with a f nancial,sum, in an amount agreeable to
both parties, appropriate for the long -term stewardship of the sites
During the operational period ,of a Bank site, the Sponsor will be responsible for
management actions Following Bank close out, the Landowners will serve as long-
term managers of the sites, and the land trust holding conservation easements will
routinely monitor the sites to ensure the Bank's conservation easement terms are
not violated Other long -term management responsibilities will include protecting
the sites from encroachment, trespass, clearing, an_d other violations that interfere
.with conservation purposes. Fencing, suitable to prevent livestock grazing within
easement boundaries, will be constructed as necessary Conservation easement
boundaries will be clearly�marked prior to transfer.
6 QUALIFICATIONS,OF'SPONSOR
Restoration Systems is an environmental restoration, mitigation banking and full -
delivery mitigation firm founded in 1998 The firm was formed to improve the
quality of environmental restoration and mitigation by locating and acquiring the
best available sites, planning restoration using proven science, and constructing
sites with the most qualified contractors Restoration Systems' staff has been
involved in environmental mitigation and mitigation banking since '1992 Project
managers have more than 80 years of experience in resource evaluation,
environmental restoration, and mitigation implementation The company employs 9
permanent staff members based in Raleigh, North Carolina.
Corporate experience with the principals began with completion of the state's full -
delivery, mitigation project in 1997, the Barra Farms Mitigation Bank (623- acres),
the, subsequent Bear Creek —Mill Branch Mitigation Bank in 2001 (450- acres), and
Sleepy Creek Mitigation Site (55&-acres) The firm then performed all of the off -site
mitigation (7500 -LF of stream restoration and 10 -acres of wetland restoration) for
the Piedmont Triad International Airport Authority.
Restoration Systems has implemented projects for the NCEEP, formerly the North
Carolina Wetland Restoration Program; including the removal of the Carbonton and
Restoration Systems LLC 7 Cape Fear 02 Umbi ella Prospectus

Lowell Mill dams in the Cape Fear and Neuse River basins (132,000 -LF), the Haw
River Wetland Restoration Site (34- acres, Cape Fear), -the Elk Shoals. Stream
Restoration, Site x(6,00 -LF; Catawba), -the Lick Creek Stream Site - (10,000 -L-F, Cape,
Fear), Gatlin-Swamp Wetland Restoration Site-(13 -25- acres, Roanoke),-and a number
of buffer festoration projects, includifig Casey Daiiy, Walnut Creek, Big Bull,
Brogden ,Road;,and -Little,Buffalo. ,
Restoration Systems' Cripple,,Creek Stream & Wetland Mitigation Bank. in, the ,Cape
Fear 02 River- ;basin-is the first compensatory,-w.etl'and and stream bank in North.
Carolina ,under- the, ,2008 Federal Compensatory. ,Mitigation Rule Additional
mitigation,.banking:projects are underway in North.Carolina, including the Pancho
Site, and thr-oyghout,the southern United States.
7 ECOLOGICAL- SUITABILITY OF S_ ITES
Primary considerations for�selectmg the Phase I sites included the potential for
protection /improvement of water quality within a region of.North Carolina under
heavy development and livestock /agricultural .pressure. More specifically,
considerations included desired aquatic resource- functions, hydrologic conditions,
soil characteristics,, aquatic habitat diversity; habitat connectivity, compatibility
with, adjacent ° land uses, reasonably foreseeable effects the mitigation projects will
have` on - ecologically important aquatic and terrestrial` resources, -and -potential
development trends and land use changes
As all Phase I sites are located in Cape Fear 02, the current agricultural land uses at
these sites may contribute nutrients to Jordan-Lake (NCDWQ 2'005). Restdrationn and
enhancement work proposed in the Restoration :Plan (Section 10) will reduce
existing nutrient�and sediment loads to downstream.waters. In addition, restoration
work will improve °in - channel aquatic,and riparian habitats.
8 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
The Sporisor will provide financial assurances in a form acceptable to the •IRT,
sufficient nto assure completion of all mitigation- work, required reporting • and
monitoring, and any remedial work that-may be-required- pursuaht to the final UMBI
Prior, to the first er,edivrelease, for -the Phase If.sites; proposed here asyweIL as all
additional, sites,,permittedAfhder-the Aproposed�,UMBI ,.,thesSponsor,shall,f.urnish, a
financial assurance ins tF ruineht, covering�al, l` �reasonabl y�antieipeted ;cdsts,relatirigato
construction ;'•operation; - monitoring; maintenance and -any remedial - measures
associated with the,,Bank. This instrument shall- consist of't either' ;i- erforniance,
Bond underwritten by a surety company licensed to do business in North Carolina
with a Best's current rating of not less than "A -," or a casualty insurance policy in an
appropriate form to be approved by the USACE in compliance with current -USACE
policy and ,guidance documents The total value of such a bond or policy will be
Restoration Systems LLC 8 Cape Fear 02 Umbi ella Prospectus

based on reasonably expected costs associated with approved Mitigation Plans, plus
a reasonable contingency, which collectively shall be sufficient to ensure the project
will be successfully completed in accordance with applicable performance
standards
If performance bonds. are utilized, the initial performance bond shall be replaced
following completion of construction and US-ACE approval of the Phase I as -built
reports. The Sponsor shall then furnish a replacement performance bond, to be
Valued based on reasonably anticipated costs associated with project monitoring
and maintenance Once all performance standards have been met, the Sponsor may
withdraw monies from or otherwise terminate the financial assurance instrument
described in this paragraph
9 EXISTING CONDITIONS
9.1 Motes Creek
The Motes Creek site is characterized by disturbed forest and agricultural land used
for livestock grazing and hay production (Photo 1) The, main hydrologic features
include Motes Creek, three unnamed tributaries (UT) to Motes Creek, and adjacent
floodpla►ns. The proposed conservation easement area contains approximately 19-
acres (Figure 4A)
9.1.1 Physiography, Topography, and Land Use
The Motes Creek site is located in the Carolina Slate Belt. Dissected, irregular, plains
characterize regional physiography with moderate to steep slopes and low- to
moderate - gradient streams over boulder- and cobble - dominated substrate (Griffith
,et al 2002) On -site elevations range from a high of 600 -feet National Geodetic
Vertical Datum ( "NGVD ") at the upper reach of UT 1 to a low of approximately 568 -
feet NGVD at the site outfall (Figure 4B)
This site drains an approximately 0.71- square mile (455- acres) watershed (Figure
4,C). The watershed is dominated by pasture, agricultural land, forest, and sparse
residential property. Impervious surfaces account for less than five- percent of the
upstream land surface.
Land use at the site is characterized by disturbed forest, hay fields, and livestock
`pasture. Riparian, zones and wetland areas are primarily composed of, herbaceous
vegetation that is sparse and disturbed due to livestock grazing, bush hogging, and
regular land- management activities
9.1.2 Water Quality
Motes Creek is located within USGS 14 -digit HUC 03000205'0040 (Figure 2) and
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) Subbasin 03 -06 -04
Topographic features of the Motes Creek site drain to Motes Creek (Stream Index
Number 16 -5), which has been assigned a Best Usage Classification of C, NSW
Restoration Systems LLC 9 Cape Fear 02 Umhi ells Prospectus

(NCDWR 2013) Streams with a C designation are [protected, for uses�such as aquatic
life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture
Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses not involving human
body contact with Waters on an organized or frequent basis The NSW designation
denotes nutrient sensitive waters, which include areas with water quality problems
associated with excessive plant growth resulting from nutrient enrichment
NCDWR has,assembled',a list of impaired waterbodies according tothe Clean Water
Act,Section 303(d) and 40 CFR 130.7, which is a comprehensive public accounting of
all impaired waterbodies An impaired waterbody is one that does not meet state
standards, including designated uses, numeric and narrative criteria, and ariti-
degradation requirements defined in 40 CFR 131 Motes Creek, within and adjacent
to the site discussed here, is not,listed on the final 2012 or draft 2014 303(d) lists
( NCDWQ 2012 and NCDENR 2014).
9.1.3 Vegetation
The Motes Creek site is characterized primarily by agricultural land, including
livestock pasture and hay fields, and some areas of disturbed forest. Fields are
dominated by fescue (Festuca sp.) with sparse natural recruits including ,dog fennel
(Eupatorium capillifolium), clover (Trifolium sp ), cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium),
as well as other opportunistic herbaceous species Small wetted areas located within
pastures are dominated by rushes Uuncus spp) and sedges (Carex spp) and
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) with scattered Chinese privet (Ligustrum
sinense), winged elm (Ulmus alata), Virginia pine (Pmus virginiana), persimmon
(Diospyros virginiana), dog fennel, ,and broomsedge (Andropogon sp )
9.1.4 Soils
Based;on_Web Soil Survey mapping -(USDA 2014), proposed conservation easement
areas associated with the Motes Creek site contain five soil series (Figure 4D and
Table 7)• Chewacla fine sandy loam (Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts), Efland silt loam
(Typic Hapludults), Herndon silt loam (Typic Kanhapludults), local alluvial land, and
Orange silt loam (Albaquic Hapludalfs).
(Remainder of page intended to be blank)
Restoiation Systems LLC 10 Cape Fear 02 Umbiella Prospectus

Table 7 Motes Creek Site Sods
Map Unit- Map,unit Hydric Description
Symbol Name Status
This series consists of well - drained soils found
along slopes Slopes range from 2 -6 percent for
EaB2, EaC2 Efland silt loam Non- hydric EA132 soils and 6 -10 percent for EAC2 soils This
series is thin and,can be associated with large
rockroutcrops h It is derived from parent material
of the Carolina slate belt
This series, consists ofwnearly,level; poorly
Local alluvial drained soils,adjacent to streams and sloughs
Lc land, poorly Hydric This series developed ffom alluvial sediments
washed,from adjacent uplands and is not
drained, consistent 'in`sequence,,development, or
arrangement of-layers
9.1.5 Hydrology
Motes Creek site streams are mapped as intermittenvby USGS (Figure 4B) and are
not mapped by the National Wetlands" Inventory (NWI) However, on -kite
investigations-1including benthic macr "oinvertebrate sampling and NCDWQ'stream
forms (Table 8)— suggest Moies Creek and its tributaries are p 'e'rennial,'
(Remainder of page intended to -be blank)' `
Restoration Systems'U,C 11 Cape Fear 02 Umbi ella Prospectus

Table 8 Motes Creek Existing Stream Flow Regime
Stream Stream Length Stream Order USGS Stream In -field Stream
Classification Classification
Motes Creek 1831 2nd Intermittent Perennial
UT 1 1272 15, intermittent Perennial
UT 2 2098 1st Intermittent Perennial
UT 3 545 1st Not mapped Perennial
Total 5,746
This hydrophysiographic region is characterized by moderate rainfall with
precipitation averaging 43 7 -inches per year (based on data provided by NOAA
2014) Site discharge is dominated by a combination of upstream basin catchment;
groundwater flow, and precipitation. Based on regional curves (Harman et al 1999),
the bankfull discharge,for a 0,71- square mile. watershed is expected to average 70-
cubic feet per second (CFS). Based on empirical evidence a bankfull discharge of 70-
CFS is expected to occur approximately every 1.3 to 15 years (Rosgen 1996,
Leopold 1994)
9.1.6, FluvialZeomorphology ,
Currently; channels'targeted for restoration are characterized as entrenched and /or
incised G -type or C -type channels with little to no sinuosity, little to no riffle -pool
morphology, oversized cross - sectional areas, and no access to floodpl'ains during
high discharge events (Bank Height, Ratio (BHR) range > 1.3 to 2.4). Sinuosity was
measured at 1.05 from topographic surveys, aerial photography, and visual
observation during field surveys.
In general, sediment and nutrient inputs, channel incision and straightening,
livestock trampling, removal of cobble substrate, aggradation of silt and sand, and
removal of woody vegetation have impacted Motes Creek site streams.
9.1.7 FEMA
Inspection of the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map 371O9811O0J, Panel 9811,
effective September 6, 20,06, indicates that -Motes Creek streams are not located in a
Special Flood Hazard Area, and the project should not alter FEMA flood zones
Therefore, a "Conditional Letter of Map Revision" (CLOMR) is not necessary for this
site
9.2 Benton Branch
The Benton Branch site is characterized by disturbed forest and agricultural1arid
used for livestock grazing and hay production (Photo 2). The main hydrological
features include Benton Branch and six UTs to Benton Branch. Several of these
streams have impoundments in the headwaters reducing the frequency and
Restoration Systems LLC 12 Cape Fear 02 Umbt ella Prospectus

duration of channel - forming discharges. The proposed conservation easement area
contains approximately 30 -acres (Figure 5A)
9.2.1 Physiography, Topography, and, land Use
The Benton Branch site is located in the Southern Outer Piedmont. Dissected
irregular plains, low rounded hills and ridges, and low- to moderate - gradient
streams with mostly cobble, gravel, and sandy substrates characterize regional
physiography On -site elevations "range from a high of 645 -feet NGVD at the upper
reaches of UT 3 to a low of approximately 620 -feet NGVD at the site outfall (Figure
5 B)
This site drains an approximately 9 1- square mile watershed at the , outfall with
smaller drainage areas ranging- from 0.03 to 1 24- square mules (Figure 5C). The
watershed is primarily composed of pasture, with sparse residential areas along
state - maintained roads, and forestland in the upper headwaters. Impervious
surfaces account for less than five- percent of the upstream land surface
Land use at thei site is characterized by disturbed forest, hay fields, and livestock
pasture. Riparian zones and wetland areas are primarily composed of herbaceous
vegetation that is sparse and disturbed due to livestock grazing, bush hogging, and
regular land- management activities
9.2.2 Water Q6ality
The site is loca`t_ed within the Cape Fear River Basin in USGS 14 -digit HUC
03030002030030 (Figure 2) and NCDWR Subbasin number 03- 06 -02. Benton
Branch has been assigned Stream Index Number 16 -14 -3 and a Best Usage
Classification of W,S -II, HQW,; NSW WS -II streams are ,protected as water supplies
for drinking, culinary, or food - processing purposes These waters are also protected
for Class C uses, such as aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife,
secondary recreation,. and agriculture Secondary recreation includes wading,
boating, and other uses not involving human body contact with waters on an
organized or frequent basis. All WS -II waters are HQW (High Quality Waters) by
supplemental classification The designation NSW includes areas with water quality
problems associated with excessive plant growth resulting from nutrient
enrichment Site streams are not included on the 2012 Final, or draft 2014 303(d)
lists of impaired waterbodies (NCDWQ 2012 and NCDENR 2014)
9.2.3 Vegetation
The Benton Branch site is characterized primarily by agricultural land utilized for
beef cattle production and scattered _disturbed forest. Agricultural land is
maintained for livestock grazing and has been planted with fescue (Festuca sp ).
Natural recruits of dog fennel (Eupatorium capill►fol►um), clover (Tr►fol ►um sp.),
nightshade (Solanum carol►nense), as'well as other opportunistic herbaceous species
have recolonized the site. Several pockets of wetland occur in the site, which are
characterized by rushes Uuncus spp ) and sedges (Carex spp.). Disturbed forest is
largely cleared of understory species due to livestock pruning and is composed of
Restoration Systems LLC 13 Cape Fear 02 Umbi ella Pi ospectus

sweetgum (L►quidambarstyrac►flua), Ghinese ,privet (Ligustrum sinense), winged elm
(Ulmus alata), Virginia pine (Pmus v►rgm►ana), persimmon (D►ospyros v►rg►n►ana),
dog fennel, and broomsedge (Andropogon sp ).
9Z.4 Soils
Detailed. soil mapping by NRCS has not been completed for Caswell County- The
most ,recent - published soil survey for Caswell County is dated 1908, with general
soil,mapping conducted' countywide; therefore, a 'map of the site's soil's as not
provided = here The, countywide NRCS map depicts the, site as, being underlain by
Cecil sandy loam in floodplains and low -lying areas, with Cecil sandy clay and Iredell
sandy loam in the adjacent uplands (Table 9)
Table 9 +Benton Branch Site,Soils
Map,Unit hydric
Map`Unit`Name Description
Symbol Status
The Iredell series is,browmsh -gray or
very_ dark brown,imoderately well
dcamed, medium acid soils of the
Is Iredelfga`ndy loam Non --hydric' 'Piedmont Plateau 'This series occurs
wherever the,geologic formation
contains basic dikes! These soils are
important to agriculture
A North 'Carolina Licensed Soil Scientist identified a portion of the Benton Branch
Site as containing hydric soil The only hydric soils' listed as occurring in Caswell
County are soils of the- Codorus and/or Hatboro soil- §etieg. bh-site hydric soils are
grey to gley in color and are compacted and pockmarked by livestock trampling and
agricultural activities Livestock grazing, annual mowing for hay harvest, and
clearing of timber have resulted in an . herbaceous vegetative community.
Groundwater springs and,su'rface runoff contribute.hydrology_to these,areas. At'this
ti me; no detailed soihmappmg has been conducted at,tlie site.
9.2.5 Hyd'r`ology
Benton Branch site streams are mapped as perennial 'and intermittent by the USGS
(Table 10; Figures 5B) and'are not,mapped by the NWI.
Restoration Systems LLC 14 Cape Fear 02 Umbi ella Prospa,tuS

Table 10 Benton Branch Existing Stream Flow Regime
USGS Stream
In -field Stream
Stream
Stream Length
Stream Order
Classification
Classification
Benton Br
2054
4th
Perennial
Perennial
UT1
1232
151
Intermittent
Perennial
UT2
244
1st
Not Mapped
Perennial
UT3
1395
1St
Not Mapped
Perennial
UT4
1413
1st
Intermittent
Perennial
UT5
1466
2nd
intermittent
Perennial
UT6
1039
3rd
Intermittent
Perennial
Total
8,843
With the exception of Benton Branch, the site's tributaries are depicted as
intermittent on the USGS 7 5 -minute topographic quadrangle_ However, UT 4, UT 5,
and UT 6 exhibit field characteristics of perennial streams These tributaries have
drainage areas encompassing 0.13, 0 68, and 124- square miles; respectively, and
the channels are well defined with cobble substrate. In addition, benthic
macroinvertebrate samples collected in the upper reaches of UT 4 using the Qual -4
technique support a perennial flow regime designation (stonefly larvae)
UT 2 and UT 3 are not mapped by the USGS, however-, field evidence — including
benthic macro inverteb rate samples, NCDWQ Stream Identification Form [v411]
scores, and evidence of stream flow during field visits — indicates the channel's are
intermittent to perennial UT 1, UT 2, and UT 3' all 'exhibit characteristics of
perennial flow in the upper reaches However, ponds upstream from the stream
origin point, low slope of floodplain, livestock impacts to channels, and antropogenic
alterations to the floodplain and channels have resulted in loss of stream channel
morphology in the downstream reaches.
This hydrophysiographic region is characterized by moderate rainfall with
precipitation averaging 43 4- inches per year (based on data provided by, NOAA
2014) Site discharge is dominated by a combination of up_ `stream basin catchment,
groundwater flow, and precipitation Based on regional curves, the bankfull
discharge for a 0 3- square mile and 9 1- square mile. watershed are expected to
average 7.8 and 439 -CFS, respectively (Harman et al. 1999). A_bankfull discharge is
expected to occur approximately every 13 to 1.5- years (Rosgen 1996, Leopold
1994).
Restoi aeon Systems LLC 15 Cape Fear 02 Untbt ella Prospectus

9.2.6 ,Fluvial,Geomorphology
Currently, two distinct stream types characterize channels targeted for restoration
One is an entrenched and`` /or incised G -type or F -type channel with sinuosity
affected by bank erosion and hoof shear. Riffle -pool morphology has been
compromised by sedimentation and bank collapse due to a lack of deep. Footed
vegetation These channels are oversized with no access to floodplains during high -
discharge events (BHR = 3.6)
A second stream type ,includes streams without existing channels due to
aggradation resulting from livestock trampling, vegetative clearing, removal of
channel substrate, and channel rerouting Headwater ponds further affect some of
the channels in this category. 'Ponds in the upper reaches of UT 1, UT 2, and UT 3
appear to attenuate storm flows, thereby reducing sediment rnobilization Reduced
sediment transport and intensive trampling of channel bed and banks by livestock
has produced aggraded channels characterized as wide, compacted sloughs without
defined beds or banks.
9.2.7 FEMA
Inspection of the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map 371089600K, Panel 8960,
effective September 28, 2007, indicates that Benton Branch, UT 3, and associated
floodplains are located within a Zone AE flood area. Therefore, a HEC -RAS analysis
will be completed on the existing and proposed conditions of Benton Branch and its
tributaries that enter the Benton Branch floodplain to assess hydraulic performance.
As per N.C. Floodplam .Mapping requirements, a Conditional Letter of Map Revision
(CLOMR) will need to,be�prepared for the site.
The CLOMR includes written documentation of modeling, preparation of
topographic work, maps, annotated FIRM or Floodway Maps, FIRM Flood Profiles
and Data Tables The CLOMR will be sent to, Caswell County for approval and
signature, and then the CLOMR will be sent to FEMA for review, and,approval The
CLOMR approval prpcess will take 3 -6 months The. CLOMR should be prepared,
submitted and approved prior to construction A requirement of the-CLOMR is to
prepare, and submit'atetter of Map Revision (LOMR) once construction is complete.
93 Orphan Creek
The , Orphan_ Creek site is characterized by agricultural land used for livestock
grazing and hay production (Photo 3) The main hydrologic features include.five-
UTs to Meadow Creek (Main Channel, UT 1A, UT 113, UT 2, and UT 3) and adjacent
floodplains. The proposed conservation easement area contains approximately
14.5 -acres (Figure 6A)
9.3.1 Physiography, Topography and Land Use
The Orphan Creek site is located in the Carolina Slate Belt. Dissected, irregular
plains characterize regional physiography with moderate to steep slopes and low- to
moderate - gradient streams over boulder and cobble - dominated substrate (Griffith
et al 2002) On -site elevations range from a high of 570 -feet NGVD ar the upper
Restoiatimi Systems LLC 16 Cape Feat 02 Umbielia Piospettus

reaches of UT 1A to a low of approximately 540 -feet NGVD at the site outfall (Figure
6B).
This site drains an approximately 0.2- square mile (127 -acre) watershed (Figure 5C).
The watershed is dominated by pasture, agricultural land, disturbed forest, and
sparse residential property Impervious surfaces account for less than five- percent
of the upstream land surface
Land use at the site is characterized by hay fields and livestock pasture Livestock
have unrestricted access to site streams. A narrow riparian fringe has developed on
the stream margins composed of opportunistic species and a few mature trees
9.3.2 Water Quality
Orphan Creek is located within USGS, 14 -digit HUC 03030002050010 (Figure 2) and
NCDWR Subbasin 03 -06 -02 Topographic features of the Orphan Creek site drain off
site to Meadow Creek (Stream Index Number 16 -23), which has been assigned a
Best Usage Classification of WS -V, NSW ( NCDWR 2013) WS -V streams are
protected as water supplie -s that -are generally upstream and draining to Class WS -IV
waters or waters used by °industry to supply their employees'with drinking water or
as waters formerly used,as water supply. These waters are also protected for Class C
uses such as aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation, and agriculture. Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, and
other uses not involving human body contact with waters on an organized or
frequent basis The NSW designation denotes nutrient sensitive waters, ,which
include areas with water quality problems associated with excessive plant growth
resulting from nutrient enrichment Meadow Creek, the receiver of site tributaries,
is not listed on the final 2012 or draft 2014 303(d) lists ( NCDWQ 2012 and NCDWR
2014)
9.3.3 Vegetation
The Orphan Creek site 'is characterized primarily by agricultural land, including
pasture, hay fields, and some areas of disturbed forest Fields are dominated by
fescue (festuca sp.) with sparse natural recruits including dog fennel jEupatorium
capillif6hum), nightshade (Solanum sp ), blackberry (Rubus argutus), 'dandelion
(Taraxacum sp ), as well as other opportunistic her- baceous species Scattered trees
located adjacent to site tributaries include Chinese privet (Ligustrum smense),
winged elm (Ulmus aldtd), loblolly pine (Pmus taeda)„ persimmon (Dios'pyros
virgm►ana), red maple (Ater rubrum), Russian olive (Aieganus angustifoha), eastern
red cedar Uumperus virginiana), black walnut Uuglans nigra), shagbark hickory
(Carya ovata), sweetgum (Liquidamba"r styraciflua), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans)
9.3.4 Soils
Based on Web Soil Survey mapping (USDA 2014), the proposed conservation
easement areas associated with the Orphan Creek site contain four soil series
(Figure 6D and Table 11)- Efland silt loam (Typic Hapludults), local alluvial land,
Restoration Systems LLC 17 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus

Orange silt loam (Albaquic Hapludalfs)', and Tirzah silt loam and silty clay loam
(Typic Kanhapludults)
Table 11 Orphan Creek Site Soils
Map Unit Map Unit Hydric
Symbol Name Status Description
This series consists,of well - drained soils found
along 2 -6 percent.slopes This series is thin, cam
EaB2 Efland,silt loam Non - hydric be associated with large rock outcrops, and is
derived from parent material of,the Carolina
slate belt
This series consists of moderately well - drained
Orange silt soils on'smoofh uplands near or on the top of 2-
ObB2 loam Non - hydric 6 percent "slopes This,sene"s;developed from
igneous,and meta morphic'parent materials and
has,poor,runoff and slow internal drainage.
9.3:5 Hydrology
The Main Channel at the Orphan Creek site is mapped by USGS as intermittent;
however UT 1A, UT 2 and UT 3 are not mapped (Figure 6B) The NWI does not map
any channels at the Orphan Creek site On -site investigations, however, suggest,all
channels are either perennial or intermittent Benthic macroinvertebrate samples
were collected in the upper r ;ea -hes of the Main Channel and UT 2 using the Qual' -4
technique. The results suggest the Main Channel, UT 1A and UT 2 are perennial; and
UT 1B and UT 3 are intermittent (Table 12)
(Remainder of page intended to be blank)
Restoration Systems LLC 18 Cape Fear 02 Unibi ells Prospectus

Table 12 Orphan Creek Existing Stream Flow Regime
Stream
Stream Length
Stream Order
USGS Stream
Classification
In -field Stream
Classification
Main Channel
11`81
2nd
Intermittent
Perennial
UT 1A
278
1st
Not mapped
Perennial
UT 113
232
1st
Not mapped
Intermittent
UT 2
382
ist
Not mapped
Perennial
UT 3
595
1st
Not mapped
Intermittent
Total
2668
This hydrophysiographic region is characterized by moderate rainfall with
precippnon averaging 43 7- inches per year (based on data provided by NOAA
2014). Site discharge is dominated by a combination of upstream basin catchment,
groundwater- flow, and precipitation. Based on- regional curves (Harman et al 1999),
the bankfull discharge for a 0.2- square mile watershed is expected to average 27.7 -
CFS A bankfull discharge evenvis expected to occur approximately every 1.3 to 1.5-
years (Rosgen 1996, Leopold 1994)
9.3.6 Fluvial Geomorphology
Currently, channels targeted for restoration are,c_haracterized as entrenched and/pr
incised G' -,type or.F - type channels with little to no sinuosity, little to no riffle -pool
morphology, oversized channel cross - sectional areas, and no access to flo6dplains
during high discharge events ,(BHR range > 2.2 to 2 7). Sinuosity was measured at
10,2 using topographic surveys, aeal photography, and visual observation ri during
field surveys.
In general, the streams comprising the Orphan Creek site have been impacted by
excavation of a =k- ened, channel, excessive sediment and nutrient inputs,
channel incision, trampling, removal of cobble substrate, aggradation of
silt and prid, and removal of woody. vegetation.
9.3.7 FEMA
Inspection of the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map 3'' 10980100J, Panel 8901,
effective September 6, 2006, indicates that Orphan Creek streams are not located in
a Special Flood Hazard Area, and the prol,ect should not alter FEMA flood zones
Therefore, a "Conditional Letter of Map Revision" (CLOMR)'is not necessary for this
site
9.4 Chico Branch
The Chico Branch site,is ch_ a racterized by disturbed forest and agricultural land used
for fivestock grazing and hay production (Photo 4). The rriam' hydrologic features
include two unnamed tributar "ies to Troublesome Creek' (UT 1 and UT' 2) and
Restoration Systems LLC 19 C ape Fear 02 Umbi ella Prospectus

adjacent floodplams. The proposed conservation easement area contains
approximately 8 -acres (Figure 7A).
9.4.1 Physiography, Topography and Land Use
The Chico Branch site is located in the Northern Inner Piedmont. Dissected,
irregular plains, low to high hills, ridges, and isolated monadnocks characterize.
regional physiography with low to moderate - gradient streams over cobble, gravel,
and sand - dominated substrate (Griffith et al. 2002). On -site elevations range from a
high of 720 -feet NGVD at the upper reach of UT 1 to a low of approximately 690 -feet
NGVD at the site.outfall (Figure 713)
This site drains an approximately ,0.1- square mile (61 -acre) watershed` (Figure 7C)
The, watershed, is dominated, by pasture, agricultural land, sparse forest, and ,rural
residential property. Impervious surfaces account for less than five- percent of-the
upstream land surface
Land use at the site is characterized by' disturbed forest, hay fields, ,and livestock
pasture Riparian zones and wetland areas primarily support herbaceous vegetation
that is sparse and disturbed due to livestock grazing, bush hogging, and regular land
management activities.
9.4.2 Water Quality
Chico Branch is located within USGS 14 -digit HUC 0303000201001 (Figure 2) and
NCDWR Subbasin 03 -06 -01 Topographic features of the Chico Branch site drain to
Troublesome Creek (Stream Index Number 16- 6 -(3)), which has been assigned a
Best Usage Classification of WS -V, NSW' (NCDWIt 2013). WS -V streams are
protected as water supplies, which are generally upstream, and draining to Class
WS -IV waters or waters used by industry to supply their employees with drinking
water or as waters formerly used as water supply. These waters are also ,protected
for Class C uses such as aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife,
secondary recreation, and agriculture. Secondary recreation includes wading,
boating, and other uses not` involving human body contact with waters on an
organized or frequent basis The NSW designation denotes nutrient sensitive waters,
which include areas with water quality problems associated with-excessive plant
growth resulting from nutrient enrichment Troublesome Creek, immediately
downstream of the site, is listed on the final 2012 or draft 2014 303(d) lists_for low
levels,of dissolved oxygen;(MDWQ 2012 and NCDENR 2014).
9.4.3 Vegetation
The Chico ' Branch site is characterized primarily, Eby agricultural land, iticl'udmg
pasture and hay fields, and some areas of 'disturbed forest in the 'downstream
reaches. Fields are dominated by fescue (Festuca sp.) with sparse natural recruits
including dog fennel (6upatorium capillifolium), nightshade (Solanum sp), clover
(Trifghum sp.), blackberry (Rubus argutus), dandelion (Taraxacum sp.), as well as
other oppprtunistic herbaceous species Stream channels have been trampled by
livestock and are ,characterized by wetter species, such as rushes Uuncus spp.) and
Restoration Systems LLC 20 Cape Fear 02 Umbi ella Prospectus

sedges (Carex spp.). Disturbed forest occurs in the downstream portions of the site,
which serves as the headwaters for an agriculture pond. Tree species include
loblolly pine (P►nus taeda), red maple (Acer rubrum), eastern red cedar Uumperus
v►rgm►ana), and sweetgum ('L►qu►dambarstyrac►flua)
9.4.4 Soils
Based on Web Soil Survey mapping (USDA 2014), the proposed conservation
easement areas associated with the -Chico Branch site contain two soil series (Figure
7D and Table 13)• Clifford, sandy clay loam (Typ►c Kanhapludults) and Fairview -
Poplar Forest complex (Typic Kanhapludults)
Table 13 Chico,Branch Site Sods
Map Unit Map Unit hydric
Symbol Name Status Description
This series consists of well - drained, moderately
FrD2 Fairview- Non -hydric eroded soils,found on 8 -15 percent hill slopes
Poplar complex on,ridges The parent material is saprolite
derived from schist and /or gneiss
A North Carolina Licensed Soil Scientisi identified a portion of the Chico Branch site
as containing hydric soil. Hydric soils are, located in floodplain portions of the site
and are likely soils of the Wehadkee and/or IWorsham series. On -site hydric soils are
grey to gley in color and are - cleared of forest vegetation and accessible by livestock.
Livestock grazing, annual mowing, for harvest of hay, and clearing of timber have
resulted in an herbaceous vegetative community. At this time, no detailed soil
mapping has been conducted -at the site.
9.4.5 Hydrology
Chico Branch site streams are not mapped by USGS or NWI. However, on site
investigations — including benthic macroinvertebrate collections in an adjacent,
similarly sized reference reach underlain by the same soil series— suggest the
streams would, be intermittent to perennial without existing ,land -use impacts
(Table, 14). , ,
Restoration Systems LLC 21 Cape Feai 02 Umbi ella Prospectus

Table 14, Chico Branch Exist3ng,Stream Flow Regime
Stream Stream Length Stream Order USGS-Stream In- field-Stream
Classification Classification
UT1 1447 1st Not mapped Intermittent /Perennial
,UT2 848 1st Notmapped Intermittent /Perennial
Total -2295
This hydrophysiographic region is characterized by moderate rainfall with
precipitation averaging 41.7 inches per year (USDA 1992). Site discharge - consists of
a combination of upstream basin catchment, groundwater flow,and precipitation
Based on regional curves (Harman, et al. 1999),,the bankfull di Q scharge for a
squ4re: mile watershedtis. expected to average �j6.9;CFS _A ,bankfull. discharge event
is expected to occur approximately every 13 to 1.5 -years (Rosgen 19,96, Leopold
1994)x,
9.4.6 Fluvial GeomorpFiology
Livestock trampling has aggraded channels targeted for restoration. These channels
are discontinuous with pockmarked soils and adjacent comp_ action resulting in
accelerated overland runoff In addition, small impoundments within the channels
result yin, an:-alternating pattern of aggradation and scour. A lack of deep- rooted
vegetation and removal, of stream substrate, combined with heavy stocking rates of
livestock with unrestricted access to the channels, results in shallow, depressions
devoid of any discernable geometry. -
An adjacent reference stream, not impacted by livestock, exhibits channel
mor- phology of an E -type channel with natural sinuosity 'The" reference channel
appears slightly smaller than regional curves; however; dimension, pattern, and
profile appear'suitable`as a'reference for the Chico Branch site.
9.4:7 FEMA
Inspection of the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map, 3710891200J, Panel 8912,
effective July 3, 2007, indicates that Chico Branch streams are not located in a
Special Flood Hazard Area, and the project should not alter FEMA flood zones
Therefore, a "Conditional Letter of Map Revision" (CLOMR) is not necessary"for this
site
9.5 - Major'Hill'
The Major Hill site,'is. characterized by disturbed forestand agricultural land used
for livestock grazing" and hay production (Photo 5) The main hydrologic features
include two unnamed tributaries to Pine Hill Branch (UT 1 and, UT 2) and adjacent
floodplains The proposed conservation easement area contains approximately 10-
acres (Figure 8A).
Restoration Systems LLC 22 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus

9.5.1 Physiography, Topography and Land Use
The Major Hill site is located in the Carolina Slate Belt. Dissected, irregular plains
characterize regional physiography with moderate to steep slopes and low to
moderate - gradient streams over boulder and cobble - dominated substrate (Griffith
et al. 2002) On -site elevations range from a high of 560 -feet NGVD at the upper
reach of'UT 1 to a low of approximately 510 -feet NGVD at the site outfall (Figure 813).
This site drains an approximately 0 09- square mile (60 4 -acre) watershed (Figure
8C) The watershed is dominated by pasture, agricultural land, sparse forest, and
sparse residential property. Impervious surfaces account for less than five- percent
of the upstream land surface.
Land use at the site is characterized by hay fields, livestock pasture, row crop
production, and disturbed forest Row crops were soybeans at the time of the initial
site visit; however, the landowner is converting the property back into livestock
pasture in the near future. Riparian zones in the lower half of UT 1 and all of UT 2
are comprised of disturbed hardwood forest that are accessible by livestock
9.5.2 Water Quality
Major Hill is located within USGS 14 -digit HUC 03030002050050 (Figure 2) and
NCDWR Subbasin 03 -06 -04 (Figure 2). Topographic features of the Major Hill site
drain off site to Pine Hill Branch (Stream Index Number 16- 28 -5 -1), which has been
assigned a Best Usage Classification of WS -V, NSW ( NCDWR 2013) WS -V streams
are protected as water supplies that are generally upstream and draining to Class
WS -IV waters or waters used by industry to supply their employees with drinking
water or as waters formerly used as water supply. These waters are also protected
for Class C uses such as aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife,
secondary recreation, and agriculture Secondary recreation includes wading,
boating, and other uses not involving human body contact with waters on an
organized or frequent basis, The NSW designation denotes nutrient sensitive waters,
which include areas with water quality problems associated with excessive plant
growth resulting from nutrient enrichment Pine Hill Branch, adjacent to the site
discussed here, is not listed on the final 2012 or draft 2014 303(d) lists, ( NCDWQ
2012 and NCDEN,R 2014)
9.5.3 Vegetation
The Major Hill site is characterized primarily by agricultural land, including pasture
and hay fields and some areas of disturbed forest Fields are dominated by fescue
(Festuca sp.) planted for ilivestock Stocking rates appear high leading to
opportunistic natural recruits of aggressive species including curly d6ck (Rumex
cr,►spus), cocklebur (Xanth►um strumar►um), d'og fennel ,(Eupatorium cap►ll►folium),
nightshade (Solanum sp.), and dandelion (Taraxacum sp )." Disturbed forest is
characterized by hardwood species' such as willow oak ,(Quercus phellos), post oak
(Quercus stellata), white oak (Quercus alba), hickory (Carya sp.), red maple (Ater
rubrum), red cedar (Jun►peros'v►rgm ► ana), and sweetgum '(L►quidam bar styraciflua),
Restoration Systems LLC 23 Cape Fear 02 Umhi ella ProspectuS

with extensive invasive species such as Russian olive (Elaeganus angustifolia),
Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), and rose' f Rosa sp.).
9.5.4 Soils
Based on Web Soil Survey mapping (USDA 2014), the proposed conservation
easement areas associated with the Major- Hill site contain five soil series (Figure 81)
and Table 15): Efland silt loam (Typic Hapludults), Georgeville silt loam (Typic
Kanhapludalts), Herndon silt loam (Typic Kanhapludalts), local alluvial land, and
Orange silt loam (Albaquic Hapludalfs).
Table 15 Major Hill Site Soils
Map Unit Map Unit Hydric Description
Symbol Name Status
This series,consisfs_of well drained soils,found
along 6:�10,pefcent slopes. This °series,i thin,
EaC Efland silt loam Non- hydric can be associated ,with`large _,rock�outcrops, and
is derived from,parent material of the °Car'ohna
slate belt
This series consists of well- dramed,soils on 6 -10
GaC2 Georgeville silt
Non- hydric percent hillslopes -on ridges This series is
loam
formed in residuum weathered from
metavolcamcs and /or argilite
Lc land, poorly
This series consists of well - drained soils on 6 -10
HdC Herndon silt
- Non hydrtc percent hillslopes�on ridges. This series is
loam
formed in residuum weathered from
metavolcamcs and)"' argiliie.
9.5.5 Hydrology
The USGS maps UT 1 as intermittent, while UT 2 is unmapped The NWI does not
map any of the site's channels. However, on -site investigations— including benthic
macroinvertebrate samples collected in the upper reaches of UT 1 using the Qual -4
technique— suggest UT 1 is perennial. UT 2 appears to be intermittent and was dry
during summer field investigations (Table 16).
Restoration Systems LLC 24 Cape Fear 02 Umbi ella Prospectus
This series consists of nearly level, poorly
Local alluvial
drained soils,on floodplains and is developed
fT"om loamy alluvial sediments derived from
Lc land, poorly
Hydric
igneous and metamorphic rock This series is
drained
not consistent in sequence, development, or
arrangement of layers
This series consists of moderately well - drained
Orange silt
ObC
soils +on 6 -10 percent hill slopesgonridges. This
Non- hydric
loam
series�is formed,in residuum weathered from
rR N_, � , tee: . , l..--,
_ - metavolcamcs and /or argihfe,
9.5.5 Hydrology
The USGS maps UT 1 as intermittent, while UT 2 is unmapped The NWI does not
map any of the site's channels. However, on -site investigations— including benthic
macroinvertebrate samples collected in the upper reaches of UT 1 using the Qual -4
technique— suggest UT 1 is perennial. UT 2 appears to be intermittent and was dry
during summer field investigations (Table 16).
Restoration Systems LLC 24 Cape Fear 02 Umbi ella Prospectus

Table 16 Major Hill Existing Stream Flow Regime
Stream Stream Length Stream Order USGS Stream In -field Stream
Classification Classification
Tributary 1 1552 1st /2nd Intermittent Perennial
'Tributary 2 858 151 Not mapped Intermittent
Total 2410
It should be noted that an agriculture pond has impounded the upper reach, of UT 1
Benthic macroinvertebrate measurements collected upstream of the influence of
this pond indicate the channel is perennial leading into the pond. Attenuation and
storage of stream flow appear to have resulted in a loss of channel
forming /maintenance flows below the pond This, coupled with dense herbaceous
vegetation and livestock trampling, has resulted in a completely aggraded channel
below the pond.
This hydrophysiographic, region is characterized by moderate rainfall with
precipitation averaging 43 7- inches per year (based on data provided by NOAA
2014) Site discharge consists of a combination of upstream basin catchment,
groundwater °flow, and precipitation Based on regional curves (Harman et al. 1999),
the bankfull discharge for a 0 09- square mile watershed is expected'to average 16.2 -
CFS. A bankfull discharge event is expected to occur approximately every 1 3 to 1 5-
years (Rosgen 1996, Leopold 1994).
9.5.6 `Fluvial Geomorphology
Currently, channels targeted for restoration are characterized as entrenched and /o`r
incised G -type or E -type incised -- channels -with, oversized cross - sectional areas, little
to no riffle -pool morphology, and nw access to floodplains during high discharge
events (BHR range > 16 to, 1.8). Sinuosity appears to be relatively normal in the
lower reaches, measuring' 1.2; however, channel erosion has resulted in migrating
channels, mass wasting, and tight meander radii
The upper reach of UT 1 has been impounded and aggraded by livestock trampling
A lack of deep- rooted vegetation ,and removal of stream ,substrate, combined with
intensive livestock access to the channel results in no measurable, channel
characteristics.
In general, the Major Hill site streams have been impacted by'land clearing,
impoundment, sediment *and nutrient •inputs, 'channel incision and straightening,
livestock •tramphng,'removal 'of cobble substrate,'aggradation of silt and 'sand, and
removal of'woody vegetation.
Restoianon Systems LLC 25 Cape Fear 02 Umbiella Prospectus

9.5.7 FEMA
Inspection of the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map 3710879700J, Panel 8797,
effective September 6, 2006, indicates that Major Hill streams are not located in a
Special Flood Hazard Area, and the project should not alter FEMA flood zones.
Therefore, a "Conditional Letter of Map Revision" (CLOMR) is not necessary for this
site.
9.6 Maple Hill Farm
Pasture, fallow fields, and mature forest characterize the Maple Hill Farm site
Historically, the property was used for livestock grazing, including beef cattle and
horses (Photo 6) Within the past ,few _years, livestock have been - removed and
pastures-maintained for hay, production The main hydrologic features include four
UTs to arys Creek (UT 1, UT 2A, UT 213, and; UT 3) and adjacent floodplains. The
primary restoration feature (UT 1) has , been rerouted across the property,
bypassing its historic floodplain. The proposed conservation easement area,
including the historic UT 1 floodplain, encompasses approximately 111 -acres
(Figure 9A)
9.6.1 Physiography, Topography and Land Use
Maple_ Hill Farm is located in the Carolina Slate Belt. Dissected, irregular plains
characterize regional physiography with moderate to steep slopes and low to
moderate - gradient streams over boulder, and cobble - dominated substrate (Griffith
et al 2002): On -site elevations range from a high of 620 -feet NGVD at the upper
reach of UT 1 to a low of approximately 580 -feet NGVD at the outfall of site
tributaries (Figure 9B)
This site cumulatively drains an approximately 0.26- square mile (162- acres)
watershed amongst three - individual- drainage basins (UT 1, UT 2, and. UT 3; Figure
9C) The watershed is dominated by pasture, - agricultural land, and forest.
Impervious surfaces account for less than one - percent of the upstream land surface.
Land use at the site is characterized by hay fields- and disturbed forest. The property
was ,intensively grazed by beef cattle Currently, no livestock occupy the property,
but future land- management objectives include the reintroduction of livestock.
Riparian zones are composed of a thin forest fringe characterized by a thick
understory of vines.and invasive shrubs
9.6.2 Water Quality
Maple Hill Farm is located within USGS 14 -digit HUC 03030002050020 (Figure 2)
and NCDWR Subbasm 03 -06 -04 Topographic features of Maple Hill Farm drain to
Marys Creek (Stream Index,Number 16 -26), which has been assigned a Best Usage
Classification of WS -V, NSW _(NCDWR 2013)_ WS -V streams are protected as water
supplies that are generally upstream and draining to Class WS -IV waters or waters
used by industry to supply their employees with drinking water or as waters
formerly used as water supply. These waters are also protected for Class C uses such
as aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and
Restoration Systems LLC 26 Cape,Fear 02 Umbi ella Prospectus

agriculture Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses not
involving human body contact with waters on an organized or frequent basis. The
NSW designation denotes nutrient sensitive waters, which include areas with water
quality problems associated with excessive plant growth resulting from nutrient
enrichment Marys Creek; adjacent to the site, is not listed on the final 2012 or draft
2014 303(d) lists (NCDWQ 2012 and NCDENR 2014); however, it was historically
listed for habitat degradation and impaired biological .integrity, most likely due to
agriculture
9.6.3 Vegetation
Primarily hay fields and some areas of disturbed forest characterize Maple Hill Farm.
Fields are dominated by fescue (Festuca sp) with sparse natural recruits including
dog fennel (Eupatorium cap►Il►fol►um), nightshade (Solanum sp), blackberry (Rubus
argutus), dandelion (Taraxacum sp.), as well as other opportunistic herbaceous
species Scattered trees located adjacent to site tributaries include Chinese privet
(L►gustrum s►nense), winged elm (Ulmus alata), pines (P►nus spp ), persimmon
(D►ospyros v►rg►n►ana), red maple (Acer rubrum), eastern red cedar Uun►perus
v►rg►n►ana), black walnut Uuglans n►gra), white oak (Quercus albs), sweetgum
(L►qu►dambarstyrac►flua), and poison ivy (Tox►codendron rad►cans)
9.6.4 Soils
Based on Web-Soil Survey mapping (USDA 2014), the proposed conservation
easement areas associated with Maple Hill Farm contain four soil series (Figure 9D
and Table 17)• Georgeville, silt loam (Typ ►c Kanhapludalts), Herndon silt loam (Typic
Kanhapludalts), local alluvial land, and Orange silt loam (Albaqu►c Hapludalfs)
(Remainder of page intended to,be blank)
Restoiation Systems LLC 27 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus
a

Table 17: Maple Hill Farm Site Sods
Map Unit Map`Unit -Hydric Description
Symbol Name - Status
This series consists,bf well - drained soils on 2 -6
Georgevilliisilt percent�liillslopes;on ridg'essThis series is
Ga92 loam Non- hydric formed m-residuum,weathered from,
metavolcanics and /or argilite
i.u�ai alluvial_
poorly Hydric
from loamy all uvial'sedimentstde rived' from
Lc land,
1,
igneous, and.metamorphicirock Thls,series,is
' diamed` = not consistent an,sequence,�development, or
arrangement of layers.
9.6.5 Hydrology
UT 1 and UT 3 are mapped- as.mtermittent by the USGS' (Figure 913) None ofthe site
channels is mapped by the NWI. UT 1 and UT 3 exhibit perennial characteristics in
the field UT 2A and UT 2B are not mapped; however, on -site investigations —
including a field review and NCDWQ stream forms — suggest UT 2A and UT 2B are
intermittent (Table 18).
(Remainder of page intended to'beMank)
1 The best available resolution (240k) of USGS topographic data used in GIS to create Figure 9B does
not map UT 3 However, the channel is clearly mapped as intermittent on 24k USGS quad sheets
Restoration Systems LLC 28 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus

Table 18 Maple Hill Farm Existing Stream Flow Regime
Total 3990
This hydrophysiographic region is characterized by moderate rainfall with
precipitation averaging 43 7- inches per year (based on data provided by NOAA
2014) Site discharge consists of a combination of upstream basin catchment,
groundwater flow, and precipitation Based on regional curves (Harman et al. 1999),
the ,bankfull discharge for a 0-06 to 01- square mile watershed is expected to
average 117 and 16.9 -CFS, respectively A bankfull discharge event is expected to
occur approximately every 13,to 1 5 -years (Rosgen 1996, Leopold 1994)
9.6.6 Fluvial Geomorphology
The primary restoration feature at the Maple Hill Farm is UT 1, which has been
rerouted across pasture, bypassing the floodplain. The stream is located on the side
slope, at a higher ' el - evation than the floodplain, resulting in a low; slope, straight
channel, with poor sbstrate and no, riffle -pool morphology At the lower reaches of
the stream, the slope becomes excessive, and scour along the channel banks is
prevalent. The historic channel, across the floodplain has been filled and planted
with grass An approximately 1 1 -acre area of hydric soils straddles the historic
channel Hydric soils have been ditched to drain surface water off the,pasture
In general, Maple Hill Farm streams are proposed for enhancement by fencing
livestock, removing invasive species, and planting, native hardwood vegetation. The
primary restoration feature, UT 1, has been dredged /straightened and bypasses the
historic floodplain The Sponsor proposes to relocate this channel to its' natural
location in the floodplain
9.6.7 FEMA _
Inspection of the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map 3,7,10878900J, Panel 8789,
effective September 6, 2006, indicates that Maple Hill, streams are not located in a
Special Flood Hazard Area, and the project should not alter FEMA flood zones.
Therefore, a "Conditional Letter of'Map Revision" (CLOMR) is not necessary f6"r this
site
Restoiation Systems LLC 29 Cape Fear 02 Umbiella Prospectus,
USGS Stream
In -field Stream
Stream
Stream Length
Stream Order
Classification
Classification
Tributary 1
1312
Lt
Intermittent
Perennial
Tributary 2A
711
1st
Not mapped
Intermittent
Tributary 213
1090
1st
Not mapped
Intermittent
Tributary 3
877
1st
Intermittent
Perennial
Total 3990
This hydrophysiographic region is characterized by moderate rainfall with
precipitation averaging 43 7- inches per year (based on data provided by NOAA
2014) Site discharge consists of a combination of upstream basin catchment,
groundwater flow, and precipitation Based on regional curves (Harman et al. 1999),
the ,bankfull discharge for a 0-06 to 01- square mile watershed is expected to
average 117 and 16.9 -CFS, respectively A bankfull discharge event is expected to
occur approximately every 13,to 1 5 -years (Rosgen 1996, Leopold 1994)
9.6.6 Fluvial Geomorphology
The primary restoration feature at the Maple Hill Farm is UT 1, which has been
rerouted across pasture, bypassing the floodplain. The stream is located on the side
slope, at a higher ' el - evation than the floodplain, resulting in a low; slope, straight
channel, with poor sbstrate and no, riffle -pool morphology At the lower reaches of
the stream, the slope becomes excessive, and scour along the channel banks is
prevalent. The historic channel, across the floodplain has been filled and planted
with grass An approximately 1 1 -acre area of hydric soils straddles the historic
channel Hydric soils have been ditched to drain surface water off the,pasture
In general, Maple Hill Farm streams are proposed for enhancement by fencing
livestock, removing invasive species, and planting, native hardwood vegetation. The
primary restoration feature, UT 1, has been dredged /straightened and bypasses the
historic floodplain The Sponsor proposes to relocate this channel to its' natural
location in the floodplain
9.6.7 FEMA _
Inspection of the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map 3,7,10878900J, Panel 8789,
effective September 6, 2006, indicates that Maple Hill, streams are not located in a
Special Flood Hazard Area, and the project should not alter FEMA flood zones.
Therefore, a "Conditional Letter of'Map Revision" (CLOMR) is not necessary f6"r this
site
Restoiation Systems LLC 29 Cape Fear 02 Umbiella Prospectus,

9.7 Rocky Top
The Rocky Top site m characterized by disturbed forest and agricultural land used
for livestock grazing and-hay production (Photo 7). The main hydrologic features
include two UTs to Reedy Branch (UT 1 and UT 2) and adjacent' floodplains. The
proposed conservation easement area contains approximately 5 2 -acres (Figure
10A).
9.7.1 Physiography, Topography and Land Use
The Rocky Top site is located in the Carolina Slate Belt. Dissected, irregular- plains
characterize regional physiography with moderate to steep slopes and low to
moderate - gradient streams over boulder and cobble - dominated substrate (Griffith
et al. 2002). On -site elevations range from ,a high of 660 -feet NGVD at the, upper
reach of UT 1 to a low of approximately 610 -feet NGVD at the site outfall (Figure
1013)
This site drains an approximately 0.07- square mile (42- acres) watershed (Figure
10C). The watershed is dominated by pasture and forest Impervious surfaces
account for less than one - percent of the upstream land surface
Land use at the site is characterized by disturbed forest, hay fields, and livestock
pasture Riparian zones and wetland areas are primarily composed of disturbed
forest Forest areas are accessible to livestock and have a thin understory with
compacted soils. Multiple, active springs are focated;along the margins of the stream
These areas have primarily been cleared of forest vegetation and are characterized
by'herbaceous vegetation that is sparse and disturbed due to livestock grazing, bush
hogging, and regular land management activities
9.7.2 Water Quality
Rocky Top is located within USGS 14 -digit HUC 03030002050050 (Figure 2) and
NCDWR Subbasin 03- 06 -04. Topographic features of the Rocky Top site drain to
Reedy Branch (Stream, Index Number 16- 28 -3,), which has been assigned a Best
Usage Classification of WS -V, NSW ( NCDWR 2013). WS -V streams are protected as
water supplies that are generally upstream and draining to Class WS' -IV waters or
waters used by industty to supply their employees with drinking water-or as waters
formerly used ,as water, supplies These waters are also protected ,for Class C uses
such as aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation,
and agriculture Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses not
involving human body contact with waters on an organized or frequent basis The
NSW designation denotes nutrient sensitive waters, which include areas with water
quality problems associated with excessive plant growth resulting from nutrient
enrichment Reedy Branch, adjacent to the site; is not listed on the final 2012 or
draft 2014 303(d) lists (NCDW.Q 2012 and NCDWR 2014).
9.7.3 Vegetation
The Rocky Top site is characterized primarily by�agricultural land including pasture,
hay fields, and disturbed forest. Fields are dominated by fescue (Festuca sp) with
Restoration Systems LLC 30 Cape Fear 02 llmbi ells Prospectus

sparse natural recruits including knotweed (Polygonum spp.), dog fennel
(Eupatorium caplllifobum), curly dock (Rumex &ispl s), cranesbill (Geranium
carolimanum), clover (Trifolium repens), and nlghtshade� (Solanum ,sp ), ,as well as
other opportunistic herbaceo_"us species. Scattered trees located adjacent to site
tributaries include Chinese privet (Ligustrum smense), winged elm (Ulmus aldta)',
red maple (Ater rubfurri); eastern red cedar Uuniperus ylrginiana), green ash
(Fraxinus pennsylyanica), sweetgum (L"iquidambar sty_ raciflua), and poison, ivy
(Tokicodendron ra "dicans)
'9J.4 Soils
Based on Web Soil Survey, mapping (USDA 2014), the 'proposed conservation
easement areas associated with the Rocky Top site contain one soil series (Figure
9D and Table 19) Gol'dston charinery silt loam (Typic Dystrudepts).
Table.19' Rocky Top Site Soils
Map Unit iMap Unit Hydric
Symbol Name Status Description
Goldston This,series consists of'well -.
drained soils on 10
GcD channery silt Non- hydric 15 percent,hill slopes on ridges This series
loam formed from residuum weathered from
metavolcamcs and /or argilhte`
Site jurisdictional wetlands /hydric soils were delineated in the ,field following
guidelines set forth in the USACE Wetlands Delineation 'Manual' (Environmental
Laboratory 1987) and subsequent regional supplements (USAGE' 2012), and located
using GPS, technology with reported sub -meter accuracy - `David Bailey of the USACE
approved jurisdictional delineations duringa.field visit on May 29 „2014
9.7.5 Hydrology
Rocky Top site streams ,are not mapped by either the USGS or the NWI However,
on -site investigations, — including NCDWQ stream id'entifi'cation forms and benthic
macroinvertebrate sampling collected using the Qual -4, technique— suggest that site
streams are perennial (Table,20)
Table'20 Rocky Top Existing Stream Flow Regime
Stream Stream Length Stream Order USGS Stream In -field Stream
Classification Classification
Tributary 1 944 1St Not mapped Perennial
Tributary'2 270 1St /2nd Not mapped Perennial
Total 1214
Restoration Systems LLC 34 Cape Fear 02 Umbt ella Prospectus

This region is characterized by moderate rainfall with precipitation averaging 43.7 -
inches per year (based on data provided by NOAA 2014) Site discharge consists of a
combination of upstream basin catchment, groundwater flow, and precipitation.
Based ,on regional. curves (Harman et-al. 1999), the bankfull discharge for. a,0,07-
square, mile watershed.is expected to average 13.0 -CFS A barikf ill discharge event
is expected to occur, approximately every 13 to 1 5 -years (Rosgen 1996, Leopold
1994).
9.7.6 Fluvial Geomorphology
Currently, channels,targeted for restoration are characterized as entrenche6and /or
incised G -type or F- type,channels with little to no, riffle -pool ye-pool
channel - cross- secfional - areas, and no access to floodplams during -high_ discharge
events (BHR range > 2) UT 2 originates from a springhead and has been ditched
along the margins of the floodplain, resulting in a sinuosity of 1.02. UT 1 retains a
reasonable sinuosity (approximately 12); however, the loss of forest "vegetation and
hoof shear-has destabilized some outer bends, resulting in a loss of pattern including
tight meander radii, shoot cutoffs, extended pools, and a loss of suitable channel
substrate
In general, sediment and nutrient inputs, channel incision and manipulation,
livestock trampling, removal of- cobble substrate, aggradation of silt and sand, as
well as removal of woody vegetation have impacted Rocky Top site streams.
9.7.7 FEMA
Inspection of the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map 3710878700J, Panel 8787,
effective September 6, 2006, indicates,that Rocky Top streams are not located in a
Special Flood Hazard Area, and the project should not alter FEMA flood zones
Therefore, a "Conditional Letter of Map Revision" (CLOMR) is not necessary for this
site
9.8 Slingshot Creek
The Slingshot Creek site is characterized by livestock pasture and disturbed forest
(Photo 8). The main hydrologic features include three unnamed tributaries to Lake
Hunt (Main .Channel and Unnamed Tributaries (UT) 1 ,and 2), and adjacent
floodplams Site streams are accessible by hvestock,and have.been heavily disturbed
The proposed conservation easement area encompasses approximately 13 acres
(Figure 11A).
9.8.1 Physiography, Topography and, Land Use
Slingshot Creek-is located in the Carolina Slate Belt. Dissected, irregular plains
characterize regional physiography with moderate to steep slopes and, low- to
moderate - gradient streams over boulder- and cobble - dominated substrate (G'rifflfh
et al. 2002). On -site elevations range from a high of 780 feet NGVD ,at the upper
reach of the Main Channel to a low of approximately 740 feet NGVD at the site
outfall (Figure 11B)
Restoiahon Systems LLC 32 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus

This site cumulatively drains an approximately 0 4- square mile (284 -acre)
watershed (Figure 11C) The watershed is dominated by pasture, agricultural land,
and sparse residential development on the outskirts of Reidsville Impervious
surfaces account for less than 5 percent of the upstream land surface
Land use, at the site is characterized by livestock pasture, hay fields, and disturbed
forest. Livestock have unrestricted access to site streams. A narrow riparian fringe
has developed on the stream ,margins that is composed of opportunistic species,
invasive species, and a few mature tree species
9.8.2 Water Quality
Slingshot Creek is located within USGS 14 -digit HUC 03030002010010 (Figure 2)
and NCDWR Subbasin 03 -016 -01 Topographic features of Slingshot Creek drain to
Hunt Lake and ultimately to Troublesome Creek (Stream Index Number 16- 6- 2 -(1)),
which has been assigned a_Best Usage Classification of WS- III &B, NSW ( NCDWR
2013). WS -III streams are protected as water supplies for drinking; culinary, or food
processing purpose's where a more protective WS -I or II classification is not feasible.
The supplemental Classification of B includes Waters protected for all Class C uses
in,addition to primary, recreation Primary recreational activities include swimming,
skin diving, water'skung, and similar uses involving, human body,pritact with water
where such activities take place in an; organized° manner or-on a frequent basis.'WS-
III waters are- generally in lows to moderately developed watersheds_ The NSW
designation denotes 'nutrfent'sensitive waters, which include areas with water
quality problems associated'' with excessive plant growth resulting `from nutrient
enrichment
Troublesome Creek (Stream I_ndex Number 16- 6 -(3)) downstream from the site and
is listed on both the final- 2012 and draft 2014 303(d) lists ( NCDWQ 2012 and
NCDENR 2014) for low dissolved oxygen, most likely due to agricultural pollution
9.8.3'- Vegetation
Slingshot Greek is characterized>,primarily by livestock,pasture and disturbed forest.
Pasture is dominated,by fescue ,(Festuca sp.) and Bermuda grass' (Cynodon dacty'lon)
with opportunistic recruits including ldog fennel (Eupatorium cdpillifolium),
nightshade (Solarium sp ), blackberry (Rubus argutus), polygonum (Polygonuiri sp ),
as well �as other herbaceous species Scattered' trees - located adjacent to site
tributaries include Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), green ash (fraxinus
pennsylvanica), American "sycamore (platanus occidentahs.); persimmon (Diospyros
virginiana), red maple (Acer rubrum), eastern red cedar Uuniperus virginiana), tag
alder (alnus serrulata), white oak (Quercus alba), sweetgum (Liquidambar
styraciflua), and catbrier (Smilax rotundifolia).
9.8.4 Soils , , I .
Based on Web Soil Survey mapping (USDA 2014), the proposed conservation
easement areas associated with Slingshot Creek contain six soil series (Figure 11D
and Table 21). Clifford sandy clay loam (Typic Kanhapludults) Codorus loam
Restoration Systems LLC 33 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus

(Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts), Davie sandy loam (Aquultic Hapludalfs),.Fairview- Poplar
Forest complex (YTypic,Kanhapludults), Nathalie,sandy loani;`(T.ypic Fragiudults), and
Poplar Forest sandyclay. -loam (Typic Kanhapludults)
Table 21• Slingshot Creek -Site Soils
Map,Unit Map ;Unit Hydric
mbol Name Status - £Descripiion
Sy
This series consists,of well - drained, moderately
CgB2 Clifford sandy Non hydric eroded soils,foundialong72 -8 percent slopes�The
� -
- . -clay loam parent >material=is saprohte dewed from schist
and /or-gneiss
This - series - consists of somewhat poorly ;drained
Davie sandy soils found "along 218;percent slope`s. The'parent
DcB, aoain Non hydric. •material is er siduum froin'inter`meaiate &-inafic
k
,:� ac , _ _ . _ • ., _ inetamorahtc•or igneous, rock - .•
Thisiseries consisis,of well - drained soils found
NaB
Nathahe sandy, along;2,- 8:percent slopes <The,parent material`m
Nori hydrtc
-- — - } : -loam - residuum fromifelsic igneous or metamorphic
9.8.5 Hydrology
Slingshot Creek,streams:(,Main Channel, -U,T 1 and -'U -,T ,�are;mapped as,intermittent
by,:.the US,GS ,(Figure 1- B) =and, not represented in the NWI: Site streams exhibited,
character,ISUCs,of perennial'flow;during field- review (Table�22). ;
Restoration Systems LLC
(Remainder of page intended to be blank)
,
34 Cape Fear 02 Umbi ella Prospectus

Table 22 Slingshot Creek Existing Stream Flow Regime
Stream Stream Length Stream Order USGS Stream In _field Stream
Classification Classification
Main Channel
1809
1st -and 2nd
Intermittent
Perennial
UT 1
1968
151
Intermittent
Perennial
UT'2
130
15t
Intermittent
Perennial
Total 3907`
This hydrophysiographic region is characterized, by moderate rainfall with
precipitation averaging 4'1 7 inches per,year (USDA' 1992): Site discharge consistslof
a combination of upstream basin',catchment; groundwater flow, and precipitation
Based on regional curves (Harman, et al 1999), the, bankfull ,discharge for a 04-
square mile watershed is� expected to average 48'4 CFS. Current research also
estimates a bankfull discharge, of 48 4 CTS is expected to occur approximately every
1.3 -1.5 -years (Rosgen 1996, Leopold 1994).
9.8.6 'Fluvial Geomorphology
Currentl'y,.channels,targeted forrestoration are characterized as entr;enched.and > > /or
incised G -type or F -type channels with little, to no sinuosity, Tittle. to no riffle -pool
morphology, oversized channel cross- sectional areas, and) no access to 'floodplains
during high discharge events, (B1-1R range > 2 2 to 2.7). Sinuosity was measured at
1.07 using topographic surveys, aerial photography, and visual observation during,
nel&surveys
In general, the ,streams comprising the Slingshot Creek site. have been impacted by
livestock hoof shear, excessive sediment and nutrient ,inputs; channel incision,
aggradation of siltand sand, and' removal of woody vegetation
9:8.7 FEMA
Inspection of the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map, 3710798400J,, Panels 7984 and
7994, effective September 3; 2007, indicates that Slingshot Creek streams are not
located in a'Special Flood Hazard Area, and the tproject,should not�altec FEMA_flood,
zones. Therefore, a "Conditional Letter of'Map Revision "' (CLOMR)' is not necessary
for this site
10 RESTORATION PLAN
The primary ,goals of the,Phase I mitigation plan, include: 1) reducing, and /or'
eliminating non -point source pollution associated with heavy livestock and
agricultural activities; 2) improving ;water quality 'functiong by restoring native,
woody riparian vegetation 'adjacent to Phase I channels; 3) improving floodpl'ain
function by increasing hydraulic resistance to floodwaters; 4) improving ,aquatic
habitat through channel stabilization and increased habitat `heterogeneity; and 5)
Restoration Systems LLC 35 Cape,Fear 02 Umbi ella,Prospectus

improving near - channel habitat for terrestrial species and refugia for aquatic
species through restoration of native, woody riparian vegetation
10.1 Reference Data
10.1.1 Stream Reference
At this time, site - specific reference streams have not been identified for all sites
However-, relatively undisturbed sections of stream have been identified at Chico
Branch, Maple Hill Farm, Rocky Top, and Major Hill sites Data collected at these,
reference reaches, including cross sectional data, benthic macroinvertebrate
collections, and hardwood forest composition, were utilized to approximate
mitigation potential on these sites. These reference reaches have been compared to
a database of reference sites compiled by Axiom for other restoration sites in the
area (Cedarock Park, Causey Farm Mitigation Site, and Bass Mountain Mitigation
Site) Reference data, used in, conjunction with appropriate regional curves for the
Piedmont of North Carolina-(Harman et al 1999), allowed for comparison of existing,
disturbed conditions to relatively undisturbed reference conditions at the proposed
mitigation sites.
10.1.2 Reference Forest Ecosystem
According to Mitigation Site Classification ( "MiST ") guidelines (OSEPA 1990),
Reference Forest Ecosystems ( "RFEs ") must be established for restoration sites
RFEs are forested areas used to model restoration efforts at each site in relation to
soils, hydrology, and vegetation RFEs should be ecologically stable climax
communities and should represent believed historical conditions of the restoration
site Data describing plant community composition and structure are collected at the
RFEs and subsequently applied as reference data for design of each restoration site
Reference'vegetation communities for each site have not been identified at this time.
During detailed restoration planning, a site - specific reference, forest will be located
and tree and shrub species identified in this area will be utilized, in, addition to other
relevant species to supplement community descriptions for Piedmont Low
Mountain Alluvial Forest and Dry -Mesic Oak- Hickory Forest (Schafale and Weakley
1990) Species that may occur in these vegetative communities are listed in Table 23.
(Remainder of page intended to be blank)
Restoi ation Systems LLC 36 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Pi ospectus

Table 23 Reference Forest Ecosystem Species
Piedmont Alluvial Forest Dry -Mesic Oak - Hickory Forest
(Floodplains and Slopes) (Upland Side Slopes)
Canopy Species Understory'Species Canopy Species Understory Snecies ies
Acer rubrunt
Acer i ubnim
Acer nibrum
Acet rubrum
Liquidambar styrocti lua
Betula mgra
Carya alba/tomentosa/glabia
Carpinus carohntana
Ltridendrum tuliptfera
Carpmus carohntana
Ltriodendton tuhptfera
Diospyros vigmtana
Anus taeda
La iodendron tuliptfera
Pinus toedo
Ilex opaca
Platanus occtdentalts
Anus virginiana
Juniperus virgmtana
Quercus phellos
Quei cus alba
Pmus taeda
Quer cus shumbardn
Quercus falcata
Cot nus floc rda
3 Ulmus amen icana
Quercus rubs a
Celtts laevigato
Fraxmus pemtsylvamca
10.2 Site Work Plans
This section contains preliminary descriptions of proposed work plans All final
stream lengths presented here, are approximate and will be ,adjusted following the
completion of the Sites' 60 %, design Design sheets, and reports will be adequate to
accurately determine the appropriate length of each restored channel, which will
serve as the basis of crediudetermination for the UMBI.
10.2.1 Motes Creek
A summary of the restorative actions proposed at Motes Creek is provided in Table
24 and on Figure 12A. In general, proposed activities involve Stream Restoration,
Stream Enhancement I1, upgr =ading an existing pond outfall, the construction of a
marsh treatment area below -the pond outfall, and riparian community restoration
Table 24 Motes Creek Work Plan Summary
Stream`Reach Approx. Final Mitigation Activity
Length (LF)
Motes Creek 2,212 Stream Restoration, Riparian Restoration
UT 2 2,362 Stream Restoration, Riparian Restoration,
Enhancement 11
Total
6,693
Restoration Systems LLC 37 Cape Fear 02'Umbi ella Pi ospectuS

10.2.2 Benton Branch
A summary of the proposed, restorative. actions at Benton Branch is provided in
Table 25 and on Figure 12B. In general, proposed stream restoration activities
include pond removal in the upper reaches of UT ,1, UT 2, and 'UT 3, as well as
channel excavation and" stabilisation, and ehanhel barikfill. Proposed Stream
Enhancement I activities mclude,restoring dimension and profile to, reaches in.UT 2,
UT 4, and UT 6 affected by livestock grazing and riparian clearing. Proposed Stream
Enhancement I4'activities include removal of invasive species, fencing, and•p1'anting
of native•hardwoodspecies along reaches of Benton Branch, UT 5, and UT 6
Table 25 Benton Branch Work Plan Summary
Stream Reach Approx Final Mitigation Activity
Length (LF)
UT 1 828 Stream Restoration, Riparian Restoration
UT 3 1,385 Stream Restoration, Riparian Restoration,
Enhancement 11
UT 5 1,478. Stream Restoration, Enhancement I)
Total
10.2.3 Orphan Creek
10,343
A summary of the proposed restorative actions at Orphan Creek is provided in Table
26 and on Figure 12C. In general, proposed stream restoration activities include
channel excavation and stabilization, and channel backfill 'Proposed Stream
Enhancement II activities include removal of invasive species, fencing, and planting
of native hardwood, species along UT 3
(Remainder of paye4ntended to be blank)
Restoration Systems LLC 38 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus

Table 26 Ot phan Creek Work,Plan Summary
Stream Reach Approx. Final Mitigation Activity
Length (LF)
UT 1A 309 Stream Restoration
UT 2 394 Stream Restoration
Total 3,081
10.2.4 Chico Branch
A summary of the proposed restorative actions at Chico Branch is provided in Table
27 and on Figure 12D. In general, proposed stream and wetland restoration
activities include channel excavation and stabilization, and channel'backfill
Table 27 Chico Branch Work Plan Summary
Stream Reach /Feature Approx. Final Mitigation Activity
Length (LF)
UT 2 1020 Stream Restoration
Total, 2,805
10.2.5 Major Hill
A summary of the proposed restorative actions at Major Hill is provided in Table 28
and on Figure 12E. In general, proposed stream restoration activities include
channel excavation and stabilization, and channel backfill. 'Proposed Stream
Enhancement (Level II) activities include removal of invasive species, fencing, and
planting of native hardw,00d,species along UT 2and a portion -of UT 1.
(Remainder of page intended to be blank)
RestoraUOn Systems LLC 39 Cape Fear 02 Umbi ella Prospectus

Figure SA: Benton Branch Site Features
Restoration, Systems LLC Cape fear 02 Utttbrelle Prospect15

Table 30 Rocky Top Work Plan Summary
Stream Reach Proposed Length Mitigation Activity
Tributary 2 245 Stream Restoration
Total 1,273
10.2.8 Slingshot Creek
A summary of the proposed restorative actions at Slingshot Creek is provided in
Table 31 and on Figure' 12H In general, proposed stream restoration activities
include channel excavation and stab'llizdtion, and channel backfill Proposed Stream
Enhancement I activities Include restoring dimension and profile to reaches in the
Main Channel and UT 1 affected by livestock grazing and riparian clearing Proposed
Stream Enhancement 11 activities include reinoval of invasive species, fencing, and
planting of native hardwood'species,along UT 1
Table 31. Slingshot Creek Work Plan Summary
Stream Reach }
Proposed ) ength t , , Mitigation Activity
'UT 1 1,122 Stream Restoration /Enhancement I and II
Total` 4,777'
10.3 Stream Restoration
Stream Restoration efforts are Intended to restore a stable, meandering stream at
new locations, imp roving'floodplain connectivity while using reference streams and
appropriate regionail ; c u,rves to design and construct natural hydrodynamics, stream
geometry, and local microtopography. Primary activities designed to restore`Phase I
channels include belt -width preparation ' and grading, channel excavation,
installation of channel plugs, backfilling of abandoned_ channels.. Installation of piped
channel crossings, and vegetative planting.;,, -
10.3.1 Belt width Preparation and Grading n I.
Care will`be taken fo'avoid the removal of existing, deeply "rooted vegetation within,
the belt -width corridor, which" often provides channel stability. Material excavated
`during grading will be, stockpiled immediately adjacent io channel segments to „be
abandoned and backfilled'following stream diversion.
Restoratloll Systems,LLC 41 Cape Feai 02 Umbrella Prospectus

Spoil material may be placed to stabilize temporary access roads and to .minimize
compaction of the underlying floodplam. However, all spoil will be removed from
floodplain surfaces upon.completion of construction activities
After preparation of the corridor, the design channels and updated profile surveys
will be developed, and the locations of each meander wavelength will be plotted and
staked along the profile Pool locations and other channel features may be modified
in the field based on local variations in the.floodplam profile
10.3.2 Channel Excavations
Channels will be constructed within the range of values developed during detailed
restoration planning. Regional curves and /or reference stream reaches (see Section
10 1 1) will be used to develop various stream geometry attributes
Stream banks and local belt -width areas of constructed channels will be
immediately planted with shrub and herbaceous vegetation to initiate stability,
preventing unintended erosion Deposition of shrub and woody debris into and /or
overhanging the constructed channels will be used to further increase each
channel's resistance to shear stress Particular attention will be directed toward
providing vegetative cover and root growth along the outer bends of each stream
meander. Live willow stakes will be purchased and /or collected on -site and inserted
through the root /erosion mat into underlying soils.
10.3.3 Channel Plugs
Impermeable plugs willbe installed along abandoned channel segments; The plugs
will consist of low - permeability materials or hardened structures designed -to, be of
sufficient strength to withstand the erosive energy of surface flow events across
each site. Dense clays, which may be imported from off -site if necessary, Will be
compacted within each channel for plug construction. Each plug will be of sufficient
width and depth to form an imbedded overlap in the existing banks,and bed.
10.3.4 Channel Backfilling
After impermeable plugs have been installed, abandoned channelswill be backfilled
Stockpiled materials will be pushed into abandoned channels. Suitable material
used for backf►lling may be derived from c n -site or off -site sources. Vegetation
debris (e&, root mats, top soils, shrubs, woody debris, etc.) will be 'redistributed
across the backfill area upon completion
10.3.5 Piped Stream Crossing
Landowner uses will sometimes necessitate the installation of piped channel
crossings to allow access to portions of the property otherwise isolated by stream
restoration activities Piped crossings will be constructed with pipes sized to
adequately pass anticipated stormwater flows with hydraulically stable riprap or
other suitable rock. Pipes will be large enough to handle the weight of anticipated
vehicular traffic. Approach grades will be at an approximate 10:1 slope and
Restoration Systems LLC 42 Cape Fear 02 llmbi ella Pi ospectus

constructed on hard, scour - resistant crushed rock or other permeable material free
of fines
10.3.6 In- stream Structures
The use of in- stream structures for grade control and habitat are essential for
successful stream restoration. In- stream structures maybe placed °in the channel to
elevate local water surface profiles, potentially flattening the water energy slope or
gradient. The structures will likely consist of log /rock cross -vanes or log /rock 1-
hook vanes designed primarily to direct stream energy into the center of the
channel and away from banks In addition, structures will be placed m relatively
straight reaches to provide secondary (perpendicular) flow cells during bankfull
events.
Log vanes may also be used to ,direct high- velocity -flows during bankfull ,events
toward the center of constructed' channels:'Log vanes will be constructed utilizing
large tree trunks harvested on -site or imported from off -site as necessary Tree
stems harvested for a log cross -vane arm must be long enough to be embedded into
the stream channel and extend, several feet into the floodplain Logs will create an
arm that slopes from the center of the channel upward to each stream bank at an
angle or 20 to 30- degrees A trench will be dug into the stream channel that is deep
enough for the head of the log to be at or, below, the channel invert. The trench is
then extended into the floodplain and the log -is set into the trench such that the log
arm is below the floodplain elevation If °the log is not of sufficient.siz_e to completely
,block,stream flow (gaps occur between the log and channel bed), a footer log will be
installed beneath the header log. SuppofVpilmgswill then be situated at the base of
the log and at the head of the log to hold the log in place. Once these vanes are in
place, filter fabric is toed into a trench on the upstream side of the vane and draped
over thfe structure to force water over the vane The upstream side of'the structure
is then backfilled with suitable material.
Drop structures will be necessary at the outfalls of some constructed channels to
match preconstruction elevations. Drop structures will be constructed out of
TerraCell, or other suitable materials, depending upon anticipated scour from the
restored stream channels. The structures will be constructed to resist erosive forces
associated with hydraulic drops TerraCell is a lightweight, flexible mat made of
high- density, polyethylene strips- The strips are bonded together to form a
honeycomb configuration The honeycomb mat is fixed in place and filled with
gravel or sand Material in the TerraCell structure may be planted with grasses and
shrubs for additional erosion protection. The TerraCell structure will form a
nickpoint that approximates geologic controls in streambeds.
10.4 Riparian Restoration
Restoration of floodplain forest and streamside habitat allows for development and
expansion of characteristic species across the landscape. Ecotonal changes between
community types contribute to diversity and provide secondary benefits, such as
Restoration Systems LLC 43 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Pi ospectus

enhanced feeding and nesting opportunities for mammals, birds, amphibians, and
other wildlife.
Planted streamside trees and shrubs will include species with high value for
sediment stabilization, rapid growth rates, and the ability to Withstand hydraulic
forces associated with bankfull and overba_ nk ,flow events Streamside trees and
shrubs will be planted within 15 -feet of the channel throughout the meander
beltwidth Shrub elements will be planted along reconstructed stream banks,
concentrated along outer bends.
Deeply rooted' riparian vegetation will be restored as needed at all Phase I and
future sites Planting vegetation on cleared stream banks is proposed to reestablish
native /historic,community patterns within the stream corridor, as well as associated
side slopes and transition areas. Revegetating floodplains and stream banks will
provide overall system `stability, shade, and wildlife habitat. In addition, viable
riparian communities will' improve system biogeochemical function by filtering
pollutants from overland and shallow subsurface flows and providing organic
materials to adjacent stream channels
Variations in vegetative planting will occur based on topography and hydraulic
condition of soils. Vegetative species composition will be based on RFEs, site -
specific features, and community descriptions from Classification of the Natural
Communities of North Carolina (Schafale and Weakley 1990) Community
associations to be utilized include: 1) Piedmont /Low Mountain Alluvial Forest, 2)
Dry -Mesic Oak- Hickory Forest and 3) Streamside Assemblage A list of species
organized by Schafale and Weakley (1990) communities is presented below. This
list is for planning purposes only Final planting may include some or all of the
species below In addifion, other species may be added if,appropriate and available
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
1 Sycamore (Platanus occidentabs)
2 American elm (Ulmus americana)
3 Hackberry (Celtis laevigata)
4. Green asli (Fraxmus pennsylvamca)
5 Shagbark hickory (Carya ovata)
6 Willow oak,(Quercus.phellos)
7 Schumard oak,(Quercusschumardu)
8 River birch (Betula mgra)
9 Silky dogwood (Cornus amomum)
10 Pawpaw (Asimma tnloba)
Dry -Mesic Oak - Hickory Forest
1 White oak (Quercus albs)
2 Northern red oak (Quercus rubra)
3. Pignut - hickory (Caryaglabra)
4 Mockernut hickory (Carya alba/tomentosa)
5 Black gum (Nyssa sylvatica var sylvatica)
6 Flowering dogwood (Cornus florida)
7 Eastern red cedar Uumperus virgimana)
Restoration Systems LLC 44 Cape Fear 02 Uinbi ella Prospectus

8 Persimmon (Diospyros vrrgrnrana)
9 ironwood (Carpinus carohniana)
Stream -Side Assemblage
1 Black willow (Salix nigra)
2 Tag alder (Alnus serrulata)
3 Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis)
10.5 Stream Enhancement I & II
In portions of the Phase I sites and future sites, the use of restoration may not be
necessary to improve a system's ecological function In such cases; enhancement
activities will be implemented For the purposes of the UMBI, Stream Enhancement I
and Stream Enhancement II are defined per USACE, (2003)
10.5.1 Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement I is expected to include cessation of agricultural activities
(including row crop production, hay production, andbr livestock grazing), removal
of invasive species, raising the channel bed elevation to reconnect bankfull stream
flows to the abandoned floodplain, and planting with native, ,woody species Stream
Enhancement I will generally entail the alteration of stream channel dimension and
profile, as the channel is lifted to the historic floodplain elevation These measures
are expected to facilitate stream dynamics associated with a natural, relatively
undisturbed stream in the Piedmont of North Carolina.
10.5.2 Stream Enhancement II
Stream Enhancement I1 is expected to include the cessation of agricultural activities
(including row crop production, hay production, and /,or livestock grazing), removal
of invasive species, and supplemental planting with native, woody tree species.
Stream enhancement II will extend a minimum distance of 50 -feet from the top of
stream banks These measures are expected to facilitate stream recovery and
prevent further degradation of the streams
11 MONITORING PLAN
The Bank's`performance standards and monitoring plan will, be based on the USACE
(2013) guidance document titled, Monitoring Requirements and Performance
Standards for Compensatory Mitigation in North Carolina. In general, the monitoring
program will be implemented for 7 years with an opportunity for an, early
termination after 5 years if a site's performance standards, as, set forth in USACE
(2013), are met Additional monitoring of each site, aside from the Bank's
performance standards, will occur -to identify ,areas to be treated by the Adaptive
Management and Remedial Measures Plan (see Section 12)
11.1 Stream Monitoring
Stream monitoring protocols. -will be developed for all reaches involving Stream
Restoration, "Enhancement II, and Enhancement I with in- channel work Protocols
will include collection of the following: longitudinal profile (collected' as part of a
Restoration Systems LLC 45 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus

sites' as -built surveys), permanent channel cross - sections, bank pins on
predetermined outside meander bends, and crest gauges to monitor frequency,and
magnitude of bankfull events Visual assessments will be conducted by walking the
length of each channel. Preconstruction and post - construction photographs' will 'be
compiled
11.2 Vegetation Monitoring
Restoration monitoring procedures for vegetation are designed in accordance,with
CVS -EEP Protocol for-Recording Vegetation Level 1-2 Plot Sorripling Only (Version 4:2)
(Lee et al. 2008)
After planting has been completed in winter or early spring, an initial evaluation will
be performed to verify planting methods and to determine initial species
composition and density Supplemental planting and additional site modification
will be implemented'if necessary.
During the first year, vegetation will receive Visual observation on a periodic basis
to ascertain the degree of over'toppin'g'of planted elements by nuisance species, and
quantitative sampling will occur between 'September 1 and September 30.
Subsequently, quantitative sarnpIfng,of vegetation will be performed between July 1
and leaf'drop for'eachgrowing season until vegetation success criteria are achieved.
During quantitative sampling in early fall of the first year, a minimum of 4 plots '(10
meters square) or approximately 2 percent of a site's easement area, whichever,is
greater, will be randomly placed across each site. In each sample plot, vegetation
parameters to be monitored` and reported inclue species, count, height, date of
planting, and grid location of each planted stem Volunteer species encountered
during monitoring will be counted, identified to species level, measured, And
recorded.
11.3 Visual Monitoring
Visual monitoring of general site conditions that may or may not be part of „stream
and vegetation monitoring protocols will be conducted at, least twice during each
monitoring year: One visual inspection can be completed during stream and /or
_ r y
vegetation monitoring 'The other inspection will occur independently and must be
separated by at least- 5 months Monitoring will be conducted by traversing the
entire site to identify and document areas of low stem density, poor plant vigor,
prolonged inundation, native and exotic invasive species, beaver`activity, excessive
herbivory,. easement encroach'merit, indicators of livestock access, and other areas
of concern.
11.4 Water Quality and Macroinvertebrate Monitoring
Per USACE (2013), water quality and macro invertebrate monitoring will be
conducted as appropriate for each site ,to document fluctuations in various water
quality parameters and'inacroinvertebrate communities. Protocols for water quality
and macroinveriebrate monitoring will be developed for all reaches involving
Restoration Systems LLC 46 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus

Stream Restoration, Enhancement I, and Enhancement II with, in-channel work. As
streams are products of their watersheds, and upstream pollution and land use can
negatively affect a site's water quality, the results of this particular, part. of the
Monitoring Plan may not demonstrate ecological improvements at a, given site
Therefore, these data will not be tied directly to the UMBI's performance standards
However, positive results could be useful in determining if a particular site has met
its goals and objectives
11.4.1 Water Quality Monitoring
Water quality monitoring will be conducted once to establish baseline conditions
and at least twice during each monitoring year Monitoring should be repeated at
the same times and during normal flow conditions each year to limit seasonal and
hydrological variability. Each bi- annual monitoring event will be separated by 5 or
more months Water quality parameters to be sampled include pH, temperature,
dissolved oxygen, and conductivity, which will be sampled at two locations in each
tributary exceeding 500 -LF in order to capture channel - specific input and output
values
11.4.2 Macroinvertebrate Monitoring
M acro invertebrate sampling will be conducted once before construction (baseline
conditions) and once during monitoring years 3, 5, and 7. Sampling will be
conducted according to the "Qual 4" method described in Standard Operating
Procedures for Collection and Analysis of Benthic Macromvertebrates (NCDWQ 2012)
In addition, sampling should occur during the "index period" referenced in Small
Streams Biocriter►a Development (NCDWQ 2009) Results will be presented on a site -
by -site basis and will include a list of taxa collected, an enumeration of
Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Tricoptera taxa, and' Biotic Index values.
12 ADAPTIVE MANAGMENT AND REMEDIAL MEASURES
An adaptive management plan will be� developed for each site and for the UMBI in
general. In the, eyent,momtoring results indicate a site will not meet one or more of
its performance standards, remedial actions will be implemented following
notification of the UMBI's USACE project manager -, Adaptive management and
remedial measures are discussed in general below and will be developed further in
the UMBI's Final Mitigation Plan
12.1 Stream Instability
If stream monitoring and /or visual monitoring identify stream stability problems
that worsen or otherwise, threaten other portions, of a mitigation, site,,repairs'will be
made as necessary Persistent problems will be evaluated to determine if design or
construction are contributing factors. Should such systemic problems be identified
and reasonably determined to be unfixable, the IRT may deride to adjust a site's
mitigation credit potential
Restoi ation Systems LLC 47 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus

12.2 Vegetation
Vegetation mortality remedial actions may include ,replanting, and, if needed,
corrective measures will be based on a determination of potential reasons for
mortality (e g;, portions of site too wet for planted species). Low vegetation vigor
remedial actions may include but are not limited to deep ripping, replanting (same
or similar species),;m`ow,mg, herbicide application, fertilization, and replantingwith
other species possessing condition - specific tolerance.
12.3 Invasive Species
In the event that .invasive or otherwise undesirable species —as defined in an
appendix to, the "NC,SAM'Users Manual, (NC SFAT 2014) — reasonable efforts will be
made- to eradicate or otherwise control ,growth and distribution of the, species
across the mitigation site, Such- efforts may involve herbicide applications,
mechanical, and /.or hand removal, or prescribed burns.
13 HISTORICALAND ARCHEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS
Field visits were conducted at all Phase I sites during the winter, spring, and
summer of 2014 to ,ascertain the presence of structures or other features that may
be eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. No structures
were identified within proposed easement boundaries; however, coordination with
State Historic Preservation Office will occur prior to construction activities to
determine if any significant cultural resources are present
14 Eh DANGERED AND PROTECTED,SPECIES
14.1 Motes Creek, Orphan Creek, and Maple Hill Farm
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service does not list any protected species as
occurring in Alamance County (USFWS 2014) However, six species are designated
as Federal Species of Concern (Table 32) If present, these species are likely to
benefit from the restoration efforts
Table 32 Federal Species of Concern, Alamance County, NC
Common Name Scientific Name Potential Habitat Present
American Eel
Anguilla rostrata
No
Carolina Darter
Etheostoma collis lepidinion
No
Carolina Creekshell
Vdlosa vaughaniana
No
Yellow Lampmussel
Lampsilis cariosa
No
Buttercup Phacelia
Phacelia,covellei
No
SweefPinesap
Monotropsis odorata
No
Restoration Systems LLC 48 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus

14.2 Benton Branch
Two federally protected species are listed as occurring in Caswell County (USFWS
2014)• the James sp►nymussel (Pleurobema collina) and the Roanoke logperch
(Percina rex). Both species are listed as Endangered
14.2.1.1 James,Spinymussel'
This freshwater, mussel 'is limited to the James River ,drainage and the Dan /Mayo
River drainage with the Roanoke Rover basin in Virginia, North Carolina, and West
Virginia This species' range does not include the Benton Branch site, which is
located in the Upper Cape Fear River drainage
14.2.1.2 Roanoke Logperch
In North Carolina, the species is found in the Dan and Mayo rivers, as well as Big
Beaver Island Creek. This species' range does not include the Benton Branch site,
which is located in the Upper Cape Fear River drainage.
14.2.1.3 Preliminary Biological Conclusions
Neither of these species' ranges includes,the site Therefore, this project will have. no
effect on`these federally protected species.
14.3 Chico Branch and Slingshot Creek
Three federally protected species are fisted as occurring in; Rockingham County
(USFWS'2014): the James -spinyinussel (Pleurobema collma), the Roanoke 1'ogperch
(Percma rex), and smooth coneflower '(Echinacea'laevigdta). These species are listed
as Endangered
r
14.3.1.1 James Spinymussel
This freshwater mussel is limited to the James River drainage and the Dan /Mayo
River drainage with the Roanoke River basin i_n, Virginia, North Carolina, and West
Virginia. This species' range does not include the. Chico Branch or Slingshot Creek
site, which,is located'in the Upper Cape Fear River drainage
14.3:1.2 Roanoke Logperch
In North Carolina, the species is found in the Dan and Mayo rivers, as well as Big
Beaver ,Island Creek. This, species' range does not include the Chico Branch or
Slingshot Creek site, which is located in the Upper Cape Fear River drainage
14.3.1.3 Smooth Coneflower
This species grows in calcareous, basic, ,or circumneutral soils on roadsides, clear
cuts, and power line right -of -ways Where there is abundant light and little
herbaceous competition Fire - maintained woodlands also appear to provide
potential habitat for the coneflower- Shading of roadsides by adjacent forest trees
and routine mowing reduce the suitability of roadsides within the study corridor for
this species
Restoration Systerns LLC 49 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus

Chico Creek is characterized by disturbed areas that are regularly maintained,
providing little or no opportunity for growing of this species No specimens were
noted during field surveys
Slingshot Creek is characterized by agriculture fields and disturbed forest which
may provide suitable habitat for this species. Detailed surveys for this species may
be required prior to land disturbing activities associated with stream restoration at
this site.
14.3.1.4 Preliminary Biological Conclusions
Neither the James,spineymussel nor the Roanoke logperch have ranges extending to
the site Suitable habitat for the smooth coneflower does not exist at the Chico Creek
site. However, suitable habitat for smooth coneflower may exist at the Slingshot
Creek site and this project may effect on this federally protected species
15 CONCLUSIONS
Restoration Systems, LLC is pleased to offer the Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation
Bank ( "the Bank "). The proposed umbrella structure of the Bank is designed to
imfially,permit the establishment of eight stream mitigation sites, comprising Phase
'w
I, hile ,enabling the establishment of 'future mitigation sites not yet 'identified.
Phase I consists of the following sites: 1) Motes Creek in Alamance County; 2)
Benton_B`ranch in Caswell County; 3) Orphan Creek in Alamance County; 4).Chico
Branch in Alamance County, 5) Major Hill in Alamance County, 6) Maple Hill in
Alamance County, 7) Rocky Top in Alamance County, and' 8) Slingshot Creek in
Rockingham County (Figure 1; Table 33)
Restoration Systems LLC 50 Cape Fear 02 Umbi ella Prospectus

Table 33 Phase 1 Site Summary
Stream Site Hydro Existing Length Mitigation Type Approx. Final
Status* (LF) Length (LF)
Benton Branch Per /Int 8; Restoration,
843 10,343
Enhancement°
Chico Branch Per /Int 21,295 Restoration 2,805
Maple Hall
Per /Int
3;990
Restoration,
4493
Farm'
Enhancement
R
�i
x.,
Enhancement s"
Slingshot Creek Per
3;907
Restoration,
Enhancement
4,777
Totals
31,073
36,625
* Per = perennial, Int = intermittent
Restoration Systems LLC
51
Cape Fear 02 Umbiella Prospectus

16 REFERENCES
Environerital "Lab6ratory -,1987 Cofps of Engineers Wetlands Dellneatlon.ManUal Technical
Report Y -87 -1 Umted,States Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Mississippi
Griffith, G E, J M Omermk, J A Comstock,,M P. Schafale, W H McNab, D R Lenat, T F MacPherson, J B
Glover, and 'V'B S' helbourne 2, 02, Ecoregions of North Carolina anMouth Carolina U S
F_-(3 n SSA
Geological Surver"Reston, Virginia
Harman, W.A:, G:D. Jennings „J:M' Patterson, D R. Clinton, L.A,�O'Hara „A. Jessup, R. Everhart 1999
Bankfull Hydrauhc;GebhTetry Relationships for North Carolina Streams N'C State University,
Raleigh, North Carohna
Lee, M T -, R K Peet, S D Roberts, and T R Wentworth 2008 CVS- EEP'Protocol for Recording
Vegetation Version 4 2 North Carolina Department of Environment and'Natural Resources,
Ecosystem Enhancement Program Raleigh, North Carolina
Leopold, L B 1994 A View of the River Harvard University Press Cambridge, MA 298 pp
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 2014 National Climate Data Center's
(NCDC) Climate Data Online (CDO). http [/www ncdc noaa gov /cdo -web/
North, Carolina Department ofFEnvifofiment and Natural'Resources (NCDENR) 2012 Water Quality
Data,Assessment (2012 Final'303(d) List) (online) Available
http / /portal ncdenr org /c/ document_ library /get file?uuid=9d4'5b3b4-d066- 4619 -82e6-
ea8ea0e0 1930 &groupld =38364
North�Carollna Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) 2005 Cap e.Fear Rtver BasinwidetWater Quality
Plan (online) Available thttp / /portal ncdenr org /web /wq/ps/bpu /basin./capefear %2005
North Carolina Division,of Water Quality (NCDWQ) 2012 Standard Operating-Procedures for
Collection and Analysis of Benthir Macrotnvertebrates (online) Available
http / /portal ncdenr'org /c /document_ library/get _ file ?uwd= 6cfa483- 16de- 4c18 -95b7-
93684c1b64aa &groupld =38364
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) 2009 Small Streams Biocriteria Development
Available http ” //portal ncdenr orgL/ document_ library /get_file ?uuid= 2d54ad23 -0345-
4d6e- 82fd- O4005f48eaa7 &groupld =38364
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) 2014 Water Quality
Data.Assessmeiit (20.14 Draft 303(d) List) (online) Available
http / /portal ncdenr org/c /document_ library/ get_ file ?uuld= d61a8974- 6af6- 4edb -829f-
e658935e3341 &groupld =38364
North Carolina Division of Water Resources ( NCDWR) 2013 North Carolina Water Bodies Report
fonhne) Available http % /portal-ncdenr.org /c /document lib rary /get _ file ?uuid= 10c60296-
dcc8- 439f.a41c- d475ea7ad�1'fa &groupld =38364
North,Carolma Stream Functional Assessment Team (NC,SFAT) 20,14 N C ,Stream Assessment
Method (NC SAM) User Manual (Version 2) 178 pp
Restoration Systems LLC 52 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectu%

Rosgen „D 1996 Applied River Morphology Wildland Hydrology (Publisher) Pagosa Springs,
Colorado
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, North Ccarolina,Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Raleigh, North Carolina
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA), North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS), and North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) 2003
Stream Mitigation Guidelines State of North Carolina
United States Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE)- 2012 Regional Supplement to the Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Mandal- Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region, ed J S
Weakely, R W. L"ichvar, and C.V Noble ERDC /EL TR -10 =XX Vicksburg, MS U S Army
Engineer Research and Development'Center
United States Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE) 2013 Monitoring Requirements and Performance
,Standards for'Compensatory Mitigationan North Carolina
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1960 Soil Survey of AlamancekCounty, North,
Carolina Soil, Conservation Service
United States Department of Agriculture, (USDA) 1992 Soil Survey of Rockingham. County, North
Carolina Soil Conservation Service
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 2014 Web Soil Survey (online) Available
http / /websoilsurvey nres usda gov /app /W,ebSoilSurvey aspx [August 2014]
United States Census Bureau (USCB) 2013 Population estimates V 2013
http / /quickfacts census gov /qfd /states /37000 html
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 1990 Mitigation Site'Type,Classification
(MIST) EPA Workshop, August 13 -15, 1989 EPA Region IV and Hardwood Research
Cooperative, NCSU, Raleigh,,North Carolina
Restoration Systems LLC 53 Cape Fear 02 Uinbi Old Prospectus

Figure 4A: Motes Creek Site Features
Restoration Systems LLC 57 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus

Figure 4B: Motes Creek Topography
1 • � d�
Q
d
Legend
O Easement = 19 ac _ 0 300 600 1,200 1,600 2A00
' Feet
Axiom EnWOnmentai
Motes Creek Dwn. ey FIGURE
216 snow Ave TOPOGRAPHY Date: �^
Raleigh, NC 27607 Upper Cape Fear Umbrella Mitigation Bank P Aug 2014 KU
(919) 21 5 -1 693 Project
Alamance County, North Carolina 13- 004.03
Restoration Systems LLC 58 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus

Figure 4C: Motes Creek Drainage Area
Restoration Systems LLC 59 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus
Motes Motes Cr Downstream ®�® i
UT 2 Upstream
S
� f
w" s
It. ;
0.
�/:
�o !, fi
Ali
l s ♦`�:I '� ,i!n*ss�:.` ?•ail
4
K+L�� JiA 1 U { ♦?
O
� +q�
\fie•p �'� Ri iT.1R. \Tlf�r�
s- rw�I�avisfi T
^N MI
Axorn Environmental
218 Snow Ave
Raleigh, NC 27607
Motes
DRAINAGEAREA
1Jp,A:e-r C2pe—Fe-2T-IJAkWire—A2 �Wg?A4A. ii2-kk-
IA
[phone]
County, • rth Carolina 11• 1
Restoration Systems LLC 59 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus

Figure 4D: Motes Creek Soils
Restoration Systems LLC 60 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus

Figure SA: Benton Branch Site Features
Restoration, Systems LLC Cape fear 02 Utttbrelle Prospect15

Figure 5B: Benton Branch Topography
Restoration Systems LLC i,.. Cape Fear 02 Umhrelle Prospectus
" 00
t r
u UT i j
o +
i" r
s "/ VW .
_t
f Q� `U748
UT 4b
� F J
t.f ,
l
1
r • 446 �� _L �
_� �� .. � y,gr.. _ �..
ryro�z,s ,cm
Becton Branch
TOPOGRAPHY"
Upper Cape ear Umbr Pa Mitigation Bank
rC r�
Jtj
GaaweP Gounry. North Carding
Restoration Systems LLC i,.. Cape Fear 02 Umhrelle Prospectus

Figure 5C: Benton Branch Drainage Area
Restoration Systems I.LC Cape Fear 02 UmbreN Prospectus

Figure 6A: Orphan Creek Site Features
Restoration Systems LLC 64 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus

Figure 6B: Orphan Creek Topography
Restoration Systems LLC 65 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus
T � � N
>
t
1A
ha"e •
r
� (jyTj
t
Legend
Easement = 14.5 ac
0 187.5 375 750 1,125 1,500
Feet
Axiom Environmental
218 Snow
Raleigh, 27607
(919)215 -1-1 693
Orphan Creek
TOPOGRAPHY
Upper Cape Fear Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Alamance County, North Carolina
own %
Date:
Project Aug us1 2o1a
13 -004
FIGURE
�+
V
Restoration Systems LLC 65 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus

Figure 6C: Orphan Creek Drainage Area
-4 OAF
Legend
4� Easement 14.5 ac
site . 1
R1.STltkFTl0t; II ` 0
♦l'lT °tip i.l l' 1 1 01 111 1
Orphan
Raleigh, NC 218 Snow A�e
• 1 Upper • ' DRAINAGE Fear Umbrella • . • • • 1 •
County, [phone] Alamance • rth Carolina • 11,
Restoration Systems LLC 66 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus

Figure 6D: Orphan Creek Soils
Restoration Systems LLC 67 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus

Figure 7A: Chico Branch Site Features
N
Legend -
Chico Branch Parcels
OEasement = 8 ac
— — — Streams = 2295 ft
0 65 130 260 390 520
Feet
Axiom Environmental
Chico Branch %VGL FIGURE
2185now Ave SITE FEATURES Date A
Raleigh, NC 27607 Au usl 2014 H
[phone] Upper Cape Fear Umbrella Mitigation Bank Project
m. Rockingham County, North Carolina 13 -004
Restoration Systems LLC 68 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus

Figure 7B: Chico Branch Topography
Restoration Systems LLC 69 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus
Legend
Easement = 8 ac
N
r �
n
f
{
" • Trad0t t�
,y
-A
r r
UU
4.
w _ erence 8trP r
i
f 0 250 500 1.000 1.500 2.000
Feet ed
—_
ya - AxiomEnoronmental
216 Snow AVe
Raleigh, INC 27607
(919) 215 -1693
Dn. By: FIGURE
Chico Branch WGIL
TOPOGRAPHY Date. B
Au ust 2014 /
Upper Cape Fear Umbrella Mitigation Bank Project 7
m.
Rockingham County, North Carolina 13 -004
Restoration Systems LLC 69 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus

Figure 7C: Chico Branch Drainage Area
Restoration Systems LLC - , Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus
N
Legend
Easement = 8 ac
Site Drainage Area = 61 ac (0.1) sq mi)
z-5
�- Trader • = N,
•
<:; , Par's
UT 1
Drainage Area = 31 ac (0.05 sq mi)
I f -
'
1t
rl
-• 4 *
UT 2
Drainage Area = 30 ac (0.05 sq mi)
g �
erence •
� Streaei, • )
Reference Stream
Drainage Area = 23 ac (0.04 sq mi)
i
' a
/ -250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
D
Feet ed
—
- Axiom Environmental
218 Snow Ave
Raleigh, NC 27607
(919) 215 -1693
Chico Branch
DRAINAGEAREA
Upper Cape Fear Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Dwn.
%
Date.
Au ust 2014
Project:
FIGURE
7r
! V
,E
Rockingham County, North Carolina
13 -004
Restoration Systems LLC - , Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus

Figure 7D: Chico Branch Soils
Restoration Systems LLC 71 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus

Figure 8A: Major Hill Site Features
Restoration Systems LLC 72 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus

Figure 813: Major Hill Topography
Restoration Systems LLC 73 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus
N
\1 lie
F
Y --
It
Legend
QEasement = 10 ac
4.
0 250 500
1,000'
Feet .„ Copynght -c 20 13 N3I,C -1 G— F, - d
Axiom Environmental
218 snow Ave
Raleigh, NC 27607
(919) 215 -1693
Major Hill
TOPOGRAPHY
Upper Cape Fear Umbrella Mitigation Bank
PP P 9
Dwn By'
WGIL
Date:
Aug 2014
Project:
FIGURE
^
^ B
:8
„
Alamance County, North Carolina
13 -004
Restoration Systems LLC 73 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus

Figure 8C: Major Hill Drainage Area
Restoration Systems LLC 74 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus
N
. Y
William
Y,
1101
.
E
UT
Drainage Area = 17 ac (0.03 sq mil
i
Legend
[=Easement = 10 ac F
Site Drainage Area = 60.4 ac (0.09 sq mi)
0 250 500 1,000
1.500 �.
Feet Copyright t 2013 National Geogra - cn
Axiom Environmental
218 snow Ave
Raleigh, NC 27607
(919) 215 -1693
Major Hill Dn. By. FIGURE WQL
DRAINAGEAREA Date: C
2014 Q
Upper Cape Fear Umbrella Mitigation Bank Au 8
Alamance County, North Carolina Project 13 -004
Restoration Systems LLC 74 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus

Figure 81): Major Hill Soils
Restoration Systems LLC 75 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus

Figure 9A: Maple Hill Farm Site Features
Resto anon Systems LLC 76 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus

Figure 913: Maple Hill Farm Topography
Restoration Systems LLC 77 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus
¢
Legend
i Ease, —1 - 11 • a. k
N
r�
UT2A de
- fr
� 3
I a 0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Feet
•tl
—
Axiom EnWOnmental
218 Snow Ave
Raleigh, -1 27607
(919)215 -1693
Maple Hill Farm
TOPOGRAPHY
Upper Cape Fear Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Alamance County, North Carolina
own. By.
WQL
FIGURE
^ ^
,U/ UK
Date:
Aug 2014
P o ject
13 -004
Restoration Systems LLC 77 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus

Figure 9C: Maple Hill Farm Drainage Area
Legend p f N
1
U �
- Easement = 11.1 ac
1= Site Drainage Area ; -� a -
�� Y 3
UT 3
Drainage Area = 62 ac (0.1 sq mi)
-
i UT 2
Drainage Area = 38 ac (0 06 sq mi)
I ` 1k Fe
•
UT 1
Drainage Area = 62 ac (0.1 sq mi)
t
0 250 500 1,000 1.500 2,000
Feet
a
Axiom Environmental
Maple Hill Farm Dn.By:WGL FIGURE
216 Snow Ave DRAINAGE AREA Date: ^
Raleigh, NC 27607 Upper Cape Fear Umbrella Mitigation Bank Project Au zola IV
[phone] Alamance County, North Carolina 13 -004
Restoration Systems LLC 78 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus

Figure 9D: Maple Hill Farm Soils
Restoration Systems LLC 79 Cape Fear 02 umbrella Prospectus

Figure 10A: Rocky Top Site Features
Restoration Systems LLC 80 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus

Figure 10B: Rocky Top Topography
Restoration Systems LLC 81 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus
x N
Legend
= Rocky Top Parcel
Q Easement = 5.2 ac
FAQ
}
0 250 500 1,000
` Feet ed.
Axiom Environmental
216 Snow Ave
Raleigh, NC 27607
l919>215 -1693
Rocky Top
TOPOGRAPHY
Upper Cape Fear Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Dwn' By'
Date:
Aug 014
Project
FIGURE
10B
ANem EmFmmenb Im
Alamance County, North Carolina
13-004
Restoration Systems LLC 81 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus

Figure 1OC: Rocky Top Drainage Area
Restoration Systems LLC 82 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus
Legend
0 Rocky Top Parcel
N
-,
`
�.
Easement = 5.2 ac-
Drainage Area = 42 ac
(0.07 sq mi)
t `
HE
J / l
': 797
•
r
1
x'S
._
0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Feet
opyng National eograp is oue -cu ed
--
Axiom Environmental
218 Snow Ave
Raleigh, NC 27607
(919) 215 -1693
Rocky Top
DRAINAGEAREA
Upper Cape Fear Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Dn. By
WQL
Date:
Aug 2014
Project
FIGURE
10 C
Alamance County, North Carolina
13 -004
Restoration Systems LLC 82 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus

Figure 10D: Rocky Top Soils
Restoration Systems LLC 83 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus

Figure 11A: Slingshot Creek Site Features
Restoration Systems LLC 84 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus

Figure 11B: Slingshot Creek Topography
Restoration Systenrts LLC 1 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus
Legend
OEasement = 13 ac �•
-
-
17453'
e ! •a
• Wit.
U7
SO
.. ^net _
L'. i i T4 • . • • • • • • BW • r Sauhury Ch /!
e• �. . Cem
Ev rgreen •. ;K
7531 .,r,r—. Memp ,rdens
• Z� 0 345 690 1,360 2,070 2.760
Feet
.aeon, En- onmenta
216 Snow Aye
Raleigh, NC 27607
(919) 215 -1693
Slingshot Creek Site
9
TOPOGRAPHY
Upper Cape Fear Umbrella Mitigation Bank
D— By
WQL
Date:
Oct 2014
Protect.
FIGURE
1 1 B
Rockingham County, North Carolina
13 -004
Restoration Systenrts LLC 1 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus

Figure 11C: Slingshot Creek Drainage Area
Restoration Systems LLC 86 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus
Legend
Easement = 13 ac
_ N
a
Drainage Area = 284
ac (0.4 sq mi)
• � 4- �__...
0000 • �1 �`J
M —
t•
, O \
• �
� t{
V q
UT 1 Drainage Area = 57 ac (0.1 sq mi
1 C 119:C=20 •
ff M
��
••
•
• B
• UT 2 Drainage Area = 67 ac (0.1 sq mi ?
• ' `�
L
-Danbury Ch
Cefn
00.0
Evo rgreen
•�
,
Memo ardens ;0
r
0 345 690 1.380 2.070 2.760
Feet e d
Axiom Environmental
218 Snow Ave
Raleigh, -1 27607
[phone]
Slingshot Creek Site
DRAINAGE AREA
Upper Cape Fear Umbrella Mitigation Bank
PP P 9
Dwn ay.
Date:
Oct zola
Project
FIGURE
11 C
,„• E , ,, ,r
Rockingham County, North Carolina
13 -004
Restoration Systems LLC 86 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus

Figure 11D: Slingshot Creek Soils
Restoration Systems LLC 87 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus
Soil Map Unit Soil Series N
CgB2 Clifford sandy clay loan, 2 to 8 % slopes, moderate , eroded
CsA Codorus loam, 0 to 2 % sl s, frequently flooded
_
DcB Davie sandy loam, 2 to 8 % slopes
FrE2 Fairview-Poplar Forest complex, 15 to 25 percent slopes, moderate eroded
NaB Nathalei sandy ban, 2 to 8 % slopes
P D2 Poplar Forest sandy clay loam, 8 t 15% slopes, Moderately eroded
Legend
Slingshot Creek Parcel =`
rS
L_ Easement = 13 ac
Soil Boundaries
i�gS'21.
0 110 220 140 660 880
Feet
Axiom Environmental
218 Snow Ave
Slingshot Creek Site
g
SOILS
Dwn. By.
GIL
Date
FIGURE
Raleigh, 27607
Upper Cape Fear Umbrella Mitigation Bank
P
Oct zota
11D
(919) 215 -1-1 693
Mbn En+nn+we gym.
Rockingham County, North Carolina
Prolect
13 -004
Restoration Systems LLC 87 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus

Figure 12A: Motes Creek Restoration Plan
Restoration Systems LLC 88 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus

Figure 12B: Benton Branch Restoration Plan
Restoration itstems LLC ., Cape hear 02 Undxel La Prospectus

Figure 12C: Orphan Creek Restoration Plan
Restoration Systems LLC 90 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus

Figure 121): Chico Branch Restoration Plan
Restoration Systems LLC 91 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus

Figure 12E: Major Hill Restoration Plan
~e
N
F
t _
i
.az<
;1
Legend`
Q Easement = 10 ac
Stream Restoration = 2039 tt
- - Stream Enhancement (Level 11) = 1121 ft
0 250 WO D l l i
t
Feel
--
Axiom Environmental
218 Snow Ave
Raleigh, NC 27607
Major Hill
RESTORATION PLAN
Dwn. By: FIGURE
Date:
Aug 2014 12E
(919) 215 -1693
Upper Cape Fear Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Project:
M.
Alamance County, North Carolina
Y
13 -004
Restoration Systems LLC 92 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus

Figure 12F: Maple Hill Restoration Plan
Restoration Systems LLC 93 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus

Figure 12 G: Rocky Top Restoration Plan
Restoration Systems LLC 94 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus

Figure 12H: Slingshot Creek Restoration Plan
Restoration Systems LLC 95 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus

Photo 1: Motes Creek
Photo 1: Upper reaches of Motes Creek facing downstream at livestock trampled channel.
Restoration Systems LLC 96 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus

Photo 2: Benton Branch
Photo 2: Incised UT 3, looking upstream
Restoration Systems LLC 97 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus

Photo 3: Orphan Creek
Photo 3: View of incised channel below confluence of UT 1A and UT 1B
Restoration Systems LLC 98 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus

Photo 4: Chico Branch
Photo 4: UT 2, looking upstream at headwater wetlands
Restoration Systems LLC 99 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus

Photo 5: Major Hill
*0kr 'lRCT I
`Tf
r,
Restoration Systems LLC 100 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus

Photo 6: Maple Hill Farm
Photo 6: UT 1, abandoned Floodplain with relict channel depression
Restoration Systems LLC IN Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus

Photo 7: Rocky Top
Restoration Systems LLC 102 Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Prospectus

�'7 1 dye•' -.
3T
�,�� '.
�
Ne6,
1
r �
1 �
f -
w,>
n
1
�1 LT
r,��►... yob.