20081143 Ver 1_Final MBI_20091202

og- 1143
Natural Resource
Restoration & Conservation
December 2, 2009
Mr. Eric Kulz
19E-C
40
Zinn
"#ETtAND'gAN WA UAL, Ty
ANpST '
?R"CW
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health & Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Stream Mitigation Review Coordinator
401 Oversight and Express Permitting Unit
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
Subject: Cripple Creek Stream & Wetland Mitigation Bank
Distribution of FINAL Mitigation Banking Instrument to IRT members
Dear Mr. Kulz:
Please find enclosed the Final Mitigation Banking Instrument for the Cripple Creek Stream
& Wetland Mitigation Bank in Alamance County, North Carolina (Cape Fear 02 Service
Area). All comments received from the members of the Interagency Review Team have been
incorporated into the document as described in the cover letter addressed to Andrew
Williams of the Raleigh Regulatory Field Office of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District, which is enclosed as the first page of the notebook.
As the Bank Sponsor, Restoration Systems is distributing this document to you as a member
of the IRT. Mr. Williams will follow up with you regarding the process for responding to this
final document by either signing the MBI where indicated on the last page or submitting
your concerns with the document directly to him.
Thank you for your time and attention to this project. I look forward to the continued
implementation of the Cripple Creek Stream & Wetland Bank.
Best regards,
Tara Disy Allden
Pilot Mill* 1101 Haynes St., Suite 211 0 Raleigh, NC 27604 9 www.restorationsystems.com -Phone [phone] *Fax [phone]
Cripple Creek
Stream & Wetland Mitigation Bank
SAW-200701188
Final Mitigation Banking Instrument
December 1, 2009
Submitted to:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Wilmington District
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Submitted by:
1101. Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, NC 27604
•
08- ii?}3
RESTORATION
Natural Resource
Restoration & Conservation
November 30, 2009
DEC
t??TLANDSgN STORMyy IBPMCH
Mr. Andrew E. Williams
Project Manager
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Subject: Corps Action ID: SAW-200701188
Cripple Creek Stream & Wetland Mitigation Bank
Submittal of FINAL Mitigation Banking Instrument
Dear Mr. Williams:
•
Please find enclosed the Final Mitigation Banking Instrument and associated appendices for the
Cripple Creek Stream & Wetland Mitigation Bank (SAW-200701188). As discussed below, all
comments received from the Interagency Review Team members in August have been incorporated
into the Mitigation Banking Instrument and Mitigation Plan.
On August 3, 2009, you sent me (via email) comment letters from IRT members. Each of the IRT
comments has been incorporated into the final mitigation plan as summarized below.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency -Jennifer Derby
o The most recent credit release schedule for forested wetlands (October, 2008) has
been incorporated into the MBI as requested.
o The mitigation plan has incorporated the Ms. Derby's recommendation that
abandoned channel pools be located outside of wetland areas. (Section 5.1.1)
o Wetland vegetation will be monitored for 7 years. Recommended success criteria
and monitoring language has been added to Section 6.2.
o The mitigation plan includes the comment that wetland hydrology will be monitored
for 7 years unless the IRT agrees that wetland hydrology has been met at the end of
5 years of monitoring. (Section 6.0)

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission - Shari B ant
o The mitigation plan has incorporated the removal of substrate from the abandoned
channel for placement in the restored channel. (Section 5.1.1)
o Invasive species will be monitored and appropriately addressed throughout the
monitoring period.
o All ford crossings will be constructed to minimize sedimentation as recommended.
Pilot dill • 1101 Haynes St., Suite 211 • Raleigh, NC 27604 0 www.restorahonsk'stems.com • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone]
¦ North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWO #08-1143) - Cyndi Kato
ly
o As noted previously, the 7-year credit release schedule for forested wetlands is in •
place.
o Tag alder is not included in the planting plan.
With these comments incorporated, the MBI document is ready for your approval and coordination
with the members of the IRT. According to the federal Compensatory Mitigation Rule, the district
engineer has 30 days to review the document and communicate with the IRT your decision regarding
approval of the NMI and to notify RS (as the bank sponsor) of your decision within 45 days of your
receipt of this final NMI. It is my hope that this process can be expedited and that the NMI may be
executed before the end of 2009. I look forward to carrying out these important milestones and
beginning to sell mitigation credits in the Cape Fear 02 watershed.
Best regards,
Tara Disy Allden
CC.'
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health & Natural Resources - Division of
Water Quality
Mr. Eric Kulz
Stream Mitigation Review Coordinator
401 Oversight and Express Permitting Unit
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
Ms. Tammy Hill
Wetland Mitigation Review Coordinator
401 Oversight and Express Permitting Unit
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ms. Kathy Matthews
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4 Wetlands Section
109 T.W. Alexander Drive
Durham, North Carolina 27711
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Mr. Howard Hall
United States Fish and Wildlife Services Raleigh Field Office P.O. Box 33726 Raleigh, North
Carolina 27636-3726
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Ms. Shari Bryant
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
P.O. Box 129
Sedalia, North Carolina 27342-0129
Attachment)
(Version 21Nov03)
AGREEMENT TO ESTABLISH THE CRIPPLE CREEK STREAM AND WETLAND
MITIGATION BANK
IN ALAMANCE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
This Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI) is made and entered into on the _ day of
, 2009, by Restoration Systems, LLC, hereinafter Sponsor, and the U. S. Army Corps
of Engineers (Corps), and each of the following agencies, upon its execution of this MBI, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), and the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality (NCDWQ). The Corps, together with the State and Federal agencies that execute this
MBI, are hereinafter collectively referred to as the Interagency Review Team (IRT).
WHEREAS the purpose of this agreement is to establish a mitigation bank (Bank) providing
compensatory mitigation for unavoidable wetland and stream impacts separately authorized by
Section 404 Clean Water Act permits in appropriate circumstances;
WHEREAS the Sponsor is the holder of record of a Conservation Easement of that certain
parcel of land containing approximately 20 acres located in Alamance County, North Carolina,
described in the Cripple Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan (Mitigation Plan), and as
• shown on the attached survey (Property);
WHEREAS the Conservation Easement grants the Sponsor all rights and privileges necessary
to plan, implement, monitor and provide perpetual protection for the Cripple Creek Stream and
Wetland Mitigation Bank; and
WHEREAS the agencies comprising the Interagency Review Team (IRT) agree that the Bank
site is a suitable mitigation bank site, and that implementation of the Mitigation Plan is likely to
result in net gains in wetland functions at the Bank site, and have therefore approved the
Mitigation Plan;
THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed among the parties to this agreement that the following
provisions are adopted and will be implemented upon signature of this MBI.
General Provisions
1. The goal of the Bank is to restore and enhance first- and second-order stream reaches, and
to restore and enhance riparian and non-riparian wetlands, and their functions and values to
compensate in appropriate circumstances for unavoidable riparian and non-riparian wetland, and
stream impacts authorized by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act permits in circumstances
deemed appropriate by the Corps after consultation, through the permit review process, with
members of the IRT.
0
(Version 21Nov03)
•
2. Use of credits from the Bank to offset wetland and stream impacts authorized by Clean
Water Act permits must be in compliance with the Clean Water Act and implementing
regulations, including but not limited to the 404(b)(1) Guidelines, the National Environmental
Policy Act, and all other applicable Federal and State legislation, rules and regulations. This
agreement has been drafted following the regulations set forth in the Compensatory Mitigation
for Losses of Aquatic Resources, Final Rule (33 CFR Parts 325 and 332) (Compensatory
Mitigation Rule).
3. The IRT shall be chaired by the representative of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District. The IRT shall review monitoring and accounting reports as described
below. In addition, the IRT will review proposals for remedial actions proposed by the Sponsor,
or any of the agencies represented on the IRT. The IRT's role and responsibilities are more fully
set forth in the Compensatory Mitigation Rule. The IRT will work to reach consensus on its
actions.
4. The Corps, after consultation with the appropriate Federal and State review agencies
through the permit review process, shall make final decisions concerning the amount and type of
compensatory mitigation to be required for unavoidable, permitted wetland and stream impacts,
and whether or not the use of credits from the Bank is appropriate to offset those impacts. In the
case of permit applications and compensatory mitigation required solely under the Section 401
Water Quality Certification rules of North Carolina, the N.C. Division of Water Quality •
(NCDWQ) will determine the amount of credits that can be withdrawn from the Bank.
Mitigation Plan
5. The Bank site is a +/- 20-acre portion of an active farm in northeast Alamance County,
which is utilized for grazing horses and production of hay. Approximately 4,137 linear feet of
stream associated with an unnamed tributary to Boyds Creek and its secondary tributaries, as
well as 8.8 acres of hydric soils exhibit mitigation potential within The Bank. These areas are
accessible to livestock and are regularly maintained and mowed for hay production, resulting in
local disturbances to stream banks and wetland soil surfaces. Historical land use practices,
including the maintenance and removal of riparian vegetation, and the relocation, dredging, and
straightening of onsite streams has resulted in degraded water quality, unstable channel
characteristics (stream entrenchment, erosion, and bank collapse), and reduced storage
capacity/floodwater attenuation. Proximity of stream channels to adjacent floodplains, including
seepage areas and their degraded morphology has removed wetland hydrology from adjacent
landscapes that are dominated by a hydric soil matrix. A more detailed description of the
baseline conditions on the site is contained in the Mitigation Plan.
6. The Sponsor will perform work described on pages 17-24 of the Mitigation Plan, including
• Restoration of approximately 4,265 linear feet of stream channels along the upper
reaches of UT 1 and lower reaches of UT 2;
• Enhancement (Level II) of approximately 633 linear feet of degraded stream channel; •
• Establishment of vegetated buffers on both sides of affected stream channels;
• (Version 21Nov03)
• Restoration of 5.7 acres of forested riparian wetlands and 1.2 acres of forested
nonriparian wetlands by: (1) restoring active floodplain attributes through stream
restoration/enhancement methods, (2) reducing the draw-down effect of nearby
channels, and (3) reestablishing a wetland plant community;
• Enhancement of 1.4 acres of riparian wetlands and 0.5 acre of non-riparian wetland
by: reestablishing wetland plant community and eliminating vegetation maintenance
and livestock grazing activities.
• Planting of 18.7 acres of woody riparian vegetation, including 8.8 acres of wetland
community and approximately 10 acres of non-wetland, riparian community. In
addition, substrate modifications will be made to areas that are highly compacted
from equipment and livestock usage, and to add microtopograhpic variation in the
land surfaces to facilitate slowing and trapping surface water flows.
The purpose of this work, and the objective of the Bank, is to:
• Remove nonpoint sources of pollution associated with agricultural activities,
including: a) removal of livestock from streams, stream banks, and floodplains; b)
cessation of broadcasting fertilizer, pesticides, and other agricultural materials into
and adjacent to The Bank streams and wetlands; and c) provide a native woody
riparian buffer adjacent to streams and wetlands to treat surface runoff, which may be
laden with sediment and/or agricultural pollutants.
• • Reduce sedimentation within onsite and downstream receiving waters through: a)
reduction of bank erosion associated with hoof shear, vegetation maintenance, and
agricultural plowing, and b) planting a native woody riparian buffer adjacent to The
Bank streams.
• Reestablish stream stability and the streams' capacity to transport watershed flows
and sediment loads by restoring a stable dimension, pattern, and profile supported by
natural in-stream habitat and grade/bank stabilization structures.
• Promote floodwater attenuation through a) reconnection of bankfull stream flows to
the abandoned floodplain terrace, b) reduce floodwater velocities within smaller
catchment basins by restoring the secondary, entrenched tributaries, c) restore
depressional floodplain wetlands, thereby increasing the storage capacity for
floodwaters within the Site, and d) revegetate floodplains to increase frictional
resistance on floodwaters crossing The Bank.
• Improve aquatic habitats by enhancing stream bed variability and the wise use of in-
stream structures.
Provide wildlife habitat, including seepage slope wetlands, which are relatively
uncommon in the piedmont portion of the State.
Provide an opportunity for providing compensatory mitigation to offset unavoidable
impacts authorized by the DE and NCDWQ in consultation with state and federal
partner agencies.
is
(Version 21Nov03) •
7. The Sponsors shall monitor the Bank Site as described on pages 24-26 of the Mitigation
Plan, until such time as the IRT determines that the success criteria described on page 25-26 of
the Mitigation Plan have been met.
8. The Sponsor is responsible for assuring the success of the restoration and enhancement
activities at the Bank Site, and for the overall operation and management of the Bank.
9. The Sponsor shall provide to each member of the IRT the reports described on page 24 of
the Mitigation Plan.
10. The Corps shall review said reports, and may, at any time, after consultation with the
Sponsor and the IRT, direct the Sponsor to take remedial action at the Bank site. Remedial
action required by the Corps shall be designed to achieve the success criteria specified above.
All remedial actions required under this paragraph shall include a work schedule and monitoring
criteria that will take into account physical and climactic conditions.
11. The Sponsor shall implement any remedial measures required pursuant to the above.
12. In the event the Sponsor determines that remedial action may be necessary to achieve the
required success criteria, it shall provide notice of such proposed remedial action to all members
of the IRT. No remedial actions shall be taken without the concurrence of the Corps, in •
consultation with the IRT.
13. The members of the IRT will be allowed reasonable access to the Property for the
purposes of inspection of the Property and compliance monitoring of the Mitigation Plan.
Use of Mitigation Credits
14. The Geographical Service Area (GSA ) is the designated area wherein a bank can
reasonably be expected to provide appropriate compensation for impacts to wetland or other
aquatic resources. The GSA for this Bank shall include the Cape Fear River Hydrologic Unit
03030002 in North Carolina. Use of a Bank Site to compensate for impacts beyond the
geographic service area may be considered by the Corps or the permitting agency on a case-by-
case basis.
Table 1. Proposed Mitigation Quantities vs. Mitigation Credits
Proposed Mitigation Activity Proposed Mitigation Quantity
Sreams (If) Wetlands (ac) Mitigation Units (Credits)
Stream Units Wetland Units
Stream Restoration 4265 4265
Stream Enhancement (Level II) 633 253
Riparian Wetland Restoration 5.7 5.7
Nonriparian Wetland Restoration 1.2 1.2
Riparian Wetland Enhancement 1.4 0.7
Nonriparian Wetland Enhancement 0.5 0.25
Total: 4518 Total: 7.85
•
• (Version 21Nov03)
15. It is anticipated by the parties to this agreement that use of mitigation credits shall be
"in-kind;" that is, that riparian wetland credits will be used to offset riparian wetland impacts.
16. Is anticipated by the parties that in most cases in which the Corps, after consultation
with the IRT, has determined that mitigation credits from the Bank may be used to offset wetland
impacts authorized by Section 404 permits, for every one acre of impacts, two credits will be
debited from the Bank. One of those credits must be a restoration credit; the remaining credit
will be made up of any combination of restoration, enhancement, creation or preservation credits,
as selected by the Sponsor and approved by the Corps during its permit process. Additionally,
decisions regarding stream mitigation will be made consistent with current policy and guidance
and will be made on a case by case basis. Deviations from the both wetland and stream
compensation ratio may be authorized by the USACE on a case-by-case basis where justified by
considerations of functions of the wetlands and/or streams impacted, the severity of the wetland
and/or stream impacts, whether the compensatory mitigation is in-kind, and the physical
proximity of the wetland and/or stream impacts to the Bank site, except that in all cases, a
minimum of a one-to-one ratio of impact acres/linear feet to restoration mitigation credits (acres
and/or linear feet) must be met.
• 17. Notwithstanding the above, all decisions concerning the appropriateness of using
credits from the Bank to offset impacts to waters and wetlands, as well as all decisions
concerning the amount and type of such credits to be used to offset wetland and water impacts
authorized by Department of the Army permits, shall be made by the Corps of Engineers,
pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and implementing regulations and guidance,
after notice of any proposed use of the Bank to the members of the IRT, and consultation with
the members of the IRT concerning such use. Notice to and consultation with the members of
the IRT shall be through the permit review process.
18. Fifteen percent (15%) of the Bank's total restoration credits shall be available for
sale immediately upon completion of all of the following:
a. Execution of this MBI by the Sponsor, the Corps, and other agencies eligible for
membership in the IRT who choose to execute this agreement;
b. Approval of the final mitigation plan;
c. Delivery of the financial assurance described in paragraph 23 of this MBI; and
d. Recordation of the preservation mechanism described in paragraph 22 of this MBI, as
well as a title opinion covering the property acceptable to the Corps;
0
(Version 21Nov03) •
Additionally, the Sponsor must complete the initial physical and biological improvements to
the bank site pursuant to the mitigation plan no later than the first full growing season following
initial debiting of the Bank.
19. Subject to the Sponsor's continued satisfactory completion of all required success
criteria and monitoring, additional restoration mitigation credits will be available for sale by the
Sponsor on the following schedule:
Credit Release Schedule
Task Completion Verification % of Credits Released
Wetlands Streams
I (Preconstruction)* Execution of MBI 15 15
II (Construction) Site Inspection b USACE 15 15
III (1 sc Year Monitoring) Monitoring Report 10 10
IV (2° Year Monitoring) Monitoring Report 10 10
V (3` Year Monitoring) Monitoring Report 10 10
VI (4 Year Monitoring) Monitoring Report 10 10
VII (5 Year Monitoring) Monitoring Report 10 15
VIII (6 Year Monitoring) Monitoring Report 10 -
IX (7 YearMonitorin) Monitoring Report-Close Out 10 -
X (Full Site Success & transfer of
CE to long term holder) Based on Success Criteria - 15
Tot al 100 100
* Task I includes the execution of the MBI, MBRT approval of the Mitigation Plan, delivery of financial assurances, recordation
of the conservation easement, and delivery of the title option to the MBRT. (As described in Section 19)
** Denotes that the release of 15 percent is contingent upon two bankfull events during the five-year monitoring period. If only
one bankfull event occurs, release of remaining credit is subject to IRT approval.
The above schedule applies only to the extent the Sponsor documents acceptable survival and
growth of planted vegetation, and attainment of acceptable wetland hydrology as described under
the success criteria in the monitoring section of the mitigation plan. The final 25% of credits will
be available for sale only upon a determination by the IRT of functional success as defined in the
mitigation plan.
20. The Sponsor shall develop accounting procedures acceptable to the IRT for
maintaining accurate records of debits made from the Bank. Such procedures shall include the
generation of a report by the Sponsor showing credits used at the time they are debited from the
Bank, which the Sponsor shall provide within 30 days of the debit to each member of the IRT.
In addition, the Sponsor shall prepare an annual report, on each anniversary of the date of
execution of this agreement, showing all credits used, and the balance of credits remaining, to
each member of the IRT, until such time as all of the credits have been utilized, or this agreement
is otherwise terminated. All reports shall identify credits debited and remaining by type of credit
(e. g., pocosin wetland), and shall include for each reported debit the Corps Action ID number
for the permit for which the credits were utilized.

0
• (Version 21Nov03)
Property Disposition
21. The Sponsor currently holds a conservation easement (see MBI Appendix B) over the
+/- 20 acres comprising the Cripple Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank. This easement
allows for the construction and maintenance of the mitigation project, but prohibits all but the
most passive activities within the project area (see Section II of the Conservation Easement). The
easement will provide these protections upon the land in perpetuity. The Sponsor will continue to
hold the Conservation Easement throughout project implementation and monitoring. As shown
in Paragraph 19, the Sponsor will transfer the Conservation Easement to a long term holder prior
to the final release of credits. Once the project has entered the monitoring phase, the Sponsor will
be on site quarterly to check the easement area. The monitoring activities will be conducted by
an outside consultant.
Piedmont Land Conservancy (PLC) will be the long term holder of the conservation easement.
The Sponsor met with PLC on February 5 and February 11, 2009 (at the Cripple Creek site) and
PLC has agreed to assume the role of long-term holder of the conservation easement. On these
two dates, discussions were held with Kalen Kingsbury, Associate Director and General
Counsel, and with Ken Bridle, Stewardship Director, and Greg Messinger, Land Protection
Specialist.
• Throughout the project's life cycle, the Sponsor will be implementing principles of "adaptive
management" and continuously assessing the progress of the project as it relates to the
restoration plan, construction documents and monitoring provisions described herein. If at any
time such plans need revision or modification to ensure a successful restoration, the Sponsor will
notify the IRT and work to appropriately modify project plans. As the primary goal of the project
is to restore natural stream and wetland systems to the site, it is not anticipated that long-term
management (other than oversight of human activity as described above) will be necessary
beyond the monitoring period.
The Sponsor shall grant a conservation easement, in form acceptable to the IRT, sufficient to
protect the Bank site in perpetuity. The conservation easement shall be perpetual, preserve all
natural areas, and prohibit all use of the property inconsistent with its use as mitigation property,
including any activity that would materially alter the biological integrity or functional and
educational value of wetlands within the Bank site, consistent with the mitigation plan. The
purpose of the conservation easement will be to assure that future use of the Bank site will result
in the restoration, protection, maintenance and enhancement of wetland functions described in
the mitigation plan. The Sponsor shall deliver a title opinion acceptable to the Corps covering
the mitigation property. The property shall be free and clear of any encumbrances that would
conflict with its use as mitigation, including, but not limited to, any liens that have priority over
the recorded preservation mechanism.
0
(Version 21Nov03)
Financial Assurances
22. The Sponsor shall provide financial assurances in a form acceptable to the IRT sufficient
to assure completion of all remaining mitigation work, required reporting and monitoring, and
any remedial work required pursuant to this MBI.
1) The Cripple Creek Site is not a complex site. Specifically, the site has only one
landowner, the topography, geography and hydrology are straight forward, and the site is
easily accessible. RS has a substantial track record of performing successful wetland and
stream mitigation projects in the Cape fear 02 HUC, including the Causey Farm wetland
and stream mitigation site which has been used by both the USACE and the NCDWQ for
the purpose of training their staff on a high quality Piedmont wetland and stream
restoration site. It comprises all of the offsite mitigation for the Piedmont Triad Airport
Authority's FedEx expansion. RS has also completed the Holly Grove Stream
Restoration project for the EEP, which is the largest piedmont stream restoration project
to date.
2) RS expects that from the start of construction the time to complete all work will be
between 90 -120 days depending on weather.
3) Because of the factors discussed above in addition to the focus and quality of contractors •
who RS will use in design, implementation, monitoring and long term stewardship, the
likelihood of success for this project is high.
4) Past performance of sponsor in terms of both number of projects successfully completed
and the quality of the work performed should be regarded very favorably by the USACE.
5) The Sponsor shall provide a Performance Bond underwritten by a surety company
licensed to do business in North Carolina with a Best's current rating of not less than "A-
." The bond shall be in the form provided in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 05-1 (dated February 14, 2008) - Model Performance
Bond.
a. Additionally, the Conservation Easement designates the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers as a party enabled to access the site and this document requires all
project-specific reports and records to be provided to the Corps. As such, the
Corps is enabled to determine the status of the site and to determine the
occurrence of default of the mitigation bank as defined in the bonding instrument.
The bonding instrument shall be presented to the Corps for timely review prior to
execution.
b. Prior to determination of default, the bank sponsor shall be given a full
opportunity to remedy the Site to the satisfaction of the Corps.
c. REGL No. 05-1 stipulates that the Corps cannot be the recipient of funds from a •
performance bond. The bond form provided enables the Corps to designate the
• (Version 21Nov03)
recipient of payment from the performance bond in case of default by the
Sponsor.
d. The total value of the Performance Bonds shall be $749,168.00, which will be
split between a construction bond and the subsequent monitoring bond. This
value includes the amount necessary to complete all tasks associated with the
project from its current point through to completion. These include, but are not
limited to, permitting, construction, planting, monitoring, and a 30% contingency
for regrading and/or replanting. Upon successful completion of the construction
phase, the value of the bond shall decrement in amounts proportional to the cost
of carrying the bank through to completion. One bond shall be obtained to cover
site construction; the term of this bond is anticipated to be two years. Thereafter a
renewable monitoring bond shall be obtained. The monitoring bond will be
renewed on either a 1-year or 2-year term until successful completion of the
project. The bonds, bonding amounts, and decrementation schedule are shown in
Appendix D attached hereto. The Bank Sponsor will maintain communication
with the surety and keep the Corps apprised of any issues that may affect the
project's bond.
Long-term Manay-ement
• 24. The Sponsor will implement the long-term management measures described in the
Mitigation Plan by securing the mitigation bank lands with a conservation easement and securing
a commitment from the Piedmont Land Conservancy to be the longterm holder of the easement.
In the event that significant remedial measures become necessary to ensure the functioning of the
aquatic resources, the Sponsor shall notify the Corps prior to taking action with the exception of
emergency situations in which case Sponsor may take action concurrent with notification to the
Corps.
Miscellaneous
25. Any agency participant may terminate its participation in the IRT with notice in
writing to all other parties to this agreement. Termination shall be effective seven (7) days from
placing said notices in the United States mail. Member withdrawal shall not affect any prior sale
of credits and all remaining parties shall continue to implement and enforce the terms of this
MBI. Except for termination as described above, this agreement may be modified only with the
written agreement of all remaining parties to this agreement at the time of the modification.
26. Any delay or failure of Bank Sponsor shall not constitute a default hereunder if and
to the extent that such delay or failure is primarily caused by any act, event or conditions beyond
the Sponsor's reasonable control and significantly adversely affects its ability to perform its
obligations hereunder including: (i) acts of God, lightning, earthquake, fire, landslide, hurricane,
flood, or interference by third parties; (ii) condemnation or other taking by any governmental
body; (iii) change in applicable law, regulation, rule, ordinance or permit condition, or the
(Version 21Nov03)
interpretation or enforcement thereof; (iv) any order, judgment, action or determination of any
federal, state or local court, administrative agency or government body; or (v) the suspension or
interruption of any permit, license, consent, authorization or approval. If the performance of the
Bank Sponsor is affected by any such event, Bank Sponsor shall give written notice thereof to
the IRT as soon as is reasonably practicable. If such event occurs before the final availability of
all credits for sale, the Sponsor shall take remedial action to restore the property to its condition
prior to such event, in a manner sufficient to provide adequate mitigation to cover credits that
were sold prior to such delay or failure to compensate for impacts to waters, including wetlands,
authorized by Department of the Army permits. Such remedial action shall be taken by the
Sponsor only to the extent necessary and appropriate, as determined by the IRT.
27. No third party shall be deemed a beneficiary hereof and no one except the signatories
hereof, their successors and assigns, shall be entitled to seek enforcement hereof.
28. This MBI constitutes the entire agreement between the parties concerning the subject
matter hereof and supersedes all prior agreements or undertakings.
?J
29. In the event any one or more of the provisions contained in this MBI are held to be
invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality or unenforceablility
will not affect any other provisions hereof, and this MBI shall be construed as if such invalid,
illegal or unenforceable provision had not been contained herein. •
30. This MBI shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of North
Carolina and the United States as appropriate.
31. This MBI may be executed by the parties in any combination, in one or more
counterparts, all of which together shall constitute but one and the same instrument.
32. The terms and conditions of this MBI shall be binding upon, and inure to the benefit
of the parties hereto and their respective successors.
33. All notices and required reports shall be sent by regular mail to each of the parties at
their respective addresses, provided below:
Sponsor: Restoration Systems, LLC
John Preyer, Vice President
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, NC 27604
Corps: Andrew Williams, Regulatory Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District, Raleigh Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
10
• (Version 21Nov03)
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health & Natural Resources - Division of
Water Quality
Mr. Eric Kulz
Stream Mitigation Review Coordinator
401 Oversight and Express Permitting Unit
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
Ms. Tammy Hill
Wetland Mitigation Review Coordinator
401 Oversight and Express Permitting Unit
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ms. Kathy Matthews
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4 Wetlands Section
109 T.W. Alexander Drive
Durham, North Carolina 27711
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Mr. Howard Hall
United States Fish and Wildlife Services Raleigh Field Office P.O. Box 33726 Raleigh, North
Carolina 27636-3726
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Ms. Shari Bryant
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
P.O. Box 129
Sedalia, North Carolina 27342-0129
•
11
(Version 21Nov03) •
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement entitled "Agreement
To Establish The Cripple Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank In Alamance County,
North Carolina":
Sponsor: Restoration Systems, LLC
By:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:
By:
Date:
Date:
is
•
12
• (Version 21Nov03)
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement entitled "Agreement
To Establish the Cripple Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank In Alamance County,
North Carolina":
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:
By:
Date:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:
By:
Date:
N.C. Division of Water Quality:
By:
Date:
0 N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission:
By: Date:
U
13
• (Version 21Nov03)
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Cripple Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank Final Mitigation Plan
Appendix B: Property Survey and Legal Description
Appendix C: Map - Geographic Service Area
Appendix D: Project Costs, including Financial Assurances
Appendix E: Form of Financial Assurance
Appendix F: Form of Preservation Mechanism
•
n
U
14
•
•
t
MITIGATION PLAN
CRIPPLE CREEK MITIGATION BANK
Developed Through
RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT OF
UNNAMED TRIBUTARIES TO BOYD CREEK
AND ADJACENT PALUSTRINE WETLANDS
Alamance County, North Carolina
PREPARED BY:
RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC
1101 HAYNES STREET, SUITE 211
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27604
?'R?cxurz.?
AND
:-1
AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
20 ENTERPRISE STREET, SUITE 7
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27607
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
REVISED AUGUST 2009

•
•
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
0 Restoration Systems proposes the establishment of a stream and wetland mitigation bank at the Cripple
Creek Site (The Bank) located approximately two miles northeast of Burlington, in northeast Alamance
County. The Bank is located within the Cape Fear River Basin in 14-digit United States Geological
Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Unit and Targeted Local Watershed 03030002030050 of the South
Atlantic/Gulf Region (North Carolina Division of Water Quality [NCDWQ] subbasin number 03-06-02).
The Bank encompasses approximately 19.6 acres of land that is utilized for livestock grazing and hay
production. Approximately 4137 linear feet of stream associated with an unnamed tributary to Boyds
Creek and its secondary tributaries, as well as 8.8 acres of hydric soil exhibit mitigation potential within
The Bank. These areas are accessible to livestock and are routinely cleared and mowed for hay
production, resulting in local disturbances to stream banks and wetland soil surfaces. Additional land use
practices including the maintenance and removal of riparian vegetation, and relocation, dredging, and
straightening of onsite streams has resulted in degraded water quality, unstable channel characteristics
(stream entrenchment, erosion, and bank collapse), and reduced storage capacity/floodwater attenuation.
The primary goals of this stream and wetland restoration project focus on improving water quality,
enhancing flood attenuation, and restoring aquatic and riparian habitat, which will be accomplished by:
1. Removing nonpoint sources of pollution associated with agricultural activities including a)
excluding livestock from streams, stream banks, and floodplains; b) eliminating the broadcasting
of fertilizer, pesticides, and other agricultural materials into and adjacent to streams and wetlands;
and c) establishing a native woody riparian buffer (at least 50' wide) adjacent to streams and
wetlands to treat surface runoff which may be laden with sediment and/or agricultural pollutants
from the adjacent landscape.
2. Reducing sedimentation within onsite and downstream receiving waters through a) reduction of
bank erosion associated with hoof shear, vegetation maintenance, and agricultural plowing, and
b) planting a diverse native woody riparian buffer (at least 50' wide) adjacent to The Bank's
streams.
3. Reestablishing stream stability and the capacity to transport watershed flows and sediment loads
by restoring a stable dimension, pattern, and profile supported by natural in-stream habitat and
grade/bank stabilization structures.
4. Promoting floodwater attenuation through a) reconnecting bankfull stream flows to the
abandoned floodplain terrace, b) restoring secondary, entrenched tributaries thereby reducing
floodwater velocities within smaller catchment basins, c) restoring depressional floodplain
wetlands, thereby increasing the storage capacity for floodwaters within The Bank, and d)
revegetating floodplains to increase frictional resistance on floodwaters crossing The Bank.
5. Improving aquatic habitat by enhancing stream bed variability and the use of in-stream structures.
6. Providing wildlife habitat including seepage slope wetlands, which are uncommon in the
piedmont portion of the State.
The Bank's mitigation plan includes 1) construction of a stable, riffle-pool stream channel, 2)
restoration/enhancement of historic wetland functions, 3) enhancement of water quality functions (reduce
nonpoint source sedimentation and nutrient inputs), 4) restoration of a natural woody riparian buffer (at
least 50' wide) along The Bank's stream reaches, 5) restoration of wildlife habitat associated with a
riparian corridor/stable stream, and 6) establishment of a permanent conservation easement which will
encompass all restoration activities.
The restoration strategies outlined in this report are as follows:
Proposed Mitigation Quantity Proposed Mitigation Units
(Credits)
Proposed Mitigation Activity Streams
(linear feet) Wetlands
(acres) Stream Units
(SMUs) Wetland Units
(WMUs)
Stream Restoration 4265 4265
Stream Enhancement (Level 11) 633 253
Riparian Wetland Restoration 5.7 5.7
Riparian Wetland Enhancement 1.4 0.7
Nonri arian Wetland Restoration 1.2 1?
Nonriparian Wetland Enhancement 4 '. 0.5 0?5
Total: 4518 Total: 7.85
After completion of the project The Bank will offer 4518 Stream Mitigation Units and 7.85 Wetland
Mitigation Units.
•
No federally protected species are listed for Alamance County; however, detailed surveys were conducted
for two Federal Species of Concern that are protected by the state: 1) Carolina creekshell (Yllosa
vaughaniana) and 2) yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa). Although not protected by federal law,
detailed surveys were conducted within the Site on May 1, 2008 to determine the presence or absence of
freshwater mussels. Based on habitat observations from the survey, it is possible that freshwater mussels
were present in this reach at some point in time; however, habitat loss due to natural (prolonged drought)
or anthropogenic (channel modification, land clearing, and vegetative maintenance) causes has resulted in
the loss of suitable habitat for these species. Based on results of the survey, construction of this project is
not expected to impact any freshwater mussel resources.
0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... I
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Goals ....................................................................................................................... ......1
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................. ......2
2.1 Physiography, Topography, and Land Use .......................................................................... ......3
2.2 Water Quality ...................................................................................................................... ......4
2.3 Vegetation ............................................................................................................................ ......5
2.4 Soils and Land Form ........................................................................................................... ......5
2.5 Jurisdictional Wetlands ........................................................................................................ ......6
3.0 STREAM CHARACTERISTICS .................................................................................................... ......8
3.1 Hydrology ............................................................................................................................ ......8
3. 1.1 Drainage Area ................................................................................................................ ......8
3.1.2 Discharge ....................................................................................................................... ......8
3.2 Stream Classification ........................................................................................................... .... 11
3.2.1 Dimension ..................................................................................................................... ....11
3.2.2 Profile ............................................................................................................................ ....12
3.2.3 Plan Form ...................................................................................................................... ....12
3.3 Stream Power, Shear Stress, and Stability Threshold .......................................................... ....13
3.3.1 Stream Power ................................................................................................................ ....13
3.3.2 Shear Stress ................................................................................................................... ....13
3.3.3 Stream Power and Shear Stress Methods and Results ................................................... ....14
4.0 REFERENCE STUDIES ................................................................................................................. ....15
• 4.1 Reference Channels ............................................................................................................. ....16
4.2 Reference Forest Ecosystem ................................................................................................ ....16
5.0 RESTORATION PLAN .................................................................................................................. ....17
5.1 Stream Restoration .............................................................................................................. ....17
5. 1.1 Reconstruction on New Location ......................................................................................18
5.1.2 In-Stream Structures ...................................................................................................... ....19
5.1.3 Stream Reconstruction In-Place .................................................................................... ....20
5.2 Stream Enhancement (Level II) ........................................................................................... ....21
5.3 Wetland Restoration/Enhancement ..................................................................................... ....21
5.4 Bioretention BMP Wetland Improvements .............................................................................21
5.5 Vegetative Planting ............................................................................................................ .....21
5.6 Planting Plan ....................................................................................................................... .....23
6.0 MO NITORING PLAN ................................................................................................................... .....24
6.1 Stream Monitoring .............................................................................................................. .....25
6.2 Vegetation Monitoring ....................................................................................................... .....25
6.3 Monitoring of Hydrology: Wetlands .................................................................................. .....26
6.4 Biotic Community Changes ................................................................................................ .....26
7.0 AVAILABLE CREDIT AND PROPOSED RELEASE ................................................................ .....26
7.1 Credit Determination .......................................................................................................... .....26
7.2 Credit Release Schedule ..................................................................................................... .....27
7.3 Long-term management ...................................................................................................... .....27
7.4 Nonproject Development Scenario ..................................................................................... .....28
7.5 Corporate Experience ......................................................................................................... .....2
8.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS ......................................................................................................... .....29
8.1 Waters of the United States ................................................................................................ .....29
8.2 Rare and Protected Species ......................................................................................................29
8.2.1 Federally Protected Species ...............................................................................................29
8.2.2 Federal Species of Concern ...............................................................................................30
9.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................................30
10.0 PREVIOUS MBRT (IRT) MEMBERSHIP ........................................................................................30
10.1 mbrt (IRT) member agency comments ....................................................................................31
10.2 restoration systems responses to mbrt member comments ......................................................33
11.0 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................35
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Figures
Appendix B. NCDWQ Stream Forms
Appendix C. Flood Frequency Analysis Plots
Appendix D. Reference Stream Data
Appendix E. Freshwater Mussel Survey Report
Appendix F. MBRT Member Agency Comment Letters
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. The Bank and Reference Location Appendix A
Figure 2. Mitigation Service Area Appendix A
• Figure 3. Drainage Area and Topography Appendix A
Figure 4. Existing Conditions Appendix A
Figure 5. NRCS Soils Map Appendix A
Figure 6. Existing Dimension, Pattern, and Profile Appendix A
Figure 7. Reference Dimension, Pattern, and Profile Appendix A
Figures 8 A-8C. Restoration Plan Appendix A
Figure 9. Proposed Dimension, Pattern, and Profile Appendix A
Figure 10. Typical Structure Details Appendix A
Figure 11 . Planting Plan Appendix A
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Existing Stream Characteristics ............................................................................. ....................... ..4
Table 2. NRCS Soils Mapped within The Bank .................................................................. ....................... ..6
Table 3. Results for Boussinesq Equation ........................................................................... ....................... ..8
Table 4. Table of Morphological Stream Characteristics .................................................... ....................... ..9
Table 5. Reference Reach Bankfull Discharge Analysis ..................................................... ....................... 10
Table 6. Stream Power (Q) and Shear Stress (T) Values ..................................................... ....................... 15
Table 7. Reference Forest Ecosystem .................................................................................. ....................... 17
Table 8. Planting Plan .......................................................................................................... ....................... 24
Table 9. Proposed Mitigation Quantities vs. Mitigation Credits ......................................... ....................... 27
• Table 10. Proposed Credit Release Schedule ...................................................................... ....................... 27
Table 11. Federal Species of Concern ................................................................................. ....................... 30
IV
MITIGATION PLAN
CRIPPLE CREEK MITIGATION BANK
RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT OF
UNNAMED TRIBUTARIES TO BOYD CREEK
AND ADJACENT PALUSTRINE WETLANDS
Alamance County, North Carolina
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Restoration Systems proposes the establishment of a stream and wetland mitigation bank at the Cripple
Creek Site (The Bank) located approximately two miles northeast of Burlington, in northeast Alamance
County (Figures 1 and 2, Appendix A). The Bank encompasses approximately 19.6 acres of land that is
utilized for livestock grazing and hay production. Approximately 4137 linear feet of stream associated
with an unnamed tributary to Boyds Creek and its secondary tributaries, as well as 8.8 acres of hydric soil
exhibit mitigation potential within The Bank. These areas are accessible to livestock and are routinely
cleared and mowed for hay production, resulting in local disturbances to stream banks and wetland soil
surfaces. Additional land use practices including the maintenance and removal of riparian vegetation, and
relocation, dredging, and straightening of onsite streams has resulted in degraded water quality, unstable
channel characteristics (stream entrenchment, erosion, and bank collapse), and reduced storage
capacity/floodwater attenuation.
Directions to The Bank:
Take exit 150 off Interstate 85-40 just east of Burlington
Travel north/towards Haw River/Green Level for - 2.2 miles
At the Highway 49 junction, turn right/travel north on Highway 49 towards Green Level/Roxboro
for -2.7 miles
Turn left on Sandy Cross Road (at the Sandy Cross Mini Mart) for -1.6 miles
Turn right on Fonville Road for -1.7 miles to a T-intersection
Turn left on Deep Creek Road for -0.9 mile
Turn left on Roney-Lineberry Road just after Deep Creek Baptist Church for -0.3 mile
After passing through a trailer park, take a left at the stop sign into The Bank
Point in center of road crossing at the upstream end of the Main Channel
Latitude: 36.138332274 °N, Longitude: 79.380963290 °W
1.1 PROJECT GOALS
The primary goals of this stream and wetland restoration project focus on improving water quality,
enhancing flood attenuation, and restoring aquatic and riparian habitat, which will be accomplished by:
1. Removing nonpoint sources of pollution associated with agricultural activities including a)
excluding livestock from streams, stream banks, and floodplains; b) eliminating the broadcasting
of fertilizer, pesticides, and other agricultural materials into and adjacent to streams and wetlands;
and c) establishing a native woody riparian buffer (at least 50' wide) adjacent to streams and
wetlands to treat surface runoff which may be laden with sediment and/or agricultural pollutants
from the adjacent landscape.
2. Reducing sedimentation within onsite and downstream receiving waters through a) reduction of
bank erosion associated with hoof shear, vegetation maintenance, and agricultural plowing, and
b) planting a diverse native woody riparian buffer (at least 50' wide) adjacent to The Bank's
streams.
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
3. Reestablishing stream stability and the capacity to transport watershed flows and sediment loads
by restoring a stable dimension, pattern, and profile supported by natural in-stream habitat and
grade/bank stabilization structures.
4. Promoting floodwater attenuation through a) reconnecting bankfull stream flows to the
abandoned floodplain terrace, b) restoring secondary, entrenched tributaries thereby reducing
floodwater velocities within smaller catchment basins, c) restoring depressional floodplain
wetlands, thereby increasing the storage capacity for floodwaters within The Bank, and d)
revegetating floodplains to increase frictional resistance on floodwaters crossing The Bank.
5. Improving aquatic habitat by enhancing stream bed variability and the use of in-stream structures.
6. Providing wildlife habitat including seepage slope wetlands, which are uncommon in the
piedmont portion of the State.
These goals will be achieved by:
• Providing 4518 Stream Mitigation Units.
c Restoring approximately 4265 linear feet of stream channel through construction of stable
channels, thereby reestablishing stable dimension, pattern, and profile.
o Enhancing (Level II) approximately 633 linear feet of stream channel through the removal of
invasive species, cessation of livestock grazing, and bank stabilization.
• Providing 7.85 Wetland Mitigation Units.
o Restoring approximately 5.7 acres of riparian wetlands and 1.2 acres of nonriparian wetlands
by reconstructing channels of tributaries that exhibit more natural, historic interplay with the
floodplain, filling ditched channels, rehydrating floodplain soils, and planting with native
woody vegetation.
o Enhancing approximately 1.4 acres of riparian wetlands and 0.5 acres of nonriparian wetlands
by reconstructing The Bank's tributaries within the floodplain, rehydrating floodplain soils,
removing livestock, and planting with native woody vegetation.
• Planting a native woody riparian buffer (at least 50' wide) adjacent to restored/enhanced streams
and wetlands within The Bank. Native woody riparian buffer will be a minimum of 50 feet in
length.
• Protecting The Bank in perpetuity with a conservation easement.
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Bank is characterized by pastureland, which is utilized by the Taylor family for horse grazing and
hay production (Figure 4, Appendix A). A horse complex including barn, riding ring, and feed storage
facility is located adjacent to the western margins of The Bank. Horses predominantly graze the northern
half of The Bank and are constrained by natural drainage features, permanent fences, and temporary
electric fences. The southern half of The Bank is characterized by hay pasture and mixed forest. An
agricultural road traverses the northern edges of The Bank and provides access to the horse complex and
hay fields that lie in the eastern half of the property.
The main hydrologic features of The Bank include an
unnamed tributary to Boyds Creek and associated
secondary tributaries and floodplains (Figures 3 and 4,
Appendix A). The unnamed tributary to Boyds Creek
(Main Channel) drains an approximately 0.4-square mile
watershed at The Bank's outfall. The unnamed tributary to
Boyds Creek is a second-order bank-to-bank stream
system, which has been dredged and straightened and is
characterized by eroding banks, bimodal sediment
Looking from the top of the Main Channel at the
narrow, disturbed buffer and adjacent hydric
soils within the pastureland.
I
0
r ?
Cripple Creek ?Witigation Plan Restoration Svstems, LLC
•
•
U
transport, and a narrow and sparse, disturbed riparian buffer
Tributaries 1-4) are disturbed first-order streams
(Figure 4, Appendix A).
Approximately 8.8 acres of The Bank's land area are
currently underlain by hydric soils, which have been
impacted by stream channel entrenchment, ditching,
excavation of pools in the floodplain, casting of spoil
in wetlands, and removal of vegetation. Hydric soils
have been mapped by the Natural Resource
Conservation Service (MRCS) as Worsham and
Chewacla; however, a significant portion of the
Chewacla mapping unit appears to be characterized
by Wehadkee/Worsham inclusions.
The four
2.1 PHYSIOGRAPHY, TOPOGRAPHY, AND LAND USE
tributaries (Unnamed
The Bank is located in the Southern Outer Piedmont portion of the Piedmont Ecoregion of North Carolina
within United States Geological Survey (USGS) Cataloging Unit 03030002 (North Carolina Division of
Water Quality [NCDWQ] subbasin number 03-06-02) of the Cape Fear River Basin. Regional
physiography is characterized by dissected, irregular plains and some low, rounded hills and ridges with
low to moderate gradient streams over cobble, gravel, and sand-dominated substrates. Onsite elevations
range from a high of 630 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) on slopes adjacent to the
northern tributary at the upstream end of The Bank to a low of approximately 610 feet NGVD at The
Bank's outfall (USGS Lake Burlington, North Carolina 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles).
The Bank provides water quality functions to a 0.4-square mile watershed at The Bank outfall (Figure 3,
Appendix A). The watershed is dominated by timber production, agricultural land, and residential
development. A high-density residential trailer park is situated in the headwaters of the drainage basin
and drainage from State Road (SR) 1729
and SR 1735 flows into The Bank's
tributaries (see picture below). PA V
Impervious surfaces account for less than 4' J
10 percent of the upstream watershed
land surface.
3
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
The Bank encompasses 4137 linear feet of stream channels including three unnamed tributaries to Boyds
Creek (Main Channel and Unnamed Tributaries 1-4). Table 1 gives characteristics of The Bank's
streams; the locations of each are depicted in Figure 4 (Appendix A).
Approximately 8.8 acres of The Bank are underlain by hydric soils, which may have historically
supported jurisdictional wetlands. Hydric soils are located on slopes and within floodplains adjacent to
onsite streams. Extensive floodplain manipulations associated with stream ditching and straightening,
deforestation, floodplain ditching, and excavation of small ponds in the floodplain have effectively
removed groundwater hydrology from these areas. These features are discussed in more detail in Section
2.5 (Jurisdictional Wetlands).
Table 1. Existing Stream Characteristics

Stream Reach Stream Length

(linear feet) USGS

Stream Order
Stream Classification*
Main Channel 1850 second perennial
Unnamed Tributarv 1 832 first perennial*
Unnamed Tributary 2 1100 first perennial*
Unnamed Tributary 3 205 not shown perennial*
Unnamed Tributary 4 150 not shown perennial*
Total 4137
"l here tributaries are depicted as m[erinrttent or not shown on the US GS 7.5 ininute topographic quadrangle and or N KCS soils mapping; however,
streams exhibited characteristics of perennial streams during field investigations (see NCDWQ stream classification forms in Appendix B).
2.2 WATER QUALIT V
The Bank is located within the Cape Fear River Basin in 14-digit USGS Hydrologic Unit and Targeted
Local Watershed 03030002030050 of the South Atlantic/Gulf Region (NCDWQ subbasin number 03-
06-02) (Figure 2, Appendix A) (NCWRP 2001). Topographic features of The Bank drain to Boyds Creek
and the Haw River, which have been assigned Stream Index Numbers 16-16 and 16-(1), respectively. In
the vicinity of The Bank, these waters have been assigned a designation of C, NSW (NCDWQ 2000).
Streams with a designation of C are suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife,
secondary recreation, and a0riculture. Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses not
involving human body contact with waters on an organized or frequent basis. The designation NSW
(Nutrient Sensitive Waters) includes areas with water quality problems associated with excessive plant
growth resulting from nutrient enrichment.
NCDWQ has assembled a list of impaired waterbodies according to the 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 water quality standards including designated uses, numeric
and narrative criteria, and anti-degradation requirements defined in 40 CFR 131. The Bank's tributaries
are not listed on the NCDWQ final 2004 or draft 2006 303(d) lists; however, the section of the Haw River
that The Bank's tributaries drain to is on the 303(d) lists due to impaired biological integrity most likely
resulting from nonpoint agricultural and urban runoff and elevated levels of fecal coliform bacteria
(NCDWQ 2006a, 2006b).
is
4
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration St,stems, LLC
The proposed project is supportive of the reduction in Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) which will
serve to address existing deficiencies with the watershed, and will assist in meeting mitigation goals in the
Cape Fear River Basin Hydrologic Unit and Targeted Local Watershed 03030002030050.
2.3 VEGETATION
The Bank is composed of agricultural land managed for horses and hay production, early successional
disturbed forests, and an early successional disturbed wetland area.
Disturbed forest fragments occur along the southern
Y
margin of The Bank and adjacent to site streams, and i
are predominately comprised of early successional
species. The more prolific tree species include
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), black therm
(Prunus serotina), red maple (Ater ratbrum), loblolly
pine (Pinus taeda), short-needle pine (x
P. echinata)
and Virginia pine (P. virginiana) with a dense
understory composed of blackberry (Rubus sp.), ?. Disturbed stream buffer with adjacent
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), greenbrier (Smilax l ,4 pasture/hay fields.
sp.), and American holly (Ilex opaca). A sparse
subcanopy and canopy includes Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana), eastern red cedar (Juniperus
virginiana), American beech (Fages grandifolia), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), river birch (Betula
nigra), various oak species (Querctts spp.), and tuliptree (Liriodendron tulipifera).
0
A small, disturbed wetland pocket is located at the
northern end of The Bank on the UT1, immediately
below an off-site pond and road crossing. This area is
accessible to livestock and contains species such as
black willow (Salix nigra), cattail (Typha sp.), and
smartweed (Polygonum sp.).
Reforestation using hardwood species is proposed over
?1 4
r mall wetland pocket below pond and road crossing approximately 18.7 acres of The Bank, including areas
of pastureland, disturbed forest, and a BMP wetland
on UTI; contains disturbed vegetation. just outside the Bank boundary. Plant community
composition is expected to vary from Piedmont
Alluvial Forest to Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest, as
described in Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Third Approximation (Schafale
and Weakley 1990). Forest communities may vary based on floodplain size, flooding regime, and/or
topographic variations. Species composition will mimic reference forests within undisturbed floodplains
up or downstream of The Bank and offsite reference forests. An ecological approach will be taken for
restoration of wetlands and native woody riparian buffer plant communities; therefore, a varied forest
structure will help achieve habitat diversity.
2.4 SOILS AND LAND FORM
Soils that occur within The Bank, according to the Soil Survey of Alamance County, North Carolina
(MRCS unpublished) are depicted in Figure 5 (Appendix A) and are described in Table 2.
5
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
Table 2. MRCS Soils MaMed within The Bank
Nonhydric Hydric Family Description
Soil Series Status*
Appling Nonhvdric Ttipic This series consists of well-drained, moderately permeable soils of
Hapludult broad ridges and long, linear side slopes. Slopes are generally
between 2 and 10 percent. Depth to seasonal high water table occurs
below 6.0 feet. Soft bedrock occurs at a depth of more than 60
inches.
Cecil Nonhydric Ttipic This series consists of well-drained, moderately permeable soils of
Hapludults broad ridges and long, linear side slopes. Slopes are generally
between 2 and 15 percent. Depth to seasonal high water table occurs
below 6.0 feet. Soft bedrock occurs at a depth of more than 60
inches.
Chewacla Class B Fluvaquentic This series consists of frequently flooded, somewhat poorly drained,
Dystrochrept moderately permeable soils of floodplains adjacent to stream
channels. Slopes are generally between 0 and 2 percent. Depth to
seasonal high water table occurs at 0.5 to 1.5 feet. Soft bedrock
occurs at a depth of more than 60 inches.
Enon Nonhydric Ultic This series consists of well-drained, slowly permeable soils of long,
Hapludalf narrow side slopes on uplands. Slopes are generally between 6 and
15 percent. Depth to seasonal high water table occurs at 1.0 to 2.0
feet. Soft bedrock occurs at a depth of more than 60 inches.
Iredell Nonhydric Ttipic This series consists of well-drained, slowly permeable soils of flats
Hapludalf and concave areas near the heads of intermittent drainageways.
Slopes are generally between 0 and 4 percent. Depth to seasonal
high water table occurs at greater than 6 feet; however, due to slow
permeabilities a perched watertable often occurs at about 18 inches.
Soft bedrock occurs at a depth of 20 to 40 inches.
Worsham Class A Ttipic This series consists of poorly drained, slow to very slowly
Endoaquult permeable soils of floodplains adjacent to headwater drainageways.
Slopes are generally between 0 and 4 percent. Depth to seasonal
high water table occurs at 0.5 to 1.0 feet. Bedrock occurs at a depth
of more than 60 inches.
* Class A= Hydric soils; Class B = Nonhydric soils that may contain inclusions of hydric soils.
Restorable portions of The Bank are predominantly underlain by soils of the Worsham and Chewacla
series; however, a significant portion of the floodplain mapped as Chewacla is characterized by
Wehadkee/Worsham inclusions. Floodplain soils are grey to gley in color and have been impacted by
plowing, land clearing, ditching, and incision of adjacent stream channels.
2.5 JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
LJ

Jurisdictional wetlands are defined by the presence of three criteria: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils,
and evidence of wetland hydrology during the growing season (Environmental Laboratory 1987).
Portions of The Bank supporting jurisdictional wetlands may originally have been characterized by
palustrine, forested wetlands which were seasonally flooded. However, onsite wetland areas have been
impacted by livestock trampling, deforestation, groundwater draw-down from stream channel incision,
floodplain ditching, and excavation of the floodplain.
6
Cripple Creek Mitiggation Plan Restoration Stistems, LLC
Within The Bank's boundaries, approximately 8.8 acres of floodplain and adjacent side slopes are
underlain by hydric soils (Figure 4, Appendix A). Hydric soil boundaries were delineated by Axiom
Environmental in January 2007 and were approved by United States Army Corps of Engineers on March
23, 2007. Onsite hydric soils and wetlands are grey to gley in color and are compacted and pockmarked
by livestock trampling. Livestock trampling, grazing and annual mowing for harvest of hay has also
resulted in a vegetative community that is herbaceous in nature. Groundwater springs and surface runoff
contribute hydrology to these areas, although the dominant hydrological influence is the lateral draw-
down effect of incised streams and maintained ditches.
Some portions of onsite wetlands have been impacted by groundwater table alterations, ditching,
dredging, and discharge of fill material in the floodplain. Groundwater table fluctuations mainly occur
adjacent to entrenched stream channels, which have effectively lowered the groundwater table below
hydrologic thresholds outlined for wetland criteria. Preliminary groundwater modeling has been
conducted in order to quantify impacts to the groundwater table from onsite ditching and stream incision.
Groundwater Model
For this study, the Boussinesq equation was utilized to predict groundwater impacts associated with
floodplain ditching and stream channel incision. The Boussinesq equation represents a two-dimensional
general flow equation for unconfined aquifers. The equation has been applied in the past to predict the
decline in elevation of the water table near a pumping well as time progresses.
The Boussinesq equation was applied to The Bank's ditches and stream channels to predict the linear
distance of groundwater drawdown that exceeds 1 foot for 12.5-percent of the growing season. The
percentage of the growing season (12.5 percent) was selected based upon guidance from the Corps of
Engineers TVetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). The equation is solved for
wetland impacts with data for the following variables: 1) equivalent hydraulic conductivity, 2) drainabie
porosity, 3) an estimated depth to the impermeable layer or aquiclude, 4) the time duration of the
drawdown, 5) target water table depth (1 foot below the soil surface), and 6) minimum ditch depth.
Results from the Boussinesq equation predicted lateral effects for incised stream reaches in the range of
99 to 206 feet. Results of the Boussinesq equation are summarized in Table 3. Model predictions
indicate that the incised stream channels impact approximately 6.9 acres of The Bank's hydric soils
through groundwater table drawdown. Figure 4 (Appendix A) depicts hydric soils drained as the result
lateral drawdown effects of incised streams versus hydric soils that are not drained. The general location
of each hydric soil type is depicted on the USDA soils map in Figure 5 (Appendix A). Worsham soils
occur along the entire length of site streams, while an inclusion of Wehadkee occurs within the mapped
area of Chewacla soils located on the south side of the very upstream reach of the Main Channel.
Restoration efforts should focus on elevating groundwater tables through restoration of entrenched stream
channels, filling of secondary ditches, removal of livestock, and planting with native forest vegetation.
These measures will restore approximately 6.9 acres of jurisdictional wetland and enhance approximately
1.9 acre of wetland. Mitigation efforts should allow the floodplain to perform wetland functions such as
flood-flow suppression, nutrient cycling, pollutant removal, and provision of native species habitat.
n
7
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
Table 3. Results for Boussinesq Equation
Depth to
Ditch Depth Growing Drainable Ditch Impact
Soil Aquaclude Ksat (cm/hr)

Season (hrs) Porosity (cm) (ft)
(ft) (cm)
2 178 1.5 _ 552 0.006 130
- 3 178 1.5 552 0.006 177
W
h
ors
am
4 _ 178 1.5 552 0.006 198
5 178 1.5 552 0.006 206
2 152 3.3 552 0.018 99
r- 3 152 3.3 552 0.018
135
h
dk
W
_
e
a
ee
4 _ 152 3.3 552 0.018
148
_
5 152 3.3 552 0.018 151
3.0 STREAM CHARACTERISTICS
The Bank's streams have been characterized based on fluvial geomorphic principles (Rosgen 1996).
Table 4 provides a summary of measured stream geometry attributes under existing conditions
(considered to be unstable) and a preliminary estimate of potentially stable stream attributes. Preliminary
estimates of stable stream attributes are based primarily upon data observations along the existing
reaches, measurements of cross-sections within the Site (Figure 6, Appendix A), regional curves (Harman
et al. 1999), and a reference reach.
3.1 HYDROLOGY
This hydrophysiographic region is characterized by moderate rainfall with precipitation averaging
approximately 40-50 inches per year (NRCS unpublished). Drainage basin sizes range from 0.07-square
mile for the southern tributary to 0.4-square mile for the main channel at The Bank's outfall.
The Bank's 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 0.4-square
mile watershed is expected to average 46 cubic feet per second, which is expected to occur approximately
every 1.3 to 1.5 years (Rosgen 1996, Leopold 1994).
3.1.1 Drainage Area
The Bank drainage area encompasses approximately 0.4 square mile at the downstream outfall. The Bank
watershed is characterized by pasture and disturbed forest land with a high-density residential trailer park
situated in the headwaters of the Banks drainage basin. The Bank is located in USGS HU and Targeted
Local Watershed 03030002030050. Topographic features of The Bank drain to Boyds Creek and the
Haw River, which have been assigned Stream Index Numbers 16-16 and 16-(1), respectively and a Best
Usage Classification of C, NSW (NCDWQ 2000).
3.1.2 Discharge
Discharge estimates for the Bank utilize an assumed definition of "bankfull" and the return interval
associated with that bankfull discharge. For this study, the bankfull channel is defined as the channel
dimensions designed to support the "channel forming" or "dominant" discharge (Gordon et al. 1992).
Based on Piedmont regional curves (Harman et al. 1999), the bankfull discharge for a 0.4 square mile
watershed is expected to average 45.9 cubic feet per second, which is expected to occur approximately
every 1.3 to 1.5 years (Rosgen 1996, Leopold 1994).
8
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Sweets, LLC
Table 4. Table of Morphological Stream Characteristics

Table 4. Table of Morphralogleal Stream Charactertstlee
Crivole Creek Stream..a wxlaxe R

•
Relit MYn Clrxxeupatrxm Mee CM1xMUpsbaun
Prapesee BYM CM1enml
Oewnmxm Mee CM1xml
Oewmtnxn lropuW
He Tr4ueMy
DM TaiFWy
TrM°WMe Prepesy
REFERENCE
Stream ivce E9 'vE _g _E _ _ _

ranvge area rm5
0.38 OIB
O.vO
0q c9
0
0) Ea

RarkU Ciswrge':USI
J20 J20

41.J

a1.J .

177 0.0]

;ti 0.02

11
2
017

OMnsru Vrsb4s
woes
0
DhaMrrve
n vweYs . .J
RardJ.:ross.3eaianx:rea a
b° ; 0, t04
04 D1mn slbnV
MM Obra mionV naeM
e
eumry CrozsiecvorM 4rx iA
BarMU`rVM 1'/'aaJ Mxrt
m 91
9
9 -0: 104 ].2
Sa-IOU l2
ta6-tfi.t 22
12 5,3
22-3.4
arg ).1i.5 Ra
? .
90.+
0' Mex
2.9
Rays -9
1 Nxrt
Rarys 1
0
2
r2' M<x: 4.J
R Naart 44 Maan. 56 Nex'. 42
ReMU Kean I-z re
•x b_tl .
art
Max .
.
09 erg I].6-49
Mxrt O
d Ruye:
?NZx' ].9.4.9
0
2 Range'.
M 3.1-d1
O
d Rarye'. l
d t
EaMM Manmun C<FOr iD
l Range.
n 0.9-11 03
0.9 Parye Prep 09-;J .
Rarye: q6-?9 Pays .
0d-0d Rarye: .
0.5-0.3 Mxn'
arys: 1.,
2-t5
.o
Pod KSOarlw„y1 a
Rarye _. L] Me
Range
M !.+.2 xn
Maw
20
_
t.3-'1 Yean
Range: t.l
t.J-t4 Mxn. t3
Parg 1.2'd
_ Mean
Rarye _
.I.J
11 Mex'.
Rarry: 0.0
O.B-0.9 ex-

Fsrye' )

1.0.2]
utircWarepeeWe eart
pangs t2d
10.3v-1).3 Woatincwerepedrve
ur4m of :nMS Sre uoY Mean
Rarye. 4.a
122 '20.0 No aislircwnrtuowepeRemd:tlks am uok as PSx ).J
1O '9neraM ecw4es
w Mxn 1.2

ex'
M,p
IA
y
t'.24
't.0
tE`
aye
02-1.5 =11
Uge t2.o-eSJ Rvgs 4-'.24 1" 2 M
a
R 45
2s
S
almxs4n patios DMrne w Patios Omm bn Rages aga -6

Ereercman Raa ?'.Nrwr,o

dn/eeeur Ratio-w,dn,,,,
Mnn: 5.2

Rarye: ].4.i?
ex: B.2
N
N

Rarye
M.an
1J]

!q0-I2.d
Izp
IAZx

Rang
Mex
34

26-d.1

Bz
Mex

Rang
Mxn
).)

62-it.3

zp
ex

Rarye:

xn
J.d

2t5.1

s
d OM
Mex

Rape nsw
2J R

9.22

xp:

e.o

s- I.a
+
DM1rr

Rarye.
a])]n
Pew
240. i0

arye'. d2tt.t
IRarg
10.0.14.0
RxR.
-i2
Rarye
t0
0
+40
R .
- bz Nxn qo
Mxrt
43
ac r}v/Cx Rdb ex ean IAex i .
Yxn .
- rge.
ean: 2er6 Rarye.
M
' 4.1.22 Perye: -12o Rarye: 40-4J
Range: Rarye' -

> Rzrqa. 2

!

arg

R
' ean
d
ex
1.4
Mex
t 5
on darn Negn/Nix?Raw
x
ex
; H .
Mex
t - ange 20.29

4 Rarye
-
M1lean 1.4.2_+
2] Farge: -1.5 Range.

mm Pad Cenn/dareU Rarye Range J-1,J
Rarye
9-I.J
t.].1,0
Pang
_ xn
Rarye
t0-!J xrt
Merge.

M
ex CeeniDyq,3 pyg. 1.9
_ Mex
Rer?ga t.3
!-L' 1.9
M
M/9aMU
PooNnM1 1W..rMbJ unxneol rM4s em eeob

oaMi
n IAean

R.- 1.l
, _
1
a
, r4o aUrclns reultbe
Ymm o/ rdM am moY
Mex
R
t.J
Yvrco Ne wrt<m d nllka are poM oa
P r Rarye:
Mex arge
Mxn
B '
PootArx/RareU g
enry acwsw
_ 0
3 ro vaigaekryan es arye. 1.1-t.0 b
rsgnenrg acrrvaix p
age. _
I I
r
Rang-
1.1.3.4
as 3xnoral4raa Rugs .
-24
t Mex 20 M 2.0 22
ImmV+meba Fangs. R ryv
-
te-
Raye:
q1 ad
o Pe
PoP'
I
l s
t VarYONS Ixxn V
`s Pxxn VU
.
e
9ecvg l
.ei
ex
Rag
495
198. 69
J Max 55.5
Ye
a^
2i4
•x
ex.
M srrr Verb04s
]L4

Maamx lerymlty

Mxrt
.
a9.1 Rarye:
N 222-)])
Parg'.
11.2-JJ.6
arge:
140-A.5

Een'Mdn ?va
/ rtov
rnnea arv ueb
l
n
R°^/e
95
t arepe0na
lNlbs aeR poab
z ex
Rays Si.S-tJJ.2
vMncvv nwe unanol nnkv .aon
°
a IAex

Rerge: A4

28
0.92
3
Mex
Rx 4).a

Jt0
)
J
e„ j°
Mr
9nerar9 cwnx Mean'
d J9a
19d i9
a Io v
ai9nmr9 aarrvRx M
ex aa.4 b
sYlytemgadrnix e n .
.
15.0 ,N:
M -
4
14,J
Paco dCwaNe?R,I Mea . Rrge.
M - .2-z.6
24,4 Rsrye srga'. t5.1 -:g.1

r1°??S'^I
Rage:
19d-4S.3
1
15

Fangs:

21q -SS.i
Mxn
Rarye'. 12l

tt.i-i0a

Rage: 11.3

B3-'94
. 1.D2 1.2 1
22
P xn RaOx n Rew
.m
qeb, .
v>PI to Rea sonny
aaarra'Man rt
?N
i s.0
Mxn
so
a.D rm

ran
M em Re4,
4s
,
x
LergW
Mear pang:

Mean 2.p.)D

90 P.arye-

2J- ) J

arg.

0.+;J

rge.
1.3-S.i
3en0U KidnL.vM/rW .4 av rcvva eun0ve
ull
mol laths arb posh Ra
? 50-12 ve repeitna
?? Mxn'
R+"9e: a0
40-t2?
a 90
Mex.
_r
rw,.y Raao a
staignenry xwni<s R 20-6
0 dM are uob
to vagnenry attn... Mean: 40 eima we tin+rn of Ml4s uob are
ro sbgnxryacWe4s ab Rang
Mean: 50.129
4.0 R
M de 1

Raonn
del4e
t:w .
2.2 Range.

M 20.8.0
Range:
20-9.0
xg'
2t.40
danPU
'Man(RUVaerl Rug 2.9-50 ax
arge 22
LO-Sp 22
e 1.0

Front Varve4s

P Rarg. 2A.
.0 Rarg: -2)
verage wales 9ulace ibce S,,,I ProRS Var4Mas pmNa VambNa
vaery>bce
Is,anl 001aB 0.005] J.01M 0.0026 2o2]B 0.0101 O.OiB010.OteA
0.0050

u l5
' .0116 0o1 tb ?Ott2 0.01 t2 0.0340 0.0169 O.OZ?I0.ot69 0.0081
ekl ean

Q°"X- O.D09s

1
D.Ot]3

ean.
0.0]96/?OJb

ean
M

0.900-

alabuiSrW
Mrx
00005 Range.
M .00236
0
O
R
arg:
0.9.046.5
arys
0-0.O15a

? Rarye: 0.0004' I4o 5avrrne reuMne
R OCOB Mex OG01el00pIS a - 0.9DJ2
Run 6bu;S,,,,i u0el
o ?iliks arln aoaY
1p e m r n 0.0022 rAMwpooh ?8
u 0.0'Wfii >min.nv ve wn.rn al Ilka are pooh as R er9e- 0-OOt20 Rams -O.pOpB
Rsy .O.COSa Kma gnenry xW.es
R ex. OWJe 1a Ya9nenrg ennlix /000)5
ry
x 80020
Sbu Syy 0.0010 ange. F.' R arys 9
p1d5 Rargs 0-0.005]
Rang R ange 4
Oga6t ex OOOl1 x0.001) Mex 00009
R arg' 00.0

P
L F 5 '
x
22
Solace 0.1 R arye 0.31
? M lalv
w '

R

rye
c
P
o stagaemyaUn.ties ang. 0 Ca
5 R

M ang D-0.1fi

0x
CJOe Sbcerwater Solace
0_ R ange 0
8
1.1
- F sg: 0 1,5 yye.
0
.1
?
Sbu19y5...1 00.0 p ean: 1 xn ' M aan O .t9
ays R ang 0 -?d R enJe
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan
Restoration Svstems, LLC
Based on available Piedmont regional curves, the bankfull discharge for the Reference Reach (0.17 square
mile watershed) is approximately 24.8 cubic feet per second (Harman et al. 1999). The USGS regional
regression equation for the Rural Piedmont region indicates that bankfull discharge for the reference reach
at a 1.3 to 1.5 year return interval of 20.5-27.5 cubic feet per second and for the Urban Piedmont region
indicates a bankfull discharge for the reference reach of 10-15 cubic feet per second (USGS 2003). Rural
Piedmont regression calculations of bankfull discharge are similar to estimates based on field indicators
and regional curves, while Urban Piedmont calculations are well-below estimates based on field
indicators and regional curves, as discussed below (plots are included in Appendix Q. In addition, a
stream roughness coefficient (n) was estimated using a version of Arcement and Schneider's (1989)
weighted method for Cowan's (1956) roughness component values and applied to the following equation
(Manning 1891) to obtain a bankfull discharge estimate.
Qbkf = [1.486/n] * [A*R2 3*S" -]
where, A equals bankfull area, R equals bankfull hydraulic radius, and S equals average water surface
slope. The Manning's "n" method indicates that bankfull discharge for the reference reach averages
approximately 8.8 cubic feet per second, which is well-below estimates based on field indicators of
bankfull and regional curves, as discussed below.
Field indicators of bankfull and riffle cross-sections were utilized to obtain an average bankfull cross-
sectional area for the reference reach. The Piedmont regional curves were then utilized to plot the
watershed area and discharge for the reference reach cross-sectional area. Field indicators of bankfull
approximate an average discharge of 22.3 cubic feet per second, which is approximately 90 percent of
that predicted by the Piedmont regional curves.
Based on the above analysis of methods to determine bankfull discharge, proposed conditions at the Site
will be based on an area 90 percent of the size indicated by Piedmont regional curves based on bankfull
indicators and stream measurements of the reference reach. Table 5 summarizes all methods analyzed for
estimating bankfull discharge.
Table 5. Reference Reach Rankf ill Discharae AnAvsic

Method Watershed Area
(square miles) Return Interval
(years) Discharge
(efs)
Re ference Reach
Piedmont Regional Curves
(Harmen et al. 1999)
0.17
1.3- 1.5
24.8
Rural Piedmont Regional Regression Model
(USGS 2003)
0.17
1.3- 1.5
20.5-27.5
Urban Piedmont Regional Regression Model
(USGS 2003)
0.17
1.3- 1.5
10-15
Manning's "n" using Cowan's Method (1956) NA NA 8.8
Field Indicators of Bankfull 0.17 1.3 - 1.5 22.3
•
10
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Svstems, LLC
3.2 STREAM CLASSIFICATION
Stream geometry and substrate data have been evaluated to orient stream restoration based on a
classification utilizing fluvial geomorphic principles (Rosgen 1996). This classification stratifies streams
into comparable groups based on pattern, dimension, profile, and substrate characteristics. Primary
components of the classification include degree of entrenchment, width-depth ratio, sinuosity, channel
slope, and stream substrate composition.
Historically, onsite stream reaches may have been characterized by E-type channels. E-type streams are
characterized as slightly entrenched, riffle-pool channels exhibiting high sinuosity (>1.5); however,
reference streams in the region typically are characterized by sinuosities slightly lower than 1.3. In North
Carolina, E-type streams often occur in narrow to wide valleys with well-developed alluvial floodplains
(Valley Type VIII). E-type streams typically exhibit a sequence of riffles and pools associated with a
sinuous flow pattern. E-type channels are typically considered stable. However, these streams are
sensitive to disturbance and may rapidly convert to other stream types.
Onsite streams appear to be progressing through a common evolutionary tendency found in piedmont
streams of North Carolina. As streams are dredged and straightened the water surface profile tends to
become over-steepened resulting in 1) the loss of horizontal flow vectors that maintain pools and 2) an
increase in erosive forces to channel bed and banks. The lack of deep rooted riparian vegetation and the
introduction of livestock into the channel appear to have exacerbated problems with erosion to onsite
channels.
Bed and bank erosion typically leads to channel downcutting and evolution of a stable E-type channel into
a G-type (gully) channel. Continued erosion eventually results in lateral extension of the G-type channel
into an F-type (widened gully) channel. The F-type channel will continue to widen laterally until the
channel is wide enough to support a stable C-type or E-type channel at a lower elevation and the original
floodplain is no longer subject to regular flooding.
The majority of onsite streams have been impacted by land clearing, erosive flows, livestock grazing,
hoof shear, and manipulation of the channels including dredging and straightening. Onsite streams are
expected to continue to erode and deposit sediment into receiving streams until a stable stream pattern has
been carved from the adjacent floodplain.
3.2.1 Dimension
Regional curves (Harman et al. 1999) were utilized to determine bankfull channel cross-sectional areas of
The Bank's streams. The cross-sectional area was then utilized to determine the bankfull width, average
bankfull depth, maximum depth, and floodprone area of the existing channels. Using this method, a
departure from stability could be estimated based on a comparison of existing and proposed/stable
dimension variables.
During field investigations, greater than 40 cross-sections were measured throughout the Bank.
Representative cross-section locations and data are depicted on Figure 6 (Appendix A). The main
channel is characterized by an entrenched Eg-type channel (Table 4) with an average bank-height ratio of
1.6 indicating a highly incised channel. The channel exhibits bank collapse and destabilization of the
stream banks is continually increasing. In addition, the regional curve and reference stream predict a
stable cross-sectional area for the main channel of 8.1 to 10.4 square feet; however, the existing cross-
sectional area measures 15.4 to 30.1 square feet, more than twice the predicted cross-sectional area for the
11
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
channel. The channel is starting to exhibit bank erosion and increased destabilization due to land
management practices and livestock impacts.
The tributaries are characterized by entrenched E/G-type channels (Table 4) with bank-height ratios of 1.3
to 2.7 indicating highly incised channels. In addition, the regional curve and reference stream predict a
stable cross-sectional area for the tributaries of 3.2 square feet; however, the existing cross-sectional areas
measure 5.4 to 16.1 square feet.
Based on regional curve estimations of cross-sectional area, onsite streams are characterized by channel
incision and high bank-height ratios. Channel incision has resulted in bank erosion below the effective
rooting depth of existing riparian vegetation in combination with erosive flow velocities. Measures to
reduce channel size (cross-sectional area) and bank height ratios will be targeted for this project.
3.2.2 Profile
Based on the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle and onsite measurements, the onsite valley slope
for restorable portions of The Bank's stream channels measure approximately 0.0112 to 0.0240 rise/run
(Table 4). Estimated valley slopes appear typical for the Piedmont physiographic region of North
Carolina. Water surface slopes were estimated by from onsite measurements and channel sinuosity.
Sinuosity was measured from Geographic Information Systems (GIS) analysis of aerial photography and
onsite measurements of the stream channel during field surveys, and was measured at 1.01 to 1.07 for
onsite stream channels. Calculated water surface slopes measured approximately 0.0105 to 0.0238
rise/run.
Impacts to onsite streams such as straightening, downcutting, incision, and bank erosion have resulted in
oversteepening of the average water surface profile. In addition, impacts have removed most of the riffle
and pool morphology characteristic of stable streams in this region. Stream incision may have resulted in
excessive sediment deposition within pools, thereby steepening pool slopes and flattening riffle slopes.
Measures designed to flatten the average water surface profile and restore riffle/pool slopes to suitable
ranges are to be targeted on the onsite streams.
3.2.3 Plan Form
Onsite stream measurements and analysis of aerial photography utilizing GIS were conducted to
determine existing onsite plan form variables. Existing plan form variables were compared to ratios of
stable plan form based on fluvial geomorphic methods (Rosgen 1996). Using this method, a departure
from stability was estimated.
The Bank's streams have been straightened in the past, resulting in sinuosity measuring approximately
1.01 to 1.07 (thalweg distance/valley distance) (Table 4). Due to channel alterations, no distinct repetitive
pattern of riffles and pools occurs in the existing channel. In addition, values for belt-width, pool-to-pool
spacing, and meander wavelength were not measurable.
Based on plan form variables, The Bank's streams contain reaches that have been degraded by 1) bank
collapse, erosion, and incision; 2) straightening resulting in no repetitive riffle and pool sequence and
reduction in sinuosity; and 3) a subsequent reduction in the overall length of The Bank's channels.
Mitigation efforts along degraded channel sections will target restoration of riffle/pool pattern and
bringing pool-to-pool spacing and meander wavelength into suitable relationship for this region.
Z, =1
12
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Svstems, LLC
3.3 STREAM POWER, SHEAR STRESS, AND STABILITY THRESHOLD
3.3.1 Stream Power
Stability of a stream refers to its ability to adjust itself to in-flowing water and sediment load. One form
of instability occurs when a stream is unable to transport its sediment load, leading to aggradation, or
deposition of sediment onto the stream bed. Conversely, when the ability of the stream to transport
sediment exceeds the availability of sediments entering a reach, and/or stability thresholds for materials
forming the channel boundary are exceeded, erosion or degradation occurs.
Stream power is the measure of a stream's capacity to move sediment over time. Stream power can be
used to evaluate the longitudinal profile, channel pattern, bed form, and sediment transport of streams.
Stream power may be measured over a stream reach (total stream power) or per unit of channel bed area.
The total stream power equation is defined as:
Q = PgQs
where Q = total stream power (ft-lb/s-ft), p = density of water (lb/ft3), g = gravitational acceleration
(ft/s), Q = discharge (ft3/sec), and s = energy slope (ft/ft). The specific weight of water (y = 62.4 lb/ft) is
equal to the product of water density and gravitational acceleration, pg. A general evaluation of power
for a particular reach can be calculated using bankfull discharge and water surface slope for the reach. As
slopes become steeper and/or velocities increase, stream power increases and more energy is available for
reworking channel materials. Straightening and clearing channels increases slope and velocity and thus
stream power. Alterations to the stream charnel may conversely decrease stream power. In particular,
over-widening of a channel will dissipate energy of flow over a larger area. This process will decrease
stream power, allowing sediment to fall out of the water column, possibly leading to aggradation of the
stream bed.
The relationship between a channel and its floodplain is also important in determining stream power.
Streams that remain within their banks at high flows tend to have higher stream power and relatively
coarser bed materials. In comparison, streams that flood over their banks onto adjacent floodplains have
lower stream power, transport finer sediments, and are more stable. Stream power assessments can be
useful in evaluating sediment discharge within a stream and the deposition or erosion of sediments from
the stream bed.
3.3.2 Shear Stress
Shear stress, expressed as force per unit area, is a measure of the frictional force that flowing water exerts
on a streambed. Shear stress and sediment entrainment are affected by sediment supply (size and
amount), energy distribution within the channel, and frictional resistance of the stream bed and bank on
water within the channel. These variables ultimately determine the ability of a stream to efficiently
transport bed load and suspended sediment.
For flow that is steady and uniform, the average boundary shear stress exerted by water on the bed is
defined as follows:
i=7Rs
13
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
where T = shear stress (lb/ft), y = specific weight of water, R = hydraulic radius (ft), and s = the energy
slope (ft/ft). Shear stress calculated in this way is a spatial average and does not necessarily provide a
good estimate of bed shear at any particular point. Adjustments to account for local variability and •
instantaneous values higher than the mean value can be applied based on channel form and irregularity.
For a straight channel, the maximum shear stress can be assumed from the following equation:
Tmax = 1.5T
for sinuous channels, the maximum shear stress can be determined as a function of plan form
characteristics:
Tmax = 2.65T(Rc /Wbkf)-0.5
where Re = radius of curvature (ft) and Wbkf = bankfull width (ft).
Shear stress represents a difficult variable to predict due to variability of channel slope, dimension, and
pattern. Typically, as valley slope decreases channel depth and sinuosity increase to maintain adequate
shear stress values for bedload transport. Channels that have higher shear stress values than required for
bedload transport will scour bed and bank materials, resulting in channel degradation. Channels with
lower shear stress values than needed for bedload transport will deposit sediment, resulting in channel
aggradation.
The actual amount of work accomplished by a stream per unit of bed area depends on the available power
divided by the resistance offered by the channel sediments, plan form, and vegetation. The stream power
equation can thus be written as follows: Is
co=PgQs=Tv
where c) = stream power per unit of bed area (N/ft-sec, Joules/sec/ft'), T = shear stress, and v = average
velocity (ft/sec). Similarly,
UJ = Q/Wbkf
where Wbkf = width of stream at bankfull (ft).
3.3.3 Stream Power and Shear Stress Methods and Results
Channel degradation or aggradation occurs when hydraulic forces exceed or do not approach the resisting
forces in the channel. The amount of degradation or aggradation is a function of relative magnitude of
these forces over time. The interaction of flow within the boundary of open channels is only imperfectly
understood. Adequate analytical expressions describing this interaction have yet to be developed for
conditions in natural channels. Thus, means of characterizing these processes rely heavily upon empirical
formulas.
Traditional approaches for characterizing stability can be placed in one of two categories: 1) maximum
permissible velocity and 2) tractive force, or stream power and shear stress. The former is advantageous
in that velocity can be measured directly. Shear stress and stream power cannot be measured directly and
14
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Svstems, LLC
must be computed from various flow parameters. However, stream power and shear stress are generally
better measures of fluid force on the channel boundary than velocity.
Using these equations, stream power and shear stress were estimated for 1) existing dredged and
straightened reaches, 2) the reference reach, and 3) proposed onsite conditions. Important input values
and output results (including stream power, shear stress, and per unit shear power and shear stress) are
presented in Table 6. Average stream velocity and discharge values were calculated for the existing
onsite stream reaches, the reference reach, and proposed conditions.
In order to maintain sediment transport functions of a stable stream system, the proposed channel should
exhibit stream power and shear stress values so that the channel is neither aggrading nor degrading.
Results of the analysis indicate that the proposed channel reaches are expected to maintain stream power
as a function of width values of approximately 1.76 to 1.97 and maximum shear stress values of
approximately 0.57 to 0.67 (comparable to that of the reference reach and much lower than existing
degrading reaches).
Table 6. Stream Power (12) and Shear Stress (i) V2111eS
•

Discharge
(ft'/s) Water
surface
Slope
(ft/ft)
Total
Stream
Power (0)

/W

Hydraulic
Radius
Shear
Stress
(T)

Velocity
(v)

v

"'
Existing Conditions
Main Channel 41.3 0.0105 27.06 3.43 2.34 1.53 1.65 2.53 2.30
Tributaries 11.7 0.0161 11.75 2.67 2.59 2.60 0.78 2.03 3.90
Reference Reach 22.3 0.0050 6.96 1.51 0.87 0.27 3.78 1.02 0.41
Proposed Conditions
Main Channel 41.3 0.0076 19.59 1.76 0.81 0.38 3.97 1.52 0.57
Tributaries 11.7 0.0151 11.02 1.97 0.47 0.44 3.66 1.62 0.67
Stream power and shear stress values are higher for the existing stream reaches, than for proposed
channels. Existing reaches are degrading as evidenced by bank erosion, channel incision, low width-
depth ratios, and high bank-height ratios; degradation has resulted from a combination of water surface
slopes that have been steepened, channel straightening, dredging, and charnel incision. Stream power
and shear stress values for the proposed charnels should be lower than for existing charnels to effectively
transport sediment through the Site without eroding and downeutting, resulting in stable channel
characteristics.
Reference reach values for stream power and shear stress are comparable but slightly lower than for the
proposed channels; the valley and water surface slopes are slightly lower for the reference reach resulting
in lower stream power and shear stress values.
4.0 REFERENCE STUDIES
Distinct bankfull indicators were present within the reference stream channels. In addition, dimension,
pattern, and profile variables have not been altered or degraded, allowing for assistance with the proposed
restoration reaches. The Table of Morphological Stream Characteristics (Table 4), Figure 7 in Appendix
A, and Appendix D include a summary of dimension, profile, and pattern data for each reference reach
15
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
used to establish reconstruction parameters. Channel cross-sections were measured at systematic
locations and stream profiles were developed via total station.
4.1 REFERENCE CHANNELS 40
The reference reach was located immediately upstream of the Bank (Figure 1, Appendix A). The stream
was measured and classified by stream type (Rosgen 1996). The reference reach is characterized as an E-
type, moderately sinuous (1.22) channel with a gravel dominated substrate. E-type streams are
characterized as slightly entrenched, riffle-pool channels exhibiting high sinuosity (1.3 to greater than
1.5); however, reference streams in the region typically are characterized by sinuosities slightly lower
than 1.3. E-type streams typically exhibit a sequence of riffles and pools associated with a sinuous flow
pattern. In North Carolina, E-type streams often occur in narrow to wide valleys with well-developed
alluvial floodplains (Valley Type VIII). E-type channels are typically considered stable; however, these
streams are sensitive to upstream drainage basin changes and/or channel disturbance, and may rapidly
convert to other stream types.
Dimension: Data collected at the reference reach indicate a bankfull cross-sectional area of 2.2 to 9.4
square feet, a bankfull width of 3.0 to 6.1 feet, a bankfull depth of 0.7 to 1.5 feet, and a width-to-depth
ratio of 4.0 to 4.3 (see Table 4, Table of Morphological Stream Characteristics). Figure 7 (Appendix A)
provides plan view and cross-sectional data for the reference reach and depict the bankfull channel and
floodprone area. The reference reach exhibits a bank-height ratio of 1.0.
Pattern and Profile: In-field measurements of the reference reaches have yielded an average sinuosity of
1.22 (thalweg distance/straight-line distance). The valley slope of the reference channel (0.0061) is
slightly lower but similar to that of the Site. Ratios of the reference reach riffle, run, pool, and glide
slopes to average water surface slope are 2.46, 0.44, 0.04, and 0. 18, respectively.
Substrate: The channel is characterized by a channel substrate dominated by gravel sized particles.
4.2 REFERENCE FOREST ECOSYSTEM
According to Mitigation Site Classification (MIST) guidelines (USEPA 1990), Reference Forest
Ecosystems (RFEs) must be established for restoration sites. RFEs are forested areas on which to model
restoration efforts at The Bank in relation to soils, hydrology, and vegetation. RFEs should be
ecologically stable climax communities and should represent believed historical (pre-disturbance)
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 the restoration site.
Reference vegetative communities for this project are located upstream from The Bank on the southern
tributary. Tree and shrub species identified in this area are listed in Table 7 and will be utilized, in
addition to other relevant species to supplement community descriptions for Piedmont Alluvial Forest and
Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest.
L.J
16
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Svstems, LLC
Table 7. Reference Forest F.cosvstem

Piedmont Alluvial Forest
(Wet Bottoms and Slopes) Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest
(Adjacent Uplands)
Canopy Species Understory Species Canopy Species Understory Species
Acer rubrum Acer rubrum Acer rubrum Acer rubrum
Liquidambar styraeiflua Benda nigra Carya alba/tomentosa Carpinus caroliniana
Liriodendrom tulipifera Carpinus caroliniana Liriodendron tulipifera Diospyros virginiana
Pinus taeda Liriodendron tulipifera Pinus taeda Ilex opaca
Platanus occidentalis Pinus virginiana Juniperus virginiana
Quercus phellos Quercus alba Pinus taeda
Quercus shumardii Quercus falcata
Reference vegetation was dominated by red maple, tuliptree, sycamore, and various oak species including
willow oak (Quercus phellos), southern red oak (Quercus falcata), and white oak (Quercus alba). Other
species identified were large loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) and Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana), as well as
river birch (Betula nigra) and iron wood (Carpinus caroliniana).
5.0 RESTORATION PLAN
The primary goals of this mitigation plan include 1) construction of a stable, riffle-pool stream channel, 2)
restoration/enhancement of historic wetland functions, 3) enhancement of water quality functions (reduce
nonpoint source sedimentation and nutrient inputs), 4) restoration of a (50' minimum) native woody
riparian buffer along The Bank's stream reaches, 5) restoration of wildlife habitat associated with a
riparian corridor/stable stream, and 6) establishment of a permanent conservation easement which will
is encompass all restoration activities.
Primary activities include 1) stream restoration, 2) stream enhancement (Level II), 3) wetland restoration,
4) wetland enhancement, and 5) native riparian buffer restoration. The restoration concept as outlined in
Figures 8A-8C (Appendix A) is expected to:
• Restore 4265 linear feet of stream channel
• Enhance (Level II) 633 linear feet of stream channel along the upper reaches of UT1 and lower
reaches of UT2
• Restore 5.7 acres of riparian wetland and 1.2 acres of nonriparian wetland
• Enhance 1.4 acres of riparian wetland and 0.5 acre of nonriparian wetland
• Reforestation of 18.7 acres with native species, resulting in native woody riparian buffer (50'
wide)
0
5.1 STREAM RESTORATION
This stream restoration effort is designed to restore a stable, meandering stream that approximates
hydrodynamics, stream geometry, and local microtopography relative to reference conditions. Geometric
attributes for the existing, degraded channel and the proposed, stable channel are listed in Table 4.
Stream restoration is expected to entail 1) belt-width preparation, 2) channel excavation, 3) spoil
stockpiling, 4) channel stabilization, 5) channel diversion to newly constructed channels, and 5)
abandoned channel backfill.
17
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
An erosion control plan and construction/transportation plan will be developed. Erosion control will be
performed locally throughout The Bank and will be incorporated into the construction sequencing.
Exposed surficial soils at The Bank are unconsolidated, alluvial sediments which do not revegetate
rapidly after disturbance; therefore, seeding with appropriate grasses and immediate planting with
disturbance-adapted shrubs will be employed following the earth-moving process. In addition, onsite root
mats (seed banks) and vegetation will be stockpiled and redistributed after disturbance.
A transportation plan, including the location of construction access routes and staging areas, will be
designed to avoid impacts to the proposed design channel corridor. In addition, the transportation plan
and all construction activities will minimize disturbance to existing vegetation and soils to the extent
feasible. The number of transportation access points into the floodplain will be maximized to avoid
traversing long distances through The Bank interior.
5.1.1 Reconstruction on New Location
Portions of The Bank characterized by an adjacent floodplain suitable for design channel excavation on
new location will be utilized to the maximum extent feasible. Primary activities designed to restore the
channel on new location include 1) belt-width preparation and grading, 2) channel excavation, 3)
installation of channel plugs, and 4) backfilling of the abandoned channel.
1) Beltwidth Preparation and Grading
The stream belt-width corridor will be cleared to allow survey and equipment access. Care will be taken
to avoid the removal of existing, deeply rooted vegetation within the belt-width corridor, which may
provide design channel stability. Material excavated during grading will be stockpiled immediately
adjacent to the channel segments to be abandoned and backfilled. These segments will be backfilled after
stream diversion is completed.
Spoil material may be placed to stabilize temporary access roads and to minimize compaction of the
underlying floodplain. However, all spoil will be removed from floodplain surfaces upon completion of
construction activities.
After preparation of the corridor, the design channel and updated profile survey will be developed and the
location of each meander wavelength will be plotted and staked along the profile. Riffle locations and
relative frequency will be staked according to parameters outlined in a detailed restoration plan and/or
construction plans. These configurations may be modified in the field based on local variations in the
floodplain profile, presence of bedrock, etc.
2) Channel Excavation
Once belt-width corridor preparation is complete, the proposed channel will be excavated to the average
width, depth, and cross-sectional area derived from reference reach studies and detailed measurements of
the onsite reach.
The stream banks and local belt width area of constructed channels will be immediately planted with
shrub and herbaceous vegetation. Shrubs such as tag alder and black willow may be purchased and
planted, or removed from the banks of the abandoned channel and stockpiled during clearing, and placed
into the stream construction area. Deposition of shrub and woody debris into and/or overhanging the
constructed channel is encouraged. Root mats may also be selectively removed from adjacent areas and
placed as erosion control features on channel banks.
18
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
Particular attention will be directed toward providing vegetative cover and root growth along the outer
bends of each stream meander. Live willow stake revetments and available root mats or biodegradable,
coir-fiber matting may be embedded into the break-in-slope to promote more rapid development of an
overhanging bank. Willow stakes will be obtained and inserted through the coir-fiber mat into the
underlying soil.
4) Channel Pluas
Impermeable plugs will be installed along abandoned channel. 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 The Bank. Dense clays suitable for plug construction may be imported from
offsite or extracted from existing materials and compacted within the channel. The plug will be
sufficiently wide and deep to form an imbedded overlap in the existing banks and channel bed.
The plug situated at the upstream terminus of the design channel, located below the stream diversion
point, may sustain high-energy flows; therefore, a hardened structure or additional armoring may be
considered at this location.
5) Channel Backfilling
After impermeable plugs are installed, the abandoned channel will be backfilled. Backfilling will be
performed primarily by pushing stockpiled materials into the channel. Based on initial grading plan
estimates, sufficient backfill material is expected from channel excavation, floodplain grading, and soil
borrow areas. The channel will be filled to the extent that onsite material is available and compacted to
maximize micro-topographic variability, including ruts, ephemeral pools, and hummocks in the vicinity
of the backfilled channel.
A deficit of fill material for channel backfill may occur. If so, a series of closed, linear depressions may
be left along confined channel segments. Additional fill material for critical areas may be obtained by
excavating shallow depressions along the banks of these planned, open-channel segments. These
excavated areas will represent closed linear, elliptical, or oval depressions. In essence, the channel may
be converted to a sequence of shallow, ephemeral pools adjacent to effectively plugged and backfilled
channel sections. These pools are expected to stabilize and fill in with organic material over time.
Vegetation debris (root mats, top soils, shrubs, woody debris, etc.) will be redistributed across the backfill
area upon completion.
5.1.2 In-Stream Structures
Stream restoration under natural stream design techniques normally involves the use of in-stream
structures for bank stabilization, grade control, and habitat improvement. Primary activities designed to
achieve these objectives may include 1) installation of cross-vane weirs and/or 2) installation of J-
hook/log vanes.
1) Cross-vane Weirs
Cross-vane weirs may be installed in the channel as conceptually depicted in Figure 7. The purpose of
the vane is to 1) sustain bank stability, 2) direct high velocity flows during bankfull events toward the
center of the channel, 3) maintain average pool depth throughout the reach, 4) preserve water surface
0 elevations and reconnect the adjacent floodplain to flooding dynamics from the stream, and 5) modify
energy distributions through increases in channel roughness and local energy slopes during peak flows.
19
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
Cross-vane weirs will be constructed of boulders approximately 24 inches in minimum width. Cross-
vane weir construction will be initiated by imbedding footer rocks into the stream bed for stability to
prevent undercutting of the structure. Header rocks will then be placed atop the footer rocks at the design
elevation. Footer and header rocks create an arm that slopes from the center of the channel upward at
approximately 7 to 10 degrees, tying in at the bankfull floodplain elevation. The cross-vane arms at both
banks will be tied into the bank with a sill to eliminate the possibility of water diverting around the
structure. Once the header and footer stones are in place, filter fabric will be buried into a trench
excavated around the upstream side of the vane arms. The filter fabric is then draped over the header
rocks to force water over the vane. The upstream side of the structure can then be backfilled with suitable
material to the elevation of the header stones.
21) J-hook Vanes/Log Vanes
The primary purpose of these vanes is to direct high-velocity flows during bankfull events towards the
center of the channel. J-hook vanes will be constructed using the same type and size of rock employed in
the construction of cross-vane weirs (Figure 7, Appendix A). Log vanes will be constructed utilizing
large tree trunks harvested from The Bank or imported from offsite. The tree stem harvested for a log-
vane arm must be long enough to be imbedded into the stream channel and extend several feet into the
floodplain (Figure 7, Appendix A). 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 size to completely block stream flow (gaps occur between the log and channel bed) then a
footer log or stone footers will be installed beneath the header log. Boulders will then be situated at the
base of the log and at the head of the log to hold the log in place.
Similar to a cross-vane, the arm of the J-hook vane and the log vane (which forms an arm) must slope
from the center of the channel upward at approximately 7 to 10 degrees, tying in at the bankfull
floodplain elevation. Once these vanes are in place, filter fabric is toed into a trench on the upstream side
of the vane and draped over the structure to force water over the vane. The upstream side of the structure
is then backfilled with suitable material.
5.1.3 Stream Reconstruction In-Place
Reconstruction in-place is proposed for areas of The Bank where reconstruction on new location is not
feasible due to proximity to the upstream/downstream boundaries of The Bank, stream gradient, or
easement constraints. The main objective of restoration in these reaches is to promote an average
bankfull channel depth of approximately 0.6 to 0.9 feet from the channel bottom to the floodplain surface
and to reduce channel size to the cross-sectional area depicted in Table 4. Primary activities designed to
achieve these objectives may include 1) installation of in-stream structures and 2) installation of a
bankfull floodplain bench.
Bankfull Bench Creation
The creation of a bankfull, floodplain bench is expected to 1) remove eroding material and collapsing
banks, 2) promote overbank flooding during bankfull flood events, 3) reduce the erosive potential of flood
waters, and 4) increase the width of the active floodplain. Bankfull benches may be created by
excavating the adjacent floodplain to bankfull elevations or filling eroded/abandoned channel areas with
suitable material. 0
20
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Swems, LLC
After establishing the bench, a relatively level floodplain surface is expected to be stabilized with suitable
erosion control measures. Planting of the bench with native floodplain vegetation is expected to reduce
erosion of bench sediments, reduce flow velocities in flood waters, filter pollutants, and provide wildlife
habitat.
5.2 STREAM ENHANCEMENT (LEVEL II)
Stream Enhancement Level II is being proposed on approximately 362 linear feet along the upper reaches
of UT1 and 271 linear feet on the lower reaches of UT2 (Figure 8A, Appendix A). Enhancement Level II
is expected to include removal of livestock, removal of invasive species, if necessary, and planting of
native woody vegetation. Planting with native vegetation is discussed in detail in Section 5.4 (Vegetative
Planting).
5.3 WETLAND RESTORATION/ENHANCEMENT
Alternatives for wetland restoration/enhancement are designed to restore a fully functioning wetland
system that will provide surface water storage, nutrient cycling, removal of imported elements and
compounds, and will create a variety and abundance of wildlife habitat.
Portions of The Bank underlain by hydric soils have been deprived of sufficient hydrology by channel
incision, vegetative clearing, livestock grazing, and earth movement associated with stream impoundment
and agricultural practices. These areas are characterized by herbaceous and shrub vegetation with
compacted soils resulting
from livestock trampling. Wetland mitigation options will focus on the
11 Z?
restoration of vegetative communities, elevation of groundwater tables to jurisdictional conditions, and
the reestablishment of soil structure and micro-topographic variations within the existing floodplain.
• Restoration of wetland hydrology and wetland soil attributes may involve 1) excavation of elevated spoil
and sediment embankments, 2) backfilling of entrenched stream reaches, 3) filling onsite ditches or man-
made depressions in the floodplain, and 4) scarification of pasture soils prior to planting. In addition, the
construction of (or provisions for) surface water storage depressions (ephemeral pools) also adds an
important component to groundwater restoration activities. These mitigation activities are expected to
result in the restoration/enhancement of approximately 8.8 acres of jurisdictional wetlands at The Bank.
5.4 BIORETENTION BMP WETLAND IMPROVEMENTS
A bio-retention wetland is proposed to treat field runoff prior to entering the Bank's Main Channel as
depicted in Figure 8A (Appendix A). The area will be improved by excavating the side slopes to 8:1 and
planting as outlined in Sections 5.5-5.6. The bio-retention area will consist of shallow depressions that
will provide treatment and attenuation of initial stormwater pulses. The outfall will be constructed of
hydrologically stable rip-rap that will protect against headcut migration into the constructed depression
5.5 VEGETATIVE PLANTING
Deep-rooted, riparian vegetation will be restored within approximately 18.7 acres of The Bank and an
adjacent BMP stormwater wetland. Planting vegetation on cleared stream banks is proposed to
reestablish native/historic community patterns within the stream corridor, associated side slopes, and
transition areas. Revegetating The Bank's floodplains and stream banks will provide stream bank
stability, give shade, reduce surface water temperatures, filter pollutants from adjacent runoff, and
provide habitat for area wildlife.
•
21
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
Variations in vegetative planting will occur based on topographic locations and hydraulic conditions of
the soil. Vegetative species composition will mimic reference forest data, onsite observations, and
community descriptions from Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina (Schafale and
Weakley 1990). Community associations to be utilized include 1) Piedmont Alluvial Forest, 2) Dry-
Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest, 3) stream-side assemblage, and 4) bio-retention BMP wetland assemblage
(Figure 11, Appendix A). Planting elements are listed below.
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
1. Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)
2. American elm (Ulmus americana)
3. Hackberry (Celtis laevigata)
4. Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
5. Shagbark hickory (Carya ovata)
6. Willow oak (Quercus phellos)
7. Schumard oak (Quercus schumardii)
8. River birch (Betula nigra)
9. Silky dogwood (Cornus amomum)
10. Pawpaw (Asimina triloba)
Drv-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest
1. White oak (Quercus alba)
2. Northern red oak (Quercus rubra)
3. Pignut hickory (Carya glabra)
4. Mockernut hickory (Carya alba/tomentosa)
5. Black gum (Nyssa sylvatica var. sylvatica)
6. Flowering dogwood (Cornus florida)
7. Eastern red cedar (Juniperus vifginiana)
8. Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana)
9. Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana)
Stream-Side Assemblage
1. Black willow (Salix nigra)
2. Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis)
3. Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis)
Bioretention BMP Wetland Assemblage
1. Silky dogwood (Cornus amomum)
2. Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis)
3. Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis)
4. Spicebush (Lindera benzoin)
5. Possumhaw (Viburnum nudum)
6. Sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia)
7. Inkberry (Ilex glabra)
8. Bioretention seed mix
a. Long hair sedge (Carex crinita)
b. Common rush (Juncus eff isus)
c. Lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus)
d. Joe-pye-weed (Eupatorium fstulosum)
e. Bur-reed (Sparganium americanum)
f. Blue flag (Iris versicolor)
g. Rice-cut grass (Leersia on?zoides)
Stream-side trees and shrubs include species with high value for sediment stabilization, rapid growth rate,
and the ability to withstand hydraulic forces associated with bankfull flow and overbank flood events.
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
Stream-side trees and shrubs will be planted within 15 feet of the channel throughout the meander belt-
width. Shrub elements will be planted along the reconstructed stream banks, concentrated along outer
• bends. Piedmont Alluvial Forest is the target community for The Bank wetlands and the Dry-Mesic Oak-
Hickory Forest is the target community for the upland slopes.
5.6 PLANTLVG PLAN
Species selected for planting will be dependent upon availability of local seedling sources. Advance
notification to nurseries (1 year) would facilitate availability of various noncommercial elements.
Bare-root seedlings of tree species will be planted within the Piedmont Alluvial and Dry-Mesic Oak-
Hickory Forests at a density of approximately 680 stems per acre on 8-foot centers. Species in the bio-
retention BMP wetland assemblage and stream-side assemblage communities will be planted at a density
of 2720 stems per acre on 4-foot centers.
The bio-retention seed mix outlined above for application in the bio-retention BMP wetland will be
applied within 14 days of construction completion at rates specified per manufacturer guidelines. Soils
may be scarified to a half-inch prior to seeding to aid in more rapid germination.
Table 8 depicts the total number of stems and species distribution within each vegetation association, with
the exception of the emergent seed mix outlined above. Planting will be performed between December 1
and March 15 to allow plants to stabilize during the dormant period and set root during the spring season.
•

23
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Svstems, LLC
Table S. Planting Plan

Vegetation Association
Piedmont Alluvial
Forest
Dry-Mesic Oak-
Hickory Forest
Stream-side
Assemblage Bioretention BMP
Wetland
Assemblage

TOTA
Area (acres) 5.7 acres 9.3 acres 3.5 acres 0.2 acres 18.7 acres

Species
Number planted*
(% of total)
Number planted*
(% of total) Number
planted**
(% of total)
Number planted*
(% of total)
Number
planted
Asimina triloba 388 (11) - - - 388
Betula nigra 388 (11) - - - 388
Carya ovata 388 (11) - - - 388
Celtis laevigata 388 (11) - - - 388
Cornus amomum - - 3216 (32) - 3216
Frarinus pennsylvanica 388(11) - - - 388
Platanus occidentalis 388 (11) - - - 388
Quercusphellos 388 (11) - - - 388
Quercus schumardii 388 (11) - - - 388
Ulmus americana 388 (11) - - - 388
Carpinus caroliniana - 949(15) - - 949
Carya glabra - 632(10) - - 632
Carya tomentosa/alba - 632(10) - - 632
Cornus florida - 949(15) - - 949
Diospyros virginiana - 632(10) - - 632
Juniperus virginiana - 316(5) - - 31 6Ah
Nyssa sylvatica var. svlvatica - 949(15) - - 949
Quercus alba - 632(10) - - 632
Quercus rubra - 632 (10) - - 632
Sambucus canadensis - - 314(3) 136(25) 450
Cephalanthus occidentalis - - 3142 (32) 27(5) 3169
Salix nigra - - 3237 (33) - 3237
Lindera benzoin - - - 109(20) 109
Viburnum nudum - - - 82(15) 82
Clethra alnifolia - - - 109(20) 109
Rex glabra - - - 82(15) 82
TOTAL 3492 (100) 6323 (100) 9909 (100) 545 (100) 20,242
* Planted at a density of 680 stems/acre (- 8-foot centers).
** Planted at a density of 2720 stemsiacre (-- 4-foot centers).
6.0 MONITORING PLAN
Monitoring of The Bank's restoration efforts will be performed until agreed upon success criteria are
fulfilled. Monitoring is proposed for the stream channel, riparian vegetation, and hydrology. Stream
morphology is proposed to be monitored for a period of five years. Riparian vegetation is proposed to be
monitored for a period of seven years. Wetland hydrology is proposed to be monitored for a period of
five years; at which time a request will be made to the IRT to discontinue groundwater hydrology
monitoring. The IRT reserves the right to request additional groundwater monitoring if it deems •
24
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Swems, LLC
necessary. Monitoring reports of the data collected will be submitted to the IRT no later than December
of each monitoring year.
• 6.1 STREAM MONITORING
Annual monitoring will include development of channel cross-sections on riffles and pools, pebble
counts, and a water surface profile of the channel as outlined in interagency Stream Mitigation Guidelines
(USACE et al. 2003). The data will be presented in graphic and tabular format. Data to be presented will
include 1) cross-sectional area, 2) bankfull width, 3) average depth, 4) maximum depth, 5) width-to-depth
ratio, 6) water surface slope, and 7) stream substrate composition. A photographic record of
preconstruction and postconstruction conditions will also be compiled.
Stream Success Criteria
Success criteria for stream restoration will include 1) successful classification of the reach as a
functioning stream system (Rosgen 1996) and 2) channel variables indicative of a stable stream system.
Annual monitoring will continue until success criteria are met and no less than two bankfull events have
occurred, as determined by in situ crest gauge.
Visual assessment of in-stream structures will be conducted to determine if failure has occurred. Failure
of a structure may be indicated by collapse of the structure, undermining of the structure, abandonment of
the channel around the structure, and/or stream flow beneath the structure.
6.2 VEGETATION MONITORING
After planting has been completed in winter or early spring, an initial evaluation will be performed to
verify planting methods were successful and to determine initial species composition and density.
Supplemental planting and additional modifications will be implemented, if necessary.
During quantitative vegetation sampling in early fall of the first year, sample plots will be randomly
placed within The Bank as per guidelines established in CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation,
Version 4.0 (Lee et al. 2006). In each sample plot, vegetation parameters to be monitored include species
composition and species density. Visual observations of the percent cover of shrub and herbaceous
species will also be recorded.
Vegetation Success Criteria
Characteristic Tree Species include woody tree and shrub species planted at the Site, observed within a
reference forest, or outlined for the appropriate plant community in Scafale and Weakley (1990). An
average density of 320 stems per acre of Characteristic Tree Species must be surviving in the first three
monitoring years. Subsequently, 260 Characteristic Tree Species per acre must be surviving by the end of
year 5, and 210 (7-year old) Characteristic Tree Species per acre by the end of year 7. The IRT may
allow counting of acceptable volunteer species toward the 210-tree per acre density upon review and
evaluation of the annual monitoring data.
No single volunteer species (most notably red maple, loblolly pine, and sweet gum) will comprise more
than 20 percent of the total composition at years 3, 5, or 7. If this occurs, remedial procedures/protocols
outlined in the contingency plan will be implemented. During years 3, 5, and 7, no single volunteer
species, comprising over 20 percent of the total composition, may be more than twice the height of the
• planted trees. If this occurs, remedial procedures outlined in the contingency plan will be implemented.
25
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
If, within the first 3 years, any species exhibits greater than 50 percent mortality, the species will either be
replanted or an acceptable replacement species will be planted in its place as specified in the contingency
plan. •
6.3 MONITORING OF HYDROLOGY: WETLANDS
Groundwater monitoring gauges will be installed to take measurements after hydrological modifications
are performed at the Bank. Hydrological sampling will continue throughout the growing season at
intervals necessary to satisfy the jurisdictional hydrology success criteria within each wetland restoration
area (EPA 1990). In addition, an on-site rain gauge will document rainfall data for comparison of
groundwater conditions with extended drought conditions. Finally, floodplain gauges will be installed to
confirm overbank flooding events.
Hydrology Success Criteria
Target hydrological characteristics include saturation or inundation for 12.5 percent of the growing
season, during average climatic conditions. During growing seasons with atypical climatic conditions,
groundwater gauges in reference wetlands may dictate threshold hydrology success criteria. These areas
are expected to support hydrophytic vegetation; if wetland parameters are marginal as indicated by
vegetation and/or hydrology monitoring, a jurisdictional determination will be performed.
6.4 BIOTIC COMMUNITY CHANGES
Changes in the biotic community are anticipated from a shift in habitat opportunities as the unnamed
tributaries to Boyds Creek are restored. In-stream, biological monitoring is proposed to track the changes
during the monitoring period. The benthic macroinvertebrate community will be sampled using NCDWQ
protocols found in the Standard Operating Procedures for Benthic Macroinvertebrates (NCDWQ 2006c) •
and Benthic Macro invertebrate Protocols for Compensatory Stream Restoration Projects (NCDWQ
2001). Biological sampling of benthic macroinvertebrates will be used to collect preconstruction baseline
data for comparison with postconstruction restored conditions.
Benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring locations will be established within The Bank and possibly up and
downstream of The Bank's restoration reaches. It is anticipated that postrestoration collections may move
slightly from the prerestoration conditions in order to take advantage of developing habitat niches (i.e.
riffles, vegetative cover, woody debris in channel, overhanging banks) that cannot be predicted prior to
restoration. Benthic macroinvertebrate samples will be collected from individual reaches using the Qual-
4 collection method. Sampling techniques of the Qual-4 collection method consist of kick nets, sweep
nets, leaf packs, and visual searches. Collection procedures will be available for review by NCDWQ
biologists. Preproject biological sampling will occur during the spring of 2009, with postproject
monitoring occurring in the spring of each subsequent monitoring year.
Identification of collected organisms will be performed by personnel with the NCDWQ or by a NCDWQ
certified laboratory. Other data collected will include D50 values/NCDWQ habitat assessment forms.
7.0 AVAILABLE CREDIT AND PROPOSED RELEASE
7.1 CREDIT DETERMINATION
The Cripple Creek Mitigation Bank encompasses unnamed tributaries to Boyds Creek (Main Channel and
Unnamed Tributaries 1-4) and hydric soils. Onsite stream reaches have been impacted by land clearing, .
livestock grazing, channel dredging and straightening, and erosive velocities. In addition, The Bank soils
26
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Svstems, LLC
have been impacted by stream channel incision and floodplain ditching. The restoration strategy is as
follows in Table 9:
• Table 9. Proposed Mitigation Quantities vs. Mitigation Credits
Proposed Mid ation Quantity Proposed Miti ation Credits
Proposed Mitigation Activity Streams
(linear feet) Wetlands
(acres) Stream Units
(SMUs) Wetland Units
(WMUs)
Stream Restoration 4265 q ;.T 4265
Stream Enhancement (Level II) 633 253
Riparian Wetland Restoration 5.7 ?r 5.7
Riparian Wetland Enhancement 1.4 0.7
Nonriarian Wetland Restoration 1.2 1.2
Nonriparian Wetland Enhancement 0.5 ° -- 0.25
Total: 4518 Total: 7.85
After completion of the project The Bank will offer 4518 Stream Mitigation Units and 7.85 Wetland
Mitigation Units.
7.2 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE
•
A credit release scenario has been proposed based on the Department of the Army's June 3, 2008 Public
Notice (PN). The subject PN prescribed, subject to approval of the IRT, the following credit release
schedule for wetland and stream banks.
Tahle 10_ Pronnced C'rPrlit PAPncP .CrhPfhih-
Task Completion Verification % of Credits Released
Wetlands Streams
I (Preconstruction)* Execution of MBI 15 15
II (Construction) Site Inspection by USACE 15 15
III (1" Year Monitoring) Monitoring Report 10 10
IV (2nd Year Monitoring) Monitoring Report 10 10
V (3`d Year Monitoring) Monitoring Report 10 _
10
VI (4`h Year Monitoring) Monitoring Report 10 _
10
VII (5`h Year Monitoring) Monitoring Report 10 15

VIII (6`h Year Monitoring)
Monitoring Report
10 _
-
IX (7`h Year Monitoring) Monitoring Report-Close Out 10 -
VIII (Full Site Success) Based on Success Criteria - 15
Total 100 100
- . 11 ?Uu , u1C Cnccuuuu Vl lnC tvim, ivmK l approval or me mitigation clan, delivery of tmanctal assurances, recordation
of the conservation easement, and delivery of the title option to the MBRT.
** Denotes that the release of 10 percent is contingent upon two bankfull events during the five-year monitoring period. If only
one bankfull event occurs, release of remaining credit is subject to IRT approval.
7.3 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT
RS currently holds a Conservation Easement (see MBI Appendix B) over the +/- 20 acres comprising the
• Cripple Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank. This easement allows for the construction and
maintenance of the mitigation project, but prohibits all but the most passive activities within the project
27
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
area (see Section II of the Conservation Easement). The easement will provide these protections upon the
land in perpetuity.
RS met with Piedmont Land Conservancy (PLC) on February 5 and February 11, 2009 (at the Cripple •
Creek site) and PLC has agreed to assume the role of long-term holder of the easement. On these two
dates, discussions were held with Kalen Kingsbury, Associate Director and General Counsel, and with
Ken Bridle, Stewardship Director, and Greg Messinger, Land Protection Specialist. RS is awaiting a
letter from PLC, declaring their support for and acceptance of the easement in exchange for an
endowment from RS. A deed transfer and closing will be scheduled in the near future. Confirmation of
PLC's plans to accept the easement can be obtained by calling Ken Bridle or Kalen Kingsbury at 336-
691-0088. RS personnel will be on the project site at least one day per week during implementation of
the restoration. Once the project has entered the monitoring phase, RS personnel will be on site quarterly
to check the easement area. The monitoring activities will be conducted by an outside consultant.
As stated in paragraph 24 of the Prospectus, Financial Assurances in the form of a performance bond(s)
will be in place for the Cripple Creek project through construction and monitoring. The purpose of the
performance bonds is to provide funding to complete or repair the project area in the unlikely event that
RS was unable complete the project through monitoring and beyond.
Throughout the project's life cycle, RS will be implementing principles of "adaptive management" and
continuously assessing the progress of the project as it relates to the restoration plan, construction
documents and monitoring provisions described herein. If at any time such plans need revision or
modification to ensure a successful restoration, RS will notify the DE and work to appropriately modify
project plans. As the primary goal of the project is to restore natural stream and wetland systems to the
site, it is not anticipated that long-term management (other than oversight of human activity as described •
above) will be necessary beyond the monitoring period.
7.4 NONPROJECT DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO
Currently the property is used as pasture and for hay production. If the proposed stream restoration does
not occur, the stream-side native woody riparian buffer will continue to be maintained for pasture and
livestock will continue to have access to The Bank streams and wetlands.
Channel erosion is expected to continue under existing scenarios. Sediment from bank erosion is
deleterious to benthic macroinvertebrate habitat and can be expected to reduce fisheries populations in the
existing and downstream reaches. In addition, proposed mitigation activities will provide wildlife and
fish habitat, shade/cool surface waters (thereby increasing dissolved oxygen levels), filter nutrients,
reduce sedimentation, reduce downstream flooding, and increase bed morphology (habitat) through
maintenance of perpendicular flow vectors. The proposed project offers substantial ecological
improvement within and downstream from The Bank.
7.5 CORPORATE EXPERIENCE
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 their restoration using proven
science, and constructing them 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
28
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
implementation. The company employs 17 permanent staff, with its main office in Raleigh, North
Carolina and a satellite office in Greensboro.
• Corporate experience of the principals began with completion of the state's first 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 (550 acres). The firm then
performed all of the off-site mitigation (7500 linear feet of stream restoration and 10 acres of wetland
restoration) for the Piedmont Triad International Airport Authority.
Restoration Systems has implemented projects for the EEP and the North Carolina Wetland Restoration
Program; including, the removal of the Carbonton and Lowell Dams in the Cape Fear and Neuse River
Basins (132,000 linear feet), the Haw River Wetland Restoration Site (34 acres, Cape Fear), the Elk
Shoals Stream Restoration Site (6000 linear feet, Catawba), the Lick Creek Stream Site (10,000 linear
feet, Cape Fear), Gatlin Swamp Wetland Restoration Site (125 acres, Roanoke), and a number of buffer
restoration projects, including Casey Dairy, Walnut Creek, Big Bull, Brogden Road, and Little Buffalo.
8.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
8.1 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
The Bank streams are subject to jurisdictional consideration under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as
waters of the United States (33 CFR Section 328.3). The Bank streams may be classified as riparian,
upper perennial with an unconsolidated bottom dominated by gravel/sand (R3UB 1 /2) (Cowardin et al.
1979).
These waters are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and
will require permitting for implementation of proposed mitigation strategies. Therefore, Nationwide
Permit (NWP) 27 will be used for this project and is expected to authorize restoration activities proposed
within this mitigation plan. In addition, in accordance with Section 401 of the Clean Water Act,
application for 401 General Certification (GC) 3495 will be required.
8.2 RARE AND PROTECTED SPECIES
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline due to either natural
forces or their inability to coexist with human activities. Federal law (under the provisions of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that any action, likely to adversely affect a species
classified as federally protected, be subject to review by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS). Other species may receive additional protection under separate State laws.
8.2.1 Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered, and
Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Sections 7 and 9 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended.
Based on the most recently updated county-by-county database of federally listed species in North
Carolina as posted by the USFWS at http://www.fws.gov/southeast/es/countv%201ists.htrn, no federally
protected species are listed for Alamance County.
•
29
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
8.2.2 Federal Species of Concern
There are six Federal Species of Concern (FSC) listed by the USFWS for Alamance County, North
Carolina. FSC are not afforded federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended, and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally
proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. An FSC is defined as a species that is under
consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to support listing.
In addition, FSCs classified as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) by the state of
North Carolina are afforded state protection under provisions of the North Carolina State Endangered
Species Act or the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979, as amended. Table 11
summarizes FSC listed species that for Alamance County that are protected by the state.
Table 11. Federal Species of (concern
Common Name Scientific Name Potential
Habitat* State
Status**
Carolina darter Etheostoma collis lepidinion No SC
Carolina creekshell Villosa vaughaniana Yes E
Yellow lampmussel Lampsilis cariosa Yes E
T rotential Habitat. rortions of t he bank under review for potential habitat are limited to areas which are proposed for earth moving activities
including restoration and or enhancement reaches/areas.
** State Status: E = Endangered; T = Threatened; SC = Special Concern (Legrand et al. 2004)
No federally protected species are listed for Alamance County; however, detailed surveys were conducted
for two Federal Species of Concern that are protected by the state: 1) Carolina creekshell (Villosa
vaughaniana) and 2) yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa). Although not protected by federal law,
detailed surveys were conducted within the Site on May 1, 2008 to determine the presence or absence of
freshwater mussels (Appendix E). Based on habitat observations from the survey, it is possible that
freshwater mussels were present in this reach at some point in time; however, habitat loss due to natural
(prolonged drought) or anthropogenic (channel modification, land clearing, and vegetative maintenance)
causes has resulted in the loss of suitable habitat for these species. Based on results of the survey,
construction of this project is not expected to impact any freshwater mussel resources.
9.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES
The term "cultural resources" refers to prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, structures, or artifact
deposits over 50 years old. "Significant" cultural resources are those that are eligible or potentially
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Evaluations of site significance are
made with reference to the eligibility criteria of the National Register (36 CFR 60) and in consultation
with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).
Field visits were conducted in January 2007 to ascertain the presence of structures or features that may be
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. No structures or features were observed within the
easement; however, coordination with the SHPO will occur prior to construction activities to determine if
any significant cultural resources are present.
10.0 PREVIOUS MBRT (IRT) MEMBERSHIP
The project was originally proposed as bank and a field review was conducted by the MBRT. Since the
project is substantially unchanged from the original proposal, RS wanted to include feedback from the
30
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
original MBRT and RS's responses to these comments. Composition of the original MBRT included the
following agency reps:
•
Andrew Williams, Chair U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Kathy Matthews U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Howard Hall U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Eric Kulz N.C. Division of Water Quality
Tammy I. Hill N.C. Division of Water Quality
Daryl Lamb N.C. Division of Water Quality
Shari L. Bryant N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Renee Gledhill-Earley N.C. State Historic Preservation Office
The following section summarizes comments and concerns received from the MBRT members after
receipt of the project prospectus and a field review of the project site on March 23, 2007. The written
comments from MBRT members are included in Appendix F of this document. In addition, Restoration
Systems actions in response to the comments received are included in Section 10.2.
10.1 MBRT (IRT) MEMBER AGENCY COMMENTS
The following is a summary of comments from MBRT members as outlined by USACE representative
Andy Williams in a letter dated May 15, 2007. With the exception of the USAGE, the MBRT member(s)
expressing each concern received from written comments is denoted after the comment; in some cases, a
comment is pooled from multiple MBRT member concerns.
• 1. The project plans should be more specific. For example, the plan should include drawings that
indicate the existing and proposed stream pattern, profile, dimensions, and elevation. Also, the
proposed location of features such as fences, gates, planting areas, etc. should be shown.
Additionally, the locations of existing and proposed cross-sections, the proposed structures, fill and
proposed depressions, etc. should be shown.
2. Wetland enhancement and restoration areas should be closely monitored in order to assure that they
are and/or will become jurisdictional wetlands. (USEPA)
3. The credit release schedule, as proposed in the prospectus, is not consistent with the Stream Credit
Release Schedule present as Appendix IX of the Stream Mitigation Guidelines. (USEPA, USFWS,
NCDWQ, NCWRC)
4. A survey of the project site should be conducted to identify individual hardwood trees that are 5
inches in diameter at breast height, which could potentially benefit the restoration processes through
input of organic material. Efforts should be made to preserve as many of these trees as possible.
(USEPA, NCDWQ)
5. Native streambed substrate should be harvested from the existing channels for use in the restored
stream channels. (USEPA, NCDWQ, NCWRC)
6. A strategy for invasive/exotic plant management should be included in the Mitigation Plan for the
site. (NCDWQ)
7. Information on possible land use changes within the project watershed should be collected and
considered in the design of the stream. (NCDWQ)
8. The Mitigation Plan should provide details regarding the methods for preventing livestock access to
the streams. (NCWRC)
31
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
9. If livestock crossings are planned, the Mitigation Plan should include location, type of crossing, and
any exclusionary fencing.
10. Surveys to determine if listed mussel species are present within the existing stream should be t
conducted by biologists with both state and federal endangered species permits. Additionally, similar
surveys may be considered for other state listed species or federal species of concern. (NCWRC)
11. The vegetative success criteria could be modified to ensure that a stable, climatic plant community
can become established at the site. (USFWS)
12. A timeline for completion of the initial biological and physical improvement to the bank site should
be established.
13. Consider the establishment of one-five year interim success measures for stream restoration,
vegetation establishment, and stream and wetland hydrology.
14. The hydrological monitoring should include the establishment of stream gauges to determine the
frequency of bankfull event duration and frequency as established by your proposed stream success
criteria.
15. Identify an acceptable third party conservation organization to hold the conservation easement.
16. A list of items and activities prohibited in the easement area should be specified and established. A
list of these items and activities is located in the Wilmington District's Model Conservation
Easement.
17. Financial assurances should not be structured to provide funds to the Corps of Engineers.
18. Reference stream and wetlands should be considered in establishing success criteria for the bank site.
The following is a summary of comments from IRT members received in response to the DRAFT MBI
submitted in June 2009:
1. Credit release schedules for banks were revised in October 2008, which is slightly different from the •
one previously proposed by the agencies. The EPA recommends that the MBI use the updated
(October 2008) wetland restoration credit release schedule
2. EPA recommends that abandoned channel pools, if necessary, be located outside wetland areas.
3. Monitoring of riparian vegetation should be for a period of 7 years.
4. Monitoring of groundwater hydrology should be monitored for 7 years, unless the IRT agrees that the
monitoring period may be reduced.
5. Agency representatives expressed concerns over potential crawfish ponds being constructed adjacent
to the Site.
6. Removal of substrate for the abandoned channel (particularly cobble from riffles) should be placed in
the new, constructed channel.
7. Exotic or invasive species should be controlled at the site. Herbicides application should not occur
within 100 feet of a perennial stream.
8. Recommendations for forded crossing were made to reduce sedimentation in streams.

32
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
10.2 RESTORATION SYSTEMS RESPONSES TO MBRT MEMBER COMMENTS
May 15, 2007 Comments
1. Near final design plans will be prepared and submitted with the final Mitigation Plan.
2. Wetland enhancement areas are already jurisdictional; wetland restoration and enhancement areas
will be monitored for 5 years following implementation, including vegetation and hydrologic
monitoring.
3. Disturbances to existing vegetation and soils will be minimized through collaboration between the
designer and the contractor to idealize the flow of construction traffic and stockpile areas to minimize
disturbances beyond the actual construction footprint. Larger hardwood trees have been surveyed and
mapped at the site; design plans will preserve as many of these trees as possible and avoid
disturbances to the trees to the maximum extent possible. As a common practice, Restoration
Systems requires its contractor(s) to utilize native bed material to "seed" onto the new channel
subgrade, this will occur as part of this project as well.
4. The Credit Release Schedule has been adjusted based on coordination with agency personnel.
5. The services of the Catena Group were engaged to conduct evaluations of site streams for freshwater
mussel species. The Catena Group is appropriately licensed for these types of surveys. Results of
surveys revealed no mussels within the site.
6. Design plans take into account land use changes in the project watershed. In addition, reference
streams, wetlands, and forest have been used to establish design plans and success criteria for the site.
7. Livestock will be fenced off from the conservation easement and will not be allowed any access.
8. During the five-year monitoring period, where necessary, undesirable plant or animal species will be
removed, treated, or otherwise managed by means of physical removal, use of herbicides, live
trapping, confining wires, or nets.
9. Annual monitoring is proposed for the stream channel, riparian vegetation, and hydrology. Annual
monitoring will continue for five years or until success criteria are met and no less than two bankfull
events have occurred, as determined by in situ crest gauge.
10. An acceptable third party conservation organization will be identified to hold the conservation
easement. A conservation easement has been established to list items and activities prohibited with
the conservation easement.
July 10, 2009 Comments
1. Credit release schedules were revised in the document to reflect the October 2008 proposed wetland
credit release schedule.
2. Abandoned channel reaches will be minimized to the maximum extent feasible. If abandoned
channel reaches remain open, they will be located outside of wetland areas.
3. The monitoring plan has been revised to include a 7 year monitoring period for riparian vegetation.
4. The monitoring plan has been revised to include a mandatory 5 year hydrology monitoring period, at
which time a request will be made to the IRT to discontinue groundwater hydrology monitoring. The
IRT reserves the right to request additional groundwater monitoring if it deems necessary.
• 5. It has been deemed unfeasible to farm crawfish adjacent to the Site.
6. Substrate will be removed from the abandoned channel and placed in the new, constructed channel.
33
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
7. Invasive species will be monitored throughout the 7 year monitoring period.
8. Channel ford crossings will be constructed to minimize sedimentation.

•

34
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Smems, LLC
11.0 REFERENCES
10 Acrement, Jr., G.J. and V.R. Schneider. 1989. Guide for Selecting Manning's Roughness Coefficients
for Natural Channels and Floodplains. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2339, 38 pp.
Cowan, W.L. 1956. Estimating Hydraulic Roughness Coefficients. Agricultural Engineering, 37, 473-
475.
Cowardin, Lewis M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classifications of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington D.C.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report
Y-87-1. United States Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Gordon, N.D., T.A. McMahon, and B.L. Finlayson. 1992. Stream Hydrology: an Introduction for
Ecologists. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. West Sussex, England.
Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.A. O'Hara, A. Jessup, R. Everhart. 1999.
Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina Streams. N.C. State University,
Raleigh, North Carolina.
Leopold, L.B. 1994. A View of the River. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, MA. 298 pp.
Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts and T.R. Wentworth. 2006. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation, Level 1-2 Plot Sampling Only. Ecosystem Enhancement Program, North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 11 pp.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr., S.P. Hall, and J.T. Finnegan. 2004. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare
Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks
and Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 67 pp.
Manning, R. 1891. On the Flow of Water in Open Channels and Pipes. Transactions of the Institution of
Civil Engineers of Ireland. 20, 161-20.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2000. Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality
Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North
Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2001. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring
Protocols for Compensatory Mitigation. 401/Wetlands Unit, Department of Environment and
Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
•
35
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDW
Q). 2006a. Final North Carolina Water Quality
Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2004 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report) (online).
Available: is
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/documents/2004IRCategories4-7.PDF [January 3, 2007]. North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDW
Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2006 Integrated 06 05(b)ra and 303(d) Report). Public Review
(online). Available:
http://h-o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/documents/2006303dListPublicReviewDraft.pdf [January 3, 2007].
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2006c. Standard Operating Procedures for
Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Biological Assessment Unit, Department of Environment and
Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP). 2001. Watershed Restoration Plan for the
Cape Fear River Basin (online). Available:
http://www.nceep.net/services/restplans/cape-fear-2001.pdf [January 3, 2007]. North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology (Publisher). Pagosa Springs,
Colorado
Schafale, M and Weakley, A. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Third •
Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation.
Raleigh, North Carolina
United States Army Corps of Engineers, United States Environmental Protection Agency, North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission, North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 2003 Stream
Mitigation Guidelines.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1990. Mitigation Site Type Classification
(MIST). USEPA Workshop, August 13-15, 1989. EPA Region IV and Hardwood Research
Cooperative, NCSU, Raleigh, North Carolina.
United States Geological Survey (USGS) 2003. The National Flood Frequency Program, Version 3: A
Computer Program for Estimating the Magnitude and Frequency of Floods for Ungaged Sites.
USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4168. United States Geological Survey.
r 1
U
36
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan
Restoration Systems, LLC
•
APPENDIX A
FIGURES
•
•
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Appendices
Restoration Systems, LLC
I•

•
Directions to The Bank:
Take exit 150 off Interstate 85-40 just east of Burlington
Travel north'towards Haw River/Green Level for - 2.2 miles
y At the Highway 49 junction, turn right/travel north on Highway 49 towards Green LeveVRoxboro
for -2.7 miles
1 Turn left on Sandy Cross Road (at the Sandy Cross Mini Mart) for -1.6 miles
Turn right on Fonville Road for -1.7 miles to a T-intersection
Turn left on Deep Creek Road for -0.9 mile
Turn left on Roney-Lineberry Readjust after Deep Creek Baptist Church for -0.3 mile
After passing through a trailer park, take a left at the stop sign into The Bank
•i
1 Point to center of road crossing at the upstream end of the Main Channel
Latitude: 36.138332274'N, Longitude: 79380963290'W
gym„.. - T - y? 0( ?Z
Reference Location
q
The Bank Location
.
?-' 'I.
i
rtingto

r
I

,a7r6*
6
fr
jA?
. - eP ao- i s p
wwbed? y r ° a} t x y < f
a _41
.,?' a?.,? ?\-'? ? ir'•k :4{ F?. + } 'S ??t•,4y? ,t. •l.?s ? 'f! :,- .s.?/3 -.
o
Y t?. i4,
p
Y?
1.4 •'? L? t ?? ?•? .
? i"s + i l { 3\ ro
1°!
0 1 mi. 4 mi.
v .. 1:158,400
t
Source: 1977 North Carolina Atlas and Gazetteer, p.18.
Own. by:
A2126 Rowland Pond Drive THE BANK AND REFERENCE LOCATION ckd by: CLF FIGURE
Willow Spring, NC 27592 WGL
[phone] CRIPPLE CREEK MITIGATION SITE
[phone] fax Alamance County, North Carolina Date: April 2008
avgn e[nm.rattaL inc. - roj?; C
- t
rt HigOttowers,
1 \ e c?Fitch j Hester * ?.
vilie , Store o N
erry Jenttt' rr? '", ushy'tork
Grove OR e .?
A
'ur$11 Mills
Anders % ??
Benaia, Fr
r _,, t arbett H VGett,'ar R
The Bank Location
??
Targ 'us 'r, , ?eas3nt `Rpu Mon,
eted Local e l
Watershed AJtamahaw Greve .: CatdJt?lo ?
t?11 SS;pan
? ? QGG J ? i Cedar ?aah
!ey
?g
t.4 r GBave`2. wn C7; _ +Jnge Fa Wd
* p
lirl? Me? no >e t Fatrntt
v llliLJ ` aFt W River Etlad I
rat?am t va snorough
C'thitSe -``
ALtmante R A NkG E D l l? R
??.. } idawf " s a
? i Bef!em4?-f'1/!'t wd"psanville I
a I
1 C ,. Oran e 1 1
s Pteasent (ode IGjt to T 'Grove `._ -Eubanks
tjKimssvtlle;? .tey, Saxa"ha I I )
a' White
? , ,,
t ?? Cross ? ?
_ rs v'
Glmax i n }x el .
030390 Carr "'V
bm a 1. a
Julian Redcross i Sutphin - 1 Ys X P rkroodC'\
y
Libert g
?8EL'ERETTJv^??fyr ? ?
Salem ?? -- T --
hdle n ! / Gtr n rE
X GY3l'118PCI x.. _ i 7 ?~/f ?me
r?J r•.
yvil _ Staley ?? V ( -r?ngton
f Sitk Ho i pry i cum r r
Cedar Falls ° B um
Franilinville Springs A
rth Ache or Ramseur
iler Cl ( p a
1-- I_ Pittsboroy: r x Apex
? C Ac T : -A
ashebor' o `
',
iN3Zx .? _-
daro-;„/ 3030 I i ?te+non Saarings' ew Hi!!
N
Coleridge ?' r' 8anl6e ?;?? onset
Me ry aksii m
Beer Creek 3aar_ .- cur
1IY Gofdston zt .
'1 BnCkhaveTil `?
;Erect \ Benneh HarpersCrvssroads Ulf
;Erect
Seagrove °?. F o¢f C nth
.
Ravrl: noc
- `?- a? ?rtnr,.%?- ? ?cars?
5 mi. 0 S 15 mi-
1:625,000
Source: Hydrologic Unit Map - 1974 State of North Carolina
Dwn. by:
21'6 R pan NCnd Drive MITIGATION SERVICE AREA Ckd by: cLF FIGURE
(919'21 34 1 5-1 -3839 693 fax
(919) CRIPPLE CREEK MITIGATION SITE wGL
Date: /'1
Alamance County, North Carolina
'"in" 6
proect: 07- 01 A 1 2008 L
•
•
•
Axiom Environmental, Inc FIGURE
A2126 Rowland Pond Drive TOPOGRAPHYAND DRAINAGE AREA CAF
Willow 1:1 21S6-1693 JJ
(9192
-1693 NC 27592 CRIPPLE CREEK MITIGATION SITE Date: A
[phone] fax April 2008
Alamance County, North Carolina Project
07-016
•
1 0
0
•
•
0
•

I
it
I
c
s
ali?
O
? I I
sW
C't p
T?j N N _ fh ?N Q1 ?`
ym?l?cv'9?o ar
II II X Y II _ £
p, If
'p ? a 1 ? 11 Y a
V60'S Om?w mc?n
11 •
A
Y
a A
3 a
y
UC
ro
u 0
N
n N
C I (Y II
.0 4= r
11 R xz;lri?c
Y> s a C 0 I? C m
a
UQD~SOm3wmrn
x
m s
R
R
A 3 1 f: 8 'J 9^
N
? II
? C (7
fV
? II
uN0101'? m_ a
y II If
II X = II N = £
X a
'? m a E m? c m0
v¢osom?wm/n
Y a
m
LL i »
f: 8 1 f O f f
? I I
C 7 C W
II
L L
0 N O 10 O? N ?F-
Q
it n u ,A=n `?'£
C Y a C I_ C m
V< cIn3u`,mrn
j F
C
na. m' H
n
? n
N O W
N
II
? ? Z ? m m a
CI _ N a? N
a ?a _'mm 'fir
II 11 m, W=F
.p ..I a 1 a 1 I II X a
21 m- a
U¢m?' I U: mm
c
a
.5
V1
0
V
__. x
•

C I O
Z

O w
C

'p p y/
C7
CO
Um I ILL

g ! o
(n
LU
z N O
? ?2 A
s
c° a

rn
Z 11
Q W
tn+f N
? ImmI
O??.LC I_ G
U " O m L L
(nNj H m^O'?1T
y II 8 11 x 2 II N z £
a ? a X II Y ?
L
UQO?0I LU mU
C ? R
1 C
1
Jm R
Y
N
r
1
3 '1 t
s ; a s a
n
N
? I I
O Q ('
_ au
11 ?
K???L L a
a'
? II II II x = II ? _ £
a y a Y 11 X a
a
UQQ?Om2iwcc rnn
1
O
3
s
4
tl x
?l
a A
y
t, ? R
C
m ^
' a
fp Y w
C
(2) (B
L2ico O
U o
U c
' c?
I
C.°
a 0) S U
a acc c
aE 0 ?L
o
U ?g E
QZ

U)
? II C7
Of M O
? ? II
m??IpN GNm m?
o 'm? a
N = £
x
tot I? II II S II
pAYA >X a Y0 I' C m
UCm?Oto 11mfn
Y
`C p
CIO
F A
s
f
U
p S p. 4
L'
•
f 1
J
•
=i
4
gj -
R--Am Fats
W _
E
0
Q
I

"' w
? II II
?
? ?
"
F
?
N
•-ll
p?
1p
I I N
II °° x= 11 11 11 E ?
h
II
Y >m N c_OQF m
O
W 11
it Y ca
m?LL
O
QO? 5
a
a
m
m ^c
m m

L g
L
? ? a
uogen813 8 ? 8 m x g o
UOIIBA013
I I C'N u'1N ?O'. _
Y C
c U I pO
'-N
cD?N
C Of 7Q?
c f•pI r Of •- M ?'cV
m n [D a --rn 4 p c" Co
11
`-'
J

m L
? ?
QI
co co ap II cp
N A N N Y d II N
M^V I
I
? ??d•--
?
m
n I I I C
e
-
nll II nZ
x
R j.-J5
-j _ stn

p 3

N v 4
m

q
m i co
H
° a

V I' o
co
4

O
U o
m
r
a a
CJ S

r 4

? o
c Z ,
ca w
s
E
U LL
c
T CL O
maa
m
E a S °
z a o?
a

c
22`2 ?m
m
N N C C ?
?Ofh QpQ
U C ppp
C? O O O p .? m
m !A
m
N O O
o
g r°? U
c c
p
m
c O p? N p 0 ?
mogco NO c
O m m m

m m

Q' 2
m
Q
O
p
p
pp
0
O
O
m
11
O
Il
II II Im m
m Q)
cc o ( I
al co U) U) a) co U) a

?+ W Quogena13
J O
(D

N (0
? c
Ulm U o
t5
s m c.2 ?U
a C'. CU
cu
c' E c C: -r
m

U CD C 0
Q Z
(%)
i
w
? II II
a
co city 0
Lo ?.
p ? n II m ? N ~
II I??1 x? II II II E
A„ ma E m
'?dZ m
Omtiwtq
R
me
0
U)
uogeAO13
I
114
In??,
orri
N II 11
II x
r
?I
Y
Ct
m _
c
0
m
e?
_ 8 8 S o Y S?
uogena13
/) N
f
7
c
8
?J
•
i

cC
cu
a?
m
U 'o
U?c
2
a a? m
v
c.
a` Q M
a??' U
C L
o
U C ?
Z
Q

C
(c
a o
Z Q

C 00
??
O LL
r-
cu m
O
(? ?
a? N
o O
a
?nam
4%k m Q m? x ?

Za?
Ord
O
?
y
??
?W?•
.F ?
'ma $
C

?? a sue.?
asso
htANW.

C.r c

?= t p"

m
x +?

.b}'mow.'
•
co
G ID Q7 C
II ,? 7 C
O C C N _ p ?
C-) Ls LL
ca 2 (D
,F . G 3
03 O c
W Q to ?n Q U
Ulm
C '
D
A cm
r?
u

M

{ 4s.
x
R

,

b

`? ? rY da.; ? 3
a
"m1n t
?f,P

u
b
?
y
ro ? n
. ,
W
, x r

#
'._
?. u
_.. ?`m."ra •...
';;.:.4hy ..
.
?.... _ fir' E.
fie, ?rv,,k, $.
•
•
C
Axiom Environmental, Inc FIGURE
A2126 Rowland Pond Drive RESTORATION PLAN-WETLANDS CLF
(9119) 21 SP16 3 NC 27692
CRIPPLE CREEK MITIGATION SITE Date Q
Wilo 341 J879 fax April 2008 V
Alamance County, North Carolina Rc;ec[
Yvom Emimnmentai, Inc.
07-016
•
•
z.
of
Ui
O
ai
UI
w!
L
?I
a
U
a
•
LU
J
O
IL
IL
w
Z
Z
Q
2
U
J
U!
?I
?y
c
?W
O?
?s
f
ZJ
tB ?C Z U- Z
-1 Z' p Q3 C % Z?
RIM of m O wa "d wo
U-0 C p ca z
w
UU oQ
w a Q (0 (4 C L + tL Z
cu Cl)
z a-E•? o I Ow i
c? = a 4
U a)? _mz 0?
U) Q 1? aa.aa on o
z,
O
?i
Ui
LLI
Co.
O':
U?
J7
aIi
a
I ?:
a 9 F?
W y
S
zi
J
1
i?
L
?i
o?
?mS ao
i
•
•
•
U
C
C
O
w
_o
o ?
?w c
o ,q Q
3 J2 ? aU
9w o
0g
C <?<jfw u
m Zfi 2
u ?a g?W O
N°
8 f ??? a
cs w
pp U
F33??
0att

g° u to
I
z 3w ? ?
`? w

w

,2o
o?
00
?w
io
?w
o,o
C7
wf
8a
?a
z 4t

) ? I
Y Y ?,
Z

w
Z O

. ?
Wm W

U)
w

_

> 00
z
~ U-
U)
I f LU- UU
a Q C L ax
~ ??O
z d? E p S
I.L z
Ug Q N ..

°?
m4
m 0
o" a

"Os -?

w
z
Y
O
O
x
i
J
Q
U
a

u
z
w?o
?3woN
-3.
1
3
w w
;z
°
a
w
`
o 9
°w o
'g
w
zz h" 032
oa arc
-1 z
C7 $=
mS
:?
Q
J
Q
rc
rc
? ? O am
ti _
U
a
?
Kry >
1 IJ
0
0

m0 °
?a
0o
?0
i
?o
°g
CJ
w?
O?
0.
0
F
1 zo
FO
°
`0'
ao
oY
6.- Imo 0 ?I
i 99 o
wu iy u
0 to
Z.
© ¢. z
I ?
U
U
O
x
U
0 a
°m
FLOW
z?
C
i•
i
•
t
1
? w
r i +yyx
? h
3 ?- ti of
x ? obi F +n9w " "2 r, '?'?4 w1
E at
w
J
Legend
a` Yg The Bank Boundary = -19.6 acres
" ,?` Designed Restoration Channels
Braided Stream Enhancement Area
., BMP Stormwater Wetland Assemblage = -0.17 acre
.a~? r
= Streamside Assemblage = -3.5 acres
Piedmont Alluvial Forest = -5.7 acres
Dry-Mesic
Oak-Hickory Forest = -9.3 acres
e
-r.,y?_N,:"? .i.; 'A },.""'' - _"t+F.. 'i'r`."....e•. ?''L` hF',:. Mme` ,
W
120 240 360 480
Feet
Axiom Environmental, Inc FIGURE
A2126 Rowland Pond Drive PLANTING PLAN cLF
Willow Spring, NC 27592
(919 215-1691 CRIPPLE CREEK MITIGATION SITE Date: April 2008 11
(919) 341 J819 fax
Alamance County, North Carolina Prole«
Ax.. E-rnentai, Inc
07-016
•
APPENDIX B
NCDWQ STREAM FORMS
•
E
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan
Appendices
Restoration Systems, LLC
•
•
LJ

t?r.1Wr'Fw tow

t <
r• 1N9m QrrdurAirr
0 'VtCLk 3-?6
Cripple Creek- Mitigation Plan
r loaf Wooft FA CU 0-ft UK
Appendices
Restoration Systems, LLC

ubn:5YOff%dM?=
T6110,r 'bract' - 60 W RAWA Tt s b UT2
IUM Strum CbUjOgjM Farm
F" Kaw T*Ijw vf*&* Rarer*"w' CAS F+1-4 coew A4v*wm4-&qwkwmr 064•
s, MwP"O .n +/MMI?Mr wrrrjnr.rr?ta.rwlrirOMOWNWOM WWW"NOWWMW--1w
oft i!w A.W.r*.."We
MM no I*dc"*M
pf#ACom*%*uJMd!3..tllwwO 0
a ..._ ..._ . _, .. Y. __
G+x Lidkyle
bgO4Q? (A=M CNMM
J09" Y T" 1OMM
•
,fir ft" Iidieur AIM#14a.. Dili F
QAac 4l7? ti ?? sAr efr.
2.C
'T* V tt,Q. .31

0
V WL
a
0
Appendices
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
tMARMIMMO" VWW"T0Y[ PO r... ZZ
,Wert Rem 1ilri?c _--+
GAK*ft
SECOMW Yr0*011 i67 0=47" POl r
•
APPENDIX C
FLOOD FREQUENCY ANALYSIS PLOTS
•
0
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan
Appendices
Restoration Systems, LLC
•
Regional Regression Method
Cripple Creek Restoration Studies
Cripple Creek Reference Reach
(DA = 0.17 square mile)
Region: Blue Ridge/Piedmont
Return Interval
ears Rural Discharge
cfs Urban Discharge
cfs
1.3 20.5 10
1.5 27.5 15
2 38.9 27.1
5 72.9 59.3
10 103 87.6
25 152 156
50 195 193
100 246 233
200 305
500 397
Bold indicates interpolated data.
•
Cripple Creek Reference Reach
Regional Regression Method (Blue Ridge/Piedmont)
250
m
w
200
150
r I,
100 -- - --- - - - -- - - - -
0
50
0
1 10 100
Return Interval (years, logarithmic scale)
-s Rural -a--Urban
0
•
•
•
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan
APPENDIX D
REFERENCE REACH DATA
Appendices
Restoration Systems, LLC
0
E

? 0
f
0
I
0
a
E
y
U
U
U
0
a ?
O y'
(y) uopenaf3

E
? 9
L

E
- v o
a
- =
c
A
c
o

-
o
° A
a
o

H v

?
x
E c %

a
a m

N m

L

»

u
co
'mo o ^m? 3
a - . ci -
O C
? C
b »
d ?
C
O

o
o_ 8

? S L 3 U

v

c
-
i
O
?

L
?
?`,

m
S
-

c

°

c
E

v
» u
E

o

•
L
O
Y q
...
°
J]
?!
O
O
L

??? t `- O Y .2 "
E C A a o ` O
V I ? 0 -? a » ; I m o N u c
K r
? ? E C - r = O .C O L O ?
" U " N

.1 _ ? :? rn E o e o

{
s

Y
5 C ? N N N ? O O (O ? (° ¢I ?
O Qi
D
1 I
? m °
Q u7 ? N N M ? Q
U
I C
c I O
O n O° V) D D
-? 4 i G C NC .a - -

1 U 2

t -
a
r ? =

(U) uo9ena?

d
O
L.
a
r
R
a?
CL
CL °?'
'L C
U L.
w
m
Y
d
U

i
I

i
--- - --- -- ----?- ---- i
------- -----
i
-- it -- --- -

-- -----------
i
' I
?
I
I
i
-
i
0o n
rn rn
C)
0
M
O
LO
N
O
O
N
o 0
0
0
e ?
rn

•
Cripple Creek - Reference
Profile(2007)
Average Water Surface Slope
0.0050
Revised Revised Revised Revised
Riff le Pool Run Glide
Slope Slope Slope Slope
0.0000
0.0040
0.0000
0.0000
0.0053
0.0124
0.0000
0.0001
0.0007
0.0029
0.0020
0.0000
0.0005
0.0008
0.0000
0.0154
0.0000
0.0003
0.0000
0.0000
0.0040
0.0000
0.0034
Bed Water
Point Northing Easting Description Station Elevation Elevation
3 4983.890464 4923.019 mr 0 96.27505 96.62823
5 4983.028631 4930.615 mr 7.64 96.45304 96.64457
7 4979.246515 4938.228 mr 16.15 96.28467 96.65563
9 4975.567045 4943.793 mr 22.82 96.43403 96.65683
11 4975.983146 4949.023 mr 28.06 96.51511 96.64807
13 4979.547757 4953.329 mr 33.65 96.62144 96.78305
15 4985.562622 4958.421 tr 41.53 96.55313 96.79611
17 4987.847824 4963.508 gl 47.11 95.37654 96.79508
19 4990.299983 4967.565 run 51.85 95.36865 96.79288
21 4991.28771 4971.154 br 55.57 96.68222 96.81259
23 4997.055315 4974.188 mr 62.09 96.73645 96.97729
25 5003.415043 4975.95 tr 68.69 96.66492 96.97578
27 5010.85257 4978.509 gl 76.56 95.86507 96.97242
29 5017.331021 4980.32 p 83.28 95.59388 96.97807
31 5018.879499 4984.858 run 88.08 95.98354 96.97325
33 5018.911439 4988.019 br 91.24 96.52754 96.97532
35 5014.636488 4998.221 mr 102.30 96.65415 96.97692
37 5015.07796 5002.385 mr 106.49 96.93843 97.08674
39 5015.131053 5015.726 mr 119.83 96.52161 97.08155
41 5015.836107 5019.616 tr 123.78 96.67319 97.06954
43 5019.0624 5027.701 gl 132.49 96.32928 97.08658
45 5022.217717 5030.593 run 136.77 96.49462 97.08489
53 5015.425002 5057.461 gl
55 5013.688318 5067.197 run
160 5016.896427 5071.028 br
163 5019.330236 5071.536 tr
165 5022.646635 5072.568 gl
167 5030.061499 5074.785 p
169 5033.467568 5077.923 p
171 5038.206325 5084.293 p
173 5042.708709 5090.555 p
175 5048.947092 5094.363 p
177 5051.053849 5098.646 run
179 5051.362743 5102.884 br
181 5050.349008 5106.854 tr
183 5046.88504 5110.121 gl
185 5043.231104 5115.045 run
187 5036.577439 5120.875 br
189 5035.014329 5125.173 mr
191 5035.780988 5133.019 mr
193 5033.492582 5158.13 tr
165.32
175.21
180.21
182.69
186.17
193.91
198.54
206.48
214.19
221.50
226.27
230.52
234.62
239.38
245.51
254.36
258.93
266.82
292.03
96.30301 97.49493
96.1424 97.5031
97.20114 97.47411
97.24383 97.51244
96.64016 97.49287
96.14456 97.50325
96.76319 97.49768
96.63752 97.49142
96.62304 97.49813
96.17676 97.51102
96.5452 97.50619
96.8775 97.5053
96.99601 97.49141
96.56007 97.51061
96.43885 97.49449
97.31409 97.52423
97.21974 97.52058
97.41674 97.65958
97.89491 98.07676
Valley Slope 0.011696
215 5025.047251 5158.004
216 5004.284488 5045.512
217 4980.925145 4960.965
0.0000 100.7051
114.39 99.50674
202.11 98.3413
0.0147
average 0.0082 0.0002 0.0022 0.0009
min 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
max 0.0154 0.0008 0.0053 0.0040
40
•
APPENDIX E
FRESHWATER MUSSEL SURVEY REPORT
r?
L
•
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan
Appendices
Restoration Systems, LLC
0
Catena
GW*4 The
Group
410-B Millstone Drive
Hillsborough, NC 27278
[phone]
Freshwater Mussel Survey Report
Cripple Creek Mitigation Site
Alamance County, North Carolina
Prepared For:
Restoration. Systems, LLC
Raleigh, North Carolina
Prepared By:
The Catena Group
Hillsborough, North Carolina
May 2, 2008
Timothy W. Savidge
U

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Restoration Systems (RS) is in the process of developing a stream and wetland mitigation
bank (Cripple Creek INlitiaation Site) on a 19.1 acre property in north-central Alamance
County, North Carolina. Three major stream channels (Cripple Creek. a northern tributary,
and a southern tributary) totaling ',782 linear feet within the Site, portions of which will be
relocated as part of the mitigation project. Cripple Creek arises approximately 0.5 mile
northeast of the property boundary and flows south through the property. It is impounded
just below the southern property boundary to form a small residential lake. Below this lake,
the stream flows into Boyds Creek, a tributary to the Haw River of the Cape Fear River
Basin.
Freshwater mussels are widely recognized as the most imperiled faunal group in North
America (Biggins et al. 1995), with 72% of the species considered extinct, endangered,
threatened, or of special concern (Williams et al. 1992). NNIore species of freshwater mussels
have been reported from the Cape Fear River Basin (29) than any other river basin in North
Carolina (Bogan 2002). Although no federally protected mussel species are known from the
basin, there are several species that are classified as Federal Species of Concern (FSC); the
Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconcda masoni), brook floater (Alasmiclouia varicosci), Carolina
creekshell (Pllosa vaughaniana), Savannah lilliput (Toxolasma pullus) and the yellow
lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa), all of which are all also considered Endangered in North
Carolina. The Carolina creekshell occurs in very small streams like Cripple Creek and is
known to occur in Alamance County. The Catena Group Inc. (TCG) was retained by RS to
evaluate the property, streams for the presence of freshwater mussels and develop and
implement a mussel relocation plan for any mussels encountered.
2.0 MUSSEL SURVEY EFFORT
The Cripple Creek Mitigation Site was visited on May 01, 2008 by Tim Savidge and Tom
Dickinson of TCG. General stream reconnaissance revealed that the southern tributary and
northern tributary were too small to provide suitable habitat for freshwater mussels. The
main-stem of Cripple Creek was evaluated from the small impoundment just below the site
boundary upstream to the northeast site boundary. Water level was low and running clear.
Methodology involved wading the stream and performing visual surveys with bathyscopes
(glass-bottom buckets) and tactile searches in the stream banks. No freshwater mussels were
observed in 2?5 person hours of survey time. Two species of aquatic snails, the pointed
campeloma (Campelowet clecesium) and a physid (PhYsa sp.), were present.
3.0 CONCLUSIONS
The survey results indicate that freshwater mussels are not present within the Cripple Creek
Mitigation Site. Based on habitat observations, it is possible that freshwater mussels were
present in this reach at some point in time, but may have been lost due to natural (prolonged
drought) or anthropoaenic (channel modification, etc.) causes. The impoundment
do\?nstream of the site is likely a barrier to mussel recruitment into this reach. Construction
of this project is not expected to impact any freshwater mussel resources.
[7

"W-
4.0 LITERATURE CITED
Biggins, R.G., R.J. Neves, and C.K. Dohner. 1995. Draft National strategy for the
conservation of native freshwater mussels. 26 pp.
Bogan, A. E. (2002). Workbook and key to the freshwater bivalves of North Carolina.
Raleigh NC, North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences.
Williams, J. D., M. L. Warren, Jr., K. S. Cummings. J. L. Harris, and R. J. Neves. 1993.
Conservation status of the freshwater mussels of the united States and Canada.
Fisheries 18 (9): 6-22.
C.
•
:
i
Regulatory Division
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WLLU94GTM =TRM CORPS OF QtGWMRS
P.O. BOX Iwo
WILMINGTON, NORTH x.28402-1890
May 15, 2007
Action ID No. SAW-2007-01188-201
Mr. Randy Turner
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Hayes Street, Suite 107
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Dear Mr. Turner:

The Corps received the proposed Cripple Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank
Prospectus and Mitigation Plan on !)March 12, 2007. A Mitigation Banking Review Team
(MBRT) was assembled and includes representatives from the Corps and other state and federal
resource agencies, An on-site MBRT meeting was conducted on March 23, 2007, and by letter
dated March 29, 2007, the MBRT was requested to provide written comments and concerns
within 30 days.
The written comments and concerns have been received and are enclosed for your
consideration and response. The following list is a summary of the concerns expressed by the
MBRT in the written comments and by the Corps.
1. The project plans should be more specific. For example, the plan should include drawings
that indicate the existing and proposed stream pattern, profile, dimensions and elevation.
Also, the proposed location of features such as fences, gates, planting areas, etc, should
be shown. Additionally, the locations of the existing and proposed cross sections, the
proposed structures, fill and proposed depressions, etc. should be shown.
2. Wetland enhancement and restoration areas should be closely monitored in order to
assure that they are and/or will become jurisdictional wetlands.
3. The credit release schedule, as proposed in the prospectus, is not consistent with the
Stream Credit Release Schedule present as Appendix 1X of the Stream Mitigation
Guidelines (April 2003-U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District; U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission;
North Carolina Division of Water Quality). However, as stated in a letter dated May 8,
2007, from Mr. Scott McClendon, Assistant Chief of the Wilmington District Regulatory
Division, the final decision regarding the credit release schedule will be made with the
MAY 16 2007
BY : --------------------
•
MBRT's.full participation. If the MBRT decides that it is appropriate to alter the release
schedule based on the mitigation site's apparent ability to provide the expected stream
and wetland functions as described in the planning document, then that decision rests
entirely with the MBRT. Also, the Wilmington, Regulatory Division intends to convene
the North Carolina MBRT as soon as possible to discuss this rule as it relates to the
current banking review process in North Carolina: The purpose of this meeting will be to
determine if there is a need to revise certain threshold items to reflect the knowledge that
has been gained over the last several years regarding compensatory mitigation.
Furthermore, you should be aware that members of the MBRT have stated in their
comment letters that they support discussion involving a revision of the credit release
schedule for all new mitigation banks; however, they do not support a deviation from the
previously agreed to and approved credit release schedule in the Stream Mitigation
Guidelines.
4. A survey of the project site should be conducted to identify individual hardwood trees
that are 5 inches DBH, which could potentially benefit the restoration processes through
input of organic material. Efforts should be made to preserve as many of these trees as
possible.
5. Native streambed substrate should be harvested from the existing channels for use in the
restored stream channels.
6. A strategy for invasive/exotic plant management should be included in the Mitigation
Plan for the site.
7. Information on possible land use changes within the project watershed should be
collected and considered in the design of the stream.
8. The Mitigation Plan should provide details regarding the methods for preventing
livestock access to the streams.
9. If livestock crossings are planned, the Mitigation Plan should include location, type of
crossing and any exclusionary fencing.
10. Surveys to determine if listed mussel species are present within the existing stream
should be conducted by biologist with both state and federal endangered species permits.
Additionally, similar surveys may be considered for other state listed species or federal
species of concern.
1 L The vegetative success criteria could be modified to ensure that a stable, climatic plant
community can become established on the site.
40
12. A timeline for completion of the initial biological and physical improvement to the bank
site should be established.
13. You should consider the establishment of one-five year interim success measures for
stream restoration, vegetation establishment and stream and wetland hydrology.
14. The hydrological monitoring should include the establishment of stream gauges to
determine the frequency of bankfull event duration and frequency as established by your
proposed stream success criteria.
15. You should identify an acceptable third party conservation organization to hold the
conservation easement.
16. A list of items and activities prohibited in the easement area should be specified and
established. A list of these items and activities is located in the Wilmington District's
Model Conservation Easement.
17. Financial assurances should not be structured to provide funds to the Corps of Engineers.
18. Reference streams and wetlands should be considered in. establishing your success criteria
for the bank site.
The concerns raised in the correspondences must be given full consideration before we can
make a final decision regarding the mitigation bank. We need your information to address the
concerns and issues raised over the proposed mitigation bank. You may submit additional
information or revise your plans to help resolve the issues. Please provide a written response
within 30 daysfrom the date of this letter, otherwise, your application will be withdrawn.
Please contact me at 919-876-8441, extension 26 if f can be of any assistance.
Sincerely,

Andrew Williams
Regulatory Project Manager
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Enclosures

Copies furnished (with enclosure):
Mr. Eric Kulz
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
401 Oversight and Express Permitting Unit
2321 Crabtree Blvd-, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
Ms. Tammy Hill
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
Mrs. Kathy Matthews
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4 Wetlands Section
109 T. W. Alexander Drive
Durham, NC 277 t 1
Mail Code: E143-04
Ms.Shari Bryant
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Habitat Conservation Program
Post Office Box 129
Sedalia, NC 27342-0129
Mr. Howard Hall
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services
Ecological Services
P. Q. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Mr. Daryl Lamb
North Carolina Department of Water Quality
Winston-Salem Regional Office
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem; NC 27107
Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley
North Carolina Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-4617
•
of
Page 1 of 1
WilQalins, Andrew E SAW
From: Matthews.KathyCepamail.epa.gov
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 4:23 PM
'fro: Williams, Andrew E SAW; Manuele. Jean B SAW
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail] McLendon, Scott C SAW
Subject: Cripple Creek Mitigation Bank (Action ID SAW-2007-11188 261)
Hi Andy;
This is in response to your request for comments on the Cripple Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank,
proposed by Restoration Systems, LLC (Acton ID SAW-2007-01188-201). I have reviewed the March 12, 2007
prospectus and mitigation plan, and I participated in the field visit on March 23, 2007.
In general, I believe that the site is ,a good candidate for a mitigation site. The streams and wetland areas on the
property provide good opportunity for restoration andlor enhancement. in addition, we have no. significant
concerns for the project, as proposed in the prospectus. However, we note that there is additional information to
be provided, including specific design plans. 1 note that, as we discussed in the field meeting, we may need to
look closely at some of the wetland enhancement and restoration areas, to ensure that they are or will become
jurisdictional wetlands. We are pleased that the bank sponsor and its consultant (Axiom Environmental) have
stated a willingness to minimize disturbance to the existing vegetation and soils, and to use the existing bed
material in the relocated channel. I believe that the species planting list is appropriate. In addition, I believe the
proposed stream, vegetation, hydrologic, and benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring plans are appropriate.
However, I will defer to the DWQ staff to determine the appropriateness of the benthic macroinvertebrate
monitoring plans.
As we discussed in the field on March 23, there is an issue involving the proposed credit release schedule. We
recommend that the Statewide MBRT meet as soon as possible to discuss the proposed credit -release schedule,
as it may effect all future mitigation banks.
Thank you for the opportunity to review, tthis project. I look forward to reviewing more specific design plans for this
project; and to discussing the credit,release schedule. Please call or email me with any questions or comments.
Kathy Matthews
USEPA - Region 4 Wettands Section
109 T.W. Alexander Dr.
Durham, NG 27711
MAIL CODE: E143-04
phone-919-541-3062
cell 919-619-7319
•
4/23/2007
Andrew E SAW
Fran: H=N4_H0i rs.gov
Serit Friday. App 27, 2007 9:39 AM
To: tlll wi% AndmN E SAW
Cc: Mew Xathy@ep=aepa.gov; bryarrts5?mk.net eric.kulzQncmad.net
Wmmyt cmaI_net randy( mtor?terrzs_=n
Subject Cripple Cheek Mitigation Bank
April 27, 2007
Andy,
This provides informal comments on the proposed Cripple Creek Stream and
wetland mitigation Bank in Alamance County. I say informal because the
thoughts are mime., but represent the positions I would recommend to Pete
Benjamin, our Field Supervisor..
I have reviewed the Mitigation Prospectus and Mitigation Plan, both
dated March 2007. I also attended the site review on March 23, 2007.
The bank site includes approximately 19.1 acres with,3,782 linear feet
of stream characterized as an unnamed tributary to Boyd Creek which is
within the Cape Fear River Basin. The project site serves a watershed
of four-tenth of a square miles (256 acres). The plan calls for stream
restoration and Level II enhancement of 4,300 and 142, linear feet,
respectively. This would create 4,357 stream mitigation units. The
effort also involves riverine wetland restoration and enhancement of 5.9
acres and 1.5 acres, respectively. Boa-riverine itetland restoration and
enhancement would occur on 1.2 and 0.6 acres, respectively. Overall,
the bank sponsor seeks 8.15 wetland mitigation units.
Bank. Location in Landscape
The Service notes that the project area flows directly into a downstream
impoundment. While the bank seeks to improve water quality and enhance
flood attenuation, these benefits in Boyd Creek and Sari River watershed
will probably continuze to be influenced more by the mpaendmeat and any
release schedule from the dam. There would appear to be limited
opportunities for upstream mitigation of aquatic orgpuisms from below
the dam or downstream migration from the bank site to Boyd Creek and
beyond. However, I recognize that there arm oppotu#4ties to establish
on-site habitat for wildlife and aquatic isms'. '11&ile the
impoundment limits the geographic scope of benefits derived from the
bank, at this time I do not think the impoundment precludes
establishment of the proposed bank.
Stream Restoration/enhancement
The stream restoration plan (Section 5.1) seeks to restore a stable
meandering stream. Based on my limited knowledge of the finer points of
stream restoration and --haft ant, the plan seems adequate. I believe
ethers on the MBRT may be able to make more informed comments on this
aspect of the bank.
Wetland Restoration/enhancement
The plan states (p. S) that reforestation with hardwood species is
proposed over 19.1 acres of the bank, including areas of pastureland and
disturbed forest. The target plant commmities are Piedmont alluvial
forest and dry-mesic, oak-hickory forest. The area of restored wetlands
would be 9.2 acres. The plans for wetland restoratioaierrh convent
(Section S.3) and vegetation planting (Section 5.4) seem adequate.
0
•
•
i
Vegetative Success Criteria
one of my concerns regarding wetland restoration is for quantitative
criteria to ensure that a stable, climax, plant community can become
established on the site. These are usually addressed as the vegetative
success criteria. The prospectus states (p. 5) that the proposed credit
release schedule would apply only if Restoration systems documents
"acceptable survival and growth of planted vegetation." i certainly
support this broad principle, but, as always, the devil is in the
details.
In recent years, I have tried to distill my ideas on restoring wetland
plant communities down to five points which axe:
First, there should be a list of the preferred species. The current
plan uses the term *characteristic,' and this is acceptable. The
characteristic species are those that should dated in the mature,
climax community. These would be primarily trees; but shrubs may be
included. Then., by definition, every` other species within the same
category (such as woody vegetation) is non-preferred. For some reason,
folks seem to have a problem with this either-or bra and often
want a long list of categories, e.g. preferred planted, preferred
non-planted, and on and on.
second-, the restoration process can plant some, most, or, all of the
preferred species, but overall success should be based solely on: (I)
absolute abundance; (2) relative abundance; and, (3) diwxsity of the
preferred species.
Third, absolute abundance should apply only to the preferred species.
This is the criterion where the 260 stems/per acre applies. All the
preferred species (whether planted, ugly recruited, or existing
prior to restoration) can be considered in reachigg this goal. The
current plan for Cripple Creek ,proposes (p. is) an acceptable measure of
absolute abundance, 260 characteristics trees/acre in year five.
Fourth, relative abundance refers to the percent of stems of the
preferred species versus all other stem. This is a measure to ensure
that aggressive colonisers do not overwhelm. the desirable,
characteristic species. I suppose it is possible that a restoration
site could have the required 260 stems/acre after five years, but if
there were over 1,000 stems of red maple, sweetgtvit, and pines, it would
not bode well for the long-term establishment of the target community.
Many years ago, there was a standard that at least half the plants in a
given category, ouch as woody 4%Pw , must be the stic
species. in 2002, David Lekson proposed a standard for forested wetland
restoration which stated that no more than 20e of the tree stems on the
site could be undesirable invaders (that is, at least &0 of the trees
must be the desired species). More recently, a bank has proposed that
"undesirable species should constitute less thaw 2.04k of the total
population." I"m not sure the term `modT repr4¢sents a definite
success criterion. At this time, I can't provide, Justification for
fixed atof relative abundance, but the range of 50-44# for the
characteristics species seem like a good starting`point for discussion.
The real issue is limiting harmful competition during the very early
years of reforestation and this issue should be addressed by a
quantifiable measure of relative abundance.
Fifth, there should be a measure of species diversity which applies only
to the characteristic species. This criterion has been difficult to
define and I admit that after considering this for several years, I have
not been able to develop a practical, quantitative measure aimed at
ensuring that a diverse planting program actually is on track to produce
a diverse mature, wetland community. This can be approached by
requiring that a certain percentage of all planted trees survive for at
least five years. For example, if each species is planted in the
pfoportion desired in the mature community, then success could require
the survival of at least 80* of the plants in each species after five
years. However, this measure would not consider any natural recruitment
of characteristic species. Diversity can also be approached by
requiring that the percentage of each preferred species at the end of
the monitoring period does not deviate more than a certain amount for
the percent (such as 50#) it represented at the start of the restoration
effort. For example, if green ash constituted 20ft all preferred species
at the start of the restoration effort (after any planting), this
species must represent between 58 and 15% of the preferred species at
the time success is declared. Each species required for success would
be considered separately. This approach would allow some species to
increase in abundance and some species to decline:, but no species would
be allowed to disappear from the community.
The key concern here is to have a stele, effective measure to prevent a
restoration effort that seeks to establish 6-10 preferred species but
ends the monitoring period with only 2-3 species = even if the surviving
species have the required 2.60 stemslacre. In this regard, red maple and
sweetgum can be characteristic species for some natural communities and
should be counted toward success, but without a good species diversity
criterion, a community with only these two species could not constitute
successful restoration.
As a starting point for discussion, I would suggest that (at the very
least) vegetative success should require the presence of a certain
percentage of the characteristic species at the and of the monitoring
period. A recent commercial bank has proposed that vegetative success
would require 70% of target species should be pzeaent in viable
populations. This is a constructive proposal, bu=t I think the
percentage of surviving species should he at least M. For example, if
the natural community typically has 10 dominant species, then at least 8
of these species must be present at the end of monitoring to achieve
success.
I believe that good criteria for relative abundance and diversity could
be helpful to the sponsor. These criteria could allow some less
desirable species, such as red maple and sweetgum? to contribute to
vegetative success. while those aggressive colonizing trees should not
be planted, they are part of the two target communities. If measures
are in place to limit their dominance of the site, they could be counted
toward establishing the desired communities. Much limited, natural
colonization could reduce costs for the bank sponsor - but only if their
abundance was carefully controlled.
Federally Protected Species
As noted in the plan (p. ii), no federally listed threatened and
endangered species are known to occur in Alamance County. Several
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) have been reported from the county. A
list of these species can be found on the Service website at
bttp:/Iwwv.fws.gov/nc-ca/cutylist/alamance.htm . A major concern would
be for mussels that are state-listed or FSC. I am pleased that the
sponsor intends to conduct "appropriate investigamtiona' for listed
mussels within the bank streams and areas surrounding the bank. I
suggest that similar surveys be conducted for other state-listed species
or FSC.
Credit Release Schedule
A major concern with the current proposal is a request for the
accelerated sale of credits. The current plan would represent a
significant exception to the credit release schedule (CRS) given in the •
interagency Stream mitigation Guidelines (SMG) of April 2003. The SMG
allow for the sale of 2Sk of credits upon completion of all initial
physical and biological improvements. The current proposal (p. 20)
would increase this level to 551k after planting and delivery of
"as-builts."
At this time, I do not believe the mitigation Bank Review Team (MERT)
for the Cripple Creek Project should make this change in the CRS. There
is an issue of fairness to other private mitigation bankers who might
correctly claim that the rules have been changed after they were locked
into the prior CRS.
The CRS of the SHO provides an incentive to carefully plan and execute
the restoration. While I understand the concept of a performance bond,
I confess that I do not know the details of how these funds would used
to complete the work if the original bank sponsor could not. The use of
a performance bond to replace the incentives of a gradual release of
credits opens up a whole range of questions regarding hove much work
would be needed to be completed at each stage of the monitoring period,
how much money would need to be available at each stage:, hoar would the
work be contracted, how much money would need to be set aside to ensure
success of the first, or possibly second, remedial effort, etc. I do
not have the expertise to evaluate these issues.
For example, I notice that the financial assurance section of MBI
discusses two performance bonds. The first bond of $450:,000 would be
for construction, planting, and all other activities necessary to
deliver the as-built drawings. After the as-built drawings are
delivered, a second bond of $125,000 would be provided to the Corps to
cover the cost of monitoring. I am uncertain whether the second bond
replaces the first bond, or is in addition to the'~first bond. If the
first bond is terminated after initial construction (which would be my
guess), are there financial assurances that work pan be x done if
success criteria are not met? If the stream channel fails to perform as
planned or the planted vegetation does not survive, can the necessary
remedial actions be taken? If SSA of all bank credits have been sold at
essentially time 0 of the monitoring period, are there sufficient
incentives for the sponsor to make any necessary corrective actions over
the next five years?
Any change in the CRS should only be done as part.of a formal change to
the interagency SM. The original agencies that developed the SMG would
need to formally reconsider the CRS. These agencies could consider the
role of performance bonds in ensuring completion of the work if the
original bank sponsor was not able to achieve the success criteria.
There could be a consideration of holding the initial construction bond,
$450,000 for Cripple Creek, throorut the entire'moauitoring period.
There could also be a consideration of mstablishing a two-tier system
for private, mitigation bankers: one tier for those with an established
record of successful bans and Sher tier for tie without such a
record. Bankers in the former tier, with an established record of
success, would be eligible for an accelerated CRS. However, it would
seem that bankers with successful banks should have the marking capital
to comply with the current CRS. In any case, the'standards for
established banker would need to be written out in detaiil before any
changes in the CRS are approved. The standards should be very specific
with virtually no "wiggle room.0 Otherwise, each new MBRT will spend
many hours hearing arguments on why the new bank should qualify for the
accelerated CRS. Any establishment of categories for private bankers
would certainly add extra work for the MBRT due to the need to carefully
review the details of past mitigation banks and evaluate their success
or failure.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments on the
proposed banks. We look forward to the successful resolution of these
issues and continued involvement with the MBRT for this project.
Best regards, Howard
Howatd F. Hall
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Ecological Services
P. O. Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Ph: 919-856-4520, ext. 27
Fax: 919-SS6-4556
e-mail: [e-mail]
w
0

5

CFA
MicW F. Easky. Ga MOF
WE= G.. Rags k.. SeMVW7
Nadi Carolina Depmunot of Eamommew aad NoMW Rases
Mw W-Kbadc. P.E. D=CW
DrVWM of W&W Qu dY
REE
Lo---D
Mr. Andrew Williams
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falb ofNeuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
April 11, 2007
Re: Commmts oa P.mposed. Std and Wedand Mitigation Project
Cripple Creek Mitigation Bank
Alamance County, NC
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2007-01 IM201
Dear. Mr. Williams:
APR 18 2W1
RAF.MU ULd1'OR p on=
On March 23,2W7, Eric Kulz and Tammy Dill with the, Division of Water Quality (DWQ 401
Oversight and Express Review Penpi Wing Unit wed as on site mediag at the InoPvsa 141114*0n
site to makeObwvations and to dimm the project with Resto align Systems, LLC and other regulatory
aged g up the litigation Barak Revievr'Team RT
Based on the site vWt and the Prospers Provided for the proposed protect, our comments are as
follows:.
• In general, the site ads to be a good cant Wi ft for restoratron?enhanCement acOvit m Both
the impacted wetlands and streams would betrefit from the proposed mitigation activWes.
DWQ recommends a tree survey of the grvlect site to imdivi" hardwood trees that
could. potentially benefit the restoration processes throe, opal of organic matter into the system
e s "low-ce to 5, V, I I . ... ,.., Wcessesoa * s PQI
land currently in place and under development from DsWQ ha nd trees that are five inches
DBH or gmater as providing an ecological benefit to the stream and are part of an established
and functioning riparian zone, Efforts should be madesto preserve as many of these trees as
possible.
• DWQ recommends harvesting native bed material frown the std for use in the reMred stream
channel. Despite the €act that the channel has been suzightened, and areas of bark erosion and
incision are present, well-developed cobble riffles are psent at a number of locations. As much
of this material as possible should be harvested for use in the riffles of the restored charnel.
* cav
401 onnoWspw Rerkr Pang flak
1&%Mad Suv=CaWi?R**k NOMCmEM2769-1650
=10abuae Bwkwrt.Soft25Q MkIl r,MA&Cardma27W4
ebarc &M 733-tM/ Set OM MMS
rr
,are it opparaagnfABrmawa Adige EraftW- 1D'!G Regdealt40X Poet Car men Paper
Andrew Williams
S. Army Corps of Engineers
Cripple Creep Mitigation Bank
Page 2
e A strategy for invasive/exotic plant management should be included in the Mitigation Plan for
the site.
• Information on possible land use changes within the project watershed should be collected and
considered in the design of the stream.
• The credit release schedule proposed in the Prospectus, is not consistent with the Stream Credit
Release Schedule presented as Appendix DC of the Stream Mitigation Guidelines (April 2003 -
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission; and N.C. Division of Water Quality).
DWQ supports interagency discussion, involving a revision of the credit release schedule that
applies to all new mitigation banks. However, DWQ does not support case-by-case modification
of the release schedule based on "track record 17 of the bank providers or other such subjective
criteria.
If an overall policy dictating a revised credit release schedule is developed and implemented by
the participating agencies, then such a schedule can be included in the Mitigation Banking
Instruinent for this project, and can be used for this site. Otherwise, DWQ recommends that the
stream credit release schedule adhere- to the Stream Mitigation Guidelines.
Please feel free to contact Eric Kulz or me at [phone] if you have any questions regarding this
project or our comments.
•
•
Sincerely
}
Cyndi B. Karoly, Program Manager
401 Oversight and Express Review Program
Cc: File Copy (Eric Kulz)
Tammy Hill
Daryl Lamb - WSRO
Central Files
N°" Carolina
JflQ?flf'
401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit
16SO Wfait Service Center, Raleigh. North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Cmbt= Boulevard, Suite 250. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 •
Rhone [phone] f Fax [phone] '
Internet: h=./M2oenr.state.ne.uslncwetlands
An Equal €)ppordm ty/Affirmative Action Empbyer - 50% Recycle&10% Post .Con u ner Paper
North Carolina ildIffe Resources Commission 0
Richad W Nuafton,
MFMORANDt44
TO: hk.Aia- WMam% Rt F- c
FROM: ?. Coacainatar
-azaz?m-k
ROT- ;a
usbud Gasaacv dm Fro$"=
DATE: 27 Apt 2#?4}7
SURE EM Cripple Cndc WA*tion Bak legamfi-8
1JX CQ fty, Nw*
Sion w4the Zlac*Cw WBO* RaowmCo maumMQ CWQ bra ram ft
doamaat=d wo sm mar a dia6dda vsbes. of arcs. An a m Ae visit arms
aa23 2QO7.
S ,F.?.C p?asca?hffie,Cra?k Sara?ad
Tina Bsaic,? ? ?.:
.no recoub for tie £+edwa or diet'"specim in dum a
tle? sr+erax?r? far?rsa?ctbca.C bmsale!
ftfW"speais<Wcoacmand s scp&mvmdC
,+?? ?n-i 'i11
w lbw basic. Mm-care
Cnwk hqwovw:
of tested are pceeaaic iia a? ar isstn,edistei3?
41 Mmftg Addru& Dtvmm of h* and Fiscus • 17M Its & COM . MuSk WC ZM99?-1721
Tthp"aa (919)707-a22Q f F= 7 1-04?8
a'd SZSG'S**'SEE WOR48 3Jw4S 0I3s60 40 GZ ddd
Page 2
27 Apri12007
Cripple Creek Mitigation Bank
Action IDNo. SAW 2007-01IM201
This site has the potential to be a good stream and wetland restoration site. The proposed stream
restoration, enhancement, and preservation activities will bereft water quality and aiquatic w dterrestrial
wildlife habitats. We offer the following comments, and recomtnendariansnegarding the Prospectus and
Mitigation Plan.
1. The Prospectus (#7) and Mitigation Plan (Section 1. t, pg. i) discuss excluding livestock from
streams, stream banks and Soodplains however, there" no details in the Mitigation Plan
regarding flow livestock will be excluded. Please include details on the method fend to
be used to exclude livestock from the mitigation bank.
2. It is unclear whether livestock crossings will be installed across any- of the stream or wetland
mitigation areas. If livestock crossings, are proposed, these should be detailed.inthaProspectus
and Mitigation Plan including location, type of crossing, and any exclusionary fencing. If
livestock crossings are proposed, generally, we prefer the use of geo-textile fabric and rock to
stabilizetbe steam bottom rather than concrete. Fencing that is per =ently installed across a
stream can trap debris and requite maintenance. Instead, we suggest that cable is installed at the
crossing to prevent livestock from accessing the crossing, When the livestock need to cross the
stream, these cables can bs.detachedaand stie? across the stream to the fencing onthe:,
opposite stream bank. This allows the livestock to cross and limits access to only the crossing.
Once the livestock have erosse di the cables can be reattached to the fencing to prevent livestock
from accessing thecrossing.
r?
3. A portion of the stream -channel will be constructed on a new location within the adjacent
floodplain.(Mitigation, Plan, Section 5.1.1, pg. 13). Where feasible, we, encourage the applicant to
remove substrate material from the existing channel and to use this substrate material in thenew
channel.
4. The applicant proposes an accelerated credit release schedule (Prospectus #?;; Mitigation Plan,
Section 7.2, pg. 20}: While we recognize theriorth Carolina. Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(NCEEP) has a credit release schedule that differs from the one in the Strearn hfiitigxWn
Guidelines, to our knowledge, all private mitigation banks adhexe,to the credit release schedule
detailed in the Stream Nfitigatiou Guidelines (April 2003). Therefom we feel the credit release
schedule for this Bank should be cons Went with the current Sham Mitigation Guidelines (April
2043.). The NCWRC would support an interagency discussion regarding a potential revision to
the current credit release schedule detailed in the Stream Mitigation Guidelines (,April 2003).
5. The applicant intends to conduct studies to determine if listed mussel: species may be present in
the Bank streams or immediately downstream (Mitigatim Plat, Section 8.2.2., p& 22). We
recommend; any surveys be conducted by biologists with both state and federal endangered
species permits.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. of we can provide further assistance,
please contact our office at [phone].
cc: Ryan Heise, WRC
Corey Oakley, WRC

C -d Sa9G ' Sirir ' 966 '4uaRja T ia4s e T S t 60 Go La add
RECEIVED
MA ; 207
LEIGH REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Mato & Preservation Office
P=a Sao&O* a
Isbah G Ems. Sa=uy DD"v oEWus x
Jcff=yJ• C-w. rte, saw, DwA amts Dire=
Map 2, 2007
Andrew Williams
Department of the Army
Co" of Engineers
6508 Faits of Neese Road, Suite 120
R,1 NC 27615
Re: Cripple Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank, Southeast of Intersection of SR 1750 and SR 1729,
Two Miles Northeast of Burlington, Alamance County, ER 07-0780
Dear Mr. Williams:
Thank you for your letter of March 29, 2007, concerning the above project
We have conducted a review of the proposed undertaking and are aware of no historic resources that would be
affected by the project Therefore, we have no comment on the undermking as proposed.
The above comments arc made pursuant to Section 106 of the rational Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill Earley, environmoeatai review coordinator, at 9191733-4763, em. 246. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tucking number.
Spy,
?JAPM
Peter Sandbeck
507N M=WSmaa;Ril ONC 461?hQ,;nioeCWW NC2?699-fi17
aNSTOSAMON 515 anamshsa,.RaicloNC 4617bWSa?ioeCeawID?k iNC27649d617
SURREY&PIANMIG SO N.MwwSaaae4Ugab,NC 4617 KadSenioeCrmKRappNC27699-417
•
•
LJ
Ja`Sf0 Srq)Fs
, A Y
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
c
Z
?r W
REGION 4
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
c?a2 61 FORSYTH STREET
< PRQY? ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
July 10, 2009
Mr. Andrew E. Williams
Project Manager
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Subject: Cripple Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank: March 2009 MBI
and Mitigation Plan
Dear Mr. Williams:
This is in response to your transmittal, dated June 24, 2009, concerning the Cripple Creek
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank, sponsored by Restoration Systems, LLC. The transmittal
included a draft Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI) and final mitigation plans and design
sheets. The bank sponsor proposes to restore 6.9 acres of wetlands and 4,265 linear feet of
stream and to enhance 1.9 acres of wetlands and 633 linear feet of stream. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 4 Wetlands and Marine Regulatory Section
reviewed the draft MBI and mitigation plans. We previously commented on the public notice
and prospectus for this project, in a letter dated July 31, 2008. We have the following additional
comments for your consideration, and the consideration of the Interagency Review Team (IRT).
General comments: We note your statement in the June 24, 2009 letter, informing that the
landowner no longer intends to construct crawfish ponds on the property. EPA hopes and
assumes that the owner will not propose any similar activities in the future.
Draft MBI
1. Credit Release: Schedule, Page 6: We acknowledge and appreciate that the bank sponsor has
adopted the recommended wetland credit release schedule from our July 31, 2008 letter.
However, in October, 2008, the North Carolina IRT (NC IRT) developed and approved a
wetland credit release schedule for all banks, which is slightly different from the one proposed in
our letter. EPA recommends that the MBI use the following credit release schedule for the
wetland restoration and enhancement areas:
- Execution of the MBI, Mitigation Bank Review Team (MBRT) approval of the mitigation plan,
delivery of financial assurances, recordation of the conservation easement, and delivery of the
title option - 15 percent;
- Construction, submission of as-builds, and inspection by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) - 15 percent (30 percent cumulative);
- 1'` successful year of monitoring - 10 percent (40 percent);
-2 nd successful year of monitoring - 10 percent (50 percent);
-3 d successful year of monitoring - 10 percent (60 percent);
•
intemet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer)
- 4'h successful year of monitoring - 10 percent (70 percent);
- 51h successful year of monitoring - 10 percent (80 percent);
- 6`h successful year of monitoring - 10 percent (90 percent); and
- 7`h successful year of monitoring, and close-out of site - 10 percent (100 percent).
Ntiti2ation Plan
1. On Page 19 (Section 5.1.1), the mitigation plan states that if there is a deficit of material to fill
the abandoned channel, a series of closed, linear depressions may be left along confined channel
segments. EPA recommends that the bank sponsor avoid locating these depressions in wetland
areas. Significant areas of open water in the wetland restoration area may result in lower
mitigation credit.
2. As we stated in our July 31, 2008 letter, all references to a five-year monitoring period should
be revised to a seven-year monitoring period throughout the document (unless directly referring
to the stream monitoring). It appears that only five years of monitoring is proposed for the
forested wetland restoration (for example, see Section 6.0 on page 24). However, the NC IRT
has determined that forested wetland restoration projects should be monitored for a minimum of
seven years.
3. As we stated in our July 31, 2008 letter, the vegetation success criteria (on Page 25 in Section
6.2) should include criteria for year 7. Vegetation of the forested wetlands must be monitored
for at least seven years. To be consistent with other recently reviewed mitigation bank projects,
EPA recommends that the following language be added to Section 6.2 of the mitigation plan:
• Demonstrated density of planted tree species to meet or exceed 320 per acre at the end of 3
years (post-planting), 260 trees per acre at the end of 5 years, and 210 (7-year-old) character
canopy tree species per acre at the end of 7 years. The IRT may allow for the counting of
acceptable volunteer species toward the 210-tree per acre density upon the review and
evaluation of the annual monitoring data;
• No single volunteer species (most notably red maple, loblolly pine, and sweet gum) will
comprise more than 20 percent of the total composition at years 3, 5, or 7. If this occurs,
remedial procedures/protocols outlined in the contingency plan will be implemented. During
years 3, 5, and 7, no single volunteer species, comprising over 20 percent of the total
composition, may be more than twice the height of the planted trees. If this occurs, remedial
procedures outlined in the contingency plan will be implemented.; and
If, within the first 3 years, any species exhibits greater than 50 percent mortality, the species
will either be replanted or an acceptable replacement species be planted in its places as
specified in the contingency plan.
4. Section 6.3: We previously stated in our July 31, 2008 letter that hydrology of the forested
wetlands must be monitored for a minimum of seven years. Since the date or our letter, the NC
IRT has determined that if a wetland mitigation site meets the hydrology success criteria for the
first five years of monitoring, the bank sponsor may then request that hydrology monitoring be
discontinued. Only upon approval of the IRT and the Corps may the wetland hydrology
is
2
• monitoring be discontinued prior to closeout of the site. Section 6.0 of the mitigation plan
should be revised to reflect this requirement.
5. We note that EPA's July 31, 2008 letter was not included in the agency comments listed in
Section 10. 1, nor in Appendix F. However, it appears that most of our comments (other than
those related to length of monitoring for forested wetlands) have been addressed in the MBI and
mitigation plan.
Thank you for the continued opportunity to review this project. If you have any
questions or comments, please contact Kathy Matthews, of my staff, at [phone] or
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
Jennifer S. Derby
Chief
Wetlands and Marine Regulatory Section
• cc: USFWS
NCDWQ
NCWRC
NCHP

3
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins
Governor Director
July 10, 2009
•
•
Mr. Andrew Williams
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Natural Resources "flit
Dee Freeman
Secretary
Re: Cripple Creek Mitigation Bank
Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI) and Mitigation Plan
Alamance County
DWQ #08-1143
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) 401 Oversight and Express Review Permitting Unit has
reviewed the MBI and Mitigation Plan for the above-referenced site.
DWQ appreciates the Sponsor addressing the issues outlined in our April 11, 2007 letter. All of
the issues were addressed satisfactorily.
DWQ concurs with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's comment regarding vegetative
monitoring and success criteria for the site (letter dated July 10, 2009). DWQ also hopes that the
property owner does not plan to engage in activities, such as the crawfish ponds which were
formerly proposed, that may negatively affect this mitigation bank.
DWQ does have one comment related to the proposed planting plan for the site. The plan
proposes the use of tag alder (Alnus serrulata) in the streamside assemblage planting zone. "fag
alder fixes nitrogen. The Cripple Creek site drains to waters classified as C; NSW (nutrient-
sensitive waters). DWQ recommends the selection of an alternative species that does not
contribute additional nitrogen to the watershed.
165C Vail Serv ce Cen'e- Raiegn Ncrtn Caro: na 27699-'650
Location 232' Crabtree B!vd Suite 250 Ra*e,r North Carolina 27504-2260
?he^e.9'9-733-?786 FAX [phone] Castorne,Semce 1-877-623-6748
nrerret, nttp rh2o enr state nc us/nmet!arin
ccai 7 co r , rmab:e A -n Erro cye,
One
NorthCarolina
,Vaturally
Mr. Williams 0
Cripple creek Mitigation Bank
Pa,-,e 2 of 2
7,10 09
Thank you for the opportunit% to comment on this project. Please feel free to contact Eric Kulz
or Tammy Hill at [phone] if you have any questions regarding this project or our
comments.
Sincerely,
C?? k
Cvndi B. Karoly, Program Manager
401 Oversight and Express Review Program
cc: File Copy (Eric Kulz)
Sue Homewood - DWQ WSRO
;5'.?a ? Se,,cc -'e-.:e- °aie r `le,?h arc -a 27:c -HC
atC' [ C,=,ee ?, C c C Rc c y C L ar .c 2 2;0 0110
NorthCarohna
-eret - -2c e-r te _ ar 5 ?/??lltlll'll??f
•
` 1 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Andrew Williams, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
FROM: Shari L. Bryant, Piedmont Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: 16 July 2009
SUBJECT: Draft Mitigation Banking Instrument and Final Mitigation Plan and Design Sheets for
Cripple Creek Mitigation Bank, Restoration Systems, LLC, Alamance County, North
Carolina. Corps Action ID: SAW-200701188
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
subject documents and we are familiar with the habitat values of the area. Our comments are provided in
accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C.
661-667d), and North Carolina General Statutes (G. S. 113-131 et seq.).
Restoration Systems, LLC proposes to establish a stream and wetland compensatory mitigation bank.
The sponsor plans to restore 6.9 acres of wetlands and 4,265 linear feet of stream channel, and enhance 1.9
acres of wetlands and 633 linear feet of stream channel. The primary goals for the mitigation bank are to
improve water quality, enhance flood attenuation, and restore aquatic and riparian habitat. The proposed
mitigation bank will be protected in perpetuity by a conservation easement held by Piedmont Land
Conservancy.
Unnamed tributaries to Boyd's Creek in the Cape Fear River basin flow through the proposed
mitigation bank. Although there are no records for federal or state listed species in Boyd's Creek, there are
records for the federal species of concern and state endangered Carolina creekshell (Villosa vaughaniana),
the state threatened Eastern lampmussel (Lampsilis radiata), and the state significantly rare Eastern
creekshell (Villosa delumbis) in adjacent watersheds.
We offer the following comments and/or recommendations regarding the draft mitigation banking
instrument and the final mitigation plan and design sheets:
1. We are pleased to see the property owner no longer intends to construct crawfish ponds on the
property and hope there are provisions to prevent this type of activity in the future.
2. Mitigation Plan, Section 5.1.1 (p.18): If possible, we suggest removing substrate material from the
abandoned channel, particularly any cobble found in riffles, and placing it in the new channel.
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
Page 2 •
16 July 2009
Cripple Creek Mitigation Bank
Corps Action ID: SAW-200701188
Mitigation Plan, Section 5.5 (p. 21) or 6.2 (p. 25): A plan for managing exotic or invasive plant
species should be included in the mitigation plan. We recommend that herbicides not be applied
within 100 feet of perennial streams and 50 feet of intermittent streams, or within floodplains and
wetlands associated with these streams except when needed to protect native flora and fauna from
exotics and when using appropriately labeled products such as biopesticides.
Figure 8A shows two stream crossings - one piped and one forded. We offer the following
recommendations regarding stream crossings.
• For fords, crossings in riffles are preferred with the banks lowered upstream and downstream of
the crossing. If the stream has high banks and these are lowered at the crossing, then the banks
tend to fill with sediment. The lower banks upstream allow sediment to settle out before the
crossing and maintenance will be less.
• It appears that fencing will be permanently installed across the stream at both crossings. Fencing
across a stream can trap debris and require maintenance. Instead, we suggest that cable is
installed at the crossing to prevent livestock from accessing the crossing. When livestock need
to cross the stream, these cables can be detached and stretched across the stream to the fencing
on the other stream bank. This allows the livestock to cross and limits access to only the
crossing. Once the livestock have crossed, the cables can be reattached to the fencing to prevent
livestock from accessing the stream.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If we can be of further
assistance, please contact our office at [phone].
cc: Howard Hall, USFWS
Kathy Matthews, USEPA
Eric Kulz, DWQ
•
1 ?{ UI O J Z p m Z? 2
1111111111111111 111 1 1 11111 W Q < Zia = ay?? zQ ,.
N + M MIT
geVAMMA18CISIA Dig' u
W ;jz
g
ll
ca
06
? f f f f f f f
y
j
S n
7r
O?
az A _
a +
<
g n 9 5 ? 9 ? ? 01 ? 3 3 3 ? 3 3 3 s "s k-I j
1
z

z
-Z

e4
?
_ _
$
0

U
?
h
7
+
9
9
9
3
°
n
j
+
n
o
_
e
a
"/mom
OM:1 JN -
NltlON
`y?`9??Qtltly66!!
11 ??=y ?i?e
iB

WI _
m^
\ \ \1 -V N
s ? F
19
? h h
i d
e- ?
-b° aid
r 1
vR

m

N
o
z
? ^ .4
W a ?,

o 14
f
1 9 a k?
LL??as o
d \
E
is
I?
a 1 m
z 0 7
r = C
o
z u
<O L
ri u 4" p
6g1
8€
a$
H
s
._s
? ?YY
?= u
a
a zg
` o 0
8 Gou _o
a
\ Q
\ m
. y
_ _S?p19 q?? ? 17
(TIE OI DOWN) p D?N1
N)
I
3 \
I
OIL 1',
o
W x ? .fi
WL`* ?? E° Etg r # €
L` dam ` ?? aZ (] ?? ?'S H `V:Q Ja?•
Q
o NJ El): Z
> 2` 111
pp
Y?ccj
h
I
W
Z
v

z p
?I
0:
?

y
In
.D
?
N Y
V
W

0
E
0
O`er n
W c
a
J
.
? F U
C3a?
W O(n1f7
M ON
E LJ
z
O
QN?Of
_ J
<
E

w Y o
,n
E
q
a 0 g

W
V
i

a

ri

la, -
Imj
-

11?j -13
t-
Im; 5
Ih)
Ss 7ya?

O
INS J CU)E1R
Z S
Q 0 cr
.

- - J O

- ?U
cr
- ?
0 0 0
•
•
•
N I
2rry Jenrh,o Rldfev -- 1
Grove
HurAlo Mills 1 t:R,-.
. dn•a.e rtilcergon„ +.
6erat"? crbett PrcSLe' t "^
The Bank Location -laws - 7
Targeted Local s
'id ?. lR;
4 idr: h.1a1 ^ve Mc ?d Ca,dw411. Qc
Watershed
1Ceclar qe \. - 1ahai?na'
03030002030050 Schfoi
?-.fka lert w g actDry{
?' ? ? ,zve,rt - 1 ?? Fairntd t,
z .=f1, , "*'` ? BV(Iingtoi natac ne
a?-
l.7iC? OR Oz hh.? ppO: ? 'w ? 1vr?r 1.3
ra#1am Cite rnssroa?:, stwrough ?.K z' "
0 R A E
i ° fwitc Eric
Alamance Haw 1
tan ! r
a Seliem?ra# -('1 Swe' r r _
ps-onvilte
Bld v U6
,q
orange f
:assnt?a(dal?t y? ?? 4 Tli Grove Eubanks ) j
Kimaaville,.x o,s Saxapaha White ft r
Cross ??? -f ?js ??f??j/ (\yf' /j? ' oss
el
C$1 rt`1Jx ` - ( W.,^ X 3 M
CarrbQ
f }ill t i
G? d
Sriowcan)a
1 r ?.r R
s; Ju ian
Redcr0%? Sutphin r ree; r twuod ca ?,r:.::
13 E V1 F,
`eli' ?. Cr ardu . :?? f
j. 'CBr?enjer,
r n 'y- GrY?vthepel "
sAiilbr?r0 Statey - rcr ,7?8*ringtan
1 fit',-, r
Silk No Gum
gm
Springs . a ,
_ Coda F4s 1 p
h® or fi .; = c eu. RittSboro x .. ! ` A ex
A \W. p
P seer Cit C H AC)37
bora- T;
ritnds•
30300 r " Ew Hill
3 ' V. Mt VernpnSprings
`y
onsar
12,11
x f3onlee :, 0. -? G ?? cur Me ry ek9t
^,4 I Bear Creek
i It - - _. - T?OId StOn ?. nr •I2 a
.I B(ICkh dl/efl `
HarAers Cro33rcad9
Erect t Bennatt " aka - Car Chttr uncap
Cartrrtnbn, ` r
5 mi. 0 5 mi. 15 mi.
1:625,000
.? r
Source: Hydrologic Unit Map - 1974 State of North Carolina
Dwn. Oy.
2126 Rowland Pond Drive C`F FIGURE
Willow Spring, NC 27592 MITIGATION SERVICE AREA Ckdby: Wci
[phone] CRIPPLE CREEK MITIGATION SITE Date:
[phone] fax
Alamance County, North Carolina Aril 2008
,?,,, ems. K.
I 11 Protect: 07-016 1 -1
•

Item Total
Project
Cost Cost of
Completed
Work Future
(Bonded)
Cost Contingency
Fees (30%)
Land $100,038 $100,038 $0
Surveying $20,000 $5,300 $14,700
Easement $15,000 $15,000
Restoration Plan Development $176,428 $92,195 $84,233
Vegetation Planting $20,000 $20,000 $6,000
Project Construction $338,200 $338,200 $101,460
As-built Report $5,000 $5,000
Project Monitoring $100,000 $100,000
Company Labor $16,858 $13,620 $3,238
Legal Fees $7,050 $4,050 $3,000
Corps Administrative Fee (10%) $58,337
Total $798,574 $215,203 $641,708 $107,460
Cri le Creek Cost Estimates
Financial assurance to complete all remaining tasks for the project will be divided into
two Bonds, a Performance Bond for Construction (including the as-built drawings and report)
and one for Monitoring. Contingency fees (30% of the cost) for grading and planting are
• included in the Construction Bond. The Corps of Engineers' Administrative Fee (10% of all
costs for remaining work) was prorated by the percentages of the cost of Construction (85.4%)
and Monitoring (14.6%). Remaining costs for the Sponsor's labor and legal fees were similarly
prorated. Based on these calculations, the Construction Bond presented will be for $639,735.00
and the Monitoring Bond will be for $109,433.00.
0
• MODEL PERFORMANCE BOND
PRINCIPAL (Legal name and business address)
S15+r-m5? LLC
ii 10l OAyrie s st, S-,-'4e- a
TYPE OF ORGANIZATION "X"ONE
-Individual Partnership
-Joint Venture Corporation
STATE OF INCORPORATION
n30<41-
C r}sa (at
OBLIGATION:
DATE BOND EXECUTED (Must be s MWr earlier than date of
permit.) nn
/V a e. p O R T?' ? X e a. u. ?e?C
OBLIGEE: W. I,nn ; ,.i ?-?o"i
(Insert District Name], United States Army Corps of Engineers
InsertAddress r1 r r+
W, SAMP6%-4- e N vle b
M 'r itif C sg03
Surety(ies) (Legal name(s) and business address(es))

1200 Air ???? ??'-Vk tS Qoa? yl
45 CA r- L- G o ! o2&aZ$
PENAL SUM OF BOND, amount determined solel b Obligee
Million(s) Th us (s) Hundred(s) Ce?s)_
PERMIT DATE PERMIT NO.
2
C. to
6,-?1
We, the Principal and Surety(ies) hereto, are firmly bound as Obligors to the U.S Army Corps of Engineers (hereinafter called the Obligee) in the
above penal sum, an amount determined solely by the Obligee. For the payment of the penal sum, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors,
administrators, assigns, and successors, jointly and severally. However, where the Sureties are corporations acting as co-sureties, we, the
Sureties, bind ourselves in such sum "jointly and severally" as well as "severally" only for the purpose of allowing a joint action or actions against
any or all of us. For all other purposes, each Surety binds itself, jointly and severally with the Principal, for the payment of the sum shown below
the name of the Surety. The limit of liability shall be the full amount of the penal sum.
CONDITIONS:
• The Principal received the permit identified above.
THEREFORE:
The above obligation is void if the Principal -
(a) Specifically performs and fulfills all of the obligations, covenants, terms, conditions and agreements of the permit during the original term of
the permit and any extensions thereof that may be granted by the Obligee, with or without notice to the Surety(ies), and during the life of any
guaranty required under the permit, and -
(b) Also specifically performs and fulfills all of the obligations, covenants, terms, conditions, and agreements of any and all duly authorized
modifications of the permit that may hereafter be made. Notice of those modifications to the Surety(ies) are waived.
IT IS FURTHER EXPRESSLY PROVIDED THAT:
The Obligee shall have the full and final authority to determine whether the Principal and Surety(ies) have specifically performed and fulfilled
some or all of the obligations, covenants, terms, conditions and agreements of the permit.
Within thirty (30) business days of receiving notice from the Obligee that the Principal has defaulted on some or all of the obligations, covenants,
terms, conditions and agreements of the permit, the Surety(ies) shall either -
(a) Remedy the default of the Principal to the full satisfaction of the Obligee by a certain date determined by the Obligee, or -
(b) Immediately tender to a party or parties identified by the Obligee the portion of the penal sum that the Obligee determines is due and owing
and necessary to remedy the default. In no circumstance shall such a sum be tendered to the Obligee. Any new party or parties identified by
the Obligee under this section shall immediately become a Surety or Sureties to this bond. If the Obligee determines that it is unable to identify
such a party or parties, the Suerty(ies) shall remedy the default of the Principal under (a) of this section.
In the event that the Surety(ies) fail(s) to respond within thirty (30) business days to the Obligee's notice of default, or to honor comitments to the
full satisfaction of the Obligee under (a) or (b) above of this section, the full penal sum may, at the election of the Obligee, immediately become
due and owing and paid to a party or parties identified by the Obligee. In no circumstance shall the full penal sum be tendered to the Obligee.
Any new party or parties identified by the Obligee under this paragraph shall immediately become a Surety or Sureties to this bond.
WITNESS:
. The Obligee, Principal and Surety(ies) have executed this performance bond and have affixed their seals on the date set forth above.
A0%5
NORTH AMERICAN
SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
Monitoring Bond
Bond No. TBD
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that we, Restoration Systems. LLC, as Principal, and North American
Specialty Insurance Company, licensed to do business in the State of, NC as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto
United States Army Corps of Engineers (Obligee), in the penal sum of One Hundred Nine Thousand Four Hundred
Thirty Three and 00/100 Dollars ($109,433.00), lawful money of the United States of America, for the payment of which
sum, well and truly to be made, the Principal and Surety do bind themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators, and
successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. The amount of this bond shall decrement 10%
from the original face value for each of the first four years on the anniversary date of the original issue.
THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, that whereas the above bounden Principal has entered into a
Mitigation Banking Instrument with the above named Obligee, effective the insert date of the MBI day of _, 2009, for
Cripple Creek Stream and Wetland site in Alamance County NC and more fully described in said Mitigation Banking
Instrument and Mitigation Plan, copies are attached, which Agreements are made a part hereof and incorporated herein
by reference, except that nothing said therein shall alter, enlarge, expand or otherwise modify the term of the bond as set
out below.
NOW, THEREFORE, if Principal, its executors, administrators, successors and assigns shall promptly and faithfully
perform the Contract, according to the terms, stipulations or conditions thereof, then this obligation shall become null and
void, otherwise to remain in full force and effect subject to the following:
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Contract, the term of this bond shall apply at inception of Task III ( insert date ),
until the end of Task III ( insert date ), and may be extended annually by the Surety via a Continuation Certificate until
Task IX is satisfied. However, neither nonrenewal by the Surety, nor the failure or inability of the Principal to file a
replacement bond, shall itself constitute a loss to the Obligee recoverable under this bond or any renewal or continuation
thereof. The liability of the Surety under this bond or any continuation certificates issued in connection therewith shall not
be cumulative and shall in no event exceed the amount as set forth in this bond or any additions, rider, or endorsements
properly issued by the Surety as supplements thereto.
Sealed with our seals and dated this 21st day of xxxx. 2009.
Witness
Witness
North American Specialty Insurance Company
1200 Arlington Heights Road, Suite 400, Itasca, IL 60143-2625
Restoration Systems, LLC
Principal
North American Specialty Insurance Company
Kenneth J. Peeples, Attorney-in-Fact
Agreed and acknowledged this _ day of , 2009
•
By:
Obligee
S-5025 (08-99)
zl5 ,3, 3
•
I IIIIIII Iillll III VIII VIII IIII)VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII IIII IIII
Doc ID: 010043930002 Type: CRP
Recorded: 05/13/2009 at 03:32:21 PM
Fee Amt: $17.00 Page i of 2
Alamance, NC
DAVID J.P. BARBER REGISTER OF DEEDS
BK2814PG761-762
Prepared by and return to: William P. Aycock 11, Esquire
Schell Bray Aycock Abel & Livingston PLLC
P. O. Box 21847
Greensboro, North Carolina 27420
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF ALAMANCE
ASSIGNMENT
THIS DEED OF ASSIGNMENT, made this l 24 day of , 2009, by and
is between AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC., a North Carolina corpoation, party of the first
part, and RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC, a North Carolina limited liability company,
whose mailing address is 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27604, party
of the second part.
WITNESSETH:
THAT WHEREAS, Bruce Dane Taylor and spouse, Susan A. Taylor, heretofore
executed and delivered to said party of the first part an Amended and Restated Permanent
Conservation Easement upon certain lands therein described, dated April 24, 2009, and recorded
in Book 2811, Pages 618-628, in the office of the Register of Deeds of Alamance County, North
Carolina; and
WHEREAS, said party of the first part has agreed to transfer and assign said Amended
and Restated Permanent Conservation Easement to said party of the second part.
NOW, THEREFORE, said party of the first part, as aforesaid, in consideration of One
Dollar ($1.00), has assigned, bargained and sold and does hereby assign, bargain, sell and
convey unto said party of the second part, its successors and assigns, all right, title and interest of
said party of the first part in and to said Amended and Restated Permanent Conservation
Easement and in and to the lands therein described and conveyed, together with all rights and
E
#227653v1
,q) o
powers therein given to said party of the first part as aforesaid. Said Amended and Restated
• Permanent Conservation Easement is incorporated herein by reference as if set out herein in full.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same to it, the said party of the second part, its
successors and assigns, in the same manner and to the same extent as said party of the first part
now holds the same.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, said party of the first part has caused this instrument to be
executed on its behalf on the day and year first above written.
AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.,
a North Carolina corporation
By: '?J 11?? Q,-(SEAL)
Name: W. Grant Lewis
Title: President
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
• COUNTY OF In f ¢-
I certify that the following person(s) personally appeared before me this day, each
acknowledging to me that he or she signed the foregoing document:
W. Grant Lewis
WITNESS my hand ar
Travis I Hamrick
iaM&a?oknty North Caroku
11yfres A11JW 3, 2011
Notary public
0
id official seal, this 4 20h day of MNA' 12009.
jl?
- --, I V?o 2- L-1
Notary's float 14 nature
1 A15 L i WAetGY.
Notary's Printed or Typed Name
My commission expires: jq1,31 2:

SCHELL BRAY AYCOCK ABEL & LIVINGSTON PLLC
OPINION ON TITLE FOR
RESTORATION SYSTEMS LLC
• The undersigned has carefully examined the record title on the Alamance County records (and
municipal tax and assessment records if within a municipality) for,the period shown below relative to title to the
real property described below and, in our opinion, Restoration Systems, LLC, a North Carolina limited
liability company, is the owner of a Conservation Easement therein, having been granted, by an
ASSIGNMENT of the Amended and Restated Permanent Conservation Easement from Axiom Environmental,
Inc., a North Carolina corporation, dated May 12, 2009, recorded May 13, 2009, at 3:32 P.M. in Book 2814,
Page 761 of the Alamance County Register of Deeds, subject only to the Special Information and Exceptions
hereinafter enumerated or referred to and subject to the Standard Exceptions shown on the reverse side
hereof.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Located in Faucette Township, Alamance County:
See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein.
SPECIAL INFORMATION AND EXCEPTIONS
1. Ad valorem taxes are paid through and including those for the year 2008; ad valorem taxes for subsequent
years are a lien as of January 1 of each year and are excepted herefrom.
2. The subject property is subject to restrictive covenants.
3. Standard Exceptions numbered NONE and initialed on the reverse side hereof are deleted.
4. The subject property does have direct access to a public right of way.
5. Unpaid taxes, special assessments, state or federal tax liens, mortgages or deeds of trust, judgments,
recorded mechanics' or materialmen's liens, decedent's dying within two years, lis pendens and related pending suits,
easements, party wall agreements, oil and mineral rights, matters revealed by any indicated additional investigation made
of items 2 through 7 of Standard Exceptions, and other liens, objections or defects and matters shown on Fidelity National
Title Insurance Company Policy 08G78717-00 dated June 24, 2008, at 4:42 P.M.):
6. Ad valorem taxes for the year 2009, not yet due and payable.
7. Blanket Utility Easement to Duke Power Company recorded in Book 185, Page 23; Book 250,
Page 31 and Book 506, Page 339 of the Alamance County Register of Deeds.
8. General Permit to Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company recorded in Book 180,
Page 341 of the Alamance County Register of Deeds.
9. Restrictions in Deed of Easement between Bruce Dane Taylor and Susan A. Taylor and Axiom
Environmental, Inc. recorded in Book 2710, Page 91 of the Alamance County Register of Deeds. NOTE: This
Deed of Easement was amended and restated in the document described in No. 11 below.
10. Assignment of a Conservation Easement between Axiom Environmental, Inc., and Restoration
A f% 11r%f%0 ---,,4-,4 ,, -, , r, onnR nt 19.9n P M in Book 2722. Paae 683 of the
THE FOLLOWING STANDARD EXCEPTIONS APPLY TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY UNLESS
OTHERWISE STATED ON THE REVERSE SIDE HEREOF
1. Interests or claims not disclosed by the public records, including but not limited to
• (a) Unrecorded Mechanic's or Materialmen's liens (Liens may be filed by persons or entities furnishing labor or materials to any
nprovements of real property within 120 days from the last day of performance and will upon perfection relate in priority to the first day of
performance as a valid lien on real property.)
(b) Unrecorded leases (Under North Carolina law parties in possession of the premises under a verbal or unrecorded lease of three
years or less duration may remain in possession under the terms of the tenancy.)
(c) Matters that may defeat or impair title which do not appear on the record (Evidence revealing missing heirs, forgeries, etc. may not
be on the public records, but such facts if properly established may impair or defeat what appears to be a good title on the record.)
(d) Taxes, special assessments and other governmental charges that are not shown as existing liens by the public records
(Governmental charges may be made for acreage fees, tap-on fees, cost of weed cutting, demolition of-wndemne-d buildin-as an"theL
• EXHIBIT "A-I"
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
BEGINNING at an iron stake set with cap, No. 5 Rebar, in Grantor's northeastern line (NC Grid
Coordinate N=869,597.2407'; E=1,887,587.1146'), which iron stake is located South 77° 36' 51" West
12,455.366 feet from NCGS Marker "Long" (N=872,268.859'; E=1,899,752.582'); thence from said
BEGINNING POINT with the western line of Roebuck (see Deed Book 306, Page 181), South 27° 31' 44"
East 195.31 feet to an existing iron pipe; thence continuing with Roebuck's line, South 27° 33' 43" East
101.88 feet to an iron stake set; thence South 55° 22' 02" West 84.00 feet to an iron stake set; thence South
55° 22' 02"West 50.38 feet to an iron stake set; thence South 82° 13' 13" West 174.17 feet to an iron stake
set; thence South 36° 05' 09" West 238.25 feet to an iron stake set; thence South 10° 24' 29" East 192.58
feet to an iron stake set; thence South 12° 57' 35" West 398.57 feet to an iron stake set; thence South 79°
46' 16" West 109.82 feet to an iron stake set; thence South 37° 16' 02" West 430.65 feet to an iron stake
set; thence North 75° 32' 02" East 105.46 feet to an iron stake set; thence North 75° 32' 02" East 201.65
feet to an iron stake set; thence North 63° 31' 47" East 378.15 feet to an iron stake set; thence South 75° 52'
14" East 200.20 feet to an iron stake set; thence South 64° 19' 23" East 149.32 feet to an iron stake set;
thence South 77° 05' 33" East 127.44 feet to an iron stake set; thence South 10° 29' 07" East 208.95 feet to
an iron stake set in the northern margin of Lot 11, Section Three, Lakeview Estates (see Deed Book 1554,
Page 447); thence with the northern lines of Lots 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 of Section Three,
Lakeview Estates, the following nine (9) calls: North 88° 30' 47" West 222.78 feet to an existing iron pipe;
North 88° 46' 25" West 99.82 feet to an existing iron pipe; North 88° 26' 29" West 99.99 feet to an existing
iron pipe; North 88° 26' 37" West 100,02 feet to an existing iron pipe; North 88° 23' 27" West 99.97 feet to
an existing iron pipe; North 88° 24' 00" West 100.01 feet to an existing iron pipe; North 88° 25' 20" West
99.99 feet to an existing iron pipe; North 88° 33' 52" West 99.96 feet to an existing iron pipe; North 88° 23'
42" West 264.05 feet to a non monumented corner in the northern margin of Lakeview Drive; thence
continuing with the northern margin of Lakeview Drive, North 88° 23' 42" West 156 feet to an iron stake
set ("Point A"); thence North 26° 05' 56" East 32.97 feet to an iron stake set; thence North 26° 05' 56"
East 585.30 feet to an iron stake set; thence North 03° 37' 25" West 254.01 feet to an iron stake set; thence
North 54° 44' 37" East 183.82 feet to an iron stake set; thence North 38° 27' 13" West 627.54 feet to an
iron stake set; thence North 85° 52' 40" West 81.31 feet to an iron stake set; thence North 53° 56' 01" West
85.31 feet to an iron stake set; thence North 02° 39' 52" East 235.22 feet to an iron stake set ("Point B");
thence North 87° 49' 06" East 103.23 feet to an iron stake set; thence South 41 ° 59' 40" East 273.45 feet to
an iron stake set; thence South 32° 55' 20" East 428.56 feet to an iron stake set; thence North 481 31' 42"
East 95.48 feet to an iron stake set ("Point C"); thence North 48° 3 P 42" East 92.12 feet to an iron stake
set; thence North 40° 29' 32" East 188.56 feet to an iron stake set; thence North 59° 33' 02" East 161.55
feet to an iron stake set ("Point D"); thence North 59° 33' 02" East 147.07 feet to the POINT AND PLACE
OF BEGINNING, and containing 19.60± acres, excluding the 20' Ingress, Egress & Regress Easement
described below and as more particularly shown on the Conservation Easement Survey for Axiom
Environmental, Inc., prepared by K2 Design Group, P.A. and dated 4/4/08..
TOGETHER WITH a new 20' Ingress, Egress & Regress Easement more particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at an iron stake set, and identified as Point B identified above; thence North 00° 00' 03" East
52.85 feet to an iron stake set in the northern margin of the Grantor's property (Lot 1-B as shown on Plat
Book 57, Page 17), which iron stake is also located in the southern terminus of NCSR 1777; thence with the
southern terminus of NCSR 1777 and Grantor's northern line, South 89° 59' 57" East 20 feet to a point;
thence South 00° 00' 03" West 52.85 feet to a point in the northern line of the Conservation Easement
described above; thence South 870 49' 06" West 20.0 feet to the place of BEGINNING, and containing 0.02
0
0
acres, more or less, and identified as "Access Easement I" on the Conservation Easement Survey for Axiom
Environmental, Inc., prepared by K2 Design Group, P.A. and dated 4/4/08.
Grantor reserves unto themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, the following three (3) access
easements across the Conservation Easement described above to provide access for ingress, egress and
regress across the easement area to connect portions of Grantor's property not included within the easement
as follows:
A new 16' Ingress, Egress & Regress Easement, eight feet (8') on each side of a centerline
described as follows: BEGINNING at an iron pin set and identified as Point C in the description of
the Conservation Easement described above and running thence South 41 ° 17' 54" East 259.81 feet
to an iron pin set in the boundary line of the above-described Conservation Easement and
containing .033 acres, more or less and identified as "Access Easement 2" on the Conservation
Easement Survey for Axiom Environmental, Inc. described above.
A new 30' Ingress, Egress & Regress Easement, fifteen feet (15') on each side of a centerline
described as follows: BEGINNING at an iron pin set and identified as Point B in the description of
the Conservation Easement described above and running thence South 39° 29' 32" East 306.74 feet
to an iron pin set in the boundary line of the above-described Conservation Easement and
containing 1.2 acres, more or less, and identified as "Access Easement 3" on the Conservation
Easement Survey for Axiom Environmental, Inc. described above.
3. Anew 30' Ingress, Egress and Regress Easement more particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at an iron pin set and identified as Point A in the description of the Conservation
Easement described above and running thence North 26° 05' 56" East 32.97 feet to an iron stake
set; thence South 88° 23' 42" East 133.56 feet to an iron stake set; thence North 59° 00' 25" East
78.44 feet to an iron stake set; thence North 75° 32' 02" East 105.46 feet to an iron stake set; thence
South 59° 00' 25" West 188.31 feet to a non monumented corner in the northern boundary of
Lakeview Drive; thence with the northern boundary of Lakeview Drive, North 88° 23' 42" West
156 feet to the point and place of BEGINNING and containing 0,19 acres, more or less, and
identified as "Access Easement 4" on the Conservation Easement Survey for Axiom Environmental,
Inc. described above.
•
05/01/2009 16:13 336-513-0029 INVESTERS TITLE GRHM PAGE 03/13
r1
LJ
ifillitimililligill
Doc ID: 01002965001 . i Type: CRP
Aecorded: 05/01/2009 at 04:07:25 PM
Pee Amt: $44.00 Page i of 11
excise Tax: $0.00
Alamance.-K
DAVIE) J.P. BARBEE14 REOISTT(?ER OFF DEEDS
11K2811 P,3618-628
Prepared by and mall to: William P. Aycock 11, Attorney
Schell Bray Aycock Abel & Livingston PLLC
P. 0. Box 21847, Greensboro, NC 27420
NORTH CAROLINA
AMENDED AND RESTATED
PERMANENT CONSERVATION EASEMENT
ALAMANCE COUNTY
THIS AMENDED AND RESTATID PERMANENT CONSERVA'T'ION EASEMENT
("Conservation Easement") made this .911r day of / L 2009, by and between BRUCE DANE
TAYLOR and spouse, SUSAN A. TAYLOR, ("Grantor") and AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC., a
North Carolina corporation, (Grantee).
The designation Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said parties, their heirs, successors
and assigns, and shall include singular, plural, masculine; feminine or neuter as required by context.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee simple certain real property situated, lying and being in Alamance
County, North Carolina, and more particularly described on Eahibirt A attached hereto and incorporated
herein (the "Land"); and
WHEREAS, Grantor and Grantee entered into a Deed of Easement dated [vlay 13, 2008, and
recorded in Book 2710, Page 91, Alamanee County Registry (the "Prior Easement"), in which Grantor
conveyed a conservation easement to Grantee over a portion of the Land, which portion is more particularly
described on Exhibit A-1 attached thereto (the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, Grantor and Grantee desire to amend and restate the Prior Easement in order to
facilitate the establishment of an environmental mitigation bank on the Property as more particularly
described herein; and
WHEREAS, Grantee agrees that it shall cause the appropriate environmental restoration to be
accomplished on the Property as more particularly set forth herein and, upon completion of such restoration,
Grantee will assign this Consmation Easement to a non-profit corporation or trust whose purpose is the
conservation of property and which is qualified to be the Grantee of a conservation easement pursuant to
N.C. Gen. Star. § 121-34 et ec and Internal Revenue Code § 170(h); and
225290_l,D4C(4!9/2009)
11/V4
05/01/2009 16:13 336-513-0029 INVESTERS TITLE GRHM PAGE 04/13
•
WE EREAS. Qrantor and Grantee recognize the conservation, scenic, natural, or aesthetic value of
the Property in its restored state, which includes the following natural communities: degraded stream
channels, riparian areas, and wetlands that will be restored to stable stream morphology, a forested
streamside assemblage, and piedmont alluvial forest as appropriate for landscape conditions. The purpose of
this Conservation Easement is to maintain wetland and/or riparian resources and other natural values of the
Property, and prevent the use or development of the Property for any purpose or in any manner that would
conflict with the maintenance of the Property in its natural condition; and
WHEREAS, the restoration and preservation of the Property is required by a Mitigation Banking
Instrument for the Cripple Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank, Department of the Army Action ID
# SAW-2007-0 1 1 88-20 1. The Mitigation Bank is intended to be used to compensate for unavoidable stream
and/or wetland impacts authorized by permits issued by the Department of the Army. Grantor and Grantee
agree that third-party rights of enforcement shall be held by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District (Corps, to include any successor agencies), and that these rights are in addition to, slid do not limit,
the'rights of the parties to the Mitigation Banking Wtrument
NOW, TREREFORE, for and in consideration of the covenants and representations contained
herein and for other good and valuable consideration, thexeceipt and legal sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, Grantor hereby unconditionally and irrevocably grants and conveys unto Grantee, its heirs,
successors and assigns, forever and in perpetuity a Conservation Easement of the nature and character and to
the extent hereinafter set forth, over tho Property described on Exhibit A-l., together with the right to preserve
and protect the conservation values thereof, as follows:

ARTICLE I.
DURATION OF EASEMENT
This Conservation Easement shall be perpetual. This Conservation Easement is an easement in
gross, runs with the land and is enforceable by Grantor, against Grantor, Grantor's petsonal representatives,
heirs, successors and assigns, lessees, agents and licensees.
ARTICLE 11 ,/
PROHIBITED AND RESTRICTED ACTIVITIES
Any activity on, or use of, the Property inconsistent with the purpose of this Conservation Easement
is prohibited. The Property shall be preserved in its restored condition and restricted fi-om any development
that would impair or interfere with the conservation values of the Property.
Without liutiting the generality of the foregoing, the following activities and uses art expressly
prohibited, restricted or reserved as indicated hereunder:
A. Disturbgnce of N tural Features. Any change disturbance, alteration or impairment of the
natural features of the Property or any introduction of non-native plants and/or animal species is prohibited-
B. Construction. There shall be no constructing or placing of any building, mobile home,
asphalt or concrete pavement, billboard or other advertising display, antenna, utility pole, tower, conduit,
line, pier, landing, dock or any other temporary or permanent structure or facility on or above the Property.
C. dustria ,Commercial and eSidential Use. Industrial, residential and/or commercial
activities, including any right of passage for such purposes aro prohibited.
•
05/01/2009 16:13 336-513-0029 INVESTERS TITLE GRHM PAGE 05/13
•
D. Agricultural Grazing and Jjorticultu.EW Use. Agricultural, grazing, animal husbandry, and
horticultural use of the Property are prohibited.
E. Vezeetation. There shall be no removal, burning, destruction, harming, cutting or mowing
of trees, shrubs, or other vegetation on the Property.
F. Roads and Trails-. There shall be no construction of roads, trails or walkways on the
Property; not enlargement or modification to existing roads, trails or walkways.
G. Si a e. No signs shall be permitted on or over the Property, except the posting of no
trespassing signs, signs identifying the conservation values of the Property, signs giving directions or
proscribing rules and regulations for the use of the Property and/or signs identifying the Grantor as owner of
the Property.
R ping or Storage. Dumping or storage of soil, trash., ashes, garbage, waste, abandoned
vehicles, appliances, machinery or hazardous substances, or toxic or hazardous waste, or any placement of
underground or aboveground storage tanks or other materials on the Property is prohibited
1. R_xcavatio Dred ig_ng or iyiineral Use. There shall be no grading, filling, excavation,
dredging, mining or drilling; no removal of topsoil, sand, gravel, rock, peat, minerals or other materials, and
no change in the topography of the land in any manner on the Property, except to restore natural topography
or drainage patterns.
1 Water Quality and ainaae Pattern. There shall be no diking, draining, dredging,
channeling; filling, leveling, pumping, impounding or related activities, or altering or tampering with water
control structures or devices, or disruption or alteration of the restored, enhanced, or created drainage
patterns. In addition, diverting or causing or permitting the diversion of surface or underground water into,
within or out of the easement area by any means, removal of wetlands, polluting or discharging into waters,
springs, seeps, or wetlands, or use of pesticide or biocides is prohibited.
K. peveloyent Right- No development rights that have been encumbered or extinguished
by this Conservation Easement shall be transferred pursuant to a transferable development rights scheme or
cluster development arrangement or otherwise.
L'V Vehicles, The operation of moehanized vehicles, including, but not limited to, motorcycles,
dirt bikes, all-terrain vehicles, cars and trucks is prohibited.
M. Other Pro ibitions. Any other use of, or activity on, the Property which is or may become
inconsistent with the purposes of this grant, the preservation of the Property substantially in, its restored
condition, or the protection of its environmental systems, is prohibited.
ARTICLE III
GRANTOWS RESEVERED RIGHTS
The Grantor expressly reserves for himself, his personal representatives, heirs, successors or
assigns, the right to continue the use of the Property for all purposes not inconsistent with this Conservation
Easement, including, but not limited to, the right to quiet enjoyment of the Property, the rights of ingress
and egress, the right to hunt, fish, and hike on the Property, the right to sell, transfer, gift or otherwise convey
the Property, in whole or in part, provided such sale, transfer or gift conveyance is subject to the terms of,
and shall specifically reference, this Conservation Easement.
•
05/01/2009 16:13 336-513-0029 INVESTERS TITLE GRHM PAGE 06/13
E
Notwithstanding the foregoing ,Restrictions, Grantor specifically grants to Grantee, its successors
and assigns, the right to construct wetland and stream mitigation on the Property, in accordance with the
detailed mitigation plan approved in accordance with the Mitigation Banking Instrumcut for the Cripple
Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank.
ARTICLE IV.
GRANTEES RIGHTS
The Grantee or its authorized representatives, successors and assigns, and the Corps, shall have the
right to eater the Property at all reasonable tunes for the purpose of inspecting the Property to determine if
the Grantor, or his personal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, is complying with the terms,
conditions, restrictions, and purposes of this Conservation Easement The Grantee shall also have the right
to enter and go upon the Property for purposes of making scientific or educational observations and studies,
and taking samples. The easement rights granted herein do not include public access rights.
ARTICLE V
ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDMS
A. To accomplish the purposes of this Easement, Grantee is allowed to prevent any activity on
or use of the Property that is inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement and to require the
restoration of such areas or features of the Property that may be damaged by such activity or use. Upon any
breach of the terms of this Conservation Easement by Grantor that comes to the attention of the
Grantee, the Grantee shall notify the Grantor in writing of such breach. The Grantor shall have 30
days after receipt of such notice to correct the conditions constituting such breach. If the breach
remains uncured after 30 days, the Grantee may enforce this Conservation Easement by appropriate
legal proceedings including damages, injunctive and other relief. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the
Grantee reserves the immediate right, without notice, to obtain a temporary restraining order, injunctive
or other appropriate relief if the breach of the term of this Conservation Easement is or would
irreversibly or otherwise materially impair the benefits-to be derived from this Conservation
Easement. The Grantor and Grantee acknowledge that under such circumstances damage to the
Grantee would be irreparable and remedies at law will be inadequate, The rights and remedies of the
Grantee provided hereunder shall be in addition to, and not in.lieu of, all other rights and remedies
available to Grantee in connection with this Conservation Easement. The costs of a breach, corrroction
or restoration, including the Grantee's expenses, court costs, and attorneys' fees, shall be paid by
Grantor, provided Grantor is determined to be responsible for the breach. The Corps shall have the
same right to enforce the terms and conditions of this Conservation Easement as the Grantee.
B`/ No. failure on the part of the Grantee or the Corps to enforce any covenant or
provision hereof shall discharge or invalidate such covenant or any other covenant, condition, or
provision hereof or affect the right to Grantee or the Corps to enforce the same in the event of a
subsequent breach or default.
Ci Nothing contained in this Conservation Easement shall be construed to entitle Grantee
to bring any action against Grantor for any injury or change in the Property resulting from causes
beyond the Grantor's control, including, without limitation, fire, flood, storm, war, acts of God or
third parties, except Grantor's lessees or invitees; or from any prudent action taken in good faith by
Grantor under emergency conditions to prevent, abate, or mitigate significant injury to life, damage
to property or harm to the Property resulting from such causes.
0 4
05/01/2009 16:13 336-513-0029 INVESTERS TITLE GRHM PAGE 07/13
•
ARTICLE III
MISCELLANEOUS
A„ Warranty. Grantor warrants, covenants and represents that they own the Property in fee
simple, and that Grantor either owns all interests in the Property which maybe impaired by the granting of
this Conservation Easement or that there are no outstanding mortgages, tax liens, encumbrances, or other
interests in the Property which have not been expressly subordinated to this Conservation Easement.
Grantor further warrants that Grantee shall have the use of and enjoy all the benefits derived from and
arising out of this Conservation Easement, and that Grantor will warrant and defend title to the Property
against the claims of all persons.
Bi Sub;equent T e _ The Grantor agrees to incorporate the terms of this
Conservation Easement in any deed or other legal instrument that transfers any interest in all or a
portion of the Property. The Grantor agrees to provide written notice of such transfer at least thirty
(30) days prior to the date of the transfer. The Grantor and Grantee agree that the terms of this
Conservation Easement shall survive any merger of the fee and easement interests in the Property or
any portion thereof and shall not be amended, modified or terminated without the prior written
consent and approval of the Corps.
C. AssiS1??e_nt. The parties recognize and agree that the benefits of this Conservation
Easement are in gross and assignable provided, however that the Grantee hereby covenants and
agrees, that in the event it transfers or assigns this Conservation Easement, the organization
receiving the interest will be a qualified holder under N.C. Gen. Stat, § 121-34 et seq, and § 170(h)
of the Internal Revenue Code, and the Grantee further covenants and agrees that the terms of the
transfer or assignment will be such that the transferee or assigner, will be required to continue to
monitor in perpetuity the terms of this Conservation Easement.
D. EntiL2,agreement and Severahility. This instrument sets forth the entire agreement of
the parties with respect to the Conservation Easement and supersedes all prior discussions,
negotiations, understandings or agreements relating to the Conservation Easement. If any provision is
found to be void or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder shall continue
in full force and effect,
d Obligations of Qwnershin. Grantor is responsible for any real estate taxes,
assessments, fees, or charges levied upon the Property. Grantor shall keep the Property free of any
liens or other encumbrances for obligations incurred by Grantor. Grantee and its successors or assigns
shall not be responsible for any costs or liability of any kind related to the ownership, operation,
insurance, upkeep, or maintenance of the Property, except as expressly provided herein. Nothing
herein shall relieve the Grantor of the obligation to comply with federal, state or local laws,
regulations and permits that may apply to the exercise of the Reserved Rights.
P. Extin u' a t. In the event that changed conditions render impossible the
continued use of the Property for the conservation purposes, this Conservation Easement may only be
extinguished, in whocc or in part, by judicial proceeding.
G. Eminent Domaij!. Whenever all or part of the Property is taken in the exercise of eminent
domain so as to substantially abrogate the Restrictions imposed by this Conservation Easement, Grantor
and Grantee shall join in appropriate actions at the time of such taking to recover the full value of the
taking, and all incidental and direct damages due to the taking.
0
05/01/2009 16:13 336-513-0029 INVESTERS TITLE GRHM PAGE 08/13
•
H, Procee Ls. This Conservation Easement constitutes a real property interest immediately
vested in Grantee, In the event that all or a portion of this Property is sold, exchanged,.or involuntarily
converted following an extinguishment or the exercise of amincut domain, Grantee shall be entitled to the
fair market value of this Conservation Easement The parties stipulate that the fair market value of this
Conservation Easement shall be determined by multiplying the fair market value of the Property
unencumbered by this Conservation Easement (minus any increase in value after the date of this grant
attributable to improvements) by the ratio of the value of this easement at the time of this grant to the value of
the Property (without deduction for the value of this Conservation Easement) at the time of this grant. The
values at the time of this grant shall be the values used, or which would have been used, to calculate a
deduction for federal income tax purposes, pursuant to Section 170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code
(whether eligible or ineligible for such a deduction). Grantee shall use its share of the proceeds in a manner
consistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement.
1. Notification. Any notice, request for approval, or other communication required under
this Conservation Easement shall be seat by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, to the following
addresses (or such address as may be hereafter specified by notice pursuant to this paragraph):
, I's
Toro Grautor:J 22?2 Roney-Lineberry Road
Burlington, NC 27217
To Grantee: AXIOM Environmental, Inc.
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
To the Corps; U. S. Array Corps of Ensmi aers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Attention: Regulatory Project Manager
3. Failure of Grantee. If at any time Grantee is unable or fails to enforce this
Conservation Easement, or if Grantee ceases to be a qualified grantee, and if within a reasonable
period of time after the occurrence of one of these events Grantee fails to make an assignment
pursuant to this Conservation Easement, then the Grantee's interest shall become vested in another
qualified grantee in accordance with an appropriate proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction.
K. AA ndtent. This Conservation Easement may be amended, but only in a writing
signed by all parties hereto, and provided such amendment does not affect the qualification of this
Conservation Easement or the status of the Grantee under any applicable laws, and is consistent with the
conservation purposes of this grant.
L. Pres,M t Condition of the Proms The wetlands, scenic, resource, environmental, and other
natural characteristics of the Properry, and its current use and state of improvement, are described in Section
2 of the Mitigation Plan, dated February 2009, prepared by Grantor and acknowledged by the Grantor and
Grantee to be complete and accurate as of the date hereof. Both Grantor and Grantee have copies of this
report. It will be used by the parties to assure that any future changes in the use of the Property will be
05/01/2009 16:13 336-513-0029 INVESTERS TITLE GRHM PAGE 09/13
•
consistent with the terms of this Conservation Easement. However, this report is not intended to preclude
the use of other evidence to establish the present condition of the Property if there is a controversy over its
use.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said rights and easements perpetually unto Grantee for the
aforesaid purposes.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Grantor has bereunto set his hand and seal, the day and year
first above written.
LCC X??r1.t.' (SEAL)
Bruce Dane Taylor1O:?(SEAL)
Susan A. Taylor
AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
By:- I`L'K- - 6-
Name: 64je r t Lain.,
Title: r'
•
•
7
05/01/2009 16:13 336-513-0029 INVESTERS TITLE GRHM PAGE 10/13
•
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF ALAMANCE
I certify that the following person(s) personally appeared before nie this day, each
acknowledging to me that he or she signed the foregoing document:
Bruce Dane Taylor and Susan A. Taylor
WITNESS my hand and official seal, this day of '2009,
.?` A. D•
s?
?k G ,q? Notary's Official Signature
? (Off cia1 Seal)
:7;, L 1 ?O ; Notary's Printed or Typed Name
My commission expires: !I) I
'• F COUN
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF ALAMANCE
I certify that the following person(s) personally appeared before me this day, each
acknowledging to me that he or she signed the foregoing document:
W. Grant Lewis
WITNESS my hand and official seal, this ?? day of 1 , 2609.

Notary's Officinal Signature
Notary's Printed or Typed Name
My commission expires: ! a ?.o/ ao it
05/01/2009 16:13 336-513-0029 INVESTERS TITLE GRHM PAGE 11/13

EXHIBIT "A"
All of Lob 1-A and 1-B as shown on Plat Book 57, Page 17, Office of the Register of
Deeds ofAlamance County, North Carolina
•
9
05/01/2009 16:13 336-513-0029 INVESTERS TITLE GRHM PAGE 12/13
•
EXHIBIT "A-1"
CONSERVATION EASEMIENT
BEGINNING at an iron stake set with cap, No. 5 Rebar, in Grantor's northeastern. line (NC Grid
Coordinate N=869,597.2407'; E=1,887,587.1146'), which iron stake is located South 77" 36'51" West
12,455,366 feet from NCGS Marker "Long" (N-872,268.859'; D-1,899,752,582% thence from said
BEGINNING POINT with the western line of Roebuck (see Deed Book 306, Page 181.), South 27° 31'44"
East 195.31 feet to an existing iron pipe, thence continuing with Roebuck's line, South 27° 33' 43" East
101.88 feet to an iron stake set; thence South 55" 22' 02" West 84.00 feet to in iron stake set; thence South
550221 02"West 50.38 feet to an iron stake set; thence South 82° 13' 13" West 174.17 foot to an iron stake
set; thence South 36° 05' 09" West 238.25 feet to an iron stake set; thence South 1011 24' 29" East 192.58
feet to an iron stake set; thence South 12" 57' 35" West 398.57 feet to an iron stake set; thence South 79°
46' 16" West 109.82 feet to an iron stake set; thence South 371 16' 02" West 430.65 feet to an iron stake
set, thence North 75" 32' 02" East 105.46 feet to an iron stake set; thence North 75° 32' 02" East 201.65
feet to an iron stake set; thence North 63" 31' 47" East 378.15 feet to an iron stake set; thence South 750 52'
14" East 200.20 feet to an iron stake set; thence South 641 19' 23" East 149.32 feet to ow iron stake set;
thence South 77° 05' 33" East 127.44 feet to an iron stake set; thence South 10° 29' OT' East 208.95 feet to
an iron stake set in the northera margin of Lot 11, Section Three, Lakeview Estates (see Deed Book 1554,
Page 447); thence with the northern lines of Dots 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 of Section Three,
Lakeview Estates, the following nine (9) calls; North 88° 30' 47" West 222.78 feet to an existing iron pipe;
North 880 46' 25" West 99.82 feet to an existing iron pipe; North 889 26' 29" West 99.99 feet to an existing
. iron pipe; North 88° 26' 3T' West 100.02 feet to an existing iron pipe, North 880 23' 27" West 99.97 feet to
an existing iron pipe; North 88° 24' 00" West 100.01 feet to an existing iron pipe; North, 880 25' 20" West
99.99 feet to an existing iron pipe; North 88133' 52" West 99.96 feet to an, existing iron pipe; North 881123'
42" West 264.05 feet to a non monumented corner in the northern margin of Lakeview Drive; thence
continuing with the northern margin of Lakeview Drive, North Sr 23142" West 156 feet to an iron stake
set ("Point A"); thence North 26° 05' 56" East 32.97 foot to an iron stake set; thence North 26° 05' 56"
East 585.30 feet to an iron stake set; thence North 039 37' 25" West 254.01 feet to an iron stake set; thence
North 54° 44' 37" East 183.82 feet to an iron stake set; thence North 38° 27' 13" West 627,54 feet to an
iron stake set; thence North 85° 52' 40" West 81.31 feet to an iron stake set; thence North 53" 56' 01" West
85.31 feet to an iron stake set; thence North 02°39' 52" East 235,22 feet to an iron stake set ("Point B");
thence North 87° 49' 06" East 103.23 feet to an iron stake set; thence South 41" 59' 40" East 273.45 feet to
an iron stake set; thence South 321 55' 20" East 428.56 feet to an iron stake set; thence North 48° 31' 42"
East 95.48 feet to an iron stake set ("Point C'?; thence North 481 3 P 42" East 92.12 feet to an iron stake
set; thence North 40° 29' 32" East 188.56 feet to an iron stake set; thence North 59° 33' 02" East 161,5 5
feet to an iron stake set ("Point D"); thence North. 59° 33' 02" East 147.01 foet to the POINT AND PLACE
OF BEGINNING, and containing 19.601 acres, excluding the 20' Ingress, Egress & Regress Easement
described below and as more particularly shown on the Conservation Easement Survey for Axiom
Environmental, Inc., prepared by K2 Design Group, P.A. and dated 4/4108..
TOGETHER WITH a new 20' Ingress, Egress & Regress Easement more particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at an iron stake set, and identified as Point I3 identified above; tbence North 00100' 03" East
52.85 feet to an iron stake sot in the northern margin of the Grantor's property (Lot 1-B as shown on Plat
Book 57, Page 17), which iron stake is also located in the southern terminus of NCSR 1777; thence with the
southern terminus of NCSR 1777 and Grantor's northern line, South 89° 59' 57" East 20 feet to a point;
thence South 00" 00' 03" West 52.85 feet to a point in the northern line of the Conservation Easement
described above; thence South 87° 49' 06" West 20.0 feet to the place of BEGINNING, and containing 0.02
•
10
05/01/2009 16:13 336-513-0029 INVESTERS TITLE GRHM PAGE 13/13
•
acres, more or less, and identified as "Access Easement 1" on the Conservation Easement Survey for Axiom
Environmental, Inc., prepared by K2 Design Group, P.A. and dated 414/08.
Grantor reserves unto themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, the following three (3) access
easements across the Conservation Easement described above to provide access for ingress, egress and
regress across the easement area to connect portions of Grantor's property not included within the easement
as follows:
1. A new 16' Ingress, Egress 8t Regress Easement, eight fcct (8') on each side. of a centerline
described as follows: BEC NING at an iron pin set and identified as Point C in the description of
the Conservation Easement described above and running thence South 411 17' 54" East 259.81 feet
to an iron pin set in the boundary line of the above-described Conservation Easement and
containing -033 acres, more or less and identified as "Access Easement 2" on the Conservation
Easement Survey for Axiom Environmental, Inc. described above.
A new 30' Ingress, Egress & Regress Easement, Meen feet (15') on each side of a centerline
dcscribed as ;follows: BEGINNING at an iron pin set and identified as Point B in the description of
the Conservation Easement described above and running thence South 39° 29' 32" East 306.74 feet
to an iron pin set in the boundary line of the above-described Conservation Easement and
containing 1.2 acres, more or less, and identified as "Access Easement 3" on the Conservation
Easement Survcy for Axiom Environmental, Inc. described. above.
3. A new 30' Ingress, Egress and Regress Easement more particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at an iron pin set and identificd as Polat A in the description of the Conservation
• Easement described above and running thence North 26° 05' 56" East 32.97 feet to an iron stake
set; thence South 88° 23' 42" East 133.56 feet to an iron stake set; thence North 59° 00' 25" East'
78.44 feet to an iron stake set; thence North 750 32' 02" East 105.46 feet to an iron stake set; thence
South 59° 00' 25" West 188.31 feet to a non monummitcd corner in the northern boundary of
Lakeview Drive; thence with the northern boundary of Lakeview Drive, North 88° 2314211 West
156 feet to the point and place of BEGINNING} and containing 0.19 acres, more or less, and
identified as "Access Easement 4" on the Conservation Easement Survey for Axiom Environmental,
Inc. described above.
•
I1
lzl53a3

Doc ID: 010043930002 Type: CRP
Recorded: 05/13/2009 at 03:32:21 PM
Fee Amt: $17.00 Page i of 2
Alamance, NC
DAVID J.P. BARBER REGISTER OF DEEDS
BK2814 PG761-762
Prepared by and return to: William P. Aycock II, Esquire
Schell Bray Aycock Abel & Livingston PLLC
P. O. Box 21847
Greensboro, North Carolina 27420
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF ALAMANCE
ASSIGNMENT
• THIS DEED OF ASSIGNMENT, made this 2 day of , 2009, by and
between AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC., a North Carolina corpo ation, party of the first
part, and RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC, a North Carolina limited liability company,
whose mailing address is 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27604, party
of the second part.
WITNESSETH:
THAT WHEREAS, Bruce Dane Taylor and spouse, Susan A. Taylor, heretofore
executed and delivered to said party of the first part an Amended and Restated Permanent
Conservation Easement upon certain lands therein described, dated April 24, 2009, and recorded
in Book 2811, Pages 618-628, in the office of the Register of Deeds of Alamance County, North
Carolina; and
WHEREAS, said party of the first part has agreed to transfer and assign said Amended
and Restated Permanent Conservation Easement to said party of the second part.
NOW, THEREFORE, said party of the first part, as aforesaid, in consideration of One
Dollar ($1.00), has assigned, bargained and sold and does hereby assign, bargain, sell and
convey unto said party of the second part, its successors and assigns, all right, title and interest of
said party of the first part in and to said Amended and Restated Permanent Conservation
Easement and in and to the lands therein described and conveyed, together with all rights and
•
#227653v1
,q)
•
powers therein given to said party of the first part as aforesaid. Said Amended and Restated
Permanent Conservation Easement is incorporated herein by reference as if set out herein in full.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same to it, the said parry of the second part, its
successors and assigns, in the same manner and to the same extent as said party of the first part
now holds the same.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, said parry of the first part has caused this instrument to be
executed on its behalf on the day and year first above written.
AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.,
a North Carolina corporation
By. (SEAL)
Name: W. Grant Lewis -'`
Title: President
•
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF k-AAU
I certify that the following person(s) personally appeared before me this day, each
acknowledging to me that he or she signed the foregoing document:
W. Grant Lewis
WITNESS my hand and official seal, this 1144 day of , 2009.
" ki-
Travis L Hamrick Notary's facial i nature
wagmt North Carolina r
EXyires AW 3, 2011 ?r cv i? ? ?lC?
Notary public Notary's Printed or Typed Name
My commission expires: _:SI 3I 2c i
9

25/01/2009 16:13 336-513-0029 INVESTERS TITLE GRHM PAGE 01/13
Doc ID: 010029640002 TVPe: CRP
Recorded: 05/oi/2009 at 04:06:25 PM
Page 1 of 2
Fee Aft' 17 $0 00
Excise TAX
Alamance, KC
DAVID J.P. BARBER REGISTER OF DEEDS
EK2811 Po616-617
Prepared by and return to: William P. Aycock U, Esquire
_,;::7 Schell Bray Aycock Abel &c Livingston P.L.L.C.
P. 0. Box 21847
Greensboro, North Carolina.27420
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
COUNTY OF ALAMANCE
REASSIGNMENT
OF
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
THIS D ED, OF REASSIGNMENT OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT, rude this
day of - it i 2009, by and between RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC, a
North Carolina limited liability company, whose mailing address is 1101 Haynes Street, Suite
2117 Raleigh, North Carolina, 27604, party of the first part, and AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL,
INC., a North Carolina corporation, party of the second part.
WITNESSETH:
THAT WHEREAS, Bruce Dane Taylor and spouse, Susan A. Taylor, heretofore
executed alad delivered to said party of the second part a Conservation Easement upon certain
lands therein described, dated May 13, 2008, and recorded in Book 2710, Page 91, in the office
of the Register of Deeds of Alaznance County, North Carolina; and
WHEREAS, by Assignment recorded in Book 2722, Page 683, Alamance County
Registry, party of the second part assigned all of its night, title and interest in said Conservation
Easement to party of the first part; and
WHEREAS, the parties have agreed that said party of the first part will transfer and
reassign said Conservation Easement to said party of the second part and the party of the second
part has agreed to accept such reassignment.
NOW, THEREFORE, said party of the first part, as aforesaid, in consideration of One
• Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable considerations, has assigned, bargained and sold and
RS-TAYLOR-AXIOM- Reassignment of Conservation Easement from RS to Axiom.DOC(4/14/09)
4/1
e3/01/2009 16:13 336-513-0029 INVESTERS TITLE GRHM PAGE 02/13
• does hereby assign, bargain, sell and convey unto said party of the second part, its successors and
assigns, all right, title and interest of said parry of the first part in and to said Conservation
Easement and in and to the lands therein described and conveyed, togethcr with all rights and
powers therein given to said party of the first part as aforesaid. Said Conservation Easerent is
incorporated hercin by reference as if set out herein in full.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same to it, the said party of the second part, its
successors and assigns, in the same manner and to the same extent as said party of the first part
now holds the same.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, said party of the first part has caused this instrument to be
executed on its behalf on the day and year first above written.
RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC;,
a North Carolina limited liability company
•
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA.
COUNTY OF W0(1
By: (SEAL)
Name: 'r.9 roe-
Title:
I certify that the following person(s) personally appeared before me this day, each
acknowledging to ale that he or she signed the foregoing document:
-T
WITNESS my hand and official seal, this day of ikPr*1 )2009.

•
(Official Seal) `..,'•?,??F?Aty„®t'? ?'+
•s??'F??.y 9?:?rG•
Notary's C vial Signatu?
n.i ?oyJ
Notary's Printed or Typed Nam
My commission expires: • d
2