20081143 Ver 1_401 Application_20100910

0 8 - k \ LV 3
Natural Resource
Restoration & Conservation
September 20, 2010
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
ATTN: Andrew Williams, Regulatory Project Manager
Chair, Interagency Review Team
A?? y •3
Zoo
DENR • 14:4TFS OLIa1.ITY
WEIRPAi,'SAND570rt?llr 'rq$R¢JdCH
SUBJ: Authorization to Implement the Design for the Cripple Creek Stream and
Wetland Mitigation Bank Pursuant to Nationwide 27
Restoration Systems, LLC (RS) is pleased to submit the Pre-Construction Notification for
the subject project. As you are aware, the Cripple Creek Bank was fully approved and
executed on January 19, 2010. Enclosed with this letter are a set of construction plans.
Neither Section 106 nor Endangered Species Act issues require resolution (see
documentation in project Mitigation Plan.
Approval of the erosion control plans have been requested from the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Land Resources,
Winston-Salem Regional Office.
Thank you for your time and consideration. Please call me if you have any questions or
comments.
Sincerely,
MM. Randall Turner
Enclosures
cc: Ian McMillan, NCDWQ (enclosed check for $570.00)
Picot Mill • 1101 Haynes St., Suite 211 0 Raleigh. NC 2,604 • ?\-wu-.restorationsystems.com • Phone [phone] Far 919755.9492
Natural Resource
Restoration & Conservation
September 15, 2010
North Carolina Department of Environment
And Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit
2321 Crabtree Blvd, Suite 250
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
ATTN: Ian McMillan, Acting Unit Supervisor
SUBJECT: Authorized Agent for Restoration Systems
Please accept our designation of Mr. M. Randall Turner as the duly
authorized agent for Restoration Systems, LLC in all matters related
to regulatory issues. Mr. Turner has our permission to perform
signatory duties on permit applications, permits and other documents
related specifically to Clean Water Act, or regulatory actions related
to Isolated streams/wetlands.
Thanks for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
John Preyer, Vice-President-Operations
Pilot Mill • 1101 Haynes St., Suite 211 0 Raleigh, NC 27604 • www.restorationsystems.com • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone]
bg - t 11+3
W A tF?AOG

Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre-Construction Notification PCN Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing & AID
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 27 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? ® Yes ? No
1 d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular ? Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
? 401 Water Quality Certification - Express ? Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required? For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
? Yes ® No For the record only for Corps Permit:

? Yes ® No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program. ? Yes ® No
1 g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below. ? Yes ® No
1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ? Yes ® No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: Cripple Creek Stream & Wetland Mitigation Bank
2b. County: Alamance
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Burlington s-:? ?, rte, rte, /7.-
2d. Subdivision name: N/A
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no:
??%J
?.
3. pot
Owner Information
Mo r?,?? ouwirY
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: Restoration Systems, LLC
3b. Deed Book and Page No. DB 2811, Page Nos. 618-628
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable): Tara Allden
3d. Street address: 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 208
3e. City, state, zip: Raleigh, NC 27604
3f. Telephone no.: 919-755-9490
3g. Fax no.: 919-755-9492
3h. Email address: [e-mail]
Page I of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ® Agent ? Other, specify:
4b. Name: M. Randall Turner
4c. Business name
(if applicable): Restoration Systems, LLC
4d. Street address: 1101 Haynes Street
4e. City, state, zip: Raleigh, NC 27604
4f. Telephone no.: 919-755-9490
4g. Fax no.: 919-755-9492
4h. Email address: [e-mail]
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name:
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
5c. Street address:
5d. City, state, zip:
5e. Telephone no.:
5f. Fax no.:
5g. Email address:
Page 2 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
la. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): PIN#8886781833; Parcel ID# 150227
Latitude: 36.139115N Longitude: -
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): -79.384339W
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1 c. Property size: 19.6 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to Boyd Creek
Haw River
proposed project: ,
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: C NSW
2c. River basin: Cape Fear
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
Site consists of pasture, stream channels and forested areas. Site Land-use: livestock grazing, hay production; Vicinity
Land-use: rural farm land interspersed with woodlots, residential sites, small businesses and churches.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
1.9
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
4137
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
Restoration Systems is proposing stream enhancement and restoration, and wetland enhancement/restoration to produce
credits for sale to applicants as approved by regulatory community.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The project site exhibits moderately entrenched streams, most without active floodplains. Entrenched streams are
responsible for removing hydrology from areas of hydric soil (formerly, jurisdictional wetlands). Hay production and
intense grazing by livestock have impacted streams and palustrine areas.
Equipment that will be utilized to implement the restoration plan may include, but is not limited to track hoes, front end
loaders, tracked dump trucks, and bulldozers.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
? Yes ®No ? Unknown
Comments: No, but JD forms are being submitted to COE.
Surveyed wetland and hydric soil plats were produced and
provided to the Corps.
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
? Preliminary ? Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency/Consultant Company: Axiom Environmental
Name (if known): Grant Lewis, Axiom Environmental Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
N/A
Page 3 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past? ? Yes ®No ? Unknown
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ? Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 4 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
? Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ? Buffers
? Open Waters ? Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f.
Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction
number - Type of impact Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact
Permanent (P) or (if known) DWQ - non-404, other) (acres)
Temporary T
W1 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W2 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W3 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W4 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W5 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W6 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts 0.0
2h. Comments: N/A
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f. 3g.
Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of jurisdiction Average Impact
number - (PER) or (Corps - 404, 10 stream length
Permanent (P) or intermittent DWQ - non-404, width (linear
Temporary (T) (INT)? other) (feet) feet)
S1 ®P ? T cut & fill Trib 1 ® PER
® INT ® Corps
® DWQ 4.3 470
S2 ®P ? T cut & fill Trib 2 ® PER
® INT ® Corps
® DWQ 4.4 829
S3 ®P ? T cut & fill Trib 3 ® PER
? INT ® Corps
® DWQ 4.2 173
S4 ®P ? T cut & fill Trib 4 ® PER
? INT ® Corps
® DWQ 3.9 365
S5 ® P ? T cut & fill Main Channel ® PER
? INT ® Corps
® DWQ 8.3 1850
S6 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts 3687
3i. Comments: Impacts are permanent, but will result in only temporary losses; overall lengths will be increased
Page 5 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water Name of waterbody
impact number - (if applicable) Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
01 ?P?T
02 ?P?T
03 ?P?T
04 ?P?T
4f. Total open water impacts 0.0
4g. Comments: N/A
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If and or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
Pond ID Proposed use or purpose (acres)
number of pond
Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments: N/A
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
? Yes ®No if yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres): N/A
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres): N/A
5k. Method of construction: N/A
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If an impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
? Neuse ? Tar-Pamlico ? Other: Cape Fear
Project is in which protected basin? ? Catawba ? Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact
number - Reason Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or for Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet)
Temporary T im act required?
B1 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
B2 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
B3 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments: N/A
Page 6 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Avoidance of impacts is not possible if unstable streams are to be restored; design reflects least intrusive impacts in order to
result in stable, functional stream geo-morphology. Care was taken to route new channel construction to maximize avoidance
of large trees in stream buffers. All wetlands on-site were delineated to ensure that these resources would be avoided during
design efforts. No impacts to wetlands will result from project construction. Also, a BMP is being installed to preserve water
quality of adjacent stream channels.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Trees to be avoided are to be well marked; no spoil will be placed in wetlands for temporary stockpiling; soils will be cultivated,
or aerated following operation of heavy equipment to ensure that wetland and buffer substrates are free of compaction.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State? ? Yes ® No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ? DWQ ? Corps

2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project? ? Mitigation bank

El Payment to in-lieu fee program
? Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank: Cripple Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type Quantity
3c. Comments: N/A
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. ? Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: ? warm ? cool ?cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: acres
4h. Comments: N/A
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
N/A
Page 7 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) - required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation? ? Yes ® No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.

Zone 6c.
Reason for impact 6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier 6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 8 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified ® Yes ? No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
Comments: ®Yes ? No
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? 0%
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ? Yes ® No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: No proposed changes from existing
surface flows
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
N/A
? Certified Local Government
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? ? DWQ Stormwater Program
? DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project? Alamance County
? Phase II
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs ? NSW
apply (check all that apply): ? USMP
? Water Supply Watershed
? Other: N/A
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ? Yes ? No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
? Coastal counties

4a.
Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply ? HQW
? ORW
(check all that apply): ? Session Law 2006-246
? Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached? ? Yes ? No
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? ? Yes ? No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? ? Yes ? No
Page 9 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the Y
? es
No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ? Yes ? No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.) ? Yes ? No
Comments: N/A
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, ? Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? ? Yes ® No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in ? Yes ® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
Page 10 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or ? Yes ® No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act ? Yes ® No
impacts?
E] Raleigh
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
? Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
USFWS list of species for Alamance County and habitat descriptions provided in Federal Register and Recovery Plans.
Tim Savidge of The Catena Group conducted field surveys for mussels and determined that no rare species occur in the
streams. See detailed report in Restoration Plan
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ? Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
Project located in eastern piedmont.
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation ? Yes ® No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
Response letter from the SHPO.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? ® Yes ? No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: Project Engineer has provided CLOMR to FEMA (See Attached)
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? County GIS Data Layer
M. Randall Turner September 20,

~ 2010
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name Applican Agent's Signature
' Date
(Agent
s signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided.)
Page 11 of 11
PCN Form -Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
Federal Emergency Management Agency
,? a rtr
°% ? t,Washington, DC 20472
r ?? 4
North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program
4,, f) sty- Cooperating Technical State
September 10, 2010
Mr. Kevin Williams, P.E.
KO & Associates
5121 Kingdom Way
Raleigh, NC 27607
Dear Mr. Williams:
IN REPLY REFER TO:
Case Number:
Community Name:
Community Number:
316-AD
10-04-4948R
e „a STATE °
A
Unincorporated Areas of
Alamance County, NC
370001
This responds to request dated April 20, 2010, that the Department of Homeland Security's Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) issue a conditional revision to the Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) for the above referenced community. The North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program
(NCFMP) is reviewing your request in accordance with an agreement signed with FEMA under the
FEMA Cooperating Technical Partners initiative. For more information on this initiative, we encourage
you to visit the dedicated portion of the FEMA Flood Hazard Mapping website at
http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/fhm/ctp_main.shtm or visit the NCFMP website at
www.ncfloodmaps.com.
Identifier: NC-10-228 - Stream Restoration along Boyds
Creek Tributary 1
Flooding Source: Boyds Creek Tributary 1
FIRM Panel Affected: 3710888600J
We have determined that additional data are required to complete our review of the request. The data
required to complete our review, which must be submitted within 90 days of the date of this letter, are listed
on the enclosed summary.
The required data may be sent directly to us at the address shown at the bottom of this page. For
identification, the case number referenced above must be included on all correspondence.
If we do not receive the required data within 90 days, we will suspend our processing of your request.
Any data submitted after 90 days will be treated as an original submittal and will be subject to all
submittal/payment procedures, including the flat review and processing fee for requests of this type
established by the current fee schedule. A summary of the current fee schedule, which was published in
the Federal Register, is available through the FEMA Flood Hazard Mapping website at
http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/fliii-i/frm-fees.shtm#2.
North Carolina MT-2 LOMC Depot, P.O. Box 300025, Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-0025
The North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program, by agreement with the FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY,
is a Cooperating Technical Partner for the National Flood Insurance Program
FEMA receives a very large volume of requests and cannot maintain inactive requests for an indefinite period
of time. Therefore, we are unable to grant extensions for the submission of required data/fee for revision
requests. If a requester is informed by letter that additional data are required to complete our review of a
request, the data/fee must be submitted within 90 days of the date of the letter. Any fees already paid will be
forfeited for any request for which the requested data are not received within 90 days.
For general information about FEMA policy and the National Flood Insurance Program please visit
FEMA's website at http://www.fema.gov/business/nftp. If you have specific questions regarding your
request, please contact Mr. Steve Garrett, CFM, LOMC Manager, of the NCFMP at [phone] ext.
118.
Sincerely,
John K. Dorman
Program Director
North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program
cc: Mr. Craig F. Honeycutt, County Manager, Alamance County
Mr. Jason Martin, Alamance County Planning Manager
Ms. Tara Disy Allden, Restoration Systems, LLC
Mr. Steve Garrett, CFM, LOMC Manager, NCFMP
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Washington, DC 20472
North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program
Cooperating Technical State
51
Summary of Additional Data Required to Support a
Letter of Map Revision (LOMR)
Case No.: 10-04-4948R
Community: Unincorporated Areas of
Requester: Mr. Kevin Williams, P.E.
Community No.: 370001
Alamance County, NC
The issues listed below must be addressed before we can continue the review of your request.
1. Please resubmit MT-2 Form 2 Page 1, with Section A corrected to show no hydrology revisions.
Our review revealed no physical tie-in to the effective floodplain at the upstream and downstream
limits of the revision area. Please extend the work map entitled "Topographic Work Map Cripple
Creek Stream Restoration Project", dated August 20, 2010, until a physical tie-in to the effective
floodplain is achieved and the model elevations tie together within 0.5 foot. Please submit a revised
topographic work map, certified by a registered professional engineer, which shows all applicable
items listed in Section C of Application/Certification Form 2, entitled "Riverine Hydrology &
Hydraulics Forrn."
3. Please submit an annotated Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) reflecting a tie-in between the
effective base (1-percent-annual-chance) floodplain mapping and revised base floodplain mapping at
the limits of study.
4. Please provide final Property Owner Notifications per the example provided. The final Property
Owner Notifications must either:
• be signed by Alamance County on Alamance County letterhead; or
• be signed by the engineering firm on their letterhead and have a separate letter by Alamance
County on Alamance County letterhead stating that all affected property owners have been
notified.
Please send the required data directly to us at the address shown below. For identification purposes,
please include the case number referenced above on all correspondence.
Using U.S. Postal Service: Using Overnight Service:
North Carolina MT-2 LOMC Depot NC MT-2 LOMC- Collection System Administrator
P.O. Box 300025 c/o Dewberry & Davis, Inc.
Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-0025 2301 Rexwoods Drive, Suite 200
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
9/10/2010
Property Owner
Address
City, STATE 99999
Re: Notification of 1% (100-year) annual chance water-surface elevation increases and
decreases
Dear Property Owner
The Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for a community depicts land which has been
determined to be subject to a 1% (100-year) or greater chance of flooding in any given year.
The FIRM is used to determine flood insurance rates and to help the community with floodplain
management.
Alamance County is applying for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) from the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (DHS-FEMA) on behalf of Restoration Systems,
Incorporated to revise FIRM 3710888600J for Alamance County along Boyds Creek Tributary 1.
This request is the result of the proposed construction of stream and riparian buffer restoration
along Boyds Creek Tributary 1, immediately upstream of Lakeview Drive.
The proposed project will result in increases and decreases in the 1 % annual chance water-
surface elevations for Boyds Creek Tributary 1, with a maximum increase of 2.4 feet at a point
approximately 970 feet upstream of Lakeview Drive and a maximum decrease of 0.2 foot at a
point approximately 1,700 feet upstream of Lakeview Drive.
This letter is to inform you of the revision of the 1 % annual chance water-surface elevation on
your property at {insert physical address}.
If you have any questions or concerns about the proposed changes to the FIRM or its effects on
your property, you may contact me at {Revision requester contact phone number}.
Sincerely,
{Revision requester name}

I II I I I II III III I II I II II VIII VIII III II VIII VII I I II II 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
BK2814 PG761-762
Prepared by and return to: William P. Aycock 11, Esquire
f 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 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 281 1, 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 (S 1.00), has assigned, bargained and sold and does hereby assiun. ban-min, 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. touether with all rights and
--1171,1,\ i

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: (SEAL)
Name: W. Grant Lewis ??'
Title: President
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF I certify that the followin, person(s) personally appeared before me this day, each
acknowledaina to me that he or she signed the foregoing document:
W. Grant Lewis
WITNESS my hand and official seal, this R day of ??t1C?„a .2009.
Travis L Hamrick
) ff iciahvkt,?Vunty North Carolina
EXYires AuglCst 3, 2011
- votary l 0he
zvtary 's 6110, l ignature ?
tVotary `s Printed or Typed Nanie
,; ,L
l}: comi'llission expires.-__
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, [is 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
Systems, LLC, dated June 10, 2008, recorded June 16, 2008 at 12:20 P.M. in Book 2722, Page 683 of the
Alamance County Register of Deeds.
10. Reassignment of Conservation Easement between Restoration Systems, LLC and Axiom
Environmental, Inc., dated April 14, 2009, recorded May 1, 2009, at 4:06 P.M. in Book 2811, Page 616 of the
Alamance County Register of Deeds.
11. Restrictions in Amended and Restated Permanent Conservation Easement recorded in Book
2811, Page 618 of the Alamance County Register of Deeds.
The search period is limited from Fidelity National Title Insurance Company Policy 08G78717-00
dated June 24, 2008 at 4:42 P.M. to May 13, 2009 at 3:32 P.M.
This opinion of title is an instrument of service to the parties to whom it is furnished, is not transferable,
and shall not be used by any other person or entity without pricr written consent of the undersigned.
EXHIBIT "A"
All of Lots 1-A and 1-B as shown on Plat Book 57, Page 17, Office of the Register of
Deeds of Aiamance County, North Carolina.
EXHIBIT "A-1"
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
BEGINNING at an iron stake set with cap, No. 5 Rebar, in Grantor's northeastern line (NC Grid
Coordinate N=869,597.24071; 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 361 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 feetto 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 Lou 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 and l 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 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° 31' 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 I-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 BEGIN N1ING, and containing 0.02
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: BEGItiT1ING 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.
A new 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 BEGINIv'ING 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.

08- \k0?3
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
F.c?c??&O#ax
AND

AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
20 ENTERPRISE STREET, SUITE 7
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27607
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
REVISED AUGUST 2009
r

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
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 bankf ill 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 Units
Proposed Mitigation Quantity (Credits)
Proposed Mitigation Activity Streams Wetlands Stream Units Wetland Units
(linear feet) (acres) (SMUs) (WMUs)
Stream Restoration 4265 4265
Stream Enhancement (Level II) 633 253
Riparian Wetland Restoration 5.7 5.7
Riparian Wetland Enhancement 1.4 0.7
Nonri arian Wetland Restoration 1.2 1.2
Nonni arian Wetland Enhancement 0.5 0.25
s
.. ?. ?R 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 (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. 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.

r

n
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... I
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ ..................................... I
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 ......................................................................... .....................................28
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
Figure 2. Mitigation Service Area
Figure 3. Drainage Area and Topography
Figure 4. Existing Conditions
Figure 5. NRCS Soils Map
Figure 6. Existing Dimension, Pattern, and Profile
Figure 7. Reference Dimension, Pattern, and Profile
Figures 8 A-8C. Restoration Plan
Figure 9. Proposed Dimension, Pattern, and Profile
Figure 10. Typical Structure Details
Figure 11 . Planting Plan
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Existing Stream Characteristics ...................................................................
Table 2. NRCS Soils Mapped within The Bank ........................................................
Table 3. Results for Boussinesq Equation .................................................................
Table 4. Table of Morphological Stream Characteristics ..........................................
Table 5. Reference Reach Bankfull Discharge Analysis ...........................................
Table 6. Stream Power (Q) and Shear Stress (t) Values ...........................................
Table 7. Reference Forest Ecosystem ........................................................................
Table 8. Planting Plan ................................................................................................
Table 9. Proposed Mitigation Quantities vs. Mitigation Credits ...............................
Table 10. Proposed Credit Release Schedule ............................................................
Table 11. Federal Species of Concern .......................................................................
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
...................................4
...................................6
...................................8
...................................9
.................................10
.................................15
.................................17
.................................24
.................................27
.................................27
.................................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:
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.
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.
o Restoring approximately 4265 linear feet of stream channel through construction of stable
channels, thereby reestablishing stable dimension, pattern, and profile.
o Enhancing (Level H) 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
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
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
Ditch con'tributing
tributaries (see picture below).
Impervious surfaces account for less than
10 percent of the upstream watershed tatherEliAnk"
land surface.
Onsite land use is characterized by
agricultural land (horse pasture and hay
production) and forest (Figure 4,
Appendix A). Horses have
indiscriminate access to onsite streams
and wetlands, resulting in degradation of
stream banks through vegetative
cropping and hoof shear. Hay is
produced throughout the remainder of
The Bank, with the exception of a mixed pine-hardwood forest located at the southern extent of The
Bank. Riparian vegetation adjacent to restoration/enhancement reaches of onsite streams is sparse and
disturbed due to livestock grazing, bush hogging, and regular maintenance activities.
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. F.xistinfi, Stream Characteristics

Stream Reach Stream Length

(linear feet) USGS

Stream Order
Stream Classification*
Main Channel 1850 second perennial
Unnamed Tributary 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
I I hese tnbutanes are depicted as intermittent or not shown on the USUS /..)minute topographic quadrangle and/or N KUS sous mapping; nowever,
streams exhibited characteristics of perennial streams during field investigations (see NCDWQ stream classification fonns in Appendix B).
2.2 WATER QUALITY
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 agriculture. 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).
4
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, 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.
'd
Disturbed forest fragments occur along the southern
margin of The Bank and adjacent to site streams, and
are predominately comprised of early successional
species. The more prolific tree species include
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), black cherry
(Prunus serotina), red maple (Acer rubrum), loblolly
pine (Pinus taeda), short-needle pine (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 pasturelhay fields.
sp.), and American holly (Ilex opaca). A sparse
subcanopy and canopy includes Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana), eastern red cedar (Juniperus
virginiana), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), river birch (Betula
nigra), various oak species (Quercus spp.), and tuliptree (Liriodendron tulipifera).
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
approximately 18.7 acres of The Bank, including areas
Small wetland pocket below pond and road crossing 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. NRCS Soils Manned within The Bank
Nonhydric Hydric Family Description
Soil Series Status*
Appling Nonhydric Typic 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 Typic 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 Fluvagtientic 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 Typic 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 Tvpic 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 = Nonhydtic 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
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 Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, 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 Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). The equation is solved for
wetland impacts with data for the following variables: 1) equivalent hydraulic conductivity, 2) drainable
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.

7
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systerns, LLC
Table 3. Results for Boussineso Equation
Ditch Depth Depth to Growing Drainable ! Ditch Impact
Soil Aquaclude Ksat (cm/hr)
(ft) Season (hrs) Porosity (cm) (ft)
2 178 1.5 552 0.006 130
-

3 178
1.5
552
J 0.006 177
Worsham
j
4
178
1.5
552
0.006
198
5 178 1.5 552 0.006 206
2
3 152
152 3.3
3.3 552
552 0.018
0.018 99
135
Wehadkee 4
i 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 Systems, LLC
Table 4. Table of Morphological Stream Characteristics
Table 0. Table of Morphol gWal Stream Characteristics
eriOWe creek 9Meam and Watlena Rearn.axna su.
n.wa
MX10nwMUgMan
Ng10MnnYUpwaan
Pre9esM
Sham T- - CrE
.ea lm'1 _
o2a a29
tYNJ pa2erA is+1 h0 320
bamion varakr+ o9e.rmm n v.r.d«
BaJJCIO4aaaonoM nlY ?a? d' Sx
avg ClnsuXwrel nrx i3a,al ti4. tya .3
IIaMJ`/fdnflVJ Mam_ 3] 9.9
srr)a 1.1-a4 Rang: 0.10.1
BaadJ Mxn ppm iltrtl Nan: O.d
Range. 0.9.1.2 Rae 0,9-a9
aYJ Naurun GepN iD?l Mew: 1.8
Race. 2.2J Rage- -1.2
wmltV/r)
da War°AWV°
n
l
dlk etem
Rage: 129
10.9-12.9
mm PoOl0eg11D mro
r
s aU pony
w snayaemq x[rvpn
Ne
Rug:
t.5
0.-2
of FleerAOra area fxy,l a,_0
M
3
arye ]20.40.0 Rap: T4
99 -
Okknsrx a- Dkan+ w RNios
avaron Raw ;WNw.rl Maan 52 13.7
Rarya: ].4-r,0 Rap. 1vo-17A
I peAr Repo iWurD..e Mem: 0.7 Me- 120
R.- 3211.1 IRarye 10,0-14.0
as Drat Da Raw
Mean
1,9
Mean
Rap'. Rap . t.5
Lowdera.bgdl M¢ Drs Raw Mnn 13 Mem
Rare I.l -I.tl Rag.
mm Pod Depnl94raN
Mempapn(0«rDad
Rag t.9
.1-1.-
pManrBmYJ wwpve repenwe
of rdYS aril qob
o auigraenry xwMS
M<m
QRA

71
1
Pop r Bald)
Cron Sacpaal nrx N m
Raga'. -21
1114
VakpYS
F m VnWYs
.
Ito Pod Sgcrg Il..l
Rang: n 5
139- 5s J
4asnlx Lags 1L
•up+nw
oldhs ara qoY
Rag: a9.1
d95-tt9.d
BN M?1Vlaa1 w
eurghmry xwaR+ Mxn
Range. 3eA
19B-5ya
Raeu of Cwave (R.1
Rxge. 21.;
13d-a9.4
s«wah (sw eoT In
Pma n aM.
oolto Pod Spcvq
BwJVaen IL,?WaI
Rag. SO
20-T0
eraa L-.
daadJ559oN :LwWal
"w MYarcp«re0appva
gn
m of rdlks arw qph Mr.
Pare. A
5.0-1'
-
Maaear Vddn Rmp
IW.aWrd b
uagn<rvg X11win _
M
Rang 4.0
2.0-60
d Cw ma
BaaJ'Mdn(RUWyd
Raee 2.2
2.0-5.0
hdM Vam4ea di VXYpbs
raaA WNa SWace Sbq X9_1
0.0109
0.003.1
sea sbq ls„„I o.on9 a.and
dW Sbq l9wl
Rage. 00095
0-o.ol.
."l-
sbq
1_1
rcn mareeb
1u 9
es
R+rye.

R.y 40004
0.000x2
O.ar2>
0...-
sbq
R-
arelea 0.apes eM. RXbs
9M.bpal Wa xa
Sbq i3.N3..ieU1 Mean
Ranh: 1.1
0 - l 1
wlSbpNVUerSWXe

x
e
n
M"n 01
a 9ulau
R 9bwIX3,J9.,1 u
N
?gnenry x
tivnRa Mem 0.5
Sbw lSeys,,,ulXe Rag 0-09
MYb CIwnM
Dawmaxm a4k0MrMl
Dewmaaan hagstl
cy
0.40 0. 0
4t]
oaMrvapm v.
.ek,
taa la4
t9.fiW.1 t0.a
Maart r.9 Mean' 11
Rang'. 8A-9.2 Rerya. 102121

M 9
Pang:
1 arys' 09-'a

M 20 Ysm 1.J
erge 1.3.21 Rag: 1.J-t4

•rapadbe
q mmmala3r4r^Y XMlln Mean

m
)22.20.0
.0.20
M.0
M d50
ap 0-)SO Rrge >a.'.24
obamb naaba
Nam is New 11
Rarya 28-12 Rag' 31-112
Mm 32 Nesn 120
age. -92 Rage. 10.0-t40
Mem 1.5 Mem.
Page
1 Rage t.9
4 Mx
Rage 1?0-1.]

Mage. 1.9
1-2)
okerclxa repWbe
Anewm of rdM sr4 gook
vagnnry x Wan
Nxrt
Prig:
M<en'
Rag to

I.1-1.6
20
nn -a-

Rage. X3
222.I>'-)
? Onorctrvb+aW W
Y Yvan
aye: Ya.9
33.9.1J].2
to w.,ga.nry XV.k.a M
Rap:
32-5d.5
Mean
Rag: 244
222 95.9
IB7
ri
?
NUn
Rang: SO
20-).0
de—.-'.
qmm of rdnn arw
eY R"
rig: 9.0
5.0 t2.0
q
Meq+enryxlrvwn Maar.
Rage. 40
20-d.0
art
arye: 22
20.5.0
PMYe V aN4«
40105 400)9
0011: aw12
Nears
Rage: 401])
0.0.0238

a dsar?we reglai«
nee w qob Mnn
a.nge oom
o-oLM1
w n.i9nalry xlrvk« M
Rage.
0-x0014

Rare omu
dM R bs
Rays: 021.1
oN bsMelwe regldrva
mMSarw peok Near O.t
Ranee. O.OA
la Nagnmry acrMn« N 44
Rarye
1 f
0.2
Race 0-]e
tYTrbuury LN TriuWy Treuurk+Pregxd
?9 e/G ?Y
0A) 57 101
J 11.7
pmm stbn V.-
32 2 2
i4. 10.0 12
k3 Nam
44
Yxn.
d
Rmq: 19 -..o Rmga' ].9-19 Rap- i1-i2
am
4 4d Nex O.T Yxn. 4d
allga. 45.0.9 prig'. l o'd Rarga: u o.l
M 1'9 1.2_ Mew or'
arys: 1
.2 28
Rage
1, 1
1?_
8 9

MNVCdverepaowa Per- rRYS arOgdaM Man
Page: 1.]
e.2-141
u sbepfanry xWen

MXq-

.T. 1.5
I
Mem'. t3] Nasn t0.1 Mem. as
Rag'. T.4-ri.0 Prge. T.3-t1.0 Rwge'. ri-d9
aen m.brv Rak+
am J.9 aar 0
p: 11.8
la aar 10.0
aqr 4. 1-r.d xp: toI20
Maw 2d aw 1.4
20-2.9 R ap:
Maw: t

1,]-te R
age.
R-
em'
- 1.9
ap' imi -1,l
byre • regepve pYlarnd nlRa ara pooh nu Mean
b sW9ltarag auivew Rag 11.1A
Maw 20
Rap. 4-24

M.aft
Rang'. a
11.2-J33

Selnev nMa gaand?
w ale webw
ps Mom
Rare: Sri a
29.0-fi].2
n
ro
upnar.g ad ?
Rap 14a
80

Rare: 12l
111.50.a
03 1.2

Rang: 4.0
20-T.0

June x ngaM gnemd sties sN wok da Yew'
Rarye 9.0
30. 12o
ro sugnmryaaHw Mean: 40
Rag: 20 .8.0
Mem
Rag. 22
3.0-SO
hOtY VarkpMs
a02JB 0.0181 O.Oldp 10.01'A
. 0.0169 0024010.0189
0- "o
R.-
M" I -o.04fi5
""" or"'
Jnlvwp •apeneve gnand.IlW arwq kda sap: -4oI.
to Mageamy anrvm«

Ft-
'
wr
.noto5

Rare- 10.002)
a4.otm
Prdea Pat

Rang 22
0 J.1

mMircw Innw aru wols de
n
R.- 0.1
Oad
u swgfemg
usvnwa
Rsrye
Rang: 0 `a9
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, 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*Sl `]
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.
Tahle 5_ Reference Reach Rankfull Discharge Analvsis

Method Watershed Area
(square miles) Return Interval
(years) Discharge
(cfs)
Reference 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 Svstenls, 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.
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 channel 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:
t=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 /VVbkf)-0.5
where Rc = 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:
co=PgQs=Tv
where co = stream power per unit of bed area (N/ft-sec, Joules/sec/ft'), T = shear stress, and v = average
velocity (ft/sec). Similarly,
(J = 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).
TnhlP A CtrPnm PnwPr (nl nnrd Cht-nr Ctrecs (TI VaInPC

Discharge
(ft2/s) Water
surface
Slope
(ft/ft)
Total
Stream
Power (Q)

2/W

Hydraulic
Radius
Shear
Stress
(T)

Velocity
(v)

V

C"'
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 channel incision. Stream power
and shear stress values for the proposed channels should be lower than for existing channels to effectively
transport sediment through the Site without eroding and downcutting, 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
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.
16
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Svstems, LLC
Table 7. Reference Forest Ecosvstem
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 styraciflua Betula nigra Carya alba/tomentosa Carpinus caroliniana
Liriodendrum tulipifera Carpinus caroliniana Liriodendron tulipifera Diospyros virginiana
Pinus taeda Liriodendron tulipifera Pinus taeda flex 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 nib a) 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
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)
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 Plugs
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 BackfllinQ
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
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.
2) 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.
20
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, 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 RESTORATIONIENHANCEMENT
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
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)
Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest
I. White oak (Quercus alba)
2. Northern red oak (Quercus rubra)
3. Pignut hickory (Carya glabra)
4. Mockemut hickory (Carya alba/tomentosa)
5. Black gum (Nyssa sylvatica var. sylvatica)
6. Flowering dogwood (Cornus florida)
7. Eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana)
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
I. 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 (Cares crinita)
b. Common rush (Juncus effusus)
c. Lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus)
d. Joe-pye-weed (Eupatorium fistulosum)
e. Bur-reed (Sparganium americanum)
f. Blue flag (Iris versicolor)
g. Rice-cut grass (Leersia oryzoides)
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.
22
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 PLANTING 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 Systems, LLC
TahlP R Plantina Plan

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

TOTAL
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
Fraxinus pennsylvanica 388(11) - - - 388
Platanus occidentalis 388 (11) - - - 388
Quercus phellos 388 (11) - - - 388
Quercus schumardii 388 (11) - - - 388
Ulmus americana 388 (11) - - - 388
Carpinus caroliniana - 949(15) - - 949
Caryaglabra - 632 (10) - - 632
Carya tomentosa/alba - 632(10) - - 632
Cornus florida - 949(15) - - 949
Diospyros virginiana - 632(10) - - 632
Juniperus virginiana - 316(5) - - 316
Nyssa sylvatica var. sylvatica - 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
Iles 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 stems/acre (- 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 Systems, 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 Macroinvertebrate 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 4265
Stream Enhancement (Level II) 633 253
Riparian Wetland Restoration 5.7 5.7
Riparian Wetland Enhancement 1.4 0.7
Nonriarian Wetland Restoration 1.2 1.2
Nonriarian Wetland Enhancement 0.5
Total: 4518 0.25
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- Prnnnsed Credit Release Schedule
Task Completion Verification % of Credi ts Released
Wetlands Streams
I (Preconstruction)* Execution of MBI 15 15
II (Construction) Site Inspection by USACE 15 15
III (15` Year Monitoring) Monitoring Report 10 10
IV (2"d Year Monitoring) Monitoring Report 10 10
V (3`d Year Monitoring) Monitoring Report 10 10
VI (4th 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
* Task l 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.
** 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.lzov/southeast/es/county%201ists.htm4 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
' Potential Habitat: Portions of The 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 (Le.-rand 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
Kathy Matthews
Howard Hall
Eric Kulz
Tammy I. Hill
Daryl Lamb
Shari L. Bryant
Renee Gledhill-Earley
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
N.C. Division of Water Quality
N.C. Division of Water Quality
N.C. Division of Water Quality
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
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 USACE, 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
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 Systems, LLC
11.0 REFERENCES
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 (NCDWQ). 2006a. Final North Carolina Water Quality
Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2004 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report) (online).
Available:
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 (NCDWQ). 2006b. Draft North Carolina Water Quality
Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2006 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report). Public Review
(online). Available:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/documents/2006303dListPublieReviewDraft.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.
36
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
APPENDIX A
FIGURES
Appendices
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
a 7 d: , _, ,r J ??j? 1 w
N
Directions to TheBank:
Take exit 150 offlnterstate 85-40just cast of Burlington e 3 d/? y
Travel north/towards Haw River/Green Level for - 2.2 miles yT( ii? A?
At the Highway 49 junction, turn right/travel north on Highway 49 towards Green Lev6Roxboro
for -2.7 miles
Turn left on Sandy Cross Road (at the Sandy Cross Mini Mart) for -1.6 miles+ , y
Turn right on Fonville Road for -1.7 miles to a T-intersection
r:
Turn left on Deep Creek Road for 0.9 miler as
Turn left on Roney-Lineberry Road just after Deep Creek Baptist Church for -0.3 mile g?".. g % ^!
After passing through a trailer park, take a left at the stop sign into The Bank Ku s:.,
Point in center of road crossing at the upstream end of the Main Channel d? 1 3
Latitude: 36.138332274 °N, Longitude: 79380963290'W 'lea
M^°
.l 1 I Z a r t I-.'? ?f? ? er 1, +?' /-
.!„m..n
k
J '
Reference Location ?J
} The Bank Location
.'v b . ? ? t'` ?- ? a?e a ,, - _ t ' , ? ? ,., y.1' ? \;f .
7 27,
of
r
y
i 1?ncxc.de`i ?r 9eYioed. _„/' `? ,,r ' ` ;. 1 ?•1 ''Y
? w
Y .? -'t ?q ,.. r..'•_ fir--- - -r - ?,1--+ ?t "
71
0 1 ml. 4 ml, p \1
1:158,400
Source: 1977 North Carolina Atlas and Gazetteer, p.18.
4-e • ,
-1 Dwn. by:
2126 Rowland Pond Drive
THE BANK AND REFERENCE LOCATION Ckdby: CLF FIGURE
Willow Spring, NC 27592 WGL
[phone] CRIPPLE CREEK MITIGATION SITE
[phone] fax Date:
- Alamance County, North Carolina April 2008
.wae Efmror.rrrwL i?c,
Project: 07 016
0
I (I b-
j 1
t -F tc:
Ville
er Jench
` c ,? Grove e
The Bank Location "
u star,? e
Targeted Local 'lleasant
..amahaw .'n rave
Watershed es
?7n??r?n?,P1+?rtnrn .?l
z,
?? rPO+c ;Aiamil rice M?^ C:: eHaWftei
r Bellem
.0 i'wdPSanville 1
V 11111
?t
O
•rer
Eflagd 13
R A 1
to ?/ y Orange
Pleasant Eubanks
Camden ?i? Ted Drove
c.
A5)
GKimssvilleiti° .lo> r Saxapaha White
Crass 1
Climax 0303 - t Carrb?p;
Snow Ca ?ti c'r
.•iai r'ross RedCi?bSS Sutphin
'Liberty
6 EVERETT Jw4DAjN-.,.
:nalnm / ? tjt, ' LA E `
ale n > GP?y$Chapel
h 111*0 - StalOY +?` ????,
[Iivrf?q j •? ?,
Silk How Gum - g
o / Urn
Springs a
ICoClar %ts o 11 Fran?N++invrlle
rth Ashe or Ramseur ?. Pfttsboro
1 P 'filer Ci C
1._ ? H A T-
Asheboro - ?'
reST, 03 7
z 1. ?(
1gro 3 0 .30 0 Mt (Arno Springs
\\` r
Bonles ° r
Coleridge } , ?. _ yam.
Ja cur
Sear Crook
`
.G
l - Goldston
I ? A?
?HarFer Crsssrnads ti_ uit
Erect ? Sennett
I

N
?e
-t,
* r?gnter
/rrington
r / _ f
? rienQs
ow H61
onsal
Me ryy ak*r mr
i
tagrov?=rx r riot O Oct oa --
_Ra,-r:
cr,
Ga rbcn'!?n F? t "nion
5 mi. 0 5 mi. 15 mi.
1:625,000
Source: Hydrologic Unit Map -1974 State of North Carolina
A Alamance County, North Carolina

2126 Rowland Pond Drive
Willow Spring, NC 27592
(s,s)2,5-,ss3

[phone] fax
Apa111 tlrY?aN11F?. YIC wn. by:
CLF FIGURE
MITIGATION SERVICE AREA Ckdby:
WGL
CRIPPLE CREEK MITIGATION SITE Dace:
April 2008
rl?-(? l C

t
as < -,-
a u.hyFork
Hurdle Mills
s ?
caldatQU.? 1

Axiom 26Ro Rowland TOPOGRAPHY AND DRAINAGE AREA ci_F FIGURE
2126 Rowlandd Pond Drive
A21
Willow Spring, NC 27592 CRIPPLE CREEK MITIGATION SITE
[phone] April 2008
(919) 341J839 fax
Alamance County, North Carolina Ro;ert
Mom Emrwim«,m, IM. 07-016
11 11

i?
F+
0 50 100 200 300 400
Feet
Jt Legend
r?r 'T z f' The Bank Boundary = -19.6 acres
iary v Existing Streams = 4139 linear feet
' Hydric Soils - Not Drained = 1.9 acres
Drained Hydric Soils = 6.9 acres
"a
d ?/ ? r?i
-24
e tat
?y w
Property Boundary
The Bank Boundary
Legend
a
I :.s
awn. by
CLF FIGURE
2126 Rowland Pond Drive N R C S SOILS MAP Ckd'r
Willow Spring• NC 27592 WGL
[phone] CRIPPLE CREEK MITIGATION SITE Date:
[phone] fax April 2008
Alamance County, Norah Carolina ��c
Am EmmarAU 1AL 07-016

III
W
Q
I
O
OW
II ? II
L L T
to
y) 11 it it x II I? 2 C
`i C_O I«C .
M ?
UQD?i Owm vi
•` m A E
f s
s ?
m
? u (7
N
C II
" N 0 10 N
f/ry7 '001 r' m V Tr
m 11 it 11 xx II ?' E
UO am3 w m In
Y
m
t
A
i a
R
S a t t . It i t
0
N
? I I
10 O
N it
.Z5 a=C.1: 7." L G
U N O 10 1'?
S ly ovi7 y,p" alp
u u u' S n N x E
AD a
UQO?iOm 5; wmN
Y A
G
m / A
2-I
? t a t t e a t t?
+G u
LOU
m n
4 11 ?
CNI X 10 Q ?`
??ovx=^vi=E
i ` off c m
U a3: am?wmu
x
a ? en A
p ! a

c
C
O O

Z
w I _
O
0 O
w
m Um

'CQ ? f0
?
Lx
z N O
s
3 $
w
? n
IA 4 ?
? N m W
1
it
U N 10 A fh Q1j? 41 j,
it It n ' x 11 N x E
m y Y 11 Y W
a
U¢ O O m w m 0
A
JIm R
i
f
r „
1
t 3 9 St a
n
N
1K 11
0 4
17 m 0
n K n
??a='??c r
19 O
,on
°^rn=?
v m
11 u n
m Y I¢ Y II II Y
N
Ha om3wmai
R
? R
N \
?f
gvlR?®s°

rl?
V II
N QW
? 11
fn ?o mm' m~
u n° x n S E
x_c0_1«cm
U? a? ? m? w m y

9
A

W
? II
? 01 O
L+f
? II
??a=tr A S 8
j? ? t0 (O L L
O^ r 10 N'm NA) m~
N!? II II II NM E
g 12 C Q« C m
a
0-3.m -o
a
Y
C A
m
L A
4
ss
C
O
U
O
Cn
r/1
O
U

A
a.
a
y
R
i
1
7
Y
C
m a

?II
a i -
I

Ul)
W
?I II
?
z
M
P V
?O
>, N CA
OIL II m?.?-N~ ply
n° II x= n u u E
Y >Y C?Qr m u If
11 x
ctl
Y
d
¢030ca LLw?n y
a3oE
r 10
R R
m ..
?
-
c
O o
O
a °rn
g -
U-
-

S 8°
8
3
S 3 ° 8
8°
U61RA813 - UOl)enal3
?
Y ? T
C
co
U ? C
U 0
? ,
(D IM
m a?ca

a` fl.? ?
U
L
?E M
M O
U
L ?Z
cn
r
W
II II
ma
co ?M 0 F
d
II 11 IX=1f 11 III E
m Y M' F co
03:06 U-MU)
i 1 R
R
m
m
r c
C O
O ?
CL r
L
B 8 S w S°
uOl;enal3
S
N
N?
? N
'
C i
u
?
O
fD N .-. '- N
m pI D 0) - M "N
V

c N
° c IV
_ v
%rnvlaca

J O t
H !- U Qi "M M m it O
11
NONNYna
N
ro I
-T 11 cli
n ?
all n a? 75
co
a i 07 d'(n
?J?Q J
I =
_
i
9
o
}
N
( ' m s
?
c N n
N
`
M +f (?
O ?P 8
U 0
a
?
0
U 1 w
? to 8
O
U a
S
?I 4
3 4 g 8 g S R°
C z
W?
(?j y IL
cc -
maw
0
i= C d
?c S °
E Q N o
_ Zo
yg
O

C
2 2 22
m
Val N W . 7
r
C .C C ^
fn
00 O

C
L CrO? m
m
C 2 0 0 0-
m 200°•o
Q-• 62 O m 7
m
C `ac
p
??oop m m
U C,MN 0
C p 0 0 0 0 p L
moo 0ON0 C
000? ?
p
? m

m m
d' 0'
0
..
_
m011DC 00p N
II it I
m
If >
m m- N O 0
y_. >(p?Oj_ p I I
inUnc?cntnln d
a
i

8 m 8
o?2 c-i
N II II
II _ x
" a 1-
??o
a

N
0
8
O
° In
2
a a s s s
u0gena13
? ? C C tQ
NOO
l co O.C
(0-5
U
c (D

a Q. O Rf
?E ? L

C'm U E O
E Z
Q
U

r

f U.o1 .Y..
C
co o
z
w
? 00
0
c
O 0
LL

co

N ? N O

I N f7
ui
W
8
0

s a9 M'1411-1 -71

;. ` m

.., mWoT ? .s s

# cc L

^
n
7 C 10
% C
Co Cc
0 cn

c c U U

a
(D

3 °
C3 E a>

m
0
0 m U) U O? J

U)
0
I !
Z i
c >1
Yw c ca
:c
.v o
m
a)c? ?U
c? " c
CU
.C E E o
U ca z
.? Q
U)

F
5 +a"

FIGURE
Axiom 26Ro lanmental,lne RESTORATION PLAN-WETLANDS cLF
2126 Rowland Pond Drive
A21
Willow Spring, NC 27592 Date_
(919(215-1697 CRIPPLE CREEK MITIGATION SITE Apn12008 Q
(919) 341J679 fax v
Alamance County, North Carolina Project
Azrom Env?ranmental. Iro 07-016

Z,
OI
U
cn,
c
U?
w,
LL
LL
Q
U
a!

wi
O
C
a
w
z
z
Q
U.
Jj
U1
F
Z
c?
W
}
?o
c
?$m
4 ? w
Z V
3
z
J
CL
J
w
z
Q?
U
Q

i
zw
O J

Z
0
Z
LU a
LL
c¢
c
W Z
Q a'

CL W
0¢ a
z
?+
4
as o a
my? °m
°x
m cc
kWq uw?
b 7?4
F i
g i
?7 Cc
??xYj! O - Y
- ry t
17 r
LLgg
-0 1
N y 0
lm 7 C ?
U
c
c U
ca
?
.o
s 2
a fl fII m iU
c
C t
?E O
U y Z
Q
O
w
U)
0

m

C

e
0 Q l
<
m
a
?
?
?c

z , z O
g
z i W 7 c w
m I U Z U O U?J ` ?•
L F--
c w m ? N d a') F--L) Lu
w` w a d Q (?0 L U)i
m
E ~O E ?O $ m
Nz p c ° 4
m o 0
u`
o wi
> p
°N,>
F. 10N,>
Z
O y Nn PN O d V w 0
° pm 2 ; G wC
ILI
yl ^\.. ._ rc b
Qu V ;jj
.0 z
I
q ' w
JR.
c ? HE 3 I e? -? y ?, ya
w r
x N?? i z
a s? 8 m LL o
?, a? w LL 3 y
sw?~
© LL? ?? a
rc t;
W 'so
wG? ti? .16 - 0
? Lls a ? ? 6< I C a
9 G ,?
?\+ gc o ?u 4w ? =
O o I N
a w
o' Q LL5w
1. z
O = j
2o
p
0
J
Q
U U
J
Y 3 D }Q
zP ` 36- r gy ?g =a a g S ~
w
V -?? ? w gp 9 wpw q5q
6 FLOW 8° S
o o° 6 rc o s
a? 2g 'o o
c
w
? o72
oa 0
_z
Ws R
1
0 60 120 240 360 480
Feet
APPENDIX B
NCDWQ STREAM FORMS
Appendices
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
. Tayto r tea, t'it P?r jU0,4 TfAO
21C UTl
PAP- U4 4-t. F.AA C.-ty

AN WWWd KNO Ok SON~ say, "*WOOL "00* "IM Kft
r++?Xw?Twt..M....eq?.tMFM.tws..?4q ? t ?3 •
To tom. y, 7`
Appendices
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
? *s rNErrw.r'r
Afto -- IM IWIMEW -ISM
APPENDIX C
FLOOD FREQUENCY ANALYSIS PLOTS
Appendices
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan 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
h
w
200
d
150
L
m 100
50
0
1 10 100
Return Interval (years, logarithmic scale)
-4--Rural -*-Urban
APPENDIX D
REFERENCE REACH DATA
Appendices
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
Cripple Creek - Reference
Profile(2007)
Average Water Surface Slope
0.0050
Revised Revised Revised Revised
Bed Water Riffle Pool Run Glide
Point Northing Easting Description Station Elevation Elevation Slope Slope Slope Slope
3 4983.890464 4923.019 mr 0 96.27505 96.62823
5 4983.028631 4930.615 mr 7.64 96.45304 96.64457 0.0000
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 0.0040
17 4987.847824 4963.508 gl 47.11 95.37654 96.79508 0.0000
19 4990.299983 4967.565 run 51.85 95.36865 96.79288 0.0000
21 4991.28771 4971.154 br 55.57 96.68222 96.81259 0.0053
23 4997.055315 4974.188 mr 62.09 96.73645 96.97729
25 5003.415043 4975.95 tr 68.69 96.66492 96.97578 0.0124
27 5010.85257 4978.509 gl 76.56 95.86507 96.97242 0.0000
29 5017.331021 4980.32 p 83.28 95.59388 96.97807
31 5018.879499 4984.858 run 88.08 95.98354 96.97325 0.0001
33 5018.911439 4988.019 br 91.24 96.52754 96.97532 0.0007
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 0.0029
43 5019.0624 5027.701 gl 132.49 96.32928 97.08658 0.0020
45 5022.217717 5030.593 run 136.77 96.49462 97.08489 0.0000
51 5016.996448 5047.274 tr 155.01 97.13766 97.48939
53 5015.425002 5057.461 gl 165.32 96.30301 97.49493 0.0005
55 5013.688318 5067.197 run 175.21 96.1424 97.5031 0.0008
160 5016.896427 5071.028 br 180.21 97.20114 97.47411 0.0000
163 5019.330236 5071.536 tr 182.69 97.24383 97.51244 0.0154
165 5022.646635 5072.568 gl 186.17 96.64016 97.49287 0.0000
167 5030.061499 5074.785 p 193.91 96.14456 97.50325
169 5033.467568 5077.923 p 198.54 96.76319 97.49768
171 5038.206325 5084.293 p 206.48 96.63752 97.49142
173 5042.708709 5090.555 p 214.19 96.62304 97.49813
175 5048.947092 5094.363 p 221.50 96.17676 97.51102
177 5051.053849 5098.646 run 226.27 96.5452 97.50619 0.0003
179 5051.362743 5102.884 br 230.52 96.8775 97.5053 0.0000
181 5050.349008 5106.854 tr 234.62 96.99601 97.49141 0.0000
183 5046.88504 5110.121 gl 239.38 96.56007 97.51061 0.0040
185 5043.231104 5115.045 run 245.51 96.43885 97.49449 0.0000
187 5036.577439 5120,875 br 254.36 97.31409 97.52423 0.0034
189 5035.014329 5125.173 mr 258.93 97.21974 97.52058
191 5035.780988 5133.019 mr 266.82 97.41674 97.65958
193 5033.492582 5158.13 tr 292.03 97.89491 98.07676 0.0147
average 0.0082 0.0002 0.0022 0.0009
min 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Valley Slope 0.011696 max 0.0154 0.0008 0.0053 0.0040
215 5025.047251 5158.004 0.0000 100.7051
216 5004.284488 5045.512 114.39 99.50674
217 4980.925145 4960.965 202.11 98.3413

r
O
0
Cl)
O
LO
N
d
O
L
a
L
V
d
d ?
a?
'L C
U ?
w
d
Y
d
d
L
U

I
I
i
i
i
I
00
rn 0

rn L
rn
O
O
N
O
U'i
0
0
0
U)
+ o
rn

a°
N
V
U
U
(y) uogena13
T M--,. T.--!

a
E
o F i?
v E
s
o ys -
a?v
.Q
L
E c
0
m
`o
c
xx

E
a
V
U
a
U
(y) uopenal3
"°0 rk°oooa°gl?°o
APPENDIX E
FRESHWATER MUSSEL SURVEY REPORT
Appendices
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
The
Catena
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
1.0 I, TRODUCTION
Restoration Systems (RS) is in the process of developing a stream and wetland mitigation
bank (Cripple Creek Mitigation 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 3,782 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). More 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 (Fusconaia nrasoni), brook floater (Alasmidonta varicosa), Carolina
creekshell (Villosa vaughaniana), Savannah lilliput (Toxolasnra pullus) and the yellow
lampmussel (Lanrpsilis 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 oil 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-stern 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 2.25 person hours of survey time. Two species of aquatic snails, the pointed
campeloma (Campelonra decesirun) 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 anthropogenic (channel modification, etc.) causes. The impoundment
downstream 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.
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.
APPENDIX F
MBRT AGENCY MEMBER COMMENT LETTERS
Appendices
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
Regulatory Division
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WLM NGTON OMMIM COEDS OF ENGNUMS
P.O. BOX logo
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAP XINA28402-1890
May 15, 2007
Action ID No. SAW-2007-01188-201
Mr. Randy Turner
Restoration Systems, I.LC
1101 Hayes Street, Suite 107
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Dear Mr. Turner:
t .:
i?
The Corps received the proposed Cripple Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank
Prospectus and Mitigation Plan on March 12, 2007. A Ktigation 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 IX 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
Vy
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 VIRmington, 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 Borth Carolina. The purpose of this meeting will be to
determine if there is a need to revise certain dues?old 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 hMRT 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.
11. The vegetative success criteria could be modified to ensure that a stable, climatic plant
community can become established on the site.
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, days from the date of this letter; otherwise, your application will be withdrawn.
Please contact me at 919-876-8441, extension 26 if I van 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 27711
Mail Code: E143-04
Ms.Shar Bryant
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Habitat Conservation Program
Post Office Box 1,29
Sedalia, NC 27342-0.129
Mr. Howard Hall
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services
Ecological Services
P. O_ 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
Page I oft
Wtpiams, /kndfew E SAW
From: [e-mail]
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2017 4:2 PM
To: Williams, Andrew E SAW; Manuele, Jean B SAW
Cc: [e-mail]: [e-mail]; Howard [e-mail];
Daryi.Eamb@ncmad,net; McLendon, Scott C SAW
Subject:. Cripple Creek Mitigation Bank (Action ID SAW=2007-0118&-201)
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 (Action 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 and/or 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. I 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 this 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 Wetlands Section
109 T.W. Alexander Dr.
Durham, NC 27711
MAIL CODE: E143-04
phone [phone]
cell 9196619-7519
4/23/2007
WMiitiams, Andrew E SAWN
From [e-mail]
Sent Friday, April 27, 2047 9:39 AM
To: Il Forns, Andrew E SAW
Cc: MaAftwsYa"@epam Lepagw, bryants5? k net [e-mail]
tammyJhI naLnet< rw*Qrestarationnsyderns.com
Subject: Cripple Creek Mftdlon Bank
April 27, 2007
Andy,
This provides informal comments on the proposed Cripple Creek Stream and
Wetland Mitigation Bank in Alamance County. I say i0ormal because the
thoughts are mine, 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 as 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 (2S6 acres). The>plan calls for stream
restoration and Level II enhancement of 4,300 and 141 linear feet,
respectively. This would create 4,357 stream mitigation units. The
effort also involves riverine wetland restoration-'and enhancement of S.9
acres and 1.S acres, respectively. Hon-riverine imtland restoration and
enhancement would occur on 1.2 and 0.6 acres, respectively. Overall,
the bank sponsor seeks 8.25 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 Haw River watershed
will probably continue to be influenced more by the 'impoundment and any
release schedule from the dam. There would appear to be limited
opportunities for upstream mitigation of aquatic org¢nisms from below
the dam or downstream migration from the bank site to Boyd creak and
beyond. However, I recognize that there area opportunities to establish
on-site habitat far wildlife and aquatic organisam. ? wine the
impo -Anent 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 S.1) seeks to restore a stable
meandering stream. Based on my limited knowledge of the finer points of
stream restoration and enhancement, the plan seems adequate. I believe
others 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 communities are Piedmont alluvial
forest and dry-mesic, oak-hickory forest. The area of restored wetlands
would be 9.2 acres. The plans for wetland restoration/enhancement
(Section S.3) and vegetation planting (Section S.4) seem adequate.
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 items 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 acre:
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 domipated in the mature,
climax community. These wouldbe 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 breakdown 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. (1)
absolute abundance, (2) relative abundance; and, (3) diversity of the
preferred species.
Third, absolute abundance should apply only to the preferred species.
This is the criterion where the 260 stems/per acrd applies. All the
preferred species Other planted, naturally requited, or existing
prior to restoration) can be considered in reachi#g this goal. The
current plan for Cripple Creek proposes (p. 18) an acceptable measure of
absolute abundance, 260 characteristics trees/acrs in year five.
Fourth, relative abundance refers to the percent of atems of the
preferred species versus all other stems. This is a measure to ensure
that aggressive colonizers do not overwhela the desirable,
characteristic species. I suppose it is possible that a restoration
site could have the required 260 stems//acre after'.five yearss, but if
there were over 1,000 stems of red maple, sweetgui'a, 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, such so Woody stems, must be the appromed aster stic
species. In 2002, David Lekson proposed a standard for forested wetland
restoration which stated that no more than 200 of`the tree stems on the
site could be undesirable invaders (that 3s, at least 80e of the trees
must be the desired species). More recently, a bank has proposed that
"undesirable species . . . should constitute leap than 104 of the total
population." I'm not sure the term should" represents a definite
success criterion. At this time, I can't provide.justification for
fixed standard of relative abundance, but the range of 50-903 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 cgs 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
proportion desired in the mature community, then success could require
the survival of at least SO 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 503) it represented at the start of the restoration
effort. For example, if green ash constituted 100 all preferred species
at the start of the restoration effort (after any. Planting), this
species must represent between 5% 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 declines, but no species would
be allowed to disappear from the community.
The key concern here is to have a simple, 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 stemalacre. In this regard, red maple and
sweetgum can be characteristic species for some natural communities and
should be counted toward success, but without a seod 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 end of the monitoring
period. A recent commercial bank has .proposed that vegetative success
would require 70 of target species should be present in viable
populations. This is a constructive proposal, Z I think the
percentage of surviving species should be at least 60%. 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 sweet%=, to contribute to
vegetative success. While these 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. Such 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 fend on the Service website at
http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/cntylist/alamance.htm . A major concern would
be for mussels that are state-listed or FSC. I acs pleased that the
sponsor intends to conduct "appropriate investigations" 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 (CBS) given in the
interagency stream mitigation Guidelines (SMG) of April 2003. The SMG
allow for the sale of 25t of credits upon completion of all initial
physical and biological improvements. The current proposal (p. 20)
would increase this level to 55% after planting and delivery of
"as-builts."
At this time, I do not believe the Mitigation Bank Review Team (MBRT)
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 SNO 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 hoer these funds would used
to complete the work if the original benk.sponsor could not. The use of
a performance bond to replace the incentives of x gradual release of
credits opens up a whole range of questions regarding how 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, how 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 wor=ld 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 thefirst bond. If the
first bond is terminated after initial construction (which would be my
guess), are there financial assurances that work can be redone 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 SS% 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 SKG. The original agencies that developed the Sm 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, throughout the entire'monitoring period.
There could also be a consideration of gatablishing a two-tier system
for private, mitigation bankers: one tier for those with an established
record of successful banks and another tier for those 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 working capital
to comply with the current CRS. In any case, the',standards for
established banker would need to be written out in detail before any
changes in the CRS are approved. The standards should be very specific
with virtually no "wiggle room .Al otherwise, each new MM 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
4
Howa.td F. Hall
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Ecological Services
P'. O. Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Ph: 919-856-4520, ext. 2:7
Fax: [phone]
e-mail: howard hallofws.gov
i

5 a

)NAtFA
MkInd F. Easley, Go"MM
VApiam G.. Ross )r- secaetsy
Notch Carolina Dew of EavkonnmK =d NOW R esawcas
Ahn Vi(-iC mck. P.F- .D'a+ M
Drimon of ataeec Quality
Mr. Andrew Williams
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
April 11, 2007
Re; Comments ou Proposed Stream and Wetland Mitigation; Project
Cripple Creek Mitigation Bank
Alamaace County, NC
USAGE Action ID No. SAW-2007-01188-201
Dear. Mr. Williams:
Rhmi . V-
APR IS M
RAMGHMMMT0J Y MgLO:0MQ
On March 23,2W7, Eric Kulz and Tammy RW with the. Divis on of Water Quality (DWQ) 401
oversight and Express Review Permitting Unit attended an oarsitemeeting at the proposed-mitigation
site. to make .gb atioas and to discuss the pr4ect with Restoration Systems, LLC and other regalaWry
making the Mitigation Bank Review Team (MBR` ),-
age ies up
Based on the site visit and the Prospectus provided for the proposed project, our comments are as
follows:,
la general,, the site appears to be a good candidate for reonsfiostlenhaneementactivities. Both
the impacted wetlands and streams would benefit f the proposed mitigation activities.
DWQ recommends a tree survey of the poject site to identify individual hardwood trees that
could potentially benefit the restoration, p=esses thtrouh, input of organic matter into the system
and plr wA'dmg a aativo seed So to:s-xis su«xssic . o the site Pokqo*
currently in place and under development from DWQ target har&ood trees that are five inches
DBH or greater as providing an ecological benefit to the steam and am put of an established
and fimctiomrig riparian zone. Efforts should be ma& to preserve as many of these trees as
possible.
• DWQ recommends harvesting native bed material from the stream for use m the restored: stream
channel. Despite the fiwt that the channel has been straightened and areas of bank erosion and
incision are present, well-developed cobble riffies are pmt at a number of locations. As much
of this material as possiNe should be harvested for use in the rifrles of the restored channel.

401 ovmdttFe Review ft miMmg (lace
IM MIgSaV=CWAM Raleigh, Notde CatoRM 27694-1650
=I Globose lNelewtd. Sale 2A RW=gb. Noah Caolma 27604
Pboae (919) 73347K/ fax (91) 733-M
An EwM OWmtnft#&n**Adim Empbyw- tD% RegdeMO%PW Cor NW Paper
Andrew VMams
S. Army Corps of Engineers
Clippte Creek Mitigation Bank
Page 2
• 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 rele= schedule proposed in the Prospectusjs not consistent with the Stream Credit
Release Schedule presented as Appendix IX of the Stream Mrigation 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-cas"OMCation
of the release schedule based on "track record" of the lank 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
Instrament for this project, and can be used for this site. Otherwise, DWQ recommends that the
stream credit release schedule adhere to th6 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. Karolyn Program Manager
401 Oversight and Express Review Program
Cc: File Copy (Eric Kulz)
Tammy Hill
Daryl Iamb - WSRO
Central Files 1+?` Carolina
401 ovmighUExprm Review Permitting Unit
1650 Maio Smice Center, Raleigh. North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 cmbtrm Bouic iard,'Suite 250.. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone (919) -733-17861 Eax [phone] '
Internet: hEt rJ1h2aenrstate.nc:usfncweUands
An EqW opporW1 r(AftMM Acton Empbyer - 50% Recydedt10% PostCmseer Paper
0 North Carona l c
D vaor
MEMORANDUM
Hai Caaservateon?'.. Commission 92
To: W. A0 w , JWJIjgk.R F`a d OffrA
U. MAnvar-o _ o EVOMOS
FROM. Region Coordinator

DATE: 27 Apt 2007
SUBJECT: CdP* QO& bfit*d t Bank, R=W atiost Ste, UA Akma= Co j ay, Nbr&
CuDlim Acbm II? No. SAW-2W7-01 I W2M
Maims Addrew: Divisima€iaiaad Fhdwies • Mail Sexvix:Cmw . RaIagk NC 27699-1721
Tdq&oac (919) 707-MO - Fax (M) 707-M
2'd 5296'6*i?'9EE IueRJH 3Je4S eiS:60 LO G2 .idy
I
Pap 2
27 Apn12007
Cripple Creek 1? Ap im Bank
Acd m ID No. SAW-2DO7-0I2 H8-201
Tbissite has do poteWal to be a goad stem and w i land poste stion aft& Tbc pogo strmm
restmadoncobsomement, and pmswvxdw w bao of E wda jEAidaqmft=d:
'EQiGttrW
wiidM . We offer tbe: following cc and---- oas the prosper Md
I ra4l tion Play
i
1. Theme ( w d ACmgwdapt,Plan:(Sectian LI, W, i)awbxOng livestock from
3 grc=v6 stiieam bob apdp ? ' t?eea na de 7a is tbert t getzon P1sn
zWv ftbo w Hvetock try bo Pleasa taciude datals ash tlramet d fag, X83
be used to exc iv?backfc+o mft mi nbardc.
2. It is qrl tbec restock crooasi wat.be??m arras aglr of **4= n or wadand
if s *Mshm"
t?a+wionaty sag. if
?? mac tea. fist
stttmm aarctrap d?€is and l
soasiflg txt pra?ersl,? fc? :tl?a croe
strum, tea cgW? o? badatta?cbe?a?od.a?ta
apps stream banL This allows ft ode W Cl
O=w,tb HwcowkJw*crosaed, ft.csbks cam bete
from gffia.
to
ra a

n
3. A portion. of &e st:nm dnrmd wiR be Qonsbuctod on a new locatiw wkbin tha a4acros
&wdglak Pia , Swdm S.Li,pg t4 Wb? m$es=bta, nwe aooa sppfieant to
remain substtabe vxdcnd frmn tba mro to trsa this eta tnstetl? is tba-near
cbmwel.
4. Tbt agplic ma panpases an,acxd - lim l crept
Sa;riar 7.2, M 2OX Wlii(a we roco icon ffi?
?ZQOnr?».sii Pa?abst±a?atb
wed Imtbe Strsa? man ?ertfda ? 'fbem?ose aars-? t6an
sc>;eee?uul? ? this Bade abo? bad w? t6aaerEesait St?e;:e - . ? . tiaida
2QQLfk Tbt?Cv?c+icldwppastsa??o?e?.gsfipchn?re
the emraar cxmdit Wegaa sea detaifad isY fire Gatde (llpn'l
5. The apphead into= to conduct to detanirirre itlisted maasel species may be present in
the er iaAmed d p ,omPb4 Sacdm, 8.2.2, pg_ 22). We
rwommmd atw surveys beconducted `by bwkWmw bath stalt" said federal err im*ered
SpocimpmMitL
Tbw* you foe the apps ti&y to comment on this project. if we can provide hirthor assistance,
please eoutact our office at [phone].
ec: Ryan Habc, WRC
Caeey E)aldey, WRC

J
%URR.tg T jw4S Q T S = 6o LC LZ jdu
E ' d SZ9L ' 6i?i? ' 8EE
•

-? RECEIVE
IWIN9420
4 LEIGH B OUTORY FIELD OFFICE
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
PeesR 5wdbG* A&a1btM*X
Mdnd F. Fmky, Goveam Office of A=bivea and ffnwq
Lisbe& G Evam. Secaem" Dma = of Fiiumc i Rewu
Icmi1. CWW. DRMY S-=" David Beo* Dkemc
May 2, 2007
Andrew Williams
Department of the Army
Corp of Engineers
6508 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
Re: Cripple Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank, Southeast of Intersection of SR 1750 and SR 1729,
Two N31es 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 undertaking as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservatiods 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 Gledh&Eadey, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763, em. 246. In all future
communication concerning this project;, please cite the above referenced traclang number.
Sincerely,
#AFM
Peter Sandbeck
,wee . refepb-/Fa
507 N. Mw.=Sa=% Raleg6 NC 1617 MA snit Csw= Rd*h NC 27699-617 (919}733-763/733.8653
IMSTORMON 515N,3kx-SucmRakObX 46176f1Sa"=C=W"vO14CVM-1617 (919)1]}6547(715- M
SURVEY& FLANIM4G 515N. B1oax Soso% Raidgli, NC 4617 bW Sa ke Cams; Raidgh NC 27699-4617 (919)733-"n154001