20130184 Ver 1_Mitigation Information_20130111

TO
MON OF:
Division
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 2 0 1 3 0 1 c3 4
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343
January 10, 2013
Action ID No: SAW- 2007 - 1188 -201
SEE DISTRIBUTION
Dear Colleague:
This correspondence is in reference to the Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank that
is proposed to be developed by Mogensen Mitigation, Inc. This proposed mitigation bank is
located at 333 Bunnie Huff Road, approximately 1,500 feet northwest of Bunny Huff Road, and
approximately 2,500 feet north of Dennys Store Road, east of Roxboro, in Person County, North
Carolina. The proposed bank is a non - umbrella bank. You have been invited to meet onsite on
January 16, 2012 with the project proponent and MBRT participants from interested state and
federal agencies. The purpose of this letter is to solicit comments regarding the enclosed
Prospectus submitted by Mogensen Mitigation, Inc., dated December 2012 (revised January 2,
2012), and/or any concerns observed during the January 16, 2012, site inspection. A public
notice requesting comments on the prospectus will be issued shortly.
Please provide your comments within 30 days of the date of the forthcoming public notice.
All comments should be submitted to:
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27617
Thank you for your time and cooperation. Should you have any questions, please contact me
at (919) 554 -4884, extension 23.
Sincerely, -- —
i
Eric C. Alsmeye LhWR___ ,&F ,TER Regulatory Project Manager nd5 & W8tw Branch
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Enclosure

DISTRIBUTION:
Mr. Jeffrey Garnett
US Environmental Protection Agency — Region 4
Wetlands Planning and Coastal Protection Section
61 Forsythe Street SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
Mr Eric Kulz
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1650
Ms Kathy Matthews
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh Field Office
PO Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636 -3726
Ms. Shari Bryant
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
P.O Box 129
Sedalia, NC 27342 -0129
Copy Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. Richard K. Mogensen
President
Mogensen Mitigation, Inc
P O. Box 690429
Charlotte, NC 28227

TAR RIVER HEADWATERS
STREAM MITIGATION BANK
PERSON COUNTY, NC
MITIGATION BANK PROSPECTUS
Submitted to:
f -R3@
. j4N 70,4 20'3
D NR - WATEH Ut1lU
Wslfands w tee 3ranch
THE NORTH CAROLINA INTERAGENCY REVIEW TEAM (IRT):
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Prepared and Submitted by:
Mogensen Mitigation, Inc.
Charlotte, NC
In Coordination with:
ROY N. HUFF & FAMILY
DECEMBER 2012

Dan
MOGENSEN MITIGATION. INC
January 2, 2012
ATTN: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
United States Army Corps of Engineers- Raleigh Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Dear Mr. Alsmeyer,
On behalf of Mogensen Mitigation, Inc. (MMI), I am pleased to present this Final Prospectus for the Tar River Headwaters
Stream Mitigation Bank. Previously MMI submitted a draft prospectus for your review and comments. The MMI team has
addressed your items of concern in the following ways:
1. Specify your proposed service area. The service area is the USGS HUC 03020101. This item is addressed in the first
paragraph of section I.A. (pg. 1), the first paragraph of section I.C. (pg. 2), and in section III.A (pg. 5).
2. Need property owner's telephone number, and signed agent authorization form, before the 16 January field
inspection. This item is addressed as the last item of the figures section (pg. 43).
3. Coordinates of the site in decimal degrees. This item is addressed in section III.A. (pg. 5).
4. State definitively whether or not there are any wetlands within the bank area. The riparian area at the upper end of
the bank site shows on the National Wetland Inventory as PFOIA. This item is addressed in Exhibit B, Section 3.2 (pg. 12).
5. Page 2 of the draft Prospectus states that this 12 -digit HUC has been included in solicitations from NC -EEP for Full -
Delivery stream and buffer mitigation, but you need to include identified watershed needs that the bank would meet. This
item is addressed in section I.A. (pg.2).
6. Please specify whether OR NOT the site has any of the following limitations: Existing easements, utility corridors,
mineral or water rights issues, extensive invasive species, and /or beaver activity. The issues of existing easements, utility
corridors, and mineral rights are addressed in section I.D. (pg. 3). The issues of extensive invasive species, and/or beaver activity
are addressed in section 3.1 (pg. 12).
7. Please identify and address any existing impoundments, culverts or other conditions affecting stream hydrology
(e.g., the pond and culvert upstream of UTI, and any outlets of the offline ponds adjacent to UT2). This item is addressed
in Appendix B (pg. 10).
8. Describe the existing "at- grade" crossing (shown on the map following page 15 as a "ford"), and explain in more
detail what is meant that it will be "further enhanced, as necessary" (page 10). Please disregard the "ford crossing" graphic
located on the SQA location maps. This item was not intended to be placed on these maps. Further description of this item is
located in the last paragraph of Exhibit B (pg. 10).
9. What are the target functions of the proposed restored and enhanced streams? This item is addressed in the Design
Features and Approach section (pg. 38).
10. What is the date of aerial photography used as the base map for the Conceptual Design figures? The aerial
photography used as the base map for the Conceptual Design figures was acquired in 2010 by Ecological Engineering, LLP.
Please find the revised pages and replace them with the existing pages. We appreciate your review of this Final Prospectus and
look forward to discussing it as well as seeing you on January 16th for the site visit. If you require additional information, please
contact me at (704) 576 -1111 or rich @mogensenmitigation.com.
Sincerely,
Richard K. Mogensen
Mogensen Mitigation, Inc. President
P.O Box 690429
Charlotte, NC 28227
Phone: [phone]
Email: rich @mogensenmitigation.com
cc: Jeremy J. Poplawski, Mogensen Mitigation, Inc.
Lane Sauls, Ecological Engineering, LLP
Dave Penrose, Watershed Science
AN D 4 ?_012
W - _aTM goat lr
Branch

r
NM
MOGENSEN MITIGATION. INC
December 19, 2012
ATTN: United States Army Corps of Engineers- Raleigh Field Office
Dear Mr. Alsmeyer,
Mogensen Mitigation, Inc. (MMI), is pleased to submit this Draft Prospectus for the Tar River Headwaters Stream
Mitigation Bank (Bank) for comment and consultation, as well as the establishment of the Interagency Review Team
(IRT). The purpose of the Bank is to permanently restore, preserve, and enhance approximately 3,500 linear feet of
degraded unnamed tributaries to the Tar River for the purpose of providing off -site compensatory stream mitigation
for authorized impacts related to public and private development within the Tar- Pamlico river basin.
The Bank consists of 20 acres of cattle and horse pasture, which includes two unnamed tributaries to the Tar River.
The site is located within one parcel, all owned by one individual. The Bank is located in Oxford, NC, which is
located near the eastern border of Person County. The Bank is bordered by Bunnie Huff Road to the southeast and the
Tar River to the southwest. The Bank is located in the 8 digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03020101 and within the
EEP targeted -14 digit HUC 03020101010010 within the Tar River watershed.
The Bank is proposed by MMI serving as Bank Sponsor, with technical assistance from Ecological Engineering, LLP,
providing design, engineering, and implementation support. Our team will be comprised of MMI with technical
support from Ecological Engineering, LLP, and Watershed Science (hereafter referred to as the `MMI Team'). The
MMI Team provides a unique combination of professional experience that will prove valuable in ensuring the
successful implementation of the Bank. Our team of professionals has provided mitigation assistance to a variety of
clients, both public and private. The clients our Team have assisted include the North Carolina Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (EEP), the North Carolina Department of Transportation, private developers, Metropolitan
Washington Airport Authority (MWAA), and the New Jersey Transit Authority.
We appreciate your review of this Draft Prospectus and look forward to discussing it and scheduling an onsite visit in
the near future. If you require additional information, please contact me at (704) 576 -1111 or
rich @mogensenmitigation.com.
Sincerely,
Richard K. M gen en
Mogensen Mit a on, Inc. President
P.O Box 690429
Charlotte, NC 28227
Phone: [phone]
Email: rich @mogensenmitigation.com
cc: Todd Tugwell, USACE- Wilmington District
USEPA
USFWS
NCDENR/DWQ
NCWRC
Jeremy J_ Popiawski;.Wgensen Mitigation, Inc.
Lane Sauls, Ecological Engineering, LLP
Dave Penrose, Watershed Science

MOGENSEN MITIGATION, INC.
TAR RIVER HEADWATERS STREAM MITIGATION BANK
PROSPECTUS
I. INTRODUCTION
Mogensen Mitigation, Inc respectfully submits this prospectus (Prospectus) for the proposed Tar River
Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank (Bank) in Person County, North Carolina This Prospectus was
prepared in accordance with the Final Rule for Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic
Resources, (Federal Register, Vol 73, No 70, April 10, 2008), and all appropriate state guidance. The
Prospectus is submitted to the U S Army Corps of Engineers — Wilmington District (Corps), Chair of the
Interagency Review Team (IRT) to formally initiate the planning and agency review process
A. Purpose, Objective and Need. The purpose of the Bank is to provide mitigation for
unavoidable impacts to waters of the US, including wetlands, which result from development
related activities authorized under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Section 10 of the Rivers
and Harbors Act of 1899, and all applicable state statutes, provided such use has met all
applicable requirements. The Bank's objective is to provide economically efficient and flexible
off -site compensatory mitigation opportunities for the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) and/or other public and private permittees requiring mitigation credits for
unavoidable impacts to regulated streams and riparian buffers The Bank would be established to
compensate for wetland and other aquatic resource losses anticipated by such authorized
development within the Bank Service Area in a manner that contributes to the long term
ecological functionmg of the Tar - Pamlico Drainage Basin, with an immediate goal of no- net -loss
and a long -term goal of a net gam of stream functions and services. The goals of the Bank
include the restoration, enhancement, and permanent preservation of approximately 3,600
linear feet of degraded tributaries to the Tar River as well as restoration and enhancement of
approximately 14 7 acres of bottomland hardwood riparian buffer
The purpose of this Prospectus is to provide regulatory agencies with sufficient information on
the establishment and operation of the Bank and to initiate regulatory review through conveying
an interagency Review Team (IRT) with its sponsor, Mogensen Mitigation, Inc It is expected
that this Prospectus will be the basis of a formal Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI) The MBI
will be developed by the Sponsor to establish the Bank The MBI will contain the Site
Development Plan and will include location maps, summary of existing conditions and reference
sites, hydrologic analysis, design criteria, success criteria, long term real estate instrument, and
plans and specifications for construction, operation, monitoring and maintenance of the Bank.
Need. This Bank offers the opportunity to greatly enhance and improve the ecological conditions
of the regional watershed The Bank will provide improved and sustainable ecological and
hydrological functions for the proposed mitigation bank service area It will be effectively
managed in perpetuity and will not impact or degrade any areas with high ecological value Due
to the degraded existing conditions, the site has a very high probability of meeting the prescribed
success criteria, while also meeting the requirements of all other applicable federal and state laws
The adjacent land uses will not adversely affect the perpetual viability of the mitigation bank, as
Page 1 1

much of it is in a protected area of mature National Heritage forest, of high Natural Resource
value. This Prospectus details the above - mentioned information as it relates to the site. The
sponsor, Mogensen Mitigation, Inc., does not anticipate any problems meeting the prescribed
financial responsibility requirements. Recent NCEEP Full- Delivery solicitations in this HUC
have specifically asked for streams, wetlands and buffers mitigation sites demonstrating current
and future needs for mitigation in this HUC.
B. Location and Ownership of the Mitigation Bank. The Bank covers approximately 20 -acres of
one (1) parcel, totaling 228 acres, (Figure 2), and is owned by Roy and Joyce Huff. The
landowner has agreed to allow the stream restoration and to place the land under a conservation
easement so that the site will be protected in perpetuity. Specific information regarding the
ownership status is provided in the chart below. The parcel location is presented on Figure 2. A
survey will be prepared, delineating the area to be protected.
Table 1.
Current Owner
Address
Pin No.
Total Acreage of Tract
Tract No.
155 Old Durham
228.34 Total
Roy N. Huff
Road, Oxford, NC,
0956 -00 -32 -3145
(Only floodplain acres will
8094
27573
be purchased)
C. Project Description. The Bank is located in Person County, near Roxboro, North Carolina,
within the Piedmont Physiographic Province. It lies within the NCEEP targeted 14 -digit HUC
03020101010010 of the Tar- Pamlico River Basin (Figure 1.). The Sponsor proposes restorative
work to approximately 3,600 linear feet of degraded unnamed tributaries to the Tar River within a
14.7 acre project area. The project area is currently used for livestock grazing and contains
ditches and channels that convey nutrients, sediment, and other agricultural pollutants into the on-
site tributaries. Restoration of the streams and riparian buffers would reduce sediment, nutrient,
and pollutant exports from the project area thereby improving the overall water quality of this
headwater tributary to the Tar River. The mitigation plan will include the restoration (including
the dimension, pattern, and profile) and the enhancement of this Tar River tributary. Narrow
areas of riverine wetlands may be restored and/or created for additional habitat diversity in areas
of the old, abandoned channels.
The objective of the restoration plan is to restore the
primary stream and wetland functions and values
associated with nutrient removal and
transformation, sediment retention, flood -flow
attenuation, and wildlife (both aquatic and
terrestrial) habitat. While many of these benefits
are limited to the project area, others, such as
pollutant removal and improved terrestrial and
aquatic habitat, have more far - reaching effects.
Project goals relating to water quality, hydrology
and habitat, and the objectives for meeting these
goals are outlined below.
Page 1 2

Project Goals
• Improve water quality by facilitating increased nutrient removal and reducing sediment and
pollutant loads to surface waters
• Restore natural hydrology by increasing water storage and improving hydrologic connections
• Restore terrestrial and aquatic wildlife habitat and improve wetland habitat connectivity
Project Objectives
• Remove 14 7 acres of agricultural land from production through livestock exclusion fencing
and a permanent conservation easement, thereby reducing sediment waste and nutrient loads
• Provide permanent protection through conservation easement for the floodplain of the Tar
River headwaters and its tributaries within the project area.
• Significantly reducing sediment loads by stabilizing the stream banks and riparian areas with
native riparian vegetation
• Improve water quality by significantly reducing nutrient loads by fencing out cattle and
providing a 50 to 200 foot buffer around the stream channel
• Establish a diverse, ecologically - appropriate, riparian forest community within the
conservation easement area
Stream restoration will follow methodologies consistent with natural channel design
protocols In addition, riparian buffers, ranging from a minimum of 50 feet, to a maximum of
200 feet in width, will be established along both sides of the tributary The vegetated buffers
help to filter pollutants and nutrients before entering the channels This, along with stream
restoration, will aid in reducing the overall sediment export from the site Upon completion
of restoration activities the project area will be fenced, permanently excluding livestock from
the project area, ensuring sediment and nutrient exports from the project area are minimized
Restoration of the channels will include changes to the dimension, pattern and overall profile
Natural structures consisting of rock cross vanes, single -arm rock vanes and rootwads will
assist in channel stabilization and provide habitat for wildlife, both aquatic and terrestrial
Floodplain benches will be established along both sides of the channels to provide an area for
flood attenuation Asa result, more area will be available for flood storage without the
increase of flood elevations
D. Water Rights. Sufficient water rights exist to support the long -term sustainability of the Bank,
as there are no "severed" rights on the property Details on the proposed hydrology of the Bank
are provided in Exhibit C
E. Ecological Suitability and Baseline Conditions. Information collected thus far documenting
the baseline conditions for the Bank site, including existing topography, hydrology, soil,
vegetation, wetlands, and wildlife conditions, are presented in the Ecological Suitability and
Baseline Conditions Report, Exhibit B
Page 13

F. Establishment and Use of Credits. The exact number of credits will be determined once the site
survey, design, and functional assessments are completed by the Sponsor and approved by the
IRT Bank credits will not be released for debiting until specific milestones associated with the
Bank's protection and development are achieved Use of credits will be approved by the Corps
and NCDENR, in consultation with the IRT
G. Review Team. According to CFR Vol 60, No 228 entitled Federal Guidance for the
Establishment, Use and Operation of Mitigation Banks, it is expected that the following federal
and state agencies may comprise the IRT
Federal: 1. US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Wilmington District — Chair
2. US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
3. US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
State: 1. NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)
2. NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
3. NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC)
H. Exhibits. The following Exhibits are incorporated as appendices to this Prospectus
Exhibit A
Bank Location Map
Exhibit B•
Ecological Suitability and Baseline Conditions Report
Exhibit C:
Conceptual Design Plan
Exhibit D•
Service Area Map
H. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE BANK
A. Implementation. The Sponsor agrees to perform all necessary work, in accordance with the
provisions of the MBI and federal and state permits, to establish, enhance, preserve, and maintain
approximately 3,600 feet of unnamed tributaries to the Tar River and approximately 14 7 acres
of bottomland hardwood riparian buffer until it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Corps, in
consultation with the IRT, that the project complies with all requirements, or until all credits are
sold, whichever is later The exact acreages of these habitat types will be determined once the
site survey and design are completed by the Sponsor and approved by the IRT
B. Environmental Documentation. The Sponsor will obtain all appropriate environmental
documentation, permits or other authorizations needed to establish and maintain the Bank This
Prospectus does not fulfill or substitute for such authorization
C. Establishment of the Bank. Establishment of the Bank will be performed as described in this
Prospectus and the credits will become available in accordance with the credit generation
schedule specified in the MBI In the event the Sponsor determines that modifications must be
made in the design plans to ensure successful establishment or enhancement of habitat within the
Bank, the Sponsor shall submit a written request for such modification to the Corps for
distribution to the IRT
Page 14

D. Financial Assurance Requirements. The sponsor shall provide financial assurances, as
acceptable by the Corps, in consultation with the IRT, to ensure a high level of confidence that
the Bank will be successfully completed and maintained in perpetuity The details of these
financial assurances will be provided in the MBI
III. OPERATION OF THE BANK
A. Service Area. The Tar River Headwaters site is part of the Tar - Pamlico River Basin, situated
within US Geological Survey (USGS) hydrological unit code (HUC) 03020101 and NC Division
of Water Quality (NCDWQ) sub -basin 03020101. The stream enters the project site from the
northeast and flows in a southwesterly direction across the project site. The calculated drainage
area of the site is approximately 475 acres (0 74 square miles). The stream system flows directly
into the Tar River approximately 2 miles downstream of the site.The proposed bank size covers
nearly 3,600 linear feet of stream channel headwaters tributaries to the Tar River The
tributaries are enclosed by a "brown polygon" on the US Geological Survey (USGS) Triple
Springs 7 5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle Map (Figure 1), and are denoted as a "light- blue
line" on the Soil Survey of Person County Map (Figure 2), (Sink, 1995)
B. Assessment Methodology. According to the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Stream
Mitigation Units (SMUs) are determined by using the formula [SMU = (Restoration/ 1.0) +
(Enhancement Level 1/1 5) + (Enhancement Level H/2 5) + (Preservation/5 0)] as noted in the
Stream Mitigation Guidelines (USACE, 2003) The proposed bank is located within a 228 34
acre tract of land that consists primarily of active cattle pasture. A summary of the stream
reaches within the Bank is provided in Table 2. The watershed area indicated for the main stem
Unnamed Tributary (UT) to Tar River (UT #2) was measured at the southwestern property
boundary The watershed area for the second UT was measured at its current confluence with UT
to Tar River
Table 2.
The Bank exhibits approximately 2,406 linear feet of stream restoration, 1,098 linear feet of
stream enhancement (Category I) and 5 7 acres of buffer restoration Table 3 depicts existing
linear footages and acres to proposed stream mitigation units (SMUs) and buffer mitigation units
(BMUs)
Page 15
LENGTH
WATERSHED
STREAM
(linear feet )
SQ. MILES
ACRES
DOMINANT LAND USE
UT# 1 (UT to UT Tar
516
02
124
Actively Grazed Cattle Pasture
River)
UT #2 (UT to Tar River )
3,165
15
960
Actively Grazed Cattle Pasture
The Bank exhibits approximately 2,406 linear feet of stream restoration, 1,098 linear feet of
stream enhancement (Category I) and 5 7 acres of buffer restoration Table 3 depicts existing
linear footages and acres to proposed stream mitigation units (SMUs) and buffer mitigation units
(BMUs)
Page 15

Table 3
PROPOSED MITIGATION
EXISTING
EXISTING
MITIGATION
MITIGATION
MITIGATION
TYPE
LENGTH
SIZE
RATIO
AMOUNT
AMOUNT
linear feet
acres
SMUs
BMUs
Stream Restoration (UT# 1
516
Restoration (1:1)
516
Channel
Stream Restoration (UT #2 — R1
1,517
Restoration (1:1)
1,889
Channel
Stream Enhancement (UT #2 — R2
1,648
Enhancement I
1,098
Channel)
(1.5:1
Buffer Restoration (UT #2- R1
3.6
Restoration (1:1)
3.6
Channel
Buffer Restoration (UT #2 — R2
2.1
Restoration (1:1)
2.1
Channel)
TOTALS
3,681
5.7
3,503
5.7
The restoration and enhancement of streams associated with the Bank will follow guidelines established
by the US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District.
The restoration and enhancement of nutrient offset riparian buffers associated with the Bank will follow
guidelines established by the NC Division of Water Quality. The buffer restoration acreages are
calculated from the edge of the restored stream buffer (50 If) to 200 linear feet or the easement boundary
(whichever is greater). The nutrient offsets and/or buffer mitigation units will be authorized under a
separate Instrument.
C. Success Criteria. The Sponsor shall be responsible for assuring the success of the Bank
establishment activities and goals described in Exhibit C. The success of the Bank will be
measured by performance standards approved by the Corps and NCDENR, in consultation with
the IRT, as set forth in the Corps and NCDENR permits and the NMI. The standards define the
conditions under which the Bank would be judged successful and provide monitoring and
maintenance requirements to uncover and correct deficiencies. The Bank will be considered
successful if the Sponsor demonstrates to the Corps and NCDENR that the appropriate areas have
been established, enhanced, or preserved and the goals of the Bank have been met. After
successful completion of each planning, construction and monitoring task, the Sponsor shall
notify the Corps and NCDENR in writing. In addition to the written notice, the Sponsor will
submit photographs of the completed project task along with a photo location map. The Corps
and NCDENR, in consultation with the IRT, will confirm whether or not the tasks are
successfully completed for purposes of releasing credits.
D. Conditions on Debiting. Prior to the sale of any credits, the following requirements will be met:
(1) the NMI and mitigation plans will be approved by the Corps and NCDENR, in consultation
with the IRT; (2) financial assurances satisfactory to the Corps and NCDENR shall be posted; (3)
all applicable regulatory permits and approvals will be secured; and, (4) the NMI will be signed
by the Corps and NCDENR and any members of the fRT who choose to sign the instrument.
Page 16

IV. MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING OF THE BANK
A. Maintenance Provisions. The Bank will be designed to be self - sustaining over time However,
some active management and maintenance is anticipated to ensure the long -term viability and
sustainability of the Bank The Sponsor agrees to perform all necessary work to maintain the
Bank consistent with the maintenance criteria established in the NMI The Sponsor shall continue
with such maintenance activities until closure of the Bank Prior to Bank closure, an acceptable
third -party non -profit land steward will be identified and will accept and maintain the
conservation easement area Deviation from the approved maintenance plan is subject to review
and written approval by the Corps and NCDENR following consultation with the IRT
B. Monitoring Provisions. The Sponsor agrees to perform all necessary work to monitor the Bank
to demonstrate compliance with the success criteria established in the MBI, and any regulatory
permits, for a period of 5 years within the conservation easement or until success criteria are met,
whichever is later The monitoring will begin at the end of the first full growing season following
completion of grading and planting (i e , if the planting is completed in spring 2013, the first
monitoring event would occur in fall 2013) After the initial 5 year monitoring period of the
Bank, the Sponsor, in consultation with the Corps and NCDENR, shall continue to identify any
problems requiring corrective action for an additional 5 years The Sponsor shall provide annual
monitoring reports to the Corps and NCDENR on the long term success of the Bank and to
identify any problems requiring corrective action Any such corrective action shall be taken in
accordance with Section E
C. Reports. The Sponsor shall submit to the Corps and NCDENR, for distribution to the IRT, as-
built grading and planting drawings of the Bank establishment activities and a post - construction
report within 60 days after the date of completion of grading and planting activities The as -built
drawings and report shall include all aspects of the final grading elevations and planting
arrangements of the Bank In addition, the Sponsor shall submit to the Corps and NCDENR, for
distribution to the IRT, eight copies of each annual report on the status of the Bank establishment
activities, prepared during the growing season, no later than December 31 of each of the five
years following initiation of the riparian planting activities in accordance with the permits Two
copies of each report shall be provided directly to NCDENR
D. Accounting Procedure. The Sponsor shall submit a Ledger statement to the Corps and
NCDENR each time credits are debited or additional credits are approved for release If
requested, the Corps may distribute the statement to other members of the IRT or the public At a
minimum, the Sponsor shall submit an annual ledger to the Corps and NCDENR for distribution
to all members of the IRT, showing all transactions at the Bank for the previous year The Bank
sponsor will maintain the Banks ledger within RMITS as necessary
E. Contingency Plans /Corrective Actions. Should any report submitted by the Sponsor to the
Corps and NCDENR note conditions requiring corrective action, the Sponsor shall determine the
cause of the condition, in consultation with the Corps and NCDENR If the Sponsor, Corps or
NCDENR determines the problem is due to design, construction or maintenance deficiencies,
then the Sponsor shall be responsible for corrective action Prior to commencing corrective
actions, the Sponsor shall submit a detailed proposal for such a corrective action to the Corps and
NCDENR for review and approval within 60 days of a determination by the Corps and
NCDENR, in consultation with the IRT, that corrective measures are warranted Once approved
by the Corps and NCDENR, in consultation with the IRT, the Sponsor shall undertake such
corrective action and shall, upon completion, submit to the Corps and NCDENR a summary of
Page 17

the work performed
F. Long -Term Management. As described in Items N A and B of this Prospectus, the Sponsor
shall conduct maintenance and monitoring of the Bank for its operational life. The Bank will be
closed at the end of its operational life, which is 5 years from the date of the completion of the
grading and planting tasks, successful completion of all performance standards, or until the sale
of all credits, whichever comes last. After that, land stewardship and management will be the
long -term land steward's responsibility The MBI will include a Long -Term Management Plan
that describes the long term management activities to be conducted by the land steward and the
maintenance surety for the management activities. The Bank will be protected in perpetuity by
the recorded Conservation Restriction in the Person County Register of Deeds
V. SPONSOR QUALIFICATIONS
A. Mogensen Mitigation, Inc.
The Bank Sponsor, Mogensen Mitigation, Inc (MMI), was formed by Richard K Mogensen in
March, 2011, after a long career in environmental consulting, and specializing in wetland science
and restoration services MMI principles have been involved in wetland mitigation, stream
restoration, and mitigation banking for over 20 years MMI has managed a $25 million marsh
restoration bank over the last 3 years in New Jersey, and was preceeded by the development of
over 10 mitigation banks and full - delivery projects for both NCEEP, and private clients MMI's
personnel have substantial experience in all facets of wetland and stream mitigation in North
Carolina MMI has kept current with NCEEP policies and proceedures, and is familiar with and
capable of land acquisition services, as well as, all other tasks within the MBI The Bank Sponsor
has also successfully completed the following banks
The Pott Creek Mitigation Bank is an approximately 40 -acre bottomland hardwood wetland
and stream restoration project in Catawba County Over 4,000 linear feet of stream restoration
was developed for the NCDOT for future road projects in the Catawba River Watershed The
Forrest Creek Stream and Buffer Mitigation Bank was one of the first combination stream
and buffer mitigation banks in the country, located in Hillsborough, NC The project consists of
8,000 stream mitigation units and 10 buffer mitigation units The Richard P. Kane Wetland
Mitigation Bank is over 240 acres of restored marsh and forested wetland, within 5 miles of
N Y City, MY MMI was directly involved in the design, permitting, and approval, as well as,
providing construction inspection services.
VI. PROJECT CONSULTANT QUALIFICATIONS
A. Ecological Engineering, LLP
Ecological Engineering, LLP (Ecological Engineering) is an engineering and environmental firm
located in Cary, North Carolina Established in 2008, the firm specializes in stream/wetland
restoration and mitigation design, stormwater management, hydraulic/hydrologic studies,
sedimentation and erosion control and natural resources assessment and documentation
Ecological Engineering is currently providing professional engineering and consulting services on
a variety of stream and wetland mitigation- related protects in North Carolina and Georgia
Ms. Jenny Fleming, P.E., firm principal, will serve as senior engineer manager for this project
She has over 17 years of experience working in North Carolina. She will be assisted by Lane
Sauls, Edward Hajnos and Wyatt Brown, all with extensive experience working on mitigation
Page 18

related assignments Prior to Ecological Engineering, Ms Fleming worked with the NC
Department of Transportation and several private engineering companies She specializes in
hydrological assessments and design, including stream restoration She has been extensively
framed in the processes of fluvial geomorphology and sediment transport Although a firm
principal, Ms Fleming remains thoroughly involved with all of the engineering- related protects at
Ecological Engineering She will be involved with all related aspects of this project
B. Watershed Science
Watershed Science is a small, flexible, experienced group of water quality professionals that is
based in western North Carolina, and is specialized in collecting, analyzing and providing the
unbiased scientific information needed to make sound decisions Watershed Science has
extensive experience with the following services
- Aquatic benthos sampling, assessment and evaluation for water quality
- Stream geomorphic stability monitoring and assessment
- Assessment of watershed health and impact sources
- Vegetative assessment of watersheds, streams, or wetlands
- Open channel water quality sampling, flow /volume based, intermittent or time scheduled
- Erosion and sediment control planning and design for a project
- On site supervision of stream and wetland restoration projects
- Evaluation of proposed stream and wetland restorations
- Wetland delineation
- Impact monitoring of development or construction
- Other similar types of water quality data collection and assessment
Mr. Dave Penrose, currently retired from the Water Quality Group at North Carolina State
University, will serve as the primary water quality scientist for the Bank, providing his initial
assessment and subsequent annual assessments throughout the monitoring phases Much of his
work in the last 10 years has been assessing the effectiveness of stream restoration projects using
biological tools, specifically benthic insects In addition to Dave's work with stream restoration
he has also taught many workshops which focus on taxonomy of aquatic insects Prior to his
work at NCSU Dave was employed with the NC Division of Water Quality as a benthic
taxonomist and studied the impacts of both point and non -point sources of water pollution to
aquatic insects While at the NC Division of Water Quality he also worked with the 401
Certification program and became familiar with the policies which govern stream mitigation,
including small intermittent stream features However retirement has proven difficult, Dave
continues to conduct research on restored streams, continues to work with students and remains
active in national policy and technical review committees
Page 19

EXIIIBIT B: ECOLOGICAL SUITABILITY AND BASELINE CONDITIONS REPORT
The Tar River Headwaters Restoration site is located approximately 0 5 mile north of Denny Store
Crossroads in the eastern portion of Person County, North Carolina (Figure 1) The site lies northwest of
the intersection of SR 1536 (Depot Street) and SR 1565 (Gentry Road) It is located in the Tar - Pamlico
River Basin within USGS Hydrologic Unit 03020101010010 and the NCDWQ sub -basm 03020101 The
03020101 sub -basin is long and narrow and includes the mainstem of the Tar and Pamlico Rivers plus
many small tributary systems before it feeds into the Pamlico Sound The drainage area of the project site
covers approximately 475 acres (0 74 square miles) The primary land use within the study area is
actively used for grazing of cattle and horses
The Tar River Headwaters site consists of first and second order headwater tributaries that make up the
Tar River The mainstem channel is formed from headwater wetlands north of the project site, and is
considered a first order stream as it enters the proposed conservation easement The first tributary (UT1),
a first order stream, begins outside the proposed conservation easement below a farm pond This tributary
has a modified channel within the proposed conservation easement and feeds into the mamstem channel,
(UT2 -R2), from the northeast along the left bank of the mainstem stream channel. The main channel
would be considered a second order stream below the confluence with the first tributary. A second
tributary (UT2 -RI), a modified channel considered a first order stream, is located within the proposed
ford crossing and flows southeast through pasture into the main channel UT2 -Rl is stable and will not
adversely affect the project area
The Tar River Headwaters site consists of 3,533 linear feet of existing degraded stream and 19 8 acres of
degraded riparian buffer The restoration reaches are comprised of 3,005 linear feet of main channel and
528 linear feet of a tributary that flows into the main channel from the southeast. Both degraded sections
of stream include proposed areas of riparian buffer restoration and/or nutrient offset mitigation The
mainstem flows south through the pasture to the southern parcel boundary There is little riparian
vegetation along either channel Hoof shear and mass wasting of the mainstem banks is evident
throughout the project area
The main channel south of the existing stream crossing is moderately unstable. Cattle access to and from
the channel is unrestricted and cattle -hoof shear, erosion and lack of suitable riparian vegetation have
increased sedimentation and nutrient amounts into the stream system. The enhancement of this section of
channel via dimension and profile will help to reverse the current channel evolutionary trend In addition,
grade control will be established at the downstream end of the project to ensure and maintain channel
integrity throughout the area The existing at -grade crossing will remain in place and be further
enhanced, as necessary A combination of woody and rock -type structures will be integrated throughout
all of the channel reaches to enhance both aquatic habitats and provide grade control. The existing
channels upstream of the crossing will be restored to a proper dimension, pattern and profile based on
reference data All channels will be re- vegetated with a combination of live stakes and tublings
Transplanting of existing suitable vegetation will occur as applicable
1.0 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
1.1 Topography
The Bank Site is situated in the Piedmont Physiographic Province Elevations at the site range from
approximately 560 feet above mean sea level (MSL) near the upstream property boundary at the main
channel to approximately 550 feet above MSL at the downstream boundary Valley slope is estimated at
less than one percent and extends downslope from northeast to southwest across the Site
Page 1 10

1.2 Hydrology and Hydraulics
The Tar River Headwaters site is part of the Tar - Pamlico River Basin, situated within US Geological
Survey (USGS) hydrological unit code (HUC) 03020101 and NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ)
sub -basin 03020101 The stream enters the project site from the northeast and flows in a southwesterly
direction across the project site. The calculated drainage area of the site is approximately 960 acres (1 5
square miles) The stream system flows directly into the Tar River approximately 2 miles downstream of
the site
1.3 Soils and Geotechnical Characteristics
Chewacla and Wehadkee loam dominate the channel and floodplam within the project area These soils
are described as gently or moderately sloping, somewhat poorly to poorly drained soils that have a loamy
surface layer and clayey subsoil
Based on the Soil Survey of Person County, North Carolma (Sink, 1995), Chewacla loam dominates the
floodplain areas associated with the Tar River Headwaters site (Figure 3) Chewacla loam is classified as
a fine- loamy, mixed, thermic Fluvaquentic Dystrochrept These soils are somewhat poorly drained soils
formed in recent alluvium on nearly level floodplains along streams that drain from the Mountains and
Piedmont physiographic provinces Slopes range from 0 to 2 percent. Chewacla loam is noted as a Hydric
B soil on the Hydric Soils of North Carolina list (MRCS, 1995) Chewacla soils also have inclusions of
Creedmoor coarse sandy loam and small pockets of Wehadkee loam Wehadkee loam is classified as a
fine- loamy, mixed, nonacid, thermic Typic Fluvaquent Wehadkee loam is a hydric soil that developes
within lower swales of the floodplain Slopes are considered nearly level and the soils are poorly drained
The Tar River Headwaters site is located in Person County, North Carolina The site is located within the
Carolina Slate Belt portion of the Piedmont physiographic region of North Carolina Bedrock within the
Carolina Slate Belt consists of volcanic argillrtes, basic and acid tuffs, breccias, and flows Volcanic
igneous rocks rise above the surrounding slates as high rolling hills and small mountains (Daniels et al,
1999)
2.0 CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS
2.1 Water Quality
According to the Basinwide Assessment Report for the Tar River Basin, the Tar River in the area under
consideration has been listed as "Good" in terms of overall water quality for the last 10 years (NCDWQ,
2010) The surface water classification of the Tar River and its tributaries "From source to a point 0 6
mile upstream of Oxford water supply" is Class WS -IV, NSW (NCDWQ, 2012). The WS classification
indicates that the site is within a Water Supply Watershed and the IV indicates that the area is highly
developed The NSW signifies nutrient sensitive waters It should be noted however, the actual condition
of unnamed tributary of Tar River does not reflect this classification The stream is severely degraded,
lacks effective cattle exclusion, and has no riparian buffers along this reach This project should assist
with providing additional protection to the overall watershed The portion of the Tar River within the
project area is not a 303(d) listed waterbody (NCDWQ, 2010)
3.0 BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
3.1 Baseline Plant and Wildlife Surveys
The vegetation at the site is separated into two mayor groupings These groupmgs are based primarily on
topographical position and current land use. The first grouping is located within the lower section of the
Page 111

site downstream of the stream crossing immediately adjacent to the stream banks The vegetation is
dominated by young to mature green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), box elder (Acer negundo), ironwood
(Carpinus carohniana), willow oak (Quercus phellos), white oak (Quercus albs), sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), elderberry (Sambucus canadensis),
Chinese privet (Ligustrum smense), greenbner (Smilax sp ), and sawtooth blackberry (Rhubus argutus)
This vegetation is currently partially managed and consist of less than 100 trees per acre less than or equal
to five inches dbh trees and less than two feet height trees
The second grouping is located throughout the project area This second vegetation grouping is located
through land actively used for pasture of cattle and horses The upper portion of the reach and a small
tributary are barren of woody vegetation within their riparian areas and consist primarily of fescue
(Festuca sp ) and other grasses and weeds Sparse stands of red cedar (Jumperus virgmiana) and black
willow (Salrx nigra) are located immediately upstream of the stream crossing
3.2 Wetlands and Waters of the U.S.
No jurisdictional wetlands will be negatively impacted by the proposed mitigation project Streams are
jurisdictional and will be enhanced, restored, and preserved
3.3 Threatened and Endangered Species
According to the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), there is only one federally endangered species
and nine federal species of concern potentially occurring in Person County (Table 1) (USFWS, 20 10) In
addition, The North Carolina Natural Hentage Program ( NCNHP) identifies another 18 species protected
by the State of North Carolina A review of the NCNHP database of documented occurrences ( NCNHP,
20 10) revealed one occurrence a of State Rare plants within one mile of the project site and one
occurrence of a natural community An occurrence of Glade wild quinine (Parthenium auriculatum) is
present approximately 0 6 mile northwest of the site A `Bask Oak - Hickory Forest' exists immediately
adjacent to the north of the site Habitat for threatened and endangered species does not currently exist on
the project site The proposed project is not likely to impact any protected species
Investigations will be conducted for each of these species and their appropriate habitat requirements as
part of the Mitigation Plan A Section 7 (ESA) clearance will be obtained prior to restoration activities
A review of available databases was conducted to determine the proximity of Significant Natural Heritage
areas to the project site Several Natural Heritage occurrences are located immediately downstream of the
project site in the Tar River The Tar River downstream of the project site is listed as a proposed critical
habitat area and a significant aquatic habitat (Figure 2) A clearance letter will be obtained from the
NCNHP once the contract award has been made. Restoration of the site will provide additional habitat as
well as reducing sediment and nutrient loads to the sensitive waters of the Tar River
A review of available databases was conducted to determine the proximity of areas eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places at the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) No sites were
identified within a one -mile radius of the study area A clearance letter will be obtained from the SHPO
once the contract award has been made
Page 1 12

Table 2. Federallv Protected Species for Person Coun
Common Name
Scientific Name
Federal
Status
Habitat
Currently
Present
Habitat -Post
Restoration
ertebrates
Bald Eagle
Halweetus leucocephalus
BGPA
No
No
Carolina darter
Etheostoma collis lepidrmon
FSC
No
No
Pinewoods shiner
Lythrurus matutmus
FSC
No
No
Roanoke bass
Pmblophtes cavifrons
FSC
No
No
nvertebrates
n
� �
Atlantic pigtoe
Fusconaia masons
FSC
No
No
Dwarf wedgemussel
41asmidonta heterodon
E
No
No
Green floater
Lasmigona subviridis
FSC
No
No
Yellow lampmussel
ampsdis cariosa
FSC
No
No
ascular IS
Smooth Coneflower
Echinacea laevigata
E
No
No
Prairie birdsfoot- trefoil
Lons unifoholatus var helleri
FSC
No
No
Sweet pmesap
Monotropsis odorata
FSC
No
No
Virginia quillwort
soetes virgmica
FSC
No
No
Note
GPA. Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
Endangered denotes a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range
SC = Federal Species of Concern denotes a species under consideration for listing, for which there is
insufficient information to support listing at this time. These species may or may not be listed in the
future
3.4 Water Quality Assessments
Mr. Dave Penrose- Watershed Science
Benthic Macroinvertebrates
Biological monitoring, primarily benthic macroinvertebrates, will be conducted at four locations within
the watershed Data will be collected from these four locations twice each year attempting to determine
longitudinal trends in the fauna and potential sources of perturbation and recovery following
implementation of nutrient management We propose that the data are collected dunng the spring and fall
seasons as these time frames are most appropriate for assessing effects of non -point sources of pollution
and impacts of summer low flows respectively. These data will then be important as watershed
management is initiated
Page 113

Collection Methods Benthic macromvertebrate samples will be collected from these locations using the
protocols developed by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ 2006) These methods
include a kick net samples from a typical riffle habitat, a sweep net sample from a productive bank habitat
(generally this includes fine root hairs to the current along the bank), a sample of leaf pack invertebrates
and a 10 minute "visual' inspection for other cryptic organisms. Samples will be identified to the lowest
practical taxonomic level (genus and species primarily) and given qualitative abundance values similar to
the DWQ These data can then be compared to other similar sized streams in the piedmont during similar
collection periods.
Metrics Analytical metrics that can be used to compare population structures between locations and
surveys included taxa richness (EPT or Ephemeroptera + Plecoptera + Trichoptera and total taxa richness)
and EPT abundance DWQ protocols use subjective values of 1, 3 and 10 that are given for rare (1 -2
organisms), common (3 -9 organisms) and abundant (10 or more organisms) specimens within each taxa
Despite the very small size of the upstream reference location we hope that the fauna at this site has some
intolerant and /or habitat specialists that may recolomze the newly restored reaches of this stream feature
A simple comparison of dominants to common or observed versus expected comparison of the fauna at
these locations may also be used
Proposed Station Locations Four collection locations are proposed for this investigation and will be
monitored during both spring and fall surveys during the term of this project An upstream reference
location will be surveyed above the project These data will be used to determine the potential functional
uplift for the stream feature A second site will be surveyed on the mamstem of the stream above the
tributary draining the farm and a third site will be selected on the mamstem below this tributary These
data may be useful indicators of recovery and /or impacts from the farm. A fourth location will be
surveyed below the project and serve as a downstream recovery location
Reference
NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ) 2006 Standard Operatmg Procedures for Benthic Macromvertebrates NC Department
of Environment and Natural Resources Environmental Sciences Section, Biological Assessment Unit Raleigh, NC
Page 114

Baseline Stream Data Worksheets
Page 115

PHYSICAL CHARACTERIZATIONIWATER QUALITY FIELD DATA SHEET
(FRONT)
STREAM NAME UT—:L
LOCATION 9,1 er J&SaLwa = OXCord
STATION# RIVERMILE
STREAMCLASS o e T tdlef-
LAT ° LONG '7•$.615-63s
RIVERBASIN
STORET#
AGENCY
INVESTIGATORS TeCe -In o ww
FORM COMPLETED BY
G�CYt't O ,qW
DATE � j� ®
TIME PM
REASON FOR SURVEY
p
�SaCit+G � -\re4M SaC Vc
WEATHER
CONDITIONS
Now Past 24
hours
❑ storm (hmvy ram) ❑
O rain (steady ram) O
O showers(intermittent) ❑
°/.O '/"ud cover ❑ %
14 clear /sunny II)
Has there been a heavy rain in the last 7 days'
❑Ys ®.No
Am Temperammlaj*C
Other
SITE LOCATION /MAP
Draw a map of the site and indicate the areas sampled (or attach a photograph)
�11e�.5e ceFc� +e a ACx6nec\ n+wZ pni �zirec)fv ?Il.
STREAM
CHARACTERIZATION
�Spwm Subsystem
Perermad ❑Imetouttem Ordal
Stream Type
❑Coldwater ptYWanmvater
Str m Orgm
Catchment Area 0.94%' km'
❑Glacial fd
re of
ongtns O Non
- glacial nra❑
❑ Swamp and bog ❑ Other
Rapid Bioassessment Protocols For Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers Perrphyton Benthic
Macroinvertebrates, and Fish, Second Edition - Form I A -5
Page 116

PHYSICAL CHARACTERIZATION/WATER QUALITY FIELD DATA SHEET
(BACK)
WATERSHED
Predominant Surrounding Lendose
Local Watershed NPS Pollution
N EA FURES
Forest 0 Commercial
O No evidence ❑ Some potential sources
Characteristic
ru;ld/Pashue 0Industnal
R
DkObvtmssources
Agncultural O Other
Detours
sticks, plant
materials
❑ Residemiel
Local Watershed Erosion
> 256 min (10 ")
0
❑ None 08 Moderate ❑ I leavy
RIPARIAN
� t the dominant typed�d rtimrd the dom gt present �Herbaoeo s
uruvs (i
(I8 meter buffer)
black, very Tine organic
(FPOM)
S
Gravel
dominant species present
INSTREAM
Lstimated Reach Length j?Q m
Canopy Cover
FEATURES
grey, shell fragments
❑ Partly open 91 Partly shaded O Shaded
Silt
Estimated Stream Width O• y 1 m
(yF}
Clay
< 0 004 mm (slick)
High Water Mark to
Sampling Reach Area 5%0mi
Proportion of Reath Represented by Steam
Area in km' (mrx1000) &COSkm=
Morphology Tyges
Eshmated Stream Depth O" 6O m
❑ Ri a /o ❑ Run %
❑ Pool a/
Surface Velocity m/sec
Chanvelized N Yes ❑ No
(at thalweg)
Dam Present ❑Yes ANo
LARGE WOODY
LWD d.0 m'
DEBRIS
Densely of LWD O►O mi/krn (LWD/ reach area)
AQUATIC
Indicate the dominant type and record the dominant species present
Rooted El Rooted ❑ Rooted floating CI Free floating
VEGETATION
emergent submergent
8 Floating Algae ❑ Attached Algae
dominant species present
Portion of the reach with aquatic vegetation _/o
WATER QUALITY
Temperature °C
Water Odors
04 Normal/None O Sewage
Specific Conductance
13 F Petroleum ❑ Chc ical
Dissolved Oxygen
Water Surface Oils
pH
❑ Slick 0 Sheen O Globs 13 decks
.RNone ❑ Other
Turbidity
Turbidity (Jnot measured)
Instrument WQ Instrument Used
y turbid
aOpaque
Q Sttamed ❑OtherTurbid
SEDIMENT/
Odors
Deposits
SUBSTRATE
M Normal ❑ Sewage ❑ Petroleum
O Sludge ❑ Sawdust D Paper fiber ❑ Sand
O Chemical ❑ Anaerobic O None
❑ Rehct shells (@ Olher_j.,0am
O Other
Looking at stories which are not deeply embedded,
Oils
are the undersides black in color'
❑ Absent A Slight 0 Moderate ❑ Profuse
❑ Yes Pj No
INORGANIC SUBSTRATE COMPONENTS
(should add op to 100 %)
ORGANIC SUBSTRATE COMPONENTS
(does not necessarily add up to 100 %)
Substrate
Type
Diameter
% Comyosmoa in
Sampling Reach
Substrate
Type
Characteristic
% Composition in
SampliagAren
Bedrock
0
Detours
sticks, plant
materials
Boulder
> 256 min (10 ")
0
Cobble
64-256 mm (2 5 " -10 ")
Muck -Mud
black, very Tine organic
(FPOM)
S
Gravel
2-64 rim (0 V-2 5 ")
Sand
0 06-2mm (gntty)
Marl
grey, shell fragments
0
Silt
0 004 -0 06 mm
(yF}
Clay
< 0 004 mm (slick)
A-6 Appendvr A -1 Habitat Assessment and Physicochemical Character¢ation Field Data Sheets -Form I
Page 117

HABITAT ASSESSMENT FIELD DATA SHEET —LOW GRADIENT STREAMS (FRONT)
SI REAM NAME VT, 1
LOCATION Z'0./ a�V el JAcs,kt a
STATION# RIVERMILE
STREAM CLASS lk2gAen Tvpe
LAT t}f,_J%N`$l° LONG :jfl Vjr&3ri
RIVER BASIN -To-t— timV,CC,
SIOREI#
AGENCY Nip ensein
INVESTIGATORS Tecern Qo Ic.wS� -.
FORM COMPLETED BY
�<.J ewn� O law5ti.
DATE 1 yljt
TIME tl:oe Pitt
REASON FOR SURVEY
sellvvc y4fe�• —+ �7.)cv
Rapid Bioassessment Protocols ror Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers Periphyton, Benthic
Macroinvertebrates, and Fish, Second Edition - Form 3 A -9
Page 1 18
Habitat
Condition Category
Parameter
Optimal
Suboptimal
Marginal
Poor
Greater than 50% of
30- 50% mix ofsmble
10- 30" /omxofstable
Less than 10% stable
1 b pnfaanal
substrate favorable for
habitat; will -suited for
habnat; habitat
habitat, lack ofhabdo is
Substrate/
epifaunal colonization and
full colonization potential,
availability less than
obvious; substrate
Available Cover
fish cover mx of snags.
adequate habitat for
destmate substrate
unstable or lacking
submerged logs, undercut
maintenance of
frequently disturbed or
banks, cobble or other
populations, presence of
removed.
stable habitat and at stage
additional substrate in the
to allow full colonvatwn
forth of newfall, but not
potemial (i a logs/snags
yet prepared for
that are not new fall and
colonization (may rate at
not transient)
high end ofscale
20 19 IS 17 16
15 14 13 12 ll
10 9 8 7 6
5 4 2 1 0
a
�
SCORE
m
Manure of substrate
Mixture of soft sand, mud,
All mud or clay or sand
Hardpan clay or bedrock
a
2 Pool Substrate
materials, with gravel and
or clay mud may be
barnonK little or no root
no root mat or vegetation.
a
Characterization
firm sand prevalent; root
dominant some runt mats
mat; no submerged
e
mats and submerged
and submerged vegetation
vegetation
v
v et ition common
present.
20 19 18 17 16
15 14 13 12 11
10 9 OD 7 6
5 4 3 2 1 0
m
0
SCOR);
dEven
mac of largo-
Majority of pools large-
Shallow pools much more
Majority officials small-
s
3 Pool Variability
shallow, large -deep
deep, very few shallow
prevalent than deep pools
shallow or pools absent
p
small - shallow, small -deep
Is present
20 19 18 17 16
15 14 13 12 11
10 9 8 7 6
5 4 3 JD 1 0
E
SCORE
a
o:
Little or no enlargement
Some new increase in bar
Moderate deposition of
Heavy deposits of fine
4 Sediment
of islands or point bats
fomation, mostly from
new gravel, sand or fine
material, increased bar
Deposition
and less than QO%of the
gravel, sand or fine
sediment on old and new
development; more than
bouom affected by
sediment; 20.50% of the
bars; 50- WI. ofthe
80% ofthe bottom
sedmien t deposition
bottom affected, slight
bottom affected, sediment
changing frequent!) pools
deposition in pools
deposits at obstructions,
almost absent due to
constrictions, and bends;
substantial sediment
moderate deposition of
deposition
pools prevalent
20 -19 18 17 16
15 14 13 12 11
10 9 8 7 6
ID 4 3 2 1 0
SCORE
Water reaches base of
Water fills >75% of the
Water fills 25-750/6 of the
Very little water in
5 Channel Flow
both lower banks, and
available channel or
available chamrel, and/or
channel and mostly
Status
mmmal amount of
Q5 %ofchannel substrate
riffle substrates are mostly
present as standing pools
channel substrate is
5 exposed.
exposed
SCORE
20 19 18 17 16
15 14 13 12 11
10 9 8 6
5 4 3 2 1 0
Rapid Bioassessment Protocols ror Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers Periphyton, Benthic
Macroinvertebrates, and Fish, Second Edition - Form 3 A -9
Page 1 18

HABITAT ASSESSMENT FIELD DATA SHEET —LOW GRADIENT STREAMS (BACK)
Total Score `? 1
A -10 Appendix A -I Habitat Assessment and Physicochemical Characterization Field Data Sheets - Form 3
Page 1 19
Habitat
Conditton Categary "
ontffnal
Suboptimal
Martrinal
Poor
Parameter
6. Channel
Ckmmeltmnon or
Some channeltmtmn
Channelvnnon may be
Banks shored with gabhon
Alteration
dredging absent or
present, usually in areas of
extensrvff embankments
or cement, over 8(P /o of
minimal stream %dh
bridge abutments,
or shoring structures
the stream reach
nomtal pattern
evidence of past
present on both banks; and
channelized and disrupted
channelivanon, i c,
40 to 800/6 of shrom reach
Instream habrtat greatly
dredging, (greater than
chanmclued and disrupted.
altered or removed
past 20 yr) may be
entirely
prescnt, but recent
channef=ion is not
present
SCORE
20 19 18 17
15 14 13 12 11
10 9 8 7 6
5 4 3 2 1 0
The bends in the scream
The bends in the steam
The bends in the stream
Channel straight,
7 Channel
increase the stream length
increase the scream length
increase the sneer length
waterway has been
Sinuosity
3 to 4 times longer rum if
I to 2 times longer than if
I to 2 tames longer than if
channelEmil for a long
it was in a straight line
it was in a straight line
it was in a stimght lire
distance
(Note - channel braiding is
considered normal in
s
coastal plans and other
lo%4ying areas this
e
parameter is not easily
n
rated in these areas
E
m
SCORE
20 19 18 17 16
15 14 13 12 Il
10 9 8 7 6
5 4 3 2 I 0
0
a
Banks stable, evidence of
Moderately stable,
Moderately unstable 30-
Unstable, many eroded
8. Bank Stability
erosion or bank failure
infrequent, small areas of
600/6 ofbank to reach has
areas, "raw" areas
a
(score each bank)
absent or mmimal, little
erosion mostly healed
areas oferoshon, high
frequent along straight
potential for future
over 5 -30%of bank m
casmn potential dining
sections and bends;
problems <5%ofbank
reach has areasofemsion.
floods
obvious banksioughing
affected
60- 100%of bank has
0
_
erosional scars.
1zftBank 10
8 7 6
5 4 3
2 1 0
SCORE _(LB)
Right Bank 10 ®
8 7 6
5 4 3
2 1 0
o
SCORE _ (RB)
More than 90 %of the
70.90°/ of the strcsmbaiik
50-700/6 of the strramibank
Less than 50% of the
E
9 Vegetative
sireambank surfaces and
surfaces coveted by native
surfaces covered by
surambank surfaces
Protection (score
immediate riparian zone
vegetation, but one class
vegetatnn, disruption
covered by vegetation,
i
each bank)
covered by mdrve
of plants is not %eIl-
obvious, patches of bme
disruption of suearribank
vegetation, including
represented, disruption
sod or closely cropped
vegetation is very high,
Note determine Icfl
trees, understory shrubs,
evident but not allecting
vegetation common, less
vegetation has been
or right side by
or nonwoody
full plant growth potential
it= oneahalf of the
removed to
facing downstream
macrophytes, vegetative
to any great extent, more
potennal plant stubble
5 centimeters or less in
disruption through grazing
than one-half of the
height temammg.
average stubble height
or mowing minimal or not
potential plant stubble
evident, almost all plants
height remaining
allowed to grow naturally
Left Bank 10 9
8 7 6
5 4
2 I 0
SCORE _ (LB)
Right Bank 10 9
8 7 6
5 4
2 1 0
SCORE _ (RB)
Width of npanan zone
Width of ripartan zone 12-
Width of npanan zone 6-
Width of riparian zone <6
10 Riparian
> 18 meters, human
18 meters, human
12 meters human
meters little or no
Vegetative Zone
activities (i c, parking
activities have impacted
activities have impacted
riparian vegetation due to
Width (shore each
bank riparian zone)
lots, roadbeds, clear -cuts
lawns, or crops) have not
impacted zone
zone only minimally
zone a great deal
human activities
SCORE _ (LB)
Left Bank 10 9
8 7 6
5 4 3
1 0
SCORE _ (RB)
Right Bank 10 9
8 7 6
5 4 3
1 0
Total Score `? 1
A -10 Appendix A -I Habitat Assessment and Physicochemical Characterization Field Data Sheets - Form 3
Page 1 19

BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE FIELD DATA SHEET
STREAMNAME LM-3—
IOCATION 't'�,-, Q,,el r�ec�,.t }er$ ItAe
S rATION # RI VERMILh
SI REAM CLASS Rft= Type
LAT LONG '7`6,S(S4,iO
RIVERBASIN Tas-- Qc.n�l:Co
STORET#
AGENCY
INVESTIGAIORS Tete�rrt tia
LOT NUkBER
FORM COMPLETED BY
Tevremy
DATE ll/Ll9 /tL
I TIME 11 -x, eoPM
REASON FOR SURVEY
'iek1vle 5+4-c --
HABITAT TYPES
Indicate the percentage of each habitat type resent
• Cobble _% ❑ Snags_/o Vegetated Banks %
• Submerged Macrophytes_% fA other ( L•oo.
❑ Sand %
)
SAMPLE
Gear used CID -Sank ❑ lock -net
0 Other V Sur.1 a
SSeyynM t
COLLECTION
Hydrozoa
® 1
2 3 4
Zygoptera
How were the samples collected'
❑ wading )q from bank
O from boat
Ephememptera
Indicate the number of labstlucks taken in each habitat type.
Platyhelmmthes
QC`s 1
O Cobble_ O Snags_
❑ Vegetated Banks_
13 Sand_
1 2
O Submerged Macrophytes_
U Other
® 1 2 3 4
GENERAL
1
2 3 4
Coleoptera
COMMENTS
1 2
3 4
Other
QUALITATIVE LISTING OF AQUATIC BIOTA
indicate estmated abundance 0 = Absent/Not Observed, 1 = Rare, 2 = Common, 3= Abundant, 4 =
Dominant
Penphyton 0 2 3 4 Slimes 0 1® 3 4
rilamentous Algae 0 2 3 4 Macromvertebrates 0 1 3 4
Macroohvtes 0 1 2 iii 4 Fish 0 1 [9 3 4
FIELD OBSERVATIONS OF MACROBENTHOS
Indicate estimated abundance- 0 = Absent/Not Observed, 1 = Rare (1 -3 organisms), 2 = Common (3-9
organisms), 3= Abundant ( >10 organisms), 4 = Dommant (>50 organisms)
Ponfera
Q 1
2 3 4
Amsoptera
0
1© 3 4
Chironomidae
& 1 2 3 4
Hydrozoa
® 1
2 3 4
Zygoptera
0
0 2
3 4
Ephememptera
0 1 to 3 4
Platyhelmmthes
QC`s 1
2 3 4
Hemiptera
0
1 2
3 4
Tnchoptera
® 1 2 3 4
Turbellana
1
2 3 4
Coleoptera
OQ
1 2
3 4
Other
0 1 2 3 4
Hirudmea
6)
2 3 4
Lepidoptera
1 2
3 4
Oligochaeta
0
2 3 4
Sralidae
0
1 2
3 4
lsopoda
0©
2 3 4
Corydalidae
1 2
3 4
Amphipoda
® 1
2 3 4
Tipulidae
®
1 2
3 4
Decalxida
01
2 3 4
Lmpididae
1 2
3 4
Gastropoda
® 1
2 3 4
Simuludae
1 2
3 4
Bivalvia
Q 1
2 3 4
Tabtnidae
1 2
3 4
Rapid Bioassessment Protocols For Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers Periphyton, Benthic
Macroinveriebrates, and Fish, Second Edition - Form l A -25
Page 120

Page 121
i
� l "k a �b i ��• 4 4
1:
4V,
,� ,
tip
.(� t � -�•3
m a �. .
�
+ .
�,-
', #l� /. •i of �._
• All
�
1
N
1 '
C
'
It
)VA,
all
me g:*
Aerial F4wY" ?4NP 2072
SOA_Location
5-�? GPS Farm Ponds
UT1 Stream Quality Assessment
Location Map
- -- UT2_R2 Easement (19.8 ac)
UT1
Ford Crossing
PAM
UT2_R1
p 150 app 600 Feet
vcceh�+ WT7ATQN. Inc
Page 121

UT1 Stream Quality Assessment Location Photo
Page 1 22

PHYSICAL CHARACTERIZATION/WATER QUALITY FIELD DATA SHEET
(FRONT)
STREAM NAME V'r— & Rl
LOCATION ae Z:,er e.Zwc e� ^ocZ
STATION # RI VERMILE
STREAM CLASS p n T O rc� ei
IAT 36,jjjT t° IONG -7.6.V519 &35°
RIVERBASIN Tp(— Qarn�..CO
STORET#
AGENCY Mc en Se l\
INVESTIGATORS J'ecerrry ;Zo t♦q�.!$k,
FORM COMPLETED BY
DATE _4, d lk ®
TIME I� vM
REASON FOR SURVEY
V�yG::•.G °J��Cnfh �J., /Vej
WEATIIER
CONDITIONS
Now
❑ storm (heavy ram)
❑ rmn (steady —)
❑ showers (mtermrttent)
_ %❑ %cloud cover
M clear/sunny
Past 23
hours
❑
❑
❑
❑_%
(
Has there beep m a heavy rain in the last 7 days'
❑ Yes No
Air Temperature_'° C
Other
SITE LOCATION /MAP
Draw a map of the site and indicate the areas sampled (or attach a photograph)
7k Qkea.Se C e-q e t NO
MWQ cX•,�X Ql`%ckV3r1k %'
STREAM
S am Subsystem
Stream Type
CHARACTERIZATION
JqPemmial ❑ Intermitlem ❑ Tidal
O Coldwater Oq Wamrwater
StreamOngm
CatehmentArea ,C 7j k,2
❑ Glaetal ❑ 5prmg-fed
❑ Non - glacial montane )4 bMrame of
ongrns
Cl Swamp and hog ❑ Other
Rapid Bioassessment Protocols For Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers Penphylon, Benthic
Macroinveriebrates and Fish, Second Edition - Form I A -5
Page 123

PHYSICAL CHARACTERIZATION/WATER QUALITY FIELD DATA SHEET
(BACK)
WATERSHED
Predominant Surrounding Landuse
Load Watershed NPS Pollution
FEATURES
U Forest _ O Commercial
U No evidence O Sonic potential sources
Characteristic
Ficld/Pasime U Industrial
04 obvious sources
IU Other
Detritus
socks, wood. coarse plant
materials ( M)
U Residential
Local Watershed Erosion '
> 256 mm (10 ")
U None 14 Moderate U Heavy
RIPARIAN
VEGFTATION
ip�e -Ie the dominant typed S� record the ducat V a es present Herbaceous
aces nnms u�cimSses
(18 meter buffer)
aP
Gravel
dominant species prexml
7. REAM
Estimated Reach Length �m �
Canopy Cover guided ❑Shaded
Mart
grey shell fiagmenb
Partly open 4 Parity Ll
Silt
Estimated Stream Width ��_m
3S
Clay
<0 004 mm (slack)
High Water Mark m
SamplmgReach Area .5.0 m'
Proportion of Reach Represented by Stream
Area in km' (m'xt000) ! .XV5'km-
Morphology Types
U Riffle % O Run
Estimated Stream Depth O. W in
U Pool a/o
Surface Velocity m/sec
CLanuelized DQ Yes O No
(at thahveg)
Dam Present 13 Yes NNo
I.ARGF WOODY
LWD lr�m'
DEBRIS
_
Density of LWD _m'/km' (LWD/ reach area)
AQUATIC
Indicate the dominant type and record the dominant species present
VEGETATION
WRooted emergent O Rooted submergerd
U Rooted floating U Free floating
U Floating Algae U Attached Algae
dominant species present
Portion of the reach with aquatic vegetation
WATFR QUALITY
Temperature °C
Water Odors
NNormal/None U Sewage
Specific Conductance
U Petroleum CILI=Mcal
U Fishy U Other
Dissolved Oxygen
Water Surface Orb
pH
U Slick U Sheen U Globs U Flecks
shone U Other
Turbidity
Turbidity fit not measured)
WQ Instrument Used
U Clem Shglnly turbid U Turbid
U
U Opaque U Stained Other
SEDIMENT/
Odors
Deposib
SUBSTRATF
IN Normal Cl Sewage U Petrokum
U Sludge U Sawdi st U Paper fiber U Sand
U Chemical U Airaembic U None
U Relict shells U Other
U Other
Looking at atones which are not deeply embedded,
ib
a the un rsides black in color'
rt
Absent U Slight U Moderate U Pro
U Yes Al No
INORGANIC SUBSTRATE COMPONENT'S
(should add up to 100 %)
ORGANIC SUBSTRATE COMPONENTS
(does not necessonly add up to 100%)
Substrate
Type
Diameter
%Comyositionin
Sampling Reach
Substrate
Type
Characteristic
%Ccmposrbonin
tamp lug Area
Bedrock.
0
Detritus
socks, wood. coarse plant
materials ( M)
Boulder
> 256 mm (10 ")
Cobble
64-256 mm (2S " -10 ")
Muck -Mud
black, very fine organic
(FPOM)
Gravel
2-64 into (0 1"-2 5 ")
Sand
0 06 -2imn (gritty)
Mart
grey shell fiagmenb
Silt
0 0040 06 nun
3S
Clay
<0 004 mm (slack)
.S
A -6 Appendix A -I Habitat Assessment and Physicochemical Characterization Field Data Sheets - Form I
Page 124

HABITAT ASSESSMENT FIELD DATA SHEET —LOW GRADIENT STREAMS (FRONT)
STREAM NAME
LOCATION 'T Wl.V ei v
STATION # RIVERMILE
STREAM CLASS TE
LAT _V,34323js LONG
RIVER BASIN
STORET#
AGENCY {tin er.$e+7 (v►,tE. ck:on c
INVLSIIGAIORS 'JettM t vwS
FORM COMPLETED BY
1l0 kci.✓5V,
DATE (I /Wla
e
TIME tl_ >o ®im+
REASON FOR SURVEY
b-,wi — 5 rc,%,n ucve
'
Habitat
_ Condition Category
Parameter
Optimal
Subophmal
Marginal
Poor
Greater than 50% of
30-50% mix ofstable
10- 30% mix ofuable
Less than 10% stable
1 Epifaunal
substrate favorable for
habitat, well -suded for
habitat; habitat
habrtat; lack of habitat is
Substrate/
epifaunal colonmation and
full color ation poteirtad,
availability less than
obvious, substrate
Available Cover
fish cover inn of snags,
adequate habitat for
desirable substrate
unstable or lacking
submerged logs, undercut
ma atenmhce of
frequently disturbed or
banks, cobble or other
populations presence of
removed
stable habitat and at stage
additional substrate in the
to allow full colonization
form of newfi1l, but not
potential (i c�, logs/snags
yet prepared for
that ale not new fall and
colonization (may rate at
not transient)
endofscale)
20 19 18 17 16
15 14 13 2 11
10 9 8 7 6
5 4 3 2 1 0
a
SCORE
e
Momin: of substrate
Mixture of soft sand, mud,
All mud or clay or sand
Hard -pan clay or bedrock
a
2. Pool Substrate
materials, with gravel and
or clay, mud may be
bottom, little or no root
no root mat or vegetation
5
Charactenzabon
firm sand prevalent, root
dominant: some root mats
mat; no submerged
emats
and submerged
and submerged vegetation
vegetation
7
vegetation common
present
20 19 18 17 16
15 14 13 n2 11
10 9 8 7 6
5 4 3 2 t 0
m
a
SCORF
Even mot of large-
Majority of pools large-
Shallow pools much mare
Majority of pools small-
;,
3 Pool Variability
shallow, barge -deep,
deep very few shallow
prevalent it= deep pools
shallow or pools absent
small - shallow small-deep
Pools Present
20 19 18 17 16
15 14 13 12 11
10 9 8 7 6
5 ® 3 2 1 0
8
SCORE
n`m
4 Sediment
Little or no enlargement
of islands or point bars
Some new increase in bra
formation, mostly hem
Moderate deposition of
new gravel, sand or fine
Heavy deposits of fine
material, increased bar
Deposition
and less than <201/6 of the
gravel sand or fine
sediment on old and new
development; more than
bottom affected by
sediment; 20-50% of the
bars, 50-80% of the
80%of the bottom
sediment deposition
bottom affected, slight
bottom affected sedrownt
changing frequently punR
deposition in pools.
deposits at obswcnoas,
almost absent due to
constrictions, and bends,
substantial sediment
moderate deposition of
deposition
pools prevalent.
20 19 18 17 16
15 14 13 12 11
10 9 7 6
5 4 3 2 1 0
SCORE
Water reaches base of
Water fills >75 %of the
Water fills 25 -75%of the
Very little water in
5 Channel Flow
both lower banks, and
available channel, or
available channel, and/or
channel and mostly
Status
mmhmal amount of
<25% ofchannel substrate
riffle substrates are mostly
present as standing pools
channel substrate is
is exposed.
- Posed.
SCORE
20 19 18 17 16
15 14 13 12 11
10 a 8 7 6
5 4 3 2 1 0
Rapid Bioassessment Protocols For Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers Periphyton, Benthic
Macroinvertebrates, and Fish Second Edition - Form 3 A -9
Page 125

HABITAT ASSESSMENT FIELD DATA SHEET —LOW GRADIENT STREAMS (BACK)
Total Score M
A -10 Appendix A -1 Habitat Assessment and Physicochemical Charactercation Field Data Sheets -Form 3
Page 126
Habitat
(- onditi on Category
O 4ma1
Sobo hmal
Ma iced
Poor
Parameter
6 Channel
Chamielimtronor
Somedtamrelimtton
Clanoelvation may be
Banks shored with gabion
Alteration
dredging absent or
present, usually in areas of
extensive, embankments
or cement, over 809/a of
minimal, stream with
bridge abutments,
or shoring structures
the stream reach
normal pattern
evidence of past
present on both banks, and
charmed zed and disrupted
charinclrzation, r e,
40 to 80`3 of stream reach
Instream habitat greatly
dredging, (greater than
channelized and disrupted
altered or removed
past 20 yr) may be
entirely
present, but recent
channelizanon is not
present.
20 19 18 17 16
15 14 13 12 11
10 9 8 7 do
5 4 3 2 1 0
SCORF
The bends in the stream
The bends in the stream
The beads in the stream
Channel straight;
7 Channel
increase the stream length
increase the stream length
increase the stream length
waterway has been
Sinuosity
3 to 4 tines longer than of
1 to 2 tines longer than if
I to 2 tires longer than if
channelized for a long
it was in a straight line
it was in a stmught line
it was in a straight line
distance
(Note - channel braiding is
considered normal in
coastal plains and other
low- lymgareas. This
O0
parameter is not easily
g
rated in these areas
m
SCORF
20 19 18 17 16
15 14 13 12 It
10 9 8 7 6
5 4 3 2 1 0
a
Banks stable evidence of
Moderately stable;
Moderately unstable, 30-
Unstable. many eroded
8. Bank Stability
erosion or bank fadure
infrequent, small areas of
60% of bank in reach has
areas, "mw" areas
Ti
apotential
(score each bank)
absent or mm®al. little
for future
erosion mostly healed
over 5-30 % of bank in
areas of erosion, high
erosion potential during
frequent along straight
sections and bends,
o
problems <5 %of bank
reach has areas of erosion.
floods
obvious bank sloughing;
affected
60-100% of bank has
o
erosional scars
Left Bank 10 9
8 6
5 4 3
2 1 0
t
SCORE _ (LB)
Right Bank 10 9
8 7 6
5 4 3
2 1 0
Xi
SCORE _ (RB)
More than 90% of the
70 -900A of the streambank
50-70% of the strewnbank
Less than 50%of the
E
9 Vegetative
streambank surfaces and
surfaces covered by native
surfaces covered by
streambank surfaces
Protection (score
immediate riparian zone
vegetation, but one class
vegetation disruption
covered by vegetation,
i
each bank)
covered by move
of plants is not well-
obvious, paid= of bare
disruption of streambank
vegetation including
represented, disruption
sod or closely cropped
vegetation is very high
Note determine left
trees, understory shrubs,
evident but not affecting
vegetation coriurion, less
vegetation has been
or right side by
or nonwoody
full plant growth potential
than one-ltalf of the
removed to
facing downstream
macrophytes vegetative
to any great ertem. more
potential plant stubble
5 centimeters or less in
disruption through grazing
am one -half of the
height renaming.
average stubble height
or nowmg minimal or not
potential plant stubble
evident, almost all plans
height remaining,
allowed to STw natural)
Left Bank 10 9
8 7 6
5 4
2 1 0
SCORE (LB)
Right Bank IO 9
8 7 6
5 49 3
2 1 0
SCORE _ (RB)
Width of npanan zone
Width of ripanan zone 12-
Width of npanan zone 6-
Width of riparian cone <6
10 Riparian
>18 meters, human
18 meters, human
12 meters, human
meters little or no
Vegetative Zone
activities It e, parking
activities have impacted
activities have impacted
riparian vegetation due to
Width (score each
bank riparian zone)
lots roadbeds, elear-cuts,
towns, or crops) have not
zone only rti...fy
vine a great deal
human activities
miliected zone
Left Bank 10 9
8 7 6
5 4
2 1 0
SCORE (LB)
Right Bank 10 9
8 7 6
5 IV 3
1 2 1 0
SCORE _ (RB)
Total Score M
A -10 Appendix A -1 Habitat Assessment and Physicochemical Charactercation Field Data Sheets -Form 3
Page 126

BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE FIELD DATA SHEET
STREAM NAME a,�`yl,l
LOCATION Ty %ww r
STATION# RiVII2MILE
STREAMCLASS
LAT3f,,'',gji LONG'-
RIVERBASIN
STORET #
AGENCY Mo crn5 en Nil { � t n nt •
INVESTIGATORS ,T«e�n• �e 1.�++lSk.
LOTNUMBER
FORM COMPI F1 FD BY
' U--re- y 1MU1 1L..
DATE /47,
TIME U�g_ ®PM
REASON FOR SURVEY
SC r y
HAB17 AT TYPES
Indicate the entage of each habitat type present
RCobble t"* 0 Snags 5- % 12kVegetated Banks
RkSubmergedMacrophytes_(L% OOther
XSand-492 %
SAMPLL
Gearused OD -fame Ulack -net
(Other
>r-
COLLECTION
Hydrozoa
19 1
2 3 4
Zygoptera
How were the samples collected'
0 wading )4 from bank
O from boat
0 m 2 3 4
Indicate the number oflabslmeks taken to each habitat type
01
2 3 4
• Cobble ❑ Snags_
❑ Vegetated Banks_
❑ Sand_
Tnchoptera
• Submerged Macmphytes
❑ Other (
)_
GENERAL
Coleoptem
0® 2
3 4
COMMENTS
0 1 2 3 4
Hirudmea
1
QUALITATIVE LISTING OF AQUATIC BIOTA
Indicate estimated abundance. 0 = Absent/Not Observed, I = Rare, 2 = Common, 3= Abundant, 4 =
Dominant
Penphyton ® 1 2 3 4 Slimes 0® 2 3 4
Filamentous Algae 0 Q 2 3 4 Macromvenebrates 0 Q 2 3 4
Macroahvtes 0 2 3 4 Fish X 1 2 3 4
FIELD OBSERVATIONS OF MACROBENTHOS
Indicate estimated abundance. 0 = Absent(Not Observed, 1 = Rare (1 -3 organisms), 2 = Common (3-9
organisms), 3= Abundant ( >10 organisms), 4 = Dominant (>50 organisms)
Ponfera
01
2 3 4
Anisoptera
0 2
3 4
Chironomidae
1 2 3 4
Hydrozoa
19 1
2 3 4
Zygoptera
0 Q 2
3 —4
Ephememptera
0 m 2 3 4
Platyhelminthes
01
2 3 4
Hemiptera
0 2
3 4
Tnchoptera
® 1 2 3 4
Turbellana
1
2 3 4
Coleoptem
0® 2
3 4
Other
0 1 2 3 4
Hirudmea
1
2 3 4
Lepidoptera
Q 1 2
3 4
Ohgochaeta
0 0
2 3 4
Sialtdae
® 1 2
3 4
Isopoda
01
2 3 4
Corydalidae
t> 1 2
3 4
Amphipoda
0) 1
2 3 4
ripulidae
® 1 2
3 4
Decapoda
Q 1
2 3 4
Empididae
® 1 2
3 4
Gastropoda
® 1
2 3 4
Simuludae
(D) 1 2
3 4
Bivalvia
1
2 3 4
Tabmidae
® 1 2
3 4
Rapid Bioassessment Protocols For Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers Penphyton, Benthic
Macroinvertebrates, and Fish, Second Edition - Form 1 A -25
Page 127

si i � •+ u xw y
L,A,
SQA Location GPS Farm Ponds
UT2 R2 Easement (19.8 ac)
UT1 Ford Crossing
UT2_R1 0 150 300 600 Feet
Ayr
y
x` 'e
kaP
t /
41k, 11
Pt.W,
UT2-R1 Stream Duality Assessment
Location Map
D/W
VC,-ES5EN Nxr: A7 ON. Inc
_ - 128
L,A,
SQA Location GPS Farm Ponds
UT2 R2 Easement (19.8 ac)
UT1 Ford Crossing
UT2_R1 0 150 300 600 Feet
Ayr
y
x` 'e
kaP
t /
41k, 11
Pt.W,
UT2-R1 Stream Duality Assessment
Location Map
D/W
VC,-ES5EN Nxr: A7 ON. Inc
_ - 128

UT2 -RI Stream Quality Assessment Location Photo
Page 1 29

PHYSICAL CHARACTERIZATION/WATER QUALITY FIELD DATA SHEET
(FRONT)
SFREAMNAME
LOCATION TnC a "c xarcl
STATION # RI VERMILE
STREAM CLASS Qla� of T e
LAT VL._MoSaAo LONG — 74, 4s17741i
RIVER BASIN Tae - PAVr1l.c0
STORE #
AGENCY
INVESTIGATORS Tetew%
FORM COMPLETED BY
Secem �a �erW51c:
DATE l i
TIME nM �nj
REASON FOR SURVEY
aX1:nG $4cc<.v.� �jvevey
WEATHER
CONDITIONS
Now
• storm (heavy rain)
• ram (steady ram)
• showers (intermittent)
_ °,L❑ %cloud cover
A clear/sunny
Past 24
boars
❑
❑
❑
❑%
p(_
Has there been a heavy rain in the last 7 days'
❑ Ycs ANo
Air Temperatare I&.j C
Other
SITE. LOCATIONIMAP
Draw a map of the site and indicate the
areas sampled (or attach a photograph)
-* ?ico -Se
C- +kac're mwQ ant �1�o}rx3rc�Qti,
STREAM
Stream Subsystem
Stream Type
CHARACTERIZATION
)) Pemnnml ❑ Intermittent ❑ Tidal
❑ Coldwater 31 Warm..
Stream Origin
Catchment Area ►.91 km-
❑ Glncial ❑ Spnag -fed
❑ Non- glacml mmaanc ® Mocmre of
6
ongms
❑ Swamp and bog Other
Rapid Bioassessment Protocols For Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers Periphyton, Benthic
Macroinvertebrates, and Fish, Second Edition - Form ! A -5
Page 130

PHYSICAL CHARACTERIZATION/WATER QUALITY FIELD DATA SHEET
(BACK)
WATERSHED
Predominant Surrounding Landuse
Local Watershed NPS Pollution
FBA rURFS
U Forest U Cotmnercial
U No evidence U Some, potential sources
Characteristic
_
Field/Pasture 0Industrial
XObvioussources
Agracuhuml U Other
Detritus
sticks, wood, coarse plant
materials (CPOM)
U esidemtal
Local Watershed k rosion
> 256 mm (10 ")
U None JQModemte U I leavy
RIPARIAN
VFGETATION
��ppdicate the dominant type d «cord the dorm
Prees C�Shnrbs
of specks present
Grasses {Herbaceous
(h8 meter buffer)
S
Gravel
2-04 mm (0 ]"-2 5 ")
dominant species present
Sand
INSTRFAM
Estimated Reach Length 5MO in
Canopy Cover
FEATURES
hj
J
Q{) Partly open U Partly shaded U Shaded
0 004-0 06 mm
Estimated Stream Width , ffJa m
Clay
< 0 004 mm (slick)
_j
High Water Mark to
Sampling Reach Area mr
Proportion of Reach Represented by Stream
Area in kmr (mrs1000) Q, CI(?S -kmr
Morrpph_ology Tyges
O Rtfilc 6 U Run %
Estimated Stream Depth Oro l in
U Pool ak
Surface Velocity m/sce
Chanuelized A Yes U No
(at thalweg)
Dam Preseut U Ycs 04 No
LARGE WOOD1
LWD
DEBRIS
_0—e
Density of I WD m'/km` (LWD/ reach arm)
AQUATIC
Indicate the dominant type and record the dominant spectra present
VEGETATION
A Rooted emergent U Rooted submergem
❑ Rooted Boating U Free Mating
U Floating Algae U AOachcd Algae
dominant species present
Portion of the reach with aquatic vegetation _/o
WATER QUALITY
Iemperatare °C
Water Odors
t Normal/None U Snvnge
UU
Specific Conductance
U fPtroleum real
Y other
Dissolved Oxygen
Wafer Sarfare Oils
PH
USlick USheen UGlobs UElecks
91 None U Other
Turbidity
Turbidity (loot measured)
OClear UShgli�lyto �8flurbad
WQlnstromeotUsed
I
U Opaque U Staured U Other
SEDIMENT/
Odors
Deppooss I
SUBSTRATE
32 Normal U Sewage U Petroleum
U Sludgc U Sawdust U Paper fiber U Sartd
U Chemical U Anaerobic U None
U Relict shells U Other
U Other
Looking at stones which are not deeply embedded.
Oils
are the un ersades black to color'
pi Absent U Slight U Moderate U Profuse
U Yes No
INORGANIC SUBSTRATF COMPONENTS
(should add up to IOD %)
ORGANIC SUBSTRATE COMPONENTS
(does not necessarily add up to 100 %)
Substrate
Type
Diameter
%Compositionm
Sampling Reach
Substrate
Type
Characteristic
%Composition to
Sampling Area
Bedrock
Detritus
sticks, wood, coarse plant
materials (CPOM)
S
Boulder
> 256 mm (10 ")
Cobbk,
64 -256 mm (25"-10 ")
Muck -Mud
blade, very fine organic
(FPOM)
S
Gravel
2-04 mm (0 ]"-2 5 ")
5,
Sand
0 06 -2rnm (grmy)
S'
Marl
grey shell fragments
hj
J
Silt
0 004-0 06 mm
55"
Clay
< 0 004 mm (slick)
Si
A -6 Appendix A -I Habitat Assessment and Physicochemical Characterization Field Data Sheets - Form I
Page 131

HABITAT ASSESSMENT FIELD DATA SHEET —LOW GRADIENT STREAMS (FRONT)
S I REAM NAMF LMa - I aJ
LOCATION Tae %k,v er w��el O �'oCcl
STA'I ION # RIVERMILE
STREAM CLASS a, en T >L
LAT 9G,'5JQ5A!e LONG -799 Sl ii4$°
RIVER BASIN 'ro_C \;e O
STORET#
AGENCY tA*
INVESTIGATORS eCery v It.
FORM COMPLETED BY
TeC�ims �O l W StG •
DATE O
Tim. AM Ps
REASON FOR SURVEY
yN C v f
Rapid Bioassessment Protocols For Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers Periphvton. Benthic
Macroinvertebrates, and Fish, Second Edition - Form 3 A -9
Page 132
Habitat
Condition Category
Parameter
Optimal
Suboptimal
Marginal
Poor
Greater than 50% of
3D- 50%nuxofstablc
10- 30% mix ofstable
Less than 100/ostablc
1 Epif tunal
substrate favorable for
habitat well -sumed for
habitat; habitat
habnar lack of habitat is
Substrate/
epdaunal colonization and
full colonization potential,
availability less than
obvious substrate
Available Cover
fish cover mix ofsnags,
adequate habitat for
desirable substrate
unstable or lacking
submerged logs, undercut
maintenance of
frequently disturbed or
banks, cobble or other
populations, presence of
removed
stable habitat and at stage
additional substrate in the
to allow full colonrration
form of newfall, but not
putentml(ie logs/snags
yet prepared for
that are not new fall and
colonization (may rate at
not transient )
hie end ofscafe)
20 19 18 17 16
15 14 13 12 11
10 9 8 7 6
5 4 3 2 1 0
L
e
SCORE
Mixture of substrate
Mixture of soft sand, mud
All mud or clay or sand
Hard -pan clay or bedrock
a
2. Pool Substrate
materials, with gravel and
or clay mud may be
bottom little or no root
no root mat or vegetation
E
Cbaracteroatiom
fine sand prevalent root
doorman some toot mats
riim no submerged
mats and submerged
and submerged vegetation
vegetation
V
vegetation common
t
20 19 18 17 16
15 14 13 12 1
10 9 8 7 6
5 4 3 2 1 0
0
SCORE
dliven
ma of large-
Majority of pools largo-
Shallow pools much more
Majority of pools small-
s
3 Pool Variability
shallow, large-deep,
deep, very few shallow
prevalent than deep pools
shallow or pools absent
g
small - shallow smell -deep
pools present
20 19 18 17 16
15 14 13 12 If
10 9 8 7 6
5 4 3 2 1 0
E
SCORE.
a
4
Little or no enlargement
Some new mcreasc in bar
Moderate deposition of
Heavy deposit of fine
4. Sediment
of islands or point bars
fomatroa mostly from
new gravel sand or fine
minimal increased bar
Deposition
and less than Q0% of the
gravel, sand or fine
sediment on old and new
development, more than
bottom affected by
sediment 20.50%of the
bars, 50 -NO/o of the
80% of the bottom
sediment deposition.
bottom affected, slight
bottom affected, sediment
changing Gequentiy pools
deposmon in pools.
deposits at obstructions,
almost absent due to
constrictions, and brads,
substantial sediment
muderate deposition of
deposition
pools prevalent
SCORE
20 19 18 17 16
15 14 13 12 0
10 9 8 7 6
5 4 3 2 1 0
Water reaches base of
Water fills >75 %Of the
Water rills 25 -759/6 of the
Very Imle water in
S Channel Flow
both lower banks and
available channel or
available channel and/or
channel and mostly
Status
minimal amount of
25 % ofchannel substrate
nflle substrates are mostly
present as standing pools
channel substrate is
is exposed
exposed
SCORE
20 19 18 17 16
15 14 13 1 i t
10 9 8 7 6
5 4 3 2 1 0
Rapid Bioassessment Protocols For Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers Periphvton. Benthic
Macroinvertebrates, and Fish, Second Edition - Form 3 A -9
Page 132

HABITAT ASSESSMENT FIELD DATA SHEET —LOW GRADIENT STREAMS (BACK)
IotalScore 103
A -10 Appendix A -1 Habitat Assessment and Phtsicochemical Characterization Field Data Sheets - Form 3
Page 133
Habitat
Conth Category
Parameter
O coal
Sobo timnl
Marginal
Poor
6 Channel
Channchzahon or
Some channeluahon
Churmelvebon may be
Banks shared with gabion
Alteration
dredging absent or
present, usually in areas of
extensive, embankments
or cement over 80% of
mmmaal stream with
bridge abutments
or shoring structures
the stream reach
normal pattern
evidence of past
present on both banks; and
ihanoeltwil and disrupted
channelizaten i e
40 to 8M° of stream reach
Instreatn habitat greatly
dredging, (greater than
channclrzed and disrupted
altered or removed
past 20 yr) may be
entirely
present but recent
channclizotion is not
prescnL
20 19 18 17 16
15 14 13 12
10 9 8 7 6
5 4 3 2 1 0
SCORE
The bends in the stream
The bends in the stream
The bends in the stream
Charnel straight,
7 Channel
mcrmz the steam length
increase the stream length
increase the steemn length
watenva) has been
Sinuosity
3 to 4 times longer than if
I to 2 times longer than if
I to 2 times longer than of
channel umd for a long
it was in a straight line
it was in a straight line
it was in a straight fine
distance
(Note - channel braiding is
considered normal in
c
`m
coastal plains and other
low-lying areas This
parameter is not easily
rated in these areas )
SCORE.
20 19 18 17 16
15 14 13 12 11
10 9 8 7 6
5 4 3 2 1 0
a
tq„
Banks stable, evidence of
Moderately stable
Moderately unstable 30-
Unstable, many eroded
& Bank Stabibt)
erosion or bank failure
urfrequent, small areas of
60%of bank in reach has
areas, "mw" areas
Q
(score each book)
absent or minimal, Imk
erosion mostly healed
areas oferesam, high
frequent along smught
pote oral for future
over 5 -30%of bank m
erosion potential during
sections and bends
problems G5 % of bank
reach has areas oferosion
floods
obvious bank sloughing
affected
60400%ofbank has
0
o
erosional scars
Left Bank 10 9
8 6
5 4 3
2 1 0
SCORE (LB)
Right Bank 10 9
8 7 6
5 4 3
2 1 0
o
SCORL _ (RB)
3
More than 90'yo oftbe
70.90% of the streambank
50.700/6 of the strunriibank
Less than 50°k ofihe
6
9 Vegetative
streambank surfaces and
surfaces covered by native
surf ices covered by
streambank surfaces
Protection (score
immuedrate riparian mire
vegetation, but one class
vegetation, disruption
covered by vegetation,
ii
each bank)
covered by native
of plants is not well-
obvious, patches of hate
disruption of streambank
vegetation, including
represented disruption
sod or closely cropped
vegetation is very high
Note determine left
frees, understory, shrubs,
evident but not affecting
vegetation common less
vegetation has been
or right side by
at nonwood)
full plant growth potential
than one -half of the
retrieval to
facing downstream.
maemphytes, vegcmtivc
to any great extent, more
potential plant stubble
5 ccnnnn ti rs or less in
disruption through grazing
than one- halfof the
height remaining
average stubble height.
or mowing minimal or not
potential plant stubble
evident- almost all plants
height remammg
allowed to grow naturally
Left Bank 10 9
8 7 6
© 4 3
2 1 0
SCORE_(LB)
Right Bank 10 9
8 7 6
Q 4 3
2 1 0
SCORE_(RB)
Width of npannn zone
W ti th of riparian zone 12-
Width of riparian zone 6-
Width of nparmn zone. <6
10 Riparian
>18 meters, human
18 meters human
12 meters, human
ureters little or no
Vegetative Lone
activities It a parking
activities have impacted
activities have mnpacted
nparrari vegetation due to
Width (score each
lots, roadbeds, elements
zone only mmimall)
zone a great deal
human acavmes
bank npanan zone)
lawns, or crops) has c rim
impacted zone
Left Bank 10 9
8 7 6
5 4 ®
2 1 0
SCORE _ (LB)
SCORE_ (RB)
Right Bank 10 9
8 7 6
5 4 Q
2 1 0
IotalScore 103
A -10 Appendix A -1 Habitat Assessment and Phtsicochemical Characterization Field Data Sheets - Form 3
Page 133

BENTHIC MACROIlWERTEBRATE FIELD DATA SHEET
STREAM NAME UT4._9r1
LOCATION To, Q�,ve! �iPc�wc�crS [� L
STATION # RIVERMILE
STREAM CLASS rt
LAT 3te.j3aS H° LONG "? %177W
RIVFR BASIN
STOREI #
AGENCY enSerl ��}, e'4 Con
tNVESTIGATORS
LOTNUMBER
FORM CUMPI FTED BY
e.rert o 1a.w L:
DATE I 1 d 12,
TIMF AM (0
REASON FOR SURVEY
5{rram Sorvc
1
HABITAT TYPES
Indicate (be percentage ofeach habitat type present
O Cobble % p1 Snags 4!1% OZ Vegetated Banks%
O Submerged Mactophytes XOther (
ASand %
)
SAMPIE
Gear used 06fiame Okick -net
UrOther V:xx%
Assessl.meAt-
COLLICTION
Hydroma
1
2 3
4
How were (be samples collected'
O wadmg from bank
0 from boat
0 0 2 3 4
Indicate the number orlabsfkrcks taken in each habitat type.
1
2 3
0 Cobble_ O Snags_
O Vegetated Backs
O Sand_
Fnchoptera
O Submerged ___
Cl Other
1
GENERAL
4
Colcoptera
0 1@ 2 3 4
COMMENTS
0 1 2 3 4
Hirudmea
® 1
QUALITATIVE LISTING OF AQUATIC BIOTA
Indicate estimated abundance. 0 = Absent/Not Observed, 1 = Rare, 2 = Common, 3= Abundant, 4 =
Dominant
Penphyton 0 (Q 2 3 4 Slimes 0 (1b 2 3 4
Filamentous Algae 0 2 3 4 Macromvertebrates 0 1® 3 4
Macroohvtcs 0 1 Q 3 4 Fish 0 1 a 3 4
FIELD OBSERVATIONS OF MACROBENTHOS
Indicate estimated abundance- 0 = AbseattNot Observed, 1 = Rare (1 -3 organisms), 2 = Common (3 -9
organisms), 3= Abundant ( >10 organisms), 4 = Dominant (>SO organisms)
Ponfem
® 1
2 3
4
Anisoptera
0 0 2 3 4
Chnonomidae
QO 1 2 3 4
Hydroma
1
2 3
4
Zygoptera
0 1 3 4
Ephemeroptera
0 0 2 3 4
Platyhelmmthes
1
2 3
4
Hemiptera
0 1 3 4
Fnchoptera
(0 1 2 3 4
Turbellana
1
2 3
4
Colcoptera
0 1@ 2 3 4
Other
0 1 2 3 4
Hirudmea
® 1
2 3
4
Lepidoptera
1 2 3 4
Oligochaeta
0 4)
2 3
4
Sialidae
© 1 2 3 4
Isopoda
QO 1
2 3
4
Corydalidae
® 1 2 3 4
Amphipoda
0 1
2 3
4
Tipulidae
® 1 2 3 4
Oecapoda
® 1
2 3
4
Empidtdae
® 1 2 3 4
Gastropoda
6D 1
2 3
4
Sum iludae
1 2 3 4
1livalvia
® 1
2 3
4
Tabinidae
1 2 3 4
Rapid Bioassessment Protocols For Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers Periphyton, Benthic
Maeroinvertebrates, and Fish, Second Edition - Form I A -S
Page 134

I
i
a dit
4ok
a
t
dill
i
f
r
(IpyR�
lit
SQA_Locabm G GPS Farm Ponds UT2 -R2 Stream Quality Assessment
UT1 Easement (19.8 ac) Location Map
UT2 -R1 Ford Crossing �/��J�'
UT2 -R2 A
0 150 300 600 Feet
Page 135

UT2 -R2 Stream Quality Assessment Location Photo
rr. jt
w4"
prti _� ►Q' t n. �i.�.y�t` ;
A
Page 136

4.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY
No historic buildings or foundations were seen during initial field investigations As such, there are no
anticipated impacts to cultural resources as a result of the proposed restoration actions. If the Bank is
approved, MMI will conduct an environmental screening of the site using the Categoncal Exclusion
Action Classification Form This will prevent adverse impacts to protected species or cultural resources
from the proposed restoration actions A review of properties to be determined eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places at the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was conducted for the study
area and surrounding areas. According to the files, there are no National Register properties within a one -
mile radius of the study area In addition, the SHPO Archaeological Section was contacted in order to
determine if documented archaeological sites occur at or near the study area No sites were identified
within a one -mile radius of the study area MMI will obtain a clearance letter from the SHPO prior to
implementing the restoration plan
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
All information collected to date indicates that the site is ecologically suited to be established as a wetland
mitigation bank
EXIEIIBIT C: CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PLAN
Overview
The MMI Team has developed a preliminary concept plan for the Bank which is described below The
design plan will be further developed once detailed site topography, soils, hydrology, vegetation and other
studies are completed
Invasive Species
Noxious species will be identified and controlled so that none become dominant or alter the desired
community structure of the site If noxious plants are identified as a problem in the site, MMI will
develop a species - specific control plan for approval by the IRT prior to implementation. Through
coordination with the IRT during the five -year monitoring period, MMI, where necessary, will remove,
treat, or otherwise manage undesirable plant or animal species, including physical removal, use of
herbicides, live trapping, confining wires, or nets The site will be fenced to keep cattle out of the
mitigation areas All vegetation removal from the site shall be done by mechanical means only unless the
IRT has first authorized the use of herbicides or algaecides for the control of plants in or immediately
adjacent to the site
Conceptual Design Approach
Water and land areas within the Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank provide mitigation
opportunities consisting of stream restoration and enhancement, as well as riparian buffer restoration
(Figures 4 & 5) Mitigation activities would include the following prescriptions
• Priority II restoration of 516 linear feet along UT #I extending north and northwestward from the
southern boundary to the confluence of UT #2
• Priority II restoration of 1,889 linear feet along UT #2 extending southwest from the northeastern
property boundary to the existing at -grade stream crossing
• Priority II enhancement (Enhancement Category I) of 1,098 linear feet along UT #2 extending
from the existing at -grade stream crossing southwest towards the downstream property boundary
Page 137

Restoration of 5 7 acres of riparian buffer along both tributaries within the project area The buffer
restoration acreage is calculated from the edge of the restored stream buffer (50 feet from top of bank) to
200 feet (or to the easement boundary)
Design Features and Approach
The Sponsor proposes to restore /enhance approximately 3,500 linear feet of onsite streams Stream
restoration would include rerouting the degraded and channelized reaches of UT# 1 and UT #2 into C -Type
channels that contain stable channel dimensions, patterns, and profiles Restored C -Type streams would
be constructed with smuosities ranging from 12 to 14, entrenchment ratios greater than 2 2, and meander
width ratios of greater than 4 0 Enhancement activities along the lower section of UT #2 would follow the
guidelmes as mentioned above, however, designs would incorporate only changes to existing dimension
and profile, as necessary
Stream channel design would consist of obtaining soil and topographic data for restoration reaches and
the adjacent floodplams to determine the appropriate locations of the rerouted streams Regional curves,
various regime equations, previous project performance on other mitigation sites, and stream survey data
from at least one reference stream would be used to determine appropriate channel dimensions, profile,
and pattern Once design criteria have been calculated, construction drawmgs would be prepared that
include, at a minimum, a stream restoration layout plan, channel cross - sections, longitudinal profiles,
structure design details and a planting plan for the adjacent riparian area The design would incorporate
Rosgen -based bank stabilization techniques (e g , log vanes and root wads), grade control structures (e g ,
constructed riffles, cross vanes) to prevent channel incision, and structures designed to reduce near bank
shear stress (e g., j- hooks, etc ) and enhance in -stream habitat (e g , coarse woody debris) Structures
would be constructed from materials that are commonly found within stable streams located within
comparable geomorphic settings. The use of large boulders for grade control and bank stabilization would
be minimized to the extent practicable In -stream structures would be installed in such a manner as to
direct flows from highly erodible portions of constructed channels Bank stabilization would include
removing the cattle from the site to reestablish understory vegetation and stabilize eroded stream banks
Bioengineered structures (root -wads, live fascmes, etc ) would be used to stabilize banks susceptible to
high velocity flows such as the outside of meander bends Additional stream bank vegetation will be
planted to enhance wildlife habitat and to provide additional stabilization to the existing disturbed soils
The Sponsor also proposes to restore approximately 5 7 acres riparian buffer along UT# 1 and UT #2 The
widths of the riparian buffers are measured from 50 feet beyond the proposed bankfull location outward
to the easement boundary These widths vary depending on stream locations Restoration would entail
plantmg riparian buffers with native tree species found either within a reference riparian buffer or within
the Piedmont Mesic Mixed Forest The Natural Communities of North Carolina, Third Approximation
(Shafale and Wheatley, 1979) The goal would be to "Jumpstart" the development of a native climactic
forest Proposed stream and riparian restoration would be expected to enhance the geomorphic,
hydrologic, and biologic functioning of the tributaries by restoring more natural hydrologic and sediment
transport regimes, reducing temperatures, increasing dissolved oxygen levels, stabilizing soils, and
improving wildlife habitat
Page 138

FIGURES
Page 139

FIGURE 1. SITE LOCATION MAP
�1-
� Y
' I CIS
r a�i
_
1^
it - �� ��'yI1'.� f I .1if rC }j ca:• .. -. - ,'.. _ ;,., •� =
igsTBASnula
Person County
MNWP MW=y ® RWOm QWllWl%tkM Exameni
Roa& TyrFUVKTTEUM%
Tar RWr
U
R
t
Figure 1. Project Location Map
Tar River Headwaters Mitigation Bank
Person County, NC
lVm
Page 140

FIGURE 2. EXISTING CONDITION
r"r"
lk.�.
PHOOMCmemmemEmomm
F "VdKW-W'q lops)
P "aft URO
aku
Fmft
Saftfimm AQ.26. HabW 0400f'1
Bac o&%-Hd fv FomK
mmmmmmmmmmmEK:Zzzz::Z=
025 05 Ulm
Figure I b6sting Conditions Map
Tar River Headwaters Mitigation Bank
Person County, NC
W
M&M
Page 141

FIGURE 3. SOILS AND NWI
Page 142

NORTH CAROLINA ECOSYSITM ENIHANCEMENT PROGRAM
LANDOWNER AUTHORIZATION FORIM
Dmo Book- 'Page,
'2 0�);°
Street Address: F � q �G9� •� � - �
Pra fwetr tw ner (plate ptia
Properly Gomer(plttsc prim
n . N, C - ' 1
The undersagmed. ry &lrre-d prrrpar+y ownerls) of the aborve prolpwrly, ck, kgftby owthorlse
1 utl lh4lvcry I "rmvv'+tfer ". the NC Departmemt orfmiiromment sod Natural l+tmurecs, omd the US
A rimy carps or Engineers, I belr etm ploy eyes, agcnm or assigns to have rea.3omshfle access to the abow
rarilcrenced property for the evaluation of the property as a potealil9 strrarn, wetland amdfor
riparian buffer m.ililoon project, indading rand acting s mm and ur weitand determinatioms amd
defineation.% as wall as issaanoe and aeceplamce orany required prr®at(s) or rertidieavoo(s�
Properly 0%
ordifferemt rrom above)
Praperit i3wacr Telephone fNasnher; ,_( ; 3& 15-qq- 63e74
f'+ra,Rert ' L- irvmcr ` elepboac Num ber: �a / '� "� � '-4 t-i (4 14
11%le bcnebv rertiry the above imFo maation to be trrit: hard aatearrale to the best of may four know l"-J &
ref
(Property 00 Mer Arathorfrm-1 5igaaaWre) (Date)
rNamc a(-ruII detivery comipan%
Page 143

,F �. a• 'A t►'- �w 1 r. r, iyJ��+!'A \�, t'_ ■ i �
d• ..L• ` ar �,�,- �.. _!, ■._�..ti • r`•,'a1a as
,1,+�'•tiTt° ":y�1�"lM�s a� �+\�` a.9. fi ., �� li=. � ` :• a a + i •a ` ,. i .1 a' a f+ r�'a, ay a
� 4 # � ,� ac•... as d al�alt a !, tx a . °.. a "C• ♦ a t a ~.
S • ' ` �.a i °•a . i 't • N���°"" I% �a tea : . ,1(,1 X'1 : t � ; ♦� a T
_.��.. '� !i ° +� t�♦ � ii a °� ♦�.,[�•<' •L� i•t a_ �� N1' •' <1a„�ti.. + 'l1r a• ,e'
,lY' , ], a i • .1 e .�j' ty i4r.; S •k e. nil. � -at \ ` #..t, .�;, t •a• a--:� �1 i• , ° { "4�a♦�• a ` :..fit[ �..5.{ # ,
'�4{{ ��~ {__.,d ♦ r A A, am } . e' �, . '� a \ .� 'S. 1 • t�. y l _ j` " ice. _ 'al �.. r
t'''111,,,,,, •4y. N.aa> <1 �J•r ! .l {� ', as a,si.�i \x+ -a:. 1- ..yt: a ^�♦ y�. 1 _ \ a'`,'
•. 7 �' \��••aitA •.•�l� �a< ♦.• '.i ��1a5 •, r.r♦ 4.'151 A`� ..\A.C. 11t il.!{ ,+ F J,- •. .'a• r• -1 ;�a�
- ti,lw Ls '4P' - e ,.0 • <<(, a (+aa •. •, a �1 Via- t� + _ J
t r1 a • { t Rft ;,1 �a ;: `• a r' 1+ t . , .
, .•�. i �♦].,. 4t h ha+ . \'�aa '1tt�l. ael.a• 4l_ P�f � ..���. .
rd�� >'� •� tA `,r+a ?a�'a� 114'1° Kai <i +. `■.• iii• '• `
i4�•y *_ . .�.1 � a a .L �¢
i 'va t���i �i�' `i" s °t �� < a ►tC� 4�' , a�-,1� Q"1• j �:,k •. y a !` �' t' .t `A�a
+f'!` ntyi 4 4 • =j�i'+t1�.:`ti �is'`ri as It� , , t,��, •.... u 4a tyt' ", a C +;� r` aY
(1 �.s 1° ''4. '�' t` y ►... i•• \ r �i; ,a .. t 1 C , t \ 5 L i1 a > ," �a. ! a , �'!� <+ ar ! J ♦ - 4 a ` L 1 . 4
•�t :S - k4 .a
i .. 1
t - . . iI. waf v +.r � w Ll°� ♦ i a i a.• �. ° l i ' L ... t ♦ { ��•:
s + rf�� t 1 � y{.�,La, 4 0.'• t '�!i .:i 4.5�.., •a t ♦a.� Aar \+.Ly'� 45 � t�'ti t `1 l., !a� `• CD
�'- - r♦ : -q q'Z'�:li♦ 4 K °fit l�. :..- C •� ,y ti •CA'i ♦' �a4..tii. 1 , CD
`C�i t`'y sC�Clle #i, l��•1„Y'•�. �tra' �f L a.5 JC'
Cn `•� aby!',<�.. ♦ #a, t r w 1 R ►i■ �a a�'� a ta,� +l ,: +{a �"
,,. fir. r O ..•t l� L� t• Saa: .5.` a - • as t i . iSM A' r ■ •. +4 to �-
�+aZ1. �a!' .a.�sKt.a • +�i "aL'.'Ry Via' e+5.� ` c♦ i<c; .+a plt a �t ►' ice++
j•`4 r CD #4 .♦. y 1 •L°. i 4 • '% 1 V" � 4°.�,�r.a af� �+ 1 ,i }!•11.4. <} y S 1�..�,�`' ! • t J •. t ,L . • j "'f
{ i
�• err F ra • '� +�.'•JI 1l`�x;R A ,aij� .141Y'1;1, a' f_ C f�C1 fL X 3
a,: .n '.. `a./f {>f a - -1i �+. 1 •.�`4al ■ �.,�1,,.L„�" t �♦, t'. +s. I N
- *Q '% 46 �4t�`:li°��{r'Tltrt�• ;lti ■ .1 ,f �, m
� �•° a+'.•tti !i� '�� :�� -. Rte• ,�, .;.41. � •.a•.( L.F� .av r,� a T 3
rt
f o� r,„ a � Y 1 i• 1� t �:1 �I v .. CT7 iU
�K >� - 'Y � ai _� r `' '9- �� 'A '•.i P_ /Kn �f ,;t.. t + 15 'i,�a1 -'�t q�t- '' ��
4 ' - - '� ` .` � t .. of ` � • [ •. � ` 5 \ d e'7 .--►
�, • - :n rt
�5
r. x
rt
A vas*
ji
c z '
r -
r� n I.' a t
'
m ! ?�
c z
�j A' _
PSH -02 DEC. 17, 2012 REVISIONS
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
SHEET DATE. FOR THE
TAR RIVER HEADWATERS PRELIMINARY
ECOLOGICAL 30815 -001 STREAM MITIGATION BANK
ENGINEERING F -1148 PREPARED FOR
­­M fit- `-::In
NC FIRM LICENCE PROJECT NO. MOGENSEN MITIGATION, INC