Ossipee Draft Prospectus Submitted 102821

RiverBank
.ONSERVATION
28 October 2021
Mr. Todd Tugwell
Wilmington District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Raleigh, North Carolina 27587
RE: OSSIPEE MILL DAM MITIGATION BANK DRAFT PROSPECTUS
Dear Mr. Tugwell,
Please find linked here the Draft Prospectus for the Ossipee Mill Dam Mitigation Bank (Bank) in
Alamance County, NC. Ossipee Mill Dam (Dam) is owned by Glen Raven, Inc. (Sponsor), which is
proposing to remove the Dam to restore portions of the Reedy Fork of the Haw River. The Sponsor
has engaged RiverBank as its lead consultant for the Bank. Please direct all communications
regarding the Bank to me.
We recognize that dam -removal -based mitigation projects have been utilized sparingly within the
Wilmington District. However, all removals completed to date have produce remarkable and
demonstrable ecological results, as their former impoundments have successfully transitioned back
to their natural riverine conditions. We believe the removal proposed with this Draft Prospectus
would be ecologically beneficial to the Reedy Fork and the Haw River systems, potentially creating
additional removal opportunities nearby.
We look forward to hearing back from you soon. Please call with any questions. I hope you and yours
are well.
Sincerely,
J. Adam Riggsbee
President
cc: John Gant, Glen Raven
Travis Hamrick, EcoMitigation Asset Advisors
P.O. Box 29921, Austin, TX 78755 512.241.3775 www.riverbankconservation.com

OSSIPEE MILL DAM
MITIGATION BANK
DRAFT PROSPECTUS
OCTOBER 2021
1
GLEN�AVEN'
EcoMAA
RiverBank
JNSERVATION
ECOMITIGATION
ASSET ADVISORS

Introduction
Glen Raven, Inc. (Sponsor) is pleased to propose the Ossipee Mill Dam Mitigation Bank
(Bank) along the Reedy Fork of the Haw River in Alamance County, NC (Figure 1). Ossipee Mill
Dam (Dam; 36°10'29.93"N, 79°30'43.57"W; Figure 2) is located —8.7 miles downstream of
Waterfall Lane Dam and —6.2 miles upstream of Indian Valley Dam (Figure 3), within the
Cape Fear 02 hydrological unit (03030002). With this draft prospectus, the Sponsor is
exploring the potential to generate compensatory stream mitigation credit by removing
the Dam. The removal is expected to re-establish lotic flows to—13,800 linear feet of the
Reedy Fork (Figure 4), producing ecological benefits associated with water quality as well as
fish, mussel and macroinvertebrate communities.
2 Qualifications of Sponsor and Key Consultants
The Bank is proposed by Glen Raven, Inc. (Sponsor), the owner of the Dam. The Sponsor is
working with RiverBank Conservation and EcoMitigation Asset Advisors to potentially permit and
operate the proposed Bank.
2.1 Glen Raven, Inc.
Founded in 1880, Glen Raven, Inc. is a family -owned company known for delivering innovative
fabrics with compelling design and exceptional quality. The company manufactures a host of
textiles for a variety of markets including awning, marine, furniture, and military. Headquartered
in Burlington, N.C., Glen Raven, Inc. has multiple production facilities in the U.S. and others in
Europe and Asia to serve the global market.
2.2 RiverBank Conservation, LLC
RiverBank Conservation, LLC (RiverBank) is a mitigation banking firm based in Austin, Texas.
RiverBank currently owns and operates five stream mitigation banks, three permittee-
responsible stream and wetland mitigation sites and two species conservation banks in Texas,
New Mexico and West Virginia. Dr. Adam Riggsbee, RiverBank's founder and owner is a native of
North Carolina with academic and professional expertise in dam removal, fluvial geomorphology,
biogeochemistry and aquatic biology.
2.3 EcoMitigation Asset Advisors, LLC
EcoMitigation Asset Advisors (EcoMAA) was founded in 2017 by Mr. Travis Hamrick with the
purpose of connecting landowners with suitable lands with mitigation bankers possessing the
appropriate expertise. EcoMAA is often involved with these projects throughout their lifecycle—
from site identification through project close out. Mr. Hamrick has successfully implemented
stream and wetland mitigation projects in three USACE districts, including Wilmington, involving
more than 140,000 LF of stream restoration and over 300 acres of wetland restoration. Most
notably, Mr. Hamrick led the implementation of the Katy Prairie Stream Mitigation Bank (SWG-
2009-00937) in the Galveston District, which was the first stream mitigation bank in Texas and
one of the largest in the country.

3 General Need and Technical Feasibility
The Cape Fear River basin is completely contained within the state's borders. Comprised of five
major subdrainages—Haw River, Deep River, Northeast Cape Fear River, Black River and the Cape
Fear River —the basin drains all or portions of 26 counties and 115 municipalities with a total of
6,386 stream miles. The most populated portions of the basin are in the Triad, the Triangle,
Fayetteville and Wilmington (NCDWQ 2005).
Nearly all portions of the Cape Fear 02 drain into B. Everett Jordan Lake ("Jordan Lake"), which is
designated as impaired due to high concentrations of chlorophyll a according to state water
quality standards. Stressors to Jordan Lake's water quality are associated with nitrogen and
phosphorus inputs from point sources (e.g., municipal wastewater) and non -point sources (i.e.,
urban and agricultural runoff). Most of the impaired streams in the Cape Fear 02 are within
heavily urbanized areas.
Populations within the Cape Fear 02 increased 9% from 2010 to 2020, slightly less than the
statewide growth of 10%. As has been seen over the past several years, continued population
growth is expected to result in further land development, resulting in losses of stream channel
functions and requiring §404 permits under the Clean Water Act. Therefore, there is an
immediate and prolonged need for stream mitigation in the Bank's service area.
4 Ecological Suitability of Site
Low -head dams are known to alter and fragment riverine systems.1,2,3 In fact, low -head dams are
considered one of the most pervasive and diffuse pressures to freshwater habitats in North
America.4 Therefore, dam removal is often considered an effective means of passive restoration
that directly eliminates a known stressor to riverine ecosystems, facilitating habitat connectivity
while markedly improving habitat heterogeneity and availability for aquatic.5
Within the Wilmington District, at least three dam removals have been performed for
compensatory mitigation, each meeting relevant ecological success criteria within their
respective monitoring periods. Carbonton Dam, Lowell Mill Dam and Milburnie Dam all resulted
in numerous ecological successes, including the re -colonization of former impoundments with
state -listed mussel species and in one case a federally listed fish (Carbonton).6 In at least two of
1 Stanley, EH, MJ Catalano, N Mercado -Silva and CH Orr. 2007. Effects of dam removal on brook trout in Wisconsin
streams. River Research and Applications 23: 792-798.
Z Catalano, MJ, MA Bozek, and TD Pellett. 2007. Effects of dam removal on fish assemblage structure and spatial
distributions in the Baraboo River, WI. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 27: 519-530.
s Santucci, VJ, SR Gephard and SM Pescitelli. 2005. Effects of multiple low -head dams on fish, macroinvertebrates,
habitat and water quality in the Fox River, IL. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 25: 975-992.
4 Ricciardi, A and JB Rasmussen. 1999. Extinction rates of North American freshwater fauna. Conservation Biology
13:1220-1222.
s Doyle, MW, EH Stanley, CH Orr, AR Selle, SA Sethi, and JM Harbor. 2005. Stream ecosystem response to small dam
removal: lessons from the Heartland. Geomorphology 71: 227-244.
e See USFWS fact sheet on the Cape Fear Shiner available here:
https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cf shiner files/11.8.10 detailed cfs fact sheet.pdf
Ossipee Mill Dam Mitigation Bank Draft Prospectus 2 of 9

these removals, anadromous fish regained access to numerous miles of spawning habitat (Lowell
Mill and Milburnie). In addition, these projects resulted in demonstrable restoration of in -channel
habitats and local water quality for various riverine species. Thus, the scientific literature and
district -level experience show dam removal is an effective means of stream restoration,
producing tangible ecological benefits both locally and more broadly across watersheds.
5 Historical and Archaeological Investigations
A dam has been on record at this location along the Reedy Fork since 1855. The owners of the
property at the time, the Kernodle family, are thought to have built a dam to operate a grist mill.
The Kernodles owned several acres in this location, which were predominantly utilized as
farmland. In the early 1880's, Captain James Williamson' assembled a series of parcels and
easements to establish the Ossipee Cotton Mill, which began operations in August of 1882. It is
currently unclear whether the gristmill dam is the same Dam currently impounding the Reedy
Fork. The Raleigh Morning Post in 1889 reported that the Williamsons "will build an extensive
addition to their Ossipee mill in Alamance County" (emphasis added).$ However, property
records indicate that from 1899 to 1901 Williamson's secured a series of "Dam Easements" from
landowners immediately upstream of the Ossipee Cotton Mill "to allow ponding of water and
water impacts resulting from further raising or replacement of the Dam" (emphasis added).'
The Dam and its associated properties have been conveyed at least four times since 1882. In
1910, Captain Williams transferred all real property interests to his company, James N.
Williamson & Sons Company, which included the Dam and all associated mill buildings. These
properties were conveyed three more times from 1919 to 1937: first to Consolidated Textiles
Corporation in 1919; second to Rayon Fabrics Corporation in 1931; and third to Burlington Mills
Corporation in 1937. Burlington Mills Corporation (after changing its name in 1955 to Burlington
Industries, Inc.) conveyed the property to the Sossaman family in 1978, who sold the property to
the current owner, Glen Raven, Inc. in 1979.
Glen Raven used the property for warehousing operations for over 30 years, up until 2012. One
of the two mill buildings was demolished for material salvage in 2002, and the second building
was demolished between 2012 and 2014, also for material salvage.
No formal archeological investigations have been performed to date. However, investigations
relative to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act will be conducted in coordination
with the State Historic Preservation Office and the USACE if the Sponsor develops a mitigation
banking instrument (MBI).
Williamson volunteered as private in the Confederate Army in the first company organized in Caswell County,
Company A of the 131h North Carolina Regiment. He is credited with participating in several historic battles. For
example, he fought in Chancellorsville where General Stonewall Jackson was fatally wounded, and he was paroled
at Appomattox when General Lee surrendered to General Grant.
a Raleigh Morning Post. May 20, 1899. News and Views from State Exchanges. Clippings and Cullings. Current and
Curious Chronicles Carefully Condensed. An image of the original published page is available upon request.
e Alamance County Register of Deeds, Book No. 22, Pages 301-305, March 61h, 1901.
Ossipee Mill Dam Mitigation Bank Draft Prospectus 3 of 9

6 Ownership and Long -Term Management
Following approval of the MBI and in support of the initial credit release, the Sponsor, as fee
simple owner of the Dam, will record a conservation easement over the Dam site to prevent the
future construction of another dam in the same location. The Sponsor is considering establishing
a park at the site and potentially donating the property to a qualified entity. Specifics regarding
the conservation easement as well as the long-term use of the property will be addressed in the
Bank's draft MBI should the project progress.
7 Existing Conditions
The Dam is constructed of quarried granite with a height of —14 feet and a width of —210 feet,
impounding the Reedy Fork for—13,800 linear feet (Figure 4). A dam has been recorded at this
site since 1855 and was likely replaced or at least raised in the late 191h century (circa 1899). Used
historically for gristmill and cotton mill operations, the Dam has not been utilized as a source of
process water since 1979 or earlier. It currently shows some signs of disrepair but does not
appear in danger of failure.
7.1 Physiography, Topography and Land Use
The Dam is in the Southern Outer Piedmont Level IV ecoregion. This ecoregion is characterized
by dissected irregular plains, some low to rounded hills and ridges, as well as low to moderate
gradient streams with mostly cobble, gravel and sandy substrates.10 Land cover within the
drainage area (Figure 5) is mixed forest, deciduous forest, pine plantations, pasture and rapidly
growing urban areas. Agricultural land use consists of hay, cattle, diary and poultry production.
In addition, row crops such as barley, oats and wheat are also produced in the watershed.
Elevations along the impoundment range from 588 feet below the impoundment to 604 feet near
the top of the impoundment (Figure 6).
7.2 Hydrology
The Dam is in USGS HUC 03030002 of the Cape Fear River basin (Figure 7). Climate is
characterized as humid subtropical with moderate spring and autumn temperatures. Summers
are usually warm to hot, and winters are typically mild and wet. Average annual precipitation is
45 inches, which is fairly well distributed across the seasons. Channel hydrology is partially
regulated by Lake Brandt and Lake Townsend in Greensboro, which store appreciable quantities
of water but have run -or -river spillways. Other dams within the Reedy Fork do not store
appreciable quantities of water and are generally run -of -river structures (Figure 3).
7.3 Fluvial Geomorphology
The impoundment can be characterized as a homogenous deep pool extending —2.7 miles
upstream of the Dam. As is characteristic of run -of -river impoundments, channel geometry
increases with proximity to the Dam. Channel dimensions within the impoundment ranges from
—4.0 to 15.5 feet in depth and —70 to 115 feet in width.
10 Griffith, G, J. Omernik and J. Comstock. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina: regional descriptions. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Corvallis, OR.
Ossipee Mill Dam Mitigation Bank Draft Prospectus 4 of 9

7.4 Sediment Deposition and Toxicity
A preliminary sediment assessment was conducted by Dr. Adam Riggsbee of RiverBank (with
assistance from Dr. Tom Augspurger at USFWS) in 2013 (Appendix B). The assessment indicates
the channel itself consists predominantly of pea gravel, coarse sand, medium gravel, fine sand
and bedrock with two isolated areas exhibiting limited accumulations of organic fines. The
impoundment's banks are the suspected source of fine sediment accumulations, which likely
makes them temporary in nature. The assessment concluded that the impoundment is not an
effective sediment trap and that the sediment deposits are only minor.
Dr. Tom Augspurger conducted a preliminary Tier I Assessment11 of the impoundment, which is
appended to the 2013 sediment assessment. Dr. Augspurger's work concluded one facility
upstream of the Dam was of concern, Monarch Hosiery Mills. However, given the age of the
structure and character of sediment deposits, it was determined additional toxicity analysis was
likely unnecessary. If the removal is pursued further, final determinations with respect to
sediment toxicity will be coordinated with Dr. Augspurger and the IRT.
7.5 Water Quality
The Site is located within the Cape Fear River basin in 14-digit USGS Cataloging Unit
03030002020070 (Figure 7). The section of Reedy Fork containing the Site (Stream Index Number
16-11-(9)b) has been assigned a Primary Surface Water Classification of WS-V NSW. Streams
classified as WS-V are protected as water supplies which are generally upstream and draining to
Class WS-IV waters or waters used by industry to supply their employees with drinking water or
as waters formerly used as water supply. These waters are protected for Class C uses —secondary
recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish consumption, aquatic life including propagation, survival and
maintenance of biological integrity and agriculture. Secondary recreation includes wading,
boating, and other uses not involving human body contact with waters on an organized or
frequent basis. Waters given the supplemental classification of NSW need additional nutrient
management, as they are subject to excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation.
7.6 Wetlands
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) categorizes the aquatic resources as seven distinct types
(Table 1), which are mostly associated with the impoundment and the river. As indicated in Figure
8, the NWI also indicates there is a wetland area directly adjacent to the impoundment along the
southern floodplain. This wetland is listed as PFC1Ch, which indicates a freshwater
forested/shrub wetland created or modified by a manmade barrier or dam. Initial field
investigations also indicate there may be additional wetlands located along a utility easement
(gas pipeline) on the northern floodplain. This area is not listed in the NWI. In all, these areas
total approximately 5 acres.
11 A Tier I Assessment is a desktop review of all relevant federal soil contamination databases. The scope of these
assessments is limited to a dam's watershed below reservoirs that cutoff sediment transport. Results of these
analyses are intended to inform regulatory agencies with respect to decision relating to the need for further chemical
toxicity analyses with respect to sediments that may be mobilized following dam removal.
Ossipee Mill Dam Mitigation Bank Draft Prospectus 5 of 9

Table 1: NWI wetlands within 400 feet of the impoundment
Code
System
Subsystem
Class
Modifier
RSUBH
Riverine
Unknown Perennial
Unconsolidated Bottom
--
0.10
R2UBH
Riverine
Lower Perennial
Unconsolidated Bottom
--
0.28
R4SBC
Riverine
Intermittent
Streambed
--
1.52
PFO1Ch
Palustrine
--
Forested
Diked/Impounded
4.85
PFO1/4A
Palustrine
--
Forested
--
0.22
L1UBHh
Lacustrine
Limnetic
Unconsolidated Bottom
Diked/Impounded
8.51
Both wetland areas appear to be hydrologically controlled by berms that separate them from the
Impoundment's water level (Appendix C: Photos P12/P13). The Sponsor will work with the IRT to
identify all practicable measures with respect to avoidance and minimization of impacts to
wetlands. The Sponsor proposes the use of Nationwide Permit 53 — Removal of Low -Head Dams,
which generally does not require mitigation for associated wetland losses, as "removal of the
low -head dam will result in a net increase in ecological functions and services...".
7.7 Federal and State Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species
Based on the most recently updated county -by -county database of federally listed species in
North Carolina, as posted by the US Fish and Wildlife Service on the World Wide Web (USFWS
2021), there are four protected or candidate species potentially present in Alamance County. In
addition, there are three species of conservation concern, as identified by the state, in Alamance
County.
7.7.1 Cape Fear Shiner (Notropis mekistocholos) — Federally Endangered
This small, yellowish minnow with a black, lateral band has yellow, somewhat pointed fins with
a black upper lip. Its lower lip has a thin black bar along the margins. This species generally
inhabits coarse substrates (i.e., gravel, cobble and boulder) and is associated with slow pools,
riffles and runs. These same areas are associated with water willow (Justicia americana), which
the Cape Fear shiner may use as cover. When spawning, adults move to slower pools to lay eggs
on rocky substrates. Juveniles are typically found in slack waters and flooded side channels and
pools. The species is currently known to occupy portions of the mainstem of the Cape Fear as
well as some of its major tributaries —the Deep River, Rocky River and the Haw River. It is
currently known to occupy Chatham, Harnett, Lee, Moore and Randolph counties.
Threats to the species include habitat loss and degradation associated with flow and water level
alterations. Dams are recognized as a common source of habitat fragmentation, which can isolate
small populations occupying limited pockets of suitable habitat. Pollution is also considered a
threat; chemical constituents found in wastewater, fertilizers and pesticides can affect the
shiner's ability to grow and reproduce.
Ossipee Mill Dam Mitigation Bank Draft Prospectus 6 of 9

7.7.2 Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconoia mosoni) — Federally Proposed Threatened
This mussel gets its name from its chunky, rhombus shape that resembles a pig's hoof (or "toe").
The exterior of the shell is yellow to dark brown and parchment like with a distinct ridge on the
posterior edge. The internal shell surface is iridescent blue to salmon, white or orange. The
species rarely exceeds two inches in length.
The species prefers coarse sand and gravel substrates in small creeks to larger rivers with
excellent water quality and flows sufficient to maintain silt -free substrate. The pigtoe is currently
known to occupy portions of the following river basins: James, Chowan, Roanoke, Tar, Neuse,
Cape Fear and the Pee Dee. It is not known to occupy Alamance County, NC.
Threats to the species include pollution, sedimentation and dams. The pigtoe is particularly
sensitive to toxins and general degradation of water quality associated with both non -point and
point sources. Episodic and intense sedimentation associated with land use alterations, dredging,
impoundment flushing and intense recreational use can affect the species in a number of
detrimental ways. Blanketing of river substrate with sediment can lead to suffocation. In addition,
excessively turbid waters can inhibit feeding processes which can affect growth, reproduction
and survival. Like many riverine species, the pigtoe populations are also displaced and isolated
by dams and their impoundments. Their reproduction is dependent on host fish species, whose
movements throughout watersheds are blocked by dams.
7.7.3 Monarch Butterfly (Donaus plexippus) — Federal Candidate, not Proposed for Listing
Monarch adults are large butterflies with bright orange wings exhibiting a black border and black
veins. A double row of white spots is found along the black borders of the upper side of the wings.
The conspicuous coloring of the monarch is considered an example of aposematism—or a
warning to predators that they can be toxic if eaten. The monarchs found in eastern North
America migrate to wintering habit over long distances (sometimes exceeding 3000 km),
requiring as much as two months to complete.
7.7.4 Schweinitz's Sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) — Federally Endangered
Schweinitz's sunflower is a perennial growing — 6.5 feet tall with purple stems and small yellow
flowers blooming from late August until frost. Individuals can live for decades, growing 3 to 6 feet
per year. Some have reached heights of up to 16 feet. These sunflowers occur in partial sun in
poor soils, including thin clays that vary from wet to dry. The species is not thought to currently
occupy Alamance County.
7.7.5 Notched Rainbow (Villoso constricts) — State Threatened
This small mussel rarely exceeds 40 mm. The outer shell is yellowish -greenish or green with
indistinct rays. The inner shell surface is bluish, sometimes purplish in the center. The rainbow
usually inhabits clean, smaller streams with sand/gravel substrates. They are sometimes found
in rivers and mud. Within Alamance County, the rainbow is known to occur in Cane Creek and
Stinking Quarter Creek.
Ossipee Mill Dam Mitigation Bank Draft Prospectus 7 of 9

7.7.6 Eastern Creekshell (Villoso delumbis) — State Significantly Rare
The eastern creekshell's outer shell is yellow with several green rays that are interrupted by
prominent growth lines; the inner surface is bluish and iridescent. The creekshell is often found
in muddy areas along channel margins in streams and rivers. They sometimes occur among tree
roots. In Alamance County, this species is known to occupy portions of the Haw River subbasin,
including Stinking Quarter Creek, Mary's Creek, Back Creek and Cane Creek.
7.7.7 Carolina Ladle Crayfish (Cambarus davidi) — State Significantly Rare
This crayfish species is endemic to the upper portions of the Cape Fear and Neuse River basins in
central North Carolina. This species typically occupies streams under larger rocks and within
burrows. It is known to occur in Alamance County.
8 Restoration Plan
The objectives of the proposed restoration are listed below. In general, the project is intended to
restore many of the ecological functions to — 13,800 LF of the Reedy Fork.
• Improve water quality
• Re-establish an appropriate aquatic community
• Facilitate habitat restoration for —and re -colonization by —rare, endangered and
threatened species ("RTE species")
Should the project move forward, the Sponsor will coordinate with the IRT while developing a
suitable removal approach during the MBI approval process. In general, the removal is
anticipated to include a few stages (i.e., dewatering, breaching and removal) to minimize the
occurrence of bank sloughing throughout the impoundment as well as the rate of mobilization of
impounded sediment. It should be noted that enhanced sediment transport is a clear benefit of
dam removal, especially with respect to coarser fractions that support habitat establishment
within the former impoundment and downstream waters.
9 Credit Determination and Service Area
The maximum credit potential of the Bank will be determined in coordination with the IRT using
the North Carolina Interagency Dam Removal Task Force (DRTF) 2008 guidance. A recent desktop
assessment of various water quality and biological data was conducted for the Sponsor by Three
Oaks Engineering (Appendix D). The results indicate that while existing data within the project
area is limited, there appear to be opportunities for the proposed removal to improve conditions
for water quality, an appropriate aquatic community as well as some RTE species.
All credits generated by the Bank will be available to offset permitted impacts to streams within
the Bank's proposed service area, the Cape Fear 02 (Figure 9)—the 8-digit HUC where is the Dam
and its impoundment are located. Crediting and debiting will be maintained on a ledger
submitted annually to the USACE and made publicly available, with regular updates, on RIBITS. A
credit release schedule will be developed with IRT coordination and is anticipated to include both
administrative and ecological milestones.
Ossipee Mill Dam Mitigation Bank Draft Prospectus 8 of 9

10 Monitoring Plan
To evaluate the ecological benefits and credit generation of the Bank, the project will be
monitored for seven years or until all performance standards have been met. The proposed
monitoring plan structure, including success criteria, will be based on the DRTF (2008).
Performance standards will include physical, chemical and biological metrics directly relevant to
the Bank's objectives: water quality, appropriate aquatic community and RTE species. The
monitoring specifics will be developed with IRT input during the MBI approval process.
Ossipee Mill Dam Mitigation Bank Draft Prospectus 9 of 9

Appendix A: Figures
Figure 1: General Location
Figure 2: Detailed Location
Figure 3: Adjacent Dams
Figure 4: Impoundment Extent
Figure 5: Drainage Area
Figure 6: Impoundment Elevations
Figure 7: Watershed Boundaries
Figure 8: National Wetland Inventory
Figure 9: Service Area

IF Iat Rock 190,
i;
------------- 1 il——— — — — — —— — - --
1.1
I r }
8 I Sr'y Cr o o
y o 4
3�� ✓eft
.oA c
Ossipee Dam Qa 'o
� Union Ridge ss
c ' a
Orr Sh
d s
°
cons Rd zDo
CL
C hu rcb R I m
C.
GI en ry
Giiisonville o Raven deb
� bAv
X m ELirlingtonNCh<rrchSt Haw
70, g Church $
Greensboro a I
Graham ,SJ
MCConne rAd _ K �--- _- ,o° ° 7' fie
eit's
Guilford '��
29
z Browns Summit
n
z
s
y
coy°t�
Q
,r
a
a
Pleasant 0o11e'+
Garden N
y&�.
r
A/ J 4N, o
111121>
CID
n
Forest Oaks hRry
Rd
�a
O
C
4
z d Qa
W
7 �0
N
Lib
SCALE 1 h — 4 l
Swepsonvllle
I
I ro�
I 3
a
U
2
0
m
G�°ens6oro
°
45
'3 Vi
C
T
7 Q
L �
� p
EcoMitigation Asset Advisors
nc - mies
605 Kirby Street
DATE: October2021
Figure 1: General Location
Raleigh, NC 27606
www.ecomitigation.com
STAFF: TLH
EcoMAA
919.819.0014
ThlsmapandaildatzmntzinedWthinaresnpphedaslswlffinnwamanty. E—bigatioA—A—LL—prey
0
2.25 4.5 9
ECOMITIGATION
ddamsrep
Project:
ASSET ADVISORS
me=oie,aonrhirriofineu=ermdeie,mineitmedar�onmi,magi,,.maanmewhhmeu=er,need,..rni,mapwa,
---as—,d ,nnr h.uldhberasedas= h.ItIsmeusersrespnsibllltyinnbtzinprepersure dam.
by licensed by
Miles
0551 ee Damprepared
P
a surveyoq where required —

FAA
10
Jr
14
� f �r of •� _ ��%
10 . J
ii �,y ti
• 1 i►� r,� �. Ossipee Dam
It
• , 87j
ALA
EcoMitigation Asset Advisors SCALE:1 inch = 302 feet
605 Kirby Street DATE: October2021 Figure 2: Detailed Location
Raleigh, NC 27606
www.ecomitigation.com STAFF: TLH
EcoMAA 919.819.0014
Thlsma daildatzmntzinedWthinaresn hedaslswlffinnwamant r,.Mb� A,,eAMlsors.LLCex 0 165 330 660
pan pp y. gation pressy
tlisdaims responsibility for tlamages orliability from any daims that may arise out of the ure ormkure of Mk map. Itk Project:
ECOMITIGATION m—.1—spnnrhirri&th,u rmd.,,mmeifth dr,o.mi,magi,,.maanmewhhmeu,,C,n,ed,.rni,maawa,
ASSET ADVISORS---as—,data.nnrh.uiditbeusedasun.it�'meusecs—pnsibiiitytonbtzinprepe,—,data. Ossi eeDaIll
prepared by a licensed surveyoq where required by — Feet P
C

I NC 87
' I► • 1
— Rockingham -County
�� .
It
Brooks Bridge Dam
7 1
Caswell County
CAltamahaw Dam
Waterfall Lane Dam i c
c r
oOssipee Dam-
0
a_� '--,Reedy Fork/Haw River
E I 1 Confluence
QJ
5udjord I �,
Glencoe Dam
�r
Indian Valley Dam
I
NC 87
NC 61 NC 100 -�
?�--.- Elon�
i
Burlington
Upstream/Downstream Dams from Ossipee Dam:
Waterfall Dam (upstream) is located on Reedy Fork approximately
8.83 miles upstream from Ossipee.
Indian Valley Dam (downstream) is located on the Haw River
approximately 6.36 miles downstream from Ossipee Dam.
Glencoe Dam (downstream) is located on the Haw River
approximately 1.11 miles below Indian Valley Dam.
EcoM itigation Asset Advisors SCALE inch = 2 miles
"
605 Kirby Street DATE: October2021
Figure 3: Adjacent Dams
Raleigh, INC 27606
www.ecomitigation.com STAFF: TLH
EcoMAA
919.819.0014
0 1
2 4 V
This map a.d all data c.ntainetl within are supplied as is with..--ty.E ftigati.. Asset A&I—, LLC expressly
ECOMITIGATION
, daimsresp-ibilityfordamages.,IAilityfromanyd—, that mayariseoutoftheuse.,misuseofMkmap.Itis
the=olere=p... ibility& the um, t. determine if thedata..this—pI,. ptibi,--,the—C,.eeds. This map was
Project:
ASSET ADV I SO RS
.a meated as —, data..., sh.uld it be used as —h. It Is the users resp... ibility t..btai. prepe, sure data,
by licensed by
Miles
Ossipee D a m
prepared a survey.q where required —

G
R
'IT
\ }
a =
o
\
�
x
W
0
�
�
z4—
E
�
�
�
0
0-
E �
� �
i .F
�
0
§
B
fL
§ Mt
E:
\ �-
2 § ({-:-
# ;
§�(0
LU
§(
\/
E2
V )§
� °:

G
R
'IT
\ }
U a =
c
O o
�
W CD
�
z4—
�
E
�
�
�
0
0-
E
Mt
�
§
B
�
\
\ �-
2 § ({-:-
# ;
§�(oq
u
§(
\/
E2
W §\

I E 1-1i
03010103
Ridge
High Point
IAsheboro
03040103
- mam Fork �z P.1
ine ee sboro
Raleigh
— RO INA
to Fay teville.
0
Yance,•: ill- I N A wil iington -
Cape Fear Basin Boundary
ngton
Liberty Q
l-i=:ity ;r,a.
03030003
Fu
Hwy Springs
Ossipee Dam
Service Area
14- 03030004
CZ HUC8 Boundaries
HUC14 Boundaries
Lilhil,tcn
EcoM itigation Asset Advisors
SCALE inch = 12 miles
�605Kirby Street
DATE: October2021
Figure 7: Watershed Boundaries
Raleigh, INC 27606
www.ecomitigation.com
STAFF: TLH
ECOMAA 919.819.0014
This map and all data c.-in,d within are supplied as is with no--nty.E ftigati.n Asset A&I—, LLC expressly
0
5 10 20 V
d daimsresp.nsibilityfordamages.,liabilityfromanydaims that mayariseoutoftheuse.,misuseofMkmap.Itis
ECOMITIGATION the s.I,—p.nsibility&theuse,t. dete,mme if the a ata.n this map I,—,time-1, the users needs. This map was
Project:
ASSET ADVISORS na -- as —, data, n., sh.uld it be used as u h It Is the users resp.nsibility t..btain prepe, sureev data,
by licensed by hw.
Miles
Os s I ee D a m
P
prepared a survey.q where required

G
R
�
=
� / }
�
w LL
o
O /
�
�
� C)
� �4—
�
�
�
�
�
0 E
�
z
Q
�
�_ �
M
§
B
fL
Mt
o
\Ha-
\ �-
2 § ({-:-
# ;
§�(oq
u
§Ln
\/
E2
W §\

'
j On
03010103
O
Ms an
mason
15
. ! e
11 ^
Ridge
Hiyhr Rofl
TL w , rill-
03040103
4
— Q
� ' 70
Greensboro -
03030002
I
.49)
Asheboro
03030003
Vlrg miB
North C �j
501
03010+V4
Roxboro
Vp,
urlmm
BIIt' I
03030004
Ossipee Dam
0 nford
HUC8 Boundaries
f--�_ ullingt«,
C3 Service Area
11SCoe
EcoMitigation Asset Advisors SCALE inch = 12 miles
605 Kirby Street DATE: October2021 Figure 9: Service Area
Raleigh, INC 27606
www.ecomitigation.com STAFF: TLH
EcoMAA 919.819.0014
This map and all data c.-in,d within are supplied as is with no--nty.E ftigati.n Asset A&I—, LLC expressly 0 5 10 20 ~
d daimsresp.nsibilityfordamages.,IAilityfromanydaims that mayariseoutofth, useormisuseofMkmap.Itis Pro eet.
ECOMITIGATION the =ol,—p.nsibility& th, um, t. d—min, if th, data.n this map I,. ptibi,-1, th, users n„ds. This map was
ASSET ADV I SO RS na ,reams , —,y data, n., sh.uld it be used a, —h. It I, the users resp—ability t. btam prep,, sure data, OSS I ee � d l'Tl
prepared by a li„ns,d surv,y.q where required by hw. Miles P

Appendix B: Preliminary Sediment Assessment

RiverBank
CONSULTANTS
OSSIPEE MILL DAM
PRELIMINARY SEDIMENT ASSESSMENT
June 26, 2013
PO Box 29921, Austin,Texas . Telephone: [phone] . www.riverbankecosystems.com

INTRODUCTION
Ossipee Mill Dam currently impounds 2.7-miles of the Reedy Fork in northwest Alamance
County, North Carolina (Figure 1). The Dam is located approximately 7-miles northwest of
Burlington along Old NC HWY-87 (Figure 2). Restoration Systems is currently considering
the dam for removal as part of a potential compensatory mitigation project. As part of the
project's feasibility analysis, Dr. Adam Riggsbee of RiverBank Consultants, LLC (Austin,
Texas) conducted a preliminary field review of the dam's sediment deposition patterns on
May 22, 2013.
This report and its associated figures and photos (Appendix A), communicate the methods
and results of Dr. Riggsbee's sediment survey. It is intended to provide interested parties
with a preliminary assessment of the dam's capacity to retain sediments, especially fine
sediments that may be associated with potentially toxic contaminants. An early draft of
this report was provided to Dr. Tom Augspurger of the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Dr.
Augspurger is a toxicologist who has helped conduct stepwise sediment assessments for
various dam removals in North Carolina. After reviewing a draft of this report, Dr.
Augspurger conducted a Preliminary Tier 1 Analysis (Appendix B), the conclusions of
which are incorporated into the conclusions of this report.
HISTORY, SITE DESCRIPTION AND SAMPLING CONDITIONS
Located on the Reedy Fork, a medium gradient tributary to the Haw River, the dam was
originally constructed in the 1860s to support the operation of Mr. George Kernodle's
gristmill. Ownership of the dam changed over the last 150-years until its current owner,
Glen Raven Industries, acquired it in 1979.
The dam is constructed of quarried granite with a height of —14-feet and a width of —210-
feet, impounding the Reedy Fork for approximately 14,200-linear feet. As is characteristic
of run -of -river dams, channel geometry increases with proximity to the dam. Channel
wetted -perimeter within the impoundment ranges from —4.0 to 15.5-feet in depth and —70
to 115 feet in width.
The site's hydrological record shows nearby peak discharges ranging from 391 to 11,600
cfs (USGS gage 02094500, located —8.2-miles upstream; see Figure 3 for recurrence
interval analysis). The field visit was conducted on May 22, 2013. Rains in the days
preceding the field visit resulted in turbid flows, which were well above median daily
discharge (19 cfs). Flows during the sampling visit ranged from —125 to 115 cfs. On May
20, 2013 flows exceeded 500 cfs (a 1.1-year event, Figure 3). It is assumed higher flows
resulted in incremental increases in water depth at the time of sampling.
METHODS
A kayak was used to travel directly to the top of the impoundment from the Old NC HWY-
87 bridge (Figure 4). Once at the upper limits of the impoundment, the boat was turned
around. The kayak traveled through the impoundment in a zigzag pattern from bank -to -
bank for the length of the impoundment. Using a graduated 12-foot prism rod equipped
with a metal tip, the riverbed was probed every 300 to 500-feet to assess sediment type
RiverBank Consultants, LLC Ossipee Mill Dam Preliminary Sediment Assessment Report 1 of 4

and depth of deposition. Once significant depositions were encountered, probing increased
with frequency, so as to identify any and all fine sediment accumulations. Measurements
were randomly made at left bank, center of channel and right bank.
Depositional depth was measured using a technique referred to as "Depth Of Refusal"
("DOR"). DOR was measured using the graduated prism rod, and calculated as the
difference in depth from the deposit's surface and depth after the prism rod was pushed to
the point of refusal. Deposits of relative significance were sampled using a petite PONAR
dredge to gather visual verification of sediment character. Deposit locations were marked
using a GPS unit for mapping purposes.
RESULTS
In general, the impoundment exhibits sediment fining in the downstream direction —
coarser sediments in the upper limits and finer sediments in lower limits. The upper and
middle portions of the impoundment (upper 1.8-miles) consist mostly of bedrock and
gravel with intermittent, small accumulations of pea -gravel and coarse sand. No deposits
of relevant depth (>0.5-ft) were located in these sections of the impoundment. However,
there were occasional near shore fine sediment deposits along channel margins. These
locations are not of significant depth (DOR <<0.5-ft), are likely of bank origin and unlikely
to move during transport events. As the presence of these small areas was not considered
a product of reservoir deposition, the areas were not consider significant within the
context of this study.
The lower impoundment (lower 0.9-mile) exhibited greater sediment accumulation (see
Table). Significant deposits were not encountered until nearly 800-feet upstream of the
dam (see Waypoint 3 in Figure 4). From this point onward, accumulations were
encountered more frequently; however, their character, with two exceptions, did not
consist of fine, organic sediments (see Appendix A for sediment photos). Instead, sand and
pea -gravel were the most commonly observed sediments. DOR measurements ranged
from 0.5 to 2-feet for these coarser materials.
Two locations contained fine sediments, Waypoint 5 and Waypoint 6. The greatest
depositional depth and extent was observed at Waypoint S. Extending for approximately
10-feet from the left bank, this deposit consisted of fine organic rich sediments with low
sand content (see Appendix A). DOR measurements average 3.5-feet with water depth
measured at 9-feet in this location. At the second location, Waypoint 6, fines were
observed is a less significant deposit. While organic silt sediments were observed in this
deposit, sampled material consisted mostly of fine sand with significant pea -gravel content.
Water depths were >>12-feet, so DOR measurements were not possible. Given the dam
height is 14-feet, this deposit is likely minor.
In the immediate vicinity of the dam, a deep thalweg (>>12-feet) separated two fairly
continuous deposits. Three measurements were taken of these deposits. Waypoints 7 and
9 represent the right bank deposit. Waypoint 8 is the only representation of the left bank
deposit, as the dam's proximity and the presence of a large woody debris jam made
sampling a second site unsafe. Water depths at these sites ranged from 10 to 11-feet and
RiverBank Consultants, LLC Ossipee Mill Dam Preliminary Sediment Assessment Report

DOR average measurements ranged from 1 to 2-feet. Sediment content was remarkably
coarse, consisting of fine sand, pea -gravel and medium -gravel.
Table: Sediment accumulation descriptions (see Figure 4)
Waypoint Depth (ft) DOR (ft)
Sediment Types*
1
>12
<0.5
Bedrock, pea -gravel
2
>12
<0.5
Pea -gravel, medium -gravel,
3
11
0.5
Fine sand
4
9.5
1
Coarse sand, pea -gravel
5
9
3.5
Organic fines, fine sand
6
>>12
Unknown
Fine sand, silt, pea -gravel
7
10.5
1.5
Fine sand
8
10
2
Pea -gravel, medium -gravel, fine sand
9
11
1
Fine sand, pea -gravel
* Sediments are listed from greater to lesser abundance at each site
CONCLUSIONS
Sediment accumulations consisted mostly of fine sand and pea -gravel with one deposit
containing organic rich fines. In all, the impoundment is dominated with bedrock, pea -
gravel, medium -gravel and fine sand. Only the lower 0.4-mile of the impoundment stores
sediment in accumulations, which are often separated by stretches of deep water (>12-
feet). As a comparison, sediment descriptions of the reach just below the dam (NC 87) have
been documented previously as "rocky" (NC DWQ 1999), "bedrock and boulder with some
cobble; silty" (NC DWQ 2009).
The Reedy Fork is a medium gradient stream, which, when unimpounded, appears capable
of regularly moving sediment up to cobble fractions. The presence of Ossipee Mill Dam for
the last 150+ years has undoubtedly altered the system's gradient at the reach scale.
However, using the dam's height of 14-feet as a metric of comparison, the impoundment
water depth measurements reported here means sediment accumulations are only minor.
This conclusion is further supported with DOR measurements showing only one isolated
deposit exceeding 2-feet (Waypoint 5).
There were no obvious reasons for the deposition observed at Waypoint S. The bank is a
possible source; however, the deposit extended too far into the channel to be related to
normal bank processes. It may be possible this site is the most common access point for
recreational users due to it proximity to the bridge, which would mean the bank is the
source of sediment. Normal reservoir deposition is unlikely, as the deposit's position on
the upstream side of an outside bend is not usually considered a depositional feature in
rivers or reservoirs with this much energy. It is possible the presence of Old NC HWY-87 is
causing backwater effects; however, similar deposits were not found across the channel,
which should be an area of greater deposition (inside bend). Regardless of the hydraulic
reasons for the observed deposition, it is unlikely to contain historic deposits, as other
RiverBank Consultants, LLC Ossipee Mill Dam Preliminary Sediment Assessment Report 3 of 4

depositional areas contain considerably coarser materials and the thalweg in the
immediate area exceeded 12-feet.
Dr. Augspurger's Preliminary Tier 1 Assessment (Appendix B) suggests that one facility
within the project's vicinity is of potential concern, Monarch Hosiery Mills. The facility is
located directly adjacent to the Reedy Fork in the immediate vicinity of the Old NC HWY-87
bridge crossing, which is within the impoundment. According to NCDWQ records, a minor
industrial wastewater discharge permit was approved in 1974 and retired in 2005. A 2002
effluent analysis detected aluminum, cadmium, lead, nickel, silver and copper. All metals
except copper were present in concentrations lower than water quality standards. Copper,
however, was found at levels well above the action level. The facility also used a
commercial non -regulated underground storage tank, which was removed in 1993.
Surrounding soils were contaminated with heating oil, which was cleaned -up, meeting
state standards. This facility therefore represents a potential source for heavy metals,
especially copper, and hydrocarbons.
While Dr. Augspurger's preliminary analysis points to the Monarch Hosiery Mills site as a
potential source of contamination, the sediment retention within the reservoir documented
here suggests few sediments are present that are capable of transporting toxic substances
downstream following dam removal. More specifically, based on the age of the structure
(150+ years), sediment character, water depth and DOR measurements, it appears the
Ossipee Mill Dam is not an effective sediment trap. Therefore, further sediment analysis is
not warranted at this time; however, should dam removal be pursued, the determination
for further review will be made in consultation with relevant regulatory and resource
agencies.
REFERENCES
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 1999. Basinwide Assessment Report, Cape Fear River
Basin. Environmental Sciences Branch, Water Quality Section, Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2009. River and Stream Assessments, Cape Fear River
HUC 030300002—Haw River. Environmental Sciences Branch, Water Quality Section, Raleigh, NC.
RiverBank Consultants, LLC Ossipee Mill Dam Preliminary Sediment Assessment Report 4 of 4

APPENDIX A: SEDIMENT SAMPLE PHOTOS

Photo 1: Waypoint 3--fine sand
RiverBank Consultants, LLC Ossippee Mill Dam Preliminary Sediment Assessment Report Appendix 1 of 7

Photo 2: Waypoint 4--coarse sand and pea -gravel
RiverBank Consultants, LLC Ossippee Mill Dam Preliminary Sediment Assessment Report Appendix 2 of 7

Photo 3: Waypoint 5--organic fine sediment, low sand content
RiverBank Consultants, LLC Ossippee Mill Dam Preliminary Sediment Assessment Report Appendix 3 of 7

fl'h
io
4W
u

Photo 5: Waypoint 7--fine sand
RiverBank Consultants, LLC Ossippee Mill Dam Preliminary Sediment Assessment Report Appendix 5 of 7

Photo 6: Waypoint 8--pea-gravel, medium -gravel, fine sand
RiverBank Consultants, LLC Ossippee Mill Dam Preliminary Sediment Assessment Report Appendix 6 of 7

Photo 7: Waypoint 9--fine sand, pea -gravel
RiverBank Consultants, LLC Ossippee Mill Dam Preliminary Sediment Assessment Report Appendix 7 of 7

APPENDIX B: PRELIMINARY TIER 1

Hi Adam,
I looked at potential pollutant sources in a one -mile buffer around Reedy Fork, extending five -miles
upstream of Ossipee Dam. I overlaid the assessment area with 2012 and 2013 GIS coverages for land uses
associated with pollutant release to the environment (by accessing databases and files maintained by North
Carolina natural resource management agencies). In addition to that GIS analysis, I also checked the
assessment area with USEPA's EnviroMapper (http://www.epa.gov/emefdata/em4ef.home). Collectively,
the databases retrieved information from the following primary sources:
Active Solid Waste Permits
Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS)
Brownfields (sites with a completed re -development agreement on formerly contaminated property)
CERCLIS Sites (known or suspected unregulated waste sites)
Confined Animal Feeding Operations
Dry-cleaning Solvent Cleanup Act sites
Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites
Manufactured Gas Plants
National Priorities List (Superfund sites)
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Sites (NPDES, surface water discharge sites)
Permit Compliance System Sites (PCS)
Pre -regulatory Landfill Footprints (non -permitted landfills closed prior to 1983 when permitting regulations
commenced)
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Sites (solid waste landfills, hazardous waste generation,
transport, disposal)
Toxic Release Inventory (facilities with reportable releases of certain pollutants to air or water)
Results:
Database Searches and GIS Maps — Figure 1 depicts facilities in the assessment area. Three of these are in
the Reedy Fork drainage and are listed with location information in Table 1; details of these are provided
below with regard to their potential as sources of pollutants to sediments. Note that three additional
facilities in the northeast section of the assessment area were identified in the GIS analysis in Figure 1, but
these were not included in Table 1 because they would drain to the Haw River instead of Reedy Fork. The
EnviroMapper review identified a stormwater permit (NCG080193) for Glen Raven Transportation Inc.
(2564 N 87) as in the assessment area. That facility is just downstream of Ossipee Dam and has been
demolished. Although it was historically operated as Ossipee Cotton Mills and Burlington industries'
Ossipee Weaving plant, I did not include it for follow-up because of its location downstream from the dam.

Table 1. Potential contaminant sources in the Ossipee Dam assessment area from GIS analyses of State and
federal databases.
Animal Operations Permits
No Records Found
Brownfields Agreement Sites Point
No Records Found
Brownfields Agreement Sites Polygon
No Records Found
Dry -Cleaning Solvent Cleanup Act Sites
No Records Found
EPA Geospatial Data (suite of data) (http://www.epa.gov/enviro/geo_data.html)
No Records Found
Hazardous Waste Sites
No Records Found
Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites
6Site Name ID dress
LEWIS PROPERTY, MAE NONCD0002001 7182 SOCKWELL ROAD, ELON COLLEGE
Manufactured Gas Plants
No Rccords Found
Pre -regulatory Landfill Footprints
No Records Found
Permitted Surface Water Discharge
Name
Monarch Hosiery Mills Incorporated
Homers Mobile Home Park
Permitted Landfills
No Records Found
Toxic Release Inventory
No Records Found
U TOTALOU
# Features
I
I
Address # Features
NC0001210 2729 OSSIPEE FRONT ST, ALTAMAHAW I
NCO077968 3437 SHEPARD ROAD, OSSIPEE 1
TOTAL: 2
Individual Site File Reviews - Inactive hazardous Waste Sites
The Mae Lewis Property is on the State's list of inactive hazardous waste sites as a result of the removal
of a home heating oil tank with some residual soil contamination left in place. Sharon Cihak with the
Guilford County Department of Public Health (pers. comm. 06/14/2013) indicates groundwater
monitoring following the tank removal indicated no concerns with petroleum hydrocarbons, but low
concentrations of tetrachloroethylene (perch loroethylene) were found in the well. Ms. Cihak
characterized the contamination as very localized based on sampling of adjacent wells. The GIS analysis
shows the site to be about 1,000 feet from the nearest surface water (an unnamed tributary which joins
Reedy Fork about 2.1 miles upstream from Ossipee Dam). Based on the size of the source, limited
extent of contamination, and distance to Reedy Fork, this site does not merit follow-up with regard to
the potential for sediment contamination.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Sites
Homers Mobile Home Park operates a minor municipal wastewater treatment plant with a permitted
discharge to Reedy Fork. The permitted volume is 0.04 million gallons per day (MGD), but the average
annual flow for a representative period (1997-2001) was only 0.008 MGD. Based on the nature of the

effluent and the small volume of waste disposed, the facility does not merit follow-up with regard to the
potential for sediment contamination.
Monarch Hosiery Mills Inc. was initially permitted in 1974 for a minor industrial (textiles) wastewater
discharge to Reedy Fork. According to Charles Weaver of NC DWQ (pers. comm. 06/18/2013), the
permit was surrendered in 2005. The facility was a hosiery finishing facility, receiving finished socks
which were dyed, dried and packaged for distribution. The effluent from the dyeing and the domestic
flow went into the wastewater treatment plant. The allowed effluent volume in the most recent permit
was 0.05 MGD, but the average annual flow from January 1994 to July 2002 was only 0.02 MGD. A
priority pollutant analysis was performed on the effluent in June 2002. Aluminum, cadmium, lead,
nickel and silver were detected, but less than water quality standards. Copper was detected at 300 µg/I,
well over the NC DWQ action level of 7 µg/I. Self -monitoring data show sulfide, chromium and phenol
concentrations were less than levels of concern. High BOD and corresponding low DO were a concern
over the year when the facility was active, but those water column oxygen consuming waste issues do
not translate to a concern for sediment chemical quality. The facility passed effluent toxicity tests
required of their permit on 33 of 34 occasions between April 1994 and June 2002. The 34 acre site with
76,000 square feet of former plant is now being used by a sporting and recreational goods merchant
wholesaler and a used truck tire dealer.
While no GIS coverage was available, I also checked the NC Division of Waste Management's
underground storage tank (UST) incident management database and aboveground tank (AST) incident
management database. Of 83 AST incidents in Alamance County (which would include any tanks
incidents known within 1.8 miles of upstream of the dam), none were in the assessment area. Of 790
UST incidents in Alamance County, three were in the assessment area:
WS-3446 HUB CENTER SERVICE STATION, OSCEOLA RD.
WS-3663 MONARCH HOSIERY MILLS, 1 MONARCH RD.
WS-4827 GASTER-BERICO SITE, OSCEOLA RD.
WS-3446 and WS-4827 have the same location information (36.179166,-79.513055) and appear in
Google Earth to be a defunct gas station. NC Division of Waste Management's Winston-Salem Regional
Office UST staff indicates they are both sites with soil contamination by gasoline, diesel or kerosene,
now in State -lead status due the bankruptcy, death, or financial inability of the responsible party. Both
were initiated as enforcement actions between 1992 and 1995, and they are about 1,000 feet straight-
line distance from Reedy Fork. Pollutants measured in groundwater at the site are those associated
with fuels or oils (ethyl benzene, toluene, xylene, naphthalene, total aromatic and aliphatic
hydrocarbons) and at concentrations in excess of State groundwater standards. Importantly for this
assessment, sampling of 8 wells between the source and Reedy Fork indicated no pollutants in excess of
State standards (S&ME, Inc. 2012). Based on the nature of the pollutants, distance from the river, and
analytical results of groundwater sampled between the source and river, the site does not merit follow-
up with regard to the potential for sediment contamination.
WS-3663 is the subject of a commercial non -regulated tank removed in June 1993. Soil contamination
with heating oil was cleaned -up to meet state standards, and the case was closed in April 1999. This site
is immediately adjacent to Reedy Fork and upstream of the dam indicating a potential source of
hydrocarbons.

Other information - Reedy Fork Creek is listed as an impaired stream on North Carolina's 303(d) list for
biological impairment and exceeding water quality standards for fecal coliform and zinc, although no
particular sources are identified as the cause for this degradation. Reedy Fork has two major tributaries,
North and South Buffalo Creeks, with major dischargers in the Greensboro area including Greensboro
T.Z. Osborne South Buffalo Creek WWTP (40 MGD) and the Greensboro North Buffalo Creek WWTP (16
MGD). The segments of North and South Buffalo Creek in the Greensboro area constitute one of the
worst water quality problems in North Carolina (NC DWQ 1999). South Buffalo Creek and North Buffalo
Creek have been historically rated as having Poor or Fair water quality (NC DWQ 1999, 2009). Reedy
Fork water quality is strongly influenced by upstream dischargers but reflects some recovery over the
15+ river miles between the discharges and the monitoring station at NC 87; its rating from 1983 to
2008 have been Fair to Good -Fair. DWQ noted that many specimens of benthic macroinvertebrates
were observed with deformities indicative of some instream toxicity (NC DWQ 1999).
References:
North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 1999. Basinwide assessment report: Cape Fear River basin.
Environmental Sciences Branch, Water Quality Section, Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 2009. Cape Fear River Basin Ambient Monitoring System
Report January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2008. Environmental Sciences Section, Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 2009. River and Stream Assessments, Cape Fear River HUC
03030002— Haw River. Environmental Sciences Section, Raleigh, NC.
S&ME, Inc. 2012. Groundwater Monitoring Report Hub Center Service Station 2805 Old NC Highway 87,
Elon, Alamance County, NC. S&ME, Inc., Greensboro, NC.

Appendix C: Photos
Note: All photos taken on 10/10/2021. Heavy rains passed through the area the day prior
(10/9/2021) resulting in a peak flows on 10/9/2021 of 29.2 ft3/s at 1915 EST as recorded by the
Reedy Fork at Gibsonville Stream Gauge (USGS 02094500) and 384 ft3/s at 1400 EST as
recorded by the Buffalo Creek at SR2819 Stream Gauge (USGS 0209553650).
On 10/10/2021 at 0930 EST, the recorded flows had dropped at both the Gibsonville and
SR2819 gauges to 17.2 ft3/s and 77.9 ft3/s, respectively.

0
L N
O �
LO
V/ N
c O
O
/A\+! O
�V
O
J = e-
O
4-0
s
L �
� p
.N
N
O
r
u
W
O
z
a
v
v
00 N
N � vEEz
I I
L �
L v
rl O F Q E v 'io
Q Q Q c
Vut
o ' -
o�
E E a
N 3L Ec
L c E c -
N 3_ -
a vo=v
Q)
o
c s vE=
c r
=qz
+,,
N _
Z O
L T a
C L N N
C'2 bA � v9
C '� 3 EEo� v
w z 3rnaats�
Qz ui
O0
r0
Ln
a>
LD
°a
O fW
Li o un
W w¢

P7: Aerial view of wetland along tributary to Reedy Fork.

P 12-1: First outfall of NWI wetland (PFO1Ch) to
Reedy Fork. Photo is taken —30' from Reedy Fork
with Reedy Fork in background.
P 12-2: First outfall of NWI wetland (PFO1Ch) to
Reedy Fork. Photo taken near near same location
at P12-1 looking towards wetland.

P13: Second outfall of NWI wetland (PF01Ch) to
Reedy Fork. Photo taken from Reedy Fork.
INSERT Aerial

Hi
R � pe 07
'�'
- Os

P16: Former Race at Ossipee Dam
P17 Insert Aerial

Appendix D: Preliminary Aquatic Species Analysis

Ossipee Dam Removal Preliminary Aquatics Species Database Search
Alamance County, North Carolina
Prepared for:
John Gant
Glen Raven, Inc.
1831 Park Avenue
Burlington, NC 27217
Prepared by:
EER141e
7`
324 Blackwell Street, Ste. 1200
Durham, NC 27701
Tel: [phone]
October 05, 2021

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Glen Raven is evaluating the establishment of a stream mitigation bank involving the removal of
the Ossipee Dam on the Haw River in Alamance County, North Carolina (herein referred to as
Proposed Project). The interagency North Carolina Dam Removal Task Force (DRTF), which is
comprised of staff from the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), NC Division of
Water Resources (NCDWR), NC Division of Marine Fisheries, NC Division of Coastal
Management, NC Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP), National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS), US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the US Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) have developed guidelines for dam removal projects that can be implemented to obtain
stream mitigation credits (DRTF 2008). The guidelines dictate that certain restoration goals
should be established when developing a Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI). Based on the
location of the Proposed Project the following restoration goals may be applicable:
1) Establishment of Appropriate Aquatic Community
2) Rare, Threatened and Endangered (RTE) Species
3) Water Quality Improvements
The Establishment of Appropriate Aquatic Community involves three main faunal groups:
aquatic insects, referred to as benthic macroinvertebrates (BMI), fishes, and freshwater mussels.
Improvement of BMI bioclassification scores (NCDWR 2016) also serve as a proxy for the
Water Quality Improvements restoration goal.
The Proposed Project sponsor (Glen Raven) in coordination with the Interagency Review Team
(IRT) will develop a monitoring plan that establish particular success criteria that demonstrate
achievement of the restoration goals. Glen Raven is in the early stages of determining the
feasibility of the Proposed Project to generate stream mitigation credits. Glen Raven retained
Three Oaks Engineering (Three Oaks) to gather and review existing aquatic species data from
impounded and free flowing sections within the watershed to gauge the general current status of
aquatic species in the Proposed Project area, as well as identify the potential suite of aquatic
species, including RTE species that may be targeted to demonstrate restoration goals.
2.0 METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS
Pertinent data from the project study area were gathered and reviewed from three database
sources including the NC Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) water quality monitoring
data for fish and BMI, as well as the NCWRC aquatic species database. The data were then
compiled and presented in table formats and all sampling locations were mapped in relation to
the Ossipee Dam.
2.1 DEQ Data
Water quality monitoring programs have been implemented by the DEQ to assess water quality
trends in North Carolina Waters. One method used is the monitoring of benthic
macroinvertebrates, or benthos, to assess water quality by sampling for selected organisms. The
species richness and overall biomass, as well as the presence of various groups intolerant of
Ossipee Dam Removal Preliminary Database Search Page 1
Job Number 21-327 October 2021

water quality degradation, are reflections of water quality. A biodiversity rating is given to a
water body sampled, based on the taxa richness of the stream and a qualitative sampling for
intolerant forms such as mayflies (Ephemeroptera), stoneflies (Plecoptera) and caddisflies
(Trichoptera), collectively referred to as EPT. Stream biodiversity can be rated as Excellent,
Good, Good -Fair, Fair and Poor. Excellent and Good ratings indicate that the best usage
classification for that stream is being supported (S). A rating of Good -Fair indicates that the
usage is supported but is threatened (ST). A Fair rating relates to a partial support (PS) of the
best usage, and a Poor rating indicates that the best usage classification for that stream is not
being supported (NS).
There are a total of 11 BMI monitoring sites within the project study area (Table 1). The site on
Reedy Fork at NC 87 just below the Ossipee Dam has been sampled eight times between August
08, 1983, and August 16, 2018. The overall trend at this site indicates improving conditions, as
it received "Fair" ratings, (PS) in 1983, 1985, 1986, 1989 and 1998, and "Good -Fair" scores (ST)
in 1993, 2008 and 2018 (Table 1). Results at other monitoring stations in the study area are
similar with sites that ranging from ST to PS. There are no sites that are either fully supporting
(S) or not supporting (NS) the respective designated classification (Table 1). The locations of
these monitoring sites are depicted in Figure 1.
Table 1. BMI Sites within Project Study Area
Station
Waterbody
Location
Sample
Type
Sample
Date
EPT BI
Bioclassification
BB002
West UT Haw River
SR 1549
Qua1 4
9/25/06
4.78
Not Rated
BB003
West UT Travis
Creek
SR 1500
Qua1 4
9/25/06
5.77
Not Rated
BB019
Basin Creek
SR 1594
Qua14
9/11/06
6.41
Not Rated
BB020
Dry Creek
SR 1529
Qua14
9/11/06
6.29
Not Rated
BB032
Reedy Fork
NC 87
Full Scale
8/16/18
4.80
Good -Fair
7/15/08
5.49
Good -Fair
7/7/98
5.99
Fair
7/13/93
5.50
Good -Fair
8/8/89
5.85
Fair
7/7/86
5.88
Fair
5/2/85
6.00
Fair
8/13/83
6.28
Fair
BB033
Tickle Creek
SR 1504
Full Scale
9/11/06
5.28
Fair
BB034
Travis Creek
NC 87
Full Scale
9/11/06
5.41
Fair
BB035
Tickle Creek
SR 1504
Full Scale
9/11/06
6.15
Fair
BB 163
Haw River
NC 87
Full Scale
9/26/13
5.62
Good -Fair
7/15/08
5.64
Good -Fair
9/15/03
5.11
Good -Fair
7/7/98
5.71
Fair
7/13/93
5.02
Good -Fair
7/9/90
5.62
Fair
7/9/87
1 5.76
1 Good -Fair
5/2/85
1 4.98
1 Good -Fair
Ossipee Dam Removal Preliminary Database Search Page 2
Job Number 21-327 October 2021

Station
Waterbodv
Location
Sample
Type
Sample
Date
EPT BI
Bioclassification
BB404
Reedy Fork
SR 2728
EPT
8/15/18
6.15
Fair
9/18/13
5.33
Fair
7/15/08
5.15
Good -Fair
7/11/03
6.40
Fair
7/7/98
5.65
Good -Fair
7/13/93
5.99
Good -Fair
BB485
East UT Travis
Creek
SR 1504
Qua14
9/25/06
6.02
Not Rated
Another method of assessing water quality is a fish community assessment which assigns an
Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI). The IBI evaluates species richness and composition, trophic
composition, and fish abundance and condition. There are two sites within the project study area
(Table 2), neither of which are in close proximity to the Ossipee Dam. The site on Reddy Fork,
which is 12.0 river miles upstream of the Ossipee Dam, was monitored five times between 1993
and 2013 and received "Good" ratings each time (Table 2). The locations of these monitoring
sites are also depicted in Figure 1.
Table 2. Fish IBI Sites Within Project Study Area
Station
Waterbody
Location
Sample Date
NCIBI Score
NCIBI Rating
BF65
Reedy Fork
SR 2728
9/5/13
48
Good
6/25/03
52
Good
10/12/98
52
Good
4/7/98
48
Good
11/3/93
46
Good
BF66
North Buffalo Creek
SR 2770
5/1/18
38
Fair
5/13/13
38
Fair
6/23/03
28
Poor
4/7/98
32
Poor
5/10/94
24
Poor
2.2 NCWRC Aquatic Species Data Base
The NCWRC maintains an unpublished database of aquatic species occurrences referred to as
the Portal Access to Wildlife Systems, or PAWS. Information in PAWS is collected by
NCWRC staff, other state, and federal entities, as well as private citizens with Scientific
Collection and Endangered Species survey permits. Efforts have also been made to enter verified
collection records of various natural science museums into PAWS. There have been relatively
few aquatic species surveys in the Study Area, of those, four targeted crayfish species, three
targeted mollusks, and one targeted fish (Table 3). Three of the species found have some level
of conservation concern in North Carolina; the Notched Rainbow is considered Threatened in
North Carolina and the Eastern Creekshell and Carolina Ladle Crayfish are considered
Significantly Rare (SR) in the state (NCNHP 2021).
Ossipee Dam Removal Preliminary Database Search Page 3
Job Number 21-327 October 2021

ct
�t ct
Q
N
k
O
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
O
oG
V)
kn
U
°
•�
cz
E
O
�
�•,'
�
N
N
• �
• �
N
fir"
°
,�
,�
.�
,�
ct
O
En
w
x
C13
W
W
ram`
c,3
ct
c,3
ct
i
C�3
U
Yct
U
O
cd U
2U
cd U
U
cd U
U
cd U
U
U
W
(�
W
W
W
W
U
cl
U
U
OO
U
U
OO
U
U
OO
U
xU
W
Z
rz
ti
rz
Z
rzrz
r
r
,U
.0
H
0
O
O
0
fl
fl
c,3
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
ul
u
HUv�v�w
w
www
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
o
N
4�
°
o
o
o
�
our
7szQ
°�
N
kr)�z
u�
o ��
ozu
�z•�
ct
M
C,
1p
0
M
V•1 �
>"u
'cz
u•�•
W N
W N
W N
W N
a;
U
U
O
O
O
O
U
O
O
N
oc--
01
01
01
�
a1
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
QN
oc
oc V)
O O
n 0
�
c oc
a1
N 01
i 01
N
O
O
O
O
�
�
O
O
O
oc
z
U
0
oc
0
0
0
o
0
°°I
��.
U
-
��.
U
°°
�,�.
U
°°C
U 6o
U
oc
O
DD
O
01
O
01
M
01

3.0 DISCUSSION
The existing aquatics species data within the project study area is relatively sparse; however, the
targeted surveys for freshwater mussels and crayfish indicate that there are potential candidates
for RTE species restoration goal. The pertinent BMI data indicate that water quality in the study
area has experienced some level of degradation. It has been demonstrated that dam removal
projects have resulted in improvements to water quality, as reflected in BMI monitoring. Three
Oaks will discuss potential monitoring approaches for the development of a restoration plan for
this project.
4.0 LITERATURE CITED
Dam Removal Task Force (DRTF). 2008. Determining Appropriate Compensatory Mitigation
Credit for Dam Removal Projects in North Carolina.
NC Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ). 2016. Standard Operating Procedures for the
Collection and Analysis of Benthic Macroinvertebrates, Version 5.0. Division of Water
Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina. February 2016.
NCNHP 2021. Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Animal Species of North Carolina 2020.
NCWRC-PAWS. Unpublished Aquatic Species Database, NC Wildlife Resource Commission.
Ossipee Dam Removal Preliminary Database Search Page 5
Job Number 21-327 October 2021

E U
� L cn
a)
U
r1\\
W >
�I"1
lJ
�
/�1\
nW� O �rt-
W lV
-O.
Q
O
J
M
N
V
n�
W
LL
L
o
-
�
zY
o
N
1
Ao
co
N
N
LL
m
�
�
C
T N
—
s
L 0
I
�
O
N
o
O]
�
F
m
m
m
,
I
n
�
O]
m
O
m�
m
_.. __—_---_—_—_
M
M
_—__-----------
m
L
—_—_____— --------
4
O
00
__
—_,_L_— ------- _—
M
-..
_
1
m
�
_
1
�
E
LL
07
I
JJJ
_
y
M
I
O
LL
� m
'
O
O
LL
m
v
2
i
LL `Y
O]
'tee
I
f
1
QY
I
N �
In CL co
C
0
EIn
D O m LL r U'
tia
I
• O ■ • jIII
L--- L
�.

o
1
�1
M
m
u
(y C)
a) N
p U) °'
a a
'OLL
cD
s
N
U)
Z
z
O
o
-
�
o
4
-
I
ID
I
I
� v
�
I
E
0
vE_i
-�I�-
E
m�/-
T- __-------- --- -
---
------------ --
----------
- - -
JrI
1
E
T
f
E
I
V
v
J
I
I
i
I °aqs
f
1
Z N m �
U C
I
3
(n = m
a
r
Q N Q :� T-
a
E o