20080229 Ver 1_Year 8 Monitoring Report_20151112

FORREST CREEK
MITIGATION BANK
STREAM RESTORATION SITE
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
MONITORING YEAR 8 REPORT
VEGETATION MONITORING
November 11. 2015

Table of Contents
1.0Introduction ...............................................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Location and Description.........................................................................................1
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives-,. ... **-4 .................................... * ... * .... ** ........
2.0 Vegetation Condition and Comparison.. ... 664-4 ...... 4 ...... ........................................................
3
3.0 Methodology......... .................................... ... 4 ....... 66.66-64.66.66 .... 4 .... 4 ........ 4
.................................. 3
3.1 Vegetation Monitoring Plots....... ... 64 ... ............. 4 ................................................................
3
4.0 References. ... 6 .... 4 ...... 4 .................................. ........ 4— ..........
......................... 5
Appendix A: Site Maps
Figure
1: Site Location Map
Forrest Creek Restoration Conservation Easement As-Built Exhibit
(Sheets l through 5)
Appendix B: Veeetation Assessment Data
Table 1: Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Table 2: Stems per Acre by Plot and Year
Appendix C: Veeetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Appendix D: Vegetation Monitoring Plot Data Sheets
Appendix E: Correspondence

1.0 Introduction
1.1 Project Location and Description
The Forrest Creek Stream Restoration Site (Site) of the Forrest Creek Mitigation Bank
(Bank) is located in Orange County North Carolina within land owned by Milton A. Latta
and Sons Dairy Farms, Inc. A permanent conservation easement covers the restored stream
and surrounding riparian buffer. This easement defines the Site's boundaries. The Site is
located approximately seven miles northeast of Hillsborough and six miles northwest of
Durham in northeastern Orange County, North Carolina (see Figure 1, Appendix A). The
streams lie within USGS hydrologic unit 03020201020020 in the Neuse River Basin. The
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) classifies the main reach, Forrest
Creek, as a WS -11 (water supply H), HQW (high quality water), and NSW (nutrient sensitive
water).
The Site includes two streams. The larger reach (Forrest Creek) flows through the property
from north to south and drains a 3.6 square mile area predominantly consisting of forest and
pasture land. The smaller tributary (UT 1) flows from west to east before joining with Forrest
Creek, and drains a 0.1 square mile area predominantly consisting of pasture land. The
Forrest Creek Restoration Conservation Easement As -Built Exhibit is located in Appendix A
(Sheets 1 through 5).
The stream restoration work is regulated under the Forrest Creek Mitigation Bank Mitigation
Banking Instrument (MBI) signed by the Sponsor and the US Army Corp of Engineers
(USACE), the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the NC Division of Water
Quality, now hereby referred to as Division of Water Resources (DWR), and the NC Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC). These agencies comprise the Interagency Review Team
(IRT), formerly the MBRT, in accordance with Federal guidelines and regulations, including
the Compensatory Mitigation losses of Aquatic Resources Final Rule, 33 CFR Parts 325 and
332 and 40 CFR Part 230. Restoration work resulted in the restoration of 6,825 linear feet,
enhancement (Level 1) of 325 linear feet, and preservation of 3,005 linear feet of stream.
With the restoration, water quality has been improved due to a decrease in nutrients,
turbidity, and moderation in water temperature. Biochemical oxygen demand has been
reduced through filtering in the riparian buffer and riverine wetlands. Potential habitats have
been added through the creation of bed features and the reestablishment of riparian
vegetative community.
The annual monitoring work assesses the Forrest Creek main channel and the Unnamed
Tributary to Forrest Creek to determine restoration success. The monitoring plan has been set
up based on guidance provided by The Stream Mitigation Guidelines developed by the
United States Corps of Engineers—Wilmington District (McLendon, et al. 2003), version 1.2
11/16/2006) of the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) document
entitled "Content, Format, and Data Requirements for EEP Monitoring Reports", version 2.0
(3/27/2008) of the EEP document entitled "Mitigation Plan Document Format, Data
Requirements, and Content Guidance", and the Forrest Creek Mitigation Bank Mitigation
Plan (May 2008).
Monitoring occurred annually for five years and reports were submitted. Annual monitoring
work has included reference photographs, vegetative stem counts, materials sampling, site
survey, bankfull event documentation, and visual assessment and mapping of significant
features. Year 5, 2012 monitoring was completed on September 18 and 19 and October 16,
2012. The Year 5 Monitoring Report for the Forrest Creek Buffer Mitigation Bank was
submitted on December 4, 2012. Members of the IRT, more specifically representatives from
DWR and USACE, met with EBX-EM, LLC (EBX) on-site to evaluate the success of the

riparian buffer restoration. Based on the results of the on-site meeting, DWR requested
additional vegetation monitoring for a period of three years (DWR Additional Monitoring
Required letter, May 3, 2013, DWR Project # 2008-0229, Appendix E). More specifically,
DWR had the following comments:
"Significant areas within Zone 1 of the riparian buffer along the entire reach of the
Forrest Creek mitigation site appeared to lack adequate stem counts most likely due
to soil type and hydrology issues. Stems that were present in Zone 1 were mostly
small, indicating they may have been part of supplemental planting performed in
2010 required by DWQ and ACOE.
Action Required: EBX shall reevaluate Zone 1 throughout the entire mitigated
portions of Forrest Creek and provide a remediation plan sufficient to provide
adequate vegetation in Zone 1. Sufficient ground cover should be reestablished in all
bare areas and, where adequate stem counts are absent, EBX shall plant trees that are
desirable for that specific soil type and hydrology. DWQ recommends larger trees be
planted in some of the most problematic areas along the reach. Modifications to the
approved buffer mitigation plan are allowed to provide EBX with the flexibility of
choosing tree species and vegetation that are more likely to survive and reach
maturity. EBX may make additional recommendations to promote site success.
Monitoring reports shall be submitted for three more years (2013, 2014, and 2015),
and shall record only the vegetation conditions along Zone l."
This Monitoring Report addresses buffer restoration areas between Stations 214+00 and
232+00, which includes Vegetation Plots 2, 3, and 4.
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives
The goals of the project relate to providing ecological improvements to the Site's streams and
riparian buffers through beneficial modifications of hydrology, water quality, and habitat.
Goals related to hydrology include:
• Re-establishing floodplain connection by raising bed elevations (UTI) or
lowering adjacent floodplain (Forrest Creek)
• Increasing flood storage by re-establishing floodplain connection
Goals related to water quality include:
• Reducing turbidity and pollution by reducing sediment and nutrient inputs cattle
exclusion)
• Reducing water temperatures by providing shading
• Increasing / stabilizing oxygen levels by reducing BOD /COD and increasing re -
oxygenating turbulence
Goals related to habitat include:
• Improving in stream bed habitat by increasing riffle -pool diversity, reducing
sediment deposition, and improving low flow water depths
• Improving bank habitat by increasing stability and woody biomass
• Improving floodplain habitat by establishing microtopography and hydrology,
removing invasive vegetation, and increasing habitat diversity
• Improving food web dynamics by adding biomass (such as detritus, coarse woody
debris, and leaf matter) and re-establishing floodplain connection

The restoration achieves these goals through the following objectives:
• Stabilizing channel bed and banks through modifying dimension, pattern, and
profile using natural channel design
• Installing in-stream structures such as rock vanes, log vanes, and constructed
riffles
• Raising stream bed elevations or lowering floodplain
• Restoring soils in riparian buffer by excluding cattle and adding organic
components
• Removing invasive vegetation
• Planting native vegetation in riparian buffer
• Fencing out livestock
Together, these improvements have provided functional uplift for the watershed as a whole.
The dimension, pattern, and profile were restored using Rosgen Priority I and Il restoration
approaches (Rosgen, David L. 1997). The Priority I approach was used on the UT to Forrest
Creek to raise bed elevations and reconnect the stream to the abandoned floodplain. The
Priority II approach was used on Forrest Creek to reestablish an active floodplain at the
existing bed elevation. These methods have decreased stream bank erosion, established an
active floodplain, reduced channel stress during floods, improved aquatic habitat, and
reduced fine sediments. A portion of Forrest Creek immediately above the restoration reach
was enhanced by modifying a downstream crossing that had created ponding upstream. The
crossing modification reestablished natural flow and will create a natural channel profile.
Above the enhancement area, a section of Forrest Creek has been placed under conservation
easement to preserve a functional stream channel and riparian buffer.
The remaining impaired riparian buffer was planted as four (4) zones. Zones 1 and 2 are the
stream channel and bank zones consisting of tree and shrub species and native herbaceous
seeding typically found along stream banks in the region. Live stakes comprised the bulk of
installed species within these zones. Zone 3 is the riparian zone consisting of selected tree
and shrub species with a range of tolerances to inundation and saturation. Zone 4 is the
transitional zone that includes the buffer areas (subject of a separate report prepared for
DWR).
2.0 Vegetation Condition and Comparison
Re-planting within the Conservation Easement (CE) was not prescribed at the conclusion of
Monitoring Year 7 (MY7) activities; nor were additional stems planted post MY7 activities.
Current stem counts (i.e. stem is defined as single living tree species) were calculated using
Vegetation Plot monitoring data. Success will be defined as the survival of a minimum density of
320 trees and shrubs per acre. In Monitoring Year 8 (MY8), monitoring was conducted for three
(3) Vegetation Plots (Vegetation Plots 2, 3, and 4) located between Stations 214+00 and 232+00.
MY8 field activities were conducted on October 27 and 28, 2014. The planted and volunteer
survival threshold was met for all three (3) Vegetation Plots. In summary, stem survival rate for
MY8 was similar to stem survival rate for MY7. This condition is indicative of a mature
established stream buffer trending towards equilibrium. Summary tables of the data collected are
provided in Appendix B.
3.0 Methodologv
3.1 Vegetation Monitoring Plots
All monitoring methodologies follow the most current templates and guidelines provided by
DMS (EEP, 2010; EEP, 2011). Baseline vegetation monitoring was conducted in accordance to

CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation (CVS-EEP, v4.2). All three (3) vegetation plots
that were installed were located in Monitoring Year 8. Sheets 1 through 5 of the Forrest Creek
Restoration Conservation Easement As -Built Exhibit (Appendix A) depict the locations of the
vegetation plots. Table I (Appendix B) provides a success summary for each vegetation
monitoring plot. Based on the vegetation monitoring, the planted and volunteer survival
threshold was met for all three (3) Vegetation Plots. In summary, stem survival rate for MY8
was similar to stem survival rate for MY7. This condition is indicative of a mature established
stream buffer trending towards equilibrium. Table 2 (Appendix B) provides a summary of
stems per acre by Vegetation Plot and by monitoring year.
Vegetation Monitoring Plots were photographed and are located in Appendix C. Vegetation
Monitoring Plot Data Sheets are provided in Appendix D. Each Vegetation Monitoring Plot
Data Sheet provides measurements, location, and vigor of each planted species within a
respective vegetation monitoring plot.
An inspection of the fence around the perimeter of the conservation easement was conducted
during the vegetation monitoring site visit. An approximately 500 -foot section of the electric
fence extending east from Edmund Latta Road on the south side of the easement was found to be
damaged. Multiple cattle were observed within this portion of the easement during the site visit.
All cattle were removed from the easement and the fence was restored to operable condition on
October 27. 2015.

4.0 References
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2012. Forrest Creek Mitigation Bank — Forrest Creek Stream
Restoration Site Annual Monitoring Reoort —Year 5 (2012).
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2012. Forrest Creek Riparian Buffer Mitigation Bank —
Forrest Creek Stream Restoration Site Annual Monitoring Report —Year 5 (2012).
Lee Michael T., Peet Robert K., Roberts Steven D., and Wentworth Thomas R., 2008. CVS-EEP
Protocol for Recording Vegetation Level. Version 4.2
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) October 2004. Guidelines for Riparian
Buffer Restoration.
Available at intemet site: htti)://www.nceen.net/news/mports/buffers.pdf.
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) January 15, 2010. Procedural Guidance
and Content Requirements for EEP Monitoring Reports.
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) November 7, 2011. Monitoring
Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and/or Wetland Mitigation.
Schafale MP and AS Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation, Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh,
North Carolina.

APPENDIX A
Site Maps

/ I
H I. G L S S (a R pJU G
USGS 7.5 MINUTE "CALDWELL, NC' QUADRANGLE, 1968;
36.1435655N• 79.0943321'W ,

--- FAItom=
PRH[.A'IlCIARY PLAT
Ndla RnodfvaaCnovrymx m9b
i __ VI

lJ
1\
�
PRFMCNARY PIAT
NNM Wwtypec CnnpuenpBYY

== ZE
----------
PRRLIIr WARYP T // \
Nw(aRwoN�um Coewyaww6Ys /
F mon CftE H6SIO nw I S uuS uuaM

ff-MM—P-WAREMP
� n
Y
xmm, m�tla

\ L
i , w IPo&/iWY
YA&.A4INARY PLAT
Nm tr e�xa m r®•.r. � m a.�
'P _- -"� ... g f'ORR6ST CR&6K NF.TTONAHON'•

APPENDIX B
Vegetation Assessment Data

Table 1. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary Table
Forrest Creek Mitigation Bank Stream Restoration Site
Orange County, NC
Monitoring Year 8: October 27 & 28, 2015
McAdams Project #: EBX-13050
PLANTED & VOLUNTEER STEMS PER ACRE
Vegetation Plot ID
Vegetation Threshold
Met?*
Tract Mean
2
Yes
100%
3
Yes
4
Yes
Target density is a minimum of 320 trees and shrubs per acre according to the "Forrest Creek Mitigation
Bank—Forrest Creek Stream Restoration Site Annual Monitoring Report — Year 5 ", 2012.

Table R SMme per Pan by PIM and Year
F.—I Creak WbWtlan Rank Siream Rea\metlan Slb
Orange county. xc

APPENDIX C
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos

Forrest Creek Mitigation Bank Stream Restoration
Monitoring Year 8 Report
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Orange County, North Carolina
EBX-13050
October 27 & 28, 2015
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos:
Veg Plot 2: At 0,0
Veg Plot 3: At 0,0

r

APPENDIX D
Vegetation Monitoring Data Sheets

Mn
Freak Nem. 0 wem.,Va.. 17
Pm�am:
tyro: tOMMOnm9ts Pml.ixe (m^z)= 1a0 gm.. (m^2)= tag
Namc VO2 atemGacre= 324 atemaracm= me
81. 1nm a tom
weer.
narrow imr mmm..w 11-11- ,roe.........-...._.... _.... ............_..__
a
comm wv 9.ta
d
tyro
w
to
ehm
Sh mN4O
13
s.9
Balulani
RFrer eimh
3
88538
Blln].3]5208
Flmlinua mn Ivanica
Green Ash
3
2.285
9.9,5
Fradnus en vanka
Green AeM1
3
Vol.
1.050
9
B
FreNnue n venire
Grem PSh
3
Vol.
20000.5
1.- enn =a
Gredl Pah
2
Va[`Ecer
ISOBB
4.1
Oux s elb5
Wllbw Oak
3
2.1451.9Quer..
W.,,tl
Pin Oak
3
4.620
89
1.3
0uerwa micM18uul
Swam Chew Oak
MLN
8.9
5
Qu&.. IUNtls
Pln Oak
Mlatln
V.I.
8.8
93
fm[inus a00 woke
GreenAh
3
Vol.
tow
252
OB
3.2
F,Inue Bens Wmim
Gmeo Ash
3
VOL
1.40]
204
9.8
3.1
Fraenus m vanity
Grem Ash
MikMn
Vol.
9.5
9.9
FlaJnua en vanica
Green Ash
MI.Wn
Vol.
9.9
88
Fratlnus n ventre
Green Aeh
3
Vol.
2,686
229
9
B.]
Frennue nn v0niro
Green Pah
MlssiO
Vol.
]A
3
L' ulWmbar aGlluc
Sveal Gum
3
Val.
tA40
18
5.1
34
LinManertn mli Lm
Tull P ler
Mis6in
W
0.5
3
Li IUemEor Gflua
S.m Gum
3
Vol.
1.320
210
1.3
32
Li wambar ciMa
Stand Gum
3
Vol.
1000
].1
53
BWwWra
RMr 13d
W"S
1.3
55
Qu,IuaVL
Pin Oak
3
1088
120
1
8.5,.
Llectlmtlran lull ere
TulipP
3
9.6W
1]8
.A.
.
.....w....... �.mm.9
Tune P-1.11.1 wr
3
485
128

MV]
0.3
tl
Amina tMoba
on Name
Commm PaNmN
Cosslitlop
Missing
cam anb a
Project:
FIsmNCreek
stems=
0
stems - Vol.=
12
WN:
IN28NO15
pat sps, m"2)=
100
plat me(W2)=
100
Name:
Vl]3
ebmslacm-
243
ebmelecre=
486
stn:
lour x tom
Beales m
Rhar&rch
Needs
cover: mind Came Brovue, papaw reavetl wnnoser, soft mph -1W%water, additional voluntamp. resxeel gum -8 greenasn a-]sYM
� uv ow
3.0
0.3
tl
Amina tMoba
on Name
Commm PaNmN
Cosslitlop
Missing
cam anb a
1 c
6.3
3.4
Aspiva In ips
Gammpp Papposs,
3
8.56
W
4,9
9.0
Atlmina VlbEn
Ccmmsp Psamme
Mesin
1.7
9.9
Beales m
Rhar&rch
Needs
74
53
Comusamomum
Silky D as
3
8.580
200
0.9
4.0
Comus amomum
Silky0 otl
3
8720
200
97
85
Fail peomeAmnloas
Groep Ash
3
3.138
330
82
1.8
FrOunua paproadvenlod,
Green Mh
3
2019
240
4.5
28
Fraanus ennalivampa
Greep Ash
3
Vol
3,470
3M1
5.1
9.3
Foale vanloa
GfoM Ash
3
Vd.
2558
305
74
63
F�nus rouvaried
Green A¢h
3
Vol.
3020
34
7.5
Bl)
F2dnus n venloa
Gmen Ash
3
1.]53
270
0.7
100
FmHms mrm va
Green Ash
3
Vol.
8898
300
00
O9
Fraanua
Groan AaM1
3
Vol.
1.190
219
0.0
7.0
GuerWsroro luans�m
%n Oak
Moa
da line
10.0
BO
Ll uMamlear Amagua
6waet Gum
MI¢a
7.0
0 ].
Ll 92 raN, a
3wael Gum
3
V.I.
1.Bo9
230
i5
].o
Ll uNembara reNua
5eeet Gum
Mica
5.0
3.5
Ju lane nl re
Bleck walnut
Mie

Wi
-3 Eetlem red ceder volunteme
... xv.
"so:
Foneacreek
creme=
5
crams+va.=
18
Data:
t012]rz015
plan size (i=
IN
qm a. edi
IN
Name:
VO4
abmLacm•
202
..,ad..
847
81n:
lord xIon,
AM
3
Vol.
1.51
Cmar. ea -el saI.ka—ec VmoNeHon—a is a..elmed W aeon
-3 Eetlem red ceder volunteme
... xv.
am
0
32
Aaimina lrilo0a
1 Scientific Nam aRGr.,]f
n Pea aw
C n
3
Cammanle deN
mNeline
M Nam IIWWL=
202
30']
82
46
FrexiOus enslvenkan
AM
3
Vol.
142
3N
3.5
63
Fraxlnus arm Ivanicen
AM
3
Vol.
1.51
233
1
8
Fmxicusauelwrkmn
AM
3
V01.
1.45
250
8.5
87
Fmxinus enslinnumn
AM
3
Vol.
106
288
5.7
7.8
Freanus ann Iveniun
AM
3
Vol.
1886
300
3.5
27
Fraxlnus enn Ivanien
AM
3
082
2W
25
t6
Fmx
n AM
Mae
02
0.8
limends a
n AM
Man
1
22
Fraxlnus a
n AM
3
1.051
186
65
to
Fmxinus a
en AM
MenS
R
Ftaxinua i ventreen
AM
Meai5A
P alas deMdaemWM
Mmml
Vol.
].3
3]
OuacuamiMeuxil
bnnul oekMls¢iri
05
Ouettw uNM
Oek
3
005
172
5.5
Oumas Nele¢
Will"Oak
3
ORR
t48
Ouertu9 Maine
W
5
Gu—
k—Oak5
1
I..
Oumau alueN¢
Pin Oak
Pin ak
3
Vd.
281
3]0
O6
LI uidetem radlue
Bweet Gum
J
Vd.
R.305
3e0
pol
R
Beale nl m
BirM
3
Vd.
103
2953
Beale nim
Rv
MuerBids54
Beale ra
Wvin
J
Vd.
205
363
a
Oumaw eluarM1m
ak
Pin Oak
3
Vd.
1885
30085
Owwa
Pin Oak
]
adua.
Owwepalutlri¢
Pin Oak
3
Vd.
053
181

APPENDIX E
Correspondence

oft
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
DlvlaW of Water 0uallly
Pal McCrory Charles Walid, P.E. An E. Sivas, III
Goveaux Media Secretary
May 3, 2013
Mr. Thomas Rinker DWQ Project # 2008-0229
FDX -EM, LLC Orange County
909 Capability Drive, Suite 3100
Raleigh, NC 27606
Re: Additional Monitoring Required
Forrest Creek Buffer Bank Parcel
Dear Mr. Rinker:
On December 4, 2012, the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) received a Year 5 Monitoring Report for the
Forrest Creek Buffer Mitigation Bank and a request for close-out. On April 15, 2013, Katie Merritt and
Jennifer Burdette with the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) visited the site along with Tommy Cousins
and Norton Webster from EBX-EM, LLC (EBX) to evaluate the success of the riparian buffer restoration.
Eric Kulz from DWQ and Monte Matthews with the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) were also present
to evaluate the success of the stream mitigation. During the site evaluation for riparian buffer restoration,
Ms. Merritt noted the following:
1. Significant areas within Zone I of the riparian buffer along the entire reach of the Porrem Creek
mitigation site appeared to lack adequate stem counts most likely due to soil type and hydrology
issues. Stems that were present in Zone I were mostly small, indicating they may have been pan
of supplemental planting performed in 2010 required by DWQ and ACOE.
Action Required: EBX shall reevaluate Zone I throughout the entire mitigated portions of
Forrest Creek and provide a remediation plan sufficient to provide adequate vegetation in Zone 1.
Sufficient ground cover should be reestablished in all bare areas and, where adequate stem counts
are absent, EBX shall plant trees that are desirable for that specific soil type and hydrology.
DWQ recommends larger trees be planted in some of the most problematic areas along the reach.
Modifications to the approved buffer mitigation plan are allowed to provide EBX with the
Flexibility of choosing tree species and vegetation that are more likely to survive and reach
maturity. EBX may make additional recommendations to promote site success.
Monitoring reports shall be submitted for 3 more years (2013, 2014 and 2015) and shall record
only the vegetation conditions along Zone 1.
2. Zone 2 of the riparian buffer along the mitigation site was deemed successful and no additional
monitoring in this area is required.
Action Required: Now
weeanas, Bulirs, Slamealer, Compnanceane PemstaM Una e
1650 Mail Service Center, aalebh, NaN Carolina 2]m9 -n650 to /C�aroll/ina
Phone: 91990]-M3 11iFAX:9 9aW-64 lm faroia T26B1 (9^Fbo4 �Q6Hr'gjj;
InknxA hlg:11paal.adenrbfg a w.pWSS lx
MFquaeppg6r*1Mi„uereA En ,

PBX -EM, LLC
Forrest Creek Buffer Batik
Page 2 of 2
May 3, 2013
3. Cattle fencing was down in many areas along the mitigation site. Alan noted was that cattle had
been present within the buffer mitigation areas and along the stream banks.
Action Required: Replace or restore all fencing where necessary
4. DWQ noted that the presence of beavers is still posing a problem on this site.
Action Recommended: Place meshing material around the bottoms of larger trees in Zone I that
may be more prone to beaver activity.
5. The existing conservation easement has yet to be transferred/assigned to an approved land it or
stewardship. Please note that this action must be completed prior to a final credit release.
A remediation plan with dates provided for implementation shall be provided to DWQ no later than July
1, 2013 addressing the actions listed above. Pictures showing site conditions before the remediation are
requested to be included in the remediation plan. The remaining credit release for this site is 10 percent.
However, this remaining credit release is intended for the close out of the buffer mitigation bank. It is
anticipated that the credit release of 10% will be provided when all monitoring, as indicated above, has
proved that the riparian buffer restoration is successful and that Item (5) above has been completed.
Please feel free to contact Katie Men ill at [phone] if you have any questions regarding this
correspondence.
KarenSincerely,��/'�/y,5v`��
up,,,
Wetlands, Buffers, Stonnwatey Compliance and
Permitting Unit
KAH/kym
cc: File copy (Katie Merritt)
Tommy Cousins - PBX (via electronic mail)
Monte Matthews— Army Corps of Engineers (via electronic mail)