20160514 Ver 1 - Yadkin05_DraftProspectus_4_01_16 - 4/27/2016

DRAFT PROSPECTUS
YADKIN 05 UMBRELLA MITIGATION BANK
NORTH CAROLINA
GOOSE CREEK TRIBUTARIES STREAM MITIGATION SITE
SUTHER STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
WHITS END STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
Prepared for:
US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, NC DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES, US FISH AND
WILDLIFE SERVICE, NC WILDLIFE RESOURCES, AND US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY (COLLECTIVELY REFFERRED TO AS THE INTERAGENCY REVIEW TEAM)
Prepared by:
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
And
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
April 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Objectives............................................................................................................3
1.2 Bank Sponsor and Contact Information....................................................................4
2 ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION........................................................................ 5
2.1 Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument................................................................5
2.2 Credit Determination.....................................................................................................5
2.3 Credit Release Schedule.................................................................................................5
3 GEOGRAPHIC SERVICE AREA AND USE OF CREDITS .......................................... 5
4 WATERSHED CONSIDERATIONS.............................................................................. 6
4.1 Watershed Environmental Concerns and Mitigation Needs................................6
4.2 Bank Site Selection..........................................................................................................8
5 OWNERSHIP AND LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT ................................................... 9
6 QUALIFICATIONS OF SPONSOR..............................................................................10
7 ECOLOGICAL SUITABILITY OF SITES....................................................................10
8 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES.........................................................................................11
9 EXISTING CONDITIONS............................................................................................12
9.1 Goose Creek Tributaries Site.....................................................................................12
9.1.1 Physiography, Topography, and Land Use...........................................................................12
9.1.2 Water Quality.......................................................................................................................................12
9.1.3 Vegetation..............................................................................................................................................13
9.1.4 Soils...........................................................................................................................................................13
9.1.5 Hydrology..............................................................................................................................................14
9.1.6 Fluvial Geomorphology..................................................................................................................15
9.1.7 FEMA........................................................................................................................................................16
9.2 Whits End Site................................................................................................................16
9.2.1 Physiography, Topography, and Land Use...........................................................................16
9.2.2 Water Quality.......................................................................................................................................17
9.2.3 Vegetation..............................................................................................................................................17
9.2.4 Soils...........................................................................................................................................................17
9.2.5 Hydrology..............................................................................................................................................18
9.2.6 Fluvial Geomorphology..................................................................................................................19
9.2.7 FEMA........................................................................................................................................................19
9.3 Suther Site......................................................................................................................19
9.3.1 Physiography, Topography, and Land Use...........................................................................19
9.3.2 Water Quality.......................................................................................................................................
20
9.3.3 Vegetation..............................................................................................................................................20
9.3.4 Soils...........................................................................................................................................................20
9.3.5 Hydrology..............................................................................................................................................21
9.3.6 Fluvial Geomorphology..................................................................................................................
21
9.3.7 FEMA........................................................................................................................................................22
10 RESTORATION PLAN................................................................................................23
10.1 Reference Data..............................................................................................................23
10.2 Site Work Plans.............................................................................................................
23
Yadkin 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Table of Contents
Draft Mitigation Prospectus

10.2.1 Goose Creek Tributaries........................................................................................................... 23
10.2.2 Whits End.........................................................................................................................................
24
10.2.3 Suther.................................................................................................................................................24
14.2.2
10.3 Stream Restoration......................................................................................................
25
10.3.1 Belt -width Preparation and Grading..................................................................................25
Schweinitz's sunflower.............................................................................................................33
10.3.2 Channel Excavations...................................................................................................................
25
10.3.3 Channel Plugs.................................................................................................................................25
33
10.3.4 Channel Backfilling......................................................................................................................
26
10.3.5 Piped Stream Crossing..............................................................................................................26
10.3.6 In -stream Structures..................................................................................................................26
10.4 Riparian Restoration...................................................................................................
27
10.5 Stream Enhancement I & II........................................................................................
27
10.5.1 Stream Enhancement I..............................................................................................................
27
10.5.2 Stream Enhancement II.............................................................................................................
28
11 MONITORING PLAN...................................................................................................29
11.1 Stream Monitoring.......................................................................................................
29
11.2 Vegetation Monitoring................................................................................................
29
11.3 Visual Monitoring.........................................................................................................
29
11.4 Water Quality and Macroinvertebrate Monitoring .............................................
30
11.4.1 Water Quality Monitoring........................................................................................................
30
11.4.2 Macroinvertebrate Monitoring.............................................................................................
30
12 ADAPTIVE MANAGMENT AND REMEDIAL MEASURES
31
12.1 Stream Instability......................................................................................................... 31
12.2 Vegetation.......................................................................................................................31
12.3 Invasive Species............................................................................................................ 31
13 HISTORICAL AND ARCHEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS...................................31
14 ENDANGERED AND PROTECTED SPECIES...........................................................32
14.1 Union County (Goose Creek Tributaries and Whits End Site) .......................... 32
14.1.1 Carolina heelsplitter................................................................................................................... 32
14.1.2 Michaux's sumac........................................................................................................................... 32
14.1.3 Schweinitz's sunflower.............................................................................................................32
14.1.4 Preliminary Biological Conclusions.................................................................................... 32
14.2 Cabarrus County (Suther Site).................................................................................. 32
14.2.1
Northern long-eared bat...........................................................................................................
32
14.2.2
Carolina heelsplitter...................................................................................................................
33
14.2.3
Schweinitz's sunflower.............................................................................................................33
14.2.4
Preliminary Biological Conclusions....................................................................................
33
15 CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................................................33
16 REFERENCES...............................................................................................................35
Yadkin 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Table of Contents
Draft Mitigation Prospectus

List of Tables
Table1: Site Summary..................................................................................................................................................1
Table 1A: Goose Creek Tributaries Mitigation Potential............................................................................ 2
Table 113: Whits End Mitigation Potential..........................................................................................................2
Table 1C: Suther Site Mitigation Potential......................................................................................................... 3
Table 2: Hydrological Function Objectives and Proposed Actions........................................................ 3
Table 3: Water Quality Function Objectives and Proposed Actions.....................................................4
Table 4: Habitat Function Objectives and Proposed Actions...................................................................4
Table 5: Population Growth in Municipalities of Yadkin 05..................................................................... 7
Table 6: NCDMS Stream Mitigation Requests for Proposals in Yadkin 05 ........................................ 7
Table 7: Goose Creek Tributaries Site Soils....................................................................................................14
Table 8: Goose Creek Tributaries Site Existing Stream Flow Regime...............................................15
Table 9: Whits End Site Soils..................................................................................................................................18
Table 10: Whits End Site Existing Stream Flow Regime..........................................................................18
Table11: Suther Site Soils.......................................................................................................................................
21
Table 12: Suther Site Existing Stream Flow Regime..................................................................................
21
Table 13: Goose Creek Tributaries Work Plan Summary........................................................................
23
Table 14: Whits End Work Plan Summary......................................................................................................
24
Table 15: Suther Site Work Plan Summary.....................................................................................................
24
Table16: Site Summaries.........................................................................................................................................
34
Appendix A. Figures
Figure1. Site Location............................................................................................................................Appendix A
Figure 2. Hydrologic Unit Map............................................................................................................Appendix A
Figure 3A. Goose Creek Tributaries Site Location....................................................................Appendix A
Figure 313. Goose Creek Tributaries Topography and Drainage Area............................Appendix A
Figure 3C. Goose Creek Tributaries Existing Conditions ......................................................Appendix A
Figure 3D. Goose Creek Tributaries Proposed Conditions .................................................. Appendix A
Figure 4A. Whits End Site Location..................................................................................................Appendix A
Figure 413. Whits End Topography and Drainage Area..........................................................Appendix A
Figure 4C. Whits End Existing Conditions....................................................................................Appendix A
Figure 4D. Whits End Proposed Conditions................................................................................AppendixA
Figure 5A. Suther Site Location..........................................................................................................Appendix A
Figure 513. Suther Site Topography and Drainage Area.........................................................Appendix A
Figure 5C. Suther Site Existing Conditions...................................................................................Appendix A
Figure 5D. Suther Site Proposed Conditions...............................................................................AppendixA
Appendix B. Goose Creek Tributaries Stream Gauge Plots
Yadkin 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Table of Contents
Draft Mitigation Prospectus

1 INTRODUCTION
Restoration Systems, LLC ("the Sponsor") is pleased to propose the Yadkin 05
Umbrella Mitigation Bank ("the Bank"). The proposed umbrella structure of the Bank
is designed to initially permit the establishment of stream and/or wetland mitigation
sites, while enabling the establishment of future mitigation sites not yet identified.
Yadkin 05 "Bank Sites" proposed under this prospectus include the following: 1)
Goose Creek Tributaries in Union County, 2) Whits End in Union County, and 3)
Suther Site in Cabarrus County (Figure 1 [Appendix A], Table 1).
Table 1: Site
Stream Site Hydro Existing Length
Status* (LF)
Goose Creek per/Int 4490
Tributaries
Whits End Per/Int 3128
Suther Per 3547
Mitigation Type Approx. Final
Length (LF)
Restoration, 4902
Enhancement
Restoration, 6587
Enhancement
Restoration, 4041
Enhancement
Totals 11,165 15,530
* Per = perennial; Int = intermittent
The Goose Creek Tributaries Site, Whits End Site, Suther Site, and all future sites are
located in the Yadkin River basin within USGS HUC 03040105 ("Yadkin 05"; Figures
1 and 2, Appendix A). The Goose Creek Tributaries Site is located approximately 9
miles north of Monroe, in northern Union County. The Whits End Site is located
approximately 8 miles southeast of Monroe, in southern Union County. The Suther
Site is located approximately 8 miles northeast of Concord, in northern Cabarrus
County.
(Remainder of page intended to be blank)
Yadkin 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Page 1
Draft Mitigation Prospectus

Preliminary mitigation potential of the Bank Sites are outlined in the following Tables
1A - 1C.
Table IA: Goose Creek Tributaries Mitigation Potential
Stream Site Final Length Mitigation Type Mitigation Ratio SMU/WMU
(LF)/ Area (AC)
(Remainder of page intended to be blank)
Yadkin 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Page 2
Draft Mitigation Prospectus
1832
Restoration
1:1
1832
UT 1
851
Enhancement I
1.5:1
567
622
Enhancement II
2.5:1
249
1324
Restoration
1:1
1324
UT 2
273
Enhancement I
1.5:1
182
Totals
4902
4154
Table iB: Whits End Mitigation Potential
Final Length
Stream Site
Mitigation Type
Mitigation Ratio
SMU/WMU
(LF)/ Area (AC)
4134
Restoration
1:1
4134
Waxhaw Br.
597
Enhancement I
1.5:1
398
UT 1
657
Restoration
1:1
657
UT 2
1199
Restoration
1:1
1199
Wetlands
9.5
Restoration
1:1
9.5
Totals
6587/9.5
6388/9.5
(Remainder of page intended to be blank)
Yadkin 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Page 2
Draft Mitigation Prospectus

Table 1C: Suther Site Mitigation Potential
Stream Site Final Length Mitigation Type Mitigation Ratio SMU/WMU
(LF)/Area (AC)
UT 1 1914 Restoration 1:1 1914
134 Enhancement II 2.5:1 54
1489
Restoration
1:1
1489
UT 2 171
Enhancement I
1.5:1
114
333
Enhancement II
2.5:1
133
0.6
Restoration
1:1
0.6
Wetlands
1.5
Enhancement
2:1
0.75
Totals 4041/2.1
3704/1.35
In total, proposed Bank Sites are expected to result in approximately 14,246 total
SMU's and approximately 10.85 total WMU's.
1.1 Project Objectives
The overall objectives of the Bank are to restore or otherwise improve the following
functions: 1) hydrological, 2) water quality, and 3) habitat. Tables 2-4 provide an
overview of the Bank's objectives and the specific actions proposed to accomplish
them.
Table 2: Hydrological Function Objectives and Proposed Actions
Functional Improvement Objectives Proposed Actions
Floodplain Connectivity
Floodplain Resistance
Stream Stability
Sediment Transport
Surface and Subsurface Storage and
Retention
Reconnect channels with historic floodplains
Plant woody riparian buffers; increase
microtopography
Reconstruct stream channels, sized to convey
bankfull discharges and watershed sediment
supplies
Channels constructed or raised to historic
floodplain elevations; increased floodplain
hydraulic resistance by planting woody vegetation
and increasing microtopography
Yadkin 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Page 3
Draft Mitigation Prospectus

Table 3: Water Quality Function Objectives and Proposed Actions
Functional Improvement Objectives
Remove Pollutant Sources
Upland Pollutant Filtration
Floodplain Biogeochemical Processing
Thermal Regulation
Table 4: Habitat Function Objectives and
Functional Improvement Objectives
Proposed Actions
Cessation of application of agricultural waste
(chicken/turkey effluent, fertilizer, pesticides)
Plant woody riparian buffers; construct marsh
treatment features intercepting overland flows
Increase floodplain connectivity, plant woody
riparian buffers; increase microtopography;
construct marsh treatment areas
Plant woody riparian buffers to provide shade
osed Actions
Proposed Actions
Construct stable channels, geomorphology
In -channel Habitat designed to increase hydraulic and bedform
habitat heterogeneity
Plant native, woody riparian buffers providing
Riparian Habitat and Structure foraging, nesting and cover for terrestrial species
as well as refugia for aquatic species
1.2 Bank Sponsor and Contact Information
Restoration Systems, LLC
John Preyer
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, NC 27604
jpreyerPrestorationsystems.com
919.755.9490
(Remainder of page intended to be blank)
Yadkin 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Page 4
Draft Mitigation Prospectus

2 ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION
2.1 Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument
The Sponsor is proposing to permit the Bank using an umbrella mitigation banking
instrument ("UMBI"). As proposed, the UMBI would allow for the establishment and
operation of multiple sites and multiple phases. The first phase described in this
prospectus, if approved, will serve as the Bank's initial source of mitigation credit.
The Sponsor also proposes the incorporation into the Bank of additional sites not yet
identified (within the Geographic Service Area described in the next section),
following Interagency Review Team ("IRT") review and approval.
2.2 Credit Determination
Credit for the first phase, and all additional phases, shall be based on the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) most current mitigation credit determination
methodology. Presently, the USACE is utilizing the Stream Mitigation Guidelines
(USACE 2003) to quantify mitigation project credit potential. If other methods are
released and become de facto requirements for stream mitigation projects in the
USACE, future phases will utilize these methods as appropriate.
2.3 Credit Release Schedule
Credits generated by actions described and approved in the Bank's final UMBI shall
be released in predetermined increments according to the milestones agreed to by
the Sponsor and the IRT in the UMBI's credit release schedule. The Sponsor will use
the credit release schedule detailed for stream mitigation banks in USACE (2013).
3 GEOGRAPHIC SERVICE AREA AND USE OF CREDITS
Located within the Piedmont level III ecoregion and the Yadkin River basin, the
Bank's geographic service area ("GSA") is defined by the United States Geological
Survey (USGS) 8 -digit Hydrological Unit Code ("HUC") within which the Bank's sites
are located, the Yadkin 05 (Figure 2).
The Bank's credits are proposed to be used to offset unavoidable, permitted impacts
within the Bank's GSA. Use of the Bank's credits outside of its GSA may be permissible
with approval by the USACE, which will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
(Remainder of page intended to be blank)
Yadkin 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Page 5
Draft Mitigation Prospectus

4 WATERSHED CONSIDERATIONS
4.1 Watershed Environmental Concerns and Mitigation Needs
The Yadkin -Pee Dee River basin is the second largest basin in North Carolina,
covering approximately 7,213 square miles and 21 counties. Increasing nutrient
enrichment, urbanization, and wastewater are primary impacts to water quality in
the basin, with most of the impacts focused in Forsyth, Rowan, Iredell, Cabarrus,
Davidson, and Union Counties. Conversion of forest and agricultural land to suburban
uses is occurring nearly everywhere throughout the basin (NCDWQ 2008).
The Yadkin 05 contains the Rocky River, the largest tributary in the Yadkin -Pee Dee
River basin, which flows for 100 miles from its headwaters near Mooresville to its
confluence with the Pee Dee River. Other major tributaries within the Yadkin 05
include Coddle Creek in the northwestern part of the watershed, and Irish Buffalo
Creek, Goose Creek, and Crooked Creek in the central portion of the watershed. Goose
Creek is home to the endangered Carolina heelsplitter mussel (Lasmigona decorata),
which requires special land use management strategies to protect and restore its
habitat (NCDWQ 2008).
The Yadkin 05 is located adjacent to the City of Charlotte and other rapidly developing
municipalities resulting in major impacts to water quality primarily from the rapid
shift of agricultural land to residential and commercial uses. Of the subbasin's
monitored waters, 65 percent are impaired due to increased turbidity, nutrients
(phosphorus and nitrogen), fecal coliform bacteria, iron, and/or copper (NCDWQ
2008).
Between the 2000 and 2010 censuses, the population growth rate of municipalities
within the Yadkin 05 increased approximately 41.8 percent (Table 5) (USCB 2015).
These data suggest land development activities will increase in frequency, as will
aquatic ecosystem impacts related to such development. In general, impervious
surface coverage increases at twice the rate of population growth; therefore, one
would expect an increase in impervious surface of approximately 83.6 percent from
2000 to 2010 (USDA-NRCS 2001).
(Remainder of page intended to be blank)
Yadkin 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Page 6
Draft Mitigation Prospectus

Table 5: Population Growth in Municipalities of Yadkin 05
Municipality 2000 Population 2010 Population Percent Increase
Albemarle
15,680
15,903
1.4
Charlotte
540,167
731,424
35.4
China Grove
3616
3563
-1.5
Concord
55,977
79,066
41.2
Cornelius
11,969
24,866
107.8
Davidson
7139
10,944
53.3
Harrisburg
4493
11,526
156.5
Huntersville
24,960
46,773
87.4
Indian Trail
11,749
33,518
185.3
Kannapolis
36,910
42,625
15.5
Lake Park
2093
3422
63.5
Landis
2996
3109
3.8
Locust
2416
2930
21.3
Matthews
22,125
27,918
26.2
Mint Hill
15,609
22,722
45.6
Mooresville
18,823
32,711
73.8
Mount Pleasant
1259
1652
31.2
New London
326
600
84.0
Norwood
2216
2379
7.4
Oakboro
1198
1859
55.2
Peachland
554
437
-21.1
Richfield
515
613
19.0
Stallings
3171
13,831
336.2
Stanfield
1113
1486
33.5
Wingate
2406
3491
45.1
Totals 789,480 1,119,368 41.8
USCB2015
Historically, the Yadkin 05 watershed has experienced relatively high stream
mitigation demand. Since 2002, the NC Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS
[formerly NCEEP]) has requested 146,500 Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs) in the
Yadkin 05 (Table 6).
Table 6: NCDMS Stream Mitigation Requests for Proposals in Yadkin 05
Request For Proposals
SMUs Requested
October 22, 2004
30,000
October 26, 2005
45,000
May 2, 2008
15,000
November 24, 2009
7000
October 18, 2010
16,500
June 6, 2011
33,000
Total
146,500
Yadkin 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Page 7
Draft Mitigation Prospectus

4.2 Bank Site Selection
Based on the analysis presented in Section 4.1, the Yadkin 05 was targeted as a
watershed in need of stream mitigation. The Sponsor and its consultant, Axiom
Environmental, Inc. (Axiom), conducted a search for sites possessing stream and/or
wetland restoration and enhancement opportunities. Identified sites were
prioritized based on geomorphic condition and land use, and the necessary
landowners were contacted to gauge their interest in participating in a stream
mitigation project. Sites with willing landowners were then pursued further. As real
estate in the area is generally well subdivided, many of the identified opportunities
are not currently feasible because such sites require the cooperation of several
landowners in order to achieve sufficient ecological and economic scale. Therefore,
selection of the properties was based on a combination of geomorphic condition, land
use, and the willingness of landowners to participate.
(Remainder of page intended to be blank)
Yadkin 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Page 8
Draft Mitigation Prospectus

5 OWNERSHIP AND LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT
The properties are an assemblage of portions of larger holdings currently owned by
the following people, or organizations:
Goose Creek Tributaries 601 Investments, LLC - Glen Chambers
Beta Investments, LLC - Glen Chambers
Whits End Whits End Farm LLC - Dick Marshal
Suther Site Louis R Suther
Hereafter, these owners will collectively be referred to as "the Landowners."
The Sponsor and the Landowners have executed separate Agreements for Purchase
and Sale of Conservation Easements covering approximately 15 acres along the Goose
Creek Tributaries Site, approximately 26 acres along the Whits End Site, and
approximately 12 acres along the Suther Site. Following USACE approval of the UMBI
and the Bank Site Mitigation Plans, the Sponsor will exercise its rights provided under
the above -referenced agreements.
The properties will be protected in perpetuity by conservation easements approved
by the USACE. At a minimum, conservation easements will be written to prohibit
incompatible uses that might jeopardize objectives of the Bank. Conservation
easements will be held in perpetuity by the North Carolina Wildlife Habitat
Foundation. The Sponsor will provide the land trust with a financial sum, in an
amount agreeable to both parties, appropriate for the long-term stewardship of the
sites.
During the operational period of a Bank Site, the Sponsor will be responsible for
management actions. A long-term management plan will be developed for each Bank
Site and incorporated into their respective mitigation plans. In general, long-term
management activities will include protecting the sites from encroachment, trespass,
clearing, and other violations that interfere with conservation purposes. Other
activities may be incorporated based on site-specific considerations.
(Remainder of page intended to be blank)
Yadkin 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Page 9
Draft Mitigation Prospectus

6 QUALIFICATIONS OF SPONSOR
Restoration Systems is an environmental restoration, mitigation banking and full -
delivery mitigation firm founded in 1998. The firm was formed to improve the quality
of environmental restoration and mitigation by locating and acquiring the best
available sites, planning restoration using proven science, and constructing sites with
the most qualified contractors. Restoration Systems' staff has been involved in
environmental mitigation and mitigation banking since 1992. Project managers have
more than 80 years of experience in resource evaluation, environmental restoration,
and mitigation implementation. The company employs 9 permanent staff members
based in Raleigh, North Carolina.
Corporate experience with the principals began with completion of the state's full -
delivery mitigation project in 1997, the Barra Farms Mitigation Bank (623 -acres), the
subsequent Bear Creek—Mill Branch Mitigation Bank in 2001 (450 -acres), and
Sleepy Creek Mitigation Site (550 -acres). The firm then performed all of the off-site
mitigation (7500 -LF of stream restoration and 10 -acres of wetland restoration) for
the Piedmont Triad International Airport Authority.
Restoration Systems has implemented projects for the NCDMS; including the removal
of the Carbonton and Lowell Mill dams in the Cape Fear and Neuse River basins
(132,000 -LF), the Haw River Wetland Restoration Site (34 -acres, Cape Fear), the Elk
Shoals Stream Restoration Site (6,00 -LF, Catawba), the Lick Creek Stream Site
(10,000 -LF, Cape Fear), Gatlin Swamp Wetland Restoration Site (125 -acres, Roanoke),
and a number of buffer restoration projects, including Casey Dairy, Walnut Creek, Big
Bull, Brogden Road, and Little Buffalo.
Restoration Systems' Cripple Creek Stream & Wetland Mitigation Bank in the Cape
Fear 02 River basin is the first compensatory wetland and stream bank in North
Carolina under the 2008 Federal Compensatory Mitigation Rule. Restoration
Systems also has also implemented other mitigation banks including Bass Mountain
Stream Mitigation Bank and the Pancho Stream & Wetland Mitigation Bank.
Additional mitigation banks are underway in North Carolina, including the Cape Fear
02 Umbrella Bank, the Milburnie Dam Mitigation Bank, as well as sites located
throughout the southern and southwestern United States.
7 ECOLOGICAL SUITABILITY OF SITES
Primary considerations for selecting the Bank Sites included the potential for
protection/improvement of water quality within a region of North Carolina under
heavy development and rapid conversion of agriculture and forest land to
commercial and residential uses, which is resulting in major impacts to water quality.
More specifically, considerations included desired aquatic resource functions,
hydrologic conditions, soil characteristics, aquatic habitat diversity, habitat
connectivity, compatibility with adjacent land uses, reasonably foreseeable effects the
Yadkin 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Page 10
Draft Mitigation Prospectus

mitigation projects will have on ecologically important aquatic and terrestrial
resources, and potential development trends and land use changes.
As all proposed Bank Sites are located in the Yadkin 05, current land uses are
contributing to impaired water quality; of the subbasin's monitored waters, 65
percent are impaired due to increased turbidity, nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen),
fecal coliform bacteria, iron, and/or copper (NCDWQ 2008). Restoration and
enhancement work proposed in the Restoration Plan (Section 10) will reduce existing
nutrient and sediment loads to downstream waters. In addition, restoration work
will improve in -channel aquatic and riparian habitats within impaired streams and
streams with known populations of Federally Protected mussel populations.
8 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
The Sponsor will provide financial assurances in a form acceptable to the IRT,
sufficient to assure completion of all mitigation work, required reporting and
monitoring, and any remedial work that may be required pursuant to the final UMBI.
Prior to the first credit release, for the Bank Sites proposed here as well as all
additional sites permitted under the proposed UMBI, the Sponsor shall furnish a
financial assurance instrument covering all reasonably anticipated costs relating to
construction, operation, monitoring, maintenance and any remedial measures
associated with the Bank Site. This instrument shall consist of either a Performance
Bond underwritten by a surety company licensed to do business in North Carolina
with a Best's current rating of not less than "A-," or a casualty insurance policy in an
appropriate form to be approved by the USACE in compliance with current USACE
policy and guidance documents. The total value of such a bond or policy will be based
on reasonably expected costs associated with approved Mitigation Plans, plus a
reasonable contingency, which collectively shall be sufficient to ensure the project
will be successfully completed in accordance with applicable performance standards.
If performance bonds are utilized, the initial performance bond shall be replaced
following completion of construction and USACE approval of the as -built reports. The
Sponsor shall then furnish a replacement performance bond, to be valued based on
reasonably anticipated costs associated with project monitoring and maintenance.
Once all performance standards have been met, the Sponsor may withdraw monies
from or otherwise terminate the financial assurance instrument described in this
paragraph.
(Remainder of page intended to be blank)
Yadkin 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Page 11
Draft Mitigation Prospectus

9 EXISTING CONDITIONS
9.1 Goose Creek Tributaries Site
The Goose Creek Tributaries Site is located in Union County, approximately 9 miles
north of Monroe (Figure 3A, Appendix A). The Goose Creek Tributaries Site is
characterized by disturbed forest and agricultural land used for crop production and
disposal of agricultural effluent. The main hydrologic features include unnamed
tributaries to Goose Creek and Crooked Creek. The proposed conservation easement
area contains approximately 15 acres; however, wider buffers may be acquired if
input from the IRT deems this action is desirable.
9.1.1 Physiography, Topography, and Land Use
The Goose Creek Tributaries Site is located in the Carolina Slate Belt. Dissected,
irregular plains characterize regional physiography with moderate to steep slopes
and low- to moderate -gradient streams over boulder- and cobble -dominated
substrate (Griffith et al. 2002). On-site elevations range from a high of 580 feet
National Geodetic Vertical Datum ("NGVD") at the upper reach of UT 1 to a low of
approximately 540 feet NGVD at the outfall of UT 1 (Figure 313, Appendix A).
UT 1 and UT 2 drain 77.5 -acre (0.12 -square mile) and 49.7 -acre (0.8 -square mile)
watersheds, respectively (Figure 313, Appendix A). The watersheds are dominated by
agricultural land with some patches of forest land and sparse residential property.
Impervious surfaces account for less than two -percent of the upstream land surface.
Site land use is characterized by agricultural land. Riparian zones are primarily
composed of managed cropland that is regularly plowed. Plowing directly across
stream beds occurs resulting in loss of substrate, loss of rooted vegetation within
stream banks, application of fertilizer and pesticides within the channel, and
destabilization of stream banks.
9.1.2 Water Quality
The Goose Creek Tributaries are located within USGS 14 -digit HUC 03040105030020
(UT 1) and HUC 03040105040010 (UT 2), and North Carolina Division of Water
Resources (NCDWR) Subbasin 03-07-12. UT 1 drains to Goose Creek (Stream Index
Number 13-17-18) and UT 2 drains to Crooked Creek (Stream Index Number 13-17-
20), which have been assigned a Best Usage Classification of C (NCDWR 2013).
Streams with a C designation are protected for uses such as aquatic life propagation
and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. Secondary
recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses not involving human body
contact with waters on an organized or frequent basis.
NCDWR has assembled a list of impaired waterbodies according to the Clean Water
Act Section 303(d) and 40 CFR 130.7, which is a comprehensive public accounting of
all impaired waterbodies. An impaired waterbody is one that does not meet state
standards, including designated uses, numeric and narrative criteria, and anti -
degradation requirements defined in 40 CFR 131. Goose Creek is not listed on the
Yadkin 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Page 12
Draft Mitigation Prospectus

final 2014 303(d) list; however, Crooked Creek, adjacent to the site, is listed as
impaired on the final 2014 303(d) list due to reduced benthic integrity (NCDENR
2014).
9.1.3 Vegetation
The Goose Creek Tributaries Site is characterized almost entirely by agricultural land
used for row crops and the application of agricultural waste. At the time of initial field
visits row crops included sorgham and corn, and poultry waste had been applied to
field. Row crop fields contain sparse natural recruits of grasses (Gramineae sp.),
ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia), and lambs quarters
(Chenopodium album) found along the margins of fields and stream edges, or areas
not in the plow zone.
Based on Web Soil Survey mapping (USDA 2014a), proposed conservation easement
areas associated with the Goose Creek Tributaries Site contain five soil series (Figure
3C, Appendix A and Table 7): Badin channery silt loam (Typic Hapludults), Chewacla
silt loam (Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts), Cid channery silt loam (Aquic Hapludults),
Goldston very channery silt loam (Typic Dystrudepts), and Goldston-Badin complex
(Typic Hapludults- Typic Dystrudepts).
(Remainder of page intended to be blank)
Yadkin 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Page 13
Draft Mitigation Prospectus

Table 7: Goose Creek Tributaries Site Soils
Map Unit Map Unit Hydric
Symbol Name Status* Description
This series consists of moderately deep, well-
Badin channery y drained soils on gentle slopes to steep uplands
BaB silt loam Non -hydric of the Piedmont Slopes. Slopes range from 2 to 8
percent. This series is derived from parent
material of the Carolina Slate Belt.
This series consists of somewhat poorly drained
soils on gentle slopes that occur in floodplains of
ChA Chewacla silt Hydric the Piedmont and Coastal Plain river valleys.
loam y Slopes range from 0 to 2 percent. This series is
very deep and is derived from alluvial parent
material.
This series consists of moderately deep,
Cid channery moderately well -drained soils on Piedmont
CmB silt loam Non -hydric uplands. Slopes range from 1 to 5 percent. This
series is derived from weathered argillite and
other metavolcanic rocks.
This series consists of shallow, well -drained
soils on ridges between intermittent and
Goldston very perennial streams of the southern Piedmont.
GoC channery silt Non -hydric Slopes range from 4 to 15 percent. This series
loam developed from weathered fine-grained
metasedimentary rocks in the Carolina Slate
Belt.
This series consists of shallow to moderately
deep, well -drained soils that include both
GsB,GsC Goldston-Badin Non -hydric Goldston and Bain series on ridges in uplands.
complex The GsB series occurs on 2 to 8 percent slopes
and the GsC series occurs on 8 to 15 percent
slopes.
*USDA 2014b
9.1.5 Hydrology
Goose Creek Tributaries Site streams are mapped as intermittent by USGS (Figure 3B,
Appendix A). However, on-site investigations suggest a portion of UT 1 and the entire
length of UT 2 are perennial (Table 8). These streams are located in the Slate Belt,
which is commonly dry during the summer months.
Yadkin 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Page 14
Draft Mitigation Prospectus

Table 8: Goose Creek Tributaries Site Existing Stream Flow Regime
Stream Stream Length Stream Order USGS Stream In -field Stream
Classification Classification
UT 1 3065 1St Intermittent Perennial/Intermittent
UT 2 1425 1St Intermittent Perennial
Total 4490
A field visit with agency representatives from the USACE was conducted on August
10, 2015 to ascertain the viability of the Goose Creek Tributaries Site. The visit was
conducted during dry conditions and the streams did not exhibit flow, possibly due
to the nature of Slate Belt streams and the late summer, drought period. During the
visit agency representatives recommended the installation of surface water gauges to
measure hydrology in the channels during wetter portions of the year. In support of
this recommendation, three stream gauges were installed at the Site on December 30,
2015: the west gauge (UT 1), the east gauge (in a tributary outside of the proposed
conservation easement), and the south gauge (UT 2) (Figure 3C, Appendix A). Gauge
data indicates stream flow for a minimum of 30 consecutive days (the south gauge
malfunctioned after 22 days). Downloads will continue as necessary to support a
jurisdictional stream determination by the USACE. Gauge data is presented in
Appendix B.
This hydrophysiographic region is characterized by moderate rainfall with
precipitation averaging 43.7 -inches per year (based on data provided by NOAA 2014).
Site discharge is dominated by a combination of upstream basin catchment,
groundwater flow, and precipitation. Based on regional curves (Harman et al. 1999),
the bankfull discharge for a 0.07- to 0.12 -square mile watershed is expected to
average 12.6 to 19.4 cubic feet per second (CFS), respectively. Based on empirical
evidence this bankfull discharge is expected to occur approximately every 1.3 to 1.5
years (Rosgen 1996, Leopold 1994).
9.1.6 Fluvial Geomorphology
Currently, channels targeted for restoration are characterized as entrenched and/or
incised G -type channels, or aggrading and undersized E -type channels with little to
no sinuosity, little to no riffle -pool morphology (see cross-sectional data presented
on Figure 3C, Appendix A). Plowing of stream channels appears to have hindered
sediment transport resulting in widening, shallowing, and severe aggradation of
materials in some reaches. Most channels have little access to floodplains during high
discharge events (Bank Height Ratio (BHR) range > 1.0 to 2.1) and appear to be
scouring or aggrading new floodplains within the base of the valley. Sinuosity was
measured at 1.05 from topographic surveys, aerial photography, and visual
observation during field surveys.
Yadkin 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Page 15
Draft Mitigation Prospectus

In general, sediment and nutrient inputs, channel incision, removal of substrate,
aggradation of silt and sand, and removal of woody vegetation have impacted streams
at the Goose Creek Tributaries Site.
9.1.7 FEMA
Inspection of the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map 3710553000J, Panel 5530,
effective October 16, 2008, indicates that UT 2 is located in a Flood Zone AE.
Therefore, a HEC -RAS analysis will be completed for existing and proposed
conditions of UT 2. As per NC Floodplain Mapping requirements, a Conditional Letter
of Map Revision (CLOMR) may need to be prepared for the Site. Coordination with
FEMA representatives will occur.
If required, the CLOMR will include written documentation of modeling, preparation
of topographic work maps, annotated FIRM or Floodway Maps, FIRM Flood Profiles
and Data Tables. The CLOMR will be sent to Union County for approval and signature,
and then the CLOMR will be sent to FEMA for review and approval. The CLOMR
approval process is expected to take 3-6 months. The CLOMR should be prepared,
submitted, and approved prior to construction. A requirement of the CLOMR is to
prepare and submit a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) once construction is complete.
9.2 Whits End Site
The Whits End Site is located in Union County, approximately 8 miles southeast of
Monroe (Figure 4A, Appendix A). The Whits End Site is characterized by a large pond
and surrounding land which is intensively managed for wildlife, hunting, and
recreation. The main hydrologic features include Waxhaw Branch, unnamed
tributaries to Waxhaw Branch, and a 12 -acre man-made pond on Waxhaw Branch.
The proposed conservation easement area contains approximately 26 acres.
9.2.1 Physiography, Topography, and Land Use
The Whits End Site is located in the Carolina Slate Belt. Dissected, irregular plains
characterize regional physiography with moderate to steep slopes and low- to
moderate -gradient streams over boulder- and cobble -dominated substrate (Griffith
et al. 2002). On-site elevations range from a high of 594 feet NGVD at the upper reach
of Waxhaw Branch to a low of approximately 574 feet NGVD at the outfall of Waxhaw
Branch (Figure 413, Appendix A).
Waxhaw Branch drains a 595.2 -acre (0.93 -square mile) watershed, and UT 1 and UT
2 drain 57.6 -acre (0.09 -square mile) and 153.6 -acre (0.24 -square mile) watersheds,
respectively. The watersheds are dominated by agricultural land with some patches
of forest land and sparse residential property. Impervious surfaces account for less
than two -percent of the upstream land surface.
Site land use is characterized by open water and maintained fields. Riparian zones
are primarily composed of maintained fields that are frequently sprayed with animal
waste and used for wildlife management and hunting. A man-made dam has been
constructed on Waxhaw Branch resulting in reduced stream habitat, lack of sediment
Yadkin 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Page 16
Draft Mitigation Prospectus

transport, increased water temperature, and altered flow regime, channel shape, and
flood frequency.
9.2.2 Water Quality
The Whits End Site streams are located within USGS 14 -digit HUC 03040105081020,
and NCDWR Subbasin 03-07-14. Waxhaw Branch (Stream Index Number 13-17-40-
6) has been assigned a Best Usage Classification of WS -V (NCDWR 2013). Streams
with a WS -V designation 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 also protected for Class C
uses which include aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation (including wading, boating, and other uses not involving human body
contact with waters on an organized or frequent basis), and agriculture.
9.2.3 Vegetation
During the initial Site visit, fields had been plowed and were sown with winter rye
(Secale cereale). Top dressing of the fields with poultry waste had recently occurred
and was evident scattered throughout. Sparse natural recruits of grasses (Gramineae
sp.), blackberry (Rubus sp.), and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) are found along the
margins of the fields, pond, and streams. More dense, disturbed forest is located
within a beaver impoundment at the upstream, north end of the site and along the
stream in the southern reaches of the Site. This dense hardwood assemblage consists
of red maple (Acer rubrum), tuliptree (Liriodendron tulipifera), and sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), with a dense understory of blackberry (Rubus sp.),
multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), and greenbrier (Smilax sp.).
9.2.4 Soils
Based on Web Soil Survey mapping (USDA 2014a), proposed conservation easement
areas associated with the Whits End Site contain three soil series (Figure 4C,
Appendix A and Table 9): Badin channery silt loam (Typic Hapludults), Cid channery
silt loam (Aquic Hapludults), and Goldston-Badin complex (Typic Hapludults- Typic
Dystrudepts).
(Remainder of page intended to be blank)
Yadkin 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank page 15
Draft Mitigation Prospectus

Table 9: Whits End Site Soils
Map Unit Map Unit Hydric
Symbol Name Status* Description
This series consists of moderately deep, well
Badin channery drained soils on gentle slopes to steep uplands
BaB silt loam Non -hydric of the Piedmont Slopes. Slopes range from 2 to 8
percent. This series is derived from parent
material of the Carolina Slate Belt.
This series consists of moderately deep,
Cid channery moderately well drained soils on Piedmont
CmB silt loam Non -hydric uplands. Slopes range from 1 to 5 percent. This
series is derived from weathered argillite and
other metavolcanic rocks.
This series consists of shallow to moderately
GsC Goldston-Badin Non -hydric deep, well -drained soils that include both
complex Goldston and Bain series on ridges in uplands.
The GsC series occurs on 8 to 15 percent slopes.
*USDA 2014b
9.2.5 Hydrology
UTs 1 and 2 to Waxhaw Branch are mapped as intermittent by USGS as is the reach of
Waxhaw Branch upstream of the pond. The reach of Waxhaw Branch downstream of
the pond is mapped as perennial (Figure 4B, Appendix A). However, on-site
investigations suggest UT 2 and the reach of Waxhaw Branch upstream of the pond
are perennial (Table 10). UT 1 was confirmed in the field to be intermittent. These
streams are located in the Slate Belt, which commonly dry during the summer months.
Table 10: Whits End Site Existing Stream Flow Regime
Stream
Stream Length
Stream Order
USGS Stream
Classification
In -field Stream
Classification
Perennial/
Waxhaw Branch
2076
1St
Perennial
Intermittent
UT 1
106
1St
Intermittent
Intermittent
UT 2
946
1St
Intermittent
Perennial
Total
3128
This hydrophysiographic region is characterized by moderate rainfall with
precipitation averaging 43.7 -inches per year (NOAA 2014). Site discharge is
dominated by a combination of upstream basin catchment, groundwater flow, and
precipitation. Based on regional curves (Harman et al. 1999), the bankfull discharge
Yadkin 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Page 18
Draft Mitigation Prospectus

for a 0.93 -square mile watershed is expected to average 84.5 CFS. The bankfull
discharge for a 0.09 to 0.23 -square mile watershed is expected to average 15.6 to 31.8
CFS, respectively. Based on empirical evidence this bankfull discharge is expected to
occur approximately every 1.3 to 1.5 years (Rosgen 1996, Leopold 1994).
9.2.6 Fluvial Geomorphology
Currently, channels targeted for restoration are characterized as entrenched and/or
incised Eg-type channels, or are hydrologically impacted E -type channels which have
been dammed resulting in the loss of storm water pulses downstream from the dam
(see cross-sectional data presented on Figure 4C, Appendix A). The channels have
been dredged and straightened resulting in low sinuosity and poor riffle -pool
development. Channels do not access floodplains due to incision (BHR of 1.7) or are
affected by influences from the dam. Sinuosity was measured at 1.05 from
topographic surveys, aerial photography, and visual observation during field surveys.
In general, sediment and nutrient inputs, channel incision, removal of substrate,
aggradation of silt and sand, and removal of woody vegetation have impacted streams
at the Whits End Site.
9.2.7 FEMA
Inspection of the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map 3710546200J, Panel 5462,
effective October 16, 2008, indicates that Waxhaw Branch, UT1, and the downstream
portion of UT 2 are located in a Flood Zone AE. Therefore, a HEC -RAS analysis will be
completed for existing and proposed conditions of Site streams. As per NC Floodplain
Mapping requirements, a CLOMR may need to be prepared for the Site. Coordination
with FEMA representatives will occur.
If required, the CLOMR will include written documentation of modeling, preparation
of topographic work maps, annotated FIRM or Floodway Maps, FIRM Flood Profiles
and Data Tables. The CLOMR will be sent to Union County for approval and signature,
and then the CLOMR will be sent to FEMA for review and approval. The CLOMR
approval process is expected to take 3-6 months. The CLOMR should be prepared,
submitted, and approved prior to construction. A requirement of the CLOMR is to
prepare and submit a LOMR once construction is complete.
9.3 Suther Site
The Suther Site is located in Cabarrus County, approximately 8 miles northeast of
Concord (Figure 5A, Appendix A). The Suther Site is characterized by disturbed forest
and agricultural land used for livestock grazing and hay production. The main
hydrologic features include unnamed tributaries to Dutch Buffalo Creek. The
proposed conservation easement area contains approximately 12 acres.
9.3.1 Physiography, Topography, and Land Use
The Suther Site is located in the Southern Outer Piedmont Ecoregion. Irregular plains
characterize regional physiography with gentle to moderate slopes and low- gradient
streams over cobble and gravel -dominated substrate (Griffith et al. 2002). On-site
Yadkin 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Page 19
Draft Mitigation Prospectus

elevations range from a high of 668 feet NGVD at the upper reach of UT 2 to a low of
approximately 640 feet NGVD at the outfalls of both UT 1 and UT 2 (Figure 513,
Appendix A).
UT 1 and UT 2 drain 572.2 -acre (0.89 -square mile) and 77.3 -acre (0.12 -square mile)
watersheds, respectively. The watersheds are dominated by agricultural land and
forest land with some sparse residential property. Impervious surfaces account for
less than two -percent of the upstream land surface.
Site land use is characterized by agricultural land. Riparian zones are primarily
composed of active livestock pasture. Site streams are severely impacted by hoof
shear, erosion, incision, and sediment and pollutant inputs associated with livestock
waste and stormwater/overland runoff. Stream banks are trampled resulting in poor
stream morphology; characteristic bed substrate has been removed and is embedded
by silt and sand; and channel incision has drained adjacent streamside hydric soils.
9.3.2 Water Quality
The Suther Site streams are located within USGS 14 -digit HUC 03040105020010, and
NCDWR Subbasin 03-07-12. Both streams drain to Dutch Buffalo Creek (Stream
Index Number 13-17-11-(1)), which has been assigned a Best Usage Classification of
WS -II HQW (NCDWR 2013). Streams with a WS -II designation are protected to be
used as sources of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food processing purposes.
High Quality waters (HQW) is an additional classification intended to protect waters
which are rated excellent based on biological and physical/chemical characteristics
through NCDWR monitoring or special studies, primary nursery areas designated by
the NC Marine Fisheries Commission, and other functional nursery areas designated
by the NC Marine Fisheries Commission. WS -II waters are HQW by definition.
9.3.3 Vegetation
The Suther Site is characterized almost entirely by land used for livestock. At the
initial visit, fields consisted of heavily grazed fescue (Festuca sp.), ground ivy
(Glechoma hederacea), and sparse grasses (Gramineae sp). Stream side riparian
vegetation is primarily comprised of Eastern red cedar (juniperus virginiana),
common hackberry (Celtis occidentalis), sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), and
river birch (Betula nigra) in the canopy, with shrubs and vines including Chinese
privet (Ligustrum sinense), blackberry (Rubus sp.), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora),
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia).
9.3.4 Soils
Based on Web Soil Survey mapping (USDA 2014a), proposed conservation easement
areas associated with the Suther Site contain two soil series (Figure 5C, Appendix A
and Table 11): Chewacla silt loam (Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts) and Cullen clay loam
(Typic Hapludults).
Yadkin 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Page 20
Draft Mitigation Prospectus

Table 11: Suther Site Soils
Map Unit Map Unit Hydric
Symbol Name Status* Description
This series consists of somewhat poorly drained
soils on gentle slopes that occur in floodplains of
ChA Chewacla silt Hydric the Piedmont and Coastal Plain river valleys.
loam y Slopes range from 0 to 2 percent. This series is
very deep and is derived from alluvial parent
material.
This series consists of well -drained soils on
Cu132 Cullen clay Non -hydric gentle upland side slopes that are dissected by
loam intermittent drainageways. Slopes range from 2
to 8 percent.
*USDA 2014b
9.3.5 Hydrology
Suther Site streams are mapped as intermittent by USGS (Figure 5B, Appendix A).
However, on-site investigations suggest both UT 1 and UT 2 are perennial (Table 12).
Table 12: Suther Site Existing Stream Flow
Stream Stream Length Stream Order USGS Stream In -field Stream
Classification Classification
UT 1 2015 1St Intermittent Perennial
UT 2 1532 1St Intermittent Perennial
Total 3547
This hydrophysiographic region is characterized by moderate rainfall with
precipitation averaging 43.7 -inches per year (NOAA 2014). Site discharge is
dominated by a combination of upstream basin catchment, groundwater flow, and
precipitation. Based on regional curves (Harman et al. 1999), the bankfull discharge
for a 0.89 -square mile watershed is expected to average 81.9 CFS. The bankfull
discharge for a 0.12 -square mile watershed is expected to average 19.3 CFS. Based
on empirical evidence this bankfull discharge is expected to occur approximately
every 1.3 to 1.5 years (Rosgen 1996, Leopold 1994).
9.3.6 Fluvial Geomorphology
Currently, channels targeted for restoration are characterized as entrenched and/or
incised G -type and Eg-type channels which are heavily impacted by livestock access,
failing crossings, and impoundments (see cross-sectional data presented on Figure
5C, Appendix A). Channels are incised, as indicated by a BHR ranging from 1.4 to 3.7
and appear to be scouring stream banks in the upper reaches and aggrading in Black-
water areas upstream from failed crossings, or impoundments. Sinuosity was
Yadkin 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Page 21
Draft Mitigation Prospectus

measured at 1.1 from topographic surveys, aerial photography, and visual
observation during field surveys.
In general, sediment and nutrient inputs, channel incision, removal of substrate,
aggradation of silt and sand, and removal of woody vegetation have impacted streams
at the Suther Site.
9.3.7 FEMA
Inspection of the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map 3710566200J, Panel 5662,
effective November 4, 2008, indicates that the downstream portion of UT 1 is located
in a Flood Zone AE. Therefore, a HEC -RAS analysis will be completed for existing and
proposed conditions of UT 1. As per NC Floodplain Mapping requirements, a CLOMR
may need to be prepared for the Site. Coordination with FEMA representatives will
occur.
If required, the CLOMR will include written documentation of modeling, preparation
of topographic work maps, annotated FIRM or Floodway Maps, FIRM Flood Profiles
and Data Tables. The CLOMR will be sent to Cabarrus County for approval and
signature, and then the CLOMR will be sent to FEMA for review and approval. The
CLOMR approval process is expected to take 3-6 months. The CLOMR should be
prepared, submitted, and approved prior to construction. A requirement of the
CLOMR is to prepare and submit a LOMR once construction is complete.
(Remainder of page intended to be blank)
Yadkin 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Page 22
Draft Mitigation Prospectus

10 RESTORATION PLAN
The primary goals of the mitigation plan include: 1) reducing and/or eliminating non -
point source pollution associated with agricultural activities; 2) improving water
quality functions by restoring native, woody riparian vegetation adjacent to Bank Site
channels; 3) improving floodplain function by increasing hydraulic resistance to
floodwaters; 4) improving aquatic habitat through channel stabilization and
increased habitat heterogeneity; and 5) improving near -channel habitat for
terrestrial species and refugia for aquatic species through restoration of native,
woody riparian vegetation.
10.1 Reference Data
At this time, site-specific reference streams have not been identified for this project.
Currently, existing channel morphology is being compared with appropriate regional
curves for the Piedmont region of North Carolina (Harman et al.1999). Assuming this
project moves to a detailed restoration planning phase, suitable reference stream and
vegetation sites will be identified and measured for design purposes.
10.2 Site Work Plans
This section contains preliminary descriptions of proposed work plans. All final
stream lengths presented here are approximate and will be adjusted following the
completion of 60 percent design. Design sheets and reports will be adequate to
accurately determine the appropriate length of each restored channel, which will
serve as the basis of credit determination for the UMBI.
10.2.1 Goose Creek Tributaries
A summary of the restorative actions proposed at the Goose Creek Tributaries is
provided in Table 13 and on Figure 31), Appendix A. In general, proposed activities
involve Stream Restoration, Stream Enhancement I, Stream Enhancement II, and
riparian community restoration.
Table 13: Goose Creek Tributaries Work Plan Summary
Stream Site
Final Length
(LF)/ Area (AC)
Mitigation Type
Mitigation Ratio
SMU/WMU
1,832
Restoration
1:1
1,832
UT 1
851
Enhancement I
1.5:1
567
622
Enhancement II
2.5:1
249
1,324
Restoration
1:1
1,324
UT 2
273
Enhancement I
1.5:1
182
Totals
4,902
4,154
Yadkin 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Page 23
Draft Mitigation Prospectus

10.2.2 Whits End
A summary of the restorative actions proposed at the Whits End Site is provided in
Table 14 and on Figure 41), Appendix A. In general, proposed activities involve
Stream Restoration, Stream Enhancement II, and riparian community restoration.
Table 14: Whits End Work Plan Summary
Stream Site Final Length Mitigation Type Mitigation Ratio SMU/WMU
(LF)/ Area (AC)
Waxhaw Br. 4,134 Restoration 1:1 4,134
597 Enhancement I 1.5:1 398
UT 1 657 Restoration 1:1 657
UT 2 1,199 Restoration 1:1 1,199
Wetlands 9.5 Restoration 1:1 9.5
Totals 6,587/9.5 6,388/9.5
10.2.3 Suther
A summary of the restorative actions proposed at the Suther Site is provided in Table
15 and on Figure 51), Appendix A. In general, proposed activities involve Stream
Restoration, Stream Enhancement I, Stream Enhancement II, and riparian community
restoration.
Table 15: Suther Site Work Plan Summary
Stream Site Final Length Mitigation Type Mitigation Ratio SMU/WMU
(LF)/Area (AC)
1,914
Restoration
1:1
1,914
UT 1
134
Enhancement II
2.5:1
53
1,489
Restoration
1:1
1,489
UT 2 171
Enhancement I
1.5:1
114
333
Enhancement II
2.5:1
133
Wetlands 0.6
Restoration
1:1
0.6
1.5
Enhancement
2:1
0.75
Totals 4,041/2.1
3,704/1.35
Yadkin 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Page 24
Draft Mitigation Prospectus

10.3 Stream Restoration
Stream restoration efforts are intended to restore a stable, meandering stream
improving floodplain connectivity while using reference streams and appropriate
regional curves to design and construct natural hydrodynamics, stream geometry,
and local microtopography. Primary activities designed to restore channels include:
belt -width preparation and grading, channel excavation, installation of channel plugs,
backfilling of abandoned channels, installation of piped channel crossings, and
vegetative planting.
10.3.1 Belt -width Preparation and Grading
Care will be taken to avoid the removal of existing, deeply rooted vegetation within
the belt -width corridor, which often provides channel stability. Material excavated
during grading will be stockpiled immediately adjacent to channel segments to be
abandoned and backfilled following stream diversion.
Spoil material may be placed to stabilize temporary access roads and to minimize
compaction of the underlying floodplain. However, all spoil will be removed from
floodplain surfaces upon completion of construction activities.
After preparation of the corridor, the design channels and updated profile surveys
will be developed, and the locations of each meander wavelength will be plotted and
staked along the profile. Pool locations and other channel features may be modified
in the field based on local variations in the floodplain profile.
10.3.2 Channel Excavations
Channels will be constructed within the range of values developed during detailed
restoration planning. Regional curves and/or reference stream reaches will be used
to develop various stream geometry attributes.
Stream banks and local belt -width areas of constructed channels will be immediately
planted with shrub and herbaceous vegetation to initiate stability, preventing
unintended erosion. Deposition of shrub and woody debris into and/or overhanging
the constructed channels will be used to further increase each channel's resistance to
shear stress. Particular attention will be directed toward providing vegetative cover
and root growth along the outer bends of each stream meander. Live willow stakes
will be purchased and/or collected on-site and inserted through the root/erosion mat
into underlying soils.
10.3.3 Channel Plugs
Impermeable plugs will be installed along abandoned channel segments. The plugs
will consist of low -permeability materials or hardened structures designed to be of
sufficient strength to withstand the erosive energy of surface flow events across each
site. Dense clays, which may be imported from off-site if necessary, will be compacted
within each channel for plug construction. Each plug will be of sufficient width and
depth to form an imbedded overlap in the existing banks and bed.
Yadkin 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Page 25
Draft Mitigation Prospectus

10.3.4 Channel Backfilling
After impermeable plugs have been installed, abandoned channels will be backfilled.
Stockpiled materials will be pushed into abandoned channels. Suitable material used
for backfilling may be derived from on-site or off-site sources. Vegetation debris (e.g.,
root mats, top soils, shrubs, woody debris, etc.) will be redistributed across the
backfill area upon completion.
10.3.5 Piped Stream Crossing
Landowner uses will sometimes necessitate the installation of piped channel
crossings to allow access to portions of the property otherwise isolated by stream
restoration activities. Piped crossings will be constructed with pipes sized to
adequately pass anticipated stormwater flows with hydraulically stable riprap or
other suitable rock. Pipes will be large enough to handle the weight of anticipated
vehicular traffic. Approach grades will be at an approximate 10:1 slope and
constructed on hard, scour -resistant crushed rock or other permeable material free
of fines.
10.3.6 In -stream Structures
The use of in -stream structures for grade control and habitat are essential for
successful stream restoration. In -stream structures may be placed in the channel to
elevate local water surface profiles, potentially flattening the water energy slope or
gradient. The structures will likely consist of log/rock cross -vanes or log/rock j -hook
vanes designed primarily to direct stream energy into the center of the channel and
away from banks. In addition, structures will be placed in relatively straight reaches
to provide secondary (perpendicular) flow cells during bankfull events.
Log vanes may also be used to direct high -velocity flows during bankfull events
toward the center of constructed channels. Log vanes will be constructed utilizing
large tree trunks harvested on-site or imported from off-site as necessary. Tree stems
harvested for a log cross -vane arm must be long enough to be embedded into the
stream channel and extend several feet into the floodplain. Logs will create an arm
that slopes from the center of the channel upward to each stream bank at an angle of
20 to 30 degrees. A trench will be dug into the stream channel that is deep enough
for the head of the log to be at or below the channel invert. The trench is then
extended into the floodplain and the log is set into the trench such that the log arm is
below the floodplain elevation. If the log is not of sufficient size to completely block
stream flow (gaps occur between the log and channel bed), a footer log will be
installed beneath the header log. Support pilings will then be situated at the base of
the log and at the head of the log to hold the log in place. Once these vanes are in place,
filter fabric is toed into a trench on the upstream side of the vane and draped over the
structure to force water over the vane. The upstream side of the structure is then
backfilled with suitable material.
Drop structures will be necessary at the outfalls of some constructed channels to
match preconstruction elevations. Drop structures will be constructed out of
TerraCell, or other suitable materials, depending upon anticipated scour from the
Yadkin 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Page 26
Draft Mitigation Prospectus

restored stream channels. The structures will be constructed to resist erosive forces
associated with hydraulic drops. TerraCell is a lightweight, flexible mat made of high-
density, polyethylene strips. The strips are bonded together to form a honeycomb
configuration. The honeycomb mat is fixed in place and filled with gravel or sand.
Material in the TerraCell structure may be planted with grasses and shrubs for
additional erosion protection. The TerraCell structure will form a nickpoint that
approximates geologic controls in streambeds.
10.4 Riparian Restoration
Restoration of floodplain forest and streamside habitat allows for development and
expansion of characteristic species across the landscape. Ecotonal changes between
community types contribute to diversity and provide secondary benefits, such as
enhanced feeding and nesting opportunities for mammals, birds, amphibians, and
other wildlife.
Planted streamside trees and shrubs will include species with high value for sediment
stabilization, rapid growth rates, and the ability to withstand hydraulic forces
associated with bankfull and overbank flow events. Streamside trees and shrubs will
be planted along the channel throughout the meander beltwidth. Shrub elements will
be planted along reconstructed stream banks, concentrated along outer bends.
Deeply rooted riparian vegetation will be restored as needed at all Bank Sites.
Planting vegetation on cleared stream banks is proposed to reestablish
native/historic community patterns within the stream corridor as well as associated
side slopes and transition areas. Revegetating floodplains and stream banks will
provide overall system stability, shade, and wildlife habitat. In addition, viable
riparian communities will improve system biogeochemical function by filtering
pollutants from overland and shallow subsurface flows and providing organic
materials to adjacent stream channels.
Variations in vegetative planting will occur based on topography and hydraulic
condition of soils. Vegetative species composition will be based on RFEs, site-specific
features, and community descriptions from Classification of the Natural Communities
of North Carolina (Schafale and Weakley 1990).
10.5 Stream Enhancement I & II
In portions of the Bank Sites and future sites, the use of restoration may not be
necessary to improve a system's ecological function. In such cases, enhancement
activities will be implemented. For the purposes of the UMBI, Stream Enhancement I
and Stream Enhancement II are defined per USACE (2003).
10.5.1 Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement I is expected to include cessation of agricultural activities
(including row crop production, hay production, and/or livestock grazing), removal
of invasive species, raising the channel bed elevation to reconnect bankfull stream
flows to the abandoned floodplain, and planting with native, woody species. Stream
Yadkin 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Page 27
Draft Mitigation Prospectus

Enhancement I will generally entail the alteration of stream channel dimension and
profile, as the channel is lifted to the historic floodplain elevation. These measures
are expected to facilitate stream dynamics associated with a natural, relatively
undisturbed stream in the Piedmont of North Carolina.
10.5.2 Stream Enhancement II
Stream Enhancement II is expected to include the cessation of agricultural activities
(including row crop production, hay production, and/or livestock grazing), removal
of invasive species, and supplemental planting with native, woody tree species.
Stream enhancement II will extend a minimum distance of 50 feet from the top of
stream banks. These measures are expected to facilitate stream recovery and prevent
further degradation of the streams.
(Remainder of page intended to be blank)
Yadkin 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Page 28
Draft Mitigation Prospectus

11 MONITORING PLAN
The Bank's performance standards and monitoring plan will be based on the USACE
(2013) draft guidance document titled, Monitoring Requirements and Performance
Standards for Compensatory Mitigation in North Carolina. In general, the monitoring
program will be implemented for 7 years with an opportunity for an early
termination after 5 years if a site's performance standards, as set forth in USACE
(2013), are met. Additional monitoring of each site, aside from the Bank's
performance standards, will occur to identify areas to be treated by the Adaptive
Management and Remedial Measures Plan (see next section).
11.1 Stream Monitoring
Stream monitoring protocols will be developed for all reaches involving Stream
Restoration, Enhancement I, and Enhancement II with in -channel work. Protocols
will include collection of the following: longitudinal profile (collected as part of a sites'
as -built surveys), permanent channel cross-sections, and crest gauges to monitor
frequency and magnitude of bankfull events. Visual assessments will be conducted
by walking the length of each channel. Preconstruction and post -construction
photographs will be compiled.
11.2 Vegetation Monitoring
Restoration monitoring procedures for vegetation are designed in accordance with
CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation Level 1-2 Plot Sampling Only (Version 4.2)
(Lee et al. 2008).
After planting has been completed in winter or early spring, an initial evaluation will
be performed to verify planting methods and to determine initial species composition
and density. Supplemental planting and additional site modification will be
implemented if necessary.
During the first year, vegetation will receive visual observation on a periodic basis to
ascertain the degree of overtopping of planted elements by nuisance species, and
quantitative sampling will occur between September 1 and September 30.
Subsequently, quantitative sampling of vegetation will be performed between July 1
and leaf drop for each growing season until vegetation success criteria are achieved.
During quantitative sampling in early fall of the first year, approximately 2 percent of
a site's easement area, will be randomly sampled by permanently monumented
vegetation plots (either 10 meter by 10 meter plots, or 20 meter by 5 meter plots). In
each sample plot, vegetation parameters to be monitored and reported include
species, count, height, date of planting, and grid location of each planted stem.
Volunteer species encountered during monitoring will be counted, identified to
species level, measured, and recorded.
11.3 Visual Monitoring
Visual monitoring of general site conditions that may or may not be part of stream
and vegetation monitoring protocols will be conducted at least twice during each
Yadkin 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Page 29
Draft Mitigation Prospectus

monitoring year. One visual inspection can be completed during stream and/or
vegetation monitoring. The other inspection will occur independently and must be
separated by at least 5 months. Monitoring will be conducted by traversing the entire
site to identify and document areas of low stem density, poor plant vigor, prolonged
inundation, native and exotic invasive species, beaver activity, excessive herbivory,
easement encroachment, indicators of livestock access, and other areas of concern.
11.4 Water Quality and Macroinvertebrate Monitoring
Per USACE (2013), water quality and macroinvertebrate monitoring will be
conducted as appropriate for each site to document fluctuations in various water
quality parameters and macroinvertebrate communities. Protocols for water quality
and macroinvertebrate monitoring will be developed for all reaches involving Stream
Restoration, Enhancement I, and Enhancement II with in -channel work. As streams
are products of their watersheds, and upstream pollution and land use can negatively
affect a site's water quality, the results of this particular part of the Monitoring Plan
may not demonstrate ecological improvements at a given site. Therefore, these data
will not be tied directly to the UMBI's performance standards. However, positive
results could be useful in determining if a particular site has met its goals and
objectives.
11.4.1 Water Quality Monitoring
Water quality monitoring will be conducted once to establish baseline conditions and
at least twice during each monitoring year. Monitoring should be repeated at the
same times and during normal flow conditions each year to limit seasonal and
hydrological variability. Each bi-annual monitoring event will be separated by 5 or
more months. Water quality parameters to be sampled include pH, temperature,
dissolved oxygen, and conductivity, which will be sampled at two locations in each
tributary exceeding 500 linear feet in order to capture channel -specific input and
output values.
11.4.2 Macroinvertebrate Monitoring
Macro invertebrate sampling will be conducted once before construction (baseline
conditions) and once during monitoring years 3, 5, and 7. Sampling will be conducted
according to the "Qual 4" method described in Standard Operating Procedures for
Collection and Analysis of Benthic Macroinvertebrates (NCDWQ 2012). In addition,
sampling should occur during the "index period" referenced in Small Streams
Biocriteria Development (NCDWQ 2009). Results will be presented on a site -by -site
basis and will include a list of taxa collected, an enumeration of Ephemeroptera,
Plecoptera, and Tricoptera taxa, and Biotic Index values.
(Remainder of page intended to be blank)
Yadkin 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Page 30
Draft Mitigation Prospectus

12 ADAPTIVE MANAGMENT AND REMEDIAL MEASURES
An adaptive management plan will be developed for each site and for the UMBI in
general. In the event monitoring results indicate a site will not meet one or more of
its performance standards, remedial actions will be implemented following
notification of the UMBI's USACE project manager. Adaptive management and
remedial measures are discussed in general below and will be developed further in
the UMBI's Final Mitigation Plan.
12.1 Stream Instability
If stream monitoring and/or visual monitoring identify stream stability problems
that worsen or otherwise threaten other portions of a mitigation site, repairs will be
made as necessary. Persistent problems will be evaluated to determine if design or
construction are contributing factors. Should such systemic problems be identified
and reasonably determined to be unfixable, the IRT may decide to adjust a site's
mitigation credit potential.
12.2 Vegetation
Vegetation mortality remedial actions may include replanting, and, if needed,
corrective measures will be based on a determination of potential reasons for
mortality (e.g., portions of site too wet for planted species). Low vegetation vigor
remedial actions may include, but are not limited to, deep ripping, replanting (same
or similar species), mowing, herbicide application, fertilization, and replanting with
other species possessing condition -specific tolerance.
12.3 Invasive Species
In the event that invasive or otherwise undesirable species—as defined in an
appendix to the NCSAM User Manual (Version 2) (NC SFAT 2014)—reasonable efforts
will be made to eradicate or otherwise control growth and distribution of the species
across the mitigation site. Such efforts may involve herbicide applications,
mechanical, and/or hand removal, or prescribed burns.
13 HISTORICAL AND ARCHEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS
Field visits were conducted at the Bank Sites during the summer, fall, and winter of
2015 to ascertain the presence of structures or other features that may be eligible for
inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. No structures were identified
within proposed easement boundaries; however, coordination with State Historic
Preservation Office will occur prior to construction activities to determine if any
significant cultural resources are present.
(Remainder of page intended to be blank)
Yadkin 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Page 31
Draft Mitigation Prospectus

14 ENDANGERED AND PROTECTED SPECIES
14.1 Union County (Goose Creek Tributaries and Whits End Site)
Three federally protected species are listed as occurring in Union County (USFWS
2015): the Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata), Michaux's sumac (Rhus
michauxii), and the Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii).
14.1.1 Carolina heelsplitter
This freshwater mussel is limited to the Catawba and Pee Dee River systems. The
range of the Carolina heelsplitter includes Goose Creek, immediately downstream
from the project area. Although Site streams are not suitable habitat for this species,
proposed mitigation at the Site is expected to directly improve water quality and
habitat for the downstream populations of Carolina heelsplitter.
14.1.2 Michaux's sumac
In North Carolina, this species is found in the eastern Piedmont region. Suitable
habitat for the Michaux's sumac occurs within sandy or rocky open woods in
association with basic soils. This plant survives best in areas where some form of
disturbance has provided an open area. Suitable habitat within the Sites occurs along
the margins of agriculture fields and streams; therefore, surveys will be conducted
during the optimal survey window to determine the presence, or absence, of this
species.
14.1.3 Schweinitz's sunflower
This species grows well in rapidly developing areas throughout the Piedmont region
of North Carolina. Suitable habitat for the Schweinitz's sunflower occurs in full to
partial sun and is found in areas with poor soils, such as thin clays that vary from wet
to dry. It is believed that this species once occurred in natural forest openings or
grasslands. Many of the remaining populations occur along roadsides. Suitable
habitat occurs within the Sites along roadsides, edges of fields, and the margins of
streams; therefore, surveys will be conducted during the optimal survey window to
determine the presence, or absence, of this species.
14.1.4 Preliminary Biological Conclusions
Surveys for the Michaux's sumac and Schweinitz's sunflower will be needed in order
to correctly assess the impact of this project on each species. Current biological
conclusions for Federally Protected species are May Effect.
14.2 Cabarrus County (Suther Site)
Three federally protected species are listed as occurring in Cabarrus County (USFWS
2015): the Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentroinalis), Carolina heelsplitter
(Lasmigona decorata), and the Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii).
14.2.1 Northern long-eared bat
Coordination with the USFWS will occur in support of the project; however, work will
be conducted during the winter and early spring and is not expected to be subject to
Yadkin 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Page 32
Draft Mitigation Prospectus

moratoriums associated with pupping of this sensitive species. No project
constraints are expected to occur from this species.
14.2.2 Carolina heelsplitter
This freshwater mussel is limited to the Catawba and Pee Dee River systems. Suitable
habitat for Carolina heelsplitter included cool, clean, well -oxygenated water. Stable,
silt -free stream bottoms appear to be critical to the species. Typically stable areas
occur where the stream banks are well -vegetated with trees and shrubs. Although
none of the Bank Sites have streams with suitable habitat for this species, proposed
activities at the Bank Sites are expected to directly improve water quality and habitat
for the downstream populations of Carolina heelsplitter.
14.2.3 Schweinitz's sunflower
This species grows well in rapidly developing areas throughout the Piedmont region
of North Carolina. Suitable habitat for the Schweinitz's sunflower occurs in full to
partial sun and is found in areas with poor soils, such as thin clays that vary from wet
to dry. It is believed that this species once occurred in natural forest openings or
grasslands. Many of the remaining populations occur along roadsides. Suitable
habitat occurs within the Site along roadsides, edges of fields, and the margins of
streams; therefore, surveys will be conducted during the optimal survey window to
determine the presence, or absence, of this species.
14.2.4 Preliminary Biological Conclusions
Surveys for the Carolina heelsplitter and Schweinitz's sunflower will be needed in
order to correctly assess the impact of this project on each species. Current biological
conclusions for Federally Protected species are May Effect.
15 CONCLUSIONS
The Sponsor is pleased to offer the Yadkin 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank. The
proposed umbrella structure of the Bank is designed to initially permit the
establishment of the Goose Creek Tributaries Stream Mitigation Site, the Whits End
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site, and the Suther Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Site, while enabling the establishment of future mitigation sites not yet identified
(Table 16).
Yadkin 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Page 33
Draft Mitigation Prospectus

Table 16: Site Summaries
Stream Site Hydro Existing Length Mitigation Type Approx. Final
Status* (LF) Length (LF)
Goose Creek per/Int 4490 Restoration, 4902
Tributaries Enhancement
Whits End Per/Int 3128 Restoration, 6587
Enhancement
Suther Per 3547 Restoration, 4041
Enhancement
Totals 11,165 15,530
* Per = perennial; Int = intermittent
Proposed mitigation bank sites will result in approximately 14,246 SMU's and
approximately 10.85 WMU's in a rapidly developing watershed.
(Remainder of page intended to be blank)
Yadkin 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank page 34
Draft Mitigation Prospectus

16 REFERENCES
Griffith, G.E., J.M. Omernik, J.A. Comstock, M.P. Schafale, W.H. McNab, D.R. Lenat, T.F.
MacPherson, J.B. Glover, and V.B. Shelbourne. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina
and South Carolina. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.
Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.A. O'Hara, A. Jessup, R. Everhart.
1999. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina Streams. N.C.
State University, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation. Version 4.2. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Ecosystem Enhancement Program. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Leopold, L.B. 1994. A View of the River. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, MA. 298 pp.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2014. National Climate Data
Center's (NCDC) Climate Data Online (CDO). http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2008. Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basinwide
Water Quality Plan. (online). Available:
http://l2ortal.ncdenr.orglweb/wq/ps/bpulbasinlyadkinpeedee/2008 (June 16,
2015).
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2012. Standard Operating Procedures
for Collection and Analysis of Benthic Macroinvertebrates. (online). Available:
http://portal.ncdenr.orglc/document library/get file?uuid=f3cfa483-16de-4c18-
95b7-93684c1b64aa&groupld=38364
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2009. Small Streams Biocriteria
Development. Available:
http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document librarylget file?uuid=2d54ad23-0345-4d6e-
82fd-04005f48eaa7&groupld=38364
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). 2014. Water
Quality Data Assessment (2014 Final 303(d) List) (online). Available:
http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document library/get file?uuid=d61a8974-6af6-4edb-
829f-e658935e3341&grougId=38364 (June 18, 2015).
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2013. North Carolina Water Bodies
Report (online). Available:
http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document library/get file?uuid=10c60296-dcc8-439f-
a41c-d475ea7ad1fa&groupld=38364 (June 18, 2015).
North Carolina Stream Functional Assessment Team (NC SFAT). 2014. N.C. Stream
Assessment Method (NC SAM) User Manual (Version 2). 178 pp.
Yadkin 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Page 35
Draft Mitigation Prospectus

Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology (Publisher). Pagosa
Springs, Colorado
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation, North Ccarolina Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), United States Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA), North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ). 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. State of North Carolina.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2013. Monitoring Requirements and
Performance Standards for Compensatory Mitigation in North Carolina.
United States Census Bureau (USCB). 2015. State and County Quickfacts-North Carolina
(online). Available: http://quickfacts.census.gov/gfdlstatesz37000.html (June 16,
2015).
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1960. Soil Survey of Alamance County,
North Carolina. Soil Conservation Service.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1992. Soil Survey of Rockingham County,
North Carolina. Soil Conservation Service.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2014a. Web Soil Survey (online).
Available: http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx [June 18,
2015].
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2014b. National Hydric Soils List (online).
Available:
http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps /portal Inres/detail/soils Isurveylpartnership/ncss
/?cid=nres142p2 053957 [June 18, 2015].
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS). North Carolina State Office. June 2001. 1997 National Resources Inventory.
Raleigh, NC.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2015. Endangered Species, Threatened
Species,Federal Species of Concern, and Candidate Species, Union County, North
Carolina (online). Available:
http//www.fws.gov/raleighZspecies/cntylistlunion.html [June 18, 2015].
Yadkin 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Page 36
Draft Mitigation Prospectus

APPENDIX A
Figures
Yadkin 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Appendix
Draft Mitigation Prospectus

RiolIftid N
29A
iP L
Suther Site
49 35.453169'N, 80.474835'W
n 6 —rd52 to Shngle
Trap
Mount Pleasant Eid4 Mouotain Axiom Environmenw. inc.
.
ional
AOL
40
V Prepared for:
A115am'arle
49
24
RESTORATION
24
Reed G Mrne State • SYSTEMS LLC
Historic S
Project:
locust 24 27 T
YADKIN 05
ou UMBRELLA
MITIGATION BANK 1b
Midla Oakboro N 'nNo6d
Wil
M
Union and Cabarrus
MintHill Counties, NC
601 Rccc Title:
Goose Creek Tributaries%'BANK
4
35.12599-N, 80.546341A1
SITE
LOCATION
52 MAP
; z wked Craek
An 'il d"
Indtan Trad Aw
1s 'ed Hill Drawn by:
KRJ
r.
-1,21 74
Date:
-Y Feb 2016
io Anson Co
Scale:
801 ly PolktDn F 1:260000
II aehland Project No.:
,V r 4 t Monroe Wi te -Marshville
4 74 15-005
74
&
Hign,point-\ --- ',vvaaeSDoro
FIGURE
Mineral WNS
Legend
Mitigation Bank Easements 7PI-) Whits End
34.912253'N, -80.443646'W Mountain rdon
0 2.5 5 10 15
Miles
% Copyright:© 2014 DeLorme

f'
o�'cr
79W !Z
'fi i
KRJ
_
Mso" [:o
J ngam
= o
Mountain
L� tmaiLin In
` YCite9ldnal
1t[1
achland� R..
-
Scale:
'4
`Yt.-adesUaro
�r
� ifesv�
Iron station
1:350000
j
Project No.:
1
Shoals
15-005
Location of Whits End Stream and
Wetland Restoration Site within
C.
USGS Hydrologic Unit and
-_
FIGURE
Stanley
cs
03040105081020
i� Location of Goose Creek Tributaries ,IndianT-il
Stream Restoration Site within aE�"'"
` USGS Hydrologic Units and
Targeted Local Watersheds _
03040105030020 and 03040105040010 c
Pact Hill Yvkt Cf � �
Bryant F' _ i ,�
7 NO
-
Legend
Mineral
i Waxhaw S!
Bank Easements
Q USGS Hydrologic Unit 03040105
14 Digit Hydrologic Unit Boundaries ^ rd r
�Yan.Vyyck �i ��1ie
Targeted Local Watersheds
>t
0 5 10 20
Miles ! - IL-
N
Location of Suther Stream and
Wetland Restoration Site within
USGS Hydrologic Unit and r
Targeted Local Watershed
03040105020010
i
1 Axicin3 Enviionwerlla7. Inc,
i,enheirneq'_ Dark
RiehHeld ;ntllntain - Prepared for:
X
°
a
IAdvntein
RESTORATION
SYSTEMS I LLC
siren,, �' !- Project:
e
YADKIN 05
UMBRELLA
MITIGATION BANK
Union and
~� F Mount dead
Cabarrus Counties, NC
Title:
�a
HYDROLOGIC
PIC
UNIT
-
CopyrigbU@-20-145DeL`ormE
Drawn by:
'fi i
KRJ
_
Mso" [:o
J ngam
= o
Mountain
Date:
FEB 2016
achland� R..
Scale:
'4
`Yt.-adesUaro
�r
� ifesv�
1:350000
r
Project No.:
1
,a
15-005
Location of Whits End Stream and
Wetland Restoration Site within
C.
USGS Hydrologic Unit and
-_
FIGURE
Targeted Local Watershed
cs
03040105081020
-
CopyrigbU@-20-145DeL`ormE

„`z-yam, .�,."r y i i � • 4 's! ce.+ ,t.' , `.` ,d � 1•.-: f ,._ j f> b '� I "_!
I,i � 1�- - ' ,/• � _ � j1 �/ R -? _�� � y {` _ �! AxiomEnwIr�en1�.Inc.
x -- . r 218 f �T C
�, e >,1�, ~ Prepared for:
7 RESTORATION
SYSTEMS i LLC
_ .t ��- . J• �.•�,� ' _ c�' •o � a -fir” � wl, ,.,� /�'
4 _ t. o-. tea• t�irvie+v �-' _ �' j'I' r.
Cop right:©2013 National Geographic � ' .rs�s f . � . _ _ ' ;'_ �_ � � ,.,, � °L �' •! _ t _
m -
-��' `� - � _ _ , r � -.-•�'� Project:
cl,
d�J
f y -
wi
Ern
h �_\ �, a • s. YADKIN 05
rOle- UMBRELLA
MITIGATION BANK
tom'-
' � r `. ,., .,F` a - 601 ..�
t�
40
l ✓ p o Cfle f.su
` f 0 a •✓ $n e f V
4Z*
Union County NC
Title:
218 4II,.rk GOOSE CREEK
`� ✓ _ rr�• TRIBUTARIES
SITE LOCATION
0 a
'Lem • ,, �--,
1'•fvY•(y,3- ..�•/f �•Ti I Y 6{-
Drawn by:
f KRJ
•
Date:
e _ f 01 USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map (Midland and Bakers, NC Quads) JUN 2015
..
- Directions to the Site from Raleigh: Scale:
Y .,, � �.` � �s,• � I• - , �, - ;�', �- . F+ r�� ' • „-,,, g 1:30000
- s•
`
p7 Take US-64 West out of Raleigh and travel 61.8 miles to Asheboro,
Turn left onto NC-49 S and travel 28.4 miles, Project No.:
'l
Take a slight left onto Main St and travel 1.1 miles, 15-005
- Continue onto Millin ort Rd and travel 13.7 miles,
_, s� 1' `til : •',.q_.�as - Turn right onto Mission Church Rd then left onto Coley Store Rd,
" - ;- 1+ 4 - _ _ �� ,-• U - After 4.3 miles, turn right onto NC-24 W/NC-27 W/E Main St, FIGURE
• E 1 A-� �, C .. • - After 1.2 miles, turn left onto Renee Ford Rd and travel 7.5 miles,
I \
AOL
Turn right onto Old Ferry Road and travel 2.0 miles,
Turn right onto NC-218 W ��
7�` " �`-'-'', '•, I -� - The Site can be accessed off Brent Haigler Rd (UT-1 and UT-2) or off US-601
?� _ti ,��.- • I just south of the interection with NC-218 (UT-3).
Site Latitude, Longitude 35.12599, -80.54634 (NAD83/WGS84)
° - Copynght ©201'3 National Geographic ti `
,x � Society, i-cubed / f 1. M1nf . .,' ! x I
vriu�,r u�-

Emrn tee
0
Legend
Conservation Easement - 15 ac
UT -1 Drainage Area - 0.12 sq mi (77.5 ac)
UT -2 Drainage Area - 0.08 sq mi (49.7 ac)
-1
s � +
d N
'568
Axiom Enwironmenlal, Inc,
s r
Prepared for:
t JoeRESTORATION
�-
SYSTEMS i LLC
-
I Project:
71
_ YADKIN 05
"t Ir UMBRELLA
` MITIGATION BANK
568
Union County, NC
Title:
00
GOOSE CREEK
��•_--. TRIBUTARIES
TOPOGRAPHY
AND
DRAINAGE AREA
cly
�.
Drawn by:
� - �( *, �Iw KRJ
-�
Date:
_ + ' t►`�`� JUN 2015
Scale:
� t
1:8500
• .. * Project No..
L 15-005
r r
�.
'"' Ql, . `+►� •` FIGURE
•' _
500 1,000 2,000 3,000
FE
3B
%+f 'Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i -cubed
r
-1
s � +
d N
'568
Axiom Enwironmenlal, Inc,
s r
Prepared for:
t JoeRESTORATION
�-
SYSTEMS i LLC
-
I Project:
71
_ YADKIN 05
"t Ir UMBRELLA
` MITIGATION BANK
568
Union County, NC
Title:
00
GOOSE CREEK
��•_--. TRIBUTARIES
TOPOGRAPHY
AND
DRAINAGE AREA
cly
�.
Drawn by:
� - �( *, �Iw KRJ
-�
Date:
_ + ' t►`�`� JUN 2015
Scale:
� t
1:8500
• .. * Project No..
L 15-005
r r
�.
'"' Ql, . `+►� •` FIGURE
•' _
500 1,000 2,000 3,000
FE
3B
%+f 'Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i -cubed

N
BaB
a. Go
GsB
XS
-3
,�h� , West Gauge
!&.'' \ BaB
/ .J 0
1011
B // 4' Cross Section 1 - UT 2
100.8
1 100.6
DA = 0.05
East Gauge 100.4 Abkf = 3.0 sq ft
Aexisting = 0.5 sq ft
100.2 _ Wbkf = 7.9 ft
Dbkf=0.4ft
100 Dmax = 0.6 ft
Wbkf/Dbkf = 20.8
99.8 Aexistin FPA = 11 ft
ENT = 1.4
GsB 99.6 LBH = 0.6 ft
BHR = 1.0
99.4 E -type
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
2
101.5
Cross Section 2 - UT 2
101
Cm6 DA = 0.08
100.5 Abkf = 4.0 sq ft
Aexisting = 2.6 sq ft
-� * t'Sli 100 Wbkf = 6.2 ft
Dbkf=0.6ft
Aexisting Dmax= 1.1 ft
99.5 Wbkf/Dbkf = 9.8
,.
FPA =9ft
ENT= 1.4
99 LBH = 1.1 ft
A
BHR = 1.0
101.5 98.5 E -type
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Cross Section 3 - UT 1
101
100.5
DA = 0.07
Aexisting
Abkf = 3.7 sq ft
100
Aexisting = 9.1 sq ft
Wbkf = 5.6 ft
995
Dbkf=0.7ft
ti,�k,
Dmax=0.8ft
Wbkf/Dbkf = 8.4
99
FPA =7ft
ENT = 1.2
98.5
LBH = 1.7 ft
BHR = 2.1
98
G -type
GsB
0 2 4
6 8
10 12
Legend
MEasement - 15 ac
Parcels
Existing Perennial Streams - 3868 ft
Soil Map Unit
Soil Series
Existing Intermittent Streams - 622 ft
BaB
Badin channery silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
ChA
Chewacla silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded
Cross Sections
CmB
Cid channery slit loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes
0 Surface Water Gauge
GoC
Goldston very channery silt loam, 4 to 15 percent slopes
Soil Boundary
GsB
Goldston-Badin complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes
GsC
Goldston-Badin complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes
0 500 1,000
2,000
3,000 4,000
Feet
XS -1
XS -2
South Gauge
Axiom Environmenla7, Inc,
Prepared for:
Project:
YADKIN 05
UMBRELLA
MITIGATION BANK
Union County, NC
Title:
GOOSE CREEK
TRIBUTARIES
EXISTING
CONDITIONS
Drawn by:
KRJ
Date:
JUN 2015
Scale:
1:6500
Project No.:
15-005
FIGURE
3C

N
[k 1
%7
p As om Environmen9s7, Pnc,
' > - Prepared for:
RESTORATION
. ,SYSTEMS LLC
Project:
? x
YADKIN 05
UMBRELLA
MITIGATION BANK
i
WK
Union County, NC
Title:
OT, =y ,.,..��� y:� t� GOOSE CREEK
' 4 A..
1pr.
"`..: _. �'. Gam:,... - - _4..�e
. c
TRIBUTARIES
PROPOSED
CONDITIONS
b �
p
w
K R
Drawn by:
«� KRJ
Date:
JUN 2015
Scale:
Legend
1:6500
N Project
Easement - 15 ac No.:
.xk /� 15-005
Parcels
ti
Stream Restoration - 3156 ft
Stream Enhancement (Level 1) - 1124 ft - FIGURE
Stream Enhancement (Level ll) - 622 ft
Crossings D
0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
Feet

s, fl N
_ r sra r.;n SN1
✓i I.
""M1
t
A I''<Rtd. _ Ait10m Eflwrror,merita7. Inc.
.�. "� I! � I� '�' � nen'. J �� � .��- � � 7- ��;� � �� L„ � ees -,�A.• r�: �- I
Prepared for:
44
RESTORATION
A. SYSTEMS i LLC
f
Copyr,i,ghta.© 2.01x3 Natiohal Geographic
Society, i -cubed
_ = Project:
2 � ti JF-� �`�-'� � � r -= / S r\ �',1 r� t..: . �•� I, ,�,`' - '"'r � �, Imo`, ,' (/-.�4y *4.
YADKIN 05
--4� -" - '$,A ,' UMBRELLA
MITIGATION BANK
_
I.
$•'-C ` � d �,- � - - it
„I
_�- - � _ — -- ! - . •� - -. - ,.,jApse. Crpwev�d
Union County,NC
74
0'I "t. Title:
-
4A-
1%
-
w.l� ` � WHITS END
4 s-
I
SITE LOCATION
ti
USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map (Monroe, Pageland, and Wingate, NC Quads)
207 Drawn by:
KRJ
_
Directions to the Site from Raleigh:
I
' f' - Take US -64 West out of Raleigh and travel 61.8 miles to Asheboro, Date:
�' t 601 "' ' ;= - Turn left onto NC -49 S and travel 28.4 miles, FEB 2016
W--_ -- _. Take a slight left onto Main St and travel 1.1 miles, Scale:
-+ _ T.. r 4,,� - _ Continue onto Millingport Rd and travel 9.7 miles, 1:40000
Turn left onto Clanton Rd and travel 0.9 miles,
Project No.:
Turn right onto Austin Rd and travel 3.0 miles, 15-005
0 4.
Turn left onto Newsome Rd and travel 1.9 miles,
Turn right onto NC -24 W/NC-27 W followed by a left onto Liberty Hill Church Rd,
After 2.6 miles, turn left onto Swift Rd and travel 2.9 miles,
FIGURE
- Take a slight right onto NC -205 S and travel 12.0 miles,
Turn left onto E Lawyers Rd and travel 5.3 miles,
o �• - Turn left onto N Main St and travel 3.8 miles,
✓r� "_ - Turn left onto Nash Rd and travel 0.9 miles,
Turn left onto White Store Rd then turn right onto Sn
ders Store Rd,4A
e r- ro g Y
"! The Site can be accessed off Snyders Store Rd after 1.0 mile.
;. - Site Latitude Longitude 34.912253 -80.443646 NAD83/WGS84
t._ -V r � l -� Copynght:©2013 National Geographic ,. - } .f� � g � ( )
Society; i-cubedr�- �� `r r
society,

N
of
AV
0 -4Y - _
r tiKiom Enw1"e,nmen1al. Inc.
• -���^msVA
`s - i1 '
r
� �►s a � ` � '-,� � f Prepared for:
RESTORATION
SYSTEMS i LLC
•�
- �' 'rf •
• • t; � .— ', / A: Project:
a ,
YADKIN 05
UMBRELLA
_ = MITIGATION BANK
>♦ ` `� ,� ! �y Union County, NC
• � i~�-- ` Title:
WHITS END
f•'�' - '•, TOPOGRAPHY
_
AND
• `n\�+•.• DRAINAGE AREA
F 44
_ s
Drawn by:
KRJ
Date:
`FEB 2016
, %`' - _ 11' ' ` �� �` �_d►..� ?
` L. • ti' I r Scale:
'+� _ • 1:10000
Le end 1 54,E Project No.:
g�
-� 15-005
Conservation Easement - 26 ac�� - , _ l/f T_ .! • -
Waxhaw Branch Drainage Area = 0.93 sq mi (595.2 ac) �` • *�' - ' j �� FIGURE
UT1 Drainage Area = 0.09 sq mi (57.6 ac)
1
d — —
UT2 Drainage Area = 0.24 sq mi (153.6 ac)
4B
V
0 500 1,000 2,000 31000 4,000
Feet •.--.•*/'` _
f .- • ' ` - Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i -cub=

"om Environwmal, Pnc,
Prepared for:
RESTORATION
2 h
SYSTEMS LLCr
Project:
YADKIN 05
UMBRELLA
MITIGATION BANK
b Date:
FEB 2016
Legend
Easement - 26 ac .R u
Parcels
Stream Restoration = 5990 ft
Stream Enhancement (level 1) = 597 ft
Possible Wetland Development = 9.5 ac
Piped Crossing
Powerline `
0 500 1,000 2,000

AW
Axiom Env ronmenial. Inc,
77
� < l�� °a �'� ' \ �; _�'�' 1 . �� •-,i lam" � - - , 'r '�/I i ,r r f 4.1
s
LL✓✓
O
l Oj
ORESTORATION
a G Ill r C/ /
SYSTEMS LLC
t Gold Hill Road -
- YADKIN 05
UMBRELLA
r J, _MITIGATION BAN
KW
r
h
as l
�eyy�
SLITHER
SITE LOCATION
A 016
` " ✓� 1
;" e
1ILI� 1 �
AL
73,
[�GS::7:55Minute Topographic Map (Mount Pleasant and Conc
ord, NC Quads)
Directions to the Site from Raleigh:
- - Take US -64 West out of Raleigh and travel 6 8 miles to Asheboro,
oro,
t I 1 •
r - - - Turn left onto NC -49 S and travel 38.8 miles,
29 t ' - Turn right onto Fisher Rd and after 1.3 miles, turn right onto Mt Pleasant Rd,
y 4 �a
TL -Travel 1.4 miles, then turn left onto Mt Olive Rd,
-� 49= r ,
r ,-
�. After 0.4 mile, turn right onto Cline School Rd,
-
5A
After 2.1 miles, turn left onto Gold Hill Rd,
The Site can be accessed off Gold Hill Rd after 0.3 mile.
Site Latitude, Longitude 35.453169, -80.474835 (NAD83/WGS84)
,

2Rr
``
• t • 24T , ' i Axiom Environmental. Inc,
Prepared for:
Cti •
00
• . - / bk 41 RESTORATION
SYSTEMS I LLC•
� � �i,''/ 4,,°�� � ✓ __ 4 • Project:
+ -' �• �.'' YADKIN 05
• ' ,, �� ! • UMBRELLA
MITIGATION BANK
Cabarrus County, NC
Title:
kr 1 SUTHER
TOPOGRAPHY
AND
er .-
.6 DRAINAGE AREA
- 'i%Ri Fti r• f � �
• Drawn by:
• �� KRJ
Or
Q�
" Date:
(tl i -- ti • �, - FEB 2016
t
Q.
ti
`'. �.-s Scale:
t
1:12000
L
- • �.f� ) 1 Project No.:
I �,M N _ f 15-005
Legend
Conservation Easement - 12 ac
�---- �"� FIGURE
UT1 Drainage Area = 0.89 sq mi (572.2 ac)
UT2 Drainage Area = 0.12 sq mi (77.3 ac) G�'� • e
�5B
0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 Feet
- ' `1 Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i -cubed

4..34-
711
11 i, r
r e�
r +„
� 1
T h
Legend?
MEasement = 12 ac a
Stream Restoration = 3403 ftE�
1
Stream Enhancement (Level 1) = 171 ft
Stream Enhancement (Level 11) = 467 ft
Wetland Restoration Area = 0.6 ac r �_ „�a0•(g, 1
Wetland Enhancement Area = 1.5 ac
Piped Crossing; ray, k �,, •+v
Forded Crossing
Existing Conservation Easement
0 250 500 1,000
Feet
l a•y l-� xyo �4ry�-,� y�• '-
r u k40
t i
Yy) rr r w u, w d t
bl _ "k + ` ,* Axiom Envircinmenia9, Pnc,
Prepared for:
IF,
It
RESTORATION
SYSTEMS LLC
it
ILl,F-.,jam,} l
�i
Project:
� j YADKIN 05
UMBRELLA
k;
` MITIGATION BANK
Cabarrus County, NC
4
Title:
4-1
SUTHER
PROPOSED
•'t, /% / CONDITIONS
,
Drawn by:
KRJ
0.7 acre area of possible wetland /
enhancement (existing open water) �;i '� j i Date:
a' i
FEB 2016
• s ,
r /,� • , i Scale:
1:2500
� x
Project No.:
15-005
FIGURE
5D

APPENDIX B
Goose Creek Tributaries Stream Gauge Plots
Yadkin 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Appendix
Draft Mitigation Prospectus

10
8
L
Goose Creek Tributaries East Gauge
2
4
N N N w w w w
N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ V N N w 00 N w N F+ N
w \ v, w r \ rn
f+ Ql a> a> a> a> a> a> a>
In
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
c
2.5
3
C�
C
2.0 a
f6
C
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

_
8
6
4
Goose Creek Tributaries West Gauge
-2
-4
N
N
N
W
W
W W
N
\
\
\
\
W
\
00
\
\
N
\
W
\
\ \
N
W
W
In
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
3
C�
C
2.0 a
_
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

8
6
F 4
Goose Creek Tributaries South Gauge
0
-2
N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
W 00 N N W N
f+ Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol
In
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
c
2.5
3
C�
C
2.0 a
f6
C
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0