20141149 Ver 2_Mit_Plan_2nd Draft_highlighted_20161027

DRAFT BANK SITE MITIGATION PLAN
CAPE FEAR 02 UMBRELLA MITIGATION BANK
DEVELOPED THROUGH
RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT OF THE
MOTES CREEK BANK SITE
Alamance County,North Carolina
w X N
H M
x x
Mt
r
2..
u .
PREPARED BY:
RESTORATION SYSTEMS,LLC
1101 HAYNES STREET,SUITE 211
• a RALEIGH,NORTH CAROLINA 27604
AND
AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL,INC.
218 SNOW AVENUE
RALEIGH,NORTH CAROLINA 27603
Axiom Environmental,Inc.
OCTOBER 2016

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Restoration Systems, LLC proposes the Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan for inclusion into
the Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank. Phase I of the Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation
Bank includes the proposed restoration and enhancement of four stream and wetland mitigation
sites in the Haw River basin, which is also referred to as the Cape Fear 02 watershed. The Phase
I Bank Sites (Bank Sites) are comprised of the following: 1)Motes Creek in Alamance County, 2)
Benton Branch in Caswell County, 3) Orphan Creek in Alamance County, and 4) Rocky Top in
Alamance County(Figures 1 and 2).
This detailed Bank Site Mitigation Plan describes the Motes Creek Bank Site (hereafter referred
to as the "Site"), located approximately 8 miles southeast of Burlington, NC. The Site
encompasses 19 acres of land located south of Mount Willen Road, approximately 2,300 feet east
of the intersection of Mount Willen Road and NC Highway 54 (Figure 3).
Directions to the Site from Saxapahaw are as follows.
From Saxapahaw
Take Church Road northeast toward Jordan Dr. —0.1 mile
Church Rd becomes Bethlehem Church Rd. — 1.0 mile
Turn left on Mineral Springs Rd. —2.5 miles
Turn left on NC Highway 54—0.47 mile
Turn right onto Mount Willen Rd. —0.4 mile
Site Coordinates - 35.990932, -79.284956
The Site is characterized by disturbed forest and agricultural land used for livestock grazing and
hay production. Currently, the Site includes approximately 4,864 linear feet of perennial and
intermittent stream channels, which are accessible by livestock, cleared of forest vegetation, and
receive nonpoint source inputs including agricultural chemicals and livestock waste. In addition,
Site floodplains are characterized by 1.14 acres of hydric soil(0.44 acres of disturbed wetland and
0.7 acres of drained hydric soil). The main hydrologic features include Motes Creek, three
unnamed tributaries (UT) to Motes Creek, and adjacent floodplains.
Existing Site reaches are classified as unstable Cg-type,Eg-type, Cf-type, and F-type streams with
little to no sinuosity. Existing reaches are characterized by sand substrate as the result of channel
impacts including livestock trampling, channel straightening, and riparian vegetation removal, in
addition to manual removal of substrate by the landowner.
Stream and wetland mitigation activities at the Site involve Stream Restoration, Stream
Enhancement (Level I and II), Wetland Restoration, and Wetland Enhancement. Stream and
wetland mitigation are expected to result in approximately 5,965 linear feet of stream channel and
1.14 acres of jurisdictional wetland which will generate 5,345 Stream Mitigation Units and 0.92
Riparian Wetland Mitigation Units.
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan Executive Summary page i
Upper Cape Fear Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems,LLC

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVESUMMARY.............................................................................................................I
1.0 INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................1
2.0 OBJECTIVES............................................................................................................................2
2.1 SITE SPECIFIC MITIGATION GOALS..............................................................................................3
3.0 WATERSHED APPROACH .......................................................................................................7
3.1 SITE SELECTION ......................................................................................................................7
4.0 SITE PROTECTION..................................................................................................................9
5.0 REFERENCE STUDIES..............................................................................................................9
5.1 CHANNEL CLASSIFICATION ........................................................................................................9
5.2 REFERENCE FOREST ECOSYSTEM ..............................................................................................11
6.0 BASELINE INFORMATION ....................................................................................................11
6.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS ...........................................................................................................12
7.0 CHANNEL STABILITY ASSESSMENT......................................................................................16
7.1 STREAM POWER...................................................................................................................16
7.2 SHEARSTRESS......................................................................................................................17
7.3 STREAM POWER AND SHEAR STRESS METHODS AND RESULTS........................................................18
7.4 BANKFULL VERIFICATION........................................................................................................19
8.0 POTENTIAL CONSTRAINTS...................................................................................................21
8.1 SITE ACCESS ........................................................................................................................21
8.2 UTILITIES.............................................................................................................................21
8.3 FEMA/HYDROLOGIcTRESPASS...............................................................................................21
8.4 FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES...............................................................................................21
8.5 STATE LISTED SPECIES............................................................................................................22
9.0 CREDIT DETERMINATION AND RELEASE..............................................................................22
9.1 CREDIT DETERMINATION ........................................................................................................22
9.2 STREAM CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE.........................................................................................24
9.3 WETLAND CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE ......................................................................................25
10.0 MITIGATION WORK PLAN..................................................................................................26
10.1 RESTORATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES .......................................................................26
10.2 STREAM AND WETLAND DESIGN............................................................................................27
10.3 STREAM RESTORATION ........................................................................................................27
10.4 STREAM ENHANCEMENT LEVEL I ............................................................................................29
10.5 STREAM ENHANCEMENT LEVEL II ...........................................................................................29
10.6 WETLAND RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT..........................................................................29
10.7 PLANT COMMUNITY RESTORATION.........................................................................................30
10.8 PLANTING PLAN .................................................................................................................31
10.9 NUISANCE SPECIES MANAGEMENT.........................................................................................33
10.10 SOIL MANAGEMENT AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURES ...........................................................33
11.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS...................................33
11.1 STREAMS ..........................................................................................................................35
11.2 WETLANDS........................................................................................................................36
11.3 VEGETATION......................................................................................................................37
11.4 MACROINVERTEBRATES .......................................................................................................37
12.0 MAINTENANCE AND CONTINGENCY PLAN........................................................................37
12.1 VEGETATION......................................................................................................................38
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan Table of Contents page i
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

12.2 STREAMS ..........................................................................................................................38
12.3 WETLAND HYDROLOGY........................................................................................................39
12.4 SITE BOUNDARIES...............................................................................................................39
12.5 TERRACELL DROP STRUCTURES..............................................................................................39
13.0 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN ...................................................................................39
14.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN .......................................................................................40
15.0 FINANCIAL ASSURANCE.....................................................................................................40
15.1 IMPLEMENTATION ASSURANCE..............................................................................................41
15.2 MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING ASSURANCE ........................................................................41
15.3 OTHER FINANCIAL ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................41
16.0 CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................................................41
17.0 REFERENCES......................................................................................................................42
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Jurisdiction Determination
Appendix B. Bank Site Conservation Easement
Appendix C. Morphology Tables and Existing Conditions Stream Data
Appendix D. Flood Frequency Analysis
Appendix E. Preconstruction Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data
Appendix F. Draft Financial Assurance
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Site Locations Map
Figure 2. Bank Hydrologic Unit Map
Figure 3. Motes Creek Site Location
Figure 4. Topography and Drainage Area
Figure 5. Existing Conditions and Soils
Figures 6A-6B. Restoration Plan
Figure 7. Proposed Dimension Pattern and Profile
Figures 8A-8B. Typical Structure Details
Figure 9. Planting Plan
Figure 10. Monitoring Plan
Figure Cl. Motes Creek Cross-section Locations
Figure E1. Motes Creek Benthic Sampling Locations
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan Table of Contents page ii
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Motes Creek Bank Site Credit Summary..................................................................................2
Table 2A. Hydrological Functional Objectives and Proposed Actions..................................................2
Table 2B. Water Quality Functional Objectives and Proposed Actions................................................3
Table 2C. Habitat Functional Objectives and Proposed Actions...........................................................3
Table 3A. Motes Creek Bank Site NC SAM Summary...........................................................................4
Table 3B. Motes Creek Bank Site NC WAM Summary.........................................................................5
Table 3C. Mitigation Work Plan Components Meeting Functional Goals/Objectives........................6
Table 3D. Mitigation Activities and Credit Potential Summary............................................................7
Table 4. Population Growth in Cape Fear 02 ..........................................................................................8
Table 5. Watershed Stressors and Usage Ratings....................................................................................9
Table 6. Reference Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area................................................................................10
Table7. Reference Forest Ecosystem......................................................................................................II
Table8. Motes Creek Soils.......................................................................................................................14
Table 10. Stream Power (Q) and Shear Stress (i)Values .....................................................................19
Table 11. Reference Reach Bankfull Discharge Analysis......................................................................20
Table 12. Federal Species of Concern.....................................................................................................22
Table 13.Reach-by-Reach Credit Determination Summary.................................................................23
Table 14. Mitigation Activity and Credit Determination Summary....................................................23
Table 15. Stream Credit Release Schedule.............................................................................................24
Table 16. Wetland Credit Release Schedule...........................................................................................25
Table 17. Anticipated Construction Timing and Sequencing...............................................................27
Table 18. Mitigation Activity Totals........................................................................................................27
Table19. Planting Plan ............................................................................................................................32
Table 20. Functional Goal/Objectives and Performance Standards....................................................34
Table21. Monitoring Schedule................................................................................................................35
Table C-Reference. Reference Reach Morphological Stream Characteristics...........................Appendix C
Table C1. Motes Creek Morphological Stream Characteristics .................................................Appendix C
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan Table of Contents page iii
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

DRAFT BANK SITE MITIGATION PLAN
CAPE FEAR 02 UMBRELLA MITIGATION BANK
RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT OF
THE MOTES CREEK BANK SITE
Alamance County,North Carolina
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Restoration Systems, LLC (the Sponsor) is pleased to propose the Motes Creek Mitigation Bank
Site (hereafter referred to as the "Site") for inclusion into the Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation
Bank (the Bank). The Site is located approximately 8 miles southeast of Burlington, which
encompasses 19 acres of land located south of Mount Willen Road, approximately 2,300 feet east
of the intersection of Mount Willen Road and NC Highway 54 (Figure 3).
Directions to the Site from Saxapahaw are as follows.
From Saxapahaw
Take Church Road northeast toward Jordan Dr. —0.1 mile
Church Rd becomes Bethlehem Church Rd. — 1.0 mile
Turn left on Mineral Springs Rd. —2.5 miles
Turn left on NC Highway 54—0.47 mile
Turn right onto Mount Willen Rd. —0.4 mile
Site Coordinates - 35.990932, -79.284956
The Site is characterized by disturbed forest and agricultural land used for livestock grazing and
hay production. Currently, the Site includes approximately 4,864 linear feet of perennial and
intermittent stream channels, which are accessible by livestock, cleared of forest vegetation, and
receive nonpoint source inputs including agricultural chemicals and livestock waste. In addition,
Site floodplains are characterized by 1.14 acres of hydric soil(0.44 acres of disturbed wetland and
0.7 acres of drained hydric soil). The main hydrologic features include Motes Creek, three
unnamed tributaries (UT) to Motes Creek, and adjacent floodplains.
Existing Site reaches are classified as unstable Cg-type,Eg-type, Cf-type, and F-type streams with
little to no sinuosity. Existing reaches are characterized by sand substrate as the result of channel
impacts including livestock trampling, channel straightening, and riparian vegetation removal, in
addition to manual removal of substrate by the landowner.
Stream and wetland mitigation activities at the Site involve Stream Restoration, Stream
Enhancement (Level I and II), Wetland Restoration, and Wetland Enhancement. Stream and
wetland mitigation are expected to result in approximately 5,965 linear feet of stream channel and
1.14 acres of jurisdictional wetland which will generate 5,345 Stream Mitigation Units and 0.92
Riparian Wetland Mitigation Units.
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 1
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems,LLC

Table 1. Motes Creek Bank Site Credit Summary
Hydro Mitigation Activities Wetland Credit Potential Stream Credit
Status* (WMUs) Potential(SMUs)
Restoration,
Perennial 0.92 5,345
Enhancement
The Site is located in the Haw River basin, or Cape Fear 02, Hydrological Unit Code (HUC)
03030002.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
Proposed mitigation activities include: Stream Restoration, Enhancement Level I, Enhancement
Level 11, Wetland Restoration, and Wetland Enhancement. Tables 2A-2C summarize the overall
project goals/objectives and proposed actions to accomplish such goals and objectives, which
address the needs of the Site's watershed and general geographic area (see sections 3.1 and 10.1
for further discussion).
Table 2A. Hydrological Functional Objectives and Proposed Actions
Hydrological Improvement Objectives Proposed Actions
Floodplain Connectivity Reconnect channels with historic floodplains
Floodplain Resistance Plant woody riparian buffers;increase
microtopography
Stream Stability
& Reconstruct stream channels,sized to convey bankfull
Sediment Transport discharges and watershed sediment supplies
Channels constructed or raised to historic floodplain
Surface and Subsurface Storage and elevations;increased floodplain hydraulic resistance
Retention by planting woody vegetation and increasing
microtopography
(Remainder of page intentionally left blank)
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 2
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems,LLC

Table 213. Water Quality Functional Objectives and Proposed Actions
Water Quality Improvement Objectives Proposed Actions
Remove Pollutant Sources Cattle exclusion and/or cessation of agricultural
practices
Upland Pollutant Filtration Plant woody riparian buffers;construct marsh
treatment features intercepting overland flows
Increase floodplain connectivity;plant woody
Floodplain Biogeochemical Processing riparian buffers;increase microtopography;
construct marsh treatment areas
Thermal Regulation Plant woody riparian buffers to provide shade
Table 2C. Habitat Functional Objectives and Proposed Actions
Habitat Functional Improvement Objectives Proposed Actions
Construct stable channels,geomorphology designed
In-channel Habitat 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
2.1 SITE SPECIFIC MITIGATION GOALS
Site specific mitigation goals and objectives have been developed through the use of functional
assessment analyses of existing stream and wetland systems at the Site. Functional assessment
methods include NC Stream Assessment Method(NC SAM)and NC Wetland Assessment Method
(NC WAM). These methodologies rate functional metrics for streams and wetlands as high,
medium, or low based on field data collected on forms and transferred into a rating calculator.
Using Boolean logic, the rating calculator assigns a high, medium, or low value for each metric
and overall function of the stream or wetland area.
2.1.1 Mitigation Goals
Mitigation goals and objectives proposed for the Site are based on functional metrics identified by
the NC SAM and NC SAM rating calculator. Functional metrics have been developed by
regulatory agencies and are summarized in the following tables. Site functional assessment data
forms are included in Appendix A (JD Package).
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 3
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems,LLC

Mitigation activities include Stream Restoration, Stream Enhancement (Level I and II), Wetland
Restoration, and Wetland Enhancement. Tables 3A and 313 summarize the NC SAM and NC
WAM metrics targeted and the corresponding mitigation activities proposed to provide functional
uplift. Metrics targeted to meet the Site's goals and objectives are depicted in bold in.
Table 3A. Motes Creek Bank Site NC SAM Summary
NC SAM Function Class Rating Summary Motes Creek UT1 EI UT2 UT3 EII
(1)HYDROLOGY LOW HIGH LOW MEDIUM
(2)Baseflow HIGH MEDIUM HIGH MEDIUM
(2)Flood Flow LOW HIGH LOW MEDIUM
(3)Streamside Area Attenuation LOW MEDIUM LOW LOW
(4)Floodplain Access MEDIUM MEDIUM LOW LOW
(4)Wooded Riparian Buffer LOW MEDIUM LOW HIGH
(4)Microtopography LOW LOW LOW LOW
(3)Stream Stability LOW HIGH LOW HIGH
(4)Channel Stability LOW HIGH LOW HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport MEDIUM LOW MEDIUM MEDIUM
(4) Stream Geomorophology MEDIUM HIGH LOW HIGH
(1)WATER QUALITY LOW MEDIUM LOW LOW
(2)Baseflow HIGH MEDIUM HIGH MEDIUM
(2)Stream-side Area Vegetation LOW LOW LOW LOW
(3)Upland Pollutant Filtration LOW LOW LOW LOW
(3)Thermoregulation LOW MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM
(2)Indicators of Stressors YES NO YES YES
(2)Aquatic Life tolerance MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM
(1)HABITAT LOW HIGH LOW HIGH
(2)In-stream Habitat LOW MEDIUM MEDIUM HIGH
(3)Baseflow HIGH MEDIUM HIGH MEDIUM
(3) Substrate MEDIUM LOW MEDIUM MEDIUM
(3)Stream Stability LOW HIGH LOW HIGH
(3)In-Stream Habitat LOW HIGH MEDIUM HIGH
(2)Stream-side Habitat LOW HIGH LOW HIGH
(3)Stream-side Habitat LOW MEDIUM LOW MEDIUM
(3)Thermoregulation LOW HIGH MEDIUM HIGH
OVERALL LOW HIGH LOW MEDIUM
(Remainder of page intentionally left blank)
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 4
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems,LLC

Table 3B. Motes Creek Bank Site NC WAM Summary
NC WAM Sub-function Rating Summary Motes Creek UTI UT2
Wetland Type BHF HF HE
Wetland ID PA SA SB,SG,SH
(1)HYDROLOGY LOW MEDIUM LOW
(2)Surface Storage&Retention LOW LOW LOW
(2)Sub-surface Storage and LOW HIGH LOW
Retention
(1)WATER QUALITY MEDIUM LOW LOW
(2)Pathogen change MEDIUM MEDIUM LOW
(2)Particulate Change LOW MEDIUM LOW
(2)Soluble change MEDIUM LOW LOW
(2)Physical Change MEDIUM LOW LOW
(1)HABITAT LOW LOW LOW
(2)Physical Structure LOW LOW LOW
(2)Landscape Patch Structure LOW LOW LOW
(2)Vegetative Composition LOW LOW LOW
OVERALL LOW LOW LOW
Wetland Type-BHF(Bottomland Hardwood Forest),HF(Hardwood Forest)
Wetland ID-See JD mapping for locations of Wetlands
(Remainder of page intentionally left blank)
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 5
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems,LLC

Table 3C.Functional Goals/Objectives and Corresponding Mitigation Work Plan Components
Functional Goals/Objectives Mitigation Work Plan Component
(1)HYDROLOGY
(2)Flood Flow(Floodplain Access)
(3)Streamside Area Attenuation Construct new channel at historic floodplain elevation
(4)Floodplain Access to restore overbank flows
(4)Wooded Riparian Buffer Planting woody riparian buffer
(4)Microtopography Deep rip floodplain soils to reduce compaction and
increase soil surface roughness
(3)Stream Stability Construct proper channel width and depth,stabilize
channel banks,provide gravel/cobble substrate,plant
(4)Channel Stability woody riparian buffer,remove cattle
Construct new channel at historic floodplain elevation
(2) Surface Storage and Retention restoring overbank flows,remove cattle,scarify
compacted soils,plant woody riparian buffer
(2) Subsurface Storage and Retention Remove cattle,rip compacted soils,plant woody
riparian buffer
(1)WATER QUALITY
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
Plant woody riparian buffer
(3)Upland Pollutant Filtration
(2)Indicators of Stressors Remove cattle and other agricultural inputs
(2)Particulate Change Raise stream bed elevation,restore overbank flows,
plant woody riparian buffer,remove cattle,increase
(2) Soluble Change surface storage and retention,restore frequency and
(2)Physical Change duration of inundation
(1)HABITAT
(2)In-stream Habitat Construct stable channel with cobble/gravel substrate,
plant woody riparian buffer
(3)Stream Stability
Plant woody riparian buffer
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(2)Physical Structure Construct stable channel with cobble/gravel substrate,
plant woody riparian buffer
(2)Landscape Patch Structure Plant woody riparian corridors for wildlife passage
within agricultural areas
(2)Vegetative Composition Plant wood riparian buffer
(Remainder of page intentionally left blank)
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 6
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems,LLC

Site mitigation activities, anticipated final stream lengths,wetland areas,and applicable mitigation
ratios are depicted in Table 3D.
Table 31). Mitigation Activities and Credit Potential Summary
Anticipated Lengths and Areas
Credit Potential
Streams Non-credit Wetlands Mitigation
Mitigation Activity (linear feet) Generating (acres) Ratio SMUs WMUs
Stream Restoration 4,879 150 1:1 4,727
Stream Enhancement I 689 1.5:1 459
Stream Enhancement II 397 2.5:1 159
Wetland Restoration 0.7 1:1 0.7
Wetland Enhancement 0.44 2:1 0.22
Totals 5,965 1.14 5,345 0.92
3.0 WATERSHED APPROACH
3.1 SITE SELECTION
The Cape Fear River basin is one of four rivers in North Carolina completely contained within the
state's boundaries. Comprised of five major drainages—Haw River, Deep River,Northeast Cape
Fear River, Black River, and the Cape Fear River—the basin drains portions of 26 counties and
115 municipalities with a total of 6,386 stream miles. The most populated portions of the basin
are located in the Triad, the Triangle, Fayetteville, and Wilmington(NCDWQ 2005).
Primary considerations for Site selection included the potential for improvement of water quality
within a region of North Carolina under heavy development and livestock/agricultural pressure.
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 mitigation project will have on ecologically
important aquatic and terrestrial resources;and potential development trends and land use changes.
Site specific characteristics are summarized below, in addition to development trends and land use
changes within the Cape Fear 02 watershed.
Currently, the proposed Site is characterized by disturbed forest and agricultural land used for
livestock grazing and hay production. A summary of existing site characteristics in favor of
proposed stream and wetland activities include the following.
• Streams and wetlands are accessible to livestock
• Stream banks are trampled by livestock
• Streams and wetlands have been cleared of forest vegetation
• Streams have been straightened
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 7
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems,LLC

• Site receives nonpoint source inputs including agricultural chemicals and livestock waste
• Stream substrate has been manually removed
• Wetland soils have been compacted by livestock and agricultural equipment
• Wetland hydrology has been removed by stream channel entrenchment, ditching, and fill
with spoil castings
• Streams are classified as nutrient sensitive waters
In addition to the opportunity for ecological improvements at the Site, the use of the particular
mitigation activities and methods proposed in the Mitigation Work Plan (Section 10.0) are
expected to produce naturalized stream and wetland resources that will be ecologically self-
sustaining, requiring minimal long-term management (see the Long-term Management Plan in
Section 13.0).
Development Trends and Land Use Changes in Cape Fear 02
Between the 2000 and 2010 censuses, the Cape Fear 02 population increased approximately 17
percent (Table 4). The general trend of population growth appears to be continuing according to
recent population estimates,which indicate Guilford, Orange, Chatham, and Durham counties are
all growing at faster annual rates than North Carolina's 1.02 percent (USCB 2013). These data
suggest land development activities will increase in frequency, as will aquatic ecosystem impacts
related to such development. Therefore, there is an immediate and prolonged need for
compensatory stream mitigation in the watershed.Of further benefit,aquatic ecosystem restoration
projects are capable of reducing nutrient loading in sensitive downstream receiving waters such as
Jordan Lake.
Table 4. Population Growth in Cape Fear 02
Municipality 2000 Population 2010 Population Percent Increase
Greensboro 223,891 269,666 20
Burlington 44,917 49,963 11
Chapel Hill 48,715 57,233 17
Durham* 187,035 228,330 22
Rest of Guilford County 421,048 488,406 11
Rest of Alamance County 130,800 151,131 18
Rest of Orange County 118,227 133,801 10
Chatham County 49,329 63,505 29
Rest of Durham County* 223,314 267,587 8
Totals 942,718 1,104,430 17
*Some portions of Durham(city)and Durham County are located in the Cape Fear 02;the majority of these areas are
located in the Neuse River basin.
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 8
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems,LLC

The Site is located within the Cape Fear 02 HUC 03030002 (subbasin 03-06-04). According to
the Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan (NCDWQ 2005), all land uses and discharges
of wastewater and stormwater in subbasin 03-06-04 potentially contribute nutrients to B. Everett
Jordan Lake. B. Everett Jordan Lake provides low-flow augmentation, flood control, recreation,
fish and wildlife habitat, and water supply. The lake is impaired for aquatic life due to excessive
levels of chlorophyll a in violation of current standards in all segments of the reservoir. In addition,
the Site has a supplemental water quality classification of Nutrient Sensitive Waters,which include
areas with water quality problems associated with excessive plant growth resulting from nutrient
enrichment. The proposed mitigation activities will reduce sediment and nutrient levels, and
improve water quality within the Site and downstream watersheds. Table 5 summarizes the water
quality stressors and usage ratings for the Site's receiving waters..
Table 5. Watershed Stressors and Usage Ratings
Site Subbasin Index# Receiving Water NCDWR Rating 303(d)status*
Motes Creek 03-06-04 16-25 Newland Cr C,NSW NL
*Final 2012 303(d)status;NL=Not Listed
4.0 SITE PROTECTION
The Site is currently owned by Mr. Tommy Dodson of Alamance County. The Sponsor possesses
an option agreement with Mr. Dodson to record conservation easements over portions of his
property. Following approval of the Site by the USACE and the IRT, the Sponsor will record
conservation easements over approximately 19-acres of Mr.Dodson's property substantially in the
form and location provided in Appendix B, protecting the Site in perpetuity.. The North Carolina
Wildlife Habitat Foundation will hold permanent conservation easements and requisite access
easements. The conservation easements will contain a provision requiring a 60-day advanced
notification to the USACE before any action is taken to void or modify the conservation easements,
including transfer of title or establishment of any other legal claims over the Site.
5.0 REFERENCE STUDIES
Six reference reaches were identified for the Site: 1) Cedarock Park, 2) Causey Farm, 3) Lamm
Property, 4) Cripple Creek, 5) Flint Rock Farm, and 6) Caswell Game Lands. Causey Farm and
Cripple Creek reference sites were measured during detailed restoration planning for mitigation
banks developed in 2004 and 2009, respectively. Both mitigation banks were successful projects
through five years of monitoring with no issues. The Lamm Property Reference Site did not have
detailed measurements taken for pattern variables; however, cross-sectional data for bankfull
calculations were utilized to determine suitable design cross-section area. The streams were
measured and classified by stream type (Rosgen 1996). The location of each reference site is
depicted on Figure 1.
5.1 CHANNEL CLASSIFICATION
Reference reach data is presented in Table C-Reference (Appendix C). The reference reaches are
characterized as E- and C-type stream channels. Sinuosity ranges from 1.14 at the Caswell Game
Land to 1.46 at the Causey Farm Site; Causey Farm had slightly higher sinuosity, due to a lower
valley slope,with a sand-dominated substrate. E- and C-type streams are characterized as slightly
entrenched, riffle-pool channels exhibiting high sinuosity (1.3 to greater than 1.5); however,
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 9
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems,LLC

reference streams in the region typically are characterized by sinuosity values slightly lower than
1.3. These streams typically exhibit a sequence of riffles and pools associated with a sinuous flow
pattern. In North Carolina, these streams often occur in narrow to wide valleys with well-
developed alluvial floodplains(Valley Type VIII). These channels are typically considered stable;
however, these streams are sensitive to upstream drainage basin changes and/or channel
disturbance, and may rapidly convert to other stream types.
Dimension: Bankfull cross-sectional data at each reference site has been determined using infield
features of bankfull such as benches, lateral roots, and other morphological features. Once
bankfull cross-sectional area was determined, the value was compared to cross-sectional areas
predicted by Piedmont regional curves (Harman et al. 1999) to determine if the channel matches
the curves for use in Site design. Bankfull cross-sectional area of each reference site as compared
to regional curve predictions of bankfull cross-sectional area are detailed in Table 6.
Table 6. Reference Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area
Site Measured Area Predicted Area Percent of Regional Curves
Cedarock Park 8.1 7.46 109%
Causey Farm 14.7 15.7 94%
Cripple Creek 5.9 6.47 91%
Lamm Site 9.4 9.5 99%
Flintrock Harm 6.1 12.0 50%
Caswell Gameland 17.6 16.0 110%
Data indicate that reference sites generally match regional curves. With the exception of Flintrock
Farm,the sites appear to be within 10%of the bankfull cross-sectional area predicted by the curves.
Flintrock Farm may not be a suitable reference site for determination of cross-sectional area;
however, the channel is very stable and was useful in determination of pattern and slope ratios for
design calculation. Of the six reference sites measured, four are smaller in cross-sectional area
than the regional curves.
Pattern and Profile: Profile measurements of reference reaches range in sinuosity from 1.14 to
1.46, with the majority of the reference sites exhibiting a sinuosity around 1.2 (thalweg
distance/straight-line distance). Reference sinuosity values appear typical for the Piedmont of
North Carolina and result in pool-to-pool spacing and meander lengths that are suitable for design
of Site streams. Reference valley slopes range from 0.006 to 0.0310, providing a good range of
slopes to compare existing and proposed Site conditions. Site valley slopes range from 0.0085 to
0.0182, which matches well with measured reference streams. Profile variables such as riffle
slope, pool slope, run slope, and glide slope, which have been destroyed in the Sites streams due
to land use activities,have been measured in the reference sites and will be used for design channel
construction.
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 10
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems,LLC

Substrate: Reference channels are characterized by substrate dominated by cobble, gravel, and
sand sized particles.
5.2 REFERENCE FOREST ECOSYSTEM
A Reference Forest Ecosystem (RFE) is a forested area on which to model restoration efforts at
the Sites in relation to soils and vegetation. RFEs should be ecologically stable climax
communities and should be a representative model of the Site forested ecosystem as it likely
existed prior to human disturbances. Data describing plant community composition and structure
were collected at the RFEs and subsequently applied as reference data in an attempt to emulate a
natural climax community.
Reference vegetative communities for the Site are located on an unnamed tributary to Boyds Creek
in central Alamance County. Tree and shrub species identified in this area are listed in Table 7
and were utilized, in addition to other relevant species,to supplement community descriptions for
Piedmont Low Mountain Alluvial Forest and Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest (Schafale &
Weakley 1990).
Table 7. Reference Forest Ecosystem
Piedmont Alluvial Forest Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest
(F000dplains and Slopes) (Upland Side Slopes)
Canopy Species Understory Species Canopy Species Understory Species
Acer rubrum Acer rubrum Acer rubrum Acer rubrum
Liquidambar styraciflua Betula nigra Carya alba/tomentosa Carpinus caroliniana
Liriodendrum tulipifera Carpinus caroliniana Liriodendron tulipifera Diospyros virginiana
Pinus taeda Liriodendron tulipifera Pinus taeda Ilex opaca
Platanus occidentalis Pinus virginiana Juniperus virginiana
Quercus phellos Quercus alba Pinus taeda
Quercus shumardii Quercus falcata
Reference vegetation was dominated by red maple (Acer rubrum), tuliptree (Liriodendrum
tulipifera), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), and various oak species including willow oak
(Quercus phellos), southern red oak (Quercus falcata), and white oak (Quercus alba). Other
species identified were large loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) and Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana), as
well as river birch (Betula nigra) and iron wood(Carpinus caroliniana).
6.0 BASELINE INFORMATION
Baseline information for the Site presented here includes information on physiography,
topography, and land use; water quality; vegetation; soils; jurisdictional streams and wetlands;
stream characteristics; channel classification and morphology; and discharge.
Valley Classification
The Site is located within valleys characterized as Valley Type VIII. This type of valley is
identified by the presence of multiple river terraces positioned laterally along broad valleys with
gentle, down-valley elevation relief. Alluvial terraces and floodplains are the predominant
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 11
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems,LLC

depositional landforms, which produce a high sediment supply. Typical streams include C- and
E-types with slightly entrenched, meandering channels with a riffle-pool sequence.
Channel Evolution
Nearly all of the Sites' streams are characterized by G-type (gully) channels, F-type (widened
gully), or incised E- or C-type (riffle pool) channels. In North Carolina a typical evolutionary
trend in streams includes bed and bank erosion that leads to channel downcutting and morphology
changing from a stable E- or C-type channel into a G-type (gully) channel. Continued erosion
eventually results in lateral extension of the G-type channel into an F-type (widened gully)
channel. The F-type channel will continue to widen laterally until the channel is wide enough to
support a stable C-type or E-type channel at a lower elevation so that the original floodplain is no
longer subject to regular flooding.
Water Quality
The Site is located within the Cape River Basin in 14-digit United States Geological Service
(USGS) Cataloging Units 03030002050040 of the South Atlantic/Gulf Region in NCDWQ
Subbasin Number 03-06-04. Site streams receive a NCDWQ Best Usage Classification(NCDWQ
2005) and(NCDWR 2015) of C,NSW.
NCDWR Rating
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.
The NSW designation denotes nutrient sensitive waters, which include areas with water
quality problems associated with excessive plant growth resulting from nutrient
enrichment.
The North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR), formerly known as the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), has assembled a list of impaired waterbodies
according to the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) and 40 CFR 130.7, which is a comprehensive
public accounting of all impaired waterbodies. An impaired waterbody is one that does not meet
water quality standards including designated uses, numeric and narrative criteria, and anti-
degradation requirements defined in 40 CFR 131. Site streams are not listed on the final 2012 or
final 2014 303(d) lists (NCDWQ 2012,NCDWR 2014).
6.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
6.1.1 Physiography, Topography, and Land Use
The Site is located in the Carolina Slate Belt portion of the Piedmont ecoregion of North Carolina.
Regional physiography is characterized by dissected,irregular plains with moderate to steep slopes
and low to moderate gradient streams over boulder and cobble-dominated substrate (Griffith et al.
2002). Onsite elevations range from a high of 600-feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum(NGVD)
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 12
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems,LLC

at the upper reaches of UT 1 to a low of
approximately 568-feet NGVD at the Site outfall
(USGS Saxapahaw, North Carolina 7.5-minute
topographic quadrangle) (Figure 4).
The Site provides water quality functions to an
approximately 0.71-square mile(455 acre)watershed
at the outfall(Figure 4). The watershed is dominated
by pasture, agricultural land, forest, and sparse
residential property. Impervious surfaces account for
less than 5 percent of the upstream watershed land surface.
Surrounding area land use is primarily agricultural, with some low-density residential housing.
Onsite land use is characterized by disturbed forest, hay fields, and livestock pasture. Riparian
zones and wetland areas are primarily composed of herbaceous vegetation that is sparse and
disturbed due to livestock grazing,bush hogging, and regular maintenance activities.
6.1.2 Vegetation
The Site is characterized primarily by agricultural land, including pasture and hay fields, and some
areas of disturbed forest. Fields are dominated by fescue(Festuca sp.)with sparse natural recruits
including dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), clover (Trifolium sp.), cocklebur (Xanthium
strumarium), in addition to other opportunistic herbaceous species. Wet pockets located within
pasture land are dominated by rushes (Juncus spp.) and sedges (Carex spp.). Disturbed riparian
areas are characterized primarily by eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana) and sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua),with scattered Chinese privet(Ligustrum sinense),winged elm(Ulmus
alata), Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana), persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), dog fennel, and
broomsedge (Andropogon sp.).
6.1.3 Soils and Land Form
Based on web soil survey mapping (NRCS 2014), the Site contains five soil series: Chewacla fine
sandy loam (Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts), Efland silt loam (Typic Hapludults), Herndon silt loam
(Typic Kanhapludults), Local Alluvial Land, and Orange silt loam (Albaquic Hapludalfs). Site
soils are depicted on Figure 5 and described in Table 8.
(Remainder ofpage intentionally left blank)
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 13
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems,LLC

Table 8. Motes Creek Soils
Map Unit Map Unit Hydric
Symbol Name Status* Description
Non-hydric, This series consists of nearly level, somewhat poorly
Cd Chewacla fine may contain drained soils on floodplains that are frequently flooded.
sandy loam hydric The seasonal high water table occurs at a depth of 0.5-2.0
inclusions feet.
This series consists of well-drained soils found along slopes.
Efland silt Slopes range from 2-6 percent for EaB2 soils and 6-10
EaB2,EaC2 loam Non-hydric percent for EaC2 soils. This soil is thin and can be
associated with large rock outcrops. It is derived from
parent material of the Carolina slate belt.
This series consists of well-drained soils found on steep
Herndon silt slopes and uplands. Slopes range from 10-15 percent. This
HdD loam Non-hydric soil series is derived from parent material of the Carolina
slate belt.
This series consists of nearly level,poorly drained soils
Local Alluvial adjacent to streams and sloughs. They are developed from
Lc Land,Poorly Hydric alluvial sediments washed from adjacent uplands. The soil
Drained is not consistent in sequence,development,or arrangement
of layers.
This series consists of moderately well drained soils on
Orange silt smooth uplands near or on the top of slopes. Slopes range
ObC2 loam Non-hydric from 2-6 percent slopes. They are developed from igneous
and metamorphic parent materials. This series has poor
runoff and slow internal drainage.
*NRCS 2012
6.1.4 Jurisdictional Streams and Wetlands
The main hydrologic features of the Site include Motes Creek, unnamed tributaries to Motes
Creek, and associated riparian wetlands and floodplains. Motes Creek drains an approximately
0.47-square mile watershed at the outfall(Figure 4). Motes Creek is a second-order bank-to-bank
stream system.
UT 1, UT 3, and the upstream reach of UT 2 are first order, bank-to-bank streams with drainage
areas ranging between 0.09- to 0.14-square miles of watershed. Once the upper reaches of UT 2
and UT 3 converge, the lower reaches of UT 2 become a second order stream draining an
approximately 0.24-square mile watershed.
Perennial streams within the Site may be generally characterized as riverine,upper perennial with
unconsolidated bottoms consisting of sand(R3UB2). Streams located at the Site are fully exposed
to partially shaded by a mixture of mature riparian vegetation, and exhibit entrenchment and bank
failure due to livestock and agriculture practices located within the watershed. The Site
encompasses approximately 4,864 linear feet of existing stream channels proposed for mitigation
(Table 9 and Figure 5).
(Remainder of page intentionally left blank)
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 14
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems,LLC

Table 9. Existing Stream Characteristics
Stream Reach Approx.Length USGS USGS Stream In-Field Stream
(linear feet) Stream Order Classification Classification
Motes Creek 1,905 2nd Intermittent Perennial
UTI 402 1 St Intermittent Perennial
UT2 2,075 1St/2nd Intermittent Perennial
UT3 482 Unmapped Unmapped Perennial
Total 4,864
Jurisdictional wetlands are defined by the presence of three criteria:hydrophytic vegetation,hydric
soils, and evidence of wetland hydrology during the growing season (Environmental Laboratory
1987). Portions of the Site supporting jurisdictional wetlands may originally have been
characterized by palustrine,forested wetlands which were seasonally flooded. However,livestock
trampling, deforestation, groundwater drawdown (from stream channel incision), floodplain
ditching, and excavation of the floodplain have impacted on-site wetland areas.
Approximately 1.14 acres of the Site area is currently underlain by hydric soils, which have been
impacted by stream channel entrenchment,ditching,casting of spoil,compaction due to hoof shear
and agricultural equipment, and removal of native, woody vegetation (Figure 5). Floodplain
manipulations associated with stream channel straightening, deforestation, compaction from
livestock, and placement of spoil castings in wetland areas,have effectively removed, or impacted
groundwater hydrology and/or vegetation in these areas. In order to accurately calculate baseline
wetland areas, a jurisdictional wetland delineation was completed in April 2015 and verbally
approved by United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)representative Dave Bailey during
a field meeting on July 24, 2015.
Portions of the Site supporting jurisdictional wetlands are characterized by semi-permanently
flooded, palustrine wetlands underlain by hydric soils that are dark(low chroma) in color and are
striated with lenses of coarse materials deposited in a fluvial environment. Vegetative
communities within wetlands proposed for enhancement are composed of a single stratum of
herbaceous vegetation due to livestock grazing and routine maintenance. Groundwater springs
and surface runoff contribute hydrology to these areas, although historically the wetlands may
have additionally had a hydrological influence of overbank flooding.
Hydric soils have been mapped by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS) as
Chewacla (Cd), or Local Alluvial Land, Poorly Drained (Le). According to the Cowardin
classification (Cowardin et al. 1979), jurisdictional wetlands located within the Site may be
generally classified as palustrine,persistent emergent,wetlands that are saturated, semipermanent,
or seasonally flooded(PEM IY).
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 15
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems,LLC

6.1.5 Stream Characteristics
Site stream dimension, pattern, and profile were measured to characterize existing channel
conditions. Locations of existing stream reaches are depicted in Figure 5 and cross-section
locations are depicted in Figure C 1 (Appendix Q. Stream geometry measurements under existing
conditions are summarized in Table C1 Morphological Stream Characteristics (Appendix Q.
Preliminary estimates of stable stream attributes are based primarily upon measurements of four
reference reaches and regional curves discussed further in Section 5.0.
6.1.6 Channel Classification and Morphology
Stream geometry and substrate data have been evaluated to classify existing stream conditions
based on a classification utilizing fluvial geomorphic principles(Rosgen 1996). This classification
stratifies streams into comparable groups based on pattern, dimension, profile, and substrate
characteristics. Primary components of the classification include degree of entrenchment, width-
depth ratio, sinuosity, channel slope, and stream substrate composition.
Existing Site reaches are classified as unstable Cg-type,Eg-type, Cf-type, and F-type streams with
little to no sinuosity. Existing reaches are characterized by sand substrate as the result of channel
impacts including livestock trampling, channel straightening, and riparian vegetation removal, in
addition to manual removal of substrate by the landowner.
6.1.7 Discharge
This hydrophysiographic region is characterized by moderate rainfall with precipitation averaging
approximately 40 to 50 inches per year (USDA 1960). Drainage basin sizes range from 0.09-
square mile for UT3 to 0.47-square mile at the Site outfall.
The Site's discharge is dominated by a combination of upstream basin catchment, groundwater
flow, and precipitation. Based on regional curves (Harman et al. 1999),the bankfull discharge for
a 0.09-square mile watershed and a 0.47-square mile watershed is expected to average 15.7-cubic
feet per second(cfs)and 51.5-cfs,respectively. Bankfull discharge is expected to occur on average
every 1.3 to 1.5-years.
7.0 CHANNEL STABILITY ASSESSMENT
7.1 STREAM POWER
Stability of a stream refers to its ability to adjust itself to inflowing water and sediment load. One
form of instability occurs when a stream is unable to transport its sediment load, leading to
aggradation, or deposition of sediment onto the streambed. Conversely, when the ability of the
stream to transport sediment exceeds the availability of sediments entering a reach,and/or stability
thresholds for materials forming the channel boundary are exceeded, erosion or degradation
occurs.
Stream power is the measure of a stream's capacity to move sediment over time. Stream power
can be used to evaluate the longitudinal profile, channel pattern,bed form, and sediment transport
of streams. Stream power may be measured over a stream reach (total stream power) or per unit
of channel bed area. The total stream power equation is defined as: Q =pgQs
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 16
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems,LLC

where 0 = total stream power (ft-lb/s-ft), p = density of water (lb/ft3), g = gravitational
acceleration (ft/s2), Q = discharge (ft3/sec), and s = energy slope (ft/ft). The specific weight of
water (y = 62.4 lb/ft3) is equal to the product of water density and gravitational acceleration, pg.
A general evaluation of power for a particular reach can be calculated using bankfull discharge
and water surface slope for the reach. As slopes become steeper and/or velocities increase, stream
power increases and more energy is available for reworking channel materials. Straightening and
clearing channels increases slope and velocity and thus stream power. Alterations to the stream
channel may conversely decrease stream power. In particular, over-widening of a channel will
dissipate energy of flow over a larger area. This process will decrease stream power, allowing
sediment to fall out of the water column, possibly leading to aggradation of the streambed.
The relationship between a channel and its floodplain is also important in determining stream
power. Streams that remain within their banks at high flows tend to have higher stream power and
relatively coarser bed materials. In comparison, streams that flood over their banks onto adjacent
floodplains have lower stream power, transport finer sediments, and are more stable. Stream
power assessments can be useful in evaluating sediment discharge within a stream and the
deposition or erosion of sediments from the streambed.
7.2 SHEAR STRESS
Shear stress, expressed as force per unit area,is a measure of the frictional force that flowing water
exerts on a streambed. Shear stress and sediment entrainment are affected by sediment supply
(size and amount), energy distribution within the channel, and frictional resistance of the
streambed and bank on water within the channel. These variables ultimately determine the ability
of a stream to efficiently transport bedload and suspended sediment.
For flow that is steady and uniform,the average boundary shear stress exerted by water on the bed
is defined as follows:
i =yRs
where r = shear stress (lb/ft2), y= specific weight of water, R= hydraulic radius (ft), and s =the
energy slope(ft/ft). Shear stress calculated in this way is a spatial average and does not necessarily
provide a good estimate of bed shear at any particular point. Adjustments to account for local
variability and instantaneous values higher than the mean value can be applied based on channel
form and irregularity. For a straight channel, the maximum shear stress can be assumed from the
following equation:
imax 1.5ti
for sinuous channels, the maximum shear stress can be determined as a function of plan form
characteristics:
timax=2.65i(Rc/Wbkf)-0.5
where Rc =radius of curvature (ft) and Wbkf=bankfull width(ft).
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 17
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems,LLC

Shear stress represents a difficult variable to predict due to variability of channel slope, dimension,
and pattern. Typically, as valley slope decreases channel depth and sinuosity increase to maintain
adequate shear stress values for bedload transport. Channels that have higher shear stress values
than required for bedload transport will scour bed and bank materials, resulting in channel
degradation. Channels with lower shear stress values than needed for bedload transport will
deposit sediment,resulting in channel aggradation.
The actual amount of work accomplished by a stream per unit of bed area depends on the available
power divided by the resistance offered by the channel sediments,planform, and vegetation. The
stream power equation can thus be written as follows:
0) =PgQs =iv
where (o = stream power per unit of bed area (N/ft-sec, Joules/sec/ft2), r = shear stress, and v =
average velocity(ft/sec). Similarly,
w =S2/Wbkf
where Wbkf=width of stream at bankf ill (ft).
7.3 STREAM POWER AND SHEAR STRESS METHODS AND RESULTS
Channel degradation or aggradation occurs when hydraulic forces exceed or do not approach the
resisting forces in the channel. The amount of degradation or aggradation is a function of relative
magnitude of these forces over time. The interaction of flow within the boundary of open channels
is only imperfectly understood. Adequate analytical expressions describing this interaction have
yet to be developed for conditions in natural channels. Thus, means of characterizing these
processes rely heavily upon empirical formulas.
Traditional approaches for characterizing stability can be placed in one of two categories: 1)
maximum permissible velocity and 2)tractive force,or stream power and shear stress. The former
is advantageous in that velocity can be measured directly. Shear stress and stream power cannot
be measured directly and must be computed from various flow parameters. However, stream
power and shear stress are generally better measures of fluid force on the channel boundary than
velocity.
Using these equations, stream power and shear stress were estimated for 1) existing dredged and
straightened reaches, 2) the reference reaches, and 3) proposed Site conditions. Important input
values and output results(including stream power, shear stress, and per unit shear power and shear
stress) are presented in Table 10. Average stream velocity and discharge values were calculated
for the existing stream reaches, reference reaches, and proposed conditions.
In order to maintain sediment transport functions of a stable stream system, the proposed channel
should exhibit stream power and shear stress values so the channel is neither aggrading nor
degrading.
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 18
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems,LLC

Table 10. Stream Power(92)and Shear Stress(i)Values
Water Total
Shear
Discharge surface Stream Hydraulic Velocity
Reference Site s 92[W Stress ti v timax
(ft/s) Slope Power Radius (v)
(ft/ft) (S2) (T)
Existing Conditions
UT 1 19.9 0.0172 21.36 2.81 2.68 2.87 0.83 2.37 N/A
UT 2 Upstream 18.1 0.0154 17.39 2.42 4.13 3.97 0.51 2.02 N/A
UT 2 Downstream 29.7 0.0128 23.72 2.52 2.55 2.03 1.06 2.16 N/A
UT 3 14.6 0.0149 13.57 2.83 1.52 1.41 1.60 2.26 N/A
Motes Upstream 35.5 0.0146 32.34 2.07 4.77 4.34 0.43 1.88 N/A
Motes Downstream 47.9 0.0065 19.43 1.55 2.37 0.96 1.40 1.34 N/A
Reference Conditions
Cedarock 28.8 0.0258 46.37 5.72 0.82 1.33 3.60 4.78 6.67
Causey Farm 60.6 0.0053 20.04 1.82 1.07 0.35 4.12 1.45 2.10
Proposed Conditions
UT 1 19.9 0.0144 17.88 2.18 0.56 0.51 3.75 1.90 3.53
UT 2 Upstream 18.1 0.0144 16.26 1.98 0.51 0.46 3.77 1.73 3.15
UT 2 Downstream 29.7 0.0108 20.02 1.94 0.65 0.44 3.91 1.71 2.98
UT 3 14.6 0.0144 13.12 1.60 0.41 0.37 3.74 1.40 2.46
Motes Upstream 35.5 0.0119 26.36 2.35 0.70 0.52 3.94 2.06 3.66
Motes Downstream 47.9 0.0068 20.32 1.58 0.81 0.34 4.03 1.38 2.23
Results of the analysis indicate the proposed Site channel reaches are expected to maintain stream
power as a function of width values(Q/W)of approximately 1.58 to 2.35 and shear stress(i)values
of approximately 0.34 to 0.52 (ranging between Cedarock and Causey Farms reference reaches).
These ranges of stream power and sheer stress are expected to be stable, while transporting
sediment through the Site.
Stream power and shear stress values are higher for the existing stream reaches,than for proposed
channels. Existing reaches are degrading as evidenced by bank erosion, channel incision, low
width-depth ratios, and high bank-height ratios; degradation has resulted from a combination of
water surface slopes that have been steepened, channel straightening, dredging, and channel
incision. Stream power and shear stress values for the proposed channels should be lower than for
existing channels to effectively transport sediment without eroding and downcutting, resulting in
stable channel characteristics.
Reference reach values for stream power and shear stress are comparable for the proposed
channels.
7.4 BANKFULL VERIFICATION
Discharge estimates for the Site utilized an assumed definition of"bankfull" and return intervals
associated with those bankfull discharges. For this design, the bankfull channel is defined as the
channel dimensions conveying"channel forming" or"dominant" discharge (Gordon et al. 1992).
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 19
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems,LLC

Discharge estimates were calculated using three methods for comparison: Piedmont regional
curves (Harman et al. 1999), the USGS regional regression equation for the Piedmont region
(USGS 2006; see analysis in Appendix D), and field indicators of bankfull. Based on the analysis
of methods to determine bankfull discharge,proposed conditions at the Site are based on bankfull
indicators found on the reference reaches and most importantly on-site indicators of bankfull.
Using this methodology,the designed channels will equal approximately 93 percent of the channel
size indicated by Piedmont regional curves. Table 11 summarizes all methods analyzed for
estimating bankfull discharge.
Table 11. Reference Reach Bankfull Discharge Analysis
Method Watershed Area Return Interval Discharge
(square miles) (years) (cfs)
Cedarock Reference Reach
Piedmont Regional Curves
0.2 1.3-1.5 28.8
(Harman et al. 1999)
Peidmont Regional Regression Model
0.2 1.3-1.5 27-36
(USGS 2006)
Field Indicators of Bankfull 0.2 1.3-1.5 31.3
Causey Farm Reference Reach
Piedmont Regional Curves
0.6 1.3-1.5 63.8
(Harman et al. 1999)
Peidmont Regional Regression Model
0.6 1.3-1.5 63-85
(USGS 2006)
Field Indicators of Bankfull 0.6 1.3-1.5 59.8
Cripple Creek Reference Reach
Piedmont Regional Curves
0.17 1.3-1.5 24.8
(Harman et al. 1999)
Peidmont Regional Regression Model
0.17 1.3-1.5 24-34
(USGS 2006)
Field Indicators of Bankfull 0.17 1.3-1.5 22.6
Flint Rock Farm Reference Reach
Piedmont Regional Curves
0.43 1.3-1.5 48.0
(Harman et al. 1999)
Peidmont Regional Regression Model
0.43 1.3-1.5 38-68
(USGS 2006)
Field Indicators of Bankfull 0.43 1.3-1.5 24.4
Caswell Game Land Reference Reach
Piedmont Regional Curves
0.65 1.3-1.5 65.0
(Harman et al. 1999)
Peidmont Regional Regression Model
0.65 1.3-1.5 66-89
(USGS 2006)
Field Indicators of Bankfull 0.65 1.3-1.5 71.7
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 20
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems,LLC

8.0 POTENTIAL CONSTRAINTS
The presence of conditions or characteristics that have the potential to hinder restoration activities
within the Site was evaluated. The evaluation focused primarily on the presence of hazardous
materials, utilities and restrictive easements, rare/threatened/endangered species or critical
habitats, and the potential for hydrologic trespass. Existing information regarding constraints was
acquired and reviewed. In addition, any Site condition with the potential to restrict the proposed
restoration design and implementation was documented during field investigations.
No constraints that may hinder restoration activities have been identified at the Site.
8.1 SITE ACCESS
The Site is to be accessed from Mt Willen Road(SR 2142). Project access is to be obtained by a
30 foot permanent access easement obtained and recorded along with the CE in Alamance County.
8.2 UTILITIES
Utility crossings do not occur at the Site; therefore, it is not considered a constraint.
8.3 FEMA/HYDROLOGIC TRESPASS
FEMA mapping was reviewed to determine if the Site is located in a FEMA study area (DFIRM
panel number 9811). Based on existing floodplain mapping, the Site is not located in a Special
Flood Hazard Area and the project should not alter FEMA flood zones. Therefore, a"Conditional
Letter of Map Revision" (CLOMR) is not expected for this project.
Surface drainage on the Site and surrounding areas were analyzed to predict the feasibility of
manipulating existing surface drainage patterns without adverse effects to the Site or adjacent
properties. The following presents a summary of hydrologic and hydraulic analyses. The purpose
of the analysis is to predict flood extents for storms under existing and proposed conditions after
stream and wetland restoration activities have been implemented.
Watersheds and land use estimations were measured from existing DEM(Digital Elevation Model)
data and aerial photography. Field surveyed cross-sections and water surfaces were obtained along
Site features. Valley cross-sections were obtained from both onsite cross-sections and detailed
topographic mapping of 1-foot contour intervals using the available DEM. Observations of
existing hydraulic characteristics were compared to proposed hydraulic conditions and used to
determine proposed channel grades and upper reaches and downstream outfalls. Using these data,
channel slopes were calculated to avoid backwater conditions on adjacent landowners.
8.4 FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Species with the classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or officially Proposed (P) for
such listing are protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA),as amended(16 U.S.0
1531 et seq.).
8.4.1 Alamance County
No species are federally listed for Alamance County by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) (USFWS 2015).
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 21
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems,LLC

8.5 STATE LISTED SPECIES
In addition to E, T, and P species, the USFWS list includes a category of species designated as
"Federal Species of Concern" (FSC). A species with this designation is one that may, or may not
be listed in the future (formerly C2 candidate species or species under consideration for listing for
which there is insufficient information to support listing). The FSC designation provides no
federal protection under the ESA for the species listed. The FSC species listed on the current
USFWS list are presented in Table 12.
Table 12. Federal Species of Concern
Common Name Scientific Name County Potential Habitat*
American eel Anguilla rostrata Alamance No
Carolina darter Etheostoma collis lepidinion Alamance No
Carolina creekshell Villosa vaughaniana Alamance Yes
Yellow lampmussel Lampsilis cariosa Alamance Yes
Buttercup phacelia Phacelia covillei Alamance No
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata Alamance No
* Potential Habitat: Portions of the Site under review for potential habitat are limited to areas which are proposed for earth-moving activities
including restoration reaches/areas. Habitat for these species is expected to be significantly improved by proposed mitigation activities.
9.0 CREDIT DETERMINATION AND RELEASE
9.1 CREDIT DETERMINATION
Mitigation activities outlined in this report result in stream and wetland mitigation units as
presented in Tables 13 and 14.
(Remainder of page intentionally left blank)
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 22
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems,LLC

Table 13.Reach-by-Reach Credit Determination Summary
Stream Mitigation Final Mitigation Mitigation
Comment
Reach Activity Length/Area Ratio Credits
UT 1 Station 00+00
EI 259 1.5:1 173
to 02+59
Easement Break 31 ft in
UT 1 Station 02+59 1142-31 —
Restoration 1:1 1,111 width is removed from
to 14+01 1111
credit
Easement Break 54 ft in
Motes Creek Station 1927-54—
00+00 to 19+27 Restoration 1873 1:1 1873 width is removed from
credit
UT 2 Station 00+00
EII 123 2.5:1 49.2
to 01+23
UT 2 Station 01+23
EI 430 1.5:1 286
to 05+53
Easement Break 67 ft in
UT 2 Station 05+53 1518-67—
Restoration 1:1 1451 width is removed from
to 20+71 1451
credit
UT 3 Station 00+00
Ell 274 2.5:1 109.6
to 02+74
UT 3 Station 02+74 to
Restoration 292 1:1 292
05+66
Table 14. Mitigation Activity and Credit Determination Summary
Proposed Mitigation Credit Determination
Proposed Mitigation Streams Non-credit Wetlands Mitigation
Activity (linear feet) Generating (acres) Ratio SMUs WMUs
Stream Restoration 4,879 152 1:1 4,727
Stream Enhancement I 689 1.5:1 459.3
Stream Enhancement 11 397 2.5:1 159
Wetland Restoration 0.7 1:1 0.7
Wetland Enhancement 0.44 2:1 0.22
Totals 5,965 152 1.14 5,345 0.92
After completion,the Site will offer 5,345 SMUs and 0.92 WMUs as determined using the Bank's
UMBI and the Stream Mitigation Guidelines (USACE et al 2003).
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 23
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems,LLC

9.2 STREAM CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE
The Site's stream credit release schedule is presented below in Table 15. The credit release
schedule is based upon satisfactory completion of Site milestones.
Table 15. Stream Credit Release Schedule
Milestones Tasks Release(%) Credits
1) Approval of this Bank Site Mitigation Plan;
2) Delivery of financial assurances;
Motes Creek 3) Issuance of§404 permit for Site work plan; 15 802
Establishment 4) Recordation of conservation easements protecting the
Site;
5) Title opinion approved by the Corps.
1) Completion of earthwork,if required;
Mitigation Plan 2) Completion of riparian plantings;
3) Construction of easement fencing suitable for 15 802
Implementation livestock exclusion,if required;
4) Approval of As-Built Survey by the Corps.
1) Channels are stable;
Year 1 Monitoring 2) Interim Performance Standards met; 10 535
3) Approval of Monitoring Report by the Corps.
1) Channels are stable;
Year 2 Monitoring 2) Interim Performance Standards met; 10 535
3) Approval of Monitoring Report by the Corps.
1) Two bankfull events occurring in separate years;
Bankfull Events 2) Channels are stable; 5 267
3) Interim Performance Standards met.
1) Channels are stable;
Year 3 Monitoring 2) Interim Performance Standards met; 10 535
3) Approval of Monitoring Report by the Corps.
1) Interim Performance Standards met;
Year 4 Monitoring 2) Approval of Monitoring Report by the Corps. 5 267
1) Four bankfull events occurring in separate years;
Bankfull Events 2) Channels are stable; 5 267
3) Interim Performance Standards met.
1) Channels are stable;
Year 5 Monitoring* 2) Interim Performance Standards met; 10 534
3) Approval of Monitoring Report by the Corps.
1) Interim Performance Standards met;
Year 6 Monitoring 2) Approval of Monitoring Report by the Corps. 5 267
3) Stream Performance Standards met;
Year 7 Monitoring 4) Vegetation Performance Standards met; 10 534
5) Approval of Final Monitoring Report by the Corps.
Totals 100 5,345
*If,following the conclusion of Year 5 of the monitoring period,the Site's performance standards have been met and there are no concerns regarding
channel stability,or vegetation survivability and vigor,the Sponsor may propose the early termination of the monitoring period.
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 24
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems,LLC

9.3 WETLAND CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE
Given the low wetland credit potential of the Site, the Sponsor intends to withhold credit release
requests until the end of the Wetland Monitoring Period, which is expected to be seven (7) years
following the completion of Site construction. If the Sponsor at some point decides to request
credit releases during the Site Wetland Monitoring Period, such credit release requests will be in
accordance with the wetland credit release schedule presented below (Table 16).
Table 16. Wetland Credit Release Schedule
Milestones Tasks Release(%)
1) Approval of this Bank Site Mitigation Plan;
2) Delivery of financial assurances;
3) Issuance of§404 permit for the Site work plan;
Site Establishment 4) Recordation of conservation easements protecting the 15
Site;
5) Title opinion approved by the Corps.
1) Completion of earthwork,if required;
Mitigation Plan 2) Completion of riparian plantings;
3) Construction of easement fencing suitable for 15
Implementation livestock exclusion,if required;
4) Approval of As-Built Survey by the Corps.
1) Interim Performance Standards met;
Year 1 Monitoring 2) Approval of Monitoring Report by the Corps. 10
1) Interim Performance Standards met;
Year 2 Monitoring 2) Approval of Monitoring Report by the Corps. 10
1) Interim Performance Standards met;
Year 3 Monitoring 2) Approval of Monitoring Report by the Corps. 10
1) Interim Performance Standards met;
Year 4 Monitoring 2) Approval of Monitoring Report by the Corps. 10
1) Interim Performance Standards met;
Year 5 Monitoring* 2) Approval of Monitoring Report by the Corps. 10
1) Interim Performance Standards met;
Year 6 Monitoring 2) Approval of Monitoring Report by the Corps. 10
1) Final Performance Standards met;
Year 7 Monitoring** 2) Approval of Monitoring Report by the Corps 10
Totals 100
*Hydrologic monitoring may be discontinued after Year 5 if Hydrologic Performance Standards for years 1—5 have been met(Section 11.0).
**Vegetation monitoring not required in Years 4 and 6.
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 25
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems,LLC

10.0 MITIGATION WORK PLAN
10.1 RESTORATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Based on the Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities Report 2009 (NCEEP 2009),
Watershed 03030002050040 is characterized by Nutrient Sensitive Waters. This project will meet
overall goals of TLW's, as well as Local Watershed Plans (LWP's) including: 1)reduce sediment
loading, 2) reduce nutrient loading, 3) manage stormwater runoff, 4) reduce toxic inputs, 5)
provide and improve in-stream habitat, 6) provide and improve terrestrial habitat, 7) improve
stream stability, and 8) improve hydrologic function.
Stream mitigation activities include:Restoration,Enhancement(Level I),and Enhancement(Level
II). Wetland mitigation activities include Restoration and Enhancement of riparian wetlands.
Tables 2A-2C summarize the functional objectives and proposed actions. Collectively,mitigation
activities and the protection of the Site's streams and wetlands with conservation easements will
result in net gains in hydrology,water quality,and habitat functions in the Cape Fear 02 watershed.
A summary of the mitigation activities and credit potential of those actions for the Site is provided
below.
• Providing 5,345 SMUs by the following:
o Restoring approximately 4,879 linear feet of perennial stream channels through
construction of stable stream channels in the historic floodplain location and elevation;
o Enhancing(level I)approximately 689 linear feet of stream channel by installing grade
control structures, adjusting channel dimension, and planting of riparian buffers with
native woody vegetation; and
o Enhancing (level II) approximately 397 linear feet of stream channel by fencing
livestock from the 50-foot vegetated buffer, supplemental planting of riparian buffers
with native woody vegetation, and controlling invasive species.
• Providing 0.92 WMUs by the following:
o Restoring approximately 0.7 acres of riparian wetlands by reconstructing stream
channels within the historic floodplain, removing livestock and row crop production,
rehydrating floodplain soils, and planting with native woody vegetation; and
o Enhancing approximately 0.44 acres of riparian wetlands by supplemental planting
areas of disturbed forest, or removing livestock and planting with native forest
vegetation.
• Planting a native woody riparian buffer adjacent to all streams within the Site.
• Protecting the Site in perpetuity with conservation easements.
The proposed schedule for the implementation of the Site is provided below (Table 17).
(Remainder of page intentionally left blank)
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 26
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems,LLC

Table 17. Anticipated Construction Timing and Sequencing
Task Days Required Start Date
Permitting 45 -60 11/1/2016
Mobilization 10 11/1/2017
Earthwork 120 11/10/2017
Planting 10 3/1/2018
As-built 15 3/15/2018
10.2 STREAM AND WETLAND DESIGN
Site streams and wetlands targeted for restoration have endured significant disturbance from land
use activities such as land clearing, livestock grazing, straightening and rerouting of channels, and
other anthropogenic maintenance. Site streams will be restored to emulate historic conditions
utilizing parameters from nearby, relatively undisturbed reference streams. Stream and wetland
designs for the Site are presented in the attached Figures 6A and 6B and Morphology Tables are
presented in Appendix C.
Table 18 depicts the linear feet of proposed Stream Restoration and Enhancement, as well as,
acreage of Wetland Restoration and Enhancement.
Table 18. Mitigation Activity Totals
Streams Wetlands
Restoration Enhance(1) Enhance(II) Total Restoration Enhance Total
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ac) (ac) (ac)
4879 689 397 5965 1 0.7 0.44 1.14
10.3 STREAM RESTORATION
Stream Restoration efforts are designed to restore stable, meandering streams at the Site that
approximate hydrodynamics, stream geometry, and local microtopography relative to reference
and onsite conditions. Geometric attributes for the existing, degraded channels and the proposed,
stable channels are listed in Table of Morphological Stream Characteristics (Table Cl, Appendix
Q. Generalized grading plans, including elevations, are provided in Figures 6A and 6B. Typical
proposed geometries for Site dimension, pattern, and profile are shown in Figure 7.
Primary activities designed to restore Site channels include: 1)belt-width preparation and grading,
2) channel excavation, 3) installation of channel plugs, 4) backfilling of the abandoned channel,
and 5)vegetative planting.
Belt-width Preparation and Grading
Belt-width corridor preparation will entail channel staking, floodplain clearing and grubbing, and
any necessary grading prior to channel excavation. After the floodplain has been prepped, the
proposed design channels will be staked and/or clearly marked to the design parameters. Spoil
material excavated during floodplain grading will be stockpiled adjacent to the existing channels.
After construction of the new channels is complete, existing channels will be abandoned and
backfilled with stockpiled soils.
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 27
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems,LLC

Grading of topsoil at the Site is expected to be minimal; however, where grading is necessary,
topsoils will be stockpiled, managed, and reapplied after grading is complete. In the event that
stockpiled topsoil is not of sufficient quantity to provide a suitable planting environment for graded
areas, soil amendments will be added including, but not limited to, organic matter (mulch), lime,
Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and/or Potassium. Soil amendments will be added and mixed into topsoils
to improve bulk density,water retention, and management of soil nutrients.
Once belt-width corridor preparation is complete, the proposed channels will be excavated to the
average width, depth, and cross-sectional area derived from reference reach studies and detailed
measurements of the onsite reach. Stream banks and the belt-width area of constructed channels
will be immediately planted with shrub and herbaceous vegetation. Root mats may also be
selectively removed from adjacent areas and placed as erosion control features on channel banks.
Once the proposed design channels have been excavated and stabilized, abandoned channels will
be backfilled utilizing spoil material stockpiled from channel excavation and/or from suitable
material excavated from the Site, or adjacent to the Site. Abandoned channels will be backfilled
to the maximum extent feasible.
In-stream Structures
The use of in-stream structures for grade control and habitat is essential for successful Stream
Restoration(Figure 8A). In-stream structures may be placed in the channels to elevate local water
surface profiles, potentially flattening the water energy slope or gradient. The structures would
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, the structures would be
placed in relatively straight reaches to provide secondary (perpendicular) flow cells during
bankfull events.
Piped Channel Crossings
Landowner constraints will necessitate the installation of piped channel crossings within breaks in
the easement to allow access to portions of the property isolated by stream restoration activities.
The crossings will be constructed of properly sized pipes and hydraulically stable rip-rap or
suitable rock. Crossings will be large enough to handle the weight of anticipated vehicular traffic.
Approach grades to the crossing will be at an approximate 10:1 slope and constructed of hard,
scour-resistant crushed rock or other permeable material, which is free of fines. Crossings must
be designed and installed to allow aquatic life passage, including placing pipes below the channel
invert elevation and ensuring the proper pipe size to allow for aquatic life passage.
Outfall Structures
Drop structures are proposed at the outfall of smaller tributaries entering larger, deeper channels.
To avoid hydrologic trespass, the drop structure may be installed approximately 50 feet from the
stream outfalls. The structure should be constructed to resist erosive forces associated with
hydraulic drops proposed at the Site. The drop structures will be constructed of TerraCell,or other
similar structure (Figure 813). The structures should be constructed to resist erosive forces
associated with hydraulic drops proposed at Site.
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 28
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems,LLC

TerraCell is a light weight, 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 stream beds.
Marsh Treatment Areas
Shallow wetland marsh treatment areas will be excavated in the floodplain to intercept surface
waters draining through agricultural areas prior to discharging into the Site. Marsh treatment areas
are intended to improve the mitigation project and are not generating mitigation credit. Proposed
marsh treatment areas will consist of shallow depressions that will provide treatment and
attenuation of initial stormwater pulses (Figure 8B). The outfall of each treatment area will be
constructed of hydraulically stable rip-rap or other suitable material that will protect against
headcut migration into the constructed depression. It is expected that the treatment areas will fill
with sediment and organic matter over time.
10.4 STREAM ENHANCEMENT LEVEL I
Stream Enhancement Level I will entail reducing channel depth to appropriate values as outlined
in morphology tables, installing habitat/grade control structures, contouring stream banks,
removing invasive plant species, and supplemental planting, as necessary. All channel work will
be completed in a manner to cause as little disturbance to the existing vegetation as feasible and
desirable hardwood trees greater than 4 inches in diameter at breast height will be avoided to the
maximum extent possible. Enhancement Level I should promote overbank flooding,reduce shear
stress/sedimentation, improve water quality functions, and improve aquatic and wildlife habitat
associated with a stable riparian corridor/stream.
10.5 STREAM ENHANCEMENT LEVEL II
Stream Enhancement Level 11 will entail the cessation of current land management practices,
fencing livestock from the stream and riparian buffer, and planting riparian buffers with native
forest vegetation. Riparian buffers will extend a minimum of 50 feet from the top of stream banks
to facilitate stream recovery and prevent further degradation of the stream.
10.6 WETLAND RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT
Alternatives for Wetland Restoration are designed to restore a fully functioning wetland system
which will provide surface water storage, nutrient cycling, removal of imported elements and
compounds, and will create a variety and abundance of wildlife habitat.
Portions of the Site underlain by hydric soils have been impacted by channel incision, vegetative
clearing, hoof shear, and earth movement associated with agricultural practices. Wetland
Restoration options should focus on the removal of fill materials, restoration of vegetative
communities, the reestablishment of soil structure and microtopographic variations, and
redirecting normal surface hydrology from incised streams to the adjacent floodplains. These
activities will result in the restoration of 0.7 acre of jurisdictional riparian floodplain wetlands. An
additional 0.44 acres of jurisdictional riparian wetlands will be enhanced within the Site by
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 29
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems,LLC

planting cleared wetlands with native forest vegetation and removing livestock or other
agricultural activities.
10.6.1 Target Wetland Communities/Buffer Communities
Onsite wetland and buffer areas targeted for Restoration and Enhancement have endured
significant disturbance from land use activities such as land clearing, livestock grazing, and other
anthropogenic maintenance. These areas will be planted with native forest species typical of
wetland and buffer communities in the region such as those found within the reference forest(see
Section 5.2 Reference Forest Ecosystem). Emphasis will focus on developing a diverse plant
assemblage.
Reestablishment of Historic Groundwater Elevations
Hydric soils adjacent to the incised channels appear to have been drained due to lowering of the
groundwater tables and a lateral drainage effect from existing stream reaches. Reestablishment of
channel inverts is expected to rehydrate soils adjacent to streams. In addition, drainage ditches
effectively removing wetland hydrology within the restoration areas will be backfilled. Filling of
these ditches and restoring Site tributaries are expected to rehydrate hydric soils, resulting in the
restoration of jurisdictional hydrology to riparian wetlands.
Excavation and Grading of Elevated Spoil and Sediment Embankments
Some areas adjacent to the existing channels and area wetlands have experienced both natural and
unnatural sediment deposition. Spoil piles were likely cast adjacent to the channel during
dredging, straightening, and rerouting of streams, and ditching of the adjacent floodplain.
Hydrophytic Vegetation
Site wetland areas have endured significant disturbance from land use activities such as land
clearing, agriculture, livestock grazing, and other anthropogenic maintenance. Wetland areas will
be revegetated with native forest vegetation typical of wetland communities in the region.
Emphasis will focus on developing a diverse plant assemblage.
Reconstructing Stream Corridors
The Stream Restoration plan involves the reconstruction of Site streams through the floodplain.
Existing channels will be backfilled so that the water table may be restored to historic conditions.
However, some portions of the existing channels may remain open for the creation of wetland
"vernal pool" features. These features will be plugged on each side of the open channel and will
function as open water systems expected to provide habitat for a variety of wildlife as well as
create small pockets of open water/freshwater marsh within the Site. These features will account
for a small portion of the Site and will be required to occupy less than 10 percent of the overall
wetland areas.
10.7 PLANT COMMUNITY RESTORATION
Restoration of floodplain forest and stream-side 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.
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 30
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems,LLC

Reference Forest Ecosystem (RFE) data, onsite observations, and community descriptions from
Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina(Schafale and Weakley 1990)will be
used to develop the primary plant community associations that will be promoted during community
restoration activities.
Planting vegetation on cleared stream banks is proposed to reestablish native/historic community
patterns within the stream corridor, associated side slopes, and transition areas. Revegetating the
Site floodplains and stream banks will provide stream bank stability, give shade, reduce surface
water temperatures, filter pollutants from adjacent runoff, and provide habitat for area wildlife.
Variations in vegetative planting will occur based on topographic locations and hydraulic
conditions of the soil. Vegetative species composition will mimic reference forest data, onsite
observations, and community descriptions from Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Community associations to be utilized include 1)
Piedmont Alluvial Forest, 2) Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest, and 3) stream-side assemblage.
10.8 PLANTING PLAN
Stream-side trees and shrubs include species with high value for sediment stabilization, rapid
growth rate, and the ability to withstand hydraulic forces associated with bankfull flow and
overbank flood events. Stream-side trees and shrubs will be planted within 50 feet of the channel
throughout the meander belt-width. Shrub elements will be planted along the reconstructed stream
banks, concentrated along outer bends. Piedmont Alluvial Forest is the target community for Site
floodplains and Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest is the target community for upland side-slopes.
Bare-root seedlings within the Piedmont Alluvial and Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forests will be
planted at a density of approximately 680 stems per acre on 8-foot centers. Shrub species in the
stream-side assemblage and Marsh Wetland Treatment Areas will be planted at a density of 2720
stems per acre on 4-foot centers.
In addition to planting seedlings,a seed mix will be spread within Marsh Treatment Wetland Areas
as follows.
1. Virginia wildrye (Elymus virginicus)
2. Switch grass (Panicum virgatum)
3. Big blue stem (Andropogon gerardii)
4. Indian grass (Sorghastrum nutans)
5. Deer tongue (Dichanthelium clandestinum)
Table 19 depicts the total number of stems and species distribution within the Site (see Planting
Plan for the Site in Figure 9). Planting will be performed between November 15 and March 15 to
allow plants to stabilize during the dormant period and set root during the spring season.
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 31
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems,LLC

Table 19. Planting Plan
Piedmont/Low Mountain Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Marsh Treatment Stream-side
Vegetation Association Alluvial Forest* Forest* Wetland** Assemblage** TOTAL
Area(acres) 9.7 3.3 0.1 3.8 16.9
Species #planted* % of total #planted* % of total #planted** % of total #planted** % of total #planted
Tag alder(Alnus serrulate) -- -- -- -- 27 10 517 5 544
River birch(Betula nigra) 660 10 -- -- -- -- 517 5 1176
Ironwood(Carpinus caroliniana) -- -- 449 20 -- -- -- -- 449
Buttonbush(Cephalanthus occidentalis) -- -- -- -- 54 20 -- -- 54
Red bud(Cercis canadensis) -- -- 337 15 -- -- -- -- 337
Sweet pepperbush(Clethra alnifolia) -- -- -- -- 41 15 -- -- 41
Silky dogwood(Cornus amomum) 660 10 -- -- 41 15 2067 20 2768
Persimmon(Diospyros virginiana) -- -- 224 10 -- -- -- -- 224
White ash(Fraxinus americana) -- -- 112 5 -- -- -- -- 112
Green ash(Fraxinus pennsylvanica) 1319 20 -- -- -- -- 2067 20 3386
Blueberry(Vaccinium corymbosum) -- -- -- -- 27 10 -- -- 27
Tulip poplar(Liriodendron tulipifera) 660 10 -- -- -- -- -- -- 660
Sycamore(Platanus occidentalis) 1319 20 -- -- -- -- 2067 20 3386
Black gum(Nyssa sylvatica) -- -- 337 15 -- -- -- -- 337
Water oak(Quercus nigra) 989 15 449 20 -- -- 1034 10 2472
Willow oak(Quercus phellos) 989 15 337 15 -- -- 1034 10 2360
Black willow(Salix nigra) -- -- -- -- -- -- 1034 10 1034
Elderberry(Sambucus canadensis) -- -- -- -- 54 20 -- -- 54
Possumhaw(Viburnum nudum) -- -- -- -- 27 10 -- -- 27
TOTAL 6,596 100 2,244 100 272 100 10,336 100 19,448
*Planted at a density of 680 stems/acre.
**Planted at a density of 2720 stems/acre.
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 32
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems,LLC

10.9 NUISANCE SPECIES MANAGEMENT
Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), thorny olive (Eleagnus pungens), and multiflora rose (Rosa
multiflora) are scattered within the Site. These species will be controlled mechanically and/or
chemically, as part of this project. No other nuisance species controls are proposed at this time.
Inspections for beaver and other potential nuisance species will occur throughout the course of the
monitoring period. Appropriate actions may be taken to ameliorate any negative impacts regarding
vegetation development and/or water management on an as-needed basis.
10.10 SOIL MANAGEMENT AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURES
The Sponsor will coordinate with the NC Division of Land Quality (Winston Salem office) to
obtain the necessary erosion control permits for the proposed work. In general, soil management
and erosion control measures are expected to include the following: silt fence installation along
haul roads, spoil piles, or other areas where turbid drainage may exit the Site or enter streams;
establish temporary or permanent ground cover within 7 calendar days of land disturbing activity;
seed, mat and mulch stream banks upon completion of channel excavation; excavate proposed
channels in the dry through the use of impervious dikes and pumps; installation of temporary stone
construction entrance/exit; use of log mats for temporary stream crossings; and any other erosion
control measures requested by the NC Division of Land Quality.
11.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monitoring requirements and success criteria outlined in the latest guidance by USACE in April
2003 (Stream Mitigation Guidelines)will be followed and are briefly outlined below. Monitoring
data collected at the Site should include reference photos,plant survival analysis, channel stability
analysis, and biological data.
Wetland hydrology is proposed to be monitored for a period of seven years (years 1-7). Riparian
vegetation and stream morphology is proposed to be monitored for a period of seven years with
measurements completed in years 1-3, year 5, and year 7. Macroinvertebrate sampling will be
conducted in years 3, 5 and 7, although there are no performance standards tied to the results.
Monitoring reports for years 4 and 6 will include photo documentation of stream stability and
wetland hydrology monitoring data. If monitoring demonstrates the Site is successful by year 5
and no concerns have been identified,the Sponsor may propose to terminate monitoring at the Site
and forego monitoring requirements for years 6 and 7. Early closure will only be provided through
written approval from the USACE in consultation with the Interagency Review Team (IRT).
Monitoring will be conducted by Axiom Environmental, Inc. Annual monitoring reports of the
data collected will be submitted to the IRT by the Sponsor no later than December 31 of each
monitoring year data is collected.
Monitoring and success criteria for the Site should relate to project goals and objectives determined
by NC SAM and NC WAM functional assessment methods. From a mitigation perspective,
several of the goals and objectives are assumed to be functionally elevated by restoration activities
without direct measurement. Other goals and objectives will be considered successful upon
achieving stream,wetland, and/or vegetation success criteria. The following Table 20 summarizes
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 33
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems,LLC

stream success criteria related to goals and objectives. Table 21 provides a monitoring schedule
for the Bank Site.
Table 20. Functional Goal/Objectives and Performance Standards
Functional Goals/Objectives Performance Standards and Monitoring
(1)Hydrology
(2)Flood Flow(Floodplain Access)
(3)Streamside Area Attenuation Four overbank events in separate monitoring years will be
documented during the monitoring period.
(4)Floodplain Access
(4)Wooded Riparian Buffer Attaining Vegetation Success Criteria(Section 11.3.1).
(4)Microtopography Removal of cattle,and attaining Vegetation Success Criteria
(Section 11.3.1)
(3)Stream Stability Cross-sections,monitored annually,will be compared to as-
built measurements to document channel stability and
(4)Channel Stability maintenance of channel geomorphology(Section 11.1.1).
(2)Surface Storage and Retention Four overbank events in separate monitoring years,and
attaining Wetland and Vegetation Success Criteria(Sections
(2) Subsurface Storage and Retention 11.2.1 and 11.3.1).
(1)Water Quality
(2) Stream-side Area Vegetation Attaining Wetland and Vegetation Success Criteria(Sections
(3)Upland Pollutant Filtration 11.2.1 and 11.3.1)
(2)Indicators of Stressors Removal of cattle,fencing intact,and easement encroachment
avoided.
(2)Particulate Change Removal of cattle,documentation of four overbank events in
(2) Soluble Change separate monitoring years,and attaining Wetland and
(2)Physical Change Vegetation Success Criteria(Sections 11.2.1 and 11.3.1)
(1)Habitat
Pebble counts documenting coarsening of bed material from
(2)In-stream Habitat pre-existing conditions of sand and silt to post restoration
conditions of gravel and cobble,and attaining Vegetation
Success Criteria(Section 11.3.1)
(3)Stream Stability
Attaining Vegetation Success Criteria(Section 11.3.1)
(2) Stream-side Habitat
Pebble counts documenting coarsening of bed material from
(2)Physical Structure pre-existing conditions of sand and silt to post restoration
conditions of gravel and cobble,and attaining Vegetation
Success Criteria(Section 11.3.1)
(2)Landscape Patch Structure
(2)Vegetative Composition Attaining Vegetation Success Criteria(Section 11.3.1)
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 34
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems,LLC

Table 21. Monitoring Schedule
Resource Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
Streams
Wetlands
Vegetation
Macroinvertebrates
Visual Assessment
Report Submittal
11.1 STREAMS
Monitoring plans for the Site are depicted in Figure 10. Permanent, monumented cross-sections
shall be installed at an approximate frequency of one per 50 bankf ill-widths, measured along the
thalweg, along every reach where Stream Restoration and/or Enhancement Level I mitigation
activities are utilized. In general, cross-section locations should be selected to equally represent
pool and riffle areas and should include areas more likely to exhibit instability. The Sponsor,
through its assigns, may exercise discretion in determining the placement and frequency of cross-
sections, which shall be determined by best professional judgment. Cross-section locations shall
be detailed in the Site as-built survey.
Wolman Pebble Counts shall be conducted annually at a representative subset of cross-sections,
spaced approximately 1000 linear feet apart, as measured along the thalweg, for longer Stream
Restoration and Enhancement Level I reaches. For shorter Stream Restoration and Enhancement
Level I reaches, at a minimum, at least one Wolman Pebble Count shall be conducted on each
channel of at least 500 linear feet in length.
Longitudinal profiles of thalweg, water surface, bankfull, and top-of-bank of each Stream
Restoration and Enhancement Level I reach shall be provided in the Site as-built survey.
Additional profile surveys during the Stream Monitoring Period shall not be required, unless
evidence of bed and/or bank instability is observed. In such cases, the USACE, in consultation
with the IRT, shall determine if remedial measures are necessary. If remedial measures are
necessary, remedial measure monitoring and reporting may include additional longitudinal
profiles.
Stream flow gauges will be installed in the lower reaches of UT 1. The approximate locations of
stream flow gauges are depicted on the monitoring plan(Figure 10).
Determinations regarding the occurrence of bankfull events shall be based on the observation of
overbank events utilizing a combination of staff gauges, automated trail cameras, as well as
physical evidence of overbank flooding. Physical indicators,which are easily observable, include
floodplain scour, vegetation flattening, sediment deposition on floodplains and wrack lines
consisting of deposited debris associated with stream discharges. The presence of physical
indicators supporting bankf ill event determinations shall be photodocumented. Staff gauges may
also be installed along Site floodplains at predetermined elevations and locations sufficient to
indicate if bankfull events have taken place. If such gauges are installed, they will be monitored
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 35
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems,LLC

routinely. Each bankfull monitoring event may be reported separately to the USACE from annual
monitoring reports.
11.1.1 Stream Success Criteria
Stream success will be based on evaluations of functional uplift identified on NC SAM
calculations. Stream success will be documented with measurements of stream stability including
bank-height-ratio and entrenchment ratio. Specifically, bank-height-ratios shall not exceed 1.2 in
regions of channel altered through design. In addition,the entrenchment ratio shall be no less than
2.2 within E-type or C-type channels and no less than 1.4 for B-type channels.
Channels with intermittent, or questionable stream discharge (specifically UT 1) will have stream
flow gauges installed to document flow in the channel. Automated trail cameras will be mounted
in conjunction with stream flow gauges to document flow duration as well. Success of intermittent
streams is expected to include 30 consecutive days of flow, along with more than one indicator of
an ordinary high water mark as outlined in Regulatory Guidance Letter 05-05.
Project channels shall remain stable and all other performance standards shall be met through four
separate bankfull events, occurring in separate years, during the monitoring years 1 through 7.
11.2 WETLANDS
Groundwater monitoring gauges will be installed at the Site in locations depicted on Figure 10 in
an effort to take measurements after hydrological modifications are performed. Hydrological
sampling will continue throughout the growing season at intervals necessary to satisfy
jurisdictional hydrology success criteria (USEPA 1990). In addition, an on-site rain gauge will
document rainfall data for comparison of groundwater conditions with extended drought
conditions and floodplain crest gauges may be installed to confirm overbank flooding events.
11.2.1 Wetland Success Criteria
Monitoring and success criteria for wetland re-establishment should relate to project goals and
objectives. From a mitigation perspective, several of the goals and objectives are assumed to be
functionally elevated by restoration activities without direct measurement. Other goals and
objectives will be considered successful upon achieving vegetation success criteria. The following
summarizes wetland success criteria related to goals and objectives.
According to the Soil Survey of Alamance County, the growing season occurs from April 17 —
October 22. However, the start dates for the growing season are not typical for the Piedmont
region; therefore, for purposes of this project gauge hydrologic success will be determined using
data from March 1 - October 22 to more accurately represent the period of biological activity.
Based on growing season information outlined in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region (USACE
2010),this will be confirmed annually by soil temperatures exceeding 41 degrees Fahrenheit at 12
inches depth and/or bud burst. Bud burst is expected to follow the definition of"above ground
growth" as outlined in the regional supplement (USACE 2012) including the emergence of
herbaceous plants from the ground, appearance of new growth from vegetative crowns, sprouting
seeds, green foliage visible between spreading bud scales, emergence or elongation of leaves of
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 36
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems,LLC

woody plants, and/or emergence of flowers. Bud burst, or"above ground growth" is expected to
be observed on two, or more species of plant to satisfy this criteria. Photographic evidence of bud
burst and field logs of date and temperature will be included in the annual monitoring reports.
Target hydrological characteristics include saturation or inundation for 10 percent of the monitored
period (March I-October 22), during average climatic conditions. During years with atypical
climatic conditions, groundwater gauges in reference wetlands may be used to ascertain if
hydrology data may be modified by the IRT for that particular year. Reference gauge data is not
proposed to alter growing season lengths, or hydrology success criteria without consent for the
IRT.
11.3 VEGETATION
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 modifications will be implemented, if necessary.
During quantitative vegetation sampling, sample plots (10-meter by 10-meter)will be
installed within the Site as per guidelines established in CVS EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation, Version 4.2 (Lee et al. 2008). In each sample plot,vegetation parameters to be
monitored include species composition and species density. Visual observations of the
percent cover of shrub and herbaceous species will also be documented by
photograph.11.3.1 Vegetation Success Criteria
An average density of 320 planted stems per acre must be surviving in the first three monitoring
years. Subsequently, 290 planted stems per acre must be surviving in year 4, 260 planted stems
per acre in year 5, and 210 planted stems per acre in year 7. In addition, planted vegetation must
average 10 feet in height in each plot at year 7 since this Site is located in the Piedmont. Volunteer
stems may be considered on a case-by-case basis in determining overall vegetation success;
however, volunteer stems should be counted separately from planted stems.
11.4 MACROINVERTEBRATES
Macroinvertebrate sampling will be conducted in accordance with the "Qual 4"method described
in Standard Operating Procedures for Collection and Analysis of Benthic Macroinvertebrates
(NCDWQ 2012). In addition, sampling will occur during the "index period" regerenced in Small
Streams Biocriteria Development(NCDWQ 2009).Results will be presented on a site-by-site basis
and will include a list of taxa collecter, an enumeration of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and
Tricopetera taxa as well as Biotic Index values. Baseline data can be found in Appendix E and
sampling locations are depicted in Figure EI (also Appendix E).
12.0 MAINTENANCE AND CONTINGENCY PLAN
The Sponsor shall monitor the Site on a regular basis and shall conduct a physical inspection a
minimum of once per year throughout the post-construction monitoring period until performance
standards are met. These inspections may identify components and features that require routine
maintenance. Routine maintenance should be expected most often in the first two years following
construction and are summarized as follows.
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 37
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems,LLC

12.1 VEGETATION
Vegetation will be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted plant community.
Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may include supplemental planting,pruning,
mulching, and fertilizing. Exotic invasive plant species shall be controlled by mechanical (i.e.
chainsaw)and/or chemical(i.e.basal bark herbicide application)methods. Any vegetation control
requiring herbicide application and soil fertilization will be performed in accordance with NC
Department of Agriculture (NCDA)rules and regulations & 15A NCAC 02B .0233.
If vegetation Performance Standards are not achieved based on average density calculations from
combined plots over the entire restoration area, supplemental planting may be performed with tree
species approved by regulatory agencies. Supplemental planting will be performed as needed until
achievement of vegetation success criteria.
12.2 STREAMS
In the event that stream Performance Standards are not fulfilled, a mechanism for contingency will
be implemented. Stream contingency may include, but may not be limited to 1) structure repair
and/or installation; 2) repair of dimension, pattern, and/or profile variables; and 3) bank
stabilization. The method of contingency is expected to be dependent upon stream variables that
are not in compliance with Performance Standards. Primary concerns, which may jeopardize
stream success include: 1) structure failure, 2) headcut migration through the Site, and/or 3) bank
erosion.
Structure Failure
In the event that structures are compromised the affected structure will be repaired, maintained, or
replaced. Once the structure is repaired or replaced, it must function to stabilize adjacent stream
banks and/or maintain grade control within the channel. Structures which remain intact, but
exhibit flow around, beneath, or through the header/footer will be repaired by excavating a trench
on the upstream side of the structure and reinstalling filter fabric in front of the pilings. Structures
which have been compromised, resulting in shifting or collapse of header/footer, will be removed
and replaced with a structure suitable anticipated stormwater flows.
Headcut Mi rag tion
In the event that a headcut occurs (identified visually or through measurements [i.e. bank-height
ratios exceeding 1.4]),provisions for impeding headcut migration and repairing damage caused by
the headcut will be implemented. Headcut migration may be impeded through the installation of
in-stream grade control structures (rip-rap sill and/or log cross-vane weir) and/or restoring stream
geometry variables until channel stability is achieved. Channel repairs to stream geometry may
include channel backfill with coarse material and stabilizing the material with erosion control
matting, vegetative transplants, and/or willow stakes.
Bank Erosion
In the event that severe bank erosion occurs, resulting in elevated width-to-depth ratios,
contingency measures to reduce bank erosion and width-to-depth ratio will be implemented. Bank
erosion contingency measures may include the installation of log-vane weirs and/or other bank
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 38
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems,LLC

stabilization measures. If the resultant bank erosion induces shoot cutoffs or channel
abandonment, a channel may be excavated which will reduce shear stress to stable values.
12.3 WETLAND HYDROLOGY
Hydrological contingency will require consultation with hydrologists and regulatory agencies if
wetland hydrology enhancement is not achieved. Hydrologic contingency actions may include:
floodplain surface modifications such as construction of ephemeral pools, deep ripping of the soil
profile, supplemental planting, and/or maintenance to areas of the wetland where stormwater or
floodplain flows are intercepted to prevent scour. Recommendations for contingency to establish
wetland hydrology may be implemented and monitored until hydrology success criteria are
achieved. In the event that beaver become a nuisance within the Site, beaver management will be
initiated and continued on an as-needed basis in accordance with North Carolina Wildlife Resource
Commission (NCWRC) rules and regulations.
12.4 SITE BOUNDARIES
Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction between the Site and
adjacent properties. Boundaries may be identified by fence,marker,bollard,post,tree-blazing, or
other means as allowed by Site conditions and/or conservation easement. Disturbed, damaged, or
destroyed boundary markers will be repaired and/or replaced on an as needed basis.
12.5 TERRACELL DROP STRUCTURES
Terracell drop structures will be monitored annually at a minimum. In the event of erosion or
scour within the structure, maintenance may include structure repair, chinking of the structure to
prevent piping, securing of loose coir-fiber matting, and/or supplemental planting of live stakes
and erosion control grasses. In the event that debris clogs or inhibits flow over the structure,
manual or mechanical removal of debris will occur; maintenance is only expected until the
structure naturalizes.
13.0 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
The Site will be protected under the terms outlined in the Site's perpetual conservation easement.
The conservation easement will prohibit incompatible uses that might jeopardize the objectives of
the Site. The North Carolina Wildlife Habitat Foundation ("NCWHF") will be the conservation
easement holder. NCWHF maintains an endowment for the purpose of monitoring and
enforcement of conservation easements it holds ("General Stewardship Fund"). NCWHF will
require a one-time contribution from the Sponsor to NCWHF's General Stewardship Fund
sufficient to support NCWHF's responsibilities under the Site's conservation easements, payable
at time of easement closing.
In addition to conservation easement stewardship,NCWHF will also be responsible for long-term
management of the Site per the requirements of the Bank LIMBI and this Bank Site Mitigation
Plan. As the Site has been designed to be self-sustaining, the Site's long-term management
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 39
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems,LLC

activities will be limited to routine boundary inspections and, when necessary, marking Site
boundaries to ensure clear identification of conservation areas.'
A separate endowment fund ("Long-term Management Fund"), to be held by NCWHF, will be
established by the Sponsor to support long-term management activities after Bank Site closeout.
Based on the calculations presented in Appendix F,the Long-term Management Fund shall consist
of an initial principal investment of$5,000 (see Appendix F for principal calculations),which will
be funded as a required milestone for the Site's Year 7 credit release (see Table 15).
Per their responsibilities as the Site's easement holder,NCWHF will inspect boundaries annually
to monitor for encroachment. During these inspections, the condition of boundary markings (i.e.,
signs) will be noted and replaced as needed. For the purposes of calculating the Long-term
Management Fund (Appendix F) the following assumptions and inputs were used: 1) during the
implementation of this Bank Site Mitigation Plan, fifty (50) signs will be installed and an
additional fifty (50) replacement signs will be purchased by the Sponsor at no cost to the Long-
term Management Fund; 2) these signs have a 50-year life; however, complete replacement will
occur every 20 years; 3) in today's US dollars, it costs $300 to purchase 50 signs and requires four
hours of labor($200)to install 50 signs at the Site; and 4)although NCWHF will use their General
Stewardship Fund to inspect boundaries, additional funds were included to ensure completion of
boundary inspections.
14.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Any changes that may occur in the mitigation plan due to unanticipated construction constraints
will be adapted accordingly to meet Performance Standards outlined above (Section 11.0). The
Sponsor or its assigns will visit the Site at least annually to check the status of aquatic resources.
Likely challenges are limited,but may include a loss of vegetation structure due to natural or man-
made causes including mortality of existing mature trees as the result of changes in hydrology, a
growing presence of invasive species, or some type of contaminated spill upstream of the Site. In
the event that unforeseen changes occur that affect the management or Performance Standards of
the Site during its operational period,the Sponsor will utilize the maintenance plan outlined above
(Section 12.0 Maintenance and Contingency Plan)and work with the IRT to determine appropriate
measures to rectify deficiencies at the Site in order to provide targeted aquatic functions. If such
unforeseen changes occur the Sponsor will obtain additional permits as necessary and will provide
the USACE a Record Drawing of corrective actions that depict the extent and nature of the work
performed.
15.0 FINANCIAL ASSURANCE
Prior to the first credit release, and over the operational life of the Site, the Sponsor shall provide
financial assurances sufficient to assure completion of all mitigation work, required reporting and
monitoring, and any remedial work required pursuant to the Bank LIMBI. Such assurances shall
1 While the Sponsor will construct fencing along easement boundaries as well as creek crossings between easements
as part of this Bank Site Mitigation Plan,all fencing and crossing maintenance following Bank Site closeout shall be
the responsibility of the associated landowner.Therefore,fencing/crossing maintenance and/or replacement is not part
of the Site's Long-term Management Plan.
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 40
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems,LLC

be separated into two types, identified as follows: 1) mitigation plan implementation (herein after
referred to as"Implementation Assurance"),which shall assure the Site's construction,monitoring
and maintenance phases; and 2) maintenance and monitoring (herein after referred to as
"Maintenance and Monitoring Assurance") following the full implementation of the Mitigation
Work Plan detailed in Section 10.0 of this Bank Site Mitigation Plan, which effectively replaces
or reduces the value of the Implementation Assurance.
15.1 IMPLEMENTATION ASSURANCE
The Implementation Assurance shall consist of either a performance bond in a form substantially
similar to the draft provided in Appendix F 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 bond or policy shall be six hundred seven
thousand nine hundred twenty six dollars ($607,926).
15.2 MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING ASSURANCE
If a performance bond is utilized, following the Site's construction,the Implementation Assurance
shall be replaced with another performance bond. The replacement bond shall be in a form
substantially similar to the draft provided in Appendix F. The total value of such bond shall be
twenty seven thousand five hundred dollars ($27,500). No such replacement is necessary if a
casualty insurance policy is utilized.
15.3 OTHER FINANCIAL ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Financial assurance shall be payable to the Site's easement holder and financial assurance obligee,
the NCWHF. In addition, financial assurances shall contain a provision ensuring the District
Engineer receives notification at least 120 days in advance of any termination or revocation.
16.0 CONCLUSIONS
The development of the Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan under the terms and conditions of
the Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank will result in the ecological improvement of 5,965
linear feet of stream and 1.14 acres of wetland. The Site has the potential to provide 5,345 SMUs
and 0.92 WMUs through the restoration, enhancement and permanent protection of 19-acres
surrounding several currently impacted streams and wetlands in Alamance County, North
Carolina.
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 41
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems,LLC

17.0 REFERENCES
Cowardin, Lewis M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classifications of Wetlands
and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical
Report Y-87-1. United States Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,Vicksburg,
Mississippi.
Gordon,N.D.,T.A. McMahon, and B.L. Finlayson. 1992. Stream Hydrology: an Introduction for
Ecologists. John Wiley& Sons, Ltd. West Sussex, England.
Griffith, G.E., J.M. Omemik, 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. 2006. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation, Level 1-2 Plot Sampling Only. Ecosystem Enhancement Program, North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 11 pp.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS). 2014. Web Soil Survey (online). Available:
http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/ [January 9, 2014]. United States Department of
Agriculture.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2001. Benthic Macroinvertebrate
Monitoring Protocols for Compensatory Mitigation. 401/Wetlands Unit, Department of
Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh,North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2005. Cape Fear River Basinwide Water
Quality Plan. Available:
http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=2eddbd59-b3 82-4b58-97ed-
c4049bf4e8e4&groupId=38364. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Raleigh,North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2006. Standard Operating Procedures for
Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Biological Assessment Unit,Department of Environment and
Natural Resources. Raleigh,North Carolina.
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 42
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems,LLC

North Carolina Division of Water Quality(NCDWQ). 2012. Final North Carolina Water Quality
Assessment and Impaired Waters List(2012 Integrated 305(b)and 303(d)Report)(online).
Available: http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/mtu/assessment [January 9, 2014]. North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh,North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2014. 2014 NC 303(d) List—Category
5 Final December 19, 2014 (online). Available:
http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=28b97405-55da-4b21-aac3-
f580ee810593&groupId=38364 [October 28, 2015]. North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh,North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2015. North Carolina Water Bodies
Report (online). Available:
http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=l Oc60296-dcc8-439f-a41 c-
d475ea7adlfa&groupId=38364 [April 2015]. North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP 2009). Cape Fear River Basin
Restoration Priorities 2009 (online). Available
http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=864e82e8-725 c-415 e-8 ed9-
c72dfcb55012&groupId=60329
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program(NCEEP 2011). Monitoring Requirements and
Performance Standards for Stream and/or Wetland Mitigation.
North Carolina Stream Functional Assessment Team. (NC SFAT 2015). N.C. Stream Assessment
Method(NC SAM)User Manual. Version 2.1.
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology (Publisher). Pagosa
Springs, Colorado
Schafale,M and Weakley,A. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina,
Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation. Raleigh,North Carolina
United States Army Corps of Engineers, United States Environmental Protection Agency, North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(USACE et al.). 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines.
Unites States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2012. Regional Supplement to the Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region.
United States Census Bureau (USCB). 2013. Population estimates V.2013.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/37000.html
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 43
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems,LLC

United States Department of Agriculture(USDA). 1960. Soil Survey of Alamance County,North
Carolina. Soils Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1908. Soil Survey of Caswell County, North
Carolina. Soils Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1990. Mitigation Site Type
Classification (MiST). USEPA Workshop, August 13-15, 1989. EPA Region IV and
Hardwood Research Cooperative,NCSU, Raleigh,North Carolina.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2015. Threatened and Endangered Species in
North Carolina(online). Available: http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/countyfr.html. [April 17,
2015]. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh,North Carolina.
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2006. Estimating the Magnitude and Frequency of
Floods in Rural Basins of North Carolina — Recompiled. USGS Water-Resources
Investigations Report 01-4207. Raleigh,North Carolina.
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 44
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems,LLC

APPENDIX A
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION PACKAGE
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan Appendix
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems,LLC

APPENDIX B
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan Appendix
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems,LLC

APPENDIX C.
MORPHOLOGY TABLES AND
EXISTING STREAM CHARACTERISTIC DATA
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan Appendix
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems,LLC

APPENDIX D.
FLOOD FREQUENCY
ANALYSIS DATA
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan Appendix
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems,LLC

APPENDIX E.
PRECONSTRUCTION BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE DATA
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan Appendix
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems,LLC

APPENDIX F.
DRAFT FINANCIAL ASSURANCE
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan Appendix
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems,LLC