20141149 Ver 1_3rd Draft comments SAW-2014-00657_20170224

Strickland, Bev
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Adam, Worth, and Grant,
Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (US) < [e-mail] >
Friday, February 24, 2017 9:48 AM
Grant Lewis; Adam Riggsbee; Worth Creech
Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Hughes, Andrea W CIV USARMY CESAW
(US); Kathryn Matthews; Todd Bowers; Higgins, Karen; Homewood, Sue; Baker,
Virginia; Haupt, Mac; Munzer, Olivia; Huggett, Doug; Ken Riley - NOAA Federal
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Bank (Octabank) 3rd Draft comments; SAW -2014-00657
2014-00657 Octobank Draft UMBI and Plans - Compiled Comments 3.pdf; 20170224
Email IRT Comments to Sponser 3.pdf
Please see the attached compiled USACE comments on the 3rd Draft UMBI and 4 mitigation plans, for the above
referenced project for your review and response. Note that your previous submissions addressed all concerns raised by
other IRT members. As before, if you prefer a formal letter I would be happy to provide it at your request.
Upon receipt of your response to these comments, the IRT will work with you to address any unresolved issues
concerning the 3rd Draft UMBI and Plans. Although we anticipate that the majority of the comments can be addressed
via phone calls or email, the Corps will arrange a meeting to be attended by IRT members and the sponsor - if necessary
or preferred by the Sponsor - in the interest of meeting the decision-making timeframes specified in 33 CFR 332.8(d).
If there are no sponsor concerns related to making all of the requested changes, you may proceed in preparing the final
UMBI and Mitigation Plans for IRT signature. Rather than sending the final documents to our office for distribution to
the IRT, we suggest that you mail final copies to the IRT members directly for signature.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
-Dave Bailey
David E. Bailey, PWS
Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
CE -SAW -RG -R
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Phone: [phone], Ext. 30.
Fax: [phone]
Email: David. [e-mail]
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at
http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0.

DRAFT UMBI REDLINE VERSION: FEBRUARY 2017
AGREEMENT TO ESTABLISH THE CAPE FEAR 02 UMBRELLA MITIGATION
BANK WITHIN THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) approval of this Instrument constitutes the regulatory
approval required for the CAPE FEAR 02 UMBRELLA MITIGATION BANK to be used to
provide compensatory mitigation for Department of the Army permits pursuant to 33 CFR
332.8(a)(1). This Instrument is not a contract between the Sponsor or Property Owner and Corps
or any other agency of the federal government. Any dispute arising under this Instrument will not
give rise to any claim by the Sponsor or Property Owner for monetary damages. This provision
is controlling notwithstanding any other provision or statement in the Instrument to the contrary.
This Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument (LIMBI) is made and entered into on the
day of , 2016, by Restoration Systems, LLC (Sponsor) and the Corps, and each of the
following agencies, upon its execution of this UMBI, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS), the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) and the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR).
The Corps, together with the State and Federal agencies that execute this UMBI, are hereinafter
collectively referred to as the Interagency Review Team (IRT).
WHEREAS the purpose of this agreement is to establish an umbrella mitigation bank (Bank)
providing compensatory mitigation for unavoidable wetland and/or stream impacts separately
authorized by Section 404 Clean Water Act permits and /or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors
Act permits in appropriate circumstances;
WHEREAS the agencies comprising the IRT agree that the Bank Sites are suitable mitigation
sites, and that implementation of the Mitigation Plans are likely to result in net gains in wetland
and/or stream functions at the Bank Sites, and have therefore approved the Mitigation Plans;
THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed among the parties to this agreement that the following
provisions are adopted and will be implemented upon signature of this UMBI.
Section I: General Provisions
A. The Sponsor is responsible for assuring the success of the restoration, enhancement and
preservation activities at the Bank Sites, and for the overall operation and management of the
Bank. The Sponsor assumes the legal responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation
once a permittee secures credits from the Sponsor and the District Engineer (DE) receives
documentation that confirms the Sponsor has accepted responsibility for providing the required
compensatory mitigation.
B. The goal of the Umbrella Bank is to restore, enhance and preserve perennial and
intermittent stream systems, and associated riparian wetland systems, and their functions to
compensate in appropriate circumstances for unavoidable wetland and/or stream impacts

authorized by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act permits and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and
Harbors Act permits in circumstances deemed appropriate by the Corps after consultation,
through the permit review process, with members of the IRT.
C. Use of credits from the Bank to offset wetland and/or stream impacts authorized by Clean
Water Act permits must be in compliance with the Clean Water Act and implementing
regulations, including but not limited to the 404(b)(1) Guidelines, the National Environmental
Policy Act, and all other applicable Federal and State legislation, rules and regulations. This
agreement has been drafted in accordance with the regulations for Compensatory Mitigation for
Losses of Aquatic Resources effective June 9, 2008 (33 CFR Parts 325 and 332) (Mitigation
Rule).
D. The IRT shall be chaired by the DE of the Corps, Wilmington District (District). The
IRT shall review documentation for the establishment of Bank Sites. The IRT will also advise
the DE in assessing monitoring reports, recommending remedial measures, approving credit
releases, and approving modifications to this instrument. The IRT's role and responsibilities are
more fully set forth in Sections 332.8 of the Mitigation Rule. The IRT will work to reach
consensus on its actions.
E. The DE, after consultation with the appropriate Federal and State review agencies
through the permit review process, shall make final decisions concerning the amount and type of
compensatory mitigation to be required for unavoidable, permitted wetland and/or stream
impacts, and whether or not the use of credits from the Bank is appropriate to offset those
impacts. In the case of permit applications and compensatory mitigation required solely under
the Section 401 Water Quality Certification rules of North Carolina, the NCDWR will determine
the amount of credits that can be withdrawn from the Bank. Any credits used to offset impacts
solely authorized by Section 401 cannot be used for other impacts authorized under Section 404
of the Clean Water Act or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act.
F. The parties to this agreement understand that a watershed approach to establish
compensatory mitigation must be used to the extent appropriate and practicable. Where
practicable, in-kind compensatory mitigation is preferred.
Section II: Geographic Service Area
The Geographic Service Area (GSA) is the designated area within which the Bank is authorized
to provide compensatory mitigation required by DA permits. The GSA for this Bank shall be
comprised of all areas contained within the Haw River basin, or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)
03030002 in North Carolina (Appendix A). Credits must be used in the same 8 -digit HUC in
which they were generated, and credits should be tracked on separate ledgers for each Bank Site.
Use of a Bank Site to compensate for impacts beyond the GSA may be considered by the Corps
or the permitting agency on a case-by-case basis.

Section III: Mitigation Plans
Any Mitigation Plan submitted pursuant to this UMBI must contain the information listed
in 332.4(c)(2) through (14) of the Compensatory Mitigation Rule.
A. The Sponsor will perform work described in all approved Mitigation Plans.
B. The Sponsor shall monitor Bank Sites as described in the approved Mitigation Plan(s),
until such time as the IRT determines that the performance standards described in the Mitigation
Plan(s) have been met.
C. Mitigation Plans submitted for inclusion in this bank (Appendix B) must meet the
requirements of any District guidance that is current at the time the proposed Bank Site is
submitted to the District and determined complete, including any updates made to monitoring
requirements, credit releases, long term management, or any other provisions that are required
and/or specifically addressed in the Mitigation Plan. The addition of any site to this instrument
shall be considered as a modification to this instrument, and processed in accordance with the
procedures set forth in the Mitigation Rule.
D. Authorized representatives of the IRT agencies will be allowed reasonable access to Bank
Site properties for the purposes of inspection and monitoring compliance for all Mitigation Plans
associated with this instrument.
Section IV: Reporting
A. The Sponsor shall submit to the DE, for distribution to each member of the IRT, an
annual report describing the current condition of the Bank Sites and the condition of the Bank
Sites in relation to the performance standards in the Mitigation Plan(s). The Sponsor shall
provide to the DE any monitoring reports described in the Mitigation Plan(s).
B. As part of each annual monitoring report, the Sponsor shall also provide ledger reports
documenting credit transactions as described in Section VIII of this LIMBI.
C. Each time an approved credit transaction occurs, the Sponsor shall provide notification to
the DE within 30 days of the transaction. This notification shall consist of a summary of the
transaction and a full ledger report reflecting the changes from the transaction. Additionally,
signed copies of the Compensatory Mitigation Transfer of Responsibility Form shall be
submitted to the Corps Project Manager for the permit and the Corps Bank Manager for the Bank
Site.

Section V: Remedial Action
A. The DE shall review the monitoring reports, as required in the Mitigation Plan(s), and
may, at any time, after consultation with the Sponsor and the IRT, direct the Sponsor to take
remedial action at the Bank Site(s). Remedial action(s) required by the DE shall be designed to
achieve the performance standards as specified in the Mitigation Plan(s). All remedial actions
required under this section shall include a work schedule and monitoring criteria that will take
into account physical and climactic conditions.
The Sponsor shall implement any remedial measures required pursuant to the above.
C. In the event the Sponsor determines that remedial action may be necessary to achieve the
required performance standards, it shall provide notice of such proposed remedial action to all
members of the IRT. No remedial actions shall be taken without the concurrence of the DE, in
consultation with the IRT.
Section VI: Use of Mitigation Credits
A. Description of credit classifications and provisions pertaining to the use of those credits
shall be provided in the Mitigation Plan(s) to be included in this Bank. Credit classifications
(e.g., cold water stream, cool water stream, warm water stream, coastal wetlands, non -riparian
wetlands, riparian non-riverine wetlands, and riparian riverine wetlands) will be in accordance
with current District guidance at the time the Mitigation Plan is submitted to the District. In
general, these classifications will be used to determine if a particular credit qualifies as "In -
Kind" mitigation. Exceptions to the use of "In -Kind" mitigation may be allowed at the
discretion of the permitting agencies on a case-by-case basis.
B. Wetland and stream compensation ratios are determined by the DE on a case-by-case
basis based on considerations of functions of the wetlands and/or streams impacted, the severity
of the wetland and/or stream impacts, the relative age of the Bank Site, whether the
compensatory mitigation is in-kind, and the physical proximity of the wetland and/or stream
impacts to the Bank Site.
C. Notwithstanding the above, all decisions concerning the appropriateness of using credits
from the Bank Sites to offset impacts to waters and wetlands, as well as all decisions concerning
the amount and type of such credits to be used to offset wetland and stream impacts authorized
by Department of the Army permits, shall be made by the DE, pursuant to Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act and implementing regulations and guidance. These decisions may include
notice to and consultation with the members of the IRT through the permit review process if the
DE determines this to be appropriate given the scope and nature of the impact.

Section VII: Credit Release Schedule
A. All credit releases must be approved in writing by the DE, following consultation with
the IRT, based on a determination that required performance standards have been achieved.
B. A credit release schedule shall be provided in the site-specific Mitigation Plan(s) that are
included in the Bank. The credit release schedule will list all of the proposed credit releases and
any performance standards associated with those releases.
C. In general, the initial allocation of credits from any site included as part of this bank shall
be available for sale only after the completion of all of the following:
1. Execution of this LIMBI by the Sponsor, the DE, and other agencies eligible for
membership in the IRT who choose to execute this LIMBI, to include the approval of any
modifications to this agreement when new sites are added to it;
2. Approval of a final Mitigation Plan(s);
3. Confirmation that the Bank Site(s) have been secured;
4. Delivery of executed financial assurances as specified in the site-specific Mitigation
Plan(s);
5. Delivery of a copy of the recorded long-term protection mechanism as described in the
site-specific Mitigation Plan(s), as well as a title opinion covering the property acceptable
to the DE; and
6. Issuance of any DA permits necessary for construction of the Bank Site(s).
The Sponsor must initiate construction of the physical and biological improvements proposed in
the approved Mitigation Plans no later than the end of the first full growing season following the
initial sale of credits from each Bank Site. This provision does not apply to preservation -only
sites that do not include any physical or biological improvements. Subject to the Sponsor's
continued satisfactory completion of all required performance standards and monitoring,
additional restoration mitigation credits will be available for sale by the Sponsor as specified in
the final Bank Site Mitigation Plan(s).
Section VIIL• Accounting Procedures
A. The Sponsor shall develop accounting procedures acceptable to the DE for maintaining
accurate records of debits made from the Bank Sites. Such procedures shall include the
generation of a ledger for each Bank Site, by the Sponsor, detailing credits used at the time they
are debited from the Bank. All ledger reports shall identify credits debited and remaining by
type of credit and shall include for each reported debit the Corps ORM ID number for the DA
permit for which the credits were utilized and the permitted impacts for each resource type.
B. Each time an approved credit transaction occurs, the Sponsor shall notify the DE within
30 days of the transaction with a summary of the transaction and a full ledger report showing the

changes made. Signed copies of the Transfer of Mitigation Responsibility form shall also be
submitted to the Corps permit Project Manager and the Corps Bank Manager for the Bank Site.
C. The Sponsor shall prepare an annual ledger report, on each anniversary of the date of
execution of this agreement, showing all credits used, any changes in credit availability (e.g.,
additional credits released, credit sales, suspended credits, etc.), and the beginning and ending
balance of remaining credits. The Sponsor shall submit the annual report to the DE, for
distribution to each member of the IRT, until such time as all of the credits have been utilized, or
this agreement is otherwise terminated.
Section IX: Financial Assurances
A. Financial assurances for the Bank Sites will be detailed in the site-specific Mitigation
Plan(s). The Sponsor shall provide financial assurances in a form acceptable to the DE,
sufficient to assure completion of all mitigation work, required reporting and monitoring, and
any remedial work required pursuant to this LIMBI. The financial assurance value should be
based on the cost of doing the mitigation work, including costs for land acquisition (if
applicable), planning and engineering, legal fees, mobilization, construction, and monitoring.
For preservation only Bank Sites, no financial assurances will generally be required unless there
are specific activities necessary to ensure the successful preservation of resources on the site, in
which case appropriate financial assurances may still be required.
B. All financial assurances shall be made payable to a standby trust or to a third -party
designee, acceptable to the Corps, who agrees to complete the project or provide alternative
mitigation. Financial assurances structured to provide funds to the Corps in the event of default
by the Bank Sponsor are not acceptable.
C. The form and amount of financial assurances must be stated in the Mitigation Plan for
each Bank Site in order for the Mitigation Plan to be approved. This must include the name of
the specific provider of those assurances and the method by which the financial assurances will
be provided in the event that they must be utilized. Original copies of the financial assurance
documents must be provided to the DE prior to the initial release of credits.
D. A financial assurance must be in the form that ensures that the DE receives notification at
least 120 days in advance of any termination or revocation.
Section X: Site Protection
A. The Sponsor shall grant a Conservation Easement (CE) in a form acceptable to the DE,
sufficient to protect the Bank Site(s) in perpetuity. The CE shall be perpetual, preserve all
natural areas, and prohibit all uses of the property inconsistent with its use as mitigation
property, including any activity that would materially alter the biological integrity or functional
and educational value of wetlands or streams within the Bank Site(s), consistent with the
Mitigation Plan(s). The purpose of the CE will be to assure that future use of the Bank Site(s)

will result in the restoration, protection, maintenance and enhancement of wetland and/or stream
functions described in the Mitigation Plan(s). The name and contact information for the Corps
approved easement holder and a copy of the CE template will be provided in the Bank Site
Mitigation Plans(s).
B. The Sponsor shall deliver a title opinion acceptable to the DE covering the Bank Site
property. The property shall be free and clear of any encumbrances that would conflict with its
use as mitigation, including, but not limited to, any liens that have priority over the recorded CE.
C. Subsequent to the recording of the CE, the Sponsor may convey the Bank Site property
either in fee or by granting an easement to a qualified land trust, state agency, or other
appropriate nonprofit organization approved by the Corps. The Sponsor is responsible for
ensuring that the CE is re-recorded so that it remains within the chain of title. The terms and
conditions of this conveyance shall not conflict with the intent and provisions of the CE nor shall
such conveyance enlarge or modify the uses specified in the easement. The CE must contain a
provision requiring 60 day advance notification to the DE before any action is taken to void or
modify the CE, including transfer of title to, or establishment of any other legal claims over, the
Bank Site.
Section XI: Long-term Management
A. The Sponsor shall implement the long-term management plan as described in each site-
specific Mitigation Plan. The name and contact information for the party responsible for long-
term management will be included in all Bank Site Mitigation Plans.
B. The long-term management plan will include a list of annual maintenance, monitoring,
and/or repair activities for the Bank Site(s), the associated annual cost for each activity, and the
required total amount necessary to provide all future site management. The long-term
management plan should explain how the funds will be managed and provided to the designated
long-term manager (e.g., an endowment managed through a separate account holder). The long-
term management plan should include a contingency section that addresses how the
responsibility and funding for the long-term site management will be passed on to a new
manager in the event that the selected long-term management entity is no longer able to provide
for management of the site.
Section XII: Default and Closure
A. The Sponsor shall establish and/or maintain Bank Sites until (i) credits have been
exhausted or banking activity is voluntarily terminated with written notice by the Sponsor
provided to the DE and other members of the IRT; and (ii) it has been determined and agreed
upon by the DE and IRT that the debited Bank Site has satisfied all the conditions herein and in
the associated Bank Site Mitigation Plan. If the DE determines that the Bank Site is not meeting
performance standards or complying with the terms of this LIMBI, appropriate action will be

taken. Such actions may include, but are not limited to, suspending credit sales, adaptive
management, decreasing available credits, utilizing financial assurances, and terminating the
instrument.
B. Any delay or failure of Sponsor shall not constitute a default hereunder if and to the
extent that such delay or failure is primarily caused by any act, event or conditions beyond the
Sponsor's reasonable control and significantly adversely affects its ability to perform its
obligations hereunder including: (i) acts of God, lightning, earthquake, fire, landslide, or
interference by third parties; (ii) condemnation or other taking by any governmental body; (iii)
change in applicable law, regulation, rule, ordinance or permit condition, or the interpretation or
enforcement thereof; (iv) any order, judgment, action or determination of any federal, state or
local court, administrative agency or government body; or (v) the suspension or interruption of
any permit, license, consent, authorization or approval. If the performance of the Sponsor is
affected by any such event, Sponsor shall give written notice thereof to the IRT as soon as is
reasonably practicable. If such event occurs before the final availability of all credits for sale, the
Sponsor shall take remedial action to restore the property to its condition prior to such event, in a
manner sufficient to provide adequate mitigation to cover credits that were sold prior to such
delay or failure to compensate for impacts to waters, including wetlands, authorized by
Department of the Army permits. Such remedial action shall be taken by the Sponsor only to the
extent necessary and appropriate, as determined by the IRT.
C. At the end of the Bank Site monitoring period, upon satisfaction of the performance
standards, the Sponsor may submit a request to the DE for Bank Site close out. The DE, in
consultation with the IRT, shall use best efforts to review and comment on the request within 60
days of such submittal. If the DE determines the Sponsor has achieved the performance
standards in accordance with the Bank Site Mitigation Plan and all obligations under this UMBI,
the DE shall issue a close out letter to the Sponsor.
Section XIII: Miscellaneous
A. Any agency participant may terminate its participation in this agreement with notice in
writing to all other parties to this agreement. Termination shall be effective seven (7) days from
placing written notices in the United States mail. Member withdrawal shall not affect any prior
sale of credits and all remaining parties shall continue to implement and enforce the terms of this
UMBI.
B. Modification of this UMBI shall be in accordance with the procedures set forth in 332.8 of
the mitigation rule.
C. No third party shall be deemed a beneficiary hereof and no one except the signatories hereof,
their successors and assigns, shall be entitled to seek enforcement hereof.
D. This UMBI constitutes the entire agreement between the parties concerning the subject
matter hereof and supersedes all prior agreements or undertakings.

E. In the event any one or more of the provisions contained in this UMBI are held to be invalid,
illegal or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality or unenforceablility will not
affect any other provisions hereof, and this UMBI shall be construed as if such invalid, illegal or
unenforceable provision had not been contained herein.
F. This UMBI shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of North
Carolina and the United States as appropriate.
G. This UMBI may be executed by the parties in any combination, in one or more counterparts,
all of which together shall constitute but one and the same instrument.
H. The terms and conditions of this UMBI shall be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of the
parties hereto and their respective successors.
I. All notices and required reports shall be sent by regular mail to each of the parties at their
respective addresses, provided below.
Sponsor:
Mr. John Preyer
Restoration Systems, LLC
President
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Corps:
Mr. David Bailey
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
USEPA:
Mr. Todd Bowers
Wetlands Section - Region IV
Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303

USFWS:
Ms. Kathryn Matthews
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
NCWRC:
Ms. Plivia Munzer--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Deleted: Shari Bryant
--------------
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
,Sykes Depot, 2430 Turner Road------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- . Deleted: P.O. Box 129
ebane, North Carolina 2739 - Deleted: sedaha
NCDWR:
TBD
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
NCSHPO
State Historic Preservation Office
Renee Gledhill -Earley
4617 Mail Service Center
109 E. Jones Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-4617
NMFS:
Mr. Ken Riley
National Marine Fisheries, NOAA
Habitat Conservation Division
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Deleted: 42-0129
Deleted: /Ms.
NCDCM:
Mr. Doug Hu et Deleted:.M1s.
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
400 Commerce Avenue Deleted: *Address
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
10

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement entitled
"Agreement To Establish The Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank within the State of
North Carolina":
Sponsor:
M
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:
Date:
By: Date:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement entitled
"Agreement To Establish The Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank, within the State of
North Carolina":
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:
By:
Date:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:
By:
Date:
N.C. Division of Water Resources:
By:
Date:
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission:
By:
Date:
NC State Historic Preservation Office:
By:
Date:
National Marine Fisheries Service:
By: Date
N.C. Division of Coastal Management
By: Date:
1?

List of Appendices
Appendix A: Geographic Service Area Map
Appendix B: Bank Site Mitigation Plans

SAW -2014-00657 UMBI and Mitiiiation Plan Yd Draft Comments
Draft LIMBI:
1) Geographic Service Area Map (Appendix A, not included in 3rd Draft): need to ensure
that the name of map says "Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank" rather than "Upper
Cape Fear Umbrella Mitigation Bank", to be consistent with UMBI text
All Mitigation Plans:
1) Figures 1-5 (not included in 3rd Draft) titles should all be changed to "Cape Fear 02
Umbrella Mitigation Bank" to be consistent with UMBI text;
2) Section 13.0: For consistency in all mitigation plans (already included in Benton Branch
Plan), please add the following as a final paragraph in this Section:
"In support of NCWHF as the Site's easement holder and long-term manager, the
Sponsor will provide a lump sum payment of twenty-five thousand ($25,000) dollars to
NCWHF at the time of conservation easement closing, prior to the Site's initial credit
release. This payment includes funds to support NCWHF's role as the easement holder
($20,000) and additional funds to support long-term management ($5,000)."
3) Sections 13 (Long Term Management Plan), 14 (Adaptive Management Plan) and 15
(Financial Assurance): Note that your various legal documents have been sent to Corps
Office of Counsel for legal review (the LIMBI, CE documents for all 4 sites, Performance
Bonds for all 4 sites, Letter confirming the obligee [NC Wildlife Habitat Association,
NCWHF]).
Benton Branch MB:
1) Figure 6B (not included in 3rd Draft): minor formatting issue - the potential wetland
restoration area around the lower pond on UT 2 should have an outline around the
hatching.
2) Section 10.3 Pond Removal section: for clarification, and based on our 1/13/2017
discussion, the final two sentences of the 2nd paragraph should be changed to the
following:
"The final acreage of wetland restoration is expected to be based on the performance
standards and monitoring requirements applied to wetlands on the site as described in
Section 11. If boundary and wetland acreage modifications are necessary in these areas,
changes must be confirmed by IRT members during post mitigation meetings, preferably
a year or two after construction to allow for groundwater tables to equilibrate."
3) Section 11.1.1: change "(Specifically UT 1)" to "(Specifically UT 1 and UT 2)";

07 February 2017
Mr. David Bailey
Regulatory Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Bailey edits 2/13/20170
Tugwell Edits 2/23/20170
RE: SUBMITAL OF CAPE FEAR 02 UMBRELLA MITIGATION BANK (2014 -SAW -
00657) THIRD DRAFT MITIGATION BANKING INSTRUMENT AND PHASE I BANK
SITE MITIGATION PLANS
Dear Mr. Bailey:
Restoration Systems (Sponsor) is pleased to submit the accompanying third draft of the Umbrella
Mitigation Banking Instrument (LIMBI) and its associated Phase I Bank Site Mitigation Plans
(Mitigation Plans) for our proposed Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank (Bank; 2014 -SAW -
00657). As you will notice, the UMBI and the Mitigation Plans were edited according to IRT
comments generated from the review of the second drafts provided by the Sponsor in October
2016.
Please note that for purposes of review expediency, we have provided electronic redline versions
of the UMBI and Mitigation Plans. Please also note that no appendices or figures are provided
with this submission. We have revised the figures per the most recent IRT comments; however,
as the edits were minor in nature, we have not provided with this submission. Figures and
appendices will be submitted as part of the final draft following receipt of your notification to
proceed with its preparation.
1101 Haynes St., Suite 211 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • www.restorationsystems.com • Ph 919.755.9490 • Fx 919.755.9492

Summary of Comments on Microsoft Outlook - Memo
Style
Page: 1
Number: 1 Author: K7RGLDEB Subject: Typewritten Text Date: 2/24/2017 8:59:05 AM
Bailey edits 2/13/2017
Number: 2 Author: K7RGLDEB Subject: Typewritten Text Date: 2/24/2017 8:59:09 AM
Tugwell Edits 2/23/2017

If you have any questions or require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact
Adam Riggsbee (512-970-3062), Worth Creech (919-389-3888) or me. We look forward to
hearing back from you soon regarding our submission.
Sincerely,
John Preyer
President
cc: Todd Tugwell, USACE
Andrea Hughes, USACE
Todd Bowers, EPA
Kathy Matthews, USFWS
Karen Higgins, NCDWR
Sue Homewood, NCDWR
Virginia Baker, NCDWR
Mac Haupt, NCDWR
Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Ken Riley, NMFS
Doug Huggett, NCDCM
Worth Creech, Restoration Systems, LLC
Grant Lewis, Axiom Environmental, Inc
Adam Riggsbee, RiverBank Conservation, LLC
Enclosures (4)
1101 Haynes St., Suite 211 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • www.restorationsystems.com • Ph 919.755.9490 • Fx 919.755.9492

DRAFT UMBI REDLINE VERSION: FEBRUARY 2017
AGREEMENT TO ESTABLISH THE CAPE FEAR 02 UMBRELLA MITIGATION
BANK WITHIN THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) approval of this Instrument constitutes the regulatory
approval required for the CAPE FEAR 02 UMBRELLA MITIGATION BANK to be used to
provide compensatory mitigation for Department of the Army permits pursuant to 33 CFR
332.8(a)(1). This Instrument is not a contract between the Sponsor or Property Owner and Corps
or any other agency of the federal government. Any dispute arising under this Instrument will not
give rise to any claim by the Sponsor or Property Owner for monetary damages. This provision
is controlling notwithstanding any other provision or statement in the Instrument to the contrary.
This Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument (UMBI) is made and entered into on the
day of , 2016, by Restoration Systems, LLC (Sponsor) and the Corps, and each of the
following agencies, upon its execution of this UMBI, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS), the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) and the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR).
The Corps, together with the State and Federal agencies that execute this UMBI, are hereinafter
collectively referred to as the Interagency Review Team (IRT).
WHEREAS the purpose of this agreement is to establish an umbrella mitigation bank (Bank)
providing compensatory mitigation for unavoidable wetland and/or stream impacts separately
authorized by Section 404 Clean Water Act permits and /or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors
Act permits in appropriate circumstances;
WHEREAS the agencies comprising the IRT agree that the Bank Sites are suitable mitigation
sites, and that implementation of the Mitigation Plans are likely to result in net gains in wetland
and/or stream functions at the Bank Sites, and have therefore approved the Mitigation Plans;
THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed among the parties to this agreement that the following
provisions are adopted and will be implemented upon signature of this UMBI.
Section I: General Provisions
A. The Sponsor is responsible for assuring the success of the restoration, enhancement and
preservation activities at the Bank Sites, and for the overall operation and management of the
Bank. The Sponsor assumes the legal responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation
once a permittee secures credits from the Sponsor and the District Engineer (DE) receives
documentation that confirms the Sponsor has accepted responsibility for providing the required
compensatory mitigation.
B. The goal of the Umbrella Bank is to restore, enhance and preserve perennial and
intermittent stream systems, and associated riparian wetland systems, and their functions to
compensate in appropriate circumstances for unavoidable wetland and/or stream impacts

authorized by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act permits and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and
Harbors Act permits in circumstances deemed appropriate by the Corps after consultation,
through the permit review process, with members of the IRT.
C. Use of credits from the Bank to offset wetland and/or stream impacts authorized by Clean
Water Act permits must be in compliance with the Clean Water Act and implementing
regulations, including but not limited to the 404(b)(1) Guidelines, the National Environmental
Policy Act, and all other applicable Federal and State legislation, rules and regulations. This
agreement has been drafted in accordance with the regulations for Compensatory Mitigation for
Losses of Aquatic Resources effective June 9, 2008 (33 CFR Parts 325 and 332) (Mitigation
Rule).
D. The IRT shall be chaired by the DE of the Corps, Wilmington District (District). The
IRT shall review documentation for the establishment of Bank Sites. The IRT will also advise
the DE in assessing monitoring reports, recommending remedial measures, approving credit
releases, and approving modifications to this instrument. The IRT's role and responsibilities are
more fully set forth in Sections 332.8 of the Mitigation Rule. The IRT will work to reach
consensus on its actions.
E. The DE, after consultation with the appropriate Federal and State review agencies
through the permit review process, shall make final decisions concerning the amount and type of
compensatory mitigation to be required for unavoidable, permitted wetland and/or stream
impacts, and whether or not the use of credits from the Bank is appropriate to offset those
impacts. In the case of permit applications and compensatory mitigation required solely under
the Section 401 Water Quality Certification rules of North Carolina, the NCDWR will determine
the amount of credits that can be withdrawn from the Bank. Any credits used to offset impacts
solely authorized by Section 401 cannot be used for other impacts authorized under Section 404
of the Clean Water Act or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act.
F. The parties to this agreement understand that a watershed approach to establish
compensatory mitigation must be used to the extent appropriate and practicable. Where
practicable, in-kind compensatory mitigation is preferred.
Section II: Geographic Service Area
The Geographic Service Area (GSA) is the designated area within which the Bank is authorized
to provide compensatory mitigation required by DA permits. The GSA for this Bank shall be
comprised of all areas contained within the Haw River basin, or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)
03030002 in North Carolina (Appendix A). Credits must be used in the same 8 -digit HUC in
which they were generated, and credits should be tracked on separate ledgers for each Bank Site.
Use of a Bank Site to compensate for impacts beyond the GSA may be considered by the Corps
or the permitting agency on a case-by-case basis.

Section III: Mitigation Plans
Any Mitigation Plan submitted pursuant to this UMBI must contain the information listed
in 332.4(c)(2) through (14) of the Compensatory Mitigation Rule.
A. The Sponsor will perform work described in all approved Mitigation Plans.
B. The Sponsor shall monitor Bank Sites as described in the approved Mitigation Plan(s),
until such time as the IRT determines that the performance standards described in the Mitigation
Plan(s) have been met.
C. Mitigation Plans submitted for inclusion in this bank (Appendix B) must meet the
requirements of any District guidance that is current at the time the proposed Bank Site is
submitted to the District and determined complete, including any updates made to monitoring
requirements, credit releases, long term management, or any other provisions that are required
and/or specifically addressed in the Mitigation Plan. The addition of any site to this instrument
shall be considered as a modification to this instrument, and processed in accordance with the
procedures set forth in the Mitigation Rule.
D. Authorized representatives of the IRT agencies will be allowed reasonable access to Bank
Site properties for the purposes of inspection and monitoring compliance for all Mitigation Plans
associated with this instrument.
Section IV: Reporting
A. The Sponsor shall submit to the DE, for distribution to each member of the IRT, an
annual report describing the current condition of the Bank Sites and the condition of the Bank
Sites in relation to the performance standards in the Mitigation Plan(s). The Sponsor shall
provide to the DE any monitoring reports described in the Mitigation Plan(s).
B. As part of each annual monitoring report, the Sponsor shall also provide ledger reports
documenting credit transactions as described in Section VIII of this UMBI.
C. Each time an approved credit transaction occurs, the Sponsor shall provide notification to
the DE within 30 days of the transaction. This notification shall consist of a summary of the
transaction and a full ledger report reflecting the changes from the transaction. Additionally,
signed copies of the Compensatory Mitigation Transfer of Responsibility Form shall be
submitted to the Corps Project Manager for the permit and the Corps Bank Manager for the Bank
Site.

Section V: Remedial Action
A. The DE shall review the monitoring reports, as required in the Mitigation Plan(s), and
may, at any time, after consultation with the Sponsor and the IRT, direct the Sponsor to take
remedial action at the Bank Site(s). Remedial action(s) required by the DE shall be designed to
achieve the performance standards as specified in the Mitigation Plan(s). All remedial actions
required under this section shall include a work schedule and monitoring criteria that will take
into account physical and climactic conditions.
The Sponsor shall implement any remedial measures required pursuant to the above.
C. In the event the Sponsor determines that remedial action may be necessary to achieve the
required performance standards, it shall provide notice of such proposed remedial action to all
members of the IRT. No remedial actions shall be taken without the concurrence of the DE, in
consultation with the IRT.
Section VI: Use of Mitigation Credits
A. Description of credit classifications and provisions pertaining to the use of those credits
shall be provided in the Mitigation Plan(s) to be included in this Bank. Credit classifications
(e.g., cold water stream, cool water stream, warm water stream, coastal wetlands, non -riparian
wetlands, riparian non-riverine wetlands, and riparian riverine wetlands) will be in accordance
with current District guidance at the time the Mitigation Plan is submitted to the District. In
general, these classifications will be used to determine if a particular credit qualifies as "In -
Kind" mitigation. Exceptions to the use of "In -Kind" mitigation may be allowed at the
discretion of the permitting agencies on a case-by-case basis.
B. Wetland and stream compensation ratios are determined by the DE on a case-by-case
basis based on considerations of functions of the wetlands and/or streams impacted, the severity
of the wetland and/or stream impacts, the relative age of the Bank Site, whether the
compensatory mitigation is in-kind, and the physical proximity of the wetland and/or stream
impacts to the Bank Site.
C. Notwithstanding the above, all decisions concerning the appropriateness of using credits
from the Bank Sites to offset impacts to waters and wetlands, as well as all decisions concerning
the amount and type of such credits to be used to offset wetland and stream impacts authorized
by Department of the Army permits, shall be made by the DE, pursuant to Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act and implementing regulations and guidance. These decisions may include
notice to and consultation with the members of the IRT through the permit review process if the
DE determines this to be appropriate given the scope and nature of the impact.

Section VII: Credit Release Schedule
A. All credit releases must be approved in writing by the DE, following consultation with
the IRT, based on a determination that required performance standards have been achieved.
B. A credit release schedule shall be provided in the site-specific Mitigation Plan(s) that are
included in the Bank. The credit release schedule will list all of the proposed credit releases and
any performance standards associated with those releases.
C. In general, the initial allocation of credits from any site included as part of this bank shall
be available for sale only after the completion of all of the following:
1. Execution of this LIMBI by the Sponsor, the DE, and other agencies eligible for
membership in the IRT who choose to execute this LIMBI, to include the approval of any
modifications to this agreement when new sites are added to it;
2. Approval of a final Mitigation Plan(s);
3. Confirmation that the Bank Site(s) have been secured;
4. Delivery of executed financial assurances as specified in the site-specific Mitigation
Plan(s);
5. Delivery of a copy of the recorded long-term protection mechanism as described in the
site-specific Mitigation Plan(s), as well as a title opinion covering the property acceptable
to the DE; and
6. Issuance of any DA permits necessary for construction of the Bank Site(s).
The Sponsor must initiate construction of the physical and biological improvements proposed in
the approved Mitigation Plans no later than the end of the first full growing season following the
initial sale of credits from each Bank Site. This provision does not apply to preservation -only
sites that do not include any physical or biological improvements. Subject to the Sponsor's
continued satisfactory completion of all required performance standards and monitoring,
additional restoration mitigation credits will be available for sale by the Sponsor as specified in
the final Bank Site Mitigation Plan(s).
Section VIIL• Accounting Procedures
A. The Sponsor shall develop accounting procedures acceptable to the DE for maintaining
accurate records of debits made from the Bank Sites. Such procedures shall include the
generation of a ledger for each Bank Site, by the Sponsor, detailing credits used at the time they
are debited from the Bank. All ledger reports shall identify credits debited and remaining by
type of credit and shall include for each reported debit the Corps ORM ID number for the DA
permit for which the credits were utilized and the permitted impacts for each resource type.
B. Each time an approved credit transaction occurs, the Sponsor shall notify the DE within
30 days of the transaction with a summary of the transaction and a full ledger report showing the

changes made. Signed copies of the Transfer of Mitigation Responsibility form shall also be
submitted to the Corps permit Project Manager and the Corps Bank Manager for the Bank Site.
C. The Sponsor shall prepare an annual ledger report, on each anniversary of the date of
execution of this agreement, showing all credits used, any changes in credit availability (e.g.,
additional credits released, credit sales, suspended credits, etc.), and the beginning and ending
balance of remaining credits. The Sponsor shall submit the annual report to the DE, for
distribution to each member of the IRT, until such time as all of the credits have been utilized, or
this agreement is otherwise terminated.
Section IX: Financial Assurances
A. Financial assurances for the Bank Sites will be detailed in the site-specific Mitigation
Plan(s). The Sponsor shall provide financial assurances in a form acceptable to the DE,
sufficient to assure completion of all mitigation work, required reporting and monitoring, and
any remedial work required pursuant to this LIMBI. The financial assurance value should be
based on the cost of doing the mitigation work, including costs for land acquisition (if
applicable), planning and engineering, legal fees, mobilization, construction, and monitoring.
For preservation only Bank Sites, no financial assurances will generally be required unless there
are specific activities necessary to ensure the successful preservation of resources on the site, in
which case appropriate financial assurances may still be required.
B. All financial assurances shall be made payable to a standby trust or to a third -party
designee, acceptable to the Corps, who agrees to complete the project or provide alternative
mitigation. Financial assurances structured to provide funds to the Corps in the event of default
by the Bank Sponsor are not acceptable.
C. The form and amount of financial assurances must be stated in the Mitigation Plan for
each Bank Site in order for the Mitigation Plan to be approved. This must include the name of
the specific provider of those assurances and the method by which the financial assurances will
be provided in the event that they must be utilized. Original copies of the financial assurance
documents must be provided to the DE prior to the initial release of credits.
D. A financial assurance must be in the form that ensures that the DE receives notification at
least 120 days in advance of any termination or revocation.
Section X: Site Protection
A. The Sponsor shall grant a Conservation Easement (CE) in a form acceptable to the DE,
sufficient to protect the Bank Site(s) in perpetuity. The CE shall be perpetual, preserve all
natural areas, and prohibit all uses of the property inconsistent with its use as mitigation
property, including any activity that would materially alter the biological integrity or functional
and educational value of wetlands or streams within the Bank Site(s), consistent with the
Mitigation Plan(s). The purpose of the CE will be to assure that future use of the Bank Site(s)

will result in the restoration, protection, maintenance and enhancement of wetland and/or stream
functions described in the Mitigation Plan(s). The name and contact information for the Corps
approved easement holder and a copy of the CE template will be provided in the Bank Site
Mitigation Plans(s).
B. The Sponsor shall deliver a title opinion acceptable to the DE covering the Bank Site
property. The property shall be free and clear of any encumbrances that would conflict with its
use as mitigation, including, but not limited to, any liens that have priority over the recorded CE.
C. Subsequent to the recording of the CE, the Sponsor may convey the Bank Site property
either in fee or by granting an easement to a qualified land trust, state agency, or other
appropriate nonprofit organization approved by the Corps. The Sponsor is responsible for
ensuring that the CE is re-recorded so that it remains within the chain of title. The terms and
conditions of this conveyance shall not conflict with the intent and provisions of the CE nor shall
such conveyance enlarge or modify the uses specified in the easement. The CE must contain a
provision requiring 60 day advance notification to the DE before any action is taken to void or
modify the CE, including transfer of title to, or establishment of any other legal claims over, the
Bank Site.
Section XI: Long-term Management
A. The Sponsor shall implement the long-term management plan as described in each site-
specific Mitigation Plan. The name and contact information for the party responsible for long-
term management will be included in all Bank Site Mitigation Plans.
B. The long -tern management plan will include a list of annual maintenance, monitoring,
and/or repair activities for the Bank Site(s), the associated annual cost for each activity, and the
required total amount necessary to provide all future site management. The long-term
management plan should explain how the funds will be managed and provided to the designated
long-term manager (e.g., an endowment managed through a separate account holder). The long-
term management plan should include a contingency section that addresses how the
responsibility and funding for the long-term site management will be passed on to a new
manager in the event that the selected long-term management entity is no longer able to provide
for management of the site.
Section XII: Default and Closure
A. The Sponsor shall establish and/or maintain Bank Sites until (i) credits have been
exhausted or banking activity is voluntarily terminated with written notice by the Sponsor
provided to the DE and other members of the IRT; and (ii) it has been determined and agreed
upon by the DE and IRT that the debited Bank Site has satisfied all the conditions herein and in
the associated Bank Site Mitigation Plan. If the DE determines that the Bank Site is not meeting
performance standards or complying with the terms of this LIMBI, appropriate action will be

taken. Such actions may include, but are not limited to, suspending credit sales, adaptive
management, decreasing available credits, utilizing financial assurances, and terminating the
instrument.
B. Any delay or failure of Sponsor shall not constitute a default hereunder if and to the
extent that such delay or failure is primarily caused by any act, event or conditions beyond the
Sponsor's reasonable control and significantly adversely affects its ability to perform its
obligations hereunder including: (i) acts of God, lightning, earthquake, fire, landslide, or
interference by third parties; (ii) condemnation or other taking by any governmental body; (iii)
change in applicable law, regulation, rule, ordinance or permit condition, or the interpretation or
enforcement thereof, (iv) any order, judgment, action or determination of any federal, state or
local court, administrative agency or government body; or (v) the suspension or interruption of
any permit, license, consent, authorization or approval. If the performance of the Sponsor is
affected by any such event, Sponsor shall give written notice thereof to the IRT as soon as is
reasonably practicable. If such event occurs before the final availability of all credits for sale, the
Sponsor shall take remedial action to restore the property to its condition prior to such event, in a
manner sufficient to provide adequate mitigation to cover credits that were sold prior to such
delay or failure to compensate for impacts to waters, including wetlands, authorized by
Department of the Army permits. Such remedial action shall be taken by the Sponsor only to the
extent necessary and appropriate, as determined by the IRT.
C. At the end of the Bank Site monitoring period, upon satisfaction of the performance
standards, the Sponsor may submit a request to the DE for Bank Site close out. The DE, in
consultation with the IRT, shall use best efforts to review and comment on the request within 60
days of such submittal. If the DE determines the Sponsor has achieved the performance
standards in accordance with the Bank Site Mitigation Plan and all obligations under this UMBI,
the DE shall issue a close out letter to the Sponsor.
Section XIII: Miscellaneous
A. Any agency participant may terminate its participation in this agreement with notice in
writing to all other parties to this agreement. Termination shall be effective seven (7) days from
placing written notices in the United States mail. Member withdrawal shall not affect any prior
sale of credits and all remaining parties shall continue to implement and enforce the terms of this
UMBI.
B. Modification of this UMBI shall be in accordance with the procedures set forth in 332.8 of
the mitigation rule.
C. No third party shall be deemed a beneficiary hereof and no one except the signatories hereof,
their successors and assigns, shall be entitled to seek enforcement hereof.
D. This UMBI constitutes the entire agreement between the parties concerning the subject
matter hereof and supersedes all prior agreements or undertakings.

E. In the event any one or more of the provisions contained in this UMBI are held to be invalid,
illegal or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality or unenforceablility will not
affect any other provisions hereof, and this UMBI shall be construed as if such invalid, illegal or
unenforceable provision had not been contained herein.
F. This UMBI shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of North
Carolina and the United States as appropriate.
G. This UMBI may be executed by the parties in any combination, in one or more counterparts,
all of which together shall constitute but one and the same instrument.
H. The terms and conditions of this UMBI shall be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of the
parties hereto and their respective successors.
I. All notices and required reports shall be sent by regular mail to each of the parties at their
respective addresses, provided below.
Sponsor:
Mr. John Preyer
Restoration Systems, LLC
President
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Corps:
Mr. David Bailey
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
USEPA:
Mr. Todd Bowers
Wetlands Section - Region IV
Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303

USFWS:
Ms. Kathryn Matthews
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
NCWRC:
Ms. ,Qlivia Munzer
------------------------------ - - - ---------- - - - ---
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
4ykes Depot, 2430 Turner Road
-------------------------------------------
,Mebane, North Carolina73
2
NCDWR:
TBD
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
NCSHPO
State Historic Preservation Office
Renee Gledhill -Earley
4617 Mail Service Center
109 E. Jones Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-4617
NMFS:
Mr. Ken Riley
National Marine Fisheries, NOAA
Habitat Conservation Division
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Deleted: Shari Bryant
Deleted: P.O. Box 129
------------------------------------------- " Deleted: Sedalia
----------------------------------------------
I
------------------------------------------Deleted: 42-0129
Deleted: /Ms.
NCDCM:
Mr. Doug Huggett Deleted: .[Ms.
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
400 Commerce Avenue Deleted: *Address
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
10

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement entitled
"Agreement To Establish The Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank within the State of
North Carolina":
Sponsor:
M
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:
Date:
By: Date:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement entitled
"Agreement To Establish The Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank, within the State of
North Carolina":
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:
By:
Date:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:
By:
Date:
N.C. Division of Water Resources:
By:
Date:
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission:
By:
Date:
NC State Historic Preservation Office:
By:
Date:
National Marine Fisheries Service:
By: Date:
N.C. Division of Coastal Management
By: Date:
12

List of Appendices
Appendix A: Ileographic Service Area Map
Appendix B: Bank Site Mitigation Plans

Page: 15
i Number: 1 Author: K7RGLDEB Subject: Comment on Text Date: 2/13/2017 2:53:46 PM
In final submission, need to see updated map ensuring that the name says "Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank"

DRAFT BANK SITE MITIGATION PLAN
CAPE FEAR 02 UMBRELLA MITIGATION BANK
DEVELOPED THROUGH
RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT OF THE
ROCKY TOP BANK SITE
Alamance County, North Carolina
Axiom Environmental, Inc
PREPARED BY:
RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC
1101 HAYNES STREET, SUITE 211
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27604
AND
AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
218 SNOW AVENUE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27603
YEBRUARY 2017--- Deleted: OCTOBER 2016
____- _Section Break (Continuous)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Restoration Systems, LLC proposes the Rocky Top 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 Rocky Top Bank Site (hereafter referred to
as the "Site"), located approximately 6 miles southwest of Saxapahaw and 2 miles east of Snow
Camp, NC. The Site encompasses 5 acres of land located 2,600 feet northeast of the intersection
of Major Hill Road and Holman Mill Road (Figure 3).
Directions to the Site from Snow Camp are as follows.
From Snow Camp
Take E. Greensboro Chapel Hill Rd. east — 1.5 miles
Turn right on Holman Mill Rd. — 1.4 miles
Site is on the left.
Access Site at gate located 0.5 mile down Major Hill Rd.
Landowner permission required to access Site.
Site Coordinates: 35.886642, -79.388262
The Site is characterized by disturbed forest, hay fields, and livestock pasture. Riparian zones are
primarily composed of disturbed forest. Forest areas are accessible to livestock and have a thin
understory with compacted soils. Multiple, active springs are located along the margins of the
stream. These areas have primarily been cleared of forest vegetation and are characterized by
herbaceous vegetation that is sparse and disturbed due to livestock grazing, bush hogging, and
regular land management activities. Currently, the Site includes approximately 1,214 linear feet
of perennial and intermittent streams characterized by ditched channels, channel incision, and bank
failure due to livestock trampling and agriculture practices. In addition, Site floodplains are
characterized by 0.5 acre of hydric soil (0.3 acre of disturbed wetland and 0.2 acre of drained
hydric soil). The main hydrologic features include two unnamed tributaries (UT) to Reedy Branch
and adjacent floodplains.
Existing Site reaches are classified as entrenched and/or incised G -type or F -type channels with
little to no riffle -pool morphology, oversized channel cross-sectional areas, and no access to
floodplains during high discharge events (BHR range > 2).
Stream and wetland mitigation activities at the Site involve Stream Restoration, Stream
Enhancement (Level II), Wetland Restoration, and Wetland Enhancement. Stream and wetland
mitigation are expected to result in approximately 1,273 linear feet of stream channels and 0.5
acres of jurisdictional wetlands, which will generate 1007 Stream Mitigation Units and 0.35
Riparian Wetland Mitigation Units.
Rocky Top Bank Site Mitigation Plan Executive Summary page i
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................................I
1.0 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................1
2.0 0 JECTIVES............................................................................................................................2
2.1 SITE SPECIFIC MITIGATION GOALS............................................................................................3
3.0 WATERSHED APPROACH.......................................................................................................7
3.1 ANK SITE SELECTION............................................................................................................7
4.0 ANK SITE PROTECTION........................................................................................................9
5.0 REFERENCE STUDIES..............................................................................................................9
5.1 CHANNEL CLASSIFICATION....................................................................................................10
5.2 REFERENCE FOREST ECOSYSTEM............................................................................................11
6.0 ASELINE INFORMATION....................................................................................................12
6.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS.........................................................................................................13
7.0 CHANNELSTA ILITYASSESSMENT......................................................................................16
7.1 STREAM POWER.................................................................................................................16
7.2 SHEAR STRESS....................................................................................................................1_7
-_._
" Deleted: 16
7.3 STREAM POWER AND SHEAR STRESS METHODS AND RESULTS.....................................................18
7.4 ANKFULL VERIFICATION ......................................................................................................19
8.0 POTENTIAL CONSTRAINTS...................................................................................................20
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..........................................................................................................21
9.0 CREDIT DETERMINATION AND RELEASE..............................................................................22
9.1 CREDIT DETERMINATION......................................................................................................22
9.2 STREAM CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE.......................................................................................23
9.3 WETLAND CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE....................................................................................25
10.0 MITIGATION WORK PLAN..................................................................................................26
10.1 RESTORATION PROJECT GOALS AND 0 JECTIVES.......................................................................26
10.2 STREAM AND WETLAND DESIGN............................................................................................
2�6
...- Deleted: 27
10.3 STREAM RESTORATION........................................................................................................27
10.4 STREAM ENHANCEMENT LEVEL I ................................................. ERROR!
OOKMARK NOT DEFINED
--_" Deleted: 29
10.5 STREAM ENHANCEMENT LEVEL II...........................................................................................
_
- Deleted: 29
10.6 WETLAND RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT..........................................................................29
10.7 PLANT COMMUNITY RESTORATION........................................................................................30
10.8 PLANTING PLAN.................................................................................................................330
.-__-----
Deleted: 31
10.9 NUISANCE SPECIES MANAGEMENT.........................................................................................33
10.10 SOIL MANAGEMENT AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURES...........................................................33
11.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND MONITORING REQUIRMENTS.....................................33
11.1 STREAMS..........................................................................................................................35
11.2 WETLANDS........................................................................................................................36
11.3 VEGETATION......................................................................................................................37
,..--"
Deleted: 36
11.4 MACROINVERTE RATES.......................................................................................................37
12.0 MAINTENANCE AND CONTINGENCY PLAN........................................................................37
12.1 VEGETATION...................................................................................................................... Deleted: 37
Rocky Top Bank Site Mitigation Plan Table of Contents page i
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

12.2
STREAMS..........................................................................................................................
,. - "" Deleted: 37
12.3
WETLAND HYDROLOGY........................................................................................................
... Deleted: 38
12.4
SITE OUNDARIES...............................................................................................................
3�9
,-. Deleted: 3E
12.5
TERRACELL DROP STRUCTURES..............................................................................................39
13.0
LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN...................................................................................39
14.0
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN.......................................................................................�
...--=" Deleted: 39
15.0
FINANCIAL ASSURANCES...................................................................................................40
15.1
IMPLEMENTATION ASSURANCE..............................................................................................40
15.2
MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING ASSURANCE........................................................................
_: -=' Deleted: 40
15.3
OTHER FINANCIAL ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS........................................................................
_. = Deleted: 40
16.0
CONCLUSIONS....................................................................................................................,._
Deleted: as
17.0
REFERENCES......................................................................................................................4
__-j Deleted: 41
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Jurisdictional Determination
Appendix B: Bank Site Conservation Easement Template
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
L[gure 1. Bank Site Locations Map
Figure 2. Bank Hydrologic Unit Map
Figure 3. Rocky Top Site Location
Figure 4. Topography and Drainage Area
Figure 5. Existing Conditions and Soils
Figure 6. Restoration Plan
Figure 7. Proposed Dimension Pattern and Profile
Figure 8A -8B. Typical Structure Details
Figure 9. Planting Plan
Figure 10. Monitoring Plan
Figure C1. Rocky Top Cross-section Locations
Figure E1. Rocky Top Benthic Sample Locations
Rocky Top Bank Site Mitigation Plan Table of Contents page ii
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

Page: 19
i Number: 1 Author: K7RGLDEB Subject: Comment on Text Date: 2/13/2017 3:27:33 PM
In final submission, need to see updated figures ensuring that the titles say "Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank"

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Rocky Top 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. Rocky Top Bank Site NC SAM Summary..............................................................................4
Table 3B. Rocky Top Bank Site NC WAM Summary............................................................................5
Table 3C. Functional Goals/Objectives and Corresponding Mitigation Work Plan Components ..... 6
Table 3D. Mitigation Activities and Credit Potential Summary............................................................7
Table 4. Population Growth in Cape Fear 02..........................................................................................9
Table5. Watershed Stressors.....................................................................................................................9
Table 6. Reference Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area................................................................................10
Table7. Reference Forest Ecosystem......................................................................................................11
Table8. Soils..............................................................................................................................................14
Table 9. Existing Stream Characteristics...............................................................................................14
Table 10. Stream Power (Q) and Shear Stress (i) Values.....................................................................18
Table 11. Reference Reach Bankfull Discharge Analysis......................................................................20
Table12. Federal Species of Concern.....................................................................................................22
Table 13. Reach -by -Reach Credit Determination Summary................................................................22
Table 14. Mitigation Activity and Credit Determination Summary....................................................22
Table 15. Stream Credit Release Schedule.............................................................................................24
Table 16. Wetland Credit Release Schedule...........................................................................................25
Table 17. Anticipated Construction Timing and Sequencing...............................................................26
Table 18. Mitigation Activity Totals........................................................................................................27
Table19. Planting Plan............................................................................................................................32
Table 20. Functional Goal/Objectives and Performance Standards....................................................34
Table 21. Monitoring Schedule................................................................................................................35
Table C -Reference. Reference Reach Morphological Stream Characteristics ........................... Appendix C
Table Cl. Rocky Top Morphological Stream Characteristics.................................................... Appendix C
Rocky Top 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
ROCKY TOP BANK SITE
Alamance County, North Carolina
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Restoration Systems, LLC (the Sponsor) is pleased to propose the Rocky Top 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 6 miles southwest of Saxapahaw and 2 miles
east of Snow Camp. The Site encompasses 5 acres of land located 2,600 feet northeast of the
intersection of Major Hill Road and Holman Mill Road (Figure 3).
Directions to the Site from Snow Camp are as follows.
From Snow Camp
Take E. Greensboro Chapel Hill Rd. east — 1.5 miles
Turn right on Holman Mill Rd. — 1.4 miles
Site is on the left.
Access Site at gate located 0.5 mile down Major Hill Rd.
Landowner permission required to access Site.
Site Coordinates: 35.886642, -79.388262
The Site is characterized by disturbed forest, hay fields, and livestock pasture. Riparian zones are
primarily composed of disturbed forest. Forest areas are accessible to livestock and have a thin
understory with compacted soils. Multiple, active springs are located along the margins of the
stream. These areas have primarily been cleared of forest vegetation and are characterized by
herbaceous vegetation that is sparse and disturbed due to livestock grazing, bush hogging, and
regular land management activities. Currently, the Site includes approximately 1,214 linear feet
of perennial and intermittent streams characterized by ditched channels, channel incision, and bank
failure due to livestock trampling and agriculture practices. In addition, Site floodplains are
characterized by 0.5 acre of hydric soil (0.3 acre of disturbed wetland and 0.2 acre of drained
hydric soil). The main hydrologic features include two unnamed tributaries (UT) to Reedy Branch
and adjacent floodplains.
Existing Site reaches are classified as entrenched and/or incised G -type or F -type channels with
little to no riffle -pool morphology, oversized channel cross-sectional areas, and no access to
floodplains during high discharge events (BHR range > 2). Unnamed Tributary (UT) 2 originates
from a springhead and has been ditched along the margins of the floodplain, resulting in a sinuosity
of 1.02. UT 1 retains a reasonable sinuosity (approximately 1.2); however, the loss of forest
vegetation and hoof shear has destabilized some outer bends, resulting in a loss of pattern including
tight meander radii, shoot cutoffs, extended pools, and a loss of suitable channel substrate.
Rocky Top Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 1
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

Stream and wetland mitigation activities at the Site involve Stream Restoration, Stream
Enhancement (Level II), Wetland Restoration, and Wetland Enhancement. Stream and wetland
mitigation are expected to result in approximately 1,273 linear feet of stream channels and 0.5
acres of jurisdictional wetlands which will generate 1,007 Stream Mitigation Units and 0.35
Riparian Wetland Mitigation Units.
Table 1. Rockv Too Bank Site Credit
Site
Hydro Mitigation Activity Wetland Credit Potential Stream Credit
Status* (WMUs) Potential (SMUs)
Rocky Top Perennial* Restoration, 0.35 1,007
Enhancement
*Note: Perennial and Intermittent stream calls have not been approved by the NC Division of Water Resources and
Hydrologic status is for descriptive purposes only.
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 II, 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
Deleted: _
(Remainder of'page intentionally left blank)
Rocky Top Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 2
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

Table 2B. Water Quality Functional Objectives and Proposed Actions
Water Quality Improvement Objectives
Proposed Actions
Cattle exclusion and/or cessation of agricultural
Remove Pollutant Sources
practices
Plant woody riparian buffers; construct marsh
Upland Pollutant Filtration
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 WAM rating calculator. Functional metrics have been developed by
regulatory agencies and are summarized in Tables 3A and 3B. Site functional assessment data
forms are included in Appendix A (JD Package).
Rocky Top Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 3
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

Mitigation activities include Stream Restoration, Stream Enhancement (Level II), 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. Rockv Too Bank Site NC SAM Summa
NC SAM Function Class Rating Summary
UT 1 (EII)
UT 1 (REST)
(1) HYDROLOGY
MED
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MED
MED
(2) Flood Flow
MED
MED
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
MED
MED
(4) Floodplain Access
MED
MED
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
MED
MED
(4) Microtopography
NA
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
MED
LOW
(4) Channel Stability
HIGH
LOW
(4) Sediment Transport
LOW
LOW
(4) Stream Geomorophology
MED
MED
(1) WATER QUALITY
LOW
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MED
MED
(2) Stream -side Area Vegetation
LOW
LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
LOW
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
MED
MED
(2) Indicators of Stressors
YES
YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerence
LOW
LOW
(1) HABIT
MED
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
LOW
(3) Baseflow
MED
MED
(3) Substrate
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
MED
LOW
(3) In -Stream Habitat
LOW
LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
LOW
(3) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
MED
MED
OVERALL
MED
LOW
(Remainder of page intentionally left blank)
Rocky Top Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 4
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

Table 3B. Rocky Top Bank Site NC WAM Summary
NC WAM Sub -function Rating Summary UT 1,2
Wetland Type HF
(1) HYDROLOGY to
(2) Surface Storage & Retention LOW
(2) Sub -surface Storage and LOW
Retention
(1) WATER QUALITY
LO
(2) Pathogen change
LOW
(2) Particulate Change
LOW
(2) Soluble change
LOW
(2) Physical Change
LOW
(1) HABITAT
LOW
(2) Physical Structure
LOW
(2) Landscape Patch Structure
LOW
(2) Vegetative Composition
LOW
OVERALL LOW
Wetland Type - HF (Hardwood Forest)
Wetland ID - See JD mapping for locations of Wetlands
(Remainder ofpage intentionally left blank)
Rocky Top 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
tl1 Hvdrnlnov
(1) Water Oualitv
(2) Stream -side Area Vegetation
Deep rip floodplain soils to reduce compaction and increase
(4)Microtopography
soil surface roughness
(3) Stream Stability
Providing proper channel width, depth, pattern, and profile to
(4) Channel Stability
adequately move appropriate sediment loads; stabilizing
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
channel banks; providing gravel/cobble substrate; and
(4) Sediment Transport
planting a woody riparian buffer
(2) Particulate Change
Building a new channel at the historic floodplain elevation
(2) Surface Storage and Retention
restoring overbank flows, removing cattle, scarifying
(2) Physical Change
compacted soils, and planting woody vegetation
(2) Subsurface Storage and Retention
Removing cattle, ripping compacted soils, and planting a
(2) Vegetative Composition
woody riparian buffer
(1) Water Oualitv
(2) Stream -side Area Vegetation
Building a stable channel with a cobble/gravel bed and
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
Planting a native, woody riparian buffer
(2) Indicators of Stressors
Removing cattle and other agricultural inputs
(3) Stream Stability
Building a stable channel with a cobble/gravel bed and
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
planting a woody riparian buffer
(2) Pathogen Change
Raising the stream bed elevation, restoring overbank flows,
(2) Particulate Change
ripping soils, planting with woody vegetation, removing
(2) Soluble Change
cattle, increasing surface storage and retention, and restoring
(2) Physical Change
appropriate inundation/duration
(1) Habitat
(2) In -stream Habitat
Building a stable channel with a cobble/gravel bed and
planting a woody riparian buffer
(3) Substrate
Providing proper channel width, depth, pattern, and profile to F
(3) Stream Stability
adequately move appropriate sediment loads; stabilizing
(3) In -stream Habitat
channel banks; and providing gravel/cobble substrate
(2) Stream -side Habitat
Planting a woody riparian buffer
(2) Physical Structure
Building a stable channel with a cobble/gravel bed and
planting a woody riparian buffer
(2) Landscape Patch Structure
Provide wooded, riparian corridors through agricultural areas
for wildlife passage
(2) Vegetative Composition
Planting a woody riparian buffer
Site mitigation activities, anticipated final stream lengths, wetland areas, and applicable mitigation
ratios are depicted in Table 3D.
(Remainder ofpage intentionally left blank)
Rocky Top Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 6
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC
------ Formatted Table

Table 31). Mitigation Activities and Credit Potential Summary
Mitigation Activity
Proposed Mitigation
Streams Wetlands
(linear feet) (acres)
Mitigation
Ratio
Credit Potential
SMUs WMUs
Stream Restoration
830
1:1
830
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement lI
443
2.5:1
177
Wetland Restoration
0.2
1:1
0.2
Wetland Enhancement
0.3
2:1
0.15
Totals
1,273 0.5
1,007
0.35
3.0 WATERSHED APPROACH
3.1 BANK 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, and have been trampled by livestock
• Streams and wetlands have been cleared of forest vegetation or are composed of disturbed
forest
• Stream channels have been ditched, are incised, and exhibit bank failure
• Stream channels are oversized and have no access to floodplains during high discharge
events
Rocky Top Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 7
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

• Outer bends are unstable due to livestock trampling and loss of forest vegetation resulting
in a loss of pattern, tight meander radii, shoot cutoffs, extended pools, and loss of
appropriate channel substrate
• Wetland soils have been compacted by livestock
• Wetland hydrology has been removed by lateral drawdown of the water table adjacent to
incised streams, and floodplain ditching and excavation
• Site receives nonpoint source inputs from livestock
• Streams are classified as nutrient sensitive waters and are located in a water supply
watershed (WS -V)
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 indicates 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.
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 their downstream watersheds. Table 5 summarizes the
water quality stressors and usage ratings for the Site's receiving waters.
(Remainder ofpage intentionally left blank)
Rocky Top Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 8
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

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
located in the Neuse River basin.
Table 5. Watershed Stressors
of these areas are
Bank Site Subbasin
Index #
Receiving Water NCDWR Rating
303(d) status*
Rocky Top 03-06-04
16-28-3
Reedy Br WS -V, NSW
NL
-Final 2012 303(d) status; NL = Not Listed
4.0 BANK SITE PROTECTION
The Bank Site is currently owned by Mr. Jim Lamm of Alamance County. The Sponsor possesses
an option agreement with Mr. Lamm 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 5 -acres of Mr. Lamm'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 the 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
Rocky Top Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 9
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

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 Q. 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,
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 (Hannan 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 Farm
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.
Rocky Top Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 10
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

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 0.0295 to
0.0435, 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 Site streams due to
land use activities, have been measured in the reference sites and will be used for design channel
construction.
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 Site 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
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
Dry-Mesic Oak -Hickory Forest
(Floodplains and Slopes)
(Upland Side Slopes)
Canopy Species
Understory Species
Canopy Species
Understory Species
Acer rubrum
Acer rubrum
Acer rubrum
Acer rubrum
Liquidambar styracii lua
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
Jumperus 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).
Rocky Top Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 11
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

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
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 Fvnhitinn
Nearly all of the Site's 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 Unit 03030002050050 of the South Atlantic/Gulf Region in NCDWQ
Subbasin Number 03-06-04. Site streams received a NCDWQ Best Usage Classification
(NCDWQ 2005) and (NCDWR 2015) of WS -V, NSW.
NCDWR Rating
WS -V streams are protected as water supplies that are generally upstream and draining to
Class WS -IV waters or waters used by industry to supply their employees with drinking
water or as waters formerly used as water supply. These waters are also protected for Class
C uses 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 -
Rocky Top Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 12
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

degradation requirements defined in 40 CFR 131. Site streams are not listed on the final 2012 or
fina12014 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 660 -feet NGVD at the upper reach of UT 1 to a low
of approximately 610 -feet NGVD at the outfall (USGS Snow Camp, North Carolina 7.5 -minute
topographic quadrangle) (Figure 4).
The Site provides water quality functions to an approximately 0.07 -square mile watershed at the
outfall (Figure 4). The watershed is dominated by pasture, pine plantation, and hardwood forest
used by the National Guard for maneuvers. Impervious surfaces account for less than 5 percent of
the upstream watershed land surface.
Site land use is characterized by disturbed forest, hay fields, and livestock pasture. Riparian zones
and wetland areas are primarily composed of disturbed forest. Forest areas are accessible to
livestock and have a thin understory with compacted soils. Multiple, active springs are located
along the margins of the stream. These areas have primarily been cleared of forest vegetation and
are characterized by herbaceous vegetation that is sparse and disturbed due to livestock grazing,
bush hogging, and regular land management activities.
6.1.2 Vegetation
The Site is comprised primarily of agricultural land including pasture, hay fields, and disturbed
forest. Fields are dominated by fescue (Festuca sp.) with sparse natural recruits including
knotweed (Polygonum spp.), dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), curly dock (Rumex crispus),
cranesbill (Geranium carolinianum), clover (Trifolium repens), and nightshade (Solanum sp.), as
well as other opportunistic herbaceous species. Scattered trees located adjacent to tributaries
include Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), winged elm (Ulmus alata), red maple (Acer rubrum),
eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), sweetgum
(Liquidambar styracii lua), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans).
6.1.3 Soils and Land Form
Based on web soil survey mapping (NRCS 2014), the Site contains one soil series: Goldston
channery silt loam (Typic Dystrudepts). Site soils are depicted on Figure 5 and described in Table
8.
(Remainder ofpage intentionally left blank)
Rocky Top Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 13
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

Table 8. Soils
MapUnit Map Unit Hydric Description
Symbol Name Status
Goldston This series consists of well -drained soils on 10-15 percent hill
GcD channery silt Non -hydric slopes on ridges. This series formed from residuum weathered
loam from metavolcanics and/or argillite.
Detailed soil mapping conducted by a North Carolina Licensed Soil Scientist (NCLSS) in October
2013 indicate that 0.5 acre of the Site is currently underlain by hydric soils of the Worsham Series.
Onsite hydric soils are grey to gley in color and are compacted and pockmarked by livestock
trampling. Livestock trampling, grazing, and annual mowing for harvest of hay has resulted in an
herbaceous vegetative community. Groundwater springs and surface runoff contribute hydrology
to these areas, although the dominant hydrological influence is the lateral drawdown of the water
table adjacent to incised stream channels.
6.1.4 Jurisdictional Streams and Wetlands
The main hydrologic features at the Site include unnamed tributaries to Reedy Branch and
associated riparian wetlands and floodplains. The Site drains an approximately 0.07 -square mile
watershed at the outfall (Figure 4). Site streams are first and second -order bank -to -bank stream
systems.
Streams may be generally characterized as riverine, upper perennial with unconsolidated bottoms
consisting of sand (R3UB2). Site streams 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 1,214
linear feet of existing stream channel proposed for mitigation (Table 9 and Figure 5).
Table 9. Existing Stream Characteristics
Stream Reach Approx. Length USGS USGS Stream In -Field Stream
(linear feet) Stream Order Classification Classification
UT 1 944 19' Unmapped Perennial
UT 2 270 151/2"d Unmapped Perennial
Total 1,214
Note: Perennial vs intermittent stream calls have not been verified by NCDWR and all stream calls are for descriptive
purposes only.
Jurisdictional wetlands/hydric soils within the Site were delineated in the field following
guidelines set forth in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and subsequent
regional supplements, and located using GPS technology with reported submeter accuracy
(Environmental Laboratory 1987). Jurisdictional delineations were approved by David Bailey of
the USACE during a field visit on May 29, 2014. Existing jurisdictional wetlands are depicted in
Pink on Figure 5.
Rocky Top Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 14
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

Portions of the Site supporting jurisdictional wetlands may originally have been characterized by
palustrine, persistent emergent, wetlands that are saturated, semipermanent, or seasonally flooded
(PEM1Y) (Cowardin et al. 1979). However, livestock trampling, deforestation, groundwater
drawdown from stream channel incision, floodplain ditching, and excavation of the floodplain
have impacted on-site wetlands.
Approximately 0.5 acre of the Site 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). Extensive floodplain
manipulations associated with stream ditching and straightening, deforestation, and floodplain
ditching, have effectively removed groundwater hydrology and/or riparian vegetation from these
areas.
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 C4 (Appendix Q. Stream geometry measurements under existing
conditions are summarized in Table C4 Morphological Stream Characteristics (Appendix C).
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.
Currently, channels targeted for restoration are characterized as entrenched and/or incised G -type
or F -type channels with little to no riffle -pool morphology, oversized channel cross-sectional
areas, and no access to floodplains during high discharge events (BHR range > 2). UT 2 originates
from a springhead and has been ditched along the margins of the floodplain, resulting in a sinuosity
of 1.02. UT 1 retains a reasonable sinuosity (approximately 1.2); however, the loss of forest
vegetation and hoof shear has destabilized some outer bends, resulting in a loss of pattern
including: tight meander radii, shoot cutoffs, extended pools, and a loss of suitable channel
substrate.
In general, sediment and nutrient inputs, channel incision and manipulation, livestock trampling,
removal of cobble substrate, aggradation of silt and sand, as well as removal of woody vegetation
have impacted the Site streams.
6.1.7 Discharge
Rocky Top Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 15
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

This hydrophysiographic region is characterized by moderate rainfall with precipitation averaging
approximately 40 to 50 inches per year (USDA 1960). Drainage basin size is 0.07 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 0.07 -square mile watershed is expected to average 13.4 cfs. 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
where Q = total stream power (ft-lb/s-ft), p = density of water (Ib/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.
Rocky Top Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 16
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

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:
T=y Rs
where T = 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:
Tmax = 1.5T
for sinuous channels, the maximum shear stress can be determined as a function of plan form
characteristics:
Tmax = 2.65T(Rc /Wbkf)-0.5
where Rc = radius of curvature (ft) and Wbkf = bankfull width (ft).
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:
w = p gQs = Tv
where w = stream power per unit of bed area (N/ft-sec, Joules/sec/ft2), T = shear stress, and v
average velocity (ft/sec). Similarly,
w = S2/Wbkf
Rocky Top Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 17
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

where Wbkf = width of stream at bankfull (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.
Table 10. Stream Power (i2) and Shear Stress (c) Values
Water Total
Shear
Discharge
surface Stream
Hydraulic
Hydraulic
Velocity
Bank/Reference Site
3
.01W
i v
imaz
(ft /s)
Slope Power
Radius
(V)
()
(ft/ft) 42)
Existing Conditions
UT 1
12.9
0.0431 34.69 3.58
1.69
4.55
0.71
3.24
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
12.9
0.0256 20.61 2.94
0.44
0.70
3.69
2.58
5.06
Results of the analysis indicate the proposed channel reaches will maintain stream power as a
function of width values (KYW) of approximately 2.94 and shear stress (i) values of approximately
Rocky Top Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 18
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

0.7 (ranging between Cedarock and Causey Farms reference reaches). Shear stress values of the
existing reach measures 4.55, which is significantly higher than reference and proposed values.
Stream power and shear stress of the proposed channels are considered stable, while transporting
sediment and are significantly lower than the existing, degraded stream channels at the Site.
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).
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 bankf ill.
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.
(Remainder of page intentionally left blank)
Rocky Top Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 19
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

Table 11. Reference Reach Bankfull Discharge Analysis
Watershed Area
Return Interval
Discharge
Method
(square miles)
(years)
(cfs)
Cedarock Reference Reach
Piedmont Regional Curves
0.2
1.3-1.5
28.8
(Harman et at. 1999)
Peidmont Regional Regression Model
0.2
(USGS 2006)
1.3-1.5
27-36
Field Indicators of Bankfull 0.2
1.3-1.5
31.3
Causey Farm Reference Reach
Piedmont Regional Curves
0.6
(Harman et al. 1999)
1.3-1.5
63.8
Peidmont Regional Regression Model
0.6
(USGS 2006)
1.3-1.5
63-85
Field Indicators of Bankfull 0.6
1.3-1.5
59.8
Cripple Creek Reference Reach
Piedmont Regional Curves
0.17
(Harman et al. 1999)
1.3-1.5
24.8
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
(USGS 2006)
1.3-1.5
38-68
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
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 were identified at the Site
Rocky Top Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 20
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

8.1 SITE ACCESS
The Site is to be accessed from Major Hill Road (SR 2348). 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.
8.3 FEMA/HYDROLOGIC TRESPASS
FEMA mapping was reviewed to determine if the Site is located in a FEMA study area (DFIRM
panel number 8787). 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).
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.
Rocky Top Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 21
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

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.
Table 13. Reach -by -Reach Credit Determination Summary
Stream Mitigation Final
Mitigation
Mitigation
Reach Activity Length/Area
Ratio
Credits
UT 1 Station 00+00 to
EII 443
2.5:1
177.2
04+43
UT 1 Station 04+43 to
Restoration 585
1:1
585
10+28
UT 2 Station 00+00 to
Restoration 245
1:1
245
02+45
Table 14. Mitigation Activity and Credit Determination Summary
Proposed Mitigation
Proposed Credits
Proposed Mitigation Streams Wetlands
Mitigation
WM
Activity (linear feet) (acres)
Ratio
SMUS Us
Stream Restoration 830
1:1
830
Stream Enhancement 1
1.5:1
Stream Enhancement Il 443
2.5:1
177.2
Wetland Restoration 0.2
1:1
0.2
Wetland Enhancement 0.3
2:1
0.15
Totals 1,273 0.5
1,007.2 0.35
Rocky Top Bank Site Mitigation Plan
page 22
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Restoration Systems, LLC

Mitigation Activities outlined in this report result in stream and wetland mitigation units as
presented in Tables 13 and 14.
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.
(Remainder ofpage intentionally left blank)
Rocky Top Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 23
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

Table 15. Stream Credit Release Schedule
Milestones
Tasks
Release (%)
Credits
1)
Approval of this Bank Site Mitigation Plan;
2)
Delivery of financial assurances;
Rocky Top
3)
Issuance of §404 permit for Site work plan;
4)
Recordation of conservation easements protecting Site
15
151
Establishment
_ vment to N, ----
hold, mige ;
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 livestock
15
151
Implementation
exclusion, if required;
4)
Approval of As -Built Survey by the Corps.
Year 1
1)
Channels are stable;
2)
Interim Performance Standards met;
10
101
Monitoring
3)
Approval of Monitoring Report by the Corps.
Year 2
1)
Channels are stable;
2)
Interim Performance Standards met;
10
101
Monitoring
3)
Approval of Monitoring Report by the Corps.
1)
Two bankfull events occurring in separate years;
Bankfull Events
2)
Channels are stable;
5
50
3)
Interim Performance Standards met.
Year 3
1)
Channels are stable;
2)
Interim Performance Standards met;
10
50
Monitoring
3)
Approval of Monitoring Report by the Corps.
Year 4
1)
Visual Assessment;
2)
Interim Performance Standards met;
5
101
Monitoring
3)
Approval of Monitoring Report by the Corps.
1)
Four bankfull events occurring in separate years;
Bankfull Events
2)
Channels are stable;
5
50
4)
Interim Performance Standards met.
Year 5
1)
Channels are stable;
2)
Interim Performance Standards met;
10
101
Monitoring*
3)
Approval of Monitoring Report by the Corps.
Year
1)
Visual Assessment;
2)
Interim Performance Standards met;
5
50
Monitoring
3)
Approval of Monitoring Report by the Corps.
Year 7
1)
Stream Performance Standards met;
2)
Vegetation Performance Standards met;
10
101
Monitoring
3)
Approval of Final Monitoring Report by the Corps-
-- Deleted: _ ,,, l
Totals
100
1,007
*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.
Rocky Top 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)
Execution of this Agreement;
2)
Delivery of financial assurances;
3)
Issuance of §404 permit for Site work plan;
Site Establishment
4)
Recordation of conservation easements protecting
15
Site, x10 payment to NCWHF as
r and long-term manager;
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.
Year I Monitoring
1)
Interim Performance Standards met;
10
2)
Approval of Monitoring Report by the Corps.
Year 2 Monitoring
1)
Interim Performance Standards met;
10
2)
Approval of Monitoring Report by the Corps.
I )
Interim Performance Standards met;
Year 3 Monitoring
2)
Approval of Monitoring Report by the Corps.
10
1)
Visual Assessment;
Year 4 Monitoring
2)
Interim Performance Standards met;
10
3)
Approval of Monitoring Report by the Corps.
Year 5 Monitoring*
1)
Interim Performance Standards met;
10
2)
Approval of Monitoring Report by the Corps.
1)
Visual Assessment;
Year 6 Monitoring
2)
Interim Performance Standards met;
10
3)
Approval of Monitoring Report by the Corps.
Year 7 Monitoring**
1)
Final Performance Standards met;
10
2)
Approval of Monitoring Report by the Corps
Totals
100
*Hydrologic monitoring maybe 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.
Rocky Top 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), Targeted
Local Watershed (TLW) 03030002050050 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 Restorationand 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 1,007 SNWs by the following.
o Restoring approximately 830 linear feet of perennial stream channel through
construction of stable stream channels in the historic floodplain location and elevation;
o Enhancing (level I1) approximately 443 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 0.35 )VWs by the following.
o Restoring approximately 0.2 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 0.3 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).
Table 17. Anticipated Construction Timing
and Sequencing
Task
Days Required
Start Date
Permitting
45-60
2/l/7
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
Mobilization
10
0/1/2017
Earthwork
90
jl /tel 2018
Planting
10/11/
As -built
15
6/2018.
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
Rocky Top Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 26
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC
Deleted: 11
Deleted: 2016
Deleted: 1
Deleted: 4/
Deleted: 2017
Deleted: 4
Deleted: 2017
Deleted: 5/
Deleted: 2017

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 Figure 6 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.
Streams I Wetlands
Site Name Restoration Enhance (I) Enhance (II) Total Restoration Enhance Total
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ac) (ac) (ac)
Rocky Top 830 443 1,273 I 0.2 0.3 0.5
iC7:61[1917_111101:1
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 C4, Appendix
C). Generalized grading plans, including elevations, are provided in Figure 6. 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.
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
Rocky Top Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 27
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

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.
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 the Site.
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 813). 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 II
Stream Enhancement Level II 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.
Rocky Top Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 28
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

10.5 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 0.2 acre of jurisdictional riparian floodplain wetlands. An
additional 0.3 acres of jurisdictional riparian wetlands will be enhanced within the Site by planting
cleared wetlands with native forest vegetation and removing livestock or other agricultural
activities.
10.5.1 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 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 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.
Rocky Top Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 29
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

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 area.
10.6 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.
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's 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.
10.7 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 bankfall flow and
overbank flood events. During construction activities, care will be taken to avoid removal of high
value trees within the easement. 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.
Rocky Top Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 30
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

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
Plans 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.
Rocky Top Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 31
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

Table 19. Planting Plan
Vegetation Association
Piedmont/Low Mountain
Alluvial Forest*
Dry-Mesic Oak -Hickory
Forest*
Marsh Treatment
Wetland**
Stream -side
Assemblage**
TOTAL
Area (acres)
0.4
3.7
0.1
0.9
5.1
Species
#planted*
% of total
#planted* %
of total
# lanted**
% of total
# lanted**
% of total
# planted
Tag alder (Alnus serrulata)
27
10
122
5
149
River birch (Betula nigra)
27
10
122
5
149
Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana)
502
20
502
Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis)
--
--
--
--
55
20
--
--
55
Red bud (Cercis canadensis)
378
15
378
Sweet p e erbush (Clethm alnifolia)
--
--
--
--
41
15
--
--
41
Silky dogwood (Cornus amomum)
27
10
41
15
490
20
558
Persimmon (Diospyros vir imana)
--
--
252
10
--
--
--
--
252
White ash (Fraxinus americana)
126
5
126
Green ash(Fraxinuspennsylvanica)
54
20
490
20
544
Blueberry (Vaccinum corymbosum)
--
--
--
--
27
10
--
--
27
Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tult ifera)
27
10
--
--
--
--
--
--
27
Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)
54
20
490
20
544
Black gum (Nyssa sylvatica)
--
--
378
15
--
--
--
--
378
Water oak (Quercus nigra)
41
15
502
20
245
10
788
Willow oak (Quercus phellos)
41
15
378
15
245
10
664
Black willow (Salix nigra)
--
--
--
--
--
--
245
10 1
245
Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis)
55
20
55
Possumhaw (Viburnum nudum)
27
10
27
TOTAL
271
100
2516
100
273
100
2449
100
5,509
* Planted at a density of 680 stems/acre.
** Planted at a density of 2720 stems/acre.
Rocky Top Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 32
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

10.8 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.
10.9 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 REQUIRMENTS
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 year 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
Rocky Top 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 Site.
Table 20. Functional Goal/Objectives and Performance Standards
Functional Goals/Objectives I Performance Standards and Monitoring
(4)Microtopography Removal of cattle, and attaining Vegetation Success Criteria
(Section 11.3.1).
(3) Stream Stability
Attaining Wetland and Vegetation Success Criteria (Sections
Cross-sections, monitored annually, will be compared to as -
(4) Channel Stability
(2) Indicators of Stressors
built measurements to document channel stability and
(4) Sediment Transport
avoided.
maintenance of channel geomorphology (Section 11.1.1).
(2) Surface Storage and Retention
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
Four overbank events in separate monitoring years, and
(2) Physical Structure
maintenance of channel geomorphology and attaining
attaining Wetland and Vegetation Success Criteria (Sections
(2) Subsurface Storage and Retention
(2) Pathogen Change
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
(3) In -stream Habitat
avoided.
(2) Stream -side Habitat
Cross-sections, monitored annually, will be compared to as -
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
built measurements to document channel stability and
(2) Physical Structure
maintenance of channel geomorphology and attaining
Vegetation Success Criteria (Sections 11.1.1 and 113.1).
(2) Pathogen Change
Success Criteria (Section 11.3. 1)
(2) Particulate Change
Removal of cattle, documentation of four overbank events in
separate monitoring years, and attaining Wetland and
(2) Soluble Change
Vegetation Success Criteria (Sections 11.2.1 and 11.3.1)
(2) Physical Change
(1) Habitat
(2) In -stream Habitat
Cross-sections, monitored annually, will be compared to as -
(3) Substrate
built measurements to document channel stability and
(3) Stream Stability
maintenance of channel geomorphology and attaining
(3) In -stream Habitat
Vegetation Success Criteria (Sections 11.1.1 and 11.3.1).
(2) Stream -side Habitat
Attaining Vegetation Success Criteria (Section 11.3. 1)
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
Attaining Vegetation Success Criteria (Section 11.3. 1)
(2) Vegetative Composition
(Remainder of page intentionally left blank)
Rocky Top Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 34
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC
Formatted Table
-- Formatted Table

Table 21. Monitoring Schedule
Resource Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
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 bankfull-widths, measured along the
thalweg, along every reach where Stream Restoration mitigation activities are utilized. In general,
cross-section locations should be selected to equally represent pool and riffle areas and should
include areas more likelyto exhibit instabili Cross-section locations shall be detailed in the Site ""- Deleted: The sponsor, through its assigns, may exercise discretion
instability. -
as -built survey. in determining the placement and frequency of cross-sections, which
shall be determined by best professional judgment.
Wolman Pebble Counts shall be conducted annually at a representative subset of cross-sections
for the Site, spaced approximately 1000 linear feet apart, as measured along the thalweg, for longer
Stream Aestoration reaches. For shorter Stream Aestoration reaches, at a minimum, at least one Deleted: Restorationreaches.
Wolman Pebble Count shall be conducted on each channel of at least 500 linear feet in length. Deleted: Restoratiomeaches
Longitudinal profiles of thalweg, water surface, bankfull, and top -of -bank of each Stream
Restoration 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 USAGE, 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.
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, includes == Deleted:
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 bankfull 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
routinely. Each bankfull monitoring event may be reported separately to the USACE from annual
monitoring reports.
J1 1.1.1 Stream Success Criteria ---------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- - Deleted: _
eQtream success will be documented with measurements of stream stability includingbank-height- Deleted: Stream success will be based on evaluations of functional
�' ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- �-_--------- --- -- —----------:--- g---- uplift Identified on NC SAM calculations.
ratio and entrenchment ratio. Specifically, bank -height -ratios shall not exceed 1.2 in regions of
Rocky Top Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 35
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

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.
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.
IRT review of the Site didn't identify specific reaches for further study of flow regime (30
consecutive days of flow) and no surface flow gauges/cameras were requested to be installed.
However, an ordinary high watermark is expected to be identifiable in all streams for success
criteria to be met in each monitoring year.
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 date for the growing season is 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. For wetland
success criteria, March 1 shall be the earliest a growing season may start. Confirmation of the
growing season must be accompanied by evidence of biological activity (bud burst and soil
temperature). The growing season will not be considered to have started on March 1 if bud burst
and soil temperature data do not meet the criteria outlined below.
Based on growing season information outlined in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region (USACE
2012), 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
woody plants, and/or emergence of flowers. Bud burst, or "above ground growth" is expected to
Rocky Top Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 36
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

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 1 -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 CYS-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 E1 (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.
Rocky Top 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 & 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 are not 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 a 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 Migration
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
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.
Rocky Top Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 38
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

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
Boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction between the Site and adjacent
properties. Boundaries may be identified by marker, bollard, ox_post as_allowed by Site conditions Deleted- fence,
and/or conservation easement. Disturbed, damaged, or destroyed boundary markers will be Deleted: , tree -blazing, or other means
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 has requested, and the Sponsor has agreed to provide, twenty thousand
Deleted: NCWHF maintains an endowment for the purpose of
._---
($20,000) dollars at the conservation easement's closing to hold the Site's easement.
monitoring dna enforcement conservation easements it bolas
("General Stewardship Fund"). NCWHF will require done -time
).
contribution from the Sponsor to NCWHF's General Stewardship
In addition to servingas the conservation easement older, NCWHF will also be responsible for
___p--------------____-,
Fund sufficient to support NCWHF's responsibilities under the
Site's conservation easements, payable at time of easement closing
long-term management of the Site per the requirements of the Bank UMBI and this Bank Site
-- Deleted: stewardship
Mitigation Plan. As the Site has been designed to be self-sustaining, the Site's long-term
management activities will be limited to routine boundary inspections and, when necessary,
marking Site boundaries to ensure clear identification of conservation areas.l _Per their .,.-
Deleted: - z
responsibilities as the Site's easement holder, NCWHF will inspect boundaries annually to monitor
for encroachment. During these inspections, as the Site's long-term manager, the condition of
t 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 landowne; which will be clearly set out in the Site's final conservation easement. - Deleted: .
Therefore, fencing/crossing maintenance and/or replacement is not part of the Site's Long-term Management Plan.
Rocky Top Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 39
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

boundary markings (i.e., signs) will be noted and replaced as needed. The Sponsor has agreed to
provide to NCWHF an additional five thousand ($5,000) dollars at the conservation easement
closing to fund the Site's long-term management.
For the purposes of calculating the 4mount required to fund long-term management (see Appendix = - Deleted: Long-term Management Fund (
Fj the following assumptions and inputs were used: 1) during the implementation of this Bank ---- Deleted:)
Site Mitigation Plan, fifty (50) signs will be installed and an additional fifty (50) replacement signs
will be purchased by the Sponsors 2) these signs have a 50-year__life; _ however, complete --- Deleted: at no cost to the Long-term Management Fund
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 revenues generated from the $20,000 required for easement holding (discussed above) tpp�� Deleted: their General stewardship Fund
inspect boundaries, additional funds were included to ensure completion of boundary inspection 9II
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 USAGE a Record Drawing of corrective actions that depict the extent and nature of the work
performed.
15.0 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
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 UMBI. Such assurances shall
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 aperformance bond in a form substantially similar -- Deleted: either
to the draft provided in Appendix G underwritten byasurety company licensed to do business in -- — Deleted: F
North Carolina with a Best's current rating of not less than "A. The total value of such bond shall
be one hundred twenty nine thousand eight hundred dollars ($129,800.00).
Rocky Top Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 40
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

Number: 1 Author: K7RG9TT9 Subject: Highlight Date: 2/24/2017 9:09:01 AM
For consistency with other plans, should have a paragraph following this sentence that states: "In support of NCWHF as the Site's easement
holder and long-term manager, the Sponsor will provide a lump sum payment of twenty-five thousand ($25,000) dollars to NCWHF at the time of
conservation easement closing, prior to the Site's initial credit release. This payment includes funds to support NCWHF's role as the easement
holder ($20,000) and additional funds to support
long-term management ($5,000)."

15.2 MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING ASSURANCE
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 _q._ The total value of such bond shall be twenty seven thousand five -.--- Deleted: F
hundred dollars ($27,500).
- -- -- ---- --------------------------------- ...............
15.3 OTHER FINANCIAL ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Financial,4ssurances shall be payable to the Site's easement holder and financial assurance obligee, ...- Deleted: assurance
- - - --
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 Rocky Top Bank Site Mitigation Plan under the terms and conditions of
the Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank will result in the ecological improvement of 1,273
linear feet of stream and 0.5 acre of wetland. The Site has the potential to provide 1,007.2 SMUs
and 0.35 WMUs through the restoration, enhancement, and permanent protection of 5 -acres
surrounding several currently impacted streams and wetlands in Alamance County, North
Carolina.
Rocky Top 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. Omernik, J.A. Comstock, M.P. Schafale, W.H. McNab, D.R. Lenat, T.F.
MacPherson, J.B. Glover, and V.B. Shelboume. 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-b382-4b5 8-97ed-
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.
Rocky Top 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://por-tal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=28b97405-5 5 da-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&groupld=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-8ed9-
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
(USAGE et al.). 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines.
Unites States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE). 2010. Interim 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/gfd/states/37000.html
Rocky Top 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.
Rocky Top Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 44
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

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

APPENDIX B
BANK SITE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
Rocky Top Bank Site Mitigation Plan Appendix
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

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

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

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

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

Page 24: [1] Deleted Adam Riggsbee 2/7/17 10:36:00 AM
Proof of establishment and full funding of Long-term Management Fund.
Page 39: [2] Deleted Adam Riggsbee 2/7/171 AM
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).

DRAFT BANK SITE MITIGATION PLAN
CAPE FEAR 02 UMBRELLA MITIGATION BANK
DEVELOPED THROUGH
RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT OF THE
ORPHAN CREEK BANK SITE
Alamance County, North Carolina
Axiom Environmental, Inc
PREPARED BY:
RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC
1101 HAYNES STREET, SUITE 211
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27604
AND
AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
218 SNOW AVENUE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27603
YEBRUARY 2017--- Deleted: OCTOBER 2016
____- —Section Break (Continuous)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Restoration Systems, LLC proposes the Orphan 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 Orphan Creek Bank Site (hereafter referred
to as the "Site"), located approximately 2 miles north of Saxapahaw, NC and 7 miles southeast of
Graham, NC. The Orphan Creek Site encompasses 7 acres of land located 2,000 feet north of the
intersection of Payne Road and Salem Church Road (Figure 3).
Directions to the Site from Saxapahaw are as follows.
From Saxapahaw
From Church Rd. and Jordan Dr. intersection, go north on Jordan Dr. — 0.1 mile
Jordan Dr. becomes Saxapahaw Bethlehem Church Rd. — 1.8 miles
Turn right on Payne Rd. — 0.7 mile
Site is on left; access site using driveway to barn and agriculture fields.
Site Coordinates: 35.978992, -79.315216
The Site is characterized by hay fields and livestock pasture. Livestock have unrestricted access
to the Site's streams. A narrow riparian fringe has developed on the stream margins composed of
opportunistic species and a few mature trees. Currently, the Site includes approximately 2,554
linear feet of perennial and intermittent stream channels, which are accessible by livestock, cleared
of forest vegetation, deeply incised, and receive nonpoint source inputs including livestock waste.
In addition, Site floodplains are characterized by 0.1 acre of hydric soil/jurisdictional wetland.
Jurisdictional wetlands are contained within the stream banks that have been widened by hoof
shear and are characterized by near permanent saturation from stream hydrology. The main
hydrologic features include four unnamed tributaries (UT) to Meadow Creek, and adjacent
floodplains.
Existing Site reaches are classified as unstable G -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.
Stream and wetland mitigation activities at the Site involve Stream Restoration, Stream
Enhancement (Level I), and Wetland Enhancement. Stream Mitigation is expected to result in
approximately 2,615 linear feet of stream channel and will generate 2,420 Stream Mitigation Units.
Overall, & implementation of this Bank Site Mitigation Plan will result in the temporaryloss ofDeleted: wetland
0.02 acre of jurisdictional wetland. However, this loss will be more than offset by - the - re -wetting Deleted: The net loss results from a stream crossing to be
------------------------------------------------set-------------------- -
of floodplain hydric soils following channel restoration. The overall uplift in the existing onsite installed at the upper reaches of UT 2.
wetlands will result in 0.1 acre of Wetland Enhancement and 0.05 Riparian Wetland Mitigation
Units.
Deleted:
Orphan Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan Table of Contents page i
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................................I
1.0 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................1
2.0 0 JECTIVES............................................................................................................................2
2.1 SITE SPECIFIC MITIGATION GOALS..............................................................................................3
3.0 WATERSHED APPROACH.......................................................................................................7
3.1 ANK SITE SELECTION..............................................................................................................7
4.0 ANK SITE PROTECTION........................................................................................................9
5.0 REFERENCE STUDIES..............................................................................................................9
5.1 CHANNEL CLASSIFICATION........................................................................................................9
5.2 REFERENCE FOREST ECOSYSTEM..............................................................................................11
6.0 ASELINE INFORMATION....................................................................................................11
6.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS...........................................................................................................12
7.0 CHANNELSTA ILITYASSESSMENT......................................................................................16
7.1 STREAM POWER...................................................................................................................16
7.2 SHEAR STRESS......................................................................................................................17
7.3 STREAM POWER AND SHEAR STRESS METHODS AND RESULTS........................................................18
7.4 ANKFULL VERIFICATION........................................................................................................19
8.0 POTENTIAL CONSTRAINTS...................................................................................................20
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............................................................................................................21
9.0 CREDIT DETERMINATION AND RELEASE..............................................................................22
9.1 CREDIT DETERMINATION........................................................................................................22
9.2 STREAM CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE..........................................................................................23
9.3 WETLAND CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE......................................................................................25
10.0 MITIGATION WORK PLAN..................................................................................................26
10.1 RESTORATION PROJECT GOALS AND 0 JECTIVES.......................................................................26
10.2 STREAM AND WETLAND DESIGN............................................................................................26
10.3 STREAM RESTORATION........................................................................................................27
10.4 STREAM ENHANCEMENT LEVEL I............................................................................................2_9 _ Deleted: 28
10.5 WETLAND RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT..........................................................................29
10.6 PLANT COMMUNITY RESTORATION.........................................................................................330 Deleted: 29
10.7 PLANTING PLAN.................................................................................................................30
10.8 NUISANCE SPECIES MANAGEMENT......................................................................................... -_"- Deleted: 32
10.9 SOIL MANAGEMET AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURES..............................................................333 _ Deleted: 32
11.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND MONITORING REQUIRMENTS..................................... A --------- Deleted: 32
11.1 STREAMS.......................................................................................................................... 335�__ ---- Deleted: 34
11.2 WETLANDS........................................................................................................................ - - Deleted: 35
11.3 VEGETATION...................................................................................................................... --------" f Deleted: 35
11.4
12.0
12.1
12.2
MACROINVERTE RATES........................................................................................................336 --
MAINTENANCE AND CONTINGENCY PLAN........................................................................3-"_
VEGETATION...................................................................................................................... �37-
STREAMS.......................................................................................................................... 37
Orphan Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan Table of Contents page ii
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

12.3
12.4
13.0
14.0
15.0
15.1
15.2
15.3
16.0
17.0
SITEOUNDARIES...............................................................................................................3
Site Locations Map
TERRACELL DROP STRUCTURES..............................................................................................
38 .,-..-
LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN...................................................................................3�__
----
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN.......................................................................................3�__-
Topography and Drainage Area
FINANCIAL ASSURANCES ...................................................................................................39
_--'
IMPLEMENTATION ASSURANCE..............................................................................................A
"-
MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING ASSURANCE
........................................................................4�0
OTHER FINANCIAL ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
........................................................................4A
CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................................................49
REFERENCES......................................................................................................................4L
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Jurisdictional 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
L[gure 1.
Site Locations Map
Figure 2.
Bank Hydrologic Unit Map
Figure 3.
Orphan 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. Orphan Creek Cross-section Locations
Figure E1. Orphan Creek Benthic Sampling Locations
Orphan Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan Table of Contents page iii
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

Page: 75
i Number: 1 Author: K7RGLDEB Subject: Comment on Text Date: 2/13/2017 3:20:06 PM
In final submission, need to see updated figures ensuring that the titles say "Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank"

LIST OF TABLES
Table1.
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
Table3A.
NC SAM......................................................................................................................................4
Table3B.
NC WAM.....................................................................................................................................5
Table 3C.
Project Goals and Objectives.......................................................................................................6
Table 3D.
Mitigation Activities and Credit Potential Summary ...................................................................7
Table 4.
Population Growth in Cape Fear 02...............................................................................................8
Table5.
Watershed Stressors........................................................................................................................9
Table 6.
Reference Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area....................................................................................10
Table 7.
Reference Forest Ecosystem.........................................................................................................
l l
Table8.
Soils..............................................................................................................................................14
Table 9.
Existing Stream Characteristics....................................................................................................15
Table 10.
Stream Power (S2) and Shear Stress (i) Values...........................................................................19
Table 11.
Reference Reach Bankfull Discharge Analysis..........................................................................20
Table 12.
Federal Species of Concern ........................................................................................................22
Table 13.
Mitigation Reach -by -Reach Credit Determination Summary ....................................................22
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.
Construction Time Frame...........................................................................................................26
Table18.
Mitigation Totals.........................................................................................................................27
Table 19. Orphan Creek Planting Plan ......................................................................................................._ Deleted: 31
Table 20. Metric Monitoring and Success Criteria..................................................................................... ._ Deleted: 33
Table C -Reference. Reference Reach Morphological Stream Characteristics ........................... Appendix C
Table Cl. Orphan Creek Morphological Stream Characteristics............................................... Appendix C
Orphan Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan Table of Contents page iv
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
ORPHAN CREEK BANK SITE
Alamance County, North Carolina
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Restoration Systems, LLC (the Sponsor) is pleased to propose the Orphan 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 2 miles north of Saxapahaw and 7 miles
southeast of Graham. The Orphan Creek Site encompasses 7 acres of land located 2,000 feet north
of the intersection of Payne Road and Salem Church Road (Figure 3).
Directions to the Site from Saxapahaw are as follows.
From Saxapahaw
From Church Rd. and Jordan Dr. intersection, go north on Jordan Dr. — 0.1 mile
Jordan Dr. becomes Saxapahaw Bethlehem Church Rd. — 1.8 miles
Turn right on Payne Rd. — 0.7 mile
Site is on left; access site using driveway to barn and agriculture fields.
Site Coordinates: 35.978992, -79.315216
The Site is characterized by hay fields and livestock pasture. Livestock have unrestricted access
to the Site's streams. A narrow riparian fringe has developed on the stream margins composed of
opportunistic species and a few mature trees. Currently, the Site includes approximately 2,554
linear feet of perennial and intermittent stream channels, which are accessible by livestock, cleared
of forest vegetation, deeply incised, and receive nonpoint source inputs including livestock waste.
In addition, Site floodplains are characterized by 0.1 acre of hydric soil/jurisdictional wetland.
Jurisdictional wetlands are contained within the stream banks that have been widened by hoof
shear and are characterized by near permanent saturation from stream hydrology. The main
hydrologic features include four unnamed tributaries (UT) to Meadow Creek, and adjacent
floodplains.
Existing Site reaches are classified as unstable G -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.
Stream and wetland mitigation activities at the Site involve Stream Restoration, Stream
Enhancement (Level I), and Wetland Enhancement. Stream Mitigation is expected to result in
approximately 2,615 linear feet of stream channel and will generate 2,420 Stream Mitigation Units.
Overall, the implementation of this Bank Site Mitigation Plan will result in the temporary loss of = Deleted: wend
0.02 acre of jurisdictional wetland. Powever, this loss will be more than offset by the re -wetting = Deleted: The net loss results from a stream crossing no be
of hydric floodplain soil following channel restoration. The overall uplift in the existing onsite installed at the upper reaches of UT 2.
Orphan Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page I
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

wetlands will result in 0.1 acre of Wetland Enhancement and 0.05 Riparian Wetland Mitigation
Units. Temporary wetland losses will be addressed during the Site's permitting process.
Table 1. Orphan Creek Bank Site Credit Summary
Hydro Mitigation Activities Wetland Credit Potential Stream Credit Potential
Status* (WMUs) (SMUs)
Perennial/ Restoration,
0.05 2,420
Intermittent* Enhancement
*Note: Perennial and intermittent stream calls have not been approved by the NC Division of Water Resources and
hydrologic status is for descriptive purposes only.
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, 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. Hvdrological Functional Obiectives 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 bankfidl
discharges and watershed sediment supplies
Sediment Transport
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 ofpage intentionally left blank)
Orphan Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 2
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

Table 2B. Water Quality Functional Objectives and Proposed Actions
Water Quality Improvement Objectives
Proposed Actions
Cattle exclusion and/or cessation of agricultural
Remove Pollutant Sources
practices
Plant woody riparian buffers; construct marsh
Upland Pollutant Filtration
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 WAM rating calculator. Functional metrics have been developed by
regulatory agencies and are summarized in the Tables 3A and 3B. Site functional assessment data
forms are included in Appendix A (JD Package).
Orphan 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. Orphan Creek Bank Site NC SAM Summary
NC SAM Function Class Rating Summary
UT 1
UT 3
(1) HYDROLOGY
LOW
LOW
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
LOW
LOW
(4) Floodplain Access
LOW
MEDIUM
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
LOW
LOW
(4) Microtopography
NA
NA
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
MEDIUM
(4) Channel Stability
LOW
HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport
LOW
LOW
(4) Stream Geomorophology
LOW
MEDIUM
(1) WATER QUALITY
MEDIUM
LOW
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Stream -side Area Vegetation
LOW
LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
LOW
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors
YES
YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerence
HIGH
MEDIUM
(1) HABITAT
LOW
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
LOW
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Substrate
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
HIGH
(3) In -Stream Habitat
LOW
LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
LOW
OVERALL
LOW
LOW
(Remainder ofpage intentionally left blank)
Orphan Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 4
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

Table 3B. Orphan Creek NC WAM Summary
NC WAM Sub -function Rating Summary
UT1,3
Wetland Type
HF
Wetland ID
GA,GB
(1)HYDROLOGY
LOW
(2) Surface Storage & Retention
LOW
(2) Sub -surface Storage and Retention
LOW
(1) WATER QUALITY
LOW
(2) Pathogen change
LOW
(2) Particulate Change
LOW
(2) Soluble change
HIGH
(2) Physical Change
LOW
(1) HABITAT
LOW
(2) Physical Structure
LOW
(2) Landscape Patch Structure
LOW
(2) Vegetative Composition
LOW
OVERALL
LOW
Wetland Type - HF (Hardwood Forest)
Wetland ID - See JD mapping for locations of Wetlands
(Remainder ofpage intentionally left blank)
Orphan Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 5
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

Table 3C. Functional Goals/Objectives and Corres ondin Mitigation Work Plan Components
Functional Goals/Objectives Mitigation Work Plan Components
(1) Hvdroloev
(2) Flood Flow
Building a stable channel with a cobble/gravel bed and planting a woody
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Building a new channel at the historic floodplain elevation to restore
(3) Substrate
overbank flows
(4) Floodplain Access
move appropriate sediment loads; stabilizing channel banks; and
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
Planting a native, woody riparian buffer
(3) Stream Stability
Planting a woody riparian buffer
(4) Channel Stability
Providing proper channel width, depth, pattern, and profile to adequately
(4) Sediment Transport
move appropriate sediment loads; stabilizing channel banks; providing
(2) Landscape Patch Structure
gravel/cobble substrate; and planting a woody riparian buffer
(4) Stream Geomorphology
passage
(2) Vegetative Composition
Building a new channel at the historic floodplain elevation restoring
(2) Surface Storage and Retention
overbank flows, removing cattle, scarifying compacted soils, and
planting woody vegetation
(2) Subsurface Storage and Retention
Removing cattle, ripping compacted soils, and planting a woody riparian
buffer
(2) Stream -side Area Vegetation
Pollutant Filtration
Water
Removing cattle, planting a native woody riparian buffer
(2) Indicators of Stressors I Removing cattle and other agricultural inputs
(2) Pathogen Change Raising the stream bed elevation, restoring overbank flows, planting with
(2) Particulate Change woody vegetation, removing cattle, increasing surface storage and
retention, and restoring appropriate inundation/duration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-gtream Habitat
Building a stable channel with a cobble/gravel bed and planting a woody
riparian buffer
(3) Substrate
Providing proper channel width, depth, pattern, and profile to adequately
(3) Stream Stability
move appropriate sediment loads; stabilizing channel banks; and
(3) In -stream Habitat
providing gravel/cobble substrate
(2) Stream -side Habitat
Planting a woody riparian buffer
(2) Physical Structure
Building a stable channel with a cobble/gravel bed and planting a woody
riparian buffer
(2) Landscape Patch Structure
Provide wooded, riparian corridors through agricultural areas for wildlife
passage
(2) Vegetative Composition
Planting a woody riparian buffer
(Remainder of page intentionally left blank)
Orphan 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
Proposed Mitigation
Credit
Potential
Streams
Streams
Non -Credit
Wetlands
Mitigation
Mitigation Activity
(linear feet)
Generating
(acres)
Ratio
SMUs
WI Formatted Table
Stream Restoration
2,180
50
1:1
2,130
Stream Enhancement I
435
1.5:1
290
Stream Enhancement II
2.5:1
Wetland Restoration
1:1
Wetland Enhancement
0.10
2:1
0.05
Totals
2,615
0.10
2,420
0.05
3.0 WATERSHED APPROACH
3.1 BANK 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, and have been trampled by livestock
• Streams and wetlands have been cleared of forest vegetation
• Streams are deeply incised and widened by hoof shear, and exhibit bank failure
Orphan Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 7
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

• Stream channels have been straightened
• Site receives nonpoint source inputs from livestock
• Streams are classified as nutrient sensitive waters and are located in a water supply
watershed (WS -V)
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. Pouulation Growth in Cane 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
Totals
942,718
1,104,430
17
*Some portions of Durham (city) and Durham County are
located in the Neuse River basin.
located in the Cape Fear 02; the majority of these areas are
The Site is located within the Cape Fear 02 14UC 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
Orphan Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 8
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

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 their 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
Bank Site Subbasin Index # Receiving Water NCDWR Rating 303(d) status*
Orphan Creek 03-06-02 16-23 Meadow Cr WS -V, NSW NL
-Final 2012 303(d) status; NL = Not Listed
4.0 BANK SITE PROTECTION
The Site is currently owned by Mr. Jerry Williamson of Alamance County. The Sponsor possesses
an option agreement with Mr. Williamson 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 7 -acres of Mr. Williamson'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 Q. 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,
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
Orphan Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 9
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

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 Ffarm
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 0.0132 to
0.0286, 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.
Substrate: Reference channels are characterized by substrate dominated by cobble, gravel, and
sand sized particles.
Orphan Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 10
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

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
(Floodplains and Slopes) (Upland Side Slopes)
Canopy Species Understory Species Canopy Species Understory Species
Acer rubrum Acer rubrum Acer rubrum Acer rubrum
Liquidambar styracii lua Betula nigra Carya alba/tomentosa Carpinus caroliniana
Liriodendrum tulipifera Carpinus caroliniana Liriodendron tulipifera Diospyros virginiana
Pinus taeda Liriodendron tulipifera Panus 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
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.
Orphan Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 11
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

Channel Fvnlntinn
Nearly all of the Sites' streams are characterized by G -type (gully) 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 Unit 03030002050010 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 WS -V, NSW.
NCDWR Rating
WS -V streams are protected as water supplies that are generally upstream and draining to
Class WS -IV waters or waters used by industry to supply their employees with drinking
water or as waters formerly used as water supply. These waters are also protected for Class
C uses. Class C uses include 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 570 -feet NGVD at the upper reaches of UT IA to
a low of approximately 540 -feet NGVD at the Site outfall (USGS Saxapahaw, North Carolina 7.5 -
minute topographic quadrangle) (Figure 4).
Orphan Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 12
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

The Site provides water quality functions to an approximately 0.2 -square mile (127 -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.
Land use at the Site is characterized by hay fields and livestock pasture. Livestock have
unrestricted access to Site streams. A narrow riparian fringe has developed on the stream margins
composed of opportunistic species and a few mature trees (Figure 5).
6.1.2 Vegetation
The Site is comprised primarily of agricultural land, including pasture, hay fields, and some areas
of disturbed forest. Fields are dominated by fescue (Festuca sp.) with sparse natural recruits
including dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), nightshade (Solanum sp.), blackberry (Rubus
argutus), dandelion (Taraxacum sp.), as well as other opportunistic herbaceous species. Narrow
forest fringe adjacent to tributaries include Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), winged elm (Ulmus
alata), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), red maple (Acer rubrum),
Russian olive (Elaeganus angustifolia), eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), black walnut
(Juglans nigra), shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), sweetgum (Liquidambar styracii lua), and poison
ivy (Toxicodendron radicans).
6.1.3 Soils and Land Form
Based on web soil survey mapping (MRCS 2015), the Site contains four soil series (Figure 5 and
Table 8): Efland silt loam (Typic Hapludults), Local Alluvial Land, Orange silt loam (Albaquic
Hapludalfs), and Tirzah silt loam and silty clay loam (Typic Kanhapludults).
(Remainder ofpage intentionally left blank)
Orphan Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 13
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

Table 8. Orphan Creek Soils
MapUnit
Map Unit
Hydric
Description
Symbol
Name
Status*
Efland silt
This series consists of well -drained soils found along 2-6 percent
Ea132
loam
Non -hydric
slopes. This series is thin, can be associated with large rock outcrops,
and is derived from parent material of the Carolina slate belt.
Local
alluvial
This series consists of nearly level, poorly drained soils adjacent to
Lc
land,
Hydric
streams and sloughs. This series developed from alluvial sediments
poorly
washed from adjacent uplands and is not consistent in sequence,
drained
development, or arrangement of layers.
This series consists of moderately well -drained soils on smooth
ObB2
Orange
Non -hydric
uplands near or on the top of 2-6 percent slopes. This series
silt loam
developed from igneous and metamorphic parent materials and has
poor runoff and slow internal drainage.
Ta132,
Tirzah silt
The series consists of well -drained soils found on ridges and side
TaC2,
loam and
slopes. Slopes range from 2-6 percent for TaB2 (eroded), 6-10
TbC3,
silty clay
Non -hydric
percent for TaC2 (eroded) and TaC3 (severely eroded), and 10-15
TbD3
loam
percent for TbD3 (severely eroded). This series is derived from
parent material of the Carolina slate belt.
6.1.4 Jurisdictional Streams and Wetlands
The main hydrologic feature (UT I and UT 1) at the Site is mapped by USGS as intermittent;
UT 1 _BUT 2, and UT 3, are not mapped (Figure 4). On-site investigations, however, suggest all Deleted: and UT 4
channels are either perennial or intermittent, (note that perennial vs intermittent stream calls have Deleted:.
not been verified by NCDWR and all stream calls are for descriptive purposes only). Benthic
macroinvertebrate samples were collected in the upper reaches of the UT 1 and UT using the Deleted: 3
Qual-4 technique. The results indicate UT IA, UT k and UT 2 are perennial; and UTJB and UT _ Deleted: and UT 3 are perennial;
p �_'
3 are intermittent (Table 9). Deleted: 4
Perennial streams within the Site may be generally characterized as riverine, upper perennial with
unconsolidated bottoms consisting of sand (R3UB2). Intermittent streams may generally be
characterized as riverine, intermittent with streambeds consisting of sand and mud (R404).
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 2,554 linear feet of existing
stream channels proposed for mitigation (Table 9 and Figure 5).
(Remainder of page intentionally left blank)
Orphan Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 14
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

Table 9. Existing Stream Characteristics
Approx. Length USGS USGS Stream In-Field Stream
Stream Reach
(linear feet) Stream Order Classification Classification
UT 1c - 1,228 2°d Intermittent Perennial
Deleted: (Downstream)
UT A
264 lit Unmapped Perermral
_- Deleted:I
.-_-
- Deleted: (Upstream)
UT IAB 123 ls` Unmapped Intermittent
- Deleted:2
UT 382 Is` Unmapped Perennial--_.-"---
Deleted:3
UTJ 557 Vt - - - - Unmapped Intermittent
__ " Deleted: 4
Total 2,554
Livestock trampling within stream channels has resulted in jurisdictional wetland development at
the head of UT 1 A and UT �. Jurisdictional we are contained within the stream banks that
_ Deleted: t
have been widened by hoof shear of banerials. The in-el wetlands are characterized by
k matchannw
Deleted: 3
near permanent saturation from stream hydrology and are a loblolly. Site jurisdictional wetlands
are located in areas mapped by the NRCS as non-hydric soils and wetlands would not have
developed without mechanical interference from livestock intrusion into the stream channels.
Approximately 0. 10 acres of the Site is currently characterized by disturbed wetland, which have
been impacted by livestock trampling of the stream channel (Figure 5). In order to accurately
calculate pre-project wetland areas, a jurisdictional wetland delineation was completed in April
2015 and verbally approved by USACE representative David Bailey during a field meeting on July
24, 2015.
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 I (Appendix Q. Stream geometry measurements under existing
conditions are summarized in Table Cl Morphological Stream Characteristics (Appendix C).
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 Bank Site reaches are classified as unstable G -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.
Orphan Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 15
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

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 size at the Site outfall is
0.2 square mile.
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 0.2 -square mile watershed is expected to average 27.7 cfs. 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:
52 = pgQs
where Q = 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 (7 = 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.
Orphan Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 16
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

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:
T=y Rs
where T = 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:
Tmax = 1.5T
for sinuous channels, the maximum shear stress can be determined as a function of plan form
characteristics:
Tmax = 2.65T(Rc /Wbkf)-0.5
where Rc = radius of curvature (ft) and Wbkf = bankfull width (ft).
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:
w = p gQs = Tv
where w = stream power per unit of bed area (N/ft-sec, Joules/sec/ft2), T = shear stress, and v
average velocity (ft/sec). Similarly,
w = S2/Wbkf
Orphan Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 17
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

where Wbkf = width of stream at bankfull (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.
(Remainder ofpage intentionally left blank)
Orphan Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 18
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

Table 10. Stream Power (Q) and Shear Stress (t) Values
Water
Total
Shear
Discharge
surface
Stream
Hydraulic
Hydraulic
Velocity
Site
a
(ft /s)
Slope
Power
01W
Radius
(v)
i v
i�ax
(T)
(ft/ft)
Q)
Existing Conditions
UT 1 Downstream
25.7
0.0125
20.05
2.33
2.38
1.86
1.04
1.93
N/A
UT 1 Upstream
16.2
0.0172
17.39
2.23
4.64
4.98
0.39
1.93
N/A
UT 2
11
0.0198
13.59
1.53
2.70
3.34
0.40
1.35
N/A
UT 3
7.7
0.0283
13.60
2.43
0.91
1.61
1.24
2.00
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 downstream
25.7
0.0128
20.53
2.12
0.60
0.48
3.84
1.85
3.33
UT 1 Upstream
16.2
0.0173
17.49
2.24
0.48
0.52
3.77
1.94
3.58
UT 2/3
7.7
0.015
7.21
1.14
0.39
0.37
2.75
1.02
3.38
Results of the analysis indicate the proposed channel reaches are expected to maintain stream
power as a function of width values (Q/W) of approximately 1. 14 to 2.24 and shear stress (i) values
of approximately 0.37 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, dredged and straightened UT 1
(particularly upstream, steeper reaches) and UT 2 than for proposed channels. Existing reaches
are degrading as evidenced by bank erosion, channel incision, large head -cuts, and bank -height
ratios ranging from 1.6 to 6.6. Degradation has resulted from a combination of water surface
slopes that have been steepened, channel straightening, and dredging. Stream power and shear
stress values for the proposed channels are lower than for existing channels to effectively transport
sediment through the Site without eroding and downcutting, resulting in stable channel
characteristics.
7.4 BANKFULL VERIFICATION
Discharge estimates for the Site utilize 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).
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
Orphan Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 19
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

size indicated by Piedmont regional curves. Table 11 summarizes all methods analyzed for
estimating bankfull discharge.
Table 11. Reference Reach Bankfull Discharge Analvsis
Watershed Area
Return Interval
Discharge
Method
(square miles)
(years)
(cfs)
Cedarock Reference Reach
Piedmont Regional Curves
0.2
(Harman et al. 1999)
1.3-1.5
28.8
Peidmont Regional Regression Model
0.2
(USGS 2006)
1.3-I.5
27-36
Field Indicators of Bankfull 0.2
1.3-1.5
31.3
Causey Farm Reference Reach
Piedmont Regional Curves
0.6
(Harman et al. 1999)
1.3-1.5
63.8
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
(Harman et al. 1999)
1.3-1.5
24.8
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
(Harman et al. 1999)
1.3-1.5
48.0
Peidmom Regional Regression Model
0.43
(USGS 2006)
1.3-1.5
38-68
Field Indicators of Bankfull 0.43
1.3-1.5
24.4
Caswell Game Land Reference Reach
Piedmont Regional Curves
0.65
(Harman et al. 1999)
1.3-1.5
65.0
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
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.
Orphan Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 20
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

No constraints that may hinder restoration activities have been identified at the Site.
8.1 SITE ACCESS
The Site is to be accessed from Salem Church 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.
8.3 FEMA/HYDROLOGIC TRESPASS
FEMA mapping was reviewed to determine if the Site is located in a FEMA study area (DFIRM
panel number 9801). 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 drainages 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 seg.).
8.4.1 Alamance Cou
No species are federally listed for Alamance County by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) (USFWS 2015).
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
Orphan Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 21
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

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 Soecies 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.
Table 13. Reach -by -Reach Credit Determination Summary
Stream Reach Mitigation Non-credit Final
Mitigation
Mitigation
by Stationing Activity Generating* Length/Area
Ratio
Credits
UT I Sta 00+00 to 03+02 Restoration 302
1:1
302
UT 113 Sta 00+00 to 01+94 Restoration 194
1:1
194
UTI Sta 03+02 to 15+33 Restoration 23 1208
1:1
1,208
UT 2 Sta 00+00 to 03+13 Restoration 313
1:1
313
UT 3 Sta 00+00 to 04+35 EI 435
1.5:1
290
UT 3 Sta 04+35 to 05+75 Restoration 27 113
1:1
113
*Non-credit generating reaches are located outside the easement at easement breaks/road crossings.
(Remainder of page intentionally left blank)
Orphan Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 22
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

Table 14. Mitigation Activity and Credit Determination Summary
Proposed Mitigation Proposed Credits
Proposed Mitigation Streams Non-credit Wetlands Mitigation •- _.- Formatted Table
Activity (linear feet) Generating (acres) Ratio (SMUs) WMUs
Stream Restoration 2,180 50 1:1 2,130
Stream Enhancement I 435 1.5:1 290
Stream Enhancement 11 2.5:1 1
Wetland Restoration 1:1
Wetland Enhancement mi 0.10 2:1 0.05
Totals 2,615 0.10 2,420 0.05
Mitigation activities outlined in this report result in stream and wetland mitigation units as
presented in Tables 13 and 14.
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.
(Remainder of page intentionally left blank)
Orphan Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 23
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

Table 15. Stream Credit Release Schedule
Milestones
Tasks
Release (%)
Credits
1)
Approval of this Bank Site Mitigation Plan;
2)
Delivery of financial assurances;
Orphan Creek
3)
Issuance of §404 permit for Bank Site work plan;
4)
Recordation of conservation easements protecting
15
363
Establishment
Bank Site, including $25,000 payment to NCWHF
as easement holder and long-term manager;
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
363
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
242
3)
Approval of Monitoring Report by the Corps.
1)
Channels are stable;
Year 2 Monitoring
2)
Interim Performance Standards met;
10
242
3)
Approval of Monitoring Report by the Corps.
1)
Two bankfull events occurring in separate years;
Bankfull Events
2)
Channels are stable;
5
121
3)
Interim Performance Standards met.
1)
Channels are stable;
Year 3 Monitoring
2)
Interim Performance Standards met;
10
242
3)
Approval of Monitoring Report by the Corps.
1)
Visual Assessment;
Year 4 Monitoring
2)
Interim Performance Standards met;
5
121
3)
Approval of Monitoring Report by the Corps.
1)
Four bankfull events occurring in separate years;
Bankfull Events
2)
Channels are stable;
5
121
3)
Interim Performance Standards met.
1)
Channels are stable;
Year 5 Monitoring*
2)
Interim Performance Standards met;
10
242
3)
Approval of Monitoring Report by the Corps.
I I
Vinaai .t:.����nrent
Year 6 Monitoring
2)
Interim Performance Standards met;
5
121
3)
Approval of Monitoring Report by the Corps.
1)
Stream Performance Standards met;
Year 7 Monitoring
2)
Vegetation Performance Standards met;
10
242
3)
Approval of Final Monitoring Report by the Corps;
-- Deleted: -.5rill
Totals
100
2,420
*If, following the conclusion of Year 5
ofthe 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.
Orphan 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 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;
Bank Site
3)
Issuance of §404 permit for Bank Site work plan;
4)
Recordation of conservation easements protecting
15
Establishment
Bank Site
11 r and loin -term maua�;
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.
Year I Monitoring
1)
Interim Performance Standards met;
10
2)
Approval of Monitoring Report by the Corps.
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.
] 0
1)
Visual Assessment;
Year 4 Monitoring
2)
Interim Performance Standards met;
10
3)
Approval of Monitoring Report by the Corps.
1)
Interim Performance Standards met;
Year 5 Monitoring*
2)
Approval of Monitoring Report by the Corps.
10
1)
Visual Assessment;
Year 6 Monitoring
2)
Interim Performance Standards met;
10
3)
Approval of Monitoring Report by the Corps.
Year 7 Monitoring**
1)
Final Performance Standards met;
10
2)
Approval of Monitoring Report by the Corps
Totals
100
*Hydrologic monitoring maybediscontinued 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.
Orphan 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 and Enhancement (Level 1). Wetland mitigation
activities include 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 2,420 SMUs by the following.
o Restoring approximately 2,180 linear feet of perennial stream channel through
construction of stable stream channels in the historic floodplain location and elevation
(50 feet is outside the easement at easement breaks/road crossings and are non-credit
generating); and
o Enhancing (level I) approximately 435 linear feet of stream channel by installing grade
control structures, adjusting channel dimension, and planting of riparian buffers with
native woody vegetation.
Providing 0.05 WMUs by the following.
o Enhancing approximately 0.1 acre 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 a conservation easement.
The proposed schedule for the implementation of the Site is provided below (Table 17).
Table 17. Anticipated Construction Timing
and Sequencing
Task
Days Required
Start Date
Permitting
45-60
11/1/2016
Mobilization
10
6/1/2017
Earthwork
90
9/1/2017
Planting
10
1/15/2018
As -built
15
1/25/2018
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
Orphan Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 26
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

designs for the Site are presented in the attached Figures 6A and 613 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 Enhancement.
Table 18. Mitigation Activity Totals
Streams I Wetlands
Restoration Enhance (1) Enhance (II) Total I Restoration Enhance Total
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) I (ac) (ac) (ac)
2,180 435 2,615 1 -- 0.10 0.10
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 grabbing, 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.
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.
Orphan Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 27
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

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.
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 813). The outfall of each treatment area will be
constructed of hydraulically stable rip -rap or other suitable material that will protect against
Orphan Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 28
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

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 WETLAND RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT
Alternatives for Wetland Enhancement are designed to enhance 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
Enhancement options should focus on the 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
enhancement of 0.10 acre of jurisdictional riparian floodplain wetlands.
10.5.1 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.
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
Orphan Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 29
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

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.
10.6 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.
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's 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.
10.7 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. During construction activities, care will be taken to avoid removal of high
value trees within the easement. 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)
Orphan Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 30
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

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.
Orphan Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 31
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

Table 19. Orphan Creek Planting Plan
Vegetation Association
Piedmont/Low Mountain
Alluvial Forest*
Dry-Mesic Oak -Hickory
Forest*
Marsh Treatment
Wetland**
Stream -side
Assemblage**
TOTAL
Area (acres)
3.7
1.0
0.05
1.7
6.45
Species
#planted*
% of total
# lamed* %
of total
#planted** % of total
#planted**
% of total
# planted
Tag alder (Alnus serrulata)
14
10
231
5
245
River birch (Betula nigra)
252
10
231
5
483
Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana)
--
--
136
20
--
--
--
--
136
Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis)
--
--
--
--
27
20
--
--
27
Red bud (Cercis canadensis)
--
--
102
15
--
--
--
--
102
Sweet p e erbush (Clethra alnifolia)
--
--
--
--
20
15
--
--
20
Silky dogwood (Cornus amomum)
252
10
20
15
925
20
1197
Persimmon (Diospyros vir iniana)
68
10
68
White ash (Fraxinus americana)
--
--
34
5
--
--
--
--
34
Green ash (Fraxinuspennsylvanica)
503
20
925
20
1428
Blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum)
--
--
--
--
14
10
--
--
14
Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tuli ifera)
252
10
--
--
--
--
--
--
252
Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)
503
20
925
20
1428
Black gum (Nyssa sylvatica)
--
--
102
15
--
--
--
--
102
Water oak (Quercus nigra)
377
15
136
20
462
10
976
Willow oak (Quercus phellos)
377
15
102
15
462
10
942
Black willow (Salix nigra)
--
--
--
--
--
--
462
10 1
462
Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis)
27
20
27
Possumhaw (Viburnum nudum)
--
--
--
--
14
10
--
--
14
TOTAL
2516
100
680
100
136
100
4624
100
7956
* Planted at a density of 680 stems/acre.
** Planted at a density of 2720 stems/acre.
Orphan Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 32
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

10.8 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.
10.9 SOIL MANAGEMET 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 REQUIRMENTS
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
Orphan 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 Site.
Table 20. Functional Goal/Objectives and Performance Standards
Functional Goals/Objectives Performance Standards and Monitoring
(1) Hydrology
(2) Flood Flow
Pebble counts documenting coarsening of bed material from
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Four overbank events in separate monitoring years will be
documented during the monitoring period.
(4) Floodplain Access
Success Criteria (Section 11.3. 1)
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
Attaining Vegetation Success Criteria (Section 11.3. 1)
(3) Stream Stability
built measurements to document channel stability and
(4) Channel Stability
Cross-sections, monitored annually, will be compared to as -
(3) In -stream Habitat
built measurements to document channel stability and
(4) Sediment Transport
maintenance of channel geomorphology (Section 11. 1.1).
(4) Stream Geomorphology
Pebble counts documenting coarsening of bed material from
(2) Surface Storage and Retention
Four overbank events in separate monitoring years, and
(2) Subsurface Storage and Retention
attaining Vegetation Success Criteria (Section 11.3.1).
Water
(2) Stream -side Area Vegetation
Attaining Vegetation Success Criteria (Sections 11.3. 1)
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(2) Indicators of Stressors Removal of cattle, fencing intact, and easement encroachment
avoided.
(2) Pathogen Change Removal of cattle, documentation of four overbank events in
(2) Particulate Change separate monitoring years, and attaining Vegetation Success
(2) Physical Chance Criteria (Section 11.3. 1)
(1) Habitat
Orphan Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 34
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC
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) Substrate
Cross-sections, monitored annually, will be compared to as -
(3) Stream Stability
built measurements to document channel stability and
maintenance of channel geomorphology and attaining
(3) In -stream Habitat
Vegetation Success Criteria (Sections 11.1.1 and 11.3.1).
(2) Stream -side Habitat
Attaining Vegetation Success Criteria (Section 11.3. 1)
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
Attaining Vegetation Success Criteria (Section 11.3. 1)
(2) Vegetative Composition
Orphan 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
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 bankfull-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
Dol and riffle areas and should include areas more likely to exhibit instability. Cross-section .-.. Deleted: The sponsor, through its assigns, may exercise discretion
p y ty -
locations Shall be detailed in the Site as -built survey. in determining the placement and frequency of cross-sections, which
shall be determined by best professional judgment.
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.
A stream flow gauge will be installed in the ,upper reaches of UT 1B. The approximate_ locations .--- Deleted: lower
of stream flow gauges are depicted on monitoring plan (Figures 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, with physical -. -- Deleted: as well as
evidence of overbank flooding. Physical indicators, which__ are easily observable, include, Deleted:
floodplain scour, vegetation flattening, sediment deposition on floodplains and wrwk lines Deleted: e
consisting of deposited debris associated with stream discharges. The presence of physical
indicators }nay be used to support flow gauge and photodocumented evidence of bankfull events. Deleted: supporting bankfull event determinations shall
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 routinely. Each bankfull monitoring event may be reported separately to the USACE
from annual monitoring reports.
Orphan Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 35
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

11.1.1 Stream Success Criteria
,Stream success will be documented with measurements of stream stability mcludm bank -height- Deleted: stream success will be based on a aluaions of functional
--------------g------ -- g--- -
ratio and entrenchment ratio. Specifically, bank -height -ratios shall not exceed 1.2 in regions of uplift identified on NC SAM calculations.
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 13 -type channels.
Channels with intermittent, or questionable stream discharge (specifically UT 113) will have a
stream flow gauge installed to document flow in the channel. An automated trail camera will be
mounted in conjunction with the stream flow gauge 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
Site wetlands are only proposed for Enhancement activities and will not be subject to rigorous
hydrologic modification. Therefore, wetland monitoring will be subject to vegetation monitoring
for success criteria including the installation of vegetation plots and photographic documentation
of vegetation success. Vegetation monitoring is discussed further in Section 11.3 Vegetation.
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" referenced in Small
Streams Biocriteria Development (NCDWQ 2009). Results will be presented on a site -by -site basis
Orphan Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 36
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

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 E1 (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.
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 & 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 a 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 Migration
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
Orphan Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 37
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

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
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 SITE BOUNDARIES
Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction between the Site and
adjacent properties. Boundaries maybe identified byparker, bollard, oas allowed by Site .._.- Deleted: fence,
conditions and/or conservation easement. Disturbed, damaged, or destroyed boundary markers Deleted: , tree -blazing, or other means
will be repaired and/or replaced on an as needed basis.
12.4 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. CWHF has requested, and the Sponsor has agreed to provide, twenty thousand
Deleted: NCWHF maintains an endowment for the purpose of
($20,000) dollars at the conservation easement closing to hold the Site's easements.
monitoring and enforcement conservationeasements it holds
("General Stewardship Fund")).. NCWHFwwilill require aone-time
contribution from the Sponsor to NCWHF's General Stewardship
In addition to servingas the conservation easement},older NCWHF will also be res onsible for
Fund sufscienttosupport NCWHF'sresponsibilities under the
f_`-------------------------------------------------h-------__-----
long-term management of the Site per the requirements of the Bank UMBI and this Bank Site
Site's conservation easements, payable at time of easement closing
Deleted: stewardship
Mitigation Plan. As the Site has been designed to be self-sustaining, the Site's long-term
management activities will be limited to routine boundary inspections and, when necessary,
marking Site boundaries to ensure clear identification of conservation areas.' _Per their
.. -- Deleted: r2l
t 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, which will be clearly set out in the Site's final conservation easements. .-. Deleted: .
Therefore, fencing/crossing maintenance and/or replacement is not part of the Site's Long-term Management Plan.
Orphan Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 38
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

responsibilities as the Site's easement holder, NCWHF will inspect boundaries annually to monitor
for encroachment. During these inspections, as the Site's long-term manager, the condition of
boundary markings (i.e., signs) will be noted and replaced as needed. The Sponsor has agreed to
provide to NCWHF an additional five thousand ($5,000) dollars at the conservation easement
closing to fund the Site's long-term management.
For the purposes of calculating thegmount required to fund long-term management (see Appendix__,: ---
Deleted: Long-term Management Fund
Fj the fiollowing assumptions and inputs were used: 1) during the implementation_ of this Bank_ --.---
Deleted:
Site Mitigation Plan, fifty (50) signs will be installed and an additional fifty (50) replacement signs
will be purchased by the Sponsorp 2) these _signs_ have a 50-year__ life; however, complete_----
Deleted: at no oast to the Long-tem, Management Fund
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 Zevenues generated from the $20,000 required for easement holding (discussed above) t_--
Deleted: their General stewardship Fund
inspect boundaries, additional funds were included to ensure completion of boundary inspectionEr
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 operation period, the Sponsor will utilize the maintenance plan outlined above
(Section 12.0 Maintenance and Contingency) 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 ASSURANCES
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 UMBI. Such assurances shall
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 aperformance bond in a form substantially similar_-,-.---
Deleted: either
to the draft provided in Appendix G underwritten by a surety company licensed to do business in --_--
Deleted: F
_.. _.
North Carolina with a Best's current rating of not less than "t The total value of such bond or -.---
- - -
Deleted: % or a casualty insurance policy in an appropriate form
policy shall be three hundred forty one thousand dollars ($341,000.00).
to be approved by the USAF in compliance with current USAF
policy and guidance documents.
Orphan Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 39
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

Page: 115
Number: 1 Author: K7RG9TT9 Subject: Highlight Date: 2/23/2017 3:18:55 PM
For consistency with other plans, should have a paragraph following this sentence that states: "In support of NCWHF as the Site's easement
holder and long-term manager, the Sponsor will provide a lump sum payment of twenty-five thousand ($25,000) dollars to NCWHF at the time of
conservation easement closing, prior to the Site's initial credit release. This payment includes funds to support NCWHF's role as the easement
holder ($20,000) and additional funds to support
long-term management ($5,000)."

15.2 MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING ASSURANCE
ollowing s construction, P p the_Site's the Implementation Assurance shall be re laced with another - - Deleted: If perfoanance bond is utilized, following
-
performance bond. The replacement bond shall be in a form substantially similar to the draft
provided in Appendix G, The total value of such bond shall be twenty seven thousand five -,-- Deleted: F
hundred dollars ($27,500). - - - - - - --- ------------------- --- ------------ Deleted' No such replacement is necessary if a casualty insurance
policy is utilized.
15.3 OTHER FINANCIAL ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Financial Assurances shall be payable _to_ the Site's easement holder and financial assurance ---- Deleted: assurance
obligess, 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 Orphan 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 2,615
linear feet of stream and 0.10 acres of wetland. The Site has the potential to provide 2,420 SMUs
and 0.05 WMUs through the restoration, enhancement and permanent protection of 7 -acres
surrounding several currently impacted streams and wetlands in Alamance County, North
Carolina.
Orphan Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 40
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
ReportY-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. Omernik, J.A. Comstock, M.P. Schafale, W.H. McNab, D.R. Lenat, T.F.
MacPherson, J.B. Glover, and V.B. Shelbourne. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina and
South Carolina. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.
Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.A. O'Hara, A. Jessup, R. Everhart.
1999. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina Streams. N.C. State
University, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 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-b382-4b5 8-97ed-
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.
Orphan Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 41
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://por-tal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=28b97405-5 5 da-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-a4l c-
d475ea7adlfa&groupld=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-8ed9-
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
(USAGE et al.). 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines.
Unites States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2010. Interim 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/gfd/states/37000.html
Orphan Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 42
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,
20151. 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.
Orphan Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 43
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

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

APPENDIX B
BANK SITE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
Orphan Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan Appendix
Upper Cape Fear Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

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

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

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

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

Page 24: [1] Deleted Adam Riggsbee 2/7/17 10:33:00 AM
Proof of establishment and full funding of Long-term Management Fund.
Page 38: [2] Deleted Adam Riggsbee 2/7/171 AM
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).

DRAFT BANK SITE MITIGATION PLAN
CAPE FEAR 02 UMBRELLA MITIGATION BANK
DEVELOPED THROUGH
RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT OF THE
BENTON BRANCH BANK SITE
Caswell County, North Carolina
PREPARED BY:
RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC
1101 HAYNES STREET, SUITE 211
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27604
AND
AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
218 SNOW AVENUE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27603
Axiom Environmental, Inc
Deleted:
YEBRUARY 2017--- Deleted: OCTOBER 2016
____- —Section Break (Continuous)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Restoration Systems, LLC proposes the Benton Branch 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 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 Benton Branch Bank Site (hereafter referred
to as the "Site"), located approximately 12 miles north of Burlington. The Benton Branch Site
encompasses 33 acres of land located on both sides of Milesville Road at the intersection of Massey
Road (Figure 3).
Directions to the Site from Burlington are as follows.
From Burlington
Take Holt St./NC-62 toward N. Fishe St. — 0.1 mile
Continue on Rauhut St./NC-62 — 3.2 miles
Turn left on Union Ridge Rd. — 6.0 miles
Turn left on Stoney Mountain Rd. — 2.3 miles
Stoney Mountain Rd becomes Stoney Creek Mountain Rd. — 0.9 mile
Stoney Creek Mountain Rd. becomes Milesville Rd. — 1.4 miles
Turn left on Massey Rd.
Site Coordinates: 36.278744, -79.419371
Benton Branch is characterized primarily by agricultural land utilized for beef cattle production
and municipal effluent disposal, with scattered disturbed forest. Currently, the Site includes
approximately 9,217 linear feet of perennial and intermittent stream channels, which are fully
exposed to partially shaded by a mixture of mature riparian vegetation, and exhibit entrenchment,
bank failure, or channel erosion from livestock and agriculture practices located within the
watershed. Site floodplains are characterized by 3.3 acres of hydric soil (2.3 acres of disturbed
wetland and 1.0 acres of drained hydric soil). An additional 1.7 acres of potential wetland may
occur in ponds that will be drained and removed during the project. The main hydrologic features
include Benton Branch, six unnamed tributaries (UT) to Benton Branch, and adjacent floodplains.
Existing reaches are classified as unstable F -type, Cf -type, Eg-type, and Cg -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 Benton Branch involve Stream Restoration, Stream
Enhancement (Level I and II), Wetland Restoration, and Wetland Enhancement. Stream and
wetland mitigation are expected to result in approximately 9,835 linear feet of stream channel, 3.3
acres of jurisdictional wetland, and 1.7 acres of potential jurisdictional wetland (in ponds to be
Benton Branch Bank Site Mitigation Plan Executive Summary page i
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

removed during the project which will generate 5,992 Stream Mitigation Units and 3.9 Riparian
Wetland Mitigation Units.
Benton Branch Bank Site Mitigation Plan Executive Summary page ii
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVESUMMARY.............................................................................................................I
1.0 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................1
2.0 0 1ECTIVES............................................................................................................................2
2.1 SITE SPECIFIC MITIGATION GOALS..............................................................................................3
3.0 WATERSHED APPROACH.......................................................................................................7
3.1 ANK 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 ASELINE INFORMATION....................................................................................................11
6.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS...........................................................................................................12
7.0 CHANNELSTA ILITYASSESSMENT......................................................................................17
7.1 STREAM POWER...................................................................................................................17
7.2 SHEAR STRESS......................................................................................................................18
7.3 STREAM POWER AND SHEAR STRESS METHODS AND RESULTS........................................................19
7.4 ANKFULL VERIFICATION........................................................................................................21
8.0 POTENTIAL CONSTRAINTS...................................................................................................22
8.1 SITE ACCESS........................................................................................................................23
8.2 UTILITIES.............................................................................................................................23
8.3 FEMA/HYDROLOGIC TRESPASS...............................................................................................23
8.4 FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES...............................................................................................23
8.5 STATE LISTED SPECIES............................................................................................................24
9.0 CREDIT DETERMINATION AND RELEASE..............................................................................24
9.1 CREDIT DETERMINATION........................................................................................................24
9.2 STREAM CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE.........................................................................................
_-..." Deleted: 27
9.3 WETLAND CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE......................................................................................
_-' Deleted: 29
10.0 MITIGATION WORK PLAN..................................................................................................22
-------- Deleted: 30
10.1 RESTORATION PROJECT GOALS AND O JECTIVES.......................................................................2
_ --. -- Deleted: 30
10.2 STREAM AND WETLAND DESIGN............................................................................................3
---------
Deleted: 31
10.3 STREAM RESTORATION........................................................................................................3
0 ---------
Deleted: 31
10.4 STREAM ENHANCEMENT LEVEL I............................................................................................
-------
Deleted: 33
10.5 STREAM ENHANCEMENT LEVEL II...........................................................................................33
10.6 WETLAND RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT..........................................................................33
10.7 PLANT COMMUNITY RESTORATION.........................................................................................34
10.8 PLANTING PLAN.................................................................................................................
--- "" Deleted: 35
10.9 NUISANCE SPECIES MANAGEMENT.........................................................................................37
10.10 SOIL MANAGEMENT AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURES...........................................................37
11.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS...................................37
11.1 STREAMS..........................................................................................................................39
11.2 WETLANDS........................................................................................................................40
11.3 VEGETATION......................................................................................................................4
-""--" Deleted: 40
11.4 MACROINVERTE RATES.......................................................................................................41
12.0 MAINTENANCE AND CONTINGENCY PLAN........................................................................41
12.1 VEGETATION......................................................................................................................
- Deleted: 41
Benton Branch Bank Site Mitigation Plan Table of Contents page i
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

12.2
12.3
12.4
12.5
13.0
14.0
15.0
15.1
15.2
15.3
16.0
17.0
STREAMS..........................................................................................................................4
4-
= --_" Deleted: 41
WETLAND HYDROLOGY........................................................................................................
_.
43._____---
Deleted: 42
SITEOUNDARIES...............................................................................................................
Topography and Drainage Area
--. Deleted: 42
TERRACELL DROP STRUCTURES..............................................................................................43
LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN...................................................................................43
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN.......................................................................................44
-_..- Deleted: 43
FINANCIAL ASSURANCE.....................................................................................................4A-_-_=
Deleted: 43
IMPLEMENTATION ASSURANCE..............................................................................................
45_.--
Deleted: 44
MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING ASSURANCE........................................................................445
---------
Deleted: 44
OTHER FINANCIAL ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS........................................................................445 ---------
Deleted; 44
CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................................................445
---------
Deleted: 44
REFERENCES......................................................................................................................46
----------
Deleted: 45
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Jurisdictional Determination
Appendix B. Bank Site Conservation Easement
Appendix C. Morphology Tables and Existing Stream Characteristic Data
Appendix D. Flood Frequency Analysis
Appendix E. Preconstruction Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data
Appendix F. Draft Financial Assurance
LIST OF FIGURES
Lfgure 1.
Bank Site Locations Map
Figure 2.
Bank Hydrologic Unit Map
Figure 3.
Benton Branch Site Location
Figure 4.
Topography and Drainage Area
{gure 5. Existing Conditions and Soils
L[gures 6A -6D. Restoration Plan
Figure 7. Proposed Dimension Pattern and Profile
Figures 8A -8B. Typical Structure Details
Figures 9A -9B. Planting Plan
Figures I OA -1 OB. Monitoring Plan
Figure C1. Benton Branch Cross-section Locations
Figure El. Benton Branch Benthic Sampling Locations
Benton Branch Bank Site Mitigation Plan Table of Contents page ii
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

Page: 131
Number: 1 Author: K7RGLDEB Subject: Comment on Text Date: 2/13/2017 3:27:35 PM
In final submission, need to see updated figures ensuring that the titles say "Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank'
Number: 2 Author: K7RGLDEB Subject: Comment on Text Date: 2/13/2017 3:38:01 PM
Minor formatting issue: ensure that the potential wetland restoration area around the lower pond on UT 2 should have an outline around the
hatching.

LIST OF TABLES
Table1. Benton Branch 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. Benton Branch Bank Site NC SAM Summary.......................................................................4
Table 3B. Benton Branch Bank Site NC WAM Summary.....................................................................5
Table 3C. Mitigation Work Plan Components Meeting Functional Goals/Objectives
........................6
Table 3D. Mitigation Activities and Credit Potential..............................................................................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......................................................................................................11
Table8. Soils..............................................................................................................................................14
Table 9. Existing Stream Characteristics...............................................................................................15
Table 10. Stream Power (Q) and Shear Stress (i) Values.....................................................................20
Table 11. Reference Reach Bankfull Discharge Analysis......................................................................22
Table12. Federal Species of Concern.....................................................................................................24
Table 13. Mitigation Reach -by -Reach Credit Determination Summary.............................................25
Table 14. Mitigation Activity and Credit Determination Summar 2 = - Deleted: z�
Table 15. Stream Credit Release Schedule.............................................................................................27 = Deleted: zs
Table 16. Wetland Credit Release Schedule...........................................................................................2L . _ Deleted: z9
Table17. Construction Time Frame....................................................................................................... 33 Deleted: 31
Table18. Mitigation Totals...................................................................................................................... -------- Deleted: 31
Table19. Planting Plan............................................................................................................................36
Table 20. Functional Goals/Objectives and Performance Standards..................................................38
Table 21. Monitoring Schedule................................................................................................................39
Table C -Reference. Reference Reach Morphological Stream Characteristics ........................... Appendix C
Table Cl. Benton Branch Morphological Stream Characteristics .............................................. Appendix C
Benton Branch 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 BENTON BRANCH BANK SITE
Caswell County, North Carolina
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Restoration Systems, LLC (the Sponsor) is pleased to propose the Benton Branch Mitigation Bank
Site (hereafter referred to as the "Site" for inclusion into the Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation
Bank (the Bank). The Site encompasses 33 acres of land located on both sides of Milesville Road
at the intersection of Massey Road (Figure 3).
Directions to the Site from Burlington are as follows.
From Burlington
Take Holt St./NC-62 toward N. Fishe St. — 0.1 mile
Continue on Rauhut St./NC-62 — 3.2 miles
Turn left on Union Ridge Rd. — 6.0 miles
Turn left on Stoney Mountain Rd. — 2.3 miles
Stoney Mountain Rd becomes Stoney Creek Mountain Rd. — 0.9 mile
Stoney Creek Mountain Rd. becomes Milesville Rd. — 1.4 miles
Turn left on Massey Rd.
Site Coordinates: 36.278744, -79.419371
The Site is characterized primarily by agricultural land utilized for beef cattle production and
municipal effluent disposal, with scattered disturbed forest. Currently, the Site includes
approximately 9,217 linear feet of perennial and intermittent stream channels, which are fully
exposed to partially shaded by a mixture of mature riparian vegetation, and exhibit entrenchment,
bank failure, or channel erosion from livestock and agriculture practices located within the
watershed. Site floodplains are characterized by 3.3 acres of hydric soil (2.3 acres of disturbed
wetland and 1.0 acres of drained hydric soil). An additional 1.7 acres of potential wetland
restoration may occur in ponds that will be drained and removed during the project. The main
hydrologic features include Benton Branch, six unnamed tributaries (UT) to Benton Branch, and
adjacent floodplains.
Existing reaches are classified as unstable F -type, Cf -type, Eg-type, and Cg -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 9,835 linear feet of stream channel, 3.3
acres of jurisdictional wetland, and 1.7 acres of potential wetland restoration in ponds to be
Benton Branch Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 1
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

removed which will generate 5,992 Stream Mitigation Units and 3.9 Riparian Wetland Mitigation
Units.
Table 1. Benton Branch Credit Summary
Wetland Credit Potential Stream Credit Potential
Hydro Status* Mitigation Activity
(WMUs) (SMUs)
Perennial/ Restoration,
3.9
Intermittent* Enhancement
5,992
`Note: ferenmal and Intermittent stream calls have not been approved by the NC Division of Water Kesources and
Hydrologic status is for descriptive purposes only.
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 II, 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
microtopograpby
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)
Benton Branch Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 2
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

Table 2B. Water Quality Functional Objectives and Proposed Actions
Water Quality Improvement Objectives
Proposed Actions
Cattle exclusion and/or cessation of agricultural
Remove Pollutant Sources
practices
Plant woody riparian buffers; construct marsh
Upland Pollutant Filtration
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 WAM rating calculator. Functional metrics have been developed by
regulatory agencies and are summarized in the Tables 3A and 3B. Site functional assessment data
forms are included in Appendix A (JD Package).
Benton Branch 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. The following table summarizes 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 Tables 3A
and 3B.
Table 3A. Benton Branch Bank Site NC SAM Summary
NC SAM Function Class Rating Summary UTl (Up) UT1/2 UT3 (EII) UT4
(1) HYDROLOGY
LOW
LOW
MED
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MED
MED
MED
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
LOW
MED
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
MED
LOW
LOW
MED
(4) Floodplain Access
MED
LOW
LOW
MED
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
MED
LOW
MED
MED
(4) Microtopography
LOW
LOW
MED
MED
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
LOW
HIGH
LOW
(4) Channel Stability
LOW
LOW
HIGH
LOW
(4) Sediment Transport
LOW
LOW
MED
MED
(4) Stream Geomorophology
LOW
LOW
HIGH
MED
(1) WATER QUALITY
LOW
LOW
LOW
MED
(2) Baseflow
MED
MED
MED
HIGH
(2) Stream -side Area Vegetation
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
MED
LOW
MED
MED
(2) Indicators of Stressors
YES
YES
YES
YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerence
LOW
HIGH
MED
HIGH
(1) HABITAT
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
LOW
LOW
MED
(3) Baseflow
MED
MED
MED
HIGH
(3) Substrate
LOW
LOW
MED
MED
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
LOW
HIGH
LOW
(3) In -Stream Habitat
LOW
LOW
LOW
MED
(2) Stream -side Habitat
MED
LOW
MED
LOW
(3) Stream -side Habitat
MED
LOW
MED
MED
(3) Thermoregulation
MED
LOW
MED
LOW
OVERALL LOW LOW LOW LOW
(Remainder ofpage intentionally left blank)
Benton Branch Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 4
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

Table 3B. Benton Branch Bank Site NC WAM Summary
NC WAM Sub -function Rating Summary UTI UT 2 UT3 UT4 UT5/UT6
Wetland Type HF HF BHF HF BHF
Wetland ID SF SG DA SB SC,SD,SE DB DC SA
(1) HYDROLOGY
MED
LOW
LOW
MED
MED
LOW
(2) Surface Storage & Retention
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
(2) Sub -surface Storage and Retention
HIGH
HIGH
MED
MED
HIGH
MED
(1) WATER QUALITY
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
HIGH
MED
(2) Pathogen change
LOW
MED
MED
MED
HIGH
MED
(2) Particulate Change
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
(2) Soluble change
LOW
LOW
MED
MED
MED
MED
(2) Physical Change
LOW
MED
LOW
LOW
HIGH
MED
(1) HABITAT
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
(2) Physical Structure
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
(2) Landscape Patch Structure
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
(2) Vegetative Composition
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
OVERALL
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
MED
LOW
Wetland Type - BHF (Bottomland Hardwood Forest), HF (Hardwood Forest)
Wetland ID - See JD mapping for locations of Wetlands
(Remainder ofpage intentionally left blank)
Benton Branch 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 I Mitigation Work Plan Component
m u..Are! ...,
(2) Flood Flow (Floodplain Access)
aJ
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Building a new channel at the historic floodplain elevation to
(4) Floodplain Access
restore overbank flows
(4)Microtopography
Deep rip floodplain soils to reduce compaction and increase
(2) Indicators of Stressors
soil surface roughness
(3) Stream Stability
Providing proper channel width, depth, pattern, and profile to
(4) Channel Stability
adequately move appropriate sediment loads; stabilizing
(4) Sediment Transport
channel banks; providing gravel/cobble substrate; and
(4) Stream Geomorphology
planting a woody riparian buffer
Building a new channel at the historic floodplain elevation
(2) Surface Storage and Retention
restoring overbank flows, removing cattle, scarifying
inundation/duration
compacted soils, and planting woody vegetation
(2) Subsurface Storage and Retention
Removing cattle, ripping compacted soils, and planting a
woody riparian buffer
(2) In -stream Habitat
(1) Water Quality
(2) Stream -side Area Vegetation
planting a woody riparian buffer
Planting a native, woody riparian buffer
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Stream Stability
adequately move appropriate sediment loads; stabilizing
(2) Indicators of Stressors
channel banks; and providing gravel/cobble substrate
Removing cattle and other agricultural inputs
(2) Particulate Change
(2) Physical Structure
Raising the stream bed elevation, restoring overbank flows,
planting a woody riparian buffer
planting with woody vegetation, removing cattle, increasing
(2) Physical Change
surface storage and retention, and restoring appropriate
(2) Vegetative Composition
Planting a woody riparian buffer
inundation/duration
(1) Habitat
(2) In -stream Habitat
Building a stable channel with a cobble/gravel bed and
planting a woody riparian buffer
(3) Substrate
Providing proper channel width, depth, pattern, and profile to
(3) Stream Stability
adequately move appropriate sediment loads; stabilizing
(3) In -stream Habitat
channel banks; and providing gravel/cobble substrate
(2) Stream -side Habitat
Planting a woody riparian buffer
(2) Physical Structure
Building a stable channel with a cobble/gravel bed and
planting a woody riparian buffer
(2) Landscape Patch Structure
Provide wooded, riparian corridors through agricultural areas
for wildlife passage
(2) Vegetative Composition
Planting a woody riparian buffer
(Remainder ofpage intentionally left blank)
Benton Branch 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). Miti¢atlon Activities and Credit Potential
3.0 WATERSHED APPROACH
3.1 BANK 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 agricultural land utilized for beef cattle production and Town of
Elon Wastewater effluent disposal, with scattered disturbed forest. A summary of existing Site
characteristics in favor of proposed stream and wetland activities include the following.
• Streams and wetlands are accessible to livestock
Benton Branch Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 7
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC
Proposed Mitigation
Credit Potential
Streams
Streams
(linear
Non-credit Wetlands
Mitigation
Mitigation Activity
feet)
Generating
(acres)
Ratio
SMUs
WMUs .- Formatted Table
Stream Restoration
4,619
84
1:1
4535
Stream Enhancement I
480
1.5:1
320
Stream Enhancement II
1106
22
2.5:1
434
Stream Enhancement II
3,630
113
5:1
704
Wetland Restoration
1.0
1:1
1.0
Wetland Enhancement
2.3
2:1
1.2
Potential Wetland Restoration
1.7
1:1
ing&
1.7
Totals
9,835
219
5.0
5992
3.9
3.0 WATERSHED APPROACH
3.1 BANK 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 agricultural land utilized for beef cattle production and Town of
Elon Wastewater effluent disposal, with scattered disturbed forest. A summary of existing Site
characteristics in favor of proposed stream and wetland activities include the following.
• Streams and wetlands are accessible to livestock
Benton Branch Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 7
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

• Stream banks are trampled by livestock
• Streams and wetlands have been cleared of forest vegetation
• Streams are entrenched and stream banks are eroding and failing
• Stream channel morphology has been lost in downstream reaches
• Site receives inputs from beef cattle as well as Town of Elon Wastewater effluent
• Wetland soils have been compacted by livestock and agricultural activities
• Wetland hydrology has been removed by stream channel entrenchment, floodplain
ditching, and excavation of the floodplain
• Streams are classified as nutrient sensitive waters, high quality waters, and are located in a
water supply watershed (WS -II)
In addition to the opportunity for ecological improvements at the Site, the use of 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 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 indicates 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
Benton Branch Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 8
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

*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.
The Site is located within the Cape Fear 02 HUC 03030002 (subbasin 03-06-02). According to
the Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan (NCDWQ 2005), all land uses and discharges
of wastewater and stormwater in subbasin 03-06-02 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 their downstream watersheds. Table 5 summarizes the
water quality stressors usage ratings for the Site's receiving waters.
Table 5. Watershed Stressors and Usage Ratings
Bank Site Subbasin Index # Receiving Water NCDWR Rating 303(d) status*
Benton Branch 03-06-02 16-14-3 Benton Br WSNSW W, NL
*Final 2012 303(d) status; NL =Not Listed
4.0 SITE PROTECTION
The Site is currently owned by Mr. Dennis Simmons of Caswell County. The Sponsor possesses
an option agreement with Mr. Simmons 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 33 -acres of Mr. Simmons property substantially in the
form and location provided in Appendix B, protecting the Site in perpetuity. The North Carolina
Wildlife Habitat Foundation will hold the 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
Benton Branch Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 9
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

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,
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 Farm 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 0.0142 to
0.0476, 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 Site streams due to
land use activities, have been measured in the reference sites and will be used for design channel
construction.
Benton Branch 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 Site 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
Piedmont Alluvial Forest Dry-Mesic Oak -Hickory Forest
(Floodplains and Slopes) (Upland Side Slopes)
Canopy Species Understory Species Canopy Species Understory Species
Acer rubrum Acer rubrum Acer rubrum Acer rubrum
Liquidambar styracii lua
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
Benton Branch 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 Unit 03030002030030 of the South Atlantic/Gulf Region in NCDWQ
Subbasin Number 03-06-02. Site streams received a NCDWQ Best Usage Classification
(NCDWQ 2005) and (NCDWR 2015) of WSII, HQW, NSW.
NCDWR Rating
WS -H streams are protected as water supplies for drinking, culinary, or food-processing
purposes. These waters are also protected for Class C uses. All WS -II waters are HQW
(High Quality Waters) by supplemental classification. C uses include 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 receiving waters are listed on the final 2012
303(d) list (NCDWQ 2012). Site streams are not listed on the final 2014 303(d) lists (NCDWR
2014).
6.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
6.1.1 Physiography, Topography, and Land Use
The Site is located in the Southern Outer Piedmont portion of the Piedmont Ecoregion of North
Carolina. Regional physiography is characterized by dissected irregular plains; low rounded hills
Benton Branch Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 12
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

and ridges; and low to moderate gradient streams with mostly cobble, gravel, and sandy substrates.
On-site elevations range from a high of 645 -feet NGVD at the upper reaches of UT 3 to a low of
approximately 620 -feet NGVD at the Site outfall (USGS Cherry Grove, North Carolina 7.5 -minute
topographic quadrangle) (Figure 4).
The Site provides water quality functions to drainage
areas ranging from 0.03 square mile to 1.24 square
miles at tributary outfalls (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 utilized for beef cattle production and
municipal effluent disposal, with scattered disturbed forest. Agricultural land is maintained for
livestock grazing and has been planted with fescue (Festuca sp.). Natural recruits of dog fennel
(Eupatorium capillifolium), clover (Trifolium sp.), nightshade (Solanum carolinense), as well as
other opportunistic herbaceous species have recolonized the site. Several pockets of wetland occur
in the Site, which are characterized by rushes (Juncus spp.) and sedges (Carex spp.). Disturbed
forest is largely cleared of understory species due to livestock pruning and is composed of
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), 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
NRCS has not completed detailed soil mapping for Caswell County. The most recent published
soil survey for Caswell County is dated 1908, with general soil mapping conducted countywide.
The NRCS depicts the Site as being underlain by Cecil sandy loam in floodplains and low-lying
areas, with Cecil sandy clay and Iredell sandy loam in the adjacent uplands.
(Remainder of page intentionally left blank)
Benton Branch Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 13
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

Table 8. Soils
Soil Series
Hydric Status Description
The Cecil series consists of very deep, well -drained,
Cecil sandy loam
moderately permeable soils on ridges and side slopes of the
and
Nonhydric Piedmont uplands. They formed in residuum weathered from
Cecil sandy clay
felsic, igneous, and high-grade metamorphic rocks of the
Piedmont uplands. Slopes range from 0 to 25 percent.
This series is brownish -gray or very dark brown, moderately
Iredell sandy loam
Nonhydric well -drained, medium acid soils of the Piedmont Plateau.
These soils occur wherever the geologic formation contains
basic dikes. These soils are important to agriculture.
A portion of the Site was identified as hydric soil by a North Carolina Licensed Soil Scientist. The
only hydric soils listed as occurring in Caswell County are soils of the Codorus and/or Hatboro
soil series. Onsite hydric soils are grey to gley in color and are compacted and pockmarked by
livestock trampling and agricultural activities. Livestock grazing, annual mowing for harvest of
hay, and clearing of timber have resulted in an herbaceous vegetative community. Groundwater
springs and surface runoff contribute hydrology to these areas.
6.1.4 Jurisdictional Streams and Wetlands
The main hydrologic features of the Site include Benton Branch, unnamed tributaries to Benton
Branch, and associated riparian wetlands and floodplains. Benton Branch drains an approximately
9.1 -square mile watershed at the outfall with smaller, onsite drainage areas encompassing 0.03 to
1.24 square miles (Figure 4).
Perennial streams within the Site may be generally characterized as riverine, upper perennial with
unconsolidated bottoms consisting of sand (R3UB2). Intermittent streams may generally be
characterized as riverine, intermittent with streambeds consisting of sand and mud (R4SB4).
Perennial vs intermittent stream calls have not been verified by NCDWR and all stream calls are
for descriptive purposes only. Streams located at the Site are fully exposed to partially shaded by
a mixture of mature riparian vegetation, and exhibit entrenchment, bank failure, or channel erosion
from livestock and agriculture practices located within the watershed. The Site encompasses
approximately 9,217 linear feet of existing stream channel proposed for mitigation (Table 9 and
Figure 5).
(Remainder of'page intentionally left blank)
Benton Branch 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
Benton Branch 2,045 Ott Perennial Perennial
UTI 613 1St Intermittent Intennittent/Perennial
UT2 203 NA NA Intermittent/Perennial
UT 1 and 2 below
845 1 s` Intermittent Intermittent/Perennial
confluence
UT2b 184 NA NA Intermittent/Perennial
UT3 1,217 NA NA Perennial
UT4a 338 1st Intermittent Perennial
UT4b 297 NA NA Intermittent/Perennial
UT4 818 Vt Intermittent Perennial
UT5 1,532 2nd Intermittent Perennial
UTSa 64 NA NA Intermittent/Perennial
UT6 1,061 3 I Intermittent Perennial
Total 9,217
Note: Perennial vs intermittent stream calls have not been verified by NCDWR and all stream calls are for descriptive
purposes only.
With the exception of Benton Branch, Site tributaries are depicted as intermittent on the USGS
7.5 -minute topographic quadrangle. However, UT 4, 5, and 6 exhibit field characteristics of
perennial streams. These tributaries have drainage areas encompassing 0. 13, 0.68, and 1.24 square
miles, respectively, and the channels are well-defined with cobble substrate. In addition, benthic
macroinvertebrate samples were collected in the upper reaches of UT 4 using the Qual-4 technique
which support a designation of a perennial flow regime (stonefly [Plecoptera sp.]).
Tributaries 2 and 3 are not depicted on the USGS 7.5 -minute topographic quadrangle; however,
field evidence including benthic macroinvertebrate samples, NCDWQ Stream Identification Form
(v4.11) scores, and evidence of stream flow during field visits indicate the channels are intermittent
to perennial. UT 1, 2, and 3 all exhibit characteristics of perennial stream channels in the upper
reaches. However, ponds upstream from the stream origin point, low floodplain slope, livestock
impacts to channels, and man -induced alterations to the floodplain and channels have resulted in
loss of stream channel morphology in the downstream reaches.
Jurisdictional wetlands are defined by the presence of three criteria: hydrophytic vegetation,
hydric soils, and evidence of wetland hydrology during the growing season (Environmental
Benton Branch Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 15
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

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 wetlands.
Approximately 3.3 acres of Site land 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). Extensive
floodplain manipulations associated with stream ditching and straightening, deforestation, and
floodplain ditching, have effectively removed groundwater hydrology and/or riparian vegetation
from these areas. In order to accurately calculate baseline wetland areas, a jurisdictional wetland
delineation was completed in April 2015 and verbally approved by USACE representative Dave
Bailey during a field meeting on August 27, 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.
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 (PEM1Y).
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 C1 (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 two
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.
Benton Branch Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 16
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

6.1.7 Discharge
This hydrophysiographic region is characterized by moderate rainfall with precipitation averaging
approximately 40 to 60 inches per year (USDA 1908). The Site drainage basin area encompasses
approximately 9.1 -square miles at the outfall with smaller, onsite drainage areas consisting of 0.03
to 1.24 square miles.
Site discharge is dominated by a combination of upstream basin catchment, groundwater flow, and
precipitation. Based on regional curves (Harman et al. 1999), the bankfull discharge for a 0.03 -
square mile watershed and a 1.24 -square mile watershed is expected to average 7.8-cfs and 104-
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:
52 = PgQs
where D = 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
Benton Branch Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 17
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

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 i = 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:
timax = 1.Si
for sinuous channels, the maximum shear stress can be determined as a function of plan form
characteristics:
imax = 2.65ti(Rc /Wbkf)-0.5
where Re = radius of curvature (ft) and Wbkf = bankfull width (ft).
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:
w = pgQs = tiv
where ca = stream power per unit of bed area (N/ft-sec, Joules/sec/ft2), ti = shear stress, and v =
average velocity (ft/sec). Similarly,
Benton Branch Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 18
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

(o = Q/Wbkf
where Wbkf = width of stream at bankfull (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.
(Remainder oj'page intentionally left blank)
Benton Branch Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 19
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

Table 10. Stream Power (S2) and Shear Stress (t) Values
Proposed Conditions
Water
Total
0.0211
6.58 1.5
0.28
0.37
3.57
1.32
2.45
UT 2 upstream
4.4
0.0414
11.37 2.58
0.28
Shear
3.14
2.27
5.29
UT 2 downstream
Discharge
surface
Stream
Hydraulic
0.31
Velocity
1.11
1.93
Site/Reference
s /s)
Slope
Power
SZ/W
Radius
Stress
2.50
T v
timax
18.9
(ft
13.92 1.66
0.52
0.38
3.78
(�)
(v)
UT 6
92
0.017
97.59 5.58
(ft/ft)
(d2)
4.18
4.86
8.75
Existing Conditions
UT 1
5
0.0231
7.21
1.02
2.13
3.08
0.31
0.96
4.61
UT 2 upstream
4.4
0.0453
12.44
1.75
2.13
6.03
0.28
1.66
9.05
UT 2 downstream
10.8
0.0139
9.37
0.71
0.72
0.62
1.09
0.68
0.93
UT 3
6.5
0.0391
15.86
3.05
10.5
25.62
0.10
2.64
38.43
UT 4
18.9
0.0101
11.91
1.53
1.57
0.99
1.31
1.29
1.48
UT 6
92
0.017
97.59
4.67
3.25
3.45
1.23
4.22
5.17
Reference Conditions
Flintrock Farm
24.4
0.0049
7.46
0.99
0.67
0.20
4.00
0.82
0.31
Caswell Game
71.7
0.0100
44.74
2.43
0.86
0.54
4.07
2.19
1.91
Results of the analysis indicate the proposed channel reaches are expected to maintain stream
power as a function of width (L2/W) values of approximately 1.28 to 5.58 and shear stress (i) values
of approximately 0.31 to 1. 16.
The upper limit of these values are derived in UT 6, which has a significantly larger watershed and
therefore larger discharge. Stream power results from a function of slope and discharge, which
will not be significantly altered by Enhancement (Level I) activities proposed in UT 6. However,
shear stress, a slope and depth relationship, will be altered from the existing condition value of
3.45 (lb/ft2) to a proposed condition value of 1.16 (lb/ft2), which is considered suitable for the
reach.
The lower limit of stream power and shear stress values are derived in the lower reaches of UT 2.
Under existing conditions UT 2 acts like a braided channel since stream flow is conveyed within
an over -widened and low slope depression. Within this reach stream power to width values for
the proposed conditions should be expected to be higher than existing conditions in order to ensure
proper sediment transport through the reach. Existing stream power values are 0.71 and proposed
values are elevated to 1.28.
Other values of stream power and shear stress are comparable to reference reaches and are
expected to be stable under proposed conditions.
Benton Branch Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 20
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC
Proposed Conditions
UT 1
5
0.0211
6.58 1.5
0.28
0.37
3.57
1.32
2.45
UT 2 upstream
4.4
0.0414
11.37 2.58
0.28
0.72
3.14
2.27
5.29
UT 2 downstream
10.8
0.0123
8.29 1.28
0.4
0.31
3.6
1.11
1.93
UT 3
6.5
0.0357
14.48 2.9
0.31
0.69
3.61
2.50
5.03
UT 4
18.9
0.0118
13.92 1.66
0.52
0.38
3.78
1.45
2.54
UT 6
92
0.017
97.59 5.58
1.09
1.16
4.18
4.86
8.75
Results of the analysis indicate the proposed channel reaches are expected to maintain stream
power as a function of width (L2/W) values of approximately 1.28 to 5.58 and shear stress (i) values
of approximately 0.31 to 1. 16.
The upper limit of these values are derived in UT 6, which has a significantly larger watershed and
therefore larger discharge. Stream power results from a function of slope and discharge, which
will not be significantly altered by Enhancement (Level I) activities proposed in UT 6. However,
shear stress, a slope and depth relationship, will be altered from the existing condition value of
3.45 (lb/ft2) to a proposed condition value of 1.16 (lb/ft2), which is considered suitable for the
reach.
The lower limit of stream power and shear stress values are derived in the lower reaches of UT 2.
Under existing conditions UT 2 acts like a braided channel since stream flow is conveyed within
an over -widened and low slope depression. Within this reach stream power to width values for
the proposed conditions should be expected to be higher than existing conditions in order to ensure
proper sediment transport through the reach. Existing stream power values are 0.71 and proposed
values are elevated to 1.28.
Other values of stream power and shear stress are comparable to reference reaches and are
expected to be stable under proposed conditions.
Benton Branch Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 20
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

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).
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.
(Remainder ofpage intentionally left blank)
Benton Branch Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 21
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

Table 11. Reference Reach Bankfull Discharge Analysis
Watershed Area
Return Interval
Discharge
Method
(square miles)
(years)
(cfs)
Cedarock Reference Reach
Piedmont Regional Curves
0.2
(Harman et al. 1999)
1.3-1.5
28.8
Peidmont Regional Regression Model
0.2
(USGS 2006)
1.3-1.5
27-36
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
(USES 2006)
Field Indicators of Bankfull 0.6
1.3-1.5
59.8
Cripple Creek Reference Reach
Piedmont Regional Curves
0.17
(Harman et al. 1999)
1.3-1.5
24.8
Peidmont Regional Regression Model
0.17
1.3-1.5
24-34
(USES 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
(USGS 2006)
1.3-1.5
38-68
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
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 were identified at the Site
Benton Branch Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 22
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

8.1 SITE ACCESS
The Site is to be accessed from Milesville Road (SR 1106). Project access is to be obtained by a
30 foot permanent access easement obtained and recorded along with the CE in Caswell County.
8.2 UTILITIES
Utility crossings at the Site are limited in nature. Areas beneath utility crossings will not generate
credit; however, work will be performed to extend the restoration activity across the utility
easement. The Site crossing is perpendicular to the design channel and does not pose a hindrance
to the project; therefore, it is not considered a constraint.
8.3 FEMA/HYDROLOGIC TRESPASS
Inspection of the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map 371089600K, Panel 8960, effective September
28, 2007, indicates that Benton Branch, UT 3, and associated floodplains are located within a Zone
AE flood area. Therefore, a HEC -RAS analysis will be completed on the existing and proposed
conditions of Benton Branch and its tributaries that enter the Benton Branch floodplain to assess
hydraulic performance. In accordance with N.C. Floodplain Mapping requirements, a Conditional
Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) will need to be prepared for the Site.
The CLOMR will include written documentation of modeling, preparation of topographic work
maps, annotated FIRM or Floodway Maps, FIRM Flood Profiles and Data Tables. The CLOMR
will be sent to Caswell County for approval and signature, and then the CLOMR will be sent to
FEMA for review and approval. The CLOMR approval process is expected to require 3 to 6 -
months. The CLOMR will be prepared, submitted and approved prior to construction. A
requirement of the CLOMR is to prepare and submit a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) once
construction is complete.
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 Caswell County
Two federally protected species are listed as occurring in Caswell County (USFWS 2015): the
James spinymussel (Pleurobema collina) and the Roanoke logperch (Percina rex). Both species
are listed as Endangered.
James Spinymussel
This freshwater mussel is limited to the James River drainage and the Dan/Mayo River drainage
within the Roanoke River basin in Virginia, North Carolina, and West Virginia. This species'
range does not include the Site, which is located in the Upper Cape Fear River drainage.
(Remainder ofpage intentionally left blank)
Benton Branch Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 23
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

Roanoke Logperch
In North Carolina, this species is found in the Dan and Mayo rivers, as well as Big Beaver Island
Creek. This species' range does not include the Site, which is located in the Upper Cape Fear
River drainage.
Preliminary Biological Conclusions
Neither of these species' ranges extend into areas adjacent to, or within the Site. Therefore, this
project will have no effect on these federally protected species.
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*
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni Caswell Yes
Prairie birdsfoot-trefoil Lotus unifoliolatus var. helleri Caswell Yes
Virginia quillwort Isoetes virginica Caswell Yes
Potential Habitat: Portions of Bank Sites 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.
NC Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC) notes records for the state special concern notched
rainbow (Villosa constricta) and the state significantly rare Carolina ladle crayfish (Cambarus
davidi) in Benton Branch. Therefore, stringent sediment and erosion control measures will be
implemented throughout restoration/construction 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)- - - - - - ------------------------------------- -- Deleted: _
Deleted:
Benton Branch Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 24
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

Table 13. Mitigation Reach -by -Reach Credit Determination Summary
Stream
Mitigation
Final
Mitigation
Mitigation
Comment
Reach
Activity
Length/Area
Ratio
Credits
UT 1 Station 00+00 to
Restoration
695
1:1
695
06+95
UT 2 Station 00+00 to
EI
130
1.5:1
87
01+30
Easement Break 20 ft in
UT 2 Station 01+30 to
1537-20 =
Restoration
1:1
1517
width is removed from
16+67
1517
credit
UT 2b Station 00+00 to
Restoration
258
1:1
258
02+58
UT 3 Station 00+00 to
EII
312
2.5:1
125
03+12
UT 3 Station 03+12 to
Restoration
949
1:1
949
12+61
UT 4a Station 00+00 to
EII
76
2.5:1
30
00+76
UT 4a Station 00+76 to
Restoration
265
1:1
265
03+41
UT 4b Station 00+00 to
EII
69
2.5:1
28
00+69
UT 4b Station 00+69 to
Restoration
220
1:1
220
02+89
Easement Break 64 ft in
UT 4 Station 02+89 to
Restoration
695-64 = 631
1:1
631
width is removed from
09+84
credit
Easement Break 60 ft in
UT 5 Station 00+00 to
1532-60 =
Ell
5:1
294
width is removed from
15+32
1472
credit
Easement Break 22 ft in
UT 6 Station 00+00 to
EII
270-22 = 248
2.5:1
99
width is removed from
02+70
credit
UT 6 Station 02+70 to
EI
350
1.5:1
233
06+20
UT 6 Station 06+20 to
EII
379
2.5:1
152
09+99
Easement Break 20 ft in
Benton Br Station 00+00
2098-21-32 =
width and a power line
Ell
5:1
409
to 20+98
2045
easement 30 ft in width is
removed from credit
Benton Branch Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 25
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

Table 14. Mitigation Activity and Credit Determination Summary
Proposed Mitigation Proposed Credits
Streams
Proposed Mitigation (linear Non-credit Wetlands Mitigation F ------ Formatted Table
Stream Enhancement I
480
1.5:1
320
Stream Enhancement II
1,106 22
2.5:1
434
Stream Enhancement II
3630 113
5:1
704
Wetland Restoration
1.0
1:1
1.0
Wetland Enhancement
2.3
2:1
1.2
Potential Wetland Restoration
1.7
1:1
1.7
Totals
9,835 219
5.0
5,992
3.9
After completion, the Site will offer 5,992 SMUs and 3.9 WMUs as determined using the Bank's
UMBI and the Stream Mitigation Guidelines (USACE et al 2003).
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.
(Remainder of page intentionally left blank)
Benton Branch Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 26
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

Table 15. Stream Credit Release Schedule
Milestones
Tasks
Release (%)
Credits
1)
Approval of this Bank Site Mitigation Plan;
2)
Delivery of financial assurances;
Benton Branch
3)
Issuance of §404 permit for Bank Site work plan;
4)
Recordation of conservation easements protecting
15
899
Establishment
Bank Site, including $'25,000 payment to NCWHF
as easement holder and long -tern manager;
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
899
Implementation
livestock exclusion, if required;
4)
Approval of As -Built Survey by the Corps.
1)
Channels are stable;
Year I Monitoring
2)
Interim Performance Standards met;
10
600
3)
Approval of Monitoring Report by the Corps.
1)
Channels are stable;
Year 2 Monitoring
2)
Interim Performance Standards met;
10
600
3)
Approval of Monitoring Report by the Corps.
1)
Two bankfull events occurring in separate years;
Bankfull Events
2)
Channels are stable;
5
300
3)
Interim Performance Standards met.
1)
Channels are stable;
Year 3 Monitoring
2)
Interim Performance Standards met;
10
600
3)
Approval of Monitoring Report by the Corps.
I)
Visual Assessment;
Year 4 Monitoring
2)
Interim Performance Standards met;
5
297
3)
Approval of Monitoring Report by the Corps.
1)
Four bankfull events occurring in separate years;
Bankfull Events
2)
Channels are stable;
5
300
3)
Interim Performance Standards met.
1)
Channels are stable;
Year 5 Monitoring*
2)
Interim Performance Standards met;
10
600
3)
Approval of Monitoring Report by the Corps.
1)
Visual Assessment;
Year 6 Monitoring
2)
Interim Performance Standards met;
5
297
3)
Approval of Monitoring Report by the Corps.
1)
Stream Performance Standards met;
Year 7 Monitoring
2)
Vegetation Performance Standards met;
10
600
3)
Approval of Final Monitoring Report by the Corps.-.
{ Deleted:
Totals
100
5,992
*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.
Benton Branch Bank Site Mitigation Plan
page 27
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 Bank Site work plan;
Site Establishment
4)
Recordation of conservation easements protecting Bank Site,
15
inc ludine 525.000 payment to NCWHF as easement holder and
ager;
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 livestock
15
Implementation
exclusion, ifrequired;
4)
Approval of As -Built Survey by the Corps.
1)
Interim Performance Standards met;
Year I 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)
Visual Assessment
Year 4 Monitoring
2)
Interim Performance Standards met;
10
3)
Approval of Monitoring Report by the Corps.
Year 5 Monitoring*
1)
Interim Performance Standards met;
lb
2)
Approval of Monitoring Report by the Corps.
I) Visual Assessment;
Year 6 Monitoring
2)
Interim Performance Standards met;
10
3)
Approval of Monitoring Report by the Corps.
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.
Benton Branch Bank Site Mitigation Plan
page 28
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 03030002030030 is characterized by Nutrient Sensitive Waters. Although the Site is
not located in a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) or Local Watershed Planning (LWT) the project
is expected to meet overall goals of TLW's and 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 5,992 SMUs by the following:
o Restoring approximately 4,619 linear feet of stream channel through construction of
stable stream channels in the historic floodplain location and elevation;
o Enhancing (level I) approximately 480 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 4,736 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 3.9 WMUs by the following:
o Restoring approximately 1.0 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;
o Potentially restoring 1.7 acres of riparian wetlands in ponds to be removed during the
project, and
o Enhancing approximately 2.3 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)
Benton Branch Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 29
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
8/1/2017
Earthwork
120
9/10/2017
Planting
10
2/1/2018
As -built
15
3/1/2018
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 through 6D 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 I Wetlands
Potential
Restoration Enhance (I) Enhance (II) Total Restoration
Enhance Restoration Tota
l
ftO Oft Oft (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac)
4,619 480 4,736 9,835 I 1.0 1.7 2.3 5.0
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-61). 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.
Pelt -width Preparation and Grading -- Formatted: Font:ll pt
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.
Benton Branch Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 30
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.
Pond Removal
Four ponds are proposed to be removed in support of stream and/or wetland restoration. Pond
dams are expected to be graded to the historic floodplain elevation. Accumulated sediment will
be removed, if necessary, and stockpiled in adjacent upland areas or placed in abandoned stream
channels. Pond dams constructed by excavating the pond bottom creating a depression in the
floodplain may require pushing pond dam material into the depression, therebyrg ading the
floodplain to historic elevations.
Potential wetland restoration under the pond bed and dams are proposed. Groundwater gauges
ill be nested within the drained ponds to measure groundwater tables upon removal of the dams.
1 e final acreage of wetland restoration is expected to be determined through a delineation of
jurisdictional margins. The delineation will be confirmed by IRT members during post mitigation
meetings. preferably a vear or two after construction to allow for eroundwater tables to eauilibrate.
One pond, located upstream of the jurisdictional extent of UT 2, provides hydrology to UT 2 via
overland flow through non -jurisdictional, ephemeral drainage features. Once the pond dam is
removed, it is expected that stormwater will flow through the natural ephemeral drainage features
to UT 2 as flashy stormwater pulses with increased scour potential. Therefore, the initiation point
of UT 2 will be armored by log vanes and/or a floodplain interceptor to withstand stormwater
pulses.
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
Benton Branch Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 31
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

Page: 163
.YJ Number: 1 Author: K7RGLDEB Subject: Comment on Text Date: 2/13/2017 3:32:34 PM
Confirm acceptable with Todd/Andrea?
ti Author: K7RG9TT9 Subject: Sticky Note Date: 2/24/2017 9:19:18 AM
The final acreage of wetland restoration is expected to be based on the performance standards applied to wetlands on the site (e.g., 10%
hydroperiod). If boundary modifications are necessary, changes must be confirmed by IRT...

placed in relatively straight reaches to provide secondary (perpendicular) flow cells during
bankfull events.
Pied 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 each 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 the Site.
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 - Deleted: -
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 813). 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.
Benton Branch Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 32
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

10.5 STREAM ENHANCEMENT LEVEL II
Stream Enhancement Level II 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 1.0 acres of jurisdictional riparian floodplain wetlands
and the potential restoration of 1.7 acres of jurisdictional riparian wetlands in ponds to be drained.
An additional 2.3 acres of jurisdictional riparian wetlands will be enhanced within the Site by
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 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
Benton Branch Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 33
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

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 area.
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.
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's 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.
Benton Branch Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 34
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

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 19). 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.
Benton Branch Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 35
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

Table 19. Plantina Plan
Vegetation Association
Piedmont/Low Mountain
Alluvial Forest*
Dry-Mesic Oak -Hickory
Forest*
Marsh Treatment
Wetland**
Stream -side
Assemblage**
TOTAL
Area (acres)
10.2
6.9
0.1
4.5
21.7
Species
#planted*
% of total
#planted* %
of total
# lanted**
% of total
# lamed**
% of total
# planted
Tag alder (Alnus serrulata)
--
--
--
--
27
10
612
5
639
River birch (Betula nigra)
694
10
612
5
1306
Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana)
--
--
938
20
--
--
--
--
938
Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis)
--
--
--
--
54
20
--
--
54
Red bud (Cercis canadensis)
--
--
704
15
--
--
--
--
704
Sweet p e erbush (Clethra alnifolia)
--
--
--
--
41
15
--
--
41
Silky dogwood (Cornus amomum)
694
10
41
15
2448
20
3182
Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana)
469
10
469
White ash (Fraxinus americana)
235
5
235
Green ash (Fraxinuspennsylvanica)
1387
20
2448
20 1
3835
Blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum)
--
--
--
--
27
10
--
--
27
Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tuli ifera)
694
10
--
--
--
--
--
--
694
Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)
1387
20
2448
20
3835
Black gum (Nyssa sylvatica)
--
--
704
15
--
--
--
--
704
Water oak (Quercus nigra)
1040
15
938
20
1224
10
3203
Willow oak (Quercus phellos)
1040
15
704
15
1224
10
2968
Black willow (Salix nigra)
--
--
--
--
--
--
1224
10 1
1224
Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis)
54
20
54
Possumhaw (Viburnum nudum)
--
--
--
--
27
10
--
--
27
TOTAL
6,936
100
4,692
100
272
100
12,240
100
24,140
* Planted at a density of 680 stems/acre.
** Planted at a density of 2720 stems/acre.
Benton Branch Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 36
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 USAGE 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
Benton Branch Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 37
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 Goals/Objectives and Performance Standards
Functional Goals/Objectives I Performance Standards and Monitoring
(1) Hydrology
(2) Flood Flow (Floodplain Access)
Pebble counts documenting coarsening of bed material from
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Four overbank events in separate monitoring years will be
documented during the monitoring period.
(4) Floodplain Access
Success Criteria (Section 11.3.1)
(4)Microtopography
Removal of cattle, and attaining Vegetation Success Criteria
(3) Stream Stability
(Section 11.3.1).
(3) Stream Stability
maintenance of channel geomorphology and attaining
(4) Channel Stability
Cross-sections, monitored annually, will be compared to as -
(2) Stream -side Habitat
built measurements to documented channel stability and
(4) Sediment Transport
maintenance of channel geomorphology (Section 11.1.1).
(4) Stream Geomorphology
pre-existing conditions of sand and silt to post restoration
(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).
Water
(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) Physical Change separate monitoring years, and attaining Wetland and
Vegetation Success Criteria (Sections 11.2.1 and 11.3.1)
(1) Habitat
Benton Branch Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 38
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC
------- Formatted Table
-- -- f Formatted Table
Pebble counts documenting coarsening of bed material from
(Z) 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) Substrate
Cross-sections, monitored annually, will be compared to as -
(3) Stream Stability
built measurements to document channel stability and
maintenance of channel geomorphology and attaining
(3) In -stream Habitat
Vegetation Success Criteria (Sections 11.1.1 and 11.3.1).
(2) Stream -side Habitat
Attaining Vegetation Success Criteria (Section 11.3. 1)
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
Attaining Vegetation Success Criteria (Section 11.3. 1)
(2) Vegetative Composition
Benton Branch Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 38
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC
------- Formatted Table
-- -- f Formatted Table

Table 21. Monitoring Schedule
Resource Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
11.1 STREAMS
Monitoring plans for the Site are depicted in Figures 10A-1013. Permanent, monumented cross-
sections shall be installed at an approximate frequency of one per 50 bankfull-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. Cross- --- Deleted: The sponsor, through its assigns, may exercise discretion
SCCtlOn locations Shall be detailed In the Site as -built survey. in determining the placement and frequency of cross-sections, which
shall be determined by best professional judgment.
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 2 downstream of confluence with
UT 1. The approximate location of stream flow gauges are depicted on monitoring plan (Figure
l0A).
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 bankfull 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
Benton Branch Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 39
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 documented with measurements of stream stabili including bank -height- Deleted: stream success will be based on evaluations of functional
ratio and entrenchment ratio. Specifically, bank -height -ratios shall not exceed 1.2 in regions of uplift identified on NC SAM calculations.
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 dischargeecifically 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 Caswell County, the growing season occurs from April 10 —
October 24. 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. For
wetland success criteria, March I shall be the earliest a growing season may start. Confirmation
of the growing season must be accompanied by evidence of biological activity (bud burst and soil
temperature). The growing season will not be considered to have started on March 1 if bud burst
and soil temperature data do not meet the criteria outlined below.
Based on growing season information outlined in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region (USACE
2012), this will be confirmed annually by soil temperatures exceeding 41 degrees Fahrenheit at 12
Benton Branch Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 40
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

Page: 172
1,lNumber: 1 Author: K7RGLDEB Subject: Comment on Text Date: 2/13/2017 3:36:OS PM
should say "Specifically UT 1 and UT 2)

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
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 1 -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" referenced in Small
Streams Biocriteria Development (NCDWQ 2009). Results will be presented on a site -by -site basis
and will include a list of taxa 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 E1 (also Appendix E).
12.0 MAINTENANCE AND CONTINGENCY PLAN
Benton Branch Bank Site Mitigation Plan
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
page 41
Restoration Systems, LLC

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.
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 & 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 a Bank 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 Migration
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.
Benton Branch Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 42
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

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
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 byparker, bollard, o�ogas allowed by site Deleted: fence,
----------
conditions and/or conservation easement. Disturbed, damaged, or destroyed boundary markers ----------- Deleted: , vee -blazing; or other means
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 conservationpasements. ..- Deleted: easement
The conservation casements will prohibit incompatible uses that might Jeopardize the objectives - Deleted: easement
------- ---------
of the Site. The North Carolina Wildlife Habitat Foundation ("NCWHF") will be the conservation
easement holder. C WHF has requested, and the provide,
S onsor has agreed to twentythousand Deleted: NCWHF maintains an endowment for the purpose of
P
($20,000) dollars at the conservation easement closingto hold the Site's easements. monitoring dna enforcement conservation easements rt holds
("General Stewardship Fund")).. NCWIIF will require none -time
contribution from the Sponsor to NCWHF's General Stewardsbip
In addition to servingas the conservation easement older, NCWHF will also be res onsible for
Fund sufficient orva to easemupportents,
NCwHF's a at time
of
under the
�________p_________-_-___„ Site's conservation easements, payable at time of easement closing
long-term management of the Site per the requirements of the Bank UMBI and this Bank Site Deleted: stewardship
Mitigation Plan. As the Site has been designed to be self-sustaining, the Site's long-term
management activities will be limited to routine boundary inspections and, when necessary,
Benton Branch Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 43
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

marking Site boundaries to ensure clear identification of conservation areas.' Per their Deleted:. Z
responsibilities as the Site's easement holder, NCWHF will inspect boundaries annually to monitor
for encroachment. During these inspections, as the Site's long-term manager, the condition of
boundary markings (i.e., signs) will be noted and replaced as needed. The Sponsor has agreed to
provide to NCWHF an additional five thousand ($5.000) dollars at the conservation easement
closing to fund the Site's long-term management.
For the purposes of calculating the gmount required to fund long-term management (see Appendix -.-.---
Deleted: Long -teen Managemeat Fund t
--------- -------------------------------------------------
Fj the fiollowing_ assumptions and inputs_were used: 1)_during the implementation of this Bank
— Deleted:)
Site Mitigation Plan, fifty (50) signs will be installed and an additional fifty (50) replacement signs
will be purchased by the Sponsor; 2) these signs have a 50 -year life; however, complete
: ---- Deleted: at no cost to the Long-term Managementrand
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 ,revenues generated from the $20,000 required for easement holding (discussed above) to
.- Deleted: their General Stewardship Fund
inspect boundaries, additional funds were included to ensure completion of boundary inspections.
In support of NCWHF as the Site's easement holder and long-term manager, the Sponsor will
provide a lump sum payment of twenty-five thousand ($25,000) dollars to NCWHF at the time of
conservation easement closing, prior to the Site's initial credit release. This payment includes
funds to support NCWHF's role as the easement holder ($20,000) and additional funds to support
long-term management ($5,000).
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 USAGE 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
t 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, which will be clearly set out in the Site's final conservation easements. .-.
- ' Deleted: .
Therefore, fencing/crossing maintenance and/or replacement is not part of the Site's Long-term Management Plan.
Benton Branch Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 44
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

monitoring, and any remedial work required pursuant to the Bank UMBI. Such assurances shall
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 a performance bond in a form substantially similar -.-.-
Deleted: either
to the draft provided in Appendix underwritten by a surety company licensed to do business in _._-
Deleted: F
North Carolina with a Best's current rating of not less than "A.. The total value of such bon shall ------Deleted:
e 2', or a casualty insurance policy in an appropriate form
be six hundred eight thousand one hundred forty six dollars ($608,146).
to be approved by the USACE in compliance with current USAGE
policy and guidance documents.
15.2 MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING ASSURANCE
Deleted: or policy
ollowin the Site's construction, the Implementation Assurance shall be re laced with another
p----- - ----- - P ------------------
Deleted: If a performance bond is utilized,founwing
performance bond. The replacement bond shall be in a form substantially similar to the draft
provided in Appendix G. The total value of such bond shall be twenty seven_ thousand five_ -,_---
Deleted: F
hundred dollars ($27,500).-_
Deleted: No such replacement is necessary if a. casualty insurance
.-..----
policy is utilized.
15.3 OTHER FINANCIAL ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Financial, 5 shall bepayable to the Site's casement holder and financial assurance obligee, _-_ =
Deleted: assurance
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 Benton Branch Bank Site Mitigation Plan under the terms and conditions
of the Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank, will result in the ecological improvement of 9,835
linear feet of stream, 3.3 acres of wetland, and 1.7 acres of potential wetland under existing ponds
to be removed. The Site has the potential to provide 5,992 SMUs and 3.9 WMUs through the
restoration, enhancement, and permanent protection of 33 -acres surrounding several currently
impacted streams and wetlands in Caswell County, North Carolina.
Benton Branch Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 45
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
ReportY-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. Omernik, J.A. Comstock, M.P. Schafale, W.H. McNab, D.R. Lenat, T.F.
MacPherson, J.B. Glover, and V.B. Shelboume. 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-b382-4b5 8-97ed-
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.
Benton Branch Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 46
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://por-tal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=28b97405-5 5 da-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-a4l c-
d475ea7adlfa&groupld=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-8ed9-
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
(USAGE 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/gfd/states/37000.html
Benton Branch Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 47
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.
Benton Branch Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 48
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

APPENDIX A
BANK SITE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
Benton Branch Bank Site Mitigation Plan Appendix
Upper Cape Fear Umbrella Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

APPENDIX B
MORPHOLOGY TABLES AND
EXISTING STREAM
CHARACTERISTIC DATA
Benton Branch Bank Site Mitigation Plan Appendix
Upper Cape Fear Umbrella Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

APPENDIX C.
FLOOD FREQUENCY
ANALYSIS DATA
Benton Branch Bank Site Mitigation Plan Appendix
Upper Cape Fear Umbrella Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

APPENDIX D.
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION PACKAGE
Benton Branch Bank Site Mitigation Plan Appendix
Upper Cape Fear Umbrella Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

APPENDIX E.
PRECONSTRUCTION BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE DATA
Benton Branch Bank Site Mitigation Plan Appendix
Upper Cape Fear Umbrella Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

Page 27: [1] Deleted Adam Riggsbee 2/7/17 10:19:00 AM
Proof of establishment and full funding of Long-term Management Fund.
Page 44: [2] Deleted Adam Riggsbee 2/7/171 AM
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).

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
Axiom Environmental, Inc
PREPARED BY:
RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC
1101 HAYNES STREET, SUITE 211
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27604
AND
AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
218 SNOW AVENUE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27603
YEBRUARY 2017--- Deleted: OCTOBER 2016
____- —Section Break (Continuous)

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 0 1ECTIVES............................................................................................................................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
ASELINE INFORMATION....................................................................................................11
6.1
EXISTING CONDITIONS...........................................................................................................12
7.0 CHANNELSTA ILITYASSESSMENT......................................................................................16
7.1
STREAM POWER...................................................................................................................16
7.2
SHEAR STRESS......................................................................................................................17
7.3
STREAM POWER AND SHEAR STRESS METHODS AND RESULTS........................................................18
7.4
ANKFULL 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.........................................................................................
_-.--
9.3
WETLAND CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE......................................................................................22(
- ----`-
10.0
MITIGATION WORK PLAN..................................................................................................27.__------
7.__---_.10.1
10.1
RESTORATION PROJECT GOALS AND O JECTIVES.......................................................................2
-------
---10.2
10.2
STREAM AND WETLAND DESIGN............................................................................................2�
-----
10.3
STREAM RESTORATION........................................................................................................2
10.4
STREAM ENHANCEMENT LEVEL I............................................................................................
-_
10.5
STREAM ENHANCEMENT LEVEL II...........................................................................................330
------
10.6
WETLAND RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT..........................................................................3A
_
10.7
PLANT COMMUNITY RESTORATION.........................................................................................31
-
10.8
PLANTING PLAN.................................................................................................................32
10.9
NUISANCE SPECIES MANAGEMENT.........................................................................................3A-
10.10
SOIL MANAGEMENT AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURES...........................................................
11.0
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS ...................................
11.1
STREAMS..........................................................................................................................3
11.2
WETLANDS........................................................................................................................37
11.3
VEGETATION......................................................................................................................38
11.4
MACROINVERTE RATES.......................................................................................................
12.0
MAINTENANCE AND CONTINGENCY PLAN........................................................................3
12.1
VEGETATION......................................................................................................................39
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan Table of Contents page i
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

12.2
12.3
12.4
12.5
13.0
14.0
15.0
15.1
15.2
15.3
16.0
17.0
STREAMS...............................................................................................................
39
WETLANDHYDROLOGY........................................................................................................40
Bank Hydrologic Unit Map
SITEOUNDARIES...............................................................................................................�
Motes Creek Site Location
TERRACELL DROP STRUCTURES..............................................................................................�
_
LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN...................................................................................49
-
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN.......................................................................................44
Figure 7.
FINANCIAL ASSURANCE.....................................................................................................n-
Figures 8A -8B. Typical Structure Details
IMPLEMENTATIONASSURANCE..............................................................................................4_2�
--
MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING ASSURANCE........................................................................�
------
OTHER FINANCIAL ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS........................................................................4_2�
CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................................................42�
REFERENCES......................................................................................................................4A
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
L[gure 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 El. 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

Page: 190
i Number: 1 Author: K7RGLDEB Subject: Comment on Text Date: 2/13/2017 3:12:14 PM
In final submission, need to see updated figures ensuring that the titles say "Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank"

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......................................................................................................11
Table8. Motes Creek Soils.......................................................................................................................14
Table 10. Stream Power (Q) and Shear Stress (i) Values.....................................................................19
Table 11. Reference Reach Bankfull Discharge Analysis......................................................................20
Table12. 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.............................................................................................2
.__...-- Deleted: 24
Table 16. Wetland Credit Release Schedule...........................................................................................2�(
_.._ Deleted: 25
Table 17. Anticipated Construction Timing and Sequencing...............................................................2
_.. - Deleted: 27
Table 18. Mitigation Activity Totals........................................................................................................
; _ Deleted: 27
Table19. Planting Plan............................................................................................................................_--------
Deleted: 32
Table 20. Functional Goal/Objectives and Performance Standards ....................................................
__
-------- Deleted: 34
Table21. Monitoring Schedule................................................................................................................
-------- Deleted: 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 floodplain 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
Wetland Credit Potential Stream Credit Potential
Hvdro Status* Mitigation Activities (WMUs) (SMUs)
Perennial* Restoration, Enhancement 0.92
5,345
*Note: Perennial and Intermittent stream calls have not been approved by the NC Division of Water Resources and
Hydrologic status is for descriptive purposes only.
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 ofpage intentionally left blank) Deleted: _
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 2
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

Table 2B. Water Quality Functional Objectives and Proposed Actions
Water Quality Improvement Objectives
Proposed Actions
Cattle exclusion and/or cessation of agricultural
Remove Pollutant Sources
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
UTl
UT2
Wetland Type
BHF
HF
HF
Wetland ID
PA
SA
SB, SG, SH
(1) HYDROLOGY
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
(2) Surface Storage & Retention
LOW
LOW
LOW
(2) Sub -surface Storage and
Retention
LOW
HIGH
LOW
(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
LOVA'
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 ofpage intentionally left blank)
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page S
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

Table 3C. Functional Goals/Objectives and Corres ondin Miti ation Work Plan Components
Functional Goals/Objectives Mitigation Work Plan Component
(1) HYDROLOGY
(2) Flood Flow (Floodplain Access)
Construct stable channel with cobble/gravel substrate,
(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
(2) Physical Structure
increase soil surface roughness
(3) Stream Stability
Construct proper channel width and depth, stabilize
(2) Landscape Patch Structure
channel banks, provide gravel/cobble substrate, plant
(4) Channel Stability
woody riparian buffer, remove cattle
(2) Vegetative Composition
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
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration Plant woody riparian buffer
(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 ofpage 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
Anticipated Lengths and Areas
Credit Potential
Streams Non-credit Wetlands Mitigation
Mitigation Activity (linear feet) Generating (acres) Ratio SMUs W Formatted Table
Stream Restoration 4,879 1:1 4,727 Deleted: 150
---------------
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 Neuse River basin.
located in the Cape Fear 02; the majority of these areas are
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 RUC 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 Ffarm 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
Piedmont Alluvial Forest Dry-Mesic Oak -Hickory Forest
(Floodplains and Slopes) (Upland Side Slopes)
Canopy Species Understory Species Canopy Species Understory Species
Acer rubrum Acer rubrum Acer rubrum Acer rubrum
Liquidambar styracii lua 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 at.
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 (MRCS 2014), the Site contains five soil series: Chewacla fine
sandy loam (Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts), Efland silt loam (Typic Hapludults), Herndon silt loam
(Typic Kanhapludulls), 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
Description
Symbol Name
Status*
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 ofpage 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
(linear feet)
USGS
Stream Order
USGS Stream
Classification
In -Field Stream
Classification
Motes Creek
1,905
2nd
Intermittent
Perennial
UTI
402
1St
Intermittent
Perennial
UT2
2,075
l8e/2"d
Intermittent
Perennial
UT3
482
Unmapped
Unmapped
Perennial
Total 4,864
*Note: Perennial and Intermittent stream calls have not been aooroved
by the NC Division of Water Resources and
Hydrologic status is for descriptive purposes onl
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 (Lc). 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 (PEM1Y).
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
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 16
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

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: S2 = pgQs
where S2 = 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 (7 = 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:
T=yRs
where T = shear stress (lb/ft2), r = 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:
Tmax = 1.5T
for sinuous channels, the maximum shear stress can be determined as a function of plan form
characteristics:
Tmax = 2.65T(Rc /Wbkf)-0.5
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 17
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

where Re = radius of curvature (ft) and Wbkf = bankfull width (ft).
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:
w = pgQs = iv
where w = stream power per unit of bed area (N/ft-sec, Joules/sec/ft2), i = shear stress, and v =
average velocity (ft/sec). Similarly,
w = Q/Wbkf
where Wbkf = width of stream at bankfull (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.
Deleted:
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 18
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

Table 10. Stream Power (S2) and Shear Stress (t) Values
Water
Total
Shear
Discharge
surface
Stream
Hydraulic
Velocity
Reference Site
a /s)
Slope
Power
52/W
Radius
Stress
i v
imax
(ft
(T)
(v)
(ft/ft)
(0)
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 (D/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 "bankf ill" 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 Analvsis
Watershed Area
Return Interval
Discharge
Method
(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
(USGS 2006)
1.3-1.5
27-36
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-I.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
(USGS 2006)
1.3-1.5
38-68
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 ofpage 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
1.5:1 459.3
Stream Enhancement II 397
2.5:1 159
Stream
Mitigation
Final
Mitigation
Mitigation
152 1.14 5,345 0.92
Comment
Reach
Activity
Length/Area
Ratio
Credits
UT 1 Station 00+00
EI
259
1.5:1
173
to 02+59
Easement Break 3111 in
tion
UT 1 Station 02+59
1142-31 =
Restoration
1:1
1,111
width is removed from
to
1111
credit
Easement Break 54 ft in
Motes Creek Station
1927-54 =
Restoration
1:1
1873
width is removed from
00+00 to 19+27
1873
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
EII
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
.-------- Formatted Table
• _.-.-...-.
n._,..._ r,._n
(lannratina
i____..�
n.....,,
er,rn.. v�w,rrr-.
Stream Enhancement I 689
1.5:1 459.3
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
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.
(Remainder ofpaae intentionally left blank)
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 24
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

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;
4)
Recordation of conservation easements protecting the
15
802
Establishment
Site, i , _
easement h.
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 I 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.
I )
Channels are stable;
Year 3 Monitoring
2)
Interim Performance Standards met;
10
535
3)
Approval of Monitoring Report by the Corps.
1)
Visual Assessment;
Year 4 Monitoring
2)
Interim Performance Standards met;
5
267
3)
Approval of Monitoring Report by the Corps.
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)
Visual Assessment;
Year 6 Monitoring
2)
Interim Performance Standards met;
5
267
3)
Approval of Monitoring Report by the Corps.
1)
Stream Performance Standards met;
F------
- Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: 1, 2,
Year 7 Monitoring
2)
Vegetation Performance Standards met;
10
534
3, ... + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0" +
3)
Approval of Final Monitoring Report by the Corpse
------------------------------------------------
Indent at: 0.25"
Deleted:.
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 25
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 casements protecting the
15
Site, i x10 pa"..._
r and long -tem,
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
I )
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)
Visual Assessment;
Year 4 Monitoring
2)
Interim Performance Standards met;
10
3)
Approval of Monitoring Report by the Corps.
Year 5 Monitoring*
1)
Interim Performance Standards met;
10
2)
Approval of Monitoring Report by the Corps.
1)
Visual Assessment;
Year 6 Monitoring
2)
Interim Performance Standards met;
10
3)
Approval of Monitoring Report by the Corps.
Year 7 Monitoring**
1)
Final Performance Standards met;
1
2)
Approval of Monitoring Report by the Corps
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 26
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 ofpage intentionally left blank)
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 27
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 (I) Enhance (II) Total Restoration Enhance Total
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ac) (ac) (ac)
4879 689 397 5965 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 28
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 8B). The structures should be constructed to resist erosive forces
associated with hydraulic drops proposed at Site.
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 29
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

TerraCell is a light weight, flexible mat made of high density polyethylene strips. The stops 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 813). 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 II 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 30
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 31
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. During construction activities, care will be taken to avoid removal of high
value trees within the easement. 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 32
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

Table 19. Planting Plan
Vegetation Association
Piedmont/Low Mountain
Alluvial Forest*
Dry-Mesic Oak -Hickory
Forest*
Marsh Treatment
Welland**
Stream -side
Assemblage**
TOTAL
Area (acres)
9.7
3.3
0.1
3.8
16.9
Species
#planted*
% of total
#planted* %
of total
# lanted**
% of total
# lanted**
% 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 p e erbush (Clethra ahtifolia)
--
--
--
--
41
15
--
--
41
Silky dogwood (Cornus amomum)
660
10
41
15
2067
20
2768
Persimmon (Diospyros vir iniana)
--
--
224
10
--
--
--
--
224
White ash (Fraxinus americana)
112
5
112
Green ash(Fraxinuspennsylvanica)
1319
20
2067
20
3386
Blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum)
--
--
--
--
27
10
--
--
27
Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tuli ifera)
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 1
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 33
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 USAGE 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 34
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)
Pebble counts documenting coarsening of bed material from
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Four overbank events in separate monitoring years will be
documented during the monitoring period.
(4) Floodplain Access
Success Criteria (Section 11.3. 1)
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
Attaining Vegetation Success Criteria (Section 11.3.1).
(2) Stream -side Habitat
Removal of cattle, and attaining Vegetation Success Criteria
(4) Microtopography
(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).
Water
(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
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 35
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC
-------- Formatted Table
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
Attaining Vegetation Success Criteria (Section 11.3. 1)
(2) Vegetative Composition
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 35
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC
-------- Formatted Table

Table 21. Monitoring Schedule
Resource Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
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 bankfull-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. gross -section .... Deleted: The sponsor, through its assigns, may exercise discretion
p y ty -
locations shall be detailed In the Site as -built survey. in determining the placement and frequency of cross-sections, which
shall be determined by best professional judgment.
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 bankfull 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
routinely. Each bankfull monitoring event may be reported separately to the USACE from annual
monitoring reports.
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 36
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

11.1.1 Stream Success Criteria
,Stream success will be documented with measurements of stream stability mcludm g
bank-hei ht- Deleted: steam success will be based on evaluations of functional
--------------g ------ --- ------
ratio and entrenchment ratio. Specifically, bank -height -ratios shall not exceed 1.2 in regions of uplift identified on NC SAM calculations.
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. For
wetland success criteria, March 1 shall be the earliest a growing season may start. Confirmation
of the growing season must be accompanied by evidence of biological activity (bud burst and soil
temperature). The growing season will not be considered to have started on March 1 if bud burst
and soil temperature data do not meet the criteria outlined below.
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 (USAGE 2012) including the emergence of
herbaceous plants from the ground, appearance of new growth from vegetative crowns, sprouting
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 37
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

seeds, green foliage visible between spreading bud scales, emergence or elongation of leaves of
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 1 -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 RCVS-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`
JI 1.3.1 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 E 1 (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
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 38
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC
Formatted: Body Text,Body Text Charl,Body Tent Char
Char,Body Text Charl Char Charl,Body Text Char Char Char
Charl,Body Text Charl Char Charl Char Char,Body Text Char
Char Char Charl Char Char,Body Text Chart Char Chari Char
Char Char Char,Body Text Char3
Formatted: Font:Not Italic
Moved down [1]: 11.3.1 -Vegetation Success Criteria
Formatted: Font:Times New Roman, 12 pt
Moved (insertion) rll

maintenance. Routine maintenance should be expected most often in the first two years following
construction and are summarized as follows.
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 Migration
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
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 39
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

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
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 maybe identified by parker, bollard, o"ostias allowed by Site _._ Deleted: fence,
conditions and/or conservation easement. Disturbed, damaged, or destroyed boundary markers Deleted: , tree -blazing, or other means
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 conservationpasements. _ _ Deleted: easement
-------------
The conservation ,�asements_will prohibit_ incompatible uses that might jeopardize the objectives__ Deleted: easement
of the Site. The North Carolina Wildlife Habitat Foundation ("NCWHF") will be the conservation
easement holder. ,NTCWHF has requested, and the Sponsor has agreed to provide, twenty thousand Deleted: NCWHF maintains an endowment for the purpose of
($20,000) dollars at the conservation easement closing to hold the Site's easements.
monitoringelStew and rdshi Foodment ). conservation easements it bolas
("General Stewardship Fund"). NCWIIF will require sone -time
contribution from the Sponsor to NCWHF's General Stewardship
In addition to servingas the conservation easement older, NCWHF will also be res onsible for Fund sufficient to support NCwHF's responsibilities under the
....... __................................ h.. _ Site's conservation easements, payable at time of easement closing
long-term management of the Site per the requirements of the Bank UMBI and this Bank Site Deleted: stewardship
Mitigation Plan. As the Site has been designed to be self-sustaining, the Site's long-term
management activities will be limited to routine boundary inspections and, when necessary,
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 40
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

marking Site boundaries to ensure clear identification of conservation areas.' Per their Deleted: 1
responsibilities as the Site's easement holder, NCWHF will inspect boundaries annually to monitor
for encroachment. During these inspections, as the Site's long-tenn manager, the condition of
boundary markings (i.e., signs) will be noted and replaced as needed. The Sponsor has agreed to
provide to NCWHF an additional five thousand ($5.000) dollars at the conservation easement
closing to fund the Site's long-term management.
For the purposes of calculating the gmount required to fund long -tern management (see Appendix -- - Deleted: Long-tenn Management Fund 1
Fj the fioHowing_ assumptions and inputs_were used: 1)_during the implementation of this Bank Deleted:)
Site Mitigation Plan, fifty (50) signs will be installed and an additional fifty (50) replacement signs
will be purchased by the Sponsoi;; 2) these signs have a 50 -year life; however, complete _-- Deleted: at no cost to the Long -tens Management 71md
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 xevenues generated from the $20,000 required for easement holding (discussed above) t Deleted: their General stewardship Fund
inspect boundaries, additional funds were included to ensure completion of boundary inspection 1
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 UMBI. Such assurances shall
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
t 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:, which will be clearly set out in the Site's final conservation easements. - Deleted: .
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 41
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC

Page: 232
Number: 1 Author: K7RG9TT9 Subject: Highlight Date: 2/23/2017 3:17:50 PM
For consistency with other plans, should have a paragraph following this sentence that states: "In support of NCWHF as the Site's easement
holder and long-term manager, the Sponsor will provide a lump sum payment of twenty-five thousand ($25,000) dollars to NCWHF at the time of
conservation easement closing, prior to the Site's initial credit release. This payment includes funds to support NCWHF's role as the easement
holder ($20,000) and additional funds to support
long-term management ($5,000)."

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 ofaperformance bond in a form substantially similar Deleted: either
to the draft provided in Appendix G underwritten by_a surety_company_licensed to do business in FDeleted: F
North Carolina with a Best's current rating of not less than "?� The total value of such bond or : = or a casualty insurance policy in an approp ate form
policy shall be six hundred seven thousand nine hundred twenty six dollars ($607,926). roved by the USACE in compliance with current usACE
d guidance documents.
15.2 MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING ASSURANCE
�ollowin the Site's construction, the_ -Implementation Assurance shall be replaced with another -_.- Deleted: lfa performance bond is utilized, followin
g
performance bond. The replacement bond shall be in a form substantially similar to the draft
provided in Appendix G. The total value of such bond shall be twenty seven thousand five - Deleted: F
hundred dollars ($27,500). — Deleted: No such replacement is necessary if a casualty insurance
- -
policy is utilized.
15.3 OTHER FINANCIAL ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Financial,�ssurances shall be payable to the Site's easement holder and financial assurance obligee,__ --- Deleted: assurance
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 SM -Us
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 42
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
ReportY-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. Omernik, J.A. Comstock, M.P. Schafale, W.H. McNab, D.R. Lenat, T.F.
MacPherson, J.B. Glover, and V.B. Shelbourne. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina and
South Carolina. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.
Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.A. O'Hara, A. Jessup, R. Everhart.
1999. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina Streams. N.C. State
University, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 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-b382-4b5 8-97ed-
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 43
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://por-tal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=28b97405-5 5 da-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-a4l c-
d475ea7adlfa&groupld=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-8ed9-
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
(USAGE et al.). 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines.
Unites States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE). 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/gfd/states/37000.html
Motes Creek Bank Site Mitigation Plan page 44
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 45
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

Page 41: [1] Deleted Adam Riggsbee 2/7/17 10:27:00 AM
A separate endowment fund ("Long-term Management Fund"), to be held by NC"F, 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).