20081143 Ver 1_Mitigation Plans_20080714

RECEIVED
JUN L 0 2008
RALEIGH REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
??l1u1it =UrCC
June 20, 2008
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
ATTN: Andrew Williams, Regulatory Project Manager
Chair, Interagency Review Team
SUBJ: Prospectus for Cripple Creek Mitigation Bank, Alamance County
08 1143
-q D wpm
,JUL 1 4 2008
DENR - WATER QUAD Y
WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
Restoration Systems, LLC (RS) is pleased to present the enclosed Prospectus, including the
Mitigation Plan for the Cripple Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank proposed at a site
in northeast Alamance County within Cape Fear River Basin, cataloging unit 03030002 (see Figs
1-3)
Please note that this Prospectus is prepared in the format of the Mitigation Banking
Instrument (MBI) template developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and found at
http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/WETLANDS/Mitigation/mitbanks.html. This approach
is taken on the recommendation of Wilmington District staff to facilitate a more timely
transition from Prospectus to MBI following the review, public notice and approval of the
Prospectus notwithstanding any changes the Interagency Review Team (IRT) may
recommend. Although the Prospectus follows the MBI template fairly closely, some
changes or deletions were necessary to stay in conformance with the new (June 9, 2008)
mitigation rule.
RS has attempted to gain a working understanding of the goals and expectations set
down in the new Mitigation Rule, which became effective on June 6, 2008. For example,
we are aware that the prospectus will be subject to a 30-day review for completeness and
subsequently put on a 30-day public notice. Within 30 days of the end of the public
notice, the District Engineer (DE) will issue an "Initial Evaluation Letter" apprising the
sponsor of the proposal's potential to provide compensatory mitigation for Department of
the Army (DA) permits. In our minds, this means that RS should be ready to move
beyond the prospectus into the mitigation banking instrument (Instrument) preparation
phase of work within 90 days of the DE's receipt of the prospectus (assuming that the
Initial Evaluation Letter was positive.)
RS is excited to submit this Prospectus and Mitigation Plan to you for distribution to the
IRT and we look forward to putting forth our best efforts to provide a high quality
Pilot Mill -1101 Haynes St., Suite 211 • Ralei(,h, NC 27604 • www.restorationsystems.com • Phone [phone]- Fax [phone]
Page 2
June 20, 2008
Andrew Williams, USACE
wetland and stream mitigation complex that will provide the utmost in functionality for
the benefit of the entire ecoregion.
In support of your effort to get the document to the members of the IRT, I am enclosing 6
copies; a list of all adjacent property owners' names and addresses are also included for
your use during the public notice process.
We are hopeful that you will contact me right away if you have questions or comments
before the public notice is executed. Thanks for your time and cooperation.
Sincerely,
4/4
M. Randall Turner
Enclosures
cc: Jean Manuele, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Raleigh
t
'DireuKions to The Bank:
N
Take exit 150 off Interstate 85-40 just east of Burlington Y i(
Travel northitowards Haw RivmGrecn Level for - 2.2 miles 4' 0 z
At the Highway 49 junction. turn right travel north on Highway 49 towards Green LeveL'Roxboro s
for-2.7 miles
Turn left on Sandy Cross Road (at the Sandy Cross Mini Mart) for -1.6 miles _ tip ryt 4
Turn right on Fonvi Se Road for -1.7 miles to a T-intersect ion %
Turn left on Deep Crock Road for --0.9 milt 1A
Turn left on Roney-Lineberry Road just after Deep Creek Baptist Church for -0.3 mile
After passing through a trailer park, take a left at the stop sign into The Bank as } s
Point in center of road crossing at the upstream end of the Main Channels
Latitude: 36.1 383 32 274 °N, Longitude: 79380963'_90 °W £ f s
yr i
aJ Z ei .l It ?,?
?E
Reference Location
... - 1r • 3 ,? ? ?§? r ,tom
4
The Bank
Location '
- ? z
w
- ¢
?-
t?~ ` t
r
ZFZ
r l;lt{-w Ir 11 ?Y?.
, n
0 1 mi. 4 mi.
j 1:158,400
Source: 1977 North Carolina Atlas and Gazetteer, p.18.
%
:It t -1a I
1 -
j
Own. by:
2126 Rowland Pond Drive THE BANK AND REFERENCE LOCATION Ckd by: CLF FIGURE
Willow (919) 215-7 93 NC 27592 WGL
CRIPPLE CREEK MITIGATION SITE
[phone] fax Date:
Alamance County, North Carolina April 2008
Project:
em.xxnenta c. 07-016

The Bank Location
Targeted Local
Watershed
03030002030050

1 n..i Or]..
.? ? :r Vitt
R
a. „r qli, uv is
ssfae
rCeda
fi

Hwd ? '.1 1 'i r : tier
t

I

CaF?.vea ,

Sch,ey ` 1

f
-
vy
(? ?anRe rat, •trXg
y ver
-Burlington ?1et r,e .t
r 1 farrnt?SR
GR -- -?-
; ?.. ? N u .. ,E,.
R A D U RV

.+
Atd R. rrics 5
_
- .. ,
f
r
'
?
` ,
, 41
l1 L
e
r
a.?r
,

t _ ?
t3 ? u
V lr,,? rr ?? r
Tg rEubanF O.
.. K e_,zrif

t ? rrs. ?' - -
t v
0
/
?
?
?

luisan Shur. Ca l -
.,. .
?''' .?
? ?

,
-. _ 77

(

r ?
1

\ f
1 ;b,lro Ste:ev
?
_
;,
_.

P ..
C H A
T I-
a:'rK

40" Hot
d? 1,
, x.
t s: G
4t
it \ 1 .?, 'fP r, Q,tkS
71,
5 mi. 0 5 mi. 15 mi.
1!625,000
Source: Hydrologic Unit Map -1974 State of North Carolina
:,:.'.,?.?W:'y.y„?,M.t ry?{rswib.;. yrf..: n.,«<,•:...
Dwn. by:
1 2126 op mg, Pond D92e MITIGATION SERVICE AREA Ckd by: CLF FIGURE NC 275
(91
Willow 9)215-1693 CRIPPLE CREEK MITIGATION SITE Date: WGL
(9191 341-3839 fax April 200$ 2
Alamanee County, North Carolina Project
07-016
%
t1 I f 1 Y r ?jtx ?? ? ?? +vt T „r ? . Y -.
IV,
( r ? t t?^ r 1 t f`
} 1 i
r
?Y r .. i f ¦ y'?
-eel
Of X
Ilk 0
R t f ?,,;.t? • r S
v ?` rte' '1r
r p ` ~
j.
Y ?[
Nat
%
%
ej?
Legend
Property Boundary
.t °''^1 4 Main Channel Drainage Area = 0.4 square mile
`.? ?, 'Z fxF UT1 Drainage Area= 0.07 square mile
UT2 Drainage Area = 0.07 square mile
0 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 UT3 Drainage Area= 0.02 square mile
Miles UT4 Drainage Area = 0.06 square mile
.rte
i ?
1:12,000 The Bank Boundary =-19.6 acres
r ` \
FIGURE
Axiom ive
or ve TOPOGRAPHY AND DRAINAGE AREA cLF
A212629 Rowland Pond or - 3
Willow Spring,
93 NC 27592 CRIPPLE CREEK MITIGATION SITE Date:
(919(215-ts9a April 2008
1:11:),
919) 341-36839 fax
Alamance County, North Carolina Project
?ilom Envtanmenul. Int.
07-016
Cripple Creek Adjacent Landowner Information
David Edwards Alton Miles
1760 Sandy Cross Rd 4201 KingsWay Ct.
Burlington, NC 27217 Suffolk, VA 23435
Habitat for Humanity of Alamance Co. Jeffrey Miller
PO Box 5036 1742 Sandy Cross Rd
Burlington, NC 27215 Burlington, NC 27217
Alene Haithcock Johanna Roebuck
716 NC Hwy 87 3236 Duke Dr.
Burlington, NC 27217 Farmville, NC 27828
Burton Hopkins Roger Shields
1006 Gilbreath St. 1326 Mebane Oaks Rd.
Graham, NC 27253 Mebane, NC 27302
Amber Jones Darrell Turner
348 Hale St 1520 Stonewall Springs Rd.
Burlington, NC 27217 Burlington, NC 27217
Paul Kenion Cheryl Waddell
1791 Lakeview Dr. 910 Greenwood Ct
Burlington, NC 27215 Mebane, NC 27302
William Lineberry David Ward
1971 Deep Creek Church Rd 2102 Roney Lineberry R
Burlington, NC 27217 Burlington, NC 27217
Garland Loy
1745 Dixon Swimming Pool Rd.
Burlington, NC 27217
Rayvon Lynch
1791 K Lakeview Dr.
Burlington, NC 27217
A
PROSPECTUS
JUN 2 0 2008
For the Cripple Creek Mitigation Bank
Alamance County
RECEIVED
RALEIGH REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
08 1143
The prospectus contains three parts, the first of which is prepared in direct response to the
new mitigation rule, which early-on defines what should be included in a prospectus...
"...a complete prospectus includes the following information:..." The second part is an
adaptation of the Instrument template (see cover letter), and the third part is the
Mitigation Plan.
Objectives of the Bank
The primary goals of this stream and wetland restoration project focus on improving
water quality, enhancing flood attenuation, and restoring aquatic and riparian habitat,
which will be accomplished by:
Removing nonpoint sources of pollution associated with agricultural activities
including a) the exclusion of livestock from streams, stream banks, floodplains
and wetlands; b) eliminating the broadcasting of fertilizer, pesticides, and other
agricultural materials into and adjacent to streams and wetlands; and c)
establishing a vegetative buffer adjacent to streams and wetlands to treat surface
runoff which may be laden with sediment and/or agricultural pollutants from the
adjacent landscape.
2. Reducing sedimentation within onsite and downstream receiving waters through
a) reduction of bank erosion associated with hoof shear, vegetation maintenance,
and agricultural plowing, and b) planting a diverse woody vegetative buffer
adjacent to The Bank's streams.
3. Reestablishing stream stability and the capacity to transport watershed flows and
sediment loads by restoring a stable dimension, pattern, and profile supported by
natural in-stream habitat and grade/bank stabilization structures.
4. Promoting floodwater attenuation through a) reconnecting bankfull stream flows
to the abandoned floodplain terrace, b) restoring secondary, entrenched tributaries
thereby reducing floodwater velocities within smaller catchment basins, c)
restoring depressional floodplain wetlands, thereby increasing the storage
capacity for floodwaters within The Bank, and d) revegetating floodplains to
increase frictional resistance on floodwaters crossing The Bank.
5. Improving aquatic habitat by enhancing stream bed variability and the use of in-
stream structures.
6. Providing wildlife habitat including seepage slope wetlands, which are
uncommon in the piedmont portion of the State.
The Bank's mitigation plan includes 1) construction of a stable, riffle-pool stream
channel, 2) restoration/enhancement of historic wetland functions, 3) enhancement of
water quality functions (reduce nonpoint source sedimentation and nutrient inputs), 4)
restoration of a natural woody riparian buffer along The Bank's stream reaches, 5)
restoration of wildlife habitat associated with a riparian corridor/stable stream, and 6)
establishment of a permanent conservation easement.
Establishment and Operation of the Bank
The Bank will be established following completion of a series of processes that are
considered to be standard practices in the mitigation banking industry:
• GIS-landscape-level site evaluation
• Landowner contact
• Site Reconnaissance
• Technical investigations of
¦ Soils, site hydrology, site streams, other drainage features, plant
and animal communities, rare species and rare habitats, etc.
¦ Site restoration/enhancement/preservation potential
¦ Consideration of current and future watershed conditions
• Land Acquisition
• Development of mitigation plan including design
• Submit prospectus to DE for approval
• Implementation
• Monitoring
Operation of the bank will be managed byRS throughout pre-construction,
construction and monitoring. RS will be totally responsible for the bank's success and
for the sale of credits in accordance with approved credit release schedule.
Proposed Service Area
The Primary Geographic Service Area is the 8-digit Cataloging Unit, 03030002;
however, the recent Wilmington District Public Notice (June 3, 2008) affirmed that "use
of the bank for impacts located outside the PGSA may be considered on a case-by-case
basis during the permit evaluation process."
Need for and Technical Feasibility of Bank
Cape Fear 02 is a large drainage area within the Cape Fear River Basin. The service
area includes large metropolitan areas such as Greensboro, Burlington and Chapel Hill, as
well as large rural expanses where residential/commercial development is in high gear.
Technical feasibility of the bank is a certainty based on the results of vigorous site
investigations by licensed soil scientists and biologists. Standard, Rosgen-based methods
will be used to implement improvements to site aquatic resources.
Sponsor's Qualifications to Successfully Complete Bank
RS has been a preeminent force in the development of successful aquatic mitigation
sites in North Carolina for more than 10 years. RS's track record in selecting high
quality sites and using highly skilled technical designers and experts is well-
demonstrated. RS has designed and implemented more than 25 wetland, stream and
riparian buffer mitigation sites in Maryland and North Carolina, representing more than
5,000 acres of wetlands and 25 miles of streams. Furthermore, RS provides full financial
surety for every project through every phase of work and each site is inspected by staff at
least quarterly in addition to requisite technical monitoring.
2
Site's Ecological Suitability to Achieve the Bank's Objectives
Site is characterized by agricultural fields and historically modified streams and
wetlands. Relatively modest alterations to site streams and other features will result in
measurable ecological gains in aquatic functions and values. Furthermore, livestock and
agricultural practices will be precluded from any future encroachments into aquatic sites.
Credit Release Schedule
RS proposes to use the credit release schedule prescribed by the agencies in a DA
public notice, dated June 3, 2008; however, RS reserves the right to modify the credit
release schedule in the future should changes be approved by the DA/IRT.
Table 1. Proposed Credit Release Schedule
Task Completion Verification % of Credit Release
Wetlands Streams
I (Preconstruction)* Execution of MBI 15 15
II (Construction) Site Inspection b USACE 1 15 15
III (151 Year Monitoring) Monitoring Report 10 10
IV (2" Year Monitoring) Monitoring Report 15 10
V (3` Year Monitoring) Monitoring Report 20 10
VI (4` Year Monitoring) Monitoring Report 10 10
VII (5` Year Monitoring) Monitoring Report 10 15
VIII (Full Site Success) Based on Success Criteria 10 15**
Total 100 100
* Task I includes the execution of the MBI, MBRT approval of the Mitigation Plan, delivery of financial assurances,
recordation of the conservation easement, and delivery of the title option to the MBRT.
** Denotes that the release of 15 percent is contingent upon two bankfull events during the five-year monitoring
period. If only one bankfull event occurs, release of remaining credit or partial credit is subject to IRT approval.
More than 4250 linear feet of degraded stream will be restored and more than 630
feet will be enhanced. Furthermore, over 7 acres of riparian wetlands will be restored or
enhanced and over 1.5 acres of non-riparian wetlands will be similarly improved.
Table 2 provides specifics of stream and wetland mitigation strategies and quantities that
will be improved by the proposed work.
Table 2. Quantification of Proposed Mitigation
Proposed Mitigation Quantity Proposed Mitigation Units
(Credits)
Proposed Mitigation Activity
Streams
(linear feet)
Wetlands
(acres)
Stream Units
(SMUs)
Wetland Units
(WNI IUs)
Stream Restoration 4265 4265
Stream Enhancement (Level II) 633 253
Riparian Wetland Restoration 5.7 5.7
Riparian Wetland Enhancement 1.4 0.7
Nonriparian Wetland Restoration 1.2 1.2
Nonriparian Wetland Enhancement 0.5 0.25
Total: 4518 Total: 7.85
In addition to these aquatic resource improvements, more than 18 acres (18.7 acres)
of land will be planted and protected as riparian buffer, or wetland community.
The project was originally proposed as bank and a field review was conducted by the
MBRT. Since the project is substantially unchanged from the original proposal, RS
wanted to include feedback from the original MBRT and RS's responses to these
comments. Composition of the original MBRT included the following agency reps:
Andrew Williams, Chair U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Kathy Matthews
Howard Hall
Eric Kulz
Tammy I. Hill
Daryl Lamb
Shari L. Bryant
Renee Gledhill-Earley
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
N.C. Division of Water Quality
N.C. Division of Water Quality
N.C. Division of Water Quality
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
N.C. State Historic Preservation Office
The following section summarizes comments and concerns received from the MBRT
members after receipt of the project prospectus and a field review of the project site on
March 23, 2007. The written comments from MBRT members are included in Appendix
F of the Mitigation Plan document. In addition, Restoration Systems actions in response
to the comments received follow a reiteration of agency comments.
The following is a summary of comments from MBRT members as outlined by
USACE representative Andy Williams in a letter dated May 15, 2007.
Comments from MBRT
The project plans should be more specific. For example, the plan should include
drawings that indicate the existing and proposed stream pattern, profile, dimensions,
and elevation. Also, the proposed location of features such as fences, gates, planting
areas, etc. should be shown. Additionally, the locations of existing and proposed
cross-sections, the proposed structures, fill and proposed depressions, etc. should be
shown.
2. Wetland enhancement and restoration areas should be closely monitored in order to
assure that they are and/or will become jurisdictional wetlands. (USEPA)
3. The credit release schedule, as proposed in the prospectus, is not consistent with the
Stream Credit Release Schedule present as Appendix IX of the Stream Mitigation
Guidelines. (USEPA, USFWS, NCDWQ, NCWRC)
4. A survey of the project site should be conducted to identify individual hardwood trees
that are 5 inches in diameter at breast height, which could potentially benefit the
restoration processes through input of organic material. Efforts should be made to
preserve as many of these trees as possible. (USEPA, NCDWQ)
5. Native streambed substrate should be harvested from the existing channels for use in
the restored stream channels. (USEPA, NCDWQ, NCWRC)
4
6. A strategy for invasive/exotic plant management should be included in the Mitigation
Plan for the site. (NCDWQ)
7. Information on possible land use changes within the project watershed should be
collected and considered in the design of the stream. (NCDWQ)
8. The Mitigation Plan should provide details regarding the methods for preventing
livestock access to the streams. (NCWRC)
9. If livestock crossings are planned, the Mitigation Plan should include location, type of
crossing, and any exclusionary fencing.
10. Surveys to determine if listed mussel species are present within the existing stream
should be conducted by biologists with both state and federal endangered species
permits. Additionally, similar surveys may be considered for other state listed species
or federal species of concern. (NCWRC)
11. The vegetative success criteria could be modified to ensure that a stable, climatic
plant community can become established at the site. (USFWS)
12. A timeline for completion of the initial biological and physical improvement to the
bank site should be established.
13. Consider the establishment of one-five year interim success measures for stream
restoration, vegetation establishment, and stream and wetland hydrology.
14. The hydrological monitoring should include the establishment of stream gauges to
determine the frequency of bankfull event duration and frequency as established by
your proposed stream success criteria.
15. Identify an acceptable third party conservation organization to hold the conservation
easement.
16. A list of items and activities prohibited in the easement area should be specified and
established. A list of these items and activities is located in the Wilmington District's
Model Conservation Easement.
17. Financial assurances should not be structured to provide funds to the Corps of
Engineers.
18. Reference stream and wetlands should be considered in establishing success criteria
for the bank site.
RS Responses to Agency Comments
1. Near final design plans will be prepared and submitted with the final Mitigation Plan.
2. Wetland enhancement areas are already jurisdictional; wetland restoration and
enhancement areas will be monitored for 5 years following implementation, including
vegetation and hydrologic monitoring.
3. Disturbances to existing vegetation and soils will be minimized through collaboration
between the designer and the contractor to idealize the flow of construction traffic
and stockpile areas to minimize disturbances beyond the actual construction footprint.
Larger hardwood trees have been surveyed and mapped at the site; design plans will
preserve as many of these trees as possible and avoid disturbances to the trees to the
maximum extent possible. As a common practice, Restoration Systems requires its
contractor(s) to utilize native bed material to "seed" onto the new channel subgrade,
this will occur as part of this project as well.
5
4. The Credit Release Schedule has been adjusted based on coordination with agency
personnel.
5. The services of the Catena Group were engaged to conduct evaluations of site streams
for freshwater mussel species. The Catena Group is appropriately licensed for these
types of surveys. Results of surveys revealed no mussels within the site.
6. Design plans take into account land use changes in the project watershed. In addition,
reference streams, wetlands, and forest have been used to establish design plans and
success criteria for the site.
7. Livestock will be fenced off from the conservation easement and will not be allowed
any access.
8. During the five-year monitoring period, where necessary, undesirable plant or animal
species will be removed, treated, or otherwise managed by means of physical
removal, use of herbicides, live trapping, confining wires, or nets.
9. Annual monitoring is proposed for the stream channel, riparian vegetation, and
hydrology. Annual monitoring will continue for five years or until success criteria
are met and no less than two bankfull events have occurred, as determined by in situ
crest gauge.
10. An acceptable third party conservation organization will be identified to hold the
conservation easement. A conservation easement has been established to list items
and activities prohibited with the conservation easement.
6
General Provisions
The goal of the Cripple Creek Mitigation Bank (The Bank) is to restore and
enhance first- and second-order streams, and to restore and enhance riparian and
non-riparian wetlands, including their collective functions and values to
compensate for the loss of these regulated resources for unspecified, future and
unavoidable impacts to wetlands and/or streams, as authorized by Clean Water
Act Section 404 permits in circumstances deemed appropriate by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers District Engineer (DE) after consultation, through the permit
review process, with members of the IRT.
2. Use of credits from The Bank to offset impacts to aquatic resources 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 following the
publication of new federal rules, 33 CFR Parts 325 and 332, which became law on
June 9, 2008.
The IRT shall be chaired by Andrew Williams, hereafter referred to as DE, the
representative of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. The
IRT shall review monitoring and accounting reports as described below. In
addition, the IRT will review proposals for remedial actions proposed by
Restoration Systems, LLC (RS), or any of the agencies represented on the IRT.
The IRT will work to reach consensus on its actions, but the responsibility for
making determinative decisions rests with the DE.
4. The Corps, 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 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 N.C. Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ) will determine the amount of credits that can be withdrawn from The
Bank.
5. The parties to this agreement understand that, in accordance with the new federal
rule, credits derived from approved mitigation banks are preferable to the use of
ILF or on-site (developer-sponsored) mitigation where practicable.
Mitip-ation Plan
6. The Bank is a 19.6 acre portion of an active farm in northeast Alamance County,
which is utilized for grazing horses and production of hay. Approximately 4137
7
linear feet of stream associated with an unnamed tributary to Boyds Creek and its
secondary tributaries, as well as 8.8 acres of hydric soils exhibit mitigation
potential within The Bank. These areas are accessible to livestock and are
regularly maintained and mowed for hay production, resulting in local
disturbances to stream banks and wetland soil surfaces. Historical land use
practices, including the maintenance and removal of riparian vegetation, and the
relocation, dredging, and straightening of onsite streams has resulted in degraded
water quality, unstable channel characteristics (stream entrenchment, erosion, and
bank collapse), and reduced storage capacity/floodwater attenuation. Proximity
of stream channels to adjacent floodplains, including seepage areas and their
degraded morphology has removed wetland hydrology from adjacent landscapes
that are dominated by a hydric soil matrix. A more detailed description of the
baseline conditions on the site is contained in the enclosed Mitigation Plan.
7. RS will perform work described on pages 17-27 of the Mitigation Plan, including:
• Restoration of approximately 4265 linear feet of stream channels along the
upper reaches of UT 1 and lower reaches of UT 2;
• Enhancement (Level II) of approximately 633 linear feet of degraded stream
channel;
• Establishment of vegetated buffers on both sides of affected stream channels;
• Restoration of 5.7 acres of forested riparian wetlands and 1.2 acres of forested
nonriparian wetlands by: (1) restoring active floodplain attributes through
stream restoration/enhancement methods, (2) reducing the draw-down effect
of nearby channels, and (3) reestablishing a wetland plant community;
• Enhancement of 1.4 acres of riparian wetlands and 0.5 acre of non-riparian
wetland by: reestablishing wetland plant community and eliminating
vegetation maintenance and livestock grazing activities.
• Plant 18.7 acres of woody vegetation will be planted, including 8.8 acres of
wetland community and approximately 10 acres of non-wetland, riparian
community. In addition, substrate modifications will be made to areas that are
highly compacted from equipment and livestock usage, and to add
microtopograhpic variation in the land surfaces to facilitate slowing and
trapping surface water flows and accumulations.
8. The purpose of this work, and the objective of The Bank, is to:
Remove nonpoint sources of pollution associated with agricultural activities
including a) removal of livestock from streams, stream banks, and floodplains;
b) cessation of broadcasting fertilizer, pesticides, and other agricultural
materials into and adjacent to The Bank streams and wetlands; and c) provide
a vegetative buffer adjacent to streams and wetlands to treat surface runoff,
which may be laden with sediment and/or agricultural pollutants.
Reduce sedimentation within onsite and downstream receiving waters through
a) reduction of bank erosion associated with hoof shear, vegetation
8
maintenance, and agricultural plowing, and b) planting a forested vegetative
buffer adjacent to The Bank streams.
Reestablish stream stability and the streams' capacity to transport watershed
flows and sediment loads by restoring a stable dimension, pattern, and profile
supported by natural in-stream habitat and grade/bank stabilization structures.
Promote floodwater attenuation through a) reconnection of bankfull stream
flows to the abandoned floodplain terrace, b) reduce floodwater velocities
within smaller catchment basins by restoring the secondary, entrenched
tributaries, c) restore depressional floodplain wetlands, thereby increasing the
storage capacity for floodwaters within the Site, and d) revegetate floodplains
to increase frictional resistance on floodwaters crossing The Bank.
Improve aquatic habitats by enhancing stream bed variability and the wise use
of in-stream structures.
• Provide wildlife habitat, including seepage slope wetlands, which are
relatively uncommon in the piedmont portion of the State.
• Provide a legitimate opportunity for providing compensatory mitigation to
offset unavoidable impacts authorized by the Corps and NCDWQ in
consultation with state and federal partner agencies.
9. The Sponsor will monitor The Bank Site as described on pages 24-25 of the
Mitigation Plan, until such time as the DE determines that the success criteria
described on page 25 of the Mitigation Plan have been met.
10. RS is responsible for assuring the success of the stream and wetland restoration
and wetland enhancement activities at The Bank, and for the overall operation and
management of The Bank.
11. RS will provide annual monitoring reports to the DE in December of each
monitoring year. The monitoring report will provide data and analyses addressing
vegetation success within the context of stated success criteria on pages 18-19 of
the Mitigation Plan. In addition, the annual monitoring report will address
wetland hydrological data and hydrogeomorphic data associated with restored
stream channels. These data and analyses, and the results of benthic
macroinvertebrate sampling, as described on page 26 will also be included in the
annual report.
12. The DE shall review said reports, and may, at any time, after consultation with the
Sponsor and the IRT, direct RS to take remedial action at The Bank. Remedial
action required by the Corps shall be designed to achieve the success criteria
specified above. All remedial actions required under this paragraph shall include
a work schedule and monitoring criteria that will take into account physical and
climactic conditions.
13. RS shall implement any remedial measures required pursuant to the above.
9
14. In the event RS independently determines that remedial action(s) may be
necessary to achieve the required success criteria, it shall provide notice of such
proposed remedial action(s) to the DE. No remedial actions shall be taken
without the concurrence of the DE, in consultation with the IRT.
15. The DE and other members of the IRT will be allowed reasonable access to The
Bank Property for the purposes of inspection of The Bank and compliance
monitoring of the Mitigation Plan.
Use of Mitigation Credits
16. The Geographical Service Area (GSA) is the designated area wherein a bank can
reasonably be expected to provide appropriate compensation for impacts to
wetland or other aquatic resources. The GSA for The Bank shall include the
Cape Fear River Basin Hydrologic Unit 03030002 in North Carolina. Use of
The Bank to compensate for impacts beyond the geographic service area may be
considered by the DE or the NCDWQ on a case-by-case basis. Table 1 below
provides a breakdown of proposed mitigation quantities and their equivalent
mitigation units (SMUs, or WMUs).
Table 1. Proposed Mitigation Quantities vs. Mitigation Credits
l Proposed Mitigation Mitigation Units

P
d Mi
i
i
uanti Credits
ropose
t
gat
on

Activity
Sreams
Wetlands Stream Wetland
(if) (ac) Units Units
(SMUs) (WMUs)
Stream Restoration 4265 _

!I
4265
Stream Enhancement (Level 633 I 253
Riparian Wetland Restoration 5.7 5.7
?Nonriparian Wetland 1.2 1.2 _
Riparian Wetland 1.4 0.7
Nonriparian Wetland 0.5 -
0
25
Total: 4518 .
?
Total: 7.85
17. It is anticipated by the parties to this agreement that use of mitigation credits shall
be "in-kind;" that is, that riparian or non-riparian wetland credits will be used
to offset riparian or non-riparian wetland impacts, etc.
18. It is anticipated by the parties that in most cases in which the DE, after
consultation with the IRT, has determined that wetland mitigation credits from
The Bank may be used to offset wetland impacts authorized by Section 404
permits, for every one acre of impacts, two credits will be debited from The Bank.
One of those credits must be a restoration credit; the remaining credit will be
made up of any combination of restoration and enhancement credits, as selected
by RS and approved by the DE during its pen-nit authorization process. For
10
streams, application of credits to impacts will be at 1:1 (restoration credit:impact)
on a linear foot basis, where 1 linear foot of restored stream is equal to 1 stream
mitigation credit, or 1 linear foot of enhanced (Level II) stream is equal to 0.4
stream mitigation credit. Deviations from this compensation ratio may be
authorized by the Corps on a case-by-case basis where justified by considerations
of functions of the wetlands impacted, the severity of the wetland impacts,
whether the compensatory mitigation is in-kind, and the physical proximity of the
wetland impacts to The Bank site, except that in all cases, a minimum of a one-to-
one ratio of impact acres to restoration mitigation credits (acres) must be met.
19. Notwithstanding the above, all decisions concerning the appropriateness of using
credits from The Bank 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 water 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, after notice of any proposed use of The
Bank to the members of the IRT, and consultation with the members of the IRT
concerning such use. Notice to and consultation with the members of the IRT
shall be through permit review.
20. Credit releases are authorized upon full and satisfactory completion of important
milestones. The first authorized release of credits Fifteen percent (15%) of The
Bank's total restoration credits shall be available for sale immediately upon
execution of the MBI, an act preconditioned on completion of the following:
a. Approval of the final mitigation plan;
b. Delivery of the financial assurance described in paragraph 23 of this MBI;
c. Recordation of the preservation mechanism described in paragraph 22 of
this MBI, as well as a title opinion covering the property acceptable to the
Corps;
21. Release of the remaining credits will be determined by the successful completion
of specific tasks, as approved by the DE (see Table I )Table 2 provides details of
the proposed credit release schedule as it correlates with task completion:
The above schedule applies only if RS documents acceptable survival and
growth of planted vegetation and attainment of acceptable wetland hydrology as
described under the success criteria in the monitoring section of the mitigation
plan.
22. RS commits to developing accounting procedures acceptable to the DE for
maintaining accurate records of debits made from The Bank. Such procedures
shall include the generation of a report by RS showing credits used at the time
they are debited from The Bank, which RS shall provide within 30 days of the
debit to the DE. In addition, RS shall prepare an annual report, on each
anniversary of the date of execution of this agreement, showing all credits used,
and the balance of credits remaining, to the DE, until such time as all of the
credits have been utilized, or this agreement is otherwise terminated. All reports
shall identify credits debited and remaining by type of credit (e. g., riparian
wetland), and shall include for each reported debit the DE's Action ID number for
the permit for which the credits were utilized.
Property Disposition
23. RS has completed all work necessary to the establishment of a conservation
easement, in a form acceptable to the DE, sufficient to protect The Bank site in
perpetuity. The conservation easement preserves all natural areas, and prohibits
all use 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 within The Bank site, consistent with the mitigation
plan. The purpose of the conservation easement is to assure that future use of The
Bank site will result in the restoration, protection, maintenance and enhancement
of wetland and stream functions described in the mitigation plan. RS shall deliver
a title opinion acceptable to the Corps covering the mitigation 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 preservation mechanism.
Financial Assurances
24. RS shall provide a performance bond to the DE naming it as the Obligee in the
amount of $450,000 prior to the signing of the Mitigation Banking Instrument to
cover all costs related to the design, construction, and planting of the site. This
includes but is not limited to: boundary surveys, topographic mapping, sediment
and erosion control measures, earthwork, planting with contingency cost of 50%,
installation of monitoring gauges, control of invasive species, and delivery of As-
Built drawings. Upon delivery of the As-Built drawings, RS shall provide a
performance bond to the DE naming it (RS) as the Obligee for costs related to site
monitoring for a period of five years in the amount of $125,000. This includes but
is not limited to: travel to the site, downloading of monitoring gauges, sampling
of vegetation plots, cross sections on riffles and pools, pebble counts, visual
assessment of in-stream structures, a photographic record of pre- and post-
restoration conditions, and all other tasks detailed in section 6.0 Monitoring of the
mitigation plan.
Long-term Management
25. RS shall implement the long-term management measures described in the
Mitigation Plan within 12 months of the DE's declaration that The Bank has
achieved success.
Miscellaneous
26. Any agency participant may terminate its participation in the IRT with notice in
writing to all other parties to this agreement. Termination shall be effective seven
12
(7) days from placing said 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 MBI. Except for termination as described
above, this agreement may be modified only with the written agreement of the DE
(and the IRT members, if they were signatories to the instrument at the time of the
modification).
27. Any delay or failure of RS 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 RS's reasonable control and significantly adversely affects its
ability to perform its obligations hereunder including: (i) acts of God, lightning,
earthquake, fire, landslide, drought, hurricane, storm, flood, 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 RS is affected by any
such event, RS shall give written notice thereof to the DE as soon as is reasonably
practicable. If such event occurs before the final availability of all credits for sale,
RS 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 RS only to the extent necessary and appropriate,
as determined by the DE.
13

J=JN 2 0 2008
MITIGATION PLAN
CRIPPLE CREEK MITIGATION BANK
Developed Through
RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT OF
UNNAMED TRIBUTARIES TO BOYD CREEK
AND ADJACENT PALUSTRINE WETLANDS
Alamance County, North Carolina
PREPARED BY:
RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC
1101 HAYNES STREET, SUITE 211
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27604
AND
08 1 1 43
AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
A2126 ROWLAND POND DRIVE
WILLOW SPRING, NORTH CAROLINA 27592
Axiom Environmental. Inc.
RALEIGR REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
MAY 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Restoration Systems proposes the establishment of a stream and wetland mitigation bank at the Cripple
Creek Site (The Bank) located approximately two miles northeast of Burlington, in northeast Alamance
County. The Bank is located within the Cape Fear River Basin in 14-digit United States Geological
Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Unit and Targeted Local Watershed 03030002030050 of the South
Atlantic/Gulf Region (North Carolina Division of Water Quality [NCDWQ] subbasin number 03-06-02).
The Bank encompasses approximately 19.6 acres of land that is utilized for livestock grazing and hay
production. Approximately 4137 linear feet of stream associated with an unnamed tributary to Boyds
Creek and its secondary tributaries, as well as 8.8 acres of hydric soil exhibit mitigation potential within
The Bank. These areas are accessible to livestock and are routinely cleared and mowed for hay
production, resulting in local disturbances to stream banks and wetland soil surfaces. Additional land use
practices including the maintenance and removal of riparian vegetation, and relocation, dredging, and
straightening of onsite streams has resulted in degraded water quality, unstable channel characteristics
(stream entrenchment, erosion, and bank collapse), and reduced storage capacity/floodwater attenuation.
The primary goals of this stream and wetland restoration project focus on improving water quality,
enhancing flood attenuation, and restoring aquatic and riparian habitat, which will be accomplished by:
1. Removing nonpoint sources of pollution associated with agricultural activities including a)
excluding livestock from streams, stream banks, and floodplains; b) eliminating the broadcasting
of fertilizer, pesticides, and other agricultural materials into and adjacent to streams and wetlands;
and c) establishing a vegetative buffer adjacent to streams and wetlands to treat surface runoff
which may be laden with sediment and/or agricultural pollutants from the adjacent landscape.
2. Reducing sedimentation within onsite and downstream receiving waters through a) reduction of
bank erosion associated with hoof shear, vegetation maintenance, and agricultural plowing, and
b) planting a diverse woody vegetative buffer adjacent to The Bank's streams.
3. Reestablishing stream stability and the capacity to transport watershed flows and sediment loads
by restoring a stable dimension, pattern, and profile supported by natural in-stream habitat and
grade/bank stabilization structures.
4. Promoting floodwater attenuation through a) reconnecting bankfull stream flows to the
abandoned floodplain terrace, b) restoring secondary, entrenched tributaries thereby reducing
floodwater velocities within smaller catchment basins, c) restoring depressional floodplain
wetlands, thereby increasing the storage capacity for floodwaters within The Bank, and d)
revegetating floodplains to increase frictional resistance on floodwaters crossing The Bank.
5. Improving aquatic habitat by enhancing stream bed variability and the use of in-stream structures.
6. Providing wildlife habitat including seepage slope wetlands, which are uncommon in the
piedmont portion of the State.
The Bank's mitigation plan includes 1) construction of a stable, riffle-pool stream channel, 2)
restoration/enhancement of historic wetland functions, 3) enhancement of water quality functions (reduce
nonpoint source sedimentation and nutrient inputs), 4) restoration of a natural woody riparian buffer along
The Bank's stream reaches, 5) restoration of wildlife habitat associated with a riparian corridor/stable
stream, and 6) establishment of a permanent conservation easement which will encompass all restoration
activities.
The restoration strategies outlined in this report are as follows:
Proposed Mitigation Units
Proposed Mitigation Quantity
(Credits)
Proposed Mitigation Activity
Streams Wetlands Stream Units Wetland Units
(linear feet) (acres) (SMUs) (WMUs)
Stream Restoration 4265 4265
Stream Enhancement (Level II) 633 253
Riparian Wetland Restoration 5.7 5.7
Riparian Wetland Enhancement 1.4 = 0.7
Nonri arian Wetland Restoration 1.2 1.2
Nonri arian Wetland Enhancement 0.5 0.25
Total: 4518 Total: 7.85
After completion of the project The Bank will offer 4518 Stream Mitigation Units and 7.85 Wetland
Mitigation Units.
No federally protected species are listed for Alamance County; however, detailed surveys were conducted
for two Federal Species of Concern that are protected by the state: 1) Carolina creekshell (Villosa
vaughaniana) and 2) yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa). Although not protected by federal law,
detailed surveys were conducted within the Site on May 1, 2008 to determine the presence or absence of
freshwater mussels. Based on habitat observations from the survey, it is possible that freshwater mussels
were present in this reach at some point in time; however, habitat loss due to natural (prolonged drought)
or anthropogenic (channel modification, land clearing, and vegetative maintenance) causes has resulted in
the loss of suitable habitat for these species. Based on results of the survey, construction of this project is
not expected to impact any freshwater mussel resources.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... I
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... ..1
1.1 Project Goals ........................................................................................................................... ..1
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................. ..2
2.1 Physiography, Topography, and Land Use .............................................................................. ..3
2.2 Water Quality .......................................................................................................................... ..4
2.3 Vegetation ................................................................................................................................ ..5
2.4 Soils and Land Form ............................................................................................................... ..5
2.5 Jurisdictional Wetlands ............................................................................................................ ..6
3.0 STREAM CHARACTERISTICS ........................................................................................................ ..8
3.1 Hydrology ................................................................................................................................ ..8
3. 1.1 Drainage Area .................................................................................................................... ..8
3.1.2 Discharge ........................................................................................................................... ..8
3.2 Stream Classification ............................................................................................................... 11
3.2.1 Dimension ......................................................................................................................... 11
3.2.2 Profile ................................................................................................................................ 12
3.2.3 Plan Form .......................................................................................................................... 12
3.3 Stream Power, Shear Stress, and Stability Threshold .............................................................. 13
3.3.1 Stream Power .................................................................................................................... 13
3.3.2 Shear Stress ....................................................................................................................... 13
3.3.3 Stream Power and Shear Stress Methods and Results ....................................................... 14
4.0 REFERENCE STUDIES ..................................................................................................................... 15
4.1 Reference Channels ................................................................................................................. 16
4.2 Reference Forest Ecosystem .................................................................................................... 16
5.0 RESTORATION PLAN ...................................................................................................................... 17
5.1 Stream Restoration .................................................................................................................. 17
5. 1.1 Reconstruction on New Location ...................................................................................... 18
5.1.2 In-Stream Structures .......................................................................................................... 19
5.1.3 Stream Reconstruction In-Place ........................................................................................ 20
5.2 Stream Enhancement (Level II) ............................................................................................... 21
5.3 Wetland Restoration/Enhancement ......................................................................................... 21
5.4 Bioretention BMP Wetland Improvements ............................................................................. 21
5.5 Vegetative Planting ................................................................................................................. 21
5.6 Planting Plan ............................................................................................................................ 23
6.0 MO NITORING PLAN ........................................................................................................................ 24
6.1 Stream Monitoring ................................................................................. .
................................. 24
6.2 Vegetation Monitoring ............................................................................................................ 25
6.3 Hydrological Monitoring ......................................................................................................... 25
6.4 Biotic Community Changes ..................................................................................................... 26
7.0 AVAILABLE CREDIT AND PROPOSED RELEASE ..................................................................... 26
7.1 Credit Determination ............................................................................................................... 26
7.2 Credit Release Schedule .......................................................................................................... 27
7.3 Perpetual Maintenance of Mitigation Bank ............................................................................. 27
7.4 Nonproject Development Scenario .......................................................................................... 27
7.5 Corporate Experience .............................................................................................................. 28
8.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS .............................................................................................................. 28
8.1 Waters of the United States ..................................................................................................... 28
8.2 Rare and Protected Species ......................................................................................................28
8.2.1 Federally Protected Species ...............................................................................................29
8.2.2 Federal Species of Concern ...............................................................................................29
9.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................................29
10.0 MBRT MEMBERSHIP .......................................................................................................................30
10.1 MBRT Member Agency Comments ........................................................................................30
10.2 Restoration Systems Responses to MBRT Member Comments .............................................31
11.0 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................33
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Figures
Appendix B. NCDWQ Stream Forms
Appendix C. Flood Frequency Analysis Plots
Appendix D. Reference Stream Data
Appendix E. Freshwater Mussel Survey Report
Appendix F. MBRT Member Agency Comment Letters
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. The Bank and Reference Location Appendix A
Figure 2. Mitigation Service Area Appendix A
Figure 3. Drainage Area and Topography Appendix A
Figure 4. Existing Conditions Appendix A
Figure 5. NRCS Soils Map Appendix A
Figure 6. Existing Dimension, Pattern, and Profile Appendix A
Figure 7. Reference Dimension, Pattern, and Profile Appendix A
Figures 8A-8C. Restoration Plan Appendix A
Figure 9. Proposed Dimension, Pattern, and Profile Appendix A
Figure 10. Typical Structure Details Appendix A
Figure 11. Planting Plan Appendix A
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Existing Stream Characteristics ......................................................................................................4
Table 2. NRCS Soils Mapped within The Bank ......................................................................................... ..6
Table 3. Results for Boussinesq Equation .................................................................................................. ..8
Table 4. Table of Morphological Stream Characteristics ........................................................................... ..9
Table 5. Reference Reach Bankfull Discharge Analysis ............................................................................ 10
Table 6. Stream Power (Q) and Shear Stress (T) Values ............................................................................ 15
Table 7. Reference Forest Ecosystem ......................................................................................................... 17
Table 8. Planting Plan ................................................................................................................................. 24
Table 9. Proposed Mitigation Quantities vs. Mitigation Credits ................................................................ 26
Table 10. Proposed Credit Release Schedule ............................................................................................. 27
Table 11. Federal Species of Concern ........................................................................................................ 29
iv
MITIGATION PLAN
CRIPPLE CREEK MITIGATION BANK
RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT OF
UNNAMED TRIBUTARIES TO BOYD CREEK
AND ADJACENT PALUSTRINE WETLANDS
Alamance County, North Carolina
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Restoration Systems proposes the establishment of a stream and wetland mitigation bank at the Cripple
Creek Site (The Bank) located approximately two miles northeast of Burlington, in northeast Alamance
County (Figures 1 and 2, Appendix A). The Bank encompasses approximately 19.6 acres of land that is
utilized for livestock grazing and hay production. Approximately 4137 linear feet of stream associated
with an unnamed tributary to Boyds Creek and its secondary tributaries, as well as 8.8 acres of hydric soil
exhibit mitigation potential within The Bank. These areas are accessible to livestock and are routinely
cleared and mowed for hay production, resulting in local disturbances to stream banks and wetland soil
surfaces. Additional land use practices including the maintenance and removal of riparian vegetation, and
relocation, dredging, and straightening of onsite streams has resulted in degraded water quality, unstable
channel characteristics (stream entrenchment, erosion, and bank collapse), and reduced storage
capacity/floodwater attenuation.
Directions to The Bank:
? Take exit 150 off Interstate 85-40 just east of Burlington
? Travel north/towards Haw River/Green Level for - 2.2 miles
? At the Highway 49 junction, turn right/travel north on Highway 49 towards Green Level/Roxboro
for -2.7 miles
? Turn left on Sandy Cross Road (at the Sandy Cross Mini Mart) for -r1.6 miles
? Turn right on Fonville Road for -1.7 miles to a T-intersection
? Turn left on Deep Creek Road for -0.9 mile
? Turn left on Roney-Lineberry Road just after Deep Creek Baptist Church for -0.3 mile
? After passing through a trailer park, take a left at the stop sign into The Bank
? Point in center of road crossing at the upstream end of the Main Channel
Latitude: 36.138332274 °N, Longitude: 79.380963290 °W
1.1 PROJECT GOALS
The primary goals of this stream and wetland restoration project focus on improving water quality,
enhancing flood attenuation, and restoring aquatic and riparian habitat, which will be accomplished by:
Removing nonpoint sources of pollution associated with agricultural activities including a)
excluding livestock from streams, stream banks, and floodplains; b) eliminating the broadcasting
of fertilizer, pesticides, and other agricultural materials into and adjacent to streams and wetlands;
and c) establishing a vegetative buffer adjacent to streams and wetlands to treat surface runoff
which may be laden with sediment and/or agricultural pollutants from the adjacent landscape.
Reducing sedimentation within onsite and downstream receiving waters through a) reduction of
bank erosion associated with hoof shear, vegetation maintenance, and agricultural plowing, and
b) planting a diverse woody vegetative buffer adjacent to The Bank's streams.
Reestablishing stream stability and the capacity to transport watershed flows and sediment loads
by restoring a stable dimension, pattern, and profile supported by natural in-stream habitat and
grade/bank stabilization structures.
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
4. Promoting floodwater attenuation through a) reconnecting bankfull stream flows to the
abandoned floodplain terrace, b) restoring secondary, entrenched tributaries thereby reducing
floodwater velocities within smaller catchment basins, c) restoring depressional floodplain
wetlands, thereby increasing the storage capacity for floodwaters within The Bank, and d)
revegetating floodplains to increase frictional resistance on floodwaters crossing The Bank.
5. Improving aquatic habitat by enhancing stream bed variability and the use of in-stream structures.
6. Providing wildlife habitat including seepage slope wetlands, which are uncommon in the
piedmont portion of the State.
These goals will be achieved by:
• Providing 4518 Stream Mitigation Units.
o Restoring approximately 4265 linear feet of stream channel through construction of stable
channels, thereby reestablishing stable dimension, pattern, and profile.
o Enhancing (Level II) approximately 633 linear feet of stream channel through the removal of
invasive species, cessation of livestock grazing, and bank stabilization.
• Providing 7.85 Wetland Mitigation Units.
o Restoring approximately 5.7 acres of riparian wetlands and 1.2 acres of nonriparian wetlands
by reconstructing channels of tributaries that exhibit more natural, historic interplay with the
floodplain, filling ditched channels, rehydrating floodplain soils, and planting with native
woody vegetation.
o Enhancing approximately 1.4 acres of riparian wetlands and 0.5 acres of nonriparian wetlands
by reconstructing The Bank's tributaries within the floodplain, rehydrating floodplain soils,
removing livestock, and planting with native woody vegetation.
• Planting a native woody riparian buffer adjacent to restored/enhanced streams and wetlands
within The Bank.
• Protecting The Bank in perpetuity with a conservation easement.
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Bank is characterized by pastureland, which is utilized by the Taylor family for horse grazing and
hay production (Figure 4, Appendix A). A horse complex including barn, riding ring, and feed storage
facility is located adjacent to the western margins of The Bank. Horses predominantly graze the northern
half of The Bank and are constrained by natural drainage features, permanent fences, and temporary
electric fences. The southern half of The Bank is characterized by hay pasture and mixed forest. An
agricultural road traverses the northern edges of The Bank and provides access to the horse complex and
hay fields that lie in the eastern half of the property.
The main hydrologic features of The Bank include an
unnamed tributary to Boyds Creek and associated &Ov
' T
secondary tributaries and floodplains (Figures 3 and 4, -
Appendix A). The unnamed tributary to Boyds Creek
(Main Channel) drains an approximately 0.4-square mile
watershed at The Bank's outfall. The unnamed tributary to
Boyds Creek is a second-order bank-to-bank stream Looking from the top of the Main Channel at the
system, which has been dredged and straightened and is narrow, disturbed buffer and adjacent hydric
characterized by eroding banks, bimodal sediment soils within the pastureland.
transport, and a narrow and sparse, disturbed riparian
buffer. The four secondary tributaries (Unnamed Tributaries 1-4) are disturbed first-order streams (Figure
4, Appendix A).
2
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
Approximately 8.8 acres of The Bank's land area are
currently underlain by hydric soils, which have been
impacted by stream channel entrenchment, ditching,
excavation of pools in the floodplain, casting of spoil
in wetlands, and removal of vegetation. Hydric soils
have been mapped by the Natural Resource
Conservation Service (MRCS) as Worsham and
Chewacla; however, a significant portion of the
Chewacla mapping unit appears to be characterized
by Wehadkee/Worsham inclusions.
2.1 PHYSIOGRAPHY, TOPOGRAPHY, AND LAND USE
The Bank is located in the Southern Outer Piedmont portion of the Piedmont Ecoregion of North Carolina
within United States Geological Survey (USGS) Cataloging Unit 03030002 (North Carolina Division of
Water Quality [NCDWQ] subbasin number 03-06-02) of the Cape Fear River Basin. Regional
physiography is characterized by dissected, irregular plains and some low, rounded hills and ridges with
low to moderate gradient streams over cobble, gravel, and sand-dominated substrates. Onsite elevations
range from a high of 630 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) on slopes adjacent to the
northern tributary at the upstream end of The Bank to a low of approximately 610 feet NGVD at The
Bank's outfall (USGS Lake Burlington, North Carolina 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles).
The Bank provides water quality functions to a 0.4-square mile watershed at The Bank outfall (Figure 3,
Appendix A). The watershed is dominated by timber production, agricultural land, and residential
development. A high-density residential trailer park is situated in the headwaters of the drainage basin
and drainage from State Road (SR) 1729
and SR 1735 flows into The Bank's
tributaries (see picture below).
Impervious surfaces account for less than
10 percent of the upstream watershed
-.JX".
land surface.
Onsite land use is characterized by
agricultural land (horse pasture and hay
production) and forest (Figure 4,
Appendix A). Horses have
indiscriminate access to onsite streams
and wetlands, resulting in degradation of
stream banks through vegetative
cropping and hoof shear. Hay is
produced throughout the remainder of
The Bank, with the exception of a mixed pine-hardwood forest located at the southern extent of The
Bank. Riparian vegetation adjacent to restoration/enhancement reaches of onsite streams is sparse and
disturbed due to livestock grazing, bush hogging, and regular maintenance activities.
3
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
The Bank encompasses 4137 linear feet of stream channels including three unnamed tributaries to Boyds
Creek (Main Channel and Unnamed Tributaries 1-4). Table 1 gives characteristics of The Bank's
streams; the locations of each are depicted in Figure 4 (Appendix A).
Approximately 8.8 acres of The Bank are underlain by hydric soils, which may have historically
supported jurisdictional wetlands. Hydric soils are located on slopes and within floodplains adjacent to
onsite streams. Extensive floodplain manipulations associated with stream ditching and straightening,
deforestation, floodplain ditching, and excavation of small ponds in the floodplain have effectively
removed groundwater hydrology from these areas. These features are discussed in more detail in Section
2.5 (Jurisdictional Wetlands).
Table 1. Existing Stream C'haracterkticc
Stream Reach Stream Length
(linear feet) USGS
Stream Order Stream Classification*
Main Channel 1850 second perennial
Unnamed Tributary 1 832 first perennial*
Unnamed Tributary 2 1100 first perennial*
Unnamed Tributary 3 205 not shown perennial*
Unnamed Tributary 4 150 not shown perennial*
Total 4137
tnese tnnutanes are depicted as intermittent or not shown on the USUS /.S minute topographic quadrangle and/or NKCS soils mapping;
however, streams exhibited characteristics of perennial streams during field investigations (see NCDWQ stream classification forms in Appendix
B).
2.2 WATER QUALITY
The Bank is located within the Cape Fear River Basin in 14-digit USGS Hydrologic Unit and Targeted
Local Watershed 03030002030050 of the South Atlantic/Gulf Region (NCDWQ subbasin number 03-
06-02) (Figure 2, Appendix A) (NCWRP 2001). Topographic features of The Bank drain to Boyds Creek
and the Haw River, which have been assigned Stream Index Numbers 16-16 and 16-(1), respectively. In
the vicinity of The Bank, these waters have been assigned a designation of C, NSW (NCDWQ 2000).
Streams with a designation of C are suitable for 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 designation NSW
(Nutrient Sensitive Waters) includes areas with water quality problems associated with excessive plant
growth resulting from nutrient enrichment.
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. The Bank's tributaries
are not listed on the NCDWQ final 2004 or draft 2006 303(d) lists; however, the section of the Haw River
that The Bank's tributaries drain to is on the 303(d) lists due to impaired biological integrity most likely
resulting from nonpoint agricultural and urban runoff and elevated levels of fecal coliform bacteria
(NCDWQ 2006a, 2006b).
The proposed project is supportive of the reduction in Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) which will
serve to address existing deficiencies with the watershed, and will assist in meeting mitigation goals in the
Cape Fear River Basin Hydrologic Unit and Targeted Local Watershed 03030002030050.
4
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
2.3 VEGETATION
The Bank is composed of agricultural land managed for horses and hay production, early successional
disturbed forests, and an early successional disturbed wetland area.
Disturbed forest fragments occur along the southern f?. ' " yr
margin of The Bank and adjacent to site streams, and
are predominately comprised of early successional
species. The more prolific tree species include
sweetgum (Liquidambar styrac f ua), black cherry
(Prunus serotina), red maple (Acer rubrum), loblolly
pine (Pinus taeda), short-needle pine (P. echinata)
and Virginia pine (P. virginiana) with a dense
understory composed of blackberry (Rubus sp.), Disturbed stream buffer with adjacent
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), greenbrier (Smilax pasture/hay fields.
sp.), and American holly (Ilex opaca). A sparse
subcanopy and canopy includes Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana), eastern red cedar (Juniperus
virginiana), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), river birch (Betula
nigra), various oak species (Quercus spp.), and tuliptree (Liriodendron tulipifera).
A small, disturbed wetland pocket is located at the
northern end of The Bank on the UT1, immediately
below an off-site pond and road crossing. This area is
accessible to livestock and contains species such as
black willow (Salix nigra), cattail (Typha sp.), and
smartweed (Polygonum sp.).
5-i im Reforestation using hardwood species is proposed over
approximately 18.7 acres of The Bank, including areas
Small wetland pocket below pond and road crossing C!on UTI; ncontains disturbed vegetatio2n. of pastureland, disturbed forest, and a BMP wetland
just outside the Bank boundary. Plant community
composition is expected to vary from Piedmont
Alluvial Forest to Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest, as
described in Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Third Approximation (Schafale
and Weakley 1990). Forest communities may vary based on floodplain size, flooding regime, and/or
topographic variations. Species composition will mimic reference forests within undisturbed floodplains
up or downstream of The Bank and offsite reference forests. An ecological approach will be taken for
restoration of wetlands and riparian buffer plant communities; therefore, a varied forest structure will help
achieve habitat diversity.
2.4 SOILS AND LAND FORM
Soils that occur within The Bank, according to the Soil Survey of Alamance County, North Carolina
(MRCS unpublished) are depicted in Figure 5 (Appendix A) and are described in Table 2.
5
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
Table 2_ NRC'q gnilc Mnnnpd within ThP Ranh
Nonhydric Hydric Family Description
Soil Series Status*
Appling Nonhydric Typic This series consists of well-drained, moderately permeable soils of
Hapludult broad ridges and long, linear side slopes. Slopes are generally
between 2 and 10 percent. Depth to seasonal high water table occurs
below 6.0 feet. Soft bedrock occurs at a depth of more than 60
inches.
Cecil Nonhydric Typic This series consists of well-drained, moderately permeable soils of
Hapludults broad ridges and long, linear side slopes. Slopes are generally
between 2 and 15 percent. Depth to seasonal high water table occurs
below 6.0 feet. Soft bedrock occurs at a depth of more than 60
inches.
Chewacla Class B Fluvaquentic This series consists of frequently flooded, somewhat poorly drained,
Dystrochrept moderately permeable soils of floodplains adjacent to stream
channels. Slopes are generally between 0 and 2 percent. Depth to
seasonal high water table occurs at 0.5 to 1.5 feet. Soft bedrock
occurs at a depth of more than 60 inches.
Enon Nonhydric Ultic This series consists of well-drained, slowly permeable soils of long,
Hapludalf narrow side slopes on uplands. Slopes are generally between 6 and
15 percent. Depth to seasonal high water table occurs at 1.0 to 2.0
feet. Soft bedrock occurs at a depth of more than 60 inches.
Iredell Nonhydric Typic This series consists of well-drained, slowly permeable soils of flats
Hapludalf and concave areas near the heads of intermittent drainageways.
Slopes are generally between 0 and 4 percent. Depth to seasonal
high water table occurs at greater than 6 feet; however, due to slow
permeabilities a perched watertable often occurs at about 18 inches.
Soft bedrock occurs at a depth of 20 to 40 inches.
Worsham Class A Typic This series consists of poorly drained, slow to very slowly
Endoaquult permeable soils of floodplains adjacent to headwater drainageways.
Slopes are generally between 0 and 4 percent. Depth to seasonal
high water table occurs at 0.5 to 1.0 feet. Bedrock occurs at a depth
of more than 60 inches.
* Class A= Hydric soils; Class B = Nonhydric soils that may contain inclusions of hydric soils.
Restorable portions of The Bank are predominantly underlain by soils of the Worsham and Chewacla
series; however, a significant portion of the floodplain mapped as Chewacla is characterized by
Wehadkee/Worsham inclusions. Floodplain soils are grey to gley in color and have been impacted by
plowing, land clearing, ditching, and incision of adjacent stream channels.
2.5 JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
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 Bank supporting jurisdictional wetlands may originally have been characterized by
palustrine, forested wetlands which were seasonally flooded. However, onsite wetland areas have been
impacted by livestock trampling, deforestation, groundwater draw-down from stream channel incision,
floodplain ditching, and excavation of the floodplain.
6
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
Within The Bank's boundaries, approximately 8.8 acres of floodplain and adjacent side slopes are
underlain by hydric soils (Figure 4, Appendix A). Hydric soil boundaries were delineated by Axiom
Environmental in January 2007 and were approved by United States Army Corps of Engineers on March
23, 2007. Onsite hydric soils and wetlands 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 also
resulted in a vegetative community that is herbaceous in nature. Groundwater springs and surface runoff
contribute hydrology to these areas, although the dominant hydrological influence is the lateral draw-
down effect of incised streams and maintained ditches.
Some portions of onsite wetlands have been impacted by groundwater table alterations, ditching,
dredging, and discharge of fill material in the floodplain. Groundwater table fluctuations mainly occur
adjacent to entrenched stream channels, which have effectively lowered the groundwater table below
hydrologic thresholds outlined for wetland criteria. Preliminary groundwater modeling has been
conducted in order to quantify impacts to the groundwater table from onsite ditching and stream incision.
Groundwater Model
For this study, the Boussinesq equation was utilized to predict groundwater impacts associated with
floodplain ditching and stream channel incision. The Boussinesq equation represents a two-dimensional
general flow equation for unconfined aquifers. The equation has been applied in the past to predict the
decline in elevation of the water table near a pumping well as time progresses.
The Boussinesq equation was applied to The Bank's ditches and stream channels to predict the linear
distance of groundwater drawdown that exceeds 1 foot for 12.5-percent of the growing season. The
percentage of the growing season (12.5 percent) was selected based upon guidance from the Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). The equation is solved for
wetland impacts with data for the following variables: 1) equivalent hydraulic conductivity, 2) drainable
porosity, 3) an estimated depth to the impermeable layer or aquiclude, 4) the time duration of the
drawdown, 5) target water table depth (1 foot below the soil surface), and 6) minimum ditch depth.
Results from the Boussinesq equation predicted lateral effects for incised stream reaches in the range of
99 to 206 feet. Results of the Boussinesq equation are summarized in Table 3. Model predictions
indicate that the incised stream channels impact approximately 6.9 acres of The Bank's hydric soils
through groundwater table drawdown. Figure 4 (Appendix A) depicts hydric soils drained as the result
lateral drawdown effects of incised streams versus hydric soils that are not drained. The general location
of each hydric soil type is depicted on the USDA soils map in Figure 5 (Appendix A). Worsham soils
occur along the entire length of site streams, while an inclusion of Wehadkee occurs within the mapped
area of Chewacla soils located on the south side of the very upstream reach of the Main Channel.
Restoration efforts should focus on elevating groundwater tables through restoration of entrenched stream
channels, filling of secondary ditches, removal of livestock, and planting with native forest vegetation.
These measures will restore approximately 6.9 acres of jurisdictional wetland and enhance approximately
1.9 acre of wetland. Mitigation efforts should allow the floodplain to perform wetland functions such as
flood-flow suppression, nutrient cycling, pollutant removal, and provision of native species habitat.
7
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
Table 3. Results for Boussineso Eauation
Ditch Depth
S
il Depth to
Growing
Drainable
Ditch Impact
o Aquaclude Ksat (cm/hr)
(ft) Season (hrs) Porosity (cm) (ft)
(cm) I

2
178 1.5 .
552
0.006
130
W
h 3 178 1.5 552 0.006 177
ors
am 4 178 1.5 552 0.006 198
5 178 1.5 552 0.006 206
2 152 3.3

552
L

0.018

99
3 1
W
h
dk 152 3.3 552 0.018 135
e
a
ee
4 152 3.3 552 0.018 148
5 152 3.3 552 0.018 151
3.0 STREAM CHARACTERISTICS
The Bank's streams have been characterized based on fluvial geomorphic principles (Rosgen 1996).
Table 4 provides a summary of measured stream geometry attributes under existing conditions
(considered to be unstable) and a preliminary estimate of potentially stable stream attributes. Preliminary
estimates of stable stream attributes are based primarily upon data observations along the existing
reaches, measurements of cross-sections within the Site (Figure 6, Appendix A), regional curves (Harman
et al. 1999), and a reference reach.
3.1 HYDROLOGY
This hydrophysiographic region is characterized by moderate rainfall with precipitation averaging
approximately 40-50 inches per year (MRCS unpublished). Drainage basin sizes range from 0.07-square
mile for the southern tributary to 0.4-square mile for the main channel at The Bank's outfall.
The Bank'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 0.4-square
mile watershed is expected to average 46 cubic feet per second, which is expected to occur approximately
every 1.3 to 1.5 years (Rosgen 1996, Leopold 1994).
3.1.1 Drainage Area
The Bank drainage area encompasses approximately 0.4 square mile at the downstream outfall. The Bank
watershed is characterized by pasture and disturbed forest land with a high-density residential trailer park
situated in the headwaters of the Banks drainage basin. The Bank is located in USGS HU and Targeted
Local Watershed 03030002030050. Topographic features of The Bank drain to Boyds Creek and the
Haw River, which have been assigned Stream Index Numbers 16-16 and 16-(1), respectively and a Best
Usage Classification of C, NSW (NCDWQ 2000).
3.1.2 Discharge
Discharge estimates for the Bank utilize an assumed definition of "bankfull" and the return interval
associated with that bankfull discharge. For this study, the bankfull channel is defined as the channel
dimensions designed to support the "channel forming" or "dominant" discharge (Gordon et al. 1992).
Based on Piedmont regional curves (Harman et al. 1999), the bankfull discharge for a 0.4 square mile
watershed is expected to average 45.9 cubic feet per second, which is expected to occur approximately
every 1.3 to 1.5 years (Rosgen 1996, Leopold 1994).
8
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
Table 4. Table of Morphological Stream Characteristics
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
11 I. Taa. a BADapnaoglB:tl =C hx.cB.rlall<.
aawa an«.RBUr.e.N. a`al <IMwwuwr..n
nwR.w
Bhum lYx .9 UE
almr! 0.38
BariBJ Q.wp.tl.l k0 32.0
OYIxI.M V.btlM. OYnNl.lb ll V.rN1Y .
J GO.aSxlrorel a?x lPrl
e 8.3
E.u«uq RO.aSaceor.Y Prx IA
J NIghINL 5.i.f9i
B.J 8.1
9.9

R«V J Mew D.OBI .DW

N 71-

M.w.
0,8

e,mu Mawmie apn;D„? ape. -13
a..a Para.
Mew 2.2-0.9

PoolNnan lwd Pape. L1.1.3 Rap.'.

N .L3

12.9

M.- POeIDwM1 IDd
Pw.rnol BM am Pena
xaglwp+cMM
F.
gy...
n
N.w
Req.:
1.9 .

a9.2.3
of Fbe?rore+rt.?WW Mean: N.0 1Ja.0
ap. 32.0-50.0 99
oar.I,.bR Rrr. ob,.w.l en n.ar.
e- Ram ;NIfNW N 5.1 13.7
w9a ].. ]0 R.qr. 1o.0-1Za
am DeP«Rxe lWyi?.y 8.] 11.0

MaB Dr/Dr Ralw P.nq.

N 8.2 11 1
t5 R" 10.0-1.0
arge RerR: -
LawBwrReyXl4x -lV R«w
M Mew-
ap. Rappe: 10-tJ
M.Rmm Paul D.Me/9.rNJ
.w GMID../Grv
R.rp: 19

.3
mII B«NJ
wVlln lwr/Wwq r.PMrv.
PaP? naal MGM arq yola
sa;9lxnp «fmxs _
N
R«p. ;;
x/F.MJ
Pa Gmx 8«MI.1 Pr<. M.w
F.qe. IJ
r.aw, v.M?. Ix«e V«W..
Pool to Pad SP«ip iL..I
Ra i9.5
19.3-59.3
e«bw «nqn IL,.i
w«eaev.
IoMM wa
OOY
xn
P«p. 89.1

19.511 B.B
Bel isM IW
W P
o am9hwp anent
R.
Rarq. JD.a
t9a.59..
Rqu d Cwava IR,I
R- 11.2
19.B-i9.5
neeM'?ael tzs
rw.rR nwx •a«1+ n.m.
PPOI to Pool Sp«mry
R«eBJVaan (I?f/BUa
Pare: ! 0
2.0.10
pNL«gM
F..... .I,rV/r
rcev. ewalrv.
f rBM+b WoY
Farp'. 90
5.0-110
_
xo to swgtenp wnrtRS M • 0
7,
PI D=h «
I-R-w R?

Rape: 2ro 10
1.1
rrdY V.e.aY. IrefY V «YaN.
«.a w.I« sm.P. sbP. s?
?1ae
J.DJS3
vW sbxlb...l O.Ot to 0 +
BIM 9bpe I8?1

Rap 0
0095
0-OJ
ISbx IB..aI
I
?r?
v
F.pe
a

Abp ls,,,,l P«
.m
«N..rR w
da
,I«gnenp a«wnwa
Nxm
R.q.. 0
7
m1
0m aJOSe
ro Sbpe',S?a„ Man
R.q.
0 ro1p3?
IrdY R«ba IrW. R-
RBM?gW8???5?n.ce R Oe3+
Pool SbpNW««sut«e
Sbx's
Rape: pi
0 0 9
a'bP./w«« e
p ?.s,./B.J1asac w 3raq?«?rgpadPo?y, M
R.ps'
O5? 1
x Bira9.J Wee. Faeg
Based on available Piedmont regional curves, the bankfull discharge for the Reference Reach (0.17 square
mile watershed) is approximately 24.8 cubic feet per second (Harman et al. 1999). The USGS regional
regression equation for the Rural Piedmont region indicates that bankfull discharge for the reference reach
at a 1.3 to 1.5 year return interval of 20.5-27.5 cubic feet per second and for the Urban Piedmont region
indicates a bankfull discharge for the reference reach of 10-15 cubic feet per second (USGS 2003). Rural
Piedmont regression calculations of bankfull discharge are similar to estimates based on field indicators
and regional curves, while Urban Piedmont calculations are well-below estimates based on field
indicators and regional curves, as discussed below (plots are included in Appendix Q. In addition, a
stream roughness coefficient (n) was estimated using a version of Arcement and Schneider's (1989)
weighted method for Cowan's (1956) roughness component values and applied to the following equation
(Manning 1891) to obtain a bankfull discharge estimate.
Qbkf = [1.486/n] * [A*R2'3*Sl 2]
where, A equals bankfull area, R equals bankfull hydraulic radius, and S equals average water surface
slope. The Manning's "n" method indicates that bankfull discharge for the reference reach averages
approximately 8.8 cubic feet per second, which is well-below estimates based on field indicators of
bankfull and regional curves, as discussed below.
Field indicators of bankfull and riffle cross-sections were utilized to obtain an average bankfull cross-
sectional area for the reference reach. The Piedmont regional curves were then utilized to plot the
watershed area and discharge for the reference reach cross-sectional area. Field indicators of bankfull
approximate an average discharge of 22.3 cubic feet per second, which is approximately 90 percent of
that predicted by the Piedmont regional curves.
Based on the above analysis of methods to determine bankfull discharge, proposed conditions at the Site
will be based on an area 90 percent of the size indicated by Piedmont regional curves based on bankfull
indicators and stream measurements of the reference reach. Table 5 summarizes all methods analyzed for
estimating bankfull discharge.
Table 5. Reference Reach Rankfull Discharoe Analvcic

Method Watershed Area
(square miles) Return Interval
(years) Discharge
(cfs)
Re ference Reach
Piedmont Regional Curves
(Harmen et al. 1999)
0.17
1.3- 1.5
24.8
Rural Piedmont Regional Regression Model
(USGS 2003)
0.17
1.3- 1.5
20.5-27.5
Urban Piedmont Regional Regression Model
(USGS 2003)
0.17
1.3 - 1.5
10-15
Manning's "n" using Cowan's Method (1956) NA NA 8.8
Field Indicators of Bankfull 0.17 1.3- 1.5 22.3
10
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
3.2 STREAM CLASSIFICATION
Stream geometry and substrate data have been evaluated to orient stream restoration 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.
Historically, onsite stream reaches may have been characterized by E-type channels. E-type streams are
characterized as slightly entrenched, riffle-pool channels exhibiting high sinuosity (>1.5); however,
reference streams in the region typically are characterized by sinuosities slightly lower than 1.3. In North
Carolina, E-type streams often occur in narrow to wide valleys with well-developed alluvial floodplains
(Valley Type VIII). E-type streams typically exhibit a sequence of riffles and pools associated with a
sinuous flow pattern. E-type channels are typically considered stable. However, these streams are
sensitive to disturbance and may rapidly convert to other stream types.
Onsite streams appear to be progressing through a common evolutionary tendency found in piedmont
streams of North Carolina. As streams are dredged and straightened the water surface profile tends to
become oversteepened resulting in 1) the loss of horizontal flow vectors that maintain pools and 2) an
increase in erosive forces to channel bed and banks. The lack of deep rooted riparian vegetation and the
introduction of livestock into the channel appear to have exacerbated problems with erosion to onsite
channels.
Bed and bank erosion typically leads to channel downcutting and evolution of a stable E-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 and the original
floodplain is no longer subject to regular flooding.
The majority of onsite streams have been impacted by land clearing, erosive flows, livestock grazing,
hoof shear, and manipulation of the channels including dredging and straightening. Onsite streams are
expected to continue to erode and deposit sediment into receiving streams until a stable stream pattern has
been carved from the adjacent floodplain.
3.2.1 Dimension
Regional curves (Harman et al. 1999) were utilized to determine bankfull channel cross-sectional areas of
The Bank's streams. The cross-sectional area was then utilized to determine the bankfull width, average
bankfull depth, maximum depth, and floodprone area of the existing channels. Using this method, a
departure from stability could be estimated based on a comparison of existing and proposed/stable
dimension variables.
During field investigations, greater than 40 cross-sections were measured throughout the Bank.
Representative cross-section locations and data are depicted on Figure 6 (Appendix A). The main
channel is characterized by an entrenched Eg-type channel (Table 4) with an average bank-height ratio of
1.6 indicating a highly incised channel. The channel exhibits bank collapse and destabilization of the
stream banks is continually increasing. In addition, the regional curve and reference stream predict a
stable cross-sectional area for the main channel of 8.1 to 10.4 square feet; however, the existing cross-
sectional area measures 15.4 to 30.1 square feet, more than twice the predicted cross-sectional area for the
11
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
channel. The channel is starting to exhibit bank erosion and increased destabilization due to land
management practices and livestock impacts.
The tributaries are characterized by entrenched E/G-type channels (Table 4) with bank-height ratios of 1.3
to 2.7 indicating highly incised channels. In addition, the regional curve and reference stream predict a
stable cross-sectional area for the tributaries of 3.2 square feet; however, the existing cross-sectional areas
measure 5.4 to 16.1 square feet.
Based on regional curve estimations of cross-sectional area, onsite streams are characterized by channel
incision and high bank-height ratios. Channel incision has resulted in bank erosion below the effective
rooting depth of existing riparian vegetation in combination with erosive flow velocities. Measures to
reduce channel size (cross-sectional area) and bank height ratios will be targeted for this project.
3.2.2 Profile
Based on the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle and onsite measurements, the onsite valley slope
for restorable portions of The Bank's stream channels measure approximately 0.0112 to 0.0240 rise/run
(Table 4). Estimated valley slopes appear typical for the Piedmont physiographic region of North
Carolina. Water surface slopes were estimated by from onsite measurements and channel sinuosity.
Sinuosity was measured from Geographic Information Systems (GIS) analysis of aerial photography and
onsite measurements of the stream channel during field surveys, and was measured at 1.01 to 1.07 for
onsite stream channels. Calculated water surface slopes measured approximately 0.0105 to 0.0238
rise/run.
Impacts to onsite streams such as straightening, downcutting, incision, and bank erosion have resulted in
oversteepening of the average water surface profile. In addition, impacts have removed most of the riffle
and pool morphology characteristic of stable streams in this region. Stream incision may have resulted in
excessive sediment deposition within pools, thereby steepening pool slopes and flattening riffle slopes.
Measures designed to flatten the average water surface profile and restore riffle/pool slopes to suitable
ranges are to be targeted on the onsite streams.
3.2.3 Plan Form
Onsite stream measurements and analysis of aerial photography utilizing GIS were conducted to
determine existing onsite plan form variables. Existing plan form variables were compared to ratios of
stable plan form based on fluvial geomorphic methods (Rosgen 1996). Using this method, a departure
from stability was estimated.
The Bank's streams have been straightened in the past, resulting in sinuosity measuring approximately
1.01 to 1.07 (thalweg distance/valley distance) (Table 4). Due to channel alterations, no distinct repetitive
pattern of riffles and pools occurs in the existing channel. In addition, values for belt-width, pool-to-pool
spacing, and meander wavelength were not measurable.
Based on plan form variables, The Bank's streams contain reaches that have been degraded by 1) bank
collapse, erosion, and incision; 2) straightening resulting in no repetitive riffle and pool sequence and
reduction in sinuosity; and 3) a subsequent reduction in the overall length of The Bank's channels.
Mitigation efforts along degraded channel sections will target restoration of riffle/pool pattern and
bringing pool-to-pool spacing and meander wavelength into suitable relationship for this region.
12
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
3.3 STREAM POWER, SHEAR STRESS, AND STABILITY THRESHOLD
3.3.1 Stream Power
Stability of a stream refers to its ability to adjust itself to in-flowing 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 stream bed. 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:
0=PgQs
where Q = total stream power (ft-lb/s-ft), p = density of water (lb/ft), g = gravitational acceleration
(ft/s), Q = discharge (ft3/sec), and s = energy slope (ft/ft). The specific weight of water (y = 62.4 lb/ft) 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
stream bed.
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 stream bed.
3.3.2 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 stream bed 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=y Rs
13
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
where t = shear stress (lb/ftz), y = specific weight of water, R = hydraulic radius (ft), and s = the energy
slope (ft/ft). Shear stress calculated in this way is a spatial average and does not necessarily provide a
good estimate of bed shear at any particular point. Adjustments to account for local variability and
instantaneous values higher than the mean value can be applied based on channel form and irregularity.
For a straight channel, the maximum shear stress can be assumed from the following equation:
imax = 1.5r
for sinuous channels, the maximum shear stress can be determined as a function of plan form
characteristics:
'rmax = 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, plan form, and vegetation. The stream power
equation can thus be written as follows:
w=PgQs=tv
where (o = stream power per unit of bed area (N/ft-sec, Joules/sec/ft2), i = shear stress, and v = average
velocity (ft/sec). Similarly,
CO = O/Wbkf
where Wbkf = width of stream at bankfull (ft).
3.3.3 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
14
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
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 reach, and 3) proposed onsite conditions. Important input values
and output results (including stream power, shear stress, and per unit shear power and shear stress) are
presented in Table 6. Average stream velocity and discharge values were calculated for the existing
onsite stream reaches, the reference reach, 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 that the channel is neither aggrading nor degrading.
Results of the analysis indicate that the proposed channel reaches are expected to maintain stream power
as a function of width values of approximately 1.76 to 1.97 and maximum shear stress values of
approximately 0.57 to 0.67 (comparable to that of the reference reach and much lower than existing
degrading reaches).
Table 6. Stream Power (0) and Shear Strecc (TI Va111Pc

Discharge
(ftz/s) Water
surface
Slope
(ft/ft)
Total
Stream
Power (Q)

1W

Hydraulic
Radius
Shear
Stress
(i)

Velocity
(v)

v

i
mac
Existing Conditions
Main Channel 41.3 0.0105 27.06 3.43 2.34 1.53 1.65 2.53 2.30
Tributaries 11.7 0.0161 11.75 2.67 2.59 2.60 0.78 2.03 3.90
Reference Reach 22.3 0.0050 6.96 1.51 0.87 0.27 3.78 1.02 0.41
Proposed Conditions
Main Channel 41.3
+ 0.0076 19.59 1.76 0.81 0.38 3.97 1.52 0.57
Tributaries 11.7 0.0151 11.02 1.97 0.47 0.44 3.66 1.62 0.67
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 through the Site without eroding and downcutting, resulting in stable channel
characteristics.
Reference reach values for stream power and shear stress are comparable but slightly lower than for the
proposed channels; the valley and water surface slopes are slightly lower for the reference reach resulting
in lower stream power and shear stress values.
4.0 REFERENCE STUDIES
Distinct bankfull indicators were present within the reference stream channels. In addition, dimension,
pattern, and profile variables have not been altered or degraded, allowing for assistance with the proposed
restoration reaches. The Table of Morphological Stream Characteristics (Table 4), Figure 7 in Appendix
A, and Appendix D include a summary of dimension, profile, and pattern data for each reference reach
15
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
used to establish reconstruction parameters. Channel cross-sections were measured at systematic
locations and stream profiles were developed via total station.
4.1 REFERENCE CHANNELS
The reference reach was located immediately upstream of the Bank (Figure 1, Appendix A). The stream
was measured and classified by stream type (Rosgen 1996). The reference reach is characterized as an E-
type, moderately sinuous (1.22) channel with a gravel dominated substrate. E-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 sinuosities slightly lower
than 1.3. E-type streams typically exhibit a sequence of riffles and pools associated with a sinuous flow
pattern. In North Carolina, E-type streams often occur in narrow to wide valleys with well-developed
alluvial floodplains (Valley Type VIII). E-type 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: Data collected at the reference reach indicate a bankfull cross-sectional area of 2.2 to 9.4
square feet, a bankfull width of 3.0 to 6.1 feet, a bankfull depth of 0.7 to 1.5 feet, and a width-to-depth
ratio of 4.0 to 4.3 (see Table 4, Table of Morphological Stream Characteristics). Figure 7 (Appendix A)
provides plan view and cross-sectional data for the reference reach and depict the bankfull channel and
floodprone area. The reference reach exhibits a bank-height ratio of 1.0.
Pattern and Profile: In-field measurements of the reference reaches have yielded an average sinuosity of
1.22 (thalweg distance/straight-line distance). The valley slope of the reference channel (0.0061) is
slightly lower but similar to that of the Site. Ratios of the reference reach riffle, run, pool, and glide
slopes to average water surface slope are 2.46, 0.44, 0.04, and 0. 18, respectively.
Substrate: The channel is characterized by a channel substrate dominated by gravel sized particles.
4.2 REFERENCE FOREST ECOSYSTEM
According to Mitigation Site Classification (MiST) guidelines (USEPA 1990), Reference Forest
Ecosystems (RFEs) must be established for restoration sites. RFEs are forested areas on which to model
restoration efforts at The Bank in relation to soils, hydrology, and vegetation. RFEs should be
ecologically stable climax communities and should represent believed historical (predisturbance)
conditions of the restoration site. Data describing plant community composition and structure are
collected at the RFEs and subsequently applied as reference data for design of the restoration site.
Reference vegetative communities for this project are located upstream from The Bank on the southern
tributary. Tree and shrub species identified in this area are listed in Table 7 and will be utilized, in
addition to other relevant species to supplement community descriptions for Piedmont Alluvial Forest and
Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest.
16
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
Table 7. Reference Forest Ecosvstem
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
(Wet Bottoms and Slopes) Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest
(Adjacent Uplands)
Canopy Species Understory Species Canopy Species Understory Species
Acer rubrum Acer rubrum Acer rubrum Acer rubrum
Liquidambar styraciflua Betula nigra Carya alba/tomentosa Carpinus caroliniana
Liriodendrum tulipifera Carpinus caroliniana Liriodendron tulipifera Diospyros virginiana
Pinus taeda Liriodendron tulipifera Pinus taeda flex opaca
Platanus occidentalis Pinus virginiana Juniperus virginiana
Quercus phellos Quercus alba Pinus taeda
Quercus shumardii Quercus falcata
Reference vegetation was dominated by red maple, tuliptree, sycamore, 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).
5.0 RESTORATION PLAN
The primary goals of this mitigation plan include 1) construction of a stable, riffle-pool stream channel, 2)
restoration/enhancement of historic wetland functions, 3) enhancement of water quality functions (reduce
nonpoint source sedimentation and nutrient inputs), 4) restoration of a natural woody riparian buffer along
The Bank's stream reaches, 5) restoration of wildlife habitat associated with a riparian corridor/stable
stream, and 6) establishment of a permanent conservation easement which will encompass all restoration
activities.
Primary activities include 1) stream restoration, 2) stream enhancement (Level II), 3) wetland restoration,
4) wetland enhancement, and 5) riparian buffer restoration. The restoration concept as outlined in Figures
8A-8C (Appendix A) is expected to:
• Restore 4265 linear feet of stream channel
• Enhance (Level II) 633 linear feet of stream channel along the upper reaches of UT1 and lower
reaches of UT2
• Restore 5.7 acres of riparian wetland and 1.2 acres of nonriparian wetland
• Enhance 1.4 acres of riparian wetland and 0.5 acre of nonriparian wetland
• Reforestation of 18.7 acres with native species
5.1 STREAM RESTORATION
This stream restoration effort is designed to restore a stable, meandering stream that approximates
hydrodynamics, stream geometry, and local microtopography relative to reference conditions. Geometric
attributes for the existing, degraded channel and the proposed, stable channel are listed in Table 4.
Stream restoration is expected to entail 1) belt-width preparation, 2) channel excavation, 3) spoil
stockpiling, 4) channel stabilization, 5) channel diversion to newly constructed channels, and 5)
abandoned channel backfill.
An erosion control plan and construction/transportation plan will be developed. Erosion control will be
performed locally throughout The Bank and will be incorporated into the construction sequencing.
17
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
Exposed surficial soils at The Bank are unconsolidated, alluvial sediments which do not revegetate
rapidly after disturbance; therefore, seeding with appropriate grasses and immediate planting with
disturbance-adapted shrubs will be employed following the earth-moving process. In addition, onsite root
mats (seed banks) and vegetation will be stockpiled and redistributed after disturbance.
A transportation plan, including the location of construction access routes and staging areas, will be
designed to avoid impacts to the proposed design channel corridor. In addition, the transportation plan
and all construction activities will minimize disturbance to existing vegetation and soils to the extent
feasible. The number of transportation access points into the floodplain will be maximized to avoid
traversing long distances through The Bank interior.
5.1.1 Reconstruction on New Location
Portions of The Bank characterized by an adjacent floodplain suitable for design channel excavation on
new location will be utilized to the maximum extent feasible. Primary activities designed to restore the
channel on new location include 1) beltwidth preparation and grading, 2) channel excavation, 3)
installation of channel plugs, and 4) backfilling of the abandoned channel.
1) Beltwidth Preparation and Grading
The stream beltwidth corridor will be cleared to allow survey and equipment access. Care will be taken
to avoid the removal of existing, deeply rooted vegetation within the beltwidth corridor, which may
provide design channel stability. Material excavated during grading will be stockpiled immediately
adjacent to the channel segments to be abandoned and backfilled. These segments will be backfilled after
stream diversion is completed.
Spoil material may be placed to stabilize temporary access roads and to minimize compaction of the
underlying floodplain. However, all spoil will be removed from floodplain surfaces upon completion of
construction activities.
After preparation of the corridor, the design channel and updated profile survey will be developed and the
location of each meander wavelength will be plotted and staked along the profile. Riffle locations and
relative frequency will be staked according to parameters outlined in a detailed restoration plan and/or
construction plans. These configurations may be modified in the field based on local variations in the
floodplain profile, presence of bedrock, etc.
2) Channel Excavation
Once belt-width corridor preparation is complete, the proposed channel will be excavated to the average
width, depth, and cross-sectional area derived from reference reach studies and detailed measurements of
the onsite reach.
The stream banks and local belt width area of constructed channels will be immediately planted with
shrub and herbaceous vegetation. Shrubs such as tag alder and black willow may be purchased and
planted, or removed from the banks of the abandoned channel and stockpiled during clearing, and placed
into the stream construction area. Deposition of shrub and woody debris into and/or overhanging the
constructed channel is encouraged. Root mats may also be selectively removed from adjacent areas and
placed as erosion control features on channel banks.
18
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
Particular attention will be directed toward providing vegetative cover and root growth along the outer
bends of each stream meander. Live willow stake revetments and available root mats or biodegradable,
coir-fiber matting may be embedded into the break-in-slope to promote more rapid development of an
overhanging bank. Willow stakes will be obtained and inserted through the coir-fiber mat into the
underlying soil.
4) Channel Plugs
Impermeable plugs will be installed along abandoned channel. The plugs will consist of low-permeability
materials or hardened structures designed to be of sufficient strength to withstand the erosive energy of
surface flow events across The Bank. Dense clays suitable for plug construction may be imported from
offsite or extracted from existing materials and compacted within the channel. The plug will be
sufficiently wide and deep to form an imbedded overlap in the existing banks and channel bed.
The plug situated at the upstream terminus of the design channel, located below the stream diversion
point, may sustain high-energy flows; therefore, a hardened structure or additional armoring may be
considered at this location.
5) Channel Backfilling
After impermeable plugs are installed, the abandoned channel will be backfilled. Backfilling will be
performed primarily by pushing stockpiled materials into the channel. Based on initial grading plan
estimates, sufficient backfill material is expected from channel excavation, floodplain grading, and soil
borrow areas. The channel will be filled to the extent that onsite material is available and compacted to
maximize microtopographic variability, including ruts, ephemeral pools, and hummocks in the vicinity of
the backfilled channel.
A deficit of fill material for channel backfill may occur. If so, a series of closed, linear depressions may
be left along confined channel segments. Additional fill material for critical areas may be obtained by
excavating shallow depressions along the banks of these planned, open-channel segments. These
excavated areas will represent closed linear, elliptical, or oval depressions. In essence, the channel may
be converted to a sequence of shallow, ephemeral pools adjacent to effectively plugged and backfilled
channel sections. These pools are expected to stabilize and fill in with organic material over time.
Vegetation debris (root mats, top soils, shrubs, woody debris, etc.) will be redistributed across the backfill
area upon completion.
5.1.2 In-Stream Structures
Stream restoration under natural stream design techniques normally involves the use of in-stream
structures for bank stabilization, grade control, and habitat improvement. Primary activities designed to
achieve these objectives may include 1) installation of cross-vane weirs and/or 2) installation of J-
hook/log vanes.
1) Cross-vane Weirs
Cross-vane weirs may be installed in the channel as conceptually depicted in Figure 7. The purpose of
the vane is to 1) sustain bank stability, 2) direct high velocity flows during bankfull events toward the
center of the channel, 3) maintain average pool depth throughout the reach, 4) preserve water surface
elevations and reconnect the adjacent floodplain to flooding dynamics from the stream, and 5) modify
energy distributions through increases in channel roughness and local energy slopes during peak flows.
19
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
Cross-vane weirs will be constructed of boulders approximately 24 inches in minimum width. Cross-
vane weir construction will be initiated by imbedding footer rocks into the stream bed for stability to
prevent undercutting of the structure. Header rocks will then be placed atop the footer rocks at the design
elevation. Footer and header rocks create an arm that slopes from the center of the channel upward at
approximately 7 to 10 degrees, tying in at the bankfull floodplain elevation. The cross-vane arms at both
banks will be tied into the bank with a sill to eliminate the possibility of water diverting around the
structure. Once the header and footer stones are in place, filter fabric will be buried into a trench
excavated around the upstream side of the vane arms. The filter fabric is then draped over the header
rocks to force water over the vane. The upstream side of the structure can then be backfilled with suitable
material to the elevation of the header stones.
2) J-hook Vanes/Log Vanes
The primary purpose of these vanes is to direct high-velocity flows during bankfull events towards the
center of the channel. J-hook vanes will be constructed using the same type and size of rock employed in
the construction of cross-vane weirs (Figure 7, Appendix A). Log vanes will be constructed utilizing
large tree trunks harvested from The Bank or imported from offsite. The tree stem harvested for a log-
vane arm must be long enough to be imbedded into the stream channel and extend several feet into the
floodplain (Figure 7, Appendix A). A trench will be dug into the stream channel that is deep enough for
the head of the log to be at or below the channel invert. The trench is then extended into the floodplain
and the log is set into the trench such that the log arm is below the floodplain elevation. If the log is not
of sufficient size to completely block stream flow (gaps occur between the log and channel bed) then a
footer log or stone footers will be installed beneath the header log. Boulders will then be situated at the
base of the log and at the head of the log to hold the log in place.
Similar to a cross-vane, the arm of the J-hook vane and the log vane (which forms an arm) must slope
from the center of the channel upward at approximately 7 to 10 degrees, tying in at the bankfull
floodplain elevation. Once these vanes are in place, filter fabric is toed into a trench on the upstream side
of the vane and draped over the structure to force water over the vane. The upstream side of the structure
is then backfilled with suitable material.
5.1.3 Stream Reconstruction In-Place
Reconstruction in-place is proposed for areas of The Bank where reconstruction on new location is not
feasible due to proximity to the upstream/downstream boundaries of The Bank, stream gradient, or
easement constraints. The main objective of restoration in these reaches is to promote an average
bankfull channel depth of approximately 0.6 to 0.9 feet from the channel bottom to the floodplain surface
and to reduce channel size to the cross-sectional area depicted in Table 4. Primary activities designed to
achieve these objectives may include 1) installation of in-stream structures and 2) installation of a
bankfull floodplain bench.
Bankfull Bench Creation
The creation of a bankfull, floodplain bench is expected to 1) remove eroding material and collapsing
banks, 2) promote overbank flooding during bankfull flood events, 3) reduce the erosive potential of flood
waters, and 4) increase the width of the active floodplain. Bankfull benches may be created by
excavating the adjacent floodplain to bankfull elevations or filling eroded/abandoned channel areas with
suitable material.
20
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
After establishing the bench, a relatively level floodplain surface is expected to be stabilized with suitable
erosion control measures. Planting of the bench with native floodplain vegetation is expected to reduce
erosion of bench sediments, reduce flow velocities in flood waters, filter pollutants, and provide wildlife
habitat.
5.2 STREAM ENHANCEMENT (LEVEL 11)
Stream Enhancement Level II is being proposed on approximately 362 linear feet along the upper reaches
of UT1 and 271 linear feet on the lower reaches of UT2 (Figure 8A, Appendix A). Enhancement Level II
is expected to include removal of livestock, removal of invasive species, if necessary, and planting of
native woody vegetation. Planting with native vegetation is discussed in detail in Section 5.4 (Vegetative
Planting).
5.3 WETLAND RESTORATION/ENHANCEMENT
Alternatives for wetland restoration/enhancement are designed to restore a fully functioning wetland
system that 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 Bank underlain by hydric soils have been deprived of sufficient hydrology by channel
incision, vegetative clearing, livestock grazing, and earth movement associated with stream impoundment
and agricultural practices. These areas are characterized by herbaceous and shrub vegetation with
compacted soils resulting from livestock trampling. Wetland mitigation options will focus on the
restoration of vegetative communities, elevation of groundwater tables to jurisdictional conditions, and
the reestablishment of soil structure and micro-topographic variations within the existing floodplain.
Restoration of wetland hydrology and wetland soil attributes may involve 1) excavation of elevated spoil
and sediment embankments, 2) backfilling of entrenched stream reaches, 3) filling onsite ditches or man-
made depressions in the floodplain, and 4) scarification of pasture soils prior to planting. In addition, the
construction of (or provisions for) surface water storage depressions (ephemeral pools) also adds an
important component to groundwater restoration activities. These mitigation activities are expected to
result in the restoration/enhancement of approximately 8.8 acres of jurisdictional wetlands at The Bank.
5.4 BIORETENTION BMP WETLAND IMPROVEMENTS
A bioretention wetland is proposed to treat field runoff prior to entering the Bank's Main Channel as
depicted in Figure 8A (Appendix A). The area will be improved by excavating the side slopes to 8:1 and
planting as outlined in Sections 5.5-5.6. The bioretention area will consist of shallow depressions that
will provide treatment and attenuation of initial stormwater pulses. The outfall will be constructed of
hydrologically stable rip-rap that will protect against headcut migration into the constructed depression
5.5 VEGETATIVE PLANTING
Deep-rooted, riparian vegetation will be restored within approximately 18.7 acres of The Bank and an
adjacent BMP stormwater wetland. 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 Bank'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.
21
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
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, 3) stream-side assemblage, and 4) bioretention BMP wetland assemblage
(Figure 11, Appendix A). Planting elements are listed below.
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
1. Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)
2. American elm (Ulmus americana)
3. Hackberry (Celtis laevigata)
4. Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
5. Shagbark hickory (Carya ovata)
6. Willow oak (Quercus phellos)
7. Schumard oak (Quercus schumardii)
8. River birch (Retula nigra)
9. Silky dogwood (Corpus amomum)
10. Pawpaw (Asimina triloba)
Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest
1. White oak (Quercus alba)
2. Northern red oak (Quercus rubra)
3. Pignut hickory (Carya glabra)
4. Mockernut hickory (Carya alba/tomentosa)
5. Black gum (Nyssa sylvatica var. sylvatica)
6. Flowering dogwood (Cornus florida)
7. Eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana)
8. Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana)
9. Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana)
Stream-Side Assemblage
1. Black willow (Salix nigra)
2. Tag alder (Alnus serrulata)
3. Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis)
Bioretention BMP Wetland Assemblage
1. Silky dogwood (Cornus amomum)
2. Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis)
3. Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis)
4. Tag alder (Alnus serrulata)
5. Spicebush (Lindera benzoin)
6. Possumhaw (Viburnum nudum)
7. Sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia)
8. Inkberry (Ilex glabra)
9. Bioretention seed mix
a. Long hair sedge (Carex crinita)
b. Common rush (Juncus effusus)
c. Lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus)
d. Joe-pye-weed (Eupatorium fistulosum)
e. Bur-reed (Sparganium americanum)
f. Blue flag (Iris versicolor)
g. Rice-cut grass (Leersia oryzoides)
22
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
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 15 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 The Bank wetlands and the Dry-Mesic Oak-
Hickory Forest is the target community for the upland slopes.
5.6 PLANTING PLAN
Species selected for planting will be dependent upon availability of local seedling sources. Advance
notification to nurseries (1 year) would facilitate availability of various noncommercial elements.
Bare-root seedlings of tree species will be planted within the Piedmont Alluvial and Dry-Mesic Oak-
Hickory Forests at a density of approximately 680 stems per acre on 8-foot centers. Species in the
bioretention BMP wetland assemblage and stream-side assemblage communities will be planted at a
density of 2720 stems per acre on 4-foot centers.
The bioretention seed mix outlined above for application in the bioretention BMP wetland will be applied
within 14 days of construction completion at rates specified per manufacturer guidelines. Soils may be
scarified to a half-inch prior to seeding to aid in more rapid germination.
Table 8 depicts the total number of stems and species distribution within each vegetation association, with
the exception of the emergent seed mix outlined above. Planting will be performed between December 1
and March 15 to allow plants to stabilize during the dormant period and set root during the spring season.
23
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
Table 8. Planting Plan

Vegetation Association
Piedmont Alluvial
Forest
Dry-Mesic Oak-
Hickory Forest
Stream-side
Assemblage Bioretention BMP
Wetland
Assemblage

TOTAL
Area (acres) 5.7 acres 9.3 acres 3.5 acres 0.2 acres 18.7 acres

Species
Number planted*
(% of total)
Number planted*
(% of total) Number
planted**
(% of total)
Number planted*
(% of total)
Number
planted
Asimina triloba 388(10) - - - 388
Betula nigra 388(10) - - - 388
Carya ovata 388(10) - - - 388
Celtis laevigata 388(10) - - - 388
Cornus amomum 388(10) - - - 388
Fraxinus pennsylvanica 388(10) - - - 388
Platanus occidentalis 388(10) - - - 388
Quercus phellos 388(10) - - - 388
Quercus schumardii 388(10) - - - 388
Ulmus americana 388(10) - - - 388
Carpinus caroliniana - 949(15) - - 949
Carya glabra - 632(10) - - 632
Carya tomentosa/alba - 632(10) - - 632
Cornusflorida - 949(15) - - 949
Diospyros virginiana - 632(10) - - 632
Juniperus virginiana - 316(5) - - 316
Nyssa sylvatica var. sylvatica - 949(15) - - 949
Quercus alba - 632(10) - - 632
Quercus rubra - 632(10) - - 632
Alnus serrulata - - 3142 (33) 27(5) 3169
Cephalanthus occidentalis - - 3142 (33) 27(5) 3169
Salix nigra - - 3237 (34) - 3237
Sambucus canadensis - - - 109(20) 109
Lindera benzoin - - - 109(20) 109
Viburnum nudum - - - 82(15) 82
Clethra alnifolia - - - 109(20) 109
Ilex glabra - - - 82(15) 82
TOTAL 3880 (100) 6323 (100) 9521 (100) 545 (100) 20,269
* Planted at a density of 680 stems/acre (- 8-foot centers).
** Planted at a density of 2720 stems/acre (- 4-foot centers).
6.0 MONITORING PLAN
Monitoring of The Bank's restoration efforts will be performed for five years or until agreed upon success
criteria are fulfilled. Monitoring is proposed for the stream channel, riparian vegetation, and hydrology.
6.1 STREAM MONITORING
Annual monitoring will include development of channel cross-sections on riffles and pools, pebble
counts, and a water surface profile of the channel as outlined in interagency Stream Mitigation Guidelines
24
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
(USACE et al. 2003). The data will be presented in graphic and tabular format. Data to be presented will
include 1) cross-sectional area, 2) bankfull width, 3) average depth, 4) maximum depth, 5) width-to-depth
ratio, 6) water surface slope, and 7) stream substrate composition. A photographic record of
preconstruction and postconstruction conditions will also be compiled.
Stream Success Criteria
Success criteria for stream restoration will include 1) successful classification of the reach as a
functioning stream system (Rosgen 1996) and 2) channel variables indicative of a stable stream system.
Annual monitoring will continue until success criteria are met and no less than two bankfull events have
occurred, as determined by in situ crest gauge, otherwise monitoring will continue until the second
bankfull event has occurred.
Visual assessment of in-stream structures will be conducted to determine if failure has occurred. Failure
of a structure may be indicated by collapse of the structure, undermining of the structure, abandonment of
the channel around the structure, and/or stream flow beneath the structure.
6.2 VEGETATION MONITORING
After planting has been completed in winter or early spring, an initial evaluation will be performed to
verify planting methods were successful and to determine initial species composition and density.
Supplemental planting and additional modifications will be implemented, if necessary.
During quantitative vegetation sampling in early fall of the first year, sample plots will be randomly
placed within The Bank as per guidelines established in CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation,
Version 4.0 (Lee et al. 2006). 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 recorded.
Vegetation Success Criteria
Characteristic Tree Species include woody tree and shrub species planted at the site, observed within a
reference forest, or outlined for the appropriate plant community in Scafale and Weakley (1990). An
average density of 320 stems per acre of Characteristic Tree Species must be surviving in the first three
monitoring years. Subsequently, 290 Characteristic Tree Species per acre must be surviving in year 4 and
260 Characteristic Tree Species per acre in year 5.
6.3 HYDROLOGICAL MONITORING
Groundwater monitoring gauges will be installed to take measurements after hydrological modifications
are performed at the Bank. Hydrological sampling will continue throughout the growing season at
intervals necessary to satisfy the jurisdictional hydrology success criteria within each wetland restoration
area (EPA 1990). In addition, an on-site rain gauge will document rainfall data for comparison of
groundwater conditions with extended drought conditions.
Hydrology Success Criteria
Target hydrological characteristics include saturation or inundation for 12.5 percent of the growing
season, during average climatic conditions. During growing seasons with atypical climatic conditions,
groundwater gauges in reference wetlands may dictate threshold hydrology success criteria. These areas
are expected to support hydrophytic vegetation; if wetland parameters are marginal as indicated by
vegetation and/or hydrology monitoring, a jurisdictional determination will be performed.
25
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
6.4 BIOTIC COMMUNITY CHANGES
Changes in the biotic community are anticipated from a shift in habitat opportunities as the unnamed
tributaries to Boyds Creek are restored. In-stream, biological monitoring is proposed to track the changes
during the monitoring period. The benthic macroinvertebrate community will be sampled using NCDWQ
protocols found in the Standard Operating Procedures for Benthic Macro invertebrates (NCDWQ 2006c)
and Benthic Macroinvertebrate Protocols for Compensatory Stream Restoration Projects (NCDWQ
2001). Biological sampling of benthic macroinvertebrates will be used to collect preconstruction baseline
data for comparison with postconstruction restored conditions.
Benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring locations will be established within The Bank and possibly up and
downstream of The Bank's restoration reaches. It is anticipated that postrestoration collections may move
slightly from the prerestoration conditions in order to take advantage of developing habitat niches (i.e.
riffles, vegetative cover, woody debris in channel, overhanging banks) that cannot be predicted prior to
restoration. Benthic macroinvertebrate samples will be collected from individual reaches using the Qual-
4 collection method. Sampling techniques of the Qual-4 collection method consist of kick nets, sweep
nets, leaf packs, and visual searches. Collection procedures will be available for review by NCDWQ
biologists. Preproject biological sampling will occur during the spring of 2007 or 2008, depending upon
construction schedules, with postproject monitoring occurring in the spring of each subsequent
monitoring year.
Identification of collected organisms will be performed by personnel with the NCDWQ or by a NCDWQ
certified laboratory. Additional data collected will include D50 values and appropriate NCDWQ habitat
assessment forms.
7.0 AVAILABLE CREDIT AND PROPOSED RELEASE
7.1 CREDIT DETERMINATION
The Cripple Creek Mitigation Bank encompasses unnamed tributaries to Boyds Creek (Main Channel and
Unnamed Tributaries 1-4) and hydric soils. Onsite stream reaches have been impacted by land clearing,
livestock grazing, channel dredging and straightening, and erosive velocities. In addition, The Bank soils
have been impacted by stream channel incision and floodplain ditching. The restoration strategy outlined
in this report are as follows:
Table 9. Proposed Mitigation Quantities vs. Mitigation Credits
Proposed Mitigation Quantity Proposed Mitigation Units
(Credits)
Proposed Mitigation Activity
Streams
(linear feet)
Wetlands
(acres)
Stream Units
(SMUs)
Wetland Units
(WMUs)
Stream Restoration 4265 4265
Stream Enhancement (Level II) 633 253
Riparian Wetland Restoration 5.7 5.7
Riparian Wetland Enhancement 1.4 0.7
Nonri arian Wetland Restoration 1.2 1.2
Nonri arian Wetland Enhancement 0.5 0.25
Total: 4518 Total: 7.85
26
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
After completion of the project The Bank will offer 4518 Stream Mitigation Units and 7.85 Wetland
Mitigation Units.
7.2 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE
A credit release scenario has been proposed based on the Department of the Army's June 3, 2008 Public
Notice (PN). The subject PN prescribed, subject to approval of the IRT, the following credit release
schedule for wetland and stream banks.
Tahle 10. Pronosed Credit Release Schedule

Task Completion
Verification % of Credit Release
Wetlands Streams
I (Preconstruction)* Execution of MBI 15 15
II (Construction) Site Inspection by USACE 15 15
III (1" Year Monitoring) Monitoring Report 10 10
IV (2°d Year Monitoring) Monitoring Report 15 10
V (3`d Year Monitoring) Monitoring Report 20 10
VI (4d' Year Monitoring) Monitoring Report 10 10
VII (5d' Year Monitoring) Monitoring Report 10 15
VIII (Full Site Success) Based on Success Criteria 10 15
Total 100 100
* Task I includes the execution of the MBI, MBRT approval of the Mitigation Plan, delivery of financial assurances, recordation
of the conservation easement, and delivery of the title option to the MBRT.
** Denotes that the release of 15 percent is contingent upon two bankfull events during the five-year monitoring period. If only
one bankfull event occurs, release of remaining credit is subject to IRT approval.
7.3 PERPETUAL MAINTENANCE OF MITIGATION BANK
Restoration Systems currently holds an Option to Purchase the approximately 19.6-acre site. Upon
approval of the contract, Restoration Systems will execute the option and immediately place a
conservation easement over the subject parcels. Restoration Systems will remain the owner of the
easement for the 5-year monitoring period. After the 5-year monitoring period, Restoration Systems will
transfer the conservation easement to a conservation organization approved by the MBRT.
7.4 NONPROJECT DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO
Currently the property is used as pasture and for hay production. If the proposed stream restoration does
not occur, the stream-side buffer will continue to be maintained for pasture and livestock will continue to
have access to The Bank streams and wetlands.
Channel erosion is expected to continue under existing scenarios. Sediment from bank erosion is
deleterious to benthic macroinvertebrate habitat and can be expected to reduce fisheries populations in the
existing and downstream reaches. In addition, proposed mitigation activities will provide wildlife and
fish habitat, shade/cool surface waters (thereby increasing dissolved oxygen levels), filter nutrients,
reduce sedimentation, reduce downstream flooding, and increase bed morphology (habitat) through
maintenance of perpendicular flow vectors. The proposed project offers substantial ecological
improvement within and downstream from The Bank.
27
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
7.5 CORPORATE EXPERIENCE
Restoration Systems is an environmental restoration, mitigation banking, and full-delivery mitigation firm
founded in 1998. The firm was formed to improve the quality of environmental restoration and
mitigation by locating and acquiring the best available sites, planning their restoration using proven
science, and constructing them with the most qualified contractors. Restoration Systems staff has been
involved in environmental mitigation and mitigation banking since 1992. Project managers have more
than 80 years of experience in resource evaluation, environmental restoration, and mitigation
implementation. The company employs 17 permanent staff, with its main office in Raleigh, North
Carolina and a satellite office in Greensboro.
Corporate experience of the principals began with completion of the state's first full-delivery mitigation
project in 1997, the Barra Farms Mitigation Bank (623 acres), the subsequent Bear Creek - Mill Branch
Mitigation Bank in 2001 (450 acres), and Sleepy Creek Mitigation Site (550 acres). The firm then
performed all of the off-site mitigation (7500 linear feet of stream restoration and 10 acres of wetland
restoration) for the Piedmont Triad International Airport Authority.
Restoration Systems has implemented projects for the EEP and the North Carolina Wetland Restoration
Program; including, the removal of the Carbonton and Lowell Dams in the Cape Fear and Neuse River
Basins (132,000 linear feet), the Haw River Wetland Restoration Site (34 acres, Cape Fear), the Elk
Shoals Stream Restoration Site (6000 linear feet, Catawba), the Lick Creek Stream Site (10,000 linear
feet, Cape Fear), Gatlin Swamp Wetland Restoration Site (125 acres, Roanoke), and a number of buffer
restoration projects, including Casey Dairy, Walnut Creek, Big Bull, Brogden Road, and Little Buffalo.
8.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
8.1 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
The Bank streams are subject to jurisdictional consideration under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as
waters of the United States (33 CFR Section 328.3). The Bank streams may be classified as riparian,
upper perennial with an unconsolidated bottom dominated by gravel/sand (R3UB1/2) (Cowardin et al.
1979).
These waters are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and
will require permitting for implementation of proposed mitigation strategies. Therefore, Nationwide
Permit (NWT) 27 will be used for this project and is expected to authorize restoration activities proposed
within this mitigation plan. In addition, in accordance with Section 401 of the Clean Water Act,
application for 401 General Certification (GC) 3495 will be required.
8.2 RARE AND PROTECTED SPECIES
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline due to either natural
forces or their inability to coexist with human activities. Federal law (under the provisions of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that any action, likely to adversely affect a species
classified as federally protected, be subject to review by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS). Other species may receive additional protection under separate State laws.
28
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
8.2.1 Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered, and
Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Sections 7 and 9 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended.
Based on the most recently updated county-by-county database of federally listed species in North
Carolina as posted by the USFWS at http://www.fws.gov/southeast/es/county%201ists.htm4 no federally
protected species are listed for Alamance County.
8.2.2 Federal Species of Concern
There are six Federal Species of Concern (FSC) listed by the USFWS for Alamance County, North
Carolina. FSC are not afforded federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended, and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally
proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. An FSC is defined as a species that is under
consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to support listing.
In addition, FSCs classified as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) by the state of
North Carolina are afforded state protection under provisions of the North Carolina State Endangered
Species Act or the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979, as amended. Table 11
summarizes FSC listed species that for Alamance County that are protected by the state.
Table 11. Federal Sneriec of C'nneern
Common Name Scientific Name Potential
Habitat* State
Status**
Carolina darter Etheostoma collis lepidinion No SC
Carolina creekshell Villosa vaughaniana Yes E
Yellow lampmussel Lampsilis cariosa Yes E
r-11L a? Xavuai. rvuiviu vi tau nanK unuer review ror potennat nanttat are umttea to areas which are proposed for earth moving activities
including restoration and/or enhancement reaches/areas.
** State Status: E = Endangered; T = Threatened; SC = Special Concern (Legrand et al. 2004)
No federally protected species are listed for Alamance County; however, detailed surveys were conducted
for two Federal Species of Concern that are protected by the state: 1) Carolina creekshell (Villosa
vaughaniana) and 2) yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa). Although not protected by federal law,
detailed surveys were conducted within the Site on May 1, 2008 to determine the presence or absence of
freshwater mussels (Appendix E). Based on habitat observations from the survey, it is possible that
freshwater mussels were present in this reach at some point in time; however, habitat loss due to natural
(prolonged drought) or anthropogenic (channel modification, land clearing, and vegetative maintenance)
causes has resulted in the loss of suitable habitat for these species. Based on results of the survey,
construction of this project is not expected to impact any freshwater mussel resources.
9.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES
The term "cultural resources" refers to prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, structures, or artifact
deposits over 50 years old. "Significant" cultural resources are those that are eligible or potentially
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Evaluations of site significance are
made with reference to the eligibility criteria of the National Register (36 CFR 60) and in consultation
with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).
29
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
Field visits were conducted in January 2007 to ascertain the presence of structures or features that may be
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. No structures or features were observed within the
easement; however, coordination with the SHPO will occur prior to construction activities to determine if
any significant cultural resources are present.
10.0 PREVIOUS MBRT (IRT) MEMBERSHIP
The project was originally proposed as bank and a field review was conducted by the MBRT. Since the
project is substantially unchanged from the original proposal, RS wanted to include feedback from the
original MBRT and RS's responses to these comments. Composition of the original MBRT included the
following agency reps:
Andrew Williams, Chair
Kathy Matthews
Howard Hall
Eric Kulz
Tammy I. Hill
Daryl Lamb
Shari L. Bryant
Renee Gledhill-Earley
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
N.C. Division of Water Quality
N.C. Division of Water Quality
N.C. Division of Water Quality
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
N.C. State Historic Preservation Office
The following section summarizes comments and concerns received from the MBRT members after
receipt of the project prospectus and a field review of the project site on March 23, 2007. The written
comments from MBRT members are included in Appendix F of this document. In addition, Restoration
Systems actions in response to the comments received are included in Section 10.2.
10.1 MBRT (IRT) MEMBER AGENCY COMMENTS
The following is a summary of comments from MBRT members as outlined by USACE representative
Andy Williams in a letter dated May 15, 2007. With the exception of the USACE, the MBRT member(s)
expressing each concern received from written comments is denoted after the comment; in some cases, a
comment is pooled from multiple MBRT member concerns.
1. The project plans should be more specific. For example, the plan should include drawings that
indicate the existing and proposed stream pattern, profile, dimensions, and elevation. Also, the
proposed location of features such as fences, gates, planting areas, etc. should be shown.
Additionally, the locations of existing and proposed cross-sections, the proposed structures, fill and
proposed depressions, etc. should be shown.
2. Wetland enhancement and restoration areas should be closely monitored in order to assure that they
are and/or will become jurisdictional wetlands. (USEPA)
3. The credit release schedule, as proposed in the prospectus, is not consistent with the Stream Credit
Release Schedule present as Appendix IX of the Stream Mitigation Guidelines. (USEPA, USFWS,
NCDWQ, NCWRC)
4. A survey of the project site should be conducted to identify individual hardwood trees that are 5
inches in diameter at breast height, which could potentially benefit the restoration processes through
input of organic material. Efforts should be made to preserve as many of these trees as possible.
(USEPA, NCDWQ)
30
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
5. Native streambed substrate should be harvested from the existing channels for use in the restored
stream channels. (USEPA, NCDWQ, NCWRC)
6. A strategy for invasive/exotic plant management should be included in the Mitigation Plan for the
site. (NCDWQ)
7. Information on possible land use changes within the project watershed should be collected and
considered in the design of the stream. (NCDWQ)
8. The Mitigation Plan should provide details regarding the methods for preventing livestock access to
the streams. (NCWRC)
9. If livestock crossings are planned, the Mitigation Plan should include location, type of crossing, and
any exclusionary fencing.
10. Surveys to determine if listed mussel species are present within the existing stream should be
conducted by biologists with both state and federal endangered species permits. Additionally, similar
surveys may be considered for other state listed species or federal species of concern. (NCWRC)
11. The vegetative success criteria could be modified to ensure that a stable, climatic plant community
can become established at the site. (USFWS)
12. A timeline for completion of the initial biological and physical improvement to the bank site should
be established.
13. Consider the establishment of one-five year interim success measures for stream restoration,
vegetation establishment, and stream and wetland hydrology.
14. The hydrological monitoring should include the establishment of stream gauges to determine the
frequency of bankfull event duration and frequency as established by your proposed stream success
criteria.
15. Identify an acceptable third party conservation organization to hold the conservation easement.
16. A list of items and activities prohibited in the easement area should be specified and established. A
list of these items and activities is located in the Wilmington District's Model Conservation
Easement.
17. Financial assurances should not be structured to provide funds to the Corps of Engineers.
18. Reference stream and wetlands should be considered in establishing success criteria for the bank site.
10.2 RESTORATION SYSTEMS RESPONSES TO MBRT MEMBER COMMENTS
1. Near final design plans will be prepared and submitted with the final Mitigation Plan.
2. Wetland enhancement areas are already jurisdictional; wetland restoration and enhancement areas
will be monitored for 5 years following implementation, including vegetation and hydrologic
monitoring.
3. Disturbances to existing vegetation and soils will be minimized through collaboration between the
designer and the contractor to idealize the flow of construction traffic and stockpile areas to minimize
disturbances beyond the actual construction footprint. Larger hardwood trees have been surveyed and
mapped at the site; design plans will preserve as many of these trees as possible and avoid
disturbances to the trees to the maximum extent possible. As a common practice, Restoration
Systems requires its contractor(s) to utilize native bed material to "seed" onto the new channel
subgrade, this will occur as part of this project as well.
4. The Credit Release Schedule has been adjusted based on coordination with agency personnel.
5. The services of the Catena Group were engaged to conduct evaluations of site streams for freshwater
mussel species. The Catena Group is appropriately licensed for these types of surveys. Results of
surveys revealed no mussels within the site.
31
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
6. Design plans take into account land use changes in the project watershed. In addition, reference
streams, wetlands, and forest have been used to establish design plans and success criteria for the site.
7. Livestock will be fenced off from the conservation easement and will not be allowed any access.
8. During the five-year monitoring period, where necessary, undesirable plant or animal species will be
removed, treated, or otherwise managed by means of physical removal, use of herbicides, live
trapping, confining wires, or nets.
9. Annual monitoring is proposed for the stream channel, riparian vegetation, and hydrology. Annual
monitoring will continue for five years or until success criteria are met and no less than two bankfull
events have occurred, as determined by in situ crest gauge.
10. An acceptable third party conservation organization will be identified to hold the conservation
easement. A conservation easement has been established to list items and activities prohibited with
the conservation easement.
32
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
11.0 REFERENCES
Acrement, Jr., G.J. and V.R. Schneider. 1989. Guide for Selecting Manning's Roughness Coefficients
for Natural Channels and Floodplains. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2339, 38 pp.
Cowan, W.L. 1956. Estimating Hydraulic Roughness Coefficients. Agricultural Engineering, 37, 473-
475.
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.
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.
Leopold, L.B. 1994. A View of the River. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, MA. 298 pp.
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.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr., S.P. Hall, and J.T. Finnegan. 2004. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare
Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks
and Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 67 pp.
Manning, R. 1891. On the Flow of Water in Open Channels and Pipes. Transactions of the Institution of
Civil Engineers of Ireland. 20, 161-20.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2000. Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality
Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North
Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2001. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring
Protocols for Compensatory Mitigation. 40l/Wetlands Unit, Department of Environment and
Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
33
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2006a. Final North Carolina Water Quality
Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2004 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report) (online).
Available:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/documents/2004IRCategories4-7.PDF [January 3, 2007]. North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2006b. Draft North Carolina Water Quality
Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2006 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report). Public Review
(online). Available:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdUdocuments/2006303dListPublicReviewDraft.pdf [January 3, 2007].
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2006c. Standard Operating Procedures for
Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Biological Assessment Unit, Department of Environment and
Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NC)VRP). 2001. Watershed Restoration Plan for the
Cape Fear River Basin (online). Available:
http://www.nceep.net/services/restplans/cape_fear_2001.pdf [January 3, 2007]. North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina.
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. 2003 Stream
Mitigation Guidelines.
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 Geological Survey (USGS) 2003. The National Flood Frequency Program, Version 3: A
Computer Program for Estimating the Magnitude and Frequency of Floods for Ungaged Sites.
USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4168. United States Geological Survey.
34
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
APPENDIX A
FIGURES
Appendices
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
Direct toils to The Bank: - N
Take exit 150 off lnterstate 85-40 just east of Burlington ....\
Travel northitowards Haw River,Grcen Level for - 2.2 miles
At the Highway 49 junction, turn right'travel north on Highway 49 towards Green LeveLrRoxboro r -
for -2.7 mils P .?.
Turn left on Sandy Cross Road (at the Sandy Cross Mini Mart) for -1.6 miles
Turn right on Fonvi Ile Road for -L.7 miles to a T-intersection ((F r. ' "
Turn left on Deep Creek Road for -0.9 mile
--t;`.? _
Turn left on Roney-Lineberry Road just after Deep Creek Baptist Church for -0.3 [rule Y - -
After passing through a trailer park, take a left at the stop sign into The Bank
Point in center of road crossing at the upstream end of the Main Channel n+? 2
Latitude: 36.1 3 83 32 274 °N, Longitude: 79.380963290'W
} ? r1
f. a ; 1 1 t67 Nom' Y
Reference Location -- -
The Bank Locations
s ?• `5
I / - yryy, , --r - _ .
u
4
'Tit,
- ? ..r ?EC„wl.,- q
-
- Burlington
rf -
r+ .
i -
t t. i I _
dY?
:<, L 3 Irk, r rl \ ! 1 s ?.
I -
t v '4 h s f 1
0 1 mi. 4 mi. t:.-L - `
1:158,400 ?'ta
Source: 1977 North Carolina Atlas and Gazetteer, p.18.
awn. ov.
2126 Rowland Pond Drive xc w,
THE BANK AND REFERENCE LOCATION CLF FIGURE
Willow Spring, NC 27592
c919)215-1693 CRIPPLE CREEK MITIGATION SITE wGL
(9191341-3839 fax Alamance County, North Carolina Jar Apr.,] 2008
- r-W =rolecc 07-016

The Bank Location !

Targeted Local

Watershed

#

01
_37 .? ..s....._.
1 .? .

?
7$h3f'--tt1

- it t'tnc. Factivyt .
1?rr,``e r R a ....
74ar ?r;: 1? ? off-;
- v7 r 0:1.;yTF
k, 4 nj I"?
t
P4 K?-
tT??
-c, N, E
r
1
t r F¢
bcaley ?,
i
t
3r d:

3Y
CLF FIGURE
2126 Rowland Pond Drive
W
l MITIGATION SERVICE AREA Ad by:
il
ow Spring, NC 27592
.
+ .
(919}215-1693 wGL
,
?
,.';, 1919) 341-3839 fax CRIPPLE CREEK MITIGATION SITE Date: ???111
A '? Alamance County
North Carolina ac
2008 L
,? ?„? ? , 0 -0
16
ProjecC 07-016

'`' •;. ~rii t`•-. x•tii{VI

,r .r.?1 z k? i ? '.; ?t{!e%?9"`'1J/?,?'.?5??, ? SV, t 5`' ?'l Y ? ` lY ? - ?'`Gr.i t'; r. •t `??^..
%
,Vti
% X"
?
. ?
r
°
'
e
`?
' • ? f l
?
-
?
'r+ t
?
?
? t ? .
}
?
t
f
,
?t
?
-
y
`4
!
''., `.i ? r%'?-'? f?'?, ti- r. f'?
'-'?`'
'
'fi
T
?J
•^? .
1??.,1?
?'• `'??
- ? 'g}t
? ?.''•
??}, l' I
{1•i?
?
'-
`
.%y
'
`
1
"
,
?
'
'
r ? E
-- ?'-_?
CreI 1 ~ t Jam- - _ _?

?
`i' t j• rte. t °'' ? ??' %. ?r"'_? ff
.( ? ? ''"C?? -???r.
'
- r
?/L'f ?..?- ;
t Y
tJ
•?tyF€ ?
, ,t .
1. f
?r• t ?•
"\tt
,
R ,
?
?
' .1 ?
I
Z
i )jl ? 1 l S
J/ t

!

.! f ? 4 }+
Imo.. `, e+ .
57
?
??-' t ?, -„-•! '? .? Z, ? ?
?; ,?° ?.. ? 1, ft
it
s
?-, _ y> s
Legend f
Property Boundary
Main Channel Drainage Area = 0.4 square mile
UT1 Drainage Area = 0.07 square mile
UT2 Drainage Area = 0.07 square mile
0 0.050.1 0.2 0.3 0 4 1 UT3 Drainage Area = 0.02 square mile 1.
UT4 Drainage Area = 0.06 square mile
-The Bank Boundary =-19.6 acres

Axiom Environmental, :nc
A 2126 RoWand Pond Dr ve
Willow Spring, NC 27592
[phone]
[phone] fax I%
LINAGE AREA
TOPOGRAPHY AND
CRIPPLE CREEK CATION SITE
CAF

April 2008 FIGURE

3
Alarnance County,
North Carolina kemct
07-016

}
AAS
0

gym:
In rn
04
III
0 50 100 200 300 400
Feet

Axiom Environmental, Inc
2126 Rowland Pond Drive EXISTING CONDITIONS
c?F FIGURE
(919) 19215-1215-1Spring, NC27592 CRIPPLE CREEK MITIGATION SITE
(919) 341J839 fax
Il Dare May 2008
A
A
k
lamance County, North Carolina
+?iom Faw ?nm?r lal. Inc. Pru;ect
07-016

RAI
je k

f`
Th4
e Y ? v

s° }

Legend

. r
-? 2126 Rowland Pond Drive
Willow Spring, NC 27592
[phone]
[phone] fax
MRCS SOILS MAP
CRIPPLE CREEK MITIGATION SITE
Aiamance County, (North Carolina

Zm

CLz FIGURE
WGL
;12008 5
07-016
Z
- ° 23: co
U p p
C' L
V
©
'? CO o U m ----
w
i ° x S N C U V 'F
w I J)
?LU d c
a
a O L _ O
I iZ U (B? X Z f TAO
Q Z W j g zo
iro
O
11
o m
LLI
0
c n n
o?ZZ?L t n
yl II II It
' S II r x E
N > Y 19 C ?_ II C m
J
UQ 0 ?A o]?W at v)
Y

D a
i

U
m 4
U ?
R
a •
- u
N q W
N
C II Q' II
O,ZZ?z _Z r C
.d N O 6i ? ?' O .TF
y m II II x I I l7 T F
-C c
UQ?'SO mew m cc
c
i E
N
,Z 11
r ? rJ ?
N
it
p ?,: .trr= c n
uN?ID ?'? O? OIT
N N. O c!f ? 'm 'y i-
N II II 11 ' x a N x L
ps >?`?c0 °.cm
UQO?Sn C'D lcu 80 in
m
4
I
-• u
0 C O
LLl
C Q II
O Z Z Z Z- m
U N tp pI NLi]1O a
?C O? ?'y^
y II II II x x II ? x E
q Y> v ? C C_ II C m
U QC ?G ca film UJ
c
m
II
w
Z I I
; LLOI
M N y
I
?
O Z Z Z X It
10 ? ? L ^ L
U N m O T
Nl,j O 1 te=n N=~
ID '? Y II tD
UQ 0 Om?slimin
Y ?
m
m
l _
a
n
N
r I I
O C U
C fl Q 11
?Zr ZCZ ^ m
OC??"y O'yH
m
m
N II 11 II ' S??x E
p Y>? '? C O_ II C 9
0000 m?
WmU
S
n

c
m

1-
9
-

1 h

I
1 1 O
?_ 1
1 U X II
N C3 C:i
N c7 9 W
II d'
C
1

I
I _ 1
1
-
Z:J 1? O Z ZZ=
d
? ?N O? L yG,
? O ? T ^ N N 61 F-
j ,•

/ x l a n n u x °D ad x E
Y y "- Iy C 0 II Y y
1 UQO'SOm?wmu7
6

1 -
)? 1

m
N
c
O i
x
5
Cr m Y

U1
C: 9

U
Z II
h Q W
N
? It
OZ ZZZ II Q
m (D O - ON OI T
tO N 'm ? I() -y l-
y n n D x 11 N x E
p Y > j C O 1^ C 9
m
a
?1
- I 'Ln
1>
_ Iw
C
E I w
a G
a Z
L
? ;
c >, O
(1) ca c ci
O
m U O c i LL
o U'o O O O -° moo
o N C B U V 17 2 c ?
Cl.E (U L" Xc I? o co
12 Z
+' x
a

w a
a
ti
?I 11
N
M
y O
a
n C p N W
G II It

a
p
a
>
.
l
Qp?
N~
?TO^ N O ?
f? L
C3O60- •?
II
II 11 It
= II II II E (/? II II 11 =1?r-N
op it
d y Y
x
?> E DCdZ
t; I I X
?Y II
It _ x q 11 it E
Q i--
O
d
'
gQO 'Om?L.wcn ?
6a 3o Y>
QO?om?CLz
LL 1.1i (n

„' R R

m
C m
C
„

w C
O co ' C
p
_ C -
C a,
CO
m
O
O 160 p

col oM
g
p
ILL
S ? 3? S S 3 b ?. 3 3 ;? 3
uoi1enai3 _
U04jena13 uoijena13
C G C
2 2 N iD ?- 67
O?
?
t,
C U c)OU;O
O, C 2 0000
E Z,=OOC5
C)
yl y?0000
p cD C7 N "al
C O
If, O0?000
p 00000
0
'O 11 0o6
Q) 0
=1 11 ? II 11 11 III 11
yl O- O C O
c >-m 2
01, U) U) (n` U) U) U)i

? O G
N 167 N ? O
ci o r? 0
r N
? .4 ? ? N V O ' C
CD OI O C c'7-'T vCO
W Cn '?- r l(j V 7 g In 'It ,l
C 3 N n"
G O O X01 of cG M O c.I N 0 O
a. it ID oil
J 0, NON NY I?? II N v1 yY m Vi
E ! ??
N VO.. Q II CJ II a? m
a a0 -a z t
I m ? ? ??mU)
c M1
N ? ? s 8
V? Y
5
co
y O q
n a
U \l
)
<n
41 ( G ?
Cn U O
y U
O m o
U 11? m c
j o
??,, . -_ 5 3 s a s )
Uoilenal3
_ _ ? 8 0 o a w `Q a
uolje,,313
? m.
U ?
t
7
N
CD 9 I
N m
m
a) a)
41 ?
N ?
CL

0

? d
w

{
is ? ? ? m c
? ? c t m
c0 t c0 `O N
c
N
V U U
o m
E r o o m c U co
d - L C Y >
N N '? (U U (E U p?
L
W m c
n U W

FIGURE
212266 Rowland Pond Drive Drive
A RESTORATION PLAN-WETLANDS c?F
Wi11Spring, NC27692 CRIPPLE CREEK MITIGATION SITE Date
(919)) 21 2155--1169J : April 2008
(919) 1413919 fax
Alamance County, North Carolina Project 8C
AMM E--menial. lrp
07-016

LLJ
O
lz
LL

Ilz -
co CO

O VJ
N cC0 C,?
CL
LL
ca I
" aZ
La <
=
L) L)

E U) Z
Co ( co o
L E O w
Z N p
Q I
a T
Z O
O ~ ?
? ?
? I
N
I
?
?
LL n
as

I
z
O
U
LL
O'
c
v
a
U_
Z
O
U
U
0
c
U
O
O
CL
V J
A U
?I
3
i`

w
J
C
c
G
W
Z
Z
U
Q
U
a
?i
C`
O k
x
s Y r
O
Z
Q
J
s?
= ? F
m
uc
r
z'
Z ay'
o s c
!
U - I
t - :1 Jl Y
-

? F u x = i s

wZ .2:,
Y z O
w

c CA
O w m 7 c
O. W
of D

C7 ??
5
O W d v O fd N a U F

`
w
a dQ C LLI
w
E
o

O L

c
C
m
o

m
y
a z c~ NZ
Q o
m °
=
mQ z° q
?o
N o a

FIGURE
21Axiom 26 Rowland Pond ndd Drive Inc PLANTING PLAN
226 Ro CLF
Willow Spring, C27592 CRIPPLE CREEK MITIGATION SITE Date: Aril 2008
[phone] 11
(919) 341J839 fax P
Alamance County, North Carolina Project
.Loam Em,mnmental. Irc 07-016
APPENDIX B
NCDWQ STREAM FORMS
Appendices
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
T'at-itor tfo t- A)*r ,fr T s6
%'CD)LQ -Ling CbssM:Ution Form UT1 ?y iftf T..7js ,t:kr ?:?rY C.wv} ?Yd M-04Att ?s?,rf?e:. toOQL
.acrcµ+_c x Ncweia Vui?nl ism '-'l`^4 (.? faGla::z R' tAj
t=?1?I pN i SCAQt,,AD 1,Y4 ?ri+t: +l+o?u4:? €accaa +
''PtE-a.??u?l r4;M+?raswM?vrt?rrp+a..fir.a..s&r`.ur+??r?ai...»+,i,?..pu..aw.....uwa{t.
A&^ ?fy b A. •rw ~..+?w.( y(i?i r,!il..w. ?.. M.?. O ?..sr Ii.f i?r ..a ....iM.?-.f .ns.
ft'dow vww .rwdr,+r.f?
EdmaE tact's: ....
1 r...a.a+ Aopj , __' r , . . a OAL MA
L b rAwr ,1 AA.4k t
h 7" c LSO4L rtumv tR SeetubLd

lL1tS3c?mart. _ --..
4) Is race AS AA r#4 p_rr
1W?.w+a n+n:? 4 t? i
_ _..,
7) V; Wvx AJhi"dQuv-"
1J+I,'bfn Ai+aPit`._
t'( t+ 4 fuauoanv? Nt'0 1. beak T'ac.
-t"
L+
#
: _.

?k ?rc ate ?t_Y z si:'2'?ezY'
Xu _a
f!F#CIl f Gll:NtlJril'?frK[?4 ? L?DlC? It7R /Y?!'v>•3: t 7
w . ... #britY .._. _._. WrEIL 1Lw8rFns SSL _ ?_ .._,..,.>w
1 ; Is rte: s a b..nw?..t?.,a.Fr
ylLl 4RY IIYARtDf-rit; Y 1 ?DIt,? TOR PoryTS
III.. w,
?;e?'? Ti?1S«'SiP?tet la t?cac??.ai `------ F----
S ! traA Cntwcatr t Si . M _ . _ @_ ?_
Ste

MAWYiTMACTi%pff4FOR'/yil}7L (!

7"eIY'iMes X1fl--S.?4?]CM I17 L.3113?Ff __,.. n

31 CYues Topa?tr? irkasate ? _. _.? _.
W a) ae, ash +t" _ R
' T _
_ ? ... ?_,
1
JLI.Y?l?l?[l1
G£RML7iftlik)[a?4>'t?'D?n18C1R,?Sls1's. ?

#s T's? Fes' c rt1 :aa •! t c.lbirra "":' *?""`.
, m
5
Y
.> v?..,c ? tit 4A1 •? lft, ? a
at r??. "••?•?` ?",..u?--:a ?Iau.1?.?d?i..E?',+?ue?cStq,II:?3sretr c.
Yt 11 rhr WAfff ttlt (7AuucJ I %I ?ku.^,

fT Ne Itmkx-N,t`! ? to Y.t3, tH F. f_?? -..-
tFCrao'?t}^J?litCkFl7?f.YI<blClF#7RlCJtt'IS; ?5 _ _

IJ .%z

I etc %Qw"' F7 t 9+ra?" ¢

.
?
. A
fr
t+q
?
?
"f
.
•
?
M "
?
td[
?
.. n
,..
p
?,
,?
?
? {.
•
?
.
y
.,
?
.
?
_
av .
1 /
?

91 are W %k1C Pt.m. M 15.44 W" ow
f-AK.t i. YT.rai lbr:a. i4' LL '".n.. ??t1
wtf#t Noda'fts a??
.? w

t % r

' A ?J tl
1. C'
Ta???k 3
Appendices
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
T O-Ii& - Trawt- Sau{[?cw^lf 'f'ry b UT2
,YCRWO Stream Clastiffcltion Form

iJr[ v.tre '} ?tl'Yf. '?tii tse*??'.: 'C?soc+'
It%-t . Y.a.+ri..... ...+a-..+nrw.rel.. +rr.,wr,a,+ad,r.rwal..ww..*la #I?rrw.r+r.a?w?Y+
46.01`3/..ale ko POPWWON t"W (armftw?..dr.Aareba+.rffl-waat.d".wd aw.wwdww"*me we,+......kC.

11 Fr Tie L4" Team 1? SOCM16 d

.

._.T?1.rns M. AwWw 4(k S
laF?a?10

weGhimokw"Hardi %a*Pw"wt 0 E s 3
yyyy
?4sy{?.FI. (*94' ik.wgMMOt-??C??Iabotift f? town%.F.Sbr wlr t?al.3zT. ?.:a..
l .. ....... _,._? _.. _. _... .... _ .-_ -. ..
A
i `?<}}}&r? (w! Of Go*=cusud Vu DWN'#
. .._ ...
__....__?.__?
___?...-_,.. .... .?.:cxv ..ice ..v..
r?tr?.urx,?ra???+r?uarxt?ur,?ero?rc??s::_ Y
n?,sic ut x ?t?!` ?n?c rtcsl[ rcN.+x?. . Z_
PRJUARY #lttlf OGF IJMVCt l'QAC PMVTV
,,* t *4&w1 ll' 1 [et71.' <"r L <+w a a,+w r. r n,
3
e"'e4e?T weakPIiMFx 3 _
7 -IMF
ayu ?ryy,,4gpt,??y?Q?,,?..sil4la'.:_".V'?iA+.11s41t
n. jb*W -- Aeweyr , 11esk r 5+tc..?

r _ .w
fib b'W4W fX CNN.wrt 40i ^ai 41 5Wr i VJ f 4
it
ae? fSk Y7 "
i
iS?1S2
C
1
- °
A
`?
u S
w Yi
Q
_
ltR
S R
t
: .
W
P
R
r
0.
1 _ _. _
_ ._
t
Rru>?raratc?wYtrnrr?ru?n?a?rr?:
IW H~ --

Il.dMAWWws 14lre+{'
v
. ?
•.
?} ;s q rRQl.

?? iti #'ta+.a ak 4tcRII1CX.E' 4,fT M.NC9 sFU. ifwd7 i?rw Nw?;?F.. i4eAr ta(:'E? 1aar4e' C'?1.
7?N17fr 7 r,?,:„ rt,,..rt,a Kr ri,.. :u,.w.et i1 t 6 a
.tit::: r,Xrz. '?. Lw t"A" AF?-raps
-To ta0, Jf
gas
Appendices
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
APPENDIX C
FLOOD FREQUENCY ANALYSIS PLOTS
Appendices
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
Regional Regression Method
Cripple Creek Restoration Studies
Cripple Creek Reference Reach
(DA = 0.17 square mile)
Region: Blue Ridge/Piedmont
Return Interval
ears Rural Discharge
cfs Urban Discharge
cfs
1.3 20.5 10
1.5 27.5 15
2 38.9 27.1
5 72.9 59.3
10 103 87.6
25 152 156
50 195 193
100 246 233
200 305
500 397
Bold indicates interpolated data.
Cripple Creek Reference Reach
Regional Regression Method (Blue Ridge/Piedmont)
v
N
rn
m`
r
v
m
O
250
200
150
100
50
1 10 100
Return Interval (years, logarithmic scale)
ft Rural -n-Urban
APPENDIX D
REFERENCE REACH DATA
Appendices
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
Cripple Creek - Reference
Profile(2007)
Average Water Surface Slope
0.0050
Bed Water
Point Northing Easting Description Station Elevation Elevation
3 4983.890464 4923.019 mr 0 96.27505 96.62823
5 4983.028631 4930.615 mr 7.64 96.45304 96.64457
7 4979.246515 4938.228 mr 16.15 96.28467 96.65563
9 4975.567045 4943.793 mr 22.82 96.43403 96.65683
11 4975.983146 4949.023 mr 28.06 96.51511 96.64807
13 4979.547757 4953.329 mr 33.65 96.62144 96.78305
15 4985.562622 4958.421 tr 41.53 96.55313 96.79611
17 4987.847824 4963.508 gl 47.11 95.37654 96.79508
19 4990.299983 4967.565 run 51.85 95.36865 96.79288
21 4991.28771 4971.154 br 55.57 96.68222 96.81259
23 4997.055315 4974.188 mr 62.09 96.73645 96.97729
25 5003.415043 4975.95 tr 68.69 96.66492 96.97578
27 5010.85257 4978.509 gl 76.56 95.86507 96.97242
29 5017.331021 4980.32 p 83.28 95.59388 96.97807
31 5018.879499 4984.858 run 88.08 95.98354 96.97325
33 5018.911439 4988.019 br 91.24 96.52754 96.97532
35 5014.636488 4998.221 mr 102.30 96.65415 96.97692
37 5015.07796 5002.385 mr 106.49 96.93843 97.08674
39 5015.131053 5015.726 mr 119.83 96.52161 97.08155
41 5015.836107 5019.616 tr 123.78 96.67319 97.06954
43 5019.0624 5027.701 gl 132.49 96.32928 97.08658
45 5022.217717 5030.593 run 136.77 96.49462 97.08489

.,
51 5016.996448 5047.274 tr 155.01 97.13766 97.48939
53 5015.425002 5057.461 gl 165.32 96.30301 97.49493
55 5013.688318 5067.197 run 175.21 96.1424 97.5031
160 5016.896427 5071.028 br 180.21 97.20114 97.47411
163 5019.330236 5071.536 tr 182.69 97.24383 97.51244
165 5022.646635 5072.568 gl 186.17 96.64016 97.49287
167 5030.061499 5074.785 p 193.91 96.14456 97.50325
169 5033.467568 5077.923 p 198.54 96.76319 97.49768
171 5038.206325 5084.293 p 206.48 96.63752 97.49142
173 5042.708709 5090.555 p 214.19 96.62304 97.49813
175 5048.947092 5094.363 p 221.50 96.17676 97.51102
177 5051.053849 5098.646 run 226.27 96.5452 97.50619
179 5051.362743 5102.884 br 230.52 96.8775 97.5053
181 5050.349008 5106.854 tr 234.62 96.99601 97.49141
183 5046.88504 5110.121 gl 239.38 96.56007 97.51061
185 5043.231104 5115.045 run 245.51 96.43885 97.49449
187 5036.577439 5120.875 br 254.36 97.31409 97.52423
189 5035.014329 5125.173 mr 258.93 97.21974 97.52058
191 5035.780988 5133.019 mr 266.82 97.41674 97.65958
193 5033.492582 5158.13 tr 292.03 97.89491 98.07676
Valley Slope 0.011696
215 5025.047251 5158.004 0.0000 100.7051
216 5004.284488 5045.512 114.39 99.50674
217 4980.925145 4960.965 202.11 98.3413
Revised Revised Revised Revised
Riffle Pool Run Glide
Slope Slope Slope Slope
0.0000
0.0040
0.0000
0.0000
0.0053
0.0124
0.0000
0.0001
0.0007
0.0029
0.0020
0.0000
1
C.: k"
7 Cog
rt?
0.0005
0.0008
0.0000
0.0154
0.0000
0.0003
0.0000
0.0000
0.0040
0.0000
0.0034
0.0147
average 0.0082 0.0002 0.0022 0.0009
min 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
max 0.0154 0.0008 0.0053 0.0040
d
O
d
t
v
R
CD
d ?
CL v
U ?
w
m
Y
L
U

------

I
I

,
i
I

- - -- 1- -

?-
-

-
i

00
rn
ca ?n
o? m
O
LO
N
O
O
N
O
LO
O
O
O
LO
R .w'
> . a? `
E
U
U
4
U
(a) uayena?
*t °= ? '? < a gyp. i
a
N
U
U
a
V
a
!a
0
C
Y
E
.'S
c
m a rn $ m m
(L)uo9enal3
I a l l
O
OC
aui as �
u m
E
f m
11pp ttyy L
w w w w w w w m m
(L) uopenap
i
a
s o -
c. c m a m m
E
m
i E
m
E
3 u c o
i y ai o a m
o E E toi m 0 c
nc`v E
o. of m 9 E co o v m c oa c nW c
O5 E1`3
d
E
N
U
E
a v
U
S
p O n y wy N W (O+1 Y O W n
U
� I I
c
°maims aon �nncc of ad of
�mw wa, '�`8i o'rnao+wrnm
° E
_
, Tt
o
c-
m z -
c
oc
m
L
E m O
c
(4) u04ena13
°
�

APPENDIX E
FRESHWATER MUSSEL SURVEY REPORT
Appendices
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
The
Catena
Group
410-B Millstone Drive
Hillsborough, NC 27278
[phone]
Freshwater Mussel Survey Report
Cripple Creek Mitigation Site
Alamance Countw, North Carolina
Prepared For:
Restoration Systems. LLC
Raleigh, North Carolina
Prepared By:
The Catena Group
Hillsborough. North Carolina
Mao 2. 2003
Timoth\ W. Savidtze
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Restoration Systems (RS) is in the process of de%eloping a stream and wetland mitigation
bank (Cripple Creek Mitigation Site) on a 19.1 acre propert-, in north-central Alamance
Count. North Carolina. Three major stream channels (Cripple Creek, a northern tributar\.
and a southern tributar\) totaling 3.7782 linear feet a,ithin the Site. portions of which \% ill be
relocated as part ofthe mitigation project. Cripple Creek arises approximatelx 0.5 mile
northeast of the propert boundary and flows South through the propert-. It is impounded
just belo\% the southern propert boundary to forth a small residential lake. Belo%\ this lake.
the stream flows into Bovds Creek. a tributan to the Ha\\ River of the Cape Fear Ri\er
Basin.
Fresh eater mussels are \\ idely recognized as the most imperiled faunal group in North
America (Biggins et al. 1993), eeith 12% of the species considered extinct. endangered.
threatened. or of special concern (? illians et al. 19921). More species of fresheeater mussels
have been reported from the Cape Fear River Basin (29) than am other rie er basin in North
Carolina (Bogan'002). Althouuh no federally protected mussel species are kno?\n from the
basin, there are several species that are classified as Federal Species of Concern (FSC): the
Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconcticr inctsoni), brook floater (.-Ilasmiclonra varicosa). Carolina
creekshell (Villosa vcn ghonianct), Savannah lilliput (To.e-ok'rslnarulltes) and the velloea
lanlpnnssel (Lampsilis cario.w). all of eeitich are all also considered Endangered in North
Carolina. The Carolina creekshell occurs in vere small streams like Cripple Creek and is
known to occur in Alamance Count. The Catena Group Inc. (TCG) evas retained by RS to
eealuate the propert\ streams for the presence of fresheeater mussels and develop and
implement a mussel relocation plan for any mussels encountered.
2.0 MUSSEL SURVEY EFFORT
Tllc Cripple Creek Mitigation Site \\as visited on Mav 01. 2008 by Tim Savidge and Tom
Dickinson of TCG. General stream reconnaissance revealed that the southern tributall and
northern t-ibutar\ evere too small to provide suitable habitat for fresheeater mussels. The
plain-stem of Cripple Creek \\as evaluated from the small impoundment just beloev the site
boundary upstream to the northeast site boundary Water level \vas loev and running clear.
Methodolw-n invol\ed \\adin_ the stream and performinu visual surxe\s "ith bath scopes
(,-,Ia;s-bononl buckets) and tactile searches in the stream banks. \o fresh\\ater mussels %?cre
observed in ??5 person hours of survee time. 1-\\o species of aquatic snails. the pointed
ealrlneloina (C'wnp lomcr elecesium) and a nhvsid (Phl ccr snA \\ere nrescnt.
3.0 CONCLUSIONS
The sureCe results indicate that fresheeater mussels are not present eeithin the Cripple Creek
Miti"aton Site. Based oil habitat obser%ations. It is possible that fresh\Fater mussels \?ere
present in this reach at some point in time. but mae hake been lost due to natural (prolonged
drought) or anthropogenic (channel modification. etc.) causes. The impoundment
doe?nstreanl of the site is likcle a barrier to mussel recruitment into this reach. Construction
of this profeet is not expected to impact an\ fresheeater mussel resources.
4.0 LITERATURE CITED
Bi_ rins. R.G.. R.J. \e% es. and C.K. Dohner. 1995. Draft National strates, for the
consen ation of nati\ e freshwater mussels. 26 pp.
Botmii. A. E. (2002). Workbook and kc? to the fresimater bival,es of \orth Carolina.
Ralei_l1 NC. North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences.
Williams. J. D.. M. L. Warren. Jr.. K. S. Cummings. J. L. Harris. and R. J. Nees. 1993.
Consen ation status of the fresimater mussel: of the United States and Canada.
Fisheries 18 (9): 6-22.
APPENDIX F
MBRT AGENCY MEMBER COMMENT LETTERS
Appendices
Cripple Creek Mitigation Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
REPLY TO
-- '` ATTENTION OF
Regulatory Division
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1830
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
May 15, 2007
Action ID No. SAW-2007-01188-201
Mr. Randy Turner
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Hayes Street, Suite 107
Raleigh. North Carolina 276(41
Dear Mr. Turner:
! s
a
The Corps received the proposed Cripple Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank
Prospectus and Mitigation Plan on March 12, 2007. A Mitigation Banking Review Team
(MBRT) was assembled and includes representatives from the Corps and other state and federal
resource agencies. An on-site MBRT meeting was conducted on March 23, 2007, and by letter
dated March 29, 2007, the MBRT was requested to provide written comments and concerns
within 30 days.
The written comments and concerns have been received and are enclosed for your
consideration and response;. The following list is it summary of the concerns expressed by the
MBRT in the written comments and by the Corps.
1. The project plans should be more specific. For example, the plan should include drawings
that indicate the existing and proposed stream pattern, profile, dimensions and elevation.
Also, the proposed location of features such ;c fences. gates. planting areas. etc. should
he sho`in. Addittona!ly, the locations o the existin- and propose{ zr,)ss sections, the
proposed structures, till and proposedl depression.. etc. s1101,11d he shown.
I Wetland enhancement and restoration areas should tic closely monitored in order to
assure that they are and/or will become I
3. The credit release schedule:. as proposed in the prospectus, is not consistent with the
Stream Credit Release Schedule present as Appendix IX of the Stream Mitigation
Guidelines (April 2003-U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Wilmin_ton District: U.S.
Environmental Protection Auency: North Carolina `Wildlife Resources Commission:
North Carolina Division of Water Qualitti t. Hm%_-?cr. a• stated in a letter dated vlay 8,
2007, from dlr. Scott "v1c0cadon. Assistant Chief of the ?V ltnin`_ on District R<<,ulatory
Division. the tinal decision r'!_rardirl , the credit r-.Ic:c e sc:hcddettC V? III he made .vit.h the
G E"UV z
t.
MAY l i''2007
BY: --------------------
MBRT's full participation. If the MBRT decides that it is appropriate to alter the release
schedule based on the mitigation site's apparent ability to provide the expected stream
and wetland functions as described in the planning document, then that decision rests
entirely with the MBRT. Also, the Wilmington, Regulatory Division intends to convene
the North Carolina MBRT as soon as possible to discuss this rule as it relates to the
current banking review process in North Carolina. The purpose of this meeting will be to
determine if there is a need to revise certain threshold items to reflect the knowledge that
has been Gained over the last several years regarding compensatory mitigation.
Furthermore, you should be aware that members of the MBRT have stated in their
comment letters that they support discussion involving a revision of the credit release
schedule for all new mitigation banks; however, they do not support a deviation from the
previously agreed to and approved credit release schedule in the Stream Mitigation
Guidelines.
4. A survey of the project site should be conducted to identify individual hardwood trees
that are 5 inches DBH, which could potentially benefit the restoration processes through
input of organic material. Efforts should be made to preserve as many of these trees as
possible.
5. Native streambed substrate should be harvested from the existing channels for use in the
restored stream channels.
6. A strategy for invasive/exotic plant management hUUld be included in the Mitigation
Plan for the site.
7. Information on possible land use changes within the project watershed should be
collected and considered in the design of the stream.
S. The Mitigation Plan should provide details regarding the methods for preventing
livestock access to the streams.
9. If livestock crossings are planned, the Mitigation Plan should include location, type of
crossing and any exclusionary fencing.
10. Surveys to determine if listed mussel species are present within the existing stream
should be conducted by biologist with both state and federal endangered species permits.
Additionally, similar surveys may be considered for other state listed species or federal
species of concern.
I I. The vegetative success criteria could be modified it) ensure that a stable, climatic plant
community can become established on the site.
12. A timeline for completion of the initial biological and physical improvement to the bank
site should be established.
1.3. You should consider the establishment of one-five year interim success measures for
stream restoration, vegetation establishment and stream acrd wetland hydrolo y.
14. The hydrological monitoring should include the establishment of stream gauges to
determine the frequency of bankfull event duration and frequency as established by your
proposed stream success criteria.
15. You should identify an acceptable third party, conservation organization to hold the
conservation easement..
16. A list of items and activities prohibited in the easement area should be specified and
established. A list of these items and :activities is located in the Wilmington District's
Model Conservation Easement.
17. Financial assurances should not he structured to provide funds to the Corps of Engineers.
18. Reference streams and wetlands should be considered in establishing your success criteria
for the bank site.
The concerns raised in the correspondences inust be given full consideration before we can
make a final decision regarding the mitigation bank. We need your information to address the
concerns and issues raised over the proposed mitigation bank. You may submit additional
information or revise your plots to help resolve the issues. Please provide a written response
within 30 days from the date of this letter; otherwise, your application will be withdrawn.
Please contact me at 919-876-844L. extension 26 if l can be of any assistance.
Sincerely.
Andrew Williams
Regulatory Project Manager
Raleigh Re-ulatory Field Office
Enclosures
Copies furnished (with enclosure):
Mr. Eric Kulz
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
401 Oversight and Express Penanitting Unit
2321 Crabtree Blvd„ Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
Ms. Tammy Hill
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
Mrs. Kathy Matthews
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4 Wetlands Section
109 T. W. Alexander Drive
Durham. NC 27711
Mail Code: E143-04,
Ms.Shari Bryant
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Habitat Conservation Program
Post Office Box 129
Sedalia, NC 27342-0129
Mr. Howard Hall
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services
Ecological Services
P. O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Mr. Daryl Lamb
Worth Carolina Department of Water Quality
Winston-Salem Regional Office
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley
North Carolina Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-4617
Page 1 of 1
Williams, Andrew E SAW
From: [e-mail]
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 4:23 PM
To: Williams, Andrew E SAW; Manuele, Jean B SAW
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
Daryl, [e-mail]', McLendon, Scott. C SAW
Subject: Cripple Creek Mitigation Bank (Action ID SAW-2007-01188-201)
Hi Andy,
This is in response to your request for comments on the Cripple Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank,
proposed by Restoration Systems, LLC (Action ID SAW-2007-01188-201). i have reviewed the March 12, 2007
prospectus and mitigation plan, and I participated in the field visit on March 23, 2007.
In general, I believe that the site is a good candidate for a mitigation site. The streams and wetland areas on the
property provide good: opportunity for restoration and/or enhancement. In addition, we have no significant
concerns for the project, as proposed in the prospectus. However, we note that there is additional information to
be provided, including specific design plans. I note that, as we discussed in the field meeting, we may need to
took closely at some of the wetland enhancement and restoration areas, to ensure that they are or will become
jurisdictional wetlands. We are pleased that the bank sponsor and its consultant (Axiom Environmental) have
stated a willingness to minimize disturbance to the existing vegetation and soils, and to use the existing bed
material in the relocated channel. I believe that the species planting list is appropriate. In addition, I believe the
proposed stream, vegetation, hydrologic, and benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring plans are appropriate.
However, I will defer to the DWQ staff to determine the appropriateness of the benthic macroinvertebrate
monitoring plans.
As we discussed in the field on March 23, there is an issue involving the proposed credit release schedule. We
recommend that the Statewide MBRT meet as soon as possible to discuss the proposed credit release schedule,
as it may effect all future mitigation banks.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this project. I look forward` to reviewing more specific design plans for this
project, and to discussing the credit release schedule. Please call or email me with any questions or comments.
Kathy Matthews
USEPA Region 4 Wetlands Section
109 T.W. Alexander Dr.
Durham, NC 27711
MAIL CODE: E143-04
phone [phone]
cell 919-619-7319
4/23/2007
Williams, Andrew E SAW
From: [e-mail]
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 9:39 AM
To: Williams, Andrew E SAW
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]:
[e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Cripple Creek Mitigation Bank
April 27, 2007
Andy,
This provides informal comments on the proposed Cripple Creek Stream and
Wetland Mitigation Bank in Alamance County. I say informal because the
thoughts are mine, but represent the positions I would recommend to Pete
Benjamin, our Field Supervisor.
I have reviewed the Mitigation Prospectus and Mitigation Plan, both
dated March 2007. 1 also attended the site review on March 23, 2007.
The bank site includes approximately 19.1 acres with 3,782 linear feet
of stream characterized as an unnamed tributary to Boyd Creek which is
within the Cape Fear River Basin. The project site serves a watershed
of four-tenth of a square miles (256 acres). The plan calls for stream
restoration and Level II enhancement of 4,300 and 142 linear feet,
respectively. This would create 4,357 stream mitigation units. The
effort also involves riverine wetland restoration and enhancement of 5.9
acres and 1.5 acres, respectively. Non-riverine wetland restoration and
enhancement would occur on 1.2 and 0.6 acres, respectively. overall,
the bank sponsor seeks 8.15 wetland mitigation units.
Bank Location in Landscape
The Service notes that the project area flows directly into a downstream
impoundment. While the bank seeks to improve water quality and enhance
flood attenuation, these benefits in Boyd Creek and Raw River watershed
will probably continue to be influenced more by the impoundment and any
release schedule from the dam. There would appear to be limited
opportunities for upstream mitigation of aquatic organisms from below
the dam or downstream migration from the bank site to Boyd Creek and
beyond. However, I recognize that there are opportunities to establish
on-site habitat for wildlife and aquatic organisms. While the
impoundment limits the geographic scope of benefits derived from the
bank, at this time I do not think the impoundment precludes
establishment of the proposed bank.
Stream Restoration/enhancement
The stream restoration plan (Section 5.1) seeks to restore a stable
meandering stream. Based on my limited knowledge of the finer points of
stream restoration and enhancement, the plan seems adequate. I believe
others on the MBRT may be able to make more informed comments on this
aspect of the bank.
Wetland Restoration/enhancement
The plan states (p. 5) that reforestation with hardwood species is
proposed over 19.1 acres of the bank, including areas of pastureland and
disturbed forest. The target plant communities are Piedmont alluvial
forest and dry-mesic, oak-hickory forest. The area of restored wetlands
would be 9.2 acres. The plans for wetland restoration/enhancement
(Section 5.3) and vegetation planting (Section 5.4) seem adequate.
proportion desired in the mature community, then success could require
the survival of at least 80W of the plants in each species after five
years. However, this measure would not consider any natural recruitment
of characteristic species. Diversity can also be approached by
requiring that the percentage of each preferred species at the end of
the monitoring period does not deviate more than a certain amount for
the percent (such as 50$) it represented at the start of the restoration
effort. For example, if green ash constituted 10% all preferred species
at the start of the restoration effort (after any planting), this
species must represent between 51 and 15t of the preferred species at
the time success is declared. Each species required for success would
be considered separately. This approach would allow some species to
increase in abundance and some species to decline, but no species would
be allowed to disappear from the community.
The key concern here is to have a simple, effective measure to prevent a
restoration effort that seeks to establish 6-10 preferred species but
ends the monitoring period with only 2-3 species - even if the surviving
species have the required 260 stems/acre.. In this regard, red maple and
sweetgum can be characteristic species for some natural communities and
should be counted toward success, but without a good species diversity
criterion, a community with only these two species could not constitute
successful restoration.
As a starting point for discussion, I would suggest that (at the very
least) vegetative success should require the presence of a certain
percentage of the characteristic species at the end of the monitoring
period. A recent commercial bank has proposed that vegetative success
would require 70* of target species should be present in viable
populations. This is a constructive proposal, but I think the
percentage of surviving species should be at least 80$. For example, if
the natural community typically has 10 dominant species, then at least 8
of these species must be present at the end of monitoring to achieve
success.
I believe that good criteria for relative abundance and diversity could
be helpful to the sponsor. These criteria could allow some less
desirable species, such as red maple and sweetgum, to contribute to
vegetative success. While these aggressive colonizing trees should not
be planted, they are part of the two target communities. If measures
are in place to limit their dominance of the site, they could be counted
toward establishing the desired communities. Such limited, natural
colonization could reduce costs for the bank sponsor - but only if their
abundance was carefully controlled.
Federally Protected Species
As noted in the plan (p. ii), no federally listed threatened and
endangered species are known to occur in Alamance County. Several
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) have been reported from the county. A
list of these species can be found on the Service website at
http://w-ww•fws.gov/nc-es/cntylist/alama--ice.htm . A major concern would
be for mussels that are state-listed or FSC. I an pleased that the
sponsor intends to conduct "appropriate investigations" for listed
mussels within the bank streams and areas surrounding the bank. I
suggest that similar surveys be conducted for other state-listed species
or FSC.
Credit Release Schedule
A major concern with the current proposal is a request for the
accelerated sale of credits. The current plan world represent a
significant exception to the credit release sche&ale (CRS) given in the
interagency Stream Mitigation Guidelines (SMG) of April 2003. The SMG
allow for the sale of 25% of credits upon completion of all initial
physical and biological improvements. The current proposal (p. 20)
would increase this level to 55W after planting and delivery of
"as-builts."
At this time, I do not believe the Mitigation Bank Review Team (MBRT)
for the Cripple Creek Project should make this change in the CRS. There
is an issue of fairness to other private mitigation bankers who might
correctly claim that the rules have been changed after they were locked
into the prior CRS.
The CRS of the SMG provides an incentive to carefully plan and execute
the restoration. While I understand the concept of a performance bond,
I confess that I do not know the details of how these funds would used
to complete the work if the original bank sponsor could not. The use of
a performance bond to replace the incentives of a gradual release of
credits opens up a whole range of questions regarding how much work
would be needed to be completed at each stage of the monitoring period,
how much money would need to be available at each stage, how would the
work be contracted, how much money would need to be set aside to ensure
success of the first, or possibly second, remedial effort, etc. I do
not have the expertise to evaluate these issues.
For example, I notice that the financial assurance section of MBI
discusses two performance bonds. The first bond of $450,000 would be
for construction, planting, and all other activities necessary to
deliver the as-built drawings. After the as-built drawings are
delivered, a second bond of $125,000 would be provided to the Corps to
cover the cost of monitoring. I am uncertain whether the second bond
replaces the first bond, or is in addition to the first bond. If the
first bond is terminated after initial construction (which would be my
guess), are there financial assurances that work can be redone if
success criteria are not met? If the stream channel fails to perform as
planned or the planted vegetation does not survive, can the necessary
remedial actions be taken? If 55% of all bank credits have been sold at
essentially time 0 of the monitoring period, are there sufficient
incentives for the sponsor to make any necessary corrective actions over
the next five years?
Any change in the CRS should only be done as part of a formal change to
the interagency SMG. The original agencies that developed the SMG would
need to formally reconsider the CRS. These agencies could consider the
role of performance bonds in ensuring completion of the work if the
original bank sponsor was not able to achieve the success criteria.
There could be a consideration of holding the initial construction bond,
$450,000 for Cripple Creek, throughout the entire monitoring period.
There could also be a consideration of establishing a two-tier system
for private, mitigation bankers: one tier for those with an established
record of successful banks and another tier for those without such a
record. Bankers in the former tier, with an established record of
success, would be eligible for an accelerated CRS. However, it would
seem that bankers with successful banks should have the working capital
to comply with the current CRS. In any case, the standards for
established banker would need to be written out in detail before any
changes in the CRS are approved. The standards should be very specific
with virtually no "wiggle room., Otherwise, each new MBRT will spend
many hours hearing arguments on why the new bank should qualify for the
accelerated CRS. Any establishment of categories for private bankers
would certainly add extra work for the MBRT due to the need to carefully
review the details of past mitigation banks and evaluate their success
or failure.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments on the
proposed banks. We look forward to the successful resolution of these
issues and continued involvement with the MBRT €or this project.
Best regards, Howard
4
Howard F. Hall
U. S. Fish and wildlife Service
Ecological Services
P. Q. Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Ph: 919-856-4520, ext. 27
Fax: [phone]
e-mail: howard_hall®fws.gov
FqQ?
RECEIVED
April It, 2007
APR 18 2007
Mr. Andrew Williams
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
Re: Comments on Proposed Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project
Cripple Creek Mitigation Bank
Alamance County, NC
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2007-01188-201
Dear. Mr. Williams:
UMGH REGUUToRy mLD OFFICE
On March 23, 2007, Eric Kulz and Tammy Hill with the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) 401
Oversight and Express Review Permitting Unit attended an on-site meeting at the proposed mitigation
site to make observations and to discuss the project with Restoration Systems, LLC and other regulatory
agencies making up the Mitigation Bank Review Team (MBRT).
Based on the site visit and the Prospectus provided for the proposed project, our comments are as
follows:
• In general, the site appears to be a good candidate for restoration/enhancement activities. Both
the impacted wetlands and streams would benefit from the proposed mitigation activities.
• DWQ recommends a tree survey of the project site to identify individual hardwood trees that
could potentially benefit the restoration processes through input of organic matter into the system
and providing a native seed source to support natural succession processes on the site. Policies
currently in place and under development from DWQ target hardwood trees that are five inches
DBH or greater as providing an ecological benefit to the stream and are part of an established
and functioning riparian zone. Efforts should be made to preserve as many of these trees as
possible.
• DWQ recommends harvesting native bed material from the stream for use in the restored stream
channel. Despite the fact that the channel has been straightened and areas of bank erosion and
incision are present, well-developed cobble riffles are present at a number of locations. As much
of this material as possible should be harvested for use in the riffles of the restored channel.
one
?thi;na
Nr
401 0vessightlF.W= Review Permitt n Unit
16% Mad Service Center, Rskigk North Carolina 27699-16-50
2321 Crabtree Boulevard. Sam 25Q Raldgk Noah Carolina 277604
Phoac (919) 733-17961 Fax (91,1) 733 893
tnftrnet? httpL1MzQ- enr state nc urn `ts
Michael F. Easley. Governor
William G. Ross It.. ScuctM
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
pm Equal 0ppor%x*Affm1a&e gcbw Employer- 50% RecydeCY 0% Pod Comm Paper
r. Andrew Williams
.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Cripple Creek Mitigation Bank
Page 2
• A strategy for invasive/exotic plant management should be included in the Mitigation Plan for
the site.
• Information on possible land use changes within the project watershed should be collected and
considered in the design of the stream.
• The credit release schedule proposed in the Prospectus is not consistent with the Stream Credit
Release Schedule presented as Appendix IX of the Stream Mitigation Guidelines (April 2003 -
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission; and N.C. Division of Water Quality).
DWQ supports interagency discussion involving a revision of the credit release schedule that
applies to all new mitigation banks. However, DWQ does not support case-by-case modification
of the release schedule based on "track record" of the bank providers or other such subjective
criteria.
If an overall policy dictating a revised credit release schedule is developed and implemented by
the participating agencies, then such a schedule can be included in the Mitigation Banking
Instrument for this project, and can be used for this site. Otherwise, DWQ recommends that the
stream credit release schedule adhere to the Stream Mitigation Guidelines.
Please feel free to contact Eric Kulz or me at [phone] if you have any questions regarding this
project or our comments.
Sincerely
Cyndi B. Karoly, Program Manager
401 Oversight and Express Review: Program
Cc: File Copy (Eric Kulz)
Tammy Hill
Daryl Lamb - WSRO
Central Files
N o"o?tltCarolina
?aturallJ
441 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-4654
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone [phone] / Fax [phone]
Internet: htte.//h2o.enr.state.rc.usincwetlands
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Rectcled/Ur/. Post Consumer Paper
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 9
Richard B. Hamilton, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. Andrew Williams, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
U. ? of EngineCrs
FROM: S ' L, Bryaru, Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: 27 April 2007
SUBJECT: Cripple Creek Mitigation Bank, Restoration Systems, LLC, Alamance County, North
Carolina. Action ID Na SAW-2007-01 1 W201
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
subject document and we are familiar with the habitat values of the area. An on-site visit was conducted
on 23 March 2007.
Restoration Systems, LLC proposes to establish the Cripple Creek Stream and Wetland
Mitigation Bank. The proposed mitigation bank is located on a 19.1 acre portion of a farm used for
grazing horses and hay production. The proposed work includes restoring approximately 4,300 linear feet
of stream channel using RosgeQ methodologies, enl ancement (level II) of app oacimately t47 linear feet
of degraded stream channel, establishing vegetated buffers on both sides of the stream channel,
restorating 7.1 acres of riparian wetlands, and enhancement of 2.1 acres of wetlancfr. Over 19 acres of
woody vegetation will be planted, including 9.2 acres of wetland community and approximately 10 acres
of a non-wetland riparian community. A won easement will be prepared to protect the Bank site
in perpetuity. The purpose of the work and okective of the Bank is to remove non-point sources of
pollution associated with agrxxdbaal activities, reduce sedimex lion, ro4stabl',sh stream story,
promote floodwater atte nuatioo, improve aquatic and terrestrial wildlife habitat, and providc
compensatory mitigation for impacts resulting from future permitted projects.
The Bank includes unnamed tributaries to Boyds Creek in the Cape Fear River basin. There are
.no records for the federal or state listed species in these unnamed tributaries or Boyds Greek; however,
there are records for the state threatened Carolina htmueket (Lanrprdb ra *ara roue) and the state
significantly rare Eastern creeicshell (riff w dtlrod a) in adjacent watersheds. The applicant hulicates
the federal species of concern and state Carolina creekshell (Yd' Z sa vaughawam) and yellow
lampmussel (Lam&udb cariosa) have potential habitat within the Bank and proposes to conduct a survey
to determine if either of these listed mussel species are present in the streams or immediately downstream
of the Bank.
Mailing Address: Division of Iaiaad Fisheries • 1721 Manz Service Center • Raleigh, NC 276991-1721
Telephom [phone] • Fir. (919) 70740028
Z'd S2SL'6frt'3EE ZueRig Tiey$ els:60 LO LZ JdH
Page 2
27 April 2007
Cripple Creek Mitigation Bank
Action ID No. SAW-2007-0I 188-201
This site has the potential to be a good stream and wetland restoration site. The proposed stream
restoration, enhancement, and preservation activities will benefit water quality and aquatic and terrestrial
wildlife habitats. We offer the following comments and recommendations regarding the Prospectus and
Mitigation Plan.
The Prospectus (#7) and Mitigation Plan (Section 1. t, pg 1) discuss excluding livestock from
streams, stream banks and floodplains; however, there are no details in the Mitigation Plan
regarding how livestock will be excluded Please include details on the method (e.g., fencing) to
be used to exclude livestock from the mitigation bank.
2. It is unclear whether livestock crossings will be installed across any of the stream or wetland
mitigation areas. If livestock crossings are proposed, these should be detailed in the Prospectus
and Mitigation Plan including location, type of crossing, and any exclusionary fencing. If
livestock crossings are proposed, generally, we prefer the use of geo-textile fabric and rock to
stabilize the stream bottom rather than concrete. Fencing that is permanently installed across a
stream can trap debris and require maintenance. Instead, we suggest that cable is installed at the
crossing to prevent livestock from accessing the crossing. When the livestock need to cross the
stream, these cables can be detached and stretched across the stream to the fencing on the
opposite stream bank. This allows the livestock to cross and limits access to only the crossing.
Once the livestock have crossed, the cables can be reattached to the fencing to prevent livestock
from accessing the crossing.
3. A portion of the stream channel will be constructed on a new location within the adjacent
floodplain (Mitigation Plan, Section 5.1.1, pg. 13). Where feasible, we encourage the applicant to
remove substrate material from the existing channel and to use this substrate material in the new
channel.
4. The applicant proposes an accelerated credit release schedule (Prospectus #7; Mitigation Plan,
Section 7.2, p& 20) While we recognize the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(NCEEP) has a credit release schedule that differs front the one in the Stream Mitigation
Guidelines, to our knowledge, all private mitigation banks adhere to the credit release schedule
detailed in the Stream Mitigation Guidelines (April 2043). Therefore, we feel the credit: release
schedule for this Bank should be consistent with the current Stream Mitigation Guidelines (April
2003). The NCWRC would support an interagency discussion regarding a potential revision to
the current credit release schedule detailed in the Stream Mitigation Guidelines (April 2003).
5. The applicant intends to conduct studies to determine if listed mussel species may be present in
the Bank streams or immediately downstream (Mitigation Flan, Section 8.2.2., pg. 22). We
recommend any surveys be conducted by biologists with bath state and federal endangered
species permits.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can provide further assistance,
please contact our office at [phone].
cc: Ryan Heise, W RC
Corey Oakley, WRC
t: ' d S29G ' 6if? ' 9C6 JueRug T ieyS e T S = 6Q Lo La add
a, RECEIVED

?I:AY 14 2007
"LEIGH REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Pear B. smdbal4 ,Uminisu=
Mchad F. Easley, Governor Office of Archives and Hisrory
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary Division of Historical Resources
Jcffrev J- Crow, Deputy Secrcn David Brook, Director
May 2, 2007
Andrew Williams
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers
6508 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
Re: Cripple Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank, Southeast of Intersection of SR 170 and SR 1729,
Two Miles Northeast of Burlington, Alamance County, ER 07-0780
Dear Mr. Williams:
Thank you for your letter of March 29, 2007, concerning the abcve project.
We have conducted a review of the proposed undertaking and are aware of no historic resources that would be
affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the undertaking as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Comphance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763, est. 246. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely. (`a L
Pga- s , rnPm
Peter Sandbeck
ADIAL%I UMMON
RESYOR Mom
!:LIMEY & PLL\',4LNG
Locauca
507 N. Bkant Saes Rakigh NC
Sly N. BWunLSace4 Rakigh NC
S 15 X. BkKw Saner, Raleigh, NC
arty edam Tdephme/Fax
4627:Hai Service cenaM Rabgh NC Z16"-4617 (919}273 1 s3m3 a6S
461 SYail jeevice Ccirq Raiogh tiL'J699 46 t 91 T,733 6531; `154801
4617 MA -Semm {'.etc. Raiew Nc _r, 69-36 ? "1:9)273.6545;? 15.4801