20081295 Ver 1_Mitigation Bank Proposal_20080825

08 1 2 9 5
JUL 1 8 2C3t,
Restoration & Conservation
July 16, 2008
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
ATTN: Amanda D. Jones, Regulatory Project Manager
Chair, Interagency Review Team
D
A'JG 2
hzz4a?_ W,
SUBJ: Prospectus for the Farmer Creek Mitigation Bank, Avery County
Restoration Systems, LLC (RS) is pleased to present the enclosed Prospectus for the proposed
Farmer Creek Mitigation Bank located near Newland in north-central Avery County within
French Broad River Basin, cataloging unit 06010108 (Figs 1-3)
Please note that part one of the Prospectus is prepared in the format of the Mitigation
Banking Instrument (MBI) template developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
found at httv://www.saw.usace.arrnv.mil/WETLANDS/Miti2ation/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
federal mitigation rule, which became effective in June 2008.
RS has attempted to gain a working understanding of the goals and expectations set
down in the new Mitigation Rule. 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 to you for distribution to the IRT and we look
forward to putting forth our best efforts to provide the best quality wetland and stream
mitigation complex that will provide the utmost in functionality for the benefit of the
entire 8-digit watershed and beyond.
Pilot Mill -1101 Haynes St., Suite 211- Raleigh, NC 27604 - www.restorationsystems.com - Phone [phone]- Fax [phone]
Page 2
July 16, 2008
Amanda Jones, USACE
In support of your effort to get the document to the members of the IRT, I am enclosing
the original and 5 copies. A list of all adjacent property owners' names and resses 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,
A^#-1VO1V1
M. Randall Turner
Enclosures
cc: William T. Walker, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville

:GSA
T
7
t
t ?'?:- .: ._.._ ??'^=.? .% _ is
aY,.. Y
.,?Jiyhy' y
! i - ? r4 Y ?? 2 ? Pr
r?,a v 1;
p9aFE'fMlvt-!"-".
r i n rte,-r [ _'y1
? J
L r-
n
Site Location
777
v.,av,«. 41 y?r ? ..: ? ,.•s *. _ Y ?- M .c, _ 7J 7 1,
r t
-TI
bow;
t
:M1 r' J I 9 t- ??1;- t
«.. a j
Directions to The Bank from Morganton, North Carolina:
Take Highway 181 north to Pinola (-30 miles)
Turn left/travel south on Highway 221 for- 3 miles
Turn right on Mount Pleasant Road and travel northwest for-3 miles
Turn left on Squirrel Creek Road at Mount Pleasant and travel northwest for-1 mile a
Turn right on Bartlett Farmer Road
Reach 1 of The Bank is begins just above the first set of houses on the right }
Point in road at the downstream end of Reach I of the Bank
Latitude: 36.0669 °N, Longitude: 81.9717 °W?`.,*
) c
--L
-0 r 1 mi. _ _4 mi. -- -'•'ri.*-
1:158,400
Source: 1977 North Carolina Adaa and Gazetteer, pp. 32 & 33.
- Dwn, by:
CLF FIGURE
2126 Rowland Pond Or SITE LOCATION Ckd by:
Willow Spring, NC 27592 WGL
[phone] FARMER CREEK MITIGATION SITE Date:
[phone] fax Avery County, North Carolina May 2008
Project: 08-009
I

G ! r EIk r8r c B
---
ri UtriraePGl:S
J?hf3 nd
PC>'IBr,, kvvar2 __ r?k ... C.1??? Gil.
r p1gA"r.-jns.1 font linvtll.
y r '
i Relief pear
Hun ?Fa 6a ` iitePi 1-eol-a ?4.
t- rF
i,3.?' 13r13c t rar, i tr 1 -
8 >?', D. ay scok.':? ?J "fyy:...r' I al 5 / .?4.. q.Zy?t-fiLf l7
H ?1ns {V
Ledges t h:att +3t "r
Kon,
t X f `f ?j• E ms' - B?Gt'. r , -d{;S \
G
SWISS eurnsvlte enta ? l_
6a ;d Cme - G„ r1a? i.
USGS 14-dibgit HV Aa t '" -a s 11
Zw L'4nr1E t' 'PZ+l N
and Targeted Local,
F: Watershed -rt z
Cow
_ 06010108010010 r ,:{ c,,tcre tangy r Table t?ck
(r DernoGr-a
-?
<-?arnardsv!l,e "T kj T >o^ -8'xPt
??HFLL i Z'- 4,41
re,
QBy?1c
?? 3
f0.tt;ngtram L } :E
Pa i,-11. F-, k
v G •rrj°t^±3 ,:j
C'?i ice ' 4` rrt t LJ W., L L
Ri ?srtT> ' .? Rid ate
{ sy -? tlia FQft vide
rttr. ,
ASH Eu1? =zro.estna . ,ref }3 tit i? 1 er1
I Cttln ,5 i ._. - ,• ?., ,,ti oys,i ztSvii)e
"i rr= ?Z' • Cur ..
?, .!'" ?zafea ?•?-111 ,?, .i( ?.. ? ? -- . ?iil
-? 1 Vri s
f
nern't.at Czt;j
L::`tle t s42i jlt':1 `.?
U
5 mi. 0 5 mi. 15 mi.
- ---- -- Ch r ?i
1:625,000 " t L l;r?
Source: Hydrologic knit Map - 1974 State of North Carolina 12 e
r. - a sar;aat
Own. by:
CLF FIGURE
2126 Rowland Pond Or USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT MAP Clydby: WGL
Willow Spring, NC 27592
[phone] FARMER CREEK MITIGATION SITE
[phone]fax . Avery County, North Carolina Pate.
Project May 2008
08-009
D-. by.
FIGURE
CLF

Date /?

i 1
e
May 2008 J/
Project Proj
Re
08-009

Farmer Mitigation Bank Adjacent Landowners
Douglas Hullender Bartlett R. Farmer
111 Huffstetler Lake Rd 118 Bartlett Farmer Rd
Dallas, NC 28034 Newland, NC 28657
Ted Farmer Eugene W.Johnson
310 Bartlett Farmer Rd 177 Bartlett Farmer Rd
Newland, NC 28657 Newland, NC 28657
Vernon Delone Carpenter Wade Benfield
520 Bartlett Farmer Rd P.O. Box 1114
Newland, NC 28657 Newland, NC 28657
Vernon D. & Myra P. Pittman Jack R. Franklin
1145 Ashlyn Dr 434 W. Fourth St
Melbourne, FI 32904 Loveland, CO 80537
Marva Karon Salmi Ruth Carpenter
8550 Skip Jack Place 522 Bartlett Farmer Rd
Pasadena, MD 21122 Newland, NC 28657
Madgie H. & Vernon D. Carpenter Evelyn F. Alexander
P.O. Box 191 144 Bartlett Farmer Rd
Crossnore, NC 28616 Newland, INC 28657
Bill & Glenda Gragg
766 Squirrel Creek Rd
Newland, NC 28657
rn
(D -n
0?
W
0 0-%
N (D
x o
0
0
m v
S a
0 -o
CD 0
m N
CD
Q.
m
0
(D
3
(D

O
cn
N
co 6
ca

Z A
mAr
Wm
>M>
Z Z
omo
0
T
D
00 <
NK7
m Z
;a T
O
v
mm0
? ;a I
co >
>p
v;u m
zm? ..'
Orr ?
N 0
rn m
M
o7m
ZZ
opD JJ
r L
X S
w )
Z O
mm
Z r D
omm
? .s
z?m
m
CD A
ol m
-?
ma
O?
O
O v Cl)
DCn>
mcn?
DAD
?nD
7
800
LPG
US Army Corps
Of Engineers
Wilmington District
PUBLIC NOTICE
Q a_
AU G 2 5 2008
?pNus AND s 0V OQUXAV BR G?
08 1?__D'5
Issue Date: 22 August 2008
Comment Deadline: 22 September 2008
Corps Action ID #: SAW-2008-2384
The Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers (Corps) has received a prospectus describing the
establishment of a stream and wetland compensatory mitigation bank, known as the Farmer
Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank for Federal and State permits as described below:
Bank Sponsor:
Restoration Systems, LLC
This public notice does not imply, on the part of the Corps of Engineers or other agencies, either
favorable or unfavorable opinion of the work to be performed, but is issued to solicit comments
regarding the factors on which final decisions will be based. Specific plans and location
information are described below and shown on the attached plans. This Public Notice and all
attached plans are also available on the Wilmington District Web Site at
www.saw.usace.armv.mil/wetlands. The complete prospectus and mitigation plans are also
available at the Wilmington District, Asheville Regulatory Field Office. Please contact 828-271-
7980 extension 231, to request a copy.
WATERWAYS AND LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED WORK: The proposed bank site is
located on Bartlett Farmer Road, approximately 2.5 miles southwest of Newland, in Avery
County, North Carolina. The approximate geographic coordinates are 36.0669° north latitude and
-81.9717° west longitude. The site is located along and adjacent to unnamed tributaries to
Squirrel Creek on approximately 6.7 acres within the French Broad River Basin, Hydrologic
Unit Code (HUC) 06010108. (See attached maps).
PROPOSED WORK AND PURPOSE: The bank sponsor proposes to establish, design,
construct, and operate a stream and wetland compensatory mitigation bank composed of 6.7
acres located southwest of Newland, Avery County, North Carolina.
As stated by the sponsor, the primary goals and objectives of this proposed mitigation bank are
to improve water quality, enhance flood attenuation and restore aquatic and riparian habitat.
Specifically the sponsor plans to restore 0.13 acre of wetlands and 1,980 linear feet of stream
channel, enhance 130 linear feet of stream channel, and preserve 1,310 linear feet of stream
channel. The sponsor states the goals and objectives will be accomplished by: 1) removing non-
point sources of pollution associated with agricultural activities, 2) reducing sedimentation
within onsite and downstream receiving waters, 3) reestablishing stream stability and the
capacity to transport watershed flows and sediment loads by restoring stable dimension, pattern
and profile, 4) promoting floodwater attenuation by reconnecting bankfull flows to abandoned
floodplains, restoring entrenched tributaries, restoring depressional floodplain wetlands, and
revegetating floodplains, 5) improving aquatic habitat by enhancing stream bed variability and
the use of in-stream structures, 6) promoting an overall ecological uplift to wildlife, trout, and
fisheries habitat by shading/cooling surface waters, filtering nutrients, reducing sedimentation,
reducing downstream flooding, and increasing in-stream habitat, 7) improving trout habitat,
migration, and spawning in an area with know trout in lower reaches of the Bank. The sponsor
states that the proposed bank will be protected in perpetuity by a conservation easement. The
applicant states that upon completion the proposed bank will offer 2,329 Stream Mitigation Units
and 0.13 Wetland Mitigation Units. The proposed geographic service area is the 8 digit HUC,
06010108, located within the French Broad River Basin.
The proposed 6.7-acre bank site is currently utilized for Christmas tree farming and sparse
residential development. The main hydrologic features of the Bank include four reaches of
unnamed tributaries to Squirrel Creek and associated floodplains. The unnamed tributaries are
first and second order, perennial stream channels that drain approximately 0.3-square mile
watershed. These tributaries have been dredged/straightened in the past and are characterized by
eroding banks, bimodal sediment transport, and sparse riparian buffer. Approximately 0.13 acre
of the Bank is underlain by hydric soils, which are located within the floodplain adjacent to
Reach 1. Extensive floodplain manipulations associated with stream ditching, straightening,
rerouting, and deforestation have effectively reduced the groundwater hydrology from these
areas. The enclosed map shows the approximate location of proposed restoration and
enhancement sites.
This mitigation bank may be considered one of a number of practicable alternatives available to
applicants to compensate for unavoidable stream and wetland impacts associated with permits
issued under the authority of Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act for projects located
within the prescribed geographic service area.
Oversight of this wetland and stream compensatory mitigation bank will be by a group of
Federal and State agency representatives collectively referred to as the Interagency Review Team
(IRT). The IRT shall be chaired by the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
is comprised of representatives from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, N.C. Division of Water Quality, and the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission.
The actual approval of the use of this mitigation bank for a specific project is the decision
of the Corps of Engineers pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404
of the Clean Water Act. The Corps provides no guarantee that any particular individual or
general permit will be granted authorization to use this wetland compensatory mitigation bank to
compensate for unavoidable wetland impacts associated with a proposed permit, even though
mitigation from this bank may be available.
AUTHORITY: A Public Notice regarding proposed mitigation banks is required pursuant to the
rules published in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) for Compensatory Mitigation for
Losses of Aquatic Resources (33 CFR 332.8(d)(4)).
FEDERAL EVALUATION OF PROPOSAL: The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments
from the public; Federal, state, and local agencies and officials; Indian Tribes; and other
interested parties in order to consider and evaluate this proposed mitigation bank. Any
comments received will be considered by the Corps in evaluating this proposal. Comments are
used to assess impacts on endangered species, historic properties, conservation, economics,
aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values, fish and wildlife values,
flood hazards and flood plain values (in accordance with Executive Order 11988), land use,
navigation, shore erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality,
energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of property
ownership, and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people.
Preliminary review indicates that: 1) An environmental impact statement will not be required; 2)
No species of fish, wildlife, or plant (or their critical habitat) listed as endangered or threatened
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (PL 93-205) will be affected; and 3) No cultural or
historic resources considered eligible or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of
Historic Places will be affected. Additional information may change any of these preliminary
findings.
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined above, will be received in this
office, Attention: Amanda Jones, Asheville Regulatory Field Office, 151 Patton Avenue, Room
208, Asheville, North Carolina 28801, until 5:00 p.m., September 22, 2008.
"'\ t ?... f 4 t ??• nc^-ca5 h..L.. ..={ ? ? , •I ._ ? ? \ - `yy ) _ .#? i ? ??j .: f• ,.. + '
A'. ?i Z1 _ ?' f? t-r rr?u-a `i 181 ?9 ? ,?l_ ?M17
14
I ?,. ? - ` ?. ,? '?-?i-ti:T may- - (5 + ji __ff -. I cL 1 •..
/ I ? ` _ _ ICE Fll?l ? i,? ? •?-.. ? ?,'?}Ebe7' .?'11?.`Y,? ?'? lye. 1
`'T,I
J?L I a'y??' •I ??. t1•i ? 1 ? ? ? t' ikF! r? -? ? ? ? a . ?-tl ? E2 ? .'- t 7'.. ? ,' ?
•f^ d
-Z- - - Site Location
f _ J' .11 vnwt I
Ky,. / T - j I ,?rr
r t I t1:r: vM1l r 1.. tS' 3? ^. ` ri lG.- /'1 ?t11U f.d- ??, ? ?+.? ? ? ? 4 i
?hr•;L` s 1 yz? ?. .i+/ - r t 4 II IQ '[ ?I P._uzl^-? u J cM 1 t
? Y -•`?` I t . f ` - !} flu I '--4j
7 J, i 'x_ , •`? `?^?\
I-A
l",yS,,..1?: I al k ...* R' ?l . _ 1l t y' rte.-?"'7., t •:?(,p
trl ? v-,?Y--?_r ..t f-?•fa .c' (S:'r:
r '1D , r`4 4? zc ?s cxT, j Fi ar a a
34 r f C f ter' C -yx r I f 1? i to :. 1` j;
=.?? 1 ' _ I - '` i•1; . _ r+t".`-y v? a t .s I , j?,a,.,_";w- t` - \,,.
c
A, I
;F- L
f
Directions to The Bank from Morganton, North Carolina: - jr
Take Highway 181 north to Pinola (-30 miles) tt?i`? \
Turn left(travel south on Highway 221 for - 3 miles
Turn right on Mount Pleasant Road and travel northwest for-3 miles
`k1
v' Turn left on Squirrel Creek Road at Mount Pleasant and travel northwest for -l mile 41
Turn right on Bartlett Farmer Road - I
Reach l of The Bank is begins just above the fast set of houses on the right lti> T ?1,- 7
Point in road at the downstream end of Reach 1 of the Bank
Latitude: 36.0669 °N, Longitude: 81.9717'W I
F I -SG, A h } t I.
•.,:'i i : L AM -t'? f I ;t, r,
1:158,400 c ?
Source: 1977 North Carolina ANas and Gazetteer, pp. 32 & 33 r i; ?? T z y` n { I
(s
.. ? .t?p"_...,. _.. ?s i ``--?">c?::?f?.61 pit uar..., _ `9 ?V • -. t .:i ...? ?y ? ?2 '?? :r 1 ? - - -
CLF FIGURE
2126 Rowland Pond Or SITE LOCATION Ckd by:
Mow Spring, NC 27592 WGL
{919)215.1693 FARMER CREEK MITIGATION SITE Date:
1918)341-3639 fax Avery County, North Carolina May 2008
Project, OB-009
"'"`"T' FIGURE
1126 Rowland Pond Drlve DRAINAGE AREAAND TOPOGRAPHY CLF
Nlllow Spring, NC 27592 one:
A '919) 216.1693 FARMER CREEK MITIGATION SITE May zoos
:919)3413839faz z Avery County, North Carolina Relecc
A"=6Tkn9WW 31.11 08.009

Legend N
® Proposed Easement = -6.7 acres
Planting/Supplemental Planting Area = -4.2 acres
Stream Restoration
® Stream Enhancement Level 1
- - Stream Preservation
Braided Reach Stream Preservation
Riparian Wetland Restoration -0.13 acres
Old Backfilled Channel
-` Trout Ponds
-- Pond Inlets/Outlets
?x .
f :.
K = y

J
saw
r
j IMF"
0 115 230 460 690 920
RGURE
2126 Rolland Pond Drive PROPOSED CONDITIONS CLF
IYRiow Spring, NC 27592
9
{ 19)21i-169J FARMER CREEK MITIGATION SITE May 2008
1: 19)3413/39fax Avery County, North Carolina
Proieet 5
•??++. eic 0&009
A %
PROSPECTUS o a. z a s
Farmer Creek Mitigation Bank
Avery County, North Carolina
r-?
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
(Environmental
(Sponsor) Consultant)
Restoration Systems, LLC Axiom Environmental, Inc.
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211 2126 Rowland Pond Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 Willow Spring, North Carolina 27592
„ ' ?'=?13??T t
July 2008
UENR-WA ?WA?TERE??UA
os?os
Introduction
Part I of the prospectus contains a two part narrative including the Introduction and
the General Provisions. The Introduction is formatted to respond directly to 33 CFR
Parts 325 and 332 section 332.8 (d)(2) of the new federal mitigation rule; the General
Provisions essentially convey information in the format of the recommended mitigation
banking instrument (MBI) template found on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers web
page (see cover letter). Part II of the prospectus is the Mitigation Plan. The Mitigation
Plan provides detailed information on goals, methods, existing and proposed conditions
and other technical information including preliminary design concepts, regulatory issues,
etc.
Objectives of the Bank
The primary goals of this mitigation bank project are focused 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 horticultural activities by
the elimination of broadcasting and spraying of pesticides and fertilizers into the
Bank streams and adjacent riparian lands.
2. Reducing sedimentation within onsite and downstream receiving waters through
a) reduction of bank erosion associated with vegetation maintenance, and
operation of motorized equipment up to stream banks 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 for benthic macroinvertebrates, trout and other species
by enhancing stream bed variability and the use of in-stream structures.
6. Promoting an overall ecological lift by shading/cooling surface waters with buffer
plantings, thereby increasing dissolved oxygen, filtering nutrients, reducing
sediment input, reducing downstream flooding, increasing variability of bed
morphology through maintenance of perpendicular flow vectors and restoring
aquatic habitats for fisheries and other trophic levels;
7. Improve trout habitat. Established populations occur in lower reaches of the
Bank.
The Bank's mitigation plan includes 1) construction of a stable, riffle-pool stream
channel, 2) restoration 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 trout
and other aquatic habitat, 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 District Engineer (DE) for approval
• Submit MBI to DE for approval
• Implementation
• Monitoring
Operation of the bank will be managed by Restoration Systems, LLC (RS) 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 (GSA) is the French Broad River Basin 8-digit
Cataloging Unit, 06010108; however, the recent Wilmington District Public Notice (June
3, 2008) affirmed that "use of the bank for impacts located outside the GSA may be
considered on a case-by-case basis during the permit evaluation process."
Need for and Technical Feasibility of Bank
French Broad 08 is a relatively small drainage area within the French Broad River
Basin. The service area includes numerous small cities and towns such as Spruce Pine,
Burnsville, Bakersville and Newland. but the entire area is rapidly developing as a tourist
destination. Construction of second homes, residential communities and services is
expected to proceed at a moderate pace well into the future.
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 the Bank stream reaches.
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 hiygh
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
4
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.
Site's Ecological Suitabilitv to Achieve the Bank's Objectives
Site is characterized by rolling hills where horticultural crops are produced,
residences and outbuildings, 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, horticultural and agricultural
practices will be precluded from future encroachments into aquatic sites following
restoration and enhancement efforts.
Credit Release Schedule
RS proposes to use the credit release schedule prescribed by the agencies in a
Department of the Army (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 or the Interagency Review Team (IRT).
Table 1. Proposed Credit Release Schedule
Task Completion Verification % of Cred it Release
Wetlands Streams
I (Preconstruction)* Execution of MBI 15 15
II (Construction) Site Inspection b USACE 15 1
III ( I" Year Monitoring) Monitoring Report 10 10

(2"d )
IV Year Monitoring)
Monitoring Report
15
10
V (3` Year Monitorin) Monitoring Report 20 10
VI Year Monitoring?
(4t' )
Monitoring Report
10 - -- -
10
VII (5` Year Monitoring) Monitoring Report 15 15** -
Total 100 100
* Task I includes the execution of the MBl. MBRT approval of the Mitigation Plan, delivery of financial assurances.
recordation of the conservation easement. and delivery of the title option to the MBR-1 .
** Denotes that the release of 1 percent is contingent upon two bank-full events during the five-year monitoring.
More than 1980 linear feet of degraded stream will be restored and more than 130
feet will be enhanced, using Level I. Furthermore, 0.13 acre of riparian wetlands will be
restored and over 4 acres of riparian lands will be reforested.
Table 2. Quantification of Proposed Mitigation
Proposed Mitigation Activity Proposed Mitigation Quantity Proposed Units (Credits)
Streams (linear ft) Wetlands (ac) Streams (SN1Us) Wetlands(WMUs)
Stream Restoration 1980 1980
Stream Enhancement (Level 1) 130 87
Stream Preservation 1310 262
Riparian Wetland Restoration 0.13 0.13
Total: 2329 Total: 0.13
General Provisions
The goal of the Farmer Creek Mitigation Bank (The Bank) is to restore and
enhance first- and second-order streams, and to restore riparian wetlands,
including their collective functions and values to compensate for the loss of
similar 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 in
June 2008.
3. The IRT shall be chaired by Amanda D. Jones, hereafter referred to as the 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 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.
6. The Bank is a 6.7 acre portion of an active farm in north-central Avery County,
which is utilized for the growth of horticultural crops such as Christmas trees.
Approximately 3400 linear feet of stream associated with unnamed tributaries to
Squirrel Creek, as well as 0.13 acre of hydric soils exhibit mitigation potential
within The Bank. These areas are regularly maintained and mowed and are
subjected to frequent applications of fertilizer and pesticides, which collectively
6
causes sedimentation to streams and represents sources of toxic and eutrophic
input to streams. 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. 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 9-14 of the Mitigation Plan, including:
• Restoration of approximately 1980 linear feet of stream channels
• Enhancement (Level I) of approximately 130 linear feet of degraded stream
channel;
• Establishment of vegetated buffers on both sides of affected stream channels;
• Restoration of 0.13 acre of forested riparian wetland 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;
• Plant 4.2 acres of woody vegetation will be planted within wetland and non-
wetland, riparian communities. In addition, substrate modifications will be
made to areas that are highly compacted from historical 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 horticultural activities
including a) cessation of equipment operations and maintenance activities
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 vegetation 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 strictures.
• Promote floodwater attenuation through a) reconnection of bankfull stream
flows to the abandoned floodplain terrace, b) reduce floodwater velocities
within smaller catchment basins by restorin,, 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.
7
• Improve aquatic habitats by enhancing stream bed variability and the wise use
of in-stream structures.
• Provide wildlife habitat in areas adjacent to streams, which have historically
been maintained as intensely maintained lawnscapes.
• Provide a legitimate opportunity for providing compensatory mitigation to
offset unavoidable impacts authorized by the DA and the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) in consultation with state and federal
partner agencies.
9. The Sponsor will monitor The Bank Site as described on pages 14-16 of the
Mitigation Plan, until such time as the DE determines that the success criteria
described on page 15 of the Mitigation Plan have been met.
10. RS is responsible for assuring the success of the stream restoration and
enhancement and wetland restoration activities at The Bank, and for the overall
operation and management of The Bank.
11. RS will provide annual monitoring reports to the DE not later than December of
each monitoring year. The monitoring report will provide data and analyses
addressing vegetation success within the context of stated success criteria on page
15 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 pages 15-16 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.
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.
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
French Broad River Basin Cataloging Unit 06010108 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
Proposed Mitigation Activity Proposed Quantity Mitigation Units (Credits)
Streams Wetland Streams Wetland
(linear feet) (acre) (SMUs) (WMUs)
Stream Restoration 1980 1980
Stream Enhancement (Level I) 130 87
Stream Preservation 1310 262 _
Riparian Wetland Restoration 0.13 0.13
Total: 2329 Total: 0.13
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 permit authorization process. For
streams, application of credits to impacts will be at l: l (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
9
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 (1%) 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 24 of the MBI;
Recordation of the preservation mechanism described in paragraph 23 of
the 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 1 above).
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 to the DE within 30 days
of the debit. In addition, RS shall prepare an annual report, to be presented to the
DE on each anniversary of the date of execution of this agreement, showing all
credits used, and the balance of credits remaining, 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.
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
10
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.
24. RS shall provide a performance bond to the DE naming it as the Obligee in the
amount of $250,000 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 $75,000. 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.
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.
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
(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: (1) 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.
12
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Restoration Systems proposes the establishment of a stream and wetland mitigation bank at the Farmer
Creek Site (The Bank), which is located approximately 2.5 miles southwest of Newland, in central Avery
County. The Bank is located within the French Broad River Basin in 14-digit USGS Cataloging Unit and
Targeted Local Watershed 06010108010010 of the South Atlantic/Gulf Region (NCDWQ subbasin
number 04-03-06).
The Bank encompasses approximately 6.7 acres of land located in a small residential area within rural
land primarily utilized for horticultural (Christmas tree) production. Approximately 3360 linear feet of
stream associated with unnamed tributaries to Squirrel Creek, as well as 0.13 acres of hydric soil exhibit
mitigation potential within The Bank. 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:
I. Removing nonpoint sources of pollution associated with agricultural activities including a)
eliminating the broadcasting of fertilizer, pesticides, and other agricultural materials into and
adjacent to streams and wetlands and b) 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 vegetation maintenance and agricultural plowing and b) planting a
diverse, native riparian 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 The Bank's floodplain to increase frictional resistance on floodwaters crossing The
Bank.
5. Improving aquatic habitat for benthic macroinvertebrates, trout, and other fisheries by enhancing
stream bed variability and the use of in-stream structures.
6. Promoting an overall ecological uplift by providing wildlife, benthic macro invertebrate, trout, and
other fisheries habitat, shading/cooling surface waters (thereby increasing dissolved oxygen
levels), filtering nutrients, reducing sedimentation, reducing downstream flooding, and increasing
bed morphology (habitat) through maintenance of perpendicular flow vectors.
7. Improving trout habitat, migration, and spawning in an area with known trout in lower reaches of
the Bank.
The Bank's restoration plan includes I) construction of a stable, riffle-pool stream channel. 2) restoration
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 associated with a riparian corridor stable stream, 6) restoration
Farmer Creek Mitigation Bank Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
of trout and other fisheries habitat, migration, and spawning areas, and 7) establishment of a permanent
conservation easement which will encompass all restoration activities.
Restoration options outlined in this report are as follows:
Proposed !Mitigation Quantity Proposed Mitigation Units
(Credits)
Proposed Mitigation Activity Streams
(linear feet) Wetlands
(acres) Stream Units
(SMUs) Wetland Units
(WMUs)
Stream Restoration 1980 1980
Stream Enhancement (Level 1) 130 87
Stream Preservation 1310 262
Riparian Wetland Restoration 0.13 0.13
Total: 2329 Total: 0.13
After completion of the project The Bank will offer 2329 Stream Mitigation Units and 0.13 Wetland
Mitigation Units.
Farmer Creek Mitigation Bank Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... ...I
1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... .. I
1.1 Project Goals ...................................................................................................................... .. 1
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................ .. 2
2.1 Physiography. Topography, and Land Use .......................................................................... .. 3
2.2 Water Quality ..................................................................................................................... .. 3
2.3 Vegetation .......................................................................................................................... ..4
2.4 Soils and Land Form .......................................................................................................... .. 5
2.5 Jurisdictional Wetlands ....................................................................................................... ..5
3.0 STREAM CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................................................... ..6
3.1 Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... ..6
3.2 Stream Classification .......................................................................................................... .. 6
3.2.1 Dimension .................................................................................................................... ..6
3.2.2 Profile .......................................................................................................................... .. 8
3.2.3 Plan Form ..................................................................................................................... .. 8
4.0 REFERENCE FOREST ECOSYSTEM ......................................................................................... .. 9
5.0 RESTORATION PLAN ................................................................................................................. .. 9
5.1 Stream Restoration ............................................................................................................. .. 9
5. 1.1 Reconstruction on New Location .................................................................................. 10
5.1.2 In-Stream Structures ..................................................................................................... 11
5.1.3 Stream Reconstruction In-Place .................................................................................... 12
5.2 Stream Enhancement (Level 1) ........................................................................................... 13
5.3 Stream Preservation ............................................................................................................ 13
5.4 Wetland Restoration ........................................................................................................... 13
5.5 Vegetative Planting ............................................................................................................ 14
6.0 MONITORING PLAN ................................................................................................................... 14
6.1 Stream Monitoring ............................................................................................................. 14
6.2 Vegetation Monitoring ....................................................................................................... 15
6.3 Hydrological Monitoring .................................................................................................... 15
6.4 Biotic Community Changes ................................................................................................ 15
7.0 AVAILABLE CREDIT AND PROPOSED RELEASE .................................................................. 16
7.1 Credit Determination .......................................................................................................... 16
7.2 Credit Release Schedule ..................................................................................................... 16
7.3 Perpetual Maintenance of Mitigation Bank ......................................................................... 17
7.4 Nonproject Development Scenario ..................................................................................... 17
7.5 Corporate Experience ......................................................................................................... 17
8.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS ......................................................................................................... 18
8.1 Waters of the United States ................................................................................................ 18
8.2 Rare and Protected Species ................................................................................................. 18
9.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................................... 19
10.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 20
iii
Farmer Creek Mitigation Bank Plan Restoration Systems, LLC

APPENDICES
Appendix A. Figures
Appendix B. Existing Stream Data
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Site Location
Figure 2. USGS Hydrologic Unit Map
Figure 3. Drainage Area and Topography
Figure 4. Existing Conditions and Soils
Figure 5. Proposed Conditions
Figure 6. Typical Structure Details
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Existing Stream Characteristics ........................................................
Table 2. NRCS Soils Mapped within The Bank .............................................
Table 3. Stream Geometry and Classification .................................................
Table 4. Reference Forest Ecosystem .............................................................
Table 5. Proposed Mitigation Quantities vs. Mitigation Credits ......................
Table 6. Proposed Credit Release Schedule ....................................................
Table 7. Federally Protected Species for Avery County ..................................
.3
.5
.7
.9
16
16
19
iv
Farmer Creek Mitigation Bank Plan
Restoration Systems, LLC
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
MITIGATION PLAN
FARMER CREEK MITIGATION BANK
RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT OF
UNNAMED TRIBUTARIES TO FARMER CREEK
AND ADJACENT RIPARIAN WETLANDS
Avery County, North Carolina
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Restoration Systems proposes the establishment of a stream and wetland mitigation bank at the Farmer
Creek Site (The Bank), which is located approximately 2.5 miles southwest of Newland, in central Avery
County (Figures 1 and 2, Appendix A). The Bank encompasses approximately 6.7 acres of land located
in a small residential area within rural land primarily utilized for horticultural (Christmas tree) production.
Approximately 3360 linear feet of stream associated with unnamed tributaries to Squirrel Creek, as well
as 0.13 acres of hydric soil exhibit mitigation potential within The Bank. 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 from Morganton, North Carolina:
Take Highway 181 north to Pineola (-30 miles)
Turn left/travel south on Highway 221 for -- 3 miles
Turn right on Mount Pleasant Road and travel northwest for -3 miles
? Turn left on Squirrel Creek Road at Mount Pleasant and travel northwest for -l mile
Turn right on Bartlett Farmer Road
Reach I of The Bank begins just above the first set of houses on the right
Point in road at the downstream end of Reach I of the Bank
Latitude: 36.0669 °N, Longitude: 81.9717 °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)
eliminating the broadcasting of fertilizer, pesticides, and other agricultural materials into and
adjacent to streams and wetlands and b) 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 vegetation maintenance and agricultural plowing and b) planting a
diverse, native riparian 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.
Promoting floodwater attenuation through a) reconnecting bankfull stream flows to the
abandoned toodplain 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)
Farmer Creek Mitigation Bank Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
revegetating The Bank's floodplains to increase frictional resistance on floodwaters crossing The
Bank.
5. Improving aquatic habitat for benthic macro invertebrates, trout, and other fisheries by enhancing
stream bed variability and the use of in-stream structures.
6. Promoting an overall ecological uplift by providing wildlife, benthic macroinvertebrate, trout, and
other fisheries habitat, shading/cooling surface waters (thereby increasing dissolved oxygen
levels), filtering nutrients, reducing sedimentation, reducing downstream flooding, and increasing
bed morphology (habitat) through maintenance of perpendicular flow vectors.
7. Improving trout habitat, migration, and spawning in an area with known trout in lower reaches of
the Bank.
These goals will be achieved by:
• Providing 2329 Stream Mitigation Units.
o Restoring approximately 1980 linear feet of stream channel through construction of stable
channels, thereby reestablishing stable dimension, pattern, and profile as well as improving
trout and other fisheries habitat, migration, and spawning areas.
o Enhancing (Level I) approximately 130 linear feet of stream channel through alteration to
channel dimension and profile, with subsequent bank stabilization and improvements to trout
and other fisheries habitat, migration, and spawning areas.
o Preserving approximately 1310 linear feet of stream channel
• Providing 0.13 Wetland Mitigation Units.
o Restoring approximately 0.13 acres of riparian 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.
• Planting a native woody riparian buffer adjacent to restored/enhanced streams and wetlands
within approximately 4.2 acres of The Bank.
• Protecting The Bank in perpetuity with a conservation easement.
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Bank, located within rural/residential property
owned by the Ted and Betty Farmer and Evelyn
Alexander, is characterized by maintained land
and mature forest. The area surrounding the Bank
includes agricultural land used for Christmas tree
production, mature forest, and sparse residential
development including houses, barns, and garages.
The Bank is situated north of Big Elk Mountain
and Big Haw Mountain. The region is
characterized by agricultural land and mature
forest with sparse residential development. Area
agriculture is dominated by Christmas tree
production.
The main hydrologic features of The Bank include four reaches of unnamed tributaries to Squirrel Creek
and associated floodplains (Figures 3 and 4, Appendix A). The unnamed tributaries to Squirrel Creek are
first- and second-order, perennial, bank-to-bank stream systems that drain an approximately 03-square
mile watershed at the Bank outfall. The unnamed tributaries have been dredged and straightened and are
2
Farmer Creek Nfitigation Bank Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
characterized by eroding banks, bimodal sediment transport, and a narrow and sparse, disturbed riparian
buffer.
2.1 PHYSIOGRAPHY, TOPOGRAPHY, AND LAND USE
The Bank is located in the Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountain portion of the Blue Ridge
Ecoregion of North Carolina within United States Geological Survey (USGS) Cataloging Unit 06010108
(North Carolina Division of Water Quality [NCDWQ] subbasin number 04-03-06) of the French Broad
River Basin. Regional physiography is characterized by low to high mountains, gently rounded to steep
slopes, and narrow valleys with high gradient, cool, clear streams over bedrock and boulder-dominated
substrates. Onsite elevations range from a high of 3920 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD)
on slopes adjacent to Reach 4 at the upstream end of The Bank to a low of approximately 3620 feet
NGVD at The Bank's outfall (USGS Newland, North Carolina 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles).
The Bank provides water quality functions to a 0.3-square mile watershed at The Bank outfall (Figure 3,
Appendix A). The watershed is dominated by agricultural land and mature forest with sparse residential
development. Impervious surfaces account for less than 2 percent of the upstream watershed land
surface.
Onsite land use is characterized by maintained land and mature forest (Figure 4, Appendix A). Riparian
vegetation adjacent to rest oration/ enhancement reaches is sparse and disturbed due to regular maintenance
activities. The Bank encompasses 3360 linear feet of stream channels including four reaches of unnamed
tributaries to Squirrel Creek (Reaches 1-4). Table 1 gives characteristics of The Bank's streams; the
locations of each are depicted in Figure 4 (Appendix A).
Table 1. Existing Stream Characteristics

Stream Reach Stream Length

(linear feet) USGS

Stream Order
Stream Classification*
Reach l 668 first perennial
Reach 2 1163 not shown perennial*
Reach 3 518 first perennial
Reach 4 1011 not shown perennial*
Total 3360
oucams c-a-cu cuacac?cusucs or perenmui screams aunng rteta investigations
Approximately 0.13 acre of The Bank are underlain by hydric soils, which historically supported
jurisdictional wetlands. Hydric soils are located within the floodplain adjacent to Reach 1. Extensive
floodplain manipulations associated with stream ditching, straightening, and rerouting to a roadside ditch
and deforestation have effectively reduced groundwater hydrology from these areas. These features are
discussed in more detail in Section 2.5 (Jurisdictional Wetlands).
2.2 WATER QUALITY
The Bank is located within the French Broad River Basin in 14-digit USGS Cataloging Unit and
Targeted Local Watershed 06010108010010 of the South AtlanticiGulf Region (NCDWQ subbasin
number 04-03-06) (Figure 2, Appendix A) (NCEEP 2005). Topographic features of The Bank drain to
Squirrel Creek, which has been assigned Stream Index Number 7-2-14. In the vicinity of The Bank, these
3
Farmer Creek 11itigation Bank Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
waters have been assigned a designation of WS-V, Tr (NCDWQ 2008a). Streams with a designation
WS-V are protected as water supplies, however, unlike waters designated WS-1 through IV, there are no
categorical restrictions on watershed development or wastewater discharges. These waters are suitable
for all Class C uses including 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 Tr (Trout Waters)
includes areas protected for natural trout propagation and survival of stocked trout.
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 2006 or draft 2008 303(d) lists (NCDWQ 2007, 2008b).
2.3 VEGETATION
The Bank is composed of maintained/disturbed a
land and mature forest. Maintained/disturbed land Existing,
occurs adjacent to Bank streams proposed for Maintained/ ` fit. a s.
restoration and enhancement, and is predominately Disturbed
;,r
comprised of fescue and early successional species Vegetation
such as honey locust (Gleditsia triacanthos),
multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), black willow
Q.
(Salix nigra), and sumac (Rhus sp.) with rush
(Juncus sp.) within the area of hydric soil.
Preservation areas are composed of mature forest
jai,
species including silver maple (Ater
a, r
a ;.
saccharinum), buckeye (Aesculus sp.), American
M
basswood (Tilia americana), yellow birch (Betula ;; ' %,", ?? i,?•
alleghaniensis), black cherry (Prunus serotina), chestnut oak (Quercus prinus), white oak (Quercus
alba), white ash (Fraxinus americana), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), black walnut (Juglans
nigra), hemlock (Tsuga sp.), various oak species (Quercus spp.), and Christmas fern (Polystichum
acrostichoides).
4
Reforestation and supplemental planting using
hardwood species is proposed over approximately
4.2 acres of The Bank, including areas of
maintained land and disturbed forest. Plant
community composition is expected to resemble a
Northern Hardwood Forest (typic subtype), 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
Farmer Creek Nlitigation Bank Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
reference forests within undisturbed floodplains and slopes 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 Avery County, North Carolina (USDA
2005) are depicted in Figure 4 (Appendix A) and are described in Table 2.
Tahle 2. NRCS Soils Manned within The Rank
Soil Series Hydric Family Description
Status*
This series consists of extremely bouldery, well-drained soils of
Cullasaja
Nonhydric Typic coves, drainageways, and fans on mountain slopes. Slopes are
cobbly loam Haplumbrepts generally between 15 and 30 percent. Depth to seasonal high
water table occurs below 80 inches.
This series consists of frequently flooded, very poorly drained
Nikwasi loam Class A Cumulic soils of floodplains. Slopes are generally between 0 and 3
Humaquepts percent. Depth to seasonal high water table occurs at 0 to 12
inches.
This series consists of stony, well-drained soils of mountain
Porters Nonhydric Unibric slopes and ridges. Slopes are generally between 15 and 50
gravelly loam Dystrochrept percent. Depth to seasonal high water table occurs below 80
inches.
This series consists of very stony, well-drained soils of coves,
Saunook loam Nonhydric Humic drainageways, and fans on mountain slopes. Slopes are generally
Hapludalt between 8 and 30 percent. Depth to seasonal high water table
occurs below 80 inches.
Saunook- This series consists of very stony, well-drained soils of coves,
Thunder Nonhydric Humic drainageways, and fans on mountain slopes. Slopes are generally
complex
Hapludalt
between 15 and 30 percent. Depth to seasonal high water table
occurs below 80 inches.
' Class A= Hydric soils.
Restorable wetlands of The Bank are underlain by soils of the Nikwasi series. Floodplain soils are grey to
gley in color and have been impacted by plowing, land clearing, and ditching and rerouting of the
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 nearby Christmas tree cultivation, deforestation, and groundwater draw-down from stream
ditching and rerouting of streams along the floodplain edge.
5
Farmer Creek Mitigation Bank Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
Within The Bank's boundaries, approximately 0.13 acres of floodplain are underlain by hydric soils.
Onsite hydric soils and wetlands are grey to gley in color. Groundwater springs and surface runoff
contribute hydrology to these areas, although the dominant hydrological influence is the lateral draw-
down effect of the ditched and rerouted stream.
3.0 STREAM CHARACTERISTICS
The Bank's streams have been characterized based on fluvial geomorphic principles (Rosgen 1996).
Table 3 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 four cross-sections within the Site (Figure 4, Appendix A), and regional curves
(Harman et al. 2001).
3.1 HYDROLOGY
This hydrophysiographic region is characterized by moderate rainfall with precipitation averaging
approximately 50 inches per year in Banner Elk, north of the Bank to 62 inches per year at Grandfather
Mountain, northeast of the Bank (USDA 2005). Drainage basin sizes range from 0.05-square mile for the
cross-sections on Reaches 2 and 3 to 0.3-square mile for Reach 1 at The Bank's outfall.
The Bank's discharge is dominated by a combination of upstream basin catchment, groundwater flow,
and precipitation. Based on mountain regional curves (Harman et al. 2001), the bankfull discharge for a
0.3-square mile watershed is expected to average 13.3 cubic feet per second, which is expected to occur
approximately every 1.3 to 1.5 years (Rosgen 1996, Leopold 1994).
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.
Based on regional curve estimates, onsite stream reaches may have been characterized by Cb-type
channels. Cb-type streams are characterized as slightly entrenched, riffle-pool channels exhibiting
moderate sinuosity (-1.2) and moderate width/depth ratios.
The majority of onsite streams have been impacted by land clearing, erosive flows, and manipulation of
the channels including dredging, straightening, and rerouting. 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. 2001) 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.
6
Farmer Creek Mitigation Bank Plan Restoration Svstems, LLC

a

Yi

_

- M
JI C
I
O Y
1
N
I
r
j

- e T J
g

Y s ?

?
A
L n
? v
Z 1 'S -__=? 3I
_ ? _ >

N
O 1 -
? a
y
a
G
=
-
? L
»
T
J
T
?^
? •.?
O Yr J - J
?f• -
7
W - -

? 7
y L
S
z __
..
J
CJ
? Z -

a
v

F

z
z
y
5
>
3S
m ° ? o z ? v o ° O ? = c Y
T

f S S S L J v _ ? 1

f i0 Y f3 v ? C
L _ _.5?
..
Y 'C j J L r. ? .C = O Y Y t? -
<z J z F
v h
z z
z
F
M I I i ?
Y '1 ? T ; ?I: a0 J
J 1 V >
- S S R J ? -

Y? I ? -? z v ? .v ?
_ _
N ao
V _ VI
( N =
y _ 3
1 6
J
J
b <
I
a -_

L
I
< I i. zl y s ? 3 3 3 _z ?«

i
I
Z
Z
?C
During field investigations, four cross-sections were measured (one on each reach). Cross-section
locations are depicted on Figure 4 (Appendix A). The reaches are characterized by a range of stream
dimensions and types from an entrenched Eb-type channel to a G-type channel (Table 3). Although the
lower reach (Reach 1, Cross-section 1) is classified as an E-type channel, its cross-sectional area
measures almost twice of that predicted by the curves. In addition, this reach has been moved from the
adjacent floodplain and rerouted into a straightened ditch draining adjacent to the road.
Reaches summarized by Cross-sections 2 through 4 exhibit bank collapse, appear unstable, and
destabilization of the stream banks is continually increasing. Bank-height-ratios are excessive, ranging
from 2.7 to 3.9 and cross-sectional areas are four to eleven times the cross-sectional areas predicted by the
mountain region curves. 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, the onsite valley slope for restorable portions of
The Bank's stream channels measure approximately 0.0430 to 0.1380 rise/run (Table 3). Estimated
valley slopes appear typical for the Mountain physiographic region of North Carolina. Water surface
slopes were estimated by dividing the valley slope by channel sinuosity. Sinuosity was measured from
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) analysis of aerial photography and visual observations of the
stream channel during field surveys, and was measured at 1.02 to 1.09 for onsite stream channels.
Calculated water surface slope measured approximately 0.0358 and 0.1200 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
Analysis of aerial photography utilizing GIS was 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 with several reaches rerouted, resulting in sinuosity
measuring approximately 1.02 to 1.09 (thalweg distance/valley distance) (Table 3). 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.
8
Farmer Creek Mitigation Bank Plan Restoration Svstems, LLC
4.0 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 on preservation reaches of The Bank on
Reaches 2 and 4 as well as adjacent mature forests. Tree and shrub species identified in this area are
listed in Table 4 and will be utilized, in addition to other relevant species to supplement community
descriptions for Northern Hardwood Forest (typic subtype).
Table 4. Reference Formt Fcncvctem
Northern Hardwood Forest (t is subtype)
Canopy Species Understor Species
silver maple (Ater saccharinum) buckeye (Aescullis sp.)
American beech (Fa us andi olia) yellow birch (Betula alle haniensis)
white ash (Fraxinus americana) black cherry (Prunus serotina)
black walnut (Ju lans ni ra) American basswood (Tilia americana)
white oak ( uercus alba)
chestnut oak (Quercus prinus)
various oakspecies ( uercus s pp.)
hemlock (Tsu a s p.)
5.0 RESTORATION PLAN
The primary goals of this mitigation plan include 1) construction of a stable, riffle-pool stream channel, 2)
restoration 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 associated with a riparian corridor/stable stream, 6)
restoration of trout and other fisheries habitat, migration, and spawning areas, and 7) establishment of a
permanent conservation easement which will encompass all restoration activities.
Primary activities include 1) stream restoration, 2) stream enhancement (Level 1), 3) wetland restoration,
and 4) riparian buffer restoration. The restoration concept as outlined in Figure 5 (Appendix A) is
expected to:
• Restore 1980 linear feet of stream channel
• Enhance (Level 1) 130 linear feet of stream channel
• Restore 0.13 acres of riparian wetland
• Reforestation or supplemental planting of 4.2 acres with native species
5.1 STREAM RESTORATION
This stream restoration effort is designed to restore a stable, meandering or step-pool 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 3.
9
Farmer Creek Mitigation Bank Plan Restoration Svstems, LLC
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.
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.
I ) 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.
10
Farmer Creek Mitigation Bank Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
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.
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.
II
Farmer Creek ,Mitigation Bank Plan Restoration Svstems, LLC
I ) Cross-vane Weirs
Cross-vane weirs may be installed in the channel as conceptually depicted in Figure 6 (Appendix A). 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.
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 6, 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. 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 0.4 to 0.7 feet from the channel bottom to the floodplain surface
and to reduce channel size to the cross-sectional area depicted in Table 3. Primary activities designed to
achieve these objectives may include I ) installation of in-stream structures and 2) installation of a
bankfull floodplain bench.
12
Farmer Creek Mitigation Bank Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
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.
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 1)
Stream Enhancement Level I is being proposed on approximately 130 linear feet on Reach 4 (Figure 5,
Appendix A). Enhancement Level I is expected to include alterations to dimension and profile along with
the installation of instream habitat structures, where needed. Bank stabilization will include the use of
root/biodegradable erosion control matting, live staking, and/or bank sloping where necessary to prevent
further bank erosion/degradation. Particular attention will be directed toward providing vegetative cover
and root growth along the outer meander bends. Riparian buffers will extend from the top of stream
banks to facilitate stream recovery and prevent further degradation of the reach. In addition, water quality
functions and aquatic and wildlife habitat associated with stable riparian corridors/streams will be
improved.
5.3 STREAM PRESERVATION
Preservation is being proposed on the forested/relatively stable reaches of Reaches 2 through 4 (Figure 5,
Appendix A). Based on preliminary analysis and field investigations, these reaches are relatively stable
due a lack of human induced impact with a well-developed riparian buffer. These areas will be protected
in perpetuity through the establishment of a conservation easement including a minimum 30-foot forested
buffer adjacent to each bank of the stream, where possible.
5.4 WETLAND RESTORATION
Alternatives for wetland restoration 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 due to channel
rerouting to the edge of the floodplain and vegetative clearing. 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 I ) excavation of elevated spoil
and sediment embankments, 2) restoration Reach I within the natural floodplain, 3) backfilling of the
existing entrenched stream reach, and 4) scarification of soils prior to planting. These mitigation
activities are expected to result in the restoration of approximately 0.13 acres of jurisdictional wetlands at
The Bank.
13
Farmer Creek ti litigation Bank Plan Restoration Svstems, LLC
5.5 VEGETATIVE PLANTING
Deep-rooted, riparian vegetation will be restored or supplemental planted within approximately 4.2 acres
of The Bank (Figure 5, Appendix A). 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. The vegetated stream buffer will extend to a minimum of 30 feet from
the top of stream banks in both directions, where possible. Scarification of floodplain surfaces may be
required prior to planting.
Variations in vegetative planting will occur based on topographic locations and hydraulic conditions of
the soil. Vegetative species composition will mimic reference forest data and onsite observations.
Species expected for this project may include the following elements.
Northern Hardwoods Forest (topic subtype)
1. silver maple (Ater saccharinum)
2. yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis )
3. white ash (Fraxinus americana)
4. American beech (Fagus grandifolia)
5. chestnut oak (Quercus prinus)
6. black cherry (Prunus serotina)
7. buckeye (Aesculus fava)
8. American basswood (Tilia americana)
Stream-Side Assemblage
1. Black willow (Salix nigra)
2. Tag alder (.41nus serrulata)
3. Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis)
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 at a density of 2720 stems per acre on 4-foot centers along the
reconstructed stream banks, concentrated along outer bends. Northern Hardwood Forest is the target
community for the remainder of The Bank and will be planted at a density of approximately 680 stems
per acre on 8-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 and riparian vegetation.
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
(USACE et al. 2003). The data will be presented in graphic and tabular format. Data to be presented will
include l) 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.
14
Farmer Creek Mitigation Bank Plan Restoration Svstems, LLC
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, 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 Schafale 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 the wetland restoration
area (EPA 1990).
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.
6.4 BIOTIC COMMUNITY CHANGES
Changes in the biotic community are anticipated from a shift in habitat opportunities as the unnamed
tributaries to Farmer 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 Vfacroinvertebrates
15
Farmer Creek Mitigation Bank Plan Restoration Svstems, LLC
(NCDWQ 2006) and Benthic Macroinvertehrate 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 as well as 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 macro invertebrate 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 2008 or 2009, depending upon construction
schedules, with postproject monitoring occurring 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 Farmer Creek Mitigation Bank encompasses unnamed tributaries to Farmer Creek and drained hydric
soils. Onsite stream reaches have been impacted by land clearing; channel dredging, straightening, and
rerouting; and erosive velocities. Restoration options outlined in this report are as follows:
Tahle 5. Pronnserl Mitigation (luanfifiae vc Mi+-+- !`... A.+:
Proposed Mitigation Quantity
Proposed Mitigation Units
(Credits)
Proposed Mitigation Activity Streams
(linear feet) Wetlands
(acres) Stream Units
(SMUs) Wetland Units
(WMUs)
Stream Restoration 1980 1980
Stream Enhancement (Level 1) 130 87
Stream Preservation 1310 262
Riparian Wetland Restoration 0.13 0.13
Total: 2329 Total: 0.13
After completion of the project The Bank will offer 2329 Stream Mitigation Units and 0.13 Wetland
Mitigation Units.
7.2 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE
A credit release scenario is proposed that complies with interagency guidelines. Under this credit release
scenario the credit release schedule is based upon satisfactory completion of project milestones. Project
milestones and percent of credit released include the following:
16
Farmer Creek Mitigation Bank Plan Restoration Svstems, LLC
Table 6. Proposed Credit Release Schedule
Percent of
Task Completion Verification Credit
Release
Preconstruction 1. Execution of MBI by the Sponser, USAGE, and other agencies eligible 15
for membership in the Mitigation Banking Review Team who choose to
execute the agreement
2. Approval of the final mitigation plan
3. Delivery of financial assurances
4. Recordation of the preservation mechanism, as well as the title opinion
covering the property that is acceptable to the USACE
Construction Completion of all initial physical and biological improvements made 15
pursuant to the mitigation plan
I" Year Monitoring Monitoring Re ort* 10
2"d Year Monitoring Monitoring Report* 10
3rd Year Monitoring Monitoring Report* 10
4`h Year Monitoring Monitoring Report* 10
5`h Year Monitoring Monitoring Report* 15
Bankfull Events Occurrence of two Bankfull Events** 15
Total 100
rroviuea mat me cnannei is stance ana an otner success criteria are met.
** The release of 15 percent is contingent upon at least two bankfull event occurrences, in separate years, provided that the
channel is stable and all other success criteria are met. In the event that less than two bankfull events occur during the
monitoring period, the release of the remaining credit shall be at the discretion of the Mitigation Banking Review Team.
7.3 PERPETUAL MAINTENANCE OF MITIGATION BANK
Restoration Systems currently holds an Option to Purchase the approximately 6.7-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 an conservation organization approved by the MBRT.
7.4 NONPROJECT DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO
Currently the property is primarily residential and if the proposed stream restoration does not occur, the
stream-side buffers will continue to be maintained. Channel erosion is expected to continue under
existing scenarios. Sediment from bank erosion is deleterious to benthic macro invertebrate 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.
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
17
Farmer Creek Mitigation Bank Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
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 cobble/gravel (R3 UB 1) (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 (NWP) 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.
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 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) at http://ne-
es.fws.Qov%es/countyfr.html, nine federally protected species are listed in Avery County. Table 7 lists
these species and indicates if suitable habitat exists within the Bank.
18
Farmer Creek Nfitigation Bank Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
Table 7. Federallv Protected Snecies for Averv County
Habitat
Common Name Scientific Name Status* Present Biological
Conclusion
Within Site
Bog turtle Clemmvs muhlenbergii Threatened (S/A) Yes N/A
Carolina northern flying
Glaucontvs sabrinus coloratus Endangered No No Effect
squirrel
Corynorhintts torvnsendii
Virginia big-eared bat Endangered No No Effect
virginianus
Spruce-fir moss spider Micohezura montivaga Endangered No No Effect
Blue Ridge goldenrod Solidago spithamaea Threatened No No Effect
Heller's blazing star Liatris helleri Threatened No No Effect
Roan Mountain bluet Hedvotis ur urea var. montana Endangered No No Effect
Spreading avens Gettm radiatum Endangered No No Effect
Rock gnome lichen Gvmnoderma lineare Endangered No No Effect
*Endangered = a taxon 'in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range", Threatened = a taxon 'likely to
become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range': Threatened (S,A) = a species
that is threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and is listed for its protection, these species are not
biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) most recently updated virtual records at
http://nhpweb.enr.state.nc.us/nhis/public/gmap75_main.phtml were reviewed on May 20, 2008 and no
occurrences are documented within or near the Bank.
Critical Habitat
One designated unit of Critical Habitat for spruce-fir moss spider is located in Avery County; however,
this habitat occurs above 5400 feet in elevation and the Bank will not affect this Designated Critical
Habitat.
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).
Field visits were conducted in April 2008 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.
19
Farmer Creek Mitigation Bank Plan Restoration Svstems, LLC
10.0 REFERENCES
Cowardin, Lewis M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classifications of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington D.C.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report
Y-87-1. United States Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Harman, W.A., G.D. Wise, D.E., Walker, R.M, Cantrell, M.A., Clemmons, M., Jennings, G.D., Clinton,
D., and Patterson, J. 2001. Bankfull Regional Curves for North Carolina Mountain Streams.
North Carolina 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.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2001. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring
Protocols for Compensatory Mitigation. 401/Wetlands Unit, Department of Environment and
Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2006. Standard Operating Procedures for Benthic
Macroinvertebrates. Biological Assessment Unit, Department of Environment and Natural
Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2007. Final North Carolina Water Quality
Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2006 Integrated 305(6) and 303(d) Report) (online).
Available:
http://h-o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl//documentsi303d_Report.pdf [May 15, 2008]. North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2008a. North Carolina Waterbodies Listed by
Subbasin (online). Available: http://h-o.enr.state.nc.usibims/reports/basinsandwaterbodies/04-
03-06.pdf [May 15, 2008]. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2008b. Draft North Carolina Water Quality
Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2008 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report). Public Review
(online). Available:
http://h2o.enr.state. nc.us'tmdUdocuments;B.Draft2008303dList.pdf [May 15, 2008]. North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). 2005. French Broad River Basin
Watershed Restoration Plan (online). Available:
20
Farmer Creek 1fitigation Bank Plan Restoration Svstems, LLC
http:iiwww.nceep.net,,services/restplansiFrench_Broad_PIan.pdf [May 15, 2008]. 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 State Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2005. Soil Survey of Avery County, North Carolina.
United State Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Raleigh, North
Carolina.
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.
21
Farmer Creek Mitigation Bank Plan Restoration Svstems, LLC
APPENDIX A
FIGURES
Appendix A
Farmer Creek Mitigation Bank Plan Restoration Systems, LLC
N vI td
= -- ?-- !
R a r '
?.v lrw 1 d4i° .z "r ?r}'? fi...i? `?' t • r• ? f. ? I4wic a, -. '-, /' -
rv ? ^?
e? v
V.A
r
R
Site Location
,
A" -
e -
.- ? u.r #t ar
TS y e
a
v
i
Vill
Y,ri T
G d {?
y?1 4t4 4 «
A?k
m•
S ' r
Pruc
?
•
"J'ci'.v ,wwnr.. ?'' ? ? '•"^ I `?+i '?..' S'i ??." ,:y-b5r}F _n ? ?.r.Y-?.. ?"??"`am.?y "
.
r. ,
V
Directions to The Bank from Morganton, North Carolina:
Take Highway 181 north to Pinola (--30 miles)
Turn left'travel south on Highway 221 for - 3 miles - `"
Tam right on Mount Pleasant Road and travel northwest for -3 miles ? ?w 'b
Turn left on Squirrel Creek Road at Mount Pleasant and travel northwest for-1 mile
Turn right on Bartlett Farmer Road -
Reach I of The Bank is begins just above the first set of houses on the right !f?
Point in road at the downstream end of Reach I of the Bank
Latitude: 36.0669 IN, Longitude: 8 L9717 °W
_ r
0 1 mi. 4 mi. - - ?.-
1:158,400
Source: 1977 North Carolina Atlas and Gazetteer, pp. 32 & 33. - • r
??. by
A CLF FIGURE
2125 Rowland Pond Dr SITE LOCATION cadoy.
Willow Spring, NC 27592 VVGL
(919),15-1693 FARMER CREEK MITIGATION SITE
[phone] fax Cale:
Avery County, North Carolina May 2008
_ . _ ...:,, . Project: 08-009
J1 I
Elk Park :tom I? \
?°' A E3aladean h
.
? '?„? ? ,elf f.. _?' ' ?t? Rf: tiq•*
pct3r _
f t
J F'rv ,r,)asrExart i a'i nvti(at
/n
. Ayt
RR e 111 ?1-
Uu dun C Etak rgville :r l
os.
.?
v1a ?w"
pit
` n s
Edge-
?,aT mss#t?wn
8e Day Book"
Ln g Bandana t
y_ Jz1 f2ctSge
Higgsns 1 P 0
M1 ,, ate Ledger i heat u?4 M
P 111L
L i F- rd
^° Is
_ E
• 1
I:rY _rll{.a rt;y?;,3? i \1
E3 It! C Spruc Naarka6+ltst
t .: USGS 14-digit HL' a? s+xt
H,as-
Utz- nit,
and Targeted Local P 1
Wave,; ? «atershed ort?,??`
06010108010010 C°.?
?mt - I .t nI i Table R ck
. LO
,a3rnardsv,Iie V4 V ? _NEi I, W00dlawn 2' JAME
JI0 ,
El i ` x
t
itinghrn is {?r
b; lit Fork _..?, k 2 P
1
Basch
ef 1
ebpJ?
pr
Pleasant
i
= Gardens
_MartOn t;nr"held
n;ee
Rid st
Y
-'? Oid Fort vad
ASHE1 L-LE Grp estdne
n. Nil:9:f•f? k't Lf r h' ',c:
?r. a ? Swa° Na Hill ti
?h
.
Uysarisvtlle
- ;at;v: ti Sugar
Hill
31r>te. . A' rte' i? ?il 3 xae
5 mi. 0 5 mi. 15 mi.
1:625,000
Source. Hydrologic Unit swap - 1976 State of North Carolina - -
2126 Rowland Pond Dr USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT MAP :RU a= FIGURE
nrllcw Spring. NC _7592 cy.
[phone] FARMER CREEK MITIGATION SITE w?L
[phone] fax Cate
Avery County, North Carolina May 2008 2
?..., Project: 08-409
0- by. FIGURE
CLF
Pete' 3
Project: May 2008
08-009
Roads
---- Pond Inlets/Outlets
Trout Ponds
Soils
CtD- Cullasaja cobbly loam, 15-30 percent slopes, extremely bouldery
NkA - Nikwasi loam, 0-3 percent slopes, frequently flooded
PuE - Porters gravelly loam, 30-50 percent slopes, stony
SaC - Saunook loam, 8-15 percent slopes
SbD - Saunook loam, 15-30 percent slopes, very stony
ShD - Saunook-Thunder complex, 15-30 percent slopes, very stony
Cross-section 1
x
4
y
8
v ? +
?3 ? O '
As ?sq
IN

0 115 230 460 690 920
F
D-. by
FIGURE
A2126 Rolland Pond Drive EXISTING CONDITIONS AND SOILS CLF
Willow Spring, NC 27592 Date A
,919) 215-1691 FARMER CREEK MITIGATION SITE May Zooa 4
;919) 3413839 fax Avery County, North Carolina
Project Axwm ca'? •rrm rty nc
08-009

Legend
N
" ,R
4r ,?.
M Proposed Easement = -6.7 acres °, ?;" ? ,

,m,
Planting/Supplemental Planting Area = -4.2 acres
. ,.
,. . „
Stream Restoration t ' `
Stream Enhancement Level 1 t4 r

Stream Preservation I F ,,
- Braided Reach Stream Preservation
Riparian Wetland Restoration -0.13 acres ? '

Old Backfilled Channel !

Trout Ponds .?
---- Pond Inlets/Outlets
;'*
to
- ?j
d ! a ?t j a " t ? 1 ; ' v $1 Y A ?A
yl6
r "' F Chi
r

a
J ,y. ?. • a F
r
i

7
n
e

c
Jk?

y g
l

3 tr. c?' to
a4
s'

lf
A
?„ ,? , o • .? yea

x .
.'
ey. RGURE
A2126 Rowland Pond Drive PROPOSED CONDITIONS CLF
Nillow Spring, NC 27592 Dare
;919) 215.1693 FARMER CREEK MITIGATION SITE May 2008
;919) 3413830 fax Avery County, North Carolina
Project
n..rn+--?,,..„ 'n_ 08-009
,? ,
I
I
I
I
I
i

APPENDIX B
EXISTING STREAM DATA
Appendix B
Farmer Creek. ? litigution Bank Plan Restoration Sti•stems, LLC

V
N
y
fi
O
v
O
L
h
>r
N
d
Q
fi
C
cl?
-14
r
C
clc?
r
O
?C
y
y
L
y
fi
L
r"

m
U3
I ILF
lb "4i,
ill
1,4
F$ F+ Q 51 i' n y' c?..,?
E x "
M •Y - T "? M ,may,}
v r.c '
r
,?T •• T
. ?1 rl 7T
Y X ¢?
r
ee: i TIM tl W

Y ?
?YgR vJ
?j rv
1? O
O
y
x
a
Q
fi
v
O
fi
O
'SC
y
Y
y