20090969 Ver 3_Mitigation Bank Proposal_20090713

Q§@RDW14P
JUL 13 2G09
PROSPECTUS DENR • WATER QUALITY
WETLA4DS AND STORMWATER BRA.NCM
CITY OF RALEIGH
UMBRELLA STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION BANK
09-0 76 T
WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared for: City of Raleigh
Public Utilities Department
One Exchange Plaza
Suite 620
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Prepared by: Hazen and Sawyer
4011 Westchase Boulevard
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
and
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
20 Enterprise Street, Suite 7
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
The purpose of the City of Raleigh (City) Umbrella Mitigation Bank (Bank) is to establish a
framework under which mitigation credits will be established to provide mitigation for
unavoidable impacts to streams, wetlands, or Neuse River riparian buffers resulting from the
City's construction of the proposed Little River Reservoir, or other City or third-party projects in
the Bank's geographic service area (GSA), which is the Neuse River watershed USGS
Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03020201. The Bank may also be used to provide nutrient offsets
under the Neuse River Basin - Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy regulations.
The Bank will initially include the Proctor Farm Mitigation Site (PF Mitigation Site), which is
located in the GSA. The City proposes to preserve all wetlands and streams within the PF
Mitigation Site. Details regarding the PF Mitigation Site are contained in the site-specific
Mitigation Plan attached to this Prospectus. Cedar Fork Creek is a tributary to the Little River in
eastern Wake County (see Figures 1 and 2 in the attached draft Mitigation Plan). Additional
mitigation sites will be added as additional mitigation projects are identified.
This Prospectus has been prepared following guidelines set forth in "Compensatory Mitigation
for the Losses of Aquatic Resources" (33 CFR Parts 325 and 332, effective June 6, 2008). Use
of credits from the Bank to offset stream or wetland impacts authorized by Department of the
Army 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. Use of credits from
the Bank to offset Neuse River riparian buffer impacts or to offset nitrogen loading to surface
waters from wastewater or stormwater discharges must be in compliance with the applicable
provisions of S.L. 2007-438 and 15A NCAC .0233,.0234, or.0235.
Bank Objective
The City's primary objective in establishing and operating the Bank is to generate or acquire
mitigation credits in advance of the anticipated unavoidable impacts from its proposed Little
River Reservoir project and other future City projects. The Bank will allow the City to meet the
mitigation priorities of the implementing rules of the Clean Water Act (33 CFR Part 325 and 40
CFR Part 332) and N.C.G.S §143-214.11(dl), which give priority to mitigation banking over the
in lieu fee and permittee-responsible wetland mitigation options for compensating for
unavoidable impacts to waters of the United States. To the extent that credits generated in the
Bank are not required for the City's use, the City may elect to sell them to third parties.
Establishment and Operation of the Bank
The City will develop and operate the Bank pursuant to 40 CFR Part 230, Compensatory
Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources. The Bank will be established through a mitigation
banking instrument (MBI) pursuant to the federal rules. The MBI will include the following: a
description of the GSA, accounting procedures, default and closure provisions, reporting
protocols, mitigation plan(s), and a credit release schedule. The City will use a combination of
City of Raleigh Umbrella Mitigation Bank Prospectus
June 2009
US2008 574362 .4
restoration, creation, enhancement and preservation of streams, wetlands, and upland buffers to
generate mitigation credits for use in the GSA.
For each mitigation site that generates credits for the Bank, the City will submit a draft site-
specific mitigation plan to the Interagency Review Team (IRT) for an initial evaluation, which
will include the City's determination of the number of credits to be generated from the mitigation
site. After receiving comments from the IRT on the draft mitigation plan and credits to be
generated, the City will develop a final mitigation plan for the review and approval of the IRT.
Upon approval of each site-specific mitigation plan, the City will request a modification of the
MBI to incorporate the new mitigation site into the MBI. The modification of the MBI will
constitute a deposit of credits into the Bank. Credits will be released from the bank consistent
with the schedule of credit availability outlined in the MBI and the site-specific mitigation plans.
The City will be responsible for accounting for credits and debits pursuant to the procedures
outlined in the MBI. The City will use a separate ledger for each mitigation site.
Appropriate credits from the Bank may be used for City projects that require (i) mitigation
pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act; (ii) mitigation pursuant to the Neuse River
buffer regulations (I 5A NCAC 02B .0233); or (iii) nutrient offsets under the Neuse River Basin
- Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy regulations (I 5A NCAC 02B .0234). The
eligibility of a project seeking to use credits from the Bank will be determined by the applicable
regulatory and resource agencies on a project-by-project basis.
The City will operate the Bank until banking activity is voluntarily terminated after written
notice by the City to the IRT and the approval of the IRT.
The City will submit to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) on an annual basis, for
distribution to each member of the IRT, the following reports: (i) a ledger report showing the
beginning and ending balance of available credits and permitted impacts by resource type and (ii)
the monitoring reports for each mitigation site in the Bank, which are prepared pursuant to the
site-specific mitigation plans. The City will identify and implement appropriate remedial action
for mitigation sites in coordination with the IRT in the event a mitigation site fails to achieve the
success criteria specified in the final site-specific mitigation plans.
Proposed Geographic Service Area (GSA)
The Geographic Service Area (GSA) is the designated area wherein a bank can reasonably be
expected to provide appropriate compensation for impacts to streams and/or wetlands or other
aquatic resources. The GSA for the Bank will include the area within the Neuse River watershed
USGS Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03020201. Use of the Bank to compensate for impacts
outside of the GSA may be authorized by the applicable regulatory or resource agency on a case-
by-case basis.
3
City of Raleigh Umbrella Mitigation Bank Prospectus
June 2009
US2008 574362.4
Need for and Feasibility of the Proposed Bank
The City anticipates the need for a significant quantity of high quality mitigation credits to offset
unavoidable impacts associated with the City's proposed Little River Reservoir project and other
City projects. The Bank will ensure that mitigation is in place in a timely manner and will allow
the City to meet the mitigation priorities of the implementing rules of the Clean Water Act (33
CFR Part 325 and 40 CFR Part 332), which give priority to mitigation banking over the in lieu
fee and permittee-responsible wetland mitigation options for compensating for unavoidable
impacts to waters of the United States. The Bank is feasible because the City has property owner
approval to investigate potential mitigation sites and has the ability to purchase land in fee
simple or to establish a conservation easement over the potential mitigation sites to generate
credits for the Bank. The feasibility of future mitigation projects proposed for addition to the
Bank will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Ownership and Long-term Management Strategy
The City will provide for the long-term preservation and management of the mitigation sites
through purchase in fee simple and/or conservation easements that will contain third-party
enforcement provisions. The preservation instruments will conform to the current regulatory
guidance of the Wilmington District of the USACE, though the language of each instrument will
be tailored to each mitigation project and will be submitted to the IRT for approval. The
preservation instruments will be perpetual, preserve all natural areas, and prohibit all use of the
property inconsistent with the site-specific mitigation plans. The City will take all actions
necessary to enforce the terms, conditions and restrictions of the preservation instruments. The
City will deliver a title opinion acceptable to the IRT covering the mitigation sites. The
mitigation sites will 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.
The City will implement the long-term management measures described in the site-specific
mitigation plan for each mitigation site. The City will maintain the mitigation site(s) and enforce
the terms of the preservation instruments until such obligations are transferred to a land
management entity approved by the IRT (such as a land trust or conservancy).
Qualifications of Sponsor
The City of Raleigh is a municipal corporation of the State of North Carolina subject to the Local
Government Budget and Fiscal Control Act, N.C.G.S. § 159-28, and no obligation may be
incurred for a capital project unless funds are appropriated in accordance therewith. The Fiscal
Control Act provides the necessary financial assurances to ensure completion of all proposed
mitigation work that generates credits for the Bank, required reporting and monitoring, and any
remedial work required pursuant to the site-specific mitigation plans for the mitigation sites.
The Bank has its own distinct cost center number within the City's budgeting and financial
tracking system. Therefore, all accounting for revenues, contract encumbrances, fund transfers,
City of Raleigh Umbrella Mitigation Bank Prospectus
June 2009
US2008 574362.4
and expenses, will be performed and reported independent from all other capital budget or
operating budget accounting. A distinct revenue account will be used to account for only
stream/wetland-restoration-dedicated revenues and fund transfers. The City will provide the IRT
with an annual estimate of the cost of work required by the MBI, and a statement of funds
available to perform that work, after each annual budget of the City is adopted.
The City will use its own staff to operate the Bank, including the maintenance of site-specific
ledgers and annual reporting requirements. The City has decades of experience managing the
City's financial accounts. Its accounting staff will consult with its environmental staff and
consultants to establish accounting procedures for the Bank.
The City will contract with experienced mitigation providers to construct and maintain the
mitigation sites, including Hazen and Sawyer, Axiom Environmental, Inc., and EcoScience
Corporation.
Ecological Suitability of the Site to Achieve Bank Objectives
Aquatic systems comprising tributaries, wetlands, and vegetated buffers provide the ecological
functions of hydrology, water quality, and habitat for the associated communities. The PF
Mitigation Site supports similar aquatic resources to the remainder of HUC 03020201.
Tributaries range from intermittent to third-order (according to the USGS 7.5-minute
topographic quadrangle) in size, and flow through a variety of conveyance sizes, ranging from
narrow topographic crenulations to broad floodplains. Wetland types are typical of the Piedmont
and upper Coastal Plain of this portion of the state. Forested riverine wetlands include headwater
forest, bottomland hardwood forest, and riverine swamp forest. And, in some areas where
beavers have been active, non-tidal freshwater marsh has developed. Non-riverine wetland seeps
occur along floodplain slopes.
Hydrological functions provided by tributaries, riparian wetlands, and associated wooded buffers
of the PF Mitigation Site include surface and sub-surface storage and retention through upland
runoff retention, flood flow velocity reduction, peak flow attenuation, movement of large organic
debris and detritus into the water column, energy dissipation, stream flow volume reduction,
maintenance of tributary base flow, prolonged soil saturation, moderation of groundwater
discharge and recharge, and reduction of sedimentation and erosion. Water quality functions
provided by tributaries, riverine wetlands, and associated wooded buffers of the PF Mitigation
Site include sediment retention, toxicant and nutrient reduction and transformation, carbon
export, bacterial and viral reduction, stream bank and shoreline stability, and temperature
moderation. Habitat functions provided by preservation of tributaries, riverine wetlands, and
associated wooded buffers of the PF Mitigation Site include stable areas of natural communities
that will provide diverse habitat niches by promoting greater vegetation age-class distribution,
natural recruitment of appropriate vegetation species and complex physical structure. Other
habitat functions provided by the PF Mitigation Site will include a reduction of existing (and
elimination of the threat of future) edge effect and fragmentation, and promotion of connectivity
among a variety of natural habitats.
5
City of Raleigh Umbrella Mitigation Bank Prospectus June 2009
US2009 574362A
The PF Mitigation Site is located in a developing region of the state. Adjacent land uses include
row crops, pasture, unmanaged forest, and residential developments. This development is
currently degrading ecological functions through excessive sedimentation into tributaries and
wetlands, flashiness of storm flow runoff and water velocities, a reducing stability of tributary
physical structure, and introduction of chemicals and toxins to surface waters. The PF
Mitigation Site is proposed to preserve existing aquatic resources within appropriate wooded
riparian buffers. Preservation of the PF Mitigation Site is anticipated to halt the current
degradation of ecological functions and improve the system's ability to provide all of the
functions listed above.
Assurance of Sufficient Water Rights to Support Long-Term Sustainability of the Bank
A primary objective of the PF Mitigation Site is the protection of existing aquatic resources
(wetlands and streams) in their current state for the preservation of current functions. The
location and size of these aquatic resources are the result of long-term surface and groundwater
flows. The City anticipates aquatic resources will be self-sustaining without ongoing human
intervention (such as pumping or manipulated impoundments). Proposed wetland and stream
preservation areas are sited to ensure that natural hydrology and landscape position will support
long-term sustainability. No active engineering features or active management will be needed
for the PF Mitigation Site to meet its objectives. These aquatic resources will remain subject to
the same variations in hydrological inputs due to the natural environment as they are now.
Since the City is proposing no alterations to surface and groundwater flows within the PF
Mitigation Site, it is anticipated that hydrologic conditions will not be modified either within or
adjacent to the PF Mitigation Site (no anticipated hydrologic trespass) as a result of this project.
It is anticipated that the PF Mitigation Site will meet performance standards upon its inclusion in
the Bank.
City of Raleigh Umbrella Mitigation Bank Prospectus
6
June 2009
US2008 574362A
?§@Rgld[g
JUL 1 3 2009
DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN
PROCTOR FARM MITIGATION SITE
Developed Through
PRESERVATION OF
WETLANDS AND STREAMS
ADJACENT TO ROCKY BRANCH
Wake County, North Carolina
PREPARED BY:
HAZEN HAZEN AND SAWYER
AND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers & Scientists 4011 WESTCHASE BOULEVARD
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27607
AND
AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
20 ENTERPRISE STREET, SUITE 7
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27607
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
DENR . WATER QUALITY
WETLAND AND STORMWATER BRANCH
JUNE 2009
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Raleigh proposes the establishment of the Proctor Farm stream and wetland
mitigation site along Rocky Branch (hereafter the Mitigation Site) located approximately 4 miles
west of Zebulon in eastern Wake County, immediately south of Riley Hill Road and north of
Doc Proctor Road. The Mitigation Site is anticipated to be one of several included in an
umbrella stream and wetland mitigation bank sponsored by the City of Raleigh. The Mitigation
Site is located within the Neuse River Basin in 14-digit USGS Cataloging Unit 03020201180020
of the South Atlantic/Gulf Region (NCDWQ Subbasin Number 03-04-06).
The proposed Mitigation Site encompasses approximately 66 acres of land that includes
approximately 40 acres of forested and/or marsh wetlands. The Mitigation Site also
encompasses approximately 4,915 linear feet of stream associated with Rocky Branch and
unnamed tributaries to Rocky Branch. Land uses in the vicinity of these wetlands and streams
include pasture, agriculture, residential, and unmanaged forest. A County-owned wastewater
treatment lagoon and spray irrigation field is also located at the western boundary of the
Mitigation Site. Protection of Mitigation Site resources through conservation instruments or
restrictive covenants will promote the sustainability and/or improvement of aquatic resources in
the Rocky Branch watershed, as well as downstream of the Mitigation Site, which are under
increasing pressure from development. Wetland and stream functions currently provided include
flood attenuation, slow release of water to maintain stream baseflow, removal of watershed
pathogens, a sink for particulate and soluble matter (including nutrients), aquatic and riparian
habitat, and landscape-scale wildlife travel corridors.
The primary goal of this wetland and stream mitigation project focuses on removing a threat to
and preventing a decline of aquatic resources on a watershed scale by an action in or near those
aquatic resources. This goal will be accomplished through the following measures:
• Protecting, on a watershed scale, streams in eastern Wake County from nonpoint sources
of pollution associated with urban service area expansion and development.
• Promoting water quality by protecting jurisdictional wetlands adjacent to Mitigation Site
streams and tributaries.
• Perpetually providing a diverse wooded vegetative buffer adjacent to Mitigation Site
streams and wetlands.
• Promoting floodwater attenuation by a) allowing bankfull stream flows to develop over
time and b) protecting vegetation on Mitigation Site floodplains to increase frictional
resistance on floodwaters crossing the Mitigation Site.
• Improving aquatic habitat by promoting stable stream banks, shading open waters, and
providing structure within the Mitigation Site.
• Providing a wildlife corridor and refuge in an area rapidly expanding with residential and
commercial development.
This Mitigation Site mitigation plan includes 1) preservation of approximately 4,915 linear feet
of streams, 2) preservation of approximately 40.0 acres of jurisdictional wetlands, and 4)
establishment of a permanent conservation easement to encompass all mitigation activities, as
Proctor Farm Mitigation Plan June 22, 2009
well as a 100-foot riparian buffer adjacent to streams and a 50-foot riparian buffer adjacent to
wetlands and ponds.
Preservation options outlined in this report are as follows:

Proposed Mitigation Proposed Mitigation Proposed Credits
Activity Streams
(linear feet) Wetlands
(acres)
Stream Credits
Wetland Credits
Stream Preservation 4,915 983
Wetland Preservation 40.0 8.0
Total: 983 Total: 8.0
After completion, the Mitigation Site will offer 983 stream mitigation credits and 8.0 wetland
mitigation credits. The proposed mitigation credits provided in the table above are based on an
onsite, cursory determination of Mitigation Site resources. Prior to generation of a final
mitigation plan, aquatic resources within the Mitigation Site will be delineated in the field and
accurately mapped for the generation of quantities. Detailed quantities of streams, wetlands, and
wooded buffers within the Mitigation Site will be provided in the final mitigation plan.
Three federally protected species are listed for Wake County (USFWS 2008): dwarf
wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), and
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii). Each of these species is listed as Endangered. Additionally,
the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection
Act, and 15 Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are listed for Wake County.
While unlikely to support habitat for red-cockaded woodpecker, the Mitigation Site may support
suitable habitat for dwarf wedgemussel within stream channels and Michaux's sumac in open
areas and along woodland edges. With a range of habitats, including pine forest, mixed
hardwood forest, marsh, and open areas, the Mitigation Site may provide suitable habitat for bald
eagle and any or all of the 15 FSC species on the USFWS 2008 list. No FSC mussels were
found within 2 miles downstream of the Mitigation Site outfall during surveys performed in 2007
(The Catena Group 2008). Additionally, the potential creation of a large, open body of water in
the near vicinity (the proposed Little River Reservoir) may induce bald eagle to utilize portions
of the Mitigation Site for nesting.
u
Proctor Farm Mitigation Plan June 22, 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. i
1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................1
2.0 OBJECTIVES .........................................................................................................................1
3.0 SITE SELECTION .................................................................................................................2
4.0 SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT ...................................................................................3
5.0 BASELINE INFORMATION ................................................................................................3
5.1 Physiography, Topography, and Land Use ...................................................................3
5.2 Jurisdictional Streams and Wetlands .........................................
5.3 Water Quality ............................................................................
5.4 Vegetation ..................................................................................
5.5 Soils and Land Form ..................................................................
5.6 Federally Protected Species .......................................................
6.0 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS ....................................................
6.1 Credit Determination .................................................................
6.2 Proposed Credit Release Schedule ............................................
7.0 MITIGATION WORK PLAN ............................................................
7.1 Stream Preservation ...................................................................
7.2 Wetland Preservation .................................................................
8.0 MAINTENANCE PLAN ....................................................................
9.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ......................................................
10.0 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS ...................................................
11.0 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN ............................................
12.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN ...............................................
13.0 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES ............................................................
14.0 CORPORATE EXPERIENCE ...........................................................
15.0 REFERENCES ...................................................................................
Appendix A. Figures
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Location
Figure 2. Hydrologic Unit Map
Figure 3. Topography and Drainage Area
Figure 4. Existing Conditions
Figure 5. NRCS Soils
Figure 6. Mitigation Potential
LIST OF TABLES
...................................4
...................................5
. ...................................5
.. ..................................6
. ...................................6
... .................................7
.... ................................7
...................................8
....................................8
....................................9
....................................9
....................................9
....................................9
..................................10
..................................10
..................................10
..................................10
..................................10
..................................12
Table 1. Existing Stream Characteristics ........................................................................................4
Table 2. Proctor Farm Mitigation Site Soils ...................................................................................6
Table 3. FSC Species Listed for Wake County ..............................................................................7
Table 4. Proposed Mitigation Quantities vs. Mitigation Credits ....................................................8
Table 5. Proposed Credit Release Schedule ...................................................................................8
iii
Proctor Farm Mitigation Plan June 22, 2009
MITIGATION PLAN
PROCTOR FARM MITIGATION SITE
PRESERVATION OF
WETLANDS AND STREAMS
ADJACENT TO ROCKY BRANCH
Wake County, North Carolina
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The City of Raleigh proposes the establishment of a stream and wetland mitigation site at the
Proctor Farm Mitigation Site (hereafter the Mitigation Site) located approximately 4 miles west
of Zebulon in eastern Wake County, immediately south of Riley Hill Road and north of Doc
Proctor Road (Figures 1 and 2, Appendix A). The Mitigation Site is anticipated to be one of
several included in an umbrella stream and wetland mitigation bank (Bank) sponsored by the
City of Raleigh (Sponsor). The Mitigation Site is located within eight-digit United States
Geological Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03020201. The Bank is expected to
offset unavoidable impacts associated with Sponsor projects, such as the proposed construction
of the Little River Reservoir, located just downstream of the Mitigation Site (Figures 1 and 2,
Appendix A).
This document serves as the Draft Mitigation Plan for the Mitigation Site, which encompasses
approximately 66 acres of land. Supporting figures are located in Appendix A. The Mitigation
Site generally consists of the area within 100 feet of all jurisdictional streams and 50 feet of
wetlands and ponds, and is primarily characterized by mature to disturbed hardwood forest
stands and freshwater marshes within floodplains and adjacent side slopes associated with Rocky
Branch. Within the Mitigation Site, approximately 4,915 linear feet of stream and approximately
40 acres of jurisdictional wetlands are proposed for mitigation.
Directions to the Mitigation Site:
? From the City of Raleigh, travel east on U.S. Highway 64
? Travel - 13 miles to Exit 431 for Wendell (Lizard Lick Road)
? Travel - 1 mile north and turn left on Riley Hill Road
? The Mitigation Site is - 0.4 mile ahead on the south side of Riley Hill Road
? Point on Riley Hill Road near the center of the Mitigation Site
Latitude: 35.8487° N, Longitude: 78.3853° W
2.0 OBJECTIVES
Currently, the areas included in the proposed Mitigation Site are characterized by hardwood
forest, marsh, and agricultural land. However, the Mitigation Site is located in an area of
increasing development pressure. Although the Mitigation Site is located in an area protected by
state water supply classification and riparian buffer rules, development adjacent to streams may
encroach upon floodplains or adjacent side slopes. If the proposed stream and wetland
mitigation does not occur, erosion and nutrient inputs into the proposed reservoir may be
exacerbated, and anthropogenic hydrological modification may reduce wetland area.
Sediment from development is deleterious to benthic macro invertebrate habitat and can be
expected to reduce fisheries populations in the existing and downstream reaches. In addition,
Proctor Farm Mitigation Plan June 22, 2009
proposed mitigation activities will protect 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 primary goals of this stream and wetland mitigation project focus on promoting
sustainability and improvement of aquatic resources within the Rocky Branch watershed.
Protection of existing aquatic resources (forested wetlands, emergent wetlands, and streams)
with a conservation easement and/or fee-simple purchase is likely to result in net gains in
hydrology, water quality, and habitat functions of Mitigation Site streams and wetlands. Primary
goals will be accomplished through the following measures:
• Protecting, on a watershed scale, streams in eastern Wake County from nonpoint sources
of pollution associated with urban service area expansion and development.
• Promoting water quality by protecting jurisdictional wetlands adjacent to Mitigation Site
streams and tributaries.
• Perpetually providing a diverse wooded vegetative buffer adjacent to Mitigation Site
streams and wetlands.
• Promoting floodwater attenuation by a) allowing bankfull stream flows to develop over
time and b) protecting vegetation on Mitigation Site floodplains to increase frictional
resistance on floodwaters crossing the Mitigation Site.
• Improving aquatic habitat by promoting stable stream banks, shading open waters, and
providing structure within the Mitigation Site.
• Providing a wildlife corridor and refuge in an area rapidly expanding with residential and
commercial development.
These goals will be achieved by:
Providing approximately 983 stream mitigation credits
(preserving approximately 3,735 linear feet of perennial stream channel and
approximately 1,180 linear feet of intermittent stream channel).
Providing approximately 8.0 wetland mitigation credits
(preserving approximately 40.0 acres of jurisdictional wetland).
Protecting the Mitigation Site in perpetuity with appropriate legal mechanisms (either
conservation easement or fee-simple purchase).
3.0 SITE SELECTION
Primary considerations for Mitigation Site selection include in-kind mitigation and the potential
for protection/improvement of water quality within a portion of North Carolina under
developmental pressure. More specifically, considerations include desired aquatic resource
functions, hydrological conditions, soil characteristics, aquatic habitat diversity, habitat
connectivity, compatibility with adjacent land uses, reasonably foreseeable effects the mitigation
project will have on ecologically important aquatic and terrestrial resources, and potential
development trends and land use changes.
The Mitigation Site is located just upstream of the proposed reservoir. The Mitigation Site
supports similar aquatic resources (bottomland hardwood forest, riverine swamp forest, and non-
2
Proctor Farm Mitigation Plan June 22, 2009
tidal freshwater marsh) to aquatic systems in this portion of the state. According to the Neuse
River Basinwide Water Quality Plan (NCDWQ 2008), due to the presence of rare species in the
Little River, this watershed should be targeted for land acquisition to protect the riparian area
beyond the 50-foot required buffer. The proposed mitigation will result in perpetual protection
of wetlands and streams in the Little River watershed. The Mitigation Site is located in a
developing region of the state; therefore, protection of streams and wetlands is expected to result
in immediate water quality benefits in the vicinity of the impact reach.
4.0 SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT
The Sponsor intends to purchase a conservation easement or land in fee simple for portions of
one parcel totaling approximately 66 acres. The owner of this parcel has indicated a willingness
to have the property considered for this purpose, but no arrangements have been finalized. Upon
approval of the prospectus for the Sponsor's proposed Bank, the Sponsor will delineate
jurisdictional boundaries, complete a Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI), and proceed toward
acquiring a conservation easement or land in fee simple for portions of the subject parcel. The
Mitigation Site information presented in this Mitigation Plan is based on the optimum Mitigation
Site to maximize mitigation credits, and may be adjusted prior to completion of the MBI. The
Sponsor will remain the owner of the land or conservation easement or will transfer the land or
conservation easement to a land-management entity approved by the Interagency Review Team
(IRT).
5.0 BASELINE INFORMATION
Mitigation Site aquatic resources are similar to those found within the proposed reservoir site.
Ridges and side slopes support a mixture of hardwood forests, agriculture, pasture, and scattered
residences. Floodplains adjacent to streams support forested wetlands, emergent wetlands, and
some open water. And, in some cases, streams dissipate into beaver impoundments. Forested
wetlands include headwater forest (when characterized by seasonally saturated to intermittently
inundated and associated with a less than second-order stream), bottomland hardwood forest
(when characterized by intermittent to seasonal inundation and associated with a second-order or
larger stream), and riverine swamp forest (when characterized by seasonal to semi-permanent
inundation). With increasing length of time of surface inundation, forested wetlands grade to
non-tidal freshwater marsh. Some marsh areas occur adjacent to small areas of open water. This
wetland complex provides hydrology functions such as runoff and flow-velocity reduction,
energy dissipation, maintenance of stream baseflow, and groundwater recharge and discharge.
Water quality functions include sediment retention, toxicant and nutrient reduction and
transformation, and bacterial and viral reduction of watershed runoff. Habitat functions include
a complexity of physical structures, dispersion of open waters within vegetated wetlands, a
reduction of habitat fragmentation, and travel corridors.
5.1 PHYSIOGRAPHY, TOPOGRAPHY, AND LAND USE
The Mitigation Site is located in the Northern Outer Piedmont ecoregion of North Carolina
within USGS HUC 03020201 (North Carolina Division of Water Quality [NCDWQ] Subbasin
Number 03-04-06) of the Neuse River Basin. Regional physiography is characterized by
dissected irregular plains, some low rounded hills and ridges; low- to moderate-gradient streams
with mostly cobble, gravel, and sandy substrates are typical (Griffith et al. 2002). Onsite
elevations range from a high of 330 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) on slopes to
a low of approximately 270 feet NGVD at the lowest point of the Mitigation Site (USGS
3
Proctor Farm Mitigation Plan June 22, 2009
Knightdale, North Carolina 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle). Topography within the
Mitigation Site is depicted on Figure 3 (Appendix A).
The Mitigation Site provides water quality functions to an approximately 2.3-square mile
watershed at the Mitigation Site outfall (Figure 2, Appendix A). The watershed is dominated by
sparse residential development, agricultural land, forested land, and fragmented forested areas.
Impervious surfaces account for less than 5 percent of the upstream watershed land surface.
Surrounding area land use is primarily agricultural, with some low-density residential housing
and intermittent high-density development. A County-owned wastewater treatment lagoon and
spray irrigation field serving a small subdivision is also located at the western boundary of the
Mitigation Site. Onsite land use is characterized by hardwood forest and agricultural land (hay
fields and row crop production) (Figure 4, Appendix A). Riparian zones and wetland areas are
primarily composed of mature to disturbed hardwood forest grading to marsh wetlands in areas
previously impacted by beaver. Hardwood forest is characterized by willow oak (Quercus
phellos), hickories (Carya spp.), red maple (Acer rubrum), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua),
tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), river birch (Betula nigra), eastern red cedar (Juniperus
virginiana), loblolly bay (Gordonia lasianthus), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), Chinese
privet (Ligustrum sinense), and giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea). Marshes are dominated by
emergent vegetation with lesser amounts of shrubs and trees.
5.2 JURISDICTIONAL STREAMS AND WETLANDS
The main hydrologic features of the Mitigation Site include Rocky Branch, unnamed tributaries
to Rocky Branch, and associated floodplains. Mitigation Site streams are first-order intermittent
to second- and third-order perennial systems that drain an approximately 2.3-square mile
watershed (at the Mitigation Site outfall). Perennial streams within the Mitigation Site may be
generally characterized as riverine and upper perennial with unconsolidated bottoms consisting
of sand and gravel (R3UB1/2). Intermittent streams within the Mitigation Site may generally be
characterized as riverine and intermittent with streambeds consisting of sand and mud
(R4SB4/5). Streams are surrounded by a mixture of mature riparian vegetation and marsh and
remain relatively stable, despite expanding developmental pressures. The Mitigation Site
encompasses approximately 4,915 linear feet of stream channel (Table 1 and Figure 4, Appendix
A).
Table 1. Existing Stream Characteristics
Approximate
USGS USGS Stream In-Field Stream
Stream Reach Stream Length
Stream Order Classification Classification
(linear feet)
Rocky Branch 3,735 second and third perennial perennial
UTs 1 and 2 1,180 first intermittent intermittent
Total 4,915
Rocky Branch is depicted as perennial and the unnamed tributaries are depicted as intermittent
on the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle.
Jurisdictional wetlands are defined by the presence of three criteria: hydrophytic vegetation,
hydric soils, and evidence of wetland hydrology during the growing season (Environmental
Proctor Farm Mitigation Plan June 22, 2009
Laboratory 1987). Portions of the Mitigation Site supporting jurisdictional wetlands are
characterized by temporarily to seasonally inundated, palustrine, forested wetlands (bottomland
hardwood forest and headwater forest); seasonally to semi-permanently inundated, forested
wetlands (riverine swamp forest); and semi-permanently flooded, palustrine, emergent wetlands
(non-tidal freshwater marsh). Wetlands are underlain by hydric soils that are grey to bluish-gray
(gley) in color and are striated with lenses of coarse materials deposited in a fluvial environment.
Vegetative communities are composed of various strata, including canopy, relatively open
understory, and herbaceous groundcover. Groundwater springs and surface runoff contribute
hydrology to these areas, although the dominant hydrological influence is overbank flooding and
impounding due to beaver activity.
According to the Cowardin classification (Cowardin et al. 1979), jurisdictional wetlands located
within the Mitigation Site along the margins of open water may be generally characterized as
palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous systems that are saturated, temporarily flooded, or
seasonally flooded (PFOIA/B/C). Jurisdictional wetlands located along Rocky Branch often
show signs of beaver activity and may be generally classified as palustrine, forested, broad-
leaved deciduous systems that are semi-permanently to permanently flooded (PFO1 F/Hb). The
Mitigation Site encompasses approximately 40 acres of wetlands. The approximate locations of
jurisdictional wetland areas within the Mitigation Site are depicted on Figure 4 (Appendix A).
5.3 WATER QUALITY
The Mitigation Site is located within the Neuse River Basin in 14-digit USGS Cataloging Unit
03020201180020 of the South Atlantic/Gulf Region (NCDWQ Subbasin Number 03-04-06)
(Figure 2, Appendix A). Rocky Branch has been assigned Stream Index Number 27-57-7 and a
Best Usage Classification of WS-II, HQW, NSW (NCDWQ 2009). Streams with a designation
of WS-II are protected as water supplies which are generally in predominantly undeveloped
watersheds. Local programs to control nonpoint sources and stormwater discharges of pollution
are required. 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 supplemental classification HQW (High Quality Waters)
includes waters rated as excellent based on biological and physical/chemical characteristics; all
water supply watersheds classified as WS-1 or WS-II receive this supplemental classification.
The designation NSW (Nutrient Sensitive Waters) includes streams with water quality problems
associated with excessive plant growth resulting from nutrient enrichment.
NCDWQ has assembled a list of impaired waterbodies according to the Clean Water Act Section
303(d) and 40 CFR 130.7, which is a comprehensive public accounting of all impaired
waterbodies. An impaired waterbody is one that does not meet water quality standards,
including designated uses, numeric and narrative criteria, and anti-degradation requirements
defined in 40 CFR 131. Rocky Branch within and adjacent to the Mitigation Site is not listed on
the NCDWQ final 2006 303(d) list (NCDWQ 2007).
5.4 VEGETATION
The Mitigation Site is characterized primarily by mature to disturbed hardwood forest,
agricultural land, and one open water pond. Agricultural land is dispersed along the margins of
riparian zones. Hardwood forest dominates the Mitigation Site and is primarily characterized by
5
Proctor Farm Mitigation Plan June 22, 2009
mesic, floodplain species adjacent to stream channels, such as tulip tree (Liriodendron
tulipifera), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis),
eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), red maple (Acer rubrum), green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica), and various oak species (Quercus spp.). Marsh areas associated with the beaver
and dam impoundments support emergent herbs such as cat-tails (Typha spp.) and wool grass
(Scirpus cyperinus), and scattered shrubs such as black willow (Salix nigra) and tag alder (Alnus
serrulata).
5.5 SOILS AND LAND FORM
Based on county soil survey mapping (NRCS 2008), the Mitigation Site contains four soil series:
Appling sandy loam (Typic Kanhapludults), Colfax sandy loam (Aquic Fragiudults), Wehadkee
and Bibb soils (Fluvaquentic Endoaquepts and Typic Fluvaquents), and Worsham sandy loam
(Typic Endoaquults). Soils that occur within the Mitigation Site are depicted on Figure 5
(Appendix A) and described in Table 2.
Table 2. Proctor Farm Mitigation Site Soils
Map
Unit Hydric
Symbol Ma Unit Name Status Description
ApC Appling sandy loam Non-hydric This series consists of well-drained, moderately-high to
highly permeable soils of interfluves and slopes along
ridges. Slopes are generally between 6 and 10 percent.
Depth to the seasonal high water table is greater than 80
inches. Bedrock occurs at a depth of more than 80 inches.
CnA Colfax sandy loam Non-hydric, This series consists of somewhat poorly drained, very low
may contain permeability soils on depressions of footslopes. Slopes
hydric are generally between 0 and 3 percent. Depth to the
inclusions seasonal high water table is between 6 and 18 inches.
Bedrock occurs at a depth of more than 60 inches.
WoA Wehadkee and Bibb soils Hydric This series is composed of generally even areas of
Wehadkee and Bibb soils that consist of poorly drained,
moderately-high to highly permeable soils in depressions
on floodplains that are frequently flooded. Slopes are
generally between 0 and 2 percent. Depth to the seasonal
high water table is between 0 and 12 inches. Bedrock
occurs .at a depth of more than 80 inches.
WyA Worsham sandy loam Hydric This series consists of poorly drained soils in depressions
which have very low to moderately-low permeability.
Slopes are generally between 0 and 3 percent. Depth to
the seasonal high water table is between 0 and 12 inches.
Bedrock occurs at a depth of more than 80 inches.
5.6 FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Species with the classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or officially Proposed (P) for
such listing are protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended (16
U.S.C 1531 et seq.). Three species are federally listed for Wake County by the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (USFWS 2008): dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta
heterodon), red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), and Michaux's sumac (Rhus
michauxii). Each of these species is listed as Endangered. Additionally, the bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
6
Proctor Farm Mitigation Plan June 22, 2009
In addition to the bald eagle and E, T, and P species, the USFWS list includes a category of
species designated as "Federal Species of Concern" (FSC). A species with this designation is
one that may or may not be listed in the future (formerly C2 candidate species or species under
consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to support listing). The FSC
designation provides no federal protection under the ESA for the species listed. The 15 FSC
species listed on the current USFWS list are presented in Table 3.
Table 3. FSC Species Listed for Wake County
Common Name Scientific name
American eel Anguilla rostrata
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis
Carolina darter Etheostoma collis lepidinion
Carolina madtom Noturus furiosus
Pinewoods shiner Lythrurus matutinus
Roanoke bass Ambloplites cavifrons
Southeastern myotis Myotis austroriparius
Southern hognose snake Heterodon simus
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni
Diana fritillary (butterfly) Speyeria dana
Green floater Lasmigona subviridis
Yellow lance Elliptio lanceolata
Bog spicebush Lindera subcoriacea
Grassleaf arrowhead Sagittaria weatherbiana
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata
Virginia least trillium Trillium pusillum var. virginianum
While unlikely to support habitat for red-cockaded woodpecker, the Mitigation Site may support
suitable habitat for dwarf wedgemussel within stream channels, and Michaux's sumac in open
areas and along woodland edges. With a range of habitats, including pine forest, mixed
hardwood forest, marsh, and open areas, the Mitigation Site may provide suitable habitat for bald
eagle and any or all of the 15 FSC species on the USFWS 2008 list. No FSC mussels were
found within 2 miles downstream of the Mitigation Site outfall during surveys performed in 2007
(The Catena Group 2008). Additionally, the potential creation of a large, open body of water in
the near vicinity (the proposed Little River Reservoir) may induce bald eagle to utilize portions
of the Mitigation Site for nesting.
6.0 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS
6.1 CREDIT DETERMINATION
The Mitigation Site encompasses Rocky Branch, unnamed tributaries to Rocky Branch, and
associated jurisdictional wetlands. Mitigation Site mitigation options outlined in this report are
as follows.
7
Proctor Farm Mitigation Plan June 22, 2009
Table 4. Proposed Mitigation Quantities vs. Mitigation Credits

Proposed Mitigation Proposed Mitigation Proposed Credits
Activity Streams
(linear feet) Wetlands
(acres)
Stream Credits
Wetland Credits

Stream Preservation
4,915 , 11
, I `
983
Wetland Preservation 40.0 8.0
Total: 983 Total: 8.0
After completion, the Mitigation Site will offer 983 stream mitigation credits and 8.0 wetland
mitigation credits. The proposed mitigation credits provided in the table above are based on an
onsite, cursory determination of Mitigation Site resources. Prior to generation of a final
mitigation plan, aquatic resources within the Mitigation Site will be delineated in the field and
accurately mapped for the generation of quantities. Detailed quantities of streams, wetlands, and
wooded buffers within the Mitigation Site will be provided in the final mitigation plan.
6.2 PROPOSED CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE
A credit release scenario is proposed that complies with interagency guidelines. Under this
scenario, the credit release schedule is based upon satisfactory completion of project milestones.
Project milestones and percent of credit released include the following:
Table 5. Proposed Credit Release Schedule

Task Completion
Verification Percent of
Credit
Release
Preconstruction 1. Execution of MBI by the Sponser, USACE, and other agencies eligible 100
for membership in the Interagency 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
Preservation is not expected to require annual monitoring of stream, wetland, or vegetative
parameters; therefore, all credit should be released following completion of all preconstruction
tasks.
7.0 MITIGATION WORK PLAN
The primary goals of this mitigation plan include 1) protecting a watershed from nonpoint
sources of pollution associated with urban services area expansion and development; 2)
promoting water quality by protecting jurisdictional wetlands adjacent to Mitigation Site streams
and tributaries; 3) perpetually providing a diverse woody vegetative buffer adjacent to the
Mitigation Site's streams and wetlands; 4) promoting floodwater attenuation by protecting
vegetation on Mitigation Site floodplains to increase frictional resistance on floodwaters crossing
the Mitigation Site; 5) improving aquatic habitat by promoting stable stream banks, shading open
Proctor Farm Mitigation Plan June 22, 2009
waters, and providing structure within the Mitigation Site; and 6) establishing fee-simple
ownership or a permanent conservation easement, which will encompass all mitigation activities.
Primary activities include stream and wetland preservation. The mitigation concept as outlined
in Figure 6 (Appendix A) is expected to achieve the following:
• Preserve approximately 4,915 linear feet of stream channel
• Preserve approximately 40.0 acres of jurisdictional wetland
• Establish an approximately 66-acre area permanently protected by either fee-simple
ownership or conservation easement
7.1 STREAM PRESERVATION
Stream preservation is being proposed on approximately 3,735 linear feet of perennial stream
and approximately 1,180 linear feet of intermittent stream (Figure 4, Appendix A). Based on
preliminary analysis and field investigations, Mitigation Site streams are relatively stable due to
a lack of human-induced impact and a well-developed riparian buffer.
Preservation areas will be protected in perpetuity through the establishment of a conservation
easement or fee-simple purchase, including a 100-foot wooded buffer adjacent to each stream
bank. Preservation of the existing stream resources will remove a threat to or prevent the decline
of functions such as maintenance of baseflow, floodflow attenuation in adjacent floodplains,
energy dissipation during flood events, and in-stream and streamside habitat.
7.2 WETLAND PRESERVATION
Wetland preservation is being proposed on approximately 40.0 acres within floodplains adjacent
to Mitigation Site stream reaches (Figure 6, Appendix A). Based on preliminary analysis and
field investigations, wetlands occur as two general types: forested wetlands and marsh wetlands.
Forested wetlands are characterized by mature forest vegetation and undisturbed hydric soils,
and are subject to jurisdictional wetland hydrology. Emergent marsh wetlands are characterized
by a prevalence of emergent herbaceous vegetation in an area that was previously impacted by
beaver, causing a loss of mature trees.
Mitigation areas will be protected in perpetuity through the establishment of a conservation
easement or fee-simple purchase, including a minimum 50-foot forested buffer adjacent to
jurisdictional wetland and pond margins. Preservation of existing wetland resources will remove
a threat to or prevent the decline of functions, such as surface and sub-surface storage and
retention; will maintain the system's ability to remove pathogens, soluble chemicals (including
nutrients), and particulates from the water column; and will provide physical structure for habitat
and landscape patch structure for wildlife.
8.0 MAINTENANCE PLAN
Mitigation Site wetland and stream functions will be protected from anthropogenic disturbance
through fee-simple ownership or restrictive land uses outlined in a conservation easement.
9.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Mitigation Site preservation areas will be deemed successful if photo documentation and post
project walkthroughs of the Mitigation Site indicate an undisturbed riparian community, healthy
9
Proctor Farm Mitigation Plan June 22, 2009
jurisdictional wetland community, and functioning stream channels. Once the project has been
deemed successful by the IRT, Mitigation Site wetland and stream functions will be protected
from anthropogenic disturbance through fee-simple ownership or restrictive land uses outlined in
a conservation easement.
10.0 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Based on interagency guidance outlined in the Stream Mitigation Guidelines (USACE et al.
2003), preservation-based monitoring is primarily administrative; therefore, a 5-year monitoring
plan is not required for preservation areas within the Mitigation Site. However, reference photos
will be taken within preservation areas and provided to document status of aquatic resources,
including streams, wetlands, and riparian zones. Photos will adequately document the Mitigation
Site preservation areas, and will include a detailed description of the locations at which the
photos were taken.
11.0 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
The Mitigation Site is proposed to be protected and managed under fee-simple ownership or
restrictive covenants outlined in perpetual conservation easements. Conservation easements will
be written to prohibit incompatible uses that might jeopardize the objectives of the Mitigation
Site. Easements may be maintained by the Sponsor, or by a land management entity approved
by the IRT. The holder of the easements will be responsible for long-term management.
12.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Since preservation-based monitoring is primarily administrative, no construction will occur as a
result of this project. However, if other unanticipated constraints occur, the Mitigation Plan will
be adapted accordingly to meet performance standards. The Mitigation Site will be visited at
least annually for a check of the status of aquatic resources. Likely challenges are limited, but
may include a loss of vegetation structure due to natural or man-made causes, a growing
presence of invasive species, or some type of contaminated spill upstream of the Mitigation Site.
In the event that unforeseen changes occur that affect the management or performance standards
of the Mitigation Site, the holder of the easements will work with the IRT to determine
appropriate measures to rectify deficiencies in the Mitigation Site in order to provide targeted
aquatic functions.
13.0 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
The Mitigation Site is anticipated to be part of an umbrella mitigation bank, which will have its
own distinct cost center number within the City's budgeting and financial tracking system.
Therefore, all accounting for revenues, contract encumbrances, fund transfers, and expenses will
be performed and reported independent from all other capital budget or operating budget
accounting. A distinct revenue account will be used to account for only stream/wetland
mitigation-dedicated revenues and fund transfers. The Sponsor shall provide the IRT with an
annual estimate of the cost of work required by this agreement, and a statement of funds
available to perform that work, after each annual budget of the Sponsor is adopted.
14.0 CORPORATE EXPERIENCE
Mitigation proposed for the Mitigation Site will involve the establishment, maintenance, and
protection of aquatic resources existing within the proposed Mitigation Site in perpetuity. The
Mitigation Site is proposed for use toward City of Raleigh public projects. Mitigation credits
provided by the Mitigation Site will be used for capital projects performed under the supervision
10
Proctor Farm Mitigation Plan June 22, 2009
or direction of the City's Public Utilities Department. If possible and practicable, the Mitigation
Site may also be available for use by other City departments. Mitigation Site credits will not be
offered as mitigation for any other projects without approval of the IRT.
The City will maintain contracts with experienced mitigation providers to construct and maintain
the mitigation sites, including Hazen and Sawyer, Axiom Environmental, Inc. (Axiom), and
EcoScience Corporation (EcoScience). Hazen and Sawyer is an engineering consulting firm that
is assisting the City of Raleigh and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and preliminary engineering services for the proposed
Little River Reservoir. Since 1985, the Raleigh office of Hazen and Sawyer has completed over
30 Environmental Assessment (EA)/EISs for water and wastewater projects, including water
supply reservoirs.
Axiom is a Raleigh-based environmental consulting firm that is assisting Hazen and Sawyer with
the generation of this draft mitigation plan. The Axiom staff is experienced with coordination
among North Carolina natural resources agencies over a wide range of environmental issues
ranging from jurisdictional area identification and delineations, jurisdictional area functional
assessments, protected species, mitigation site assessments, mitigation site conceptual and
detailed planning and construction oversight, mitigation site monitoring, determination of
mitigation success, and mitigation bank development. Axiom has conducted over 100
investigations of potential mitigation sites, and completed 54 mitigation feasibility
studies/prospectuses during the past four years for private landowners, mitigation bankers, and
in-lieu fee programs throughout North Carolina. Axiom has also developed many detailed plans
for stream, wetland, and riparian buffer mitigation.
EcoScience is a Raleigh-based, wholly-owned subsidiary of PBS&J and is assisting Hazen and
Sawyer with the field investigation and evaluation of potential mitigation sites. The EcoScience
staff is experienced with coordination among North Carolina natural resources agencies over a
wide range of environmental issues ranging from jurisdictional area identification and
delineations, jurisdictional area functional assessments, protected species, mitigation site
assessments, mitigation site conceptual and detailed planning and construction oversight,
mitigation site monitoring, determination of mitigation success, and mitigation bank
development.
11
Proctor Farm Mitigation Plan June 22, 2009
15.0 REFERENCES
Coward in, 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.
Griffith, G.E., J.M. Omernik, J.A. Comstock, M.P. Schafale, W.H. McNab, D.R. Lenat, T.F.
MacPherson, J.B. Glover, and V.B. Shelbourne. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina
and South Carolina. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2008. Web Soil Survey (online). Available:
http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/ [February 13, 2009]. Soil Survey Staff, Natural
Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2007. Final North Carolina Water
Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2006 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d)
Report) (online). Available:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdI/documents/303d_Report.pdf [February 10, 2009]. North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2008. Basinwide Planning Program.
Draft Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan -- June 2008. North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2009. North Carolina Waterbodies
Listed by Subbasin (online). Available:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims/reports/basinsandwaterbodies/03-04-06.pdf [February 10,
2009]. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh,
North Carolina.
The Catena Group. 2008. City of Raleigh Freshwater Mussel Surveys of the Little River: Wake
and Johnston Counties. Prepared for Arcadis.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, United States Environmental Protection Agency, North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(USACE et al.). 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines.
12
Proctor Farm Mitigation Plan June 22, 2009
United States Army Corps of Engineers, United States Environmental Protection Agency, United
States Fish and Wildlife Service, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, North
Carolina Division of Water Quality, and North Carolina Division of Water Resources
(USACE et al.). 2008. Determining Appropriate Compensatory Mitigation Credit for
Dam Removal Project in North Carolina (Version 7.1).
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Threatened and Endangered Species
in North Carolina (online). Available: http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/countyfr.html. [February
12, 2009]. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh, North Carolina.
13
Proctor Farm Mitigation Plan June 22, 2009
APPENDIX A
FIGURES
Appendix
Proctor Farm Mitigation Plan June 22, 2009
O) O M
ze U 0 0 0
y U N
F f r LL2?ZO LL 0 V ZO Z O O w
^.e 0WLJ Q " . wo 'F rann
rp...„.. ,W ~Jca ?m N V ON 0( T O V
u m _ e Y a0 Z LL
x 0a E 50? J ° aU
R 3 u
a a F d o D U) a`
r ?
' ,ail -k,.. ? m :.N •\ ,?, ? :v.?,.. " ? " ? ?' r'ti p51 y" P r . `J:
. , Y
n )C
. r _
ll II1 ? wa,
• G „? c
Plf
sj fv d uI* s7 b#Y elf.
j
-tea
7
tCr+iU? Pti iw,,
7
I e?
-
?'V d
/ ` ? t 4 err'
7d ,.i ? ...
.sG
•
m CIO
i
?, ? • p? 'S7 CSC. ? ? *'?-*., w ?.?'
C In
0 =1 03
° q x. Z
v w rJ' `?
R R Y C CC i f t i.. ?. 5 M
E U)
(o C)
R
J. r OLD
00 i
0 E cu (o
M 0)
_0 N
:3 (D
Y N 0
COD
` Y

.y

U

U
w LL
J
U
O
°
N O

o N

co
ooY
wwaz
J LL?W oa

0
0
' D P
N
I o ? ''`
a
= m?m U
~
U U_
?
~
2
U H T o
z ?
y p
}D
Ix = a
m a

r<
a --
a`
F a
0 ?
cn o
d

Z?? f L+' y+ f ti
`
s N e N I, O, N
.r
O
4
r? f
O
-
>, cn
2? U)
yr
( i, ?. y ,1 J L I
Ca4
f
\ ?? r ?x
L `
fC C
O ` r ?<
LL r_ 0
r"
O m
-M CD,
O 4
qq
,N • j 1 '? ?-
1
M ...
• O
O ..
O ,
M '>
O
O'
,
?. 1

1 \. 1
O ,.
.Z
j,l
m
z n J O O N
c 6 () a. } W U N °o QOo
=gp Z 1O a0 w N ° w
C LL °WJ ?az o oat 0z? M
-j C) F- 0 0
(D a. z
E Y C
- r ?a g v ?? R 0 0 ? U
_ o d n. m o
a a F= 0 0 to a`
-
1 tyr I i"• +t`
sc o w
. '.; .. o. "? ! ..r ? .. . .?'?` ati, -!?,rb.?'"tt Er.. - '? ~l•?r r ?1? ,.?,•+:? •{ ' ?l ?j ?
-JC, r-- ( ` J r i f; 6 ?J r C-zti?' ?,t r • l `°x;
11 ` l `- 1Cµ ?' ,r f r ,- ?, v.. mwuw:aeankun.. t,.. ?, ?(,.• t a,
A,r fr....-- y '? y * 'y((pl... a L ? ? ` t1J i 1 f 1 t r - ? -? ? ' ?`I ? (? S ..' "''.???
o?u Z"
y
r `
� o 0 0
.• i U Z fn U N O 00
Z Z QZ
LL=g0 LLC) C7 w v o 11J
(� W — Y W
c f J W QZ 0QF- F -O
F -
o F-
JmOQ v ��� cn p d
v i X Z a
U,°� O WO Z LL
41 aU
a a 0 0 n a
V,5 �,°, et ,a ; ;: y."t • . -
4i,a
LF
ab E a
0.
N
�^ pp > E.2
♦, k i '�Y.�' OOa N D
CD
ad
IT
74
CD
5
cc
m i
N o i 'V�,s� o
c u
m�i !•4' c
o w{ IIL..Illll rr ° 0 N
p U
O O
N II N
C N '�" � �' � / , OCD
ca
N c9 R ,✓ d
uoj
N vOi N _ O O
j � � -,.�•
tm>
_ o
LL o a c o
O x E S2 U Na- CL
N
CL
". . rn o
cn Y
J ;F ` • m a

a
x
d C�
U
Z
ao
V-
U
O
N
LLI
O
o
N
c
o
G
=go
c
�H
CO) U)
z
j
W
ii
..
o W—Y
0 — H Z
}W Q.QQ
O
W
QQH
U
�,
..
,' /^�
_I
M Y"Sdb
o
Q o
i
co
[P�
Va62
U
0
9
N �
p s
+�> m
iQ
3
6
aU
a Za
m
a
o
4T
CL
p
16
o
n
d
�o
o
D682
7
4,
M.
a, S.
a s e K
q zgdV
U
i
0 LU
LU
J
u
Y
1
'K v
c
y . .
C6
. N •
Y'i
N NCO
p.
7 b,
U
aNi c o
a�
C�
5
�i ��
p
ca E o
r'
Q
ZW O
Q
m
T.
�• a
Q
zed L
2
o
'Q
lo *q
CL a, n J �dy rm
CO N •'y�"+
q q T O= } a 2C.
{ •Q
w J`
C 7
O �
Vl
7
C
U
O L
10
C_
0
U)�� C "w °
t 8
o T �a
rn m E
cc w (- 7
€ 4n cn H w .,
lL M U U 'p a 4
O O
XO N
ts
C a Q a z z= N
d
0)
tk.
d C�
G
i. Yvl
m +
M Y"Sdb
o
Q o
i
co
[P�
Va62
U
0
9
N �
+�> m
iQ
E n
m
o
It,
�9<y
c+
�o
o
D682
7
4,
M.
a, S.
a s e K

n C m v (+1
J O O N
�Z Z aZI O Z Q U W p W
f CLL
•.. o .. O W W Q Z Q Q Z
° H J m� m U �� N _U' W (7
h -
F-
L) L Z LLa O —
a.
di
'
r
,tsr O m C
O
R°CION �
rte..ul Ra
A=' • o o �
)
O
.....,,h ,.e N C O
mEo a
16
z m Ci Lo
I � '" ,r pix , p,m'�v,•�'
�:. '. y. �' '�� yr 'j' v.t ! ~"• #�'.` ^'"$, �. N
p
N5
t
M
x
S? 0
c Z N CD
'T I F' c. Olt
ti ! C N i
F Z nE mU
J
C13 -he
LL O C N C V p II N NE^^r .'t' O
�d `—°L)'`°�E E ° m g a Nn p
a 0Z a�ccEm .� p
UO 30� W m n , 4•- r. o�
1_
OF- mmn.EN E y c ''r mo
Q'c o m `m
E LL-
a.S a o •y-"
nE2.p(D + o o £ N ^ 3 , ? �t O
c m co n o m a c �v : A' _ a tLO
o
� o `m 'C o
Umcca� C Q a in � do in 4 mrn
m 3c
M e0 c0
O f c- a0 d C 1
v .0 co 0)J r'r r nad � �- m n+ p