20160849 Ver 1_FINAL_URMB_Complete_Prospectus_20190613

Upper Rocky Mitigation Bank Prospectus
Prospectus for Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Credits
For Yadkin River Basin (CU 03040105)
2017
Prepared by:
WATER LAND SOLUTIONS
11030 Raven Ridge Rd, Suite 119. Raleigh, IAC 27614
919) 614-511) 1 waledandsokutians_com

Table of Contents
1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................................1
2 Site Ownership......................................................................................................................................2
2.1 Sponsor Qualifications..................................................................................................................2
2.1.1 Similar Mitigation Projects in North Carolina and Other States...........................................2
3 Existing Conditions................................................................................................................................
6
3.1 Watershed Characterization.........................................................................................................
6
3.1.1 South Prong West Branch Rocky River Watershed...............................................................
6
3.1.2 Historic Land Use and Development Trends in Project Watershed......................................7
3.1.3 Catchment Areas...................................................................................................................
7
3.2 Existing Condition of Streams.......................................................................................................8
3.2.1 Existing Channel Geomorphic Characterization....................................................................8
3.2.2 Reach Conditions of Proposed Site Streams.......................................................................10
3.3 Existing Condition of Wetlands...................................................................................................15
3.4 Potential Site Constraints............................................................................................................18
3.4.1 Existing Easements on the Site...........................................................................................18
3.4.2 Utility Corridors within the Site..........................................................................................19
3.4.3 Mineral or Water Rights Issues...........................................................................................19
3.4.4 Hydrologic Trespass............................................................................................................19
3.4.5 Invasive Species...................................................................................................................19
3.4.6 Cultural Resources..............................................................................................................19
3.4.7 Threatened and Endangered Species.................................................................................
20
3.4.8 Conditions Affecting Hydrology..........................................................................................20
3.4.9 Adjacent Land Use..............................................................................................................21
4 Proposed Site Conditions....................................................................................................................22
4.1 Objectives of Proposed Mitigation Site......................................................................................
22
4.2 Conceptual Mitigation Plan.........................................................................................................22
4.3 Alternative Outcome without Bank............................................................................................24
4.4 Reference Ecosystems................................................................................................................
24
5 Bank Establishment and Operation....................................................................................................25
5.1 Proposed Credit Types................................................................................................................
25
5.2 Credit Release Schedule..............................................................................................................26
5.3 Service Area................................................................................................................................
26

5.4 Proposed Financial Assurances...................................................................................................27
5.5 Long -Term Management............................................................................................................27
6 Citations.............................................................................................................................................. 28
Tables
Table 1. Parcel Ownership Information........................................................................................................2
Table2. Subwatersheds................................................................................................................................8
Table3. Reach Descriptions..........................................................................................................................9
Table 4. Proposed Stream Mitigation Credits(SMCs)................................................................................25
Table 5. Proposed Wetland Mitigation Credits(WMCs)............................................................................25
Table 6. Credit Release Schedule...............................................................................................................26
Appendices
AppendixA...........................................................................................................................................Figures
Appendix B.......................................................................................................... Historic Aerial Photographs
Appendix C................................................................................................................... Agent Authorizations
Appendix D............................................................................................................. Baseline Monitoring Data

Upper Rocky Mitigation Bank Prospectus
1 Introduction
Water & Land Solutions, LLC (WLS) is pleased to submit this prospectus for the proposed Upper Rocky
Mitigation Bank (Bank) located in the Yadkin River Basin, Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03040105. The Bank
will be set up under an umbrella mitigation bank structure that will establish an Umbrella Mitigation
Banking Instrument (UMBI) for future mitigation sites. The first site in the umbrella mitigation bank is the
Upper Rocky Mitigation Site (Site). This prospectus was prepared in accordance with C.F.R. §332.1-8
(2008), Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources, and was based on current District
Guidance, which is subject to the approval of the United States Army Corps of Engineers in consultation
with the NC Inter -Agency Review Team (NCIRT). The purpose of the Bank is to provide stream and wetland
mitigation credits to compensate for unavoidable impacts to Waters of the U.S. authorized under section
401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act, Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, and all applicable state
statutes.
Water & Land Solutions Page 1

Upper Rocky Mitigation Bank Prospectus
2 Site Ownership
WLS submits this prospectus on behalf of URMB, LLC ("Sponsor") forthe proposed Upper Rocky Mitigation
Bank. URMB, LLC is wholly owned by WLS and was established to hold the Bank and conduct all business
regarding the Bank. The point of contact for the Bank is Ashley Abernethy, whose contact info is listed
below:
Ashley Abernethy
Water & Land Solutions, LLC
11030 Raven Ridge Rd, #119
Raleigh, NC 27614
919-614-5111
ashlev(@waterlandsolutions.com
The Sponsor owns a permanent conservation easement on the JPO Beverly Tract and has options to
purchase conservation easements on the Mayes Family Tract and Bjorneboe Tracts. The agent
authorizations for the tracts are attached in Appendix C. The property owners for the proposed Site are
listed in Table 1 below.
TableOwnership
Current Owner 68111
jJ
Mayes Family LP
Paul Bjorneboe
Paul & Marie Bjorneboe JPO Beverly
2.1 Sponsor Qualifications
WLS is a mitigation provider that concentrates on the production and delivery of high quality mitigation
credits and services to clients across multiple regions of the United States. WLS was started with the
purpose of combining the key components of high quality and successful mitigation sites, including the
technical expertise for mitigation site development, the understanding of land management, and the
expertise in environmental economics and finance. Through its inception WLS has identified, targeted
and employed well-respected practitioners in the mitigation industry who have specifically focused their
careers on all of the required aspects and stages of successful mitigation project implementation. Beyond
our focus to improve ecological function of impaired systems, WLS has a specific mission to positively
impact people in our industry and the general public through education, partnership, and relationship
building. In just over two years since establishment, WLS has grown to a staff of eight people located in
Raleigh, NC with satellite offices in Dallas, TX and Huntersville, NC. Individuals making up the WLS staff
have been recognized by our industry colleagues and peers as leaders in the development, management,
design, permitting, construction, and monitoring of mitigation projects. Our projects and opportunities
that we are currently pursuing include projects in North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and Ohio.
2.1.1 Similar Mitigation Projects in North Carolina and Other States
WLS staff have significant experience with stream, wetland, and riparian buffer restoration. Our
staff have been involved with the entire suite of services for hundreds of mitigation projects over
Page 2 4

Upper Rocky Mitigation Bank Prospectus
nearly two decades. This experience equates to the successful restoration of hundreds of
thousands of feet of stream and thousands of acres of wetlands. Several project examples are
highlighted below.
Monteith Park Mitigation Site, Charlotte/Mecklenburg Stormwater Services, Huntersville, NC
Monteith Park before (left) and one year after restoration (right)
WLS is currently managing the successful completion of what is considered to be one of the most
unique watershed restoration projects in the mitigation industry. The Monteith Park Mitigation
Site (MPMS) is the only project to date in North Carolina that utilized a watershed restoration
approach to generate additional mitigation credits at ratios beyond those typically awarded for
stream and wetland restoration credits with the intent on properly funding full restoration
activities. The MPMS was identified as one of the highest ranked stream restoration reaches in the
McDowell Creek Watershed of Mecklenburg County, NC. The project involved the Rosgen Priority
Level I restoration of 3,550 linear feet of stream, 1.0 acre of wetland restoration, and the retrofit
design and installation of five stormwater control devices (bioretention basins) in an attempt to
restore watershed hydrology to predevelopment conditions.
WLS staff identified the project in 2008 and have led project management duties on all aspects of
the project throughout its entirety. This complex mitigation project continues to be a highly
successful example of how ecosystem restoration, that involves technical, legal, financial, political,
and educational aspects, can be implemented in rapidly developing watersheds.
Water & Land Solutions Page 3

Upper Rocky Mitigation Bank Prospectus
Spindletop Bayou Mitigation Bank, Liberty and Chambers County, TX
WLS is currently partnered with Ecosystem
Renewal and EcoGenesis on a wetland and
stream mitigation bank in Liberty County and
Chambers County, Texas. The proposed 460 -
acre bank site will restore over 400 acres of
riparian and non -riparian wetlands and 10,000
linear feet of 1st order headwater streams. The
proposed property has been highly impacted by
agricultural practices (rice and sorghum
production) since the 1930's. This project will
provide significant uplift to aquatic and
terrestrial habitats as well as water quality
improvements to Spindletop Bayou.
WLS has led coordination efforts with
USACE-Galveston District IRT, assisted in the overall credit assessment, determination,
generation, and full restoration design of the mitigation bank site. The proposed design
finalized in the winter of 2016 and construction will likely occur in 2018.
Cedar Bayou Mitigation Bank, Liberty County, TX
the
and
was
WLS is currently working with Ecosystem Renewal
and EcoGenesis on a wetland and stream
ecosystem mitigation bank in Liberty County,
Texas. WLS is providing the lead technical services
for the development of the Cedar Bayou
Mitigation Bank (CBMB). The proposed 1,100 acre
mitigation bank will provide over 900 acres of
restored wetlands and 21,000+ linear feet of 1st
order and 2nd order headwater stream in the
Western Gulf Coastal Plain Ecoregion of the
Galveston USACE District. This Upper Coastal Plain
ecosystem will provide a complex mix of diverse
habitats including multiple wetland types actively
integrated with the headwater stream system. Due to over a century of agricultural practices on hard pan
clay soils, this region experiences high flood frequency during large precipitation events. WLS will utilize
a combination of Priority I and Priority II approaches to maximize ecological uplift, while creating sufficient
flood storage capacity for large precipitation events, in what is expected to be the next high growth area
for the Houston region. The project design will be finalized in 2017 with construction scheduled for 2018.
Page 4 4

Edwards Mitigation Sites, Johnston County, NC
The Edwards Sites (Sites) are three separate
mitigation projects located adjacent to each other
and within the same watershed that are being
developed under the NCDMS Full Delivery
Program. The Sites present a unique and exciting
opportunity for the restoration of an entire
subwatershed that has been highly impacted from
agricultural practices for over a century. The Sites
are 3 of 5 potential restoration projects being
developed by WLS, all located adjacent to one
another, that will successfully restore/enhance
over 22,000 linear feet of stream and will
permanently protect approximately 64 acres of riparian buffer corridor within a watershed that is
expected to see widespread land use conversion from agriculture to suburban sprawl. The Sites have
been negatively impacted by cattle grazing and row crop production since the 1950's. In addition, a
portion of the streams have been impacted due to impoundments. Nearly all vegetated buffers along the
stream reaches have been removed for agricultural practices. Wetlands were historically present
throughout the riparian corridor, but have been significantly impacted due to cattle trampling and channel
incision (draining wetland areas). Most of the primary stream systems have been channelized and incised
(through headcut migration) leading to a significant loss of biologic function for the entire watershed. The
comprehensive restoration of this subwatershed will provide significant habitat and water quality
improvements to the on-site wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers as well as the downstream
watershed.
Upper Rocky Mitigation Bank Prospectus
Water & Land Solutions Page 5

Upper Rocky Mitigation Bank Prospectus
3 Existing Conditions
The proposed Site is located in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina in the Yadkin River Basin (Upper Rocky
River), HUC 03040105. The Site centroid is located at 35.4596220, -80.829787° (Figure 1) and is adjacent
to William Hough High School in Huntersville, NC.
The proposed Site will protect approximately 43 acres in a permanent conservation easement. The
easement is located on four parcels, which are used for residential and agricultural purposes. The first
parcel is currently being subdivided and developed into single family homes on approximately 0.25 acre
lots; 40 homes are slated for the proposed development. The easement will run through the open space
reserved for this development. The second parcel contains a single family home, row crops, and non -
timbered forest. The third parcel is currently in timber. The fourth parcel contains a single family home.
3.1 Watershed Characterization
3.1.1 South Prong West Branch Rocky River Watershed
The headwaters of the Rocky River are separated into three primary subwatersheds: the South Prong
West Branch Rocky River Watershed, the West Branch Rocky River, and the Upper Rocky River Watershed.
The South Prong West Branch Rocky River Watershed, where the Site is located, includes the northern
portion of Mecklenburg County and includes portions of the Towns of Cornelius, Davidson, and
Huntersville, North Carolina. The South Prong West Branch of the Rocky River joins with the West Branch
Rocky River to the East of Hopewell, NC. The West Branch Rocky Riverjoins with the Rocky River less than
two miles downstream of this confluence along the Mecklenburg and Cabarrus County lines. The Rocky
River is part of the Yadkin River Basin and joins with the Yadkin River in Cabarrus County.
The Site is located within the South Prong West Branch Rocky River Watershed, one of the fastest growing
regions in North Carolina. According to the Draft Rocky River Watershed Management Plan (Mecklenburg
County Storm Water Services 2010), the construction of the 1-77 corridor through this region resulted in
a significant increase in land development activities with South Prong of the Rocky River experiencing the
biggest increase in growth. The Rocky River and its tributaries have been listed on the 2014 303(d) list for
copper, turbidity, and impaired biological integrity (EPA 2014). In addition to these parameters, a Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for fecal coliform was added to the list of water quality concerns with this
upper watershed. Portions of the South Prong Rocky River have been straightened and dredged, likely for
flood control. Channel straightening, significant channel incision and excessive sedimentation from
stormwater runoff are evident throughout the entire watershed. The upper watershed surrounding the
Site has seen substantial land use change from agriculture to residential and municipal development over
the past five years. Land use changes, excessive stormwater inputs, and physical changes to surface
waters in the watershed have caused degradation in water quality through excess sedimentation.
Mecklenburg County Storm Water Services (MCSWS) has outlined a watershed plan (2010) highlighting
current efforts to improve water quality through stream and wetland restoration and stormwater
improvements. MCSWS has prioritized parcels and streams for restoration in which the South Prong West
Branch of the Rocky River is included. Because of the position of South Prong West Branch of the Rocky
River in the upper headwaters, restoration of this system along with the first order tributaries can produce
significant improvements in downstream water quality.
Page 6 4

Upper Rocky Mitigation Bank Prospectus
3.1.2 Historic Land Use and Development Trends in Project Watershed
A historical aerial review from 1948 to present (Appendix B) was conducted to assess landscape changes
in the South Prong West Branch of the Rocky River watershed. Prior to the development of the Bailey's
Glen Community and William Hough High School (within the past 5 years), the land within this watershed
was primarily forested but heavily utilized for agriculture since the early 1900's. A review of historic aerials
indicates that from 1948 through 1983, the watershed experienced few land use changes, with the
exception of possibly less land being utilized for row crop and/or pasture. In the 1948 aerial, there
appeared to be a substantial forested buffer surrounding the majority of the South Prong West Branch of
the Rocky River. By 1965, much of the forested buffer around South Prong West Branch of the Rocky
River appears to have been modified through timbering activities, but still remained largely development
free. In discussions with the current landowners along the south side of the South Prong West Branch of
the Rocky River, these properties were utilized for various agricultural and silvicultural uses, including
timber production, cattle grazing, and row crop production. The entire watershed remained almost
entirely void of impervious surfaces until approximately 2003. Between 2003 and 2008, development
projects including Bailey Middle School and a local town park were constructed along Bailey Road.
Starting in 2009 and continuing to date, the three largest impervious projects were constructed, which
included William Hough High School, Bailey's Glen Residential Development, and the upcoming Beverly
Development. The combination of these projects changed the upper watershed impervious coverage
from less than 2 percent to approximately 20 percent. It is anticipated that similar development projects
will eventually occur on the remaining undeveloped proportions as Mecklenburg County continues to
grow, having a continued impact on the watershed and further supporting the need for the proposed Site.
3.1.3 Catchment Areas
The evolution of the land use within the South Prong West Branch of the Rocky River watershed from a
combination of forested and agricultural to the present day medium -density combination of residential
and municipal has altered watershed characteristics. Figure 2 illustrates the watershed delineation,
dividing the watershed into 7 catchment areas based on reach designation. To date it does not appear
that that majority of the catchment areas have been significantly disturbed as Catchments 4, 5, 6, and 7
still remain largely undeveloped. Catchments 1 and 3 have been significantly altered while Catchment 2
and portions of Catchment 4 are currently being developed. In addition, because the watershed still
consists of large land tracts that will at some point be developed, the watershed hydrology changes will
continue. Watershed hydrology, and specifically infiltration patterns, play a critical role in influencing the
physical characteristics and ecological health of stream ecosystems. Stream flow magnitude, frequency,
duration, and timing are major driving forces that control the physical and ecological conditions of stream
corridors. At the downstream easement boundary of the Bank Site, the South Prong West Branch of the
Rocky River currently receives flow from an area of approximately 856 acres (1.34 sq. miles). Table 2
shows total area of the catchments and total approximate impervious area for the entire watershed.
Currently, the total impervious surface area within the South Prong West Branch of the Rocky River
watershed is approximately 20 percent. Five catchment areas have little to no impervious surface area,
while the remaining two catchment areas contain dense residential development and impervious areas
ranging from 29 to 56 percent.
Water & Land Solutions Page 7

Upper Rocky Mitigation Bank Prospectus
Table 2. Subwatersheds
3.2 Existing Condition of Streams
3.2.1 Existing Channel Geomorphic Characterization
WLS staff conducted a rapid geomorphic assessment of the South Prong West Branch of the Rocky River
watershed to assess all streams and wetlands within the project reach. This assessment was focused on
channel erosion, stream stability, and the impact of past and current land use practices on the Site's
natural resources. Jurisdictional stream criteria were evaluated according to the North Carolina Stream
Classification Method (NCSAM), Version 4.11 (2010). Field observations for stream assessments included
sediment supply and transport, channel boundary material properties (bed and bank), vegetation
characteristics, evidence of excessive channel erosion, and overall channel stability. Where excessive
erosion occurred, observations noted the mechanism of failure, whether the instability was localized or
reach -wide, and if the failure was recently active or historical. Table 3 provides reach designations, stream
length, approximate drainage area, and general descriptions.
Page 8 4
North side of Rocky River has extensive
impervious coverage (high school)
155.2 39% R1
currently being treated by existing
stormwater BMP's. South side of Rocky
River is currently being developed.
Has been mostly timbered in preparation
of residential development, no current
61.8 7% R2
impervious coverage aside from Bailey
Road.
Highly impacted subwatershed due to high
206.0 56% R3
density residential development. Minimal
stormwater detention.
Mostly forested, no current impervious
62.0 <1% R4
coverage aside from a single family home.
R5 (R5a &
Mix of forested and agricultural conditions
113.0 <1% R5b)
(row crop), no current impervious
coverage aside from 2 single family homes.
R6 (R6a &
No current impervious coverage. Timber
101.3 <1% R6b), R7,
and agricultural activity has dominated this
R8
upper watershed for nearly a century.
Mix of forested and timbered conditions,
48.3 <1% R9
no current impervious coverage aside from
a single family home.
Highly impacted subwatershed due to
37.2 49% R10
medium density residential development.
Minimal stormwater detention.
856.1 20%
3.2 Existing Condition of Streams
3.2.1 Existing Channel Geomorphic Characterization
WLS staff conducted a rapid geomorphic assessment of the South Prong West Branch of the Rocky River
watershed to assess all streams and wetlands within the project reach. This assessment was focused on
channel erosion, stream stability, and the impact of past and current land use practices on the Site's
natural resources. Jurisdictional stream criteria were evaluated according to the North Carolina Stream
Classification Method (NCSAM), Version 4.11 (2010). Field observations for stream assessments included
sediment supply and transport, channel boundary material properties (bed and bank), vegetation
characteristics, evidence of excessive channel erosion, and overall channel stability. Where excessive
erosion occurred, observations noted the mechanism of failure, whether the instability was localized or
reach -wide, and if the failure was recently active or historical. Table 3 provides reach designations, stream
length, approximate drainage area, and general descriptions.
Page 8 4

Upper Rocky Mitigation Bank Prospectus
Table 3. Reach Descriptions
835 2 Single -thread wetland complex, no impairment
800 8 Severe incision, straightened
129 37 Severe incision
Water & Land Solutions Page 9
Severe incision, actively eroding banks,
1,846
794
straightened
Moderate incision, actively eroding banks,
711
62
sedimentation from upstream development, lack
of vegetated buffers
Severe incision, actively eroding banks,
1,369
206
straightened
Collapsed culvert, severe incision, straightened,
614
62
spoil piles present on banks
Moderately incised to severely incised, active
3,614
220
head cuts, severe sedimentation
Moderate incision to low incision, upstream
portion (above headcut) shows little to no
1,015
102
impairment, below active headcuts begins
moderate incision
1,176
102
Braided, wetland complex, no impairment
835 2 Single -thread wetland complex, no impairment
800 8 Severe incision, straightened
129 37 Severe incision
Water & Land Solutions Page 9

Upper Rocky Mitigation Bank Prospectus
3.2.2 Reach Conditions of Proposed Site Streams
3.2.2.1 Reach R1
Reach R1 (R1) is designated as the lower reach of the
South Prong West Branch of the Rocky River at the
terminus of the Site, starting immediately upstream of the
Bailey Road bridge crossing (approximately 1,846 linear
feet). Cross Section 1 was recorded for R1. R1 has a total
drainage area of 794 acres with a total watershed
impervious coverage of 29 percent. This reach is highly
unstable and incised and appears to have been
straightened and possibly dredged at some point in the
past. Because of land use activities (agricultural), it is
possible the stream was relocated closer to the northern
edge of the valley. Stream banks are highly unstable and
in -stream habitat is under constant duress due to
upstream bank erosion. The channel banks are highly
incised with bank heights of up to 12 feet, totally
removing floodplain access. Based on NCSAM, this stream
system is classified as low and is therefore considered to
be low quality.
3.2.2.2 Reach R2
Reach R2 (R2) is a tributary to the South Prong West
Branch of the Rocky River flowing to the northwest and
originating southeast of Bailey Road (immediately
upstream and offsite). The stream maintains an existing
length of 711 linear feet within the Site's easement
boundaries. This perennial tributary was in relatively
stable condition prior to land use changes within the past
year. However, with the construction along Bailey Road
and clearing for future development in the upper
watershed of this tributary, the stream within the Site's
easement limits has been impacted by sedimentation and
most recently in -stream bank erosion. Some vegetation
clearing along the stream banks for the future crossing
into the Beverly subdivision has removed trees that had
historically provided bank stability. R2 contains Cross
Section 2 and has a total catchment of 62 acres with a
total watershed impervious coverage of 7 percent.
However, watershed conditions are changing rapidly for
this channel which will lead to continued bank failure,
incision, ana namtat loss. tsasea on N SHivi, tnis stream
system is classified as low and is therefore considered to be low quality.
Page 10 4

3.2.2.3 Reach R3
The South Prong West Branch of the
Rocky River splits into three primary
channels as the stream complex
transitions upstream. Reach R3 (113)
is the northernmost channel which
flows close to the northern boundary
of the Site conservation easement
and eventually upstream into the
Bailey's Glen Residential
Community. This channel was
historically relocated to the outer
edge, and is slightly upslope of its
natural valley. Within the Site limits,
this reach is approximately 1,369
linear feet and has a drainage area of
approximately 206 acres. This
channel currently has three significant headcuts that continue to move upstream and have caused
significant sedimentation downstream. While this reach is flanked by a mature hardwood buffer, the
current headcuts and substantial incision create a detachment between the streamflow and relic
floodplain. Stream banks are highly unstable and in -stream habitat is mostly nonexistent. Cross Sections
3, 4, and 5 were collected for R3 to accurately depict the presence and impacts of these 3 headcuts. Based
on NCSAM, this stream system is classified as low and is therefore considered to be low quality.
Upper Rocky Mitigation Bank Prospectus
3.2.2.4 Reach R4
Reach R4 (R4) is a tributary to the South Prong West
Branch of the Rocky River flowing from the south and
continuing upstream off of the Site property. Within the
Site property, this stream was historically straightened
and dredged, likely for farming and/or flood control
purposes. Bank height ratios are extremely high
indicating a very unhealthy system. R4 has an existing
culvert crossing for a relic driveway (soil road).
Upstream (outside the Site limits) of this culvert the
stream remains in stable condition and was not
historically straightened or dredged. Downstream of
this culvert, and within the Site limits, the stream
exhibits significant incision, nearly complete habitat
loss, and excessive bank erosion. The floodplain
maintains a hardwood buffer but the stream cannot
access its relic floodplain except during extreme
precipitation conditions. The approximate length of R4
within the Site property is 614 linear feet and the
drainage area is approximately 62 acres. Cross Section
8 was taken downstream of the culvert crossing in the
Water & Land Solutions Page 11

Upper Rocky Mitigation Bank Prospectus
highly incised and unstable section while Cross Section 9 was taken upstream of the culvert where the
channel maintains its stability. The upstream portion of R4 maintains a relatively stable dimension,
pattern, and profile and will provide a reference reach for design on the portion of R4 that will be restored.
When scored based on NCSAM, the lower reach of this stream system was classified as low quality.
3.2.2.5 Reach R5 (including R5A & R5B)
Reach R5 (R5) is the southernmost
branch of the South Prong West
Branch of the Rocky River and
originates from the confluence of
two intermittent channels within a
relatively undeveloped drainage
area. The Site stream length for
this reach is approximately 3,614
linear feet and the drainage area is
approximately 220 acres. R5
included a primary channel and
three small tributaries. As this
reach transitions into the
confluence valley where it
connects with the two other Upper
Rocky River branches, the channel
has been pushed against the edge
of the valley and straightened, maintaining a ditch -like dimension, pattern, and profile. Excessive
sedimentation from upstream erosion has settled out in this portion of the reach and the channel
maintains a uniform and unnatural habitat condition (no riffle/pool complex). As reaches transition
upstream and away from the deposition in the valley containing the confluence, the channel exhibits
significant incision, overall habitat loss, and excessive bank erosion. The channel does appear to be within
its natural valley and historic pattern, but the incision is significant enough that the channel likely does
not access its floodplain except during extreme precipitation conditions. While some short sections of
this reach indicate a building bankfull bench, because of the incision these short sections are overwhelmed
during storm events and a consistent dimension and profile are unattainable without restoration. The
channel contains multiple headcuts indicating a constant presence of instability. Cross Section 11 was
recorded along R5 and verifies high bank height ratios as well as sever incision. Based on NCSAM, this
stream system is classified as low quality.
Page 12 4

3.2.2.6 Reach R6 (including R6A & R6B)
Reach R6 (R6) is the central branch of the South Prong
West Branch of the Rocky River. R6 represents the
transition between the upstream braided multi -thread R7
(described below) and the highly incised downstream R1.
Because of significant modifications to this valley for
historic agricultural practices, it is relatively difficult to
discern where the historical location of this channel should
be. A series of small disconnected ditches, sediment
depositional areas, and other areas of stormflow during
large precipitation events indicate a consistently changing
and unstable valley. R6 has a series of headcuts that have
moved upstream from R1 and R5. Cross Sections 10, 12,
and 13 were recorded to capture the varying degrees of
incision and headcut transition throughout this reach. The
stream length of R6 within our Site area is approximately
1,015 linear feet while the drainage area encompasses
approximately 102 acres.
Upper Rocky Mitigation Bank Prospectus
Some portions of R6 located above the series of headcuts
maintain what appears to be stable dimension, pattern, and profile and have access to the floodplain
during precipitation events. The areas of R6 that are not incised also contain the presence of adjacent
wetlands, providing a snap shot of what this watershed looked like prior to stream modification. The
forested buffer is relatively young and is dominated by more successional species indicating past timber
and agricultural activities. When the stream is classified overall based on NCSAM, this stream system is
classified as low and is therefore considered to be low quality.
Water & Land Solutions Page 13

Upper Rocky Mitigation Bank Prospectus
3.2.2.7 Reach R8
Reach R8 (R8) is immediately upstream of R7 and continues as
the central branch of the South Prong West Branch of the
Rocky River. R8 is the same stream system as R7, but is
distinctly different in that it represents the transition
upstream and out of the stable multi -thread braided stream
and wetland complex. The valley slope surrounding R8
appears to be slightly steeper and more typical of the
Piedmont than R7. Beaver activity continues to be active
within R8 but because of the change in valley conditions the
beaver dams have less impact on the adjacent floodplain.
Stream conditions within R8 are similar to open water systems
(ponding). The stream remains incised and does not maintain
a riffle/pool complex because of ponding. Sedimentation
from upstream bank erosion gets stored in R8 and water
quality conditions are not indicative of a perennial Piedmont
stream. Stream length of R8 within the Site limits is
approximately 835 linear feet and an upstream catchment
acre of approximately 82 acres. Based on NCSAM, this stream
system is classified as high and is considered to be high quality.
Page 14 4

3.2.2.8 Reach R9
Reach R9 (R9) is a tributary to the central branch of the
South Prong West Branch of the Rocky River flowing from
the south. Within the Site property, this stream likely was
historically straightened and dredged. This reach is
severely incised and exhibits bank erosion and instability.
The Site stream length for this reach is approximately 800
linear feet and the drainage area is approximately 48
acres. Excessive sedimentation from bank erosion has
settled into riffles and pools creating a uniform and
unnatural habitat condition. The channel does appear to
be within its natural valley and historic pattern, but the
incision is significant enough that the channel does not
access its floodplain except during extreme precipitation
conditions. Cross Section 14 was recorded along R9. Based
on NCSAM, this stream system is classified as low and is
considered to be low quality.
3.2.2.9 Reach R10
Reach R10 (R10) is a short tributary to the
South Prong West Branch of the Rocky
River (R1) flowing from the north along
the west side of William Hough High
School. The valley for R10 is moderately
defined but the channel appears to have
a head cut from R1 moving upstream off
of the Site property due to the incised
condition of R1. This reach is severely
incised and exhibits bank erosion and
instability. The Site's stream length for
this reach is approximately 129 linear
feet and the drainage area is
approximately 37 acres. It is unclear if
this reach had formed a perennial stream
Upper Rocky Mitigation Bank Prospectus
prior to headcutting from R1. The channel does appear to be within its natural valley and historic pattern,
but the incision is significant enough that the channel cannot access its floodplain except during extreme
precipitation conditions. Cross Section 15 was recorded along R10.
3.3 Existing Condition of Wetlands
The historical presence of wetlands in Piedmont North Carolina, specifically within the Mecklenburg
County region, was largely concentrated within headwater stream valleys that had sufficiently sized
watersheds, high clay content in soils, and smaller streams that maintained relatively frequent overbank
flooding. These riparian wetland systems were dependent upon these specific conditions in order to
Water & Land Solutions Page 15

Upper Rocky Mitigation Bank Prospectus
maintain consistent hydrology that defines jurisdictional wetlands. As agricultural practices spread
throughout this region in the early to mid -1900's, streams were straightened, dredged, and/or relocated
in order to maximize agricultural production. These historically wet valleys provided ideal settings for
high crop yield and cattle production because of access to groundwater. Stream modifications and
subsequent drainage of the floodplain provided the greatest factor for the general loss of Piedmont
riparian wetlands during this time period. As the urban growth of Charlotte increased and the suburban
growth followed, these already impacted systems underwent additional major watershed hydrologic
changes including increased stormflow velocities and quantities (associated with an increase in
impervious surface) which led to increased downcutting of streams. The urban/suburban growth mixed
with the historical agricultural practices led to a significant loss of Piedmont wetlands in the Mecklenburg
County Region.
The Site represents this combination of conditions due to the
agricultural land use practices during the last century, and now
suburban growth occurring within the watershed. The combination
of the three major stream reaches coming together at their
confluence within a low slope valley, which also contains a high clay
content, can lead to the conclusion that it is highly likely that the
entire valley maintained wetland conditions prior to agricultural
land use activities. In the few areas of the Site where streams are
not incised, wetland pockets are abundant. In the areas
downstream of current and active headcuts where streams have
been actively draining floodplain soils, wetland vegetation
indicators are present but the lack of hydrology has led to a
significant loss of wetland functions. The entire Site valley was
mapped by a licensed soil scientist as Monocan Soils, one of only
two soils mapped in Mecklenburg County that maintain riparian
wetlands. Based on the combination of high clay content soils, abundant surface water, and the presence
of wetlands where stream incision isn't present, it appears as if the majority of the valley should maintain
jurisdictional wetlands. A full soils investigation has been conducted by a licensed soil scientist and results
are pending.
On-site wetlands were identified using the three -parameter approach prescribed in the 1987 Corps of
Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Jurisdictional wetlands were also evaluated according to the
North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NCWAM), version 4.1 (2010).
Based on our assessment of the on-site water features, there are six wetland systems identified within
the Site boundaries (Figure 6). A total of approximately 282,000 square feet (6.5 acres) of wetlands were
delineated using pink and black striped and blue sequentially numbered flagging.
The first wetland system W1 (Figure 6) is the most upstream wetland within the Site property and is
located along R8. This system is dominated by a series of larger active beaver dams that appear to be
actively expanded and maintained by the current beaver population. Vegetation within this system is
dominated by more upland and floodplain species not typically found within wetlands. Vegetation
mortality within this wetland appears high as more upland species adjust to the rising water surface
elevation due to the beaver activity. This system functions more like an open water pond and is not
Page 16 4

Upper Rocky Mitigation Bank Prospectus
expected to maintain significant wetland conditions once the restoration of the valley and stream occurs
(including beaver removal). Based on NCWAM, this wetland system is classified as low quality.
The second and most dominant jurisdictional wetland system, W2(Figure 6) is the largest wetland
identified within the Site property and is located along R7 (multi -thread stream and wetland complex).
This system is located immediately downstream of W1 and is differentiated by the lack of active beaver,
vegetation composition, saturation pattern, and valley slope conditions. This system is dominated by a
series of small relic beaver dams that have naturalized over the past approximately 50 years. While
beavers are currently active upstream of this system, it does not appear that beavers actively build or
maintain within this wetland area based on site conditions. This wetland is located within an area of
relatively low valley slope as compared to typical Piedmont stream valleys, likely due to historic deposition
from upstream bank erosion. The valley has been mapped as Monacan Soils. The low slope valley
condition, presence of historic beaver activity, mapped hydric soils, and stable streams (no headcuts
present) allow this wetland to maintain a very consistent and strong presence. Vegetation within this
system is dominated by herbaceous and shrubs including Juncus effusus, Carex spp, and Scirpus sp. This
wetland maintains saturation throughout the year and provides significant water quality benefits. This
system is surrounded on both sides by a relatively steep terrain. Based on NCWAM, this wetland system
is classified as low quality; however the low rating was likely due to the historic impact of beavers as the
wetland system is currently considered a high quality functioning system.
The third wetland system, W3(Figure 6) is directly downstream and connected to W2. However, this
system is significantly different than W2 because of multiple factors. W3 is located in the confluence
valley where all three of the major Upper Rocky River tributaries join, creating a valley that likely remains
saturated during and immediately following precipitation events under stable conditions. W3 wetland
boundaries were delineated above the active stream headcuts where this consistent soil saturation
occurs. This system is forested and functions like a bottomland hardwood forest. Based on NCWAM, this
wetland system is classified as high and is considered to be a high quality wetland system. The
northeastern wetland boundary (downstream wetland edge) coincides with the headcut locations along
the three tributaries, indicating the impact of wetland hydrology loss relative to stream incision. As
stream base flow lowers due to stream incision, the groundwater elevation is directly lowered and
therefore wetland hydrology is not present long enough during the growing season to maintain wetland
conditions. Soil conditions and vegetation conditions remain consistent throughout the entire
downstream valley. It should be noted that as the stream incision gets deeper and groundwater
elevations lower in response, the presence and density of Chinese Privet (Ligustrum sinense) significantly
increases, becoming the dominant species within this community, which is common of drained floodplains
in the Piedmont.
The fourth wetland system, W4 (Figure 6) pocket is located downstream of the confluence valley along
the outer edge of the R1 floodplain. This small wetland pocket represents a snap shot of what the
floodplain edge of the South Prong West Branch of the Rocky River likely contained prior to significant
land use changes over the past century. The majority of the floodplain of the South Prong West Branch
of the Rocky River has been drained by straightening, dredging, and headcutting of on-site streams. In
addition to these activities, a lateral ditch was dug along the toe of slope of the floodplain to drain what
was likely wetland conditions. W4 represents the only area outside the effectively drained portions of the
floodplain (by this ditch/stream network). This small wetland pocket is classified as a riparian toe -of -slope
wetland and historic hydrology is directly linked to base flow conditions within the South Prong West
Water & Land Solutions Page 17

Upper Rocky Mitigation Bank Prospectus
Branch of the Rocky River, as well as rising groundwater where the natural site valley slopes meet the
floodplain. This system is forested and functions like a bottomland hardwood wetland. Based on
NCWAM, this wetland system is classified as medium quality. While this system functions as a high-quality
wetland, the loss of overbank and overland flooding from incised streams within the floodplain doesn't
allow this wetland to meet its maximum NCWAM value.
The fifth wetland system, W5 (Figure 6) is located upstream of the confluence valley along R5. This
wetland system is a combination of wetland pockets that maintain very similar conditions to W3 and W4.
These wetland pockets are riparian wetlands along the toe of the valley slope and are directly linked to
base flow conditions within the stream. The majority of R5 is severely incised and unstable. Where this
incision occurs, the floodplain and historic riparian wetlands have been drained. However, a small section
of R5 remains in stable condition due to a significant root structure that has allowed the stream headcut
to be avoided. The riparian wetland pockets associated with W5 are adjacent to this short section of
stable stream, further indicating that if the streams are restored to their proper elevation, wetland
pockets are anticipated to form throughout the floodplain. This system is forested and functions like a
bottomland hardwood. Based on NCWAM, this wetland system is classified as high quality.
The sixth wetland system, W6 (Figure 6) is
located along R5 as this stream enters
confluence valley. This wetland system
maintains very similar conditions to W3 and W5.
This forested riparian wetland is within an area
of historic deposition along R5 where sediment
from upstream bank erosion has settled out
' creating a backwater effect to some degree. The
majority of R5 upstream of this wetland is
severely incised and unstable. However, the
stream adjacent to W6 maintains a shallow
dimension allowing frequent overbank flooding
.- ' and wetland hydrology to persist within the
floodplain. The riparian W6 provides further evidence that if the streams are restored to their proper
elevation, wetland pockets are anticipated to form throughout the floodplain. This system is forested and
functions like a bottomland hardwood. Based on NCWAM, this wetland system is classified as high quality,
with the only negative factor being sediment flushing that occurs within due to continued upstream bank
erosion.
3.4 Potential Site Constraints
3.4.1 Existing Easements on the Site
Portions of R3, R5, and R6 are located on property that is managed under a Wildlife Habitat Conservation
Agreement. This Agreement did not require recordation of a conservation easement. WLS has
coordinated with NC Wildlife Resources Commission to ensure that this land designation is compatible
with stream and wetland restoration projects.
There are no other existing easements on the Site.
Page 18 4

Upper Rocky Mitigation Bank Prospectus
3.4.2 Utility Corridors within the Site
The proposed Site contains a sewer right of way that runs parallel to R1 along the northern property
boundary. There are three instances where the sewer line will cross the restored R1. These right-of-ways
will be excluded from the conservation easement and mitigation credit calculations. The presence of this
sewer utility will not negatively impact the proposed project.
There are no other existing utility corridors on the site.
3.4.3 Mineral or Water Rights Issues
There are no mineral or water rights issues within or adjacent to the Site.
3.4.4 Hydrologic Trespass
The downstream portion of R1 is located within a FEMA regulated floodplain. While it is not anticipated
that there will be issues associated with FEMA permitting or documentation, WLS will coordinate with the
local floodplain administrator as needed and prepare the required documentation to obtain approval for
any FEMA regulated impacts. In addition, the project will be designed so that any increase in flooding will
be contained within the Site conservation easement boundaries and will not impact adjacent landowners;
therefore, hydrologic trespass will not be a concern.
3.4.5 Invasive Species
Within the proposed project boundary, there are several areas with a substantial community of the non-
native, invasive plant species, predominantly Chinese Privet (Ligustrum sinense). A few additional pockets
of additional invasive species vegetation, including Multiflora Rose (Rosa multiflora) occur sporadically
within the Site. WLS will develop a comprehensive control and monitoring program, using mechanical
and chemical control techniques to control invasive plant species currently on site and to help prevent
future proliferation.
3.4.6 Cultural Resources
In accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act, WLS investigated and confirmed that the
proposed project area and property does not contain nor is it adjacent to any properties listed in the
National Register with the State Historic Preservation Office. There are several sites located within
approximately one mile of the proposed project area, most of which are survey only and are not
registered. The closest such site was the Bailey House, located approximately 0.2 miles north east of the
project area. More recent aerial photography shows that this site has been demolished and removed.
There are two sites on the National Register that are within the vicinity of the proposed project site. Potts
Plantation is a historical farm site located approximately one mile north. The South Prong West Branch of
the Rocky River flows through this property, but it is upstream of the confluence with the proposed project
and no impacts are expected to this registered property. The historical house Beaver Dam is located
approximately 1.1 miles north east of the proposed project area. No impacts to the property will occur
due to the Bank Site.
Water & Land Solutions Page 19

Upper Rocky Mitigation Bank Prospectus
3.4.7 Threatened and Endangered Species
According to the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), there are four species listed as endangered in
Mecklenburg County: Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata), smooth coneflower (Echinacea
laevigata), Schweinitz's sunflower (Helionthus schweinitzii), and Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii). One
species, the Northern Long Eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) is listed as threatened.
The shade -intolerant Michaux's sumac typically occurs in open habitat that is frequently disturbed by
mowing or, historically, by fire. The smooth coneflower's habitat is dry limestone bluffs, bare rock/cliff,
and disturbed areas where the flower can receive full or partial sunlight. Schweinitz's sunflower also
prefers open areas, such as utility right-of-ways, with thin, clayey soils.
All of the endangered plant species have similar habitat requirements and there is some appropriate
habitat on the Site. All areas of appropriate habitat were carefully inspected, within the pasturelands and
along the transition zones between open and forested regions. No individuals of these three species were
observed during the field investigation.
The Carolina heelsplitter is a relatively large, freshwater mussel endemic to several river drainages in
North and South Carolina. The species is reported to inhabit small to large streams and rivers. They are
usually found in muddy sand, muddy gravel, or mixed sand and gravel, near stable, well -shaded stream
banks. Historically, the range included the Catawba and Pee Dee River Systems in North Carolina. Only
two small populations are known to exist in North Carolina and those are located in Union County. The
only appropriate habitat on the Site may have been R1 that runs along the northeastern border. This
stream has been impacted by historic straightening of the channel with severely eroded, unstable banks.
It is highly unlikely that this stream would provide the stable habitat required by this species.
As part of due diligence and to avoid violation of the USFWS Northern Long-eared Bat Final 4(d) Ruling,
WLS contacted the USFWS to determine if any known hibernacula were located in Mecklenburg County.
None are known to exist there.
This area is not listed as critical habitat for any listed endangered or threatened species and the proposed
Site should not negatively impact any listed species.
3.4.8 Conditions Affecting Hydrology
A series of beaver dams exist throughout R7 and R8. Beaver dams will be removed in their entirety during
construction and monitoring periods. The removal of beavers is not expected to adversely affect the
hydrology of the site. WLS will extensively manage beaver on the project site during the monitoring
period.
There is a culverted road crossing at the end of the project (Bailey Road crossing). This culvert will remain
in place. Therefore, design elevations will tie into this reference point.
There are several ditches throughout the Site. These ditches were historically used to drain wetlands and
create arable land for farming. These ditches will be plugged during restoration activities to prevent them
from negatively affecting hydrology on the completed project.
Page 20 4

Upper Rocky Mitigation Bank Prospectus
3.4.9 Adjacent Land Use
The Site adjacent land use includes a high school, an established residential community, a developing
residential community, and agriculture and forestry. None of these land uses will have negative impacts
on the operation of the Site.
Water & Land Solutions Page 21

Upper Rocky Mitigation Bank Prospectus
4 Proposed Site Conditions
4.1 Objectives of Proposed Mitigation Site
The Site will provide numerous water quality and ecological benefits within the Upper Rocky River
Watershed, which ultimately drains to the Yadkin River. The Site is located in the West Branch Rocky River
- 03040105010010 Targeted Local Watershed (TLW), which is characterized by increasing development
pressures (NCEEP 2009). The placement of the proposed Site will provide significant longterm protection
of natural resources and will meet the general restoration and protection goals outlined in the 2009 Lower
Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) (NCEEP 2009) and in the Draft Rocky River
Watershed Management Plan (MCSWS 2010). The Site will meet these goals by:
• Reducing in -stream erosion and sediment/nutrient inputs by rebalancing imposed shear forces
and sediment transport capacity with sediment supply
• Reestablishing floodplain connectivity of the currently incised channel
• Prevent active headcuts from migrating farther upstream
• Restoring, preserving and protecting riparian, riverine wetlands
• Increasing habitat for benthic macroinvertebrates by incorporating habitat features such as
woody materials, pools and backwaters, riffles and structures.
The Site stream reaches show the classic signs of habitat degradation associated with the transition of a
watershed from an agricultural community to an urban development through hydromodification, severe
channel incision, and a loss of wetland habitat. Our goal is to reestablish long-term stability by rebalancing
the watershed's geomorphic and hydrologic processes. Through the restoration of on-site streams and
associated wetlands, the design will recondition the site to create natural geomorphic processes leading
to enhanced habitat quality and greater riparian function. Complementing the restoration effort, the
design will also incorporate stormwater treatment to minimize the hydrologic effects of urbanization in
the watershed.
4.2 Conceptual Mitigation Plan
The Site will involve the potential restoration, preservation and permanent protection of approximately
12,109 linear feet of existing streams. WLS's comprehensive design approach utilizes the entire suite of
stream mitigation practices, from Priority Level I Restoration to Preservation, and appropriately addresses
all of the intermittent and perennial stream reaches at the project site, including protecting or enhancing
riparian buffers along all of the project stream reaches, and limiting the number of stream crossings, thus
providing the maximum functional uplift and utilizing a true watershed approach.
The proposed Site will provide adequate floodplain access to all stream reaches. For any stream reach
along which Priority Level II Restoration must be utilized, the following elements will be incorporated into
the proposed design and construction:
• Floodplain bench excavation grading will extend a minimum of 1.5 bankfull widths beyond the
stream belt width such that meandering floodplains are not created.
• All proposed floodplains will be constructed such that they are over -excavated to accommodate
replacement of topsoil.
Page 22 4

Upper Rocky Mitigation Bank Prospectus
• Design and construction oversight measures will ensure the proper harvesting, segregating,
stockpiling, storage, handling, overall management and replacement of A and B soil horizon
materials onto the excavated floodplain.
WLS has compiled and assessed watershed information including drainage areas, historic and current land
uses and development trends, geologic setting and landscape controls, soil types, and terrestrial plant
communities. WLS will compare the results of the existing conditions analyses along with reference data
from previous project implementation to determine the degrees of impairment and functional losses as
they relate to physical and biological processes, as well as aquatic resources. In order to develop an
appropriate design approach for the project reaches, the restoration potential must be determined to
maximize the highest functional uplift based on the hydrology, hydraulics, geomorphology,
physiochemical, and biological hierarchy. The design will utilize hybrid stream restoration approaches
that have been successfully implemented on past projects. This includes using process based analytical
tools when appropriate, as well as Rosgen's methodology, under which dimensionless ratios from
reference reach data (analog) and past project experience (empirical) are analyzed in order to develop
design criteria.
The proposed project will provide increased floodplain access throughout the project area for all
restoration reaches and will be monitored to demonstrate successful floodplain function. The
stream channel design will include analysis of the hydrology, hydraulics, shear stress, sediment
transport, and bankfull channel dimensions. WLS will consider three methods (field indicators if
present, published regional curve information, and hydraulic modeling) for estimating bankfull
discharge. The hydrology and hydraulics analysis will evaluate a range of significant flow discharges
and flood frequency curves to help determine an appropriate bankfull discharge. The bankfull
discharge will be used to select an appropriate channel geometry and help monitor long-term
performance.
Sediment transport calculations and stream power analyses will be performed for both the existing
degraded channels and the proposed design channels. WLS will assess the stream's transport competency
and capacity in order to quantify the stream's ability to move its sediment load. Small alluvial channels in
the Piedmont may have a relatively low sediment supply (i.e., first order streams) with fine grained
material, and therefore complex sediment transport calculations or models may not be necessary.
However, it is still critically important to perform watershed reconnaissance and estimate how much
sediment is being supplied to the project reaches by determining load rates from both within the channel
(bed/banks) and upland sources.
WLS will perform quantitative channel assessments that include pebble counts, collecting sediment
samples (pavement/sub-pavement, bar), and predicting streambank erosion rates using the BANCS
Method (BEHI/NBS) in order to evaluate bed and bank material characteristics and estimate sediment
yields. The bed material will be sieved and a grain size distribution developed. The results of the substrate
analyses will be used to classify the streams, and complete critical shear stress calculations required for
designing slopes/depths and predicting channel stability. Other observation methods, such as dendro-
geomorphic studies (bank root mass), bank pins/profiles, cross section surveys, and time -series aerial
photography may also be used as a comparative analysis.
Water & Land Solutions Page 23

Upper Rocky Mitigation Bank Prospectus
Additionally, WLS will calculate stream power and compare the results to stable reference and published
values to reduce uncertainties. If the results fall outside common stable ranges for similar stream types
and slopes, multiple design iterations and methods, such as the Copeland Stability Curve, HEC -RAS -SAM
modeling program, will be run to confirm that sediment loads can be transported adequately through the
system without containing excess energy in the channel and verify that the design will not excessively
aggrade or degrade.
In -stream structures will be utilized for grade control, streambank protection, and improving bedform
diversity and habitat. All in -stream structures will be constructed from materials naturally found at the
project site such as hardwood trees, trunks/logs, brush/branches, gravel, stone, and small boulder
materials. Rock used for structures has been harvested on-site from the adjacent development. In order
to ensure sustainability of those structures, WLS will use methods of structure design and construction
that have proven successful on numerous past projects in the same geographic region. WLS may also
incorporate bioengineering practices, when appropriate, that use biodegradable materials and fabrics,
uncompacted soils, live plant cuttings, and native vegetation to stabilize streambanks. Bioengineering
treatments will provide initial bank stability that allows for the quick establishment of deep-rooted
vegetation along the eroding streambanks. Once established, these live, dormant plant cuttings will
provide long-term stability to the treated areas.
WLS has field verified that the project site has adequate, viable construction access, staging, and stockpile
areas. Note that physical constraints or barriers, such as stream crossings, account for less than three
percent of the proposed total project footage within the conservation easement area. These same
existing site access points and features will be used for future access after the completion of construction.
Where practicable, impacts to existing native riparian buffer vegetation will be minimized. The use of
native species riparian buffer vegetation transplants will be maximized as well. Any potential impacts to
existing wetland areas will be avoided during construction, with only temporary, minimal impacts
expected only as necessary for maximized permanent stream, wetland, and riparian buffer functional
uplift.
4.3 Alternative Outcome without Bank
Without the proposed mitigation Site, it is expected that the watershed will continue to increase in
impervious areas and will undergo further urbanization and development. The Bjorneboe parcels will
most likely be logged and subdivided. The Mayes property is well suited for development, as well. The
Beverly property will potentially continue to degrade due to its current state of incision. Due to the
current stream conditions (incised and unhealthy), the existing and future watershed modifications will
likely exacerbate on-site stream and wetland degradation further impacting on-site and downstream
water quality. The placement of the Bank Site and restoration of on-site wetlands and streams is likely
the only solution to providing significant water quality benefits.
4.4 Reference Ecosystems
Reference ecosystems will be identified that represent similar conditions to the restored stream and
wetland system. Reference wetlands exist on-site where preservation is proposed. Reference streams
exist upstream of R4. Additional reference reaches will be identified by the designer before design begins.
Page 24 4

Upper Rocky Mitigation Bank Prospectus
5 Bank Establishment and Operation
The URMB will be established as an umbrella mitigation bank. The compensatory credits will be available
to public, private, and non-profit customers. The proposed Site will include a combination of Stream
Restoration, Enhancement Level I, and Preservation activities, as well as Riparian Wetland Restoration,
Enhancement, and Preservation activities, depending upon the need of the individual reach and/or
wetland area, and the highest ecological lift possible.
The 8 -digit HUC is rapidly developing, so we anticipate a consistent need for both stream and wetland
mitigation credits. In addition, the City of Charlotte Umbrella Mitigation Bank is lacking wetland mitigation
credits. Therefore, any credits generated by URMB may be available to the City as well.
5.1 Proposed Credit Types
Expected credit types are Stream Mitigation Credits (SMCs) and Wetland Mitigation Credits (WMCs).
Warm water stream mitigation credits will be generated through Restoration, Enhancement Level I, and
Preservation activities (Table 4). Riparian, riverine wetlands mitigation credits will be generated through
Restoration (both Re-establishment and Rehabilitation), Enhancement, and Preservation activities (Table
5).
Table 4. Proposed Stream Mitigation Credits (SMCs)
1,846
Restoration (1:1)
0.85
1,846
711
Restoration (1:1)
dM.
7114
1,369
Restoration (1:1)
■I
1,369
614
Restoration (1:1)
-L
614
3,110
Restoration (1:1)
JF
3,110
258
Enhancement 1 (2:1)
'
129
246
Enhancement 1 (2:1)
123
723
Restoration (1:1)
723
160
Restoration (1:1)
160
132
Enhancement 1 (2:1)
66
1,176
Preservation (5:1)
235
835
Enhancement 1 (2:1)
417.5
800
Restoration (1:1)
800
129
Enhancement 1 (2:1)
64.5
10,368
Table 5. Proposed Wetland Mitigation Credits (WMCs)
1.70
Enhancement (2:1)
0.85
3.10
Enhancement (2:1)
1.55
1.15
Preservation (5:1)
0.23
0.05
Preservation (5:1)
0.01
0.20
Rehabilitation (1.5:1)
0.13
0.30
Preservation (5:1)
0.06
9.60
Re-establishment (1:1)
9.60
12.43
Water & Land Solutions Page 25

Upper Rocky Mitigation Bank Prospectus
5.2 Credit Release Schedule
All credit releases, except the initial release, will be based on the total number of mitigation credits
generated as reported by the as -built survey. The initial credit release will be based on the proposed
restoration lengths (SMCs) and acreages (WMCs). The credit ledger will be managed by WLS and approved
by the District. The estimated credits will be released following District guidance, as shown in Table 6
below. For streams, 10% of credits will be withheld until four (4) bankfull events, in separate monitoring
years, have been documented. Site establishment shall include: approval of umbrella mitigation banking
instrument, approval of final mitigation plan, securing the Bank Site, financial assurances delivery, long-
term protection mechanism delivery, title opinion delivery, and issuance of any permits necessary for
construction.
Table 6. Credit Release Schedule
Site Establishment (as defined above) 15% 15% 15% 15%
Completion of all initial physical and
biological improvements made pursuant 15% 30% 15% 30%
to the Mitigation Plan
Year 1 Monitoring Report demonstrates
that channels are stable and interim 10% 40% 10% 40%
performance standards have been met
Year 2 Monitoring Report demonstrates
that channels are stable and interim
10%
50%
10% 50%
performance standards have been met
Year 3 Monitoring Report demonstrates
that channels are stable and interim
10%
60%
15% 65%
performance standards have been met
Year 4 Monitoring Report demonstrates
65%
that channels are stable and interim
5%
5% 70%
(75%)
performance standards have been met
Year 5 Monitoring Report demonstrates
that channels are stable and interim
10%
75%
15% 85%
(85%)
performance standards have been met
Year 6 Monitoring Report demonstrates
that channels are stable and interim
5%
80%
5% 90%
(90%)
performance standards have been met
Year 7 Monitoring Report demonstrates
that channels are stable and interim
10%
90%
10% 100%
(100%)
performance standards have been met
5.3 Service Area
The Bank will provide compensatory mitigation credits for permitted impacts to Waters of the United
States in the Yadkin River Watershed, HUC 03040105. This particular Bank Site is further characterized by
Page 26 4

Upper Rocky Mitigation Bank Prospectus
the 14 -digit HUC 03040105010010, which is managed under the Upper Rocky River and Clarke Creek Local
Watershed Plan (LWP). It is also located within a NC Targeted Local Watershed (TLW).
The Rocky River Watershed has experienced drastic increases in urbanization over the last 10 to15 years.
Many stream systems have been straightened as a result of this growth, along with the extensive
agricultural practices that dominated the area previously. Like other developing watersheds, higher loads
of nutrients, metals, and sediment are more typically found here than in stable watersheds.
A 2004 NCEEP planning initiative study identified much of the watershed as having potential for excessive
erosion, based on soil types, imperviousness and other factors (NCEEP 2004). The Rocky River and its
tributaries is listed as impaired on the 2014 303(d) list for ecological/biological integrity, mercury in fish
tissue, copper, turbidity, and zinc. The Rocky River is also governed by a TMDL for fecal coliform (EPA
2014).
MCSWS composed a draft watershed management plan in 2010. This watershed management plan
divided the watershed in 13 sub -basins to compare and locate priority areas. Using upland land use
characterization to compare the sub -basins, the proposed Site basin ranks second in fecal coliform, second
in total nitrogen, second in total phosphorus, sixth in TSS, third in copper, second in imperviousness, and
sixth in buffer impacts (CMSWS 2010).
The report assessed 37 individual reaches within the watershed using BEHI, Near Bank Stress (NBS),
Simon's Channel Evolution Model, and Rapid Bioassessment Protocol Forms. The main tributaries of the
Upper Rocky River Mitigation Site were three of the studied reaches. These reaches were recommended
for restoration and enhancement (1). The sub -basins were again compared using the results of these
studies. The Site basin, upstream/headwaters of the South Prong, West Branch of the Rocky River, was
consistently rated in the worst condition, and as such, is listed as a Priority Basin. The Site basin is a priority
due in part to the presence of significant institutional land use and high density residential development;
the basin was ranked as having the highest average erosion rate per reach, and the worst basin -wide
degradation (CMSWS 2010).
5.4 Proposed Financial Assurances
Financial assurances will be in the form of casualty insurance. WLS has begun the process of securing
coverage for the Site. Details will be finalized prior to completion of the Mitigation Plan. The insurance
policy will be submitted for review and approval by Office of Counsel. The Corps will hold the original
policy document.
5.5 Long -Term Management
The Site will be protected in perpetuity by conservation easements that extend at least 50 feet from the
top of bank (edge of channel) and encompass all wetland areas.
The responsible party for long-term management has not yet been chosen, but will be secured prior to
publishing the Mitigation Plan. Financial assurances for long-term management will be approved by the
IRT prior to the commencement of any Bank establishment activities.
Water & Land Solutions Page 27

Upper Rocky Mitigation Bank Prospectus
6 Citations
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2014. "Impaired Waters, TMDL Pollutant: Fecal Coliform, TMDL
ID: 4301." Accessed via:
https:Hiaspub.epa.gov/watersl0/attains_impaired_waters.control?p_tmdl_id=4301&p_tribe=&
p_pollutant_id=500&p_report_type=
Mecklenburg County Storm Water Services (MCSWS), 2010. "Rocky River Watershed Management
Plan." Draft version obtained from Mecklenburg County Storm Water Services direct contact.
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP), 2004. "Upper Rocky River/Clarke Creek Local
Watershed Plan." Accessed via:
http://www.nceep.net/services/lwps/Clarke_Creek/introduction.html
NCEEP, 2009. "Lower Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin Restoration Priorities 2009." Accessed via:
https:Hncdenr.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-
public/Mitigation%20Services/PublicFolder/Work%20With/Watershed%20PIanners/Yadkin_Pee
_Dee_RBRP_2009_Final.pdf
NC Stream Functional Assessment Team, 2015. "NC Stream Assessment Method (NCSAM) User Manual".
Version 2.1, August 2015.
NC Wetland Functional Assessment Team, 2010. "NC Wetland Assessment Method (NCWAM) User
Manual". Version 4.1, October 2010.
Page 28 4

Appendix A -Figures
Upper Rocky Mitigation Bank Prospectus

Appendix A - Figures
Figure1.........................................................................................................................Project Location Map
Figure2....................................................................................................................... Catchment Areas Map
Figure3..................................................................................................................... USGS Topographic Map
Figure4......................................................................................................................................... LiDAR Map
Figure5.................................................................................................................................. NRCS Soils Map
Figure6.................................................................................................................... Existing Conditions Map
Figure7........................................................................................................................Mitigation Types Map

Legend
Project Centroid 8 -Digit HUCs
Q Conservation Easements LWPs
HUC 03040105 TLWs
0 50 100
v Miles
Project is located in
TLW HUC-14: 03040105010010
[5.ile,Y R5
Pu MAJ i,
0 7.5' 15-7
==;Im� Miles
HUC: 03040105
5
o
Run
Hopewell
P
P 4
3 to
0
a c
a z
firx,ar Asa
a
d
il.
wQ
gra gy +p
haw f' Y4 �
a
Za fa��`eek p*
4j e
Caldwell ca �'[[
Bayes
,.o
41ag9� fid -
CReatdwdt pePo[ R fp aY°4 _.
- a -
f+nae `+"na 73
f -
Rn. Rd
Sources: Esri; HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp
0 0.5 1 NRCAN-,-E-sri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand)
Mlles Mapmylndia, © QpenStreetM'ap contributors, and the GIS User Community
FIGURE
WATER & LAND Upper Rocky Project Location
SOLUTIONS Mitigation Bank
waterlandsolutions.com NAD 1983 2011 State Plane
North Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
0
4.r
HUC: 03040105
5
o
Run
Hopewell
P
P 4
3 to
0
a c
a z
firx,ar Asa
a
d
il.
wQ
gra gy +p
haw f' Y4 �
a
Za fa��`eek p*
4j e
Caldwell ca �'[[
Bayes
,.o
41ag9� fid -
CReatdwdt pePo[ R fp aY°4 _.
- a -
f+nae `+"na 73
f -
Rn. Rd
Sources: Esri; HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp
0 0.5 1 NRCAN-,-E-sri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand)
Mlles Mapmylndia, © QpenStreetM'ap contributors, and the GIS User Community
FIGURE
WATER & LAND Upper Rocky Project Location
SOLUTIONS Mitigation Bank
waterlandsolutions.com NAD 1983 2011 State Plane
North Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US

Legends # ��* �1jLs`.. {= f►� `!
Q URMB Limits__----� "`
. '
`� • `+• E • til S j
f .or
..
Lltmoo
-Ya �' C `r
J e
00,
71 1
v -
-i� • Tom.
{f r
1
1
�`> + Copyn�h%34�Ijk�N at G,eogpaphic Society, i cubed
WATER & LANDUpper Rocky USGS Topographic FIGURE
Feet
SOLUTIONS Mitigation Bank o iso 1,500 � Map
waterlandsolutions.com
NAD 1983 2011 State Plane 3
North Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US

Legend
Bank Limits
LiDAR �! -
+
Elevation (ft)
High : 912.889
� r III
Low : 674.373
rip
1 14 or
r
10 ell
4._- •rel — ,■ _ L r _
tT.`s
or
or
I S06
_ '� _ , • -,.� � . � , of
v
2 !
aF d'
1.
& it
,j Mill IF m
J.o -, • d'� . e " r�.AJs " f �P �"
pOF
r..�l ".r a •� OL Pr
■ rp c�
y • r r
40
side 7� Jr
" `�• .
IS ;.. rj..�.r r+' it"• ' �- e.. ■.t yfl 41,
e. I• r mr
e
Jr
eT_
-
�.r`-+
k
'1
,fey
IL
}
>a � •' �e.. -" � � �' , ,�:. ', s ,� _�� I! -,J — fir- - FAA 4r
1p Al
IN
J PA
J
.J� .may �I"° - Ry.�, �'�,.,'� ..�r i. �`� Jj
a�
n
� Opp
,iFL 10
LE
AmW All
F
J10 so Rp
140 j
.R 4 do
��AP
P �+
^i#'.182 J
: . I r■ a p " -r '�
°
F. - r .. • ..., .; Ip , may..
WATER & LANDFIGURE
SOLUTIONS Upper Rocky Feet N LiDAR Map
Mitigation Bank 0 500 1,000 A
waterland solutions.com NAD 1983 2011 State Plane 4
North Carolina RIPS 3200 FT US

Legend
Project Reaches R4 — R6 R8 Wetlands
R1 R5 R6A R9 ® URMB Limits
R2 R5A R613 R10
R3 R513 — R7 Adjacent Streams 4`
f
R7
W2
;; z - - 19 . v
R3
R6B 'tet W3 r
AL
i
L�
R6 --Vow
R6A
R4
W6► 4
R5
W5
R5A
WATER &LAND� FIGURE
SOLUTIONS Upper Rocky Feet // Existing Conditions
Mitigation Bank 0 300 600
waterlandsolutions.com
NAD 1983 2011 State Plane 6
North Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
t

Legend
Q URMB Limits Wetland Mitigation Type
Adjacent Streams Enhancement - 1
Stream Mitigation Type Preservation �' fii •--�. +
Enhancement Rehabilitation,
Preservation Re-establishment
Restoration i
• i�` t � .�ti ' n z � - , `t�- � - - #'ate` - - •'
'• R8 W1 R7 r �. , ''ilk. _ z �,t '� • , ' - .
_ R3 R10 - fir►
R9 [R
W2 W3 !
R6B
R6 - -
R6A
W7
* R2
r R4 W4
x�
R5 4
s I,
R5B �
1
Y•
j J
f�
_ R5A � � •
dr
WATER & LAND Upper Rocky Feet �%� Mitigation Types FIGURE
SOLUTIONS Mitigation BankV
4 0 300 600
waterlandsolutions.com NAD 1983 2011 State Plane 7
North Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US

Appendix B — Historical Aerials
Appendix B —Historical Aerials
Upper Rocky Mitigation Bank Prospectus
Water & Land Solutions Page 1

Appendix B — Historical Aerials
Figure1.....................................................................................................................1948
Aerial Photograph
Figure2.....................................................................................................................1957
Aerial Photograph
Figure3.....................................................................................................................1961
Aerial Photograph
Figure4.....................................................................................................................1965
Aerial Photograph
Figure5.....................................................................................................................1972
Aerial Photograph
Figure6.....................................................................................................................1976
Aerial Photograph
Figure7.....................................................................................................................1983
Aerial Photograph
Figure8.....................................................................................................................1997
Aerial Photograph
Figure9.....................................................................................................................2005
Aerial Photograph
Figure10...................................................................................................................2016
Aerial Photograph
Page 2 4

Legend
U RM B Limits
WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
watery andsolLbons.com
Mot
JAW -
,Pow
i#
Upper Rocky
Mitigation Bank
7a;
rip
wrl
:i
N FIGURE
Feet 1948 Aerial Photograph
0 250 Soo NAD 1983 2011 State Plane
North Carolina FI PS 3208 FT US

...
Legend
,
URMB Limits
•
s _ i
_ r
r
J k
-4. 1 'lJ l .i` -+ . a. ' -+e• cam.
r
Nk
th
1
r:
I
e
_
-r
WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
water) and so lut ions.c om
r l�
3
Upper Rocky
Mitigation Bank
b r � Y�t 1 •r 4
_y
It
N FIGURE
Feet 1957 Aerial Photograph
250 goo
NAD 1983 2011 State Plane 2
North Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US

Legend
r
URMBLimits LF
r
amma
xP
jw
10
Of
tw
w
4
P R- �� s ` 3 ? a + - .Fid .. - - _ • r. '" A y
�^ F
�Y' y
do amp
dPr
.AmF
_A
dr
SL is
i4* G
»�wf ftv &1W A0
+,„, * e .
IF
.. #
Ak
Av
OL ao
�•lY i
,= 4
a +� a
:. t. A' it
t
Amara
E
s
14
414
or - -
WATER & LAND Upper Pocky Feet 1961 serial Photograph � FIGURE
SOLUTIONS Mitigation Bank 0 250 500 A
wate rl an ds o lutio ns. co m NAD 1983 2011 State Plane 3
North Carolina FIP S 3200 FT US
3
t
Amara
E
s
14
414
or - -
WATER & LAND Upper Pocky Feet 1961 serial Photograph � FIGURE
SOLUTIONS Mitigation Bank 0 250 500 A
wate rl an ds o lutio ns. co m NAD 1983 2011 State Plane 3
North Carolina FIP S 3200 FT US

er _ pl
a
5gend Rai
Albr fF t 1'- - ., F 'P w' / -• _ .. s' g ''t y,
>~ M � � L a+,r •CJI. ° .��r_ k -ti AAA
�
� � h
_��.. 1 tet. 4 M � � � yam, .• •� ' 1 °� f e - u i � a � ..
' � • � ^+pit r `n k ± ' • 7 _ r. Y 4.0 _ - h - - kfr.- .� * r� .{ f � �;:. _'k' - ..
r
_4 _. - - ` u dt�k� - � -L - _ �r h _��, I � .k # �' ° • .. t p J ,.
-
ME
'' #a is*-� t - ''ilea-y �I gyp.: _ • _ n Itl Y t.N -
� ��-r,tr' z r � '��Y • f5`s�y '�`'� � L ' ' « r� �-'� • - P � ' IP��
l "r
%+.r#'x' a
,r �; {I a}'°4r _ �`F .{I.' :+,_.• �a - zl #! 'i + r�ra 'i k,p - �+i { -f+ll i 'Y4'� �. �b _ _ -r+„' J .•
ly
t
NI' _ •� *r - y' , y�l.� a�� -. . _ i p -
tl d
�Jr.�';� d-f�_'�� f �y-►" � ^.,...w' -.. - i. a tl. �'' A �� '� � ,� _ .���,,Y e'• _'1�J��F ��Y.� .. �`L�;7�-FIS _
- � •rt,'NI., .}, v� r •Y. ..: _ �. - � r<�� r i. �� r, # TF. r .�'t'rn ds.. ter° Y''
a _
-
- r 1.d6 at 4Apfir. a k4 *.ot . RL -w
r 1�.
r r / - a It R '.. • ir4. .
40
_
ad
'i
u
a
. ��. . � �, •,fit,= ,�° N I `� _ ,
.Noe"
ION
c
Y
l r �
J
!F
I
Aa
a ,
tir
y, 1
rAAk
A

Legend
U RMB Limits
• � 1 �' _ $�:.. a� � � ,fir '�
r i�
VE
9 Y
�• fIr
@ - -
`'
'IF
■■w - y
4 40
WATER & LANA� FIGURE
U pper Rocky Feet 1972 Aerial Photograph
SOLUTIONS Mitigation Bank 0 250 600 k
water la nds o lut ions. co m NAD 19832011 Smote Plane 5
North Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US

rt
P
.,a
r yy
L $old `'YID r• {L i�
i'
r
tId 1
URB Limits 5011
y
.. �.:1
IM
J.
,'r_ l .:. �. : +. T' �}�.� A ' . � _ r, �,-.,�,�'. '� z ` _ .pry
d
r r
Y -. . — " _
'kms s
F y
�' r ,, - -'�' ,. r •'� 'h �� - �- �� rJ� 1•��
-
r
: r'
�r
r
,. .. ,•,
n f
;'r M
p '
r- f
yS _
, h
- y ^
Al
tF
4*lir
IFO 1, 1y!`r r ;
. T
, y
�4-
,
,� j _ r'- �, � �� � . � �. �1�; � 41' tF� �, � s. ''� •may �� ����
_ � '. � T s ' {s i I , t r1r.� n 5 t-�.a �f' �. n -05�' ,fir � �•�rl -.
ra
,
_4 i ' r `
G
`4 r.
:
,r
:
y e
• ,r
s
^
:
Ile
jr
T, -� •.... _. _ r .-+.
IL Poll
or
t •
` r
{ a + N
i
I. 'i r. ..pins
0
Ar
"
.°l
WATER & LAND
O LUM O N
vlateH and solutions.com
Upper Rocky
ftp Rigation Bank
N
Feet0 250 500 A
FIGURE
1997 Aerial Photograph
NAD 19832011 State Plane is
North Carolina F IPS 3200 FT US

Logond
URM B Limits •
1
4
a
x
,
t
Ole
1
Al
�#
I .
,
r
-
F ,
Ali
,�
, it *'7Y A. ' �6 ]!I jai l + r' i.� r y,'i•i
r'.f'iL-d: - 1',yy, - Y.•I r ",. .J 1 , " r dr'' alp!t4
{ -
ir
fI
"•�kt1
,
, A
,
I 1 r'- + ~1
r
.s1 I
,
,Cie
" r I ,} a_ 71
, ky
r, r
Iry �•
d
1.
I
WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
v%aterl and so I uti on s.co m
0
,
{
+ u
AS
tl
a
Y
M ° r
��'�' • .� _ - ' , , • �'-.�, � LL Yob , - , ,
a
j taj `
of
+` 4� k
,J F
°
i
FIGURE
Upper Rocky Feet N 2005 Aerial Photograph
MIgatIQn Bank o 250 Sao
NAD 1983 2011 State Plane
North Carolina FIPS 3200 FTUS

per' 4f -� -� '• rte- -' "Ff.I 'V! +e"q'.',
7
Legend`:, - "'-
URMB LimitsIN
'!^rte
_ J
f`
Ld
,
e
Ax •
lb
' . �. �,� �I ,f ,�� :.' •'Ilii- �_ �. :. � fes• i - }G - .- _�
Ak••t
F
del
4 !'
IP -79x
a
j- lot
orek'
ie
i or
:
Irl � J 1 ,r - w � �' � � J I�� �y�F I � r, I I� a • - ��'r:.! I� r4 '
,I•, A ;, N' .. 4'� •� ' v' r. ' - ' - ih yam'
"Al l [ Jam♦ ��
tell, R1
i ! • s`
yL
i _ • Ir
'
r+`` j, ".,r __ iy` a�'k':� '' �� �•�T � '. �i '�' � � �'� 1 _ `� d'y� "
41 A
WATER & LANDFIGURE
SOLUTIONS Upper Rocky Feet N 2016 Aerial Photograph
Mitigation Bank o 250 500 A
v5aterlandsolution s.com NAD 1983 2011 State Plane 10
North Carolina FIPS3200 FTUS

Appendix C- Agent Authorizations
Upper Rocky Mitigation Bank Prospectus

AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
STREET ADDRESS: 12001 Mayes Rd, Huntersville. NC 28078
PARCEL IDs: 00714102 & 00714106
Property Owner: Siorneboe, Paul& Marie
Property Contact: ,Paul Biornebae
J
WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
11030 Raven Ridge Rd
Suite 119
Raleigh, NC 27614
wate rl an dsoiuti o n s. co m
919-614-5111
The undersigned, registered property owners of the above noted property, do hereby
authorize s Abernethy, of Water -& Land Solutions. LLC
Lo review my property and to show my property to the Interagency Review Team (IRT) for
the purposes of mitigation project review.
Property Owner's Address [if different than property above]:
We hereby certify the above information submitted in this app]ication is true and accurate
to the best of our knowledge.
e
Authorized Tignature Authorized Signature
Date: �� 16 2014 Date:

AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
STREET ADDRESS: 12229 MaYes Rd. Huntersville. NC 2807$
PARCEL ID: _ 00755101
Property Owner: a
Property Contact: Uorge Mayes
11
WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
11030 Paven Hdge Fd
s0te 119
Fblagh, NC27614
waterlarndmi0onaCom
919-614-5111
The undersigned, registered property owners of the above noted property, do hereby
authorize of Water & Land Soh;tion5, LLC
to review my property and to show my property to the Interagency Review Team [IRT] for
the purposes of mitigation project review.
Property Owner's Address [if different than property above]:
We hereby certify the above information submitted in this application is true and accurate
to the hest of our knowledge.
Authorized Signature Authorized Signature
Date: -7L) At

Appendix D- Pre -construction Baseline
Monitoring Efforts
Upper Rocky Mitigation Bank Draft Prospectus

ND
Q c
o0
go
r-
° Z
cn N Z
v -r
3
m
c� D cn c
a3
m W
� r
m
v ^., v cn 3
m o � ' v,
•, `� v v 0
Z3
♦ m
0
a
♦`fir ,f1' M,�
t
• 4.', 4 ,
AL
06T
19
# r « ti v f (D
. w- y � 1 1• t �• n i
CD
4 4p
x s.
00
OD 9i
i
N
ul
rn '>
(D wpoomr-
06" WOM
gfir V306
AM
CD
0, ilk
CD
(D IOWA
*`'a • �/� �/V r ; '
om t w �7►a' ' .` 1 Ar
N
C m..
1 c —` u
c

Cross Section Data
Upper Rocky Mitigation Bank
Pre -Construction Baseline Assessment
Fifteen cross sections were surveyed throughout the proposed Bank. It should be noted that the
existing conditions of on-site streams are considered to be highly unstable. Cross sections were
recorded at representative sections to indicate the unstable and highly incised nature of each reach. In-
field bankfull indicators were very difficult to identify. Therefore, for the purpose of depicting incision
and stream conditions, regional curve relationships for cross sectional area were estimated and depicted
on cross sections. Cross section locations are described in the existing conditions narrative. A Figure
depicting the locations of these cross sections is included in this Appendix. Results of those surveys are
shown in the figures and tables below.

Cross Section Data
Upper Rocky Mitigation Bank
Cross Section 1, Reach R1
Riffle
148
106
Flood Dimensions
23.6
XS Area (sq ft)
104
------------------------------------------------------------ ---
13.8
Width (ft)
102
Entrenchment Ratio
1.7
Mean Depth (ft)
0
�v
m 100
Low Bank Height (ft)
2.5
Max Depth (ft)
Lu
98
Low Bank Height Ratio
15.3
1.5
8.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
Width -Depth Ratio
95
94.5
96
94
93.5
94
fl 5 1n 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Width
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width
Cross Section 2, Reach R2
Riffle
98-5
Bankfull Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
23.6
XS Area (sq ft)
12.3
Width FPA (ft)
13.8
Width (ft)
0.9
Entrenchment Ratio
1.7
Mean Depth (ft)
10.5
Low Bank Height (ft)
2.5
Max Depth (ft)
4.2
Low Bank Height Ratio
15.3
1.5
8.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
Width -Depth Ratio
Cross Section 2, Reach R2
Riffle
98-5
98
Flood Dimensions
5.1
97.5
8.9
Width FPA (ft)
------------------ ------------------------------------------------- ----- -----------------
Width (ft)
1.7
97
1.0
Mean Depth (ft)
v 96.5
96
Low Bank Height (ft)
1.4
w 95.5
2.6
Low Bank Height Ratio
6.2
0.8
5.2
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
Width -Depth Ratio
95
94.5
94
93.5
fl 5 1n 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Width
Bankfull Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
5.1
XS Area (sq ft)
8.9
Width FPA (ft)
5.1
Width (ft)
1.7
Entrenchment Ratio
1.0
Mean Depth (ft)
3.6
Low Bank Height (ft)
1.4
Max Depth (ft)
2.6
Low Bank Height Ratio
6.2
0.8
5.2
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
Width -Depth Ratio

Cross Section Data
Upper Rocky Mitigation Bank
Cross Section 3, Reach R3 (Downstream of 2 major headcuts)
98 Riffle
97
96 ---------- ----- - -----------------
95
c94
�3
c�
V2
LL91
90
89
88
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Width
Cross Section 4, Reach R3 (Downstream of one major headcut, upstream of one major headcut)
Riffle
100
99
------------------------- - -- -- - ---------------
98
C97
X96
aa)95
w
94
93
92
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
Width
Bankfull Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
10.1
XS Area (sq ft)
XS Area (sq ft)
8.0 Width FPA (ft)
6.1
2.2 Entrenchment Ratio
Width (ft)
1.3 Entrenchment Ratio
1.7
3.3
Mean Depth (ft)
6.5 Low Bank Height (ft)
2.1
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
Width -Depth Ratio
Max Depth (ft)
3.1 Low Bank Height Ratio
8.5
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
Width -Depth Ratio
1.2
3.7
Cross Section 4, Reach R3 (Downstream of one major headcut, upstream of one major headcut)
Riffle
100
99
------------------------- - -- -- - ---------------
98
C97
X96
aa)95
w
94
93
92
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
Width
3
Bankfull Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
10.0
XS Area (sq ft)
12.9 Width FPA (ft)
5.8
Width (ft)
2.2 Entrenchment Ratio
1.7
Mean Depth (ft)
6.0 Low Bank Height (ft)
3.3
Max Depth (ft)
1.8 Low Bank Height Ratio
9.7
1.0
3.4
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
Width -Depth Ratio
3

Cross Section Data
Upper Rocky Mitigation Bank
Cross Section 5, Reach R3 (Upstream of two major headcuts)
101
100.5
100
99.5
c99
*5
098
97.5
97
96.5
96
Riffle
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width
Cross Section 6, Reach R5
Riffle
96
Bankfull Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
10.1
XS Area (sq ft)
7.1 Width FPA (ft)
5.5
Width (ft)
5.3 Entrenchment Ratio
1.8
Mean Depth (ft)
3.0 Low Bank Height (ft)
2.1
Max Depth (ft)
1.4 Low Bank Height Ratio
11.3
0.7
3.5
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
Width -Depth Ratio
Cross Section 6, Reach R5
Riffle
96
95
Flood Dimensions
3.3
XS Area (sq ft)
6.9 Width FPA (ft)
94
Width (ft)
1.4 Entrenchment Ratio
0.6
Mean Depth (ft)
93
1.2
Max Depth (ft)
6.4 Low Bank Height Ratio
5.9
0.6
7.9
0
92
�v
91
y
w
90
89
88
87
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Width
4
Bankfull Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
3.3
XS Area (sq ft)
6.9 Width FPA (ft)
5.1
Width (ft)
1.4 Entrenchment Ratio
0.6
Mean Depth (ft)
7.3 Low Bank Height (ft)
1.2
Max Depth (ft)
6.4 Low Bank Height Ratio
5.9
0.6
7.9
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
Width -Depth Ratio
4

Cross Section 7, Reach R5
96
95 ------------ ----
94
93
092
M91
w90
89
88
87
0 10 20
Riffle
30 40
Width
Cross Section Data
Upper Rocky Mitigation Bank
50 60
Cross Section 8, Reach R4
Riffle
Bankfull Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
11.0
XS Area (sq ft)
11.7
Width FPA (ft)
7.2
Width (ft)
1.6
Entrenchment Ratio
1.5
Mean Depth (ft)
7.6
Low Bank Height (ft)
2.5
Max Depth (ft)
3.0
Low Bank Height Ratio
9.0
1.2
4.7
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
Width -Depth Ratio
Cross Section 8, Reach R4
Riffle
99
98
Flood Dimensions
5.2
97
5.9 Width FPA (ft)
5.2
96
1.1 Entrenchment Ratio
1.0
------- ---------- --------- ----------------------
95
------------------------- -----------------------
1.2
O OF
5.0 Low Bank Height Ratio
6.6
0.8
5.2
94
93
�j
92
91
90
89
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
WIM
5
Bankfull Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
5.2
XS Area (sq ft)
5.9 Width FPA (ft)
5.2
Width (ft)
1.1 Entrenchment Ratio
1.0
Mean Depth (ft)
6.0 Low Bank Height (ft)
1.2
Max Depth (ft)
5.0 Low Bank Height Ratio
6.6
0.8
5.2
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
Width -Depth Ratio
5

Cross Section Data
Upper Rocky Mitigation Bank
Cross Section 9, Reach R4
Riffle
97-5
Flood Dimensions
5.0
XS Area (sq ft)
20.0 Width FPA (ft)
6.2
Width (ft)
3.2 Entrenchment Ratio
0.8
97
1.7 Low Bank Height (ft)
1.2
Max Depth (ft)
96-5
6.8
0.7
7.6
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
Width -Depth Ratio
2.0
----------------- -------------------- ----- -----------------------------------
0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
1.0 Hydraulic Radius (ft)
96
m
Lu
95.5
95
94.5
6 5 10 15 20 25
Width
Cross Section 10, Reach R6
96
95
94
X93
�2
(D91
w90
89
88
1:7iiin-
10 15 20 25 30
Width
Bankfull Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
5.0
XS Area (sq ft)
20.0 Width FPA (ft)
6.2
Width (ft)
3.2 Entrenchment Ratio
0.8
Mean Depth (ft)
1.7 Low Bank Height (ft)
1.2
Max Depth (ft)
1.4 Low Bank Height Ratio
6.8
0.7
7.6
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
Width -Depth Ratio
2.0
Cross Section 10, Reach R6
96
95
94
X93
�2
(D91
w90
89
88
1:7iiin-
10 15 20 25 30
Width
Bankfull Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
6.6
XS Area (sq ft)
23.0
Width FPA (ft)
4.4
Width (ft)
5.3
Entrenchment Ratio
1.5
Mean Depth (ft)
5.1
Low Bank Height (ft)
2.5
Max Depth (ft)
2.0
Low Bank Height Ratio
6.9
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
1.0 Hydraulic Radius (ft)
2.9 Width -Depth Ratio

Cross Section 11, Reach R5
96
95
94
93
092
X91
Lu
89
88
87
in
10
20
Riffle
Width
30
Cross Section Data
Upper Rocky Mitigation Bank
40
50
Cross Section 12, Reach R6
98
97
96
95
94
0993
`c 92
X91
w90
89
88
87
is
10
20
Riffle
Width
47
40
50
Bankfull Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
10.3
XS Area (sq ft)
10.3 Width FPA (ft)
6.9
Width (ft)
1.5 Entrenchment Ratio
1.5
Mean Depth (ft)
7.3 Low Bank Height (ft)
2.3
Max Depth (ft)
3.2 Low Bank Height Ratio
8.9
1.2
4.7
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
Width -Depth Ratio
1.6
Cross Section 12, Reach R6
98
97
96
95
94
0993
`c 92
X91
w90
89
88
87
is
10
20
Riffle
Width
47
40
50
7
Bankfull Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
5.6
XS Area (sq ft)
37.0
Width FPA (ft)
5.6
Width (ft)
6.6
Entrenchment Ratio
1.0
Mean Depth (ft)
6.7
Low Bank Height (ft)
4.3
Max Depth (ft)
1.6
Low Bank Height Ratio
12.1
0.5
5.5
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
Width -Depth Ratio
7

Cross Section 13, Reach R6
96.5
96
95.5
C
°95
fro
{Gmi7
Cross Section Data
Upper Rocky Mitigation Bank
Riffle
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Width
Cross Section 14, Reach R9
96
95
94
93
c92
�091
a>90
w89
88
87
86
0
Riffle
10 20 30 40 50 60
Width
Bankfull Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
8.2
XS Area (sq ft)
36.5
Width FPA (ft)
14.7
Width (ft)
2.5
Entrenchment Ratio
0.6
Mean Depth (ft)
1.2
Low Bank Height (ft)
1.1
Max Depth (ft)
1.1
Low Bank Height Ratio
15.4
0.5
26.3
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
Width -Depth Ratio
Cross Section 14, Reach R9
96
95
94
93
c92
�091
a>90
w89
88
87
86
0
Riffle
10 20 30 40 50 60
Width
M
Bankfull Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
4.7
XS Area (sq ft)
11.6 Width FPA (ft)
6.7
Width (ft)
1.7 Entrenchment Ratio
0.7
Mean Depth (ft)
8.2 Low Bank Height (ft)
2.1
Max Depth (ft)
4.0 Low Bank Height Ratio
9.4
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
0.9 Hydraulic Radius (ft)
6.0 Width -Depth Ratio
M

Cross Section Data
Upper Rocky Mitigation Bank
Cross Section 15, Reach R10
Riffle
96
95
Flood Dimensions
0.9
XS Area (sq ft)
94
1.9
Width (ft)
1.3 Entrenchment Ratio
93
Mean Depth (ft)
5.7 Low Bank Height (ft)
0.6
a
92
10.2 Low Bank Height Ratio
2.6
0.3
4.4
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
Width -Depth Ratio
a
m
Lu
91
94
89
a 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Width
Bankfull Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
0.9
XS Area (sq ft)
2.4 Width FPA (ft)
1.9
Width (ft)
1.3 Entrenchment Ratio
0.4
Mean Depth (ft)
5.7 Low Bank Height (ft)
0.6
Max Depth (ft)
10.2 Low Bank Height Ratio
2.6
0.3
4.4
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
Width -Depth Ratio

Ground Water Monitoring Preliminary Results
Upper Rocky Mitigation Bank
Pre -Construction Baseline Assessment — July 2016
Thirteen Onset HOBO U20L-04 (13 foot) Data Loggers were installed throughout the Bank premises to
measure groundwater in areas where wetland preservation, restoration, enhancement, or rehabilitation
may occur (Figure 1-D). These wells were installed in April 2016. Preliminary results of the ground
water levels are being recorded daily and will be provided. Comprehensive results will be compared to
rainfall data and used to evaluate areas for wetland restoration.

Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Results
Upper Rocky Mitigation Bank
Pre -Construction Baseline Assessment — Summer 2016
WLS staff collected benthic macrointerebrate samples at two locations within the proposed Upper
Rocky Mitigation Bank in July of 2016 in accordance with the Division of Water Resources Biological
Assessment Branch (BAB) Qual 4 sampling protocol (NCDWR 2016). The macroinvertebrate collection
sites (Figure 1-D) were a subset of four water quality sites that were monitored for temperature, pH,
dissolved oxygen, and specific conductance. Identification and bioclassification of the samples were
conducted by Penrose Consulting in August 2016. Table 1 summarizes the results of this
bioclassification.
Little to no habitat existed for macroinvertebrates at Site 1. The stream was channelized and filled in
with sediment from upstream construction activities. No riffle pool structure was present. At Site 2,
there was suitable habitat. Although the channel is deeply incised, there are riffles and pools present
and there is a mixture of cobble, gravel, and sand.
No macroinvertebrates were found at Site 1; therefore, it receives a classification of "Poor'. Some
macroinvertebrates were found at Site 2 and are shown in Table 1. Site 2 received a classification of
"Fair".

Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Results
Upper Rocky Mitigation Bank
Table 1. Bioclossification of Macroinvertebrate Samples
Collection Location
Site 1
Site 2
Collection Date (mo/year)
7/6/2016
7/6/2016
Taxa Name (Biotic Index value)
Trichoptera
Family Hydropsychidae
Cheumatopsyche spp (6.6)
1
Diplectrona modesta (2.3)
1
Hydropsyche betteni (7.9)
2
Diptera: Miscellaneous families
Family Simuliidae
Simulium spp (4.9)
2
Family Tipulidae
Tipula spp (7.5)
1
Chironomidae
Parametriocnemus lundbecki (3.7)
Polypedilum aviceps (3.6)
Polypedilum illinoense grp. (8.7)
Polypedilum halterale (7.4)
Polypedilum scalaenum (8.5)
1
Rheotanytarsus spp (6.5)
Odonata
Family Coenagrionidae
Argia spp (8.3)
Oligochaeta
Family Lumbriculidae (7.0)
Crustacea
Family Asellidae
Family Cambaridae (immature) (7.5)
Total Taxa Richness
0
6
EPT Taxa Richness
0
3
EPT Abundance
0
4
Biotic Index
0
6.31
Number of taxa = 2.5 or less
0
1
DWR piedmont criteria for small streams
Poor
Fair

Benthic Macroin vertebrate Monitoring Results
Upper Rocky Mitigation Bank
References
NCDWR. 2016. Standard Operating Procedures for Collection and Analysis of Benthic
Macroinvertebrates. NC Division of Water Resources, Biological Assessment Branch. Version
5.0, February 2016. Accessed via: https:Hncdenr.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-
public/Water%20Quality/Environmental%20Sciences/BAU/NCDWRMacroinvertebrate-SOP-
February%202016_final.pdf
3

Water Quality Monitoring Results
Upper Rocky Mitigation Bank
Pre -Construction Baseline Assessment - Summer 2016
Water quality measurements included surface water temperature (°C), dissolved oxygen (mg/L and %),
specific conductance (µS/cm at 25 °C), and pH. Measurements were made in accordance with NCDWQ
guidance (NCDENR DWQ 2013). All measurements were made in situ in a representative point of the
channel that was flowing and generally at the thalweg. Measurements were made using an YSI
Professional Plus Instrument at four different representative locations during July of 2016. Table 1
outlines the results. Water quality measurements were recorded during baseflow conditions at four
locations within the proposed Bank (Figure 1-D).
Table 1
Site ID
Temperature
(°C)
Dissolved
Oxygen (mg/L)
Dissolved
Oxygen (%)
Specific
Conductance
(µS/cm)
pH
U R-1
22.3
6.54
74.7
116.7
7.70
U R-2
21.3
6.34
71.3
175.6
7.18
UR -3
22.0
4.79
54.9
129.6
7.46
UR -4
21.7
6.42
73.5
158.9
7.43
Results of monitoring efforts were analyzed based on guidance from the "REDBOOK" published by
NCDENR DWQ in 2003. The temperature results ranged from 21.3° C to 22.3° C. Temperatures should
not exceed 2.8 degrees above natural water temperature and should never exceed 29° C. Our results
therefore reflected a normal seasonal range. The water quality standard for dissolved oxygen in non -
trout waters of North Carolina is to remain above a daily average of 5.0 mg/L with a minimum value of
4.0 mg/L. The results of dissolved oxygen in the Bank easement boundaries ranged from 4.79 mg/L to
6.54 mg/L. Only one sample point was below 5.0 mg/L and no sampling points were below the minimum
value. The pH should range between 6.0 SU and 9.0 SU generally, except in backwater conditions where
the pH may be as low at 4.3 SU. Inside the Bank easement boundaries the pH ranged from 7.18 SU to
7.70 SU, well within a normal pH range. The specific conductance (SPC) was also measured at all four
sampling locations and ranged from 116.7 SPC to 175.6 SPC. The approximate values that can be
expected for specific conductance of a freshwater streams are between 100-200 µS/cm, considered to
be wide rangeing due to in -stream geology. The values collected on-site fall within the expected values.

Water Quality Monitoring Results
Upper Rocky Mitigation Bank
References
NCDENR DWQ. 2003. "REDBOOK" Surface Waters and Wetlands Standards, (NC Administrative Code
15A NCAC 02B .0100 &.0200) Accessed via: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-
12/documents/nc-classifications-wgs.pdf
NCDENR DWQ. 2013. Intensive Survey Branch Standard Operating Procedures Manual: Physical and
Chemical Monitoring, version 2.1, December 2013. Accessed via:
https://ncdenr.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/document-library/Appendix%207%20-
%201SB%20SO P%20ver%202.1-Dec.2013. pdf
2