Towanda Creek Stream and Wetland Propectus

Towanda Creek Stream & Wetland Mitigation Umbrella Bank
Bradford County, PA
Prospectus
February 2012
Contents
Appendices ...................................................................................................................................... 2 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.2 4.3 4.4 5.0 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 7.0 7.1 7.2 8.0 9.0 Sponsor ................................................................................................................................ 3 Project Purpose .................................................................................................................... 3 Regulatory Authorities ......................................................................................................... 4 Project Location & Geographic Service Area: .................................................................... 4 Geographic Service Area (Figure 1) ................................................................................ 4 Watershed Approach ........................................................................................................ 5 Local Regulated Resources .............................................................................................. 5 Project Specifications........................................................................................................... 6 Conceptual Work Plan ......................................................................................................... 8 Stream Function Enhancement Plan Orchard Creek & Spur Creek.............................. 8 Wetland Function Enhancement Plan Chippewa Swamp & Saddle Swamp .............. 10 Preliminary Mitigation Quantities .................................................................................. 12 Proposed Monitoring Protocol ........................................................................................... 13 Riverine Monitoring ....................................................................................................... 13 Wetland Monitoring ....................................................................................................... 15 Proposed Credit Release Schedules ................................................................................... 17 Accounting & Reporting Protocol ..................................................................................... 17
4.1 Project Location .................................................................................................................... 4
10.0 Landowners & Long-Term Protection: .............................................................................. 18 11.0 Financial Assurances ......................................................................................................... 18 12.0 Assurance of Sufficient Water Rights................................................................................ 19 13.0 Qualifications ..................................................................................................................... 19
Figures Figure 1. Geographic Service Area Figure 2. Project Phase Location Figure 3. Natural Gas Infrastructure Figure 4. Phase 1 Wetland & Stream Areas Figure 5. Phase 1 Soils Figure 6. Orchard Creek Figure 7. Chippewa Swamp Figure 8. Saddle Swamp & Spur Creek
Appendices Appendix A Sponsor Response to IRT Comments to Preliminary Prospectus Appendix B Pennsylvania Natural Resources Inventory Review (PNDI) Appendix C Draft Pennsylvania Department Environmental Protection Protocol Appendix D Raw Riverine Data Appendix E Raw Wetland Data
Prospectus Towanda Creek Stream & Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC to the PA IRT February 2012 Page 2
1.0
Sponsor
Restoration Systems, LLC 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211 Raleigh, NC 27604 Contact: Tara Disy Allden (919) 334-9119 tallden@restorationsystems.com 2.0 Project Purpose
The Towanda Creek Stream and Wetland Umbrella Bank will provide compensatory mitigation for permitted impacts to aquatic resources in the identified Geographic Service Area (Figure 1). It is the Sponsors intent to establish the Bank so that it may be appropriate to offset impacts from activities permitted by both the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and/or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Bank will be implemented in three phases, each containing wetland and stream components. Each phase is identified in this Prospectus. Detailed technical information is presented only for Phase 1, which is comprised of headwater systems that drain to Towanda Creek. The phases are anticipated to include the following resources as shown on Figure 2: Phase 1: o Chippewa Swamp o Orchard Creek o Spur Creek o Saddle Swamp Phase 2: o Horse Pasture Swamp o Northbob Stream o Southbob Creek o Southbob Wetland o Northbob Lower Section o Towanda Creek Stream Enhancement Phase 3: o Northdon Creek o Southdon Creek
Prospectus Towanda Creek Stream & Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank Restoration Systems, LLC to the PA IRT February 2012
Page 3
3.0
Regulatory Authorities
Compensatory mitigation for impacts to aquatic resources is regulated by the following federal and state laws: Federal o Rivers & Harbors Act, Section 10 o Clean Water Act, Section 404, Section 401 . . . o 33 CFR 332 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) o 40 CFR 230 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency State o Pennsylvania Statute Chapter 102 o Pennsylvania Statute Chapter 105 o Pennsylvania Statute Chapter 106 Project Location & Geographic Service Area:
4.0
The proposed Bank is located in Bradford County, Pennsylvania, east of the Town of Canton. See Figure 1. Project sites are located in the townships of Leroy and Granville. The Bank will be comprised of stream and wetland areas within the Towanda Creek watershed. Phase 1 site implementation will address the needs of headwater systems. Agriculture remains the dominant land use in the project area, but the development of the natural gas industry is bringing rapid change to the area (Figure 3). Well drilling, pipeline installation and associated infrastructure are expected to continue rapid expansion during the next decade. The proposed Bank will protect large areas of riparian corridor and wetlands from development and help to maintain the viability of hunting and fishing resources as well as improve water quality in the area. Local governance is carried out at both the County and township levels and neither Leroy nor Granville have any local zoning ordinance. (Sam Thrush, County Planner, Personal Communication, January 2012.) Communication and coordination will continue with local government personnel throughout project development and implementation.
4.1 Project Location
4.2
Towanda Creek is located in the Upper Susquehanna Planning Unit described in the Pennsylvania State Water Plan. The State water planning unit will serve as the appropriate Geographic Service Area for the Bank. According to the State Water Plan, the Upper/Middle Susquehanna Planning Unit contains the largest concentration of headwaters contributing to the Chesapeake Bay. Towanda Creek serves as a major tributary in the center of the watershed and is a seasonally stocked trout water with significant recreational value. The project presents a unique opportunity to restore and perpetually conserve significant headwater systems within the Towanda Creek watershed.
Geographic Service Area (Figure 1)
Page 4
4.3
The condition of Towanda Creek contributes greatly to the overall health of the Upper Susquehanna Watershed. The condition of a stream can influence the land directly around it and each body of water into which it flows and onward downstream. Towanda Creek ultimately flows into the Chesapeake Bay. The water quality of the Upper Susquehanna Watershed will increase with the remediation of Towanda Creek. According to the Towanda Creek Watershed Conservation plan, forty percent of the land in the Towanda Creek Watershed is used as cropland or pasture. This type of land usage is one of the main contributors to stream degradation. Croplands and pastures affect streams by creating pathways that allow excess sediment and nutrients to easily flow into the waterways. Excess sediment and nutrients negatively affect the biodiversity of life within the streams. Recreationally, the Upper Susquehanna Watershed is a popular trout fishing area in Pennsylvania. In 2007 an inventory of fish in the North Towanda Creek Basin was conducted which found that the streams were generally fertile but the wild trout populations had decreased. (Watershed plan pg. 102) In this study only one brook trout was collected along with rainbow trout, which were collected at only two sites of the eleven sites sampled- categorizing them as Rare. This study also found that water flow in Towanda Creek greatly diminishes in the summer, which could be one of the factors leading to smaller populations of fish in the streams. Along with diminishing fish populations due to poor stream quality there is another environmental threat facing the Towanda Creek Watershed, hydraulic fracturing. Since 2008 Marcellus Shale natural gas drilling in Bradford County has increased by 20% and has hundreds of natural gas wells drilled and this number will only continue to grow. (http://www.bradfordcountypa.org/Natural-Gas.asp) Heavy traffic and lots of dust and other organic waste is created at natural gas drilling sites which poses a threat to the Towanda Creek Watershed. The Susquehanna River Basin Commission continually monitors these sites throughout the hydraulic fracturing process (Figure 3). The restoration of headwater wetlands and streams will encourage and improve the water quality in the Towanda Creek Watershed. By removing field drainage tiles and beaver dams, and restoring the hydrology of wetlands, the ecological functions of 22.8 acres of wetlands will increase. This will decrease the amount of pollutants and sediments that run off from surrounding areas from settling in the wetlands and in time, benefitting the water quality within the wetlands and downstream. In regards to stream function stabilizing bank conditions, adding appropriate vegetation, creating more in-stream habitats and utilizing the existing flood plains, more sediment and pollutant removal and nutrient cycling will increase in the watershed; ultimately improving the functions of 6,768 linear feet of stream. Improving the streams and wetlands in the Towanda Creek Watershed will benefit not only the subject properties, but all downstream aquatic resources. The Sponsor conducted a Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) review (receipt included as Appendix B) for the project area. The search results show no known impacts for PA Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, PA Fish and Boat Commission, or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services resources of concern. The PA Game Commission database, however, highlighted unspecified Sensitive Species. The Sponsor will send additional information to the Game Commission as requested.
Watershed Approach
4.4
Local Regulated Resources
Page 5
5.0
Project Specifications
The stream and wetland areas shown on Figure 3 comprise the first phase of the proposed Umbrella Bank. The Sponsor understands that no other commercial mitigation banks exist in the subject watershed and that regulatory personnel are working to establish appropriate criteria for quantifying ecological uplift in the form of mitigation credits. The Sponsor has based the information presented here on DRAFT guidance provided by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (included as Appendix C). For the stream mitigation, it is anticipated that the following four functional groups will be addressed: 1. HAB1 = in-stream habitat (to ordinary high water mark), including flora & fauna. 2. RS = for headwater and small systems, this is Resource Support of Recreation Value (REC1), which are functions and attributes that support downstream recreation. 3. HYD1 = hydrologic functions such as floodwater storage, geomorphic channel stability & sediment transport. 4. BGC1 = biogeochemical functions, such as temperature regulation, nutrient cycling, and organic matter cycling. Figure 1 illustrates the spatial occurrence of these functions within the riparian corridor. Stream areas will be comprised of the stream channel and a 100-foot zone of influence on each side of the stream. Wetland function groups are as follows: 1. HAB2 = flora & fauna. Functional changes may be based on Cowardin and/or HGM classifications and/or specific species. 2. HYD2 = hydrologic functions such as floodwater storage, changes to surface water drainage, and landscape position. 3. BGC2 = biogeochemical functions, such as temperature regulation, nutrient cycling, and organic matter cycling, which are primarily a function of wetland hydroperiod. Wetlands will include the wetland area and a 300-foot zone of influence. All stream and wetland areas will be protected by a perpetual conservation easement.
Page 6
Illustration 1. Pennsylvania Headwater Stream Functional Areas
Blue = stream; area used to calculate HAB1, RS, & stream + floodplain = HYD1 Green = active floodplain; area used to calculate BGC1 & floodplain + stream = HYD1 Black = zone of influence; does not generate credits but is a factor in credit generation.
Functional Groups HAB1 = in-stream habitat (to ordinary high water mark), including flora & fauna. RS = for headwater and small systems, this is Resource Support of Recreation Value (REC1), which are functions and attributes that support downstream recreation. HYD1 = hydrologic functions such as floodwater storage, geomorphic channel stability & sediment transport. BGC1 = biogeochemical functions, such as temperature regulation, nutrient cycling, and organic matter cycling.
Page 7
6.0
Conceptual Work Plan
The Sponsor intends to implement the proposed Bank in three phases as shown on Figure 2. Following review of this DRAFT Prospectus by the Interagency Review Team, the Sponsor intends to follow the following implementation schedule for the Bank: Milestone Anticipated IRT Submittal Date Complete Prospectus February 2012 Draft MBI with Phase 1 Mitigation Plan June 2012 Complete MBI September 2012 Phase 1 Implementation Spring 2013 Phase 2 Implementation Spring 2014 Phase 3 Implementation Spring 2015 All dates are tentative and subject to IRT review and other constraints. A conceptual mitigation plan for Phase 1 areas is presented below. The areas to be included in Phase 1 are shown in Figures 3 and 4 and include the following: 6.1 Orchard Creek 5,518 linear feet of stream channel Spur Creek 1,250 linear feet of stream channel Chippewa Swamp 13 acres of wetland Saddle Swamp 9.8 acres of wetland Stream Function Enhancement Plan Orchard Creek & Spur Creek
Stream systems will be restored to optimal natural physical and ecological conditions using structural and vegetation measures to match reference stream conditions. The resulting stream channel conditions will be optimal with no incision or bank erosion, resulting in a post project condition index of 1.00. Native plants and rock will provide complete surface protection. The stream will have access to the existing floodplain during high flows and will have minimal transient sediment deposition features. The riparian vegetation will be established to develop toward optimal condition with full tree canopy cover and native shrubs and grasses in the understory. The riparian zone of influence will also be optimal with similar vegetation characteristics. The instream habitat conditions will be optimal, consisting of variable bedform features, velocities, refuge with natural rock and log features, fine roots along the banks, and substantial native vegetation cover. 6.12 Orchard Creek (Figure 5) Orchard Creek is an approximately 5,500-ft perennial headwater tributary to Towanda Creek surrounded by farmland and a narrow buffer. The stream system includes Reach 1 upstream of Ayers Road, Reach 2 downstream of Ayers Road, and Reach 3, a tributary flowing from a pond to the West of the mainstem downstream of Ayers Road. Reaches 1 and 2 range in width from 10 to 15 ft and in depth from 1 to 4 ft, with varying degrees of incision and bank erosion along the stream length. Near the downstream end, the system is aggrading due to excessive alluvium transported during a September 2011 flood from unstable streambanks immediately upstream. The active floodplain width ranges from zero in the incised segments up to 20 ft where alluvial floodplain benches have formed and stabilized. Several crop field drainage diversion terraces carry stormwater
Page 8
runoff into the stream near the upstream end. Reach 3 is a smaller tributary that has been substantially altered and re-routed near its confluence with Reach 2. The Orchard Creek natural stream functions will be enhanced through a combination of channel/floodplain morphology adjustments, in-stream log and rock structures, and native forest riparian buffer establishment. The channel cross-section will be adjusted to approximately 12 ft wide and 1 ft deep by lifting incised segments to re-connect with existing floodplain elevation. Log and boulder grade control sills and vanes will be used to maintain channel bottom elevation and enhance bedform diversity. Most of the stream system will remain in the current location with the exception of the downstream end of Reach 3, which will be relocated to flow across the floodplain to a natural confluence with Reach 2. Native trees and shrubs will be planted to establish a minimum 100-ft forest buffer on each side the entire stream system. 6.13 Spur Creek (Figure 7) Spur Creek is a 1,250-ft intermittent/perennial headwater tributary to Horsepasture Creek surrounded by farmland and a narrow buffer. The stream system originates in the Saddle Swamp wetland area with no defined channel and flows to the Southwest. The channel ranges in width from 5 to 10 ft and in depth from 1 to 2 ft, with varying degrees of incision and bank erosion along the stream length. Near the downstream end, the stream is surrounded by a wide tree buffer. The active floodplain width ranges from zero in the incised segments up to 40 ft where alluvial floodplain benches have formed and stabilized. The Spur Creek natural stream functions will be enhanced through a combination of channel/floodplain morphology adjustments, in-stream log and rock structures, and native forest riparian buffer establishment. The channel cross-section will be adjusted to approximately 6 ft wide and 0.5 ft deep by lifting incised segments to re-connect with existing floodplain elevation. Log and boulder grade control sills and vanes will be used to maintain channel bottom elevation and enhance bedform diversity. Most of the stream system will remain in the current location. Native trees and shrubs will be planted to establish a minimum 100-ft forest buffer on each side the entire stream system. The table below quantifies the existing and proposed conditions for Orchard Creek and Spur Creek as determined using the Draft Pennsylvania Riverine Condition Rapid Assessment, December 2011. Raw data can be found in spreadsheets included as Appendix D herein.
Table 1. Riverine Functional Areas, Existing Condition Index, and Proposed Condition Index. Functional Area (ac) HAB1 OR 1 OR 2 OR 3 Orchard Total Spur Total Total 0.68 0.57 0.23 1.47 0.17 1.65 RS 0.68 0.57 0.23 1.47 0.17 1.65 HYD1 9.14 7.66 3.67 20.48 3.04 23.52 BGC1 8.46 7.09 3.44 19.00 2.87 21.87 Existing CI 0.53 0.53 0.15 Proposed CI 1.00 1.00 1.00 CIdiff 0.47 0.47 0.85
0.51
1.00
0.49
Page 9
6.2
Wetland Function Enhancement Plan Chippewa Swamp & Saddle Swamp
Jurisdictional wetlands are defined by the presence of three criteria: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and evidence of wetland hydrology during the growing season (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Portions of the Bank supporting jurisdictional wetlands may originally have been characterized by palustrine, forested wetlands which were saturated to seasonally flooded. However, onsite wetland areas have been impacted by beaver, stormwater and nutrient inputs, livestock trampling, application of herbicides and fertilizers, deforestation, fill, and grading. Two degraded wetland areas are located within Phase 1 of the proposed Bank: the Chippewa Swamp located in the northern portion of the Bank, and the Saddle Swamp located near the center of the Bank. Soil types for these areas are shown in Figure 4. Wetland mitigation efforts are intended to normalize surface and groundwater levels to those characteristic of appropriate wetland hydrology, replace native vegetation communities, and reestablish soil structure and microtopographic variations. Mitigation efforts will allow the wetland areas to perform functions such as flood-flow suppression, nutrient cycling, and sediment and pollutant removal, and are expected to raise the function of approximately 19.8 acres of wetland. Pennsylvania Wetland Condition Stressor Worksheets (PWCSWs) were completed to quantify the major stressors on Site wetlands. Site wetlands were evaluated for the functional condition of the area within the 300-foot Zone of Influence (ZOI), evidence of vegetation stressors, hydrologic modifications, sediment inputs, eutrophication, water contaminants, and the presence of roads and invasive species. Each functional condition score represents the approximate percentage of wetland function maintained by the wetland area as compared to a system with no stressors. The PWCSWs indicate that each wetland area is subject to numerous stressors that will be addressed by wetland mitigation activities. Raw data forms are included as Appendix E. 6.21 Chippewa Swamp (Figure 6) The Chippewa Swamp portion of the Bank supports riparian jurisdictional wetlands that are characterized by permanent to semi-permanently flooded, palustrine wetlands underlain by hydric soils that exhibit low chroma colors, and that generally supports emergent marsh vegetation. This area occupies approximately 12.8 acres and has been physically and chemically impacted by filling and grading, culverts, drain tiles, and agricultural roads, nutrient inputs from adjacent row crop production, and beaver activity. Hydrology in this area has been increased by concentrated stormwater flow from adjacent agricultural field drainage tiles, and altered by beaver and undersized drainage culverts. The dominant stressor of the Chippewa Swamp wetland is the ZOI composition. The ZOI encompassing this wetland area is composed primarily of pasture lands that are dominated by low herbaceous vegetation and compacted soils. Numerous hydrologic modifications also contribute to the degradation of this wetland system. Fill from adjacent agricultural areas and roads, beaver activity, and stormwater input from adjacent pasture and agricultural land drainage tiles have altered the hydrology and generally increased water levels in this area. Undersized drainage culverts have lengthened the inundated hydroperiod. The primary stressor to vegetation within the Chippewa Swamp is the destruction of most trees by beaver herbivory and increased water levels. Water quality stressors include the application of herbicides and fertilizers to adjacent areas. A summary of
Page 10
current wetland stressor conditions along with the expected post-project conditions and resultant functional uplift are presented in the following table.
Table 2. Chippewa Swamp Wetland Functional Condition Indices Functional Condition Indices 1. Wetland ZOI Condition 2. Roadbed Presence 3. Vegetation Condition 4. Hydrologic Modification 5. Sediment Stressor 6. Water Quality Stressor Total of Indices Average of Indices (Overall Wetland Condition Index)
*Pre-Project
Condition Score 0.31 0.75 0.88 0.45 1.00 0.88 4.27 0.71
Expected Post-Project Condition Score 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 5.75 0.96
Percent Change to Functional Condition 223 0 14 122 0 14 35 35
*Pre-Project Condition Score: Scores for wetland condition indices have been generated by a field assessment of Site wetlands with the PWCSW. The maximum score for any individual index is 1.0.
6.22 Saddle Swamp (Figure 7) The Saddle Swamp portion of the Bank supports non-riparian jurisdictional wetlands that are characterized by palustrine wetlands underlain by hydric soils that are generally saturated and exhibit low chroma colors. Vegetation within this area is generally composed of a single stratum of herbaceous vegetation due to livestock grazing, row crop production, and routine maintenance. The saddle swamp occupies approximately 7.0 acres and has been impacted by livestock grazing and row crop production, filling, grading, installation of a dam, and the removal of native vegetation and woody debris. Approximately 6.2 acres supports livestock and is impacted by livestock grazing and associated soil compaction, while the remaining 0.8 acre is in use for row crops and has incurred tilling, maintenance, and row crop production. Hydrology in this area is primarily due to groundwater springs and surface runoff. Soil infiltration has been reduced through compaction due to hoof shear and agricultural equipment. Hydric soils have generally been mapped by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) as Chippewa; however, the wetland area located on the western slope of the Saddle Swamp is located within a Volusia channery silt loam mapping unit. According to the Cowardin classification (Cowardin et al. 1979), jurisdictional wetlands located within the beaver swamp may be generally classified as palustrine, persistent emergent wetlands that are semipermanently to seasonally flooded (PEM1F/H). Jurisdictional wetlands within the Saddle Swamp may be generally classified as palustrine, broad-leaved and deciduous shrub-scrub wetlands that are saturated on a semipermanent to seasonal basis (PSS1Y). The dominant stressor of the Saddle Swamp wetland is the ZOI composition. The ZOI encompassing this wetland area is composed primarily of pasture lands that are dominated by low herbaceous vegetation and compacted soils. Numerous hydrologic modifications also contribute to the degradation of this wetland system and include fill from adjacent agricultural areas and a breached dam. Vegetation alteration is a serious stressor of the Saddle Swamp. Vegetation is grazed by livestock throughout the majority of the area, along with areas of mowing, brushcutting, woody
Page 11
debris removal, row crop production, and herbicide applications. Fertilizer and herbicide applications to adjacent areas are also dominant water quality stressors. A summary of current wetland stressor conditions along with the expected post-project conditions and resultant functional uplift are presented in the following table.
Table 3. Saddle Swamp Wetland Functional Condition Indices *Pre-Project Expected Post-Project Functional Condition Indices Condition Score Condition Score 1. Wetland ZOI Condition 0.19 1.00 2. Roadbed Presence 0.95 0.95 3. Vegetation Condition 0.48 1.00 4. Hydrologic Modification 0.75 1.00 5. Sediment Stressor 0.75 1.00 6. Water Quality Stressor 0.65 1.00 Total of Indices 3.77 5.95 Average of Indices 0.63 0.99 (Overall Wetland Condition Index) Percent Change to Functional Condition 426 0 108 33 33 54 58 58
*Pre-Project Condition Score: Scores for wetland condition indices have been generated by a field assessment of Site wetlands with the PWCSW. The maximum score for any individual index is 1.0.
6.23 Wetland Approach Currently, Bank wetlands exhibit overall wetland functions of approximately two-thirds the level of a reference system. Alternatives for wetland mitigation are designed to raise multiple functions within each wetland to a level generally analogous to those of an undisturbed wetland area. These activities are anticipated to result in the improvement of degraded emergent and scrub shrub wetlands to forested palustrine wetlands with natural hydrology ranging from soil saturation to seasonal inundation (PFO1B/C). This forested palustrine system is expected to provide surface water energy dissipation, nutrient cycling, removal of imported elements and compounds, and will create a variety and abundance of wildlife habitat. Mitigation activities are expected to raise the functional conditions of approximately 19.8 acres of jurisdictional wetlands. Wetland areas are expected to benefit from the following activities: Mitigation of Site hydrology. o Remove adjacent agricultural field drainage tiles that drain to wetland areas. o Remove beaver structures and debris. o Replace/upgrade drainage culverts under road adjacent to the beaver swamp. o Ground surface alteration/introduction of microtopographic variation. o Restore hydrology from upslope springs through channel creation. Remove fill and relict dam. Plant Zones of Influence with native forest vegetation typical of wetland communities in the region. Preliminary Mitigation Quantities
6.3
Preliminary determinations of the compensatory mitigation credits that will be provided from the Bank are shown in Tables 4 (Riverine) and 5 (Wetlands) below. The quantities were determined using field indicators or existing resource conditions and proposed post-project resource conditions
as described in the sections above and based on the DRAFT Pennsylvania Aquatic Resource Function Based Compensation Protocol, December 2011. Functional credit gain was determined for each functional group based on the relevant resource area to be improved and then adjusted in all cases as a perimeter Zone of Influence (ZOI) will be established and conserved for all project areas. Field data forms and raw numerical data are included as Appendix D.
Table 4. Preliminary Riverine Mitigation Quantities (Rv = 2; Cv = 3; Af = 0.75) Functional Credit Gain HAB1 OR 1 OR 2 OR 3 Orchard Total Spur Total Total 1.91 1.60 1.17 4.68 0.51 5.19 RS 1.91 1.60 1.17 4.68 0.51 5.19 HYD1 25.78 21.60 18.73 66.12 8.94 75.06 BGC1 23.87 20.00 17.56 61.44 8.44 69.87 Adjusted Functional Credit Gain HAB1 2.66 2.35 1.92 5.43 1.26 6.69 RS 2.66 2.35 1.92 5.43 1.26 6.69 HYD1 26.53 22.35 19.48 66.87 9.69 76.56 BGC1 24.62 20.75 18.31 62.19 9.19 71.37
Table 5. Preliminary Wetland Mitigation Quantities Total Phase 1 Wetland Functional Credit Gain 27.14 27.14 Total Phase 1 Wetland Functional Credit Gain w/ZOI 99.35 99.35
Function Group BGC2 HYD2
Chippewa 13.00 13.00
Chippewa + ZOI 39.29 39.29
Saddle 14.14 14.14
Saddle + ZOI 60.06 60.06
HAB2 13.00 39.29 14.14 60.06 27.14 99.35 Where FCG = Ap*Rv*Cv*CIdiff; Resource Value Factor (Rv = 2); Compensation Value Factor (Cv =2).
7.0
Proposed Monitoring Protocol
The objective of the Bank is to implement appropriate, sustainable aquatic resource communities. The Sponsor will develop an appropriate monitoring protocol to address the core resource functions water quality, carrying capacity, habitat and recreation and to provide quantifiable measures of success. It is anticipated that the site will be monitored for five years post implementation. Proposed monitoring protocol includes the following.
7.1
The protocol developed by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection focuses on four primary riverine functional areas. Data collected for each functional group and rationale for such is described below.
Riverine Monitoring
Page 13
7.11 HAB1 All restored streams will be assessed annually for habitat quality and compared to reference streams using EPAs Rapid Bioassessment for Wadeable Streams and Rivers, which accounts for the value of the following 10 parameters: (1) Epifaunal Substrate/Available Cover: Small deadfall and snags placed throughout the newly designed channels to provide cover, spawning areas, and food. (2) Pool Substrate Characterization: Multiple substrates provide for higher diversity and increased habitat. Submerged and adjacent vegetation increases niches. (3) Pool Variability: Multiple pool types including large-shallow, large-deep, small-shallow, and smalldeep, support diverse aquatic communities. Variability in pool sizes will increase and encourage organisms re-establishment. (4) Sediment Deposition: Increased sediment deposition leads to decreased diversity. By designing new streams that function properly with a bankfull at or near top of bank, excessive sediment deposition should be decreased. (5) Channel Flow Status: When water does not fill all the available channel, suitable substrate for aquatic organisms is limited. Re-configured channels/floodplains allow for water to fill all the available channel thus increasing available habitat. (6) Channel Alteration: Incised streams increase velocity and shear stress, causing erosion and sedimentation, and limiting habitat. (7) Channel Sinuosity: Increased bends provide refuge for fish and macros during high flow and storm events. (8) Bank Stability: Eroded banks indicate a problem of sediment movement and deposition, and suggest a scarcity of cover and organic input to streams. (9) Bank Vegetative Protection: Bank vegetation provides organic input, shading, and bank stabilization. (10) Riparian Vegetative Zone Width: Vegetative zones serve as buffers to pollutants, controls erosion, and provide nutrients and habitat in and near the stream. 7.12 RS Downstream recreation value is related to trout fisheries. This will be evaluated using annual benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring to document populations of EPT taxa compared to reference streams. 7.13 HYD1 Stream morphology will be measured annually to evaluate hydrologic functions. For every 1,000 linear feet of restored stream, a 300-ft monitoring segment will be identified for repeated measurements: (1) cross-sections will be surveyed in two riffles and two pools to assess changes in channel and floodplain width, depth, area, and entrenchment ratio; (2) a longitudinal profile will be
measured to assess bed feature slopes, depths, riffle and pool lengths, and step heights; (3) a plan view survey will be used to determine sinuosity, meander length, belt width, and radius of curvature; (4) pebble counts collected reach-wide and in riffle pavement will be used to assess trends in sediment transport. 7.14 BGC1 Biogeochemical functions will be assessed using annual measures of shade cover, baseflow temperature and DO.
7.2
The proposed monitoring protocol has been developed utilizing PA DEP draft Level 2 Rapid Assessment Methods (PA DEP draft) and documentation concerning hydrogeomorphic classification of wetlands in Pennsylvania and across the United States (Wardrop et al. 2004, and Brinson et al. 1995). HGM wetland types identified at the Site include Riverine Headwater Complex, Stratigraphic Slope (mineral soil), and Lacustrine - Semipermanently Flooded; each of which is characterized as providing a series of distinct wetland functions. Wetland functions provided by each HGM wetland type may be monitored to determine functional uplift for mitigation activities implemented at the Site. Three main functional groups have been identified for the Site using HGM methodology: hydrology, biogeochemical reactions, and habitat. Within each functional group, metrics have been identified which may be measured, or observed for Site mitigation monitoring. Functional groups and monitoring metrics include the following. HYDROLOGY (HYD2) Groundwater Hydrology Stressors Elevation Gradient Mannings Roughness Coefficient BIOGEOCHEMICAL REACTIONS (BGC2) Elevation Gradient Mannings Roughness Coefficient Macrotopographic Roughness Redoxomorphic Features Organic Matter HABITAT (HAB2) Species Composition Coarse Woody Debris Aquatic Conductivity Regeneration of Canopy Species Percent of Non-native Plant Species Diversity Redoxomorphic Features Macrotopography Floodplain Function Deviation Floodplain Wetland Hydrology Biomass Presence of Snags Coarse Woody Debris Soil Texture Fine Woody Debris Percent Development and Road Density Organic Matter Presence of Snags Fine Woody Debris Habitat Suitability Mean Forest Patch Size
Wetland Monitoring
Page 15
From a mitigation perspective, several of these metrics are landscape dependent, encompassing 1 kilometer of the land adjacent to the Site. These metrics will not be altered by mitigation activities (i.e. Elevation Gradient, Percent Development and Road Density, and Mean Forest Patch Size). Therefore, these metrics will not be useful to monitor for mitigation success. Other metrics which are not expected to be altered by mitigation activities, or will not alter during the relatively short (5 to 7 year) monitoring period include soil texture, regeneration of canopy species, and presence of snags. Monitoring for the Site is proposed to measure functions that are easily observed and readily alterable through the mitigation process. These functions include the following. HYDROLOGY VHYDROCHAR (Characteristic Wetland Groundwater Hydrology) Groundwater gauge data collection and/or visual assessments of hydrologic conditions typical of the appropriate wetland system. VHYDROSTRESS (Hydrologic Modifications) Determine stressors to hydrology using stressor checklists (PA DEP draft). VROUGH (Mannings Roughness Coefficient) Identify roughness at the Site resulting from coarse woody debris, microtopography, and biomass. VFLOODP (Characteristic Floodplain Wetland Hydrology) Visual indicators of overbank flooding and measurements of bankfull width/area. VMACRO (Macrotopographic Relief) Identify the number of macrotopographic depressions encountered along transects. BIOGEOCHEMICAL REACTIONS VROUGH (Mannings Roughness Coefficient) Identify roughness at the Site resulting from coarse woody debris, microtopography, and biomass. VMACRO (Macrotopographic Relief) Identify the number of macrotopographic depressions encountered along transects. VORGMA (% Soil Organic Matter) Determine the organic content of the top 5 cm of soil sample. VFWD (Fine Woody Debris) Visual estimate of depth of litter layer. VBIOMASS (Biomass) A combination of percent cover of trees, shrubs, and herbs to determine vegetative biomass at the site. HABITAT VSPPCOMP (Species Composition) Determine the species composition for each plot within the Site. VEXOTIC (Percent of Non-Native Plant Species) Generate a plant list and determine the ratio of native species to exotic/invasive species, or map areas of exotic/invasive species and determine area as a percentage of the total area.
VFWD (Fine Woody Debris) Visual estimate of depth of litter layer. VORGMA (% Soil Organic Matter) Determine the organic content of the top 5 cm of soil sample. 8.0 Proposed Credit Release Schedules
In accordance with the federal Compensatory Mitigation Rule, the first credit release shall occur upon execution of the Mitigation Banking Instrument, provision of financial assurances (FA) and protection of the project area within a conservation easement (CE). Subsequent credit releases should be based on the ability of the project to meet success criteria as determined through the monitoring protocol that indicate the restored and enhanced aquatic resources are trending toward full functionality. Site performance will be documented in an annual monitoring report that will be submitted to the IRT no later than December 31 of each year.
Table 6. Proposed Credit Release Schedule for Riverine Systems. Task Percent Credit Release MBI Execution, FA, CE 15 Construction, Planting, As-Built 15 Year 1 Successful Monitoring 10 Year 2 Successful Monitoring 15 (max., 10 w/o bf) Year 3 Successful Monitoring 15 (10 w/o bf) Year 5 Successful Monitoring 15 (10 w/o bf) Year 7 Successful Monitoring 15 (10 w/o bf) Table 7. Proposed Credit Release Schedule for Wetland Systems. Task Percent Credit Release MBI Execution, FA, CE 15 Construction, Planting, As-Built 15 Year 1 Monitoring 15 Year 2 Monitoring 15 Year 3 Monitoring 15 Year 5 Monitoring 15 Year 7 Monitoring 10
9.0
Accounting & Reporting Protocol
The Sponsor shall submit to the DE, for distribution to each member of the IRT, an annual report describing the current condition of the Bank and the condition of the Bank in relation to the success criteria in the Mitigation Plan. The Sponsor shall provide to the DE annual monitoring reports documenting the criteria and relative success of the project as described herein. The Sponsor shall provide ledger reports documenting credit transactions and shall provide notification the DE each time a credit transaction occurs.
Page 17
10.0
Landowners & Long-Term Protection:
The Sponsor currently has permission from each landowner to investigate the feasibility of developing the Towanda Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank. This prospectus is the first step in assessing the Bank project. Each landowner understands that prior to the first credit release the Sponsor will acquire a Conservation Easement over each project segment in order to provide perpetual protection of the mitigation area. As such, the Sponsor will work with the landowners listed in Table 8 below to ensure that no conflicting property interests exist at the time the Conservation Easement is placed upon the subject property. It is anticipated that an approved conservation organization will be the long-term holder of the easements. The Sponsor will provide a template Conservation Easement document to the IRT at the time the Mitigation Banking Instrument is submitted.
Table 8. Adjacent property owners for Phase 1.
Owner Name Jennings, Robert L. Jennings, Robert L. West Martin O. Decristo, David M. Jennings, Robert L. Fleming, Elwin E. Address 639 Jennings Rd. 639 Jennings Rd. 755 Bunyan Hill Rd. 6740 Windfall Road 639 Jennings Rd. 1619 Route 514 City Orchard Creek Canton Canton Granville Summit Canton Canton Granville Summit PA PA PA PA PA PA 17724 17724 16926 17724 17724 16926 2001/12207 2001/12208 2004/14093 2004/05124 2001/12207 049/90128 State Zip Code Deed
Saddle Swamp / Spur Creek & Chippewa Swamp Shedden Scott L. Jennings, Gregory D. Jennings, Robert L. Jennings, Robert L. N. Hills Gun Club INC. Jennings, Robert L. 6197 Route 414 1400 Deboy St. 639 Jennings Rd. 639 Jennings Rd. 2370 Ogden Ave. RR 1 BOX 82A Canton Raleigh Canton Canton Bensalem Canton PA NC PA PA PA PA 17724 27606 17724 17724 19020 17724 055/90270 2002/14090 2007/04022 1999/05844 035/00800 029/61035
11.0
Financial Assurances
The Sponsor shall provide financial assurances in a form acceptable to the IRT sufficient to assure completion of all remaining mitigation work, required reporting and monitoring, and any remedial work required pursuant to this MBI. It is anticipated that financial assurances will be either in the form of a surety bond or casualty insurance. The Sponsor shall secure financial assurances in compliance with current industry standard and in compliance with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers guidance.
Page 18
12.0
Assurance of Sufficient Water Rights
The wetland and stream areas that comprise the Bank present a unique opportunity to address several headwater systems to Towanda Creek, which is a major tributary to the Susquehanna River. These headwater areas are driven primarily groundwater hydrology originating onsite. These seeps will be protected by conservation easements. As such, it is unlikely that offsite activities or topographic manipulation will interfere with hydrology of project reaches. 13.0 Qualifications
Sponsor
Restoration Systems is a leading environmental restoration and mitigation banking company with more than 40 bonded, turn-key mitigation sites and banks in Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and North-Central Pennsylvania. These projects total more than 22,000 acres of wetlands and 50 miles of creeks, streams, rivers and bayous. Founded in 1998, the company is headquartered in Raleigh, North Carolina. RS was formed to improve the quality of environmental restoration and mitigation by locating and acquiring the best properties, planning their restoration using advanced science and technology, constructing them in the most conscientious manner, and maintaining and monitoring them over the long term. Each RS project or bank is protected, in perpetuity, by environmentally protective conservation easements. RS has been a preeminent force in the development of successful aquatic mitigation Banks and turnkey projects in North Carolina for more than 15 years. RSs qualifications are best illustrated by its track record in selecting high quality sites and highly skilled technical experts in site evaluation, design and implementation is well-demonstrated. RS has designed and implemented more than 25 wetland, stream and riparian buffer mitigation sites/banks in Maryland, Texas, Tennessee, Louisiana, Pennsylvania and North Carolina, representing thousands of acres of wetlands and miles of streams. Furthermore, RS provides financial surety for every project through every phase of work and each site is inspected by staff at least quarterly following the completion of monitoring responsibilities. Included among the stream and wetland mitigation projects completed, or in advanced planning by RS are: Project Anderson Angola Bay Bear Creek Big Bull Creek Brogdon Road Brown Marsh Swamp Burrows Cove Cane Creek Carbonton Dam Casey Dairy Causey Farm The Cliffs State NC NC NC NC NC NC TN NC NC NC NC NC Status Monitoring Year 5 In Development Post-Monitoring Monitoring Year 5 Monitoring Year 5 Monitoring Year 4 Monitoring Year 2 Monitoring Year 4 Close-Out Close-Out Close-Out In Development
Page 19
Columbus Swamp NC Monitoring Year 3 Cutawhiskie NC Monitoring Year 4 Elk Shoals NC Monitoring Year 5 Fox Run NC Monitoring Year 2 Frog Hollow NC Close-Out Gatlin Swamp NC Monitoring Year 5 Gray Farm NC Monitoring Year 5 Haw River NC Close-Out Herman Dairy NC Under Construction Holly Grove NC Monitoring Year 4 Jarmans Oak NC Monitoring Year 4 Lick Creek NC Monitoring Year 5 Lloyd NC Monitoring Year 5 Lowell Mill Dam NC Close-Out Morgan Creek NC Monitoring Year 3 Salisbury-Wicomico MD Monitoring Year 4 Sleepy Creek NC Monitoring Year 5 Summit Seep NC Under Construction Three-Mile Creek NC Monitoring Year 3 Cranstons Mill Pond VA Under Construction Cripple Creek NC Monitoring Year 2 Bass Mountain NC In Development Pancho NC In Development Salisbury III MD In Development Jesuit Bend LA In Development South Lafourche LA In Development Little Hazel GA In Development Katy Prairie TX In Development Specific project information and reference contacts are available upon request. In addition to the Sponsor, Dr. Greg Jennings (landowner, lead project designer) will play a key role in project development and implementation. Greg Jennings, PhD, is a professional engineer with 25 years of experience in education, research, and consulting on ecosystem assessment and restoration. As a Professor at North Carolina State University, he teaches watershed hydrology, fluvial geomorphology, stream assessment and restoration, ecological engineering, erosion and sedimentation control, natural channel design, and stormwater management. Dr. Jennings directs the NCSU Stream Restoration Program, which conducts research and education programs focused on natural approaches for restoring stream and floodplain functions and stability. He also advises government agencies, non-profit organizations, and private landowners on effective watershed management and stream restoration and protection approaches. Dr. Jennings has provided technical support for stream assessment and restoration implementation for more than 150,000 linear feet of streams and rivers on more than 80 watershed restoration project sites throughout the nation. He has also taught more than 150 professional development workshops in 20 states on stream assessment, restoration planning, natural channel design, watershed management, construction practices for stream restoration, and ecosystem restoration monitoring. Dr. Jennings is a native of Canton, Pennsylvania, and holds B.S. and M.S. degrees in engineering from The Pennsylvania State University and a Ph.D. in engineering from the University of Nebraska.
_ ^
1101 Haynes St., Suite 211 Raleigh, NC 27605 Ph: 919.755.9490 Fax: 919.755.9492 www.restorationsystems.com
Service Area Legend
_ ^ Project Location
Upper Susquehanna Service Area
. !
Latitude: 41.667905 Longitude: -76.749811 (NAD 83/wgs 84)

Project Location
PM - TDA Date: February 2012 Scale: 1 inch = 10,000 feet
Legend
Bradford County Streams
Geographic Service Area Upper Susquehanna River Basin

Drawn By - RJH
Miles 0 1 2 4 6 8
Coordinate System: NAD_83_SPPAN FT Imagery: 2011 N. G. Society, i-cubed
Figure 1
Bradford County

Natural Gas Activity
PM - TDA Date: February 2012 Not to Sacle Imagery: Susquehanna R.B.C.
Legend
Special Note: Map data sponsored by the Susquehanna River Basin Commission General Project Location Approved Gas Pad Locations
Drawn By - RJH
Coordinate System: NAD_83_SPPAN FT
Figure 3a

PM - TDA
Natural Gas Pipeline Activity

Drawn By - RJH
Legend
Gathering - Built
Special Note: Map data sponsored by Bradford County GIS

Service - Built Storage - Built Transport- Built Transport- Proposed Meter Station Compressor Station Tap Location Substation Horizontal Gas Well Vertical Gas Well Active Geneeral Project Location
Date: February 2012 Not to Sacle Coordinate System: Imagery: Bradford County GIS 2012
Gathering - Proposed
Figure 3b
Orchard Creek Chippewa Swamp

Spur Creek & Saddle Swamp

Legend
FEMA 100 Year Floodplain Towanda Creek & Existing Tributaries Phase 1: Zone of Influence Boundary Miles
Phase 1: Wetland & Stream Areas

Date: February 2012 PM - TDA Scale: 1 inch = 2,500 feet
Drawn By - RJH
Coordinate System: NAD_83_SPPAN FT Imagery: Ortho PA 2010
0.25
0.5
1.5
2.5
Figure 4
VoC MaB MaC VoB VoC MaC CpB CpA VoB CpB CpA Ho VoB CpB MaC VoC
MaB CpB VoB MaB
MaB
Ho VoB
VoB
Chippewa Swamp
CpB CpA VoB MaC VoC
MaB
MaB
CpB
Orchard Creek
VoC VoB 1101 Haynes St., Suite 211 Raleigh, NC 27605 Ph: 919.755.9490 Fax: 919.755.9492 www.restorationsystems.com VoB
Ho MaC
MaC CpB
CpA VoC MaC VoB
VoB
VoB
MaB Po VoB VoD MaC Uc CpA MaC Ho VoD
MaB VoB CpB VoB CpA
MaB
MaC
MaC
VoD
VoC
VoB VoB VoD MbD MbD Uc VsD VsB VsB MaB MbD VoB MoC CpB VoC VsBHo CpB VoB VsD CpB MbD VoD VoB Ln ReA WbB WbC Ln Ln Uc ReB VoD
VoC
VoC
VoB MaC VoC
CpB MaC VoD VoB VoD MsB MoC VoC
Ho
CpA
Ln Uc VoB MoB MsD MoC WbC
VoB CpA VoB VoD VoC VoB VoB Ho Ln MoC VoB VoB WbC MsB
Spur Creek & Saddle Swamp

WbB WbC VoB
MaC
WbC
MoB
MoC
MoC MaC Uc MoB Uc MoC
VoD MsD
VoC
WbC
MoB MoC
WbC
MoC Ln MoC MoB
Ho
Ln
Legend
WbC NRCS Hydric A Soils Phase 1: Zone of Influence Boundaries WbB NRCS Hydric B Soils MsB

Phase 1: Soils
Date: February 2012 PM - TDA Scale: 1 inch = 2,500 feet Imagery: Ortho PA 2010
VoB
VoC
MoC MoB MoC MoC MoC MoC
MoB Ln MoC
CpA CpB Ho
MoC MsD MoC MsD
Drawn By - RJH
MsD
Ho
MsD MoB
WbC MoB
MoC
Miles 0.25 0.5 1

WgB
WgB
Md
MsB CpA 2.5
MoC
1.5
Figure 5
14 46
1444
1538
154 8
152 4
1444
4 158
58 15
86 15
72 15
26 15
22 14
143 2
1456
1410
141 4
146 8
147 6
146 0
1480
148 6
1560
34 15
1454
148 4
1496
1482
74 15
4 155
62 15
1544
76 15
6 156
146 4
0 151
1466
1474
1556
2 154
144 6
1550
15 22
44 14
1528
1530
32 15
0 152
151 8
1510
1512
4 150
1502
14 22
1468
1464
1404
144 8
1452
1458
1462
13 94
1450
8 149
14 70
147 2
12 14
14 16
146 2
138 4
139 8
138 0
1410
1392
1101 Haynes St., Suite 211 Raleigh NC 27604

1400
1504
1490
1488
148 6
1440
1464
1518
52 14
44 14
1456
1462
13 82
86 13
1454
137 0
1388
Ph: 919.755.9490 Fax: 919.755.9492 www.restorationsystems.com
1372
1458
1464
14 58
151 8
14 80
152 2
15 06
14 82
1494
40 14
1440
1440
1474
1476
151 4
1470
1482
1486
4 148
1480
1480
1478
76 14
72 14
15 20
1484
141 4
1508
143 2
14 20
152 2
14 34
1406
8 146
14 64
1506
1442
140 0
14 06
139 2
14 02
142 2
143 8
14 44
143 6
13 50
13 36
14 52
1458
2 134
134 8
134 2
1434
1504
139 6
2 141
14 08
139 4
1488
13 84
2 142
1428
Drainage Area ~ 274 ac.

6 145
150 6
137 4
1360
138 6
1434
14 24
139 0
1432
142 8
14 38
1400
1394
00 15
150 4
AYRES RD
136 4
1434
1366
1408
72 14
135 6
1506
151 2
1516
13 52
1474
1472
Latitude: 41.684084 Longitude: -76.72973 (NAD 83/WGS 84)

1378
Reach 2 ~ 2,060 l. ft.

13 70
133 8
1510
15 08
13 92
13 42
1342
1340
13 58
13 74
13 88
14 02
14 18
Reach 3 ~ 1,000 l. ft.
13 34
14 26
. !
13 68
13 84
13 98
13 76
14 30
1500
13 28
13 42
14 04
13 82
1492
14 14
13 44

Reach Name: Project Manager: TDA Date: February 2012 Scale: Shown
14 56
1316
13 34
14 88
134 0
13 70
14 16
14 18
Site Drainage Legend

135 0
134 8
1334
1336
1
3 Orchard Creek Restoration 34
FWS Nation Wetland Inventory

50 13
54 13
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
13 90
Orchard Creek Legend

. !
Site Location Existing Channel to be Filled Orchard Creek Restoration
8 147
146 6
1478
1462
144 6
13 90
14 40
149 0
13 88
13 46
129 2
130 4
13 40
132 2
131 2
Orchard Creek
129 4
1332
Towanda Creek & Tributaries 1 inch = 500 feet

40 13
2 133
52 13
Freshwater Forested / Shrub Wetland Freshwater Pond Riverine Wetland13

34 13
42 13 48
4 2 Foot 4Contours 1 8
148 14 Orchard Creek Zone of Influence ~ 30.00ac. 2
94
14 76
4 150
1506
1514
1502
151 2
Towanda Creek & Existing Tributaries

30 15
2 15
151 8
133 2
14 60
128 6
1500
1520
6 153
12 92
1262
13 44
12 64
Approx. Location of Future Stream
0 154
15 36
14 88
1306
1278
13 00
12 96
131 6
13 02
12 68
13 20
153 4
15 24
0
16 15
14 48
Feet 262.5 525 1,050 1,575
12 60
Aerial Image: NAIP2010_Bradford
2,100
Figure 6
PHASE I
1440
6 149
0 146
14 70
96 14
56 14
13 74
66 13
78 13
68 14
16 15
1454
1372
1368
18 14
Reach 1 ~ 2,458 l. ft.
64 13
96 13
52 13
1358
02 14
56 13
1454
60 13
34 13
08 14
20 14
40 13
6 134
1426
0 143
4 135
62 13
6 137
06 14
1478
6 143
76 13
6 138
72 13
1424
1342
4 150
64 13
1396
0 141
0 138
0 145
1514
R DE CI
82 13
0 142
12 14
6 140
78 13
RD LL MI
70 13
62 13
62 13
q
Drawn By: RJH
4 140
56 13
44 13
16 14
2 144
1324
6 132
98 13
48 13
10 13
60 13
1348
30 13
14 13
1346
18 13
08 13
66 13
36 13
1298
1288
1280
8 133
82 14
1518
1460
1520
1520
15 20
8 151
15 20
0 152
14 80
1526
1520
1516
1512
15 20
15 18
15 24
8 140
0 141
2 142
8 141
6 144
8 143
8 140
6 141
4 141
0 145
8 145
86 14
1466
1462
147 4
148 2
1488
15 14
1424
15 20
14 74
147 0
20 14
14 68
0 151
1502
150 8
1414
1470
. !
4 141
1416
1458
1460
14 14
141 4
78 13
146 2
1414
1446
1432
1458
1458
141 4
4 141
1416
1384
1394
1392
1468
1426
1426
1462
1460
14 42
1464
1460
14 64
1464
1458
14 58
1468
145 2
1424
1444
1460
1472
14 12
1406
1414
1402
1398
1404
1408
1440
14 66
1470
1436
1456
1468
1460
145 6
145 0
1460
1478
1454
145 0
14 32
1428
147 6
1494
1420
14 06
140 2
14 32
14 38
14 02
145 4
14 18
14 22
143 0
144 0
1490
1486
1488
1438
1434
1454
1504
1396
1398
1452
1508
1520
1396
139 6
1390
15 02
1516
151 2
6 146
1444
1388
1472
1396
1398
1408
1468
88 13
14 92
14 82
1434
88 13
1388
26 15
1528
14 72
14 74
Drainage Area ~ 75 ac.

88 13
6 139
15 24
1410
6 138
8 152
56 14
84 14
1524
1384
26 15
98 14
1550
15 48
156 4
40 15
Chippewa Swamp Legend

02 15
06 15
1432
1536
92 14
146 6
144 8
0 150
Reach Name:
14 52
1524
15 56
TO WA ND AC
Site: Zone of Influence Boundary6 138

1376
1384
1382
1394
6 139
Freshwater Pond
1400
15 38
RE E
Chippewa Swamp Drainage 1 inch = 1380 feet 417 78

13
8 138
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland 390 Riverine Wetland1404

1410
1428
15 62
1386
1510
15 44
1384
139
148 2
Freshwater Emergent Wetland 0

8 139
1572
154 6
1582
1430
Site Drainage Legend 14

24
FWS National Wetland Inventory

1416
0 140
70 15
78 15
157 6
Towanda Creek & Existing Tributaries Spoil Area

1506
1494
1496
. !
Site Location
04 15
Zone of Influence Approx. 39.5 ac. Chippewa Swamp Approx. 13.0 ac. 2 Foot Contours
Chippewa Swamp
Project Manager: TDA Date: February 2012 Scale: 1 inch = 417 feet Aerial Image: NAIP2010_Bradford Coordinate System: NAD_83_SPPAN FT Drawn By: RJH
80 15
1568
1574
Existing Culverts
1480
1466
458
1456
141 2
86 13
76 13
1402
1532
14 62
1394
1416
1420
12 14
1400
1530
. !
1528
1542
146 4
1426
1392
1398
1406
14 28
1408
1566
155 4
1414
1552
1558
225
450 1
146 8
1474
Feet
147 900 0
1,350
1,800
Figure 7
PHASE I
1458
144 2
144 6
1462
14 30
2 146
1464
1414
146 0
1466
141 4
142 0
1428
26 14
1386
4 141
4 141
1432
1434
1428
138 2
1490
1478
14 14
14 22
2 149
6 148
1484
1478
8 147
4 141
1416
1422
1380
8 149
6 149
8 148
1420
1494
1462
1472
1456
1464
1444
1448
1436
1452
1454
1430
1390
1500

1460
147 6
1478
1484
135 4
1374
1400
76 13
88 13
1442
1440
14 26
22 15
2 141
0 141
1418
06 15
0 149
0 151
6 139
147 6
1480
1101 Haynes St., Suite 211 Raleigh NC 27604 Ph: 919.755.9490 Fax: 919.755.9492 www.restorationsystems.com
04 15
1458
72 13
14 14
14 14
1416
20 14
8 145
1524
1464
48 14
1500
1514
88 13
20 15
6 143
4 144
1420
1388
4 141
34 15
18 15
22 15
60 15
1404
72 14
150 8
149 4
1438
14 96
1490
1496
1502
1514
149 2
1468
1416
1400
147 4
1388
1432
04 15
1508
70 14
1462
1486
1472
1502
6 138
1410
14 64
14 68
15 10
4 149
1484
15 12
1476
1474
1520
88 13
146 6
145 0
1442
1500
1440
143 4
1426
1450
1448
1384
14 46
145 8
98 14
1518
22 15
144 8
1516
1430
1424
76 14
148 0
92 14
8 152
1524
02 15
1488
14 88
15 04
15 18
22 15
1394
13 96
1472
147 8
0 145
1390
1460
15 30
06 15
88 13
88 13
90 14
1440
2 144
56 14
6 152
62 14
6 143
1388
8 143
54 15
60 15
1486
145 6
1470
151 2
15 36
15 62
15 44
1414
1398
08 14
14 54
150 8
1526
66 15
15 46
70 15
1101 Haynes St., Suite 211 Raleigh NC 27604 Ph: 919.755.9490 Fax: 919.755.9492 www.restorationsystems.com
20 15
1518
1476
1534
149 4
140 2
1514
1376
13 94
144 4
1486
1482
6 146
1456
1482
14 44
1444
1444
1448
14 80
139 4
1442
141 0
14 28
1416
14 38
138 8
1448
14 46
13 62
143 2
1392
1400
1396
1380
1404
1402
6 140
1390
1398
1394
1386
136 6
1372
1378
1434

144 4
1484
1472
74 14
66 14
58 14
1464
1460
0 145
1432
1348
1354
1442
1424
1448
1454
1438
1428
1462
1452
1456
1400
1426
1430
1420
1436
1418
1440
1430 1416
1426
1420
1418
1334
1330
Spur Creek Headwater ~ 1,250 l. ft.

13 26
1328
1334
0 132
1422
1404
1408
1400
1414
1410
8 140
1414
1402
1388
1378
1380
1406
1408
1324
1412
1398
133 0
133 6
134 2
133 0
135 0
13 58
1394
136 8
1364
1324
1378
1382
1380
1384
18 13
1374
1364
1352
1358
1318
1380
1368
1360
1362
1356
1414
13 66
13 70
1382
1384
1378
1392
1400
1346
1338
13 64
13 68
1360
1370
1370
13 70
1358
13 70
1416
18 14
13 76
141 2
1308
1306
1304
Saddle Swamp & Spur Creek Legend

132 . ! Site Location 6
13 24
1318
Site Drainage Legend

1378
1370
13 70
70 13

68 13
0 134
Freshwater Emergent Wetland Freshwater Pond

1400
1438
1292
1372
1434
1418
Spur Creek Headwater Restoration

6 137
13 76
Site: Zone of Influence Boundary 4 137 1 inch = 1,667 feet

13 96
13 70
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Riverine
13 06
2 141
1420
1424
1428
1332
Zone of Influence ~ 44 ac.

1310
1290
1272
1280
1436
14 32

1322
Saddle Swamp ~ 9.8 ac.
1298
94 FWS National Wetland Inventroy 13
1446
144 4
14 14
Gas Well Pad

1336
1412
1440
144 2
139 8
1382
1370
135 6
Spur Creek Headwater Restoration

8 130
131 6
1296
Reach Name:
Spoil Areas
1282
Saddle Swamp & Spur Creek

Drawn By: RJH
Project Manager: TDA Date: February 2011 Scale: 1 inch = 417 feet
1414
1410
14 12
4 141
0 142
1422
1426
1424
16 14
8 140
1406
1422
1412
1404
10 14
1312
275
132 0
550
2 130
Feet
1314
1286
1300
1304
1278
94 12
88 12
84 12
1,100
1,650 276 1
80 12
4 127
70 12
1268
Aerial Image: NAIP2010_Bradford
4 126
62 2,200 12 0 126
Figure 8
PHASE I
24 14
1486
148 8
1416
14 78
14 48
1450
46 14
1440
1436
1434
28 14
1408
14 12
1420
12 14
46 14
14 78
70 13
1362
13 72
1418
1422
4 141
0 140
1490
13 82
14 56
1458
14 20
1460
6 144
Drainage Area ~ 71.5 1392 ac.
4 144
6 143
22 14
12 14
13 74
80 14
13 96
18 14
14 34
13 78
06 14
1376
80 13
68 13
64 13
1366
0 139
6 140
0 141
2 141
8 142
1420
16 14
08 14
. !
1474
4 141
14 64
1400
1520
1532
1506
1542
1550
1524
1516
1500
1418
1406
1496
150 4
1494
4 142
8 142
26 14
1484
1490
86 14
14 82
1484
1476
145 2
1510
1404
6 138
06 15
4 151
1512
1518
6 157
1384
1386
1390
8 139
1572
0 140
1382
138 4
8 138
6 138
4 139
15 68
157 4
1564
2 152
58 15
2 149
20 15
1384
1402
1404
15 52
80 13
1556
98 14
88 14
4 145
22 14
1414
1404
1374
44 13
1368
1380
6 136
6 140
1334
2 140
1390
1396
0 136
2 137
86 13
1350
1370
1310
0 137
02 14
30 14
00 13
1292
1266
4 134
February 23, 2012 Wade Chandler, Chief Pennsylvania Section Department of the Army U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Baltimore District P.O. Box 1716 Baltimore, MD 21203-1715 Via electronic transmittal RE: Towanda Creek Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank Prospectus
Dear Mr. Chandler: This letter serves as a transmittal for the Towanda Creek Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank Prospectus. In preparation of this Prospectus, your comments to the Draft Prospectus (letter dated December 15, 2011) have been fully considered and incorporated as feasible. An overview of the comments and our responses is provided below: a) The GSA Service Area for the Bank has been clarified (Section 4.2 and Figure 1) to include the Upper Susquehanna River Basin as described in the Pennsylvania State Water Plan. A watershed based rationale for this GSA is included in Section 4.3. b) Specific regulatory authorities for the Bank have been added as Section 3.0. c) Names and addresses of all property owners who are adjacent to Phase 1 of the Bank are included in Table 8, which is included in Section 10. Please note that the Sponsor believes that the Prospectus is not the appropriate stage to invest in wholesale title work and research on the land parcels. At this stage, we have spoken with all landowners and gotten agreement to move forward. Each landowner understands what would be expected and the necessary property interest for the mitigation bank to proceed on their land. This is the standard practice in all Corps Districts in which the Sponsor has developed compensatory mitigation projects. d) The Sponsor has not solicited or received correspondence from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (other than through the IRT) or the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. The Sponsor has entered the project to the Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) and a receipt is included in Appendix B to the Prospectus. e) Through (g) each of these comments request greater detail. Significant detail regarding project selection, site suitability and proposed implementation has been added throughout the Prospectus. h) Latitude and longitude coordinates have been added to the figures. Figure 1 shows the overall project area and Figures 6, 7 and 8 show the Phase 1 areas in detail.
RS Towanda 2/23/12 Page 1
i)
k)
l) p)
q)
r)
s) t) u) v)
And (j) The functional analysis of both existing and proposed conditions has been substantially uplifted. The raw data for both riverine (Appendix D) and wetland (Appendix E) systems has been added. The credit release schedule has been modified (Section 8) from the release schedule previously submitted. The Sponsor has proposed a credit release schedule that is more conservative than that previously submitted and strikes a balance between assurance that the site is stable and meeting performance objectives and the financial considerations of implementing and operating a mitigation bank. Specific information regarding monitoring and documentation have also been added. Through (o), see item (c) above. The Sponsor believes that a water budget for a specific project area is beyond the scope of information needed at the Prospectus stage. The Sponsor will initiate such action upon determination by the IRT whether or not the Bank has the potential to provide compensatory mitigation. Information regarding maintenance, monitoring and long-term management has been expanded. A specific long-term conservation holder has not been identified at this time. The Sponsor intends to begin conversations with potential conservation groups or government entities once the Corps has determined the suitability of the proposed project through the Prospectus process. Financial Assurances are described in general in Section 11 of the Prospectus. Because financial assurance amounts are directly correlated to implementation costs, the precise form and amount cannot be determined at the Prospectus stage. The sponsor understands the permitting needs for the proposed Bank and will coordinate with the Corps and other regulatory agencies as the project proceeds. The qualifications section (Section 13) of the Prospectus has been expanded. Accounting and Reporting Protocol are included as Section 9 of the Prospectus. The Sponsor believes that the Prospectus submitted herein is complete.
Your time and attention in reviewing this revised documentation for the Towanda Creek Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank is greatly appreciated. Please call or email to discuss these items at any time. Best regards,
Tara Disy Allden Cc: Mike Danko, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
RS Towanda 2/23/12 Page 2
PNDI Project Environmental Review Receipt
Project Search ID: 20120126335953
1. PROJECT INFORMATION
Project Name: Towanda Creek Stream & Wetland Mitigation Bank Date of review: 1/26/2012 4:02:02 PM Project Category: In-stream / Riverine Activities and Projects,Other Project Area: 1021.4 acres County: Bradford Township/Municipality: Granville,Leroy Quadrangle Name: CANTON ~ ZIP Code: 16926 Decimal Degrees: 41.679066 N, -76.770744 W Degrees Minutes Seconds: 41 40' 44.6" N, -76 46' 14.7" W
2. SEARCH RESULTS Agency

PA Game Commission
Results
Potential Impact
Response
FURTHER REVIEW IS REQUIRED, See Agency Response No Further Review Required No Further Review Required No Further Review Required
PA Department of Conservation No Known Impact and Natural Resources PA Fish and Boat Commission No Known Impact U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service No Known Impact
As summarized above, Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) records indicate there may be potential impacts to threatened and endangered and/or special concern species and resources within the project area. If the response above indicates "No Further Review Required" no additional communication with the respective agency is required. If the response is "Further Review Required" or "See Agency Response," refer to the appropriate agency comments below. Please see the DEP Information Section of this receipt if a PA Department of Environmental Protection Permit is required.
Page 1 of 4
3. AGENCY COMMENTS
Regardless of whether a DEP permit is necessary for this proposed project, any potential impacts to threatened and endangered species and/or special concern species and resources must be resolved with the appropriate jurisdictional agency. In some cases, a permit or authorization from the jurisdictional agency may be needed if adverse impacts to these species and habitats cannot be avoided. These agency determinations and responses are valid for one year (from the date of the review), and are based on the project information that was provided, including the exact project location; the project type, description, and features; and any responses to questions that were generated during this search. If any of the following change: 1) project location, 2) project size or configuration, 3) project type, or 4) responses to the questions that were asked during the online review, the results of this review are not valid, and the review must be searched again via the PNDI Environmental Review Tool and resubmitted to the jurisdictional agencies. The PNDI tool is a primary screening tool, and a desktop review may reveal more or fewer impacts than what is listed on this PNDI receipt. The jursidictional agencies strongly advise against conducting surveys for the species listed on the receipt prior to consultation with the agencies.
PA Game Commission
RESPONSE: Further review of this project is necessary to resolve the potential impacts(s). Please send
project information to this agency for review (see WHAT TO SEND).
PGC Species: (Note: The PNDI tool is a primary screening tool, and a desktop review may reveal more or fewer species than what is listed below.) Scientific Name: Sensitive Species** Common Name: Current Status: Special Concern Species* Proposed Status: Special Concern Species*
PA Department of Conservation and Natural Resources

RESPONSE: No Impact is anticipated to threatened and endangered species and/or special concern
species and resources.
PA Fish and Boat Commission

RESPONSE: No Impact is anticipated to threatened and endangered species and/or special concern
species and resources.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

RESPONSE: No impacts to federally listed or proposed species are anticipated. Therefore, no further
consultation/coordination under the Endangered Species Act (87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. is required. Because no take of federally listed species is anticipated, none is authorized. This response does not reflect potential Fish and Wildlife Service concerns under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act or other authorities. * Special Concern Species or Resource - Plant or animal species classified as rare, tentatively undetermined or candidate as well as other taxa of conservation concern, significant natural communities, special concern populations (plants or animals) and unique geologic features.
Page 2 of 4
** Sensitive Species - Species identified by the jurisdictinal agency as collectible, having economic value, or being susceptible to decline as a result of visitation.
WHAT TO SEND TO JURISDICTIONAL AGENCIES

If project information was requested by one or more of the agencies above, send the following information to the agency(s) seeking this information (see AGENCY CONTACT INFORMATION).
Check-list of Minimum Materials to be submitted: ____SIGNED copy of this Project Environmental Review Receipt ____Project narrative with a description of the overall project, the work to be performed, current physical characteristics of the site and acreage to be impacted. ____Project location information (name of USGS Quadrangle, Township/Municipality, and County) ____USGS 7.5-minute Quadrangle with project boundary clearly indicated, and quad name on the map The inclusion of the following information may expedite the review process. ____A basic site plan(particularly showing the relationship of the project to the physical features such as wetlands, streams, ponds, rock outcrops, etc.) ____Color photos keyed to the basic site plan (i.e. showing on the site plan where and in what direction each photo was taken and the date of the photos) ____Information about the presence and location of wetlands in the project area, and how this was determined (e.g., by a qualified wetlands biologist), if wetlands are present in the project area, provide project plans showing the location of all project features, as well as wetlands and streams
4. DEP INFORMATION
The Pa Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) requires that a signed copy of this receipt, along with any required documentation from jurisdictional agencies concerning resolution of potential impacts, be submitted with applications for permits requiring PNDI review. For cases where a "Potential Impact" to threatened and endangered species has been identified before the application has been submitted to DEP, the application should not be submitted until the impact has been resolved. For cases where "Potential Impact" to special concern species and resources has been identified before the application has been submitted, the application should be submitted to DEP along with the PNDI receipt, a completed PNDI form and a USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle map with the project boundaries delineated on the map. The PNDI Receipt should also be submitted to the appropriate agency according to directions on the PNDI Receipt. DEP and the jurisdictional agency will work together to resolve the potential impact(s). See the DEP PNDI policy at http://www.naturalheritage.state.pa.us.
Page 3 of 4
5. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The PNDI environmental review website is a preliminary screening tool. There are often delays in updating species status classifications. Because the proposed status represents the best available information regarding the conservation status of the species, state jurisdictional agency staff give the proposed statuses at least the same consideration as the current legal status. If surveys or further information reveal that a threatened and endangered and/or special concern species and resources exist in your project area, contact the appropriate jurisdictional agency/agencies immediately to identify and resolve any impacts. For a list of species known to occur in the county where your project is located, please see the species lists by county found on the PA Natural Heritage Program (PNHP) home page (www.naturalheritage.state.pa.us). Also note that the PNDI Environmental Review Tool only contains information about species occurrences that have actually been reported to the PNHP.
6. AGENCY CONTACT INFORMATION

PA Department of Conservation and Natural Resources U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Endangered Species Section Bureau of Forestry, Ecological Services Section 315 South Allen Street, Suite 322, State College, PA. 400 Market Street, PO Box 8552, Harrisburg, PA. 16801-4851 NO Faxes Please. 17105-8552 Fax:(717) 772-0271
PA Fish and Boat Commission

Division of Environmental Services 450 Robinson Lane, Bellefonte, PA. 16823-7437 NO Faxes Please
PA Game Commission
Bureau of Wildlife Habitat Management Division of Environmental Planning and Habitat Protection 2001 Elmerton Avenue, Harrisburg, PA. 17110-9797 Fax:(717) 787-6957
7. PROJECT CONTACT INFORMATION

Name:______________________________________________________________ Company/Business Name:______________________________________________ Address:____________________________________________________________ City, State, Zip:_______________________________________________________ Phone:(_____)_________________________Fax:(______)___________________ Email:_____________________________________________________________
8. CERTIFICATION
I certify that ALL of the project information contained in this receipt (including project location, project size/configuration, project type, answers to questions) is true, accurate and complete. In addition, if the project type, location, size or configuration changes, or if the answers to any questions that were asked during this online review change, I agree to re-do the online environmental review. __________________________________________ applicant/project proponent signature _______________________ date
Page 4 of 4
DRAFT DOCUMENT NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION Page 1
Confidential 3/15/2012
PENNSYLVANIA FUNCTION BASED AQUATIC RESOURCE COMPENSATION PROTOCOL
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Watershed Management
Draft Version 1.0 December 14, 2011
DRAFT DOCUMENT NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION Page 2 Table of Contents Purpose Introduction
3 3
1.0 Aquatic Resource Functions 1.1 Riverine: Watercourses, Streams, Wadeable Rivers and their Floodplains 1.2 Palustrine: Wetlands 1.3 Lacustrine: Lakes, Reservoirs and Open Bodies of Water 2.0 Compensation Evaluation Determination 2.1 Area of Impact 2.2 Project Effect Factor 2.2.1 Riverine: Watercourses, Streams, Wadeable Rivers and their Floodplains 2.2.2 Palustrine: Wetland 2.2.3 Lacustrine: Lakes, Reservoirs and Open Bodies of Water 3.0 Resource Value Factor 4.0 Resource Condition Assessment(s) 5.0 Determining Compensation Requirements 6.0 Evaluating Compensation Proposals Definitions Resources Appendix A
4 4 6 7 8 8 9
9 10 11 15 17 18 18 21
Purpose
The purpose of this protocol is to: 1.) Establish a standardized process for determining aquatic resource compensation requirements 2.) Establish a standardized process for determining the potential value of proposed aquatic resource compensation projects. This protocol is intended for use in determining functional compensation requirements for projects effecting water courses (streams and rivers); floodways and floodplains, wetlands and open bodies of water; such as lakes and reservoirs requiring authorization by PA DEPs Chapters 102 and 105 and the USACE Sections 10 and 404 regulatory programs. This protocol does not take the place of avoidance and minimization of a projects proposed direct and secondary impacts or take the place of a project specific review and evaluation. The project specific review may result in adjustments to the compensation requirements or credits obtained through the application of this process. This protocol is intended to: 1.) Assist in standardizing the manner in which compensation is required to offset proposed aquatic resource impacts. 2.) Assist in identifying measures that minimize proposed project effects and thereby reduce subsequent compensation requirements. 3.) Evaluate proposed compensation projects performed on-site, off-site, at a mitigation bank, or through an in-lieu fee project. The utilization of this protocol ensures a standardized process for determining compensation requirements, evaluating and crediting compensation projects regardless of the method of implementation. This protocol and companion aquatic resource condition assessment protocols (See Section 1.0) can be found on the World Wide Web at www.dep.state.pa.us/XXXXX.
Introduction
One of the purposes of Title 25 PA Code Chapter 105, among others, is to protect the natural resources, environmental rights and values secured by the PA Const. Art I, 27 and conserve and protect the water quality and carrying capacity of watercourses. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP) has established the following protocol to standardize the process for determining aquatic resource compensation requirements that result from impacts to aquatic resources authorized pursuant to Chapter 102 (riparian buffers), Chapter 105, Chapter 106 and 401 Water Quality Certification authorizations. This protocol is intended to ensure that compensation requirements and proposals meet the requirements of the Title 25 PA Code Chapter 105 Rules and Regulations, as well as, the Army Corp of Engineers (ACOE) 33 CFR 332 and Environmental Protection Agencys (EPA) 40 CFR 230 Final Joint Federal Mitigation Rule published in April 2008.
The following protocol applies to all intermittent and perennial watercourses (wadeable and nonwadeable), floodways and floodplains, wetlands and other open bodies of water; such as lakes and reservoirs.
1.0 Aquatic Resource Functions

Each type of aquatic resource has an inherent suite of functions and values that may be present or occurring, herein referred to as functions. The functions occurring within an aquatic resource can naturally vary due to differences in the chemical, physical and biological composition of the resource at any given location. In addition, anthropogenic influences can greatly affect the presence or performance level of these inherent functions. To account for the natural variation in functions, function groupings were established for each aquatic resource type. These function groups represent multiple functions associated with or related to the physical, chemical or biological nature of the resource. The effects that anthropogenic activities have on aquatic resources are established through the use of resource condition level 2 rapid assessment protocols. The resource condition is considered in the determination of any compensation requirements. The three companion resource condition assessment protocols are: PA Wetland Condition Level 2 Rapid Assessment PA Riverine Condition Level 2 Rapid Assessment PA Lacustrine Condition Level 2 Rapid Assessment
The function groups for each aquatic resource type are identified and briefly described below. The groups described for each aquatic resource type provide the basis for determining functional compensation requirements. These function groups are not intended to represent all resource functions occurring within a given aquatic resource type but are designed to represent the predominant functions present within each resource. Additional compensation requirements may be required based upon a projects effect on other functions not considered as part of this process and will be determined on a case by case basis. 105.13 language for Level 3 HGM assessments? For wetland impacts equal to or greater than 1 acre The grouping of aquatic resources within this protocol was established utilizing the terminology from the Cowardin classification system. This terminology is used for organizational purposes only and should not be confused with specific state or federal regulatory classification requirements and nor should they be interpreted to replace or supplant regulatory definitions and requirements. At this time these include Riverine, Palustrine/Tidal and Lacustrine environments. While there are numerous ways of classifying aquatic resources, the use of Cowardin classification system provides a common bridge between the state and federal regulatory programs that in some instances may label resources differently for various purposes. This labeling may differ from the current terminology used by either of the state or federal regulatory programs, however, the intent for establishing these categories and labels is for organizational and instructional purposes only and in no way expands or diminishes either state or federal regulatory program authorities.
The following functional groups have been established for each of the resource categories: 1.1 Riverine: Watercourses, Streams, Wadeable Rivers and their Floodplains The traditional approach for evaluating a projects effect on this type of resource has been to primarily focus on the wetted perimeter or instream habitat component of the watercourse. To ensure the long-term viability of this aquatic resource, it is necessary to consider a projects effect on the entire resource and not just the habitat component of the resource. The functions inherent in this resource are driven by more than instream habitat and a more holistic or encompassing view of the resource is necessary to ensure the long-term health and viability of these ecosystems. In more recent efforts led by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Ecosystem Management and Restoration Research Program (Fischenich, 2006), three key functions in five functional groupings were selected from a list of over 60 identified functions associated with riverine environments. There is a significant amount of interdependence between these functions and the framework established by that effort underscores the complexity of riverine ecosystems. While this framework provides a significant advance in understanding stream functioning and their interrelationships, it is not yet clear how this effort would integrate with the existing regulatory program requirements. However, this work does provide a glimpse into future efforts at the state and federal levels for ensuring impacts to riverine functions are avoided, minimized and compensated for when affected. While the above mentioned work provides a glimpse into the future, the concept of the riparian ecotone provides the comprehensive view of the resource that will meet the current regulatory program requirements. The coupling of these two approaches will be investigated in the future through program development efforts. The riparian ecotone provides a robust basis for defining the extent of this type of aquatic resource, delineating its boundaries and is useful for describing the basic processes and functions that occur within this type of aquatic resource. Ecotones are an assemblage of ecosystems that interact with each other chemically, physically and biologically. Riparian ecotones are a three dimensional space of interaction that include terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems that extend down into the groundwater, up above the canopy, outward across the floodplain, up the near-slopes that drain water laterally into the terrestrial ecosystem, and along the water course at a variable width. The riparian ecotone includes the watercourse, 100 year floodplain and 100 feet landward along the valley, where obvious slumps or landslides occur near the floodplain they are banded 45 feet around their edge instead of the 100 feet, adapted from Verry et al (2004). The riverine functions have been grouped into four basic function groups:
DRAFT DOCUMENT NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION Page 6 Hydrologic Biogeochemical Habitat Recreation or Resource Support
The following function groups are representative of the basic functions occurring within the riparian ecotone that are most affected by the typical structures and activities seeking Chapter 105 authorization. These functions groups will provide the basis for determining compensatory requirements or valuation of compensation proposals: Hydrologic (HYD1) functions include the physical storage capacity of the floodplain, energy dissipating characteristics, maintenance of characteristic watershed hydrologic dynamics, (e.g., seasonal and storm flow patterns), geomorphic channel stability and sediment transport processes. Biogeochemical (BGC1) functions include the biogeochemical processes, temperature regulation, nutrient cycling and organic matter cycling (both above and below ground). The level of performance of this function group is primarily driven by the type and quality of riparian vegetation located within the floodplain and the vegetation root systems interactions with the ground water table. Note: This function group does not encompass the role of a best management practice (BMP) for removing nutrients or pollutants from runoff. The role of a BMP may provide additional credits under other regulatory or nonregulatory programs and may be considered above and beyond the inherent biogeochemical functions evaluated under this protocol. Habitat (HAB1) functions are comprised of numerous attributes within and immediately adjacent to the watercourse. This area is commonly referred to as instream habitat. The ordinary high water mark (OHWM) and/or the banks of the watercourse provide easily observable delineating points to establish the physical boundaries of this area. These functions include providing for the life requirements of invertebrate, vertebrate, emergent plant, macrophytes and other plant species located within or on the banks of an active watercourse. Standard habitat types will be utilized to provide consistency in the process; however, other habitat types may be identified for unique resources on a case by case basis. The protected uses for aquatic life contained in Title 25 PA Code Chapter 93 Water Quality Standards will be used to describe general habitat types consisting of cold water fishery (CWF), warm water fishery (WWF), trout stocked fishery (TSF) and migratory fishery (MF). Recreation or Resource Support (REC1 or RS) is a dual function group in which values are comprised of either public recreational opportunities including fishing, boating, swimming, etc. or the chemical, physical and
biological attributes that contribute to maintaining downstream water quality designations and uses. This may also include the maintenance of existing and designated recreational uses. The protected uses for recreation and fish consumption contained in Title 25 PA Code Chapter 93 Water Quality Standards will be used to describe general types of recreation consisting of boating (B), fishing (F), water contact sports (WC) and esthetics (E).
1.2 Palustrine/Tidal Wetlands The hydrogeomorphic (HGM) wetland classification system provides a robust basis for describing the basic processes and function groups that occur within any given wetland type. There are currently eleven HGM function models that were developed for use in Pennsylvania as listed in Table 1 (Brooks, 2004). However, greater than 95% wetland impacts are not sufficient in size to warrant the use of HGM function models. Wetland functions vary greatly from one wetland to another due to a variety of factors, including landscape position, hydrodynamics and naturally occurring differences in the chemical, physical and biological composition of the wetland. This resource category represents all wetland types as defined in 105.1 and includes those wetlands classified by Cowardin as Table 1. HGM Functions by Functional Group palustrine, tidal, estuarine and Group Function Description F1 Energy Dissipation/Short-term Surface Water Detention lacustrine.
HYD2
The HGM function models developed represent the predominant functions that occur across the range of HGM wetland types found in PA. The HGM models are grouped into three basic function groups: Hydrologic (HYD2) Biogeochemical (BGC2) Habitat (HAB2)
BGC2
HAB2
F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12
Long term surface Water Storage Maintian Characteristic Hydrology Reserved Removal of Imported Inorganic nitrogen Solute Adsorption Capacity Retention of Inorganic Particulates Export of Organic Carbon (dissolved and particulate) Maintain Characteristic Native Plant Community Composition Maintian Characteristic Detrital Biomass Vertebrate Community Structure and Composition Maintain Landscape Scale Biodiversity
The following three function groups are representative of the basic functions occurring within wetlands and will provide the basis for determining any compensatory requirements or valuation of compensation projects: Hydrologic (HYD2) group functions include energy dissipation, short-term and long-term surface water detention, and maintenance of characteristic hydrology. These functions are driven by the hydrodynamics of the wetland, gradient, roughness, landscape position, macrotopography, hydrologic source, recharge zones, aquatic connectivity, as well as, other geomorphological features. The source of water (surface versus ground) may also be a determinate of plant communities (Bishop, 2004).
Biogeochemical (BIOG2) group functions include inorganic nitrogen removal, solute adsorption capacity, inorganic particulate retention and export of dissolved and particulate organic carbon. These functions are driven by the percent of organic matter, reduction/oxidation processes, gradient, biomass, roughness, macrotopography, coarse woody debris and fine woody debris. Habitat (HAB2) group functions are comprised of characteristic native plant community compositions, characteristic detrital biomass, vertebrate community structure and composition and maintenance of landscape scale biodiversity. These functions are driven by species composition, regeneration capability, coarse woody debris, fine woody debris, snags, organic matter, habitat attributes, landscape condition and aquatic connectivity. While standard habitat types will be utilized, specific habitats types may be identified for unique resource types on a case by case basis. The Cowardin classification system will be used in most cases as follows:
Table 2. Wetland Habitat Types
CODE DESCRIPTION
EAB EEM EFL LAB LEM LFL PAB PEM PFL PFO PSS
Estuarine Aquatic Bed Estuarine Emergent Estuarine Flat Lacustrine Aquatic Bed Lacustrine Emergent Lacustrine Flat Palustrine Aquatic Bed Palustrine Emergent Palustrine Flat Palustrine Forested Palustrine Scrub/Shrub
1.3 Lacustrine: Lakes, Reservoirs and Non-Wadeable Rivers Though these three water bodies differ substantially in some ways, several characteristics demonstrate a convergence in functions. Lakes lack significant flow while rivers are defined by flow for most of their length. Reservoirs are largely manmade hybrids of the former systems. However, as rivers approach their mouths and the gradient decreases, lacustrine qualities predominate under normal and low flow conditions in many areas of large rivers and inputs become more autochthonous. Shoreline and backwater areas can be indistinguishable from a lake or reservoir environment. The following function groups are representative of the basic functions occurring within lakes, reservoirs and large rivers that will provide the basis for determining any compensatory requirements or valuation of compensation projects:
Habitat (HAB3) functions are comprised of numerous attributes within and adjacent to the wetted perimeter of the lake, reservoir or large river. These functions include the physical requirements to provide invertebrate, vertebrate and macrophyte species life requirements. These functions are driven by the composition of the substrate, water depth and velocity, shoreline vegetation, near shore vegetation condition, etc. Some standard habitat types may be utilized; however, specific habitats types may be identified for unique resource types on case by case basis. The protected uses for aquatic life contained in Title 25 PA Code Chapter 93 Water Quality Standards will be used to describe general habitat types consisting of cold water fishery (CWF), warm water fishery (WWF), trout stocked fishery (TSF) and migratory fishery (MF). Recreation (REC2) values are comprised of public recreational opportunities including fishing, boating, swimming, etc. This also includes the maintenance of existing and designated recreational uses. The protected uses for recreation and fish consumption contained in Title 25 PA Code Chapter 93 Water Quality Standards will be used to describe general types of recreation consisting of boating (B), fishing (F), water contact sports (WC) and esthetics (E).
2.0 Compensation Requirement Evaluation

The evaluation process for determining whether a project may require compensation begins with establishing a projects potential effect on the respective function groups for the applicable resource category. This process begins with determining the area of impact for each applicable resource category function group and then proceeds to determining the project effect category for each of the applicable function groups. Compensation requirements will be determined for each resource function group. The determination of compensation follows the evaluation of avoidance and minimization of project impacts that is performed during the permit application review. 2.3 Area of Impact The area of impacts must be determined for each of the resource category function groups proposed to be affected. Acreage is calculated to the nearest one hundredth of an acre (0.00). In many instances, the project may affect more than one function group. Impacts are comprised of both direct and indirect or secondary project effects. Direct impacts are considered to have both acreage and functional losses, whereas secondary impacts result in a change in function without the loss of acreage. Direct impacts consist of filling, draining or conversion of a resource to another type such as a wetland to an open body of water. Examples include placement of fill in a wetland, placement of a box culvert in a stream, placement of fill in the floodplain, building a dam where the impoundment area will flood resources (stream, floodplain, wetlands) with a sufficient depth as to change the existing aquatic resource to another aquatic resource type. This would include changes such as converting a riverine system to a lacustrine system, changing a palustrine wetland to a lacustrine system, etc
Secondary impacts consist of altering the chemical, physical or biological components of an aquatic resource to the extent that changes to the functions of the resource results. However, secondary impacts do not result in a loss of resource acreage. Changes include such things as conversion of a forested wetland system to a non-forested state through chemical, mechanical or hydrologic manipulation that results in a maintained state of vegetation; altered hydrologic conditions (increases or decreases) such as stormwater discharges or water withdrawals that alter the chemical, physical or biological functions of the resource, areas upstream and downstream of a culvert or bridge that require periodic excavation to ensure waterway openings (e.g. bedload deposition removal), etc. Criteria for establishing direct and secondary impacts associated with navigational and commercial dredging projects are not considered in this process. The impacts from these activities have unique conditions and this process was not developed to establish compensatory requirements for these types of projects. However, impacts associated with maintenance dredging around facilities have been incorporated into this process and this approach must be applied. Compensatory mitigation for navigational and commercial dredging projects can use the basic framework utilized in the protocol, however, unique measures or resource condition, function groups, project effect factors and compensation value tables will need to be determined on a case by case basis. 2.4 Project Effect Factor (PE) Impacts result in varying levels of effect to aquatic resources and their corresponding functions. Different types of impacts can therefore be classified based upon the degree to which they are expected to affect the various functions. However, the effects of a project are not necessarily equal across the suite of functions. A projects effect is evaluated for each applicable function group of the aquatic resource category proposed to be affected. Table 3 provides example criteria for each of the four Project Effect Categories (Severe, Moderate, Limited, and Minimal) for each of the aquatic resource types. Each Project Effect Category has a corresponding Project Effect Factor Value (PE). As provided for in Table 3, the more severe the effect, the higher the PE value. Therefore, an activity considered to have a Severe effect has the highest PE value of 3.0 representing an activity or structure that is presumed to have a complete or near-complete loss of all beneficial functions for the applicable resource function group. Conversely, an activity considered to have a Minimal effect has a PE of 0.0. These activities or structures generally will not require compensation; however, they are included in Table 3 to show that project designs or modifications can result in the minimization of a projects effect. This minimization may reach the point to which that activity or structure falls into the Minimal Project Effect Category and therefore compensation may not be required. As described above, the projects effect is individually evaluated for each applicable resource category function group. A project may have differing PE values for individual function groups depending on the project parameters. The criteria listed in Table 3 or discussed in the narrative can be used directly or used to guide project reviewers for establishing additional equivalent criterion. If an identified criterion for a projects effect is not listed for an applicable resource function group, then best professional judgment must be used in determining the most applicable Project Effect Category. A project reviewer may identify alternative criteria to determine the Project Effect Category.
2.4.1 Riverine: Watercourses, Streams, Wadeable Rivers and their Floodplains Hydrologic (HYD1) The project by altering the cross-sectional area of the floodplain, roughness or flood storage capacity can have a significant effect on the carrying capacity of the floodplain and secondary effects by altering hydraulic characteristics of the stream channel resulting in possible changes to aquatic habitat and sediment transport processes. The PE value is determined by the extent of the change in 100 year frequency flood event elevation and the existence of detailed flood studies. Biogeochemical (BGC1) A project can have a significant affect on the fundamental nutrient, organic matter processing and chemical or biological processes that occur within or originate from these areas. Particular attention is placed on the ability of the floodplain area to support a mature forested community or any type of vegetated wetland when present. The key to determining the project effect value is to evaluate the potential ability of the floodplain area to support a forested condition. The current vegetation condition of the floodplain area (forested versus lawn) does not alter the PE value determination. The existing floodplain vegetation is considered as part of the resource condition assessment and is reflected in the resulting resource condition score. Habitat (HAB1) The project can have a significant effect on aquatic habitat from direct losses through the displacement of the habitat, indirectly affected by hydraulic changes and sediment transport changes or through re-occurring long term maintenance activities of the project. The PE value is determined by evaluating the capacity of the area to be used as habitat after the project is completed and the extent of any changes or transformations of the area that may result from indirect changes to the habitat. Recreation or Resource Support (REC1 or RS) This is a dual function group where if recreation uses are present, they take precedent over the resource support function group. If recreation functions are not present, then the resource falls into the Resource Support function group and impacts are evaluated as such. The project can have a significant effect on the ability of the public to utilize the resource for recreational opportunities by preventing access to the resource, blocking navigation, eliminating the resource, etc. Watercourses that do not provide recreation (i.e. headwater streams), projects may cause interference of various physical, chemical and biological processes that contribute to the maintenance of downstream designated or existing uses. 2.4.2 Palustrine/Tidal: Wetlands Hydrologic (HYD2) Changes to surface water drainage patterns, regulation of flow or source of hydrology, as a result of a project, can result in long term changes to other function groups that may not be readily observable or measurable and may take long periods of time to manifest. In other instances,
the changes may be quick and dramatic. Landscape position plays a dominate role in establishing the source of hydrology and in many instances the general movement or pathway that the hydrology takes. Biogeochemical (BGC2) Changes to the typical hydroperiod of the HGM subclass of wetland, as a result of a project, can result in long term changes of this function group. Changes to macrotopography, biomass and both coarse and fine woody debris through vegetation management can result in modifications to the biogeochemical functioning of a wetland. Many types of projects not associated with direct losses, such as utility line crossings, may result in impacts to this function group depending upon the level of disturbance, vegetation management and relation of disturbed area to overall wetland size. Habitat (HAB2) Changes to habitat functions can result from a project through direct loss of habitat acreage, conversion of resources from palustrine to lacustrine or from vegetation management. Changes in vegetation structure or potential for regeneration through management while not a direct loss are a secondary loss of function. Cowardin vegetation classification in the form of aquatic bed (AB), emergent (EM), scrub shrub (SS) and forested (FO) will form the basis for recording loss of habitat functions. In certain circumstances, species specific habitat may form the basis, especially where threatened or endangered species are concerned. Note: Vernal pools are considered Palustrine wetlands HGM subclasses: DFC or DFA 2.4.3 Lacustrine: Large Rivers, Reservoirs or Open Body of Waters Habitat (HAB3) The project can have a significant effect on aquatic habitat through actual losses through the displacement of the habitat, areas affected by shading and sediment transport and deposition pattern changes and areas affected through long term maintenance activities resulting from the project. Recreation (REC2) The project can have a significant effect on the ability of the public to utilize the resource for recreational opportunities by preventing access to the resource, blocking navigation, eliminating the resource, etc. Projects can also result in interference of processes that contribute to the maintenance of downstream recreational opportunities such as flow regulation.
Value
Project Effect Category

Severe Effect Function Group Waterways Function Group Wetlands
1. Wetland area converted to open water or dry land (non-wetland); or 2. Wetland connection to floodplain or natural surface drainage features lost; or, 3. Wide spread hydrologic modification through draining, flooding or topographic modification (>4 hydrologic stressors from Level 2 RAP resulting from proposed project) 1. Wetland area converted to open water or dry land (non-wetland); 2. Wide spread activities effecting surface roughness (vegetation clearing or maintenance, clearing or grubbing (macro and microtopography reduction), 3. Wide spread hydrologic modification through draining, flooding or topographic modification (>4 hydrologic stressors from Level 2 RAP existing and resulting from proposed project) 1. Wetland area converted to open water or dry land (non-wetland); or 2. Greater than 50% of deliineated wetland area effected by vegetation clearing or long term vegetation management.
Function Group
Reservoirs, Lakes
HYD1
1. Fills or structures that result in any increase in the 100-year frequency water surface elevation in a delineated FEMA mapped floodway; or 2. Fills that eliminate the floodplain of streams with less than or equal to 6,400 acre drainage areas
HYD2
BGC1
1. Floodplain ability to support vegetation eliminated through filling/devleopment; or 2. Floodplain converted to open body of water through inundation; or 3. Floodplain vegetation isolated from accessing groundwater table via activities that lower groundwater table levels (e.g. dredging of stream channel, filling of floodplain areas).
N/A
BGC2
3.0
HAB1
1. Stream substrate and banks replaced by concrete, metal, plastic, riprap, buried with fill, etc.
HAB2
HAB3
1. Bottom substrate or banks replaced by concrete, metal, plastic, riprap, buried with fill, etc.
REC1
1. 1. Recreational use potential eliminated or alterd to the point of unavailbility. 1. Greater than 500 feet of stream elimented, enclosed or disconnected form the groundwater table; or 2. Cumulative effect of a project greater than 2,000 feet in any one State Water Plan designated watershed. 1. Recreational use potential eliminated or alterd to the point of unavailbility.
N/A
REC2
RS
Value

Function Group Waterways Moderate Effect Function Wetlands Group
1. Loss of macrotopographic features due to clearing or related activities; or 2. Hydrology altered from seasonal saturation / fluctuation to static persistent level; or 3. Features contributing to roughness lost/removed; 4. Multiple stormwater runoff sources directed to wetland point or non-point sources; or 5. Moderate hydrologic modification through draining, flooding or topographic modification (24 hydrologic stressors from Level 2 RAP existing and resulting from proposed project)
Function Group
Reservoirs, Lakes
HYD1
1. Fills or structures that result in greater than 1.0 foot rise in the 100-year frequency water surface elevation of the natural unobstructed water surface elevation; or 2. Fills that eliminate the floodplain of streams with less than or equal to 6,400 acre drainage areas extending along greater than 100 but less than 500 linear feet of stream length.
HYD2
N/A
BGC1
1. Floodplain vegetation maintained in a non-forested state through physical, mechanical or chemical means (e.g. maintaining right of ways). 1. Stream substrate altered by flow and velocity changing scour and deposition features; or 2. Areas authorized to be maintained. 1. Recreational use potential interrupted requiring walk arounds, portages, etc. 1. Greater than 100 but less than 500 feet of stream eliminated, enclosed or disconnected form the groundwater table; or 2. Cumulative effect of a project greater than 1,000 but less than 2,000 feet of stream in any one State Water Plan.
BGC2
1. Wetland vegetation maintained in a non-forested state through physical, mechanical or chemical means (e.g. maintaining right of ways). 1. Greater than 25% but less than 50% of delineated wetland area effected by vegetation clearing or long term vegetation management. 1. Bottom substrate of near shore areas altered through maintenance activities (i.e.dredging); or 2. Shading of bottom prohibiting macrophyte growth.
2.0
HAB1
HAB2
HAB3
REC1
REC2
1. Recreational use potential interrupted or restricted due to project, etc.
RS
Value

Limited Effect Function Group Waterways
Fills or structures that result in an increase of the 100year frequency water surface elevation of the natural unobstructed water surface elevation but result in less than a 1.0 foot rise. [Fills utilize floodplain culverts, fills reduce floodplain cross section no more than 25% vertically]
Function Group
Wetlands
Function Group
Reservoirs, Lakes
HYD1
HYD2
limited hydrologic modification through draining, flooding or topographic modification (<2 hydrologic stressors from Level 2 RAP existing and resulting from proposed project)
N/A
BGC1
Floodplain vegetation removed and left to natural regeneration, potential for canopy closure is limited
BGC2 1.0
<25% of wetland area effected by vegetation clearing or long term vegetation management
HAB1
Bridges spanning the channel and floodplain, with instream piers Recreational and/or biological use capacity effect limited (<25% loss) 1. Less than 100 feet of stream eliminated, enclosed or disconnected form the groundwater table; or 2. Cumulative effect of a project greater than 100 but less than 1,000 linear feet of stream in any one State Water Plan.
HAB2
HAB3
REC1
N/A
REC2
RS
Value

Function Group Waterways Minimal Effect Function Wetlands Group Function Group Reservoirs, Lakes
HYD1
Fills or structures that do not result in a rise in the 100year frequency water surface elevation of the natural unobstructed water surface elevation. [Fill HYD2 reduces floodplain cross section no more than 10% vertically, flow characteristics and storage capacity minimally altered]
No hydrologic modification through draining, flooding, topographic modification or from stormwater discharges (0 hydrologic stressors from Level 2 RAP)
N/A
BGC1
Floodplain tree canopy closure maintained or potential for canopy closure remains, if vegetation removed, replanted to contain native tree and shrub species Bridges spanning the channel and floodplain, no instream piers 1. Recreational uses unimpeded or maintained without altering recreational use.
BGC2 0.0
HAB1
HAB2
No wetland area effected by vegetation clearing or long term vegetation management,
HAB3
REC1
RS
1. Stream not eliminated, enclosed or disconnected form the groundwater table; or 2. Cumulative effect of a project less than 100 feet in any one State Water Plan.
N/A
REC2
1. Recreational uses unimpeded or maintained without altering recreational use.
3.0 Resource Value Factor

All Commonwealth waters have designated or in some cases existing use protections as defined in Title 25 PA Code Chapter 93 Water Quality Standards and Chapter 105 Dam Safety and Waterways Management. The Aquatic Resource Value Category takes into consideration certain uses when assigning an Aquatic Resource Value (RV) category, however, other criteria for assigning a resource value are related to resource condition, biological communities, impaired waters/TMDLS, special regulation areas established by the PA Fish and Boat Commission and public recreation opportunities. The Resource Value is determined by using the criteria below and applying it to the reach or area of aquatic resource that was used to assess condition. The highest resource value that occurs within the assessment area will be used in determining compensation requirements.
Table 4. Resource Value Table
Aquatic Resource Value Category

Waterways
Waters with a designated or existing use of Exceptional Value under Chapter 93 (relating to water quality standards). Presence of federal or state threatened or endangered species.
Value
Significant Resource Waters Wetlands Large Rivers/Reservoirs

Wetlands classified Exceptional Value in accordance with 105.17. Wetlands that support a significant aquatic community scoring equal to or greater than 0.87 using the DEP's Level 2 Wetland Rapid Assessment Protocol. Wetlands characterized by the DCNR's natural community classification system and designated a State Rank of S1 Critically Imperiled or S2 Imperiled. Waters with a designated or existing use of Exceptional Value under Chapter 93 (relating to water quality standards). Presence of federal or state threatened or endangered species.
3.0
Waterways
Waters with a designated or existing use of High Quality under Chapter 93 (relating to water quality standards). Waters used by migratory fish populations for reproduction, waters designated with special regulations by the PAFBC such as big bass waters, trophy trout waters,etc. Geographically unique or rare fisheries (i.e. salmon/steelhead waters, naturally reproducing northern pike waters).
Special Resource Waters Wetlands

Wetlands that are located in or along the floodplain of the reach of waters with a designated or existing use listed as high quality under Chapter 93 (relating to water quality standards). Wetlands that support a high quality aquatic community based upon scoring equal to or greater than 0.58 but less than 0.87 using the DEP's Wetland Condition Level 2 Rapid Assessment Protocol. Wetlands characterized by the DCNR's natural community classification system and designated a State Rank of S3 Vulnerable.
Large Rivers/Reservoirs
Waters with a designated or existing use of High Quality under Chapter 93 (relating to water quality standards). Waters designated with special regulations by the PAFBC such as big bass waters, trophy trout waters,etc.
2.5

Table 4. Resource Value Factor Cont.
Value
Aquatic Resource Value Category

Waterways
Small streams with greater than 1,280 acre drainage areas but less than or equal to 6,400 acre drainage areas, streams designated Trout Stocked Fisheries (TSF) under Ch. 93 and streams with other recreation valued species present with sufficient populations to provide recreational opportunities.
Quality Resource Waters Wetlands
This category includes all other Includes all other waters not wetlands not categorized as categorized as significant, special, significant, special, support or support or minimal resource waters. minimal resource wetlands. Wetlands that support a quality aquatic community based upon upon scoring equal to or greater than greater than or equal to 0.42 but less than 0.58 using the DEP's Wetland Condition Level 2 Rapid Assessment Protocol.
2.0
Waterways
Headwater streams with less than or equal to 1,280 acre drainage areas and streams containing non-recreation valued fisheries (CWF and WWF) not identified in above sections.
Support Resource Waters Wetlands
Large Rivers/Reservoirs 1.5
Private ponds (including farm or Wetlands that support an aquatic community based upon scoring less stock ponds) greater than 10 acres in than 0.42 using the DEP's Wetland size. Condition Level 2 Rapid Assessment Protocol.
Waterways
Armored swales, gabion lined channels, riprap lined channels, concrete lined channels and channels constructed to control erosion and sediment or to convey stormwater.
Minimal Resource Waters Wetlands
Wetlands as defined in 105.12a(6) Private ponds (including farm or related to erosion and sediment stock ponds) less than 10 acres in control and stormwater management. size. Treatment wetlands as defined in 105.12a(5) constructed and maintained for the treatment of mine drainage, sewage, or other waste.
1.0
4.0 Resource Condition Assessment

Three companion resource condition assessment protocols have been developed and are to be used in establishing the applicable resource condition for utilization in determining the compensation requirements as outlined in Section 5.0 Determining Compensation Requirements. This protocol is designed to work with these companion condition assessment protocols and substitutions are not permitted without prior written approval by DEP. The resource condition protocols were developed to be rapid and cost effective while providing reliable estimates of resource condition. The condition assessments also provide additional information that is considered during the environmental review performed by DEP and ACOE.
There may be instances where intensive Level 3 HGM functional assessments, Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) protocols, Habitat Suitability Models, or other such quantitative methods as approved by the PA DEP are performed in addition to these rapid condition assessments. These circumstances are dealt with on a case by case basis, as their occurrence is rare. The condition assessment protocols have been designed to result in a single score that does not exceed 1.0. Results will fall between 0 and 1 and are carried to two decimal places (0.00). The following condition assessment protocols can be found on the World Wide Web at www.dep.state.pa.us/XXXXX
Pennsylvania Wetland Condition Level 2 Rapid Assessment Pennsylvania Waterway Condition Level 2 Rapid Assessment Pennsylvania Large River and Reservoir Condition Level 2 Rapid Assessment
Proposed compensation projects for permittee responsible mitigation, mitigation bank development or in-lieu program should refer to Section 6.0 Evaluating Compensation Proposals for direction on utilizing resource condition assessments or more intensive methods for establishing condition differential.
5.0 Determining Compensation Requirements

The Compensation Requirement (CR) for a project is calculated after the following values have been determined: 1) Determine the area(s) of direct and secondary impacts in acres to the nearest hundredth of an acre (AI) for each of the applicable resource category function groups; 2) Determine the Project Effect Category and PE value(s) for each of the applicable functional groups from Table 2; 3) Determine the appropriate RV value(s) for each of the applicable resources from Table 3; 4) Obtain the appropriate resource condition score(s) for each of the applicable resource categories. The CR for each applicable function group is calculated using the following equation: Compensation Requirement (CR) = AI x PE x RV x CI Where, CR = Compensation Requirement AI = Area of Impact (in acres, 0.00) PE = Project Effect Factor (Table 1) RV = Resource Value (Table 2) CI = Condition Index Value (0.00) (from applicable resource condition assessment)
To determine the CR, the area of impact (AI) is multiplied by the PE obtained from Table 2, then multiplied by the RV from Table 3, then multiplied by the applicable resource CI. The end product is the amount of compensation credits necessary to offset the effects the project has on each functional group. Where both direct and secondary impacts are documented the CR for each of the impact types for the applicable function groups should be determined independently. The CR should indicate (label) which type of impact direct or secondary for each applicable function group as well.
6.0 Evaluating Compensation Proposals

Proposals for compensating aquatic resource impacts from an applicant, mitigation banker or an in-lieu-fee program, will utilize the following process to evaluate whether the mitigation project proposal will provide adequate compensation to offset the function compensation requirements as determined in Section 5.0. Projects proposed by mitigation bankers and in-lieu-fee program may be evaluated independent of compensation requirements to determine the type and amount of function credits generated by a compensatory mitigation project. 6.1 Compensation Value Factor The compensatory mitigation project will be evaluated for each applicable aquatic resource function group and the level of credits will be determined on a function group basis. The same process for determining function compensation requirements is applied to compensatory mitigation project proposals, except that instead of utilizing the Project Effect Factor table, reviewers will use the Compensation Value Factor table (Table 5) in the calculation to determine the overall value of the compensation proposal. Additional adjustment factors and procedures that may alter the Compensation Value Factor are outlined in Section 7.0 Compensation Value Adjustment. 6.2 Condition Differential The difference between the condition of the resource pre-project implementation and post-project implementation must be determined for each applicable resource proposal. This condition differential will be used to determine the function gains realized as a result of the project. The initial function gain will be based upon design plans and expectations as outlined in the final compensatory mitigation project proposal. The Level 2 resource condition assessments discussed previously may be utilized in the planning stages to establish the potential for condition improvement and under some circumstances may be sufficient to document the condition differential; however, in most instances more intensive methods will be needed to ascertain the amount of improvement in resource condition and the methods may vary from function group to function group. Need additional text explaining differential and starting values: The resource condition starting point for determining functional gains under the following circumstances will be considered 0 and the compensation project will be given the maximum function gain based upon the final resource condition assessment values:
Dam removal with riverine and floodplain reestablishment Legacy sediment removal with riverine and floodplain reestablishment Wetland establishment and reestablishment
The resource condition starting point for determining functional gains under the following circumstances will be based upon the existing resource condition: Enhancement of wetland, riverine or lacustrine resources Rehabilitation of wetland, riverine or lacustrine resources
It may be necessary to perform more detailed or intensive resource condition assessments, including but not limited to Hydrogeomorphic functional assessments, Index of Biological Integrity (IBIs) and Habitat Evaluation Procedure models. When enhancement or rehabilitation of existing resources is proposed, project developers should coordinate with the DEP and ACOE early in the process to determine the need for more intensive assessment methods. It may be necessary to convert or aggregate intensive findings. After the project has stabilized and successfully completed monitoring requirements, the selected methods would be performed again and the condition differential would be calculated to determine the final amount of resource credits generated from the project. The timing of the second cevaluation may vary from project to project and will be decided upon by DEP and the ACOE.
DRAFT DOCUMENT NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION Page 22 6.3 Calculating Function Credit Gain (FCG)
The FCG for a compensation project proposal is calculated after the following values have been determined: 1) Determine the area(s) anticipated to gain in functional capacity in acres to the nearest hundredth of an acre (AP) for each of the applicable functional groups; 2) Determine the Compensation Value Category and CV value(s) for each of the applicable aquatic resources from Table 5; 3) Determine the appropriate RV value(s) for each of the applicable resources from Table 2; 4) Obtain the existing resource condition score for each of the applicable resources, utilize protocols and design plans to project final resource condition upon project completion; calculate the condition index differential (CIdiff) by subtracting the existing resource condition from the projected resource condition. The FCG for each applicable function group is then calculated using the following equation: Functional Credit Gain (FCG) = AP x RV x CV x CIdiff FCG = Functional Credit gain AP = Area of Project for applicable function group (in acres, 0.00) RV = Resource Value (Table 2) CV = Compensation Value (Table 4) CIdiff = Condition Index Differential Value (0.00) (this is the difference between the existing condition and the projected condition post project implementation for each applicable resource condition assessment)
DRAFT DOCUMENT NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION Page 23 Table 5. Compensation Value Factor
Aquatic Compensation Value Category

Waterways
1.) Proposed project entails a comprehensive restoration of stream and floodplain areas as appropriate in consideration of existing watershed conditions Project must provide all 4 functional groups. 2.) Stream and floodplain restoration in conjunction with a wetland establishment component must provide at least 3 of 4 function groups.
Value
Extensive Wetlands
1.) Proposed project entails reestablishment of wetlands, not establishment or enhancement. Projects must be equal to or greater than 5.0 acres in size or 2.) Any size wetland reestablishment in conjunction with a riverine and floodplain restoration effort. Wetland project must provide all 3 functional groups and waterway project must provide at least 3 of 4 function groups.
Reservoirs/Lakes
1.) Proposed project entails a comprehensive effort. Project would include public recreation improvements, easements or access acquisition; and habitat restoration/creation. 2.) Projects including one of the previous and coupled with other efforts involving water quality improvements such as: phosphorus control, sediment control, nitrate control; or shoreline and riaprian zone revegetation; or upstream stream or floodplain restoration (i.e. sediment supply) or adjacent wetland reestablishment.
3.0
Waterways
1.) Stream and floodplain restoration project designed in consideration of existing watershed conditions, providing at least 3 of 4 function groups. 2.) Any stream restoration or floodplain restoration inconjunction with a wetland reestablishment or enhancement project.
Moderate Wetlands
1.) Wetland reestablishment project equal to or greater than 1.0 acre but less than 5.0 acres in size. 2.) Wetland establishment or enhancement projects equal to or greater than 5.0 acres in size must provide at least 2 of 3 functional groups. 3.) Any wetland establishmewnt or enhancement project in conjunction with waterway or floodplain restoration project.
Reservoirs/Lakes
1.) Lake project providing both public recreation improvements, easements or access acquisition and habitat restoration, enhancement or creation. 2.) Lake project coupled with either stream, floodplain or wetland project, providing at least 1 of 2 functional groups.
2.0
Waterways
1.) Stream or floodplain restoration or enhancement project, must provide a minimum 2 of 4 functional groups. 2.) Any stream or floodplain project coupled with wetland or lake project must provide at least 1 of 4 function groups excluding HAB1 function group.
Limited Wetlands
1.) Wetland reestablishment only project less than 1.0 acre in size 2.) Wetland establishment or enhancement projects less than 5.0 acres in size must provide at least 2 of 3 functional groups. 3.) Any wetland reestablishment, establishment or enhancement project coupled with stream, floodplain or lake project must provide at least 1 of 3 function groups.
Reservoirs/Lakes
1.) Lake project providing at least 1 of 2 functional groups, if HAB3 functional group, physical habitat improvement must be done, vegetation control planting ineligible (see Minimal Project Category).
1.5
Waterways
Minimal Wetlands
Reservoirs/Lakes
1.) Proposed project entails invasive species control efforts or efforts to establish native aquatic plant species, HAB3 function group only.
1.) Proposed project entails stream 1.) Proposed project entails efforts fishery habitat, HAB1 functional to enhance wetlands through group only. plantings or invasive species control, HAB2 function group only.
1.0
7.0 Compensation Value Adjustment

The preservation of aquatic resources in lieu of providing compensatory mitigation through enhancing or restoring aquatic resources is not accepted as compensatory mitigation for offsetting projects authorized to effect aquatic resources pursuant to Chapters 105 and 106. However, there is a role for preservation related to compensatory enhancement or restoration mitigation projects. As required pursuant to the joint federal mitigation rule (332.##), areas that encompass the enhancement or restoration project area must be protected under a conservation easement or deed restricted covenants. Lands owned by government entities must have a resource management plan that encompasses the project area and specifically controls activities and (federal rule language) The areas directly part of the enhancement or restoration project are not considered preservation for the purposes of adjusting the compensation value. However, preservation of areas in conjunction with an enhancement or restoration project must be directly linked to and contribute to the long-term viability of the project. The Compensation Value (Cv) established in Section 6.0 may be adjusted according to the requirements outlined in Sections 7.1 7.3 resulting in an Adjusted Compensation Value (Cvaf) that is then used in place of the Cv value used for calculating the potential function credit generation from a project. The Cvaf values are determined for the applicable resource and are not used across resource types. The area of preservation must meet the minimum requirements as indicated below for each applicable resource type in order to adjust the Cv initially determined for the proposed project. 7.1 Riverine Preservation Areas There are two types of preservation that may be used to adjust the Compensation Value of a project; Upstream Corridor Preservation and Lateral Buffer Preservation. These two types of preservation areas must consider, at a minimum, the following: Riparian Ecotone Condition of the proposed Upstream Corridor Preservation area; Length of the Upstream Corridor Preservation area in relation to the downstream project length; Upstream Corridor Preservation must be immediately upstream of the enhancement or restoration project, preservation area must also include the floodplain and the Riparian Zone of Influence (RZOI); The condition of the vegetation/land cover of the Lateral Buffer Preservation; Areas extending laterally from the floodplain boundary of the enhancement or restoration project at a minimum include the RZOI.
DRAFT DOCUMENT NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION Page 25 7.1.1 Upstream Corridor Preservation The upstream corridor preservation area extends upstream from the compensation project upstream boundary; and extends laterally to encompass the stream channel, the 100 year floodplain and the Riparian Zone of Influence (ZOI). The overall RECI of the upstream corridor preservation area must be > = 0.65. The example to the right depicts a project with a proposed upstream preservation area that is greater than 2Xs the project length and with a RECI condition >0.65. This upstream corridor preservation would provide result in adding an additional 0.65 - 1.0 to the compensation value established in Section 6.0. Table 6 Riverine Upstream Preservation Corridor Adjustment Factor provides the adjustment factor ranges and length of preservation corridor to project length criteria that will be considered.
Table 6. Riverine Upstream Preservation Corridor Adjustment Factor Preservation Area Adjustment Factor Value Range (length of stream) (AF) RECI x AF of project stream 0.25 0.17 0.25 length Equal to project 0.50 0.33 0. 50 stream length Equal to 2 times 0.75 0.49 0.75 project stream length >2 times project 1.0 0.65 1.00 stream length The following formula is used to determine the adjusted compensation value for use in calculating the function credit gain as described in Section 6.0: CVAF = CV + (RECI x AF) 7.1.2 Lateral Riverine Riparian ZOI Preservation Area must be immediately adjacent to the 100 year floodplain and at a minimum, extend to the limits of the Riparian ZOI and extend along the compensation project area. The Riparian ZOI CI of the preservation area must be > = 0.65. Table 7 Riverine Lateral Preservation Corridor Adjustment Factor provides the adjustment factor ranges and lateral extent of preservation extending from the Riparian area (100 year floodplain) that will be considered.
Table 7. Riverine Lateral Riparian ZOI Preservation Adjustment Factor Preservation Area Adjustment Factor Value Range (length of stream) (AF) Riparian ZOI CI x AF ZOI of riparian area 0.25 0.17 0.25 ZOI of riparian area plus greater than or 0.50 0.33 0. 50 equal to 100 feet ZOI of riparian area plus greater than or 0.75 0.49 0.75 equal to 200 feet ZOI of riparian area plus greater than or 1.0 0.65 1.00 equal to 300 feet The following formula is used to determine the adjusted compensation value for use in calculating the function credit gain as described in Section 6.0: CVAF = CV + (Riparian ZOI CI x AF) 7.2 Wetland Preservation Areas Preservation of uplands adjacent to wetland compensation projects The area proposed to be preserved must extend from the wetland boundary into the uplands and at a minimum encompass the Wetland Zone of Influence (WZOI) area as defined in the Wetland Condition Level 2 Rapid Assessment Protocol. The WZOI condition index must have an existing condition or a projected increase in condition of >= 0.65. If the increase in condition is projected, then the adjustment factor is a projected one and the final rating will be determined at a point in time based upon the proposed projects monitoring plans, time scales and the established success criteria. At a minimum, the WZOI condition index will be used to determine the value range of the adjustment factor. If the averaged condition index fails to meet the minimum condition rating, no adjustment factor will be awarded for the preserved areas and the projects credit determination will be adjusted accordingly. Table 8 Wetland ZOI Preservation Adjustment Factor provides the adjustment factor ranges and lateral extent of preservation extending from the wetland boundary that will be considered.
Table 8. Wetland ZOI Preservation Adjustment Factor Adjustment Factor Value Range Preservation Area (AF) WZOICI x AF ZOI of wetland area 0.25 0.17 0.25 ZOI of wetland area plus greater than or 0.50 0.33 0. 50 equal to 100 feet ZOI of wetland area plus greater than or 0.75 0.49 0.75 equal to 200 feet ZOI of wetland area plus greater than or 1.0 0.65 1.00 equal to 300 feet Additional consideration of the Hydrogeomorphic wetland classification should be taken into account when establishing the extended areas for the WZOI. Condition of the proposed preservation area Hydrogeomorphic wetland class (important to establishing areas beyond the ZOI) Area adjacent to the wetland known as the Wetland ZOI is considered the minimum area necessary for preservation Physical barriers such as roads, vertical topography, adjacent streams, etc.
The following formula is used to determine the adjusted compensation value for use in calculating the function credit gain as described in Section 6.0: CVAF = CV + (WZOI CI x AF) 7.3 Lacustrine Preservation Areas Preservation of lands adjacent to lacustrine compensation projects The area proposed to be preserved must extend from the lacustrine boundary into the adjoining lands and at a minimum encompass the lacustrine Riparian Shoreline area and the Riparian Zone of Influence (ZOI) area which in combination extends 100 feet from the edge of water as defined in the Lacustrine Condition Level 2 Rapid Assessment Protocol. The averaged Riparian Shoreline Vegetation and the Riparian ZOI condition indexes must have an existing condition or a projected increase in condition of > = 0.65. If the increase in condition is projected, then the adjustment factor is a projected one and the final rating will be determined at a point in time based upon the proposed projects monitoring plans and time scales and the established success criteria. At a minimum, the averaged Riparian Shoreline Vegetation and the Riparian ZOI condition indexes will be used to determine the value range of the adjustment factor. If the averaged condition index fails to meet the minimum condition rating, no adjustment factor will be awarded for the preserved areas and the projects credit determination will be adjusted accordingly.
Table 9 Lacustrine Riparian Shoreline & ZOI Preservation Adjustment Factor provides the adjustment factor ranges and lateral extent of preservation extending from the Riparian Shoreline that will be considered. Table 9. Lacustrine Riparian Shoreline & ZOI Preservation Adjustment Factor Adjustment Value Range (Riparian Shoreline + ZOI CI) x AF Preservation Area Factor (AF) 2 Riparian Shoreline Vegetation 0.25 0.17 0.25 and Riparian ZOI area Riparian Shoreline Vegetation and Riparian ZOI area plus 0.50 0.33 0. 50 greater than or equal to 100 feet Riparian Shoreline Vegetation and Riparian ZOI area plus 0.75 0.49 0.75 greater than or equal to 200 feet Riparian Shoreline Vegetation and Riparian ZOI area plus 1.0 0.65 1.00 greater than or equal to 300 feet Additional consideration of the following factors should be taken into account when establishing the extended areas for the Riparian Shoreline and ZOI. Condition of the proposed preservation area Area adjacent to the lacustrine resource known as the Riparian ZOI is considered the minimum area necessary for preservation The type of lacustrine environment such as reservoir, large river, small impoundment, etc.
The following formula is used to determine the adjusted compensation value for use in calculating the function credit gain as described in Section 6.0: CVAF = CV +
([(Riparian Shoreline CI + ZOI CI)] x A )

F
2 7.4 Addressing TMDL Related Impairments Projects that directly address sources of impairments with related TMDLS may receive additional compensation value adjustment factors. The proposed project must result in reduction of sources that are addressed as part of the TMDL. <<Additional language for values pending>>>
DRAFT DOCUMENT NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION Page 29 7.5 Adjusting the Overall Functional Credit Calculation
The CVAF calculated in the above sections is used in place of the CV in the functional credit calculation, thereby increasing the overall credit value for each applicable function group. The CVAF values in some instances are additive, such as the riverine upstream and lateral preservation adjustment factors. The values may also differ for components of larger projects and may not be carried forward to another stream reach or separate wetland area for example. Functional Credit Gain (FCG) = AP x RV x CV x CIDIFF
Definitions
{Mitigation rule definitions for project types} Chapter 105 definitions
Resources
Unified Stream Methodology; January 2007. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District And Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Stream Mitigation Method; February 2007. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, State of Missouri. PSU HGM Cowardin, L. M., Carter,V., Giolet, F. C. and LaRoe, E. T.: 1979, 'Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States', FSW/OBS-79/31, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. Office of Biologic Services, Washington, D.C., 102 pp.
Harrelson, Cheryl C; Rawlins, C. L.; Potyondy, John P. 1994. Stream channel reference sites: an illustrated guide to field technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 61 p. Fischenich, J.C. (2006). Functional objectives for stream restoration. EMRRP Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN-EMRRP-SR-52). Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. www.wes.army.mil/el/emrrp
Mitigation Rule Chapter 93 Chapter 102 Chapter 105 DEP Riparian Buffer Guidance? Verry, E.S., Dolloff, C.A., and Manning, M.E.: 2004, Riparian Ecotone: A functional definition and delineation for resource assessment. Water, Air and Soil Pollution: Focus 4:67-94
Stroud Water Research Center: 2008, Protecting Headwaters: The Scientific Basis for Safeguarding Stream and River Ecosystems. A Research Synthesis from the Stroud Water Research Center.
Appendix A Aquatic Resource Function Compensation Worksheets
Aquatic Resource Function Worksheet 1

Compensation Requirement Determination
Draft Version 1.0 Project Name: Resource Identifier:
Resource Type
Area of Project Resource Resource Function Impact (AI in Effect Factor Value Factor Condition Value Group (PE) (RV) (CI ) 0.00 a cres) WQ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Compensation Requirement (credits 0.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Streams and/or Floodplains
CC HAB1 RRS HYD
Wetlands
BGC HAB2
Reservoirs and Large Rivers
HAB3 REC
Aquatic Resource Function Worksheet 2

Proposed Compensation Valuation
Draft Version 1.0 Project Name: Site Identifier:
Resource Type
Area of Function Impact (AI in Group 0.00 a cres) WQ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Compensation Value Factor (CV) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Resource Value Factor (RV) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Resource Condition Differential Value (CI ) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Proposed Compensation Value (credits 0.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Streams and/or Floodplains
CC HAB1 RRS HYD
Wetlands
BGC HAB2
Reservoirs and Large Rivers
HAB3 REC
Channel Stream Orchard Reac Orchard Reac Orchard Reac Orchard TOT Spur TOTAL Length (ft) 2458 2060 1000 5518 1250 6 Width (ft) 12 12 10
Left ZOI Width (ft) 100 100 100
Right ZOI Width (ft) 100 100 100
floodplain width (feet) 150 150 150 Area (ac) 11.96 10.03 4.82 26.81
Existing Channel 0.65 0.65 0.25
Existing Rip Veg 0.50 0.50 0.20
100 Functional Area (ac)
100
100
5.91
0.75
0.35
HAB1 OR 1 OR 2 OR 3 Orchard Total Spur Total Total 0.68 0.57 0.23 1.47 0.17 1.65
RS 0.68 0.57 0.23 1.47 0.17 1.65
HYD1 9.14 7.66 3.67 20.48 3.04 23.52
BGC1 8.46 7.09 3.44 19.00 2.87 21.87
Rv 2.00 2.00 2.00
Cv 3.00 3.00 3.00
CIdiff 0.47 0.47 0.85
2.00
3.00
0.49
Where FCG = Ap*Rv*Cv*CIdiff; Resource Value Factor (Rv = 2); Compensation Value Factor (Cv =3). Functional Credit Gain HAB1 OR 1 OR 2 OR 3 Orchard Total Spur Total Total 1.91 1.60 1.17 4.68 0.51 5.19 RS 1.91 1.60 1.17 4.68 0.51 5.19 HYD1 25.78 21.60 18.73 66.12 8.94 75.06 BGC1 23.87 20.00 17.56 61.44 8.44 69.87 HAB1 2.66 2.35 1.92 5.43 1.26 6.69 Adjusted Functional Credit Gain RS 2.66 2.35 1.92 5.43 1.26 6.69 HYD1 26.53 22.35 19.48 66.87 9.69 76.56 BGC1 24.62 20.75 18.31 62.19 9.19 71.37
Where ZOI adjustment of 0.75 (200 feet lateral w/CI o
Existing Rip ZOI 0.25 0.25 0.20
Existing Instream 0.50 0.50 0.05
Existing Alteration 0.75 0.75 0.05
Existing RECI 0.53 0.53 0.15
Proposed Channel 1.00 1.00 1.00
Proposed Rip Veg 1.00 1.00 1.00
Proposed Rip ZOI 1.00 1.00 1.00
Proposed Instream 1.00 1.00 1.00
Proposed Alteration 1.00 1.00 1.00
0.15
0.55
0.75
0.51
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
of 1).
Proposed RECI 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00

Towanda Creek Stream and Wetland Propectus

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Towanda Creek Stream and Wetland Propectus

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Towanda Creek Stream & Wetland Mitigation Umbrella Bank

4.1 Project Location .................................................................................................................... 4

4.1 Project Location

Geographic Service Area (Figure 1)

Local Regulated Resources

Illustration 1. Pennsylvania Headwater Stream Functional Areas

Conceptual Work Plan

Wetland Function Enhancement Plan Chippewa Swamp & Saddle Swamp

Percent Change to Functional Condition 223 0 14 122 0 14 35 35

Function Group BGC2 HYD2

Chippewa 13.00 13.00

Chippewa + ZOI 39.29 39.29

Saddle 14.14 14.14

Saddle + ZOI 60.06 60.06

Proposed Monitoring Protocol

Accounting & Reporting Protocol

Landowners & Long-Term Protection:

Assurance of Sufficient Water Rights

Service Area Legend

Upper Susquehanna Service Area

Latitude: 41.667905 Longitude: -76.749811 (NAD 83/wgs 84)

Towanda Creek Stream & Wetland Mitigation Umbrella Bank

Geographic Service Area Upper Susquehanna River Basin

Coordinate System: NAD_83_SPPAN FT Imagery: 2011 N. G. Society, i-cubed

Towanda Creek Stream & Wetland Mitigation Umbrella Bank

Coordinate System: NAD_83_SPPAN FT

Towanda Creek Stream & Wetland Mitigation Umbrella Bank

Natural Gas Pipeline Activity

Special Note: Map data sponsored by Bradford County GIS

Orchard Creek Chippewa Swamp

Spur Creek & Saddle Swamp

Towanda Creek Stream & Wetland Mitigation Umbrella Bank

Phase 1: Wetland & Stream Areas

Coordinate System: NAD_83_SPPAN FT Imagery: Ortho PA 2010

MaB CpB VoB MaB

CpA VoC MaC VoB

MaB Po VoB VoD MaC Uc CpA MaC Ho VoD

MaB VoB CpB VoB CpA

VoB MaC VoC

CpB MaC VoD VoB VoD MsB MoC VoC

Ln Uc VoB MoB MsD MoC WbC

Spur Creek & Saddle Swamp

MoC MaC Uc MoB Uc MoC

MoC Ln MoC MoB

Towanda Creek Stream & Wetland Mitigation Umbrella Bank

MoC MoB MoC MoC MoC MoC

MoC MsD MoC MsD

Miles 0.25 0.5 1

MsB CpA 2.5

Coordinate System: NAD_83_SPPAN FT

1101 Haynes St., Suite 211 Raleigh NC 27604

Ph: 919.755.9490 Fax: 919.755.9492 www.restorationsystems.com

Drainage Area ~ 274 ac.

Latitude: 41.684084 Longitude: -76.72973 (NAD 83/WGS 84)

Reach 2 ~ 2,060 l. ft.

Reach 3 ~ 1,000 l. ft.

Towanda Creek Stream & Wetland Mitigation Umbrella Bank

Site Drainage Legend

3 Orchard Creek Restoration 34

FWS Nation Wetland Inventory

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Orchard Creek Legend

Towanda Creek & Tributaries 1 inch = 500 feet

Freshwater Forested / Shrub Wetland Freshwater Pond Riverine Wetland13