Mitigation Banking Prospectus

Fall-Off Creek Mitigation Bank

Coryell County, Texas
SWF-2009-00142

Prepared for:

Mitigation Management, LLC.

In care of:
J. Mike Bird
2557 State Highway 7 East
Center, Texas 75935

March 29, 2010

www.advancedecology.com
Mitigation Banking Prospectus
Part I: Bank Information

Contact Information

Mitigation Bank Name: Fall-Off Creek Mitigation Bank

Name of Sponsor: Mitigation Management, LLC.
Mailing Address: c/o J. Mike Bird
2557 State Highway 7 East
Center, TX 75935
Phone Number: 936-598-9588
Fax Number: 936-598-9579
Email Address: jmbird@advancedecology.com

Part II: Objectives

The watershed of Fall-Off Creek consists of perennial (3,990 linear feet), intermittent (11,321.9 linear
feet), and ephemeral (15,826.3 linear feet) streams that are planned for riparian vegetation restoration
and enhancement practices through seedling plantings of the appropriate native species within the
proposed bank (Appendix A, Figures 7 and 8).

“The objective of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act
(CWA), is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters by
preventing point and nonpoint pollution sources, providing assistance to publicly owned treatment works
for the improvement of wastewater treatment, and maintaining the integrity of wetlands” (EPA 2009).

This objective is stated legally as follows (CWA 2002):

AN ACT To provide for water pollution control activities in the Public Health Service of the
Federal Security Agency and in the Federal Works Agency, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in
Congress assembled,
TITLE I—RESEARCH AND RELATED PROGRAMS
DECLARATION OF GOALS AND POLICY
SEC. 101. (a) The objective of this Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.

Therefore, in accordance with the objective stated above, the first goal of the proposed bank is to
provide for the replacement of the chemical, physical, and biological functions and services of streams
that are lost or degraded as a result of USACE authorized activities. The second goal of the proposed
bank is to provide USACE permit applicants greater flexibility in compensating for unavoidable adverse
impacts to the aquatic ecosystem after appropriate and practicable measures have been taken to avoid
and minimize project-related impacts on site, and after practicable compensation has been conducted, or
shown not to be in the best interest of the environment, especially when those impacts would be
relatively minor. The final goal of the proposed bank is to provide more extensive, higher quality, and
more cost-effective restoration, enhancement, and protection of streams than that typically achieved by
other forms of compensatory mitigation for USACE authorized activities that have adverse impacts on the
aquatic environment.

Project Location
The proposed bank (264.2 acres) is part of a larger tract of land (2,087.5 acres) located approximately
fifteen miles southeast of the city of Gatesville, Texas in Coryell County within the intersection of FM 107
and State Highway 236 (Appendix A, Figure 1). Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates for the
proposed bank are: Easting 640332.40 and Northing 3469085.57, Zone 14 (Appendix A, Figure 1). The
property containing the proposed bank is located within the Cross Timbers Ecoregion (Griffith et al. 2004)
and the Little River Basin (HUC: 120702) (Appendix A, Figure 2).

Baseline Conditions
This prospectus addresses approximately 5.9 miles of perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams
associated with Fall-Off Creek, a tributary of the Leon River (Appendix A, Figure 4). A large portion of
the drainage area of Fall-Off Creek is contained within this landholding. The watershed of Fall-Off Creek
consists of perennial (3,990 linear feet), intermittent (11,321.9 linear feet), and ephemeral (15,826.3
linear feet) streams that are designated for riparian vegetation restoration and enhancement practices
through seedling plantings of the appropriate native species within the proposed bank (Appendix A,
Figures 7 and 8). A recent preliminary feasibility study, resource review, and site reconnaissance support
the Sponsor’s desire to pursue a stream mitigation bank on the site.

These preliminary investigations and on-site inspections take into consideration the components (i.e.
stream function and morphology, soils, vegetation, and hydrology) that are important when attempting to
develop a viable and sustainable mitigation bank with a high probability for success.

Site History
Coryell County was traditionally composed of farming communities in which cotton was the
primary agricultural product. With the onset of the Great Depression in the 1930’s, cotton
farming yielded to cattle, sheep, and goat production. Cotton production within the area never
recovered, and by the early 1980s no cotton was commercially grown in the county (Smyrl 2008).
In 1985, approximately 500,000 acres of Coryell County was actively managed farmland for the
production of crops and livestock. In addition, most of the acreage of Ft. Hood and Lake Belton
were leased to farmers and ranchers in the area for livestock grazing (USDA 1985).

Coryell County is located within the Grand Prairie region of Texas (Smyrl 2008). The county is
bordered by McLennan and Bell counties to the south and southeast which are currently
experiencing substantial socioeconomic growth, especially in the cities of Waco, Killeen, and
Temple. The county encompasses approximately 1,031 square miles. Two river systems, the
Leon River, and Cowhouse Creek, drain the northern and eastern, and southern and western
 areas of the county respectively (Smyrl 2008). These rivers are associated with the Brazos River
system.

The project site was once owned by Pat Neff, the 28th Governor of Texas, and is located
approximately 3 miles west of Mother Neff State Park. The project site also is located
approximately 7 miles west of Ft. Hood, a 340 square mile military base which possesses some of
the largest contiguous acreage of critical habitat for golden cheeked warblers and blacked capped
vireos.

Current and Historic Land Uses

Current and historic aerial photographs from 1953 to 2009 (Appendix B, and Appendix A, Figure
4) reveal that the property historically was managed for row crop agriculture from the 1960s
through the 1970s, and possibly the 1980s. The property was then managed as a cattle grazing
operation, which continues today. The current ranching operation runs 325 head of cattle and
1,250 head of yearlings year round. The ranch actively practices brush management control by
removing cedar (aka Ashe Juniper, Juniperus asheii), and maintaining or increasing grassy
clearings along the riparian zone of Fall-Off Creek.

Land uses and management in the Fall-Off Creek drainage in the southern portion of the property
appear similar from 1953 to present day. Due to historic land uses, the baseline condition of this
site is altered substantially from the original condition, but can be restored/enhanced via the
development and implementation of a site-specific Mitigation Plan (MP).

Site Characteristics
Vegetation
Land cover types in the proposed bank are identified as follows:
1) Sycamore-Texas walnut-sugarberry woods are found along the margin and within the stream
channel below the falls (Appendix A, Figure 4). Occasional specimens of redbud, red
mulberry, soapberry, and cottonwood occur in this community. Woody canopy varies from
30% to 70%. Herbaceous species may include a few facultative wetland plants and annual
forbs.

2) Cedar elm-Durand oak-Texas oak-sugarberry-live oak woods characterize the upper reaches
of the stream course above the falls (Appendix A, Figure 4). Coralberry, redbud, greenbrier,
and reproduction stems of Ashe juniper are common in the midstory and understory layers. A
small, remnant stand of large bur oaks and pecans occurs on the deeper, wetter soils
adjacent the seep springs and pool at the falls. Woody canopy varies from 20% to 90%.
Herbaceous species include little bluestem, Texas wintergrass, silver bluestem, King Ranch
bluestem, buffalograss, annual panic and paspalum species, hairy tridens, sideoats grama,
curly mesquite, plains lovegrass, and seep muhly. Within this community, small clearings are
installed to enhance forage for cattle grazing.
 3) The outer, less mesic portion of the riparian zone in the proposed bank includes the shrub
savanna community that extends into this portion of the riparian zone from the upland
communities. This area characterized by a variety of woody species such as Ashe juniper,
live oak, prickly pear cactus, flameleaf sumac, lotebush, pencil cactus, Mexican buckeye,
redbud, agarita, and Texas persimmon. Woody coverage varies from 10% to 75%, but, is
quite variable and clumped. Likewise, in this area clearing of woody species has encouraged
herbaceous growth--primarily forage species desired for cattle grazing. Grass species are
similar to elsewhere, with the exception that King Ranch bluestem and little bluestem seem to
be more abundant.

In response to restoration and enhancement practices, these land cover types are suitable for
providing the assorted life requisites for a variety of wildlife species associated with riparian zones in
this limestone region in Texas. Similarly, enrichment of the vegetation communities is proven to
benefit water quality and quantity. Numerous research studies in this karst region of Central Texas
emphasize the contribution that flourishing, diverse native plant communities have on water supplies
and quality factors. These outcomes are among those envisioned for the bank.

Soils
The soils found within the proposed bank boundary are listed as non-hydric (Appendix A, Figure 6).
The Lewisville series occurs in portions of the lower elevations where sedimentation and weathering
have promoted deeper soils. Eckrant and Real series are shallow soils on moderate to steep slopes
with numerous rock outcrops. Oglesby, Bolar, and Denton series include moderately deep soils on
uplands and divides with low relief. The majority of the soils within the proposed bank boundary are
Lewisville, Eckrant, and Real.

Hydrology
Results from the resource review, and site reconnaissance indicate that hydrology resembling the
historic, natural regime continues to function without alteration from physical barriers. No artificial,
physical barriers occur along the stream channel, although several, very small catchments are
installed off-channel in the higher elevation to impede excessive runoff. Existing range conditions
are reasonable, thus runoff is not excessive beyond normal limits for this status. However, with
optimal range management, surface runoff is expected to be lessened while groundwater storage is
expected to be increased substantially. Recent research indicates that the presence of vigorous
woody communities can be as beneficial to abating runoff and increasing groundwater storage as
are excellent range conditions in grassland or savanna communities (Wilcox 2010). Therefore,
restoration and enhancement of riparian vegetation is expected to contribute substantially to
functions of the riparian community.

Part III: Establishment and Operation

Conceptual Mitigation Work Plan

Upon approval to proceed with development of the draft Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI), a detailed
baseline functional assessment using an appropriate stream assessment model will be conducted.
Several stream models are being evaluated for applicability to the bank. The appropriate stream
assessment model will be selected at a later date prior to submittal of the Draft MBI. A mitigation plan
(MP) will be developed with the goal to restore a viable and sustainable stream, in an ideal location, and
with a high probability for success. In general, as noted above, this will be conducted by restoring and
enhancing the riparian vegetation associated with the perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams
within the bank boundary (Appendix A, Figure 8). These actions are anticipated to result in a significant
increase in the functional capacity of the site. Riparian vegetation restoration and enhancement activities
are anticipated to aid in the abatement of flooding downstream, achieve increases in water quality
delivered by this tributary into the Leon River, and serve as a supplement to state watershed protection
initiatives.

Credit/Debit Procedures
The credit amount will be determined by comparison of the baseline level of aquatic resource function of
the proposed bank to the anticipated uplift generated by implementation of the mitigation plan. This
site-specific evaluation of bank credits is consistent with USACE Federal Register dated April 10, 2008.
The number of credits allotted to the proposed bank will be determined using the appropriate stream
assessment model for the site. Details of the credit/debit procedures will be provided in the Draft MBI.

Part IV: Proposed Service Area

The service area of a mitigation bank is the geographical area (e.g., watersheds or hydrologic unit codes
(HUCs), counties, ecoregions, etc.) within which mitigation bank credits may be used, if approved, for
compensatory mitigation for adverse impacts to the aquatic ecosystem anticipated by USACE permit
applicants.

The proposed primary service area would include like-kind habitat and out-of-kind habitat types wholly
encompassed within the USACE Fort Worth District boundary within the intersection of the Little HUC
(120702), the Middle Brazos-Bosque HUC (120602) and the Cross Timbers Ecoregion, the intersection of
the Little HUC (120702) and the Edwards Plateau and Texas Blackland Prairies Ecoregions, and the
intersection of the Middle Brazos-Clear Fork HUC (120601) and the Cross Timbers Ecoregion. This would
include Palo Pinto, Erath, Somervell, Bosque, Hamilton, and Coryell Counties in their entirety and portions
of Bell, Brown, Burnet, Callahan, Comanche, Eastland, Falls, Hill, Hood, Jack, Johnson, Lampassas,
McLennan, Milam, Mills, Parker, Shackelford, Stephens, Williamson, and Young Counties (Figure 3).

The proposed secondary service area would include like-kind habitat and out-of-kind habitat types wholly
encompassed within the USACE Fort Worth District boundary within the intersection of the Middle Brazos-
Bosque HUC (120602) and the Texas Blackland Prairies, the intersection of the Lower Brazos HUC
(120701) and the Texas Blackland Prairie and East Central Texas Plains Ecoregions, the intersection of
the Middle Colorado-Concho HUC (120901) and the Cross Timbers Ecoregion, the intersection of the
Middle Colorado-Llano HUC (120902) and the Cross Timbers Ecoregion, the intersection of the Middle
Brazos-Clear Fork HUC (120601) and the Central Great Plains Ecoregion, the intersection of the Brazos
Headwaters HUC (120500) and the Central Great Plains Ecoregion, the intersection of the Middle Brazos-
Bosque HUC (120602) and the Central Great Plains Ecoregion, and the intersection of the Upper Trinity
HUC (120301) and the Cross Timbers Ecoregion. This would include Wise, Robertson, Brazos, Burleson,
Jones, and Throckmorton Counties in their entirety, and portions of Archer, Bastrop, Baylor, Bell, Brown,
Callahan, Clay, Coleman, Comanche, Cooke, Denton, Eastland, Falls, Fisher, Freestone, Grayson, Grimes,
Haskell, Hill, Hood, Jack, Johnson, King, Knox, Lampasas, Lee, Leon, Limestone, Madison, McCulloch,
McLennan, Milam, Mills, Montague, Nolan, Parker, San Saba, Scurry, Shackelford, Stephens, Stonewall,
Tarrant, Taylor, Washington, Williamson, and Young Counties (Figure 3).

In general, in-kind compensation of aquatic resource impacts will be required; however, out-of-kind
compensation may be acceptable if the USACE determines that it is appropriate, practicable, and
environmentally preferable for replacement of aquatic functions lost or degraded by project impacts.
Compensation will be provided in the form of restored and enhanced perennial, intermittent, and
ephemeral streams.

All credit purchases for projects in the primary service area will occur at the established mitigation ratios.
Utilization of the proposed bank for impacts occurring in the secondary service area will be calculated at a
ratio of 1.5:1. Use of the proposed bank to compensate for impacts beyond the primary, and secondary
service areas may be considered by the USACE, after coordination with the Interagency Review Team
(IRT), or other permitting agency, on a case-by-case basis. For impacts outside of the proposed service
areas and other adverse impacts to waters of the United States authorized by a standard individual or
after-the-fact USACE permit, higher mitigation ratios may be required.

Part V: General Need and Technical Feasibility

 
The purpose of the proposed bank is to provide a source of off-site compensatory mitigation of
unavoidable impacts to wetlands and other waters of the United States in the proposed bank’s service
area resulting from United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) authorized activities under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (Federal Water Pollution Control Act) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and
Harbors Act (Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899). The USACE and other federal agencies
recognize the potential benefits of mitigation banking to the aquatic ecosystem, permit applicants,
regulatory and natural resource agencies, and the general public. Mitigation banking is recognized as a
means to streamline the Section 404 permit process, provide additional compensatory mitigation
opportunities, consolidate and enhance the ecological benefits of otherwise smaller, independent
mitigation projects; and utilize expert financing, planning, and construction resources that are not often
available for alternative mitigation projects.

Notably, the recent final rule on compensatory mitigation (CMLAR 2008) asserts that the USACE District
Engineer is to use a watershed approach in considering compensation, giving attention to watershed
plans that may exist. With relevance to this topic, recognition is called to the Leon River Watershed
Protection Plan Project (BRA 2009) and the Leon River Restoration Project (LRRP 2007). Given that these
plans address chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of water in the Leon River basin,
expectations are that the District Engineer of the USACE Ft. Worth District will consider and recognize the
merits of the proposed bank project in relevance to the watershed plans. Certainly this is a matter
pertinent to development of the bank.
As an additional clarification, Julie M. Sibbing of the National Wildlife Federation stated the national policy
source of these goals as follows:

The goal of “no-net-loss” of wetlands was first set out by President George H.W. Bush during
his 1988 presidential campaign, and was announced as an administration policy at an EPA
press conference in January, 1989. The concept was originally developed by the National
Wetlands Policy Forum, a stakeholder panel brought together by the Conservation Foundation.
The results of the Forum were published in 1988 and called for a short-term goal of no overall
net loss of wetlands, and a longer term goal of achieving a net gain of the nation’s wetlands.
The goal did not just apply to the extent of wetlands acreage in the country, but also to the
functions and values of those wetlands, a much more difficult goal to achieve and to measure.
(Sibbing 2009)

Considering that the above themes recognize the pertinence of national, institutionalized plans for natural
resource conservation, attention is directed to the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) as
a major, integrated component of compensation for waters of the United States. Seemingly, though, the
connection between compensation for waters of the United States and formal all-bird conservation
heretofore is ignored among the respective entities in these two sectors of endeavor. Nonetheless, the
relevance is apparent when a comprehensive conservation overview is taken. The NABCI defines its
mission as “delivering the full spectrum of bird conservation through regionally based, biologically driven,
landscape-oriented partnerships is the goal of the North American Bird Conservation Initiative” (NABCI
2007). Importantly, the partnership hallmark of integration of strategies useful to engagement with
mitigation banks is found in the section “People Working Together Across Social, Political, and Cultural
Groups” at the NABCI website (NABCI 2007):

Diverse communities of conservationists, recreationists, land managers, scientists, and

administrators are dedicated to protecting and restoring North America's bird populations for
present and future generations. Fostering strong partnerships among these groups is key to
achieving the vision of integrated bird conservation. Only by joining forces will we succeed in
our efforts to protect and restore the habitats and landscapes upon which all of life, including
our own, depends.

Therefore, with these considerations, the integration of compensatory stream mitigation, especially
mitigation banks, and all-bird conservation is recommended as appropriate to all scales of environmental
pursuits, including the proposed bank.

Part VI: Easements and/or Encumbrances

All real property to be included within the proposed bank is owned in fee simple by the landowner, TCP II
Fall-Off, LLC. No lands encumbered by easements (i.e. utilities, oil and gas, or USACE flowage
easements) will be included within the bank boundary.
Part VII: Ownership and Long-Term Management Strategy
 
All real property to be included within the proposed bank is owned in fee simple by the landowner, TCP II
Fall-Off, LLC, and will be pledged for use in the proposed bank consistent with the final instrument. The
Sponsor shall dedicate the proposed bank, in perpetuity, by an appropriate conservation easement held
by a third party. The Sponsor shall secure USACE-approved financial assurances. Financial assurances
will be described in more detail in the Draft MBI.

Monitoring, Reporting, and Other Remedial Actions

The Sponsor shall monitor and report on the progress of the proposed bank toward achieving the goals
and performance standards and will take all reasonable actions necessary to remediate any problem that
may prevent any component of the bank from achieving the goals and performance standards
established by the final instrument. Procedures and protocol for short and long-term monitoring,
reporting, and taking remedial actions will be conducted in compliance with Regulatory Guidance Letter
(RGL) 08-03, and will be described in more detail in the Draft MBI.

Accounting Procedures
The Sponsor shall establish and maintain for inspection a ledger of all bank transactions, to be provided
to the USACE and final instrument signatories, to be specified in the draft instrument.

Bank Expansion
The Sponsor may request that additional areas of land owned fee simple or contracted by the Sponsor be
added to the proposed bank at a future date. The Sponsor shall submit a mitigation plan to the USACE
for each proposed expansion of the proposed bank. The mitigation plan shall address and update
location and baseline conditions, mitigation plan, performance standards, success criteria, credit/debit
determinations, long-term management/monitoring/reporting, remedial actions, financial assurance and
other components of the mitigation plan as appropriate. The mitigation plan must be approved by the
USACE. The mitigation plan may be modified, if appropriate, following the procedure set forth in the
April 10, 2008 Federal Register Volume 73, No. 70 USACE Guideline 33 C.F.R. §332.8 (g).

Part VIII: Qualifications of Sponsor

Advanced Ecology, Ltd. will be retained by the Sponsor and shall be responsible for developing,
operating, and maintaining the proposed bank subject to the requirements of its MBI. Advanced Ecology,
Ltd. has been in the natural resource management business since 1979, and has been active in the
establishment and management of several mitigation banks in Texas.

Part IX: Ecological Suitability of the Site

This site was carefully evaluated and strategically selected for a number of reasons including, but not
limited to, watershed needs, long-term sustainability and site integrity, aquatic habitat diversity, habitat
connectivity, trends in land use, compatibility with adjacent land uses, anticipated uplift potential, and
probability for successful stream restoration and enhancement; or, collectively, a watershed approach.
Notably, this project contributes to broad natural resource conservation initiatives and directly
complements state and federally funded watershed improvement projects taking place on the Leon River.

In 1998, the entire Leon River below Lake Proctor was listed as “impaired” on the State of Texas Clean
Water Act Section 303(d) List for having bacteria concentrations that exceeded the state’s water quality
standards (BRA 2009). A watershed protection plan (WPP) is currently in place and is being facilitated by
the Brazos River Authority with federal funding from §319(h) of the Clean Water Act granted by the
Texas Soil and Water Conservation Board (TSWCB) (BRA 2009, TCEQ 2009). The Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has also begun developing total maximum daily load (TMDL) requirements
for a segment of the Leon River below Proctor Lake (TCEQ 2009).

A watershed approach gives direct consideration to 1) availability of suitable acreage and opportunities
for valuable stream restoration and enhancement activities, 2) the lack of existing mitigation banks within
the watershed, and 3) scarcity of viable stream mitigation opportunities within the proposed primary, and
secondary service areas.

Part X: Assurance of Water Rights

 
The owner possesses water rights on the property in the amount of 384 acre-feet per year from the Leon
River.

Attachments
 
Appendix A – Project Figures 
Figure 1 – Location Map 
Figure 2 – Level III Ecoregions and 6‐Digit HUC Boundaries 
Figure 3 – Service Area Map 
Figure 4 – 2009 Aerial Map 
Figure 5 – USGS Topographic Map 
Figure 6 – USDA Soils Map 
Figure 7 – Initial Wetland Evaluation Map 
Figure 8 – Conceptual Mitigation Work Plan Map  
 
Appendix B – Historic Aerial Imagery   
 Figure 1 of 8
Location Map
( Proposed Fall Off Creek Mitigation
! (
! Bank in Coryell County, Texas (
!

19
Fm

d 4240
2
Fm
16

Gholson Ross

56
02

County Roa

Fm
(
! (
!
Coryell County
Fm
93
Sta
te Valley Mills 3

Fm
Hw
y3 2 7
21
(
!
6 17 18

24
2 Fm 1
Fm Fm Fm

90
637
V
U 6 Lacy-Lakeview
82 (
!
V !(
U
491
1

V
U36
Fm

9 k Waco
92 Crawford ar Ro c
15

Fm Ced (
! 84
£
¤
82

(
!
Fm
1

Beverly Hills
F-M

Fm
32

Woodway
(
!

18
9

5
Fm

(
!
Gatesville 36
(UV South Mountain Hewitt

Fm
!

28
84 (
!
£
¤ Oglesby
84
£
¤ (
! (
!

37
( McGregor Robinson £
77
113 ¤
(
! !
Fm 107 2
Fm
Lorena
6
11
Fm

(
!
(
!
V
U236
Project Location

Moody Bruceville-Eddy
( Eddy Gatesville !
! (
V
U
36 V
U
317 V
U7

35
§
¦
¨
Troy
(
! Fm
9 35
Morgan's Point Resort
(
!
(
! 190
£
¤
Killeen Temple V
U
320
Fm 439
Nolanville
Fm Road 2657

(
! (
! (
!
Harker Heights (
!
(
! Belton
(
!
V
U
53
670

37
1

V
U
Fm

195
Fm

Little River Academy

Fm

(
!
2
484

190
Salado £
¤
(
! V
U95

Rogers
Property Boundary (
!

4
0 5 10 20 30
Miles
(
!
(
!
(
! Drawn By: Matt Neuman Vector data are for representation only and
SWF-2009-00142 Date: March 22, 2010 should not be used for legal description

(
!
 Figure 2 of 8
Level III Ecoregions and Six Digit HUC Boundaries
Proposed Fall Off Creek Mitigation Bank in Coryell County, Texas
Briscoe Hall Childress

Red-Pease
Hardeman
Floyd 111301

Motley Cottle
Wilbarger

Foard Wichita

Red-Lake Texoma
111302 Clay
Crosby Dickens King Montague Lamar
Knox Baylor Archer Cooke Grayson Red-Little
111401
Fannin
Delta
Big Cypress - Sulphur
Brazos Headwaters 111403
Kent 120500
Haskell Jack
Stonewall Throckmorton Young Wise Denton Collin
Hunt Hopkins

Middle Brazos-Clear Fork Sabine Wood

120601 Rockwall 120100
Scurry
Fisher Jones Upper Trinity Rains
Shackelford Stephens Palo Pinto Parker Tarrant 120301
Dallas

Kaufman
Van Zandt

Hood
Mitchell Nolan Johnson
Taylor Callahan Eastland Ellis
Upper Colorado Middle Brazos-Bosque Neches
120800 120602 120200
Erath Somervell Henderson

Navarro
Coke Comanche Hill
Sterling
Runnels Bosque
Anderson
Coleman Brown

Hamilton Freestone
Property Location
Middle Colorado-Concho Mills McLennan Limestone
Tom Green 120901
Lower Trinity
Irion Coryell 120302
Concho
Leon
McCulloch Little Falls
San Saba Lampasas
120702 Houston

Crockett Bell
Robertson
Schleicher Madison
Menard

Burnet Milam
Mason Walker
Llano Lower Brazos
Williamson
120701
Sutton Brazos
Kimble Middle Colorado-Llano Grimes
120902 Burleson
Devils
130403 Gillespie Travis Montgomery
Lee
Blanco
Washington San Jacinto
120401
Kerr Bastrop
Edwards Hays
Lower Colorado Waller
Level III Ecoregions Kendall
Val Verde Property Boundary High Plains 120903 Harris
Real Austin
Guadalupe Fayette
USACE District Boundary Central Great Plains South Central
ComalPlains 121002
Bandera Caldwell
Nueces Cross Timbers
6 Digit HUCs 121101 Southwestern Tablelands
San Antonio Colorado
Texas Counties East Central Texas Plains Texas Blackland Prairies
121003 San Bernard Coastal
Kinney Guadalupe
Uvalde Edwards Plateau Bexar Gonzales Lavaca 120904
Medina Western Gulf Coastal Plain 121001
Rio Grande-Falcon Wharton Fort Bend
130800 Wilson Lavaca

4
0 15 30 60 90 120 150
Miles
Drawn By: Matt Neuman Vector data are for representation only and
SWF-2009-00142 Date: March 22, 2010 should not be used for legal description
 Figure 3 of 8
Service Area Map
Proposed Fall Off Creek Mitigation Bank in Coryell County, Texas
Briscoe Hall Childress

Hardeman
Floyd

Motley Cottle
Wilbarger

Foard Wichita

Clay
Crosby Dickens King Montague Lamar
Knox Baylor Archer Cooke Grayson
Fannin

Delta
Garza
Kent
Stonewall Haskell Jack
Throckmorton Young Wise Denton Collin
Hunt Hopkins

Wood
Rockwall Rains
Scurry
Fisher Jones Shackelford Stephens Palo Pinto Parker Tarrant Dallas

Kaufman
Van Zandt

Hood
Mitchell Nolan Taylor Johnson
Callahan Eastland Ellis

Erath Somervell
Henderson

Navarro
Coke Comanche Hill
Sterling
Runnels Bosque
Property Location Anderson
Coleman Brown

Hamilton Freestone

Mills McLennan Limestone

Tom Green
Houston
Irion Concho Coryell

Leon
McCulloch Falls
San Saba Lampasas
Houston

Crockett Bell
Robertson
Schleicher Madison
Menard

Burnet Milam
Mason Walker
Llano
Williamson
Brazos
Sutton
Kimble Grimes
Burleson

Val Verde Gillespie Travis Montgomery

Lee
Blanco
Washington

Kerr Bastrop
Edwards Hays
Kendall Waller
Harris
Real Austin
Fayette
Comal Caldwell
Bandera
Proposed Fall Off Creek MB Service Area Property Boundary
Primary Service Area Colorado
Texas Counties Guadalupe Fort Bend
Kinney Bexar Gonzales
Secondary Service Area Uvalde Medina
Lavaca Wharton
Wilson

4
0 15 30 60 90 120 150
Miles
Drawn By: Matt Neuman Vector data are for representation only and
SWF-2009-00142 Date: March 22, 2010 should not be used for legal description
 Figure 4 of 8
Aerial Map
Proposed Fall Off Creek Mitigation Bank in Coryell County, Texas

_
^

Property Boundary

Fall Off Creek Mitigation Bank (264.2 acres)

Streams (5.9 miles)

_
^ Falls

4
0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000
Feet
Imagery: 2008 NAIP CCM Drawn By: Matt Neuman Vector data are for representation only and
SWF-2009-00142 Date: March 22, 2010 should not be used for legal description
 Figure 5 of 8
Topographic Map
Proposed Fall Off Creek Mitigation Bank in Coryell County, Texas

Property Boundary

Fall Off Creek Mitigation Bank (264.2 acres)

4
0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000
Feet
Base Map: USGS Quadrangle - Leon Junction Drawn By: Matt Neuman Vector data are for representation only and
SWF-2009-00142 Date: March 22, 2010 should not be used for legal description
 Figure 6 of 8
Soils Map
Proposed Fall Off Creek Mitigation Bank in Coryell County, Texas

ReF Soils within Bank ReF Boundary LeB ErB ErB

ReF
Map LabelErB Soil Name Hydric Classification Area (acres)
BgB Bolar gravelly clay loam, 1 to 4 percent slopes Not Hydric 5.00 DrC
DeB Denton silty clay, 1 to 3 percent slopes Not Hydric 14.28 DrC
DrC Doss-Real complex, 1 to 8 percent Not Hydric 80.91
EcB Eckrant cobbly silty clay, 1 to 5 percent slopes ReF
Not Hydric 2.19
ReF EcB
ErB TpC outcrop complex, 1 to 5 percent slopes
Eckrant-Rock Not Hydric 22.17 Bs
LeB Lewisville clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Not Hydric 48.49
ReF Real-Rock outcrop complex, LeB 12 to 40 percent slopes Not HydricLeB 91.16
TpC ErB

SlB ReF
SeC
ErB LeB
LeB
ReF
MnB
LeB

LeB

DrC
EcB
ErB
OgB
DeB Fr
ErB
OgB
BgB EcB
OgB
LeB
ReF
DeB
OgB
ReF
EcB LeB
LeB

ErB ErB
ErB
OgB LeB

EcB DeB ErB MnB ErB

ErB DeB
EcB
BgB DeB
DeB ErB
Property Boundary ReF
DeB BgB OgB
Fall Off Creek Mitigation Bank (264.2 acres)
OgB BgB
DeB
Hydric Soils
DeB
DeB DeB BgB
Non-Hydric
DeB Soils
DeB BgB DeB SlB BgB ErB

4
0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000
Feet
Soil Data: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Drawn By: Matt Neuman Vector data are for representation only and
SWF-2009-00142 Date: March 22, 2010 should not be used for legal description
 Figure 7 of 8
Initial Wetland Evaluation Map
Proposed Fall Off Creek Mitigation Bank in Coryell County, Texas

Property Boundary

Fall Off Creek Mitigation Bank (264.2 acres)

Streams
Perennial (3,990.0 ft)

Intermittent (11,321.9 ft)

Ephemeral (15,826.3 ft)

4
0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
Feet
Drawn By: Matt Neuman Vector data are for representation only and
SWF-2009-00142 Date: March 22, 2010 should not be used for legal description
 Figure 8 of 8
Conceptual Mitigation Work Plan Map
Proposed Fall Off Creek Mitigation Bank in Coryell County, Texas

Property Boundary

Riparian Zone Restoration and Enhancement (264.2 acres)

Stream Restoration and Enhancement

Perennial (3,990.0 ft)

Intermittent (11,321.9 ft)

Ephemeral (15,826.3 ft)

4
0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
Feet
Drawn By: Matt Neuman Vector data are for representation only and
SWF-2009-00142 Date: March 22, 2010 should not be used for legal description
 Fall Off Creek Mitigation Bank
1953 Imagery
Coryell County, Texas

Fall Off Creek Mitigation Bank (264.2 acres)

4
0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
Feet

Imagery: 1953 Army Mapping Service Drawn By: Matt Neuman Vector data are for representation only and
Date: March 22, 2010 should not be used for legal description
 Fall Off Creek Mitigation Bank
1966 Imagery
Coryell County, Texas

Fall Off Creek Mitigation Bank (264.2 acres)

4
0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
Feet

Imagery: 1966 Agri. Stabilization and Conser. Service Drawn By: Matt Neuman Vector data are for representation only and
Date: March 22, 2010 should not be used for legal description
 Fall Off Creek Mitigation Bank
1970 Imagery
Coryell County, Texas

Fall Off Creek Mitigation Bank (264.2 acres)

4
0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
Feet

Imagery: 1970 USGS Drawn By: Matt Neuman Vector data are for representation only and
Date: March 22, 2010 should not be used for legal description
 Fall Off Creek Mitigation Bank
1976 Imagery
Coryell County, Texas

Fall Off Creek Mitigation Bank (264.2 acres)

4
0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
Feet

Imagery: 1976 USGS Drawn By: Matt Neuman Vector data are for representation only and
Date: March 22, 2010 should not be used for legal description
 Fall Off Creek Mitigation Bank
1995 Imagery
Coryell County, Texas

Fall Off Creek Mitigation Bank (264.2 acres)

4
0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
Feet

Imagery: 1995 USGS Drawn By: Matt Neuman Vector data are for representation only and
Date: March 22, 2010 should not be used for legal description
 Fall Off Creek Mitigation Bank
2008 Imagery
Coryell County, Texas

Fall Off Creek Mitigation Bank (264.2 acres)

4
0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
Feet

Imagery: 2009 NAIP CCM Drawn By: Matt Neuman Vector data are for representation only and
Date: March 22, 2010 should not be used for legal description