19930818 Ver 2_More Info Received_20061130

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
MITIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Site Meeting
SOUTH WAKE LANDFILL
Wake County, North Carolina
Prepared for:
COUNTY
Prepared by:
EcoS~
~~
~+C V ~ ~ 2006
UEiVR - ilVf4TER C?tigLi7"Y
~rt~v~sA~~ srnaa,.~,~r~R ~R,~cr~

Background
The South Wake Landfill, located approximately 3 miles south of Apex in Wake County,
North Carolina, is planning to expand operations. As a result, approximately 2,561 linear
feet (If) of perennial and important intermittent stream channels and 6.85 acres of
jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted (see Table 1). In order to mitigate impacts to
jurisdictional systems, a mitigation feasibility study is currently being performed by
EcoScience Corporation within acounty-owned parcel (hereafter referred to as the
Feasibility Study Area) adjacent to the west of the existing landfill.
The floodplain of a third-order unnamed tributary (UT) to Little Branch comprises the
Feasibility Study Area. The Feasibility Study Area is bounded to the north by the South
Wake Expressway (I-540) easement, to the south by State Road (SR) 1153, and to the
east and west by the toe of the valley slope. Preliminary stream channel assessment
surveys indicate that the UT to Little Branch is a channelized (i.e., straightened) F4/5
(gravel/sand substrate) stream per Rosgen classification. F-type channels are
entrenched such that bankfull (i.e., the incipient point of flooding under reference
conditions) flows are confined within the channel, which has made bank erosion within
and upstream of the Feasibility Study Area problematic. The channel is also oversized,
which has caused sediment aggradation within the stream. Flowing into the main stem
UT to Little Branch are several lower-order (15t- and 2"d-order) streams which have also
incised within their stream beds to adjust to the base level of the UT.
Three restoration options, discussed below, are currently being considered as potential
candidates for on-site mitigation. Due to the mature, robust bottomland hardwood forest
occurring within the Feasibility Study Area, construction impacts would be minimized
' should on-site mitigation proceed. Estimated mitigation totals for each of the three
options are displayed on Table 2.

Option 1: Priority 1 Stream Restoration within Wake County Property Limits
This option entails Priority 1 stream restoration (i.e., excavating a channel on new
location on top of the existing floodplain via natural channel design) within Wake County-
owned land such that any hydrologic modifications to the existing streams/flow regimes
(e.g., hydrologic trespass) are confined within the property (NOTE: HEC-RAS and other
hydraulic modeling has not been performed as a part of this feasibility study. Extents of
hydraulic influence as a result of restoration efforts have been estimated based on North
Carolina Department of Transportation Wake County LIDAR topographic GIS data). In
order to step the proposed stream channel's bed elevation down to meet that of the
existing downstream channel, Priority 2 restoration (i.e., excavation of a channel on new
location within an excavated floodplain) will be required for an approximate 1,300 If
reach. Downstream of where the Priority 2 reach ties into the existing channel, a
floodplain will be excavated adjacent to the existing stream up to the downstream
property line.
Using limited stream channel survey data within the Feasibility Study Area and North
Carolina Piedmont Regional Curve (Harman et al.) data as references, the following
2

bankfull channel geometry is proposed (subject to change following subsequent
analyses/surveys) for restoring the third-order UT to Little Branch to a low width-to-depth
ratio C4/5 stream:
• Abkf: 25-35 ft.2
• Wbkf: 20 ft.
• Dmax: 2 ft.
• Dmaxpool: 3 ft.
• Bankfull slope: 0.002-0.005 ft./ft.
' Sinuosity: 1.3
Anticipated Benefits:
• High degree of ecological/functional/wildlife benefits associated with Priority 1
stream restoration (re-introduction of natural bankfull flow/floodplain
hydrodynamics, improved in-stream habitat, etc.)
' Restoration activities (and attendant hydrologic modification issues) to be
confined to Wake County property-no off-property easements required
' Priority 1 restoration opportunities for lower-order (first and second-order)
tributaries
' Potential for additional aquatic habitat restoration/creation (vernal pools within
partially backfilled relic channel, constructed sloughs, etc.)
• Greatly reduced bank erosion within restored stream reaches
• Potential wetland enhancement (isolated wetland area)
• Potential passive restoration of upstream portions of channels flowing into
' restored reaches as stream beds aggrade with sediment
Potential Drawbacks:
' • Lower linear footage yield than Option 2
• Stepping down the proposed channel invert to meet that of the existing
' downstream reach requires floodplain excavation (i.e., Priority 2 restoration)
• Potentially costly roadway crossing replacement at new stream location (will
' require a bridge or channel ford allowing room for part of stream floodplain)

i~
• Potential "logjam"/backwater effect at the downstream terminus of the restoration
effort just upstream of the bridge at SR 1153 as excavated floodplain areas are
' tapered into existing grade
• Impacts to robust bottomland hardwood forest associated with project
construction
• Potential planted tree survivability issues within excavated floodplain areas due
to topsoil removal (topsoil will potentially have to be stockpiled and re-applied to
excavated floodplain areas)
Option 2. Priority 1 Stream Restoration within and Upstream of Wake County
Property Limits
This option involves the same design and construction methodology as above, but
allows for the potential expansion of the project upstream of county-owned property
' (purchasing an easement would be required). Potential hydrologic modifications to the
existing stream would be restricted to areas south of the South Wake Expressway right-
of-way boundary to the north of existing Wake County property.
! Anticipated Benefits:
• High degree of ecological/functional/wildlife benefits associated with Priority 1
stream restoration (re-introduction of natural bankfull flow/floodplain
hydrodynamics, improved in-stream habitat, etc.)
' Highest stream restoration linear footage totals of the three mitigation options
• Priority 1 restoration opportunities for lower-order (first and second-order)
' tributaries
• Potential for additional aquatic habitat restoration/creation (vernal pools within
partially backfilled relic channel, constructed sloughs, etc.)
• Greatly reduced bank erosion within restored stream reaches
• Potential wetland enhancement (isolated wetland area)
' Potential passive restoration of upstream portions of channels flowing into
restored reaches as stream beds aggrade with sediment
Potential Drawbacks:
• Stepping down the proposed channel invert to meet that of the existing
' downstream reach requires floodplain excavation (i.e., Priority 2 restoration)
• Acquiring conservation easement encompassing restored channel length and
associated extents of hydrologic influence north of existing Wake County
' property would be required
'
~

1
• Potentially costly roadway crossing replacement at new stream location (will
require a bridge or channel ford allowing room for part of stream floodplain)
• Potential "logjam"/backwater effect at the downstream terminus of the restoration
effort just upstream of the bridge at SR 1153 as excavated floodplain areas are
tapered into existing grade
• Impacts to robust bottomland hardwood forest associated with project
construction
• Potential planted tree survivability issues within excavated floodplain areas due
to topsoil removal (topsoil will potentially have to be stockpiled and re-applied to
excavated floodplain areas)
Option 3: Stream Enhancement via Floodplain Excavation Adjacent to Existing
Channel within Wake County Property Limits
This option entails stream channel enhancement via excavation of a floodplain adjacent
' to the existing channel within Wake County-owned land. The width of the floodplain is
not yet determined, but is estimated at 20-50 ft. off both stream banks, making for a total
floodplain + existing channel width of 70-120 ft.
Anticipated Benefits:
' Potentially the least expensive restoration option of the three from a
planning/design standpoint
• Characteristic bankfull flood regime will be restored
' Ecological/functional benefits associated with restoration of characteristic
bankfull channel dimensions
' Greatly reduced bank erosion within restored reach
Potential Drawbacks:
• Potentially greater limits of disturbance (bottomland hardwood forest impacts)
' than Options 1 and 2
• Restoration of lower-order tributaries infeasible
' • Potentially high construction costs as a result of excavated material quantities
' • Off-site spoil area will be required to dispose of excavated material
• Potential planted tree survivability issues within excavated floodplain areas due
to topsoil removal (topsoil will potentially have to be stockpiled and re-applied to
excavated floodplain areas)
1
'
1

Table 1. Impacts Resulting from Proposed South Wake Landfill Expansion'

I

Landfill
Footprint Impacts

Entrance Borrow

Total
Perennial (P) 48 If'' 185 If 140 If 373 If
(0.02 acre) (0.06 acre) (0.05 acre) (0.13 acre)
Intermittent Important (II) 2108 If -- 80 If 2188 If
(0.29 acre) (0.11 acre) (0.4 acre)
Streams
Intermittent Unimportant (IU) 937 If
(0.09 acre) -- -- 937 If
(0.09 acre)
Total (P+II+IU) 3093 If 185 If 220 If 3498 If
(0.4 acre) (0.06 acre) (0.16 acre) (0.62 acre)
Total required for mitigation 2156 If 185 If 220 If 2561 If
(P+II) (0.31 acre) (0.06 acre) (0.16 acre) (0.53 acre)
Isolated 0.15 acre -- -- 0.15 acre
Wetlands Seep 5.98 acres -- -- 5.98 acres
Headwater 0.72 acre -- -- 0.72 acre
Total 6.85 acres -- -- 6.85 acres
:Impacts displayed above are approximate
' If =linear feet

1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i dale z. Notentiai Stream and wetland miti anon Summa
Option 12 Option 2 Option 3
Priority 1 Restoration 1,950 If{ 4,400 If __
(3rd-Order) (0.9 acre) (2.0 acres)
Priority 1 Restoration 900 If 2,000 If __
(1st- and 2nd-Order) (0.12 acre) (0.28 acre)
Priority 2 Restoration 1,300 If 1,300 If __
(3rd-Order) (0.6 acre) (0.6 acre)
Stream Enhancement 500 If
(Floodplain Excavation) (0.23 acre)
Potential Riparian
Wetland Enhancement
Riparian Buffer
Preservation
0.76 acre
500 If
(0.23 acre)
0.76 acre
5,000 If
(2.3 acres)
65 acres 100 acres 65 acres
rvuuyauvii wiai~ ui~Niaycu auvvc arc aN/~rvcm~atc a~~u aic ~uu/cct w c~~a~~yC wuvwu~y
subsequent analyses
ZOption 1: Priority 1 stream restoration within Wake County property limits
Option 2: Priority 2 stream restoration within and upstream of Wake County property limits
Option 3: Stream enhancement (floodp/ain excavation) within Wake County property limits
If =linear feet
7

I ~ ~j
LEGEND '
~.. ~.
t , `y ''~
Feasibility Study Area 3' ,I~ V ..
~ r.
' ~ County Land Boundary I - '-4
NPerennial Stream ~; -
NIntermittent Important Stream o .+~~f ~
Nlntermittent Unimportant Stream _ a~ _ ..~~~
~ Jurisdictional Wetland ~' ~ ~~ .~' +~,
~ Isolated Wetland ~ ~ - r %~ - ~Yt.-
' ®Stormwater Pond ~~, ~ -. ~ , ~ `
Culvert $ _ 1 ~ ~ _
, ~1' -• ..
~ ___ _
1 ~ '~-
f '' -~
j' u
1 ~~ ~ I 1 .. - ~Pf
,+~ I ^~ _
i
,~ . ,., ~ ~ '' ~ ~ f j,a..-...-, -
' ~ , I - s~ ... '<~ ti5t ~ _ _ . ma'y' . r..
•.4 Y, ~ , ....
~ ~ ~- - - ._
' ~ J 1, . ' t . s s ~~s'
~'
~~ ~~
~. _''
~f _
' _ '
~°
.~_ .~.
~I - ~ _
'`~-_
700 0 700 1400 Feet
' Dr~n By: Gkd By:
SOUTH WAKE LANDFILL MG JC FIGURE
' MITIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Date:
NOV 2006
Jurisdictional Areas Scaie
:"'~ 1
' EcoScience AS SHOWN
Cor~nration USGS Apex Topo Quad Esc ProlectNo.:
~,^J?1~2 Cp~,an',~/ ^,lcrf.h rarol;n~ 06-316.01

~ Feasibility Study Area Area Soils
County Land Boundary ®Altavista fine sandy loam
Perennial Stream 0 Augusta fine sandy loam
N Intermittent Important Stream 0 Chewacla
Nlntermittent Unimportant Stream ~ Congaree silt loam
~ Creedmoor sandy loam
-JUfISdICtlOnal Wetland ~ Mayodan silt loam 2-6% slopes
® Isolated Wetland ~ Mayodan silt loam 10-15% slopes
® Stormwater Pond
0 Culvert
~ ~
,_,~ ~~
~~ ~ ~ h
~ j
- ~7 ,,
,k
al, ~ ~ ~ ~
~~ ~ _, ®®

EcoScience
Corporation
Raleigh, North Carolina
700 0 700 1400 Feet
SOUTH WAKE LANDFILL
MITIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY
NRCS Soils
Wake County, North Carolina
Dwn By: Ckd ey:
MG JC
Date:
NOV 2006
Scale:
AS SHOWN
ESC Project No.:
06-316.01
FIGURE ~
2

' ~ _ - ,
• ' ~,~, f. ~ ,. ,
~ "' ~ • ~ ~` f ~ .~.= ~ ..e t ~ ~ {,fib ~. ~,,~'' ~ ~ ~ ~~ ,
+ 4 ..~ ~b~~f .~lw` x 2's. t 1 'M' ''~•~y,~,,,:J;;/... rev Y iyt :~' r+'~+: i t,~.: ' ~` , ~ .
~ ~ ~: T"'..7~ ~ ° ! ,~?! ~ .is "`~Y+F l" t y °A" iF ~y~ ' a ~ -/'' ~ - '{ r `r F 1~ •~
i - ~n ~'i+~. 5 ' ~.
Proposed wetland swale '~~ ~,~, f ~ ` ; :,~-~ . ~,~'''~°`~,. ~s ~~ . ~ ~~ ''~y~. ~•,,f . if ,, ~e
w ;1j. ' R , +t ~~. ~ ire s . ~'' r { Y t - ,
Proposed channel alignment ~~'~~~f~`':`~ '~~ '~ `'~~ '` .~ u ~`~ ~ ' ~~ `~' ~~~`'
°~•s,~. 's -. ~z ,iy c v ~ 'R M/ f" ~ x y.~."-~ ~ ~'}} i,' ~ - '' •~ ~ ~~~ *1„iy '' s s i f r ~-.
.._.._. approximate stream boundary `= ~ ._r,~ ~r,~ ~~R.~'~ ~,~~. ~ ~ ~ .,, ~ ,, ~ ~;-~~..Po,~~ -~'~... _f. ':. ~~{° ~,, .~,~ "~ ` ~~' - .
r ~k'f ~ ~ L ~. t, o~tr~~. i . ~ a~~t . f u 't.,bT i '. ~S~ • ~ ^ ti~..,,.y~ ~ Sy f • ~ .' L`i y :at .+~
Jurisdictional streams , ~_ ¢ ~ ~`~# ,~ ,~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~. ~# ~ ~~.~:~~ :~ ~ ° ~ - ~~ } >: , ~~ ~ .~~~ ,~,y ~ : •~ ,.
- 7 ,* tinc'y+ +I~•. +f`{`'.. 4}'~ e~..~, r ; d.Y~ °` '~ ~ .~~ y °.. `x,¢s .. C ~~,~ v .. , ~` pilp .. .
Wetlands ~, •~ ° ~.4-~ .,,~,~•'{ ` nS '~~` ~ i~tur` .r 1,~ ~,•i ~~ - ,Y ~"n~~ ti`
~~- a ;
}• '-~~~ ~`~~, ~, .~, ac :A r ~ nhM' *i~ }°..t~f- ° "~w'.. ~ • '~"`~`..•~ '~ ~ /" ~ ~ ~a ~ a~61+1"' ~• ,~ ~ ! .~ ~ f ° '"' nl ' ~ '~
Excavated floodplain - : ' ~,~ ~~q~,i ~~ , ~,,,~~ i ~~• .•>~~ T } ~.. ~. ~'.•°=.~ ~'~~~ ~ , r ~~~ ~ +~ ~;
~. ..~. 't .~.:.x ,,~. ~ ~ .A. ,,~. ._ •~ ' :~,• :f ': ~"~~~y'r" ,ray,,''
Count land boundar ,~~;": ~`~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~~ , ,~~ ~ ~;~ ~ *~~ ~o~ ,.. r ~ 4 ~-,~ ~: ;;'~~.
r;f ~.,,, rr!` '„`,~, ~ ~~ ~l '1~ ~`~ ~ ~ z` - ~ r A.a; a w ~ ~ ~i rJ .''. .err ..~'-_ YI- r t'r ~y,~ ,p~'~, f.;l 1,.~ y r
•{'~s *' + ~ , , ' ?'r it f >' . 'l~Af. 1 ' ~ '~ b 4.:4 . ~ a- ! ~ f ~, ! , . ~ ~.'r!? f, ^ ' ~# .' ~~"' ~'" '~c ~ *~!'': 1
,.f-sit 'S~k'r. ti c~x # :.. t ~, .wc i" s ~ R f ..
t~ • 4~ ~+n } „ ` ~ . ~~ '•2 _ ' - a~nx '~}}~~ ~ _ ~ ^•sz jflP.a ~ ~ i f . ~ ,t ~"D ~ .a a~%''~'[!.'.
....... ... ® )y,, p}
1
4 ! ;r. ~ w t t +,, ~' f: 1 •k~f t. r • ~r{1 ~ /'*~ / k78
` ~' '~/
. 1 .' ~ ',
1 r ~ 1 ••-
r
y. ~1- - ~ a
~- ? •'
~ ~ /' Proposed wetland enhancement r `'~~~.•~-~" ~ W_'_.~'"
4
' F ~ r ~ ` A
.,:..4E ~ y ~ ~k - ~ ' .. ear w~ _~ •~ .
~,~, ~ f .. ; z. ~~,~ ~;~;,~~,.. ~ ~ : ~ e., ~ y Priority 1 stream restoration
T 3 r. fi. ~ Proposed wetland swale .r;,b,' ./~~,>( ~' ~;? "- 'e~/` 4
,,// ~ '~ ~ Y~~. ~. ~` ~' 11 ~ 4-~"~!R°'~ ~lliC' r ~ ~~ " 7. + i. ~ t~ ~d ~t~ r° riN~ s.. `*4 i ~ ~ t.Y_ y
~;YI^~'~$g~*.,.,{ry.-a~~.1 Zp{~ - ~' ~ ~' ,'+'^`• ~ ~„~^ ~s1~~ /y ~ X' ~ ,~ ' r~• °~' j~~ 1~~ ~ ~ yR ,.e ~:i :'~a "~ ~~" '~j~.' w ,M ` r
,TT ~ '_~'l s ~ 1d~- ""-J" '~w` s. `°~~ ~'~j~[' ' °' '' i :t w~ ~ ~ ~ 1 '~' ~.. 3. ,r
? Y 'f4 i~~ b sJ ". O..'^!R{; r,"~~' r'1, ye"9 -. f y. ~j 'd~+l~ ~,. <37S .r
;`~:~ ~ ~~r ,~ Proposed bridge or channel ford .~, "'~-' ,~ ; -~~ x ~ ~-, ...tom „i~~ , ~~
./ ~ ~i ~, - / •f ~ , • f 1 ~y%~ ~ y ; PPP. ~~,~ ,,~.1~ . E alt ~ . i ~ 1 N +,'1.. ..
Ir +4•'` '~1 ""1 6~ r '"S'' ! d mil; r r ~ ~i t ~ « W~S+~ £, ~"Ns:
...
~..
A .4 '~ ~ a *N ~ N': ~'~r, :1 a '~ ~~ } .p:.
,~~» ~ry ;: a,; ~ ., ~. '~ ,~~ -~•;~'~~` >' ~ ~`~ Priority 2 stream restoration +-~, ; ~ ;~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ' "
~~ •~^.19 t~ .~3-r ~~,,, _ , +`Cx~ sit .~° ;, ~ °w~~~ ~ ~ ~° p '1
IL •,~• sir '- .t ~ ~~ r ~ ~ ..
~, tia w ,7 ~ ~ '~,~ e,~ T ~ ,: .:~ ~ r ~ ~ `7 ,#; ', ~ v`-'~ Q{~' ~ :u. yam;
:. 4 * .,,, .F .r as °° + '..sA t .. ..~ r,,
{ :.,q*,}.s ? ','+ r eri ~ -r ~. i } 4. ,./ ••„y- 7- YK ' •a ~ k~ 1 '~. Y / °" .r. ,... r ew.r..
^ ~ `' *'`k e"+. b k ,' f* r r ' • $ r m ~ ~' ~ ~.. ' ~ i ~ "' r' y r1'r ;A Y' ~ ~ 1 t n ~ ~ . rt ~ 14 ~' 'a ~ '
y' .y i i 'X.. .. t. F,~R 1~, .. •, ~F F p'~ l ~e 'ti. ~iw+r' .M, k
:` k~,.; 4 J,,r~ ,}~.e~+..i L .II • ~jre ,t } y.n 1- "" ~yi
~~ 1 f 4 +^ ,P~" ~ a~ r ' ~^ Stream enhancement `~' ~'.,~ 4 ~ F ~ 3 y'e .~ ti ~~
-.
., ,
n - ~.
~' Y ~ ~ - r
.,~ ,~
+ '.. fi ;~ a
,es ~ 'J s , ,r r;
~ '
.. Y` {~..~ .~{~R~~ -R~i 't. e_.`;_1A 1 \ ". '~'M ~1,. '- ,' f. `.y~; ~~ ~ •~i •:nl'ir ` . a a . ~3n ~ .` µ '~ ~ `.,~- e:
t -fi v {
:~{ r ,~ ~~s`i ~1 'x~~~~ ~r4 a tom,
/~ /"' y S
+.7 '. '~"cyP. 1 .
#, ~ 'r 'y ,
~, i
Dwn By: Ckd By:
CONCEPTUAL RESTORATION PLAN DKO JC FIGURE
Date:
OPTION 1 "0~.2°°s
M South Wake Landfill scale:
~:: 3
Mlitigation Feasibility Study 1°=500'
EcoScience
Wake County, North Carolina ESC Project No.:
Corporation 06-316
Rakieh. ;~onh Car:~lina

i i i i i i i i ~ i ~ i i i i i i i i
~i. 'Y ~ ~~ .j ~ ^ f ,.~ ~ ,~ ~ ~~, ,,. rryXN .r,.f K + ~ ~ ! ~h :: I .r j/if fa~ ~
.., .v, 6~4 +.~ -yMbt',t^t a n.~ r " q 1 -+ '~ : ' c4 ` r~a• ' t t''.
l Proposed wetland swale e ~~; ~;~ y , ,~, :~ :~. a ... ~, ; r ,~• ~~, ~~ . `, k'_
,• ° •~`"( ya. ~S : f ~ ? ~'' '~l'f~ - ~ , d fir: ~ '~ Z 2r?', :~ ' ~
}y ~..
Proposed channel alignment 4~ ~ ,• _
~~.i .td~Ra2 -, "^ ~ '~ ~~ ~l'.~ ~., ~ 3}{'M•1 . ",,,s >~s~ ~ vr' ~ ft ,L~.. ~e ~,.
.~~ '~ !.: r +t 7 .'~w a j''. ~ ~ r k 1. •."~~ r n i..,t,,,.,~ `.
_.._.._, approximate stream boundary '~r1~~ ~ ~ t r~ ~ a a ~ ~,~ ~~s °~~~, ~;{~ ,,~L~ ~ '~.~ .: ~ {a ~ J °_, .~
~ ,~ : _ l r ~ ct at. _`y~ ~ ! r !~', ~ y`'1~ ~ ~. ~ ~ .. ~ ~ t :1;. ',i a 2 ~ r~ ,. t k ii
'i;, t "~~ R,ti ',lt~x.~ ; a ~ -~ :~4"+ t~" gyp. .~; . j ~ t ~~ aKr:
Jurisdictional streams ~ ~. ~. ,,~~~ '~ ~~~~-~ 7. ,~ , . ; .,v ~a ,.};~~~, ,~;~ ~-~ ~.~«: ~' 't ~ r.~~., ,, !„
t i ~~wrfi r. M z, v: ~r.fl . ~Y f ~ y: .t•.5~ ? ~~ ~, • } '"s~ +~ • ~ s. ~•, y r~ d, f
k~F Sr • ~ ..ah yy,..Y`~ +,.. ~&~'`~ ~ ; ~m~ '4` ~ '~ . 3,. ~.~' ; ptl{ 't '~ ~ ,f ,'
Wetlands ~ , , `, ~ ~`~~; '' ,~ ~,`°~ ~ ~..~ ~, r ~~~,<a , .;~ >~ ~ •,.,~,~' ~ ; fs r , ~~~ *.t ~ ' ' .+}, ~"
Excavated floodplain '~~ ~' S~~t. ~'~~ ~;- ~~~ a ~% t~~~ ` ~~ ! ~'~` ~~ ~ ~.~ ~~,, 5 ,~ ~ ,~ ®®,~. ;~ c rt.~. '~ .~ y ~~~;" f~ ~~
*~ a ^.;, ~ a€ t ~ ~ ` <, :p `s r 6
County land boundary _: ~,~~;, .." , rt.~, ~ >~. ~f , ; ,j ~ _ ,~ ~..:~f®,.~ ~ ; ir- ~~, : *. ~j ~ ~, ~,~,
.... ? y „ _
T -'r.r~ ~ +9y{,, 4~~~ 1 i..M ti y ..... y =,+ 4~ .•~R , `,.~ ' ( Jp ~ x ' ~i ~ `~' "' ~ } '~}v , rr _:
Feasibility study area ~- ~' _ ~' ~' : ~= ~ "~ ® ~y ~. ~~ r'
y, ,. .: _. e,,..,a r~+ ~ ~~~~ ': ~~ ~f4''ti`, ~ *. ~. .I.a i" a~i ~ iA'x •~;' / 1 s~..}~ ~ N~ ~'~'~ r -
.~ ,~ y4 '4'-`1i ',!~ ~` '.~ . ~ ~~` ,'# ~°~~. 3 ../ `~ 6 4.:' ,L '~ w ti ' M~A ,~, ' ~ ~i o~J ~~ ,is.~~ ~~ ~ ' ~ J~E~!. ~ , ~r a It ^ ~~ [~i1.;~, ~ ~.
1 ~ T'.ay+.. t •y ~1jw. : ~ .~!"1r~ .~h_ ~4~ ~ ~ .i-. ltg.),. _ ~.~ }~.~. /_ ..,~~. -,n,. ~+-, V41~'
' ~ .i. `~t .,,'~ ~ ~ 'A• - ~~,.9f~~ ~~`iY ~. y.~"r'~ ^x'4tSr s1 r ,~a !r .,.~~~' ~~ ~
,aa
~~. ct" r. , .~ i~r-~ z, ip•i ~'9' ;s1i~,.;.;,.,c n ~~ fYt lvl* i~ ri
~ tr F
N I~,,w1q `R•
a' _ + i +~
r ~
`r ' f ~>,y ~ ' , sp
_ ~ :t,
t .
i ,.
' r Proposed wetland enhancement ~ ~,~. ~'" ~'" '~~ ' ^ti"'+~'V ~ •
v ~.T * 7.J y'' +
- iii.- a ~~~ to ~ F, z
~. ~ } ~+.
~~° ~ L r.,( .vas 3K 4.,
- < ,+ ,,,` fr'r ^a ~ "fit /1 ~' r-;~ ,r`-+e
";~'~ ' 1 - 'x. a, tom" ~~ . ~'~t~~ /,is~ ' ~~lk ~^"^a~ ~ ~~~_
L '~ 7 ~'
~~,~ ~.~ f ` ~.a~ ~ ~ = E~>~;,`>• „r~~, aif ,~ ~ f,~, . ~" ~~ Priority 1 stream restoration
a ~ ~- ~
N ~ o-_ u 1 *yr
,' { r„ ` ~ Proposed wet an SWale ,• s %,, , . ~ , . , ' ~ , :..: ,~,,°' T ~r ~„~'~'.'~~, as ' .~ _ :' , ,
~s 11 ya..n 'n~ IF ~~y ~. 1 ~ _ ..4 t ~ 4f.,'Y'- ~`:1 '
,; ,:
r ~_.
r i
,, ,
` • ~ ~ Proposed bridge or channel ford ~ , ~ }~•~!' y ~ -~ " ~ : ,
.^` ~ s ~ 1 `'•.
' r
r ~ aT F'
r~ .+ t • R ' T ~ • t
.•,' ~~~.
, T , ~ y • ( r w ~ «
d ~` ~/~ 'I~ ! ' ' 'na/ ~yiy .. ;sl'4 t y~ ` et ~ ~' ~ . d. _~ 1.
11 ,y,~ r fi r r a id's ~' ( S (t ..~ ~ F ~'*
' r x' ~~ ~~~ ~ ^'U~..._-__g-._.T ~»i, * rV..r~.~wy..T C ~4~ , • , ~r+j~ ,/[' x `~ ~ ~~y.
.~;~ h '~, ~~' 'f~ ~~~~ ~ ~~; ~ :4 ~"'.'~ Priority 2 stream restoration ~~•~° t- ~ ~~ 4 'j• -"" r ~' ~
,~'"t ~. ya C "~ ~ '`i" x , f., ~,~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ -c"' ~ ~.'t ~ ~ ~ ~, .aj ~!S'u ~qi!" `-a-.1., t I Y'.
3 .r } { l~ e ~ . ri ~' :t^ ~ ~ 4 sky a- '~+ ~R = ~ = i ~l}yx, ~ } - , ~ r y ..,rte ~ rwr. ..
v
t R i. '~ `y `~ d 4 r•~ t1 v .~
:. r, i ~ x a.. i v ~.! .. ~,~ c~ ~~ ,+ j'n'r. L~~, .• M ~ R ~ ~ =k .y'~ r..vt k
.. ~
-,,.c :. p ., .. •, v ; S1a;~-nom .,~y° a `x • 1~`~ ~ • ~. ~ ~. s• ~k 1
~~ - '~~. °* ~' 'Y"'u ~ e.-+ Stream enhancement ~t '~.i ~ ~ ; `a~ t /'
.' ;
,, ~.~1 ~, t hit ~ - f a ,
• <.
~ .t .ry .
r rn' •ato ~ ~~ 3 v w I
~` ~~. y~ V~ ` 7•"~1 N l 'Z" ;:: r j x~~.. STS. ~ _ - + ~i .. '~ ~ r ,. ~ ~1;j - j 5 ; } '
J
+n YF.r. ~.'t -~ilrK7pr~ , +,+. X.~ ~~", ~~ 'mod r ~ rl ~ f
,. ~ y~ ~ '.~
r ~ ~, sr ~ r rc.
rr ~ w Yr *~ r ~4s'. ' '~ ~'1~ ~ ~`~ t~~ '
r. • • ,
.~t, R,' . to •~~/ ; ~ ~
.~ ,. z ..
,.. Y ....t:.r... I ,: z .-.., ,,. -. .. - ..
Dwn By: Ckd By:
_ CONCEPTUAL RESTORATION PLAN DKO JC FIGURE
Date:
OPTION 2 "ov.2°o6
- South Wake Landfill Scale:
~,~ Mlitigation Feasibility Study 1°=500' 4
EcoScience
Wake County, North Carolina ESC Project No.:
Corporation 06-316
Raleigh, North Carolina

.. ,
., f ,
s ;,,
:, . ,
.'r `~ ^,~ rr,7'• ~- ` .~. t'-p ~ ~i+rAx'" >~ ~s~ •.-,q rat.. ~ ~ " ~ ;`a
r
4 .~ r f ~ ~..4 a ja., ~ j '~ ~1 +y~.,~ ~ ,~ ?~~. y-1 f~eq~~ af'. - ~ ~ ! : T ~a
'/ sr s ^P"k:. ~ R. t , z r .$i ~, A ,a~°jt = ~" O• 4 ,T' x Y '1 ~ " ~ ~ "1. ~ ry
. '~, y}~kf"*11'D$ .c` ''~ R ' . ~~ a } - ~fi. 5yf~ `~`. 3E C. ~ • •s~.4 Y,a: ~„ ~ , ~ • t ~ Y'":w •:a
'~ ~'~' a • ~~ ~ ~ ~ ,~~~p M1 w'4~ °,~.~~ Sx '.Za #~ ~', ~-~~~••. ,~ ~ ~~, ..', - ~ y' ~ h`' '' ~'+~~, ~'N:. a s~{f ~~ ~i,
• ,-
- .., .
-••-••-~ Approximate stream boundary t ~~t,~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ .~ { ~ ~~'` '~~ ~... +f-
Junsdictional streams -~s .~~f4 ~: <~*~ ~~, ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ %s r.,.. t • Y ~,~ , ,
r~ ~'~i ~ 6'"-'s, sK rr ~.r4~`w y ~ - ``--• x ~ ~~ ~ 1~ ,~ .- 'G~4 ! r v~ !ri Sri ~-r
y .X" ..i +, i 'Y. ,mom 4t' . r
Wetlands ~ «~ ~ ' . +.~, 4 +:f" ~r 'r f'~ "i`~ ,^y~ ;~~`: a v ~dd ~ a ~~,~ t <.;
County land boundary ~ ~;~ .~-~~ ~ h ~,,,~ ; fi ;K;~^ „ ~.~..,~, fF ~, ¢ og ;~: .r. „~ y~ ~~~ ~~ -
*~' 7.
t 1•r ~'1~ ~ ,~ ',c. s,. , wr• 4 ,~rtS~ °'4 :.K ~ ^~ ('*~ ., oS4' ~, ~ w F ~ r . ~F#.
Feasibility study area :A ~. ~~> - ''`' ,~,, • .-~_ -~ (r h ` ~.~r .~ ~ .-. w ~. ~ ~~ '
r
,. a:K ~ Yi~(I ~ 0•x.3 ,.i ,y "~, ~''~ ..L t'` ~ } 4r~ . ~,.~ 'J, r -.~ ~ ,,
~ M
Excavated floodplain ,~~: -~. ~ :: ~ ti~> •; ~i., ~~ {t , „~, -.,-~''~~ ,°~ ~.~~~. ~.~ .~ `^R~' ;, ~;
., ,
} q ~ -r•- 'q .^I,' .~,~'k ;1!" ';~j4Y 'e`" ~.: ys 4~ "(. a ate.': :: / ~. J "', r ..~"+:~ ~, - r ~~'fA' .r
.. '~ A ~ ~ ~ ~ , ,' .,~ } ~!~,r p 4 4 `R . ~= "> +~ i a t'f . °' f"<~1"„r j1' r.w ~>~ fir'.` ~ x
' y '~' 4 "`!, r' ~ ~ ~ .~"'~ ; ,: / , . K. ` . -r;~# c t _~ + - ~.~® ale F ~ . ~4 f. + ~~ ¢t + A4 . ~i
a `4t t "3R' ~' *~ ' + ~ z ~ r~ i ,p, y A ~;i' ,J l + ~ s f • " ~ ~v ~~r
x:. > a :~ ~ ± k5 .ti ~ .. ~ 'fie i '".. ~~ R~i~r ~ t r ~ { '~ ri... ~ ~~., ,
' .+4-a~ .•yy+",:7'. ~, '~«'r ~~ ~ SrJ"> o- ~.°r A `i~ ar'~ * ~ '~~ Yt A,a`. ~
b - 1'
wt
,rya 1 .,"~ .~ ; ~ s . t"C.'?`• ' ~ E d~ '•"cd- ~ ...,,~ k, r*, rye, . k
• ~ ~ .
,
._..
.~:.
f .. ~- . .
:: x .. -: ~ . * y
..r 1~ . ~ r, Ji1 . .
i J ~ ~ :b ~~ . R, .a. ~,
w: w ~
'. ~ '~ ~ ",tae ~„~' _M.~t;,~'~At' .: „~/s~.~
~~ .
,
a .
r .. 'F i
y k3
+~ ... -. _
~^` ~ Stream enhancement
~ a
y~ `~ ~: - # r ~ ~ " ~
` i
:. . -'
~~ 1
i .r
•~
i
..
r y~
~. ,
_ r,
t~ }•
,`
S -., ~" ~ .
• .,
,.
gyp. ,- i .. . , _l,.n ,., .r. ,q ~.:. t..,~',4J4 :_" +- y'
r^ ..~ `,~ ~ ~ .. ~# 'h.'T f ~ ~~! ../..: ~ .. l - • s : K~ . rl4Y / ~ 4 _ a M ]6~. V Y ~!
fj'+ '~M ~„ s ~.`r :~A •`"'~~~5r ,x~°. ~` r- ~ ,,.. "`rte ,,~ ~'..~.~f'~. 4
r.P
.. ~ ~ w '•~ • w r^~"M•, .•~" «,f '/ 3 Yu ,~.+ ~~{; f ~'/W ~'' t n. SKr ec ~' + .~- 7~ I~
,
.. _
. _w
r 7
"r'~ ~'r;4 ",- 4~~''~''~~~• ~ drT ~ ~ ! s l r ~•°, ~ 1r1..~ .;,~ ~ ~r, ~r "x,.i '~ 4 's ~d ~~ ._ ~'~' '
,`
d i~
w
-
." ,~~"" sue'"",.. ., ' ~. ,•: ~, s ,~ ~ ' , .
.:a - .,
..
t -:
~ •~4,q V.F i k ~~ - y~' F :, -^+c~ I lR +~~r~.~~ `L ~•~Wr~~ '~ "<~ l~ •Y i L ,. :• ~
"`;y. z'• ti _ ~ fy .. ,y:.. ~. ~ 1. ,.-s r ,:p!'M."~ ~ "a~ •ar 3 ~ Y .. ~ t ~>. n ,a~ z ~
q} l.;~ R'" 7 T Y'~~ l.. I ^~" Ls" -+~+~ "-~4_9 :C 'e ~ /~ h 'In
ye ,` a ,4A?c C z r r.. ~.. -f ,. "x. • ~ t ~~~ L ~ ~".
.
wr
~t~. - ~ _ :~, ~ ~ ~~~ :fir '.. ~ ,~}, -
- a. - '~3'r l 6" ar ,.~ ..a
1 A 4
4 y ,y*~,~-b . c ie ~; ~ ~ .t ~, + t '. F ,~~v _ n ~ 'S Y f},, s
+ '~j+' A ~2 iJr .Y• „y, •,,'' ~~ ice: 4.Fy, 1. _'t"T6_ v'a, :'~ Y "~
! a "x ~
c ~ ~ ~ ~'
"
,
~,
>r ,r„, , ~'~ -
-,_
.,^
,, , ,, „. _. _ r
_ ..ter,.,
~.-
,:x, ., ... .„. .
+1. .n''3,.. .iti r~~~ .~"" _: i, ae.~x a "~ ~sr.,.. ,,, '+'"tti .. _. -. -r4`,
Dwn By: Ckd By:
CONCEPTUAL RESTORATION PLAN DKO JC FIGURE
Date:
_ OPTION 3 "°V- 2°°6
South Wake Landfill scale:
EcoScience Mlitigation Feasibility Study 1"=500' 5
Corporation Wake County, North Carolina ESC Proje 06-316
Raleigh, North Carolina