20140338 Ver 1_RFP Technical Approach_20140404

c-or fbp
Part 5 - Technical Approach
� L��7LiU�lS
C
APR 4 2014
... NR -_ WA TM 7i
The Maney Farm Stream Mitigation Site (Site) is located in Chatham County approximately 15 miles
northwest of the Town of Pittsboro (Figure 1). The project involves restoration and enhancement of
Piedmont streams. The project is located within the EEP targeted watershed for the Cape Fear River
Basin Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03030002o5oo5o and NCDWQ Subbasin 03 -o6 -04 and is being
submitted for mitigation credit in the Cape Fear River Basin HUC 03030002.
The proposed Site is located within the Cane Creek
Targeted Local Watershed and is discussed in
EEP's 2009 Cape Fear River Basin Restoration
Priorities (RBRP). This document identifies the
need to improve aquatic conditions and habitats in
the Cane Creek watershed and notes that there are
currently 51 active animal operations in the
watershed. The Maney Farm Site is currently
maintained as cattle pasture and is one of the 51
animal operations referenced in the RBRP.
l4my�is lU ; i+ N:a sign ++ N.;
Cane Creek drains to the Haw River, which flows to
and tr�ii M�t�i�a
' ,� ��,,������tr. B. Everett Jordan Lake (Jordan Lake). The 2005 NC
DWQ Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality
Plan indicates that the Jordan Lake is a drinking water supply, a primary area for recreation, and a
designated Nutrient Sensitive Water, and calls for reduction of non -point source pollution to the lake.
The water supply watershed boundary for the Jordan Lake is just 6 miles downstream from the Site.
The Cape Fear watershed is also discussed in the 2oo5 North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission's
Wildlife Action Plan where sedimentation is noted as a major issue in the basin. Maps within the
Wildlife Action Plan indicate that Priority Species are present along Cane Creek. Restoration at the Site
will directly address non -point source stressors by removing cattle from the streams, creating stable
stream banks, restoring a riparian corridor, and placing 14.5 acres of land under permanent
conservation easement.
This project will reduce sediment and nutrient loading, provide and improve instream habitats, provide
and improve terrestrial (riparian) habitats, improve stream stability, and improve hydrologic function.
The area surrounding the streams proposed for restoration and enhancement is currently fenced to
keep cattle in the riparian area and out of the surrounding row crops. Cattle activity is concentrated in
the project streams and riparian corridor, resulting in trampled stream banks, minimal riparian
vegetation due to overgrazing, and cattle defecate directly in the stream. The proposed work at the
Site will provide nutrient and sediment load reduction by removing cattle from the stream, repairing
stream bank erosion, raising incised streams, and creating riparian buffers. Reconnection of these
creeks to their historic floodplain will filter nutrients before runoff flows off the site.
Sources:
NC EEP. 2009. Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities.
NC DWQ. 2005. Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2005. North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan. Raleigh, NC.
qVV Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.1
Maney Farm Stream Mitigation Site — Part 5

5.1 Project Goals and Objectives
The major goals of the proposed stream mitigation project are to provide ecological and water quality
enhancements to the Cape Fear River Basin while creating a functional riparian corridor at the site level,
providing floodplain habitat and ecological function, and restoring a Piedmont Bottomland Forest
community as described by Schafale and Weakley (iggo). Specific enhancements to water quality and
ecological processes are outlined below in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1 Ecological and Water Quality Goals of the Mitigation Project
Water Quality Goals
Decrease nutrient and
Nutrient input will be decreased by cattle exclusion throughout the Site. Off -site
adverse chemical levels
nutrient -laden runoff from adjacent farms will be absorbed on -site by filtering flood
(RBRP Goal)
flows through restored floodplain areas and vernal pools where flood flows can
disperse through native vegetation. Increased surface water residency time will
provide contact treatment time and groundwater recharge potential.
Decrease sediment input
A large volume of sediment is being contributed to the system through the failure
(RBRP Goal)
ofonsite stream banks. Sediment input from unprotected stream banks will be
reduced by installing bioengineering and instream structures while creating a
stable channel form using natural channel design principles on the restoration
reaches. Sediment input from trampled stream banks on enhancement reaches
will be decreased by preventing further cattle disturbance and planting the banks.
Sediment from off -site sources will be captured by allowing deposition on restored
floodplain areas where native vegetation will slow overland flow velocities.
Decrease water
Stream bed form will be restored and woody structures will be installed to promote
temperature and increase
re- aeration; this will also help to maintain oxygen levels in the perennial stream
dissolved oxygen
reaches. Creation of pool zones will lower temperature, helping to maintain
concentrations
dissolved oxygen concentrations. Establishment and maintenance of riparian
buffers will create long -term shading of the channel flow to minimize thermal
heating.
Ecological Goals
Provide and improve
Adjacent riparian buffer areas will be restored by planting native vegetation. These
terrestrial habitat
areas will receive more regular inundating flows, encouraging establishment of a
native natural community that connects with other forested areas.
Provide and improve
A stable channel form and structure appropriate for Piedmont channels will be
instream habitat
constructed. Introduction of large woody debris, root wads, brush toe meander
bends, and native stream bank vegetation will substantially increase habitat value.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.2
Maney Farm Stream Mitigation Site — Part 5

5.2 Project Description
The following section describes the existing conditions at the Site in terms of geomorphic condition,
watershed, soils, geology, cultural resources, species of concern, regulated floodplain zones, and site
constraints.
5.2.1 Existing Site Conditions
The Site is located in a predominantly rural part of Chatham County, and is currently maintained for
cattle pasture and row crops. The parcel directly downstream of the Site is currently under both a
Farmland Preservation Trust Fund Easement and a Piedmont Land Conservancy Easement. This parcel
also contains a platted NC Wetlands Restoration Program conservation easement from 2002 around
South Fork Cane Creek. The proposed conservation easement for this Site will connect these two
parcels, creating a protected wildlife corridor. The Site is characterized by moderately sloped valleys
dominated by pasture grasses with sparse, intermittent woody vegetation located directly adjacent to
the streams. Based on a review of historical aerials (presented in Appendix A), the land use directly
adjacent to onsite streams was a mix of farmland and fallow field in 1973. Between 1973 and 1983, the
land use on the site transitioned to all farmland. It has been maintained as farmland from 1983 to
present.
The Site contains one main channel, which is an unnamed tributary (UT) to South Fork Cane Creek (SF),
and six tributaries to UT to SF: UT1, UT1B, UTz, UT3, UT4, and UT5. UT to SF generally flows south to
north through the property, entering at the southeastern property line at Center Church Road, and
exiting at the northern property boundary. UT3., UT3, and UT4 all generally flow southwest to
northeast to join UT to SF. UT16 enters the property from a culvert under Center Church Road and
joins UT1 near its confluence with UT to SF. UTz and UT5 generally flow east to west tojoin UT to SF.
The majority of UT to SF (beginning below its confluence with UT1), the downstream half of UTz, and
UTS were identified as perennial streams on October 10 and 11, 2013, using the North Carolina Division
of Water Quality (NCDWQ) Stream Identification Forms. A short section of UT to SF (upstream of the
UT1 confluence), UT1, UT1B, the upstream half of UTz, UT3, and UT4 were identified as intermittent
streams. Copies of these forms are included in Appendix B. The streams are all depicted on Figure
2. Details about the existing streams are provided in Section 5.2.2, below.
5.2.2 Existing Conditions - Streams
UT to SF
willow oak (Quercus alba).
UT to SF enters the Site from a culvert under
Center Church Road and flows south to north
through a sparsely wooded buffer frequently
accessed by cattle. Cattle activity is particularly
concentrated near the Center Church Road culvert,
and the bed and banks are severely trampled. The
stream is overly wide, incised, and entrenched,
similar to a Rosgen F -type stream. Although larger
trees are present along one or both sides of the
channel here, the buffer is heavily grazed and little
understory is present. Canopy species include
green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), red maple (Acer
rubrum), sweetgum (Liquidambarsty ciflua), and
Understory species consist of American holly (Ilex opaca), coralberry
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.3
Maney Farm Stream Mitigation Site — Part 5

(Symphoricarpos orbiculatus), Eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), and Chinese privet (Ligustrum
sinense). Common herbaceous species included fescue (Fescue spp.), Nepalese browntop (Microstegium
vimineum), and Pennsylvania smartweed (Polygonum pennsylvanicum).
The confluence of UT to SF and UT1
approximately 200 feet downstream of the
culvert marks UT to SF's transition from an
intermittent stream to a perennial stream _
(Figure 2). The cattle wallow in UT to SF below
this confluence. UTto SF becomes further
incised below this area, and is similar to a
Rosgen G -type stream with a low bankfull
width -to -depth ratio, a low entrenchment ratio,
and a bank height ratio in excess of 1.5. Stream a+
banks are impacted by cattle and alternate fi i w
between a trampled and a vertical, sheer state. °
The stream continues in this condition until
approximately halfway through the project, where it meanders out into the left floodplain, away from
the mature trees. Here the channel cross section decreases and the stream is connected to the
floodplain. The stream is stable but lacks pattern and bedform diversity. Invasive Chinese privet and
herbaceous pasture grasses dominate the bank vegetation on this section of stream. The riparian
buffer from this point down to the project limits alternates between open pasture and small pockets of
woods. The pasture areas are vegetated with pasture grasses, rough cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium),
horesnettle (Solanum carolinense), and wingstem (Verbesian altemifolia).
UT to SF turns to head back through pockets of larger woody vegetation below its confluence with UT4.
From this point downstream, UT to SF is again incised with degraded bed and banks due to cattle
activity. At the downstream project limits, the stream is under backwater conditions from a
downstream wetland complex.
provided on Figure 2.
Cross sectional surveys were conducted on UT to SF and are
provided in Appendix B for review. Three cross sections are
provided to illustrate the different forms of UT to SF
throughout the site; one on the overly wide, trampled portion
of the stream (XS1), one on the incised portion of UT to SF
within the wood line (XSz), and one in the open field where the
stream is connected to the floodplain (XS3). Due to a lack of
reliable bankfull indicators in the maintained channels, bankfull
stage was estimated using the published NC Piedmont
Regional Curve (Harman et.al., 1999) and the revised INC
Piedmont and Mountain Regional Curve (Walker, unpublished)
as guides to assist with channel metric calculations.
A reachwide pebble count and a riffle loo -count at XSz were
conducted on UT to SF to characterize the sediment delivered
by the watershed. UT to SF is a sand bed stream. The pebble
counts are provided in Appendix B.
The locations of the cross sections and sediment surveys are
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.4
Maney Farm Stream Mitigation Site — Part 5

UT,
UTi, an intermittent stream, enters the Site at the southern
property line and flows northeast to join UT to SF. The channel
flows through a gentle valley, the upstream half of which is
maintained as an open pasture, and the downstream half of
which is maintained as wooded pasture. Vegetation in the
pasture consists of fescue, rough cocklebur, blackberry, and
coralberry. The wooded corridor is comprised of green ash, red
maple, and sweetgum. The stream is relatively straight
through the open pasture but gains some slight pattern within
the wood line. Generally, the stream is connected to the
floodplain but suffers from bank trampling due to cattle access.
The stream most closely resembles a Rosgen C -type stream.
UTiB joins UTi within the wood line. Below the UTiB
confluence, there is a headcut on UTi which is currently
stabilized by large tree roots. Downstream of the headcut, UTs
suffers from moderate incision with a bank height ratio of
approximately 1.3 for soo linear feet before joining UT to SF.
UT1B
UT2
UTi.B begins at a culvert under Center Church Road and
flows westward to its confluence with UTi. UT3.B is
intermittent. The stream is shallow and connected to the
floodplain, although cattle have trampled the bed and
banks of the stream. A pile of riprap, which may be a
remnant check dam, is present approximately halfway
through the reach. UT1B flows for approximately ioo
linear feet within the project limits before joining UTijust
upstream of a headcut. The floodplain vegetation along
UTiB is similar to that described for the wooded portion of
UTi.
UT2 originates as an intermittent stream within the project limits, and
becomes perennial approximately halfway down its length as it
approaches UT to SF. UT2 flows through a forested pasture with very
limited understory due to grazing. The stream is relatively straight but
stable. This reach is entirely wooded with minimal understory.
Canopy species include green ash, red maple, sweetgum, and few
pines (Pinus spp.). A few eastern red cedar saplings and spots of
Chinese privet are present. The herbaceous layer is primarily
Nepalese browntop because the reach is well shaded.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 9 5.5
Maney Farm Stream Mitigation Site — Part 5

Like UTz, UT3 also originates as an intermittent stream within a pocket of willow oaks within the
project limits. The stream is stable with low banks that have been trampled by cattle. UT3 flows from
the sparsely wooded buffer into the open pasture and down to meet UT to SF.
This reach is dominated by herbaceous species including pasture grasses and pasture weeds like rough
cocklebur. Coralberry is present in clusters. Wetter species including Pennsylvania smartweed, soft
rush (Juncus effusus), arrrowleaf tearthumb (Polygonum saggittatum), and sedges (Carex spp.) are
common along stream corridor, especially where cattle have heavily trampled the channel causing
hydrology to spread out. A small pocket of willow oaks is present
near the upstream end of the reach.
UT4
UT4 also originates as an intermittent stream within the project
limits. The stream begins within a small, thinly wooded pocket of
vegetation, and then flows through open pasture to meet UT to SF.
The wooded area is comprised of red maple, sweetgum, and
American holly; the open pasture is similar in species composition
to the pasture on UTs. UT4 has low banks and is relatively stable
throughout its length despite cattle access and a lack of a riparian
buffer. Where UT4 joins UT to SF, Chinese privet has overtaken the
stream banks.
UTS
stream bank.
UTS is a perennial stream that enters the project area at a fence
line from the eastern side of the property and flows west to
meet UT to SF. The stream is incised and disconnected from its
floodplain. Banks are heavily eroding and contributing fine
sediments downstream, which is choking out available bed
habitats. UT5 is most similarto a Rosgen G -type stream;
however, UT5 does regain floodplain connection approximately
one half way down its length for a short, isolated section. This
isolated area is most similarto a Rosgen E/C -type stream. UT5
becomes unstable again belowthis area and continues as a
Rosgen G -type stream until the UT to SF confluence. Cattle
have access to the entire stream length and have trampled
banks, particularly in the lower half of the reach. This reach
flows primarily through open woods with little to no understory.
The herbaceous layer is dominated by Nepalese browntop with
some Christmas ern k Polystichum acrostichoides) present on the
The canopy includes green ash, red maple, and river birch (eetula nigra).
A cross sectional survey was conducted on UT5 to illustrate the size of the stream where it is connected
to the floodplain and in a Rosgen E/C form (XS4). A reachwide pebble count was also collected on UT5
to characterize the sediments delivered by the watershed. UT5 is a silt bed stream, and heavy silt and
clay contributions from upstream bank erosion is evident in the riffles. The cross section survey and
pebble count data are provided in Appendix B.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.6
Maney Farm Stream Mitigation Site — Part 5

5.2.3 Watershed Characterization
The Site is located within the Targeted Local Watershed 0303000205oo5o and NCDWQ subbasin o3 -o6-
04. All onsite tributaries drain to South Fork Cane Creek which is classified as Class WS -V: NSW waters
by NCDWQ. WS -V waters are usually upstream of waters used for drinking, culinary, or food
processing purposes. South Fork Cane Creek is also a Nutrient Sensitive Water, which indicates a need
for management of nutrients in its watershed.
The Site topography, as indicated on the Crutchfield Crossroads, NC USGS 7.5 minute topographic
quadrangle, shows mostly moderately sloped areas throughout the Site (Figure 3). Drainage areas for
the project reaches were delineated using z -foot contour intervals derived from the North Carolina
Floodplain Mapping Program's zoo? Light Detection And Ranging (LiDAR) data (Figure 4). Land uses
draining to the project reaches are primarily cultivated crops, pasture, and forests. The watershed areas
and current land use are summarized in Table 5.2, below.
Table 5.2 Drainage Areas and Associated Land Use
Reach Name
Existing
NCDWQ Stream
Intermittent/
Watershed
Predominant Land Use
Reach
Identification
Perennial
Area
Length
Form Scores
(acres)
(LF)
UT to South
51% cultivated crops; 26%
Fork Cane
2,8o6
7, 37
27,37
Perennial
211
forested; 17% pasture; 5%
Creek
impervious; i% residential
47% forested, 27%
pasture, 12% developed,
UT1
6o8
21 28
Intermittent
21.6
6% impervious, 4% grass;
4% cultivated crops
55% developed, 20%
cultivated crop, 13% grass,
UT1B
102
25.5
Intermittent
47
9% forested, 3%
impervious
Intermittent,
S9% cultivated crops; 41%
UTz
51z
z6 3o
Perennial
11
forest
55 % pasture, 30%
UT3
478
20.75
Intermittent
10.5
forested; 1.5% cultivated
crops
45% forested, 30%
UT4
273
22.5
Intermittent
19.9
cultivated crops, 25 %
pasture
65% cultivated crops; 33%
UT 5
467
32.5
Perennial
76
forested; 2/o residential
5.2.4 Soils
The proposed project is mapped by the Chatham County Soil Survey. Project area floodplain soils are
mapped as Cid silt loam, Cid - Lignum Complex, and Nanford -Badin complex. These soils are described
below in Table 5.3. A soils map is provided in Figure 5.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.7
Maney Farm Stream Mitigation Site — Part 5

Table 5.3 Project Soil Types and Descriptions
Soil Name
Description
Cid silt loam, 6 -io%
Cid silt loam is strongly sloping, moderately deep and
slopes
moderately well drained soil found on uplands and
interfluves. The soil forms in residuum from Carolina Slate
Belt rocks and other fine grained rocks.
Cid - Lignum Complex,
Cid - Lignum is found on gently sloping areas of the upland. It
2 -6% slopes
is moderately well drained to somewhat poorly drained. Cid -
Lignum has a loamy surface layer and clayey subsoil.
Nanford -Badin complex,
Nanford- Badin complex is a well- drained soil with low flood
2-6% slopes
potential. It is found on uplands, hillslopes and ridges and
consists of residuum weathered from slate. Bedrock is within
40 to 6o inches of this soil.
Nanford -Badin complex,
Nanford- Badin complex at 6 -io% slopes is found on strong
6 -io %slopes
slopes on the sideslopes of uplands. This soil is deep and well
drained. Bedrock is within 20 to 40 inches of this soil.
Source: Chatham County Soil Survey, USDA -NRCS, http: / /efotg.nres.usda.gov
5.2.5 Geology
The Site is located in the Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont physiographic province. The Piedmont is
characterized by gently rolling, well- rounded hills with long low ridges, with elevations ranging from
300 to i.50o feet above sea level. The Carolina Slate Belt consists of heated and deformed volcanic and
sedimentary rocks. Approximately SSo to 65o million years ago, this region was the site of a series of
oceanic volcanic islands. The underlying geology of the proposed restoration site is mapped as late
Proterozoic to Cambrian age (goo to Soo million years in age) felsic metavolcanic rock (CZfv). This unit
is described as light gray to greenish, metamorphosed dacitic to rhyolitic flows and tuffs interbedded
with mafic and intermediate metavolcanic rock, meta - argillite and metamudstone.
Sources:
http://www.cieolociy.enr.state.nc.us/uscis/caroIina.htm
http•/ /www geology enr state. nc. us / Mineral% zoresources /mineraIresources.htmI
5.2.6 Cultural Resources
The site is not located near any sites listed on the National Register with the State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO). The archaeological site files at the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (OSA)
have not been reviewed at this time. All appropriate cultural resource agencies will be contacted for
their review and comment prior to any land disturbing activity.
5.2.7 Threatened and Endangered Species
The NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database was searched for state and federally listed
threatened and endangered plant and animal species in Chatham County, NC. Fourteen state listed
species are currently listed as threatened or endangered in Chatham County. In addition, three
Federally listed species, the Cape Fear Shiner (Notropis mekistocholas), Red - cockaded Woodpecker
(Picoides borealis), and Harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum) are listed as Endangered in Chatham County
and the Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is protected underthe Bald and Golden Eagle Protection
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.8
Maney Farm Stream Mitigation Site — Part 5

Act (Table 5.4). A pedestrian survey conducted on October 11, 2013 indicated that the site has no
potential habitat for federally protected species including the bald eagle, red - cockaded woodpecker,
Cape Fear shiner, or Harperella. Wildlands conducted a review of recorded Natural Heritage Elemental
Occurrences; no known species occur within 3 miles of the Site. Wildlands will conduct a thorough
review of the Site for all state - listed species upon award of contract.
Table 5.4 Listed Threatened and Endangered Species in Chatham County, NC
Species
State
Federal
Habitat
Status
Status
Vertebrate
Bald Eagle
Found in forested habitats for nesting and roosting, and
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
T
BGPA
expanses of shallow water for foraging.
Carolina Redhorse
T
FSC
Found in deep water (greater than 6 ft.) with sluggish currents,
(Moxostoma sp. 3)
silt -sand bottoms, and near large woody debris.
Cape Fear Shiner
E
E
Beds in flowing areas of creeks and rivers over gravel, cobble,
(Notropismekistocholas)
and boulder substrate.
Red - cockaded
Found in mature pine forest. Excavates cavity exclusively in
Woodpecker
E
E
living pine trees.
(Picoides borealis)
Invertebrate
Triangle Floater
T
Found in moderate flowof small rivers and headwater streams
(Alasmidonta undulate)
near very stable substrate.
Brook Floater
E
FSC
The brook floater is found in high relief streams among
(Alasmidonta varicose)
boulders in sand.
Roanoke Slabshell
Found in large rivers and occasionally small creeks. Able to
(Elliptio roanokensis)
T
tolerate large variation in flow levels and high temperatures.
Atlantic Pigtoe
E
FSC
Prefers coarse sand and gravel at the downstream edge of riffle
(Fusconaia masoni)
with fast flowing water.
Found in gravel bars, margins of the flowing portions of water
Yellow Lampmussel
E
FSC
bodies and cracks in bedrock in both large rivers and small
(Lampsilis cariosa)
streams.
Eastern Lampmussel
Found in muddy and sandy areas in streams, rivers and
(Lampsilis radiate)
T
backwater swamps.
Creeper
Found in shallow water in both small streams and large rivers.
(Strophitus undulates)
T
It inhabits a variety of substrates, from silt to boulder fields.
Savannah Lilliput
E
FSC
Prefers shallow water distribution making it particularly
(Toxolasma pullus)
susceptible to off -road motor vehicle traffic and droughts.
Found in mud or sand near stream banks. Occasionally, this
Carolina Creekshell
E
FSC
mussel is found in gravelly sand in the main channel of streams
(Villosa vaughaniana)
and medium rivers.
Vascular Plant
Indian Physic
T
Often found in dry open woods with acidic soils.
(Gillenia stipulate)
Harperella
E
E
Occurs in riparian and wetland habitats.
(Ptilimnium nodosum)
Southern Skullcap
E
Found in prairies, upland woods and rock ledges.
(Scutellaria australis)
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 9 5.9
Maney Farm Stream Mitigation Site — Part 5

Species
State
Federal
Habitat
Status
Status
Veined Skullcap
E
Found in floodplain forests.
(Scutellaria nervosa)
Buffalo Clover
T
Often found near creek banks in sandy soils.
(Trifolium ref(exum)
BGPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; FSC = Federal Species of Concern; T= Threatened; E = Endangered
5.2.8 Floodplain Compliance
The Site is represented on the Chatham County Flood
Insurance Rate Map Panels 8784 and 8796. There are no
FEMA regulated floodplain areas on the Site.
5.2.9 Site Constraints and Access
The proposed mitigation approach includes one 25 foot
easement break on UT to SF mid -reach and one 25 foot
break at the downstream property boundary (see Figure
6). These breaks are for culverted crossings to allow the
farmer to access the western fields from Center Church
Road. The easement breaks will be fully fenced and
gated to prevent cattle access to the streams. A water
pipe will also be installed through the mid -reach
easement crossing to provide well water to a cattle
watering trough on the west side of the site. The
crossing and pipe will not dictate the stream design and
this area is excluded from the mitigation credit
calculation for the site. All easement
FIRM
,
FIRM
F1000 IRSUBARCE RATE
NON'1'H GMULI:A
FAIR M
There are no known utilities within the easement boundaries. There are no known airports located
within 5 miles of the project site (Figure 1).
All streams proposed for mitigation credit provide the required minimum riparian bufferfor Piedmont
streams. The easement area will be marked per NCEEP Guidelines for Full Delivery Requirement for
Completion of Survey for Conservation Easements (version 13, August 2013). There are no other known
constraints on the proposed project site.
The entire easement area can be accessed for construction, monitoring, and long term stewardship
from existing site access points located along Center Church Road (Figure 6). Wildlands has executed
an option agreement to purchase a conservation easement on the property. The conservation
easement agreement will ensure the right of entry abilities of Wildlands, its contractors, and the future
easement holder in any future land transactions.
5.3 Project Development
The Wildlands Team proposes to restore a high quality of ecological function to the streams, riparian
corridors, and wetlands on the Site. The project design will ensure that no adverse impacts to existing
wetlands or riparian buffers occur. Different management objectives are proposed for different
portions of the project area. These activities are discussed below and summarized in Table 5.5. Figure
6 illustrates the conceptual design for the Site.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.10
Maney Farm Stream Mitigation Site — Part 5

The major goals of the project will be to improve water quality in the Cane Creek watershed by
removing cattle from the riparian corridor and stabilizing eroding stream banks, to achieve improved
floodplain functions, and to improve habitat for macro invertebrate and aquatic communities through
reestablishment of natural stream function, bed form structure, and reduction in sedimentation.
5.3.1 Stream Mitigation Approach
Cattle have caused significant degradation to the onsite streams. UTto SF in particular has been
severely impacted and is in various stages of stability throughout the site. The majority of UT to SF is
either incised and disconnected from a floodplain or severely trampled from heavy cattle access, or a
combination of both. Bed habitats are choked by
fine sediments generated from bank erosion, and
bedform diversity is poor. Full restoration, using a
Priority 1 approach, is proposed on UT to SF to
correct the dimension, pattern, and profile
deficiencies of the existing stream. Restoration
efforts will begin at the Center Church Road
culvert, where the stream will be raised to meet
the invert of the culvert. Priority z restoration will
be used to transition the stream onto the historic
floodplain. The width of the Priority z floodplain
bench will be minimized while maintaining an
entrenchment ratio of at least 2.2 to lessen
construction impacts on nearby large woody
vegetation: any trees removed as part of the
Priority z restoration will be incorporated into the stream design as habitat. As soon as possible, the
design will transition to a Priority 1, and the stream will be designed with avoidance of large woody
vegetation in mind. Our ultimate goal is to leave as many large trees as possible to provide immediate
shade for the stream and woody debris inputs to the newly constructed channel. At the downstream
project extents, UT to SF will transition to a Priority z to step the channel down and tie into the
backwater created from the wetlands on the downstream property. Throughout UT to SF, bed form
diversity will be provided through profile development to include riffles, runs, pools, and glides. The
channel dimension will be modified to provide a bankfull — -
channel connected to the floodplain, eliminating incision and
promoting hydrologic connectivity. Plan form will be adjusted
to provide UT to SF with an alignment appropriate for its
channel type.
UT5 is currently very incised. We propose to fully restore UT5
using a Priority 1 approach to correct the dimension, pattern,
and profile deficiencies of the existing stream. Priority z
restoration will be used to transition the stream onto the
historic floodplain. As discussed for UT to SF, the width of the
Priority z floodplain bench will be minimized while maintaining
an entrenchment ratio of at least 2.2 to lessen construction
impacts on nearby large woody vegetation. All trees removed
as part of the Priority z restoration will be incorporated into the
stream design as habitat. The existing woody vegetation along
UT5 is sparse and the design will route the new stream through
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.11
Maney Farm Stream Mitigation Site — Part 5

the existing woody vegetation to the greatest extent possible. There is a short, isolated section of
existing UT5 channel approximately halfway down the reach that is not incised and is connected to the
floodplain. The stream design will tie the new channel into this stable section both upstream and
downstream of it. Priority 1 restoration will continue all the way down to the UT to SF confluence.
UT1, UT1B, UT2, UT3, and UT4 are all currently relatively stable, but are impacted by cattle. Because
none of these streams currently suffer from deep incision, removal of cattle and planting woody
vegetation will allow these streams to quickly recover on their own. Enhancement level II, which
includes fencing out cattle and planting a native riparian buffer, is proposed for these streams.
All reaches on the project will be designed to
create new stable, functional stream channels
based on reference reach and sediment transport
analyses. Dimension, pattern, and profile will be
designed to allow for frequent overbank flooding,
+ provide stable bank slopes, and enable biological
lift. This approach will provide hydrologic
connectivity between creeks and floodplains and
will also create vertical and lateral stability.
--- Removing invasive vegetation and establishing
•A- 4 � � � stable bank slopes will allow for a native and
diverse riparian zone to grow which will improve
nutrient removal. A diverse bedform will provide habitat for an increased number of species of insects,
fish, and amphibians. This diverse bedform will be established using instream structures appropriate
for the geomorphic setting such as log weirs, log vanes, and constructed riffles. Hardwood trees can be
harvested from upland areas around the property for log and wood structures.
Wildlands will begin the project by identifying the best design approach to meet the stated project
objectives and implement the appropriate degree of intervention. A combination of analog, empirical,
and analytical design approaches will potentially be used. Reference streams will be identified and will
serve as one of the primary sources of information on which designs are based. Modeling and other
detailed analyses will be used as appropriate to develop or verify designs. Wildlands has developed a
general approach to be used as the basis for stream
restoration design and has begun on -going Homogeneity Test
coordination with EEP on the procedures. The
design approach, which is tailored to each site, 100
continues to develop as additional projects are
implemented. Some of the key elements of the
methods are described below. �>
a
5.3.2 Channel Hydrology 10
Generally, stream designs will be based on a design F"
discharge range which, in most cases, will be an
approximation of the bankfull discharge but will be
selected to meet the objectives of the design. The
discharge will be determined through detailed 1
hydrologic analyses using the best available 0 20 40 60
information such as local or regional stream gage Length of Record (yrs)
records, empirical regional stream flow estimates,
Index -Flood Analysis Results
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.12
Maney Farm Stream Mitigation Site - Part 5

hydrologic modeling results, and reference stream flows. A preliminary index -flood analysis identified
two nearby homogeneous USGS gages, Station 020772oo Hyco Creek and Station 020955365o Buffalo
Creek, which will be used during detailed hydrologic modeling. Other discharges (such as baseflow or
flows to support instream habitat features) will also be considered during the design process based on
the specific project objectives. The design will be refined or validated with sediment transport analysis.
5.3.3 Sediment Transport
Sediment transport is an extremely complicated process and the appropriate level of analysis must be
determined for each specific design. This determination is based on watershed assessment, local
stream observations, reference conditions, and other sources of information. Preliminary sediment
sampling efforts throughout the Site have shown that the streams are dominated by fine grained
sediments. Streams dominated by sand or silt bed material require more detailed sediment transport
studies and must be designed as alluvial channels. These conditions must be considered when
establishing design objectives as alluvial channels are expected to adjust their slope, geometry, and
bedforms overtime. A capacity analysis with data collection and /or detailed modeling will be an
important component of the design. Detailed analysis involves several tools, including SAMwin,
Copeland stability curve, and HEC -RAS sediment transport module. However, alluvial channels will
most often be designed with controls at key locations to prevent rapid, significant change.
5.3.4 Nutrient Reduction
On -site nutrient reduction will be achieved by establishing riparian buffers along both banks and
excluding cattle from the streams within the project area. The project area currently consists primarily
of agricultural land. An estimate of the percent reduction in nitrogen and phosphorus was made using a
spreadsheet based on typical nutrient loading in the Piedmont region. Pre - project conditions reflected
agricultural and maintained field conditions within the project area while post - project conditions
modeled the project area as wooded. The worksheet estimated that total nitrogen (TN) would be
reduced by 37% while total phosphorus (TP) will be reduced by 63 %. A copy of the spreadsheet results
can be found in Appendix B.
5.3.5 Vegetation Plan
Native riparian buffers a minimum of 5o feet from the proposed top of bank will be planted along all
restored and enhanced streams on the Site following construction of the project (Figure 6). The
planting plan will be based on an appropriate, nearby reference community and will be developed to
restore appropriate strata (canopy, understory, shrub, and herbaceous layers). The canopy will be
restored through planting of bare root trees. The understory and shrub layers will be restored through
a combination of planting bare root, low growth species and installing live stake shrub species. The
herbaceous layer will be restored by seeding the disturbed area with a native seed mix with an
emphasis placed on creating good soil contact to encourage germination. The floodplain of UT to SF,
as well as the area surrounding the restored and enhanced UT's, will be protected with a conservation
easement. Overtime a large native floodplain and stream complex of over 14.5 acres will be created.
5.4 Proposed Mitigation
The Site will be a combination of stream restoration and enhancement. 4,748 SMUs are proposed
(Table 5.5 and Figure 6). The mitigation credit calculation was derived using the US Army Corps of
Engineers' Stream Mitigation Guidance and was based on Wildlands' conceptual design for maximum
ecological uplift. Given the existing conditions of the stream channels, the disturbance factors, and the
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.13
Maney Farm Stream Mitigation Site — Part 5

constraints, management objectives for each reach have been established. The management
objective, the mitigation type, and proposed amount of stream mitigation is presented below.
Table 5.5 Mitigation Units proposed for the Maney Farm Stream Mitigation Site
Stream Miti ation Units
Reach
Management Objectives
Type of Mitigation
Length
(feet)
Ratio
Mitigation
Units (SMUs)
Restore appropriate dimension, pattern,
and profile with Priority 1 restoration.
UT to SF
Install habitat structures, allow bankfull
Restoration
3,413
1:1
3,413
floodplain access. Fence out livestock.
Establish native riparian buffer.
UT1
Fence out livestock. Establish native
Enhancement II
608
2.5:1
243
riparian buffer.
UT1B
Fence out livestock. Establish native
Enhancement II
102
2.5:1
41
riparian buffer.
UT2
Fence out livestock. Establish native
Enhancement II
512
2.5:1
205
riparian buffer.
UT3
Fence out livestock. Establish native
Enhancement II
478
2.5:1
191
riparian buffer.
UT4
Fence out livestock. Establish native
Enhancement II
273
2.5:1
109
riparian buffer.
Restore appropriate dimension, pattern,
and profile with Priority 1 restoration.
UT5
Install habitat structures, allow bankfull
Restoration
S46
1:1
546
floodplain access. Fence out livestock.
Establish native riparian buffer.
Total
5,932
4,748 SMUs
5.5 Current Ownership
The Site is located on a single parcel and owned by one landowner, Darryl M. Lindley, Trustee. An
Option Agreement for the general project area shown on Figure 6 has been signed by the property
owner and a Memorandum of Option is recorded at the Chatham County Register of Deeds. The
landowner has signed the Landowner Authorization Form allowing the United State Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) to enter the site for assessment purposes prior to execution of the Option. Copies
of the recorded Memorandum of Option and the Landowner Authorization Form are included in
Appendix B. The landowner, parcel identification number, and deed book and page number for the
Memorandum of Option are summarized in Table 5.6.
Table 5.6 Property Owners for the Maney Farm Stream Mitigation Site
Property Owner
Parcel ID Number
Memorandum of Option Deed
Book and Page Number
Darryl M. Lindley, Trustee
8795-89-5745
01-713, 0208 -0211
5.6 Project Phasing
The Wildlands Team has experience handling tightly - scheduled projects with a number of stakeholders.
We understand the importance of clear communication and adherence to deadlines. We will establish
additional internal deadlines to keep the project milestones on track. Each task will be staffed with the
appropriate technical and management staff to ensure quality and timely completion. Table 5.7
provides a summary of the major project milestones.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.1.4
Maney Farm Stream Mitigation Site — Part 5

Table 5.7 Project Schedule for the Maney Farm Stream Mitigation Site
5.7 Success Criteria
The stream restoration performance criteria for the project site will follow approved performance
criteria presented in the EEP Mitigation Plan Template (version 2.2, 6/o8/2012), the EEP Monitoring
Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and /or Wetland Mitigation (11/07 /2oii), and the
Stream Mitigation Guidelines issued in April 2003 by the USACE and NCDWQ. Annual monitoring and
semi - annual site visits will be conducted to assess the condition of the finished project. The stream and
wetland restoration sections of the project will be assigned specific performance criteria components
for hydrology, vegetation, and morphology (streams only). Performance criteria will be evaluated
throughout the seven (7) year post- construction monitoring If all performance criteria have been
successfully met and two bankfull events have occurred during separate years, Wildlands may propose
to terminate stream and /or vegetation monitoring after Year 5, in accordance with the Early Closure
Provision in the EEP Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and /or Wetland
Mitigation (11/7/2011). An outline of the performance criteria components follows.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.3-5
Maney Farm Stream Mitigation Site — Part 5
Proposed Time to
Proposed Completion Date
Project Milestone
Completion
(assuming NTP on
(from date of NTP)
Aril 1, 2014)
Task i. CE Document
3 months
July 3-, 2014
Task 2. Submit Recorded Conservation
3- year, 3 months
July 3-, 203-5
Easement on the Site
Task 3. Mitigation Plan Approved by EEP
i year
April 3-, 2015
Task 4. Mitigation Site Earthwork
2 years, 4 months
August 3-, 203-6
Completed
Task 5. Mitigation Site Planting and
z years, 6 months
October 3-, 203-6
Installation of Monitoring Devices
Task 6. Baseline Monitoring Report
(Including As -Built Drawings)
2 years, 8 months
January 3-, 203-7
Approved by EEP
Task 7. Submit Monitoring Report #3- to
3 years, 8 months
December 3-, 203-7
EEP (meets success criteria)
Task 8. Submit Monitoring Report #2 to
4 years, 8 months
December 3-, 203-8
EEP (meets success criteria)
Task 9. Submit Monitoring Report #3 to
5 years, 8 months
December 3-, 203-9
EEP(meets success criteria)
Task 3-o. Submit Monitoring Report #4 to
6 years, 8 months
December 3-, 2020
EEP (meets success criteria)
Task 3-3-. Submit Monitoring Report #5 to
7 years, 8 months
December 3-, 2023-
EEP (meets success criteria)
Task 3-2. Submit Monitoring Report #6 to
8 years, 8 months
December 3-, 2022
EEP (meets success criteria)
Task 3-3. Submit Monitoring Report #7 to
EEP (meets success criteria) and
9 years, 8 months
December 3-, 2023
complete Close -Out Process
5.7 Success Criteria
The stream restoration performance criteria for the project site will follow approved performance
criteria presented in the EEP Mitigation Plan Template (version 2.2, 6/o8/2012), the EEP Monitoring
Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and /or Wetland Mitigation (11/07 /2oii), and the
Stream Mitigation Guidelines issued in April 2003 by the USACE and NCDWQ. Annual monitoring and
semi - annual site visits will be conducted to assess the condition of the finished project. The stream and
wetland restoration sections of the project will be assigned specific performance criteria components
for hydrology, vegetation, and morphology (streams only). Performance criteria will be evaluated
throughout the seven (7) year post- construction monitoring If all performance criteria have been
successfully met and two bankfull events have occurred during separate years, Wildlands may propose
to terminate stream and /or vegetation monitoring after Year 5, in accordance with the Early Closure
Provision in the EEP Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and /or Wetland
Mitigation (11/7/2011). An outline of the performance criteria components follows.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.3-5
Maney Farm Stream Mitigation Site — Part 5

5.7.3. Stream Morphological Parameters and Channel Stability
Dimension
Riffle cross - sections on the restoration reaches should be
stable and should show little change in bankfull area,
maximum depth ratio, and width -to -depth ratio. Per EEP
guidance, bank height ratios shall not exceed 3..2 and
entrenchment ratios shall be at least 2.2 for restored
channels to be considered stable. All riffle cross - sections
should fall within the parameters defined for channels of
the appropriate Rosgen stream type. If any changes do
occur, these changes will be evaluated to assess whether
the stream channel is showing signs of instability.
Indicators of instability include a vertically incising
thalweg or eroding channel banks. Changes in the channel
that indicate a movement toward stability or enhanced habitat include a decrease in the width -to-
depth ratio in meandering channels or an increase in pool depth. Remedial action would not be taken if
channel changes indicate a movement toward stability.
In orderto monitor the channel dimension, one (3.) permanent cross - sections will be installed per 20
bankfull widths along stream restoration reaches, with riffle and pool sections in proportion to EEP
guidance. Each cross - section will be permanently marked with pins to establish its location. Cross -
section surveys will include points measured at all breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, edge
of water, and thalweg. If moderate bank erosion is observed within permanent pool cross - sections
during the monitoring period, an array of bank pins will be installed in the permanent cross - section
where erosion is occurring for reaches with a bankfull width of greaterthan three feet. Bank pins will
be installed on the outside bend of the cross - section in at least three locations (one (3.) in upper third of
the pool, one (3.) at the permanent cross - section, and one (3.) in the lower third of the pool). Bank pins
will be monitored by measuring exposed rebar and maintaining pins flush to bank to capture bank
erosion progression. Annual cross - section and bank pin survey (if applicable) will be conducted in
monitoring years one (3.), two (2), three (3), five (5), and seven (7).
Profile and Pattern
Longitudinal profile surveys will not be conducted during the seven (7) year monitoring period unless
other indicators during the annual monitoring indicate a trend toward vertical and lateral instability. If
a longitudinal profile is deemed necessary, monitoring will follow standards as described in the EEP
Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and /or Wetland Mitigation
(3.3./07/2o3.3.) and the 2003 USACE and NCDWQ Stream Mitigation Guidance for the necessary reaches.
Substrate
Substrate materials in the restoration reaches should indicate a progression towards or the
maintenance of coarser materials in the riffle features and smaller particles in the pool features.
A reach -wide pebble count will be performed in each restoration reach each year for classification
purposes. A pebble count will be performed at each surveyed riffle to characterize the pavement.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.3.6
Maney Farm Stream Mitigation Site — Part 5

5.7.2 Hydrology
Two (2) bankfull flow events must be documented on the
restoration reaches within the seven (7) year monitoring period.
The two (2) bankfull events must occur in separate years.
Stream monitoring will continue until success criteria in the
form of two bankfull events in separate years have been
documented.
Bankfull events will be documented using photographs and
either a crest gage or a pressure transducer, as appropriate for
site conditions. The selected measurement device will be
installed in the stream within a surveyed riffle cross - section.
The device will be checked at each site visit to determine if a
bankfull event has occurred. Photographs will also be used to document the occurrence of debris lines
and sediment deposition.
5.7.3 Vegetation
The final vegetative success criteria will be the survival of 210 planted stems per acre in the riparian
corridor at the end of the required monitoring period (year seven (7)). The interim measure of
vegetative success for the site will be the survival of at least 320 planted stems per acre at the end of
the third (3) monitoring year and at least 26o stems per acre at the end of the fifth (5) year of
monitoring. Planted vegetation must average 10 feet in height in each plot at the end of the seventh (7)
year of monitoring. If this performance standard is met by year five (5) and stem density is trending
towards success (i.e., no less than 26o five year old stems /acre), monitoring of vegetation on the site
may be terminated with written approval by the USACE in consultation with the NC Interagency
Review Team. The extent of invasive species coverage will also be monitored and controlled as
necessary throughout the required monitoring period (year five or seven).
Vegetation monitoring quadrants will be installed across the restoration site to measure the survival of
the planted trees. The number of monitoring quadrants required will based on the EEP monitoring
guidance documents (version 1.5, 6/08/12). Vegetation monitoring will occur in the fall and will follow
the CVS -EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation (2006).
5.7.4 Other Parameters
Photo Reference Stations
Photographs will be taken once a year to visually document stability for seven (7) years following
construction. Permanent markers will be established and located with GPS equipment so that the same
locations and view directions on the site are photographed each year. Photos will be used to monitor
restoration and enhancement stream reaches as well as vegetation plots and wetland areas.
Longitudinal reference photos will be established at the tail of riffles approximately every Zoo LF along
the channel by taking a photo looking upstream and downstream. Cross - sectional photos will be taken
of each permanent cross - section looking upstream and downstream. Reference photos will also be
taken for each of the vegetation plots and within wetland areas. Representative digital photos of each
permanent photo point, cross - section and vegetation plot will be taken on the same day that the
stream and vegetation assessments are conducted. The photographer will make every effort to
consistently maintain the same area in each photo overtime.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.17
Maney Farm Stream Mitigation Site — Part 5

Photographs should illustrate the site's vegetation and morphological stability on an annual basis.
Cross - section photos should demonstrate no excessive erosion or degradation of the banks.
Longitudinal photos should indicate the absence of persistent bars within the channel or vertical
incision. Grade control structures should remain stable. Deposition of sediment on the bank side of
vane arms is preferable. Maintenance of scour pools on the channel side of vane arms is expected.
Visual Assessments
Visual assessments will be performed along stream reaches on a semi - annual basis during the seven (7)
year monitoring period. Problem areas will be noted such as channel instability (i.e. lateral and /or
vertical instability, instream structure failure /instability and /or piping, headcuts), vegetation health (e.g.
low stem density, vegetation mortality, invasive species or encroachment), beaver activity, or livestock
access. Areas of concern will be mapped and photographed accompanied by a written description in
the annual report. Problem areas with be re- evaluated during each subsequent visual assessment.
Should remedial actions be required, recommendations will be provided in the annual monitoring
report.
eenthic Macroinvertebrates
If required by NCDWQ as part of the projects permitting process, benthic macroinvertebrate sampling
will be performed on the restored site. Any required sampling will be performed using NCDWQ
Standard Operating Procedures for Benthic Macroinvertebrates, July 2006.
5.7.5 Reporting Performance Criteria
Using the EEP Baseline Monitoring Plan Template (version 2.0, 10/14/10), a baseline monitoring
document and as -built record drawings of the project will be developed within 6o days of the planting
completion and monitoring installation on the restored site. Monitoring reports will be prepared in the
fall of each year of monitoring and submitted to EEP. These reports will be based on the EEP
Monitoring Report Template (version 1.5, 6/08/12). The monitoring period will extend seven years
beyond completion of construction or until performance criteria have been met per the criteria stated
in the EEP Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and /or Wetland Mitigation
(111712011).
5.7.6 Maintenance and Contingency Plans
The Wildlands Team will develop necessary adaptive measures or implement appropriate remedial
actions in the event that the site or a specific component of the site fails to achieve the success criteria
outlined above. The project — specific monitoring plan developed during the design phase will identify
an appropriate threshold for maintenance intervention based on the monitored items. Any actions
implemented will be designed to achieve the success criteria specified previously, and will include a
work schedule and updated monitoring criteria.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.18
Maney Farm Stream Mitigation Site — Part 5

Figure 2 Site Map
W I L D L A N D 5 0 325 Feet Maney Farm Stream Mitigation Site
Oft N G I N E E R I N G I I t Cape Fear River Basin 03030002
Chatham County, NC

Project Location
579', .i.
Proposed Conservation Easement
f f67 / JP +l x596 -
AIAMANCE CO_ ~ _— _Ca•nt.:Ch S.� – - --
_ CHATHAM CO
I UL
-A, 5� outh Bark Ch - .r
�` F o
i 1.,..�.,._�.� I
i I sy, I
J Mz
f2T5
e +( Ayc ? -?v, �
u �
t ra' G u0 C
�0 '� rf
0
Crutt }r, roads, USGS 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle I
Figure 3 Topographic Map
witwWlLDLANDS 0 2,000 Feet Maney Farm Stream Mitigation Site
E N G IN E E RING I I I Cape Fear River Basin 03030002
?s XIIr61
x. S „6 � Chatham County, NC

Figure 4 Watershed Map
WILD LANDS p 600 Feet Maney Farm Stream Mitigation Site
EN G IN E = R I N G I I I Cape Fear River Basin 03030002
Chatham County, NC

I �
i `yfi
MAMA
i ti 'ry
.._ AAA
Ta V
NaC
.t
�.
�t
fy
Ksk
-O
4, a
;- AaB
,r
r �I
NaC
%ZVAW, WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
0 400 Feet
I I I
t
!minim
16,m�i Project Location
Conservation Easement(14.51 Acres)
Project Streams
ChA- Chewacla silt loam, 0 -2% slopes
CkC- Cid silt loam, 6 -10% slopes
CmB- Cid - Lignum complex, 2 -6% slopes
GaB- Georgeville silty clay loam, 2 -6% slopes
- GeB2- Georgeville silty clay loam, 2 -6% slopes
GeC2- Georgeville silty clay loam, 6 -10% slopes
NaB- Nanford -Badin complex, 2 -6% slopes
NaC- Nanford -Badin complex, 6 -10% slopes
Figure 5 Soils Map
Maney Farm Stream Mitigation Site
Cape Fear River Basin 03030002
Chatham County, NC

r ( 1
AM
FIn
All
.: ,`�1. .1.6.11/ 1.1.1.1./
PITPIT
PIT
PIT
7.
', 4 F+ 30�{ ♦ I t 6� PAP 'Q f r
k• F F )•t t fit-
, "4.., CO
■ I Project Location
71.Ir
' t Proposed Conservation Easement
d Planted Buffer
- ?; �r''♦ Stream Restoration
,�•.' ��'. •'yam -i. -�_
Stream Enhancement II
1�1. t.1..1.1.1.1. 1.1 .1.1•I 11 11 11 1 I.1 .1.1. = _
�erial • • •• .• hy
witv,WILDLANDS
E N G I N E E R I N G
0 325 Feet
I I I
Figure 6 Concept Map
Maney Farm Stream Mitigation Site
Cape Fear River Basin 03030002
Chatham County, NC