20140334 Ver 1_Candy Creek RFP Techncial Proposal_20140404

2D 14 03y
Part 5 - Technical Approach
APR 4 2014
Candy Creek Mitigation Site (Site) is located in Guilford County approximately 13 mile northeast of the
City of Greensboro (Figure i). The project involves a holistic watershed approach of restoration,
enhancement, and preservation of Piedmont streams and is located within the EEP targeted watershed
for the Cape Fear River Basin Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 0303000201002o and NCDWQ Subbasin 03-
o6-o3. and is being submitted for mitigation credit in the Cape Fear River Basin HUC 03030002.
The proposed Site is located within the Haw River Headwaters
Watershed and is discussed in EEP's 2009 Cape Fear River Basin
Restoration Priorities (RBRP). This document identifies a
restoration goal for all streams within HUC 03030002 of reducing
sediment and nutrient pollution to downstream Jordan Lake.
The Haw River watershed was also identified in the zoos NC
"! . �. Wildlife Resources Commission's Wildlife Action Plan as a
priority area for freshwater habitat conservation and restoration
to protect rare and endemic aquatic fauna and enhance species
diversity. The Wildlife Action Plan calls for °(s)upport of
conservation and restoration of streams and riparian zones in priority areas (acquisition, easements,
and buffer)." Restoration at the Site would directly and indirectly address these goals by excluding
cattle from the stream, creating stable stream banks, restoring a riparian corridor, and placing land
historically used for agriculture 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 proposed work at the Site will provide nutrient reduction by creating riparian buffers and excluding
cattle. Reconnection of these creeks to their historic floodplain will filter nutrients before runoff flows
into Candy Creek. Sediment loading often causing sedimentation in the downstream sections of the
project will be reduced by eliminating the widespread mass bank wasting and scour in the upper
reaches through stream restoration.
Sources:
NC -EEP. 2009. Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities.
NC -DWQ. 2005. Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Chapter One: Cape Fear River Subbasin 03- 06 -01.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2005. North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan. Raleigh, NC.
with information based in part on Smith et al. 2002, NC Natural Heritage Program, and Commission
data: (Smith, R. K., P. L. Freeman, J. V. Higgins, K. S. Wheaton, T. W. FitzHugh, K. J. Ernstrom, and A. A. Das.
2002. Priority areas for freshwater conservation action: a biodiversity assessment of the Southeastern United
States. The Nature Conservancy)
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.1
Candy Creek 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 through nutrient and sediment reduction 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 and Objectives
of the Candy Creek Stream Mitigation Project
Water Quality Goals
Decrease nutrient
Nutrient input will be decreased by cattle exclusion throughout the Site. Off -site
and adverse chemical
nutrient -laden runoff will be absorbed on -site by filtering flood flows through restored
levels
floodplain areas and vernal pools where flood flows can disperse through native
(RBRP Goal)
vegetation. Increased surface water residency time will provide contact treatment
time and groundwater recharge potential.
Decrease sediment
A large volume of sediment is being contributed to the system through the failure of
input
onsite stream banks. Sediment input from unprotected stream banks will be reduced
(RBRP Goal)
by installing bioengineering and instream structureswhile creating a stable channel
form using natural channel design principles. 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 re-
temperature and
aeration; this will also help to maintain oxygen levels in the perennial stream reaches.
increase dissolved
Creation of pool zones will lower temperature, helping to maintain dissolved oxygen
oxygen
concentrations. Establishment and maintenance of riparian buffers will create long -
concentrations
term shading of the channel flow to minimize thermal heating. Two existing inline
ponds (Figures za and 2b), which discharge water into the stream from the pond's
water surface, will be removed. This will help lower the overall stream temperatures,
which will help maintain dissolved oxygen concentrations. The ponds are subject to
algal blooms, which consume dissolved oxygen; pond removal will eliminate this
stressor to dissolved oxygen.
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 otherforested 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
Candy Creek Stream Mitigation Site — Part 5

5.2 Project Description
The following section describes the existing conditions at the Candy Creek Stream Mitigation 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 Candy Creek Stream Mitigation Site is a
combination of active pasture, farmland, and forest.
The site is generally characterized by the flat, alluvial
floodplain of Candy Creek. Several berms are evident
throughout the Site that served either as pond
embankments or old road beds as shown on Figures za
and zb. Based on a review of historical aerials
(presented in Appendix A), the Site use was a mix of
farmland and forest from at least 1.949 to present day.
Candy Creek flows into the Haw River approximately 1..7
miles downstream of the Site project limits.
There are nine unnamed tributaries (UTs) to Candy Creek located on the Site as illustrated on Figures
za and zb: UT1.c, UT1.d, UTz, UTza, UTzb, UT3, UT4, UTS and UTSa. UT1.c and UT1.d flow southwest to
Candy Creek. The dam embankment and receiving channel at the headwaters of UT1.c is experiencing
massive erosion. UTzflows through an existing farm pond and meets Candy Creek upstream of
Hopkins Road. UT3, UT4, and UTS all flow from off -site ponds and connect to the upstream section of
Candy Creek. Candy Creek, UT1.c, UTz, UT3, UT4, UTS, and UTSa were identified as perennial streams
on September 27, 201.3, using the North Carolina Division of Water Ouality (NCDWCI) Stream
Identification Forms. UT1d, UTza, and UTzb were identified as intermittent streams. Copies of these
forms are included in Appendix B. The streams and ponds are all depicted on Figures za and
zb. Details about the existing streams are provided in Section 5.2.2, below.
Candy Creek Reach 1 & Reach 2
Candy Creek Reach 1. enters the Site at the southern
property boundary from a small pond and flows north
through a wooded valley. Reach 1. is severely incised
(BHR>2.5) for its entire length with mass wasting
occurring on approximately go% of its banks. The reach
has moderate sinuosity with sandy bed conditions from
active bank erosion occurring along the reach. Reach 1.
has some degree of forested buffer with at least Soft
width from the stream bank. The vegetation in these
buffers is typically a mature community similar to the
Southern Piedmont Small Floodplain and Riparian Forest
ecotype, bordered by a mature Southern Piedmont Mixed
Mesic Forest ecotype. Wide abandoned terraces and
floodplains have dominant cover of exotic invasive
herbaceous plants (e.g. Microstegium vimineum, Vinca
minor, Lonicera spp.) in the absence of a dense shrub /vine layer.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 9 5.3
Candy Creek Stream Mitigation Site — Part 5

Candy Creek Reach 1 is similar to a Rosgen G -type stream with a low bankfull width -to -depth ratio, a
low entrenchment ratio, and a high bank height ratio (in excess of 4.o). As Candy Creek Reach i
continues downstream the dimension widens and incision continues. UT3 and UT5 enter Candy Creek
at the downstream end of Reach 1.
Candy Creek Reach z begins at the confluence with UT3.
Candy Creek Reach z is similar to Reach is a Rosgen G -type
A C ,
stream with severe incision, active scour, and localized mass
wasting. Candy Creek Reach z is over widened with top
widths of approximately 25 to 35 feet existing in numerous
sections. The overall sinuosity for Candy Creek Reach z is
low to moderate. Bed materials consist predominately of a
thick sandy layer with isolated sections of bedrock. The thick
sand bed layer of Reach z is a result of the sediment load
from active erosion upstream and in the channel.
Reach z flows through a wide wooded valley with vegetation similar to Reach i and eventually enters
an active cattle pasture approximately halfway through its length. Reach z continues through the cattle
pasture until UTz enters from the right hillside flowing northwest through the pasture. Cattle have
access to the reach for its entire length through the pasture
(approx. loo LF). While some large woody vegetation exists
in the pasture there is sparse riparian vegetation. Banks and
floodplains are trampled by cattle and appearto struggle to
support vegetation in the shrub and herbaceous layer. r . _-
The over widened dimension of Reach z continues
throughout the pasture section. Historic modification of the
channel includes remnants of a manmade concrete dam
structure. Reach z leaves the cattle pasture just downstream &
of the UTz confluence and flows into a wooded section with
a slightly more established forested buffer. Incision, over
widening, and bank scour continues until Reach z ends at the easement break at the Hopkins Road
bridge. Evidence of attempted grade control using riprap and concrete is present at the bridge crossing.
Despite these efforts, the channel has continued to scour underneath the Hopkins Road Bridge.
Cross sectional surveys and reachwide pebble counts were conducted on Candy Creek Reach 1 and
Reach z and are provided in Appendix B. Cross sections are provided to illustrate the severity of the
over widening and incision of Candy Creek. Cross section locations shown on Figures 2a and zb are
representative of the conditions on Candy Creek Reach i and Reach z.
Candy Creek Reach 3
Candy Creek Reach 3 begins at the Hopkins Road bridge crossing and flows northwest through a
forested section ending where it flows into an active cattle pasture (Figures za and zb). UTsd and UTic
enter Candy Creek Reach 3 from the right valley flowing southwest into Candy Creek. Reach 3 is similar
to a Rosgen G -type or moderately incised C -type stream with low to moderate bankfull width to depth
ratio, a low entrenchment ratio, and a moderate to high bank height ratio (mostly in excess of z.o).
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 9 5.4
Candy Creek Stream Mitigation Site — Part 5

Incision along Candy Creek Reach 3 is not as prevalent
as on the upper reaches of Candy Creek but it still
exhibits over widening. Bed material in Reach 3 is
dominated by a thick sand layer similar to the
substrate in Candy Creek Reach z. Reach 3 is receiving
large amounts of sediment traveling from the incised
and eroded channels upstream.
Reach 3 flows through a wooded valley with the
majority of the reach having some degree of forestedS
buffer at least 5o foot wide from the stream bank.
Vegetation in these buffers is typically Southern r�'<
Piedmont Small Floodplain and Riparian Forest
ecotype canopy, with dense shrub and vine layers or entirely herbaceous below the canopy. A cross
sectional survey and reachwide pebble count were conducted on Candy Creek Reach 3 and are provided
in Appendix B.
Candy Creek Reach 4
Candy Creek Reach 4 flows north through an active cattle pasture after an easement break between
Reach 3 and Reach 4 and continues to the downstream project limits. Numerous cattle access points
The cross sectional surveys collected in the field
confirm the incised nature of Reach 4. The cross
section plot and pebble count data are provided in
Appendix B.
UTic
UTsc originates at an on -site farm pond and flows
through a wooded valley before connecting to Candy
Creek. The upstream and downstream sections are on
the opposite ends of bank stability. The downstream
section has a low to moderate bank height ratio
(BHR<3..5) with moderate width to depth ratio (W /D =
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 9 55
Candy Creek Stream Mitigation Site — Part 5
throughout the reach limits the herbaceous vegetation
`'
growth and have created trampled banks. The riparian
buffer is either non - existent or very sparse along this
JAL
entire reach. The few trees that do exist along the top of
bank are being undercut by bank erosion.
Reach 4 sinuosity is low with localized sections of
},
moderate pattern. The cross section width varies
throughout the reach; the upstream section is relatively
=
narrow while the downstream section is over widened.
The bed material consists primarily of sandy deposition
J
from adjacent and upstream bank erosion with sporadic
bedrock outcroppings. Reach 4 exhibits a low width to
depth ratio, high BHR, a low entrenchment ratio and is similar to a Rosgen G -type stream. Reach 4 is
moderately to deeply incised and shows signs
of reach -wide bank scour with occasional areas of mass
wasting.
The cross sectional surveys collected in the field
confirm the incised nature of Reach 4. The cross
section plot and pebble count data are provided in
Appendix B.
UTic
UTsc originates at an on -site farm pond and flows
through a wooded valley before connecting to Candy
Creek. The upstream and downstream sections are on
the opposite ends of bank stability. The downstream
section has a low to moderate bank height ratio
(BHR<3..5) with moderate width to depth ratio (W /D =
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 9 55
Candy Creek Stream Mitigation Site — Part 5

12). The banks are fairly stable and well vegetated. Approximately 65o LF upstream of the confluence
with Candy Creek, the channel becomes deeply incised with up to 20 foot high vertical, eroding banks.
This extreme erosion continues upstream and is threatening the existing pond embankment. The mass
bank wasting in this section is a huge source of sediment to Candy Creek. If left unchecked, the erosion
will eventually cause the dam embankment to fail, introducing a large volume of sediment to the
system.
UTid
UTid originates at a groundwater seep that has caused significant localized erosion and i5 foot high
sheer banks. A small channel flows from the seep area, over a breached embankment, and through a
sparse buffer to Candy Creek. The breached embankment acts as an impoundment which causes the
sediment to settle out. The channel in this section just upstream of the breached embankment is
undefined. The channel downstream of the breached embankment is moderately incised (BHR «.5)
with scour present on approximately 25% of the banks.
UT2, UT2a, and UT2b
UT2 meets Candy Creek just upstream of the Hopkins Road bridge. Cattle have access to the entire
reach, which is bisected by an existing farm pond. Downstream of the farm pond, UT2 is incised with
approximately 5o% of the banks scoured. The channel traverses through a sparse buffer of hardwoods
and herbaceous understory. Upstream of the farm pond, UT2 is over widened and eventually becomes
deeply incised nearthe upstream limits. Bank scour is prevalent throughout this upstream section of
UT2. The incised downstream and upstream sections are most similarto a Rosgen G -type channel.
UT2a is an intermittent incised channel that flows into UT2 downstream of the pond. Lack of
vegetation and a short section of mass wasting on the left bank contributes sandy sediment into the
system.
UT2b flows through a sparse buffer before connecting to the existing farm pond. The channel has
downcut due to the elevation of the pond and is moderately incised. While a short section of UT2b
seems to be stable, the remainder of the channel reach is generally over widened with moderate bank
scour.
UT3, UT4, UT5, and UT5a
UT3, UT4, and UT5 each initiate at different farm
ponds located outside the project limits and flow down
corresponding valleys until their confluence with
Candy Creek. UT5a flows from an off -site farm pond
northwest into UT5 before UT5 joins Candy Creek.
UT3, UT4, and UT5 are each separated into two
reaches based on differing stream conditions as shown
in Figure 2a and 2b. The vegetation buffers along these
reaches are similar to those that exist around Candy
Creek Reach 1; mature communities similar to
Southern Piedmont Small Floodplain and Riparian
Forest ecotype, bordered by a mature Southern
Piedmont Mixed Mesic Forest ecotype.
The upstream portion of UT3 Reach 1 is a stable Rosgen C type stream with reference potential that
flows from a farm pond down the center of a wooded valley. After approximately 900 linear feet, UT3
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.6
Candy Creek Stream Mitigation Site — Part 5

Reach 2 becomes dramatically incised after a farm road crossing. UT3 Reach 2 then follows the right
valley wall and incision increases as UT3 approaches Candy Creek. Evidence of scour and mass wasting
exist along the downstream 350 LF of UT3 Reach 2. UT3 Reach 2 is similar to a Rosgen G -type stream
with low bankfull width to depth ratio, a low entrenchment ratio, and a high bank height ratio (in excess
of 3.0).
5.2.2 Watershed Characterization
The Candy Creek Stream Restoration Site is located in Guilford County within the Targeted Local
Watershed 03030002010020 and NCDWQ subbasin 03- 06 -01. All onsite tributaries drain to Candy
Creek, which is classified as Class C waters by NCDWQ. Topography, as indicated on the Browns
Summit, NC USGS 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle, shows moderately sloped areas draining to the
north, east and west toward the main stem of Candy Creek, which continues north toward the Haw
River (Figure 3).
Drainage areas for the project reaches were determined by delineating watersheds using 2 -foot contour
intervals derived from Light Detection And Ranging (LiDAR) data obtained in 2007 from the North
Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program. Figure 4 shows the watershed boundaries for the Site. Land uses
draining to the project reaches are primarily grass /herbaceous, forested, and residential. The
watershed areas and current land use are summarized in Table 5.2, below.
Table S.2 Drainage Areas and Associated Land Use
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.7
Candy Creek Stream Mitigation Site — Part 5
Existing
NCDWQ Stream
Watershed
Reach Name
Reach Length
Identification
Area
Predominant Land Use
(LF)
Form Scores
(acres)
39% cultivated crops; 29%
Candy Creek
8,892
40/43.5 (P)
960
forested; 20% hay /pasture; 10%
residential; 2% impoundment
47% cultivated crops; 36%
UT1c
1,000
35 (P)
26
forested; 11% hay /pasture; 7%
residential
55% cultivated crops; 26%
UT1d
473
24/27.5(l)
7.5
forested, 18% residential
73% hay /pasture; 14% residential;
UT2
*1,776
32/34(P)
63
12% forested; 1% impoundment
48% hay /pasture; 36% residential;
U72a
379
27.5(l)
17
16% forested
UT2b
636
28.5(l)
24
90% hay /pasture; 10% residential
58% cultivated crops; 24%
UT3
1,546
33.5/36.5 (P)
77
forested; 13% residential; 5%
impoundment
70% cultivated crops; 26%
UT4
1,108
37.5 (P)
178
forested; 4% open water;
47% cultivated crops; 29%
UT5
1,048
31.5 (P)
145
forested; 13% hay /pasture; 9%
residential; 2% impoundment
55% cultivated crops; 35%
UT5a
1,081
33.5 (P)
34
forested; 4% hay /pasture;3%
residential; 3% open water
*Includes 250 LF of stream which is currently impounded.
(P) = Perennial
(1) = Intermittent
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.7
Candy Creek Stream Mitigation Site — Part 5

5.2.3 Soils
The floodplain areas of the proposed project are mapped by the Natural Resource Conservation Service
for Guilford County. Soils in the proposed project easement are mapped as Casville sandy loam,
Clifford sandy clay loam, Codorus loam, Nathalie sandy loam, Nanford -Badin complex, and Poplar
Forest sandy loam. These soils are described below in Table 5.3. A soils map is provided in Figure 5.
Table 5.3 Project Soil Types and Descriptions
Soil Name
Description
Casville sandy loam, 6-
Casville soils at 6 -io %slopes are found on hillsides of ridges.
1.o% slopes
They are well drained with moderately high permeability.
These deep soils are typically not flooded.
Clifford sandy clay loam at 6 -1.o% slopes are found on
Clifford sandy clay loam,
interfluxes at the top of slopes. They are well drained with
6 -io% slopes
moderately high permeability. This soil is typically not
flooded.
Codorus loam soils consist of nearly level, very deep,
Codorus loam, 0 -2%
somewhat poorly drained soils. They are typically found in
slopes
floodplain areas. Shrink swell potential is low. These soils
are frequently flooded.
Nathalie sandy loam, 2
Nathalie sandy loam is typically found on interfluxes at the
6% slopes
top of slopes. This deep, well- drained soil has moderately
high permeability and doesn't experience flooding.
Nanford -Badin complex,
Nathalie sandy loam is typically found on interfluxes at the
6 -io% slopes
top of slopes. This deep, well- drained soil has moderately
high permeability and doesn't experience flooding.
Poplar Forest soils at 2-6 %slopes are found on hillslopes of
Poplar Forest gravelly
ridges. They are well drained and consist of residuum derived
sandy loam, 1.5-35%
from mica schist and /or other micaceous metamorphic rock.
slopes
This soil is very deep with a moderately high permeability.
Poplar Forest soils are not frequently flooded.
Source: Web Soil Survey, USDA -NRCS
http : / /websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov /app /WebSoilSurvey.aspx
5.2.4 Geology
The Site is located in the Charlotte 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 i5oo feet above sea level. The Charlotte Belt is primarily intrusive igneous rocks with some
meta - volcanic rocks, and very few meta - sedimentary rocks. According to the Geologic Map of North
Carolina (1.985), the underlying geology of the proposed restoration site is mapped as Pennsylvanian to
Permian age (265 to 325 million years in age) granitic rock (PPg). This unit is described as megacrystic
to equigranular and is considered correlative with the Churchland Pluton. Occasional bedrock outcrops
in the channels have halted vertical incision, which has resulted over widening due to excess sheer
stress.
Sources:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.8
Candy Creek Stream Mitigation Site — Part 5

Geologic Map of North Carolina 1:5oo,000 scale.
Compiled by Philip M. Brown at el. Raleigh, NC, North Carolina Geological Survey.
5.2.5 Cultural Resources
The Site location spans several residential properties, where open land is used for agricultural
production of row crops, cattle pasture and forested areas are used for hunting. There is a small
cemetery on the hillside along Reach i of Candy Creek with graves dating between the early igzos to
the 188os, but none are located within the project easement boundary. 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.
5.2.6 Threatened and Endangered Species
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) databases were
searched for federally and state listed threatened and endangered plant and animal species for Guilford
County, NC. Eight federal and state listed species are currently listed in Guilford County including: bald
eagle (Hailaeetus leucocephalus), Carolina darter (Etheostoma collis), Carolina creekshell (Villosa
vaughaniana), triangle floater (Alasmidonta undulata), dwarf chinquapin oak (Quercus prinoides),
granite flatsedge (Cyperus granitophilus), small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides), and purple
fringeless orchid (Platanthera peramoena) (Table 5.4). A pedestrian survey conducted on September
26, 2013, indicated the site has no potential habitat for bald eagle, Carolina darter, Carolina creekshell,
triangle floater, dwarf chinquapin oak, or granite flatsedge. There are areas of potential habitat for
purple fringeless orchid and small whorled pogonia, however field review of the potential habitat areas
found no individual species.
Table 5.4 Listed Threatened and Endangered Species in Guilford County, NC
Species
Federal /State
Habitat
Status
Vertebrate
Bald eagle
BGPA
Near large open water bodies: lakes, marshes, seacoasts,
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
and rivers
Carolina darter
Small to moderate sized streams in areas of low current
(Etheostoma collis)
FSC
velocity. Habitat substrates preferred by this species are
usually characterized by mud, sand and sometimes
bedrock.
Invertebrate
Pee Dee, Catawba, and Cape Fear systems (endemic to
Carolina creekshell
North Carolina and adjacent South Carolina), in substrates
(Villosa vaughaniana)
FSC
suitable for burrowing including mud or sand near stream
banks, and occasionally in gravelly sand in the main channel
of streams and medium rivers.
Triangle floater
T
River systems in Piedmont and Coastal Plain with very
(Alasmidonta undulata)
stable substrates, including some silt
Vascular Plant
Dwarf chinquapin oak
E
dry, rocky slopes
(Quercus prinoides)
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 9 5.9
Candy Creek Stream Mitigation Site — Part 5

Species
Federal /State
Habitat
Access
Status
25
Granite flatsedge
T
granite flatrocks, other rock outcrops
(Cyperus granitophilus)
Existing timber bridge
Internal in easement. No cattle.
Small whorled pogonia
25
Forests with white pine, sink -hole depressions, swamp and
(Isotria medeoloides)
E
pond margins
Purple fringeless orchid
Internal in easement. Controlled cattle access fortransfer
between pastures.
Bogs, mesic forests, meadows, wet woods, marshes and
(Platanthera peramoena)
T
roadside ditches
BGPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; FSC= federal species of concern E = Endangered; T= Threatened
5.2.7 Floodplain Compliance
Candy Creek is not mapped in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) within the project limits. Hydraulic
modeling will be used during design to check for adverse impacts to adjacent properties.
5.2.8 Site Constraints and Access
The north end of the project site (Candy Creek Reach 3, Reach 4, UT1c, and UT1d) may be accessed by
Old Reidsville Rd (NC SR 251-4). The south end of the project site including Candy Creek Reach i, Candy
Creek Reach z, UT2, UT3, UT4, and UT5 can be accessed via Hopkins Rd (NC SR 2700). Easement
breaks and crossings are summarized in Table S.5 below and shown on Figures 6a and 6b.
Table 5.5 Easement Breaks and Crossings
No.
Width (ft)
Crossing Type
Access
1-
25
Doubled gated ford
Internal in easement. Controlled cattle access for transfer
between pastures.
2
25
Existing timber bridge
Internal in easement. No cattle.
3
25
Double gated ford
Internal in easement. Controlled cattle access fortransfer
between pastures.
4
25
Double gated culvert
Internal in easement. Controlled cattle access fortransfer
between pastures.
5
6o
Ford
External (break in easement) farm equipment access. No
cattle.
6
25
Timber bridge
Internal in easement. No cattle.
7
25
Timber bridge
Internal in easement. No cattle.
8
25
Ford
Internal in easement. No cattle.
g
25
Ford
Internal in easement. No cattle.
All streams proposed for mitigation credit provide the required minimum riparian buffer for Piedmont
streams. The easement area will be marked per NCEEP Guidelines for Full Delivery Requirement for
Completion of Survey for Conservation Easements (7/7/201-2). There are no other known constraints on
the proposed project site. There are no known airports located within 5 miles of the project site.
The easement area can be accessed for construction, monitoring, and long term stewardship from
existing site access points located along Old Reidsville Road and Hopkins Road (Figures 6a and 6b). The
NEW Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.1-0
Candy Creek Stream Mitigation Site — Part 5

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 and
riparian corridors on the Candy Creek project site through a holistic watershed approach. The project
design will ensure that there will be no adverse impacts to existing riparian buffers or wetlands.
Different management objectives are proposed for different portions of the project area. These
activities are discussed below and summarized in Table 5.5. Figures 6a and 6b illustrate the conceptual
design for the Site.
The major goals of project restoration will be to improve water quality in the Haw River watershed by
filtering nutrients and reducing sediment inputs through buffer reestablishment and cattle exclusion, to
achieve improved floodplain function, and to improve habitat for macro invertebrate and aquatic
communities through removal of migration barriers in the forms of ponds and culverts, reestablishment
of natural stream function, bed form structure, and reduction in sedimentation.
5.3.1 Streams
Full restoration, using a Priority 1 approach, is proposed
for Candy Creek Reach 1, Reach z and Reach 4 to correct
lack of dimension, pattern, and profile of the existing
channel while adding habitat structure. Restoration
efforts will begin at the upstream point of the project at a
small pond discharge. The upstream tie in location is a
stable channel section with low banks. The proposed
channel will be reconnected to the flat wooded floodplain
throughout Reach 1. and Reach z, meandering between
the sparse mature hardwoods. Trees lost during
construction will be repurposed as in- stream structures in the new channel. In order to balance cut -fill,
vernal pools will be located at sections of the abandoned channel. In transitioning from Reach z to
Reach 3, the preliminary plan is to raise the channel under the Hopkins Road Bridge back to its original
elevation. This will help achieve proper tie in and provide profile continuity to the downstream reaches.
A hydraulic analysis will be conducted to ensure the proposed channel causes no adverse flooding
impact to the bridge or Hopkins Road.
Downstream of Hopkins Road, bank heights begin to lower and bank scour becomes less frequent as
you move downstream. The existing channel is also more sinuous than the upstream reaches.
Enhancement I and II is proposed to address the profile and cross section insufficiencies of Reach 3. In-
stream structures will help raise the bed elevation while providing critical bank protection. Steep banks
will be laid back to relieve the high shear stresses of the existing system. Some benching will be
necessary in the Enhancement I section.
Reach 4 begins as Candy Creek flows through pasture land to the downstream Site limits. The cross
section varies from a narrow incised channel to an over widened incised channel. Trampled banks add
to the cross sectional fluctuation. Priority i approach restoration is proposed to address the dimension
and to reestablish pattern and profile diversity. The wide, flat pasture floodplain will be an ideal
location for the new channel. Less than one acre of existing small pocket wetlands will be enhanced
and protected through this reach. A short section Priority 2 approach is necessary near the
downstream project limits.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.11
Candy Creek Stream Mitigation Site — Part 5

UT3, UT4, and UT5 have downcut to match the bed elevation of Candy Creek and are deeply incised.
The majority of the banks are experiencing mass wasting and scour due to the loss of floodplain
connection and lack of pattern and are very similar to Reach s of Candy Creek. In order to address the
stressors on these reaches, a Priority i restoration approach is proposed. This approach will also allow
for a proper tie into the Candy Creek restoration. Each reach will consist of restoration in the
downstream sections and preservation in the
upstream sections. Bedrock nick points define the
transition location between restoration and
preservation.
The defining feature of UTz is the farm pond in the
middle of the reach. While the channelsjust
upstream of the farm pond (UTz and UTzb) are not
incised, UTz is over widened and has scoured
banks. Further upstream, the UTz become more
incised. UTzb is stable but impacted by cattle
»4 s access and will be fenced out and a full buffer
planted. Downstream of the farm pond the channels (UTz and UTza) are deeply incised but show
moderate sinuosity. Since cattle have access to the farm pond and it lacks a proper hydraulic outfall,
the water quality is poor. The entire UTz system is a source of water quality and sediment stressors. Tc
combat the water quality and sediment stressors of the UTz system, a combination of restoration and
enhancement is proposed. Removing the pond and reestablishing a stable channel will require full
restoration to establish pattern, profile and dimension. Enhancement I and II are proposed for UTz and
UTzb, respectively, upstream of the pond. In- stream structures and bank grading will help stabilize the
stream system and provide habitat through the introduction of riffles and pools. Downstream of the
pond, Enhancement I is proposed for UTz and UTza. Profile and dimension will be reestablished along
these reaches within the existing channel pattern. The channel beds will be raised for reconnection to
the floodplain and to the new elevation of Candy Creek.
The severe erosion downstream of the pond on UTic is actively depositing large amounts of sediment
to the Candy Creek system. Erosion appears to be migrating upstream and the pond embankment
failure seems imminent. Pond removal and channel restoration will address the erosion while forming
proper dimension, pattern and profile. The Priority i stream
channel will terminate approximately 348 LF downstream where
the existing channel is in relatively stable condition with low bank
heights. Earth removed from the pond embankment can be used
to fill the existing Candy Creek channel.
UTid is a unique system consisting of a groundwater seep and
breached embankment. The seep has created a headwater
erosion area with relatively high vertical banks. Proposed efforts
include removing the breached embankment, stabilizing the
shear banks near the seep, and restoring a stream channel using a
Priority i approach. The excess earth generated while stabilizing
the seep area can be used to fill the old Candy Creek channel.
Removing the breached embankment will help reduce water
temperature in UTid. The risk of doing nothing to UTsd is that
large amounts of sediment could be deposited into the Candy
Creek system indefinitely. Restoration eliminates this risk.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.12
Candy Creek Stream Mitigation Site — Part 5

Restoration and enhancement efforts across the project streams will diversify the bedform, increase
habitat availability, and improve flow conditions. Dissolved oxygen content should also increase due to
designed structure re- aeration points and increased shading through buffer restoration and
impoundment removal.
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 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
coordination with EEP on the procedures. The design approach, which is tailored to each site,
continues to develop as additional projects are implemented. Some of the key elements of the
methods are described below.
5.3.2 Channel Hydrology Homogeneity Test
Generally, stream designs will be based on a design 100
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 hydrologic analyses using the .°10
best available information such as local or regional stream ~
gage records, empirical regional stream flow estimates,
hydrologic modeling results, and reference stream flows.
There is a discontinued USGS gage at the site on Reach 2 1
Candy Creek and a preliminary index -flood analysis 0 20 40 60
identified two nearby, active, homogeneous USGS gages,
Station 020772oo Hyco Creek and Station 0209553650 Length of Record (yrs)
Buffalo Creek, which will be used during detailed Index -Flood Analysis Results
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.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.13
Candy Creek Stream Mitigation Site — Part 5

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. Generally, these
assessments will lead to one of two levels of sediment transport analysis and a corresponding design
approach. For streams that are gravel or cobble bed sites and have a low bed load, threshold channels
can be designed based on discharge and sediment transport competence analysis. These channels are
not expected to be prone to excessive morphologic change and the project objectives will include that
channel slope, geometry, and bedforms do not change significantly overtime. Other streams,
including those with sand or silt bed material and those that have a moderate to high bedload will
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 over time. In these cases a capacity analysis with data
collection and /or detailed modeling is 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 converting agricultural fields to a restored stream
complex, 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 25% while total phosphorus
(TP) will be reduced by 49 %. A copy of the spreadsheet results can be found in the Appendix.
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. In many instances, the buffer planting will extend far
beyond the required 5o -foot minimum buffer (Figures 6a and 6b). The floodplain of Candy Creek, as
well as the area surrounding the restored and enhanced UT's, will be protected with a conservation
easement. Over time a large native floodplain and stream complex of over 56 acres will be created. The
planting plan will be based on the reference community located in (name a forested area on your site or
nearby) 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.
5.4 Proposed Mitigation
The Candy Creek Stream Mitigation Site will provide 15,456 SMUs as summarized in Table 5.5 and
Figures 6a and 6b. The mitigation credit calculation was derived using the US Army Corps of Engineers'
Stream Mitigation Guidance and was based on Wild lands' conceptual design for maximum ecological
uplift. Given the existing conditions of the stream channels, the disturbance factors, and the
constraints, management objectives for each reach have been established. The management
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.14
Candy Creek Stream Mitigation Site — Part 5

objective, the mitigation type, and proposed amount of mitigation units are presented below.
Table 5.5 Mitigation Units proposed for the Candy Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Stream Mitigation Units
Reach
Management Objectives
Type of
Length
Ratio
Mitigation Units
Mitigation
(feet)
(SMUs)
Restore appropriate dimension, pattern, and
Candy Creek
profile. Install habitat structures, allow
Restoration
Reach 1
bankfull floodplain access. Establish native
(Priority 1)
2'772
1:1
z,77z
riparian buffer.
Restore appropriate dimension, pattern, and
Candy Creek
profile. Install habitat structures, allow
Restoration
Reach z
bankfull floodplain access. Establish native
(Priority 1)
21244
1:1
2,244
riparian buffer.
Candy Creek
Restore appropriate dimension and profile with
Enhancement 1
1.5:1
628
Reach 3
structures and bank grading.
942
Candy Creek
Improve bed profile, low flow dimension, and
Enhancement II
i,008
2.5:1
403
Reach 3
bank stability.
Restore appropriate dimension, pattern, and
Candy Creek
profile. Install habitat structures, allow
Restoration
Reach 4
bankfull floodplain access. Establish native
(Priority 1)
3,314
1:1
3 314
riparian buffer.
Restore appropriate dimension, pattern, and
UT1c
profile. Install habitat structures, allow
Restoration
1:1
348
bankfull floodplain access. Establish native
(Priority 1)
348
riparian buffer.
Preserve high quality reference condition
UT1c
stream.
Preservation
684
5:1
137
Restore appropriate dimension, pattern, and
UT1d
profile. Install habitat structures, allow
Restoration
1:1
bankfull floodplain access. Establish native
(Priority 1)
520
520
riparian buffer.
Restore appropriate dimension, pattern, and
UT2 Reach
profile. Install habitat structures, allow
Restoration
1:1
1
bankfull floodplain access. Establish native
(Priority 1)
925
925
riparian buffer.
UT2 Reach 1
Restore appropriate dimension and profile with
Enhancement 1
248
1.5:1
165
structures and bank grading.
UT2 Reach 2
Restore appropriate dimension and profile with
Enhancement 1
757
1.5 :1
Soy
structures and bank grading.
UT2a
Restore appropriate dimension and profile with
Enhancement 1
379
1.5:1
253
structures and bank grading.
UT2b
Improve bed profile, low flow dimension, and
Enhancement II
636
2.5:1
254
bank stability.
Preserve high quality reference condition
UT3
stream.
Preservation
1,165
1:1
233
Restore appropriate dimension, pattern, and
profile. Install habitat structures, allow
Restoration
UT3
bankfull floodplain access. Establish native
(Priority 1)
457
5:1
457
riparian buffer.
Restore appropriate dimension, pattern, and
profile. Install habitat structures, allow
Restoration
UT4
bankfull floodplain access. Establish native
(Priority 1)
1,024
1:1
1,024
riparian buffer.
UT4
Preserve high quality reference condition
Preservation
251
5:1
51
stream.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.3-5
Candy Creek Stream Mitigation Site — Part 5

Stream Mitigation Units
Reach
Management Objectives
Type of
Length
Ratio
Mitigation Units
8900502413
7541/2250
Mitigation
(feet)
7541/2254
(SMUs)
8900447926
Restore appropriate dimension, pattern, and
Chrismon, Elmo
8900552557
7529/425
Hopkins, Herbert Wallace and Marjorie S.
8900533395
profile. Install habitat structures, allow
Restoration
8900515378
7540/501
Hopkins, Jefferson Todd and Mary Ann
T 5
bankfull floodplain access. Establish native
(Priority 1)
975
1:1
975
8900428870
riparian buffer.
Thacker, Robert K.
8900453431
7540/505
The Estate of Virginia Wagoner
(David Wagoner, Executor)
UT 5
Preserve high quality reference condition
Preservation
162
5 i
3 z
stream.
UTSa
Preserve high quality reference condition
Preservation
1,081
5a
216
stream.
TOTAL
ig,896
15,456
5.5 Current Ownership
The Candy Creek Stream Mitigation Site is located on 1.6 parcels with 13. property owners, listed in
Table 5.6 below. Option Agreements for the general project area shown in Figures 6a and 6b have been
signed by the property owners and Memorandums of Option are recorded at the Guilford County
Register of Deeds. The option agreements allow restriction of the land use in perpetuity through
conservation easements. Copies of the recorded Memorandums of Option are included in the
Appendix.
Table,q.6 Property Owners for the Candy Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Property Owner
PIN
Memorandum of Option Deed
Book and Page Number
Aniyikaiye, Bamidele and Barbara
8900368021
7540/489
Bray, Nancy
8900502413
7541/2250
Carr, Darin W. and Tamela P.
8900523123
7541/2254
Chrismon, Bruce H. and Margie L.
8900447926
7529/421
Chrismon, Elmo
8900552557
7529/425
Hopkins, Herbert Wallace and Marjorie S.
8900533395
7540/497
Hopkins, James
(Bryan Hopkins, Executor)
8900515378
7540/501
Hopkins, Jefferson Todd and Mary Ann
8900482030
7435/216
8900476144
8900538916
8900466427
Hopkins, Joe W. and Lisa R.
8900428870
7540/485
Thacker, Robert K.
8900453431
7540/505
The Estate of Virginia Wagoner
(David Wagoner, Executor)
8900403874
7540/493
8809497477
8900507124
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
1111 VALWI
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.16
Candy Creek Stream Mitigation Site — Part 5

appropriate technical and management staff to ensure quality and timely completion. Table 5.7
provides a summary of the major project milestones.
Table 5.7 Project Schedule for the Candy Creek Stream Mitigation Site
5.7 Success Criteria
The stream restoration performance criteria forthe project site will follow approved performance
criteria presented in the EEP Mitigation Plan Template (version 2.2, 6/08/2012), the EEP Monitoring
Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and /or Wetland Mitigation (11/07/2011), 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 project will
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.17
Candy Creek Stream Mitigation Site — Part 5
Proposed Time to Completion
Proposed Completion Date
Project Milestone
(from date of NTP)
(assuming NTP on
April z, 2014)
Task 1. CE Document
3 months
July 1, 20-14
Task 2. Submit Recorded
Conservation Easement on
1 year, 3 months
July 1, 201-5
the Site
Task 3. Mitigation Plan Approved by
1 year
April 1, 2015
EEP
Task 4. Mitigation Site Earthwork
z years
April -1, 2016
Completed
Task S. Mitigation Site Planting and
Installation of Monitoring
2 years
April 1, 2016
Devices
Task 6. Baseline Monitoring Report
(Including As -Built Drawings)
2 years, 4 months
July 1, 2016
Approved by EEP
Task 7. Submit Monitoring Report #-1
to EEP (meets success
2 years, 9 months
December 1, 2016
criteria)
Task 8. Submit Monitoring Report
#2 to EEP (meets success
3 years, 9 months
December 1, 2017
criteria)
Task 9. Submit Monitoring Report
#3 to EEP(meets success
4 years, 9 months
December 1, 2018
criteria)
Task -1o. Submit Monitoring Report
#4 to EEP (meets success
5 years, 9 months
December 1, 2019
criteria)
Task -11. Submit Monitoring Report
#5 to EEP (meets success
6 years, 9 months
December 1, 2020
criteria)
Task 12. Submit Monitoring Report
#6 to EEP (meets success
7 years, 9 months
December 1, 2021
criteria)
Task 13. Submit Monitoring Report
#7 to EEP (meets success
8 years, 9 months
December 1, 2022
criteria) and complete Close -
Out Process
5.7 Success Criteria
The stream restoration performance criteria forthe project site will follow approved performance
criteria presented in the EEP Mitigation Plan Template (version 2.2, 6/08/2012), the EEP Monitoring
Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and /or Wetland Mitigation (11/07/2011), 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 project will
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.17
Candy Creek Stream Mitigation Site — Part 5

be assigned specific performance criteria components for hydrology, vegetation, and morphology.
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 (November 7, 2oi1). An outline of the performance
criteria components follows.
5.7.1 Stream Morphological Parameters and Channel Stability
Dimension
Riffle cross - sections on the restoration and
enhancement level I 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 1.2 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 order to monitor the channel dimension, one (1) 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 (1) in upper third of the
pool, one (1) at the permanent cross - section, and one (1) 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 (1), 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 show 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
(11/07/2o11) and the 2003 USACE and NCDWQ Stream Mitigation Guidance for the necessary reaches.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.18
Candy Creek Stream Mitigation Site — Part 5

Substrate
Substrate materials in the restoration and enhancement level I 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 and enhancement level I reach
annually for classification purposes. A pebble count will be performed at each surveyed riffle to
characterize the pavement.
5.7.2 Hydrology
Stream
Two (2) bankfull flow events must be documented on the
restoration and enhancement 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 a crest gage and
photographs. One crest gage will be installed in each
stream within a surveyed riffle cross - section. The gage 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 (11/7/2011). 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.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.19
Candy Creek Stream Mitigation Site — Part 5

Longitudinal reference photos will be established at theta i I 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. 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.
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 all stream areas 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.
Benthic Macroinvertebrates
If required by NCDWQ as part of the projects permitting process, benthic macro invertebrate 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
(11/7/2011).
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 5.20
Candy Creek Stream Mitigation Site — Part 5

, J
4 I
AN
t
iY
rrl'r I 'iggg &I
y,.
occasional scour
stream condition
f • ;.:� / .1'. � �. ` li l �" 1:; �/�^°'P��'IY 11 1' 1
' �I �\� I 1 l�• { f 1 1 f !rmg =yr 1 .. 1 . 1
r.
moderately incised
over wide
stable
Topographic 1 1
1. i'I VD�'1iiYllf r!I t !!, Bedrock
�j
AN xS Pebble Count
\z�wItiIA /
Ktr
�p \ me �
Reach 3 nd n:
C:1
r
l,4 IYr..
and"
k ��' +1
frl' J
NO
"'I 1 •
r-
/
f�
- :r YY -
:Reach 2,, ,� %` �r.i .k"
9 d

�r , ®���cara�� �r °� --�r • -- — r- — c
!fir, Reach
+
w y
tie r�
�
0 Project Location
Existing Streams
=MR Berms (old road bed or dam) 4.
Reach Breaks
Footbridge
erosion
mass wasting
1� ` Reach
•behm and 14 r each 1
occasional scour concrete base
condition stream
deeply incised
moderately incised
r;
■j ■ ■I
over wide
Surveyed Cross Sections
berm and pipes,
Topographic Contours (2')
Bedrock
Pebble Count
1 '
Reach 2
r
Cemetery mooiiiik
Reach 1
:. - �, ^_. ....,• i Ik e road
iQ
6.,, 1 ® crossing
;.0 �i 1
A N.�,_
3 impound
00,
NNA i
opkins A old roa
metery
dam and
impoundment` -
Ij lip,

PIZ-
QProject Location t
Proposed Conservation Easement��
4'
J'/%
.I af• .,
..r
Cw
0
ii h
1 IffPiL7U
N
r• a `a-;i
ii
O
.. �P . • IL _ •tr
��
�I
sr• Ili,.. *71"'
Figure 3 USGS Topographic Map
W I L D L A N D S 0 1,600 Feet Candy Creek Stream Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING I I I i
Cape Fear River Basin (03030002)
6, e 2896 Guilford County
71. 604

Z:, Eon
Candy Creek (960 Acres)
UT1 c (26 Acres)
UT1d (7.5 Acres) k
UT2 (63 Acres) r
UT2a (17 Acres) '•
UT2b (24 Acres) -
UT3 (77 Acres) w .y .,., R'4F
UT4 (178 Acres) _ '
UT5 (145Acres) l�
UT5a (34 Acres) =-
Existing Streams 29
Project Streams
AA::, .
b
r }
i
1
X X X os
00040 41
a
�k
rc =
w
c ,
•� ! ���
O �
x .�
i��c
2®lMrerial Ph hyt
Figure 4 Watershed Map
W I L D LA N D S 0 1,100 Feet Candy Creek Stream Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING I I I I I
Cape Fear River Basin (03030002)
Guilford County
'r
ww Hopkins
-Rd
F
'
F
lit,
- a
M WK
_ _
.::�
_ a
1
a �
0
AA::, .
b
r }
i
1
X X X os
00040 41
a
�k
rc =
w
c ,
•� ! ���
O �
x .�
i��c
2®lMrerial Ph hyt
Figure 4 Watershed Map
W I L D LA N D S 0 1,100 Feet Candy Creek Stream Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING I I I I I
Cape Fear River Basin (03030002)
Guilford County

+ i ^ 2Tt..
PoE
.11321
PoE
{ is • j_ _
i. CIB2
NaB
Oh" �_
I CIC2 ■"r q.
p —
'y ' N• % ■
Nash
I1-
• ' f_ NaB . ■
q
3
1
NaB Car r"
�s
r' , • t „' CaB ' NaB a
R i
.q
NaB
�.�* f
kol
1 I ” r f ter
Reach Breaks °*
■ire
*r Project Location , ■r�ui
P Proposed Conservation Easement $ NaB ■
-� Project Streams ■
CaB- Casville sandy loam, 2 -8% slopes _ `� �r r• r, ■.
CaC - Casville sandy loam, 6 -10% slopes
aat_ "°r f
CeB2- Cecil sandy clay loam, 2 -6% slopes, eroded 8B ■ L`
CeC2- Cecil sandy clay loam, 6 -10% slopes, moderately eroded i ■ 4` , t y{
CIB2- Clifford sand clay loam, 2 -6% slopes, moderately eroded
wir NaB ■ !
■ S
•,Y la
` CIC2- Clifford sandy clay loam, 6 -10% slopes, moderatley eroded
M' v 2�'
CnA- Codorus loam, 0 -2% slopes , � C �
J if a i CeC2 , I%
NaB- Nathalie sandy loam, 2 -6% slopes j
NaC- Nathalie sandy loam, 6 -10% slopes r r ~
y
PoE- Poplar Forest sandy loam, 15 -35% slopes I■�.� '� "r
PpC2- Poplar Forest clay loam, 6 -10% moderately eroded �+p! � � eB C,�� 1A -
,,"'�
W Water �,-
>� 2 Afenal Pho y
Figure 5 Soils Map
W I L D L A N D S 0 1,100 Feet Candy Creek Stream Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING I I I I I
Cape Fear River Basin (03030002)
Guilford County

Figure 6a Concept Map (North)
W I L D L A N D S 0 500 Feet Candy Creek Stream Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING i I I I I t Cape Fear River Basin (03030002)
Guilford County

Figure 6b Concept Map (South)
witv,WILDLANDS 0 500 Feet Candy Creek Stream Mitigation Site
E N G I N E E R I N G I I I I I t Cape Fear River Basin (03030002)
Guilford County