20221367 Ver 1_PART 6 - Technical Approach_Big Buffalo_20220926

TECHNICAL APPROACH AND RESTORATION PLAN
BIG BUFFALO MITIGATION SITE
CHATHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
RFP #16-452048014 - FULL DELIVERY PROJECT TO PROVIDE STREAM AND RIPARIAN WETLAND MITIGATION
CREDITS WITHIN CATALOGING UNIT 03030003 OF THE CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART6: TECHNICAL
APPROACH...................................................................................................................................1
1.1
Project Goals and Objectives...........................................................................................................1
1.2
Project Description..........................................................................................................................4
1.2.1 Soils.................................................................................................................................5
1.2.2 Stream Characterization.................................................................................................6
1.2.3 Sediment Model..............................................................................................................8
1.2.4 Nutrient Model................................................................................................................8
1.2.5 Site Design and Implementation Constraints..................................................................9
1.3
Project Development....................................................................................................................11
1.3.1 Stream Restoration.......................................................................................................11
1.3.2 Stream Enhancement (Level 1)......................................................................................12
1.3.3 Stream Enhancement (Level 11).....................................................................................12
1.3.4 Stream Preservation......................................................................................................12
1.3.5 Individual Reach Descriptions.......................................................................................12
1.3.6 Wetland Restoration (Re-establishment)......................................................................13
1.3.7 Wetland Enhancement..................................................................................................16
1.3.8 Wetland Preservation...................................................................................................16
1.3.9 Riparian Restoration.....................................................................................................16
1.3.10 Fence / Easement Marking...........................................................................................17
1.3.11 Nuisance Species Management....................................................................................17
1.4
Proposed Mitigation......................................................................................................................17
1.5
Current Ownership and Long-term Protection.............................................................................17
1.6
Project Phasing..............................................................................................................................18
1.7
Success Criteria.............................................................................................................................18
1.8
Quality Control..............................................................................................................................20
1.9
References.....................................................................................................................................22
LIST OF TABLES
Table1. RBRP Goals.......................................................................................................................................................1
Table2A. INC SAM Summary..........................................................................................................................................2
Table2B. INC WAM Summary........................................................................................................................................3
Table 2C. Targeted Functions, Goals, Objectives, and Uplift Evaluation.......................................................................3
Table 3. Project Background Information......................................................................................................................4
Table4. Site Soils...........................................................................................................................................................5
Table 5. Essential Morphology Parameters...................................................................................................................7
Table 6. BEHI and NBS Modeling Summary...................................................................................................................8
Table 7. Threatened and Endangered Species..............................................................................................................9
Table 8. Individual Reach Descriptions and Functional Uplift.....................................................................................13
Table 9. Mitigation Activities and Site Credit Potential Summary...............................................................................17
Table10. Current Ownership.......................................................................................................................................17
Table 11. Proposed Project Schedule..........................................................................................................................18
Table12. Monitoring Schedule....................................................................................................................................18
Table13. Success Criteria............................................................................................................................................19
Table 14. Compatibility of Performance Criteria to Project Goals and Objectives......................................................19
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site Part 6 —Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Table of Contents

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Figures
Figure 1. Site Location
Figure 2. Hydrologic Unit Map
Figure 3A. Site Topography and Drainage Area
Figure 3B. UT Topography and Drainage Area
Figure 4. Existing Conditions
Figure 5. Soils
Figure 6. LiDAR Mapping
Figures 7, 7A-C. Proposed Conditions
Figure 8. Stream Buffer Credit Adjustment Output
Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator Output Table
Appendix B: Stream & Wetland Data
NCSAM Forms
NCWAM Forms
NCDWR Forms
Cross -Sections
BEHI & NBS
Soil Boring Logs
Appendix C:
NHP Report,
ATLAS Documents
IPaC Resource List
RCW SLOPES Determination Key
Appendix D:
Landowner Authorization (LOA)
Memorandum of Option Agreement (MOA)
Chatham County EQIP — Conservation Plan / Schedule (Keith A Tuttle Farms Inc.)
Appendix E: Completed and Signed RFP Attachments & Technical Scoresheet
RFP Attachment D: HUB Supplemental Vendor Information
RFP Attachment E: Supplemental Vendor Information
RFP Attachment F: Location of Workers Utilized by Vendor
RFP Attachment G: Certification of Financial Condition
Completed Technical Proposal Scoresheet
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site Part 6—Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Table of Contents

PART F: TECHNICAL APPROACH
Restoration Systems (RS) is pleased to provide you with this proposal in response to the Request for Proposals (RFP)
#16-452048014 dated June 28, 2022. This proposal describes the merits of the Big Buffalo Mitigation Site (Site). The
general content of this technical proposal includes the following:
• Project Staffing and Organization — Part 5
• Technical Approach — Part 6
- Project goals, objectives, description, development, and success criteria
- Proposed mitigation
- Current ownership and long-term protection of the Site
- Project phasing/implementation schedule
- Project success criteria
- Quality control procedures
Completed and signed RFP Attachments (D-G)
Completed Technical Scoresheet
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives
The Site is in the 14-digit Cataloging Unit 03030003070010 along North Prong Rocky River and unnamed tributaries
to North Prong Rocky River. The Site is located approximately 2.3 miles southwest of Liberty, in the northwest corner
of Chatham County. The Site is in a Water Quality Targeted Resource Area (TRA), a Habitat TRA, a Hydrology TRA,
a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW), and a Local Watershed Planning (LWP) area.
Table 1. RBRP Goals
RBRP Goal
Site Objectives Addressing RBRP Goals
Reduce and control sediment inputs
Reduction of 380.8 tons/year after mitigation is complete
Livestock removal from streams will result in a direct
Reduce and manage nutrient inputs
reduction of 4287.4 Ibs/yr of nitrogen, 355.3 Ibs/yr of
phosphorus, and 56.1 x 1011 col of fecal coliform/day
Protect and augment designated natural heritage
NA
areas
Site -specific mitigation goals and objectives were developed using the North Carolina Stream Assessment Method
(NC SAM) and North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM) analyses of existing stream systems at the
Site (NC SFAT 2015 and NC WFAT 2010). Site functional assessment data forms are available upon request; model
output is included in Appendix B and summarized in Tables 2A and 213. Metrics targeted to meet the Site's goals and
objectives are depicted in bold.
Based on NC SAM output, all three primary stream functional metrics (Hydrology, Water Quality, and Habitat) and
21 sub -metrics are under -performing, as exhibited by a LOW metric rating (see Figure 4, Appendix A for NC SAM
data reaches). LOW performing metrics are targeted for functional uplift through mitigation activities, goals,
objectives, monitoring, and success criteria. Based on NC WAM output, all three primary wetland functional
metrics (Hydrology, Water Quality, and Habitat) and 9 sub -metrics are under -performing, as exhibited by a LOW
metric rating. LOW performing metrics are targeted for functional uplift through mitigation activities, goals,
objectives, monitoring, and success criteria.
Stream and wetland metrics targeted for functional uplift, tied to defined Site -specific project goals and objectives,
are presented in Table 2C.
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site Part 6—Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Page 1

3
3
3
3
3
_
3
3
3
W
3
3
3
_
3
3
3
3
N
� c
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0=
o
0
0
0
0
0
o
v
�.
o
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
y
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
o
0
o
y
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a E
j N
3
W
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
c
O
o
o
o
0
o
0
0
o
o
0
o
0
o
0
o
0
o
0
o
0
o
0
0
0
o
o
0
0
y
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< o
v
O
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
0
0
y
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
�
O
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
y
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
w
7
Q
2
O=
0
0
0
0
z
0
0
0
0
0=
0
0
0
w
y
0
0
0=
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
�
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
o
0
0
0
o
C7
o
C7
C7
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
O=
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0=
0
0
o
y=
0
0=
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
3
a
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
W
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
y=
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
4
m
c
m
H
m
d
c
O
c
O
Ic
0
N
m
r
t
on
=
C
~
V
.O
O
00
N
Y
O
u
y
E
i
Q
Q
on
°
O
&;
o
0
a
°_
a
F
Q=
'
i
a
EU
vE
a
"o
`
�
mm
°
`
o
O
m
s
`
v
uo
omm
�
o
°o
v
v
d4
N
N
....
....
N
N
....
....
N
N
N
....
N
0

Table 2B. NC WAM Summary
NC WAM Sub -function Rating Summary
WAM 1
WAM 2
WAM 3
WAM 4
WAM 5
Wetland Type
Headwater
Forest
Bottomland
Hardwood Forest
Headwater
Forest
Headwater
Forest
Headwater
Forest
(1) HYDROLOGY —Site is in a TRA
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
(2) Surface Storage & Retention
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
(2) Sub -surface Storage and Retention
HIGH
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
(1) WATER QUALITY — Site is in a TRA
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
(2) Pathogen change
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
LOW
(2) Particulate Change
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
LOW
HIGH
(2) Soluble change
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
(2) Physical Change
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
(1) HABITAT — Site is in a TRA
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
(2) Physical Structure
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
(2) Landscape Patch Structure
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
(2) Vegetative Composition
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
OVERALL
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
Table 2C. Targeted Functions, Goals, Objectives, and Uplift Evaluation
DMS Functional Uplift
Targeted Functions
Goals
Objectives
Evaluations
Identified Functional Stressor
(Uplift Potential)
(1) HYDROLOGY— This Site is in a Hydrology TRA
(2) Flood Flow
e Construct a new channel at historic
floodplain elevation to restore
(3) Streamside Area
Attenuation
• Minimize
downstream
flooding to the
maximum extent
overbank flows
e Plant woody riparian buffer
e Dee p rip floodplain soils to reduce
compaction and increase soil surface
• Peak Flows (restore overbank
flooding, surface water and
subsurface water storage,
e .
increase frictional resistance
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Microtopography
possible.
roughness
• Protect riparian buffers with a
to floodwaters, remove
incised streams from
(2) Wetland Surface Storage
and Retention
perpetual conservation easement
e Remove incised/ditched streams
floodplains)
• Artificial Barriers (remove two
(2) Wetland Sub -surface
Storage and Retention
in -line pond dams to restore
(3) Stream Stability
• Construct channels with the proper
pattern, dimension, and longitudinal
aquatic life passage)
• Ditching/Draining (remove
(4) Channel Stability
• Increase stream
profile
incised streams within the
stability within
e Remove livestock from the property
floodplain)
the Site sthat
e Construct stable channels with the
• Other (remove in -line pond
channels a
a re
appropriate substrate
dams, thereby restoring
(4) Sediment Transport
neither
e Upgrade/install piped channel
typical stream hydrodynamics
degrading nor
crossings
to the system)
degrading.
• Plant woody riparian buffer
• Stabilize stream banks
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site Part 6—Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Page 3

Table 2C. Targeted Functions, Goals, Objectives, and Uplift Evaluation (continued)
DMS Functional Uplift
Targeted Functions
Goals
Objectives
Evaluations
Identified Functional Stressor
(Uplift Potential)
(1) WATER QUALITY — This Site is in a Water Quality TRA
(2) Streamside Area
• Non-functioning Riparian
Vegetation
• Remove agricultural livestock and
reduce agricultural land/inputs
Buffer/Wetland Vegetation
(restoring or enhancing
(3) Upland Pollutant
Filtration
• Remove direct
and indirect
. Plant woody riparian buffer
. Restore/enhance jurisdictional
—84+ acres of riparian
buffer)
(3) Thermoregulation
nutrient and
pollutant inputs
from the Site and
wetlands adjacent to Site streams
• Remove several in -line ponds
• Sediment (removing 380.8
tons per year of sediment
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
reduce
a provide surface roughness and
from bank erosion)
(2) Wetland Pathogen Change
contributions todownstream
reduce compaction through deep
ripping/plowing.
• Nutrients (removing 4287.4
Ibs N/year and 355.3 Ibs
(2) Wetland Particulate
Change
waters.
• Restore overbank flooding by
constructing channels at historic
floodplain elevation.
P/year)
• Fecal Coliform (removing
56.1x1011 colonies of fecal
(2) Wetland Soluble Change
(2) Wetland Physical Change
coliform/day)
(1) HABITAT —This Site is in a Habitat TRA
(2) In -stream Habitat
• Construct stable channels with the
appropriate substrate
• Plant woody riparian buffer to
provide organic matter and shade
• Habitat Fragmentation
(remove 2 in -line pond
dams to restore aquatic life
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In -Stream Habitat
• Construct a new channel at historic
passage)
(2) Stream -side Habitat
• Improve
instream and
stream -side
floodplain elevation to restore
overbank flows
• Remove multiple ponds that restrict
• Limited Bedform Diversity
restoring re ( g ' sustained
ular,
sequence of riffles and pools
(3) Stream -side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
habitat.
aquatic life passage
that do not fill with
(2) Wetland Physical Structure
• Protect riparian buffers with a
perpetual conservation easement
• Restore/enhance jurisdictional
sediment)
• Absence of Large Woody
Debris (restoring woody
(2) Landscape Patch Structure
(2) Wetland Landscape Patch
Structure
wetlands adjacent to Site streams
• Stabilize stream banks
debris on channel banks or
in bed)
(2) Wetland Vegetative
Composition
• Install in -stream structures
1.2 Project Description
The Site is located approximately 2.3 miles southwest of Liberty, in the northwest corner of Chatham County (Figure
1, Appendix A). General project information is included Table 3.
Table 3. Project Background Information
Project Information
Site
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site
County
Chatham
Easement Area
89.8 acres
Site Coordinates (latitude & latitude)
35.831020,-79.52593
Site Elevations
670-610 feet
Site Streams
North Prong Rocky River and UT 1— UT 17
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014)
Part 6—Technical Approach
Page 4

Table 3. Project Background Information (continued)
Physiography & Watershed Information
Physiographic Province
Piedmont
Level IV Ecoregion
Carolina Slate Belt
River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS 14-digit HUC
03030003070010
NCDWR Sub -basin
03-06-12
Targeted Local Watershed
Yes
LWP, RWP, TRA*
Yes, No, Yes (Water Quality, Habitat, & Hydrology TRAs)
Water Quality Information
Stream Index Number
North Prong Rocky River - 17-43-4
Best Use Classification
WS-III
303d List
No
Drainage Area & Land Use Information
Existing Site Land Use
Livestock pasture, hayfield, forest
Site Drainage Area
9.8 square miles (6282.1 acres)
Site Drainage Area Land Use
Livestock pasture, forest, residential
Site Drainage Area Percentage Impervious Surface
<2%
*LWP=Local Watershed Plan, RWP=Regional Watershed Plan, TRA=Targeted Resource Area
1.2.1 Soils
Based on Web Soil Survey mapping (USDA 2022), the Site contains the soil series outlined in Table 4. A licensed soil
scientist (NC LSS # 1233) mapped existing wetlands and drained hydric soils of the Wehadkee series on March 29,
2022, and April 8, 2022 (Figure 5, Appendix A); soil boring logs are included in Appendix B.
Table 4. Site Soils
Map Unit
Symbol
Map Unit Name (Classification)
Hydric Status
Description
Chewacla and Wehadkee
This series consists of very deep, poorly to somewhat
ChA
soils
(Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts)
Non-hydric
poorly drained, moderately permeable soils on Piedmont
and (Fluvaquentic
and hydric
river and stream valleys. Parent material is recent alluvium.
ndoaquepts)
Depth to the seasonal high-water table is 0 to 2 feet.
This series consists of moderately deep to very deep,
Non-hydric
somewhat poorly drained to moderately well drained, slow
Cid-Lignum complex
but may
to very slowly permeable soils on interstream divides,
CmB
(Aquic Hapludults)
contain hydric
broad ridges, drainageways, and heads of drainageways.
inclusions
Parent material is residuum weathered from argillite and
other fine-grained metavolcanic rock. Depth to the
seasonal high-water table is 1 to 2.5 feet.
This series consists of very deep, well drained, moderately
Georgeville silt loam
permeable soils on Piedmont uplands. Parent material is
GaC
(Typic Kanhapludults)
Non-hydric
residuum weathered from fine-grained metavolcanic rock
of the Carolina Slate Belt. Depth to the seasonal high-water
table is more than 5 feet.
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site Part 6—Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Page 5

Table 4. Site Soils (continued)
This series consists of very to moderately deep, well
Georgeville-Badin complex
drained, moderately permeable soils on Piedmont uplands.
GkD
(Typic Kanhapludults) and
Non-hydric
Parent material is residuum weathered from fine-grained
(Typic Hapludults)
metavolcanic rock of the Carolina Slate Belt. Depth to the
seasonal high-water table is more than 6 feet.
This series consists of deep to moderately deep, well
Nanford-Badin complex
drained, moderately permeable soils on Piedmont uplands.
NaB, NaC
(Typic Kanhapludults) and
Non-hydric
Parent material is residuum weathered from fine-grained
(Typic Hapludults)
metavolcanic rock. Depth to the seasonal high-water table
is more than 6 feet.
Non-hydric
This series consists of very deep, well drained, moderately
RvA
Riverview silt loam
but may
permeable soils on Piedmont river and stream valleys.
(Fluventic Dystrudepts)
contain hydric
Parent material is recent alluvium. Depth to the seasonal
inclusions
high-water table is 3 to 5 feet.
Geology
As mentioned in Table 3, the Site is within the Carolina Slate Belt, where soils outside the stream floodplains have
formed in residuum weathered from felsic-ash flow tuffs, intermediate to mafic lava flows, and other fine-grained
metavolcanic rocks. As a result, soils in the Site are highly variable. At times, these soils were mapped as complexes
due to the scale at which they were mapped. This variability in the soils results in a multitude of factors promoting
lateral groundwater movement, including depth to restrictive layers, presence of sandy subsoil lenses, slow to
moderate permeability, high silt and clay content, and sticky and plastic soil consistency. These soil characteristics
result in wetland seeps at the heads of drainageways and along lower portions of side slopes, typical of stream
origins at the Site.
Landscape
The Site's landscape includes broken/sharply irregular convex slopes ranging from 2 — 15% with short valley sides.
This topography results in short and stubby first and second -order streams with high angle junctions. The
contributing drainage area of the Site's unnamed tributaries (UT) has been affected by livestock pastures with eroded
soil surfaces and agricultural ponds, increasing the rate and amount of surface water runoff entering the Site. These
conditions, coupled with the geology and soils, facilitate surface and subsurface water movement resulting in
wetland seeps observed throughout the Site.
1.2.2 Stream Characterization
Table 5 summarizes morphology parameters existing at the Site and preliminary estimates of stable stream
attributes based upon regional curves for the Piedmont region of North Carolina (Harmen et al. 1999). Site streams
are generally incised and oversized, as indicated by Bank -Height -Ratios and existing cross -sectional areas versus
bankfull cross -sectional areas listed in Table 5. This likely results from channel ditching/dredging, erosion, hoof shear
and stormwater flow within unvegetated channels. The channels appear to be straightened, as evidenced by low
sinuosity values across much of the Site.
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site Part 6—Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Page 6

v
o
o,
c
o
o
w
u
N
N
m
o
0
o
io
O
v —
o on
X �
m
«
.W
io
o
O
W
W
rai
I�
N
rl
N
N
ip
N
el
N
y
—
>
m
W N
W
G
O
o
ri
m
m
o
o
o
l0yy
O
\ —
0 i
X �
m
io
6
6
oi
—
E
'p
ry
O
m
°?
W
Q
�
O
o
-i
O
W W
d
O.
2
O
N
� j
n
n
n
ti
ti
n
ti
ei
0
V oD
� c
a
X p
IT
on
c
v
�
W
n
eN1
ifl
ei
N
V
m
y
�
E
'p
o.
O
o
o
ry
W
w
N
oq
N
m
n
m
m
o
v
o
1D
ti
m
U�LI
O
O
O
�j
V
V
O
O
O
tDyy
0
V oD
p
7
eai
7
�
yn
O
O
Ul
�,
of
tD
O
lD
O
of
O
O
N
of
of
of
Ny
ti
ti
,p oo
'p
0
O.
p
a`
0
o
n
of
W
V
v
N
a
N
m
t+l
io
o
oq
o
oq
o
o
ry
tD
o
°q
N
ti
m
O oD
V
x
x �
m
o
�
n
of
v
°-
v
fV
o
w
n
V
in
O
n
O
Iq
ti
^
v
nl
m
N
v
nl
o
'p
O
Oa
o
vl
1°
o
o
ry
O
W
�
V
w
N
oo
N
m
V
n
O
m
O
m
O
o
v
6
o
1D
rI
ti
ti
m
O oD
V
v �
a`
7
m
.X
o
v
of
N
w
m
O
ifl
tD
O
of
O
O
Ili
of
of
of
C
ti
y
m
m �
W
},
X
o
NO
v
�
of
fV
tD
m
O
vt
lD
O
of
O
O
N
of
of
Lq
N
ti
ti
� H
X 7
°q
X
O
of
v
(D
fV
w
V
in
O
n
O
ti
^
v
nl
m
N
v
nl
o
V m
N V
'p
N
O
p-
p
p.
o
m
o
�
v
W
a
V
m
.-I
m
.ti
m
ti
ri
ri
rj
o
T
o
of
io
ti
ti
W D
o
° oD
V
x H
X7
W
'X
m
O
vi
V
v
e,'
m
.-I
v
N
o
•-I
fV
nl
'p
N
p
O.
O�
oo
o
.-I
n
W
- j
o
fV
o
N
in
m
io
O
w
O
w
O
o
.-I
tD
o
m
ti
ti
ti
_
v
a m
0
V oD
ei N
p.
.X
o
m0
.-I
n
v
°-
o
fV
w
eN1
o
of
n
O
o
m
fV
o
lD
V
N
N
Oo
E
Q
¢
Y
v
V¢
O d
m 4
3
0
=
¢`
v
n
K
ton
°
o
v
m
c
_
_
E
o
o
o
a

1.2.3 Sediment Model
Sediment load modeling was performed using methodologies outlined in A Practical Method of Computing
Streambank Erosion Rate (Rosgen 2009) and Estimating Sediment Loads using the Bank Assessment of Non -point
Sources Consequences of Sediment (Rosgen 2011). These models provide a quantitative prediction of streambank
erosions by calculating Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) and Near -Bank Stress (NBS) along each Site reach. The
resulting BEHI and NBS values are compared to streambank erodibility graphs prepared for North Carolina by the NC
Stream Restoration Institute and NC Sea Grant.
Streambank characteristics involve measurements of bank height, angles, materials, presence of layers, rooting
depth, rooting density, and percent of the bank protected by rocks, logs, roots, or vegetation. Site reaches have been
measured for BEHI and NBS characteristics and predicted lateral erosion rate, height, and length to calculate a cubic
volume of sediment contributed by the reach each year. Data forms for the analysis are available upon request, and
the data output is presented in Appendix B. Model results are shown in Table 6.
Table 6. BEHI and NBS Modeling Summary
Stream Reach
Proposed Mitigation Treatment
Predicted Sediment
Contribution (tons/year)
UT 1
Restoration
0.9
UT 2
Restoration and Enhancement (Level 11)
19.2
UT 3
Restoration and Enhancement (Level 11)
0
UT 4
Restoration, Enhancement (Level I and 11), and Preservation
219.5
UT 5
Restoration
6.1
UT 6
Restoration
15.5
UT 7
Restoration
23.4
UT 8
Restoration
11.7
UT 9
Enhancement (Level 1)
0.0
UT 10
Restoration
0.2
UT 11
Preservation
0
UT 12
Enhancement (Level 11)
1.0
UT 14
Restoration and Enhancement (Level I and 11)
60.0
UT 15
Enhancement (Level 1)
0.0
UT 16
Restoration and Preservation
8.4
UT 17
Restoration and Enhancement (Level 1)
14.8
Total Sediment Contribution (tons/year)
380.8
1.2.4 Nutrient Model
Nutrient modeling was conducted using a method developed by the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
(NCDMS) (NCDMS 2016) to determine nutrient and fecal coliform reductions from the exclusion of livestock from
the buffer.
The equation for nutrient reduction for this model includes the following:
TN reduction (Ibs/yr) = 51.04 (Ibs/ac/yr) x Area (ac)
TP reduction (Ibs/yr) = 4.23 (Ibs/ac/yr) x Area (ac)
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site Part 6—Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Page 8

Where:
TN — total nitrogen;
TP —total phosphorus; and
Area —total area of restored riparian buffers inside of livestock exclusion fences.
Equations for fecal coliform reduction for this model include the following.
Fecal coliform reduction (col) = 2.2 x 1011(col/AU/day) x AU x 0.085
Where:
Col - quantities of Fecal Coliform bacteria
AU - animal unit (1000 Ibs of livestock)
Assuming approximately 84 of the 89.8 acres of the Site will have livestock removed, and a current stocking rate of
300 head of livestock (200 sheep and 100 cows/buffalo) residing on the farm, the NC DMS analysis calculates
approximately 4287.4 Ibs/yr of nitrogen, 355.3 Ibs/yr of phosphorus, and 56.1 x 1011 col of fecal coliform/day will be
reduced via exclusion of livestock from the easement area.
1.2.5 Site Design and Implementation Constraints
During field surveys, no known Site constraints that may hinder proposed mitigation activities were identified.
Potential constraints reviewed include the following:
Threatened & Endangered Species
Federally protected species listed by the US Fish and Wildlife — Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC)
website "as occurring in the vicinity" of the Site are summarized in Table 7, along with potential habitat and a
preliminary biological conclusion for each species (IPaC 2022).
Table 7. Threatened and Endangered Species
Common Name
Federal
Habitat at
Biological
(Scientific Name)
Status
Site
Conclusion
Summary
Red -cockaded Woodpecker
Habitat does not exist in or near
(Picoides borealis)
Endangered
No
No Effect
the project boundaries.
Cape Fear Shiner
Habitat exists in or near the
(Notripis mekistocholas)
Endangered
Yes
Unresolved
project boundaries.
Atlantic Pigtoe
Habitat exists in or near the
(Fusconaia masoni)
Threatened
Yes
Unresolved
project boundaries.
Harperella
Habitat exists in or near the
(Ptilimnium nodosum)
Endangered
Yes
Unresolved
project boundaries.
Red -cockaded Wood
Primary habitat consists of mature to over -mature southern pine forests dominated by loblolly (Pinus taeda), long-
leaf (P. palustris), slash (P. elliottii), and pond (P. serotina) pines (Thompson and Baker 1971). Nest cavities are
constructed in the heartwood of living pines, generally older than 70 years and infected with red -heart disease. Nest
cavity trees tend to occur in clusters, referred to as colonies (FWS 1985).
Habitat for this species does not exist within the project area. In addition, the Site does not occur within a Red -
cockaded Woodpecker Consultation Area, as designated by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (see SLOPES key in
Appendix C). Therefore, this Project is not expected to affect this species.
Cape Fear Shiner
Habitat elements include clean streams with gravel, cobble, and boulder substrates with pools, riffles, shallow runs
and slackwater areas with large rock outcrops and side channels and pools with water of good quality with relatively
low silt loads (USFWS 2003).
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site Part 6—Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Page 9

Habitat for this species exists within the project area. A site -wide survey will be conducted before initiating
construction activities.
Atlantic pigtoe
Habitat includes streams with yielding substrates composed of coarse sand and gravel downstream from riffle areas
(TSCFTM 1990).
Habitat for this species exists within the project area. A site -wide survey will be conducted before initiating
construction activities.
Harperella
This plant is a relatively prolific annual, and large numbers may occur within each population, especially along rivers
(FWS 2003). Habitat includes (1) rocky or gravel shoals and margins of clear, swift -flowing stream sections; and (2)
edges of intermittent pineland ponds in the coastal plain. This plant tolerates and may require a particular and
unusual water regime, including moderately intensive spring floods, which may reduce or eliminate competing
vegetation.
Habitat for this species exists within the project area. A site -wide survey will be conducted during the survey window
(July to early September) and before initiating construction activities.
Cultural Resources
Field visits were conducted at the Site in March and April 2022. No structures or other features that may be eligible
for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places were identified within proposed easement boundaries;
however, coordination with State Historic Preservation Office will occur before construction activities to determine
if any significant cultural resources are present.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Elements
A query of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database indicates there are no records for rare
species, important natural communities, natural areas, or conservation/managed areas within the proposed project
boundary. Within a one -mile radius of the Site, NCNHP lists no federally -protected species. Three managed areas
(NC Agricultural Development and Farmland Preservation Trust Fund Easement and two Piedmont Land Conservancy
Easements) are documented within a one -mile radius of the project area (Appendix C).
FEMA
FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps were inspected for the Site: Rate Map 3710874400K, Panel 8744, effective
11/17/2017. FEMA mapping indicates that the North Prong Rocky River through the Site is located within a Zone AE
flood area. Project activities are not likely to affect the flood zone, and a "Conditional Letter of Map Revision"
(CLOMR) may not be required for this Site. However, coordination with FEMA will occur throughout the Project.
Utilities
Two powerlines (one minor and one major) cross the Site. The minor powerline near the top of UT 8 will be moved
to a location outside the proposed easement. The major powerline crosses the North Prong, UT-4, and UT-6, and
will not be moved, is roughly perpendicular to Site streams, and should not adversely affect the Project. Stream
restoration on UT-4 and UT-6 will occur throughout the powerline right of way though no stream credit will be
derived. Furthermore, the conservation easement will extend through the major powerline easement to ensure
livestock are entirely restricted from Site streams.
Air Transport Facilities
The nearest airport to the Site is the Hinshaw Greenacres Airport, located 2.6 miles to the north. The Hinshaw
Greenacres airport is a privately owned grass strip approximately 50 feet wide and open to the public. No other
airports are within a 5-mile radius of the Site.
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) / Conservation Program Contract (CPC)
In 2004, Keith A. Tuttle Farms Inc. entered into an EQIP/CPC with the Chatham County Natural Resources
Conservation Service for fencing and livestock watering facilities on Chatham County Parcels 0000133 and 0060059
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site Part 6—Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Page 10

(Section 1.5 Current Ownership, Table 10) which are a part of this Project. A copy of the Conservation Plan/Schedule
is included in Appendix D. Though the expiration date of this contract is 12/03/2007, the fencing "lifespan" is for a
term of 20 years, with termination in December of 2024. Per the Project's Phasing/Timeline, IRS anticipates the
completion of construction in late 2024 (Section 1.6, Table 11). Thus, IRS anticipates coordinating with and receiving
approval from the State Conservationist to concurrently remove existing fencing within the Project footprint, and
relocate/construct new fencing outside the Project's easement footprint — ensuring no lapse in livestock exclusion
of Project waters. IRS has previously completed such requests on awarded DMS mitigation sites (Warren Wilson
College-2018). Given the Project will result in additionally protected waters beyond the current EQIP fencing project
and extend the current termed practices with a perpetual conservation easement, IRS does not anticipate any issues
with receiving approval from the State Conservationist. The EQIP project has not and will not provide any funds for
any task outlined in RFP# 16-452048014.
1.3 Project Development
1.3.1 Stream Restoration
Stream restoration efforts are designed to restore a stable stream that approximates hydrodynamics, geometry, and
local microtopography relative to reference stream conditions. Restoration at the Site will be Priority I restoration,
raising the bankfull elevations to meet the adjacent valley floodplain elevation. Stream restoration is expected to
entail 1) channel excavation, 2) channel stabilization, 3) channel diversion, and 4) channel backfill.
Pond Dam Removal: Stream restoration through existing ponds is expected to include the complete removal of the
ponds and earthen impoundments by 1) notching the subject dam to dewater; 2) removal of the entire dam to match
adjacent floodplain elevation; 3) excavating sediments that are unsuitable for channel bank construction; 4)
backfilling areas of sediment removed with soil suitable for channel construction (as necessary); 5) excavation of the
design channel; 6) stabilization of the channel with coir matting, seed, and mulch; 7) installation of structures; 8)
painting of live -stakes and hardwood species throughout the easement area.
Site dams will be notched and dewatered during the early summer months, and the pond bed will be seeded with
temporary grasses to stabilize sediments remaining in the pond. Care will be taken during the notching of the dams
to allow sediments to stabilize in place.
Once the pond has been dewatered and sediments stabilized, the dams will be removed with finished grades
matching the valley's elevations and floodplain above and below the dam location. Material removed from the dam,
if suitable, may be used as channel backfill for reaches of the stream to be abandoned during Priority I stream
restoration efforts. If additional backfill remains, the material will be stockpiled outside the easement or spread
evenly across the adjacent property and seeded for stabilization. Erosion control measures will be implemented on
all stockpiled or spread soil materials, such as silt fence, seeding, and mulching.
A determination on sediment quantity and quality within the abandoned ponds will be made concerning the ability
to work with/stabilize the sediment for stream construction. If sediment is deemed unsuitable for channel
construction, the sediment will be removed from the vicinity of the design channel and spread along the pond's
outer margins. Subsequently, suitable soil material will be placed in the design channel's location to stabilize design
channel banks without liquefaction. Removing unsuitable material, installing suitable material, and constructing the
design channel may coincide, reducing the impacts of machinery on the pond bed.
Excavation of the design channel will occur in the pond beds like other stream restoration reaches, with stabilization
using approved erosion control materials and techniques.
In -stream Structures: In -stream structures will be used for grade control, habitat, and to elevate local water surface
profiles in the channel, flattening the water -energy slope or gradient and directing stream energy into the center of
the channel and away from banks. The structures will consist of log cross -vanes or log j-hook vanes; however, at the
Engineer's discretion, rock cross -vanes or rock j-hook vanes may be substituted if dictated by field conditions. In
addition, the structures will be placed in relatively straight reaches to provide secondary (perpendicular) flow cells
during bankfull events.
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site Part 6—Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Page 11

Channel Crossings: Landowner constraints will necessitate installing several piped/ford crossings within internal
easement crossing areas to allow access to portions of the property isolated by stream restoration activities. Piped
crossings will be constructed of properly sized pipes and hydraulically stable riprap or suitable rock. The crossings
will be built of hydraulically stable riprap or suitable rock. Crossings will be large enough to handle the weight of
anticipated agricultural traffic. Approach grades to the crossings will be at an approximate 10:1 slope and
constructed of hard, scour -resistant crushed rock or other permeable material free of fines.
1.3.2 Stream Enhancement (Level 1)
Stream enhancement (level 1) will entail stream dimension and profile restoration by installing habitat and grade
control structures, livestock exclusion, easement markers, and planting riparian buffers with native forest vegetation
to facilitate stream recovery and prevent further stream degradation.
1.3.3 Stream Enhancement (Level 11)
Stream enhancement (level 11) will entail installing easement markers and planting riparian buffers with native forest
vegetation, targeted streambank stabilization, and livestock exclusion to facilitate stream recovery and prevent
further stream degradation.
Stream enhancement (Level 11) is proposed at various ratios depending upon cattle impacts, vegetation assemblage,
and channel erosion. Typical stream enhancement (Level 11) entails fencing livestock, planting a vegetated buffer,
and doing minor bank stabilization (or other mitigation activities) and is proposed at a mitigation ratio of 2.5:1. UT
3 is characterized by a relatively stable channel with a narrow fringe of trees and is therefore proposed at a mitigation
ratio of 7.5:1.
North Prong Rocky River is characterized by relatively mature forest vegetation extending approximately 25 - 40 feet
from the top of the stream bank and is fenced from livestock. This section is proposed for widened buffers (60 to
more than 150 feet from the top of the stream bank), invasive species treatment, planting with containerized stock
on the outer margins, and the excavation of shallow (0.5 to 1.0 foot deep) depressions at the outer margins of the
floodplain. These depressions are expected to catch surface water draining from the adjacent agriculture fields to
store stormwater and treat pollutants. The depressions will be closed such that water percolates into the floodplain
soils, thereby treating nutrients and removing solids from the water column. The depressions are non-credit
generating and are expected to fill over time. This reach is proposed for enhancement (level 11) at a mitigation ratio
of 10:1.
The upper -middle reach of UT 16 is characterized by mature forest extending between 10 and 45 feet from the top
of the right bank. This reach is proposed for enhancement (level 11) at a mitigation ratio of 10:1. The reach is fenced
from livestock; however, additional planting is proposed within the livestock pasture to 100+ feet from the top of
the right bank. Additionally, a cut strip along an existing fence line on the left bank is proposed for containerized
planting.
1.3.4 Stream Preservation
Stream preservation will occur on the upper reaches of UT 4 and along 16. These reaches are not impacted by
livestock. These reaches are characterized by channels with mature riparian vegetation, suitable channel bed
substrate, and little bank erosion. The reaches are included in the Project for Site continuity and to protect adjacent
sections of the Site from future impacts. Of the total stream mitigation credits proposed, preservation -based credits
account for less than 2% of the Project total.
1.3.5 Individual Reach Descriptions
Mitigation activities for each stream reach and anticipated functional uplift are summarized in Table 8.
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site Part 6—Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Page 12

Table 8. Individual Reach Descriptions and Functional Uplift
Reach
Mitigation Activities
Functional Uplift Provided for
Identified Stressors
• Conduct enhancement Level II activities, including extending the vegetative buffer
into agriculture pastures.
• Widen the vegetative buffer from approximately 25 - 40 feet to 80 — 200 feet from
the top of stream banks.
• Non-functioning riparian
North
. Add a series of marsh treatment areas in draws that drain into N. Prong Rocky River.
buffer/wetland vegetation
Prong
Rocky River
. Excavate shallow linear depressions on the outer edge of the floodplain to capture
• Nutrients
surface runoff from fields and hold water for nutrient and particulate treatment.
• Fecal Coliform
• Plant containerized vegetative stock on the outer margins of the easement to form
a vegetative buffer rapidly.
• Plant a vegetative buffer within pasture areas of the floodplain.
• Non-functioning riparian
• Tie into upper reach just below origin and elevate the stream bed with grade
buffer/wetland vegetation
control/habitat structures and contour channel banks to the appropriate dimension.
• Sediment
• Upgrade crossing to include 25-foot roadbed and cattle crossing.
• Nutrients
• Tie to pipe outfall and continue P1 stream restoration until tie with UT 4 in the old
• Fecal Coliform
UT 1
farm pond.
• Peak Flows
• Restore and enhance wetlands adjacent to the channel.
• Ditching/Draining
• Remove livestock from the property.
• Habitat Fragmentation
• Plant a vegetative buffer within the entire floodplain.
• Limited Bedform Diversity
• Absence of Large Woody Debris
• Initiate stream Enhance (Level II) in the upper reaches by planting forest vegetation
• Non-functioning riparian
buffer/wetland vegetation
and upgrading fencing.
• Sediment
• Widen the vegetative buffer from approximately 25 - 45 feet to 70 feet from the top
of stream banks.
• Nutrients
UT-2
. At headcut, initiate stream restoration using Priority 1 techniques.
•Fecal Coliform
• Remove forded crossing and include a 10 ft break (internal) to maintain a water line.
• Peak Flows•Ditching/Draining
• Tie stream into UT 4 in the old farm pond.
• Plant a vegetative buffer within the entire floodplain.
Limited Bedform Diversity
• Absence of Large Woody Debris
• Enhance (Level 11) wooded stream portions by fencing livestock, treating invasive
• Non-functioning riparian
species, and planting forest vegetation.
buffer/wetland vegetation
UT-3
• Restore the downstream of UT 3 by removing the existing spoil pile along the right
• Nutrients
bank and moving the stream through the lowest point in the floodplain.
• Fecal Coliform
• Tie into UT 4 at appropriate elevation in the abandoned pond bed.
• Limited Bedform Diversity
• Initiate stream preservation and Enhancement (Level 11) [10:1 ratio] in the upper
reaches.
• Tie into natural grade and step up to Priority 1 stream restoration in the historic
floodplain.
• Non-functioning riparian
• Upgrade a failing piped crossing.
buffer/wetland vegetation
• Construct a marsh treatment area in a draw entering UT 4.
• Sediment
• Tie to the upgraded crossing and continue with a combination of stream
• Nutrients
UT 4
Enhancement (Level 1) and restoration techniques that tie the stream channel to the
•Fecal Coliform
floodplain.
• Enhance jurisdictional wetlands adjacent to the channel.
•Peak Flows
• Remove the agriculture pond and restore the stream channel in the abandoned
•Ditching/Draining
pond bed within the powerline right-of-way.
.Limited Bedform Diversity
• Add a road crossing in the old pond bed.
• Absence of Large Woody Debris
• Tie into North Prong Rocky River at the appropriate location and elevation.
• Remove livestock from the easement.
• Plant a vegetative buffer within the entire floodplain.
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014)
Part 6—Technical Approach
Page 13

Table 8. Individual Reach Descriptions and Functional Uplift (continued)
Reach
Mitigation Activities
Functional Uplift Provided for
Identified Stressors
• At the upstream property boundary, initiate Priority 1 stream Restoration
• Non-functioning riparian
techniques.
buffer/wetland vegetation
• Install habitat/grade control structures.
• Sediment
• Restore and enhance adjacent wetlands by tying the stream channel to the adjacent
• Nutrients
UT 5
floodplain.
• Fecal Coliform
• Tie to UT 4 at the appropriate location and elevation.
• Ditching/Draining
• Remove livestock from the property.
• Limited Bedform Diversity
• Plant a vegetative buffer within the entire floodplain.
• Absence of Large Woody Debris
• Non-functioning riparian
• Move the existing road outside the easement, restore the natural spring under the
buffer/wetland vegetation
current road, and begin stream Restoration.
• Sediment
• Construct a marsh treatment area above the stream origin.
UT-6
• Install habitat/grade control structures.
• Nutrients
• Fecal Coliform
• Tie to UT 4 at the appropriate location and elevation.
•Ditching/Draining
• Remove livestock from the easement.
• Plant a vegetative buffer within the entire floodplain.
Limited Bedform Diversity
• Absence of Large Woody Debris
• Non-functioning riparian
• Move the existing road outside the easement, restore the natural spring under the
buffer/wetland vegetation
current road, and begin stream Restoration.
• Construct a marsh treatment area above the stream origin.
• Nutrients
UT-7
• Install habitat/grade control structures.
• Fecal Coliform
• Peak Flows
• Tie to North Prong at the appropriate location and elevation.
Ditching/Draining
• Remove livestock from the easement.
Limited Bedform Diversity
• Plant a vegetative buffer within the entire floodplain.
• Absence of Large Woody Debris
• Upgrade the road crossing at the upper reaches of the Site to include a more stable
• Non-functioning riparian
buffer/wetland vegetation
roadbed and culvert.
• Sediment
• Relocate the existing powerline outside the easement (likely along the roadway)
• Remove a dam and restore the stream channel through the pond bed.
. Nutrients
UT-8
• Fecal Coliform
• Continue Priority 1 stream restoration throughout the reach.
•Peak Flows
• Remove a perched culvert in the lower reaches of UT 8.
• Ditching/Draining
• Remove livestock from the easement.
Limited Bedform Diversity
• Plant a vegetative buffer within the entire floodplain.
• Absence of Large Woody Debris
• Add a marsh treatment area above the stream origin point.
• Non-functioning riparian
• Initiate stream enhancement (Level 1) by contouring stream banks and adding
buffer/wetland vegetation
habitat/grade control structures.
• Nutrients
UT 9
. Tie into UT 17 at the appropriate location and elevation.
• Fecal Coliform
• Remove livestock from the easement.
• Limited Bedform Diversity
• Plant a vegetative buffer within the entire floodplain
• Absence of Large Woody Debris
•
Non-functioning riparian
• At the upstream wetland complex, tie into the natural ground above the headcut
buffer/wetland vegetation
and initiate stream Restoration.
• Sediment
• Remove a dam and restore the stream channel through the pond bed.
UT-10
• Remove a crossing at the location of the dam.
• Nutrients
• Continue Priority 1 stream restoration throughout the reach.
• Fecal Coliform
• Peak Flows
• Remove livestock from the easement.
• Limited Bedform Diversity
• Plant a vegetative buffer within the entire floodplain.
• Absence of Large Woody Debris
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014)
Part 6—Technical Approach
Page 14

Table 8. Individual Reach Descriptions and Functional Uplift (continued)
Reach
Mitigation Activities
Functional Uplift Provided for
Identified Stressors
• Conduct stream enhancement (Level 11) on a natural stream/seep that ties into UT
• Nutrients
UT-11
14 (stream enhancement is proposed at a 10:1 mitigation ratio).
• Fecal Coliform
• Absence of Large Woody Debris
• Non-functioning riparian
buffer/wetland vegetation
• At the upstream wetland complex, tie into the natural ground above the headcut
. Sediment
and initiate stream Restoration.
• Remove a piped crossing/roadbed and continue stream restoration throughout the
• Nutrients
UT-12
reach.
• Fecal Coliform
• Remove livestock from the easement.
• Peak Flows
• Ditching/Draining
• Plant a vegetative buffer within the entire floodplain.
• Limited Bedform Diversity
• Absence of Large Woody Debris
• Tie into existing grade and institute a combination of stream Restoration,
Enhancement (Level 1), and Enhancement (Level 11) through the upper half of the
• Non-functioning riparian
reach. Enhancement (Level 11) is proposed at various ratios depending on cattle
buffer/wetland vegetation
impacts, vegetation assemblage, buffer width, and channel erosion.
• Sediment
• In the lower reaches, initiate stream Restoration in a new location at the elevation
• Nutrients
UT-14
of the floodplain.
• Fecal Coliform
• Add a series of marsh treatment areas in draws that lead to UT 14
• Peak Flows
• Tie into North Prong at the appropriate location and elevation.
• Ditching/Draining
• Remove livestock from the easement.
• Limited Bedform Diversity
• Plant a vegetative buffer within the entire floodplain.
• Absence of Large Woody Debris
• Improve the historic ford crossing as an internal easement crossing (Figure 713)
• Non-functioning riparian
buffer/wetland vegetation
• Stream enhancement (Level 1) is initiated at the origin point by contouring stream
• Sediment
banks and adding habitat/grade control structures.
• Nutrients
UT-15
• Tie into UT 16 at the appropriate location and elevation.
• Fecal Coliform
• Remove livestock from the easement.
• Peak Flows
• Plant a vegetative buffer within the entire floodplain
• Ditching/Draining
• Limited Bedform Diversity
• Absence of Large Woody Debris
• Initiate stream preservation at the origin point. Wetlands in the headwaters are
very wet and will be enhanced by planting the surrounding upland margins with an
appropriate vegetive community.
• Non-functioning riparian
• Initiate Enhancement (Level 11) [10:1 ratio] by widening the right bank vegetative
buffer/wetland vegetation
buffer to 100+ ft from the top of the bank and planting containerized trees along
• Sediment
the lane cut around the existing fence.
• Nutrients
UT-16
• Tie into upper preservation reach above a headcut and initiate P1 stream
• Fecal Coliform
restoration with grade control/habitat structures on a new location.
• Peak Flows
• Restore and enhance wetlands adjacent to the channel.
• Ditching/Draining
• Tie into an abandoned relict channel before initiating stream preservation in the
• Limited Bedform Diversity
downstream reach.
• Absence of Large Woody Debris
• Remove livestock from the property.
• Plant a vegetative buffer within the entire floodplain.
• Move the existing road outside the easement, restore the natural spring under the
. Non-functioning riparian
current road, and begin stream Restoration.
buffer/wetland vegetation
• Construct a marsh treatment area above the stream origin.
• Sediment
• Install habitat/grade control structures.
• Nutrients
UT-17
• At the convergence with UT 9, begin stream enhancement (Level 1) by elevating the
•Fecal Coliform
channel, contouring stream banks, and adding habitat/grade control structures.
. Peak Flows
• At the lower reaches, tie into UT 16 with stream restoration at the appropriate
. Ditching/Draining
elevation and location.
• Remove livestock from the easement.
• Limited Bedform Diversity
• Plant a vegetative buffer within the entire floodplain.
Absence of Large Woody Debris
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014)
Part 6—Technical Approach
Page 15

1.3.6 Wetland Restoration (Re-establishment)
Alternatives for wetland re-establishment are designed to restore a fully functioning wetland system, provide
surface water storage, nutrient cycling, remove imported elements and compounds, and create various wildlife
habitats.
Portions of the Site underlain by hydric soils have been impacted by stream entrenchment, vegetative clearing,
livestock disturbance, and other land disturbances associated with land use management. Wetland re-
establishment/rehabilitation options focus on restoring vegetative communities, stream corridors, and historic
groundwater tables, and the re-establishment of soil structure and microtopographic variations. In addition, the
construction of (or provisions for) surface water storage depressions (ephemeral pools) will also add an essential
component to groundwater restoration activities. These activities will result in the re-establishment of
approximately 0.337 acres of jurisdictional riparian riverine wetlands.
1.3.7 Wetland Enhancement
Wetland enhancement will focus on removing livestock and restoring vegetation communities, improving wetland
function to 5.178 acres of riparian riverine wetlands.
1.3.8 Wetland Preservation
Wetland preservation will focus on protecting existing forested jurisdictional wetlands in near -reference conditions.
Areas will be protected in perpetuity by establishing a conservation easement that protects 0.112 acres of riparian
riverine wetlands.
1.3.9 Riparian Restoration
Restoration of floodplain forests allows for developing and expanding characteristic species across the landscape.
Ecotonal changes between community types contribute to species diversity and provide secondary benefits, such as
enhanced feeding and nesting opportunities for mammals, birds, amphibians, and other wildlife.
Revegetating floodplains will provide overall system stability, shade, and wildlife habitat. In addition, viable riparian
communities will improve biogeochemical function by filtering pollutants from overland and shallow subsurface
flows and providing organic materials to adjacent stream channels.
Variations in vegetative planting will occur based on topography and hydrologic condition of soils. Vegetative species
composition will be based on Reference Forest Ecosystems (RFEs), site -specific features, and community descriptions
from Guide to the Natural Communities of North Carolina (Schafale 2012). Community associations to be utilized
include 1) a combination of Piedmont Alluvial Forest and Piedmont Headwater Forest, 2) Dry-Mesic Oak -Hickory
Forest, and 3) Streamside Assemblage.
Bare -root seedlings within the Piedmont Alluvial/Headwater Forest and Dry-Mesic Oak -Hickory will be planted at
approximately 680 stems per acre on 8-foot centers. Stream -side assemblage will be planted at a density of
approximately 2,720 stems per acre on 4-foot centers. Planting will be performed between November 15 and March
15 to allow plants to stabilize during the dormant period and set root during the spring season. Potential species
planted within the Site may include the following.
Piedmont Alluvial/Headwater Forest
1.
Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)
2.
American elm (Ulmus americana)
3.
Hackberry (Celtis laevigata)
4.
Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
5.
Shagbark hickory (Carya ovata)
6.
Willow oak (Quercus phellos)
7.
Shumard oak (Quercus shumardii)
8. River birch (Betula nigra)
9. Silky dogwood (Cornus amomum)
10. Pawpaw (Asimina triloba)
Dry-Mesic Oak -Hickory Forest
1. White oak (Quercus alba)
2. Northern red oak (Quercus rubra)
3. Pignut hickory (Carya glabra)
4. Mockernut hickory (Carya alba/tomentosa)
5. Black gum (Nyssa sylvatica var. sylvatica)
6. Flowering dogwood (Cornus florida)
7. Eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana)
8. Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana)
9. Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana)
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site Part 6—Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Page 16

Stream -Side Assemblage
1. Black willow (Salix nigra)
2. Tag alder (Alnus serrulata)
3. Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis)
1.3.10 Fence / Easement Marking
The entire easement area will be fenced and/or appropriately marked to identify the easement boundaries per
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Interagency Review Team (IRT) requirements. Livestock is to be
removed entirely from the Site.
1.3.11 Nuisance Species Management
Beaver, privet, and other potential nuisance species will be monitored throughout the 7-year monitoring period.
Appropriate actions to ameliorate any negative impacts regarding vegetation development and/or water
management will occur as needed.
1.4 Proposed Mitigation
Mitigation outlined in this proposal is designed to provide the following, as calculated under the requirements
stipulated in RFP #16-452048014, and is summarized in Table 9.
Table 9. Mitigation Activities and Site Credit Potential Summary
Stream Mitigation Type
Type
Linear Feet
Ratio
SMUs
Restoration
Priority 1
10,207.458
1:1
10,207.458
Enhancement
Level 1
1,932.773
1.5:1
1,288.515
Enhancement
Level11
589.177
2.5:1
235.671
Enhancement
Level 11
1037.373
7.5:1
138.316
Enhancement
Level11
5,475.117
10:1
547.512
Preservation
NA
1,741.896
10:1
174.190
Totals
20,983.794 linear feet
12,591.662 SMUs
Stream Buffer Credit Adjustment*
816.278**
Total SMUs
13,407.940 SMUs
*See Figure 8 (Appendix A) and the Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator Output Table (Appendix A)
for stream buffer credit adjustment output and results.
**Additional credit generated by stream buffer credit adjustment was reduced by 5% to account for the margin of
error due to the lack of a design stream alignment at the current phase of project development.
1.5 Current Ownership and Long-term Protection
Current property ownership and parcel information are as follows:
Table 10. Current Ownership
Current Property Owner
Parcel ID Number
Neal C. Tuttle and Mary B. Tuttle
0000133 and 0080303
Keith A. Tuttle Farms, Inc.
0000256, 0060059, and 0000112
Lyn Smith Richardson
0072982
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site Part 6—Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Page 17

Restoration Systems has an Agreement for the Purchase and Sale of a Conservation Easement (Agreements) with all
property owners. Memorandums of the agreements were recorded in the Chatham County Register of Deeds
(Appendix D). Complete copies of these Agreements are available upon request. Upon approval of the contract,
Restoration Systems will place a conservation easement over the subject parcels; such easement will be conveyed
to the State of North Carolina. Restoration Systems will remain responsible for project implementation, the
achievement of success criteria, and management actions. A long-term management plan that, in general, will
include protecting the Site from encroachment, trespass, clearing, and other violations that interfere with
conservation purposes will be developed for the Site and incorporated into the mitigation plan. Other activities may
be included based on site -specific considerations.
1.6 Project Phasing
A tentative project phasing schedule is presented in Table 11 and commences upon contract execution.
Table 11. Proposed Project Schedule
Task
Project Milestones
Months from Contract Execution
Task 1
Regulatory Site Visit & Environmental Screening
3
Task 2
Submit Recorded Conservation Easement on the Site
16
Task 3
Mitigation Plan (Final Draft) and Financial Assurance
12
Task 4
Mitigation Site Earthwork Complete
24
Task 5
Mitigation Site Planting and Installation of Monitoring Devices
25*
Task 6
Baseline Monitoring Report (including As -built Drawings)
28*
Task 7
Submit Monitoring Report #1 to NCDMS
Dec. after implementation
Task 8
Submit Monitoring Report #2 to NCDMS
Dec. - 2yrs after implementation
Task 9
Submit Monitoring Report #3 to NCDMS
Dec. - 3yrs after implementation
Task 10
Submit Monitoring Report #4 to NCDMS
Dec. - 4yrs after implementation
Task 11
Submit Monitoring Report #5 to NCDMS
Dec. - 5yrs after implementation
Task 12
Submit Monitoring Report #6 to NCDMS
Dec. - 6yrs after implementation
Task 13
Submit Monitoring Report #7 to NCDMS and Complete Project
Close-out Process
Dec. - 7yrs after implementation
and Spring after submittal of
Report #7
* Time frame is dependent upon seasonal conditions after Site implementation.
1.7 Success Criteria
Tables 12-14 summarize the monitoring schedule and success criteria for this Project, which follow the October 24,
2016, NC Interagency Review Team Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update.
Table 12. Monitoring Schedule
Resource
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
Streams
X
X
X
X
X
Vegetation
X
X
X
X
X
Visual Assessment
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Report Submittal
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014)
Part 6—Technical Approach
Page 18

Table 13. Success Criteria
Streams
• All streams must maintain an Ordinary High -Water Mark (OHWM), per RGL 05-05.
• Bank height ratio (BHR) cannot exceed 1.2 at any measured cross-section over the monitoring period.
• BHR at any measured riffle cross-section should not change by more than 10% from baseline conditions
during the monitoring period.
• The stream project shall remain stable, and all other performance standards shall be met through four
separate bankfull events, occurring in individual years, during the monitoring years 1-7.
Vegetation
• Within planted portions of the Site, a minimum of 320 stems per acre must be present at year 3; a minimum
of 260 stems per acre must be present at year 5; and a minimum of 210 stems per acre must be present at
year 7.
• In the Piedmont counties, trees must average 7 feet in height at year 5 and 10 feet in height at year 7 in each
plot.
• Planted and volunteer stems are counted, provided they are included in the approved planting list for the
Site; natural recruits not on the planting list may be considered by the IRT on a case -by -case basis.
• Any single species can only account for up to 50% of the required number of stems within any vegetation plot.
Table 14. Compatibility of Performance Criteria to Project Goals and Objectives
Goals
Objectives
Success Criteria
(1) HYDROLOGY —The Site is in a Hydrology TRA
• Construct a new channel at historic floodplain elevation to
• BHR not to exceed 1.2 over the monitoring
• Minimize
restore overbank flows
period
downstream
• Plant wood y riparian buffer
• Document four overbank events in separate
flooding to the
• Deep rip floodplain soils to reduce compaction and increase
maximum
soil surface roughness
monitoring years
• Attain Wetland Hydrology Success Criteria
extent
• Protect riparian buffers with a perpetual conservation
possible.
easement
• Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
• Remove incised/ditched streams
• Conservation Easement recorded
• Increase
• Construct channels with the proper pattern, dimension, and
• Cross-section measurements indicate a stable
stream stability
longitudinal profile
channel with the appropriate substrate
within the Site
. Remove livestock from the easement
• Visual documentation of stable channels and
so that
• Construct stable channels with the appropriate substrate
structures
channels are
• BHR not to exceed 1.2 over the monitoring
neither
• Upgrade piped channel crossings
period
aggrading nor
. Plant woody riparian buffer
• < 10% change in BHR over the monitoring period
degrading.
• Stabilize stream banks
• Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
(1) WATER QUALITY — The Site is in a Water Quality TRA
• Remove direct
• Remove agricultural livestock and reduce agricultural
and indirect
land/inputs
• BHR not to exceed 1.2 over the monitoring
nutrient and
• Plant woody riparian buffer
period
pollutant
• Restore/enhance jurisdictional wetlands adjacent to Site
. Document four overbank events in separate
inputs from the
streams
monitoring years
Site and reduce
• Provide surface roughness and reduce compaction through
. Attain Wetland Hydrology Success Criteria
contributions
deep ripping/plowing.
to downstream
• Restore overbank flooding by constructing channels at
• Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
waters.
historic floodplain elevation.
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site Part 6—Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Page 19

Table 14. Compatibility of Performance Criteria to Project Goals and Objectives (continued)
Goals
Objectives
Success Criteria
(1) HABITAT — The Site is in a Habitat TRA
• Construct stable channels with the appropriate substrate
• Plant woody riparian buffer to provide organic matter and
. Cross-section measurement indicate a stable
channel with the appropriate substrate
shade
• Visual documentation of stable channels and in-
9 Construct a new channel at historic floodplain elevation to
• Improve
restore overbank flows
stream structures
• BHR not to exceed 1.2 over the monitoring
instream and
• Protect riparian buffers with a perpetual conservation
period
stream -side
easement
• Document four overbank events in separate
habitat.
• Remove 3 in -line ponds
• Restore/enhance jurisdictional wetlands adjacent to Site
monitoring years
• Attain Wetland Hydrology Success Criteria
streams
• Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
• Stabilize stream banks
• Conservation Easement recorded
• Install in -stream structures
1.8 Quality Control
Our core business at IRS is full -delivery ecosystem restoration (usually within the context of compensatory
mitigation); as such, our projects are repeatedly scrutinized. More importantly, our compensation is tied directly to
project quality. Thus, quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) is of the utmost importance to our compensation
and reputation.
The IRS QA/QC program comprises a broad range of general and specific measures to ensure that all deliverables
submitted to the contracting organization meet projected schedules, follow appropriate formats, and comply with
applicable laws, regulations, and permits.
General Measures:
- Staff Qualifications — IRS employs trained and/or experienced staff in varied specific aspects of
environmental restoration. Examples include regulatory affairs, permitting, design, geomorphology,
chemistry, biology, soils, Geographic Informational Systems (GIS), and invasive species management.
Field Training — Staff members attend periodic workshops for training in pertinent topics to improve and/or
maintain necessary skills related to stream/wetland design and construction. Staff members have also
participated in stream and wetland restoration workshops, including those held by North Carolina State
University's Stream Restoration Institute (SRI), focusing on proper procedures related to stream restoration
practices. Restoration Systems periodically has internal workshops and field study days led by experienced
staff members to ensure that the team of Project Managers is up-to-date on current practices and
technology.
- Internal Experience - Office staff members periodically attend workshops led by professional organizations
to remain current on best practices. All projects are backed by a support team. Senior -level professionals
are consulted to successfully guide the process from start to finish.
Specific Measures:
- Project Implementation - The core of RS's project implementation QA/QC program utilizes task changeover
points within the restoration process. Procedural verification steps at each changeover point provide
control and correction opportunities, minimizing waste while ensuring a project meets its objectives.
- Quality Control - Ecosystem restoration projects
0 Site evaluation
■ Identify and document site constraints that will affect restoration objectives, design,
and construction
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site Part 6—Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Page 20

o Design evaluation
■ Verify design meets objectives and is practicable given construction constraints and site -
specific conditions
o Construction plan evaluation
■ Ensure the construction plan is consistent with permit conditions and efficiently
implements design (i.e., limits the number of phases)
o Construction environmental and permit compliance
■ Routine inspection of construction activities to ensure environmental compliance and
that all work is performed according to specifications and limitations of acquired
permits
o Design and construction reconciliation
■ Reconcile construction drawings with implementation routinely, especially before
transitioning between construction phases
o Construction drawing and as -built reconciliation
■ Verify the accuracy of as -built drawings and reconcile them with construction drawings,
noting deviations and their explanations
o Site closeout
■ confirm planting was performed with appropriate species composition and density
■ check that all excess construction materials have been removed and all
features/structures are in a completed condition
- Assignment of specific tasks and responsibilities — Specific tasks that occur throughout a project's life are
assigned to specific individuals who are trained and/or experienced to perform that task. All arrangements
are overseen by senior management.
The project implementation QA/QC program is a collaborative effort between the Senior Project Manager and
Construction Manager). The project manager or the construction manager (or both) will be on -site during
construction hours to ensure environmental compliance and the appropriate implementation of the Project's design.
- Deliverable Preparation — a series of measures are taken to prepare deliverables to ensure each product
meets the customer's expectations promptly.
0 Checklists and Templates — IRS staff has developed internal guidelines, checklists, and templates to
prepare all deliverables to ensure compliance with appropriate requirements and schedules.
Checklists are created to ensure that all required paperwork is included when assembling submittal
packages and easy delegation of workflow.
0 Peer Review of Documents — All submitted deliverables are reviewed by several qualified
individuals. Once a document has been generated internally or received from an assigned
consultant, it is entered into a three -round internal review process. It is first reviewed by staff
members with experience in editing. The document is then passed on to staff members with
specific expertise in a given area to ensure accuracy. Finally, where applicable, maps and diagrams
are reviewed by an experienced GIS Manager for accuracy. Once all comments are made, the
document is edited and distributed for a final round of review by staff members and the assigned
Project Manager before packaging.
0 Prolect Managers' Meetings — All managers meet weekly to update company management on each
Project's status, including the projected future timeline of tasks.
0 Prolect Coordination and Tracking — Restoration Systems' Project Manager and Construction
Manager utilize appropriate computer software to produce a Gantt chart for each Project. These
charts graphically display each Project's schedule and are used to identify potential delays,
overload points, and other issues related to schedules. Each chart is reviewed weekly at the Project
Managers' meeting.
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site Part 6—Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Page 21

1.9 References
Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.A. O'Hara, A. Jessup, R. Everhart. 1999. Bankfull
Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina Streams. N.C. State University, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC). 2022. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (online). Available:
https:Hipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/ (April 1, 2022).
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). 2016. Quantifying Benefits to Water Quality from Livestock
Exclusion and Riparian Buffer Establishment for Stream Restoration. June 15, 2016. North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality, Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Stream Functional Assessment Team. (NC SFAT 2015). N.C. Stream Assessment Method (NC SAM)
User Manual. Version 2.1.
North Carolina Wetland Functional Assessment Team (NC WFAT) 2010. N.C. Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM)
User Manual. Version 4.1.
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology (Publisher). Pagosa Springs, Colorado
Rosgen, D. 2009. A Practical Method of Computing Streambank Erosion Rate (online). Available: http://www.u-s-
c.org/html/documents/Erosion rates.pdf.
Rosgen, D. 2011. Estimating Sediment Loads using the Bank Assessment of Non -point source Consequences of
Sediment (BANCS). Watershed Assessment of River Stability and Sediment Supply (WARSSS). Hagerstown, Maryland.
Schafale, M.P. 2012. Guide to the Natural Communities of North Carolina: Fourth Approximation. North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
The Scientific Council on Freshwater and Terrestrial Mollusks (TSCFTM). 1990. A Report on the Conservation Status
of North Carolina's Freshwater and Terrestrial Molluscan Fauna. Pp. 50-52.
Thompson, R.L. and W.W. Baker. 1971. A survey of red -cockaded woodpeckers nesting habitat requirements (pp.
170-186). In R.L. Thompson ed., The Ecology and Management of the Red -cockaded Woodpecker. Tall Timbers
Research Station, Tallahassee, FL.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory
Mitigation Update.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2022. Web Soil Survey (online). Available:
http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx [March 24, 2022].
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1985. Red -cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan. U.S. Department of the Interior,
Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia. 88 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003. Threatened and Endangered Species in North Carolina. Chatham
County listing. Internet address: http://nc-es.fws.gov/es/countyfr.html.
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site Part 6—Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Page 22

APPENDIX A: FIGURES
Figure 1. Site Location
Figure 2. Hydrologic Unit Map
Figure 3A. Site Topography and Drainage Area
Figure 3B. UT Topography and Drainage Area
Figure 4. Existing Conditions
Figure 5. Soils
Figure 6. LiDAR Mapping
Figures 7, 7A-C. Proposed Conditions
Figure 8. Stream Buffer Credit Adjustment Output
Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator Output Table
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site Part 6—Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Appendices

APPENDIX B: STREAM & WETLAND DATA
NCSAM Forms
NCWAM Forms
NCDWR Forms
Cross Sections
BEHI & NBS
Soil Boring Logs
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site Part 6—Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Appendices

APPENDIX C: FORMS & REPORTS
NHP Report
Atlas Documents
IPac data
RCW SLOPES Form
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site Part 6 —Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Appendices

APPENDIX D: LANDOWNER INFORMATION
Landowner Authorization (LOA)
Memorandum of Option Agreement (MOA)
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site Part 6—Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Appendices

APPENDIX E: COMPLETED AND SIGNED RFP ATTACHMENTS & TECHNICAL SCORESHEET
RFP Attachment D: HUB Supplemental Vendor Information
RFP Attachment E: Supplemental Vendor Information
RFP Attachment F: Location of Workers Utilized by Vendor
RFP Attachment G: Certification of Financial Condition
Completed Technical Proposal Scoresheet
Big Buffalo Mitigation Site Part 6—Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Appendices