20160225 Ver 1_Cane Creek Prospectus - Final_20161230

PROSPECTUS CANE CREEK UMBRELLA MITIGATION BANK
Chatham and Alamance Counties, NC
Final
Cape Fear River Basin
HUC 03030002
October 26, 2016 USACE Action ID No. 2016-00219

PREPARED BY:
FINAL PROSPECTUS
CANE CREEK UMBRELLA MITIGATION BANK
Chatham and Alamance Counties, NC
Cape Fear River Basin
HUC 03030002
USACE Action ID No. 2016-00219
WILDL.A NDS
E NG I NEER I NG
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 West Millbrook Rd, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Phone: [phone]
October 26, 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ExecutiveSummary.............................................................................................................................1
1.0
Mitigation Bank Introduction and Objectives........................................................................1
Table 3a. Stream Existing Conditions Pine Hill Branch Site....................................................................6
1.1
Introduction...............................................................................................................................
1
1.2
Bank Location............................................................................................................................
1
1.3
Goals and Objectives.................................................................................................................
2
1.4
Qualifications of Bank Sponsor.................................................................................................
3
2.0
Establishment and Operation of Mitigation Bank..................................................................
3
2.1
Ownership Agreements.............................................................................................................
3
2.2
Landowner Information............................................................................................................
3
2.3
Proposed Service Area...............................................................................................................
4
2.4
Need and Feasibility of Mitigation Bank...................................................................................
4
3.0
Ecological Suitability of Site..................................................................................................
5
3.1
Bank Site Characterization........................................................................................................
5
4.0
Mitigation Work Plan.........................................................................................................17
4.1
Streams....................................................................................................................................17
4.2
Wetlands.................................................................................................................................
18
4.3
Best Management Practices....................................................................................................
19
4.4
Vegetation Plan.......................................................................................................................
19
5.0
Determination of Mitigation Credits...................................................................................19
6.0
Credit Release Schedule......................................................................................................
22
6.1
Initial Allocation of Released Credits.......................................................................................
23
6.2
Subsequent Credit Releases....................................................................................................
23
7.0
Maintenance and Long -Term Sustainability........................................................................
24
7.1
Maintenance...........................................................................................................................
24
7.2
Adaptive Management............................................................................................................
24
7.3
Long Term Management Provisions........................................................................................
25
8.0
References.........................................................................................................................
25
TABLES
Table 1. Mitigation Goals and Objectives.......................................................................................... 2
Table 2. Landowner Information.......................................................................................................3
Table 3a. Stream Existing Conditions Pine Hill Branch Site....................................................................6
Table 3b. Stream Existing Conditions South Fork Site...........................................................................
9
Table 3c. Stream Existing Conditions Bethel Branch Site.....................................................................12
Table 4. Existing Wetland Conditions..............................................................................................13
Table 5a. Floodplain Soil Types and Descriptions - Pine Hill Branch Site ............................................
14
Table 5b. Floodplain Soil Types and Descriptions - South Fork Site ....................................................
14
Table 5c. Floodplain Soil Types and Descriptions - Bethel Branch Site ...............................................
15
Table 6. Listed Threatened and Endangered Species in Chatham County, NC ...................................
15
Table 7. Proposed Stream Mitigation Credits..................................................................................
20
Table 8. Proposed Wetland Mitigation Credits................................................................................21
Table 9a. Stream Credit Release Schedule.........................................................................................
22
Table 9b. Riparian Wetland Credit Release Schedule..........................................................................
23
Table10. Maintenance Plan..............................................................................................................24
Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Final Prospectus Page i

FIGURES
Figure 1
Vicinity Map
Figure 2
Location Map
Figure 3
Service Area Map
Figure 4
NCDOT Draft STIP FY 2015-2025
Figure 5a
Existing Conditions Map — Pine Hill Branch
Figure 5b
Existing Conditions Map — South Fork
Figure 5c
Existing Conditions Map — Bethel Branch
Figure 6
Topographic Map
Figure 7a
Watershed Map —Pine Hill Branch
Figure 7b
Watershed Map —South Fork
Figure 7c
Watershed Map —Bethel Branch
Figure 8a
Soils Map — Pine Hill Branch
Figure 8b
Soils Map — South Fork
Figure 8c
Soils Map — Bethel Branch
Figure 9a
FEMA Flood Map — Pine Hill Branch
Figure 9b
FEMA Flood Map —South Fork
Figure 9c
FEMA Flood Map — Bethel Branch
Figure 10a
Concept Map — Pine Hill Branch
Figure 10b
Concept Map —South Fork
Figure 10c
Concept Map — Bethel Branch
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Landowner Authorization Forms
Appendix B
Existing Conditions Geomorphic Data
Appendix C
Project Site Photographs
Appendix D
NCDWR Stream Classification Forms
Appendix E
Agency Correspondence
%411 Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Final Prospectus Page ii

Executive Summary
Wildlands Holdings IV, LLC ("Sponsor") proposes to develop the Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank
("bank"). Wildlands Holdings IV, LLC is wholly owned by Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) and was
developed for the sole purpose of holding the proposed bank. The bank will include three separate sites
referred to as Pine Hill Branch, South Fork, and Bethel Branch. South Fork and Bethel Branch are in
Chatham County and Pine Hill Branch is partly in Chatham County and partly in Alamance County (Figure
1). All three sites are within the Cane Creek watershed. Two of the sites, South Fork and Pine Hill Branch,
are upstream of existing stream mitigation sites (Figure 2). The purpose of the bank is to provide stream
and wetland mitigation credits to compensate for impacts to Waters of the United States and/or State
Waters within the service area, Hydrologic Unit 03030002 (Cape Fear 02), as depicted in Figure 3. The
bank will also provide riparian buffer and nutrient credits, however only stream and wetland credits are
discussed in this document.
1.0 Mitigation Bank Introduction and Objectives
1.1 Introduction
Each of the bank sites is on an active cattle farm and livestock have access to most of the stream and
riparian zones on the properties. The streams on the sites have been channelized, appear to have been
relocated in some cases, and most are heavily impacted by cattle access. Wetlands on the Bethel Branch
Site have been degraded due to stream channelization, livestock trampling, and deforestation. In total,
the three sites will encompass 65.59 acres. Work will be performed on nearly 20,000 LF of existing
streams and will include 11,435 LF of restoration, 1,153 LF of enhancement I, 8,438 LF of enhancement
II, and 938 LF of preservation. The three sites will generate 16,346 SMUs. The Bethel Branch Site will
include approximately 3.6 acres of wetlands re-establishment and enhancement resulting in 3.35
WMUs. The bank will also include the restoration and protection of riparian buffers throughout the site
and the incorporation of best management practices (BMPs) to treat runoff from agricultural fields.
1.2 Bank Location
The proposed bank sites are located near snow Camp, NC (35.8936° N, 79.4299°W) as shown on Figure
2. The bank is within the 14 -digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03030002050050 and the NC DWQ
Subbasin 03-06-04. Directions to the sites are provided below.
Pine Hill Branch
From Raleigh take US 64 West to the exit for NC -87 N. Continue north on NC -87 for 1.8 miles and turn
left on Silk Hope Gum Spring Road. Continue on Silk Hope Gum Spring Road for 8.1 miles. Turn right
onto Silk Hope -Lindley Mill Road and continue for 3.5 miles. Turn right onto Sheep Rock Road and
continue for 0.7 miles. Sheep Rock Road becomes Holman Mill Road, continue for 0.1 miles to 8773
Holman Mill Road, Snow Camp, NC.
South Fork
From Raleigh take US 64 West to the exit for NC -87 N. Continue north on NC -87 for 1.8 miles and turn
left on Silk Hope Gum Spring Road. Continue on Silk Hope Gum Spring Road for 8.1 miles. Turn right
onto Silk Hope -Lindley Mill Road and continue for 2.9 miles. Turn left on Moon Lindley Road and
continue for 1.3 miles. Turn left onto Johnny Lindley Road and continue for 0.7 miles to 1727 Johnny
Lindley Road, Snow Camp, NC.
Bethel Branch
From Raleigh take US 64 West to the exit for NC -87 N. Continue north on NC -87 for 1.8 miles and turn
left on Silk Hope Gum Spring Road. Continue on Silk Hope Gum Spring Road for 8.1 miles. Turn right
Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Final Prospectus Page 1

onto Silk Hope -Lindley Mill Road and continue for 2.9 miles. Turn left on Moon Lindley Road and
continue for 1.0 miles. Turn right onto gravel driveway for Lindale Farms at 1140 Moon Lindley Road,
Snow Camp, NC.
1.3 Goals and Objectives
The proposed stream and wetland mitigation bank described above will provide numerous ecological
benefits within the Cape Fear River Basin. Project benefits include site specific improvements and
watershed scale benefits. Once developed, these three sites will supplement five other mitigation sites
in the Cane Creek watershed and contribute to overall watershed uplift.
The project goals and related objectives are described in Table 1. Project goals are desired project
outcomes and objectives are activities that will result in the accomplishment of goals. The project will be
monitored after construction to demonstrate success. A detailed monitoring program will be described
in the forthcoming Mitigation Plan.
Table 1. Mitigation Goals and Objectives
Goals
Objectives
Exclude cattle from streams and buffers by installing
Reduce pollutant inputs to streams including fecal
fencing around conservation easements adjacent to
coliform, nitrogen, and phosphorous.
cattle pastures and providing alternative water
sources or removing cattle from sites.
Reduce inputs of sediment into streams from eroding
Reconstruct stream channels with stable dimensions.
stream banks.
Add bank revetments and in -stream structures to
protect restored/enhanced streams.
Return networks of streams to a stable form that is
Construct stream channels that will maintain a stable
capable of supporting hydrologic, biologic, and water
pattern and profile considering the hydrologic and
quality functions.
sediment inputs to the system, the landscape setting,
and the watershed conditions.
Install habitat features such as constructed riffles,
Improve aquatic habitat in project streams.
cover logs, and brush toes into restored/enhanced
streams. Add woody materials to channel beds.
Construct pools of varying depth.
Raise local groundwater elevations and allow for more
Reconstruct stream channels with appropriate
frequent overbank flows to provide a source of
bankfull dimensions and depth relative to the existing
hydration for floodplain wetlands. Reduce shear stress
floodplain.
on channels during larger flow events.
Restore wetland hydrology,
y gy, soils, and plant
Restore riparian wetlands by raising stream beds,
communities on the Bethel Branch site.
removing surface drains, and planting native wetland
species.
Create and improve riparian habitats. Provide a canopy
to shade streams and reduce thermal loadings. Create a
Plant native tree and understory species in riparian
source of woody inputs for streams. Reduce flood flow
velocities on floodplain and improve long-term lateral
zone.
stability of streams.
Ensure that development and agricultural uses that
would damage the site or reduce the benefits of project
Establish conservation easements on the sites.
are prevented.
Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Final Prospectus Page 2

1.4 Qualifications of Bank Sponsor
Wildlands Holdings IV, LLC, the bank sponsor, is wholly owned by Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands)
and was developed for the sole purpose of holding the proposed bank. Wildlands is a multidisciplinary
professional engineering firm that brings together the expertise necessary to create outstanding
ecological restoration projects in a timely and cost effective manner. To execute stream and wetland
mitigation projects, Wildlands assembles a team of project specific subcontractors to perform surveying,
construction services, and planting. Each of these subcontractors has substantial experience in stream,
wetland, and buffer restoration in North Carolina and a substantial full time professional staff presence
in North Carolina. For this project, Wildlands will serve as the Authorized Agent.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attn: Shawn Wilkerson
Email: [e-mail]
2.0 Establishment and Operation of Mitigation Bank
2.1 Ownership Agreements
The bank Sponsor has signed option agreements with each of the landowners to record conservation
easements on all land proposed as sites for the bank. Upon completion of the review process for the
bank prospectus, the Sponsor will submit detailed mitigation plans and an umbrella mitigation banking
instrument (UMBI) for the sites. The UMBI will provide detailed information regarding bank operation
including the long term management of the sites. Once the final mitigation plans are approved and the
accompanying instrument executed by members of the Interagency Review Team (IRT), the Sponsor will
record conservation easements on the bank sites.
2.2 Landowner Information
The bank is located on three sites near Snow Camp, NC. Table 2 lists the landowner names, parcel
identification number(s), deed book numbers, page numbers, and address associated with each parcel.
Landowner authorization forms can be found in Appendix A.
Table 2. Landowner Information
Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Final Prospectus Page 3
Deed Book
Conservation
Site
Landowner
PIN
County
and Page
Address
Easement
Number
Acreage
Frank A. and Peggy L.
Lindley;Pe L.
Peggy
Alamance,
3185-0556
Pine Hill
8786-43-7403
(Alamance)
8773 Holman Mill Road
Lindley, Anne L.
Alamance
32.28 ac
Branch
8786-41-5689
1666- 1160
Snow Camp, NC
Campbell, &Janice
&Chatham
(Chatham)
Elaine Lindley
South
James Michael
1639-239,
1727 Johnny Lindley
8785-65-9361
Chatham
16.54 ac
Fork
Lindley
1701-1135
Road, Snow Camp, NC
Bethel
M. Darryl Lindley Rev
8785-98-7348
1537-881,
1140 Moon Lindley
y
Branch
Trust
8795-07-4275,
Chatham
1554-159
Road, Snow Camp, NC
16.75 ac
8795-17-7185
Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Final Prospectus Page 3

2.3 Proposed Service Area
The bank will be established to provide mitigation to compensate for impacts to Waters of the United
States and/or State Waters within the service area depicted in Figure 3. This service area shall include
the Cape Fear 02 (Hydrologic Unit 03030002), including the Cities of Greensboro, Burlington, and
portions of Durham, as well as the Towns of Chapel Hill, Graham, and Mebane, and Jordan Lake.
2.4 Need and Feasibility of Mitigation Bank
2.4.1 Need
Basinwide
The Cape Fear 02 Basin, as described in the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) 2005
Cape Fear River Basin Water Quality Plan (RBWQP), is undergoing rapid population growth. The
populations of Durham County, Guilford County, Alamance County and Chatham County are anticipated
to increase by 17%, 5%, 12% and 15% respectively between 2020 and 2030. This increase in population
drives development pressures, changes in land use, and the need for expanded infrastructure (e.g.
roads, utilities), all of which create a need for mitigation banks in this region. Developing a mitigation
bank will allow unavoidable impacts to Waters of the United States to be mitigated appropriately and
provide a means for the economic growth of this region to continue while ensuring aquatic resources
and water quality are maintained.
The expected customers for the bank credits include a combination of private enterprises and public
entities including NCDOT and the various municipalities located in the Cape Fear 02 service area as
described in Section 2.3. Figure 4 depicts the potential projects set forth by NCDOT for fiscal years 2015-
2025 within the Cape Fear 02 watershed. This includes transportation projects along various interstate,
state, regional, and division highways.
Local Subbasin
The proposed Bank is located in DWR subbasin 03-06-04 and the 03030002050050 14 -digit Hydrologic
Unit (HU). There are no current local or state watershed plans associated specifically with this subbasin.
The watershed is dominated by forested land (49%) and agricultural land (46%). Although few water
quality studies have been reported in the subbasin, the 2009 Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities
(RBRP) plan indicates that water quality is likely impacted by the large amount of animal operations
within the watershed, which was estimated to be 51 cattle, dairy, and poultry operations. This is the
largest concentration of animal operations within a 14 -digit HU in Cape Fear 02. Current NCDWR data
(1/5/2015) lists 9 permitted animal facilities within the HU. Thirty-five percent of the stream buffers in
the HU are non -forested. The Haw River downstream of Cane Creek (south side of Haw River) was on
the state 303(d) list as of 2010 for turbidity. Eroding streambanks are a leading cause of turbidity
impairments.
Examples of the impact of animal operations can be seen at each bank site, as each of the sites has
obvious stream impacts from cattle. The impacts include bank trampling and animal waste in the
streams. Fluvial erosion and cattle trampling from the bank sites are contributing significant sediment
loads to downstream waters. In addition, all of the sites have streams with non -forested buffers.
2.4.2 Feasibility
An environmental radius report was performed by Environmental Data Resources Inc. (EDR) for the
potential bank sites. The report found no records of registered storage tanks, brownfield sites,
hazardous waste sites, solid waste disposal sites, federally listed sites, or RCRA facilities within one mile
Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Final Prospectus Page 4

of the potential bank. This indicates there are no potential sources of contaminants that would affect
the soil and water quality on site.
The bank is located in a rural watershed where the dominant land uses are agriculture, forest, and
silviculture. There are currently no developmental pressures in the area that suggest future changes in
land use that might alter the watershed and/or add stressors to the project.
Based on the preliminary existing conditions assessments performed at the bank sites between February
and May of 2016, Wildlands is confident that the sites have substantial potential for the development of
a viable mitigation bank. The bank will provide restoration, enhancement, and preservation of streams
along three tributary systems to Cane Creek and rehabilitation of wetlands along one of these systems.
The project will provide substantial uplift to the local Cane Creek Watershed and the Cape Fear River
Basin. Although there are no specific RBWQP goals to address, the mitigation plan will address issues
associated with livestock operations, which was noted as a key stressor in the RBWQP, by eliminating
livestock access to all bank site streams. The bank will also expand on mitigation efforts within the local
watershed by adding three additional mitigation projects to the five other sites already completed
(Figure 2). Collectively, this high density of protected mitigation sites will result in a greater level of uplift
than individual sites can accomplish.
3.0 Ecological Suitability of Site
3.1 Bank Site Characterization
The bank includes three sites within one mile of each other, Pine Hill Branch, South Fork, and Bethel
Branch (Figure 2). The Pine Hill Branch Site includes a portion of Pine Hill Branch and several unnamed
tributaries. The Bethel Branch and South Fork Sites include unnamed tributaries to South Fork Cane
Creek. These unnamed tributaries have been given names by Wildlands for this Prospectus and the
duration of the project as shown in Figures 5a, 5b, and 5c. Cross-sections have been field surveyed on all
reaches proposed for enhancement and/or restoration. Data for these are located in Appendix B, and
locations of each cross-section are depicted in Figures 5a, 5b, and 5c. Topography of the sites is shown
on Figure 6.
The 65.59 -acre bank is located on three farms with active livestock operations comprised primarily of
pastures used for grazing cattle. Goats are also sometimes grazed on the Bethel Branch Site.
Surrounding land use consists of agriculture and forest with a few isolated residential homes. Aerial
photographs show very little land use change over the last two decades and there are no developmental
pressures indicating that land use will change in the future. Livestock have access to the majority of
streams and wetlands, which serve as their sole water source on the properties. The streams on the
sites have severe impacts from cattle and many are incised. In some locations, the riparian buffers have
been eliminated or narrowed. Wetlands on the Bethel Branch Site have been degraded due to
deforestation, stream channelization, and cattle trampling. The existing conditions of each stream reach
are described in section 3.1.1, wetlands are described in 3.1.2 and vegetation is described in 3.1.4.
3.1.1 Existing Streams
Pine Hill Branch Site
This site is located east of Sheep Rock/Holman Mill Road and South of Clark Road. Slightly more than
half of the site is in Alamance County and the remaining portion on the south side of the site is in
Chatham County. Pine Hill Branch flows onto the site through a culvert under Holman Mill Road near the
northern end of the property and continues across the site eastward and northeastward to another
culvert under Clark Road. To the north of Clark Road, Pine Hill Branch becomes part of the Holman Mill
Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Final Prospectus Page 5

Mitigation Site (completed by Wildlands in March, 2016). UT1 flows into Pine Hill Branch from the south
near the midpoint of the receiving stream on the site. UT2 flows into Pine Hill Branch about 300 feet
downstream of the UT1 confluence. The other tributaries on the site drain to UT1 or tributaries to UT1.
Most of the site is used for grazing cattle though a small portion on the northern end is used for row
crops. Significant portions of Pine Hill Branch and UT1 and its tributaries are forested, however, cattle
still have access to most of the streams. The streams on the site are described in more detail in the
following sections and in Table 3a. The existing conditions alignments of the site are shown in Figure 5a.
The watersheds of the site streams are shown on Figure 7a. Geomorphic data collected on site is
included in Appendix B. Photos of the site are included in Appendix C. Stream classification forms are
included in Appendix D.
Table 3a. Stream Existing Conditions Pine Hill Branch Site
Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Final Prospectus Page 6
Existing
Bank
Drainage
Height
DSO
Stream
Existing Condition
Stream Reach
Length
Ratio
Area (ac)
Ratio
(mm)
Determination
Impairment
(ft)
(ft/ft)
(ft/ft)
Minor fluvial
Pine Hill Branch - R1
938
588.0
8.9
2.3
P
erosion, deforested
14.5
buffers
Pine Hill Branch - R2
725
755.1
-
-
P
Incision, erosion
Cattle impacts,
UT1- R1
897
54.0
7.6
2.9
P
6.69
deposition, erosion
UTI - R2
1,249
96.7
26.3
5.8
P
Cattle impacts,
erosion, incision
UTI - R3
208
97.5
-
-
P
Incision, erosion
Cattle impacts,
UT1A
154
6.8
-
-
-
I
erosion, deforested
buffers
Cattle impacts,
UT1B
183
3.4
-
-
-
I
erosion, partially
deforested buffers
Cattle impacts,
UT1C
325
6.3
-
-
-
I
erosion, partially
deforested buffers
Cattle impacts,
UT1Ca
72
4.5
-
-
-
I
erosion, deforested
buffers
Cattle impacts,
UT1D - R1
432
21.3
-
-
-
P
erosion
Cattle impacts,
UT1D - R2
254
22.8
13.5
4.5
6.43
P
erosion, incision
Cattle impacts,
UT1Da
224
2.1
-
-
-
I
erosion
Cattle impacts,
UTIE
308
3.3
15.4
13.4
-
P
erosion, incision
Cattle impacts,
UT1F - R1
255
4.3
-
-
-
I
erosion, incision,
partially deforested
buffers
Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Final Prospectus Page 6

Pine Hill Branch
Pine Hill Branch flows east from a culvert crossing beneath Holman Mill Road. Pine Hill Branch has
diverse bedform with cobble and gravel substrate in riffle sections. The stream is wooded along the left
bank and portions of the right bank. Reach 1 above the UT1 confluence is generally in good condition
although there is some minor fluvial erosion along this section. This reach is somewhat incised but the
bed is now stable. Reach 2 downstream of UT1 is more incised and has more fluvial erosion. Existing
riparian vegetation has prevented more widespread and severe erosion along this reach.
UT1
UTI flows generally northward through the entire site. The stream is incised for nearly all of its length
but the degree of incision varies from moderate to extreme. It becomes somewhat less incised as it
continues downstream towards the confluence with Pine Hill Branch. Reach 2 is the most incised but is
more laterally stable than the Reach 3 due primarily to forested buffers. A breached rock dam on UT1,
upstream of its confluence with UT1E, has resulted in a 4 to 5 -foot -high knickpoint above which the
stream is less incised. Upstream of the dam (Reach 1) there is considerable deposition of fine sediments
which settled before the dam was breached. Most of the riparian zone along this reach is wooded,
however the section above UT113 is not wooded. Throughout the entire length of this stream, livestock
access is evident due to trampling of the bed and banks. The most unstable portions of this reach are
located just upstream of the confluence with Pine Hill Branch, upstream of the dam, and along the
upstream end of the project.
UT1A
UT1A is an intermittent reach that originates from a field near the upstream end of UT1. The small reach
is devoid of riparian vegetation other than pasture grasses. While erosion and incision are not severe on
this small tributary, livestock have direct access to it entire length.
UT1 B
UT1B is another small tributary that flows into UTI approximately 400 feet downstream of UT1A. UT1B
has a gravelly substrate and well defined riffles and pools. It is more incised than UT1A and has raw,
eroding banks. There is very little riparian vegetation along this tributary apart from grasses and sparse
trees. Livestock have direct access to the channel.
Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Final Prospectus Page 7
Existing
Bank
Drainage
Height
D50
Stream
Existing Condition
Stream Reach
Length
Ratio
(ft)
Area (ac)
(ft/ft)
Ratio
(mm)
Determination
Impairment
(ft/ft)
Cattle impacts,
UT11F — R2
658
15.9
19.6
8.4
3.01
P
erosion, incision
Cattle impacts,
UT1Fa
188
5.1
-
-
-
I
erosion, partially
deforested buffers
Cattle impacts,
UT1G
329
2.4
7.2
6.3
-
P
erosion, partially
deforested buffers
Cattle impacts,
UT1H
234
5.2
46.2
5.7
-
I
erosion, partially
deforested buffers
Erosion, partially
UT2
738
29.4
4.7
3.5
1.19
p
deforested buffer
Pine Hill Branch
Pine Hill Branch flows east from a culvert crossing beneath Holman Mill Road. Pine Hill Branch has
diverse bedform with cobble and gravel substrate in riffle sections. The stream is wooded along the left
bank and portions of the right bank. Reach 1 above the UT1 confluence is generally in good condition
although there is some minor fluvial erosion along this section. This reach is somewhat incised but the
bed is now stable. Reach 2 downstream of UT1 is more incised and has more fluvial erosion. Existing
riparian vegetation has prevented more widespread and severe erosion along this reach.
UT1
UTI flows generally northward through the entire site. The stream is incised for nearly all of its length
but the degree of incision varies from moderate to extreme. It becomes somewhat less incised as it
continues downstream towards the confluence with Pine Hill Branch. Reach 2 is the most incised but is
more laterally stable than the Reach 3 due primarily to forested buffers. A breached rock dam on UT1,
upstream of its confluence with UT1E, has resulted in a 4 to 5 -foot -high knickpoint above which the
stream is less incised. Upstream of the dam (Reach 1) there is considerable deposition of fine sediments
which settled before the dam was breached. Most of the riparian zone along this reach is wooded,
however the section above UT113 is not wooded. Throughout the entire length of this stream, livestock
access is evident due to trampling of the bed and banks. The most unstable portions of this reach are
located just upstream of the confluence with Pine Hill Branch, upstream of the dam, and along the
upstream end of the project.
UT1A
UT1A is an intermittent reach that originates from a field near the upstream end of UT1. The small reach
is devoid of riparian vegetation other than pasture grasses. While erosion and incision are not severe on
this small tributary, livestock have direct access to it entire length.
UT1 B
UT1B is another small tributary that flows into UTI approximately 400 feet downstream of UT1A. UT1B
has a gravelly substrate and well defined riffles and pools. It is more incised than UT1A and has raw,
eroding banks. There is very little riparian vegetation along this tributary apart from grasses and sparse
trees. Livestock have direct access to the channel.
Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Final Prospectus Page 7

UT1 C
UT1C originates in a small grove of trees and flows for approximately 325 feet before it discharges into
UT1 just downstream of the UT113 confluence. The upper third of this small channel is in a wooded area
but the bottom two thirds flow through an open pasture and along this reach the buffer is only
vegetated with pasture grasses. The stream is trampled and over-widened due to cattle access.
UT1 Ca
This is a short 72-foot-long intermittent reach that flows northward and drains into UT1C. The buffer is
vegetated with pasture grasses. The reach appears to be generally stable; however, livestock have
access to the entire reach.
UT1 D
UT1D originates at a spring in a wooded area just east of Sheep Rock Road and flows for approximately
680 feet eastward to its confluence with UT1. This tributary is perennial and the banks are raw and
eroding along much of its length due both to fluvial erosion and trampling by livestock. The incision
along Reach 1 is minor but incision becomes more severe in Reach 2. The stream has some gravel and
riffle substrate but much of the bed material is sand and silt due to cattle access and erosion. The
riparian buffer along this stream is mostly vegetated with trees although there are some areas where
the trees have been removed and the buffer vegetation consists of pasture grasses.
UT1 Da
This reach is a short channel that flows southward off of a hillslope and discharges to UT1D near the
upper end of the receiving stream. This intermittent stream is steep and somewhat incised. There is
some lateral erosion but the banks are generally stable due to woody riparian vegetation. Livestock have
access to this reach.
ME
UT1E originates where two ephemeral swales come together in a pasture. The stream flows eastward
and discharges to UT1 approximately halfway between UT1D and UT1F. These swales are badly eroded
and incised. The tributary is also quite steep and is somewhat incised. The substrate is a mix of cobble,
gravel, and sand. The banks are fairly stable due to woody vegetation in the riparian zone but cattle
have access to this stream and signs of past bank trampling are apparent, especially towards the lower
end.
UT1 F
This stream is the longest tributary to UTI on the site. It originates as an ephemeral swale in a pasture
on the east end of the property. It flows through open pasture for approximately half of its length then
continues through a wooded area before discharging to UT1 approximately 600 feet downstream of the
LITH confluence. The channel is incised, banks are eroding, and signs of cattle trampling are apparent.
The erosion and incision are worse along Reach 2 than Reach 1. The vegetation on the banks and
floodplain is primarily pasture grass and small diameter trees. The substrate is a mix of small cobble,
gravel, and sand.
UT1 Fa
UT1Fa is a short ephemeral/intermittent reach that flows through open pasture and discharges to UT1F
near the upstream end of the receiving stream. The riparian vegetation consists of pasture grass and a
few small diameter trees. The channel is somewhat incised and the banks are generally stable though
signs of past cattle access are apparent. The bed material is a mix of gravel and sand.
UT1 G
This short reach originates in an open pasture on the western side of the property but flows primarily
through a wooded area before discharging to UTI between the UT1F and UT1H confluences. The
Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Final Prospectus Page 8

channel is steep and incised but the banks are relatively stable. The bed material is a mix of cobble,
gravel, and sand. Livestock have access to the reach.
UT1 H
UT1H is another short tributary that discharges to UT1 just downstream of the UT1G confluence. It flows
through a wooded area. It is steep and incised but has relatively stable banks. The bed material is a mix
of cobble, gravel, and sand. Livestock have access to the reach.
UT2
UT2 is a small stream that originates in a small grove of trees near Clark Road on the northern end of the
property. It flows into the southeast and discharges to Pine Hill Branch approximately 300 feet
downstream of the UT1 confluence. Most of this reach is vegetated with pasture grass and herbaceous
vegetation; however, there are small diameter trees in the riparian zone near the upstream end. The
channel has previously been accessible to livestock, but currently livestock are fenced out. The adjacent
fields are now used for row crops. The channel has some bank erosion and the bed material is a mix of
gravel and sand. Near the upstream end, the channel flows through a wide shallow area that appears to
be a cattle wallow area from previous livestock access.
South Fork Site
The South Fork Site is located west of Johnny Lindley Road and south of Moon Lindley Road in Chatham
County. It consists of UT1 and several small tributaries to UT1. The streams flow through pastures used
for grazing cattle and forested areas. Downstream of this site, UT1 continues on to the Underwood
(Downstream) Mitigation Site (completed by Wildlands in January, 2013) and eventually discharges to
South Fork Cane Creek on the Underwood property just upstream of the Moon Lindley Road bridge. The
entire site is actively used for agriculture. Livestock have access to the majority of streams. There are
active chicken houses off of Johnny Lindley Road, immediately east of the bank site. The streams on the
site are described in more detail in the following sections and in Table 3b. The existing conditions
alignments on the site are shown in Figure 5b. The watersheds of the site streams are shown on Figure
7b. Geomorphic data collected on site is included in Appendix B. Photos of the site are included in
Appendix C. Stream classification forms are included in Appendix D.
Table 3b. Stream Existing Conditions South Fork Site
Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Final Prospectus Page 9
Existing
Bank
Drainage
Height
D50
Stream
Existing Condition
Stream Reach
Length
Ratio
Area (ac)
Ratio
(mm)
Determination
Impairment
(ft)
(ft/ft)
(ft/ft)
Cattle impacts,
UT1—Reach 1
397
103.0
41.4
3.1
P
minor erosion
Cattle impacts,
UTI — Reach 2
1,479
563.0
41.2
2.6
P
erosion, incision,
partially deforested
14.6
buffer
UTI — Reach 3
874
574.0
14.9
1.9
P
Cattle impacts
Cattle impacts,
UT1— Reach 4
586
613.9
12.7
2.2
P
minor erosion,
incision
Cattle impacts,
UT1A
898
15.0
1.5
1.2
0.33
I/P
erosion, deforested
buffer
Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Final Prospectus Page 9

UT1
UT1 enters the project from the east after flowing through a culvert beneath Johnny Lindley Road. The
upstream reach within the project area is located in a sparsely wooded area and is mostly stable with
intermittent bank erosion. Reach 1 begins at the point where cattle have access to the stream. The
channel is incised and minor bank erosion has occurred in spots, exposing some tree roots. The bed
substrate is a mixture of bedrock, cobble, and gravel in riffles and sand and small gravel in pools. The
riparian buffer is wooded with small diameter trees.
Downstream of the confluence with UT1B, the buffer of UTI Reach 2 is narrower and sparsely
vegetated, bank erosion is more severe, and the bed material transitions to gravel and sand with some
intermittent cobble. Accumulations of fine sediment are common. This reach is adjacent to active
pasture and cattle regularly use this section as a water source. There are many severely eroded access
points where cattle enter the stream. The left riparian buffer has very few trees, especially on the left
bank and understory vegetation is nonexistent due to livestock. There is an existing ford crossing on this
reach.
Approximately 100 feet downstream of UT1D, UT1 Reach 3 enters a wooded area and becomes more
stable. This reach has a steeper profile and coarse substrate, with abundant boulders and bedrock
outcrops. Though cattle have access to this reach, the channel incision is minor and impacts are mostly
limited to isolated bank erosion and minimal understory vegetation. There is an existing ford crossing on
this reach.
At the downstream end of the project beyond the confluence with ME, the channel of Reach 4
becomes more incised and eroded. The banks are vertical and bank scour is severe in some locations.
Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Final Prospectus Page 10
Existing
Bank
Drainage
Height
D50
Stream
Existing Condition
Stream Reach
Length
Ratio
Area (ac)
Ratio
(mm)
Determination
Impairment
(ft)
(ft/ft)
(ft/ft)
Cattle impacts,
UT113 — R1
391
100.0
9.1
1.9
-
I
erosion, partially
deforested buffer
Cattle impacts,
UT113 — R2
198
103.0
-
-
-
P
erosion, partially
deforested buffer
Cattle impacts,
UT1C
63
12.1
-
-
-
I
erosion, partially
deforested buffer
Cattle impacts,
UT11)
85
0.5
-
-
-
E
erosion, partially
deforested buffer
Cattle impacts,
UT1E — R1
334
22.0
-
-
-
I
erosion
Cattle impacts,
UT1E — R2
395
25.2
11.1
3.0
3.21
P
erosion, incision,
partially deforested
buffer
Cattle impacts,
UT1F
475
17.9
7.7
2.7
3.34
E
erosion, incision,
partially deforested
buffer
UT1
UT1 enters the project from the east after flowing through a culvert beneath Johnny Lindley Road. The
upstream reach within the project area is located in a sparsely wooded area and is mostly stable with
intermittent bank erosion. Reach 1 begins at the point where cattle have access to the stream. The
channel is incised and minor bank erosion has occurred in spots, exposing some tree roots. The bed
substrate is a mixture of bedrock, cobble, and gravel in riffles and sand and small gravel in pools. The
riparian buffer is wooded with small diameter trees.
Downstream of the confluence with UT1B, the buffer of UTI Reach 2 is narrower and sparsely
vegetated, bank erosion is more severe, and the bed material transitions to gravel and sand with some
intermittent cobble. Accumulations of fine sediment are common. This reach is adjacent to active
pasture and cattle regularly use this section as a water source. There are many severely eroded access
points where cattle enter the stream. The left riparian buffer has very few trees, especially on the left
bank and understory vegetation is nonexistent due to livestock. There is an existing ford crossing on this
reach.
Approximately 100 feet downstream of UT1D, UT1 Reach 3 enters a wooded area and becomes more
stable. This reach has a steeper profile and coarse substrate, with abundant boulders and bedrock
outcrops. Though cattle have access to this reach, the channel incision is minor and impacts are mostly
limited to isolated bank erosion and minimal understory vegetation. There is an existing ford crossing on
this reach.
At the downstream end of the project beyond the confluence with ME, the channel of Reach 4
becomes more incised and eroded. The banks are vertical and bank scour is severe in some locations.
Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Final Prospectus Page 10

The channel lacks streambank vegetation. Accumulations of sediment are also evident in depositional
zones of the reach. The substrate is gravel and sand with occasional bedrock outcrops.
UT1F joins UT1 from the east at the north edge of the site. From the confluence with UT1F, UT1 flows
offsite to become a tributary of the Underwood Mitigation Site.
UT1A
UT1A originates on the bank site and flows eastward through a cattle pasture. Cattle are accessing this
small, steep stream and trampling the banks. The riparian zone is vegetated only with pasture grasses
and occasional small diameter trees. Much of the length of this stream is incised to varying degrees and
the banks are raw and trampled. The bed material is mostly sand and small gravel and deposition of fine
sediments from the trampled banks is common. A large wallow area exists approximately one-third of
the way downstream from the origination point.
UT18
UT1B enters the project property from the south and flows through a sparsely -wooded area to its
confluence with UT1. Reach 1 is largely stable though somewhat incised and has coarse substrate.
Livestock have access to the stream channel, however, and some of the banks have been trampled. The
stream becomes more incised along Reach 2 and bank erosion increases. The substrate is primarily small
cobble, gravel, and sand. Riparian vegetation along this reach includes areas of pasture grass only and
areas of sparse trees. Understory vegetation is very limited.
UT1 C
UT1C is an intermittent stream that joins UT1 from the east, downstream from the chicken houses. The
channel is degraded due to cattle impacts, especially at the downstream end. Impacts include bank
trampling and accumulations of fine sediment. The channel is somewhat incised. Riparian vegetation is
primarily pasture grasses.
UT1 D
UT1D is an ephemeral channel that discharges to UT1 downstream of UT1C. It drains a significant
portion of the cattle pasture on the east side of the site, north of the chicken houses.
UT1 E
UTH flows from southwest to northeast and joins UT1 toward the lower end of the project area. Reach
1 is in a forested setting and is relatively stable. Impacts along this reach are limited to occasional
livestock access of the channel. The streambanks are wooded with small diameter trees and the
substrate is primarily small gravel and sand with occasional small cobble. Reach 2 is more incised and
bank erosion is more severe. The riparian zone along the lower reach is also wooded with small trees
and the substrate is gravel and sand with some cobble.
UT1 F
UT1F flows into UT1 from the east, along the northern property boundary. This small ephemeral channel
is located in an active cattle pasture and has been severely trampled by cattle. It is completely devoid of
bed form and the substrate is primarily fine sediments due to cattle impacts. The riparian vegetation for
most of the reach consists only of sparse pasture grass except for the lower 200 feet which flows
through a wooded area of small trees.
Bethel Branch Site
The Bethel Branch Site is bound on the south by Moon Lindley Road and on the east side by R.E. Wright
Road. There are two main streams on the site, UT1 and UT2, that flow generally parallel in a
northeastern direction before converging at the northern edge of the project area. A third, shorter
tributary, UT3, flows from the east through a small pond and discharges to UT2. An area of degraded
WCane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Final Prospectus Page 11

wetlands also exists on the floodplain of UTI. The site is used primarily for grazing livestock including
cattle and goats and all of the streams and wetlands on the sites are impacted from livestock access. The
streams on the site are described in more detail in the following sections and in Table 3c. The existing
conditions alignments of the site are shown in Figure 5c. The watersheds of the site streams are shown
on Figure 7c. Geomorphic data collected on site is included in Appendix B. Photos of the site are
included in Appendix C. Stream classification forms are included in Appendix D.
Table 3c. Stream Existing Conditions Bethel Branch Site
Bank
Stream
UT1
UTI originates upstream of Moon Lindley Road and enters the site through a corrugated metal culvert
and flows northeast through the site. The first 200 feet of stream are incised and overly widened as it
flows through a forested area. This section has vertical banks with severe bank erosion. The substrate
consists of gravel and sand.
Downstream of the wooded area, the channel flows through active pasture. There are indications of
channel and floodplain manipulation along this reach including adjacent spoil piles in the right
floodplain. The first 600 feet of this reach flows through open pasture with no trees. This section is less
incised but is horizontally unstable and appears to be changing rapidly over fairly short periods of time.
The bed material along this reach is small gravel and sand. An area of degraded riparian wetlands exists
primarily on the left floodplain.
For the remaining reaches of this stream to the downstream end of the project, there is a very narrow
band of trees immediately adjacent to the channel on both banks. The stream is incised and bank
erosion from cattle trampling and fluvial erosion is common. The bed material along this section
includes cobble, gravel, and sand. Throughout the entire length of UT1, the channel appears to have
been straightened and impacts due to cattle trampling are evident. There is an existing ford crossing
approximately 600 feet upstream from the end of the project.
UT2
UT2 originates upstream from R.E. Wright Road. and, after passing through a roadway culvert, flows
initially west and then north through the site. Although minor incision has occurred in the past, Reach 1
is largely stable now and has appropriate bedform diversity and coarse substrate of cobble, gravel, and
Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Final Prospectus Page 12
Existing
Drainage
Ratio
Height
DSO
Stream
Existing Condition
Reach
Area (ac)
Ratio
(mm)
Determination
Impairment
(f�
(ft/ft)
(ft/ft)
Cattle impacts, erosion,
UTI
2,357
275.4
5.5-
1.0-3.9
0.33
P
incision, partially
deforested buffer
Cattle impacts, erosion,
UT2 — R1
1,218
114.2
9.1
1.8
13.66
p
incision
Cattle impacts, erosion,
UT2 — R2
1,695
199.2
8.2
2.2
9.38
P
incision
UT2a
199
19.9
-
-
-
E
Deforested buffer
Cattle impacts, erosion,
UT3
787
48.9
3.4
1.4
7.23
1
impoundment, incision,
deforested buffer
UT1
UTI originates upstream of Moon Lindley Road and enters the site through a corrugated metal culvert
and flows northeast through the site. The first 200 feet of stream are incised and overly widened as it
flows through a forested area. This section has vertical banks with severe bank erosion. The substrate
consists of gravel and sand.
Downstream of the wooded area, the channel flows through active pasture. There are indications of
channel and floodplain manipulation along this reach including adjacent spoil piles in the right
floodplain. The first 600 feet of this reach flows through open pasture with no trees. This section is less
incised but is horizontally unstable and appears to be changing rapidly over fairly short periods of time.
The bed material along this reach is small gravel and sand. An area of degraded riparian wetlands exists
primarily on the left floodplain.
For the remaining reaches of this stream to the downstream end of the project, there is a very narrow
band of trees immediately adjacent to the channel on both banks. The stream is incised and bank
erosion from cattle trampling and fluvial erosion is common. The bed material along this section
includes cobble, gravel, and sand. Throughout the entire length of UT1, the channel appears to have
been straightened and impacts due to cattle trampling are evident. There is an existing ford crossing
approximately 600 feet upstream from the end of the project.
UT2
UT2 originates upstream from R.E. Wright Road. and, after passing through a roadway culvert, flows
initially west and then north through the site. Although minor incision has occurred in the past, Reach 1
is largely stable now and has appropriate bedform diversity and coarse substrate of cobble, gravel, and
Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Final Prospectus Page 12

some sand. This reach flows initially along the edge of a wooded area with a forested buffer on the right
bank and pasture and some intermittent trees on the left bank. This stable section continues to an
existing ford crossing approximately 1,000 feet downstream of R.E. Wright Road.
UT2 Reach 2 begins downstream of the ford crossing and has been straightened and is incised. Though
this reach flows entirely through a wooded area, cattle impacts are evident. The bed material is a mix of
cobble, gravel, and sand but fine sediment deposition from bank erosion and cattle access is common. In
at least two locations, tree roots are serving as temporary knickpoints and preventing headcuts from
progressing. There is another existing ford crossing approximately 1,000 feet upstream from the end of
the project.
UT2a
UT2a is an ephemeral swale flows into UT2 approximately 400 feet downstream of R.E. Wright Road. It
drains a cattle pasture south of UT2. This reach is in an open field and the riparian vegetation is pasture
grass only. It appears laterally and vertically stable.
UT3
UT3 originates in an open cattle pasture on the eastern side of the property and feeds a small (0.8 ac)
farm pond. The pond outlet overflows into a channel at the southwestern edge of the large
embankment. The existing channel below the pond is small, steep, and alternates between being incised
and eroded to being poorly defined due to severe livestock trampling. This channel flows through an
open cattle pasture and the riparian zones are vegetated only with pasture grasses. The substrate is
primarily gravel and sand with some cobble and bed form variability is poor.
3.1.2 Wetlands
There is an area of hydric soils on the floodplain of UT1 on the Bethel Branch Site estimated to be 3.6
acres in size. This area has been drained and trampled by livestock for decades. A large portion of the
area (1.8 ac) has been completely deforested. The livestock have impeded the growth of hydrophytic
vegetation, continually deposited waste, and eliminated virtually all of the ecological benefits of the
wetlands. Groundwater gauges were installed on site in May, 2016 and located in potential areas of
wetlands reestablishment. Locations of the gauges and the estimated existing extent of hydric soils on
the site are shown in Figure 5c. Details of the wetland area are included below in Table 4.
Table 4. Existing Wetland Conditions
Wetland Area
Existing
Wetland
Existing Condition Impairment
Acreage
Type
A
0.5
Riparian
Livestock trampling, drainage
B
3.1
Riparian
Livestock trampling, lack of vegetation, drainage
3.1.3 Soils
The sites that comprise the Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank are located in the Carolina Slate Belt
of the Piedmont Physiographic Province. The Piedmont Province is characterized by gently rolling, well
rounded hills with long low ridges, with elevations ranging anywhere from 300 to 1,500 feet above sea
level. The Carolina Slate Belt consists of heated and deformed volcanic and sedimentary rocks. The
predominant floodplain soils on site are described in Tables 5a, 5b, and 5c below and depicted in Figures
8a — 8c.
Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Final Prospectus Page 13

Table 5a. Floodplain Soil Types and Descriptions — Pine Hill Branch Site
Soil Name
Location
Description
Mapped along the floodplain of UT1,
Georgeville silt loam soils are generally found on
Georgeville
between downstream project limits
hillslopes, ridges, and interfluves. They are very deep
silt loam, GaC
and UT1F, and a portion of Pine Hill
(>80"), well drained, and moderately permeable soils.
Wehadkee
Branch.
surface layer and subsoil. Permeability is moderate and
Georgeville
Georgeville silty clay loam soils are generally found on
silty clay
Mapped along UT1F and UT1Fa.
hillslopes and ridges. They are very deep (>80"), well
loam, GeC
drained, and moderately permeable soils.
Goldston
Mapped along much of Pine Hill
Goldston channery silt loam soils are generally found on
channery silt
Branch.
hillslopes and ridges. They consist of shallow, well -
loam, GcD
drained soils.
Herndon silt
Mapped along UT2 and a small
Herndon silt loam soils are generally found on hillslopes,
loam, HdB
portion of Pine Hill Branch.
ridges, and interfluves. They are moderate to deep (56-
Cid-Lignum
80"), well drained, moderately permeable soils.
Nanford-
Mapped along UT1, between UT1F
Nanford-Baldin complex soils are generally found on
Baldin
and the upstream project limits, also
gently sloping to steep uplands. They are moderately
complex, NaB
mapped along UT1A, UT113, UT1C,
deep, well drained soils. Permeability is moderate and
Goldston-
UT11), and UT1E.
shrink -swell potential is low to moderate.
Source: Alamance and Chatham County Soil Survey, USDA-NRCS, http://efotg.nres.usda.gov
Table 5b. Floodplain Soil Types and Descriptions — South Fork Site
Soil Name
Location
Description
Chewacla and Wehadkee soils consist of nearly level,
Chewacla
very deep, poorly and somewhat poorly drained soils.
and
Mapped along the floodplain of UT1,
These are typically floodplain areas. They have a loamy
Wehadkee
UT1A, UT113, UT1C, and UT11).
surface layer and subsoil. Permeability is moderate and
soils, ChA
shrink -swell potential is low. These soils are subject to
frequent flooding.
Nanford-
Nanford-Baldin complex soils are gently sloping to
Badin
Mapped along the floodplain of UT1E
steep uplands. They are moderately deep to deep, well -
complex,
and UT1F.
drained soils. The surface layer and subsoil are silt
loam. Permeability is moderate and shrink -swell
NaB
potential is low to moderate.
Cid and Lignum soils series are gently sloping,
Cid-Lignum
moderately deep, moderately well -drained soils. They
complex,
Mapped at upstream extent of UT1A.
are often found in uplands. The surface layer and
CmB
subsoil are silt loam. Permeability is slow and shrink -
swell potential is moderate.
Goldston-
Goldston-badin soils are found on hillslopes and ridges.
Badin
Mapped along right floodplain of
They are shallow to moderately -deep, well -drained
complex,
UT1A.
soils. The surface layer and subsoil are silt loam.
GoC
Permeability is moderate to moderately rapid and
shrink -swell potential is low to moderate.
Source: Chatham County Soil Survey, USDA-NRCS, http://efotg.nres.usda.gov
WCane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Final Prospectus Page 14

Table 5c. Floodplain Soil Types and Descriptions — Bethel Branch Site
Soil Name
Location
Description
Scientific Name
Red -cockaded woodpecker
Cid and Lignum soils series are gently sloping,
Cid-Lignum
Mapped along the left floodplain of
moderately deep, moderately well -drained soils. They
complex,
UT1, and all of UT2 and UT3.
are often found in uplands. The surface layer and
CmB
Harperella
subsoil are silt loam. Permeability is slow and shrink -
Endangered
swell potential is moderate.
Nanford-
Nanford-Baldin complex soils are gently sloping to
Badin
Mapped along the floodplain of UT1E
steep uplands. They are moderately deep to deep,
complex,
and UT1F.
well -drained soils. The surface layer and subsoil are silt
loam. Permeability is moderate and shrink -swell
NaB
potential is low to moderate.
Source: Chatham County Soil Survey, USDA-NRCS, http://efotg.nres.usda.gov
3.1.4 Existing Vegetation
Pasture Areas
Each of the sites is used for grazing cattle. Cattle have access to streams in wooded areas as well as open
pasture. The open pastures at the bank sites are dominated by fescue grasses (Festuca spp.) and
broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus).
Forested Areas
The riparian areas on each of the sites include both cleared pasture and forest with cattle impacts.
Vegetation in the forested areas is primarily hardwood species including white oak (Quercus alba), red
oak (Quercus rubra), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sweetgum (Liquidambarstyraciflua), red
maple (Acer rubrum), American holly (Ilex opaca), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), and southern red
oak (Quercus falcata). Though there are no large stands of pine, there are some pines in the forested
areas, especially on the Bethel Branch site. These are primarily loblolly pine (Pinus taeda).
3.1.5 Threatened and Endangered Species
Wildlands utilized the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP)
databases to search for federally listed threatened and endangered plant and animal species in
Alamance and Chatham Counties, NC. Three animal and one plant species identified as threatened or
endangered are currently listed in Chatham County (Table 6). There are currently no federally listed
species in Alamance County that are subject to Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act. The North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program also lists 30 rare and watch list plant and animal species within
Alamance and Chatham Counties.
Table 6. Listed Threatened and Endangered Species in Chatham County, NC
Species
Federal Status
Common Name
Scientific Name
Red -cockaded woodpecker
Picoides borealis
Endangered
Bald eagle
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
BGPA
Cape Fear shiner
Notropis mekistocholas
Endangered
Harperella
Ptilimnium nodosum
Endangered
A letter was sent to the USFWS on April 1, 2016, requesting a review of the project and comment on
potential effects on endangered species or other resources. The USFWS responded on July 22, 2016,
and stated the "proposed action is not likely to adversely affect any federally listed endangered or
Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Final Prospectus Page 15

threatened species, their formally designated critical habitat or species currently proposed for listing
under the Act at these sites." All correspondence with USFWS is included in Appendix E. A pedestrian
survey of the project area will be performed by Wildlands as part of the development of the Mitigation
Plan. USFWS will be consulted if any suitable habitat and/or individually federally listed species are
identified in the project area, per Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
A letter requesting review and comment was also sent to the NC Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) on April 1, 2016, and no response has been received to date. Review and comments from all
appropriate environmental resource agencies will be completed prior to any land disturbing activity.
3.1.6 Cultural Resources / Conservation Lands / Natural Heritage Areas
Generally, the sites are not located near any sites listed on the National Register with the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO). The Lindley Log House (Site ID CH0413) is located on the Bethel Branch site
property; however, it is located on a hill top at least 400 feet from the nearest proposed conservation
easement boundary. Wildlands will not disturb this log house site in any way as part of the mitigation
bank. A letter was sent to the SHPO on April 1, 2016, requesting a review of the project and comment on
potential effects on archeological and cultural resources. At this time, no response to this letter has
been received. Review and comments will be completed by all appropriate cultural resource prior to any
land disturbing activity.
There are no natural heritage areas listed near the bank sites. Two of the proposed sites are essentially
contiguous with existing conservation easements held by the State of North Carolina for stream and/or
wetland mitigation projects. The Pine Hill Branch Site is immediately upstream and across the road from
the NCDMS Holman Mill Mitigation Site. The South Fork site is immediately upstream from the NCDMS
Underwood (downstream) Mitigation Site. Additionally, the UT to South Fork and Maney Farm NCDMS
Mitigation Sites are located approximately 1.5 miles northeast of the Bethel Branch Site. The
Underwood (upstream) Mitigation Site is located approximately 2.0 miles southwest of the South Fork
Site. See Figure 2 for locations of existing mitigation sites in the area. All agency correspondence is
included in Appendix E.
3.1.7 FEMA Floodplain Compliance
There is a FEMA regulated floodplain on Pine Hill Branch (Figure 9a). However, the only activities
proposed on this stream are enhancement II and preservation which may not require a flood study or
can be designed to result in a no -rise certification. There are no FEMA -regulated floodplain areas on the
other proposed sites (Figures 9b — 9c). However, UT1 on South Fork and UT1 and UT2 on Pine Hill
Branch are within the flood fringe of mapped streams. Wildlands will correspond with floodplain
administrators from Alamance and Chatham Counties to ensure that applicable regulations are followed
and appropriate permits are acquired. Each of the mitigation sites will be designed so that hydrologic
trespass does not occur.
3.1.8 Water Rights
There are no surface water withdrawals related to these projects at any of the three sites. There are no
know water rights issues at any of the three sites.
3.1.9 Existing Site Constraints
All three sites are currently active livestock operations and have multiple existing stream crossings that
allow livestock pasture access (Figures 5a -5c). There are currently three ford crossings located on the
Bethel Branch Site — one on UT1 and two on UT2. The South Fork Site has four existing crossings — three
Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Final Prospectus Page 16

along UTI and one on UT1A. One stream crossing exists on the UT1 of the Pine Hill Branch Site and one
exists on Pine Hill Branch. Several of these stream crossings are currently poorly maintained. All of these
crossings will remain but the ford crossings will be converted to culvert crossings. Crossings will be
designed to reduce barriers to sediment transport and aquatic organism passage.
The Pine Hill Branch Site has an existing spring that will not be included in the conservation easement at
the landowners' request. However, there will be a deed restriction on the area (0.34 acres) around the
spring requiring cattle exclusion and this area will be fenced (Figure 10a).
There are no utility easements on the sites that will be within the conservation easement areas. There is
an NRCS farmland preservation easement adjacent to the Bethel Branch Site which may limit the buffer
width and reduce mitigation credits if an agreement cannot be worked out with the NRCS. Beaver
activity has not been observed on any of the sites. However, beaver activity has been observed
downstream of the South Fork Site on the Underwood Mitigation Site. The beaver on the Underwood
Site have been removed. If beaver activity begins on the South Fork Site or the other sites, Wildlands will
contract with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to remove them.
4.0 Mitigation Work Plan
4.1 Streams
The proposed bank includes a combination of stream restoration, enhancement level I, enhancement
level 11, and preservation activities. Activities have been selected to provide the highest degree of
ecological uplift to the system. Figures 10a —10c provide an overview of proposed mitigation activities
on the sites.
Preservation
Preservation is being proposed on Reach 1 of Pine Hill Branch beginning at the culvert crossing on
Holman Mill Road to the confluence with UT1 (Figure 10a). The purpose of the proposed preservation is
to protect this stable reach from livestock impacts and to provide maximum protection for the stream
and riparian areas. This preservation is an important component of this site which will enhance and
protect an entire watershed. The site also provides a continuous aquatic and terrestrial habitat corridor
to a larger stream system including the downstream property which is the Holman Mill Mitigation Site.
Fnhanrement I
Enhancement I is proposed for UT1Fa on the Pine Hill Branch Site (Figure 10a) as well as UT1A on the
South Fork Site (Figure 10b). For enhancement level I, two approaches will be considered. Mitigation
activities for one possible approach will include raising the stream bed and adding instream structures to
stabilize the channels and improve habitat and water quality. The second option would be a
combination of localized channel reconstruction (i.e. restoration) and intermittent sections of
enhancement level II type treatments. For these reconstruction sections, new channel will be built
similar to the approach described below for stream restoration to connect existing stable sections of
stream to be enhanced with targeted bank repairs. Both approaches will also include fencing livestock
out of the conservation easement and planting the riparian zones with native vegetation.
Fnhanrement II
Enhancement II activities have been proposed at each of the three sites. At Pine Hill Branch, UT1A,
UT1B, UT1C, UT1Ca, UT1D, UT1Da, UT1E, UT1F Reach 1, UT1G, UT1H, UT2, and Pine Hill Branch Reach 2
are proposed for enhancement II approach (Figure 10a). At the South Fork Site, Reaches 1 and 3 of UTI,
UT1B Reach 1, UT1C, and UT1E Reach 1 are proposed for enhancement II activities (Figure 10b). Lastly,
Reach 1 of UT2 at the Bethel Branch Site is proposed for enhancement II (Figure 10c). These reaches are
Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Final Prospectus Page 17

characterized by relatively stable channels that are either connected to their floodplains or have incised
in the past but are now stable. Most of these channels are at least partially located in wooded areas
and, though currently accessible by livestock, impacts from livestock are mostly minor. Localized bank
stabilization and repairs will be performed in areas where damage is more significant such as UT1-Reach
2 on the Pine Hill Branch site. The repairs and livestock exclusion will likely return the streams to a
highly functional state. Fencing out livestock will enhance water quality and improve aquatic and
terrestrial habitat along these reaches. Enhancement II activities will also include supplemental riparian
planting and the construction of stormwater best management practices (BMPs) that will treat areas of
concentrated flow running off the agricultural fields (described blow in Section 4.3).
Restoration
Restoration is being proposed on stream reaches that are incised, highly eroded, show signs of
instability, have limited habitat features, and a poor quality riparian buffer. Reaches proposed for
restoration for the Pine Hill Branch Site include the reach of UT1 between its headwaters and the
breached dam (Reach 1), Reach 3 at the downstream end of UT1, Reach 2 of UT1D, and Reach 2 of UT1F
(Figure 10a). For the South Fork Site, restoration is proposed for a large portion of UT1 (Reaches 2 and
4), Reach 2 of UT1E, and Reach 2 of UT1B (Figure 10b). For the Bethel Branch Site, restoration is
proposed for all of UT1, Reach 2 of UT2, and all of UT3 (Figure 10c). Restoration of UT3 will potentially
include removal of an 0.8 ac pond. The value of removing the pond will be evaluated during
development of the mitigation plan. All restoration reaches will be designed to create stable, functional
stream channels based on reference reach parameters, design discharge analysis, and sediment
transport analysis. Dimension, pattern and profile will be designed for all restoration reaches to provide
a cross-sectional area sized for frequent overbank flows, a stable bed with variable bed forms, well -
vegetated bank slopes, a well-connected floodplain, and improvements to aquatic habitat and water
quality enabling biological lift. Establishing vertical and lateral stability will provide hydrologic
connectivity to the adjacent floodplains. Diverse bedforms will be established using in -stream structures
appropriate for the geomorphic setting. Priority I restoration will be designed on all applicable reaches.
Stream Crossings
Care was taken in the creation of this project to minimize stream crossings to those that are necessary
for the landowners to maintain their livestock operation in a sustainable manner. Currently two
crossings are proposed on the Pine Hill Branch Site, four on the South Fork Site, and three on the Bethel
Branch Site. Several of these are existing fords that will be converted to culverts. All crossings on the
Pine Hill Branch and Bethel Branch Sites are 50 -foot internal culvert crossings (no easement break). On
the South Fork Site all crossings are easement breaks. They are all 50 feet wide except for the crossing
on UT1A on the South Fork Site which will be a 25 -foot culvert crossing. All proposed crossings are
shown on Figures 10a —10c.
4.2 Wetlands
A combination of wetland re-establishment and wetland enhancement is proposed for an area of hydric
soils on the Bethel Branch Site (Figure 10c). The wetland re-establishment area (Wetland Area B) is
approximately 3.1 acres and currently contains hydric soils, therefore limited or no additional grading in
these areas will be necessary other than raising the adjacent stream bed. The adjacent stream (UT1) will
be designed to avoid impacts to any areas that are determined to be jurisdictional wetland. Filling
abandoned channel sections and creating a small stream system connected to its floodplain with
frequent overbank flows will increase the likelihood of wetland hydrologic success. Areas with
overburden may be excavated to remove material and better establish floodplain hydrology. Shallow
water and deeper pools will exist throughout the floodplain wetlands. Generous placement of woody
debris and disking of the soil will create a heterogeneous wetland landscape. The wetland enhancement
Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Final Prospectus Page 18

area is currently forested but drainage will be eliminated by plugging ditches and raising the adjacent
stream bed. It is important to note that a jurisdictional determination (JD) has not been completed on
the site to date and, based on the results of the future JD, the approach for the re-establishment area
may be changed to rehabilitation.
A natural Piedmont bottomland hardwood forest community will be established in the wetland re-
establishment areas. The vegetation planted will be selected based on species identified within
appropriate reference locations and professional experience based on site conditions. Supplemental
planting may be used on the wetland enhancement site to provide a more diverse natural community.
Livestock will be removed from the wetland re-establishment and enhancement areas either with
fencing or by moving them to another location.
4.3 Best Management Practices
The bank sites are all located on an active livestock farms. Cattle pastures are located on each of the
sites. There are several locations where runoff from the pastures becomes concentrated flow in
ephemeral channels. These are prime locations to install best management practices (BMPs) that will
treat pasture runoff before it enters into the stream network, thereby reducing nutrient, fecal coliform,
and sediment inputs to the systems. Appropriate BMPs will be chosen based on the position in the
landscape, degree of treatment desired, and the size of the drainage area. Potential BMPs include
pocket wetlands, dry ponds, and step -pool stormwater conveyance. Cattle will be kept out all BMP
locations either with fencing or by relocation. No credit is being requested directly for the BMPs. The
BMPs are considered part of the overall mitigation approach of the stream to which they drain. The use
of BMPs was considered in the development of the Credit Ratios for the bank.
4.4 Vegetation Plan
The bank sites will be planted and seeded with a combination of early and later successional native
vegetation chosen to create a Piedmont bottomland hardwood forest community. The specific species
composition will be selected based on the community type, observations of the occurrence of species in
the existing buffer, and best professional judgment on species establishment and anticipated site
conditions in the early years following project implementation.
Potential species to be planted in the floodplain and wetland areas of the bank sites include willow oak,
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), river birch (Betula nigra), tag alder (Alnus serrulata) and green ash
(Fraxinus pennsylvanica). Understory species such as American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana) and
blackhaw viburnum (Viburnum prunifolium) may be planted in areas where mature trees currently exist.
5.0 Determination of Mitigation Credits
Use of credits from the bank to offset stream, riparian wetland, and riparian buffer impacts authorized
by federal permits or state water quality certifications must be in compliance with the Clean Water Act,
Section 404(b)(1) guidelines and other applicable state and federal legislation, regulations, and policies.
Prior to the release of credits, the following requirements will be met: IRT approval of the final
mitigation plan and execution of the banking instrument, recordation of the conservation easement,
and establishment of appropriate financial assurances. A summary of the proposed credits is included in
Tables 7 and 8. All stream mitigation credits are designated as warm water stream credits. All wetland
credits are designated riparian riverine wetland credits. A proposed credit release schedule is provided
in Table 9 following the current IRT Mitigation Banking Instrument Template.
Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Final Prospectus Page 19

Table 7. Proposed Stream Mitigation Credits
Site
Stream Reach
Mitigation
Type
Yp
Existing
Length
(ft)l
Proposed
Length
(ft)2
Mitigation
Factor
Stream
Mitigation
Credits
(SMU)2,4,5
Preservation (P)
Pine Hill Branch
Pine Hill Branch — R1
P
938
938
10
94
Subtotal 94
Enhancement I (EI)
Pine Hill Branch
UT1F — R1
EI
255
255
1.5
170
South Fork
UT1A
EI
898
898
1.5
5744
Subtotal 744
Enhancement II (Ell)
Pine Hill Branch — R2
Ell
725
725
2
3134
UT1— R2
Ell
1,249
1,249
2
625
UT1A
Ell
154
154
2
77
UT1B
Ell
183
183
2
92
UT1C
Ell
325
325
2
163
UT1Ca
Ell
72
72
2
36
Pine Hill Branch
UT1D — R1
Ell
432
432
2
216
UT1Da
Ell
224
224
2
112
UT1Fa
Ell
188
188
2
94
UT1E
Ell
308
308
2
154
UT1G
Ell
329
329
2
165
UT1H
Ell
234
234
2
117
UT2
Ell
738
738
2
369
UT1— R1
Ell
397
397
2
199
UT1— R3
Ell
874
874
2
3874
South Fork
UT1B — R1
Ell
391
391
2
196
UT1C
Ell
63
63
2
32
UT1E — R1
Ell
334
334
2
167
Bethel Branch
UT2 — R1
Ell
1,218
1,218
2
5594
Subtotal 4,073
Restoration (R)
UT1— R1 R 897 1,121
1 1,0714
Pine Hill Branch
UT1— R3 R 208 190
1 190
UT11D — R2 R 254 292
1 292
UT1F— R2 R 658 729
1 729
UT1— R2 R 1,479 1,849
1 1,7994
UT1— R4 R 583 733
1 6834
South Fork
UT1B — R2 R 198 248
1 248
UT1E— R2 R 395 474
1 474
Bethel Branch
UT1 R 2,357 2,946
1 2,896 4(2,7685) )
Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Final Prospectus Page 20

1. Existing stream length estimated based on GIS data. These values will be revised based on survey data for the mitigation
plans.
2. Proposed lengths are estimates only. These values will be revised based on survey data and final design alignments for the
mitigation plans.
3. Proposed mitigation factor for enhancement II set at 2.0 to account for increased benefits to the project from proposed
BMPs.
4. No credits are proposed for internal easement crossings. The width of each crossing has been removed from the credit
totals for reaches with crossings.
5. For the Bethel Branch Site, credit amounts in parentheses are an estimate of the reduced credits if reductions are necessary
due to a slightly narrow buffer in some locations related to the NRCS farmland preservation easement conflict if it remains
unsettled. The reductions were calculated using the IRT Draft Buffer Guidance dated July 20, 2010.
Table 8. Proposed Wetland Mitigation Credits
Existing
Proposed
Stream
Site
Stream Reach
Mitigation
Length
Length
Mitigation
Mitigation
Site
Wetland Area
Type
Yp
(ft)'
(ft)2
Factor
Credits
Type
Acreage
Acreage
Factor
(SMU) A5
2,0694
UT2 — R2
R
1,695
2,119
1
(2,0515)
E
UT3
R
787
984
1
984(976 5)
Subtotal 11,435
Total 16,346
(16,192 5)
1. Existing stream length estimated based on GIS data. These values will be revised based on survey data for the mitigation
plans.
2. Proposed lengths are estimates only. These values will be revised based on survey data and final design alignments for the
mitigation plans.
3. Proposed mitigation factor for enhancement II set at 2.0 to account for increased benefits to the project from proposed
BMPs.
4. No credits are proposed for internal easement crossings. The width of each crossing has been removed from the credit
totals for reaches with crossings.
5. For the Bethel Branch Site, credit amounts in parentheses are an estimate of the reduced credits if reductions are necessary
due to a slightly narrow buffer in some locations related to the NRCS farmland preservation easement conflict if it remains
unsettled. The reductions were calculated using the IRT Draft Buffer Guidance dated July 20, 2010.
Table 8. Proposed Wetland Mitigation Credits
Wetland areas are estimates only. These values will be revised based on a detailed assessment of the site performed
during the development of the mitigation plan.
USACE Mitigation Guidelines allow for credit ratios for preservation in the range of 5:1 to 10:1. For the
stream preservation reach on Pine Hill Branch a credit ratio of 10:1 is being requested.
Enhancement I work proposed will include a combination of stream restoration and enhancement II
approaches or repairing bank erosion, raising the stream bed to connect the stream to its floodplain,
and adding structures for habitat improvements. Either approach will include exclusion of livestock and
enhancing or restoring the riparian buffers. We are requesting a ratio of 1.5:1 for enhancement I.
Enhancement II work proposed includes combinations of the following activities: culvert replacement,
localized bank grading and stabilization, fencing out or relocating livestock, and enhancing or restoring
the associated riparian buffer. Because the enhancement areas tie together large portions of the project
and provide extensive aquatic and terrestrial habitat corridors as well as opportunity to improve water
quality, a credit ratio of 2:1 is being requested for all enhancement II reaches. Additionally, multiple
BMPs are proposed on the sites which will help improve water quality and no credit is being claimed for
these.
A credit ratio of 1:1 is being requested for all restoration reaches. Restoration will include the design and
implementation of a stable bankfull pattern, cross-section, and profile. This work will involve hydrologic
Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Final Prospectus Page 21
Wetland
Mitigation
Existing
Proposed
Mitigation
Mitigation'
Site
Wetland Area
Type
Acreage
Acreage
Factor
Credits
(WMU)
A
E
0.5
0.5
2
0.25
Bethel Branch
B
RE
3.1
3.1
1
3.1
Subtotal 3.35
Wetland areas are estimates only. These values will be revised based on a detailed assessment of the site performed
during the development of the mitigation plan.
USACE Mitigation Guidelines allow for credit ratios for preservation in the range of 5:1 to 10:1. For the
stream preservation reach on Pine Hill Branch a credit ratio of 10:1 is being requested.
Enhancement I work proposed will include a combination of stream restoration and enhancement II
approaches or repairing bank erosion, raising the stream bed to connect the stream to its floodplain,
and adding structures for habitat improvements. Either approach will include exclusion of livestock and
enhancing or restoring the riparian buffers. We are requesting a ratio of 1.5:1 for enhancement I.
Enhancement II work proposed includes combinations of the following activities: culvert replacement,
localized bank grading and stabilization, fencing out or relocating livestock, and enhancing or restoring
the associated riparian buffer. Because the enhancement areas tie together large portions of the project
and provide extensive aquatic and terrestrial habitat corridors as well as opportunity to improve water
quality, a credit ratio of 2:1 is being requested for all enhancement II reaches. Additionally, multiple
BMPs are proposed on the sites which will help improve water quality and no credit is being claimed for
these.
A credit ratio of 1:1 is being requested for all restoration reaches. Restoration will include the design and
implementation of a stable bankfull pattern, cross-section, and profile. This work will involve hydrologic
Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Final Prospectus Page 21

reconnection of the streams with their floodplains, the implementation of instream structures, and the
exclusion of livestock.
Wetland enhancement work will include reducing drainage by plugging ditches, supplemental planting,
and fencing out cattle. We are proposing a credit ratio of 2:1 for this work. Wetland re-establishment
will include reducing draining by eliminating ditches and raising the stream bed, replanting a native
forest community, and fencing out or relocating livestock. For this approach we are proposing a 1:1
ratio.
6.0 Credit Release Schedule
All credit releases will be based on the total credit generated as reported by the as -built surveys of the
bank sites. Under no circumstances shall any mitigation bank be debited until the necessary Department
of Army (DA) authorization has been received for its construction or the District Engineer (DE) has
otherwise provided written approval for the project in the case where no DA authorization is required
for construction of the mitigation project. The DE, in consultation with the Interagency Review Team
(IRT), will determine if performance standards have been satisfied sufficiently to meet the requirements
of the release schedules below. In cases where some performance standards have not been met, credits
may still be released depending on the specifics of the case. Monitoring may be required to restart or be
extended, depending on the extent to which the site fails to meet the specified performance standard.
The release of project credits will be in compliance with the Monitoring Requirements and Performance
Standards for Compensatory Mitigation in North Carolina, dated February 9, 2013. The proposed credits
are shown below in Tables 9a and 9b.
Table 9a. Stream Credit Release Schedule
Credit
Release
Credit Release Activity
Interim
Total
Milestone
Release
Released
1
Bank Establishment
15%
15%
Completion of all initial physical and biological improvements made
2
pursuant to the Mitigation Plan
15%
30%
First year monitoring report demonstrates channels are stable and
3
interim performance standards have been met
10%
40%
Second year monitoring report demonstrates channels are stable and
50%
4
interim performance standards have been met
100
(60%`)
Third year monitoring report demonstrates channels are stable and
10%
60% (70')
5
interim performance standards have been met
Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates channels are stable and
65%
6
interim performance standards have been met
5o �0
(75%')
Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are
75%
7
being met
100
(85%`)
Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are
80%
8
being met
5o �0
(90%.)
Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable,
90%
9
performance standards have been met.
100
(100%')
*A 10% reserve of credits to be held back until the bankfull event performance standard has been met.
Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Final Prospectus Page 22

Table 9b. Riparian Wetland Credit Release Schedule
Credit
Interim
Total
Release
Credit Release Activity
Release
Released
Milestone
1
Bank Establishment
15%
15%
Completion of all initial physical and biological improvements made
2
15%
30%
pursuant to the Mitigation Plan
First year monitoring report demonstrates interim performance standards
3
are being met
10%
40%
Second year monitoring report demonstrates interim performance
4
standards are being met
10%
50%
Third year monitoring report demonstrates interim performance standards
5
are being met
15%
65%
Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates interim performance
6
standards are being met
5%
70%
Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are
being met; Provided that all performance standards are met, the IRT may
7
allow the Bank Sponsor to discontinue hydrologic monitoring after the fifth
15%
85%
year, but vegetation monitoring must continue for an additional two years
after the fifth year for a total of seven years
Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are
8
being met
5%
90%
Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are
9
being met, and project has received close-out approval
10%
100%
If the monitoring of the site is successful by year 5 and no concerns have been identified regarding
vegetation, hydrology, stream stability, or encroachments, the Sponsor may propose to terminate
monitoring for the site for years 6 and 7 and request a project closeout. In the case of approved early
project closeout, all remaining credits shall be released.
6.1 Initial Allocation of Released Credits
The initial allocation of released credits is defined as Bank Establishment in the 2013 Wilmington District
credit release schedule guidance document. The initial allocation can be released without prior written
approval of the DE upon satisfactory completion of the following activities:
a. Execution of the UMBI by the Sponsor and the USACE.
b. Approval of the Final Mitigation Plan.
c. Recordation of the conservation easement, as well as delivery of a title opinion that is
acceptable to the USACE.
d. Delivery of the financial assurances described in the Mitigation Plan.
e. 404 permit verification for construction of the site, if required.
6.2 Subsequent Credit Releases
All subsequent credit releases must be approved by the DE, in consultation with the IRT, based on a
determination that required performance standards have been achieved. For stream projects, a reserve
of 10% of a site's total stream credits shall be released after four bankfull events have occurred in
separate years, provided the channel is stable and all other performance standards are met. In the event
that less than four bankfull events occur during the monitoring period, release of these reserve credits
shall be at the discretion of the IRT. As the bank approaches milestones associated with the credit
release, Wildlands will submit a request for credit release to the DE along with documentation
Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Final Prospectus Page 23

substantiating achievement of criteria required for release to occur. This documentation will be included
with the annual monitoring report.
7.0 Maintenance and Long -Term Sustainability
7.1 Maintenance
The Site shall be monitored on a regular basis and a physical inspection of the site shall be conducted at
a minimum of once per year throughout the post -construction monitoring period until performance
standards are met. These site inspections may identify site components and features that require
routine maintenance. Routine maintenance will be conducted to rectify identified deficiencies and may
include the activities listed in Table 10.
Table 10. Maintenance Plan
Component /
Maintenance through project close-out
Feature
Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include chinking of in -stream
structures to prevent piping, securing loose coir matting, and supplemental installations of live
Stream
stakes and other target vegetation along the channel. Areas where stormwater and floodplain
flows intercept the channel may also require maintenance to prevent bank failures and head -
cutting. Beaver dams that inundate the streams channels shall be removed and the beaver
shall be trapped.
Vegetation shall be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted community.
Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may include supplemental planting,
Vegetation
pruning, mulching, and fertilizing. Exotic invasive plant species affecting the viability of the
mitigation shall be controlled by mechanical and/or chemical methods. Any vegetation control
requiring herbicide application will be performed in accordance with the NC Department of
Agriculture (NCDA) rules and regulations.
Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction between the bank site
Site
and adjacent properties. Boundaries may be identified by fence, marker, bollard, post, tree -
blazing, or other means as allowed by site conditions and/or conservation easement. Boundary
Boundary
markers disturbed, damaged, or destroyed will be repaired and/or replaced on an as -needed
basis.
7.2 Adaptive Management
Upon completion of site construction, the Sponsor will implement the post -construction monitoring
protocols and minor remedial actions (routine maintenance) will be performed as needed for the
duration of the monitoring period. The Sponsor will notify the USACE immediately if monitoring results
or visual observations suggest a trend towards instability, major remedial actions are needed, or that
performance standards cannot be achieved. Should major remedial measures be required, the Sponsor
will submit a Corrective Action Plan and coordinate with the USACE until authorization is secured to
conduct the adaptive management activities. The Bank Sponsor is responsible for funding and/or
providing the services necessary to secure any necessary permits to support the proposed major
remedial adaptive management actions, to implement the corrective action plan, and to deliver record
drawings that depict the extent and nature of the work performed. If the USACE determines that the
bank is not meeting performance standards or the Sponsor is not complying with the terms of the
instrument, the USACE may take appropriate actions, including but not limited to: suspending credit
sales, utilizing financial assurances, and/or terminating the instrument.
Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Final Prospectus Page 24

7.3 Long Term Management Provisions
The Bank Sponsor will institute a Long Term Management Plan responsible for assessing the condition of
the mitigation site and implementing maintenance provisions to maintain performance of the site. The
proposed conservation easement will help to ensure that only IRT -allowable activities take place. This
easement will be transferred to an IRT -approved non-profit organization once monitoring success
criteria have been achieved.
The provider for long term management of the sites is anticipated to be Unique Places to Save
(UP2Save). UP2Save is a 501c3 nonprofit committed to land conservation through conservation planning
and management. The funding mechanism for long term management will be a stewardship
endowment funded by Wildlands. Contact information for UP2Save is listed below.
Unique Places to Save
206 Causeway Drive #206
Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480
Phone: [phone]
Email: info@ uniqueplacestosave.org
To monitor the project's continued success, a Long Term Management Plan will be implemented
following the seven-year monitoring period. All components of the bank will be inspected annually or
less frequently as needed to ensure that the bank sites remain stable in perpetuity. Sources of instability
or other deficiencies will be addressed. Invasive species will be managed annually or less frequently as
needed to ensure the long term survivability of the planned native vegetation community. All reporting
will be documented and kept on file for future reference.
8.0 References
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2011. Web Soil Survey.
http://websoiIsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) 2005 Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality
Plan (RBWQP), accessed at: http://nccoastaIreserve.net/web/wq/ps/bpu/basin/capefear
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) 2009 Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities
(RBRP), accessed at: https://ncdenr.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-
public/Mitigation%20Services/PublicFolder/Work%2OWith/Watershed%20PIanners/RBRP%2OCape%
20Fear%202009.pdf
WCane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Final Prospectus Page 25

FIGURES

I
Cedamck
Park Proposed Bank Site
Hydrologic Unit (8 -Digit)
_WA,'`
I
I � �
974 ft
CANE CREEK iWOUNTAINS
I
i
t
I �
k snow
Camp
i
03030002
� I1
r.� Pine Hill Branch Site * r „k n .
- - - J4•- - F COUNTY t . -
_ . 1 h1.1"
- -
11.11'11.\h1 � i�1_)iJl'Y
FF Bethel Branch Site
South Fork Site
A2j
I
03030003
sil of
Citc
y Siler
City n.
h Counlry
Club
-Esri Topography
WILDLANDS 0
ENGINEERING
Chapel
Ridge
Go If C lu b
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
2.5 Miles Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank
J Cape Fear River Basin 03030002
Alamance and Chatham Counties, NC

�o 0 Holman Mill Mitigation Site 1 �` Existing DMS Conservation Easement
J/ '` ' --� f� y� ;�t• Proposed Bank Site
1
UT to South Fork Mitigation Site
tJ �
S
/31 •�� Ab_ -'L_} _-_ ��_ _�-�__ __ 7 _�__� n....AM
AKCt: !(N-1
M CHATH
i C J f n„ ' I Pine Hill Branch Site
a (� Maney Farms Mitigation Site
-Underwood Creek Mitigation Siterr +
i 1 f Downstream Reach ! v
s (1► 1�, 1 C7iq� �i•'
Bethel Branch Site
G South Fork Site -
-
Ot
101,
OY - fes+,\i *, "fyf,.�
00
"� l\ _._�\ .` ��^ I 4r:_- S� ?�, �i v �`I '� 1. I . - '�51n N �• -�, - (0 i
V 1�-. 1 p`• x6) J ism••—._'Y-. _ —__' �. -/• ` 5l4-•
n� Underwood Creek Mitigation Site, _ I
Upstream Reach�-
t
Crutchfield Crossroads and Silk Hope�7.5' Minute USGS Topographic Quadrangles
Figure 2 Location Map
WI LD LAN D S 0 0.6 Miles Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank
ENGINEERING I I I I I Cape Fear River Basin 03030002
Alamance and Chatham Counties, NC

It on
-r
fj -
a
' 0Ike sdal
e }
Summerfield
yO A
Ridge
I I t
TA
1 �
`,Ilr ill
'♦ SCI L• kl'-barlV
l.� I Burlington I - S A
t-a��w I 4
40.
L,_ I 11%. � I Y
"7
i'
• Proposed Bank Site
Stream Service Area
4_ Cane Creek Watershed
_ ! Hydrologic Unit (8 -Digit)
Bl.11ner
-- I
J� I
Hillsborough
'r -1-85•S
g5 1
03030002 ' am
I �r
�� I •r ,� �hlpel
Hill + K
Z
LII rte Pine Hill Branch Site - - - -L -
l
ram •• Bethel Branch Site
��SoFth Fork Site � •
y � Cary
�y
i Ole
{
115 ft . Cy ,
LS.54 L vw f jl f
II tt
Asheboro I _d
l %.4"%^ fit.
F In I l67_;
WOS WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
0 8.5 Miles
I I I I I
Figure 3 Service Area Map
Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Cape Fear River Basin 03030002
Alamance and Chatham Counties, NC
0
I64
�
IG
I�
1�
f¢
I
"7
i'
• Proposed Bank Site
Stream Service Area
4_ Cane Creek Watershed
_ ! Hydrologic Unit (8 -Digit)
Bl.11ner
-- I
J� I
Hillsborough
'r -1-85•S
g5 1
03030002 ' am
I �r
�� I •r ,� �hlpel
Hill + K
Z
LII rte Pine Hill Branch Site - - - -L -
l
ram •• Bethel Branch Site
��SoFth Fork Site � •
y � Cary
�y
i Ole
{
115 ft . Cy ,
LS.54 L vw f jl f
II tt
Asheboro I _d
l %.4"%^ fit.
F In I l67_;
WOS WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
0 8.5 Miles
I I I I I
Figure 3 Service Area Map
Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Cape Fear River Basin 03030002
Alamance and Chatham Counties, NC

Cape Fear Basin 02 (HUC 03030002)
QRiver Basin Boundaries
— — i County Boundaries
STIP Point Features
Mode/Category
i Bridge Project
Statewide Aviation
Regional Aviation
Division Aviation
Division Ferry
a3 Regional Rail
Division Rail
Ff Regional Transit
f Division Transit
A Safety
► Transition
STIP Line Features
Mode/Category
Transition
Interstate Maintenance
Statewide Highway
Regional Highway
Division Highway
Division Bike/Pedestrian
-- Projected/Under Construction
0304U103
'. a
N:ZSIViTI104
704
772 I
1
89 I
RO�NGHAM CO -
65
03010103 ROANOKE 87
—' --- 68 --
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
61
1 � •rf
150 I �*
100
�- GUILFORD CO - 6
I
109 I �
I
I
I
i RAND.OLPH CO
\ I 42
YADKIN i
109 ! 159
1 030401041
03030002
03010104
CASWELL CO - /
-M
--ALIVCE CO -'
CAPE FEAR
I
22 --
j
I
03030003
I"
22 j
r
I
I
902
I
I
I 157
I
PERSON CO -
I
86 I
-- 86 —� ---- ---—..—..—..--.._
1
;
i 03020201
NEUSE
1
I 57 I
1 f
i - ORANGE
I DURHAM CO -
i
I
I
I
I i
PAMLICO
03020101
I
I
I
i - GRANVILLE CO -
14
E CO -
- CHATHAM CO
55
03030004
LEE 42
NCDOT STIP Unit
Figure 4 NCDOT Draft STIP FY 2015 - 2025
WILD LANDS 0 6.5 Miles Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank
ENGINEERING I I I I I Cape Fear River Basin 03030002
Alamance and Chatham Counties, NC
86
—
751
Location
Jordan
Lake
PAMLICO
03020101
I
I
I
i - GRANVILLE CO -
14
E CO -
- CHATHAM CO
55
03030004
LEE 42
NCDOT STIP Unit
Figure 4 NCDOT Draft STIP FY 2015 - 2025
WILD LANDS 0 6.5 Miles Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank
ENGINEERING I I I I I Cape Fear River Basin 03030002
Alamance and Chatham Counties, NC

WILD LANDS 0 350 Feet Figure 5a Existing Conditions
ENGINEERING I I I I I Pine Hill Branch
Cane Creek Umbrella Bank
Cape Fear River Basin (03030002)
Alamance and Chatham Counties, NC

OTV WILD LANDS 0 325 Feet Figure 5b Existing Conditions
ENGINEERING I I I I I South Fork
Cane Creek Umbrella Bank
Cape Fear River Basin (03030002)
Alamance and Chatham Counties, NC

Proposed Bank Site
••••• Ephemeral Project Stream
-- Intermittent Project Stream
Perennial Project Stream
Surveyed Cross Sections
Cattle Access
Incision
Reach Break''
Groundwater Monitoring Gauge
Extent of Hydric Soils
t
Non -Project Streams
Crossing
kssExisting Fol
ft,
..
AN
Figure 5c Existing Conditions
WWILDLANDS 0 350 Feet Bethel Branch Site
ENGINEERING I i i i I Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Cape Fear River Basin 03030002
Chatham County, NC

`•.. ` $40
�-
'Os
I� I
I� I
D �•
Figure 6 Topographic Map
%WWILD LANDS 0 1,500 Feet Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank
V ENGINEERING I I I I I t Cape Fear River Basin 03030002
Alamance and Chatham Counties, NC
4 �'
� Proposed Bank Site 591-600
O
L,_ i Proposed Conservation Easement
601-610
Project Streams
611-620
r
1 _
Non -Project Streams
621-630
Roads
631-640
Alamance/Chatham County Line
641-650
1
504
651-660
X
505-510
—661-670
Alamance Count511
- 520
671
-680
" .
Chatham County
521-530
681-690
j r j
531-540
691-700
541-550
701-710
`
17 �, 17 '
551-560
711-720
1
°e
/
561-570
571-580
721-730
731-740
.: /
581-590
741-750
`•.. ` $40
�-
'Os
I� I
I� I
D �•
Figure 6 Topographic Map
%WWILD LANDS 0 1,500 Feet Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank
V ENGINEERING I I I I I t Cape Fear River Basin 03030002
Alamance and Chatham Counties, NC

Project Streams .
Non -Project Streams
� Pine Hill Branch Creek (755.0 Ac)
UT1 (99.9 Ac)
�
UT1A 6 8 A
is �"\.`e°� t• \�"�i�\yl))) 1 11' �1i"��`IIq
�16v�
;`lG l j% 1. • ,f- ` �'�, y� f
Alt",
`I�����(���E!ti:/� �����
;
Nt'
IONWWI
-- .• \r/�J -'\>.� �., .��.!... �.�� :: a i". ,..,aid-�a.:�. �
E<K/��'.t4•:s�1.%���`�`w'`•:wage!���`s��;N1�-�iw�.�`,... - �:..�'•�II� ,�'�{� �;,�':a, ��4� "� 9f wr,+a•�f/
Ki
El UT1B (3.4 Ac) r }rr
` 0 UT1C (6.3 Ac)
Irl UT1Ca (4.5 Ac) .; Vin',-
UT1D (22.8 Ac) s ". • r �FjG�, Q\J
�UT1Da (2.1 Ac)71
UT1E (3.3 Ac)yn
UT1F (15.9 Ac)
t s� �• //
Q UT1Fa (5.1 Ac) RI �f
UT1G (3.2 Ac) -
UT1H 5.2 Ac
UT2 (29.4 Ac)
Topographic Contours (2') �4 . ; �f R �
Alamance/Chatham County Line '"" ;� �' k'•+r
.X
Chatham County ,
/Z 11'6_iiV_019
.::::.
}hk
.,.Acl ......... '
Y
k;' ki
i,
au
.. ....:. ISA°I
Itv
.jn[ }�
"I! 13 Aerial Photography'' : _ .., w - ,. J lei, M ��+-i.ra^'�•-q�atp
Figure 7a Watershed Map
WILDLANDS 0 750 Feet Pine Hill Branch Site
ENGINEERING l I I I I Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Cape Fear Basin 03030002
Alamance and Chatham Counties, NC

Figure 7b Watershed Map
WILD LANDS 0 750 Feet South Fork Site
ENGINEERING I I I I I Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Cape Fear Basin 03030002
Chatham County, NC

;�, � '- �/ � r; 'p�`f' %i�►`��-. �9 a?pow-
� .. -. .».�-�' F /y'Ckw...;.eFP . * /:: •+1►.-�r:r,�,� r i+;, r}^� , �q,.e
Project Streams
�ti
Non -Project Streams
., .t. ar rySyb' fid«e '$ JRW a�
UTI (275.4 Ac) ° j�
UT2 (199.2 Ac)
UzW
7 •. / `' 1 �1 /�`,' ;*�' =�
,:
UT2A (19.9 Ac) . �'; � � �� �" �� ,� �, ° " _.,. -� ,°.., _ ,,,,
" UT3 48.9 AC % I ) ��
�i Topographic Contours (2') ., ,,/ �-.;--�,� � er �� - �' � ..::::::::::.. •. ,�
� � � ..�' �."�`:.~ ��' - `�"�"', kms. J'�i' �•��'� "^� i � : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : �"`a I
=.rte. / ,Y. ��` � � k •'py�r' � t. _tt A., e "`Y '
l
:
�I7ft 15,
1
::.
d ,
. w S
, r
✓� � .. _ x IIS. " ,y,�� n ,. �i�YA I��",P `
Isi
J 00 RN _'N��
CS
ky
wt t rr'1 t'✓ Vii*_ ay!m'
-"' ',. - �" k7"� 'w "Y:o '�,"`Y� -�z `gip" '{� • i,'v ° o �.�/ I�' ^'�'k"rl` a 4'�...., !� �'__.�.J \',�
/,-�' 'T•rg. :?�ro4,:ai2 Sor'^pi'�rrg,� e/
00
' Icy. � / ..,,,+.,� � � � ���• „_^•, - • �`' nna -
� a � '� ..t ���II � � �� � � � �^'•
,�;Olt
���x _ *mei?•
r;. •. ,:r! i`" s ��0 ! I7�� � ... _: � (i�'8,f� ' �.'t�' \�;\ �I �Fy+: �'�. ... o�.�vvy;',
,
\
10
'��'\��L,`(+
�a1`1R�'L
-
�•, a L
, f',,:: «.:. - .�' 'r� �g ,i : �.•..-:.,��, -dN '?,6` �. J! �f «� : ��
r �
:,,30 -
.r.,�1
�' k
♦ moi' $4/ a r,) r, ..: :i'. .. w .-�-- 'ti�.-_ Y•: �'. $`' _.. SC In,P : t' ..;.. .:., ,_ ., �`v,-1w
_ ;. p - . �` �; rr�,' rt `"*- .:.,� .,. �. , :�... ., \ ' seas•.: a0'.., a,, ..r,r `. , r P , <'*,� p +� i '1d �.' -�� . \ , ti' �..� % % '-'^;:. „� -
'lIF
• • • . • ��°'�', /�"�` ,_' s . �' �..� L
4'4
� e
WILDLANDS 0 750 Feet t ENGINEERING I I I I I
Figure 7c Watershed Map
Bethel Branch Site
Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Cape Fear Basin 03030002
Chatham County, NC

C,J Proposed Bank Site
1=1 Proposed Conservation Easement
— Project Streams
Project Soils
GaC - Georgeville silt loam, 6-10%
GbC3 - Georgeville silt loam, Tarrus, 6-10%
GeC2 - Georgeville silt loam, 2-8%
GcD - Goldston channery silt loam, 10-15%
GcE - Goldston channery silt loam, 15-25%
GoC - Goldston-Badin complex, 2-15%
[ HdB - Herndon silt loam, 2-6%
F HdC2 - Herndon silt loam, 6-10%
HdD2 - Herndon silt loam, 10-15%
4 Lc - Local alluvial land, poorly drained
NaB - Nanford-Badin complex, 2-6%
NaC - Nanford-Badin complex, 6-10%
NaD - Nanford-Badin complex, 10-15%
e
H d D 2
HdC2
_. 7
kill! h -b
- Hd_ - CD—
Hd
GaC
C •i�:
�"GbC3
GeC2
�Ilk
4•
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Figure 8a Soils Map
0 350 Feet Pine Hill Branch Site
Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Cape Fear River Basin 03030002
Alamance and Chatham Counties, NC

i
i
C,J Proposed Bank Site
Ci Proposed Conservation Easement
— Project Streams
Project Soils
'�'i ` C hA
ChA - Chewacla and Wehadkee soils, 0-2%
CmB - Cid-Lignum complex, 2-6% C
GoC - Goldston-Badin complex, 2-15%
NaB - Nanford-Badin complex, 2-6%
NaC - Nanford-Badin complex, 6-10%
WILDLANDS 0 350 Feet
ENGINEERING I I I I I
•
Figure 8b Soils Map
South Fork Site
Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Cape Fear River Basin 03030002
Chatham County, NC

Proposed Bank Site
Proposed Conservation Easement
Project Streams
Project Soils
CmB - Cid-Lignum complex, 2-6%
GeC2 - Georgeville silt loam, 2-8% 0`♦,r
NaC - Nanford-Badin complex, 6-10%
W - Water
GgC2
i <-
.. of �
.44
,,1� Al
Nat
ry�y r
a �=
7
!� '�'�' ��,.. * * k day. ' �. u • �� 1
'10 "` n� ?;_ ,,, >1 is •
r� r .A
o i
WILDLANDS 0 350 Feet
ENGINEERING I I I I I
NaC`n
NaC�r
• w
•
•
• A
Figure 8c Soils Map
Bethel Branch Site
Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Cape Fear River Basin 03030002
Chatham County, NC

Figure 9a FEMA Flood Map
WILD LANDS 0 350 Feet Pine Hill Branch Site
ENGINEERING I I I I I Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Cape Fear River Basin 03030002
Alamance and Chatham Counties, NC

Figure 9b FEMA Flood Map
WILD LANDS 0 350 Feet South Fork Site
ENGINEERING I I I I I Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Cape Fear River Basin 03030002
Chatham County, NC

Figure 9c FEMA Flood Map
bm WILD LANDS 0 350 Feet Bethel Branch Site
ENGINEERING I I I I I Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Cape Fear River Basin 03030002
Chatham County, NC

Proposed Bank Site
LProposed Conservation Easement
Deed Restriction
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
Stream Preservation
BMP
Non -Project Streams
—" Alamance/Chatham County Line
faI ftt'I
WkWILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
r
Figure 10a Concept Map
0 350 Feet Pine Hill Branch Site
I Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Cape Fear River Basin 03030002
Alamance and Chatham Counties, NC
i
i
.. ..
................
I r y c;
Figure 10a Concept Map
0 350 Feet Pine Hill Branch Site
I Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Cape Fear River Basin 03030002
Alamance and Chatham Counties, NC

Figure 10b Concept Map
zw
WILD LANDS 0 350 Feet t
South Fork Site
ENGINEERING I I I I I Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Cape Fear River Basin 03030002
Chatham County, NC

Figure 10c Concept Map
WWILDLANDS 0 350 Feet Bethel Branch Site
ENGINEERING I i i i I Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Cape Fear River Basin 03030002
Chatham County, NC

APPENDIX A
LANDOWNER AUTHORIZATION FORMS

Landowner Authorization Form
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRITION:
Deed Book: Page: County: CHkt\kk�\ A+ 4Mks�t
Ibbbi'3e85 ii6ol0%6
Street Address: C'6 re 4- C_k"�p ,cc
Property Owner (please print):
T7Ec, G y ua r.%Z� (
The undersigned, registered property owner(s) of the above property, do hereby authorize the NC
Division of Mitigation Services, the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and
the US Army Corps of Engineers, their employees, agents or assigns to have reasonable access to
the above referenced property for the evaluation of the property as a potential stream, wetland
and/or riparian buffer mitigation project, including conducting stream and/or wetland
determinations and delineations, as well as issuance and acceptance of any required permit(s) or
certification(s).
Property Owners(s) Address:
Property Owner Telephone Number:
f/We hereby certify the above information to be true and accurate to the best of my/our knowledge.
(Property Owner Auty4rized Signature)
zD/L,o
(Date)
(Property Owner Authorized Signature) (Date)

Landowner Authorization Form
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRITION:
Deed Book: Page: County: CHt+cw.
t3l'9 t5z3Ij
I -lb i Wbs
Street Address: T&�`c`7l
Property Owner (please print): ttikV_.p U,sr�,,sL1
The undersigned, registered property owner(s) of the above property, do hereby authorize the NC
Division of Mitigation Services, the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and
the US Army Corps of Engineers, their employees, agents or assigns to have reasonable access to
the above referenced property for the evaluation of the properly as a potential stream, wetland
and/or riparian buffer mitigation project, includingconducting stream and/or wetland
determinations and delineations, as well as issuance and acceptance of any required permit(s) or
certification(s).
Property Owners(s) Address: 1't -r-I SaA%"N-j Lky VL" Vz S<n I show cAe v ,, do
Property Owner Telephone Number:
I(We hereby certify the above information to be true and accurate to the best of my/our knowledge.
Owner
(Date)
(Property Owner Authorized Signature) (Date)

Landowner Authorization Form
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRITION:
Deed Book:
Page:
County:
153"A
16%\
CWh �A«�
295 9
lobi.
k AS
d $Zb
Cur4'C.vi.<M
Street Address:
Property Owner (please print):
The undersigned, registered property owner(s) of the above property, do hereby authorize the NC
Division of Mitigation Services, the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and
the US Army Corps of Engineers, their employees, agents or assigns to have reasonable access to
the above referenced property for the evaluation of the property as a potential stream, wetland
and/or riparian buffer mitigation project, including conducting stream and/or wetland
determinations and delineations, as well as issuance and acceptance of any required permit(s) or
certification(s).
Property Owners(s) Address: t\`lo %-'oo� tz b, D C -r, F �� Z1SVq
Property Owner Telephone Number: q\ °t `'1 °%5- 'i'bo5
f/We hereby certify the above information to be true and accurate to the best of my/our knowledge.
'e)
(Property Owner Authorized Signature) (Date)

APPENDIX B
EXISTING CONDITIONS GEOMORPHIC DATA

Pine Hill Branch
Site: XS1 Riffle LIT1 E
-
Riffle
10
9
g..
7
6
0
M 5 -.
>
a) 4
------------------------------------------
-------------------------------- --------------------------------------------
w
3
2
1
0
0 5 10
15 20 25 30 35 40
Width
Bankfull Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
0.4 x-section area (ft.sq.)
4.0 W flood prone area (ft)
2.5 width (ft)
1.6 entrenchment ratio
0.2 mean depth (ft)
4.2 low bank height (ft)
0.3 max depth (ft)
13.4 low bank height ratio
2.7 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.1 hyd radi (ft)
15.4 width-depth ratio

Pine Hill Branch
Site: XS2 Riffle UT1 Reach 1
-
Riffle
10
9
8
7
6
0
5
4
W
-------------------
------------------------------------
- ------ -------------------------------------------------
3
2
1
0
0 5 10
15 20 25 30 35
Width
Bankfull Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
2.8 x -section area (ft.sq.)
5.0 W flood prone area (ft)
4.6 width (ft)
1.1 entrenchment ratio
0.6 mean depth (ft)
2.5 low bank height (ft)
0.9 max depth (ft)
2.9 low bank height ratio
5.9 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.5 hyd radi (ft)
7.6 width -depth ratio

Pine Hill Branch
Site: XS3 Pool
Pool
10
9 ..
8 ..
7..
0 6 ..
5 ..
LU U 4 ..
3
2
-
1
0
0 5 10 15
20 25 30 35 40 45
Width
Bankfull Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
4.6 x -section area (ft.sq.)
7.7 W flood prone area (ft)
6.9 width (ft)
1.1 entrenchment ratio
0.7 mean depth (ft)
1.7 low bank height (ft)
1.0 max depth (ft)
1.8 low bank height ratio
7.5 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.6 hyd radi (ft)
10.4 width -depth ratio

Pine Hill Branch
Site: XS4
Riffle - UT1D Reach 2
Riffle
10
9
8
7
- -
6
0
5
>
w 4
-
-
3
2
1
0
0 5 10 15
20
25 30 35 40 45 50
Width
Bankfull Dimensions
Flood
Dimensions
1.6 x -section area (ft.sq.)
5.4 W flood prone area (ft)
4.7 width (ft)
1.1 entrenchment ratio
0.3 mean depth (ft)
2.2 low bank height (ft)
0.5 max depth (ft)
4.5 low bank height ratio
5.0 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.3 hyd
radi (ft)
13.5 width -depth ratio

Pine Hill Branch Site: XS5 Pool - UT1 D Reach 2
Riffle
10
9 —
8
7
0 6
5
4
W
- -------------------------------------------
3
2
1
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width
Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions
3.6 x -section area (ft.sq.) 5.7 W flood prone area (ft)
4.5 width (ft) 1.3 entrenchment ratio
0.8 mean depth (ft) 3.1 low bank height (ft)
1.1 max depth (ft) 2.9 low bank height ratio
5.8 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.6 hyd radi (ft)
5.5 width -depth ratio

Pine Hill Branch
Site: XS6 Riffle UTI Reach I
-
Riffle
10
9
8
7
6
c
0
4
w
3_
-----------------=------
-
----- -----------------------------------------------------------------
2
0
0 5 10
15 20 25 30 35 40
Width
Bankfull Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
2.8 x-section area (ft.sq.)
6.4 W flood prone area (ft)
4.4 width (ft)
1.5 entrenchment ratio
0.6 mean depth (ft)
2.1 low bank height (ft)
0.9 max depth (ft)
2.3 low bank height ratio
5.2 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.5 hyd radi (ft)
6.8 width-depth ratio

Pine Hill Branch
Site: XS7 Pool
Riffle
10
9
8
-
7
-
-
c 6
0
- -
-
> 5
-
m 4
w
3
------------------------------
---------------
------- --------------------------------------------------------
2
1
0
0 5 10
15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Width
Bankfull Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
2.7 x -section area (ft.sq.)
9.4 W flood prone area (ft)
5.3 width (ft)
1.8 entrenchment ratio
0.5 mean depth (ft)
2.3 low bank height (ft)
1.0 max depth (ft)
2.2 low bank height ratio
6.1 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.4 hyd radi (ft)
10.3 width -depth ratio

Pine Hill Branch
Site: XS8 Riffle UT1F Reach
2
-
Riffle
10
9
8
7..
6
0
> 5
a) 4
w
—
-
2
1
0
0 5 10
15 20 25 30 35 40
Width
Bankfull Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
1.2 x -section area (ft.sq.)
6.6 W flood prone area (ft)
4.8 width (ft)
1.4 entrenchment ratio
0.2 mean depth (ft)
2.8 low bank height (ft)
0.3 max depth (ft)
8.4 low bank height ratio
4.9 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.2 hyd radi (ft)
19.6 width -depth ratio

Pine Hill Branch Site: XS9 Pool
Pool
10
9
8
7
0
6
5 -
m 4
w ------ --------
------------------------------------ ------------------ --------------------------------------------------
3-
2
1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Width
Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions
1.2 x -section area (ft.sq.) 3.8 W flood prone area (ft)
3.7 width (ft) 1.0 entrenchment ratio
0.3 mean depth (ft) 3.4 low bank height (ft)
0.4 max depth (ft) 8.8 low bank height ratio
4.2 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.3 hyd radi (ft)
11.8 width -depth ratio

Pine Hill Branch
Site:
1 Riffle - UTI Reach 2
Riffle
10
9 ..
8 ..
7 ..
c 6
0
5
LU 4 ..
3..
2..
1
0
0
5 10 15
20
25 30 35 40 45 50
Width
Bankfull
Dimensions
Flood
Dimensions
4.2
x -section area (ft.sq.)
11.8 W flood prone area (ft)
10.5
width (ft)
1.1
entrenchment ratio
0.4
mean depth (ft)
2.9 low bank height (ft)
0.5
max depth (ft)
5.8 low bank height ratio
10.9
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.4
hyd radi (ft)
26.3
width -depth ratio

Pine Hill Branch
Site: XSI I Riffle UTI G
-
Riffle
10
9
8
7
0 6
5
°' 4
w
3 -.
2
------- -------------------------------
--------------
1
0
0 5 10
15 20 25 30 35
Width
Bankfull Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
0.3 x -section area (ft.sq.)
2.2 W flood prone area (ft)
1.6 width (ft)
1.4 entrenchment ratio
0.2 mean depth (ft)
1.9 low bank height (ft)
0.3 max depth (ft)
6.3 low bank height ratio
1.8 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.2 hyd radi (ft)
7.2 width -depth ratio

Pine Hill Branch
Site: XS12 Riffle UTIH
-
Riffle
10
9
8
7
6
c
0
5
W 4-
2
0
0 5 10
15 20 25 30 35
Width
Bankfull Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
0.6 x -section area (ft.sq.)
8.5 W flood prone area (ft)
5.3 width (ft)
1.6 entrenchment ratio
0.1 mean depth (ft)
1.4 low bank height (ft)
0.3 max depth (ft)
5.7 low bank height ratio
5.3 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.1 hyd radi (ft)
46.2 width -depth ratio

Pine Hill Branch
Site: XS13 Riffle Pine Hill Branch
Reach I
-
Riffle
10
9
8
7
6
c
0
>
2 4
W
------------------ -----------
---
------- ---------
--------------------
---------------
3
72
—
1
000
0
0 5 10
15 20 25 30 35
Width
Bankfull Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
14.8 x -section area (ft.sq.)
14.6 W flood prone area (ft)
11.5 width (ft)
1.3 entrenchment ratio
1.3 mean depth (ft)
3.7 low bank height (ft)
1.6 max depth (ft)
2.3 low bank height ratio
13.1 wetted parimeter (ft)
1.1 hyd radi (ft)
8.9 width -depth ratio

Pine Hill Branch
Site:
XS14 Riffle UT2
-
Riffle
10
9
-
8
--
7
-
c 6
0
5_
w4
-
3
------------
------------------
------------- -----------------------------------
2
1
0
0
5
10
15 20 25
Width
Bankfull
Dimensions
Flood
Dimensions
1.9
x-section area (ft.sq.)
5.5 W flood prone area (ft)
3.0
width (ft)
1.9 entrenchment ratio
0.6
mean depth (ft)
3.2 low bank height (ft)
0.9
max depth (ft)
3.5 low bank height ratio
4.0
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.5
hyd radi (ft)
4.7
width-depth ratio

South
Fork
Site: XSI Riffle - UTI Reach I
Riffle
10
9
8
7..
6
0
>
a�
5
4
w
3
-------------------------------
- -------------------------------------------
2-
OLf1
0
0 5 10
15 20 25 30 35 40
Width
Bankfull Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
4.4 x-section area (ft.sq.)
14.3 W flood prone area (ft)
13.5 width (ft)
1.1 entrenchment ratio
0.3 mean depth (ft)
1.6 low bank height (ft)
0.5 max depth (ft)
3.1 low bank height ratio
14.0 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.3 hyd radi (ft)
41.4 width-depth ratio

South Fork Site:
XS2
Riffle - UTI B Reach I
Riffle
10
9
8
7
6
0
5
4
W
3-
!
—
2
1
0
.
0
5 10
15
20 25 30 35 40
Width
Bankfull
Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
4.3
x -section area (ft.sq.)
9.1
W flood prone area (ft)
6.3
width (ft)
1.5
entrenchment ratio
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.6
low bank height (ft)
0.8
max depth (ft)
1.9
low bank height ratio
7.4
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.6
hyd radi (ft)
9.1
width -depth ratio

South
Fork
Site: XS4
Pool
Pool
10
9
8
7
6
0
5
>
°'
w
4
-----------------------
r --- ---
--
------------------------------------
3
2
1
0
0
10 20
30 40 50 60
Width
Bankfull
Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
28.2
x -section area (ft.sq.)
25.0
W flood prone area (ft)
24.0
width (ft)
1.0
entrenchment ratio
1.2
mean depth (ft)
4.3
low bank height (ft)
1.7
max depth (ft)
2.6
low bank height ratio
24.9
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.1
hyd radi (ft)
20.5
width -depth ratio

South Fork Site:
XS5 Riffle - UTIA
Riffle
10
9
8
7
6
c
0
m
5
W 4
- -
3-
2
------------------------------------------------
---
1...
0
0 5 10
15 20 25 30 35
Width
Bankfull Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
1.2 x-section area (ft.sq.)
4.5 W flood prone area (ft)
1.3 width (ft)
3.4 entrenchment ratio
0.9 mean depth (ft)
1.6 low bank height (ft)
1.4 max depth (ft)
1.2 low bank height ratio
3.3 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.4 hyd radi (ft)
1.5 width-depth ratio

South Fork
Site: XS6 Riffle - UTI F
Riffle
10
9
8
7
6
c
0
4
w
3
2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- -- - - ---------------------------
1-
0
0 5
10 15 20 25 30
Width
Bankfull Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
1.3 x -section area (ft.sq.)
3.9 W flood prone area (ft)
3.1 width (ft)
1.2 entrenchment ratio
0.4 mean depth (ft)
1.4 low bank height (ft)
0.5 max depth (ft)
2.7 low bank height ratio
3.5 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.4 hyd radi (ft)
7.7 width -depth ratio

South
Fork
Site: XS7
Riffle - UTI Reach 4
Riffle
10
9
-
-
-
8
-
-
7
-
-
0
6
_.
w
5_
4
---------------------------------------------
-
--------
- ---------------------------
3
2
1
0
0
5 10 15
20
25 30 35 40 45 50
Width
Bankfull
Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
15.2
x -section area (ft.sq.)
18.4
W flood prone area (ft)
13.9
width (ft)
1.3
entrenchment ratio
1.1
mean depth (ft)
3.4
low bank height (ft)
1.6
max depth (ft)
2.2
low bank height ratio
14.9
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.0
hyd radi (ft)
12.7
width -depth ratio

South
Fork
Site: XS8
Pool
Pool
10
9
8..
7..
6
0
a�
5 _.
4
---------------------------------------------------------
---
----- -
Ej
3
2
—
1
0
0
5 10 15
20
25 30 35 40 45 50
Width
Bankfull
Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
19.5
x -section area (ft.sq.)
16.7
W flood prone area (ft)
15.4
width (ft)
1.1
entrenchment ratio
1.3
mean depth (ft)
4.0
low bank height (ft)
1.7
max depth (ft)
2.3
low bank height ratio
17.2
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.1
hyd radi (ft)
12.2
width -depth ratio

South Fork Site:
XS9
Riffle - UTI Reach 3
Riffle
10
9
8
7
6
0
is 5
°' 4
w
-
-
3
--
2 -
-
-- --------------------------
-----------------------------------------
1
0
.
0
10 20
30 40 50 60
Width
Bankfull
Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
14.5
x -section area (ft.sq.)
20.5
W flood prone area (ft)
14.7
width (ft)
1.4
entrenchment ratio
1.0
mean depth (ft)
2.3
low bank height (ft)
1.2
max depth (ft)
1.9
low bank height ratio
15.7
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.9
hyd radi (ft)
14.9
width -depth ratio

South Fork Site:
XSI i
Pool
10
9 .-
8 .-
7
C: 6 .-
5.-
w 4.-
3--
-----------------------------------------------
------------ ----
---------------------------
----
2
1
0
0 5 10
15 20 25 30
Width
Bankfull Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
1.7 x -section area (ft.sq.)
6.4 W flood prone area (ft)
4.4 width (ft)
1.5 entrenchment ratio
0.4 mean depth (ft)
1.8 low bank height (ft)
0.6 max depth (ft)
3.0 low bank height ratio
4.7 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.4 hyd radi (ft)
11.1 width -depth ratio

Bethel
Branch
Site: XSI
Riffle - UT1 Upstream
Riffle
10
9
8
I
c
g..
i
0
>
a�
w
5
4
--------------
-_-----_----------
3
2
1
�
0
0
5 10
15 20 25 30 35 40
Width
Bankfull
Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
8.7
x -section area (ft.sq.)
13.5 W flood prone area (ft)
12.0
width (ft)
1.1 entrenchment ratio
0.7
mean depth (ft)
3.7 low bank height (ft)
0.9
max depth (ft)
3.9 low bank height ratio
12.5
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.7
hyd radi (ft)
16.4
width -depth ratio

Bethel Branch
Site: XS2
Pool - UT1 Upstream
Pool
10
9
8
7
6
0
5
>
2 4
--
w
3
2
1
0
.
0
5 10
15
20 25 30 35 40
Width
Bankfull
Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
9.2
x -section area (ft.sq.)
10.8
W flood prone area (ft)
8.7
width (ft)
1.2
entrenchment ratio
1.1
mean depth (ft)
4.5
low bank height (ft)
1.4
max depth (ft)
3.3
low bank height ratio
10.0
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.9
hyd radi (ft)
8.3
width -depth ratio

Bethel Branch
Site: XS4 Riffle - UT1 Middle
Riffle
10
9
8
7
6
0
5
°' 4
w
3 _.
2
0
0 5 10
15 20 25 30 35 40
Width
Bankfull Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
5.8 x -section area (ft.sq.) --- W flood prone area (ft)
7.2 width (ft)
--- entrenchment ratio
0.8 mean depth (ft)
1.2 low bank height (ft)
1.2 max depth (ft)
1.0 low bank height ratio
8.6 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.7 hyd radi (ft)
9.0 width -depth ratio

Bethel Branch
Site: XS5 Riffle - UT1 Lower
Riffle
10
9
8
7
6
c
0
5
0 4-
w
3
2
---------------------------
-----------------------------------
----
v
1
1
0
�� =e=.t4
I
0 5 10
15 20 25 30 35 40
Width
Bankfull Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
8.7 x-section area (ft.sq.)
--- W flood prone area (ft)
6.9 width (ft)
--- entrenchment ratio
1.3 mean depth (ft)
2.0 low bank height (ft)
1.4 max depth (ft)
1.4 low bank height ratio
8.8 wetted parimeter (ft)
1.0 hyd radi (ft)
5.5 width-depth ratio

Bethel Branch
Site: XS6
Pool - UTI Lower
Pool
10
9
II
8
7
6
c
0
4
w
3
2
1
0
0 5 10 15
20
25 30 35 40 45
50
Width
Bankfull Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
10.3 x -section area (ft.sq.)
13.4
W flood prone area (ft)
9.0 width (ft)
1.5
entrenchment ratio
1.1 mean depth (ft)
3.3
low bank height (ft)
1.8 max depth (ft)
1.8
low bank height ratio
10.4 wetted parimeter (ft)
1.0 hyd radi (ft)
8.0 width -depth ratio
II

Bethel Branch
Site: XS7 Riffle UT2 Reach I
-
Riffle
10
9
8
7
C: 6
0
5_
w 4
3
2
-------------------------------------------
----------
1
0
0 5 10
15 20 25 30 35 40
Width
Bankfull Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
4.8 x -section area (ft.sq.)
--- W flood prone area (ft)
6.6 width (ft)
--- entrenchment ratio
0.7 mean depth (ft)
1.8 low bank height (ft)
1.0 max depth (ft)
1.8 low bank height ratio
7.5 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.6 hyd radi (ft)
9.1 width -depth ratio

Bethel Branch
Site: XS8 Pool
Pool
10
9
8..
7..
6
0
5 _.
4
w
3
------------------------------
----
---------------------
2
1
0
0 5
10 15 20 25 30
Width
Bankfull Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
5.6 x -section area (ft.sq.)
13.5 W flood prone area (ft)
7.8 width (ft)
1.7 entrenchment ratio
0.7 mean depth (ft)
2.5 low bank height (ft)
1.1 max depth (ft)
2.2 low bank height ratio
8.3 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.7 hyd radi (ft)
10.8 width -depth ratio

Bethel Branch
Site: XS9 Riffle UT2 Reach 2
-
Riffle
10
9
8
7
6
0
5
4
W
---------------------------------- ------
------
-------------------------------
3
2
1
-
0
.
0 5 10
15 20 25 30 35 40
Width
Bankfull Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
7.0 x -section area (ft.sq.)
--- W flood prone area (ft)
7.6 width (ft)
--- entrenchment ratio
0.9 mean depth (ft)
2.6 low bank height (ft)
1.2 max depth (ft)
2.2 low bank height ratio
8.6 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.8 hyd radi (ft)
8.2 width -depth ratio

Bethel Branch
Site: XSI 1 Riffle UT3
-
Riffle
10
9
8
7
6
0
5
°' 4
w
3
2
-----------------------
-------------------
---------
-----------------------
-----------------------------
1
0
0 5 10
15 20 25 30
Width
Bankfull Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
2.7 x-section area (ft.sq.)
7.8 W flood prone area (ft)
3.0 width (ft)
2.6 entrenchment ratio
0.9 mean depth (ft)
1.4 low bank height (ft)
1.1 max depth (ft)
1.4 low bank height ratio
4.4 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.6 hyd radi (ft)
3.4 width-depth ratio

Bethel Branch
Site: XS1 2 Pool
Pool
10
9-
8
7
6
c
0
5
a� 4
W
3
-
-- ------------------------------------------------------------
2
1...
0
0 5 10
15 20 25 30
Width
Bankfull Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
3.7 x-section area (ft.sq.)
12.0 W flood prone area (ft)
3.6 width (ft)
3.3 entrenchment ratio
1.0 mean depth (ft)
2.1 low bank height (ft)
1.4 max depth (ft)
1.5 low bank height ratio
5.0 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.7 hyd radi (ft)
3.5 width-depth ratio

Pine Hill Branch Site - Pine Hill Branch
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
Silt/Clay
Sand
90
Gravel
Cobble
r
Boulder
Bedrock
80
70
AMY
0
y 60
c�
A
,
50
U
Op
v 40M
U
G1
30I./1"
20
Aello
/A/
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
• Reach Summary ---w--- Riffle Summary --f Pool Summary

Pine Hill Branch Site - UT1
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
Silt/Clay
Sand
90
Gravel
Cobble
Boulder
'
Bedrock
80
,
70
o
o
;
y 60
c�
Or
50
,
U
,
v 40
,
U
sr
/G1
,
30
,
20
10
1A
11,'
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
• Reach Summary ---0--- Riffle Summary --f Pool Summary

Pine Hill Branch Site - UT1D
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
Silt/Clay
Sand
90
Gravel
Cobble
Boulder
X
Bedrock
80
A'
70
;
o
y 60
01�
c�
50
U
v 40
U
'
v
r
2
30 -
1
1
O•
-41
20
10
0
1
-t---
-�-
-"
"
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
F• Reach Summary ---0--- Riffle Summary --f Pool Summary

Pine Hill Branch Site - UT1F
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
Sand
-
Gravel
-
oo
90
- j
Cobble
—
Boulder
Bedrock
80
,
,
of0
.1
'
70
.-.
y 60
c�
50
U
v 40
U
v
30
20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
• Reach Summary ---w--- Riffle Summary --f Pool Summary
Silt/Clay
Sand
-
Gravel
-
- j
Cobble
—
Boulder
Bedrock
,
,
.1
'

Pine Hill Branch Site - UT2
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
- -
Silt/Clay
Sand
Aoo•Ar—.A•
'
�
90
Gravel
.
Cobble
Boulder
/
�
Bedrock
80
70
;
vVo
y 60
,
50
'
U
'
v 40
,
v
�
R.
30
,
. 1
20
10AR-1--
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
• Reach Summary ---w--- Riffle Summary --f Pool Summary

South Fork Site - UT1
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
Silt/Clay Sand
90
80
70
0
y 60
c�
50
U
v
40
U
or- It
sr
G1
30
Ar— AD
20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
F 0 Reach Summary ---w--- Riffle Summary --f Pool Suma
mry
Gravel
�
Cobble
Boulder
�.
Bedrock
T
i
,

South Fork Site - UT1A
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
Silt/Clay Sand
90 Gravel '
— Cobble
Boulder
Bedrock
00,
80 '
_r
70
o
y 60
c�
50
U
v 40
U
sr
G1
30
20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
• Reach Summary ---w--- Riffle Summary --f • Pool Summary

South Fork Site - UT1E
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
Silt/Clay Sand
90 Gravel
Cobble
� r• - Boulder
Bedrock
80
70
o
o ;
y 60 r
50
U
v 40
000
10
30
IC x
20
lo
10
lit
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
• Reach Summary ---w--- Riffle Summary --f • Pool Summary

South Fork Site - UT1F
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
Silt/Clay Sand
90 Gravel
Cobble
Boulder
Bedrock
80 ,
70
v 60
c�
50
U •A
v 40 '
U
v
30 Ar
20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
• Reach Summary ---w--- Riffle Summary --f • Pool Summary

Bethel Branch Site - UT1 Upstream
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
Silt/Clay
Sand
90
Gravel
Cobble
Boulder
Bedrock
80
70
Li
r
y 60
50
U
v 40
,
U
v
�
�
30
20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
• Reach Summary ---w--- Riffle Summary --f Pool Summary

Bethel Branch Site - UT1 Downstream
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
Silt/Clay
90 Sand Gravel
Cobble
• Boulder
Bedrock
80
,
,
00, Aoo
70
rp
v 60 '
.Ae"'O"
r,
50
U
v 40
U i
sr
v
30
20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
• Reach Summary ---w--- Riffle Summary --f • Pool Summary

Bethel Branch Site - UT2 Reach 1
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
Silt/Clay
Sand
-�
90
Gravel
Cobble
04,
Boulder
Bedrock
80
,
70
0
y 60
s'
0000
50
U
,
v401
1.00111
1
IM
U
G1
�
30
20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
• Reach Summary ---0--- Riffle Summary --f Pool Summary

Bethel Branch Site - UT2 Reach 2
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Gravel
80
70 iJ
y 60Mrl
c�
50
U
0 40
v
U
sr
G1
30
20
10
0 1 1 1 1 1 li I I I I I I I I 1 :1
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
F0 Reach Summary --�--- Riffle Summary --f Pool Summary
Silt/Clay
Sand
�
Cobble
�
Boulder
, ,
, , ,
Bedrock
, ,

Bethel Branch Site - UT3
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
A:
Silt/Clay
Sand
90
Gravel
IM
Cobble
Al
Boulder
Bedrock
80
70
'
y 60
50
,
U
,
v 40
,
U
sr
G1
Ar--
�
f
30
20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
• Reach Summary ---0--- Riffle Summary --f Pool Summary

APPENDIX C
PROJECT SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

-
4P`C�h.��
-
5
CC
$t x

Pine Hill Branch Site: UT16 I Pine Hill Branch Site: UT1E
Pine Hill Branch Site: UT1F Reach 1 1 Pine Hill Branch Site: UT2
CANE CREEK UMBRELLA MITIGATION BANK
Appendix B: Project Site Photographs

South Fork Site: UT1 Reach 1
South Fork Site: UTI Reach 2
South Fork Site: UTI Reach 4
CANE CREEK UMBRELLA MITIGATION BANK
Appendix B: Project Site Photographs
South Fork Site: UT1 Reach 2
South Fork Site: UTI Reach 3
South Fork Site: UT1A

South Fork Site: UTiB Reach 2 1 South Fork Site: UTiC I
South Fork Site: UT1E Reach 1
CANE CREEK UMBRELLA MITIGATION BANK
Appendix B: Project Site Photographs
South Fork Site: UT1E Reach 2

A
_ t• M 1
33rrrr.. 2 ,
WWr t
01 �-
��
y / i
.fir p8 fir,` Y '
i
4Fv
g /h c6
.. 1 �ya� • i ..�-
5
�r
�Y
im
Awv I,•r�►-.
.. 1 �ya� • i ..�-
5
�r
14*2t.
im
Awv I,•r�►-.
�r
14*2t.

Bethel Branch Site: UT2 Reach 2
Bethel Branch Site: UT3
Bethel Branch Site: UT3 I Bethel Branch Site: UT3 BMP
CANE CREEK UMBRELLA MITIGATION BANK
Appendix B: Project Site Photographs

APPENDIX D
NCDWR STREAM CLASSIFICATION FORMS

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4,11
Date: G/z4(1 ( _ ProjectlSite: , 1
rnr +
Evaluator: f County:
Tota! Points:. Stream Determination i
Sham is at least intermittent {
if 2:19 orperennial if a 3o3 Ephemeral Intermittent
Latitude: �, s. 6# 6 1 6 0
Longitude: _74 G 7o
Other ,I
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= zl . 5
Absent
Weak
Mode
1"' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
-ripple-pool se uence
0
1
2
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
5. Activelrelict floodplain
0
1
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
2
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
2
8. Headcuts
1
2
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = p
.artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions In manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = c�
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
(Q
1
2
14. Leaf litter
.5
1
0.5
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0 .
0.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No 0
C. BiOlo Subtotal = 16 • S
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
0
2
1
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
0
2
1
20. Macrobenthos (nate diversity and abundance)
0
1
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
22. Fish
01
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
25. Algae
0.5
1
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75;
OBL = 1.5
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See
p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
0
D
3
3
3
3
1.5
Yes = 3
3
3
0
1.
Yes 0,
r
3
3
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5

NC DWQ Stream Iduitification roan Version 4.11
Date: 61zq 1(6 Lf
t/Site:
Evaluator: KrJ, lenr County: j
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent Determination {i
ita f9or,perenniallf?30• eral intermittent
Latitude: 2, 5, 54 a ss l
Longitude: 7 d 3 r, .16
Other
e.g. Quad Name: UP
A. Geomor holo (Subtotal= 1 i, 5 1 Absent Weak Moderate
1" Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
3. In -channel structure; ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ri le- ool sequence
0
1
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
5. Active/relict floodplain
1
2
6. Depositional bars or benches
1
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1y
2
2
8. Headcuts
1
2
9. Grade control,
0.5
1
10. Natural valley
0
4.5
1
11. Second or greater order channel
artificial ditches are not rated, see discussions In manual
o =
B. Hydrology Subtotal - 10 .5
12. Presence of Baseflow
01
2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0 .
0 5
1
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
1
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
leo = 4
C. Biology Subtotal = v,
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
20. Macrobenthos (nate diversity and abundance)
p
21. Aquatic Mollusks
p
2
22. Fish0?
0.5
2
1
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
24. Amphibians
(
0.5
1
25. Algae
0
0
1
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
tl•
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
t)
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1.5

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date:;trl.�
Projectfsite:
Latitude: 3 f- 6if o g 77
Evaluator: hP,,J(n
County:
Longitude:
l t!
1
7'9
Total Points:
Stream Deter - circle one)
Other
Stream is at least Intermittent
Ephemeral Perennial
e. 'Quad Name: 1.4 f) A
If 2: 19 or Perennial if 2� 30"
0
1
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =_ i�. )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
a
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
Q
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
1
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
(2)
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
[(}
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
47
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
,'()t
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
FACW = 0.75;
2
3
9. Grade control
01
0.5
1
1
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.0
11. Second or greater order channel
No "0
Yes = 3
Sketch:
a artificial ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 1-<,-)
12. Presence of Baseflow
l 1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1. 1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0� _ 0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
iVo =17
Yes = 3
1
C. Biology Subtotal = 6 z.4
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
1
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0,
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
Q
1
2
3
22. Fish
(6
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
16)
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
'0'
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75;
OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
;.{ (,,, •, . -
, �,, .
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.12
Date: G I z'7 rl6
Project/Site: j!.4 4,11
latitude: 3 s . Est 139-2
Evaluator:(Ze. l
County: C_[}�
Longitude: -7 9 3 s $ sc u
Total Paints;
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other
Stream Is at least intermittentJ9 r
Ephemeral #ntermltten erenniai
e.g. Quad Name:
ifz 19 or erennial Ifo 30*
0
3
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= 17-
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1"' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
0
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
C
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
C016
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
Flo =
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
6
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
Qi
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
11. Second or greater order channel
No=p
Yes = 3
Sketch:
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 2. 4
12. Presence of Baseflow
600
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteriaCO)
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
iJ.
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
C016
1 1 1
1.5
1T. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
M
Flo =
Yes = 3
1.5
t:. Binlnriv fSuhtntal
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
1
0
19. Rooted upland ,plants in strearnbed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
t
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
M
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
L0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75;
OBL = 1.5 ether 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

C, ee jt4Ae" (.0
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: d I Zq 116
Projectf5ite: �� rc �.����
Latitude: 9j,5. s,,t I l e 9
Evaluator:f�Cu
County: harh
Longitude: 3 9d 13,1K
Total Points:
Stream 7s of least Intermittent
Stream peter ' circle one)
Other
cif
if i9 or erennlaf ff � 30• Z 9.2 S
E hemeral terrnitte Perennial
P
e, quad Name,
�
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= 11,", )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18, Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
0
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalwag
0
1
Qz
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ri le- ooi sequence
0j
0.5
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
1 1
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
No = 0
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
Q
1
2
3
7. Recent atluvial deposits
0
a
2
3
8. Headcuts
ACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
(1p
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
C5,
11. Second or greater order channel
No ='0
Yes = 3
Sketch'
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = q, 4 }
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
11
�3�
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
1
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
Co
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
p
1 1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
1Kes
1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal = __jLs s
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
C$
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
(3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
(0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
Cp,
1
2
3
22. Fish
(,0)
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
0
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26.. Wetland plants in strearnbed
ACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods.
See p, 35 of manual.
'C 3uncar Ji,r .,
Notes:
Sketch'

NC DWQ Stream Identification Porro Version 4.11
Date: Gla 4116 Project/Site: P,nc 1 111 Latitude:
Evaluator: County: Longitude:
C11 pft 7 9.3 9G
Total Points:
Stream Is at least Intennittent Stream Deter m' ation.(circle one) Other
ifa19or erennialif�3o- 2 Ephemeral termittent Perennial e. g. QuadName..t4 1Cd
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal=_ ,
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strc
1a' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
(J
3. fn -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
d le- ooi se uence
0
()
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
ill
2
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
t)
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
V
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
2
3
9. Grade controlt7}
0.5
1
3
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.s
r 1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
a arflficial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
o =
Yes 3
B. Hydrology Subtotal =
12. Presence of Baseflow0
1
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
01
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
_
(1+
2
0.5
g
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
(i.5.'
1
0
16. Organic debris lines or piles
(
0.s
11.5
1.5
17. Soil -rased evidence of high water table?
No = 0
(Yes = 3
C. Bloio Subtotal = E, s
18. Fibrous roots In streambed
C3
2
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
0
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0,5
2
1
3
1.5
2 . Crayfish
(o ,
0.5
1
1.5
244. Amphibians
(010.5
1
1.5
25, Algae
0
0.
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75;
OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also ba identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual„
Notes.
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification loan Version 4.11
Date; 6/Z 9 It 6ject/Site: Pro
}�,,rr 44 FIA, 11,11
Evaluator: f�f�h_. County:
r'1
Stream Points: Stream Determination
Stream is at least intermittent i
if>_ 19 or perennial ff ;-> SU* r . S Ephemeral intermittent
Latitude: 35. 6y 16 r 1
Longitude: 7 R 2 to 7
Other
e.g. Quad Name: (4TID
__--__ _..<..__,e„_ 1 s.•.....rvwvv.vs iv lel liUliUPI
B. Hydrology (Subtotal= 9, s
12. Presence of Baseflow
0 1 2
13. iron oxidizing bacteria
0 1" 2
14. Leaf litter
i. 1 0.5
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0 1
16. Organic debris lines or piles
E 0
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
C. Biology Subtotal = 9
18. Fibrous roots in streambed r
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed C3�
20. Macrobenthos (mote diversity and abundance) 0
21. Aquatic Mollusks 0
22. Fish -
23. Crayfish
24. Amphibians 0
25. Algae 0
26. Wetland plants in streambed
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Dotes: UP- ri r _ -1 C r i
Sketch:
2 1
2 1
C1a 2.
1) 2
-
0.5 1
FACW = 0.75, OBL 1.5 Other = 0
3
0
1.5
1.5
0
0
3
3
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5

NC DWQ Stream Identification FormVersion 4,11
Date: t� Zq + 4Ephenleratitelifter'mitten
rofectis e:
Evaluator: rlfni�► t ounty:"
Total Points:
strearn is at feast intermittent tream Derml at%rp
if? 99 orPerennial lf� 3d�
Latitude: 0j 5. g,i 202 4
Longitude: 7 9, 3 4( 3 7
ircle one) Other
Perennial I e.g. Quad Name: (417D,
B. Hydrology Subtotal
12. Presence of Baseflow
Q
1
2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
6
1
2
14. Leaf litter
1.5
0.5
15. Sediment onlants or debris
p
0
0.
15. Organic debris lines or piles
0,5
1
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
c(�o
C. Biology SuXotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3,
2
1
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
�3
2
1
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
t.p
1
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2-
2
22. Fish
{0
0.5
1
23. Crayfish
24. Amphibians
(C�
0.5
1
25. Algae
[0,
0.5
1
28. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75;
OBL 1.5
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Motes:
Sketch:
Yes = 3
3
3
0
1.5
1.5
0
0
3
3
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 6'f'2g/16 Project/site: p,ne
Evaluator: km i,,, county: �,,•�,�,
Points:
Strew 16 2 Stream Determination {w
Stream !s a! least intermittent
If? 19 orperennfal if:' 3P* Ephemeral Intermittent
Latitude: 55. !�tl 3lfr�o
Longitude: -7,7
Other
e.g. Quad Name: L(T-/ C
B. N drolo Subtotal 13 _,._......., �.
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
2
2
3
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0
1
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1 5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
1 5
C. Biala Subtotal
Yes
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)!NFACW
1
0
21. Aquatic Mollusks
2
3
22. Fish
1
3
1.5
23. Crayfish
1
1.5
2�1. Amphibians
CI
1.5
25. Algae
1
26. Wetland plants in streambed
BL = 1.5 ther =
1.5
"perennial streams may also be Identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4,11
Elate: 61x1I1d PraJectlSite: X111
,+,c ,
Evaluator: ('r„�.n r7ra f' County: COA,,
Total Points; Stream Determ atie
Stream is at feast intermittent i
ifs l9vrperenniaHf?:30` 26, 5
L4Ephemeral termitt _AJ
Latitude: , 2 Is y •1
Longitude:
ircle one) Other t -a ra y
Perennial e.g. Quad Name: 4rl f Ib�
B. Hydrology Subtotal = __ ._.._ ........
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
2
14. Leaf litter
1.5
0.5
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0 .
0.
1
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
1
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No
= 0
Yes
C. Bioio Subtotal =?
--
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
(2)
1
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
(3)
2-
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
2
22. Fish
0.5
1
23. Crayfish
0
(0-5
1
24. Amphibians
0
0.5)
25. Algae
0
1
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FAC1N = 0.7 a;
DBL = 1.a� Daher = Q
`perennial streams may also be Identl�ed using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: s, i m_ l , _ . . 11 a
Sketch:
3
0
1.5
1.5
0
0
3
3
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form 'Version 4.11 1/p 616
Date. t; f i ProjectlSite: Laiitude: �u s
Evaluator: County:X r#L n r LongItude: 71.36, 7,73
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent Stream Determination (eir Other
da 19 or erenniaiif 2:30* 3 �( Ephemeral Intermittent erenni e. LlTt r h°�f'"
g. Quad Name:
1 S' r a
ubtotal = q] S
12. Presence of Basefiow
0
1
2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
CCp
2
14. Leaf litter
1.5
®'�
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0 -
0
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0 5
1
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No
= 0
C. BiaP© Sutatotai = r'G
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
20. IMacrobenthos {note diversity and abundance)
0
1
1
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
22. Fish
1sh
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
24. Amphibians
0
;
1
25. Algae
0
1
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75,
OBL M 1.5 C
*perennial streams may also be Identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual,
Notes: M ri /I it r) r
Sketch:
3
0
1.5
1.5
0
0
3
3
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5

NC IIWQ Stream Identification I<orrn Version 4.11
Date: � f f � . ProjectfSite: � � ��
+.4
Evaluator: C�lo� ge 1r County: F4
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent Stream Determinatio circle one)
i6z 99 or erenniarif� 3t)" t� Ephemeral nterrnitierrt'Perennial
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = P. 5_ ) Absent We
1 a'' Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 10 1
3. in -channel structure: ex. rifffe-pool, step-po41,
ripple -pool sequence 0 1
Latitude: 35. gw 35u r
Longitude: p,t , 3 6 71,417 z
Other
e.g. Quad Name: U77 rA
er «rr
Moderate Strom
2 1 t31
Q)
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
2
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
6. Depositional Years or benches
(b.
1
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
2
2
8. Headcuts
0
1-
2
9. Grade control
0
1
10. statural valley
0
0.5
11. &Bcond or greater order channel
H
artiffciai ditches are not rated; see discussions In manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
[
2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
14. Leaf litter
1.F
1
2
0.5
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0
1
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0 5;"
1
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No
0
G. Blelo Subtotal
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
U)
2
1
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
i3
1
21. Aquatic Mollusks
©
2.
22. Fish
0j
0.5
2
1
23. Crayfish
Q
0.5
1
24. Amphibians
0
�-5--1
25. Algae
26. Wetland plants in streambed
'perennial
FACW = 0.75;
DSL 1 1.5 Ott
streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual,
Notes:
Sketch:
Yes = 3
3
3
0
1.5
1.5
fes = 3
0
0
3
3
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: C f 2qt i e. Project/Site:
p
I 1 1 +nc wt°i1 �� jyra, r�
Evaluator: Kc, ��� Hca ' County: r
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent Stream Determination (ci�r e-_
If a 19 or perennial if? 30" ` Ephemeral IntermittenttPere�
Latitude: g5. &4.5u33
Longitude: -79 gg G G
Other
e.g. Quad Name: td 11 G
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= VI . S ]
Absent
Weak
Modei
I" Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
-Y-In-channel
0
2
2
structure: ex. riffle -pool, stein -pool,
ri le- ool sequence
0
!
(�
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
5. Aciive/relict floodplain
0
1
2
6. Depositional bars or benches
CO)
1
2
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
2
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
2
9. Grade control
0
0.5
10. Natural valley
0
0,5
1
11. Second or greater order channel
_.
artificial ditches are not rated: see discussions In manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = s
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
14. Leaf litter
1.9
15. Sediment on plants or debris
D
0.
1
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.
1
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No 0
C. Bioio Subtotal
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
1
19. Hooted upland plants in streambed
2 ,
1
20. Macrabenthos (note diversity and abundance)
Sa2
121.
Aquatic Mollusks
2
22.Fisht7
5
1
23. Crayfish[
0.5
1
24. Amphibians
0
0.
1
25. Algae
0
1
26. Wetland ,plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; 013L = 1.5 ti
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Yes =3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1.5
3
0
1.5
1.5
0
D
3
3
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5

NC DWQ Stream Identification Forni Version 4.11
Date: 61zqIid Project/Site: An'. .j IJ Latitude: 'b 5 671 S6
Evaluator: j�(n�aric� County:
hol,�P+ Longitude:
Total Paints: Stream Deter circle one
Stream Is at Feast intermittent ) other
if? 19 OF perennIal if? 30 Z_ Ephemeral4_9tOrmitterib Perennial e.g. Quad Name: ton q 4 �onh i
A. Geomorjahology {Subtotal =
1 �' +Continuity of channel bed and bank
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
3. In -channel structure: ex. ride -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
4. Particle size of stream substrate --
5. Active/relict floodplain
6. Depositional bars or benches
7. Recent alluvial deposits
8. Headcuts
9. Grade control
10. Natural valley
11. Second or greater order channel
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
Z
D.5
0.5
2
No -- J Yes = 3
3
3
3
3
I

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
i7ate: ci ilzq t 16 Project/Site: lei A �9 r if (3rRp ��
Evaluator: t��n Bch County: (f
Total Points:
stream is at least intermittent stream [determination role-ei
If? 19 orperennlalif? 30* ,� Ephemeral Intermiiierit Perenr
Latitude: 3 5. 16Lf is t 14
Longitude: ,
Other
e.g. Quad Name: uT Z
A. Geo mor hula (subtotal= (`
Absent
Weak
Mode
15, Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ri le- ool sequence
0
1
C
Particle size of stream substrate
4ffRecent
0
1
Active/relictfloodplain
0
2
2
l bars or benches
0
2
ial deposits
(
2
a
1
2
9. Grade control
1 0
0.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
(}
11. Second or greater order channel
No =
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions In manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = `l • S
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
11
2
14. Leaf litter
1
1
0.5
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0 :
16. Organic debris litres or plies
01
1
17, Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No 0
C. Biology Subtotal = V-)
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
19. Rooted upland plants in strearnbed
2
1
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundonce)
0
1�
1
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
2
22. Fish
0 5
2
1
23. Crayfish
0
24. Amphibians
0
1
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75;
OBL = 1.5
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
3
3
3
3
3
3
1.5
1.5
Yes = 3
3
0
1.5
1.5
Yas_�
0
0
3
3
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 ��( °t {� '�
Cate: c jz4 h ,. ProjectfSlte: Latitude;
35.is 7 z ass
Evaluator:itrd�, County: ��,tlLongitude•
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent Stream Determination (cZI-re
e one) Other
1f 99 or erenntalTf�3C1" ephemeral Intermittentnn1 e.g. Quad Name: (iji I
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = Z f �
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strc
18' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3. in -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
3
ri le- ool sequence
0
1
2
4. particle size of stream substrate
0
1
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
E, Depositional bars or benches
0
1
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
©
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
2
3
g. Grade control
0
0.5
2
1
3
10. Natural valley
0
0.6
1
`
11. Second or greater order channel
No 0
artificial ditches are not rated: see d1scussions in manual
Yes
B. M drolo Subtotal = I i
12. presence of Baseflow
0
1M2_3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
14. Leaf litter��
115.
Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.516.
Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.517.
Soil -based evidence of nigh wafer table?
l�fo = 0
C. Biology. Subtotal = I ?_
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1g. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20, fUlacrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
1
0
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5�
C
3
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
24. Amphibians
0
(
1
1
1.5
25. Algae
0.5
1
1.5
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75;
OBL r 1.5 Other
`Perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Motes:
Sketch: Gny r7+CSrnu aj r-Afft., 4,
11 l ")tc1;j7pr�f f1(r(PA 1, it7fBkhGr.F

NG DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: Project/Site:��lf, Latitude: —
5. 5t 2C r�
[Evaluator: Ike n to .
County: ��,p�l,M Longitude: 7g . 3 ifs,
Stream
Points: Stream Determination c
Stream is of least Intermittent 1 + ircfe one) Other
ifz 19 or erennialif?30" ..`,7� Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial e.g- Quad Name: L{np 6.t1,6
B. Hydrology Subtotal fI 0
12. Presence of Baseflow,
2
�1
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
14. Leaf litter
nj
0.515.
3
Sediment on plants or debris
Organic debris lines or piles
1
1
1 516.
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No 0
lrs
1.5
C. Biofo Subtotal a 9,�
18. Fibrous roots in streambedjil
2
1
19. Rooted upland plants in'streambed
2
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance}
1
2.
0
21. Aquatic Mollusks
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
3
1.5
23. Crayfish
(0-)0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
@J
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
05
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
ACW e 0.7
OBL = 1.5 Other 0
"perennial streams may also be 4denti ed using other methods. See _p of manual
Notes:
Q Gil. v
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.1.1
[date: G 1zq f 1 e: Project/Site: Sy4, F..lti Latitude.
35. f, zz'11
5
Longitude-
Evaluator: ,t+'� County: Longitude:
7�.3r4S5
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent Stream Determination (circle one) Other
iI>_ liar erennrarrf 3t7" �S. Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial e.g. QaadName: LMA fGr
r1. ueurnpr nolo (bubtotal = 12
Absent
Weak
Mode
1s' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3. in -channel structure: ex, ride -pool, step -pool,
2
ripple -pool sequence
0
6
2
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
5. Activelrelict floodplain
1
2
6. Depositional bars or benches
(
1
2
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
2
8. Headcuts
0
2
2
9. Grade control
0
D.
1
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
11. Second or greater order channel
No =
artificlai ditches are not rated, see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = sF
12. Presence of Baseflow
0UNo�--O
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
014.
Leaf litter1.515.
Sediment on plants or debris
16. Organic debris lines or piles
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
C. Biology (Subtotal = r6. 5
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
®
1
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
2
22. Fish
0
0.5
2
1
23. Crayfish
1
24. Amphibians
0 i
�
1
25. Algae
0
0.5
26. Weiland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 1
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manus,
Notes.
Sketch:
3
3
3
3
3
3
1.5
0
3
3
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5

NC DWQ Stt•ea.m Iderntification Form ''version 4.11
Date:
GI tI 6
cUSite: Pro e
j vu��
r
+"ar�(
Latitude: 35 eZ1 6.17
Evaluator:
103
County: ., f�
Longitude:
Total Points:
7 9 ,
g y u
Stream is at least intermlitent
Stream Dete ran circle one)
Ocher
lfZ 19 or erennialli? 30" Z�1, 5
Ephemeral ntermitten Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomor holo (Subtotal= M6. s 1
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
--S.-In-channel
0
1
structure: ex. riffle -pool, step} -poo),
3
ri le- ool sequence
0
1
2.'
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
2
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
CT
7. Recent alluvial deposits
(0)1
2
3
8. Headcuts
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0 1 1
2
3
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
1
1.
=
- artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
Yes 3
8. I I drolo Subtotal r 5
12. Presence of Baseflow
@01WZ
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
©
114.
Leaf fitter
1.5
15. Sediment on plants or debris0.
Organic debris lines or piles
0t7.517.
516.
Sail -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
G. Biolo Subtotal :
-
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
(2)
1
19. Rooted upland plants in strearnbed
3
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
2
1
0
1
21. Aquatic Mollusks
2
3
22. Ffsh
1
2
3
23. Crayfish
C�
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
(
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
0.5
FACW 0.75 OBL = 1.5 Ot er = 0'
'perennial streams may aisa be identified using [rther methods. Bee p, 35 of manual �`
Notes:
Sketch: C,55;", fr 1
GI- Phi n�s'/1+M rnE Cw nri� Yre,,r„�� c ryy, r„� tr. ►'F�� .
20 57.2 r Z%, c z7

NC DWQ Stream Identification Doran Version 4.11 T.1 6, 1.,, ,lip 6 a 1,
Rate: 6 &9 16 - ProjectlSite: Latitude:
Evaluator: Ke, r) ew (' County: %•l,ar� Longitude:
71.3sGZo5v
Total Points:
Stream Is at least Intenn/tient Stream Determination (cir ne Other
If a 19 or Perennial if 30" � � Ephemeral Intermittent leerennial e.g. Quad Name: 14 r1
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =17. S. 1
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffie�pool, step -pool,
1,
3
-ripple-pool sequence
0
1
2
4. Particle size of s# -am substrate
0
1
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
4
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
2
2
3
S. Headcuts
(0)
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
[1.5
U)
3
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.
11. Second or greater order channel
artificiaf ditches are not rated; see discussions In manual
o = )
----
Yes = 3
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 10
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
14. Leaf litter
1.5
�
2
0.5
3
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
(3)
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
C'
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
Na � 0
1.5
C. Blob Subtotal 7,
yes =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
19. Hooted' upland plants in streambed
[
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)0
1
0
21. Aquatic Mollusks
}
1
2
2
3
I,aM�7 22. Fish
00.5
3
1.5
23. Crayfish
CQ3
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
25. Algae
®
0.5
1
1
1 5
26, Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75;
OBL = 1.5 then
1.5
'perennial streams may aiso he identified using other meihads. See p. 35 of manual..
I�lates:
Sketch: r.54 p+ rfr i . APp l e h rtjf c, d (u®U4 r"")

NC DWQ Stream identification >fiol-m Version 4.11
Date: z q f ! c ProjectlSite: (,
Evaluator; l��nFi- County: #
l �1a�ZtiPi
Total Paints: Stream peter mation
Stream is at least intermittent (ci
if? i9 orFerennialif�3(7' Ephemeral ptennnittent
latitude:
Longitude; a 6
one) Other
nnial e.g. Quad Name: u7 [
B. Hydrology (Subtotal _ _. _ ._........�..
12. Presence of Haseilow
1
2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
1'
14. Leaf litter
1
2
2
15. Sediment on plants or debris
WNo
R.5
1
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0.5
I
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
C. Biolo Subtotal w
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
1
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2-
22. Fish
CQ
01
2
1
23, Crayfish
�
0.5
1
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
25. Algae
0:-
1
26. Wetiand plants in streambed
FACW = O.TS;
Q8L 1.5 C7
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
Yes =3
3
3
0
1.5
1.5
0
0
3
3
1.5
1.5
1.5

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 1i29C1 _ Project/site: Sd,,t Latitude:
��,G 35.�St S[s9 d
Evaluator: Ae,,�,®n � ��I County: C u�iirn Longitude:
Total Points: 7 4 S 26,'x'
Stream Is at least Intermittent Stream Det�Ljer (clrcle one) Other
if? 19 or erenniailC� 3d* Ephemeral termitten Perennial e, y. quad Name: �1T1 tr,
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal
1a' Continuity of channel bed and bank
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ri le ool sequence
4. Particle size of stream substrate
5. Active/relict floodplain
6. Depositional bars or benches
7. Recent alluvial deposits
8. Headcuts
9. Grade control
10. Natural valley
11. Second or greater order channel
a artificial ditches are not rated, see discussions In manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal= 'z.s
12. Presence of Baseflow
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
14. Leaf litter
15. Sediment on plants or debris
16. Organic debris lines or piles
17.Soil-basedevidence of high watertable?
E
1
1
0.5
0.5
2
G
0
3
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
2
3
3
1.5
1
Yes = 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 0.5 0
i.S 1 1 5
1 1.5
vo0 = n

NC DWQ Stream identification roan Version 4,11
Date: 612.gf I Project/Site: S,,J� �o,
Evaluator: y�' County:
C.trG�t,a�.
Total Points:
Stream is at feast intermittent Stream Determination a(ciroi
If a 19 or erennial if � 30* 3 s Ephemeral Intermlttent eren a
.t/(' Wr,.L nl Innc!{ia.L %4 srfl,,
Latitude: `3 5. 6 zs 4 , I
Longitude: 7 q 3 6 z S T'?
Other
e.g. Quad Name: Ut i E
B. Hrola Subtotal
12. Presence of Basetlow
0
1
G
13. Iran oxidizing bacteria
0
2
3
14, Leaf fitter
1.5
0.5
3
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0 .
0.
1
16. Organic debris lines or plies
0
0.5
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?No
= 0
1.5
C. Biala Subtotal =
es =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
19. Booted upland plants in strearnbed
0)
2
1
0
20, Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
0
21. Aquatic Mollusks
t}
�
2
2
3
22, Fish
C!)�
0.5
1
3
1.5
23. Crayfish
10
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
01.5
1.5
25, Algae
0
26. Wetland plants in strearnbedFACW�
'perennial
0.75; 0131-=
Qther =)0
streams may also be Identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Nates:
Sketch: 0y"1u etfr c�rdJrirr,,
rMej J I r "L/ �;>,.��a, h� F��f d��� �p.� f G � �9/11,I 'n r/1, -rail S k

NC DWQ Stream Identification Dorm Version 4.11
[late: 611416
Project/Site: S,,, k YE U
Latitude. a, 5- 5r z s y p y
Evaluator: 1lt„JrR
County: [h.L4,,..
Longitude: 79 38oiruu
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
if >_ 19 or perennial if 2:30*
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad Name: Tl
A. Geomor holo (Subtotal =__2, s ]
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18, Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
C3)
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
CID
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
1
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
LO)
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
t7
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
(1)
2
3
8. I-leadcuts
(61
1
2
3
9. Grade control
"0
0.5
1
1.5
14. Natural valley
0
i
1
1.5
11. Sbcond or greater order channel
N =
Yes = 3
Sketch:
"artificlal ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = -7 : )
12. Presence of Baseflow _
(
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
QP
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on ,plants or debris
0
0
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
D.
1
1.5
17. Sail -based evidence of high water table?
CQ
lVo =
Yes = 3
1.5
C. Bioloqy (Subtotal = 5.5' )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
0
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
QP
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
M
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
iJ
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
CQ
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
(b 1
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Other =,0
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods, See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
A•

STC DW+Q Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 6)Zq jj j Projecusite: 12,14"1 I7rGnt �
Evaluator: Km I-,, &e. County:
Tota! Points: Stream Determination c
Stream Is at feast fnfermlfferr[ (irc1�
If z 19 or perennial if? 30" � Ephemeral Intermittent Per
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= 17. l
Absent
Weal
18' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalwag
0
1
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
5. Activefrelict floodplain
0
1
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
Recent alluvial deposits0
8. Headcuis[7.
. Grade control
0
0.0.
Natural valley
0
0.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No =
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions In manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = 7 5
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
14. Leaf litter
1.
1
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0)
0.5
17 -Soil -based evidence of high water tabie7
No = 0
C. Bivlo Subtataf i rs
brous roots in streambed
2
ooted upland plants in streambed
(+
2
acrobenthos [note diversity and abundance)
0
1
uatic Mollusks
1
sh
0
Mpnsd
ayfish
0.5phibians
0ae
90.5etland
plants in strearnbed
FACW = 0.
nial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
:
Sketch:
Latitude: 3S, g 716 vu a
Longitude: 70 671 $1 S
Other
e.g. Quad Name,(_17-1
Moderate
2
2
2
2
2
1
3
cS7
3
3
3
3
1.5
1.5
Yes = 3
3
2 3
o.s v
1 1,5
1 1,5
1
1
2.
1
1
1
1
GBL= 1.5
0
0
3
3
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11.
Date: Cc:Qftd PrafectlSite: rr11
Evaluator:
Kent., atR County:
Total Points: Stream Determination
Stream is at Feast intermittent �
if?: 19_orperennfalffz30" S Ephemeral Intermittent
r Latitude: 3.5.'5 26 4 7,t
Longitude: 7 7. 36 -F 6 44
ane); Other
nniV e.g. Quad Narne: 64 FI
B, Hydrology Subtotal =
12. Presence of Baseflow
01
3
13. Iran oxidizing bacteria
0
2
14. Leaf lifter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
(
0 5
15. Organic debris lines or piles
{}
0
1
1 5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No r 0
1
1 5
C. Biology Subtotal = Q
ss
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
19. mooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
0
21. Aquatic Mollusks
2
3
22. Fish
0
1
2
3
23. Crayfish
0
24. Amphibians
25. Algae
0
1
i.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FAt;W = 0.75;
08L =1.5 then =
1.5
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWQi Stream identification Form Version 4.11
Date: x �l
Project/Site:
�' t5t iarrt,
Latitude: 3S,'63127g
Evaluator: r
on j
Count y`
Longitude: 7R
Total Points:
,3 e sr�z2
Stream is at least intermittent
stream DetelmlD,non (circle one)
©then
U2 19 or erennlal;f;� 30" Q,
Ephemeral intermitter Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
W-3
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 3
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Stronc
16' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
4
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
3
ri le- col sequence
0
f
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
ti
2
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
3
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1 •
1
11. Second or greater order channel
No =
.5
artificial ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
Yes = 3
B. H dryly Subtvtal = 3
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
13. Iron oxidizing 'bacteria
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.
1
2
3
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0 .
0.5
0
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
O.v
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No =
1.5
C..Biology (Subtotal=. 3.L? s
-
Yes = 3
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
19. Rooted upland plants In streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance}
Q
1
0
21. Aquatic Mollusks
Q
1
2.
3
22. Fish
(9
0.5
2
1
3
1.5
23. Crayfish
(0
0.5
1M0.5
1.5
24. Amphibians
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
26. Wetland plants in streambed
�
1
FACW = 0.75-- OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
1.5
'perennial streams may also be Identified using other methods.
See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
kA A (`A S
Sketch:

APPENDIX E
AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE

WILDLANDS
E N G I N E E R I N G
April 1, 2o16
Shannon Deaton
North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission
Division of Inland Fisheries
1721 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Subject: Cane Creek Mitigation Bank
Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Deaton,
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. requests review and comment on any possible issues that
might emerge with respect to fish and wildlife issues associated with the proposed
Cane Creek Mitigation Bank. The stream mitigation bank includes three sites: Pine Hill
Branch, Bethel Branch, and South Fork. A USGS map and aerial maps showing the
approximate project areas are enclosed. The topographic figure was prepared from the
Crutchfield Crossroads and Silk Hope, 7.5 -Minute USGS Topographic Quadrangles.
The Cane Creek Mitigation Bank is being developed to provide in-kind mitigation for
unavoidable stream channel impacts. Several sections of channel have been identified
as significantly degraded. The project will include stream restoration, enhancement,
and preservation. The site has historically been disturbed due to agricultural use,
primarily for livestock production.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to
contact us with any questions that you may have concerning this project.
Sincerely,
4114- &1_10
Ruby M. Davis
Environmental Scientist
Attachment:
USGS Topographic Map
Aerial Map
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104, Charlotte, NC 28203 - (P) 704-332-7754 - (F) 704-332-3306

WILDLANL S
ENGINEERING
April 1, 2016
Renee Gledhill -Earley
State Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4617
Subject: Cane Creek Mitigation Bank
Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Gledhill -Earley,
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. requests review and comment on any possible issues that might
emerge with respect to archaeological or cultural resources associated with the Cane Creek
Mitigation Bank, a stream mitigation bank located on three sites: Pine Hill Branch, Bethel
Branch, and South Fork. A USGS site map and aerial maps with approximate project areas are
enclosed.
The Cane Creek Mitigation Bank is being developed to provide in-kind mitigation for
unavoidable stream channel impacts. Several sections of channel have been identified as
significantly degraded. The project will include stream restoration, enhancement, and
preservation. The site has historically been disturbed due to agricultural use, primarily for
livestock production.
We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine the presence
of any historic properties.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact
us with any questions that you may have concerning the project.
Sincerely,
Ruby M. Davis
Environmental Scientist
[e-mail]
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104 Charlotte, NC 28203 - (P) 704-332-7754 - (F) 704-332-3306

W
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
April 1, 2oz6
Dale Suiter
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh Field Office
PO Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636
Subject: Cane Creek Mitigation Bank
Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Suiter,
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. requests review and comment on any possible issues that might
emerge with respect to endangered species, migratory birds or other trust resources associated
with the proposed Cane Creek Mitigation Bank. The stream mitigation bank includes three
sites: Pine Hill Branch, Bethel Branch, and South Fork. A USGS map and aerial maps showing
the approximate project areas are enclosed. The topographic figure was prepared from the
Crutchfield Crossroads and Silk Hope, 7.5 -Minute USGS Topographic Quadrangles.
The Cane Creek Mitigation Bank is being developed to provide in-kind mitigation for
unavoidable stream channel impacts. Several sections of channel have been identified as
significantly degraded. The project will include stream restoration, enhancement, and
preservation. The site has historically been disturbed due to agricultural use, primarily for
livestock production.
According to your website (http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/reports/species-by-current-range-
county?), there are no federally -listed species in Alamance County. The Cape Fear shiner, Red -
cockaded woodpecker and the Harperella are the federally listed endangered species for
Chatham County. Due to the recent listing of the Northern long-eared bat and the forested
nature of the site, we are requesting a specific review and any known information regarding this
species, along with the federally listed species.
If we have not heard from you in 3o days we will assume that you do not have any comments
regarding associated laws and that you do not have any information relevant to this projects at
the current time.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact
us with any questions that you may have concerning this project.
Sincerely,
124. &Ai
Ruby M. Davis
Environmental Scientist
Attachment:
USGS Topographic Map and Aerial MapAerial Map
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104 Charlotte, NC 28203 - (P) 704-332-7754 ° (F) 704-332-3306

United States Department of the Interior
Ruby Davis
Wildlands Engineering Inc
1430 S. Mint St., Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh ES Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
July 22, 2016
Re: Cane Creek Mitigation Bank — Alamance & Chatham Counties, NC
Dear Mrs. Davis:
This letter is to inform you that a list of all federally -protected endangered and threatened species
with known occurrences in North Carolina is now available on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's (Service) web page at http://www.fws.gov/raleigh. Therefore, if you have projects that
occur within the Raleigh Field Office's area of responsibility (see attached county list), you no
longer need to contact the Raleigh Field Office for a list of federally -protected species.
Our web page contains a complete and frequently updated list of all endangered and threatened
species protected by the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)(Act), and a list of federal species of concern that are known to occur in
each county in North Carolina.
Section 7 of the Act requires that all federal agencies (or their designated non-federal
representative), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action federally authorized,
funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
federally -listed endangered or threatened species. A biological assessment or evaluation may be
prepared to fulfill that requirement and in determining whether additional consultation with the
Service is necessary. In addition to the federally -protected species list, information on the
species' life histories and habitats and information on completing a biological assessment or
evaluation and can be found on our web page at http://www.fws.gov/raleigh. Please check the
web site often for updated information or changes.
The term "federal species of concern" refers to those species which the Service believes might be in need of
concentrated conservation actions. Federal species of concern receive no legal protection and their designation does
not necessarily imply that the species will eventually be proposed for listing as a federally endangered or threatened
species. However, we recommend that all practicable measures be taken to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to
federal species of concern.

If your project contains suitable habitat for any of the federally -listed species known to be
present within the county where your project occurs, the proposed action has the potential to
adversely affect those species. As such, we recommend that surveys be conducted to determine
the species' presence or absence within the project area. The use of North Carolina Natural
Heritage program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys.
If you determine that the proposed action may affect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely
to adversely affect) a federally -protected species, you should notify this office with your
determination, the results of your surveys, survey methodologies, and an analysis of the effects
of the action on listed species, including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects,
before conducting any activities that might affect the species. If you determine that the proposed
action will have no effect (i.e., no beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect effect) on federally
listed species, then you are not required to contact our office for concurrence (unless an
Environmental Impact Statement is prepared). However, you should maintain a complete record
of the assessment, including steps leading to your determination of effect, the qualified personnel
conducting the assessment, habitat conditions, site photographs, and any other related articles.
With regard to the above -referenced project, we offer the following remarks. Our comments are
submitted pursuant to, and in accordance with, provisions of the Endangered Species Act.
Based on the information provided and other information available, it appears that the proposed
action is not likely to adversely affect any federally -listed endangered or threatened species, their
formally designated critical habitat, or species currently proposed for listing under the Act at
these sites. We believe that the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act have been satisfied for
your project. Please remember that obligations under section 7 consultation must be
reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect
listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2) this action is
subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; or, (3) a new species
is listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected by the identified action.
However, the Service is concerned about the potential impacts the proposed action might have
on aquatic species. Aquatic resources are highly susceptible to sedimentation. Therefore, we
recommend that all practicable measures be taken to avoid adverse impacts to aquatic species,
including implementing directional boring methods and stringent sediment and erosion control
measures. An erosion and sedimentation control plan should be submitted to and approved by
the North Carolina Division of Land Resources, Land Quality Section prior to construction.
Erosion and sedimentation controls should be installed and maintained between the construction
site and any nearby down -gradient surface waters. In addition, we recommend maintaining
natural, vegetated buffers on all streams and creeks adjacent to the project site.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has developed a Guidance Memorandum (a
copy can be found on our website at (http://www.fws.gov/raleigh) to address and mitigate
secondary and cumulative impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources and water quality.
We recommend that you consider this document in the development of your projects and in
completing an initiation package for consultation (if necessary).
2

We hope you find our web page useful and informative and that following the process described
above will reduce the time required, and eliminate the need, for general correspondence for
species' lists. If you have any questions or comments, please contact Emily Wells of this office
at [phone] ext. 25.
Sincerely,
Pete min
Field Supervisor

List of Counties in the Service's Raleigh Field Office Area of Responsibility
Alamance
Beaufort
Bertie
Bladen
Brunswick
Camden
Carteret
Caswell
Chatham
Chowan
Columbus
Craven
Cumberland
Currituck
Dare
Duplin
Durham
Edgecombe
Franklin
Gates
Granville
Greene
Guilford
Halifax
Harnett
Hertford
Hoke
Hyde
Johnston
Jones
Lee
Lenoir
Martin
Montgomery
Moore
Nash
New Hanover
Northampton
Onslow
Orange
Pamlico
Pasquotank
Pender
El
Perquimans
Person
Pitt
Randolph
Richmond
Robeson
Rockingham
Sampson
Scotland
Tyrrell
Vance
Wake
Warren
Washington
Wayne
Wilson

Williams, Andrew E SAW
From: Haupt, Mac <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 10:28 AM
To: Jeff Keaton; John Hutton; Williams, Andrew E SAW
Cc: Tugwell, Todd SAW
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank Prospectus
Andy, Jeff, John,
Here are my comments regarding the Cane Creek Umbrella Prospectus:
Bethel Branch:
1. In general I think the stream approaches for the majority of the reaches are appropriate.
2. However, I am not sure about UT2-R2, as I recall this reach had a nice buffer and wasn't too incised (not
completely sure on that...), so it may be more of an enhancement approach...
3. The wetlands along UT1 looked like a good restoration site, I would expect my recommendation for hydrology
would be 12%.
4. UT3 is a pond removal, we are seeing a lot of these, and we are somewhat concerned as to how these may turn
out...
South Fork:
1. The stream approaches for this site are appropriate as I recall...
Pine Hill Branch:
1. We did not see much of this site,
2. We did see UT1-R2 and there was some question as to what level of intervention is necessary. While it did not
appear the stream was in bad shape and cattle did not seem to be getting in there a lot, we did see the obligatory cow
(you guys released into the buffer). You have it at Ell which probably correct at a 2.5:1 ratio, could be a candidate for
the EIII category (higher ratio of enhancement).
3. There seem to be a lot of small tribs with very small drainage areas. We did not see many of these so we would
need to check the jurisdictional status of these.
4. In addition, we did not see any of the area below UT1-R2.
I

The restoration reach UTI -R1 seemed appropriate for what we saw...
I apologize for the tardiness of my comments.
Mac Haupt, LSS
Stream & Wetland Mitigation Coordinator
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
Division of Water Resources
Department of Environmental Quality
919 807-6476 office
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
512 N. Salisbury Street, Suite 942-K, Raleigh, NC 27604
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties