Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout19970330 Ver 1_Mitigation Plans_20010712 (3)h ?s ?s ti ss ss es ?s ss y r J1 11 DETAILED WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN RANDLEMAN RESERVOIR WATER SUPPLY SOPHIA BRANCH MITIGATION SITE RANDOLPH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Prepared for: PIEDMONT TRIAD REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY Prepared by: 9 ._.j EcoScience EcoScience Corporation 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101 Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 July 2001 ACES JUL 1 2 2001 10 lp ?p sp ?J Ip so so 'o ao to so to so 'o !p 'o TABLE OF CONTENTS Paqe LIST OF FIGURES ................................................. iii LIST OF TABLES .................................................. iv 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...............................................1 1.1 PURPOSE ..............................................1 1.2 OBJECTIVES OF WETLAND RESTORATION ...................... 1 1.3 PRIMARY METHODS FOR WETLAND RESTORATION ............... 3 1.4 MITIGATION SITE SELECTION ................................ 4 2.0 METHODS ..................................................8 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ........................................ 12 3.1 PHYSIOGRAPHY, TOPOGRAPHY, AND LAND USE ................ 12 3.2 SOILS ................................................15 3.3 PLANT COMMUNITIES .................................... 18 3.4 HYDROLOGY ..........................................22 3.5 WATER QUALITY .......................................24 3.6 JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS ............................... 25 4.0 WETLAND RESTORATION STUDIES ............................... 28 4.1 RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSES ..................... 28 4.2 SURFACE WATER ANALYSES ............................... 30 4.3 GROUNDWATER MODELING ................................ 37 4.4 REFERENCE GREENTREE IMPOUNDMENTS ...................... 40 4.5 REFERENCE PLANT COMMUNITIES ........................... 45 5.0 WETLAND RESTORATION PLAN .................................. 51 5.1 IMPOUNDMENT / WEIR CONSTRUCTION ....................... 52 5.2 STEP-POOL GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE ..................... 55 5.3 WOODY DEBRIS DEPOSITION ............................... 55 5.4 WETLAND COMMUNITY RESTORATION ....................... 55 6.0 MONITORING PLAN ........................................... 63 6.1 HYDROLOGY ............................63 6.2 HYDROLOGY SUCCESS CRITERIA ............................ 63 6.3 SOIL .................................................66 6.4 SOIL SUCCESS CRITERIA .................................. 66 6.5 VEGETATION ..........................................66 6.6 VEGETATION SUCCESS CRITERIA ........................... 6.7 REPORT SUBMITTAL 67 ..................................... 68 7.0 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE ................................... 8 0 MANAGEMENT PRO 69 . GRAM ............... . 9.0 DISPENSATION OF PROPERTY ................................... 72 10.0 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL EVALUATIONS ............................ 10.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 73 ................................... 10.2 PROJECTED, POST-RESTORATION CONDITIONS . 73 73 ................ 11.0 REFERENCES ................................................ 74 C I In 0 ;' n ii IN Ip Ig es eo s? ?o ?o Ao so ?o ?o so ?o ?o ?o to LIST OF FIGURES Paqe Figure 1: Mitigation Site Locations: Randleman Reservoir ................ .... 2 Figure 2: Site Location: Sophia Branch Mitigation Site .................. .... 6 Figure 3: Aerial Photograph (1999) ............................... . 9-10 Figure 4: Physiography, Topography, and Land Use .................... 13-14 Figure 5: Soil Map Units ....................................... 16-17 Figure 6: Plant Communities .................................... 19-20 Figure 7: Jurisdictional Wetlands ................................. 26-27 Figure 8: Flood Frequency Analysis ............................... 35-36 Figure 9: Site Location: Falls Lake Greentree Impoundment .............. ... 41 Figure 10: Site Location: Country Line Creek Greentree Impoundment ........ ... 42 Figure 11: Site Location: Jordan Lake Greentree Impoundments ............ ... 43 Figure 12: Conceptual Impoundment Design .......................... ... 44 Figure 13: Reference Greentree Impoundment ........................... 46 Figure 14: Reference Plan View and Cross Section ........................ 47 Figure 15: Hydrology Restoration Plan .............................. 53-54 Figure 16: Conceptual Design: Step-Pool Grade Control ................... .. 56 Figure 17: Planting Plan ........................................ 61-62 Figure 18: Monitoring Plan / Mitigation Design Units .................... 64-65 LIST OF TABLES 0 Pace Table 1: Estimated Area of Mitigation Design Units Based on Preliminary Studies for 10 Potential Mitigation Sites Associated with the Randleman Reservoir ...................................... 5 Table 2: Water Surface Elevation Estimates for Various Flood Frequencies ... 32-33 Table 3: Modeled Groundwater Discharge Zone of Influence on Wetland Hydroperiods: Congaree Soils ....................... 39 Table 4: Reference Forest Ecosystem Plot Summary ..................... 48 Table 5: Reference Forest Ecosystem Plot Summary ...................... 49 0 Table 6: Planting Plan ........................................ 59-60 0 o 0 U 10 iv p Ip DETAILED WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN RANDLEMAN RESERVOIR WATER SUPPLY SOPHIA BRANCH MITIGATION SITE RANDOLPH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE The Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority (PTRWA) proposes development of the Randleman Reservoir in Randolph and Guilford Counties, North Carolina (Figure 1). The purpose of this project is to develop a safe and dependable water supply source for North Carolina's Piedmont Triad region that will satisfy the projected water demand for a period of 50 years. The proposed 3000-acre reservoir will unavoidably impact approximately 121 acres of wetlands through impoundment and establishment of an open water system. These jurisdictional wetlands are subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. § 1344). For unavoidable wetland impacts, compensatory mitigation is required to facilitate no net loss of wetland functions in the region. Compensatory mitigation is typically performed to replace similar wetland types and wetland functions as those impacted (for example, forested, stream- side wetlands). Wetland restoration, creation, enhancement, and preservation are typical U methods designed to offset wetland impacts. The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has instituted a policy that prefers a minimum of 1 acre of wetland be restored or p created for every acre of wetland impacted. Subsequently, remaining wetland functional replacement needs may be off-set through wetland enhancement and/or preservation. The purpose of this study is to evaluate wetland restoration/creation potential at Sophia Branch, a proposed mitigation site located in two parcels. The project boundary encompasses approximately 35.6 acres. Wetland mitigation is projected to involve approximately 21.7 acres of created/restored wetlands and open waters and approximately 2.4 acres of preserved/enhanced wetlands. Other sites will be evaluated in separate documents to address the 121-acre mitigation needs of Randleman Reservoir. 1.2 OBJECTIVES OF WETLAND RESTORATION The primary objectives for wetland restoration include the following: 1) Restore or create 121 acres of wetlands as required under regulatory guidance. 2) Assist in protecting the drinking water supply from pollutants discharged from the developing upstream watersheds. Excess nutrients, fecal coliform bacteria, sediments, and chemical contaminants (metals, etc.) represent the primary water quality concerns for the reservoir. 10 1 10 G? o U • ? W ` g o F- ? z c1) ? Q = Z U) O C) C4 0 t ') c ? o ? p d 4 w •? o ZQO z -j -00 cu a~ ? ° M _ ,L r / ?.+I t Go °' r m W V Q ~ S ? Q LtJ W 2 CL 0 7 O ZW 0 cu Z a N V ?- O ? J m W m v `s w lL U J = r .+.•?' ,•t•'• `^':"la?"? i; t ft r`? .!? t ! ,il .t f?f> •'>v\t,S ..-.•' `',-. J p [[IEEE W s_- - Q(/) U W co d Z ?c C3 U) _ 1 t w F- O O O O 'r' ?? f ' IL 0 W Q W W Y J tt ?? °f W W W ui ~ p U U v ; , y}?f J ' \ . c 5 t rl? \ . \./ } y f.' t,'. [0 0 L C) y Q m 2 Y U a :' 1' l c C l ,! t 1f c n f r, N. 1 . 7S .? l t A '? l ' VVK" + --j 1 t X . • s, -' ? ... _ rte, y "-? 1. ?,? r - ! t? f? c• '1 , ,,t ! 1 kq, ., r (((( 4 /T yyYY "? ?? y... \ /, r 'oor /1..• - t t'i,s \ Jj `. •, ,, r 444 1• !- > t 1 '? ii"`'f ,r? is • t , LL , _ :?1 ? U. ` ?J •, f; l ,•?,-..rte\.•?- /"??) ' • `? l ?` ( :/\, yc? '4? •r ': } l/YI) ,iL•1 11,x, /?• t. ?`? 1 J ? ? 1 ? r ! f..-? y,? ? 1 5 ' „ l 7 f t ?? 1`'\r `/r {}`I i t1,rQ ?`?/?r«• 'mac-(?' EM mm ? am ? am mm 3) Maximize benefits to water quality through establishment of functioning wetlands above the reservoir pool. 4) Replace habitat for wetland-dependent wildlife displaced by establishment of open water. 5) Maximize the area of wetland restoration or creation achieved at the Sophia Branch mitigation site. Goals 1-4 will be accomplished at multiple sites, including Sophia Branch. Water quality benefits are maximized by reducing the capacity for sediment to reach open water within the reservoir pool. Entrenched streams in the region have abandoned adjacent floodplains and tend to discharge large quantities of sediment into water supply reservoirs (Simmons 1976). Within reservoir pools downstream of entrenched streams, sediment from the watershed is deposited directly into the water supply, in a permanently inundated, reducing environment. Without periodic oxidation processes, pollutants generally dissolve within the water column and consequently reduce drinking water quality. Therefore, wetland restoration for water quality should be designed to reduce entrenchment, erosion, and sediment transport within streams and to entrap sediment within vegetated wetland surfaces. Sediment would be deposited on floodplain surfaces that periodically dry out in areas outside of the reservoir pool. Wetland vegetation would be established on the alluvial deposition to stabilize the sediment and provide for pollutant recycling through oxidation (drying) and reduction (wetting) processes. Wetland vegetation would serve to provide nutrient uptake and recycling functions within deposited sediment. Using this rationale, entrenched stream and terrace systems would be converted into alluvial wetland fans or greentree impoundments. A highly sinuous (E) to braided (D) stream system would be developed within the alluvial deposition area (Rosgen 1996). 1.3 PRIMARY METHODS FOR WETLAND RESTORATION Two primary methods for wetland restoration have been proposed to extend the sediment wedge into design wetlands above the reservoir pool, restore 121 acres of riverine wetlands, and provide suitable habitat for wetland dependent wildlife. Primary methods include 1) in- stream structures designed to reduce sediment transport capacity, and 2) greentree impoundments designed to allow management of water levels and sediment deposition patterns. In-Stream Structures In-stream structures are proposed primarily along dredged or entrenched stream corridors on relatively low-slope valley floors (<0.009 rise/run) supporting forest vegetation and broad floodplains (greater than 500 feet in width). Adjacent floodplains have been abandoned by the incised stream and converted to elevated terraces not regularly exposed to overbank flooding or wetland hydrodynamics. Properly designed in-stream structures are expected to reduce the 3 T 10 degree of channel incision, reduce the rate of groundwater discharge from the floodplain into ® the channel, increase overbank flooding from the channel onto the floodplain, reduce sediment 1 transport capacity, and provide greater sediment deposition within vegetated wetlands. Greentree Impoundments Greentree impoundments are typically proposed on more steeply sloped, narrow floodplains and stream terraces (>0.008 rise/run) or where relatively severe stream channel degradation and steepening has occurred above the reservoir pool. Greentree impoundments have also been considered in instances where water levels may need to be controlled for wetland development in rapidly urbanizing areas. The greentree impoundment option is the preferred alternative for wetland restoration/creation at Sophia Branch. In general, a greentree impoundment consists of a floodplain levee and controllable outlet structure that is modified periodically to promote the development of forested wetlands. Functioning greentree impoundments above the lake reservoir are expected to provide for significant nutrient uptake, recycling, and management benefits, including increased habitat In for wetland-dependent wildlife species. The elevation of the outlet is typically raised during winter months to promote ponding, sediment deposition, and waterfowl habitat. The elevation of the outlet is lowered in early spring to allow for vegetation growth, nutrient uptake, and seedling establishment. Regular monitoring and maintenance of the wetland system is considered critical, including periodic vegetation sampling, periodic replanting, structural repair, and precise hydrologic control on a semi-annual basis. 1.4 MITIGATION SITE SELECTION ® During the environmental impact assessment, project planners identified and evaluated a total 1 of 25 potential mitigation sites within stream corridors extending above the reservoir pool. A description of mitigation potential for each of these sites was prepared in previous documents 10 (ESC 1998a, ESC 1998b, ESC 1999). Of these 25 sites, 10 sites were determined to support wetland restoration / creation potential 10 on up to 121 acres of floodplain. Table 1 and Figure 1 depict the location of each site and projected areas potentially available for wetland restoration use. This document details restoration and enhancement procedures for riverine wetland restoration and creation along Sophia Branch, one of the 10 mitigation sites (Figure 2). The stream referred to in this document as Sophia Branch is an unnamed tributary of the Deep River, originating near the community of Sophia, North Carolina. The Sophia Branch mitigation site (Site) consists of two parcels separated by an approximately 3000 foot reach of the branch. 17 4 10 IN so io IN ?o ?o io IA 10 1@ ?e ?o ?e io is O N •O O_ > +O+ y C. ? C R E C •E CD c a O w Qs N m 3 O C .Q = •U Q1 V) •N CO CI Q y C 0 O N O C CR O G R a C a) o a° E O N W C O O C +? to ca Co a) 71 O 0 0 N N cc C O to Y Q) N +? U •i co W V1 E C a•+ cD f9 O N N C a' a U) 0 D -O J U C C U Q1 C cv D N 0 C O f9 co C U G a0+ (0 O f- L •C cu O LL a O O co E C co J ? U) N C O co m 2 ILO - M n 't T, cr, It ^ r M 't M y O U E co C O Lo LO M d' O N . .- LO O O O O O OI LO - O c0 LO CD r M N N e (D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N In '•- N .- M M M r N '?}' M Y Y >, ? a U m U j U > o c Co C 0 Q) Q) co U ] r Y U = 4: l1 ?? N ? co n r (1) co I N O i i N C N C O a E O C O O L co N a) n O O O M LO . rO . .- N r (D 0 0 0000 00 O O M (D M N '- CO M N M ? Y = J U O C ? () f0 J m Q. L) CL O J 6 U Co co m .D W N C N O N a •D `0 0 w w C O " N LO p C N L O N M > O) C > O co O U C > mN O L ,? N E o` c o a w a ? 0 0 O N o > > d O C_ m L ? A N ^ O U 2 C O W C O N C O CL v .4 E O C ? N o O > LL a°'a o w n a o CL o v E U') o 2 U N r- p L C-,) O ?+ CL c o ° d CL c U a .0.. O L O m aD C vi ? co > o > O w O C N c T L m ? N r E 2 m v E °' E N a C O N Om N N O T ro 7 C .n O Q ? O V O .0 E a O O N . ?t L N O m _ N v ?c t: c U C d C N 0 3 t ? U o a LO • C O N d p N c ? m d c ? E c m 7 L > L CL m L m 0 O C o C m c . O H N CL O X a CL `o d V) O pyj O N co 1 ? ` y d o o n y ,? N m LO !p so sn 10 - ?v" ? ?? L e.? ?? ,,.? 11 111 , ? •' . ?I l 1. y a. % \ttt Randleman Reservoir ooo [it ?ili-n CB' 97 /19.G1 e? "1Starket 1 ?.` Tae ?$ .,.1 Lower 1 - Mitigation \1 ¢h= .v ?1'\•\ ?V\? ?` ? ? / / _-? ? ? J 1. L ? i' , I, Upper Mitigations 1. ?r Site qK- J, I: _ :.. '-` is `•? 9y ? _ ?' - 0- _ _ ,>, ?! 0 NOR 1N r -i / i > - } ( 1S2Zj ti Radio• =Q y, } O oi, 'j 0 2400 4800 ft 1:29,520 9 Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Topo Maps (Glenola / Randleman, N.C.) A: 7, [hvn. by: RANDLEMAN RESERVOIR MITIGATION P MAF FIGURE EcoSciencc ROJECT PHASE 11 Ckd by: Corporation SO HIIA SITE Date JUL 200 2 Raleigh,. North Carolina Randolph County, North Carolina Project: 01-075 ?q 10 The upstream section of the Site will herein be referred to as the Upper Sophia Branch site, and the downstream section will be referred to as the Lower Sophia Branch site. The Site in contains approximately 35 acres that encompass the stream and adjacent floodplain. Sophia Branch drains a watershed of approximately 1.57 square miles (1005 acres). A series of greentree impoundments is proposed within the stream channel and adjacent floodplain to reduce the rate of groundwater discharge from the floodplain into the channel, increase overbank flooding from the channel onto the floodplain, and increase deposition of sediment In on vegetated wetland surfaces above the Randleman Reservoir. This document includes the following: 1) descriptions of existing conditions, 2) surface and groundwater hydraulic analyses, 3) reference greentree impoundment studies, and 4) reference soil and forest ecosystem investigations.. Detailed plans are provided for wetland restoration/creation, vegetation planting, site monitoring, and success criteria. Ip 7 10 10 10 2.0 METHODS Natural resource information for the Site was obtained from available sources, including U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic mapping (USGS Randleman and Glenola 7.5 minute quadrangles), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping, and Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil surveys for Randolph County (USDA, unpublished). These resources were utilized for base mapping and evaluation of existing landscape and soil information prior to on-site inspection. Current (1999) aerial photography was obtained and utilized to map relevant environmental features (Figures 3A and 3B). Characteristic and target natural community patterns were classified according to constructs outlined in Schafale and Weakley's Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina (1990). North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) databases were evaluated for the presence of protected species and designated natural areas which may serve as reference (relatively undisturbed) wetlands for restoration design. Regional reference (relatively undisturbed) stream and wetland sites were selected to orient restoration design and to provide baseline information on target (post-restoration) wetland conditions. A regional vegetation reference database and on-site inventory were used to characterize target, post-restoration species composition. Topographic maps of the basin floor were also prepared to determine valley slope characteristics and to establish target (post- project) water surface elevations within wetland restoration/creation areas. A reference flood and sedimentation study provided information on sedimentation and wetland development associated with existing greentree impoundments in the region. Topographic data were overlaid on wetland restoration areas to establish methods for construction and restoration of wetland communities within each Site. Detailed topographic mapping to 1-foot contour intervals was developed by ground survey paneling and aerial photogrammetric methods. Additional land surveys were performed to establish channel cross-sections and measure reference wetland surface topography. Field investigations were performed in the Spring of 2001 including soil surveys, on-site resource mapping, land surveys, and landscape ecosystem classifications. Existing plant communities and jurisdictional wetlands were described and mapped according to landscape position, structure, composition, and groundwater analyses. Wetland boundaries were obtained from a delineation performed in 2001 by ECS, Ltd. NRCS soil map units were ground truthed by licenced soil scientists to verify units and to map inclusions and taxadjunct areas. The revised soils maps were used as additional evidence for predicting natural community patterns and wetland limits prior to human disturbances. Ip 10 8 M M M M M - M M r r M M = m . . . ? m m m m m Fm? m m = = = m = = = = = m N n O m m rn rn 0 N O c o R lu 'U x -S m vmi 00n m =1 _ 0? rri W 0 Z) z 0 ? G?N? 0V rvi _ a O ?+ (D r O N Z Z Z D I O CD ;S 8 = S o --r- rr rr rr rr r r rr r rr rr ¦w r r .. •¦• •¦? ?•• ? r? r ? ? ? ? r ? r r r r r r r r r- 0 RR _a X O O y 0 0 n o Q 03 w m?a ti Dorm ?m 7p CDr 0 02 o c? = Z ° V O = ` IN Groundwater conditions were modeled using DRAINMOD , a computer model for simulating withdrawal rates for shallow soils with high water tables. The model was utilized to predict historic hydroperiods, the extent of wetland degradation due to channel entrenchment, and the potential for wetland restoration through stream modification. Surface water analyses for the Site were completed using standard study methods of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and NRCS. Flood events of a magnitude which are expected to be equaled or exceeded once on average every 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, or 100-year period were selected for use. These analyses reflect either existing or proposed conditions at the Site. The projected frequency and extent of overbank flooding were used to determine potential for riverine wetland restoration in floodplain portions of the Site. In addition, potential for impacts to adjacent roads and bridges was evaluated for pre-project and projected, post- project conditions. This Site has been selected for wetland restoration use to promote a reduction in sediment, nutrients, and pollutants flowing into Randleman Reservoir. Mitigation activities are intended to provide sediment deposition, and pollutant recycling from surface waters within created and restored wetland areas. Recycling functions are designed to reduce elevated nitrogen and phosphorus loads from the watershed towards background (forest) levels, prior to discharge into the reservoir. W 11 9p n 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 3.1 PHYSIOGRAPHY, TOPOGRAPHY, AND LAND USE The Site is located in the Piedmont Physiographic Province of North Carolina. Physiography is characterized by moderately hilly terrain with interstream divides intermixed with steeper slopes along well-defined drainage ways. The Site is situated in the Deep River floodplain within the Cape Fear River Basin (Hydrologic Unit #03030003 [USGS 19741, DWQ Sub-Basin 03-06-08). The Site is located approximately 14 miles southeast of High Point and approximately 17 miles south of Greensboro. Annual precipitation in the region averages 42 inches per year (USDA 1977). Project boundaries for each site are derived from the 5-year, post-project flood elevations. The stream terrace (abandoned floodplain) at the Upper Sophia site occupies approximately 23 acres located along both sides of the stream channel, while the stream terrace at the Lower Sophia site contains approximately 9 acres (Figures 4A and 46). This terrace historically supported frequent overbank flooding and was periodically re-worked by alluvial processes and periodic, long term inundation/saturation. Dredging along the stream has reduced the frequency of overbank flooding within the primary floodplain from an estimated 1-year return interval to a 5- to 10-year return interval (Section 4.2). Therefore, associated riverine wetland functions (sediment retention, nutrient cycling, energy dissipation, etc.) have been effectively eliminated from the physiographic area by stream alterations. Accelerated drainage is evident throughout the stream terrace physiographic area due to dredging activities and secondary stream diversions. Following dredging operations along Sophia Branch, portions of the stream terrace appear to have been converted for agricultural or pastoral use. However, these agricultural tracts have been abandoned over the last several decades, allowing re-development of disturbance adapted, successional communities. Under historic conditions, natural communities are expected to include Piedmont bottomland hardwood forest and oval to linear pockets of riverine swamp forest in low-lying areas (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Land areas immediately adjacent to the Sophia site contain large agricultural fields and pastures, woodlots, and sparse residential development (Figures 4A and 413). Upper Sophia Site: This portion of the Site contains an approximately 1935-foot reach of 0 Sophia Branch, as well as a tributary reach approximately 1875 feet in length (Figure 4A). Dredging and straightening of the main channel is apparent. The elevated stream terrace 10 (abandoned floodplain) as well as the second, much older, terrace formation farther away from the stream is easily observed at this open, grassy site. This section of Sophia Branch supports a primary watershed of approximately 0.65 square miles. After construction of the Randleman 171 Fri Reservoir, the downstream terminus of the Upper Sophia site will reside approximately 5100 feet upstream 90 12 go ® ® ® ? ? ?J 4 E =. J mo N ?' m ?:;,? 1 _ , JAl ` X X X Z r ?,; - 1 z z z n `` ?`;` 111', - - - 1 v ` , _ - , 4 ; . ,, ;7 m C ? O 0 OC N =-'` i - Via"'-?':;; .w. ___ - ?I-r{ 'r 1 m m ° n1 Ca C Z -`: ,- ,ice: ' '? ? ?.;,,?` ?? ---- ? rt. 11 ?' r O ' 'i ' i? i ?1v ?' ,'? ?1''!iv'? ` ?1 v 'r A ?il?'?? _ I' ' / %' .1 _ _ F MAP COMPILED BY PHOTOGRAMMETR/C METHODS. ",''/,/'„?/=,?;;' ,;, ; ?'; ,?%? fir., I --, 1'\?' ' ,`? ` _ J-'??'? ? . '/r',I 'I''' -- _ \1; i „?,` _ `111 1 __ •, ? 'r1J?1;\\` 'ta, n \ ? _? 1 ''-/, 1'; - ' `I -_ h` \ _ \; _ `?-..x.+,171 L `\ ( ?- L\~;?? N ___ ??_____- - -, _' ''_ __ -__-_S` 11,1; 11 ?I ??? 1\` 1 '?* /• _ m? --_- --- _ ?'-'' ? ? 111 ' ,-.,--?i"?? i ; -_ `\/?,? -M f _ _ --- -- 1 \S` ' r l i 'i ?'' ??. " I ' li ? 1 ?,1 11V r,Z ? 1i? _ 1 1 r'i ? 1/ ? i '' e , `?? ' ? v 1,',';,,11'; '?;,,1, ?''_ ;,' ?,; ? ? - `?_?? _ i 1j1 - __ - - ?-`- A i???l ? ` 11 `\ - X111 X11 v; 1'1 'i i?P i ? 11 ?1 i `' ? ? '1'? `. `\ 1 '??? ,?' - ' `" - ? ? X11'/ 1 ?? II???? ?\?`? 1 +\'? ? v )11 _ r r r /??'/ / A\?? `<2?v ? ' 1 v/ i ' , _ --? i ,? ? r i i 1 I,i i' Iii', '1 ' \V r I ' r )?'1 \ \ 1 f \ -_ ,, ?/? 1 1111 I, ?' I - ?4 ' 1? 1 I , ? I ,?\ \ a ? -. '1 ?„.'r ??, ? ? i l '"' 11 ? 1 ` Cn m Ilr \ 1 ' 1\' / t ' \`'`111\1`` ;li '. 6 1 ?` t, I .:\•-" n' `n.... ,.?` ` `_ -- _ ` `--- - ' 1 , 111 -' - ?\-.'?? - - - -- \\, -_ -_ `I\ -- _ 'I ` /i ? ? J??,l. ' ?1 ? yC1 ?'?,'1 I;111' \ \t\. \,I J ' '\1` a_/ ??\\ ?_" \ _ ?` ? i - - ?????` '?.--' '-`..-? ?JN I' ''\?, ? \\ ,`1'11 \\ K ?1___.i '+` - --795 _ ,\? _, _-__`--____ - - -''?;" -/? :,J ,'. -1, /''?' 1 ;/??;, s ??` `` _ , ___ - /`?' ?/ ? -'`'?' -? 1 . `i„? - '".tea.- / r,'L ?/ `?'- ??71,r??t :?3 ?Ew1_4-_ 7??x?y=rte y. • -_ ??-' . // - ?]?i °`5.3 ?' 3'" Y /?f _ -\ 1 _ r 1 / - r - _ - - - - - _ - _?? y='? =- _ /? / T _1- ? I ~? ? `? ??"'?"? _ ?'` ?'`? S,l 6 ? ?" ' ' -'1 ? ILL '?'' 111 E ' /? '1 ';`, St - c ?` ;,? `- - V ?5,. a t _ p Z ?? . F Z p N r? ? o y v ? n N • - -I -o _ C a m - o N .. .. Z oN =Z =m -4Z0 O a o mac Z = o < z cn ?\ r m _ ° ? T Ca?ao y0 -1 ?0 ?r? Z ?' ; J D }" o N o R1 2 = Z Z a m D` ,?? coil o ° a M p r ro'y --4 I I , , -1 cz -- In -um m Zr-o m L4 ?1'' i 1 ?A 1 ?V • ? ?___ 1?1 1 ' 1 I 1?4 --- m ,, ( a/,"ice+????I 1 L?' :.?, \ 1\ ?VIS 1 1 ' w W O 0 O M Z '°D X X X ; r m ;o m Z Z Z Z 0, o =i r- m -? La w z °z m m m m o m o i ° Z z o r M Lli o O MAP COMPILED BY PHOTOGRAMMEMIC METHODS. m f1 O y ? n n n J - r _o M o = O n o - ZD?°o=v =Z =ZO N ° ?zc? accnnn? or- Z o t r .. N cn 1: o w o m ?2 2 z Z no ?DD on .L O o .? D m 0 p CD cn 0 ? eo of the Reservoir's conservation pool. On-site elevations range from71 1 feet to 745 feet above mean sea level. The Reservoir's conservation pool will average 682 feet. The Upper Sophia site consists of pasturelands in active use along the main channel of Sophia Branch, and mixed hardwood forest corridors in large patches along the tributary reach. A farm pond is situated approximately 8-10 feet above the floodplain. Outfall from the pond flows into Sophia Branch at the downstream end of the Site. Other buildings in the vicinity include a residence on SR 1941 (Wall Brothers Road), situated 15-20 feet above the floodplain. SR 1941 crosses Sophia Branch just downstream of the Upper Sophia site. Streamf low is maintained by a 6 foot metal culvert. The SR 1941 roadbed lies at 718 feet, 2-3 feet above the adjacent floodplain. Lower Sophia Branch: The lower portion of the Site contains an approximately 1590-foot reach of Sophia Branch (Figure 4B). This reach maintains a relatively natural meander pattern and riffle and pool sequence. The lower section of Sophia Branch supports a primary watershed of approximately 1.57 square miles and flows into the Deep River 1.1 miles downstream. After construction of the Randleman Reservoir, the downstream portion of the Site will reside immediately adjacent to the reservoir's conservation pool, at 682 feet above mean sea level. On-site floodplain elevations range from 680 feet to approximately 700 feet. The Lower Sophia site consists of large patches of mesic hardwoods along the stream terrace, as well as smaller patches of shrub habitat. Evidence of recreational use is seen in off-road vehicle trails parallel to the stream channel. An existing pond is located downstream of the Lower Sophia site. This pond will be inundated with the filling of Randleman Reservoir. A residence with outbuildings is situated on a rise above the floodplain near SR 1990 (Commonwealth Drive). Sophia Branch flows through two 8 foot culverts as it passes under SR 1990 into the Lower Sophia site. 3.2 SOILS Surficial soils have been mapped by NRCS (USDA, unpublished). Soils were verified in the spring of 2001 by licensed soil scientists to refine soil map units and locate inclusions and taxadjunct areas. Systematic transects were established and sampled to ensure proper coverage. Refined soil mapping is depicted in Figure 5A and 5B. Primary soil types include the Chewacla series, Wehadkee series, and Georgeville series. Chewacla soils are somewhat poorly drained, nonhydric soils which have been formed on floodplains primarily by fluvial activity. Chewacla soils generally exhibit broad, inter-layered variability in texture and permeability dependent upon energy dissipation and sediment deposition patterns associated with each stream overbank flood event. Soil texture generally ranges from coarse sandy loam to silt loam of moderate to moderately rapid infiltration. 2 15 L7 C F ! tJ1 O p p c n n n N N O :13 n a = C a m-v n 'fl Z 10 f/1 -v -p °? ci a Mm n? v a. O n N .. CQ m G?DZ =m -C-iz0 z F1?-j{ C/? LI) fD 0 ;u M C: O N o _ Z Z DO DD On ai o 0 a m a ,'? fD 11 10 ? I , rQ 11 Q11111 1 ?`11 '__' i t ? I r X X X ? O ? ? /m? -N1 -N-1 -Ni ;u 0 C_ Y c) c) 0 o n -4 z A C 1 --.4 4 Z 0 v M o m ? o z ;u m MAP COMPHrD BY PHOTOGRAMMETRIC METHODS. H i l l r, U) 0 m m 0 = r g f N O D p m m \O N O + + + + Im ?(0 I? "l l i I ``l I? ?? . r ? 111 ?, yr. °z 11 1 , q 1111' 1 1 ? w o 0 O I? m z m m m --i 0 (A 0 0 0) O O o T n ? n 5 r o m O m D O o CO m O T M m `n 7m m O 0 D D = z = n O z (/) F i c _n C_O _Cr AN OrZ a N o O / W m ? Z m m 12 N -? -o O_> ZO ?D?o F+•?n can Oo_ ° O Z Z D mn p a my Important factors in the formation and maintenance of wetland systems as hydric inclusions in the Chewacla map units include 1) microtopography and variability in fluvial deposition across the landscape, 2) groundwater and surface water movement from adjacent uplands along the outer edge of the floodplain, and 3) groundwater discharge rates from the interior floodplain into the stream channel. These soils are subject to frequent flooding. The seasonal high water table is within 0.5 to 1.5 feet. Stream dredging, straightening, and conversion to agricultural lands has likely increased the extent of Chewacla (nonhydric) soils and concurrently decreased the extent of Wehadkee (hydric) map units in the Site. Hydric soils are defined as "soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper soil layer" (USDA 1987). Hydric soils comprise the Wehadkee series (Fiuvaquentic Endoaquepts), located primarily within relict backwater sloughs, depressions, ephemeral channels, and swales which remain within the secondary floodplain. These soils are very deep and poorly to very poorly drained. Georgeville silty clay loams (Typic Kanhap/uduits) are strongly sloping, very deep, well drained, eroded soils on uplands. They formed in residuum from Carolina slates and other fine grained rocks. They have a loamy surface layer and a clayey subsoil. Permeability is moderate and shrink-swill potential is low. Seasonal high water table is below 6.0 feet. ® Upper Sophia Site: Chewacla (Fiuvaquentic Dystrochrepts) loam encompasses 22.5 acres of the 23.7-acre site. Under existing conditions, the Wehadkee series comprises approximately 0.1 acres of the site. Georgeville soils comprise approximately 1.1 acres on drier, steep slopes. The very small percentage of Wehadkee series on stream terraces is likely due to ® conversion of the former floodplain into a stream terrace through dredging and incision of the I(? stream channel. Lower Sophia Site: At the lower site, hydric soils comprise a greater percentage of the land area. The downstream site is located at lower elevations and contains a less disturbed stream channel. Chewacla soils comprise approximately 9.3 acres of the 11.9 acre site, while Wehadkee soils encompass approximately 2.3 acres. No Georgeville soils are included at this go site. 3.3 PLANT COMMUNITIES Plant communities are influenced by logging, grazing, and past conversion to agricultural lands. Four primary communities have been identified for descriptive purposes: 1) basic mesic forest, 2) shrub/scrub assemblage, 3) dry oak-hickory forest, and 4) pasture / open field (Figures 6A and 66). Basic Mesic Forest The basic mesic forest assemblage has experienced some degradation from past logging and high-grading, and exists in a somewhat disturbed second-growth state. Forested areas are fragmented, and consequently are composed of a substantial percentage of edge habitat. 18 JT [ [= C N N N o O m z m m -I c a 1 r m m m o x x x m o -N -NI 1 - z O C m _Z > 0 ? G ) 0 D n ? ° ? C ? m z X -1 o M ° m z ? ? v r z ° N m -( i t f 1' n C m -o m O '? ap z G) m n D 0 , ,, Z N .. .. ?? m ADZ ?m COO O l ?i r 7p O = m -1 z A \ o CD fn N am nN OrZ n(! C- z cu 0 IV a E: 0 -j o ° N D D m a '?, S' (DD Cil m 0 1 -in LZJ U= um -XI _ I \0 \ p\? \-\\\ . OI,`\\\ \\\\\ 0 ? I m X x x Z o / ? V) 4 -N-1 -N.1 p ;u o M O A Y/ O 0 o n ? -4 co (A z 0 z a) M rrl c -4 F; po O p c c Z r z ;u 0 MAP COMPArD BY PHOTOGRAMMETR/C METHODS. 5 m V) v) Z M rr-- m n o Ka) N? > N ? m m >i n O m c o o m ? z p 1 p p p m,A / + 1+ li + + 0° Y f^ o, w to o n O m z m m m 0 w O O (7) O O o y v n = r o m 10 O O z ?m n? o' m =1=Z =m z -az3 ? O??\ m CA o o `? cn v n N r z N O ('? l _ N w (D 0 1: 1:0 li o 0 cn D Z Z D ?0 ,? CD In Invasive and opportunistic species are common at forest edges and in gaps farther inside forest boundaries. At the Sophia Branch Site, the basic mesic forest canopy includes sweet gum (Liquidambar styrac/flua), red maple (Acer rubrum), sycamore (Platanus occidenta/is),loblolly pine (Pious taeda), Virginia pine (P. virginiana), white ash (Fraxinus americana), hackberry (Celtis laev/gata), eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), and black cherry (Prunus serotina). Subcanopy and shrub layer species distribution is variable along hydrologic gradients and sunlight regimes, and includes ironwood (Carp/nus caroliniana), elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), flowering dogwood (Corpus flor/da), black willow (Salix nigra), winged elm (Ulmus alata), blackberry (Rubus sp.), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), and Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense). Vines include muscadine grape (Vitis rotund/folia) and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), which becomes invasive in sunnier areas. The herb layer includes common blue violet (Viola papilionacea), henbit (Lamium amplexicaule), chickweed (Ste//aria media), dock (Rumex sp.), Indian strawberry (Duchesnea indica), ebony spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron), and jewelweed (Impatiens capensis). Upper Sophia site: This plant community occurs along the tributary stream of Sophia Branch, comprising approximately 9.5 acres. It grades into dry oak-hickory forest at higher elevations. Lower Sophia site: Basic mesic forest comprises the majority of area at this site, occupying approximately 9.8 of the 11.9 acres. Shrub/Scrub Assemblage This community type is diagnostic of disturbed habitats. Recently-cleared and maintained open areas support limited growth of persistent woody species, including Chinese privet, black willow, blackberry, multiflora rose, eastern red cedar, and white ash saplings or young trees. The herb layer is typically composed of species from adjoining community types. Upper Sophia site: Shrub/scrub assemblage occurs along the banks of Sophia Branch within open pasturelands. It forms a narrow buffer along the stream, and is a minor component of the site (approximately 1.4 acres). Lower Sophia site: A maintained open area near SR 1990 supports approximately 0.9 acres of shrub/scrub assemblage. This area was possibly a former pasture. Young white ash trees are rapidly overtaking the grassy areas. Dry Oak-Hickory Forest Dry oak-hickory forest occupies drier ridges at the Upper Sophia site (approximately 1.1 acres). It shares some canopy species with basic mesic forest, such as eastern red cedar and sweetgum, but also contains a large component of more xeric species such as southern red oak (Quercus falcata), white oak (Q. alba), post oak (Q. stellata), and white hickory (Carya alba). Shrub layer species include flowering dogwood, winged elm, and black cherry. The so 21 to herb layer is sparse. At forest edges, bracken (Pteridium aqudinum), goldenrods (So/idago p_ spp.), and vetch (Vicia sp.) occur, along with species characteristic of fields and pastures. Pasture / Open Field IN This community designation is composed of active pastureland and agricultural fields. Pasture land is dominated by a variety of grasses and herbs. The predominant species is fescue (Festuca spp.). Agricultural fields lack a continuous grassy cover, but support many of the 10 volunteer species found in open pastures. Characteristic volunteer species occurring in fields and pastures include asters (Aster spp.), goldenrods, dock, buttercup (Ranunculus sp.), wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum), wild onion (A//ium canadense), cocklebur (Xanthium 10 strumarium), clovers (Trifo/ium spp.), and crabgrass (Digitaria spp.). Upper Sophia site: Pastureland comprises the majority of this site, occupying approximately 11.7 acres. The entire main stem of Sophia Branch and the lower tributary stream are surrounded by pasture. Lower Sophia site: The open community type at the Lower Sophia site is confined to approximately 0.9 acre of an agricultural field at the downstream end of the site. 3.4 HYDROLOGY The Site is located within the Piedmont hydrophysiographic province, which encompasses the entire drainage basin for the East and West Forks of the Deep River. The region is characterized by moderately hilly terrain with interstream divides exhibiting dendritic drainage patterns and moderately steep slopes along valley floors (0.005-0.015 rise/run). The region is characterized by moderate rainfall. In Randolph County, precipitation averages 42 inches per year with precipitation evenly distributed throughout the year (USDA 1977). Large floods (20-100 year return interval) typically correspond to large thunderstorms and tropical events in the region. Bed-load material supplied by the region consists primarily of silts, sands, and weathered bedrock (very coarse sand and small gravel). Bedrock outcrops are common within incised streams in more steeply sloped valleys. Suspended load consists primarily of easily eroded clays and silts, which transport attached nutrients into downstream waters. Sediment forms a thick layer over coarser materials in heavily disturbed sites. Erosion and suspended sediment loads have been linked to nutrification problems within the Piedmont hydrophysiographic province, including the Randleman Reservoir region (DWQ 2000). Surface Water Upper Sophia Site: The Site encompasses a 1950-foot reach of Sophia Branch and a 210-foot tributary supporting a drainage area of 0.65 square miles. The valley slope measures lu 22 10 a approximately 0.007 to 0.008 rise/run, suggesting the presence of a slightly flat valley floor relative to typical conditions in the Piedmont Province. The floodplain ranges from 100 feet to 400 feet in width along the length of the Site. Incision and straightening of the stream channel is apparent along the main stem of Sophia Branch. This reach is also heavily impacted by livestock. The average existing bankfull depth of the channel is 3.4 feet, compared with 1.1 feet calculated form the regional curves based on drainage area. In addition, the average existing cross-sectional area of the Sophia Branch channel measures approximately 53.2 square feet. According to regional curves, a stable Sophia Branch channel is projected to support cross-sections of approximately 11.8 square feet (assumes rural conditions) (Harman et a/. 1999, Rosgen 1996). The incised and straightened main channel supports a sinuosity (channel length/valley length) of 1.0, while the tributary stream has a sinuosity of 1.17. Substrate within the main channel is composed of a thick layer of silt and mud atop unconsolidated sand, small gravel, and bedrock, while the tributary exhibits a bed of sand, gravel, and rock outcrops exposed by incision and localized bank erosion. The main channel is classified as E6 (silt/clay dominated channel), while the tributary is classified as E4 (sand dominated channel) based on fluvial geomorphic features (Rosgen 1996). Lower Sophia Site: The Lower Sophia site contains a 1650-foot reach of Sophia Branch supporting a drainage area of 1.46 square miles. The valley slope measures approximately 0.011 rise/run, suggesting the presence of a valley floor typical for conditions in the Piedmont Province. The floodplain ranges from 100 feet to 350 feet in width along the length of the Site. This section of Sophia Branch exhibits a relatively undisturbed meander, although the channel is somewhat incised. The average existing bankfull depth of the channel is 4.8 feet, compared with 1.5 feet calculated form the regional curves based on drainage area. In addition, the average existing cross-sectional area of the Sophia Branch channel measures approximately 31.7 square feet. According to regional curves, a stable Sophia Branch channel is projected to support cross-sections of approximately 22.7 square feet (assumes rural conditions) (Harman et a/. 1999, Rosgen 1996). The channel supports a sinuosity (channel length/valley length) of 1.05. Substrate within the main channel is composed of sand, gravel, and rock outcrops exposed by incision. The channel is classified as E4 (gravel dominated channel), based on fluvial geomorphic features (Rosgen 1996). Stream discharge and flood elevations under existing conditions have been predicted based on hydraulic models. Section 4.2 provides model predictions for the 5- and 100-year storm under current conditions. The study suggests that overbank flooding occurs on an interval as short as five years. However, entrenchment has likely confined the 1- to 2-year flows within the eroding channel banks, effectively bypassing floodplain functions associated with pollutant so 23 'o 10 removal and maintenance of wildlife habitat for overbank flood dependent species. No evidence of overbank flooding has been noted during field studies. Surface water runoff within the stream terrace would be relatively sluggish in wooded areas. Surface detention and ponding on the rough soil surface, and interception by dense forest vegetation, would occur in this area immediately after significant rainfall events with delayed return flow into the main-stem channel. Cross-valley and down-valley flow would be more rapid from steep side slopes planted in pasture grasses or crops. The hydraulic models suggest that structures and roadways remain unaffected by floodwaters during the 100-year storm under current conditions. No evidence of flooding was noted during field studies. Groundwater Surface water hydrodynamics, such as periodic overbank floods, fluvial sediment deposition, and hydraulic energy dissipation, represent important attributes of floodplains and bottomland hardwood forest in the region. However, streams in the region typically function as groundwater withdrawal features throughout most of the year. Therefore, groundwater inputs from auxiliary watersheds and upland slopes abutting the floodplain represent the primary hydrologic input resulting in the development and maintenance of riverine wetlands at this Site. Groundwater gradients in May 2000, and after rainfall events in August 2000, indicate that the groundwater table typically resides from 1 foot to 6 feet below the land surface. The groundwater gradient typically remained more than 2 feet below the surface throughout the stream terrace with a relatively steep gradient induced by the dredged stream channel. Based on observed groundwater gradients, the Site is expected to support limited groundwater storage potential typically associated with maintenance of wetland surfaces. Although adjacent escarpments supply riparian inflow of groundwater, this flow appears steeply inclined with relatively rapid discharge towards the stream channel. Entrenchment of Sophia Branch has accelerated groundwater discharge to depths of 4-5 feet below the surface near the stream channel. Restoration of a shallower (less incised) stream network will generate a flatter groundwater gradient. However, groundwater models (Section 4.3) suggest that groundwater tables will continue to remain more than 1 foot below the surface. Therefore, restoration of wetlands within this Site may require establishment of backwater (surface water induced) wetlands behind a greentree impoundment. 3.5 WATER QUALITY Sophia Branch, from its source the Deep River, maintains a State best usage classification of WS-IV CA* (Stream Index No. 17-9.6-(1) (DWQ 2000). Class WS-IV waters are protected as water supplies which are in moderately to highly developed watersheds. Point source discharges are generally required to meet stringent pre-treatment standards, to maintain pre- treatment failure (spill prevention) plans, and to perform point source monitoring for toxic 10 24 10 10 10 substances. Local programs to control nonpoint source and stormwater discharge of pollution are also required. The designation "CA" denotes a Critical Area. The symbol * signifies p waters that are within a designated Critical Supply watershed and are subject to a special management strategy specified in 15A NCAC 2B .0248. In this case, the watershed areas is ® within 0.5 mile of a water supply intake for the reservoir. Upper Sophia site: The Upper Sophia site consists primarily of active pastureland and second- 0 growth forest adjacent to the tributary stream channel. Fertilizers, pesticides, and nutrients associated with land uses may influence water quality in the vicinity. Restoration of wetland hydrology and diversion of area runoff onto restored wetland surfaces will provide local water 'Q quality benefits, including important functions such as particulate retention, removal of elements and compounds, and nutrient cycling. Historically, the floodplain provided water quality benefits to the entire watershed associated with Sophia Branch. However, runoff from cleared land area effectively bypasses wetland floodplains and flows directly to the channel and through the Site. Restoration of wetland hydrology and diversion of watersheds onto restored wetland surfaces will provide for restoration of overbank flooding and associated water quality benefits above the Randleman Reservoir. Lower Sophia site: The Lower Sophia site is largely wooded, and maintains a functional forested buffer within the project boundary. However, agricultural lands on upper slopes and upstream may be supplying Sophia Branch with additional nutrients and sediments. Wetland hydrology on a restored floodplain will provide enhanced nutrient and sediment removal, and additional water treatment opportunities for waters entering Randleman Reservoir. 3.6 JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS Jurisdictional areas are defined using the criteria set forth in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (DOA 1987). Approximately 0.1 acre of jurisdictional wetlands were delineated on-site at the Upper Sophia site. The Lower Sophia site contains 2.3 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and 0.3 acre of open waters. Jurisdictional areas were delineated on June 18, 2001 and confirmed by the USACE. Figures 7A and 7B depict the boundary locations of existing jurisdictional areas. Wetland extent was most likely more extensive prior to Site stream dredging. 'o 25 10 ® ® - ®!'! D I Lam] C'? L7 L1] N J ? n N p A m•?/ m -4 w ?L O m m m K K 1 m m x x x z o 'c m /- --4 un z In O r, 1-4 ;u ;u rc-rl I s ?,FF b c? °_' -Di ° 0 111 _ Q Z m a) -N1 --4 Z 0 y 0 ;u ;u ??? \ 1 r"f ??r ?_. ref N m MAP COMPILED BY PHOTOGRAMMEMIC METHODS. I -? . mss, \ t'?J \ /\ /?/ i (jvlffSi? (yam ///? _ + ?} __ Y lj? rV O ?- l `IJI ?. ) ?. , . ?L.?" I F < 1 I i .110 o ` N T C a rn -v C -fl 7p z p m n m D Oc? ?z 2DZ N o p (n 4 m s ?- 0 fn >m m ? 00 _0 o c _D o ??? Ov O Z Sv ° N O r- ° ? .. 0 .. D 2 Z Z D-° ma D 70 cn o - ?- D M p O O D G [ Q7 4P, J _ c z 0 m SAM.. mmr cc, o g PC, or-r I _<_2? OZ OZ Cmm Z p-zi-q >?toX <oo o ai X 17 O 61 I ?l <?=??? CO. --------: \'? \ erg"l ?`?.? - - U N r[T O 0 O f m z -vi o m O m? Cc) X X X Z p r z N 2 C. o ?Tl plp in - i 1 o m / Zn f 0 0 0 0 n 0 ?r• NO m A C ? Z C3 Z A m A O p C M °m o c z 0 - 0 z o O m .< iA L4 1+ 1+ 3 V ui o 0 MAP COMPILED BY PHOTOGRAMMETRIC METHODS. ?- o -o 10 z 0m 0 v O C) 0 o Ln .. i .. D m -=Z i ?Z? A O ?aT1°11n D N m cl) ° 0 W o> z o z o J? 17 = o w o Z 2 Z Z DO ?-DI? 0 10 U 4.0 WETLAND RESTORATION STUDIES This section summarizes studies performed to orient restoration design. Studies include the following: 1) Restoration Alternatives Analyses: Alternatives for wetland restoration relative to stream, floodplain, and reservoir functions were assessed. 2) Surface Water Analyses: Overbank flooding frequency and extent was evaluated for wetland restoration alternatives to assess potential for impacts to adjacent roads and structures. 3) Groundwater Modeling: The effect of drainage features on groundwater wetland hydroperiods was modeled. 4) Reference Plant Communities: Reference wetland communities were sampled to predict the target distribution of vegetation to be established in restoration areas. 5) Reference Physiography and Surface Topography: Reference wetland surfaces were measured within an existing greentree impoundment to characterize long term, projected Site conditions. 4.1 RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSES The objectives of this project include the following: 1) Assist in protecting the drinking water supply from pollutants discharged from the developing watersheds. Pollutants attached to sediment represent the primary water quality concern for this project. 2) Maximize benefits to water quality through establishment of functioning wetlands above the reservoir pool. 3) Replace habitat for wetland-dependent wildlife displaced by establishment of open water. 4) Maximize the area of wetland restoration achieved by the project. Restoration alternatives suggested by project participants are briefly described below. Stable Channel Construction Reconstruction of a potentially stable stream system was assessed as a replacement for the existing dredged and incised channel. The new channel would be designed to mimic referenced, stable attributes including the geomorphic dimension, pattern, and profile needed to transport water and sediment produced by the watershed. The restored channel would reduce the rate of groundwater withdrawal from adjacent floodplains, potentially resulting in wetland hydrology restoration in certain areas. ID 28 10 g0 Stream restoration through natural channel design represents a viable option for portions of this Site. In particular, the dredged and straightened pastureland section of the branch in the Upper Sophia site would be appropriate for stream restoration. If applied, approximately 2200 linear feet of channel could be relocated into a sinuous channel that reduces bank erosion and 90 increases in-stream aquatic habitat. Based on groundwater models, this option is expected to provide for less than 1 acre of wetland restoration on the relatively narrow floodplain floor. Because the wetland restoration area is inadequate, the stable channel construction option was n discarded. Alluvial Wetland Fan Development This option is designed to elevate water tables and reduce sediment transport within the floodplain and stream corridor. Alluvial fan development entails placement of fixed, in-stream weirs within the dredged channel. The in-stream modifications are expected to reduce the degree of channel incision, increase overbank flooding, reduce stream sediment transport capacity, and provide greater sediment deposition within vegetated wetlands. The system would progress toward an alluvial wetland fan where the channel actively migrates across fluvial material. During the interim period, in-stream structures will sustain significant energy during flood events; therefore, the potential exists for development of channel by-passes (shoot cut-offs) around the structures. As such, risk of wetland restoration failure exists. The structures must be designed to avoid short-circuiting and provide for sediment deposition in the incised channel. Over a relatively long period of time, the shallower channel would inevitably abandon the structures and begin to actively migrate across the restored floodplain. At this point, the system would need to be monitored for evidence of head-cutting from the downstream reach. A step-pool channel would need to be established due to the significant change in elevation immediately above and below the alluvial wetland fan. Because the potential for future head- cutting is considered significant, this option was discarded for the Upper Sophia site. Sites located immediately above the Randleman Reservoir conservation pool elevation (682 feet above mean sea level) will not be threatened by future head-cuts because the conservation pool is expected to serve as a grade control structure. However, this site is located 0.9 miles upstream of the conservation pool. Alluvial wetland fan development was also considered as an option for the Lower Sophia site. Narrowness of the stream floodplain at this reach reduces the wetland area achievable by alluvial fan development. Shoot cut-offs have the capacity to erode the surrounding terrace slopes, causing sloughing of soil and introducing a large component of new sediment into the Randleman Reservoir water supply. Due to the restricted nature of the floodplain in this reach, alluvial wetland fan development was discarded as a wetland development option. 90 29 '9o ao On 90 ?o 9p ?o Greentree Impoundments This alternative is similar to alluvial fan development described above. However, greentree impoundments include a floodplain levee and controllable outlet structure that is modified periodically throughout the year to induce backwater flooding and promote the development of forested, shrub-scrub, and emergent wetlands. Greentree impoundments have been constructed above other water supply reservoirs in the region for wetland, wildlife, and sediment retention functions. These structures can be controlled to regulate the depth and frequency of inundation based upon objectives of the system. In this case, the structures would be used to establish vegetated wetlands and limit transport of pollutants into the reservoir. In general, the levee system is constructed to provide for less than 2 to 3 feet of inundation during winter months, to prevent over-topping, and to allow for survival of tree seedlings. The winter depth is generally dependent upon the height of seedlings. The raising and lowering of outlet structures requires regular monitoring and maintenance by qualified personnel to facilitate the growth of tree species. The actual date that the outlet is modified may vary annually and is dependent upon localized conditions within the watershed. Seedling mortality is tracked on an annual basis and the date of spring lowering is modified to maximize the rate of forest regeneration. Tree species selected for planting may also be modified based upon collected data. Greentree impoundments designed for forested wetland restoration have failed in the past, due primarily to lack of resources for long-term monitoring, management, and manipulation. Based on alternatives analyses, construction of a greentree impoundment across the Sophia Branch floodplain represents the preferred option for this Site. The capacity to manage, regulate flows, and regulate sediment transport/deposition rates at the Site outfalls will reduce potential for head-cut migration into an alluvial wetland fan as described above. In addition, the structures would allow pro-active control of wetland development and function behind each impoundment. 4.2 SURFACE WATER ANALYSES Surface drainage on the Site and surrounding area was analyzed to predict the effects of diverting existing surface drainage into wetland restoration areas along the primary and secondary floodplains. Several alternatives were evaluated to determine surface water modifications that minimize potential for impacts to adjacent properties and maximize wetland area. Hydrologic and hydraulic analyses were completed using standard study methods of USACE and NRCS. Flood events of a magnitude which are expected to be equaled or exceeded once on average every 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, or 100-year period were selected to characterize existing and proposed conditions at the Site. 30 Hydrologic Analyses Hydrologic analyses were carried out using the USACE HEC-1 model to establish the peak stream discharge for the 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, or 100-year flood events at the Site. Input for the HEC-1 model consisted of synthetic storm precipitation data, drainage area, NRCS curve numbers, and drainage basin lag time. Tables 2A and 2B list the total, 24-hour precipitation event for each storm that was analyzed. Precipitation data was obtained from U.S. National Weather Service documents (NOAA TP-40 and Hydro-35). The drainage area was delineated on 7.5-minute USGS topographic maps and then subdivided into sub-basins 15 based on land use or location of tributaries. The drainage area for each sub-basin was estimated using a planimeter. The NRCS curve numbers were estimated using methods described in NRCS TR-55. Sub-basin lag times were estimated using Snyder's method. Because there were no on-site gage data, the HEC-1 computer models could not be calibrated. The models were validated by comparing the 100-year peak discharges estimated from the HEC-1 models with peak discharges estimated by regional formulas for the Piedmont region of North Carolina in the USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 87-4096. NRCS curve numbers for the HEC-1 models were adjusted until the HEC-1 peak discharges were within 25 - 30 percent of the regional formula values. Tables 2A and 2B summarize peak discharges estimated by the validated HEC-1 model and the regional equations. Hydraulic Analyses Water-surface elevations of the 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, or 100-year floods of Sophia Branch were estimated using the USACE HEC-2 computer program. Channel cross sections for the hydraulic analyses were obtained from digital orthophoto maps prepared by Geodata Corporation with a contour interval of 1 foot. Photography was taken on April 8, 1999. Roughness coefficients (Manning's "n") in the channels and on the overbank areas were obtained from FEMA studies previously conducted in the area. Roughness data were verified with field inspections of the sites. Roughness coefficients were 0.06 in the main channel and 0.12 for overbank areas. Starting water surface elevations and energy slope for existing conditions were estimated using data from the HEC-1 analysis and digital orthophoto maps. A water surface elevation computed by the HEC-1 model was used to estimate the true value of the water surface elevation at the beginning cross-section for Sophia Branch. This initial water surface elevation corresponds to the water level in the existing ponds on these sites during the specified flood events. It was assumed that the existing ponds shall remain in place. 10 Ip 31 ?o ?o 10 lo Q N W J Ln Q F- c a) > ` a j-0 _l d' CD I, O t O CD O M CL a O CU cn N N M •- r- N a O LLJ r n Q U LL v - } r [t M co It M M M d ` o n N Lo co Ln N (D O ?p D.. N N N M M N N M 00 C? . .- • . Lo L' M O O M N 1_ N 't W N O 'd• 1 `? .- N N N M M N N N x W LO M N N M N N N CM > o N N Lo 00 .= LO N (D O - a .- N N N M C`') N N ('') ca CU CO n 1- 1- N N n n - O CD LO O c m 't a) M N Cl N 00 rl •- N D7 M (D > Lr) O U N 6 ?- 't CD N a) M r, E N N N N M N N E w t? t? I? n n n n U O > ++ (n O .- co 0 N N u') 00 '- Lo N CO O O o a N N N OM OM N N ('M O = Co O Q) Q) . r n n r n a) N 04 00 N } I LI) c C N CO CD O O O co Ln M N M Lo -- N O O (D C? oi vi (6 co co N , N N N N M , N N ` > LLLJ n n O U c W D (D CD (D CD CD CD CD O 0 r- O It •- LO a7 " 0 .- N N N M M N N N Co U- N r% n r N r- r N r D CO O >- O N +• ? O N N Lo 1, 1? M .- M N M N lA U U •'_' n O r- M ltd ? d1 M CD O `>1 N N N N M N N a C j „ rn - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N a cD ?1' O 4 r L6 6 LL .- N N N M M N N N CLl Lq } Ln m c o0 o) 0) N Lo iO .- O O N OD (D 6 C; c) Lo (0 r- N N N CO N N Lx r, r, n n r M 0 y N ?: w i 0 'O 0 O c U N E U N 0 p -6 'CU U a `9 0: _ c 0 M _O C Co E_ Z; m Q U C 0 N S W O. = >?'NN 0 CL x 4 E i (D Q a C ' "- N r- N M It Lo (D N 00 T - Lo O 7 m LL c o a? U_ CL N a? co (A c O co U O c a) c 7 O CL E N m 10 ao 10 10 2 U Z Q x m Q 2 CL O N x w> 0 J_ Ln w U Z w 0 w x LL 0 0 0 J LL N _O Q x H ? x 0 LL cn w H Q H U) w z O p Q w J w w U Q LL x D N x w 1- Q ir. _C N > X O O O p j -0 J O CD O. -0 0 Co (n 00 00 CL o w - (D (D Q L O ?- N CO r- 0O m O CD O N O rn N M N 07 O c r y - O w co co m ? ? 07 > O N 0 co o ca co n . 00 (D CA O O O n M CN Cn O ") C m n (D 00 CD w u' `) ? '?- N ri o E E lL co O a) CD O > .0 V c 6 Co a d' O o M a 00 (D m (D 2 o a? 00 N LO c C In M O CD Lr; - N O M o co ` +1 CU > j 00 CD M CD Cu Q) c w O N 0 'd' O =1 41 LL 0 .. 00 (D rn CD 0) } a n O O a? c m p ?y tt) O " L, M Cn 0 W * cc) O 06 CD CL N O M O CO (7) co a) (o (D to (D n c r* L O r? M d ( ? q y N am X M O 00 (D w a) a ++ O) O y N a? u ? C a U O vO- C C Ca L > Q) - U _ co N E V O ?o CO CU CU ' Co 41 Q) a? V)i E ( m Lr L D C: Z m cm -0 c co ?- " co ? U 0 C O co 0 O O y YO CL w N N = ?. a E > `«-• X y Q C O a) ) O ti N N ri d 7 m .i c U a? a? R N C O F+ co U O C d E C 0 a E C') M I D so go Model Results: Existing Conditions Tables 2A and 2B summarize the water surface elevations for existing and proposed 0 conditions. Figures 8A and 8B depict modeled flood elevations for the 5-, and 100-year, 24- hour storm event for existing conditions, and for the 5-year event under post-project a conditions. The model suggests that overbank flood events occur during the 5-year storm at both sites. However, frequent inundations (1-year return interval) have likely been effectively eliminated along the entrenched channel under existing conditions. Evidence of overbank ri flooding has not been observed at the Site from May 1998 through June 2001 (3 years). The hydraulic model suggests little danger of flooding along either SR 1941 downstream of the Upper Sophia site, or at SR 1990 upstream of the Lower Sophia site (Figures 8A and 813). Local sources have indicated that SR 1941 was last inundated over ten years ago. Table 2A indicates that the 100-year water surface near this road resides at 715.8 feet above mean sea level, while the roadbed lies at approximately 718 feet. 10 At the Lower Sophia site, the 100-year storm under present conditions is projected to reach 693 feet above sea level, while the adjacent surface of SR 1990 lies at approximately 711 feet (Table 2B). Model Results: Projected Post Restoration Conditions Several restoration alternatives were evaluated to determine the change in flood elevations for various storm events and the associated impacts on surrounding structures. Alternatives included in-stream weirs located at systematic intervals within the entrenched channel. Ten structural arrangements were investigated, including cross-vane weirs spaced at up to 150- foot intervals within the channel. The structural arrangement was also modified to establish a pool to pool spacing characteristic of natural channel design. The selected alternative minimizes potential for impact and maximizes wetland restoration/creation area associated with the design. In summary, a series of nine greentree impoundments is proposed for the Upper Sophia site beginning approximately 300 feet upstream from SR 1941. The impoundment weirs will be designed to allow unrestricted channel flows during periods of increased probability for large (tropical) storms. The weirs were modeled with a top elevation of 714 feet at the downstream end to 729 feet at the upstream end of the main channel. For the Lower Sophia site, a series of two greentree impoundments is proposed. The uppermost weir would be placed approximately 900 feet downstream of SR 1990, at an elevation of 686 feet. The model suggests that floodwaters arising from the 100-year storm will continue to avoid roadways and structures. With levee construction, the 100-year storm level adjacent to SR 1941 at the Upper Sophia site is expected to increase less than 0.2 feet (Table 2A). Post- construction flood levels for the 100-year storm adjacent to SR 1990 (Lower Sophia site) are 10 34 10 v C. R R R 00 0 m (A (1) C- 0 ;u M --4 co C) co m 00 0 Z ;u co it m n o y ? n n n - C o m n v m -fl 0 acv -1 o N.. .. Zpr =m "?ZO m p \ Z5 rC0 N nNm 0 ? pry o p '-f ?... m c: ? ?Zp O Im? oa 70 .. N ?0 M O_D zo °v cn °o •< = z Z D m n` ,p'? CAD V 0 O o , x x x r , - Z m o o M; mx y a 0 0 0 o ? , r v) -i o m < V m < A C p 1 Z A A --1 O z ?Z ?Q m r M c z? o '- o c z 0 zz O 0 V) O O o j = v + -1 O O z z N N MAP COMPILED BY PHOTOGRAMMETRIC METHODS. n O y m r m -rG0 m m a cn z t7 o r 0 i N O (A 0 ° 2 o' m ;uwln p-< o t°no 0 -6m C)i? Q ? =m-n ;Q-i 0Zm O(9 =o g rg Z -io ?0*V o-< 0 r-r1l C20 mtn C-0 <? vi <> M rn o N A z o p • al m v r- O o z x M -o M M =o ;u =Z =Zo ? m m o o 0?? D z ?v 1 1- A N m m z -I mm cu r m rrl < (0 to O m o zz r Z m? DO D ;0 o rn --, * o z? n m 7-,? o < a p 'fix Fes' ?{ f.... y ° rD p O O expected to increase by approximately 0.5 feet (Table 2B). Residences and other structures at both the Upper Sophia and Lower Sophia sites area expected to remain well above o floodwaters for the 100-year storm. Restoration methods are designed to reduce the channel from 4-5 feet in depth below the floodplain to saturated / inundated conditions at the floodplain sureface during the winter and early portions of the growing season. The weirs and associated water levels would be lowered during the remaining portions of the year. The model assumes that the weirs will remain in place during a 50- to 100-year storm during the winter (flooded) season. Ideally, weirs would be lowered prior to such storms to avoid damage to impoundment structures. 4.3 GROUNDWATER MODELING Groundwater modeling was performed to characterize water table elevations under historic (reference), existing, and post-restoration conditions. The groundwater modeling software selected for simulating shallow subsurface conditions and groundwater behavior at the Site is DRAINMOD. This model was developed by R.W. Skaggs, Ph.D., P.E., of North Carolina ®e State University (NCSU) to simulate the performance of water table management systems. Model Description 1 DRAINMOD was originally developed to simulate the performance of agricultural drainage networks on sites with shallow water table conditions. DRAINMOD predicts water balances in the soil-water regime at the midpoint between two drains of equal elevation. The model is capable of calculating hourly values for water table depth, surface runoff, subsurface drainage, infiltration, and actual evapotranspiration over long periods referenced to climatological data. The reliability of DRAINMOD has been tested for a wide range of soil, crop, and climatological conditions. Results of tests in North Carolina (Skaggs, 1982), Ohio (Skaggs et al. 1981), Louisiana (Gayle et a/. 1985; Fouss et a/. 1987), Florida (Rogers 1985), Michigan (Belcher and Merva 1987), and Belgium (Susanto et a/. 1987) indicate that the model can be used to reliably predict water table elevations and drain flow rates. DRAINMOD has also been used to evaluate wetland hydrology by Skaggs et al. (1993). Methods for evaluating water balance ®® equations and equation variables are discussed in detail in Skaggs et al. (1993). DRAINMOD has been modified for application to wetland studies by adding a counter that accumulates the number of events wherein the water table rises above a specified depth and remains above that threshold depth for a given duration during the growing season. Wetland hydrology is defined as groundwater within 12 inches of the surface for 28 consecutive days (12.5 percent of the growing season), and 11 consecutive days (5 percent of the growing season). Wetland hydrology is achieved in the model if target hydroperiods are met for more than one-half of the number of years modeled (i.e., 16 out of 31). Groundwater drainage contours are established on available mapping for various durations of saturation within 1 foot of the soil surface (i.e. saturation contour for 0-5 percent, 5-12.5 percent, and 12.5-20 percent of the growing season). 37 10 Model inputs for DRAINMOD simulations were obtained as follows: the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) soil texture classification, number of days in the growing season (defined as March 26 - November 6), and hydraulic conductivity data were obtained 10 from the NRCS soil survey for Randolph County and Guilford County (USDA unpublished, USDA 1977). Inputs for soil parameters such as the water table depth/volume, drained/upflux 10 relationship, Green-Ampt parameters, and water content/matric suction relationship were obtained utilizing the MUUF computer software developed by NRCS. Precipitation and temperature files were obtained for the years 1930 through 1980 for Charlotte, North Carolina. DRAINMOD simulations were designed to predict the transition zone from Chewacla soils to Wehadkee soils based on groundwater drainage conditions within a relatively flat floodplain surface. Chewacla soils represent a non-hydric (non-wetland), somewhat poorly drained soil that is common on primary floodplains immediately adjacent to streams. The Wehadkee series comprises hydric (typically wetland), poorly drained soils that are typical in backwater floodplain areas situated further from drainageways. Forested conditions (evapotranspiration rates) and published hydraulic conductivity values were assumed for Chewacla soils. The simulations were run for six channel inverts (0, 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8 feet) and at various target hydroperiods during the growing season. Table 3 provides a depiction of the groundwater discharge zone of influence by invert depth (elevation below floodplain). For example, a stream channel invert 6 feet below the floodplain elevation is modeled as reducing surface hydroperiods below 5 percent of the growing season at a distance of 215 feet from the channel. A former floodplain surface 6 feet in elevation above the channel invert and greater than 215 feet from the channel is projected to support wetlands. The preliminary groundwater drainage model was interpreted based upon field verification of NRCS soil map units, channel depth (based on measured cross-sections), and floodplain elevation (based on topographic maps). Model parameters were set to predict the average annual duration in which groundwater remains within 1 foot of the soil surface at assigned elevations above a channel invert or in-stream structure. The floodplain elevations outside of the groundwater drainage contour and at the modeled channel depth were judged to have a hydroperiod greater than 5 percent. Post-Restoration Model Applications and Results For groundwater wetland restoration, the primary objectives of this project include 1) a reduction of channel incision along Sophia Branch and associated tributaries, 2) elevation of the groundwater gradient into the rooting zone for developing vegetation, and 3) establishment of minimum wetland hydroperiods encompassing 5 percent of the growing season, which are typical for riverine wetlands in the Piedmont hydrophysiographic province. Therefore, the effective post-project depths of the Sophia Branch channel will be reduced from an average of 4-5 feet under existing conditions to gradients between 1 to 3 feet below the floodplain. I D 38 go b ?o so io ?o is ?o ,o ?o ?o ?o so Table 3 Modeled Groundwater Discharge Zone of Influence on Wetland Hydroperiod Chewacla / Wehadkee Soil Floodplain Groundwater Number of Groundwater Number of Surface Discharge Zone Years Discharge Zone Years Elevation Above of Influence" Wetland of Influence Wetland Channel Invert / (feet) Criteria (feet) Criteria Weir Height' (Surface Met (Surface Met Hydroperiods <5% Hydroperiods < (feet) of the growing 12.5% of the season) growing season)" Forested Conditions (relatively high surface water storage and rooting functions) 0 ----- 29/31 ----- 27/31 1 253 20/31 145 16/31 2 85 16/31 225 16/31 3 125 16/32 275 17/31 4 160 16/31 315 16/31 6 215 16/31 380 16/31 8 245 16/31 405 16/31 "Weir Height" is assumed to represent the effective depth (invert) of the drainage feature. 2: Soil hydraulic conductivities and drainage rates have been generalized based upon NRCS data and regional averages. 3: Discharge Zone of Influence is equal to %: of the modeled ditch spacing 4: Based on field observations, soil types projected to support wetland hydroperiods for greater than 5 percent to 12.5 percent of the growing season are expected to exhibit characteristics more indicative of the Wehadkee series, a poorly drained soil. Based on the model, these areas may occur on floodplains within 25 feet to 200 feet of streams potentially lacking significant effluent (groundwater withdrawal) character, such as very shallow channels. Conversely, the model suggests that the transition from Chewacla soils (somewhat poorly drained) to Wehadkee soils (poorly drained) may be achieved adjacent to larger (dredged) effluent channels at distances ranging from 300 feet to 400 feet from the drainage structure (assuming a relatively flat floodplain surface). 39 'o 10 DRAINMOD simulations modeled the zone of influence of the post project channel on wetland hydroperiods within the primary floodplain. The maximum zone of influence may be used to predict the area of groundwater wetland hydrological influence that may result due the elevation of stream flow within the channel. In addition, the model provides an estimate of the area that may continue to be affected in perpetuity by the stream channel at a depth of 1 to 3 feet below the floodplain elevation. Based on these simulations, the post-restoration channel is expected to continue to effectively drain groundwater from the Chewacla soils within the map unit. Model simulations indicate that a series of in-stream weirs placed to within 1 foot of the adjacent floodplain elevation may not restore significant areas of wetlands in Chewacla soils. A channel invert 2 feet below the adjacent stream terrace continues to effectively drain an area 85 feet adjacent to the drainage feature. Gradual slopes in remaining portions of the outer floodplain are projected to continue draining towards the modified stream channel. Therefore, in-stream weirs do not provide a viable option for wetland restoration based on the groundwater model. To create wetlands, greentree impoundments will be required to elevate the groundwater surface above the floodplain elevation (immediately adjacent to the channel) periodically throughout the year. 4.4 REFERENCE GREENTREE IMPOUNDMENTS Established greentree impoundments within the Piedmont of North Carolina were visited to measure wetland attributes, review various structural designs, and to discern management strategies employed. Reference systems include the Rocky Branch impoundment above Falls Lake in Wake County, the Country Line Creek impoundments in Caswell County, the Beaver Creek greentree impoundment above Jordan Lake in Wake County, and the Little Creek impoundment above Jordan Lake in Durham County (Figures 9-11). These impoundments have typically been located above water supply reservoirs in the region to replace wetland habitat inundated by the reservoir, provide waterfowl habitat, and control sedimentation. Controllable weirs range from concrete dams and electronic sluice gates on larger tributaries to corrugated metal pipe using flash-board risers on smaller systems. The associated dams typically consist of an earthen causeway with rip-rapped emergency spillways and erosion control areas. Dams likely to be overtopped within watersheds greater than 10 square miles have often been reinforced with concrete materials placed on the earthen dam. Figure 12 provides a conceptual depiction of a typical weir and dam for greentree impoundments within watersheds ranging in size from 2 to 7 square miles. The weir consists of two 4-foot wide slots with wooden flash-board risers used to control the water surface elevation. For this application, the flash boards could be completely removed to provide for existing channel flows during summer months, planting periods, or for other management purposes. Subsequently, the boards may be installed during the winter and/or early part of the growing season to establish wetland hydrology behind the impoundment. The type or size of the weir used at the Sophia Branch Site may be modified during the engineering design phase to reduce flood potential, increase potential for stability, and/or other management concerns. 10 40 .1o 0 = D D m O Z O U) C C m m N S CD (D 3 U) 03 O N IZ X (D Q Q v (D cn .? ? e b ? 1` I `} t a ' 00 Q p I j, + 7F, ? ? ` b I IsM y_. } rl -' 6 ? ? ' Ioll (( g isp -' 1 Y 1 ; c f ` " L 14?` 1: \ /S?" .1 .??_'. i \?-.:--?? l ' `. ti 1? ?'•....? - - Ar ? o ? ,Y \<'N (Yv S ?`?'iF ?` L .7`t"? -lam - ? _ ?6 ?-- ?creTr" ?1 ,,? I I],? __a`•1'?, ..,. l/ ? i ?,j,' ' v l1 (? r > r , 5 S 4 r; 0 c 51 L Z > Y 5 ` Z Z '?:d ??`? '• p ,d / I..i?? ?` Ji Tv.-.>: --?_.? _?_;,I...b, Jd ) 7 ?' ?? 11( e I `6 Yl r\ ^?C I _? ,eh r. l•?oN t-. f ?f - r -?? q? ,a.. I 11y t ,? ? S _ _ - ?2 C k L.71 'b/7 t ? I ?. t(?. '? ! t?/l a ;rpe? ? d?l .. ? v -C ?M }? _ '--., 1 ,a., ,'ti ? ?'? a?11 !j ? jp?' `//,`(?/.1 1 J d1? 1'/rfr .e?b' i ??? °rpr? ? ? _;- S? r ru.?- ???\ ? T.?V •??? r I1 I??f .l i'? \ ? ,4A e ?..-. S \1/ ?.. • ? a p ?.' ' 1 6 l 1- , \y'l. , W? I -?4 i ?•, ' ?1; ? .h ? ?_? ?. ?'r 1-??.' ?.?1 ._no.T _r. (I? jam, ?. _ \ ? - \ ,` .??' -r , G t , ?J 1 r > I, 'T: l6 I /eMhv - _ _ - (.•l ^..i ...R ?+ ?r ._? .SM? ! I • /?' 1`'4+ FF ?I , GRANViIIE_Co. _?6> >. ,t - v C ww_?.•. ` s 1 i + - ? oar AMatn co 1\ _ F •.,?- f __.__ -J f;?' ,.. . •S -. i,qt-_ ;...- ;?y. ??y'• _ raid, y?` l 1 ,-- IL?I.I i.,?, r,Y:r• \?` J. .:_-i ) ''`11 ' J d ;/?+?." Y ?.?8 °°.qti ??.` ;- MO 1 S {.^. \`t + L i` yj } •\ !P 1', I.`? 1.,? ? ? 4.. ??'' ; .\\ ?;`I6 `i `??: ? ° \? Cr -?c ?*+.r y . \rogaa .-}-?d? I r 6C L.., _c r b / 1 Cl.. /? .,r• ' _ /°.•i..» -! ten./ it ..n ro..-.-_ -'?. y. R.tf? ` carry' y .. s ,, l:' y .n FF••--L 1 ? 'rte b ..'p? I ?4i..A ¦ b a '1 ' X16. 1 ?.,•. } /?/ rn,ru ro.. 1 I 1? 1?? ;y, ,• `!?, I Jt , ?-s.I ?e- r _n" `y(?'l1 1??- ? 1t`6 6 .b 1 ? ???"1?? y: 3 ?`, (I?/??I??"?1 •?1?\?j??' f N? Ib. 1? ?\?`A.. I ??M-? l` ?i 1_ ?r ??'.r I, x?? - ,.I. \ •_\?. ..^`r \?3_? /.'..??? c •?' ?. •e,'\1 ? ?M?'C / i d w' i?' - / ae /?i? ^?? mr•-? ?tP ? 7' ?'•e 1 -•t? •. ? 11 qOe -,a_ I .. is ? .. t la I; / ` _ (A O 'n Ir ? I a S b d 00 _nol 0 N d a C) d N m v A 0 a) S Z G) -n :q v ? m y X n C?7 "O D z= g ?m ? p 0 CL o c d :r Z S Cpl ? "s o T sM 0m r 7L G) :. cn 'n nn? ZZU) O nso C)> 3 =Z0 z [? r z Dz on 1 c' a l< a -4 m b? "c - .BCD D oC:? m :r 22g 0 ?rD L" CO F Zrnm o ?CD z z mn d o? z N d ?v e f :? r ?T,y L P%" ??3swTLa c'1? -, . 1 d .°ern r _ 0 f C l F i t y WI Clhe CD .\/ p I \ ti I •l :i? w iao.IW \ .f 1 111T _ - wM L I t ? ? ?? !I / r3 ?1? - 1 Fr d l\ \ 1 1 o. } } ' (D \ woo l s? d W 4 f` 00 fir, e' ? \? ? ??r ..n°.` • kyy ?. ? ... i d', S -, j+ ?- ?i , J -?.'-H ry 0 C ? •? y °1 11'x. l.. _ ? r"v G O' -' W `t p ty- i ` ; : .._r_; ' I '"• `^?? `F'_ ? ' " ?, ? Vii, ? 'vcx?n:;o-?--?-, i ?° ! '• ?' ' y ^ c ?r- r 1 e r ' e LD lit q III ' °? 3 r-? ?' ?/F.? .zww` ? ? _. 7 '? J _ i ,.I ? ?r ?F`A. r - _ ?"<'--? i?Q.lip- _?•ti,ti`;e bi+.?-1? ?-J 1 ! \ i ? ail a O 13 1 eu.rrrr b? -?? ti 41 I m x T m ? C7 a -o s. z o ? m m r oy C m oaG) N D-0 2F on z ;I. * OMO ;:L o C =a z g cow -? ? T n scD Cm;a O r ??o G7D0 a =Zp Z ?? = Q m ° En ° mo D-Im? n boa ?Nm pr -4 D =C T D °-C m n ? A ?c N Zm Z p =?a O_y 0 m C9 Z o m z ° Y) 0) ;u C= M =3 =3 M % 44 A , t _71 i6 Til n b q?a cn IS. C. 0cm 00 00- tit 46 L fA 1 ;n a ci n T D3 X CD* :4 m ^ ?l r. -° `.4 3, Zd '? T Q Z7 S C) M O m 3 0M t- roc -i2Z S COQ ° C ?? ZZD Q n?o QDrO Z =DZ o On m o g ° om v-iZ C7 ?o° -D-I?m pry "'i... I (/) ` Ul :3 i ?? m? mrn? 5a CL Qm' w ?*-I w v I.+ 72 fn -1 N ;u 1 , 1- r_1-. /? ?d• -- 1. i ??'•'- .» ' ? p b, ° ?7 I , .?40 ' \ J , /Y?••?? "i ?\ RgYIY°A?II .. yS I \ J J'• ? a -- -? ? -- ? ` ' : ? - _' " t ? ? -- -? a ' ? t? FF(L Ia p ? ?S ? F ? P tt jam `g g // V' ' d f ? -• r fr y \?S ? -I ? I ( ? ? -? , ? 'ter r1 ?? ?b > '? - ?? F? ? f ? f el ? 1 .?. ?? ? y?•l??A f L, ; t 1 ?? L °. ) ? S ? t ? ?- ?? N ` I t '1 ) •-1 .7_ \ a ( I?• >? `-)1 y(I( III t/ _ 1 . 111 / -' ? Cr-? ? r _ II - :; % i •r_ ` b` P ?3'? XI ;:-' 4?,f ?? t tr~ ^" i ? ;. se?.?, 3 m I ff JI i ? J( _ f f . C ,0 -^-i1i \ ? q} // ? ?-a - : 1 -„° ?n?t \ ti???(V? .- 4 `_",? ? Y.- G , -r-•. p,l' p _ ? p•'\ , (D - ??1_ x 1 {/ ?, I O y? °0 ?;: ,4,? Y , .'? 4 ? ??9 r S i '.. 1 1-? •p 1 ? • `i_ i ? ?,-1 ,?.,/`. =7i i j' ? ''`( '. 7 t.'r€3? _ :1e ??.p E? A ? `? lrry 3 ? ? /_?? e,J ? a/;`. MFI, co* N y ` `?\ ' $ ? L of ?rl ? +• i _ •p . ? A .?? 5 l Z ? +. y f• ??? C - ^` a ! U\y1A 1 y /° 2?_._ _1 ?. • ???'\? all !rA/? Q yy .atti_ ,_-. l ?.c]q•---'/ ? d, \ ; ?_ \C-'_- i / ( I/?? ? ' II a:4. -a• CD : ? ? ! ? /1??_+. y1,J 1'% ? ?:a.lis ..•dP ' r Af i , , }` e n q ?_ M-. ,?/ ? C-t (i j'`o MYyU n .? '*+ol.•q 4 •, ,}d: 4 1 ?i. ? ? q` f--r':`' w * ?"--r, ' 1 ?.?. ! ! to S ?/?$-\r\ ???4 '?;rl a. e. i? ? -r ?-.?_' : A ? r? i'. 1._'... ° * yrl?.a..?, l j F? (? ? ? rd I O - ^?? ? ? ` ?-?; ? • ~ ? ?O \ - p rtl / l .0 1 G" ? .4-- naw railr.r 1C•` ! I r / ,' 1? '`? ?, •? w !'?,i lR?a .o I ?.5. ` a ? ?; ? -?•? 1 ?e I { r `` f y ! ? , f $ of -.+_ ? - -- $ M ?1 ,/ it ?? '?,? I "I.+ r r T f l I?iyJ w:?r_? - ,F- - i\ - • ? ? ?'' / ?., tL? . '? ?\_'''y.?r- ?? r 4? ( _rr( r. y??. r Il, Y?' ? N. "•.u. ?i _-.?r• \ r ?4? I_ r4`? -'d, "'>• ? (? ( bl ': a• n "l = •- ? ?__?? c'> 5 i b ? ? ? +? i ? 1 I f Al ? ? ? . ? I y / /? - , Jl I V ,I ?i?} ? li n, l? f+l .? Y ??_? ff.'1 ?[Olla- M _. \i xt. (1?, ?. ?/± ( ??r ._.: `_.•?``. _? L / ? 4 ? - ? 9 ? .''???__ ? IN .f y"`01 ? r ? ???'gA t - `..,! yI r_"_°? I 1'Y 1I /???,zn --_?,rrr'ln. lw+l' ^ ? ?`?'..b ?f? F. -- l.M'!LL rl_?_ .--?rA\?- ? :•?? ?\`'•t..J /?:r \1..?! ?,, •• ? ?i?j r?lr- i'+ o .?Y?`\?"-? v c ? '".w?-y-..? M.., yr` ? '??V?' '? ? ? ??_ - ? • ?,*` li t_ +?j ?` Imo. , ,?M1 _ (j . / .??4y a ,ax":? _ d i Z ld.,. • ? ?? ` ' 1 ?. .??+ y,/ ? ?. ? J <7 ' " , o ? `C,? 'tea e , z i' ) ?? f _i / 1? r E f ? ` ' i ? ,? J s ? w• (I 1 I , I ? I \ 1 • ?; '' ° ..r A I I ?.? ? rot , y ? r r ??\ ?J! I ' ,.ll / ( ,-'? ? ?. YL't Il I ? w FY l?1 +??. ??'•P' ?---f•-0• ? . ??}?t`-... o• ! I t ? ?? d+ d' • e ? Y' ?L'? B. ,:? ? } ? ?'? i a i ?. ? t...,. u=-.° ? ? f:.: .. ? ??, t •?,\G 3 ?- _ \..T'"' ib ,<; a`? ? ,:YI t .?" , F x 1 ?;• ? . ? j 1 I 1 ?, _? \'"l e l ,* 3 , .; >y 1+ ?' I, I,...l,.:?,c,? , . K , •; ??, ? '?'? • . _ Q ? , l r ` I ., ? ,;? oA ?o?Ml ? 'y`?'y - ?QQQ- -Jvr?y ?'.r•r?.i C k a;-•• ? '\' ` Y ? i?(? '?'. ?/ ?? I ? ?J ly?, ? /*;.?/? 1(r\? ??_ '?-? 'T tl? ?.'`,? 1 ?4y', ?..?? ,, IyAA V,?xv/a t a I?? 9LI r?" ?I,'I r1 +.. ,t '?>?J ? l yr?e'? ??...-• ?F -? ? ,?• '?? 4 - .it? i r,1 Itj) '?' ?'E`?ti,ur•n'?8 ? ..?,.11I t? ..?/ -, ? ,J ? ??',;' ?' ?? '..?.? ?. ) '..n1? ?: : r 15 `_-? ''? _ _ ? • ? ? ? ^?? ? +. 1 Y ?'1 ;•? J ? '- t ,l % ell ? ? / d > 3' M Am ?- SIDE SLOPE 0 1:3 -? ?o cnro z0 N=m 2 *m ?. t w w i r- E7 C-? r-m M M 4 Z < ? DIRECTION OF FLOW C m ,T m? ;m I.. r.. C K cm N1X r? m 0 0-4 M-4 S AO ';m--mL z to -i Z 0 S r -1 0 D f VARIES Z c z z r I 1 1 I 1 ¦ I I 1 I 0c) mA ro *0 z mm (Am (no VARIES g= m--qx am .^ o-uz M. ? z Z -yid 0 K? -zi = 0 U+ 2 z m- o o0 2pz c 2 z P p O N N M M Mtl 0 n ' I t -rrrr 1 O p Z z W v i I• m? Zo ?o NCO r ? a z m--4 m 0 AO ? OZ y=m S *m m-1 Z N ! ?m np 0 r ? O .9 ? D ' r i ? D 1 ?( I I I I N F A » O .T? n ?o M 3 z Vim- 'o O *u -p G) D - G O c -n Z v?'i A*t p0Z M ? a0? A O =m -IZ O A man 70 ?>a m m c/) ? ff _zm N to Dm nN ozrn-Z 0 o c- z -0 M C w C) 0 a ;u o ?' r z 3i M E5 9 0r C -1 t. p o o z ? D Z Z D0 ? -4 ~u $s ? CCD -•1 = 0 D ? W N ? c? CO ?l ? U1 Z rn Z --I ? r W m WWNWW?,.INNN D? WOCIt00U1?00U1N -I? om zz z ? rn -? NN ? W D? ?,,? N NNN cDrnN??v..p-goo ? ? o z rn D i ci0 rri 1 J L J L.?J 'L=i U LINWJ ?? • SIDE SLOPE c 1:3 -• ?o r? ° N=v a? )z 0 Z k w w c EE- ? r-rri r ,.4 .fir ?. 4•' S. 0) (7) c < -o ? 5 m z O ` N DIRECTION OF FLOW z rn O i r 035 , -UZ -Ln mz -i? C) r z 0 m r 1 O D m VZ z a; r. r z 00 mA :E0 z mm vim Eno VARIES m mN ?z Az s Z 0;u ?Z 0 ?? M n tnm Z0 mym z =n 0 AVl N A 2 rX7 Z m'I o 00 m m 0 ?m ?crq z p? 3:z = i,W rm z M. r TTw O N m m n n p O Z z r0M Oz M-I m?o ? Oz Ll) M ? 0z to , i , m n 0 r r N ? r r i ? ? D , i i m o ° _ v n n ?t7 z Vim" 'o O c 9 ,' o cn mCZ =C im -Izp p ? O ??44 =n < ???> tn? Dr 0 Z c N g NZm C/) v' f- N n F) p-o M ->mm ?; -i z I.J. c CD m a o r zmC O=D roo ?D? N ?ya O-n ° o o zr z z D -1D M$ p to 0 ..I D D m N --? Z rn Z m m? r ap rn D ? c0 cD orn z? r Z m -? rn (y) < m cD 00 D ;;a O - , fm 10 90 A profile of the Country Line Creek impoundment in Caswell County was measured to evaluate wetland development relative to the dam height, typical winter weir height, summer weir height, and valley slope. Figure 13 provides a depiction of the reference greentree go impoundment characteristics, including vegetation development patterns relative to water surface elevations. Within the reference greentree impoundments, stream channels have been 10 obscured due to alluvial sediment deposition and vegetation development patterns. The stream channel has been altered to the extent that wetland characteristics typically occupy the entire impoundment land area, up to the water surface elevation established during winter months. No Figure 14 depicts the plan view and cross-section of a typical altered stream channel. 4.5 REFERENCE PLANT COMMUNITIES In order to establish a forested wetland system for mitigation purposes, a reference community must be established. According to Mitigation Site Classification (MIST) guidelines (EPA 1990), the area of proposed restoration should attempt to emulate a Reference Forest Ecosystem (FIFE) in terms of soils, hydrology, and vegetation. In this case, the target RFEs were composed of steady-state woodlands in the region that have sustained loading of fluvial sediments on floodplains in the past. Forest canopies have developed on these reference sites which support soil, landform, and hydrological characteristics that restoration will attempt to emulate. All of the RFEs have been impacted by sediment deposition, selective cutting or high-grading, channel migration/disturbances, and relatively high energy flood events. Therefore, the species composition of these plots should be considered as a guide only. Reference forest data used in restoration was modified to emulate steady state community structure as described in the Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Two RFEs were selected within floodplains along the Rocky River in Cabarrus County, North Carolina. Floodplains associated with this river system have aggraded over the past century, inducing braided channel configurations and accelerated sediment deposition within reference feeder tributaries (Figure 14). Sixteen plots have been placed within relatively mature bottomland hardwood/swamp forests that have developed on accreted sediment. The reference vegetation samples are designed to characterize the plant communities proposed for restoration. Circular, 0.1-acre plot sampling was utilized to establish base-line vegetation composition and structure in reference areas. Species were recorded along with individual tree diameters, canopy class, and dominance. From collected field data, importance values (Brower et al. 1990) of dominant canopy and mid-story trees were calculated (Table 4 and Table 5). The composition of shrub/sapling and herb strata were recorded and identified to species. At Site 1 (Table 4), the forest canopy is dominated by green ash, (Importance value [IV] 28 percent), sweetgum (IV 19 percent), American elm (Ulmus americana) (IV 11 percent), box elder (IV 8 percent) and red maple (IV 7 percent). Canopy species with lesser importance include black willow, slippery elm (Ulmus alata), river birch, tulip poplar, and water oak 45 L'' J M am MM U:+ LZU GJ LL J L---j L l D ° 0 N t71 nD w 0 cn z ? ?m O ° mzz Cl. F 0 (D C/) >?? r z ?D_ O z n O.< om C7 0 , °?°m? CD E3 cn X CD 3 o v ? D ?o o = ? ° QJ C)_ - ID W =T ZD CD A c7 n f w , ` {, 3 ?moow r mm -? D o CMl C/) )-l< o n -n p 0 t w 0 < *?• ?maD XZ (D f M -I (D .'a+ O cn n C/) o C) cu 0 (D -n 0 O 0 co 0 o c CD -° (` a- 0 0 CC) =3 CD - O(D 'o OX = D M Z v n c cD -?_m = 2 D M O Q -n v? M o p D A 0 F. =. c u CD D Z _ r p . y (D w }, f o 0 d CD CD CC) CIO D (n 'D a (DD -0 ? E3 c ? m 0 CD y CD CD -3 ?. Dad cn O 00 co a T c ?e c, =3 wm o °O3 ;r Q ?z m? `V - W ' 3 ?J cn ^ ` ., tw3r ? C Q M -- -.?; _ CDD 0 ((D } D =3 U) -? C U)+'' r -? cn 3 c c ?" C wa m 0 n r ]:x CD CD 4 r; ?r^r -O W a (D 0 A O 0 cn O n _ o n == (_n t • 14 14. o K w o ry cn W a Sv t? X ?p-j M_? X C ? -n X CD QQ ?0 \ T _ a (D t (nom ?'-r ~k cn Z = v o f 7 CD w (D Q C/) 00 o (Q m 0 C ? w(n (D co r4 Cf CD 0 (? , -+ 7 3 cl) ?M? -<c n cD 3 CL CD _ (D 0 Q. (n o c= o- c p- °)- w _ 0 0 O CL (D -.. r CD O O w Q CL w 1? h ,t wr c N s (l ??m Z? C)m c CsJ o CL ? I CID T , D cn > M ? N 0 Zjm cn coca m ° °O z a 0 M k 0 A?fD b N N " c N Z MMO ? c a 0. ?-? d ?D? a S C) IT1 R1 D F z z s m D d -. d ;u v 1 ] III] C. J G C...?_j L. o_j J J J C L.1-1 A U j O ! D O O 0 17-71 7 D3 p 0. z Q M CD n 00 O y f CA ? I ?CD CD n CD =r• 30 :3 O vm O A 0 :3. rt O'ta 7 Linear (Across Valley) Distance in Feet o N cn v Ln 0 Ln o° Ln D? Z 0 z m Elevation in Feet Elevation in Feet v ° ° o 0 0 ° 0 0 0 = 0 O N P O -P. m N N O O O] Cn CO DJI- ul Z ° Z O DTI Tl CY) C O O r J O p V r U, o 0 _nL CD 0 J- O = p 2 N O O _ N' U1 N' rc O O N _L O O O 7 O n O D C7 O o Q _ Q v O _p (D N In (n -+ w N O o N O o N I 7 q m _ CCDD m -L.,,-L. _L _l rr N N _ n J N _ 7 Q O 7' ° O CD Z -1 -1 -1 _9 Z CD J _ CD F3' -1_F N Crl p rr ° ----------- __ -----r-- .-a W "Tl (D CD rr ? O O O Ln O p (-n !T O p 0 O O N m m z 0 ° O O I- r -1-11-I r -r -r -r (7 (7 O N N mcD 0 0 0 0 0 0 D N O O N _A m0 O i' Ln m (A O 1 1 1 n v ? v n ? a 4 n }7 A p m 0 NDZm =_ ; ?np =m -4z0 q CCi) n MO 0 C: OX -4 F-r. ?z p o o O * m z -i v Z Z D. ? --4 $° 0 0 N 7 ° DN mD v 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 --?--?--T--r-- 1 1 1 1 1 1 --r1--r-- --r-- 1 1 1 I 1 I I I --1--?--?--?-- I 1 I I 1 1 I 1 --T--r--r--r-- I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I --r--r--1--?-- 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 I _ I _ _ _ _ 1 I I 1 __ 1 I I I 1 I I I 1 1 1__ I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 I ? - I T I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 I I I T I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 I I I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 , 1 I 1 I I I 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I I 1 1 I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I I 1 I I 1 __J__J__J--1__ __4--4--4-_L-_ _J--J__J_ __? _ __ __4__4_?__J-_ 1 1 1 1 I- 1 I I I I 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I I I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 --?--?--T--r-- 1 I 1 1 --r--r--r -- I I 1 t 1 r-r -?-- - 1 1 1 r -r--r--r-- 1 1 1 I ? I --r--r-r-r- 1 I I 1 --l--l--T--T-- 1 1 1 I --i--r-- r- 1 1 I -1---1--1-- 1 I 1 .r--r__ -- -- Q 'n l --r-T--1--1-- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I I I 1 1 1 ! I __ 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1- X11 LI' I I 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 ? 1 1 I 1 --?--?--?--r-- --r- - r r-- --r-?--?--?-- f --r--r-- r- _ __ r--r --r ?-- I I I I 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I JI 1 I 1' 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 1 I 1 I I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I I I I L _L 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I __J-- I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 If I I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I --r-?--T--r- I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 --r--r--r--r-- I 1 1 I 1 1 I I - -- - ?--?-- 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 --r--r--r--r-- 1 I I I 1 1 I I --r--r-?--?-- I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 I I I I 1 1 I I r 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I I I 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 _ 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 I I I 1 l T I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 I I I _J _J _ J__ 1 I I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I _J _J _J__ I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 I 1. 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 , I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I , 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 , I I 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 I --ti--ti--?--r-- I I 1 1 --r--r--r--r-- 1 1 1 -I -7--y-- I 1 I I --r--r--r--r-- I I 1 1 --r--r--I---t-- 1 1 I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I I 1 I I I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 4 4 4 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 - - -- --7----- --r--r--r _ -1--1--1--1-- --T--T--r--r-- --r--f _-1--1-- 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 _-l--l--T--T-- 1 1 1 I --r--f-- - __ I 1 1 I -'1--1--1__1__ 1 1 1 1 --T--T--r--r-- 1 1 1 1 --r-_f_-1-_1__ 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 _ I 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 - - i-- 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 , I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I I I 1 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 , 1 I I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 1 1 I 1 ? -?/ 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I ?C 1 I I I 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 L I 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I Irk I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 7 I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 --ti-- -- -- r- I I I 1 --r-' -- - -- 1 I --I--?__y--y-- I I I I --*--T--r--r-- I I 1 I --r--r--1---r- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 - ?--?-'T--r-- --r- - r - --1--1-'1--T-- --r-r--r--r-- --r--r--I--?-- 1 1 I I 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I --i--i--T--r-- --r--r- r - -- --1--1--?--T-- --r--r--r--r-- --r--r-?--r- I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 --?--?--?--r-- 1 I 1 --r--r- r - -- I 1 I I --I--?--?--?-- 1 1 1 I --T--r--r--r-- 1 1 1 I --r--r--r-?-- 1 I 1 1 I I , I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 I , I 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I , 1 1 1 - I- I I 1 l i- T- 1 I I 1 1 ? I I I I 1 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 I I I 1 1 t 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I I I __1_ _ __L__ 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CO CO O O N I I I 1 m 000 z C) _L I I 1 I I -Ir I 1 1 I _L I _L 1 _L I ?- ?- -1- -r -r -r -r 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 ?- -I- ?- -r -r -r -r 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 J_ J I - _ L L 1 i r 1 I 1 I I 1- I -1 1 -I 1 -I 1 _? -1 _ _E J- -/- -I- -4 -L -4 -4 1 ?- 1 -1- I -r I -r 1 I -r -r -1r J- J- J- -L -4 -L _ -L 1 1 I I 1 1 1 r 1 I I I 1 r r -r -r -r - - -r 1 1 I I 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 r r -1- -r r -r -r 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 ti- -I- -t- -r -r - r I I 1 1 1 1 1 _I_ 1 1 ti- 1 ?- I -r- I -I- I -r r 1 I - r - -1- 1 -1- 1 -1- I -1- I -4 F 1 I - 4 I J- J- -L -L 4 -4 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 ?- J_ ?- J_ -I- J_ -r _L -r r _L L jc L -r _L 1 - 1 - I - 1 - I I - 1 - ? ? r r r r r I I 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I I I J_ J_ _L _ 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I I ?- ?- -I- -r -r -r -r 1 ?- I -I- I -1- 1 -r 1 I -r -r I -r 1 -r 1 I I 1 I ti- -I- -I- -r -t -r -r -r 1 -1- I -1- 1 -r I -r I -I -, 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 ?- -1- -r -r -r - -r -r ?- J- -1- -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 I ?- 1 r 1 -r I -r 1 I -r- -r I -r I -r J- J- J- -L -L 4 -4 -L 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 I ?- ?- -I- -r -r - -r -r J_ J_ J_ _L _L _L _L _L 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 y- J_ ti- J_ -1- _I_ -r J_ -r -r _L _L -r _L -r _L 1 I I 1 1 I I 1 1 I I 1 1 I I 1 1 ?- I -I- I -r 1 -r 1 -r r I -r -f• J- -?- -1- -H -4 4 -4 -4 I I 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 I ?- ?- -r -r -r -r -r -r J_ J_ J_ _L _L _L L _L 1 ?- I r I -I- 1 -r 1 1 -r -r 1 r 1 -r 1 I I r 1 1 1 1 r r -1 - -r r -r - r -r I ?- 1 ?- 1 -1- I -r I 1 -r -r I -r I -r I 1 I 1 I 1 O O N PLA 1 I I I I I 1 O r N Q O I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I _L _L _L 1 I 1 Y I I I 1 1 I I I I I 1 1 ?- -1- - -r -r -r -r -r J_ J_ 1 1 I I I 1 r ti- ?- -I - -r J- -r - J -r _L -r -L -r - L 1 - I I r I I 1 1 I I 1 I I I 1 ?- -. -r -r -r -r -r -r ?- ?- -r r -r -r -r -r J_ 1 J- 1 J- I L I -L 1 -L I -L 1 -4 I I 1 I I I I 1 1 J_ J_ J _L _L _L _L _L I 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I ?- -I- - -r -r -r -r -r 1 -1- 1 '1- - I -r 1 -r 1 -r 1 -r I -r 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I 1- - I I 1 ? I _? 1 I I I_ I 1 1 I 1 1 I r I -1- - 1 -r 1 -r I -r - I -r I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I r r ?- -r -r r - r - 1 ?- i - I -1 T I -r 1 -r I -r 1 I I 1 I 1 I J_ J_ J _L _L _L _L 1 1 I I 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 1 r ti- -t -r -r -r - -r 1 1 1 1 1 1 I y- ti- -1 -r -r -r -r - I ? 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I _E ?- -1- -I -4 -4 - -L 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I ?- r -I -r -r r - -r 1 ?- I ?- 1 1 -r 1 -r I -r - I -r I 1 1 I 1 I 1 r -1- r -r -r -r -r _L _L _L _L I 1 I I I I I I y- J_ -I- J_ -1 J -r J_ -r _L - L -r _L -r _L 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I I -I- -. r -r -r -r -r ?- ?- 1- -1- -4 -4 -4 -4 I 1 1 1 I 1 I J- J- J- -L -L -L -4 -4 I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 J_ J_ J _L _L _L _L _L 1 1 I I 1 I I I I I I 1 1 I r ?- - -r -r -r -r -r J_ I J_ 1 L 1 _L I _L 1 _L I J_ J_ J_ _L _L _L _L 1 1 1 1 1 1 I O CD I r L1 11 II 11 !1 IS II le IS IN IN is is 1t W J m Q F- v E a 7 C (n G C o v a ? c E c d c N O v W a c` H LL d ? O C LL M d E U c .r w m m O U ? C to --? o \ N M r- CO d' M M N N N r r .- Q - a E 'Q^ F M NO m W w n - - N M .- N O O O O O a) N ? ? m d U Q V ra 00 r O n Ln M M 1?, N co m w N 't ct HN M ON M 6 p ? ? O N N .- O O O R ? m .. U U > C m \ M (D cCl Cn cD (D M M M M M M O O a) U. L U co In Ct M N N M N N M O' d U. do O= M N tD N LC) M N N .- '- N - .- r- O p y N r ? C a) 0 O ? co 7 _ t C14 M co CO O d N Co e- .- M r r r CY) CY) ? O 'fl Z c U e j a) C <0 U 4 ;j m L to c CU a CU m ? C 'm C U .66 p i Q a i E p +. O Q O i co m ) Q) .? ro C y to ) (Tj y (? C y O C C V) O CO O U ? U y j C Z3 J Q X J Q) k ro J O .? G i a C o O ` ? p o %4 Q Q vi J 4? - d d C) V F- i i ) c i i ) CO It a-- 10 LO LL! J CO Q H R E in E 7 C.) ? a o ? FL >• a E m c ?. V N O tom/! W O •+ O y U. O •O O C U. R m E U O O GI CO v-. Cl C: a? d U C > R R O o (n co C'4 N N (D U') LO LO N N O O cr. E ' R ca ca LO C;) O r- d LO N O O O M rn m ? Q R O d Q U co O r?, co ' O CO M '- M R H N .- O t0 r O O O R w U O > C Q o N co c) CO Co LO M co M M O N c U. U O M n M M N M Cr O U. CD c~o C OR co LO M •- .- .- O O O y ? R 7 _ LO uJ M ? c0 ? M N ? ? Z C ,U .y R ? ? tk •C: C ro y C O •C d C C U U O` G i 4 Gl E p cD U y ci Cl j O' E O j h O ` J O O J E i J M •C C h v ,C v y Z3 C h .c ?" Q O ;? k c o V O Q) J C cp a?i J • .? c o O k co j F- O E- ` tL Q J d U d U ` J LL F- N a-+ O CL N U O C N O co E E Ln r- O) Rt 10 (Quercus nigra). Understory trees include flowering dogwood, ironwood, and sugarberry (Celtis laevigata). A developed shrub layer is not generally present. Herbs include Nepal microstegium, violets (Viola spp.), asters (Astersp.), and river oats (Chasmanthiumlatifolium). At Site 2 (Table 5), the forest canopy is dominated by green ash, (IV 39 percent), box elder (IV 22 percent), American elm (IV 12 percent), and swamp chestnut oak (IV 6 percent). Portions of the canopy at RIFE locations were also dominated by ironwood, overcup oak (Quercus lyrata), sugarberry, sweet gum, red maple, black willow, slippery elm, water oak, and river birch. The shrub/sapling layer is characterized by the non-native Chinese privet (Ligustrum chinensis), paw-paw (Asimina triloba), and shade tolerant canopy species. Herbaceous species include Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), blackberry, muscadine, common greenbriar, sedges (Carex spp.), and poison ivy. Piedmont swamp forests are communities located in depressional areas, along toe slopes, and at the confluence of alluvial valleys, where lateral flow is restricted. These sites are hydrologically influenced by upland seeps and drainages, and by occasional riverine flooding. Overstory species are dominated by flood-tolerant bottomland elements such as sweetgum, American elm, willow oak (Quercus phe/%s), swamp chestnut oak, green ash, overcup oak, and swamp cottonwood (Populus heterophylla). Wetter sites may provide a broken to open canopy providing enough light for development of a dense herbaceous/shrub layer. Species found on these sites may include button-bush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), silky dogwood, false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), sedges (Carex spp), rushes (Juncus spp.), and lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus). Giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea) is prevalent in places. 0 10 10 50 5.0 WETLAND RESTORATION PLAN 1o io so ?o This restoration plan has been designed to establish wetlands within watersheds situated immediately upstream of the Randleman Reservoir. A series of greentree impoundments is proposed to establish contiguous wetland presence within 15.6 acres of the upper Sophia Branch floodplain at elevations ranging from 715 feet to 730 feet above mean sea level. At the Lower Sophia Branch site, two greentree impoundments is proposed to establish 6.1 acres of wetlands at 683 to 690 feet above mean sea level. Wetland acreage to be created/restored is a subset of the total project area, which has been defined as the limit of the 5-year post- project flood. Wetland restoration or creation comprises approximately 19.1 acres of the total wetland presence. This area is composed of actively inundated land surfaces, and passively formed, saturated wetlands within 1.0 foot in elevation above the impounded water surface. Based on reference studies, the one foot delineation of passively formed wetlands constitutes a conservative estimate of the extent of wetland formation expected. (See ESC 2000a and ESC 2000b for a description of the passive formation of wetlands). An additional 2.6 acres of the mitigation total is composed of open waters. The shorelines of these areas are expected to accrete as sediment deposition within the impoundments progresses. Submerged, emergent, and shrub/scrub aquatic vegetation is projected to colonize these areas. Finally, approximately 2.4 acres of the mitigation area is comprised of pre-existing wetlands. These areas will be preserved or enhanced during impoundment construction. Enhancement activities will include hydroperiod regulation and improvements in buffer vegetation. The green tree impoundment comprises an embankment (floodplain levee) and weir (controllable outlet structure). The elevation of the outlet is typically raised during the winter months, while trees are dormant, to promote ponding, sediment deposition, and wetland habitat. The elevation of the outlet is lowered in early spring to allow for vegetation growth, nutrient uptake, and seedling establishment. For this project, the outlet may only be raised during a brief portion (5 percent to 12.5 percent) of the growing season until wetland communities and associated habitat are successfully restored. Subsequently, the period that the outlet is raised may be incrementally increased during the winter months each year to increase inundated wetland habitat for water fowl and other species adapted to use of greentree impoundments during the winter season. The long term objective of wetland restoration/creation by greentree impoundments is to maintain forested wetland communities to the maximum extent feasible. Therefore, long-term management will be required. A management plan has been prepared (Section 8.0) for long term maintenance of the impoundment over the life of the Randleman Reservoir. Management techniques for greentree 51 10 impoundments surrounding the reservoir will be managed according to constructs outlined in the Greentree Reservoir Management Handbook (Fredrickson and Batema 1996). Components of this plan have been established based on reference wetland studies described in Section 4.0. This effort will be performed by 1) installing a controllable weir and dam, 2) installing a step-pool grade control structure, and 3) planting of target wetland tree species in the area. Monitoring of wetland development will be performed to track successional characteristics of the Site and to verify wetland restoration success. 5.1 IMPOUNDMENT / WEIR CONSTRUCTION Upper Sophia site: A series of greentree impoundment structures consisting of nine embankments will be constructed within the Site, as depicted in Figures 15A and 15B. The impoundment series begins approximately 300 feet south of SR 1941, at a channel elevation of 714 feet. Lower Sophia site: Two greentree impoundments will be constructed, beginning approximately 900 feet north of SR 1990. The channel elevations at the impoundments will be 680 and 686 feet. Construction of impoundment and weir structures may be subject to restrictions under the North Carolina Dam Safety Law of 1967 (GS 143-215.23). Detailed construction plans will be described in the design engineering phase of the project. Embankments The embankments will be constructed to elevations ranging from approximately 722-733 feet above mean sea level at the Upper Sophia site, and at 690 and 694 feet at the Lower Sophia site. The embankment elevation may be modified during the engineering design phase to provide increased capacity for transporting floodplain flows across or around the structure. As proposed, the embankment surface will reside up to eight feet in elevation above the existing floodplain surface. Weirs The weirs (outlet structures) will be designed to allow for open channel flow at base levels of 723-714 feet (Upper Sophia site) and at 690 and 694 feet (Lower Sophia site). The weir design will allow raising of the water surface to 718-729 feet during impoundment periods at the Upper Sophia site, and to 680 and 686 feet at the Lower Sophia site. Figure 12 provides a conceptual depiction of the proposed impoundment structure. Target elevations for the winter water surface and embankment height are listed in Figures 15A and 15B. The design or placement of these impoundments may be modified during the engineering design phase based on potential stability, constructability, cost, or other constraints. 10 10 52 Cam] - = O D O = M c m m M n D S n -1 m w m z z -1 m m N x o ,.1 ------------ n co 'a M ' z Mm n? w o (n M N .. .. ?-?G -I=v Z --I =m cog O O m ® m Z C a o 0Q DCnN =?ZO N o O (n l c U) 35 ? .. ZOO O 0;u 0=D E:o 14 o 0 Z -? D Z z D- mp ? p ? (A 1 _; 0 0 = = 0 0 D C Gr7 I 1 ' ? , ? r//ll II , I I 1, ?p\J 111 11 /? r ? Xl? ?I 1 L.+ fn O 0 O m z m m 0 w 0 0 (7) 0 0 .- - 10 TTI pi p -? A rvi ?)? - 11)1 I, h i 11111 1 / `?? ,` _ \\\ \ a'? - t •. X?; c2 Fn - - - - - - - - - -- - I I I I { f z ry ZO o c a z =j m r m -d m r - 51 ..{ 0 N A N oou n z Q ? Z ;u n 0 Z ? m o C 0 /m Y/ m ° < m j N o o MAP COMPILED BY PHOTOGRAMMETR/C METHODS. N m ca N m z -4 m mK r- ca rn rn m < co co m 0 zz -i M * ?m Im Im co m y :U O 0) ; O zM m x o - -- v cW 0 r m -° m? On D-O O :c rn C) ;o P. c m !4 m Z r N ? m m ?0 ?r-I Z ''t ??•• o r 'IO O o;u O L'i 0 0 0 = Z D O ? •n Ln 0 ° Z Z D p ,' s CD IN 5.2 STEP-POOL GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE The outfall from the downstream weir will discharge over a relatively steep incline into the 10 existing channel immediately below the Site. At the Upper Sophia site, the transition will extend from a maximum of 718 feet at the structure to 714 feet within the existing channel bed. At the Lower Sophia site, the water surface elevation at the structure will be 686 feet, with the elevation of the adjacent channel at 680 feet. This transition will be extended over an adequate distance (60-80 feet) to reduce the water surface slope towards stable conditions characteristic for a step-pool (A-type) stream channel underlain by a boulder substrate. The structure will attenuate flow velocities so that down-cutting into the channel bed will be avoided immediately below the greentree impoundment. Figure 16 provides a conceptual depiction of a step-pool grade control channel. The step-pool channel will be constructed over a distance of 60 to 80 feet within the Site boundary. This distance will provide a bankfull water surface slope of approximately 0.05 rise/run (5 percent slope). In-fill and available boulder material will be arranged in the channel to provide a step-pool geometry conducive to in-stream habitat, as depicted in Figure 16. The series of steps and pools will promote capacity for continued fish migration above and below the greentree impoundment structure. 5.3 WOODY DEBRIS DEPOSITION Woody debris, including downed trees, tip mounds, snags, and decomposing material represents important habitat elements for wetland dependent wildlife. Therefore, woody material generated from embankment construction or other Site activities will be distributed across future wetland surfaces to the extent feasible. The material may be lifted or pushed from adjacent windrows or forest areas as well. 5.4 WETLAND COMMUNITY RESTORATION Restoration of wetland forested communities provides habitat for area wildlife and allows for development and expansion of characteristic wetland-dependent species across the landscape. Ecotonal changes between communities contribute to diversity and provide secondary benefits such as enhanced feeding and nesting opportunities for mammals, birds, amphibians, and other wildlife. RFE data, on-site observations, and ecosystem classification has been used to develop the species associations promoted during community restoration activities. Target plant community associations include 1) bottomland hardwood / swamp forest and 2) scrub-shrub / swamp forest. Scrub-shrub elements will be targeted towards areas immediately behind the impoundment within the construction limits and along the stream channel banks. 55 C17 O C O C? C? D C1 Q D C7 m z 0 m x U) z G) n D cnm mm m z -ix m=0 m >- OD D I' ?Z ?-0 z G7 Cf) :r m U) 0 Z ? Ix ?? m? vz " - D m? D1 ;10 Dz zm z 0 D? nG) ?Z O ?r D m z -+ z r- z z -u 0 c zz z 00 z ----- m X Dm o ?m ; 0 ----- -+------ tn ? rn m rn -, ,--T, T. - ------------------- r= ?? 5?0 m -o cn O IT1 x0 o mcn0 c a x=o zv w?OZ m > Z 0 r- z v 0? z On ?Z xmo ? D ?? 0z m m m Om r-m nr- OWz --I r ? r O z r U' v 0 m r r- D O -< m n m m z d C ?vm Ozo c _I=z g Cpl I T 0 o O ccn U m ? =r G) D 0 Z= D Z Z C? I?? m o g o -i ' v oa > m a O r' "! ... CY) a) b z czo ?-1 0 S m9 >,? ? c? ?fl >* V O fR --lo r ;a z C = m, o D ? = ? a ? -i o CO ro mg r D n? d z - O n o 0 r U) z m o In Planting Plan IN The planting plan consists of 1) acquisition of available wetland species, 2) implementation of proposed surface topography improvements, and 3) planting of selected species on-site. Wetland areas of the Site to be created or enhanced (excluding open water areas) will be planted in a random distribution, including the species listed below. At the Upper Sophia site, the planted area will total 15.7 acres, while at the Lower Sophia site, a total of 6.3 acres will ® be planted. Bottomland Hardwood / Swamp Forest 1. Cherrybark Oak (Quercus pagoda) 2. Overcup Oak (Quercus lyrata) 3. Willow Oak (Quercus phellos) 4. Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii) 5. Swamp Cottonwood (Populus heterophylla) 6. Shagbark Hickory (Carya ovata) 7. Bitternut Hickory (Carya cordiformis) 8. Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) 9 American Elm (Ulmus americana) 10 Winged Elm (Ulmus alata) 11. Tulip Poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) Scrub-Shrub / Swamp Forest 1. Possum-haw (flex decidua) 2. Carolina holly (flex ambigua) 3 River Birch (Betula nigra) 4. American Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) 5. Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) 6. American Elm (Ulmus americana) 7. Swamp Cottonwood (Populus heterophylla) 8. Overcup Oak (Quercus lyrata) 9. Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii) 10. Silky Dogwood (Corpus amomum) 11. Button-bush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) 12. Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis) Species selected for planting will be dependent upon availability of local seedling sources. Advanced notification to nurseries (1 year) may facilitate availability of various non-commercial species. In full planting areas (existing agricultural land), the soil surface will be scarified. Disking or ripping may be employed to create a rough surface for the detention of runoff and sediment, and to provide a more hospitable planting bed for tree seedlings. Then, bare-root seedlings of selected species will be planted within specified areas at a density of 680 trees per acre (8 foot centers). In existing forested areas, a supplemental planting will consist of Is 57 Z In Is is Is Is Is eo 10 10 10 170 stems per acre (16-foot centers). Supplemental plantings will retain existing Site canopy trees, while introducing a greater component of wetland-dependent species. The total number of stems and species distribution are depicted in Tables 6A and 6B. Planting will be performed between December 1 and March 15 to allow plants to stabilize during the dormant period and set root during the following spring season. Opportunistic species, which typically dominate early- to mid-successional forests have been excluded from initial plantings on interior floodplains. Opportunistic species such as sweetgum, red maple, and loblolly pine may become established naturally. However, to the degree that long-term species diversity is not jeopardized, these species should be considered important components of steady-state forest communities. Planting of opportunistic species such as black willow will be targeted as stabilization elements in erosion control areas immediately adjacent to the creek. The planting plan is the blueprint for community restoration (Figures 17A and 1713). The anticipated results stated in the regulatory success criteria (Section 6.0) may reflect vegetative conditions achieved after steady-state forests are established over many years. However, the natural progression through early successional stages of floodplain forest development will prevail regardless of human interventions over a 5-year monitoring period. In total, approximately 10000 seedlings will be planted during wetland community restoration efforts (8100 seedlings at the Upper Sophia site, and 1900 at the Lower Sophia site). 58 Zia I i TABLE 6A (Upper Sophia Site) Planting Plan Vegetation Association (Planting area) Shrub-Scrub/ Swamp Forest Bottomland Hardwood/ Swamp Forest (full planting) Bottomland Hardwood/ Swamp Forest (supplemental planting) TOTAL STEMS PLANTED Stem Target (trees/ac) 680 680 170 ----- Area (acres) 1.9 7.8 6.0 15.7 SPECIES # planted M total) # planted M total) # planted M total) # planted M total) River Birch 150 (10) 150 Silky Dogwood 15000) 150 Button-bush 150 (10) 150 Elderberry 150 (10) 150 Tag Alder 150 (10) 150 Black Willow 75 (5) 75 Possum-haw 75 (5) 75 Carolina Holly 75 (5) 75 American Sycamore 75 (5) 75 Swamp Cottonwood 15000) 550(10) 11000) 810 American Elm 75 (5) 275(5) 55 (5) 405 Green Ash 150 (10) 275(5) 55 (5) 480 Swamp Chestnut Oak 75 (5) 55000) 110 (10) 735 Overcup Oak 15000) 55000) 11000) 810 Cherrybark Oak 550 (10) 110 (10) 660 Willow Oak 55000) 11000) 660 Shagbark Hickory 550 (10) 110 (10) 660 Bitternut Hickory 550 (10) 110 (10) 660 Winged Elm 550 (10) 110 (10) 660 Tulip Poplar 550 (10) 110 (10) 660 TOTAL 1650 5500 1100 8100 59 : Ip Bp 10 so 10 Ip TABLE 613 (Lower Sophia Site) Planting Plan Vegetation Association (Planting area) Shrub-Scrub/ Swamp Forest Bottomland Hardwood/ Swamp Forest (full planting) Bottomland Hardwood/ Swamp Forest (supplemental planting) TOTAL STEMS PLANTED Stem Target (trees/ac) 680 680 170 ----- Area (acres) 0.4 0.9 5.0 6.3 SPECIES # planted (% total) # planted (% total) # planted total) # planted (% total) River Birch 30 0 0) 30 Silky Dogwood 30 0 0) 30 Button-bush 30 (10) 30 Elderberry 30 (10) 30 Black Willow 15 (5) 15 Possum-haw 15 (5) 15 Carolina Holly 15 (5) 15 American Sycamore 15 (5) 15 Swamp Cottonwood 30(10) 70(10) 9000) 190 American Elm 15 (5) 35 (5) 45 (5) 95 Green Ash 30(10) 35 (5) 45 (5) 110 Swamp Chestnut Oak 15 (5) 7000) 9000) 175 Overcup Oak 30(10) 70(10) 9000) 190 Cherrybark Oak 70 (10) 90 (10) 160 Willow Oak 70(10) 9000) 160 Shagbark Hickory 70 (10) 90 (10) 160 Bitternut Hickory 70 (10) 90 (10) 160 Winged Elm 70(10) 9000) 160 Tulip Poplar 70 (10) 90 (10) 160 TOTAL 300 700 900 1900 60 N U) CA O C7 m z ? \ V O I m m a o \\ 0 cu X X 0 g o m z Z m 0 ` ? ti ? O O n Y/ C ? z co N z c ,_.I C -? --1 O U `?• - C7 rv m 00 ° ° tyn yZy v N N O .Z1 C x Z O O m m K co Sm O ?- 4 -4 / s c c N `^ Z 6 ? r -u 0 -U CO y m Z z g O N S mn Z y c? W --I c ? v 00 r w r m m Y, o (1) m s ? K °- g w v O cn O) V n \ m + + + + ly N .0 S ? -zi m 6 Z i N 6 N O -m s ? ?m ?W ? s 6 ? m m y cn rn z ro y? b // ? N ED y X ya 2? 4 -? q 2 2 I ?? 2 ' J 1 w 1 ri n v C o m? 'D m C) 10 m? M ;u Doi n -n a (A 4j 'flD --4 cg m ??.Z xm -iZ0 m ' O O m a c o Z? N ?ym ? ? Z z C/) m O m? 0° 0 M C: O N• 0 = z- D D O• n cvn o ° D Z m 0 ? CD "IM IS C.J k'7 'A ?] O C? G? ? D C? O O O O ?] C oppt O? 11 It I _-_ --__------ --------------- ---?=_- - ? ??? ?? ???;??????'` 111 '.? ????? -__ ? •?..? _0 ?z /1 - __-_?,- ? `\ \?I,(' I'll j??\ ( ? ___ •??``•\ II. ? \'-_ `? - - ?',' Y ` [ ? N ?` ` ill J I 1111 - _ _ - _____-___` ^'•y _ - ----------- m m -< Z A Z A m Z A m G7 m Z A N A m N o A Z C A v o A 0 ? W C Z m ° c 0 N 0 a 0 0 m m m C N O m ? •• C: n o r- 1 o ° o Ul 0 co O --I ? C = I r o -u r r- O CO ? O ? O z Z 4 (n N :40 A ? ' --4 ? a) r m g A o 0 m z ° P, p p O n CA l 0 to l + I+ + + a T n r M? C) O m t7l =m -cizo O ?? a0 DNp AW o>? o o p ) zZ O ?mm 00 73 N O = z=D Dz-° ?Dm a 0•n z m D c? v ?v N 6.0 MONITORING PLAN The Monitoring Plan will entail analysis of the restoration area according to jurisdictional wetland criteria (DOA 1987). Monitoring will include the observation and evaluation of three primary parameters including hydrology, soil, and vegetation. Monitoring of restoration efforts will be performed for 5 years or until success criteria are fulfilled. 6.1 HYDROLOGY After hydrological modifications are performed, surficial groundwater monitoring gauges will be designed and placed in accordance with specifications in USACE's Installing Monitoring Wells/Piezometers in Wetlands (WRP Technical Note HY-IA-3.1, August 1993). Monitoring gauges will be set to a depth of up to 24 inches below the soil surface to track water surface elevations in the impoundment relative to the weir height. All screened portions of the gauge will be buried in a sand screen, filter fabric, and/or a bentonite cap to prevent siltation during floods. Recording devices (if used) will be placed 5 feet above the ground elevation. Placement of recording devices at this height should guard against over topping for a projected 50-year flood elevation. The gauge will be stabilized from flood shear by reinforcing steel bar (re-bar). Four (Upper Sophia site) or two (Lower Sophia site) groundwater monitoring gauges will be installed in restoration areas to provide representative coverage throughout the Site. Approximate gauge locations are depicted in Figures 18A and 18B. Hydrological sampling will be performed during the growing season (March 26 to November 6) at intervals necessary to satisfy the hydrologic success criteria. In general, the gauges will be sampled weekly through the spring and early summer and intermittently through the remainder of the growing season, if needed to verify success. 6.2 HYDROLOGY SUCCESS CRITERIA Target hydrological characteristics have been evaluated using regulatory wetland hydrology criteria. The regulatory wetland hydrology criterion requires saturation (free water) within one foot of the soil surface for 5 percent of the growing season under normal climatic conditions. Success Criteria Under normal climatic conditions, hydrology success criteria comprises saturation (free water) within 1 foot of the soil surface for a minimum of 5 percent of the growing season. This hydroperiod translates to saturation for a minimum, 11-day (5 percent) consecutive period during the growing season, which extends from March 26 through November 6 (USDA 1977). If wetland parameters are marginal as indicated by vegetation and hydrology monitoring, a jurisdictional determination will be performed in the questionable areas. =1 1 63 a Ld-awa LAQ" Ua wj La: fo7itl! L06 6w.. J `.. , L-- ..--i e - , =m q- N N Ut DC7 O f" M z m m M 0 N (7 m N 0 m s ? N C) C C a m co m O z m Fri .. .. N?? O M C) 3 .? ;q D 0 ?. O O m=Z = m m ?Z O A 3 m z >20 rn C -4 ? rn m 0 LA I ED 0 N Z0 'v O_D Zo D? ?? 0 0 o 1 DO r- Z m N m r Zr D MZ ?r O O ° m m ^ n z > ?0 Y, Zv 2 ? -- 0 --1 m ?? m ci z m r Z c co N -+ z m Cl) O in z (I N;u o o ::? m m c Z v - + - r z O N ; o < U) U) -C g o r" z c z c cn I O w 0 o h1/ar LVmr§"w". rnV•v?••ilV.unL UU ? ... -.. - m m m z m mK m -4-4%4 iv4 J ?v <g W W N W W L4 N N N D? W OUlO 0-WUlN o PTl zz z r- m -+ % 4%J-4 1JV V V N G N N <m D A N N N l L4 CO O)N4? -+-I??CO -I * z L n Lim carza 1 mw =--i " ICJ Uo? 641-J li 1 I I 1 1 1 pI, " r r?. 'll 11 ?I - N ?'?,111 1 o 12. r- mom nm o x x o r 73 VI (n n 2D - g° a° Z Q 0 o I m ?? o ?? m zm cD c 1 -4 co -z+m O-, o o z ZD O ( < m z r- 0 (n AA -Ni y -t Z m z ' v OD N O 0 n O + + 1 + la z MAP COMPILED BY PHOTOGRAMMETRIC METHODS. m 0 o y C-) T v - r a -v - m m p z C)m R m ;u ;o N m =1 -I M C O m: m C) C o y o Z D z D U r n C r Z - m a_ ?° O O m m 3; c'U 0 :33 Ou r- 0 ;u ? J= -1 ZO?Z -o O.D z° o N°o -I Z G) = Z Z D m D Lnn 0 N D M G I C) N -+ m DDS mm z m In K r Qp 01 Of X (D -P. (D O < _K O m zZ m - Z T m -+ 0) In (D OD D ;u O O) O ? z O 0 <71 0 O Z W O? n 6.3 SOIL Mitigation activities are expected to increase the deposition and transport of stream sediments during overbank flood events. As a result, soils (F/uvaquents) are continuously reworked by fluvial processes. Because iron reduction rates (gleying) are not spatially or temporally uniform on recent alluvial deposits, soil color or other visual, hydric soil properties are not considered suitable for quantitative wetland soil monitoring/success criteria on active floodplains. Soil monitoring will entail measurement of sediment accretion/reduction (aggradation/ degradation) at the location of each monitoring gauge and other hydraulically active areas as identified by Site managers. Mitigation activities are designed to provide for flood and sediment storage from the watershed. Therefore, hydraulic and energy dissipation patterns should be distributed throughout as much of the Site as possible. However, an area of particularly accelerated sediment deposition may raise land surfaces above the elevation of the primary wetland floodplain over a relatively short period of time. Conversely, deep scour holes or head-cuts may form in locations where flow velocity or sediment deficits exceed a "normal distribution." Soil monitoring is designed to provide a cursory review to predict the need for additional site modifications if accelerated deposition or scour potentially jeopardizes wetland restoration efforts. The re-bar used to support monitoring gauges will be marked upon installation and in each monitoring year at the elevation of the existing ground surface. In addition, the height of silt lines will be recorded to predict the depth of inundation during the flood period. Additional re- bar will be placed and measured in high energy areas identified by Site managers, as needed. The change in elevation of the alluvial surface and deposition/scour patterns relative to flood elevations will be recorded and compared to previous years. 6.4 SOIL SUCCESS CRITERIA Success criteria require that the deposition/scour rate not exceed over 1 foot change in surface elevations in any given year. Any areas affected by this excessive deposition/scour will be mapped in the field. The area will be reviewed to determine modifications to drainage patterns that should be implemented, if any. Changes in surface elevations of less than 1 foot per year will meet regulatory success criteria; however, modifications to deposition / scour patterns may also be considered in certain circumstances. 6.5 VEGETATION Restoration monitoring procedures for vegetation are designed in accordance with EPA guidelines presented in MiST documentation (EPA 1990) and Compensatory Hardwood Mitigation Guidelines (DOA 1993). The following presents a general discussion of the monitoring program. Vegetation will receive cursory, visual evaluation during periodic reading of monitoring wells to ascertain the general conditions and degree of competition or overtopping of planted 1 66 .i1 N elements. Subsequently, quantitative sampling of vegetation will be performed once annually during the fall (September/November) for 5 years or until vegetation success criteria are achieved. Sampling dates may be modified to accommodate flood events and plot inundation, as needed. During the first sample event, a visual survey will be performed in the reference wetlands to identify all canopy tree species represented within target communities. These reference tree species will be utilized to define "character tree species" as termed in the success criteria. Permanent (on each gauge head) or nonpermanent, randomly placed plots will be established at representative locations in the restoration areas. Each plot will consist of two, 300-foot transects extending at a randomly selected compass bearing from a central origin. The plot width along the transect will extend 4 feet on each side of the tape, providing a 0.1 1-acre plot sample at the location (600 feet x 8 feet / 43,560 square feet/acre). Eight plots will be established to provide an 8 percent sample and a depiction of tree species available for current and future seed sources within the restoration area. In each plot, tree species and number of stems will be recorded and seedling/sapling/tree height measured. Tree data from all plots will be combined into one database to calculate an average density, by species, represented in restoration areas of the Site. In each plot, presence/absence of shrub and herbaceous species will be recorded. A wetland data form (DOA 1987) will be completed to document the classification and description of vegetation, soil, and hydrology. 6.6 VEGETATION SUCCESS CRITERIA Success criteria include the verification, per the wetland data form, that each plot supports a species composition sufficient for a jurisdictional determination. Additional success criteria are dependent upon density and growth of "Character Tree Species." "Character Tree Species" are identified through visual inventory of reference wetland communities used to orient the restoration project design. All canopy tree species identified in the reference wetland will be utilized to define "Character Tree Species" as termed in the success criteria (Character Tree Species are generally listed in Section 4.5 and Section 5.6). An average density of 320 stems per acre of Character Tree Species must be surviving in the first three monitoring years. Subsequently, 290 stems per acre of character tree species must be surviving in year 4, and 260 stems per acre of Character Tree Species in year 5. Each individual species is limited to representing up to 20 percent of the 320 stem per acre total. Additional stems of a particular species above the 20 percent threshold are discarded from the statistical analysis. In essence, a minimum of five different character tree species must be present with each species representing up to 20 percent of the 320 stem per acre total. 67 If vegetation success criteria are not achieved based on average density calculations from combined plots over the entire restoration area, those individual plots that do not support the stem per acre requirement and the representative area will be identified. Supplemental planting will be performed in the identified area as needed until vegetation success criteria are 'I achieved. No quantitative sampling requirements are proposed for herb assemblages. Development of a forest canopy over several decades and restoration of wetland hydrology will dictate success in migration and establishment of desired wetland understory and groundcover populations. 6.7 REPORT SUBMITTAL An Annual Wetland Monitoring Report (AWMR) will be prepared at the end of each monitoring year (growing season). The AWMR will depict the sample plot and quadrant locations and include photographs which illustrate site conditions. Data compilations and analyses will be presented as described in Sections 6.1 through 6.6 including graphic and tabular format, where practicable. Raw data in paper or computer (EXCEL) file format will be prepared and submitted as an appendix or attachment to the AWMR. ao 68 90 7.0 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE Project implementation will include performance of restoration work in four primary stages including 1) impoundment / weir construction, 2) tree and shrub planting, 3) monitoring plan implementation, and 4) management program implementation. This mitigation plan or implementation schedule may be modified based upon civil design specifications, permit conditions, or contractor limitations. Stage 1: Impoundment / Weir Construction Stage 2 will be performed concurrent with or subsequent to filling of the reservoir. The greentree impoundment will be installed at the designated location. This work will be performed during late spring and/or early summer months to reduce erosion hazards associated with saturated soil or large August storms. Site preparation, including debris removal, woody debris deposition, and scarification (if needed) will be performed during the same summer period, prior to tree planting. Stage 2: Tree Planting Tree and shrub planting will be performed the first winter after Stage 2 is complete. The seedlings will be planted during the winter dormant period, prior to March 1. Stage 3: Monitoring Plan Implementation Groundwater monitoring gauges and permanent vegetation plots will be established immediately after construction and planting activities are completed (prior to March 26, the 14 start of the growing season). The Site will be visited regularly to read monitoring gauges and to evaluate wetland development during the first growing season. Vegetation sampling and hydrology monitoring will be completed by November 6 (the end of the growing season). The IN first year of monitoring would be completed upon submittal of the Annual Wetland Monitoring Report and fulfillment of success criteria. The monitoring sequence will be repeated as described for four additional years or until success criteria are achieved. Stage 4: Management Program Implementation Green tree impoundments require active management throughout the life of the wetland facility and water supply reservoir. Therefore, long-term management programs will be required to ensure that wetland development is established and maintained. The management program will be implemented concurrent with the monitoring plan as described above. Constructs of the management program are described in the next Section. an 69 11 8.0 MANAGEMENT PROGRAM a Greentree impoundments require modification of water surface elevations on a regular basis. Typically, the elevation of outlets is raised and lowered at variable times each year to provide for development of target wetland vegetation. Wetland vegetation is typically harvested and/or planted periodically to establish target vegetation patterns for waterfowl or other wetland dependent wildlife. Invasive species such as kudzu (Pueraria iobata) may require systematic removal as well. For this project, outlet controls and vegetation maintenance must also be manipulated to promote forested wetland development within the Site. Target hydrological goals include soil saturation or inundation for a minimum of 5 percent of the growing season (March 26 to November 6). The 5 percent criterion must be achieved in 50 percent of the years over the life of the Randleman Reservoir. The Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority (PTRWA) will provide the fiscal and administrative resources necessary to maintain and manage the greentree impoundments over the life of the water supply reservoir. PTRWA will make provisions for establishment of an Environmental Compliance Officer (Officer) to serve as the primary administrator and authority over the greentree impoundments. The Officer will be under control of PTRWA while PTRWA continues to manage the property. If the property is deeded to a resource agency as described in Section 9.0, the resource agency will provide resources necessary for establishment and maintenance of the Officer. The Officer will be tasked to supervise, coordinate, monitor, and manipulate the greentree impoundments throughout the life of the water supply reservoir. The Officer will coordinate and implement, in consultation with qualified wildlife biologists, the following greentree impoundment management components as described in the Greentree Reservoir Management ®® Handbook (Fredrickson, L.H. and D.L. Batema 1996, Mitchell and Newling 1986). 1) The Officer will be responsible for raising and lowering the controllable weirs at a frequency and duration needed to establish wetland hydrology and maximize development of wetland vegetation. Target vegetation patterns include establishment of tree species to the maximum extent feasible. 2) The Officer will periodically visit the Site to visually assess waste debris dumping, erosion problems, debris jams on structures, vegetation patterns, and other aspects of wetland development. The Officer will repair identified problems to ensure continued functioning of the wetland. 3) The Officer will provide for periodic quantitative sampling of vegetation to ensure that target vegetation species are developing and being replaced within the impoundments. The results of vegetation samples will be used by the L. _PW 70 V1 ? z Officer to adjust the frequency and/or duration that the controllable weirs are raised or lowered and to order and plant vegetation elements as needed. 4) The Officer will submit an annual report to the responsible resource agency summarizing the dates of weir modification, the current vegetation sample, trends in vegetation patterns, and recommendations for weir modifications over the next monitoring weir. The report will also include recommendations for structural modifications or additional plantings, as needed. These reports will be prepared and submitted on annual basis over the life of the Randleman Reservoir Water Supply. .11 71 ?e M 9.0 DISPENSATION OF PROPERTY PTRWA will maintain ownership of the property until all mitigation activities are completed and the site is determined to be successful. Although no plan for dispensation of the Site has been developed, PTRWA may continue to manage the property or may deed the property to a resource agency (public or private) capable of managing the greentree impoundments over the life of the reservoir. The resource agency will be approved by the appropriate regulatory agencies. Covenants and/or restrictions on the deed will be included along with adequate fiscal resources to ensure adequate management and protection of the Site throughout the life of the reservoir. LT 72 IN 10.0 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL EVALUATIONS Mitigation activities at the Sophia Branch Mitigation Site should be determined based on wetland functions generated and a comparison of restored functions to potentially impacted wetland resources. Therefore, an evaluation of mitigation wetlands by physiographic area is provided to evaluate site utility for mitigation in the region. 10.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS Under existing conditions, hydrodynamic functions have been degraded or effectively eliminated due to stream entrenchment, bed/bank erosion and removal of characteristic vegetation. Features which depict performance of hydrodynamic wetland functions such as surface microtopography, seasonal ponding, meandering stream channels, and characteristic wetland vegetation have been effectively eliminated on the abandoned floodplains. Reduction or elimination of wetland hydrology has also negated nutrient cycling and biological functions within the complex. These former wetlands do not support natural communities adapted to wetlands or the wetland dependent wildlife characteristic in the region. 10.2 PROJECTED, POST-RESTORATION CONDITIONS The Site will be used to establish wetland communities capable of providing wildlife habitat and water quality benefits. The greentree impoundment is projected to provide for restoration of regular overbank flood events and filling of the entrenched channel with sediment over time. As a result, the floodplain areas are expected to support an array of emergent, shrub-scrub, and forested wetland communities, providing replacement of habitat for wetland dependent IN species displaced by the reservoir. Water quality benefits are projected to include sediment retention and pollutant processing of waters generated by the 1.5-square mile watershed. Pro-active mitigation within the greentree impoundments is projected to provide approximately 15.7 acres of wetland restoration/creation or preservation at the Upper Sophia site, and 6.3 acres at the Lower Sophia site (Figures 18A and 186). go 73 go 11.0 REFERENCES Baumer, 0. and J. Rice. 1988. Methods to predict soil input data for DRAINMOD ASAE Paper No. 88-2564. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085. Belcher, H.W. and G.E. Merva. 1987. Results of DRAINMOD verification study for Zeigenfuss soil and Michigan climate. ASAE Paper No. 87-2554. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085. Brinson M.M., F.R. Hauer, L.C. Lee, W.L. Nutter, R.D. Smith, D. Whigham. 1995. Guidebook for Application of Hydrogeomorphic Assessments to Riverine Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS. Brinson, M.M. 1993a. Changes in the functioning of wetlands along environmental gradients. Wetlands 13(2): 65-74, Special Issue, June 1993. The Society of Wetland Scientists. Brinson M.M. 1993b. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. Wetlands Research Program Technical Report WRP-DE-4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS. Brinson M., B. Swift, R. Plantico, J. Barclay. 1981. Riparian Ecosystems: Their ecology and status. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS 81/17. Brower, J.E., J.H. Zar, and C.N. von Ende. 1990. Field and Laboratory Methods for General Ecology. William C. Brown Publishers, Debuque, IA. Chang, Howard H. 1988. Fluvial Processes in River Engineering. John Wiley & Sons. Department of the Army (DOA). 1993. Corps of Engineers Wilmington District. Compensatory Hardwood Mitigation Guidelines (12/8/93). Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Tech. Rpt. Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 1996. Water Quality Certification Administrative Code Section: 15A NCAC 2H.0500 as amended October 1, 1996. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 1998. Classifications and Water Quality Standards Assigned to the Waters of the Cape Fear River Basin, N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, N.C. ao 74 IM 0 Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 2000 (draft). Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality on- Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, N.C. Dunne D. and L.B. Leopold. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. W.H. Freeman and Company, N.Y. EcoScience Corporation (ESC). 1998a (unpublished). Preliminary Groundwater Drainage Model: Randleman Reservoir Mitigation Sites, Guilford County, North Carolina. Raleigh, N.C. EcoScience Corporation (ESC). 1998b (unpublished). Preliminary Wetland Mitigation Assessment: Randleman Reservoir, Guilford and Randolph Counties, North Carolina. Raleigh, N.C. EcoScience Corporation (ESC). 1999 (unpublished). Wetland Mitigation Plan: Randleman Reservoir, Guilford and Randolph Counties, North Carolina. Raleigh, N.C. EcoScience Corporation (ESC). 2000a (unpublished). Detailed Wetland Mitigation Plan: Randleman Reservoir Water Supply, Richland Creek Mitigation Site, Guilford Countiey, North Carolina. Raleigh, N.C. EcoScience Corporation (ESC). 2000b (unpublished). Detailed Wetland Mitigation Plan: Randleman Reservoir Water Supply, Reddicks Creek Mitigation Site, Guilford Countiey, North Carolina. Raleigh, N.C. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1990. Mitigation Site Classification (MIST) A Methodology to Classify Pre-Project Mitigation Sites and Develop Performance Standards for Construction and Restoration of Forested Wetlands. USEPA Workshop, August 13-15, 1989. USEPA Region IV and Hardwood Research Cooperative, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, N.C. Fouss, J.L., R.L. Bengtson, and C.E. Carter. 1987. Simulating subsurface drainage in the lower Mississippi Valley with DRAINMOD. Transactions of the ASAE 30 (6).(1679 -1688). Fredrickson, L.H. and D.L. Batema. 1996. Greentree Reservoir Management Handbook. Gaylord Memorial Laboratory Wetland Management Series. The School of Natural Resources. University of Missouri-Columbia. Puxico, MO 63960. Gayle, G., R.W. Skaggs, and C.E. Carter. 1985. Evaluation of a water management model for a Louisiana sugar cane field. J. of Am. Soc. of Sugar Cane Technologists, 4: 18 - 28. Graham County Historical Society, 1992. Graham County Heritage. Robbinsville, NC. 75 c 1 Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.A. O'Hara, A. Jessup, and R. Everhart. 1999. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina Streams. N.C. M State University, Raleigh, North Carolina. Hvorslev, M.J. 1951. Time lag and soil permeability in groundwater observations. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experimental Station Bulletin 36, Vicksburg, MS. Mitchell, W.A., and C.J. Newling. 1986. Greentree Reservoir Management Manual. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. IOU North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 1994a (unpublished). Determination of applicable mitigation credit for restoration of wetland buffers and wetland/upland ecotones: US 64 wetland restoration and conservation management plan, US 64 relocation, Martin and Edgecombe Counties, North Carolina. N.C. Department of Transportation. Raleigh, N.C. Nunnally, N.R., and E. Keller. 1979. Use of Fluvial Processes to Minimize Adverse Effects of Stream Channelization. Water Resources Research Institute of the University of North Carolina. Report No. 144. Page, R.W. and L.S. Wilcher. 1990. Memorandum of Agreement Between the EPA and the DOE Concerning the Determination of Mitigation Under the Clean Water Act, Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. Washington, DC. Rogers, J.S. 1985. Water management model evaluation for shallow sandy soils. Transactions of the ASAE 28 (3): 785-790. Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology (Publisher). Pagosa Springs, Colorado. Schafale, M. P., and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina: Third Approximation, NC Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, NC DEM, Raleigh NC. Simmons, C.E. 1976. Sediment Characteristics of Streams in the Eastern Piedmont and Western Coastal Plain Regions of North Carolina. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper, W 1798-0,p. 01-032. Reston VA. Skaggs, R.W. 1982. Field Evaluation of a Water Management Simulation Model. Transactions of the ASAE 25 (3):666-674. Skaggs, R.W., N.R. Fausey, and B.H. Nolte. 1981. Water Management Evaluation for North Central Ohio. Transactions of the ASAE 24 (4):922-928. ao 76 0 0 :I. Skaggs, R.W., J.W. Gilliam, R.O. Evans. 1991. A Computer Simulation Study of Pocosin w_ Hydrology. Wetlands (1 1):399-416. Skaggs, R.W., et a/. 1993. Methods for Evaluating Wetland Hydrology. ASAE Meeting Presentation Paper No. 921590. 21 pp. Smith, R.D., A. Ammann, C. Bartoldus, and M.M. Brinson. 1995 (unpublished). An Approach for Assessing Wetland Functions Using Hydrogeomorphic Classification, Reference Wetlands, and Functional Indices. Wetlands Research Program Technical Report WRP DE-_. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Strahler, A.N. 1964. Geology. Part II. Quantitative geomorphology of drainage basins and channel networks. (in) Handbook of Applied Hydrology. (ed. V.T. Chow), pp. 4-39 to 4-76, McGraw Hill, New York. Susanto, R.H., J. Feyen, W. Dierickx, and G. Wyseure. 1987. The Use of Simulation Models to Evaluate the Performance of Subsurface Drainage Systems. Proc. of the Third International Drainage Workshop, Ohio State University, OH. pp. A67 - A76. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1977. Soil Survey of Guilford County, North Carolina. Natural Resources Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1987. Hydric Soils of the United States. In Cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. Natural Resources Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Unpublished. Soil Survey of Randolph County, North Carolina. Natural Resources Conservation Service. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1974. Hydrologic Cataloging Unit Map for the State of North Carolina. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1982. 7.5 minute, High Point East 1:24000 Quadrangle. Yoakum, J., W.P. Dasmann, H.R. Sanderson, C.M. Nixon, and H.S. Crawford. 1980. Habitat Improvement Techniques. Pp. 329-403 in S.D. Schemnitz (Editor). Wildlife Management Techniques Manual, 4th ed., rev. The Wildlife Society, Washington, D.C. 686 pp. 17. 77 IF