19970330 Ver 1_Mitigation Plans_20010721

DETAILED WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
RANDLEMAN RESERVOIR WATER SUPPLY
REDDICKS CREEK MITIGATION SITE
GUILFORD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
L .. 2 z
I
Prepared for:
PIEDMONT TRIAD REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY
Prepared by:
EcoScience
EcoScience Corporation
612 Wade Avenue, Suite 200
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
October 2000
DWI;
I
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 ...................................... 11
3.1 Physiography, Topography, and Land Use ..................... 11
3.2 Soils ...............................................13
3.3 Plant Communities 13
3.4 Hydrology ...........................................16
3.5 Water Quality .................................. ...... 17
3.6 Jurisdictional Wetlands .................................. 19
E
4.0 WETLAND RESTORATION STUDIES .............................. 20
4.1 Restoration Alternatives Analyses ........................... 20
4.2 Reservoir Pool Level and Sedimentation Analysis ................ 22
4.3 Surface Water Analyses ................................. 27
4.4 Groundwater Modeling .................................. 31
4.5 Reference Greentree Impoundments ......................... 35
4.6 Reference Plant Communities .............................. 39
4.7 Reference Physiography and Surface Topography ................ 42
5.0 WETLAND RESTORATION PLAN ................................ 45
5.1 Passive Saturation / Inundation from the Reservoir Pool ........... 45
5.2 Impoundment / Weir Construction .......................... 46
5.3 Surface Scarification / Waste Debris Removal .................. 46
5.4 Woody Debris Deposition ................................ 48
5.5 Wetland Community Restoration ........................... 48
PL
6.0 MONITORING PLAN ......................................... 53
6.1 Hydrology ...........................................53
6.2 Hydrology Success Criteria ............................... 53
6.3 Soil ................................................55
6.4 Soil Success Criteria .................................... 55
6.5 Vegetation ........................................... 55
6.6 Vegetation Success Criteria ............................... 56
6.7 Report Submittal ...................................... 57
7.0 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE ................................. 58
8.0 MANAGEMENT PROGRAM .................................... 59
9.0 DISPENSATION OF PROPERTY ................................. 61
10.0 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION ........................... 62
10.1 Existing Conditions ..................................... 62
10.2 Projected Post-Restoration Conditions ........................ 62
11.0 REFERENCES ..............................................63
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1: Site Location: Randleman Reservoir ......................... 2
Figure 2: Site Location: Reddicks Creek Mitigation Site ................... 7
Figure 3: Aerial Photograph (1999) ................................. 9
Figure 4: Physiography, Topography, and Land Use ..................... 12
Figure 5: Plant Communities ..................................... 14
Figure 6: Flood Frequency Analyses ................................ 18
Figure 7: Pool Level and Sedimentation: Reference Site 1 ................. 25
Figure 8: Pool Level and Sedimentation: Reference Site 2 ................. 26
Figure 9: Pool Level and Sedimentation: Randleman Reservoir .............. 28
Figure 10: Conceptual Impoundment Design ........................... 36
Figure 11: Reference Greentree Impoundment .......................... 37
Figure 12: Reference Lake Shoreline ................................. 38
Figure 13: Reference Site: Plan View and Cross-Sections .................. 44
Figure 14: Hydrology Restoration ................................... 47
Figure 15: Planting Plan ......................................... 49
Figure 16: Monitoring Plan / Mitigation Design Units ..................... 54
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1: Estimated Acreage 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 ..... 30
Table 3: Modeled Groundwater Discharge Zone of Influence
on Wetland Hydroperiods: Congaree Soils ..................... 32
Table 4: Reference Forest Ecosystem Plot Summary .................... 40
Table 5: Reference Forest Ecosystem Plot Summary .................... 41
Table 6: Planting Plan ......................................... 51
iv
J
u
DETAILED WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
RANDLEMAN RESERVOIR WATER SUPPLY
REDDICKS CREEK MITIGATION SITE
GUILFORD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
l1

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 3,000-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 (ex: forested,
stream-side wetlands). Wetland restoration, creation, enhancement, or preservation
represent typical 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 created for every acre of wetland impacted. Subsequently,
remaining wetland functional replacement needs may then be off-set through wetland
enhancement and/or preservation.
1.2 OBJECTIVES OF WETLAND RESTORATION
The primary objectives for wetland restoration include:
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 watersheds. Excess nutrients, fecal coliform,
sediments, and chemical contaminants (metals, etc.) represent the primary
water quality concerns for the reservoir.
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 acreage of wetland restoration or creation achieved at the
Reddicks Creek mitigation site.
1
N
m m. m
70
-2 o.
,(i lJ? .. ?' (`\ .,rte ' I ` i' ? ` ? • 1. ??/
•..•'`•?'? y%• .../ ? f . • III ?. ?f ..-y? , • \/ "7 .r?.?
'?,? •? ?. , •. :x? ,.. ,7'' /"w••-.:fir ..?• . '?. ?`,'' • .. • ; , '
\` .4
j
nib"
20
Z5 c
`!No rx ;u m
;u 0 -0
• =g - , ' ?"?> ?' y .. .•;• Cj:•' ',?,. .?;` c/fS, n ? m m m O ? •r
. 4 ? ' c' f ?• •' ??' 1, ? ?? "/ ,,?•i-r' ?_ I r „ ??? ? ? ? ? ? ? p ,?
,?° r { ,: ; 1f to g D ?Z
W
N ? i.
13 0 C)
?' z :. : • .y:'r •'i%t:.. ;? r..yy`\?y/``?? x moC?o7 v I'
..
i`l? .. .,b7? ° .;./??•• .. ???' '•%?'?a.?i'.``••?! ? ?'. /l11\l. _?` _ i ..`.'fi'r' ?: ?;',• ,..r...t;?<'?'' ?`.':.'• .J%
W n 0 M 'til A
5 r
M
o cx D DOm to O I
1 T DNO =r mr a Czo V?
;u C3 o ?mD n?o3 cm °:u
m g> O 3° ° 0? ?-I W ?rD
z O ° a d ?D? W ?a. O
00 o N z ?z a ?D m OCID
g °o u' ,'? p N a
u
J

H
t
[a
0
I

e
iU
G
u
fi
[1
n W,
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 within water
supply reservoirs (Section 4.2). Therefore, wetland restoration for water quality should
be designed to reduce sediment transport capacity of streams immediately above the
reservoir and to entrap sediment within vegetated wetland surfaces. As a result, sediment
would be deposited on floodplain surfaces that periodically dry out in areas outside of the
reservoir pool. 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). 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. Within reservoir pools immediately
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.
Establishment of the reservoir will effectively stop sediment transport capacity within each
tributary that flows into the lake. The primary objective of mitigation is to extend the
sediment deposition wedge in the upstream direction of each valley, prior to confluence
with the lake. The reservoir will passively develop wetlands within a certain area in each
valley, immediately above the reservoir pool. This project is intended to assist that
process through active measures, including extension of wetlands in the up-valley
direction and establishment of wetland vegetation on active alluvial surfaces.
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 to 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.
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 degree of channel
incision, reduce the rate of groundwater discharge from the floodplain into the channel,
3

4=
increase overbank flooding from the channel onto the floodplain, reduce sediment
transport capacity, and provide greater sediment deposition within vegetated wetlands.
Greentree Impoundments
Greentree impoundments are proposed on more steeply sloped floodplains and stream
terraces (>0.008 rise/run) or pastured sites where relatively severe stream channel
degradation and steepening has occurred above the reservoir pool. In general, a greentree
impoundment comprises 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.
The elevation of the outlet is typically raised during winter months to promote ponding,
sediment deposition, and waterfowl habitat. Subsequently, the elevation of the outlet
is lowered in early spring to allow for vegetation growth, nutrient uptake, and seedling
establishment. Levee systems are typically 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 and survival of tree species. The time for
outlet adjustment may vary annually and is dependent upon localized conditions within
the watershed. Seedling mortality is typically tracked on an annual basis, and the date
of spring lowering of water levels is modified periodically to maximize the rate of forest
regeneration. Tree or shrub species selected for planting will vary based on expected
hydrologic regimes and other site-specific conditions. In general, sites lacking substantial
forest vegetation and primarily used as pasture land were targeted for this mitigation
911 option.
1.4 MITIGATION SITE SELECTION
During the environmental impact assessment, project planners identified and evaluated a
total 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 (ESC 1998a, ESC 1998b, ESC 1999).
Of these 25 sites, 10 sites were determined to support wetland restoration potential on
floodplains encompassing up to 121 acres of restorable land area. Table 1 and Figure 1
depict the location of each site and projected acreages potentially available for wetland
restoration use.
1
u
4
n
1
r
r
L
O
O
Cj) N
O
CO O
C E
•E cu
•? -0
a` _
R
C
O?
O
r ys
IM 3
r ? Q1
(D
C
(B O
a N
p Q
C N
O O
R N
c? C
G ca
cm G
(9
d
V ?
¦ Q
® w a°
?c
G O
r
w
r
r
C
.Nm
m
0
2
c
0
O _
of N
a) ?
m U
v .°
c
m
Y
y
C
R
y
m
rn m
C
.y
x
w
Y E
= cn m y
M co J U
0
a (D
U)
C ?
c
0
m
d
Q d
U
Y c0
H
0
co -
CL
m a w
o
co O
co U.
Q
T
O co
> m
m E W
C co
m E
J
U)
.m.,
U)
c
0
O
rn
2
y
m
U
I ?
I Y
L
co
m
m
c
U) U'j Cl) r- It LO
o M
? f'7 ? r n
,K ^ r to It co
O U) U) ? It O
N - U)
lO - o co OLo co
Or Cl) N N .- 0
O O O O O O
O O O O O O
N M - N - CO
(") M N It fh
Y Y
m L d y m
m U U U - m
co U cco U j U
L ` m >
0 'D CD
C
0 m 'O N
Q = Y
V)
c
m
E
v
C
7
O
0.
E
d
Y
c
d
O
(D
n N r- N
to N
e"- Cv O - co
N
co It ?
N a) n n
r
O O O O ;
0) U') r U')
'- N .-
o
O O O O O
co c0 O) N
(0 (h N
S.
?
Y
? m
L O
C Q O J

°? o p
Q v
? ? ? m H
co
-a
m
c?

w
o m
m t
co " N
? C
> r- O
m v d
C 3
a)
C3
c
m o
N U
C >
co °p
N
m m
m
L r 7
W
CO
° a
y m ? j
-p ? U y
- O c
LLj
c_ v
C EL
c0 N O 'O
CL
v E m oo
o m
o E m
U- y O
c E
lm C m O
C_ c0 a m
m ' o
E 0- 0
U O- m
L Q O
L o 0
O) m 0 -
on m' .0 o
o ? y o
Y > y o
m co 0
m co `o m
tm
Co N O m
c>o U 'C: ° m
C Q1 U
C m M>
O m
`p d m
co m co -a.) tm
E '
0 2 E
a0 v
U O N
cu V co
E E::-
m ). m N m
?' C C m i0
E ai y E
t.
C y
a am>m
C CL L C C
ami E c m
L U U .a
m t 3 y
> o m" ,
Cc y
m c v
m co
ar
m ?' o U m
?' 0 3
U , N O
m U)
c ?
c0 L c0 ? y
N Y - N
L ? 5 a) m
? N ? N O
o.m
C N O t?0
M w m
O `1 C U
O m m O m
o ;? t aL
LLOF- o~
•- - N w Cl)
?I
This document details restoration and enhancement procedures for riverine and lake
shoreline wetland restoration and creation along Reddicks Creek, one of the 10 mitigation
sites (Figure 2). The Reddicks Creek mitigation site (Site) includes 22.7 acres that
encompass the stream and adjacent floodplain servicing a watershed of approximately 9.1
square miles immediately above the reservoir. Greentree impoundments are proposed
along the dredged and entrenched Reddicks Creek corridor 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 on vegetated
wetland surfaces above the reservoir pool.
This summary document includes the following: 1) descriptions of existing conditions; 2)
surface and groundwater hydraulic analyses; 3) reference lake shoreline and greentree
impoundment studies; and 4) reference soil and forest ecosystem investigations.
rut
Subsequently, detailed plans are provided for in-stream structures, wetland
restoration/creation, vegetation planting, site monitoring, and success criteria. Remaining
mitigation sites that follow the format of this mitigation plan (utilizing greentree
impoundments above the reservoir pool) will be attached as appendix documents to this
summary mitigation plan.

6

J
0
C
C
J

xt
f 1 f d e
"'
I •
• ,. '--? nJy?i"? L ?/ (? ? ? `?<'""1 hp RSA ,j? ??/ ?
? ? J ?? .
' '?s' =
`
?' N?'
.,
l
?
'? ?,'Y• ? r
`
?
?
'
` ?
\
.,
?
•t
'.? -
t-_
t
;
a
. ail
r-
,

% 1\'•1 ?y •• ?„?/' L?-?a? l• ??- ? ? a? ,?`+..'.\ ? - -;?. ,,V 1 i ? V•t•?/,ice
%-4 V,11
r ter ' - ?r ? /? ? ` n ¢ ?? / '' a a*? \? n./ >> •l, %i?Ayt `: •
/ ,? ?' .'j `f E; 1 ?? , ? ?" f r' , • J' ?4??`? _ 't ?` ; :,r11??? ?+ai, ' ?'+?? ?T ?t
,S,r'
Mitigation
Site Location
t 4' . • ,?
??+1'?•i?? `. ? Ij ? ? ?? /' ? ice" 1; ? ..a' ?? ° '/? •?-,-,./?7,??? "' `` ??'? ` i? :? ?y?n' ' J!?
?. r ?
?-' ,I
?
r
L
?`?
?
: ?
?•
C
4
. ? ?`??? lam; ?
.
a
%c
? ;: ,,?
,a 7? ;
?? ?, ?
?
,, ,?
?\\.
\11 ?1b?al???' J, I
C
1
- 4,
-:• ,1? i?t , .,? ?. ;? ., r,._;,? ? . '1
.: ?:: ;?
-= Randleman r( ?
?
Reservoir > ` ° //1
7G`rh •R "b tai lip. •'
rl
j, // ?:
{ .c \`ii•••/ ??1 {/Ji?
Y
'
4
,
_
.
f ,
.,
.

l
d
X", J 'tom /-J(
:
?
? '
1. .
•./:' ,ar ?'' , ? - ?- +:_.
'1 'lam/, ? r; .°_?' i O
,:?"

0 2400 n asoo n ?Y
)1r Y ^/rte` T 41y '
1:29,520 + ?.?'-V' ?i '+^ ?> ?. _ r- ??r?/._ ? d \\,?r."'"'-.. ILI
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Topo Maps (Pleasant Garden,
Hagh Point East, N.C.)

EcoScience
Corporation

RANDLEMAN RESERVOIR MITIGATION PROJECT
REDDICKS CREEK SITE
North Carolina
G
ilf
d C
t Dwn. try
MAF
Ckdby: JWN
Date:
Oct 2000
FIGURE
- ^ Raleigh, North Carol?a u
or
oun
y, Project
00-010

2.0 METHODS
Natural resource information for the Site was obtained from available sources, including
U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic mapping (USGS High Point East and High
Point West 7.5 minute quadrangles), U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National
Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping, and Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)
soil survey (USDA 1977). 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 (Figure 3).
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) data bases
were evaluated for the presence of protected species and designated natural areas which
may serve as reference (relatively undisturbed) wetlands for restoration design.
On-site 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 data base and on-site inventory were used to
characterize target, post-restoration species composition. Topographic maps of the basin
floor were also prepared to show the gradation from permanently to semi-permanently
inundated conditions throughout the lower half of the Site. A concurrent pool elevation
and sedimentation study provided information on sedimentation and wetland development
around the point of stream inflow and conservation pool levels. Topographic data were
overlaid on wetland restoration areas to establish methods for construction and restoration
of wetland communities within the Site.
Detailed topographic mapping to 1-foot contour intervals was developed by ground survey
paneling and aerial photogrametric methods. Additional land surveys were performed to
establish channel cross-sections and measure reference wetland surface topography.
Field investigations were performed in the Summer of 2000 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 1998. 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.
0
8
0
1, Jwlbh-

V) a
"m
m
?r
0
o '0
D O n
n OVA i ?n? ??m GO Ax O
p 0v NG)M nz
G) 36 ?Nm-
> Pt
0 CA 8 g D D CD
0
PW
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 Reddicks Creek 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 1-, 2-,
5-, 10-, or 100-year period were selected for use. These flood events are commonly called
the 2-, 5-, 10-, and 100-year floods. Floods with a return frequency of less than 2 years
are usually not studied in engineering applications. 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.
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 and nutrient cycling
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.
J
10
L-'

9 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
r-ft
3.1 PHYSIOGRAPHY, TOPOGRAPHY, AND LAND USE
The Site is located in the Piedmont Physiographic Province of North Carolina within the
Cape Fear River Basin. 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 Reddicks Creek floodplain within the Cape Fear River Basin
(Hydrologic Unit #03030003 (USGS 19741, DWQ Sub-Basin 03-06-08). The Site is located
approximately 10 miles southwest of Greensboro and 7 miles southeast of High Point.
Annual precipitation in the region averages 42 inches per year with June and August
representing the months that support the highest average rainfall (4.21 inches and 4.36
inches respectively) (USDA 1977).
The Site contains an approximately 3900-foot reach of Reddicks Creek (Figure 4).
Reddicks Creek supports a primary watershed of approximately 9.1 square miles and flows
into Hickory Creek 1.1 miles downstream. Hickory Creek continues to the southeast for
approximately 0.6 miles before entering the Deep River. One auxiliary tributary flows into
the Site from a pond located immediately west of the Site boundary. Otherwise, the
gently sloping valley floor is enclosed by moderate to steeply sloped escarpments in
adjacent uplands.
The Reddicks Creek watershed supports a mixture of forest, agricultural,, residential,
commercial, and infrastructural uses. The headwater region extends into urban areas
associated with the City of Greensboro, including the Interstate 85 (1-85) highway
corridor. Lower portions of the watershed, south of 1-85, primarily support residential
communities, pasture land, forest, and limited commercial development. Land use within
the watershed surrounding the Site includes maintained grass lawns associated with a
recently abandoned golf course and nearby residential homes. Several abandoned
structures associated with the golf course reside immediately west, with concrete cart
paths and bridges bisecting the Site at numerous locations (Figure 4).
The Site encompasses one primary physiographic landscape area for restoration planning
purposes; elevated stream terrace (Figure 4). The primary variables utilized to segregate
wetland landscape units include land slope, overbank flood frequencies (Section 4.3), and
the rate and direction of groundwater flow (Section 4.4).

11

(A mmm w
-- -y' o /
0
N
W
o W
C
X/_ ? ? 11L M ?_
q p O p 1 --- q
GOLF F9RVIAY
9 n "v j6

6
? ? c? 6 p-
o
•-
c

Y
++j

r m n -
n 0 -U
O n m
z <
° N p
ul = m _ 0

m-u
-
42P m z m
°
K Z m p

c
-{ z
O
N

r

MAP COMPILED BY PHOTOGRAMMETRIC METHODS.
N D C
o =
a
C-
-
71 o z Z 00
C)
o w o m =2
0 °0
_ a

z°
;u
310 71
no U) - 0
4?mo
?o
C) m-1mo

z
D O
z N

?V

z m--0 Q,
m
o? G)
v-v
?fil
n(A
In
0
O M
mg
,JI O y
O "ll 'i
1 ©°
0 4? f
o
A
C?
on
m
Q
a
o

0 ?
A " ?'8 O
?
?

N ?o
pb
?:
yy yy py, ?W.}. (D • ??k
u ?
6
?
a
R i-
? 1-+
N

E I
[l
U"-"
u
r,
L
I
n
r
G!
U,
C
D.
f]

The stream terrace encompasses 22.7 acres along both sides of the stream channel. The
channel averages approximately 25 feet in width and 7 feet in depth through the area.
Removal of riparian vegetation during antecedent pasture use and recent golf course
development induced a down-cut in the channel bed, effectively eliminating the presence
of an active floodplain in adjacent areas. The existing stream terrace (abandoned
floodplain) ranges from 50 feet to 275 feet in width and supports well drained, upland
soils. Immediately outside of the terrace, valley escarpments impinge upon the stream
terrace, including erodible slopes ranging from 0.05 to 0.15 (rise/run). Under historic
conditions, the stream terrace is expected to have included active floodplains and a low
stream terrace supporting natural communities such as Piedmont bottomland hardwood
forest and mixed mesophytic hardwood forest (Schafale and Weakley 1990).
Down-cutting in 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 under existing conditions. Due to colluvial and erosional forces, the terrace floor
is also sloping towards the stream channel, inducing relatively rapid groundwater
discharge along the reach. As a result, wetland functions (sediment retention, nutrient
cycling, energy dissipation, etc.) have been effectively eliminated from the physiographic
area by stream alterations and valley type.
3.2 SOILS
Surficial soils have been mapped by NRCS (USDA 1977). Soils were verified in the
summer of 1999 by licenced soil scientists to refine soil map units and locate inclusions
and taxadjunct areas. Systematic transects were established and sampled to ensure
proper coverage.
The only soil series mapped within the Site is Congaree loam (Typic Udifiuvents). The
map unit consists of nonhydric, well drained soils that have developed in loamy alluvium
The soil is characteristic of long, narrow floodplains on more steeply sloped valleys with
the seasonal high water table ranging from 2 to 4 feet below the surface. Congaree soil
map units are not expected to have supported wetlands historically with the exception of
minor inclusions of the Wehadkee series (Typic Fiuvaquents) in depressional sloughs.
3.3 PLANT COMMUNITIES
Plant communities are influenced by logging, site conversion to pasture, and subsequent
golf course development. Three communities have been identified for descriptive
purposes, including: 1) open field (abandoned golf course); 2) riparian scrub forest; and
3) mesic hardwood forest (Figure 5).
13

Qcr.
N ° o
M r a[ W N 17 O
00 E3
v t- 11J
• v + r3 D UO3) WQ o ) ?
C? U ..
r. C!1 ?aa p y
?GCC o ? ?z Z LL.
r
0 w W H' LL. U
-?O O -? o
WV d c? a? 2 0 ??' i U IL
.0 u

o i
0
h
A M

u.i
O
V
m
+1 +1 +1 +1
l
N ..} O 1
O N
]
o
F-
v7 o
~

F.,

in w
ac
0

R: u.
(3
a LL
.

°o
?
W
in U
_.T,

O (3
rx N tLi
: (L
OO
W
CD
W
J
a
b
0
U

z
=3
a]
a
o N
d
z

m
w
-?
a
o z
F=
w z
N
w
I I

I

r O
` L Q N i Gt0
ey'
O
? 4)
O
i
O
m m m w

0

E
0

1-1
f7
u
0

JI
0

-1
Open Field
Open field areas associated with the abandoned golf course, fairways, and recreational
areas comprises approximately 10.8 acres of the 22.7-acre Site. The golf course was
regularly maintained and has had less than 2 years to naturalize since abandonment. This
community is dominated by grasses and herbs with a few canopy species randomly
scattered throughout the area. This community is characterized by various lawn grasses
typical of golf course settings including Bermuda grass (Cynodon dacty/on) and fescue
(Festuca spp.). Invasive grasses and herbs are characterized by species habituated to
unforested maintained environments and include: sheep-sorrel (Rumex acetosella), dog
fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), milkweed (Asclepias syriaca), lespedeza (Lespedeza
virginica), wild onion (Allium canadense), goldenrod (Solidago spp.), red clover (Trifolium
pratense), white clover (Trifolium repens), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), and plantain
(Plantago sp.). Sapling species of eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), box elder (Acer
negundo), and red maple (Acer rubrum) are randomly interspersed throughout this
community.
Riparian Scrub Forest
A narrow strip of Riparian Forest occurs adjacent to Reddicks Creek throughout its reach.
The Riparian Forest is approximately 10 to 30 feet in width, encompassing 4.1 acres, and
consists primarily of a successional, shrub-scrub community and intermittent hardwood
forest stands. Characteristic tree species include river birch (Betula nigra), green ash
(Fraxinus pennsylvanica), American elm (Ulmus americana), black cherry (Prunus serotina),
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), swamp dogwood (Corpus foemina), tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), American sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), black willow (Salix nigra), box elder, and red maple. Sub-canopy species
include saplings of canopy species as well as tag alder (Alnus serrulata). Understory
species are characterized by common greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia.), poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), blackberry (Rubus
sp.), and common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia). These areas were not typically
mowed by golf course superintendents; however, a canopy was not allowed to develop
between fairways.
Mesic Hardwood Forest
A hardwood forest community is located in two areas within the Site and comprises
approximately 5.5 acres of land area. This vegetative community extends from Reddicks
Creek along two relatively steep ridges located in the central and southern sections of the
Site. Species composition within this community is consistent with those identified in
the riparian scrub forest with additional canopy species composed of short-leaf pine (Pious
echinata), Virginia pine (Pious virginiana), mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa), dogwood
(Corpus florida), rock chestnut oak (Quercus prinus), red mulberry (Morus rubra), white
oak (Quercus alba), black walnut (Juglans nigra), sugar maple (Acer saccharum), and
eastern red cedar. The limited sub canopy includes saplings of canopy species as well as
American holly (Ilex opaca), and ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana).
15
n
)
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 Guilford 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 consist primarily of silts, sands, and weathered
bedrock (very coarse sand and small gravel). Bedrock outcrops are considered 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. 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
The Site encompasses relatively narrow stream terraces associated with a 3900-foot reach
of Reddicks Creek. At site outfall, the system supports a watershed of approximately 9.1
square miles. The terrace ranges from approximately 50 to 275 feet in width, dependent
upon confinement characteristics of the valley wall. Relative to the terrace elevation, the
incised channel supports a bankfull width of 25 feet, and average depth of 7 feet. Due
to passive or active down-cutting, cross-sectional area of Reddicks Creek is approximately
175 square feet. However, according to regional curves, a stable Reddicks Creek channel
is projected to support cross-sections of approximately 100 square feet (Harman et a/.
1999, Rosgen 1996). The incised channel supports a sinuosity (channel length/valley
length) of 1.1. Substrate within the channel is composed of unconsolidated sand, small
gravel, and bedrock outcrops exposed by incision and localized bank erosion. The channel
is classified as a G4 (gravel dominated gully) based on fluvial geomorphic features (Rosgen
1996).
Topographic mapping and historic (1963) aerial photography indicate that Reddicks Creek
has remained at the present location in surrounding pasture land for the last several
decades. However, the channel has deepened and subsequently widened during the
period. Riparian vegetation appears to have been cleared several times during the period.
However, bank collapse and active erosion into the adjacent pastures was induced. As
a result, land managers allowed limited riparian vegetation to recolonize the banks.
Three small unnamed tributaries dissect the southern portion of the Site (Figure 4). These
systems extend for a total of approximately 1000 linear feet and support watersheds less
16

than 0.1 square miles. These tributaries represent ephemeral or marginally intermittent
streams that receive drainage from the adjacent open field areas and a pond located at the
southwestern edge of the site. Both systems have been diverted into canals that bypass
the primary and secondary floodplains, providing direct connectivity to Reddicks Creek.
Stream discharge and flood elevations under existing conditions have been predicted
based on hydraulic models (Section 4.2). Figure 6 provides model predictions for the 1-
(projected bankfull), 2-, 5-, and 100-year storm (Section 4.3). The study suggests that
entrenchment has confined the 1- to 2-year flows within the eroding channel banks,
effectively bypassing floodplain functions associated with pollutant removal and
maintenance of wildlife habitat for overbank flood dependent species.
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.
HL
C.
F
C-
G-'
G
c
Groundwater gradients in June 1998 and May 2000 indicate that the groundwater table
typically resides from 2 to 7 feet below the land surface. The groundwater gradient
appears relatively steep with runoff rates moderate to rapid. Therefore, 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 Reddicks Creek has further accelerated groundwater
discharge to depths of greater than 6 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 4.4) suggest that
groundwater tables will continue to remain more than 1 foot below the surface.
Therefore, restoration of wetlands within the Site may require establishment of a
backwater (surface water induced) wetland immediately above the reservoir.
3.5 WATER QUALITY
Reddicks Creek maintains a State best usage classification of WS-IV CA ((Stream Index
No. 17-8) (DWQ 2000). Class WS-IV waters are protected as water supplies which are in
moderate 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 substances. Local
programs to control nonpoint source and stormwater discharge of pollution are also
required. CA signifies a Critical Area designation for watershed areas within 0.5 miles of
a water supply intake for the reservoir.
17
® ?1 Q[!? tJ Imo]
w
o ?,
0
1 °
CROSS. ? ? ?? ? • N
V
O /
O ?j
/ a h _ tN ? /
n

IIG? ??
?? VV

??-
N W?
• c
R ECTION 4700

a

1...? I O
I I
X X
=1 MO
O O 0
c
o m c
z ?
C) N
a
0
m
v
,.,Ss
?? ;? --`_: ?; CROSS-SECTION 7fl00
N
m
w
0
0
2

O X
I ? 1
1 ?
0 VN
""I
'v 1 ° z
7]
o 1
,
?
o
Q
?
z
v

N
m
a
-n
o
a o

p
=+
c
z
N
...
°

,,
s
a
N
?

Q

s
a ?
3
a

o

o _'
p
z
N
m m
m
o
> n
r
> ?
C
o ?
u
N N N
??
+ + 1F

y,?
In
r
O
v
0
m
z
I
.?
r(
i
\? a t
I
? ?D?Y

I
L .. .. o.Z n70 ?E :A p „A O n
on Zm-n ?0 -?nm ?m 5 ? R?x? p
m ° o o - m0 ?0 m?mn ?0 ?o N u it
° .. zo Nzv °c ?r °?g--1 mi3 17•?
o w o No fl1? Dz Z N D° a7_0? N
0 D
0 0 0° v >7 v
fJ
The Site consists primarily of open land adjacent to the stream channel. Fertilizers,
pesticides, and nutrients associated with golf course maintenance may have influenced
water quality in the vicinity. Two intermittent channels as well as an overflow drain from
an adjacent pond have direct connectivity with Reddicks Creek and may have deleterious
effects on water quality. Restoration of wetland hydrology and diversion of area runoff
onto restored wetland surfaces will provide local water 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 9.1 square mile
watershed associated with Reddicks Creek. However, runoff from this land area
effectively bypasses wetland floodplains as the entrenched channel transports flow
directly 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.
Because the Site is located at the elevation of the reservoir conservation pool, sediment
transport capacity of the stream system will be generally stopped at elevations of 681 feet
above MSL. A sediment wedge will develop within the reservoir pool and incrementally
extend further into the open water area. Research suggests that up to 300,000 cubic feet
(0.7 acre-feet) of sediment will be deposited annually within the reducing aquatic
environment (Simmons 1976). Associated pollutants will not generally be degraded,
assimilated, or recycled through periodic wetting (reduction) and drying (oxidation).
Therefore, wetland restoration has been designed to reduce sediment transport capacity
within the 3,900-foot reach of Reddicks Creek. As a result, the sediment wedge will be
extended in the upstream direction outside of the reservoir pool (above elevation 682),
® where wetland functions will potentially provide for greater pollutant processing.
3.6 JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
Jurisdictional areas are defined using the crheria set forth in the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Wetlands Delineation Manual (DOA 1987). Based on the assessment,
functioning jurisdictional wetland systems were not identified on the Site. Jurisdictional
systems are generally limited to open water within the banks of the entrenched stream
channel.
E

19

n
n
L

[l

I
4.0 WETLAND RESTORATION STUDIES
This section summarizes studies performed to orient restoration design. Studies include:
1) Restoration Alternatives Analyses: Alternatives for wetland restoration
relative to stream, floodplain, and reservoir functions were assessed.
2) Reservoir Pool Sedimentation and Wetland Vegetation Study: Sedimentation
patterns and extent of wetlands were assessed on existing reservoirs in the
region.
3) Surface Water Analyses: Overbank flooding frequency and extent was
estimated based on the selected wetland restoration method.
4) Groundwater Modeling: The effect of drainage features on groundwater
wetland hydroperiods was modeled.
5) Reference Plant Communities: Reference wetland communities were
sampled to predict the target distribution of vegetation to be established in
restoration areas.
6) Reference Physiography and Surface Topography: Reference wetland
surfaces were measured within an existing greentree impoundment to
characterize long term, projected conditions at the Site.
4.1 RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSES
The objectives of this project include:
1) Assist in protecting the drinking water supply from pollutants discharged
from the developing watersheds. Pollutants attached to sediment
represents 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.
20

L-

C
L
u
U
U
fJ
f.l
0
U11
This alternative would facilitate transport of sediment generated by the watershed into
the Randleman Reservoir. Within the lower half of the Site, this capacity to transport
sediment would be unavoidably stopped by the conservation pool associated with the
reservoir. In addition, facilitating transport of sediment and pollutants into water supply
waters is considered contrary to project objectives. Therefore, this option was discarded.
Alluvial Wetland Fan Development
This option is designed to elevate water tables and reduce sediment transport into the
reservoir. 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 towards 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 invariably 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 immediately above the reservoir or migration back into the abandoned,
dredged channel. Additional structural modifications may be required in the future, after
the migrating stream abandons the existing dredged channel.
Based on groundwater models (Section 4.4) passive development of an alluvial wetland
fan immediately above the reservoir does not represent a viable option for this Site. Due
to soil characteristics, across terrace slope, and down-valley slope, the groundwater model
suggests that groundwater migration will continue into the low-lying channel corridor,
with development of shoot cut-offs considered likely during storm events. In essence, the
floodplain floor is not wide enough or flat enough to induce adequate groundwater
retention or to provide adequate energy dissipation functions in the vicinity of the in-
stream weirs. Therefore, this option was discarded in favor of greentree impoundments.
Greentree Impoundments
This alternative is similar to alluvial fan development described above. However,
Greentree impoundments include a series of floodplain levees and controllable outlet
structures that are 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.
21
u
P L
L
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 greentree impoundments across the
Reddicks Creek floodplain represents the preferred option for this project. Construction
activities would occur within maintained grass areas associated with the former golf
course. Impacts to existing forest stands will be limited. In addition, the structures would
allow pro-active control of wetland development and function behind each impoundment.
4.2 RESERVOIR POOL LEVEL AND SEDIMENTATION ANALYSIS
Reservoir sediment quality is an important environmental concern because sediment may
act as both a sink and a source of water-quality constituents to the overlying water
column and biota. Sedimentation rates are dependent on existing land use, land use
modifications, soils, and basin topography. Alternatives for sediment reduction potentially
include up-stream land management techniques, sluicing of sediment through the
reservoir, or interception of the sediment prior to entry into the reservoir. Even with strict
land management techniques in an urbanizing watershed, a certain amount of
"background" sediment will continually be moved by erosion processes. In a stable river
bed, erosion, sediment transport and deposition are in equilibrium. Dam construction
disrupts this balance, raising the base level of streams above the reservoir, and
encouraging the deposition through reduction of the gradient. As a result, the stream
deposits sediment as a delta at the confluence with the conservation pool. The
deposition process, otherwise known as warping or shoaling, advances at varying rates
dependent on the site and rate of sediment supply. Slope angles and extension patterns
on the delta are dependent on the particle size of the prevailing sediment deposited, with
courser sediment associated with higher angle slopes.
0
7
J
The Reddicks Creek wetland restoration project resides immediately above the normal pool
elg_Ation (i.e. conservation pool) for the Randleman reservoir (Elevation = 682 feet above
MSL). Currently, the stream channel is incised to depths which induce a groundwater
withdrawal gradient (rate) that does not allow for wetland presence on the adjacent
primary floodplain. After the reservoir is constructed, sediment accretion is likely to occur
within the Site, immediately upstream and downstream of the conservation pool. This
accretion will form a "sediment wedge" within the floodplain, stream channel, and delta
S? ?dq--
22

n
U
n
u
L
l
J
?'z
7

i
J
area inducing passive wetland conditions for an unknown distance (or elevation) in both
the upstream and downstream direction.
Objectives
The objective of this study is to collect the following information on existing reservoirs
in the region:
1) Determine the elevation range above the conservation pool that supports
relatively contiguous wetlands apparently resulting from the conservation
pool, groundwater mounding, and/or sediment accretion. The data reported
will include the elevation of the conservation pool, the average period that
the reservoir water surface resides at the conservation pool elevation, the
elevation range for relatively contiguous, forested wetland formation, and
elevation range for emergent wetland formation.
2) Determine the elevation range of the stream bed above the conservation
pool that has sustained sediment accretion to the extent that the channel
supports an average depth of 1 foot or less.
3) Determine the range of channel depths present in the wetland elevation
range.
4) Prepare a profile and plan view that depicts typical conditions relative to the
conservation pool.
Methods
Field reconnaissance of several reservoirs and impoundments in the central Piedmont was
conducted in order to establish baseline information on sedimentation and wetland
development around the point of stream inflow and conservation pool levels. Two sites
were chosen that best exhibited long term (> 10 years) sedimentation processes for large
and small watersheds. One site is located at the point of inflow of Little Briar Creek into
Crabtree Lake, Wake County. Little Briar Creek services a watershed of approximately
13.5 square miles. Land use for this sub-basin is predominantly forested, but is part of
a rapidly developing part of Research Triangle Park, including the Raleigh-Durham
International Airport. The second site is located at the inflow of an unnamed tributary
of Horse Creek into Falls Lake, Wake County. The tributary services a watershed of
approximately 0.3 square miles. Land use for this watershed is predominantly forested,
though residential development is encroaching upon the upper reaches of the area.
Topographic maps of the alluvial wetland fans were prepared to 0.5-foot contour intervals
by laser level and Global Positioning System (GPS) measurements. Embankments,
shorelines, and wetland boundaries were measured and surveyed relative to the reservoir
water surface elevations. For Falls Lake, conservation pool and daily water surface
elevations were obtained for a 16-year period from USACE (1984-1999). Pool elevation
23

for Crabtree Lake was obtained from the elevation of the low-flow spillway crest tied to
a local USGS benchmark. Cross-sections and profiles were generated for the local stream
reach and floodplain area. Sediment borings were sited at various points along the
boundary of wetlands to determine depth of groundwater table relative to reservoir pool
elevations.
Results
Figures 7 and 8 provide a plan view and cross section for the sites at Crabtree Lake and
Falls Lake, including the groundwater elevations along the wetland fringe. Within the
conservation pool, a majority of the sediment deposition area resides under approximately
0.5 feet of water. Sediment deposition is greatest below the pool elevation contour with
inundated sediment bars generally extending into the lake over time. As the deposition
wedge elevates within central reaches of the inundated floodplain, the channel tends to
migrate towards the toe of adjacent slopes, incrementally filling the inundated valley floor.
On average, emergent wetland vegetation is present on accreted sediment to within 1 foot
below the normal pool. Forested and shrub-scrub wetland vegetation is typically present
to 2 feet above the normal pool in the upstream direction. These wetlands appear be
induced by an up-welling in the down-valley migration of groundwater, prior to inflow
with the conservation pool.
A review of lake level data for these reservoirs suggests that the water surface that
induces these wetlands resides within 0.5 feet of the conservation pool elevation, on
average, for 66% of the year. In Falls Lake, data indicate that the sediment wedge is
generated by water surfaces within 2 feet of the conservation pool elevation for 82% of
the time over the 15-year monitoring period'.
The study suggests that sediment deposition is concentrated within inundated areas at
or just below the conservation pool elevation. As the sediment surface approaches the
elevation of the conservation pool, the wedge begins to extend further into the reservoir.
This accreting surface passively develops emergent wetland vegetation on surfaces within
1 foot of the conservation pool. This accreting wetland surface will continue to enlarge
over the life of the reservoir.

0
1 For Falls Lake, the conservation pool elevation has been held fixed at 250.1 feet above MSL
over the 15-year monitoring period.
1.1
24
i

N
O
O
O
O
O
O
fff***111 O
0
O
? O
Z
n
m
w
46
O
w
N
0
O
O
O
O
I
P?
G
->I
O
z
O
O
O
2
yO
N N
m °o
0
a
o°
m
O
A
a
C
N
O
O
wl
O
O
W
?o
O
W
O
O
N
O
O
O
0
0
O
N
O
O
W
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
N
0
0
V
O
O
N
O
O
CO
S
0
0
O
O
O
'.
N
O
O
W
O
O
O
O
O O O °0 00 ° O d O
f O
n a
z _p z Z ?m Hill
& n?
Q 7D oo >-..v
M ;a
4j ;u ?a 0 9 _;a coz 11 z 0
l
C) 0. 3: > o
m o O; ° m m -IDr ?m ?a 7r7 -i f~D?
C) o;a
C3 En No >- 3Z O r 70 n D $ p ChD
0 0 °o m z - ?p
ELEVATION
N N N N
V V V V
N Ci V 61 D
ELEVATION
J
N N N N
V 0 V V
N m V m D7

ELEVATION
N N
N ? w

m i.
i

O I ?
i 4
a• I

_
I
In N +

n
?
is
f

Z O
n O f
p
-?i m

Ct
rn
-
o ° I.. j
.
n

V

?..
C ..

. I..

N
O
O
I
I
I
I
I
I
-mD-1
m
M
0
2
N
O
O
m
O
m
O
n
O O
N
N
N
-4 O
O
yz
r
O °
N °
-Ai
Z 1
n m
m °
0
0
? m
m O
m
fi
O
N
O
O
n
O
N
N
In
m
n
O
2

m
N
O
O
N
O
O
m
O
m
O
N
O
O
t^^? I W N ? O
I En (n in O
En CilmC
11
(?S ;D Vj
T?2 oAa oo c? ?? r

°
E
°ci r K3 K3
n
G1
F;iz
a X . N ,c
P
m
W N r Q m
NOO `c cn
Ir < W v

03
r1i
a z

N N

N
N
cn N
O
N O co 03 4A N O O O C O O O O O
O O O O O O O

m • o
n a 4 m Cl) 1 m,p0
m m C)
-T1 G) o 70 oo a-a
y
C3 C93 C3 2, 0 r)
_ r mar my
0. 1 r -Z.1pr "o ar m ??-? ?•?1
it -4 0
N 5 Z? a
0 0 °o >. m N Z r- > H n o 09 a. 0
? CD
0 l'7
D
0
O
M
N
m
n
0
z
a
m
O
m
0
O
N
O
O
O
03
O
N Ol
O
0
N
O
0

N m
1
Q m N
i
O
1 I ?
? O
i
I
j.
Q1

I. O
-i-
OD
O

Based on the two reference sites studied, forested and shrub-scrub-wetlands typically
develop passively on floodplain surfaces that reside up to 2 feet above the conservation
pool. The area sustains sediment deposition in the active channel, including channel
migration across the developing delta over time.
Application
For this application, the water surface within the filled, Randleman Reservoir is assumed
to remain within 0.5 feet of the conservation pool (682 feet above MSL) for a minimum
' of 660
Yo of the year and within 2.0 feet of the conservation pool for a minimum 82% of
the time over a 15-year period. Figure 9 depicts mapping of resulting passive wetland
development projected to occur on the Site as a result of the Randleman Reservoir.
The Site includes approximately 3.0 acres of open water (below 681 elevation) that are
projected to support future accretion and development of emergent wetlands. The 3.0-
acre area includes backwater conditions from the reservoir that will extend up a majority
of the on-site reach of the Reddicks Creek channel under existing conditions.
Between elevations of 681 and 682 feet above MSL, emergent and submerged aquatic
vegetation is projected to develop. This area will be semi-permanently saturated or
inundated up to 1 foot in depth immediately after filling the reservoir. Based on reference
studies, the area is expected to support 1.3 acres of wetlands upon project completion.
In upper reaches of the lake effect area, shrub-scrub and forested wetland systems are
expected to be passively restored, encompassing approximately 3.6 acres on lands from
682 to 684 feet above MSL.
In total, approximately 4.9 acres are expected to support wetlands as a result of
hydrological modifications associated with the r eservoir. Active wetland restoration
measures will include construction of green tree impoundments within the restoration
area, preparation of pastured surfaces, and planting of wetland adapted vegetation, The
pro-active measures are designed to laterally extend the sediment wedge and wetland
extent in the up-valley direction.
4.3 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 maximize wetland acreage and water quality benefits, while providing
for increased wetland habitat for dependent species.
D
27
0
J
F(coo,3 r MY r'
?,
10
0
0
W

0
0

1,w f i

0

N
n
P-1
W
0
o_

v u. •-
bf"

/f #
h?
X
lv
i
•
a?
? fir:

m ?
O N
m O X
? C m ;
o °
-
-1 m c :4 c
° m mm I? z z n
;uz
A
w 0-4
r
m
I!1
Z
m
U O c -I --1 0
-n c
g m 0 m C z
°
o m
;u C ° N
(n o
-1 0

N .+ W

+ + + +
G;
r
c)
z
v

MAP COMPILED BY PHOTOGRAMMETRIC METHODS.
rn n o 1 / //?' 1) 1
n a N .` o m'O
M m m .?
G) tTj
a ;u
r)
o •• 4; 0 .. Cod O ?0 oM SZp? 00
0 3?CCnz r 0° =1pm0 0q C? 11 y O
o w o r m y z N no ?aDD $$ ?0?- CAD
J
n
P?t
J
J
F1

D

0
L
ri

n
n
n
D
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 1-, 2-, 5-, 10-, or 100-year period were selected to
characterize existing and proposed conditions at the Site.
Hydrologic Analyses
Hydrologic analyses were carried out using the USACE HEC-1 model to establish the peak
stream discharge for the 1-, 2-, 5-, 10-, and 100-year flood events.
Input for the HEC-1 model consisted of synthetic storm precipitation data, drainage area,
NRCS curve numbers, and drainage basin lag time. Table 2 summarizes the total, 24-hour
precipitation event for each storm that was analyzed. Precipitation data vv as 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 subbasins based on land use or location of tributaries. The drainage area for each
subbasin was estimated using a planimeter. The NRCS curve numbers were estimated
using methods described in NRCS TR-55. The subbasin lag times were estimated using
Snyder's method.
Because there were no onsite 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% of the regional formula values. Table 2 summarizes peak
discharges estimated by the validated HEC-1 model and the regional equations.
Hydraulic Analyses
Water-surface elevations of the 1-, 2-, 5-, 10-, and 100-year floods of Reddicks Creek were
estimated using the USACE HEC-2 computer program. Channel cross sections for the
hydraulic analyses were obtained from the most currently available HEC-2 computer runs
completed for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Studies
(FIS). Additional cross-sections that were needed to model proposed structures were
taken from digital orthophoto maps with a contour interval of 1 foot.
29
P

li

W
?.r
u
z

a

?I

0
O

O

d
a
NI 0

F
W
z
O
0

d

W
W
W
U

W

H
d

iJ

W v
O' 0 00 N V V^ O 'J'
c3
0 r- 00 00 00 C? C*l

`n
O
N
00
C?
M
00
Wn
s? F+ 00 C O M to O,
cli 00 00 01% O\ O\ C?
VO ?O O1 N O
O
O
? N r M
•
y 00 O N M to
?( -- ?6 00 O\ N C
w w 00 00 00 O\ CJ\

0
O O ? N ?n 00 00
N 00 O N It [-
C3 00 00 CN CIA (01\ Cl\
?J ?p ?D
O cl,
N N
C 2
C3 O
0 O N QN 'IT %0 00
U O X 0 H ?

W 0
0 O
O O
0
W y V' V ? \10

0 O
7
03 0 m C) C14
N 00 O N v r--:
0 00 00 C*N CN
`?' ac3i ?y ?p ?O l
J O n

v N O to
r.

c al
> ?f ?O M 00 G1

O i
a X ON M ?O ?C N l?

E °
o
w
?.
0 0 00 oo a1 .-•
N I-: C ? M VO
00 00 00 O\ O\ C%

O ?O ?O N N N
M

a M
M
~
N
C
? ? V a\ a\ N
X 00 N to to --
r- 00 00 00 ON Cl\

0 0 IIR o o ?n v
a,
I
l
00 00 °O G
N C\ C
\
.
? o
cl\
tA M ri

y r. 00 C% N W) r-

W ? 00 00 00 Cl\ Cl\

O r-
0
?
bA '
_ U
cc 0
O
O _ C3 U) U
? O w U i.
U P
C%]
L
0
x ,
W U

O
O
O
O
O
O tri .
_
N .?
n > a 4.

w
ao
.b
O
U
U
"C7
3Ui
O
ci
vo
G
Roughness coefficients (Manning's "n") in the channels and on the overbank areas were
taken from the HEC-2 computer runs previously mentioned and verified with field
inspections of the sites. Roughness coefficients in the main channel were 0.06 and 0.12
for overbank areas.
Starting water surface elevations and energy slope for existing conditions were estimated
from the published flood insurance studies for Guilford County. The slope-area option
provided by the HEC-2 model was used to estimate the true value of the water surface
elevation at the beginning cross-section. For future conditions, the starting water surface 7
elevation at the first cross-section was 688.21 feet 0 00-year reservoir pool elevation) for
the 100-year flood and 682 feet for the 1-, 2-, 5-, and 10-year floods (normal reservoir
pool elevation).
Tables 2 summarizes the water surface elevations for existing and proposed conditions.
Figure 6 (Section 3.0) depicts modeled flood elevations for the 1-, 2-, 10- and 100-year,
24-hour storm event. The model indicates that overbank flooding has been effectively
eliminated until the 2-year storm along the entrenched channel under existing conditions.
Establishment of the greentree impoundments will elevate flood levels to elevations
desired under the management program. Therefore, post-project conditions were modeled
to evaluate the potential increase in flood levels if the controllable weirs were lowered to
the maximum extent feasible. Water surface elevation are approximately 4.9 feet to 6.4
feet higher for proposed conditions in downstream reaches of the Site, due primary to the
reservoir pool. As the cross-sections progress upstream away from the reservoir, the
difference between proposed and existing conditions decreases with the 100-year flood
elevation increasing by an average of approximately 1.8 feet (starting upstream of cross-
section 4700).
4.4 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 State University (NCSU) to simulate the performance of water table management
® systems.
Model Descriation
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
31
L.

range of soil, crop, and climatological conditions. Results of tests in North Carolina
(Skaggs, 1982), Ohio (Skaggs et a/. 1981), Louisiana (Gayle et al. 1985; Fouss et a/.
1987), Florida (Rogers 1985), Michigan (Belcher and Merva 1987), and Belgium (Susanto
et al. 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 a/. (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% of the growing season), and 11 consecutive days (5% 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%, 5-12.5%,
and 12.5-20% of the growing season).
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 from the NRCS soil survey for Guilford County (USDA 1977). Inputs for
soil parameters such as the water table depth/volume, drained/upflux 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 run for Congaree soils, the dominant series in the Site.
Forested and maintained pasture conditions (evapotranspiration rates) were modeled. 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 4 feet below the forested floodplain elevation is modeled as
reducing surface hydroperiods below 5% of the growing season at a distance of 145 feet
from the channel in a Congaree soil. A forested floodplain surface 6 feet in elevation
above the channel invert and greater than 195 feet from the channel is projected to
® support wetlands.
J
32
2
J
ESC interpreted the groundwater drainage model based upon 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
Q structure. The floodplain elevations outside of the groundwater drainage contour and at

to TABLE 3
Modeled Groundwater Discharge Zone of Influence on Wetland Hydroperiod
a Congaree Soil
la
a
d

c?
ea
Floodplain Groundwater Number of Groundwater Number of
Elevation Above Discharge Zone of Years Discharge Zone of Years
Channel Invert / Influence2 Wetland Influence Wetland
Weir Height' (feet) Criteria Met (feet) Criteria Met
(feet) (Surface (Surface
Hydroperiods Hydroperiods <
<5% of the 12.5% of the
growing season) growing season)
Forested Conditions
(relatively high surface water storage and rooting functions)
0 ----- 27/31 ----- 19/31
1 55 16/31 UA3 14/31
2 90 17/31 ILIA 14/31
4 145 16/31 UA 14/31
6 195 16/31 UA 12/31
8 215 16/31 UA 12/31
Fallow Field/Pasture Conditions
(relatively low surface water storage and rooting functions)
0 ----- 25/31 UA 6/31
1 120 16/31 ILIA 3/31
2 165 17/31 UA 3/31
4 240 16/31 UA 2/31
6 280 16/31 UA 2/31
8 305 16/31 UA 2/31
1: "Weir Height" is assumed to represent the effective depth (invert) of the drainage feature.
2: Discharge Zone of Influence is equal to '/2 of the modeled drainage spacing
0 3: ILIA = wetland criteria unachievable

weirs do not provide a viable option for wetland restoration use based on the groundwater
model. To create wetlands in the valley, greentree impoundments will be required to
elevate the groundwater surface above the floodplain elevation (immediately adjacent to
the channel) periodically throughout the year.
4.5 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 Beaver Creek greentree
impoundment above Jordan Lake in Wake and Chatham Counties, the Little Creek
impoundment to Jordan Lake in Durham County, the Rocky Branch impoundment aove
Falls Lake in Wake County, and the Cou?Line Cseek impoundments in Caswell County.
These impoundments have typically been located above water supply reservoirs in the
region primarily to replace wetland habitat inundated by the reservoir and to control
sedimentation.
r 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
1 on the earthen dam.
Figure 10 provides a conceptual depiction of a typical weir and dam for greentree
impoundments within watersheds ranging 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 Reddicks Creek Site may be
modified during the engineering design phase based upon watershed size, projected
discharge/velocities on the structure, potential for stability, cost, constructability, and/or
management concerns.
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. Figures 11 and 12 provide a depiction of the
impoundment and lake shoreline reference characteristics, including vegetation
development patterns relative to water surface elevations. Within the reference greentree
impoundments, stream channels have been 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.
35
m m m m m w =

w
cn
N
M
q
O
2

Ulm
r ?
v
I
I
I
01
t
l
cn m
x f
Mtn i
r
0 {
z
Az r.
r?fi 1
r
m
O
cl)
Y
N
M
1
O
Z
W
v
M
M
9
M
v
_m
m
r?
m 0 o n
m m go zC n 00 ?0 Fi "LyJ
n' q7 0 m o z .. .. GOz s°0 N- 0 =m SOO n 0
Mao =1 c/)
® m 0 o 0' znr 5= m0 co o•?
o n N°o Zr z y" ?mD ?g p CD
o m o -1 ap l7
Rm mp
35
O rj? N
Cmi
TZ 0
No
U4
n
0
c
z
n my m
M90 =0 m a
MCZ ?? gE0
?m m? rnmz
ao
N O
v
41,
0
0
0
r _
r
*r
0? ?oz
z?
z
:60 U
z
z
w

SIDE SLOPE v 1:3 -•
gRo
MM
:03:C3
a I
I
Cn
in
m
I Z ?
o
o

0
76
'O
OO 4t
DIRECTION OF FLOW
A

•-r-k -? K IC K K-K-? ?-' ??:-K-C-K-k C

{$ r-
a I
z
-i

r
e
10, 0
r p
z

I C
z
B
r
m
0
0
r
MA
to
V
CCA N

zro
PQ
03 02 (n
0 m i
m
w v ?
4

sr "mm m m ICs

e?-r (D

: (D
0

o c rn o cn
o

O

n

o O

:I. w

.

w
CL
CD
O
CD
N

0 O

A _ CD
C
=3
-r N
.?
Q O V/

C
C1'

l

t

I 1
I
1 1
,
' I
1
'

n O

T
I D
rn

vi

' ;

>
n
W- U)
h7

:
'
o

N
K
m

i

;
o
K
O
m
O
rn?
3
= p
D

??

;? E

?

;
D ?

r '? z

D O
a
CK
C
m D O
D (D
0 00
0 rn ; ; (D m rn
e 0
a J 1
1

I ' I
1
1
1
1 1
'
? I
1
I
1
(D
'
'
=3
1
1 rn
S I ' 1
1
1 '
' 1
1
1

, 1 0
n
I i
1

' ,
I

co

cn

I••-1 I

1
?31

? 1
(D CL
?-+ ; - u• o c
0 3

1
I 1
'
' (D

1
f, I
'
I
1
1
1
;
1 '
1 '
1 '
1 ?
1
1
?
m;u

o m

rn

;
1 n rn

0
H--? (D
co
-
_ n o cn Do
_

(D
:

_
(D U- 0 (D c

J)
z 2 Q rr 1 Q U 0
m
z
CL (D 0 (D
(D
oo
O;um (D
`D
M ..
M rt 1
-1
?m '
O 1

G)

o _I
?• o o
m
z r- =
cn z
m
m
- (D =r
U) cn
= co
R, °
°
rn
3
° a -
_
?
- (Q
? o
m
O -
? x
o
O D
coca
'
C
t m d
` Q
?
?
= c -o
(n cn ? fl-

(D
- `
1 -
1

1

z+r ? _
{

x

(D s?+
-, T
a a(
p V [L
Q 3
r
Y: .,:- ?, n
3 S O
O :3
0

C o ??v=
O Cf)
: o rn
-a D
' 3 p
rt O? D =
O
-n p ? o CL
C?

o , C

o ' cn 3 ?' O
0 (D
N
C) ?
0

C

-t, s` U -Z Q Lv

O •r n O Q

O rn

. -n (D
(n 7 .C
o (D ?
? N O
?
:,
D7 rt

-J
4.6 REFERENCE PLANT COMMUNITIES
In order to establish a forested wetland system for mitigation purposes, a reference
community needs to be established. According to Mitigation Site Classification (MIST)
guidelines (EPA 1990), the area of proposed restoration should attempt to emulate a
Reference Forest Ecosystem (RFE) 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. However, forest .
canopies have developed on these reference sites which support soil, landform, and
hydrological characteristics that restoration will attempt to emulate.
All of the RFE sites 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 regional reference sites 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. However, the 16 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 a/. 1990) of dominant canopy and mid-story trees were
calculated. The composition of shrub/sapling and herb strata were recorded and identified
to species (Table 4 and Table 5).
At Site 1 (Table 4), the forest canopy is dominated by green ash, (Importance value [IV]
28%), sweetgum (IV 19%), American elm (U/mus americana) (IV 11 %), box elder (IV 8%)
and red maple (IV 7%). Canopy species with lesser importance include black willow,
slippery elm (U/mus a/ata), river birch, tulip poplar, and water oak (Quercus nigra).
Understory trees include flowering dogwood, ironwood, and sugarberry (Ce/tis /aevigata).
A developed shrub layer is not generally present. Herbs include Nepal microstegium,
violets (Viola spp.), asters (Aster sp.), and river oats (Chasmanthium iatifo/ium).
0
U
39
C'
C!
N

q*
WI
J
m
Q
F-
E y
E LD
? U
N d
o N
a >'
a
E o
d
?U
N
W O
f+ O
N U.
a) -0
O r
LL O
a) E
U O
6) m
O
CD
cc
Q
Q U
=
c
o Co M co n O It m M N N N .- O
ca O
o ... .-
a
E
o

w w r- ?- ?- N M N O O O O
co
0] M N O
?
?
Q
C
CO n O n tD Cl) M 1- N 0 (o O N a qt
Q C3 Co O M O O r- ?- O N N .- O O O
Cl) N O
N
N r+ r

m
U
a)
> _

w U o
r-
qtt •-
M
0
(D
C)
(D
co
M
M
M
M
M
M
O
\
0 o .- •- O
..
a

LL

U

67 (D Lo d M N N M N N LO
7 M
Cr
Q
U.
O ?

C a ct (D 00 (D M N N .- '- N e- .- 0

a1
M
N
.-- 0

N
O
ca r N OJ N CD ?t N M r r M .- '- .- M
'p ct M ?- •- M
E
7 'fl
Z =
m C13

d 1 U ``?•
CZ1
CO 0 4 X C
4) to w C
RS
V

y ?D

z

o

a

V co

w
(A C
O o a? C D o Oi o) ` U O
4 Q , O o C o O

~ to
IM to
:3
C a y C
cu ?
v LI o N ? o
(? ?5 ¢? d d U U C F-
cn
O
CL
a)
U
co
O
X
.N
0
ca
E

G'
U.
El

R
E N
E
3 ?
N
a

N
O
a ?
a
0
E
U ca
W H
m O 'r
Q W O
O
y U.

0
O C

O
U.
d
U O
C +'
M

M
GI

u

Q U
N N O lf) lt) N N .- O
p Lh N r O
... .-

O 0
y Ln to rn O •d O N O O O p
m
Li]
Q
ca
` 0 CO O r- m ?- O M M
Q
co
LO
-
-
-
.-
? N ?
N r+
w
m

CJ U

co 7 \ N N ?-
O
cr

LL

U
C O CA I- M M N •- '- •- e- CA
Cl)
CT
CV
U.
d ?.
•
R
C o N N O It U) Ch .- .- .- O
?t N ?- O
..
Q
O N
`- O
M N 0 O O 't (O e- m N ?- p
O d ?- d
E
3 0
Z

U

. m

O

0 m
C

h
O C
CO , c
p ?p w w
. •cp
C

• a
? m
V C
0
` m
.? Q)
? ;ti C a
i
'
J
? C ? m O y
N O V j . O y V Ei ?.
a)
4 C
O m
O
V Zi
C
O
.
C Z3
h
O
ci Q C
)
X
5,
J d V Q?
N
O
a
O
U
C9
O
G
Q
O
co
E
cn
f..
t

At Site 2 (Table 5), the forest canopy is dominated by green ash, (IV 39%), box elder (IV
22%), American elm (IV 12%), and swamp chestnut oak (IV 6%). Portions of the canopy
at RFE 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 (Popu/us 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.
4.7 REFERENCE PHYSIOGRAPHY AND SURFACE TOPOGRAPHY
Surface features were mapped within reference Piedmont swamp/bottomland hardwood
forest in order to establish base-line topographic conditions for restoration planning use.
This community lies within a seasonally to semi-permanently inundated area that has
supported sediment accretion in the past with inundation from stream flows occurring on
a frequent basis. The channel is actively migrating across aggrading floodplain, similar to
conditions that may be induced in a greentree impoundment over time.
Topographic maps of the accretion area were prepared to 0.5-foot contour intervals by
laser level and tape measure. Abandoned stream channels were mapped along with
approximate jurisdictional wetland extent relative to the water surface within stream
channels. A plan view, cross-sections, and profiles were generated for the channel and
adjacent alluvial surface. The channel dimension, rate of channel migration, and slope of
the floodplain floor represent the primary features extrapolated for use in restoration
planning. The objective of restoration is to reduce the effective size of the Reddicks
channel to induce sediment deposition, channel migration, braiding, ponding, and/or
anastomosed stream types above the water supply reservoir.
f]
r?
42
H_
0
Figure 13 depicts a plan view and cross-sections of the alluvial fan, including locations of
abandoned channels that have developed over the last several years. The channel exhibits
active migration across the valley floor as aggradation processes elevate isolated portions
of the floodplain. The active channel is classified as an E5 (highly sinuous) stream type
a in upper reaches of the reference site. Subsequently, the channel transitions into an
anastomosed (DA5-6) channel and subsequent braided (D6) channel immediately prior to
the confluence with a near-permanently inundated section of the reference reach. This
a braided reach and near-permanently inundated area represents projected conditions within
the transition zone into the reservoir conservation pool. The floodplain throughout this
reference reach continues to support forest vegetation, including shrub-scrub dominated
communities within the potentially inundated areas.

43

z
0
Co nrn
° O
0
go
w w
?ro
ro u
o
3:
w
ro ?
0 ?.
o''D
Linear (Across Valley) Distance in Foot
01 _j
O
O
z Elevation in Fact Elevation in Foot
m
° 0 0 o co
f7 0, O N -Ph. W O N 4b.
= 1 O I o
I I
I I
m I
1 ? 1 .p
U) N 1 ° I O
V7
as En m 0
O p
O r ° C) C= rr 01
0
V V
o °
m -I- °
r t
1>
CO V °
0
co
-? N ° o= O =
O Y F + O O
7 O O 0 7 N O
o M O 1 _I 1 L_ J.. J_
0 °
v p
p O
Vj*
.. If O O O
o m n
m
-4 1- .yr N ? N © n ? CO
0 :3
O
z
Z
(5
W . 'a W ro
O O .+
r _77
"Tl
ro
? - --1 -I-
O O O
k 4-
J J
?
O 7- L -I- F1 -I 1 p
r
(V
Jr C p1
O p
J 1-
n
.1 t?7
O f -
° z r m Z ea
o __F _7 77 O p 7-7 o
C7 nn
0
U) N m`O oo O -o mto 0 0 0 °
D O
m
J
W
O
rn F o y v n
n
v
O '° m n 0 o0 m oo Div
.. .. to X0
0 ?? Oa A,A O O
r; E; m
o rt'v5 fl1 ono MITI ?w O -i z
C, 35 W
C) C: 0
0 Dm° a°-aiA s° 0
N
0 0 o z
31 0
:3 0

I I I I
I I I I
I I I I _ l
I
I I L J L
I I I I
I

I I I I

I I I I _-
!-
f l l l
I__ _L _ I-- _L
I I I I
1 -- L _1 _ L _
I I I

I I I I
I I I I
I I I
-I-
1-
I
I I
--r-
rt- - r -
I I I
-t-;--t--r--
-I --1--L-- ?- - ---1---1--L--t-- - ? t-J- - ? I I I
I I I I
-;- -I--,- -I- I I I I
--I-i--I- r- 1 1 1 1
-- r-r--r- _
I--t - - I I I I
--r-r-t-r-
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I' I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I ?'("?i 1.r?1 _ _ I I I I
_- I_ _ I -- I- I --
1I I I I -- - 1- + -
I I I - i -- I -- h - I-
I I I! - I- -f - I- //
I I I - -1 - h- -1 - h- -
1 1 1 1
I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I JI I I
;.. -t._J- -I -
I I I I --I-- I 1 --
I I -- 1 --I- H--I-
I I I I -I--L-I--E
I I I I -1 1-H-
I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'I I I
I I I I I I I- I I I! I I I I I I
I
I
-I--T --I- -? -T -? -T- -
- -r - rL- -
- IF
-1--1-1--
1 1 1 1
I . _1 _. t.. J - I! r I
-I -- J- -I - ;- I I I!
.. -- r --I - I I I
- j-- T -;- -r -- I I I I
- -- -? -- r- -

I I I I I- -

I I I I
.. '.. .1.._I_.
- L
I I
_I_..l-!--!-
I I I I
--_J-!-_1-1__
I I I I

i 1

' I

I
I I
_t ._ I_ J._ L. _
I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I

I I I
I I I I
I
I I L. .1 -.
I I I I -- _I . -
I I I I
I I
! r- -
I I I I I
__ J .•I _. r -I - I I I I
--!-- -r -I-- .1 -- 1 1 I
-- . __ ._ t .--1-- I I I I
-I-- -r --r- -r -- ( I I I I
- -r -- r -! - r -
_ L -! - 1 i -
I I I I - -Y -- I_ --1-- 1- -
I! l l - I- -L -I-
I I I -- I- -L -1- -1 -
I I I I - ? -- L J -- L -
I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
--{--1-i--I-- I I I I
I I I
--I-i--I I -- I I I I
I I I I
--i--1-t-I-- I I I I
I I I I
-I--t-I---t- I I I I
I I I I
--t-r--1-t--
1I 1 1

I I I I I I

I I! I I I I

I I I I I I I I
----------
I I I I I I I I
---------
I I I I
-i --I--1 -I--
I I I I --I-i- - h--
I I I I - I--I--h-I--
I I I I -I--t-I--i-
I I I I --1-f--i-t--
I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I't 1 I 14.J,` I I I ! I I I I

I
..1 . .
I l i l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I
I 1
I
! I
I
I I I I
I I I I I
I I
I I I
__ !.._I _ 1. _..I --

I - -I _ ?..__I.._ .I_ ._. _ .l.._.1_ .L ...I_ _

I
I .-t-- -t -- I-- -1 -

I
! -1 L- -1
- - -• I-
-
I I I I

I

I I

I I!
I

I

I
I

I
I_..J .- I- -r o to

71
N -1 _ r -I `t t -1 r 'I- cr+
°
N P
-1 _ I- .

-i - t- -I- -t - -? - r -1-
J. 1 J_ L _I_

t r 1 r I-
J. L _I
-I _ + -I- -L - L -1 - - -I-
-;' r -I- rt - r -1- - -I-
J _ 1 _I_ 1 _ L

-I-

_1_ 1 ° 1_ J _ Q _I_

-Y - Y- -I- -r - t - t- m -r-
?. L _I_ _L L J. Q1 I_
-1- + -I t -I- I I-

-J -
r
-r
-r r
- 1
-
-I-

_J : 1,_ -1: -t : 1- i _ rrn _I_

-; - -r -I- -r - r- ! - r-
J . L _ _ _1 _ L J . . ._! _

-i -
-
- i- -I
-
-
-
1 -i -
- - -I-
-
-
7 IF r 1 r r

-i - t• -I- - t- -I ? t- -I-.
:I J: L I_

- - -
1 _L. J_ .L _I_

-I-
J

--I -
r
-I- -r r
-
- - r
-
r
J_ J_ _I_ 1 _ L J L I_

-!-
r
-I-
r
-
-r
- I
V1
-1-1 -I-
_1 L _I_
I - ?- -I - -r - F - - 1- I -
-Y- r -I -r -r !- r -1-

_1
r • F -I- -f - h- --1 - 1- -I-
-; - r -I- -r - r -! - -I-

_
U1
J: J: 1: .I.
-J - 1- -I- - -a . I- 1-
-I- t- - -r -t- r -r
J _ .L _ _1 _J
-I a- - - -F - I- -1 - + I-
-1- r -I -t r y. r -1..
J _ .L I_ .L L J

-!- r -r r r -1? r -r
J _ L _I_ 1 _ l_ J _ L _I_.

-! - r -I -r - r -1- t- !-
J. L _ 1 _L J. L

7 - r - -r - r -I r

-I - i• -F - I- -J - - -I-

J

? r -I -r -r- -t- !-

J _ L I _1 . _ L _I _ ril _ t _
-I •1 I- -I - Q -I-
-I 't- -I -t - 1- -1 - - -I-
_1_ _' _L : L J . . I_

-1- 1- - •t -r

-! a- -I -1 - L- -1 - - -I-
-1' t- - I- -t t- -1 - I'

-1 r 't - t- -1 - -I-
_1
-I - 1• -I -t - I- - - .r_ -I-
-I - r- -I -r - r Y - r -I-
J L _ _L _ L J . J_
-I r. - - - t- -1 - F -I-
-t - r - -r - r -? - r --I-

- -I-
--I - r -' -r - r -I - r - I -
?
-I - 1- - - - t- -i - t• -I-
-; - r- -r- -r r- -; - r- I-
?I

n
u
I
L
iJ
n
F
E
5.0 WETLAND RESTORATION PLAN
This wetland restoration plan has been designed to convert the entrenched channel and
adjacent abandoned terrace into a series of greentree impoundments immediately above
the Randleman Reservoir conservation pool. A greentree impoundment is an alternative
mitigation option which is expected to facilitate the establishment of emergent, shrub,
and forested wetlands. In general, a green tree impoundment comprises a floodplain levee
and controllable outlet structure. The elevation of the outlet is raised during winter
months to promote ponding, sediment deposition, and wetland habitat. Subsequently,
the elevation of the outlet is lowered in early spring to allow for vegetation growth,
nutrient uptake, and seedling establishment. These impoundments should be constructed
to provide for less than 3 feet of inundation during winter months to prevent over-topping
and to allow for survival of planted tree seedlings. The winter depth is generally
dependent upon the height of seedlings planted. The raising and lowering of outlet
structures require regular monitoring and maintenance by qualified personnel to facilitate
the growth and survival of tree species. The time for outlet adjustment may vary annually
and is dependent upon localized conditions within the watershed. Seedling mortality
should be tracked on an annual basis and the date of spring lowering of water levels
should be modified to maximize the rate of forest regeneration. Tree or shrub species
selected for planting will also vary based on expected hydrologic regimes and other site-
specific conditions. Therefore, a management plan has also been prepared (Section 8.0)
for long term maintenance of these systems over the life of the Randleman Reservoir.
Components of this plan have been established based on reference wetland studies
described in Section 4.0. This effort will be performed by: 1) passively
saturating/inundating surfaces associated with the reservoir conservation pool; 2)
installing controllable weirs and dams; 3) removing waste debris and scarifying pastured
surfaces for reforestation; 4) distributing woody debris into formerly cleared and pastured
areas; and 5) 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 PASSIVE SATURATION / INUNDATION FROM THE RESERVOIR POOL
Based on reference studies within existing water supply reservoirs in the region, wetlands
are projected to develop on surface elevations ranging from a minimum of 1 foot below,
to 2 feet above the conservation pool (681-684 feet above MSL). As depicted in Figure
9, shrub/scrub and submerged aquatic vegetation is projected to develop on surfaces
ranging between 681 and 682 feet above MSL, encompassing approximately 1.3 acres of
land area. This land area is expected to expand into open water portions of the Site over
time as sediment accretion occurs within the reservoir pool (below existing elevations of
45

0
681 feet above MSL). However, restoration plans are designed to delay this accretion in
favor of alluvial deposition within greentree impoundments.
Based on reference studies, elevations between 682 and 684 feet above MSL will passively
develop shrub-scrub, bottomland hardwood, and bottomland swamp forest wetlands.
This area encompasses approximately 3.6 acres within central to lower portions of the Site
(Figure 9). These areas will be planted with tree species likely to replace existing elements
as wetland hydrology begins to dominate the area (Section 5.5). Active wetland
restoration will be initiated immediately above wetlands passively restored by the
conservation pool. Because restoration design is dependent upon initial establishment of
backwater conditions in Reddicks Creek, construction activities associated with
1 controllable weirs and dams should be performed concurrent with filling of the reservoir.
5.2 IMPOUNDMENT / WEIR CONSTRUCTION
Four impoundments with in-stream weir structures will be constructed within the Site, at
each 2-foot rise in the valley floor (Figure 14). The first impoundment has been placed
on the valley floor at the 684-foot contour depicted on topographic mapping. A more
accurate placement of this structure can be achieved by observing actual water surface
elevations in the channel resulting from the established conservation pool. Subsequently,
the weir would be accurately placed 2 feet above the conservation pool water surface.
The remaining three impoundments have been placed in the valley at approximate
floodplain elevations of 686, 688, and 690 feet above MSL.
Figure 10 provides a conceptual depiction of the proposed impoundment structure
including target elevations for the winter water surface and embankment height at each
location. The design or placement of these impoundments may be modified during the
engineering design phase based on potential stability, constructability, cost, or other
constraints.
5.3 SURFACE SCARIFICATION / WASTE DEBRIS REMOVAL
Before wetland community restoration is implemented, pasture lands will be scarified
(Figure 14). The scarification will be performed as linear bands directed perpendicular to
land slope (surface water flows). After scarification, the soil surface will exhibit complex
microtopography ranging to 0.5 feet in vertical asymmetry across local reaches of the
landscape. Restored microtopographic relief is considered critical to short term hydrology
restoration efforts. Therefore, multiple passes along each band is recommended to ensure
adequate surface roughing and surface water storage potential across the Site.
Subsequently, community restoration will be initiated on scarified wetland surfaces.
Prior to scarification, golf course debris will be removed from areas projected to be
inundated by mitigation activities. Debris will include concrete cart pathways, sheds, and
cart bridges. All existing cart bridges over Reddicks Creek are projected to reside at or
under the projected, winter water surface elevation (Figure 4).
S:
46
0
(
m
° m
1 0 W,
i
ow
°
+ w ro - ??

Q 0

i

0
0
•
w<
°
0
m

I
r,
1 .?
I
0
COR g? :r- 0 'TI C) -0
a c
w
-•? r o
v ?o
0 rz X = m 0
_ p n o -
+
MM z
0 Z C
n c o
o
z z uzi
o -u n
o
;u a
mi? 0
N? z
M zc
0
M
z°z
m
m

a
A p
0
0
[D p
7C A
k
00 A?
a r
m x o 1 v
n a ? o ?
m m z 'n n /?
0 ` /
n .. .. tTj
2 CO O -f 0 m x nod A R o F*
o z 'fl O o N () 70 G o C1) 1
cma 0 0 m y /
rrl
o° -? ?O rrc O ?a?w? O?n
o W o° Z? a Z n ?° J CD
0 0°°_ o
E
n

C
I
J
5.4 WOODY DEBRIS DEPOSITION
Re-introduction of woody debris represents an important component of wetland
restoration on pastoral lands. Woody debris, including downed trees, tip mounds, snags,
and decomposing material represents important habitat elements for wetland dependent
wildlife. However, the restoration areas on pasture land will not be capable of providing
coarse, woody habitat elements for up to 50 years after re-planting. Therefore, woody
material generated from embankment construction or other activities on the property 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. This effort will be
supervised by a wildlife biologist to establish adequate material for wetland habitat
restoration.
5.5 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 community types contribute to diversity and
provide secondary benefits such as enhanced feeding and nesting opportunities for
mammals, birds, amphibians, and other wildlife.
1
r

I

r]
H
1
0
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) Piedmont swamp/bottomland hardwood forest and
2) scrub-shrub/Piedmont swamp forest.
Planting Plan
Emphasis has been focused on developing a diverse plant assemblage. This is particularly
vital due to the limited distribution of mast-producing bottomland hardwood tree species
presently existing in the vicinity, as evidenced during the RFE search. Planting a variety
of mast-producing species will provide a food source for wildlife and will facilitate habitat
diversity on the Site.
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. Figure 15 depicts the locations targeted for planting,
encompassing 22.7 acres of land area. Planted species names by community are listed
below.
48
1
Atem mm " E '3 E== I
w
°o ffl !I
1 O 6m
W
O
O
Qf
O
O

NNV
A
N
m
CA C..
m
v? b m A
A?
m
w vti? Am A alb
6
DOC
?_ ?o m 0
o /
so x ;u m
*t N qtrD 0 --I
?? fgz z z m +??+ 2
U) V)
o 71 o
s o
0
N ?P m I? Z
v?I
G' n
N ? 0 1 v n
n L m C. 8 .y s? n
"1 m
?A o z •fl ?o N??Oii
0 :5
g M
C) 0
C'O
0 0 0 ? ?Z N
0 0 0°
?C7
N W?
A A _y ?0 W ? r I-
•
0

Piedmont Swamp/Bottomland Hardwood Forest
1. Cherrybark Oak (Quercus pagoda)
2. Overcup Oak (Quercus lyrata)
3. Willow Oak (Quercus phellos)
4.
5. Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus mfchauxii)
Swamp Cottonwood (Populus heterophylla)
6. Shagbark Hickory (Carya ovata)
7. Bitternut Hickory (Carya cordiformis)
8. Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
9 American Elm (Ufmus americana)
10 Winged Elm (Ulmus alata)
11. Tulip Poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera)
Scrub-Shrub/Piedmont Swamp Forest
1. Black Willow (Safix nigra)
2. Possum-haw Vlex decidua)
3. Carolina holly (lfex ambigua)
4. River Birch (Betula nigra)
5. American Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)
6. Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
7. American Elm (Ulmus americana)
8. Swamp Cottonwood (Popu/us heterophylla)
9. Overcup Oak (Quercus lyrata)
10. Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii)
11. Silky Dogwood (Cornus amomum)
12. Button-bush (Cephafanthus occidentalis)
13. Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis)
14. Tag Alder (A/nus serrulata)
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. Bare-root seedlings of tree species will be planted within specified
areas at a density of 680 stems per acre (8-foot centers). The total number of stems and
species distribution within each planting association are depicted in Table 6.

50
III
e
C
TABLE 6
Planting Plan
Vegetation Association
(Planting area) Shrub-Scrub/
Swamp Forest Bottomland
Hardwood/
Swamp Forest TOTAL STEMS
PLANTED
Stem Target (trees/ac) 680 680
Area (acres) 4.3 18.4 22.7
SPECIES # planted
(% total) # planted
(% total) # planted
(% total)
River Birch 300(10) 300
Silky Dogwood 300(10) 300
Button-bush 30000) 300
Elderberry 300(10) 300
Tag Alder 30000) 300
Black Willow 150(5) 150
Possum-haw 150(5) 150
Carolina Holly 150 (5) 150
American Sycamore 150 (5) 150
Swamp Cottonwood 300(10) 1250 (10) 1550
American Elm 150(5) 650(5) 800
Green Ash 150 (5) 650 (5) 800
Swamp Chestnut Oak 150(5) 1250 (10) 1400
Overcup Oak 150115) 1250 (10) 1400
Cherrybark Oak 1250 (10) 1250
Willow Oak 1250 (10) 1250
Shagbark Hickory 1250 (10) 1250
Bitternut Hickory 1250 (10) 1250
Winged Elm 125000) 1250
Tulip Poplar 1250 (10) 1250
TOTAL 3000 12550 15550
Some non-commercial elements may not be locally available at the time of planting.
The stem count for unavailable species should be distributed among other target
elements based on the percent (%) distribution. One year of advance notice to forest
nurseries will promote availability of some non-commercial elements. However,
reproductive failure in the nursery may occur.
2: Scientific names for each species, required for nursery inventory, are listed in the
mitigation plan.
V Tt
r7l
F-ij
13
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. 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. 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
15,550 seedlings will be planted during wetland community restoration efforts.

52

0
a 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
Q restoration efforts will be performed for 5 years or until success criteria are fulfilled.
6.1 HYDROLOGY
After hydrological modifications are performed, surficial monitoring wells will be designed
and placed in accordance with specifications in U.S. Corps of Engineers', Installing
Monitoring Wells/Piezometers in Wetlands (WRP Technical Note HY-IA-3.1, August 1993).
Monitoring wells will be set to a depth of up to 80 inches below the soil surface to track
water surface elevations in the impoundment relative to the weir height. All screened
portions of the well 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 five 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 well will be stabilized
from flood shear by reinforcing steel bar (re-bar).
Five monitoring wells will be installed in restoration areas to provide representative
coverage throughout the Site. Approximate well locations are depicted in Figure 16.
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 wells 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% 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% of the growing season. This
hydroperiod translates to saturation for a minimum, 11-day (5%) 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.
0
53
F1

W
o
0
1 0 W4
W
0
0
0

lQ?
y
O ti v ? v
C

(Qp?
fn
W '
?.
?- ?e,
?L N L4

4
N
n
m ?
i
W '
O
O_

C
7 ?
O I o
I 1
O n
?
' ? ce
"
D L
.
l LJl
V X ? .
]
r
?z D m 0 O
9:E o? z z n
za zo
ic o
0-4 m z C N o
N?
m
? En
-4
o i
m
O
o
1
n ? r
m.;
r zz
m
z
r,

N

O
fi
N
N
?
N

+ + + O
r.?
11
?S
?I
?,t4,
v a
0
A
0
.9
q o
SYQO A / Eb
r
Ln x ° 1
v m m v ° G7 `u' 'a
?-? z N2 9 zo ?m o ?
4i G7 =? 'O Z -iz o "? C7 a o R. A R O
F! o < tats C/)
C o o O ?0 M m0 o o ? ?' IN)
?Z CD
0 0 0 L -IZ ,n a
0 0 °o w
e
6.3 SOIL
Mitigation activities are expected to increase the deposition and transport of stream
sediments during overbank flood events. As a result, soils (Fluvaquents) 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 well 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 wells 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.
n
H
'
C!

f'
H
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.
55
P
G
L",
n

!,I
d-i",
0
n
L
U
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 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. well 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 0.11-acre plot sample at the location (600 feet x 8 feet / 43,560 square
feet/acre). Ten plots will be established to provide a 5% 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
j wetland data form (DOA 1987) will be completed to document the classification and
description of vegetation, soil, and hydrology.
fl

fl
E?
L!
D

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 4.6
and Section 5.5).
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% of the 320 stem per
56
D

acre total. Additional stems of a particular species above the 20% 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% of the 320 stem per acre total.
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 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.
n

5
v
u
s

1
57

4
7.0 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Project implementation will include performance of restoration work in three primary
stages including: 1) impoundment / weir construction and site preparation; 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 and Site Preparation
Stage 1 will be performed concurrent with or subsequent to filling of the reservoir.
Greentree impoundment dams and weirs will be installed at the designated locations. 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 will be performed during the
same summer period, prior to tree planting.
I Stage 2: Tree Plantin
Tree and shrub planting will be performed the first winter after Stage 1 is complete. The
seedlings will be planted during the winter dormant period, prior to March 1.
Stage 3: Monitoring Plan Implementation
Monitoring wells and permanent vegetation plots will be established immediately after
construction and planting activities are completed (prior to March 26, the start of the
growing season). The Site will be visited frequently to read monitoring wells 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 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.
G?
58
D
J
8.0 MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
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 /obata) 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 22.7-acre Site. Target hydrological goals include soil saturation or inundation for a
minimum of 5% of the growing season (March 26 to November 6). The 5% criterion must
be achieved in 50% of the years over the life of the Randleman Reservoir.
0
L
k
0
0
n
C
C?
U
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.
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 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.
59
GI

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.
I?
'1
i
C
v
0
u
0
C
C
F
U
t
G'
60
fl
Ld
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.
u
1'
L.,
L',
0
u
0
61
U
'J
10.0 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL EVALUATIONS
Mitigation activities at the Reddicks Creek 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, soil leveling/compaction in
pasture areas, 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 by alternative land uses on the stream terrace. 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
Lake Effect Wetlands
Wetland restoration objectives have been adapted for this project due to location of the
Site relative to the Randleman Reservoir. The lower half of the Site will be directly
influenced by the reservoir conservation pool, including sediment deposition within stream
channels, development of accreting sediment bars, and establishment of wetlands on
saturated/inundated surfaces. Based on reference studies, these lake effect wetlands are
projected to support a mosaic of emergent, shrub-scrub, and forested wetland
communities on land surfaces from 1 foot below to 2 feet above the conservation pool.
This land area, comprising approximately 4.9 acres (Figure 9), will provide wetland
functions such as increased habitat for wetland dependent wildlife, sediment retention
above the water supply, and pollutant processing on vegetated wetland surfaces. Open
water is also projected to encompass approximately 1.7 acres within the lake effect area
that will provide for sediment storage and accreting wetland shorelines (Figure 16).
Monitoring and management of these lake effect wetlands will assist in ensuring that land
surfaces exposed to long-term sedimentation are not elevated above the water table, with
capacity to support wetland functions subsequently reduced or diminished over time. In
addition, efforts to maintain vegetation within rapid sedimentation or inundated areas will
also be employed during the monitoring period.
Greentree Impoundments
The upper half of the Site will be used to extend the sediment deposition wedge
associated with the reservoir and to establish wetland communities capable of providing
62
r
0
wildlife habitat and water quality benefits. Greentree impoundments are 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 species displaced by the reservoir. Water
quality benefits are projected to include sediment retention and pollutant processing of
waters generated by the 9.1-square mile, urbanizing watershed.
Pro-active mitigation within the greentree impoundments is projected to provide
approximately 16.1 acres of wetland restoration / creation above the lake effect, wetland
restoration / creation area (an additional 4.9 acres). Therefore, 21.0 acres of wetland
restoration / creation and 1.7 acres of open water are potentially provided by the Site.
C
LL.

63

R1
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.
Beets, C.P. 1992. The relation between the area of open water in bog remnants and
storage capacity with resulting guidelines for bog restoration. (in) Peatland Ecosystems
and Man: An Impact Assessment. (ed.) 0. M. Bragg, P. D. Hulme, H. A. P. Ingram, and
R.A. Robertson. International Peat Society. University of Dundee, Dundee, Scotland.
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, C.N. von Ende. 1990. Field and Laboratory Methods for General
Ecology. William C. Brown Publishers, Debuque, IA.
Brown, Philip M., et al. 1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina, North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, 1-.500,000 scale.
Chang, Howard H. 1988. Fluvial Processes in River Engineering. John Wiley & Sons.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1993 (unpublished). 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. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

64
?I
I?
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.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 2000 (draft). Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality
Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, N.C.
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.
93 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.
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, NC.
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).
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.
Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.A. O'Hara, A. Jessup, R.
Everhart. 1999. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina Streams.
N.C. State University, Raleigh, North Carolina.
n
65
[I
n
M.J. 195 1. Time lag and soil permeability in groundwater observations. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experimental Station Bulletin 36, Vicksburg, MS.
Keller, M.E., C.S. Chandler, J.S. Hatfield. 1993. Avian Communities in Riparian Forests
of Different Widths in Maryland and Delaware. Wetlands 13(2):137-144, Special Issue,
June 1993. The Society of Wetland Scientists.
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 ,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.
Rohde, F. C., R. G. Arndt, D. G. Lindquist, and J. F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of
the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. The University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, NC. 222 pp.
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., 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.
Schouwenaars, J.M. 1995. The selection of internal and external water management
options for bog restoration. (in) Restoration of Temperate Wetlands. (ed.) B. D. Wheeler,
S. C. Shaw, W. J. Fojt, and R. A. Robertson. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. West Sussex,
England.
u
66
u
I'

U
u
r

u
u
n
u

u
E
C
C

7
7
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), pp 666-674.
Skaggs, R.W., N.R. Fausey, B.H. Nolte. 1981. Water Management Evaluation for North
Central Ohio. Transactions of the ASAE 24 (4), pp 922-928.
Skaggs, R.W., J.W. Gilliam, R.O. Evans. 1991. A Computer Simulation Study of Pocosin
Hydrology. Wetlands (11), pp 399-416.
Skaggs, R.W., et al. 1993. Methods for Evaluating Wetland Hydrology. ASAE Meeting
Presentation Paper No. 921590. 21 p.
Smith, R.D., A. Ammann, C. Bartoldus, 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, 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). 1987. Hydric Soils of the United States. In
cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, USDA Natural
Resource Conservation Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1977. Soil Survey of Guilford County, North
Carolina. Natural Resource Conservation Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1970. Soil Survey of Wake County, North
Carolina. Natural Resource Conservation Service
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Schweinitz's Sunflower Recovery Plan. Atlanta,
GA. 28 pp.
67

u
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1988. Cape Fear Shiner Recovery Plan. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 18 pp.
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, DC
686 pp.