19920547 All Versions_Permit Drawings_19920101 (2)

PROJ. RI;PGItI;tiCE N0. S}IGI;T N0. 'COTAI, tiHGETS _ _
~ 009 D ¢ f ~
- S~I'.~1'F, PItOJ.:~'0. 1~. PROJ. I~~O. DBSCRII''I'ION
_
SJ57000& SITE !
~ _ - -
_ _ RAMP D
SlT E l
VEGETATION PLOT SQ FT ACRES
NHS; IAI-2 TO IAI-4 7240 0,166
O~ IAI-I TO IAI-5 8454 0.194
IAI-6 TO IAI-3 7267 0,167
TOTAL 22961 0,527 \
>PLOT AREA IS 10' RT & LT OF LINE
BETWEEN THE TWO POINTS. _l~I IIV
+ ~ O
~ ~
ELI
r~ ~ ~
~
o O
828.3
o
828.2
° HEADWALL 829.5 , 827.9 ~
.r'r ~ Q ~`Lh /8.2I~
820.5 Q
V ~ 824,5 0
:7 819.
~ MH ~ ~
829.2 ~ T o
y q o
~ ~HI-2 Q Q y l
-
`828.4 Q a li~i
S

° ~ _
835.5 821.2 821,4 ~ , i
~ J 82/.l
~ \ -
~
;r y ~ IAI-82/,4
' 82 82/.6 820.6
S
.r
/ ~ ~ Q
R_
:;-83/.7 ~ .l
I - 6 825 PI
J~ > s~ ~ ~i,
R
830 829.3 ~ 8 835 g40 - z~ i N~
~
s
f
0
0
}
RAMP - .

_
r.r
~ ~
I

rao.i. i:r:rrei:ncr: ,.o. si+i;irr xo. ~rar.~i, s~n:r,•rs
R 0609 D ~j
ti'f:1 I'I~: I`KOJ. \O. I~. A. I'I10J. ~O. UI;SC'RII~"PION
~+.ISi n~;06 SITE 2
I
RAMP C
0
0
N
0
N g45~
g40
839.5 'S g3~ HEADWALL
37.4 840,6
838.7 f-830.3 ~ 1
836,2 O Z
- ~ °837 838,6
~ 2AI- ~ ~ 829~~ I
e 826.3
~ / 830.4
.l 826J
- 825,6
a 826.3 ° _i ~ 825, ° 826.5 827.2 83/,5 0 0
83/.9 ~ ' 830x7
O
Al-.. / ~ 83~ g '8333 a
~~~827. 825°8
_ e ~ 832~~-m
843.6 ; a ' 2 A I - / 82 .6 827.4
83/.3
826.3 , 32.2
° 827.4 ~ ~ 3 7 833.7 832°6
e6
842.5 -
~ 0 833.2 33.2 S~T~
833° ~ 833.1 / 832.8
~ m
VEGETATION PLOT SQ FT A~~-C_
2A1-4 TO 2A1-I 5423 0~1
834,3
2A1-3 TO 2A1-2 2740 I
Q 833°5 \ TOTAL 8163 ~>.1
=PLOT AREA IS 10' RT & LT OF LI~J=
BETWEEN THE TWO POINTSo
_...~,.,.....__..~,,,,~.,~a...-- _ _ _ _ . _

_e
_ _ - I , • ~ ,
I ,
PROJ, REFERF,NCE N0. SkiEAT N0. TOTAL 5tD:1;C9
-YI ~ -YI- REV • l -_8._1 /2
• S87 q~ _ ~ , STATE PROD. N0. F. A. PROD. N0. DESCRIPTION
of ~I - 14t21.52 PI = 14+04.40 PC I~+49.85 YI REV LA.= ~ 11 ~ 11 • .
loo.oo, se T. , ~ _ ~ D = 24° 41 46.0 RT. ~ = 33° 55 12.0• LT. . PIP 4 p E PC 13+49.85 YI L•8. _ ° I u _ ° I n
' loo.o , _ _ _ D - (7__30 00.0 D - 32 00 00.0 . o ,
' L = 141.1206 . L' = 106.0000 . • CITY OF HIGH POINT
~ • ~ - ~ !oo _ - R = 327.4044 R = 179,0493' .oo 1
• Epp T = 71.6734 T = 54.6042 ' •
z ' o M. T. WIGGS - • ~ 6~ ~~g• ~ ~6
' ~ w YI CUL- DE -SAC PVMN'T DESIGN 9. ~g ~5
' BERM DITCH W/ ~ • E
W CL.I RIP RAP LINER P ~ © ~ _ • S. C. NO E ~ ~ I I 2 T 1 ~ B y~•
• :Z _ P PT,=14+55.95 Y REV. I ; 1.5 H . S i ~ . ~ 1A5
r ~ m . z CITY OF HIGH POINT . 8 A6C 1
- _ ~ ~ , S. ' ' F
_ , ~ , - ~ .m
~ ~ IS BX p ~ \ ~ STA• 106 +BO -STA 109+15 ~ •
u ~ \ + 14, 4 YI REV, o N ~ LATERA A • x o . 24000 L 2 B SE DITCFI
7 43' ; ' >hUCL,I RIP RAP ~ ~ SEE f SEE SHEET N 0. I IA~
m S +80 ~ ~ SEE SHEET N0. 2-K T S N0. 12 ~ ~ FOR H` EIP FOR HYDRIC SOIL •
~ 255 ~ ~ PT 14+ . - + ~ 90,91 0 ~ / ~ STOCKf
. ~ ~ RI ~ 0 ~ STOCKPILE AREA 93 a0• 6~
PROPOSED , ~ x~ ~ . f~. ' ~ 6 ~ , ~ ~ ~5 ~
9g,9p, S• ~ ~0 , 0 ti ! . ~5 .a , U, J
A ~ ~ . a , X50 + a ~~P x x ~ 04 - e ~ 0 r ~ - 0
_ - 581.' g _ o y ~ 210 ~ ' %1~ 9g, A TENNA ~ - - . d rzi J • - - O
a~ 0 13Y1 2~ ~ ~ ti c~s~ a~N µ . EIP DGUB ~ ~ x ~ E E 2B' o ~ ~ x IS BK 0~ OOOS ~ '
- , . 8' t ~p~ 40.3 'r V' CB ~ u1~P a' ~ Q NCC~OT + 85.33 ~ ~ ~ I
R u~c co c 6 S6, _ ~ • 0 ~ o~ TEMP DRAINAGE ~ • 0 _.160 9 .I ~
• ~ a m EASEMENT ~ \ ~ .o ~ Q 0 . . . \ ~ • - p I 3,~ coke ~ ~ , ~ x ~4 ray 160' . ~ ? ~ M P ~ I
s8l' 2 c c ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ PROPOSED R1w M CL.B N + RAMP' P o N CS 0 00 B .ti oI
oo,! E ~0 CSP W/ELBC)W - N I POC 117+88 MED - L-(58 RT) • ! y
!55 , . S raH k ~ _ A c N S 86 24 43• W N 8 24 . 632.42 CH. PROPOSE '000
r I S86• - ~ t00 ~ ~ . O 180 I fl 5s z . ~ Q 4 E - ~ ~ TAIL DITC _ _ D R1W TAIL DITCH I - ~ rn •
- ~ ~ 18 ~r.: , r ~ 160 o 1 . , , : / GR .Q f~ • 0.3 0 R 7799.44 + 06,0( . GRADE LATERAL DITCH c 0 3 ° ST
_ _ X43 - - - - END G, R, d' a 2+Op RP N „ 160 • EIP woods ~ B .
till k:4~;I ^yi.. `+l - • I - ~ - - - ~ i L L ~.I
c _ a~ ~ 58.80 c woods CLABS_B ~TBfV - 71 F E -
x v - 8 ~ \ ~ WEIR •r ~ ~ R~ _ C Y OF h~iGH POINT 55 9 \ • F ~ SCAT ~ ~ ~ ~ 11 ' o I F / - EIP
~ I~ \ _ BCT-I N~ , cv ~ ~ S - , c - I CL B STONE R - • _
N ..'y,r~_ _`,•c:~ a ~ .~+~"G ~ f.' - ~ rte- ~T ~ - y - - = _ 1 r~l ! ~ , ~ GI ~ ti.~ r .~i' .n,~+!''~~. ' ="'.G_ _ _ ~ _ ~ .=~.~r. .-.~-C_i--I~- ~--t ` i'~J•.C-r"'.: X i- ~ _
~ ~ 12 . ~ ~ 15 CS ~1I _ .
LI- .o~, Ic,• ~ LT 2 ELBOW ~ti CU , ~t ~ A~ N 0 RC O - _ pip a - . _ ~ .
• Kl 2-4 ~ x h' - . 0 • FRIGHT ~ ~
o 'MOODS . ~ ~ \0 ~ ~ Opp ~ ~ • . -.r-; -
' ~ ~ ' . o~ ~ , ~ ( 2 PAVED SHCULbE 0 RC r. ~ .F 2G R~- _ I I I,~ -Ft~- I ~ 24 66.6i'
- ~ ~ INS 15 Q S~ . I 2 9a • GI
2G1 R 15 SRC 2G1 t f ~ 2-6X5 CBC , . M
92.l3 ~ ~ , . , W? BEV ED HE DvUALLS ~ EL 87 • ~ ~8 . . ' p' , • ~ 77' 57' 42'E C •
. 35.99 PIP • , ~ r o _ a I - 68 ~ - • I ~ N ,
s a h t ~ IP • I ~ ,
~ ~ . I I{
6 ,1~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i u r1h'tK r. I _ ~ I RC ~ ~ , . - ~ VA I
1~ 9 ~ - _ ~ _ _ 12 _ _ NC,DO ~ o o• _ RY SHLD ~ NC,DO ~ „ . . SL , . , h ~E I .
- ~ ' _ -.--y ~~:--.~-~.-.._~:-y. REIN._CONC• RETAIN r , _ I IF.T I/2 /FT TO . ZETAINING WA ~ - I /F •
_ _ ~ _BE_RM DITCH W/CL I RiP RAP - - i~~-- cY roods ~ 24 • ~
_7-~,~- - - FUTURE C9~ E I _ r) . ~ ~ ~ L ~ 1 1 - CAT I • o - _ - 'c' . D1~H 'mot ~ , 30 RC o 2 ~ M
TEL z BasE;D+ 1 24.34_ ~ J LA ~ K DAM, 4 WEIf~ - ~ ~ I r ~ r r - - BERM _ ~ ~ ~ , , E T kl_ I
I ~ ROCK• .CHIC _ ,1 14 I Q i ~ ~ r ~ - • .Z RIP •RAP ,r - ~ i~ h~•+I~~II ~ r ~ 4m~'t~ ~ 1 ~ ~STA N
BCT F - ~ t' 19 E ~ ~ E BED r-,-- ~ ~ - e' CHL _ ABOV - - - 1 % ~ , - 115+00 TO II C. E 4e c ~ 6ERM 6. F 5 ---E-__TAI HL ~ ~8 CHl i DITCH - _ 0
f ^ ~ - - . , ~ ' • k ~ 105.00. ° . ' IOD.Uu• 1 EXIST R/ `5.00 . ~.oo goo core ~ _ _ ,S8? . ~ >~~1~ • - ; ~ ~
- x n R~ . / ~ OP 28.57' , ~ k a ~ •
NNETH A. TE r . ~ 1 ~ ~ W PR P. C A . • KE a ~ 0 - D. M. YATE N
.4 S + 2 o, "t § 3 k AT V DITCH W/ ~ . ~ ~ ' ; , EIS ~ - , o ~ - Q fie. C ~ - - , r ' ~ - c X98
~ r~r ~ ~ o' ~ d. ~ CL. B ST N ~ 5 , 0 E LINE s • , _ ELIZABETH . EXI ~ I _ RP ~ 93 • ~4 s sr. _ G ~
~ ~ f ~ SEE SHEET N0. 2 , • ~ ~ „ , ~ 52.7c. 140 150 N s w - ~ s ~ - R
~ ~ ~ T S N s STOVER ? ~ J a r 1 0. ~ J` D . ~ + 167.6 s - o t C. D, s +19 9f ~l~ . t , .E.,Q. PEACOCK ° DOUG t ~ EXI ~fl~ I
• ~ e- ~ 0 3 STA 106t4 - t o ' 0 110 70 'o n , ~ k 226 ~ ~ ~ W: A. BRCWN; JR. ~ o, ~a R. L. NEIGHBOR m LAS D i~ , sr, • ~Q ~ 3+ ORD . 16N8 190, CONC MoN 3 '
~rf! I1 f ~ y NEIGHBORS ~ B ~ I7 . , ~s~ ~ . ALE ~ A P ~ k R E • ~ PRO. ~ ~ t~ ~~S -
~ 0 ' ~oz, ~ .r ~ - R. S. SHARPLESS m ~ r C/A s T. rr ao t ~ J.T. m t ~,o. Ri
~ ~ 21 W . + ~ SHARPE . ~ ~~1-~I~ ~ 2q, r
' = ~ G ~3' CHL ~ . G~' CHL _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ t -f. 60 C}~ f ~ ~ ~ I, ~
c~ gK X h i OO G~ K 0 • fs BK D f ~ ° ~ • . t . ~ ~ C • ; + t 1~ ~ .
\ ~ 4~. ~p MO N ~ 15B ay, C ~ B• to 5 ~ rJ
w~T rl~ ~ k o ~ . Ui ~ S k w ~ ~/~s BK 1r a
C _ ~i
. + s. - ~ 1 +
. m ~ ~ DOUG r • u r- ~ ~ c
R ~ ~ ~ ~
• \ x Ae R.G. /2s ax ~ 1
Q •o ~ ~ > 4 t . ~ -C \ ~ . • ~ + . _ _ DRAU JR. ~ F D ~ ~~:s B~ N 23 ~a ~ : .
/ ~ arc \ . ' - L- - _ i c \ \ . 0 1 RAMP 8 RAMP C i i
ooos ~ ~+H . _ DON . , ALp•
. ~ _ . \ ~ Pl - (26+14.47 I ~ , _ HOR •.47 PIS 0+68.67. . Pl - 4+90 94 T1Y .
Q, \ ~ , 30,0 RT. Y p ~ G I M V• ~Wi\1: . 30.0 RT. 8s = 0 44 39.6 RT. fl = 20 10 06.7 RT. ~ .
w ,'0 ACR WETLAND ~iJr , ~ ,q~ 8 0° 45 00.0 00 0" ~ = o ~ p o ~ . T. E. - ' Ls 200.0000 6s 4 00 00.0 . ~ _ .
T • ~ ~ • ; , REFORESTATION ~ ~ ~ D = 0° 45 00.0 N ~ _ ~ . ~ _ ° ~ M POT 0+00 RAMP C - GRAY' 00.0 U 133.3345 D - 400 00.0
• ~ ~``1 ':NOS- cD, Lc - 6185.5556 X56' - _ ' POC 117+18.24 ~ MED -L- (70 LT.) V 66.6677' Lc 304 2132
~w = 1 " / R 7639.4373 r ~ p 373' ~ ~ _ ~ ° ~ M . R - 1432.3945 ~ - 3 00 00.0 RT. TANG. TO CURVE
DETAIL A• ~ 1 ~ ~ - Ls = 200.0000 00' _ Ls .200.00
• os PROPOSED TAIL DITCH - }5~ • • ~ ~ U = 133.3674
• ,r "0° 4 ~ U = 133.3345 - ~ _ _ V 66.6678 8~ V = 66.6976 ~ ~ •
• ~ r 111 = ~ o ~ ~ 11H _ 1 . ,Q . Ts 3492,7427 427 _ .
- D I MAX. ~ . Ts 354.9331 ; . •
4 c?• ~ N . Y.
• • _
• B4 _ •
{3 • a• .
. ~ • • - ~
• -
E SHEET 25 FOR -L P 0 ILE _E ~ ~ - • 1 ~
~ I ~ , • ~
DENOTES ~ PAV M NT ~ ' E E REMO VA L . ,
. - ~ SEE SHEETS SI THRU S ~~.5 • FOR FOR ~ . - ,
' ~ ctnr rr-rr rnr nr . ur
' : J 1 r%Ul, I UfZC r' M.N •
- ;

- - ~I hI~OJ. R1;FP,R1;A~F, NU. SHEET \0. 'I'0'I'
AL, SHEE,1'S
I~ 0609 p - _ _ - 7 _ ,/Z
ST:~'fG PROJ. ~0. P. A. PItOJ. N0. f)ES('[Z[P"LION
- - ~`~.i`~I0606 - -
-L- LIN .ill ~ 3

0
0
0
~ ~ -
r
l -
82~ ~_815 EADWALL_ g~ -804.5
MON
TOP GROUND ~ ! rATI ON PLOT ~0 FT A R C E S WELL
CAI-2 TO 3A1-3 I - 859 Oe0g3
3A 808.05 CAI-I TO 3A1-q 17 O°Oq_3 806°05 8 0
TOTAL ~'7 29 0°086
~f~LOI- AREA IS 10' RT & LT OF IN=
L ~
L'~E r'~dLEN THE TWO POINTS. r
c
~
~ ~ ~MH~ ~~o i O
809.5 ~ 05. e 808.4 l 804. 3 A I- 8/0.5 ° °
MH ) 807.8 80 _9 J
05.3e
6.0 0 806.2 y a
° 8/0.7 ~O ° 805.3 8 806. ~ 8 SQO.I ~ 805.7 e Q
0
i
Y (r
-1 `I
Y~
~ •0806. J W I
~ ~ ~ ~ 4
MgRywooo ~HEADw~ g10 Q
-r
~ ~Ri~E ` - ~ ~ _ ~ o SIGN • SIGN- ------t== ~B MH X
~ J _ a ~,r~J ti)
° 8/3.8
I
a
SIGN CB - Q ~
~ r~ N
~ ~ G ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~y.,v~-tis~~rLm-,^r~~1 l'~^~''` ~ ~ '4~ f `J ~ \
Lsr,,~,. ~ ~ ~ \ rL~r ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~
1 i
1
1 ~
I ~
I ~
I ~
I ~
I ~ ~
~ O I ~ ~
~ ~ /
I ~ I
~ O ~
I f
I
i
- - _ _ a..,_.......~„~~,
1~.~_-- - - ----w ,

_ _ d
;
PROJ REFERENCE N0. 5NEE7 N0. TOTAL SHEETS
S.1570E~06 8 /2
STATE PROD. N0. F. A, PROD, N0. DESCRIPTION
•
dot 100
600'
S` WETLAND REFORESTATION f
t50
570 '
t- 50 ~ , C
' , • ' ~
OAK HOLL ate, 570 iK HOLLOW LAKE too
1 ~ ilY~; r,~ -.515 ,
C•1
1, f ti'~ .3 =~6 -
~ x'00
470 2 1' `-'r { ti ~ , w r.~f ~ ~ 490
,~f4 ~ ~ Imo' ~ "r''~' ~
CITY OF H s ~ ,r ~ , IGH POINT a~, ~ ~ . x~ l
t 100 ~ ~ ~M ~l, f ~
4 ~ ~ 7 . ~f 1. i. , ?~t 15 420 ~ • s ~~1 f;.
t00 tOp '~I~' rI' rf y~M.. ~ l~ l.f~ 1 r~ 1 '
I ~ 1 1~ K ! ~ i Y ~ ~ ~J l 405 ~ ~ ~
375 ,
t 20 .2 HIGH) _ _ - ERM (MIN B 20 MIN yr 'r ~ 3 t ~ ~ ~r.'/r~1'
~ 360 _ _ ~ ,
ry , Y y . E a "rte ~~J _ :1 T'.. 4 c , end' * T d '..til ) ~ l ~ r ~ i + ' i' . A ~ , t ~,4 ~ ' a.
LINE W/ I CL. B ~ ~ _ ~ , . „r:. i 1; ~ l'
.804.5 MIN. 4,. ~,,~..t , r ; TO ELEV 330 , ,Y.. ; - , u a~.: 6d. rtL' r. ,...f~v YSL r,r ~^ie n. L4~,~ / ,4. •4. t~l.
ONSt ~ ~a • 120 T _ J • ~ Tb My ~ ~~r, :r~ f ~ s.. Y 1 ~ a~1r ,.f r~ 1 E A? fir. '~L.. -'r ;t•^ a ~ of 3, .r. ~ ~J4~k ~ J,/ ~ i c.~ ^ ~
u t,. . ~ ~ ~ ~ , t
~ ~ ~ a. CL. B ST
A7 ~ •f' ~_X?.~A . ~ C~ • . 4, ~.r ~ ~ ~ ~ ON ~;i . a ; ~
~ . •t i ~'r`~'•_~, 4~ 1, j~f, •a ~y~~ a~; e <.y~~V ~ 'i ~ ~ t ~~r~ ~ STALL WHEN CO ;f r ~ ~ ~ NST.
CL.I RIP RAP = ,,t, is ~ ~ ~ i ~ . ~ : N -x'~ ~ ~ IS COMP , ~ C LETED ,d . ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~f>' ~ r~, -r'. ~ ,
2.5 TONS t ~ x„~ 't , ~ ~ 1
~ : ~.1 ' , WETLAND R t ~ 2, C EFORESTATION ~ d: , ~
t00 t ~ _ . ,u^~ / .,f.. ~ -fir, j` s~
210 h E, ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 210 ~ f i' -iii ! `'..y: ~ -i.~ ~ 'ig~~ v r a~.y c i., ,i..: - / _ NCDOT ~ _ 358
0 v_ ~ j~ A• 1.C k - rk 1 . ul. Sf x ~y "."T' n~ ;af,
P. 210 t50 y ~ riK ,r. r y.. / ~ 33~ I~I 335 C \ ~ ~
195 ~ E t s u ~ / ~ i CS 0 t 00 RAMP '
~ C B ~ W
~ POC 117 t - - 88 MED L (58 RT)
i' ..f i 4 ~x, ~ ST 2 t 00 RAMP 'B'
160 :a.• ~ _ ~ ~ ~ .,,a,.. ~ ~ ~ a ~
^ wE y' A
L ~ - - / 132.51
- BERM PI ;UP RP 'g . I
W/ELBOW ~ /ELBOW 00
t 06,06
_ - F F II t00 F _ C - - - - C 160'
CL. B I - 1 _ 160
WEIR F R ~
lo' C ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ' \ ~ ~ ` ~
12
I / -f----_ ~ ~ _ F _
24
-
12'
34 , 2' 4
1
• ` t00 I10 1 ( - 34
115t 115
t 00

120 t 00
1 /
c ,
. ^
i
E
0 NOTE ~ SEE SHEETS - - X 48 THRU X 52A FOR
u WETLAND MITIGATION CONSTRUCTION
0
C
a v
~ •
C ~ •
U .
U E
r
t iii
_ ._.m,...~...._.,-,~.,4,.~..,.,~-_....._..~...._~........,._.,..,. _._.a.......__ -

- _ _ -I•
i~itoJ. iti,rt:~t2,~~ci; t~~o, sHr:ET ,~o. ~ro~r.-~L sx~;r.~ , I ,
R oso9 a 9
J - ti"f;1'I'I', I'I~OJ. i~0. T..-#. PROJ. }~~0. D1;SCRIPTION
~J510606 SITE 4
SITE 4
VEGETATION PLOT SO FT ACRES
4AI-3 TO 4AI-2 2459 0.056 _ 4AI-ITO 4AI-6 5242 O.pO
4AI-4 TO 4AI-5 5267 0.121
TOTAL 12968 0.297
»PLOT AREA IS 10' RT & LT OF LINE
BETWEEN THE TWO POINTS.
~p
~ / 8
0 " i~ ~ ~
~ - ~ ~
~
a ~ ~ 815.3 ,
o~ ~ - 807.6 0
OAK HOLLOW LAKE 814.7 r / o 0
s ~ Y 0.\O O
O V .v 803.
811.9
8 5.7 N ,
803.5 u p o gl -
0
~ 12.3 o ~
WE 802.4 ~ 8 ~ ~ 803.7 a 804.3 / o a
°.<4~'Y ~ /8/ 811s ego ~~c~C~. s
312. 8/0
o 0 -
~ 815 `Q p5 - -
~~C` yv 08/x. a\O a 803.4 g
82., ,-..n=- - ,r_
- a 05 ~ 9.9/ 8p5 ~ 804.5 ' ~ . a 0
a~
-r..... obscure
5 8~
8p5 6_~
Y ~ ~ 03.6 %p5 ~-~c~°v ~ . 0
..~`N
- 80 803.7 /
08. ~ 804A _
III
809.2 / ~
} _ / ~ $oy 820
Boas ~ / ~ o ~``r /
~y_ / 803.3 g~~ ~ /
8032
I' 3 AI-I
wE 802.4 804.5 8j5
e
0 803.6 805 8I6~ a2~
/ 808.9 ~ ~ 4AI-2 8/7.6s x
/ 804.
/ / x.-
o
804.4
~ ~ 805 $I~ 82 ~'S N
O
~ _ ~ RAMP B o
=805 / Sip 822.7
N
815 822.0 O
+ ~ • O
=82~ cn
~ -L- LING"
O
0 O
o o RAMP C
~n
a
II ~ ~ yy r ~ 6:. d~. a. - ~ y.

F ,
- -
~~iio~. ~ti:f~i,~t[;:~~cL too, sHe?;~r ~~o. ,~~,o, r.~~ sf~~~.F.,
R 0609 D - - _ /Q _
- ~ F "y S'fA'fl; PKOJ. N0. F. A. PI ~ ~
tOJ. I~Q. ll1:SCK1I TION
~ Q - - 8/7.4 8J5i0606 SITE 5
_ _ ~ Q 8/8.4 8/7.6 ~
l.
. ~ 8/7.6 ~I1,6 k
0 820.6
~ 818.4 ~ I
5 x- I ,
____82 ~ 0 ~ I
~ 5A1 21,6 _ ~
obscure g/ - I 81 . nl~ - I '
~ ~ 8/3.6 3.6 _ _ ~
- I ~ 1 -
;:mss ~ 8/3.7 ~ I
_ J~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I
816.2 I ~ 8 2 ~ ® I
~ ` ~ 8/3.6 > I I 12.9 ~
~ ~ ~ 8/3.6 ~ 8/4.1 ~ X8/52 - 812. I
~ ~ 8/5.4 815.4 ~ I
f ~ 8/3.4 ~ ~ 8/4.2 815.4 I I
813. ~ ~ ~ ~
{ I ~ ~ ~ u ~ _ - I
...~.~~*Y"`" ~ 8/3.8 ~ Q Q ~ p 8 8/4.3 V ~ 8/3.5 ~ 8/3.6 ~ ~
> 814.4 ~ ~ ~ I
c, dam` ~ I
s~~, ~ I
~ ~ 8/3.5 13.3 I I
o scur~~, ~ t~ ~ ~ I
o ~ 12.9 ~ 813.7 I
I I
~1 I
Y~`~ ~ 8/3.7 ''L 8/3.5 p . I ~l ~Y'~'' -
I I
' ~ 813.7 ~
8/4.l 8/3.6 813.5 I
rC ;~J I 813.3 ~ u ~
® I
8/4./ ~~s` L I 812. I
I ~ I
I
8/3.5 I ~ I
~ I :r ~ 1 0
~ 8/3.5 ~ ~ I ~ I 82.8,
~ 8/3. 8/4.2 ~ ~ ' 813.2 - ' ~ ~ ~o~ O I
r ~ I O 813.3 o I ~r I ~
sy'r ~'YZ_.-~'~1 I -x'1'1-~ ~ ~
O~ I
~ 8/3.8 ~ 813.5 I~ ~ Q I
I ~ J
813.2 _ I ~ I
J I ~ ~ 819
.8 r ,r 1 I . ~ , 812.8
.<J b ~ ~.J eta I I ~
I I
I 1
I i
I
I ~ I
\ I ~y~) > I
813.4 ~ ~ ~ ~
I I
813. I I ,u ~
I
CROW HERS I I
~REE/r 814.4 I I
I I
I ~
I I
I I
I I

SlT E 5 I ~ -
I I
I
I I
- I W ! ~ ~
! I Q
! F~OII' J L--~ r, ~ CAE ,
! w . _ Eh ~ ~ I
o I I -
MON TOP GROUND ~ ! o I
WELL m ! ~ I I
I ~ I .z
5A 815.06 813A7 VEGETATION PLOT SQ FT ACR 5A1-2 TO 5AI-I 4854 0.11 T ACRES ! v
~ 0.111
5B 814.98 813.08 5AI-3 TO 5AI-4 4119 OA ` SC 815.26 813.32 5AI-5 TO 5AI-6 4740 0.10 0.095
~ t 0.10 9 I ~
TOTAL 13713 0.31 I ~ 3 0.315 ~ ~
5D 815.79 813.94PLOT AREA IS 10' RT & LT OF Ll 5E 814.81 812.93 BETWEEN THE TWO POINTS.
LT OF LINE I _ I ~
S. I I
1 i
SF 814.98 813.28 1
I
r i
~ ~ p E
/ \
/ \ q 3 SANDY RIDE RD p/~
~n rnrr _ ~ ~ ~ / SQUARE ~~f1~~~~ IIL.~
JlT l~~~ / / ~ Sh' jv:~~' ~
s 1' " 1~ j r f, :y s 'i yttt ~ \ ~
~~.y , ~ ~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
_ _ ~.....,.~...m..~ m,..._...____ m~
_-..f..,~..--`-

~s~~~r ~i a~
1 ~ ~ I ~
i 1 rn ~ I_ I I ~ ~ sz. `D a I r~ i ~ ~ I , 1
~l . 13 ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ _ ~ \ ~ \
f o / I I .OQ CO' 1 ~ . ~ 9 ~ ss ~ ~ ~
I _ - Irn \ ~ ~ ~ I I / ~ i
I ~ I ~ _ ro ~fl i / ~ ~ ,
1 I - ~ 1 I I , \ si ~ ~ ~ I
_ 1 _
V 1 , I % ~
~ . ~ 0~ \
~ ~ ~ / ~ 9p , (Tl OE' I ! ~ i
• \ ~ 61 ~ I / o - ~ /
~ ~ ~ n • , ~ J: A__~ A ~ ~ I / / / ~ s v I
cv g ao ( ~ / I
N N ~ p1 ~ o ~ / V ~ ~ ~ -1
~ I ~ / ca ~ ~,t~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~
r. I ~ / C / ~
~ / J~ I ~ - ~ . \ ~
of - - - ~ ~
i ~ ,r 1 ~ ~ ~ I / rn ~ o
1.~~ ~ r 1 ~ / ~ a ~ -
~ / . ~ ? ~ \
% ti ~9 c
~ v, lG~'
('1 Q1 `7 i ~ ~ 1 ~I f ~ - ~
~ ~ I~ i / ~ . \ ' 1 ~ - ~ ~
I GG ~ I ~ . N i, l~
I ~ I
7 ~ ~ I ~

( Ci j
r, N $ fh Q I i ~ ~
N ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~V N ~ tCi m - - Q
d Q oc• Q~ n n -I
~N N rn I _ o
r ~ ~ ~i ~ ~ ~ i ~
i o ~ ~ cf I _ ~
/ s I ~
N ~ ~ ~ ~ 0.i W N p
c l~ ~
Vm l ~ ~ ~ ~0 . !
ry ~ Ol g• 1 ~ ~ W ~
~H ~ ~ f~j ~ ~ 1 ~ l~ ~
~ -I / ~
\ / ~
~ r, ~ r,~ ~ ~i ~ )l
(r~ ~ ~ • ~ \ o Q~ ; ~ <c . a~ m ~ ~ ~ - '1 \ i~~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 c~~ . , , \ II~
• ~ ~ ~--1 ~ ~ ~ i~
~ ~ ' A` ' ~ ~ ~ ~ - Z - ~ " _ y~~ ~ _ _
/ ~i rn
r ~ ~ l ~ v ~ ~ 7 ~ - l/
~~i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~n ~ ~ ; J 1 ~ ~ - , ~
• 6~i ~ T.~ v ~ 0.~, _i pi• ~ Ir ~ ~ ~ \ ~ \
m~ ~ ,X ~ ~ - c ~ 1 I, - ~
.p mm ~ , v Q
r., ~ c • . _ _ ~ i ~ ~I
c~ ~ ~ ~o 1~ I' O
~ T} ~ o ~ 1 ~C° 1 ! l~ i ~I
C- E ~ ~ i i ~
' tn~u - i i ~
p ~ ~ f 0~4 c'- 1 ~
~ ~ - . ~ a' 1 1 /i -
~ ~ ir` I ~1,
. o t~ ~ ni - ~
•rQ~ s~ , _ _ _ ~ f ~ f
l I
. P~ - ~ ~ ~ I
~'ar~,yy ~ I ~ I ~ -
a'' \ ~ ~ l ~ - l~ - ~
psi St' S-• \ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~
~ ~ a /1 ~ j~ i I ,
o ro a r i' ~
o ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ J ;"r,~ / q, ~ a / ~ ~ ~
~ ~ / e ~ ~p,~ ~ ~ ~ I po/' ~i /Sir
I ~ \ i ~r~ F i ~
~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l ~ ~ ~
~ J q ~ ~.1
e~ ~ V ~ ~ ~ V ~ ~ ~ ~
~I / l \ ~,l ~ , , I
I ~ ~ ~ ' I ~ ,I ~
i ~ ~ ~ i • `-zap ' / ~ \ ~ ~ i
~ ~ 1 \ i ro ~
`r p,, ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ /
~ D, , ~ 9 ~ L - / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ,
i ti ~ ~ ~ ~ \
~ ~ ~f ~ ~ ` ~ (Q r ~I/ ~ \h - ~
V / \ 4 ~ / ~ / /
\ all I, ~ ~ - ~
r, ~ ~ ~ _ \ ~ S_ ~
r, OJ ~ f b ~ ~ ~ i 1
~ ~ Q - ~ ~ K ~ y _
I ~ ~ ~ ~ I i~~
4 ~ a~ ~ i ~ - e ~ A~ . a~ ~
. ~ ~I ti~ti° \
~1 ~ r~ Q`~ 0 ~ ~ ~ _ .
r~ I t ~ /
\ 1
N JC ~ W . ~e ' , ~ i_~
:II i I - ~
_``J , , ,I
a, ~ -i
- "1
-
1 _ N _ n . o - ~ x _~u
~u~ ~ ~ ~ 1
_ ..wn~, ~ -
_ _

. _ _.____W.._____.
~ t•..
FER SHEET' N0, TOTAL SHEETS . PRO1. RE ENCE NO.
f ~ 'r ~
8.1570606 /Z z
' * _ STATE PROD. is0. F, A. PROD. NO, RESCRIPTION
~
I _ ~
~
. ~ ; • Z a i
- a ~ 0 _ p Z
J W O (A ~ ~
~ lL Z J } ~ O O Q ~ f..
• N ~ 3 (n . - '`t u~ . 3
~ _ - - ~ ~ . . _
~ _
y, , a O m m N ~ a _T` O
~ H _o
~ i wN~ Uz ZION _ - n.Z Z ' a.°° w-4 OU ~w ~Z • z
w z z z m _ ~ p N i c~ a s w~ J o W_ • ~z ~ o ~
• W ~ J [t ~
Q > ~
- Z= U N 0 lD J= (n ~ v U Q ~ m m ~
~ I.i, ~ fr ° N S W Z Q ~ ~ ~ Q v o
~ W C7 v Z7 Z Z ~ ~ Q _
> I - J J ~ O
• t ~ O J ~ • ~ ,Z
~~r • ' , , 1 W > O • w w U F- U U
'•.5 Z ~ Z Z N I W _ z ~ _ _
J - X F- U ~ ~ ~ a ~
wHO J 0~~mw _ _ - and F' • J aNtr - ao ~ a - 3 N I~ omwz - 3~- v _ . , O a. ti •
~ m c~ mowo O d • s w w Q Z N o i W a- m p Z ~ W z ~ x
- _ O> - NSF->Opd - ?+.Q o a. ~ - ~ ~ u t
I : 1 O c~ Z~ w a w a ~ r - I Z Z w v u ~'i W F. - O ~ W O _ J J ~ v u ~
~ ~ . ' a a o - ~ _ Jaa w~-ww Ww zN Z
Q J
NQ ..Q ZO - _ Z i _ ~ N a ~ J O O ~ F- I- 0.
' . . n,
' U F- f' ~ u7 d LL. 1 ; ~
rt..~r ? JOOZ . .,r...
~f,. I i.r_~,\ i. --1
W r.
• i;. ) i Q • • , y,
Y.: X ~ - ~ •
~ ~ • O OC . .
p...~.- . p • N a a
~ F" O I a
- Z = - p } - _ ~ • , . _ O W F..
a ~ W Z ~ w ~ .
N O W a~ W~ J a J z
~ 5 Z ~ ~ W a W . W z
~ . ~ W F- ~ - _ ° C7 ~ _ W a Q ZOO _ ~ _Z U Q O
1 ~ } U N V F W O~ J a i az_ z ~ - J3 z 3 o • , _
J- a Y U W - _ O O ~ f } o I J a m F- ~ n. F- W rn
" j W Ja Z am mw} V • J N J Z N
' , ~ ~ C7 J I'- O N - • ; ~ Z W O J a Q ___..___.W.._.. z ~
• ~ % f• Q ~a ZZO ~ _ z - ~ Q (n
Q 00 4. O cn U U ~ . JW .
1 W Z ~ ~ U - W Q t-- . N ~ N ~ L.1..
W W > W O
~aah- Q Q
j ~ m W LL • 3 ~ m m m m m m _ Z
i ~ ' ; _ U Z W Z Q
- Z J C7• ` - Z U ~ o' v~ a o' W c' c c c g' Q - - - - - LC
a W ~ z ~ 4. •v v •o •o ~ v Q . _ (A a~ ~ a~ m m d
~ o ~ f . ac v m a~ m d a~ ~ U N ~ N N N E O
a w . a m ~ Z m _Z O .
J - ~ ~ ~ 3 in ~ CO ~ _ , Z Z O ~ _ _ _ ~ ~ ~ Q
• _ ni~NW ~ J ~ N N N to ~ d , . ~ ~ . W W ~ v `
l _ _ ~ - zw • ~ o, O _
• . 3 a J - c~ - _ F.. z c - . . Y • i
~ _ =Na j U h- ° v . c7
• Z°(7 Q % ~ - W U O m W
W ~ ~ ~ 3 Z Z c t W
O ~ ~ a _
I W fA - - ~ O ~ O t o o m -
W j ` F.. Q J° - _ m _Z U z ~ J O = Z O J= u- a ~ U p . p c9 Z Q m a c Z
w ~ - - mo aaNa zoa 1- _ ~ WJ~ ~ =J -W W O~ O ~ a ~ O I- U c ~ E o m J
ami m m o t Q J ` ) ~ 3 ~ r
m _ t- • a W z N J z z- m a a ~ mm3o aaa3W Jw~ i~ ~ c~ ~ O w 3 3-` o _
~ ~ Ur = ~ _ G. U W J t- ~ N N Z ~ a~ Q w o = m
z Z W J w I ~ - m Q 0 U O l_ > a ~ W sn c Q .
3 3 - ~ - o ~ o ~ z = f-
- I I ~ Q m_oza ~ O - = II I ~ J U~ N O ~ N~ Q Q Q ~ ` Z J m W
I - I ( I - N= U_ W C 4. 7Z o .a U
~ ' = G ~ v E Z W ~ 7 O
Q S I~ U m J J ~ W~ • m c c U J ~ .x m W
II I z z - I W~ Y a m ~ m _ ~ ~ ~ ~ . J D i. ~ y E m
~ II I I ma Q Z C ~ t ~ 0 d = Q c o u m m O
c - ~ - I 3 ~ ~ f- ~ w a _ E a c m ~
- _ N ~ I o ° hW- Z N y ~ cn ~ Z
z 1 i = I ~ _ F- W _ _ ~ J Q Cn z ~ ( m° - Q a~ J Z O ~ y y y y
3 I - _ m Q C O V V V V Z ~ Z f- ~ W K ~ ~ ~ ~ m Q _ O a. m m d
z - o _ -t z ~ J - I~ am 0. - z°° to o ~ ~ ~ y 7 7 ~ 7 0 0- ~ F- ~
~ ~ W m 0 0 d O E > a vvi
W = 1 \ a z W a o a ~ Z - J Z F. ~ U O ~ x W W o w ~ X p ~ L~ N °
a ~ Q - _ a 3 N W ~ a O w ~ ~ _ a Z ° w
J S ~ a M O W W W \ a W W F" I J O ~ W o W r-
- ~ 1- _ > w ~ N O a Q O ~ - W Z 0 d. Z t0 ~D ~D U cD cD
W U U. Ncna J - - w ~
_J NW_ ~ H F- H h
~ a O W '1 ~ 3 ° a
o -
O Z z
T ~ _ , . y, .
_ _

......~mr,~...... - _ - -
_ _ -
\~T wT ~iwTY. PRUIliT REPER6~aS NO. :'15
'a~I~ ~~~~~I~~~ Nay ~.~~7Q606 ~
v1 tl ft N YI'ION
1 TITLE SHEET
~ 2 ORIGINAL PLAN SHEET
;L~i[~~][~Sl[;Ol~ COlla ]f l - - 3 SITES fk 1 & 2
- - - 4 CONTOUR MAP SITE # 1
- - - - - -
5 COt~TOUR MAP SITE ;I 2
~y 6 SIIE 3
~,q~~ ~ ~ 7 CONTOUR MAP SITE # 3
~ 8 ~ SITE # 4 _ -
9 ~ CONTOUR MAP SITE # 4
10 T CONTOUR Mr'1P SITE # 5
11 __f _GEN. LOCATION MAP SITES #1 - #5
12 I REFORESTATION

? `

i ~ ~
~o

fc
t~~
-
_ . , ...e_„~...~.. _ _ .,,.,.a..

- - A
- _ _ - ._.r__.-_-_~r.. ra r - - - - - - - ,
_ . . ~ - r , • , . ' .w, rr -~r'M1, LI^ 'h 'i ~ •.t !I'` ~ i _ y-. 'i ;i ! , ~
_ . m t • y ' . , , I ' A ~ ' . St-iEET TOTAL . r . ' - STATE `STATE PRC)ECT REFERENCE I~O.• ~ _ N0 SHEETS
• i. ~ r .
i' 1 ~l•
• SEE SHEET 1-A FOR INDEX OF SHEETS _ • / + ,
. • t ~ -pR ~ DESCRIPTION;h: y, ~.t % f ~ - STATE'PRO), h0•~ F.A 0), h;0.
i ~ v _ . ~ f. ~ I I Ilrrl H71 4t pq~ i 111 , r l~ l r ~ x ~ ' ~ ~ - :,Illy. ~ 1 , ~ . !J ! - ~ r• ..V,
` ~I•. 1 t . - 8.1570601 : F -.119 ;1(1) ~ P. E. r I
8.1570602 F -119= I-(2 R/W 8. UTILIT~.I-S
~ ~ - .1' :i. ,ua 'lil l 11 ll z. ~+4 L;• r ...J ~ ~ - t. ~ ~ - • ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ 8.1570606 - c~ CONSTRUCTION`
1 . ,'4 ' Y' 1 •wj'
• ` ~ 1
( ~f . 4i537y~. % -r ~ - _r • i _ ,
•
r ~ j i ti: ' 1 ! J w •rk .9 h f{ ~ 1. \ ~ . i! '~•t•. 1 `~,...j.? `f h^ t `1!'~ t 1' HIV 1, 1.~.. •w'.r_ 1 ~ , ,4 .-1 ~ , I ~t
r .'j \ I . C 1
y_ r~I ~ 'r
~cx~"'-`w - ~ f BEGIN PrcOJECT~~;' - rucrr • • ~ i _ '
~ l rl ``j 1 ' ~ ASANVWR I / " -r 1, 1 l~ 1 i I r' I •
~ ~1,.` 4 r . , 1..
I r , I I I
, "~f l - ~ ' . CONVENTIO~IA•L SYMBOLS.. .
• C unt Line `
I
`~c+ 1 ' Cit or Town Line . , , ' ~•,4',
J ~ v Exist, Right of ~'1ay Line Marker . • • • • • • • • • • •
- . may.
• . END PRQJECT ~ I ! ~ - ~ , ~ ~ , ~ ~ ' ine Marker D Others • • . ~ .'o~'R Prop. Right of ~ti ay L (y ) ,..r ~
. - Prop. Right of ~ti'ay Line Marker (By Contract) •
~ ~7J A ~ • •
~ .,i % 1 Exist. Control of Access Line -
,N r ~ ! , • Prop. Control of Access Line • • • • • • ? • • • • ~ ~ "
• ~ ~ ~
• ~ P o ert Line
~ . POINT c L, • Easement Line • '
i r , •
• • • • • • • • • • • • 1_1/'•••• VAX ~~wr• 1 Slope Stake Line • • • • • • 1j ~ - ~ ~Y ' '1 . ,
vI-. ' Exist. Fence ~ ``;;;c~„'''
' ~ TATE JECT SKETCH MAP SHOWING VICINITY OF S PRO ,a; 1
8.15706p6 (R-609D 1) , ~ - Pro .Vvuven Wire Fence • • .......1... • • p ~ >
. M Y • r , .r ~ e, n n n_
~ ~ hain Link Fence ' Prop. C 1: •
a ~ ~ • j. Exist, Road
r ~ ~ ~ • • I 1
. ~ ~ ~ ~ BEGIN BRIDGE ~ trop. Road • , ~E • ' 'y~. , T T T .,Yf.1.
• ~ ~ TA.24+ _ 46.10 .10 Guardrail " ~
S • TA. 24+29.68 - L- L'• B: = - ,
- END BRIDGE VD BRIDGE Survey Line • • • - R•' ,
. , - STA. 25+90,1 TA. 25+90,62 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 - - ~ Denotes Line E ualit
_ . . ~ - ~ ~ v 9 9 Y. ~ - ,
p' ' Bride.• ~ L ~ ~ 8 1
u' Oq~ ~ Culvert • . • . ~
' - : • r ' ~ BEGIN BRIDGE `~.~'p .ti; .-n ~ ` • STA, 34+ 27.44 c' ? • N : _ ~ O<< ~ ~ -
.p G- _ _ ~ ~ r= ~ 'A OW ~ • 0 Cqk - 'Railroad • • I
T ~ cA 0 N 'TM MP GR( WI i ,J CAMP GROUND ~ Ip p;I- . ' ~ ~'~'4..
NS o- . . Tp ~ ~ 1 WOOdS•..........•••.•..••.••..••..•. ti a 2
. 1 Sq ~ z o ti . y I Exist. Telephone Pole • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .;r 1 ~ _
M i . o / ! ~ i ` ~ ~ ~ ~ EGIN BRIDGE ~ = i,
• '1 ~ ai i 'c ~ i ~ B Prop, Telephone Pole - . . ~ • • STA. 2 4 + 5 5, 87 ' '
~ W /O O 1• t ? i r,. ~ , ~ Tower Pole and Line , • • ~ END BRIDGE ~ • • _ _ •
4r ti p~~ 0 ~ r,• A. 27+00.12 • ' -
/ ~ v r - ~ ` ~ • Exist, Pawer Power ? • . ~ , •
~I ! • b ' Pro Power Pole r:
/ i c ~ • P' ' . • •
F 0 / ~ ZII F ~ Z S . ~ ,Sanitary Sewer Line , f-
o ti ~ • ~ ~ yi . ~Il t
_ ~ ~ „ ~ c,ll ~ f ~ ~ ~ Water Line , r' ' ~ I r -o.. ~-o
I o ~ END BRIDGE ~ ~ T Gas Line , , >,2 ~ ~ , . •
. 11 ~ STA. 95+29.82 < \ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ i' AS t', wCR . • l~ ' .
. o ~ ~ . ~ 1 ~ ,1 ~ I ~ ~ • , tv ~(c Prop, Wheelchair Ramp • . • • • • • • • • • • ~ ~ ~ ' '
• I i - .m _ • o cc ~ ~ . R. Pro .Curb- Cut . ,
~I II ~ ~ BEG, BRIDGE i (n P . _ . v
~ •J I . ~I ~ • ~ STA. 93+64.51 ~ ~ ,,1 Z 1 1 ..r. , 2
f I o•
w l' II I . w ~ P rT • END BR • ~ - ~ ,GALES r'"_ "'`RESIGN D,aTA~ ND BRIDGE ' • GRAPHIC ~ , • E - ::max, ,
f: ~ _ I ~ ~ ~I ~ Y MP E~ . 1 z STA. 36 -N ~ _o _ . STA. 36+79.56 ~ - 50 100 ~ ~ 150 1 - j.r
. 0 - ~81:OU. • ADT 1986 ;,3400 •
~ - - n p BEGIN $ I ,u:. / CT N S. B. LANE i ~ ~ , • • . ~ STA. 25+70 L BEGIN CGNSTRU 10 p / o o r . . ~ ~ stA.29+ .49 /r . _ -AD. c006-'3200 -
- Z ~ 1 ~ ~ / - _ 3 END BRIDE ~ - PLANS ' ' r; . DHV-', 10 los_;, • ' •
-I END BRIDG ~ I a 1, IDLE ~ - ~o~
. ~ ~ ~ 5TA. 94 88.42 l ' - - STA. 33+4L. 8 ~ 88.42 i - - 150 ° . - . . ~ r 0 50 _ 100 - T , . _ 13 to ~
• BEGIN 6RIAGE ~ -
~ ~ 4
^~P ~ ( -STA. 93 + 35 72 I Y"' V ~ ~ ~ ~ P ~ r 7 ~ .PROFILE (HORIZONTAL) , . •r. K.p.•~ l "fir ^"',R' . .
STA.10+00 ~ L BEGIN STA I E PROJECT 8.1570606 CONST. RE ~ / . F P / ~ o a ~ o ~ _
i ; . ; /C + - - R JECTMA~~~~-II-?' CO ST. p / ' . . ST .10 00 L BEGIN F. A. P O t N .f- . ' ~ 0 10 20 -30- .mot _ :,Y. , \ : ,
A ~ m ii r,
. o + BEGIN CONSTRUCTION N. B. LANE ~ N ~ ~ Q PROFILE (•VERTICAL).. - . ' -
- ~ - r I ~y z r - „ . , f~'F' ~f ~ BEAN BRIDGE
' • - - END BRIDGE ,'I / ~ ~ . . ~ STA. 20 r9Q.57
' -Y;. STA . 24 •r 14, 57 ~ ~ , ~ y-. ul~ , I - '/I ,
1 ~ / , V ~ r , ~
! - , ~•k '
- ~ f/ ' , ITATI rRD4AUl•lCl wowcu • -f w: r r . ' . ~ ti~ , DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
' • ~ STA. 16' ` . / t ' . .A ti ROJE.,T 8,1570606 CONS . - _ END S, ATE P . . ~TA.165 t 8 0 - L ~ ~ . TH • CAROLINA'' p~ ~STL- ~ ~ ST~'~E i0> I~T~O(t
. , . STA.16, - ROJECT ~ t<~i~NF-IIq-? t~) SONS I:J o, ~ • - r J? . ' ,1 65+80-L END F'A. P l H CAR , ~ • .
~ •ESSI• , ~ r ~E ~ -ti.
> ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~l
/ / ~ t, ? ! - \ , h `~~VIN~~ ` , • p -'UEAI - PfIDVISD U'
c ~ '1/ LENGTH ROADWA` PLANS PREPARED BY: ROADWAY DE„IGN_ UNIT / T MP•NNf• 11~ -I ~b~ - 3.191 MILES , 5;,, . , ;w ,:...1~ .--i _ ~ ' ROADWAY F. A. PROJEC c 44~6~' l
y Q LENGTH STRUCTU H. L. SMITH PROJECT ENGINEER / ~ - RE F A. PROJECT MAI~HF-I1H-1(~ 0.031 MILES _ _ .,r : r ~ f.. 1- :ry,,~•.. STRUCTU S ~
~ ~ DESIG ~ NEER TOTHL LENGTH" . L.T. OLIVER, PROJECT N EN~I , ENGTH STATE PROJECT 8.1570606 3.222 MILES ,~t - ,,,oN , r, ROADAAT D63ION f ,q ~
_ 2• ~ 0 . - r - • , R.' ~ - '•ca~tbttwe7:..F~c~x~at • r,~sicN
. rv ~ , i . ~ • ~ ~ _ ;
ti J ~Q' ' a • ' ~ _ t '~SPORTATION . RT ENT OF 'BRA. '
Q ~'1'~~ ` . ~ ~ t" SE At : ~~l'~ M r • FEDERAL, HIGH~'A ' MIKISTRA.TIONA .
~ v Q ~ ,r 5965 I 1 ' •1 ~ ~ I
~ THIS IS A CC~N . POLLED - AC - E PROJECT WITH ACCESS BEI.~kG ~IM!TED ~ ;o •.E,y : - G . LLED ACC SS ~ U I ~ , • ^ ~ P9. APP +1,.., • ~G~
' TO INTER( TO INTERC~iANGES• , ,,,~c f y , 1 , t,. 4,,r T, ti,tP UONANai j DIV1SlON ADxtxtsZ'RAro~ „ DAr¢ ~ I
DMZ _ .roue.
LETTING DATE' ~ 7 - . I ~ - i I:.IO STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS .
~
~ F
~rL
C,~ ~ Ica _ . .
• _r,.._.,._,.,...,,.,,..~
- ~N~ v

r_

R-609D
- 4
PROJ RETf:RENCE '+0 -SHEET ti
- 0, TOT,1L SHEETS
8._1570606 S TA TE PROD. ?i0 r 'ROl ~yp
- DESCRIPTION
V ~,I~fl ILL'+~f V% 4.1 V'I,V"'„ v V w fl
Q,(f ' RAMP 0 0 ° . p 0
• 0. N N 0 b ° o N `N ' PI • 15 v 38.M PI9 •18 t 34,41 PI •22+20,86 PIS • 25+63.68 PIS • 30+69.08 PI •33 ~ o°~ -L- - -
~ 70.08 0 I p D •16.24'00 LT Bs •6.30'00' LT d •13'S2'30•LT 8s •2'30'00'LT is •2 /Oe . 0~ 0 0 2 ~ ~ E • 23 12 58I~ RT Q,, I ' N ~ ~ p © d ~ e 4T' 24' S3~ LT ~S ; 73x58.04 + - Q ps ~ p , 3.~ S'00 . La ~ 20Q 00'
D ' 4'00'00' 01 •2'30'00• D • 2'30'00 Ls •200.0000' & • 5'00' ~ I 00' RT D• 5'00'00• ~ i 2 N ~ C °10v ~ 0 0 1 5 LC • 410.0000 D2 • 4'00'00' Lc • SS3.0000' U • 1333466' U • 133.3666' Lt •464.3228' Ov 0 - 0% 0, ° GI , I$ 0 Itij C>` fo~ T BJB.45T4 pl , 3.~ • G5 ~ ~ L 1580.1412 p:. 2.~ - -
o , o ~ ~ I GI ~ti T,.,,_ R • 14323945' L~ • 2000000' R • 2291.8312' Y • 68.6788' V • 66TISI ' 'fl 4 ' R •1145.9156 p ..IQ% G N p T •206.4112' TI • 107.8002' T • 278.6641 ~ 'p I p 3~/L R • 1909,8593' T, 93.3 ' ' • T 755
~ i T2 •924123' T •215.3909' %0 OY - I ~ 0 - t 1p6,T305 , ` ~
0 0* ~ O,r p 0 I , O Y, gg RAMP C 0 Cs 0, Oy, ; 4, H q , ~ + EIP
PI •164 80.54 0 0 z0 ~ I ~ ~
~ d D •IO'13'16.TRT 0 Ci ,r Ci ~ ; I ~ 0p D • D'30'00• ~0, ~ d p 0'r'°,1,0'1'0 1 .ll ! t ~ 1, ~ EIP --_,,,.f o. + I
I Lc • 2044.3722' t'0 r 0 • ~ - ' I ~ 4' C' s ` \ ~ I , ,
R• 114591559' 0'r'° 0 ° 0 I ~l I 'r• ' fl T• 1o24so6a' o,,,° 0 0 0 ~ I' o I i ~ SEE SHEET 24 FOR •L• FftOFIEE ;
0.x,0,1,0,1,0 0 ~ , I p , r ~ , ~ SST }2 A'd 33 RJR RP, E PRCf1LE ti ~ ' , SEE SHEET }4 FOR RP, F PROFILE I .
.Door i 1 ' - ° 0 1 I 0 I
0 O'b0,x.0 - I ~ 0 ~ 9 + h
0 ° ~ Ov,O•x, I - I , p SEE S'+EETS SI THRlJ 5225 FOR STF7LCTUE PLA15 ~ ti ati 1 I . ~ k
° °'1'Q'x'fl I ' ~ ' p Q fll°IQ'1'04~0,~ I I ~ ' p ~5 - I . _ ,
- ~I,r~,I,O,1~0.1,0,,,44,0,,,0,1,O,x, ~ O'I~0'''0., ~ p ' 0 0 0,x, ~[0 ' ,l If ~ 0 x \ ? I FFrr(E CW11N LINK 7 /
o `o °'''o'+'O,r,o,l,°,.,o,,, , ~ ' it h ,.Ov. p O I~O,,,O i I 1 I!ALt<ry-;,:
0 0. 01. 0 ~ 1 N f~~ 3J ~ S741C+60•STA19+~5R ~p ~ ~ ~i'
Illl ° o o~ o ~'p - i 1 o t 4~''~-c K.
o `D o o I ~ . - ~ o ~b /
>O 0.,.0,, V ~ t ti 0 ~ s o~ ~ J,ATERA as rrTCN SL1I"~v r~,c I _7`.-~-- ~ ,r ar -
G, - 0 ~ h 0 p 0•''0 0 p i a •,~O,,,pa,0,I,0.i.0.~.1., .0'0''.0 .0' - r ¢ ~l 0 Pq \ . /ti STA 19+ r 1 r'" r ~-T "C'~~ . , . - i. i'. / '
0 'v v,, 0'1 0 ~ ,(u jar _ ~ QI a
0 0 0 p i ~ , p ri,l.Cl' f Q4 r ~ f .~IrFUT~.~OIAI,f`I;n ~t A
u,,V 0 J r V ~ ` ~ `I f i i DOT .oooa rj,~ / C_n.s RPb •a7,~9
~ . ~ n ~ ~ ~ r r. , ~a ' o ~a S~
a 0 ; BEGIN NTURE M1/~ 0 COkSTRU ION 2 Gr 0 I `C~ '20 ~,F 12' FUNNELo 0`\ / ~ ~:/,~~cGz81. IOQ ~ T.~S~ti~_~ NIQH PnINT CITY , j• fLU ,.,,r.rt ~ D~ -'--•,.~----.1~..DAE$~OF`--64t1C./,~-'na~1
•@ O a 13R I STA 62+54-5TA 65~40•L• ~ ~ ~ ~~.z ~~^r 'p u~'p, I ~~J
0 - ' •45 C ~ 4n TYPE XI ANC11pR \ ~ ~.:r~~T~~C ~ p i, LATERAL V DITCH ` t k'/CL,I RI RAP ~ .orot _-~~i;~'(ia~ p~~n 1 ' 14 ~,I S
I V RP'F~ ~ ~ ~ 0 T W SEE SHr,2-K, T. S.N0.8 _ i 0'` , - ~ ~,.p; ^.--rte}.~ ~ , • 2 I , - STA T. 80 lA 79 I C'L'. "~Q` a ,.C1, F
5`j 'G RAMP F(REY) 0 ~ ~ ~ ' 0 IS'RC I J` 4 R i~ - hcc, FiC FAC 6Q r 0 1'iTi Fr~7 Q/5~ EIT`!.~ S 4t T RP' h' r° ~PUt1_,L[ Q n~xa 7 .S.T •L~L~n
1 ~ PI •12+4632 0 ~ p BENCINI REALITY LIIAITEO COs ~ , _ D 31'29'50.9' RT Q l ~ ~0 td ~ ~ 6GD i C°-EE SHT 2•K IStyJ6 a. rtW.t.v ~ •
0 D • 2.30'00• _ , N I C Lc •1259.8989 0 ~ , / x ff / ~q ~v x54 ~ ,v ~ -~f ~ ~0~- ~p,~0, 0,, U,I,!
y R• 2291.6312' _RAUP F P 0 1 i ~ O t .97.00 RP ' ~ 1 C~~ 0 ~ ~ S 15" 1, ~ ~ _ - v'~.p :~`+.~v'~..
' 1t _ T • 646.306T ~ ~ C ?0 00_00, - ' Z~. ' t f Gl 0 xl~T 4.1 0' r , I 0 ~ V ~ 0 4a~ ~ ,
e 1 0 5' _ R/UAP F Q~ Qt ~ 0 ~ / ~ \ .1,, / •I
.x. ,1, ~""'~•~r--...T_~~_.`--';~..~)..3 PI •23*2i9S 1 ~ +°OT41+ ORAUa q~ 0 ~'0'~ •:~;>rl~ 0 J^C'~. E •10'43'30 RT 4 I N' r S.3~jRAM~P9T 4 STA25+O9.5TA32tT0RP.D "t\\µ~ ,0'' 'TO, ~ ~ .:;N+r p ' E•! a$ aT R FJ r~ ~ ~ a p,. a . pF'n~ IT H ,0 .
1 ~ D •1.39'07• ~ 1 'ry ` f ERE IUD^D~• e 1 f Le •650.0000' p , ! r 0 L T, SEE SHi 2•K L / D ,C1' ~ x • ' m jam' ,Y/ . i
3 724715
1 10 T •325.9523' ~ ,1 1 r ~ ° r 0 . p , , • ~ , , ~
0 t~ ~~RI • Ff / ~ a•p ..,tom r ~",,,G , s dtp ,0`~• d,~ T ~ G e _ ; 'E`er- ~ 1, ~0
~4 - ~~r~ 0 ` 'A 0 1 1;1 - 0 0 ~S i Ca , ,;r ~ r I t
~ h O 0 1 ~ 0 POC 35.54.10 RP. ~ 1 N. C, OOT Q I / ' h~ ~ ~ '0 ate' ,'0~1/ ~ ,n'' ,1;Ti:' V 0~~ ~ % ~ _~~''9u~S.
` +0 's w+00.00-Y21 T + I RP'F' ~ 1 t ~ h~ I ' 7 ~ 0 POT 41+16 - STa 36+30' STa 40+OS RP. D POC 35~ 8120 RP F ~ ~0 a a / ~ ~ .r~-,~ (Gi /_Q/ X10 ~'r _ ~ / ~
0 ~s` ~ a 47,Of1.T22• L4TER4~i i 4 I \\L 1 i .SEE SHT.2•IC L ! I ENDC1rISTnuCT10N S.N0.11 C+ I y E 7• f ,«~'ba
0 ~ - I } ~ ~ $TA 39,60•STA4ptp -.~T ''99.01 pSL@~74+ r ~ ! , ~ - "t9~ - ~ ~ c
o ~ ! r Oµ ~ _D~ab ~ 0 E2F;Rv ~ O,t, . A .
~y ~ ~ 0 , r / p ONO /i`~-~_ / v g" "V', } t , ~.,-tea=::' ~ 't I,
_ ~.6.. ire 0 ~ 4 - . - - N~50' ~ 49 a...ulaEO 'O-', y.. I 1 0 `i' ~S/ a ° ~,p Vj i ~ y , r f w1 .y~. +4 Y, f \ • ' '~M y : IS' 'a ~ ~'y rsot + ~•o ~ ' a- = FssrELe.oG, . _fl 1 Q
O li Ate' A' ~ ~ i PER ~ PAVED SHIDR. 4' _ p ' - o g ' / ,O'\~ /"'~I° -I r ~ 1.1 (.Il ~ * ,d t 4 ~F.. R„2, f." ,T., ,i''~•. f ' CL'B STONE ~ . "O r:'r h. ~
,0% 0 ` / ~ ` „0'tAV R J6'RCP • ! r ~ 1 END PRyO~NG ~ 1~ 'SIDE fAN nEG IN~T I' 0 i'~ 1~ / ~ C~. ail: ')f' ' r ~ !r- a: e , , ~ ,0 , i~ I1 r IIII yi~~ 'i '',,5., i- i y~~ ~ ~ 0 ti ~ ~ p\ ~ V'' W C~~~NV_ a~ w' .t}y A fi '.i ~ P ff \ J"-.[--+_~ ~1 `.r.~, 1.~a} ,
0 S 86' 0/' S7 06' W 0 4 0 29 I ~ ~ g ~ o, ~ ~ i ~ i xp i ' ,Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .0 ~ r - . C? 0 y~ ~ y~nr~ Y t~'• :4' fit/ 1 / ~ ~ I a,0 i 'B'Y 5 F1Lf.V V%I I ~Q t, s.zF ~r / rti ~,0~ ~\~1~ I~
° `1 l ~ I N i !V~DWN LNC~ N b, r ~ ~ .i s ea~4' a7.oe'w ~ o g , ~Q Y,. ~ , ~`c% 1 b•RCIFUnRE1 ' N a , ' ~ . , ,1,0, ~ ~i ~ u . ~ < c c . sTn . EO • s• A n I ~,0 / J / _ ,0 + p'` /r~.%~5 ,,p L P STONE l•1TEI'AL D,'~^V ;~.L. i / ,p / ~ / - - ,u3 _ inn /l+ ,r0 ~,O \ ^I. .Y ~ I
°,1 t ~ ° sf q N ° Q 78' s MONO I.+ I:IANDtfl1 unE c9ot.1P A - JV iA PER /I PAYEO SHIDA, won U°i4~~ ' R ~PT ~ ~ ~ ~ ,p'1i' ~'Q ~ - ~jx~, - ~,O / 0 SIii2•It,f.CN~~a. - 7 , c - , ~~E-'_ _ - - - ,e ~ ~ TS' BEAM y , .emu, • ~'r ~ \.0' IS' Pr \•CI,.1 41r Ra r , p
~ 27aOp.00 RP'r ( ° Y 0 ~ ~ 4' : CIJC PAVING 0 t°j ~ 7
4 ~ X01" Ci'b'S'uhEIFUTU6El ~ 2' '588• ST, ,0"' :tee 1 ~ EN • ~ a ~ rt` .r4 i , 0 y \0 0 Yp;: 5 / 0 1.,1 61 _--rT" r. Q ~0
MO r0+0% ? . ` ~ 0 I ~f I ~ D PpIING D'~ / I 0 1 O I m I ,1,0 ,,0 T
1 1 xl 1. w ~ - _ ~ ,,,c ~ RAFAP-'C' a qqa /pa' CQ C,_- .m. -
~ ^r I POT 39,_ .404 Rp'D'. g., ~0 - , 11 ~ a I - _ X,. ~ ' ° ~ G HE AO~ L r -
POT 39.4Q41-Y22- LA ~ N ~ +s2 •1'O ~ ~ ~ CL' I RIP RAP 11 II 8 BC~ ~ .9•.. _ ;4
~ ,vO\ 1 I - +36.52 / s - ~ .o 11 p TA 23+00.00 L StpN - i'~ ` G - _ - i ~ 'Oy,
~ , ~ ~ STA 36t9S•39v40 RPp p' N I - ON 's'0 9' ~ - ~ LAT RAL 'V DITCH ~ " 6 ~ '1'0 ' ~ ' FUTURE GUAR A ' ` 45 ~ SEE SHT.2•N, T.S.N0.3 0 R MG~C Ct15TINf p I _I ~ ~ ,O `O .',~5~ ~ DR IL ?!*F'r ;.r. ,a / - - - - - - '~J _ - - • _ . q / G _ . • _ _ . L. a__c rgNE a r' q0' I ~,,,,,i.;,, l,~ ~ STAll+95'STA12~
9 P PAY M ~ 11 11 ~ ~ ,1 ~ .W" 1 or 17.1 .~}-x21 o E tN 11 p - " v-1~- FuruRE ~ 12'cuRe GUARDRAIL-~ e ~ , y ; 7 ~ • ~ G ~ ~ . f / .r p• x
1 POT10400.00•Y23 u ~ 0 ~ p,v •r 0 ~ A, / . ,'C1 •z.` j,~ r~,~~ ~ ,.0•~ + ~ / r) ,PRJPOSEO CHAIN LINx E - a~ / p' , T SA Fid r b 00.5 fA I I f 45
1 0 ~ - 11 o A,0 , a' / ' ~ ~ ,0 ~ ..a ~ 0 R, 11 ~ y ~.~,p,G•' S*a nl(>nRT TIU;N AN ,a p f ail&, ~ ~,c+' a / / DROPOSED A1W LAT RA 'i r. ~ 0 ' 0 STA 16100-STAIBtTS RPC SEE SiiT-py ~ N~ C
,Gs`' ~ 1 , ~ 0 PI 6.3 11 I " xOm / VINO . i -",fir, ••t "l ,,CS'12. ~ LEON / „0''' SEE SHT,2•K,T.S.N03 STAII}45'STA11+95 0
,1? / TIECUTgTCH IN D'~ 11 r ~ ` ~ ~ .I ~ tip/ ~ ~J 6 " EXISTING OI1CH ' ~ T 11 / y~ r J f 1 ~ `RE uN I J ~QQ./ D POT I RP' ' ~ 6 >~Ca . Qr~t~1 g , a•~ ~ 1 iE1825 fENC j' / i `,U roan ~?~R IT H . ~ t. ~ ~ ' / l/ ~.p w/CL I RIP A N,
0~~~ . ~ i 1 0 II ` i'ii/ d~°, 29.21.56 RP. C ' I . 10 I, ~4 .c0 ~ ~Q/ ap SEE SHT. 2•K, T.9•NOT
~ `11 t ____5TA 17 +Sp -Y21- \ 0 ~~~~p ' Oa 0 W LQ Al V ~,G. ,.yG~ ENO NTURE i _ ~~`4 f I 3 ~ / , p;,~ ~ ~ NNSTRUCTION ~ N rtI tso ~ p / ~ ~ ,Q ~ i / I 5 a•0 r _ 17 +79.32 ~ U y, RIP FLAP t' / 0 LAO
~ , i / / ! 0 POT 18,OC • Y21- ~ \t 0 P . / '*S_, / / 0 1DU ~ o ,o` o w / I
~ s . ~ / ~ - o I i/ , ~ ~ ` 1 c, ESC REAL ESTATE \ ° N ~ / 1 N ~ ' ~ i ~ o, . ,,,o,,,a,,.o,,,p. , , o
/ ~ a,~0a o 6' I /
,1 ~ ! x _ - wopl o ~n 0 I' 4 k~ / ,,o'I'o e tit. ~ p +ocos ~ 1
~A , 11 1 / I I , 'c 1~ - f „ ' i x I ~ ,,0'' i~ / 0 9 24' ' .oaoa ~ 0,\,0 " \,0'' 24-1. I
+°o ~ 1 ~ ~ Flllr lam' SHLADAD 0 ~ I .e0j / / pap xp 40,x0 0 ~ o ~ ~L.~•, ,p .o S~, t4 DETA~. OF I
/ i 0 .0'i v ~ I ( • ~ / / pS'U ~1p ,Y~1 N tC 6
,>~MN / p / ,p , INTERCHANGE AT / \,p~, 0 \ 0 DETAIL SHOWING R1VEIAENT BRIDGE RELAT104SHIP
/ , /3 4 / i d • n ~ 6 FOR FiAMP'D' FLYOV US , o ER. 311 (MAIN ST.) AND ~ / ~ti US 31
, 11 1` ~0 ! ~ ~ ~ aTa t'1 0 DENOTES PAVEMENT ' • O } ~ :U ~ ENO I.6 CB REMOVA~,~` ,,sv • ~ o ~ 25D . ~ / soo / o' 14}gl neool '
/ / ~p PROJECT N0, 8.1 o ~ ~ 570606
• . x,..11 v v1,o p / ! ~4 c:; o • 1 1\ 1 f ~o
~v .om, 1 r o 1 ~ v ~ o,~ ,,v~'w, / R • 609 D
1~ \1 ° o v r • G r w. ra ~ ~ GUILFORD COUNTY I / o.
11 11 ` '0 0 am (~YN - I NO ~ t1 .1 0 ~ D v N / r. I
~ ~ x ` +0 Opp w/ ° 'I p ~ 100 0 50 100 I I

r
J

to

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
February 10, 2006
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Director
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
FF ??
Rp,?
cy
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Subject: EEP Request for Mitigation for the US 311 Bypass, Guilford and Randolph
Counties, State Project No 81570601 and 81571501, TIP No. R-609, R-2606,
Work'Center Nos. 34345. 1.1 and 34480.1.1, Divisions 7 and 8.
The purpose of this letter is to request that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) provide confirmation that the EEP is willing, to provide compensatory
mitigation for the project in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed
July 22, 2003 by the United States Army Corp of Engineers (USAGE), the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) and the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT).
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to construct a bypass for existing
US 311' in Guilford and Randolph Counties. Unavoidable impacts requiring compensatory
mitigation will be offset by the EEP program.
JURISDICTIONAL RESOURCES
Impacts to jurisdictional resources have been avoided and minimized to the greatest extent
practical, as described in the permit application. An application for an Individual Permit will
be submitted upon receipt of acceptance of this mitigation. A copy of the permit application,
when submitted will be available at
http://www.ncdot.ora/doh/preconstruct/pe/neu/permit.html. Unavoidable impacts will be
offset by EEP.
The project is located in the Piedmont Physiographic Province in Guilford and Randolph
Counties in the Cape Fear and Yadkin River basin within Hydrological Cataloging Units
03030003 and 03040103, respectively.
The wetland impacts within the Cape Fear River basin HUC 03030003 requiring
mitigation consist of 2.233 acres of riverine wetland impacts and 1.948 acres of non-
riverine wetland impacts. A total of 19,821 feet of warm water stream impacts will
require offsite mitigation from EEP.
• The wetland impacts within the Yadkin River basin HUC 03040103 requiring mitigation
consist of 0.21 acres of riverine wetland impacts and 0.033 acres of non-riverine wetland

MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] CAPITAL BOULEVARD
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PARKER LINCOLN BUILDING-SUITE 201
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH, NC 27699
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598

impacts. Stream impacts requiring mitigation within the Yadkin River Basin total 7,242
feet of warm water impacts.
• Impacts to Stream Buffers within the Randleman Lake Watershed that will require
mitigation total 2,264,350 W. A breakdown of mitigation impacts is included in the
table below. The Randleman Buffer Rules require that mitigation for Zone 1 impacts are
mitigated at a ration of 3 to 1 and Zone 2 impacts are mitigated at a ratio of 1.5 to 1
prior. Mitigation requirements for the entire project will total 5,491,637 fl2 after the ratio
is applied. The Randleman Buffer Rules requires onsite mitigation credits must be
applied after the ratio is calculated. Onsite restoration of riparian stream buffers will
account for 102,036 ft 2 of mitigation. Offsite mitigation needs total 5,389,601 W.
Table 1: Randleman Buffer Impacts
Zone 1 Zone 2
Total Impacts Requiring Mitigation 1,396,741 867,609
Mitigation Required after Ratio 4,190,223 1,301,414
Total Mitigation Required 5,491,637
Onsite Mitigation 102,036
Offsite Mitigation Required' 5,389,601
Please send the letter of confirmation to Richard Spencer (USAGE Coordinator) at U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers, (PO Box 1890, Wilmington, NC 28402-1890). Mr. Spencer's Fax
number is 910-251-4025. The current let date for the project is September 19, 2006 for
which the let review date is July 25, 2006.
In order to satisfy regulatory assurances that mitigation will be performed; the NCDWQ
requires a formal letter from EEP indicating their willingness and ability to provide the
mitigation work requested by NCDOT. The NCDOT requests such a letter of confirmation
be addressed to Mr. John Hennessy of NCDWQ, with copies submitted to NCDOT.
Please respond to NCDOT in writing within 10 business days with an EEP acceptance letter
for this NCDOT project. If you have any questions or need additional information please call
Brett Feulner at 715-1488.
Sincerely, .
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.,
Environmental Management Director
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
cc
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ
Ms. Sue Homewood NCDWQ
Mr. Richard Spencer, USACE
Ms. Linda Fitzpatrick, NCDOT Natural Environment Unit
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P.E., NCDOT Project Management/Scheduling Unit
Mr. Todd Jones, NCDOT External Audit Branch
File R-609, R-2606

1,7
y? t}-
c"cJ13 ?t?t?l .,< «r lam: ?•?i?, ?,- ?" r1
- ?
_ _ , _ r
--

i / ?: L ??
«? ? ? ?C<<?r,?i "y;-+ fns«? ???S rr'?,? - !r?TJ?c<?-,? ? -• ?•s i?`':Cc?l ?i?=:?C.-.

'i-? r.(ICS.. ,?7?, "/, u.- ?J??cU-u.? ..?,..? /i?,7: '. s? .?(N/??/ /`' !fir •?? _

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
July 30, 1998
Ms. Cyndi Bell
Division of Water Quality
4401 Reedy Creek Rd
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Re: High Point Mitigation Site, Guilford County,
TIP Project No. R-609 WM
Dear Ms. Bell,
Please find enclosed the As-Built Report for the High Point Mitigation Site
located in Guilford County. The Resident Engineer responsible for this project, Ms.
Vickie Davis, P.E., has certified that the site was constructed according to construction
plan sheets, with any exceptions noted in this As-Built Report.
For completeness purposes, the following information has been included as part
of the As-Built Report: (1) Letter of Construction Compliance, (2) As-Built Plan
Sheet(s), (3) Planting Plan Sheets, (4) Well Location Map, (5) Contract Proposal, (6)
Summary of Costs, (7) Estimate of Quantities.
These particular As-Builts may have been previously submitted to your office.
However, we are hereby submitting another copy for your records. If you should have
any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact Phil
Harris, Wetland Mitigation Coordinator, at 919-733-7844 (Ext. 301). Thank you once
again for your continued support and cooperation.
Sincerely,
C?
David C. Robinson, Ph.D,P.E.
Assistant Branch Manager
Enclosures:
cc: Mr. David Franklin, USACE
Dr. V. Charles Bruton, NCDOT
Mr. Phil Harris, P.E., NCDOT
41174
WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
La Grange Property
Chatham County, North Carolina
State Project No. 8.1494001
TIP No. R-609WM
Prepared for:
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Raleigh, North Carolina
oF No arH ( ?o
y~
c 2
9???FHT OF TR AN5?0?~P
March 2003

0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) estimates that 951 acres of
wetland mitigation will be needed over the next nine years to offset planned impacts from
highway construction in the Piedmont region of the Cape Fear River Basin. The La
Grange Site, owned by the Triangle Land Conservancy (TLC), has been selected as a
potential mitigation site for a portion of these wetland impacts. The TLC property totals
about 308 acres, but only a portion of the property is being studied.
The wetland understudy is the LaGrange Diabase Bog, described by NC Natural
Heritage Program personnel as one of the rarest biological communities in the North
Carolina Piedmont region. In its current state, it consists of four forested stands with a
scattered ground cover of sphagnum moss, as well as a number of woody and herbaceous
plant species that are more commonly associated with coastal plain communities. In
1989, the bog was listed in the Chatham County Natural Heritage Inventory as a Priority
Natural Area covering 46 acres. Some time after that, the previous landowner
constructed a gravel road and several cattle paths through the bog area. Recent field
investigations show the actual remaining area of the forested stands to be about 12 acres.
An additional 2 acres has wetland soils and hydrology, but only herbaceous vegetation.
Restoration of the areas cleared for the road and cattle paths and enhancement of an area
that is presumed to be part of the former 46-acre bog could potentially increase the
wetland and continuous forested area to about 21 acres.
Earth Tech proposes to restore about 4 acres of maintained grassland back to hillside
seepage wetland to reconnect the remaining forested fragments both in terms of
vegetation and hydrology. This would also enhance the existing 14 acres of wetland. In
17-3 addition, Earth Tech proposes to reforest the 18.5-acre open pasture in front of the
wetland restoration/enhancement area and the 9-acre terrace above it to provide additional
water quality benefits and continuous wildlife habitat. Benefits of this mitigation plan
include the following:
• Restoration and enhancement of a rare natural community (NHP rank S 1).
• Increase in functional capacity.
• Stabilization of soils and elimination of erosion on the cleared slopes.
• Water quality benefits to the Deep River through increased storage and filtering
U capacity.
• Water quality benefits to the downstream Critical Water Supply Watershed near
Gulf, North Carolina.
• Continuous forested corridor providing habitat for herpetofauna, migratory birds, and
a small mammals.
• Mitigation for impacts to hydrologic, plant community/habitat, animal community,
and biogeochemical functions
D
a
0
0
0
Wetland Mitigation Plan
La Grange Site, Chatham County
SECTION PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. . 1
2.0 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................. .2
2.1 PRELIMINARY DATA COLLECTION ........................................................................ . 2
2.2 FIELD SURVEYS .................................................................................................... . 3
2.2.1 General Field Surveys .................................................................................. . 3
2.2.2 Functional Assessment ..................................................................................3
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ..................................................................................... 3
3.1 GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY .......................................................... 4
3.2 SoILs .................................................................................................................... 4
3.3 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES ................................................................................. 5
3.3.1 Seepage Wetland ........................................................................................... 5
3.3.2 Maintained Grassland Community ................................................................ 7
3.3.3 Reference Area .............................................................................................. 8
3.4 WILDLIFE OF THE LA GRANGE SITE ...................................................................... 8
3.5 PROTECTED SPECIES/PRIORITY AREAS ................................................................ 10
4.0 SITE HYDROLOGY ............................................................................................ 11
4.1 DRAINAGE FEATURES ......................................................................................... 11
4.2 MONITORING GAUGES ........................................................................................ 12
4.3 WATER BUDGET .................................................................................................. 13
4.3.1 Methodology ................................................................................................ 13
4.3.2 Assumptions ................................................................................................ 14
4.3.3 Inputs ........................................................................................................... 14
4.3.4 Outputs ........................................................................................................ 15
4.3.5 Results ......................................................................................................... 16
4.3.6 Interpretation ............................................................................................... 16
4.4 NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM MAPPING ........................................... 16
5.0 MITIGATION PLAN ............................................................................................ 17
5.1 HYDROLOGICAL RESTORATION ........................................................................... 17
5.2 REFORESTATION .................................................................................................. 17
6.0 Monitoring ............................................................................................................. 20
6.1 VEGETATION ....................................................................................................... 20
6.1.1 Monitoring Methods .................................................................................... 20
6.1.2 Success Criteria ........................................................................................... 20
6.2 HYDROLOGY ....................................................................................................... 20
6.2.1 Monitoring Methods .................................................................................... 21
6.2.2 Success Criteria ........................................................................................... 21
7.0 Wetland Mitigation Credit .................................................................................... 21
8.0 Dispensation of the Property ................................................................................. 23
9.0 Additional Considerations ..................................................................................... 24
10.0 Bibliography ....................................................................................................... 25
March 2003
0
0 Wetland Mitigation Plan
La Grange Site, Chatham County
TABLES
Table 1. Seepage Wetland Community Species ................................................................ 6
Table 2. Maintained Grassland Community Species ........................................................ 8
Table 3. Species Under Federal Protection in Chatham County ..................................... 10
Table 4. Hillside Seepage Wetland Species .................................................................... 18
Table 5. Bottomland Hardwood Species ......................................................................... 19
Table 6. Upland Species ...........................................................
Table 7. Change in Functional Capacity ........................................................................ 22
FIGURES
(at end of document)
p Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Existing Conditions
Figure 3. Soil Map
Figure 4. Natural Communities Map
Figure 5. Hydrographs
Figure 6. Proposed Mitigation
t
ation Conce
e 7
Post-Miti
Fi
p
g
gur
.
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Functional Assessment
Appendix B. Historic Aerials
Appendix C. TLC Site Inventory
a Appendix D. Water Budget
Appendix E. Letters and Minutes
a
0
ii
March 2003
a Wetland Mitigation Plan
La Grange Site, Chatham County
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) estimates that 951 acres of
wetland mitigation will be needed over the next nine years to offset planned impacts from
highway construction in the Piedmont region of the Cape Fear River Basin. On the basis
of a previous feasibility study and a functional assessment included in this plan, the La
Grange Site has been selected as a mitigation site for a portion of these wetland impacts
(Figure 1). The property belongs to the Triangle Land Conservancy (TLC). It consists of
a riparian buffer along a bend in the Deep River and a hillside seepage wetland inland
from the riverbanks. The entire property is about 308 acres in size.
The wetland understudy is known as the LaGrange Diabase Bog, described by NC
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) personnel as one of the rarest biological
communities in the North Carolina Piedmont region. It is a forested stand over hydric
soils with a scattered ground cover of sphagnum moss, as well as a number of woody and
herbaceous plant species that are more commonly associated with coastal plain
communities. These species include sweetbay magnolia (Magnolia virginiana), Virginia
chainfern (Woodtivardia virginiana), blaspheme vine (Smilax laurifolia), coral greenbrier
(Smilax walteri), stiff cowbane (Oxypolis rigidior), and twisted spikerush (Eleocharis
tortilis). In 1989, the bog was listed in the Chatham County Natural Heritage Inventory as
a Priority Natural Area covering 46 acres. Some time after that, the previous landowner
constructed a gravel road and several cattle paths through the bog area. Recent field
investigations show the actual remaining area of the forested stands to be about 12 acres.
D Restoration of wetlands on this site will provide water quality benefits to the Deep River
and the downstream Critical Water Supply Watershed near Gulf, North Carolina.
Earth Tech was retained by the NCDOT Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch to conduct a functional assessment and prepare a wetland mitigation
plan for the site. The purpose of this study was to assess the site in greater detail than
Q was done in the Feasibility Study and to prepare a mitigation plan to restore wetlands on
the site. This report describes the results of a natural resources assessment, a wetland
determination, a soils investigation, a groundwater evaluation, and the functional
n assessment.
On the basis of these results, Earth Tech proposes to restore about 4 acres of maintained
grassland back to hillside seepage wetland to reconnect the remaining forested fragments
both in terms of vegetation and hydrology. This would also enhance the existing 14 acres
of wetland. In addition, Earth Tech proposes to reforest the 18.5-acre open pasture in
front of the wetland restoration/enhancement area and the 9-acre terrace above it to
provide additional water quality benefits and continuous wildlife habitat. Benefits of this
mitigation plan include the following:
a
March 2003
a Page 1
Wetland Mitigation Plan
La Grange Site, Chatham County
U Restoration and enhancement of a rare natural community (NFIP rank S 1).
• Increase in functional capacity.
• Stabilization of soils and elimination of erosion on the cleared slopes.
• Water quality benefits to the Deep River through increased storage and filtering
a capacity.
• Water quality benefits to the downstream Critical Water Supply Watershed near
Gulf, North Carolina.
• Continuous forested corridor providing habitat for herpetofauna, migratory birds, and
small mammals.
• Mitigation for impacts to hydrologic, plant community/habitat, animal community,
and biogeochemical functions
2.0 METHODOLOGY
This mitigation plan was based on the analysis of existing materials and mapping and on
field data collected between January 2000 to August 2002. The following sections
present the methodology used for collecting data and evaluating the property's suitability
as a wetland mitigation site.
2.1 PRELIMINARY DATA COLLECTION
Prior to conducting the field activities, information concerning the site and surrounding
area was collected. This information included the following:
• U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Goldston (1980) topographic quadrangle map.
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Map,
Goldston (1995).
• January 2000 color aerial photograph (1 "=400') of the project area provided by
NCDOT.
• Topographic mapping provided by NCDOT.
• Chatham County Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) draft soil survey
maps
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) list of protected species.
• North Carolina Natural Heritage Programs (NCNHP) database of uncommon species
and unique habitats.
Water resource information was obtained from publications of the North Carolina
Department of Environment, and Natural Resources (DENR, 2002), Division of Water
Quality (DWQ). Information concerning the occurrence of federal and state protected
species in the study area was obtained from the FWS list of protected species and Federal
Species of Concern (March 2002) and from the NCNHP database of rare species and
unique habitats. The NCNHP files were reviewed for documented occurrences of state or
March 2003
a Page 2
0
0
Wetland Mitigation Plan
La Grange Site, Chatham County
federally listed species and locations of significant natural areas and Natural Heritage
Priority Areas.
2.2 FIELD SURVEYS
2.2.1 General Field Surveys
Field surveys were conducted by Earth Tech biologists on several occasions between
January and July, 2000. Water resources were identified and their physical characteristics
were recorded. Plant communities and their associated wildlife were identified using a
variety of observation techniques, including active searching, visual observations, and
identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, tracks, scats, and burrows).
Terrestrial community classifications generally follow Schafale and Weakley (1990)
where appropriate and plant taxonomy follows Radford et al. (1968). Vertebrate
taxonomy follows Rohde et al. (1994), Conant et al. (1998), the American Ornithologists'
Union (2002), and Webster et al. (1985). Vegetative communities were mapped using
aerial photography of the project site. Predictions regarding wildlife community
composition involved general qualitative habitat assessment based on existing vegetative
communities and previously published reports.
Earth Tech personnel performed detailed soil surveys. A series of soil borings were
performed across the site. Borings were at selected points based upon field observations,
vegetation, and topography. Soil properties and profiles were described, and the depth to
groundwater or hydric indicators noted.
Wetland areas were identified and delineated in accordance with criteria established in
the U.S. Arny Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACE, 1987). The
wetland boundaries were flagged and mapped using GPS survey techniques.
Ground water monitoring gauges were installed in February 2000. Monitoring has
continued monthly up to the present time.
2.2.2 Functional Assessment
A modified wetland functional assessment was developed to evaluate the existing
ecosystem functions of the La Grange site and to estimate the degree of increase in
function that could potentially be achieved after restoration. The assessment was
conducted during July 2002. A full description of this study is included as Appendix A.
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
D This section details the current features of the mitigation site including existing
topography, soils, plant communities, and drainage features. Figure 2 is a site map
showing some of these features.
March 2003
Page 3
0
0
a
0
Wetland Mitigation Plan
La Grange Site, Chatham County
3.1 GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY
The historic LaGrange farm is located about 5 miles south of Goldston, North Carolina
in a rural area of Chatham County. It has been logged, cultivated, and grazed for over 300
years. It was a 630-acre, roughly triangular property within a distinctive bend in the Deep
River. This bend is caused by a northwest-trending diabase dike and sill system. The dike
bisects the farm, and the sill underlies the broad, flat ancient river terrace that slopes
abruptly down to the active Deep River floodplain. In 1998, TLC purchased a portion of
the historic farm with a grant from the Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF).
The TLC purchase includes the remnant hillside seepage wetland at the base of the steep
slope, some adjacent floodplain, and the riparian zone along the Deep River. The interior
portion was sold to a nurseryman who is cultivating ornamental trees and shrubs on the
former upland farm fields.
An aerial photo from 1955 shows nearly the entire floodplain and riparian zone under
forested cover. Numerous small drainage features are shown originating in the seepage
area and draining generally north to a mapped intermittent stream that drains into the
Deep River. See Appendix B. Since 1955, some of the drainages have been channelized,
at least one ditch was dug, and all but the very wettest forested areas were cleared to
provide pasture for cattle and access for farm machinery. The intermittent stream
receiving drainage from the slope was dammed and now forms an 11-acre impoundment.
The proposed mitigation site consists of about 21 acres, starting along a line of seeps in
the steep slope rimming the floodplain and continuing out about 900 feet to a low rise
between the slope and the riverbanks. Twelve acres are forested remnants of the seepage
wetland and two acres are pasture with hydric soils and wetland hydrology. Four acres are
maintained pasture. The remaining three acres are areas of non-hydric pasture. There is an
18.5-acre area of pasture to the north of the wetland and a 9-acre strip of pasture on the
terrace above it to the south. See Figure 2.
3.2 SOILS
Soil information for Chatham County was obtained from draft maps prepared by the
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS, 1999). See Figure 3.
The Sylacauga-Moncure complex is mapped in the majority of the proposed mitigation
area. Sylacauga soils are very deep, somewhat poorly drained, slowly permeable soils
formed in loamy and silty alluvium.
The Moncure unit is a newly described soil that was formerly included in the Roanoke
series. It does not appear yet on the official list of hydric soils, but the Chatham County
NRCS staff indicated that it is a hydric soil with a seasonal high water table within 12
March 2003
Page 4
a
0
Wetland Mitigation Plan
La Grange Site, Chatham County
inches of ground surface. Moncure soils are very deep, poorly drained, slowly permeable
soils formed in silty alluvium.
A finger of Peawick sandy loam is mapped along one of the seep drainages in the
mitigation area. Peawick soils are very deep, moderately well drained, slowly permeable
soils formed in clayey fluvial sediments.
A detailed hydric soil delineation was performed to accurately determine the areas of
open pasture with hydric soils that could be considered for restoration. Soils in the
maintained grasslands showed hydric characteristics as far out as the slope break on the
low rise in front of the forested fragments. In the forested fragments, hydric
characteristics and hydrology were present throughout and midway up the steep slope
bordering the wetland area. A representative of the USACE visited the site on March 9,
2001 to confirm the delineation.
3.3 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES
Four terrestrial communities are present on the entire TLC property. They are river levee
forest, Piedmont bottomland hardwood forest, seepage wetland, and maintained grassland
(pasture). See Figure 4. The river levee community is beyond the immediate project area
and is not discussed in this report. The other three communities are described below. In
the proposed mitigation area, only the seepage wetland and maintained grassland
communities are represented. The seepage wetland areas are the forested fragments that
remain at the base of the steep slope. The maintained grassland communities occupy the
terrace at the top of the slope, the areas between the forested fragments, and the area from
the forested fragments to the river bank.
3.3.1 Seepage Wetland
The hillside seepage wetland, described in NCNHP records as a diabase bog, is a very
a rare community type in the Piedmont. Hillside seepage wetlands are described by
Schafale and Weakley (1990) as small areas on slopes or at the edge of bottomlands with
wet, mucky soils. The areas are permanently saturated to intermittently dry and often have
zoned vegetation. There may be a dense herbaceous interior that includes sphagnum moss
and a forested outer edge. These plant communities may have a strong Coastal Plain
affinity, and the more acidic sites may have pitcher plants (Sarracenia spp.). In The
Nature Conservancy's (TNC, 1998) vegetation classification scheme, this community
would fit in the I.B.2.N.g.015 Acer rubrum-Nyssa sylvatica Saturated Forest Alliance.
Within that alliance, this community corresponds to the Acer rubrunt var. trilobum-
Liriodendron tulipifera/Ilex opaca var. opacal0smunda cinnamomea Forest Association
(4551).
0
0
An inventory of the property conducted for TLC (Ellum, 1999) lists several plants that
more commonly occur in the Coastal Plain and are considered regionally rare in the
March 2003
Page 5
Wetland Mitigation Plan
La Grange Site, Chatham County
Piedmont. They are sweetbay magnolia (Magnolia ofis virguuana), blaspheme vine Smilax
laurifolia), coral greenbrier (Smilax tivalteri), Virginia chainfern (Woodtivardia virginica),
a spikerush (Eleocharis tortilis), and stiff cowbane (Oxvpolis rigidior). Other species
found in the proposed wetland restoration area are listed in Table 1. The complete TLC
site inventory is found in Appendix C. A quantitative list of species is found in the
Functional Assessment in Appendix A. This community includes PAA's 1-6.
The Chatham County Natural Areas Inventory Report (Hall and Boyer, 1992) suggests
that the hillside wetland at the La Grange site overlies a richer soil derived from the
diabase sill. However, the current soil map unit, which has been revised a few times since
U the inventory report was written, shows soils formed in fluvial and alluvial Triassic
sediments rather than in colluvium from the diabase formation upslope. Spot pH readings
of standing water in the wetland areas were around 5.5, which is more acidic than would
be expected in a system with a strong diabase influence. Plants typically associated with
diabase are also absent from the site. Nonetheless, the lack of pitcher plants may suggest
that this site is not quite as sterile and acidic as some other hillside seepage wetlands.
Some of the soils upslope of the bog were in fact formed in diabase, and the soil and
water carried into the bog from runoff and seepage could be circumneutral to basic.
Standing water in the seepage wetland areas is common throughout in the winter and
persists in the wettest areas through the summer. The soils in these areas have a
brownish-black silt loam surface layer about 4 inches thick. At 4 inches, the profile is
variable. Some areas have a gravel or cobble layer between 4 and 36 inches. Other areas
have a blue-gray silty clay layer with oxidized rhizospheres and bright red mottles. The
seepage wetlands were open to cattle until March 1999 and may have been included in
the last selective timbering operation 50 years ago. These wetlands are not shown on
NWI mapping.
Table 1. Seepage Wetland Community Species
0
a
Stratum Common Name Scientific Name
Canopy Black m N ssa s lvatica
Che bark oak Quercits pagoda
Green ash Fraxinus ens lvanica
Red maple Acer rttbrum
Swam black m N ssa bi ora
Swam chestnut oak Quercus michauxii
Sweet gum Li uidambar s raci ua
Willow oak Quercus hellos
Yellow poplar Liriodettdron ttdi i era
Subcano Ash Fraxinus s p.
Common alder Alms serrtdata
Ironwood Car inus caroliniana
Water oak Querctts ni ra
Winged elm Ulnttts alata
March 2003
Page 6
0
0
0
0
Wetland Mitigation Plan
Lei Grange Site, Chathatn County
Stratum Common Name Scientific Name
Shrubs/Vines American holly Iles o aca
Common reenbrier Smilax rotundi olia
Crossvine Bignonia ca reolata
Elderberry Sambucus canadensis
Hi hbush blueberry Vaccinium con-ntbosutn
Male-berry L onia li ustrina
Possum-haw flex decidua
Southern wild raisin Vibunuun nudum
S icebush Lindera benzoin
Swam doghobble Lettcothoe racemosa
Winterberry Ilex verticillata
Herbs Arrowhead Sa ittaria lon irostrata
Cardinal flower Lobelia cardinalis
Cinnamon fern Osmunda cinnamorttea
Green arrow-arum Peltandra vir inica
Jack-in-the-pulpit Arisaema tri ltvllum
Lizard-tail Sattrurus cernuus
Netted chain fern Woodwardia areolata
Royal fern Osmunda regalis
Rush Juncos coriaceus
edges Carex s pp.
Sensitive fern Onoclea sensibilis
Soft rush Juncus e ustts
Southern lad fern Ath ritun tlix- emina var. as lenioides
Spotted jewelweed Impatiens capensis
Violets Violas .
Moss Yellow eatmoss S ha nuns lescurd
3.3.2 Maintained Grassland Community
The maintained grassland community is not a natural community and therefore is not
described in Schafale and Weakley. The TNC classification has provisions for cultural
communities and this community would fit in the V.A.5.N.c.050 Festttca spp.
Herbaceous Alliance. This alliance includes active and inactive pastures that may be
nearly monocultures or may contain a number of native grasses, sedges, and forbs. At the
La Grange site, the portion of this community within the proposed mitigation area is no
longer grazed but is regularly mowed. Species listed in the TLC inventory report (Ellum,
1999) are shown below in Table 2. A quantitative list of species is found in the
Functional Assessment in Appendix A. This community includes PAA's 7-10.
March 2003
Page 7
a
0
Wetland Mitigation Plan
La Grange Site, Chatham County
Table 2. Maintained Grassland Community Species
Stratum Common Name Scientific Name
Herbs Fescue Festuca s p.
Sedges Carex spp.
Rushes Juncus spp.
Broomsed e Andro 0 on s pp.
Sorrel Oxalis s pp.
Violets Viola spp.
Common bluet Houstonia caerulea
A bluet Houstonia usilla
Indian strawberry Duchesnea indica
Atamasco lily Ze h ranthes atamasco
Vetch Vicia spp.
Star-of-bethlehem Ornitho g alum umbellatum
Milkweed Ascle ias s pp.
a Standing water is present in depressions through the spring, but most of these depressions
are dry during the summer and fall. The soils generally have a dark gray-brown surface
horizon about 4 inches thick, followed by a yellow-brown silty clay loam with gray and
0 red mottles from 4 to 12 inches. A light gray silty clay loam is found from 12 to 40
inches.
3.3.3 Reference Area
The hillside seepage wetland is the community type to which the maintained grasslands
would be restored in the proposed mitigation area. Because this is a unique community,
the existing wetland fragments on the site would serve as the reference community for the
restoration. See the Functional Assessment in Appendix A for more discussion on the
reference area (PAA 1) and standards for restoration.
3.4 WILDLIFE OF THE LA GRANGE SITE
The LaGrange site offers a variety of habitats that are beneficial to wildlife. Species
actually observed on the site are denoted with an asterisk (*). This is not an exhaustive
list of the wildlife species observed at the site, and additional species information is listed
in Appendix C.
Species that prefer open areas to feed and nest in can be found in the maintained
grassland community. Grasslands provide critical breeding and/or foraging habitat for
many bird species such as loggerhead shrikes (Lanius ludovicicnuts), eastern bluebirds*
(Sialia sialis), eastern meadowlarks* (Sturnella magna), and field sparrows* (Spizella
pusilla). Raptors such as Northern harriers* (Circus cyaneus), red-tailed hawks* (Buteo
O March 2003
a Page 8
I
0
Wetland Mitigation Plan
Li Grange Site, Chathan County
januticencis), and great horned owls (Bubo virginianus) utilize grassland areas to find
their preferred small mammal prey. These include white-footed mice* (Peromyscus
leucoptts), golden mice* (Ochrotomys nuttali), and meadow voles (Microtus
pennsVlvanicus) which forage on the plentiful insects and seeds. Coyote* (Canis latrans)
tracks and scat have been observed on the road that bisects the grassland area, where this
species probably hunts small mammals and birds.
Many species are highly adaptive and may utilize the edges of forests and clearings or
prefer a mixture of habitat types. The eastern cottontail* (Sylvilagits floridanits) prefers a
mix of herbaceous and woody vegetation and may be found in the dense shrub vegetation,
within the forest, or out in the grassy fields. White-tailed deer* (Odocoileus virginianus)
will utilize the forested areas as well as the adjacent open areas for foraging. Red foxes
(Vulpes vulpes) may forage along the forest edge, but prefer to den in open areas, like the
adjacent grassland. Indigo bunting* (Passerina cyanea), common yellowthroat*
(Geothl_ypis trichas), and yellow breasted chat* (Ictereia virens) are neotropical migrants
that inhabit dense, shrubby vegetation along transitional areas. Northern bobwhite quail*
(Colinas virginianus), eastern towhee* (Pipilo erythropltthahnits), song sparrow*
(Melospiza tnelodia), and white-throated sparrow-' (Zonotrichia albicollis) are other bird
species that rely on edge habitat for feeding and nesting. The black rat snake (Elaphe
obsoleta) will come out of forested habitat to forage on rodents in open areas.
Forested areas are important habitat for many species. Neotropical migratory birds, in
particular, are dependent on these areas. In the leaf litter of the forested habitats, the
southern short-tailed shrew (Blarina carolinensis) searches for its insect prey, while gray
squirrels* (Scittrus carolinensis) and raccoons* (Procyon lotor) may be seen foraging on
the ground or in trees. Neotropical migratory bird species such as prothonotary warbler*
(Protonotaria citrea), black-throated green warbler* (Dendroica virens), and northern
waterthrush* (Seiurus noveboracencis) thrive in wooded wetland locations, while black-
and-white warbler* (Mniotilta varia), yellow-billed cuckoo* (Coccyzus antericanus), and
red-eyed vireo* (Vireo olivaceotts) prefer the upland woods. The eastern box turtle
(Terrapene carolina) is a terrestrial turtle but will be found near streams in hot, dry
weather. The five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciattts) rough green snake (Opheodrys
aestivtts) may also be found in forested communities, along with the marbled
salamander* (Ambystoma opacum).
Hillside seeps benefit all wildlife as a water source for direct consumption, reproduction,
and foraging. The hillside seeps are particularly attractive to amphibians that rely on
vernal pools as egg-laying locations. The spotted salamander* (Ambystoma maculatunt),
two-lined salamander* (Eurycea bislineata), and the regionally rare southern dusky
a salamander* (Desmognathus auriculattts) are all known to utilize seepage areas.
Potential habitat is also present for the state-protected four-toed salamander
a (Hentidactylum scutatum). Frogs such as the spring peeper* (Hyla crucifer) and the
American toad* (Bufo atnericatus) make use of the same areas for reproduction and
feeding.
March 2003
Page 9
0
0
Wetland Mitigation Plan
La Grange Site. Chatham County
3.5 PROTECTED SPECIES/PRIORITY AREAS
The USFWS lists 4 species under federal protection in Chatham County. See Table 3
below. A review of the Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and unique
habitats revealed no occurrences of any species under state or federal protection or
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) within the proposed mitigation area. A population of
the Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas), which is listed as Endangered on both the
state and federal lists, occurs in the Deep River about 2 miles upstream of the LaGrange
site. The hillside seepage wetland itself is listed by NCNHP as the La Grange Diabase
Bog Priority Natural Area with a state rank of "S1-Critically imperiled in North Carolina
because of extreme rarity or otherwise very vulnerable to extirpation in the state."
No habitat exists in the proposed mitigation area for any species under federal protection.
Therefore, mitigation activities will have no effect on these species.
Table 3. Species Under Federal Protection in Chatham County

Common Name Scientific Name Status
Vertebrates
Bachman's sparrow into hila aestivalis FSC
Bald eagle aliaeetus leucocephalus hreatened(Proposed for
delistin )
Cape Fear shiner otropis ntekistocholas ndan ered
Carolina redhorse oxostorna s p. FSC
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Invertebrates
Atlantic i toe usconaia masoni FSC
Brook floater lasmidonta varicosa FSC
Se tima's clubtail dragonfly Gom hits septima FSC
Yellow lam mussel am silis cariosa FSC
Vascular Plants
Ha erella tilimnium nodosum Endan ered
Vir inia uillwort soetes virginica FSC
The NCNHP lists a number of species with a state status of threatened, endangered, or of
concern for Chatham County. None of these species are known to occur within the
proposed mitigation area, although habitat exists for the loggerhead shrike (Lanius
ludovicianus ludovicianus) and the four-toed salamander (Hemidactyliean scutatum).
March 2003
Page 10
Wetland Mitigation Plan
La Grange Site, Chatham County
4.0 SITE HYDROLOGY
4.1 DRAINAGE FEATURES
The proposed southwestern mitigation area is fed by a series of seeps and springs located
along the steep slope at the edge of the hillside wetland. The water presumably is forced
to the surface at mid-slope by the diabase sill. The area is drained by a network of small
ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial drainage channels that feed into the two main
drainages (S2 and S3) of a stream (S1) that is mapped as intermittent on both USES and
MRCS maps, but is now obscured by the pond. Although unmapped, S2 and S3 appear on
the 1955 aerial photograph as natural drainages, but they have been deepened and
straightened since then by the previous landowner. S2 and S3 each drain roughly half of
the mitigation area. They drain into the impoundment and then the main stem (S1) drains
into the Deep River near the northern boundary of the property. See Figure 2 for the
location of the streams and drainage features.
Within the seepage wetland areas, these drainage channels are less than one foot wide and
only a couple of inches deep with sandy or silty substrates. One drainage feature (DF1) in
the southeastern half of the mitigation area was obviously deepened and straightened
a from its origin at a seep to feed an excavated cattle watering pond. The 2-foot high banks
are vertical but well-vegetated. The spoil from the excavation of the channel forms a
berm along the length of the channel. Flow is low to moderate, and the water may be up
to a foot deep in some pools. The substrate is silt and sand with some small gravel.
Numerous 2- to 4-foot high dirt mounds or berms are present around the edges of the
forested fragments. The former owner says some are spoil from land clearing activities
and some were deliberately constructed to keep water out of the cleared areas. The berms
do seem to be placed to direct flow towards the drainages instead of allowing water to
spread out over the surface.
a S2, which drains the northwestern half of the mitigation area on the border between the
forested fragments and maintained grassland, was channelized according to the previous
owner. A culvert was also installed to facilitate the passage of vehicles. The banks are one
foot high and lined with small trees, shrubs, and herbs. Flow is low to moderate, and the
water may be up to a foot deep. The substrate is sand and silt, with some gravel farther
downstream.
S3 and S4 through the maintained grassland areas are up to 2 feet wide but are still quite
shallow. The water level is about 6 inches deep in the wettest part of the year, decreasing
to 1 to 2 inches in the growing season. The channels and banks are poorly defined and
grown over with blackberry and rushes. Water flows very slowly through these drainages
over a substrate of sand and silt.
0
March 2003
a Page 11
Wetland Mitigation Plan
La Grange Site, Chatham County
One drainage feature (DF2) that appears on aerial photography from January 2000 was
not apparent on photography from 1955. Apparently a ditch was dug to enhance drainage
from one of the forested fragments and surrounding pasture. This ditch connects to one of
the streams (S4) draining the southeastern half of the proposed mitigation area. The
characteristics of DF2 are essentially the same as the other streams through the
maintained grassland areas. Despite the similarities, the other streams were reported to be
natural drainages by the former landowner.
According to the former owner, overbank flow from the Deep River reaches as far inland
as the hillside seepage wetland once or twice a year after major storm events. This
flooding occurred even before the construction of the dam on the intermittent stream (S1)
that drains the wetland.
v The Deep River (Index # 17-[32.5]) in this area is classified as a Class WS-IV waterbody.
By definition, the unnamed tributaries on the project site have the same best use
classification as their receiving waters. WS-IV waters are used as a source of water
supply for drinking, culinary, or food processing purposes for those users where a WS-I,
WS-II, or WS-III classification is not feasible. WS-IV waters are generally located within
moderately to highly developed watersheds. The La Grange property is within a WS-IV
Protected Water Supply Watershed and is about 2 miles downstream from a section of the
Deep River classified as High Quality Water.
4.2 MONITORING GAUGES
a Eleven continuously recording groundwater monitoring gauges were installed in the
proposed mitigation area to study groundwater conditions and to determine jurisdictional
wetland hydrology. See Figure 2 for gauge locations. Hydrographs are shown in Figures
5A-C. Areas which are seasonally inundated and/or saturated to the surface for more than
12.5% of the growing season are jurisdictional wetlands. Areas saturated to the surface
between 5% and 12.5% of the growing season may be jurisdictional wetlands if soils and
vegetation meet jurisdictional criteria. Measurements were taken from March 1, 2000
through Nov 20, 2002. Data for three growing seasons were analyzed (257 days from
March 12 to November 23).
0

Data analysis shows jurisdictional hydrology in all three years for three of the four gauges
installed in the forested fragments of the seepage wetland (Gauges 1, 4, 8, and 9). Gauge
8 was jurisdictional in 2000 but showed erratic responses in the following years. Gauges
1, 4, and 9 were jurisdictional for 13% to 48% percent of the growing seasons (34 to 106
consecutive days). Precipitation during the jurisdictional periods ranged mostly from
normal to below normal. Total annual precipitation was within the normal range in 2000,
and below normal range in 2001 and 2002. At the time this report was written, official
rainfall data was available only through August 31, 2002. Unofficial data shows higher
than normal precipitation in October 2002.
March 2003
Page 12
0
0
0
0
Wetland Mitigation Plan
La Grange Site, Chatham County
Hydrology at gauges 3, 5, 7, 10, and 1 I ranged from 5% to 13% (13 to 33 consecutive
days) during at least one of the three growing seasons recorded, although only 2000 was a
normal rainfall year. When the hydrologic criterion is met for less than 12.5% of the
growing season, the vegetation must meet the USACE definition of wetland vegetation.
Because the majority of the vegetation in the areas where these gauges are installed is
classified as facultative to upland, these areas do not meet the USACE criteria for
jurisdictional wetlands. Hydric soils are present, however, so these areas are eligible for
full restoration credit.
4.3 WATER BUDGET
A monthly water budget for the 21-acre restoration and enhancement area was developed
to help evaluate whether sufficient water will be available during the growing season to
meet the requirements for wetland hydrology. The budget was based upon methodology
developed by the US Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District (USACE, 1994).
The purpose of the water budget is not to specifically model the hydrologic conditions at
the site, but to confirm that sufficient water is available and persists for sufficient
duration to restore or create wetland hydrologic conditions.
4.3.1 Methodology
The following formula is used to calculate the amount of water available for maintaining
hydrologic conditions. The formula accounts for the water that enters the site (inflow) and
the water that leaves the site (outflow) and expresses the remainder as "storage."
(P + SWI + GWI) - (PET - SWO - GWO) = S
Where:
P = Precipitation
SWI = Surface Water Inflow
GWI = Groundwater Inflow
PET = Potential Evapotranspiration
SWO = Surface Water Outflow
GWO = Groundwater Outflow
S = Change in Storage
A positive S indicates that excess water is available for creating wetland hydrological
conditions or storage. A negative S indicates that no excess surface water exists. A
negative S does not imply that groundwater levels will drop, although this is a normal
occurrence in the Piedmont during the summer.
March 2003
Page 13
Wetland Mitigation Plan
La Grange Site, Chatham County
4.3.2 Assumptions
• Groundwater inflow was not considered when developing the water budget in
order to provide the most conservative possible estimate of storage.
PET will be the major source of water loss (outflow) from the site.
• Infiltration was not used in the calculation because this source of loss is
considered to be insignificant in comparison with PET.
• Surface water outflow was used in the calculation to provide a conservative
estimate even though all runoff is assumed to be retained on site by proposed
restoration techniques.
• The growing season covers a period of 257 days from March 12 to November 23.
4.3.3 Inputs
There are three primary inputs of water onto the site: direct precipitation, surface water
flow from upland areas, and groundwater discharge from numerous seeps along the slope
L"i that defines the western boundary of the project area.
Precipitation
Precipitation data was obtained from the NC State Climate Office for a weather station in
Sanford, NC, located about 7 miles southeast of the project site. Data included daily
precipitation and average temperatures for the years 1990 through 1999.
The Sanford area typically receives an average of 47.42 inches of precipitation a year. In
general, the precipitation is spread evenly throughout the year, with July being the wettest
month on average (4.84 inches) and October being the driest (3.72).
Surface Runoff
Surface runoff flows onto the site from the 70.73-acre upland portion of the 92-acre
watershed. Technical Release 55 (TR-55), developed by the NRCS, presents simplified
procedures for estimating runoff in small watersheds. Mass rainfall is converted to mass
runoff using a runoff curve number (CN). The CN is based on soils, plant cover, amount
of impervious surface, interception, and surface storage. A composite CN of 80.5 for the
contributing watershed was calculated using the appropriate CN for the different cover
types within the watershed. The CN's were weighted by multiplying by the percentage of
the total watershed area occupied by each cover type. The weighted CN's were summed
to find the composite CN for the total contributing watershed area.
0
March 2003
Page 14
0
Wetland Mitigation Plan
La Grange Site, Chatham County
Cover Type Soil Hydrologic Group Area (acres) CN
Row crops, good C 40.87 85
Meadow, good C 7.91 71
Meadow, good D 9.94 78
Forest, good C 5.74 70
Forest, good D 6.27 77
Groundwater hiflow
Although the wetland system being evaluated is fed primarily by groundwater from seeps
along the slope, groundwater inflow was not considered when developing the water
budget in order to provide the most conservative possible estimate of storage.
4.3.4 Outputs
Water outputs from the site include evapotranspiration, infiltration into the soils, and
surface water outflow. Surface water outflow was included in the calculation to provide a
conservative estimate.
Evapotranspiration
Potential evapotranspiration (PET) losses were calculated using the Thornthwaite
Method, which is based on mean monthly air temperature. Evapotranspiration is the
primary method of water loss in the water budget. It is likely that PET losses are
Q overestimated as the calculations assume an unlimited water supply. When the water
supply is limited, actual evapotranspiration losses are usually less.
In titration
Infiltration rates of soils within the mitigation area were estimated based on available
information from the NRCS. The NRCS has classified all soils into hydrologic groups to
indicate the minimum rate of infiltration obtained for bare soil after prolonged wetting.
The soils in the project area are mapped as the Sylacauga-Moncure complex. Both of
these soils are in hydrologic Group D as defined in TR-55. Group D soils have high
runoff potential. They have very low infiltration rates when wetted and consist chiefly of
clay soils. These soils have a water transmission rate of 0.0 to 0.05 inches per hour.
Infiltration was not considered in the water budget. The soils observed on site were
typically soils with heavy clays. For the purposes of this water budget calculation, it was
assumed that infiltration will be a relatively minor outflow when compared to PET.
a March 2003
Page 15
a
0
0
Wetland Mitigatioli Plan
La Grange Site, Chatham County
Surface Runoff
Q For the purposes of this water budget, surface water runoff was considered in order to
provide the most conservative estimate. However, surface runoff is basically excess
water that is available as ponded water above the ground surface and will be retained on
Q site by the proposed restoration techniques. The composite CN of 77.3 was calculated as
described in 3.3.3.
Cover Tye Soil Hydrologic Group Area (acres) CN
Meadow, good D 7 78
Forest, good D 14.7 77
a
0
4.3.5 Results
The water budget calculation shows positive storage in every month but June, July,
August, and September in a year of average rainfall. The 10-year average storage is
positive in every month but August. Detailed results and calculations are found in
Appendix D.
4.3.6 Interpretation
Storage is reported in acre-inches of water. To determine if the amount of storage is
sufficient for wetland hydrology, the on-site retention time must be considered. For
example, the average storage for the month of March is 4.63 acre-inches of water. If the
infiltration rate on the site is 0.005 inchesihour, or 0.12 inches/day, then it would take
38.5 days for all the excess water to infiltrate and potentially leave the site. Eight percent
of the 257-day growing season for this site is 20 days. Therefore, there would be excess
water on this site well beyond the minimum time required by USACE guidelines for
wetland determination. To meet the minimum requirement of 13 days (5% of the growing
season), 1.56 acre-inches of storage would be required. To meet a requirement of 20 days,
2.4 acre-inches of storage would be required.
4.4 NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM MAPPING
The floodplain along the Deep River is within Zone A, which indicates special flood
hazard areas inundated by a 100-year flood where base flood elevations have not been
determined. Zone A extends to about the 240-foot contour. This Deep River floodplain
zone includes parts of the proposed mitigation area.
March 2003
Page 16
a
J
Wetland Mitigation Plan
La Grange Site, Chatham County
5.0 MITIGATION PLAN
The feasibility study and functional assessment indicate that NCDOT can restore about 4
acres of maintained grassland back to hillside seepage wetland, thereby reconnecting the
existing forested fragments both in terms of vegetation and hydrology. See Figure 6. Site
hydrology will be restored by grading down or removing the berms and constructed
roadbeds, filling the ditch (DF2), filling or raising the bed elevation of the channelized
streams (DF1, S2, S3, and S4), removing the culvert on S2, and restoring
microtopographic features. Once hydrology has been restored, species from the hillside
seepage wetland community will be planted. The overall quality of the existing 12 acres
of wetlands would be enhanced by this reconnection. Based on the water budget analysis,
Earth Tech believes that sufficient water is available to restore wetland conditions
throughout the 4-acre proposed restoration area. Further enhancement of water quality
and habitat functions of the wetlands will be accomplished by reforestation of upland
areas surrounding the wetlands. A post-mitigation concept of the site is shown in Figure
7.
5.1 HYDROLOGICAL RESTORATION
Based on an evaluation of aerial photography, the surrounding plant communities, and
interviews with the former owner, the maintained grasslands between the fragments of
hillside seepage wetland were formerly the same wetland community type. Hydrological
restoration will consist of restoring the natural contours of the site so that water will
spread out over the surface instead of being directed straight to various drainage features.
The ditch (DF2) will be filled or plugged. The channelized streams (DF1, S2, S3, and S4)
will be filled or plugged, and the culvert on S2 will be removed. The berms and mounds
will be removed, and any trees growing on them will be salvaged with their rootwads and
used in the topographic modifications described below. The roadbeds will be graded
down and the created or enhanced drainages will be plugged and backfilled.
5.2 REFORESTATION
Trees will be planted at an initial rate of 680 stems per acre with a goal of 260 stems per
acre surviving after 5 years, as required by the USACE. Because there is a lack of
reference communities on which to model this site, individual species densities for the
target community will be determined by a combination of the Functional Assessment data
and best professional judgement. The species selected for planting will be dependent
upon the availability of local seedling sources at the time of planting. Advance notice to
nurseries will improve availability of less common native species and is strongly
recommended. The finest quality 1/0 bare-root tree seedlings will be planted on 8-foot
centers for a planting density of 680 trees/acre. It is recommended that seedlings be at
least 12 to 18 inches in height. Planting will be performed during November-March to
allow plants to stabilize during the dormant period and set roots during the spring season.

D
March 2003
Page 17
I
a
Wetland Mitigation Plan
La Grange Site, Chatham County
Removal or control of nuisance vegetation will be implemented as necessary to promote
survival of target wetland plants.
Wetland Veeetation
Q The target community for the wetland portion of the site is a Piedmont hillside seepage
wetland. These species will be established in the 4 acres of pasture between the existing
forested wetlands. Table 4 lists woody species proposed for planting in the order of their
dominance according to the reference data. Plantings will consist of a mixture of bare-
root seedlings and container shrubs.
Table 4. Hillside Seepage Wetland Species
Wood Species Wetland Indicator Status
Canopy
Sweetba magnolia (Magnolia vir iniana) FACW+
Swam black um (N ssa biflora) OBL
Che bark oak (Quercus pagoda) FAC+
Swam chestnut oak (Querctts michauxii) FACW-
Willow oak (Quercus hellos) FACW-
Water oak (Quercus nigra) FAC
Shumard oak (Quercus shumardii) FACW-
Sub-Cano and Shrubs
Winterberry (Ilex verticillata) FACW
S icebush (Lindera benzoin) FACW
Ironwood (Car inns caroliniana) FAC
Southern wild raisin (Vibunutm nudum) FACW+
Possum-haw (Ilex decidua) FACW-
Swam do hobble (Leucothoe racemosa) FACW
Hi hbush blueberry (Vaccinium co rnbosum) FACW
Bottomland Vegetation
The pasture between the wetland and the Deep River will be planted in Piedmont
bottomland hardwoods to provide additional habitat and water quality functions. The
species listed below will be established in this 18.5-acre area. Plantings will consist of 1/0
bare-root seedlings treated with a polymer-based root gel to improve health and survival
during dry periods.
0
ti
March 2003
Page 18
Wetland Mitigation Plan
La Grange Site, Chatham County
Table 5. Bottomland Hardwood Species
Black um Nvssa sN,lvatica
Chem bark oak Quercus pagoda
Persimmon Dios vros virginiana
Swam chestnut oak Quercus michauxii
Willow oak Quercus hellos
Water oak Quercus nigra
Shumard oak Quercus sluunardii
Upland Vegetation
The terrace above the hillside wetland will be planted in upland species to provide
additional habitat as well as a buffer between the wetland and the neighboring nursery
operation. The species listed below will be established in this 9-acre area. Plantings will
consist of 1/0 bare-root seedlings treated with a polymer-based root gel to improve health
and survival during dry periods.
Table G. Upland Species
White oak Quercus alba
Northern red oak Quercus rubra
Black oak Quercus velutina
Mockemut hickory Car_va tomentosa
Pignut hickory Ca rya labra
Black cherry Primus serotina
Black um N ssa s lvatica
Flowering dogwood Corpus orida
American holly Ilex o aca
March 2003
Page 19
Wetland Mitigation Plan
La Grange Site, Chathant Count
6.0 MONITORING
Monitoring of the wetland mitigation site will be performed for 5 years or until success
criteria are met. Both vegetation and hydrology will be monitored. The monitoring plan
has been designed in accordance with the US Army Corps of Engineers Compensatory
Hardwood Mitigation Guidelines (1993a).
6.1 VEGETATION
6.1.1 Monitoring Methods
Prior to planting, the site will be inspected and checked for proper elevation and
suitability of soils. The use of acceptable, good quality plant species will be verified. The
site will be inspected at completion of planting to verify proper planting methods,
including proper plant spacing, density, and species composition.
During the first year, the degree of overtopping of the saplings by herbaceous plants will
be evaluated. Appropriate competition control measures will be implemented as needed
to insure survival of the hardwood plantings. Quantitative sampling of the vegetation will
be performed between June 1 and November 30 at the end of the first year and after each
growing season until the vegetation criteria are met.
Vegetative sampling plots will be established in each Partial Assessment Area at
locations previously sampled in the Functional Assessment. Plot size and sampling
protocol will follow the methodology of the Functional Assessment. A minimum of one
plot per PAA will be established to meet the USACE requirement of one sample plot per
two acres for sites larger than 10 acres. Additional plots may be established based on the
area of the PAA. For each plot, species composition and density will be reported. Photo
points will be established for each plot. Monitoring will take place once each year for
five years.
6.1.2 Success Criteria
Success will be determined by survival of target species within the sample plots. A
minimum of 260 trees/acre must survive for at least five years after initial planting. At
least six different representative tree species should be present on the entire site. If the
vegetative success criteria are not met, the cause of failure will be determined and
appropriate corrective action will be taken.
6.2 HYDROLOGY
In accordance with federal guidelines for wetland mitigation, the success criteria for
hydrology states that the area must be inundated or saturated (within 12" of the surface)
0
March 2003
a Page 20
a
0
0
0
Wetland Mitigation Plan
La Grange Site, Chatham County
by surface or ground water for at least 12.5% of the growing season. Areas inundated less
than 5% of the growing season are always classified as non-wetlands. Areas inundated
between 5% - 12.5% of the growing season can be classified as wetlands depending upon
factors such as the presence of hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soils.
There is no published soil survey for Chatham County. According to a personal
communication from the Chatham County NRCS, the growing season for Chatham
County begins March 12 and ends November 23. The growing season is 257 days. Five to
12.5% of the growing season corresponds to 13 to 32 days. Normal rainfall ranges must
be considered when evaluating wetland hydrology.
6.2.1 Monitoring Methods
Monitoring gauges will be installed in restoration areas to monitor site hydrology. A
minimum of eight monitoring gauges are proposed for this site, one in each of the
existing wetland areas (forested PAA's) and the remainder distributed throughout the
reforested restoration areas. Monitoring gauges will be installed in accordance with
USACE guidelines (USACE 1993b). Ideally, the existing gauges will be reinstalled in
approximately the same locations and one will be added to PAA2, for a total of 12
gauges. Gauge data will be collected on a monthly basis for the 5-year monitoring period.
6.2.2 Success Criteria
Hydrology will be judged successful if water levels are within 12 inches of the surface for
8% of the growing season, or 21 consecutive days. Gauge data from three growing
seasons show that the soil in the forested PAA's is saturated within 12 inches of the
surface for 14-48 percent of the growing season. Gauge data from the degraded areas
along with the water budget analysis indicate that at least the minimum USACE criteria
can be met throughout the site following restoration procedures. Many areas have the
potential to achieve a saturation period similar to the forested PAA's, well beyond the
minimum criteria.
7.0 WETLAND MITIGATION CREDIT
This mitigation project is proposed to fulfill compensatory mitigation requirements for
wetland impacts associated with transportation improvement activities in the Upper Cape
Fear River basin (HU 03030003). It is anticipated that wetland functions will be restored
to about 4 acres of severely degraded hillside seepage wetlands. In addition, the existing
wetland functions for 14 acres of existing forested hillside seepage wetlands will be
enhanced by the mitigation activities proposed for the site. The benefits of this mitigation
project include the following:
• Restoration and enhancement of a rare natural community (NHP rank S1).
• Increase in functional capacity.
March 2003
Page 21
D

Wetland Mitigation Platt
La Grange Site, Chathant County
• Stabilization of soils and elimination of erosion on the cleared slopes.
• Water quality benefits to the Deep River through increased storage and filtering
capacity.
• Water quality benefits to the downstream Critical Water Supply Watershed near
Gulf, North Carolina.
• Continuous forested corridor providing habitat for herpetofauna, migratory birds, and
small mammals.
• Mitigation for impacts to hydrologic, plant community habitat, animal community,
and biogeochemical functions
The completed Functional Assessment (Appendix A) predicts the benefits of the
proposed activities for the entire mitigation site beyond hydrology and replanting of trees.
The benefits, as captured in the parameters analyzed in the Functional Assessment, are
summarized in Table 7.
Table 7. Change in Functional Capacity
Function Existing
Ca ?acity Post-Mitigation
Capacity Percentage
Change
Hydrology j ` .19 1.0 81
Plant community 45 1.0 55
Animal community .26 1.0 74
Biogeochemist .27 1.0 73
ACV
These figures are derived from Table 3 of the Functional Assessment and represent the
average change in the Functional Capacity Index (FCI) from existing to post-restoration
conditions for all the partial assessment areas. For example, the existing level of
hydrologic function of the site as a whole is .19, or 19% of the the fully functioning
reference condition, which is set to 1.0. If the proposed mitigation plan is implemented
and full hydrologic function is restored, there will be a difference of 81% in the level of
hydrologic function on the site as a whole.
This NHP Priority Natural Area will receive a substantial lift in function through the
proposed mitigation activities. This lift is accomplished by considering the mitigation
activities in the larger context of the Deep River floodplain and the surrounding uplands.
Re-establishment of the vegetative corridor and hydrologic continuity between the
degraded and forested wetland areas will enhance the wildlife habitat, plant conservation,
and water quality functions of the existing wetlands. Reforestation of the 27.5 acre upland
areas surrounding the wetlands will provide sufficient continuous forest area to
significantly reduce edge effects and increase water quality. It will provide a greatly
enlarged, continuous corridor of habitat for migratory birds, amphibians (including the
O March 2003
a Page 22
6Vetland Mitigation Plan
La Grange Site, Chatham Counn,
regionally rare southern dusky salamander), and regionally rare plants from the terrace
upslope of the wetlands all the way to the Deep River. Erosion on the cleared slopes will
be stabilized, and the water storage and filtering capacity of the wetlands will be
increased. Reforesting the upland areas surrounding the wetlands will increase water
quality functions and will provide additional protection for this sensitive ecosystem.
All cleared areas within the mitigation boundary, seen on the 2000 aerial photograph in
Appendix B, will be planted with trees as a part of this mitigation proposal. In addition,
any cleared areas within the TLC property boundary, but not within the mitigation
boundary, will be allowed to regenerate naturally. This aerial photograph extends beyond
the boundaries of the TLC property and shows the relationship of the mitigation project
with the existing forest along this 3-mile stretch of the Deep River.
A credit ratio of 1:1 is proposed for the 4 acres of restoration on Figure 6 (PAAs 7a, 7b,
8a, 8b, 9, and 10). Wetland hydrology will be restored to these 4 acres, and wetland
.-S vegetation will be planted.
A credit ratio of 2:1 is proposed for the remaining 14 acres of existing wetlands which
will be enhanced by the proposed mitigation activities (PAAs 1, 2, 3a, 3b, 4, 5, 6a, 6b,
1 and 6c). This ratio is justified because of the tremendous benefits accrued to the wetlands
/ by connecting the existing wetlands into one wetland system and by restoring the 27.5-
acre upland buffer around the seep system.
Based on these suggested ratios, the LaGrange Mitigation Site would generate 11 credits
rq (4 credits for restoration and 7 credits for enhancement). Final acreage and credits will be
determined through discussions with the Environmental Protection Agency, the US Army
Corps of Engineers and DWQ.
A letter from NCNHP expressing support of a restoration and enhancement of this
Priority Natural Area can be found in Appendix E.
8.0 DISPENSATION OF THE PROPERTY
TLC will maintain ownership of the property during mitigation activities and NCDOT
will work under the terms of a temporary access easement. The easement will be
extinguished at the end of the 5-year monitoring period. The Clean Water Management
Trust Fund already holds a permanent conservation easement on the property. If NCDOT
requires that additional restrictions stipulating the terms of mitigation be recorded to
fulfill USACE requirements, the terms will be worked out with the TLC Board of
Directors. TLC will retain ownership of the property and will maintain the mitigation area
as a wetland in perpetuity.

March 2003
0 Page 23
Wetland Mitigation Plan
La Grange Site, Chatham County
9.0 ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
The property owner, TLC, requests that 4 copies of this mitigation plan be made available
to members of the TLC Stewardship Committee. This committee will review the
document and submit a recommendation to the TLC Board of Directors, which holds the
authority to grant permission for the project to proceed. TLC will also inform CWMTF of
the Board's decision. CWMTF, which granted TLC the funds to purchase the La Grange
property, requires that NCDOT reimburse TLC at $1655 per acre in order for a mitigation
project to proceed. A stewardship endowment of $10,000 is also requested. Related
minutes from committee meetings are included in Appendix E.
March 2003
Page 24
F1
0
Wetland Mitigation Plan
La Grange Site, Chathant County
10.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Amoroso, J.L., ed. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of
North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh,
North Carolina.
Burt, E. R. 1978. Diabase Dikes Of The Eastern Piedmont Of North Carolina. Dept. of
Natural Resources and Community Development, Division of Land Resources,
a Geological Survey Section, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Ellum, D.S. 1999. Land Assessment and Biological Inventory of the Triangle Land
Conservancy's La Grange Riparian Reserve. The Triangle Land Conservancy, Raleigh,
North Carolina.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1". U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1991. "Flood Insurance Rate Map-Chatham
County, North Carolina, Panel 180 of 225."
Hall, S.P. and M.W. Boyer. 1992. Inventory of the Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats of
Chatham County, North Carolina. The Triangle Land Conservancy and County of
Chatham, North Carolina.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr. and S.P. Hall, eds. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare
Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison, III. 1980. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill,
North Carolina.
a
0
NCDENR. "Water Quality Stream Classifications for Streams in North Carolina." Water
Quality Section. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wqhome.html (25 Oct 2000).
Palmer, W.M., and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
March 2003
Page 25
0
0
Wetland Mitigation Plan
La Grange Site, Chatham County
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of* the
Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Rohde, F.C., R.B. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of'the
Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina, Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDENR, Raleigh, NC.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1985. National Engineering Handbook, Section 4-
Hydrology. SCS/ENG/NEH-4-2.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1986. Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds. Technical
Release 55.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. "Endangered Species/ Section 7 Program in
O North Carolina." North Carolina Ecological Services.
http://nc-es.fws.gov/es/countyfr.html (22 Mar 2001).
Weakley A.S., K.D. Patterson, S. Landaal, M. Pyne and others, compilers. 1998.
International Classification of Ecological Communities: Terrestrial Vegetation of the
Southeastern United States. The Nature Conservancy, Southeast Regional Office,
Southern Conservation Science Department: Chapel Hill, NC.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas,
Virginia, and Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North
Carolina

0
March 2003
Page 26
0

C

0

t

r
µ
g
V

4
• \ /
I 7•
\ O ie
t
y \,,, a // \...\\
$ o

Legend
TLC Property Boundary
Surface Water
Berms
Farm Road
Forest
Gauge (% of Growing Season with water
levels within 12 inches
O <5% of surface)
• 5-8%
• 9-12.5%
• >12.5%
2'. V I(i i I 1 l
146
I
46 '16
'?.?_?} ? i - it ? ? I ?l-. ???? ? ? t?? i/!-.; ? 8?. A.•. -?? v! / ?.? .. ? i /
400 200 0 400 Feet
FIGURE 2
' HAT tAORTH C4 North Carolina -
j`. Department of Transportation EXISTING CONDITIONS
Division of Highways LA GRANGE HILLSIDE SEEPAGE
Project Development and WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
ro, Environmental Analysis Branch CHATHAM COUNTY
March 2003 T.I.P. R-609WM
E . r'• _
N Legend "?--??+:,...... ', ` ?N
co
13A? Riverview
LL silt loam ?,,."'????. ?.;: ` t'
?.25A; 25C2 Turbeville fine
sandy loam
LL 325A, 32513, 1 Mattaponi fine y\\ j'r M I rrr ,
325132,325C, sand loam ri iR ;t 4t, }
328A, 3288 , +r
??, . .
46A, 547A, Sylacauga-Moncure 814A, 88A complex'
325A
' 5326 Creedmoor-White
Y Store complex 56A
5513; 56A® Peawick fine sandy loam 3286 v"?
5AM Chewacla and
1/
Wehadkee soils
630
556 , { f
WATER
'r r' r'/ `.' /;• ?' 1 it /? .3286
Hydric
f X41 r???/'; ;Z• ?-{r!!!// ///?r r/ / 55B
k8
t"
Mitigation
Area
!r Boundary 25C
313
r
\32
?f4 M$ tk 2513V/," %
• f ,
?
« r`? frr P ?, Mme. - ,r 47A-'
' s?s? t J 325
25 325B
' 56A
0 500 1,000 2,000
' Feet
HA FIGURE 3
d"O1 ? North Carolina -
Department of Tran sportation
SOIL MAP
' Division of Highways LA GRANGE HILLSIDE SEEPAGE
WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
pro e,,,? Project Development and CHATHAM COUNTY
' Environmental Analysis Branch March 2003 T.I.P. R-609WM
m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m

11
10
B
8
m 7
t
u
e
c 6
0
C
5
a 5
a q
3
2
1
n
-1o
J F M A M J J A a O N D
Gauges In Existing Wetlands
a
-20
-30
-40
-50
u
c
n
a
W}
D
0
v
u
v
W

0
J F M A M J J A a O N D
Gauges In Restoration Areas
J F M A M J J A S O N D
Percent of Growing Season with water levels
within 12 inches of surface
<5% or 13 days
5-8% or 13-21 days
8-12.5% or 21-32 days
>12.5% or 32 days
Groundwater Within 12 Inches
of Surface

Gauge
1
2
Consecutive
Days

3 Percentage o
Growing
Season

1
3 3
4 .-?.._._ 'Al
16
5 26 10
6 9 4
7 4 2
8 82 32
9
10 104
10 40
4
11 15 6
2000 Total Precipitation = 47.31
30-Yr Normal Range = 42.36 - 50.29 inches,
30-Yr Normal Average = 47.42 inches
*Growing Season = 257 days (Mar 12 - Nov 23)
Data from State Climate Office
Siler City 2 S WETS Station
*from NRCS, personal communication
7-10
w
t
u
C
1 -20
W
-30
f9
-40

J F M A M J J A s O N D
M A M J J A S O N I
Ir r Ir Ir I»rr lir¦ lilr lir Illllr Ir Ir Ir r Illllr r
2001 Precipitation
11
10
0
8
7
r
u
c
c 8
c
0
9 5
n
?V
d
o` 4
3
2
1
0
r r r
Percent of Growing Season with water levels
within 12 inches of surface
<5% or 13 days
J F M A M J J A 5 0 N D 5-8% or 13-21 days
Gauges In Existing Wetlands $ 1 2 LJU/ 21 32 d
0
-10
-20
.30
-40
-50
--- -10
0
0
-20
W
d
>e
-30
0
-40
J F M A M J J A s O N D
Gauges In Restoration Areas
-Gauge 2
-Gauge 3
-Jurisdictions I Water Table
V I'
Grol Ing Season
-50
1 i
r,
W
'o
0
-10
-4a
.50
J F M A M J J A a O N D

0
j
I
,
10

20 l ,
30
_.
.... ..
,?•
L _G ug
f
/ ?..
40
Gauge6
- Gauge?
-Judsdlctlonal Water Table Gro Ing Season
i

J F M A M J J A S O N D
L
U
0
1 -20
d
W
-30
0
J F M A M J J A a 0 N D
0 or - ays
>12.5% or 32 days
Groundwater Within 12 Inches
of Surface
Percentage of
Consecutive Growing
Gauge Days Season
1
2 7 3
3 14 5
4
5 13 5
6 8 3
7 10 4
8 1 0
9 1. 4 _ 48 _
10 26 10
11 8 3
2001 Total Precipitation = 37.74
30-Yr Normal Range = 42.36 - 50.29 inches,
30-Yr Normal Average = 47.42 inches
*Growing Season = 257 days (Mar 12 - Nov 23)
Data from State Climate Office
Siler City 2 S WETS Station
*from NRCS, personal communication
North Carolina -
Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
01, TR
0 N
FIGURE 5b
HYDROGRAPHS - 2001
LA GRANGE HILLSIDE SEEPAGE
WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
CHATHAM COUNTY
March 2003 T.I.P. U-2524WM
¦

,1
,0
0
0
N
m
C
U
E
5
5
a 4
3
2
,
-,0
.20
m
-30
-40
-en
. -,0
C
O
-20
d
'w
-30
0
t;
-40
2002 Precipitation

J F M A M J J A 8 O N D
Gauges In Existing Wetlands
J F M A M J J A 8 0 N D
Gauges In Restoration Areas
J F M A M J J A 8 O N D

r
u
c
c
0
.20
d
W
d
-30
0
c?
40
1 -50
N
d
L
Y
0
?e
W
J F M A M J J A 8 O N D

0
,10

,20

30 -- ---
-Geuge10
- Gauge 11 _

40 -JudsdlcVond WaterTabte
-
Growing Season

.s0
F M A M J J A 8 0 N 0
Percent of Growing Season with water levels
within 12 inches of surface
<5% or 13 days
5-8% or 13-21 days
8-12.5% or 21-32 days
> 12.5% or 32 days
Groundwater Within 12 Inches
of Surface
Percentage of
Consecutive Growing
Gauge Days Season
1
2 4 2
3 24 9
4
5 28 11
6 0 0
7
8 0 0
9 6
10 21 8
11 27, 10
r
2002 Total Precipitation = 25.14 (through Aug 31)
30-Yr Normal Range = 42.36 - 50.29 inches,
30-Yr Normal Average = 47.42 inches
*Growing Season = 257 days (Mar 12 - Nov 23)
Data from State Climate Office
Siler City 2 S WETS Station
*from NRCS, personal communication
00 KTH North Carolina -
Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
FIGURE 5c
HYDROGRAPHS - 2002
LA GRANGE HILLSIDE SEEPAGE
WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
CHATHAM COUNTY
March 2003 T.I.P. U-2524WM
d
0

r

=s

i
1 , \ Y
v-?,??
Legend
Mitigation Area Boundary
K wr ?? ??
TLC Property Boundary
Partial Assessment Area Boundary
Watershed,.
® Proposed Wetland Functional Restoration
® Proposed Upland Restoration
Grass/Shrub
Forest
N Berms to be removed
Ditch Plug Locations
• Gauge
Farm Road 200 100 0 200 Feet
50m Buffer
HAT North Carolina - FIGURE 6
:? -- Department of Transportation PROPOSED MITIGATION
Division of Highways LA GRANGE HILLSIDE SEEPAGE
'•
Project Development and WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
Orn Environmental Analysis Branch CHATHAM COUNTY
March 2003 T.I.P. U-2524WM

,r

I
r5 /
,h
\\

IQ
ti

? ,? ,?, wl ? .? ` ?x?/ ?? ? 1 P ? ;? 1 ` \\\111111 ?.
1
\\
i
t
? V
1
4
1
?I
?C

I-Ivp
Lower Swift Creek Conservation Area
WRAP (Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure) Functional Assessment
Impact sites and proposed mitigation site(s).
To be accompanied with video documentation of sites assessed.
Detailed vegetative community mapping
Evaluation of upland buffer soils
Erodibility examined
low erodibility = 50 foot buffer
high erodibility = wider buffers per agency advisement
Nutrient and Sediment Loading and Reduction Assessment
Evaluated during the ICI Study
Wetland Delineation of selected sites
1' 04 (rT /-5 ?cJe c ? 0, t-? L ?L s o,V S«, O
f?'Jl JY?J? -4 /P rwc,C ?
?l.?" ?? ??sY?GtiCct"' j?t?
11ci. last GG?.fi¢P 4O Aea- /v.'/,
all W I J &4-16el'C'.

D
CD
CL
x
D
USING THE HYDROGEOMORPHIC (HGM) APPROACH
FOR ASSESSING WETLAND FUNCTIONS OF A
PIEDMONT FEN IN NORTH CAROLINA
La Grange Property
Chatham County, North Carolina
State Project No. S.U492107
TIP No. U-2524WM
Prepared for:
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Raleigh, North Carolina
F tA0
?0
hup?,?
Q I(moo ?:iL
October 2002

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................1
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ..............................................................................................................1
2.1 SLOPE WETLANDS IN THE NORTH CAROLINA PIEDMONT ................................................... 1
2.2 THE LA GRANGE SLOPE WETLAND .................................................................................... 2
3.0 METHODS ..............................................................................................................................3
3.1 THE HYDROGEOMORPHIC APPROACH TO WETLAND ASSESSMENT .................................... 3
3.2 DEVELOPING FUNCTION MODELS AND IDENTIFYING FIELD INDICATORS ........................... 4
3.3 PARTIAL ASSESSMENT AREAS ........................................................................................... 4
3.4 CALIBRATION OF MODEL VARIABLES AND FUNCTIONS ..................................................... 9
3.4.1 Reference Standard ............................................................................................... 9
3.4.2 Functional Assessment Variables .......................................................................10
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................................15
4.0 LITERATURE CITED ..........................................................................................................21
FIGURE
Figure 1. Mitigation Map ................................................................................................................ 8
TABLES
Table la. Typical alterations to rich fens and field indicators: Hydrology .....................................5
Table lb. Typical alterations to rich fens and field indicators: Plant Community/Habitat .............6
Table lc. Typical alterations to rich fens and field indicators: Animal Community ......................7
Table 1d. Typical alterations to rich fens and field indicators: Biogeochemistry ...........................7
Table 2a. Pre-restoration scores for model variables and FCIs for PAAs at La Grange .............. 16
Table 2b. Post-restoration scores for model variables and FCIs for PAAs at La Grange ............. 17
Table 3. Change in FCI and FCUs gained for each PAA ............................................................. 18
APPENDICES
0
Appendix A: Field Data Sheets for Functional Assessment
Appendix B: Summary of Model Variable Definitions, Measurement Method, and Conversion to
Sub-indices
Appendix C: Assessment Data from Partial Assessment Areas
iii
0
USING THE HYDROGEOMORPHIC (HGM) APPROACH FOR
ASSESSING WETLANDS FUNCTIONS OF A PIEDMONT FEN
IN NORTH CAROLINA
La Grange Property
Chatham County, North Carolina
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The La Grange tract is currently owned and managed by the Triangle Land Conservancy (TLC).
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to secure a temporary
easement from the TLC, restore some of the functions of the existing slope wetlands, and return
the easement to TLC. Preliminary studies showed that a restoration effort at this site would be
feasible. At the suggestion of the regulatory agencies, a modified hydrogeomorphic (HGM)
functional assessment approach (Smith 1995, Brinson and Rheinhardt 1996,
http://www.wes.army.mil/el/wet]ands/hgmhp.html,) was applied to further evaluate the following
aspects of the project and possibly provide a basis for the assignment of mitigation credits:
• current function of the proposed La Grange compensatory mitigation site
• where and what types of restoration activities would be needed to restore functions
• increase in overall functions that would accrue if mitigation was performed. '
Because a regional HGM guidebook for assessing groundwater-slope wetlands is not yet
available for piedmont North Carolina or elsewhere, an assessment framework had to be
developed from scratch before assessments could be conducted.
This report documents the procedures and results of the functional assessment. This information
can be used to refine the determination of how and where wetlands should be restored on the site
and to what degree wetland functions will improve after restoration.
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
2.1 SLOPE WETLANDS IN THE NORTH CAROLINA PIEDMONT
Slope wetlands (fens) occur in regions of dissected terrain (Brinson 1993). Rainfall that
infiltrates the ground in a watershed discharges at slopes, often where underlying strata provide a
conduit for water. Depending on climate, elevation, fire regime, and nutrient status, slope
wetlands can be dominated by woody or herbaceous vegetation. Groundwater slope wetlands
tend to provide a more reliable source of water (Noviski 1979) and higher productivity (Brinson
1993) than most other wetland types. Because such wetlands are also free of piscivorous
predators, they tend to support large and diverse amphibian populations.
According to Brinson (1993), fens take two hydrogeomorphic forms: (1) "those with a seepage
face caused by groundwater flow intersecting a land surface and those with seepage at the base
where the upward movement of ground water occurs in the lower slope segment of the break."
0 La Grange Property Functional Assessment Page 1
Chatham County, NC
l
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program classifies these two types of fens as "Hillside
Seepage Bog" and "Low Elevation Seep," respectively (Schafale and Weakly 1990). However,
their classification also includes seeps on river floodplains under the latter type.
Rich fens represent a specific class of fens that are nutrient rich, usually rich enough to support
trees. In North Carolina, fens are relatively common in the mountains, rare in the piedmont, and
absent in the coastal plain. Fen-like conditions also occur at the boundary of riverine floodplains
and their adjacent uplands, but because such areas are also occasionally flooded by overbank
flow, they really should be considered a part of the riverine-floodplain complex. Fen-like
conditions also occur in former floodplains of larger rivers in the piedmont where incision of
channels through relic floodplains (deposited by mass wasting earlier in the 20th century) have
isolated rivers from their floodplains, leaving slope wetlands at the base of floodplain/upland
boundary (Burke 1996, Ruhlman and Nutter 1999).
A number of factors contribute to the relative rarity of true slope wetlands in the Piedmont
Physiographic Province: (1) very steep slopes are relatively uncommon, except along riverbanks,
(2) surficial geology does not concentrate enough groundwater to create extensive discharge
areas except in a few restricted geologic settings (such as along diabase sills), and (3) widespread
land clearing for pasture and farmland has eliminated forests from areas that once supported
fens. As a result, extant fens are very rare in the North Carolina piedmont.
2.2 Tim LA GRANGE SLOPE WETLAND
The proposed La Grange compensatory wetland mitigation site consists of approximately 21
acres (8.5 hectares [ha]) of a slope/rich fen wetland. It lies at the juncture of a steep slope with a
diabase dike and sill in the North Carolina Piedmont Physiographic Province. Wetlands and
seeps have formed at the base of this slope, which drops approximately 20 feet (7 meters [m]) in
elevation over 50 feet (15 m). From the base of the slope, groundwater-fed wetlands extend
approximately 400 feet (120 m) downslope along a more gradual slope. At places along the
slope, water from the seeps coalesces to form small, headwater streams. Much of the
hydrologically-unaltered areas below the slope base appear to remain saturated year-round, even
during periods of drought. This may be because groundwater discharged onto the slope
originates in a deep aquifer that shunts water to the slope via the diabase sill. The sill, therefore,
provides a more reliable and continual source of water than the rather small, surficial aquifer of
the immediate drainage basin.
There are four forested areas separated by clearings constructed to access former cattle grazing
areas. In three of the forested areas, streams were channelized to drain water from the slope more
quickly; spoil from the dredged areas was piled nearby. Fill was placed in at least two of the
three deforested areas to construct roadways to cattle pastures located between the slope and
floodplain of the Deep River. Fill (windrows) is also present in two of the forested areas,
possibly placed there when the forest was cleared for pastures. Also, the effects of past grazing
are evident in portions of three of the four forested tracts.
U At the far northwestern end of the property, a ditch next to the railroad right of way diverts water
away from the railroad bed at the base of the steep slope and onto the lower slope. Water flowing
La Grange Property Functional Assessment Page 2
?J Chatham County, NC
a
from this ditch transfers water to the slope from another drainage. The ditch has cut headward
towards the track, suggesting that a volume of water greater than the ditch's capacity is
sometimes shunted onto the slope. Wrack, composed of gravel, coarse wood, trash, etc. is strewn
about the slope where the gradient becomes more gradual. The ditch eventually flows into a
natural stream channel on the slope and has caused a deep channel incision downstream from
where it joins. The deepening of the natural channel has likely accelerated drainage of adjacent
wetlands along the slope in the vicinity of the incised channel.
Despite historic alterations over much of the site, forested areas of the La Grange fens still
support plant communities that are unusual, if not rare, in the piedmont. Coastal plain wetland
species such as Magnolia virginiana (sweetbay), Leucothoe racemosa (fetter-bush), Eleocharis
tortilis (twisted spikerush), Nyssa biflora (swamp tupelo), and Smilax laurifolia (blaspheme
vine), among others, occur in the remnant forested tracts of the site.
3.0 ME, THODS
3.1 THE HYDROGEOMORPHIC APPROACH TO WETLAND ASSESSMENT
The HGM approach to wetland assessment was developed to assess ecosystem functions of a
regional wetland subclass prior to project impact or restoration and to estimate the degree of
change in function after alteration or restoration (Smith et al. 1995, Rheinhardt et al. 1997). The
HGM approach differs from earlier assessment approaches in two fundamental ways. It requires
that wetlands be first identified by hydrologic and geomorphic properties inherent to a narrowly
defined regional subclass (Brinson 1993) and that information on other wetland sites of the same
HGM class (i.e., reference sites) be used to develop and calibrate standards for assessment
(Smith et al. 1995, Brinson and Rheinhardt 1996, Rheinhardt et al. 1997).
Wetland condition is evaluated relative to standards (Reference Standards) defined by a
population of the least altered, self-maintaining wetlands of the identified regional subclass.
Standards are derived from field indicators that are sensitive to anthropogenic alterations. Thus,
by differentiating natural variation from variation due to degradation, indices associated with the
relative degree of degradation can be developed to evaluate ecosystem condition or degree of
function. In order to evaluate gains and losses of wetland function to adhere to "no net loss of
function" policy goals, indicators are evaluated in the context of simple logic models that
represent the most common and fundamental functions inherent to the subclass.
There are two phases to the HGM approach: a development phase, in which reference standards
and function models are developed, and an application phase, where the assessment procedure is
carried out at a specific project site by the end user (Smith 1994, Smith et al. 1995, Brinson
1996). The development phase usually results in producing a calibrated and tested regional
guidebook that uses data from reference wetlands to provide standards for function models
derived from rapidly measured field variables (Smith et al. 1995, Brinson and Rheinhardt 1996).
0
0 La Grange Property Functional Assessment Page 3
Chatham County, NC
0
0 3.2 DEVELOPING FUNCTION MODELS AND IDENTIFYING FIELD INDICATORS
A regional guidebook for assessing groundwater slope wetlands in the Piedmont of North
Carolina has not been developed. Therefore, a modified HGM approach was used to assess the
functions of the La Grange slope wetlands. For the purposes of this assessment, four functions
were identified as pertinent to piedmont fens:
• Maintain Characteristic Hydrologic Regime
• . Maintain Characteristic Plant Community/Habitat
• Maintain Characteristic Animal Community
• Maintain Characteristic Biogeochemistry.
These four overarching functions are inherent to all wetlands, but every HGM subclass differs in
how they function with respect to these broad categories (Brinson 1993). In wetland types that
are hydrodynamically complex, additional functions might be identified under each of the four
main functions. For example, as a class riverine wetlands are probably the most
hydrodynamically complex and so the HGM National Guidebook for riverine wetlands identified
a list of 15 functions that could be applicable to riverine wetlands nationwide (Brinson et al.
1995). Of course, riverine wetlands vary tremendously nationwide, ranging from wetlands of
small headwater stream to wetlands of large, mainstem rivers. Therefore, the entire suite of 15
identified functions would not be appropriate for all riverine wetland subclasses. For a midreach
riverine subclass in Kentucky, Ainslie et al. (1999) identified 8 functions appropriate to wetlands
there, most of which were hydrologic or biogeochemical functions. In wetlands of less
hydrodynamically complex flats, Rheinhardt et al. (2002) restricted functions to the same four
main categories of functions identified above for slope wetlands. Piedmont slope wetlands are
not particularly complex hydrodynamically and it was felt that identifying and assessing
additional sub-functions would not provide be particularly beneficial for assessing their
condition. Therefore, it was decided to restrict the HGM assessment of functions to the four main
functions performed by wetlands: hydrology, biogeochemistry, plant habitat and animal habitat.
The next step in developing a functional assessment was to identify field indicators that would
both indicate level of function and be sensitive to anthropogenic alterations. Tables 1a-ld lists
the types of alterations, grouped by function, that typically occur to rich fens in the piedmont.
The table also identifies field metrics that would be useful for assessing condition, and ways to
calibrate indicators for assessing degree of function. Some indicators are categorical (i.e., VouTF:
presence or absence of a ditch) and some are continuous (e.g., VDDW: volume of downed dead
wood).
3.3 PARTIAL ASSESSMENT AREAS
The LaGrange site was partitioned into 10 partial assessment areas (PAAs) and each PAA was
assessed independently (Figure 1). A PAA was defined as an area that was relatively
homogeneous with respect to age and species composition of trees, and time and type of last
disturbance. For example, areas with a ditch and spoil pile were partitioned from surrounding
non-ditched areas as separate PAAs. Likewise, open, former pastures were partitioned from
a surrounding forest. PAA boundaries were delineated with GPS and the area of each PAA was
0 La Grange Property Functional Assessment Page 4
Chatham County, NC

crn
ki >.b
0
O
cam',
0
u
"d
G
Zri
f~
CTS
r
U
0
G
0
Cl
W
0
0
cz
u
c?
r-l
W
.0
H

o u C',
3
03 a? ?; a 3 o

O
p cC Cd
4-4 U
, 0 0

V
W
•Y ? . /?? . ?1
?V
o n
cn
0
4-4
0
0
aui Y1 Q? I-M

w R' °'
.r v U O r" N O O

U ci
m 0 cli

o En 3 .,
(U to
' C, cn

C
..
N

40 4.
;wo 0 4
cn a O 0 0 o N v
a
i CA cl
CN'3 0
E 'n
a?
q 0

a? > bD U P4 . ??

b O o 0
w En
a a P. Q v u
,-a 3 3 .n Q
o
o
an
a 4, v
:a 0
F >;
o Pa .
`a a o

°
ao n
0 0 0
w a
i
-b
0 0
O 4F O ?
ti~ J? U

"p
s..
u

vi H

u
0
?
+
P. Cy

p

Piz

O , o I..
0 C)
0v
0
cd
Il a.
,.

II Q)
II
u ? O ? ? w U

> a)

10
0 O v
4, z

0
U O
O -?
C?
G bD Q' a

N O

O
U ccd . 0

U
03

0
od ..
:::s o 3 3 c3
?? o
N cn
4. cN3 N w" c3 N. U
u C O o En u y
G 7 A a I? 3 Q ° G ?1 -cj -o
? C C
.
c, •
w ?' cl

? u
o u
0
s
. .C 'b ^cf z7

N Q A
C3
?4
cl
a
0
191
III
l
.n
?i
O
U
cl
Q ?
0
Cy
.r
C."
El 51 'd
m Piz
U
u E=
b
s~
U
0
o
cs
a?
cs
h
U h
(1)
O (x
O
U
>> U n i >> C3 >% N O
U N PQ H cd
C) +H' + U Q i w N .O y
b 'b 'm
b X
Ui
>,.,:4 oN ua
1' a,
.
- o
IS
C
fl c
.' X x N
X a? w d y .. Ei U a?
?
° O G? O aHi? o
n
rII`.
0
b ?n
3 , IM4
o
U
Cs o ?
0 rz (L) C4,
'0 u -5
o v? to C/3 Q QJ {may G
H r+ U .C CC ° W
Q?
O
N
O b? o
U
>
? .. .-+ U
a b y
N T A U
N H N >, vi
En C',
P4 cn 0 C, .-
CIA
H
Q (D .C 0 0
u ? 3 ¢ 3 ..
' V O , u
C/1 O O
v i
a
R.
cn
va l
O N `'
U UH ? .?
4.' U a
..
0
2 >>
0 >
?. .
o° v> 2

v1 U
>'''in
U P4
a >
.C
W 6''
°0
O
b ? U
?
U
,? 4
cad °

U O
U

O >
V 00 it
I W
u 1? y Q II
CL) 0 U z h
I
O O y bD .> ' I a?
i
v
i 0
° W° U
.1, cd O
U b o o

U O
C

o a? 3 O

cn
?; . ?' N Cj Q)
o
"

H p o ,? 0

O b

X
U w
cn
.? ?
O ai O U ?, ?, w

> X
Q ci U U
Cj >

U o

o
o a
0 H N V H

rl E - a'd'o 0 c
w

cl

cl
ad
H? a u
0
i

U
°
0
s
u
O
a
G
cl
y
cH
u
O
O
C3
Ln
c?
u
u
u
F
o N
.-. o H
0
A ? r. t
.

0 c?
o o
0
3
,o a N
u ? o
'
l 3 .d ar
c
i
H

3 H
° 0 a? a?
b to
-
40, .0
..
'd w O
O - w
O 'n O U
O c1 .? U
U `? a as
`2
0
o u o
3U p
U U 'b ?'
i (V O c0J ?
`'?
O b O /? _
U U .U O
Q ¢ti 3
V3
b
o ?
4

O
b
G?. ?U?+ U
G a
o

u
... °
?
Q" 4
c? a
? .? Q II II
I y
?

v' 0 V]
C'J b b cHd
>' N O U
a D u p, o 4
H
0 '?
0
R.
O 0
3
?
0

'? 0
?
b b H H
fd to U r• a?
pQ"a U
U
O N b . > N U3
H
Ln U ?
V
cn U2 U G U
'' C' CCS U b p
cz
a i
0? 3
4
an a,
d
W Q Qb e
n Q40 CZ
.

bn en on .?

.?
.? +..?
C3 C
o °

u a
i
u b v u cl
u :
?'
? ?
w rtz p:z c
3 ' C >~ C1
cli C14 C3
b
ti
u
E••+
o_
A
Id
o
0
b 3

U U
V'1 b

A u
o

0 0

U .c
?
°
' H
as

A
° o
w En 3
4•w b cd
4.4
O
a?
b
a? ? -d
a
0 a
3
U
•`?v °,~ o
? o U ? Q
? u I I la
A

b

a? z
? °
O

3 cn s
? ? 3
G vi
>
U v
"
U O

F. L
y U E U U b
O
w
W U O_ 4, U
Q .o ci u W °

cn an
En
C
c7
o
o ci Cj
. ? c`?. 'd c?•3 b C-4
c?

RJ

YI
1 ?
i
yr.
,

'. 77
l
`?R

i
' 4 V?> w A v / ..
r V?
1
,. Y
?\\? kk
X , .
LEGEND
Plot Centers
TLC Property Boundary
Partial Assessment Area Boundary
® Watershed
Proposed Wetland Functional Restorati
® Proposed Upland Restoration
-v-l Grass/Shrub Cover f
, Tree Cover
----- Berm 200 100 0 200 Feet
Potential Hydrologic Modification
Road
50m Buffer 50 25 0 50 Meters
North Carolina - FIGURE 1
"°R Department of Transportation MITIGATION MAP
DRAFT * Division of Highways LA GRANGE DIABASE BOG
?'9?rprnProject Development and CHATHAM COUNTY
Environmental Analysis Branch OCTOBER 2002 T.I.P. U-2524WM
Ci
determined. One portion of the La Grange site was identified a priori as the reference standard
site (PAA1). It was a second or third growth forest that appeared not to have either been grazed
in or hydrologically altered.
The same methods were used to measure indicators in all the PAAs, except that fewer plots were
sampled in several of the smallest PAAs. In most PAAs, three quasi-random points were located
and their positions recorded with GPS. All non-GIS field data were obtained at plots associated
with the points (see methods below). Blank data sheets used for collecting reference data and
assessing sites are provided in Appendix A.
At each sampling point within a PAA, a 10-m radius circle (314 m2) was circumscribed about the
center point within which canopy trees (> 15-cm dbh) and midcanopy trees (7.5-15 cm dbh) were
tallied and recorded by species. Woody subcanopy stems (> 1 m tall, but < 7.5 cm dbh) were also
tallied and recorded by species within a 5-m diameter circle (78.5 m2). A larger or smaller area
was used if stems were particularly sparse or dense, respectively. The lengths and diameters of
all downed dead wood (DDW) > 10 cm in diameter were also measured within the 10-m radius
circles
The woody species sampling plots were established approximately 25-30 m apart. At each plot
center and at points at intervals between plots, herbaceous species were sampled in 8 plots of
10 x 1 m2. Total plot cover, as percent cover, was estimated as occurring within one of nine
cover categories and the midpoint (in parentheses) of the categories was recorded: 0 (0), 0-5
(2.5), 5-25 (15), 25-50 (37.5), 50 (50), 50-75 (62.5), 75-95 (85), 95-100 (97.5), 100 (100).
Percent cover of non-native (exotic), invasive species was also estimated and recorded. Native
plants present in each plot were identified to species when possible; otherwise, they were
identified to the closest taxonomic level possible. All nomenclature followed Radford et al.
(1978).
3.4 CALIBRATION OF MODEL VARIABLES AND FUNCTIONS
For each PAA, raw field data were converted to model variables. Appendix B provides
definitions for all field and GIS data, how they were converted to model variables, and how they
were calibrated for use in function models. Four functions were assessed: Maintain
Characteristic Hydrologic Regime, Maintain Characteristic Plant Community/Habitat Attributes,
Maintain Characteristic Animal Community, and Maintain Characteristic Biogeochemistry.
3.4.1 Reference Standard
Due to the rarity of piedmont fens, reference data and variable calibration had to be derived from
on-site data. Thus, reference sites were also assessment sites. Fortunately, one of the forested
areas on site was intact enough to provide reference standards. It was believed that this site,
PAAI, would not only prove useful for determining the current condition of other parts of the
site (relative to the reference standard site), but that it would be useful for planning details for a
future restoration. The main drawback of having only one site for providing reference standards
was that it could not represent the entire range of natural variation possible. Another drawback
was that the forest had not fully matured since past clear-cutting because the canopy was
r.
La Grange Property Functional Assessment Page 9
Chatham County, NC
0
a dominated by the shade-intolerant, successional species, Liriodendron tulipifera (yellow poplar).
Braun (1950) indicated that north-facing piedmont slopes were originally composed of
mesophytic species such as Fagus grandifolia (beech), Quercus alba (white oak), and yellow
poplar. No data are available on the proportion of yellow poplar in virgin (uncut) slope forest,
but it would probably not have covered more than 10-15% of the canopy (vs. 29% now).
Because yellow poplar is long lived, dominance by yellow poplar might persist for 100 years or
more. On the other hand, it would be unrealistic to limit reference standard sites to virgin forests,
since there are probably no virgin deciduous forests remaining in the piedmont. Therefore, it
would be reasonable to use PAM as a reference standard as long as provisions were made for its
standards representing only a portion of the natural range in variation.
3.4.2 Functional Assessment Variables
The following section describes the main functions performed by slope wetlands and the
variables used to model the function.
Function 1: Maintain Characteristic Hydrologic Regime
Hydrologic regime is one of the main factors controlling ecosystem functions in wetlands,
including those of slope wetlands. The timing, duration, and depth of fluctuations in water level
affect biogeochemical processes and plant distribution patterns. Alterations to the input, export,
or storage of water all change the pattern of spatial and temporal variations in hydrodynamics,
which in turn affect biogeochemical and habitat functions.
Groundwater discharge from the diabase sill is by far the major source of water for the slope
wetland, although overland flow and precipitation also provide some input. Downgradient flow
is the major export pathway for water, but evapotranspiration (ET) also contributes to the export
during the growing season. Excess surface water from groundwater discharge coalesces to form
headwater streams and flows downgradient. Hence, water seldom ponds deeply, except in divots
created by tree falls. Although flooding is minimal, slopes remain wet and their soils are
saturated almost continually, even during periods of excessive drought. This means that plants
and animals that rely on saturated conditions or standing water in depressions can rely on these
conditions occurring in slope wetlands over longer periods than in most other wetland types.
Hydrologic alterations to slope wetlands occur when they are ditched to remove water more
quickly, when fill is added, or when soil is removed. Removal of forest canopy in a slope
wetland can affect ET rates, remove tree-fall divots, and prevent new divots from forming. The
removal of forested buffers can also alter hydrologic regime by increasing overland flow of
surface water. Because this particular type of fen receives its water from a deep aquifer, most
potential hydrologic alterations occur on-site or just upslope from the site. Large-scale, regional
groundwater withdrawal could affect the long-term availability of water, but such landscape-
level effects are outside the purview of this assessment.
Four variables were used to indicate the level of hydrologic function of the La Grange slope
wetland: the outflow (drainage) of water from the slope (VourF), the capacity to store surface
water in small surface depressions (VsroR), the capacity to store water in large microtopographic
La Grange Property Functional Assessment Page 10
Chatham County, NC
0
depressions (Vm cRo), the capacity for ET (VcTD), and the capacity to retard overland flow from
surface runoff (VBuFF). Methods for measuring these variables are outlined in Appendix B.
The model variable VouTF measured the degree to which drainage ditches affected hydrologic
regime. PAAs were partitioned by the presence or absence of drainage ditches and so a particular
PAA was either considered to be drained by a ditch (VouTF = 0.0) or it wasn't (VouTF = 1.0). The
model variable VSTOR measured whether fill or excavation affected a PAA. Like VOUTF, the
presence of fill was used to partition PAAs and so fill was either present (VSTOR = 0.0) or absent
(VSTOR = 1.0)-
The variable VMIcRo measured whether the appropriate density (relative to reference standard) of
tree-fall divots was present. Land-clearing activities remove tree-fall divots and the lack of trees
prevents more divots from being produced, thus reducing potential on-site water storage. If tree-
fall divot density was equal to or more than 5.9 divots/ha, then VMIcRo = 1.0, otherwise VMICRO =
D divot density/5.9.
The variable VcrD measured the relative capacity for ET relative to reference standard and the
capacity to continue to produce divots from tree falls. Canopy trees are responsible for most of
the ET in a forest; therefore, if the density of canopy trees was less than 457 trees/ha (reference
rzj standard), then VcTD = tree density/457, otherwise VcTD = 1.0.
The variable VBuFF measured the capacity of a forested buffer to retard overland flow of surface
water onto the slope. Buffer score (VBuFF) for a PAA was measured at the slope/upland
boundary. The score was determined by multiplying the proportion of the total boundary length
that had > 50-m wide forested buffer by 1.0, the proportion of length with 1-50 m wide forested
buffer by 0.5, the proportion of length with no forested buffer by 0.0, and then summing the
scores of the three categories.
The Functional Capacity Index (FCI) for the Maintain Characteristic Hydrologic Regime
function was modeled by using the lowest score of the following 4 equations: FCI = (VOUTF),
(VSTOR), or [(VcTD) + (VMIcRo) + (VBUFF)1 /3. However, if the PAA was not located along a break
in slope, then VBUFF was not applicable and so FCI = (Vc7-D + VMIcRo)/2. Therefore, the presence
of a drainage ditch or fill superseded the effects that any of the other alterations would be
expected to have on hydrologic regime. Where neither ditches nor fill were present, the sub-
equations using tree canopy, tree-fall divots, and buffer (where applicable) determined functional
capacity. Note that the reference standard site did not score 1.0 for the hydrologic regime FCI
because its buffer was not sufficiently wide. Full functioning could be obtained by completely
restoring the forested buffer.
Function 2: Maintain Characteristic Plant Community/Habitat Attributes
This function reflects the capacity of a slope wetland to maintain the characteristic attributes of
plant communities normally associated with natural, piedmont slope wetland ecosystems.
Community attributes include characteristic density and composition of component species.
Forest clearing for pasture almost completely eliminates natural plant communities, but cattle
grazing within a forest can also alter the composition of the understory and regenerative capacity
0 La Grange Property Functional Assessment Page 11
Chatham County, NC
0
O of the overstory. Draining and filling can also change the hydrologic regime sufficiently to
change the plant composition from favoring more hydrophytic species to fewer hydrophytic
species.
It was assumed that if the plant community were unaltered (similar to reference standard), it
would support the type of plant communities that have evolved in piedmont slope wetlands and it
would be relatively free of non-native, invasive species. It was also assumed that the reference
standard area represented the characteristic condition for piedmont fens, i.e., it represented a
piedmont fen being all it could be ecologically. Therefore, the composition of the altered PAAs
was compared with the reference standard site using a Sorensen Similarity Index (SSI). The SSI
uses a quantitative attribute like density or per cent cover to compare one site with another site
(see equation in Appendix B). (To use SSI, sample sizes must be similar because the number of
species in a given sample is area-dependent.)
Plant composition of PAAs was compared using the SSI for three strata: the canopy stratum
(trees > 15 em dbh), the midstory stratum (trees 7.5-15 cm dbh), and subcanopy (shrubs and
saplings taller than 1 m and < 7.5 cm dbh). The model variables VcNpy, VMCNPy, , and VMCNPy
represent the compositional condition for the canopy, midcanopy, and subcanopy strata,
respectively. Because no two sites of the same community type would be expected to be exactly
alike (even two samples from the same site would fail to show identical similarity), it was
assumed that a PAA was sufficiently similar if its SSI were at least 0.6. Therefore, an SSI of 0.6
represented an HGM variable index score of 1.0, with a decline linearly to 0.0 where the SSI =
0.0.
The model variable VExH represented the mean cover of non-native, invasive (exotic) species in a
PAA. Few, if any, eastern deciduous forests lack exotic species. Exotic species covered 1.9% of
the reference standard site, so PAAs with less than or equal to 1.9% cover of exotic species
scored 1.0. If invasive species cover was > 1.9%, the variable index score was 100 - % cover of
exotic species.
The Functional Capacity Index (FCI) for Maintain Characteristic Plant Community/Habitat was
modeled by giving equal weight to the variables VcNpy, VMCNPy , VscNPy, , and VExH, i.e., FCI =
(Vc,vpy + VMCNPy + VscNPy + VExH)14. A forested PAA with a history of grazing would likely
show alteration to the midcanopy and subcanopy and would probably have a higher coverage of
exotic species. All four variables would score low in former pastures.
Function 3: Maintain Characteristic Animal Communities
This function is defined as the capacity of a slope wetland and its surrounding landscape to
provide the resources required for maintaining the suite of animal species characteristic of
unaltered, piedmont slope wetlands. Animals are an important part of the biota of any ecosystem.
Animals that use unaltered slopes all or part of their lives are adapted to forested habitats with
soils that remain saturated for long periods.
Li For animals that would use a particular PAA, there are two major determinants of habitat quality:
(1) habitat quality within the site (on-site quality) and (2) the quality of the surrounding
0 La Grange Property Functional Assessment Page 12
a Chatham County, NC
0
landscape, which provides supplemental resources to animals that would normally use the site
(landscape quality). On-site habitat quality can be inferred by the structure and composition of
the plant community within a given PAA, modeled previously under the function "Maintain
Characteristic Plant Community/Habitat," the appropriate density of tree-fall divots, and the
appropriate volume of downed dead wood (DDW). In other words, if the plant community is
intact, and there are an appropriate number of tree-fall divots and large DDW, then on-site
habitat quality is probably intact as well.
To determine the contribution that surrounding landscape has on habitat quality in a given PAA,
one must determine whether there are species that, during some portion of their life cycle,
require resources found in slope wetlands. Amphibians would probably be the main animal
group that requires resources provided by slope wetlands. Because surface water is not abundant,
there are no aquatic birds that require resources inherent to piedmont slopes. Birds that breed in
forested slope wetlands would probably breed in forested uplands just as readily and so would
not require wet slopes. Therefore, life cycle requirements of amphibians, including use of
supplemental upland habitat, were used to model the supplemental landscape component of the
animal community function.
Groundwater supplies tree-fall divots with a fairly dependable source of water for amphibians to
breed. The divots in slope wetlands probably maintain water longer than divots in uplands or
flats, but they are still too small and too ephemeral to support piscivorus predators. Therefore,
the appropriate density of divots (V,urcRO) is one indicator of potential on-site amphibian habitat
quality. This variable was also used to measure hydrologic condition (see Appendix B for
method of measurement and hydrologic function above for calibration).
Adult amphibians, particularly salamanders, also spend time under downed dead wood (DDW)
to forage, maintain body moisture, and avoid predators. Therefore, the volume of DDW per ha
(VDDW) was compared relative to the reference standard condition to indicate amphibian habitat
quality. If VDDW was equal to or greater than 17.1 m3/ha, then the variable index was 1.0;
otherwise the index was volume per ha divided by 17.1 m3/ha.
Because wet slopes provide resources that are similar to resources provided by other habitat-
types (supplemental resources), then the area and accessibility of an unaltered slope, and the
quality of adjacent supplemental habitats are all important in assessing site quality. The
contribution that supplemental, off-site habitat provides to site quality at any given location
depends on the minimum area required to sustain a given species population (in this case, an
amphibian species). Therefore, the patch size required for the species that requires the largest
area most likely also supports populations of other species of the community that require smaller
areas.
It was assumed that 10 ha would be the minimum size of forested (closed canopy) area that
would be sufficiently large to sustain all populations of amphibians typical of unaltered wet
slopes. This supplemental landscape area (VwDscp) included both wet slope and upland are
count as supplemental landscape, the canopy had to be closed (to provide shaded microhabi
conditions required of amphibians) and connected with the PAA. Further, in order for the P
to have contiguous forest, it had to have a closed canopy also. Therefore, an open field wou
La Grange Property Functional Assessment
Chathmn County, NC
a. To
tat
AA
Id
Page 13

have no closed canopy (VLjvDscp = 0.0). If a PAA had contiguous, closed canopy of 10 ha or
_ larger, then VLvDscp = 1.0; otherwise VLNDscp = contiguous area in ha/10 ha.
The Functional Capacity Index (FCI) for Maintain Characteristic Animal Communities was
modeled by averaging the sum of FCI for Maintain Characteristic Plant Community/Habitat
function, VmlcRo, V DDW, and VLNDscp. The plant community function, microtopography, and
DDW represent on-site habitat quality, while area of contiguous, forested landscape represents
supplemental habitat quality. The two together indicate habitat quality for animals.
`'J Function 4: Maintain Characteristic Biogeochemistry
This function reflects the capacity of a wet slope to maintain biogeochemical processes at the
rate, magnitude, and timing characteristic for the ecosystem, including nutrient and elemental
cycling, biogeochemical transformations, and export of dissolved organic constituents. This
function models the effects that alterations have on biogeochemical processes and assumes that
wet slopes will maintain their characteristic biogeochemical processes if not altered.
The most commonly studied elemental constituents in freshwater wetlands include various forms
of nitrogen (Nz, NOz, NO3 NH4), extractable phosphorus, inorganic carbon (dissolved and
particulate), and organic carbon (in living and dead biomass). However, such measurements
would be too time-consuming to model. Instead, the HGM approach assumes that alterations to
hydrologic regime, forest structure, and soil all detrimentally alter biogeochemical processes.
The rate, magnitude, and timing of biogeochemical processes are determined by living
components of an ecosystem. Primary producers (plants) assimilate nutrients and elements in
soil, and use energy from sunlight to fix carbon. When they die, they depend upon microbial
organisms in soil to transform those fixed elements and compounds to forms that are available to
other plants. Therefore, conditions that maintain plants and soil microbial populations are those
that drive characteristic biogeochemical processes, such as the assimilation and cycling of
nutrients from dead to living biomass and the export of dissolved organic matter.
Considering the characteristic biogeochemical attributes of wet slopes, three conditions stand out
as being essential for determining the degree to which biogeochemical processes are altered in a
slope wetland: (1) the degree to which hydrologic regime is altered, (2) the degree to which
living biomass stocks are altered, and (3) the degree to which detrital biomass stocks are altered.
All three parameters are discussed below.
Because most biogeochemical processes in wetlands depend on the spatial and temporal balance
between oxic and anoxic conditions, the timing and duration of flooding and soil saturation
(hydrologic regime) affect biogeochemical processes. Therefore, alterations that affect
hydrologic regime also affect biogeochemical processes. For example, draining a slope wetland
reduces flooding and soil saturation, which in turn alters processes that depend on anoxic
conditions (fermentation, denitrification, etc.). Therefore, the degree to which hydrologic
conditions are altered (measured by the FCI for the hydrologic function) was used to model the
contribution of the hydrologic condition to the biogeochemical function.
0
La Grange Property Functional Assessment Page 14
Chatham County, NC

0 The amount of living biomass determines the rate and magnitude at which nutrient cycling
occurs. Therefore, an indicator of living biomass was used to model alterations to
t biogeochemical processes. The canopy stratum is by far the largest reservoir of aboveground
biomass in forests. Therefore, the density of canopy-sized trees (VcTD) was used to indicate the
? condition of aboveground biomass. If a PAA had 457 canopy trees or more per ha (reference
ly' standard condition), then VcTD = 1.0; otherwise VcTD = tree density per ha/457.
The amount of detrital biomass also determines the rate and magnitude at which nutrient cycling
occurs. The largest reservoirs of detrital biomass are soil organic matter and large down, dead
wood (DDW). Draining and filling, both modeled by the hydrologic function, would alter soil
organic matter. Alterations to the other major detrital compartment were modeled using VDDIV, a
variable also used in the animal community function. Calibration relative to the reference
standard was identical (see Appendix B).
The Functional Capacity Index (FCI) for the Maintain Characteristic Biogeochemistry function
was modeled by averaging the sum of the FCI for the Maintain Characteristic Hydrologic
Regime function, VcTD, and VDDiy. The hydrologic function provides the contribution of
hydrologic effects on biogeochemical function and effects of soil disturbance on detritus in soils,
VcrD provides the contribution of aboveground biomass to biogeochemical function, while VDDw
provides the contribution of large wood detritus to biogeochemical function.
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The current conditions of 10 PAAs were assessed, including the Reference Standard site
(PAAI). Field data for all PAAs are provided in Appendix C. The Reference Standard site
(PAAI) is the least altered portion of the site. It has not been been modified hydrologically, it
has a closed canopy at least 40-50 years old with scattered tree blow-downs, and cattle have not
been allowed to graze there (cattle had been fenced out and understory was intact). Even so, the
reference site was not embedded within a sufficiently large tract of contiguous forest (VLNDSCP),
nor does it have a sufficiently wide upslope forested buffer MUFF), to qualify as a true reference
standard site in all respects. Therefore, initial FCIs for the reference standard site are not 1.0 for
the three functions that included VLNDSCP or VBUFF as model variables. However, restoration of
upland forest could, without any restoration of the wetland proper, enable PAAI to achieve an
FCI of 1.0 for all functions.
Table 2a shows the pre-restoration (current assessment) variable scores for each PAA and Table
2b shows the post-restoration (anticipated) scores. Pre-restoration scores were calibrated from
the raw data in Appendix C. The potential gain in function that could accrue for each PAA is
shown in Table 3. It was assumed that actions will be taken to restore all portions of the site. The
non-forested areas will be reforested, forested areas will be enriched with supplemental plantings
of appropriate species where needed, tree-fall divots will be constructed in the appropriate sizes
and density where needed, downed dead wood would be restored at the density and volume
required, and the surrounding uplands would be restored to a closed forest. The post-restoration
0
La Grange Property Functional Assessment Page 15
Chatham County, NC
a?
O
GA
r?•c
V
tl
a
h
f•a
O
W
t/]
FBI
W
b
`l
Cl
V
0
c,
w
cn
it
0
u
N
O
r.+
T•w
O
a?
s'.
a
«i
N
C.1
C?
E-4
0 0 0 0 ¢ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
r, 0 0 0 0 z
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O c o 0
PA
0 0 0 0 Q o 0 0 t- 0 t- t- 0 r- o 00 0 0 0 0
o 0 0 o z o 0 0 0 Io -- --! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pr
0 0 0 o Q o 0 0 0 - 000 000 o r 0 a. 0 0 0 0
o 0 0 o o 0 0 o r q -! 0 0 0 0 0 0
-: 0 0 z
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
P,
0 0 0 o Q o 0 0 0 00 00 o r o rn o 0 0 0
o 0 0 o 0 0 0 o o - 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
Q r: 0 0 z
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q
P?
0 0 0 0 0 CO O O O V) •-? O r- O r- O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O lq: - O O O 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C
P+
0 r-
? o r- 0 t- 0 0 o M
O O O 0 0 O 0 0 ' r+
V O O O 0 0 0 0
- •-+ 0 0 0 0 O O O •
O O O O O O O O O O O
P,
O O r- r- Q O d' d' N v't d' v ko r- N r O t- 1.0 It
u O O ON - z 0 N C1 N ?D ?D
O 0 10
O O
O -
O N N
0 O O
O O\
O O M
O O
Q! .-• O O O O 0 0 0
P+
O O l? t? Q O t ct• N V1 d' ?O c+l
O N O
O r`
O\ ?o V
O M
O O ON
O -^
O z O
O tl
O O\
O N
O IIR
O O O O
O O O Cl O O O O
?! •--? O
PM
M O O t- t` Q O •cY ?F N V1 d' d ?O O t- O
O I-
O? %?O
O M
O O a\ -I z 0 N O\ N ? ?D ?O O N N
Q! O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
P.
O O O t` kn V1 O to V) t}' ?t O\ t` N Ln •d' O O1% 00
to O O %n N to r- O t- r- r- r, N N M tt to M
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
a
0 0 '0 r- o r to rn M 00 00 n %0 •o CD %D N
O O V M O 0o V1 O 09 V1 v't N ^+ O N O ?t N N
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
P4
O O •-+ %0 O% T 00 M N Un O O M %.D %0 %0 C, M d'
O O Vl N M M r N t? IO %D •! N O N M v'1 •-. cn
th •--? 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pr
O O •--• %0 O m 00 M N V1 O O M ?O O O m •-+ f'1
m O O V1 N O M t` r- •--? [? 10
--'
N
N to
M
V1
•--• M
M
e!
l •--? •--• O O O O O O G O O O O O O O O O O O
da
O O M - O W m m --? r} N N O N 00 cn O t`
N O O ?D O? vl ?O t? M Vi OO I-0 ?O O O\ M tl? \D 10 O [l:
QI O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
Q
o.
O O O O O M O O O O O O O O O O M 0 co It
.-1 O O O O Vl 09 O O O O O O O O Cl! co 09 O O Q`

P+

a 0
a
a
o a
u ? U ?, 4
u i U
y a _
o U o Q ' U
u
cc u. 2 u. o C .
4
> > ` > > >` > > w > > w > >
> >
w

O C ? CY G O •N
i' ? •
E w E

w aUx GU q ,

0 C) 0 0 0 ¢ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 z o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

a
0 0 0 o Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q o 0 0 o z 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

a

n 0 0 0 0 Q 0 = D 0 C 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o
o 0 0 0 o z 0 0
.? 0
r, 0 0
.. 0 0 0
-, 0
r. 0 0
., 0
., 0
.-. 0
.. 0
A4
a o 0 0 0 ¢ 0 0 0 Cl 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl
0
.. 0 0 0 z o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
a
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

a
ca o 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q .; .? .-A - H N - - .--1 H - - .--i - r-I e--1 - - .--1 -
Q
a
u o O o o Q o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
%0 0 0 0 0 z o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
d'
PA
'm o 0 0 0 ¢ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
?0 0 0 0 o z o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
a
C-4 o 0 0 0 ¢ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0
%Q 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
a
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
P-4
a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
- 0
- Cl
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
-
a
n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q r. .. r. .. .-. .-. - r. - - - , . .-. -

Pk
cs o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
cn o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q4 r; . ; .. -:
a
N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Co O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
a
O O O O ON ?o 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O N-0 Cl 0 m
'i O O O O ao C? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C? O O O)
Q . ; 0 p . r . . + . r. .-. . p p
PO
? a C ?
C ?- Y
U 4
V ?-?
U ^?
? z y?
? ° U O
? O ?
O U
Q
?
„ U
Z
k
L4
r
q
> > >>> > > > > w >>

tD
CD
o
c
c
y a
cl
V)
^d ;? E cn E

x 0 C3
aux
Qu
ca
0
0
O
bA
cl
a
a
a U
40.
rt?
cl
GA
u
?X+
'd
r.
CC
? H
U_
C)
two
r.
U
M
,.Q
Q -4
E-4
U C-4
-,t c, o-4 ooo o.-.ooo o-.ooo
n D .5
H w ? ,-, ry o co
0
X 0 0 0 K1 M O O O M M O O O M M O O O M M
Q O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
?v 0 -+ - 0 0 O -+ -» O O O O -? .-. 0 0
a
X 0 0 0 - .-i r O M h oo O N Q\ O pp O? .-i
l
l
Q O O O N N
O .--? --0 0 --? O 00 N r-t
O? 0 0 0 O O QN N H
O --? 0 0 0 G O O C
! f
i
?
A

X
0 0 0 ?O b
00 O N E t/'! _
Q\ O V' to
0 0 0 ?D \O
0 0 0 0 0 .--? O 00 O O O O O? O O 0 0 0 0 0
O ?+ --? O C O - Cl O C O r+ O O O O?? O C

X 0 0 O O O oo O N O P m O O Os O O O O O
Q O O O M M -i q oo t+l O O O Q. C9 .-i q O O M Cl

a
A
0 0 0 v1 N --? O Q\ v'f N n O M V'1 M Q O O W) N
Q O O O N N --? O oo N N O O O? N N O O O N N
O .-+ -+ O O O? 0 0 0 O .--? 0 0 0 O ^? ^+ 0 0
a

oooN ? .-»orn tn r-ocn --?t- rior.-.o
oornviv --?ooov?v, ooo.?nv, ooo.In Ui
? ,
o -- o 0 0 0-. o0 0 0.-.0 00 CD .-.CD CD CD
a
u
? O O O d' ?t ?t O %O It 14 l- O c+l V' M V' O NO It M
0 0 0 0 lD O M O O N O [? O O M O ?O 0 0
O --? -? O Q. O r. 0 0 0 O .-? O O O O -+ O O C
a
A
X 0 0 0 cn en d0 ?O ('?1 rl r'1 O !l r1 N d' O 10 M N
0 0 0 O c+'i O O N O I-? O O c*i O \O O O
a o ---»oo o .-?ooo o- ?ooo o-?ooo

b 0 0 0 V1 M t7 O %O V1 N I- O M U1 If 'a ?O vi M
Q? O O O O O ?O O M O O N Or-: O O M O IO O O
O -? --O O O - 0 0 O O - 0 0 0 O - 0 0 0
a
N
??
!! d' O %D O ? O ID ?--? ON Vl O v1 ?O oo n N cf
7 'cf' O W) I- ,t r- O N t- .4 M O 'D f- V; C'1 O %O Il: V'
?
a O? O O O O -O O O O? O. O O O r+ O O O
Q 0 0 0 e-1 00 O N .--Q\ %0 O It %O N O 00 .-+ %D
-+
O O O N N vi O 't N O N O I- N -4 N O (- N '

A
M D\ O M d' O O O Cn QN I'D O It Cn [, It O IO M In
Q C9 O ?O O ,t N O Cl! O [l? Cl! .? c+l q %O N -+
a oo o-- ooo o .- ?ooo o-?ooo

M
rno r•r ooor- M ooor- tn vo\or- Ln
? cno?ooo %oov,oo moV? oo cnoIooo
o - :ooo o-:ooo o.--?ooo o .?ooo
a
N 00 O N n M N O oo r M •--• O O, [- t- [- O M t- to
'
Q ? O cYl O: ?D \D O c*1 O: [- O N m V7 r- O N D\
IT
?
a o -:or- o o-jo--o o-; o?o o_o
o.-
~ M \.O M cr •" ? O O O O O Cl O V' M
I d' D\ N [fi [,

X 00 ON -%0 N
0 0 0 --O 0 0 0
-- --O -O W O N
D f?
O --? O -O m m O H O
C O O -? O
.
o o o ? o
.
G
a aC:
a s c
? 00
P. a
? onv
P. w C
G
h ? ? C, r,
wwU¢C7 uU.wU¢U wwU?C7 wcUr.U¢yC7
V H
_
r
p?
n a
o
o .
a, Cl o a c o o u
'.L' wUx ¢'U q u
ai
a
condition also represents the condition of the PAAs after establishment of a mature canopy for
m the plant community function.
Maintain Characteristic Hydrologic Regime
The FCI scores in Table 2a show that PAA4 and PAAs 6 through 10 have been severely altered
hydrologically (FCI = 0.0) because they have either been drained with ditches or filled. PAA2,
PAA3, and PAA5 have not been drained or filled, but function sub-optimally (relative to
Reference Standards) because of one or more of the following hydrologic alterations: canopy
tree density is too low, tree-fall divot density is too low, or the break in slope is inadequately
buffered. Restoration of hydrologic function could be achieved by restoring to pre-altered
conditions, assumed to be represented by the Reference Standard area (PAA1). Filling ditches
will lead to increased retention times of water in areas affected by drainage ditches. In areas not
affected by ditching, canopy trees, tree-fall divots, and buffers will have to be restored to fully
restore hydrologic functions.
Examining the condition of model variables in each PAA was used to determine what actions
need to be undertaken in each PAA to restore the model variables, and hence, function. For
example, to restore hydrologic function in PAA4, (1) spoil piles could be used to fill in the
ditches, (2) the appropriate mix of canopy trees species could be planted (and allowed to seed
into the area) at a density sufficient to achieve a final density of at least 457 trees/ha, (3) trees
with root-wads could be placed throughout the site at a density of 5.9 treefalls/ha and divots dug
a in front of the root-wads, (4) a forested buffer at least 50-m wide could be planted along the
upslope boundary from the break in slope, and (5) pasture between the slope and river could be
planted with trees to provide a 10-ha contiguous forest of supplemental habitat.
Maintain Characteristic Plait Community/Habitat Attributes
The Plant Community FCI shows very low function in PAAs 7 through 10 because these areas
are an open pasture of exotic grasses and are devoid or almost entirely devoid of trees and
shrubs. The other PAAs (2-6) vary in the similarity of their canopy, midcanopy, and subcanopy
vegetation to the Reference Standard area, but because they support closed-canopied forest, they
function better than the pasture areas. Some PAAs have forest growing on fill and/or have been
previously subjected to grazing pressure, which altered their understory and encouraged invasion
of exotic species.
Although the density of canopy trees is important for appropriate hydrologic function, the plant
and animal community functions depend partly upon the composition of the canopy stratum.
Supplemental planting of appropriate oak species, swamp tupelo, and subcanopy species such as
sweetbay, blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum), and spicebush (Lindera benzoin) will be needed
to restore plant community functions to areas that currently support a closed-canopy forest but
lack these important species. Yellow poplar, sweetgum, ash (Fraxinus spp.), and red maple (Acer
rubrum) will likely naturally seed into the pasture areas from nearby trees because these species
have seeds evolved for wind dispersal.

La Grange Property Functional Assessment Page 19
Chatham County, NC

Maintain Characteristic Animal Communities
The Animal Community FCI scores less than 0.35 in all PAAs except PAA2. Areas of former
open pasture (PAAs 7 through 10) show very low function because on-site habitat conditions are
low (low Plant Community FCI), they lack tree-fall divots and DDW, and they lack a contiguous
forest canopy. All PAAs, including the Reference Standard, lack sufficient contiguous forest (for
supplemental habitat), so even forested PAAs function sub-optimally for the Animal Community
function. However, increasing the amount of supplemental habitat by reforesting adjacent
uplands now in pasture will provide a substantial improvement in function.
Maintain Characteristic Biogeochemistry
a The Biogeochemistry FCI shows extremely low function in the former pastures (PAAs 7 through
10) because there are no canopy trees, tree-fall divots, or buffer. Because PAA4 and PAA6 have
been drained or filled, their low hydrologic function also causes them to show low
biogeochemical functions. Restoring hydrology, reforesting former pasture, and restoring buffer
will provide a substantial improvement in biogeochemical function to these areas.
Applying reference standards to restoration will lead to some novel approaches that have been
rarely, if ever, applied in North Carolina. One such approach will be restoring the appropriate
densities of tree-fall divots and root-wads and the density and volume of downed dead wood to
PAAs. Restoring these conditions, a characteristic of unaltered sites, is essential for quickly
restoring characteristic hydrologic, animal community, and biogeochemical functions.
Neglecting these aspects of the restoration will prevent full functioning from occurring until the
areas develop a mature, climax forest (typically longer than 100 years).
Restoring DDW and microtopography is technically feasible. Trees occupying the spoil piles can
Q be tipped over and moved to the appropriate locations. This will also supply DDW. The sizes of
the tree-fall divots should be based on in situ measurements of divots obtained in the field during
the assessment (Table C-3). Divot size is related to the size of the tree that produces it. The
volume of divots at the La Grange site range in size from 0.8 m3 to 4.8 m3 with depths ranging
between 10 cm and 50 cm.
The change (gains) in FCIs anticipated from restoration were multiplied by the area (in hectares)
of each PAA to obtain anticipated gains in FCUs (Table 3). Anticipated FCUs were then
summed across PAAs for each function. The results indicate that if the restoration were
successful, the restoration would provide compensatory mitigation for alterations to slope
wetlands of 4.1 FCUs of hydrologic impacts, 3.2 FCUs of plant community/habitat impacts, 4.0
FCUs of animal community impacts, and 3.8 FCUs of biogeochemistry impacts. FCUs gained
could be used to compensate for FCUs lost due to project impacts elsewhere. The appropriate
ratio of compensation FCUs to impact FCUs cannot be determined because there is no scientific
foundation for trading FCU across different HGM wetland types. At this time, trading decisions
must be based solely on best professional judgment. However, the information provided here can
show to what degree identified restoration approaches would improve wetland functions in this
Q rich fen ecosystem.
La Grange Property Functional Assessment Page 20
Chatham County, NC

J
4.0 LITERATURE CITED
Ainslie, W.B., R.D. Smith, B.A. Pruitt, T.H. Roberts, E.J. Sparks, L. West. G.L. Godshalk, and
M.V. Miller. 1999. A regional guidebook for assessing the functions of low gradient, riverine
wetlands in western Kentucky. Wetlands Research Program Technical Report WRP-DE-17.
Vicksburg, Mississippi, USA. (http://tivww.vves.mil/el/wetlanclsltivlpt.tbs.litml).
Braun, E.L. 1950. Deciduous forests of eastern North America. Hafner Press, New York, NY,
USA.
Brinson, M.M. 1993. A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands. Technical Report WRP-
DE-4, Waterways Experiment Station, Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Brinson, M.M., F. R. Hauer, L. C. Lee, W. L. Nutter, R. D. Rheinhardt, R. D. Smith, D.
Whigham. 1996. A Guidebook for Application of Hydrogeomorphic Assessments to Riverine
Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. Wetlands Research
Program Technical Report WRP-DE-11. Vicksburg, Mississippi, USA.
(http://wtivw.tives.mil/el/wetlands/wlpubs. html).
Brinson, M.M. and R.D. Rheinhardt. 1996. The role of reference wetlands in functional
assessment and mitigation. Ecological Applications 6:69-76.
Burke, M., 1996. Historic evolution of channel morphology and riverine wetland hydrologic
functions in the Piedmont of Georgia. M.S. Thesis, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.
Novitzki, R.P. 1979. Hydrologic characteristics of Wisconsin's wetlands and their influence on
floods, stream flow, and sediment. In P.E. Greeson and J.R. Clark (eds.), Wetlands Functions
and Values: The state of our understanding. American Water Resources Association.
Minneapolis, MN.
Ruhlman, M.B. and W.L. Nutter. 1999. Channel morphology evolution and overbank flow in the
Georgia Piedmont. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 35:277-290.
Radford, A. E., Ahles, H. E., and Bell, C. R. (1968). Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Rheinhardt, R. D., M. M. Brinson, P. M. Farley. 1997. Applying reference wetland data to
functional assessment, mitigation, and restoration. Wetlands 17:195-215.
Schafale, M. P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North
Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources. Raleigh, NC.
i
0 La Grange Property Functional Assessment Page 21
Chatham County, NC
0
Rheinhardt, R., M. Rheinhardt, M. Brinson. 2002. A regional guidebook for applying the
hydrogeomorphic approach to wet pine flats on mineral soils in the Atlantic and Gulf coastal
plains. Waterways Experiment Station (WES), Wetlands Research Program Technical Report
ERDC/EL TR-02-9. Vicksburg, Mississippi, USA.
(http://www.wes.miUel/wetlands/wlpubs.html).
Smith, R.D., A. Ammann, C. Bartoldus, and M.M. Brinson. 1995. An approach for assessing
wetland functions using hydrogeomorphic classification, reference wetlands and functional
indices. Technical Report TR-WRP-DE-9, Waterways Experiment Station, Army Corps of
Engineers, Vicksburg, Mississippi. (http://tivww.vves.mil/el/lvetlandsltivlpitbs.lit7nl).
0
La Grange Property Functional Assessment Page 22
Chatham County, NC
Appendix A: Field Data Sheets for Functional Assessment
Partial Assessment Area (pAA): Date:
Extent of ditch and fill effect define pAA boundaries.
Ditch (VourF): absent (1.0)?Fill/Excavation (VSroR): absent (1.0)
present (0.0) present (0.0)
Buffer and landscape condition derived from field and remotely sensed data.
Buffer condition:
perimeter length with > 50-m wide forested buffer x 1.0 =
perimeter length with < 50-m wide forested buffer x 0.5 =
perimeter length with no forested buffer x 0.0 =
Total (1) (2)
VeuFF = Total (2)1(1) =
Adjacent area (ha) of forested landscape/5 ha
(VLNDSCP) = (Maximum value is 1.0)
Location of sampling points
1 Latitude
2 Latitude
3 Latitude
Longitude
Longitude
Longitude
Page A-1
6
Partial Assessment Area (pAA): Date:
a
13
Canopy 1 2 3 Total Mean Density Simil.
Total : Density = VMPY
0 (V CTO) _ (Total Density/Total Density in RS site)

Midcanopy2 1 2 3 Total Mean Density Simil.

e
Subcanopy3 1 2 3 Total Mean Density Si
?scnar
'Canopy: counts of stems > 15-cm dbh, measured in 10-m radius plots
2Midcanopy: counts of stems 7.'5-15-cm dbh, measured in 10-m radius plots
3Subcanopy: counts of stems > 1-m tall, < 7.5-cm dbh, measured in 10-, 5-m radius plots or smaller plots
Page A-2
Partial Assessment Area (pAA):
Downed dead wood > 1 m-long, >10-cm diameter
1
2
3
Date:
Mean
diameter
(cm)
Length
(cm)
Volume
(CM) Mean
diameter
(cm)
Length
(cm)
Volume
(cm) Mean
diameter
(cm)
Length
(cm)
Volume
(cm)

Total vol. Total volume/ vol. of RS (Vpow):C? (max. = 1.0)
Density of divots (micrtopography) determined from entire pAA or from using
point-center-quarter (PCQ') method. Measure in metric.
Distance Width Length Depth Distance Width Length Depth
Microtopography due to tree tip ups.
Number of large (> 2 m2) divots in pAA:
Total area of pAA:
Density no./area):
Divide by density in RS site VMIcRO- (max. =1.0)
'PCQ formula: Detrmine distance to nearest tip-up in each compass quandrant
Density = 10,000/(avg. dist. in m)2 I
Page A-3
Partial Assessment Area (pAA): Date:
Cover' of invasive non-native (exotic) herbaceous and vine species in 1 m2 plots.
Species 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mean
Mean cover V EXH =
'Use midpoint of cover class: 0 (0), 0-5 (2.5), 5-25 (15.0), 25-50 (37,5), 50 (50.0),
50-75 (62.5), 75-95 (85), 95-100 (97.5), 100 (100).
HYDROLOGY FC11 = VOUTF
FC12 = VSTOR
FC13 = (VCTD +VMICRO +VBUFF)13, or if not along break in slope, then
FC13 = (V CTD +V MICRO )l2
FCI =? (lowest score of subequations)
PLANT COMMUNITY/ FCI = (VCNPY +VMCNPY +VSCNPY +VEXH)14
HABITAT
FCI =?
ANIMAL COMMUNITY FCI = (FCI Plant Community + VDDW +VMICRO + VLNDSCP)/4
FCI =?
BIOGEOCHEMSTRY FCI = (FCI Hydrology + VcTD + VDDw)13
FCI =C?
Page A-4

Appendix B: Summary of Model Variable Definitions, Measurement Method,
rt and Conversion to Sub-indices
1. Outflow (drainage) of water from slope (VouTF)
Measure/Units: Removal of water by ditches.
Method:
1. Determine presence/absence of ditches that drain the PAA.
2. If drainage ditch is present, then V ouTF = 0.0, if ditch is absent, then V ouTF = 1.0. PAA is
assumed to be within the area that is being drained
2. Surface Water Storage (VsTOR)
Measure/Units: Addition (fill) or excavation of material (VsTOx)-
Method:
1. Determine presence/absence of fill material or an excavation in PAA.
2. If PAA is within an area to which material has been added or excavated, then VsroR = 0.0. If
PAA is not within an area to which material has been added or excavated, then VSTOR = 1.0.
3. Microtopography (VMicRo)
Measure/Units: Density (per ha) of divots from tree tip-ups where divots are > 2 m2.
U Method:
1. In each of four compass quadrants, measure the distance to the nearest divot. If distance is
greater than 100 m, record 100 m as distance. (Also measure the length, width, and depth of
the resulting divot.
2. Calculate density of divots in m2/ha, where density =10,000/[(average distance in meters)2].
3. If density of divots is > 5.9 divots/ha, then VM/CRO = 1.0, otherwise, VM1cRO = density/5.9
divots/ha.
4. Proportion of total bordering length of 50-m wide forested buffer (VBuFF)
Measure/Units: Length of forested buffer at least 50-m wide along a given break in slope.
Method:
1. Determine the length of the slope break contiguous to the PAA.
2. Determine the proportion of the slope break length that has a forested buffer (1) wider than
50 m, (2) 1-50 m wide, and (3) lacks forested buffer.
3. Multiply the proportion of length with > 50 wide forested buffer by 1.0, the 1-50 m wide
forested buffer by 0.5, and the proportion lacking a forested buffer by 0.0 The sum of the
resulting values = VBUFF.
I
Page B-1
D
5. Canopy tree density (VCTD)
Measure/Units: Density (per ha) of all trees > 15 cm dbh.
Method:
1. Count all trees > 15-cm dbh in three 10-m radius circular plots.
2. If tree density is greater than 457 trees/ha, then V cNpr = 1.0, otherwise VcNPY = tree
density/457 trees/ha.
6. Canopy tree composition (VcNPY )
Measure/Units: Sorensen similarity index (weighted by canopy tree density).
Method:
1. Count and identify all trees > 15 cm dbh in three 10-m radius plots.
2. Determine the mean density of each canopy tree species in stems/ha.
3. Compare the compositional similarity with the Reference Standard site using the Sorensen
similarity index formula: 2C/(A+B), where A is the density of all canopy trees in the PAA, B
is the density of all canopy trees in the Reference Standard wetland, and C is the density of
only canopy tree species common to both the PAA and the Reference Standard site.
4. If the Sorensen Index is greater or equal to 0.6, then VcNPY = 1.0, otherwise VcNPY = the
Sorensen index/0.6.
7. Midcanopy tree composition (VMcNPY )
Measure/Units: Sorensen similarity index (weighted by midcanopy tree density).
Method:
1. Count and identify all trees 7.5 to 15 cm dbh in three 10-m radius plots.
2. Determine the mean density of each midcanopy species in stems/ha.
3. Compare the compositional similarity with the Reference Standard site using the Sorensen
similarity index formula: 2C/(A+B), where A is the density of all midcanopy trees in the
PAA, B is the density of all midcanopy trees in the Reference Standard wetland, and C is the
density of only the midcanopy tree species common to both the PAA and the Reference
Standard site.
4. If the Sorensen Index is greater or equal to 0.6, then VMcNPY = 1.0, otherwise VMCNPr
= the Sorensen index/0.6.
8. Subcanopy tree composition (VscNPY )
Measure/Units: Sorensen similarity index (weighted by subcanopy tree density).
Method:
1. Count and identify all woody trees and shrubs taller than 1 meter and less than 7.5-cm dbh
cm dbh in three 5-m radius plots.
2. Determine the mean density of each subcanopy species in stems/ha.
Q 3. Compare the compositional similarity with the Reference Standard site using the Sorensen
similarity index formula: 2C/(A+B), where A is the density of all subcanopy trees in the
PAA, B is the density of all subcanopy trees in the Reference Standard wetland, and C is the
density of only the subcanopy tree species common to both the PAA and the Reference
Standard site.
4. If the Sorensen Index is greater or equal to 0.6, then VSCNPY= 1.0, otherwise VscNPr = the
Sorensen index/0.6.
U Page B-2
0
9. Exotic invasive herb cover (VExH)
a Measure/Units: Percent cover of invasive, non-native herbaceous species.
Method:
1. Place a series of square lm2plots at the center of the 5- and 10-m radius plots, and at other
locations at intervals between larger plots. Estimate cover of invasive, non-native herbaceous
species in each plot, by species. Estimate cover as the midpoint of the following 9 cover
categories (in parentheses): 0 (0), 0-5 (2.5), 5-25 (15), 25-50 (37.5), 50 (50), 50-75 (62.5),
75-95 (85), 95-100 (97.5), 100 (100).
2. Average the sum of the covers for all non-native herbaceous species across all plots.
3. If mean cover of invasive, non-native species is > 1.9%, then VExH = 1.0; otherwise VExH =
(100- cover)/100.
10. Downed dead wood (VDDtiv)
Measure/Units: Volume (per ha) of downed dead wood (DDW) > 10 cm diameter and longer
than 1 m.
Method:
1. Measure the length and mean diameter of all downed dead wood > 10-cm diameter lying
within three 10-m radius plots. Measure only those sections that lie within the plot
boundaries.
2. Determine the mean volume of all DDW in the plots in m3/ha.
3. If mean volume is > 17.1 M3 /ha, then VDDW = 1.0, otherwise VDDw = volume/17.1 m3/ha.
11. Supplemental landscape for fauna (VLNDscr)
Measure/Units: Area of contiguous forested landscape (wetland and upland) required by animal
species that require the wetland portion for part of their life cycle. Forested canopy was closed
canopy, regardless of stand age.
Method:
1. Measure the total area (ha) of contiguous, forested landscape that includes the PAA. The
PAA must be forested to count as having contiguous closed canopy forest.
2. Divide the area of contiguous forested landscape by 10 ha, if contiguous area > 1.0, then
VLNDscP = 1.0, otherwise VLNDscP = contiguous area in ha/10 ha.

0 Page B-3
Appendix C: Assessment data from partial assessment areas.
Table C-1. Density of woody species for partial assessment areas at La Grange (stems/ha).
PAA1 PAA2 PAA3 aib PAA4 PAA5 PAA6 PAA7 PAAB PAA9 PAA10
a/b/c alb alb
CANOPY DENSITY
Acer rubrum 66 59 33 66 15 - - - - -
Carpinus caroliniana - 22 - - - - - - -
Celtis laevigata - - 11 11 - - - - - -
Fagus grandifolia 7 - - - - - - - - -
Fraxinus pennsylvanica - 81 - - 37 - - - - -
llex opaca 15 - - - - - - - - -
Liquidambar styraciflua 74 59 88 66 81 265 - - - -
Lidodendron tulipifera 133 52 44 - 52 118 - - - -
Magnolia virginiana 81 - 11 22 - - - - - -
Nyssa biflora 52 - - 11 7 - - - - -
Platanus occidentalis - - - - - - - - - -
Quercus albs 22 - - - - - - - - -
Quercus laurifolia - 15 11 - - - - - - -
Quercus nigra 7 - - 11 7 59 - - - -
Quercus phellos - - 33 22 - - - - - -
Quercus rubra - - - - - - - - - -
Salix nigra - 7 - - 22 - - - - -
Ulmus americana - - - 7 - - - - -
Total 457 287 232 210 228 442 - - - -
MIDCANOPY DENSITY
Acernegundo - - - - 7 - - - - -
Acer rubrum 44 7 33 - 37 88 - - - -
Carpinus caroliniana 15 155 - - 44 29 - - - -
Carya spp. - 22 - - - - - - - -
Celtis laevigata - - - - - - - - - -
Fraxinus pennsylvanica - 52 11 - 140 29 - - - -
llex opaca 7 - - - - - - - -
Liquidambar styraciflua 37 22 122 66 118 - - - - -
Liriodendron tulipifera 7 - 11 22 22 - - - - -
Magnolia virginiana 103 - 22 11 - - - - - -
Nyssa biflora 7 22 - - 7 - - - - -
Pinus taeda - - - - 7 - - -
Quercus alba 7 - - - - - - - -
Quercus laurifolia - - - - - - - - - -
Quercus nigra 7 - - - 7 29 - - - -
Quercus phellos - - 22 - - - - - - -
Salix nigra - - - - 59 - - - - -
Ulmus alata - - - - - - - - - -
Ulmus americana - - - - 15 - - - - -
Total 236 280 221 99 464 - - - - -
Page C-1
PAA1 PAA2 PAA3a/b PAA4 PAA5 PAA6
a/b/c PAA7
alb PAAB
a/b PAA9 PAA10
SUBCANOPY DENSITY
Acer barbatum 29 - - - - 29 - - - -
Acernegundo - - - - 29 - '
Acer rubrum 88 206 133 354 147 147 - 29 177 -
Alnus serrulata - 118 - 4,996 - - - - - -
Amelanchler canadensis 29 - - 442 147 - - - - -
Carpinus caroliniana 177 531 - - 737 - - - - -
Carya sp. 29 29 - - - - - - - -
Celtis /aevigata 59 - 44 442 29 - - - - -
Clethra afnifolia - - - - 59 '
Comus florida 88 - - - 29 - - - - -
Diospyros virginiana - - - - - - - 29 - -
Euonymus americana - 118 - - 29 - - - - -
Fagus grandifolia 29 - - - - - - - - -
Fraxinus pennsylvanica 59 147 - - 265 - 1,091 - 1,150 -
flex decidua - - 88 - 29 - - - - -
flex opaca 59 - - - - - - - - -
flex verticillata 1,267 265 - - 442 - - - - -
Itea virginiana - 324 - - - - - - -
Juniperus virginiana 29 - - 88 - 88 - - -
Ligustrum sinense - - - 44 - - - - - -
Lindera benzoin 147 648 - - - - - - - -
Liquldambarstyraciflua 88 619 707 486 413 206 884 648 - -
Liriodendron tulipifera - - - - - 59 - - - -
Lonicera sp. (shrub) - - 44 - - - - - - -
Luecothoe racemosa 177 531 - - - - - - - -
Lyonia ligustrina 147 29 - - - - - - - -
Magnolia virginiana 884 - - - - - - 324 - -
Nyssa biflora - 29 - - - '
Nyssa sylvatica 29 - 221 - 29 - - - - -
Pinus taeda - - - - - -
Prunus serotina 59 - - - 59 - - - - -
Quercus alba - - - - - '
Quercus nigra - - - 177 - - - - -
Quercus phellos - - - - 29 - - - - -
Quercus rubra 29 - - - - - - - - -
Salix nigra 29 - - - - - 147 - 236 -
Sambucus canadensis 295 - - - - 29 - - - -
Sorbus arbutifolia 29 - - - - - - - - -
Ulmus alata - - 398 - - - - - - -
Ulmus americana - - - - 118 - - - - -
Ulmus rubra 147 147 - - - - - - - -
Vaccinium corymbosum 590 413 - - 354 - - - -
Viburnum dentatum 59 - - 88 265 - - - - -
Viburnum nudum 560 - - - - - - - - -
Viburnum prunifolium - - - 88 59 - 147 - -
Total 5,217 4,156 1,636 7,207 3,272 - - - 1,562 -
Page C-2
0
a Table C-2. Functional indicators for partial assessment areas at La Grange.
PAAI PAA2 PAA3 PAA4 PAAS PAA6 PAA7 PAA8 PAA9 PAA10
a/b a/b/c alb alb
INDICATORS
Ditch present N N N Y N Y N N N Y
Fill present N N N Y N Y N N N Y
Proportion of forested buffer
Area (ha) of contiguous 1.95 3.20 1.95 0.65 2.17 1.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
forested landscape
Canopy tree density 457 287 232 210 228 442 0 0 0 0
(stems/ha)
% Cover of non- 1.9 15.8 24.7 17.5 25.3 35.0 55.3 29.2 40.3 0.0
native,invasive species
Volume of down dead wood 17.07 43.67 2.22 3.53 3.30 1.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0
Density of divots from tree- 5.9 5.3 1.5 1.0 1.6 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
falls
Table C-3. Dimensions of divots caused by tree falls.

Width (m)
Length (m)
Depth (m) Area
(m2) Volume
(m3)
1 2.0 0.8 0.35 4.7 1.1
2 3.0 1.5 0.12 14.1 1.1
3 4.0 2.0 0.38 25.1 6.4
4 1.5 4.5 0.40 21.2 5.7
5 1.3 3.0 0.30 12.3 2.5
6 1.1 2.7 0.20 9.3 1.2
7 0.9 2.4 0.50 6.4 2.1
8 1.0 2.4 0.15 7.5 0.8
9 0.7 1.5 0.10 3.3 0.2
Mean 1.7 2.3 0.28 12.4 2.3
0
a Page C-3

Table C-4. Frequency of herbaceous species in a series of lm2 plots. Cover-type abbrev.:
., RS=Reference Standard, F=Forested, G= Grazed, D=Ditched, R=Road.
Site:

Cover-type:
Mean herb cover PAA1

RS
77.1 PAA2

FG
57.8 PAM
a/b
FG
17.5 PAM

FD
30.0 PAA5

FG
15.6 PAA6
a/b/c
FG
25.0 PAA7
a/b
G
36.6 PAA8
a/b
G
50.0 PAA9

G
58.1 PAA10

R
NA
Frequency by species
Ambrosia artemisiifolia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 44.4 66.7 NA
Arisaema triphyllum 75.0 55.6 22.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Asclepias syriaca 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.2 0.0 0.0 NA
Aster spp. 12.5 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Bignonia capreolata 12.5 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.6 44.4 44.4 0.0 NA
Boehmeria cylindrica 12.5 33.3 11.1 11.1 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 NA
Campsis radicans 0.0 33.3 0.0 11.1 11.1 71.4 33.3 44.4 33.3 NA
Carex spp. 25.0 22.2 0.0 33.3 22.2 57.1 11.1 0.0 22.2 NA
Carex spl 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Carer sp2 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Carex sp3 (tall) 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Clematis virginiana 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Cuscuta sp. 0.0 22.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 NA.
Cyperus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 NA
Daucus carota 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.2 NA
Desmodiczm sp. 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 33.3 33.3 NA
Diodea sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 NA
Dryopteris sp. 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Eleocharis tortilis 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Erigeron canadensis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.4 NA
Euonymus americanus 0.0 22.2 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Eupatorieem capillifoliunt 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 NA
Galium sp. 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Geum canadense 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Glyceria striata ? 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Goodyera pubescens 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Hypericum sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.2 11.1 0.0 NA
Impatiens capensis 25.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Ipomea purpurea 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 NA
Juncus coriaceocts 0.0 11.1 11.1 11.1 0.0 0.0 66.7 55.6 0.0 NA
Juncus effuses 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 NA
Juncus spp. 0.0 11.1 11.1 0.0 22.2 14.3 0.0 22.2 100.0 NA
JunCUS tenuis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Juncus sp. (terminal infl) 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Juncus tenuis ? 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 NA
Lespedeza sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 11.1 0.0 NA
Ludwigia sp. 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
0
Page C-4
`?a3
i
Table C-4 (cont.)
Site: PAA1 PAA2 PAA3
a/b PAA4 PAA5 PAA6
a/b/c PAA7
a/b PAA8
alb PAA9 PAA10
Lonicera japonica 25.0 77.8 55.6 44.4 77.8 100.0 11.1 11.1 44.4 NA
Medeola virginiana 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Microstegiunt vimeneum 37.5 66.7 66.7 44.4 55.6 71.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Mikania scandens 0.0 0.0 22.2 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Mitchella repens 37.5 33.3 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Osmunda cinnamomea 62.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Osmunda regalis 25.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Oxalis sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 57.1 77.8 0.0 0.0 NA
Oxypolis rigidior 0.0 22.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Panicum sp. 12.5 0.0 0.0 33.3 77.8 57.1 33.3 66.7 11.1 NA
Parthenocissus quinquefolia 50.0 33.3 22.2 11.1 11.1 57.1 22.2 44.4 11.1 NA
Phytolacca americana 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Poa sp. ? 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 NA
Poaceae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Polygonum spp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.2 11.1 0.0 0.0 11.1 11.1 NA
Potentilla sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Rhus radicans 25.0 22.2 11.1 22.2 33.3 0.0 44.4 22.2 88.9 NA
Rubus sp. 0.0 33.3 55.6 44.4 11.1 14.3 88.9 100.0 100.0 NA
Rumes sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Rumex sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 NA
Sagittaria latifolia 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Saurttrus cenmus 37.5 66.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Scutellaria integrifolia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.3 44.4 44.4 0.0 NA
Setaria spp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.2 33.3 33.3 NA
Smilax glauca 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Smilax rotundifolia 37.5 22.2 22.2 11.1 22.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Solanum carolinense 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 11.1 14.3 22.2 33.3 44.4 NA
Solidago sp. 37.5 11.1 22.2 22.2 22.2 0.0 11.1 11.1 11.1 NA
Solidago patula 12.5 44.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 42.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Sphagnum sp. 25.0 11.1 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Symphoricarpos orbiculatus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.2 0.0 NA
Thelypteris novaboracensis 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Tovara virginiana 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Uniola sessiliflora 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Uniola laxa 12.5 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Verbesina sp. 0.0 0.0 33.3 11.1 0.0 28.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Vernonia noveboracensis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 NA
Vicia sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Vitis rotundifolia 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 11.1 28.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Woodwardia areolata 87.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Unidentifiable fern 0.0 22.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Unidentifiable grasses 0.0 11.1 11.1 22.2 0.0 71.4 33.3 0.0 22.2 NA
Unidentifiable vine w/ milky sap 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
r
Page C-5
0

0
0
La Grange Farm
March 31, 1955
` ! 1
? ? l J N
1 -.`.i ? -?_'.1 ?y ` `) ? • y 1. I
t

L?l
a
V
La Grange Farm
January 11, 2000
,-
a cg
; r„?°?? j.- f y? S. a ?5.. ^/ _ 1 ; t. y; (y:,? 1 , ?•??c 14,
+t a f lit `?,l¢ m ,'? r x Y? *' r \ =u ?} (?J ,
}?'i y ?`?4r r ? j_r r Y ? h,,f'-,?'? 1` cA'• R? R'7 h? 1jr` fYT`1?? {P -
„4 t ('elit i? $? F Rt ut .?: J7
Y
St:?7 ,f.-?7?F?ies.''..*•, .:y
"E *7r ?•k
l
i I t tt?,
e F?
t ? "fie
r?? jjfi,•. r r ? ,t

Legend
r--j
L--j Mitigation Boundary
TLC Property Boundary

1
1?? r

5

iS
w
/f
F?
, -
?
?_ , Y
• ?
'
s
' t
4 i?
i
0
0
0
0

0
VII. Species Lists (lists are not complete)
U Plants of the La Grange Reserve
Aasarum canadense Wild Ginger
Acer negundo Box Elder
Acer rubrum Red Maple
01 Acer saccharum Southern Sugar Maple
Aesculus sylvatica Painted Buckeye
Agrimonia parviflora Agrimony
a Allium vineale Field Garlic
Alnus serrulata Tag Alder
Andropogon virginicus Common Broomsedge
Anthoxanthum odoratum Sweet Vernal Grass
Apios americana
Arisaema triphyllum Apios
Jack-in-the Pulpit
Aronia arbutifolia Red Chokeberry
Arundinaria gigantea Giant Cane
Asclepias sp. Milkweed
Asimina tribola Pawpaw
19 Asplenium platyneuron Ebony Spleenwort
Aster dumosus An Aster
Athyrium asplenioides Southern Lady Fern
Betula nigra River Birch
Bignonia capreolata Crossvine
Boehmeria cylindrica False Nettle
Botrychium biternatum Grape Fern
Botrychium dissectum Grape Fern
Botrychium virginianum Rattlesnake Fern
Campsis radicans Trumpet Creeper
Cardamine hirsuta Bittercress
Carex crinita Fringed Sedge
Carex debilis White-edge Sedge
Carex digitalis A Sedge
Carex laxiculmis Broad Loose Flower Sedge
Carex lupulina A Sedge
Carex lurida A Sedge
Carex tribuloides A Sedge
Carpinus caroliniana Ironwood
Carya cordiformis Bittemut Hickory
Carya glabra Pignut Hickory
a 14

a
r.

0
0
Plants of the La Grange Reserve
Carya ovata Shagbark Hickory
Celtis laevigata Sugarberry
Q Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush
Cerastium holsteiodes Mouse Ear Chickweed
Cercis canadensis
Chasmanthium laxifolium Redbud
River Oats
Claytonia virginica Spring Beauty
Commelina virginica Day Flower
Cornus florida Flowering Dogwood
Corydalis flavula Yellow Flumewort
Cuscuta gronovii Dodder
Datura stramonium Jimson Weed
rn Dentaria concatenata Cutleaf Toothwort
Dichanthelium acuminatum Witchgrass
Dichanthelium commutatum Variable Witchgrass
Dichanthelium dichotomum Common Witchgrass
Diospyros virginiana Persimmon
Duchesnea indica
Eleocharis tortillis Indian Strawberry
Spikerush
Elephantopus caroliniensis Elephant Foot
Elephantopus tomentosus Elephant Foot
Erythronium americanum Trout Lily
Euonymous americanus Strawberry Bush
Euphorbia obtusata Leafy Spurge
Fagus grandifoloia American Beech
Festuca elation Fescue
Festuca obtusa Fescue
Festuca ovina Fescue
Fragaria virginiana Wild Strawberry
Fraxinus americana White Ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash
Gallium aparine Bedstraw
Geranium carolinianum Winter Geranium
Geranium maculatum Wild Geranium
Goodyera pubescens Rattlesnake Plant
Hedeoma glaucoma Pennyroyal
a Houstonia caerulea Bluet
Houstonia pusilla Bluet
Hypericum hypericoides St. Andrews-Cross
0 15
Fit
11,11
0

J

0
Plants of the La Grange Reserve
Hypericum mutilum Slender St. John's Wort
'
Hypericum stans s Wort
St. Peter
ilex decidua Possum-haw
American Holly
Ilex opaca Common Winterberry
Ilex verticillata jewelweed
Impatiens capensis Virginia Willow
Itea virginica Black Walnut
Juglans nigra
Juncus coriacea A Rush
Juncus dichotomus A Rush
Juncus effusus Softrush
Juncus tenuis A Rush
Red Cedar
Juniperus virginica Swamp Doghobble
Leucothoe racemosa Chinese Privet
Ligustrum sinense Spicebush
Lindera benzoin
Lineria canadensis Toad-flax
Ligiuidambar styraciflua Sweetgum
Liriodendron tulipifera fi Tulip Tree
Lobelia cardinalis Cardinal Flower
Lonicera japonica Japanese Honeysuckle
Ludwigia alternifolia Seed Box
Ludwigia palustris Marsh Seedbox
Luzula acuminata Woodrush
Luzula ecbinata Woodrush
Lyonia ligustrina Maleberry
Lyonia lucida Fetterbush
Lysimachia mumularia Loosestrife
Magnolia virginiana Sweet Bay
Medeola virginiana Indian Cucumber-root
Menisperum canadense Moonseed
Michella repens Partridge Berry
Microstigeum vimineum Japanese Grass
Mikania scandens Climbing Hempvine
Morus rubra Red Mulberry
Murdania keisak Marsh Dewflower
Nyssa biflora Swamp Tupelo
Nyssa sylvatica Black Gum
Onoclea sensibilis Sensitive Fern
16

0
0
0
Plants of the LaGrange Reserve
Ophioglossum vulgatum Southern Adder's Tongue
Ornithogalum umbellatum Star of Bethelhem
Orontium aquatic Golden Club
Osmunda cinnamomea Cinnamon Fern
Osmunda regalis Royal Fern
Ostrya virginiana Hop Hornbeam
Oxalis sp. Sorrel
Oxypolis rigidior Stiff Cowbane
Parthenocissus quinquefolia Virginia Creeper
Phacelia sp. Phacelia
Phoradendron serotinum Mistletoe
Phytolacca americans Pokeweed
Pinus echinata Short-leaf Pine
Pinus taeda Loblolly Pine
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore
Poa annua Bluegrass
Poa autumnalis Bluegrass
Podophyllum peltatum May Apple
Quercus alba White Oak
Quercus falcata Southern Red Oak
Quercus mauchauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak
Quercus nigra Water Oak
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak
Quercus phellos Willow Oak
Quercus rubra Red Oak
Quercus shumardii Shumard Oak
Quercus stellata Post Oak
Ranunculus acris A Buttercup
Ranunculus flabelliformis Yellow Water Crowfoot
Ranunculus hispidus A Buttercup
Ranunculus pusilus A Buttercup
Ranunculus repens A Buttercup
Rhododendron nudiflorum Wild Azaelea
Rhus coppallina Winged Sumac
Rhynchospora glomerata Beakrush
Rosa palustris Swamp Rose
Rubus argutus Blackberry
Rubus trivialis Blackberry
17

u
D
0
Plants of the LaGrange Reserve
Rudbeckia laciniata
Sagittaria latifolia
Salix nigra
Sambucus canadensis
Sassafras albidum
Scirpus cyperinus
Smilax bona-nox
Smilax glauca
Smilax laurifolia
Smilax rotundifolia
Smilax walteri
Solidago rugosa
Sphagnum lescurii
Stellaria media
Symphoricarpos orbiculatus
Sysyrinchium sp.
Tiarella cordifolia
Tilia sp.
Tipularia discolor
Toxicodendron radicans
Tridens flavus
Ulmus alata
Ulmus americana
Uvularia perfoliata
Uvularia sessifolia
Vaccinium corymbosum
Valerianella radiata
Verbesina occidentalis
Viburnum nudum
Viburnum prunifolium
Viburnum rafinesquianum
Vicia spp.
Viola affinis
Viola eriocarpa
Viola papilionacea
Viola rafinesquei
Vitis sp.
Woodwardia areolata
Woodwardia virginica
Green-head Coneflower
Duck Potato
Black Willow
Elderberry
Sassafras
Wooly Bullrush
Saw Greenbrier
Glaucous Greenbier
Laurel Leaf Greenbrier
Common Greenbrier
Coral Greenbrier
Goldenrod
Yellow Peatmoss
Chickweed
Coralberry
Blue-eye Grass
Foamflower
Basswood
Cranefly Orchid
Poision ivy
Tridodia
Wined Elm
American Elm
Perforated Bellwort
Sessile Bellwort
Highbush Blueberry
Corn Salad
Wing Stem
Possum Haw
Black Haw
Downy Arrowwood
Vetch
LeConte's Violet
Yellow Violet
Common Violet
Violet
Grape
Netted Chainfern
Virginia Chainfern
18
i
dl
Plants of the La Grange Reserve
Zephyranthes atamasco Atamasco Lily
0 Birds of the La Grange Reserve
e Acadian Flycatcher Empidonax virescens
American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos
American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis
American Redstart
a American Robin Setophaga ruticilla
Turdus migratorius
J American Woodcock Scolopax minor
Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica
Belted Kingfisher Ceryle alcyon
Black Vulture
Black-throated Green Warbler Coragyps atratus
Dendroica virens
Blue Grosbeak Guiraca caerulea
i Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata
n Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea
Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum
oBrown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater
Brown-headed Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis
a Canada Goose
Carolina Chickadee Branta canadensis
Parus carolinensis
Carolina Wren Thryothorus ludovicianus
o Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum
e Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina
o Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula
Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas
Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii
a Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis
e Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens
J Eastern Bluebird Oenanthe oenanthe
Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus
Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna
Eastern Pheobe Sayomis phoebe
Eastern Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus
European Starling Sturnus vulgaris
eField Sparrow Spizella pusilla
Fish Crow Corvus ossifragus
Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca
Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis
U 19

Birds of the La Grange Reserve

= Great Bltie Heron Ardea herodias
'-Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus
Henslow's Sparrow Ammodramus henslowii
Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus
Hooded Merganser
PHooded Warbler Mergus merganser
Wilsonia citrina
e House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus
01 Indigo Bunting Passerina cyanea
Kentucky Warbler Oporornis formosus
1 Killdeer Charadrius vociferus
a Mallard :. Anas platyrhynchos
i Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura
Northern-Bobwhite Quail Colinus virginianus
di
li
i
j Northerri•Cardinal s car
na
s
Cardinal
i Northerri Flicker Colaptes auratus
v Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos
o Northern Parula Parula americana
Orchard Oriole
o Ovenbird . Icterus spurius
Seiurus aurocapillus
Pine Warbler Dendroica pinus

0 Red-bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus
a Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus
o Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis
-i Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoenicus
dRuby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula
?,Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia
•? Summer Tanager Piranga rubra
Swamp Sparrow Melospiza georgiana
Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor
Tufted Titmouse Parus bicolor
9 Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura
White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis
White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys
c White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis
Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius
Q Yellow-billed Cuckoo
a Yellow-breasted Chat Coccyzus americanus
Icteria virens
Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata
Yellow-throated Vireo Vireo flavifrons

' r .- '??•. 20
)
,
+Ner

4 L .:,1vil
L'

III
Amphibians of the La Grange Reserve
American Toad
Southern Dusky Salamander
Fowler's Toad
Green Frog
Marble Salamander
Northern Cricket Frog
Southern Leopard Frog
Spotted Salamander
Spring Peeper
Two-lined Salamander
Upland Chorus Frog
Reptiles of the La Grange Reserve
Black Racer
Broadhead Skink
Eastern Mud Turtle
Five-lined Skink
Rat Snake
River Cooter .:
Southern Painted turtle
Yellowbelly Slider

0 Mammals of the LaGrange Reserve
Beaver
Eastern cottontail
Golden mouse
Grey squirrel
Muskrat
Raccoon
White-footed mouse
White-tailed deer
Invertebrates of the La Grange Reserve
American Painted Lady
Carolina Satyr
Comma
Eastern Snout Butterfly
k;_,
Bufo americanus
Desmognathus ariculatus
Bufo woodhousei
Rana clarnitans
Ambystoma opacum
Acris crepitans
Rana sphenocephala
Ambystoma maculatum
Hyla crucifer
Eurycea bislineata
Pseudacris triseriata
Coluber constrictor
Eumeces laticeps
Kinostemum subrubrum
Eumeces fasciatus
Elaphe obsoleta
Chrysemys concinna
Chrysemys picta
Chrysemys scripta
Castor canadensis
Sylvilagus floridana
Ochrotomys nuttali
Sciurus carolinensis
Ondatra zibethica
Procyon lotor
Peromyscus leucopus
Odocoileus virginianus
Vanessa virginiensis
Hermeuptychia hermes
Polygonia comma
Libytheana bachmanii
21

Invertebrates of the LaGrange Reserve

Eastern Tailed Blue Everes comyntas
Eastern Tiger Swallowtail Papilio glaucus
Falcate Orange-tip Anothocharis midea
Pearl Crescent Phyciodes tharos
Spring Azure Celastrina ladon
Fish of the La Grange Reserve
Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides
Mosquitoefish Gambusia affinus
Sunfish Lepomis sp.

0 22
0
0
0
a

A
N p?
N
O
O W
Cl) C
CL
(o
CD
X
co
C
0-
(C)
(D

O
S
D
<
m
d
(n
c?
N
(n
A
W
W
A
A
Q)
W
10
IV
O
.A
rn
00
W
O
IV
V
0
.A
CD
A
Ul
N
Ul
W
CD
(00 ?
N
V
O
1 -A -1 J .1 -4 -A -d -& J
(D (D (D (D (D (D CD (D CD (D
(D (D (D CD CD CD (D (D (D (D
CD 00 V m Ul -Pb W N -+ O
L
v
CO CD .A. N O Ul Ul N ?I N 7
U, 1 CO A O -+ (n ai (D
(O N CD J -+ m O co m (D
"n
co
-+ CO W N J W -+ -+ O N LT
N W J co Ul Ul J m O N
J N W al N 1 (D W (O N

J
w
W O -? W N Ul CD -y W U7 -
s
N (O (O O O (O A W N O
W CD A CD A A -+ co -+ co

D ?
O N W + N Ul 1 O ?"?
? (o co (n N N -+ N 1
M CD co U, W O) U, Ul A -

r*
0

N O O N - O O O Un Sv
U1 U, N 1 N V W (D co LQ
-1 N" J co O N -+ O (D (D
N A11O U, 6(b NN
? v m O cn :- A M W N A V
W -+ -+ J ?+ O O A O A
_L 1
(m0 J W W J A m O CCp Ln
'1 A ,W - ., W W N 1 O
O 0 W (i?O n .JA. co ( J CC) O No COO N
O O O W O N
N O O N O Cl) 0 1 1 co
O O N O W co (n m (n O
1
N A j A N ?I A J -? CD
CO A O m -+ co w Ul N m
m N J W m Ul W N Cl) m
1
O N 0
W (n co A cn -+ -+ A A m
OD O W CO N W Ul co m CD
N N A N -1 -+ W N N co
m(oO(n co O A m m-r?,
(n W N A. m W (o (D a) N
A W CO A m N N W -y N
O -? W J co m O O Ul O
J
v .l
W
rn
ALn
-? N M co co
2) Q.
<
CD
(O
U) 0 0 E: -i
Z o

C r
d'
^": C
C
3 c o w

o o
o
to
N (DD
(n
? Co' n cn' (n' (D CD
w 'o ?. w w w D a
c 0 -Tj C c ?' .+ _(DD (D D
O (n
D D D
cn (D > CD CL
CD w CD w P3
(D D
w O w w -?
(D
CJ
V
J O N
O O N N V V v -+ (O
O in Oo (O (» W W V N
C/) Cl) 0 '0 0 U) •D 0 0 U) -o 0
? o? M
::E a Zn II u
L
c ( O
o O l i -0
n n =° II ?
7 (D II II -p Cn II O (D
C o =r
?. II C ?o Cjz W Z 0 0
Z=L
(D W O C w 0
C 0 0 7 v
W O O
7
'O
C
CD a 0 ku c
? C ?` m W N - 3 1
O
( ° 0- 3
p w U
(D (D Cf) (
D
O CD
D W (D CD o ? `
- ^

(D
n. 0
0 -00 -a +
O O Z
3 O
=r

D C:

O C:

N--
'

co
A
-l o _

N
c c o o -g o o Cf) 7)_. o
C: Ul :T (D
0 O Z
O
O
' U1 CD
v 1
C O
A O (D
^ O
cn C? 00 -n- CwD 3 on
'O O O
s 3 z O (D
CD

3.
`? v CD
Cp' <• (D C
0 .7
CD to
O
(n 3' (D w.
m w o CD
O CD
C N
3
Z w D
0 CD (
a
O
< 0
CD c
(n

n Q
l n
= =r
C
r
CD Cl
(D
- =
v w
C A n
CD
0 - O :"
n ' :3 CD
A CL (n
O
O
C <

d .
<

m m = = = = 0 0
A U) .0 (f) .0
O D -0
C C) (n .D C) (n -0 U) -0

? U) -0
N`D p0-1 1. O 0 GO 00-1 0 000-1 %. 1
W C ..
((DD (n cn U) U) 30 0
j? O O O O
3
Ca
a? cn v
cn d
cm D)
cn o
CL (D (D co m
cn
m
` C-
N Z)) W
Ui O O O A 7 N O O O N 3 -l O O N 0) 7 N
. O O
. . O W
. . 7
1 -? A Cn (D U1 1 W rn A .
U1 . .
A N .
N .
O CO O rn A N
O N (n (D CD m Cl) co A M Cn (D U1 V W (D Ul m O Cn
? A (D CD
f
D D
C (D C
D
-+ O O O N cr -+ O O O N CS O 00
. O O C7' N
. 00
. . O N
. CT
. . .
O N .
O .
O .
rn .
O .
rn . .
O N .
O .
O rn .
O .
J
N
O (O
W Cb
b o
(D O -! W N W O P. Cn N (D O v O (n N (.11 N C)) W

- ?
CO O O P. J ? -+ O "- O N i W
. O -+
. . O
. A
. w Ul
. O -•
. . N A
.
.
A (D m -+ O W O O -? W N O W N W O U) A Cn
A
-O O W OD N A W -? A U, (n A co v v (n v
D D D D
13 '13 '13
cn O N A -+ O N O N O N O -+ O O N O N

-+
O O
N
W
1
O
N
A (D .
N
O m
O .
. A
.
. O :p,

. .
O N
m Ul O W W Ui 00 W Cn CD A O 0) O N -+ -+ N v Ul

O O A O W O O W O W O
. O A
. O W
. m O-N
. W ?!
. .
?I O A W W W O O O W (D .
O ?I .
Un W .
W ba O CIl -+
N U) N m J -+ O N O W O (D - W -! (D 1- N (D
C- L C- C
C C C , C
CJ1
. O Cn
. . O
. O
. 7 co
. -?
. A U, 00
. . 7 N
. -+ U1
. . A
. A 7 N O U1
. . O N
. . 7
?l O O A N A .
?I (D A A O U1 N .
v .
v O Ul cn W
Cn O (D O W N -! A ?J -4 A W -+ O CO v N W O
C- C.. C- C-
=
O O ?l
. . -+
. 9)
. O O 1 p O O
. - A A
. O O
. . O N
.
.
.
-+
W A
CO
1
O .
O
.
rn
. .
O rn
6
.
N rn
.
W
C
in
W
O (It
O
1
w rn rn N 00 O O O CT) U1 U1 Cn m N v U, O -+ U1 N
D D D D

W O Ul O (Q N O A -+ cn C>? -+ O U1 N al (Q O O Ul -? A (a
-? O (D A !u N W ?l in ?1 0) A :A 1 A N A rn (O N
co co A W A W N Ut 00 -1 (D O cn 1 N W -? -I (D
U) N U) U)
(D (D (D
,
CD
O O A O A 'O W O A O - 'O O
. O W
. . 1
. CO
. "d N
. O W
. . O
. D
O 1 Cn Cn -? O A O W j 1 -l O O Cn O W
Ul -+ Cn A -I Cn O V O -+ Ul O Ul CD O (D O -+
O 0 O O
A O N N A In? J -+ N Ul U, + O 1 O O n? (D N (Y)
.n-?
W O O A Ul (n W O W Ul N O (D O (T) N O N v v
co -• J V A N 00 -11 W co W O .... W U1 00 00 00 A -?
Z Z Z z
_
-+ 0 0 O - < O O 1 W O < N 0 0
. . -+
. N
. < O
. 0 0
. . O -+
. . <
-+ O (D N 0, A N N rn v .
A N O N N w b (D N rn
Cn A A A (D W - W co (D O V (D O W (D
o v v o

W O O O W C) N O O O N n N 0 0 O N C) W O O O W n
A O N A W oo b :N A (O rn O cn N (o A -+ U1 rn A
(D O) 1 O v (D 00 m U1 00 m W " U1 Ut N W -1 A 00

W N -+ O

O O O O
:3 :3 m O

? =r
l< `G `G `G
3 O

O O O O
c c c c

0 0 0 0

O I? 1 ? D Imo]
A
N
0-
0 Q7
W C
a
cn
m
X
in
C
CL
(D
(n -0 C) (n lu
*m-a ? ((D
O
O ?.
(D

* m co
o
O
p -? 0

'
m v
(n
(D
* * M
o 0 00 n.
(a
(D
C) U)
o
q 00
m 'a
(n
(D
C- C- C- C-
m a) m m
A O O O W N O O O N :3 O O O N M 7 Ul 0 0 O A
1 1 cD A W -+ N m Un A U7 W N O O O-` O J
W co O m (D V W N A 03 -? O co Ul W m (D V O 1
( C C (
(
D (
D (
D (
D
W O O O W Cr N O O O N Cr V O O N O" W 0 0 O W a'
N U) U) W O m N Q) (n in GJ N p Vn :MM, .A m .A.
W O (D (D W U) A W A co N O U) CC) 1 -+ N (D W W

ms
-? 0 0 O N W O O O W N O -+ O U) O -+ N Ul -
s
(O O 0o O V O O co W W O O W N W O U) A W U)
A O (D O Cu O O G) J -+ A W J A N A W -+ W U)
D D D D
-
W O 1 O A O N O W ? O N O -? N
. O W
. . O O
. .
co -? - co W (D -+ W V (D .
N . .
O m .
O .
W N 0 0 O V
co A O - -? U) m -+ m m W O W A Ul m O -1 O U)

a1 m a) a>
O O N O G -+ O A O N N O A -+ A -? O W -? W
N O W O N --? --? A m J 1 A? (D J N N A W m
-+ 1 v V 1 J -+ N W W W O N W co O m co
N A
L C- C.. C-
C a N 1 ..A a c
-? O co O -+ O U) -+ W O W UI W U) 0 U) -j W U) 3
A O J W (D m N (D N A -+ A W (D O V N :+ -+
C) 0) O U) CD O A N A W A m N O -? co (D co cn -+

-? N U1 OJ O J -1 m m co 1 O Q) "
. A O O m " Ut
.
J N A (D A -L
A A
1 (D
-+
U)
W
A
N
in
W in
m w
w U) O m w W co co O W V O A O V A U) J (D V
D D D D

W O A O O (LZ - O U) 1 U) (t] A -+ m V U, m W O U) O -+ m
Ul O" O in W W N V.... V W N 61 A O N O07
W O CD O m U) CO -+ Ul (D A J J 1 J W O m O .A
(n (n N cn
(D -+ 1 1 (D (D (D
A O W W A (D A W m -+ 'C3 O O W O W 'G O O co O N 'C
O J O N m N A (D W N O -+ (D J N W - m m J
N J W U) V O O J O J W A -+ V m (D W V m m
O O O O
O O N A« A O N W A .0+ 1
N -+ N J (D .0? -4 -+ -+ U) U) .0«
O O N W O co (D N V N -? V A -1 N (D Ul (D J C7
J m U'i m N W Ui O A U) m m CO (D -+ U) O J co A
Z Z Z Z
<
W O O O co < A O O A < A 0 0 1 A < O -+ O N
<D -+ N U, V A N U, O N U1 N o) W -? O N N -+
W -+ co J A CO -+ cD m N N J (D A A W A A W
v o v v
CD co (D (D
A O O O W n N O O O N n -+ O O O n -+ a 0 O n
O " O Cl) U) U) O U) --' (D W O -+ O 1 O O Ul O U)
N O co A m A N O W W m O A O U) W O U) U) A

(0 (O
' 4 Q? c n
9 E 7
O O O O

O O O O
_ _ _ _
-
-
N -4%

CC

N ¢?
O ?
O co
W C
a
cn
m
X
N
C
C.

,n cn 'O m fn 'U
CID C) (n 'O cn 'O
'CID (n "u
q
* uC) 'D
C
O O O "1 n
• O 0 "i n O 0 "
.
a1
(B 'O N
tf] "CJ D)
(O 'O
(D (D (D
` ` C-
0
1 1
II
PO O O N P) 7 CO - O Ul 7 CO O O W -4
-+ W O N °1 Ut b) A O Ul
W O N co v CD -+ ?I v (D N N in O CO
? ( (
f
D (D (
D
-? O O O LT -+ O O O Cr (D O A O) CT
m O J i N N O O O j W ...4 U1 Cn W
O O W W N -Il O W O (D N A A A W

O O - 0 1 't W 0 0 O W "s O -+ -+ U7 -4
.
N
O
(Il
O ll
N
-+ Cu
v
A
CD
W O
?l CA
N O co Ul O W A O C) 1 CD W W N N
D D D

N O N O :N O O N
. O

. N N

. O N

. . -? A

. .
.
O .
O .
W .
W O .
A O :14 N .
(D CD N W -+ W
co O W W W U1 N O A W O N A V co

W O A O -? N O W O O O A O A
W O W O N Ul O ?I O 1 U7 1 _a Q) 1
cD O A W -? O A W N N -+ V W A
C- L C-
C C 1 C
W O O O 7 N O Ul O N 7 A O Q) O -+ 3
J O W O N A - A OO Cl)
W
O O
-+ CJ1
0) O -? Ul U7 -? W W -I W ?J N a) Ul a)
L C- C.
1 C
N O W N O) W O O O N O O -+ W
co O 0] 1 01 O V W Q) V A ?! lI rn
W O W W (D (D W (D Ul -? 1 -? O A
D D D

N O U7 N Ul (Q -+ O m O A (n A O Cri O -+ M
4 O O U1 -1 O 1 N W A O O J O W
N O O -I U) O W O W W O) O CO A W
N cn U)
i (D 1 (D
O O W O W (D U7 W -+ Q) 'LS -+ O A O W 'O
W O W W CO N OO O in Co O O Ut O U7
N O ?l O W O W A CD (D O O -+ O j
O O O
O O O O .0-? N O 1 1 co O+ A -+ N A W
W O W O O N (D N co A -+ O W W
4 O v O O OO CO O A N N N CO O W
Z Z Z
<
O O O O < -? O -• O N -i O O O N <
O O O O W O A N Ul O cD N N
O O O O O N v (D - N C7 (.n Q) co (D
p p O
CD n
O O O O N O O -• N n N O O O N

N
W Ul b) CD
O O O O O Ul -A CC) CD -
+ N W N -l
N --L -1
O (D (D
O (D (D
O (D 00

O O O
O :3 O
,.+ rt. r+
O' O•

O O O
C C

0
0
0
0 rl-
l

MINUTES
TLC Land Committee Meeting
Wednesday, October 13, 1999
7:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.
" Present: Rooks, Allen, Almon, Dixon, Gaertner, Markham, Pullman
La Grange Wetlands Restoration Feasibility Studv The Committee discussed the proposal from
Earth Tech to conduct a feasibility study for wetlands restoration at La Grange. Almon
explained that TLC will not be committed to a wetlands mitigation project if it agrees to the
feasibility study. She also said that we would get a copy of the written report on the study.
Markham asked about potential stewardship expenses if TLC agreed to a .wetland restoration
project on the land. Almon explained that TLC would be required to maintain the wetland.
DOT has customarily provided stewardship endowment funds to land trusts who hold their
wetland mitigation sites. The requested endowment contribution will be one of the costs DOT
will consider when it is deciding whether it can afford the project.
Allen moved that TLC allow DOT to undertake the feasibility study. Pullman seconded.
Approved.
E

0
D
Minutes
Triangle Land Conservancy Land Committee Meeting
Wednesday, March 15, 2001
7:00 PM - 9:00 PM
Present: Liz Rooks (Chair), Tandy Jones, Sunny Allen, Kevin Brice, Banks Dixon, Joanie
McLean, Debbie Roos, Beth Timson, Jane Almon, Liz Pullman, Jeff Masten
Rooks called the meeting to order at 7:05. Allen motioned to approve the minutes subject to the
date being revised. McLean seconded the motion. Motion passed.
La Grange Wetlands Riparian Reserve Restoration Proiect
Jane Almon, as a representative of Earth Tech, reported on the progress of US Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) approval for mitigation credits from the mitigation of the La Grange
wetlands. She stated that USACE and other agencies that met at the site were not convinced of
the mitigation benefits of the site and that further data were required. Almon reported that the
water budget, soils and other wetland physical features were in question by USACE. Earth Tech
will need to produce additional detailed mapping data to convince USACE that the site would bi,
an acceptable mitigation site to for NCDOT to receive wetland mitigation credits. Originally,
Earth Tech was anticipating 4-5 acres of restoration and 15 acres of enhancement. USACE was
most skeptical of the site's enhancement value and ambivalent toward the sites restoration
potential. Almon'stated that on April 12, 2001 Earth Tech will present the La Grange restoration
to USACE with updated and enhanced data. USACE will either accept or reject the site's
mitigation value. If accepted, NCDOT will need to decide whether they are willing to pay the
cost of the mitigation for the number of credits they will receive. Almon additionally stated that
if USACE rejects the offer there still are other potential mitigation options with National
Resources Conservation Service and/or US Fish and Wildlife Service

L
a.,.SWL°?
r?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
May 14, 2001
Memorandum to: File
From: Phillip Todd
Subject: Chatham County, La Grange Mitigation Site Feasibility Study, TIP
No. R-2417 WM.
An "in-house" meeting with resource agencies was held on April 12, 2001 to
review data collected after a field review in September 2000. Resource agency personnel
in attendance were Eric Alsmeyer, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and John
Hennessy, N. C. Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). Earth Tech personnel in
attending the meeting included Ron Johnson, Jane Almon and George Lankford. The
purpose of the meeting was to answer questions raised by agency personnel from the field
review, including discussion of a water budget for the site, update on the soil delineation
for the site and possible justification of mitigation credits.
L?J
Soils Delineation
uestion: Why was the determination made for "hydric" in the western portion of the
site?
The previous landowner had scraped off the top layer of soil, likely using the material to
mound up areas along the forested sections of the hillside.
Question: How does NCDOT propose to get hydrology now?
Hydrology would be returned to these areas via removing the berms along the forested
areas so that the water could spread into areas, sheet flowing over the existing non-
forested areas.
The porosity of the soils was also discussed. The only hydric soils on the site are at the
upper portion of the profile. The subsurface in the cleared areas is not hydric; borings
were not taken in the forested areas.

MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE. WWW.0OH.00T.STA7ENC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
Ell`
North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Parks and Recreation ,
Michael F. Easley, Governor CDEMR
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary Philip N- McKnelly, Director
August 27, 2001
Jane Almon
Earth Tech
701 Corporate Center Drive
Suite 475
Raleigh, NC 27607
Re: La Grange Bog w::tland restoration
Dear Ms. Almon
The Natural Heritage Program strongly supports the proposed restoration project. The LaGrange
Diabase Bog has been identified as a Significant Natural Heritage Area and the hillside seep it contains
has been recognized byNHP as arare type of natural community. Restoration of the natural hydrology
of the site through the methods you propose should enhance the quality of the natural area and is not
likely to have any adverse impacts. Additionally, we recommend that some attention also be given to
restoring the natural vegetation on the slope above the bogs.
We would also be interested in seeing more information on the grassland bird community potentially
present in the fields located to the east of the natural area. If either a wintering or breeding population
of Henslow's sparrows -- a federal Species of Concern -- can be confirmed to exist there, we would
recommend that these fields be kept open rather than reforested. The presence of loggerhead shrikes --
state listed as Special Concern-- and other declining species of grasslandbirds should also be considered
in management decisions regarding the fields.
Sincerely,
<?; A "-*'T L.,. F, 1 \'o?
Stephen P. Hall
Environmental Review Specialist/Invertebrate Zoologist
/sph
F i i
-IL
1615 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1615
Phnne- 919-733-1151 \ FAY: 919-715-3OS5 \ Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us/ENR/^ ^ ^^^
0
The landowner had no master plan for the land. He cleared and worked tract of land as he
wanted; he likely tried to remove water from existing clear portions so that he could move
machinery to lower areas of land as well as providing pasture for cattle.
Water Budget
The water budget provided by Earth Tech was reviewed with the resource agencies.
There was concern about there being sufficient water discharge from the seeps to provide
wetland hydrology across the site (based upon water budget present at the meeting). The
NCDOT would reduce the hydrology discharge (which was large) across the site by
removing berms located at the tree line.
It was suggested that NCDOT try and get a handle on the groundwater input. Most water
budgets do not consider groundwater input into the system although flow meters have
been used to attempt to gain measurements about water moving off the site.
The major question left to NCDOT was, is there enough water on the site?
Mitigation Credits
Li The question was asked to justify "enhancement" credit at the site. The response was
there were now four "islands" of wet forested areas along the hillside, and that by
restoring hydrology to the cleared areas and revegetating them, the entire system would
be enhanced. The entire system would be enhanced because the four wet "island" areas
would be reconnected providing connectivity for species movement as well as greater
habitat and upgrading the integrity of forested areas by removing `edges' and weedy
species that exist now along the forested areas. In essence, NCDOT would be enhancing
the function of the system as a whole, not one of the three wetland parameters (hydrology,
soils, vegetation).
There would be 13 acres of forested "enhancement" and 3 acres of cleared enhancement
with replanting vegetation.
Closing of meeting
John stated that he believed that it would be difficult to show wetlands on site based on
current water budget (not enough info or did not look good). John suggested not
providing any credit for non-hydric areas until NCDOT constructs and monitors the site,
and was a little uncertain about releasing credits for hydric areas.
John suggested that NCDOT investigate NCNHP ranking for the site as this may add
some extra justification for mitigation work at the site.
U
(Note: Jane Almon did check on the NCNHP ranking for the site; it has in fact been
designated an S 1 ranking.)
Eric stated that he would be willing to give mitigation credits between enhancement and
preservation for the forested areas (say 7:1 or somewhere around there depending on
justification). Total enhancement credit would be provided for cleared areas. Eric
suggested that NCDOT contact USFWS and NCWRC about their Ihoughts on
conductivity aspect of enhancement credit.
Another possibility initially discussed involved vegetating to outer limit of watershed for
wetland system. This act may provide greater justification for enhancement credits;
possibly vegetate into floodplain? All these decision about plantings would be pending
the thoughts of TLC.
Eric also suggested that we get the thoughts of NCNHP on what we are proposing to do at
LaGrange since they classified it as having ecological significance.
He also suggested greater information about groundwater input into the wetland system.
0
0
September 4, 2001
Memorandum to: File
From: Phillip Todd, NCDOT
Subject: Chatham County, Meeting minutes of La Grange Feasibility Study, TIP
No. R-2417WM.
A follow up meeting to April 2001 meeting was held on August 15, 2001. Persons
attending the meeting included Eric Alsmeyer (USACE), David Cox (NCWRC), John Hennessy
(NCDWQ), Ron Johnson (Earth Tech) and Jane Almon (Earth Tech). The purpose of this
meeting was to discuss possible mitigation credits for the site as well as the water budget that
Earth Tech has corrected.
Enhancement Credits
Old aerials exist that show the diabase bog and the floodplain of the Deep River as being
forested. The previous landowner has noted that flood waters reach part of the diabase bog area
after storm events. The landowner cleared the flood plain area to create pasture for livestock and
cleared two areas through the seepage areas in order to connect the upper terrace with the flood
plain. In addition to the clearing, he channelized the slope seepages, brought in fill material to
make access easier and installed berms to direct drainage out of the seepage.
NCDOT believes that fourteen (14) wetland enhancement acres should be provided for its
proposed mitigation activities at the site. Two acres of traditional wetland enhancement would
be generated by plantings in the existing wetland areas.
A more holistic approach to mitigation is taken by NCDOT to justify the additional
twelve (12) acres of enhancement to be performed on the site. These twelve acres of
enhancement would be generated because, with restoration activities (plugging the ditches and
removing the berms and roads), the NCDOT would be reconnecting the seepage areas to one
continuous system with wetland hydrology and connecting the floodplain of Deep River with the
seepages by reforesting the flood plain. The benefits for the project were outlined in the agency
handout.
a David Cox and John Hennessy supported the proposal of giving full enhancement credits
to NCDOT for their work on the site if the work on the bog was accomplished and if the flood
plain was reforested. The Natural Heritage Program (NHP) was contacted, and the diabase bog
has been classified by NHP as "S 1" ranking for North Carolina Rank and "Gl" Global Rank.
LJI This ranking system denotes a measuring rarity or threat status. These unique systems are
critically imperiled in North Carolina and globally because of extreme rarity.
Eric Alsmeyer was more hesitant about supporting the term and credits for full
enhancement based on NCDOT's proposal. Eric thought that credits should range between
0

enhancement and ervation. Eric suggested that Kathy Matthews of EPA be contacted to
pres o
® collect her thoughts on the enhancement credit issue.
Eric asked about NCDOT contacting NHP to discuss its mitigation activities since the
site has been listed as "S 1/G1". The NCDOT had not contacted NHP by the meeting date, but
contact has been made since the August 2001 meeting. In a letter dated August 27, 2001, the
NHP stated that it "strongly supports the proposed restoration project".
The NCDOT would not consider the proposed mitigation activities as being worthwhile
unless it received the enhancement credits described above.
Water Budget
The water budget distributed at the April 2001 meeting was inaccurate as the equation for
PET was incorrectly entered in the spreadsheet. A revised water budget was distributed at the
meeting as well as a brief description of what a water budget includes.
The gages placed at the site were determined to meet hydrologic criteria based on 501o of
the growing season. Eric Alsmeyer stated that a percentage greater than 5% should be used to
determine if hydrologic criteria for wet areas has been met. These gages meeting 5% hydrology
and greater than 501o hydrology would be differentiated if NCDOT decides to complete a
mitigation plan for the site.
John Hennessy noted that, if the rain fall data for September 1996 (Hurricane Fran) and
September 1999 (Hurricane Floyd) were excluded, then the monthly average would be negative.
David Cox had questions about the soils on the site. Would the soils hold water or would
areas be ponded such that trees planted for the project would be killed? The NCDOT will note
its thoughts on this topic and justify those ideas if it decides to move forward with completing a
mitigation plan for the site.
Summary
A decision about enhancement credits for the diabase bog was deferred until NCDOT and
USACE had consulted with EPA. The NCDOT was tasked to solicit continent from NHP about
its proposed activities involving the diabase bog. The NCDOT would also review species list for
the bog and likely reforest the flood plain with typical species.
at

Bill Holman
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
leanwater
ANAGEMENT TRUST FUND .,,....,........,._,,
Chair, Robert D. Howard
WHITEVILLE
March 11, 2002
Caroline Ansbacher
BURLINGTON
Bill Brooks
Ms. Kate Dixon WAYNESVILLE
Executive Director
Triangle Land Conservancy Dr. John Costlow
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 205 BEAUFORT
Raleigh, NC 27604 Karen Cragnolin

Re: Wetlands Mitigation at LaGrange Riparian Preserve/CWMTF Project #1998A-004 ASHEVILLE
Allen Holt Gwyn
Dear Kate: GREENSBORO
John C
Hagan
Thank you for requesting permission from the Clean Water Management Trust Fund for .
GREEN
O
O
the NC Department of Transportation to use a portion of TLC's La Grange Riparian SB
R
Preserve on the Deep River that was purchased with Clean Water Management Trust Allen M. Hardison
Funds (CWMTF Project #1998A-004) as a wetland mitigation. NEW BERN
G.S. 113-145.4 c) prohibits use of CWMTF grants to satisfy compensatory mitigation Joseph M. Hester, Jr.
requirements. The Clean Water Management Trust Fund grants permission for NCDOT ROCKY MOUNT
and TLC to use a portion of the La Grange Riparian Preserve in accordance with the
William Hollan
following terms: WINSTON-SALEM
1) the mitigation project will restore the diabase seepage bog, described in the Margaret Markey
1989 Chatham County Natural Heritage Inventory as asite of state-wide CORNELIUS
significance. In the 1980s this site was approximately 46 acres in size but
subsequent ditching of the seepage slopes and filling for road construction had Dickson McLean, Jr.
decreased the size of 'the natural area to approximately 15 acres when TLC LUMBERTON
purchased the land in 1998; William MCPhatter, Sr.
2) NCDOT will pay TLC a fee of $1655 per acre in the mitigation project, but CARRBORO
ownership of the land will remain with TLC. This price per acre is the amount
paid by TLC in 1998. The price per acre will be the same whether NCDOT is Mickey Simmons
using the acre for restoration credits or enhancement credits; NEWPORT
3) NCDOT will also pay TLC at least $10,000 for its stewardship endowment for
C. Leroy Smith
the property; WINTERVILLE
4) TLC will use funds paid by NCDOT for this project toward stewardship of the
La Grange Riparian Preserve or acquisition of additional land in the Deep River Chuck Wakild
watershed in Moore, Chatham, or Lee counties. WILMINGTON
Claudette Weston
WINSTON-SALEM
TEL [phone] I FAX [phone] I wwwcwmtf.net
Jerry Wright
5 30 NORTH WILMINGTON STREET, RALEIGH, NC 27604
1 651 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, NC 27699-1651 JARVISBURG
Kate Dixon Continued
Page 2
5) TLC will report the use of the NCDOT funds in the Deep River watershed to
CWMTF on or before March 11, 2003.
Please contact me if we need to discuss this matter further. Thank you.
Sincerely,
(--`? 1 "
Bill Holman
Executive Director
C. Francine Durso
Bern Schumak
Lana Armstrong
Ron Ferrell
- Ir -"
?Ty dSTA7't
N dS nno
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
LYNDo Twi ETT
SECRETARY
April 1, 2003 ?'?LgNDS14U1 GRU. S. Army Corps of Engineers OUI7
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office APR 1003 01- -
Attention: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer ATER QUALITY 6508 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 120??fi??
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Subject: Chatham County, LaGrange Mitigation Site, TIP No. R-609 WM
Dear Mr. Alsmeyer:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has completed a
mitigation planning document for LaGrange Mitigation Site. This mitigation site lies in
Chatham County (Hydrologic Unit 03030003). A copy of the mitigation has been
attached to this letter.
The NCDOT has scheduled a meeting to discuss the mitigation planning
document on April 8, 2003 (1 PM) at the Parker Lincoln Building. The purpose of the
meeting is to review the mitigation planning document for the site and discuss its
concepts. Please be prepared to provide comments on the planning document at this
meeting or provide comments in writing by May 2, 2003.
This mitigation site has been discussed several times during its feasibility study.
Initially, we agreed to a mitigation ratio of 7:1 for the enhancement/preservation ratio
with the decision to plant the buffer surrounding the wetland area. In order to potentially
support a lower mitigation ratio, the agencies and NCDOT agreed to complete a
functional assessment for the site. There were several suggestions about the utilize the
functional assessment. The credit section of the mitigation plan reflects how the NCDOT
believes the functional assessment can be best used to support lowering the mitigation
credit for this unique wetland system.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699.1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WMV.DOH.DOT. STATE. NC. US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC

If you have any questions about the mitigation planning document or need
additional information, please call me at [phone]. Thank you for your assistance
with this project, and I look forward to discussing the project with you on April 8, 2003.
Sincerely,
R4?1 0??
Phillip C. Todd
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ 401-Wetlands, Raleigh
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Ms. Kathy Matthews, EPA
Mr. Chris Militscher, EPA
WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
La Grange Property
Chatham County, North Carolina
State Project No. 8.1494001
TIP No. R-609WM
Prepared for:
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Raleigh, North Carolina
arNc??o
h~
01"'o
Yf 7t
P? q
??HFOF TRANS?O
March 2003

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) estimates that 951 acres of
wetland mitigation will be needed over the next nine years to offset planned impacts from
highway construction in the Piedmont region of the Cape Fear River Basin. The La
Grange Site, owned by the Triangle Land Conservancy (TLC), has been selected as a
potential mitigation site for a portion of these wetland impacts. The TLC property totals
about 308 acres, but only a portion of the property is being studied.
The wetland under study is the LaGrange Diabase Bog, described by NC Natural
Heritage Program personnel as one of the rarest biological communities in the North
Carolina Piedmont region. In its current state, it consists of four forested stands with a
scattered ground cover of sphagnum moss, as well as a number of woody and herbaceous
plant species that are more commonly associated with coastal plain communities. In
1989, the bog was listed in the Chatham County Natural Heritage Inventory as a Priority
Natural Area covering 46 acres. Some time after that, the previous landowner
constructed a gravel road and several cattle paths through the bog area. Recent field
investigations show the actual remaining area of the forested stands to be about 12 acres.
An additional 2 acres has wetland soils and hydrology, but only herbaceous vegetation.
Restoration of the areas cleared for the road and cattle paths and enhancement of an area
that is presumed to be part of the former 46-acre bog could potentially increase the
wetland and continuous forested area to about 21 acres.
Earth Tech proposes to restore about 4 acres of maintained grassland back to hillside
seepage wetland to reconnect the remaining forested fragments both in terms of
vegetation and hydrology. This would also enhance the existing 14 acres of wetland. In
addition, Earth Tech proposes to reforest the 18.5-acre open pasture in front of the
wetland restoration/enhancement area and the 9-acre terrace above it to provide additional
water quality benefits and continuous wildlife habitat. Benefits of this mitigation plan
include the following:
• Restoration and enhancement of a rare natural community (NHP rank S1).
• Increase in functional capacity.
• Stabilization of soils and elimination of erosion on the cleared slopes.
• Water quality benefits to the Deep River through increased storage and filtering
capacity.
• Water quality benefits to the downstream Critical Water Supply Watershed near
Gulf, North Carolina.
• Continuous forested corridor providing habitat for herpetofauna, migratory birds, and
small mammals.
a Mitigation for impacts to hydrologic, plant community/habitat, animal community,
and biogeochemical functions

it

of
Wetland Mitigation Plan
La Grange Site, Chatham County
SECTION PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1
2.0 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................. 2
2.1 PRELIMINARY DATA COLLECTION ......................................................................... 2
2.2 FIELD SURVEYS ..................................................................................................... 3
2.2.1 General Field Surveys ................................................................................... 3
2.2.2 Functional Assessment .................................................................................. 3
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ..................................................................................... 3
3.1 GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY .......................................................... 4
3.2 Sms .................................................................................................................... 4
3.3 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES ................................................................................. 5
3.3.1 Seepage Wetland ........................................................................................... 5
3.3.2 Maintained Grassland Community ................................................................ 7
3.3.3 Reference Area .............................................................................................. 8
3.4 WILDLIFE OF THE LA GRANGE SM ...................................................................... 8
3.5 PROTECTED SPECIES/PRIORITY AREAS ................................................................ 10
4.0 SITE HYDROLOGY ............................................................................................ 11
4.1 DRAINAGE FEATURES ......................................................................................... 11
4.2 MONITORING GAUGES ........................................................................................ 12
4.3 WATER BUDGET .................................................................................................. 13
4.3.1 Methodology ................................................................................................13
4.3.2 Assumptions ................................................................................................ 14
4.3.3 Inputs ........................................................................................................... 14
4.3.4 Outputs ........................................................................................................ 15
4.3.5 Results ......................................................................................................... 16
4.3.6 Interpretation ............................................................................................... 16
4.4 NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM MAPPING ........................................... 16
5.0 MITIGATION PLAN ............................................................................................ 17
5.1 HYDROLOGICAL RESTORATION ...........................................................................17
5.2 REFORESTATION ..................................................................................................17
6.0 Monitoring .............................................................................................................20
6.1 VEGETATION ....................................................................................................... 20
6.1.1 Monitoring Methods .................................................................................... 20
6.1.2 Success Criteria ........................................................................................... 20
6.2 HYDROLOGY ....................................................................................................... 20
6.2.1 Monitoring Methods .................................................................................... 21
6.2.2 Success Criteria ........................................................................................... 21
7.0 Wetland Mitigation Credit .................................................................................... 21
8.0 Dispensation of the Property ................................................................................. 23
9.0 Additional Considerations .....................................................................................24
10.0 Bibliography .......................................................................................................25
March 2003
I
r's
Wetland Mitigation Plan
La Grange Site, Chatham County
TABLES
Table 1. Seepage Wetland Community Species ................................................................ 6
Table 2. Maintained Grassland Community Species ........................................................ 8
Table 3. Species Under Federal Protection in Chatham County ..................................... 10
Table 4. Hillside Seepage Wetland Species .................................................................... 18
Table 5. Bottomland Hardwood Species ......................................................................... 18
Table 6. Upland Species .................................................................................................. 19
Table 7. Change in Functional Capacity ........................................................................ 22
FIGURES
(at end of document)
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Existing Conditions
Figure 3. Soil Map
Figure 4. Natural Communities Map
Figure 5. Hydrographs
Figure 6. Proposed Mitigation
ation Conce
t
Post-Miti
7
Fi
p
g
gure
.
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Functional Assessment
Appendix B. Historic Aerials
Appendix C. TLC Site Inventory
Appendix D. Water Budget
19
Appendix E. Letters and Minutes

March 2003
ii
Wetland Mitigation Plan
La Grange Site, Chatham County
Q
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) estimates that 951 acres of
wetland mitigation will be needed over the next nine years to offset planned impacts from
highway construction in the Piedmont region of the Cape Fear River Basin. On the basis
of a previous feasibility study and a functional assessment included in this plan, the La
Grange Site has been selected as a mitigation site for a portion of these wetland impacts
(Figure 1). The property belongs to the Triangle Land Conservancy (TLC). It consists of
a riparian buffer along a bend in the Deep River and a hillside seepage wetland inland
from the riverbanks. The entire property is about 308 acres in size.
The wetland understudy is known as the LaGrange Diabase Bog, described by NC
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) personnel as one of the rarest biological
communities in the North Carolina Piedmont region. It is a forested stand over hydric
soils with a scattered ground cover of sphagnum moss, as well as a number of woody and
herbaceous plant species that are more commonly associated with coastal plain
communities. These species include sweetbay magnolia (Magnolia virginiana), Virginia
chainfern (Woodwardia virginiana), blaspheme vine (Smilax laurifolia), coral greenbrier
(Smilax tivalteri), stiff cowbane (Oxypolis rigidior), and twisted spikerush (Eleocharis
tortilis). In 1989, the bog was listed in the Chatham County Natural Heritage Inventory as
a Priority Natural Area covering 46 acres. Some time after that, the previous landowner
constructed a gravel road and several cattle paths through the bog area. Recent field
investigations show the actual remaining area of the forested stands to be about 12 acres.
Restoration of wetlands on this site will provide water quality benefits to the Deep River
and the downstream Critical Water Supply Watershed near Gulf, North Carolina.
Earth Tech was retained by the NCDOT Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch to conduct a functional assessment and prepare a wetland mitigation
plan for the site. The purpose of this study was to assess the site in greater detail than
was done in the Feasibility Study and to prepare a mitigation plan to restore wetlands on
the site. This report describes the results of a natural resources assessment, a wetland
determination, a soils investigation, a groundwater evaluation, and the functional
assessment.
On the basis of these results, Earth Tech proposes to restore about 4 acres of maintained
grassland back to hillside seepage wetland to reconnect the remaining forested fragments
both in terms of vegetation and hydrology. This would also enhance the existing 14 acres
of wetland. In addition, Earth Tech proposes to reforest the 18.5-acre open pasture in
front of the wetland restoration/enhancement area and the 9-acre terrace above it to
provide additional water quality benefits and continuous wildlife habitat. Benefits of this
mitigation plan include the following:

March 2003
0 Page 1

Wetland Mitigation Plan
La Grange Site, Chatham County
• Restoration and enhancement of a rare natural community (NHP rank S 1).
• Increase in functional capacity.
• Stabilization of soils and elimination of erosion on the cleared slopes.
• Water quality benefits to the Deep River through increased storage and filtering
capacity.
• Water quality benefits to the downstream Critical Water Supply Watershed near
Gulf, North Carolina.
• Continuous forested corridor providing habitat for herpetofauna, migratory birds, and
small mammals.
• Mitigation for impacts to hydrologic, plant community/habitat, animal community,
and biogeochemical functions
2.0 METHODOLOGY
This mitigation plan was based on the analysis of existing materials and mapping and on
field data collected between January 2000 to August 2002. The following sections
present the methodology used for collecting data and evaluating the property's suitability
as a wetland mitigation site.
2.1 PRELIMINARY DATA COLLECTION
Prior to conducting the field activities, information concerning the site and surrounding
area was collected. This information included the following:
• U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Goldston (1980) topographic quadrangle map.
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Map,
Goldston (1995).
• January 2000 color aerial photograph (1"=400') of the project area provided by
NCDOT.
• Topographic mapping provided by NCDOT.
• Chatham County Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) draft soil survey
maps
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) list of protected species.
• North Carolina Natural Heritage Programs (NCNHP) database of uncommon species
and unique habitats.
Water resource information was obtained from publications of the North Carolina
Department of Environment, and Natural Resources (DENR, 2002), Division of Water
Quality (DWQ). Information concerning the occurrence of federal and state protected
species in the study area was obtained from the FWS list of protected species and Federal
Species of Concern (March 2002) and from the NCNHP database of rare species and
unique habitats. The NCNHP files were reviewed for documented occurrences of state or
March 2003
a Page 2

Wetland Mitigation Plan
Lei Grange Site, Chatham County
federally listed species and locations of significant natural areas and Natural Heritage
Priority Areas.
2.2 FIELD SURVEYS
2.2.1 General Field Surveys
Field surveys were conducted by Earth Tech biologists on several occasions between
January and July, 2000. Water resources were identified and their physical characteristics
were recorded. Plant communities and their associated wildlife were identified using a
variety of observation techniques, including active searching, visual observations, and
identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, tracks, scats, and burrows).
Terrestrial community classifications generally follow Schafale and Weakley (1990)
where appropriate and plant taxonomy follows Radford et al. (1968). Vertebrate
taxonomy follows Rohde et al. (1994), Conant et al. (1998), the American Ornithologists'
Union (2002), and Webster et al. (1985). Vegetative communities were mapped using
aerial photography of the project site. Predictions regarding wildlife community
composition involved general qualitative habitat assessment based on existing vegetative
communities and previously published reports.
Earth Tech personnel performed detailed soil surveys. A series of soil borings were
performed across the site. Borings were at selected points based upon field observations,
vegetation, and topography. Soil properties and profiles were described, and the depth to
groundwater or hydric indicators noted.
Wetland areas were identified and delineated in accordance with criteria established in
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (USAGE, 1987). The
wetland boundaries were flagged and mapped using GPS survey techniques.
Ground water monitoring gauges were installed in February 2000. Monitoring has
continued monthly up to the present time.
2.2.2 Functional Assessment
A modified wetland functional assessment was developed to evaluate the existing
ecosystem functions of the La Grange site and to estimate the degree of increase in
function that could potentially be achieved after restoration. The assessment was
conducted during July 2002. A full description of this study is included as Appendix A.
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
This section details the current features of the mitigation site including existing
topography, soils, plant communities, and drainage features. Figure 2 is a site map
showing some of these features.
March 2003
Page 3
Wetland Mitigation Plan
La Grange Site, Chatham County
3.1 GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY
The historic La Grange farm is located about 5 miles south of Goldston, North Carolina
in a rural area of Chatham County. It has been logged, cultivated, and grazed for over 300
years. It was a 630-acre, roughly triangular property within a distinctive bend in the Deep
River. This bend is caused by a northwest-trending diabase dike and sill system. The dike
bisects the farm, and the sill underlies the broad, flat ancient river terrace that slopes
abruptly down to the active Deep River floodplain. In 1998, TLC purchased a portion of
the historic farm with a grant from the Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF).
The TLC purchase includes the remnant hillside seepage wetland at the base of the steep
slope, some adjacent floodplain, and the riparian zone along the Deep River. The interior
portion was sold to a nurseryman who is cultivating ornamental trees and shrubs on the
former upland farm fields.
An aerial photo from 1955 shows nearly the entire floodplain and riparian zone under
forested cover. Numerous small drainage features are shown originating in the seepage
area and draining generally north to a mapped intermittent stream that drains into the
Deep River. See Appendix B. Since 1955, some of the drainages have been channelized,
at least one ditch was dug, and all but the very wettest forested areas were cleared to
provide pasture for cattle and access for farm machinery. The intermittent stream
receiving drainage from the slope was dammed and now forms an I I-acre impoundment.
The proposed mitigation site consists of about 21 acres, starting along a line of seeps in
the steep slope rimming the floodplain and continuing out about 900 feet to a low rise
between the slope and the riverbanks. Twelve acres are forested remnants of the seepage
wetland and two acres are pasture with hydric soils and wetland hydrology. Four acres are
maintained pasture. The remaining three acres are areas of non-hydric pasture. There is an
18.5-acre area of pasture to the north of the wetland and a 9-acre strip of pasture on the
terrace above it to the south. See Figure 2.
3.2 SOILS
Soil information for Chatham County was obtained from draft maps prepared by the
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS, 1999). See Figure 3.
The Sylacauga-Moncure complex is mapped in the majority of the proposed mitigation
area. Sylacauga soils are very deep, somewhat poorly drained, slowly permeable soils
formed in loamy and silty alluvium.
The Moncure unit is a newly described soil that was formerly included in the Roanoke
series. It does not appear yet on the official list of hydric soils, but the Chatham County
NRCS staff indicated that it is a hydric soil with a seasonal high water table within 12
u
March 2003
a Page 4

F67
Wetland Mitigation Plan
La Grange Site, Chatham County
inches of ground surface. Moncure soils are very deep, poorly drained. slowly permeable
soils formed in silty alluvium.
A finger of Peawick sandy loam is mapped along one of the seep drainages in the
mitigation area. Peawick soils are very deep, moderately well drained, slowly permeable
soils formed in clayey fluvial sediments.
A detailed hydric soil delineation was performed to accurately determine the areas of
open pasture with hydric soils that could be considered for restoration. Soils in the
maintained grasslands showed hydric characteristics as far out as the slope break on the
low rise in front of the forested fragments. In the forested fragments, hydric
characteristics and hydrology were present throughout and midway up the steep slope
bordering the wetland area. A representative of the USACE visited the site on March 9,
2001 to confirm the delineation.
3.3 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES
Four terrestrial communities are present on the entire TLC property. They are river levee
forest, Piedmont bottomland hardwood forest, seepage wetland, and maintained grassland
(pasture). See Figure 4. The river levee community is beyond the immediate project area
and is not discussed in this report. The other three communities are described below. In
the proposed mitigation area, only the seepage wetland and maintained grassland
communities are represented. The seepage wetland areas are the forested fragments that
remain at the base of the steep slope. The maintained grassland communities occupy the
terrace at the top of the slope, the areas between the forested fragments, and the area from
the forested fragments to the river bank.
3.3.1 Seepage Wetland
The hillside seepage wetland, described in NCNHP records as a diabase bog, is a very
rare community type in the Piedmont. Hillside seepage wetlands are described by
Schafale and Weakley (1990) as small areas on slopes or at the edge of bottomlands with
wet, mucky soils. The areas are permanently saturated to intermittently dry and often have
ra zoned vegetation. There may be a dense herbaceous interior that includes sphagnum moss
and a forested outer edge. These plant communities may have a strong Coastal Plain
affinity, and the more acidic sites may have pitcher plants (Sarracenia spp.). In The
Nature Conservancy's (TNC, 1998) vegetation classification scheme, this community
would fit in the I.B.2.N.g.015 Acer rubrtem-Nyssa sylvatica Saturated Forest Alliance.
Within that alliance, this community corresponds to the Acer rubrcun var. trilobum-
Liriodendron tulipifera/Ilex opaca var. opaca/Osmunda cinnantomea Forest Association
(4551).
0

An inventory of the property conducted for TLC (Ellum, 1999) lists several plants that
more commonly occur in the Coastal Plain and are considered regionally rare in the
Page 5
March 2003
O
Wetland Mitigation Plan
La Grange Site, Chatham County
Piedmont. They are sweetbay magnolia (Magnolia virginiana), blaspheme vine (Smilax
laurifolia), coral greenbrier (Smilax walteri), Virginia chainfern (Woodwardia virginica),
a spikerush (Eleocharis tortilis), and stiff cowbane (Oxypolis rigidior). Other species
found in the proposed wetland restoration area are listed in Table 1. The complete TLC
site inventory is found in Appendix C. A quantitative list of species is found in the
Functional Assessment in Appendix A. This community includes PAA's 1-6.
The Chatham County Natural Areas Inventory Report (Hall and Boyer. 1992) suggests
that the hillside wetland at the LaGrange site overlies a richer soil derived from the
diabase sill. However, the current soil map unit, which has been revised a few times since
the inventory report was written, shows soils formed in fluvial and alluvial Triassic
sediments rather than in colluvium from the diabase formation upslope. Spot pH readings
of standing water in the wetland areas were around 5.5, which is more acidic than would
be expected in a system with a strong diabase influence. Plants typically associated with
diabase are also absent from the site. Nonetheless, the lack of pitcher plants may suggest
that this site is not quite as sterile and acidic as some other hillside seepage wetlands.
Some of the soils upslope of the bog were in fact formed in diabase, and the soil and
water carried into the bog from runoff and seepage could be circumneutral to basic.
Standing water in the seepage wetland areas is common throughout in the winter and
persists in the wettest areas through the summer. The soils in these areas have a
brownish-black silt loam surface layer about 4 inches thick. At 4 inches, the profile is
variable. Some areas have a gravel or cobble layer between 4 and 36 inches. Other areas
have a blue-gray silty clay layer with oxidized rhizospheres and bright red mottles. The
seepage wetlands were open to cattle until March 1999 and may have been included in
the last selective timbering operation 50 years ago. These wetlands are not shown on
NWI mapping.
Table 1. Seepage Wetland Community Species
Stratum Common Name Scientific Name
Canopy Black m N ssa s lvatica
Che bark oak Quercus pagoda
Green ash Fraxinus ens lvanica
Red maple Acer rubraun
Swam black um N ssa bi ora
Swam chestnut oak Quercus michauxii
Sweet m Li uidambar s raciflua
Willow oak Quercus hellos
Yellow poplar Liriodendron tali i era
Subcano Ash Fraxinus s p.
Common alder Alnus serrulata
Ironwood Car inus caroliniana
Water oak Quercus ni ra
Winged elm Ulnurs alata

March 2003
0 Page 6
a
0
0
0
Wetland Mitigation Plan
La Grange Site, Chatham County
Stratum Common Name Scientific Name
Shrubs/Vines American holly Ilex o aca
Common Rreenbrier Smilax rotundi olia
Crossvine Bi nonia ca reolata
Elderberry Sambucus canadensis
Hi hbush blueberry Vacciniutn corymbostan
Male-berry L onia li ustrina
Possum-haw Ilex deeidua
Southern wild raisin Viburnum nudunt
S icebush Lindera benzoin
Swam do hobble Leucothoe racemosa
Winterberr Ilex verticillata
Herbs Arrowhead Sa ittaria loft irostrata
Cardinal flower Lobelia cardinalis
Cinnamon fern Osntunda cinnatnontea
Green arrow-arum Peltandra vir inica
Jack-in-the-pulpit Arisaema tri hylktm
Lizard-tail Sattritrus cenuuts
Netted chain fern Woodwardia areolata
Royal fern Osrtttutda re alis
Rush Juncus coriaceus
Sedges Carex s pp.
Sensitive fern Onoclea sensibilis
Soft rush Juncus e usus
Southern lad fern Ath ritan tlix- etnina var. as lenioides
Spotted jewelweed Impatiens ca ensis
Violets Violas .
Moss Yellow eatmoss S ha num lescttrii
3.3.2 Maintained Grassland Community
The maintained grassland community is not a natural community and therefore is not
described in Schafale and Weakley. The TNC classification has provisions for cultural
communities and this community would fit in the V.A.5.N.c.050 Festuca spp.
Herbaceous Alliance. This alliance includes active and inactive pastures that may be
nearly monocultures or may contain a number of native grasses, sedges, and forbs. At the
LaGrange site, the portion of this community within the proposed mitigation area is no
longer grazed but is regularly mowed. Species listed in the TLC inventory report (Ellum,
1999) are shown below in Table 2. A quantitative list of species is found in the
Functional Assessment in Appendix A. This community includes PAA's 7-10.
March 2003
Page 7
0
0
Wetland Mitigation Plan
La Grange Site, Chatham County
Table 2. Maintained Grassland Community Species
Stratum Common Name Scientific Name
Herbs Fescue Festuca s p.
Sedges Carex spp.
Rushes Jttncus spp.
Broomsed e Andro 0 on s pp.
Sorrel Oxalis s pp.
Violets Viola spp.
Common bluet Houstonia caerulea
A bluet Houstonia usilla
Indian strawberry Duchesnea indica
Atamasco lily Ze h ranches ataniasco
Vetch Vicia s pp.
Star-of-bethlehem Ondtho alum umbellatum
Milkweed Ascle ias s pp.
Standing water is present in depressions through the spring, but most of these depressions
are dry during the summer and fall. The soils generally have a dark gray-brown surface
horizon about 4 inches thick, followed by a yellow-brown silty clay loam with gray and
red mottles from 4 to 12 inches. A light gray silty clay loam is found from 12 to 40
inches.
3.3.3 Reference Area
The hillside seepage wetland is the community type to which the maintained grasslands
would be restored in the proposed mitigation area. Because this is a unique community,
the existing wetland fragments on the site would serve as the reference community for the
restoration. See the Functional Assessment in Appendix A for more discussion on the
reference area (PAA 1) and standards for restoration.
3.4 WILDLIFE OF THE LA GRANGE SITE
The La Grange site offers a variety of habitats that are beneficial to wildlife. Species
actually observed on the site are denoted with an asterisk (*). This is not an exhaustive
list of the wildlife species observed at the site, and additional species information is listed
in Appendix C.
r.

r.
Species that prefer open areas to feed and nest in can be found in the maintained
grassland community. Grasslands provide critical breeding and/or foraging habitat for
many bird species such as loggerhead shrikes (Lanius ludovicianus), eastern bluebirds*
(Sialia sialis), eastern meadowlarks* (Sturnella magna), and field sparrows* (Spizella
pusilla). Raptors such as Northern harriers* (Circus cyaneus), red-tailed hawks* (Buteo
March 2003
Page 8
0

Li!

Wetland Mitigation Plan
La Grange Site. Chatham County
jamaicencis), and great horned owls (Bubo virginiantts) utilize grassland areas to find
their preferred small mammal prey. These include white-footed mice* (Perom-N-scus
leucopus), golden mice* (Ochrotonrys nuttali), and meadow voles (Microttts
pennsylvanicus) which forage on the plentiful insects and seeds. Coyote" (Cans latrans)
tracks and scat have been observed on the road that bisects the grassland area, where this
species probably hunts small mammals and birds.
Many species are highly adaptive and may utilize the edges of forests and clearings or
prefer a mixture of habitat types. The eastern cottontail* (Sylvilagtts floridantts) prefers a
mix of herbaceous and woody vegetation and may be found in the dense shrub vegetation,
within the forest, or out in the grassy fields. White-tailed deer* (Odocoileus virginiantts)
will utilize the forested areas as well as the adjacent open areas for foraging. Red foxes
(Vulpes vulpes) may forage along the forest edge, but prefer to den in open areas, like the
adjacent grassland. Indigo bunting* (Passerina cyanea), common yellowthroat*
(Geothlypis trichas), and yellow breasted chat* (Ictereia virens) are neotropical migrants
that inhabit dense, shrubby vegetation along transitional areas. Northern bobwhite quail-'
(Colinas virginianus), eastern towhee* (Pipilo erythrophthalmtts), song sparrow"
(Melospiza ntelodia), and white-throated sparrow* (Zonotrichia albicollis) are other bird
species that rely on edge habitat for feeding and nesting. The black rat snake (Elaphe
obsoleta) will come out of forested habitat to forage on rodents in open areas.
Forested areas are important habitat for many species. Neotropical migratory birds, in
particular, are dependent on these areas. In the leaf litter of the forested habitats, the
southern short-tailed shrew (Blarina carolinensis) searches for its insect prey, while gray
squirrels* (Sciurus carolinensis) and raccoons* (Procyon lotor) may be seen foraging on
the ground or in trees. Neotropical migratory bird species such as prothonotary warbler*
(Protonotaria citrea), black-throated green warbler* (Dendroica virens), and northern
waterthrush* (Seiurus noveboracencis) thrive in wooded wetland locations, while black-
and-white warbler* (Mniotilta varia), yellow-billed cuckoo* (Coccyzus antericantts), and
red-eyed vireo* (Vireo olivaceous) prefer the upland woods. The eastern box turtle
(Terrapene carolina) is a terrestrial turtle but will be found near streams in hot, dry
weather. The five-lined skink (Eunteces fasciatus) rough green snake (Opheoclrys
aestivus) may also be found in forested communities, along with the marbled
salamander* (Ambystotna opacum).
Hillside seeps benefit all wildlife as a water source for direct consumption, reproduction,
and foraging. The hillside seeps are particularly attractive to amphibians that rely on
vernal pools as egg-laying locations. The spotted salamander* (Antbystonza ntaculaturtt),
two-lined salamander* (Eurycea bislineata), and the regionally rare southern dusky
salamander* (Desmognathus auriculatzts) are all known to utilize seepage areas.
Potential habitat is also present for the state-protected four-toed salamander
(Heinidactylunt scutatum). Frogs such as the spring peeper* (Hyla crucifer) and the
American toad* (Bttfo antericantts) make use of the same areas for reproduction and
feeding.
March 2003
Page 9
0
i
Wetland Mitigation Plan
La Grange Site, Chathain County
3.5 PROTECTED SPECIES/PRIORITY AREAS
The USFWS lists 4 species under federal protection in Chatham County. See Table 3
below. A review of the Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and unique
habitats revealed no occurrences of any species under state or federal protection or
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) within the proposed mitigation area. A population of
the Cape Fear shiner (Notropis ntekistocholas), which is listed as Endangered on both the
state and federal lists, occurs in the Deep River about 2 miles upstream of the La Grange
site. The hillside seepage wetland itself is listed by NCNHP as the LaGrange Diabase
Bog Priority Natural Area with a state rank of "S1-Critically imperiled in North Carolina
because of extreme rarity or otherwise very vulnerable to extirpation in the state."
No habitat exists in the proposed mitigation area for any species under federal protection.
Therefore, mitigation activities will have no effect on these species.
Table 3. Species Under Federal Protection in Chatham County
0
a
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Vertebrates
Bachman's sparrow imo hila aestivalis FSC
Bald eagle aliaeettts lettcocephalus hreatened(Proposed for
delistin )
Cape Fear shiner otro is inekistocholas Endangered
Carolina redhorse oxostonta s p. FSC
Red-cockaded woodpecker icoides borealis Endangered
Invertebrates
Atlantic i toe Fusconaia masoni SC
Brook floater lasmidonta varicosa FSC
Se tima's clubtail dragonfly Gom hus se tinta FSC
Yellow lam mussel Lantpsilis cariosa FSC
Vascular Plants
Ha erella Ptilimnium nodosum Endan ered
,Virginia uillwort Isoetes vir inica FSC
The NCNHP lists a number of species with a state status of threatened, endangered, or of
concern for Chatham County. None of these species are known to occur within the
proposed mitigation area, although habitat exists for the loggerhead shrike (Lanius
ludovicianus ludoviciantts) and the four-toed salamander (Henudactyliunt scutatum).
March 2003
Page 10
O Wetland Mitigation Plain
La Grange Site, Chatham Count
a
4.0 SITE HYDROLOGY
4.1 DRAINAGE FEATURES
The proposed southwestern mitigation area is fed by a series of seeps and springs located
along the steep slope at the edge of the hillside wetland. The water presumably is forced
to the surface at mid-slope by the diabase sill. The area is drained by a network of small
ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial drainage channels that feed into the two main
drainages (S2 and S3) of a stream (S 1) that is mapped as intermittent on both USGS and
NRCS maps, but is now obscured by the pond. Although unmapped, S2 and S3 appear on
the 1955 aerial photograph as natural drainages, but they have been deepened and
straightened since then by the previous landowner. S2 and S3 each drain roughly half of
the mitigation area. They drain into the impoundment and then the main stem (S 1) drains
LIJ into the Deep River near the northern boundary of the property. See Figure 2 for the
13 location of the streams and drainage features.
Within the seepage wetland areas, these drainage channels are less than one foot wide and
only a couple of inches deep with sandy or silty substrates. One drainage feature (DF1) in
the southeastern half of the mitigation area was obviously deepened and straightened
from its origin at a seep to feed an excavated cattle watering pond. The 2-foot high banks
are vertical but well-vegetated. The spoil from the excavation of the channel forms a
berm along the length of the channel. Flow is low to moderate, and the water may be up
to a foot deep in some pools. The substrate is silt and sand with some small gravel.
Numerous 2- to 4-foot high dirt mounds or berms are present around the edges of the
forested fragments. The former owner says some are spoil from land clearing activities
and some were deliberately constructed to keep water out of the cleared areas. The berms
do seem to be placed to direct flow towards the drainages instead of allowing water to
13 spread out over the surface.
94 S2, which drains the northwestern half of the mitigation area on the border between the
forested fragments and maintained grassland, was channelized according to the previous
owner. A culvert was also installed to facilitate the passage of vehicles. The banks are one
foot high and lined with small trees, shrubs, and herbs. Flow is low to moderate, and the
water may be up to a foot deep. The substrate is sand and silt, with some gravel farther
downstream.
S3 and S4 through the maintained grassland areas are up to 2 feet wide but are still quite
shallow. The water level is about 6 inches deep in the wettest part of the year, decreasing
to 1 to 2 inches in the growing season. The channels and banks are poorly defined and
grown over with blackberry and rushes. Water flows very slowly through these drainages
over a substrate of sand and silt.

March 2003
Page 11
a Wetland Mitigation Plan
La Grange Site, Chatham Count
One drainage feature (DF2) that appears on aerial photography from January 2000 was
not apparent on photography from 1955. Apparently a ditch was dug to enhance drainage
from one of the forested fragments and surrounding pasture. This ditch connects to one of
the streams (S4) draining the southeastern half of the proposed mitigation area. The
characteristics of DF2 are essentially the same as the other streams through the
maintained grassland areas. Despite the similarities, the other streams were reported to be
natural drainages by the former landowner.
According to the former owner, overbank flow from the Deep River reaches as far inland
as the hillside seepage wetland once or twice a year after major storm events. This
flooding occurred even before the construction of the dam on the intermittent stream (S 1)
that drains the wetland.
The Deep River (Index It 17-[32.5]) in this area is classified as a Class WS-IV waterbody.
By definition, the unnamed tributaries on the project site have the same best use
classification as their receiving waters. WS-IV waters are used as a source of water
supply for drinking, culinary, or food processing purposes for those users where a WS-I,
WS-II, or WS-III classification is not feasible. WS-IV waters are generally located within
moderately to highly developed watersheds. The LaGrange property is within a WS-IV
Protected Water Supply Watershed and is about 2 miles downstream from a section of the
Deep River classified as High Quality Water.
4.2 MONITORING GAUGES
Q Eleven continuously recording groundwater monitoring gauges were installed in the
proposed mitigation area to study groundwater conditions and to determine jurisdictional
wetland hydrology. See Figure 2 for gauge locations. Hydrographs are shown in Figures
5A-C. Areas which are seasonally inundated and/or saturated to the surface for more than
12.5% of the growing season are jurisdictional wetlands. Areas saturated to the surface
between 5% and 12.5% of the growing season may be jurisdictional wetlands if soils and
vegetation meet jurisdictional criteria. Measurements were taken from March 1, 2000
through Nov 20, 2002. Data for three growing seasons were analyzed (257 days from
March 12 to November 23).
Data analysis shows jurisdictional hydrology in all three years for three of the four gauges
installed in the forested fragments of the seepage wetland (Gauges 1, 4, 8, and 9). Gauge
8 was jurisdictional in 2000 but showed erratic responses in the following years. Gauges
1, 4, and 9 were jurisdictional for 13% to 48% percent of the growing seasons (34 to 106
consecutive days). Precipitation during the jurisdictional periods ranged mostly from
normal to below normal. Total annual precipitation was within the normal range in 2000,
and below normal range in 2001 and 2002. At the time this report was written, official
rainfall data was available only through August 31, 2002. Unofficial data shows higher
than normal precipitation in October 2002.
0
March 2003
a Page 12
n
LI

a
Wetland Mitigation Plan
La Grange Site, Chatham Cocunh•
Hydrology at gauges 3, 5, 7, 10, and I I ranged from 5% to 13% (13 to 33 consecutive
days) during at least one of the three growing seasons recorded, although only 2000 was a
normal rainfall year. When the hydrologic criterion is met for less than 12.5% of the
growing season, the vegetation must meet the USACE definition of wetland vegetation.
Because the majority of the vegetation in the areas where these gauges are installed is
classified as facultative to upland, these areas do not meet the USACE criteria for
jurisdictional wetlands. Hydric soils are present, however, so these areas are eligible for
full restoration credit.
4.3 WATER BUDGET
A monthly water budget for the 21-acre restoration and enhancement area was developed
to help evaluate whether sufficient water will be available during the growing season to
meet the requirements for wetland hydrology. The budget was based upon methodology
developed by the US Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District (USACE, 1994).
The purpose of the water budget is not to specifically model the hydrologic conditions at
the site, but to confirm that sufficient water is available and persists for sufficient
duration to restore or create wetland hydrologic conditions.
4.3.1 Methodology
The following formula is used to calculate the amount of water available for maintaining
hydrologic conditions. The formula accounts for the water that enters the site (inflow) and
the water that leaves the site (outflow) and expresses the remainder as "storage."
(P + SWI + GWI) - (PET - SWO - GWO) = S
Where:
P = Precipitation
SWI = Surface Water Inflow
GWI = Groundwater Inflow
PET = Potential Evapotranspiration
SWO = Surface Water Outflow
GWO = Groundwater Outflow
S = Change in Storage
A positive S indicates that excess water is available for creating wetland hydrological
conditions or storage. A negative S indicates that no excess surface water exists. A
negative S does not imply that groundwater levels will drop, although this is a normal
occurrence in the Piedmont during the summer.
Page 13
March 2003
Wetland Mitigation Plan
La Grange Site, Chatham County
4.3.2 Assumptions
• Groundwater inflow was not considered when developing the water budget in
D order to provide the most conservative possible estimate of storage.
• PET will be the major source of water loss (outflow) from the site.
a Infiltration was not used in the calculation because this source of loss is
considered to be insignificant in comparison with PET.
• Surface water outflow was used in the calculation to provide a conservative
estimate even though all runoff is assumed to be retained on site by proposed
restoration techniques.
• The growing season covers a period of 257 days from March 12 to November 23.
4.3.3 Inputs
There are three primary inputs of water onto the site: direct precipitation, surface water
flow from upland areas, and groundwater discharge from numerous seeps along the slope
that defines the western boundary of the project area.
Precipitation
Precipitation data was obtained from the NC State Climate Office for a weather station in
Sanford, NC, located about 7 miles southeast of the project site. Data included daily
precipitation and average temperatures for the years 1990 through 1999.
The Sanford area typically receives an average of 47.42 inches of precipitation a year. In
general, the precipitation is spread evenly throughout the year, with July being the wettest
month on average (4.84 inches) and October being the driest (3.72).
Surface Runoff
Surface runoff flows onto the site from the 70.73-acre upland portion of the 92-acre
watershed. Technical Release 55 (TR-55), developed by the NRCS, presents simplified
procedures for estimating runoff in small watersheds. Mass rainfall is converted to mass
runoff using a runoff curve number (CN). The CN is based on soils, plant cover, amount
of impervious surface, interception, and surface storage. A composite CN of 80.5 for the
contributing watershed was calculated using the appropriate CN for the different cover
types within the watershed. The CN's were weighted by multiplying by the percentage of
the total watershed area occupied by each cover type. The weighted CN's were summed
to find the composite CN for the total contributing watershed area.

March 2003
Page 14
M
a
Wetland Mitigation Plan
La Grange Site, Chatham County
Cover Type Soil Hydrologic Group Area (acres) CN
Row crops, good C 40.87 85
Meadow, good C 7.91 71
Meadow, good D 9.94 78
Forest, good C 5.74 70
Forest, good D 6.27 77
Groundwater Inflow
Although the wetland system being evaluated is fed primarily by groundwater from seeps
a along the slope, groundwater inflow was not considered when developing the water
budget in order to provide the most conservative possible estimate of storage.
4.3.4 Outputs
Water outputs from the site include evapotranspiration, infiltration into the soils, and
surface water outflow. Surface water outflow was included in the calculation to provide a
conservative estimate.
Evapotranspiration
Potential evapotranspiration (PET) losses were calculated using the Thornthwaite
Method, which is based on mean monthly air temperature. Evapotranspiration is the
primary method of water loss in the water budget. It is likely that PET losses are
overestimated as the calculations assume an unlimited water supply. When the water
supply is limited, actual evapotranspiration losses are usually less.
In titration
Infiltration rates of soils within the mitigation area were estimated based on available
information from the NRCS. The NRCS has classified all soils into hydrologic groups to
indicate the minimum rate of infiltration obtained for bare soil after prolonged wetting.
The soils in the project area are mapped as the Sylacauga-Moncure complex. Both of
these soils are in hydrologic Group D as defined in TR-55. Group D soils have high
runoff potential. They have very low infiltration rates when wetted and consist chiefly of
clay soils. These soils have a water transmission rate of 0.0 to 0.05 inches per hour.
ran Infiltration was not considered in the water budget. The soils observed on site were
typically soils with heavy clays. For the purposes of this water budget calculation, it was
assumed that infiltration will be a relatively minor outflow when compared to PET.
March 2003
a Page 15
Wetland Mitigation Plan
La Grange Site, Chatham County
0
Surface Runoff
For the purposes of this water budget, surface water runoff was considered in order to
provide the most conservative estimate. However, surface runoff is basically excess
water that is available as ponded water above the ground surface and will be retained on
site by the proposed restoration techniques. The composite CN of 77.3 was calculated as
described in 3.3.3.
Cover Type Soil Hydrologic Group Area (acres) CN
Meadow, good D 7 78
Forest, good D 14.7 77
4.3.5 Results
The water budget calculation shows positive storage in every month but June, July,
August, and September in a year of average rainfall. The 10-year average storage is
positive in every month but August. Detailed results and calculations are found in
Appendix D.
4.3.6 Interpretation
Storage is reported in acre-inches of water. To determine if the amount of storage is
sufficient for wetland hydrology, the on-site retention time must be considered. For
example, the average storage for the month of March is 4.63 acre-inches of water. If the
infiltration rate on the site is 0.005 inches/hour, or 0.12 inches/day, then it would take
38.5 days for all the excess water to infiltrate and potentially leave the site. Eight percent
of the 257-day growing season for this site is 20 days. Therefore, there would be excess
water on this site well beyond the minimum time required by USACE guidelines for
wetland determination. To meet the minimum requirement of 13 days (5% of the growing
season), 1.56 acre-inches of storage would be required. To meet a requirement of 20 days,
2.4 acre-inches of storage would be required.
4.4 NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM MAPPING
The floodplain along the Deep River is within Zone A, which indicates special flood
hazard areas inundated by a 100-year flood where base flood elevations have not been
determined. Zone A extends to about the 240-foot contour. This Deep River floodplain
zone includes parts of the proposed mitigation area.

March 2003
Page 16
0
41
Wetland Mitigation Plan
La Grange Site, Chathant County,
5.0 MITIGATION PLAN
The feasibility study and functional assessment indicate that NCDOT can restore about 4
acres of maintained grassland back to hillside seepage wetland, thereby reconnecting the
existing forested fragments both in terms of vegetation and hydrology. See Figure 6. Site
hydrology will be restored by grading down or removing the berms and constructed
roadbeds, filling the ditch (DF2), filling or raising the bed elevation of the channelized
streams (DF1, S2, S3, and S4), removing the culvert on S2, and restoring
microtopographic features. Once hydrology has been restored, species from the hillside
seepage wetland community will be planted. The overall quality of the existing 12 acres
of wetlands would be enhanced by this reconnection. Based on the water budget analysis,
Earth Tech believes that sufficient water is available to restore wetland conditions
throughout the 4-acre proposed restoration area. Further enhancement of water quality
and habitat functions of the wetlands will be accomplished by reforestation of upland
areas surrounding the wetlands. A post-mitigation concept of the site is shown in Figure
7.
5.1 HYDROLOGICAL RESTORATION
Based on an evaluation of aerial photography, the surrounding plant communities, and
interviews with the former owner, the maintained grasslands between the fragments of
hillside seepage wetland were formerly the same wetland community type. Hydrological
I restoration will consist of restoring the natural contours of the site so that water will
spread out over the surface instead of being directed straight to various drainage features.
The ditch (DF2) will be filled or plugged. The channelized streams (DF1, S2, S3, and S4)
will be filled or plugged, and the culvert on S2 will be removed. The berms and mounds
will be removed, and any trees growing on them will be salvaged with their rootwads and
a used in the topographic modifications described below. The roadbeds will be graded
.0 down and the created or enhanced drainages will be plugged and backfilled.
5.2 REFORESTATION
Trees will be planted at an initial rate of 680 stems per acre with a goal of 260 stems per
a acre surviving after 5 years, as required by the USACE. Because there is a lack of
reference communities on which to model this site, individual species densities for the
target community will be determined by a combination of the Functional Assessment data
a and best professional judgement. The species selected for planting will be dependent
upon the availability of local seedling sources at the time of planting. Advance notice to
nurseries will improve availability of less common native species and is strongly
recommended. The finest quality 1/0 bare-root tree seedlings will be planted on 8-foot
centers for a planting density of 680 trees/acre. It is recommended that seedlings be at
a least 12 to 18 inches in height. Planting will be performed during November-March to
allow plants to stabilize during the dormant period and set roots during the spring season.

i
March 2003
Page 17
Wetland Mitigation Plan
La Grange Site, Chatham County
Removal or control of nuisance vegetation will be implemented as necessary to promote
survival of target wetland plants.
Wetland Vegetation
The target community for the wetland portion of the site is a Piedmont hillside seepage
wetland. These species will be established in the 4 acres of pasture between the existing
forested wetlands. Table 4 lists woody species proposed for planting in the order of their
dominance according to the reference data. Plantings will consist of a mixture of bare-
root seedlings and container shrubs.
Table 4. Hillside Seepage Wetland Species
Wood Species Wetland Indicator Status
Canopy
Sweetba magnolia (Magnolia vir iniana) FACW+
Swam black um (N ssa biflora) OBL
Cher bark oak (Quercus pagoda) FAC+
Swam chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii) FACW-
Willow oak (Quercus hellos) FACW-
Water oak (Quercus ni ra) FAC
Shumard oak (Quercus shumardii) FACW-
Sub-Cano and Shrubs
Winterberr (Ilex verticillata) FACW
S icebush (Lindera benzoin) FACW
Ironwood (Car inns caroliniana) FAC
Southern wild raisin (Viburnum nudum) FACW+
Possum-haw (Ilex decidua) FACW-
Swam do hobble (Leucothoe racemosa) FACW
Hi hbush blueberry (Vaccinium co mbosum) FACW
Bottomland Vegetation
The pasture between the wetland and the Deep River will be planted in Piedmont
bottomland hardwoods to provide additional habitat and water quality functions. The
species listed below will be established in this 18.5-acre area. Plantings will consist of 1/0
bare-root seedlings treated with a polymer-based root gel to improve health and survival
during dry periods.
Table 5. Bottomland Hardwood Species
G'
March 2003
0 Page 18
Wetland Mitigation Plan
La Grange Site, Chatham County
Black um Nvssa svlvatica
Cherr bark oak Quercus pagoda
Persimmon Dios vros virginiana
Swam chestnut oak Quercus inichauxii
Willow oak Quercus phellos
Water oak Quercus nigra
Shumard oak Quercus shumardii
Unland Vegetation
The terrace above the hillside wetland will be planted in upland species to provide
additional habitat as well as a buffer between the wetland and the neighboring nursery
operation. The species listed below will be established in this 9-acre area. Plantings will
consist of 1/0 bare-root seedlings treated with a polymer-based root gel to improve health
and survival during dry periods.
Table 6. Upland Species
White oak Quercus alba
Northern red oak Quercus rubra
Black oak Quercus velutina
Mockernut hickory Ca rya tomentosa
Pignut hickory Ca rya labra
Black cherry Primus serotina
Black um N ssa s lvatica
Flowering dogwood Corpus florida
American holly Ilex o aca
March 2003
Page 19
Wetland Mitigation Plan
La Grange Site. Chatham County
6.0 MONITORING
Monitoring of the wetland mitigation site will be performed for 5 years or until success
criteria are met. Both vegetation and hydrology will be monitored. The monitoring plan
has been designed in accordance with the US Army Corps of Engineers Compensatory
Hardwood Mitigation Guidelines (1993a).
6.1 VEGETATION
6.1.1 Monitoring Methods
Prior to planting, the site will be inspected and checked for proper elevation and
suitability of soils. The use of acceptable, good quality plant species will be verified. The
site will be inspected at completion of planting to verify proper planting methods,
including proper plant spacing, density, and species composition.
During the first year, the degree of overtopping of the saplings by herbaceous plants will
be evaluated. Appropriate competition control measures will be implemented as needed
to insure survival of the hardwood plantings. Quantitative sampling of the vegetation will
be performed between June 1 and November 30 at the end of the first year and after each
growing season until the vegetation criteria are met.
Vegetative sampling plots will be established in each Partial Assessment Area at
locations previously sampled in the Functional Assessment. Plot size and sampling
protocol will follow the methodology of the Functional Assessment. A minimum of one
plot per PAA will be established to meet the USACE requirement of one sample plot per
two acres for sites larger than 10 acres. Additional plots may be established based on the
area of the PAA. For each plot, species composition and density will be reported. Photo
points will be established for each plot. Monitoring will take place once each year for
five years.
6.1.2 Success Criteria
Success will be determined by survival of target species within the sample plots. A
minimum of 260 trees/acre must survive for at least five years after initial planting. At
least six different representative tree species should be present on the entire site. If the
vegetative success criteria are not met, the cause of failure will be determined and
appropriate corrective action will be taken.
6.2 HYDROLOGY
In accordance with federal guidelines for wetland mitigation, the success criteria for
hydrology states that the area must be inundated or saturated (within 12" of the surface)

March 2003
Page 20
0
0

1 1
Wetland Mitigation Plan
La Grange Site, Chatham County
by surface or ground water for at least 12.5% of the growing season. Areas inundated less
than 5% of the growing season are always classified as non-wetlands. Areas inundated
between 5% - 12.5% of the growing season can be classified as wetlands depending upon
factors such as the presence of hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soils.
There is no published soil survey for Chatham County. According to a personal
communication from the Chatham County NRCS, the growing season for Chatham
County begins March 12 and ends November 23. The growing season is 257 days. Five to
12.5% of the growing season corresponds to 13 to 32 days. Normal rainfall ranges must
be considered when evaluating wetland hydrology.
6.2.1 Monitoring Methods
Monitoring gauges will be installed in restoration areas to monitor site hydrology. A
minimum of eight monitoring gauges are proposed for this site, one in each of the
existing wetland areas (forested PAA's) and the remainder distributed throughout the
reforested restoration areas. Monitoring gauges will be installed in accordance with
USACE guidelines (USACE 1993b). Ideally, the existing gauges will be reinstalled in
approximately the same locations and one will be added to PAA2, for a total of 12
gauges. Gauge data will be collected on a monthly basis for the 5-year monitoring period.
6.2.2 Success Criteria
Hydrology will be judged successful if water levels are within 12 inches of the surface for
8% of the growing season, or 21 consecutive days. Gauge data from three growing
seasons show that the soil in the forested PAA's is saturated within 12 inches of the
surface for 14-48 percent of the growing season. Gauge data from the degraded areas
along with the water budget analysis indicate that at least the minimum USACE criteria
can be met throughout the site following restoration procedures. Many areas have the
potential to achieve a saturation period similar to the forested PAA's, well beyond the
minimum criteria.
7.0 WETLAND MITIGATION CREDIT
This mitigation project is proposed to fulfill compensatory mitigation requirements for
wetland impacts associated with transportation improvement activities in the Upper Cape
Fear River basin (HU 03030003). It is anticipated that wetland functions will be restored
to about 4 acres of severely degraded hillside seepage wetlands. In addition, the existing
wetland functions for 14 acres of existing forested hillside seepage wetlands will be
enhanced by the mitigation activities proposed for the site. The benefits of this mitigation
project include the following:
• Restoration and enhancement of a rare natural community (NHP rank S1).
• Increase in functional capacity.
March 2003
Page 21
0
0
Wetland Mitigation Plan
La Grange Site, Chatham County
• Stabilization of soils and elimination of erosion on the cleared slopes.
• Water quality benefits to the Deep River through increased storage and filtering
capacity.
• Water quality benefits to the downstream Critical Water Supply Watershed near
Gulf, North Carolina.
• Continuous forested corridor providing habitat for herpetofauna, migratory birds, and
small mammals.
• Mitigation for impacts to hydrologic, plant community/habitat, animal community,
and biogeochemical functions
The completed Functional Assessment (Appendix A) predicts the benefits of the
proposed activities for the entire mitigation site beyond hydrology and replanting of trees.
The benefits, as captured in the parameters analyzed in the Functional Assessment, are
summarized in Table 7.
Table 7. Change in Functional Capacity
Function Existing
Capacity Post-Mitigation
Capacity Percentage
Change
Hydrology .19 1.0 81
Plant community .45 1.0 55
Animal community .26 1.0 74
Biogeochemistry .27 1.0 73
These figures are derived from Table 3 of the Functional Assessment and represent the
average change in the Functional Capacity Index (FCI) from existing to post-restoration
conditions for all the partial assessment areas. For example, the existing level of
hydrologic function of the site as a whole is .19, or 19% of the the fully functioning
reference condition, which is set to 1.0. If the proposed mitigation plan is implemented
and full hydrologic function is restored, there will be a difference of 81% in the level of
hydrologic function on the site as a whole.
This NHP Priority Natural Area will receive a substantial lift in function through the
proposed mitigation activities. This lift is accomplished by considering the mitigation
activities in the larger context of the Deep River floodplain and the surrounding uplands.
Re-establishment of the vegetative corridor and hydrologic continuity between the
degraded and forested wetland areas will enhance the wildlife habitat, plant conservation,
and water quality functions of the existing wetlands. Reforestation of the 27.5 acre upland
areas surrounding the wetlands will provide sufficient continuous forest area to
significantly reduce edge effects and increase water quality. It will provide a greatly
enlarged, continuous corridor of habitat for migratory birds, amphibians (including the
March 2003
Page 22

0
Wetland Mitigation Play:
Lcr Grange Site, Chatham County
regionally rare southern dusky salamander), and regionally rare plants from the terrace
upslope of the wetlands all the way to the Deep River. Erosion on the cleared slopes will
be stabilized, and the water storage and filtering capacity of the wetlands will be
increased. Reforesting the upland areas surrounding the wetlands will increase water
quality functions and will provide additional protection for this sensitive ecosystem.
All cleared areas within the mitigation boundary, seen on the 2000 aerial photograph in
Appendix B, will be planted with trees as a part of this mitigation proposal. In addition,
any cleared areas within the TLC property boundary, but not within the mitigation
boundary, will be allowed to regenerate naturally. This aerial photograph extends beyond
the boundaries of the TLC property and shows the relationship of the mitigation project
with the existing forest along this 3-mile stretch of the Deep River.
A credit ratio of 1:1 is proposed for the 4 acres of restoration on Figure 6 (PAAs 7a, 7b,
8a, 8b, 9, and 10). Wetland hydrology will be restored to these 4 acres, and wetland
vegetation will be planted.
A credit ratio of 2:1 is proposed for the remaining 14 acres of existing wetlands which
will be enhanced by the proposed mitigation activities (PAAs 1, 2, 3a, 3b, 4, 5, 6a, 6b,
and 6c). This ratio is justified because of the tremendous benefits accrued to the wetlands
by connecting the existing wetlands into one wetland system and by restoring the 27.5-
acre upland buffer around the seep system.
Based on these suggested ratios, the LaGrange Mitigation Site would generate 11 credits
(4 credits for restoration and 7 credits for enhancement). Final acreage and credits will be
determined through discussions with the Environmental Protection Agency, the US Army
Corps of Engineers and DWQ.
A letter from NCNHP expressing support of a restoration and enhancement of this
Priority Natural Area can be found in Appendix E.
8.0 DISPENSATION OF THE PROPERTY
TLC will maintain ownership of the property during mitigation activities and NCDOT
will work under the terms of a temporary access easement. The easement will be
extinguished at the end of the 5-year monitoring period. The Clean Water Management
Trust Fund already holds a permanent conservation easement on the property. If NCDOT
requires that additional restrictions stipulating the terms of mitigation be recorded to
fulfill USACE requirements, the terms will be worked out with the TLC Board of
Directors. TLC will retain ownership of the property and will maintain the mitigation area
as a wetland in perpetuity.
'J

March 2003
Page 23
Wetland Mitigation Plan
La Grange Site, Chatham County
9.0 ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
The property owner, TLC, requests that 4 copies of this mitigation plan be made available
to members of the TLC Stewardship Committee. This committee will review the
document and submit a recommendation to the TLC Board of Directors. which holds the
authority to grant permission for the project to proceed. TLC will also inform CWMTF of
the Board's decision. CWMTF, which granted TLC the funds to purchase the La Grange
property, requires that NCDOT reimburse TLC at $1655 per acre in order for a mitigation
project to proceed. A stewardship endowment of $10,000 is also requested. Related
minutes from committee meetings are included in Appendix E.
March 2003
Page 24
0
r?lj
Wetland Mitigation Plan
La Grange Site, Chatham County
10.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Amoroso, J.L., ed. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of
North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh,
North Carolina.
Burt, E. R. 1978. Diabase Dikes Of The Eastern Piedmont Of North Carolina. Dept. of
Natural Resources and Community Development, Division of Land Resources,
Geological Survey Section, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Ellum, D.S. 1999. Land Assessment and Biological Inventory of the Triangle Land
01 Conservancy's La Grange Riparian Reserve. The Triangle Land Conservancy, Raleigh,
North Carolina.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1". U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1991. "Flood Insurance Rate Map-Chatham
County, North Carolina, Panel 180 of 225."
Hall, S.P. and M.W. Boyer. 1992. Inventory of the Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats of
Chatham County, North Carolina. The Triangle Land Conservancy and County of
Chatham, North Carolina.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr. and S.P. Hall, eds. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare
Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison, III. 1980. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill,
North Carolina.
0

NCDENR. "Water Quality Stream Classifications for Streams in North Carolina." Water
Quality Section. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wqhome.html (25 Oct 2000).
Palmer, W.M., and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
March 2003
Page 25
Wetland Mitigation Plan
La Grange Site, Chatham Countv
Radford, A.E.. H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Rohde, F.C., R.B. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the
Carolinas, Virginia, Marvland, and Delaware. University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina, Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDENR, Raleigh, NC.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1985. National Engineering Handbook, Section 4-
Hydrology. SCS/ENG/NEH-4-2.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1986. Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds. Technical
Release 55.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. "Endangered Species/ Section 7 Program in
North Carolina." North Carolina Ecological Services.
http://nc-es.fws.gov/es/countyfr.html (22 Mar 2001).
Weakley A.S., K.D. Patterson, S. Landaal, M. Pyne and others, compilers. 1998.
International Classification of Ecological Communities: Terrestrial Vegetation of the
Southeastern United States. The Nature Conservancy, Southeast Regional Office,
Southern Conservation Science Department: Chapel Hill, NC.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas,
Virginia, and Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North
Carolina

March 2003
Page 26
F
I
`-r-
IT1
W
C
aV
N
0
I
m

Legend""` '' .
13A- Riverview ' r
a silt loam, ti
IT4 k
z 25A; 25C2 Turbeville fine
l_._._.-?
sandy loam
LLL 1
325A, 32581 L Mattaponi fine
E 325132,325C,
sandy loam
n 328A,328B
46A, 547A, Sylacauga-Moncure ~ r '?
V) 814A, 88A complex
325A t r, ., I
' 5328 Creedmoor-White
00
M,
Store complex 56A "
Y 5513; 56A- Peawick fine sandy /? ' _?.•.,, ??'
loam ?I 328
,?, ?`, // ,„
5A- Chewacla and j01
Wehadkee soils
7
630'
WATER
328B
Hydric
5513 y5t
`
28,
1 Mitigation q _ `.
O ,
a
25C _ ?.
Area
x,. NBoundary
32 /
M .y
25
.284"- •=rs=""' ?4 i;
•', ?ti r ,54?k
56
,sue T' 3258`%
' %25 325B 5 f ?`
56A
0 500 1,000 2,000
Feet
HA North Carolina - FIGURE 3
Department of Tran sportation SOIL MAP
Division of Highways LA GRANGE HILLSIDE SEEPAGE
WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
Project Development and CHATHAM COUNTY
Environmental Analysis Branch March 2003 T.I.P. R-609WM
1
0
m
2000 Precipitation
11
10
9
6
d 7
r
u
C
6
Z'
O
F
CL 5
o. q
3
2
1
0
J F M A M J J A S 0 N D
Gauges In Existing Wetlands
n I IA i Itt

I
g Se son

-Gauge 1 V V
-Gauge q
- Gauge s
- Gauge 9
-Juhsdictlonal Water Table
0
> -20
d
W
° -30
'o
U
0
-40
-50
F M A M J J A S O N D
Gauges In Restoration Areas
0
„ -10
A
? -20
W
0 ° -30
(7
-40
-50
J F M A M J J A S O N D
0
-10
u
Gauge 5
Gauge 6
Gauge 7 -
40
-50
J F M A M J J A S O N D
-10
e
L
u
O
A
', -20
-30
J F M A M J J A S 0 N D
Percent of Growing Season with water levels
within 12 inches of surface
<5% or 13 days
5-8% or 13-21 days
8-12.5% or 21-32 days
>12.5% or 32 days

Groundwater Within 12 Inches
of Surface

Gauge
1
2
Consecutive
Days

3 Percentage of
Growing
Season

1
3 8 3
4 41 16
5 26 10
6 9 4
7 4 2
8 82 32
9 104 40
10 10 4
11 15 6
2000 Total Precipitation = 47.31
30-Yr Normal Range = 42.36 - 50.29 inches,
30-Yr Normal Average = 47.42 inches
*Growing Season = 257 days (Mar 12 - Nov 23)
Data from State Climate Office
Siler City 2 S WETS Station
*from NRCS, personal communication
North Carolina -
Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Project Development and
"OFM Environmental Analysis Branch
FIGURE 5a
HYDROGRAPHS - 2000
LA GRANGE HILLSIDE SEEPAGE
WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
CHATHAM COUNTY
March 2003 T.I.P. U-2524WM

11
10
9
8
N 7
d
L
u
e
8
c
O
5
_a
a` 4
3
2
1
0
10

A
0
2001 Precipitation
J F M A M J J A 8 0 N D
Gauges In Existing Wetlands

0

F M A M J J A S O N
Gauges In Restoration Areas
-10
g
L
0
n -20
w
d
-30
0
t7
-40
I -50

C
d
d
W
a
J F M A M J J A S O N D
J F M A M J J A S O N D
w -10
d
L
u
C
C
O
77
? -20
d
W
s@?
9
7 -30
O
-40
-50
F M A M J J A 5 0 N
Percent of Growing Season with water levels
within 12 inches of surface
<5% or 13 days
5-8% or 13-21 days
8-12.5% or 21-32 days
>12.5% or 32 days
Groundwater Within 12 Inches
of Surface

Gauge
Consecutive
Days Percentage o
Growing
Season
1
2 7 3
3 14 5
4 36 14
5 13 5
6 8 3
7 10 4r-
8
9
10 1
124
26 0
48
10
11 8 3
2001 Total Precipitation = 37.74
30-Yr Normal Range = 42.36 - 50.29 inches,
30-Yr Normal Average = 47.42 inches
*Growing Season = 257 days (Mar 12 - Nov 23)
Data from State Climate Office
Siler City 2 S WETS Station
*from NRCS, personal communication

,1
,0
s
0
N
d
L
u
C
c- 0
L
O
:w7
5
o` 4
3
2
,
g -,o
L
0
-20
d
.30
-40
-50
10
O
F
? -20
m
v
-30
40
-40
2002 Precipitation
J F M A M J J A 8 O N D
Gauges In Existing Wetlands
J F M A M J J A 8 0 N D
Gauges In Restoration Areas
J F M A M J J A 8 O N D
-,0
L
u
e
c
0
.20
d
W
-30
0
1 t?
-50
L
u
c
c
0
a
m
d
W
d
C
J F M A M J J A 8 0 N D
I M A M .I .I A (l N U
Percent of Growing Season with water levels
within 12 inches of surface
<5% or 13 days
5-8% or 13-21 days
8-12.5% or 21-32 days
12.5% or 32 days
Groundwater Within 12 Inches
of Surface
Percentage of
Consecutive Growing
Gauge Days Season
1
2 4 2
3 24 9
4 45 18
5 28 11
6 0 0
7
8 0 0
9 106 `> I EM,' 41
10 21 8
11 27 , 10
2002 Total Precipitation = 25.14 (through Aug 31)
30-Yr Normal Range = 42.36 - 50.29 inches,
30-Yr Normal Average = 47.42 inches
*Growing Season = 257 days (Mar 12 - Nov 23)
Data from State Climate Office
Siler City 2 S WETS Station
*from NRCS, personal communication
m

m
m

i
0

D
c?
O.
x
D
0
USING THE HYDROGEOMORPHIC (HGM) APPROACH
FOR ASSESSING WETLAND FUNCTIONS OF A
PIEDMONT FEN IN NORTH CAROLINA
La Grange Property
Chatham County, North Carolina
State Project No. 8.U492107
TIP No. U-2524WM
Prepared for:
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Raleigh, North Carolina
.1401Z
0

O
OF TRANSe
October 2002

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................1
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ..............................................................................................................1
2.1 SLOPE WETLANDS IN THE NORTH CAROLINA PIEDMONT ................................................... 1
2.2 THE LA GRANGE SLOPE WETLAND .................................................................................... 2
3.0 METHODS ..............................................................................................................................3
3.1 THE HYDROGEOMORPHIC APPROACH TO WETLAND ASSESSMENT .................................... 3
3.2 DEVELOPING FUNCTION MODELS AND IDENTIFYING FIELD INDICATORS ........................... 4
3.3 PARTIAL ASSESSMENT AREAS ........................................................................................... 4
3.4 CALIBRATION OF MODEL VARIABLES AND FUNCTIONS ..................................................... 9
3.4.1 Reference Standard ...............................................................................................9
3.4.2 Functional Assessment Variables ....................................................................... 10
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................................ 15
4.0 LITERATURE CITED .......................................................................................................... 21
FIGURE
Figure 1. Mitigation Map ................................................................................................................ 8
TABLES
Table la. Typical alterations to rich fens and field indicators: Hydrology .....................................5
Table lb. Typical alterations to rich fens and field indicators: Plant Community/Habitat .............6
Table lc. Typical alterations to rich fens and field indicators: Animal Community ......................7
Table 1d. Typical alterations to rich fens and field indicators: Biogeochemistry ...........................7
Table 2a. Pre-restoration scores for model variables and FCIs for PAAs at La Grange .............. 16
Table 2b. Post-restoration scores for model variables and FCIs for PAAs at La Grange ............. 17
Table 3. Change in FCI and FCUs gained for each PAA ............................................................. 18
APPENDICES
0
Appendix A: Field Data Sheets for Functional Assessment
Appendix B: Summary of Model Variable Definitions, Measurement Method, and Conversion to
Sub-indices
Appendix C: Assessment Data from Partial Assessment Areas

it
USING THE HYDROGEOMORPHIC (HGM) APPROACH FOR
ASSESSING WETLANDS FUNCTIONS OF A PIEDMONT FEN
IN NORTH CAROLINA
La Grange Property
Chatham County, North Carolina
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The La Grange tract is currently owned and managed by the Triangle Land Conservancy (TLC).
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to secure a temporary
easement from the TLC, restore some of the functions of the existing slope wetlands, and return
the easement to TLC. Preliminary studies showed that a restoration effort at this site would be
feasible. At the suggestion of the regulatory agencies, a modified hydrogeomorphic (HGM)
functional assessment approach (Smith 1995, Brinson and Rheinhardt 1996,
httT;//www.wes.army.mil/el/wet)ands/hgmhp.htm],) was applied to further evaluate the following
aspects of the project and possibly provide a basis for the assignment of mitigation credits:
• current function of the proposed La Grange compensatory mitigation site
• where and what types of restoration activities would be needed to restore functions
• increase in overall functions that would accrue if mitigation was performed. '
Because a regional HGM guidebook for assessing groundwater-slope wetlands is not yet
available for piedmont North Carolina or elsewhere, an assessment framework had to be
developed from scratch before assessments could be conducted.
This report documents the procedures and results of the functional assessment. This information
can be used to refine the determination of how and where wetlands should be restored on the site
and to what degree wetland functions will improve after restoration.
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
2.1 SLOPE WETLANDS IN THE NORTH CAROLINA PIEDMONT
Slope wetlands (fens) occur in regions of dissected terrain (Brinson 1993). Rainfall that
infiltrates the ground in a watershed discharges at slopes, often where underlying strata provide a
conduit for water. Depending on climate, elevation, fire regime, and nutrient status, slope
wetlands can be dominated by woody or herbaceous vegetation. Groundwater slope wetlands
tend to provide a more reliable source of water (Noviski 1979) and higher productivity (Brinson
1993) than most other wetland types. Because such wetlands are also free of piscivorous
predators, they tend to support large and diverse amphibian populations.
According to Brinson (1993), fens take two hydrogeomorphic forms: (1) "those with a seepage
face caused by groundwater flow intersecting a land surface and those with seepage at the base
where the upward movement of ground water occurs in the lower slope segment of the break."
La Grange Property Functional Assessment Page 1
Chatham County, NC
G?
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program classifies these two types of fens as "Hillside
Seepage Bog" and "Low Elevation Seep," respectively (Schafale and Weakly 1990). However,
their classification also includes seeps on river floodplains under the latter type.
Rich fens represent a specific class of fens that are nutrient rich, usually rich enough to support
trees. In North Carolina, fens are relatively common in the mountains, rare in the piedmont; and
absent in the coastal plain. Fen-like conditions also occur at the boundary of riverine floodplains
and their adjacent uplands, but because such areas are also occasionally flooded by overbank
flow, they really should be considered a part of the riverine-floodplain complex. Fen-like
conditions also occur in former floodplains of larger rivers in the piedmont where incision of
channels through relic floodplains (deposited by mass wasting earlier in the 20`' century) have
isolated rivers from their floodplains, leaving slope wetlands at the base of floodplain/upland
boundary (Burke 1996, Ruhlman and Nutter 1999).
A number of factors contribute to the relative rarity of true slope wetlands in the Piedmont
Physiographic Province: (1) very steep slopes are relatively uncommon, except along riverbanks,
(2) surficial geology does not concentrate enough groundwater to create extensive discharge
areas except in a few restricted geologic settings (such as along diabase sills), and (3) widespread
land clearing for pasture and farmland has eliminated forests from areas that once supported
e, fens. As a result, extant fens are very rare in the North Carolina piedmont.
2.2 THE LA GRANGE SLOPE WETLAND
The proposed La Grange compensatory wetland mitigation site consists of approximately 21
acres (8.5 hectares [ha]) of a slope/rich fen wetland. It lies at the juncture of a steep slope with a
diabase dike and sill in the North Carolina Piedmont Physiographic Province. Wetlands and
seeps have formed at the base of this slope, which drops approximately 20 feet (7 meters [m]) in
elevation over 50 feet (15 m). From the base of the slope, groundwater-fed wetlands extend
approximately 400 feet (120 m) downslope along a more gradual slope. At places along the
slope, water from the seeps coalesces to form small, headwater streams. Much of the
hydrologically-unaltered areas below the slope base appear to remain saturated year-round, even
during periods of drought. This may be because groundwater discharged onto the slope
originates in a deep aquifer that shunts water to the slope via the diabase sill. The sill, therefore,
provides a more reliable and continual source of water than the rather small, surficial aquifer of
the immediate drainage basin.
There are four forested areas separated by clearings constructed to access former cattle grazing
areas. In three of the forested areas, streams were channelized to drain water from the slope more
quickly; spoil from the dredged areas was piled nearby. Fill was placed in at least two of the
three deforested areas to construct roadways to cattle pastures located between the slope and
floodplain of the Deep River. Fill (windrows) is also present in two of the forested areas,
possibly placed there when the forest was cleared for pastures. Also, the effects of past grazing
are evident in portions of three of the four forested tracts.
At the far northwestern end of the property, a ditch next to the railroad right of way diverts water
away from the railroad bed at the base of the steep slope and onto the lower slope. Water flowing
7
La Grange Property Functional Assessment Page 2
Chatham County, NC

from this ditch transfers water to the slope from another drainage. The ditch has cut headward
towards the track, suggesting that a volume of water greater than the ditch's capacity is
sometimes shunted onto the slope. Wrack, composed of gravel, coarse wood, trash, etc. is strewn
about the slope where the gradient becomes more gradual. The ditch eventually flows into a
natural stream channel on the slope and has caused a deep channel incision downstream from
where it joins. The deepening of the natural channel has likely accelerated drainage of adjacent
wetlands along the slope in the vicinity of the incised channel.
Despite historic alterations over much of the site, forested areas of the La Grange fens still
support plant communities that are unusual, if not rare, in the piedmont. Coastal plain wetland
species such as Magnolia virginiana (sweetbay), Leucothoe raceinosa (fetter-bush), Eleocharis
tortilis (twisted spikerush), Nyssa biflora (swamp tupelo), and Smilax lattrifolia (blaspheme
vine), among others, occur in the remnant forested tracts of the site.
3.0 M ETHODS
3.1 THE HYDROGEOMORPFIIC APPROACH TO WETLAND ASSESSMENT
The HGM approach to wetland assessment was developed to assess ecosystem functions of a
regional wetland subclass prior to project impact or restoration and to estimate the degree of
change in function after alteration or restoration (Smith et al. 1995, Rheinhardt et al. 1997). The
HGM approach differs from earlier assessment approaches in two fundamental ways. It requires
that wetlands be first identified by hydrologic and geomorphic properties inherent to a narrowly
defined regional subclass (Brinson 1993) and that information on other wetland sites of the same
HGM class (i.e., reference sites) be used to develop and calibrate standards for assessment
(Smith et al. 1995, Brinson and Rheinhardt 1996, Rheinhardt et al. 1997).
Wetland condition is evaluated relative to standards (Reference Standards) defined by a
population of the least altered, self-maintaining wetlands of the identified regional subclass.
Standards are derived from field indicators that are sensitive to anthropogenic alterations. Thus,
by differentiating natural variation from variation due to degradation, indices associated with the
relative degree of degradation can be developed to evaluate ecosystem condition or degree of
function. In order to evaluate gains and losses of wetland function to adhere to "no net loss of
function" policy goals, indicators are evaluated in the context of simple logic models that
represent the most common and fundamental functions inherent to the subclass.
There are two phases to the HGM approach: a development phase, in which reference standards
and function models are developed, and an application phase, where the assessment procedure is
carried out at a specific project site by the end user (Smith 1994, Smith et al. 1995, Brinson
1996). The development phase usually results in producing a calibrated and tested regional
guidebook that uses data from reference wetlands to provide standards for function models
derived from rapidly measured field variables (Smith et al. 1995, Brinson and Rheinhardt 1996).
r
La Grange Property Functional Assessment Page 3
Chatham County, NC
r7a
0 3.2 DEVELOPING FUNCTION MODELS AND IDENTIFYING FIELD INDICATORS
A regional guidebook for assessing groundwater slope wetlands in the Piedmont of North
Carolina has not been developed. Therefore, a modified HGM approach was used to assess the
functions of the La Grange slope wetlands. For the purposes of this assessment, four functions
were identified as pertinent to piedmont fens:
• Maintain Characteristic Hydrologic Regime
• , Maintain Characteristic Plant Community/Habitat
• Maintain Characteristic Animal Community
• Maintain Characteristic Biogeochemistry.
These four overarching functions are inherent to all wetlands, but every HGM subclass differs in
how they function with respect to these broad categories (Brinson 1993). In wetland types that
are hydrodynamically complex, additional functions might be identified under each of the four
main functions. For example, as a class riverine wetlands are probably the most
hydrodynamically complex and so the HGM National Guidebook for riverine wetlands identified
a list of 15 functions that could be applicable to riverine wetlands nationwide (Brinson et al.
1995). Of course, riverine wetlands vary tremendously nationwide, ranging from wetlands of
small headwater stream to wetlands of large, mainstem rivers. Therefore, the entire suite of 15
identified functions would not be appropriate for all riverine wetland subclasses. For a midreach
riverine subclass in Kentucky, Ainslie et al. (1999) identified 8 functions appropriate to wetlands
there, most of which were hydrologic or biogeochemical functions. In wetlands of less
hydrodynamically complex flats, Rheinhardt et al. (2002) restricted functions to the same four
main categories of functions identified above for slope wetlands. Piedmont slope wetlands are
not particularly complex hydrodynamically and it was felt that identifying and assessing
additional sub-functions would not provide be particularly beneficial for assessing their
condition. Therefore, it was decided to restrict the HGM assessment of functions to the four main
functions performed by wetlands: hydrology, biogeochemistry, plant habitat and animal habitat.
The next step in developing a functional assessment was to identify field indicators that would
both indicate level of function and be sensitive to anthropogenic alterations. Tables la-ld lists
the types of alterations, grouped by function, that typically occur to rich fens in the piedmont.
The table also identifies field metrics that would be useful for assessing condition, and ways to
calibrate indicators for assessing degree of function. Some indicators are categorical (i.e., VourF:
presence or absence of a ditch) and some are continuous (e.g., Voow: volume of downed dead
wood).
3.3 PARTIAL ASSESSMENT AREAS
The La Grange site was partitioned into 10 partial assessment areas (PAAs) and each PAA was
assessed independently (Figure 1). A PAA was defined as an area that was relatively
homogeneous with respect to age and species composition of trees, and time and type of last
disturbance. For example, areas with a ditch and spoil pile were partitioned from surrounding
non-ditched areas as separate PAAs. Likewise, open, former pastures were partitioned from
surrounding forest. PAA boundaries were delineated with GPS and the area of each PAA was
La Grange Property Functional Assessment Page 4
Chatham County, NC
r.
C
L
0
0
w
pz?
x
0
v
Rz
1~
C,j
4r
U
O
0
CV
CV
0
v
.1=4
A
c7
U
H

a
o CIS
0 o

P4
X
3 ?, r, a
2?? o v
v? 4? U
R. O C7
04
., A
?d

0

Q) i a? a Cd
w a 6U, cn
0
a)
0 u
od
d
o

(:
ci
G
4 (
O C4
•
o 0

y 'd y
4-4

O
cn
N En

En (V c N

0 o
w
N
R" t"'
?? ?? A
ay 42
o a
0
O ? d .
t
y
O
wl 0 C?
U En
• N ? .
,
r
0 U cy ?C
c
d • ?

? Lam. C/I
a? }U
as U
Qb ?
y O O 0
a
?3??3.a U
Q
? o

Cd C4

4 C)
?„ U
eA ?A
O
"o o

4
o
b ?
?
o
a
o r" ?
?
rn

U °

o 4-,
v
"Oi >,

o

O q 0
3

,
,?
Y O `'
• a P
P
Cl
c?
3
O ,
C14 n
o
)
o
a'
j c

?

l
l C-)

? II -V (
3
?
? ?
4•
a o
U I I
?
II

U 0 U•1
> ?N
• 6
b p 'o
W
V) U 4. p

En
41
P 4, r-I .0
V U 4
cC
N :
'
r
H

H
0 bjD
O 1 a
O G
U N t-.
ci N

Cj
T7
aU?
H
O0 c?
4. C > 4C-
:::s O N ti '
O
cd
cn
En -.= V,
0

u U3
p O v7 0 t , G)
2 E
d N > U
N y
N
• J-.
64 $-4 ,
0" w Cd

f? 4r

?l
• V
N
Q 3
"
Q
U C-i 4-1
°
?
N ?.
Q0 -d
.
u L

cl it •
w

)
U ? rC
u
'ti b o •d ccs
C14 =
HQ A v°? a? a?
7
0
?21
c?
cd
O
U
r.+
a
0
u
't7
t:
y
?i
a
.L;
u
0
t?
o
w
°
0
u
cad
H
U
.a
H
° U)
t?
4-4 >

P4

n
C/I

0 C4

- 'D
LO
" X
+
1 d41 U C!? 4-
94
0 cl
a b o
(L) > 1
°
4
o d c
Cj N 0 d
I v a) a)
3 ?' I I u a? i o
3 .c a ai b
3
. G
4,

U P., (D Cq P4

p
In G y? 0 Ln 9n4 N y (5
p v> >, n G G L-1 N as Ln
vi

w (D

.. .?
y 0
o -

?
r.

o ?
r- sm4

o C?
[
3 d 3
"
i n Cn b co v
,? x L
v? f
n
L 0 C
c ? .o

P
O 4
cn W Q4 CIS
a
G
Cl
,d

cd

U

G U

O>
Cl u U U
I W
;>- u I? a 0. I I
' ?., U
t~
O

c'n U)
P1
ul
o
O C4
bA v 'ti G bl) ..? jM4 . R.
U .., G .

O
C/) t4l t.. 0 03

W O U
`J
.s~ G
L)
t~ U G v
G G v
i
C) U
G
U j O C 4. 4] r a)
o >, a

y ti o
N o
a? a >, o
a, .? cn >,
C"j
a a: bn

G ?, ?

U a) G
U ' b
C3 V)
aJ a) ?
b
G c3
w d
C c j r+
b ' cJ ti > N t7 't7 H
W d v v 0 .? P?' :::s E cs
.

p 1~

0
.? ccl p
Z7 A
j? y G w+ w
HQ a: cl
0
x

O
cl
O
D d
f~
z7
{
'L1
C
0
w
U
0
a
0
h
u
E-4
r-t
u
.Q
0
E-
o W
'-' o
0
A 4
.
o o
3 v o

b

c07
a U ?
b .?
N
0 0
b

O
c?3
cad U
O a+ cr U
U -c .c ra
?
o {..?
Q, °?' 1-r
°'„ • •i1 ^d H .-r
o cad
f0i U ? ? U b
En 44 cz O c 0
C1 b cn n cd
U U
U
?
Q d N
Q 3 ?' o
C
) 4
b
°o 4"
3 .
a w

4-4 cz
a) ?
0 `°
o " 0. Ci.
cn v
^; N 'd 0
0 N
a v

CZ
W Q II II
.4
;> I? o y
u
-
q
z

G+'d u
1'
?' .7
17
cn

bn O ? ? ?
,O
ccz r. -
- C4
cz Q4 r. Cd

o
0 0 C
3 '
CZ
- c.
b b ca an a? O'' U
R. a?
b ? :cnn cn

E ? cz -?
c
w i 0 o '
W
W _
Q 6 U
Qv .0 C
p G
Q".0 w

N
.s •? .c: c
•3 ?
.t?
C :: : •C
?.
c7 v v v
c1
w
C.:c y zz
L" z7 c2
Air c
z7 L;
C •? b z?
E a a4 *a Cj
'O
r•••t
H
o_
A
Id
o
0
b 3
? v
U ?
U
V1 b
. -? "C
A
a
1 C/)

w
o o

O
U
_c
•?

as ? a?
U ?

? ? O •b
?
1 U
ICi /
?
Q ?
b

U
cn 0
3

w u u
o a? ? b

P4 (D
0 iM4
Cl , 3 o
Cl c, U m (?
? ? II II

U C

.Ci
03 A
icf
'J ? O
? U
O
QJ ?
U ?

3 ?
en s
3
? U G?
o . O
cn
to
d N.:
"
V
CJ tU
C
U G U .
'd

w
W
U o v``..
U
Q .0 d v
4-. O
W v

F

•
•
cJ

o
"? •."+ ?
Z1 ? w
J CA
.? ti z7 cis z? ?
•
d
p.a h w d
{
t
HQ a: ab
0
¦
m
I in
determined. One portion of the La Grange site was identified a priori as the reference standard
site (PAA1). It was a second or third growth forest that appeared not to have either been grazed
In in or hydrologically altered.
The same methods were used to measure indicators in all the PAAs, except that fewer plots were
sampled in several of the smallest PAAs. In most PAAs, three quasi-random points were located
and their positions recorded with GPS. All non-GIS field data were obtained at plots associated
with the points (see methods below). Blank data sheets used for collecting reference data and
assessing sites are provided in Appendix A.
At each sampling point within a PAA, a 10-m radius circle (314 m2) was circumscribed about the
center point within which canopy trees (> 15-cm dbh) and midcanopy trees (7.5-15 cm dbh) were
tallied and recorded by species. Woody subcanopy stems (> 1 m tall, but < 7.5 cm dbh) were also
tallied and recorded by species within a 5-m diameter circle (78.5 m2). A larger or smaller area
was used if stems were particularly sparse or dense, respectively. The lengths and diameters of
all downed dead wood (DDW) > 10 cm in diameter were also measured within the 10-m radius
circles
The woody species sampling plots were established approximately 25-30 m apart. At each plot
center and at points at intervals between plots, herbaceous species were sampled in 8 plots of
10 x 1 m2. Total plot cover, as percent cover, was estimated as occurring within one of nine
cover categories and the midpoint (in parentheses) of the categories was recorded: 0 (0), 0-5
(2.5), 5-25 (15), 25-50 (37.5), 50 (50), 50-75 (62.5), 75-95 (85), 95-100 (97.5), 100 (100).
Percent cover of non-native (exotic), invasive species was also estimated and recorded. Native
plants present in each plot were identified to species when possible; otherwise, they were
identified to the closest taxonomic level possible. All nomenclature followed Radford et al.
(1978).
3.4 CALIBRATION OF MODEL VARIABLES AND FUNCTIONS
For each PAA, raw field data were converted to model variables. Appendix B provides
definitions for all field and GIS data, how they were converted to model variables, and how they
were calibrated for use in function models. Four functions were assessed: Maintain
Characteristic Hydrologic Regime, Maintain Characteristic Plant Community/Habitat Attributes,
Maintain Characteristic Animal Community, and Maintain Characteristic Biogeochemistry.
3.4.1 Reference Standard
Due to the rarity of piedmont fens, reference data and variable calibration had to be derived from
on-site data. Thus, reference sites were also assessment sites. Fortunately, one of the forested
areas on site was intact enough to provide reference standards. It was believed that this site,
PAA1, would not only prove useful for determining the current condition of other parts of the
site (relative to the reference standard site), but that it would be useful for planning details for a
future restoration. The main drawback of having only one site for providing reference standards
was that it could not represent the entire range of natural variation possible. Another drawback
was that the forest had not fully matured since past clear-cutting because the canopy was
E
La Grange Property Functional Assessment Page 9
Chatham County, NC

dominated by the shade-intolerant, successional species, Liriodendron tulipifera (yellow poplar).
Braun (1950) indicated that north-facing piedmont slopes were originally composed of
mesophytic species such as Fagus grandifolia (beech), Quercus alba (white oak), and yellow
poplar. No data are available on the proportion of yellow poplar in virgin (uncut) slope forest,
but it would probably not have covered more than 10-15% of the canopy (vs. 29% now).
Because yellow poplar is long lived, dominance by yellow poplar might persist for 100 years or
more. On the other hand, it would be unrealistic to limit reference standard sites to virgin forests,
since there are probably no virgin deciduous forests remaining in the piedmont. Therefore, it
would be reasonable to use PAA 1 as a reference standard as long as provisions were made for its
standards representing only a portion of the natural range in variation.
3.4.2 Functional Assessment Variables
The following section describes the main functions performed by slope wetlands and the
variables used to model the function.
Function 1: Maintain Characteristic Hydrologic Regime
Hydrologic regime is one of the main factors controlling ecosystem functions in wetlands,
including those of slope wetlands. The timing, duration, and depth of fluctuations in water level
affect biogeochemical processes and plant distribution patterns. Alterations to the input, export,
or storage of water all change the pattern of spatial and temporal variations in hydrodynamics,
which in turn affect biogeochemical and habitat functions.
Groundwater discharge from the diabase sill is by far the major source of water for the slope
wetland, although overland flow and precipitation also provide some input. Downgradient flow
is the major export pathway for water, but evapotranspiration (ET) also contributes to the export
during the growing season. Excess surface water from groundwater discharge coalesces to form
headwater streams and flows downgradient. Hence, water seldom ponds deeply, except in divots
created by tree falls. Although flooding is minimal, slopes remain wet and their soils are
saturated almost continually, even during periods of excessive drought. This means that plants
and animals that rely on saturated conditions or standing water in depressions can rely on these
conditions occurring in slope wetlands over longer periods than in most other wetland types.
Hydrologic alterations to slope wetlands occur when they are ditched to remove water more
quickly, when fill is added, or when soil is removed. Removal of forest canopy in a slope
wetland can affect ET rates, remove tree-fall divots, and prevent new divots from forming. The
removal of forested buffers can also alter hydrologic regime by increasing overland flow of
surface water. Because this particular type of fen receives its water from a deep aquifer, most
potential hydrologic alterations occur on-site or just upslope from the site. Large-scale, regional
groundwater withdrawal could affect the long-term availability of water, but such landscape-
level effects are outside the purview of this assessment.
Four variables were used to indicate the level of hydrologic function of the La Grange slope
wetland: the outflow (drainage) of water from the slope (VourF), the capacity to store surface
water in small surface depressions (VsTOR), the capacity to store water in large micro topographic
La Grange Property Functional Assessment Page 10
Chatham County, NC

depressions (VMIcRo), the capacity for ET (VcTD), and the capacity to retard overland flow from
surface runoff (VBuFF). Methods for measuring these variables are outlined in Appendix B.
The model variable VOUTF measured the degree to which drainage ditches affected hydrologic
regime. PAAs were partitioned by the presence or absence of drainage ditches and so a particular
PAA was either considered to be drained by a ditch (VourF = 0.0) or it wasn't (VOUTF = 1.0). The
model variable VSTOR measured whether fill or excavation affected a PAA. Like VOUTF, the
presence of fill was used to partition PAAs and so fill was either present (VSTOR = 0.0) or absent
(VSTOR = 1.0).
The variable VMICRO measured whether the appropriate density (relative to reference standard) of
tree-fall divots was present. Land-clearing activities remove tree-fall divots and the lack of trees
prevents more divots from being produced, thus reducing potential on-site water storage. If tree-
fall divot density was equal to or more than 5.9 divots/ha, then VMICRO = 1.0, otherwise VMrcRO =
divot density/5.9.
The variable VCTD measured the relative capacity for ET relative to reference standard and the
capacity to continue to produce divots from tree falls. Canopy trees are responsible for most of
the ET in a forest; therefore, if the density of canopy trees was less than 457 trees/ha (reference
standard), then VcTD = tree density/457, otherwise VcTD = 1.0.
The variable VBUFF measured the capacity of a forested buffer to retard overland flow of surface
water onto the slope. Buffer score (VBUFF) for a PAA was measured at the slope/upland
boundary. The score was determined by multiplying the proportion of the total boundary length
that had > 50-m wide forested buffer by 1.0, the proportion of length with 1-50 m wide forested
buffer by 0.5, the proportion of length with no forested buffer by 0.0, and then summing the
scores of the three categories.
The Functional Capacity Index (FCI) for the Maintain Characteristic Hydrologic Regime
function was modeled by using the lowest score of the following 4 equations: FCI = (VouTF),
(VSTOR), or [(VcTD) + (VMICRO) + (VBUFF)1/3. However, if the PAA was not located along a break
in slope, then VBUFF was not applicable and so FCI = (VcTD + VMIcnO)12. Therefore, the presence
of a drainage ditch or fill superseded the effects that any of the other alterations would be
expected to have on hydrologic regime. Where neither ditches nor fill were present, the sub-
equations using tree canopy, tree-fall divots, and buffer (where applicable) determined functional
capacity. Note that the reference standard site did not score 1.0 for the hydrologic regime FCI
because its buffer was not sufficiently wide. Full functioning could be obtained by completely
ra restoring the forested buffer.
Function 2: Maintain Characteristic Plant Community/Habitat Attributes
This function reflects the capacity of a slope wetland to maintain the characteristic attributes of
plant communities normally associated with natural, piedmont slope wetland ecosystems.
Community attributes include characteristic density and composition of component species.
Forest clearing for pasture almost completely eliminates natural plant communities, but cattle
grazing within a forest can also alter the composition of the understory and regenerative capacity
0
La Grange Property Functional Assessment Page 11
Chatham County, NC
7
of the overstory. Draining and filling can also change the hydrologic regime sufficiently to
change the plant composition from favoring more hydrophytic species to fewer hydrophytic
species.
It was assumed that if the plant community were unaltered (similar to reference standard), it
would support the type of plant communities that have evolved in piedmont slope wetlands and it
would be relatively free of non-native, invasive species. It was also assumed that the reference
standard area represented the characteristic condition for piedmont fens, i.e., it represented a
piedmont fen being all it could be ecologically. Therefore, the composition of the altered PAAs
was compared with the reference standard site using a Sorensen Similarity Index (SSI). The SSI
uses a quantitative attribute like density or per cent cover to compare one site with another site
(see equation in Appendix B). (To use SSI, sample sizes must be similar because the number of
species in a given sample is area-dependent.)
Plant composition of PAAs was compared using the SSI for three strata: the canopy stratum
(trees > 15 cm dbh), the midstory stratum (trees 7.5-15 cm dbh), and subcanopy (shrubs and
saplings taller than 1 m and < 7.5 cm dbh). The model variables VCNPY , VMCNPY , and VscNPY
represent the compositional condition for the canopy, midcanopy, and subcanopy strata,
respectively. Because no two sites of the same community type would be expected to be exactly
alike (even two samples from the same site would fail to show identical similarity), it was
assumed that a PAA was sufficiently similar if its SSI were at least 0.6. Therefore, an SSI of 0.6
represented an HGM variable index score of 1.0, with a decline linearly to 0.0 where the SSI =
0.0.
The model variable VExH represented the mean cover of non-native, invasive (exotic) species in a
PAA. Few, if any, eastern deciduous forests lack exotic species. Exotic species covered 1.9% of
the reference standard site, so PAAs with less than or equal to 1.9% cover of exotic species
scored 1.0. If invasive species cover was > 1.9%, the variable index score was 100 - % cover of
exotic species.
The Functional Capacity Index (FCI) for Maintain Characteristic Plant Community/Habitat was
modeled by giving equal weight to the variables VCNPY, VMCNPY, VSCNPY , and VExH, i.e., FCI =
(V CNPY + VMCNPY + VMCNPY + VExH)14. A forested PAA with a history of grazing would likely
show alteration to the midcanopy and subcanopy and would probably have a higher coverage of
exotic species. All four variables would score low in former pastures.
Function 3: Maintain Characteristic Animal Communities
This function is defined as the capacity of a slope wetland and its surrounding landscape to
provide the resources required for maintaining the suite of animal species characteristic of
unaltered, piedmont slope wetlands. Animals are an important part of the biota of any ecosystem.
Animals that use unaltered slopes all or part of their lives are adapted to forested habitats with
soils that remain saturated for long periods.
For animals that would use a particular PAA, there are two major determinants of habitat quality:
(1) habitat quality within the site (on-site quality) and (2) the quality of the surrounding

0 La Grange Property Functional Assessment Page 12
Chatham County, NC
,l
landscape, which provides supplemental resources to animals that would normally use the site
(landscape quality). On-site habitat quality can be inferred by the structure and composition of
the plant community within a given PAA, modeled previously under the function "Maintain
Characteristic Plant Community/Habitat," the appropriate density of tree-fall divots, and the
appropriate volume of downed dead wood (DDW). In other words, if the plant community is
intact, and there are an appropriate number of tree-fall divots and large DDW, then on-site
habitat quality is probably intact as well.
To determine the contribution that surrounding landscape has on habitat quality in a given PAA,
one must determine whether there are species that, during some portion of their life cycle,
require resources found in slope wetlands. Amphibians would probably be the main animal
group that requires resources provided by slope wetlands. Because surface water is not abundant,
there are no aquatic birds that require resources inherent to piedmont slopes. Birds that breed in
forested slope wetlands would probably breed in forested uplands just as readily and so would
not require wet slopes. Therefore, life cycle requirements of amphibians, including use of
supplemental upland habitat, were used to model the supplemental landscape component of the
animal community function.
Groundwater supplies tree-fall divots with a fairly dependable source of water for amphibians to
breed. The divots in slope wetlands probably maintain water longer than divots in uplands or
flats, but they are still too small and too ephemeral to support piscivorus predators. Therefore,
the appropriate density of divots (VMicRO) is one indicator of potential on-site amphibian habitat
quality. This variable was also used to measure hydrologic condition (see Appendix B for
method of measurement and hydrologic function above for calibration).
Adult amphibians, particularly salamanders, also spend time under downed dead wood (DDW)
to forage, maintain body moisture, and avoid predators. Therefore, the volume of DDW per ha
(VDDtiy) was compared relative to the reference standard condition to indicate amphibian habitat
quality. If VDDIV was equal to or greater than 17.1 m3/ha, then the variable index was 1.0;
otherwise the index was volume per ha divided by 17.1 m3/ha.
Because wet slopes provide resources that are similar to resources provided by other habitat-
types (supplemental resources), then the area and accessibility of an unaltered slope, and the
quality of adjacent supplemental habitats are all important in assessing site quality. The
contribution that supplemental, off-site habitat provides to site quality at any given location
depends on the minimum area required to sustain a given species population (in this case, an
amphibian species). Therefore, the patch size required for the species that requires the largest
area most likely also supports populations of other species of the community that require smaller
areas.
It was assumed that 10 ha would be the minimum size of forested (closed canopy) area that
would be sufficiently large to sustain all populations of amphibians typical of unaltered wet
slopes. This supplemental landscape area (VL vDscp) included both wet slope and upland area. To
count as supplemental landscape, the canopy had to be closed (to provide shaded microhabitat
conditions required of amphibians) and connected with the PAA. Further, in order for the PAA
to have contiguous forest, it had to have a closed canopy also. Therefore, an open field would
La Grange Property Functional Assessment Page 13
Chatham County, NC

have no closed canopy (VLmDscp = 0.0). If a PAA had contiguous, closed canopy of 10 ha or
larger, then VLNDscP = 1.0; otherwise VLNDscP = contiguous area in ha/10 ha.
The Functional Capacity Index (FCI) for Maintain Characteristic Animal Communities was
modeled by averaging the sum of FCI for Maintain Characteristic Plant Community/Habitat
function, VMICRO, V DDw, and VLvDscp. The plant community function, microtopography, and
DDW represent on-site habitat quality, while area of contiguous, forested landscape represents
supplemental habitat quality. The two together indicate habitat quality for animals.
Function 4: Maintain Characteristic Biogeochemistry
This function reflects the capacity of a wet slope to maintain biogeochemical processes at the
rate, magnitude, and timing characteristic for the ecosystem, including nutrient and elemental
cycling, biogeochemical transformations, and export of dissolved organic constituents. This
function models the effects that alterations have on biogeochemical processes and assumes that
wet slopes will maintain their characteristic biogeochemical processes if not altered.
The most commonly studied elemental constituents in freshwater wetlands include various forms
of nitrogen (N2, N02, N03 NH4), extractable phosphorus, inorganic carbon (dissolved and
particulate), and organic carbon (in living and dead biomass). However, such measurements
would be too time-consuming to model. Instead, the HGM approach assumes that alterations to
hydrologic regime, forest structure, and soil all detrimentally alter biogeochemical processes.
The rate, magnitude, and timing of biogeochemical processes are determined by living
components of an ecosystem. Primary producers (plants) assimilate nutrients and elements in
soil, and use energy from sunlight to fix carbon. When they die, they depend upon microbial
organisms in soil to transform those fixed elements and compounds to forms that are available to
other plants. Therefore, conditions that maintain plants and soil microbial populations are those
that drive characteristic biogeochemical processes, such as the assimilation and cycling of
nutrients from dead to living biomass and the export of dissolved organic matter.
Considering the characteristic biogeochemical attributes of wet slopes, three conditions stand out
as being essential for determining the degree to which biogeochemical processes are altered in a
slope wetland: (1) the degree to which hydrologic regime is altered, (2) the degree to which
living biomass stocks are altered, and (3) the degree to which detrital biomass stocks are altered.
All three parameters are discussed below.
Because most biogeochemical processes in wetlands depend on the spatial and temporal balance
between oxic and anoxic conditions, the timing and duration of flooding and soil saturation
(hydrologic regime) affect biogeochemical processes. Therefore, alterations that affect
hydrologic regime also affect biogeochemical processes. For example, draining a slope wetland
' reduces flooding and soil saturation, which in turn alters processes that depend on anoxic
conditions (fermentation, denitrification, etc.). Therefore, the degree to which hydrologic
conditions are altered (measured by the FCI for the hydrologic function) was used to model the
contribution of the hydrologic condition to the biogeochemical function.
n
La Grange Property Functional Assessment Page 14
Chatham County, NC
€f.
The amount of living biomass determines the rate and magnitude at which nutrient cycling
occurs. Therefore, an indicator of living biomass was used to model alterations to
ni,
biogeochemical processes. The canopy stratum is by far the largest reservoir of aboveground
biomass in forests. Therefore, the density of canopy-sized trees (VcTD) was used to indicate the
condition of aboveground biomass. If a PAA had 457 canopy trees or more per ha (reference
standard condition), then VcTD = 1.0; otherwise VcTD = tree density per ha/457.
The amount of detrital biomass also determines the rate and magnitude at which nutrient cycling
occurs. The largest reservoirs of detrital biomass are soil organic matter and large down, dead
wood (DDW). Draining and filling, both modeled by the hydrologic function, would alter soil
organic matter. Alterations to the other major detrital compartment were modeled using VDDtiv, a
variable also used in the animal community function. Calibration relative to the reference
standard was identical (see Appendix B).
The Functional Capacity Index (FCI) for the Maintain Characteristic Biogeochemistry function
was modeled by averaging the sum of the FCI for the Maintain Characteristic Hydrologic
Regime function, VccrD, and VDDw. The hydrologic function provides the contribution of
hydrologic effects on biogeochemical function and effects of soil disturbance on detritus in soils,
VcTD provides the contribution of aboveground biomass to biogeochemical function, while VDDIV
provides the contribution of large wood detritus to biogeochemical function.
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The current conditions of 10 PAAs were assessed, including the Reference Standard site
(PAAI). Field data for all PAAs are provided in Appendix C. The Reference Standard site
(PAA1) is the least altered portion of the site. It has not been been modified hydrologically, it
has a closed canopy at least 40-50 years old with scattered tree blow-downs, and cattle have not
been allowed to graze there (cattle had been fenced out and understory was intact). Even so, the
reference site was not embedded within a sufficiently large tract of contiguous forest (VLNDscp),
nor does it have a sufficiently wide upslope forested buffer MUFF), to qualify as a true reference
standard site in all respects. Therefore, initial FCIs for the reference standard site are not 1.0 for
the three functions that included VwDscp or VBUFF as model variables. However, restoration of
upland forest could, without any restoration of the wetland proper, enable PAAI to achieve an
FCI of 1.0 for all functions.
Table 2a shows the pre-restoration (current assessment) variable scores for each PAA and Table
2b shows the post-restoration (anticipated) scores. Pre-restoration scores were calibrated from
the raw data in Appendix C. The potential gain in function that could accrue for each PAA is
shown in Table 3. It was assumed that actions will be taken to restore all portions of the site. The
non-forested areas will be reforested, forested areas will be enriched with supplemental plantings
of appropriate species where needed, tree-fall divots will be constructed in the appropriate sizes
and density where needed, downed dead wood would be restored at the density and volume
required, and the surrounding uplands would be restored to a closed forest. The post-restoration
a
La Grange Property Functional Assessment Page 15
Chatham County, NC
cS
bn
C1
V
c3
a
C
M
a
0
V>
F?"I
44
C3
N
CS
C3
a?
O
c.
40.
it
O
u
V1
?i
0
..r
c3
1-i
rr
ti
a?
c.
p,
cJ
N
_w
IM
cl
E'+
0 0 0 o Q o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 O o 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0
CD 0 0 0 Z
0 o c o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
A4
0 0 0 0 ¢ 0 0 0 n o n t- o n 0 00 0 0 0 CO
o 0 0 o Z o 0 0 0 \D .-i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 .: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
a
0 0 0 0 Q o 0 0 0 .? o0 00 0 n 0 C% 0 0 0 0
o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 t? - -? o -I 0 0 0 0 0 0
.: 0 0 Z
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
QI
o 0 0 0 ¢ 0 0 0 0 - 00 00 o n o CN 0 0 0 0
cs o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 n -! "-' 0 -- 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 Z
O 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 00

a
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .n -. r» 0 n 0 n 0 0 0 0
? o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v
- - o -» 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 ? - 0 0 00 0 0 0 ,
.
00 0 0 0 00 0 0 00

o 0 o n o 00 0 0 0 to o n 0 n 00 D o m
cs o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 "I: o -- 0 0 0 0 0 0
n
? -: : 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 00
a
O O n n Q' O It ? N to d' Vt ?D n N n O n \.D V
U 0 0 C\ .--? Z O t.: 01 N I-D I-D I-D O -+ N N O C? O M
c! .; O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
a
O O n n Q' O It d' N V1 ?t ?O ?D M o n kO ?F
l
O O C? .--? Z O n C\ N \O ?O O O N O C? O C
!
-+ 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
A4
0 0 n n ¢ O '?i' d' N to 'd ?D O n O n \D
O O C? O ['? C? N \O ND O N N O C? O c7
0 0 0 Z
O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C. 0 0
A4
O O O n Ln to O W) Vl V ?F C\ n N Vl O T 00
tn O O N Ln n 0 It r- n n - N N M v 1 - c1
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
W
O O .D n O n %n C1 M o0 00 r ?o 10 O % N
et O O d: M O 00 vi O 00 Ln kq N O N O ?t N N
?
i! O O O O C. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
d
P4
O O +
' 10 m Ch 00 M N Ln O O M 1.0 ?o \O C,
' M rt
M O
.-? O
.-- tc
1
0 N
0 cal
0 0 t-?
O tl?
O
O n
O O
0 --
0 N
0 O N
0 0 c
l
0
0
0 0
a
O O ?' ?D O CN 00 M N to O O Cl) ?D O O rn .-- M <t
C3 O O vl N
O M
n
n
'--?
\O
n
?
D
-+
N
N
M
c'1
h
.--? c+1
O O O O O O O O
O C O O O
O O O O
O
A4
O O M ^-' O DD 01 M -+ t N N O N ('A M O n
O O ?D rn in \o r- M 00 10 ?D O D\ M n ?D ?D O [-
O O O CJ 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O O - O

A4
O O O O O c? O O O O O O O O O O M O O V
-4 O O O O vi 00 0 0 0 0 0 O O O N w 0o O O Ci

Q
P4
C O
x
S a °x U ° U 5 = y U ° = U

> > > >` > > > > > w > >` > uv > >

w w
?

o cl E
6
b C C
?
O C E tD E
.
D C n

0 0 0 0 0 Q o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.? 0
14 0
_; 0 0 z o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
P4
o
o 0 0
0 o
o Q o
o 0
0 0
0 Cl
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
O 0
o 0
0 0
0
Q, 0 z

a
,n o O o o ¢ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O 0 0 0 0
O O O O Z O O O O Q O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O
a
ca 0 o o O Q o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
GO
1 O
14 O O O z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0
A4
,0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
r O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Cl O O O
a
p
r o
o 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 o
0 O
0 0
O 0
o Cl
0 0
0

d'
a
v o 0 0 o Q o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
?D
Q O
i 0 0 0
i . 0
i 0 0 0 0 0 O
--i C)
--? 0
-i 0
--i 0
-i O
--i O
--i O
--i O
-r
Q •-- .-+ rr r .- .r rr .-i --' r-? . . . . . . .
a
O O O O Q O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0
Q O O O O Z O 0 0 0 0 0 O D 0 0 0 O O O O
Q
a
cc o O CD O Q 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
?o
Q O
.: O O O z o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
a
,n o
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 Cl
0 Cl
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
a
0
O 0
o 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
o 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 o
0 O
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
a
,a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

Q
a
CJ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0
M O O O Cl O O O O O O Cl O O O O O O O O O

Q
a
N O O O O O o O O O O O O O o o O O O O O
O 0 0 0 0 C, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
a
0 0 0 0 rn .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ?o 0 o rn
Q 0
. 0 0 0
? O0
O C? 0 0 0
i 0
, 0 0
i 0 0 0
: 0 rn 0 0 rn
Q . . O .-r .- ,- .--i r- - .-+ ,- - 0
a
o p V -
U 2 U ?y p Z U
? q U

>
> C
w U h W w U q ' .1 w
v ,
> p
> w
> > > > > > > w > > > u
.

O °
°
o a cl o
?' ? c cA E
0 C3 r. o

J
C%2
a)
bA
C?
a_
V3 cl
Ll -,4
a
U
a,l
s..
W
'LS
a?
- ?C3
GA
U
w
'L7
?i
CS
r-r
Yq
rn
G
cl
4
M
d
h
H
?? •?

H k, ? N
V N
M O GD
M
0
O O O M M O O O m en O O O m en O O O cn rl
Q? O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0
Q O •---- 0 0 O •-+ •--? 0 0 O •-+ •-? O C O -? •--? 0 0
a
O O O r• .-? C` O M r 00 O N C\ 0 0 0 - .-4
O O O N N -+ O 00 N ?-1 0 0 C% N. q O O O N N
a o ?oo o.:ooo o -:ooo o-:-oo
.n
cc O O o \o ?o 00 O N ?o In rn O ?o in O O O Iz \D
Q' 0 0 0 0 0 0 OR O O O O O? o O O O O O O
Cl --0 0 O •-- o O C O - 0 0 0 O --? -- 0 0
a
a
00 O O o 0 0 00 o N O h m a O C, O O O O O
0 0 0 0 cn M O 00 c+l O O O. cn H O O O c+'1 M

Gr
.1]
n 0 0 0 to in .--? O C, vl m n O m vn m O O O in Ln
O O O N N --? O 00 N N O O C? N N O a q N N
Q' O -? '-• 0 0 O •--? O O O O •? 0 0 0 O --? --? O O
a
cl

t?
00 O N _
O\ in
r- O m --? r,
M O r- •-+ O
Q O O C? vl --? O Co v'1 [t q O C? v'1 'Y O O C? v'1 l!2
Q
i O .-+ 0 0 0 O •--? O O O O r- O O O O --? O o 0
a
u
b O O O "t ?t '[t O \.O V .-I r- O M It M 't O"D V' M
C O O O O O ?O O M O O N O C` O O M O '4O O O
'? O -+ •-+ 0 0 O --+ 0 0 0 O- O O C O - O O O
A4

O O O m en e} O \O m H M O r- M N d 0 \O m N
Q? O O O O O ?O O M O O N O Il: o O Ci O ?q q O
O •--? •-• 0 0 O --? 0 0 0 O •-- O O O O - 0 0 0
P4

c:) O O in Vl V' O \O Vl N r- O M v1 ? d' O ?O vl M
Q O O O O O ?O O M O O N Or? O O m 0 ?q q O
a o ?-?oo o-?ooo o -ooo o.- ?ooo

N d' O ?O O It O \.O Q? Vn O to ?o 00 O N - 'c?
Q 'cf' O n F, V I? O N l- 1-4 M O %O I? vI? M C) ?o r- V
a o -ooo o -.ooo o -6.0O o--ooo
O CO O -- .-? 00 O N C% \O O ?t ?D N O 00
Q o 0 0 N N
C5 ?o 6 ul O It N O
o
:6o6 N O C` N H
OO
6 N O r^ N ?--1
oo
o
:
a - - O -
o
.o

m _
rno mrr
oOOmC\
?ovcq
rrCD \omvl
M O ?D N H IO O ?t N O N O r N r•1 19 O \O rV H

a o -?ooc o- :ooo o -OOO o- :ooo

cl
m rn o r` rr o 0 o r` m o 0 o r` in v o In r` to
Q m O ?D O O \O O It O O M O [? O O M O \O O O
o -•ooo o -ooo o--ooo o- ooo
P4
00 O N r- M N O 00 r- to -• O O\ r- r, r` O m r` Ln
?O O M D\ b O m Q\ t: r? Cl N Q? Vl r? O N O\ 'ct
a o.-CD o.-o--o C) - C) - :o O ?o ao
Q M ?O m d' .r O O O d' O O Cl O 't M d' Q\ In 'ct [?
Q? 0o CN •--• \O N 0 0 0% O co O N\0 M C, CI, O?o O
1?
VI
w O
C N
?. O
? V1
o
C to
?"' O
C
C
a a
- to
a P.
[ q
P. a
a bn ?
a. a.
c
C
J 0 , ? ? ,
_
U
wU¢C7 /
wU¢
U U
U?C7
U 7
wwU
`'
l.
r z
V
t t u
L
. C
¢

to
?
k
_

L. C3
E
q
a o
nn
o E
C-i o u
'.C G. U x
< U q u

0 condition also represents the condition of the PAAs after establishment of a mature canopy for
In the plant community function.
u Maintain Characteristic Hydrologic Regime
Q The FCI scores in Table 2a show that PAA4 and PAAs 6 through 10 have been severely altered
hydrologically (FCI = 0.0) because they have either been drained with ditches or filled. PAA2,
PAA3, and PAA5 have not been drained or filled, but function sub-optimally (relative to
Reference Standards) because of one or more of the following hydrologic alterations: canopy
tree density is too low, tree-fall divot density is too low, or the break in slope is inadequately
buffered. Restoration of hydrologic function could be achieved by restoring to pre-altered
conditions, assumed to be represented by the Reference Standard area (PAA1). Filling ditches
will lead to increased retention times of water in areas affected by drainage ditches. In areas not
affected by ditching, canopy trees, tree-fall divots, and buffers will have to be restored to fully
restore hydrologic functions.
Examining the condition of model variables in each PAA was used to determine what actions
need to be undertaken in each PAA to restore the model variables, and hence, function. For
example, to restore hydrologic function in PAA4, (1) spoil piles could be used to fill in the
ditches, (2) the appropriate mix of canopy trees species could be planted (and allowed to seed
into the area) at a density sufficient to achieve a final density of at least 457 trees/ha, (3) trees
with root-wads could be placed throughout the site at a density of 5.9 treefalls/ha and divots dug
in front of the root-wads, (4) a forested buffer at least 50-m wide could be planted along the
upslope boundary from the break in slope, and (5) pasture between the slope and river could be
planted with trees to provide a 10-ha contiguous forest of supplemental habitat.
Maintain Characteristic Plant Community/Habitat Attributes
The Plant Community FCI shows very low function in PAAs 7 through 10 because these areas
are an open pasture of exotic grasses and are devoid or almost entirely devoid of trees and
shrubs. The other PAAs (2-6) vary in the similarity of their canopy, midcanopy, and subcanopy
vegetation to the Reference Standard area, but because they support closed-canopied forest, they
function better than the pasture areas. Some PAAs have forest growing on fill and/or have been
previously subjected to grazing pressure, which altered their understory and encouraged invasion
of exotic species.
Although the density of canopy trees is important for appropriate hydrologic function, the plant
and animal community functions depend partly upon the composition of the canopy stratum.
Supplemental planting of appropriate oak species, swamp tupelo, and subcanopy species such as
sweetbay, blueberry (Vaccinium corymboscan), and spicebush (Lindera benzoin) will be needed
to restore plant community functions to areas that currently support a closed-canopy forest but
lack these important species. Yellow poplar, sweetgum, ash (Fraxinus spp.), and red maple (Acer
rubrurn) will likely naturally seed into the pasture areas from nearby trees because these species
have seeds evolved for wind dispersal.
C
La Grange Property Functional Assessment Page 19
Chatham County, NC

Maintain Characteristic Animal Communities
The Animal Community FCI scores less than 0.35 in all PAAs except PAA2. Areas of former
open pasture (PAAs 7 through 10) show very low function because on-site habitat conditions are
low (low Plant Community FCI), they lack tree-fall divots and DDW, and they lack a contiguous
forest canopy. All PAAs, including the Reference Standard, lack sufficient contiguous forest (for
supplemental habitat), so even forested PAAs function sub-optimally for the Animal Community
function. However, increasing the amount of supplemental habitat by reforesting adjacent
uplands now in pasture will provide a substantial improvement in function.
Maintain Characteristic Biogeochemistry
The Biogeochemistry FCI shows extremely low function in the former pastures (PAAs 7 through
10) because there are no canopy trees, tree-fall divots, or buffer. Because PAA4 and PAA6 have
been drained or filled, their low hydrologic function also causes them to show low
biogeochemical functions. Restoring hydrology, reforesting former pasture, and restoring buffer
will provide a substantial improvement in biogeochemical function to these areas.
Applying reference standards to restoration will lead to some novel approaches that have been
rarely, if ever, applied in North Carolina. One such approach will be restoring the appropriate
densities of tree-fall divots and root-wads and the density and volume of downed dead wood to
PAAs. Restoring these conditions, a characteristic of unaltered sites, is essential for quickly
restoring characteristic hydrologic, animal community, and biogeochemical functions.
Neglecting these aspects of the restoration will prevent full functioning from occurring until the
areas develop a mature, climax forest (typically longer than 100 years).
Restoring DDW and microtopography is technically feasible. Trees occupying the spoil piles can
be tipped over and moved to the appropriate locations. This will also supply DDW. The sizes of
the tree-fall divots should be based on in situ measurements of divots obtained in the field during
the assessment (Table C-3). Divot size is related to the size of the tree that produces it. The
volume of divots at the La Grange site range in size from 0.8 m3 to 4.8 m3 with depths ranging
between 10 cm and 50 cm.
The change (gains) in FCIs anticipated from restoration were multiplied by the area (in hectares)
of each PAA to obtain anticipated gains in FCUs (Table 3). Anticipated FCUs were then
summed across PAAs for each function. The results indicate that if the restoration were
successful, the restoration would provide compensatory mitigation for alterations to slope
wetlands of 4.1 FCUs of hydrologic impacts, 3.2 FCUs of plant community/habitat impacts, 4.0
FCUs of animal community impacts, and 3.8 FCUs of Biogeochemistry impacts. FCUs gained
could be used to compensate for FCUs lost due to project impacts elsewhere. The appropriate
ratio of compensation FCUs to impact FCUs cannot be determined because there is no scientific
foundation for trading FCU across different HGM wetland types. At this time, trading decisions
must be based solely on best professional judgment. However, the information provided here can
show to what degree identified restoration approaches would improve wetland functions in this
rich fen ecosystem.
La Grange Property Functional Assessment Page 20
Chatham County, NC

r
4.0 LITERATURE CITED
Ainslie, W.B., R.D. Smith, B.A. Pruitt, T.H. Roberts, E.J. Sparks, L. West. G.L. Godshalk, and
M.V. Miller. 1999. A regional guidebook for assessing the functions of low gradient, riverine
wetlands in western Kentucky. Wetlands Research Program Technical Report WRP-DE-17.
Vicksburg, Mississippi, USA. (http://www.vves.millellivetlaruls/wlptibs.litml).
Braun, E.L. 1950. Deciduous forests of eastern North America. Hafner Press, New York, NY,
USA.
Brinson, M.M. 1993. A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands. Technical Report WRP-
DE-4, Waterways Experiment Station, Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Brinson, M.M., F. R. Hauer, L. C. Lee, W. L. Nutter, R. D. Rheinhardt, R. D. Smith, D.
Whigham. 1996. A Guidebook for Application of Hydrogeomorphic Assessments to Riveri
Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. Wetlands Resear
Program Technical Report WRP-DE-11. Vicksburg, Mississippi, USA.
(http://www.wes.miUel/wetlands/wlpubs. html).
Brinson, M.M. and R.D. Rheinhardt. 1996. The role of reference wetlands in functional
assessment and mitigation. Ecological Applications 6:69-76.
ne
ch
Burke, M., 1996. Historic evolution of channel morphology and riverine wetland hydrologic
functions in the Piedmont of Georgia. M.S. Thesis, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.
Novitzki, R.P. 1979. Hydrologic characteristics of Wisconsin's wetlands and their influence on
floods, stream flow, and sediment. In P.E. Greeson and J.R. Clark (eds.), Wetlands Functions
and Values: The state of our understanding. American Water Resources Association.
Minneapolis, MN.
Ruhlman, M.B. and W.L. Nutter. 1999. Channel morphology evolution and overbank flow in the
Georgia Piedmont. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 35:277-290.
Radford, A. E., Ahles, H. E., and Bell, C. R. (1968). Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Rheinhardt, R. D., M. M. Brinson, P. M. Farley. 1997. Applying reference wetland data to
functional assessment, mitigation, and restoration. Wetlands 17:195-215.
Schafale, M. P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North
Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources. Raleigh, NC.
0
9 La Grange Property Functional Assessment Page 21
Chatham County, NC
a
a Rheinhardt, R., M. Rheinhardt, M. Brinson. 2002. A regional guidebook for applying the
hydrogeomorphic approach to wet pine flats on mineral soils in the Atlantic and Gulf coastal
plains. Waterways Experiment Station (WES), Wetlands Research Program Technical Report
ERDC/EL TR-02-9. Vicksburg, Mississippi, USA.
_ (http://www.wes.ntil/ellwetlandslwlpubs.litino.
Smith, R.D., A. Ammann, C. Bartoldus, and M.M. Brinson. 1995. An approach for assessing
wetland functions using hydrogeomorphic classification, reference wetlands and functional
indices. Technical Report TR-WRP-DE-9, Waterways Experiment Station, Army Corps of
Engineers, Vicksburg, Mississippi. (http:/hvwvv.wes.millel/wetlands/wlptibs.htnil).

La Grange Property Functional Assessment Page 22
a
a Chatham County, NC
Appendix A: Field Data Sheets for Functional Assessment
Partial Assessment Area (pAA): Date:
Extent of ditch and fill effect define pAA boundaries.
F-I Ditch (VourF): absent (1.0) Fill/Excavation (VSroR): absent (1.0)
present (0.0) present (0.0)
Buffer and landscape condition derived from field and remotely sensed data.
Buffer condition:
perimeter length with > 50-m wide forested buffer x 1.0 =
perimeter length with < 50-m wide forested buffer x 0.5 =
perimeter length with no forested buffer x 0.0 =
Total (1) (2)
VsUFF = Total (2)1(1) =
Adjacent area (ha) of forested landscape/5 ha
(VLNDSCP) = I I (Maximum value is 1.0)
Location of sampling points
1 Latitude
2 Latitude
3 Latitude
Longitude
Longitude
Longitude
Page A-1
Partial Assessment Area (pAA): Date:
Canopy 1 2 3 Total Mean Density Simil.

Total T0151
Density =
VCNGY
(UcTD) = I (Total Density/Total Density in RS site)
Midcanopy2 1 2 3 Total Mean Density Simil.
Total VSCNO.
Subcanopy3 1 2 3 Total Mean Density Simil.
Total vs?pv
'Canopy: counts of stems > 15-cm dbh, measured in 10-m radius plots
2Midcanopy: counts of stems 7.5-15-cm dbh, measured in 10-m radius plots
3Subcanopy: counts of stems > 1-m tall, < 7.5-cm dbh, measured in 10-, 5-m radius plots or smaller plots
Page A-2
Partial Assessment Area (pAA):
Downed dead wood > 1 m-long, >10-cm diameter
1
2
3
Date:
Mean
diameter
(cm)
Length
(cm)
Volume
(cm3) Mean
diameter
(cm)
Length
(cm)
Volume
(cm3) Mean
diameter
(cm)
Length
(cm)
Volume
(cm)

Total vol. Total volume/ vol. of RS (Voow):C? (max. = 1.0)
Density of divots (micrtopography) determined from entire pAA or from using
point-center-quarter (PCQ') method. Measure in metric.
Distance Width Length Depth Distance Width Length Depth
Microtopography due to tree tip ups.
Number of large (> 2 m2) divots in pAA:
Total area of pAA:
Density no./area):
Divide by density in RS site VMIcRO= l? (max. = 1.0)
'PCQ formula: Detrmine distance to nearest tip-up in each compass quandrant
Density = 10,000/(avg. dist. in m)2
Page A-3
Partial Assessment Area (pAA): Date:
Cover' of invasive non-native (exotic) herbaceous and vine species in 1 m2 plots.
Species 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mean
Mean cover VEXH =
'Use midpoint of cover class: 0 (0), 0-5 (2.5), 5-25 (15.0), 25-50 (37,5), 50 (50.0),
50-75 (62.5), 75-95 (85), 95-100 (97.5), 100 (100).
HYDROLOGY FC11 = VOUTF
FC12 = VSTOR
FC13 = (VCTD +VMICRO '+' VBUFF)13, or if not along break in slope, then
FC13 = (VCTD +VMICRO)12
FCI =(lowest score of subequations)
PLANT COMMUNITY/ FCI = (VCNPY +VMCNPY +VSCNPY +VEXH)l4
HABITAT
FCI =
ANIMAL COMMUNITY FCI = (FCI Plant Community + VDDW + VMICRO + VLNDSCP)/4
FCI =?
BIOGEOCHEMSTRY FCI = (FCI Hydrology + VCTD + V DDw)13
FCl =?
Page A-4
a
a Appendix B: Summary of Model Variable Definitions, Measurement Method,
V2 and Conversion to Sub-indices
1. Outflow (drainage) of water from slope (VOuTF)
Measure/Units: Removal of water by ditches.
Method:
1. Determine presence/absence of ditches that drain the PAA.
2. If drainage ditch is present, then VOUTF = 0.0, if ditch is absent, then VOUTF = 1.0. PAA is
assumed to be within the area that is being drained
2. Surface Water Storage (VsTOR)
Measure/Units: Addition (fill) or excavation of material (• STOR)-
Method:
1. Determine presence/absence of fill material or an excavation in PAA.
2. If PAA is within an area to which material has been added or excavated, then VsTOR = 0.0. If
PAA is not within an area to which material has been added or excavated, then VSTOR = 1.0.
U 3. Microtopography (VMIcRO)
Measure/Units: Density (per ha) of divots from tree tip-ups where divots are > 2 m2.
Method:
1. In each of four compass quadrants, measure the distance to the nearest divot. If distance is
greater than 100 m, record 100 m as distance. (Also measure the length, width, and depth of
the resulting divot.
2. Calculate density of divots in m2/ha, where density =10,000/[(average distance in meters)2].
3. If density of divots is > 5.9 divots/ha, then VMicRO = 1.0, otherwise, VmrcRo = density/5.9
divots/ha.
4. Proportion of total bordering length of 50-m wide forested buffer (VQUF•F)
Measure/Units: Length of forested buffer at least 50-m wide along a given break in slope.
Method:
1. Determine the length of the slope break contiguous to the PAA.
2. Determine the proportion of the slope break length that has a forested buffer (1) wider than
50 m, (2) 1-50 m wide, and (3) lacks forested buffer.
3. Multiply the proportion of length with > 50 wide forested buffer by 1.0, the 1-50 m wide
forested buffer by 0.5, and the proportion lacking a forested buffer by 0.0 The sum of the
t resulting values = VBUFF•
0
Page B-1
ILI
5. Canopy tree density (VcTD)
Measure/Units: Density (per ha) of all trees > 15 cm dbh.
Method:
1. Count all trees > 15-cm dbh in three 10-m radius circular plots.
2. If tree density is greater than 457 trees/ha, then VcNPY = 1.0, otherwise VcNPY = tree
density/457 trees/ha.
6. Canopy tree composition (VcNPY )
Measure/Units: Sorensen similarity index (weighted by canopy tree density).
Method:
1. Count and identify all trees > 15 cm dbh in three 10-m radius plots.
2. Determine the mean density of each canopy tree species in stems/ha.
3. Compare the compositional similarity with the Reference Standard site using the Sorensen
similarity index formula: 2C/(A+B), where A is the density of all canopy trees in the PAA, B
is the density of all canopy trees in the Reference Standard wetland, and C is the density of
only canopy tree species common to both the PAA and the Reference Standard site.
4. If the Sorensen Index is greater or equal to 0.6, then VcNPY= 1.0, otherwise VcNPY= the
Sorensen index/0.6.
7. Midcanopy tree composition (VMcNPY )
Measure/Units: Sorensen similarity index (weighted by midcanopy tree density).
Method:
1. Count and identify all trees 7.5 to 15 cm dbh in three 10-m radius plots.
2. Determine the mean density of each midcanopy species in stems/ha.
3. Compare the compositional similarity with the Reference Standard site using the Sorensen
similarity index formula: 2C/(A+B), where A is the density of all midcanopy trees in the
PAA, B is the density of all midcanopy trees in the Reference Standard wetland, and C is the
density of only the midcanopy tree species common to both the PAA and the Reference
Standard site.
4. If the Sorensen Index is greater or equal to 0.6, then VAfcNPY= 1.0, otherwise VmcNPY
= the Sorensen index/0.6.
8. Subcanopy tree composition (VscNPY )
Measure/Units: Sorensen similarity index (weighted by subcanopy tree density).
Method:
1. Count and identify all woody trees and shrubs taller than 1 meter and less than 7.5-cm dbh
cm dbh in three 5-m radius plots.
2. Determine the mean density of each subcanopy species in stems/ha.
3. Compare the compositional similarity with the Reference Standard site using the Sorensen
similarity index formula: 2C/(A+B), where A is the density of all subcanopy trees in the
PAA, B is the density of all subcanopy trees in the Reference Standard wetland, and C is the
density of only the subcanopy tree species common to both the PAA and the Reference
Standard site.
4. If the Sorensen Index is greater or equal to 0.6, then VSCNPY = 1.0, otherwise VscNPY = the
LEA Sorensen index/0.6.
0 Page B-2
l
'c invasive herb cover (V
9. ?XOtl EXH)
Measure/Units: Percent cover of invasive, non-native herbaceous species.
Method:
1. Place a series of square Im2plots at the center of the 5- and 10-m radius plots, and at other
locations at intervals between larger plots. Estimate cover of invasive, non-native herbaceous
species in each plot, by species. Estimate cover as the midpoint of the following 9 cover
categories (in parentheses): 0 (0), 0-5 (2.5), 5-25 (15), 25-50 (37.5), 50 (50), 50-75 (62.5),
75-95 (85), 95-100 (97.5), 100 (100).
2. Average the sum of the covers for all non-native herbaceous species across all plots.
3. If mean cover of invasive, non-native species is > 1.9%, then VExH = 1.0; otherwise VExH =
(100- cover)/100.
10. Downed dead wood (VDDtiy)
Measure/Units: Volume (per ha) of downed dead wood (DDW) > 10 cm diameter and longer
than 1 m.
Method:
1. Measure the length and mean diameter of all downed dead wood > 10-cm diameter lying
within three 10-m radius plots. Measure only those sections that lie within the plot
boundaries.
2. Determine the mean volume of all DDW in the plots in m3/ha.
3. If mean volume is > 17.1 m3 /ha, then VDDW = 1.0, otherwise VDDW = volume/17.1 m3/ha.
11. Supplemental landscape for fauna (VLNDscr)
Measure/Units: Area of contiguous forested landscape (wetland and upland) required by animal
species that require the wetland portion for part of their life cycle. Forested canopy was closed
canopy, regardless of stand age.
Method:
1. Measure the total area (ha) of contiguous, forested landscape that includes the PAA. The
PAA must be forested to count as having contiguous closed canopy forest.
2. Divide the area of contiguous forested landscape by 10 ha, if contiguous area > 1.0, then
VLNDscr = 1.0, otherwise VLNDscp = contiguous area in ha/10 ha.
C
Page B-3
0
0
0
a
0
0
M
a
a
0
0
VIA
a
0
0
a
0
a
u
Appendix C: Assessment data from partial assessment areas.
Table C-1. Density of woody species for partial assessment areas at La Grange (stems/ha).
PAA1 PAA2 PAA3 alb PAA4 PAA5 PAA6 PAA7 PAA8 PAA9 PAA10
a/b/c alb alb
CANOPY DENSITY
Acer rubrum 66 59 33 66 15 - - - - -
Carpinus caroliniana - 22 - - - - - - - -
Celtis laevigata - - 11 11 - - - - - -
Fagus grandifolla 7 - - - - - - - - -
Fraxinus pennsylvanica - 81 - - 37 - - - - -
flex opaca 15 - - - - - - - - -
Liquidambar styraciflua 74 59 88 66 81 265 - - - -
Lidodendron tulipifera 133 52 44 - 52 118 - - - -
Magnolia virginiana 81 - 11 22 - - - - - -
Nyssa biflora 52 - - 11 7 - - - - -
Platanus occidentalis - - - - - - - - -
Quercus alba 22 - - - - - - - - -
Quercus laurifolia - 15 11 - - - - - - -
Quercus nigra 7 - - 11 7 59 - - - -
Quercus phellos - - 33 22 - - - - - -
Quercus rubra - - - - - - - - - -
Salix nigra - 7 - - 22 - - - - -
Ulmus americana - - - - 7 - - - - -
Total 457 287 232 210 228 442 - - - -
MIDCANOPY DENSITY
Acernegundo - - - - 7 - - - - -
Acer rubrum 44 7 33 - 37 88 - - - -
Carpinus caroliniana 15 155 - - 44 29 - - - -
Carya spp. - 22 - - - - - - -
Celtis laevigata - - - - - - - - - -
Fraxinus pennsylvanica - 52 11 140 29 - - - -
flex opaca 7 - - - - - - - -
Liquidambarstyraciflua 37 22 122 66 118 - - - - -
Lidodendron tulipifera 7 - 11 22 22 - - - - -
Magnolia virginiana 103 - 22 11 - - - - - -
Nyssa biflora 7 22 - - 7 - - - - -
Pinus taeda - - - - 7 - - - - -
Quercus alba 7 - - - - - - - -
Quercus laurifolia - - - - - - - - -
Quercus nigra 7 - - - 7 29 - - - -
Quercus phellos - 22 - - - - - - -
Salix nigra - - - - 59 - - - - -
Ulmus alata - - - - - - - - -
Ulmus americana - - - - 15 - - - - -
Total 236 280 221 99 464 - - - - -
Page C-1
PAA1 PAA2 PAA3alb PAA4 PAAS PAA6
alb/c PAA7
alb PAAB
alb PAA9 PAA10
SUBCANOPY DENSITY
Acerbarbatum 29 - - - - 29 - - - -
Acernegundo - - - - 29 - - - - -
Acerrubrum 88 206 133 354 147 147 - 29 177 -
Alnus serrulata - 118 - 4,996 - - - - - -
Amelanchler canadensis 29 - - 442 147 - - - - -
Carpinus carolinlana 177 531 - - 737 - - - - -
Carya sp. 29 29 - - - - - - - -
Celtis laevigata 59 - 44 442 29 - - - - -
Clethra alnifolia - - - - 59 - - - - -
Cornus florida 88 - - - 29 - - - - -
Diospyros virginfana - - - - - - - 29 - -
Euonymus americana - 118 - - 29 - - - - -
Fagus grandifolia 29 - - - - - - - - -
Fraxinus pennsylvanica 59 147 - - 265 - 1,091 - 1,150 -
Ilex decidua - - 88 - 29 - - - - -
Ilox opaca 59 - - - - - - - -
Ilex verticillata 1,267 265 - - 442 - - - - -
Itea virginiana - 324 - - - - - - - -
Juniperus virginiana 29 - - 88 - 88 - - - -
Ligustrum sinense - - - 44 - - - - - -
Lfndera benzoin 147 648 - - - - - - -
Liquidambarstyraciflua 88 619 707 486 413 206 884 648 - -
Liriodendron tulipifera - - - - - 59 - - - -
Lonicera sp. (shrub) - - 44 - - - - - - -
Luecothoe racemosa 177 531 - - - - - - -
Lyonla ligustrina 147 29 - - - - - - - -
Magnolia virginiana 884 - - - - - - 324 - -
Nyssa biflora - 29 - - - - - - - -
Nyssa sylvatica 29 - 221 - 29 - - - - -
Pinus taeda - - - - - - - - - -
Prunus serotina 59 - - - 59 - - - - -
Quercus alba - - - - - - - - -
Quercus nigra - - - 177 - - - - - -
Quercus phellos - - - - 29 - - - - -
Quercus rubra 29 - - - - - - -
Salix nigra 29 - - - - 147 - 236 -
Sambucus canadensis 295 - - - - 29 - - - -
Sorbus arbutifolia 29 - - - - - - - - -
Ulmus alata - - 398 - - - - - - -
Ulmus americana - - - - 118 - - - -
Ulmus rubra 147 147 - - - - - - -
Vaccinfum corymbosum 590 413 - - 354 - - - - -
Viburnum dentatum 59 - - 88 265 - - - - -
Viburnum nudum 560 - - - - - - - - -
Viburnum prunifolium - - - 88 59 - 147 - - -
Total 5,217 4,156 1,636 7,207 3,272 - - 1,562 -
Page C-2
0
a Table C-2. Functional indicators for partial assessment areas at La Grange.
PAAI PAAI PAA3 PAAI PAAI PAA6 PAA7 PAAI PAAI PAA10
alb alb/c alb alb
INDICATORS
Ditch present N N N Y N Y N N N Y
Fill present N N N Y N Y N N N Y
Proportion of forested buffer
Area (ha) of contiguous 1.95 3.20 1.95 0.65 2.17 1.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
forested landscape
Canopy tree density 457 287 232 210 228 442 0 0 0 0
(stems/ha)
% Cover of non- 1.9 15.8 24.7 17.5 25.3 35.0 55.3 29.2 40.3 0.0
native,invasive species
Volume of down dead wood 17.07 43.67 2.22 3.53 3.30 1.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0
Density of divots from tree- 5.9 5.3 1.5 1.0 1.6 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
falls
Table C-3. Dimensions of divots caused by tree falls.

Width (m)
Length (m)
Depth (m) Area
(m) Volume
(m)
1 2.0 0.8 0.35 4.7 1.1
2 3.0 1.5 0.12 14.1 1.1
3 4.0 2.0 0.38 25.1 6.4
4 1.5 4.5 0.40 21.2 5.7
5 1.3 3.0 0.30 12.3 2.5
6 1.1 2.7 0.20 9.3 1.2
7 0.9 2.4 0.50 6.4 2.1
8 1.0 2.4 0.15 7.5 0.8
9 0.7 1.5 0.10 3.3 0.2
Mean 1.7 2.3 0.28 12.4 2.3
0
0 Page C-3
0
Table C-4. Frequency of herbaceous species in a series of 1m2 plots. Cover-type abbrev.:
RS=Reference Standard, F=Forested, G= Grazed, D=Ditched, R=Road.
Site:

Cover-type:
Mean herb cover (%): PAA1

RS
77.1 PAA2

FG
57.8 PAA3
alb
FG
17.5 PAM

FD
30.0 PAA5

FG
15.6 PAA6
alb/c
FG
25.0 PAA7
a/b
G
36.6 PAA8
alb
G
50.0 PAA9

G
58.1 PAA10

R
NA
frequency by species
Ambrosia artemishfolia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 44.4 66.7 NA
Arisaema triphylkun 75.0 55.6 22.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Asclepias syriaca 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.2 0.0 0.0 NA
Aster spp. 12.5 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Bignonia capreolata 12.5 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.6 44.4 44.4 0.0 NA
Boehmeria cylindrica 12.5 33.3 11.1 11.1 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 NA
Campsis radicans 0.0 33.3 0.0 11.1 11.1 71.4 33.3 44.4 33.3 NA
Carex spp. 25.0 22.2 0.0 33.3 22.2 57.1 11.1 0.0 22.2 NA
Carex spl 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Carex sp2 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Carer spa (tall) 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Clematis virginiana 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Cuscuta sp. 0.0 22.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 NA
Cyperus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 NA
Daucus carota 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.2 NA
Desmodium sp. 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 33.3 33.3 NA
Diodea sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 NA
Dryopteris sp. 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Eleocharis tortilis 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Erigeron canadensis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.4 NA
Euonymus antericanus 0.0 22.2 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Eupatorium capillifolium 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 NA
Galium sp. 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Geum canadense 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Glyceria striata ? 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Goodyera pubescens 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Hypericun: sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.2 11.1 0.0 NA
Impatiens capensis 25.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Ipomea purpurea 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 NA
Juncos coriaceous 0.0 11.1 11.1 11.1 0.0 0.0 66.7 55.6 0.0 NA
Juncus effusus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 NA
Juncus spp. 0.0 11.1 11.1 0.0 22.2 14.3 0.0 22.2 100.0 NA
Juncus tenuis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Juncus sp. (terminal infl) 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Juncus tenuis ? 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 NA
Lespedeza sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 11.1 0.0 NA
Ludwigia sp. 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
0
0 Page C-4
0
0 Table C-4 (cont.)
Site: PAM PAA2 PAA3
a/b PAA4 PAAS PAA6
a/b/c PAA7
A PAA8
A PAA9 PAA10
Lonicera japonica 25.0 77.8 55.6 44.4 77.8 100.0 11.1 11.1 44.4 NA
Medeola virginiana 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Microstegium vimeneum 37.5 66.7 66.7 44.4 55.6 71.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Mikania scandens 0.0 0.0 22.2 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Mitchella repens 37.5 33.3 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Osmunda cinnamomea 62.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Osmunda regalis 25.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Oxalis sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 57.1 77.8 0.0 0.0 NA
Oxypolis rigidior 0.0 22.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Panicum sp. 12.5 0.0 0.0 33.3 77.8 57.1 33.3 66.7 11.1 NA
Parthenocissus quinquefolia 50.0 33.3 22.2 11.1 11.1 57.1 22.2 44.4 11.1 NA
Phytolacca americana 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Poa sp. ? 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 NA
Poaceae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Polygonum spp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.2 11.1 0.0 0.0 11.1 11.1 NA
Potentilla sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Rhus radicans 25.0 22.2 11.1 22.2 33.3 0.0 44.4 22.2 88.9 NA
Rubus sp. 0.0 33.3 55.6 44.4 11.1 14.3 88.9 100.0 100.0 NA
Rumes sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Rumex sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 NA
Sagittaria latifolia 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Saururus cernuus 37.5 66.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Scutellaria integrifolia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.3 44.4 44.4 0.0 NA
Setaria spp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.2 33.3 33.3 NA
Smilax glauca 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Smilax rotundifolia 37.5 22.2 22.2 11.1 22.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Solanum carolinense 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 11.1 14.3 22.2 33.3 44.4 NA
Solidago sp. 37.5 11.1 22.2 22.2 22.2 0.0 11.1 11.1 11.1 NA
Solidago patula 12.5 44.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 42.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Sphagnum sp. 25.0 11.1 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Symphoricarpos orbiculatus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.2 0.0 NA
Thelypteris novaboracensis 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Tovara virginiana 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Uniola sessiliflora 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Uniola laxa 12.5 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Verbesina sp. 0.0 0.0 33.3 11.1 0.0 28.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Vernonia noveboracensis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 NA
Vicia sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Vitis rotundifolia 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 11.1 28.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Woodwardia areolata 87.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Unidentifiable fern 0.0 22.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
Unidentifiable grasses 0.0 11.1 11.1 22.2 0.0 71.4 33.3 0.0 22.2 NA
Unidentifiable vine w/ milky sap 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
L
Page C-5

La Grange Farm
March 31, 1955
i
4
i
E ?Ii ?

C

TLC Property Boundary
La Grange Farm
January 11, 2000
I,
Legend
r--j
L--j Mitigation Boundary
0
I
0
0
D
'a
.a
c?
a
x
n

VII. Species Lists (lists are not complete)
3 Plants of the La Grange Reserve
Aasarum canadense Wild Ginger
Acer negundo Box Elder
Acer rubrum Red Maple
Acer saccharum Southern Sugar Maple
Aesculus sylvatica Painted Buckeye
Agrimonia parviflora Agrimony
Allium vineale Field Garlic
Alnus serrulata Tag Alder
Andropogon virginicus Common Broomsedge
Anthoxanthum odoratum Sweet Vernal Grass
Apios americana Apios
Arisaema triphyllum Jack-in-the Pulpit
Aronia arbutifolia Red Chokeberry
Arundinaria gigantea Giant Cane
Asclepias sp. Milkweed
Asimina tribola Pawpaw
Asplenium platyneuron Ebony Spleenwort
Aster dumosus An Aster
Athyrium asplenioides Southern Lady Fern
Betula nigra River Birch
Bignonia capreolata Crossvine
Boehmeria cylindrica False Nettle
Botrychium bitematum Grape Fern
Botrychium dissectum
Botrychium virginianum Grape Fern
Rattlesnake Fern
Campsis radicans Trumpet Creeper
Cardamine hirsuta Bittercress
Carex crinita Fringed Sedge
Carex debilis White-edge Sedge
Carex digitalis A Sedge
Carex laxiculmis Broad Loose Flower Sedge
Carex lupulina A Sedge
Carex lurida A Sedge
Carex tribuloides A Sedge
Carpinus caroliniana Ironwood
Carya cordiformis Bittemut Hickory
Carya glabra Pignut Hickory
14

11
0

J
t

a
Plants of the La Grange Reserve
Carya ovata
Celtis laevigata
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Cerastium holsteiodes
Cercis canadensis
Chasmanthium laxifolium
Claytonia virginica
Commelina virginica
Cornus florida
Corydalis flavula
Cuscuta gronovii
Datura stramonium
Dentaria concatenata
Dichanthelium acuminatum
Dichanthelium commutatum
Dichanthelium dichotomum
Diospyros virginiana
Duchesnea indica
Eleocharis tortillis
Elephantopus caroliniensis
Elephantopus tomentosus
Erythronium americanum
Euonymous americanus
Euphorbia obtusata
Fagus ,randifoloia
Festuca elatior
Festuca obtusa
Festuca ovina
Fragaria virginiana
Fraxinus americans
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Gallium aparine
Geranium carolinianum
Geranium maculatum
Goodyera pubescens
Hedeoma glaucoma
Houstonia caerulea
Houstonia pusilla
Hypericum hypericoides
Shagbark Hickory
Sugarberry
Buttonbush
Mouse Ear Chickweed
Redbud
River Oats
Spring Beauty
Day Flower
Flowering Dogwood
Yellow Flumewort
Dodder
Jimson Weed
Cutleaf Toothwort
Witchgrass
Variable Witchgrass
Common Witchgrass
Persimmon
Indian Strawberry
Spikerush
Elephant Foot
Elephant Foot
Trout Lily
Strawberry Bush
Leafy Spurge
American Beech
Fescue
Fescue
Fescue
Wild Strawberry
White Ash
Green Ash
Bedstraw
Winter Geranium
Wild Geranium
Rattlesnake Plant
Pennyroyal
Bluet
Bluet
St. Andrews-Cross
15
0

Plants of the La Grange Reserve
Hypericum mutilum Slender St. John's Wort
Hypericum stans St. Peter's Wort
Ilex decidua Possum-haw
Ilex opaca American Holly
Ilex verticillata Common Winterberry
impatiens capensis jewelweed
Itea virginica Virginia Willow
Juglans nigra Black Walnut
Juncus coriacea
A Rush
Juncus dichotomus A Rush
Juncus effusus Softrush
Juncus tenuis A Rush
Juniperus virginica Red Cedar
O
Leucothoe racemosa
Swamp Doghobble
Ligustrum sinense Chinese Privet
Lindera benzoin Spicebush
Lineria canadensis Toad-flax
Liqiuidambar styraciflua Sweetgum
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Tree
Lobelia cardinalis Cardinal Flower
Lonicera japonica Japanese Honeysuckle
Ludwigia alternifolia Seed Box
Ludwigia palustris Marsh Seedbox
Luzula acuminata Woodrush
Luzula echinata Woodrush
Lyonia ligustrina Maleberry
Q Lyonia lucida Fetterbush
Lysimachia mumularia Loosestrife
Magnolia virginiana Sweet Bay
Medeola virginiana Indian Cucumber-root
Menisperum canadense Moonseed
Michella repens Partridge Berry
Microstigeum vimineum Japanese Grass
Mikania scandens Climbing Hempvine
Morus rubra Red Mulberry
Murdania keisak Marsh Dewflower
Nyssa biflora Swamp Tupelo
Nyssa sylvatica Black Gum
Onoclea sensibilis Sensitive Fern
16
0
I
u
0
Plants of the La Grange Reserve
Ophioglossum vulgatum Southern Adder's Tongue
Ornithogalum umbellatum Star of Bethelhem
Orontium aquatic Golden Club
Osmunda cinnamomea Cinnamon Fem
Osmunda regalis Royal Fern
Ostrya virginiana Hop Hornbeam
Oxalis sp. Sorrel
Oxypolis rigidior Stiff Cowbane
Parthenocissus quinquefolia Virginia Creeper
Phacelia sp. Phacelia
Phoradendron serotinum Mistletoe
Phytolacca americana Pokeweed
Pinus echinata Short-leaf Pine
Pinus taeda Loblolly Pine
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore
Poa annua Bluegrass
Poa autumnalis Bluegrass
Podophyllum peltatum May Apple
Quercus alba White Oak
Quercus falcata Southern Red Oak
Quercus mauchauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak
Quercus nigra Water Oak
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak
Quercus phellos Willow Oak
Quercus rubra Red Oak
Quercus shumardii Shumard Oak
Quercus stellata Post Oak
Ranunculus acris A Buttercup
Ranunculus flabelliformis Yellow Water Crowfoot
Ranunculus hispidus A Buttercup
Ranunculus pusilus A Buttercup
Ranunculus repens A Buttercup
Rhododendron nudiflorum Wild Azaelea
Rhus coppallina Winged Sumac
Rhynchospora glomerata Beakrush
Rosa palustris Swamp Rose
Rubus argutus Blackberry
Rubus trivialis Blackberry
17

II
Plants of the La Grange Reserve
Rudbeckia laciniata Green-head Coneflower
Sagittaria latifolia Duck Potato
Salix nigra Black Willow
Sambucus canadensis Elderberry
Sassafras albidum Sassafras
Scirpus cyperinus Wooly Bullrush
Smilax bona-nox Saw Greenbrier
Smilax glauca Glaucous Greenbier
Smilax laurifolia Laurel Leaf Greenbrier
Smilax rotundifolia Common Greenbrier
Smilax walteri Coral Greenbrier
Solidago rugosa Goldenrod
Sphagnum lescurii Yellow Peatmoss
Stellaria media Chickweed
Symphoricarpos orbiculatus Coralberry
Sysyrinchium sp. Blue-eye Grass
Tiarella cordifolia Foamflower
Tilia sp. Basswood
Tipularia discolor Cranefly Orchid
Toxicodendron radicans Poision ivy
Tridens flavus Tridodia
Ulmus alata Winged Elm
Ulmus americans American Elm
Uvularia perfoliata Perforated Bellwort
Uvularia sessifolia Sessile Bellwort
Vaccinium corymbosum Highbush Blueberry
Valerianella radiata Corn Salad
Verbesina occidentalis Wing Stem
Viburnum nudum Possum Haw
Viburnum prunifolium Black Haw
Viburnum rafinesquianum Downy Arrowwood
Vicia spp. Vetch
Viola affinis LeConte's Violet
Viola eriocarpa Yellow Violet
Viola papilionacea Common Violet
Viola rafinesquei Violet
Vitis sp. Grape
Woodwardia areolata Netted Chainfern
Woodwardia virginica Virainia Chainfern
18
0
0
Plants of the La Grange Reserve
Zephyranthes atamasco Atamasco Lily
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

7
0
C

Birds of the La Grange Reserve
e Acadian Flycatcher Empidonax virescens
American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos
American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis
e American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla
e American Robin Turdus migratorius
American Woodcock Scolopax minor
Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica
1 Belted Kingfisher Ceryle alcyon
Black Vulture Coragyps atratus
,; Black-throated Green Warbler Dendroica virens
Blue Grosbeak Guiraca caerulea
Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata
Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea
Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum
oBrown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater
Brown-headed Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis
-1 Canada Goose Branta canadensis
Carolina Chickadee Parus carolinensis
Carolina Wren Thryothorus ludovicianus
Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum
e Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina
o Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula
Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas
Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii
R Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis
Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens
Eastern Bluebird Oenanthe oenanthe
r Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus
Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna
Eastern Pheobe Sayornis phoebe
Eastern Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus
European Starling Stumus vulgaris
=Field Sparrow Spizella pusilla
Fish Crow Corvus ossifragus
Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca
4 Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis
19

Birds of the La Grange Reserve
-' Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias
Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus
Henslow's Sparrow Ammodramus henslowii
Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus
' Hooded Merganser Mergus merganser
dHooded Warbler Wilsonia citrina
e House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus
,-Indigo Bunting Passerine cyanea
Kentucky Warbler Oporomis formosus
Killdeer Charadrius vociferus
a Mallard :.. Anas platyrhynchos
1 Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura
Northern Bobwhite Quail Colinus virginianus
Northerri-Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis
Northem•Flicker Colaptes auratus
o Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos
o Northern Parula Parula americana
Orchard Oriole Icterus spurius
o Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus
Pine Warbler Dendroica pinus
Red-bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus
Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus
e Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis
-, Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoenicus
oRuby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula
.,Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia
Summer Tanager Piranga rubra
Swamp Sparrow Melospiza georgiana
Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor
Tufted Titmouse Parus bicolor
Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura
r; White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis
White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys
o White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis
Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius
a Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus
a Yellow-breasted Chat Icteria virens
Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata
Yellow-throated Vireo Vireo flavifrons

1
f
: 1 20
}?l?r
t f ?. ?s-
Zrv?.2
0
0
Amphibians of the La Grange Reserve
American Toad Bufo americanus
Southern Dusky Salamander Desmognathus ariculatus
Fowler's Toad Bufo woodhousei
Green Frog Rana clamitans
Marble Salamander Ambystoma opacum
Northern Cricket Frog Acris crepitans
Southern Leopard Frog Rana sphenocephala
Spotted Salamander Ambystoma maculatum
Spring Peeper Hyla crucifer
Two-lined Salamander Eurycea bislineata
Upland Chorus Frog Pseudacris triseriata
Reptiles of the LaGrange Reserve
Black Racer
Broadhead Skink
Eastern Mud Turtle
Five-lined Skink
Rat Snake
River Cooter
Q Southern Painted turtle
Yellowbelly Slider
Mammals of the La Grange Reserve
Coluber constrictor
Eumeces laticeps
Kinosternum subrubrum
Eumeces fasciatus
Elaphe obsoleta
Chrysemys concinna
Chrysemys pitta
Chrysemys scripta
Beaver Castor canadensis
Eastern cottontail Sylvilagus floridana
Golden mouse Ochrotomys nuttali
Grey squirrel Sciurus carolinensis
Muskrat Ondatra zibethica
Raccoon Procyon lotor
White-footed mouse Peromyscus leucopus
White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus
Invertebrates of the La Grange Reserve
American Painted Lady Vanessa virginiensis
Carolina Satyr Hermeuptychia hermes
Comma Poly;onia comma
Eastern Snout Butterfly Libytheana bachmanii
0 21
Invertebrates of the La Grange Reserve
Eastern Tailed Blue
Eastern Tiger Swallowtail
Falcate Orange-tip
Pearl Crescent
Spring Azure
Fish of the La Grange Reserve
Largemouth Bass
Mosquitoefish
Sunfish
Everes comyntas
Papilio glaucus
Anothocharis midea
Phyciodes tharos
Celastrina ladon
Micropterus salmoides
Gambusia affinus
Lepomis sp.
22
a
0
a
0
1 = 0 = = 0 0
W :?E
N p?
N O
O 0J
O C
W 0-
(C)
(D
X
N
co
C
CL
(0
a

O
7
D
CD
m
(D
CD
(n
A
W
W
A
a)
W
O
v
O
.A
rn
03
W
O
IV
V
O
A
'A
(n
to
Vl
W
(D
W
N
v
O
...? .1 .1 " .1 _a _a -i -t _a
(D (D (D (D W (D (D (D CD CD
(D CD co CD (D (D CD co CD to
co 03 V Cn U7 A W N -+ O
CD (D A N m m p N v N
1 m -? 00 A O " (n (n (D
(o N m ?I m O co m Co
(D W N J W -+ -? O N
N W -I W CD m -I m O N
A N co Ln N " (D co (n N
1
W O W N Cn (D W (n
W (D -P m -P P. A - Co -+ Co
O N W -+ ? N Cn -+ -• O
A co Co co N N -? N -+
Cn (D co (n m m (n (n ? 1
N 0 6 1 N 1 O O O cn
vn(nN1 N _I W (o(»
" N -+ -I Cp O N 1 O CD
N 1 O (n cn (b N N
A W .A (n -l ?I v N A ?I
-+ ?I m O A co m N A --J
W 1 -+ v 1 O O A O?
co ? ?,j 1 1 in 1 (o (D W
CD -lI W W v A co 0 (n Cn
L •P W? A W W N •--? O
O m W (n 1N W Coco (o r\)
m -+ A O O O O W O N
NOON O co O j 1(»
OONO co (D Cn m M0
1
N A -+ - N J A v -•L (D
(o A O m (o w Cn N ao
m N J W m Cn w N W co
1
1 .1 W A A -? -+ O N O
1 1
(p m w m N W (n w m (o
N N A N -? 1 W N N W
m CD O (n W O A m m A
Cn W N A C) W O CD C) N
A W W A (n N N W " N
O - W m m 0 0 m O
1
N
?1
? V -+ U1 CD W m m
C CL
Q
U3 .+
w
I`
IO
w
I?
D O
.t CD
-e
N
,-«
O
?Q
(D
C-
c
O =+
O
c ?
D
CD
D w
c
(O
O
0
rF
Z
O
<
O
CD
n
-4 -<
lD
O w
w 3
(n n n -a
z o r.' 2

c cr

p
p
p
C>Z w
N
CD
a CD
w 'a '=.
w w 0) D a
CT cr = -n
O :3 :3 Cn 0
:3
(n D ' D M
D
(a
:r

i
o

m c (D ,
(D co
CD w O CD w CD w D
w o w w
-w
>y
v
O O N N v v O (D
(3) m co (D Cb W W -1 N
Cl) U) O T O U) -u p 0 C/) -o p
E; G *m II Z II it if
w O O
II p' p If D7 N -n
(D II II II
II 'D cn II O
N n 0
C g A
7 c
O
I O '-'• C

Z
a
(D w O CD C N
C C O 7
••0
CD
>>
O
O 7 ?• C1 CD ?. C ^
3 1 O
E
F
m
?
w 0
a
o
w
w fl
a
i
w
o coo A
(D 0 CD

a

?' CD

.
D
0 7 -p
.
- .}. O Z C j
(7
Q.

O=Z O _
D
« ---

co
1
-iO
-
5•

(n

? O
O LJ C 5*
U) v
()

CO L
O O W (n
(n =
CCDn CD
G C (? 0• n ? 0 v n
w o O_ O 3 m m
0
-?
C?
0
O -- CD -J n
9
:r
7 O
O 3 Z n
C
(DD Ov O N
C' 7

v_' w CD Q
Cp
w CD C
CD O
O O
?
7 O

(p w O ((D
= CD C O

w O CO CD

CD a
CD (n 7'
1 Q
D)

n N
cCDD

C O n
O C•
7 (D
n CL v
O c
O
CL ?•
c
'
O ?

= =1 l ! = = 'J = = = = _] 0 ===

co cn -n 0 to -v O cn -u O En v cn v O cn v O cn -a O cn v
00 0 0 00 00
N
O 0J 'a 'a n
O C
co a
co

0
(D cn cn cn cn '
j? O O O O
Cn p)
a7 to N
(n d
(a 6)
rn
o
c CD
a (D CD (D
(n
m
C-
D)
Ul O O O A
_. .a A d (D
d N O (D (D
,n
m
-+ O O O N a'
-l O N O O
(D O V W N

CD O O A V
A (D co " O
1 O O W
D

Vt O N A
-+ rn (D co co
(n (n O O W

O O A O co
?G
V O A W GJ
N v, N co V
L
C
U) C) 0 O O 3

(n O (D O co
C

O O V O
-? W A CO
co O) CD N O
D
C
W O cn O (a
-+ O CD A N
co co A W A
W
CD
O O A O A a

O -+ O A V
0
0
A O N N A
rn O v cn
W 1
Z

+ O O O -+ <

al A A A (O
v

W O O O W 0
P O N A W
(D rn d V
m m
m
N 0 0 O N 7 V O O N O N O O O W 7
(n :? W b) :N vn A N N O Co O O A N
O Cl) W A U) O (D M V W (D Cn N O O)
-n CD
f
D co
-? O O O N a' O O O O O CT N O O O N a
47 O O N O O W O :-J N O (D W W
W O A W N CD O V O O N Cn Na O W

?
N CO O- O A Ul O
. . N -P
. . ^
t
.
W .
O .
O . .
-+ W .
N . .
O W .
N .
Cl) .
O
CJ) A
A O
co N A W -? -+ A (In C) A co V V (n V
D D D

O
N N
O O N O -+ O O N O N
O N A (O N O O O A -1 O A O N
Cn m co CD (D A O 0) O N -+ -? N V (n

O O co O W O O A O W •< (J) O co V
W O O O W (D O V in W O O O Cn -j
-+ O N O W O CD -+ W V co 1- N CD
L L L
c r- I r_
co 1 A Cn O 7 N
. --? (n
. . A
. A
. :3
.
N O cn
. O N
. . 3
.
N .
P .
V . .
O A A O Cn i\) V V O 6 in W
N V A V V A W -+ O (D V co W O .A
L L L
E
A O O O -? O O O " A A
. O O
. . O N
. .
.
(D .
O .
O . .
O O .
CD . .
N rn .
W .
O W O Cn O .s
O O O W Cn v) W O N V Cn O -+ (n N
C C C

N O A -? O CO O W N CA (O O O CTl -+ A Co
N W V (n V rn A A 1- A N A Cn (D N
co N (n w V (D V O (n 1 N W -+ V (D

CD CD CD
W O A O O O Cl) 1 W 'a N O W O a
W V O d
0
O O J C) -
? Cn J)
w C (
D O
.l
0
(
1
O
O O 0
1
V -y N (n Cn O -+ O O CD -+ N rn
(n W O W (n N O (D O CY) O b) N V J
N co V co (D W O _a W CP O co 00 A -+
Z Z Z
-+ O O O
O O W O < N O O -? N < O O O O -< <
W bo K) o) V A N O N N O O 6 N b)
1 W co Co W V (D O W (D W V -i (D
0 v v
CD
N O O O N N O O O N 0 W O O O W n
O O A A (D O O Cn i\) 6 .P -• w rn A
(D 00 W cn Cb O W " cn (n N W V ? co

?
W N O

O O O O
O ? O O

O O O O

r«

O G C

W
N W
co
O ?
O c
W Cl.
(D
(D
X
co
r_
CL
(0
(n cn m Cl) v U) C) Cl) m
? U) v
- U) C) to m cn v C) U) m
? CU) -0
C
0 -?
O p 0

' o ? p -? 0

' o

Op n o Op'? 0
v
ca -a G7
ca -o 0)
(a 'O N
cn 'II
(D (D CD
L C C- C-
61 D) d C)
A O O O W N O O O N 3 O O O N Ul 7 Ul 0 0 O A 7
1 "" CD -N oo :+ N rn 6 A Ut W N O O O -A b)
V
Q) (D O 0) (D V W N A 07 -? O (D Ul O W (D V O -?
-n -n -n n
(D 0 CD CD
W O O O W CS N O O O N a, J O O N CS Cl) O O O co Cr
J " N Ul Ul W O ill N Q) Ut Ul W N Ul :.. ? Cn :P
W O (D (D W (Il .A W A 00 N O Ul CO 1 -+ N (D O W

ms
-? O O O N W O O O W w N O Ul O -i N Ul -
s
(D O m O V O O 03 W O O O W N ?) (D Ul A W Ul
-A O (D 0) N m O 0) V -? -N W V -N N .A CO -` W Ul
D D D D
1
W O -+ O 1 O N O W O N O -? % N O co O O
co -A -+ co W (D -+ Cn J (D N O W O W N O O O V
m A O 1 -• Ul O) -? rn rn 0) O Ul ? Ul O O -+ O Ul
?
1 ? W
O O N O K -` O N O N N O A 1 1?
O W
-' W
N O W O N -+ -+ J?, C) J J N N -A Cl) C)
J V 1 J -? N Cl) W co O N W 07 O 00 00 N -P
C C_ C_ C.
C N " _a = c
-? O W O -+ 3 -+ O Ln W O W U1 W Ul 7 Ul i O Ul
A O J W (D Ul N co N .A -+ JN W (D O J N -1 --L
O C7 O Ul C) O A N A W A Ul N O -? OD (D W Ul

I? 1
-+ N Ul N O V -+ 0) rn 00 -+ O CT) -+ A O O rn -+ Ul
J N4?, (D 1? -+ A A -L (D -? W in t? N rn W U, rn w
(4 Ul O C) W W co W O W V C) -P., O V P Ul V (D V
D D D D

W O -A O O co -? O Ul -+ Ul (m A 1 0) V Ul cm W O Ul C) -+ (II
Ul O -• O O W W N V L V W -y N (n :N O N O 0o
W O (D O O Ul co 1 Ul (D A V V -? J W 0 co
O A
'^
VJ
V! '^
U) '^
Y/
(D 1 r (D 1 co 1 (D
A O W W P, a (D -A W (7) " CS O O W O W L3 O O W O N "U
O V O N Ul N A (D i4 N O .s O V N W .... in 0) V
N J W Ul J O O J O J W -+ V C) (D W V 0) 00
O O O O
O -+ O N n-? A O N W? .?+ 1
N -1 N V (D .1
+
J
-+ -+
(n al ?
.«
O O N co O co (D N J N - J A -+ N (D Ut (D J O
J O Ul 0) N W Ul O A Ul rn rn co (0 -+ Ul O V co .A.
Z Z Z Z

W 0 0 O W < -r?k O O -+ A < -Pb 0 C - A < - O -? O N <
(D -+ N Ul J A N 6 O N Ut N rn W N:.
W -+ 0) J A Co -? (D 0) N N J (D .A 1N W A -? -A W
v o v v
CD CD CD
A 0 0 O W n N O O O N 0 -+ O O O () -? O O O -+ C)
O -? O Q) Ul Ul O Ul 1 (D W O -? O "' O O Ut O Ul
N O 00 A C7 A N O W W O O O Ul W O Ul Ul .A.

O O O O
? rt ?
+
= =r

O 0 0 0

41

C
G C
G

w ?
K) w
m
N ?
O W
O C
Cl) C.
m
X

C
a

cn -0 C) U) - U) -u C)C (n C -u Cf) a) U) -u C?C U) -u
O 0 0_ O 0 G` n O O O "+ G 0
(U
M 'D d
to "a N
(O 'a
(D (D (D
L L C-
c)
A)
O
co O O N W 3 (D -? O U) O (D O O W -I 3
-l O N O N L. W O N ?) in b) :r, b u)
W O N 00 -! (D O N N U) O (D
T ( N
(
D (
D
-+ O O O 0* -+ O O O a' (D • O O d'
CD O J 1 N N O Q) O ?' W -+ Ul C7 W
O O W W N J O W O (D N A P. P. 0)
E:

O
O
1
O -?
-?
W
0 0
O
W
-c 1
O
s J
U) -4
Z
W J 1 O N

N
O
N
U) O
W
A O
O (
D W W co

"13 '13
N O N O O O N O N N O N -1 A
W O W W in :N O -l N cD (D N W -+ W
co O co co Oo U) N O ? W (D N A V 07

W O A C:) N O W O O O 1? O A
W O W O N Ul O ?l O i Ul a _a
CD O A -+ W --` O Js. W N N 1 ?I WA
L L L
C , C , C
W O Q) O 3 N O Ul O N 3 .A O W O 3
J O W O N :P.. 1 A W W W O O 1 in
W O -• U) al -+ W W -I W -4 N O) Cl Q)
L L L
C C
N O m N O W O W O N 1 O O -+ W
W O -+ W -+ W O -l W m v :N v V O
(3) O m W (D (D D) (D Ul - V - -? O A
D D D
r. 1 C 1 C
N O U1 N U) (p 1 O O O A (a 1> O Cn O -+ tQ
4 O Q) U) -4 O 1 N co .A O O :-! O Q)
N O O -! U) O W O 07 CO C7 O W A W
cn U) (n
CD J (D
O O W O W 'a (D U) W O .A O W "D
W O 07 W C) N w 0) rn (D O O U) O U)
N O -1 a) W O W? (D (D O O 1 O -?
O O O
O O O O N O -+ - W n. A -1 N Jh W

W
O
?
N -+ O W W
v O V 0 0 W co N N Oo O W
Z Z Z
<
O O O O G C) -+ O N < -` 0 0 O N
O O O O W O 1 P N U) O iD N N
O O O O O co V (D -` N Q) to O w (D
v v v

0 CD CD
O O O O f
) N O O -+ N 0 N O O O N 0
O O O O O N W O 1
W
N
O O O O O Ut J? 47 W N W -j
N -t -L
O (D (D
O (D (D
O (D 00
9: R: ig
O O O
O O O

=r

0 0 0
C O =

0
0
0

I
MINUTES
TLC Land Committee Meeting
Wednesday, October 13, 1999
7:011 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.
U Present: Rooks, Allen, Almon, Dixon, Gaertner, Markham, Pullman
I
La Gramme Wetlands Restoration Feasibility Study The Committee discussed the proposal from
Earth Tech to conduct a feasibility study for wetlands restoration at La Grange. Almon
explained that TLC will not be committed to a wetlands mitigation project if it agrees to the
feasibility study. Elie also said that we would get a copy of the written report on the study.
Markham asked about potential stewardship expenses if TLC agreed to a -wetland restoration
project on the land. Almon explained that TLC would be required to maintain the wetland.
DOT has customarily provided stewardslp endowment funds to land trusts who hold their
wetland mitigation sites. The requested endowment contribution will be one of the costs DOT
will consider when it is deciding whether it can afford the project.
Allen moved that TLC allow DOT to undertake the feasibility study. Pullinan seconded.
Approved.
7

0
Minutes
Triangle Land Conservancy Land Cor nvttee Meeting
Wednesday, March 15, 2001
7:00 PM - 9:00 PM
Present: Liz Rooks (Chair), Tandy Jones, Sunny Allen, Kevin Brice, Banks Dixon, Joanie
McLean, Debbie Roos, Beth Timson, Jane Almon, Liz Pullman, Jeff Masten
Rooks called the meeting to order at 7:05. Allen motioned to approve the minutes subject to the
date being revised. McLean seconded the motion. Motion passed.
La Grange Wetlands Riparian Reserve Restoration Protect
Jane Almon, as a representative of Earth Tech, reported on the progress of US Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) approval for mitigation credits from the mitigation of the La Grange
wetlands. She stated that USACE and other agencies that met at the site were not convinced of
the mitigation benefits of the site and that further data were required. Almon reported that the
water budget, soils and other wetland physical features were in question by USACE. Earth Tech
will need to produce additional detailed mapping data to convince USACE that the site would bF:
an acceptable mitigation site to for NCDOT to receive wetland mitigation credits. Originally,
Earth Tech was anticipating 4-5 acres of restoration and 15 acres of enhancement. USACE was
.most skeptical of the site's enhancement value and ambivalent toward the sites restoration
potential. Almon'stated that on April 12, 2001 Earth Tech will present the La Grange restoration
to USACE with updated and enhanced data. USACE will either accept or reject the site's
mitigation value. If accepted, NCDOT will need to decide whether they are willing to pay the
cost of the mitigation for the number of credits they will receive. Almon additionally stated that
if USACE rejects the offer there still are other potential mitigation options with National
Resources Conservation Service and/or US Fish and Wildlife Service
0
0

0

0
r
IF
L
er SiA7t °?
rr^
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPAR'ITMENrI' OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
May 14, 2001
Memorandum to: File
From: Phillip Todd
Subject: Chatham County, LaGrange Mitigation Site Feasibility Study, TIP
No. R-2417 WM.
An "in-house" meeting with resource agencies was held on April 12, 2001 to
review data collected after a field review in September 2000. Resource agency personnel
in attendance were Eric Alsmeyer, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and John
Hennessy, N. C. Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). Earth Tech personnel in
attending the meeting included Ron Johnson, Jane Almon and George Lankford. The
purpose of the in was to answer questions raised by agency personnel from the field
review, including discussion of a water budget for the site, update on the soil delineation
for the site and possible justification of mitigation credits.
Soils Delineation
uestion: Why was the determination made for "hydric" in the western portion of the
site?
The previous landowner had scraped off the top layer of soil, likely using the material to
mound up areas along the forested sections of the hillside.
Question: How does NCDOT propose to get hydrology now?
Hydrology would be returned to these areas via removing the berms along the forested
areas so that the water could spread into areas, sheet flowing over the existing non-
forested areas.
The porosity of the soils was also discussed. The only hydric soils on the site are at the
upper portion of the profile. The subsurface in the cleared areas is not hydric; borings
were not taken in the forested areas.

7111
.9
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WESSUE. WWW.DON.OOT.STATENC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699.1548
r'
orth Carolina ` V
apartment of Environment and Natural Resources
ivision of Parks and Recreation.
44ichael F. Easley, Governor E'4MR C Dc, I'.
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
hilip K- NlcKnelly, Director
August 27, 2001
- Jane Almon
Earth Tech
701 Corporate Center Drive
Suite x•75
Raleigh, NC 27607
Re: La Grange Bog w::tland restoration
Dear Ms. Almon
The Natural Heritage Program strongly supports the proposed restoration project. The LaGrange
Diabase Bog has been identified as a Significant Natural Heritage Area and the hillside seep it contains
has been recognized by NHP as a rare tyre of natural community. Restoration of the natural hydrology
of the site through the methods you propose should enhance the quality of the natural area and is not
likely to have any adverse impacts. Additionally, we recommend that some attention also be given to
restoring the natural vegetation on the slope above the bogs.
We would also be interested in seeing more information on the grassland bird community potentially
present in the fields located to the east of the natural area. If either a wintering or breeding population
of Henslow's sparrows -- a federal Species of Concern -- can be confirmed to exist there, we would
recommend that these fields be kept open rather than reforested. The presence of loggerhead shrikes --
a state listed as Special Concern -- and other declining species of grassland birds should also be considered
in management decisions regarding the fields.
Sincerely,
?j Stephen P. Hall
I Environmental Review Specialist/Invertebrate Zoologist
/sph
0
1615 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1615
Phnnw C)9-733-4151 \ FAX: [phone]S5 \ Internet: cvww.enr.state.nc.us/ENR/- ^ ^^-

The landowner had no master plan for the land. He cleared and worked tract of land as he
wanted; he likely tried to remove water from existing clear portions so that he could move
machinery to lower areas of land as well as providing pasture for cattle.
Water Budget
The water budget provided by Earth Tech was reviewed with the resource agencies.
There was concern about there being sufficient water discharge from the seeps to provide
wetland hydrology across the site (based upon water budget present at the meeting). The
NCDOT would reduce the hydrology discharge (which was large) across the site by
removing berms located at the tree line.
It was suggested that NCDOT try and get a handle on the groundwater input. Most water
budgets do not consider groundwater input into the system although flow meters have
been used to attempt to gain measurements about water moving off the site.
The major question left to NCDOT was, is there enough water on the site?
Mitigation. Credits
The question was asked to justify "enhancement'.' credit at the site. The response was
there were now four "islands" of wet forested areas along the hillside, and that by
restoring hydrology to the cleared areas and revegetating them, the entire system would
be enhanced. The entire system would be enhanced because the four wet "island" areas
would be reconnected providing connectivity for species movement as well as greater
habitat and upgrading the integrity of forested areas by removing 'edges' and weedy
species that exist now along the forested areas. In essence, NCDOT would be enhancing
the function of the system as a whole, not one of the three wetland parameters (hydrology,
soils, vegetation).
There would be 13 acres of forested "enhancement" and 3 acres of cleared enhancement
with replanting vegetation.
Closing of meeting
John stated that he believed that it would be difficult to show wetlands on site based on
current water budget (not enough info or did not look good). John suggested not
providing any credit for non-hydric areas until NCDOT constructs and monitors the site,
and was a little uncertain about releasing credits for hydric areas.
John suggested that NCDOT investigate NCNHP ranking for the site as this may add
some extra justification for mitigation work at the site.
(Note: Jane Almon did check on the NCNB? ranking for the site; it has in fact been
designated an S 1 ranking.)
Eric stated that he would be willing to give mitigation credits between enhancement and
preservation for the forested areas (say 7:1 or somewhere around there depending on
justification). Total enhancement credit would be provided for cleared areas. Eric
suggested that NCDOT contact USFWS and NCWRC about their'thoughts on
conductivity aspect of enhancement credit.
Another possibility initially discussed involved vegetating to outer limit of watershed for
wetland system. This act may provide greater justification for enhancement credits;
possibly vegetate into floodplain? All these decision about plantings would be pending
the thoughts of TLC.
Eric also suggested that we get the thoughts of NCNHP on what we are proposing to do at
LaGrange since they classified it as having ecological significance.
He also suggested greater information about groundwater input into the wetland system.
r
0
September 4, 2001
Memorandum to: File
From: Phillip Todd, NCDOT
Subject: Chatham County, Meeting minutes of La Grange Feasibility Study, TIP
No. R-2417WM.
A follow up meeting to April 2001 meeting was held on August 15, 2001. Persons
attending the meeting included Eric Alsmeyer (USACE), David Cox (NCWRC), John Hennessy
(NCDWQ), Ron Johnson (Earth Tech) and Jane Almon (Earth Tech). The purpose of this
meeting was to discuss possible mitigation credits for the site as well as the water budget that
Earth Tech has corrected.
Enhancement Credits
Old aerials exist that show the diabase bog and the floodplain of the Deep River as being
forested. The previous landowner has noted that flood waters reach part of the diabase bog area
after storm events. The landowner cleared the flood plain area to create pasture for livestock and
cleared two areas through the seepage areas in order to connect the upper terrace with the flood
plain. In addition to the clearing, he channelized the slope seepages, brought in fill material to
make access easier and installed berms to direct drainage out of the seepage.
NCDOT believes that fourteen (14) wetland enhancement acres should be provided for its
proposed mitigation activities at the site. Two acres of traditional wetland enhancement would
be generated by plantings in the existing wetland areas.
A more holistic approach to mitigation is taken by NCDOT to justify the additional
twelve (12) acres of enhancement to be performed on the site. These twelve acres of
enhancement would be generated because, with restoration activities (plugging the ditches and
removing the berms and roads), the NCDOT would be reconnecting the seepage areas to one
continuous system with wetland hydrology and connecting the floodplain of Deep River with the
seepages by reforesting the flood plain. The benefits for the project were outlined in the agency
handout.
David Cox and John Hennessy supported the proposal of giving full enhancement credits
to NCDOT for their work on the site if the work on the bog was accomplished and if the flood
plain was reforested. The Natural Heritage Program (NHP) was contacted, and the diabase bog
has been classified by NHP as "S 1" ranking for North Carolina Rank and "G1" Global Rank.
This ranking system denotes a measuring rarity or threat status. These unique systems are
critically imperiled in North Carolina and globally because of extreme rarity.
Eric Alsmeyer was more hesitant about supporting the term and credits for full
enhancement based on NCDOT's proposal. Eric thought that credits should range between

0
enhancement and preservation. Eric suggested that Kathy Matthews of EPA be contacted to
collect her thoughts on the enhancement credit issue.
p Eric asked about NCDOT contacting NHP to discuss its mitigation activities since the
site has been listed as "S 1/G1". The NCDOT had not contacted NHP by the meeting date, but
contact has been made since the August 2001 meeting. In a letter dated August 27, 2001, the
NHP stated that it "strongly supports the proposed restoration project".
The NCDOT would not consider the proposed mitigation activities as being worthwhile
unless it received the enhancement credits described above.
Water Budget
The water budget distributed at the April 2001 meeting was inaccurate as the equation for
PET was incorrectly entered in the spreadsheet. A revised water budget was distributed at the
meeting as well as a brief description of what a water budget includes.
The gages placed at the site were determined to meet hydrologic criteria based on 5% of
the growing season. Eric Alsmeyer stated that a percentage greater than 517o should be used to
determine if hydrologic criteria for wet areas has been met. These gages meeting 551o hydrology
and greater than 57o hydrology would be differentiated if NCDOT decides to complete a
mitigation plan for the site.
a John Hennessy noted that, if the rain fall data for September 1996 (Hurricane Fran) and
September 1999 (Hurricane Floyd) were excluded, then the monthly average would be negative.
David Cox had questions about the soils on the site. Would the soils hold water or would
areas be ponded such that trees planted for the project would be killed? The NCDOT will note
its thoughts on this topic and justify.those ideas if it decides to move forward with completing a
mitigation plan for the site.
Summary
A decision about enhancement credits for the diabase bog was deferred until NCDOT and
USACE had consulted with EPA. The NCDOT was tasked to solicit comment from NHP about
its proposed activities involving the diabase bog. The NCDOT would also review species list for
the bog and likely reforest the flood plain with typical species.
L
ow

Bill Holman
.' •-.Y1? A 1=3+t> EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
1?AGEMENT TRUST FUND _ n? t ra
Chair, Robert D. Howard
WHITEVILLE
March 11, 2002 Caroline Ansbacher
BURLINGTON
Bill Brooks
a Ms. Kate Dixon WAYNESVILLE
Executive Director
Triangle Land Conservancy
Dr. John O
BEAUFORT
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 205
Raleigh, NC 27604 Karen Cragnolin

r"I Re: Wetlands Mitigation at LaGrange Riparian Preserve/CWMTF Project 41998A-004
U ASHEVILLE
Holt Gwyn
Alen
Dear Kate: GREENSBORO
Thank you for requesting permission from the Clean Water Management Trust Fund for John C. Hagan
GREENSBORO
the NC Department of Transportation to use a portion of TLC's La Grange Riparian
Preserve on the Deep River that was purchased with Clean Water Management Trust Alen M. Hardison
Funds (CWMTF Project #1998A-004) as a wetland mitigation. NEW BERN
S. 113-145.4 c) prohibits use of CWMTF grants to satisfy compensatory mitigation
G Joseph M. Hester, Jr.
.
requirements. The Clean Water Management Trust Fund grants permission for NCDOT ROCKY MOUNT
and TLC to use a portion of the La Grange Riparian Preserve in accordance with the William Hollan
following terms: WINSTON-SALEM
1) the mitigation project will restore the diabase seepage bog, described in the Margaret Markey
1989 Chatham County Natural Heritage Inventory as a site of state-wide CORNELIUS
significance. In the 1980s this site wa- approximately 46 acres in size but
subsequent ditching of the seepage slopes and filling for road construction had Dickson McLean, Jr.
LU
BERTO

decreased the size of the natural area to approximately 15 acres when TLC
U M
N
purchased the land in 1998; William MQP.hatter, Sr.
2) NCDOT will pay TLC a fee of $1655 per acre in the mitigation project, but CARRBORo
ownership of the land will remain with TLC. This price per acre is the amount
paid by TLC in 1998. The price per acre will be the same whether NCDOT is Mickey Simmons
using the acre for restoration credits or enhancement credits; NEWPORT
3) NCDOT will also pay TLC at least $10,000 for its stewardship endowment for
0 C
L
S
ith
.
eroy
m
the property; WINTERVILLE
a 4) TLC will use funds paid by NCDOT for this project toward stewardship of the
La Grange Riparian Preserve or acquisition of additional land in the Deep River Chuck Wakild
watershed in Moore, Chatham, or Lee counties. WILMINGTON
Claudette Weston
WINSTON-SALEM

) 733.6374 wwwcwmtf.net
L [phone] FAX (919

JerryWright
H WILMINGTON STREET, RALEIGH, HC 27604
0 NORT W
1651 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, HC 27699-1651
JARVISSURG
Kate Dixon Continued
Page 2
5) TLC will report the use of the NCDOT funds in the Deep River watershed to
CWMTF on or before March 11, 2003.
Please contact me if we need to discuss this matter further. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Bill Holman
Executive Director
C. Francine Durso
Bern Schumak
Lana Armstrong
Ron Ferrell