The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About19920547 All Versions_Permit Drawings_19920101 ~ ~~~ .~~,~, STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPAR'T1VIENT 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 ~~ ~r '~RF~~~q~~~ 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: 919-715-1334 LOCATION: NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: 919-715-5501 2728 CAPITAL BOULEVARD PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PARKER LINCOLN BUILDING-SUITE 201 1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WE8$ITE: WINW.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 ft2. 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 ft2 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 ft2 of mitigation. Offsite mitigation needs tota15,389,601 ft2. 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 Offsitc 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, USAGE 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 f. --- .,,,,; -- /~ ~ ___ _ ____-- ~~ -~ _ ~ ,[/ / ~ ~. ///~CI ~ ,~(~ i,; ~, jC~ ~ C C-{) /~n 'c: ~ ~G~J;~ , CI!'!:. ~.:.~~ ~!'L CC S C __. ,t/j/ _ ~,-<C t/~_-__ =--- - -- -l, - ' n;,_ - - -- - - ------- f _~~ --------. __ _ ------- - ~ --- -r- ,~~1 _~ ~ ~ ~ '~/~ ~i! _~`~~r~J~ ~; :: r'l~1 <JL ~~j ~ z; %~~%,.v ._ ~J ' f _ r, Fc ~..` -- ~~ _ -- -- -------- y~ t}- c~cJ13 -- - / _ __ _, 'tr~~ .,< «r lam: ~•~i~, _ _ _ ~,- ~" _ __ -- -Lt _ -~ / ,i r1 - ~ _ _ , _ r ~e~~ /'~T.c, r _-- ~~.~ .~ /irk ---- -- _ ~ - ~, ..:':~i :v ____....---- - -- , - - -- ~ ~ ~ / ~~ 1 --- - - ---- ~-- --- -- ----- -- --- 9 •~- -- - - --- 1 ., - -.-- ~ --- J- -- 1 «~ ~ ~ ~«nr,~i ~ ,c ,y;-+ 1n~«l ~~/S rr'~~~ -.~,~TJ~c<~-,~ ~ / 1 ~~ ~1•s ~~`':Cc~l ~i~=:~C.-. ,, ,t7 r " ~ , ~- - i -- - - -- - - - ------ - , _ , j f" ., ----- ~e - - - - - f ~ -- - - ~ -- ------ ~ i.%~ J~_ ,_~ ~1 ~r,,.s° i~~~~ STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ~AMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. E30X25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORf21S 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, IVIs. 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, eve 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, ~~~ 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., NCllUT 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 1~oE No a rH ~'~o y~ ~ ~~ c 2 9~~~FHT OF TR AN5~0~~P March 2003 >/X>CCUTIVE 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 heen selected as a potential mitigation site for a portion of these wetland impacts. The "I'LC property totals about 308 acres, but only a portion of the property ~s being studied. The wetland under study is the La Grange 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 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 a small mammals. • Mitigation for impacts to hydrologic, plant community/habitat, animal community, and biogeochemical functions D a 0 0 0 Wetland Miti,~Jation Plarr 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 COMMUNI'I'IES ................................................................................. 5 3.3.1 Seepage Wctland ........................................................................................... 5 3.3.2 Maintained Grassland Community ................................................................ 7 3.3.3 Reference Area .............................................................................................. 8 3.4 WILDLIFE OF THE LA GRANGE SITE ...................................................................... 8 3.S PROTECTED SPECIES/PRIOItTI'Y AREAS ................................................................ 10 4.0 SITE HYDROLOGY ............................................................................................ 11 4.1 DRAINAGE FEATURES ......................................................................................... 11 4.2 MONI'T'ORING GAUGES ........................................................................................ 12 4.3 WATER BUDGET .................................................................................................. 13 4.3.1 Methodology ................................................................................................ 13 4.3.2 Assumptions ................................................................................................ l4 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 S. l 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 Wc~tluncl Mitigation Plan Lu Gran,~~c~ Site, Chatham County TABLES Tablc 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 ....................................... 19 Table 6. Upland Species ........................................................... Table 7. Change in Functional Capacity ........................................................................ 22 rIGUItIJS (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 . APPI;NDICI/S Appendix A. Functional Assessment Appendix B. Historic Aerials Appendix C. TLC Site Inventory a Appendix D. Water Budget Appendix E. Letters and Minutes a a ii March 2003 a Wetland Mitigation Plan La Grnn~e Site, Chatham Cocenty 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 tl~e 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 under study is known as the La Grange 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 (Eleocltaris tortilis). In 1989, the bog was listed to 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 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 Page 1 Wc~tlund Mitigation Plan La Grun,~~c~ Site, Chatham County y Restoration and enhancement of a rare natural communit l Nl-1P 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 IvTI/THODOLOGY 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 (NW1) 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 Page 2 a 0 0 Wetland Mitigation Plan Lcr Gra,i,~~e Site, C12a112aN2 COll11tV federally listed species and locations of significant natural areas and Natural Heritage Priority Areas. 2.2 MELD SURVEYS 2.2.1 Ge~teral 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. Arnry 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 Fu~tctional Assesstnetit 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 I;JXISTING 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 D Wetland Mitigation Plan La Grange Site, Chatham Cocmry 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 anorthwest-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, Clratltacn 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 rigure 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 tl~e 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 (Sarrace~cia spp.). In The t Nature Conservancy's (TNC, 1998) vegetation classification scheme, this community would fit in the LB.2.N.g.015 Acer rubrum-Nyssa sylvatica Saturated Forest Alliance. Within that alliance, this community corresponds to the Acer rubrecm var. trilobum- Liriodendron teclipifera/Ilex opaca var. opacal0sncunda cinnamonrea Forest Association (4551). 0 a 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 Wetlaltd Mitigation Plan Lcr Grange Site, Chatham County z is Vli" LI11CUlCl blas home vine Smilax Piedmont. They are sweetbay magnolia (Magi of ,~ ), p laurifolia), coral greenbrier (Smilax tivalteri), Virginia chainfern (Woochvardia virginica), a spikerush (Eleocharis tortilis), and stiff cowbane (Ox-~~polis 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 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 ablue-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 ScicntiCc Name Cano Black m N ssa s lvatica Che bark oak Quercccs a oda Green ash Fraxinus ens lvanica Red ma le Acer rubrum Swam black m N ssa bi ora Swam chestnut oak Qccercus michatrxii Sweet m Li uidambar s raci ua Willow oak Qecercus hellos Yellow o lar Liriodendron tali i era Subcano Ash Fraxinus s . Common alder Alms serrulata Ironwood Car inus caroliniana Water oak Quercus ni ra Win ed elm Ulntccs alata Marc112003 Page 6 0 0 0 0 Wetland Mitigation Plan Lu Grcucge Site, Chatham County Stratum Common Name Scientific Namc Shrubs/Vines American boll Iles o aca Common reenbrier Smilax rotundi olia Crossvine L3ignaria ca reolata Elderbe Sarnbucus canadensis Hi hbush bluebe Vaccinium con~mbosurn Male-berr L aiia li ustrina Possum-haw Ilex decidcra Southern wild raisin Vibunuun nudunr S icebush Lindera ben~oin Swam doghobble Leucodioe racentosa Winterbe Ilex verticillatn Herbs Arrowhead Sa ittaria lon irostrata Cardinal flower Lobelia cardinalis Cinnamon fern Osmunda cinnamomea Green arrow-arum Peltandra vir mica Jack-in-the- ul it Arisaema tri hvllum Lizard-tail Saururus cenruus Netted chain fern Woodwardia areolata Ro al fern Osmunda regalis Rush Jcatcus coriaceus Sed es Carex s Sensitive fern Onoclea sensibilis Soft rush Juncos e uses Southern lad fern Ath riunt tliz- emina var. as lenioides S otted 'ewelweed Im aliens ca ensis Violets Violas . Moss Yellow eatmoss S ha roan lescurii 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.S.N.c.050 Festecca 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 fortis. 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 6Vetlancl Mitigatio~a Plan Lca Gra,tge Site, Chatham County Table 2. Maintained Grassland Community Species Stratum Common Name Scientific Name Herbs Fescue Festceca s . Sed es Carex s Rushes Juncos s Broomsed e Andro 0 on s Sorrel Oxnlis s Violets Viola s Common bluet Housto~aia caerulea A bluet Houstonia acsilla Indian strawbe Duchesnea i,ulica Atamasco lil Ze h ranthes atamasco Vetch Vicia s Star-of-bethlehem Ornitho alum umbellatum Milkweed Ascle ias s 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 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 Or TIIE LA GRANGE SITU 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. 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 ludovicimues), eastern bluebirds* (Sialia sialis), eastern meadowlarks* (Stacrnella magna), and field sparrows* (Spizella pusilla). Raptors such as Northern harriersX (Circus cyaneus), red-tailed hawks* (Beeteo O Marcia 2003 Page 8 C~ 0 Wetlmid Mitigation Plarz Lcc Grurcge Site, Chatham Cour2t_y janucicerccis), and great horned owls (Bubo virginianus) utilize grassland areas to find their preferred small mammal prey. These include white-footed mice* (Peromyscus leucopers), golden mice* (Oclcrotornys neettali), and meadow voles (Microtus peruuvlvarticus) 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* (Sylvilagus floridances) 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* (Geotlcl_ypis triclras), and yellow breasted chat* (Ictereia vireos) are neotropical migrants that inhabit dense, shrubby vegetation along transitional areas. Northern bobwhite quail* (Collnccs virginianus), eastern towhee* (Pipilo erythrop/cthalmccs), song sparrow* (Melospiza melodia), and white-throated sparrow'k (Zorcotrichia albicollis) are other bird species that rely on edge habitat for feeding and nesting. The black rat snake (Elaplce obsoleta) will come out of forested habitat to forage on rodents in open areas. Forested areas arc 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* (Sciccrus 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* (Seiurees rcoveboracerccis) thrive in wooded wetland locations, while black- and-white warbler* (Mniotilta varia), yellow-billed cuckoo* (Coccyzus americanus), and red-eyed vireo* (Vireo olivaceoccs) prefer the upland woods. The eastern box turtle (Terraperce carolirca) is a terrestrial turtle but will be found near streams in hot, dry weather. The five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatces) rough green snake (Opheodrys aestivices) may also be found in forested. communities, along with the marbled salamander* (Anrbystonca 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* (Ambystonca maculatcan), two-lined salamander* (Ecerycea bislirceata), and the regionally rare southern dusky a salamander* (Desrnognatlcus auriculatecs) are all known to utilize seepage areas. Potential habitat is also present for the state-protected four-toed salamander a (Hemidacrylunc scutatcan). Frogs such as the spring peeper'k (Hyla crcecifer) and the American toad* (Bccfo arrcericarrus) make use of the same areas for reproduction and feeding. March 2003 Page 9 0 0 6Vc~tlund Mitigation Plan Lu Gr-cucge Site. Cltatluirn Cotenty 3.5 PROTECTCD SPECII;S/PRIOKITY AItI;AS 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 rrtekistoc/colas), 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 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 rederal Protection in Cbatbam County ~i Common Namc Scientific Name talus Vertebrates Bachman's s arrow imo hila aestivalis FSC Bald eagle ali`aeetus lecccocephalus hreatened(Proposed for delistin ) Ca e Fear shiner otropis mekistocholas ndan eyed Carolina redhorse oxostorrza s FSC Red-cockaded wood esker Picoides borealis Endan Bred Invertebrates Atlantic i toe usconaia masoni FSC rook floater lasrttidortta varicosa FSC Se lima's clubtail dra onfl Gom htcs septirna FSC Yellow lam mussel atn sills cart'osa FSC Vascular Plants Ha erella tilinznium nodosccrn 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 (Larzius ltedovicianus ludovicianus) and the four-toed salamander (Hemidactyliean sctttattent). March 2003 Page 10 Wetland Mitigation Plan Lcr Grange Site, Chatham County 4.0 SITE HYDROLOGY 4.1 D~~t~nc~ FGATUItES 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 USGS 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 rigure 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 from its origin at a seep to feed an excavated cattle watering pond. The 2-foot high banks arc 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 Lct Gran~je Site, Chatham Cocuzty 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 (Sl) 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 SA-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 Lu Grange Site, Chatham County Hydrology at gauges 3, 5, 7, 10, and 1 1 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 tf~e 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 ju--isdictional wetlands. Hydric soils are present, however, so these areas are eligible for full restoration credit. 4.3 WATER I3UDGRT 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 Lu Grccuge 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 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). Stcr1ace R~atoff 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 Wetland Mitigation Platt Lcr Grange Site, Chatham County Cover T e Soil H drolo is Grou Area (acres) CN Row cro s, ood C 40.87 85 Meadow, ood C 7.91 71 Meadow, ood D 9.94 78 Forest, ood C 5.74 70 Forest, ood D 6.27 77 Groundtivater htflow 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. Evapotrart.rpiration 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 arc 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 MarcJt 2003 Page 15 a 0 0 Wetland Mitigatio~i Plan Lu Grange Site, Chatham Cocmtl~ Surface Ru~ioff 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 Ty e Soil H drolo Tic Grou Area (acres) CN Meadow, ood D 7 78 Forest, ood D 14.7 77 a 0 4.3.5 Rescclts 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 INSUItANCiJ PROGRAM A'1API'ING 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 Lcr Grcnige Site, Cluitham Country 5.0 NIITIGATION 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. Apost-mitigatioc~ concept of the site is shown in rigure 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. March 2003 Page 17 ~r a Wetland Mitigation Placz La Grudge Site, Chatham Counh~ Removal or control of nuisance vegetation will be implemented as necessary to promote survival of target wetland plants. Wetland Vegetation 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. Tabled. Hillside Seepage Wetland Species Wood S ecies Wetland Indicator Status Cano y Sweetba ma nolia (Ma nolia vir icciana) FACW+ Swam black um (N ssa biflora) OBL Che bark oak (Quercccs a oda) FAC+ Swam chestnut oak (Qccercccs michacexii) FACW- Willow oak (Qccercccs hellos) FACW- Water oak (Quercus nigra) FAC Shumard oak (Qccercccs shumardii) FACW- Sub-Cano and Shrubs Winterbe (Ilex verticillata) FACW S icebush (Lindera benzoin) FACW Ironwood (Car inns caroliniana) FAC Southern wild raisin (Vibunucm ccudccc~c) FACW+ Possum-haw (Ilex decidcca) FACW- Swam do hobble (Leucothoe racemosa) FACW Hi hbush blueberr (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 apolymer-based root gel to improve health and survival during dry periods. 0 ti March 2003 Page 18 Wetla-td Mitigation Plan La Grange Site, Chatlcarrc Courcn~ Table 5. Bottomland Hardwood Species Black um Nvssu s~~lvatic•a Chem bark oak Quercus pagoda Persimmon Dios urns virginiana Swam chestnut oak Quercus michaccxii Willow oak Quercus hellos Water oak Quercecs ni~ra Shumard oak Quercus shunuirdii 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 apolymer-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 Qucrcccs velutina Mockernut hicko Car_ya tomentosa Pi nut hicko Ca a labra Black chew Pnuues serotina Black um N ssa s lvatica Flowerin do wood Corrcccs orida American holl Ilex o aca March 2003 Page 19 Wetland Mitigation Plun La Grange Site, Chatham Counh_ G.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 llerbaccous 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. G.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 Page 20 a a 0 0 0 Wetlanc! Mitigation Plat La Grange Site, Ckatliam 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 ll~lethods 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 USAGE guidelines (USAGE 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 USAGE 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 CItI;DIT 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 P[a~z Lu Grange Site, Chatlzant Counh• • 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 1xisting C~ ~acity Post-Mitigation Capacity Percentage Change H drology j ` .19 1.0 81 Plant communit ~ .45 1.0 55 Animal communit .26 1.0 74 Biogeochemist ~'~ .27 1.0 73 G~ ~~ ~~ C~~~/'M~"^~`~, 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°Io 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 Marcli 2003 a Page 22 Wetland Miti~~~ation Plan La Grange Site, Cliatltani Coeu2h1 Q' - amander and re~ionall rare lants from the terrace re~~onally rare southern dusky sal ), b y p 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. A11 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, ~,j 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 rigure G (PAAs 7a, 7b, 8a, 8b, 9, and 10). Wetland hydrology will be restored to these 4 acres, and wetland .-~S~ vegetation will be planted. ~~1~ ~. 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, da, 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 (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 )J. 8.0 DISPIJNSATION OI' THI; PROPIJRTY 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 Page 23 Wetland Mitigation Plnn La Grange Site, Chatham County 9.0 ADDITIONAL CONSIDI;RA1'IONS 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 Ir. March 2003 Page 24 u 0 Wetla~zd Mitigation Plan La Grange Site, Chatltactt Cocutty 1U.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY Amoroso, J.L., ed. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plartt 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 Eastent 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 Triacgle Laud COliservallcy'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 aitd Virginia. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. a 0 NCDENR. "Water Quality Stream Classifications for Streams in North Carolina." Water Qccaliry Sectioct. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wghome.html (25 Oct 2000). Palmer, W.M., and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of Nortlt Caroli~ta. 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 Lu Grange Site, Chatham Counh~ Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manecal 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." Nortlt Carolicta Ecological Services. http://nc-es.fws.gov/eslcountyfr.html (22 Mar Z001). Weakley A.S., K.D. Patterson, S. Landaal, M. Pyne and others, compilers. 1998. International Classification of Ecological Conunurtities: Terrestrial Vegetation of the Southeasteni 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 a :; ~; , 3~. :. J . C 0 t ~ f~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ,~~ ~ N / µ . \ ~~l \~ ~./ ~~' //~} d // g ,°e~ °-, ~~' . ~~~ ,~ . o':~ / ~ \ ~/P \ , J~w ~+ /"~/ 1\ \. l\ 1 / i~ slit. `.. ;., \\ ~ . ~~~ ~ ,.. ~'~ ~, •~ ,,\ 4. i ~ ~ ~ ~ \\\ ~l / ~ ~ \ ~ ~, ~ e ~ ~ 1 _ ~ ~ ~ i~ i , ~~~' ~ ` i ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ,~ 1, ~ ,~ , ~/I ii ~.: ~~ 4 ~ ~~~• . ~ ~ ( '~ i /~ i ~r~~ :..,~ w`~ C ~~ `~~\ ~~ ~\ Yom. ;. ~ i ~~. ,` i - t /1 `'`1 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ . . ,~ v ~ ~ ~--~. „ ,, ~ ~ I/^~v ~ '~, $ O ~ , ,. , -'.~ • 3 ~ \ l~ 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% _:: ~~ ,w~~ ~ ~ / .. ~. . .,_, 1 l 6 , ,. ~~/ _ ~ ~ ~~ (~ ~. ~~ 2'~-- ~ l I(i ~ i I- ~.. ~ 1 l ~ ~ ~ i _ YY/ . ~- J . ~~~ A ~ ,, ~~ -~ ~ - _ _ -fr,~l ~ ~ % ~ i ~ . , I /~/ ~~ '~~;, ~. ~ ~ '~,~_~} ~ i - it ~ ~ I ~l-. ~~~~ ~ ~ t~~ i/!_.; ~ 8~. A.•. -~~ v! / ~.~ .. ~ i / 400 200 0 400 Feet r """` FIGURE 2 ~'~ ~:~~~HAT ;~_ ': North Carolina - ~~ -- ~~ j`. - Department of Transportation EXISTING CONDITIONS .~ , , Division of Highways LA GRANGE HILLSIDE SEEPAGE . ~.. x `,` Project Development and WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN Environmental Analysis Branch CHATHAM COUNTY ~' March 2003 T.I.P. R-609WM ~ .. . r'• N Legend-"~.---~.:,~.~..~. . ~ ~ ', ` ~ ~ N o _ `~ 13A~ Riverview ~ ~~~ ii 'f LL silt loam ,, ~,,~..'"'~--~,~.: ,,~. ~ _~.,:. ` t' ' ~..~ ~ 25A; 25C2 L_.- ~ Turbevifle fine ~ ' ~' ~ ~' 1- -~-=~' ~ . °~ ~~ ~ << ,, ~. sandy loam .. _ r , ".°.,~,"~•~ !~"`•~, i LL 325A, 3258, ~ Mattaponi fine yeti ~~ ~ j'r ~ _ M I ~ ~ ~ rrr ~ . ~ , 32562, 325C, sand loam ~; ~ ~ ' ri iR ;f 4t, ~ ~ } • Y ~'~•, , ~_ 328A, 3288 _ , +r ~~, . . 46A, 547A, Sylacauga-Moncure ~~ ~ ^~~'^;, -~, ~,~ '~, r~,. I- ~`~ 814A, 88A complex '• '~' ,/~ ~ .» - „~`` ~ ,' ~° 325A f " ' ' ' ~ 5326 ~ Creedmoor-White ~, ~.,~ h ( ' Y Store complex ~~f 56A 'ti''~~' f ~ .~"~" 556; 56A®Peawick fine sandy '`,,~~ ~> ~, ,!'~ loam 3286 v"~ ~' % ; ., . ~~ ~, F s ,.~ 5A~ Chewacla and ~1"/ ~r~` ~ ~i~ ,, ~, ~ ~„ Wehadkee soils ,/ !~% /l ~//~~~~ 'r/r~ ~ ~ ,,~ 630. ~.,; ~/%,-//,,~~;~~~ ~ ~ ,t,~~ f~~r..~.~,," i ,~~ ~~,;//~ / 556 ,, - _, {,. WATER ~ `/~/,%"///~~ f,// ~' ~ ' 'r r' ~'~ `.' /;~ ~' 1 i~ /~ .3286 ~`; ~f X41 r ~~~~/,.'; ;~" --{r!!!/// /,//~r, r/ ; •~ 556 ~' t r .~LB ,4,: t" ' ~ .~ ~ ~ Mitigation ~~'~' ~,;~,r ~~r,.~ ~ ~t. x ~~ `~. Area ', ~'.,~~~ i '°~ ~.>'~',825C ~ !r ~ Boundary '3~B `~'' ~ ~~ ~'~ • r .. ... 4~ ~~y, 32 - -~•.,. f _ ,i ~ ,_,~ 1 ~t''• Jf f , «~ r`~ ~f~~r ~ P ~, Mme. -.~ ~;,% ~,~,~ ,~~ ,' ~.' •' ' .,~~ r ", ,.~ } ~: i" ~~ ~. 5 f ~ ~ _ - ,. .. '~ ' 56A r ~.t'" ,.~ • ,~•'~r' +`,~ r .may - - - ~~ ~ ~ ~ . . :; .. ~ .. ,- „,,.: 0 500 1,000 2,000 ' Feet ~, -< HA ~ ~ ~~ ' FIGURE 3 d"O1 ~ North Carolina - - ~ ~ '. ~`-tii ~ ~ Department ofTransportation SOIL MAP ' ~ Division of Highways LA GRANGE HILLSIDE SEEPAGE ~` WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN - ~`~+ro„~,,,.~~ Project Developmen t and CHATHAM COUNTY ' Environmental Analysis Branch March 2003 T.LP. R-609WM ~o B 5 m ~ t u e c 8 e ~o a 5 a q 3 2 1 n -,0 J F M A M J J A S O N D Gauges In Exlsting Wetlands a ..zo ~ -~ ~0 -~ u c n a W} D 0 v u v W 0 J F M A M J J A S O N D Gaugea 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 roun wa er i in nc es of Surface Gauge 1 2 Consecutive Days 3 Percentage o Growing Season 1 3 ~ '~ 4 .-~.._._ 41 16 5 26 10 6 9 4 7 4 2 8 $2 $2 9 10 104 10 ,_~-~_~ 40 ...~....~..,_ 4._ 11 15 6 2000 Total Precipitation = 47.31 30-Yr Normal Range = 42.36 - 50.29 inches, 30-Yr Normal Average = 47.42 inches *Growing Season = 257 days (Mar 12 -Nov 23) Data from State Climate Office Siler City 2 S WETS Station *from NRCS, personal communication ~, -10 w t u c ~ -20 u W ~ -30 f9 -40 1~ J F M A M J J A S O N D • M A M J J A S O N I Ir r lilllirr lilirr I»rr Ir lilr Illllr lllr Ir Illlr Ir r Illlr r 2001 Preclpltatlon t1 10 0 8 ~ T r u c c t3 c 0 '. 9 5 n ~V d a` 4 3 2 0 r r r Percent of Growing Season with water levels within 12 inches of surface <5% or 13 days J F M A M J J A 5 O N D 5-$°/O or 13-21 days Gauges In Exlsting Wetlands 8 1 2 5°/ 21 32 d 0 -, o -20 -30 -ao -50 _ _,o 0 -so W d ~ -30 0 t; -40 J F M A M J J A S O N D Gauges In Restoration Areas -Gauge 2 -Gauge 3 ~Jurlsdlctlonal Water Table V I' _. Grol Ing Season _._.,_ _ i -50 W 'o 0 ~ -~o -~ .~0 J F M A M J J A 8 O N D __ ~ ; 0 j , 10 ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ I 20 . l , _; i I ,, i 30 __ _. _ _ ~ - _ .... .. ~ I ,~• ~. f ~ I .,/~~~..~ 40 Gauge6 I - Gauge? -JudsdlctlonA Water Table ~, Gro Ing Season ~ _. _.__ i ~ J F M A M J J A S O N D L u 0 -20 d W -30 0 J F M A M J J A S O N D - o or - ays >12.5% or 32 days roun wa er i in nc es of Surface Percentage of Consecutive Growing Gau a Days Season 1 2 7 3 3 14 5 4 5 13 5 6 8 3 7 10 4 8 1 (~ 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 FIGURE 5b HYDROGRAPHS - 2001 LA GRANGE HILLSIDE SEEPAGE WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN CHATHAM COUNTY March 2003 T.I.P. U-2524WM ^ ^ lip lip ~ r ~ s s ^~ r ~ ~ l~ Ir ~ ~ ^~ i~ llllll~ ~o 0 0 N m C u c 5 5 .~ a 4 3 z r.. -io `€ -zo m ~ -~ .~o .en M -,o 0 .zo d W -30 0 -40 zooz Pr J F M A M J J A 8 O N D Gauges In Exlsting 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 _ -+o r u c c 0 -20 d W d ~ -30 0 c~ -40 -50 N d L Y 0 ~e W J F M A M J J A 8 O N D 0 ,~0 ,20 _ .__ __ .. __ 30 _._ _ - -- ---- -Geupe l0 ____ - ____ -- - Gaugetl _ 40 -Judsdlctlon9 WeterTabte -- ____ ___ .-_ Growing Season ', I - -__ - -~- .so F M A M J J A 8 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 roun wa er i in nc es 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 z~ 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 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 ~ I•li ~ r ~ ~r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J, , , ,G' ,,., -~ ~., ,~ ~ ~~ ~ ._ ;, ; ;, r ~ ~ ~~ •/ ~/ ~ %~ - / , / // / /f _ri'~. ~ /L' ~~. ,Ii ~ ' ~~; ~//. `: =s ~7 i -~ _, • ~~~. ` `; \ ~\~ ~,\~ Legend vv-~ _ ; -~~ ~ ~,~~ ~~, ,~~ ~~ ~~~ ~11 t/Y1• ~ ~ \ ~___~ Mitigation Area Boundary \K 'wr ~~~ ~~~~' / ~ ~~ ' ~ ~~ TLC Property Boundary ~ 4, ~~'~ ~ (~ ~ ~- .~,~ ~ _/~, ,~c~ Partial Assessment Area Bounda `~ % ~~ °:~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ \~ Watershed ~ ~,. ~~ ^~' _ - `~ ~,', ~~ ® Proposed Wetland Functional Restoration ~ ~ ~`~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~-~~~~` ~' ~ ~~j~ 1 ~,~ ~. ,~ i/) I `~ ~~"-~ ! ® Proposed Upland Restoration ~ `, ~ ~ ~ _~ '~ (~~I \\~,`, ~ \ :// ~ ~ ` ::. ~ :-,. ~~ ~;'~~ ~ Grass/Shrub .% - ='; 1 ,~ ~~, `, Forest ~ ~ ~~'j' / ~ ~ - ~ ~N Berms to be removed _, - ~ ~~ -'' ~ ~• ; ' 1' ~ Ditch Plug Locations ~~. _ / ~ ; -~ ~ ; ~':- ~~~/ °~ °"~"~ ' • Gauge Farm Road 200 100 0 200 Feet 50m Buffer ~. ,~' e ~' North Carolina - FIGURE 6 ~ HAT , s :;~ ~~ --- - ~ Department of Transportation PROPOSED MITIGATION Division of Highways LA GRANGE HILLSIDE SEEPAGE '~'• WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch CHATHAM COUNTY ~+ March 2003 T.I.P. U-2524WM ~, ,1 ~•~~ \a P...~ \__,~~%: ty '~\ \ `~ ~, \ \'Y+ ~ ,, .` I . ,,,~~~~.~ ,,y,; r5 / ,. _~ l ~' _. ~ _. ~, ~~ ; , ~~ \„~ , F,p ~,;' ~~ ~ ~~ ;.,~ v ~ " ~~j _ \\. ~ \~ ~iQ .~ l \ . \ \ \ ~. ~, ~ ~~ ~y 1~ ~ _~ ~~ ~~ ~ l '' \~ - . ~' . A ~" . .. ti . A\. '\ ~~ ~~~`~~K~' ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ j ~ ~~ ~ R ~ ,. l r. ~' ~ , ,. ~ ` ` ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ Y ~ , ~ \ \\\ / '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ J ~ ~ .y "`~~~ ~~ 'y` ~~ ~ - ` ~ \ ~~ ~_, ~,.;`~ \ ~ h~ ~~~~ t1`) . ~ ~ ~~,, 1~ ~. ~ p. ~ ~ ~ ~!`~,, ~ s ~; , `~ i ~C Legend ~ ~ Mitigation Area Boundary ~----~ TLC Property Boundary ® Wetland Functional Restoration ® Upland Restoration '~~ Forest ~~ ~~ Road 200 100 0 200 Feet s~~/) ~ HAT ~ - ~' North Carolina - FIGURE 7 - ;: ~~,--'~ "" --~' ---- -- ''- ~ ~ Department of Transportation ~ ,~ ~~... _ ~, POST-MITIGATION CONCEPT Division of Highways LA GRANGE HILLSIDE SEEPAGE Project Development and WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN Environmental Analysis Branch CHATHAM COUNTY March 2003 T.I.P. U-2524WM 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 ~~ s~~~/,~ru~f- ~,i~ Gl~scuTS ~,L/ /Jw~ .~ ~i~~ ~~~~~~ S . r ~'I ~,~~'- Nutrient and Sediment Loading and Reduction Assessment Evaluated during the ICI Study Wetland Delineation of selected sites _~ ('>(Jh~tT r5 ecJec~~ d •t-~ L~Ls o~ Sw~ ~f Uf~+iC~ C'e~1~ ~~~.~ ur-~ iit- ~.~~~~«~ Q /l.~" ~~ ~~sY~GtiCct"' j~t~ ~~~ ~~~~! Li/i!/ Di'~ SSG GG~.fi¢P --~ _~~,, />uc-.~~ f-vi ~-C~w :~G~a- /v.'/, n ~C~7 ~t~/rsf-.p~ C Gi1G'~Ii~ Cf~o.~ ~l~tcr7' l/`>//~ f> ~ ~ G/~/ 7V ` r s (~c:C~C. . D c~ a 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. 3.U492107 TIP No. U-2524WM Prepared for: North Carolina Department of Transportation Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch Raleigh, North Carolina F ~y0 ~~~ ,~~ hup~,~ I ~, Q I~ (moo ~?:iL,.'II 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 ld. 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/wetlands/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 TIIE 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 Fac~2ctional Assessment Page 1 Chatham County, NC 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 silIs), 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 Tt~ 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 La Grange Property Fec~tctional Assessment Page 2 ~;J Chatham County, NC i i~ 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 laccrifolia (blaspheme vine), among others, occur in the remnant forested tracts of the site. 3.0 MICTHODS 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 La Gra~ige Property Fu~tctional Assessment Page 3 Chatham County, NC 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 CommunitylHabitat • 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 biogeochemieal 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., VDOw: 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 a surrounding forest. PAA boundaries were delineated with GPS and the area of each PAA was La Gra~ige Property Fccnctio~zal Assessment Page 4 Chatham Coccnty, NC 'E7 en 0 O cam', 0 u "d G .~ ~~ ~ Zri f~ R} r .{ ,S', u .~ 0 G 0 ~. ... .--~ c~ u .~ c~ ,•-~ u H ~ ~ ~ . o o • ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ •~ a~ ~ ~; a 3 ~ .~ ~ ~ O p cC ~ b a; ^~ ~ U • ,, , ;d a~ O V W •Y `V ~ O : O O ~ ~., a~i ~ ~ Y•1 Q~ I-M w ~ ~ R' °' ~ ~ ~ N a~i r .r a~ v fi" o ~ U r" ~ O N .o ~ .., ~ N O ~ ~ "d (~ ~ ~ O U ~ -. ~ o ~ ~; ~ ~ , c ~ ~ .. N ~, ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ rn R. a~ o ~ ~ N s v `. ~ a~ °N' ~ a~ ~ °~' . ~ a~ ~ y0 a~ > GA ~ a ~.~~-~ '~ :b o o ~ ? ~ a~ ~ w ~ a~ ~, a a. Q v ~ ~ ,-a 3~~ 3 .n Q ~ o o ~ ~ b ~; ~ ~ Q' `a ~ a ~ ~ •;~ ° ~ ao n 0 0 0 w -b Q 0 ~ o ° ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ' a i C~j ~ 3 O 4F i ~ .~ O ~ •~. • i ~~ •~ ~ C) "O ~ ~ ~+ ~ v . + ~.~ ~ ~ 0 ~' O , ~ ~ n D v- '~ ~ to a . , . U ~ II ~e ~ II ~ ~ O ~n ~ ~ ~ W E.. U ~ U y ~. > ~ ~ ~ O v ice, ~ ~ 4•+ ~ ! ; ~ O N ~ ~ O O ~ ~ • -~ ~ ~ ~ O U ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ 0 3 3 -~ o . ~ ~, ~_ N '.~ ~ v ~, a' ~~ v u o ° ~ ~ ~ `~ f+ ~ ~ o ~„ ~ G 7 A •a C-~ 3 Q ~ ° ~ G ~1 ~ -o ~ C C • c, • C GA ~ ,,,,,, ~ ~ ~ ~ u o b u ~ . .~ s .C 'b ^cf •1 z7 c NQ A ~ a~ a~ 0 .. .n ~i O U Q ~ 0 CJ .r 'd C." ...~ b s~ U .~ 0 o cs ~, a~ .., cs h ~ a~ O (x ~ O ~ ~ U ~ ~ n i ~ G: ~ C'.S .~ N •Q •.U N ~ ~ ~., cd `n .O ~? ~ ~ X o N ;; ~,~~ ~' a 'b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ c, ~, .~ ~ ~ ~ o ... a~ ..~ Q "" ° U ~ b ' ~ . an a~ ' . o nA a .d ~ ' .~ ~ ~ ' , 3 ~ N ~ ~ -d ~ ~ N ~ .~ 3 ~ -D .fl ~ 3 " '~' c ~ v ~ ~ ~ ..., a v .~ ~' W v 3 b x ~- ~ ~ K N .., p d y ~~ a~ w .b t~ 'd O .: ~ .~ ~ .. ~ ~' ~ ^d c~ .d o In a~ . .~ ~ 3 ~ ~ o . ~ G ~ ~ a~i ~ ~ O _ ~ n rII . ~ ~ b b a~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U , .~ o '~„ ~ ~n ~ a a~ ~' ~ ~ r. a~ .~ ~ o •~ a :3 o ~ O '~, c ~ ~ O b~ w o °~ ,~ > ~ .. .-+ U O ..r L: C.1 ~ ~ ' a ~~ CJ ° ~v a ~ ~ n ~ ,n •~ ~ o a~ .c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ¢ ~ 3 p" ~ .~ '~ o .~ ~ v~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ v ~ a x a. va ~ o ~ ~ N U ~ ~ .~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ti0, O O .".. a' ~ c~ .~i F'' O Op b G V F V ,~ ,~ cad ~ ~ OU ~ UO O > ~ ~ V ~ it ~ I W ~ ~ ~ 1~ y Q II d ~ U z h ~ O O y ~ • ~ O bD.~ '~ ~ H F' ~-.' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..ti ~ a o ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ,~ ~ o ~ ~ ~, ° ~ ~ N ~ C G ~ O ~ ° ~ ~ ~ `' o ~ W O U .r'; cd O v b ~_ ~ o ~ ~ ~ C o a~ 3 O~ ~; •~ N •~ a~ 3 ,~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ o •: ~ o vo c ' ~ o ' ~ o v° '~ ~ o ,~ ~ ~ 'd x cJ 4., ~ .~ ~ O N 0 0 ~, ~, w., ~ x ~ 0 0 O~ ~ ~ ~ O ~' n ~.daa•~ o~,~N ~' ~~~ ~~ ~a~~ ~ ~'D ~ ~ `~ ~ °~ ~'d'~ ~ `~ ~ v •v 'c ~ w W Q v .~ ~ v .~ R' Q ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ a ~ ~ ~ s ... ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ .~~ a~ .~~ ~~ H~ a ~ ~ 0 i U O .~ 0 s u .., ''d a ''d G c~ cH u .~ O ..+ O C3 Ln c~ u .Q >-, u F o N ~' o ~ ° n ~ ~ ~ o ~ c~ ~ ~ o o 3 ~ ,~ a~•N ~ ~ o '~ ~ 3 .d ~ ar ~ ~ H ~ ' , '' •~ ~ ~ a~ 3 3 ~ ~ a~ a~ ''d O ~ O ~ c1 . ~ v U a ~ ~ ~ ~ a' Q" `a: ~ .. ~ „c ~ ... c. *. ~., ~., •.~ v ~ O ~ ~" V 'b '-' ~ ~ ~ ~ '.~' N • O c~3 ~ `'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n _ ~ ~ •U O ~ > ~ Q ~ ¢ti 3 a.~ b o ~ ~ ~ ~ . Rr , '~ H ~ ~ ~ O b G~. ~N~+ ~ G ~' o a~ '~ ~ ~ c~ ;a ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ Q II II ~ ~ I ~ y ~ ~ ~ w~ o ~ ~ > >, v' p ~n ~ b b ~ cad ~ ~ o '~ ° a o ~ o 3 ~ ~ o '~ ~ ~ fd b!) ~ r• a~ N F. ,~ ,b .b O ~ O ~ .'' ~ ''' O ai ~ cd a i ~ 0~3 and a, W Q Qb e n Q~° ~ . bn en on .~ +..~ o ~' ~ u ~ u b v ~ ~ u ~ : ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ . . ~ t 'CS ~ c 3 ''C >~ ~ ab ~~ b ti h o_ n b ,~ o 0 b 3 ~ '~ U ~ V'1 b .~ n ~ v° '~ 0 0 U ..~ .c ~, c ' a ~ as " a~ ~ ." ~ . ~ `n ~' O b ~ ~ ~ A .. ~ ~ a.., ~ o ~ ~ O 3 ~ b cd O a~ b a~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ -d ~ ~ ~ o a 3 a i .`~v ~,~ O ~ ~ U ~ Q ~ u I I la A ~ ~ b ~ ~ ~ ~ .O = ~~ a~ • ~ "d .C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . 3 ~ s ~ ~ 3 G vi ~ C> v . ~ .--. O . ~ a~ ~ ~ pp 0 I-/[~ `M~ ''' ~ ~ 0 ~ ~L 61 ~ • ~ ( ~ . V ~ ~ U ~ 'C1 O w W a~ O_ 4-, U Q .O ~ ~ ~ W ° ~ ~ . cn . an ~ .~ C c7 ' ~ ~' c, ,.c~ o ..-. -~ ~ ... b ~ c~ r., CA . ~ c`~. 'd c~3 b ~ c~ ~ ~ a ~ ~cs ^ H~ a>. a~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ illy ~ Illll~ ~ ~ iii' Illllll~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ YI 1 ~ > //"' ,~, ~ ~~~ ~ - i yr. e ~~~~ ,, :. ;~ / ,,~ ~ A~ ~t ~~""~ ~ /,~c`\~ -~ ~.-.' .-- ~~-.~ ~'\ ~_~///~ -.~- \.~ ,_._./ ~1 l -'~ `~R ~/~~~~'~~~~... l ~ ........ >~- ~` <-~. i .. ~ ~.. i . a,~ ., ". ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ \ ,~ •, \ ~ ~ r V~ ~ :. `\ y~ ~ ~ 1 \ ` i ~. 1 h '' ,~ ,, ~~~~ ~~,; Y ~ ~\ ~~ ': ~T ~ ~ .., ,~ A ~ J ~- ~~ ,,` ~~~ - ,~ ~ - ~, ,. Y l ~ - ._ - • ~ ;~ ~ ~: ,,._ ___ 1, ~~ \ Y~ \~1 \ \\ ^ \ j 4' 1 1 'Fj l 'i ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~" X , . `_"~ \ Y .. LEGEND ~ ~~ ~- ;%i~ ~ Plot Centers ~ ~!.~~ ~ TLC Property Boundary ~~ - I ~~ " ~ ~ ='%~~~~~ - ...-...- ~ V ~ Partial Assessment Area Boundary ®Watershed ,. ~ ~~ ::.- -~ ~ Proposed Wetland Functional Restorati `~`~~~-- ® Proposed Upland Restoration / ~-= ~ ~-v ~ Grass/Shrub Cover f ~: -, ~ ~ /, ., ~.~ Tree Cover l . - ~ ~ _ _,.. - , , , -..- ,~-~._-=~ --.. ----- Berm 200 100 0 200 Feet Potential Hydrologic Modification Road som Buffer 50 25 0 50 Meters North Carolina - FIGURE 1 M~,~.a"°R `'*~ Department of Transportation MITIGATION MAP DRAFT * Division of Highways LA GRANGE DIABASE BOG ~' ~ CHATHAM COUNTY ~'9-~rprn~N~ Project Development and 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 mz) 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 r. La Grange Property Ftcnctiorzal Assessment Page 9 Chatham Coicnty, 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 PAA1 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 Coccnty, NC 0 depressions (vMlCRO)e the capacity for ET (V~D), 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 vOUTFe the presence of fill was used to partition PAAs and so fill was either present (vSTOR = 0.0) or absent (VSTOR = 1•~)• 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 = D divot density/5.9. The variable V~o 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 V~D =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), (V,~oR), Or [(V~p) + (VM/crZO) '+' (VBUFF)]/3. However, if the PAA was not located along a break in slope, then VBUFF was not applicable and so FCI = (V~D + VMrcno)/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: Mairztairi Characteristic Plant Cornrnunity/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 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 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 VExx 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 V CNPY ~ VMCNPY ~ VSCNPY ,and VExx, i. e., FCI = (VC/ypy +VMCNPY '}' VSCNPY '}' V EXH)~4. 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. Fu~:ction 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 La Grange Property Fcnctional Assessment Page 12 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 CommunitylHabitat," 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,yrcRO) 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 (VDOtiy) was compared relative to the reference standard condition to indicate amphibian habitat quality. If VDO~y 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 Chathmrt County, NC a. To tat AA ld Page 13 have no closed canopy (V~DSCP = 0.0). If a PAA had contiguous, closed canopy of 10 ha or _ larger, then Vt.NDSCP = 1.0; otherwise VuvDSCP =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~ VDDW, and VvvDSCP. 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. `'~ Functio~z 4: Mai~ztai~z 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 Assessme~tt Page 14 Chatham Coccnty, NC 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 ~~ 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 VDD~~, 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, VcrD, and VDOiy. The hydrologic function provides the contribution of hydrologic effects on biogeochemical function and effects of soil disturbance on detritus in soils, V~o provides the contribution of aboveground biomass to biogeochemical function, while VDD6v 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 (PAA1). 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 (VuvDSCP)~ nor does it have a sufficiently wide upslope forested buffer (VBUFF), 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 Vc.nioscP or VBUFF as model variables. However, restoration of upland forest could, without any restoration of the wetland proper, enable PAA1 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 1 S Chatham County, NC a~ O GA Cd rIr V a h f-a O W y FBI W b .~ .~ CS 'C O+ ~+ c, w it 0 u N O ... r.+ T.w O a~ ~. a «i N C.1 C~ H 0 0 0 0 ¢ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r,, o 0 0 0 z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o c a 0 0 0 o Q o 0 o r o r T o r o oa o 0 0 0 o 0 0 o z o 0 0 0 ~o -- -- o ~ o 0 0 0 0 0 .-: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pr 0 0 0 0 ¢ 0 0 0 0 o --~ o o o o r o rn o 0 0 0 ~ o 0 0 o o 0 0 0 ' ' o -~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 .-~ -~ 0 0 z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a o 0 0 o Q o 0 0 0 00 00 o r o rn o 0 0 0 ~ o 0 0 o o 0 0 0 .~ -- o .~ 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 0 O O O v1 ~ O ~ O r O O O O ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O ~f ~+ ~-+ 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 a im ~ o ~ o r o0 0 o M ~ O O O X 0 0 O 0 0 ' r+ V O O O 0 0 0 0 r ~! ~ ~-+ 0 0 0 0 O O O , O O O O O O O O O O O O O r r d' O d' d' N v1 d' ~t ~D r N I~ O r ~O V u ~ O O O~ r+ z 0 r G1 N ~D ~D O G ~D O O O ~--~ O N N C O O O O~ O O M O O Q! .-~ O O O O O C O O O r r ¢ O c} d' N V1 ~ d ~ ~O ~ ~ M O N O O r O~ ~ v O M ~ O ~ O O~ O ~-^ O z O O r O O~ O N O ~D O O O O O O O O O O O O O ~! O a ~ O O r r d' O ~t ~F N v1 ~ ~ ~D ~ O r O O r O~ ~O 'V' O M ~ O O O~ ~--~ z 0 r O~ N ~O O N N Q! ~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Pr O O O r ~/1 ~ vl O v1 h d ~Y O~ r N vl ~d' O O~ 00 O O Vl N V1 r 0 '[t r t~ I~ .-. N N M ti' v~ M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O a 0 0 ~o r o r ~n rn M~ oo r ~~ o ~o N O O V f M O oo v1 O oo v1 vl 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 a O O ~-+ ~O Q~ T 00 M N Ul O O M ~O ~O ~O Q~ M d' ~ O O ~/1 N c*i M 1~ [~ ~+ [~ ~ ~ ~--~ N O N M Vl ~--~ c~ M ~--~ X 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a O O ~--~ O O H 00 M N v1 O O M ~O O O O~ ~-+ M~ h O O V1 N O M r I~ ~--~ [~ ~O ~O --' N N M M V'1 ~--~ 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 o~ rn M ~ <t N N O N oo M O r N O O ~D O~ vl ~O I~ M Vl OO ~O ~O O O~ M t~ ~D ~D O [~ QI O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Q a O O O O O M O O O O O O O O O O M 0 0 ~Y .-1 O O O O vl aO O O O O O O O O N co Oo O O H a. a 0 a a o a u ~. U ~, 4 u i ,~ U ~ y ~ a _ o V ~ o ~ Q '' U u o ~ u. 2 ~ ;~ u. o C ~ ' ~ . 4 > > > ` > > >` > > w >° >` > w > > > w i' ~ E w E w C U' L' GU q u r i 0 0 0 0 0 ¢ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ o 0 0 o z o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a o 0 0 o Q o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ Q o 0 0 o z o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 'n 0 0 0 o Q o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 o z o 0 .~ 0 r, 0 .-. 0 .-. 0 .~ 0 .~ 0 ,-, 0 r. 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 o a o 0 0 o z o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P~ 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 r, ... .. .-, .~ r. .-. ,-, .--. .~ r, r. .-. ,~ ~ .~ .--. .-. .--. Pr ca 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~Q .; .~ .-~ .; .; ..: .-~ ..: .--~ r. .-~ .~ .-; .~ .-: .~ .~ .-; .~ .~ Q a v o 0 0 o Q o 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 d' P, ~, 0 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 a 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 G4 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 P. .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 P, ,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. .... r, ,-. ,-. .-. .-. P, 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 G4 N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Gl ~D 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O ~O 0 0 O~ '"'i O O O O ao O~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O~ O O O~ Q .-; ... .--. .-. p p .r .-. .--i .-+ .-. .-i r. .--~ .-. .-. p .~ ,... p a ~ a C ~ C ~- ~ Y U 4 V --~ U <~ ^~ ~ ~ z y~ ~ ° U o O ~ O ~ O U ° ~ „ U Z k u' r q w ° ~' > > >>> ~' > > > > w >> > w >> ~ ~ a, ~ c " c " c ,, o ~ y ~ a ~ O .^ ~ i+ x q O h avx ~ O Qu o u p 0 0 O bA ~. C~ a a a U 4~ .~ GA 'd CC ~ H U_ .~ an U M ,.Q a ~ h n D .5 ~ H w ~ ,-, V' ry M o ~}' co M 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 ~-+ X 0 0 O ~-+ -» O O O .-+ -+ 0 0 O -~ .-. 0 0 a X 0 0 0 .--~ .-i r O M h oo O N Q\ O pp O~~ N Q O O O N N O .--~ ~--~ 0 0 ~--~ O o0 N r-t O~ 0 0 0 O O Q~ N H O ~--~ 0 0 0 G O O f~ O ~-+ ~-+ O O ~ ~ X 0 0 0 ~O b 00 O N E ~/'! _ Q\ O V' to 0 0 0 ~D \O 0 0 0 0 0 .--~ O o0 O O O O O~ O O 0 0 0 0 0 O ~+ ~--~ O C O .--~ O O C O r+ O O O O~~ O C X 0 0 O O O oo O N O P O~ O O O~ O O O O O Q O O O M M ~--~ O oo t+l O O O Q~ c~'1 .-i O O O M c+2 a O --+ .--~ ~-i O ~-+ O -~ '-i O ~--~ O ~--~ .-i O .-+ --~ --~ .~ a ,n [~ 0 0 0 v1 N ~--~ O Q\ v'f N n O M V'1 M Q O O v'1 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 v~ ~ocn --~~ rior.-.o oornviv --~ooov~v, ooo.~nv, ooo.v~~n ~ , o--o 00 0-. o0 0 0.-.0 00 0.-000 a u ~ O O O d' ~t ~t O ~O ~ .-~ l~ O c+l V' M V' O ~O d' M 0 0 0 0 ~D O M O O N O [~ O O M O ~O 0 0 O ~--~ -~ O O O~ 0 0 0 O .-~ O O O O ~-+ O O C a .~ X 0 0 0 cn M d~ 0 ~O ('~1 rl r'1 O !~ r1 N d' O ~O M N Q~ O ~ 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 ~f 'd O ~O vi M Q~ O O O O O ~O O M O O N O~ O O M O ~O O O O -~ ~--~ O O O ~--~ 0 0 O O .--~ 0 0 0 O .--~ 0 0 0 a N ~~ !! d' O ~D O ~ O ~O ~--~ O~ Vl O v1 ~O oo O N cf 7 'cf' O v'1 I~ ~t l~ O N t~ .~ M O ~D f~ V; C'1 O ~O I~ 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\ ~ O d ~O N O o0 ~-+ ~D -+ O O O N N o-~-~oo vl O 'tt N O o--~ooo N O I~ N ~--~ o.-.ooo N O (~ N ' o-.ooo a A M D\ O M d' O O O C~1 Q~ ~D O 'd' Cn [~ 'ct O ~O M In Q m O ~O N~ ~O O ~t N O N O [~ N .~ c+l O ~O N ~-+ a o.-~ooo o--ooo o.-~ooo o-~ooo M rno r•r ooo~M ooo~~n vo~o~v~ ~ cno~ooo ~oov,oo mo~oo cno~ooo o-:ooo o-:ooo o.--~ooo o.~ooo a N o0 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 O~ V7 l~ O N D\ ~ ~ a o-:or-o o-jo--o o.~o~o o.~o o.- ~ M ~O M cr •" ~ O O O O 0 O O O V' M d' D\ N [fi [~ X 00 Q\ -~ ~ N 0 0 0 --~ O 0 0 0 ~-- --~ O -~ O W O N ~O f? O --~ O -~ O ~ D\ O H O C O O -~ O fA ~ ~ Ql . o y ~ ~ C) .C ~ o N ~ ~ EJ ~ o ~/I ~ ~ N .~ ~ o . ~" a a~ G ~ a s c ^ 00 a. a ~ onv w w C G h ~ ~ ~, ~, wwU¢C7 uU.wU¢C~ wwU~C7 wcUr.U¢yC7 V H k •~ r p~ n a o o o .~ ~ n ~ ~ . an E ^ a, : n o a c o '.L' wUx ¢'U q u ai a condition also represents the condition of the PAAs after establishment of a mature canopy for 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 PAAS 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. Mai~atain Characteristic Plm:t 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 aclosed-canopy forest but lack these important species. Yellow poplar, sweetgum, ash (Fraxinees 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. i~ La Grange Property Fcenctional Assessment Page 19 Chatham Coicnty, NC ~~ Maintain Characteristic Animal Comrnunities 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 Biogeocltemistry 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 i~z 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. (l2ttp:/hvww.wes.mil/el/tivetlands/tivlpr.cbs.html). 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. (httn://wtivw.tives.mil/el/tivetlands/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 over acndersta~tdiiig. American Water Resources Association. Minneapolis, MN. Ruhlman, M.B. and W.L. Nutter. 1999. Channel morphology evolution and overbank flow in the Georgia Piedmont. Joecr~zal of the American Water Resources Association 35:277-290. Radford, A. E., Ahles, H. E., and Bell, C. R. (1968). Manecal 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 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.htmT). 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. (12ttp://tivwtiv.tives.mil/el/wetlands/tivlpcrbs.lannl). 0 La Gralige 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) _ Adjacent area (ha) of forested landscape/5 ha (ULNDSCP) _ ~ (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 Canopy 1 2 3 Total Mean Density Simil. 0 Total Density = v~,,,, (Ucro) _ (Total Density/Total Density in RS site) Midcanopy2 1 2 3 Total Mean Density Simil. uscwr e Subcanopy3 1 2 3 Total Mean Density Simil. vscnar 'Canopy: counts of stems > 15-cm dbh, measured in 10-m radius plots ~Midcanopy: 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 plats 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 (cm3) 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 Microtopographydue totree tip ups. Number of large (> 2 m2) divots in pAA: Total area of pAA: Density no./area): Divide by density in RS site VM~cRO- ~ (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 VExN = '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 = VourF FC12 = VsroR FC13 = (UCTD '}' UMICRO + UBUFF)~3, or if not along break in slope, then FC13 = (V CTD +UMlCRO )l2 FCI =~ (lowest score of subequations) PLANT COMMUNITY/ FCI = (VCNPY '~' UMCNPY "~" USCNPY +VEXH)l4' HABITAT FCI =~ ANIMAL COMMUNITY FCI = (FCI Plant Community + VDDW +VM~cRO + VcNDSCP)/4 FCI =~ BIOGEOCHEMSTRY FCI = (FCI Hydrology + VcrD + VDDw)~3 FCI =C~ Page A-4 endix B: Summar of Model Variable Definitions, Measurement Method, App Y rt~ and Conversion to Sub-indices 1. Outflow (drainage) of water from slope (VOUTF) Measure/LTnits: Removal of water by ditches. Method: 1. Determine presence/absence of ditches that drain the PAA. 2. If drainage ditch is present, then V ocrrF = 0.0, if ditch is absent, then V ourF = 1.0. PAA is assumed to be within the area that is being drained 2. Surface Water Storage (VsTOrz) Measure/LJnits: 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 VSTOR = 0.0. If PAA is not within an area to which material has been added or excavated, then VsroR = 1.0. 3. Microtopography (V MICRO) Measure/LTnits: 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)Z]. 3. If density of divots is > 5.9 divots/ha, then ~1M/CRO = 1.0, otherwise, VM1CR0 =density/5.9 divots/ha. 4. Proportion of total bordering length of 50-m wide forested buffer (VBUFr) Measure/LJnits: 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 cNPY = 1.0, otherwise V cNPY =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/LJnits: 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 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. 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 VMCNPY= 1.0, otherwise vSCNPY =the Sorensen index/0.6. Page B-2 0 9. Exotic invasive herb cover (V~xH) a Measure/LTnits: 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 VExx = (100- cover)/100. 10. Downed dead wood \ ~ DDtiY) 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 VDOw = 1.0, otherwise Voow =volume/17.1 m3/ha. 11. Supplemental landscape for fauna (Vrlvnscr) Measure/LTnits: 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 VcrvDSC~ = 1.0, otherwise VrrvDSCP =contiguous area in ha/10 ha. 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 a/b PAA4 PAA5 PAA6 PAA7 PAAB PAA9 PAA10 a/b/c a/b alb CANOPY DENSITY Acer rubrum 66 59 33 66 15 - - - - - Carpinus caroliniana - 22 - - - - - - - - Celtis laevigata - - 11 11 - - - - - - Fagus grandifolia 7 - - - - - - - - - Fraxinus pennsylvanica - 81 - - 37 - - - - - llexopaca 15 - - - - - - - - - Liquidambar sryraciflua 74 59 88 66 81 265 - - - - Liriodendron tufipifera 133 52 44 - 52 118 - - - - Magnolia virginiana 81 - 11 22 - - - - - - Nyssa bfflora 52 - - 11 7 - - - - - Platanus occidentalis - - - - - - - - - - Quercus albs 22 - - - - - - - - - Quercus laurifolia - 15 11 - - - - - - - Quercus nigra 7 - - 11 7 59 - - - - Quercus phellos - - 33 22 - - - - - - Quercus rubra - - - - - - - - - - Salixnigra - 7 - - 22 - - - - - Ulmus americans - - - 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 - - - - llexopaca 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 albs 7 - - - - - - - - - Quercus laurifolia - - - - - - - - - - Quercus nigra 7 - - - 7 29 - - - - Quercus phellos - - 22 - - - - - - - Salixnigra - - - - 59 - - - - - Ulmus slats - - - - - - - - - - Ulmus americans - - - - 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 - - - - - - Amelanchiercanadensis 29 - - 442 147 - - - - - Carpinus caroliniana 177 531 - - 737 - - - - - Carya sp. 29 29 - - - - - - - - Celtis laevigata 59 - 44 442 29 - - - - - Clethra alnifolia - - - - 59 - - - - - Comus florida 88 - - - 29 - - - - - Diospyros virginiana - - - - - - - 29 - - Euonymus americana - 118 - - 29 - - - - - Fagus grandifolia 29 - - - - - - - - - Fraxinus pennsylvanica 59 147 - - 265 - 1,091 - 1,150 - llex decidua - - 88 - 29 - - - - - Ilex opaca 59 - - - - - - - - - llex 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 tulipi(era - - - - - 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 seratina 59 - - - 59 - - - - - Quercus alba - - - - - - - - - - Quercus nigra - - - 177 - - - - - - Quercus phellos - - - - 29 - - - - - Quercus rubra 29 - - - - - - - - - Salix nigra 29 - - - - - 147 - 236 - Sambucus canadensis 295 - - - - 29 - - - - Sorbus arbutilolia 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. PAAl PAA2 PAA3 PAA4 PAAS PAAG PAA7 PAA8 PAA9 PAA10 a/b a/b/c a/b a/b 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 g 0.7 1.5 0.10 3.3 0.2 Mean 1.7 2.3 0.28 12.4 2.3 0 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 PAA3 a/b FG 17.5 PAA4 FD 30.0 PAAS 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 trip/iyllunt 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 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 Daucccs 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 Eleoclinris tortilis 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA Erigeran canadensis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.4 NA Euanymus americanus 0.0 22.2 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA Eupatorieem capillifolicenc 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 NA Galiccm 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 pecbescens 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 Juncos coriaceous 0.0 11.1 11.1 11.1 0.0 0.0 66.7 55.6 0.0 NA Juncus efficsus 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 tenccis ? 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 Lccdwigia 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 a/b 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 Mitcliella repens 37.5 33.3 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA Osmccnda cinnamomea 62.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA Osmccnda 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 Paccicum sp. 12.5 0.0 0.0 33.3 77.8 57.1 33.3 66.7 11.1 NA Part/ienocissecs gecingccefolia 50.0 33.3 22.2 11.1 11.1 57.1 22.2 44.4 11.1 NA Plrytolncca americatta 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 Polygonccm 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 R/1us radicaiis 25.0 22.2 11.1 22.2 33.3 0.0 44.4 22.2 88.9 NA Rubes sp. 0.0 33.3 55.6 44.4 11.1 14.3 88.9 100.0 100.0 NA Rccmes 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 Saurccrus cernccccs 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 glaccca 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA Smilax rotccndifolia 37.5 22.2 22.2 11.1 22.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA Solnnccm carolineccse 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 patina 12.5 44.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 42.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA Spliagnccm sp. 25.0 11.1 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA Symphoricarpos orbiccclatccs 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 virginia~ca 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA Uniola sessiiijlora 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 rotccndifolia 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 ~~ 4~~ a 5 ~i ~ ~~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~`~~. y~~ ~~ 1~ r,- ~'~ 1 -.`.i ~ -~_'.1 ~y ` `) ~ • y 1. I t ~ ;~,, I , ~ ~~ _'r_.v '~? ~ ~ `~ ~-!k e ~ #', ~ .y ~1 r ~ ~+~% `~ ~ ' ~ .. A~ ~: ~ i `` r . ,. y 'S ~ ri ; .; ~~ ~~~~ rr~, ~~ ~~ a La Grange Farm January 11, 2000 s .F '~1G._., ~ ~ ~~~:~~,~~.± 4'll ~.~! Y~` "-'Wi`t ,'` ~j 4, ~.~~ .tjy ~ R,. ~~~~ ,~~~i~ i7~t 1-H'~.J'~ ~1~~_~ 3 r. ~ ' Y ~ ` ! ~ t 1~ ~,~ ~ ~ ~ c!:~4 ` ~~1'Y~7'~~1t1"'~•' r` '1.',1~ i ~ `. t k , ,- a r•:~l't {' - ; r~„~°~~ ! j. ~- f y~ S. a r~.. ^/ _ 1~ ; t. y; ~ R~y:,~ 1 E ~•~ic tg ! , :,r,~ 4 { ,' R r~ .NSA iy} S4 Y'~~. ! ~~.~~C ~ i Y ~r_ °'°y ~^w ~P~ ,4~'E- ~ h 3 '~yA~ , ,1.~ tip :: t , „CEO-.r ! L ~~;f~,~y•'0~.! t~~'ti~,,/ ~~, ~E~, 17~~t~~ ~.. ~ t -,,t.~l ~~ ;~ r~{S:~ti q'~~ . !, .~ }~'i y ~`~4r r ~ j_r r Y ~ h,,f'-,~'~ 1` cA'i• R"~'~ R'~ h~ 1jr` f~T`1~~ {P ~ - b - ~(r~~ t~ .' Y h e~7`r~~ ~~~ 'Y ~9999```j~- j' r ~~3`qf ~ r~y~urt! !+Z *A +i r. ~ ` l "E * ~ r ~~•k Y S L:r' , f.- ~y.';,{~~~~7~F~~ies.''..*., ~ .:y .. ~ ~- F ;ll, f t ) - ~ ~ ~ ~.t ~ W ~.. a~;~+~J~*' ` ~b~~~~*'a -~: r• iii ~~~r.~±'t S! l _P e F~ ~ . t • "~, w v` \ r~~ jjfi,•. r r ~ ,t \ t '' ~``, Legend r--~ ~__~ Mitigation Boundary TLC Property Boundary ',^ ~ ! ~~~. . -. ~ ^~ \ 1 1~~ r s ~ „ r ~ J~ ,. j ti ~ ~ f; 1 ~ • ~ ~ \ ,I t~ ~!~ / ~< r % ~ ~ ~ / Y -~ ¶ ~ - ~ ` /` !~ ` ~ ~r '' f ~; ~ :..-~~ ' 1 . - 5 ~ V ~'. . ~i iS ~~ ~/ ~~ w /f - F~ / , , ~ ~_ , Y • l c ' t 4 il i 0 0 0 0 i__ 0 VII. Species Lists (lists are not complete) 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 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 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 laxiculnus Broad Loose Flower Sedge Carex lupulina A Sedge Carex lurida A Sedge Carex tribuloides A Sedge Carpinus caroliniana Ironwood Carya cordiformis Bitternut Hickory Carya glabra Pignut Hickory 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 Dentaria concatenata Cutieaf Toothwort Dichantheliurn acuminatum Witchgrass Dichanthelium commutatum Variable Witchgrass Dichanthelium dichotomum Common Witchgrass Diospyros virginiana Persimmon Duchesnea indica Eleocharis tortillis Indian Strawberry ~ Spikeiush 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 FraQaria 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 t5 0 ~i 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 Liqiuidambar styraciflua Sweetgum Liriodendron tulipifera Tuli Tree fi P 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 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 i~ 0 0 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 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 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 ~~ u D 0 Plants of the La Grange 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 Plants of the La Grange Reserve Zephyranthes atamasco Atamasco Lily Birds of the La Grande Reserve e Acadian Flycatcher Empidonax virescens .~ American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos -~ American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis American Redstart a American Robin Setophaga ruticilla Turdus nugratorius .~ American Woodcock Scolopax minor ~, Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica -~ Belted Kingfisher Ceryle alcyon •• Black Vulture ~~ Black-throated Green Wazbler Coragyps atratus Dendroica virens Blue Grosbeak Guiraca caerulea -r Blue Jay Cyanoci[ta cristata n Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum ~+Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater Brown-headed Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis a Canada Goose Carolina Chickadee Branca canadensis Parus cazolinensis Carolina Wren Thryothorus ludovicianus o Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum ~ Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina :~ Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii a Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens ~' Eastern Bluebird Oenanthe oenanthe Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna Eastern Pheobe Sayomis phoebe Eastern Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus European Starling Sturnus vulgaris Field Sparrow Spizella pusilla Fish Crow Corvus ossifragus Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca :Gray Catbird Dumetella cazolinensis 19 D _•:= ~ ~~ 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 Hooded Warbler Mergus merganser Wilsonia citrina ~~ House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus Indigo Bunting ~ Passerina cyanea Kentucky Warbler Oporornis formosus •~ Killdeer Charadrius vociferus a Mallard :. Anas platyrhynchos i Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura Northern~Bobwhite Quail Colinus virginianus di li i j Northern•Cardinal s car na s Cardinal i Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus v Northem Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos o Northern Parula Parula americana . Orchard Oriole o Ovenbird . Icterus spurius Seiurus aurocapillus Pine Warbler Dendroica pinus ~ Red-bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus ~ Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus o Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis -~ Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoenicus dRuby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula ~1-Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia •~ Summer Tanager Piranga rubra Swamp Sparrow Melospiza georgiana Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor Tufted Titmouse Pares bicolor ~ Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura • ~ White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis While-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varies QYellow-billed Cuckoo a Yellow-breasted Chat Coccyzus americanus Icteria virens ~• Yellow-romped Warbler Dendroica coronata Yellow-throated Vireo Vireo flavifrons .. .i . ~ .i v1 t~.aa,•.,. ~•~ +N~r • . >,~~~ L' i~~ 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 Grande Reserve Black Racer Broadhead Skink Eastern Mud Turtle Five-lined Skink Rat Snake River Cooter ~ .: Southern Painted turtle - Yellowbelly Slider ~ , Mammals of the La GranQe_Reserve Beaver Eastern cottontail Golden mouse Grey squirrel Muskrat Raccoon White-footed mouse White-tailed deer Invertebrates of the La GranQe_Reserve American Painted Lady Carolina Satyr Comma Eastern Snout Butterfly is Bufo americanus Desmognathus ariculatus Bufo woodhousei Rana clamitans Ambystoma opacum Acris crepitans Rana sphenocephala Ambystoma maculatum Hyla crucifer Eurycea bislineata Pseudacris triseriata Coluber constrictor Eumeces laticeps Kinosternum subrubrum Eumeces fasciatus Elaphe obsoleta Chrysemys concinna Chrysemys pieta Chrysemys scripta Castor canadensis Sylvilagus floridana Ochrotomys nuttali Sciurus carolinensis Ondatra zibethica Procyon lotor Peromyscus leucopus Odocoileus virginianus Vanessa virginiensis Herzneuptychia bermes Polygonia comma Libytheana bachmanii 21 Invertebrates of the La Grange 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. 22 0 0 0 a A N p~ N ~p O O W W C CL O X C a m O S D m d cn c~ N A W W A A W 10 IV O .A C7 W O IV J 0 .A CD A CJl N Ln GO (D W N v O 1 ~ .1 J ..A ~.- .1 ~.i ~ J ca cD ca ca ca ca cn ca cD cD cD cD ca cn cD co c0 ca ca ca t0 47 ~ O Ul A W N -+ O v CO CD .A. N W Ul Ul N ~I N 7 ~ Ln 1 C7 A O -"~ U'I CI1 cD c0 N C7 ~I -+ O O DD Q) O '71 fD -+ CO W N ~! W -+ -+ O N LT N W ~1 W U1 U1 ~! W O N J N W Ul N 1 CD W CO N J ms W O --~ W N U1 CD --~ W U7 - s N CO CO O O CO A W N O W CD A Q7 A A --~ C7 -+ C7 D ~ O N W --~ ~+ N U7 1 ~ O ~ ~"~ ~ ~. CD OD (O N N --~ -+ N 1 .t Ul CO C7 CJl C7 O) U7 Ul A "A N O O ~+ N --~ O O O Ut ~ Sv U1 U~ N~ 1 N ~l W cD N Cfl --~ N~ V W O N -+ O cD (D N .A 1 1 O Ul (Jl W N N ~ v m O A OJO ~ N A ~l W -+ -+ J ~+ O O A O A _L ...~ 1 CWO J W W ~1 A W O ~ (WJ7 J O~ W U1 .JA. W W ONO CWO N c0 ~+ 1~ c0 .O .O O W O N N O O N O W 0 1 1 N O O N O W CD CTI Q) CI7 O 1 N ~A j A N ~1 A. J -~ CD CO .A O W -+ (D GO Ul N CU N N ~! W O Ut W N W W 1 .1 .~ W A A -+ -+ O N O W ~ ~ ~ ~ -y -J ~ ~ ~ OD W W W N W (J1 W C7 (D N N .A N -1 -+ W N N W C7 O O U1 W O A W O A Ul W N J~. Q) W (O CO Q) N A W W A U'i N N W --~ N O --~ W ~l ao C7 O O C71 O J ~ v N .l W ~ A -~ (I1 CO Q) ~ ~ Q (O ~ ~ cn n n ~ -+ Z ~ ': O ~• ,., ~ R7 C ~ !~' ^": C C 3 c o d o ~ ~ o ~ o ~ ~; ~° ~ N ~ ~' ~ co' n ~.cn' ~ cn' ~ O m ~ j. -n ~- ?' c ?' .+ ~ ~ D O N c~ ~ ~ ~ coo w ~ m ~ cn ~ D >v o m w -~ II1 J ~l O N O O N N V J J -+ O O) Q) O~ CO W W W V N ~ cn cn O 'o O ~ 'D D n to -o rJ ~ o~ ~~~~~ a Z n II u L c ~ co 0 0 11 II II ~• =° II ~ ~ ~ 7 cD II II -D (n II O C m ~' ~ ~. II C ~o ~ ~~ O (A Z~ o ~ 0 ~ Z~ (D Q) O C~ O 0 0 0 7 v ~ O o ~ 7 ~O C co a 0 ~ c ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~` m w w - p 3 1 o -° m p (D (D c ~ ~ ' - D W (D ~ CD O ~ ~ ~ . . fD n.0 O~, o o~ -+- O ° Z 3 ~ ~ O ~ y ~ O~ ~N ~~~' ' w ..A -lo _ ~' N c m o o -o o~ o ~ ~ _' ~ ~ , ~ . ' O ~ O v C o ~ O --.. ~' -^ ~ - 7 A O ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ^ O 'O O O s3 ~ z n (D ~~~'~~ `~,° 3. v m ~ .-+ O 7 ~ (II n .+ 7 N ~ O ~' ~ ~ (D N O ~ ~ ~ C N 3 Z N O 0 ~ ( D a O C , ~ c ~ ~ 7' • Q , "'l n ~' ~ ~ C (D ^' __' ~ N ~ n ~ . .. C A n fD O - O ~' n' A d fA O C ~"' ~ O -1 '~ c < d . <, ~ ~. D E O C A ~ ~ ~ 'O ~ ~ .0 O ~ ~ .D ~ ~ ~ .0 ~ ~ N .D ~ N ~ .0 ~ N "O ~ ~ N 'O N ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 Q ~ ~ O O ~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i• ~ O ~ W C 'O 'Q 'D ~ ~ n "a ~ .~. coo (n fA fA fA p ~ C1 j~ O O O O d 3 ~ m a~ cn v cn d cn cn o cct co c~ co m cn m ` m w ` i a i a Ui O O O .A ~ N O O O N ~ ~l O O N O 7 N . O O . . O W . . 7 1 --~ .A O (D U1 1 W W A . Ul . . .A. N . N . O CO O W ~A N O N O (D CO 07 W W A CJl O CD Ul V W (O CJl N O W ~ ~ ~ ~ f D f D f D -+ 0 0 O N LT -+ O O O N Q' O O O . O O a' N . O O . . O N . . Q' . ~l . . O N . O . O . W . O . O . . O N . O . O O . O . ~l N O c0 W W CD O ~! W N W O ~A O N CO O ~1 O O N CJl N O W ~ ~ ~ ~ e ~ CO O O .A J ~ -+ O --~ O N i W . O -+ . . O . A . w Cn . O -i . . N -P . . A (O O~ -+ O W O O -~ W N O W N W O Ul A A O .~ -~ O O W OD N A W -~ ~ A Ul Q) ~. W ~1 ~1 CI7 ~! D D D D ~ ~ cn O --~ N A ~ -+ O N O N O N O -+ ~ O O N O N ~ -+ W O N W 1 O N ~A c0 . N . . O m . O . .A . --~ . . O l~. . . O N (Ji Ut O N W Ui 00 W W (D A O m O N -+ -+ N v Ul 'S O O A O W ~ O O W O W ~ O . O A . O W . ~ (11 O~ . W ~! . . ~ ~I O A W W W O O O W (D . O ~I . Ul W . W . O) O Ul -+ N Cn N 00 J -+ O N O W O cD -~ W ~l c0 1 '1 N c0 L L L L C C C , C U1 . O m . . O . O . 7 00 . --~ . A Ul W . . 7 N . -+ U1 . . A . A 7 N O U7 . . O N . . 7 ~l O~ O A N A . v c0 .A A O CTl N . ~I . v O Ui Ul W rn O c0 O W N ~! A v v ~A W -+ O c0 ~I N W O~ L L L L = ~ ~ O O ~l . . -+ . Q) .tom . O O O 1 O O O . --~ A ~ . O O . . O N . . . -+ W .L~ O) . 1 CO . O . O . . 0 0 . CO . N O . W . O W O U7 0 1 0o O O N W O O O O Ul CIl O O~ N ~! Ul O -+ U7 N D D D D W O Ul O (Q N O ~A -+ Ul fQ -+ O Ul N U7 (Q O O U7 --~ A (a --~ O c0 A N N W ~l Ul ~! ~ A .A 1 A N ~P O O N OD N A W ~. W N Ul 00 ~l cD ~l O CJl 1 N W --~ ~I O N N N N rD cD c~ , cn O O A O ~A 'D W O A O -~-~ 'O O . O W . . 1 . W . 'd N . O W . . O . 'D O 1 CJl Ui -~ ~ O ? O W j 1 ~l O O O] O Q7 --• Ul -+ rn A ~I rn O ~J O --+ Ul c0 Ul ~ c0 O ~ cD O ~"~ O O O O A O N N A. In-- J -+ N CJ~ U1 .n+ ~+ O -1 O O .n-- CO ~ N W .n-- W O O A Ut Ui W O W Ul N O (D O O N O N v v W -~ ~I V A N 07 ~1 O~ cD W O --~ W Ul 00 O] OD A -i Z Z Z .Z _ -+ 0 0 O --~ < O O -+ W Q7 < N 0 0 . . -+ . N . < O . 0 0 . . O -+ . . < -+ O CO N QJ .A N N O v . l~ N O N N 07 O CD N m Cii A J~ .A cD W --~ W W (D W V (D O W CD W ~! --~ CO o v v o W O O O W n N O O O N n N 0 0 O N c') W O O O W C1 A O N .A W OD O ~P A O Q1 O U7 N CO A -i CJl W 11 cD O) 1 O ~! cD 00 O U7 00 m W -+ Ul Ul N W ~l .A W ~.- ..l ~- .J. ~ ~ ~ ~ W N -+ O O O O O ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~_ ~G `G `G `G ~ ~ 3 O O O O O c c c c 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ O I~ 1 ~ D Imo] A N ~ O -~ O Q7 W C a cn m X C d cD -a O O ~. ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ co o ~ p -~ ~ ' m v cn c~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n~ O ~ ,n. ca c~ o ~~~ ~ ~~ .~ o 0 m 'a to c~ ~ ~ L L m v m m A O O O W ~ N O O O N ~ O O O N CTl 7 Ul 0 0 O A ~ ._.. 1 1 cD A W -+ N m Ul A (J7 W N O O O -+ O J W CO O m O V W N A 00 --~ O cD Ul W O (D ~I O 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ( D ! D ( D l D W O O O W ~ N O O O N O' ~1 O O N O' W 0 0 O W a' ~I -+ N CJl Ul W O U1 N W (Ji ~ GW N ~ Ul ~ .P m .A W O cD cD W U7 ~ W .A 07 N O CJl 00 1 -+ N CD W W ~ ~ ~ ~ ms --~ 0 0 O N ~ W O O O W ~ N O -+ O ~ CTt O -+ N Ul - s Cp O 00 O ~l O O W W W O O W N W O CJt .A W U7 A O (O O OD O O O J -+ A W ~I A N ~ W -+ W CJt D D D D ~ ~ - ~ ~ W O 1 O A --~ O N O W ~ O N O --~ N . O W . . O O . . O~ --~ --~ O~ W CD -+ W V (O . N . . 0 0 . O . W N 0 0 O ~l 07 A O ~ -~ Ul W -+ O m W O Ul A Ul m O -1 O CJl d O O N O 'G -+ O A O N ~ N O A --+ A ~ -~ O W --~ W ~ N O W O N --~ --~ A W ~! 1 A~ cD ~I N N A W O -+ 1 v ~! 1 J -+ N W W W O N W W O W W N A L L L L C ~ N 1 ..A -~ O W O --~ ~ -+ O C11 -+ W ~ O W CTl W (Il ~ CJl -j W Ul 3 A O ~I W cD cJl N cD N A -+ A W co O ~I N -+ -+ ~ O m 0 (J7 m O A N A W A CTI N O -~ O~ cD 00 Ul -+ --~ N U1 OJ O ~1 -1 O O O~ 1 . 0 0 . . --~ . A . O . O m . . -~ (It . . ~I N A cD A -~ A A 1 cD -+ W U7 A N W W Ul W 07 W U1 O rn W W N W O W ~1 O A O V ~ cn ~1 cD ~1 D D D D W O A O O (LZ --~ O CTl 1 Ul (C] ~ -+ O V C71 (Q W O Ul O -+ (~ Ul O -+ O O W W N ~! -+ V W --~ N Ul ~A O N O 07 W O CO O m CJi ~ --~ Ul (D A ~I ~I 1 V W O OD O A fn (n N fn A O W W A ~ CO A W O -+ 'C3 O O W O W 'G O O W O N 'C O J O N CJi N A cD W N O -+ cD ~I N W --~ O O V N ~J W CIt V O O ~l O ~l W A -+ ~1 O cD W V W O O O O O --~ O ~ O N .A-« A O N W A .~+~ 1 N -+ N ~1 (D .~-- ~I -+ -+ Ui tJt .~.« O O N W O O~ CD N ~l N --~ V A -1 N CD Ul tD ~I ~ J W (Ji W N W CIi O A (1~ W W CO (D -` Ul O ~l 00 A Z Z Z Z < W O O O W < A O O ~ A < A 0 0 1 A. < ~ O -+ O N <D -+ N (71 ~I A N CJl O N (Jl N~ W --~ ~ O N N -+ W -+ QJ ~J A 00 -+ cD W N N ~l c0 A J~ W A ~ ~ W v o v v ~ ~ ~ ~ A O O O W n N O O O N n -+ O O O n -+ 0 0 O~ n O -+ O m U'i Ul O (fl --~ CD W O -+ O 1 O O Ul O Ul N O W A O 1~ N O W W W O A O Vl W O Ul U7 .P ~ ~ '~ Q~ ~ ~ 7 7 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ _ _ _~ ~_ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1+ ~ fi C C C G O ~ ~ ~ D ~ O .~ N ¢~ O ~ O Q7 W C a c0 m X N C d '-' ~ fn 'O L7 ~ N 'U ~ ~ (A 'O ~ fn ~~ 'O ,S~ (A 'O ~ ~ fCCn 'D C O O O "'~ n ~ O 0 ~ "~ n O ~ 0 ^-1 ~ ~ a1 tB 'O d tf] "O iU (O 'O fD fD fD ` ` ` 0 1 1 II N 00 O O N m O CO --~ O Ul 7 CO O O W ~1 ~ -+ W O N ~ Ut ~ .A O Ul W O N ~ v CD -+ ~I J O N N U1 O W ~ ~ ~ f D f D --~ O O O LT -+ O O O a' CD ~ O A m CT m O J i N N O O O j W -+ CJl O W O O W W N ~l O W O cD N ~A A ~A W ~ ~ O O --~ 0 1 't W 0 0 • O W "s ~ O -+ -+ CJ7 ~1 '7 N O Ul O ~l N -+ OJ ~l J~ CO W O ~l W N O N (T1 O W A O W --~ CO W W N N D D D ~ ~ N O N O .A ~ O O N . . O . N N . O N . . --- .A . . . O . O . W . . W O . ~A O J N . (D CD N W -+ W 00 O W W W CTI N O ~A W CO N A ~I W W O A O --~ ~ .N O W O ~ O O A~ O ~A ~ , W O W O N Ul O ~I O 1 Ul 1 _a Q~ 1 cD O .A ~ W --~ O A W N N -+ V W ~A L L ~. C , C 1 C W O O O 7 N O Ul O N 7 A O O O -+ 3 J O W O N ~A --~ A O~ W W O O -+ CJl m O --~ CJ~ CJi --~ W W ~I W ~J N O Ul W L L ~. 1 C N O O N m W O O O N O O -+ W 00 O ~ Q~ -+ 00 O V W O V ? ~! ~I O W O W W (D (D W CO CJl --~ J 1 .1 O A D D D N O U7 N CJl (Q -+ O m O l~ (fl .? O CTl O -+ (L2 ~! O O U1 ~l O 1 N O~ A O O J O W N O O ~I CJ7 O W O W W W O W ~A W N ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 O O W O W ~ cD U7 W -+ m 'LS -+ O ~P O W 'O W O O~ W 00 N W O Q1 CO O O CJ7 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 W .0+ A~ -+ N A W ~ 07 O W O cp N cD N cD ~A -+ O W W ~I O J O O W W O .A N N N OD 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 CIl O cD N N O O O O O N J (D --~ N W (Jl m W (D p p O n O O O O n N O O -• N n N O O O N O W ~ W --+ (Il W c0 O O O O O J7 ( ~A O O m N W N ~l N --~ -1 O ~D (O O ~D (D O (D 00 O O O O ~ O ,.+ .-« r+ ~ O' O• _ ~G 'G `C 3 ~ O . . - +. ~ ~ ~ = C C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 r -~ l MIN-(JT'ES TLC Land Conunittee Meeting Wednesday, October 13, 1999 7:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. " Present: Rooks, Allen, Altnon, Dixon, Gaertner, Markham, Pullman La Gran4e `Netlands 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 tnists 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. C~ 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 Pullma~~, 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 Project Jane Almon, as a representative of Earth Tech, reported on tl~e progress of US Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) approval for mitigation credits from the mitigation of the La Grange wetlands. She stated that USAGE and other agencies that met at the site were not convinced of the mitigatio~i 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 USAGE. Earth Tech will need to produce additional detailed mapping data to convince USAGE that the site would b•: 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. USAGE was .most skeptical of the site's enhancement value and ambivalent toward the sites restoration potential. Almon~stated t11at on April 12, 2001 Earth Tech will present the La Grange restoration to USAGE with updated and enhanced data. USAGE 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 USAGE rejects the offer there still are other potential mitigation options with National Resources Conservation Service and/or US Fish and Wildlife Service ,i L a.,.SWL°~ r~ ~4 .~~~ STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPAR'I~NT 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" muting 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 (USAGE), 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. uestion: 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 DEVELOPMENTANO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1548 MAIL $'cRVICE CENTER RALEIGH NC 27699-1548 TELEPHONE: 919.733.3141 FAX: 919.733-9794 WEBSITE: WWW.DON.DOT.STATENC.US LOCATION: TRANSPORTATION BUILDING 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET RALEIGH NC .. f ~,`' North Carolina - i `~ a ':: Department of Environment and Natural Resources ~~~r-~~, . Division of Parks and Recreation ~~-~ , Michael F. Easley, Governor ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~; William G. Ross Jr., Secretary Philip K. NlcKnelly, Director August 27, 2001 Jane Almon Earth Tech 701 Corporate Center Drive Suite ~?•75 Raleigh, NC 27607 Re: La Grange Bog w::tland tcstoration 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 -- statelisted asSpecial Concern--and other declining species of grasslandbirds should also be considered _ in management decisions regarding the fields: Sincerely, ~ ~ ~ C~. 1 Stephen P. Hall Environmental Review SpecialistJInvertebrate Zoologist /sph 1615 tv(ail Service Center, P.aleigh, North Carolina 27699-1615 • Phnne~ 919-733-1151 \ FAY: 919-715-30S5 \ Internet: ~uww.enrstate.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 Iarge) 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 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~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. 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 Apri12001 meeting was held on August 15, 2001. Persons attending the meeting included Eric Alsmeyer (USAGE), 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 "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 e at'on. Eric sua ested that Kash Matthews of EPA be contacted to enhancement and pres rv i og Y ® 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 Apri12001 meeting was inaccurate as the equation for PET was incon:ectly 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 5% should be used to determine if hydrologic criteria for wet areas has been met. These gages meeting 5% hydrology and greater than 5% 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. -~'~. ~~ ~, 1 ~~ ~~~~~ ~ Bill Holman EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR A N A G E M E N T TRUST FUND ..,,,....,.,,,....,,,.....,...._..,,., ~I~'~:ITF3~-f~-` -:~ 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 TI1a1~lc 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 121 the Margaret Markey 1989 Chatham County Natural Heritage Illvelltory as a site of state-wide CORNELIUS significance. In the 1980s this site way 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 M~Phatter, 5r. 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 (919) 733.6375 I FAX (919) 733.6374 I wwwcwmtf.net ~ Jerry Wright 30 NORTH WILMINGTON STREET, RALEIGH, NC 27504 1 651 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, NC 27599-1551 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, ~~~'` " Bill Holman Executive Director C. Francine Durso Bern Schumak Lana Armstrong Ron Ferrell ~-*'* ~Ty dSTA7't N ~S nno 4~ vA ~.~~~~ STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPART`~~NT OF TRANSPORTATION MICIiAEL F. EASLEY GOVERNOR LYNDO TIPI'ETT SECRETARY April 1, 2003 ~'~~gNDS~4U1 ~~ U. S. Army Corps of Engineers ~UI7 Raleigh Regulatory Field Office APR ~ 1003 Attention: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer ~~~TERQ(/gL17Y 6508 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 120 ~~~~f~i~~ Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 Subject: Chatham County, LaGrange Mitigation Site, TIP No. R-609 ~~M 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: 919-733-3141 FAX: 919-733-9794 WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US LOCATION: TRANSPORTATION BUILDING 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET RALEIGH NC r-. If you have any questions about the mitigation planning document or need additional information, please call me at (919) 715-1467. Thank you for your assistance with this project, and I look forward to discussing the project with you on April 8, 2003. Sincerely, ~~' Phillip C. Todd Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch cc: Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington Mr. Jolui 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 ~oF ~o a rN c,~,~o ~~ ~~" ~~, h~ Yf 7t -P~, ~1P ~JFHTOF TRANS~O March 2003 I:XI;CUTIVE 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 La Grange Diabase Bog, described by NC Natural Heritage Program personnel as one of the rarest biological communities in the North Carolina Piedmont region. )n 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 of Wetland MitigatiaT Plan Lcr Grange Site, Chatham Cocairy SECTION PAGE I.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 COMMUNI"I'IES ................................................................................. 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 SI'I'E ...................................................................... 8 3.5 PROTECTED SPECIES/PRIORITY AREAS ................................................................ 10 4.0 SI'Z'E HYDROLOGY ............................................................................................ 11 4.1 DRAINAGE FEATURES ......................................................................................... 1 1 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 MI'T'IGATION PLAN ............................................................................................ 17 S.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 Wetland Mitigation Phut La Grange Site, Chatham Cotcntti• 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 rlcul~s (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 . APPENDICI/S Appendix A. Functional Assessment _ Appendix B. Historic Aerials Appendix C. TLC Site Inventory Appendix D. Water Budget Appendix E. Letters and Minutes March 2003 ii Wetland Mitigation Platt Lcr Grcutge Site, Cltatlzam 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 (I+igure 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 under study is known as the La Grange 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 (Stttilax tivalteri), stiff cowbane (Oxypolis rigidior), and twisted spikerush (Eleocltaris 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 a Page 1 Wetland Mitigation Plat La Grange Site, Chatluun 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 IVII/THODOLOGY 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 Page 2 Wetland Mitigation Plan Lcr Grcur,ge Site, Cltatham 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). TecTestrial 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. Ar»iy 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 Mitigatio~~ Plan La Grange Site, Clzatha~n County 3.1 GENEILIL 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 anorthwest-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. T}~e 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 u March 2003 Page 4 0 Wc-tlcurd Mitigation Platt La Grcutgc~ Site, Clurihant 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 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 (Sarracettia spp.). In The Nature Conservancy's (TNC, 1998) vegetation classification scheme, this community would fit in the I.B.2.N.g.015 Acer rubrcetn-Nyssa sylvatica Saturated Forest Alliance. Within that alliance, this community corresponds to the Acer rcebrcctn var. trilobccttt- Liriodendron tulipifera/Ilex opaca var. opaca/Osmcenda cinnamomea 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 Gr-artge Site, Gtatluurt Cotutty Piedmont. They are swcetbay magnolia (Magnolia virginiuna), blaspheme vine (Srnilar laurifolia), coral greenbrier (Smilax walteri), Virginia chainfern (Wovd-vardia virginica), a spikerush (Eleocharis tortilis), and stiff cowbane (Ox}~polis ri~idior). 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 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 ablue-gray silty clay layer with oxidized rhtzospheres 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 Cano Black m N ssa s lvatica Che bark oak Quercus a oda Green ash Fraxinus ens lvanica Red ma le Acer rttbrttrn Swam black um N ssa bi ora Swam chestnut oak Quercus michatexii Sweet m Li uidambar s raciflua Willow oak Quercus hellos Yellow o lar Liriodendron tali i era Subcano Ash Fraxintts s . Common alder Alnus serrulata Ironwood Car inus caroliniana Water oak Quercus ni ra Win ed elm Ulrnus alata '~ March 2003 a Page 6 a 0 0 0 Wetland Mitigation Platt La Grange Site, Chatham County Stratum Common Name Scientific Name Shrubs/Vines American boll Ilex o aca Common Rreenbrier Smilax rotundi olia Crossvine Bi nonia ca reolata Elderberc Sambucus canadensis Hi hbush bluebe Vaccinium corymbose»n Male-berc L onia li ustrina Possum-haw /lex decidtta Southern wild raisin Viburnum nudum S icebush Lindera benzoin Swam do hobble Leucothoe racemosa Winterberr Ilex verticillata Herbs Arrowhead Sa ittaria lat irostrata Cardinal flower Lobelia cardinalis Cinnamon fern Osntunda cinnarnomea Green arrow-arum Peltmtdra vir inica Jack-in-the- ul it Arisaema tri hylktm Lizard-[ail Sattrurus cernuus Netted chain fern Woodwardia areolata Ro al fern Osnuutda re alis Rush Juncus coriaceus Sed es Carex s Sensitive fern Ottoclea settsibilis Soft rush Juncus e uses Southern lad fern Ath ricun tlix- emina var. as lenioides S otted 'ewelweed Im aliens ca ensis Violets Violas . Moss Yellow eatmoss S ha num lescurii 3.3.2 Maintained Grassland Comnuutity 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.S.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. Marclt 2003 Page 7 0 0 Wetland Mitigutiorc Plcut La Grange Site, Cluctluurc County Table 2. Maintained Grassland Community Species Stratum Common Name Scientific Name Herbs Fescue Festuca s . Sed es Carex s Rushes Jccncus s Broomsed e Andro 0 on s Sorrel Oxalis s Violets Viola s Common bluet Houstonia caerulea A bluet Houstonia usilla Indian strawbe Duchesnea indica Atamasco lil Ze h rantlces atamasco Vetch Vicia s Star-of-bethlehem Oncitho alum umbellatum Milkweed Ascle ias s 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 OP' TIIE LA GlznNCi: SITE The La Grange site offers a variety of habitats that are beneftctal to wildltfe. Spectes 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. i.. 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* (Stcernella magna), and field sparrows* (Spizella pusilla). Raptors such as Northern harriers* (Circus cya~ceees), red-tailed hawks* (Buteo March 2003 Page 8 0 Li! ~~ Wetland Miti,~~crtirut Plan La Grange Site, C11C1111C111T CC)lUth' jamaicencis), and great horned owls (Bubo virginiances) utilize grassland areas to find their preferred small mammal prey. These include white-footed mice* (Perom~•scus leucopecs), golden mice* (Ochrotonrys nuttali), and meadow voles (Microncs pennsylvanicus) which forage on the plentiful insects and seeds. Coyote'K (Caner 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* (Sylvilagus floridances) 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 vic~~~iniances) will utilize the forested areas as well as the adjacent open areas for foraging. Red foxes (Vadpes vulpes) may forage along the forest edge, but prefer to den in open areas, like the adjacent grassland. Indigo bunting* (Passerina cynnea), 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 erythrophthalntccs), song sparrow'k (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 (Blarirta carolittensis) searches for its insect prey, while gray squirrels* (Sciurus carolictertsis) and raccoons* (Procyolt lotor) may be seen foraging on the ground or in trees. Neotropical migratory bird species such as prothonotary warbler* (Prototcotaria citrea), black-throated green warbler* (Det~droica virens), and northern waterthrush* (Seiurus noveboracencis) thrive in wooded wetland locations, while black- and-white warbler* (Mniotilta varia), yellow-billed cuckoo* (Coccyzus americanecs), and red-eyed vireo* (Vireo olivaceoces) 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 fasciatus) rough green snake (Oplteodrys aestivus) may also be found in forested communities, along with the marbled salamander* (Atnbystotna opacutrt). 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 maculateun), two-lined salamander* (Eurycea bislitteata), and the regionally rare southern dusky salamander* (Desmognathus acericulatces) are all known to utilize seepage areas. Potential habitat is also present for the state-protected four-toed salamander (Hemidactylecnt scutatum). Frogs such as the spring peeper* (Hyla crucifer) and the American toad* (Becfo antericattecs) make use of the same areas for reproduction and feeding. March 2003 Page 9 0 i 61/etland Mitigntion Plan La Grange Site, Cluitluun County 3.5 PROTECTED SPECIES/PRIORI'rY 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 cycekistoclaolas), 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 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 0 a Common Namc Scientific Namc Status Vertebrates Bachman's s arrow imo hila aestivalis FSC aid eagle aliaeetccs lececocephalus hreatened(Proposed for delistin ) Ca e Fear shiner otro is mekistocholas Endan ered Carolina redhorse oxostonaa s . FSC Red-cockaded wood ecker icoides borealis Endan ered Invertebrates Atlantic i toe Fusconaia masoni SC Brook floater lasmidonta varicosa FSC Se tima's clubtail dra onfl Gom hccs se tinaa FSC Yellow lam mussel Lancpsilis cariosa FSC Vascular Plants Ha erella Ptilinanium nodosum Endan ered Vir inia uillwort Isoetes vir mica 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 (Laniccs ludovicianus ludoviciaraus) and the four-toed salamander (Henaidactyliuna scutatuna). Marcia 2003 Page 10 O Wetland Mitigatiat Plcur La Grange Site, Cltathant County a 4.0 SITI/ >FIYDROLOGY 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 USES 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 halt of the mitigation area. They drain into the impoundment and then the main stem (S 1) 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 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. 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 Plcnr La Grange Site, Chatham Cvcuth_ One drainage feature (DFZ) 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 # 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-lV 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 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 I~'igures SA-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 Page 12 n LI a Wetland Mitigation Plan La Grange Site, Chatham Cvc~nh• Hydrology at gauges 3, 5, 7, (0, 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°Io 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 I3UDGUT A monthly water budget for tl~e 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 Cotmh- 4.3.2 Assuntptio~ts • 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. • 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 Ltputs 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 0 a Wetland Mitigation Plan La Grange Site, Cltatluim County Cover T e Soil H drolo is Grou Area (acres) CN Row cro s, ood C 40.87 85 Meadow, ood C 7.91 71 Meadow, ood D 9.94 78 Forest, ood C 5.74 70 Forest, ood 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. 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 Grande Site, Clratlranr Courrry 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 T e Soil H drolo is Grou Area (acres) CN Meadow, ood D 7 78 Forest, ood 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 bzterpretation 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 INSURANCI; 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 ~i 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 G. 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. Apost-mitigation concept of the site is shown in Figure 7. S.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 down and the created or enhanced drainages will be plugged and backfilled. S.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 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 Cocuity Removal or control of nuisance vegetation will be implemented as necessary to promote ~_, survival of target wetland plants. Wetland Vc~etation 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 S ecies Wetland Indicator Status Cano Sweetba ma nolia (Ma nolia vir iniana) FACW+ Swam black um (N ssa biflora) OBL Cher bark oak (Qecercus a oda) FAC+ Swam chestnut oak (Quercus micltacexii) FACW- Willow oak (Quercus hellos) FACW- Water oak (Quercus ni ra) FAC Shumard oak (Qecercus shumardii) FACW- Sub-Cano and Shrubs Winterberr (Ilex verticillata) FACW S icebush (Lindera benzoin) FACW Ironwood (Car inccs caroliniana) FAC Southern wild raisin (Viburnum necdum) FACW+ Possum-haw (Ilex decidua) FACW- Swam do hobble (Leucothoe racemosa) FACW Hi hbush bluebe (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 apolymer-based root gel to improve health and survival during dry periods. Table 5. Bottomland Hardwood Species G' March 2003 a Page 18 Wetland Mitigation Pla~i La Grcutge Site, Chatham County Black um Nyssa sv/vatica Cherr bark oak Quercus a oda Persimmon Dios yros virgi~iiana Swam chestnut oak Qttercus michuuxii Willow oak Quercus phellos Water oak Quercus nigra Shumard oak Quercus slua~iardii 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 apolymer-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 vek~tina Mockernut hicko Ca a tomentosa Pi nut hicko Ca a labra Black the Pru~iccs serotina Black um N ssa s lvatica Flowerin do wood Cor~ius florida American holl Ilex o aca March 2003 Page 19 Wc~tluttd Mitigation Platt La Grange Site. Chatham County G.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). G.1 VcGGTATION 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 ~~ I J Wetfancl Mitigation Plan Lu Grcrnge Site, Chatham Courtly 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°Io 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 USAGE guidelines (USAGE 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 USAGE 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 W>CTLAND MITIGATION CR)CDIT 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 Grurrge 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 1xisting Ca acity Post-Mitigation Capacity Percentage Change H drolo .19 1.0 81 Plant community .45 1.0 55 Animal communit .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 (FC1) 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 Nlitigatio~t Plar: Lcr Grange Site, Cluttluun Cocuth~ 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 I3, 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 rigure G (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 OI' 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 ~i March 2003 Page 23 LVetluttd Miti,~~ution Platt La Grange Site, Cluuluun 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 Wetland Mitigation Plan Lct Grange Site, Chatham Cou~zt_y 10.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY Amoroso, J.L., ed. 1999. Natural Keritnge 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 Nortlt 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 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, IlI. 1980. Amphibians atzd 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 Sectiorz. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wghome.html (25 Oct 2000). Palmer, W.M., and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of Nortlt 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 Miti~cttion Plan La Grange Site, Cluttlzum Coccrch~ Radford, A.E.. H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manceal 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, Vir~~,>irtia, 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 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 Socttlteastent 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 ~~,.. z-}' '3; `-r- _" -. W C T~ aV N Legend ~ ~""` '' ~ . `~ 13A- Riverview ,~ ~ ~ ~~~'~ .r ' ~- a silt loam `' `~,,,~ _._ ~ ti ..:-~ , _ - I ~. T4 ~~ ~,k z 25A; 25C2 Turbeville fine ~ ~ ~ - ' -,. ''r ~~„~ f ,. °' sandy loam ~ y ,,, ''`..."".~ ,, ~ y ,, 1 ~- •~ 325A, 3258, L Mattaponi fine r ~ ~ ' '~,, 32582, 325C, ~ ~ + ' "` ,. sandy loam `, ~ _ ° ~ ~~~~ `~~ a r;,> n 328A, 3288 ~ '`~,~ ,. ' J ~- 46A, 547A, Sylacauga-Moncure '~ ~ r '~ ~-,, 814A, 88A complex ~ ~ ~~ , f;%' ,' ~-` ~~~~, ~ 325A ' t ~ r,~~,. ., ~ I ' ~ 5328 Creedmoor-White ~.~ •`(. ~ ~`~ M ~, Store complex 56A ~~ ~ ~~ ~•• ~ Y 558; 56A- Peawick fine sandy /~ ' ,, ,, _~'~~. ~•.,, `~~,,~~' loam ~I 328 ~ ~f~~ '.,~ ~~~ `~~ ,~ ~ ~ ~`~';,~~~~, ` 5A- Chewacla and , j/1,~, ,. •` ~, // , -~'., F ~, ' ,,~ ~„ ~- F Wehadkee soils ;r j,,,,,~~~,1 i ~~~ ~; j ~ ~ ~ _ 630' ~~ ~~~.~ ! ~ /,'//;~'/ '% ~ ~ \' '"~` ` ~ WATER ~~ ~~ S~~%% ' ~/%' ~ ~, p ~%,~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ %~/~ j /; ~ ~; ~~,, , 3288 i r _ y y ~~" ~'~%~~ 1~~~/;%'`~ / 558 y~ 5t ~ ; `'~ , ,~ / ~ ~, ~ ~~ . 378 `~ '~~ . ,: 1 ~° ~ Mitigation A ~~~, ~~ ,_ ~. ~ ~`~~. O ~ ~ , a C ';.~ ~~ ,' a' ~~ `~ :~ Area •~ ~'~~', ~ 25C _ ~. ,.µ " ~ ~ `x.,,~Boundary 32 ~/ M ~.y ~1~. 284"•- ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~~= rs = ~ "" ' ~4 ~ .i; ~"~' wti ~ _, % ,. -~.~ ~ f .!"/ 1, •'~, ~ti r '. ~,/,54~~k i ~ ~,,/' , , ~ ~ -" i i ~ ,~ ! • ~ ~''~ ~ "~+~-,J'a'r 56 ~Pi ,~ ,+' `. ,< ..~ ` -,~ ~ ,sue. T' ~ 3258`% ~' j ~' ~" '`~ ,~`~ i / ~,. ..•. ~ `kV2 j -tip., /j ~ ~., _ ~- ,~• r ' _ 8325 3256 5 ~ _ ~•,.., 0 500 1,000 2,000 Feet ~~ "_'~ ~~ '' ' FIGURE 3 HA ~ ~ - ate' c„ North Carolina - <: ~. ~ •~ ~~' `~, Department ofTransportation SOIL MAP ~. ' ' ,f ea"` ~ ~ DlvisionofHighways LA GRANGE HILLSIDE SEEPAGE ~~ WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN - '~,o,,,.N+'~ ProJectDevelopmentand CHATHAM COUNTY Environmental Analysis Branch March 2003 T.I.P. R-609WM 1 2000 Preclpltatlon t, 10 e 6 d ~ r u c = 8 c O F n 5 a q 3 2 1 0 J F M A M J J A S 0 N D Gauges In Exlsting Wetlands n I IA i Ott ,~ ~.~ n A _ , I i g Se _-_ . --- -- _ _ eon -gauge, VV -Gauge a - Gauge a - Gauge 9 -Jurisdldlonal Water Table A > -20 d W ° -30 'o c~ 0 -40 -50 F M A M J J A S O N D Gauges In Restoretlon Areas 0 „ _,o A ~ -20 W ° -30 0 (7 -40 -50 J F M A M J J A S O N D 0 ~ -,o u ~. ~ ~_ ~~ ~ _ _ ;_ _ Gauge 5 _ Gauge 6 Gauge 7 - -40 ~o J F M A M J J A 8 O N D „ -, o d L u 0 A ', -20 ~ -30 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 roun wa er i in nc es 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 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 0 5 _a a` q 3 2 a io A 0 2001 Pr J F M A M J J A S O N D Gauges In Existing Wetlands 0 ~1 ~I~~ ~ F M A M J J A S O N Gauges In Restoration Areas -,a g t 0 -zo W d ~ -30 0 t7 -40 I -50 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 V C C O 77 ~ -20 m W s@~ 9 7 '~ O -40 F M A M J J A S O 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°/O or 21-32 days ` `` >12.5% or 32 days roun wa er i in nc es 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 4~ 8 9 10 1 124 26 ~ 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 ,~ io s s N d L u c c g c O :7 5 .~ a` 4 3 z _,o g r 0 ~ -so d -30 -ao -50 ,O ~- a F ~ -20 m v -30 -40 -40 soon Fr J F M A M J J A 9 O N D Gauges In Exlsting Wetlands J F M A M J J A 9 O N D Gaugea In Restoration Areas J F M A M J J A 8 O N D -, o u e c 0 -so d W r; ~ -30 0 t~ -50 t 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 ~ .~ (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 roun wa er i in nc es 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 ~ 9 ~' 106 `> 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 ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r 0 0 _~ D 'a c~ a 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. 3.U492107 TIP No. U-2524WM Prepared for: North Carolina Department of Transportation Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch Raleigh, North Carolina e ~yo a 0 ,~ h~ IY:. ~,f j ~~ ili~~r~ tt+, s ~ r) !'Yr ~(~ ~"~~ G , c O ~~P O OF TRANSe October 2002 TABLE Or 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 ld. 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, htt~;//www.wes.army.mil/el/wetlands/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 hydrogeomorphicfnrms: (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 Fcnzctional 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 TIC 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 Fccrictional Assessment Page 2 Chatham CoLCnty, 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), Lecccotlioe racernosa (fetter-bush), Eleocharis tortilis (twisted spikerush), Nyssa biflora (swamp tupelo), and Smilax laccrifolia (blaspheme vine), among others, occur in the remnant forested tracts of the site. 3.0 1VIETHODS 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 Fcc~tctional Assessment Page 3 Chatl2am County, NC 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-Id 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 Gra~ige Property Fecrictiorial Assessment Page 4 Chatham County, NC r. C L 0 0 ~. x 0 v R~ .., ''d 1~ C~ W U .~ O 0 ~. a~ c~ u .~ A u ~a H .~ .~ ~? o `~ ~~ ~ •~ a~ ~ ~? a. 3 ~ .c ~, r, a v a~ a~ .--, R. O "C7 • .., ~d 0 ~; 0 ~ ~ ~ i ~ a~ a ~ w ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~, ~ (: G ~ O N• ~ ~ ~ ~ y 'd ~ y ~ O N ~ `~ ~ ~ (V ~ ~ ~ N `~ w ~ N o ` R" ~ ~~ ~~ ~ /~ a~, o ~° ~~~~~ a .~ p. { „ ~ ~ }-- 11 V V c~ ~ ~ o O ~~ . t y ~ ~ ~ . y 1 ~ r ~-r~ • •N JJ • ^~ , r ti/~ ~ ~ (y ~ •~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ as O ~ Qb ~ ~ N b O O a~ ~ ~3~~3.a O Q ~ o ° ~ ~, ~ a '~ ~ 4. '~ o ~ ~„ °' oA ~ `~ ~ w O ,o o '~ ~ ~ O a ~ ~ r" ~ ~ u ~ 0 4-, ~ o ~ • ~ 3 >, ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ Y ~ u o ~ ~: a a.> a ~ ~, c ~ ~ ~, 3 ~ O ~ ~,., ~ ~ o b ~ ~ o°~ a' ~ j c s ~ l l ~ II - ( s ~ ~ u w a o U I I ~ II ~ ~ o ~ ~ w ~ F i c~~.~ ~ ~ r~ -ti -7 U u ~ ~ 4~ _ ~ ~ ~ W .~ O ~ ~' w O O " i-y .~ 4-r C. O N .'r H CJ O 1-a ~ G ~ ~ ~ ~ U •~ N ~+ cti ~.+ N T7 H ~ ~ ca 4. C ~ c3 ~ O ~ ~ N1 ti-' Y--i O cd 0 3 ~ •~ ~ ~+ ~, ~ ~'b ~ ~ ~ U G O N ~' ~ N N y • ~ ~, u ~ J t,_, c u .r ~ ~ ~ ~ c~~~---rr f~ ~ ~l•~ g y ~ • V Q 3 L• Q _ V ~ ~ 4'-1 ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~~ F-• Q s-d . U ~ ~ ~ it ~ ~ •~ w ~ ~, ~ ~ • ~ u u u ~ .~ 'ti b o •d cis ~ ''u ~ ^" O in C ~ . . HQ A v°~ a~ a~ 7 0 c~ .. .~ O U r.+ L; a 0 u 't7 C ... _ ''~ y ~i a ,L; u 'i. 0 o i•a C3 ,--. u .~ H .a H ~ ~ t~ ~'' ~ O .n U c~ O ~' N ~ p p c3 ~ N ? ~ • O ~ n . Q ~ a~ ~ ~ _ t~ c3 ~ .O ~? ~ .n ~ X 'b ~ a •~ C ~ C p > ~ ~ ~ ~ • . . • ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ v~ a~ 3 ~ I I ~ a~ i ,.~ 3 .c .a ai ~ ,.~~ 3 ~ . G Q CC1 b 'LJ ~ ~ G ~' CCS ~ ~ • c0 ~~ri U N CCS ~ L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ^, _ O 11 U • ` • ^ VJ • Q O ~ ~ In •~ ~y ~ ~ O ~ N (n ~ ~~ ~ ~~ 3 d 3 R "~ rr) ~ b v~ ~~ x a. v~ O ~ .o u ~ ~ ~ ~ 4. a~ >, G ~ a ~' G >, o > ._. O ~ ~U., O , O """ . ~ "" ~ y >' •~ U p~ cGd p. G ~, o a G ~ ~ • ,~ c d ~ ~ U G U O ? ~ ~ U ~ 11 ~ I W ~ ~ u ~ ~ I?, a. a Z 0. Z II ~., U ~ {.:.{ ~ ~ -~ ~ -7 .-: O O U ~ > G ~' a~ O bUA ~ •~ ~ 4, '•' ~' • ~ , ctS ~n • "' R.~ p O ~ a~ ~n ~ ~ aD ~ b G on ~ .... ,O a~ ~„ ~ c~. .~ O ~ R. ,.~ v ..., C ~ ~.. cGd V~j +U~ G ti~+ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O N ~ G ~ O +~-~ O W ~ V .~ ~ u U •G ~-' OU ~ U •i, G ~ G G ~ ,~ •c~d O 'd b •~ ~ •~ ~ ~ b G ~ S O ...., C 4-~ U r, ~~ , U ~ ~ ~ ~ o >, a ~ '~ ~ ~ >, 'n '~ '~ ~ i~ y ti >, °~' i o N o ~ a~ ~ a ~ ' ~ >, o ~ ~ ~ ~ • a~ .~ - ' ~ >, - a ~ on ~ ~, ~ ~.. U CJ G F., ~ cd U .~ d A c3 W d ~..G v ~ .~ a'' d ~ ~ ~ ~.~ ~'~-'~ ~ E ~ . p 1~ • o •~ ~ ~. ~;, u 'C to c~ .~ c~, p 'C A C1~ y G r:+ w HQ a: ~ 0 x o s .~ ~. O D ~ f~ ..~ "C { ''L1 C w U 0 a r. u .~ >, _ u _~ .Q o '-' o /~ ~ .-~ ~° o ~ o ~ 3 ,~ ~, , v ~ o ~~ b ~ ~b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •~ ~ ~ 3 ~ 3 ~ b o n ~ ~ ~ w a~ ° ~ ai w , ~ ~ O c~3 ~ cad ,_,,, U ~ a+ O" O U -c ~ .c ra ~ ~, ~ {..~ . ~ 1-r ~i1 "'d N r-r fir .. ~ ~ ~ V b C1 ~ b ~ /~ «i ~ ~ U , . ,, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ y ~ ~ c~ Q 3 ~'Q . b ~ 3 a. ~ w ~' ° ~ ~ o v - ~. ~ a. ~ °' . ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q II II ~ ~ I~ o y ~ ~ A ~ z G+'d ~ 1' -' .7 1' ~ ~ pn O v~ ~ ~ ;b 'U .O ~ ~ ~ : ° a ~ ~ ~ nti o ~ ~ ~ b ~ c. 'b ca an a~ O'' ~ U a a~ .~ .~ .~ .~ u c i a ~ w 3 r. 3 +~ ° ' W Q, Qi v ~ .D C Q 4. c~ .t~ ~ :: : ''C ~ b ~ ~. :~ ~ ~ v ~ v A • ~ ~ v . . ~ t Cw' y •C L" 'C c2 Air ^O 1~ C ~~ b "~ HQ a a' a~o Z7 r-t .~ H o_ n b ,~ o 0 b 3 ~ v U ~ V1 b .--~ .b a >~ ; 3 ~ ° ;~ , ~, v '~ `~' o o ~ O U _c .~ ~ O ~ ~ °' as ~ a~ ~ ~+ ~ ~ ~ U ICi Q ~ .-. ,~ b o ~ `~ 0 3 ~ b ~ w ~ ~ o a~ ~ b a~ V ~ ~ . ?~ U '~ as .~ ~ ,~ O ~ c, U m (~ ~ ~ II II •b ... p ~ ~ ~1 '~ ~ ~ A icf 'J ~ ~ ~~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ 3 ~ en s ~ 3 > U G~ -. o . ~ ~~~ ~~ o c J "" V CJ C U ..~., ~ U G ~ ,~ .. ~ 'C~ W f~.D ~ ~ W ~ >~ s~ .~ .~ .~ . . cJ ~ ~ o "~ ~." + ~ Z1 ~ a~ ~ CA . .~ ti b cis Z7 ~ y _ '" • ~ ~a ~ h ~ CJ i i HQ a: ab a ^ 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 mZ. 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 Es3, La Grange Property Functional Assessment Page 9 Chatham Coacnty, NC i~ 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 graridifolia (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. FuncKon 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 microtopographic La Gra~ige Property Fccrictio~ial Assessrnefit Page 10 _ Chatham County, NC depressions (VMICRO), the capacity for ET (V~p), and the capacity to retard overland flow from surface runoff (VBUFF)• Methods for measuring these variables are outlined in Appendix B. The model variable VourF 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 (VoUrF = 1.0). The model variable VSTOR measured whether fill or excavation affected a PAA. Like Vo~-F, the presence of fill was used to partition PAAs and so fill was either present (VSTOR = 0.0) or absent (V STOR = 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 uMICRO = divot density/5.9. The variable V~p 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 VcTp =tree density/457, otherwise VcTp = 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 = (VourF), (VsTOa), or [(VcTp) + (V MICRO) + (VBUFF)]/3. However, if the PAA was not located along a break in slope, then VBUFF was not applicable and so FCI = (VcTp + V,Nrcno)/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 Gra~lge Property Fll~lctional Assessment Page 11 C/1CZt/ia711 COlltlty, 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 (SSl). 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 V CNPY , V McNPr ,and V SCNPY 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 VExx 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 = (VCNPY '~' VMCNPY '~' VMCNPY '~' VEXH)~4. 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. Fcenction 3: Mainlain 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 La Grange Property Functional Assessment Page 12 Chatham Coccnty, 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 (V MICRO) 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 (VDOtiy) was compared relative to the reference standard condition to indicate amphibian habitat quality. If VDOtiy 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 (VWOSCP) 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 Cou~ity, NC have no closed canopy (V~DSCp = 0.0). If a PAA had contiguous, closed canopy of 10 ha or larger, then VrrvDSCP = 1.0; otherwise Vr.NDSCP =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, vDDW~ and VtrvDSCP. The plant community function, microtopography, and DDW represent on-site habitat quality, while area of contiguous, forested landscape represents r supplemental habitat quality. The two together indicate habitat quality for animals. ~ TZl11CtL011 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, NO2, 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. n La Grange Property Fta2ctional Assessment Page 14 Chatham Cotcnty, 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 biogeochencal 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, VcTD, and VopW. The hydrologic function provides the contribution of hydrologic effects on biogeochemical function and effects of soil disturbance on detritus in soils, V cro provides the contribution of aboveground biomass to biogeochemical function, while Voow 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 (PAAl). 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 (Vrr~DSCp), nor does it have a sufficiently wide upslope forested buffer (VpuFF), 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 VwoscP or VQUFF 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 CJ ~i-~ V cs a C1 h a 0 FBI C3 N CS .~ C3 a~ O c. w° 4~ it u ~i 0 ..r •.+ C3 1-i rr ti a~ c. p, c~ N _~ r~ H 0 0 0 o Q o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,_,, Q o 0 0 0 z 0 o c o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 o Q o 0 o n o n b o n a o0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o z o 0 0 0 ~o .-~ o ~ o 0 0 0 0 0 .-: .: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 o Q o 0 0 0 .~ o0 00 o n o rn o 0 0 0 ~ o 0 0 o o 0 0 o t~ •- -~ o .~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 .-» .~ o 0 Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P. o 0 0 0 ¢ 0 0 0 0 .~ o0 00 o n o a. 0 0 0 0 ~ o 0 0 o o 0 0 o n --~ ~ o -~ 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 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .n -. r» o n o n 0 0 0 0 ~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o v -- --~ o -» 0 0 0 0 0 0 .~ .-~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P. o 0 o n o 00 0 0 0 ~n o n o n o0 0 o ri a o 0 0 .--~ 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~r ~ o -- 0 0 0 0 0 0 n -: .-; o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a O O n n Q 0 ~t ~ N ul d' V' ~O n N n O n ~D V U ~ 0 0 O~ ~--~ z 0 t~ 01 N ~O ~O ~O O ~-+ N N O O~ 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 ¢ o <Y d' N vi ~ ~ ~p ~ ~O M o n ~ v + ~ O O O~ ~--~ z 0 n O~ N ~O O O N O Q~ O ( l ~-+ 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O a 0 0 n n Q 0 ~i' d' N ~/1 'd ~t ~O ~ O n O n ~D ~ O O ~ ~ 0 [~ Q~ N ~O ~D O N N O Q~ O c~7 ~ ~ .. o o o z a a o o oo 0 0 0 00 0 0 00 a 0 0 o n ~n ~ ~n o vi v~ v ~t rn n N ~n o ' rn o0 O O vi N Vl n 0 ~t [~ n n ~ N N M v 1 -- t1 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O W O O ~D ~ n O n vl 01 M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ N ~t O O d: M O oo vl O o0 vt v1 N O N O ~t N N ~ i! O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O d ~ O O ~+ ~O a\ D\ O M N ~ O O M ~ ~D ~O Q~ ~ M rt ~ M O .-~ O ~--~ vl 0 N 0 c+~ cal 0 0 t~ O (~ O .-~. O n ~D O O ~D 0 ~--~ 0 N 0 O N 0 0 c l 0 ~ 0 ~--~ c 7 0 0 a 0 0 ~ ~O O O~ oo M N vi O O M ~O O O rn ~--~ M <t ~y O O vl N O M n n ~--~ n ~O ~O ~-+ N N M c+t h ~--~ r+1 O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O a O O cn ~+ O o0 O~ M -+ d' N N O N~ c0 M O n fy O O ~D Q~ vl ~O (~ t~l v~ c0 ~O ~D O O~ M n ~O ~O O [~ e.^ .-. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ~--~ O Q O O O O O c~ O O O O O O O O O O M O O V rl O O O O vi o0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O N w ao O O O~ ... Q Q+ C O x S a ° °x ~ ~. U ~ ~- °' u ~ ~ U 5 ; = ~ ~ y U u ° x ~ = U u ° u. ? ~ ;~ u. . o . ~ . o > > > >` > > > > > w > >` > uv > > .. w w ~ o ° ° T . . 6i b C n ~ C E tD T ~ . O n '~7'' . F. U '.L' Q U p r 0 0 0 0 o Q o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .~ o 0 0 o z o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a ~ o o 0 0 0 0 o ¢ 0 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 Q, 0 z Ar ,n o 0 0 0 ¢ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O .r O .~ O .-r O .--i .~ O r-i O .-. O .--~ O .r Q .-~ O .-+ 0 .-r 0 .-+ 0 .--~ 0 .--i 0 .--i O .-. O .-~ O .-.i O .-r a ce o 0 0 o Q o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co 0 0 0 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 r Q~ ~ ~--~ O .--~ O .--~ O .--~ O e-~ O ~--~ O '-+ O ~-~i O ~--i O r-i O ~--i O .--i O ~ O rr O .-r O .--~ O .-. O .--1 O .--i O r-i P, a 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q .~ .-. ,-. ., r. ,-, ,-. r. .-. .-. .-. .-. .--. .~ .~ ~ ~ r, .--. .--. d' P. v o 0 0 0 ¢ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~D O i 0 0 0 ~ .~ O i 0 0 0 0 0 O -i ~ --~ 0 -i 0 --i 0 -i O -i O --i O --i O -r Q •-- .-+ rr .-. .r rr .-i ~--' r-~ . ~ . . . r . . . Q~ O O O O Q' O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 Q O ti O O O i r~ O 0 i 0 i 0 0 0 O D + 0 r 0 -r 0 --i O i O -i O i O Q . .--i .r .-- .-r .- .- .~ .-r .-a .--i '- . . . r- . .- .-r a cc 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 ,,, o 0 0 0 o 0 a 0 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 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 ,a 0 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 .--~ ~--~ .-i .-+ rr .-~ .--i r-i .ti ri .-. .-r .--. ri ~--~ .-. .-~ .-. .--i ~--~ Q 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 .-. .--~ .-. .-. .--i .-. .-~ .-r .-y .-. .--i .-: .r .-r .-. .-i .-. .-. .-~ .--i 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 ~ rr 0 .-+ 0 .-~ 0 .-i 0 ~--i 0 .-i 0 .-r 0 .--~ 0 .--~ 0 .r 0 .-~ 0 0 .-+ 0 r+ 0 .-r a ~ o 0 0 o rn .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~o 0 o rn Q 0 0 0 0 m 0o o a~ 0 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ rn o ~ o ~ rn Q o a a a ~c ' a o p ao V ~, ~ -. v a. 4 ~. 4 ~ a. 2 ~ ~-, U ~ ~ ti p a ~ a h 2 ~ U o ~ ~~, p ~ - p ~ U > '` > ~ ~ n w ~ h w w U p ~ ., w v > p > w > > > > > > > w > > > u .. ° ~ .~ ~ o a n~ o ~' ~ + ~ c cA E w iii ~. C~ a_ a U a~ s.. W 'LS a~ - •C3 GA U w '~ ~i CS r-r (U/.~ ~""1 r1 .~ rn G c~ M d .~ H -~ •~ ~ H k, ~ N V' N M O ~}' GO M 0 '~"'~ O O O M M O O O M M O O O M M O O O M M Q~ O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 Q O •--~ X 0 0 O •-+ •--~ 0 0 O •-+ •-~ O C O -~ •--~ 0 0 a O O O O r• .-~ l~ O M [~ oo O N O~ ' 0 0 0~ ti O O O N N ~-+ O oo N ~--~ ~ N .-1 0 0 G O O O N N a o.~.-~oo o.:ooo o-:ooo o-:-goo .n ~ O O O ~O ~O 00 O N ~D 1n O~ O ~O ~n O O O ~D ~D Q' O O O O O ~ O o0 O O O O O~ O O O O O O O O ~--~ X 0 0 O •-• O O C O ~--~ O O O O ~--~ B O O a Q X 0 0 0 0 0 0o O N O h O~ O O G1 O O O O O 0 0 0 0 cn M ~ O oo c+l O O O O~ c+l H O O O c+'1 M Gr .1] n 0 0 0 to V1 .--~ O O~ ~n N t~ O th to M O O O v1 ~n O O O N N ~--~ O oo N N O O Q~ N f`; O a O N N Q' O -~ '-• 0 0 O •--~ O O O O •~ 0 0 0 O --~ --~ O O a a t~ 00 O N ~ t~ _ .-~ O O~ Vl 1~ O M ~--~ l~ M O I~ •-+ O Q O O O~ vl ~ ~--~ O oo v'1 [t O O O~ v'1 ~!' O O O~ v'1 l!2 Q i O .-+ 0 0 0 O •--~ O O O O ~--~ O O O O ~--~ 0 0 0 a u ~ O O O V ~!' '[t O ~O ~ .-~1 I~ O M ~t M ~t O ~O d' M C O O O O O ~D O M O O N O I~ O O c•'i O ~O O O '~ O ~-+ •-+ 0 0 O --+ 0 0 0 O~ O O C O --~ O O C a .~ ~ 0 0 0 M M e} O ~O M H M O l~ M N d O ~O Kl N Q~ O O O O O ~O O c*1 O O N O I~ O O c'rl O ~O O O O •--~ •-• 0 0 O ~--~ 0 0 0 O •--~ O O O O ~--~ O O O a O O O v1 Vl V' O ~O Vl N l~ O M V1 ~t d' O ~O vl M Q O O O O O ~O O M O O N O I~ O O M O ~O O O a o.~-moo o-~ooo o.~ooo o.-~ooo N d' O ~O O <t O ~O Q~ ~r1 O V'f ~O o0 O N ~--~ 'c? Q 'cf' O v1 I~ V I~ O N l~ .~ M O ~D I~ ~f M ~ ~O t~ V a o.-•ooo o.-.ooo o.-.o.oo o-•ooo ~ O O O -- .-~ oo O N C~ ~O O ~t ~D N O oo .-+ ~D Q O O O N N o : -~oo ul O d: N O o :ooo N O I~ N H oo o ~ N O I~ N '-i oo o : a - . - .- o - o .n M _ rno mrr oooMa ~ovMr ~ro~oM~n e„" cn O ~D N r-~ ~D O ~t N O N O t~ N r•1 c+'1 O ~O N~ a o.•ooo o--~ooo o.-.ooo o--ooo M rno rrr ooo~M ooo~~n vo~o~~n Q cn O ~D O O ~O O ~t O O cn O [~ O O M O ~O O O a o-•ooo o.-•ooo o-.ooo o~--ooo 00 O N [~ M N O 00 [~ V'1 ^• O O~ [~ n n O M f~ 1n ~O O M O~ ~O ~O O en O~ h I~ O N Q~ Vl I~ O N O~ 'cf a o.•o-.o o.-o--o or:o.-:o o.~o•-ao Q M ~O M d' .r O O O d' O O O O ~t M d' Q~ Vl 'ct [~ a 0o O~ •--~ ~O N ooo -o 0 0 0 ~O O = -o o co O N ~D M ~o o ~o O~ O~ O ~O O ooo ~o - - --. - - - - VI ~ N ~ V1 ~ to ~ a a a. a. [ a. a a a. a. c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ._ U wU¢C7 wU¢C5 U U U~C7 U 7 wwU ~' L r z~ t ..u u . C ¢ a, a, _ o ~ k ~ _ ~ E ~ .a n q nn ~ o E o u '.C G. U 'x ~ U q u ~i condition also represents the condition of the PAAs after establishment of a mature canopy for ~, the plant community function. `"~ Maintaiz 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 PAAS 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 Conzvzunity/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 (Vacciniurn corymbosu»z), and spicebush (Li~zdera benzoin) will be needed to restore plant community functions to areas that currently support aclosed-canopy forest but lack these important species. Yellow poplar, sweetgum, ash (Fraxinus spp.), and red maple (Acer rzebrurn) 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 Cozcnty, 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 i~z 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 biogeochemistryfmpacts. 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 Coaznty, NC iui 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://tivww.wes.mil/elhvetlands/wlpccbs.html). Braun, E.L. 1950. Deciduous forests of eastern North America. Hafner Press, Ne~v 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. Wetla~zds Resear Program Technical Report WRP-DE-11. Vicksburg, Mississippi, USA. (http://tivww.wes.miUel/tivetlands/wlpubs. htnzl). Brinson, M.M. and R.D. Rheinhardt. 1996. The role of reference wetlands in functional assessment and mitigation. Ecological Applications 6:69-76. ne cIz 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.), Wetla~zds Fu~ictions and Values: The state of occr ccndersta~tding. American Water Resources Association. Minneapolis, MN. Ruhlman, M.B. and W.L. Nutter. 1999. Channel morphology evolution and overbank flow in the Georgia Piedmont. Jocer~zal of the American Water Resources Association 35:277-290. Radford, A. E., Ahles, H. E., and Bell, C. R. (1968). Manecal of the Vasccclar 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 La Grange Property Fufzctional Assessment Page 21 Chatham Cotcrzty, 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.mil/el/wetlands/wlpuhs.htm~. 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:/hvww.wes.mil/el/wetlands/tivlpacbs.latml). a 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) V suFF =Total (2)/(1) _ Adjacent area (ha) of forested landscape/5 ha (ULNDSCP) _ ~ (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 of l7ensitY = ~~NOy ~Ucro) _ ~~ (Total Density/Total Density in RS site) Midcanopyy2 1 2 3 Total Mean Density Simil. Total ~S~NO. Subcanopy3 1 2 3 Total Mean Density Simil. Total ~5~„P. 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 (cm3) 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 Microtopographydue 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 VM~cRO= 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 Vexes = '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 = VourF FC12 = VsroR FCI3 = (UCTD + UM/CRO + VBUFF)~3, or if not along break in slope, then FCI3 = (UCTD +UMICRO)~2 FCI =~~ (lowest score of subequations) PLANT COMMUNITY/ FCI = (VCNPY + UMCNPY + USCNPY + VEXN)l4 HABITAT FCI = ANIMAL COMMUNITY FCI = (FCI Plant Community + VDDw + VMicRO + VcNDSCP)/4 FCI =~ BIOGEOCHEMSTRY FCI = (FCI Hydrology + UCTD + V DDw)~3 FCl =~ Page A-4 a a Appendix B: Summary of Model Variable Definitions, Measurement Method, 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. 1f drainage ditch is present, then Vo~F = 0.0, if ditch is absent, then Vo~F = 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 (Vsron)• 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 Vy~oR = 0.0. If PAA is not within an area to which material has been added or excavated, then V,~oR = 1.0. 3. MicrotopographyMICRO) 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 VM1CR0 = 1.0, otherwise, Vmrcao =density/5.9 divots/ha. 4. Proportion of total bordering length of 50-m wide forested buffer (VQUr•F) Measure/LJnits: 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 = VpuFF. 0 Page B-1 it 5. Canopy tree density \ + CTD) 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 cNPY = 1.0, otherwise V cNPY =tree density/457 trees/ha. 6. Canopy tree composition (V CNPY ) Measure/LJnits: 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/Llnits: 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 Vh1CNPY= 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 Sorensen index/0.6. ~' 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 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 VExx = 1.0; otherwise VExx = (100- cover)/100. 10. Downed dead wood (VDDtiy) Measure/CJnits: 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. Deterrnine 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 Voow=volume/17.1 m3/ha. `"' 11. Supplemental landscape for fauna (V~DSCr) Measure/LJnits: 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 Vcrvvscr = 1.0, otherwise VuvnseP =contiguous area in ha/10 ha. C Page B-3 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 a a 0 0 a 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 alb/c a/b alb CANOPY DENSITY Acer rubrum 66 59 33 66 15 - - - - - Carpfnus caroliniana - 22 - - - - - - - - Celtis laevigata - - 11 i 1 - - - - - - Fagus grandifolia 7 - - - - - - - - - Fraxinus pennsylvanica - 81 - - 37 - - - - - llex opaca 15 - - - - - - - - - Liquidambar styraciflua 74 59 88 66 81 265 - - - - Lirfodendron tulipifera 133 52 44 - 52 118 - - - - Magnolia virginfana 81 - 11 22 - - - - - - Nyssa biflora 52 - - 11 7 - - - - - Platanus occidentalis - - - - - - - - - - Quercus alba 22 - - - - - - - - - Quercus laurifolia - 15 11 - - - - - - - Quercus nigra 7 - - 11 7 59 - - - - Quercus phel/os - - 33 22 - - - - - - Quercus rubra - - - - - - - - - - Salixnigra - 7 - - 22 - - - - - Ulmus americana - - - - 7 - - - - - Total 457 287 232 210 228 442 - - - - MIDCANOPY DENSITY Acernegundo - - - - 7 - - - - - Acer rubrum 44 7 33 - 37 88 - - - - Carpinus carolfniana 15 155 - - 44 29 - - - - Carya spp. - 22 - - - - - - - - Celtis laevigata - - - - - - - - - - Fraxinus pennsylvanfca - 52 11 - 140 29 - - - - llexopaca 7 - - - - - - - - - Liquidambarstyraci(lua 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 - - - - - - - Salixnigra - - - - 59 - - - - - Ulmus alata - - - - - - - - - - Ulmus americana - - - - 15 - - - - - Total 236 280 221 99 464 - - - - - Page C-1 PAA1 PAA2 PAA3a/b PAA4 PAAS PAA6 a/b/c PAA7 a/b PAAB a/b PAA9 PAA10 SUBCANOPY DENSITY 'Acerbarbatum 29 - - - - 29 - - - - Acernegundo - - - - 29 - - - - - Acerrubrum 88 206 133 354 147 147 - 29 177 - Alnus serrulata - 118 - 4,996 - - - - - - Amelanchiercanadensis 29 - - 442 147 - - - - - Carpinus caroliniana 177 531 - - 737 - - - - - Carya sp. 29 29 - - - - - - - - Celtis laevigata 59 - 44 442 29 - - - - - Clethra alnifolia - - - - 59 - - - - - Cornus florida 88 - - - 29 - - - - - Diospyros virginiana - - - - - - - 29 - - Euonymus amerfcana - 118 - - 29 - - - - - Fagus grandifolia 29 - - - - - - - - - Fraxinus pennsylvanica 59 147 - - 265 - 1,091 - 1,150 - llex decidua - - 88 - 29 - - - - - llex opaca 59 - - - - - - - - Ilex vertfcillata 1,267 265 - - 442 - - - - - /tea virginiana - 324 - - - - - - - - Juniperus virginiana 29 - - 88 - 88 - - - - Ligustrum sinense - - - 44 - - - - - - Lindera benzoin 147 648 - - - - - - - - Liquidambarsfyraciflua 88 619 707 486 413 206 884 648 - - Lirfodendron 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 - - - - - - - - - - Quercusnigra - - - 177 - - - - - - Quercus phellos - - - - 29 - - - - - Quercus rubra 29 - - - - - - - - - Salix nigra 29 - - - - - 147 - 236 - Sambucus canadensis 295 - - - - 29 - - - - Sorbus arbuti(olia 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. PAAl PAA2 PAA3 PAA4 PAAS PAA6 PAA7 PAA8 PAA9 PAA10 a/b alb/c a/b a/b 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 Page C-3 0 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 PAA3 a/b FG 17.5 PAA4 FD 30.0 PAAS 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 I'requcncy by species Ambrosia artemisiifolia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 44.4 66.7 NA Arisaema triphylkan 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 Bignonin capreolatn 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 rndicans 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 Desmodiunc 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 Eleoclzaris 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 americnnus 0.0 22.2 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA Eupatoriccm capillifoliccm 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 NA Galicutc sp. 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA Gecem canndense 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA Glycerin striatn ? 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 cariaceous 0.0 11.1 11.1 11.1 0.0 0.0 66.7 55.6 0.0 NA Jccncccs effusccs 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 tenccis 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 tenccis ? 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 Lccdwigia sp. 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA 0 Page C-4 0 Table C-4 (cont.) Site: PAA1 PAA2 PAA3 a/b PAA4 PAAS PAA6 a/b/c PAA7 a/b PAA8 a/b PAA9 PAA10 Lonicera japonica 25.0 77.8 55.6 44.4 77.8 100.0 11.1 11.1 44.4 NA Medeola virginia~ta 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA Microstegium vimenecem 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 Mitcliella 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 Patticum sp. 12.5 0.0 0.0 33.3 77.8 57.1 33.3 66.7 11.1 NA Partllenocissus gceinquefolia 50.0 33.3 22.2 11.1 11.1 57.1 22.2 44.4 11.1 NA Pltytolacca americacca 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 R/zus radicaiu 25.0 22.2 11.1 22.2 33.3 0.0 44.4 22.2 88.9 NA Rubccs 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 lntifolia 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA Saurccrus cernuccs 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 glactca 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 caroli~te~:se 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 patccla 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 orbiculatccs 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 virginiatca 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA Uniola sessiliflara 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 rotccndifolia 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 Page C-5 La Grange Farm March 31, 1955 i 4 i I '' E ~Ii ~ C Legend r--~ ~ _ _ ~ Mitigation Boundary TLC Property Boundary La Grange Farm January 11, 2000 ~, 0 -~I '~ 0 0 D 'a .a c~ a n ~~~ VII. Species Lists (lists are not complete) 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 Bitternut Hickory Carya glabra Pignut Hickory 14 i~ 0 J iu i~ a Plants of the La Gran~Reserve Carya ousts 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 grandifoloia 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 is 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 Swam Do hobble P g 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 Menisperurn 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 ~~~ 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 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 falcate 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 stellate 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 glomerate Beakrush Rosa palustris Swamp Rose Rubus argutus Blackberry Rubus trivialis Blackberry t~ Plants of the La GrangLe 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 Virginia Chainfern is 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 American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla e American Robin Turdus migratorius .~ American Woodcock Scolopax minor Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica -f 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 Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater Brown-headed Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis -i Canada Goose Branta canadensis Carolina Chickadee Parus carolinensis Carolina Wren Thryothorus ludovicianus Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum e Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina ~~ 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 Eastem Meadowlark Sturnella magna Eastern Pheobe Sayornis phoebe Eastern Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus European Starling Sturnus vulgaris =Field Sparrow Spizella pusilla Fish Crow Corvus ossifragus Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca ~ Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis 19 ~' ~, Birds of the La Grange Reserve -` Great Buie Heron ~ Ardea herodias Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus Henslow's Sparrow Ammodramus henslowii Hermit Thrush ~ Catharus guttatus 'Hooded Merganser Mergus merganser dHooded Warbler Wilsonia citrina c House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus ~~Indigo Bunting ~ Passerina cyanea Kentucky Warbler Oporornis formosus -~ Killdeer Charadrius vociferus a Mallard :.. Anas platyrhynchos 1 Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura Northern Bobwhite Quail Colinus virginianus Northerri'Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis Northerri,Flicker Colaptes auratus o Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos o Northerri.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 Ruby-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 l~ White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius aYellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus ~ Yello~ly-breasted Chat Icteria virens -~ Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata Yellow-throated Vireo Vireo flavifrons 1 j' 1 J , ,; '~ 11 30 }~l~r /~i(. t ~ ~. ~s- 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 La Grange 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 Grande 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 GranQe_Reserv_e American Painted Lady Vanessa virginiensis Carolina Satyr Hermeuptychia hermes Comma Poly;onia comma Eastern Snout Butterfly Libytheana bachmanii 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 B ass Mosquitoefish Sunfish Everes comyntas Papilio glaucus Anothocharis midea Phyciodes thazos Celastrina ladon Micropterus salmoides Gambusia affinus Lepomis sp. 22 a 0 a 0 W N p~ N O O 0J O C W d (D X N C a cn O 7 `G D O m (D w CJl A W W A W O V O .A O W O IV V O A .p CT7 N Ul W l0 W N V O tD CO tD CD CO tD (D tD (D tD (D 00 V O (It .A W N -+ O CD (D A N O U1 U1 N ~1 N 1 (I~ --~ O0 A O -+ CTI U1 (D CO N O ~! --~ m O W O O -1 cD W N J W -~ -~ O N N W ~I W~ Ul ~I m O N ~I N W CJl N -~ (O W CD N 1 W O~ W N U1 (D --~ W CJ1 ~\ W CO ~A W ~A 1~ A N -+ W O N W -+ ~ N CJl -+ -• O .A c~ N cD N N -~ ~ N -+ U1 (p O0 U1 W W CJ1 U1 A -+ N 0 0 1 N 1 O O O CJ1 Ut U1 N 1 --~ N ~1 W iD W -+ N -+ ~I W O N 1 O cD N~~ 's O U1 CJ~ W N N ~A W .A Ul -l ~I V N J~ V -+ ~! O O A OD O N A ~J W -+ -+ ~1 -+ O O A O ~A 1 1 Q~ 1 ~ ~ W CO ~I W W v A N O Ui U7 -+ •~P W~ A W W N --~ O O m W CJi 1~ W OD 00 c0 N N ~ ~ i i i ~ c0 -+ A O O O O W O N N O O N O W O j 100 O O N O W cD Ul O CT7 O 1 N A -+ .A N J A ~l --~ cD c0 A O W --~ O W U7 N 00 00 N ~I W O ~ W N W OD 1 1 1 00 W W 00 N W U1 W W O N N A N -~ 1 W N N W O (D O Ui W O ~A 00 O A CT1 W N A W W (O CD W N A W W .A CJ7 N N W ~ N O --~ W ~1 OD W 0 0 Ut O 1 N ~ ~1 ~ V -+ U1 CD W W W < ~ Q. O ~ CQ . ~- ` w I` IO w I~ D /r}~~ .t ~ V 'S r-F 'G ~ ~Q L ~• C ~ ~=+ ~• _~ ~ O c ~ D D Z O C O c~ n ~ "< lD O w w 3 ~~ ~ (n n n ~ -~ Z ~ :« ~ ~. ,,,, ~ w C O' N ~ ~ p ~ p ~ ~ p ~ , CQ ~ . -f w N ( D • . ~ w ~ -~. w ~ w i a D a Q =. ~ Q ?. ~ ?. ~ O N b ~ D '' ~ D ~ D ~ i o m ~ m m m w~ m w m w D w o w w ~ -w ~ V O O N N V v O ~ O W W W (D W W W ~l N cncn p~pcn~ p c~cn v p p ~ ~~~~~ II Z II it II O II II 'D (n II O n 0 C (D w C ~ ~ (~ 7 '~0 > > ~O ~ ~ ~,•ac~ ~. ~ ~ 3 1 ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ m w - ~ ~ ° ~ a• m o w w ~ fl a i w ~ o ~ coo A ~ o ~ ~ ~' . ~ j Q. 1 n ~ O O 'D• ~ C ~ ~ v ' O L ~ ~ O = W Ul ~ ~ cOn (D ~ C O ~' ~ ~ ~ ~~ n w o o_ o~ m m ~ ' ~ ~ A \ S ~ 7 O n ~ z () ~ ~ O ~ O N ~ v _' w c~ Q. gyp' w ~• (D C ~ cn j. O~ O ~ ~ 7 ~ G~ ~ ~• ~ ~ (p w O ~ _• ~ C ~ w ~ O to ~ ~ a. ~ ~ ~ ~• • 1 Q w n ~ N ~ ~ °- ~_ m v ~, ~ c n n o ~ ~~ ~ m C7 D.. v O c ~ n a ~• c ' A ~ • ~. C `~ .[~ J C~.'1 ail 'J C~ ~ C~ I. _] 0 3 aJ ~'~ ~cnv~cn v O cn ~O ~v ~cnv Ocn v Ocn-o O cnv O D O D 0 0 0 ~ N O 0J 'O~ "O ~ ~ n ~ O C w a ~ ~ ~,^ ~ ~ j~ O O O O rn p) a7 to N cn d ca 6) cts o c N a (D fD (D cn m v Ul O O O A ~ _. .a A O (D O N W (D CD '71 fD -+ O O O N a' ~1 O N O O (O O J W N CD O O A ~1 ~ A (D 00 --~ O 1 ~ O O W D ~ Vt O --~ N A -+ W CD W W Cn (J7 O O7 W O O A O W ~G J O A W GJ N (Jt N O~ V L C Ul O O O O 3 ~! O -+ O A O O CD O W L ~ O O ~I ~ m --~ W A W --~ N W m N W D C W O Ut O (p -+ O CD A N W W A W A W fD O O A O A "O ~ -+ O A ~l 0 n A O N N A . + d v ~ W 1 ~ Z Ut A A A CO v W O O O W f7 ~A O N A W co rn -~ o v ` ` m i c i n N O O O N 7 ~1 O O N O ~ N O O O W 7 (n --~ W Q) l~ CJ1 A N N O cD 0 0 A N OD W 0~ A CJi O CO (II ~I W (D (I1 N O O) ~ ~ ~ f D -~ O O O N Q' O O O O O O' N O O O N C' 47 O ~ O N O O W O ~J N O CO W W W O A O N CD O ~! O O) N U7 N O) W ~ -1 O -+ O N ~ W O --~ O A ~ CI7 O~ . . N ~A . . ^ t . W . O . O . . -+ W . N . . O W . N . W . O Ul A A W O~ N A W -~ -+ A Ul W A 07 J ~I U7 V D D D - ~ ~ ~ O N O N ~ ~ O N O -+ O O N O N ~ O N A O N O O O A -1 O A O N C11 CO W W (O A O m O N -+ -~ N V ()'1 O O W O W ~ O O A O W •< (Jl O~ W ~I ~ W O O O W cD O ~I ~ W 00 00 O (Il -j -+ O N O W O CD -+ W ~J CO 1 --~ N CO L L L W 1 A Ul O~ 7 N . --~ Ut . . A . A . ~ N . O CJl . . O N . . 3 . N . .A . ~l . . co A A O U~ N ~l ~l O CTi Cn W N ~l A ~l ~! A W -+ O CO ~J OD W O A L L L ~ ~ ~ A O O O --~ O O O -+ A A . 0 0 . . O N . . . c0 . O . O . . O O . (D . . N m . W . O W O U7 O --~ O O O O C7~ !J~ O W N V CIl O -+ C1l N C C C N O A --~ Ul (p ~ O CTI N CIl (Q O O CTl -+ A (L1 N W ~1 Ul ~I O A A ~ A N A W (D N OD N CTl N ~I (D ~I O CIl 1 N W -+ ~! CD N N ~ !D (D ~ ffl W O A O -y 'C O O W 1 W 'a N O W O 'O W V ~ 0 O W W O J O - -~ CJ1 J7 CO C ( 0 O .l O ( .1 O O O O O 1 n ~ ~I -y N CJt Ul « . O -+ O O . + (D -1 N Q) (Il W O W (Il N O cD O O O] W N V J N Oo ~I COO W O -+ W CJl N W Q7 A -+ Z Z Z -+ O O O O O ~ W N < N O O --~ N < O O O O --< < W W IV d V A N O N N W O cD N O 1 W W CO W V CD O W CD W V -i (D O O O N O O O N n N O O O N n W O O O W n 07 O A A (D O O U1 N cD A -+ U1 m A CD O~ W CJ7 N O W -+ CJ1 (11 N W ~J A N ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ W N O O O O O O ~ O O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~G ~G ~G ~G ~ O O ~ -.~ -~. -a. -~. O O O O r« ~ ~ ~ ~ O G W N p~ ~ ~ O ~ O c W d (D (D X C Q (D ~' ~ ~ cn m ~ ~ cn v ~ ~ ~ cn m ~ ~ cn v ~ ~ ~ ~ to m ~ cn ~~ v ~ cn m ~ ~ cn ~ ~ ~ o Op-~ n ' o ~ p -~ c i ' o Op-~ ~ o Op-~ c i v ca -a m ca -o v to 'o su cn 'a c~ ~ ~ ~ L L L ~- 61 CD d Al A O O O W ~ N O O O N 3 O O O N U1 7 U1 0 0 O A 7 1 -+ -+ cD ~ 00 -+ N ~ CJl A CTt W N O O O -+ O V W (D O W W V W N A 07 -~ O CO Ul W W (D V O --~ W O O O W O' N O O O N Lf' J O O N G' W O O O W CT ~! -1 N Ul Ul W O Ul N ~ CIl Ul W N ~ CJl ~ A Q1 A W O cD cD W (Tl A W A 00 N O Ul 07 1 -+ N (D O O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -~ O O O N ~ W O O O W w N O -~ O - i CJ7 O -i N Ul - ~t CD O OJ O ~l O O 07 W O O O W N ~'`~ tD CJl A W Ul A O (O W N m W W V --~ A W ~l A N A W --` W Ul D D D D ~ 1 ~ ~ W O -+ O A ~ 1 O N O W O N O --~ N O W O O . 00 --~ -+ W W tD -+ O J (D . N . . O W . O . W . N . . O O . O V O~ A O 1 -~ CIS W -~ W W O O CJl A CJl W O -+ O Ul ~ 1 ~ W O O N O K --` O A O N ~ N O A 1 A ~ --~ O W -'~ W ~ N O W O N -~ -+ A m J --~ A -+ CO ~l N N A W m J V 1 J -~ N W W W O N W W O 00 07 N A L L L L 1 C , C N .~ 1 C C -~ O W O -+ 3 -+ O U7 ~ W ~ O W U1 W C11 7 CI1 i O CJ1 ~ A O ~l W cp CJl N c0 N A -+ A W c0 O J N -• --~ ~ W W O Ul O O A N A W A Ul N O -~ OJ CO O~ U7 ~ L L L L I~ 1 ~ -+ ' N U1 N O ~! -+ m m 00 -+ 0 0 -+ A O O W -+ U1 . ~I N A cD A -+ A A --~ cD --` W U7 A N O W CJl O W W C17 O W W W N W O W ~l O A O ~l ~P Ul ~J (O V D D D D W O A O O fQ -~ O Ul -+ Ul (Q A 1 m V CJl (Q W O Ul O -+ (Ll (Ii O -• O O W W N V --~ ~l 00 -+ N CTl A O N O 00 W O c0 O W Ul N 1 Ul cD .A ~J ~I --~ V W O W O ~A. ''^^ VJ ''^^ V! V/ ''^^ Y/ (~ J 1 J ~ 1 ~ 1 A O W W A 'a (D A W O --~ "O O O W O W '~ O O W O N 'O O ~I O N CI'i N A CD W N O ~--~ (O ~J N W -` O) O V N ~I W cn ~l O O ~! O J W A -+ V W cD W ~I O W 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ O -+ O N n~- A O N W A .~+ 1 N -1 N ~1 CO .~+ ~1 -+ -+ U1 Cfl .~« O O N W O W cp N ~1 N --~ ~l A -+ N (O U7 CD J W ~l O CJt O N W C7i O A (Jl O m W O -+ Ul O ~! W A Z Z Z Z W 0 0 O W < A O O -+ A < A 0 0 --~ A < --~ O -~ O N cD -+ N Ul ~l A N U7 O N U7 N O W '1 '~ O N N~ W -+ O~ ~1 A CO -~ cD W N N J (O A A W A --~ ~A W v o v v A O O O W n N O O O N n -+ O O O n -~ O O O -+ n O -~ O W U1 (17 O U7 1 cD W O --~ O "~' O O C11 O C71 N O 0o A W A N O W W O O A O Ul W O CJl CJ7 A .1 ~- ...1 ..L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Vl ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ rt ~ ~ ~ + ~ ~ ~ ~_ _ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~+ --h ~ ~--1~ C C 0 0 _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C G G e C~ Q w ~ ~ w m N ~ O W O C W d m X C a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C~C ~C ~ ~ ~ ~ C~C ~ ~ ~ tU CO 'D d to "a 41 (O 'a (p fD lD L L ~- v Al O N O O N O 3 CO -~ O Ul O CD O O W ~I O ~l O N ~ N -' W O N ~ U1 O A O CT1 W O N 0] ~! CO -+ ~J ~I O N N CJl O CO T ~ N ( D ! D m O J 1 N N 0 0 O ~' W -+ U7 Q) W O O W W N J O W O (D N ~A -P. .A O 'S O O 1 O -~ -~ W 0 0 O W "t 1 O s 'J CJl ~I Z ~ W V 1 0 N~ N O N Ul O W ~A O O c 0 O O ~ ~ ~ ~ N O N O~ ~ O O N O N ~ N O N -1 A~ O O W W rn ~ O ~l N c0 cp N W -+ W O~ O W W 00 CJ7 N O ~ W CO N ~A V 07 ~ ~ ~ W O A O --~ ~ N O W O ~ O O 1~ O A ~ W O O O N Ul O ~l O i CJl ..a _a ~~ CO O A -+ W --` O J~ W N N 1 ~I W ~A L L L C , C , C W O m O 7 N O CJl O N O ~A O O O~ O J O W O N ~ 1~ W W W O O 1 (I7 O O -• Ul Ul -+ W W ~I W ~I N O N O L L L C C N O m N O W O O O N 1 O O -+ W W O -+ W -+ W O ~l W m V .A V V O m O m W cD cD O (D U1 --~ V --~ -~ O A D D D r. 1 C 1 C N O U1 N CJ~ (p 1 O O O .A (a 1> O CJ1 O -+ tQ ~I O Q) <.)1 v O 1 N 07 .A O O ~! 0 0 N O O ~! Ut O 0 0 O~ CO W O W ~A W '^ ' J O O W O W 'a c0 U1 W --~ rn 'O -~-~ O .A O W 'D W O 00 W 00 N 07 O O (D O O Ul O U7 N O ~1 O W O W~ c0 cD O O 1 O --- O O O O O O O ~ N O -+ --~ W .n. A -1 N !~ W ~ W O ~ N -+ O W W v O V 0 0 W W N N W O W Z Z Z O O O O G ~ O -+ O N < --` 0 0 O N O O O O W O 1 ~P N Ul O i0 N N O O O O O 00 ~I CO --` N O CJi O W CD v v v n O O O O n N O O -+ N n N O O O N O O O O O N W O 1 W N~ O O O O O Ut J~ W O N W N -j -L O (D CO O (O (O O (D 00 ~ ~ ~ O O O O O O ~ ~ ~ O• ~ ~_ ~ _ ~ `G ~ O O - +. - -ti ~ 0 0 C O = ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 D r': i MINUTES TLC Land Conunittee Meeting Wednesday, October 13, 1999 7:OD p.m. to 8:30 p.m. Present: Rooks, Allen, Almon, Dixon, Gaertner, Markham, Pullman , La Gramme Wetlands Restoration Feasibility S'tudy 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. UOT has customarily provided stewardshp endowment funds to land tnists 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. A.pprovecl. 7 0 Minutes Triangle Land Conservancy Land Comnvttee Meeting Wednesday, March 15, 2001 7:00 PM - 9:00 PM Present: Liz Rooks (C11air), 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 tl~e motion. Motion passed. La Grande Wetlands Riparian Reserve Restoration Project Jane Almon, as a representative of Earth Tec1~, reported on the progress of US Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) approval for mitigation credits from the mitigation of the La Grange wetlands. She stated that USAGE and other agencies that met at the site were trot 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 USAGE. Earth Tech will need to produce additional detailed mapping data to convince USAGE 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. USAGE 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 USAGE with updated and enhanced data. USAGE 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 USAGE rejects the offer there still are other potential mitigation options with National Resources Conservation Service and/or US Fish and Wildlife Service __ - 0 0 ~E', 0 0 r r L er SrA7t °~ rr^ ~ S `~ .Q~ _ STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPAR'ITMII~IrI' 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, TlP 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 (USAGE), 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. 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. uestion: 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. s MAILING ADDRESS. TELEPHONE: 919.733-3141 LOCATION: NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: 9t 9.733.9794 TRANSPORTATION BUILDING PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENiALANALY5IS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET 1548 MAILSERVIOECENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DON.DDT.STATENC.US RALEIGH NC RALEIGH NC 27699.1548 r' orth Carolina ` ,~ epartment of Environment and Natural Resources .,•,_,~..;. ~~ ' ~,: ivision of Parks and Recreation, ~. ichael F. Easley, Governor ~~ ,~~ ~~(, 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:aland t~storation 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, 0 ~ ~ ~ ~~ l ~j Stephen P. Hall I ~ Environmental Review Specialist/Tnvertebrate Zoologist /sph 0 1615 Tv[ail Service Center, P•aleigh, North Carolina 37699-1615 •. PlinnN• ~~9-733-151 \ FrOX: 919-715-3055 \ 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 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'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 (USAGE), David Cox (NCWRC), John Hennessy (NCDW~, Ron 7ohnson (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 ciiabase 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. Amore 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 Apri12001 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%o 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 5% 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 Fzan) 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 ~I G~ / ,, ~ Bill Holman ~' .' •-.Y1~ A r~+~Y EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 1~AGEMENT TRUST FUND _ -. n ~ ~ t . r;a 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 Costlow BEAUFORT 1 ? O1 Haynes Street, Suite 205 Raleigh, NC 27604 Karen cragnolin Re: Wetlands Mitigation at LaGrange Riparian Preserve/CWMTF Project #1998A-004 ASHEVILLE Allen Holt Gwyn 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 Allen 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 way approximately 46 acres in size but subsequent ditching of the seepage slopes and filling for road construction had Dickson Mclean, Jr. IU BERTO decreased the size of the natural area to approximately IS acres when TLC M N purchased the land in 1998; William M~P.hatter, Sr. 2) NCDOT will pay TLC a fee of $1655 per acre in the mitigation project, but cARanoao 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 lrl the Deep River Chuck Wakifd watershed iri Moore, Chatham, or Lee counties. WILMINGTON Claudette Weston WINSTON-SALEM ~~ L (919) 733.6375 FAX (919) 733.6374 wwwcwmtf.net ~, Jerry Wright °:: 0 NORTH WILMINGTON STREET, RALEIGH, NC 27604 1651 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, Bill Holman Executive Director C. Francine Durso Bern Schumak Lana Armstrong Ron Ferrell