20021143 Ver 1_Complete File_20011008

J
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
' The Rich Fork Mitigation Site is located within the Abbotts Creek watershed (USGS Hydrologic Unit
03040103 and NCDWQ sub-basin 03-07-07) and drains approximately 26.1 square miles of the Yadkin
River Basin. The watershed is part of the Piedmont physiographic region and it is dominated by forest,
' agriculture, and urban land uses. The North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program has identified the
study drainage as a component of Priority Hydrologic Unit #3.

t

1

r
The site is located downstream of SR 109 on the western floodplain of Rich Fork; west, southwest of
High Point in Davidson County. It comprises approximately 26.9 acres, of which approximately 80% has
been cleared, drained, and ditched for agricultural use. The remaining 20% is mature forest occupying
the levee position adjacent to Rich Fork.
Historical site conditions were reviewed to understand the chronology of land use at the site and to assist
in the development of an appropriate restoration strategy. Aerial photographs of the site were obtained
from the Davidson County Soil and Water Conservation District for the years 1936, 1950, 1955, 1966,
1981, and 1988. During the entire period of photographic record, the site was under agricultural
production, with plowed fields and drainage ditches evident. Additionally, the stream that transacts the
site was channelized and straightened prior to 1936.
Field investigations revealed that two soil series occur on the site, Chewacla and Congaree. Chewacla
accounts for approximately 75% of the project area with the remainder in Congaree. Both of these series
are alluvial in nature and are commonly found on floodplains. During the field investigation, seasonal
ponding of water in low areas across the site was noted. Neither of the soils identified on the site are
classified as hydric based on their absence from state and county hydric soils lists. The ACOE guidance
was therefore used as the procedure for making these determinations. The evaluation identified that
approximately 15% of the Rich Fork Mitigation Site currently has depleted soils within the top 12 inches
of the surface. An additional 15% of the site had some indicators of reducing conditions in the upper 12
inches of the soil profile.
Site hydrology was evaluated during the field investigations and through flood frequency and water
budget analyses. The primary hydrologic input to the site is precipitation. Inflows from two streams on
the site also contribute surface water during high flow events. The mitigation site is in the Rich Fork
floodplain and becomes inundated under natural conditions by discharges exceeding 1000 ft3/s. The
results of the flood frequency analysis show that this discharge corresponds to a 1.007-year return period
flood. The probability of this discharge being equaled or exceeded in any given year is 0.9975 (99.75%).
The results also support the assertion that surface water from Rich Fork is a reliable hydrologic input to
the mitigation site. High groundwater has historically been reported for the site and occurs seasonally at
or near the surface in the surrounding natural areas. Groundwater monitoring data was plotted to
determine the duration of saturation within 12" of the ground surface. This evaluation revealed
jurisdictional wetland hydrology at four of the five gage locations (all except Gauge 91) on the Rich Fork
Mitigation Site, as well as the reference gauge on an adjacent property.
Existing site hydrology was modeled by developing an annual water budget that calculates water inputs
and outputs, and the change in storage on a monthly time step. The hydrographs for the average, dry and
wet years show a similar pattern of seasonal water table levels. Water table recharge occurs during the
late fall and winter months until a rapid water table draw down occurs as PET rates increase in the spring.
During the summer, the water budget model shows the existing site is unsaturated within the upper 36
inches of soil. The proposed conditions water budget shows the annual hydrographs for the same three
climatic years reflecting dry, average, and wet conditions. Without the estimated groundwater loss from
the ditch network, the water table recharges earlier in the fall, maintains a shallower#spil"depth for a
PCT 1 2?J?I
1
? ? FG ?

' greater duration and remains within 12 inches of the soil surface for a greater proportion of the growing
season. The proposed water budget predicts saturation within 12 inches of the soil surface for greater
than 8% of the growing season.
The Rich Fork Mitigation Site will focus on re-establishing the historic bottomland hardwood
communities and associated stream network. The goal of the Rich Fork mitigation project is to re-
establish an integrated wetland-stream complex that will restore ecosystem processes, structure, and
composition to mitigate for wetland functions and values that have been lost as a result of anthropogenic
disturbances in this region of the Yadkin River Basin.
Specific goals and objectives for the restoration of the site include:
• Restoration/enhancement of bottomland hardwood communities
• Restoration of floodplain/wetland interfaces
• Restoration of stream channels and drainage patterns
• Restoration of water quality functions
• Restoration of wildlife habitat
• Re-establishment of wildlife travel corridors
e Specific actions proposed to achieve the wetland restoration goals and objectives include:
• Filling of lateral ditches
• Recreating microtopography across the site to: enhance surface water retention and storage,
j to provide the necessary slope for stream restoration and to provide amphibian breeding
habitat where possible
• Restoration of unnamed tributary to Rich Fork to re-establish stream/wetland interface
• Re-vegetation of the site with Piedmont Bottomland Hardwood and Piedmont Levee Forest
species
It is anticipated that approximately 2,000 feet of perennial stream restoration will be undertaken on the
mitigation site. An additional 1,000 linear feet of intermittent stream restoration may be possible on the
second tributary that enters the southwest portion of the site. The stream will be redirected, with the
appropriate pattern, profile and dimension, so that is flows southward across the site and into Rich Fork
from the southern part of the site. All stream restoration design and construction will be Priority Level I
restoration.
In summary, the Rich Fork Mitigation Site has the potential to provide the following mitigation
opportunities:

Mitigation Type and Extent
COMMUNITY TYPE Restoration Creation Enhancement Preservation
Piedmont Bottomland Hardwood Forest 3.0 ac. 16.7 ac.
Piedmont Levee Forest --\ 1.5 ac. 5.7 ac.
Perennial Stream 2000 If
Intermittent Stream 1 1000 If

f

RICH FORK MITIGATION PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Site Description ............................................................................................................. ..1
1.2 Watershed Characteristics ............................................................................................. ..1
1.3 Historical Site Conditions .............................................................................. 5
............... ..
2.0 EXIS TING CONDITIONS
2.1 Vegetative Communities ............................................................................................... ..5
2.2 Soils ..........................................................................................................................
2.2.1 Determination and Extent of Hydric Soils on Site ........................................... ..7
10
2.3 Hydrology/Hydraulics .................................................................................................. 10
2.3.1 Surface Water ...................................................................................................
2.3.1.1 Flood Frequency Analysis ................................................................................ 12
12
2.3.2 Groundwater ..................................................................................................... 15

2.4 2.3.3 Water Budget ....................................................................................................
Assessment of Site Conditions ...................................................................................... 15
17
3.0 STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION ACTIVITIES
3.1 Goals and Objectives ..................................................................................................... 19
3.2 Wetland Restoration ...................................................................................................... 19
3.2.1 Hydrologic Alterations ................................................. 21
....................................
2
3
2 Soil Modifications
.
.
............................................................................................
3.2
3 Vegetative Communities 22
.
..................................................................................
3
3 Stream Re
t
ti 23
.
s
ora
on ........................................................................................................ 25
3.3.1 Dimension, Pattern, and Profile .......................................................................
3.3.2 Bank Stabilization 26
............................................................................................ 26
3.3.3 Riparian Vegetation Establishment
.................................................................. 26
4.0 WETLAND AND STREAM MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
4.1 Post Implementation Documentation ............................................................................ 28
4.2 Monitoring and Success Criteria ................................................... 28
................................
4.2.1 Hydrology ......................................................................................................... 28
4.2.2 Vegetation .............................................................. 29
..........................................
4
2
3 Streams

' .
.
.............................................................................................................
4.2.4 Reporting ..................................................................................................... 29
29
5.0 OTHER ECOLOGICAL & NON-ECOLOGICAL SITE CONCERNS
5.1 Historical/Archaeological .................................................................................
5.2 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species ..................................................... 29
30
5.3 Utilities/Easements ........................................................................................... 30
5.4 Preliminary Project Schedule ........................................................................... 30
6.0 DISPENSATION OF PROPERTY ............................................................................................ 30
a? REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................................31

n
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

1

1
11
t

t
r
a
TABLES
Table 1 Summary of Existing Plant Communities at Rich Fork ..................................................7
Table 2 Summary of Soil Series Mapping Units ........................................................................10
Table 3 Mitigation Type and Extent ....................................................................................
Table 4 Morphological Design Criteria ......................................................................................27
FIGURES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map ..................................................................................... ......2
.........................
Figure 2 Site Boundary ................................................................................................................ ..3
Figure 3 Site Watershed ............................................................................................................... ..4
Figure 4 Existing Communities ........................................................... 6
Figure 5 ........................................
Soil Boring Locations .................................................................................................... ..
..8
Figure 6 Soils Map ...................................................................................................................... ..9
Figure 7 Depleted Soils ................................................................................................................ 1 I
Figure 8 Secondary Hydrologic Inputs .................................................... 13
Figure 9 ....................................
Site Hydrology .............................................................................
. 14
Figure 10 .
...............................
Groundwater Monitoring Gauges ................................................ 16
Figure 11 ..................................
Mitigation Type and Extent ...............................................
Figure 12 Planned Natural Community Distribution ..................................................................... 24
APPENDICES
Appendix A Site Photographs
Appendix B Aerial Photograph
Appendix C Soils Information
Appendix D Flood Frequency Analysis
Appendix E Ground Water Hydrographs
Appendix F Existing and Post-Restoration Water Budgets
Appendix G Mitigation Planning Checklist

e

1

t
a
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following section presents background information pertaining to the Rich Fork Mitigation
Site, including assessments of both historical and existing site conditions, developed from data
gathered during field investigations, desktop review of relevant documents, and landowner
interviews conducted between January 2000 and September 2001.
1.1 Site Description
The Rich Fork Mitigation Site is located downstream of SR 109 on the western floodplain of Rich
Fork; west, southwest of High Point, in Davidson County (Figure 1). The site occupies
approximately 26.9 acres. It is comprised of two parcels of land, the Bodenheimer tract (14.57
acres) and the Parker tract (12.33 acres) (Figure 2).
Approximately 80% of the site has been cleared, ditched and drained for agricultural use. The
remaining 20% is situated on the natural levee created by Rich Fork. It consists primarily of
mature forest. The landscape position of the site is characteristic of Piedmont/Mountain
Bottomland Forests that are present in undisturbed floodplain areas adjacent and landward of
Piedmont/Mountain Levee Forests (Schafale and Weakley 1990). The hydrology of the site has
been altered by a network of ditches that drain groundwater and surface water inputs from the
agricultural fields and the adjacent uplands into Rich Fork.
1.2 Watershed Characteristics
The site is located in the Abbotts Creek watershed (USGS Hydrologic Unit 03040103 and North
Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) sub-basin 03-07-07) of the Yadkin River Basin
(Figure 3). The North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) has identified the study
drainage as part of Priority Hydrologic Unit #3.
The topographic relief of the contributing watershed is approximately 120 feet (37 meters)
ranging from 700 feet (213 meters) above mean sea level (MSL) in the southeast portion of the
drainage to 820 feet (250 meters) above MSL at its northern most point. At its farthest point
downstream, the watershed drains approximately 16,724 acres (26.1 miz). The watershed is
dominated by urban (2,677 ac.), forest (10,157 ac.) and agricultural (3,790 ac.) land uses.
The watershed is situated in the Charlotte and Milton Belts of the Piedmont physiographic region.
The site is underlain by metamorphosed granite, with well-foliated megacrystic intrusions, locally
containing hornblende. Appropriate geomorphic characterization in the upper watershed is a
Valley Type II, according to the Rosgen Classification System.' The valley transitions into a
Type VIII. A Type lI valley is defined as having moderate relief, relatively stable, moderate side
slope gradients, and valley floor slopes that are often less than 4%. Common stream types for
this valley include the stable "B" stream type, and, occasionally, the gullied "G" stream type.
The Type VIII valley is broad, with gentle down-valley elevation relief. It features multiple river
terraces formed in alluvial soils. Common stream types for this valley include the stable "C" and
"E" stream types, which are slightly entrenched, meandering channels. Type "D", "F", and "G"
streams may occur in developed watersheds where channels are manipulated and flow regimes
are altered.
According to the NCDWQ, the water quality rating for Rich Fork is Class C. Class C waters are
protected for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and
agriculture. NCDWQ has assigned Rich Fork a water quality use-support rating of "Partially
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Printed Media Companies, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

-
t"
1 k f

7-7
J k J \

)
,
.7 e
:
bt Huh S
h
?L
?
r
ti ? ?, ? y
,? 1 + ?¢; e
ti
?
? I ? ? ? f ll r %L
S?,i ?(-µl i yl f? ?. f i,il Il !"1 ?\ ?r?P•Il ?Il A0? Ak t ).`_.

ihn n Stolle
Pil•A

'r? i 1
A l
i A \r r 1 fi ftl? I
?!1 +.
y) ?!
fJ
'ti, '
t 2
1 ?
?I?1i4
?

1 T
fl'?R
a ll..

t',? f1' f I fC VI h' ;"(

I

Rich Fork Mitigation Site
4ino1 _
KCI

.?\CIJtl.1:1 `: lY ?il;',:I I.;I''.H I':'. :'.. OIOGIES
'S
?I'?`C.. '?i '??? 1. _5'tir!•...?.`"?-1,
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
North
NOT TO SCALE
ab; `m
Oki
? ? .., S - ? `?• .FAY xae,? ?j?,F b? ?':
W 4 ` mi{ ? ,.'N"""` sue' ?3 '`
14
a
3 "• ? c z _ sE' J
1, W, 61
*k
.? fir" ?. • ?'# `?, ;' :'
Rich Fork Mitigation Site Figure 2: Site Boundary
Property Boundaries
Rich Fork
Site Boundary
North
NOT TO SCALE
z88
F7777'7?`
Y' ?'
4 r? 278 T orrtfyt
4- -k }?,I .1 x
)arwn ?'? ?? 4C `lRl\i F
High Poi t
•T
r,
_A_ Z
pf"
?. r ?? r
T. Xf,
(INV
GU T CO
41
OUR- CO
.3 ?? •?? I- r I- iii 1 \1-v C .,;_
74-
BUSINESS I-85
r
S
Thomasui1?e I
Rich Fork Mitigation Site Figure 3: Site Watershed
? Yadkin River Basin ? Site
K?? ? USGS Hydrologic Unit 03040103 ? Site Drainage Area
"O'I',l.,„„[1N1 VI a„ ? DWQ Sub-basin 03-07-07
Priority Hydrologic Unit #3
? Site Drainage Area North 0
NOT TO SCALE

Supporting" in the Draft 2000 § 303(d) list
The Cit
of Hi
h Point west
f SR 311
f
.
y
g
o
accounts
or
the
.luajar?th nnn_n in our?
P
joadingJnta_.Rich Fork
High turbidit
and elevated 11C
,
.
_.
.
y f'a
concentrations of iron, copper, NOZ-N03 and fecal coliform have been documented in Rich Fork,
indicating problem levels of non-point source pollution (NCDWQ 1998). In addition, numerous
point source discharges enter the creek from industry, as well as the High Point Westside WWTP
(1 mile upstream of site)
which dischar
es 6
2 MGD into Rich F
rk
A TMDL li
it h
b
,
g
.
o
.
m
as
een set
for Rich Fork at its
resent level
i(
p
.
?'{'?frs?'
1.3 Historical Site Conditions I{
Historical site conditions were reviewed to understand the chronology of land use at the site and S
?,-
to assist in the development of an appropriate restoration strategy. Aerial photographs of the site ?,
were obtained from the Davidson County Soil and Water Conservation District for the years
1936, 1950, 1955, 1966, 1981, and 1988. During the entire period of photographic record, the
it
d
i
l
l
w
s
e was un
er agr
cu
tura
production, with plowed fields and drainage ditches evident.
Additionall
th
t
th
t t
h
i
y,
e s
ream
a
ransacts t
e s
te was channelized and straightened prior to 1936.
The 1936 aerial has been included in Appendix B
o ?

2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS

2.1 Vegetative Communities
A field survey was conducted to identify the dominant plant communities on the site. Until the
summer of 2000, the site was predominantly in active agricultural use with two small remnant
natural communities of Piedmont/Mountain Levee Forest and Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland
Forest (Schafale and Weakley 1990) also identified. Since that time, agricultural activities have
stopped and the fields have not been maintained. A schematic of the existing plant communities
at the time of the investigation is included (Figure 4).
' Piedmont Levee Forests occupy a band of varying width adjacent to Rich Fork. Woody species
of the canopy include Fraxinus pennsylvanica (green ash), Platanus occidentalis (sycamore),
Betula nigra (river birch), Celtis occidentalis (hackberry), Asrmma triloba (pawpaw), Juglans
nigra (black walnut), Liquidambar styraciua (sweet gum), Acer rubrum (red maple), and
Quercus falcata (southern red oak). The midstory includes Acer negundo (boxelder) and Acer
rubrum (red maple). The understory includes vines and herbs such as Smilax sp. (greenbriar), and
Toxicodendron radicans (poison ivy).
Piedmont Bottomland Forest was found on the floodplain of Rich Fork. Woody species of the
canopy include Fraxinus pennsylvanica (green ash), Platanus occidentalis (sycamore),
Liquidambar styraciua (sweet gum), Liriodendron tulipifera (yellow poplar), and Acer rubrum
(red maple). The midstory includes Acer negundo (boxelder), Carpinus caroliniana (ironwood),
Cornus Florida (flowering dogwood) and Ilex opaca (American holly). The understory includes
vines and herbs such as Smilax sp. (greenbriar), and Toxicodendron radicans (poison ivy).

1
r
1 5
1
is
i
i

61'
n

t
Table 1: Summary of existing plant communities at Rich Fork Site, Davidson, Co., NC
Plant Community Estimated Restoration HGM
Description Area Activity Type 2
Piedmont Levee Forest 7.2 ac Preservation/ Riverine
Enhancement
Converted Piedmont 19.7 ac Restoration/ Riverine
Bottomland Forest Creation
roHows Scnarale and Weakley (1990)
z follows Brinson (1993)
2.2 Soils
A detailed soils evaluation was conducted to determine the distribution and extent of soil types on
the site, using the Davidson County Soil Survey as a general guide. The evaluation was
conducted by establishing nine transects over the site, running perpendicular to the existing
drainage ditch network. Soil borings were performed along the transect lines at approximately
300 foot (90 meter) intervals (Figure 5 and Appendix Q. This process was complicated by the
disturbed nature of the agricultural fields that occupy the majority of the site. A network of
ditches has effectively drained the site for agriculture. Additionally, the horizons in the upper 12-
18 inches of soil have been homogenized and mixed by plowing for many years. Repetitive
plowing and mixing of crop residues into the soil, along with the artificial drainage, has affected
and altered the hydric features (soil color and mottling) normally found in the upper soil horizons
in an undisturbed, natural site.
Although the county soil survey mapped the entire site as Chewacla soil, field investigations
revealed that two soil series occur on the site, Chewacla and Congaree (Figure 6). Chewacla
1 accounts for approximately 75% of the project area with the remainder in Congaree. Both of
these series are alluvial in nature and are commonly found on floodplains. Under natural
conditions, flooding is frequent. During the field investigation, seasonal ponding of water in low
areas across the site was noted.
Congaree soil is found along the levee adjacent to Rich Fork. This series consists of very deep,
well-drained and moderately well-drained, moderately permeable soils formed from recent
alluvium. Due to its loamy texture, the Congaree soil can drain quickly. However, drainage and
permeability decrease with distance from the creek and levee.
Chewacla soils occupy the remainder of the site, occurring slightly lower in the landscape and
farther from Rich Fork. The Chewacla soils contain more clay than the Congaree soils, have
lower chroma, and contain common and distinct mottles throughout the B and lower horizons,
and often in the A horizon. Despite drainage and regular plowing, field investigations indicate
relict hydric features, i.e. mottling and concretions, within 12-14" (the plow layer zone) of the
surface over a significant portion of the site.

Resource
Technologies, Rich Fork Mitigation Site Figure 5: Soil Boring Locations
Inc.
x�
R+
c
'
ASSOCIATES OF NORTH CAROUNA, P.A.
ENVgONMEMII ND PEC, NO1DGlE$
ACONS1P11CROH, INC,
Resource
Technologies, Rich Fork Mitigation Site Figure 5: Soil Boring Locations
Site Boundary
Soil Boring Locations
North
NOT TO SCALE
Inc.
KCI
'
ASSOCIATES OF NORTH CAROUNA, P.A.
ENVgONMEMII ND PEC, NO1DGlE$
ACONS1P11CROH, INC,
Site Boundary
Soil Boring Locations
North
NOT TO SCALE

r-j

1

1

17
LJ
Table 2: Summary of soil series mapping units within
Rich Fork Mitigation Site, Davidson Co., NC
Map Soil Series Soil Subgroup Hydric Depth & Estimated
Symbol Status 1 Duration of Extent
High Water
Table 2
Ch Chewacla Fluvaquentic Secondary 0.5' to 1.5' 75%
loam Dystrochrepts (Nov. - April)
Co Congaree Typic Non-Hydric 2.5' to 4.0' 25%
loam Udifluvents (Nov. - April)
Hydric soil list for North Carolina
2 Based on soil taxonomy for undrained condition
2.2.1 Determination and Extent of Hydric Soils on Site
The determination of a soil's current/historic status as hydric must be ascertained before a
determination is made about the extent to which wetland restoration can be achieved on
the Rich Fork Site. In support of this effort, numerous sources (NRCS, ACOE etc.) were
consulted to determine the appropriate procedure to delineate the hydric soils on site.
ACOE guidance (David Franklin letter of 12/12/2000 to NCDOT regarding restoration of
Chewacla soils on the Shepherds Tree Mitigation Site) on Chewacla soils requires that
"depleted (reduced) soils must occur in the upper 12 inches of the soil profile to be
considered hydric for the purposes of determining wetland restoration areas.
Neither of the soils identified on the site are classified as hydric based on their absence
from state and county hydric soils lists. The ACOE guidance was therefore used as the
procedure for making these determinations. The evaluation identified that approximately
15% of the Rich Fork Mitigation Site gurrentlyhas depleted so...i.ls._within_the top. 12 inches
o the surface. An additional 15% of the site had some indicators of reducing conditions
in the upper 12 inches of the soil profile. These areas are identified in Figure 7.
2.3 Hydrology/Hydraulics
Site hydrology was evaluated during field investigations, and using flood frequency and water
budget analyses. Hydrology and hydraulics on the Rich Fork Mitigation Site reflect those
typically found in Piedmont riparian zones. The primary hydrologic input to the site is
precipitation. Inflows from two streams on the site contribute surface water during high flow
events.
The site is in the two-year floodplain of Rich Fork. Interviews with the current landowners
indicate that the site regularly floods and the fields are often too wet to plow. In the years when
planting is accomplished, crops are often still lost to flooding. A detailed flood frequency
analysis was performed for the subject property. The results are included in Section 2.3.1.1.
Three principal groundwater seep or discharge zones were identified in conjunction with the site.
The first seep zone is located at the toe of the upland slopes to the west, the second discharges
along the northwestern edge of the site and the third is adjacent to the northern property line.

10
'41 !?
t
ti
Ar"
1 4 S 4
..•'a? ?..', .fie
Rich Fork Mitigation Site Figure 7: Depleted Soils
9
I
Some indicators of reducing conditions I
-'? - in the upper 12"
!
-? Depleted soils within
12" of surface North 0
NOT TO SCALE

2.3.1 Surface Water
Three surface water inputs contribute to the site. The primary surface water input is Rich
Fork. The mitigation site is in the Rich Fork floodplain and becomes inundated under
natural conditions by discharges exceeding 1000 ft3/s. This data corresponds well with
rural Piedmont regional curves for bankfull discharge, however landowners have
indicated that flooding is occurring with increasing frequency and currently occurs 2 to 3
times per year. As no gauges are available on Rich Fork, a regional average standardized
probability weighted moments (PWM) approach was used to estimate the frequency and
intensity of flooding on the Rich Fork Mitigation Site.
Additi
l
f
i
ona
sur
ace water
nputs enter the site from two drainages to the west (Figure 8).
These areas contribute approximately 216 acres of drainage. The northern drainage
supports a perennial stream and the southern drainage supports an apparent intermittent
stream. Restoration activities on the site will include adjusting the pattern of these
features to establish meandering channels that will distribute water to various locations
on the floodplain during high flow events.
Both surface water and groundwater are removed from the property via lateral drains and
ditches. Two series of ditch networks drain the site (Figure 9). Both networks discharge
into Rich Fork at the southern end of the site. They jointly have the capacity to discharge
surface and subsurface water at a rate of 32 ft3/s. These ditches depress groundwater
elevations on site by providing a discharge path, which subsequently lowers the adjacent
water table. They also decrease the extent and duration of flooding. Under the current
conditions, lateral drains and the ditching of the stream channel have effectively altered
the hydrology of the site, decreasing the time of concentration and the amount of water
available for soil saturation. The ditching system outlet also provides an artificial break
in the natural stream levee and speeds drainage of the site during flood events.
2.3.1.1 Flood Frequency Analysis
PWM were calculated for eighteen gauged streams within the same physiographic region
and along the same hydrologic contour as the project site. The parameters were
compared to assure regional homogeneity among the sites. The idea behind pooling data
(regionalization) is that the frequency distribution of floods at different sites in a region is
the same except for a "scale" or "index" flood parameter. The parameter used in this
analysis was the mean annual flood. A regression relationship was developed using the
pooled sites to relate drainage area to mean annual flood (Appendix D).
The PWM were standardized by dividing by the mean at each site. The regional average
was then calculated for each PWM. The PWM that were estimated for the site using the
regional averages were transformed into L-Moments Ratios for the site. L-Moments are
simply linear functions of the PWM. Upon establishing these ratios, the probability
density function was solved for the Generalized Extreme Value (GEV) probability
distribution. The byproduct of this solution is an expression that estimates the discharge
associated with any specified flood return period at the site. Further, it provides the
exceedance probability of any specified flood discharge for any given year. The
' relationship is as follows:
QT = 2148.75 - 5158.50 (1- [-In (1-1/T)]'0.127

12

` S
(_ t
Q 740 '? ?j j tl
109
1 \ + bit Pke"sant Tern 4
k? Ch.
-sewage Dispo%d
r
I
Rich Fork Mitigation Site Figure 8: Secondary Hydrologic Inputs
SITE BOUNDARY
KCI
? SECONDARY INPUT DRAINAGE
i.?.i?ii• hli'. h, i'i'i'.:. i.. arv, uN??u<.Ori .tic
? SECONDARY INPUT DRAINAGE
North
NOT TO SCALE
a? vpt
? t
a ? s iF
Ilk
?4 '? 'S
W 14. mil
, Y, A....a p 1 f`
710
C .
, 14
Rich Fork Mitigation Site Figure 9: Site Hydrology
RE . RICH FORK SEEP
KC I - INTERMITTENT STREAMS
DRAINAGE DITCH (DIRECTION OF FLOW)
SITE BOUNDARY North
NOT TO SCALE 0

where T is the return period of the flood in years and QT is the discharge associated with
return period T.
3
' The results of the analysis show that a discharge of 1000 ft
/s corresponds to a 1.007-year
return period flood. The probability of this discharge being equaled or excee ny
given year is 0.9975 (99.75%). These results support the claims, by landowners, that
Rich Fork floods the mitigation site, at least one time per year. Tile results also support
the assertion that surface water from Rich Fork is a reliable hydrologic input to the
mitigation site.

2.3.2 Groundwater
High groundwater has historically been reported for the site and occurs seasonally at or
near the surface in the surrounding natural areas.
The site groundwater was evaluated by monitoring the water level with five on-site
Solinst Levelogger gages, a control gage, and a reference gage on an adjacent property
(Figure 10). The Leveloggers were installed across the site on January 26, 2001 and
programmed to measure water levels twice a day, at 12-hour intervals. The data was
downloaded periodically and evaluated to determine the depth and extent of the
' groundwater levels on the site. Data has been collected and evaluated through July 25,
2001.
Data fro?n each monitoring gage was evaluated using a 10-day moving average analysis.
The resulting data was plotted to determine the duration of saturation within 12" of the
ground surface (Appendix E). This evaluation revealed jurisdictional wetland hydrology
' at four of the five gage locations (all except Gauge #1) on the Rich Fork Mitigation Site,
as well as the reference or control gage offsite. These gages reported groundwater within
12" of the ground surface for at least 19 consecutive days during the growing season.
This represents that jurisdictional hydrology was achieved for at least 8% of the growing
season (March 14°i through November 10°').
2.3.3 Water Budget
Existing site hydrology was modeled by developing an annual water budget that
calculates water inputs and outputs, and the change in storage on a monthly time step
' (Appendix F). Under existing conditions, water inputs to the site are precipitation (P) and
surface runoff (Si). Historic precipitation data from the National Climatic Data Center
(NCDC) Summary of the Day Data Set was obtained from Earth Info, Inc. The data was
obtained for the City of High Point, Davidson County, NC, located approximately 8 miles
from the Rich Fork site. Total precipitation for the years of the period of record, from
1948-1997, was reviewed. Three years were selected that represent precipitation
conditions for an average year (1991), dry year (1986) and wet year (1989).
Daily surface runoff from the watershed of the unnamed tributary was calculated using
the Runoff Curve Number Method from TR-55 and daily precipitation data for the
representative years listed above. However, since the proposed mitigation design routes
the surface water flow through the site, surface water input (Si) equals surface water
output (So). It is expected that overbank flooding from the unnamed tributary will
' contribute to wetland hydrology on site, however this water input was not considered in
order to provide a conservative estimate of water availability. In a similar manner, water
inputs due to overbank flooding by Rich Fork were not considered, although anecdotal
15

1
I
1
i
1

evidence suggests flooding may occur 2-3 times year and the flood frequency analysis of
Rich Fork predicts overbank flooding on an approximately annual basis.
Groundwater input to the site is likely due to the landscape position of the site, and
observation of three groundwater seep discharge zones in the central and southern
portions of the site and along the western boundary of the site. However, groundwater
input was not calculated for the water budget since it is difficult to quantify and its
exclusion provides for a conservative estimate of water availability.
Water outputs from the site include potential evapotranspiration (PET), surface water
output (So), groundwater output (Go), and groundwater infiltration. PET was calculated
by the Thornthwaite method using mean monthly temperatures determined from 1961-
1990 data from Lexington, NC, and daytime hours. As mentioned above, surface water
output (So) was assumed to equal the surface water input from runoff. Groundwater
output (Go) represents the loss of groundwater via the ditch network on the site, and was
estimated from observations of depth of water flow, and the cross section and slope of the
collector ditch at the base of the site. Groundwater infiltration represents groundwater
losses from the site due to downward seepage through the soil profile. Soil permeability
was assumed to be 2x10"6 ft/min, which is typical of low permeability soils associated
with wetlands.
Net surface water and groundwater inputs and outputs were calculated in inches, and
' normalized across the site on a monthly time step. Net water inputs and outputs were
then added or subtracted from a running wetland water volume, expressed as a depth in
inches, and normalized across the total area of the site. A maximum wetland water
' volume of 4.32 inches was calculated, based on 36 inches of soil with a specific yield of
0.12. All of the calculated water volume came from water in the soil, there was no
surface water storage factored into the calculation.
The hydrographs for the average, dry and wet years show a similar pattern of seasonal
water table levels. Water table recharge occurs during the late fall and winter months
until a rapid water table draw down occurs as PET rates increase in the spring. During
' the summer, the water budget model shows the existing site is unsaturated within the
upper 36 inches of soil.
2.4 Assessment of Site Conditions
The Rich Fork Mitigation Site has an extensive history of disturbance, undergoing dramatic land
cover alterations prior to 1936 for the purposes of agricultural production. The site consisted of
' Piedmont Levee and Bottomland Hardwood Forest communities before these modifications. Two
small remnant natural communities of Piedmont/Mountain Levee Forest and Piedmont/Mountain
Bottomland Forest remain intact. The remnant of Piedmont Levee Forest occupies a band of
varying width adjacent to Rich Fork, and the Piedmont Bottomland Forest is found along the
floodplain of Rich Fork. These two native vegetative communities now constitute only a small
portion of the entire project site.
The soils have been disturbed and manipulated on the site. The horizons in the upper 12 to 18
inches of soil have been homogenized and mixed by decades of plowing and grading of the land.
A network of ditches has effectively drained the site for agricultural use. Repetitive plowing and
mixing of crop residues into the soil, along with artificial drainage, has affected and altered the
hydric features (soil color and mottling) normally found in the upper soil horizons of an
undisturbed site. The extensive land alteration described has complicated the identification and
17

determination of historic hydric soil conditions. Despite drainage and regular plowing, field
investigations indicate relict hydric features, i.e. mottling and concretions, within 12-14" (the
' plow layer zone) of the surface over a significant portion of the site.
The site h elagy--ard-hydfatrlic-&-re. hose characteristically found in Piedmont riparian
zones. ar surface water input is Rich For The site is located in the Rich Fork
floodplain and it is frequently inundated by ows fro n Rich Fork (2 to time v ar, according r0
r
to the current property owners). A flood frequency analysis was performed to verify this
information. The results of the analysis support the claim that surface water inputs from the 6)'
- ?
' flooding of Rich Fork are reliable in terms of their effect on wetland hydrology. The inflow from
two streams that enter the site from the west provide additional surface water to the project site.,
Under the current conditions, lateral drains and the ditching of the stream channel have
effectively altered the hydrology of the site; decreasing the amount of water available for soil
saturation and duration of flooding. The ditching system outlet also provides an artificial break in
the natural stream levee and speeds drainage of the site during overbank flooding events.
' Shallow groundwater, though influenced by the ditching network, has persisted. As previously
discussed, an analysis of data collected from on-site groundwater monitoring gages revealed
jurisdictional wetland hydrology at four of the five gage locations. Groundwater was found to be
within 12" of the ground surface for at least 19 consecutive days after March 14, representing that
jurisdictional hydrology was achieved for at least 8% of the growing season.
' A water budget was developed for existing conditions, in order to calculate water inputs and
outputs, and the change in storage on a monthly time step. Under existing conditions, water input
to the site comes from precipitation and surface runoff. Water outputs from the site include
potential evapotranspiration, surface water output, groundwater outflow via the ditch network,
and groundwater infiltration. All of the calculated water volume for the site came from water in
the soil; there was no surface water storage factored into the calculation. The results of the
existing water budget show the expected pattern of rapidly declining water table levels in the
spring and water table recharge during the fall and winter. The model indicates that the upper 36"
of soil will remain dry through the summer and early fall.
' In summary, the clearing, draining and conversion of the site to agriculture has altered its natural
wetland ecological function and diminished its capacity for natural biological productivity,
biogeochemical cycling, nutrient cycling, and water quality enhancement. In its present state, the
site is only fulfilling a small proportion of its potential and historical wetland functional role on
the landscape.
' 3.0 STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION ACTIVITIES
' The Rich Fork Mitigation Site will focus on,re-establishing the historic bottomland hardwood
communities and associated stream network. At present, a high .percentage of the site exceeds the
minimum 5% of the growing season hydrology criteria and approximately 30% of the site has at least
some indicators of reducing conditions in the upper 12" of the soil profile. Given the extent of human
induced alterations to the vegetative communities and hydrology (through draining and ditching), the
mitigation plan focuses on rectifying past actions and re-establishing vegetation in order to restore the
functions and values of a bottomland hardwood community.

18
i

r

3.1 Goals and Objectives
The goal of the Rich Fork mitigation project is to re-establish an integrated wetland-stream
complex that will restore ecosystem processes, structure, and composition to mitigate for wetland
functions and values that have been lost as a result of anthropogenic disturbances in this region of
the Yadkin River Basin.
A detailed evaluation of the watershed (Basinwide Assessment Report- Yadkin River Basin,
DEHNR, June 1997; Yadkin River Basin Technical Report - Wetland Mitigation Site Search,
KCI, May 1997) identified significant losses of functions and values associated with the dredging
and benning of the major streams in the Yadkin River Basin. Specifically, the restriction of
overbank flooding has allowed for the conversion of the basin's floodplains into agricultural
fields, thus promoting the clearing of riparian zones, the channelization of tributary streams and
the drainage of adjacent wetlands. These activities have subsequently resulted in the degradation
of water quality, wildlife habitat, and flood cycling capacities, as well as habitat fragmentation,
the loss of wildlife travel corridors and an overall decrease in regional biodiversity. The goals
and objectives of the restoration will focus on the reconstruction of the function and values lost in
the watershed.
Specific goals and objectives for the restoration of the site include:
• Restoration/enhancement of bottomland hardwood communities.
• Restoration of floodplain/wetland interfaces.

J

t
• Restoration of stream channels and drainage patterns.
• Restoration of water quality functions.
• Restoration of wildlife habitat.
• Re-establishment of wildlife travel corridors.
Table 3 and Figure 1 1 summarize the mitigation types and extent for the proposed communities
that will fulfill the restoration goals and objectives.
Table 3: Mitigation Type and Extent
COMMUNITY TYPE Restoration Creation Enhancement Preservation
Piedmont Bottomland Hardwood Forest 3.0 ac. 16.7 ac.
Piedmont Levee Forest 1.5 ac. 5.7 ac.
Perennial Stream 2000 if
Intermittent Stream 1000 If
3.2 Wetland Restoration
The proposed wetland restoration/creation area within the Rich Fork mitigation site consists of
19.7 acres of agricultural fields that are currently non-wetlands. Based on existing relict hydric
soils and examination of forest areas adjacent to these fields, it is presumed that all 19.7 acres
were jurisdictional wetlands prior to conversion. The proposed actions will be directed at
restoring the character and function of the Piedmont Bottomland Hardwood wetland type that
occupied these fields historically.
The wetland mitigation activities associated with the site will result in substantial enhancement of
' the existing water quality and habitat functions onsite. Elimination of channelized flow from
agricultural ditches to Rich Fork will drastically reduce nutrient, pesticide and sediment runoff
from the site and improve water quality downstream. The proposed ditch plugging and filling
19
e?' 1
Xlk
airy' 4A Y '• i v `.. !i
VIP
ka
,
at .,
OSMAN-
M ,...
? ,dry, ? ? a
„? b rG fps ? - & {:N
Rich Fork Mitigation Site Figure 1 1 : Mitigation Type and Extent
Piedmont / Mountain Bottomland Forest - Restoration
a Piedmont / Mountain Bottomland Forest - Creation
KCI
4Np('I,Af}>U4 NpItI0 C1RUllh,A. I'A nrvn eoNrv ec, ai ? ? ?,
Piedmont / Mountain Levee Forest - Preservation
Piedmont / Mountain Levee Forest - Enhancement North
Perennial Stream Restoration - - Intermittent Stream Restoration NOT To SCALE

' will result in increased short-term surface and subsurface water storage and subsequent increase
in the duration and elevation of the seasonally high water table. The increased retention time of
' surface and subsurface water will result in reduced peak flows and augmented base flow to Rich
Fork. Increased retention time will also facilitate a variety of biogeochemical transformations
such as denitrification and dissolved organic carbon export. Reduced nitrogen export and
increased carbon export will benefit downstream aquatic habitat areas in Rich Fork and the
' Yadkin River.
Converting the agricultural fields back to a natural vegetative species composition will improve
' the feeding, shelter and breeding habitat for many indigenous and migrant faunal species. The
riverine nature of the restored wetlands will also expand wildlife corridors between existing
habitat islands.
' The drained agricultural areas will be restored to Piedmont bottomland forest by filling ditches,
moving and/or removing the upper 6-12 inches of soil to create microtopography across the site,
and planting an appropriate mix of bottomland hardwood tree species.
Further, an unnamed tributary to Rich Fork that flows south then east across the northern portion
of the Parker tract will be restored by establishing a stable channel morphology (dimension,
pattern, and profile). A schematic drawing of proposed restoration types and areas is included in
Figure 11.
Specific actions proposed to achieve the wetland restoration goals and objectives include:
• Filling of lateral ditches
• Recreating microtopography across the site to: enhance surface water retention and
storage, to provide the necessary slope for stream restoration and to provide
amphibian breeding habitat where possible
• Restoration of unnamed tributary to Rich Fork to re-establish stream/wetland
' interface
• Re-vegetation of the site with Piedmont bottomland hardwood and Piedmont levee
forest species
3.2.1 Hydrologic Alterations
The first step in restoring hydrology will be to demonstrate that under the 1987 Corps
Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) that criteria for soil saturation, e.g. soils
' saturated to within 12 inches of the surface for 5% or more of the growing season in most
years, have been achieved. However, since the site occupies an area that is Piedmont
riparian bottomland, and is a seasonal wetland, 8% of the growing season is proposed for
' determining the number of consecutive days of inundation or saturation within 12 inches
of the surface. According to the NRCS Soil Survey for Davidson County, the growing
season (50% probability, 28° F) extends from March 14-November 10 or 239 days. The
required duration of continual high water table would then be 19 days. If overbank
flooding causes extended inundation such that an area is ponded or flooded for 7 or more
days (during normal weather conditions), then it meets the soils and hydrology criteria for
a wetland.
In January 2001, automatic recording wells were strategically placed across the site to
collect groundwater data. All monitoring wells (6 total, 1 control) have been installed
according to guidelines outlined by the U S Army Corps, Waterways Experiment Station
7
L
21
y
. r
_il '.r• ..

' (WRP, 1993). Well data will be used to document hydrologic restoration within the
drained agricultural field areas.
' Currently, a high percentage of the site possesses hydrologic features sufficient to meet
the jurisdictional criteria set forth by the ACOE. However, in order to further enhance
the site functionality and increase habitat diversity, modifications that will influence the
' hydroperiod of the site are being proposed. These actions are described in more detail
below:
' Ditch Removal: Approximately 12 lateral ditches found on the site facilitate removal of
precipitation and flood flows. When constructed, the excavated material from the ditches
was placed between the rows and crowned, directing runoff into the ditches. This ditch
' network will be filled as a part of restoration activities.
Stream Channel Restoration: Stream restoration will include the re-establishment of a
stable pattern, profile, and cross-section for the unnamed tributary to Rich Fork on the
mitigation site. This will restore stream/floodplain connectivity and provide increased
water quality and wildlife habitat diversity functions. This is described in greater detail
in Section 3.3.
Post-Restoration Water Budget: A post-restoration or proposed water budget was
developed by modifying the existing conditions water budget to reflect the mitigation site
design (Appendix E). The principal change in the water budget is to remove the monthly
groundwater loss to the ditch network. Another contribution to site hydrology is an
increased frequency of flooding from the restored and redirected streams running through
the site. Although this water input will help maintain wetland hydrology onsite, it has not
been incorporated into the proposed conditions water budget because flooding will be
difficult to predict on an annual basis.
The proposed conditions water budget shows the annual hydrographs for the same three
climatic years reflecting dry, average, and wet conditions. Without the estimated
groundwater loss from the ditch network, the water table recharges earlier in the fall,
maintains a shallower soil depth for a greater duration, and remains within 12 inches of
the soil surface for a greater proportion of the growing season. The proposed water
budget predicts saturation within 12 inches of the soil surface for greater than 8% of the
growing season.
3.2.2 Soil Modifications
Project success is dependent on the presence of hydric soils and wetland hydrology
within restoration areas. Approximately 90% of the agricultural areas on the site are
occupied by Chewacla soils that have been drained to various degrees.
The past agricultural practices on the site have left the soil with elevated phosphorus
concentrations, which is good for woody vegetation reestablishment but also is conducive
' to herbaceous weed growth and competition for nutrients and sunlight. This competition
can have an adverse effect on tree seedling survival. Application(s) of herbicide may be
needed to control herbaceous competition in the first growing season. Slow-release
fertilizer packets may also be used to increase seedling growth in the first two growing
' seasons.
0
22

' The detailed restoration plan will be compatible with long-term objectives of improving
water quality by sequestering nitrogen and phosphorus on-site, discontinuing their
application in the future, and greatly reducing the amount of sediment that is allowed to
reach Rich Fork from the site.
Another important element in the restoration process will be the creation of
microtopography across the entire site to enhance the retention of surface water and
precipitation and to provide appropriate gradients for stream restoration. The upper layer
of soil will be manipulated to create the desired relief, so that the net variance from
existing conditions will be no more than 6 inches. This activity will not adversely affect
soil fertility since the soil has been plowed and homogenized in the upper 12-15 inches
for many decades.

11

1
u
The soils on the site have undergone significant disturbance for greater than 60 years.
Agriculture operations have compacted the soil, thus decreasing infiltration. At the
completion of earth-moving activities, the site will be ripped as necessary to create
conditions conducive for the re-establishment of Piedmont Bottomland Hardwood
systems on the site.
3.2.3 Vegetative Communities
The site will be designed to restore Piedmont bottomland hardwood vegetation and
preserve and enhance Piedmont Levee Forest vegetation (Figure 12).
Reference plots for the representative community types will be established within relatively
undisturbed examples of these natural communities identified in the area. The plant
community composition and hydrogeomorphic target conditions for wetland restoration will
be those of the undisturbed reference wetland types, or as close an approximation of those
conditions as possible.
The proposed species list and species composition will be determined using the remnant
forest on the site, the reference area, and by using the information contained in Schafale
and Weakley (1990). The community-planting plan described below provides a guide for
the vegetative re-establishment of the targeted communities. If available, the following
species will be planted:
Piedmont/Mountain Levee Forest
Species: Scientific Name Common Name
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash
Acer negundo boxelder
Liriodendron tulipifera yellow poplar
Platanus occidentalis sycamore
Betula nigra river birch
Planting Density: 680 Stems per acre
Comments: All trees should be 12"-18" bare root material.
23
1
c d
f
:.• C\j -I-
?, O cn
O??DOa tt '? r Z 0
ICI O Q U y D ? ?? ? ` ) ,
N ` CO IL
aBCDQU0 O
O
O ,N ` U
CD ? .V 7; ?• • L C
z i? ;••}T U?
O I ?,
rte- I
EL ? Q '' ?i$?i•
w Oaa
-000 O
U? N d) U ?? R ?a?i' t
J L?
e • O
I •
LL.
IOaoa_o , Nv
Q c?.??a
zN o0 4q
w i 0 U H
Oc yQ c ;a i; •• m
O c ?o p : I r N
O> L Ja ?=> 7
wJ L Q?v UQ ?
CL Z5
?m}cnC 1 ,* 4j7f 0C
All.
I f i1 •?1, r ?
z r <
F- O W W ,• M • •• T Y E
co :?; •i ••

1

Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest
Species: Scientific Name Common Name
Liriodendron tulipifera yellow poplar
Quercus falcata var. pagodaefolia cherry bark oak
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash
Quercus phellos willow oak
Quercus nigra water oak
Carya ovata shagbark hickory
Planting Density: 680 Stems per acre
Comments: All trees should be 12"-18" bare root material.
The success criteria for the planted species in the restoration areas will be based on
survival and growth. Survival of planted species must be 300 stems / ac at the end of 5
years of monitoring. Height growth must average 6.0 ft. Non-target species must not
constitute more than 20 percent of the woody vegetation based on permanent monitoring
plots. Permanent monitoring plots will be established in restoration areas at a density of
1 plot per 4.5 acres (restoration area =6 plots) and in the preservation/Congaree soil area
at a density of I plot per 1.76 acres (preservation area = 1 plot). Permanent monitoring
plots will be systematically located to ensure even coverage throughout each area. The
following data will be collected at each plot: species, survival, height, estimated percent
cover of all species and evidence of insects, disease and browsing.
3.3 Stream Restoration
An unnamed tributary to Rich Fork enters the mitigation property at the northern boundary. Though it
is designated as an intermittent stream on the USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle, the stream maintains a
constant year-round flow, indicating perennial status. It has been ditched, channelized and redirected
across the northern part of the mitigation site to enter Rich Fork on the eastern boundary of the sitd. It
is anticipated that approximately 2,000 feet of perennial stream restoration will be undertaken on the
mitigation site. An additional 1,000 linear feet of intermittent stream restoration may be possible on
the second tributary that enters the southwest portion of the site. The stream will be redirected, with
the appropriate pattern, profile and dimension, so that is flows southward across the site and into Rich
Fork at the southern part of the site. All stream restoration design and construction will be Priority
Level I restoration. Table 4 presents morphologwaLd or a-re€ereffee .,&eam--re " T,y eat Pee
Dee National Wildlife Refuge), as well as the existing and proposed restored conditions of the
tributary on the site. While o er reference sites are still being investigated, this reference provides
reasonable ratios to use as design parameters on the Rich Fork site.
The intent of stream restoration efforts will be to recreate near-historical stream features, using
fluvial geomorphological principles and bioengineering measures that are integrated with and
conducive to supporting the proposed wetlands restoration efforts.
The stream restoration efforts will:
• Establish stream geometry and instream flow characteristics that best support proposed
wetland and corresponding wildlife habitat diversity restoration efforts
• Enhance overbank flooding frequency
• Re-establish water table levels closer to their pre-disturbance levels.
• Enhance water quality by reducing bank erosion potential, thus reducing sediment inputs and
promoting nutrient reductions
25

3.3.1 Dimension, Pattern and Profile
A Rosgen Level II stream assessment was performed on a selected reference reach. For
this project, the selected reference site is a stable "E5" Type stream reach located in the f
Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge. Selection of this site is appropriate due to its
geomorphic similarity (i.e. same physiographic region, functioning as part of an
integrated wetland/stream complex, drainage size).
The conceptual stream design proposes the restoration of appropriate geomorphologic
dimension, pattern and profile for approximately 2,000 feet of "E5" Type stream channel
with corresponding cross-sectional modifications, instream habitat development, bank
stabilization, and riparian corridor establishment. Design criteria (dimensionless ratios)
developed from the reference site form the basis for the restoration design as provided in
Table 4.
3.3.2 Bank Stabilization
Bank stabilization of the restored streams will rely exclusively on appropriate
geomorphic design incorporating natural stabilization/habitat structures and
bioengineering techniques.
3.3.3 Riparian Vegetation Establishment
Reestablishment of riparian vegetation will consist of planting and seeding a twenty (20)
foot wide riparian buffer adjacent to each side of the restored channel. The plantings will
include both bare root and live stake materials. The riparian zones of the restored streams
will be a sub-component of the overall bottomland hardwood community type being
restored. Within the buffer zone, the following species, if available, will be planted at a
density of 680 stems/acre.
Scientific Name
Betula nigra Common Name
River birch Indicator
FACW
Celtis laevigata Sugarberry FACW
Salix nigra
Salix sericea Black willow
Silky willow OBL
OBL
Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush OBL
Cornus amomum Silky dogwood FACW+
Sambucus canadensis Elderberry FACW-
Itea virginica Virginia willow FACW+

26
1

1

f7

1
t

TABLE 4: MORPHOLOGICAL DESIGN CRITERIA

Variables Project Site
Existing
Channel*
Reference Reach Project Site
Restored
Reach
Stream Type Modified (G5) E5 E5
Drainage Area (mi) 0.21 0.37 0.21
Bankfull Width (Wbkf) 8.5 6.8-7.4 5.4-5.6
Bankfull Mean Depth (dbkf) 1.05 1.31 1.02-1.06 (1.04)
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (Abkf) (ft) 8.1 9.0-9.6 5.7**
Width/Depth Ratio (WbkObkf) 8.1 5.2-5.6 5.2-5.6
Bankfull Max Depth (d,,,bkf) 1.9 1.63-1.79 1.29-1.42
Width of Floodprone Area (Wfpa) 15.8 > 100' > 50'
Entrenchment Ratio (ER) 1.86 > 10.0 > 9.0
Channel Materials (D50) (mm) 0.25 0.25 0.25
Water Surface Slope (S) 0.5% 0.19% 0.5%
Sinuosity (K) 1.04 1.4 1.7
Pool Depth (dp) * 1.9-2.8 1.51-2.22
o Riffle Depth (dr) * 1.11-1.57 0.88-1.25
Ratio - Max. Pool Depth: Mean Bkf. Depth * 1.65 2.1
A
Bankfull mean velocity (u) (ft./sec.)
2.7
3.2-3.5
3.51
Bankfull discharge (Q) (CFS) 22.0 30.7-31.6 18-22
Meander Length (L) * 77-100.7 61-77
Radius of Curvature (RJ * 13.1-22.3 10-17
Belt Width (WbIt) * 51-92 41-70
4 Meander Width Ratio (MWR) * 5.2-12.5 5.2-12.5
Ratio- Rad. of Curv.: Bkf Width (Rc/Wbkf) * 1.93-3.03 1.93-3.03
Ratio- Meander Length:Bkf Width (L/Wbkf) * 11.3-13.7 11.3-13.7
Valley Slope (ft./ft.) * 0.57% 0.33%
Water Surface Slope (ft./ft.) * 0.42% 0.20%
Riffle Slope (ft./ft.) * 0.6-2.0% 0.29-0.95%

° Pool Slope (ft./ft.) * .0.08-0.18% .04-0.10%

, Pool to Pool Spacing (ft.)
*
26-65
19-54
Pool Length (ft.) * 13-22 9.5-18
Ratio - Pool Slope:Water Surface Slope * 0.20-0.43 0.20-0.43
Ratio - Pool to Pool Spacing:Bkf width * 2.8-9.6 2.8-9.6
* Dimension, pattern, and profile of the existing channel have been significantly altered by human
activities and exhibit minimal natural features.
** Cross-sectional area used for this calculation was extracted from the NC Rural Piedmont Regional
Curve: Wbkf = x(5.7)(5.2)= 5.4 and 4(5.7)(5.6) = 5.6; thus 5.4-5.6' constitutes the range.

27

u

4.0 WETLAND AND STREAM MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
4.1 Post Implementation Documentation
An "as built" report will be submitted to the COE within 90 days of the completion of planting
and gage installation and will include: elevations, photographs, gage locations, and a description
of initial species composition.by community and sampling plot locations. Included within the
report will be a list of species planted, planting densities and a total number of stems in the
mitigation area. This information will form the base for further monitoring and evaluation.
4.2 Monitoring and Success Criteria
The Rich Fork Mitigation Site will be determined to be successful once wetland hydrology is
established within the restoration area and the vegetation success criteria are met. Monitoring
data will be collected for a period of 5 years or until all success criteria are achieved. Annual
reports will be submitted to the MBRT prior to the end of each calendar year, documenting plant
community conditions within the restoration areas and documenting hydrologic data within the
restoration areas and reference plots. The Annual Report will also include a proposed plan of
action for the following year including maintenance activities and a contingency plan.
The monitoring program will be implemented to document system development and progress
towards achieving mitigation goals and objectives. Vegetative data will be correlated with the
appropriate hydrologic data from the groundwater monitoring gages to determine if these
objectives are being met. If, after the completion of five growing seasons, jurisdictional status
has not been achieved where desired, or the desired vegetation has not been established, the
project team will implement appropriate corrective measures. The restored stream will also be
monitored to determine if the criteria for success have been achieved. Photographs will be taken
once a year at the permanent photograph stations.
4.2.1 Hydrology
The success of a wetland mitigation project is largely driven by the hydrology of the site,
which incorporates groundwater elevation with surface water flows to maintain soil
saturation for a defined period of time. The Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetland
Delineation Manual defines an area as a wetland if the soil is ponded, flooded, or
saturated within 12 inches of the surface for 5% to 12.5% of the growing season (12 - 30
days) in a normal year. Wetland hydrology will be established if well data from
restoration areas indicates that the water table is within 12 inches of the soil surface for at
least 8% of the growing season (19 consecutive days). If overbank flooding causes
extended inundation such that an area is ponded or flooded for 7 or greater days (during
normal weather conditions), then it meets the soils and hydrology criteria for a wetland.
A "normal" year, based on NRCS climatological data for Davidson County, must receive
an annual rainfall of between 40 and 50 inches. Hydrologic success will be considered if
the COE criteria are met.
Verification of wetland hydrology will be determined by automatic recording well data
collected within the project area and approved reference plots. Automatic recording
wells will be established within restoration areas at a density of 1 automatic well per 3.9
acres (5 wells total). One automatic recording well will be established at the reference
plot. Daily data will be collected from automatic wells throughout the year and over the
5-year monitoring period following implementation.
28

4.2.2 Vegetation
Recovery and restoration of the vegetation on a wetland mitigation site is dependent upon
hydrology and soil saturation. Vegetative succession is influenced by active planting of
vegetation as well as volunteer encroachment. Tile success criteria will incorporate the
assumption that exact species composition and other successional changes cannot be
1 strictly controlled under natural conditions.
Prior to planting, the mitigation area will be inspected for proper elevation and soil
suitability. Following planting, permanent vegetation sampling plots and photograph
stations will be established within each community type.
The success criteria for the planted species in the restoration areas will be based on
survival and growth. Beginning at the end of the first growing season, the project team
will monitor site vegetation for five years following planting. Survival of planted species
must be 300 stems/acre at the end of 5 years of monitoring. Height growth must average
six feet. Non-target species must not constitute more than 20 percent of the woody
vegetation based on permanent monitoring plots. Permanent monitoring plots will be
established in restoration areas at a density of 1 plot per 4.5 acres (restoration area = 6
plots) and in the preservation/Congaree soil area at a density of 1 plot per 1.76 acres
(preservation area = 1 plot). Permanent monitoring plots will be systematically located to
ensure even coverage throughout each area. The following data will be collected at each
plot: species, survival, height, estimated percent cover of all species, and evidence of
insects, disease and browsing. Remedial action will be taken as needed to rectify
problems throughout the monitoring period.
4.2.3 Streams
The project team will develop a monitoring plan that establishes the methodologies and
criteria for assessing geomorphological and biological parameters of the restored stream
and for evaluating the success of the restoration. In general, the project team will
monitor the streams in accordance with ACOE and NCDENR protocols: i.e., monitoring
will follow the most recent NCDENR guidance: Internal Technical Guide for
Streamwork in North Carolina (Version 3.0, April 2001) and the Interim, Internal
Technical Guide: Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Protocols for Compensatory
Stream Restoration Projects (NC Division of Water Quality, 401/Wetlands Unit, May
2001).
4.2.4 Reporting
Monitoring reports will be prepared and submitted for each year monitoring occurs and
' after all monitoring tasks for each year are completed. Each report will summarize the
new monitoring data and compare the new data against previous findings. Data tables,
cross sections, profiles, photographs and other graphics will be included in the report as
1 necessary. Each report will address, in detail, any significant changes in monitored
parameters that are identified.
5.0 OTHER ECOLOGICAL AND NON-ECOLOGICAL CONCERNS
' 5.1 Historical/Archaeological
The North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
conducted a review of the proposed mitigation project to determine the presence of historic
29

fl

preservation sites or sites of archeological importance on the study site. No sites of historical
importance listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) were noted on the subject
property. Additionally, no sites of archaeological significance were identified on the subject site.
5.2 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species (RTE)
Available records were reviewed at the North Carolina Department of Parks and Recreation,
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) to determine the presence of any rare, threatened, or
endangered (RTE) species or critical habitats on or near the study site. Additionally, during the
field investigation, the existing site conditions were evaluated in order to determine if habitat
suitable for supporting Davidson County RTE species exists on the site. No occurrences of RTE
species or critical habitats were identified on or near the mitigation site.
' 5.3 Utilities/Easements
Deed records, aerial photographs, USGS and NWI maps, and county planning maps were
reviewed to assess the presence and potential impact of any utilities and easements on wetland
' and stream restoration. The review of these documents did not identify any utilities or easements
associated with the project site.

t

5.4 Preliminary Project Schedule
Activity Status/Anticipated Completion date
Site Acquisition .................................................. Pending ACOE Approval
Mitigation Planning .....................................................................On-going
Site Design ...................................................................................Fall 2001
Site Construction ............................................................Winter 2001-2002
Site Planting ....................................................... Winter 2001-Spring 2002
6.0 DISPENSATION OF PROPERTY
The project team has communicated with several conservation groups and natural resource
agencies (public or private) for the purpose of final dispensation of this property. In light of the
fact that the dispensation will not occur for a period of five years and that several new
organizations that deal exclusively with this type of mitigation project have formed or are in the
process of forming, the project team suggests that some flexibility be maintained with respect to
the dispensation of the site. This will ensure that the best possible scenario is realized when the
site is ultimately turned over to an appropriate organization.
30
1
F1

n

1

u

1
REFERENCES
Classification and Water Quality Standards Assigned to the Waters of the Yadkin River Basin,
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality. Raleigh, NC, 1998.
Changes in Hydric Soils of the United States (current Hydric Soil definition). Federal Register.
Washington, D.C., July 13, 1994.
Fetter, C.W. 1990. Applied Hydrogeology, Macmillan, 691 pp.
Field Indicators of Hydric Soils - A Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils, Version
4.0. USDA, NRCS.
Franklin, David. USACOE. "Letter of 12/12/2000 to NCDOT regarding restoration of
Chewacla soils on the Shepherd's Tree Mitigation Site."
Interim, Internal Technical Guide: Benthic Macro i nvertebrate Monitoring Protocols for
Compensatory Stream Restoration Projects. NCDENR, Division of Water Quality, 401/Wetlands
Unit, Raleigh, NC, 2001.
Internal Technical Guide for Streamwork in North Carolina (Version 3.0), NCDENR, Division of
Water Quality, Raleigh, NC, 2001.
Rao and Harried. 2000. Flood Frequency Analysis. CRC.
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Printed Media Companies, Minneapolis,
Minnesota.
Schafale, M.P., and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina, 3rd Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, NC Department of Environmental Health and Natural Resources. Raleigh, NC.
Southern Forested Wetlands Ecology and Management. M.G. Messina & W.H.Conner, eds. Ch.
4 "Regional Climates", R.A. Muller & J.M. Grymes III, pp87-102. CRC Press. 1998.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual," Vicksburg, MS.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1994. Soil
Survey, Davidson County, North Carolina.
31

J
11

I-li
11

APPENDIX A - SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

Photo 1. Aerial view looking southwest.
Photo 2. Aerial view looking southeast.
i
t

r' l g +W.',yye,M
Photo 3. Ground view of Parker tract..

. ?. ? w* k
7-7
a?
04,
".! «
? Y ': ? 7 - i?p...-'-?g4,yyr,y f py".?. f.. rt.i ?.`yr ?d.ik 4P • e ..)
iL F
- .M. it •i+^. y5lt i l4L 4.ts ?« 4: r.. ?.? i lal.°? ?' yl? ei.?.t- .r n ..15 A :..
Photo 4. Ground view of Bodenheimer tract.

0

Photo 5. View of Rich Fork looking downstream.
Photo 6. View of the adjacent piedmont bottomland hardwood forest.

I

I APPENDIX B -AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS

7

v

#"'

C
r
i
t
t
l

APPENDIX C -SOILS INFORMATION

f. ?
.+a?

0

I I
iJ

Ll

SOIL BORINGS PROFILE DATA
A Transect:
Plot ID Al
Investigator JRoss &
MHanley
Map Unit Name Chewacla
loam
Taxonomy-subgroup Fluvaquentic
Dystrudepts
Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture Comments
0-12 A 2.5YR 5/3 10YR 5/6 Few/Faint Clay loam
12-18 B 2.5YR 5/3 10 YR 5/6 Many/Faint Silty clay loam
18-24 B 2.5 YR 6/2 7.5 YR 5/8 Many/Large Bright Sandy clay loam
2440 B 2.5 YR 511 2.5 YR 5/6 Prominent/Distinct Sandy clay loam
Plot ID A2
Investigator JRoss &
MHanley
Map Unit Name Chewacla
loam
Taxonomy-subgroup Fluvaquentic
Dystntdepts
Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture Comments
04 A 10 YR 4/2 10 YR 4/6 Few/Faint Clay loam
4-12 B 2.5 YR 4/2 10 YR 4/4 Many/Prominent Clay loam
12-18 B 2.5 YR 5/2 10 YR 4/4 Many/Prominent Clay loam
I8-34 B I G 6/5 GY 10 YR 4/6 Many
large/Distinct Sandy clay
Plot ID A3
Investigator JRoss &
MHanley
Map Unit Name Chewacla
loam
Taxonomy-subgroup Fluvaquentic
Dystntdepts
Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture Comments
0-12 A 10 YR 5/4 No Mottles Sandy loam
12-20 B 2.5 YR 7/3 10 YR 5/6 Few/Distinct Sandy clay loam
20-24 B 10 YR 5/2 10 YR 5/6 Few/Distinct Sandy loam
24-30 B 10 YR 6/2:
10 YR 4/3 10 YR 5/6 Few/Prominent Clay loam
Plot ID A4
Investigator JRoss &
MHanlev
Map Unit Name Chewacla
loam
Taxonomy-subgroup Fluvaquentic
Dystrudepts
Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture Comments
0-18 A 10 YR 5/2 Sandy clay

Plot ID A5
Investigator JRoss &
MHanley
Map Unit Name Chewacla
loam
Taxonomy-subgroup Fluvaquentic
Dystntdepts
Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mott le Texture Comments
0-16 A 10 YR 5/2 Loamy clay Sample site
in towards field
appx. 50 feet

B Transeet•

L

LJ

Plot ID B I
Investigator Moss &
MHanley
Map Unit Name Congaree loam
Taxonomy-subgroup Typic
Udifluvents
Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture Comments
0-20 C FO YR 5/3 Friable-silt/loam
20-30 C 10 YR 513 10 YR 5/2 Common/Faint Friable silt/loam

Plot ID B2
Investigator JRoss &
MHanley
Map Unit Name Chewacla
loam
Taxonomy-subgroup Fluvaquentic
Dystrudepts
Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture Comments
0-6 A 10 YR 511 10 YR 5/6 Relic Rhizoliths Clayey/Silt loam Fe+ concretions
6-24 BA 10 YR 511 10 YR 5/6 Common/Distinct Clayey/Silt loam
24-30 B 10 YR 511 10 YR 5/6 Common/Distinct Silty Clay Very plastic
at 26 inches
Plot ID B3
Investigator JRoss &
MHanley
Map Unit Name Chewacla
loam
Taxonomy-subgroup Fluvaquentic
Dystrudepts
Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture Comments
0-6 A 10 YR 4/3
6-18 B 10 YR 51I 10 YR 514 Common/distinct Friable
Sandy/Clay loam Fe+ concretions
18-24 B 10 YR 511 10 YR 514 Common/distinct Friable
Sandy/Clay loam Fe+ concretions
24-30 B 10 YR 511 10 YR 5/4 Common/distinct Silty clay Fe+ concretions
30-32 B 10 YR 6/1 10 YR 7/3 Common/Faint Silty clay Fe+ concretions
Plot ID B4
Investigator JRoss &
MHanley
Map Unit Name Chewacla
loam
Taxonomy-subgroup Fluvaquentic
Dystrudepts
Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture Comments
0-12 A 2.5 Y 5/3 2.5 Y 6/6 Few Sandy loam Clay increasing
12-18 BA 2.5 Y 6/4 2.5 Y 5/6 Common Sandy loam with depth
18-24 B 1 OYR 6/2 I0YR 6/8 Common Silty clay loam Mottles consist
of oxidized
rhizospheres
Plot ID B5
Investigator JRoss &
MHanley
Map Unit Name Chewacla
loam
Taxonomy-subgroup Fluvaquentic
Dystmdepts
Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture Comments
0-12 A 2.5 Y-5/3 10YR 5/8 Few/faint Sandy loam Clay increasing
12-18 BA 2.5 Y 6/4 IOYR 5/8 Common Sandy loam with depth
18-24 B IOYR 6/2 10YR 6/8 Common Silty clay loam Mottles consist
of oxidized
rhizospheres

C Transect•

n
L

Plot ID CT-
I
Investigator KNunnery &
RBailey
Map Unit Name Chewacla
loam
Taxonomy-subgroup Fluvaquentic
Dystrudepts
Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture Comments
0-12 A 10 YR 4/3 10 YR 5/6 Common/Faint Friable silty loam
12-20 B 10 YR 6/1 10 YR 6/4 Common/Faint Friable silty loam Fe+ concretions
20-24 B 10 YR 6/1 10 YR 7/8 Common/Distinct Friable silty loam Fe+ concretions
24-26 B 10 YR 6/1 10 YR 5/6 Common/Distinct Friable silty loam Fe+ concretions
26-30 B 7/5 GY 7.5 YR 3/4 Common/Distinct Friable silty loam Fe+ concretions
Plot ID C2
Investigator KNunnery &
RBailey
Map Unit Name Chewacla
loam
Taxonomy-subgroup Fluvaquentic
Dystrudepts
Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture Comments
0-9 A 10 YR 5/3 Sandy loam
9-24 BA 10 YR 5/3 Sandy loam
Plot ID C2b
Investigator KNunnery &
RBailey
Map Unit Name Chewacla/Congaree
loam transition
Taxonomy-subgroup Fluvaquentic
Dystrudepts/ Typic
Udifluvents
Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Mottle Colors Mottle Texture Comments
Color
0-12 A 2.5YR 6/3 Sandy clay
12-20 B 2.5YR 5/2 Sandy clay
Plot ID C3
Investigator JRoss &
MHanley
Map Unit Name Congaree loam
Taxonomy-subgroup Typic
Udifluvents
Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture Comments
0-12 A 2.5 YR 6/3 Sandy clay
12-20 C 2.5 YR 5/2 Sandy clay
20-24 C 2.5 YR 6/3 Sandy clay
24-30 C 2.5 YR 6/2 Clay
Plot ID C4
Investigator JRoss &
MHanley
Map Unit Name Congaree loam
Taxonomy-subgroup Typic
Udifluvents
Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture Comments
0-6 A 2.5 YR 513 Sand
6-24 C 2.5 YR 5/2 Sand

fl

D Transect:

J

n

Plot ID D2
Investigator JRoss &
MHanley
Map Unit Name Chewacla/
Congaree loam
Taxonomy-subgroup Fluvaquentic
Dystrudepts/
Typic
Udifluvents
Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture Comments
0-26 A 10YR 5/3 10YR 5/6 Common Silty loam
26-30 B 2.5YR 6/1 10YR 5/6 Common Silty clay loam
Plot ID D3
Investigator JRoss &
MHanley
Map Unit Name Cltewacla
loam
Taxonomy-subgroup Fluvaquentic
Dystrudepts
Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture Comments
0-18 A 2.5YR 5/3 10YR 5/6 Common Sandy clay
18-30 B 2.5Y 6/2 2.5Y 6/6 Common Sandy clay

Plot ID D4
Investigator KNunnery &
RBailey
Map Unit Name Cltewacla
loam
Taxonomy-subgroup Fluvaquentic
Dystrudepts
Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture Comments
0-6 A 2.5YR 5/2 Clay loam
6-24 B 2.M 5/2 Clay loam

Plot ID D4b
Investigator KNunnery &
RBailey
Map Unit Name Chewacla
loam
Taxonomy-subgroup Fluvaquentic
Dystnudepts
Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture Comments
0-12 A 2.5YR 5/2 Clay loam
12-30 B 2.5YR 5/2 Clay loam

E Transect•

n
J

1

I
LJ

Plot ID El
Investigator JRoss &
MHanley
Map Unit Name Chewacla
loam
Taxonomy-subgroup Fluvaquentic
Dystrudepts
Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture Comments
0-18 A 2.5Y 5/2 2.5Y 5/6 Common Clay

Plot ID E3
Investigator JRoss &
MHanley
Map Unit Name Chewacla
loam
Taxonomy-subgroup Fluvaquentic
Dystrudepts
Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture Comments
0-18 A IOYR 513 IOYR 5/6 Common Silt loam
18-24 BA 1 OYR 5/3 Silt loam
24-30 B I OYR 513 Clay loam

Plot ID E4
Investigator JRoss &
MHanley
Map Unit Name Chewacla
loam
Taxonomy-subgroup Fluvaquentic
Dystrudepts
Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture Comments
0-18 A 7.5Y 5/4 2.5Y 5/6 Common Silt loam
18-48 B 2.5Y 6/4 2.5Y 5/6 Common Sandy loam

Plot ID E5
Investigator JRoss &
MHanley
Map Unit Name Congaree loam
Taxonomy-subgroup Typic
Udifluvents
Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture Comments
0-30 C I OYR 5/3 Sand

n
L

F Transect•

0
Plot ID F1
Investigator ]Ross
MHanley
Map Unit Name Congaree loam
Taxonomy-subgroup Typic
Udifluvents
Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture Comments
0-30 C lOYR 5/3 Sand

Plot U) F2
Investigator JRoss &
MHanley
Map Unit Name Cltewacla
loam
Taxonomy-subgroup Fluvaquentic
Dystntdepts
Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture Comments
0-16 A IOY 5/3 10Y 5/6 Faint Sandy loam
16-24 B 10Y 513 I OY 5/6 Faint Sandy loam
24-30 B 10Y 5/3 IOY5/6 Faint Sandy loam
30+ B 2.5Y 5/2 Sandy/clay loam

Plot ID F3
Investigator JRoss &
MHanley
Map Unit Name Ctewacla
loam
Taxonomy-subgroup Fluvaquentic
Dystrudepts
Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture Comments
0-12 A 10YR 5/3 10YR 5/6 Faint Sandy loam
12-36 B 10YR 5/3

Plot ID F4
Investigator JRoss &
MHanley
Map Unit Name Cltewacla
loam
Taxonomy-subgroup Fluvaquentic
Dystrudepts
Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture Comments
0-24 A I OYR 5/3 IOYR 5/6 Faint/Few Sandy loam
24-36 B IOYR 5/3 IOYR 5/6 Faint/Few Silty clay loam

Plot ID F5
Investigator JRoss &
MHanley
Map Unit Name Chewacla
loam
Taxonomy-subgroup Fluvaquentic
Dystrudepts
Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture Comments
0-20 A I OYR 5/3 10YR 5/6 Faint Sandy loam
20-36 B IOYR 5/2 Silty clay loam

G Transect•

i
iJ

Plot ID GI
Investigator KNunnery &
RBailey
Map Unit Name Chewacla
loam
Taxonomy-subgroup Fluvaquentic
Dystrudepts
Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture Comments
0-22 A 10YR 5/2 I OYR 4/6 Common/faint Silty clay loam Fe+
concretions
22-36 B 10YR 7/1 IOYR 5/4 Uncommon/faint Clay loam No concretions

Plot ID G3
Investigator KNunnery &
RBailey
Map Unit Name Chewacla
loam
Taxonomy-subgroup Fluvaquentic
Dystrudepts
Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture Comments
0-24 A 10YR 5/2 10YR 4/6 Common/faint Silty clay loam
24-36 B I OYR 6/1 1 OYR 6/8 Common/faint

Plot ID G5
Investigator KNunnery &
RBailey
Map Unit Name Chewacla
loam
Taxonomy-subgroup Fluvaquentic
Dystrudepts
Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture Comments
0-24 A IOYR 6/1 Clay loam Rhizospheres
24-30 B 10YR 7/1 IOYR 5/8 Strong/Distinct Clayey sand loam common
30-36 B 7/N 2.5Y 6/8 Strong/Distinct Sandy clay loam Fe+
concretions
common
Plot ID G7
Investigator KNunnery &
RBailey
Map Unit Name Congaree loam
Taxonomy-subgroup Typic
Udifluvents
Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture Comments
0-30 A 10YR 5/3 Friable silt loam
30-36 C IOYR 6/2 2.5Y 5/4 Common/Faint Slightly plastic
clayey silt loam

H Transects:

E

1
U

i

Imo,
L
u

Plot ID H2
Investigator KNunnery &
RBailey
Map Unit Name Congaree loam
Taxonomy-subgroup Typic
Udifluvents
Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture Comments
0-36 C IOYR 4/3 Silty clay w/ sand
Plot ID H3
Investigator KNunnery &
RBailey
Map Unit Name Cltewacla
loam
Taxonomy-subgroup Fluvaquentic
Dystrudepts
Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture. Comments
0-30 BA 2.5Y 5/2 Common/Faint Silty clay

Plot ID H4
Investigator KNunnery &
RBailey
Map Unit Name Chewacla
loam
Taxonomy-subgroup Fluvaquentic
Dystrudepts
Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture Comments
0-30 BA 2.5Y 5/2 Common/Faint Silty clay

Plot ID H5
Investigator KNunnery &
RBailey
Map Unit Name Cltewacla
loam
Taxonomy-subgroup Fluvaquentic
Dystrudepts
Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture Comments
0-30 BA 2.5Y 5/2 Common/Faint Silty clay

Plot ID H6
Investigator KNunnery &
RBailey
Map Unit Name Cltewacla
loam
Taxonomy-subgroup Fluvaquentic
Dystrudepts
Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture Comments
0-12 A 2.5Y 5/2 Common/Faint Silty clay

Plot ID H7
Investigator KNunnery &
RBailey
Map Unit Name Chewacla
loam
Taxonomy-subgroup Fluvaquentic
Dystrudepts
Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture Comments
0-30 BA 25Y 5/2 Common/distinct Silty clay loam

Plot ID H8
Investigator KNunnery &
RBailey
Map Unit Name Cltewacla
loam
Taxonomy-subgroup Fluvaquentic
Dystrudepts
Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture Comments
0-30 BA 2.5Y 5/2 Common/Faint Silty clayey loam

I Transect:

G

u

Plot ID 11
Investigator JRoss &
MHanley
Map Unit Name Chewacla
loam
Taxonomy-subgroup Fluvaquentic
Dystntdepts
Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture Comments
0-12 A 10YR 5/2 7.SYR 5/8 Common Silty clay loam
12-36 B 10YR 513 7.5YR 5/8 Few/Distinct

Plot ID 12
Investigator JRoss &
MHanley
Map Unit Name Chewacla
loam
Taxonomy-subgroup Fluvaquentic
Dystntdepts
Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture Comments
0-12 A I OYR 5/4 10YR 5/8 Few/Distinct Silty clay loam
12-24 BA 10YR 5/4 10YR 5/8 Few/Distinct Silty clay loam
24-30 B IOYR 6/1 5Y 6/1 Few/Distinct Silty clay loam
30-36 B GI 7/N 10YR 5/6 Few/Distinct Silty clay loam
Plot ID 14
Investigator JRoss &
MHanley
Map Unit Name Chewacla
loam
Taxonomy-subgroup Fluvaquentic
Dystntdepts
Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture Comments
0-6 A I OYR 5/6 Sandy clay loam
6-12 A IOYR 5/6 Sandy clay loam
12-18 BA 10YR 5/6 Sandy clay loam
18-24 BA I0YR 5/6 Sandy clay loam
Plot ID 15
Investigator JRoss &
MHanley
Map Unit Name Congaree loam
Taxonomy-subgroup Typic
Udifluvents
Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture Comments
0-36 C 10YR 5/6 Clay loam
36-32 C IOYR 5/6 10YR 5/8 Few/faint Clay loam

Plot ID 16
Investigator JRoss & ,
MHanley
Map Unit Name Congaree loam
Taxonomy-subgroup Typic
Udifluvents
Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture Comments
0-36 C I OYR 5/6 Clay loam
36-32 C I OYR 5/6 IOYR 5/8 Few/faint Clay loam

I APPENDIX D -FLOOD FREQUENCY ANALYSIS

1

11 ?

"C
O
O
w
V1
c
Q ?
V
L
GTr ?
? A
0 0
? a
a?
ay
0
.r
a
c? 00
kh o0
0 c
c II
N a
II
I
?
??
• •
I
•
0
0
0
o
(syj) Aivq jU
O
O
0
0
O
O
O

CC
L
O Q
r ?
bL
e0
C
L
A
0

0
0
Vfp

Flood Frequency Analysis Calculations
L-Moments (PWM)
GEV Probability Distribution
Rich Fork (@ Rich Fork Mitigation Site)
Drainage Area = 26.13 mil
Mioo = 1.000 = 1679.33 ft3/s
Milo = 0.6542 = 1098.62 ft3/s
M120 = 0.5005 = 840.50 ft3/s
X, =1679.33
X2 = 2 (1098.62) - 1679.33 = 517.91
?13 = 6 (840.50) - 6 (1098.62) + 1679.33 = 130.61
ti3 = X3 / X2 = 0.252
C = 2 / (3+0.252) - In(2) / In(3) = -0.016
k = 7.859 (-0.016) + 2.9554 (-0.016)2 = -0.127
F (1-0.127) = r (0.873) =1.091
a = (517.91 (-0.127)) / [1.091 (1-(2 0127))] = 655.13
u = 1679.33 +655.13 ((1-1.091) / -0.127)) = 2148.75
Therefore,
QT =2148.75 - 5158.50 (1- [-In (1-1 / T)]-0.127)

I APPENDIX E -GROUND WATER HYDROGRAPHS

u

11
11

C
1

°0 00 00 00 00 00 00 I? 00
LO o In o ui o LO o U)
r r N N M M
(-U I) MO 01 41dea

r
C ?
O ?
L
O?
LL
t
V
w
N W 161L
°o c?v
66
6 0/ZJL
CL
? - 60/5Z/9
o
a? c7 60/86/9
ca
o
_0
3 m 60/66/9
0
60/L19
ti
60/£Z/L
60/9 6/L
60/V/9
6o/8Z/9
60/ 6 Z/5
60/tI6/5
6 o/0£Jv p
60/£Z/V
60/9 6/t,
60/6/b
6 0/Z/b
6 0/9Z/£
60/6 6J£
60JZ 6/£
60/5/£
60/9Z/Z
60/6 6/Z
60/Z6/Z
60/5/Z
0
0
0

°O °O °O °O °O °O °O °O o
V') O Uf) O LO N N O M
i ?
('u!) Mg of 43dad

81
4)
L
Q
O C
2 A
i 0
LL O
P
t
V
w
O U
O
66
CO
C)-
c
0
o
75
? m
o -
CV
N
60/ZZ/L
60/5 6/L
60/8/L
60/ 6/L
60/7Z/9
60/L 6/9
60/0 6/9
60/£/9
60/LZ/5
60/OZ/5
60/£ 6/5
60/9/9
60/6Z/7 0
60/ZZ/7
60/9 6/7
60/8/7
60/6/7
60/SZ/£
60/8 6/£
60/ 6 6/£
6 0/7/£
60/5Z/Z
60/8 6 /Z
60/ 6 6/Z
60/7/Z
O
O
0
IT

d
L
Q
r
O
i ?
LPL O
s
v
R
O U
O m
66 't
7
L U)
CL
C
O
co
o
m
m
o -
0
I I
LO/ZZ/L
L 0/S L /L
LO/B/L
LO/L/L
L 0/bZ/9
LO/LL /9
LO/O L/9
W /c/9
LO/LZ/S
LO/OZ/9
LO/Mg
LO/9/9
LO/6Z/t, o
LO/ZZ/t,
LO/S L/t,
L O/931
LO/L/b
Lo/SZ/E
LO/8 L/£
LO/L L/£
Lo/v/s
Lo/SZ/z
LML/Z
LO/L L/Z
LO/b/Z
O
0
0
c
O O O O O O O O O
ui o ui o ui o U') C) LO
N N M M
(•ui) MJ of 43dea

V ?
to a
C
O =
? C
? A
L
L
V
R
U') O Sri O 0 O LO O in
' N N C7 C7
(•ui) MJ o3 43dea
?. am
o° m
co .t LO/S L/L
s U)
LO/8/L
CL -0
C
D :3
L ° LO/L/L
a)
o LO/tIZ/9
0 00 E LO/LL/9
N
c7 L0/0L/9
Vs.:l
} LO/8L/£
LO/ZZ/L
LO/£/9
LO/LZ/S
LO/OZ/9
LO/£ L/S
L O/9/9
LO/6Z/V o
LO/ZZ/V
L0/9 L/V
L O/931
LO/L/b
LO/SZ/£
LO/ L NE
Lo/t7/E
Lo/Sz/z
Lo/8L/Z
Lo/L L/z
Lo/v/Z
0
0
O

0
CD 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0
ui o LO C) LO C) U•) o U')
N N I? M
('u!) MJ o4 4;dap
11

4)
Im
L
Fn Q
r
? A
L
U.
V
TO'
I
O U
o ,t
ao D
r ?
CL
aD c
C) :3
00
L L
O
m
? m
o -
? (V
l
LO/ZZ/L
L0/S L/L
L0/81L
LO/L/L
LO/bZ/9
LO/LL/9
LO/O L/9
LO/£/9
LO/LZ/S
LO/OZ/9
LO/£ L/S
LO/9/9
LO/6Z/t, o
L O/ZZ/t,
L0/S L/b
LO/8/b
L04 /t,
LO/SZ/£
LO/8 L/£
LO/L L/£
LO/tl/£
LO/SZ/Z
LO/8 L/Z
LO/LL/Z
LO/V/Z
O
O
0

V
C
? a
Q
co a
C =
:. c
m
m
Y ?
? O
U-
O O O O O O O O O
U-) o In o to o In CD In
N N C7 M
(•ui) MJ of 4ldad
t
V
w
0o m
66 `t
s ?
a -0
C
'o
m
o
c ?
CO
o =
0 04
II
60/ZZ/L
60/5 6/L
60/8/L
60/6/L
' 60/1Z/9
' 60/L 6/9
60/O 6/9
60/£/9
60/LZ/S
LO/OZ/9
60/£ 6/S
60/9/9
60/6Z/1 0
60/ZZ/1
60/S 6/1
60/8/1
60/6/1
60/SZ/£
60/8 6/£
60/ 6 6/£
60/1/£
60/SZ/Z
60/8 6/Z
60/ 6 6/Z
60/1/Z
0
0
0

0

n

n

n
I
APPENDIX F - EXISTING AND POST-RESTORATION
WATER BUDGET
fl
n

H

0
0

7

Rich Fork Mitigation Site Water Budget - Existing Conditions
Dry Year Water Inputs Water Outputs Change in Excess wetland
1986 P Si * Gi PET So Go Infiltration Storage Water Volume
Jan-86 1.01 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 1.60 1.04 -1.81 0.00 1.08
Feb-86 1.52 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.00 2.94 1.04 -2.84 0.00 0.00
Mar-86 2.67 0.02 0.00 1.21 0.02 6.95 1.04 -6.53 0.00 0.00
Apr-86 0.99 0.00 0.00 2.42 0.00 1.60 1.04 -4.07 0.00 0.00
May-86 1.58 0.00 0.00 3.95 0.00 0.53 1.04 -3.94 0.00 0.00
Jun-86 2.33 0.00 0.00 5.51 0.00 0.00 1.04 -4.22 0.00 0.00
Jul-86 4.08 0.02 0.00 6.21 0.02 0.00 1.04 -3.17 0.00 0.00
Aug-86 4.58 0.18 0.00 5.62 0.18 0.00 1.04 -2.08 0.00 0.00
Sep-86 0.51 0.00 0.00 4.03 0.00 0.00 1.04 -4.56 0.00 0.00
Oct-86 2.53 0.01 0.00 2.15 0.01 0.00 1.04 -0.66 0.00 0.00
Nov-86 3.63 0.00 0.00 1.02 0.00 0.53 1.04 1.04 0.00 1.04
Dec-86 3.76 0.03 0.00 0.34 0.03 0.53 1.04 1.85 0.00 2.89
Annual Totals 29.19 0.26 0.00 33.02 0.26 14.68 12.48 -30.99 0.00
Avg. Year Water Inputs Water Outputs Ch
i E

1991
P
Si *
Gi
PET
So
Go
Infiltration ange
n
Storage xcess
Water Wetland
Volume
Jan-91 5.33 0.05 0.00 0.18 0.05 1.60 1.04 2.51 0.00 4.25
Feb-91 2.02 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.00 2.94 1.04 -2.34 0.00 1.90
Mar-91 7.32 0.24 0.00 1.21 0.24 6.95 1.04 -1.88 0.00 0.02
Apr-91 4.85 0.00 0.00 2.42 0.00 1.60 1.04 -0.21 0.00 0.00
May-91 4.04 0.00 0.00 3.95 0.00 0.53 1.04 -1.48 0.00 0.00
Jun-91 2.94 0.00 0.00 5.51 0.00 0.00 1.04 -3.61 0.00 0.00
Jul-91 4.89 0.00 0.00 6.21 0.00 0.00 1.04 -2.36 0.00 0.00
Aug-91 4.41 0.03 0.00 5.62 0.03 0.00 1.04 -2.25 0.00 0.00
Sep-91 2.55 0.01 0.00 4.03 0.01 0.00 1.04 -2.52 0.00 0.00
Oct-91 0.49 0.00 0.00 2.15 0.00 0.00 1.04 -2.70 0.00 0.00
Nov-91 1.96 0.05 0.00 1.02 0.05 0.53 1.04 -0.63 0.00 0.00
Dec-91 3.65 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.53 1.04 1.74 0.00 1.74
Annual Totals 44.45 0.38 0.00 33.02 0.38 14.68 12.48 -15.73 0.00
Wet Year Water Inputs Water Outputs
Ch
i
E
W
l
d
1989 P Si * Gi PET So Go Infiltration ange
n
Storage xcess
Water et
an
Volume
Jan-89 1.83 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 1.60 1.04 -0.99 0.00 3.33
Feb-89 6.97 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.00 2.94 1.04 2.61 1.62 4.32
Mar-89 5.86 0.02 0.00 1.21 0.02 6.95 1.04 -3.34 0.00 0.98
Apr-89 3.07 0.00 0.00 2.42 0.00 1.60 1.04 -1.99 0.00 0.00
May-89 4.80 0.12 0.00 3.95 0.12 0.53 1.04 -0.72 0.00 0.00
Jun-89 8.54 0.07 0.00 5.51 0.07 0.00 1.04 1.99 0.00 1.99
Jul-89 3.35 0.00 0.00 6.21 0.00 0.00 1.04 -3.90 0.00 0.00
Aug-89 3.76 0.00 0.00 5.62 0.00 0.00 1.04 -2.90 0.00 0.00
Sep-89 6.78 0.09 0.00 4.03 0.09 0.00 1.04 1.71 0.00 1.71
Oct-89 6.66 0.56 0.00 2.15 0.56 0.00 1.04 3.47 0.86 4.32
Nov-89 2.31 0.00 0.00 1.02 0.00 0.53 1.04 -0.28 0.00 4.04
Dec-89 3.34 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.53 1.04 1.43 1.15 4.32
Annual Totals 57.27 0.86 0.00 33.02 0.86 77777T8 F 12.48 -2.91 3.63
* Note: Si is inches of runoff calculated over the entire watershed, not the site.

I
0
0

F

L7-

O?
L
O
0
O O
t`
W
E co °O- Z o
:3 :L- :3 S2 CO CD
E -0 "a
X W t
M ca 2Uc°n ?U-.im-cm cc

Z_

t

\? I J 4, MI,

cn,

,
LLL { f ?0

s

i

a

rn
U
a)
C

Z
T
U

01
Q
a?

o>
7
a
cc
T E
rn
i
a ,
O
iw?
aV
2
N
LL
T
01
C
O O O O O O O O O O O f0
O to O O O ?n O Up O
In tf It co co N N ?- T O O
(sayou J awnIOA puLIROM

Comments to the Rich Fork Mitigation Project (Please have Todd look at this as well). 24 Oct.
• My first concern is that it appears that the flood frequency of Rich Fork Creek will affect the
restoration potential of the project. It has been documented many times, and noted in the mitigation
plan, that water quality of Rich Fork is poor and there is a major sewage treatment facility upstream of
the mitigation project. Is there anyway to look into reducing the flood flows onto the project?
• The reference reach needs to be approved. It appears to me that a stream in the Pee Dee Wildlife
Refuge would not be appropriate for this project. I think that it's in a different ecoregion.
This project is very similar to the Sheppard's Tree and Pott Creek projects. If I'm not mistaken we
had some problems with hydrology as it relates to the soils in eac of these. Is this an issue here? Also,
we would need to see a better description of the proposed channel (right Todd?).
They should include a more detailed monitoring plan.
L-7 lgtA& c,e A? E c5 fZ; cant cks

mmma_
mmmmmmo?
KCI ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • SCIENTISTS • CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS
ASSOCIATES OF NC LANDMARK CENTER I, SUITE 200 • 4601 SIX FORKS ROAD • RALEIGH, NC 27609 • 919-783-9214 • (FAx) 919-783-9266
Date: 10/11/01
Company: Members of the Rich Fork
MBRT
Contact: Eric Alsmeyer, Cynthia Subject: Mitigation Plan and
Vanderwiele, Marella Directions to Rich Fork Site
Bundcick, Kathy Matthews,
Maryellen Haggard
? In accordance with your request
® For your review
® For processing
? Plans reviewed and accepted
? Plans reviewed and accepted as noted
? For revision by you
? For your use/files
? Please call when ready
? Please return to this office
? Approval requested
? Conference requested
at your convenience
Comments:
Those that are interested in car-pooling from Raleigh on Monday, please contact Joe
Pfeiffer or myself. Directions to the site have also been included for your convenience.
M. ncza
nviro al Scienfi
KCI ASSOCIATES OF NORTH CAROLINA, P.A.
www.kci.com
Employee-Owned Since 1988
Piedmont Quarr \-\ - - 1
- -?*ao w kill
Waughtown
67
.196
El
L 1?5
p.
Easton View
osemorit?31 1 Union Cross, .
r ? Union Ridg
Ho tsfown ssR 2s a
RD RD T CL
109 \V 81
aimt rrvn = - _ Teaguetown 66 '
-l 150 - `: 52
-HO rf?
f - Wallburg ' -T
y
311 ?
109
XI
e ?.
U ,rtes
abW
_ J
9'o 52
\ i
I f
Enterprise - Rich Fork sa
Mitigation Site
52
41
109
l > ,
elcome y -
QEnMn Heights=
Amoldrq
T
- masvMe ?
ethesda - J ,Y y
52 _ r 62
Jak svllle -. y
F9 r` Grove 1
{v,
X ;
-O
Glen l nna 109
yil(r t ? = r' ianger
>r,'/ Cnor
52 29 c ?/ ?' F tCBit _ - /
i
4 Lexington -
•
Holly Grove
'•ibbot[s Creek a d e w
f?
210
.0 1997 DeLoIIne. Street Atlas USA ', Idw
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

m
y i
o
?C
i a
O ?
? V
v ?
yr
W
E W 0 3
X (ES LU co C C U
CC
co cc 0- U O N O ?
(n V 7 Co rn 0

LL
-

O-

W

.
?-

CO
co
O
CD
C1o
O
Z
CD
C70
1
O
co
Q
co
W
6
cc
olo
5
C
O
coI E
cc
lp
I?
W
co
Q
1
co
co
i
c?
OP
a?
LL
Co
! ! 4 j ! co
" c
°°°
On O
LO ?
°°°°°
n O Ln O Ln
C'7 Ch N N r
(sayoui) OwnlOA puBROM
°O
o L
r O
O
O
O

n

1

ri

u

? M
y LL
w
!? C
C O
i
O CO
?V
v,
? y
W
m ?
E?cS$ 0?,3
cc O
C U
X coo - W i 7- 'c
?Uu) 0 U->CO CDw
-.t 't { F 1F ? 1 1 '

f?1 t< i 1 iY. I` r , r t t 3.? E f 1 t: ??.
Ol l
A'l

} t i {. i t l 7-,
S

i1T -T
O
co
^U`
W
0
MO
W
O
Z
O
co
U

MO
W^^
1..1.
m
m
CO
6
Q
O
C
C' E
ca
°?
co
m
ao
L
Q
O
O
i
co
2
O
co
.0
N
LL
CD
r
C
In 'I 't co co N N f--
(sOyOu J OwnlOA puBROM
O
O
T
O
O
O (0
O
O

F1

Rich Fork Mitigation Site Water Budget - Proposed Conditions
Dry Year Water Inputs Water Outputs Ch
i E

1986
P
Si *
Gi
PET
So
Go
Infiltration ange
n
Storage xcess
Water Wetland
Volume
Jan-86 1.01 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 1.04 -0.21 0.00 3.74
Feb-86 1.52 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.00 1.04 0.10 0.00 3.84
Mar-86 2.67 0.02 0.00 1.21 0.02 0.00 1.04 0.42 0.00 4.26
Apr-86 0.99 0.00 0.00 2.42 0.00 0.00 1.04 -2.47 0.00 1.79
May-86 1.58 0.00 0.00 3.95 0.00 0.00 1.04 -3.41 0.00 0.00
Jun-86 2.33 0.00 0.00 5.51 0.00 0.00 1.04 -4.22 0.00 0.00
Jul-86 4.08 0.02 0.00 6.21 0.02 0.00 1.04 -3.17 0.00 0.00
Aug-86 4.58 0.18 0.00 5.62 0.18 0.00 1.04 -2.08 0.00 0.00
Sep-86 0.51 0.00 0.00 4.03 0.00 0.00 1.04 -4.56 0.00 0.00
Oct-86 2.53 0.01 0.00 2.15 0.01 0.00 1.04 -0.66 0.00 0.00
Nov-86 3.63 0.00 0.00 1.02 0.00 0.00 1.04 1.57 0.00 1.57
Dec-86 3.76 0.03 0.00 0.34 0.03 0.00 1.04 2.38 0.00 3.95
Annual Totals 29.19 0.26 0.00 33.02 0.26 0.00 12.48 -16.31 0.00
Avg. Year Water Inputs Water Outputs

1991
P
Si*
Gi
PET
So
Go
Infiltration Change in
Storage Excess
Water Wetland
Volume
Jan-91 5.33 0.05 0.00 0.18 0.05 0.00 1.04 4.11 2.06 4.32
Feb-91 2.02 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.00 1.04 0.60 0.60 4.32
Mar-91 7.32 0.24 0.00 1.21 0.24 0.00 1.04 5.07 5.07 4.32
Apr-91 4.85 0.00 0.00 2.42 0.00 0.00 1.04 1.39 1.39 4.32
May-91 4.04 0.00 0.00 3.95 0.00 0.00 1.04 -0.95 0.00 3.37
Jun-91 2.94 0.00 0.00 5.51 0.00 0.00 1.04 -3.61 0.00 0.00
Jul-91 4.89 0.00 0.00 6.21 0.00 0.00 1.04 -2.36 0.00 0.00
Aug-91 4.41 0.03 0.00 5.62 0.03 0.00 1.04 -2.25 0.00 0.00
Sep-91 2.55 0.01 0.00 4.03 0.01 0.00 1.04 -2.52 0.00 0.00
Oct-91 0.49 0.00 0.00 2.15 0.00 0.00 1.04 -2.70 0.00 0.00
Nov-91 1.96 0.05 0.00 1.02 0.05 0.00 1.04 -0.10 0.00 0.00
Dec-91 3.65 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 1.04 2.27 0.00 2.27
Annual Totals 44.45 0.38 0.00 33.02 0.38 0.00 12.48 -1.05 9.12
Wet Year Water Inputs Water Outputs

1989
P
Si *
Gi
PET
So
Go
Infiltration Change in
Storage Excess
Water Wetland
Volume
Jan-89 1.83 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 1.04 0.61 0.61 4.32
Feb-89 6.97 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.00 1.04 5.55 5.55 4.32
Mar-89 5.86 0.02 0.00 1.21 0.02 0.00 1.04 3.61 3.61 4.32
Apr-89 3.07 0.00 0.00 2.42 0.00 0.00 1.04 -0.39 0.00 3.93
May-89 4.80 0.12 0.00 3.95 0.12 0.00 1.04 -0.19 0.00 3.75
Jun-89 8.54 0.07 0.00 5.51 0.07 0.00 1.04 1.99 1.41 4.32
Jul-89 3.35 0.00 0.00 6.21 0.00 0.00 1.04 -3.90 0.00 0.42
Aug-89 3.76 0.00 0.00 5.62 0.00 0.00 1.04 -2.90 0.00 0.00
Sep-89 6.78 0.09 0.00 4.03 0.09 0.00 1.04 1.71 0.00 1.71
Oct-89 6.66 0.56 0.00 2.15 0.56 0.00 1.04 3.47 0.86 4.32
Nov-89 2.31 0.00 0.00 1.02 0.00 0.00 1.04 0.25 0.25 4.32
Dec-89 3.34 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 1.04 1.96 1.96 4.32
Annual Totals 57.27 0.86 0.00 33.02 0.86 0.00 12.48 11.77 14.25
* Note: Si is inches of runoff calculated over the entire watershed, not the site.

P--j

n

11
W
?r
tq ?
O 3
O
i C
LL (j
V V
? O
O
a
E? ° Zo
t5 ca
) a ? -0 C
E Co
X w i: O
U CO O N m cm N :3 0 F

t
I
I
(F i !

1 ? 1 ? Y { t I ! i

.{ I J. 4 I? I I t { Ei

IZI,

d ? c

`co

7

g E l(D

f

= f

?U
N
r
0
z

a
a^^?
!J
+I
cc
c
O
s E
cc
D
c?
C
i
Q
i
co
2
n
m
i
C
O O O O O O O O O O O ca
O Iq O Lq O Lq O O Iq O
In ? d' co co N N r r O O
(sayoui) OumlOA puBROM
IJ

u

E? c° ° ?, o
Y m -0 m
p C
C CO U .0 r
Cc$
w
L = .
a _
0
2 2
U?m .
?Uc?
rnai ?

7 ` ;Z

1 ! 4 1 `i co

COP

I t f C t
I
i - - .N
y

f
i
(
f 1
r Q
a?

E;
co

O
E
co

IIPL

z:

co

f CO
l Co

1 i { f I I ?? f L ! li
t
co
c
O O O O O O O O O O O C3
O L O Uf O L O U) O ?A O
LO M co cm N T T O O
(satpui) awnlOA puLIROM

LjI
3
.? m
C ?
O
? y
O
V
V
? O
O
4
_ U
„_>+ d
p C U
Co p
CI)
ca w 7- p t . La C, J 0 U) 0-3 - cm co
i
s

I p ti 1 I! 1 b, h n 1 1 I,I

iI i
T i
o a f ! I

'1 i C 7 1 l t:. { I} 1 #. i{" 1 j 3_.

,' 1 ?
/W 1 1 1 t? 1 4
3 .

,

• , i 1 . ; 1 I ??' ' '
rn
0
U
0
CF)
co
O
z
O
op
U
0
O
CP
1L
a?
co
vm
Q
rn
??
co
? t
c
O
o E
W
c?
m
O
co
i
co
i
ca
C
rn
ao
l-
O
CP
c
O o o O o O o 0 0 o O
O Ln o Ln o cn o o cn O
Ln It It co N N ? ? O O
(sayoui) awnIOA pueRaM

r

APPENDIX G -MITIGATION PLANNING CHECKLIST

11

6V 1,

' COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLANNING CHECKLIST
ACTION ID:
' SITE NAME: Rich Fork Mitigation Site
LOCATION/WATERBODY/COUNTY: The site is located downstream of SR 109 on the western

floodplain of Rich Fork; west, southwest of High Point in Davidson County. Located in the Abbotts
Creek watershed, ultimately draining to the Yadkin River.
USGS QUAD(S): High Point West, NC Quadrangle
SOIL SURVEY SHEET NO.: Davidson Co. Sheet 3
PREPARED BY: G. Mryncza DATE: 10/08/01
1. INTRODUCTION
A. Type of Mitigation (Circle / a separate checklist may be
prepared if more than one type)
'
1. Restoration Creation Enhancement
a) In-kind Out-of-kind

b) On-site Off-site

Up-front Concurrent After-the fact
2. O
' B. Wetland types and acreage Impacted / Attach or Describe:

C!
Preservation
Both
Both
Bank
C. Wetland types and acreage Mitigated: Attach or Describe:
Bottomland hardwoods (3.0 acres restoration/ 16.7 acres creation), perennial streams (2000 linear feet),
intermittent streams (up to 1000 linear feet)
. D. Describe mitigation Ratios:
Suggested: 1.5:1 for wetlands restoration; 2:1 for wetlands creation; 2:1 for stream restoration.

J k.4
YES NO
E. Will any Endangered Species, Archeological Resources,
or Haz/Tox Sites be impacted by this effort?
X
F. Has a wetland determination been undertaken and
verified? X
II. TARGET GOALS AND FUNCTIONS YES NO
A. Are there stated GOALS? X
Describe: Restoration of bottomland hardwood function and values, water quality,
wildlife/fisheries habitat.
B. Describe Success Criteria: 320 and 240 trees per acre by 3`a and 5"' year respectively
Are they:
C. Target FUNCTIONS chosen and
indicated?
YES NO
1. Specific
x
2. Measurable
x
3. Attainable
X
YES NO
Describe: Water quality, flood cycling, wildlife/fisheries habitat.
YES NO
D. Was a Reference Ecosystem (RE) report prepared? (Attach)
X
1. Describe comparison between the RE and the
Mitigation Plan: The wetland types, soils, plant communities, and
hydrology are similar in the RE and the mitigation area.

AP
III. STRUCTURAL COMPONENT
A. VEGETATION:
1. Are plantings listed to species?
Are "local" (200 North/South)
Propagules to be planted and
2. Verified by a nursery certificate?
3. Have diversity and densities of
species within the RE been
considered in the plan?
4. Has consideration been given to
planting the interface between the mitigation site and upland
habitats
with suitable transition zone species?
5. Describe Quality Control during planting:
Yes No
x
X
X
X
B. SOILS:
1. Have the soils been mapped?
2. Soils Series/Phases:
YES NO
X
Secondary Hydric: Chewacla
Alluvial: Congaree
3. Fertility Sampling undertaken
In RE? (Attach Report)
4. Fertility Sampling undertaken
On mitigation site?
(Attach Report)
5. Are fertility results within the
standards for the proposed
plantings?
Describe Results / Amendments Required:
YES NO
X
X
YES NO
X

W
J f:
6. Are the soil types appropriate
for the target wetland? X
Describe: Yes, the soil types are those commonly found in the proposed
communities.
7. If PC Farmland, has the site been
evaluated for:
a. Plow pans
b. Field crowns
c. Herbicide carry-over
d. Drainage system
Describe:
YES NO
C. HYDROLOGY:
YES NO
1. Were the principles of HGM or
other classification system
considered? X
Describe: Existing conditions and the loss of wetlands on site were
evaluated according to the loss of wetland functions and values (i.e. WET) within the site.
2. Describe the primary hydrologic input (s): Precipitation

v !:
3. Was a Hydrology Model/Water
Budget developed?
a. Were low, average, and high
Precipitation/water table/
flood conditions considered?
Describe the Water Budget:
YES
X
X
See Mitigation Plan (Section 2.3.3
& Section 3.2.1
NO
4. Will the hydrologic regime
predicted by the Water Budget
be appropriate for the target
wetland? X
Describe: The predicted hydrologic regime was developed using
long-tern data gathered from the High Point, NC area.
5. Have Monitoring gauges/tide/
Flood gauges been installed? X
Describe: Five Levelogger gauges were installed
on the site. One gauge was installed in an adjacent reference community.
NOTES:

ap
%? E,
IV. MONITORING
A. Name and number of person responsible for the success of
this project:
YES NO
B. Is there a Monitoring Plan? X
Describe: Hydrologic monitoring will involve the installation of groundwater
monitoring gauges. Vegetative monitoring will be conducted for the planted areas of the mitigation site and
will occur at the end of each growing season for 5 consecutive years.
C.
D.
As Built Report provided?
Procedure to account for beneficial
natural regeneration?
Describe:
V. CONSIDERATION OF CAUSES OF FAILURE
A. How does project rate regarding the following:
I. Elevation:
YES NO N/A
a. Have Biological Benchmarks
been established?
b. Is there a grading plan?
C. Is the grading plan specific?
d. Is discing proposed after
grading and/or prior to planting?
YES NO
X
X
X
X
X
!a
J
1
1
1
2. Describe provisions for Drainage:
3. Describe Erosion Control Measures:
4. Describe management of Human Impacts:
5. Describe management of Herb ivory/Noxious Plants:
B. Are there Contingency Plans built
into the proposal to address these
factors?
Describe when and how will these contingencies be
implemented:
YES NO
NOTES:

J L4
VI. SITE MANAGEMENT
A. Describe Final Disposition of the property:
Refer to Section 6.0 of the Mitigation Plan
B. Who will manage the site after the mitigation effort is
deemed a success? Undetermined
C
Will wetland functions be impacted
by current or future land use
patterns?
Describe:
Will this site have the opportunity YES NO
D. to function as planned? X
Describe:
E. Describe how this project rates ecologically:
HIGHLIGHT AND ADDRESS ALL PROBLEMS AND/OR INADEQUACIES WITH THE
MITIGATION PLAN/SITE AS INDICATED BY THIS CHECKLIST.
YES NO
X