19960319_Mitigation Information_19980617

C,6 2,300 a cA4,?
1
rye os-f 3t?a ,
PDT
I- Vs ,

rA .M /(J .j ./Co
a
DRAFT
Report
to the North Carolina Department of
Transportation on the Biologic Assessment of
Dutchman's Creek Wetland Mitigation Site
prepared by: John I Connors, President
Wake Audubon Society
PO Box 12452
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
Summary: The Wake Audubon Society conducted surveys
monitoring birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians from April
through October 1998 at Dutchman's Creek. This information was
supplemented with recorded observations since December 1997.
Birdlife,in particular, was rich and unique particularly on the
pond, in the beaver marsh, and in the wet meadow habitats.
Areas of significance for amphibians and for plants were
delineated. It remains the opinion of the Wake Audubon Society
that the original plan for Wetland Mitigation at Dutchman's
Creek should be amended, however, Audubon believes there
remain opportunities for wetland restoration on the site by
instituting repairs to the pond, and by working to reconfigure
the upper reaches of Dutchman's Creek from Graham Newton Road
to a point near the upper reaches of the existing beaver pond.
This reconfiguration would necessitate the narrowest of
disturbance corridors to minimize disruption to important
ephemeral wetlands in, and adjoining, the floodplain. In
addition, the timing of work should be performed when it will
be least disruptive to wildlife populations.
draft submitted: October 29, 1998
Dutchman's Creek Mitigation Review
Report from Wake Audubon Society
October 20, 1998
Site 1- Open Water/ Greenview? Pond
Key Findings:
1. The Pond has nearly 100% coverage by submerged aquatics, primarily
hydrilla, but also pondweeds.
2. The Pond is a primary feeding area for waterfowl including the Mute
Swans, the resident Mallard Ducks, breeding and migratory Wood
Ducks,and also wintering waterfowl including American Widgeon,
Blue and Green-winged Teal, and Ring-necked Ducks, among
others. These species feed on submerged aquatic plants. Since Lake
Wheeler has been stocked with grass carp (mid-1980s) these
waterfowl have become scarce on that lake, and Greenview, along
with a few NCSU research farm ponds, provides the primary feeding
sites for these species in southern Wake County.
3. The Pond appears to provide important feeding habitat for Great Blue
Herons, Common Egrets, Belted Kingfisher and Pied-billed
Grebe. Kingfishers have a nesting site in the steep embankment on
the south east woodland of the property. A Pied-billed Grebe was
maintaining a territory through the summer, even calling, but no
evidence of nesting was found. The Grebe was found most often in
the beaver impoundment (Site 2), but was also seen foraging on the
Pond.
4. The Pond provides important habitat for many reptiles and amphibians.
Turtle species observed include Yellow-bellied Slider, Eastern
Painted Turtle, Eastern Musk and Eastern Mud Turtles, and
Snapping Turtles. Amphibians heard calling include: Bullfrog,
Green Frog, Northern Cricket Frog, Green Tree Frog,
Narrow-mouthed Toad, and Fowler's Toad.
5. The Pond edge, when water levels are low and mud flats exposed, has
historically been productive for shorebirds.
Recommendations for Site 1: Greenview Pond
1. Drain and Dredge silt from the lake bottom, leaving the shallow
pond margins undisturbed.
2. Repair the Pond's Dam, adding a functional drain and a spillway
to insure longterm function and safety, while allowing for
drawdowns for site management purposes.
3. Consider introduction of pondweeds or other native submerged aquatics
to compete with the hydrilla.
4. Maintain a dredge/spit or wedge of sediments to manage as a drawdown
island for the benefit of migratory shorebirds and nesting
waterfowl.
5. Historical water levels for the Pond were several feet higher than at
present. This provided additional deep water habitat for diving ducks
and fish, as well as increased pond margin habitat. The Homeowners
feel the Pond should be restored to its original levels. Wake Audubon
can support that position provided higher water levels will not
prevent shoreline access to the site across public property, and that
dam safety issues are addressed.
Dutchman's Creek Mitigation Review/ Wake Audubon October 20, 1998
Site 2- Beaver Pond Area
Key Findings:
1. The Beaver Pond is a shallow, sediment-filled wetland with extensive
growth of hydrilla, other submerged aquatics, emergent marsh
vegetation including cattails, and stands of maples, alders, willows
and dead snags. There are small pools of open water, but submerged
aquatic coverage appears above 80%.
2. The Beaver Pond is a prime feeding site for dabbling ducks with dozens
observed feeding there through the summer, and more in the fall and
winter. The site appears to be particularly productive for Wood
Duck with observations exceeding 30 ducks on a number of
occasions in August and September. A Pied-billed Grebe was
observed here during the summer, and was heard calling on two
occasions, but no evidence of nesting was found. Grebes are rarely
seen in NC during the breeding season.
3. A Prothonotary Warbler and a Louisiana Waterthrush were heard
on site during the nesting season and were suspected breeders.
Common Yellowthroats, Blue-gray Gnatcatchers, Orchard
Oriole and Red-wing Blackbirds were observed at the nest in the
Beaver Pond area. Eastern Kingbirds and Phoebes were on
territory. A pair of Bald Eagles (adult) were observed twice on site
and Osprey once.
4. This area also provided key feeding habitat for long-legged waders
with more than a dozen Common Egrets, and numerous Great Blue
Herons and Green-backed Herons observed throughout the
summer in the Beaver Pond area, and adjacent Wet Meadow (Site 3).
Flocks of White Ibis were seen feeding twice. Attempts were made
to elicit responses from Rails using tape recordings on 2 occasions
in June and July, but no calls were heard.
5. The Beaver Pond is an exceptional area for breeding amphibians. Large
choruses of Green Tree Frogs, Green Frogs, Grey Tree Frogs,
Narrow-mouthed Toads and Northern Cricket Frogs were
heard. In addition Northern Water Snake, Red-bellied Water
Snake, Black Rat Snake and Copperhead were seen.
Recommendations for the Beaverpond! Site 2.
1. This is an essential component of this wetland community. It should be
generally be left intact. The wooded section of this pond is quite
restricted and is deteriorating. This will soon limit the usefulness
of the site for Prothonotaries, woodpeckers, Bluebirds and
others. The planting of trees protected from, or tolerant of, beavers
would be helpful in parts of the wooded beaver swamp.
Dutchman's Creek Mitigation Review/ Wake Audubon October' 20, 1998
Site 3- The Wet Meadows
Key Findings:
1. This is the most unique habitat at Greenview...due to the extent of
habitat, the duration of time it has been a wet meadow, and its
soil richness due to its former use as a dairy. There are extensive
marsh grass beds, along with expanses of goldenrod, asters,
ironweed, meadow beauty, gerardia among others. Shrub zones
include blackberry, alder, willow and others. Vegetation is diverse
and local, apparently in response to minor changes in soil saturation.
2. There was extensive use of the wet meadow by nesting songbirds
including: Common Yellowthroats, Red-winged Blackbirds,
Blue. Grosbeaks, Indigo Buntings and Orchard Orioles. In
addition, Yellow-breasted Chat, Field Sparrow, Meadowlark,
Loggerhead Shrike, and Bobwhite Quail were heard or
observed using the wet meadow during the summer, and were
suspected of nesting. The site also attracted Common Snipe,
Sedge Wren, Bobolink, Palm Warbler, Savannah and Swamp
Sparrows during migration or as overwintering species.
3. This site harbors large populations of small mammals including Cotton
Rats and Meadow Voles, as well as Cottontail Rabbits which
provide a ready supply of food for raptors. Red-tail Hawks are
resident on site, and Red-shouldered Hawks may be as well.
Kestrels and a Peregrine Falcon were observed in October.
4. Rails were not observed or heard during our field studies but the site
appears to have good habitat, if not for breeding, then for migration.
Our survey, using tapes, was conducted after the breeding season
would likely have ended for rails ...though they often remain
responsive. We did not traverse the site at night, the best time
to get rails to respond.
5. There are a number of vernal pools and wet seeps throughout the Wet
Meadow area which provide sites for amphibians. Tadpoles were
found in many of them, along with egg masses of Southern Leopard
Frogs. Red-spotted Newts were common throughout. An Eastern
Garter snake was found near one pool.
6. Insects were also abundant (as were the ticks!) and records were kept
of butterflies and some dragonflies. There was exceptional diversity
among both groups.
Recommendations for the Wet Meadows/ Site 3
1. This area is the most unique habitat element of the Greenview Site.
The site remains attractive to these species because of its mix of
meadow and shrub thickets. These habitat types are transient and
rarely maintained in public parkland settings and are therefore rare
in Wake County. Many of the meadow species of birds are in serious
decline across the eastern states, and particularly in rapidly
urbanizing counties. It is possible that the meadowlark and bobwhite
will fall victim to the suburbanization adjacent to Dutchman's Creek
but the remaining species should be able to maintain viable
populations. The primary concern here is to maintain this area as
a meadow by periodic removal of tree encroachment. Trees should
not be planted in this area.
2. It is worth consideration to stabilize the influx of sediments and storm
water from the small tributaries that flow into the site from the
nearby developments by using rip-rap and containment basins.
Dutchman's Creek Mitigation Review/ Wake Audubon October 20,1998
Site 4- New Marsh
Key Findings:
1 This small marsh has a fluctuating water level regime, apparently
influenced by rains and beavers, that dries during the summer.
Vegetation is primarily marsh grasses intermingling with the open
water.
2. This area provides prime habitat for amphibians which need ephemeral
pools for breeding. Marbled Salamander larvae, Red-spotted
Newts and various frog tadpoles were netted in the pools. It may
also be used by a small population of Barking Tree Frogs that have
been reported from the site, but this was not confirmed. The habitat
appears suitable for Spotted Turtle, but their presence was not
confirmed here, only in the Wooded Pools (Site 6).
Recommendations for Site 4: New Marsh
1. This area and its immediate environs should be left alone. The site can
be expected to change over time depending on the beaver influence,
or could be managed as a "new marsh" by retarding succession.
Many of the amphibians that breed here migrate into the site
from the surrounding wet woodlands. Therefore it is important to
protect a wooded fringe adjacent to this marsh.
Dutchman's Creek Mitigation Review: Wake Audubon October 20, 1998
Site 5- Wet Drainage Slough
I Key Findings:
1. This small area seems to drain the southwest corner of the property.
It has pools of standing water in a drainage slough but appears to
dry during summer. Buttonbush, gerardia and other plants grow along
the sloughs banks.
2. Once again the intermittant pools of water favor breeding amphibians.
Even in early October a fresh mass of frog eggs was found here.
Recommendations for Site 5: Wet Drainage Slough
1. This area should be maintained as it is. This may be difficult as it
drains directly into Dutchman's Creek, but efforts should be made to
protect the integrity of this drainageway.
Dutchman's Creek Mitigation Review/ Wake Audubon October 20, 1998
Site 6- Old Growth Seeps
Key Findings:
1. This area has an old growth hardwood overstory, with an understory
of switchcane, ferns and poison ivy. There are numerous seeps
throughout the area which appear to eventually drain toward
Site 5, the Wet Drainage Slough.
2. Sampling in this area located Spotted Salamander larvae, and one
Spotted Turtle. The presence of Four-toed Salamanders is also
suspected since one was found crossing the road nearby, but none
was found on site.
Recommendations for Site 6: Old Growth Seeps
1. This area needs to be protected. Work in the Dutchman's Creek stream
channel may contribute to changing the hydrology of this site,
which could lead to drying conditions and loss of usable seeps
by these species.
Dutchman's Creek Mitigation Review/ Wake Audubon October 20, 1998
Si,te 8- Rich Slopes
Key Findings:
1. Along the southeast corner of the property there are rich steep, north-
facing slopes. The canopy is hardwood and the slopes are blanketed
with a rich spring wildflower display including: Trillium,
Hepatica, Foamflower, Devil's Bit, Windflower and more.
Recommendations for Site 8- Rich Slopes
1. Protect from damage from any heavy equipment working in the area.

<: y
coo N
,mow
S
O
1 Z
1
<m? .. 1,I
[) A
Moo
0m0
CO) If r7l
f. ?,., O 11[71 ??
i
v
c
A A
A
?D N

ooLor SOD L

(D In
0 (D (D m m
p
CD
<
L
0
7 7
7 7 7
I'
'•
1
;
/2 UI 7 rt rt

0 3 3
a rt 7 A (?
11? sl
i? ?I ? ? > j ?
l

CD (D (D
Mai
O;u
mm
<N
00
v
mD
zr
CO)
? :' 1' I ? i?r/ II?•1
,I ? l ,r LIiI.
' ? 1 •rf ,? I Iji" '1
.jk_ ? 1•li'I
:*o
\ I I ;III I.1 _
4 : W : 17? O
F, 03
Wit`',.. %'t:V c ..?'_1 1`.1 ?' 'a'C' •.\?. r' _
coy ? p tA? Q I f(.-Z h-e4Pe
v .yy
v:l
nt
Ira O-Ltr,)-J?? ) a-op? tp?
vr?
? qp
GOT
0
MEETING TO REVIEW THE PLAN FOR THE
DUTCHMAN'S CREEK WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
IN WAKE COUNTY
NC Department of Transportation
Photogrammetry Unit Conference Room
Century Center Offices, Building B
8:30 a.m., Wednesday June 17, 1998
AGENDA
1. Welcome and Introduction David Robinson
2. Statements by Resource Agency Representatives
3. Statements by Interested Individuals/Groups
4. Overview of Approved Mitigation Plan Phil Harris
5. 404/401 Permit Requirements of N. Wake Expressway Alice Gordon
6. Discussion of Issues and Opportunities Charles Bruton
7. Follow-up Activities Charles Bruton
8. Next Meeting (Purpose and Schedule) Charles Bruton
9. Adjourn
U
APO

-Now
a-
?• o
o o oo: - m
o
(n o
C A c
y p
cD
N ? S
L O, :3
j
7
.+ a
N
CL N :
-h
S
Q 7c 00 -5-
7
0
d 0 r"
A ?
3 7 N
.D
to 3i N v
Q N y
m n ? a
Q. N
N y
to 0 v
(D rt
A ?
0 a_
p o =•
7 N
- ? N N

J
Iii=

/
?, r V
it
(D)

/
•? i
i
? i
j
Z
/
It
1
:3
? o
s
(n
ma ? N
0 0 d
o 3
o
3 C 0
0
7 :3
rt
1
1
/
tl?l
'I I 1'1'1'1'
IfIII1111 t11?11
1'I'1'I'1'I'Irl
I'16 I1 I1 I1 I'I'
I'I?1?1?1?1 ?I
V I I I
t?1 ?1?1?1
1,1,1,1
I
/
/
i
/
/
1
I
/
i
i
%
i
i
i
i
i
i
1-175
` X 0N ? m (0)(4 m0rA
+.. p .+•
M (OD o(a, \\? p ? O c, v 0
3
0
'D W l<D_ C 7
`< O
a 0 vo
O n Q c no O 3' (n
C to o N
r O C N 3 C (D p
-I =3 a 3
co
r-o N (gyp A :3 C v
<o ?' f0
f (D ° fa :'
N
v h r a
53
O_^ u 0
0 ? n v
0 0 O j
% .. n n j
m o
p p c
? v
3 a. 3
(D
1
S
7
T

M
N
3
0
m
-0
p
N
c
A
m
N
IM 0
A o
? N
-„ m
v
p
o 3.
o W
o
c =r
a
t
0 r-
0 0
0 < M L-1
m v_
-•v j/ ? i l p p
ice, ???tr, , ?"..-•.--? ` O 7 p
Z
0
'/ --- o A
i
nn?InrpTI1AI 171 AM WIC1Al CTRFAWA ANn nAM RECONSTRUCTION Drawn By. WGL Ftgure=16'

Dutchman's Creek Mitigation Site
Wake County
TIP No. R-2000WM
State Project No. 8.U401721
AQUATIC INVENTORY REPORT
R-2000WM
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning and Environmental Branch
Natural Resources, Permits and Mitigation Unit
Bruce O. Ellis, CLM, PWS, Environmental Biologist
29 October 1998
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Aquatic Inventory Report is submitted to provide additional
biological information concerning the Dutchman's Creek Wetland Mitigation Site,
specifically, Dutchman's Creek. The site is located in the southern portion of Wake
County.
1.2 Site Description
The Dutchman's Creek Wetland Mitigation Site is approximately 34.0 ha
(84.0 ac) in area, of which approximately 3.6 ha (9.0 ac) consists of open water in the
form of ponds. Dutchman's Creek (a.k.a. Dutchman's Branch) flows through the site
from the west and becomes impounded in the eastern portion of the site. A detailed
description of the Dutchman's Creek mitigation site which includes an examination of the
channel morphology of Dutchman's Creek is presented in "Mitigation Proposal,
Dutchman's Creek Mitigation Site", by Environmental Services, Inc., February 1997.
The section of Dutchman's Creek which was inventoried for this report is present
within the western portion of the site, in the vicinity of SR 1386 (Graham Newton Road)
(Figure 1). The study area was established approximately 30 in (100 ft) downstream of
the SR 1386 bridge and extends downstream (eastward) for a distance of 100 m (328 ft).
The Creek bed in this area is fairly straight and does not offer a variety of habitat,
however, there is a 30 m (100 ft) section that does contain a riffle pool complex
associated with minor meanders (Photos 1 and 2).
1.3 Methodology
The field survey and assessment of Dutchman's Creek was conducted on 15
September 1998 by NCDOT biologists Bruce O. Ellis, Logan Williams, Tim Savidge,
Shannon Simpson, and NCDOT engineer Ed Lewis. Bruce Ellis, Logan Williams and
Tim Savidge performed macroinvertebrate and fish identification.
Investigations of stream morphology, with regard to habitat assessment, were
conducted in accordance with Rapid Bioassessment Protocols For Use In Streams and
Rivers (RBP), (Plafkin 1986). Photographs were taken to depict the general condition
and environmental surroundings of the study segment.
Very general water chemistry analysis was performed in the field during the
macroinvertebrate collections. The following water quality parameters were examined:
dissolved oxygen, total alkalinity, and pH. Water temperature was also measured during
the macroinvertebrate collections.
4k

tl ?Z
X
\MALA mss' S
00
U Z r
U0 z w R ?
e `A
A c R
v
/
\ \ a 1 ? ; • ? ooc
l ?
I ? ? ?4ti d
t 10
z2-
rZ N
1 a ? .
?1liy

2
All chemical analysis was performed in accordance with field test kit instructions.
Dissolved oxygen content was analyzed using a modified Winkler titration. Total
alkalinity was measured using an acid titration, and pH was determined by color
comparison. Dissolved oxygen and total alkalinity concentrations are reported in parts
per million (ppm). Temperature was recorded as degrees Celsius (°C).
Benthic macroinvertebrates were collected from selected streams using methods
described in Standard Operating Procedures, Biological Monitoring [(SOPBM),
NCDEHNR, 1995)]. All available habitats (riffles, pools, leaf packs, undercut banks,
etc.) within the 100 m (328 ft) study segment were examined. Representative individuals
of the macroinvertebrate population were preserved in 70 per cent isopropyl alcohol, and
returned to the laboratory for identification.
A fisheries survey was also performed in the Dutchman's Creek sample segment.
The fisheries survey was conducted by a three person team using a Coffelt Model Mark
10, Variable Voltage Pulsator electroschocker. Study area length was 100 in
(328 ft). Actual collection time (30 minutes) was recorded during each sampling event to
determine catch per unit effort (CPUE). All fish collected during the fishery survey were
placed in temporary holding tanks and were then identified to species, counted, measured
(standard fork length), and weighed. Larger specimens were weighed individually, while
an aggregate weight per size class for smaller species was performed. Upon completion
of data collection, the fish were returned to Dutchman's Creek.
The fishery survey was conducted in accordance with conditions stipulated in a
Scientific Fish Collection License (No. 0635), issued by the NC Wildlife Resources
Commission (WRC). All fisheries data collected during the study will be forwarded to
the WRC as per license conditions.
1.4 Definitions
The following are definitions of terminology and methodology utilized within this
report:
Canopy Cover: Visual estimation of the density of terrestrial vegetative cover over the
stream.
Embeddedness: The visual observation of the degree to which larger substrate particles
are surrounded by fine sediments. The following categories are
assigned to the per cent coverage by fine sediment (RBP): excellent 0-
25, good 25-50, fair'50-75, and poor >75.
EPT: Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera
Substrate: Material composition of the stream bottom. Substrate composition is
evaluated by observation and presented in descending order of
abundance.
Substrate
Particle Size: Boulder, > 256 mm (10 in); Rubble, 64.0 to 256.0 mm (2.5 to 10.0 in);
Gravel, 2.0 to 64.0 mm (0.1 to 2.5 in); Sand 0.06 to 2.00 mm (gritty
texture), Silt, 0.004 to 0.06 mm (powdery texture), Clay, < 0.004 mm
(slick texture). Bedrock, exposed solid rock, which is free of other
overlying substrate particles.
1.5 Qualifications of Principal Investigators
Bruce O. Ellis, Environmental Biologist II, NCDOT, March 1995-present.
Education: BS Agriculture/Environmental Science, Rutgers University
College of Agriculture and Environmental Science.
Certification: Certified Lake Manager (North American Lake
Management Society).
Professional Wetland Scientist (Society of Wetland Scientists).
Experience: Aquatic Biologist, Allied Biological, Inc., March 1976-April
1994. Lake and watershed management; water quality; stream
bioassessment, fisheries inventories, wetland delineation.
Biologist, Upper Raritan Watershed Association, 1974-1976, two
year bioassessment study of first and second order streams within
a subwatershed of the Raritan River basin.
Expertise: Aquatic resource management; wetland delineation; Section 7
field investigations; NEPA investigations and documentation.
Organizations: North American Lake Management Society
North Carolina Lake Management Society, Director Region I
Society of Wetland Scientists
Logan Williams, Environmental Biologist II, NCDOT, January 1995-present.
Education: MS, Entomology, North Carolina State University
BA, Philosophy, North Carolina State University
AA, Agricultural Pest Control, North Carolina State University
Certification: Certified Plant Professional, NC Nurserymen Association
Experience: Apiary Inspection Supervisor, NCDA, 1984-1995.
Nature Educator, Raleigh Parks and Recreation, 1994.
Biologist, Williams Biological, 1992-1994.
Expertise: Entomology, field botany, natural history, wetland delineation;
Section 7 field investigations; NEPA investigations and
documentation.
Organizations: American Entomological Association
North Carolina Entomological Association
Dragonfly Society of the Americas
4
Tim Savidge, Environmental Specialist III, NCDOT, 1992- present.
Education: M.S. Marine Biology/Biological Oceanography, UNC
Wilmington
B.S. Biology, (Chemistry), Guilford College.
Experience: Biologist, NCDOT, freshwater mussel surveys, environmental
impact documentation, natural resource investigations.
Expertise: NEPA documentation; terrestrial and aquatic ecology; freshwater
mussel biology; Section 7 surveys; wetland delineation.
2.0 RESULTS
The following section contains all field information and data analysis for the
study reach of Dutchman's Creek. Scientific nomenclature and common names (when
applicable) are provided for each animal and plant species described. Plant taxonomy
generally follows Radford, et al. (1968) and Prescot (1964). Insect taxonomy generally
follows Brigham et. al. (1982), and fish taxonomy follows Menhenick (1991).
Table 1: Study Area General Stream Morphology and Water Quality
MORPHOLOGY WATER QUALITY
Canopy Cover: 70% Temperature (°C): 25
Stream Depth (Average): 15 cm (6 in) pH: 7.0
Stream Width (Average): 3.7 m (12.0 ft) Dissolved Oxygen (ppm): 7.0
Substrate: G, Sa, R, B Total Alkalinity (ppm): 38
Embeddedness: 50 percent Fair EPT taxa richness: 4
On the date of the survey the Creek contained an elevated turbidity. The Secchi
disc reading (a measure of transparency) was approximately 0.5 m (1.5 ft). The substrate
of the Creek was covered with a fine layer of silt, especially in low velocity pool areas
(Photo 3). A scraping from the larger substrate particles was collected and examined
microscopically. The microscopic examination revealed that the surface of the substrate
did contain considerable amounts of silt and amorphous matter. The substrate surface,
especially in higher velocity riffle zones, also contained diatoms (Cymbella sp. and
Navicula sp.) and filamentous algae (Spirogyra sp.).
The fishery survey yielded 30 individuals representing 11 different species of fish.
As a group, the shiners contributed to 60 per cent of the catch. During the survey, the
water of Dutchman's Creek was very turbid. The turbidity may have been instrumental
in the moderately low number of individuals captured during the sampling event, since it
is likely that a considerable number of fish were not detected in the turbid water.
However, it is anticipated that all the representative species within the stream segment
were captured. The results of the fishery survey are presented in Table 2.

Table 2: Fishery Survey Results 5
FISH SPECIES NUMBER LENGTH mm) WEIGHT (g) C.P.U.E.
Semotilus atromaculatus
(creek chub) 1 150 40 2
Notropis amoenus
(comely shiner) 6 35-45 2 12
Notropis analostana
(satinfin shiner) 8 55-90 40 16
Notropis ardens
(rosefin shiner) 4 40-65 2 8
Noturus insignis
- (margined madtom) 1 55 1.5 2
Aphredoderus sayannus
(pirate perch) 1 65 2 2
Lepomis auritus
(redbreast sunfish) 1 85 12 2
1 180 110 2
Lepomis gulosus
(warmouth) 1 110 22 2
Lepomis macrohirus
(bluegill sunfish) 1 70 3 2
1 80 4 2
1 120 32 2
Micropterus salmoides
(largemouth bass) 1 210 142 2
Etheostoma olmstedi
(tessellated darter) 2 40-45 2 4
Total 30 414.5 60
. The results of the benthic macroinvertebrate study of Dutchman's Creek yielded a
total of 23 separate species (Table 3). Two of the species collected, the fishing spider
(Dolomedes sp.) and the water strider (Aquarius sp.) are semi aquatic and spend most of
their time on the water surface. The remainder of the macroinvertebrates are truly aquatic
and either have a water dependent life cycle (insects) or spend their entire life (crayfish,
snails and clams) on or within the various substrates of the creek.
6
Table3: Results of Macroinvertebrate Analysis
TAXA ITAXA
ARTHROPODA Trichoptera
Decapoda Hydropsychidae
Cambaridae Hydropyche bettenii
Cambarus spp. Limnephilidae
Araneida Neophylax sp.
Pisauridae Lepidoptera
Dolomedes sp. * Noctuidae
INSECTA Achanara sp.
Ephemeroptera Coleoptera
Baetidae Dytiscidae
Baetis sp. Hydaticus bimarginatus
Heptageniidae Laccophilus maculosus
Stenonema sp. Haliplidae
Odonata Peltodytes muticus
Ansioptera Psephenidae
Gomphidae Psephenus herricki
Gomphus lividus Diptera
Zygoptera Chironomidae
Coenagrionidae Ablabesmyia sp.
Ischnura posita Chironomus sp.
Macromiidae Gastropods
Macromia taeniolata Physidae
Hemiptera Physella sp.
Corixidae ' Viviparidae
Nepidae Campeloma sp.
Ranatra drakei Pelecypoda
Gerridae Sphaeriidae
Aquarius sp.
Megaloptera
Corydalidae
Nigronia fasciatus
Sialidae
Sialis velata
Total Taxa 23
* Semi aquatic
Incidental fauna observed during the survey are included in Table 4.
7
Table 4: Incidental Fauna Observed
TAXA TAXA
INSECTA AMPHIBIA
Odonata Plethondontidae
Ansioptera Eurycea bislineata
Aeshnidae Hylidae
Anax junius Acris crepitans
Epiaeschna heros Ranidae
Libellulidae Rana catesbiana
Celithemis eponina Rana clamitans
Erythemis simplicicollis REPTILIA
Libellula cyanea Polychrotidae
Libellula incesta Anolis carolinensis
Libellula luctuosa Colubridae
Libellula lydia Nerodia sipedon
Pachydiplax longipennis
Perithemis tenera
Tramea carolina
Lepidoptera
Danaidae
Danaus plexippus
Hesperiidae
Hylephila phyeus
Epargyreus zestos
Nymphalidae
Liminitis archippus
Papilionidae
Papilio Qlaucus

8
REFERENCES
Allan, J. D. 1995. Stream Ecology: Structure and function of running waters. Chapman
& Hall, New York.
Brigham, A. R., W. U. Brigham, and A. Gnilka, eds. 1982. Aquatic Insects and
Oligochaetes of North and South Carolina. Midwest Aquatic Enterprises,
Mahomet, Illinois.
Edmunds, G. F., S. L. Jensen and L. Berner. 1976. The Mayflies of North and Central
America. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
Hobbs, H. H. 1976. Crayfishes (Astacidae) of North and Middle America. Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, D.C.
Klots. A.B., 1951, A Field Guide to the Butterflies, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.
Lewis, P. A. 1974. Taxonomy and Ecology of Stenonema Mayflies (Heptageniidae:
Ephemeroptera). National Environmental Research Center, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Mason, W. T., Jr. 1973. An Introduction to the Identification of Chironomid Larvae.
National Environmental Research Center, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Menhenick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. N.C. WRC, Raleigh.
Merrit, R. W., K. W. Cummins. 1996. An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North
America. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa.
NCDEHNR-DEM, 1995, Standard Operating Procedures, Biological Monitoring,
Raleigh.
Palmer, W.M., and A.L. Braswell, 1995, Reptiles of North Carolina, The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III, 1980, Amphians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia, The University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill.
Plafkin, J. L., M. T. Barbour, K. D. Porter, S. K. Gross, & R. M. Hughes. 1989. Rapid
Bioassessment Protocols For Use In Streams and Rivers. Report No. EPA/444/4-
89-001, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Prescot, G. W., The Freshwater Algae, 1964, Wm. C. Brown Company Dubuque, Iowa.
9
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
Rohde, Fred C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, J.F. Parnell, 1994, Freshwater Fishes of the
Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, & Delaware, University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill.
Rosgen, Dave. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology. Pagosa
Springs, Colorado.
Schuster, G. A. & D. A. Etnier. 1978. A Manual for the Identification of the Larvae of
the Caddisfly Genera Hydropsyche Pictet and Symphitopsyche Ulmer in Eastern
and Central North America (Trichoptera: Hydropsychidae). Report No. EPA-
600/4-78-060, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
May 8,
MEMORA`'DUM:
To:
From:
Subject:
John Dorney
Eric Galamb
Cyndi Bell L
Dutchman's Creek Mitigation Site, NCDOT
40
MAY
' TER QUALITY SECT10N1
0tt-1NSdn'3r90 ofoo'rl`i1
As you are aware, the Wake County Chapter of the Audubon Society has informed us of
their disapproval of NCDOT's specific plan for the Dutchman's Creek mitigation site (see
attached letter of April 27, 1998). The 404/401 permits for the I-540 (R2000CB/D) project are
conditioned upon use of the site for mitigation of wetland and stream impacts. DOT intends to
begin construction of the site in two weeks. The major conflict is that Audubon wants the site to
be left as-is, with no disturbance of the existing beaver dams, and natural succession relied upon
for eventual recovery of forested areas. The Audubon society has been conducting bird counts on
the site for 30 years, although they hold no legal interest in the property. They contend that
attempts to restore a meandering stream onsite will ultimately fail (as they claim new beavers
would move in, build new dams, and eat the planted saplings), and that the quality of the site as
bird habitat would be degraded.
On Thursday May 7, 1998, a meeting was held to discuss the construction plans and
disposition of the site. In attendance were:
Alice Gordon, NCDOT
David Robinson, NCDOT
Charles Bruton, NCDOT
Phil Harris, NCDOT
James Gregory, NCSU
Henry C. Hammond, Audubon Society
John Connors, President, Wake Chapter, Audubon Society
John Argentati, Wake Audubon member, adjacent property owner
Derb Carter, Southern Environmental Law Center
Ken Graham, FWS
Howard Hall, FWS
Eric Alsmeyer, Corps of Engineers
Cyndi Bell, DWQ
S4 J70 j_?
D E N R
D
t i g s.
' a
MAY 2 p Ig9a ?TJ?

P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
John Domey Memo
Page 2 of 3
May 8, 1998
David Cox of the Wildlife Resources Commission and Kevin Moody of the Fish and
Wildlife Service could not attend. Mr. Connors expressed his disappointment that these two
individuals, plus other agency representatives who had been involved earlier, were not present.
Mr. Connors and the other Audubon members commended DOT for purchasing the site
for mitigation, but made it clear that they believe no stream restoration should be attempted.
They have hired Dr. Gregory to support their ideas for the site. Specifically, they say that the
existing beaver dams should not be disturbed, and that site work should be limited to minimal
enhancement and preservation. They have offered to accept title to the property and to serve as
site stewards. The disadvantage for DOT in this would be that the required wetland and stream
restoration components of the existing mitigation plan and 404/401 permits would not be
satisfied. Wake Audubon has not suggested or offered another site in exchange fer the potential
loss of the restoration area at Dutchman's Creek. My impressions are that Audubon's primary
concern is to preserve the quality of the site as bird habitat. Mr. Argentati is also personally
interested in seeing this site preserved, as he informed us that he had even purchased a lot
overlooking the property prior to DOT's involvement.
1. .1 1 C-j i W u? i i iCii ¦ Ylmn ¦nni mi mrnnnnn imnnlnnd it
John Domey Memo
Page 2 of 3
May 8, 1998
David Cox of the Wildlife Resources Commission and Kevin Moody of the Fish and
Wildlife Service could not attend. Mr. Connors expressed his disappointment that these two
individuals, plus other agency representatives who had been involved earlier, were not present.
Mr. Connors and the other Audubon members commended DOT for purchasing the site
for mitigation, but made it clear that they believe no stream restoration should be attempted.
They have hired Dr. Gregory to support their ideas for the site. Specifically, they say that the
existing beaver dams should not be disturbed, and that site work should be limited to minimal
enhancement and preservation. They have offered to accept title to the property and to serve as
site stewards. The disadvantage for DOT in this would be that the required wetland and stream
restoration components of the existing mitigation plan and 404/401 permits would not be
satisfied. Wake Audubon has not suggested or offered another site in exchange fer the potential
loss of the restoration area at Dutchman's Creek. My impressions are that Audubon's primary
concern is to preserve the quality of the site as bird habitat. Mr. Argentati is also personally
statistically valid, biologically sound, site specific criteria, derived by observations at reference sites.
Merely meeting jurisdictional criteria is irrelevant in terms of "restoration."
We appreciate this opportunity to comment on the Plan. Please call Kevin Moody of my staff at
[phone] extension 19 if you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
John M. Hefner
Field Supervisor
cc:
DOT, Raleigh, NC (Alice Gordon, H. Frank Vick)
DWQ, Raleigh, NC (John Dorney)
WRC, Raleigh, NC (Frank McBride)
EPA, Wetlands Regulatory Branch, Atlanta, GA (Thomas Welborn)
FWS/R4:KMoody:KM:09/04/97:919/856-4520 extension 19:\dutcliman.wpd
i

This mitigation plan has been reviewed by the following individuals and agencies and has been
determined to provide an acceptable approach to mitigating the wetland, stream, and open
water Impacts of 820000 and R2000C13.
Eric. Alameyer V.S. Army Corps of Engineers Bate
Eric Galamb
bava Cox
NCOEHNR-Division of Water Quality Date
N.C. Wildlife Resource: Commission Date
Kevin Moody U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Date
'02
Wen astalger • Federal Highway Administration Date
To: Eric Alsmeyer
US Army Corps of Engineers
From: John Connors, Wake Audubon Society
Re: Dutchman's Creek Wetland Mitigation Plan
Alternative Proposal for Greenview Farm/ Dutchman's Creek in Wake County
Submitted by: Wake Audubon Society
c/o John Connors, Consevation Chair
1227 Mordecai Drive
Raleigh, NC 27604 Y4(1
919-755-0253 H/ 733-7450 ext 602 W
Date: January 23, 1998
"Background: Wake Audubon Members have an extensive observation history
with the Dutchman's Creek Area, formerly known as Greenview Farm. The site
has been censused during every Christmas and Spring Bird Count since the
1960s. This area has an extraordinary history in terms of harboring rare or unusual
species of birds for Wake County. Wake Audubon is thrilled and grateful that
the NC Department of Transportation has acquired this site for the development
of a wetlands mitigation plan. We do, however, feel that some of the recommendations
contained in their Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan (June 1997) will actually
diminish the character of this site, so that there will a substantial loss in diversity of
wetland birds and other wildlife, particularly those that prefer the open, rich marsh
setting that currently typifies the site. We have enclosed a listing of bird species that
have been seen at Dutchman's Creek through the years. We remain disappointed that the
consultant did not contact us during the planning process so that plans would have been
developed which would reflect appreciation of, and stewardship for, species which exist,
or could exist, at the site ...many of which are rare and unusual in Wake County. We
remain confident that once awareness is raised among the participating agencies as to the
value of the site as a more open wetland, and Audubon's interest in providing long-term
interpretive and stewardship services, that an Alternative Mitigation Plan for Dutchman's
Creek will be preferable for all parties.
The following is a Preliminary Proposal for an Alternative Wetlands Mitigation Plan
which would include the Wake Audubon Society as acting partner with the NC
Department of Transportation. This Proposal will be developed further following
acceptance of the conceptual framework by the regulating agencies and the DOT.
Our Proposal:
Wake Audubon would like to re-visit the Mitigation plan, and work with the
Department of Transportation and the approving agencies, to propose and
accomplish the following:
1. We concur with and approve of the restoration of the lake's dam.
2. We would like DOT to wait 1 season while we complete a thorough inventory
of plants and animals that occupy the site. We are particularly interested in the
herpetofauna and birds that nest on site, or winter there, and have scientists who have
offered their services to help compile this list of species.
3. Wake Audubon would like to enter a long-term site management arrangement
with the DOT, where Audubon would provide signage and interpretive services,
and assist with long-term site management. Transfer of ownership to a non-profit
could be explored.
4. Our management objectives would be to conserve & enhance wildlife habitat for
targetted species, as well as to provide opportunities for visitors to observe
wildlife in these habitats.
5. Target Species include:
BIRDS
1. Planting of intermittant hedgerows to encourage nesting by loggerhead.-
shrikes. This species is in serious decline in North Carolina but
is still observed at Dutchman's Creek.
2. Installation of 2 Osprey nesting platforms. These birds are often seen at
Lake Wheeler in the spring. They recently began nesting at Falls Lake
and Jordan Lake, and are likely to be induced to nest on structures near
Lake Wheeler. This would become a primary attraction at the site.
3. Creation and management of woodcock courtship grounds, nesting
habitat, and courtship observation area. The site is well suited for
woodcock management, and the courtship displays of this bird
are of great interest to the public. Wake Audubon's annual Woodcock
Watch regularly draws 50 or more participants. Ongoing site
management is necessary to maintain woodcock habitat. This species
seems to be in decline throughout much of its range.
4. Long-term management of marsh & wetland shrub habitat to encourage
nesting by virginia and king rails, yellowthroats, prothonotary warblers,
yellow-breasted chats, indigo buntings, blue grosbeaks, red-winged
blackbirds, orchard orioles, and song sparrows. Louisiana waterthrush
white-eyed vireo, yellow warbler and eastern kingbird are also
possible.
5. Nesting boxes for bluebirds, purple martins, wood ducks and barn swallows
will be added. The barn swallows currently nest in farm buildings
that are likely to be removed.
HERPETOFAUNA
1. Opportunities to develop habitat for amphibians will be explored. Various
frog and toad species are expected to be found during our inventory. We
are particularly interested in those that require fishless, vernal pools for
breeding as these sites are becoming rare in Wake County.
2. Excavation/creation of vernal breeding pools for spotted and marbled
salamanders with introduction of eggs/larvae if not found during
inventory. These species are in decline locally due to loss of
breeding pools. Dutchman's Creek area provides ideal habitat.
3. Opportunities to provide enhanced habitat for.spotted turtles will be explored.
this species is likely to be found in the site inventory. It is a species that is
considered particularly sensitive to habitat alteration.
4. The inventory of reptiles may suggest other opportunities to enhance the site
for snakes, lizards and turtles.
6. HIKING TRAIL
A walking trail will be maintained along the western property boundary
which will include fencing from the private property, boardwalks over wet areas and
access to 4 observation overlooks near the open water, the marshes, the creekside, and
the woodcock courtship area. Interpretive signage along with fencing & benches will
be at each overlook.
7. Plantings of wetland wildlife food plants.
8.A small gravelled parking area will be added to accommodate 10 cars.
9. Other ideas: Bat house(free-standing) or under bridge.
Shorebird mudflats ... drawdown during migration.
Conclusion: The Wake Audubon Society believes there is a great opportunity
for a partnership to be developed with the Department of Transportation to protect and
enhance the natural resources found at Dutchman's Creek, and for these to be made
available for the education and enjoyment of Wake County residents. There are few
if any sites in Wake County where habitat is managed extensively to enhance visitor's
opportunity to see plants and animals of a wetland environment. Dutchman's Creek
provides that opportunity.
Cc Alice Gordan DOT
Kevin Moody USFWS
David Cox NCWRC
Eric Galamb NC Water Quality
F yy?y
V
_ 4r
y
4
Na
Y
p w- s
L rs ?v
U ??. o c
1
1
i
4
1
Ol
0

s
Eu -??
°• ° T V n€ t s o "e e o o u _ c t
r F ? m m m C 7 d G. • U U Q LL .. m m S W W S S 41 W= Z Z
a i i c
h N y
J
F

ll? Ili,.,
€
z

a
t [
S 0

» v ..
U L
V U 000 UV U w
.E O
Z
C

O
N
n ' -
?_ v F ??„ H '? y O i o E v
?
N
° a
cUE
E=Fcu t ='
?E?rcc ?$Y
-
> =
'
E
` -=te
z _ vq
n
' o
` 3 m m ` ' u d.
Z Xu.v°i
mauV ti>JJNI`7=.Sfn
'
H3z
?- ` 3 ?i .;l v? v
.5 v,33C2 - c
h
u
.
.
?owh
u 3 3 3 0 3 3 3 oi?3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 .
3 3 3 3 3 3 y m
_ u

U U U m m m ? F F F N N h N N N h m a N N A N N H N N
3 U 9 A AR
N V N N h N?
9 d 7 u 9 C u =
u :o?'o i - ?oE?9 ng a i3c??iyn - E
'5 -S
e E U 4 4
3 D v; E; e u"; e m k„ ; y v = 3 .c E T 2 .,e $€ .= i z° ?
r u e c t o v. = n 3 n n- c C.n o
'+ E
-° ?-°_c ? mmUfu-OZ oj. `UfUmi•m F°mmi. 'a X a`i m'mUm Qa3.na 2 2XUE c_s3
3 a z m -p v v v? v? v v v L v v v v v d d u ? `?? v v v- v
.e aaa u uaaa a
aaaa 2E -2 -E a -R ca.ecc R-2 -8 -E
333333a3333333333333333333z3330'33333133
a ? o
t=z3m
E L
F=ZZZ
m y
6 6

d
v ? 3 s
z z _° c' z E c.
`e
?v L

S x
O m
>: E
Z N
C m C ?
H._t ? ¢35z
t V Vi ? ? ?
5 3 c ? ? . -
z o o v`: ? S ? c
? c
t s
UUZViz CI ¢_ `•?v5 m
E E E E E E E E E E E E E
h=r 1==F=F' F='=F=r r-
x
75
?ma`n3na < won .`tom [:i Fu"i ?.?m x'mn k ;t
-c3L 3'3 U3 U; - -.- ' ---
L 1 Y
LO HQ >"YC V;3 tANU300 0O OFYfANNN•A inN VI to V1'sNNVI
• JL 0: EC:
9
7
u O
G
72
u` •u`
o .v
u'.m '3°m is E y c ` v _ ` c E
';, a°R oo?53oN ''°Rc.By i? t'ucZ Ey m"
3? m
3v _3a?ya? u3°.Yy??muv3 °v>ty;;uY :2
Imti 33t A V 00 m 0 O F O Cf s OFFN 0 uK O•n`v`imm cOrn`rnh p m II
0
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES. INC.
1100 WAKE FOREST ROAD, SUITE 200
RALEIGH. NORTH CAROLINA 27604
[phone] FAX [phone]
MEMORANDUM
TO: Robin Little
NCDOT Planning and Environmental
FROM: Wes Dickson
Environmental Services, Inc.
DATE: 12 January 1998
RE: Dutchmans Creek: Response to comments on the mitigation plan
The attached document provides a summary of alterations to wildlife habitat and recreational
opportunities due to mitigation activities at the Dutchmans Creek mitigation site. This memo also
serves as a response to the letter (attached) submitted by John Argentati to NCDOT concerning the
open water (small pond) ecosystem at Dutchmans Creek. The Argentati letter indicates concern over
marsh and open water habitat alterations and loss of recreational opportunities that may occur due
to mitigation activities. Harry LeGrand of the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) contacted
ESI and also indicated interest in marsh habitats at the mitigation site.
For more information or edits to this memo, please feel free to contact Wes Newell at your
convenience.
jwn
w/er96021.15/habitat.mem
Potential alterations to Habitat and Recreational Opportunities
Due to Restoration Activities at the Dutchmans Creek Mitigation Site
The Dutchmans Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan is designed to replace riverine wetland
functions in the project region. Based on available- research and- literature-, wetland- and stream
mitigation activities will restore and enhance in-stream aquatic, emergent marsh, and bottomland
forest habitat relative to existing conditions. In addition, physical wetland functions associated with
water quality and wetland sustainability will also be restored and enhanced. Wetland and stream
functional replacement can be quantified by applying the techniques of Brinson's Guidebook for
Application of HvdrogeomoMhic Assessments to Riverine Wetlands (Brinson et al. 1995), and
Rosgen's Applied River Morphology (Rosgen 1996).
Under existing conditions, the Dutchmans Creek site consists of a breached, in-stream impoundment
supporting open water, emergent marsh, and abandoned pasture land. Primary wetland and stream
restoration activities include stream reconstruction, impoundment reconstruction/lowering,
floodplain re-exposure, and wetland species plantings. These activities will improve hydrodynamic.
biogeochemical, and water quality related wetland functions relative to existing conditions, including
phosphorous, nitrogen, and pollutant cycling on floodplains in the Neuse River Basin. Chemical and
nutrient removal will be restored by re-establishing oxidation/reduction (wetting/duvng) cycles on
the floodplain and through uptake in living vegetation, including emergent and palustrine species
(Cooper et al. 1986, Jordan et al. 1986, Jurik et al. 1994, Peterjohn and Correll 1984, Richardson
1985, Wang et al. 1994).
Mitigation activities will also alter wildlife habitats, primarily through reductions in unvegetated,
open water and concomitant increases in emergent marsh, forested wetlands, and upland forest
buffers. These modifications are anticipated to provide net improvements in fringe marsh, interior
marsh, and interior forest habitat relative to existing conditions. However, recreational opportunities
associated with wildlife viewing on open water may be significantly reduced as a result of
alterations. The expected loss in recreational opportunities may be mitigated by providing access
or elevated viewing sites during implementation of long term management programs.
Mitigation activities are designed to provide a net benefit to amphibians and in-stream aquatic
species. This benefit will occur at the expense of aquatic species adapted to open water ponds in the
region. A review of USGS mapping suggests that in-stream impoundments and associated open
water ponds dominate the region surrounding Dutchmans Creek. Based on USGS mapping,
approximately 71 in-stream impoundments occur within the approximately 90 square mile watershed
encompassing Dutchmans Creek, Terrible Creek, Middle Creek and Yates Mill Pond Creek west of
US 401. This watershed encompasses approximately 58 tributaries providing approximately 140
linear miles of stream channel. Based on this review, in-stream impoundments occur, on average,
at 2 mile intervals along these tributaries (1.5 impoundments per tributary). Impoundments similar
in size to the Dutchmans Creek site include Bass Lake, Yates Mill Pond, Macgregor Lake, Sunset
Lake, Lochmere Lake, and approximately 8 other unnamed impoundments. Larger and smaller in-
stream impoundments also occur systematically throughout the region, and exhibit deleterious
effects on streams and adjacent wetlands (Rosgen 1996, Dunne and Leopold 1978).
In-stream impoundments typically cause down-cutting in downstream reaches and braiding in
upstream reaches due to alterations in capacity to transport sediment and resultant flow (shear)
stresses. Below impoundments, down-cutting into stream beds results in floodplain abandonment
and loss of isolated aquatic and forested wetland habitat (Rosgen 1996, Dunne and Leopold 1978).
Down-cutting has occurred below the Dutchmans Creek dam and along other impounded streams
in the reference watersheds described above. Above the dam, braiding and sediment deposition has
established an unsustainable wetland and promotes the loss of characteristic in-stream habitat. The
impounded and braided stream reach is not sustainable from a hydrodynamic perspective due to
continual accumulation of sediment behind the dam (Rosgen 1988). At the mitigation site, the dam
has been breached, in part, due to long term accumulation of sediments. The impounded reach is also
not considered sustainable from a habitat perspective due to accumulation of pollutants, toxins, and
heavy metals, especially within a developing watershed (Salanki and Varanka 1978,Manly and
George 1977). Permanent inundation decreases the ability of floodplain surfaces ,to assimilate
nutrients and pollutants through reduction/oxidation (wetting/drying) processes or through uptake
in living biomass (Brinson et al. 1995). Certain aquatic species, including diagnostic
macro invertebrates associated with Piedmont streams and adjacent floodplain pools, are typically
lost in the upstream and downstream segments surrounding in-stream impoundments.
Standing water in these impoundments, which potentially supports elevated pollutant levels due to
watershed development, may not provide significant habitat for water fowl. In certain situations.
vehicular traffic, noise, human encroachment, and loss of forest buffers also degrades habitat for bird
species, including exposed, open water and marsh habitats (Brown et al. 1990, Burger 1981, Fraser
et al. 1985, Kaiser and Fritzell 1984, Keller et al. 1993, Korschgen et al. 1985).
The mitigation plan provides for re-establishment of vegetated buffers and periodic fluctuations in
water levels on the Dutchmans Creek floodplain. Based on initial floodplain cross-section surveys,
the area of semi-permanent flooding behind the dam will be controllable from approximately 0 to
2 feet above the sediment surface. Much of this area will begin to support emergent plant species
or shrubs due to decreased water depths and sediment transport capacity. While many water fowl
species will benefit from increases in emergent and shrub vegetation, recreational viewing of these
populations will undoubtedly decrease. Mitigation to provide enhanced viewing opportunities may
be provided by management after wetland restoration activities are completed (clearing and trail
establishment or viewing stands).
Upper reaches of the floodplain away from the impoundment support former pasture that maintains
a compacted soil layer. Rooting of vegetation appears limited in this area with disturbance adapted
shrubs intermixed with areas of remnant pasture grasses or bare ground. This open area is exposed
to adjacent development activities, noise, and vehicular traffic. NCDOT will reduce the degree of
soil compaction in many areas, allowing forested species to re-establish successional dynamics.
Forest succession surrounding a meandering stream channel will provide benefits to forest interior
species (Keller et al. 1993) and will provide contiguous cover for water fowl utilizing the adjacent
marsh (Sousa and Farmer 1983).
Based on a review of available research and literature, mitigation activities are expected provide
riverine wetland functional replacement in the region. The prevalence of in-stream impoundments
in the region suggests that reductions in open water habitat may not displace significant wildlife
populations. Lake Wheeler, which is located immediately downstream of the site, appears to support
considerable emergent marsh and adjacent open water habitats where-tributaries and sediment flow
into the lake. Although boating activity may decrease habitat suitability in Lake Wheeler
(Korschgen et al. 1981), shallow waters in these sediment deposition areas may limit human
encroachment into some water fowl areas. Available research and literature suggests that
modifications to the Dutchmans Creek Mitigation Plan should be evaluated based upon loss of
recreational viewing opportunities, and not upon wetland functional attributes under existing
conditions. Without mitigation activities, recreational viewing opportunities in the exposed, open
water area may also be reduced in the future by adjacent development activities.
REFERENCES
Brinson M.M. 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. Wetlands Research
Program Technical Report WRP-DE-4. US Army Corps of Engineers Waterways
Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
Brinson M.M., F.R. Hauer, L.C. Lee, W.L. Nutter, R.D. Smith, D. Whigham. 1995. Guidebook for
Application of Hydrogeomorphic Assessments to Riverine Wetlands. US Army Corps of
Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
Brown, M.T., J.M. Schaefer, K.H. Brandt. 1990. Buffer Zones for Water, Wetlands, and Wildlife
in East Central Florida. Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations Journal Series No. T-
00061. CFW publ. 89-07.
Burger J. 1981. The effect of human activity on birds at a coastal bay. Biological Conservation.
21(1981):231-241.
Cooper J.R., J.W. Gilliam, T.C. Jacobs. 1986. Riparian areas as a control of nonpoint pollutants.
pg. 166-192 inD.L. Correll (ed.), Watershed Research Perspectives. Smithsonian Institution
Press. Washington, D.C.
Dunne D., and L.B. Leopold. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. W.H. Freeman and
Company. N.Y.
Fraser J.D., L.D. Frenzel, J.E. Mathisen. 1985. The impact of human activities on breeding bald
eagles in north-central Minnesota. J. Wildl. Manage. 49(3):1985.
Jordan T.E., D.L. Correll, W.T. Peterjohn, D.E. Weller. 1986. Nutrient flux in a landscape: The
Rhode River Watershed and receiving waters. pg. 57-76 in D.L. Correll (ed.), Watershed
Research Perspectives. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.
Junk T.W., S. Wang, A.G. van der Valk. 1994. Effects of sediment loading on seedling emergence
from wetland seed banks. Wetlands 14(3): 159-173, September 1994. The Society of
Wetland Scientists.
Kaiser M.S., E.K. Fritzell. 1984. Effects of river recreationists on green-backed heron behavior.
J. Wildl_ Mngmt_ 48:561-568.
Karr J.R., I.J. Schlosser. 1978. Water resources at the land-water interface. Science 201:229-234.
Keller, M.E., C.S. Chandler, and J.S. Hatfield. 1993. Avian communities in riparian forests of
different widths in Maryland and Delaware. Wetlands 13(2):137-144, Special Issue, June
1993. The Society of Wetland Scientists.
Korschgen C.E., L.S. George, W.L. Green. 1985. Disturbance of diving ducks by.-boaters on a
migrational staging area. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 13:290-296, 1985.
Manly. R., W.O. George. 1977. The Occurrence of Some Heavy Metals in Populations of the
Freshwater Nlussel Anodonta anatina (L.) from the River Thames. Environmental Pollution
14: 139-154.
Payne, N.F. 1992. Techniques for Wildlife Management of Wetlands. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New
York, NY. 549 pp (not cited, outlines some techniques as applied in the mitigation plan)).
Peterjohn W.T., D.L. Correll. 1984. Nutrient dynamics in an agricultural watershed: observations
on the role of riparian forest. Ecology 65(5): 1466-1475, 1984.. The Ecological Society of
America.
Richardson C.J. 1985. Mechanisms controlling phosphorous retention capacity in freshwater
wetlands. Science 228:1424-1427.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, Colorado.
Rosgen, D.L. 1988. Conversion of a braided river pattern to meandering: a landmark
restoration project. Presented to the California Riparian Systems Conference, 22-24 Sept.
1998, Davis, California.
Salanki, J., I. Varanka. 1978. Effect of Some Insecticides on the Periodic Activity of the Fresh-
Water Mussel (Anadonta cygnea L.). Acta Biologica Academiae Scientarum Hungaricae
29(2): 173-180.
Sousa, P.J., A.H. Farmer. 1983. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Wood Duck. US Fish and
Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.43, July 1983.
Wang S., T.W. Jurik, A.G. van der Valk. 1994. Effects of sediment load on various stages in the
life and death of cattail (Typha glauca). Wetlands 14(3): 166-173, September 1994. The
Society of Wetland Scientists.
} r
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES Q. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
GOVERNOR
March 20, 1998
Mr. John Argentati
8817 Reigate Lane
Raleigh, NC 27603-8842
BAR ` ? ? "sr.
Dear Mr. Argentati:
E. MORRIS TOLSON
J FC-RETAP,Y

Thank you for calm L -1 xprep your concerns about the
Dutchman's Creek Mitigation Site and to as copy of the final mitigation plan. We
are pleased to enclose with this letter a copy of the plan and a project schedule. In
addition, we are including copies of letters sent to us by the natural resource agencies
indicating their approval of the Dutchman's Creek Mitigation Plan.
I regret that your request for a copy of an inventory of the species inhabiting the
area cannot be satisfied for about a week or so. The reason is that the inventory was done
as part of the delineation of the wetlands, and we will need to make a copy of the
delineation report, data sheets and supplementary species lists for you. However, please
be assured that we will send it to you as soon as it is ready. The Wake County Audubon
Society did provide us with an inventory of species associated with their Christmas bird
counts; we have also enclosed a copy of this.
On December 2, 1997, you wrote me letter to me commenting on the mitigation
plan. In order to best address your comments, I sent a copy of your letter to Mr. Wes
Dickson of the consulting firm - Environmental Services, Inc. - which prepared the
plan. As you can see, Mr. Dickson wrote back to us in January, yet a copy of his
response was not forwarded to you at that time. I apologize for the oversight.
We would be interested to consider incorporating any aspects of the design
changes suggested by you and the Audubon Society. However, as recently as this week,
we have been told by the US Army Corps of Engineers that the schedule, overall design,
and function of the mitigation site must not be affected by the incorporation of any such
suggestions. This mitigation site (and its design and construction schedule) is linked to
the construction of I-540, and any changes made to the mitigation plan without prior
approval from all natural resource agencies could affect the highway construction
schedule. Therefore, only those items (e.g. elevated viewing sites) can be incorporated if
they do not affect the schedule and success of the site as currently designed. Also, such

items could probably only be installed after the environmental review agencies declare
the site successful based on the results of the five years of hydrologic and vegetative
monitoring.
If, after reviewing the information we are providing you today, you would like to
discuss your suggestions further with the natural resource agencies and us, we would be
happy to help you set up a meeting at a time and in a location convenient to you. If after
listening to you, the agencies are willing to consider changes to the mitigation plan, and
allow us to make those changes without compromising the highway construction
schedule, we will happy to consider them.
Sincerely,

David C. Robinson, Ph.D., P.E.
Assistant Manager - Environmental Services
Planning and Environmental Branch
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Field Office
Eric Galamb, DWQ
David Cox, WCR
Howard Hall, USFWS
Wendy Gasteiger, FHWA
John Connors, Wake County Audubon Society
O o
r a'
ca
L
O
L
E
U
C
d Y N
7' 08
d ?-- O
can' 3
co .a
O w
M
C
O CU T
L E
ca O O
.? U m
•E
C =
aL E
t '-
?R
O
? N
L
V
Go
.
....... :......... i.............................. ; ......... ;..
.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ... .
1
;
..... . ... _...:_......
._......
......... <....... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ....
....._:.._ ................................ <........... .... .... .... .... .... .... .....-
....
?.... ..... ...>..
c
3 3 3 3 3 3 v v v 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
co co w C14 co N OD O O co co
O N N O N
O
n
a?
0
N
d
m
Y
N
F
c
m
a
0
o a
.
C O ` N
cm C
o (D O w U D
N N Y y ?. 0
•? a1 fd
a L
U) .-.
`o -
N .-. J
CL cc U c
N O)
C V
N O
LL U U
•?
o
- O

(j

'?

U l6

c

a U _

c

_

co f0

c

=
za
>
C G?
?+
O
c
O
p c
cc
(0
U
N
U
()

f6
d
y
co
j
C
U
d fn
a l6
C CO atS C
rn ti O N

E N C O
U N N y -
g
C T T O
m 0 L O
U U + 2 (D ? U-

cc
E Z J E
w c
c i
a
CL 3

U

O

N

O

N
U) cc cc (A
w O y m a p It o a E to a O
d p Q T w; 0 ? U c
° d 3 c
° a
N

E
N
m
m ca
_
°
m
fl.
+
-
o 0)
c
-
i
a
Z

z =

3 E

d

O

Q a.

C d

E ` VI O

+
-
O
2
_
O

7
V
>
y E O L Q 'O U1 U C C c
O C U C C C U
y
U O CO In = O a J U In U) a U a U-
O co
U O N
O r N M v W) w P cc C> O C - V U')
dp '`
2 e
Uc%>=
N
O
O
N
O
L
O
N
G>
L
E.
? V
w
3 ? N
N r
N .a
C L
C p cc
_
? ?.I T
v
Z
0 Cu
aL g E
Cc 4) 0
L M
V I.Y
C =
CL LE?
-?
p N
N
d
L
V
co
v
T
O
co
r
M

N
C
O
N
a>

Y
N
a
a
1 00
T N
CO ?-
M =
,,0LEIGH REGULATORY
03.1tf.i-Z' 7° .- .
P1 AN APP OVAL
This mitigation plan has been reviewed by the following individuals and agencies and has been
determined to provide an acceptable approach to mitigating the wetland, stream, and open
water impacts of B2000D and R2000CB.
Eric Alsmeyer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Date

Eric Galamb
Dave Cox
Kevin Moody
Wendy Gasteiger
NCDEHNR-Division of Water Quality Date
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission Date
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Date
Federal Highway Administration Date

NC DWQ WQ ENUSCI
Fax:[phone]
Sep 8 '97 1315 P.01/01 has been
This mitigation plan has been review by the follong mitigatng theswand etand, agencies and
open
determined to provide an acceptable apProach to
water impacts of A2000D and R2000C8. . -- - - - -? -
Eric Aismeyer

Eric Galamb
Dave Cox
Kevin Moody
Wendy Gasteiger
U.
NCQEHNR=Division-of Water Quality Data
N:C. Wildlife Rasuuroes :Cormnission Date
U»s. Fish and Wildlife. Service, Date
Federal Highway. Administration Date
?v Iq5 7 :Fi+X, JUG tor- s??l?
r?. U-4s ?s
AA Se. jfa °h ' okw. t'' 8-C f
?iS?pn
I
r It - (ri-
ff ')'lD `GZ rw, ?n
Ill h? (,?
NCWRC,HCP,FALLS LAKE TEL:[phone] JS p,b03'97 ,10:30 No.002 F.U2
1.. 46 P. OQ??,
aALAffAQML
This mitigation plan has been raviawe4 by the following individuals to provide an acceptebie approach iduals end agencies and;haa been
water impeata of R2000p and R20OOCS, to mitigstifIg the wetland, streean, end open
Eric Aiameyer
U.S. Army Corps of Engtneere
Date
Eric Galamb
'NCOEHNR.plvieion of Water Quality bate
kilt
Dove Cox
N.C. Wildllie Refources CoMMI$Sion Date
Kevin Moody U.$. Fish end Wildlife, service
Date
Wendy Ciegteiger Fadaril Highway AdmiMMAtlon
Date

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
September 8, 1997
Colonel Terry R. Youngbluth
District Engineer, Wilmington District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Attention: Eric Alsmeyer
Dear Colonel Youngbluth:
'6o7 uUC-L
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan.
Dutchmans Creek Site. Wake County. North Carolina (Plan). The applicant, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation; proposes mitigation for losses of stream and other wetland habitats
associated with the Northern Wake Expressway project (TIP No.s R-2000CB and R-200013; Action
I.D. No. 199601917).
The Dutchmans Creek mitigation site is a degraded and impounded tributary of Lake Wheeler, an
impoundment in Swift Creek. The site is located about a half mile north of a proposed Outer Loop
exit, and lies between Graham Newton Road (SR 1386) on the west and Blaney Franks Road (SR
1377) to the east. It is in an area subject to ongoing heavy development pressure: uplands abutting
both the north and south sides of the site are already proposed for residential subdivisions. A major
cause of the sites' degradation is sediment loading from upstream construction activities. The Plan
will provide additional, uncompensated benefits to the City of Raleigh (Lake Wheeler; the site will
act as a sediment and pollution trap, buffering the impoundment from upstream development
activities) and the applicant (SR 1377 is state maintained and is threatened by potential breaches or
overtopping of the existing dam), and is likely to enhance the property value of adjacent residential
units (benefiting select individual property owners and increasing property tax revenues).
Overall, we are pleased with the Plan. It's approach is acceptable to the Service as mitigation for
unavoidable, in-kind wetland impacts incurred by the Northern Wake Expressway, sections R-2000
CB and D.
Given the trial nature of stream restoration efforts in the piedmont and coastal plain, we believe it is
in the best interests of fish and wildlife resources to take a flexible approach to the Plan. We have
taken the experimental nature of the proposal into account when reviewing and accepting these design
and implementation plans.
In general, we prefer restoration efforts to eliminate the causative agents responsible for the
degradation in the first place. In this case, the dam should have been completely removed, the
hydraulic and biologic control structures (the two roads) should have been rebuilt to bridge the
floodplain, and a significant buffer should have been required around the site. Further protective
measures, such as deleting the proposed nearby Outer Loop exit and funding sediment control
enforcement and prosecution efforts in the watershed, would also have been prudent measures worth
considering.
It is the Service's general belief that "restoration" includes removing the source of degradation,
recreating onsite physical conditions for indigenous communities and populations of plants and
animals (including safe and timely passage), re-establishing a semblance of the macrofloral
communities which would be present absent the degradation, and protecting the restored habitat in
perpetuity. Future mitigation plans should be designed to meet these criteria.
Further, we are concerned that no means of assuring the necessary water quantity and quality are
provided for in the State of North Carolina. We urge the applicant to develop language which would
protect the water rights of fish and wildlife resources in mitigation sites. Such language should be
incorporated into the documents transferring ownership responsibilities for the Dutchmans Creek
mitigation site, and into future mitigation plans. This will provide a reasonable assurance that
diversions, groundwater withdrawals, discharges, etc. will not impair the form or function of
conservation areas.
We offer the following specific comments:
Page G, section 3.1, fourth paragraph: Neither the June 1997 plan nor the subsequent July 18,
1997 letter documents what individual or agency dredged and straightened the channel. In general,
certain antecedent agreements or contracts requiring channel maintenance can take precedence over
conservation status. We are concerned that despite the best of intentions, sites such as this may be
subject to snag and drag operations in the future.
Page 8, section 3.1, second paragraph: The stream and wetland restoration are subject to
compromise by the development of adjacent properties. The Service is concerned that the restoration
site may subsidize poor sediment control practices or future non-point source pollution from the
residential sub-divisions planned nearby. We recommend that during the applicant's oversight, staff
monitor and survey the site routinely for allocthonous inputs, conduct investigations, issue stop work
orders, and bring complaints against property owners, including corporations, where unpermitted
point and non-point discharges enter the mitigation site. Such discharges include, but are not limited
to, water diversion structures that alter the natural storm hydrograph intensify or duration.

Page 8, section 3.2.1, last paragraph: It would have been of interest, and possible importance, to
know more about the history of the dam. Maintenance records, including safety inspections, provide
additional information which should be collected and made part of the property transfer documents.
It is reasonable to assume that the dam owner is receiving substantial benefit from the Plan, since it
may have been more appropriate, from a Clean Water Act perspective, to remove the dam at the
owner's expense regardless of restoration potential.
Page 10, fourth paragraph: Since the Plan provides substantial benefits to the City of Raleigh,
some additional benefits may have been gained by seeking commensurate mitigation, such as flow
releases or fish passage facilities, at Lake Wheeler.
Page 10, section 3.2.2, third and fourth lines: In general, it is important that atiy vestigial
contractual obligations to maintain the dredged channel be identified prior to the"initiation of
restoration efforts. We recommend the presence or absence of any such agreements be clearly
identified in future mitigation plans.
Page 11, last paragraph: We strongly support this application of stream restoration tools. The
Rosgen stream classification system is extremely valuable in that it provides a universally understood
description of the stream channel's condition and of it's potential. Further, the Rosgen classification
has a predictive capability in terms of perturbations and relatively steady states. We believe that the
methodology will prove very beneficial both for regulatory purposes. and for the benefit of fish and
wildlife resources.
Page 19, section 3.5 "Wildlife," first paragraph: The last two sentences are slightly misleading
about the state of fish and wildlife resources in the mitigation site area. The area is suburbanized, and
the development pressure is likely to increase due to the planned Outer Loop. Wildlife adapted to
living in fragmented habitat in suburbanized settings will continue to be the most common residents.
Page 23, section 4.0: We reiterate our comments that the Plan in effect, subsidizes certain entities
without compensation. For example, the applicant, the City of Raleigh, and the previous dam owner
may have had substantial maintenance, repair, or removal costs, both current and future, alleviated
by this mitigation project. Additional mitigation, in the form of fish and wildlife passage, bridges, and.
increased ow releases, are reasonable augmentations to the Plan that the "free riders" could have
provided.
Future stream restoration plans should be based on the perspective provided by the Clean Water Act:
to restore the biological, chemical, and physical integrity of the subject waters, where indigenous,
balanced populations of fish, shellfish, and wildlife are provided habitat, refugia, and transportation
corridors.
Page 47, section 6.2: The Service prefers that the general criteria used for determining hydrology
in jurisdictional wetland delineations not be used as a success criteria for mitigation sites termed
"restoration." The criteria are politically derived and were a compromise adopted for use over
geographically disparate areas and a wide range of hydrologic conditions. We urge the use of
statistically valid, biologically sound, site specific criteria, derived by observations at reference sites.
Merely meeting jurisdictional criteria is irrelevant in terms of "restoration."
We appreciate this opportunity to comment on the Plan. Please call Kevin Moody of my staff at
[phone] extension 19 if you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
,
/
VJohn M. Hefner
Field Supervisor
cc:
DOT, Raleigh, NC (Alice Gordon, H. Frank Vick)
DWQ, Raleigh, NC (John Dorney)
WRC, Raleigh, NC (Frank McBride)
EPA, Wetlands Regulatory Branch, Atlanta, GA (Thomas Welborn)
FWS/R4:KMoody:KM:09/04/97:919/856-4520 extension 19:\dutcliman.wpd
' '02

This mitigation plan has been reviewed by the following individuals and agencies and has been
determined to provide an acceptable approach to mitigating the wetland, stream, and open
water Impacts of RZOOOD and R2000CS.
Eric. A lerneyer
Eric Galamb
Dave Cox
Kevin Moody
V.S. Army Corps of Engineers Date
NCDEHNR-Division of Water Quality Date
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission Date
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Date
Wen astelger • Federal Highway Administration Date
To: Eric Alsmeyer
US Army Corps of Engineers
From: John Connors, Wake Audubon Society
Re: Dutchman's Creek Wetland Mitigation Plan
Alternative Proposal for Greenview Farm/ Dutchman's Creek in Wake County
Submitted by: Wake Audubon Society
c/o John Connors, Consevation Chair
1227 Mordecai Drive
Raleigh, NC 27604
919-755-0253 H/ 733-7450 ext 602 W
Date: January 23, 1998
Background: Wake Audubon Members have an extensive observation history
with the Dutchman's Creek Area, formerly known as Greenview Farm. The site
has been censused during every Christmas and Spring Bird Count since the
1960s. This area has an extraordinary history in terms of harboring rare or unusual
species of birds for Wake County. Wake Audubon is thrilled and grateful that
the NC Department of Transportation has acquired this site for the development
of a wetlands mitigation plan. We do, however, feel that some of the recommendations
contained in their Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan (June 1997) will actually
diminish the character of this site, so that there will a substantial loss in diversity of
wetland birds and other wildlife, particularly those that prefer the open, rich marsh
setting that currently typifies the site. We have enclosed a listing of bird species that
have been seen at Dutchman's Creek through the years. We remain disappointed that the
consultant did not contact us during the planning process so that plans would have been
developed which would reflect appreciation of, and stewardship for, species which exist,
or could exist, at the site ...many of which are rare and unusual in Wake County. We
remain confident that once awareness is raised among the participating agencies as to the
value of the site as a more open wetland, and Audubon's interest in providing long-term
interpretive and stewardship services, that an Alternative Mitigation Plan for Dutchman's
Creek will be preferable for all parties.
The following is a Preliminary Proposal for an Alternative Wetlands Mitigation Plan
which would include the Wake Audubon Society as acting partner with the NC
Department of Transportation. This Proposal will be developed further following
acceptance of the conceptual framework by the regulating agencies and the DOT.
Our Proposal:
Wake Audubon would like to re-visit the Mitigation plan, and work with the
Department of Transportation and the approving agencies, to propose and
accomplish the following:
1. We concur with and approve of the restoration of the lake's dam.
2. We would like DOT to wait 1 season while we complete a thorough inventory
of plants and animals that occupy the site. We are particularly interested in the
herpetofauna and birds that nest on site, or winter there, and have scientists who have
offered their services to help compile this list of species.
3. Wake Audubon would like to enter a long-term site management arrangement
with the DOT, where Audubon would provide signage and interpretive services,
and assist with long-term site management. Transfer of ownership to a non-profit
could be explored.
4. Our management objectives would be to conserve & enhance wildlife habitat for
targetted species, as well as to provide opportunities for visitors to observe
wildlife in these habitats.
5. Target Species include:
BIRDS
1. Planting of intermittant hedgerows to encourage nesting by loggerhead.-
shrikes. This species is in serious decline in North Carolina but
is still observed at Dutchman's Creek.
2. Installation of 2 Osprey nesting platforms. These birds are often seen at
Lake Wheeler in the spring. They recently began nesting at Falls Lake
and Jordan Lake, and are likely to be induced to nest on structures near
Lake Wheeler. This would become a primary attraction at the site.
3. Creation and management of woodcock courtship grounds, nesting
habitat, and courtship observation area. The site is well suited for
woodcock management, and the courtship displays of this bird
are of great interest to the public. Wake Audubon's annual Woodcock
Watch regularly draws 50 or more participants. Ongoing site
management is necessary to maintain woodcock habitat. This species
seems to be in decline throughout much of its range.
4. Long-term management of marsh & wetland shrub habitat to encourage
nesting by virginia and king rails, yellowthroats, prothonotary warblers,
yellow-breasted chats, indigo buntings, blue grosbeaks, red-winged
blackbirds, orchard orioles, and song sparrows. Louisiana waterthrush
white-eyed vireo, yellow warbler and eastern kingbird are also
possible.
5. Nesting boxes for bluebirds, purple martins, wood ducks and barn swallows
will be added. The barn swallows currently nest in farm buildings
that are likely to be removed.
HERPETOFAUNA
1. Opportunities to develop habitat for amphibians will be explored. Various
frog and toad species are expected to be found during our inventory. We
are particularly interested in those that require fishless, vernal pools for
breeding as these sites are becoming rare in Wake County.
2. Excavation/creation of vernal breeding pools for spotted and marbled
salamanders with introduction of eggs/larvae if not found during
inventory. These species are in decline locally due to loss of
breeding pools. Dutchman's Creek area provides ideal habitat.
3. Opportunities to provide enhanced habitat for spotted turtles will be explored.
this species is likely to be found in the site inventory. It is a species that is
considered particularly sensitive to habitat alteration.
4. The inventory of reptiles may suggest other opportunities to enhance the site
for snakes, lizards and turtles.
6. HIKING TRAIL
A walking trail will be maintained along the western property boundary
which will include fencing from the private property, boardwalks over wet areas and
access to 4 observation overlooks near the open water, the marshes, the creekside, and
the woodcock courtship area. Interpretive signage along with fencing & benches will
be at each overlook.
7. Plantings of wetland wildlife food plants.
8.A small gravelled parking area will be added to accommodate 10 cars.
9. Other ideas: Bat house(free-standing) or under bridge.
Shorebird mudflats ... drawdown during migration.
Conclusion: The Wake Audubon Society believes there is a great opportunity
for a partnership to be developed with the Department of Transportation to protect and
enhance the natural resources found at Dutchman's Creek, and for these to be made
available for the education and enjoyment of Wake County residents. There are few
if any sites in Wake County where habitat is managed extensively to enhance visitor's
opportunity to see plants and animals of a wetland environment. Dutchman's Creek
provides that opportunity.
Cc Alice Gordan DOT
Kevin Moody USFWS
David Cox NCWRC
Eric Galamb NC Water Quality

U
U
7 r ?
•L ..r
:•S
?A
-75
t
J
y _r
y
4
.I
Q
i
E
i=
n
o O

1
3 0:
? o? o E c _. _
_
__ i m z Z< m ? 5
?
F-F=•• mmm CJ a 2 6 oQti
o ? _ .off
3 m'
E e'- m y a U U H< Z¢ ----
a E m U x m 3• c i i
?-?"?UUU V U ¢ii auaa au ?`nNNNf2 U-i rNNN
m aU
Z
l m C
v ' _ 4t U C?11 N O
a
.EE.', aKS S m
c u'?3.-?-cc?=c vEv e.- :tt ZU o
:z11}zm'o =m,nza Eds3 ?J¢W = ivy 'V /yam u?
. mm«mmmUUVU0oo '.iUU?Pn000m ai3 ? U o
Z
C_
VI
O
y
- ? t d v 3 °; m
2 5
J j 6. UUILLZF' U V U m m m O F F F N N v? N N A N m N V N 11
H H Vd A N N N N h N= J J m
1609
t E 3 ,c, '> v 3 c_c a<y 3y ? -a 3 ?.? :a 3Sy"? ° "' Z.> ? ?EU ?' `o
3? a u s ??? c? s o v m ?' a= mo o ,u, 'n' -° c c._ E i, ? 2 ? E?€ 3 t z e e o-?=
`-' m'moi=0`zZ `UiUmi•m..mmi•a2 Z? gmum<'r 2 2euf 2=3
3 a au m v i v o o v. " v. G Y v v.` t v v - v
333333a3333333333333333333z"333o33333>33
E z
F Z Z Z

.4
3m"v°i
u °u °u

6 g73j
33n'333u.5

3 ?
O 61
m
Z N
9
Y
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 v
.2 -2
N y H y a-, z' h 3 ' 3 m au v=i a' v ='
3 t ?. C G 3 t 3 .. .. _ 1 G. J _G a 6 6 G F-- _
__
u c u 3333 E' u 'c° c'c'c' c c n__ _ _
12 72 72 'R Y C V f 3 h N U 3 U V U V U F-' Y y y N N (N N IA N N N O N V l H
o
3v
3 i i ?m im iE ?S =E `=E
'e_uo? °$cu= jr2 `uco `E.r e?`uE ? :mot _U SU'
i ?
rho`hso :u4o uxs?mh3?3X`
ai '' a `? - s v m m "j .• r c u u v v ._' -0 m
rn aiVVUmOGFGGF'a OFF o u zGuuim ul tu?Orii rnmUmfE
0
. . . . . . .
. .
. .
a
u a
a a
_ y
t c n _ m2'. uiG 1 C7 c` 3H n'uz?nzU¢`
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._ _ E E E E E E E E E E E E E
cc??y3 a?a ,fny000UU V UUUUU V UUXU19 r1=r rF'F'rf`-'F==r
:a a
au,' x ? Y ?'n .?n ? ?'?Za o -? ?. E E • K' g? ?.? 54'. ro ? i c.c -c
c z'? mF. „y3Ea??`nU;zm v3izzU¢ :a_ -?3 = mUY> _r< ,N3
°O -- m E 3 3 'v 3 3 3 3 3 m- c `? 'u` 3 > - 'o $ E c
D O >> O Y Y Ym' S S S U S S 4:2 S u'? x F t i U• L U F m C C C C C v1 U f U U U
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
1100 WAKE FOREST ROAD. SUITE 200
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27604
[phone] FAX [phone]
MEiv10RANDUM
TO: Robin Little
NCDOT Planning, and Environmental
FROM: Wes Dickson
Environmental Services, Inc.
DATE: 12 January 1998
RE: Dutchmans Creek: Response to comments on the mitigation plan
The attached document provides a summary of alterations to wildlife habitat and recreational
opportunities due to mitigation activities at the Dutchmans Creek mitigation site. This memo also
serves as a response to the letter (attached) submitted by John Argentati to NCDOT concerning the
open water (small pond) ecosystem at Dutchmans Creek. The Argentati letter indicates concern over
marsh and open water habitat alterations and loss of recreational opportunities that may occur due
to mitigation activities. Harry LeGrand of the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) contacted
ESI and also indicated interest in marsh habitats at the mitigation site.
For more information or edits to this memo, please feel free to contact Wes Newell at your
convenience.
jwn
w/er9 6021.15 /h ab itat. m e m
Potential Alterations to Habitat and Recreational Opportunities
Due to Restoration Activities at the Dutchmans Creek Viitigation Site
The Dutchmans Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan is designed to replace riverine wetland
functions in the project region. Based on available- research and- literature-, wetland and stream
mitigation activities will restore and enhance in-stream aquatic, emergent marsh, and bottomland
forest habitat relative to existing conditions. In addition, physical wetland functions associated with
water quality and wetland sustainability will also be restored and enhanced. Wetland and stream
functional replacement can be quantified by applying the techniques of Brinson's Guidebook for
Application of Hvdrogeomorphic Assessments to Riverine Wetlands (Brinson et al. 1995), and
Rosgen's A1212lied River MorpholoQv (Rosgen 1996).
Under existing conditions, the Dutchmans Creek site consists of a breached, in-stream impoundment
supporting open water, emergent marsh, and abandoned pasture land. Primary wetland and stream
restoration activities include stream reconstruction, impoundment reconstruction/lowering,
floodplain re-exposure, and wetland species plantings. These activities will improve hydrodynamic,
biogeochemical, and water quality related wetland functions relative to existing conditions, including
phosphorous, nitrogen, and pollutant cycling on floodplains in the Neuse River Basin. Chemical and
nutrient removal will be restored by re-establishing oxidation/reduction (wetting drying) cycles on
the floodplain and through uptake in living vegetation, including emergent and palustrine species
(Cooper et al. 1986, Jordan et al. 1986, Jurik et al. 1994, Peterjohn and Correll 1984, Richardson
1985, Wang et al. 1994).
Mitigation activities will also alter wildlife habitats, primarily through reductions in unvegetated,
open water and concomitant increases in emergent marsh, forested wetlands, and upland forest
buffers. These modifications are anticipated to provide net improvements in fringe marsh, interior
marsh, and interior forest habitat relative to existing conditions. However, recreational opportunities
associated with wildlife viewing on open water may be significantly reduced as a result of
alterations. The expected loss in recreational opportunities may be mitigated by providing access
or elevated viewing sites during implementation of long term management programs.
Mitigation activities are designed to provide a net benefit to amphibians and in-stream aquatic
species. This benefit will occur at the expense of aquatic species adapted to open water ponds in the
region. A review of USGS mapping suggests that in-stream impoundments and associated open
water ponds dominate the region surrounding Dutchmans Creek. Based on USGS mapping,
approximately 71 in-stream impoundments occur within the approximately 90 square mile watershed
encompassing Dutchmans Creek, Terrible Creek, Middle Creek and Yates Mill Pond Creek west of
US 401. This watershed encompasses approximately 58 tributaries providing approximately 140
linear miles of stream channel. Based on this review, in-stream impoundments occur, on average,
at 2 mile intervals along these tributaries (1.5 impoundments per tributary). Impoundments similar
in size to the Dutchmans Creek site include Bass Lake, Yates Mill Pond, Macgregor Lake, Sunset
Lake, Lochmere Lake, and approximately 8 other unnamed impoundments. Larger and smaller in-
stream impoundments also occur systematically throughout the region, and exhibit deleterious
effects on streams and adjacent wetlands (Rosgen 1996, Dunne and Leopold 1978).
In-stream impoundments typically cause down-cutting in downstream reaches and braiding in
upstream reaches due to alterations in capacity to transport sediment and resultant flow (shear)
stresses. Below impoundments, down-cutting into stream beds results in floodplain abandonment
and loss of isolated aquatic and forested wetland habitat (Rosgen 1996, Dunne and Leopold 1978).
Down-cutting has occurred below the Dutchmans Creek dam and along other impounded streams
in the reference watersheds described above. Above the dam, braiding and sediment deposition has
established an unsustainable wetland and promotes the loss of characteristic in-stream habitat. The
impounded and braided stream reach is not sustainable from a hydrodynamic perspective due to
continual accumulation of sediment behind the dam (Rosgen 1988). At the mitigation site, the dam
has been breached, in part, due to long term accumulation of sediments. The impounded reach is also
not considered sustainable from a habitat perspective due to accumulation of pollutants, toxins, and
heavy metals, especially within a developing watershed (Salanki and Varanka 1978,,Manly and
George 1977). Permanent inundation decreases the ability of floodplain surfaces -to assimilate
nutrients and pollutants through reduction/oxidation (wetting/drying) processes or through uptake
in living biomass (Brinson et al. 1995). Certain aquatic species, including diagnostic
macroinvertebrates associated with Piedmont streams and adjacent floodplain pools, are typically
lost in the upstream and downstream segments surrounding in-stream impoundments.
Standing water in these impoundments, which potentially supports elevated pollutant levels due to
watershed development, may not provide significant habitat for water fowl. In certain situations.
vehicular traffic, noise, human encroachment, and loss of forest buffers also degrades habitat for bird
species, including exposed, open water and marsh habitats (Brown et al. 1990, Burger 1981, Fraser
et al. 1985, Kaiser and Fritzell 1984, Keller et al. 1993, Korschgen et al. 1985).
The mitigation plan provides for re-establishment of vegetated buffers and periodic fluctuations in
water levels on the Dutchmans Creek floodplain. Based on initial floodplain cross-section surveys,
the area of semi-permanent flooding behind the dam will be controllable from approximately 0 to
2 feet above the sediment surface. Much of this area will begin to support emergent plant species
or shrubs due to decreased water depths and sediment transport capacity. While many water fowl
species will benefit from increases in emergent and shrub vegetation, recreational viewing of these
populations will undoubtedly decrease. Mitigation to provide enhanced viewing opportunities- may
be provided by management after wetland restoration activities are completed (clearing and trail
establishment or viewing stands).
Upper reaches of the floodplain away from the impoundment support former pasture that maintains
a compacted soil layer. Rooting of vegetation appears limited in this area with disturbance adapted
shrubs intermixed with areas of remnant pasture grasses or bare ground. This open area is exposed
to adjacent development activities, noise, and vehicular traffic. NCDOT will reduce the degree of
soil compaction in many areas, allowing forested species to re-establish successional dynamics.
Forest succession surrounding a meandering stream channel will provide benefits to forest interior
species (Keller et al. 1993) and will provide contiguous cover for water fowl utilizing the adjacent
marsh (Sousa and Farmer 1983).
Based on a review of available research and literature, mitigation activities are expected provide
riverine wetland functional replacement in the region. The prevalence of in-stream impoundments
in the region suggests that reductions in open water habitat may not displace significant wildlife
populations. Lake Wheeler, which is located immediately downstream of the site, appears to support
considerable emergent marsh and adjacent open water habitats where- tributaries and sediment flow
into the lake. Although boating activity may decrease habitat suitability in Lake Wheeler
(Korschgen et al. 1981), shallow waters in these sediment deposition areas may limit human
encroachment into some water fowl areas. Available research and literature suggests that
modifications to the Dutchmans Creek Mitigation Plan should be evaluated based upon loss of
recreational viewing opportunities, and not upon wetland functional attributes under existing
conditions. Without mitigation activities, recreational viewing opportunities in the exposed, open
water area may also be reduced in the future by adjacent development activities.
REFERENCES
Brinson M.M. 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. Wetlands Research
Program Technical Report WRP-DE-4. US Army Corps of Engineers Waterways
Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
Brinson M.M., F.R. Hauer, L.C. Lee, W.L. Nutter, R.D. Smith, D. Whigham. 1995. Guidebook for
Application of Hydrogeomorphic Assessments to Riverine Wetlands. US Army Corps of
Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
Brown, M.T., J.M. Schaefer, K.H. Brandt. 1990. Buffer Zones for Water, Wetlands, and Wildlife
in East Central Florida. Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations Journal Series No. T-
00061. CFW publ. 89-07.
Burger J. 1981. The effect of human activity on birds at a coastal bay. Biological Conservation.
21(1981): 231-241.
Cooper J.R., J.W. Gilliam, T.C. Jacobs. 1986. Riparian areas as a control of nonpoint pollutants.
pg. 166-192 inD.L. Correll (ed.), Watershed Research Perspectives. Smithsonian Institution
Press. Washington, D.C.
Dunne D., and L.B. Leopold. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. W.H. Freeman and
Company. N.Y.
Fraser J.D., L.D. Frenzel, J.E. Mathisen. 1985. The impact of human activities on breeding bald
eagles in north-central Minnesota. J. Wildl. Manage. 49(3):1985.
Jordan T.E., D.L. Correll, W.T. Peterjohn, D.E. Weller. 1986. Nutrient flux in a landscape: The
Rhode River Watershed and receiving waters. pg. 57-76 in D.L. Correll (ed.), Watershed
Research Perspectives. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.
Junk T.W., S. Wang, A.G. van der Valk. 1994. Effects of sediment loading on seedling emergence
from wetland seed banks. Wetlands 14(3): 159-173, September 1994. The Society of
Wetland Scientists.
Kaiser M.S., E.K. Fritzell. 1984. Effects of river recreationists on green-backed heron behavior.
J. Wildl_ Mngmt_ 48:561-568.
Karr J.R., I.J. Schlosser. 1978. Water resources at the land-water interface. Science 201:229-234.
Keller, M.E., C.S. Chandler, and J.S. Hatfield. 1993. Avian communities in riparian forests of
different widths in Maryland and Delaware. Wetlands 13(2):137-144, Special Issue, June
1993. The Society of Wetland Scientists.
Korschgen C.E., L.S. George, W.L. Green. 1985. Disturbance of diving ducks by.-boaters on a
migrational staging area. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 13:290-296, 1985.
Manly. R., W.O. George. 1977. The Occurrence of Some Heavy Metals in Populations of the
Freshwater Mussel,4nodonta anatina (L.) from the River Thames. Environmental Pollution
14: 139-154.
Payne, N.F. 1992. Techniques for Wildlife Management of Wetlands. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New
York, NY. 549 pp (not cited, outlines some techniques as applied in the mitigation plan)).
Peterjohn W.T., D.L. Correll. 1984. Nutrient dynamics in an agricultural watershed: observations
on the role of riparian forest. Ecology 65(5): 1466-1475, 1984.. The Ecological Society of
America.
Richardson C.J. 1985. Mechanisms controlling phosphorous retention capacity in freshwater
wetlands. Science 228:1424-1427.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, Colorado.
Rosgen, D.L. 1988. Conversion of a braided river pattern to meandering: a landmark
restoration project. Presented to the California Riparian Systems Conference, 22-24 Sept.
1998, Davis, California.
Salanki, J., I. Varanka. 1978. Effect of Some Insecticides on the Periodic Activity of the Fresh-
Water Mussel (Anadonta cygnea L.). Acta Biologica Academiae Scientarum Hungaricae
29(2): 173-180.
Sousa, P.J., A.H. Farmer. 1983. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Wood Duck. US Fish and
Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.43, July 1983.
Wang S., T.W. Jurik, A.G. van der Valk. 1994. Effects of sediment load on various stages in the
life and death of cattail (Typha glauca). Wetlands 14(3): 166-173, September 1994. The
Society of Wetland Scientists.
JArr
r"' ?,..
v, ID.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. RO. 60X25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
Gow.[RNUIL
March 20, 1998
Mr. John Argentati
8817 Reigate Lane
Raleigh, NC 27603-8842
Dear Mr. Argentati:
?c
E. NORRIS TOLSON
SECRETARY

Thank you for calling Alice Gordon to expres our concerns about the
Dutchman's Creek Mitigation Site and to ask for a copy of the final mitigation plan. We
are pleased to enclose with this letter a copy of the plan and a project schedule. In
addition, we are including copies of letters sent to us by the natural resource agencies
indicating their approval of the Dutchman's Creek Mitigation Plan.
I regret that your request for a copy of an inventory of the species inhabiting the
area cannot be satisfied for about a week or so. The reason is that the inventory was done
as part of the delineation of the wetlands, and we will need to make a copy of the
delineation report, data sheets and supplementary species lists for you. However, please
be assured that we will send it to you as soon as it is ready. The Wake County Audubon
Society did provide us with an inventory of species associated with their Christmas bird
counts; we have also enclosed a copy of this.
On December 2, 1997, you wrote me letter to me commenting on the mitigation
plan. In order to best address your comments, I sent a copy of your letter to Mr. Wes
Dickson of the consulting firm - Environmental Services, Inc. - which prepared the
plan. As you can see, Mr. Dickson wrote back to us in January, yet a copy of his
response was not forwarded to you at that time. I apologize for the oversight.
We would be interested to consider incorporating any aspects of the design
changes suggested by you and the Audubon Society. However, as recently as this week,
we have been told by the US Army Corps of Engineers that the schedule, overall design,
and function of the mitigation site must not be affected by the incorporation of any such
suggestions. This mitigation site (and its design and construction schedule) is linked to
the construction of I-540, and any changes made to the mitigation plan without prior
approval from all natural resource agencies could affect the highway construction
schedule. Therefore, only those items (e.g. elevated viewing sites) can be incorporated if
they do not affect the schedule and success of the site as currently designed. Also, such
6)
items could probably only be installed after the environmental review agencies declare
the site successful based on the results of the five years of hydrologic and vegetative
monitoring.
If, after reviewing the information we are providing you today, you would like to
discuss your suggestions further with the natural resource agencies and us, we would be
happy to help you set up a meeting at a time and in a location convenient to you. If after
listening to you, the agencies are willing to consider changes to the mitigation plan, and
allow us to make those changes without compromising the highway construction
schedule, we will happy to consider them.
Sincerely,

David C. Robinson, Ph.D., P.E.
Assistant Manager - Environmental Services
Planning and Environmental Branch
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Field Office
Eric Galamb, DWQ
David Cox, WCR
Howard Hall, USFWS
Wendy Gasteiger, FHWA
John Connors, Wake County Audubon Society
a
Q
m
N

m
:
<
<
.

m __ .... .......
. ... _..
. ....__
. ..._ . ....

O
Z
U
0
CL
m
U
rn
?
i ,
... Q .... .... .... .... ....
C
O
rn

L ........:. ........:. ........:. .......... .. ........ .... ....:. ......... . :.......... .......... . ... ....
N ......... ........ ..._.. ........ ......... .._.._. .... .... _.
.-. C1
CL
L Q . .

.... .... .... . .........
. ........ .... .... .......
.. ......... .... ......
L
OV. .
.
........ :.
........:.
..........
........ ..
?.
. ..
......
....
....
Y N
d
'a 0
-o
t d O
+ O z
..
;
V + ........ .. .... .... .... .... .... .... ....... .......
N o
C
L. a ......._: ........
:
..
O

it
i?
i
V
O) .. .... .... .... .... ............ ......... .... .... .... .... .... .....
IM v Q ; i
" :

.
?
_O
........
.
.
'-"_- ..
........
.......
... ..
..
....
....
....
....
.....
....
....
....
........

.
.......
_
0
.. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .....
Y p
L
C
W
E m c i °-
R

?
3

co

o
5

(O
N
co 3
N
Cvp
v

O
v

O
co
Co o
Go
N 3
N 3
03
co

3

N
L 'L
cu
IL E 3
°
?R
U) ^
O U
N o
c

cc
c rn
?
(D
o
a>
rn
U
cc 0

f4
N .
N
ca
U

N
+

LO
?
_

t

E
f6
a
L
u) ^

`O
N

0 .Q
O cc U
f` =
f6 C
U U
N O
LL N U

> U
C y
O U
C
O a
O N m
_
o
U ..
O -
w G
U C
O
U

N 2

O. .2

°
m
C

«S
t
U)
c
O
U

N

c?

d
cm
c

Z`
a m
co
z U) ot$ rn w

in O- a

d -

a 'v o

U N

?
ti
y
a E 'O p t o
U w a
+ C7
Z, a?
i
H v
O m y
7 O m U
f6 E N U N N U) N
ca

W

O co

Z` .
.

N a -y

a

O

o w
=
a O
LL

E Y m

a (A

t
N U w _ ?+ ?,
y w ° U U C m I- C
2 n'
U)

Z cn N O
E N = L d C O_
U) +
4) U a

' .
U N
a c a
i c c E a? 2 5

U
2
I-
w E ?°
o r oa ?? v N U c
a c a? c
a c c
a

0 cn U) i o v in i
n
u
° r N M to t0 h OD Of G
r
r N
r M
r
r
r t0
r !?
r

a?
C
O
N
a?
2
Y
co
F
a
a

w
U
LL
O co
(n _O N
co
i as
U c+) Z
N
O
O
N
O
L
O
y
d
L
_ E
p U
m Y N o
5 cc N
'0 3:
-- c
3
co aCo
0_ ca
I
a? E
L M
_ V Y.1
Ev,d
.3 _
aE
0 o
C °O
Q N
H
L
V
co
N
o+
a
rn
M

N
C
O
N
2
N
(4
a
a

w
U
U-
U-
O co
G
Z- ca
U r> S
i
irtALEIGH REGULATORY
03. la. i»o .? ..
pLA N APPROVAL
This mitigation plan has been reviewed by the following individuals and a4encies and has been
determined to provide an acceptable approach to mitigating the wetland, stream, and open
water impacts of R2000D and R2000CB.
l
Eric Alsmeyer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Date

Eric Galamb
Dave Cox
Kevin Moody
Wendy Gasteiger
NCDEHNR-Division of Water Quality Date
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission Date
U.S. Fish and Wildlife service Date
Federal Highway Administration Date
NC DWQ WQ ENUSCI Fax:[phone] Sep 8 '97 13:15 P.01/01
PLAN APPROVAL
This mitigation plan has been reviews a' by the following mitigating theswand etand, agencies and has been
open -
determined to provide an acceptab pProach to m _ _ • _
water impacts of A2000D and R2000CH. . -. - - - -''? -
Post-It' Fox Moto 7871 !pa i
Eric Alsmeyer

Eric Galamb
Dave Cox
Kevin Moody

U. Feu` a? '

NCDEHNR=Division•of Water Quality Date
N:G. wildiife Rasiouraes :Commission Date
U,.S.'Fish and Wildlife Service. Date
Federal Highway. Adrttinistration Date
Wendy Gasteger
D VJ 9/??97 FAX , Luc P07- s1aj/
J?E (njjollc ` d llebl?te
r?. i?e? s •hvK
Cp Us
• ??? s 1/1 LV^t - - l
fk 611001 h
40 ly? rze OA IX6 AIX+
Ill e..
Qu
Y
NCWRC,HCP,FALLS LAKE TEL:[phone] Sep 03'97 10:30 No.002 N.U1
- Dui It
•?? 13:q? P.OQ ,
.At.
Th(e mitigation plan has been roviswed by the follow! ins(
determined to provide ah acceptable a visuals and agencies end;haa been
Water fmpeats of R2000D and R20OOCBPAroacEt to mitigating the wetland, stream, and open
.
it(o A(smeyer
U.$. Army Corps of Engineers
Dete
Eric Galemb
ACOENNq.Welon of Water ClUelity Dote
Dave Cox
N.C. Wlidlifs Resources Camml$eion Data
Kevin Moody U.$. Fish and Wllgl(fe Service
Date
Wendy Geste(ger Fadaral Highway AdmNa(etrbtion
Date

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
September 8, 1997
Colonel Terry R. Youngbluth
District Engineer, Wilmington District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Attention: Eric Alsmeyer
Dear Colonel Youngbluth:

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan.
Dutchmans Creek Site Wake County. North Carolina (Plan). The applicant, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation; proposes mitigation for losses of stream and other wetland habitats
associated with the Northern Wake Expressway project (TIP No.s R-2000CB and R-200013; Action
I.D. No. 199601917).
The Dutchmans Creek mitigation site is a degraded and impounded tributary of Lake Wheeler, an
impoundment in Swift Creek. The site is located about a half mile north of a proposed Outer Loop
exit, and lies between Graham Newton Road (SR 1386) on the west and Blaney Franks Road (SR
1377) to the east. It is in an area subject to ongoing heavy development pressure: uplands abutting
both the north and south sides of the site are already proposed for residential subdivisions. A major
cause of the sites' degradation is sediment loading from upstream construction activities. The Plan
will provide additional, uncompensated benefits to the City of Raleigh (Lake Wheeler; the site will
act as a sediment and pollution trap, buffering the impoundment from upstream development
activities) and the applicant (SR 1377 is state maintained and is threatened by potential breaches or
overtopping of the existing dam), and is likely to enhance the property value of adjacent residential
units (benefiting select individual property owners and increasing property tax revenues).
Overall, we are pleased with the Plan. It's approach is acceptable to the Service as mitigation for
unavoidable, in-kind wetland impacts incurred by the Northern Wake Expressway, sections R-2000
CB and D.
Given the trial nature of stream restoration efforts in the piedmont and coastal plain, we believe it is
in the best interests of fish and wildlife resources to take a flexible approach to the Plan. We have
taken the experimental nature of the proposal into account when reviewing and accepting these design
and implementation plans.
In general, we prefer restoration efforts to eliminate the causative agents responsible for the
degradation in the first place. In this case, the dam should have been completely removed, the
hydraulic and biologic control structures (the two roads) should have been rebuilt to bridge the
floodplain, and a significant buffer should have been required around the site. Further protective
measures, such as deleting the proposed nearby Outer Loop exit and funding sediment control
enforcement and prosecution efforts in the watershed, would also have been prudent measures worth
considering.
It is the Service's general belief that "restoration" includes removing the source of degradation,
recreating onsite physical conditions for indigenous communities and populations of plants and
animals (including safe and timely passage), re-establishing a semblance of the macrofloral
communities which would be present absent the degradation, and protecting the restored habitat in
perpetuity. Future mitigation plans should be designed to meet these criteria.
Further, we are concerned that no means of assuring the necessary water quantity and quality are
provided for in the State of North Carolina. We urge the applicant to develop language which would
protect the water rights of fish and wildlife resources in mitigation sites. Such language should be
incorporated into the documents transferring ownership responsibilities for the Dutchmans Creek
mitigation site, and into future mitigation plans. This will provide a reasonable assurance that
diversions, groundwater withdrawals, discharges, etc. will not impair the form or function of
conservation areas.
We offer the following specific comments:
Page G, section 3. 1, fourth paragraph: Neither the June 1997 plan nor the subsequent July 18,
1997 letter documents what individual or agency dredged and straightened the channel. In general,
certain antecedent agreements or contracts requiring channel maintenance can take precedence over
conservation status. We are concerned that despite the best of intentions, sites such as this may be
subject to snag and drag operations in the future.
Page 8, section 3.1, second paragraph: The stream and wetland restoration are subject to
compromise by the development of adjacent properties. The Service is concerned that the restoration
site may subsidize poor sediment control practices or future non-point source pollution from the
residential sub-divisions planned nearby. We recommend that during the applicant's oversight, staff
monitor and survey the site routinely for allocthonous inputs, conduct investigations, issue stop work
orders, and bring complaints against property owners, including corporations, where unpermitted
point and non-point discharges enter the mitigation site. Such discharges include, but are not limited
to, water diversion structures that alter the natural storm hydrograph intensity or duration.

Page 8, section 3.2.1, last paragraph: It would have been of interest, and possible importance, to
know more about the history of the dam. Maintenance records, including safety inspections, provide
additional information which should be collected and made part of the property transfer documents.
It is reasonable to assume that the dam owner is receiving substantial benefit from the Plan, since it
may have been more appropriate, from a Clean Water Act perspective, to remove the dam at the
owner's expense regardless of restoration potential.
Page 10, fourth paragraph: Since the Plan provides substantial benefits to the City of Raleigh,
some additional benefits may have been gained by seeking commensurate mitigation, such as flow
releases or fish passage facilities, at Lake Wheeler.
Page 10, section 3.2.2, third and fourth lines: In general, it is important that atly vestigial
contractual obligations to maintain the dredged channel be identified prior to the`Initiation of
rest,oration efforts. We recommend the presence or absence of any such agreements be clearly
identified in future mitigation plans.
Page 11, last paragraph: We strongly support this application of stream restoration tools. The
Rosgen stream classification system is extremely valuable in that it provides a universally understood
description of the stream channel's condition and of it's potential. Further, the Rosgen classification
has a predictive capability in terms of perturbations and relatively steady states. We believe that the
methodology will prove very beneficial both for regulatory purposes. and for the benefit of fish and
wildlife resources.
Page 19, section 3.5 "Wildlife," first paragraph: The last two sentences are slightly misleading
about the state of fish and wildlife resources in the mitigation site area. The area is suburbanized, and
the development pressure is likely to increase due to the planned Outer Loop. Wildlife adapted to
living in fragmented habitat in suburbanized settings will continue to be the most common residents.
Page 23, section 4.0: We reiterate our comments that the Plan in effect, subsidizes certain entities
without compensation. For example, the applicant, the City of Raleigh, and the previous dam owner
may have had substantial maintenance, repair, or removal costs, both current and future, alleviated
by this mitigation project. Additional mitigation, in the form of fish and wildlife passage, bridges, and.
increased flow releases, are reasonable augmentations to the Plan that the "free riders" could have
provided.
Future stream restoration plans should be based on the perspective provided by the Clean Water Act:
to restore the biological, chemical, and physical integrity of the subject waters, where indigenous,
balanced populations of fish, shellfish, and wildlife are provided habitat, refugia, and transportation
corridors.
Page 47, section 6.2: The Service prefers that the general criteria used for determining hydrology
in jurisdictional wetland delineations not be used as a success criteria for mitigation sites termed
"restoration." The criteria are politically derived and were a compromise adopted for use over
geographically disparate areas and a wide range of hydrologic conditions. We urge the use of
statistically valid, biologically sound, site specific criteria, derived by observations at reference sites.
Merely meeting jurisdictional criteria is irrelevant in terms of "restoration."
We appreciate this opportunity to comment on the Plan. Please call Kevin Moody of my staff at
[phone] extension 19 if you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Z
John M. Hefner
Field Supervisor
cc:
DOT, Raleigh, NC (Alice Gordon, H. Frank Vick)
DWQ, Raleigh, NC (John Dorney)
WRC, Raleigh, NC (Frank McBride)
EPA, Wetlands Regulatory Branch, Atlanta, GA (Thomas Welborn)
FWS/R4:KMoody:KM:09/04/97:919/856-4520 extension 19:\dutcliman.wpd
,.ZE 'Y

This mitigation plan has been reviewed by the following individuals and agencies and has been
determined to provide an acceptable approach to mitigating the wetland, stream, and open
water Impacts of R20000 and R2000CS.
Eric; Alemeyer
Erlo Galamb
Dove Cox
Kevin Moody
Wen ssteiper
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers DMte
NCDEHNR-Division of Water Quality Date
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission Date
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Date
l/Wsev
Federal Highway Administration Date
To: Eric Alsmeyer
US Army Corps of Engineers
From: John Connors, Wake Audubon Society
Re: Dutchman's Creek Wetland Mitigation Plan
Alternative Proposal for Greenview Farm/ Dutchman's Creek in Wake County
Submitted by: Wake Audubon Society
c/o John Connors, Consevation Chair
1227 Mordecai Drive
Raleigh, NC 27604
919-755-0253 H/ 733-7450 ext 602 W
Date: January 23, 1998
"Background: Wake Audubon Members have an extensive observation history
with the Dutchman's Creek Area, formerly known as Greenview Farm. The site
has been censused during every Christmas and Spring Bird Count since the
1960s. This area has an extraordinary history in terms of harboring rare or unusual
species of birds for Wake County. Wake Audubon is thrilled and grateful that
the NC Department of Transportation has acquired this site for the development
of a wetlands mitigation plan. We do, however, feel that some of the recommendations
contained in their Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan (June 1997) will actually
diminish the character of this site, so that there will a substantial loss in diversity of
wetland birds and other wildlife, particularly those that prefer the open, rich marsh
Based on a review of available research and literature, mitigation activities are expected provide
riverine wetland tunctional replacement in the region. The prevalence of in-stream impoundments
in the region suggests that reductions in open water habitat may not displace significant wildlife
populations. Lake Wheeler, which is located immediately downstream of the site, appears to support
considerable emergent marsh and adjacent open water habitats where- tributaries and sediment flow
into the lake. Although boating activity may decrease habitat suitability in Lake Wheeler
(Korschgen et al. 1981), shallow waters in these sediment deposition areas may limit human
encroachment into some water fowl areas. Available research and literature suggests that
modifications to the Dutchmans Creek Mitigation Plan should be evaluated based upon loss of
recreational viewing opportunities, and not upon wetland functional attributes under existing
conditions. Without mitigation activities, recreational viewing opportunities in the exposed, open
water area may also be reduced in the future by adjacent development activities.
REFERENCES
Brinson M.M. 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. Wetlands Research
Program Technical Report WRP-DE-4. US Army Corps of Engineers Waterways
Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
Brinson M.M., F.R. Hauer, L.C. Lee, W.L. Nutter, R.D. Smith, D. Whigham. 1995. Guidebook for
Application of Hydrogeomorphic Assessments to Riverine Wetlands. US Army Corps of
Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
Brown, M.T., J.M. Schaefer, K.H. Brandt. 1990. Buffer Zones for Water, Wetlands, and Wildlife
in East Central Florida. Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations Journal Series No. T-
00061. CFW publ. 89-07.
Burger J. 1981. The effect of human activity on birds at a coastal bay. Biological Conservation.
21(1981): 231-241.
Cooper J.R., J.W. Gilliam, T.C. Jacobs. 1986. Riparian areas as a control of nonpoint pollutants.
pg. 166-192 inD.L. Correll (ed.), Watershed Research Perspectives. Smithsonian Institution
Press. Washington, D.C.
Dunne D., and L.B. Leopold. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. W.H. Freeman and
Company. N.Y.
Fraser J.D., L.D. Frenzel, J.E. Mathisen. 1985. The impact of human activities on breeding bald
eagles in north-central Minnesota. J. Wildl. Manage. 49(3):1985.
Jordan T.E., D.L. Correll, W.T. Peterjohn, D.E. Weller. 1986. Nutrient flux in a landscape: The
Rhode River Watershed and receiving waters. pg. 57-76 in D.L. Correll (ed.), Watershed
Research Perspectives. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.
Jurik T.W., S. Wang, A.G. van der Valk. 1904. Effects of sediment loading on seedling emergence
from wetland seed banks. Wetlands 14(3): 159-173, September 1994. The Society of
Wetland Scientists.
Kaiser M.S., E.K. Fritzell. 1984. Effects of river recreationists on green-backed heron behavior.
J. Wildl_ Mngmt_ 48:561-568.
Karr J.R., I.J. Schlosser. 1978. Water resources at the land-water interface. Science 201:229-234.
Keller, M.E., C.S. Chandler, and J.S. Hatfield. 1993. Avian communities in riparian forests of
different widths in Maryland and Delaware. Wetlands 13(2):137-144, Special Issue, June
1993. The Society of Wetland Scientists.
Korschgen C.E., L.S. George, W.L. Green. 1985. Disturbance of diving ducks by.-boaters on a
migrational staging area. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 13:290-296, 1985.
Manly. R., W.O. George. 1977. The Occurrence of Some Heavy Metals in Populations of the
Freshwater Mussel,4nodonta anatina (L.) from the River Thames. Environmental Pollution
14: 139-154.
Payne, N.F. 1992. Techniques for Wildlife Management of Wetlands. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New
York, NY. 549 pp (not cited, outlines some techniques as applied in the mitigation plan)).
Peterjohn W.T., D.L. Correll. 1984. Nutrient dynamics in an agricultural watershed: observations
on the role of riparian forest. Ecology 65(5): 1466-1475, 1984.. The Ecological Society of
America.
Richardson C.J. 1985. Mechanisms controlling phosphorous retention capacity in freshwater
wetlands. Science 228:1424-1427.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, Colorado.
Rosgen, D.L. 1988. Conversion of a braided river pattern to meandering: a landmark
restoration project. Presented to the California Riparian Systems Conference, 22-24 Sept.
1998, Davis, California.
Salanki, J., I. Varanka. 1978. Effect of Some Insecticides on the Periodic Activity of the Fresh-
Water Mussel (Anadonta cygnea L.). Acta Bcologica Academiae Scientarum Hungaricae
29(2): 173-180.
Sousa, P.J., A.H. Farmer. 1983. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Wood Duck. US Fish and
Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.43, July 1983.
Wang S., T.W. Jurik, A.G. van der Valk. 1994. Effects of sediment load on various stages in the
life and death of cattail (Typha alauca). Wetlands 14(3): 166-173, September 1994. The
Society of Wetland Scientists.
r
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources / • •
Division of Water Quality ??
John Dorney Memo
Page 2 of 3
May 8, 1998
David Cox of the Wildlife Resources Commission and Kevin Moody of the Fish and
Wildlife Service could not attend. Mr. Connors expressed his disappointment that these two
individuals, plus other agency representatives who had been involved earlier, were not present.
Mr. Connors and the other Audubon members commended DOT for purchasing the site
for mitigation, but made it clear that they believe no stream restoration should be attempted.
They have hired Dr. Gregory to support their ideas for the site. Specifically, they say that the -`
existing beaver dams should not be disturbed, and that site work should be limited to minimal
enhancement and preservation. They have offered to accept title to the property and to serve as
site stewards. The disadvantage for DOT in this would be that the required wetland and stream
restoration components of the existing mitigation plan and 404/401 permits would not be
satisfied. Wake Audubon has not suggested or offered another site in exchange for the potential
loss of the restoration area at Dutchman's Creek. My impressions are that Audubon's primary
concern is to preserve the quality of the site as bird habitat. Mr. Argentati is also personally
interested in seeing this site preserved, as he informed us that he had even purchased a lot
overlooking the property prior to DOT's involvement.
Mr. Carter initiated a series of questions regarding the review process involved in
wetland fill permits and mitigation. He and Mr. Connors both questioned why this mitigation
plan was not made available through a Public Notice. Mr. Alsmeyer explained that the
mitigation plan was included in the permit for the I-540 project. Mr. Connors also stated that
DWQ and other agencies should conduct thorough biological surveys on each potential DOT
mitigation site, and asked why we had not required DOT to test sediments behind the dam. Mr.
Connors told the agencies that we were neglecting our duty to the public in this respect. I told
Mr. Connors that I did not concur with his opinion. Mr. Alsmeyer and I both informed them that
they were questioning procedural and policy issues we were not in a position to settle at that
time, and that Jill Hickey and Brooke Lamson should be included in discussions such as these.
Finally, the Audubon members, along with Mr. Carter, informed us that Saturday,
May 9, 1998, is the beginning of the Spring Migratory Bird Count. Wake Audubon has arranged
to conduct a bird count onsite at Dutchman's Creek, in accordance with their previous right-of-
entry agreements with DOT. They have arranged to have news media present to discuss their
problems with DOT's site plans. They openly threatened to use any "public options" necessary
to stop the proposed work, and pointed to DOT's other public relations problems of recent
months.
It was agreed that the DOT and the Audubon Society would re-convene in the afternoon,
without the review agencies, but including upper-level management at DOT possibly to include
the Board Member and State Highway Administrator. Admittedly, DOT is in a difficult position:
if they do not proceed with construction of the approved mitigation site, they will be in violation
of their permits. If they do proceed with construction, the Audubon Society will attempt to
impose a great deal of public pressure and attention, very likely including a lawsuit. Personally,
I am certain that they will bring the Corps, DWQ, FWS, and WRC into this issue, however it is
handled. My concern is that their primary tactic will be to draw public attention to state and
federal government processes, in which no agency would be portrayed with any accuracy or
sympathy. I politely reminded them that based upon my own personal experience with the US
421 project, that the media attention could be drawn in both directions, both for and against
DOT. We all agreed that a resolution of this project that does not require stopping the highway
John Dorney Memo
Page 3 of 3
May 8, 1998
project is desired. Unfortunately, the Audubon Society feels that they have no time for
protracted negotiations, given that site construction is due to begin in two weeks.
DOT's suggested resolution to this problem is to request a one-year extension on the
mitigation conditions. Eric Alsmeyer of the Corps of Engineers said he would consider it, but - - - --
could not make a definitive statement at that time. Of particular concern to him was the lack of
concurrence by David Cox, one of the signatories of the mitigation plan, with the Audubon
Society's opinions. I also stated that we could consider modifying the 401 Certification, but was
not prepared to make a commitment. If DOT loses this mitigation site, another site will be
necessary. I informed those present that the Wetland Restoration Program could potentially help
to solve this quandary. Mr. Alsmeyer also stated that the Corps might be able to consider the
WRP as part of a mitigation package. I explained to the Audubon representatives that no
Memorandum of Agreement has been reached between DWQ and the Corps with respect to the
WRP, so this would be an unusual arrangement.
To the best of my knowledge, this is the present situation. Mr. Robinson assured me that
he would quickly relay to us the outcome of the afternoon's meeting between DOT and the
Audubon Society. He informed me via e-mail (attached) that a consensus had been reached
within DOT to request a permit extension, and to include Audubon in future site planning. Per
my discussion with John Dorney on May 8, 1998, we will be able to issue a permit modification
in short order, and will participate in mitigation discussions as necessary.
Cc: Preston Howard ---
Colleen Sullins
Dennis Ramsey
Cyndi_6
From: DAVID ROBINSON [[e-mail]]

April 27, 1998
Mr. John Dorney
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Dear Mr. Dorney:

I
0-kle,

rt
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NC DOT) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are planning to destroy a
well established wetland in order to obtain stream restoration credits. The Dutchman's Creek Mitigation site, located adjacent to
Lake Wheeler, is one of Wake County's richest wetlands. The Wake County Audubon Society has been conducting their
Christmas bird count at this site for the past 30 years, and has observed 200 species birds there (see attached list). It is one of
only a few sites in Wake County where northern shovelers, blue-winged, and green-winged teal can be seen on a regular basis.
During last December's count, Wake Audubon even observed two bald'eagles there. The wetland is also home to spotted
turtles, marbled and spotted salamanders, and many other reptiles and amphibians.
When I first learned of the DOT's involvement, I thought it would mean protection for the area. But to my astonishment (and
horror) I discovered that the DOT plans to drain the 10 acre farm pond, destroy the beaver dams, dredge a channel, drain 15+
acres of marsh, and plant over 49,000 trees. This course of action would destroy an extremely rich and well established
ecosystem.
The DOT is desperate for wetland mitigation land, and has labeled this site as a "degraded" wetland in a transparent attempt to
gain stream restoration credit by "restoring" it. If you visit the site, you will find an extremely healthy beaver marsh, home to
large numbers of birds, mammals, amphibians, and reptiles. It is by no means a "degraded" wetland. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and the NC DOT are intent on getting stream restoration credits for I-540 at any cost, including the destruction of one
of Wake County's natural treasures.
A few weeks ago, I visited the site with John Connors of Wake Audubon, and Dr. Jim Gregory, a hydrology professor with
North Carolina State University. Dr. Gregory believes the site has already been successfully restored through natural processes,
i.e. the creation of beaver ponds and the beginnings of a natural succession of bottomland forest. Dr. Gregory also stated that
the combination of the farm pond (prior to breaching of the dam) and the complex of beaver ponds provides the highest level of
hydrologic functions, both for water quantity and water quality, that can be achieved in that ecosystem.
Currently the beaver impoundments serve as settling ponds and collect much of the sediment flowing down Dutchman's Creek.
The huge complex of hydric soils and the storage function created by the beaver ponds provide the opportunity for
denitrification to occur, not only for subsurface drainage from the adjacent housing developments, but for flow in Dutchman's
creek that is draining a watershed under rapid and extensive development.
The ponds are also home to many aquatic plants, which help to keep the water clean. The DOT plans on destroying all of the
beaver impoundments and replacing them with a stream. As a result of this, the velocity of the water will be increased, and it
will carry more sediment into Lake Wheeler - a potential water supply for the City of Raleigh. Another concern that Dr.
Gregory raised was how the DOT would retain the huge quantities of fine sediment that are currently stored in the farm pond
and in the beaver ponds that would be released should they be disturbed.
In a letter you sent to David Robinson of the NC DOT on April 9, 1997, you wrote "We do not believe that there is an
opportunity for restoration or creation on this site." Mr. Dorney, I agree with you completely. I urge you to please reconsider
the Section 401 certification eligibility of this project. It is a travesty for the DOT to receive wetland restoration credit by
destroying a beautiful, functioning wetland like this one.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely yours,
John Arge ftati
John Argentati • 8817 Reigate Lane • Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8842 • [phone]
Dutchman's Creek Bird List
The following species of birds have been observed by the Wake County Audubon Society at the Dutchman's Creek site.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
Grebe, Pied-biled
Grebe, Horned
Grebe, Eared
Bittern, American
Bittern, Least
Heron, Great Blue
Egret, Great
Egret, Snowy
Heron, Little Blue
Heron, Tricolored
Egret, Cattle
Heron, Green
Night-Heron Black-crowned
Night-Heron, Yellow-
crowned
Ibis, White
Ibis, Glossy
Whistling-Duck, Fulvous
Swan, Mute
Goose Canada
Duck, Wood
Teal, Green-winged
Duck, American Black
Mallard
Pintail, Northern
Teal, Blue-winged
Shoveler, Northern
Gadwall
Wigeon, Eurasian
Wigeon, American
Canvasback
Redhead
Duck, Ring-necked
Scaup, Greater
Scaup, Lesser
Bufflehead
Merganser, Hooded
Duck, Ruddy
Vulture, Black
Vulture, Turkey
Osprey
Eagle, Bald
Harrier, Northern
Hawk, Sharp-shinned
Hawk, Cooper's
Hawk, Red-shouldered
Hawk, Broad-winged
Hawk, Red-tailed
Kestrel, American
Merlin
Falcon, Peregrine
Bobwhite, Northern
Rail, Black
Rail, King
Rail, Virginia
Sora
56. Moorhen, Common
57. Coot, American
58. Plover, Black-belied
59. Golden-Plover, American
60. Plover, Semipalmated
61. Kildeer
62. Yellowlegs, Greater
63. Yellowlegs, Lesser
64. Sandpiper, Solitary
65. Wilet
66. Sandpiper, Spotted
67. Sandpiper, Upland
68. Sandpiper, Semipalmated
69. Sandpiper, Least
70. Sandpiper, White-rumped
71. Sandpiper, Baird's
72. Sandpiper, Pectoral
73. Dunlin
74. Sandpiper, Stilt
75. Dowitcher, Short-biled
76. Dowitcher, Long-oiled
77. Snipe, Common
78. Woodcock, American
79. Phalarope, Wilson's
80. Gull, Franklin's
81. Gull, Bonaparte's
82. Gull, Ring-biled
83. Gull, Herring
84. Tern, Caspian
85. Tern, Forster's
86. Tern, Black
87. Dove, Rock
88. Dove, Morning
89. Cuckoo, Yellow-biled
90. Owl, Great Horned
91. Owl, Barred
92. Nighthawk, Common
93. Whip-poor-will
94. Swift, Chimney
95. Hummingbird, Ruby-
throated
96. Kingfisher, Belted
97. Woodpecker, Red-belied
98. Sapsucker, Yellow-belied
99. Woodpecker, Downy
100 . Woodpecker, Hairy
101 . Flicker, Northern
102 . Wood-Pewee, Eastern
103 . Flycatcher, Acadian
104 . Phoebe, Eastern
105 . Phoebe, Say's
106 . Flycatcher, Great Crested
107 . Kingbird, Eastern
108 . Lark, Horned
109 . Martin, Purple
110 . Swallow, Tree
111. Swallow, N. Rough-winged
112. Swallow, Bank
113. Swallow, Cliff
114. Swallow, Cave
115. Swallow, Barn
116. Jay, Blue
117. Crow, American
118. Crow, Fish
119. Chickadee, Carolina
120. Titmouse, Tufted
121. Nuthatch, White-breasted
122. Nuthatch, Brown-headed
123. Wren, Carolina
124. Wren, House
125. Wren, Winter
126. Wren, Sedge
127. Wren, Marsh
128. Kinglet, Golden-crowned
129. Kinglet, Ruby-crowned
130. Gnatcatcher, Blue-gray
131. Bluebird, Eastern
132. Veery
133. Thrush, Swainsons
134. Thrush, Hermit
135. Thrush, Wood
136. Robin, American
137. Catbird, Gray
138. Mockingbird, Northern
139. Thrasher, Brown
140. Pipit, American
141. Shrike, Loggerhead
142. Starling, European
143. Vireo, White-eyed
144. Vireo, Yellow-throated
145. Vireo, Red-eyed
146. Warbler, Blue-winged
147. Parula, Northern
148. Warbler, Yellow
149. Warbler, Magnolia
150. Warbler, Black-throated
blue
151. Warbler, Yellow-rumped
152. Warbler, Yellow-throated
153. Warbler, Prarie
154. Warbler, Palm
155. Warbler, Blackpoll
156. Warbler, Black-and-white
157. Redstart, American
158. Warbler, Prothonotary
159. Waterthrush, Northern
160. Yellowthroat, Common
161. Warbler, Hooded
162. Chat, Yellow-breasted
163. Tanager, Summer
164. Tanager, Scarlet
165. Cardinal, Northern
166. Grossbek, Blue
167. Grosbeak, Rose-breasted
168. Bunting, Indigo
169. Bunting, Painted
170. Dickcissel
171. Towhee, Eastern
172. Sparrow, Chipping
173. Sparrow, Field
174. Sparrow, Vesper
175. Sparrow, Savannah
176. Sparrow, Grasshopper
177. Sparrow, Le Conte's
178. Sparrow, Saltmarsh Sharp-
tailed
179. Sparrow, Nelson's Sharp-
tailed
180. Sparrow, Fox
181. Sparrow, Song
182. Sparrow, Swamp
183. Sparrow, White-throated
184. Sparrow, White-crowned
185. Junco, Dark-eyed
186. Bobolink
187. Blackbird, Red-winged
188. Meadowlark, Eastern
189. Meadowlark, Western
190. Blackbird, Rusty
191. Blackbird, Brewer's
192. Grackle, Common
193. Cowbird, Brownheaded
194. Oriole, Orchard
195. Oriole, Baltimore
196. Finch, Purple
197. Finch, House
198. Siskin, Pine
199. Goldfinch, American
200. Sparrow, House
?. o o
ti o o Cd
"Cl i
? o
4) 0
o
Cd cqs
., s, ., q c?• c.. 3 o
4.4 a? O
O v cam. 0 Cd
v? '3 U p o cd o ,
"O .-? cat
Amp cis F 0 +.A
...,
COL 213 El >
N «3 3
44 t O
cd G ° Q' ? Q V 3 4p a) U Q, tom.,
'a 4) cd
N _3 r 0
C Q O
C4 ,s'
4 -0 44
'o Ed o crs cu (L) 0
41;
44 4 o
y o 3 N O bA N O 4-+ U
cn V) o a) c ? 9 +? a)
a U
4a v d . 4 0.4 c- 0 O Q sue, C q- 0 d) Cd ";34
+J Ed m
O C O
1-4

3

as o

V

L

0

Cd a bb
.? o >
C13
o
?
?
b
_ ..,
3 ?.. ;
° o
I A O
O =
y O
p v Q b cd ¢„ O
4,
Oa
•?
v 5
_
O v? ?
O O
Cd Qr _ -4 Qy
1-4 03
C
C 4? 0 e C 40,
6t 42
^-,

?
cd
O a)
.4
.. 0
O

?.+
.., > -4
C4
- . v 2

0 03 G,

1-4 O (n
E
O Cd
u

• 0 4-00
O Q. O O O O O y G0, U O
C4
O
O
O
O m
O
O
O
O
.?

(?
a
a
a
a
a
a
?
a
7
Z
Z a a
• • . • • . 0 0
•
.
.
.
•

J
13
m
L
V
N
s
v
D
't7 W?? 3 ? a O O N H
O N 0 'as U H° ° E b 2>,
c?a aUi 003 a-x-,4 csao~ -°'?„¢o
?a wutz>v?C7.4 Z wv?v? ta Um £ ° elm
OnOnm ai 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3A c 3 3 ai'°Omaxa' c 3
cgZ?o000000 o o000ocox•O°-°OuR-0°?
0 taw L
3 0 o U U x ?
V fAGQAE°r?rnrnrnr?r?r??rn?rnrnri"v ri''aacA??aaoAC7000wi?v?t7ri"
06Oi6-4 NM4 Vi?Ot-: OO C, O -- NMI Vi',Ot-? 000,0 -- NCI; ',t Vi?,Ol?0c0
?0 ?0 t` t` t` t` [? t` 00 00 DO 00 00 00 00 00 00 w a, C, C, C, O, C, a, a, a, o, O
N
? •O '° 'O b
V a?b
o On ,? b On o ?, ? c,
° a? Z o.a>i 3 o °a o o.°.: xx'? ?zU.ys? °: o ° N
b -o>>mH 0 ?.°>, 'o no 3>,a?? onU? U°°' o ?• a°
a? ?^ cC cis o ? }s ,..? OOb
CtC7 ?? rnx3¢?.ow>?4mz?m ?aammQp, 2 ??'?z
OoObS a r'S 6 6 ??-^???????? n y.° ar oa cab m'O
33x2 c? c>g2u 9
ii: ??»>3a333333333a:33> 3vE=Hu00
?D1-06C?6 CNM.4 v1?1Ot-: 000?0•-+NM4tr; 6 -060?6--+NM4h\-OI-: 06(0 0C5 NM[ ktn116 -:
N N N N M M M M M M M M M M ,T ,t "t 't 'I "t 'j ' C' 't V) to kn kn V'1 W) h tn V1 vl %0 %0 'o b '.0 l0 ?c ?c
.-. - ,- - - .--, - .-, - .-r - - .-. - .-. .-. .-. .-, -
.? O .b ? "C7 bn 'Lf .O
y ai 3 W m
^?' H °° 0 0 c " ? ? ? sx 0 A x a?i w ? ? ? ? a: ° ° x w a? p ? c`a ? Y 3 cO
? ? ?•„ x U '3 a ? oa u." ,7. u." s.: ? y Q h >, C7 `?' a?i ?„ ??, O as c? '? U E, ? '- ' ? .°?
V a CO) Z m u U m GU o a c
Up a> a? W to a? C O G. „ .? a> ai C °
4? c`? w:cO° a° c`" 3 O -O y U U Z
`?a.U^NaxUa.o.>~a 'aiaic?i.?x 333333OQwO?000x3
EE>>QC7m3 °OOa.°o°o?$UCC? x C ? me
° moo^'€?? ,°?.
F°'E°'F=AA°C)oOZ3?nx 3v33w3waawxa cnco0(n0Lntiu uu zZ
?vi?Ot?000?0 -- NM??A?Ot?CoON.000000000 0 C?NM4 ?\C?000?C NM4 vi
00 00 00 00 00 00 a\ C? C) ON 0? a's al, O? -, -• -• - -• - '• - - - -• ? ? ? ? ? ?
N
E cc
' y y 'O a'"i ° O .? x N >3 C7 a o c, o U Rs a? «• a Q ° .. to
a CA
S2 21- .E
Z U 0 o U ? ° ?
a? e a ?GGx> .c¢ _ ?; v 3 3.?• n n^ rs a a o.a a ?U 0
0 3 ? c.r c•v >-°'O-°,= ? .ti c c c c c a e'° 3 3.c.c ?wm?T
4)
00
ca ce cc ° o_ o d N ed a ea ea eo ea ca ca O c°° C O O O
xxxxx?Cwmr?a:v?2Uv?3?n?nv?v??n?nv?Av?AArn3aC7C7C7c7
NMI V)?D?06 C16 C? el; r vi ?O t? OO O` O?•'^ N M V vi ?Or-: 06 CEO NM V Vi \C t--: 06 0:6 --?NM
d• It 'ch It V1 V) V) W) %n V)tn N7 V1 V) \,D ?D ?O%0 ?0 ?O ?D 14D %,D ?O t- t- t, t- t- t- t- t- t- t- 00000000
N
A 3 ?
G ° °>
U
x
E0 - x >,ux
• ^o d a 3 coi °? o o y y A °3 o c a'"i 3 z a tan a`°i in -O
? ? • ?; ? `' a`i a`"i ? m tan v ? ° a°?i ? o _? ?: •? W Q ? c ?, a? ca a? O m F ?
C N N N E s; c t~ c r:+ ?'+ t~ V` y c vUi ?e 'ca > 3 d ?pjp x a a. U On ?e ~% ti
.0.0.0 y On N N Opp N 5-14 .= '^ O y a y tC '? ed N U U d
y c7VC7mmxwwxxwxZZ c - ? ? C7AFA aHrnc733Ux0(nv)m A»0w
O -- '- M V 1 ,C t? 00 01 0 N M 4 tti 6 t? 00 O1 G ? N M 4 Vi %O t? 00 01 0 +
•-?NM4?-0?000,•--? •-•? -^?•--?NNNNNNNNNNMMMMMMMMMM1:T "ZT

U
O
to
O
O
7
.D
O
N
3
a?
Q
T
'O
O
U
y
a
03 U 4"' v1
• .U. Q w U _O
40,
O O O
"d '0 Cd
cd
0 0 4-? 't7
.?
O
'0 O O O .? O 0 • Q'
'on 0 Cd -14
-0 Cd
O ?, -d .d O • N a? O O O
• ' v, p bA O U o -
•O U N ??, sue, s• +'
W $-4
a) 0 -4 -4
on (u C?q
U O U cd N O O U 'd a" U U
O bA U r.. W taA -, O ?, cc ... ... N -d
3 U 0 O C4 -4 / '0 U 4-4 4-.4 4-4
O O O O
a) -4
Z?-4Z u?Z X40. WarAcuaaAaa
a
0007
'o 4 •? °?
°A U (D
.., Q., o i Cd
Wi n. w 4 '
a `;; 0 0
o '0 •
¦? a ? d) 4-b 0 ? 0
44 -0
U U U • U ?O p tU, N
0
0 -0 64 d)
• • .? ?
0 cu
cd o o
O 44
' 0 o a ¢, 0
Z ,0
44 C/) 44 0 cd 'd o Q.
3 3 0
a 03 C;3
c
0
O ?Oo >?o'"a?C o
Ac a) ? ? 2 u
-4 m cd cd a? b
-d o z?Z4° a?i d aA??W
o 0 0 0 • • 0 0
DUTCHMAN'S CREEK -- Preliminary Plant Communities and Plant Lists based on field work of 23-24
September 1996. This is not a comprehensive survey or list of the existing plant species.
Early Successional - herbaceous. Maintained by infrequent mowing, mostly dry underfoot. Located
along the northern and northeastern part of the tract.
Ambrosia artemisiifolia Ragweed
Andropogon virginicus Broomsedge
Chenopodium ambrosioides Lambsquarter
Erechtites hieracifolia Fireweed
Erigeron canadensis Horseweed
Eupatorium capillifolium Dogfennel
Paspalum sp. Paspalum (grass)
Phytolacca americana Pokeweed
Setaria sp. Foxtail Grass
Solanum carolinense Carolina Nightshade
Solidago sp. Goldenrod
Sorghum halapense Johnson Grass
Early Successional - herbaceous. Taller, less frequently mowed, mostly wet underfoot. A small area
near the center of the tract.
Baccharis halimifolia
Cyperus sp.
Juncus coriaceus
Juncus effusus
Panicum sp.
Polygonum saggitatum
Rubus sp.
Salix nigra
Scirpus cyperinus clusters
Solidago sp.
Groundsel-tree
Flatsedge
Leathery Rush
Soft Rush
Panic Grass
Arrowleaf Tearthumb
Blackberry
Black Willow
Wool-grass
Goldenrod
Early Successional - Scrub/Shrub. Dry to moist underfoot, young trees 20-30 feet tall. Located in
the west central portion of the tract.
Acer rubrum
Liquidambar styraciflua
Pinus taeda
Prunus serotina
Arthraxon hispidus
Juncus coriaceus
Mikania scandens
Polygonum saggitatum
Rubus sp.
Red Maple
Sweet Gum
Loblolly Pine
Black Chery
Joint-head Arthraxon (grass)
Leathery Rush
Climbing Hempweed
Arrowleaf Tearthumb
Blackberry
Palustrine Emergent. Mostly low, dense herbaceous plants with scattered small trees.
Found in the large central portion of the tract, largely influenced by beaver activity.
Acer rubrum
Alnus serrulata
Betula nigra
Diosp yros virginiana
Arthraxon hispidus
Boehmeria cylindrica
Gerardia purpurea
Impatiens capensis
Juncus sp.
Ludwigia leptocarpa
Microstegium vimineum
Mikania scandens
Murdannia keisak
Polygonum saggitatum
Scirpus cyperinus
Red Maple
Tag Alder
River Birch
Persimmon
Joint-head Arthraxon (grass)
False Nettle
Large Purple False-foxglove
Spotted Touch-me-not
Rush
River Seedbox
Nepal Microstegium
Climbing Hempweed
Marsh Dewflower
Arrow-leaf Tearthumb
Wool-grass
To the northwest of the pond, the thicket contains these species:
Arthraxon hispidus Jointhead Arthraxon
Bidens sp. Beggar-ticks
Cassia obtusifolia Sicklepod
Juncus sp. Rush
Leersia virginica Rice Cutgrass
Ludwigia leptocarpa River Seedbox
Polygonum pensylvanicum Pennsylvania Smartweed
Polygonum lapathifolium Willowweed
Rubus sp. Blackberry
Sambucus americana Elderberry
Scirpus cyperinus Woolgrass
Sorgham halapense Johnson Grass
Typha - edge of water Cattail
Vernonia sp. Ironweed
Other aquatics:
Brasenia schreberi Watershield
Echinochloa sp. Barnyard Grass
Lemnaceae Duckweeds
Nuphar Iuteum Yellow Cow-lily
Polygonum saggitatum Arrowleaf Tearthumb
Sparganium americanum American Burweed
Egeria densa - in the east side of the pond Brasilian Water-weed
Wet Scrub Shrub. Many of the same species found in the above community, but with more trees.
Found in the west central portion of the tract.
Acer rubrum
Alnus serrulata
Liquidambar styraciflua
Pinus taeda
Salix nigra
Ludwigia palustris
Red Maple
Tag Alder
Sweet Gum
Loblolly Pine
Black Willow
Marsh Seedbox
South of the stream, these additional species occur:
Diospyros virginiana Persimmon
Fraxinus sp. Ash
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Tree
Baccharis halimifolia Groundsel Tree
flex decidua Deciduous Holly
Rhus copallinum Winged Sumac
Solidago sp. Goldenrod
Bottomland Hardwoods. Small area along the east, southeast, and southern edge of the pond.
Eastern edge:
Acer rubrum Red maple
Betula nigra River Birch
Fraxinus sp. Ash
Liquidambar styraciflua Sweet Gum
Platanus occidentalis American Sycamore
Microstegium vimineum Nepal Microstegium
Small drainage:
Carya illinoensis Pecan
Liriodenron tulipifera Tulip Tree
Platanus occidentalis American Sycamore
Ligustrum sinense Chinese Privet
Southern flat:
Canopy:
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Tree
Subcanopy/Shrub:
Betula nigra River Birch
Liquidambar styraciflua Sweet Gum
Rosa palustris Swamp Rose
Salix nigra Black Willow
Herb:
Athyrium asplenioides Southern Lady Fern
Campsis radicans Trumpetvine
Carex sp. Sedge
Ligustrum sinense Chinese Privet
Microstegium vimineum Nepal Microstegium
Murdannia keisak
Polygonum saggitatum
Smilax rotundifolia
Toxicodendron radicans
Viola sp.
Marsh Dayflower
Arrowleaf Tearthumb
Common Greenbrier
Poison Ivy
Violet
Dry-Mesic Oak Hickory Forest. Found on hill at the southeast corner of the pond, and on the slopes
along the southern portion of the tract.
On the hill to the southeast of the pond:
Carya sp.
Diosp yros virginiana
Liquidambar styraciflua
Pinus taeda
Quercus rubra
Quercus nigra
Quercus alba
Quercus phellos
Alnus serrulata
Corpus florida
Symplocus tinctoria
Cassia nictitans
Desmodium sp.
Smilax rotudifolia
Hickory
Persimmon
Sweet Gum
Loblolly Pine
Red Oak
Water Oak
White Oak
Willow Oak
Tag Alder
Flowering Dogwood
Yellowroot
Sensitive Partridge Pea
Tick-trefoil
Common Greenbrier
Dry-Mesic Oak Hickory Forest along the southern slopes of the tract:
Canopy:
Acer rubrum - a minor component Red Maple
Fagus grandifolia (a few on N-facing slope) American Beech
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Tree
Pinus taeda Loblolly Pine
Quercus rubra Red Oak
SubC/Shrub:
Carpinus caroliniana Ironwood
Carya tomentosa Mockernut Hickory
Corpus florida Flowering Dogwood
flex opaca American Holly
Oxydendron arboreum Sourwood
Sassafras albidum Sassafras
Vitis rotundifolia Muscadine Grape
Herb:
Asplenium platyneuron Ebony Spleenwort
Dioscorea villosa Wild Yam
Goodyera pubescens Rattlesnake Plantain
Hexastylis arifolia Heartleaf
Lobelia puberula Downy Lobelia
Lycopodium flabelliforme Running-pine
Polystichum acrostichiodes
Thelypteris noveboracensis
Christmas Fern
New York Fern
Thicket - Wet. Found in various locations, but mostly along the toe of the south slope adjacent to the
palustine emergent community.
Acer rubrum Red Maple
Alnus serrulata Tag Alder
Betula nigra River Birch
Liquidambar styraciflua Sweet Gum
Arundinaria gigantea - a minor compoent Cane
Dry Pines. On hillside on the southwest corner of the tract.
Pinus taeda Loblolly Pine
Agrimonia pubescens Agrimony
Other species noted on site include:
Chelone sp. Turtlehead
Eupatorium perfoliatum Boneset
Ilex laevigata Smooth Holly
Lycopus sp. Bugleweed
Nyssa sylvatica Black Gum
Onoclea sensibilis Sensitive Fern
Polypodium polypodiodes Resurrection Fern
Rhexia sp. Meadow-beauty
Ulmus americana American Elm
Woodwardia areolata Netted Chainfern

Birds and other wildlife observed at Dutchman's Creek (23-24 September 1996), or in the
upstream vicinity on sample plots (7 & 9 May 1997 - indicated by *). This represents a very
small sampling of the year, and actual wildlife diversity at the site will be much greater than
this list indicates.
Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias
Green Heron Butroides virescens
Mute Swan' Cygnus ofor
Wood Duck Aix sponsa
?Green-winged Teal Anus crecca
Mallard Anas platyrhynchos
?Scaup Aythya sp.
Osprey Pandion halfaetus
*Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo ffneatus
Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis
Killdeer Charadrius vociferus
Rock Dove Columba #via
Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura
*Barred Owl Strix varia
Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica
Ruby-throated Hummingbird Archilochus colubris
Belted Kingfisher Ceryle alcyon (possible nest holes in sand bank)
Red-bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes carofinus
*Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens
Common Flicker Colaptes auratus
*Acadian Flycatcher Empidonax virescens
Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe
Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata
American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos
Carolina Chickade Parus carolinensis
Tufted Titmouse Parus bicolor
Carolina Wren Thryothorus ludovicianus
*Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea
Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis
Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos
Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis
Veery Catharus fuscesens
Loggerhead Shrike' Lanius ludovicianus
Common Starling Sturnus vulgaris
*Yellow-throated Vireo Vireo flavifrons
*Red-eyed Vireo Vireo ofivaceus
*Northern Parula Parula americana
*Black-thro'd Blue Warbler Dendroica caerulescens
*Pine Warbler Dendroica pious
*Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus
*Louisiana Waterthrush Seiurus motacflla
*?Kentucky Warbler Oporornis formosus
Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas
*Hooded Warbler Wilsonia pusilla
F
*Northern Oriole lcterus galbula
Common Grackle Quiscalus quicscula
Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus
Scarlet Tanager Piranga olivacea
Domesticated
'-Two birds noted on the east side of the property on 7 May 1997.
Other wildlife or wildlife signs observed:
Frogs
Toads
Red-bellied Water Snake
Black Rat Snake
Turtles
*Eastern Box Turtle (3)
Nerodia erythrogaster
Elaphe obsoleta
Terrapene carolina
Beaver evidence
White-tailed Deer
*Raccoon tracks
*Gray Fox (skull)
Castor canadensis
Odocoileus virginianus
Procyon to for
Urocyon cinereoargenteus

" 4. Z
Qv
This mitigation plan has been reviewed by the following individuals and agencies and has been
determined to provide an acceptable approach to mitigating the wetland, stream, and open
water impacts of R2000D and R2000CB.
Eric Alsmeyer
. ""?.z?? -k
Eric Galamb
Dave Cox
Kevin Moody
Wendy Gasteiger

PLAN APPROVAL
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Date
_ST?.-?- ?s? 1997
NCDEHNR-Division of Water Quality Date
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission Date
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Date
Federal Highway Administration Date

C'q?' t?z r-.g cesf s C
j oa" fl i,
ee?,? ?
do -Act on C-
L' h?\k 4?'- ? J
Q
DoT
S 01
I T por 0,4,
7/1
?J
?I\jW ?11
Dl p ?^?- 1 p ? vV10..v-T??^c.e
l
d w?hd d s
I
0 COnu'AAl-?
7f
??S 1 Ld??- ?to? ?a?
/b
p? `S (s-?S ' f l7 ?c d?? fke
"WA 0 03 v
©3 J?? S
tie tL V.e? "Le?06t-l-
1
4,1
b„s SUly a,
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TANSPORTATI
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
June 19, 1997
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Attention: Michael D. Smith, P.W.S.
Chief, North Section
Dear Sir:

GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
S ECRETARY
Subject: Wake and Durham Counties; Northern Wake Expressway; Federal Aid
Project No. NHF-123-1(10); State Project Nos. 8U401710 and 8U401712;
TIP Nos. R-2000CB and R-2000D; USACE Action I.D. 199601917.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation was issued an individual Section 404
(of the Clean Water Act) Permit by the Corps of Engineers for the subject project on
October 3, 1996. On May 6, 1997 we submitted an application for modification of the
permit to reflect an increase of 0.23 acres of temporary impact on jurisdictional wetlands.
A Section 401 permit was issued by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality on
May 23, 1997 (DWQ Certification No 3081).
Based on information received from the Corps of Engineers it was our understanding that
the application for modification would be approved when the Department of
Transportation completed the Dutchman's Creek Mitigation Plan. In compliance with
this requirement we are herewith transmitting the Dutchman's Creek Mitigation Plan.
Copies of the plan are being sent to all members of the Partnering Team for
R-2000 for their approval.
?r
2
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Ms. Alice N. Gordon
at [phone] Ext. 307.
Sincerely,
-/7' c - ea ll
David C. Robinson, Ph.D., P.E.
Assistant Branch Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
DCR/plr
cc: w/attachment
Mr. Ken Jolly, Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Field Office
Mr. David Cox, NCWCR, Raleigh
Ms. John Hefner, USFWS, Raleigh
Mr. N. L. Graf, P.E., FHWA
Mr. Lee Plej, EPA, Atlanta
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, Department of Water Quality
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. D. A. Allsbrook, P.E., Division 5 Engineer
x
Zo.?
---__ ? - .
A+ . , NCDOT/P&E BRANCH Fax:[phone] Sep 5 '97 1004 P.01
State of North Carolina
Date: 9/5197
Department of Transportation
Division of 11ighways
P. 0. BOX 25201, Raleigh, N. C,-27611-5201
Planning and Bnviromnental Branch
Fax Covert- Sheet
Number You Are Calling. 733-9939
Please deliver the followingrpage(s) to:
Name Eric Galamb.
Departmem and/or Firm: DWQ
Address or Room Number:
This Telecopy is being sent by:
Name: Alice Gordon
Phone .Number: (919 733044 Ext. 307
Remarks: R-2000D & CB. Here is copy of thin the letter from the City of Raleigh (Dale
Crisp) . Sorry for the poor quality of fax. As you know, the meeting referred to by Mr.
Crisp was requested by the Department of Transportation to ask the City what we needed
to do to alleviate the siltation problem. The NCDOT is committed to complying with the
requests by the City. Therefore, the silt in the lake will be removed - both the City and
the Department of Transportation are committed to doing this. Thank you for your help.
And a copy of the sign off sheet--tlulaks. Alsmeyers Fax# [phone]
IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES CLEARLY, PLEASE CALL THE FAX
OPERATOR AT [phone] AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH FAX NUMBER [phone]
NCDOT/P&E BRANCH Fax:[phone]
• War vQr L aa, A0. L.7 +.i U--- - ,.,..
Sep 5 '97 10 : 04 P.02
City Of (Rdl??gh
.9VoreR Ssnolam r
septacber 2, 1997
Mr. .David Robinson, Ph.D., P.B.
Asst. Manager, Emtviro=ental Nawiaes
Plamiing and Znvironmental Hrauch
NC.DOT.
P.O. Styx 85201
Ralei4h, N.C_ 27611-5201
RE: Northern Wake Expressway :
Date's Creek Mitigation Plan
CkDOX Mr. Rabinson:
This letter is.to acknovIedte the recei
16, 1,"7, regarding VCDO •-s mitigetio
36pressway ENQ300t .which., .3.avolves
nutchid-a I n Creek:. As the Cite underetra
VrojacE, NCDOT bas acquired 84 acres i
property at La %e Wheeler. MCWT;'s p3
wetlanOa and the pond dam at this si.t+m
flcodinQ which resulted from htrariceane
Ap eutly much of the fill material
dischiiiged into Luke Wheeler. "'is you m
in t, W feast' and will be again in i
darinkiAq for the .City. The City wishas
water storage capacity of the Luke an
Ln the. • future. NCao'r has indicated the
pr*V*sed mitigation project will be t
transvort to the Lake from DutchM=t s
W.Wporta this project goal.
city sWf have not yet been abla to ;
sedimsat deposited in the L akQ cis a ;
from the Lake, due to mecbmiucal P,
utilities Department's lake m6oltoring
9ax?iaaa aicl aULU-6 a sfald. ts:iv ..0a Lnvep
the-.NCMT nroDerty and did coax-firm a w
was lost. If the majority of :--this f$1
into •I c Wheeler, as currently suapeci
=eliliegt wmr, Ncz*T include in . the miti
Dutebxo s r e Crook aito, the drsdai4g of
Wheeler. This would allow the City to-7
storage capacity lost in the race as a
t of your letter of July
. Plan for the NQx'Chezn
a mitigation site along
ds the Dutcbman' d CxL.*ek
E land adjacent t* City
Mg are to reatOtC the
ltiiah was Dreachaed by the
-om the dam breach was
]mow, Lake Wheelar was
future, a source of
retain go much of the
possible, both nbw and
a term benefit of than
radnce future sgdiment
eek. The City certainly
?vesatigaate tha amount of
exult of the dam breach
n?blems with the Public
at. Dale Crisp artd Mark
LvLta tha dam broach on
inif scant amount of fill
material was dep.ositod
id, the City will likely
a t;3.C i plan for the s? th+b
this material front Li ka
rcover some of the water
exult of `ran.
gFMW.= WEST HARQUi7T gvftvr. Pw omffm 06X *0 • RALO W. NORTH GAROLM 270tr
Hamm rww
NCDOT/P&E BRANCH Fax:[phone]
i ' vas w, ?, a? • tv. s.a w? w.-o ?ot-aauv
Once City staff has had an Owortunity
of -sediment depoeiti= in tl a Lake
locMtiVU, NMM Will be informed of the
this, Matter. we expect this ".tersanmti
30 daye_
Tb=k you- for contacting our staff resa:
t O: aoopeuration you and other membem
abown in explainijigr your plans' at this
if you havo any questions regarding thi
u, va:Le Criap, the Public Utilities Die
number (929)-090-3400.
r,71.y
D, F. ion on
City ' nu alter
cc:. Public Uttlitiea*Director.
Transportation Director
Parks and Recreation Director
Sep 5 '97 1005
? uu?ia., u r•ua i ia_..r s?ann
P. 03
investigrate the amount
the Dutchman's: Creak
ty,s final position in
to be d8 in the next
this maCter &nd for
NCDOT's staff have
.on.
matter, please contact
tar, at this telephon®
water impacts of R2000D and R2000C5.
Eric Alsmeyer
Eric Galamb
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Date
NOEHNR-Division of Water Quality
Date
Davetox :. _ N.C.- Wildlife Resources Commission... ,. Date..
Kevin Moody U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Date
Wendy Gasteiger Federal Highway Administration Date
NCDOT/P&E BRANCH
..' A
jAmEs B_ HUNT jR.
GOVERNOR
Date:
Fax : [phone] Jul 30 '9? 13:56 P.01
U/ 67
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TMNSPORTATION
DMSION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARA Ti' J&
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C 27613-5201 WMAKY
PLANNING & ENVIRON MNTAL RRA.IVCH
FAX COVHR SHEET
Number You Are Calling:
,,Please deliver the felilowing pages to:
Name:
Department and/or Firm:
Address or Room Number:
This Telecopy is being sent tby.- ?/
Name: _ P4 b t r, M " 1?.q44
9
Phone Number: 4tq -- - 7 8r5? x. -1-7
Remarks:
ZA `Pv
?&4AI,

Number of pages (Including, Cover Sheet)
IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES CLEARLY, CALL [phone] AS
SOONAS POSSIBLE.
PLANNING & EM RONM,ENTAL BRANCH FAX NUMBER - (919) 733-979,4
9
• .A
NCDOT/P&E BRANCH
Fax:[phone]
Jul 30 '97 13:57 P.02

JMAEs S. HUNT JR.
GovemoR
STATE OF NO1tTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GAiuwo B. GAmn: JR.
P.O. BOX 25201. RALE1014, N.C 27611-5201 SECRETARY
July 28, 1997
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Attention: NVlichacl D. Smith, P.W.S., Chief, North Section
Dear Sir:
Subject: Wake and Durham Counties; Northern Wake expressway; Federal Aid
Project No. NHF-123-1(10); State Project Nos. 80401710 and 80401712;
TIP Nos. R-2000CB and R-200OD; USACE Action ID No. 199601917.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation , by copy of this letter, hereby
transmits the final Dutchman's Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan to all members of 6e
R-2000 Partnering Team. This plan dated July, '1997, now includes the revisions suggested at
the July 7, 1997, meeting of the Partnering Team. On July 18, 1997, copies were hand-delivered
to the Raleigh Corps of Engineers, L.S. Fish and Wildlife, and Division of Water QtWity. NIC.
Wildlife Resources received their copy on July 21, and the retraining copies are being distributed
under this cover letter.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call Ms. Robin M. Little
at (919) -733-7844, Ext. 279.
Sincerely,
David C. Robinson, Ph.D., P.E.
Assistant Branch Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
.w
NCDOT/P&E BRANCH Fax:[phone] Jul 30 '97 14:16 P.01
i
a
STATE QF NQRTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. Hur T JR DIVISION OF RIG1 SWAYS GARLAND B. GAROT-r ii
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C 27611-5201 WWAILY ;
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
PAX COVER SHEET
Date: 7&2( °17
Number You Are Calling:
Please deliver the following pages to: Fri 'o A ? u V yry /yL
r ? U P
Name:
Department and/or Firm:
-D C,
Address or Room Number: d 16fi
774s Telecopy its berg sent by:
.
Name_ ?t„-• fQ
Phone Number:
Remarks:
La -h vtw (A

Number o0ages (Including Cover Sheet)
IF YOUDO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGE'S CLEARLY, CALL [phone] AS
SOONAS POSUBLE.
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL ERANCHFAXNUMBER - [phone]

NCDOT/P&E BRANCH
Fax:[phone]
Jul 30 '97 14:16 P.02
ew '?
JAMES B. HUNT )PL
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DI-VISION Of HIGHWAYS GARt N D B. GARRITT JR.
P.O. BOX 25201, PALEIGH, N.C 27611-5201 SEcwmv
July 28, 1997
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Attention: Michael D. Smith, P.W.S., Chief,-North Section
Dear Sir:
Subject: Wake and Durham Counties; Northern Wake'Expressway; Federal Aid
Project No. NHF-123-1(10); State Project Nos. SU401710 and 8U401712;
TIP Nos. R-2000CB and R-20001); USAGE Action ID No. 199601917.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation , by copy of this letter, hereby
transmits the final Dutchman's Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan to all members of the
R-2000 Partnering Team. This plan dated July,' 1:997, now includes the revisions suggested at
the July 7, 1997, meeting of the Partnering Team. On July 18, 1997, copies were hand-deliv"d
to the Raleigh Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and Division of Water Quality. NjC.
Wildlife Resources received their copy on July 21, and the remaining copies are being distributed
under this cover letter.
Yf you have any questions or need additional information, please call Ms- Robin M. Little
at [phone], Ext. 279,
Sincerely, ,
David C. Robinson, Ph.D., P.E.
Assistant Branch Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
r'r
L
cwt
J
cc: w/attachment
Mr. Ken Jolly, Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Field Office
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC, Raleigh
Mr. John Hefner, USFWS, Raleigh
Mr. N. L. Gm& P.E., FHWA
Mr. Lee Plcj, EPA, Atlanta
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, Division of 'W'ater Quality
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. R. L. Hill, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. W. J. Rogers, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. D. A. Mlsbrook, P.E., Division 5 Engineer

p„a STA7E o
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
July 18, 1997
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Attention: Michael D. Smith, P.W.S.
Chief, North Section
Dear Sir:
GARLAND B. GARRETT J R.
SECRETARY
<n
Subject: Wake and Durham Counties; Northern Wake Expressway; Federal
Aid Project No. NHF-123-1(10); State Project Nos. 8.401710 and
8.401712; TIP Nos. R-2000CB and R-2000D; USACE Action
I.D. 199601917.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation was issued an individual Section
404 (of the Clean Water Act) Permit by the Corps of Engineers for the subject
project on October 3, 1996. On May 6, 1997 we submitted an application for
modification of the permit to reflect an increase of 0.23 acres of temporary impact on
jurisdictional wetlands. A Section 401 permit was issued by the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality on May 23, 1997 (DWQ Certification No 3081).
Based on information received from the Corps of Engineers it was our understanding
that the application for modification would be approved when the Department of
Transportation completed the Dutchman's Creek Mitigation Plan. In compliance
with this requirement the Dutchman's Creek Mitigation Plan was sent to each
member of the R-2000 Partnering Team on June 16, 1997.
On July 7, 1997 the team reviewed the document and requested several minor
modifications. These modifications which consist of the attached revisions have
been incorporated into the document. Copies of the revised plan are being sent to all
members of the Partnering Team. In addition, we have met with representatives
Rclo
2
from the City of Raleigh who have agreed to work with us on controlling sediment
flow into Lake Wheeler. A letter from Mr. H. Dale Crisp, Public Utilities Director
for the City is forthcoming and will be faxed immediately to the team members.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Ms. Alice N.
Gordon at [phone] Ext. 307.
Sincerely,
YJAI
David C. Robinson, Ph.D., P.E.
Assistant Branch Manager, Enviriomental Services
Planning and Environmental Branch
DCR/plr
cc: w/attachment
Mr. Ken Jolly, Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Field Office
Mr. David Cox, NCWCR, Raleigh
Ms. John Hefner, USFWS, Raleigh
Mr. N. L. Graf, P.E., FHWA
Mr. Lee Plej, EPA, Atlanta
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. R. L. Hill, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. D. A. Allsbrook, P.E., Division 5 Engineer

PLAN APPROVAL
This mitigation plan has been reviewed by the following individuals and agencies and has been
determined to provide an acceptable approach to mitigating the wetland, stream, and open
water impacts of R2000D and R2000CB.
Eric Alsmeyer
Eric Galamb
Dave Cox
Kevin Moody
Wendy Gasteiger
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Date
NCDEHNR-Division of Water Quality Date
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission Date
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Date
Federal Highway Administration Date
I
41
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1: Site Location ......................... ................... 2
Figure 2: Aerial Photograph ..................... ................... 4
Figure 3: Topography and Stream Plan View .......... ................... 7
Figure 4: Watershed Map ....................... ................... 9
Figure 5: Bankfull Channel Cross-Sections ......... ? .. ........... ...... 12
Figure 6: Channel and Valley Profile ................ .................. 13
Figure 7: On-Site Soil Survey .................... .................. 16
Figure 8: Plant Communities .................... ................... 18
Figure 9: Jurisdictional Wetlands ................. ................... 21
Figure 10: Proposed Site Plan: Dam Reconstruction .... ................... 25
Figure 11: Earth Embankment Section: Dam Reconstructio n ................. 26
Figure 12: Dam Centerline Profile ................. ................... 27
Figure 13: Primary Weir Detail ................... ................... 29
Figure 14: Channel Plan View: Reference ........... ................... 31
Figure 15: Bankfull Channel Cross-Sections: Reference .. ................... 32
Figure 16: Conceptual Plan View: Stream and Dam Reconstruction ............ 39
Figure 16-2: Conceptual Depiction of Stream Channel Slope ....... following Figure 16
Figure 17: Conceptual Cross-Sections: Stream Reconstruction ............... 40
Figure 17-2: Live Willow Stake Embankment ........... ....... following Figure 17
Figure 17-3: Root Wad Revetment .................. ..... following Figure 17-2
Figure 18: Planting Plan ........................ ................... 43
5.1.2 Stream Reconstruction
Dutchman's Creek is currently an unstable linear stream channel in which attributes of a
natural stream channel have been lost. These attributes include meandering stream features,
in-stream aquatic habitat (riffles/pools), stream bank communities, overbank flood
hydrodynamics, and characteristic streamside wetlands. The condition of wetlands within and
adjacent to the stream corridor is unsustainable. To develop a naturally functioning, stable
stream and wetland system, stream reconstruction will be performed through the wetland
mitigation area. The riverine wetland functions associated with relatively undisturbed,
meandering stream channels will be re-established.
Stream reconstruction involves realignment of the stream to the approximate historic location
and filling the current man-made channel (Figure 16). Exact historic local can not be
determined or confirmed because of a streams natural and stable tendency to shift laterally
within its own flood-prone area (Rosgen, 1996). In addition, site-conversion to pasture and
extensive sedimentation behind impoundments has further obliterated historic landscape
features which may portray the historic channel configuration.
Construction of the new channel will occur south of the existing channel and located where
floodplain elevations are generally the lowest (Figure 16). Proximity of the channel to the
southern fringe of the floodplain is similar to channel location in reference sites. The channel
will be constructed within an 60 ft wide corridor which will correlate to the approximate belt
width of the stream channel. Within this corridor, the new stream will meander at an average
sinuosity of 1.3 (channel length/valley length). However, the sinuosity will vary locally within
the belt width corridor to maintain an average 0.0039 slope along each meander sequence
(Figure 16-2). The meander wavelength will average approximately 80 ft measured from pool
to pool.
The channel will be constructed to the dimensions depicted in three cross-sections in Figure
17. The cross-sections contain a thalweg to accommodate base flows and vary in width and
depth based on location within each meander sequence. The slope within each meander
sequence (from riffle to pool to riffle) will vary based on these cross-sections (Figure 16-2),
but total slope within each meander wavelength will remain relatively constant at 0.0039
rise/run.
The outer bends along each meander sequence will be susceptible to the highest shear stress,
thereby necessitating stream bank protection. Outside meander bends will be armored with
willow stakes (live willow placed into the ground) and seeded with an appropriate herb and
grass mixture (Figure 17-2). Live willow stakes will be harvested from natural sources on-site
or appropriate vendors and placed into the bank to a depth 4/5 of the stake length. Spacing
between individual stakes should be no more than 36 inches on center and planting should
start immediately above the base flow level. The willow stakes will be allowed to set root for
several months during the growing season before diversion of waters into the new channel.
In addition, all channel construction work will be performed during dry conditions to reduce site
disturbances and to allow embankment stabilization before flow redirection.
38
T
0)
N N
Q O T
O C
cc:
W
0- 0-
-40 ca CL O
N?En o R
O O p w a D
C\I
U
d/?
ii
O
O N
N N
E c m FD cz
o O- --------------------- ------------------------------ cz
.. s
m N Uo0
O o E?cz
U
Q? co ccs i '-
O
- () U)
-14
pip U 0 >+
o O ? 0U c:
CV cn
c U
Q-•-- --------- --------------------------------------- C 'Q ca
~?? V -C?
U cri
O CL
T A`
V
C
O
U
000 O
U ,
Elevation
Q. ID'3 0
0 00
o a. ,? a
`f)
0 a) 0
0 CD
0
CZ
L o
c-
a =0 Wcn
00-
U
0
A J
a
N
N
cr
Q
W
co
p-15
0 02
Lu U
c =Jill =III cat IIII=IIII=IIII o IIII
CO N 1_1111 2 1=1111_1111=11 p 1111_1111
I
c oIIII Jill --= I=1111=11 t IIll =Ill
Lo _ -_--_---
Jill =Jill =Jill =IIII=IIII=Jill =Jill =Jill =Jill =1111__1111=IIII-IIII-IIII=IIII=_1111=IIII=_1111
IIII-Jill -Jill -IIII-1111-Jill -Jill =Jill =Jill
1111=_1111=_1111=1111=_.1111=_1111=1111-_1111=_1111
1111=1111=III m 1111=1111 1111=1111=1111
=_IIII_IIII L ?I_1111=1111=1111=1111=1111
Jill Jill III - Jill Jill Jill Jill
-
Jill =Jill =Ili °-? Jill =IIII=IIII ? Jill
=IIII=_Jill m ?1=Jill =Jill =11 allll_Jill
1111 1111 III co CIS 1111 IIII 1111 N 'III
y __1111=_1111 y?l=_1111=JIII_I1Y 1111 _1111
11=Jill =III o o Jill =Jill =Jill CO Jill -
Iill_-_1111 p pI=IIII_- IIII - II NIIII=_IIII
II=III ? „ II =' IIII ch IIII
IIII Jill IIII Jill IIII Jill
Jill Jill IIII IIII
1111111111111111- I __ Illllllllll
III IIII IIII IIIIIIII i ??lll
`" .. - Oll=IIII
-IIII=Jill =1111
I 1111 1111
, I 1111-_ 1111
i Jul
o. 1111= IIII
Ni Jill IIII IM CIS Jill = IIII = Jill J1111111
I
U-i ? Jill =Jill ; illl; ;;
5 _Jill Jill =,111=Jill
Y? IIII -IIII=Jill -IIII=
0 , Jill==Jill'=1111=1111=1111
m; II 1111 Jill IIII 1111 IIII Jill IIII IIII 1111 IIII
Jill = IIII IIII Jill IIII IIII IIII IIII 1111 ill
111 IIII =
Jill 1111 Jill 1111 Jill IIII IIII IIII Jill 11111111= ill
I IIII Jill IIII Jill IIII IIII 1111 IIII IIII Jill = Jill 1111 ill
=IIII=1111=IIII=IIII=IIII=IIII=IIII-
1111Jill=1111=_IIII=_IIII==Jill=_IIII=_III
Jill =Jill = III=Jill =Jill =IIII=Jill =1111-
I =Jill ==Jill=IIII=Jill =Jill =Jill =Jill =111
-IIII=IIII=IIII=Jill =!Ill=Jill =Jill =i111-
Jill =Jill =Jill =JIll==Jill =IIII=Jill =Jill =III
-
II-Jill =Ili] -Jill =Jill =Jill =IIII=Jill =Jill
Jul=1111=IIII=1111=Jill =Jill =1111-Jill =III
1111 IIII IIII Jill Jill Jill 1111 Ill IIII IIII (111111111111111 IIII IIII IIII ill
IIII-1111_Jill IIII=IIII IIII_III1 JIIIiI
=
Jill -Jill -Jill = " =Jill =Jill =Jill =Jill
f=IIII=IIII=IIII Y CL 1111=1111=IIII=Jill =11
___- m
IIII IIII IIII IIII Jill IIII _ Jill IIII _ 1111 Jill IIII ull IIII IIII III
11
_-_- m E -_-_-_-_-
illi=1111-IIII=Jill „ o p ; IIII=Jill ; Jill =!ill ;,
_Jill _Jill Jill _ Jill p E ,III= 1111_Hll_1111_'I
;
Jill =IM =Jill =Jill = =IIII=IIII=IIII=Jill
=1111== Jill -- Jill = Jill CC Jill = Jill __- Jill = Jill = ,l
1111 Jill IIII Jill IM Jill 1111 Jill IIII Jill 1111 Jill IIII Jill 1111 Jill IIII JI
II Jill = IIII IIII Jill IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII Jill IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII it
-IIII IIII IIII IIII Ilu IIII IIII Jill Ii IIII IIII 1111 IIII 1111 IIII IIII 1111
Jill 1111 Jill 1111 lilt 1111 IIII 1111
Jill =Jill =Jill =_IIII=IIII=Jill =Jill ==Jill =1
IIII IIII Jill IIII Jill IIII IIII IIII Jill IIII 1111 IIII Jill IIII IIII IIII
ca =IIII=1111-IIII=IIII=IIII=IIII=IIII°IIII-
a Jill =Jill IIII_Jill Jill =Jill =Jill Jill =1
=Jill =Jill =Jill =Jill =Jill =Jill =Jill IIII'
0 Jill =_Jill _Jill =Jill =Jill =Jill =_Jill _Jill =1
U- IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII 1111 IIII Jill IIII Jill Jill 1
a)
co
U
U)
H
O
z
L
N CV 0)
a
CD 75
w
` U
N y
CAA 4 ?
U.. n`. D
C
cc
2
O
L
O
U?
O? c
z C=
O 0 .0-
w mU
o
c (D z
a) CD
YU =
cU
ca
E Q)
Y-
W=
U
Y
cv ?
N
3
O
d
J
? u
G ?
i ..
W ?
CROSS-SECTION VIEW
=1111 =
=111=
.IIII-1111° ;
=IIII°IIII-1111
=_1111°1111=1111=11
=!III°_1111=1111-1111_ _ _ ?-
!ill=1!11=ii11-1111-IIII=
IIII=IIII=IIII-1!11=1111-III
1111-1!11=1!11=1111-1111=1111=1i
1111=1111=IIII-il11-1111=!III=IIII I =
I'll =1111=1111=1111=1111-1111=IIII=IIII=1111=Ill
=i111=1111=i111=!III-1111=IIII=1111=!111=!III=!III
=_IIII=till=IIII=1111=1!11=1!11=IIII-fill-IIII=Iill=Ill[ =1111-lill
!III-!III=!ill=!!11=1111=!III=1111=IIII='':i1=IIII=fill =IIII-'ill %
=IIII=1111=IIII=1€II-IIII=IIII°IIII=IIII=IIII=Ill[ =1':.!1°1!11=1'1
=
1111=1111°!II1-ill[ -1111=!ill =IIII=1111=1Ill -!III=IIII=_111=fill
=i<u=IIII-till=fill =III] =till =till =till PH till -fill I'll F11 If
FLC
1EW
Original Bank T Erosion
(cut to 2:1) Control
I Mat
Will M1111=1111 =III
p _Hil=1111-1!11-1111=
IIII=111=1111=1!11=Ill
.IIII IIII=fill =1111-1111=
?? 11!1= =1!11=1';11=1!11=III
!III=i =1111= -!ill =111=1111 =
=IIII III=III 1!11=111=1111=11
Ills _ = III 1111 M - Willow Stakes II
\? 1= =IIII=1111-IIII°Illl°IIII=1fll=
^?-??`1?• .1111=1111=1111=IIII=IIII-IIII=ll
-
??-??? =1111-1ii1=!?!;Will
eet
1 I=1!
I-1111-IIII=i 1111-
-ld 1=1`11=' ill=11
'111 Bou? er ?1111=IIII=1!11=11 = IIII -'-
_lill=l!II-1!11=1!11=1!11"s =11 ill] 11
!i=IIII=ill Root Wad =IIII=IIII=
Footer Log =IIII=1111=1!11=ill! =1!11=1111°lili=lit
fill =ill] =-!111=!Ill =IIII-111!=-!III=fill =Hit =fill =Ml =il11
u=till -fill =I'll =ill =_ru - till = 1111=till =till =fill - i!u - i!
-?`--? Root Wad Revetment Figure: 17-3
Q Environmental (Modified from Rosgen 1996)
Services, Inc. Dutchman's Branch Mitigation Site Project: ER96021.15
Wake County, North Carolina Date: July 1997
i;
.n
T
W
I
Additional bank stability will be crucial at the diversion point from the linear, dredged channel
to the new, meandering channel. Because the linear dredged channel banks provide little
energy absorption due to the lack of meanders, the new stream will experience higher than
normal shear stress along the first 3-4 meander lengths. Therefore, root wad revetments will
be placed in lieu of willow stakes and supported by footer logs which will be anchored into the
stream bank at 90 degree angles to the root wads (Figure 17-3). A lower density of willow
planting will occur on the inside meander bends allowing for natural stream adjustment.
The existing linear channel will subsequently be plugged and/or partially backfilled to prevent
preferential migration. The reconstructed channel will meander for approximately 1 190 m
(3900 ft) through the mitigation site and flow through a spillway constructed over the lowered
impoundment dam.
The reconstructed stream channel depicted in Figure 16 denotes a conceptual meander
geometry which assumes that the floodplain maintains a consistent slope of 0.0051.
However, floodplain slope varies significantly across local reaches of the landscape, potentially
ranging from 0.0040 to 0.0060 (based upon aerial topograpgic mapping). Therefore, the
stream meander pattern within the designated belt width corridor will be determined by on-site
elevation surveys and staking of the design channel in the field. The actual constructed
channel will exhibit much greater variability in local meander geometry than conceptually
depicted. However, the channel dimensions (cross-sections) and average slope will remain
relatively fixed along the length of the reconstructed stream.
The new stream channel and lowered dam would reduce open water and adjacent wetland
hydroperiods relative to existing condition; however, a stable (reference), forested, riverine
wetland ecosystem would be potentially restored. The loss of open water habitat and fringe,
emergent wetlands in the site would be expected to have negligible impact on area wildlife as
Lake Wheeler (an open water system) covers previously extensive bottomlands immediately
below the mitigation site. Stable, riverine forested wetlands, the objective for stream
reconstruction, may represent a primary factor reducing wetland dependent biodiversity in the
area.
During construction design phases of this project, additional hydraulic studies are
recommended to determine if channel slopes and dimension are adequate for sediment
transport generated within a developing watershed. Channel slopes or bankfull dimensions
may be altered by increases in sediment load or bankfull discharge experienced within the
drainage basin.
5.2 WETLAND COMMUNITY RESTORATION
Restoration of wetland forested communities and characteristic stream-side vegetation will
provide habitat for area wildlife and allows development and expansion of characteristic
wetland dependent species across the landscape. Wetland community restoration will
contribute to area diversity and provide secondary benefits, such as enhanced feeding and
41
Y
After planting has been completed in winter or early spring, an initial evaluation will be
performed to verify planting methods and to determine initial species composition and density.
Supplemental planting and additional site modifications will be implemented, if necessary.
During the first year, vegetation will receive cursory, visual evaluation on a periodic basis to
ascertain the degree of overtopping of planted elements by nuisance species. Subsequently,
quantitative sampling of vegetation will be performed between August 1 and September 31
after each growing season until the vegetation success criteria is achieved.
During quantitative vegetation sampling in early fall of the first year, sample plots will be
randomly placed within each restored ecosystem type. Sample plot distributions will be
correlated with hydrological monitoring locations to provide point-related data on hydrological
and vegetation parameters. In each sample plot, vegetation parameters to be monitored
include average tree height, species composition, density, and basal area. Visual observations
of the percent cover of shrub and herbaceous species will also be recorded.
6.4 VEGETATION SUCCESS CRITERIA
Success criteria have been established to verify that the wetland vegetation component
supports community elements necessary for a jurisdictional determination. Additional success
criteria are dependent upon the density and growth of characteristic forest species.
Specifically, a minimum mean density of 320 characteristic tree species/acre must be surviving
for at least 5 years after initial planting. In interior floodplains, at least five character tree
species must be present, and no species can comprise more than 20% of the 320 stem/acre
total. In unconsolidated sediment areas, the 320 stem per acre total may be achieved by a
combination of tree and shrub species. Supplemental plantings will be performed as needed
to achieve the vegetation success criteria.
No quantitative sampling requirements are proposed for herb assemblages as part of the
vegetation success criteria. Development of a swamp forest canopy over several decades and
wetland hydrology will dictate the success in migration and establishment of desired wetland
understory and groundcover populations. Visual estimates of the percent cover of herbaceous
species and photographic evidence will be reported for information purposes.
48

7.0 DISPENSATION OF PROPERTY
NCDOT is in the process of soliciting conservation groups and natural resource agencies for
final dispensation of properties. Municipal or County Parks and Recreation Departments
represent a potential management group for the wetland complex. However, until an
acceptable agreement can be reached with an appropriate recipient of the property, ownership
of the mitigation site will remain with NCDOT. NCDOT will also remain responsible for
meeting success criteria established in the mitigation plan. Deed restrictions will be included
upon transfer to a recipient to insure that the property remains as conservation land in
perpetuity. In addition, provisions for long-term maintenance of the floodplain spillway and
bankfull notch will be established. In any event, NCDOT accepts responsibility at the present
time for development, monitoring, and long term management of the site.
49
16
s
9.0 WETLAND MITIGATION CREDIT
Wetland and stream recovery efforts are designed to produce a forested floodplain with a
closed or nearly closed hardwood canopy. Under these conditions, a multilayered forest with
diverse habitat and niches will result, producing a complexity of feeding and nesting habitats.
Mature forests of this type are considered uncommon in the region surrounding Dutchmans
Creek. The previous open expanses of water, exposed to high light and air temperatures, will
be shaded with subsequent effects upon stream temperatures. Species adapted to lentic
conditions of a pond will be replaced by those better adapted to the lotic conditions of a
meandering stream. Shallow aquatic vegetation will be replaced by a much greater depth of
standing plants. Aquatic insects, birds, mammals, and herptiles adapted to exposed open
waters will be replaced by a diversity of wetland dependent, forest interior and fringe species
populations. Displaced wildlife guilds will migrate to extensive open water habitats within
nearby Lake Wheeler and Lake Benson.
Riverine wetland restoration and enhancement at the Dutchmans Creek site entails effective
removal of impoundment influence, reconstruction of a stable stream channel, and
reforestation of abandoned pasture land. Four ha (10 ac) of open water within the in-stream
sediment detention basin will be restored to forested wetland status. In addition, stream
restoration, soil ameliorations, and reforestation warrants wetland enhancement credit in 23
ha (57 ac) of degraded wetland floodplain.
The most ecologically beneficial and sound method for stream reconstruction has also been
proposed. Approximately 1190 m (3900 ft) of a stable, meandering channel will be
constructed in the approximate historic stream location and the man-made, linear dredged
canal will be plugged and/or back-filled. The restored alluvial stream corridor will be reforested
with native stream-side communities. Stream reconstruction on new location is expected to
provide significant wetland functional benefit beyond that potentially achieved through in-
stream repair at Dutchmans Creek.
This mitigation plan is proposed to fulfill compensatory mitigation requirements, including a
margin of safety, for wetland, open water, and stream impacts associated with the R-2000D
and CB segments of the Northern Wake Expressway. Projected impacts associated with R-
2000D and CB include approximately 4.1 ha (10.2 ac) of wetlands/surface waters, 1.2 ha (3.0
ac) of open waters (ponds), and 1 160 linear m (3800 linear ft) of stream channel.
52
NCDOT/P&E BRANCH Fax : [phone] Jul 16 197 13:24 P.01
State of North. Carolina
Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P. O. Box 2520), Raleigh, N. C. 27611-5201
Planning and Environmental Branch
Pax Cover Sheet
Date: 7116197
Number You Are Calling: 919-733-9959
Please deliver the following 13 page(s) to:
Name: Eric Galamb
Department and/or Firm: DWQ
Address or Room Number:
This Telecopy is being sent by:
Name: Alice Gordon
Phone Number: 014 733-7344 EXL 307
,Remarks: Revised pages to Dutchtnan;s Creek Mitigation Plan. Complete document to
follow. I will call you soon to see if you are ready for sign off. Thank, you for your help.
IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES CLEARLY, PLEASE CALL THE FAX
OPERATOR AT [phone] AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH FAX NUMBER [phone]
J 1111 L WU 1N%JM1 L I Vf1ri JL11V11
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P0. BOX 25201, WEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
July 18,1997
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Fails of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
GARUIN D B. IGA&"TT J R
SECRETARY
Attention: Michael D. Smith, P.W.S.
Chief, North Section 1 i
Dear Sir:
Subject: Wake and Durham Counties; Northern Wake Expressway; Federal
Aid Project No. NHF- 123-1 (10); State Project Nos. 8.401710 and:
8.401712; TIP Nos. R-2000CB and R-20001); USACE Action
I.D. 199601917.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation was issued an individual Section
404 (of the Clean Water Act) Permit by the Corps of Engineer's for the subject
project on October 3, 1996. On May 6, 1997 we submitted an application for
modification of the permit to reflect an increase of 0.23 acres of temporary irnpa6t on
jurisdictional wetlands. A Section 401 permit was issued by the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality on May 23, 1997 (DWQ Certification No 3081).
Based on information received from the Corps of Engineers it was our understanding i
that the application for modification would be approved when the Department of I
Transportation completed the Dutchman's Creek 1Vlitigation Plan. In compliancei
with this requirement the Dutchman's Creek Mitigation. Plan was sent to each i i
member of the R-2000 Partnering Team on rune 16, 1997.
On July 7, 1997 the team reviewed the document and requested several minor i
modifications. These modifications which consist of the attached revisions have
been incorporated into the document. Copies of the revised plan are being sent td all
members of the Partnering Team. In addition, we have met with representativesH

2
from the City of Raleigh who havc agreed to work with as on controlling sedizlc mat
flow into Lake Wheeler. A letter from Mr. H. Dale Crisp, Public Utilities Director
for the City is forthcoming and will be foxcd immcdiatoly to the team members.
If you havc any qucstioas or need additional information please call Ms. Alice Nj.
Gordon at [phone] Ext. 307.
Sincerely,
David C. Robinson, Ph.D., P.E.
Assistant Branch Manager, Enviriomental Services
Planning and Environmental Branch
DCR/plr ,
cc: w/attachment
Mr. Ken Jolly, Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Field Office
Mr. David Cox, NCWCR, Raleigh
Ms. John Hefner, USFWS, Raleigh
Mr. N. L. Graf, P.E., FHWA
Mr. Lee Plej, EPA, Atlanta
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNIZ, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development Branch
W. R. L. Hill, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. D. A. Allsbrook, P.E., Division 5 Engineer
NCDOT/P&E BRANCH Fax:[phone]
PLAN APPROVAL
Jul 16 197 1325 P.04
This mitigation plan has been reviewed by the fbllowing individuals and agencies and Ihas been
determined to provide an acceptable approach to mitigating the wetland, stream, and open
water impacts of R2000D and R2000CB.
Eric Alsmeyer
U,S, Army Corps of Engineers Date
Eric Galamb
Dave Cox
Kevin Moody
Wendy Gasteiger
NCDEHNR-Division of Water Quality pane
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission Date
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ddta
Federal Highway Administration . Mate
NCDOT/P&E BRANCH Fax : [phone] Jul 16 '97 13:26 P.05
LIST OF FIGURES
Paae
Figure 1: Site Location ...................................... .... 2
Figure 2: Aerial Photograph ................................... ?... .4
Figure 3: Topography and Stream Plan View ...... .. r .7
Figure 4: Watershed Map ........................................ .:. 9
Figure 5: Bankfull Channel Cross-Sections ......................... I...: 12
Figure 6: Channel and Valley Profile ............................. ... 13
Figure 7: On-Site Soil Survey .............. ................... .. 16
Figure 8: Plant Communities ...................................... r 18
Figure 9: Jurisdictional Wetlands ..................................... 21
Figure 10: Proposed Site Plan: Dam Reconstruction ................... i.. 25
Figure 11: Earth Embankment Section: Darn Reconstruction .................. 26
Figure 12: Dam Centerline Profile ...................................: 27
Figure 13: Primary Weir Detail .... .................................: 29
Figure 14: Channel Plan View: Reference .......................... h 31
Figure 15: Bankfull Channel Crass-Sections: Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i... F 32
Figure 16: Conceptual Plan View: Stream and Dam Reconstruction ........ ;... F 39
Figure 16-2: Conceptual Depiction of Stream Channel Slope ....... following Figure 16
Figure 17: Conceptual Cross-Sections: Stream Reconstruction ........... :.... 40
Figure 17-2: Live Willow Stake Embankment .................. following Figure 17
Figure 17-3: Root Wad Revetment .................. . .... following Figure 17-2
Figure 18: Planting Plan ...................................... ... 43
NCDOTfP&E BRANCH Fax : [phone] Jul 16 '97 13:26 P.06
5.1.2 Stream Reconstruction
Dutchman's Creek is currently an unstable linear stream channel in which attribujtes of a
natural stream channel have been lost. These attributes include meandering stream fleatures,
in-stream aquatic habitat (riffles/pools), stream bank communities, overbanjk flood
hydrodynamics, and characteristic streamside wetlands. The condition of wetlands within Viand
adjacent to the stream corridor is unsustainable. To develop a naturally functioning, stable
stream and wetland system, stream reconstruction will be performed through the lw0and
mitigation area. The riverine wetland functions associated with relatively undisturbed,
meandering stream channels will be re-established.
Stream reconstruction involves realignment of the stream to the approximate historic locolon
and filling the current man-made channel (Figure 16). Exact historic local card not be
determined or confirmed because of a streams natural and stable tendency to shift! laterally
within its own flood-prone area (Rosgen, 1995). In addition, site-conversion to pasjture jand
extensive sedimentation behind impoundments has further obliterated historic lajnd9c'ape
features which may portray the historic channel configuration.
Construction of the new channel will occur south of the existing channel and locatdd were
floodplain elevations are generally the lowest (Figure 16). Proximity of the channel toy the
southern fringe of the floodplain is similar to channel location in reference sites. The chahnei
will be constructed within an 60 ft wide corridor which will correlate to the approximate belt
width of the stream channel. Within this corridor, the new stream will meander at anj average
sinuosity of 1.3 (channel length/valley length). However, the sinuosity will vary locaily within
the belt width corridor to maintain an average 0.0039 slope along each meander sequence
(Figure 16-2). The meander wavelength will average approximately 80 ft measured from pool
to pool.
The channel will be constructed to the dimensions depicted in three cross-sections in Figure
17. The cross-sections contain a thalweg to accommodate base flows and vary in widthiand
depth based on location within each meander sequence. The slope within each meander
sequence (from riffle to pool to riffle) will vary based on these cross-sections (Figure .18-2),
but total slope within each meander wavelength will remain relatively constant at 0.0039
rise/run.
The outer bends along each meander sequence-will be susceptible to the highest shear stress,
thereby necessitating stream bank protection. Outside meander bends will be arm?red with
willow stakes (live willow placed into the ground) and seeded with an appropriate herbiand
grass mixture (Figure 17-2). Live willow stakes will be harvested from natural soures on; site
or appropriate vendors and placed into the bank to a depth 415 of the stake length. I Spacing
between individual stakes should be no more. than 36 inches on center and planting shpuld
start immediately above the base flow level. The willow stakes will be allowed to set roof for
several months during the growing season before diversion of waters into the new channel.
In addition, all channel construction work will be performed during dry conditions to reduce, site
disturbances and to allow embankment stabilization before flow redirection.
38
11V"w 1I1 V`L LI\I 11 3. 1I 1 IA^ - Jia 1 VV JI J- J-. - - iv -v 1 • VI

r
N. Q

L
0-

I ui
0 a©
E U
N?
cL Q
I 1
-
0 CM

Q.
'O
C I?
ID
C
40 V1
-- ----------
o
o M t?s
C,.. IV
N 1U)
Oz
a? ^

N LV
IM O
v C
O??p ----- ---- ---------------•-------------- ---------- A
.,
G i
C?
V INS
Ila

Q ka ?
?d
IQ
I
?

L
D
.E
00
V
Elevation
ID -0 20
-° a .I.- u

o
in
q) O ^.
?
r a
?E q?
C0 ?.
04-:
04 O
:.C
U CL
8 Q V

i,cijuI/mt JiKHigL 1 rax;yly-(JJ-y(y4 JUL 10 "y( 1J;L( r. vu
WU
r
CO
CV
fill lilt III=IIII=1111=1111=IIII?fI[ IIII
-1111=1111=1111=1111=1111=11t1=1{11=1111=
fill ^fill °111-1'Ilallll?llll-1111 "III! "1111
=1111=1111?1lII?AII-1111=1111-1111=RII=
IIItm1111-11 1111- ot1 fll=1111 1111°Illt
.1111=1111 1=1111-_--1111=
1111
III
11If 1=111111 IIII II 1 fill fill IIII 11111-110111-
I'll IIII
III1°IIII it - 1111 III! 11(1 IIII 11 ili 1111a
?Illl?llll E IL
IIt1;1111-11 ? 1111-11111111 N 1111
?IIA=1111.I_fill =IIII={t m 11 fill 11 o a fill =IIII=IIIl lilt
1111=1111 1=fill =Jill =1t 111=
IIII (11111 N l fill FIJI IIII rill IIII Il p 111 IIII
O 1111 1111 r =
l1u,?r 1m
111 ?' iR l!R
IIII = IIII fill
al 1111 III
;,I, W
IIII IIII Ill! 1111
?i _ I1n IIQ
1 1 "" a
of mi _ IIII ipl lilt 1111
eel I IIII-0 I1Ii"__ IIII
i 1111=fill=1111=
mac; no IIII 211i IIII 1111 fI I lilt 1111
m i 11 1111 III 1111 ; oil -- 1111 =4-UP -- If; [III --- fill
1 111111^IIII-'fill"'III ^fill
r11111 ,,,III-oil-, 1111 1111
-
l1u IN IIIII I IRI R lAl I III = III O ]III = 1111
fill 1011111=NII? 111[-111`13 i111
1 x1111=lilt =111aIli=fill =1111=
811 till 011118 fill Rlt i PI da 118Ip1 ! ii111111
?_-_-_-
I11M1111° 181wIIII?IIII?IIII?IIIt?11{I
=1111=_fill offmil=Ill=fill =fill
=
III IIII 1111 IIII ill l>?1 IIR 1111 III III' IIII III' 1111 Ill' fill IIII
1 I IN 1111 fill IIII 1111 ll 118 Ills III g1111ff IIII fill till fill IIII
111 IIII IIII Illt IIII II-Mfl IN 18111!1 Illl III! III IIII IIII T11 III{ IIII
III III!
=_f1t=1 1_fll l1111;2
Im=in=u11- 3 -nR=linglBl III=I m1
1__1111=_IIII=11f1 ?,m NII__III__lllr
1111-fill -fill - -IRI?IIRq•III ='11If
1111_III1_fill -1111 cloo 1111=IIII=1111-fill -
III IIII Ill! 1111191111111111 fill' $ E 11!11111 III If1111f R1l hit IIII
.III IIII Il
II = 1111 IIII ill IIII fl11 1111 IIEI ill Ill! 1111 IIII IIII IIII
-_- 1 ? -=-_
III?1111?1111=1111= =1111=IIII=illl=1111
11111111-_fIIf=1111-Iii-IIII=_181=fill=fill
_
II IIII IIII IIII IIII flli IIII Ilfl IIII Ili 1111 IIII IIII 1111 I!H {III IIII IIII IIII
IIII IIII IIII lilt IIII IIII IIII lift IIII 1111 oil IIII lip fill IIII 1111
IIII IIII ill! IIII 1111 IIII 811 lilt Ill! Till Ili! [III III Ills Ili Ili!
1111 11111111 L 1111 rlfl nn 1111 un 1mfils llll 811 N1i 1111
C =oil -
m IIII III' Ill! IIII 1111 IRI Ili 11111111 ill! 811 IIII 1111 Ill! = oil I'll
o IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII III{ IIII IIII Ill! ill L111 lUI TI NO III]
tr. =
?llll?ll8-Ill lllf -?
811=1111'Illl = IIII -
IIII--- =n11 llll = 1E11 IRI
IIII IIII i-p
=
Lill = 1.11
r
1
12
LLj
ai
O
w
a CS
C .C
U_ (13
I?
Q
?
'W
I?
I?
' d 1=
a?
W ti}
NCDOT/P&E BRANCH Fax : [phone] Jul 16 '97 13:27 P.09
CROSS-SECTION VIEW
=U9_
fill =-
aIINMIII-
=1111=1111a1U
=will =In =IIII=11
=1111. till w101zlllm
Ii9?9U?lllf=IIII= ?
-III - IIII fill =II=II=1IUI111_W if
_IUI=IIII _IIII till =If -=IIII = ?$
IIII-U1?=_IUi=_1111-III?IIN;alll= `?
=Jilt ?Jill -Up Milli =IIII=nil =fill =1111=1111=1
aIIII ''IIII-UII=1111=IIII=1111=fill =fill =_IIII-tilt-
'fill-till °YII°101aMIME fill =nil-1111'=till E-M lf=IIII=1tit
=litlt
=fill Jill fill -[III =fill =IIII=101=111-1!11-[III =III I=III ='ll9
till =fill -11,11-till -III] =fill ME Jill MIM dill=till- ffiA IIII=till'
=IMa11111=Ifilanil=JIM fill fill =IIII-1:11-fill -fill 1U =ill
S
FL(
EW
original Bank
(cut to 2:1) Erosion
Control
Mat
sIII Mtillallll=ll
11112 III=illl°IIG'-`
IIIMIII-till =_nil011
-191 911= III= fU1=IlU`
fllli-M WIl?Jill sllll@fl
1111= WIR 0IIlgi it i=it Fig
I S =1111 II=III II =tiff=till - III
1111= M IIII IU -
lip Q = If IIII = WI II w Stakes 111
?? •.?`- ,, _1111=11U-till- Il=ml=m=
till= till Mtill M11 MUN fill IN
M film a;'It'= till
14 11=fill =Ili
t 110 11 M
r 11= ,?` 1 I IIII
. •. i191-1111- .?,?..?`?? 118
Boulder =NII= ?ti?.- 1,U IIII
• 1
?Ilf?llIf = Illt m Ill F = IIII =
•'_It'll Wi11=OR =oil Milli : z IIII=III
"if = fill M 111 I Root Watt =111 = Illf
Footer Log fill =Ill=fill ME 1111=110-Jill *fill MIII
•-fill 91111-till =Up ME :Ili SM fill °-fill =fill =fill -(III =lllq=iill°
aunmuu=_un>>m=nn _no gun=fill -un-nu=no=Im=m
Root Wad Revetment Fit ute: : 17-3
Environmentil (Modified from Rosgen 1996)
3 Services, Inc. Dutchman's Branch Mitigation Site Projgct: ER96021.15
Wake County, North Carolina Date: July 1997
u
NCDOT/P&E BRANCH Fax:[phone] Jul 16 '97 13:28 P.10
Additional bank stability will be crucial at the diversion point from the linear, dredged channel
to the new, meandering channel. Because the linear dredged channel banks provide little
energy absorption due to the lack of meanders, the new stream will experience hither than
normal shear stress along the first 3-4 meander lengths. Therefore, root wad revetrhents will
be placed in lieu of willow stakes and supported by footer logs which will be anchored into the
stream bank at 90 degree angles to the root wads (Figure 17-3). A lower density iof willow
planting will occur on the inside meander bends allowing for natural stream adjustrpent.
The existing linear channel will subsequently be plugged and/or partially backfilied to prevent
preferential migration. The reconstructed channel will meander for approximatelx 1150 m
(3900 ft) through the mitigation site and flow through a spillway constructed over tho lovyered
impoundment dam.
The reconstructed stream channel depicted-in Figure 16 denotes a conceptual meander
geometry which assumes that the floodplain maintains a consistent slope of! 0.0051.
However, floodplain slope varies significantly across local reaches of the landscape, potentially
ranging from 0.0040 to 0.0060 (based upon aerial topograpgic mapping). Therefore, the
stream meander pattern within the designated belt width corridor will be determined ?y op-site
elevation surveys and staking of the design channel in the field. The actual constructed
channel will exhibit much greater variability in local meander geometry than conceptually
depicted. However, the channel dimensions (cross-sections) and average slope v4iil romain
relatively fixed along the length of the reconstructed stream.
The new stream channel and lowered dam would reduce open water and adjacent wetland
hydroperiods relative to existing condition; however, a stable (reference), forested, riverine
wetland ecosystem would be potentially restored. The loss of open water habitat apd fringe,
emergent wetlands in the site would-be expected to have negligible impact on area Wildlife as
Lake Wheeler (an open water system) covers previously extensive bottomlands imjnediately
below the mitigation site. Stable, riverine forested wetlands, the objective fcr stream
reconstruction, may represent a primary factor reducing wetland dependent biodiver?ity in the
area.
During construction design phases of this project, additional hydraulic stydies' are
recommended to determine if channel slopes and dimension. are adequate for isediment
transport generated within a developing watershed. Channel slopes or bankfull dimensions
may be altered by increases in sediment load or bankfull discharge experienced vylthin the
drainage basin.
5.2 WETLAND COMMUNITY RESTORATION
Restoration of wetland forested communities. and characteristic stream-side vegetlatiorp will
provide habitat for area wildlife and allows development and expansion of ehanacteristic
wetland dependent species across the landscape. Wetland community restor$tion will
contribute to area diversity and provide secondary benefits, such as enhanced feeding and
41
correlated with hydrological monitoring locations to provide point-related data on hydrological
and vegetation parameters. In each 3ampl6• plot, vegetation parameters to be monitored
include average tree height, species composition, density, and basal area. Visual ob#ervations
of the percent cover of shrub and herbaceous species will also be recorded.
6.4 VEGETATION SUCCESS CRITERIA
Success criteria have been established to verify that the wetland vegetation component
supports community elements necessary for a jurisdictional determination. Additional success
criteria are ylependent uponr the density. sand growth , of characteristic: forest' species.
Specifically, a; rynnim.um mean density of 3a0 -,haractadstiatree species/acre-;must ba.surviving
for at, least 5 ?yeairs rafter initiai'planting. In.. interior floodplaint? atrlleW five charpcter ;tree
species must be present, and no species, can comprise more than `20% of the 320 etem/acre
total-I In unconsolidated sediment areas, .the 320 stem per acre total may, be achieved, by. a
co;rnb nation of ;Tee and sF?niby &pecies. Supplemental plantings will be p>erform8d 'As-'needed
to `achieve thel ve?etation success, criteria.
1T' c't,-, i ? I
No quantitative sampfing'requirements are ±proposed for herb assemblages as part of the
y4,9e1t;atlpn.a.+ , ceas cr1t+@ria.-Povelopment of a•swamp, forest canopy;over several decades, and
inreand fiy`d?r3lgj?`Will'ctCtat?'tFii"sliccL'ss"in'r"iiigrltin BrtiCl°estekslishrY?ent' tsf desired wetland
understory and groundcover populations. Visual estimates of the percent cover of herbaceous
species and photographic evidence will be reported for information purposes.
48
I.Q D DI$PRNSA11ON OF PROPEM
NCDOT is in the process of soliciting conservation groups and natural resource agencies for
final dispensation of properties, Municipal or County Parks and Recreation Departments
represent a potential management group for the wetland complex. However4 until an
acceptable agreement can be reached with an appropriate recipient of the property, ownership
of the mitigation site will remain with NCDOT. NCDOT will also remain responsible for
meeting success criteria established in the mitigation plan. Deed restrictions will be included
upon transfer to a recipient to insure that the property remains as conservation land in
perpetuity. In addition, provisions for long-term maintenance of the floodplain spillway and
bankfull notch will be established. In any event, NCDOT accepts responsibility at tjo present
time for development, monitoring, and long term management of the site.
49
9.0_ ___ WETLAND MrOGATION CUIP T
Wetland and stream recovery efforts are designed to produce a forested floodpl#in with a
closed or nearly closed hardwood canopy. Under these conditions, a multilayered forest with
diverse habitat and niches will result, producing a complexity of feeding and nesting habitats.
Mature forests of this type are considered uncommon in the region surrounding Dlutchmans
Creek. The previous open expenses of water;. exposed to high light and air temperatures, will
be shaded with subsequent effects upon stream temperatures. Species adapted to lentic
conditions of a pond will be replaced by those better adapted to the lotio ocndi?ions of a
meandering stream. Shallow aquatic vegetation will be replaced by a much greater depth of
standing plants. Aquatic insects, birds, mammals, and herptiles adapted to exposed open
waters will be replaced by a diversity of wetland dependent, forest interior and fringe species
populations. Displaced wildlife guilds will migrate to extensive open water habitats within
nearby Lake Wheeler and Lake Benson.
Riverine wetland restoration and enhancement at the Dutchmans Creek site entails effective
removal of impoundment influence, reconstruction of a stable stream channel,; and
reforestation of abandoned pasture land. Four ha 00 ac) of open water within thei in-stream
sediment detention basin will be restored to forested wetland status. In addition, stream
restoration, soil ameliorations, and reforestation warrants wetland enhancement credit in 23
he (57 ac) of degraded wetland floodplain.
The most ecologically beneficial and sound method for stream reconstruction has jalso: been
proposed. Approximately 1190 m (3900 ft) of a stable, meandering ehann?l will be
constructed in the approximate historic stream location and the man-made, Iine?r dredged
canal will be plugged and/or back-filled. The restored alluvial stream corridor will be reforested
with native stream-side communities. Stream reconstruction on new location is expected to
provide significant wetland functional benefit beyond that potentially achieved through in-
stream repair at Dutchmans Creek.
This mitigation plan is proposed to fulfill compensatory mitigation requirements, i 0 cluding a
margin of safety, for wetland, open water, and stream impacts associated with the R-2000D
and CB segments of the Northern Wake Expressway. Projected impacts associated with R-
2000D and CB include approximately 4.1 ha (10.2 ac) of wetlands/surface waters, 11.2 ha (3.0
ac) of open waters (ponds), and 1160 linear m 13800 linear ft) of stream channel.;
52
N. C,?DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
DATE,
TRANSMITTAL SLIP
mlR13199/
REF. NO. OR ROOM BLDG.'
FROM, jWI rMF• NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.

\ACTION
-? NOTE-AND FILE ? 'PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME' ? PER YOUR REQUEST
RETURN WJTH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL'
NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS. ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION '

? PLEASE ANSWER ?'-FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR :MY SIGNATURE ? -SIGNATURE
?. .? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION -INVESTIGATE. AND:REPORT
COMMENTS:

,' it -
SCAT[
•4Y qrr
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
Mr. Mike Smith
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
March 10, 1997
Subject: Request for Review of Wetland Mitigation Proposal on Dutchmans Creek
Mitigation Site. (Site ID# NEUPD0540001) TIP No. R-2000D, CB.
Dear Sir:
The attached Mitigation Proposal contains two alternative courses of action on the subject
site. Each alternative is described in sufficient Aetail to stand alone as a discrete mitigation plan
and should be reviewed as such. Both alternatives include planting of characteristic stream bank
vegetation and placement of tree revetments to reduce bank erosion and stabilize the mitigation
stream reach.
Impacts associated with R-2000CB and R-2000D consist of 9.65 acres of jurisdictional
wetland impacts as well as stream relocation impacts. Alternative 1 would result in the
restoration of a stable, sustainable new stream channel with enhanced water quality functions;
however, existing open water and wetland acreage, wetland dependent biodiversity, and adjacent
wetland hydroperiods would be reduced. Alternative 2 would require repair of the impoundment
dam breach to maintain existing extended wetland hydroperiods and open water and wetland
acreage. With Alternative 2, the exposed floodplain, stream channel and open water fringe
would be reforested, with tree species adapted to prolonged periods of soil saturation and
inundation.
I am requesting that the R-2000 Partnering Team meet as soon as possible, to discuss the
proposal and determine concurrence on one of the alternatives. Further questions can be
addressed to Robin M. Little at [phone], ext. 279.
Sincerelv, `
David C. Robinson, P.E., Ph.D.
Assistant Branch Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
G)
r ; 4
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, COE - Raleigh
Eric Galamb, DWQ
David Cox, NCWRC
Howard Hall, USFWS
Wendy Gasteiger, FHWA
Dennis Pipkin, P.E.
Alice Gordon
Robin Little, P.S.S.

411,
11
°A 4,?NN3d
N'-`• /?\ ?0??' O? ,?`•? fir. ,' ? •`•, ?R?l: (•••'1'•. >, •. f• .:
?' O `,? .'1....-`*??r,J,?.?'? ...?,,'?• •51;f"-`'?I` NRs" `'?.{ '0'1YAJf18'
? , ,??.,,/? by o ?} .? ?? ? `may r i t ? RQ I?? J'", ^? ?i `/, ? `''? .
31d0 311HM y '? f /
... •l •,J • vd 30rsn t s , ???c
4JY1
' 1,0 ?d" ki i ova `?
"-
42

i i
\j
e
yy J qA
?i ]]44

F ?

C ' •S
4S4
t SIT t
t 9 .... ?? •! ? .? FyL\ ?.

1 ?".,VVJ : ?t

s ?' JS i . 1
L'
1I a?'Ly b
•4

ST Ox,
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
CH 3 Raleigh, North Carolina 27636 3726
September 8, 1997
Colonel Terry R. Youngbluth
District Engineer Wilmington District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890 s
Attention: Eric Alsmeyer
Dear Colonel Youngbluth:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan,
Dutchmans Creek Site, Wake County, North Carolina (Plan). The applicant, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation, proposes mitigation for losses of stream and'other wetland habitats
associated with the Northern Wake Expressway project (TIP No. s R-2000CB and R-2000D; Action
I.D. No. 199601917).
The Dutchmans Creek mitigation site is a degraded and impounded tributary of Lake Wheeler, an
impoundment in Swift Creek. The site is located about a half mile north of a proposed Outer Loop
exit, and lies between. Graham Newton Road (SR 1386) on the west and Blaney Franks Road (SR
1377) to the east. It is in an area subject to ongoing heavy development pressure: uplands abutting
both the north and south sides of the site are already proposed for residential subdivisions. A major
cause of the sites' degradation is sediment loading from upstream construction activities. The Plan ,
will provide additional, uncompensated benefits to the City of Raleigh (Lake Wheeler; the site will
act as a sediment and pollution trap, buffering the impoundment from upstream development
activities) and the applicant (SR 1377 is state maintained and is threatened by potential breaches or
overtopping of the existing dam), and is likely to enhance the property value of adjacent residential
units (benefiting select individual property owners and increasing property tax revenues).
Overall, we are pleased with the Plana It's approach is acceptable.to the Service as mitigation for
unavoidable, in-kind wetland impacts incurred by the Northern Wake Expressway, sections R-2000
CB and D.
'=y
Given the trial nature of stream restoration efforts in the piedmont and coastal plain, we believe it is
in the best interests of fish and wildlife resources to take a flexible approach to the Plan. We have
taken the experimental nature of the proposal into account when reviewing and accepting these design
and implementation plans. -
In general, we prefer restoration efforts to eliminate the--causative agents responsible for the
degradation in the first place. In this case, the dam should have been completely removed, the
hydraulic and biologic control structures (the two roads) should have been rebuilt to bridge the
floodplain, and a significant buffer should have been required around the site. Further protective
measures, such as deleting the proposed nearby Outer Loop exit and funding sediment control
enforcement and prosecution efforts in the watershed, wouldalso have been prudent measures worth
considering.
It is the Service's general belief that "restoration includes removing the source of degradation,
recreating onsite physical conditions for indigenous communities and populations of plants and
animals (including safe and timely passage), re-establishing a semblance of the macrofloral
communities which would be present absent the degradation, and protecting the restored habitat in
perpetuity. Future mitigation plans should be designed'to meet these criteria. .
Further, we are concerned that no means of assuring the necessary water quantity and quality are
provided for in the State of North Carolina. We urge the applicant to develop language which would
protect the water'rights offish and wildlife resources in mitigation sites. Such language should be
incorporated into the documents transferring ownership responsibilities for the Dutchmans. Creek
mitigation site, and into future mitigation plans. This will provide a reasonable assurance that
diversions, groundwater withdrawals, discharges, etc. will not impair the form or function of
conservation areas.
We offer the following specific comments:
Page 6, section 3.1, fourth paragraph: Neither the June "1997 plan nor the subsequent July 18,
1997 letter documents what.individual or agency dredged and straightened the channel In general,
certain antecedent agreements or contracts requiring channel maintenance can take precedence over
conservation status. We are concerned that despite the best of intentions, sites such as this may be
subject to snag and drag operations in the future.
Page 8, section 3.1, second paragraph: The stream and wetland restoration are subject to
compromise by-the development of adjacent properties. The Service is concerned that the restoration
site may subsidize poor sediment control practices or future non-point source pollution from the
residential sub-divisions planned nearby. We recommend that during the applicant's oversight, staff
monitor and survey the site routinely for allocthonous inputs, conduct investigations, issue stop work
orders, and bring complaints against property- owners, including corporations, where unpermitted
point and non-point, discharges enterthe mitigation site. Such discharges include, but are not limited
to, water diversion structures that alter the natural storm hydrograph intensity or duration.
_ r
y;

` I.
i,
II

.1 ._ - -

.
Page 8 section 3.2.1, last paragraph: It would have been of interest, and possible importance, to,
know more about the history of the dam. Maintenance records, including safety inspections, provide. `
additional information which should be collected. and made part of the property transfer documents.
It is reasonable to assume.that the dam.owner is receiving substantial benefit from the Plan, since it
may have been more appropriate, from' a Clean Water Act perspective, to remove the dam. at the
owner's expense regardless of restoration potential.
Page` 10, fourth paragraph: Since the Plan provides substantial benefits to the City of Raleigh, .
some ,additional benefits may have been gained by seeking commensurate mitigation, such as flow
releases or fish passage facilities, at Lake Wheeler.
Page 10,, section 3.2.2, third and fourth lines: In general, it is important that any vestigial
contractual obligations to maintain the dredged channel be identified prior to the initiation of
restoration efforts. We recommend the presence or absence of any such agreements be clearly.
identified, in future mitigation plans.
Page 11, last paragraph: We strongly support this application of stream restoration tools. The
Rosgen stream classification system is extremely valuable in that it provides a universally understood
description of the stream channel's condition and of it's potential. Further, the Rosgen classification
has a predictive capability in terms of perturbations and relatively, steady states. We believe that the
methodology will prove very beneficial both for regulatory purposes and. for the benefit of fish and
wildlife resources.
Page 19, section 3.5 "Wildlife," first paragraph: The last two sentences are slightly misleading
about the state of fish and wildlife resources in the mitigation site area. The area is suburbanized; ,and
the development pressure is likely to increase due to the planned Outer Loop. Wildlife adapted to
living in fragmented _habitat in suburbanized settings will continue to be the most common residents. .
Page 23, section 4.0: We reiterate. our comments that the Plan in effect, subsidizes certain entities
without compensation. For example, the applicant, the City of Raleigh, and the previous dam owner
may have had substantial maintenance, repair, or removal costs, both current and future, alleviated
by this mitigation project. Additional mitigation, in the form of fish and wildlife passage, bridges, and
increased flow releases, are reasonable augmentations to the Plan that the "free riders". could have
provided.
Future stream restoration plans should be based on the perspective provided by the Clean Water Act:
to restore the biological, chemical, and physical integrity of the .subject waters, where indigenous,
balanced populations of fish, shellfish, and.wildlife are provided habitat, refugia, and transportation
corridors.
Page 47, section 6.2: \ The Service prefers that the general criteria used for determining, hydrology
in jurisdictional wetland delineations not be used as a success criteria for mitigation sites termed
"restoration. The criteria are politically, derived and were a compromise adopted for use over
geographically disparate areas and a wide range of hydrologic conditions. We urge the use of
statistically valid, biologically sound, site specific criteria, derived by observations at reference sites.
Merely meeting jurisdictional criteria is irrelevant in terms of "restoration."
We'appreciate this opportunity' to comment on the Plan. Please-call Kevin Moody of my staff at
[phone] extension 19. if you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
John M. Hefner
Field Supervisor
cc:
DOT, Raleigh, NC (Alice Gordon, H. Frank Vick)
DWQ, Raleigh, NC (John Dorney)
WRC, Raleigh, NC (Frank McBride)
EPA, -Wetlands Regulatory Branch, Atlanta, GA (Thomas Welborn)
FWS/R4:KMoody:KM:09/04/97:919/856-4520 extension 19:\dutchman.wpd

5ATE

K4R 3 1998
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORItIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
MEMO TO: Distribution List
FROM: Jay A. Bennett, PE ?l• -? \j
-z•
Project Engineer
DATE: March 27, 1998
SUBJECT : Implementation Field Inspection and Resource Agency
Review of Preliminary Construction Plans
Dutchman's Creek Wetland Mitigation Site near Lake Wheeler
TIP Project R-2000WM, State Project 8.U401721
An on-site field inspection and resource agency review of the preliminary
construction plans for the Dutchman's Creek wetland mitigation site will be
held at 9:00 am on Wednesday, April 8, 1998, in the Roadway Design Conference
Room at the Century Center. An agenda for the meeting is attached. A set of
half-size construction plans will be forwarded to you as they become
available.
The initial briefing will include a summary description of the mitigation
site, a short presentation of the construction plan sheets, a description of
the construction process, and an open forum discussion. The meeting will
adjourn to an on-site visit.
The meeting has several goals:
1. To provide agencies an opportunity to verify that NCDOT construction
plans reflect those commitments made in the mitigation plans.
2. To provide agencies with an opportunity to collectively visit the
mitigation site.
3. To solicit immediate agency comments on construction plans, if agency
representatives feel the plan sheets do not accurately reflect the
approved mitigation plans.
4. To solicit immediate comments from Division construction personnel as
to the " constructability " of the plans.
S. Adjourn close to 3:00 pm.
If you have questions or comments prior to the meeting, please feel free to
contact Phil Harris, Wetland Mitigation coordinator, at [phone],
extension 267. Thank you in advance for your attendance.
JAB/lws
Attachment
CC: Tom Shearin, PE
Wendy Gasteiger, FHWA

Distribution List:
Agency Personnel
Eric Alsmeyer, USAGE
Cyndi Bell, NCDEHNR-DWQ
David Cox, NCWRC
Howard Hall, USFWS
Consultant
Dicky Harmon, Environmental Services, Inc.
NCDOT Personnel
Terry Gibson, PE - Division 5 Construction Engineer
Tracy Parrott, PE - Roadway Construction Engineer
Ron Hancock, PE - Resident Engineer
Bill Moore, III, LG, PE - State Engineering Geologist
Randy Henegar, PE - Hydraulics Engineering Project Manager
Charlie Brown, PE, RLS - Assistant State Location and Surveys Engineer
Sidney Autry, PE, RLS - Area Location and Surveys Engineer
Randy Wise, PE - Roadside Environmental Engineer
Phil Harris, PE - Wetland Mitigation Coordinator
Robin Little - Permits and Mitigation Specialist
,'
Meeting Agenda
Dutchman's Creek Wetland Mitigation Site
Implementation Field Inspection and Resource Agency Review
April 8, 1998
Time schedule is approximate.
Time Subject Responsible Party
9:00 Welcome and Introductory Remarks Phil Harris, PE
Wetland Mitigation
Coordinator
9:10 Discuss Project History, Site Dicky Harmon
Description and the Approved Environmental Services, Inc.
Mitigation Plan
9:20 Presentation of Construction Jay Bennett, PE
Plan Sheets Project Engineer
10:00 Description of Construction Phil Harris, PE
10:30 Open Forum Discussion and Resource Agencies and
Comments about Construction Plan Division 5 Construction
Sheets Personnel
11:20 Pre-Site Visit Orientation Dicky Harmon
11:30 Adjourn to Visit Site
1:00 Arrive and Tour the Site
2:45 Collect Final Comments about
Construction Plan Sheets
3:00 Meeting Adjourned
DoT,.
E? ? Fes„
lz'l
31
Ai?
APRIL 8, 1998
DUTCHMANS CREEK WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
FIELD INSPECTION
CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER OF EVENTS
Hold Implementation Scoping Meeting/ Design Begins --- September 30, 1997
Agency Field Inspection Meeting --- April 8, 1998 (Today)
* * Request NCDOT Geotechnical Subsurface Investigation (Borings) --- April 14, 1998
* * NCDOT Meeting to discuss Dam Design --- April 20, 1998
NCDOT Roadside Environmental/ Hydraulic Comments --- April 24, 1998
Submit Phase I Grading Design to Division --- May 4, 1998
Plan & Spec. Review and Prep. Contract --- May/June 1998
LET Date and Contractor Mobilization --- June/July 1998
Begin Phase I Construction of Site (Grading Contract) --- August 15, 1998
** Eddy Engineering under contract>>Begins Permanent Spillway Design --- May 11, 1998
* * Preliminary review of Permanent Spillway Design --- May 27, 1998
* * NCDOT Roadside Environmental/ Structural/ Hydraulic Comments --- June 5, 1998
* * Submit Final Dam Design Plans to Division --- June 19, 1998
* * Plan & Spec. Review and Prep. Contract --- June/July 1998
* * LET Date and Contractor Mobilization --- July/August 1998
** Begin Construction of Permanent Spillway (Dam Contract) --- September 15, 1998
Complete Phase I Construction (Grading Contract) --- November 15, 1998
** Complete Construction of Permanent Spillway (Dam Contract) --- November 30, 1998
Plant Hardwood Species/ Willow Stakes --- December 1998 -March 1999
Phase II Grading Design --- January - March 1999
Submit Phase II Grading Design to Division --- April 1, 1999
Begin Phase II Construction of Site (Grading Contract) --- July 1999
Complete Phase II Construction (Grading Contract) --- October 1999
Phase 11 Planting of Herbaceous Species --- December 1999/March 2000
PR OTECT: 8. U4 01721
ox
z n
Q05
O
N
_o
R-200OWM
-- J o
- rn
X, CA
rn

10 k Tj
H
?
b

t y s
-10
y
p1l

b

b
b ?1r ?_
pb
r n y
m

o ?
x?

b ?
b ?b a
yy?
a !t'r?
6 ? .?b'0
?x
b EL
"Oil

? ti
x x
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
0
Z
Vf
m
m
w
0
Z
v
D

?Y
-?'4 X386
7-0 SR /p/p •`
3;,K f
Dn S?
O
Z? s
0-0 ?
fly
'
2
0-::E
rn
7 ? ))
a
I
v
rn -?

la n
o?
?k
a
O (n
H I
A TO PENNY D.(SR 1379)
I
I II J? ,? C:
I , d .s I ? n
1 P ?
I L-, 1 y ?
I 1
01- ?y
0?0' ?s ti
a
n
0
!71
® It
0
?o-
z
A
o
N T

N
1
Z 0
O
N
w
N
?

N

1333 NI 3:)N`d1Sl(3 Td:)11213A

O
O
n
?D
O
C
N ^
W O
N
(l
Ln
m
O'
? O
m N
LO ()
o Q
(D
N O
-++
LA
O
T
EO
FD
N
O
N
N

000
O 0 ?
-0 O++
h?i
X (D
ii
CD
W. ? w 1v v
O?
0
`? rt
N
3 70C'
rt N
I ?
\ O
\ O
CD
s
v ?
?• cD
CD cc
n
O
O
TI
O
W
O
O
9
°,
CD
n
?D
3
CCD
°,
O
O
1333 NI 3DNViS1a IVDln3A
133A NI 30NViSICI lVDID13A
cn -N W N - O
n
O
O
n
cD
C
O (Q
O
N N
W y
A
W O.
2 3
O
- N
O
co z O{
Lo v O
r 3
o p
D 0,
N Z
w m;
Z tD
cn m Q
_ m
4 O
ED- :3
t0
N O
O
-0
N
O
N 0
N
n
O
N
W
rn
00
CO
0
w
cn
d?
-J
O
n
N
C
a
l )
y
N
o'
7o W
N ?
O O
D ?
r O
v; X
D Eh
n CD
m
z
T
m
m
L

0
Z
N
l
O
^Z
l
rn rn
O-0
C
D
? r
O
V
O-0
N
rn D
l
rn Q
rn
? to
N
iV rn
n
--I
O
Z
cn
8?j
H any
r ti
mz
p?
°z
o
o
z{ N ?
FN ? ? T
Z Z
Z o
io
z?
Zc N =
A (1
n Z
0
M. -1 I
O fl s ? a
1
N T
O -
-
3 m
3 m
~ m
3 m
X 7 rn
x ^
`, m
-, -0
a m
X. m W
- Q m
Q m
.Q m
3 III
X m
1 m
1 m
1 m
1 M
1 M
3 n
c m
Q
Q_ Q.
Q '8 al O
1 Q
3' Q 0
o
Q O
' O
10 O
'O H o O .
rn o O
a O
"O
N
N VI < c O
" ,
rn O O
' O O O
' O
' ., cQ
3 D
o O 0 3
U3 -p
-
3 . . . . . 3 rt fD o a a a v C O S lD
°- 'O fl Go D m D m c n (? ? ? ? ? ? co ?' ? ? G? G1 ? oo n ? H N o
m` c fD N Q 1
O c a O O 1Q Q (Q fQ O 3 Q C S S O O O
Q 3 0 Qy "O 3 p + fD rt Q n Q Q- <D fD 3 CD 0 0 Q O
(n -? S 0 (? 3 ~' -
1' ~` -? 3 O S C Q S CL r 3 rt N
p a p ?]

N N

O Q

C Q 3

n

'

3 <

` 0+'
O
icy
O
O
=
=
Q
7
`
N
Q
Q
N
b
00
X =
p
` 1t1j
N
?<D p
co 3
N
COR
H 3
S <
r
7 G
r
7
M 3 '0
3. ^?
y J
Q <p
T
"n N
-n N
CL 0

c
y
Q.
O
h
m
Q
m
p
3
In
r
r
W =

90
fD
N
6*
y
a
n
ca

N 0

rt
A 1

O
to
N
? Q
In
O

m
Q
3
lD
3
<D

-rt
3-

n

-rt
3-
\
3

°?
0

O
N fD
Q ? ? Q Q Q
H 3 3 O 0 (D
(D
r O <D
1 m 0

(D
3

O
~

r
N
N ?r1

b
3 a
- Q
fD
y
I I ?
I I I I
i
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I [iq

T
4
Y
1 <> El
???
I
f l z
I
I
m m
m
IDnI
D?
I
?A

C
I
L 0 El
?? I
I I
U I I I I I I
`` Q 0 O O = r ` N 0 X C 2 C1 X X - Q 0 07 2
cr a
0 Q O
fn
N O O O
S
y
H
N
W -1
fl 0
2 (D
Q
Z
< W A 1 rt
Q ID
1 fD Q <D 'O 0 <D -« N 0_ N
'd m '
^
r ?
m - ? + rt 3' .
S N Q_
.0 y -1 -4 0 (D C w r 3 o 3 0 o O _
O 0 D o o o p (a d C !?? '?
3 . Co 3 fl N
<D N Q W O
' N S 3 W <D Q (D Q (D < 3
fD 3'
'? fD o
- fD N <
O A 3

a 7C- N N

? N ? W ?D
o 7

0 3 Q

3 fD 'O

C

C .a
O
:r
0 W A

S O (D

? 3
CA
` c
D O fl H
fD 0 0
N 0
O 0
O <
Q S Q G
o
O p
3 3
0

O X Q.
Q
fAD 3 S H Q 3 O N S a C
y N
C
fyD
o
o
O O
ID
<D

O

Q
.
O W O O S 3 <D 0 fD o .Q
O O 0
O X 3
W cN = 0
(D D

X h
y
I I I t2i

I ; II Z
0 ER Q O o m (3 <> Z l o p e Q Q+ ® CS a p ??}¢+ O- I? II F
+ I ? II
X T 7 T fD Q M M M rn M M X n ? n 0
N y' O H 3 1 O O O X, O O toil c
'O A A O a O -Ni M O fD
3' 3' O 3' N N o o ID fD Q ? r N 3
r- Z -,4 44 44 07 m 7 <Q C Z 3 3 p 0 'a 3 ?p
Q_ Q_ ` S c O 0 -0 3 3 O O
7 7 rt 3 0 IT 3 3 O CD 3 r Q
U3 (a m 3 Q- (? 3 K ?D
o
N N Q' W y c
Q_ O_ W O p
D c 3
Q 3 3 Q ti
w 0 _+ y
c O rn `Z"
Q
m' ° b
m N I I I O
I I I fX I I I I
2?3
m m E R° O O %0 .=9 I I I ?/!
W ? W i W i 41 I I i I I I 1
I I
I I I +
N X N < O 2 N N
A G 3' A p O ?' 3•
A Vf 0 S O c0 cQ 1Q
S; Q Q 0 y- N N N
3 O fD C N
Q O'
(p C
O 0
I
O
5z Q)
K
H 0
VJ
y
y
O
cc

-S?

O

N

CD
2.

-

O

0

C
S
0 o

cr
M.

U3
(D
c
<
m

q
0
x

C)

N

O
1
M.

cQ
(D
c
<
O
CL

Q

7C'
c

0
CL

O
cc

-S«
0

C

`
`QG
N
c 3

3 O
0 -
? x cD 0 Q C:
C
3
Q-
Q
Q
yi. 5
(D W
3 S
G?
' O
lD c Q Q
N
'
0 CL 3 ` O N
• D O 0 r to ?
O < .
o f O r 3
• n-0
7
M
0
A
W
n
3
(D
O
3

0
CA
O
O

N

N

3
N
O
-?.
O a p ' tAn n C o n CD
0
3 a = a ' W c
D O

a
r

A

3

W Q

S

N N

0 ? r

N
_ O
-1 'm
O n fD 0 O
3 3 p 3 -D [7
cc o
c
o

O
O

I
to y

1 1 1 I . I I . I 1 1 I o
' >
O O < y n 9 N O N N =' N
'r
c n Q Or
Q O. N
3 ?D
fQ
O C N
3' Q Q
p O N
Q
N
n
fD
1 Y ? ?- r I I
I I I
1 I II I I
I I I 0
I o ? I
I I I ? ?
I I I I I I
I ? I I
? I I I I I
I
O
O
3
O
O

Z
00
444
n
7
CA
3:
0
r
N
3 m ca o c fl s s c c D ° W
'
0 S
O ? c
O
• Q
rt
3 3
ma

?
?
N (
y
V
0
O
I I Q
? y

1 1 I I I I I I I I ? ?
h

x fo coo F-1
? y

O 't
x x
00
?®
p
ti
T
m
m
N
2
y
0
08-APR OMY
r prof\sh0ssxfst.psh

0Y/09/97

/
"'AATCN SHEET

l 4 _
e`` STA 33 So
/
/ m -0
?•
/ i
n
a Z
N
+

\
'Tb

O
1
b .• I

I

m
N
ro b
i 0
?
i
i O
m

W
O

-

Or
d C

v

m
X
( N
a,
?
Z

0

Z
i
o p
C
R N o
:b
',A

..
FM

z r 7

_ `
p N
<

ro A
$
rr

z
Z 2 g
i n
?
s
z z p o
Cb
z?
?
zc
An
=
?
z
O
Y •
?vnl
v I p
H
V O
7 z
O N
Sq a6' ` ? ?Fi
I ' / II
I ? s
n /
I / s I
I
I
/ 4 I
I k / 4 11' ,,
Q I \
rtl
r1'I ? k' I u rr,
0 1 I ? ? ?
k I
315
?1? 2
-? I I rn
O I
J 1
I ? J i
D x ? x
y x
x x x
i ? J l ?x 1
x
? I
N B
/ I r
/ x 1
0
1
/ Gl
pa z o
A `C
x ?+ ?r Ia
MATCH SHEET 7 -BL- STA 33+50 `z A`
Z
0
08 - 2000.m\pp8l j\e2000wm07.psh
TI 05/09/97
/
l MATCH STq 33+50
/ ` Amm
/ G
O N
O
/ H
/M \ ?` ?,
/ +
A
i? x X m
? z
1 ? a
w- '
1 ?
1
1 • a
O a ` o
1
1 s ,?+ ?
1 dim I
1 1 ? I
1 `` I
V ?
Q ,
i
i
5
r7l
/
(J)
O
O
O y
m
v
C)
O
z
I
O
c
o
g :b o
8? z< N ?
zC" pN
.,
n i i z
x OZ O
n Jy,
A =
r" z `o
i? Zc x
p? V z
0
i -.

r
O
n
r
D
z
Z
v_
z
c?

? 1 11
.1

TI
•
/ . SR /386 CRIWAY NEWTON RDA
/ U I
I
jl
U 11

?l

;mot.
f
1
f?
I. 1),
? f
MATCH SHEET
?)r
// ?? I
X
y I
?? II 1 ? I
H y 1
/ ? I o
?I 1 0
1
I ) ° AN
? J??; _, yz Z=gym
Z
K
52
9 -BL- STA 33+50 zz m
f \ Ab \ ??
\
i
i
i

STREAM AND WETLAND
MITIGATION PLAN
DUTCHMANS CREEK SITE
WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
The North Carolina Department of Transportation
Raleigh, North Carolina
FNORTH cA?
O!
July 1997

1?

I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to construct the Northern
Wake Expressway (R-2000) in Wake and Durham Counties of North Carolina. The Northern
Wake Expressway segment extending from Ray Road (SR 1826) to Falls of the Neuse Road
(SR 2030) in northern Raleigh, termed R-2000D and R-2000CB, is currently in the construction
design and implementation phases. Wetland impacts associated with the Northern Wake
Expressway were quantified and described in a Section 404 Permit Application approved by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in October 1996. The R-2000D and R-2000CB
segments of the Northern Wake Expressway will impact a total of 4.1 hectares (ha) (10.2
acres [ac]) of wetlands/surface waters, approximately 1160 linear meters (m) (3800 linear feet
[ft]) of stream channel, and 1.2 ha (3.0 ac) of open waters (ponds). Compensatory mitigation
for these impacts is required.
A study was conducted in Wake and Durham Counties for the purpose of identifying and
evaluating potential mitigation sites for use as compensatory mitigation. During this search,
NCDOT personnel identified lower reaches of Dutchmans Creek as a degraded stream and
riverine wetland system considered suitable for compensatory mitigation use. In March 1997,
a preliminary mitigation proposal was developed which proposed preliminary alternatives for
wetland restoration/enhancement. Based on discussions during inter-agency meetings and
agency comment letters received by NCDOT, an expedited mitigation plan has been developed
which proposes: 1) stream reconstruction on new location adjacent to a dredged, linear canal;
2) wetland restoration in open waters within an in-stream sediment detention basin; and 3)
wetland enhancement within upstream areas.
A breached impoundment dam placed across the floodplain will be lowered to restore wetlands
and streams within existing open waters behind the impoundment structure. Lower portions
of the dam will be repaired to maintain over 50+ years of accumulated sediments and to
prevent a head-cut from migrating upstream, into the mitigation area. A primary (bankfull
stream channel) spillway and secondary (floodplain) spillway will be constructed over the
lowered dam at the approximate historic stream and floodplain elevation. The end result will
include exposure of unconsolidated pond sediments to characteristic wetland hydroperiods and
eventual reforestation of the Dutchmans Creek floodplain.
Stream reconstruction on new location has been proposed as the most ecologically beneficial
method for stream and wetland restoration behind the sediment detention basin. A stable,
meandering channel will be constructed in the approximate historic stream location, and the
man-made, linear dredged canal will be plugged and back-filled. The restored alluvial stream
corridor and adjacent wetlands in abandoned pasture land will be reforested with native
stream-side and floodplain communities. Soil modifications will also be performed to
reintroduce subsurface infiltration and surface microtopography characteristic of reference
wetlands. Stream reconstruction on new (historic) location is expected to provide significant
wetland functional benefit beyond that achieved through in-stream repair at Dutchmans Creek.

In summarY, this mitigation plan is anticipated to provide 4 ha (10 ac) of riverine wetland
restoration beneath existing open waters, 1190 linear m (3900 linear ft) of stream restoration,
and 23 ha (57 ac) of wetland enhancement (reforestation) within abandoned pasture land in
the Dutchmans Creek floodplain. This mitigation plan is proposed to fulfill compensatory
mitigation requirements for wetland, open water, and stream impacts associated with the R-
2000D and CB segments of the Northern Wake Expressway.
n
r

1

PLAN APPROVAL
This mitigation plan has been reviewed by the following individuals and agencies and has been
determined to provide an acceptable approach to mitigating the wetland, stream, and open
water impacts of R2000D and R2000CB.
Eric Alsmeyer
Eric Galamb
Dave Cox
Kevin Moody
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Date
NCDEHNR-Division of Water Quality Date
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission Date
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Date
Wendy Gasteiger
Federal Highway Administration Date
11

'I

ri

F

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pa4e
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................. iii
LIST OF TABLES .................................................. iv
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...............................................1
2.0 METHODS ..................................................3
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ......................................... 6
3.1 Physiography and Land Use History ........................... . 6
3.2 Hydrology ............................................. .8
3.2.1 Impoundment Hydrology .............................. . 8
3.2.2 Stream Hydrology .................................. 10
3.2.3 Groundwater Hydrology .............................. 14
3.3 Soils ................................................. 14
3.4 Vegetation ............................................ 17
3.5 Wildlife ............................................... 19
3.6 Jurisdictional Waters/Wetlands .............................. 20
3.7 Water Quality .......................................... 20
4.0 WETLAND RESTORATION STUDIES ............................... 23
4.1 Dam Reconstruction Design ................................ 23
4.1.1 Dam Regulatory Classification and Requirements ............. 23
4.1.2 Earth Embankment Dam .............................. 24
4.1.3 Primary (Bankfull) Spillway and Secondary (Floodplain) Spillway .. 24
4.1.4 Emergency Spillway ................................. 28
4.1.5 Summary ........................................ 28
4.2 Reference Stream Channels ................................. 30
4.3 Reference Forest Ecosystems ............................... 33
5.0 WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN .................................... 37
5.1 Wetland Hydrology Restoration .............................. 37
5.1.1 Dam Reconstruction ................................. 37
5.1.2 Stream Reconstruction ............................... 38
5.2 Wetland Community Restoration ............................. 41
5.2.1 Planting Plan ...................................... 44
5.3 Wetland Soil Restoration ................................... 46

i
6.0 MONITORING PLAN ........................................... 47
6.1 Hydrology Monitoring ..................................... 47
6.2 Hydrology Success Criteria ................................. 47
6.3 Vegetation Monitoring .................................... 47
6.4 Vegetation Success Criteria ................................ 48
7.0 DISPENSATION OF PROPERTY ................................... 49
8.0 IMPLEMENTATION SEQUENCING ................................. 50
8.1 Phase 1: Expedited Dam Breach Maintenance ................... 50
8.2 Phase 2: Dam Reconstruction/Lowering ........................ 50
8.3 Phase 3: Sediment Detention Maintenance Provisions .............. 50
8.4 Phase 4: Stream Reconstruction ............................. 50
8.5 Phase 5: Community Restoration ............................ 50
9.0 WETLAND MITIGATION CREDIT .................................. 52
10.0 REFERENCES ................................................53
APPENDIX A: Agency Comment Letters
APPENDIX B: Reference Impoundment Breach
APPENDIX C: Conceptual Dam Design Report