U-608

I ANNUAL REPORT FOR 1999

Bryan Boulevard Mitigation Sites
Guilford County
Project No. 8.2491101
' TIP No. U-608

;ionrti I?.*0,,a
Prepared By:
Natural Systems Unit &
Roadside Environmental Unit
North Carolina Department of Transportation
December 1999

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY ...........................................................................................1
1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................... ................................2
1.1 Project Description .................................... ......................................2
1.2 Purpose .................................................... ......................................2
1.3 Project History .................................... .................................2
2.0 HYDROLOGY .............................................. ................................4
2.1 Success Criteria ......................................... ......................................4
2.2 Hydrologic Description ............................... ......................................4
2.3 Results of Hydrologic Monitoring .............. .......................................7
2.3.1 Site Data .................................. ................................7
2.3.2 Climatic Data ............................. ................................9
2.3.3 Hurricane Effects ........................ ................................9
2.4 Conclusions ........................................ ................................9
3.0 VEG ETATION ............................................. ................................11
3.1 Success Criteria ........................................ ......................................11
3.2 Description of Species ............................... .....................................11
3.3 Results of Vegetation Monitoring .............. .....................................11
3.4 Conclusions ....................................... ................................12
4.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS/ RECOMMENDATIONS ...............................13

TABLE 1 - 1999 RESULTS OF HYDROLOGIC MONITORING - HORSEPEN CREEK..?
TABLE 2 - 1999 RESULTS OF HYDROLOGIC MONITORING - OAK RIDGE ROAD...7
TABLE 3 - HURRICANE EFFECTS ...................................................................9
TABLE 4 - VEGETATION MONITORING RESULTS ..................................................11
FIGURES
FIGURE 1 - SITE LOCATION MAP ...............................................................................3
FIGURE 2 - WELL LOCATION MAP - HORSEPEN CREEK .....................................5
FIGURE 3 - WELL LOCATION MAP - OAK RIDGE ROAD ......................................6
FIGURE 4 - 1999 HYDROLOGIC MONITORING RESULTS - HORSEPEN CREEK.....8
FIGURE 5 - 30-70 PERCENTILE GRAPH ...........................................................10
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER CHARTS .......................................14
APPENDIX B - SITE PHOTOS ........................................................................30
APPENDIX C - MEMO: HYDROLOGY AND HYDRIC SOIL DEVELOPMENT AT
HORSEPEN CREEK MITIGATION SITE .......................................33

SUMMARY
' The following report summarizes the monitoring activities that have occurred in the past
year at the Bryan Boulevard Mitigation Sites. Both sites, Horsepen Creek and Oak
' Ridge Road, were constructed in 1996. Monitoring activities in 1999 represent the
fourth year of vegetation monitoring and third year of hydrologic monitoring. The sites
' must demonstrate vegetation success for three years, and hydrologic monitoring must
be conducted until success is demonstrated.
Horsepen Creek is monitored by four vegetation plots, ten groundwater wells, one
'
year.
Remediation efforts have proven successful at the Oak Ridge Road Site. All but one of
' the Horsepen Creek groundwater wells met criteria for 12.5% of the growing season.
The surface water gauge has not shown appreciable surface water for most of the
growing season. Ground and surface water levels were greatly affected during the
' month of September by Hurricanes Dennis and Floyd that produced 1.78 and 2.05
inches of rain, respectively, in Greensboro.
' Vegetation monitoring yielded a successful average tree density of 661 trees per acre
the Oak Ridge Road site and 544 trees per acre at the Horsepen Creek site.
plot, four groundwater wells, and one rain gauge.
One major change in the hydrologic monitoring process is the use of local weather
station rainfall data for the site analysis. The daily rainfall on the well data galmostraphs is
surface Hydrologic gauge and monitoring one rain indicates gauge. that the Oak entire Ridge Oak Road is Ridge Road monitored site with and one vegetation
recorded at a Greensboro rain gauge that is maintained by the NC State Climate the Office.
unreliable. It is hoped that these site gauges will be replaced with more reliable
equipment prior to the start of the 2000 growing season.
This entire data is Horsepen being Creek used site because have in met the past success existing criteria d on-site during the1 rainfall 999 gauges monitoring have proven
Based on the monitoring results from the 1999 season, NCDOT recommends that
hydrologic monitoring only continue for the Horsepen Creek site while hydrologic
' monitoring at the Oak Ridge Road site be discontinued. Since vegetation data
indicates success on both sites, NCDOT recommends discontinuing all vegetation
monitoring.

CI

1.0 INTRODUCTION
' 1.1 Project Description
The Bryan Boulevard Mitigation Sites are located in Guilford County, adjacent to the
Bryan Boulevard Extension. Site 1 (Horsepen Creek) is located at the intersection of
Bryan Boulevard and Flemming Road; site 2 (Oak Ridge Road) is located near the
' intersection of Bryan Boulevard and Old Oak Ridge Road (Figure 1). These two sites
provide 31.17 acres of mitigation to offset wetland impacts associated with project U-
608, the extension of Bryan Boulevard (COE ID # 199100369).
1.2 Purpose
' Monitoring for both wetland hydrology and vegetation is required to demonstrate
successful mitigation. The following report describes the results of the hydrologic and
' vegetative monitoring during 1999 at the Bryan Boulevard Sites.
1.3 Project History
January 1996 Sites planted
' October 1996 Vegetation Monitoring (1 yr.)
March 1997 Monitoring Wells Installed
' September 1997 Vegetation Monitoring (2 yr.)
August 1998 Wells on Oak Ridge Site Removed
October 1998 Vegetation Monitoring (3 yr.)
Winter 1998 Remediation of Oak Ridge Road site
' October 1999 Vegetation Monitoring (4 yr.)
March - November 1999 Hydrologic Monitoring (1 yr.) - ORR site
Hydrologic Monitoring (2 yr.) - HPC site

2

to krn
f z?? o `p h cY ss? C arlsonTarw ka
q? ji p -}i lEl ??• ./ 1??
AVEN RD w' U 1yC? {
c?, . , 0 SRO, ..Foster Dam
Q HARF30R.1IIEW LNCd4 D`• l SSR38 G
yq ;.. c 2? p !SSR 2187
x 090`°u, ;
i
G? Q..io.N
CgRp aNA?• wO04). // f \ ppNDF1?LD ?,
N}
?, OO 1 t
Abp ?t'q( R, Cnrdinhl Coupay Cl
r
g D ,A
?> ?'?? ? .. GF O ?? { CHgi?LELD SQ i 3 1 3
?''k ' OOH ???? Pmt-Wood Lal? DINq }y .. # ''"? , E n ai
C%RRY HILL
DORADO
pj? ,yQ, 7p w ',
r SSR 3820 i?? 33R 2 L^?? GR(
7jW/
ti 1
'. Q gµtPa .
Q n: FURN?ERRY m N
SSR22' l? SS*
Bryan Blvd. at Old ieLake ....._.......
A, ---
Bryan Blvd. at Hor
' Oakrldge Road (Site 2)
OCreek (Site 1)
A
Upper Colonial Lake AG{
?s
G
r , Po
AGRASSY MEADOW RD 3? gyp' l r HMi
r
aF LEE RD

Her.'
lark
LAKE
( BROpDMQ(2R
NATHAN HUNT F
FIGURE 1
' SITE LOCATION MAP

2.0 HYDROLOGY
2.1 Success Criteria
' In accordance with federal guidelines for wetland mitigation, the success criteria for
hydrology states that the area must be inundated or saturated (within 12" of the
surface) by surface or ground water for a consecutive 12.5% of the growing season.
' Areas inundated for less than 5% of the growing season are always classified as non-
wetlands. Areas inundated between 5% - 12.5% of the growing season can be
' classified as wetlands depending upon factors such as the presence of hydrophytic
vegetation and hydric soils.
' The growing season in Guilford County begins March 26 and ends on November 6,
lasting 226 days. These dates correspond to a 50% probability that air temperatures will
drop to 28° F or lower after March 26 and before November 6.' The optimum duration
' for wetland hydrology is 29 consecutive days. In the event that the hydrologic success
criteria is not met during the first year at either site, hydrologic monitoring will continue
in successive years until the success criteria for each site has been met and
' documented. Also, local climate must reflect average conditions in order for the
hydrologic data to be valid.
' 2.2 Hydrologic Description
' Site 1, Horsepen Creek, is equipped with ten wells, one rain gauge, and one surface
gauge (Figure 2). The monitoring wells, rain gauges, and surface water gauges were
installed in March 1997. The automatic gauges record daily readings of the
groundwater depth throughout the growing season. The site will be monitored until
hydrologic criteria are met.
Site 2, Old Oak Ridge Road, is equipped with two monitoring wells and one rain gauge
(Figure 3). These wells were removed in August of 1998 due to concerns that the site
required remediation. The wells were reinstalled prior to the start of the 1999 growing
' season, following remediation activities.
Appendix A contains a plot of the water depth for each monitoring well and surface
' gauge in 1999. Precipitation events are included as bars. Daily precipitation events
were recorded at a Greensboro weather station maintained by the NC State Climate
Office. A more accurate rain gauge will be installed on the sites prior to the beginning
of the 2000 growing season.

' Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Guilford County, North Carolina, p.50.
4

m = = = = = = = = = =
0 0
O 0
?:l .
q uq 2y.
It
0 NO
R?
?/?•'•'??
4, 0 Opp/? '? `O
ly 'V -?0.-•-? tit
(IQ •p n? °? odro.1: 1 .fl
60 (D o N ,r1r ? ] M
it /v/.J
19
p0 1`, M:'o• 00„fV 2. 3500' M A
f 0 of i
Lie
?--a._ . Inw.•_.
s??l •p,p '? °y b
YI
r
r
' tio1 rq ? W•_ ??. 00
]? t \ rI'f ///?
r 1 , , • / JtU ID
to \ '`? /
a) c; ,?
-+
14L it <P \ \?
1 1 \ / " M
?p •1 /woe \? ?,? •? 4 ? ?
M
01?
.t
M
t?
0
CL
G ?
y
?? ??a-L
O J
` f
O
0
H

^0^
W
0
/u
?.1.W
V
VQ
1
CD
N
z
J?
Qi
c?
m
Nr„
e;
J
IlO11li
o
r1' a
1'1((77
I
I• I
. ilcti
zZ

0 /
( •1 / ?'?' .\ :} 1104
1 f I? olol
gaii
!0p, ZI
r01! 1 y? 3
V ' M
w If w
III ) O
. in
S 1

? . ?r?

T
1 M p
.J? I (
1
11
l ?
\3
i
?
• 0

• _1 i
? c
C
a ? f
4
z M ?1
Gl
+ 4,?
.
1

•
1 ? Y
1 uX,
1 If J•A
P
L7
N w'.
Y ?1
O
r
a• 11\111

Ile
N
1 A N I `
1 • lA 1?
• ' 1, \A
?, 9 : a Q:•Y
1

1 1 1 •
Q
n
•I' 1 \ ?
I1(]
r r
•
Q`
0 I•
ell •
?a
k m
I, ? •`10111
I . 1?11?
11 r
1
1 A
? DO

I"A
1 4.y ? ? •.v

O
J

\ J
`
~
l/1
Vl
'1 \Cl •
1

N 29' 35' 001V PT 42' N \

L
1 ! Q Q D C
Y
d
t'rl
G
Y
b
. : ntr??? i •' '?

°_SR
. ,y qQ
11 ?:
rl \

? t
O ?
'-1 O
p.
O O
G
ell
'dO
1 R.
0 1
n
o
o ?
f9
r
0
rJ
0
UA
vj
1 / -o
e E-f 7-11?
t?
tl??-7
1
sS;?
1 A.
m
LI '
alp `
V
L
' ? n 1 1 5
1
r m ? S i
• fyr(] ? O i
? N A
m/
n
m
c /
o.
?•? n n
. nm o0
5 ? Nl.l
-+ i?
1
j ?.. J
14 2C n
! CAD ??'• ~
?f
a
Ym a I
ro? .I ?1
?I
N 2.3 Results of Hydrologic Monitoring
2.3.1 Site Data
The maximum number of consecutive days that the groundwater was within twelve
inches of the surface was determined for each well. This number was converted into a
percentage of the 226-day growing season. The 1999 results are presented in Tables
1 and 2.
Table 1
1000 Nvnpnl nrir mnNITnRING RFSIJLTS - Horsepen Creek
v
Monitoring
Well <5% 5%-8% 8%-12.5% >12.5% Actual % Success Dates
H-1 ? 65.9 Jun. 11 - Nov. 6-
H-2 ? 100.0 Mar. 26 - Nov. 6
H-3 ? 100.0 Mar. 26 - Nov. 6
H-4 ? 23.0 Sept. 16 - Nov. 6
H-5 ? 17.7 Sept. 28 - Nov. 6
H-6* ? 11.5 Mar. 26 - Apr. 20
H-7* ? 16.8 Sept. 16 - Oct. 23
H-8 ? 34.1 Aug. 22 - Nov. 6
H-10 ? 100.0 Mar. 26 - Nov. 6
H-11 ? 23.0 Sept. 16 - Nov. 6
I;I

0

'Represents monitoring wells which were maltunctioning aunng the growing season.
Figure 4 is a graphical representation of the 1999 hydrologic data for Horsepen Creek.
Wells highlighted in blue met wetland hydrology for more than 12.5% of the growing
season. Wells in red met hydrology between 8% and 12.5% of the season while those
in green met hydrology between 5% and 8% of the growing season.
The surface water gauge on the Horsepen Creek site has not indicated appreciable
surface water for most of the 1999 growing season.
Table 2
1999 HYDROLOGIC MONITORING RESULTS - Oak Ridge Road

Monitoring
Well <5% 5%-8% 8%-12.5% >12.5% Actual % Success Dates
0-1 ? 100.0 Mar. 26 - Nov. 6
0-2 ? 31.0 Mar. 26 - Jun. 3
0-3 ? 66.4 Mar. 26 - Aug. 22
0-4 ? 100.0 Mar. 26 - Nov. 6

Q
7
0
.010
Q\
SES M213 t O
u
0
v
:7.
Uq
!ti'
lq
I?
r"Ilni
fl if

0
0
I
Uq
'(7
O
Y ?
1 ?V-
u
ILI
'
i
?D r• SY? Fr 1 'i ,?„ ? ? ? C
?Pa v !.. i 4 ?; 0 4
?tu, 'V1 Il ? f. / 1i ,
,1 , ??_ •.. -- i ? ' ?' -2;15 o°t) ?ty TF 1 11 r?/`'
u A,
?+ ( r? Oilx.c _ o 0 0 0
/?'. O . l ? ll n? \ F \ \

u;
,
n
t?N
•?ti?
t `
IQ?)
1
I?
1 1a (?
/, / ; • ?" 1 _ . f h ? ? 1,1.1. ?v

Xx-i1
arm
rI(??
G)
0
M ill
-A
lu
' t) D
A 01 Oa V
? N
1-110
00 01
N o
01 U1
w

( ru
,..
p
II ' I to ?
!

? ? 11 I

j
t ,
r?I
,

'

Yl V??
tot
?
h
'1
??Q1
1
u
In .n '
hill '
o
il
'
c
1

?

U W
?
?
' 1\
t
`"?
l '1,H Itl
'
ti + 1u.
1 1' t?l
I
ly
, I

1
?
v"A
'
?

, ,
1
2 ai.
y \.
No ? , It

1, vL t
1 \\y?
1 n
321,92'._^___--
a
n \
Y,
tW
0
lot
P 0 2.3.2 Climatic Data

Figure 5 is a comparison of 1998 (winter only) and 1999 monthly rainfall to historical
precipitation for the area. The two lines represent the 30th and 70th percentiles of
monthly precipitation for Greensboro, NC. The bars are the monthly rainfall totals for
1998 (winter only) and 1999. The data was collected from the National Climatic Data
Center rain gauge in Greensboro; because of data availability, the 1999 rainfall
encompasses precipitation through November. The 2000 annual monitoring report will
include a 30-70 percentile graph with the monthly rainfall from the winter of 1999.
Monthly rainfall totals for 1998 at the Greensboro monitoring station were average or
below average for the entire year as were 1999 totals except during the month of
September.
2.3.3 Hurricane Effects
p Hurricane Dennis and Hurricane Floyd brought increased amounts of rain to the site on
September 5 and 16, respectively. Four groundwater wells only met the hydrologic
criteria under abnormal conditions due to precipitation from the hurricanes. These four
wells are listed in Table 3 below. The entire site exhibited increased ground water
levels during the hurricanes and continued to do so until the end of the growing season.
Table 3
1999 HYDROLOGIC MONITORING RESULTS
I'
? :5

'*' - Denotes wells which malfunctioned during the growing season; well data is incomplete.
Monitoring
Well < 5% 5%-8% 8%-12.5% > 12.5% Actual %
H-4 ? 23.0
H-5 ? 17.7
H-7* ? 16.8
H-11 ? 23.0
2.4 Conclusions
The Horsepen Creek site showed improved hydrologic conditions in 1999. Nine of the
ten wells indicated saturation for more than 12.5% of the growing season. Hydrology
was greatly affected by abnormal climatic conditions during September; four of the wells
that showed success did so following rains associated with Hurricanes Dennis and
Floyd.
The remediation effort at the Oak Ridge Road site was successful. All four wells met
and far exceeded the hydrologic requirements. Two wells showed saturation for the
entire growing season.
9
0
N O
V- co 0 v N O
Q-
'L
V
C
L
C-
O
ti
i
O
M
'E
cc
O
O
m
in
O O O O O O O
u') Nt M N r O
(•ui) uoije;tdi:)lad
N
0
O
Z
U
0
Q
O
D)
7
Q
c
7
c
0
c
c
ca
n
Q
co
O
C
CB
0
O
ti
0
O
M
f0
C
m
w
O
O
O
m
w
c
cu
w
co
O
O
r
FIGURE 5
30-70 PERCENTILE GRAPH
1
1
1
1
1
S
1
e
e
s
a
e
e
e
s
t
s
s
3.0 VEGETATION
3.1 Success Criteria
Success Criteria states that there must be a minimum mean density of 320 trees per
acre of approved target species surviving for at least three years.
3.2 Description of Species
The following tree species were planted in the Wetland Restoration Area:
Fraxinus pennsylvanica, Green Ash
Quercus phellos, Willow Oak
Liriodendron tulipfera, Tulip Poplar
Quercus michauxii, Swamp Chestnut Oak
Quercus lyrata, Overcup Oak
Quercus nigra, Water Oak
3.3 Results of Vegetation Monitoring (4 year)
Table 4
VEGETATION MONITORING RESULTS
s
/1
G
.L ? L'
G f
O L
y C
G ?
i

a o n
W
C O

?
O
`7

`.
C?3

?
`

?
c
sr v U G L c .. '
... v
G% C.7 ? v? ? O ? E- F- C
T1 (Oak Ridge) 3 7 1 0 16 7 34 35 661

1(BLH) 16 0 9 1 9 0 35 35 680
2(BLH) 10 7 2 1 12 3 35 35 680
3(BLH) 9 0 4 0 4 0 17 35 330
4(B LH) 10 2 9 2 2 0 25 35 486
AVERAGE DENSITY 544
Notes from Report: T1 is a transect plot located within the Oak Ridge Road wetland
site. This transect is approximately 200 feet long and 20 feet wide. A few red maples
were found, along with volunteer green ash, sycamore, tulip poplar, alder, and black
willow. At time of monitoring there was 4 inches of standing water on site.
11
I
The formula for calculating the tree density is as follows:
0 Density = Monitoring count x 680 (trees per acre)
Planted total
Plots 1-4 are randomly located throughout the Horsepen Creek Wetland Site. Green
Ash, Sycamore, Swamp Dogwood, Cottonwood, and a few Black Willow are
regenerating naturally on this site. A few sweetgum and red maples were found. Plot 1
contained various grasses and sedges in 6 inches of water. Plot 2 had some damage
due to deer browsing. Plot 3 had 8 inches of water and heavy switchgrass. Plot 4 had
some sericea present.
3.4 Conclusions
The Oak Ridge Road Site comprises approximately 1.1 acres of wetland mitigation and
was planted in bottomland hardwoods in January 1996. The results from Transect #1
during the fourth year monitoring period revealed that there are 661 trees per acre
surviving on this site, which is well above the minimum 288 trees per acre in the
success criteria.
There were 4 vegetation monitoring plots established throughout the planting areas at
the Horsepen Creek site. Based on the results of the stem counts for the fourth year
monitoring period, we obtained an average tree density of 544 trees per acre. This
average is well above the minimum success criteria of 320 trees/ acre. In conclusion,
the sites mentioned above are exceeding the vegetation success criteria after the four
year monitoring period.
n
C
U.

12
5
r.
0 4.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS/ RECOMMENDATIONS
Both sites met hydrologic criteria in 1999, but due to abnormal climatic conditions
during latter portion of the 1999 growing season, annual hydrologic monitoring of the
Horsepen Creek site will continue. Due to the huge success of the Oak Ridge Road
site throughout the entire growing season, NCDOT recommends discontinuing the
hydrologic monitoring of that site.
Y Because of the success of the vegetation on the Horsepen Creek site and Old Oak
Ridge Road site after four years, NCDOT recommends discontinuing the monitoring
of vegetation on both sites.
0
13
0
0
0
APPENDIX A
0
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER PLOTS
14
7

Y
d
d
V
c
d
CL
d
12
O
2
O
66-AON-90
66-130-62
66-400-ZZ
66-300-9 L
66-330-80
66-130-W
66-deS-vz
66-deS-L L
66-deS-O L
66-deS-£0
66-BnV-LZ
66-BnV-OZ
66-BnV-£ L
66-BnV-90
66-Inr'-0£
66-InMZ
66-Inf -9L
66-int-60
66-lnf ZO
66-unMZ
66-unf 86
66-unf -L6
66-unf ti0
66-ABW-BZ
66-AeW-LZ
66-ABW-VL
66-ABW-LO
66-JdV-O£
66-JdV-£Z
66-JdV-9 L
66-JdV-60
66-JdV-ZO
66-JeW-9Z

;,gym
i
.'.. -4-
k
?$
3 N'A
3
(-ul) Je3empunoJO o3 y3dea
(-u!) uo!;e;ldl:)eJd
N N r r O
1
'N
7
Y
d
C
d
a
d
0
(•ui) uol)e)idlaead
c
N O N ,
(•u!) je)empunaE) o) y)dea
d
A
D

=1
III
i
'M
Y
d
C
d
a
m
0
(•ui) uol;elidiaeJd
?n LO LO

N '- ?- O O
i
i

i
i

i
i
i
,
i

i

i
i
i

N
N O N 17 9 ao O N v
r r r
(•u!) je4empunaE) o; 43dea
A
D

i

3
Y
d
V
C
m
a
m
0
c
e
0
a
LC
N
66-BnV-£6
66-BnV-90
66-Inf -0£
66-In"Z
66-Inf'-96 p
66-Inr-60
6Z
b6
LO
66-jdV-£Z
66-jd V-9 6
66-jdV-60
n1-66
nf-YO

(-ul) ie;empunaE) of y;dea

Y
U
c
d
CL
d
12
O
2
N
(-u,) uolle;ldlOOM
0
N O N 1 (9 T O N It t0 w
o o I i
(-ul) Je3eenpunoJO o; 43dea

Iltj I € F` i ? ..
66-nON-90
66-10O-6Z
66-IDO-ZZ
66-300-54
66-300-80 i
66-300- 40 i
=
66-deg-qZ
66-deg-L4 1
66-deg-04

66-deg-£0 s
a
66-Bnd-LZ
66-Bny-OZ
66-Bny-£ 4
66-Bnb-90
66-MI'-0£

66-InMZ
66-Inr-% O

0 0
66-Inf 60 N .

aa-inr-7n U
i
r SZ
jnf 84
inN44
in('-b0
66-Jdv-ZO
66-J8W-9Z
;i
f
i

r'
r
C

1
1
Y
d
U
c
d
a
d
12
0
N
(•ui) uol;e;ldlaeJd
N r r'
(•ul) je;empunaf) o; 4;dea
0
O 1

i
i
r
sl
f t ?l f
i i
i j
f
00r
W
L
i
G U
?a

,j
j
i

3
?? j

Y
d
V
c
m
CL
m
Lo
0
N
N
(-ul) uoljelldIDGM
0

O
66-noN-90
66-100-62
66-130-ZZ
66-300-9
66-300-80
66-330-60
66-deS-S Z
609S-L6
609S-O6
66-deS-£0
66-BnV-LZ
66-BnV-OZ
66-BnV-£ 6
66-BnV-90
66-Inf -0£
66-lnf £Z
66-Inr-96 p
66-jdV-ZO
i i

t+
{
a

I
a
o'

iii
(-ul) je;empuna0 o; y;dea

0
r
Y
d
c
d
CL
d
0

(•ui) uoi;e;idiaeM
U
CL
a?
i
0
d 13
A ti
W
OC)
LO
U)
it

'
(•ul) je;empunaE) 01 y;deCl
i
r
r
3
Y
d
C
d
a
m
O
S
N
(-ul) uollelldlDGJd
0
N O N 'T 9 T 0 " v 00 w N N
(-ul) je;empunaE) 03 y;dea
O
66-deS-L ?
66-dos-o6
ja
66-des
-co

a?

66-BnV-LZ 0
66-BnV-OZ
66-BnV-£?
66-BnV-90
66-Inf 0£
66-lnl £Z
66-Inf 86 0)
rn
66-Inf 60 w

66-ln(-ZO V-
cn
66-unf 6Z I
66-unf 8
66-unf-66
66-unf ti0
6Z
b?
LO

;f
t i

l

tt
bf , i
1 i
F4
i I?.' c1

N
V-
V)
Y ?
d ?
V ?
a4!
m
O

t

i ,
66-AON-90
66-100-6Z
66-IDO-ZZ
66-130-9 ? i
66-300-80
66-430-0
f
66-deg-yZ
66-deg-LI.
4
66-deS-O 6 I
66-deg-80
66-Bny-LZ
66-Bny-OZ
66-Bnb-£L x ! p
66-Bnb-90 II
66-Inf 0£
66-In"Z
66-Inr'-U 0
66-Inf 60
,
66-Inf -Z0
66-unf -5Z
66-unf 8l
66-un f-L 6
66-unr-VO
-r
'-i
66-ABW-8Z
66-LBW-LZ
i
66-ASW-Vi
66-ALIW-LO
66-Jdd-O£ a
66-Jdd-£Z i
66-AV-q6 :r .
66-Jdd-60
66-jdy-Zp
66-JeW-9Z

0
0
Of
10
R
Y
tv
0

c
(•ui) uoi;e;1d13a.1d
U? _
t ?
i
16-
CL
N
0
i j
i
I?
w
O
A i
D
w
U-
?CO
fU
m
C
I

i

r

!i
ii i
j
3 ?
}

(•u!) je;Lmpunoig o; y;dea

N
c!)
'o
O
d
.o
Y
m
O
LI?
N
(-u!) uo!l;elldlDead
N O N ? ? GO O N ?
r r r
(-ul) js;empunaE) o; i

I
0
CO O N
N N

66-deS-OL L
C
66-deg-80 in
66-BnV-LZ 5
66-BnV-OZ
66-BnV-£ 1
66-BnV-90
66-Inf 0£ 0
66-lnf £Z
66-Inf`96 p
66-Inf 60
66-Inr`-ZO
CN
66-unf SZ
66-unf 86
66-unr l l

66-un"o c
m
66-AeW-BZ
609W-6Z

M
ea
O
d
C1
Y
uoi;e;ldi*aJd
Lo LO
LO

N r ?- O O
I i
I
I

I

M I
tun)
I

,
I

I i
I

I
I

I

T I

I
o I
;. Ln
i k.

rvk

- I
I
I ? -
? I
I
I
I
I
-
I
I N

I :.
M!,
t

I }

ON-SO I?
3? -
0O-6Z

0O-g
a0-80
i

ies-bz
L
les-a r-
N

3eS-£0 0
3nd-LZ
3nb-OZ
3nb-£?
I
3nb-90
M
nr-0£
of £Z m p
nr-96 0
U

Inr-60 ,
CD
In("-ZO
?

un"Z I

I
unf 8
unr-LL
unf b0
?eW-8Z
fieW-6z
v6
LO
D£
BZ
96
60

O
d
Y
(•ui) uol;elldlMd
a
r?i N r r
o c
t i
CL
N
?I
?I
q?
Q:
? Io
? U
N
III
'co
I
N O N 0 ate- N N N
? i
(•ul) je4empunoig o; y;dea

?L Ff

APPENDIX B
SITE PHOTO
30

i
i

I

t ti

i
I
a
j

1
i

I

? Photo 1:

1999

Ridge Site, looking West
U-608

f

4

t
4

Photo 3: Horsepen Creek site, looking NW
1
1
1
t
1
1
Photo 5: Horsepen Creek site, tree in plot 1
1
H? ' r
1 Photo 7: Horsepen Creek site, at plot 4

U-608 ;t ?:

MEMO - HYDROLOGY AND HYDRIC SOIL DEVELOPMENT AT
HORSEPEN CREEK MITIGATION SITE

33

4i

?I

0
J
u
0
E
n
D
I
'J

J
i
I
k
n
It
I
s w STATE o
STATE or NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES H. HUNT JR. 11.0. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID NICCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
December 8, 1999
Memorandum To: Gordon Cashin., Unit Head
Natural Systems Unit
From: Chris Murray, P.W.S
Natural Systems Unit
Subject: Evaluation of hydrology and hydric soil development at the
Horsepen Creek mitigation site in Guilford County (TIP No.
U-608).
The purpose of this memo is to address the current status of hydrology and hydric
soil development at the Horsepen Creek mitigation site. Horsepen Creek is a 30.07 ac
mitigation tract located in the northeast quadrant of the Fleming Road and Bryan
Boulevard Extension intersection in Greensboro, Guilford County. This mitigation tract
is largely contained in the floodplain of Horsepen Creek, a moderate-sized perennial
stream. The mitigation site has been highly modified by development activities in the
last half-century. A 1951 topographic map indicates that the property and its headwater
area were undisturbed by development. During that period, the tract was used as a
pasture and was cut for hay. This use apparently stopped in 1972 to 1973 when a swim
club was constructed on fill material placed in the floodplain of Horsepen Creek. At that
time, hydrologic modifications were made in the floodplain to drain the development.
Construction of the Horsepen Creek mitigation site was initiated by the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) in 1994.
Hydrology
Historically, wetlands on the tract were created by surface water flow through the
floodplain. Prior to development at the site, it was drained by a large tributary to
Horsepen Creek on the edge of its floodplain.
The natural hydrology at the site was initially impacted and altered by
surrounding development to the south (including housing and impoundment construction)
in the late 1950's and the construction of the swim club in 1972-1973. During
construction of the swim club, the hydrology of the site was modified as follows:
0
E6
• The swim club was built upon fill material placed in the floodplain.
• An additional channel was excavated off of the large, existing tributary on the edge of
the Horsepen Creek floodplain. This ditch was constructed to the southwest of the
swim club and served to divert water from the streams and impoundments to the
south directly to Horsepen Creek and to keep the swim club site well drained.
• The large, tributary to Horsepen Creek located on the edge of the floodplain was
obliterated and a new clannelized ditch was constructed near its original location.
A hydrologic analysis that was conducted by the NCDOT before the construction
of the mitigation site determined that flooding from Horsepen Creek would be
insufficient to produce wetland conditions over most of the floodplain. To meet the
hydrologic requirements outlined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers IVetland Delineation
Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987), the hydrology of the site was modified as
follows:
• The ditch that was constructed to the southwest of the swim club was blocked in two
areas to allow water to be redirected into the mitigation site and not into Horsepen
Creek.
w • A new shallow 2 ft base ditch was constructed where the above-mentioned ditch
enters the mitigation site; it carries a large amount of the water entering the site from
upslope to the south. Here, a small berm was constructed on the north side of the
ditch to encourage flow to the east and prevent flow to Horsepen Creek.
• The new channelized ditch constructed near the original location of the tributary to
Horsepen Creek was blocked at its input into the'mitigation site with an earthen berm.
A rock weir was constructed along the ditch near its confluence with Horsepen Creek
to prevent scour. This would also allow some of the water to remain on the
mitigation site instead of being transferred to Horsepen Creek.
• A new ditch was created along the south-central property boundary. This ditch
receives runoff from land across Bryant Boulevard to the southeast via two pipes that
were completed during the construction of Bryant Boulevard. Water from this source
now enters the mitigation site along the south-central property boundary where it can
spread out and seek a flow path through the mitigation site.
• In late 1995, it was determined that too much water was standing on the site. Some
erosion devices were removed to help the area drain. This was partially successful in
draining some of the standing water. Upon further consultation, it was decided to
raise a portion of the mitigation site to an elevation of 766.5 ft.
At the time of the construction of the mitigation site, water from the wooded and
undeveloped land to the south and east would spread out subsurficially or by overland
flow down slope to the channelized ditch. However, this area is now being fully
I

converted to a housing development. According to Mr. Ken Cook (City of Greensboro
Stormwater Services Department), approximately 20 ac of the 40 ac in this area will be
impervious surface. Some water from the site will travel down slope to the channelized
stream. However, all water from the impervious surfaces will be directed to one
permanent water quality pond. Here, water will travel through a riser and a pipe and be
discharged to the mitigation site through a permanent riprap/fabric energy dissapator.
This will affect the overall hydrologic input at the site as most of the water from land to
the south and east will now enter the mitigation site at one location. This will reduce the
amount of water that will be present in the extreme southeastern portion of the mitigation
site.
Mr. Cook stated that the developers were instructed to keep a valve closed on the
riser, which would preclude sediment from entering the energy dissapator. He stated that
during a recent site visit, the valve was open, resulting in a sediment discharge into the
mitigation site. Water samples collected in the channelized ditch by the Stormwater
Services Department indicated that the development site was in violation of sediment and
erosion control standards. This developer is now under a standing Notice of Violation for
sediment and erosion control. The developers were subsequently informed that they
must now receive permission from the Stormwater Services Department to open up the
valve. Currently, the site appears to be in better condition; however, sediment from the
development has traveled through the energy dissapator and is deposited in the mitigation
site.
Soils
According to the Soil Survey of Guilford County (1977), four soil series are
located at the site. These include Chewacla sandy loam, Congaree loam, Mecklenburg
sandy clay loam and Madison clay loam. These soils are discussed below:
• Chewacla sandy loam: This nearly level, somewhat poorly drained soil is located on
long, flat areas parallel to major stream in floodplains. Permeability is moderate and
the depth to the seasonal high water table is about 0.5 to 1.5 ft in late winter and early
spring. This soil is commonly flooded for brief periods. At the project site,
Chewacla sandy loam is restricted to the western portion of the floodplain near
Flemming Road. Chewacla sandy loam is a non-hydric soil with inclusions of hydric
Wehadkee silt loam on the outer edges of depressions.
• Congaree loam: This nearly level, well drained soil is on long, narrow floodplains.
Permeability is moderate and the depth to the seasonal high water table is about 2.5 to
4 ft in late winter and early spring. This soil is frequently flooded for brief periods.
At the project site, Congaree loam is restricted to the central and eastern portion of
the floodplain. This is a non-hydric soil.
• Mecklenburg sandy clay loam is a well drained soil on broad, smooth interstream
divides on uplands. Permeability is slow and the seasonal high water table is at a
depth of more than 6 ft. This is a non-hydric soil. At the project site, Mecklenburg

i
sandy clay loam is restricted to the southern- and eastern-most portions of the
mitigation site.
• Madison clay loam is a well drained soil on long, narrow upland side slopes adjacent
to streams. Permeability is moderate and the seasonal high water table is at a depth of
more than 6 ft. This is a non-hydric soil. At the project site, Madison clay loam is
restricted to the southern-most portion of the mitigation site.
Staff from NCDOT conducted a soil investigation at the mitigation site in
February 1993. This investigation was conducted to specifically locate and map areas of
hydric soil, non-hydric soil, and fill material. Based on site-specific information, almost
50% of the site consisted of Cewacla and Congaree soils. These soils occur parallel to
the creek except where disturbed by a sewer easement. The remainder of the site consists
of Wehadkee soils. The location of this hydric soil is consistent with the original
drainage pattern, as depicted on a 1951 topographic map.
A wetland delineation was conducted at the site on June 9 and 15, 1993 by
NCDOT biologists Randy Turner and Gordon Cashin. The delineation was conducted
using the field delineation method outlined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). A soil and gravel road, sanitary
sewer line, and the swim club were present at the site. However, the eastern two-thirds of
the site was flat enough to function as a floodplain of Horsepen Creek. Overbank
flooding from the creek was evident here, as drift lines were observed throughout the
floodplain. The site was dominated by large numbers of green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica) and box elder (Acer negundo), species which are known to be dispersed
by riverine dynamics. At the time of the site visit, the soils tended to be reddish-brown in
the upper 1 ft. The predominant soil type was sandy loams; however, silts and clays were
evident in the more alluvial portions of the site.
Four wetlands (totaling 1.9 ac) were identified in the field (HP-1 through HP-4).
The soils at the wetlands were described as brownish with brownish-gray mottled areas
(likely Wehadkee inclusions) in the lower portions of the 1 ft profile. The presence of
oxidized rhizospheres, estimated to occupy at least 5% of the soil matrix, was the basis
for concluding that the hydrological criterion was satisfied.
HP-1: This was a small wet meadow with surface water present in a few locations.
Vegetation was dominated by herbaceous plants with woody vegetation existing as
seedlings and saplings. Dominant species located here included box elder, green ash,
buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), Joe-pye weed (Eupatorium fistulosum),
goldenrod (Solidago spp), sorrel (Rumex sp.), knotweed (Polygonum pennsylvanicunt),
rush (Juncus effitsus) and mixed sedges (Carex sp., etc.).
HP-2: This was a large wetland scrub-shrub-herbaceous wetland adjacent to
Horsepen Creek. It apparently had been impacted by the construction of the sewer line
and swim club. Little or no canopy existed here. Dominant plants located in this wetland
u
Q
l ,
included box elder, green ash, black willow (Salix nigra), bullrush (Scirlms sp.), rush, and
knotweed.
HP-3: This was a very small, forested wetland pocket located east of the former
swim-club. Plant species located here included green ash, box elder, black willow, silky
dogwood (Cornus amomum), buttonbush, cattail (Typha latifolia), rush and monarda
(Monarda sp.).
HP-4: This moderate-sized scrub-shrub-herbaceous wetland was a wet meadow
punctuated with a sparse canopy of box elder and green ash. The majority of the site was
dominated by silky dogwood, buttonbush, wild rose (Rosa sp.), poison ivy
(Toxicodendl'on 1'adicans), blackberry (Rubes sp.), false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica),
red maple (Ater rubrum) and impatiens (Impatiens canadensis).
The contractor for the mitigation site started the removal of material from the
mitigation site on September 12, 1994. Grading was completed during October and the
site was seeded on November 3, 1994. Shortly after the seeding, the site was flooded due
to heavy rains and had been covered with 1 to 2 ft of water. Officials from the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) suggested that some of the erosion control devices
be removed to help the area drain. The removal of the devices was completed on
December 21, 1994 and was partly successful in draining the standing water. It was later
suggested to raise the elevation of the site to achieve the site's success criteria.
a Additional discussions with the USACE were held on March 27, 1995. It was
decided that the first step would be to dry the site out so the elevation could be raised
slightly. The hydrologic regime at the site was temporarily altered so a portion of the
mitigation site could be raised to an elevation of 766.5 ft. Consequently, a ramp was
constructed off Bryan Boulevard to deliver additional fill in this area. Apparently, some
of the fill for the ramp and equipment staging area could not fully be removed from the
mitigation site. This has resulted in the formation of an area approximately 1.3 ac in size
located along the southern property boundary adjacent to Bryan Boulevard that is too
high and does not receive any flooding. Currently, a very small isolated depression is
located here; however, its source of hydrology is rainwater and surface water flow down
the steep side slopes of Bryan Boulevard. It is possible that this area be graded down to
an elevation that will receive surface water flow from the shallow 2 ft base ditch and the
new ditch that was created along the south-central property boundary. This may allow
this area to meet the hydrologic parameters outlined in the 1987 Cops of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987).
A general field reconnaissance at the mitigation site was conducted by NCDOT
Natural Systems Specialists Chris Murray, Jared Gray and Shannon Simpson on April 7,
April 9, April 22, June 8, June 17, June 18, July 2, November 4, and December 2, 1999.
The purpose of the investigation was to determine the current status of hydric soil
development at the site.

u

6
hydric soils develop under conditions of saturation, flooding or ponding long
enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part.
Typically, hydric soils exhibit recognizable characteristic morphologies that develop
from repeated periods of saturation and/or inundation for more than a few days.
Saturation or inundation combined with anaerobic microbial activity in the soil causes a
depletion of oxygen. This anaerobiosis promotes the accumulation of organic matter and
the reduction, translocation and/or accumulation of iron and other reducible elements.
These processes result in characteristic morphologies which persist in the soil during both
wet and dry periods, making them useful for identifying hydric soils (Field Indicators of
Hydric Soil Development, USDA, 1998). At the Horsepen Creek mitigation site,
indicators related to iron and manganese depletion or concentrations in the upper soil
profile were primarily used to identify hydric soil development. Six sites were identified
as containing hydric soil components (note: Site 2 has been separated into three portions
due to frequency of flooding and changes in community type).
2 Site 1
Acreage: 0.07 ac
Community Type: isolated hardwood depression
Dominant Plants: soft rush (Juncos effusus), sedge (Carex sp.), black willow (Salix
nigra), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanicus), tear thumb (Polygonum sagittatunt), swamp
rose (Rosa palustris), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), elderberry (Sambucus
canadensis), silky dogwood (Corpus amwman), and sedge (Cyperus strigosus).
Hydrologic Indicators: inundation and saturation
Sources of Hydrology: rainfall, stormwater runoff, shallow groundwater flow/discharge,
and surface water flow down the steep side slopes of Bryan Boulevard
Soil Profile:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Color Mottle Abundance Texture, etc.
(inch) and Contrast
0-1 2.5Y4/2 l OYR 4/3 common, distinct clay loam
1-4 2.5Y 4/2 5YR 4/4 common, distinct sandy clay loam
4-8 5YR 4/6 2.5Y 4/2 common, distinct clay loam
8-12+ 5YR 4/6 Gley 4/1 5PB many, prominent sandy clay loam
Comments: The site has exhibited standing water throughout the year. Juvenile fish
were observed in the wetland during the last site visit. This site was not identified as a
wetland in 1993. This site likely has received more water since the delineation in 1993
which has resulted in the formation of hydric soil components throughout the profile.
Site 2A

Acreage: 0.5 ac
Community Type: isolated herbaceous community
Dominant Plants: aster (Aster sp.), sedge (Cyperus strigosus), sedge (Carex sp.),
woolgrass (Scopus cyperinus), buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), black willow
(Salix nigra), silky dogwood (Corpus anionuap), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvapicus),
seedbox (Ludwigea sp.), and tear thumb (Polygonum sagittattan).
Hydrologic Indicators: inundation and saturation
Source(s) of Hydrology: rainfall and surface water flow from shallow 2 ft base ditch

Soil Profile:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Color Mottle Abundance Texture, etc.
(inch) and Contrast
0-1 2.5Y 4/2 clay
1-5 IOYR 6/6 IOYR 4/2 many, distinct clay
5-12 7.5YR 5/6 5YR 5/8 many, distinct clay, ox. rhizospheres
12+ 2.5Y 5/2 5 YR 5/8 common, distinct clay
Comments: This herbaceous-dominated site is a portion of a larger area (including Sites
2B and 2C) located along the shallow 2 ft base ditch that was excavated in the central
portion of the tract. The source of the water in this site is rainfall and the series of stream
channels and impoundments to the south and upslope of Bryan Boulevard. Once the
water enters the mitigation tract through a concrete pipe, it spreads out in Sites 2A, 2B
and 2C. A small berm is located along the north side of the base ditch, which restricts the
amount of water that enters this particular portion of site 2.
Site 2B
Acreage: 3.4 ac
Community Type: herbaceous community
Dominant Plants: common cattail (Typha latifolia), soft rush (Juncos effusus), black
willow (Salix nigra), panic grass (Panicum sp.) and wool grass (Scirpus cyperinos).
Hydrologic Indicators: inundation and saturation
Source(s) of Hydrology: rainfall, surface water flow from shallow 2' base ditch and
surface water flow from ditch along south-central property boundary.
Soil Profile: (Note: two soil profiles are presented at this area.)
Sample collected adjacent to 2 ft base ditch near well 10
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Color Mottle Abundance Texture, etc.
(inch) and Contrast
0-2 Gley 3/1 10Y silt loam
2-12+ 7.5YR 5/6 2.5YR 4/6 few, distinct silt loam
Gley 4/ N few, distinct
Sample collected adjacent to perimeter near well 8
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Color Mottle Abundance Texture, etc.
(inch) and Contrast
0-1 2.5Y 4/2 silt loam
1-6 7.5 YR 4/4 2.5 YR 4/8 few, distinct clay
6-11 5 YR 5/6 2.5 Y 4/3 few, prominent clay
11-12+ 5 YR 5/6 2.5 Y 4/2 few, prominent clay
Comments: This herbaceous-dominated site is a portion of a larger site (including Sites
2A and 2C) centered along the shallow 2' base ditch that was excavated in the central
portion of the tract. The source of the water in this site is the series of stream channels
and impoundments to the south and upslope of Bryant Boulevard and the ditch located
along the south-central property which conveys runoff from land across Bryant
Boulevard to the southeast. As water enters this site, it is concentrated near the deeper,
central portion near the channel. As a result, the soil profile located near the channel in
the central portion of the site exhibits greater reduction than the soil profile at the
periphery of the site, which is only occasionally flooded. However, it is important to note
Q

that only the extreme top portion of the soil profile is developing hydric conditions. This
site contains portions of Wetlands HP-2 and 1-I11-4, which were delineated in 1993.
Site 2C
Acreage: 2.1 ac
Community Type: hardwood community
Dominant Plants: sugar maple (Ater saccharin), red maple (A. rubrtnn), box elder (A.
negundo), American elm (Uhnus americana), silky dogwood (Corpus cn lonnun), false
nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), wool grass (Scirpus cyperinus), sedge (Carex sp.), water
horehound (Lycopus virginicus), swamp rose (Rosa palustris), panic grass (Panicunt sp.)
and swamp chestnut oak (Ouercus michauxii).
Hydrologic Indicators: inundation, saturation, water marks and drift lines
Source(s) of Hydrology: rainfall, surface water flow from shallow 2 ft base ditch and
surface water flow from ditch along south-central property boundary. At this site, the
ditches are not recognizable, as the water has spread out throughout this portion of the
mitigation tract. Numerous large, dead trees are located in this area. These may have
been trees that could not tolerate the introduction of excess water in this area of the
mitigation tract
Soil Profile:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Color Mottle Abundance Texture, etc.
(inch) and Contrast
0-2 2.5 Y 4/2 5 YR 5/8 common, distinct clay, ox. rhizospheres
2-6 2.5 Y 4/2 7.5 YR 5/4 common, distinct clay
6-11 2.5 Y 4/2 clay
11-12+ 2.5 Y 4/2 7.5 YR 5/4 common, distinct clay
Comments: At this point in Site 2, the channels that carry water do not exist, as the water
spreads out and seeks a course toward Horsepen Creek. The majority of this site did not
exhibit hydric characteristics when the site was delineated in 1993. However, the input
of hydrology from the three sources has resulted in the development of hydric soil
throught the upper 12 in. The presence of rack lines and water stains indicates that water
is present at the site for much of the year. This portion of the mitigation site was
relatively undisturbed during construction.
Site 3
Acreage: 0.04 ac
Community Type: isolated herbaceous community
Dominant Plants: aster (Aster sp.), tear thumb (Polygonuan sagittatum), sedge (Carex
sp.), soft rush (Jupcus effusus), sweet gum (Liguidambar styraciflua) and green ash
(Fraxipus pennsylvapicus)
Hydrologic-Indicators: saturation
Source(s) of Hydrology: rainfall and overbank flooding
?4
LI

Soil Profile:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Color Mottle Abundance Texture, etc.
(inch) and Contrast
0-1 2.5Y 4/2 sandy loam
1-5 2.5 Y 5/2 7.5 YR 4/6 common, prominent clay loam
5-12+ 2.5Y 5/2 2.5 Y 3 /4 common, prominent clay loam, mg concret.
Comments: This isolated site is located in the footprint of wetland HP-2 which was
delineated in 1993. It exhibits hydric soils throughout the upper profile. Significant
portions of wetland HP-2 no longer exist at the site. This may be attributable to the
altered drainage pattern of the mitigation tract.
Site 4
Acreage: 0.04 ac
Community Type: isolated herbaceous community
Dominant Plants: Japanese grass (Allicroslegium vnninewn), panic grass (Panician sp.),
tear thumb (Polygonran sagittatum), aster (Aster sp.), black willow (Salix nigra) and box
elder (Ater negundo).
Hydrologic Indicators: saturation
Source(s) of Hydrology: rainfall and overbank flooding
Soil Profile:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Color Mottle Abundance Texture, etc.
(inch) and Contrast
0-4 10 YR 4/3 7.5 YR 4/6 few, prominent fine sandy loam
4-12+ Gley 6/1 LOGY 7.5 YR 4/6 common, prominent clay
Comments: This isolated site is a located in the footprint of wetland HP-2 which was
delineated in 1993. It exhibits hydric soils throughout only a portion of the upper profile.
Significant portions of wetland HP-2 no longer exist at the site. This may be attributable
to the altered drainage pattern of the mitigation tract.
Site 5
Acreage: 0.3 ac
Community Type: alluvial hardwood community
Dominant Plants: water horehound (Lycopus virginicus), violet (Viola sp.), sedge (Carex
sp.), wild garlic (Allium vineale), box elder (Ater negundo), and American elm (Ulmus
americana)
Hydrologic Indicators: saturation, inundation and drift lines
Source(s) of Hydrology: rainfall, overbank flooding and surface water flow from shallow
2 ft base ditch and from ditch along south-central property boundary only during periods
of heavy flow (i.e. winter and spring). During periods of heavy hydrologic input,
standing water was observed over certain areas located within the western portion of the
mitigation site. This site was often saturated during the growing season. However, it was
observed under water during Winter 1998-1999.

10
Soil Profile:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Color Mottle Abundance Texture, etc.
(inch) and Contrast
0-1 2.5 Y 4/2 clay
1-5 2.5 Y 5/2 5 YR 5/6 common, distinct clay
5-12+ 5 YR 5/6 2.5 Y 5/3 few, prominent clay
Comments:
This area did not exhibit hydric characteristics when the site was delineated in 1993.
However, the input of hydrology from the three sources has resulted in the development
of hydric soil throught the majority of the upper 12 in. The presence of drift lines
indicates that this site is flooded for portions of the year. This portion of the mitigation
site was undisturbed during construction.
Site 6
Acreage: 0.01 ac
Community Type: isolated scrub-shrub-herbaceous community
Dominant Plants: green ash (Fraxifius pennsylvanicus), box elder (Ater negundo),
American elm (Uhnus amer•icana), black willow (Salix nigra) and silky dogwood
(Corpus amo1niun)
Hydrologic Indicators: saturation
Source(s) of Hydrology: rainfall and overbank flooding
Soil Profile:
0-1 2.5Y 4/2 clay
1-4 2.5 Y 511 10 YR 4/6 common, distinct clay, ox. rhizospheres
4-8 10YR 5/2 l OYR 4/6 common, distinct clay, ox. rhizospheres
8-12+ 7.5 YR 4/6 1OYR 5/2 few, distinct clay
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Color Mottle Abundance Texture, etc.
(inch) and Contrast
Comments:
This isolated site is a located in almost the exact footprint of wetland HP-4 which was
delineated in 1993. This part of the mitigation site was undisturbed during construction.
It exhibits hydric soils throughout only a portion of the upper profile.
An additional site is located along the southern property boundary of the
mitigation site. It has not developed hydric soils but has been observed as being
inundated through most of the previous year. It is described below as Site 7:
I
41
Site 7
Acreage: 0.04 ac
Community Type: isolated herbaceous community
Dominant Plants: broomsedge (Andorpogon sp.), soft rush (Juncus effirsus) and wool
grass (Sch pus cyperinus)
Hydrologic Indicators: saturation and inundation
Source(s) of Hydrology: rainfall and surface water flow down the steep side slopes of
Bryan Boulevard

H Soil Profile:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Color Mottle Abundance Texture, etc.
(inch) and Contrast
0-12+ 7.5 YR 5/8 7.5 YR 2/2 few, distinct clay
Comments:
Tadpoles have been observed in this site on several occasions throughout the year. At
this time, it has not developed hydric soils.

9

r

,.. STAI[
4
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
Mr. Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road
Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Dear Mr. Alsmeyer:
January 29, 2001
JX1 3 0 2001
DAVID MCCOY
SECRETARY
Subject: 2000 Annual Monitoring Report for the Horsepen Creek/Oakridge Road
Wetland Mitigation Sites, Guilford County
Please find enclosed the 2000 Annual Monitoring Report for the Horsepen
Creek/Oakridge Road Wetland Mitigation Sites, Guilford County
This report details the hydraulic monitoring activities over the past year at the site. Per
the attached e-mail from Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE Wilmington, the Department will
wait to receive written comments from the regulatory and resource agencies 30 days after
receipt of the reports. A meeting to discuss any outstanding issues on a site by site basis
will be scheduled for March 8, 2001 at the Transportation Building in Raleigh.
If you should have any questions, please contact Mr. Randy Griffin, Natural Systems
Engineer, or Mr. Phil Harris, PE, Natural Systems Engineer, at [phone]. Thank
you for your continued support and cooperation.
cerel ,
l
V. Charl s Bruton, Ph.D.,
Assistant Branch Manager
Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
Cc: w/ attachment
file
Scott McLendon, USACE (1)
John Hennessy, NCDWQ (1)
David Cox, NCWRC (1)
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548 INEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH, NC
Tom McCartney, USFWS (1)
W/o attachment
Gordon Cashin, NCDOT
Subject: MIibation Monitoring Reports
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 17:10:14 -0500
From: Scott. [e-mail]. miI
To: [e-mail]. ne.us, John.Hennessy@ncmail. net, Ron. [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail]
CC: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Greetings,
As you are aware, NCDOT is in the process of sending the annual mitigation
monitoring reports out to the regulatory and resource agencies. Instead of
bringing our comments to a meeting with NCDOT as we have done in the past, we
have elected to provide our written comments to NCDOT for their review prior to
having any sort of meeting. If any outstanding issues remain after NCDOT has
had an opportunity to review our comments, we would plan to meet at the
Transportation Building in Raleigh on March 8, 2001.
As there is a time factor involved, we would like to provide our comments back
to NCDOT within 30 days of the receipt of the reports. To that end, a response
via e-mail is perfectly acceptable. Please provide your comments on these
reports to the appropriate NCDOT Project Manager with a copy to me in
Wilmington.
If you have any questions regarding this.message, I may be reached at
910-251-4725. Point of Contact at NCDOT is Randy Griffin.
Thanks,
Scott McLendon
1 of 1 01/18/2001 11:19 A
e
s ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2000
Bryan Boulevard Mitigation Sites
Guilford County
Project No. 8.2491101
TIP No. U-608
Prepared By:
Natural Systems Unit & Roadside Environmental Unit
North Carolina Department of Transportation
December 2000
E
d

t
L,-1
U
E
J
J
U

L
L'
G
D

L
r
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY ....................................................................................................
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................
1.1 Project Description ........................................................................
1.2 Purpose ......................................................................................2
1.3 Project
History ..............................................................................2
2.0 HYDROLOGY .......................................................................................
4
2.1 Success
Criteria ...........................................................................4
2.2 Hydrologic Description ...................................................................4
2.3 Results of Hydrologic
Monitoring ......................................................7
2.3.1 Site
Data ............................................................................7
2.3.2 Climatic
Data .....................................................................10
2.4 Conclusions ...............................................................................10
3.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................12
TABLES
TABLE 1 - 2000 HYDROLOGIC MONITORING RESULTS - HORSEPEN CREEK ..... 7
TABLE 2 - 2000 HYDROLOGIC MONITORING RESULTS- OAK RIDGE ROAD ........ 7
FIGURES
FIGURE 1 - SITE LOCATION MAP ...................................................................3
FIGURE 2 - WELL LOCATION MAP - HPC ........................................................5
FIGURE 3 - WELL LOCATION MAP - ORR .......................................................6
FIGURE 4 - 2000 HYDROLOGIC MONITORING RESULTS - HORSEPEN CREEK ...8
FIGURE 5 - 2000 HYDROLOGIC MONITORING RESULTS - OAK RIDGE
ROAD ...... 9
FIGURE 6 - 30-70 PERCENTILE GRAPH .........................................................11
C
0
i
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER CHARTS .......................................
F I`!

SUMMARY
The following report summarizes the monitoring activities that have occurred in the past
year at the Bryan Boulevard Mitigation Sites. Both sites, Horsepen Creek and Oak
Ridge Road, were constructed in 1996. Monitoring activities in 2000 represent the
fourth year of hydrologic monitoring. Hydrologic monitoring must be conducted until
success is demonstrated. Vegetation monitoring for both sites was discontinued after
meeting success for the 1999 monitoring year as stated in a letter from the Army Corps
of Engineers on June 26, 2000.
Horsepen Creek is monitored by four vegetation plots, ten groundwater gauges, one
surface gauge and one rain gauge. Problem gauges at the Horsepen Creek site were
replaced at the beginning of the 2000 growing season. Oak Ridge Road is monitored
with one vegetation plot, four groundwater gauges, and one rain gauge.
One major change in the hydrologic monitoring process is the installation of an infinity
rain gauge on the Horsepen Creek site. This gauge was installed because in the past
existing on-site rainfall gauges have proven unreliable. Daily rainfall recorded at a
Greensboro rain gauge, maintained by the NC State Climate Office will be obtained to
produce the 30-70 percentile graph. On-site rain data from the infinity rain gauge is
used for comparison on the groundwater gauge graphs.
Hydrologic monitoring indicates that the entire Oak Ridge Road site and practically the
entire Horsepen Creek site have met success criteria during the 2000 monitoring year.
Remediation efforts have proven successful at the Oak Ridge Road Site. All but one of
the Horsepen Creek groundwater gauges were successful for 12.5% of the growing
season. Gauge 6 malfunctioned for several months during the beginning of the growing
season. The surface water gauge has not shown appreciable surface water for most of
the growing season.
Based on the monitoring results from the 2000 season, NCDOT recommends that
hydrologic monitoring be discontinued on both the Horsepen Creek and Oakridge Road
sites.
PL_

a
0

1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
The Bryan Boulevard Mitigation Sites are located in Guilford County, adjacent to the
Bryan Boulevard Extension. Site 1 (Horsepen Creek) is located at the intersection of
Bryan Boulevard and Flemming Road; site 2 (Oak Ridge Road) is located near the
intersection of Bryan Boulevard and Old Oak Ridge Road (Figure 1). These two sites
provide 31.17 acres of mitigation to offset wetland impacts associated with project U-
608, the extension of Bryan Boulevard (COE ID # 199100369).
1.2 Purpose
Monitoring for both wetland hydrology and vegetation is required to demonstrate
successful mitigation. The following report describes the results of the hydrologic
monitoring during 2000 at the Bryan Boulevard Sites. Vegetation monitoring has been
discontinued.
1.3 Project History
January 1996
October 1996
March 1997
March - November 1997
September 1997
March - November 1998
August 1998
October 1998
Winter 1998
March - November 1999
October 1999
March - November 2000
Sites planted
Vegetation Monitoring (1 yr.)
Monitoring Wells Installed
Hydrologic Monitoring (1 yr.)
Vegetation Monitoring (2 yr.)
Hydrologic Monitoring - HPC Site (2 yr.)
Wells on Oak Ridge Site Removed
Vegetation Monitoring (3 yr.)
Remediation of Oak Ridge Road site
Hydrologic Monitoring - ORR Site (1 yr.)
Hydrologic Monitoring - HPC Site (3 yr.)
Vegetation Monitoring (4 yr.)
Hydrologic Monitoring - ORR Site (2 yr.)
Hydrologic Monitoring - HPC Site (4 yr.)
2

a
a
.l y 1
Hillsdale Lake Dam
y •),?_ "\ i ? tit i:, ( ,.. r r
11mtsutdlel,:k;•
i ;` 1 y 1
Lrt"Af I ,
{ i K)D '

t

J
•G <n!',am J it
i i
Foster Dam
1 E JrJGfwnCL,bLr{.
G nue!rn t wi l:Ar ,
dill/
i -.
l Y ! ? 3
? err ,rLrJa _,. ?
e 1
y1l
• ? Old Oakndbo Road (Site 2) L` / Jf, "k. T t t
iorsepcn Creek (Site I) ?,r`? •; ?,? ? ;
- ri rrr -' ,
a __._... \t---27410
1!r Ism,

Figure 1. Site Location Map

2.0 HYDROLOGY
2.1 Success Criteria
In accordance with federal guidelines
hydrology states that the area must
surface) by surface or ground water f
Areas inundated less than 5% of the
wetlands. Areas inundated between
classified as wetlands depending upc
vegetation and hydric soils.
for wetland mitigation, the success criteria for
be inundated or saturated (within 12" of the
)r a consecutive 12.5% of the growing season.
growing season are always classified as non-
5% - 12.5% of the growing season can be
n factors such as the presence of hydrophytic
The growing season in Guilford County begins March 26 and ends on November 6,
lasting 226 days. These dates correspond to a 50% probability that air temperatures
will drop to 28° or lower after March 26 and before November 6.' The optimum duration
for wetland hydrology is 29 consecutive days. In the event that the hydrologic success
criteria is not met during the first year at either site, hydrologic monitoring will continue
in successive years until the success criteria for each site has been met and
documented. Also, local climate must reflect average conditions in order for the
hydrologic data to be valid.
2.2 Hydrologic Description
Site 1, Horsepen Creek, is equipped with ten groundwater gauges, one rain gauge, and
one surface gauge (Figure 2) installed in March 1997. The automatic gauges record
daily readings of both depth to groundwater and rainfall throughout the growing season.
In the summer of 2000, an Infinity rain gauge was installed on-site to replace the
existing gauge. The site will be monitored until hydrologic success criteria is met.
Site 2, Old Oak Ridge Road, is equipped with four groundwater gauges and one rain
gauge (Figure 3). These gauges were removed in August of 1998 due to concerns that
the site required remediation. The gauges were reinstalled prior to the start of the 1999
growing season, following remediation activities.
Appendix A contains a plot of the water depth for each groundwater gauge and surface
gauge in 2000. Precipitation events are included as bars. Daily precipitation events
were recorded by the on-site Infinity rain gauge.
' Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Guilford County, North Carolina, p.50.

e
0
0
a
z
O
a
U
O
J
LIJ
cu
a
C7
N
W
CC
D
cu
LL
LO

u

J
ti
ol -it
-Tl '. a
1'-i b Ia,I, ? ?lll (? ? v O
W
ILL
S IL 1 Y," 7• p . it
Ali / t'
_.-?_ ?"'l.-jam-? -?? •-IJd}vj-'l.? -r \ /.1 •',
Ula
tic,
tv-

CD
`1
?dfl
A
9 2.3 Results of Hydrologic Monitoring
2.3.1 Site Data
The maximum number of consecutive days that the groundwater was within twelve
inches of the surface was determined for each groundwater gauge. This number was
converted into a percentage of the 226-day growing season. The 2000 results are
presented in Tables 1 and 2.
Table 1
2000 HYDROLOGIC MONITORING RESULTS - Hors en Creek
Monitoring
Gauge <5% 5%-8% 8%-12.5% >12.5% Actual % Success Dates
H-1 ? 100.0 Mar. 26 - Nov.
11
H-2 ? 100.0 Mar. 26 - Nov.
11
H-3 ? 63.7 Mar. 26 - Aug.
16
H-4 ? 19.5 Mar. 26 - May 8
H-5 V 11-4 Aug. 28 - Nov. 6
H-6* ? (9.3 \ Sept. 15 - Oct. 5
H-7 ? 19. Mar. 26 - May 7
H-8* ? 18.6 Mar. 26 - May 6
H-10 ? 58.0 Jun. 29 - Nov. 6
H-11 V 19.9 Mar. 26 - May 9
"Represents monitoring wells which were malfunctioning during the growing season.
Groundwater gauge number 6 malfunctioned for several months at the beginning of the
growing season. During the months of April and May gauge 6 did not read correctly.
The gauge was adjusted at the downloads for both months and the battery reinstalled
and seemed to be working again. In June the gauge was still exhibiting problems so its
battery was replaced and the download time reset. During the July visit gauge 6 was
successfully downloaded. Gauge number 8 malfunctioned at the end of the growing
season producing invalid data. It was reprogrammed during the October visit but
continued to display problems at the November visit. Difficulties with this well are
continuing to be investigated. The surface water gauge on the Horsepen Creek site
has not indicated appreciable surface water for most of the 2000 growing season.
7
ill
10-1
INI
141
U)
f-
J
U)
W
CC
J
a
U_
0
0
J
O
CC
2
O
O
O
N
4
W
It
Z)
0
LL
co
F-?

J
0

Z
W o o }

IL J Cr co
O 0 O
W C' 2 J

U) O O O

J >- CC
O S N O

O to r
O .? N S
S a

,n \ \ N
v to
(X) ?
?

e
e
0
LLJ
z
O
0
°a
ALL!
V
cl:
a
O
Vr r
r /? Y
...ry^ N~ 1?? I Ill mi
Jti V (?I I /?/^? / I V .a
?'•,, ,;?,? ? ?_ I•{?/ ,??}? it//?.?i o
4 c I °?1 I
?.
tit
Cl r? .2,
.11 tn
61
cc)
fem. ,// i` C? ..? ::.,. •. L' 1 ..'•?:'. ?;, .
H
J
U)
CC
J
U
O
J
LL
O
O
N
Lii
L LI
LL
OJ
O
0
LO
N
LLJ
0
D
Q
C7
cr-
w
Q W
o ?
Z a
Z
Z
() 0
0)

At the Oak Ridge Road site 3 of the 4 gauges met 100% of the growing season.
Gauge number 3 met and exceeded success criteria but displayed some problems
during the middle of the growing season. In July gauge 3 was pulled out and replaced.
During the August and September visits to the site it was discovered that problems
were occurring with the gauge's timing and it was reprogrammed. Gauge 3 was
successfully downloaded during the October site visit. When functioning properly the
gauge continuously showed water levels above -12 inches and most likely would have
met 100% of the growing season as well had it not malfunctioned.
Table 2
2000 HYDROLOGIC MONITORING RESULTS - Oak Ridge Road
Monitorin Gau e <5% 5%-8% 8%-12.5% >12.5% Actual % Success Dates
0-1 ? 100.0 Mar. 26 - Nov. 6
0-2 ? 100.0 Mar. 26 - Nov. 6
0-3 ? 32.7 Mar. 26 - Jun. 7
0-4 ? 100.0 Mar. 26 - Nov. 6
Figure 4 and 5 are graphical representations of the 2000 hydrologic data for Bryan
Boulevard. Gauges highlighted in blue met wetland hydrology for more than 12.5% of
the growing season. Gauges in red met hydrology between 8% and 12.5% of the
season while those in green met hydrology between 5% and 8% of the growing season.
2.3.2 Climatic Data
Figure 6 is a comparison of 1999 (winter only) and 2000 monthly rainfall to historical
precipitation for the area. The two lines represent the 30th and 70th percentiles of
monthly precipitation for Greensboro, NC. The bars are the monthly rainfall totals for
1999 (winter only) and 2000. The data was collected from the National Climatic Data
Center rain gauge in Greensboro; because of data availability, the 2000 rainfall
encompasses precipitation through November. The 2001 annual monitoring report will
include a 30-70 percentile graph with the monthly rainfall from the winter of 2000.
Monthly rainfall totals for 1999 and 2000 at the Greensboro monitoring station were for
the most part average or below average.
2.4 Conclusions
The Horsepen Creek site showed improved hydrologic conditions in 2000. Nine of the
ten gauges indicated saturation for more than 12.5% of the growing season. Much of
the data from gauge number 6, which is the only well that did not demonstrate success,
had to be discarded due to a malfunction.

10

t
Q
m
f..
d
rr
C
U
(D U
IL z
0
6 M O
m
.0 N
C
m '??RR
c V
L
m
L
u_

fflmmml
?.
?l a

6 r ?x

3

C U
?

U CL

CL O
C'7 .S ,.
O

;t

F.. .-

0
Z
U
0
U
U)
m
Q
75
L
C
C
7
T
co
a
Q
L
cv
0
LL
C
N
0
O
O
co
_ca
C
rn
rn
m
cV
C
cu
?I!
O
O
O
N
T
r
N O CO CD d' N O
T T
(•ui) uoilulid!OOJd

The remediation effort at the Oak Ridge Road site was successful. All four gauges met
and far exceeded the hydrologic requirements. Three gauges showed saturation for the
entire growing season.
4.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS/ RECOMMENDATIONS
Both sites met hydrologic criteria in 2000. Due to the huge success of the Oak Ridge
Road site and vast improvement of the Horsepen Creek site throughout the entire
growing season NCDOT recommends discontinuing hydrological monitoring.
12
i
0
rj
w
APPENDIX A
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER PLOTS
13
(a

d
d
V
C
d
H
O
(-ui) jolumpunoa0 0; 41dea
rn

0
00-AON-90
00-300-62
00-100-9L
00-300-80
00-i00- W
oo-des-vZ
N
d)
i
C7
tp N
D V
CO d
N
U)
I
c
c
a:

: l
(-ui) uoi;enid!OGJd
It M N r
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
N
a
Y
4)
O
V
C
N
b-
0
2
O
00-AON-90
00-300-62
00-400-ZZ
`a
00-300-9 L
nn-ion-Qn
N O N st ?D OD N N N N
i
(-ui) is4empunoj0 03 43dea

I_
t
i
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
M
Y
d
d
C
N
O
2
q'
(•ui) uoi;inidiaead
a) N
o
N O N cC T N N N
(•ui) jopmpunojE) o; 41dea

!? 1

LL
i
cr)

D C')

M
cli
cc
I
Y

l '
??F

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
f
1
1
1
1
1
Y
L
C
L
TO
i
d N O N ?} ?D 00 O N N N
i i ?
(•ui) aelempunoag o; 44dea
7
a:
d' I u
C7
y co
UUU
?
c
Cl)
T
co
C
i
1? ' I
(•ui) uoilevdiaeJd
d M N T O
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Ln
C
N
(•ui) uoiieiidio®ad
N
?t N O N t 0 w 0 N ? 00 w N N N
(•u.) jopampunojE) o; 43dea
U-
00
M
N
U)
co
C-
CU
co
r

i
i
co
C7
C
H
V
TO
i
(•w) uoi;eiidiDOM
lRr Cf) N o
y

cc
C'3
d
U
T

co
C
cri
N N N
(•ui) jo;ompunoaE) o; 41dea

Jk
L
N
L

d
0
pp-jdv-EZ
pp-jdd-9 ?
pp-jdd-6p
pp-jdd-zo
--- --- - -=---- - - - ----- pp-jow-9Z
? N O N CD QO O N ? w w O N d'
T T T T T N N N
(•ui) jopmpunoiD 04 y;dea

I
(-w) uopgjdiaeJd
It Co N T O

k
W
L
V
C
H
L
O
d N O N cD 40 O 't w w N N N
I I I 1 1
(•ui) joliampunoaE) 01 41dad
I
I
I
V

d
0 cr)
UJ
L
L
N
U)
I
C
co
a:
I
I.
(•ui) uoile4!dioad
? M N r' O
t
i
i
(T?
Y
V

00-Aew-LO
00-adv-0£
00
00-adv-£Z
00-jdv-9 t
00-adv-60
00-adv-ZO
- -- - -,- ---, --- ,- 00-JeW-9Z
q
?t N O N cO O N 0 w N N N
(-ui) ae;empunoaE) 03 41dea

Q i
i
i
O
_
d ?
L'
W
ao

N

N
co
c
a
r
4I i
i
1
i
?I
(-ui) uopinidioead
C7 N O

T
T
ASS'
V
E
(•ui) uope4jdi39Jd
It co N •- O
d
i
i
r
LU
9
U
W
cc
c
cc
i
i I
I
co
N
f
d' N O N ?' (D 00 O ? ? ? ? N N N
i ,
(•ui) jolumpunoaE) 01 43d®(3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
If-
CD
V
Y
m
0
N C N It 0 w O N it 0 w N N N
, i
(•ui) jolumpunoaE) o; y;daa

I i
r -
Q
Q
O

U-

1
d
N
? I I
i
i
III I ?
c
co
I

(•ui) uoipnjdioaJd
u, it M N r- O
t
N
0
O
d
Im
13
Y
t0
O
L
(•ui) uoij%!dl39Jd
N O N CO 00 O N v 0 w N N N
F i , i i
(•ui) jolumpunojE) 0141dea

N
m O
Q
Q
W
N
U)
C
cc

N
I
f ?
F,
f?
?I
1
li
;i
i

M
C7
0
E
Y
0
Lo
(-ui) uoi;e;idiaeJd
It cr) N O
oo-adV-Zo
-- - - ----- - - oo-aew-9Z
N O N (D W O N 'T (OW N N N
(-ui) ae;empunoaE) 01 y;dea

CD
o±
a:
0
d

0
0
N
W
N
C
Q
t
i
1
cc
O
cr.
d
CD
V
Y
t0
N O N (O CO O N d ?D CO O N er
I 1 1
T T T T T
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
(-ui) ae;ennpunojE) ol y;dea
00-unf`-L4
1"Y-VL
idd-EZ
idV-9 4
idV-60
idV-ZO
1gW-9Z
CD
Q
O
UQ
Q
W
U),
?a
D
I
?1

N
?E
{
+i
k
f
1
(-ui) uoite4idioead
L c*) N r- O
PMM
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES 13. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
February 2, 2000
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621
Attention: John Hennessy
Subject: Bryan Boulevard Mitigation Sites Annual Report for 1999--Evaluation of
hydrology and hydric soil development at the Horsepen Creek mitigation
site in Guilford County (TIP No. U-608).
Dear Sir:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation has recently submitted the
Bryan Boulevard Mitigation Sites Annual Report for 1999 (December, 1999). Appendix
C contained a memo describing the hydrology and hydric soil development at Horsepen
Creek Mitigation Site. Please find enclosed a map that corresponds with the above-
mentioned memo. If you have any questions, please call me at [phone] ext. 304.
Sincerely,
" C?
Chris Murray, PWS
Natural Systems Biologist
10 - 7 2000
/• u

• J I mro ? •r
/ a
/ • O
•
' •
Q
? ~ ?
w
/ • mN 3

0
\\ a_ (D
LL
z
•

• `

-
N

LLJ N V t

• X
z
F
i .
\ 1
°
C7
zF
z
?
? • •
LO :
?si

z
4- '
u
11
z C\j

l1J z c
LLJ
U $z
a "a
°
Z a o
x
W
r
W
W
cr-
O
-, 4 ,m 3
10 NIt A
(D ?%
3 .?
co `•? ?? ,\' X30
•V
4-
V)

e
.\ II
•
O
2
W
x
W
0

ti
N
? a
N
CL
' c
O
a
3
v
J
0
J

0
m
u m
_ m

N a Z Q W Z
Z
L7 Z
-' J F-O? J
r
? m
Q Z
Q I-
-
01 COQ -? W
Q? W - S W Z- w
S F Z !'

W ?-- ? O U - 3
3 4- r-
X L
?
71 Z N m o mw ww ?? w
W ,
w
O
a- F-
Z
S

r3
a W
?-
n X W
C w0 CD? O
j
U
W ~
w W 2 w Q
C w W
> W NJ W F-
?
w w r d
J
I
D L w
> z
F z

o
' w a ? w ?w
w O a
w d n v o no no CY n

Cn
1 ?
- -_ - ?.?
(90 3 YS) GVOY 9N/iY 7-4
v
a?
N