20011384 Ver 1_Complete File_20010917

/aS? M`?T?Eo
ptw?
Df l38`?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
April 14, 2005
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Transition Manager
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Q?@gaeN P
APR 1 9 2005
Dear Sir:
DENR -WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Subject: Gurley Wetland Mitigation Site, Primarily Associated with the Wilson Bypass (R-
1023 AB & B); Greene County
The purpose of this letter is to request that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) provide confirmation that the EEP is willing to provide compensatory mitigation for the
project, in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed July 22, 2003 by the
USACE, the NCDENR and the NCDOT. This request has become necessary due to current
deficits that exist at the above-mentioned site, which was acquired to provide compensatory
mitigation for the roadway project referenced.
This letter was prepared in August 2004, but after discussion with EEP management the
Department was advised that a formal request would not be required. Per the April 14, 2005
meeting between NCDOT and EEP, the Department has been advised to submit a formal request
for any deficits on closed mitigation sites.
The Department constructed the above mentioned mitigation site in March 1997 to offset
unavoidable wetland impacts associated with sections of the US 264 (Wilson Bypass). This
mitigation site has also been used to offset unavoidable wetland impacts for a few smaller
roadway projects. Some portions of the mitigation site have failed to meet the optimum
hydrology, as was required in the USACE 404 permits for the roadway construction projects.
The restored wetlands were delineated in June 2001, in order to inventory and document
successful areas of the site. Currently the post-construction monitoring has been completed per
the mitigation plan for this site. The Department has requested that the appropriate regulatory
agencies close out this site.
In a meeting on June 17, 2004, the Department presented the need to remedy the deficits at this
mitigation site to the EEP. At this meeting, all NCDOT mitigation sites that are currently in the
monitoring phase were discussed, as well as potential problems with some sites. Following the
post-construction monitoring, there are deficits at the mitigation site that need to be addressed in
order to bring the R-1023 AB & B roadway projects in to compliance, as is required by the
environmental permits. The specifics of the deficits regarding the wetland impacts/
compensatory mitigation requirements for this project are as follows:
• Wilson County, Coastal Plain Province
• Neuse River Basin, Cataloguing Unit: 03020203
• 0.9 Ac. of restored riverine wetland mitigation
• 12.18 Ac. of restored non-riverine bottomland hardwood wetland mitigation
• 16.31 Ac. of non-riverine bottomland hardwood wetland enhancement
These deficits are included in the seven (7) year Transportation Improvement Program
impacts that are currently being provided by the Department to the EEP.
Please send the letter of confirmation to Mr. Eric Alsmeyer (USACE Coordinator) at U.
S. Army Corps of Engineers Raleigh Regulatory Field Office (6508 Falls of the Neuse Road,
Suite 120, Raleigh, NC 27615).
In order to satisfy regulatory assurances that mitigation will be performed; the NCDWQ
requires a formal letter from EEP indicating their willingness and ability to provide the
mitigation work requested by NCDOT. The NCDOT requests such a letter of confirmation be
addressed to Mr. John Dorney of NCDWQ, with copies submitted to NCDOT.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Mr. Phil Harris at
715-1384.
Sincerely,
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.,
Environmental Management Director
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, USACE-Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Mr. Nicole Thompson, NCDWQ
Mr. David Franklin, USACE-Wilmington
Ms. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Chris Militscher, USEPA
Ms. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Neil Lassiter, PE, NCDOT Division Engineer
Mr. Philip S. Harris III, PE CPM, NCDOT-ONE
Mr. Randy Griffin Jr., NCDOT-ONE
micnaei r. rasiey, woven iui
wArF,9 William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
\O? Q North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
r
5: Division of Water Quality
-I
Q "C
June 15, 2005
Greene County
DWQ Nos. 980261 and 980395
Mr. Philip S. Harris, III, P.E., Manager
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
Office of Natural Environment
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
RE: Gurley Mitigation Site, Greene County, TIP No. R-1023WM
Dear Mr. Harris:
This correspondence is in reference to your letter dated July 7, 2004, regarding the Gurley Mitigation site located in
Greene County, North Carolina. This site is being utilized by the forth Carolina Department of Transportation as
compensatory mitigation for wetland impacts associated with the following projects:
R-525D, R-1023AB & B, B-3070, R-2719BA, R-252G, U-3472, R-1030 and R-2719BA.
By copy of this letter, we are notifying you that no further monitoring of the site will be required since the
construction and success criteria for the mitigation site has been met. However, it has come to the attention of the
Division of Water Quality that not all of the permit conditions for R-1023 AB & B have been met, specifically the
conditions requiring an additional 12.18 acres of Bottomland Hardwood Restoration and 18.88 acres of Bottomland
Hardwood Enhancement. Based on communication with Eric Alsmeyer of the US ACOE, NCDOT has discussed
with the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) the possibility of EEP providing the additional required
mitigation. NC DWQ respectfully requests a written description of the plan to provide the additional mitigation for
TIP R-1023AB & B and compliance with the permit conditions.
Thank you for your time and cooperation. If you have any questions, please contact Nicole Thomson at
919-715-3415.
ce ly,
LC
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
JEH/njt
cc: Wilmington District, US Army Corps of Engineers
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, US Army Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Field Office
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Chris Militscher, USEPA
Mr. Travis Wilson, WRC
NCDWQ Raleigh Regional Office
Mr. Jon G. Nance, P.E., Division 5 Engineer, 2612 N. Duke Street, Durham, NC 27704
Mr. Chris Murray, Division 5 Environmental Officer, 2612 N. Duke Street, Durham, NC 27704
Central Files
File Copy
Transportation Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699.1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: hftp://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
d? $IA7Fo
•? pMre?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPART MNT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
July 7, 2004
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
Raleigh Regulatory Office ACOE
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Re: Gurley Mitigation Site, Greene County, State Project No. 8.T340306, TIP No. R-
1023WM (R-525D, R-1023AB&B, B-3070, R-200113, R-271913A, R-252G, U-3472, R-
1030, R-2719BA), Action ID Nos. 199811126, DWQ Project Nos. 980261, 980395
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer:
As you are aware, the Department has monitored the Gurley Mitigation Site since its
construction in December of 1997. Located in Greene County, approximately 12 miles northeast
of Goldsboro, This 87.57-acre site provides riverine and non-riverine restoration and
enhancement with upland management. The Gurley Tract provides compensatory mitigation for
several roadway construction projects in the Neuse River Basin. Hydrologic monitoring gauges
were installed in the spring of 1998 and the site was planted January 1998. NCDOT proposed to
monitor the Gurley mitigation site for five years or until success criteria were met; both
hydrologic and vegetation monitoring were conducted each year. After each growing season,
annual monitoring reports were submitted to the appropriate regulatory agencies.
Hydrologic success criteria stipulated that the site must be inundated or saturated within 1.2-
inches of the surface for a minimum of a consecutive 12.5% of the growing season. The growing
season is 244 days in Greene County. The Annual Report for 2003 provides a summary of the
hydrologic data (the percentage of the growing season that saturation was indicated) at each
groundwater gauge location for the past five years of monitoring.
In June 2001, the Department re-evaluated areas of the site, where hydrologic success was
marginal or unsuccessful. A wetland delineation was performed throughout the site, as a
requirement by the resource agencies, to verify that the Department possessed successful
mitigation to address existing permit requirements relating to compensatory mitigation at the
site. The Army Corps of Engineers approved the delineation in June 2001. The confirmed
wetland delineation map that was produced from this exercise is included in the Annual
Monitoring Report. A more detailed analysis of this delineation and other site hydrologic
conditions is provided within each individual annual monitoring report.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] PARKER LINCOLN BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 2728 CAPITAL BOULEVARD
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBsITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598

After five years of vegetation monitoring, vegetation data for 2003 shows that the site has met
vegetative success criteria by yielding an average density of 486-trees per acre surviving. None
of the four vegetation zones had a survival density that was below the 5-year requirement.
Individual yearly monitoring data is provided within the annual monitoring reports submitted
between 1999 and 2003.
During the annual monitoring report meeting on April 29, 2004, NCDOT and resource agencies
agreed that the Gurley Mitigation Site could be closed and that monitoring could be
discontinued. NCDOT requests that the appropriate resource agencies provide documentation
stating that no further monitoring is required and that the site is closed. If you have any questions
about this project, please contact Mr. Randy Griffin at [phone].
Sincerely,
Philip S. Harris, III, P.E., Manager
PDEA- Office of Natural Environment
cc: Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ
Mr. Travis Wilson, WRC
Mr. Chris Militscher, EPA
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Neil Lassiter, PE, Division Engineer
RE: Mitigation Site Closures
imap://nicole.thomson%40dwq.denr.ncmail.net @ cros.ncmail.net:143/f...
Subject: RE: Mitigation Site Closures
From: "Alsmeyer, Eric C SAW" <Eric.C.Alsmeyer@ saw02.usace.army.mil>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 14:13:18 -0500
To: "'Nicole Thomson"' <[e-mail]>
Nikki:
Sorry I wasn't able to respond to you sooner. Trying to catch up after being gone for two weeks.
The agencies (vice DWQ) did agree to close out both Gurley and New Light. However, you need to know that both
of these sites have deficits as far as the acreage of particular wetland mitigation required by permits from each one,
versus the acreage that we have agreed is available at each site. NCDOT has said tentatively that they will take care
of the deficits for both sites through EEP; although they mentioned that only in the letter for New Light. I hadn't
thought about it until now, but I may hold off the "close-out" letter for these until we have verification about how the
deficits will be met.
I am attaching a copy of a previous close-out letter I sent last year, so you know what our's look like, but I will copy
you on the letters I send for Gurley and New Light.
Tell John H. he is derelict in his duty for not formally introducing you to me in the at least two meetings I have had
with you; therefore he doesn't get his creme-filled donuts (he'll understand). I apologize for not introducing myself,
but I'll do it the next time we're together.
Reply or call me if you have any questions.
Eric Alsmeyer
Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Tel: [phone], ext 23
Fax: [phone]
<http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/WETLANDS>
-----Original Message-----
From: Nicole Thomson [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 1:58 PM
To: Eric Alsmeyer
Subject: Mitigation Site Closures
Hi Eric!
My name is Nikki and I don't think we've been formally introduced.
actually left you a voice mail today too, stating much the same. I was
recently hired here at DWQ in Raleigh under the auspices of John
Hennessy and I will be handling Divisions 1-5.
I have 2 pieces of mail that are requesting Mitigation Site closures and
monitoring discontinuation. The sites are:
1 of 2 7/28/2004 5:50 PM
RE: Mitigation Site Closures
imap://nicole.thomson%40dwq.denr.ncmail.net @ cros.ncmail.net:143/f...
1) Gurley Mitigatino Site, Greene County -TIP R-1023WM (R-525D,
R-1023 AB& B, B-3070, R-2001B, R-2719BA, R-252G, U-3472, R-1030, R-2719BA)
2) New Light Creek Mitigation Site, Wake County -TIP R-2000WM
(R-2000 EA&EB)
I wanted to know how you felt about these projects and what the Corps
was planning to do? Also, John wanted me to remind you that he was not
at the monitoring meetings held in April since he was inconvenienced by
the birth of his son (his words, not mine ...LOL) I would also be
grateful if you could email me a copy of your response to either 1 or
all of these since I want to model DWQ's response after the Corps. This
is my first dealings with this type of request and I am unsure as to how
the letter should look. (John also has done none and suggested I ask
you for some guidance)
Thank you in advance! I'm sure I'll be talking to you again soon.
Sincerely
Nikki Thomson
Environmental Specialist II
DWQ, Wetlands Unit
Raleigh
[phone]
2 of 2 7/28/2004 5:50 PM
February 23, 2005
Regulatory Division
Action ID No. 19970095, Gurley Mitigation Site
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
N.C. Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Reference the April 29, 2004 meeting to discuss the 2003 mitigation monitoring reports,
and your letter dated July 7, 2004, requesting documentation that no further monitoring of the
Gurley Mitigation site in Greene County will be required, and that the site is closed. Your
recommendation stated in the 2003 monitoring report for the Gurley Mitigation Site was to
discontinue monitoring at this site, and the agencies concurred with this recommendation at the
meeting. Based on the monitoring report, we concur with your recommendation to discontinue
monitoring at this site and have determined that the construction and monitoring requirements of
the Gurley Mitigation Plan and the permit conditions for TIP'S B-3070 (AID 19981 l 128),
R-525D (AID 199705651), R-525G (AID 199821189), R-2001 B (AID 199705426), and U-3472
(AID 199820167) that refer to it have been satisfied.
However, the permit mitigation conditions for TIP R-1023 AB & B (AID 199820019)
that refer to the Gurley site have not been satisfied, since the conditions required an additional
12.18 acres of R?tt?mland Hardwood Restoration_and 1.8.88 acres of Bottomland Hardwood
Enhan .Pment than was provided at the Gurley Site. Based on my telephone conversation with
Randy Griffin of your staff on July 23, 2004, NCDOT has discussed with the North Carolina
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) the possibility that EEP will provide the additional
required mitigation. Within sixty days of the date of this letter, NCDOT shall send to the Corps a
written description of your plan for providing the required additional mitigation for TIP R-1023
AB & B and complying with the permit conditions.
With regards to the final disposition of the site, pursuant to the special conditions for
R-1023 AB & B, NCDOT shall convey the Gurley mitigation properties to a nonprofit
conservation organization or a natural resource agency that is willing to hold the areas in
perpetuity for conservation purposes, and which is acceptable to the Corps of Engineers. In
addition, the special conditions state that NCDOT shall not sell or otherwise convey any interest
in the properties used to satisfy mitigation requirements for the permit, to any third party, without
the express written consent of the Corps of Engineers. Therefore, the terms of any transfer of
this tract shall be coordinated with this office to ensure appropriate long-term management of the
Gurley Mitigation Site. Before the property is transferred, please provide this office with a draft
of a proposed long-term management agreement with the agency expected to accept the transfer
that clearly addresses the need to protect the wetland resources at this compensatory mitigation
site.
Should you have any questions, please call me at 919-876-8441, extension 23.
Sincerely, FILENAME:GURLEYMITCLOSEOUT
CESAW-RG-R/EA/cmc
-CESAW-RG-R/FILE
Z_? MAIL
Eric C. Alsmeyer
Regulatory Project Manager
Copy Furnished:
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
Transition Manager
Division of Ecosystem Enhancement
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

All
WBS ELEMENT: 34362.4.1 R 1023WM

w c o

o
? ? w C
o ?
? O m O O
m =

2 0
m N Vj
N
w o 0
Z

0
° ° °
O o

tai
H
b
1??yy
Z
o ?il?l 8
a ?o?
r
R mF?g
A n
a
.1.1.1YYY
,- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I
I I
I I
I Ilt?lll`t'?'\)I`,1 t)IIr;J ?\\l ? ?' l I \x r. f \` /? ?`\l, ,
It eS,
NO,
r* 1
Mr-
- '--------------I------- -L? r- 1
` ------- W-I
y
4to
y
aye
?yo
zp
bb

N
n
0
z

0
171

0
It
x
0

a
x ? a
7
8
tt
r
i
A. III

m
r _ I s? ?e
m -?
ca M
m coi O a yre a I v ?i? ?? 7T
33 Irl Z !A o y 1 w \? 1 Y
<
- °-- S?
a Az r ?( -
rn '"
r
g1l
;< r
A
m.,
m ,
I a $
zz
m g J y
S Eli
v
m
a
w
Fro
x
_ gr
?? m a
g woo
C a
r
r =I:
Lh
m ii u? yp
r
Z IMHl.. - -
m
m
Dx H
sO ?¦ o_
z - e D
O
O _
W ! `I "
t),>, v
-I (I
37
C
0
C l_.
m s' MAX. I= . srncirp
?_ g
feu
f€u=
a o
N
C
m m
r v
-G
? I K
D i
r
o I
z
-- --I-- +IQ
"M
z I
?
a
co i J
W
-i I
N
H
O
Z
1°I 2
z o0
Z
m1Ox\ /rte.. p z
•O^y aT - A O O O
mn O
Ap.m
m
N 111 D
in X Iw.l r
7
r
p? co N s
o
m
o m
o °
r
po mN
?S I I
I ? I
9
A

< ;c ;c

g m

>`
y

• `
`
I

m
g I
?p

gayy I I
L
mZ5 -?
I l?
n
a
m
m
m
3
m
N ! 1
D
Z
m 'D
r
D
Z

Qm>"_-101 !
Q
N=Qz?
ter.!
rro1T'm 7p
L^
N0Ta m my
A .-a
*0 T"
m
O AH• i
O r , O
N o? z
x 'O
o?
N•
O
i
,.?
Ito,
/ \ . \
tll
/ / / , II II i 1
100-
/
till/
I\ /' /' / \ \ + JIII 1
It/ I
III/I / /\r
_ o
I III \ a
I II O ?\
I /?\\ja \t''I I i ?\ ? /r )\??600rZ1• \) i/?a7, •? //
ISVO
It I
Zip
mmz
g 100 1
14.
• ! / `I, , `?1 / J 6°•610 /
li?' 1 \t
I \ / Ir . / - moo
\ \ \r i / / . / to / l / \m?n
ra o
\ \ / ///o I I ?-. 2t
CD W-4
03
1 y / / 11 I:,l?o
-cp
Miicxs / 1 I
mcoo" / ? T \ F- to ?l ill I I \ I
Amm°w J/ i rov° I A I IP o
a
1 oy / ma ?\ \\ 1< m it I4 ,
?? / ' ro m / \ 02 7 \ -I Ip /
/ • F6 \ D y "Jill J
ll /
I . m \ \ 1 / llil 1
mmz
coo
mg -4
macoa 17
r V ?aow r. I AWE
\ /1
r-a no
Oma?r
MM=
m .4
! J ?
It. 4-mnx 0-41 1
" - /?(+ )? \\ \?. `\ Aim \ \\\` \ Dto AN>
6210
1 _-_?_-II r \wrw-gym

1 ?
\ \ \ \ J 10'1 I
II I
/ II
sso

\ 1

\\ \?\ \ \ \ \ \°
\ l 1
1 \\ /l' ?), III 'l X010
/ w
?' \ `?
\\ 1
\
\\ \\ \ ( ?
1' \ \ IAN
?r ?n
^??
\
\ \
? \
_ \
,/
\? 1
\
\ In

\ ' \ I z?$ \
\ InipS(el

I
3
ZZ(0Q)CO)CY)WZZZ"" O
W V A IV tfr N 'ILI Co
o Vo 0 0o OOo1l Vo 9 -? N CU CC) Z
0 o 0 W. 1,
O C)r N N
0 M CQ 02
W -t 'O 10
aCpCf?N
NNlsgldrt> mC,C)W O
CO •A OD?WD?- 01(Q-tce - >
mmm D
0000000000"-
;a X1 ry w M m N /V m ?;N? N W
N CA "q -l 02 ca 0) w Z
opwpppw?VV 9, p Z
CD w OD -4
2-4-tgO!O ?
?p4
CO
D A
O
C) w
p C3
Z
O
0 11 m
M
w CO)
O `.?
CD ••
C)
.. co
V
A
W
L a
> I
Q
m
m 9 o Q Q M
m
?i z 3S$?' ?i g
m d z
m
? 11 S $ 9 9 ? z
g m o
'. H y V 9 z 2
o?
T
O Q
A
21

N ?
m
m
O
a D
m M
O
W ?
m ?
D
Z
A
m
>IG10"m
zmm ? /
m xN Z?.y
z°C
? M
> rr
?Y,?np !b p
H
N x? z
T
x?
o N
/ _ sT -tom ?1\
kv?
/
YOM
115
NN 'I
-120
. \ ``? ` \ \ \ -1`6 / \ / / 1 f I t \ IS \ m ° o?a + / \ \ \ ` ` _
01
\ '\ \\ \ _ ` ; /! I I I ?? a Uw5i v r -0148 1 1 / 1
/
\\ 1 Q? .\ `. 1 1 11 I/ O.P, V m o caol
10
\ \ \ \ . \ \ I\ \ I 1 1 I /
om v < omoc
_ \ \ \ \ \\\? \ \\ \ \ \\ \\ I I 1 1 / m?mrout A a/ < rm-mia
\ I / / v ¦mmro oal
/ / `\ `\ \ `\ \` \ \ `'ol \, `1 1 1 I I ` i I i 111 1 , - / i Call Nro / CDOWO '
/ -atmma+ I
'\ ` \ \ \ \ \ \ \1 / / 1 / 1 1 I I 1 I I c I } / v / '?roi / ' ?wvi I
1 \ \ \ \ \ ` J J1 l l / 1 !1? 1 1 \ \ I ° I 1/ ?D' / a'rOlpNm= I
,, \ ) \ \ Ir / / / ,\ 11 I 1 \ 1 / 1 o I
` II /i^/ / /, I I 1 // / ' \ 1 \ \ 1 / 1 1 I xOGr/ \\1
> 4. It
I l I? l / ? ? I n
+;I?111 ? 11 x'111 1 ? ? i iI/;\/ /j I 11 1 `\ \ \\ \?\`\ I /// `\\ \ji
J l r l l' \ 1 I S I 11 1 \` / . I\ 1 1 \ l J \ \ / /' ?\ rn
\ / ' 11 1 ' 11 1 1 w 1 '\ \ 1 ? \ ` ? 1 I \ ` 1 / rm-aio I i
/\ •.l 1 1 \\\ \` 1 \\ \ 1! 1 d I 1 / 1 I 1 1 \ 1 // Hil I m
\ \ 1 ?.1 .. ? ?-? •. \ ` \ 1 \ \ \ \ r 1 / r 71 I I I 1 / / / 1 r °?iavo+ i h'
,? ?\ ••\ \\ \11 1 I/ 1 I I w
\/ 1 1 "1 ? 1 I I 1
\ \ \\\\ r$\ \ . I i l\ I /

/
\ I
Wm 0 w(AWwwwCO) r ` - - - - _-'\ ` \\\ \\ ' ' ` ?I -'
` / i \\ IJ
' I
CO -•1 O w 0 -4 -4 OD 00 -1 O 1 1 , \
r -- \ \ \ 1 I \\ \ \ \ 1 ' \ .// 1
~
Vf-i
0H 7C NW NVW'V-i
iW(D01I4PH
O ?\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \` \ 1 \\ii/ ? \ \ \ ` `\
\
``
?" 1

z
m
Z
D \ \ 1 \
\ \ \ \
I \ \ 1
\\:
\ \
\ `
\ \
`
\ \ \
\
\\
\ \
I
0 \
\
\
\
\
\
\
\\ \ 8 J
(a m
n
?
D

Z zz \ \\ `\
\ `\ \ \ V'T
\\ \ ?\ \ 1 1
\ \i4
\\ \ \ \
\ \ `
`
`
ti
I
--I \
\
\
r
\ \ \ \
m \\ \ \ ` \\\ \ \ \ \ ? \ \
\
`
`
\
`
1
\
\
\
`
\
Z
4
00 V-1 VVVVZ a
\ \\
\
\
\ °
\
,
1 \\
,? `\
I
\
\
\

CJI 0000000
(71 an (31 (31 (Jti (71 37 \ \ ? \ \ \
\ \ \
` \
\
\ \
\
\
\
\
\ \
j -I
N2 -P W co N N - -I \ \ I x \" ` \ \
\ t I
\
0H O)O)OO)OCDX
H
1?N(AP
Pco ?/ \\ \ \ \
n
\\1
x
\ 1 \ \
I
. \\\ \ I
\
0 wi.) / \ \
\ 11
\\\
'
I /, I \ ?1
W
co OWWWW
CO (D W 00 Ol \
1
\ l
\

rc GRID T
KAD '83
I
Z
N
I' ? I I
Qa s?Ll m AQQE
m Q
m
m A D
o <? o g< 8 8?
? 8 ? v ? G G
m v m m m m
g m r

N m NNNNNN m
\
\`
'
w D WWWWWW D
\
????\\
. ` \

00 CD 000000
-1 OD 00 OD OD aD w M
t ` `?
y 1 : \
00 1-4 co co OD OD ccDy \
H I \ \ \ 1 \ /\; 2
O 7 0 - (D 00 0710 W
1
BP
g
? N ?

N
• j j .
gc Y? ?
m ? 1°n
Z
C
JI Cn N 0 000 N 4P
-.

I

=
I N ? O
i
i
Mi 11\Remediation_Planting2005Agn
¦
co
Q
o'
Q
to

/' ? lE 1
t / J
r•
(D (D
o3C)
a SL
..#
. . Z
505
I Q
r
lr? '3.
-
s??
p. lip A a N r
L .
Q v p
' ?3ygQ T ?Ir
° ° d
to
try z ° b
o ? ? d
lump
a -r
rN
C?
i
.O q [OHM
w ?O ?G ?O ?O ?0 ?O O r0 ?O ?O w
0 OO tv 0
o
? o
0
a ?
n 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 ? '?
O
H s ?s s s ?s ?s ?s ?s ?s ?s .3 .3 ?s .S „s .9 .s s
r
ILA
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTA
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
February 9, 2005
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of Neuse Road Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
4?"0
Dear Mr. Alsmeyer:
Subject: Remediation As-Built Report for Wiggins Mill Mitigation Site, Wilson
County, Tip Project No. R-1023WM, State Project No. 8.T340302
Please find enclosed the As-Built Report for the subject site. The Division 4
District Engineer responsible for administering the contract has certified that the site was
constructed according to construction plan sheets, with any exceptions noted in this As-
Built Report.
The following information has been included as part of the As-Built Report: 1)
As-Built Plan Sheets (with adjustments highlighted in yellow), 2) Remediation
Reforestation Planting Areas, 3) Reforestation Detail Sheet. The site will continue to be
monitored as described in the approved mitigation plan and associated permit
requirements.
If you should have any questions or require additional information, please contact
Mr. Randy Griffin at [phone]. Thank you once again for your continued support
and cooperation.
Sincerely,
Philip S. Harris, III, P.E., CPM, Manager
PDEA- Office of Natural Environment
Enclosures
cc: Ms. Nikki Thomson, NCDWQ, Raleigh (w/ attachment)
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington (w/o attachment)
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC (w/o attachment)
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] PARKER-LINCOLN BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 2728 CAPITAL BOULEVARD, SUITE 168
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBwE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
4A-
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS (w/o attachment)
Mr. Chris Militscher, USEPA (w/o attachment)
Mr. Randy Griffin, NCDOT-ONE
Mr. David B. Harris, PE, NCDOT- Roadside Environmental (w/ attachment)
.. y „.. STA7f o
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
August 20, 1999
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office -
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers }
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615-6814
ATTN: Mr. Eric Alsme er WETLANDS GROUP
y WATER QUALITY SECTION
NCDOT Coordinator -
Dear Sir:
Subject: Gurley Tract Mitigation Site, Greene County, State Project No. TIP No. R-
1023 WM.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to perform additional work
on the Gurley Tract Mitigation Site. During field visits conducted by NCDOT staff, it
was noted that several berm breaks along the Nahunta Swamp bank were eroding,
causing sediment to be released into Nahunta Swamp. It is hoped that modifications
made to these original breaks will reduce the erosion problem and stabilize the stream
bank. These proposed modifications were discussed in an on-site meeting with you on
August 3, 1999.
Currently, four breaks in the existing berm are eroding, creating wider berm breaks than
were originally constructed. Existing rip rap placed in these breaks has not prevented
further erosion, and there is a concern that too much water and sediment is entering
Nahunta Swamp
In order to curb the stream bank.erosion, NCDOT proposes to modify four of the existing
berm breaks. The modifications would consist of creating a v-ditch at each location,
lining each ditch with filter fabric, and covering each with Class B rip rap. Additional
matting will be placed alongside each ditch in order to increase bank stability until
natural vegetation returns. This work would not change the original invert elevations of
each break, but would strengthen the existing design. It is anticipated that NCDOT
Division 2 forces will conduct this work during fall 1999.
Please find enclosed photographs of the existing conditions of the Nahunta Swamp bank
as well as a detail of the proposed work. Details of the actual construction, as well as
plan view showing the locations of the new swales, will be included in the upcoming as-
built package for the mitigation site.
If you should have any questions, please contact Beth Smyre at [phone]. Thank
you for your continued support and cooperation.
Sincerely,
?O 4-
William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
0 Project Development &
Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: w/ attachment
David Franklin, USACE
John Hennessey, NCDWQ
w/o attachment
Phil Harris, NCDOT
Beth Smyre, NCDOT
Gurley Tract- site photos before Nahunta Bank work

Gurley Tract photos- Continued
C C O
to to
rn rn Z
Z

rn rn

m y
X
= Z
z
D r o
rn
ov to
7 rn co
n ? rn ..

C
Z
N
v O CA

n O o0

o C

°D
rn

C ?
O

N H
Z
?'
-
o O

rmr rn
-1 Z
D
rn
r
N

Z
O ?
U C I
?
Q
X
j opc
x-

67
I H ?
,
?C I z O
o
m m o ok
H /1

!U(U
cu r-
H I
C7 Im O co

o m
m
v
H
C)
2
N
a

D
\? i
m o
a m
m T
n m
? m
? z z
o ?+
H
II s
o
a in
o =
m
I 2 ?
O
O
n o
a ti
r
1 N
i m
m
N
4F
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Ja mes & Hunt, Jr., G ove mor
Jonathan & Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr:, P.E., Director
May 2, 1997
MEMORANDUM
To: David Robinson
NC DOT
Through: John DornFoW\
From: Eric Galamb
Subject: Gurley Mitigation Plan
Nahunta Swamp
Greene County
? An04
Ink
C) EE [**-*J F1
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has reviewed the January, 1997 mitigation plan, undated
drawings, and the February 12, 1997 FAX for the Gurley Mitigation site in Greene County. We
offer the following comments:
A) The Gurley mitigation site is in Hydrologic Unit # 03020203 (a portion of the Neuse River
basin). Therefore, the service area for this project should be restricted to this Hydrologic
Unit.
B) The document states on page 10, "At no time during this study has there been evidence of
Nahunta Swamp water levels topping the adjacent levee/berm, despite the passage of two
hurricanes through the region...". This suggests that there is a need to either remove the
berm or create large breaks in it for water quality unprovement to be realized. Only with a
reduction in the height of the berm and breaks in it will there be over bank stream
flooding. DWQ supports the intermittent berm breaks. A map showing the location of
berm breaks should be included in a revised plan.
C) There currently are jurisdictional wetlands on the site. There are 53.6 acres of non-
riverine and 2.3 acres of riverine wetlands. There is no need for these sites to be re-
vegetated. Therefore, we believe that preservation credits should apply to the
jurisdictional wetlands.
D) DWQ supports the plugging and filling of the on-site ditches and their outlets.
E) The document recommends not removing the beavers. A method to control the damage
Environmental Sciences Branch • 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/109/6 post consumer paper
4F
to planted trees needs to be developed for the short and long-term. The document states
that there will be fencing or hardware cloth for the Cypress/Tupelo Swamp. Other
communities may also be affected by beavers and should be protected.
F) DWQ supports the Landscape Classification Ecosystem approach to develop the
appropriate vegetation and hydrology for the mitigation site.
G) DWQ does not believe that monitoring wells should be installed in the jurisdictional
wetlands (except for reference sites).
H) Vegetative and hydrologic monitoring should be for 5 and not 3 years.
I) As-built and annual monitoring reports should be sent to DWQ.
J) There is not sufficient justification for the proposed mitigation ratios. DWQ recommends
that the EPA guideline ratios be applied unless DOT can satisfactorily document the
proposed ratios. Currently there are approximately 59 acres of jurisdictional wetlands.
Preservation ratio of 10:1 should apply. The upland buffer can provide enhanced wetland
functions and therefore we propose a 15:1 ratio for the upland community provided that it
is also re-vegetated.
K) The drawings show transect vegetative monitoring. The transects do not cross vegetative
communities. The purpose of these transects is unclear. Why are the transects 50'X50'?
L) There is no time table in the plan to show when ditches will be filled, when trees planted
etc. The revised plan should have milestone dates.
Thank you for the opportunity to review your draft mitigation plan for the Gurley site. Should
you have any questions, please contact us at 733-1786.
Gurleymit.wpd
cc: Robin Little
Ron Ferrell
Raleigh COE
FAXED
MAY®2I
J, 'Comments: Cyndi Bell
Date Ree'd 401: ??
Date Reed NCWRP: March 24,1998
j ?li 1/1 13v 6 JJ
Date Comments Faxed: March 30,1999
NCWRP personnel who contributed to comments: We H., Larry H,, Jeff 3'.
Location: approximately 8 miles northwest of Snow Hill in Greene County
Impacts: Proposed DOT Bank for projects in the general area.
Proposed mitigation: Plan is suggesting 80 mitigation credits total
Actual mitigation: we really can't comment on the suggested number of credits because
of a lack of hydrology data related to overbank flow.
?{! y]] yy yy? 1y ?J+p oy?Q ?j
??r 9.:) i1.1, R,? p y®u? +? y ?i py yy IJ 7
llwl # 1e ,.?# ?hN ![A.? 7 . Ki..
Comments on Plan-,
Hydrology: First and foremost, without JTMC-B, Drainmod, and water table data, it is
tough to make a call on their hydrology, existing or modified. They definitely need to
include the hydraulic report as an appendix to this report.
Other notes: on page 8 they mention a decrease in water quality; did they monitor for
this and what did they find?
-ditch plugs need to be 1.00 ft plus fill in all ditches
-mention of adding culverts (p. 33) under SR 1058, any REC simulations done to predict
impacts?
-not enough information how adding control structure(s) to beaver impoundment (p.33) is
going to tie into enhancement credits.
modification to ditch along; SR 1058-could this lead to flooding road?
HEC-II or HEC-RAI.S has the capability to predict the extent of floods given gauging
data, channel cross-sections and elevations. They need this type of information and maps
in their plan for anyone to be able to comment on the number of dverine credits which
should be awarded.
lZo '? -
FOX NCCe 17678
te-
F?
`/ --
,om rr7...... lSfTy1.0.
PiloneY P/
..33 r V l.'5
L
General:
Monitoring
-should monitor at least 5 years, not just 3
disagree,with.401 fallrs, we would like to see wells in preservation areas to note
comparison to tference-type stands and reaction to plugging ditches
Success Criteria
-no reference sites mentioned, we would like to gauge the success of the project on
selected reference sites and not COE hydro success criteria.
r+l d 'i t t ki I ?f ? ?, ,
v.I
r+f(?*. t^' , fl;- fi v s. xc s qr ., I 'C41• °t ? "' a' ?f it i i t
Fou}l?}????qurpbef acres,, +oes, npt te?oras}se#I?ugkut t?ita'pJai '
T?Ce fqr1_ell$I74'eT?t GT?f1S` SrQ?P.?ketKSS'V? t a ?ff , w+ r? I v
Cre?itS11C??catot?*?€+?;?VI•ay;,neerrl" be a?justecl;' '?
Overate `d S'se ida
d",e someotentraItayvevers+e -}';inf V1ndtlon 'to
r!>
T
y ?' 1? ++,^n need` ? d6td ete ,'°? 'xt 'r 9
anqtqc?
pp 4%
At one point as I recall (A c), timbering was an issue on this site, I am assuming this has
been resolved since DDT has purchased the site.
If this site is going to be a mitigation bank for DOT, why isn't there an MBRT?
Questions or comments, Cyndi , please give me a call..... tnac haupt
STAIr
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF Tkt NSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
MEMO TO: Distribution List
FROM: Dewayne Sykes, PEAQ
Project Engineer
DATE: March 24, 1997
SUBJECT: Project 8.T340306 (R-1023WM) Greene County
F. A. Project STPNHS-38-1(69)
Gurley Tract Mitigation Site
Field Inspection and Resource Agency Review
This letter is a follow up to the memo dated February 28, 1997,
concerning the Field Inspection and Resource Agency Review of the
preliminary construction plans for the Gurley Mitigation Site.
The meeting is scheduled for April 3, 1997, at 9:00 a.m. at the
Greene County Office Complex Conference Room. The address for
the office complex is 229 Kingold Boulevard (NC 58), Snow Hill.
We have attached a copy of the agenda, a vicinity map showing the
location of the Green County Office Complex, and a copy of the
construction plan sheets for your use in preparing for the
meeting.
If you have questions or comments prior to the meeting, please
feel free to contact Mr. Phil Harris, Permits and Mitigation
Unit, at [phone] (ext. 267). Thank you in advance for
your attendance.
DLS/rdt
Attachments
cc: Tom Shearin, PE
r
Re ?
Distribution List:
Acencv Personnel
Eric Alsmeyer, USACE
David Lekson, USACE
Howard Hall, USFWS
Cyndi Bell, NCWQ
David Cox, NCWRC
Ron Sechler, NMFS
Consultant
Jerry McCrain, Environmental Services, Inc.
Sandy Smith, Environmental Services, Inc.
DOT Personnel
J. C. Manning, PE, Div. 1,2,& 4 Roadway Construction Engineer
Ed Latham, Division 2 Construction Engineer
Wayne Nottingham, Resident Engineer
Tom Tarleton, RLS, Area 1 Locating Engineer
Don Lee, Roadside Environmental Unit
Bill Moore, III, PG, Geotechnical Unit
Abdul Rahmani, Hydraulics Unit
David Robinson, PE, Permits and Mitigation Unit
Ted Devins, PE, Permits and Mitigation Unit
Phil Harris, PE, permits and Mitigation Unit
Robin Little, Permits and Mitigation Unit
FHWA
Kay Batey
Wendy Gasteiger
John Schrohenloher
Meeting Agenda
Gurley Tract Mitigation Site
On Site Review of Construction Plan Sheets
April 3, 1997
Time schedule is approximate.
Time Subject
9:00 a. m. Welcome & Introductory Remarks
Self Introductions
9:15
9:35
9:55
10:10
10:25
11:25
Responsibility
David Robinson
Permits & Mitigation Unit Head
Phil Harris
Wetland Mitigation Coordinator
Discuss Project History, Site Description, Sandy Smith
and the Approved Mitigation Plan Environmental Services, Inc.
Presentation of Construction Plan Sheets Dewayne Sykes
Roadway Design Project Engineer
Description of Construction Activities
Phil Harris
15 Minute Break
Open Forum Discussion and Comments
about Construction Plan Sheets
Resource Agencies and
Division 2 Construction Personnel
Pre-Site Visit Orientation
Sandy Smith
11:30 Adjourn to Site Visit (Lunch Break)
1:00 P.M. Arrive and Tour the Mitigation Site
3:00 Collect final comments about construction plan sheets
3:30 Meeting adjourned
a
V5

?d
4

b
b
b
GURLEY MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW
MARCH 12, 1998
AGENDA
Introduction and Project History
G ?
Mitigation Site Status
Reference Site Status
Comments and Revisions
Mitigation Credit Discussion
Robin Little
hil Harris
Kevin Markham
Robin Little
Robin Little
Sandy Smith
Final Plan Approval Robin Little
SrAIZ
r
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF 1PANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
January 15, 1997
Dr. Wayne Wright
Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Branch
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
GARLAN D B. GARRETT J R.
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Action ID 199700095; First Draft of the Gurley Mitigation Plan.
Dear Dr. Wright;
Enclosed for your review is the first draft of the mitigation plan for the Gurley Mitigation
Site. This site has been developed to mitigate for wetland impacts associated with the Wilson
Bypass, TIP R-1023AB and BB, as well as other pertinent projects. It is requested that written
comments or concurrence on this plan will be received by NCDOT before February 14, 1997.
Any questions on this plan can be addressed to Ms. Robin Little, at [phone], ext. 279.
We appreciate your input on this document and look forward to the implementation of this plan.
Sincerely,
AFr k li??
Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
w/attachment
Eric Alsmeyer, USACE-Raleigh
Mike Bell, USACE-Washington
Eric Galamb, DEHNR/DWQ
Cyndi Bell, DEHNR/DWQ
David Cox, NCWRC
Howard Hall, USFWS
Wendy Gasteiger, FHWA
David Harrison, DEHNR/DSWC
Lee Plej, EPA IV
e
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
February 18, 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: Dr. Wayne Wright
Dear Colonel Youngbluth:

?o?
??qlP 99>
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed a copy of the first draft of the gEley
Mitigation Plan (Action I.D. No. 199700095) and the February 12, 1997 revisions which Mr. H.
Franklin Vick and Robin Little of the North Carolina Department of Transportation kindly
supplied for our review. Overall, we are very pleased with the plan.
We believe that regulatory programs such as § 404 should be interpreted in light of the goals of
the parent legislation. Thus, a mitigation bank should do more than merely maintain the wetland
functions and values potentially lost in fill activities. Mitigation banks should restore, enhance,
and protect the biological, chemical, and physical integrity of the Nation's waters. In that spirit,
we offer the following comments:
Page 21, Section 2.8.2, second paragraph: The depth of groundwater and the length it is at that
depth may be valuable for modeling purposes, however, we encourage the use of site specific
reference data when available for both modeling and success criteria. Page 37 identifies
vegetation reference sites; we recommend establishing continuous groundwater monitoring
stations in the reference sites so that a range of biologically-based groundwater values (i.e., those
directly associated with the target communities) can be used to develop success criteria.
Page 33, Section 3.1.1 third full paragraph ("The Beaver Branch..."): We recommend that
specific contingency plans for beaver be established prior to the initiation of the mitigation
project. Should the roadways be threatened, actions may be taken which could affect the
mitigation project. Such likely issues should be addressed a priori. The February 12 revisions
include reasonable measures to protect the wetland resources and the roadways, however, we
believe worst case provisions should be modeled so that any impacts to the mitigation site can be
determined.
Page 33, Section 3.1.2, first paragraph: We believe a discussion of the relative merits of filling
in ditches during site preparation versus plugging ditches and allowing the remainder to fill in
over time would be useful in this section. There are merits to both methods, and the choice
should be based on site specific, case by case, requirements and conditions. We recommend the
avoidance of ditch plugs unless justified.
Page 37, Section 3.3, paragraph two: The reference sites are important components of the
mitigation project's success. We recommend they be secured in perpetuity. Sampling plots, for
vegetation, and, possibly groundwater monitoring, should be selected and discussed in the final
mitigation plan. We further recommend these sites (and access easements) be secured in
perpetuity so that long-term follow up studies may be conducted independent of the present
process. We believe it is extremely important that site specific comparative data be used to
define success if available. The nearby reference site presents such an opportunity.
Page 37, Section 3.3.1: The words in the title should be re-arranged (alternately, the acronym
should be changed in the text).
Pages 39 - 43, Section 3.3.1.2: We concur with the Landscape Ecosystem Classifications and the
target plant associations.
Page 53, Section 4.1.2, first paragraph: We strongly recommend that success criteria be based
on site specific data, such as the reference site piezometric data. Success criteria should be
defined in terms of acceptable ranges.
The last sentence ("If wetland hydrology...") should be deleted. It is our opinion that such a
contingency makes any success criterions meaningless. Any wetland acreage restored without
full success is difficult to distinguish from acreage restored because the site was physically
inclined to be wet and despite the manipulations and management. We do not consider naturally
restored acreage as mitigation for wetland impacts according to jurisdictional guidelines.
Finally, we note that the jurisdictional criteria used to delineate wetlands are merely surrogates
developed to identify and delineate wetlands over a large geographic area for a specific
regulatory purpose. They are not intended to provide comprehensive data about specific wetland
attributes. We urge the applicant not to confuse politically derived "quick and dirty"
identification criteria with the important functions, values, and structures of specific wetlands.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this draft. If you have any questions or
comments, please call Kevin Moody of my staff at [phone] extension 19.
Sincerely,
-e
John M. H ter
Field Supervisor
cc: NCDOT, Raleigh, NC (Frank Vick, Robin Little)
NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC (Cyndi Bell, Eric Galamb)
NCWRC, Raleigh, NC (David Cox)
COE, Washington, NC (Mike Bell)
COE, Raleigh, NC (Eric Alsmeyer)
EPA, Wetlands Regulatory Branch, Atlanta, GA (Thomas Welborn)
FWS/R4:KMoody:KM02/11/97:919/856-4520 ext. 19:B: 9700095
FEB-12-' 97 WED 15:45 I D : PLANN I Nu AND ENV I k'ON TEL NO:
#455 P01
Pod-W Fax NWO 7671 ? a,- eF t Zr
"a "It- 6ACAm6 F ROK unLC
CO DW. vw ip
- co• N c? Dta
Rai
# Phone r ? 33 _? $'µ`?
* lq 733-9951 Fair
February 12, 1997
M?MORANID'UM TO:
F110
SUB CT:
Appropriate Rcvicw Agencies
Robin Little, P.S.S., Mitigation Specialist
Action ID 199700095; Revisions to Gurley Mitigation Plan.
Enclosed for your review are recent revisions to the subject plan. On-site review by
NCDOT staff (Implementation, Hydraulics, Roadside Environmental and Mitigation Units) has
determined the need for these edits. Please include them in your review of the draft document_
Undcrlincd passages have been changed or added and several sentences have been deleted. If
you have any questions, please call me at 919-733-7844 ext. 279.
Alsmeyer, USACE-Raleigh
Ualamb, DERNRIDWQ
4 Cox, NCWRC
a Moody, USFWS
dy Gasteiger, FHWA
FEB-12-'97 WED 15:46 IM PLANNING AND ENVIRON TEL NO: #456 PR
MITIGATION PLAN
GURLEY MITIGATION SITE
NAHUNTA SWAMP
(R-7023 WM)
GREENE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared for:
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Raleigh, North Carolina
Prepared by:

Environmental Services, inc.
1100 Wake Fwast Road, Suite 200
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
February 1997
FEB-12-19? WED 15:46 I M PLANN I NG AND ENV I RON TEL NO: #456 P02
However, it is recommended that breaks of approximately 7.6 m (25 ft) lengths should occur
at approximately 76.2 m (250 ft) intervals. BQ§& jDanaa^ment practices ll b employed
9xisting ditch outlets to Nahunta Swamp will be permanently blocked with an impervious plug
of sufficient length to withstand high Nahunta Swamp flow velocities and erosive energies.
And the entire lengths of Site ditches will be filled. Where _„reaatigable. to discourage
concentrated lateral flow of surface waters. Spoil material resulting from levee/berm reduction
will be available to fill remaining lengths of ditches. This activity will return water transport
within the floodplain from primarily channeiized flow to primarily. sheet flow.
No diversion of Beaver Branch or large-scale redirection of Beaver Branoh flow south of SA
1058 is recommended: Any such activity would potentially deprive existing downstream
(Beaver Branch) habitat of wetland hydrology. However, in the interests of public safety and
road integrity, measures W J be taken to control Water levels in the beaver impoundment.
the Beaver Branch impoundment is providing so much value in terms of wetland functions that
rbmoval of the beavers is not recommended. However, measures ME be taken to reduce the
threat of structural damage to SR 1058 and SR 1253 due to periodic flooding. A Ugaver-
rpsistaM riserjpiea .cam i etian will be installed to maintain a maximum water level within.
Beaver Uranch. Durlna high flows. water will be transported via the riser/nine south for a
diataaoe ef_ aouraximately 76 m 125Q ft). under .SR 1068 to a low-energy outfall witbin the
Water level within the impoundment may = be controlled with the use of a pipe drain
through the dam in the vicinity of the SR 1253 culvert. An efficient pipe drain is described in
Owen et a!. 11987). A drain pipe generally consists of a pipe lined with a series of small holes
that are difficult for beavers to block. The pipe drain can be installed in the dam to maintain
any impoundment level. A culvert may be installed under SR 1068, adjacent to Beaver Branch,
to allow for periodic high water flow, reducing potential for road damage and increasing
Hydrological inputs south of SA 1058.
4.1,2 Groundwater
A primary mitigation goal is to restore wetland hydrology to soils listed as hydric but presantly
lacking wetland hydrology, and to maintain or improve functions provided by areas currently
characterized by wetland hydrology. Recommended hydrological restoration activities include:
111 plugging ditches at discharge points and at key locations; (2) filling Site ditches. whi
33
"0
EB-12-' 97 WED 15:48 I M PLANN I NG AND ENV I RON TEL N0: #456 P03
practicable, with soil; (3) "scaloina" the south side of the SR 105$ roadside dilgh. creating a
Qga&- Which sionat awav.ftom the read; and (4) scarifying the existing agricultural land.
Plugs located at ditch discharge points will nee to be designed to be of sufficient strength
to withstand the erosive energy from Nahunta Swamp. Each plug should consist of a core of
impervious material and be sufficiently wide and deep to form an imbedded overlap in the
existing banks and ditch bed (Figure 10). A plug length of approximately 9.1 m (30 ft) is

338
FEH-12-' 97 WED 15:4e I D :PLANNING AND ENV I RON TEL NO: . 456 P04
recommended. Ditches will receive additional impervious plugs at bends, junctions, and
intervals determined by total slope over the ditch lengths (Figure 11). Ditches will be filled
with on-site spoil material from adjacent banks and the reduced levee/berm. It le very
important that the method used to plug and fill ditches provide an effective' biprrier to
preferential flow of groundwater in the former channel.
Surface soils within the existing agricultural fields presently display low permeability and rapid
runoff rates. Scarification of the soil surface will increase both permeability rates and surface
storage capacity within this area. Scarification will be conducted within 0.3 to 0.5 m (12 to
1$ in) Of the soil surface to increase surface roughness and to loosen or break concreted soil
I4yers.
D? AINMOD predicts that these activities should restore wetland hydrology to the majority of
h dric sells pionant within the Site. Based upon the most conservative aconoriv,
a proximately 9-0-Im-, (22.1 ag) of PC cropland and approximately 14,2 ha 1.19;,Q ;)- of
forested hydric soils will be restored to wetland hydrology.
dric soils areas that may not be restored to wetland hydrology include an area of PC
pland within approximately 42.5 m 11139 ft) of the SR 1058 roadside ditch (as determined
DRAINMOM The approximately 6.1 m (20 ft) wide Nahunta Swamp stream levee is not
iected to display wetland hydrology due to coarse sediments and elevation above the
mal stream stage. The DRAINMOD modeling Is not designed for use in areas of this type,
Ich undergo a series of frequent but irregular flooding events. Based on field observations
I best professional judgement, mitigation activities are expected to re-establish wetland
Irology close to the levee. Sloughs and depressions are common in the floodplain adjacent
;he levee and retain water for extended periods following flood events. These impounded
at. provide a water barrier for both surface and groundwater, increasing resideneo time of
Hand hydrology.
3j. Soils
A' 9 ail of mitigation concerning soils is passive; if hydrology and vegetation efforts are
sue essful, maintenance or enhancement of hydric soil characteristics is expected to fellow.
A c aracteristic of blackwater floodplains is elevated levels of organics in hydric soils. Much
35
2-197 WED 15:49 ID:PLANNING AND ENVIRON TO NO: #456 P05
ids and field ditches traverse this site unit, affecting drainage. The target vegetation
stion targeted for thin LE;C site unit is Nan-Riverine Wet Hardwood Forest. Site-specific
ition includes swamp chestnut oak, laurel oak, cherrybark oak, water oak, tulip tree,
gum, red maple, swamp blackgum, ironwood and American elm. Small areas with
higher topographic positions will also include American beach and white oak.
#tydric Slope
LEC site unit encompasses approximately 5.5 ha (13.6 ac) along sandy ridges. Soils
in this site unit are primarily the Blanton, Wagram, and Cowarts series. This site unit
Sits moderately well drained to well drained conditions with slopes ranging from 3 to 12
ent. The target vegetation association for this LEC site unit is Mesic Mixed Hardwood
at. Site specific vegetation includes sweetgum, tulip tree, swamp chestnut oak,
rybork oak, white oak, southern red oak (Q. falcata), northern red oak (Q. rubra), American
h (Fogus grandifolis), and mockemut hickory.
2 Planting Plan
A lasting plant is proposed to re-establish steady-state vegetation patterns across the Site
lin Scapa. Tho COE Compensatory Hardwood Mitigation Guidelines (dated 8 December 1993)
we utilized iri developing this plan. The plan consists of (1) acquisition of available seedlings,
(,2) mplementation of proposed surface topography improvements (loves/term grading, ditch
fllli , Soil scarification), and 13) planting of selected species within the Site. Areas designated
fpr ommunity plantings are depicted in Figure 14.
Ple ing areas are targeted for either reforestation planting (Agricultural Land, Willow Forest,
He aceous Assemblage) or supplemental planting (Early Successional Forest, Beaver
Inn undment). Planting of seedlings should occur when the trees are dormant, in winter or
ea spring. In reforestation areas, 1680 stems/ha (M stems/ac) of designated species will
b`e anted on 3 by 3 m (10 by 10 ft) centers. In supplemental planting areas, approximately
17 stems/ha (70 stetnsiac) of designated species will be planted. These targeted areas
00 ently, support successional vegetation, and supplemental plantings will be concentrated
in acific sites, such as hurricane-caused tree-fail gaps, relict stream channels, degraded
Erin a areas, and cleared planting strips. Seedlings planted within the Cypressfrupelo Swamp
c4 munity will need to be protected by fencing or hardware cloth from loss to beavers.
3 identifies reforestation and supplemental planting areas within the Site, and totals
ings to be planted, by species, for each planting area. In summary, approximately 27,100
seedlings are planned for planting within the Site. Species selected for planting will
nd upon the availability of local seedling sources at the time of planting. An outline of
t vegetation associations With associated LEG site units is as follows.
43
FE `12-'97 WED 15:51 IM PLANNING AND ENVIRON TEL NO: #456 POG

Table 3.' P 1
anting regime for the Gurley Miti
gation Site.
See Figure 14 for a
plan view of proposed
v?g tation associations.
i Stream AM. CP Nun- Stream Crpreae!
Y"Osilan VMS, cow Bottormana 11011nMwd f4vedne Levee tupelo
Fw (FUN (Supp. ow IFue (Supp. (Supp.
(Flan Area) PWOMW Planing) wlandng) Planting) Man") Mamtrtg) TOTAL
stem Ta t; 680/acre;
t Yorvcro; aft/awn; • 8801acre; 70raora; Marra;
Area w
l 8.0 acres
t i 11.3 acres 2.1 acres 26.4 acres 2.0 acres 4.7 acres 157.2
I planted Jf planted >t planted # planted A planted planted *planted
SPECIES ; (96 total( 1% total) MA total) 1% total) 1% total) 196 total) 1% tota9
Atl_ Wh; Cadet 1632 (40) 300(51 202218)
Swamp 'T PRIo 812118) 778110) 1391 01
Tulip Tre? 612 0 6) 14300) 1795 0 0) 2550(51
Pond Pin I 612 (161' 612121
Laurel Oa 778 (10) 143(101 170(10) 33110) 2750161
Overcup 0,k 779(10) 33110) 812 (71
Willow C k 779(10) 1795110) 2874(())
Water Oa t 779(10) 1786 (101 2574181
Swamp estnut Oat[ 779410) 143 110) 1796 001 272020) 2989(g)
Charryba Oak 779110) 143(10) 1795110) 2717 181
fiiv" Bir 204 0 5) 20411)
Green A 779(10) 33(101 812(2)
Ironwood 390(6) 143110) 1796 001 272(20) 2600116)
White 04 1431101 17961101 1938(61
Solitnernimed 08K 10,3 (101 143
Northam iced Oak 143(10)- 143
I
Arnaftsn? 89aclt
143(10)
1795 (10)
204 (151
' 214217)
!Nock Hickory 14$ (10) 143
Black WI w 2041161 204
Amarina Sycamore 179500) 204(15) 1099011
Bald Cy isa 612 051 779110) 116(35) 1507(5)
Water T h) 118 (35) 98
TOTAL 4060
7791
1430
171889
1380
331 '
32.942
45
M: 12-'97 WED 15:51 IM PLANNING AND ENUIRON TEL N0: #456 P07
Community: Streamhead Atlantic White Cedar Forest
LEC site unit. Organic Precipitation Depression; Organic Precipitation Fiat
1. Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparfs thyvides)
2. Swamp tupelo (Nysse biflaral
3. Tulip tree (Lirindendron tulipiferal
4_ _ nd oin (Pkw serodkal
5. Bald cvoress(Ta od U dist6d=1
Community: Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood Forest (Blackwater Subtype)
LE,C site unit. Sub-hydric Riverine Flat; Sub-hydric Non-rivorina Flat
1. Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides)
2. Laurel oak (Quercus laurifoliv)
3. Overcup oak (Quercus lyrata)
4. Willow oak (Quercus phelfM
5. Water oak (Quercus nigre)
6. Swamp chestnut eak (Quercus micha*uxir7
7. Cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda)
a. Ironwood (Carp/nus esrolinlana)
9. Swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora)
1O:` Green ash (Froxinus pennsylvenica)
11. Bald cypress (Taxodium distichum)
C?mmunity: Cypreseltupelo Swamp
L C site unit : Sub-hydric Riverine Flat
1. Bald cypress ITsxodiurn dfsdchun?)
2. Water tupelo' (Nyssa aquatics)
3. Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanfca)
4. Laurel ook (Queraae I-RodfokN)
5. Overcup oak (Quercus lyrete
mmunity: Stream Lev"
site unit
Z : Sub-hydric Riverine Fiat
1. Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxill
2., American sycamore (Platenus o(xidentslis)
3.
4. American beoch (Fagus glandifofls)
5. Ironwood (CarPinus cerolrnfana)
6
46
"- -'0EB-12-197 WED 15:52 IM PLANNING AND ENVIRON TEL NO: „ 456 POe
I
i
Community: Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest
! LEC site unit: Non-hydric Slopes
1. Ironwood (Carpinus carolinianal
2, Tulip tree (Uhludandron tullpifera)
3. Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii)
4, Laurel oak (Quemus laurlfolial
5. White oak (Quercus alba)
6. Southern red oak (Quercus fa/cats)
7. Cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda)
8. Northern red oak (Quarcus rubra)
9. American beech (Fagus grandifolia)
10. Mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa)
`Community: Non-riverine Wet Hardwood Forest
!LEC site unit: Hydric plat
1. Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus miohauxill
2. Laurel oak (Quercus laudfvlie)
3. Cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda)
4. Water oak (Quercus nlgra)
5:" -White oak (Ouarcus alba)
6. Tulip tree (Lirlodendron tulipifera)
7. Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniena)
8. Willow oak (QU challe )
$, 6merican sycamore f ft fola„ occidnrafis),
10. American beech (Fagus grdndifolia)
3. Post-Mitigation Wetland Functions
2151ging of drainage ditches, reduction of the levoolberm, and re-establishment of vegotation
'co munities are expected to return most of the Site to near natural wetland conditions and
a rtion of the Nahunto Swamp floodplain to the influence of riverine hydrology. A return to
-est mated historic conditions is not believed to be feasible. Hydrologic evidence indicates that
'ditching and channe)ization have lowered both normal stream stage and floodplain water tables
-approximately 0.6 m (2 ft) within the last 40 years alone; and changes in regional and local
land-use practices have greatly increased sediment loading relative to a forest environment.
The goal of this project is to provide a diversity of wetland systems within the Site and restore
or enhance the wetland functions typically provided by the types of wetland communities
planned for the Site. One important benefit of this mitigation plan will be the return of much
of the lower portion of the Nahunta Swamp floodplain to a wetland hydrology under the
47
••F?B-,,?2-'97 WED 15:53 ID:PLANNING AND ENVIRDN TEL N0: _ #456 P09
upla , d buffers. The addition of wetland hydrology throughout floodplain reaches will greatly
improve the Site for aquatic-related wildlife such as amphibians, turtles, and crustaceans.
Restoration of wetland functions within the floodplain will.increass water quality for aquatic
life both within the Site and In lower reaches of Nehunta Swamp.
q?L0 MONITORING PLAN
Monitoring of wetland restoration and enhancement efforts will be performed until success
criteria are fulfilled. Monitoring is proposed for two wetland components, hydrology and
vegetation. Wetland soils currently exist within the Site and monitoring is not considered
necessary to verify hydric soil requirements for a jurisdictional determination.
4? 1 Hydrology
surficial hydrology monitoring network of walls will be installed while hydrological
n1odifications are being performed on the Site (Figure 16). The monitoring wells will be
designed and placed in accordance with specifications in the COE's Installing Monitoring
WellvRezemeters in Wetlands (WRP Technical Note HY-IA-3.1, August 1993). The network
vyill include both RDS WL-2Q and RDS WL-$p continuous monitoring wells. These wells can
4ntinuously record water levels along a 0.5 m 120 inch) and 2.0 m (80 inch) horizonal
gFadient. respectively. Proposed locations of the different well types are indicated in f=igure
Rbs WL-2g wells will be installed to a depth no greater than 0.5.m.120 in) below the ground
surface in mitigation areas not expected to achieve riverina-influenced surfaco,water (non-
ribarine Wet Hardwood Forest, non-riverina Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood f=orest, and
Streamhead Atlantic White Cedar Forest). The RDS-WL-29 wells are referred to as
iroundwater monitoring wells" in Figure 16.
RbS L-80 wells will be installed to a depth no greater than 0 55 rn 120 inl below the ground
sbrf a in mitigation areas expected to achieve riverine-influenced surface water on a regular
b si (riverine Coastal Plain Bottomiand Hardwood Forest and Cypress/Tupelo Swamp). The
RbS L-SO wells will be capable of recording water levels from a depth of 0.5 m 120 int below
the round surface to an elevation of approximately 1.5 m (BO in) above the ground surface.
These wells will be installed with protective support (rebar) In areas expected to achieve
4rfacs flow with significant velocities. The RDS-WL-80 wells are referred to as
"groundwater/surface water monitoring wells- in Figure 16. The taller R03-WL 80 wells have
bier, chosen over the RDS-WL 40 wells because the locations proposed for installation are
e? pected to receive significant surface flows on a periodic basis, and inundation of the top of
51
97 WED 15:54 I M PLANN I NG AND ENV I RON TEL NO:
tldSF P10
these ?ells may result in malfunction and data loss. The purpose of these wells is to provide
eViden?e of a riverine-influenced hydrology in portions of the Site for additional mitigation
a edit palue.
1.1
monitoring wells will be installed within the Site and adjusted to record water
levels t 6 hour intervals. These data will supplement and corroborate overbank flooding data
from t a USGS stream gauge. The continuous monitoring wells will be in operation throughout
the ye1r, and data will be downloaded at intervals (1) sufficient to insure proper operation and
ianea of the hardware and (2) necessary to satisfy the established hydrology success
(EPA 1990).
4.1.2 (Success Criteria
I ydrolggical success criteria will include saturation or inundation for at least 12.5 percent of
the growing season during average climatic conditions in non-riverine areas (Streamhead
Atlantic White Cedar Forest, Non-riverine Wet Hardvriood Forest, and CypresslTupelo Swamp).
Hydrolggical success criteria within the Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood Swamp include
saturation or inundation for between 5 percent and 12.5 portent of the growing season. Areas
s4pporting wetland hydrology for 5 to 12,5 percent of the growing season are required to
s6poq a" prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soils. If wetland hydrology is
marginol after 3 years of monitoring, consultation with COE personnel will be undertaken to
determine jurisdictional extent In these transitional areas.
Fjood event frequency and elevation data from continuous monitoring wells will be used in
cpnjun tion with rainfall data and USGS stream gauge data to determine the areal extent of
flpodpl;in that is under the influence of riverine hydrology. Well water elevations will be
cOmperOed to rainfall events and river staging to determine whether each well Is influenced by
ptimarily upland runoff or a combination of runoff and river stage. Stream gauge monitoring
a0d flo dplain area calculations will require average climatic conditions including an average
d#stribtltion of peak storm events.
a?.a ?Ysgetatlon .
Restoration monitoring procedures for vegetation are designed in accordance with EPA
g0ldelirles enumerated in Mitigation Site Type (MIST) documentation {EPA 19901 and COE
rnnsatory Hardwood Mitigation Guidelines. A general discussion of the restoration
Z;Oprilptoering plan is provided.
I
S3
F=B-12-197 WED 15:55 IM PLANNING AND ENUIRON TEL NO: #456 P11
I
14.2.1 Monitoring
After planting has been completed, an initial evaluation will be performed to verify planting
methods and to determine initial species composition and density. Supplemental planting and
awitional site modification will be implemented, if necessary. Permanent photography stations
will be established at selected vantage points to provide a visual record of vegetation
jdevelopment over time.
':During the first year after planting, the Site will receive cursory visual evaluation on a periodic
'.Uasis to ascertain the degree of overtopping of planted trees by nuisance species.
'Subsequently, quantitative sampling of vegetation will be performed between August 1 and
October 31 after each growing season until vegetation succ Ies criteria is achieved.
:During quantitative vegetation sampling in the early fall of the first year 0.02 ha (0.05 ac) plots
will be established within each restored ecosystem. Monitoring plots will be established and
permanently located, providing a representative sample of tha Site. Vegetation monitoring
plots will be eerrelatad with hydrological monitoring sites in most cases to allow for point-
bource data of hydrologic and vegetation parameters.
4.2.2 Success Criteria
V5uc0e39" criteria have been established to verify that restoration and enhancement areas
'support vegetation 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 790 characteristic tree species/ha (320 treestac) must be surviving
for at least 3 years after Initial planting- Charaetaristic species are those elements enumerated
In the planting plan along with natural recruitment. Supplemental plantings will be undertaken
Os needed to achieve the vegetation success criteria.
4.3 Report Submittal
An "as built" report will be generated after completion of planting that includes: a plan view
pf the Site, final elevations, photographs, sample plot locations, monitoring well locations, and
b description of initial species composition by community and sample plot locations. A
dlseussion of the planting design, including species planted, species densities, and number of
Stems planted will be included. The report will be provided within 90 days of completion of
Olanting and monitoring well installation,
6bssquently, reports will be submitted yearly to appropriate permitting agencies following
each assessment. Submitted reports will include: sample plot data, well data
64
Cyndi_B
From: Robin Little [Robin [e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 1998 8:31 AM
To: cyndi_bell Odem.ehnr.state.nc.us
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Various meetings
These meetings have been scheduled with all the regulatory and review agencies, in order to
efficiently address a number of issues for the projects shown below. Please let me know if you
have a conflict as soon as possible.
2/18/98 R-2231/13/210 Meet at 10:30 am at Pee Dee Wildlife Refuge office (704-694-4424)
north of Wadesboro on US 52. We will view and discuss Brown Creek project, then travel to
Moore County, near Lobelia, to view and discuss R-210 mitigation sites. 3/5/98 R-
2000EB,EA Meet at intersection of NC 401 and Swift Creek, southcentral Wake County, at
10:00 am. View and discuss proposed mitigation site, then travel to Wake- Granville County Line
to second site.
3/12/98 R-1023 AB Meet at 10:00 am. in Room 445 to discuss final comments on Gurley
Mtigation Plan.
Please try to attend these meetings! I need your input!

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
May 20, 1997
Regulatory Branch
SUBJECT: Action ID 199700095
0 ?j
Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Dear Mr. Vick:

My staff has recently completed their review of your
January 15, 1997 correspondence, with an attached "First Draft"
Mitigation Plan, requesting comments regarding the proposed
Gurley wetland mitigation site on the west side of SR 1058, north
of Nahunta Swamp, in Greene County, North. Carolina, associated
with the Wilson Bypass (R-1023AB & BB). Please also reference
the April 3, 1997 meeting between North Carolina Department of
Transportation staff, your consultants, my staff, and review
agencies concerning this mitigation site.
After reviewing the material and balancing all factors
associated with this issue, we have determined that the Gurley
site can be used as a compensatory mitigation site for losses of
riverine and non-riverine wooded wetlands, within certain
limitations. Our major concerns regarding the planning and
implementation of mitigation for this site follow:
1. The plan indicates that the hydrological restoration on
the site will include plugging ditches at discharge points and
key locations, and filling site ditches, where practicable. The
drawings shown at the April 3, 1997 meeting indicate that the
main ditches will be filled behind the plugs with on-site
materials, and that the secondary ditches will only be plugged.
You should provide all applicable information that supports your
determination that the use of on-site non-impervious fill
materials, to be placed only in the main ditches, will be
sufficient to restrict groundwater flows and thereby provide
appropriate wetland hydrology, and to withstand erosive flows on
the site. Please note that your proposed methodology for
Printed on ® Recycled Paper
J!_
restoring hydrology may affect the success of the site, and is
done at your risk of not achieving success. If site monitoring
indicates that wetland hydrology is not achieved, remedial
actions will be necessary.
2. Hydrological success criteria should be tied to
comparison with hydrological reference sites, rather than meeting
the minimal saturation criteria for a specific percentage of the
growing season. This will ensure that the hydrology of the
mitigation sites match the hydrology of the appropriate target
wetland type, such as riverine flooded forest or palustrine
drainage forest, and will enhance the likelihood of success. The
specific criteria to be measured and compared, which should be
specific, measurable, and attainable, can be developed by the
inter-agency review team as the plan is finalized.,
3. The success criteria for vegetation will require
acceptable tree survival (320 trees per acre) for five
consecutive years after planting, replanting, or any major
changes on the site, such as hydrology manipulation, rather than
for three years after initial planting.
4. We recommend that vegetative monitoring be completed by
September 30, rather than October 31, after each growing season,
to allow ample time to plan and implement any necessary physical
changes on the site before the planting season ends.
5. The plan should specify the acceptable planting period:
December 1 through March 31.
6. Although we concur with the plan to do only supplemental
plantings in the areas of the site that presently support
successional vegetation, the mitigation value will be less for
these areas than for those where reforestation planting will be
done. We will base the determined value of the mitigation on the
wetland functions that are enhanced as a result of the
mitigation.
7. The planting plan for the willow forest/organic
precipitation flat should include specific measures to control
reforestation by willows which could easily outcompete the
?cec`P proposed Atlantic White Cedar plantings.
8. As discussed at the April 3, 1997 meeting, any
manipulation of the hydrology along SR 1058 should be limited to
only that necessary or advisable for the increased success of the
2
1
mitigation site. If changes are necessary for maintenance of the
roadway, they should either be designed before the mitigation
plan is completed so they can be taken into account, or they
should be designed so that there is no adverse effect on
mitigation site hydrology. All potential effects of mitigation
site hydrology modifications on adjacent roadway or properties
should be carefully considered, such that future manipulation to
correct flooding problems is avoided and/or unnecessary.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. Eric Alsmeyer,
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office, telephone [phone],
extension 23.
Sincerely,
Michael D. Smith, P.W.S.
Chief, North Section
Regulatory Branch
Copies Furnished:
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Mr. John Hefner
Field Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. David Cox
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Habitat Conservation Program
1142 I-85 Service Road
Creedmoor, North Carolina 27522
3

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
April 8, 1997
'\IEMORA-N'Dt I
TO: See Distribution
FROM: Phil Harris, P.E., Wetland \litigation Unit F76 I
Planning and Environmental Branch
RECEIVED
APR 10 1997,
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
nn<1 i 'ni.
GARLAND B. GARRETT J R.
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Meeting Minutes; Field Inspection for Gurley Tract Wetland Mitigation Site
The Field Inspection, consisting of two (2) successive meetings. was held on Thursday. April 3 1997. The
first meeting held from 9:00 a.m. - 11:30 a.m. was to review preliminaii7 design and address construction
questions and agency concerns. The second meeting held from 1:00 p.m. - 3:30 p.m. consisted of a tour of the
mitigation site. Attached is a memorandum -which provides meeting minutes and summarizes conclusions reached
as a result of meeting discussions. Telephone numbers are also provided. If -you have any questions or
comments. please contact me at [phone] (Ex-tension 267).
Thank you for your continued cooperation and assistance.
cc: :\Jr. David Robinson. Ph.D.. P.E.
'Mr. Ted Devens. P.E.
'-\-Ir. Dennis Pipkin, P.E.
Distribution: 'Mr. Ed Latham. P.E.. 'L\CDOT-Division 2 Construction Engineer [phone]
Mr. Tom Tarleton. R.L.S., ?tiCDOT-Area 1 Locations Engineer. [phone]
\fr. J. C. \iannina, NCDOT-Division 2 Construction Unit (919} 237-6164
\It•. Teter,- tNIieeler. NCDOT- Division 2 Locations and Surveys Unit [phone]
Mr. Grea Lewis. NCDOT-Division 2 Geotechnical Unit [phone]
Mr. Randy Wise, NCDOT-Roadside Eir ironinental Unit 733-2920
Ms. Kim Wilson, NCDOT-Roadside Environmental Unit 733-2920
Mr. Kevin '.vloodv. US Fish and Wildlife Seti-ice 856-4520 ext. 19
\1r. Eric .llsmever. US Army Corps of Engineers 576-5441 ext.23
\Is. Lvn Bell NCDEHiv-R-'Div of dater Qualit j 733-1786
-\-Ir. David Cox. NC ZV ldhfe Resource Cori mission [phone]
\ir..\bclul Rahmani. Hydraulics U hit 250-4100
\1r. Dewavne Svkes. p.E.. NCDOT-Roadway Design 250-4016
\li. Roger Thomas, P.E.; NCDOT-Roadway Design 250-4016
Ank

Mr. Charlie Brown, P.E.. R.L.S.. Asst. State Loc. and Surveys Engineer
GIs. Kav Batev, Planning and Program. Dv elopment Engineer, FHA NTA
Ms. Robin Little. \CDOT- Planning and Environmental Branch
In Terry McCrain. Environmental Senices Inc.
Mr. Sandy Smith, Emironmental Services Inc.
2-50-4109
856-1330
733-78-'.1 ext. 279
[phone]
[phone]
CORRECTIONS kND ?_',II:?SIO S: These minutes are t11e miter's interpretation of the events. discussions, and
transactions which tools place during the meeting. If there are anv additions and/or corrections to these minutes, please inform
the m,riter Mthin seven (7) days.
Gurley Tract Wetland `litigation Site (Greene County)
NII-\-L-TES OF MEETING
April 3, 1997
The meeting officiaLly began at 9:00 a.m..
Phil Harris opened the Tieeting, and after ever:-one introduced thelTselves. he discuss'_d `'i and goals- of
;_e "LII"DO.;e a ind,
the meeting. Phil spoke of the importan-e of the project schedule. 'More specifically. the proposed project is to
be planted this winter and is to be in. the -?-ound- prior to the March 1998 LET' of the US -, '6 1 Filson Bypass
{ -i(i3 : B). Ever u '
ne was encouraged to ask dl'Ie5t, _d.iis and to follow d ? the mieet'•nZ aa' Mua.
Follo«-Irha Plays open?IIv .states-ncnts. Sa iu:. SILitih discussed in detail :lie mtltigaii 'n i)lai: for ti su'b `Jeci.
jec; prd;
in his presentation. he surru-nai3zed the existing site and what actions would be taken to transfer the site into a
viable vyetlandi miti?a_iOn Site.
During Sandy's presentation. Abdul Rahmani and Ed Latham spurn-d a second: discussion conc`lln1 i` the use of a
splashboard riser whhicli as proposed. will extend from Beaver Branch under SR 1058 and onto the proje: t site.
While the wetland Mitigation.. site. as proposed in the mitigation plan. does not requires the use of such a hydraulic
structure to achieve hz drologic success. this additional source of water will only add to the quality of the proposed .
wetland system. Ideally. other advantages o- fa splashboard Kiser tivould be to improve siferv conditions by
remoTlnQ '-standing water- Mona SF 1058 as vv, lH as possibly dropping the water elevation which would impro,,;-e
road inteQt'lty. Abdul stressed that a hydraulic structure of the size currently deslQned «vould Only serve to get
water onto the proposed project site ar:di TNouidi not eliir?inate the dieteri'oI'a: h- cOndin of SR i(?-Tlie issue
was resolved such that the splashboard riser design will go foiivard c ith the understanding that its pdman
puiWs- tyil be co get additional water onto the project site and any benefits to ilic conditions of SR 10- tyi.'11 be
welcome but are not expected.
Following a 10 minute break. Dev ayne Sykes presented the preliminary design. His presentation consisted of
reliewma each sheet indi.iduallz-. The majority of his rex.-iew focused in on Sheet tio. 4 Constr ction Plan
Sheet). ;Vhiie ret7e;ying the plan sheet, various issues Nyere discussed and decisions reached. It was decided that
the contractor would burn all debris on site "as designated by the Engineer-. to-ith this in mind. burn arras could
be set up, where practicable and as directed by the E.ngineel alongside he e_?istingNahunta Swalnp begin ceing
careful to keep out of the existing relic; features. These burn areas could also serve as vehicle turninn areas. The
ditches to be fined would be compacted ra her than mounded. Root meat wluch will not burn., willbe dispersed
evenly alongside the cleared begin as directed by the Engineer. Transects whicli correlate with the locations of the
monitoring wells will be cut to assist access by the {'root: UhniGal Lnit.
Randy 'V ise assisted De,?yayne in explaining the planting plan as depicted on Sheet No. 7.
in reference to Sheet \o. 8 (Monitoring Well Locations), Ketiin'Moody asked that the dells be located on the
preliminary desig*r such that they could be located at some infL tesiinai point in the future. Final Design evil
shoe- coordinates of all monitorina cN ells.
As part of the 71nal Design. and Erosion Control Sheet detailing all erosion control teclrniclaes and locations will
be presented. Randv briefly surer narized what he expected this sheet to entail.
Following the presentation of the preliminary design. a short open forum discussion took place.
The meeting adiourned for lunch at approximately 11:30 a.m..
The meeting reconvened at 1:00 p.m. on site.
Earlier when reiiecNing prfeliminaiv design, it c\ as discussed that there cvas a need for approximatel? 600 cubic
cards of fill material. At the beginning of the site visit. it was suggested that the additional ful material be taken
from the upland area designated as the Sta!2jr?g Area. This RLi not only serge as a feasible local source of
material, but may also add wetland creation opportunity. In using the stagin« area for a borrow source. it is
understood that this area will not be undercut such that it c?iL become a borrow pit. In other cords. it will not be
exca?-ated below the surrounding contour elevations (below contour 60'). If the sta2mig area in combination with
excavation of the \ahunta Swamp berin does not satisfy a1' the borrow needs. the contractor MR be responsible
for getting additional borrow material from an offsite source --per the specifications".
Following this discussion, Sandy led an expedition around the project site. The group walked along the tiahunta
ScN amp berm. During this iN°alk. a small discussion tool: place concerning removal of constriction debris from
the `,?ahunta Swamp channel. It ct-as r:sol-ed that the contractor ctouid be responsible for removal of orly the
debris directly caused due to construction actititi.es. All pre-existing debris would not be the responsibilitc of the
contractor. The issue concerning the placement of -silt fence along tiahunta Svvanip was also discussed. It -was
resolved that silt fence would be placed as close as possible to the bank (as directed by the Engineer). In
situations such as areas crest of Mother Ditch where the berry. has a 90 degree drop off, the berm will be carefully
excavated down to the required elevation and then the silt fence will be placed on the bank.
During the site c-isit. the group walked north along the Mother Ditch and saw the proposed i?lanting areas for
'White Cedar. The group also traveled along SR 1058 and sac-: the proposed area for he ?piashboard riser. Levin
suggested an investigation of alternative lwdraulic methods to --bring down" the Beaver Branch crater elevation.
Towards the end of the site visit- the group embarked on a discussion pertaining to reference ecosysteins. IVas
there a systetTi c?hich «O?tld satisfy the requirements of beLng a reference ecosystem? Because no sites have been
identified at this point in the process, it was resolved that the search and development of a r erence ecosystem
could be an --ongoing process" and the approval process of the mitigation plan can still go forward.
Phil directed the question to the agencies concerning there overall --comfort level'' of the mitigation site. A
favorable response was gii- en by Kevin and 'Eric Usineyer. Eric pointed out that the permit for the US 264
?ti ikon Bypass was still pending. It was resolved that the design process will continue to move forward and
remain on schedule cvi h the understanding that the perinit process still -looms" in the future.
5rA?r0
?y M
??-tea :;:?•???
R
? FcF??'Fo
q
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ? ?S Jy
DEPARTMENT OF TMNSPORTATION 9
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 GARLAND B. GARRETT JR. ti c/?NC?S'
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
MEMO TO: Distribution List'
FROM: Dewayne Sykes, PE
???;K??!??
Project Engineer
DATE: February 28, 1997
SUBJECT: Project 8.T304306 (R-1023WM) Greene County
F. A. Project STPNHS-38-1(69)
Gurley Tract Mitigation Site
Field Inspection and Resource Agency Review
An on site Field Inspection and Resource Agency Review of the
preliminary construction plans for the Gurley Mitigation Site
will begin on April 3, 1997, at 9:00 a.m. at the Greene County
Office Complex Conference Room. The address for the office
complex is 229 Kingold Boulevard (NC 58), Snow Hill. Under
separate cover, a copy of the agenda sheet for the meeting and a
set of half-size construction plan sheets will be forwarded to
you at a later date.
The initial briefing will include a summary description of the
mitigation site, a short presentation of construction plan
sheets, a description of the construction process, and an open
forum discussion. The meeting will then adjourn to an on site
visit.
This meeting has several goals:
To provide agencies an opportunity to verify that the NCDOT
construction plans reflect the commitments made in the
subject mitigation plans.
To provide agencies with the opportunity to collectively
visit the mitigation site.
r•- To solicit immediate agency comments on the construction
plans if the agency representatives feel the plan sheets do
not accurately reflect the approved mitigation plans.
To solicit immediate comments from the Division 2
Construction personnel as to the "constructability" of the
plans.
?• Adjourn close to 3:30 p.m. to enable a timely return to
Raleigh.

Distribution List
February 28, 1997
Page 2
If you have questions or comments prior to the
feel free to contact Mr. Phil Harris, Permits
Unit, at [phone] (ext. 267). Thank you
your attendance.
Distribution List:
Agency Personnel
Eric Alsmeyer, USACE
David Lekson, USACE
Howard Hall, USFWS
Cyndi Bell, NCWQ
David Cox, NCWRC
Ron Sechler, NMFS
Consultant
Jerry McCrain, Environmental Services, Inc.
Sandy Smith, Environmental Services, Inc.
DOT Personnel
meeting, please
and Mitigation
in advance for
J. C. Manning, PE, Div. 1,2,& 4 Roadway Construction Engineer
Ed Latham, Division 2 Construction Engineer
Wayne Nottingham, Resident Engineer
Tom Tarleton, RLS, Area 1 Locating Engineer
Don Lee, Roadside Environmental Unit
Bill Moore, III, PG, Geotechnical Unit
Abdul Rahmani, Hydraulics Unit
David Robinson, PE, Permits and Mitigation Unit
Ted Devins, PE, Permits and Mitigation Unit
Phil Harris, PE, permits and Mitigation Unit
Robin Little, Permits and Mitigation Unit
FHWA
Kay Batey
Wendy Gasteiger
John Schrohenloher
DLS/rdt
cc: Tom Shearin, PE
I -4w,
r
i
r
r
Sal
MITIGATION PLAN
GURLEY MITIGATION SITE
NAHUNTA SWAMP
(R-1023 AB)
GREENE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ESI Project No. ER94-018.13
Prepared for:
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Raleigh, North Carolina
Prepared by:
Environmental Services, Inc.
1100 Wake Forest Road, Suite 200
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604

January 1997
"I
4W
drainage basin of approximately 208.2 square (sq) km (80.4 sq mi). Much of the land adjacent
to the Nahunta Swamp floodplain has been converted to agricultural production.
Past alterations to Nahunta Swamp that affect its present influence on the Site include: (1)
straightening and channelization of the stream, resulting in a lowering of stream stage and the
adjacent groundwater table; (2) clearing and ditching of much of the upstream floodplain for
agricultural production, residential development, and highway construction; (3) ditching and
1 timber harvesting within the Site; and (4) cumulative effects of sedimentation and elevated
nutrient inputs on the system resulting from these disturbances.
Straightening and channelizing of Nahunta Swamp have increased the potential drainage rate
of the system, reducing the basin residence time of surface water. As the channel was
mechanically deepened, dredged stream bed material was deposited on the north bank of the
stream, greatly increasing the height and width of the natural levee. Thus, a combination of
lowering the stream bed and raising the bank levee/berm have greatly reduced the opportunity
for overbank flooding within the Site.
Clearing and ditching of the floodplain upstream of the Site have magnified the volume of
stream flows following rainfall events. The construction of hardened barriers, such as roads,
prevent flood water:
flowing across the
issipation needs that exceed the system's cal
oodplain, causing stream flow energy
resulting in the increase i e i o0 of
downstream flood damage. Clearing and ditching of the floodplain reduce
the floodplain to reduce flow velocities and store flood waters.
opportunity for
Increased sedimentation and nutrient levels greatly influence the physical, chemical, and
biological components of the stream system away from natural conditions. The resulting
decrease in water quality is compounded by the reduced opportunity for peak flows to utilize
water quality functions provided by adjacent floodplain wetlands.
2.3.1.2 Beaver Branch
Beaver Branch is a 2nd order stream formed north of the Site, just inside the Wayne County
boundary, approximately 4.0 km (2.5 mi) upstream from the confluence with Nahunta Swamp.
The Beaver Branch drainage basin is approximately 5.4 sq km (2.1 sq mi) in size. Beaver
Branch is impacted by similar disturbances as Nahunta Swamp. The narrow, forested Beaver
Branch floodplain is bounded on both sides by agricultural fields, and a hog operation has
recently been constructed on the upper, southwest bank.
There is some speculation as to whether the chan n?h within the Site may
have been manipulated to its current-location. Prior to construction of the existing SR 1058
?j
8
n-
,,,. STATE u
y?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
JAMEs B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
January 15, 1997
Dr. Wayne Wright
Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Branch
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
GARLAND B. GARRETT J R.
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Action ID 199700095; First Draft of the Gurley Mitigation Plan.
Dear Dr. Wright;
Enclosed for your review is the first draft of the mitigation plan for the Gurley Mitigation
Site. This site has been developed to mitigate for wetland impacts associated with the Wilson
Bypass, TIP R-1023AB and BB, as well as other pertinent projects. It is requested that written
comments or concurrence on this plan will be received by NCDOT before February 14, 1997.
Any questions on this plan can be addressed to Ms. Robin Little, at [phone], ext. 279.
We appreciate your input on this document and look forward to the implementation of this plan.
Sincerely,
AFrklin ick
Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
w/attachment
Eric Alsmeyer, USACE-Raleigh
Mike Bell, USACE-Washington
Eric Galamb, DEHNR/DWQ
Cyndi Bell, DEHNR/DWQ
David Cox, NCWRC
Howard Hall, USFWS
Wendy Gasteiger, FHWA
David Harrison, DEHNR/DSWC
Lee Plej, EPA IV
9
?I
STATE OF NORTH CANOLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TP ANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
May 15, 1998
Eric Alsmeyer
Raleigh Field Office
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
6512 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Subject: Gurley Mitigation Plan Approval, TIP No. R-1023AB, Action I. D. 199700095
Dear Eric:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) would like to acknowledge receipt of
the May 20, 1997, concurrence and comments on the subject mitigation plan. We also received comments
from Eric Galamb of the Division of Water Quality on May 2, 1997. Implementation scoping and field
reviews were conducted on February 10 and April 3, 1997, respectively, and were attended by
representatives from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), N. C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ),
N. C. Wildlife Resource Commission (WRC) and U. S. Fisheries and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
Additional comments were discussed at these meetings. In order to meet permit requirements for up-front
mitigation for R-1023 AB, we incorporated these comments into our design and began implementation on
the subject mitigation site in July, 1997, without final plan approval. At present, implementation is 95%
complete. Due to a shortage of Atlantic White Cedar seedlings, planting of a small portion of the site will
be delayed until December, 1998. On March 12, 1998, a final plan review meeting was held to discuss the
Reference Ecosystem Search report, the status of site implementation and the mitigation credit equation
proposed in the plan.
The January, 1997, draft mitigation plan and February 1997 addendum to the plan were reviewed
by all the review and regulatory agencies, and comments submitted to NCDOT in May, 1997. Comments
will be referenced by the agency and the number or letter used in the original letter, but not necessarily
sequentially in order to simplify the discussion. (See attached letters.) The issue of service area for the
Gurley site was raised by the DWQ and was restricted to USGS Cataloging Unit 03020203. (DWQ:A)
As per DWQ's Administrative Code Section 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h)(8), we propose that the service area
be the Coastal Plain of the Neuse River Basin.
Intermittent berm or levee breaks were supported by the DWQ and were incorporated into the
implementation design plan. (DWQ:B) Figure 11 in the final plan (March, 1998) shows the location of the
breaks in the levee along Nahunta Swamp. The DWQ also supported both plugging and filling of all
ditches (DWQ:D, COE:1) and NCDOT has complied by installing all of the ditch plugs shown in the plan
and filling over 90% of the ditches, as agreed in the April 3, 1997, Implementation Field Review. As-built
plans will depict the extent of filling and will be sent to the regulatory agencies. (DWQ:I). A discussion of
this issue can be seen on page 32 of the final plan, as well as Figures 10 and 11. The manipulation of the
supplemental hydrology from Beaver Branch was accomplished as stated on page 32 in the final
plan.(COE:8)
Beaver damage control in the form of fencing or hardware cloth for all planted tree seedlings was
recommended (DWQ:E) as well as control of invasive species (COE:7). The monitoring of invasive
0
vegetation and beaver predation is discussed in the final plan on p.52. Vegetation monitoring will extend
until October 31, as discussed on page 52, (COEA) and the planting period extended from December 1
through March 31, as shown on page 42. (COE:5) On page 53, the use of 0.05 acre vegetative monitoring
plots is discussed and was changed from the transects proposed in the draft plan. (DWQ:K)
While monitoring for 5 years was required by both the COE and DWQ (DWQ:H, COE:3), on
page 52 the NCDOT states that three years followed by consultation with the COE on jurisdictional status
of areas in question should be adequate to determine hydrological success.
On March 12, 1998, the regulatory agencies agreed that reference well data for the riverine
component of the site would be obtained by the installation of a surface water gauge on the land owned by
NCDOT adjacent to Nahunta Swamp and Beaver Branch, across the road (SR 1058) from the site, and that
the success of the non-riverine part of the site would be determined by a comparison of on-site well data
with the wetland definition used in the USCOE 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual. (COE:2) Well
locations are shown in Figure 16 and may be subject to slight changes in location. Wells shown in the
areas designated as jurisdictional wetlands will provide comparative information for hydrological
monitoring. (DWQ:G)
The proposed mitigation credit ratios also still need to be finalized. We feel that our credit
proposal shown on page 54 of the final plan is supported by the discussions of Pre-mitigation and Post-
mitigation functions shown on pages 27 and 46, respectively. While the COE concurs that the mitigation
value is less in the areas of supplemental plantings in the early successional areas, they do not call it
preservation as does the DWQ. (DWQ:C,J, COE:6) While the DWQ supports the use of the Land-
Ecosystem Classification (LEC) system, (DWQ:F) they do not agree that the interrelated nature of the
restoration and enhancement components support the credit ratios as proposed. The upland buffer
includes the levee which is an integral part of riverine functions on the site, and it has been re-vegetated.
While the 59 acres of jurisdictional wetlands shown in Figure 8 may qualify under the `87 Manual, we
believe that well data will show that hydrology will be enhanced by the filling and plugging of the ditches.
Functional enhancement will be gained by the combination of hydrologic modification and supplemental
planting in the areas in question. Finally, the fact that the site is implemented up-front could allow
NCDOT to lower the proposed ratios, but we are willing to submit them as originally proposed, in order to
expedite final plan approval.
We hope that we have adequately addressed all the issues mentioned in the attached comment
letters, and that the final plan can now be approved. We apologize for the delay in the resolution of these
issues. Thank you for your time and attention to this project.
Sincerely,
David C. Robinson, P. E., Ph.D.
Acting Branch Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
cc: David Franklin
Eric Galamb
Cyndi Bell
John Hefner
David Cox
Wendy Gasteiger
Charles Bruton
Dave Schiller
Kevin Markham
eEHl - EVti7R0M1,ffiVTAL ALAVAGEMEVT T15.-L- 02H .0500
ecologically viable method of replacing the lost functions and values.
(6) All mitigation proposals shall provide for the replacement of wetland acres lost due to the proposed
activity at a minimum of a 1:1 ratio through restoration or creation prior to utilizing enhancement or
preservation to satisfy the mitigation requirements, unless the Director determines that the public good
would be better served by other types of mitigation.
(7) Wetlands mitigation shall be conducted based on the following ratios (acres mitigated to acres loss); 4:I,
for wetlands located within 150 feet of the mean high water line or normal water level of any perennial
or intermittent water body as shown by the most recently published version of the United States
Geological Survey 1:24,000 (7.5 minute) scale topographical map; 2:1, for wetlands located between 150
feet and 1,000 feet from the mean high water line or normal water level of any perennial or intermittent
water body as shown by the most recently published version of the United States Geological Survey
1:24,000 (7.5 minute) scale topographical map; and 1:1, for all other wetlands. For linear projects which
impact less than 3 acres of wetlands the ratio shall be 2:1 regardless of the distance from surface waters.
The above ratios apply only to restoration. Tae acres of required mitigation for the other types of
mitigation shall be determined by multiplying the above ratios by 1.5 for creation, 2 for enhancement,.
and 5 for preservation. The above ratios do not apply to approved mitigation sites where the state and
federal review agencies have approved credit/debit ratios. This Subparagraph shall not apply to general
certifications until the Department has established a wetlands restoration program or until January 1, 1997,
whichever occurs first.
(3) Mitigation for impacts to wetlands designated in Paragraph (c) of this Rule shall be conducted within the
same river basin and physiographic province when practical.,. Unavoidable losses of wetlands adjacent to
waters classified as WS-III shall be replaced within the water supply watershed when practical.
(9) Mitigation for impacts to wetlands designated in Paragraph (d) of this Rule shall be of the same wetland
type and located within the same river sub-basin when practical. .litigation for impacts to wetlands
adjacent to waters classified as WS-1 or WS-II shall be replaced within the water supply watershed when
practical.
(10) Mitigation for,impacts to wetlands designated in Paragraph (e) of this Rule shall be of the same wetland
tvpe and within the same watershed when practical.
(i) The Director shall not duplicate the site-specific application of any guidelines employed by the United State
Army Corps of Engineers in evaluating permit applications under 33 U.S.C. 1344 and applicable federal regulations.
Hisrory Note. Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.3(c); 1438-282(1)(u),
RRC Objecrion Ejf: July 18, 1996 due to lack of srarurory aurhoriry and ambiguiq,
Ef: October 1, 1996.
.0507 ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION
(a) "l"ime Limit for Final Action on Certification Application. All applications for certification shall be granted
or denied within 60 days after receipt at the offices of the Director in Raleigh, North Carolina. Failure to take final
action within 60 days shall result in a waiver of the certification requirement by the Director, unless:
(1) The applicant agrees, in writing, to a longer period;
(2) Final decision is to be made pursuant to a public hearing;
(3) Applicant fails to furnish informatioa necessary to the Director's decision;
(4) Applicant refuses the staff access to its records or premises for the purpose of gathering information
necessary to the Director's decision or;
(5) Information necessary to the Director's decision is unavailable.
(b) Time Limit for Final Action on Certificatioa Application After Hearing. All applications for certification
shall be granted or denied within 60 days after public hearing. Failure to take final action within 60 days shall
result in a waiver of the certification requirement by the Director unless the applicant otherwise agrees in writing,
or unless Subparagraph (a)(3), (4), or (5) of this Rule shall apply.
(c) Conditions of Certification. Any certification issued pursuant to this Rule may contain such conditions as
the Director shall deem necessary to insure compliance with Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, and 307 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments.
(d) Modification or Revocation of Certification
(1) Any certification issued pursuant to this Rule shall be subject to revocation or modification for violation
of conditions of 301, 302, 303, 306, and 307 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments.
(2) Any certification issued pursuant to this Rule shall be subject to revocation or modification upon a
determination that information contained in the application or presented in support thereof is incorrect or
G ?Z IM' ..
W DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENOINEERS 5©,
P.O. BOX 1990
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IIEPLY TO
ATTENTION Of may 20, 1997
Regulatory Branch
SUBJECT: Action ID 199700095
14r.. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Post Office Boss 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
My sta-f-f has recently completed their review of your
January 15, 1997 correspondence, with an attached -Tirst Draft"
Mitigation Plan, requesting comments regarding the proposed
Gurley wetland mitigation Site on the west side of SR 1058, north
of Nahunta Swamp, in Greene County, North Carolina, associated
with the Wilson Bypass (R-1023AB & BB). Please also reference
the April 3, 1997 meeting between North Carolina Department of
Transportation staff, your consultants, my staff, and review
agencies concerning this mitigation site.
After reviewing the material and balancing all factors
associated with this issue, we have determined that the Gurley
site can be used as a compensatory mitigation site for losses of
ri.verine and non-riverine wooded wetlands, within certain
limitations. Our major concerns regarding the planning and
implementation of mitigation for this site follow:
1. The plan indicates that the hydrological restoration on
the site will include plugging ditches at discharge points and
key locations, and filling site ditches, where practicable. The
drawings shown at the April 3, 1997 meeting indicate that the
main ditches will be filled behind the plugs with on-site
materials, and that the secondary ditches will only be plugged.
You should provide all applicable information that supports your
determination that the use of on-site non-impervious
willibe
materials, to be placed only in the main ditches,
sufficient to restrict groundwater flows and thereby provide
appropriate wetland hydrology, and to withstand erosive flows on
the site. Please note that your proposed methodology for
G rd,n?t r ?' fift-W*4 year
r
oo.-1 ?[:''i LG6I'OZ'?0 ,,J01tl1f193S H!7I31tly 1J03:1
restoring hydrology may affect the success of the site, and is
done at your risk of not achieving success. If site monitoring
indicates that wetland hydrology is not achieved, :remedial
actions will be necessary.
2. Hydrological success criteria should be tied to
comparison with hydrological refezence sitea? rather than
meeting
the minimal saturation criteria for a specific percentage
growing season. This will ensure that the hydrollogyaof th?get
mitigation sites match the hydrology of the app p
wetland type, such as riverine flooded forest or palustrine
drainage forest, and will enhance the likelihood of success. Vae
specific criteria to be measured and compared, which should be
specific, measurable, and attainable, can be developed by the
ilia-er-agency review team as the plan is.' finalized-
3. The success criteria for vegetation will require
acceptable trey survival (320 trees per acre) for five
consecuti-ze years after planting, replanting, or any major
changes on the site, such as hydrology manipulation, rather than
for three years after initial planting.
4. We recommend that vegetative monitoring be completed by
September 30, rather than October 31, after each growing season,
to allow ample time to plan and implement ny necessary physical
changes on the site before the planting season 5. The plan should specify the acceptable planting period:
December 1 through March 31.
6. Although we concur with the plan to do only supplemental
plantings in the areas of the oito that prPSPntly support
successional vegetation, the mitigation value will be less for
these areas than for those where reforestation planting will be
esuhe mitigation on the
done. We will base the determined value of
wetland functions that are
mitigation.
7. The planting plan for the willow forest/organic con precipitation flat should
couldspecific
hichinclude
easilymoutcompete thetrol
which
reforestation by willows
proposed Atlantic White Cedar plantings.
$. AS discussed at the Aalon 1997 an
be limited to
manipulation of the hydrology g
only that necessary or advisable.for the increased success of the
2
LN d t+I :£S LGr,t'OZ'S0 mioiuing3M HSI31Ud 14033
1
mitigation site. If changes are necessary for maintenance of the
roadway, they should either be designed before the mitigation
plan is completed so they can be taken into account, or they
should be designed so that there is no adverse effect on
mitigation site hydrology. All potential effects of mitigation
site hydrology modifications on adjacent roadway or properties
should be carefully considered, such that future manipulation to
correct flooding problems is avoided and/or unnecessary.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. Eric Alsmeyer,
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office, telephone [phone],
extension 23.
Sincerely,
Michael D. Smith, P.W.S.
' Chief, North Section
Regulatory Branch
Copies Furnished:
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Mr. John Hefner
Field Supervisor
u.s. Fish and wildlife service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
pout office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. David Cox
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Habitat Conservation Program
1142 I-85 service Road
Creedmoor, North Carolina 27522
3

d
Z1. 1 :iI lr.5t•n7.,'?a mwiu-ine3`! 119131US HONJ
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Ja mes B. Hunt, Jr., G ove mor
Jonathan B. Howes Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
May 2, 1997
MEMORANDUM
To: David Robinson
NC DOT
Through: John Dorn
From: Eric Galamb
2?_*f
Subject: Gurley Mitigation Plan
Nahunta Swamp
Greene County

The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has reviewed the January, 1997 mitigation plan, undated
drawin-s, and the February 12, 1997 FAX for the Gurley Mitigation site in Greene County. We
offer the following comments:
A) The Gurley mitigation site is in Hydrologic Unit ;# 03020203 (a portion of the Neuse River
basin). Therefore, the service area for this project should be restricted to this Hydrologic
Unit.
B) The document states on page 111, "At no time during this study has there been evidence of
Nahunta Swamp water levels topping the adjacent levee/berm, despite the passage of two
hurricanes through the region...... This suggests that there is a need to either remove the
berm or create lane breaks in it for water quality improvement to he realized. Only with a
reduction in the height of the berm and breaks in it will there he over hank stream
flooding. DWQ supports the intermittent berm breaks. A map showing the location of
berm breaks should be included in a revised plan.
C) There currently are jurisdictional wetlands on the site. There are 53.6 acres of non-
riverine and 2.3 acres of riverine wetlands. There is no need for these sites to be re-
vegetated. Therefore, we believe that preservation credits should apply to the
jurisdictional wetlands.
D) DWQ supports the plugging and tilling of the on-site ditches and their outlets.
E) The document recommends not removing the heavers. A method to control the damage
Environmental Sciences Branch - 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity AtfimiaCve AcLion Employer 50% recycted/l0% post consumer paper

to planted trees needs to be developed for the short and lone-term. The document states
that there will be fencin?z or hardware cloth for the Cypress/Tupelo Swamp. Other
communities may also he affected by heavers and should he protected.
F) DWQ supports the Landscape Classification Ecosystem approach to develop the
appropriate vegetation and hydrology for the mitigation site.
G) DWQ does not believe that monitoring wells should be installed in the jurisdictional
wetlands (except for reference sites).
H) Vegetative and hydrologic monitorin?? should he for 5 and not 3 years.
I)_ As-built and annual monitoring reports should he sent to DWQ.
J) There is not sufficient justification for the proposed mitigation ratios. DWQ recommends
that the EPA guideline ratios he applied unless DOT can satisfactorily document the
proposed ratios. Currently there are approximately 59 acres of jurisdictional wetlands.
Preservation ratio of 10:1 should apply. The upland buffer can provide enhanced wetland
functions and therefore we propose a 15:1 ratio for the upland community provided that it
is also re-vegetated.
K) The drawings show transect vegetative monitoring. The transacts do not cross vegetative
communities. _ The purpose of these transects is unclear. Why are. the transacts 50'X50"?
L) There is no time table in the plan to show when ditches will be Clued, when trees planted
etc. The revised plan should have milestone dates.
Thank you for the opportunity to review your draft mitigation plan for the Gurley site. Should
you have any questions, please contact us at 733-1786.
Gurleymitt..wpd
cc: ?Robin Little
Ron Ferrell
Raleigh COE
FAXED
M AY 7 2 1997 1

I WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN

' GURLEY SITE
GREENE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

1
Prepared for:
1
The North Carolina Department of Transportation
' Raleigh, North Carolina

March 1998

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................. iii
LIST OF TABLES .................................................. iv
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...............................................1
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ... 2
..................................... .
2.1 Physiography, Site History
and Land Use 2
,
....................... .
2.2 Geology ......... 6
..................................... .
2.3 Water Resources .. 6
...................................... .
2.3.1 Streams ... 7
...................................... .
2.3.1.1 Nahunta Swamp .... 7
......................... .
2.3.1.2 Beaver Branch ............................... . 8
2.3.1.3 Stream Hydrology . 9
........................... .
2.3.2 Groundwater ....... 10
...............................
2.3.2 Water Quality . 13
....................................
2.4 Soils ................................................. 13
2.5 Plant Communities ....................................... 15
2.6 Wildlife ............................................... 18
2.6.1 Terrestrial ..... 18
...................................
2.6.2 Aquatic .......................................... 19
2.7 Threatened and Endangered Species 20
..........................
2.8 Wetlands ........ 20
.....................................
2.8.1 Field Delineation .................................... 20
2.8.2 DRAINMOD Modeling ...... 20
..........................
2.8.2.1 Model Description ... 23
.........................
2.8.2.2 Influence of Ditching 24
..........................
2.8.3 Existing Wetlands ................................... 24
2.8.4 Pre-Mitigation Wetland Functions ........................ 27
3.0 WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN .................................... 30
3.1 Hydrology ............................................. 30
3.1.1 Streams .........................................30
3.1.2 Groundwater ...................................... 32
3.2 Soils .................................................35
(CONTINUES)
i
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Page
3.3 Plant Communities ....................................... 36
3.3.1 Landscape Ecosystem Classification (LEC) ................. 36
3.3.1.1 LEC Method ................................ 37
3.3.1.2 LEC Results ................................ 37
3.3.2 Planting Plan ...................................... 42
3.4 Post-Mitigation Wetland Functions ............................ 46
4.0 MONITORING PLAN ..... 50
......................................
4.1 Hydrology ......... 50
....................................
4.1.1 Monitoring ........................................ 50
4.1.2 Success Criteria .................................... 52
4.2 Vegetation ......... 52
...................................
4.2.1 Monitoring ........................................ 52
4.2.2 Success Criteria .................................... 53
4.3 Report Submittal ...... 53
..................................
4.4 Contingency
........................................... 53
5.0. MITIGATION VALUE .......................................... 54
5.1 Wetland Functions Gained Through Mitigation Planning ............. 54
5.2 Mitigation Ratios ........................................ 54
6.0 SUMMARY .................................................56
7.0 REFERENCES ................................................57
APPENDICES
i
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1. Site Location ........................................... . 3
Figure 2. Aerial Photograph, January 1996 ............................. . 4
Figure 3. Site Features ........................................... . 5
Figure 4. Groundwater Flow for April 15, 1996 ......................... 11
Figure 5. Groundwater Flow for May 20, 1996 .......................... 12
Figure 6. Soils ................................................. 14
Figure 7. Existing Plant Communities ................................. 16
Figure 8. Site Wetland Status ...................................... 21
Figure 9. Levee Cross-sections ....................................... 31
Figure 10. Typical Ditch Plug ....................................... 33
Figure 11. Ditch Plug and Levee Break Locations ......................... 34
Figure 12. Landscape Ecosystem Classification site units .................... 38
Figure 13. Landscape Ecosystem Classification ........................... 39
Figure 14. Planting Plan ........................................... 43
Figure 15. Extent of Riverine Influence ................................. 47
Figure 16. Mitigation Areas ........................................ 51
i
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1. Pre- and Post-Mitigation Jurisdictional Wetlands Status within the
Gurley Mitigation Site ..................................... 22
Table 2. Projected Radii of Influence (ROI) of Various Ditch/Channel Depths
as Forecast by DRAINMOD in Soils Listed as Hydric at the Gurley
Mitigation Site .......................................... 25
Table 3. Planting Regime for the Gurley Mitigation Site .................... 44
iv

I

1

1.0 INTRODUCTION
General Assembly House Bill 399, ratified in 1989, provides for the establishment of the North
Carolina Highway Trust Fund. This fund was established to facilitate the development of free-
flowing, safe inter-city travel for motorists, and to support statewide growth and development
objectives. In 1994, the State of North Carolina created a new transportation plan called
Transportation 2001 that emphasizes, among other things, the acceleration of highway
projects associated with key regions of economic development As part of this effort, the N.C.
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is planning and constructing roadway improvement
projects in the eastern portion the state. Priority completion corridors in this region include US
64, US 264, US 17, and US 74. Some of these projects involve unavoidable wetland impacts;
however, locating suitable on-site compensatory mitigation sites is sometimes difficult.
NCDOT is attempting to establish up-front mitigation in regions of the state projected to
receive multiple roadway improvement projects. In the spring of 1995, NCDOT performed a
search for suitable wetland mitigation sites within the region of the proposed US 264 Bypass
of Wilson that resulted in the identification of the subject mitigation site on Nahunta Swamp
in Greene County, called the Gurley Mitigation Site (hereafter referred to as the Site). After
on-site cursory hydrological evaluations, general confirmation of Natural Resource Conservation
Service (NRCS) soil survey map units (USDA 1980), and evaluation of on-site wetlands and
biotic communities, NCDOT determined that the Site offers reasonable wetlands mitigation
potential and purchased the property for inclusion in its wetland mitigation program.
The Site is planned as a compensatory wetlands mitigation bank for the central Coastal Plain
of North Carolina. The Site is strategically located in a region planned for several highway
improvement projects including the US 264 priority completion corridor. Some specific
projects planned for the area and included in the 1996 Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) are US 264 Bypass of Wilson (R-1023) and the Merck Road (SR 1157) widening (R-3345)
in Wilson County, the re-location of US 117 between Wilson and Goldsboro (R-1030) in Wilson
and Wayne Counties, and the US 70 Bypass of Goldsboro (R-2554) in Wayne and Lenoir
Counties.
NCDOT contracted Environmental Services, Inc. (ESI) for assistance with wetland restoration
components of a mitigation plan. Additional technical expertise was provided by Hayes, Seay,
Mattern and Mattern (HSMM) to model surface water (stream) hydrology in the degraded
wetland system.
The purpose of this document is to: (1) describe existing conditions at the Site, including a
t summary of wetland component analyses; (2) present a mitigation plan for restoring palustrine
wetlands and riverine-influenced wetlands; and (3) present a plan for monitoring and measuring
success of restoration efforts.
' 1

E

2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Site is adjacent to the north bank of Nahunta Swamp, immediately west of the confluence
of Nahunta Swamp and Beaver Branch, in the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province of North
Carolina. The Site is located approximately 12.9 kilometers (km) (8 miles [mil) northwest of
Snow Hill, 19.3 km (12 mi) northeast of Goldsboro, and 25.7 km (16 mi) southeast of Wilson
(Figure 1). The Site is approximately 72.4 hectares (ha) (179 acres [ac]) in areal extent and
is transected on the north and east by SR 1058 and SR 1253. The Nahunta Swamp channel
defines the southern boundary of the Site and Beaver Branch defines the northern and eastern
boundary of the portion of the Site east of SR 1058 (Figure 2). All Site figures depicted at the
scale of Figure 3 are missing coverage of an approximately 2.8 ha (7.0 ac) strip adjacent to
Nahunta Swamp (see Figure 2) due to a lack of coverage on the original topographic base map.
Text descriptions and calculations include this entire strip.
2.1 Physiography, Site History, and Land Use
Site landscape is characterized as nearly level on floodplains and interstream flats with
moderate slopes occurring along the outer boundaries of floodplains. Relief is primarily
determined by dissection of the land by drainage ways and slope retreat. Elevations within
the Site range from approximately 27.4 meters (m) (90 feet [ft]) in the northwestern corner
to approximately 16.8 m (55 ft) in the Nahunta Swamp channel near the SR 1058 bridge (U.S.
Geological Survey [USGS] 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle, Jason, NC) (Figure 3).
The region was settled by Europeans in the early 1700s, which began a gradual transition from
forest to agricultural production. Area streams were identified on the Collet Map of 1770, on
which Nahunta Creek is depicted draining an extensive Nahunta Swamp. The Collet Map also
indicates a crossing of Nahunta Creek by a road leading south from Tarrburg (Tarboro).
Nahunta Swamp is labeled by various names on historic maps of the area. The MacRae-Brazier
Map of 1833 indicates an area road configuration strikingly similar to the roadways which
exist today.
' Nahunta Swamp has been straightened and channelized, and spoil material from the stream
bed was used to fortify the levee of the north bank, creating a large levee/berm along the
southern border of the Site. Beaver Branch was also channelized in the past, but to a lesser
' extent than Nahunta Swamp. Site ditches were installed to de-water areas for the purpose
of converting the area to agricultural production and timber harvesting. There are three ditch
' systems, each with a direct connection through the levee/berm to Nahunta Swamp (Figure 3).
The ditches presently serve primarily three hydrological functions: (1) to rapidly drain the Site
after rainfall events, (2) to lower the average water table, and (3) to act as inlets to the Site
' for Nahunta Swamp flood waters. The Nahunta Swamp floodplain consists of an undulating
landscape characterized by mounds of soil and sloughs and depressions. An extensive linear

2

?a
i - r M '' ,rpp PIDpE Je`
N
..
! •
? e Wx Rp
F YREMNT RD `-
r
, xRSTOwx Iw = .
?
o .,
_ ...? '`
RRp o t i s

! ` F e ..

S ... V8 4 s,

\
ON CO to
a°
i
, b d ? r I ev
Y ?a r ., / I Fa y e
Rs ' .?/ .. c t . I ? o
b, RC ° N

z
F4

Y
e..xel O 1 asxixsr Rp?P? i o!@
A
ll
l

YRUipb .
..
y Wi
ki
PA
r}. -9 - p Eo0 ? BEI?t
,
222 PD . n
`
?
?
?
PI ,.Y
r
NIM K /?Y
, ?
W°ERT
\. i 8? ?p
I S+WTb
'.Gm .'
: Sevapa .. 222
DnpmEl
E
l 'g x ? ? .\ ? ?
„1
'
\ 7 .,
llrt
la IIC
t
...-3 `J...?• y.
.. .
NM1pE\-. GWpT qL
Wes" O
moP
Z;
,?'-'
a
' '? 111 • i
-
-. 1 "90 ni E pa W-
?'
'
y' RTCOCI[
y F
? - ( owr
(
AW' IoWe
? ?---
' E
..
l
" ? •^ e. g .. ' p
` y
,
@ i
? ?? ; ' .. ? ? , p
?-
?"
?
? F _

!
Charles B.
Bi

^
:.,
9
a N tp
'? •, '?
'+ .?
om..

1
'.
.
g i
Fro'.- \ •? ?° EooNart ¦
. "

.
•`? N I
`
\
. ^ r
Y h
?F
'
?_? S?O?
\
`J
?HErr???eEE
Crmra.3
r
? \
\ ?
p
p ?
`
• ?
?'
r

¦PM Y
PikerM1l4 S l
`?
..fi
GFEy
'

@
_. ... g
.. + fir' '
`
`
•
eM
117 ? ? ` +
? p $
' sf
?
, !
'' e
1
\
_ _.,
MFR • GoEUOe6?
' • •
r
g rror

J .•
,
•
/ 4. ?,
1pu iy? g
+E
^ ?R+ry
?
?
? g ._ PrL F p .1
m
E I
?
rEea a Rp
M
runidpo
m ,ro
c

, ? ? ? Mn!
? ^
"
+ S.Wtan='.'r .. epPIME(°
S

•-`
, r S
J
F
?
?
' b
IEW
? ..
° -
OP WED
\.. N a
± RF
_... Ke
• i( ?
?d• , '? ? ? ` F
r .
? , .
? _
' g ,
903
F ree
?GvN f
? ? •7 ??
I j :' Sx'. t0 Heed
W SrrxF "°EP., Rp MlEpprld
.-
1dp SMRYI a
a• r WeepW ?s ..
Ce
E
tl
s ,? .(
. i /
a ee?
p
r
Er
?
?
` ) ' /
e
?'
WNs
'
` ? E pRTF Rp ?
g : ; 1pN,E

?
.
. w
aoxe
' yE?>2"

? / ,-'

Study Area
0
„ ?
% w.v
TiE,,, d b' PaRxs,pwR F.d O xN?T ?
``E 0 1 2 3 Miles
9° PUIx$ Owx
b FETF
54 ` ! c? 0 1 2 3 Kilometers
? \
O t Oe? ._ , NICIU Rp f
f NP
;

S
,5.... •: e? M._. i ?' !poe°+('
' -
. _
Bea?„?f ,N suR p
ET4tFR
F?1H ,r c M ? I
'`-

t.

T 4r .?.Y" of
F 1
.
Loow
Site Location Figure 1
Environmental Gurley Mitigation Site
Project ER94018.13
Services, Inc. Greene County, North Carolina
R-1023AB Date March 1998
3

ER94018.13/GURLALL. DWG
I&
FEET 0 500 1,000

e?
Environmental
Services, Inc.
SITE FEATURES
GURLEY MITIGATION SITE
GREENE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
R-1023AS
Drawn By: PJS Figure: 3
Checked By: APS Project: ER94018.13
Scale: 1"=500' Date: March 1998
yam/,,... .../j •....,.-?,}?! i ? {`

L

depression occurs in the floodplain adjacent to the levee/berm that may represent a relict
channel of Nahunta Swamp.
The Nahunta Swamp drainage basin is primarily agricultural land and forested land, and to a
lesser extent, rural residential land. The region produces tobacco, soy beans, corn, cotton,
poultry, hogs, lumber, and some textiles (Powell 1968). These land use practices tend to
result in moderate to high amounts of topsoil erosion, which adds excessive loads of
sediments, organics, and chemicals to system floodplains and streams.
2.2 Geology
The Coastal Plain is comprised of sediments deposited since the Cretaceous Period, 138 million
years before present (m.y.B.P.) by a "series of transgressions and regressions of the Atlantic
Ocean. In North Carolina, Coastal Plain sediments generally dip to the east or southeast, and
the sediment thickness increases from west to east (Stuckey 1958). The underlying geologic
units at the Site are the Yorktown Formation of Tertiary Age (from 65 to 2 m.y.B.P.) and the
Black Creek Formation, of Cretaceous Age (from 138 to 65 m.y.B.P.) (NCGS 1985).
The Yorktown Formation is composed of a bluish-gray, fossiliferous clay with various amounts
of fine-grained sand; shell material is commonly concentrated in lenses. The Yorktown
Formation is present mainly in the inner Coastal Plain north of the Neuse River and underlies
most of the Site.
The Black Creek Formation is composed of a gray-black, lignitic clay which contains thin beds
' and laminae of fine-grained, micaceous sand and thick lenses of cross-bedded sand. This unit
also contains glauconitic, fossiliferous, clayey sand lenses in the upper part (NCGS 1985). The
Black Creek Formation is present in a belt that follows the lower Nahunta Swamp and
Contentnea Creek. This formation occurs within the Site adjacent to Nahunta Swamp
downstream of the SR 1058 bridge.
' 2.3 Water Resources
' The Site is found within the Neuse River basin in Hydrologic Unit #03020203 (USGS 1974).
Primary sources of water in the Site include rainfall, groundwater seeps from adjacent uplands,
and two named streams, Nahunta Swamp and Beaver Branch. Local rainfall either sheet flows
' or moves laterally through the soil toward streams. Localized expressions of groundwater
commonly occur on middle and lower surfaces of outer floodplain slopes within the Site,
resulting in extended periods of ground surface saturation. The surficial groundwater is
' supplemented by an unnamed, lateral drainage that enters the Site across the central portion
of the western boundary. This drainage transports sheet flow and groundwater seepage from
adjacent agricultural fields and widens into a delta upon entering the Site. This groundwater
seepage and surface water runoff continues toward Nahunta Swamp and Beaver Branch as
a combination of sheet flow, ditch flow, and groundwater.
6

L'

C
Nahunta Swamp and Beaver Branch are blackwater streams formed within the Coastal Plain
(as opposed to alluvial or brownwater streams, which are formed in the Mountains or
Piedmont). The primary hydrological influence within blackwater systems is discharge from
drainage basin precipitation. Groundwater seepage is also an important influence as it acts as
somewhat of an echo of precipitation events. These hydrological inputs result in irregular
discharge peaks due to frontal or local weather events, and discharge may drop to near zero
in drought conditions. When blackwater streams are tributaries to alluvial or brownwater
streams, as Nahunta Swamp is to Contentnea Creek, an additional, strong hydrological
influence on the blackwater stream may be the "water dam effect", which results from the
force of peak flows in the alluvial stream slowing, or even stopping, blackwater flow (Wharton
et al. 1982).
Blackwater stream floodplains act as a transitional zone between the open water of the stream
and the adjacent uplands. The floodplain can buffer, or dissipate, channel energy from high
stream flows. The floodplain is reshaped by the stream through the activities of scouring and
sedimentation. Blackwater streams and adjacent floodplains are typically characterized by
"flash inundations", wherein stream waters gain velocity and rise rapidly after rainfall events,
lose velocity with the occurrence of overbank flooding, and recede rapidly following the event.
2.3.1 Streams
Surface drainage at the Site is considered as two systems: (1) Nahunta Swamp and the
associated tributary ditches south of SR 1058; and (2) Beaver Branch. HSMM conducted a
hydraulic analysis of the Nahunta Swamp and Beaver Branch streams, the results of which are
presented in a separate report (HSMM 1996) and supplement the following discussions of
these streams.
2.3.1.1 Nahunta Swamp
Nahunta Swamp flows from northeastern Johnston County, eastward across northern Wayne
County, and into Contentnea Creek in northwestern Greene County. The confluence of
Nahunta Swamp and Contentnea Creek is located approximately 4.8 km (3 mi) below the Site.
The portion of the Nahunta Swamp located within the Site is a 4th order stream with a
drainage basin of approximately 208.2 square (sq) km (80.4 sq mi). Much of the land adjacent
to the Nahunta Swamp floodplain has been converted to agricultural production.
Past alterations to Nahunta Swamp that affect its present influence on the Site include: (1)
straightening and channelization of the stream, resulting in a lowering of stream stage and the
adjacent groundwater table; (2) clearing and ditching of much of the upstream floodplain for
agricultural production, residential development, and highway construction; (3) ditching and
timber harvesting within the Site; and (4) cumulative effects of sedimentation and elevated
nutrient inputs on the system resulting from these disturbances.
7

u

ri

Straightening and channelizing of Nahunta Swamp have increased the potential drainage rate
of the system, reducing the basin residence time of surface water. As the channel was
mechanically deepened, dredged stream bed material was deposited on the north bank of the
stream, greatly increasing the height and width of the natural levee. Thus, a combination of
lowering the stream bed and raising the bank levee/berm have greatly reduced the opportunity
for overbank flooding within the Site.
Clearing and ditching of the floodplain upstream of the Site have magnified the volume of
stream flows following rainfall events. The construction of hardened barriers, such as roads,
prevent flood waters from sheet flowing across the floodplain, causing stream flow energy
dissipation needs that exceed the system's capability, resulting in the increased likelihood of
downstream flood damage. Clearing and ditching of the floodplain reduce the opportunity for
the floodplain to reduce flow velocities and store flood waters.
Increased sedimentation and nutrient levels greatly influence the physical, chemical, and
biological components of the stream system away from natural conditions. The resulting
decrease in water quality is compounded by the reduced opportunity for peak flows to utilize
water quality functions provided by adjacent floodplain wetlands.
2.3.1.2 Beaver Branch
Beaver Branch is a 2nd order stream formed north of the Site, just inside the Wayne County
boundary, approximately 4.0 km (2.5 mi) upstream from the confluence with Nahunta Swamp.
The Beaver Branch drainage basin is approximately 5.4 sq km (2.1 sq mi) in size. Beaver
Branch is impacted by similar disturbances as Nahunta Swamp. The narrow, forested Beaver
Branch floodplain is bounded on both sides by agricultural fields, and a hog operation has
recently been constructed on the upper, southwest bank.
There is some speculation as to whether the channel of Beaver Branch within the Site may
' have been manipulated to its current location. Prior to construction of the existing SR 1058
facility, Beaver Branch may have flowed along a more southerly path to Nahunta Swamp as
noted on existing USGS topographic mapping (Jason, NC 7.5 minute quadrangle). The existing
topography and soils in the lower portion of Beaver Branch tend to indicate that the stream
may have periodically shifted bed locations and confluence points with Nahunta Swamp as a
' result of sedimentation and flood flow events. The fact that the present Beaver Branch
channel is used as a property line with evidence that the existing road beds may have been
in use as long ago as 1833 (according to the MacRae-Brazier map) suggest that Beaver Branch
' has been in its current location for as long as two centuries.
Beavers have blocked Beaver Branch at the SR 1253 culvert within the last year, creating an
extensive impoundment in the floodplain resulting in the death of many standing trees. Water
levels in this impoundment have remained well above the shoulders of adjacent paved roads.
' 8
0

fl

f'

C

1

During and after heavy rains, water from the impoundment has been observed to breach the
beaver dams and sheet flow across both SR 1058 and SR 1253 with depths as great as 20
centimeters (cm) (8 inches [in]) to 30 cm (12 in). There are currently two culverts under SR
1058 adjacent to the beaver impoundment. These culverts are almost completely silted in
with sediments deposited during periodic flood events.
2.3.1.3 Stream Hydrology
Hydraulic analysis was accomplished on both channels through the use of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (COE) HEC-2 Water Surface Profiles computer models. The term "HEC"
refers to the COE Hydrologic Engineering Center, which originally released the computer
models. These models are designed to calculate water surface profiles for steady gradually
varied flow in natural or manmade channels. The effects of various obstructions such as
bridges, culverts, structures in the channel, and the floodplain are accounted for in the
computations. The computational procedure used in HEC-2 is based on the solution of the
one-dimensional energy equation with energy loss due to friction evaluated by Manning's
equation. This procedure is generally known as the standard step method.
The computer model utilized surveyed cross sections of the existing channel and survey
information of the existing bridges. Observations of the existing hydraulic characteristics were
incorporated into the model and the computed water surface elevations were calibrated by
comparing results with high water events recorded by a USGS stream gauge. The USGS has
maintained a stream gauge station (Gauge No. 0209100) at the SR 1058 bridge since 1954.
The events chosen for calibration were of relatively high frequency to ensure the maximum
accuracy in determining overbank flooding. Based on Site topographic mapping generated by
NCDOT, two elevations which represent a significant portion of the floodplain were selected
for analysis, 17.7 m (58 ft) and 18.3 m (60 ft).
Stream gauge data and the hydraulic analysis indicate that Nahunta Swamp floods the Site to
an elevation of 17.7 m (58 ft) approximately three times a year and floods the Site to an
elevation of 18.3 m (60 ft) approximately once a year. However, the levee/berm prevents
overbank flow. The primary mechanism for flooding interior floodplain reaches involves ditch
overflow from a rising Nahunta Swamp, generating a water dam barrier against sheet flow and
groundwater movement from adjacent uplands. Based on a comparison of similar flow events
recorded by the stream gauge, it is apparent the average level in Nahunta Swamp has dropped
by approximately 0.6 m (2 ft) since the 1950s. The gauge data suggests that Nahunta
Swamp may have historically flooded to an elevation of 18.3 (60 ft) up to three times a year.
On several occasions during this study, the Site has been observed to flood following
significant rainfalls. Following rainfall events, the water level in Nahunta Swamp rises rapidly,
remains at flood stage for a relatively brief period of time, and falls rapidly. When Nahunta
Swamp water levels fall below the level of the relict floodplain, Site ditches promote efficient
9

n
i
' drainage of surface waters except in low-lying areas. Stream hydrographs from the USGS
stream gauge confirm that Nahunta Swamp is characterized by discharge peaks at irregular
' intervals as expected of a blackwater system (Appendix A). At no time during this study has
there been evidence of Nahunta Swamp water levels topping the adjacent levee/berm, despite
the passage of two hurricanes through the region, Hurricane Bertha in July and Hurricane Fran
in September 1996.
' 2.3.2 Groundwater
Regional groundwater flow in the North Carolina Coastal Plain is generally in a down-dip
direction to the southeast. Rivers in this region of the state generally flow from northwest to
southeast, roughly paralleling dip direction. Shallow groundwater generally occurs under
unconfined (water table) conditions within 1.5 m (5 ft) of the surface, as evidenced by the
large expanses of hydric soils and the extensive regional use of drainage systems in
agricultural fields.

11
n
1

The Site consists of hydric soils from former floodplains and terraces bounded by non-hydric
soils comprising topographically-high uplands. This situation has resulted in an abundance of
seeps at the base of the slopes where groundwater from the uplands is discharged onto the
surface of the ground. This discharge has produced and maintained saturated conditions along
the toe slope of the north end of the Site, along a portion of the west-central region of the
Site, and in part of the southwest corner of the Site.
Topographically, the Site is generally expressed as a series of terraces sloping in a
southeastward direction from uplands in the north and west, and the floodplain of Beaver
Branch in the east. The expected groundwater flow under unconfined conditions roughly
mirrors the topography and parallels flow in the two streams as distances from the streams
decrease. Prior to ditching, groundwater was probably close to the ground surface between
the floodplain slopes and the streams. Historically, groundwater movement occurred across
elevational gradients, with surface expressions of hydrology in depressions caused by sheet
flow and overbank flooding following rainfall events.
Currently, water moves across the Site as sheet flow until drainage into a ditch or natural
depression, or infiltration into soils. Water ponded within natural depressions or sloughs
typically either infiltrates into soils or evaporates. The existing network of drainage ditches
(Figure 3) collects runoff and (discharged) groundwater, and efficiently conveys the water
southward or eastward to Nahunta Swamp. These ditches serve to reduce residence time of
water within the Site and lower the average groundwater levels. Based upon local water level
measurements acquired from a series of monitoring wells or piezometers (see PZ locations on
Figures 4 and 5), groundwater flow maps were prepared for the Site for 15 April 1996 and 20
May 1996 (Figures 4 and 5). Groundwater was encountered in the borings as part of a
10

ER94018.13/GURLALL.DWG
FEET 0 500 1,000

Environmental
Services, Inc.
GROUNDWATER FLOW FOR APRIL 15, 1996
GURLEY MITIGATION SITE
GREENE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
R-1023AB
Drawn By: PJS Figure: 4
Checked By: APS Project: ER94018.13
Scale: 1"=500' Date: March 1998
.M'- __ / J / f ,?? ? Vf?VVI\?1f11 L1? VVI\IVV1?
60.76 GROUNDWATER ELEVATION (FEET)
GROUNDWATER WELL
PZ 4 WELL ID
ER94018.13/GURLALL.DWG
FEET 0 S00 1,000
METERS 0 100 200 300

r /
a, a4 1?aW}
l( 4F`

011 f t
?1 y'ss ?
rt s? l?,
r
rv

P
1 }
.j

Fl ,?
14
Ilk
j V
e!
r" [J fr,
J ,r J?ir/ r

56.

24

f ??/ /? f J/^\?\4'

MITIGATION SITE BOUNDARY
GROUNDWATER CONTOUR
60.715 GROUNDWATER ELEVATION (FEET)
GROUNDWATER WELL
PZ 4 WELL ID
/"'\
Environmental
Services, Inc.
GROUNDWATER FLOW FOR MAY 20, 1996
GURLEY MITIGATION SITE
GREENE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
R-1023AB
Drawn By: PJS Figure: 5
Checked By: APS Project: ER94018.13
Scale: 1"=500' Date: March 1998

r
C

C?

shallow, unconfined surficial aquifer within 0.3 m to 1.8 m (1.0 to 6.0 ft) of the ground
surface.
There are two areas within the Site where soil conditions, topography, and hydrological inputs
have combined to generate a greater flux of water than can be removed by drainage. These
areas are associated with a depression supporting a willow forest located in the mouth of a
drainage near the western border, and an emergent herbaceous assemblage located in the
vicinity of monitoring well PZ 14 (see Figures 4 and 5). Both of these areas are located at the
toe of the floodplain slope in Johnston soils characterized by a high surface organic content.
These areas are believed to retain wetland hydrology in spite of Site ditching.
2.3.3 Water Quality
Both Nahunta Swamp, from its source to Contentnea Creek, and Beaver Branch, from its
source to Nahunta Swamp, have a best usage classification of C Sw NSW. Class C uses are
aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, and secondary recreation. Secondary
recreation refers to activities involving human body contact with water on an infrequent or
incidental basis (DEM 1993). The supplemental classification Sw indicates that a stream has
low velocities and other characteristics which are different from adjacent streams. The
supplemental classification NSW refers to nutrient sensitive waters, which require
management of nutrient inputs due to their tendency for excessive growth of microscopic and
macroscopic vegetation. Contentnea Creek, from Wiggins Mill Reservoir in Wilson to its
confluence with the Neuse River, also has a best usage classification of C Sw NSW (DEM
1993). A Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) station is located at the SR
1058 bridge over Nahunta Swamp which has a rating of Fair (DEM 1989, 1991).
2.4 Soils
Soils present within the Site include the Johnston (Cumulic Humaquepts), Paxville (Typic
Umbraquults), Lumbee (Typic Ochraquults), Pactolus (Aquic Quartzipsamments), Blanton
(Grossarenic Paleudults), Wagram(Arenic Paleudults), and Cowarts (Typic Hapludults) series.
These soils are mineral soils (Ultisols, Inceptisols, Entisols) and have been mapped by the
NRCS (USDA 1980). The soils map presented in Figure 6 has been modified by ESI registered
soil scientists based on extensive field work.
Soil textures within most of the Site range from fine sand to loam of moderate to rapid
permeability. Upland soils have low to very low organic matter content within surface
horizons. Seasonal high water tables vary along the topographic gradient from surface
flooding to more than 1.8 m (6.0 ft) below the surface. Water from Nahunta Swamp
occasionally flows into the Site through ditch breaks in the levee/berm, temporarily inundating
portions of the Site, but typically flood waters recede quickly.
13

ER94018.13/GU R LALL. DWG

FEET 0 500 1,000
METERS 0 100 200 300
ri4
4I?
WaB
CoC2
t ?`k
CoC2

? MITIGATION SITE BOUNDARY
M HYDRIC SOILS
JS - Johnston Loam
Pm - Poxville Loam
Lu - Lumbee Sandy Loam
NON-HYDRIC SOILS
Pa - Pactolus Fine Sand
BnB - Blanton Sand
WaB - Wagrom Loamy Sand
CoC2 - Cowart's Sandy Loam
1W Environmental
Services, Inc.
SOILS
GURLEY MITIGATION SITE
GREENE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
R-1023AB
AREA (ACRES)
94.8
33.2
26.1
4.2
3.3
3.4
7.0
Drawn By: PJS Figure: 6
Checked By: APS Project: ER94018.13
Scale: 1"=500' Date: March 1998

I
Hydric soils are defined as "soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the
growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper soil layer" (USDA 1991). Hydric
soils identified within the Site include the Johnston (38.4 ha [94.8 ac]), Lumbee (10.6 ha
[26.1 ac]), and Paxville 0 3.4 ha [33.2 ac]) series. Boundaries for these soils were delineated
in April 1996. Hydric soils within the Site range in texture from sandy loam to loam and range
from poorly to very poorly drained. These soils have high organic matter content within the
surface horizons. Permeability for the hydric soils ranges from moderate to moderately rapid.
Ditch systems within the Site have drained most of these soil units to the extent that
anaerobic conditions in the upper soil horizons are currently limited. In addition, artificial
drainage and agricultural production has most likely promoted a reduction in organic matter
content through accelerated decomposition and harvesting.
Non-hydric soils present within the Site include the Pactolus (1.7 ha [4.2 ac]), Blanton (1.3 ha
[3.3 ac]), Cowarts (2.8 ha [7.0 ac]), and Wagram (1.4 ha [3.4 ac]) series. These soils occupy
the topographically higher portions of the Site. Textures range from fine sand to sand loam
and range from moderately well drained to well drained. These soils have low organic matter
content in the surface horizons.
2.5 Plant Communities
' Plant communities at the Site are poorly defined because of continued disturbances over the
years. Disturbances include farming, flooding, beaver activity, fire, and especially logging and
' ditching. Logging and extensive ditching were undertaken in an attempt to convert most of
the Site to agricultural production. Most of this conversion attempt failed. A few trees were

left during logging operations and now stand above the average level of the regenerating
vegetation. The resulting vegetative cover is a complex mosaic including agricultural land,
herbaceous assemblage, willow forest, mixed hardwood forest, mesic pine flatwood, early
successional forest, beaver impoundment, and urban/disturbed land (Figure 7).
A brief discussion of the more discernable plant communities follows.
Agricultural Land. This community consists of early successional herbaceous species that
have recolonized fallow crop fields; one growing season has passed since these fields were
in crop production. The fields form a shallow, wide arc and are located adjacent to, and south
of, SR 1058 and are approximately 11.5 ha (28.5 ac) in extent. Most of the agricultural land
is hydric soils, but vegetative composition is essentially the same throughout this community.
The most common species are broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), dog fennel (Eupatorium
capiiiifoiium), asters (Aster spp.), goldenrods (Soiidago spp.), knawel (Scieranthus annuus),
morning glory (ipomoea sp.), sicklepod (Cassia obtusifoiia), and occasional grasses. Scattered
seedlings of sweetgum (Liquidambar styracifiua) and red maple (Acer rubrum) are found among
the herbs.
15

ER94018.13/GU R LALL. DWG

FEET 0 500 1,000
METERS 0 100 200 300

MITIGATION SITE BOUNDARY
_ _ _ = __. . AREA (ACRES)
MIXED HARDWOOD FOREST 34.6
WILLOW FOREST 8.0
_ _ HERBACEOUS ASSEMBLAGE 5.0
® AGRICULTURAL LAND 28.5
-- = URBAN/DISTURBED LAND 5.6
+ + MESIC PINE FLATWOOD 1.5
M BEAVER IMPOUNDMENT 4.1

1
EARLY SUCCESSIONAL FOREST 84.7
9 Environmental
Services, Inc.
EXISTING PLANT COMMUNITIES
GURLEY MITIGATION SITE
GREENE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
R-1023AB
Drawn By: PJS Figure: 7
Checked By: APS Project: ER94018.13
Scale: 1"=500' Date: March 1998

Herbaceous Assemblage. There are two principal variants of this community which together
' account for 1.6 ha (4.0 ac). The first community consists of a nearly pure stand of cane
(Arundinaria gigantea) located south of the western-most agricultural field and adjacent to the
' major east-west oriented ditch. The second community is primarily cane, but is intermixed
with emergent species such as woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus) and cattail (Typha latifolia),
along with climbing hempweed (Mikania scandens), sedges (Cyperus spp.), lovevine (Cuscuta
' sp.), and smartweed (Polygonum sp.). Saplings of red maple and sweetgum are also found
in this community. This assemblage is located west of the western-most agricultural field at
' the toe of a slope.
Willow Forest. This forest community covers approximately 3.2 ha (8.0 ac) and is located
' along the central-western boundary of the Site, where an agricultural field drainage enters the
Site. The canopy is almost wholly composed of black willow (Safix nigra). The subcanopy
consists of a mixture of black willow and river birch (Betula nigra). Scattered thickets of tag
' alder (Alnus serrulata) dominate the shrub layer, and herbs include mostly marsh dayflower
(Murdannia keisak) with false nettle (Boehmeria cyfindrica), smartweed (Polygonum sp.), and
I cane.
Mixed Hardwood Forest. A mixed hardwood forest community is found on slopes along the
' western boundary of the Site, in the southwestern portion of the site floodplain, and on the
levee/berm adjacent to Nahunta Swamp. This community was severely damaged during the
' passage of Hurricanes Bertha (July 1996) and Fran (September 1996). In some areas, up to
70 percent of the canopy has been lost. The areal extent of this community is approximately
14.0 ha (34.6 ac). Site-specific species composition within this community varies with
' moisture regime. Canopy species include white oak (Quercus alba), swamp chestnut oak (Q.
michauxii), willow oak (Q. pheffos), water oak (Q. nigra), and mockernut hickorv (Carva

F

i
C

tomentosa). These same species are sometimes found in the subcanopy along with occasional
sourwood (Oxydendron arboreum), ironwood (Carpinus carofiniana), dogwood (Corpus florida),
or American holly (flex opaca). The most common shrub is horsesugar (Symplocos tinctoria),
with occasional highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum), Virginia willow (/tea virginica),
or saplings of canopy trees. Muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia) and common greenbrier
(Smilax rotundifolia) are very common, but Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia),
poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and yellow jessamine (Gelsemium sempervirens) are
found occasionally. Herbs are limited to occasional grasses including cane, sedges, and
infrequent ferns.
Mesic Pine Flatwood. This community is small, approximately 0.6 ha (1.5 ac) in areal extent,
and is located south of, and near the west end of the main east-west oriented ditch. The
canopy is dominated by loblolly pine, with black cherry (Prunus serotina) and sweetgum.
17

Shrubs include wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), water oak, and horsesugar. The herb layer
includes broomsedge, Virginia creeper, and poison ivy.
Early Successional Forest. This community comprises most of the Site, covering an area of
' approximately 34.7 ha (85.7 ac). Typical vegetation is 3- to 9-m (10- to 30-ft) tall thickets
of nearly impenetrable blackberry, greenbrier, muscadine grape, loblolly pine, river birch, water
oak, tag alder, sweetgum, and red maple. The specific composition at any one location is
' dependent on seed sources, extent of disturbance, soil characteristics, hydrology, and
topography. Few canopy-sized trees remain in this community.

n
0

C
0

Beaver Impoundment. The portion of Beaver Branch north of SR 1058 and west of SR 1253
is currently flooded due to beaver activity. The extent of this impoundment is approximately
1.7 ha (4.1 ac). Most of the canopy trees that were part of a mixed hardwood forest are now
dying from girdling or flooding. A few live trees remain in the standing water. Wetland shrubs
and herbs are found in shallow areas and along the fringes of the water.
Urban/Disturbed Land. This community includes both paved and unpaved roads and road
shoulders that are subject to regular maintenance such as mowing, grading, or herbiciding.
Annual and perennial grasses and herbaceous plants are found in these maintained areas.
Areal extent of this community is approximately 2.3 ha (5.6 ac).
2.6 Wildlife
2.6.1 Terrestrial
Forested floodplains bordering Nahunta Swamp are expected to support wildlife species
adapted to riparian forest habitat as well as species adapted to ecotonal and early successional
vegetation. The agricultural land, beaver impoundment, and urban/disturbed land add diversity
and complexity to the existing wildlife habitat. Food, protective cover, water, and nesting
sites for many species are available within the Site.
Mammal sightings or evidence (scat, tracks, burrows) observed within the Site include white-
tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus
floridanus), beaver (Castor canadensis), and small rodents. Other mammals likely to occur
within the Site include gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), Virginia opossum (Didelphis
virginiana), long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), gray fox
(Urocyon cinereoargenteus), and various small rodents such as southern short-tailed shrew
(Blar/na carolinensis), golden mouse (Ochrotomys nuttali), white-footed mouse (Peromyscus
leucopus), and hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus) (Webster et al. 1985).
Common resident bird species include Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), blue jay
(Cyanocitta cristata), northern cardinal (Card/nalis cardinalis), red-bellied woodpecker
18

I

(Melanerpes carolinus), downy woodpecker (Picoides villosus), American crow (Corvus
brachyrhynchos), Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis), American robin (Turdus mfgratorfus),
and eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis). Summer breeding species include yellow-billed cuckoo
(Coccyzus americanus), summer tanager (Piranga rubra), white-eyed vireo (Vireo griseus),
Acadian flycatcher (Empidonax virescens), wood thrush (Hylocichla mustefina), common
yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), and hooded warbler (Wilsonia citrina). Winter residents
would likely include song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemafis), and
white-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicoflis). Several species of diurnal and nocturnal raptors
such as red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), and barred
owl (Strix varia) are also expected to use the Site (Potter et al. 1980).
Reptiles observed include eastern box turtle (Terrapene carofina), black rat snake (Efaphe
obsofeta), garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), red-bellied water snake (Nerodia erythrogaster),
banded water snake (N. fasciata), eastern hognose snake (Heterodon platyrhinos), copperhead
(Agkistrodon contortrix), green anole (Anolis carofinensis), and six-lined racerunner
(Cnemidophorus sexfineatus). Other expected species include ringneck snake (Diadophis
punctatus), mud snake (Farancia abacura), cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus), and eastern
mud turtle (Kinosternon subrubrum) (Palmer and Braswell 1995).
2.6.2 Aquatic
Due to the abundance of water in streams, impoundments, tire ruts, topographic depressions,
and numerous ditches, the Site provides habitat for numerous amphibians. Squirrel treefrog
(Hyla squirella), Cope's gray treefrog (H. chrysoscefis), southern leopard frog (Rana utricularia),
bullfrog (R. catesbeiana), and southern toad (Bufo terrestris) have been observed on the Site.
Other expected amphibians include lesser and greater sirens (Siren intermedia and S. facertina),
marbled salamander (Ambystoma opacum), Southern dusky salamander (Desmoganthus
auriculatus), spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer), green treefrog (Hyla cinerea), and pickerel frog
(Rana pafustris) (Martof et al. 1980).
Nahunta Swamp has an Ecological Classification of Robin-Warmouth with respect to sport
' fishing (Fish 1968). This stretch of stream generally supports good fishing for redbreast
sunfish (Lepomis auritus), bluegill (L. macrochirus), and chain pickerel (Esox niger) (Fish 1968).
' Other fish species expected in the stream include shiners (Notropis spp.), grass carp
(Ctenopharyngodon idefla), creek chub (Semotifus atromaculatus), madtoms (Noturus spp.),
mosquitofish (Gambusia hofbrooki), and darters (Etheostoma spp.) (Rohde et al. 1994).
The creek and floodplain terrace also provide suitable benthic and riparian habitat for aquatic
fauna such as insects and their larvae, snails, and crustaceans. These organisms serve as prey
' items for fish and other wildlife.

19

n
0
2.7 Threatened and Endangered Species
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) lists no animal or plant species as federal-Threatened
or Endangered within Greene County. The N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP) has no
records of threatened or endangered species or rare habitats within 3.2 km (2.0 mi) of the Site
as of 19 September 1996.
2.8 Wetlands
Jurisdictional wetland limits are regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act by the
COE. As stipulated in the 1987 wetland delineation manual, the presence of three defined
parameters (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and evidence of hydrology) are required for
a wetland jurisdictional determination (DOA 1987). NRCS record review indicates portions of
the Site are designated as prior-converted (PC) cropland. A PC cropland is a wetland which
was both manipulated and cropped prior to 23 December 1985 to the extent that it no longer
exhibits important wetland functions (Section 512.15 of the National Food Security Act
Manual, August 1988). PC croplands are not subject to regulation under the jurisdiction of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
The pre-mitigation jurisdictional status of the Site is depicted by Figure 8 and jurisdictional
areas are tabulated by plant community and wetland classification (Cowardin et a/. 1979) in
Table 1.
1
L I

11
n

u
I

2.8.1 Field Delineation
As part of this planning effort, a jurisdictional wetlands determination was initiated in June
1996. The field delineation was complicated by the results of past ground surface and
vegetation disturbances, the presence of ditching, and the channelization of Nahunta Swamp.
These complications resulted in the cessation of the field delineation and the implementation
of PC croplands designations and DRAINMOD computer modeling (which determines the
extent of influence of Site ditching) to make a Site wetlands determination.
2.8.2 DRAINMOD Modeling
The groundwater modeling software selected as most appropriate for simulating shallow
subsurface conditions and groundwater behavior is DRAINMOD. This model was developed
by Dr. R.W. Skaggs of North Carolina State University to simulate the performance of
agricultural drainage and water table control systems on sites with shallow water table
conditions. DRAINMOD was subsequently modified for application to wetland studies by
adding a counter that accumulates the number of events wherein the water table rises above
a specified depth and remains above that depth for a given duration during the growing
season. Model results are analyzed to determine if wetland criteria are satisfied during the
growing season for more than half of the years modeled (31 years were modeled for the Site).
Required model inputs include the threshold water table depth, required duration of high water
tables, and beginning and ending dates of the growing season.
20

ER94018.13/GURLALLDWG
FEET 0 500 1,000
METERS 0 100 200 300
Environmental
Services, Inc.
a-s-- DITCHES
MITIGATION SITE BOUNDARY
AREA (ACRES)
WET > 12.5% OF GROWING SEASON 41.7
® WET 5-12% OF GROWING SEASON 10.0
WET < 5% OF GROWING SEASON 73.9
® PRIOR-CONVERTED CROPLAND 27.1
NON-HYDRIC SOILS 17.9
ROADWAY FILL MATERIAL 1.4
SITE WETLAND STATUS
GURLEY MITIGATION SITE
GREENE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
R-1023AB
Drawn By: PJS Figure: 8
Checked By: APS Project: ER94018.13
Scale: 1"=500' Date: March 1998

m N
C .2)
O t
. f?C N
U ?
0) y
co
U O
N
-a O * .
c0 O (1)
CD U
> .C co
++ C
c -
O 'p
+O 'Q Q
U) N
Co 0)
O
ca
0) Q
03 0)
*- y cu
cn
co
O C 03
c0 Q
0)
LC)
C d7
rn
? d
N
CU Q) Z
C
3 -0
nz
f° 3
C O O
U E
U >- O
-O Q
N
? O. O
2 r
O > cn
(D
N
E 0 >
Y
> c
O U)
n3
a o ?
.C
co c
O
CL CD V7
coo O
? a
a?
.Q
ca

rn

0
H
m
?
Q t
c
W

i
m "
M
M

n

00 o

N

N
N
e-

1
*41 O N
m am co co
cc
47
'p
m
N
m

Q N

N
1
C N
LL
O
+ M y •-
O
O Z
,
ca m m

U
U-
LL O
(_ a

U)
N
+
y
N
O m d

a_ o
LL
O LL

LL `
fm
a o 0

3 O
U

m m
=
?
E
a?
a -.
c ? a
E m c
E c
• af6i
V m >

D_ _ E
Y
n m
L
c6 p
a U Z U)
m
++ c
j {
M
N
co
It
> f0

m co
t?
O

Q UJ
N M 06 M
V7

C
03
c N
It
Q
LL
L
L

2 H - c
G
0 0 u- U- W
CL
C U-
0_ CL a_
O

L6 +
Ql +
N
.+? a? y m
O m
LL O L
U- E
(D N C

°
° y
cn
c o y Q
E cn
a? o E cn
O U m O O
7 = LL N
U 3

T 0
N
O m
L
LL _
22
M o
N 14 Ln m
O

rn d
?
i
O i m 00
CL

'a
C
m
N y
N
C
O
co M
co
c6 P? 00 m
N LO ` Ci ^ y
Q to Lp N
a O
E
Q
= N
m U am
E
N 7 0
U-
LL N
C

C
o_ °
c d
c
LL
m O
O C
m
'O N
f?0
2 m
v c
E E m N
3 3 c X
cn a U)
0
E
O p m N
Q m CL c
O m
N
C c to N
(D d y D
Q L Q m O
U Z U U °
m
N
L
? N
N
O
U
LO
M O .- O ? d
y
N
LO d L° M a
i
a
O j
m cu

L
N
Q U
m
2 p c

LL N v
m
mm E

0_ cc

N
(n (D
U U
7
C C f6

O
C
N
? c
O N
C
N > c LL U

'a
c
E
c c
• rn 0

7
O
c0
3
7
O y

? m m

d
CL
E a
E U
U U w
Q
U)
?
> C
> J
> ? J

M
C13 >
cu
m
z
0 a)
m (a
LL
O
I I

n

C

fl

u

Output from the DRAINMOD model was applied to the Site to determine which areas do not
achieve wetland hydrology criteria. For this application of DRAINMOD, the COE Raleigh Field
Office has determined that wetland hydrology is defined in the model as groundwater within
30 cm 0 2 in) of the surface for 12 consecutive days (5 percent of the growing season) (pers.
comm., COE Field Regulator Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, 5 December 1996). For the purposes of this
study, the growing season is defined as the period between March 17 and November 15
(USDA 1980). Also of interest is the portion of the Site defined in the model as having
groundwater within 30 cm (12 in) of the surface for between 12 and 30 consecutive days (5
to 12.5 percent of the growing season).
2.8.2.1 Model Description
DRAINMOD predicts water balances in the soil-water regime at the midpoint between two
drains of equal elevation. The model is capable of calculating hourly values for water table
depth, surface runoff, subsurface drainage, infiltration, and actual evapotranspiration over long
periods of climatological data. The reliability of DRAINMOD has been tested for a wide range
of soil, crop, and climatological conditions. Results of tests in North Carolina (Skaggs 1982),
Ohio (Skaggs et a/. 1981), Louisiana (Gayle et a/. 1985; Fouss et a/. 1987), Florida (Rogers
1985), Michigan (Belcher and Merva 1987), and Belgium (Susanto et a/. 1987) indicate that
the model can be used to reliably predict water table elevations and drain flow rates.
DRAINMOD has also been used to evaluate wetland hydrology by Skaggs et a/. (1993).
Water Balance
The water balance in DRAINMOD involves two basic equations. The first equation is a water
balance in the soil profile:
AV, = D + ET + DS - F (1)
Where: AVa = change in air volume
D = drainage from the profile
ET = actual evapotranspiration from the profile
DS = deep seepage from the profile
F = infiltration into the profile
The second equation is a water balance at the soil surface:
AS = P-F-RO (2)
Where: AS = change in volume of water stored at the soil surface
P = precipitation
F = infiltration volume
RO = surface runoff
Methods for evaluating equation variables are discussed in detail in Skaggs (1980).
23

2.8.2.2 Influence of Ditching
Hydrology of various soil-water conditions applicable to the Site was simulated using
DRAINMOD. The simulation evaluated two of the three hydric soil types present on-site to
' conservatively represent soil conditions for the portion of the Site consisting of PC croplands.
All three hydric soils were evaluated for forested conditions.
' Table 2 indicates radii of influence for existing ditches in each hydric soil series in both
forested and non-forested conditions. DRAINMOD simulation results indicate that portions of
the Site underlain by hydric soils do not currently meet wetland hydrology criteria during at
least 15 of the 31 years simulated. These areas are lacking wetland hydrology due to ditching,
which ranges from 30 cm (1.0 ft) to 90 cm (3 ft) in depth. The area in which jurisdictional
wetland hydrology is removed (radius of influence) ranges in forested areas from approximately
43.5 m 0 43 ft) adjacent to the shallowest ditches to 94 m (309 ft) adjacent to the deepest
' ditches. The radius of influence in agricultural land (non-forested areas) ranges from
approximately 24.5 m (80 ft) adjacent to the shallowest ditches to approximately 81.5 m (267
ft) adjacent to the deepest ditches. These results generally correspond with field observations
of the effectiveness of the drainage network present on-site, especially in the agricultural
fields.
' Hydric soils occur in approximately 62.4 ha (161.1 ac) of the 72.4 ha (179 ac) Site (Figure 6).
Based upon DRAINMOD simulations, and PC cropland designations, approximately 41.9 ha
' (103.7 ac) of the hydric soils are presently lacking jurisdictional wetland hydrology. These
areas breakdown as follows: approximately 29.9 ha (73.9 ac) of forested land are lacking
wetland hydrology due to ditching and approximately 10.9 ha (27.1 ac) of agricultural fields
have been designated PC cropland by the NRCS.
' Water budget calculations indicate that up to 48,300 cubic meters (m3) (39.1 ac-ft) of water
are being lost from the Site annually due to existing ditching. Assuming an average soil
porosity of 20 percent, the present average water table depth may be as much as 57 cm (23
in) lower than it was during conditions prior to channelization of Nahunta Swamp and
construction of Site drainage ditches.
2.8.3 Existing Wetlands
Jurisdictional areas within the Site are palustrine and riverine as defined by Cowardin et a/.
' 0 979). The palustrine areas are vegetated as emergent herbaceous assemblage, successional
forest, and mature hardwood forest and are characterized by various hydrological regimes.
Palustrine wetlands total approximately 20.9 ha (51.7 ac). The riverine area is limited to the
open water, lower perennial system of Nahunta Swamp and comprises approximately 1.0 ha
(2.3 ac) (Figure 8 and Table 1). Existing jurisdictional systems are described as follows.
24

Table 2. Projected radii of influence (ROO of various ditch/channel depths as forecast by
DRAINMOD in soils listed as hydric at the Gurley Mitigation Site. Radius of influence
refers to a distance, perpendicular to a ditch, from which that same ditch is expected
to reduce wetland hydrology to less than 5 percent or 12.5 percent of the growing
season. All measurements are in meters (feet).
Radaii of Influence
Forested Land Agricultural Land
Soil Type Ditch Depth 5 % 12.5 % 5 % 12.5 %
Johnston 0.3 (1.0) 43.5 (143) 50(164) N/A N/A
Johnston 0.6 (2.0) 69(226) 69 (226) N/A N/A
Johnston 0.9 (3.0) 94(309) 95 (321) N/A N/A
Paxville 0.3 (1.0) 36 (118) 72.5 (238) 40.5 (133) 135 (443)
Paxville 0.6 (2.0) 57.5 (189) 105 (344) 64(210) 200 (656)
Paxville 0.9 (3.0) 81 (266) 125 (410) 81.5 (267) 250 (820)
Lumbee 0.3 0.0) 22.5 (74) 50(164) 24.5 (80) 75(246)
Lumbee 0.6 (2.0) 46.5053) 75(246) 48.5059) 100 (328)
Lumbee 0.9 (3.0) 70(229) 100 (328) 70(230) 125 (410)
25
0

C

Palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, permanently-flooded, beaver (PFO1 Hb)
This designation corresponds to the Beaver Impoundment plant community. This wetland is
a result of beavers blocking the flow of Beaver Branch at the SR 1253 culvert. Without the
beavers, the Beaver Branch system would most likely consist of a permanent stream of
approximately 1.8 m (6 ft) in width and a narrow floodplain. The beavers have extended their
dam north and west adjacent to SR 1058 and north adjacent to SR 1253 to create an
impoundment that extends up the Beaver Branch floodplain and well outside the Site. This
wetland is found on Johnston soils and is dominated by a mature, hardwood forest which is
dying due to extended inundation. This wetland comprises approximately 1.7 ha (4.1 ac)
within the Site.
Palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, semipermanently-flooded (PF01 F)
This designation corresponds to the Willow Forest plant community. This wetland has formed
on Johnston soils in a delta-like flat at the mouth of a semi-permanent, channelized drainage
that enters the Site across the central portion of the western boundary. The drainage
transports both surface and groundwater runoff from a series of agricultural fields west of the
Site. The runoff saturates the Willow Forest and flows in dendritic surface channels toward
Nahunta Swamp. The eastern and southern portions of this wetland are drained by man-made
ditches, which transport water directly to Nahunta Swamp. This wetland comprises
approximately 3.2 ha (8.0 ac) within the Site.
Palustrine, emergent, semi permanently-flooded (PEMF)
This designation corresponds to an Herbaceous Assemblage variant characterized by aquatic
emergent species such as cane, woolgrass, and cattail. This wetland formed in a depression
on Johnston soils at the toe of the floodplain slope. The primary hydrological input in this
system is groundwater seep. This wetland is drained toward the south by a man-made ditch;
however, the groundwater source provides more water than the ditch can remove, resulting
in a semi-permanently-flooded system. This wetland comprises approximately 1.3 ha (3.1 ac)
within the Site.
Palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous/needle-leaved evergreen, temporarily flooded
(PFO1 /4A)
This designation corresponds to the wet portion of the Early Successional Forest plant
community. This wetland occurs on Johnston, Paxville, and Lumbee soils within the Nahunta
Swamp floodplain. The vegetation is typical of communities recovering from severe
disturbances such as clear-cutting and includes sometimes dense stands of both deciduous and
evergreen species. This system is characterized by temporary flooding. The hydrological
source for this system varies with landscape position and is primarily runoff from adjacent
uplands, with additional inputs from groundwater seeps and flooding from nearby streams and
26

' ditches. This wetland is found along the western border of the Site and comprises
approximately 10.8 ha (26.8 ac).
Palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, temporarily flooded (PF01 A)
' This designation corresponds to the wetland component of the Mixed Hardwood Forest plant
community. This wetland occurs on Johnston and Lumbee soils within the Nahunta Swamp
floodplain and adjacent to the western boundary of the Site. The vegetation is dominated by
' a mature, deciduous, hardwood forest canopy, consisting primarily of oaks and gums. This
system is characterized by temporary flooding. The hydrological source is primarily runoff
from adjacent uplands, with inputs also from groundwater seeps and flooding from nearby
streams and ditches. This wetland comprises approximately 3.9 ha (9.7 ac) within the Site.

Cli

n

11
Riverine, lower perennial, unconsolidated bottom, sand (R2UB2)
This designation corresponds to the open-water channel of Nahunta Swamp. Nahunta Swamp
is a permanent, lower-perennial stream with a sandy to gravelly unconsolidated bottom.
Lower perennial streams are characterized by low gradients and slow velocities.
Channelization and heavy sediment loading from the drainage basin have caused a deepening
and widening of the channel, resulting in mild entrenchment, steep banks, and frequent
downed trees. The hydrologic source for this system is precipitation runoff and seepage from
the drainage basin. This source, in conjunction with the large percentage of upstream
floodplain converted to agricultural production, have resulted in a tendency toward irregular
discharge rates and peaks within the system. The center of the Nahunta Swamp channel is
the southern boundary of the Site. The stream comprises approximately 1.0 ha (2.3 ac) of the
Site.
2.8.4 Pre-Mitigation Wetland Functions
Procedures for the determination of functional capacity and performance of wetlands include:
a hydrogeomorphic (HGM) approach to wetland functional assessment being developed by the
COE (Brinson 1988); the Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET-II), also developed by the COE
(Adamus et al. 1988); and Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina (DEM
1995). Components of all of these procedures were utilized in determining pre-mitigation
wetland functions. A DEM wetland rating work sheet was completed for each wetland within
the Site. Wetland ratings are provided in Table 1 and completed work sheets are available in
Appendix B. General functions provided by Site wetlands are discussed here for two wetland
systems: Nahunta Swamp and the floodplain area south of SR 1058, and Beaver Branch and
its associated floodplain located north of SR 1058.
Nutrient Removal /Transformation
The Site provides little opportunity to remove and store nutrients from basin waters. The
ability to remove nutrients from a water column requires a mechanism for detaining and storing
flood waters. Nahunta Swamp currently receives water primarily from precipitation and
27

I

1

adjacent upland runoff; water occasionally flows into ditches from Nahunta Swamp high-flow
events. Primary nutrient sources are adjacent agricultural lands and maintained roadways.
Runoff from these areas currently has a short residence time within the Site due to ditching
efficiency. Only in a few topographic depressions within the Site is surface water stored for
sufficient duration to allow desired sedimentation, flocculation, and biochemical assimilation
processes. These depressions support dense herbaceous and woody ground cover vegetation
that provide both short-term and long-term nutrient storage capabilities.
The impoundment of the Beaver Branch system provides the opportunity for nutrient removal
from stream flows above the dams. But channelization of the stream below the dams reduces
residence time of waters entering this region.
Sediment/Toxicant Retention
The Site provides moderate opportunity for sediment removal and storage of toxins. Only a
minor portion of the Site has the opportunity to remove sediments from basin waters. The
primary source of sediments in the Nahunta Swamp system is the agricultural land west of the
Site and runoff through the agricultural land within the Site. Sediments from west of the Site
are transported through a linear drainage and deposited in deltaic form within the densely
vegetated Willow Forest. This delta is located upstream of a wetland depression characterized
by high organic content in the soils. The organics are available to complex with metals and
synthetic organic toxicants for long-term storage. Since Nahunta Swamp does not currently
overbank flood into the Site with high-velocity, sediment carrying waters, the stream itself is
not expected to be a source of sediment. The levee/berm adjacent to Nahunta Swamp
generally confines high flows to the stream channel, promoting sediment transport past the
Site and local scouring and bank erosion of the stream.
Low flow velocities of the impounded portion of the Beaver Branch system result in a sediment
trap. Agricultural land, residential yards, and a new hog production facility on upper Beaver
Branch have increased sediment loading in this system. The impounded water provides an
opportunity for removal and storage of toxicants. However, over time, the impoundment bed
is expected to elevate to the point that vegetation and surface water storage capacity are
threatened. The channelized portion of this system downstream of the impoundment is
characterized by scouring of the ground surface and a reduced residence time for flood waters.
Shoreline Stabilization /Energy Dissipation
The Site provides little opportunity to dissipate stream flow energy and as a result is currently
suffering from bank erosion and undercutting. Only the levee/berm slope adjacent to Nahunta
Swamp provides for physical dissipation of stream flow velocities. The ratio of high energy
to surface area results in an undercutting of stream banks as the stream entrenches and
attempts to form meanders. Scouring is also obvious adjacent to lower Site ditches and in the
lower Beaver Branch system, where channelized runoff increases drainage velocity.
28

J
I

Floodflow Alteration/Surface and Subsurface Water Storage
The Site provides little opportunity to reduce effects from basin floodwaters. The capacity for
both surface and subsurface floodwater storage is severely reduced in the Nahunta Swamp
system by the enhanced levee/berm and the system of Site ditches. Flood flows are not
currently able to breach the levee/berm into the Site except at ditch mouths. Stream water
that backs up ditches into the Site has low energy and is limited in scope to the area around
ditches; as stream flood flows recede, the ditches provide a quick exit for flood waters. Site
ditching enhances groundwater removal during low flow periods, reducing capacity for
subsurface water storage.
The impounded portion of Beaver Branch maintains a high water level due to beaver activity.
The system's inability to provide surface or subsurface storage during high flows results in
dangerous overwash of adjacent paved roads during and after high rainfall events.
Groundwater Discharge/Recharge
The Site provides good opportunities for the expression and removal of groundwater but only
moderate opportunity for groundwater recharge. Moderate outer floodplain slopes and the
ditch systems promote the discharge and removal of Site groundwater. For a wetland to
contribute to the groundwater system, waters must be retained on-site for a length of time
sufficient for percolation into the underlying soils. Within Nahunta Swamp and lower Beaver
Branch, disturbances have reduced inputs and enhanced drainage relative to an undisturbed
system. The system provides little opportunity for groundwater discharge. The impounded
portion of Beaver Branch provides a residence time sufficient for some ground water recharge.
Production Export
t The Site provides little in the way of organic production export to basin surface waters.
Although vegetative production within the Site is high, the lack of widespread surface flow in
the Nahunta Swamp system and the lower Beaver Branch system reduces opportunity for
' these systems to contribute much in the way of organics to the riverine system. Most of the
Site has no direct surface link to Nahunta Swamp, even during flood events. The alternating
' wet and dry periods characteristic of the Site promote the breakdown and oxidation of organic
production on-site.
Fish and Wildlife Habitat
The Site currently supports primarily old field and early-successional forest plant communities,
promoting a population of transitional plant species. Aquatic habitat within the Site is limited
in size, isolated, and recovering from disturbance, preventing a diversification of both plant and
animal species. The variety of landscape settings within the Site provides for a broad range
' of future possibilities in terms of plant communities, structure, and fish and wildlife population
diversity.
?
29

I
3.0 WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
3.1 Hydrology
3.1.1 Streams
A primary restoration goal is to maximize the area of relict floodplains returned to a natural
riverine-influenced flooding regimen. For the Nahunta Swamp system and lower Beaver Branch
system, this goal can be accomplished through stabilization and reduction of the levee/berm
adjacent to Nahunta Swamp, and plugging and filling on-site ditch systems and blocking ditch
outlets. Two cross-sections for the existing levee/berm are presented in Figure 9.
Although the Nahunta Swamp channel is incised, the banks appear to be relatively stable.
' Maintenance of stability is important for the integrity of the on-site bridge crossing of the
stream. For this reason, it is recommended that no alterations be made to the stream channel
as part of this mitigation plan.
I

i

FJ
Relatively undisturbed reference streams in the Site region maintain low-lying levees
immediately adjacent to the channel. These levees consist of relatively coarse-grained
deposits (fine to coarse sands) ranging from 0.3 m (1.0 ft) to 0.9 m (3 ft) in elevation above
the adjacent floodplain surface. These levees are formed during overbank flood events as
coarser sediments precipitate from the water column due to energy dissipation induced by the
floodplain surface and streamside vegetation (primarily low-lying shrubs and herbs). Levees
function to increase the retention period of overbank flow into the floodplain and support
unique wetland communities within the forested floodplain.
Due to the wetland functions provided by natural streamside levees, the existing Site
levee/berm will be graded to an elevation approximately 0.5 m (1.5 ft) above the adjacent
floodplain and approximately 6.1 m (20 ft) in width. The levee/berm presently supports
canopy trees which will need to be removed. Intermittent breaks should be created in the
newly-shaped stream levee to the elevation of the adjacent floodplain. The broken levee will
serve to increase the flood-control capacity of the Site, increase residence time of overbank
flow within the Site, and allow Site organic production export to the Nahunta Swamp stream
system. The size and distance between levee breaks is not as important as their presence.
However, it is recommended that breaks of approximately 7.6 m (25 ft) lengths should occur
at approximately 76.2 m (250 ft) intervals. Best management practices will be employed
during the construction phase and the finished levee will be seeded with grass to reduce
erosion.
Existing ditch outlets to Nahunta Swamp will be permanently blocked with an impervious plug
of sufficient length to withstand high Nahunta Swamp flow velocities and erosive energies.
And the entire lengths of Site ditches will be filled, where practicable, to discourage
30

ER94018.13 /GURLALL.DWG
T 1000
!S
S?P?Q
CROSS-SECTION LOCATION
MITIGATION SITE BOUNDARY
-40 -30 -20 -10 rt 10 20 30 40
SECTION A
l enI I I I I I I I I
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10
I I I I I I I I I
10 20 30 40 50
SECTION B
19 Environmental
Services, Inc.
LEVEE CROSS-SECTIONS
GURLEY MITIGATION SITE
GREENE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
R-1023AB
Drawn By: PJS Figure: 9
Checked By: APS Project: ER94018.13
Scale: 1"=500' Date: March 1998

' concentrated lateral flow of surface waters. Spoil material resulting from levee/berm reduction
will be available to fill remaining lengths of ditches. This activity will return water transport
' within the floodplain from primarily channelized flow to primarily sheet flow.
' No diversion of Beaver Branch or large-scale redirection of Beaver Branch flow south of SR
1058 is recommended. Any such activity would potentially deprive existing downstream
(Beaver Branch) habitat of wetland hydrology. However, in the interests of public safety and
' road integrity, measures will be taken to control water levels in the beaver impoundment.
The Beaver Branch impoundment is providing so much value in terms of wetland functions that
' removal of the beavers is not recommended. However, measures will be taken to reduce the
threat of structural damage to SR 1058 and SR 1253 due to periodic flooding. A beaver-
resistant riser/pipe combination will be installed to maintain a maximum water level within
Beaver Branch. During high flows, water will be transported via the riser/pipe south for a
distance of approximately 76 m (250 ft), under SR 1058 to a low-energy outfall within the
Site. The Beaver Branch maximum water level will be maintained and adjustable using
flashboards on the riser.

FJ
Water level within the impoundment may also be controlled with the use of a pipe drain
through the dam in the vicinity of the SR 1253 culvert. An efficient pipe drain is described in
Owen et a/. (1987). A drain pipe generally consists of a pipe lined with a series of small holes
that are difficult for beavers to block. The pipe drain can be installed in the dam to maintain
any impoundment level. A culvert may be installed under SR 1058, adjacent to Beaver Branch,
to allow for periodic high water flow, reducing potential for road damage and increasing
hydrological inputs south of SR 1058.
3.1.2 Groundwater
A primary mitigation goal is to restore wetland hydrology to soils listed as hydric but presently
lacking wetland hydrology, and to maintain or improve functions provided by areas currently
characterized by wetland hydrology. Recommended hydrological restoration activities include:
(1) plugging ditches at discharge points and at key locations; (2) filling Site ditches, where
practicable, with soil; (3) "scalping" the south side of the SR 1058 roadside ditch, creating a
grade which slopes away from the road; and (4) scarifying the existing agricultural land.
Plugs located at ditch discharge points will need to be designed to be of sufficient strength
to withstand the erosive energy from Nahunta Swamp. Each plug should consist of a core of
impervious material and be sufficiently wide and deep to form an imbedded overlap in the
existing banks and ditch bed (Figure 10). A plug length of approximately 9.1 m (30 ft) is
recommended. Ditches will receive additional impervious plugs at bends, junctions, and
intervals determined by total slope over the ditch lengths (Figure 11). Ditches will be filled
with on-site spoil material from adjacent banks and the reduced levee/berm. It is very
32

? S.
A C
y
m
r
D
v
n ?
i
o ?
i
g? 7 , i
mz '
r
i I '
00
'
?m ,
v = x ' ' po
_ W(1) iQ
Oz '
O OO ' ??
z
0
,v_
i0
i=
vv
zz
ij N D
O m o cn
m CIcn
00
mco 00 -------- -------- ------
OmD 00 m
-< z z Tz (n v, -i g -?
No 00 z v G) _
DOD-i mm ao = g
ou Z? m? v = o
nSeC ?D
> Sec 1
r
Zm m0 00
'
2 1
D ?O O N I
;UK 0
cn -<
X? v v
Z -r- M l w
D G)?
D 0
--I
m!
r°
1-4 -u
m
0
O
i
IC/) m
=+ v
?G) m
'°- v
In m
?m m
F;
10 <
'O ?
H'9 Z
d '1y 'zJ
o, va
m
1
:r _C p
PD
MW -&
W W
J
' important that the method used to plug and fill ditches provide an effective barrier to
preferential flow of groundwater in the former channel.
' Surface soils within the existing agricultural fields presently display low permeability and rapid
runoff rates. Scarification of the soil surface will increase both permeability rates and surface
storage capacity within this area. Scarification will be conducted within 0.3 to 0.5 m (12 to
18 in) of the soil surface to increase surface roughness and to loosen or break concreted soil
' layers.
DRAINMOD predicts that these activities should restore wetland hydrology to the majority of
' hydric soils present within the Site. Based upon the most conservative scenario,
approximately 9.0 ha (22.1 ac) of PC cropland and approximately 14.2 ha (35.0 ac) of
forested hydric soils will be restored to wetland hydrology
Hydric soils areas that may not be restored to wetland hydrology include an area of PC
cropland within approximately 42.5 m (139 ft) of the SR 1058 roadside ditch (as determined
by DRAINMOD). The approximately 6.1 m (20 ft) wide Nahunta Swamp stream levee is not
expected to display wetland hydrology due to coarse sediments and elevation above the
' normal stream stage. The DRAINMOD modeling is not designed for use in areas of this type,
which undergo a series of frequent but irregular flooding events. Based on field observations
' and best professional judgement, mitigation activities are expected to re-establish wetland
hydrology close to the levee. Sloughs and depressions are common in the floodplain adjacent
to the levee and retain water for extended periods following flood events. These impounded
areas provide a water barrier for both surface and groundwater, increasing residence time of
wetland hydrology.
3.2 Soils
A goal of mitigation concerning soils is passive; if hydrology and vegetation efforts are
successful, maintenance or enhancement of hydric soil characteristics is expected to follow.
A characteristic of blackwater floodplains is elevated levels of organics in hydric soils. Much
' of the Site presently dries sufficiently each year to allow for the oxidation of organics,
preventing a natural accumulation. The increase in flooding frequency and duration expected
due to mitigation activities will result in more frequent anaerobic conditions within floodplain
depressions. An accumulation of surface organics will result from anaerobic conditions,
making particulate and dissolved organic matter available for export to the stream basin.
Non-hydric soils will provide preservation and restoration potential for wetland/upland ecotone.
This type of community is considered to be among the most diverse and productive for wildlife
' populations (Brinson et a/. 1981).
?
35

fl

3.3 Plant Communities
Mitigation goals for plant communities include: (1) restoration of wetland communities that
are characteristic of natural systems in similar landscape positions; and (2) restoration of
wetland communities that maximize opportunities for the provision of wetland functions to the
local environment. Restoration of forested communities will enhance and diversify wetland
functions provided by the Site, as well as provide habitat for development and expansion of
characteristic wetland plants and animals across the landscape. Two methods were used to
determine appropriate community associations and specific species composition of
associations planned for the Site: a standard vegetation sampling effort and the Landscape
Ecosystem Classification (LEC) procedure.
The standard vegetation sampling effort was directed toward determining importance values
of tree, shrub, and groundcover species in nearby reference forests. A reference forest is
chosen to act as a surrogate for a community selected for restoration. The chosen reference
forests represent similar landscape features, soils, and hydrology as the Site, but without the
degree of disturbance. Reference forests were sampled in Appletree Swamp, a tributary to
Nahunta Swamp located approximately 3.8 km (2.4 mi) northeast of the Site, and Sandy Run,
a tributary to Middle Swamp located approximately 16.3 km (10.1 mi) northeast of the Site.
Data collected during this effort represent the minimum level of forested systems targeted for
restoration. These data were used in combination with LEC to develop a Site planting plan.
3.3.1 Landscape Classification Ecosystem (LEC)
The Site contains ecological gradients encompassing several distinct ecosystems. A method
capable of classifying each ecosystem into manageable units was utilized to optimize
restoration and enhancement efforts for mitigation design purposes. Planting plans will depend
upon distinct ecosystems targeted for restoration. LEC modelling was utilized to predict plant
community structure based on landform and soil conditions. The term "landscape" is used to
emphasize that ecosystems are geographic units extending horizontally across the land.
Landform, the physical aspect of landscape, may be considered the key component because
it is permanent and usually easy to recognize.
LEC expresses the interrelationships between (1) vegetation and landform, (2) vegetation and
soils, and (3) landform and soils. Plants can be considered as integrators of soil and landform
variables present on any given site. In the absence of disturbance, species distribution is
driven by interactions among soils and landform features. Species with similar environmental
requirements will have overlapping distributions and form specific plant associations. Species
with relatively unrestricted ecological requirements are considered "constant species" and are
not indicative of any specific environmental factor (Mueller-Dombois and Ellenburg 1974).
Species with relatively restricted ecological requirements are considered "diagnostic species"
and are indicative of specific environmental conditions. Under relatively undisturbed
conditions, associations of diagnostic species are related directly to soils and landform. Soil
36

' factors that can be measured include drainage, soil chemical properties, and physical properties
such as amount of clay, depth of clay, and thickness of any organic epipedon. Landform
I features that can be measured include slope gradient, slope position, slope shape, aspect, and
a measure of slope protection known as landform index.
' The LEC approach takes into account the variation due to major environmental factors by
recognizing that these major environmental factors can be held constant within certain
' physiographic regions. Such physiographic regions have been studied throughout the
southeastern United States (Hodgkins et al. 1976; Pehl and Brim 1985; Myers et al. 1986;
Miller and Golden 1991). A hierarchial accounting of the major factors of climate and parent
material for the Southeast has resulted in areas being separated into physiographic provinces,
regions, and subregions. The region scale is the most stable in classification efforts because
' climate and parent material are generally constant over an entire region. The unit of land
described by the LEC process is called a site unit. These site units are characterized by a
specific interaction of environmental factors, and as such, site units are repeatable across the
' landscape.
' LEC has been applied throughout a significant portion of the southeastern United States.
Models are in place for portions of Florida, Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, and North
Carolina. LEC models in North Carolina have been specifically applied to Mountain, Piedmont,
' and Coastal Plain physiographic regions. The North Carolina LEC model used for this project
integrates soil, landform, and vegetation within the Coastal Plain physiographic region to
predict landscape level variations in steady-state forest communities (Jones et al. 1984). The
' formulas generated by this model have been adapted and applied to both potential restoration
sites for the purpose of mapping ecological site units.
3.3.1.1 LEC Method
LEC sampling of the Site was conducted in September 1996. Twenty-three LEC verification
plots were established to assure complete coverage of all potential site units. The Site
vegetation component is highly disturbed, so the ecological components of landform and soil
' were utilized as the differentiating factors. Landscape position, slope, and soil texture were
sampled in the field to ascertain LEC site units. Drainage was not considered due to intense
ditching across the Site. LEC site units were then used to determine plant communities
targeted for restoration.
' 3.3.1.2 LEC Results
Seven LEC site units were identified within the Site: Organic Precipitation Depression, Organic
Precipitation Flat, Sub-hydric Riverine Flat, Sub-hydric Non-Riverine Flat, Hydric Flats, Non-
' hydric Slopes, and Floodplain Bottom. These site units were mapped along an ecological
gradient in Figure 12 and are presented as a plan view of the Site by Figure 13. A description
' 37

n 0
-I c -?
_ 3 00
C= I O n-t (D m n w
3 Z5 T- Z3 - -< cn
07 C: w _0 1: -0 c
c, w o w w (D -u C UD
c d.+
(n -s: O o
5 N r?
C D D :D
M C7 z
0 w Or- cwo 0000 m
-0 o q (D
W, 0 o --q
h- 0
• :3 (D (D
ID _0 _0 r
w 0- D 77 w X W 77 C) U) O z
ca 0 c 'P IC , - w r+ T. (D (n
c a m O
U _0
-?
ti
n 1' '?? `'' (1 Cl) D D O
aj C)
0 (D 3 :7 (D -5 (D cn
j -1 <
O= la` 3Uj? 0-ZTm O c m OOD m=
_0 r- m
'` ??fti. 11 f ? ,s a n O T O O O (D -nK
- - Z 0
w? wQ r? ,j CD CC) Q.O W0w 7-(7 Oz f71?7
3 c C- r Tv (D -n n
0 0-
3 (D 3 m
..?
(n
]iw
m m ?y y" w m?? m?? - zoz C7
(D -u
o`CD'< _ ,.' ?? o ? -T E
O= ?m?n m
V.i ,? m C)Z 3 Cn (D m=D 6O-v C - CD (A) Z n ,
D CD D
>0 _0 rk% 0 -: C7
? ='; 77- y z z
NX? i.
O O - - - - --- - - - O
? cn _ Z
C 4(q,
m
cn -?
m W r-0 >
?
m - w o -0
w C) 3 m O
0
(D (D 0-0 Q-0 w w ;77, °° p ao T
r T`
(D (0 CD w ?. T. r?r T z
?? m
(n
?i m
C/)
t ?
F?
d ?
O - , Cl)
D O
-1 0
d n (D -
(D (D C: 0-0 O
0 on
?.
W n 51?;f I?t O (D N O O (7
w
_0 0 0 (n
C CL _0 0
c 0-m ti{ 77 o o o Orn r
c cr p o w O
M c'n ? ° m m
m c < w Cn m
(O X -I Cn
? ?
co FO
m m w m w m m m m ¦¦ m m m ¦r, m m m m ¦Iw
ER94018.13/GURLALL,DWG
I&
FEET 0 500 1,000
METERS 0 100 200 300
+ + +

+ +
+ + t + +
+ + + +
+ + + + + +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + t
+ + + ++

+ + +
..........
+++++ 0 + ++ +
+++++
+ +
+ ++ +
++++++ +
+ + + + + + +
+ + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + +
. . + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + .
.
+ + + + + + + + + + +
t + t t t t t + + t + + t + + t + t + t t+ t::-"-'- ':-:•': :: •':::: •':::::::::• ': :::::• 4
+ + + + + + +
+ f + t t + +
t t t + + +
t t + +
t t t + +
t t + f + + + + +
+ + t t t + t. ,•,- +
'.. +
+ + + t
t t t + +
t t t + + +
t + + t
+ t + + +
t t + + + + + + +
+ t + t t +
:. +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + +
.........
+ + + t +
.......................
...............
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + t + +
+ + + + + + + + + +

+ + +
+ + + +
+ + +
+ +

+ +
+ + +
+ + +
+ +:.
+
+ + +
+ + +
+ +;;};i}; ;; F.ic:•: is ?:i•ii:iii::i•:i•i:c:•
i:•i:•i:•i:•:i4:•i:}:iii': }t
:iiCi?i:ii•i:C:•:ii{i(ii•:

t +
+ + f f
+ + + f t f
+ + t +
+ + + f
+ + +
+ t + + + + + + + t
.........................
+ t +
.........................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......
.................
.......
+ + + f + + + + + + t + t + 4--'
+
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + + :..+ + + + +
+ + +
+
+ + + + +
+ + + +
+ + +
- + +

t +

+ t t t +

+ + t t

+ +
............
..........
..........
t t t 4 t t : •
..
... ............
............ ..........
.........
t t t + t
....
............
....
+ + + + +
.
. MITIGATION SITE BOUNDARY
+++++ +++++ +++ .
..
: ............ AREA (ACRES)
++++++ +++++ +++ ORGANIC PRECIPITATION DEPRESSION 3.1

+++
+ + + + -:::•? ORGANIC PRECIPITATION FLAT 9.8

NON-HYDRIC SLOPE 13.6
® HYDRIC FLAT 27.8
LLJ SUB-HYDRIC RIVERINE FLAT 52.6
++++ SUB-HYDRIC NON-RIVERINE 65.1
Environmental
Services, Inc.
LANDSCAPE ECOSYSTEM CLASSIFICATION
GURLEY MITIGATION SITE
GREENE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
R-1023AB
Drawn By: PJS Figure: 13
Checked By: APS Project: ER94018.13
Scale: 1"=500' Date: March 1998

J

I I

1

of each LEC site unit follows along with the target vegetation association adopted and
modified from Schafale and Weakley (1990).
Organic Precipitation Depression
This LEC site unit covers approximately 1.3 ha (3.1 ac) in the most poorly drained area. Soil
within this site unit is primarily the Johnston series which is characterized by a high organic
matter content present in greater than 25.4 cm (10 in) of the surface horizons. This site unit
exhibits very poor drainage, with water usually at or above the soil surface. The target
vegetation association for this LEC site unit is the Streamhead Atlantic White Cedar Forest.
Site-specific vegetation will include Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides), swamp
blackgum (Nyssa bifiora), tulip tree (Liriodendron tuiipifera), and red maple.
Organic Precipitation Flat
This LEC site unit covers approximately 4.0 ha (9.8 ac) in poorly drained areas. Soil within this
site unit is primarily the Johnston series, characterized by less than 25.4 cm (10 in) of the
surface horizon having a high organic matter content. This site unit exhibits very poor
drainage, with water usually at or above the soil surface. The target vegetation association
for this LEC site unit is the Streamhead Atlantic White Cedar Forest and will include similar
site-specific vegetation as the Organic Precipitation Depression.
Sub-hydric Riverine Flat
This site unit covers approximately 21.3 ha (52.6 ac) adjacent to the Nahunta Swamp channel
and within the Beaver Branch floodplain. Soils within this site unit are primarily the Johnston
series with the Paxville series. This site unit is typified by soils exhibiting relatively low
organic matter content in the loamy upper horizons, with topographic positioning of generally
less than 18.3 m (60 ft) above mean sea level. This site unit exhibits somewhat poorly
drained conditions, with water levels usually below 30 cm (12 in) of the soil surface. Several
ditch systems presently traverse portions of this site unit, affecting drainage. The target
vegetation association for this LEC site unit is the Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood Forest
(Blackwater Subtype). Site-specific vegetation will include Atlantic white cedar, laurel oak
(Quercus iaurifoiia), overcup oak (Q. iyrata), willow oak, water oak, swamp chestnut oak,
ironwood, and sweetgum. Small amounts of swamp blackgum, red maple, and green ash
(Fraxinus pennsyivanica) will be planted within this site unit for additional mast production.
Sub-hydric Non-riverine Flat
This site unit covers approximately 26.3 ha (65.1 ac) in low areas of the outer Nahunta
Swamp floodplain. Soils within this site unit are primarily the Johnston series with the Paxville
series. This site unit is typified by soils exhibiting relatively low organic matter content in the
loamy upper horizons, with topographic positioning greater than 18.3 m (60 ft) above mean
sea level. This site unit exhibits somewhat poorly drained conditions, with water levels usually
40

n

fl

below 30 cm (12 in) of the soil surface. Several ditch systems traverse this site unit, affecting
drainage.
There are three target vegetation associations for this LEC site unit: Coastal Plain Bottomland
Hardwood Forest (Blackwater Subtype) for portions of this site unit south of SR 1058 and east
of SR 1253; Cypress/Tupelo Swamp for the beaver-impounded portion of Beaver Branch north
of SR 1058 and west of SR 1253; and an approximately 6.1 m (20ft) wide stream levee for
the length of Nahunta Swamp within the Site. Site-specific vegetation for the Coastal Plain
Bottomland Hardwood Forest (Blackwater Subtype) will include laurel oak, overcup oak, willow
oak, swamp chestnut oak, water oak, cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda), ironwood, and
sweetgum. Small amounts of swamp blackgum, red maple, and green ash may be planted
within this site unit for additional mast production. Site-specific vegetation for the
Cypress/Tupelo swamp will include bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), water tupelo (Nyssa
aquatica), green ash, laurel oak, overcup oak, and Carolina ash (Fraxinus caroliniana). Site-
specific vegetation for the stream levee will include American sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), American elm (Ulmus americana), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), swamp
chestnut oak, and ironwood.
Hydric Flat
This site unit encompasses approximately 11.3 ha (27.8 ac) adjacent to SR 1058 consisting
of lands cleared for agricultural purposes. Soils within this site unit are primarily the hydric
Lumbee series with small areas of the non-hydric Pactolus series. This site unit exhibits poorly
drained conditions. Water levels are usually greater than 30 cm (12 in) below the soil surface.
Roadside and field ditches traverse this site unit, affecting drainage. The target vegetation
association targeted for this LEC site unit is Non-Riverine Wet Hardwood Forest. Site-specific
vegetation includes swamp chestnut oak, laurel oak, cherrybark oak, water oak, tulip tree,
sweetgum, red maple, swamp blackgum, ironwood and American elm. Small areas with
slightly higher topographic positions will also include American beech and white oak.
Non-hydric Slope
This LEC site unit encompasses approximately 5.5 ha (13.6 ac) along sandy ridges. Soils
within this site unit are primarily the Blanton, Wagram, and Cowarts series. This site unit
exhibits moderately well drained to well drained conditions with slopes ranging from 3 to 12
percent. The target vegetation association for this LEC site unit is Mesic Mixed Hardwood
Forest. Site specific vegetation includes sweetgum, tulip tree, swamp chestnut oak,
cherrybark oak, white oak, southern red oak (Q. falcata), northern red oak (Q. rubra), American
beech, and mockernut hickory.
41

' 3.3.2 Planting Plan
A planting plan is proposed to re-establish steady-state vegetation patterns across the Site
landscape. The COE Compensatory Hardwood Mitigation Guidelines (dated 8 December 1993)
were utilized in developing this plan. The plan consists of (1) acquisition of available seedlings,
(2) implementation of proposed surface topography improvements (levee/berm grading, ditch
filling, soil scarification), and (3) planting of selected species within the Site. Areas designated
for community plantings are depicted in Figure 14.
' Planting areas are targeted for either reforestation planting (Agricultural Land, Willow Forest,
Herbaceous Assemblage) or supplemental planting (Early Successional Forest, Beaver
' Impoundment). Planting of seedlings should occur between December 1 and March 31 when
the trees are dormant. In reforestation areas, 1680 stems/ha (680 stems/ac) of designated
' species will be planted on 3 by 3 m (10 by 10 ft) centers. In supplemental planting areas,
approximately 173 stems/ha (70 stems/ac) of designated species will be planted. These
targeted areas presently support successional vegetation, and supplemental plantings will be
' concentrated in specific sites, such as hurricane-caused tree-fall gaps, relict stream channels,
degraded fringe areas, and cleared planting strips. Seedlings planted within the
Cypress/Tupelo Swamp community will need to be protected by fencing or hardware cloth
from loss to beavers.
Table 3 identifies reforestation and supplemental planting areas within the Site, and totals
seedlings to be planted, by species, for each planting area. In summary, approximately 27,100
tree seedlings are planned for planting within the Site. Species selected for planting will
depend upon the availability of local seedling sources at the time of planting. An outline of
target vegetation associations with associated LEC site units is as follows.
' Community: Streamhead Atlantic White Cedar Forest
LEC site unit: Organic Precipitation Depression; Organic Precipitation Flat
' 1. Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides)
2. Swamp tupelo (Nyssa ,biflora)
' 3. Tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera)
4. Pond pine (Pinus serotina)
5. Bald cypress (Taxodium distichum)
' Community: Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood Forest (Blackwater Subtype)

t
LEC site unit: Sub-hydric Riverine Flat; Sub-hydric Non-riverine Flat
1. Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides)
2. Laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia)
3. Overcup oak (Quercus lyrata)
4. Willow oak (Quercus phellos)
5. Water oak (Quercus nigra)
42

ER94018.13/GURLALL.DWG

FEET 0 500 1,000
METERS 0 100 200 300
,N
\j

PLANNED COMMUNITIES (WETLAND CLASSIFICATION)
a ROADS/MAINTAINED AREA
17-7-71
COASTAL PLAIN BOTTOMLAND HARDWOOD FOREST (PF01J)
® CYPRESS/TUPELO SWAMP (PF02/1Hb)
MESIC MIXED HARDWOOD FOREST
® NON-RIVERINE WET HARDWOOD FOREST (PFO1 J)
STREAMHEAD ATLANTIC WHITE CEDAR FOREST (PF04/1 F)
? MITIGATION SITE BOUNDARY
•PF01 J - Palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, intermittently-flooded
PF02/l Hb - Palustrine, forested, needle-leaved and broad-leaved deciduous, permanently-flooded, beaver
PFO1 J - Palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, intermittently-flooded
PFO4/l F - Palustrine, forested, needle-leaved evergreen/broad-leaved deciduous, semipermanently flooded
Environmental
Services, Inc.
PLANTING PLAN
GURLEY MITIGATION SITE
GREENE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
R-1023AB
AREA (ACRES)
1.4
113.2
4.5
13.6
26.4
12.9
Drawn By: PJS Figure: 14
Checked By: APS Project: ER94018.13
Scale: 1"=500' Date: March 1998
? m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m

' Table 3. Planting regime for the Gurley Mitigation Site. See Figure 14 for a plan view of proposed
vegetation associations.

S
A
l C
tream
t
. P Non- Stream Cypress/
Vegetation White Cedar Bottomland MMHwd Riverine Levee Tupelo
' Association
(Planting Area) Fw (Full
Planting) (Supp.
Planting) (Full
Planting) (Full
Planting) (Supp.
Planting) (Supp.
Planting)
TOTAL
Stem Target; 6801acre; 70/acre; 680/acre; 6801acre; 70/acre; 70/acre;
Area (acres) 6.0 acres 111.3 acres 2.1 acres 26.4 acres 2.8 acres 4.7 acres 157
2
.
' # planted # planted # planted # planted #
lanted #
lant
d #
l
d
p p
e p
ante
SPECIES (% total) (% total) (% total) (% total) (% total) (% total) (% total)
' Atl. White Cedar 1632 (40) 390(5) 2022116)
Swamp Tupelo 612(15) 77900) 1391 (4)
Tulip Tree 612 0 5) 14300) 1795 (10) 2550(8)
' Pond Pine 612 0 5) 612(2)
Laurel Oak 779 (10) 14300) 1795 (10) 33(10) 2750(8)
' Overcup Oak 779 (10) 3300) 812(2)
Willow Oak 77900) 1795 (10) 2574(8)
' Water Oak 779 (10) 1795 (10) 2574(8)
Swamp Chestnut Oak 77900) 143(10) 1795 (10) 272(20) 2989(9)
' Cherrybark Oak 779 (10) 14300) 1795 (10) 2717 (8)
River Birch 20405) 204(l)
' Green Ash 779 (10) 33 (10) 812(2)
Ironwood 390(5) 14300) 1795 (10) 272(20) 2600(8)
' White Oak 143 (10) 1795 (10) 1938(6)
Southern Red Oak 143 (10) 143
' Northern Red Oak
American B
h 143 (10) 143
eec 143(10) 1795 (10) 204(15) 2142(7)
Mockernut Hickory 143(10) 143
' Black Willow 204 0 5) 204
American Sycamore 1795 (10) 204(15) 1999(6)
' Bald Cypress 612(15) 779(10) 116 (35) 1507(5)
Water Tupelo 116(35) 99
' TOTAL 4080 7791 1430 17,950 1360 331 32.942

44

' 6 S
h
k
. wamp c
estnut oa
(Quercus michauxii)
7. Cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda)
' 8. Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana)
9. Swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora)
10.
11 Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
B
ld
T
di
. a
cypress (
axo
um distichum)
' Community: Cypress/tupelo Swamp
LEC site unit: Sub-hydric Riverine Flat
1. Bald cypress (Taxodium distichum)
' 2. Water tupelo (Nyssa aquatica)
3. Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
' 4. Laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia)
5. Overcup oak (Quercus lyrata
d

I

I

Community: Stream Levee
LEC site unit: Sub-hydric Riverine Flat
1. Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxill
2. American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)
3. River birch (Betula nigra)
4. American beech (Fagus grandifolia)
5. Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana)
6. Black willow (Salix nigra)
Community: Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest
LEC site unit: Non-hydric Slopes
1. Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana)
2. Tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera)
3. Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii)
4. Laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia)
5. White oak (Quercus alba)
6. Southern red oak (Quercus falcata)
7. Cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda)
8. Northern red oak (Quercus rubra)
9. American beech (Fagus grandifolia)
10. Mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa)
Community: Non-riverine Wet Hardwood Forest
LEC site unit: Hydric Flat
1. Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii)
2. Laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia)
45

0
u

L
3. Cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda)
4. Water oak (Quercus nigra)
5. White oak (Quercus alba)
6. Tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera)
7. Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana)
8. Willow oak (Quercus phellos)
9. American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)
10. American beech (Fagus grandifolia)
3.4 Post-Mitigation Wetland Functions
Plugging of drainage ditches, reduction of the levee/berm, and re-establishment of vegetation
communities are expected to return most of the Site to near natural wetland conditions and
a portion of the Nahunta Swamp floodplain to the influence of riverine hydrology. A return to
estimated historic conditions is not believed to be feasible. Hydrologic evidence indicates that
ditching and channelization have lowered both normal stream stage and floodplain water tables
' approximately 0.6 m (2 ft) within the last 40 years alone; and changes in regional and local
land-use practices have greatly increased sediment loading relative to a forest environment.

n
I

P
1

L

The goal of this project is to provide a diversity of wetland systems within the Site and restore
or enhance the wetland functions typically provided by the types of wetland communities
planned for the Site. One important benefit of this mitigation plan will be the return of much
of the lower portion of the Nahunta Swamp floodplain to a wetland hydrology under the
primary influence of the riverine system (Figure 15). Under current conditions, the only Site
wetlands under riverine influence are the Beaver Impoundment and the downstream portion
of Beaver Branch, for a total of 3.7 ha (9.1 ac). The portion of the Nahunta Swamp floodplain
that is currently under riverine influence is 1) not jurisdictional wetland and 2) may flood due
to river conditions but does not provide the system "riverine" ecological functions. The
floodplain is currently blocked from direct riverine overbank flow by the large levee/berm, and
the primary source of riverine flow is water backed up the ditch system during peak flows.
Physical barriers presented to hydrological inputs minimize the floodplain functions provided
to the Nahunta Swamp system such as: nutrient removal, sediment and toxicant retention,
floodflow alteration, surface water storage, and production export. Levee reduction and ditch
removal are expected to promote a riverine-influenced wetland in portions of the floodplain up
to the 18.3 m (60 ft) topographic contour in downstream portions of the Site and in higher
elevations in upstream portions of the Site. These mitigation activities are expected to provide
a post-mitigation total of approximately 23.4 ha (57.8 ac) (Figure 15 and Table 1).
A DEM wetland rating work sheet was completed for each wetland proposed to result from
mitigation activities. Wetland ratings are provided in Table 1 and completed work sheets are
available in Appendix B. Following is a discussion of benefits, in terms of wetland functions,
expected to be realized through the implementation of this mitigation plan.
46

ER94018.13/GURLALL.DWG
FEET 0 500 11000
MITIGATION SITE BOUNDARY
----- DITCHES
9 Environmental
Services, Inc.
EXTENT OF RIVERINE INFLUENCE
GURLEY MITIGATION SITE
GREENE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
R-1023AB
Drawn By: PJS Figure: 15
Checked By: APS Project: ER94018.13
Scale: 1"=500' Date: March 1998
AREA (ACRES)
f'
PRE-RESTORATION RIVERINE INFLUENCE 25.3
® POST-RESTORATION RIVERINE INFLUENCE 57.8
A ? m m m m = = m m = m m m m = m = m

n

1
0

C
Nutrient Removal/Transformation
The Site is expected to provide opportunity for removal and uptake of nutrients from basin
waters due to the expected increase in both dynamics of hydrological inputs and diversity of
wetland systems resulting from this mitigation. Residence time of upland runoff and slope
seepage will be greatly increased by the structure presented by the organic soils and dense
groundcover of the Coastal Plain Atlantic White Cedar Forest or the scarified surface of the
Non-riverine Wet Hardwood Forest, and the unchannelized Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood
Swamp. Waters from periodic riverine flow into the lower floodplains of both Nahunta Swamp
and Beaver Branch will be slowed by vegetation to allow for sedimentation, flocculation, and
biochemical assimilation processes.
Sediment/Toxicant Retention
The mitigation plan will provide floodplain portions of the Site with improved opportunity for
sediment removal and storage of toxins due to overbank flow. Reforestation of the existing
Agricultural Land will greatly reduce on-site sedimentation. Levee reduction and ditch removal
will allow the floodplain to buffer downstream sediment loads during peak events. Increased
organics within the Site due to reforestation and increased anaerobic conditions, in conjunction
with additional riverine sediment inputs, will allow greater opportunities for Site retention of
toxicants. The continued existence of the Beaver Branch impoundment provides a sediment
and toxicant sink in this wetland system.
Shoreline Stabilization/Energy Dissipation
The mitigation plan will increase Nahunta Swamp bank stability through the removal of the
levee spoil material. The levee reduction will provide the additional benefits of overbank flow
during peak events, allowing the floodplain ground surface and vegetation to dissipate stream
energy. Ditch removal will result in the widespread dissipation of energy through sheet flow
of surface waters, rather than the concentrated, scouring velocities associated with ditches.
Floodflow Alteration/Surface and Subsurface Water Storage
Implementation of the mitigation plan will greatly increase the surface and subsurface water
storage capacity within the Site. Removal of ditches and revegetation and scarification of the
existing Agricultural Land will decrease runoff rates, resulting in increased retention of waters.
Levee reduction will provide a better opportunity for overbank flow, reducing the volume of
water carried downstream during high stream stages. Beaver Branch impoundment water
levels will be controlled through the use of one or more pipe drains to Beaver Branch and
additional culverts under SR 1058 to the existing Agricultural Land. These control structures
will be designed to prevent dangerous overwash of adjacent roads during and after high rainfall
events.
48

Groundwater Discharge/Recharge
Increased retention of surface and groundwater within floodplain reaches due to mitigation
' activities will provide a greater opportunity for Site wetlands to contribute to groundwater
recharge. Groundwater discharge along lower slopes of the outer floodplain, within the
impounded Cypress/Tupelo Swamp, and through stream banks is expected to continue at
' present rates.
' Production Export
The increased residence time of surface waters due to mitigation activities will provide for the
breakdown of organics to both dissolved and particulate forms. Expected overbank flows and
' the following surface drainage will provide a mechanism for removal of organic components
to the Nahunta Swamp system.
Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Re-establishment of wetland hydrology and natural communities as a result of mitigation are
' planned to maximize available habitats in terms of physical structure, vegetational diversity,
and spacial connectivity. Wildlife will benefit from the presence of several natural wetland
' communities, as well as the enhancement provided by associated ecotone areas and adjacent
upland buffers. The addition of wetland hydrology throughout floodplain reaches will greatly
improve the Site for aquatic-related wildlife such as amphibians, turtles, and crustaceans.
' Restoration of wetland functions within the floodplain will increase water quality for aquatic
life both within the Site and in lower reaches of Nahunta Swamp.

n

49

E

0

L
4.0 MONITORING PLAN
Monitoring of wetland restoration and enhancement efforts will be performed until success
criteria are fulfilled. Monitoring is proposed for two wetland components, hydrology and
vegetation. Wetland soils currently exist within the Site and monitoring is not considered
necessary to verify hydric soil requirements for a jurisdictional determination.
4.1 Hydrology
A surficial hydrology monitoring network of wells will be installed while hydrological
modifications are being performed on the Site (Figure 16). The monitoring wells will be
designed and placed in accordance with specifications in the COE's Installing Monitoring
We//s/Piezometers in Wet/ands (WRP Technical Note HY-IA-3.1, August 1993). The network
will include both RIDS WL-20 and RIDS WL-80 continuous monitoring wells. These wells can
continuously record water level data along a 0.5 m (20 inch) and 2.0 m (80 inch) horizontal
gradient, respectively. Proposed locations of the different well types are indicated in Figure
16.
RDS WL-20 wells will be installed to a depth no greater than 0.5 m (20 in) below the ground
' surface in mitigation areas not expected to achieve riverine-influenced surface water (non-
riverine Wet Hardwood Forest, non-riverine Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood Forest, and
' Streamhead Atlantic White Cedar Forest). The RIDS WL-20 wells are referred to as
"groundwater monitoring wells" in Figure 16.

0
RDS WL-80 wells will be installed to a depth no greater than 0.5 m (20 in) below the ground
surface in mitigation areas expected to achieve riverine-influenced surface water on a regular
basis (riverine Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood Forest and Cypress/Tupelo Swamp). The
RIDS WL-80 wells will be capable of recording water levels from a depth of 0.5 m (20 in) below
the ground surface to an elevation of approximately 1.5 m (60 in) above the ground surface.
These wells will be installed with protective support (rebar) in areas expected to achieve
surface flow with significant velocities. The RIDS WL-80 wells are referred to as
"groundwater/surface water monitoring wells" in Figure 16. The taller RDS WL-80 wells have
been chosen over the RIDS WL-40 wells because the locations proposed for installation are
expected to receive significant surface flows on a periodic basis, and inundation of the top of
these wells may result in malfunction and data loss. The purpose of these wells is to provide
evidence of a riverine-influenced hydrology in portions of the Site for additional mitigation
credit value.
4.1.1 Monitoring
Continuous monitoring wells will be installed within the Site and adjusted to record water
levels at 6 hour intervals. These data will supplement and corroborate overbank flooding data
from the USGS stream gauge. The continuous monitoring wells will be in operation throughout
50
0

ER94018.13/GURLALL.DWG
FEET 0 500 1,000
METERS 0 100 200 300
Environmental
Services, Inc.
?•??? PROPOSED EXTENT OF RIVERINE INFLUENCE
PLANTED A REAS
¦ PROPOSED GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL
A PROPOSED GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER MONITORING WELL
® PROPOSED RAIN GAUGE
MITIGATION SITE BOUNDARY
AREA (ACRES)
+ + WETLAND RESTORATION 104.9
WETLAND ENHANCEMENT 45.8
® WETLAND PRESERVATION 5.9
UPLAND BUFFER 13.6
MITIGATION AREAS
GURLEY MITIGATION SITE
GREENE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
R-1023AB
Drawn By: PJS Figure: 16
Checked By: APS Project: ER94018.13
Scale: 1"=500' Date: March 1998

the year, and data will be downloaded at intervals (1) sufficient to insure proper operation and
maintenance of the hardware and (2) necessary to satisfy the established hydrology success
' criteria (EPA 1990).
4.1.2 Success Criteria
' Hydrological success criteria will include saturation or inundation for at least 12.5 percent of
the growing season during average climatic conditions in non-riverine areas (Streamhead
' Atlantic White Cedar Forest and Non-riverine Wet Hardwood Forest). Hydrological success
criteria within the Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood Swamp include saturation or inundation
for between 5 percent and 12.5 percent of the growing season. Areas supporting wetland
' hydrology for 5 to 12.5 percent of the growing season are required to support a prevalence
of hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soils. If wetland hydrology is marginal after 3 years of
monitoring, consultation with COE personnel will be undertaken to determine jurisdictional
extent in these transitional areas.
' Flood event frequency and elevation data from continuous monitoring wells will be used in
conjunction with rainfall data and USGS stream gauge data to determine the areal extent of
floodplain that is under the influence of riverine hydrology. Well water elevations will be
' compared to rainfall events and river staging to determine whether each well is influenced by
primarily upland runoff or a combination of runoff and river stage. Stream gauge monitoring
' and floodplain area calculations will require average climatic conditions including an average
distribution of peak storm events.
' 4.2 Vegetation
Restoration monitoring procedures for vegetation are designed in accordance with EPA
' guidelines enumerated in Mitigation Site Type (MiST) documentation (EPA 1990) and COE
Compensatory Hardwood Mitigation Guidelines. A general discussion of the restoration
monitoring plan is provided.
' 4.2.1 Monitoring
' After planting has been completed, an initial evaluation will be performed to verify planting
methods and to determine initial species composition and density. Supplemental planting and
additional site modification will be implemented, if necessary. Permanent photography stations
' will be established at selected vantage points to provide a visual record of vegetation
development over time.
' During the first year after planting, the Site will receive cursory visual evaluation on a periodic
basis to ascertain the degree of overtopping of planted trees by nuisance species. Remedial
' action will be undertaken as needed to control nuisance species. Subsequently, quantitative
sampling of vegetation will be performed between August 1 and October 31 after each
growing season until vegetation success criteria is achieved.
' 52

During quantitative vegetation sampling in the early fall of the first year 0.02 ha (0.05 ac) plots
will be established within each restored ecosystem. Monitoring plots will be established and
permanently located, providing a representative sample of the Site. Vegetation monitoring
plots will be correlated with hydrological monitoring sites in most cases to allow for point-
source data of hydrologic and vegetation parameters.
' 4.2.2 Success Criteria
Success criteria have been established to verify that restoration and enhancement areas
support vegetation 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 790 characteristic tree species/ha (320 trees/ac) must be surviving
for at least 3 years after initial planting. Characteristic species are those elements enumerated
in the planting plan along with natural recruitment. Supplemental plantings will be undertaken
as needed to achieve the vegetation success criteria.

F

D

0

Ll

4.3 Report Submittal
An "as built" report will be generated after completion of planting that includes: a plan view
of the Site, final elevations, photographs, sample plot locations, monitoring well locations, and
a description of initial species composition by community and sample plot locations. A
discussion of the planting design, including species planted, species densities, and number of
stems planted will be included. The report will be provided within 90 days of completion of
planting and monitoring well installation.
Subsequently, reports will be submitted yearly to appropriate permitting agencies following
each assessment. Submitted reports will include: sample plot data, well data (if applicable),
and a discussion of problems and proposed solutions. The duration of wetland hydrology
during the growing season will also be calculated at each monitoring well location and
extrapolated to each restored or enhanced community. Mortality and density of planted tree
stock will be reported.
4.4 Contingency
In the event that vegetation or hydrology success criteria are not fulfilled, a mechanism for
contingency will be implemented. For vegetation contingency, additional planting and
extended monitoring periods will be implemented if community restoration does not fulfill
minimum species density and distribution requirements.
Hydrological contingency will require consultation with hydrologists in the event that wetland
hydrology restoration is not achieved during the monitoring period. Recommendations for
contingency to establish wetland hydrology will be implemented and monitored until the
Hydrology Success Criteria are achieved.
53

5.0 MITIGATION VALUE
5.1 Wetland Functions Gained Through Mitigation Planning
A primary emphasis of this mitigation plan is to take an ecosystem approach toward restoring
wetlands on this Site. Maximizing Site potential, rather than mitigating specific project
impacts, is the project goal. Site potential is the difference between pre-mitigation wetland
functions (see Section 2.8.4 of this report) and post-mitigation wetland functions (see Section
3.4 of this report).
At present, much of the Site is non-jurisdictional due to an extensive ditch network; and the
' Site is under only minimal influence from water levels in Nahunta Swamp, due primarily to
channelization of the stream and fortification of the adjacent levee/berm which prevents bank
overflow. Successful implementation of this mitigation plan will 1) restore most of the site to
jurisdictional wetlands and 2) return the lower portion of the Nahunta Swamp floodplain to a
wetland hydrology under riverine influence. Restoration of these two mechanisms is expected
' to restore and enhance typical wetland functions attributed to this type of system (see Section
3.5).

C

k

5.2 Mitigation Ratios
The development of what constitutes "appropriate" replacement is often difficult to determine.
However, recommended ratios for this project are in keeping with research-documented
studies and recommended guidelines. Recent draft guidelines published by the EPA (1992)
recommend ratios of 2:1 for restoration, 3:1 for creation, 4:1 for enhancement, and 10:1 for
preservation; however, these ratios were presented as "general guidance". Based on available
information, and the fact that proposed mitigation should be considered within an ecosystem
context for this unique project, the following ratios are proposed:
Mitigation Type Ratio Acreage Credits
Restoration of riverine-influenced Coastal Plain 1.5:1 48.7 32
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Restoration of non-riverine C.P. Bottomland 2:1 56.2 28
Hardwood Forest and Wet Hardwood Forest
Enhancement of C.P. Bottomland Hardwood Forest, 3:1 45.8 15
Streamhead Atlantic White Cedar Forest, and
Cypress/Tupelo Swamp
Restoration/Management of Mesic Mixed Hardwood 5:1 13.6 3
Forest (Upland Buffer)
Preservation of riverine-influenced and non-riverine 10:1 5.9 1
C.P. Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Total 170.2 79
54

n
' Restoration and enhancement ratios are generally in keeping with recommended agency
guidelines. Upland ratios have been offered to reflect the overall ecosystem value of the plan.
' Without upland restoration and management, intrinsic functions in adjacent, restored
components may be diminished or lost. The ratios reflect a credit value of 32 ha (79 ac).
0

L'
11
C

0

C
C

55

E

6.0 SUMMARY
NCDOT proposes to establish the Gurley Mitigation Site as up-front, compensatory wetlands
mitigation for transportation improvement projects planned for the central Neuse River basin
region of the state. The approximately 72.4 ha (179.0 ac) area is located in Greene County,
approximately 12.9 km (8.0 mi) northwest of Snow Hill, on the north bank of Nahunta Swamp.
The Site provides a contiguous wetland restoration and enhancement area that connects relict
floodplains to Nahunta Swamp and a smaller tributary, Beaver Branch.
Recommendations for mitigation at the Site include: (1) reduction of the stream levee and
plugging and filling of ditches to promote restoration and enhancement of wetland hydrology;
and (2) planting of desirable wetland trees species so as to maximize wetland functions
provided by Site landscape areas.
Expected results of mitigation activities are tabulated in Table 1. This mitigation provides for
' the restoration of approximately 37.8 ha (93.4 ac) of forested wetlands and the enhancement
of approximately 20.9 ha (51.7 ac) of forested wetlands. The Site also provides for the
potential restoration of riverine hydrology to approximately 23.4 ha (57.8 ac) of wetland
' forested floodplain. Restoration, enhancement, and management of the Site will provide the
NCDOT with an estimated wetlands mitigation credit value of 32 ha (80 ac).

0

I
C
f',

F
A monitoring plan with established success criteria is proposed for evaluating the mitigation
in terms of wetlands restoration and enhancement and restoration of riverine-influenced
hydrology. After success criteria are fulfilled, NCDOT will continue to manage the Site in
perpetuity, or dispense the Site to an appropriate management entity. Management plans may
include: monitoring for the general health of the restored and enhanced vegetation
communities; wildlife harvesting activities may be allowed (based on recommendations from
the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission), and garbage dumping, forest clearing, and other
disturbances will be regulated.
56

7
7.0 REFERENCES
Adamus, P.R., E.J. Clairain, R.D. Smith, and R.E. Young. 1987. Wetland Evaluation
Technique (WET), Volume II: Methodology. U.S. Army Engineers Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 206 pp.
' Belcher, H.W. and G.E. Merva. 1987. Results of DRAINMOD verification study for
Zeigenfuss, soil and Michigan climate. ASAE Paper No. 87-2554.
' Brinson, M.M. 1988. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. Wetlands Research
Program Technical Report WRP-DE-4. U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment
' Station, Vicksburg, MS. 77 pp.
Brinson M., B. Swift, R. Plantico, J. Barclay. 1981. Riparian Ecosystems: Their ecology and
' status. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS 81 /17
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 103 pp.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual.
' Technical Report Y-87-1, Waterways Experiment Station, COE, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1993. Installing Monitoring Wells/Piezometers in Wetlands
' Corps of Engineers (COE). WRP Technical Note HY-IA-3.1, Waterways Experiment
Station, COE, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 14 pp.
' Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1995. Guidance for Rating the Values of
Wetlands in North Carolina: Fourth Version. N.C. Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources, Water Quality Section. 57 pp.
' Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1993. Classifications and Water Quality
Standards Assigned to The Waters of the Neuse River Basin. North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1991. Biological Assessment of Water Quality
' in North Carolina Streams: Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data Base and Long Term
Changes in Water Quality, 1983-1990. North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources.
' Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1989. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient
Network (BMAN) Water Quality Review 1983-1988. Water Quality Technical Reports.
t North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1990. Mitigation Site Type Classification (MiST).
' A methodology to classify pre-project mitigation sites and develop performance
standards for construction and restoration of forested wetlands. EPA Workshop,
August 13-15, 1989. EPA Region IV and Hardwood Research Cooperative, North
Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
57

C

n
L!
u
k
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1992. Mitigation Banking Guidance. EPA Region IV,
Atlanta, GA.
Fish, F.F. 1968. A Catalog of the Inland Fishing Waters in North Carolina. N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission, Division of Inland Fisheries. 312 pp.
Fouss, L., R.L. Bengtson and C.E. Carter. 1987. Simulating subsurface drainage in the lower
Mississippi Valley with DRAINMOD. Transactions of the ASAE 30 (6), pp 1679-1688.
Gayle, G., R.W. Skaggs and C.E. Carter. 1985. Evaluation of a water management model for
a Louisiana sugar cane field. Jour. of Am. Soc. of Sugar Cane Technologists 4:18 -28.
Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern (HSMM). 1996. Nahunta Swamp Mitigation Site: Final
Engineering Report. 7 pp.
Hodgkins, E.J., M.S. Golden, and W.F. Miller. 1976. Forest Habitat Regions and Types on
a Photomorphic-Physiographic Basis: A guide to Forest Site Classification in Alabama-
Mississippi. Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station and Mississippi Agricultural and
Forest Experiment Station Southern Cooperative Bulletin 210.
Jones, S.M., D.H Van Lear, and S.K. Cox. 1984. A vegetation-landform classification of
forest sites within the upper Coastal Plain of South Carolina. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club
111:349-360.
' Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison, III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles
of the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North
Carolina. 264 pp.
r-
I

0

L
Miller, W.F., and M.S. Golden. 1991. Forest Habitat Regions: Integrating Physiography and
Remote Sensing for Forest Site Classification. In: Ecological Land Classification
Applications to Identify the Productive Potential of Southern Forests, D.L. Mengel and
D.T. Tew (eds.), Pp 73-80. General Technical Rep. SE-68. Charlotte, North Carolina:
USDA Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station.
Mueller-Dombois, D. and H. Ellenburg. 1974. Aims and Methods of Vegetation Ecology.
John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Myers, R.K., R. Zahner, and S.M. Jones. 1986. Forest Habitat Regions of South Carolina.
Clemson University, Dept. of Forestry, Research Series 42. Map Supplement, Scale
1:1,000,000.
N.C. Geological Survey (NCGS). 1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina. Department of
Natural Resources and Community Development, Division of Land Resources,
1:500,000-scale.
Owen, W, P.W. Sumner, G.S. Warburton, and R.C. Wilson. 1987. Beaver Management in
North Carolina. N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission, Division of Wildlife Management.
16 pp.
58

Palmer W.M. and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 412 pp.
' Pehl, C.E. and R.L Brim. 1985. Forest Habitat Regions of Georgia, Landsat 4 Imagery.
Georgia Agricultural Experiment Station Special Publication 31. Map Supplement, Scale
1:1,000,000.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 408 pp.
' Powell, W.S. 1968. The North Carolina Gazetteer: a Dictionary of Tar Heel Places. The
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 561 pp.
' Rogers, J.S. 1985. Water management model evaluation for shallow sandy soils.
Transactions of the ASAE 28(3):785-790.
' Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the
Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel
' Hill, NC. 222 pp.
Sacco, J.B. 1990. Infaunal Community Development of Artificially Established Salt Marshes
' in North Carolina. Master's Thesis. N.C. State University, Raleigh, NC
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of The Natural Communities of North
' Carolina: Third Approximation. N.C. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
325 pp.
' Skaggs, R.W. 1980. A water management model for artificially drained soils. Tech. Bull. No.
267, North Carolina Agricultural Research Service, NC State University, Raleigh. 54
' pp
Skaggs, R.W., N.R. Fausey and B.H. Nolte. 1981. Water management evaluation for North
' Central Ohio. Transactions of the ASAE 24(4):922-928.
Skaggs, R.W. 1982. Field evaluation of a water management simulation model. Transactions
' of the ASAE 25(3):666-674.
Stuckey, J.S. and S.G. Conrad. 1958. Explanatory text for Geologic map of North Carolina.
' North Carolina Department of Conservation and Development. Bulletin No. 71. Scale
1:500,000.
Susanto, R.H., J. Feyen, W. Dierickx and G. Wyseure. 1987. The use of simulation models
' to evaluate the performance of subsurface drainage systems. Proc. of Third
International Drainage Workshop, Ohio State Univ., pp. A67 - A76.
' U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1980. Soil Survey of Greene County, North Carolina.
Soil Conservation Service. 83 pp.
59

' U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1987. Hydric Soils of the United States. In
cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, USDA Soil
Conservation Service.
' U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI). 1980. Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP). Fish and
Wildlife Service, Division of Ecological Services. Washington, D.C.
' U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1974. Hydrologic Unit Map. Department of Interior, in
cooperation with the U.S. Water Resources Council.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia, and
Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 255 pp.
Wharton, C.H., W.M. Kitchens, E.C. Pendleton, and T.W. Sipe. 1982. The Ecology of
Bottomland Hardwood Swamps of the Southeast: A Community Profile. FWS/OBS-
' 81 /37. 133 pp.

I

C

60
u
7

J

APPENDIX A

u

C

L

NAHUNTA SWAMP HYDROGRAPHS
FROM THE USGS STREAM GAUGE

rn c
8
a N
L
5
U_
c
t
ca
z
I
j
I
i
i
I
I
I
I I
I
I
II
I
i
ill
I I ??
S S S
co CN
(s?) a6aey?sia
O
ti
r
r
O
N
O
O
04
00
/a)
`
t
V
Q
O
co
O
T-
0')
Ln
r
M
T-
0')
r
r
i
rn
rn ?
C a)
CD CO
cv ?-
XLrn' Q?
V
L
V
E
c
ca
z
I
I ,

i
I
II -
I

I
I
I

I _

i II
j I
I I j
j
? I
I I

I ?
j I
I! j , I

j --! -

I I i I I
0 C)
CO N 00

O
(sp) 96aeyosia
0)
C?
N
67
ti
O
co
W
C-4 CU
/iT Q
VJ
N
N
O
co
r
N
M
m
r
r

co
8
Q
(? L
L
L
3, (D
U
E
cu
z
I
i I I ti
i ?
i
M
'I N
I
? I !
?0
0
M
J
I! I ?
---
M
i I O
-LIL co
I i I I II I I I I I I i ? i `
I
pp 0
CD 00 N
(sJO) a6aeyosia

8
f6 L
L
L
U
E
co 0
cv
c
t
ca
z
I Ij I
I I
I
1 I
I
I I
I ? L! I I
I
i
it
I I
I
I
I
i I
I I
l i l l
I
I I I I i - I!,
i
tit
g S o
(sp) afiaeyosia
a
ti
a
a
00
N
O
a
65
04
O
W
T (6
Q
O
M
?bl
a

M

LO ..
M -0
m
o
C
0-
Q N
(6 L
L
L
5 ti-
U
0
c
t
ca
Z
i
LO
rn
I ti

I I
LO

_
- ON

I r

I
?
I
!
r
I I ?
!
-
------
LO
I ? I
CF)
_ C)
I =

I M
I I I I
I I
I
r
I
-? LO
a')

! I ' I f
?
I I ? i i I I r

S
C) co

(sp) ebiegoSid
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
(6 L
i L
O Q.
LL
II T
is U
C
ca
Z
i
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
I -
i

i ? I
I

I ' I I i ? --
' i
_ _-

i

° °o °o °
C) o °
d' M N ?
CY)

0
M
4
N 0
M
rn
0
r
iz?
CD
rn

0
0

u

0

i

APPENDIX B
COMPLETED WETLAND RATING WORK SHEETS

J

I

??G ly S CJ? e: s-;J'OrsQ ?M.
Wetland Rating Worksheet
Project name Nearest road
County Name of Evaluator Date
Wetland location
_ on pond or lake
_ on perennial stream
_ on intermittent stream
_ within interstream divide
X other
Soil Series 5o`•rs?ov\ ? o o-`M
_ predominantly organic-humus,
muck, or peat
predominantly mineral- non-sandy
_ predominantly sandy
Hydraulic Factors
_ steep topography
ditched or channelized
wetland width >/= 50 feet
Adjacent land use (within 1/2 mile upream)
forested/natural vegetation / %
agriculture, urban/suburban %
impervious surface N
Dominant Vegetation
(1) Rylus 67'-°C, r..) (3)
(2) r
Flooding and Wetness
_ semipermanently to permanently flooded
or inundated
_ seasonally flooded or inundated
intermittently flooded or temporary
surface water
_ no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland Type (select one)
_ Bottomland hardwood forest _ Pine savanna
_ Headwater forest _ Freshwater marsh
_ Swamp forest _ Bog/fen
)CWet flat _ Ephemeral wetland
_ Pocosin Other
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes
Water storage Z, * 4 =
Bank/Shoreline stabilization 4
Pollutant removal 3 * 5 =
Wildlife habitat 3 * 2 - L
Aquatic life value * 4 LI
Recreation/Education 1 0_
Add I point if in sensitive watershed and >I 0% nonpoint disturbance within 1/2 mile upstream
Total score
3 1'?-_

H
I
i

Wetland Rating Worksheet
Project name Nearest road
County Name of Evaluator Date
Wetland location
_ on pond or lake
_ on perennial stream
_ on intermittent stream
Xwithin interstream divide
other
Adjacent land use (within 1/2 mile upstream)
forested/natural vegetation go- %
agriculture, urban/suburbanL n
impervious surface %
Dominant Vegetation
Soil Series Lum ee
predominantly organic-humus,
muck, or peat
'predominantly mineral- non-sandy
_ predominantly sandy
' Hydraulic Factors
_ steep topography
ditched or channelized
' wetland width >/= 50 feet
(1) Qyecc?z M'C! .QuV': 6
(2)X o?-C4? /?;
(3) Ism'laX Ca?ur??t 1 G?y?
Flooding and Wetness
_ semipermanently to permanently flooded
or inundated
_ seasonally flooded or inundated
intermittently flooded or temporary
surface water
_ no evidence of flooding or surface water
' Wetland Type (select one)

Bottomland hardwood forest
Pine savanna
_
_ Headwater forest _ Freshwater marsh
Swamp forest _ Bog/fen
Wet flat Ephemeral wetland
_ Pocosin xOther
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes
Water storage * -
4 - $

' Bank/Shoreline stabilization
Pollutant removal * 4 0
5 5
Wildlife habitat 2
Aquatic life value 4_
Recreation/Education 1
Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and >10% nonpoint disturbance within 1/2 mile upstream
k
Total score

L
0

?•?QcesS - t? pub v ?a?
Wetland Rating Worksheet
Project name Nearest road
County Name of Evaluator Date
Wetland location
_ on pond or lake
X on perennial stream
_ on intermittent stream
_ within interstream divide
_ other
Soil Series `lotin?L d
_ predominantly organic-humus,
muck, or peat
predominantly mineral- non-sandy
_ predominantly sandy
C
C

0

Hydraulic Factors
'Zvetland width >/= 50 feet
_ steep topography
ditched or channelized
Adjacent land use (within 1/2 mile upstream)
forested/natural vegetation Y2
agriculture, urban/suburban (, () %
impervious surface
Dominant Vegetation
(2)
(3)
'?/.'semipermanently to permanently flooded
Flooding and Wetness
or inundated
_ seasonally flooded or inundated
_ intermittently flooded or temporary
surface water
_ no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland Type (select one)
_ Bottomland hardwood forest _ Pine savanna
Headwater forest _ Freshwater marsh
Swamp forest _ Bog/fen
_ Wet flat _ Ephemeral wetland
_ Pocosin _ Other
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes
Wildlife habitat 2 = !?:L
Water storage 4 = .2?19
Bank/Shoreline stabilization 4 = ?Z
Pollutant removal ! * 5 = ?
--
Aquatic life value 4 = ZZ
Recreation/Education * 1
Add 1 paint if in sensitive watershed and >I 0% nonpoint disturbance within 112 mile upstream
Total score
Z

ba I(OU-) ??CC5--k
Wetland Rating Worksheet
Project name Nearest road
County Name of Evaluator Date
Wetland location
_ on pond or lake
_ on perennial stream
_ on intermittent stream
_ within interstream divide
?(other
Adjacent land use (within 1/2 mile upstream)
forested/natural vegetation ?70 %
agriculture, urban/suburban Z a/o
impervious surface %
Dominant Vegetation
h
Soil Series ca yr
_ predominantly organic-humus,
muck, or peat
,predominantly mineral- non-sandy
_ predominantly sandy

' Hydraulic Factors
_ steep topography
ditched or channelized
wetland width >/= 50 feet

L
I

(1) m, 0.I 1 x T\ ? 0,
(2) AwS Serr UIgk %y
(3) o''I_'c?fi u m
Flooding and Wetness
)?,semipermanently to permanently flooded
or inundated
_ seasonally flooded or inundated
_ intermittently flooded or temporary
surface water
_ no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland Type (select one)
_ Bottomland hardwood forest _ Pine savanna
_ Headwater forest _ Freshwater marsh
_ Swamp forest _ Bog/fen
_ Wet flat _ Ephemeral wetland
_ Pocosin AOther
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes
Water storage 4 -
Bank/Shoreline stabilization 4 .
Pollutant removal 5 - r?
Wildlife habitat _ * 2 -
Aquatic life value 4 =
Recreation/Education * 1 =
Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and >! 0% nonpoint disturbance within I/2 mile upstream
Total score
GC I

???aceov?
?v

0
0.5 St;' m L L a?,
Wetland Rating Worksheet
Project name Nearest road
County Name of Evaluator Date
Wetland location
_ on pond or lake
_ on perennial stream
_ on intermittent stream
_ within interstream divide
other
Soil Series J o? n,'
_ predominantly organic-humus,
muck, or peat
Xpredominantly mineral- non-sandy
_ predominantly sandy

u
C

Hydraulic Factors
_ steep topography
ditched or channelized
x wetland width >/= 50 feet
Adjacent land use (within 1/2 mile ups am)
forested/natural vegetation r %
agriculture, urban/suburban? 9/0
impervious surface
Dominant Vegetation
(1)??,'c?!?rrbat' S'?y?aCr 4 ?Va/S?
(2) can ?v?ac;4 q;n a?'? (r4?
V- V
(3)
Flooding and Wetness
'<'semipermanently to permanently flooded
or inundated
_ seasonally flooded or inundated
_ intermittently flooded or temporary
surface water
_ no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland Type (select one)
_ Bottomland hardwood forest _ Pine savanna
_ Headwater forest _ Freshwater marsh
_ Swamp forest _ Bog/fen
_ Wet flat ,,Ephemeral wetland
_ Pocosin Other
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes
Water storage * 4 =
Bank/Shoreline stabilization 4 =
Pollutant removal * 5 =
Wildlife habitat 2 Z:
Aquatic life value * 4 = 16.
Recreation/Education * 1 0
Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and >I 0% nonpoint disturbance within 1/2 mile upstream
Total score

L

u
A V0 G' M Pour" dr'Q v!-? °? ?1 ?a J2C ?C4--old
(?t'e 1Z?Jel:•?
Wetland Rating Worksheet
Project name Nearest road
County Name of Evaluator Date
Wetland location
on pond or lake
Xn perennial stream
_ on intermittent stream
_ within interstream divide
_ other
Adjacent land use (within 1/2 mile upstream)
forested/natural vegetation -3n %
agriculture, urban/suburban t*?/ %
impervious surface
Dominant Vegetation
(1) L P4 (4J
(2) I yt t Z e b- b cn ???
Soil Series Zo A s v?
_ predominantly organic-humus,
muck, or peat
_ predominantly mineral- non-sandy
_ predominantly sandy

Hydraulic Factors
steep topography
ditched or channelized
' ;('wetland width >/= 50 feet

(3)
Flooding and Wetness
X semipermanently to permanently flooded
or inundated
_ seasonally flooded or inundated
_ intermittently flooded or temporary
surface water
_ no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland Type (select one)
? Bottomland hardwood forest _ Pine savanna
Headwater forest _ Freshwater marsh
Swamp forest _ Bog/fen
_ Wet flat _ Ephemeral wetland
_ Pocosin _ Other
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes
Water storage 4 * 4 = _?
Bank/Shoreline stabilization 3 * 4 = /2-
Pollutant removal -5_ * 5 =-f- _
Wildlife habitat 3 * 2 = 4 ,
Aquatic life value 3 * 4 1
Recreation/Education * 1 =
Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and >I 0% nonpoint disturbance within 1/2 mile upstream
Total score
3-

' Wetland Rating Worksheet

I
PAQ?
Project name Nearest road
County Name of Evaluator Date
Wetland location
_ on pond or lake
Nn perennial stream
_ on intermittent stream
_ within interstream divide
_ other
Adjacent land use (within 1/2 mile upstream)
forested/natural vegetation 0 %
agriculture, urban/suburban q /
impervious surface %
Dominant Vegetation
(1)
(2)
(3)
Soil Series Vb"' S W
t _ predominantly organic-humus,
muck, or peat
predominantly mineral- non-sandy
_ predominantly sandy

' y Hydraulic Factors
-/steep topography
itched or channelized
' wetland width >/= 50 feet

Flooding and Wetness
_ semipermanently to permanently flooded
or inundated
seasonally flooded or inundated
intermittently flooded or temporary
surface water
_ no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland Type (select one)
Bottomland hardwood forest _ Pine savanna
_ Headwater forest _ Freshwater marsh
_ Swamp forest _ Boa/fen
_ Wet flat _ Ephemeral wetland
_ Pocosin Other
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes
Water storage * 4 /(0
Bank/Shoreline stabilization 4
Pollutant removal 5_
Wildlife habitat_ * 2 - (Q
Aquatic life value_ * 4 = O
Recreation/Education * l
Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and >I 0°'a nonpoint disturbance within 1/2 mile upstream
Total score
Z

? r Is rd'C raj
r os ?-
Wetland Rating Worksheet
Project name Nearest road
County Name of Evaluator Date
r Wetland location Adjacent land use (within 1/2 mile upstream)
on pond or lake forested/natural vegetation 14 %
_ on perennial stream agriculture, urban/suburban C? ?3
on intermittent stream impervious surface 0/Q
within interstream divide
_other
Dominant Vegetation

Soil Series ?h?sh
_ predominantly organic-humus,
muck, or peat
_ predominantly mineral- non-sandy
_ predominantly sandy
(2)
Hydraulic Factors

u

_ steep topography
_ ditched or channelized
?Gwetland width >/= 50 feet

(3)
Flooding and Wetness
)Csemipermanently to permanently flooded
or inundated
_ seasonally flooded or inundated
_ intermittently flooded or temporary
surface water
_ no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland Type (select one)
Bottomland hardwood forest _ Pine savanna
Headwater forest _ Freshwater marsh
-Swamp forest _ Bog(fen
_ Wet flat _ Ephemeral wetland
_ Pocosin _ Other
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes
Water storage * 4 =
Bank/Shoreline stabilization 2, * 4
Pollutant removal S * 5 =
Wildlife habitat _ * 2 =
Aquatic life value - * 4 = Z
Recreation/Education 1 = Z
Add t point if in sensitive watershed and >I 0% nonpoint disturbance within 1/2 mile upstream
Total score
-?--`_

S Wetland Rating Worksheet
Project name Nearest road
County Name of Evaluator Date

Wetland location
_ on pond or lake
_ on perennial stream
_ on intermittent stream
_ within interstream divide
_ other
Soil Series_ LU ern)zee
_ predominantly organic-humus,
muck, or peat
,Cpredominantly mineral- non-sandy
_ predominantly sandy
Adjacent land use (within 1/2 mile upstream)
forested/natural vegetation `l %
agriculture, urban/suburban?L-O %
impervious surface %
Dominant Vegetation
(1)
(2)
(3)
Flooding and Wetness
_ semipermanently to permanently flooded
or inundated
_ seasonally flooded or inundated
I intermittently flooded or temporary
surface water
_ no evidence of flooding or surface water
Hydraulic Factors
_ steep topography
_ ditched or channelized
i Xwetland width >/= 50 feet
Wetland Type (select one)

Bottomland hardwood forest -
Pine savanna
_ Headwater forest _ Freshwater marsh
_ Swamp forest
et flat _ Bog/fen
' _ Ephemeral wetland
_ Pocosin _ Other
*The rating system can not be applied to salt or brackish marshes
'
Water storage 3 * 4
Bank/Shoreline stabilization * 4
Pollutant removal_ * 5 = Z?
Wildlife habitat r _ * 2
Aquatic life value
Recreation/Education * 4
* 1

' Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and >I 0% nonpoi nt disturbance within 1/2 mile upstream

Total score
Cc- 1

COCL5?G ` B6' ')"d4 Q J=(O_T:s
' Wetland Rating Worksheet
Project name Nearest road
County Name of Evaluator. Date
' Wetland location
_ on pond or lake
_ on perennial stream
on intermittent stream
_ within interstream divide
Xother
Soil Series ?` IC16 CM 401yville-
predominantly organic-humus,
muck, or peat
' _predominantly mineral- non-sandy
_ predominantly sandy
Hydraulic Factors
_ steep topography
ditched or channelized
(wetland width >/= 50 feet
F1

Adjacent land use (within 1/2 mile upstream)
forested/natural vegetation
agriculture, urban/suburban
impervious surface %
Dominant Vegetation
(1) Q uey"-uS rn;Ci uY: ?'
(2)
(3)
Flooding and Wetness
_ semipermanently to permanently flooded
or inundated
_ seasonally flooded or inundated
/(intermittently flooded or temporary
surface water
_ no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland Tyne (select one) _
;L\Bottomland hardwood forest Pine savanna
_ Headwater forest _ Freshwater marsh
_ Swamp forest _ Boa/fen
_ Wet flat _ Ephemeral wetland
_ Pocosin _ Other
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes
Water storage * 4 = A4
Bank/Shoreline stabilization * 4 /(-
Pollutant removal S * 5 = 2
Wildlife habitat - * 2
Aquatic life value S * 4 =
Recreation/Education 1
Add I point if in sensitive watershed and >10;'o nonpoint disturbance within 1/2 mile upstream
Total score