20011729 Ver 1_Mitigation Plans_20040525

DRAFT
WETLAND AND STREAM MITIGATION PLAN
FOR THE
ROCKY RIVER LOWER RESERVOIR EXPANSION
CHATHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared By:
Dr. J.H. Carter III & Associates, Inc.
Environmental Consultants
515 F Midland Road
Southern Pines, North Carolina 28388
Submitted 24 May 2004
To:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regional Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615-6846

North Carolina Division of Water Quality
401 Wetland Certification Unit
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
WETLANDS/ 401 GROL)P
MAY 2 .5 2004
WATER QUALITY SECTION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................1
PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. ..2
IMPACTS DUE TO THE PROPOSED ROCKY RIVER LOWER RESERVOIR .............. ..5
STREAM IMPACTS ................................................................................................................................................... .. 5
WETLAND IMPACTS ................................................................................................................................................ .. 5
PROPOSED STREAM MITIGATION ..................................................................................... ..9
DEEP RIVER RESTORATION ..................................................................................................................................... .. 9
ON-SITE STREAM ENHANCEMENT .......................................................................................................................... .. 9
ON-SITE STREAM PRESERVATION ........................................................................................................................... .. 9
PROPOSED WETLAND MITIGATION ................................................................................. 11
ON-SITE WETLAND MITIGATION ............................................................................................................................ 12
Mitigation Wetland 01 (MW-01) ....................................................................................................................... 12
Mitigation Wetland 02 (MW-02) ....................................................................................................................... 24
Fringe Wetland .................................................................................................................................................. 31
Wetland Enhancement ....................................................................................................................................... 31
Wetland Preservation ........................................................................................................................................ 31
OFF-SITE WETLAND MITIGATION ............................................................................................................................. 33
Enhancement and Preservation of Parcel No. 8735049459 .............................................................................. 33
MONITORING ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................... 36
REFERENCE FOREST ECOSYSTEMS .......................................................................................................................... 36
WETLAND MITIGATION SITES ................................................................................................................................. 36
ON-SITE STREAM MITIGATION SITES ...................................................................................................................... 41
REPORTING ............................................................................................................................... 41
WETLAND MITIGATION SITES ................................................................................................................................. 41
STREAM MITIGATION SITES .................................................................................................................................... 41
SUCCESS CRITERIA ................................................................................................................ 42
WETLAND HYDROLOGY .......................................................................................................................................... 42
WETLAND VEGETATION ......................................................................................................................................... 42
CONTINGENCY PLANS ...........................................................................................................42
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................43
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure l: Project Location Map .......................................................................................3
Figure 2a -2c: Jurisdictional Wetland and Stream Channel Impacts ................................... 6-8
Figure 3: Location of On-Site Stream Mitigation ......................................................... 10
Figure 4: General Location Map for Mitigation Wetlands 01 and 02 ........................... 13
Figure 5a-5d: Location of On-Site Wetland Mitigation ..................................................14-18
Figure 6: Photo of Existing Conditions at Mitigation Wetland 01 ............................... 18
Figure 7: Mitigation Wetland 01: Existing Land Uses ................................................ 19
Figure 8: Mitigation Wetland 01: Soil Map Units ........................................................ 20
Figure 9: Mitigation Wetland 01: Existing Vegetative Communities ........................... 21
Figure 10: Mitigation Wetland 01: Grading Plan ............................................................ 22
Figure 11: Mitigation Wetland 01: Proposed Borrow Areas .......................................... 23
Figure 12: Photo of Existing Conditions at Mitigation Wetland 02 ............................... 24
Figure 13: Mitigation Wetland 02: Existing Land Uses ................................................ 25
Figure 14: Mitigation Wetland 02: Soil Map Units ........................................................ 26
Figure 15: Mitigation Wetland 02: Existing Vegetative Communities ........................... 27
Figure 16 Mitigation Wetland 02: Proposed Borrow Areas .......................................... 28
Figure 17: Mitigation Wetland 02: Typical Cross Section: Impervious Ditch Plug....... 29
Figure 18: Mitigation Wetland 02: Grading Plan ............................................................ 30
Figure 19: An Example of a Typical Wetland Fringe Location ...................................... 32
Figure 20: Photo of Existing Conditions at Parcel No. 8735049459 .............................. 33
Figure 21: General Location Map, Off-Site Wetland Enhancement,
Parcel No. 8735049459 ................................................................................ 34
Figure 22: Soil Map for Wetland Enhancement Site,
Parcel No. 8735049459 ................................................................................. 35
ii
LIST OF FIGURES
(Continued) ,
Figure 23: Parcel No. 8735049459: Wetland Boundaries and
Existing Plant Communities .......................................................................... 37
Figure 24: Reference Forest Ecosystem: General Location Map ................................... 38
Figure 25: Monitoring Plan: Mitigation Wetland 01 ...................................................... 39
Figure 26: Monitoring Plan: Mitigation Wetland 02 ...................................................... 40
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Stream Impacts for the Rocky River Lower Reservoir
Expansion Project ............................................................................................ 5
Table 2: Proposed Wetland Mitigation for Stream Channel Impacts ............................ 9
Table 3: Proposed Wetland Mitigation for Federal Jurisdictional Wetlands ............... 11
Table 4: Proposed Wetland Mitigation for State Jurisdictional Isolated Wetlands ..... 12
Table 5: Proposed On-Site Wetland Mitigation ........................................................... 12
Table 6: Proposed Off-Site Wetland Mitigation .......................................................... 33
iv
DRAFT
WETLAND AND STREAM MITIGATION PLAN
FOR THE
ROCKY RIVER LOWER RESERVOIR EXPANSION
CHATHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
USACOE Action ID No. 200220234 NC DWQ Project No. 01-1729
INTRODUCTION
The Town of Siler City (Town) is proposing to construct a new dam structure
immediately below the existing Rocky River Lower Reservoir dam in order to expand the
existing Rocky River Lower Reservoir. The expansion of this reservoir will establish a water
supply that will provide an additional 2.0 million gallons per day (MGD) to meet the Town's
projected long-term needs beyond the current 20-year planning window through at least 2030,
based on current population and demand projections. The project would result in the
establishment of a 162.5-acre reservoir (including 24.4 acres of existing reservoir) and the
preservation of a 117.3-acre buffer zone approximately 100 feet wide around the proposed
reservoir. The project engineers, Hobbs, Upchurch and Associates, P.A., are preparing a
timeline that will outline the dam construction schedule and filling of the proposed reservoir.
This timeline will be submitted as a supplemental document to this mitigation plan.
Project construction would result in the loss of 9.19 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and )
inundation of 7,916 linear feet of perennial streams, 1,588 linear feet of intermittent streams and
3,242 linear feet of ephemeral streams. The majority of existing wetlands and streams have been
adversely affected by human activities including cattle grazing.
As part of this project, the Town's will work to improve the environmental quality of the
project site and watershed as a whole. A 100-foot vegetative buffer around the expanded
reservoir will be established and all wetlands and streams within this buffer will be preserved,
enhanced or restored, as appropriate. Water quality and wildlife habitat will be enhanced by the
formation of 32 fringe wetlands and creation of 2 wetlands within the footprint of the proposed
reservoir expansion. In addition to the on-site mitigation, the Town will purchase stream
mitigation credits created by the removal of a dam on the Deep River and wetland acreage at the
head of the Rocky River in Randolph County will be enhanced and preserved.
PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION
The project area is located in western Chatham County in the east-central Piedmont of
North Carolina (Figure 1). The topography ranges from gently to strongly sloping. Elevations
within the project area range from 450 to 700 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL). Geologically,
the project lies within the Carolina Slate Belt of North Carolina. The soils are generally silt
loams and silty clay loams, with the Badin, Cid, Lignum, Georgeville and Nanford Series being
the most widespread. Soils along rivers and creeks, which ultimately drain to the Cape Fear
River, are dominated by Riverview and Badin-Nanford soils (H.Outz, Chatham Soil and Water
Conservation District, pers. comm.).
The predominant natural vegetative communities as defined by the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990) were the Dry Oak-Hickory
Forest on the ridgetops and upper slopes, Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest on mid-and lower
slopes, Piedmont/Coastal Plain Heath Bluff on steep slopes and banks, Mesic Mixed Hardwood
Forest on some lower slopes and along some well-drained small creek bottoms and Piedmont
Alluvial Forest on river and stream floodplains.
The Dry Oak-Hickory Forest was dominated by white oak (Quercus alba), southern red
oak (Q. falcata), post oak (Q. stellata), blackjack oak (Q. marilandica) and hickory species,
including mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa) and pignut hickory (C. glabra). Shortleaf
(Pinus echinata) and Virginia pines (P. virginiana) were also important components and
dominated portions of this community type. Typical understory species included sourwood
(Oxydendrum arboreum), red maple (Acer rubrum), flowering dogwood (Cornus Florida) and
sparkleberry (Vaccinium arboreum). Shrubs ranged from sparse to dense and included
gooseberry (V. stamineum), lowbush blueberry (V. pallidum) and dwarf blueberry (Vacinium
tenellum). Herbs were generally sparse and included pipsissewa (Chimaphila maculata), oat
grass (Danthonia spicata), rattlesnake weed (Hieracium venosum), goat's rue (Tephosia
virginiana) and greater coreopsis (Coreopsis major).
The Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest was dominated by white oak and other oaks and
hickories including northern red oak (Q. rubra), black oak (Q. velutina), shagbark hickory (C.
ovata) and pignut hickory. Pines, tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) and sweetgum
(Liquidambar styracifZua) were also common. Understory species included red maple, flowering
dogwood, sourwood, American holly (Ilex opaca) and blackgum. (Nyssa sylvatica). Shrubs
included gooseberry, dangleberry (Gaylussacia frondosa) and American strawberry-bush
(Euonymus americanus). The herb layer was sparse and included heartleaf (Hexastylis arifolia),
2
gi'n >;,.a ??,y ?,• _
-,Project I e
f1 !
! T
44f I
?, -.uY•x 193ia., _ p
?I l? r"•fbR:1 J °
r__ 75-1
r f Vq-
!- ?.- 7 {tea r=?
f,
„?"--?`' i ? .• Il l ? ? 1. I? ' +.;-= = t ?3ifij?
'?? 3?`{ ? 1" "r:, r-? ..,a° - .., n?F`', 4f ' ' `•? ?t f _, rp,:;??y
I ?? -rte 'y ;•4f:.. ?',? r
o-
? ? qqq? ? ?? r f
S`? S 1' J
I-
? ?vW,hilaFla?•>lt??
April 13, 2004 FIGURE 1
PROJECT LOCATION MAP - _,;
ROCKY RIVER LOWER RESERVOIR EXPANSION
CHATHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA s
Prepared By:
Dr. J.H. Carter, I I I & Associates
Southern Pines, North Carolina Scale 1:24,000
pipsissewa, rattlesnake plantain (Goodyera pubescens) and woodland tick-trefoil (Desmodium
nudiflorum).
Piedmont/Coastal Plain Heath Bluff contained an open to very sparse overstory of rock
chestnut oak (Q. prinus) and shortleaf pine. A variety of trees from surrounding forests also
occurred in this community as did a dense shrub layer dominated by mountain laurel (Kalmia
latifolia). Herbs were generally sparse and included galax (Galax aphylla), trailing arbutus
(Epigae repens), pipsissewa and partridge berry (Mitchella repens).
Dominant overstory species within the Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest community
included beech (Fagus grandifolia), northern red oak, tulip poplar and southern sugar maple
(Acer barbatum). Typical understory species included flowering dogwood, red maple and
American holly. Common shrub species included horse sugar (Symplocos tinctoria), witch-hazel
(Hammamelis virginiana), buckeye (Aesculus sylvatica), switch cane (Arundinaria tecta),
American strawberrybush, beautyberry (Callicarpa americanus) and blueberries (Vaccinium
spp.). Ground cover was moderately dense to dense and often diverse, and included Christmas
fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), heartleaf (H. virginica), foamflower (Tiarella cordifolia),
rattlesnake fern (Botrychium virginianum), alumroot (Heuchera americana) and lion's foot
(Prenanthes serpentaria).
Dominant overstory species in the Piedmont Alluvial Forest community type included
river birch (Betula nigra), tulip poplar, sweetgum, green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), black
walnut (Juglans nigra), hackberry (Celtis laevigata) and sycamore (Platanus occidentalis).
Typical understory species included boxelder (Acer negundo), red maple and ironwood
(Carpinus caroliniana). Shrubs included American strawberrybush, spicebush (Lindera
benzoin) and Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinese). The ground cover was generally dense and
included vermin grass (Microstegium virmineum), bluestem goldenrod (Solidago caesia),
heartleaf aster (Aster divaricatus), buttercup (Ranunculus abortius), Canada avens (Geum
canadense) and violets (Viola spp.). Vines were common and included poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans), muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia), greenbrier (Smilax
rotundifolia), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia) and moonseed (Menispermum
canadense).
The entire site has been heavily disturbed by human impacts. Nearly half of the uplands
have been converted to fields, pastures and rural residential areas. Forested areas were generally
small and fragmented.
4
IMPACTS DUE TO THE PROPOSED ROCKY RIVER LOWER RESERVOIR
STREAM IMPACTS
A total of 12,746 linear feet of stream channels will be permanently flooded by the
proposed project. Of this total, 3,242 linear feet are ephemeral streams, which do not require
mitigation by State or Federal agencies. The perennial and intermittent streams to be mitigated
total 9,504 linear feet. On 18 March 2002, the United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USACOE) visited the project site and made jurisdictional determinations on waterbodies
therein. It was determined that some of the delineated channels were nonjurisdictional due to the
lack of stream characteristics and were either ditches or water impoundments. Table 1 details the
linear footage of stream impacts approved by the USACOE.
TABLE 1
STREAM IMPACTS FOR THE
ROCKY RIVER LOWER RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT
Stream Type Linear Feet of Stream Channel Impacts
Perennial-Forested 6,332.83
Pere nn ial-Non Forested 1,583.56
Intermittent Forested 1,200.23
Intermittent-Non Forested 387.60
TOTAL 9,504.00
WETLAND IMPACTS
Total jurisdictional wetland impacts were reported earlier as 9.24 acres. In April 2004,
Dr. J.H. Carter III & Associates (JCA) determined by field verification that .05 acre of
previously reported wetland impact was the result of mapping errors. This acreage occurs along
Mudlick Creek and along the upper reaches of the Rocky River Lower Reservoir. The banks of
Mudlick Creek and the Rocky River were surveyed using the Global Positioning System (GPS)
and this data was translated into a graphical representation. When an existing graphic of the
Rocky River and Mudlick Creek were combined with the field data, portions of the banks of
these waterbodies were erroneously reported as wetlands. Therefore, construction and operation
of the proposed project will impac?9.1)cres of jurisdictional wetlands and not 9.24 acres as
previously reported. This includes 1.52 acres of isolated wetland and 7.67 acres of riparian
wetland. Figures 2a through 2c shows the location of these wetlands and the areas removed from
the wetland impact calculation. Many of the wetlands proposed to be impacted are disturbed or
narrow riparian fringe. All wetland impacts will be the result of flooding.
N \\
7
m
i?
J
L
U
(0

L
a ro
-o c
c ?
c O
o m
cn E E CO
'o
c E ro ro o i
ro m m` m E
ro U)
c75
°
m a c
0) N U
C E c O n +'
ro u? m L N a O
° m a X 0 0 0
C 0 aro w w a° cv
0
J ?
W
l?
3
co
U
Q
a
?z
JO
wcnQ
z z z
QCL
?
=XO
Uwe ti
Q ?
QOU a? o
LLI 2
a'>? "5 C)
N U)?0 mcnn
W ?WZ Q
'0Z
Ix Z? a) 0
Q?H CL
?Wj a`md
LL
z?
cz C:
Jo O
U UL
WRY ?o
> Cl)
2 0
Q?Q
z}2
0 U
_?
F- 0
Uw
0
U)
LL
0
a
O °
O N
N
? M
.a ?
Q
a
W
3
1 ?
a
N ? cn
(D F
7
m
LL a
J \ ., 0
J_
s W (A
Z
Q J
< CL
1, ?/ Q0= mo
y N fAWO
W W ?y
NZ m<0
I Zw?.6Z
}
Y p Q?F Co
? ?' Zip d?a
\ J00 ciL
ICI ? J
A\\ W W
? ( OVU
N
1 ?
N i 7
_ C
LL 7
c 0 M LL
J (? CO U) L O °
y CU L N r
a) 7 aa)i
> C Cie
> N 0 m
U
+? 0 O
y O CD m
C W N W { ci
C)
3 l C0
°
r'
ca +
-0
D o
o CO
_0 cn E E CO o
c_0 E M ca o Z
a) ca a)N
c `) 0
("u-0 ami • � m ti U
E c o
a) a)
a) o
o m Q x o 0 0
C E o a S w w a c\j
U
CL
2Z
J 0
W fn Q
z z z
z aJ
Qa
V W ci
cc
� QO= a��i•o
•5U
N v�(n0 m
Lu 0
ZW� (D06N
CL
\ O Wz 0-
a
LL z�� d -t
\ 0c
(4
J U U D
LU
\ > o
i U)
z}=
OVU
\\ U 0
�\ p
N
a)
7
Q)
LL
a)
C
J
L
U Q �
N cu LL
0
C o
O oo
•� a
U
O
J
V
(6 O
a) O o
C N v
a) Cl)
O
O
d N
Q
O

PROPOSED STREAM MITIGATION
To mitigate for stream channel impacts, the Town proposes to purchase mitigation credits
generated by the Carbonton Dam removal project on the Deep River, as well as on-site
enhancement and preservation. Table 2 outlines the proposed stream channel mitigation
activities. It is expected that the Carbonton Dam removal project will meet the Town's stream
channel mitigation requirements and that on-site stream channel mitigation will be supplemental
stream channel mitigation.
TABLE 2
PROPOSED MITIGATION FOR STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS
Mitigation Activity Mitigation in Linear Mitigation to Impact Mitigation Credit in Linear
Feet* Ratio Feet
Deep River Restoration N/A N/A 9,600
On-Site Stream Enhancement 224.5 4:1 56.13
On-Site Stream Preservation 528.10 10:1 52.81
TOTAL 752.60 9708.94
* Linear Feet estimated
DEEP RIVER RESTORATION
The Town is in the process of purchasing 9,600 feet of stream channel mitigation credits
(Table 2) generated by the Carbonton Dam removal project on the Deep River near the Lee-
Chatham County line, North Carolina. The Carbonton Dam removal project will restore the
natural stream channel characteristics and river flow of approximately 10 river miles of the Deep
River.
ON-SITE STREAM ENHANCEMENT
Approximately 245 linear feet of non-forested streams within the proposed reservoir's
100-foot buffer will be revegatated with river birch, tulip poplar, green ash and sycamore. The
locations of these streams are shown in Figure 3.
ON-SITE STREAM PRESERVATION
Approximately 528 linear feet of forested stream channel within the reservoir's 100-foot
buffer will be preserved. The locations of these streams are shown in Figure 3.
9
CL
i

r- E 10 -7)
CL CL
w o
m
11U, . . __:
c
v
E
c
L
c
w
CL
I?

! I?{Il?i?i:
Mil;ills
-II!I
\, III?I
{'I'I'

III;III
,
l{

IL`
1 1 :•1'?
1.•
L
c
w
m
z?
? r
3
zz
00
Z
?a?
?x0
?w?
253 a? o
QO= TM
TNs
M ?W0 mQ 0
W W Z (1) od
I.- a = m
LL WZ aid
Z > co L
000 UL
LL JU
CO WQ ?(n
Z>2 p
0 F-
L)
00
J?
a)
LL
0
N
O
m
O
O
N
(d cio
n
Q
0
PROPOSED WETLAND MITIGATION
On-site wetland mitigation is preferred in order to maintain and improve the water quality
of the proposed reservoir. Approximately, 21.81 acres of potential mitigation has been identified
on-site. For the 7.67 acres of non-isolated wetlands impacted by the proposed project, 1.89 acres
will be restored, an additional 14.32 acres will be created, and 3.57 acres of fringe wetland are
projected to naturally develop. In addition, within the 100-foot reservoir buffer 0.15 acre of
wetland will be preserved and 0.16 acre will be enhanced. Off-site, 0.30 acre of wetland
preservation and 3.23 acres of wetland enhancement have been identified. All mitigation
properties will be placed into a conservation easement and preserved in perpetuity by donation to
a land trust or similar organization.
Table 3 outlines the proposed wetland mitigation activity to meet requirements for
wetland impacts regulated by the USACOE. Table 4 outlines the proposed wetland mitigation
needed to meet requirements for wetland impacts regulated by the North Carolina Department of
Water Quality (DWQ). HUA is preparing construction timelines for the wetland creation sites
which will be provided as a supplemental document to this mitigation plan. A detailed
discussion of each proposed mitigation activity follows.
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED WETLAND MITIGATION
FOR FEDERAL JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS (7.67 acres)
Mitigation Activity Mitigation Acreage Mitigation to Impact Ratio Mitigation Credit Acreage
On-Site Wetland Creation 14.32 3:1 4.77
(MW-01 and MW-02)
On-Site Wetland Restoration 1.89 1.5:1 1.26
(MW-01)
Wetland Fringe 3.57 3:1 1.19
On-Site Wetland Preservation 0.15 10:1 0.02
(within 100-foot Buffer)
On-Site Wetland Enhancement 0.16 4:1 0.04
(Within 100-foot Buffer)
Off-Site Wetland Enhancement 3.23 4:1 0.81
(Parcel No. 878735049459)
Off-Site Wetland Preservation 0.30 10:1 0.03
(Parcel No. 878735049459)
TOTAL 23.62 8.12
II
TABLE 4
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED WETLAND MITIGATION
FOR STATE JURISDICTIONAL ISOLATED WETLANDS (1.72 acres)
Mitigation Activity Mitigation Acreage Mitigation to Impact Ratio Mitigation Credit Acreage
On-Site Wetland Creation 1.72 1:1 1.72
within MW-01
TOTAL 1.72 1.72
ON-SITE WETLAND MITIGATION
On-site wetland mitigation will include restoration, creation, preservation and
enhancement of wetlands within the project site. Table 5 lists each on-site mitigation activity and
Figures 4 and Figures 5a-5d show the locations of these mitigation areas. A discussion of these
proposed mitigation activities follows.
TABLE 5
PROPOSED ON-SITE WETLAND MITIGATION
Proposed Mitigation for Wetlands Mitigation Acreage I Mitigation to Impact Ratio Mitigation Credit Acreage
Wetland Creation Within MW-01
(Isolated Wetland Mitigation) 1.72 1:1 1.72
MW-01-Creation 8.82 3:1 2.94
MW-01-Restoration 1.89 1.5:1 1.26
MITIGATION WETLAND 01 (MW-01)
MW-01 is a 10.71 acre site within the Rocky River Lower Reservoir project boundary
consisting of 7.10 acres of upland and 3.64 acres of jurisdictional wetland. The general location
of this site is shown in Figure 4 and its location within the project site is shown in Figure 5c.
The existing wetlands are artifacts of human disturbance and will be flooded as a result of the
proposed project. Within this wetland there is a stream channel that has been silted-in by human
disturbances of the surrounding landscape. Siltation has caused the stream to severely braid and
has destroyed the original channel. As part of the creation of MW-01, a new stream channel will
be created; however, this is not included as part of the project's stream mitigation.
MW-02-Creation 5.5 3:1 1.83
Fringe Wetland Creation 3.57 3:1 1.19
Buffer Area Wetland Preservation 0.15 10:1 0.02
Buffer Area Wetland Enhancement 0.16 4:1 0.04

Total 21.81 9.00
12
0
m
c
.c
LL

i
W
LO

m
LL
C C
0
0
N
=
M
m C
C
'
a
?w M LL
LU C)
0 C)

N
Z
Cf)
(D o
?
? N
C
C o
U
00
O
E
0 C o
o
s
0w
?s
M
U
(-)d
0
0
Jw
N
U
C
(9
N
goo
?v -a 'o
C c
mmm
m
C >>N >N)
NlL> > al
w
C c
N 0 0 v
O
W E u) >
U a)m0am?a

1-711??

N
N ;
C ?
LL
C
Q
LL
Z .•:....., ..
Z
g g
f 1 O) C
o? Z
co F-
m
.d .
a? Q
L
I1 _
LL
C
.L
Fr
^••"1x. C.r S
L
.. ...... .. ...... 1. ..': ............. . ::...... ..'.'
M
O
r
N
r ....
CM c
. .
L LL
L
O
c
•L
r LL
' O
-
LL
`?\ t 4 CL L
to ? ;?? ?' _ ? O LL
N
LL
(7
i
w m
N
N
z
rn
iz
C C
0
0 .
-
C/)
1-i
CY, C:
Q -
? W m
•p U
?
(0

.C O

O
N O
N
7
Z

O
?y
LL 2n O
N
rn

VJ
N
X 3
0 0

U
0

A
0 L
N E
O

O •>
? =
N N
U
L)
0 C.)
0
,J w
cn

C
m
+r N
0 0 ?-
O
L
>
>70 'O
ro O
C >N
NLL» OO N
'O C C 'O

W N
N O
?
?
O
r--
N
N
N
AY O
N 0
fl-)
N
N
U
?
0
0
` M
= a
0
W L
J 0
.?
+
U)wwa..:?- :? a_
zzl 0 0 0
M
N
N
m
C
.L
LL
N
0I
C
LL
0

0
N
N
C
LL
N
N
C
LL

a

U

a
a
0
Q
Lil
W ?
z ? L
rn
C c

c CU
X
e
o
L
•
U
cu

0
? -C
.+

f

C)
C)
'I-
a) 0
o
IL N
*-' C
0 0

o ? M

_0
N o
N
0 U
0 0
0
J ry
w
c
m
+_N r-
N O O
'D a 0

z
?000 0
N
co_0 `L 0 m m 0
(D a) m 0 a- 0) 0)
0 ++ ++ a
0

?Z u U

O co
('7 N
a)

;.;.
LL
`
LL

M
C
C
?I
C
LL
N

0)
:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. :.:..........:..

rn
N
N
m
m
rn
m
C
C
L
LL

LL

:?: (fl N
N N
N m
C
N C
L
L
N
m

LL

co
I
?
`
C

O

L

w 0
0
N
rn
C C
0
0
+ .
Cl)
+
M
C
M
N
?
X 0
N
C
G
W L ?
LL
-0 .L U o
C
N 0
?
? ?

N N o
N
N Z o
0
N
*= L
N C

C

o 0

U
C,
O ?
0 N °
0 o
N
0 U
0 C-)
0
J w
C
000,-
O -0 'C
N
C >O N
OLL >3: w
U C C -D
N
Z N O O N
W E_0 _Ile 0
co CD (D Ca Ua0) ma
W: o o 0 o
-j a_ CL
?Zllooo
The majority of MW-O1 has been
clear-cut with small areas being used as
pasture. The elevation ranges from 538
to 542 MSL. It is bordered to the north
by pasture, to the west by alluvial forest,
agricultural land and the Rocky River,
the east by thinned and unthinned upland
hardwood forest and to the south by
clear-cut, upland hardwood forest and
pasture. Figure 6 depicts the existing
conditions at MW-01 and Figure 7 shows the existing land use and topography at this site.
Soils at MW-01 are mapped as Nanford, Badin, Chewacla, Wehadkee, Peawick, and
Georgeville series (Figure 8) (USDAa, unpublished). Historically, the predominant plant
community on the site was Piedmont Alluvial Forest. Figure 9 shows the existing vegetative
communities at this site.
The proposed mitigation will fill 10.71 acres within the reservoir boundary. The fill
material will be obtained from adjacent areas within the proposed reservoir boundary and
existing wetland soils will be stockpiled for use as topsoil (Figure 10). Final elevations within
the mitigation site will range between 540.6 and 541.3 feet above MSL, with a maximum
elevation of 1 foot above the proposed reservoir's normal pool (540.3 MSL). Hydrology will be
provided by the surrounding waters of the proposed reservoir. Site specific grading plans are
shown in Figure 11.
The mitigation area will be planted with native wetland plants. The target vegetative
community will be Piedmont Alluvial Forest with areas of Floodplain Pool and emergent
wetland. The forest community will be created by planting hydrophytic species such as river
birch, sycamore, hackberry, sweetgum, green ash and tulip poplar. Herbaceous species such as
soft rush (Juncus effusus), woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus) and sedges (Care, spp.) will be
allowed to colonize in the pool and marsh communities. The saplings will be planted using
10x10 foot spacing (or less) with at least 435 individuals per acre. The saplings will be fertilized
in their first and second years.
18
Figure 6: Photo of existing conditions at Mitigation
Wetland 01, Chatham Countv, North Carolina.
PROPOSED 100' BUFFER
AROUND NEW RESERVOIR
HIGH WATER LINE OF
PROPOSED RESERVOIR
+ ■ i ELEVATION 540.30'
■ + , '
■
+ f +
, ■ + +
■ + ' 4 + , y ■
• + , ■ , ,
// // // // // // // / , , , , / / / / / / + + , + ■ PROPOSED WETLANDS
' • / / / / / / ' ' ' MAX. ELEVATION 541.30
JJ JJJ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / y , • ' � ,
JJJ /' /' // // /' // // // '/ '/ '/ '/ '/ '/ '/ '/ '/ '/ '/ '/ // // / // // // // // // // X / // / ' • , • • '+ + + + ' i '■ '
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 25 50 75 100 150 200
( IN FEET )
SILER CITY
L p
PROJECT
AREA
N
1�
LOCATION MAP
1I
LEGEND
a
PROPOSED WETLAND AREA
100' BUFFER
FLOOD EL. 540.30'
EXISTING LAND USES
i
+=
CLEAR CUT SHRUBLAND
I®
THINNED HARDWOOD
CLEAR CUT AREA
®
FENCE ROW
jJJJ
PASTURE LAND
JJJJJ / /' /' /' /' /' /' // // // // '/ // '/ '/ f i'/ '/ '/ '/ // // // // // // // // // // // // // / / + • ' y + + ' y + +
CREATED STREAM
CHANNEL
/
AN
HIGH WATER LINE OF
PROPOSED RESERVOIR
ELEVATION 540.30'
MAY,2004
BGL
DFW
C@IM BGL
-- AS SHOWN

?- ry
r
?6' li,

N.

z
s {?

w? 50C= Nanford-badin complex, 6-10% slopes
3A= Chewacla and Weliadkee soils, 020/o slopes, frequently flooded
M 544A= Peawick tine sandy loam, 0-2'Y, slopes, rarely flooded
232132= Georgeville silty clay loam, 2-6% slopes, moderately eroded
??.'? lk-> IA ' D " It ) N it 00/1 i,

April 29, 2004 FIGURE 8
MITIGATION WETLAND 01: SOIL MAP UNITS
ROCKY RIVER LOWER RESERVOIR EXPANSION
CHATHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Site location
Prepared By:
Dr. J.H. Carter, III & Associates
Southern Pines, North Carolina Scale 1:2000
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 25 50 75 100 150 20011111
PROPOSED 100' BUFFER I I I I I ! I I P °` IN FEET
I N <1E
'AROUND NEW RESERVOIR I I I I I I ?? 111 PROJECT OJ
/ \\\ 1
V) z
tI I I ItIl I
/ I t 'l /? A v l A 1 ?l? ?? 1 I I I I I j 1 \1 V v v / ?? i i/ // / ?s A2?i
"?
SILER CITY
LOCA110N MAP
v a , 1 \\ , I l/ ?'/ /l l' 1 J?1 Q
LEGEND
TOTAL CREATED WETLANDS: 10.7 ACRES d
TOTAL IMPACTED WETLANDS: 1.5 ACRES
1 1 / ? ? ? A\\\ NA vA A vv v
TOTAL CUT: 1683 YARDS
„'! ? 1? \ \\\?\ \\\ \ ?\ \ \? ? // i ? ? II l??ll 1 r 1 ?'?I, TOTAL FILL: 48587 YARDS O @ ;_ e
_ rv ?\ \\ \\\ \ ?? HIGH WATER LINE OF/// PROPOSED MITIGATION WETLAND Q o m
\ \ / l 9t ??f 'ji fi \VA VAA VA V A PROPOSED RESERVOIR-/// / / ?_? . J 1i11 1111 ®AREA Ol ob W a o
\ 1 ij?i ?? r $ \`? vA? V? Vv ELEVATION 540.30
EXISTING WETLANDS V.
\ ;k; r,, AAVAA PROPOSED WETLANDS-
1 ;ti \
\ PROPOSED MAX. 100' BUFFER ELEVATION 54130 C c n
/ 1\ \\ \ , j j MIN FLOOD EL. 540.30' a
BORROW AREA
\ SUPPLEMENTAL
FILL AREAS
TYPICAL F?aY o j?}, 11 PROPOSED 5' CONTOUR m
PROPOSED 1' CONTOUR o
EXISTING 5' CONTOUR g
?? 1- v- - EXISTING 1' CONTOUR
IT
flr>r ?,? CREATED STREAM \V
kj
CHANNELS ? ?? ? /l r,?r/ I VAA \ v A
}}! S J r ?! i r. / f ?j! rp I J7,rr r nr
U ?p ? 1 r r
?J fi
-4 0
r'?r?i/???/z U zz
o t ' CLASSI RIPRAP AT
n HUGE OF RESERVOIR 1ifi,',S/ ? l? ? A ?J.' ? ? I ? ? 4 ?? 1 ? 1 1 1 jl V aw?o a
110 WIDE X ? DFEP HIGH WATER LINE OFD v v V v 1'; 1? ?` i% 1 tltj' i 4J¢ l '
n 111 FOR 460 Lf OF SHORE /i / / \ uk? ^ vn ' //4irc Z
E t. 3 PROPOSED RESERVOIR' VA \ i ??\ - ? r , iFrTl1 ?t`? 1 b f. ? ?0L? z10
ELEVATION 540.30' - / Y t 1? t o o O O
Q
FO'
PROPOSED WETLANDS - _ / / ?? - - k? Mh a w 3o Q(9
? /%/ //// j // MAX. ELEVATION 541.30 - - - /EXISTING WETLAND w
AREAS TO BE - - e } T I HF F_
- _ _ - - -?/ RESTORED, TYP.
/or
EXISTING
CONTOURS, _ l A v vvvv ?? .?
'le ;,r ?_<? - YVl1 MAY,2004
1111 II 1 1( \ l \ \ \ \?\\ \\? \\` \
DESIGN8k
BGL
DFAWIt
PROP';ED ` ?, // r?-\\\ \ /ate BGL
CONTOURS ?/ / sour AS SHOWN
PROPOSED - 545- - -- - - \ /
- - - - - - - - \ / HIGH WATER LINE OF maw N&
mo -0 CONTDURS \?AA\ \ VA VAA / / / / / _ _ VkOPOSED RESERVOIR ,yam V I 1 ?/ // 1 O
IIFVATION540.30'
r / //// / / \\ \ Nwo s
• l /llll ll / \) \\ J\1
PROPOSED
CONTOURSI
I( IJ / ?'
BORROW AREA I
Jl it / #I /
ll 1( I ? / i ? y"?
I I I \ ? / yrya
I I 1 / .?
I l / Vl- yy? y7N h?
v \ V 11 wv\vwA\ ?? `j?1?1?111 \
\ \ v v tit ? vv\vwA\ vA /i? ??I??llll
BORROW AREA #1
s GRAPHIC SCALE
0 50 100 100 200 300 400
m
IN FEEL )
0
i
x
? ? ? I I I I
\ ? I I I
1? I I I
? I I I
tTWN \ \
1 \

/
\\ \\
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 50 100 150 200 300 400
IN FEET )

1! V\ \

?C MmGATION
\\-1)`

WETLAND 01
/i
y ?J11 I \ \\\uvnnvn ; ?? /// // ?\ ' r r f I
I S/J `111 \2
II,
/ JIB III?I I.
??G? 111F;
A
i?
X111 \?I
? rrrI
~\\\
--?01
/
I /
t BORROW AREA I N. N.

Il ???1
MMGATION WETLAND 02
\; 1i BORROW AREA
11 / c?A?P R?• ! #4, / I I
1 1
E
BORROW AREAS LOCATION MAP
GRAPHIC SCALE
o tao 200 300 40
( IN FEET )
d
CA:
2 3N
V ?
ym ?o
k-,x
QId W
t a R!, t?
0
g?
Q ; L
Z
J Z
?A zQ
!90
zw
°z Fa
zo Q
oQ Fo
U IM
` MAY,2004
Dr*M DFW
EN93¢R BGL
solm AS SHOWN
I 'mm NO.
MITIGATION WETLAND 02 (MW-02)
The proposed wetland mitigation site MW-02
totals 5.50 acres consisting of 5.40 acres of current
upland and approximately 0.10 acres of wetland within
the Rocky River Lower Reservoir project boundary.
The general location of this site is shown in Figure 4
and its location within the project site is shown in
Figure 5c. The site will be flooded as a result of the

proposed project. The site is currently being used as agricultural land with narrow strips of
hardwood trees along 3 drainage ditches (Figure 12).
Elevation ranges from 536 to 542 MSL. It is bordered to the north by agricultural land,
to the east by upland hardwood forest and pasture, to the west by agricultural land and the Rocky
River, and to the south by a hayfield. Figure 13 shows the existing land use and topography at
this site.
Soils on the site are mapped as the Wickham, Wahee and Georgeville series (Figure 14)
(USDAa, unpublished). Historically, the predominant plant community on the site was probably
Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest . The mitigation site has been significantly altered from its historical
community type by conversion to agricultural land. Figure 15 depicts the existing vegetative
communities at MW-02.
The proposed mitigation will fill 5.5 acres within the reservoir boundary. The fill
material will be obtained from adjacent areas within the proposed reservoir (Figure 16). Final
elevations within the mitigation site will vary between 540.6 and 541.3 feet above MSL, with a
maximum elevation of 1 foot above the proposed reservoir's normal pool (540.3 MSL).
Hydrology will be provided by adjacent waters of the proposed reservoir and an area of existing
hillside groundwater discharge. Ditches on the site will be blocked with impervious clay plugs
(Figure 17). Site specific grading plans are provided in Figure 18.
The mitigation area will be planted with native wetland plants. The target vegetative
community will be Piedmont Alluvial Forest with areas of Floodplain Pool and emergent
wetland. The forest community will be created by planting hydrophytic species such as river
birch, sycamore, hackberry, sweetgum, green ash and tulip poplar. Herbaceous species such as
soft rush (Juncus effusus), woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus) and sedges (Carex spp.) will be
allowed to colonize in the pool and marsh communities. The saplings will be planted using
10x10 foot spacing (or less) with at least 435 individuals per acre. The saplings will be fertilized
in their first and second years.

24
Figure 12: Photo of existing conditions at
Mitigation Wetland 02, Chatham County,
North Carolina.
k.

4yS6
i
a ppd
•s ?
ni ?? rGr
i

547A= Wahee silt loam, 0-3% slopes, rarely flooded
540A= Wickham fine sandy loam, 03°/, slope
233U2 Georgeville silty clay loam, 6-10% slopes, moderately eroded
Januarv 12. 2004 FIGURE 14
MITIGATION WETLAND 02: SOIL MAP UNITS
ROCKY RIVER LOWER RESERVOIR EXPANSION
CHATHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared By: site location
Dr. J.H. Carter, III & Associates
Southern Pines, North Carolina
Scale 1:2000

s
i
j

I I
ll /,r ,, / vAV 1 I 1 V V A \? ?? 7-
/
I

\
BORROW AREA U)
°
o
\
X #1?

MITIGATION WETLAND
MITIGATION WETLAND 01
Q.\\•

r l / l I? \ ?p? -539--? / /
Jii % l Q /?? I

537 -538- 1\ ??ll ?\ \\ \ ?? i
III ? \\ \ \ \ \ 1 \ ??

l /
/

A
?
O
/
II w
\ \\\
BORROW ARLA\`\ (1
I I?/
1
11
\ ?
,
/ ?/I //h r / / ?\SJ
I/
V
I /
I %//
535 -- 53?/////
/ II
I( V
534
?
/ 1
11
1
\\?
2
I I \ \
1
,
b
O \
I
I ( ? h ? ; ? ? ? 5?J'J / / //
/ ?/ //
? /? /// ? ? 5?ti // /l i __
II
`
r IIIIII \ \ \ ? ? )1? I
Q

11 IIIII I I ?cl
I I 0
\ I
11 I

l 11 / 11 11 1 / //
/ /
/

?/ 1(
A
A 42
o
y z o^
I I I
W?
I
1
1 III III w J / I
I l
534-
CONTOURS
//? BORROW AREA
I / /1 / / // V J
\
/
I
III 11 IIIN I / ?U \ I
I
IIII III; 1 I
II I PROPOSED
IIII I I 1 1 I CONTOURS
I
I
I \
\\/ ?/? - #4
/
w,?// ? ? / I l / /ll l/I/lI

535/

III ? (Ifni (l --/ I I
aZfq
a?
t??i?? v
/ ,
I II
II -
X532- / // / / / 1
'°
I IIIII III 1 ? l II /I
II I I 11
Illl II / I l1
III I BORROW AREA l 11 1
IIIII I ? I l i //, / 1 1 1 II l

I I ll? I I I1 I
J i // j? l I l // l I 1 1 1 1
?? -
l u l l l l I 1 1 I I ?-?/1
_ I BORROW AREA
I / /? (
(? II3 " r (((l
I ?? ?
m

o
I
I
II IIII I I v #3 / 1 1 I
IIIIIIIII IIIII 1 , /I
III IIIII III I I I / ?- I I !
`
I /
v?I / ?/ / I I I III IIIII I I \ v
\----J / ? I II I I IIII II
/ I I I 111 III III 1 1A l i? ?? 1
v I I?ff
? ? ?IfI'?I ? /i I 1
v ???jll I ? ?/// z o a
?

,
II IIIIII ,, = III ,,?
II
I I I
I
I
I
I
I 'po

1
?
I
1 I
1 'f')'

I \
?
III
I
II
I
II III I I I / /? / I
II I
I
II I
I
/
1 I ?.. A\ / / / l I
III
111
\ 1 1 1
1
I I
v
? ? .. 11
??? 1
:?? ,?/
I
I
III
II I l
(
IIIIII IIIIII IIII
I / /
l
I
11 I
? I /
?
V
?\ ?` \ \ \
I
1
l
IIIIIII'IIII IIII I l /
IIIII II I i I I
III I
II I l
I l
/ I /,
/? ?/?I 1/l
1 / ??? ?/? v l \ 111 \ \1 v VA
???w ? ?? l 1 ? 11111 \VA\ ?A V ??
\ \
?\ \ 1 I 1 - ??1? I ?? /
? ??? \ ??? ? )?l? <
?\
%
i \
? rl
\ ?
I
III
I I
Illl I' III I I
I I I
II
I
III /
1 I? / /

//
1 \
I 1 \
\
`?\.?v y? I 1 , ,1?v v ?A
- ,
?,
` ?
fr
?
11
I
1111
I?f MITIGATION WETLAND 02 <

z
I O
I I
I
IIII
I III
IIIII III "? l I I
II (
I/ I/
lI? I I /I
' ?
J
?
•
???\1\ III I???

Z
0
V) 0

o
z

IIII 1\ 1 I
(IIIIIIIII I
IIIII III A ?\ I I I
I I
II
II <
I II I
I I ?
I I I
1 I 1 I
I I I
/ 1 1
BORROW AREA4

\ 1 ??_< \ •, +/ 0

?S -Z

V)
/
I
II
I
II II IIIIII IIII A I 1 I
IIIIII II IIIIII Ii I I
Il II I I I
I I I / 1 1 I
III I l ?1 1
I 1
1
1 GRAPHIC SCALD;
o ',n 100 750 200 Soo 400

I lye v / ?vv ///
(Z ???\ .?
ir V)
LEMoL F
Oo
?
ZW
FQ
a
IIIjII?IIIIIIi ll??lll I V I 11
II
IIIIII I
III
I
II
1 I I 1 A
\ ?1
I 1 I III
IIII `\ 1 IN FEET) .
I l 1A liV\ BORROW AREAL /'l
\ 1,1/ \ p RO v #4 ???' I
P ?
o=
~Q ?3
?O
I
III
II
I
1
1
IIII I 1 1 \
IIIIIIIII II IIIIIII 1 1 ` 53e
II ?
?
IIII II
II
I
IIIII ( / l l l \
? I I / I
/ ?I
?
I .
CLA
?t ? I ? '" r VAt v ?v \ ?v I?\V,??
v
?i
?
?
I
?
I
I
I
III
?
IIII II ?IIII?II I?IIII?II 111 it I? ??>- I
??
1
/ / Ih Iv \ ? VA
?\\ ? '?
( ?'
?
1 _ ? ? ? ? 1 I \ ? v ? .,I 11 1
II ?? IIIII IIIIIj?I ?I I I I\
J /? Gq6 MAY,2004
III IIIIIII III y ,1

III
II
I
II
I
\ V
??
?j ?%
? \?
? BORROW AREAS LOCATION MAP
BGL
?
l
1 \ / ? ?
I II
IIII
I
II
II
I \?
III 11? ?I _?,?
n
\
/
?
?
\

GRAPHIC SCALE °"."°

ow
\ I
?J
534- i /
s34? /
?\
III
IIIII
I?
II
11
1 am®,
\
/
/j
/
I
?
f? I?l
?I
1`
i
` o i o. 0 zqo .wo <oo BGL
BORROW AREA #3 IN FEET, eon AS SHOWN
GRAPHIC SCALE

50 100 V,0 200 300 400
FWW N&

16
( IN FFF-r
EXISTING
DITCH
BOTTOM
5' -?
44 1 '
4 •' 1 CLAY DITCH PLUG
PROPOSED GRADE
ELEVATION
VARIES
a
?vJJ _ 01
•? V N
yC z?i°o
a
0
m
?v
3 .c
pN d
1?]
MATTING
MATERIAL
SECTION A-A
NTS
12"]
EXISTING IMPERVIOUS
GRADE DITCH CLAY DITCH
PLUG
? '• 'd
6'
12°
SECTION B-B
NTS
B IMPERVIOUS
_ CLAY DITCH PLUG
d.;
•.b .. . ' a •! 6' EXISTING
'• d:Y
4 DITCH
... .dam y•. •'•
",' ' ... ? : ?' :•. '' 4. • : DITCH
• ? -C3J-WIDTH
7 4:1 slope •4:1 slope, VARIES
4
° 6'
A A
B
PLAN VIEW OF EXISTING DITCH
WITH IMPERVIOUS CLAY DITCH PLUG
NTS
Om
E a
Ma.
U )m
? z U)c
°p U?
p
Z O
U
0 W
DgFs MAY.2004
BGL
DFW
C7lilELe BGL
sOAs AS SHOWN
mm mm 17

`\ \\ \\ \ \\\\ 1111 ?\ \1\1 \ 1 11111111\ \ \``\\\ \\1\`??-////? ??\11111 I \ \\---' GRAPHIC SCALE
0 25 50 75 100 150 200
? \ \\\ \111 11 III ?\\\\\\ __ /? 1 111 \ ,---
\ \ \ \\\\1111 ? I I VIII I I `` \\\\\\ ///?,/ \ \ \11 \ ?- ,,
\ ? I \ \ \ 1 I III ? I ?\ \ \\ \ \??/////_ \ > > I I I ?V,_--?? `??'
\ 1 1 1 ? 11 1 1 1 1 1\ \\ \\ `-- ??/// ` 1/ I l t /?
\\ 1 1? III 1 1 1 1 1 1 111 I l I l \\ \???//i/ /\ 1 1 \
- ? // / \ 1 I I EXISTING CONTOURS -' / -
\\\\\1111 I I I I I I l II V I I I 1111 \`\ \\\?= ''" , 111 1 1 11\PICA%
?
\1 I 1 1 ? \ ?- / 111 ? 1 ?"---_--
11 \\\\\\1;111 ? I f1 1 \1\\ ?\11\- ?\ \?_? /?% \ \ \111111\?%,-__?--?,
I
\\\\ 1111 111 \ \ \ \\\ \\ \??` // / %???\\\\?\`?\\?
1\\\ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \? \ / / / \1? \ \11 -? \\ __/ /'00,
`„ 1 \ \ ?\ \\\\ 1\ \ \ \\AROUNDENEW RESERVOIR`\\
\sT9\\\11 \\ \ -,,\ \ - / I ??`\\ 1 11 III 1 I I \ /- -??'
/ ??\ 1111\\ \\\ ? --; \\\ \ \? / ? /?-\\\ 1 11II\ l 1 I - /
\ \\\\ \I--- ---- \ \ \\\-- _ -",/ I \ 1111/111
\ - //
1111 ?"? \ I I I \\ \\\ ExSTINc
I I \\ \ \ ?? \ `WOODS LINE RIGHT OF WAY
NIN
I1 1 I \\
-rv
F I w ?
? 'IT
13 ss?? \ 1\
I
1 \ INSTALL IMPERVIOUS
`DITCH PLUG. SEE ? .
FIGURE 16
INSTALL IMPERVIOUS
i DITCH PLUG. SEE \\
1 \ `? FIGURE 16
I I \
I I __ __ _ 1 1 1 1
DITCH PLUG. SEE
FIGURE 16
HIGH WATER LINE OF
PROPOSED RESERVOIR
E LEVA11 TION\ 0.30'
lo?
D
? J 1' l
\

/III
1t
v PROJECT
R

? ?
g
O
AP
N

Z
£ 0
GS
9

SILER CITY
LOCATION MAP y

LE GEND
V I I I TOTAL CREATED WETLANDS: 10.7 ACRES
r

I TOTAL IMPACTED WETLANDS: 1.5 ACRES

r Iill1 I
I TOTAL CUT: 1683 YARDS
TOTAL FILL 48587 YARDS
ED MmGAT10N WETLAND
ROP
I ??
I ARE
A 02
I
I
EXISTING WETLANDS

100' BUFFER
1 / / ¦11¦ FLOOD EL. 540.30'

III`/I
11
/ PROPOSED 5' CONTOUR
'
/
11 PROPOSED 1
CONTOUR
MI r f _ - EXISTING 5' CONTOUR
'
- J ?I - EXISTING 1
CONTOUR
III
III
pl
CL
III
II
? II
Wu\ \ I IL
ICI
?- PROPOSED i
CONTOURS, TYI
PROPOSED CLASS 1 1
/ jRIPRAP 1050LF X 10' WIDE='"
_?sX 2_ DEEP
l/ iL
IY
fl ?
? (I r
f/
I.
i
/I
/
CL:

?g Zo
I 0?
U
?UU F t?
N
N
0
y?
j
i o
m
= ? of

111\1 11?1?
(BOTTOM OF BORROWk
AREA EL 532.00'
I ?\ \ \ o
? 1 111 \ ???
1 X11\°o

1
l (
/ PROPOSED
I N
N BORROW AREA
J

rl /
7EXISTING
RRIM:F

0
F-
MAY,2004
D&L
awr DPW
as1?1 eel
WALD A5 5HOWN
FWKw 18
FRINGE WETLAND
Many of the wetlands to be impacted by the proposed project are narrow fringe wetlands
around the existing reservoir. Fringe wetlands protect water quality, protect and stabilize
shorelines and provide habitat for fish and wildlife. Based on topography and landscape
position, it is anticipated that wetland fringe will naturally form around portions of the new
reservoir just as they have formed around the existing reservoir. An example of the typical
wetland fringe location is shown in Figure 19. In general, the following parameters were used to
determine the locations of wetland fringe around the proposed reservoir.
• Slope must be gentle to moderate (ranging from 0-8%);
• landscape position must be conducive to wetland development, such as coves and
flat areas
Fringe wetland areas that are not forested prior to the creation of the reservoir will be
planted with native wetland plant species, such as river birch, sycamore, hackberry, sweeeet_gum,
green ash and tulip poplar. Herbaceous species such as soft rush (Juncus effusus), woolgrass
(Scirpus cyperinus) and sedges (Canex spp.) will be allowed to colonize fringe wtlands. The
saplings will be planted using 10x10 foot spacing (or less) with at least 435 individuals per acre.
The saplings will be fertilized in their first and second years. JCA and HUA are working to
stake the location of each fringe wetland so they will not be impacted during construction and so
the success of wetland establishment can be documented.
Thirty-two natural wetland fringe areas ranging between .02 and .70 acre are anticipated
to form as a result of this project totaling approximately 3.57 acres. Figures 4a through 4d show
the locations of these wetlands.
WETLAND ENHANCEMENT
A wetland complex consisting of 0.16 acre of nonforested, prior-converted wetland along
Mud Lick Creek will be enhanced. Natural vegetation composition will be enhanced on these
wetlands by replanting hydrophytic species such as river birch, green ash and tulip poplar at a
minimum of 435 trees per acre. The location of this wetland complex is shown in Figure 5a.
WETLAND PRESERVATION
Existing forested wetlands within the proposed 100-foot buffer, totaling 0.15 acre, will be
preserved in perpetuity. The locations of these wetlands are shown in Figures 4a through 4d.
31

N
0 25 50 100 Feet
+ I I I I I I I I I
Fringe wetland formation will occur in areas
with the following features:
1) Gentle slopes
2) Coves
Legend
Q Fringe Wetland
Contours
100' buffer
® Intermittent Streams
Proposed Reservoir Boundary
Figure 19: An example of a typical wetland fringe location, proposed Rocky River Lower Reservoir
expansion project, Chatham County, North Carolina.
OFF-SITE WETLAND MITIGATION
The Town is negotiating the acquisition of a wetland along the headwaters of the Rocky
River for wetland preservation and enhancement. This stretch of the Rocky River is listed on the
state's 303d list of impaired waterbodies due to agricultural uses associated with pasture grazing
in adjacent riparian and/or upland areas (NCDWQ 2003). Wetland preservation and enhancement
along this part of the Rocky River may help to improve water quality. Table 6 lists the proposed
off-site wetland mitigation activities. A detailed discussion of these activities follows.
TABLE 6
Proposed Off-Site Wetland Mitigation
Proposed Mitigation Activity for Wetlands I Mitigation I Mitigation to Impact I Mitigation Credit Acreage
Acreage Ratio
Wetland Enhancement- Parcel No. 8735049459 3.23 4:1
Wetland Preservation-- Parcel No. 8735049459 0.30 10:1
0.81
0.03
Total 3.53 0.84
ENHANCEMENT AND PRESERVATION OF PARCEL NO. 8735049459
The wetland enhancement and
preservation on Parcel No. 8735049459 consists
of 3.53 acres located 2 miles south of Liberty in
Randolph County (Figure 20). The site is located
at the intersection of U.S. Highway 421 and State
Route 49 along the Rocky River near the
Chatham-Randolph County line, North Carolina
(Figure 21). It is bordered to the north by open

wetland, to the south by pasture, to the east by hardwood forest and to the west by U.S. Highway
421.
Soils on the mitigation site are mapped as the Wehadkee and Vance series (Figure 22)
(USDA(a) unpublished). Historically, plant communities on the site probably included Mesic
Mixed Hardwood Forest and Piedmont Alluvial Forest. These communities have been altered by
fire and beaver (Caster canadensis) activity allowing exotic plant species to invade. As shown in
Figure 20, this site is currently dominated by hydrophytic herbaceous vegetation including vermin
grass, Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), tearthumb (Polygonum sagittatum), soft rush,
blackberry (Rubus
33
Figure 20: Photo of Existing Conditions at Parcel No.
8735049459, Randolph County, North Carolina

?' i
'" r I
?
t
. ).s v t
1
M 64Y

Akri i t
x . 0 / ATHAA3 40?
e _
,}I
Januarv 12, 2004 FIGURE 21 N
W ^£•
GENERAL LOCATION MAP
OFF- SITE WETLAND ENHANCEMENT- PARCEL No. 8735049459 S
ROCKY RIVER LOWER RESERVOIR EXPANSION
CHATHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Site Location C7
Prepared By:
Dr. J.H. Carter, III & Associates Scale: 1:24,000
Southern Pines, North Carolina

r 6 M 4 ` '.? 'Y;y

?
_
^^^
RR'??. ?
RR
s
a
f
i. Pit'`. T' ,? 31t a

Spa ?` 2aZ -
'wl
?
. ? 36s ? ae
v? c
a 4 '? ?
- 5rK
,h

l 2 n `4

M ' i

f T t? " x.j

r u ; ?,. r r • 8A=Wahadkee loam, poorly drained
' I
57C=Vane sandy loam, 8-15% slopes
,
r 2oaz i ?. y ?,
in
a?'
s >:

FIGURE 22
January 12, 2004
SOIL MAP FOR MITIGATION WETLAND SITE `v
PARCEL No. 8735049459 S
ROCKY RIVER LOWER RESERVOIR EXPANSION
NORTH CAROLINA
CHATHAM COUNTY
CD
,
Site Location
Prepared By:
Dr. J.H. Carter, III & Associates
Scale: 1:2.000
Southern Pines, North Carolina

sp.), black willow and sweetgum saplings. Remnants of the native community types exist along
the edges of the wetland. Figure 23 shows the existing vegetative communities on the property.
On 27 April 2004, the USACOE verified the wetland delineation on Parcel No.
8735049459. Of the 3.53 acres of wetland, 3.23 acres are non-forested and will be enhanced by
planting river birch, black willow, green ash and tulip poplar (a minimum of 435 trees per acre).
All 3.53 acres will be preserved in perpetuity by donation to a land trust or similar conservation
organization.
MONITORING ACTIVITIES
REFERENCE FOREST ECOSYSTEMS
A reference forest ecosystem (RFE) has been located for the fringe wetland areas and MW-
01 and MW-02. The site is located on Fox Lake adjacent to the Rocky River Lower Reservoir and
is owned by the Town (Figure 24). The vegetative community on this site is Piedmont Alluvial
Forest. JCA is in the process of characterizing the RFE and installing vegetation monitoring plots
and groundwater monitoring wells.
WETLAND MITIGATION SITES
Wetland mitigation sites will be monitored for a period of 5 years or until the success
criteria have been met, whichever is longer. Within MW-01 and MW-02, monitoring wells will be
placed in the areas of highest elevation on the site to ensure hydrologic success criteria are being
met throughout the site. As shown in Figures 25 and 26, 5 monitoring wells will be placed in
MW-01 and 4 monitoring wells will be placed in MW-02. Electronic monitoring wells will record
water levels daily and be downloaded every 3-4 months.
At the fringe wetlands, enhancement sites and creation sites, vegetation will be
characterized by species, prevalence and percent cover each year during the 5-year (or longer)
monitoring period. At MW-01, 7 10x10 meter vegetation plots will be established. At MW-02, 4
10x10 meter vegetation plots will be established. Vegetation monitoring will occur in late summer
or early fall before leaf drop.
All planted woody vegetation will be tagged with an identification number to ensure
accurate monitoring results. Tree sapling survival will be monitored every year. All mitigation
sites will be transected annually and dead saplings will be replaced during the 5-year monitoring
period or until success criteria are met.
36
a0 1 MOB o
J V p

y ^
LU 2M
w E

O
0 N
L
0
00 w w C
L L `
M M
0.
=
4 :(T
?. c ?

L N
3
?

m

)
,x Q Q
0
0 0
0
E E
0
?
CL U

N
?
d
3 Q

Z/-
4 /?,Or
w
z
3
N
W
H
ZZ
?0
Z
0CL Zj
U
Z W C O
?J?U aNio
a) CL
0(70 oU
LO W
N M?W? m?
0
LLI ? co yWZ N°tSZ
t7 Z wZ ?a
wai??
0 0c
oU U?
QQoc _ ?
0- Lu ? (0
Z > T L
=) 2F O
M
0UU
z0
Qoc
J
H
W
Q)
LL
0
0
N
0
0
0
0
N O
O LO
N
a
Q O