20010406 Ver 1_Mitigation Information_20010901

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

RESTORATION AND CONSERVATION
MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE
MINGO CREEK MITIGATION SITE
US 64 KNIGHTDALE BYPASS
WAKE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
PREPARED FOR:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
PREPARED BY:

. ECOSCIENCE CORPORATION
1101 HAYNES STREET, SUITE 101
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27604
SEPTEMBER 2001
1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

r

1

Y

1

1

l??
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1
1.1 Project Description ............................................................................... 1
1.2 Methods ............................................................................................. 3
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES .................................................................................. 6
2.1 Physiography, Topography, and Land Use ................................................ 6
2.2 Geology and Soils ................................................................................ 10
2.3 Water Quality ...................................................................................... 12
2.3.1 Water Quality Sampling and Classification ...................................... 12
2.3.2 Neuse River Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy............ 13
2.3.3 Nitrogen Loading and Reduction Assessment .................................. 16
2.4 Jurisdictional Stream and Wetlands ......................................................... 22
2.5 Wetland Functional Analysis .................................................................. 24
2.5.1 General Wetland Functional Analysis ............................................. 24
2.5.2 DEM Wetland Rating Procedure .................................................... 27
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ....................................................................................... 30
3.1 Plant Communities ............................................................................... 30
3.2 Wildlife ................................................................................................ 34
3.2.1 Terrestrial ..................................................................................34
3.2.2 Aquatic ..................................................................................... 35
3.3 Rare and Unique Natural Areas ............................................................... 36
3.4 Protected Species ................................................................................ 36
3.4.1 Federally Protected Species .......................................................... 35
3.4.2 State Protected Species .............................................................. 39
3.5 Regional Corridors and Adjacent Natural Areas ......................................... 39
3.6 Environmental Education and Public Interest Program ................................. 41
4.0 STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY ................................ 43
4.1 Unnamed Tributary 1 (UT1) ................................................................... 43
4.1.1 Physiography and Land Use ......................................................... 43
4.1.2 Soils ......................................................................................... 45
4.1.3 Vegetation ................................................................................ 46
4.1.4 Hydrology ................................................................................. 46
4.1.5 Stream Discharge ....................................................................... 47
4.1.6 Channel Dimensions .................................................................... 47
4.1.7 Channel Plan Form and Substrate .................................................. 48
4.1.8 Jurisdictional Wetlands ................................................................ 49
4.2 Unnamed Tributary 2 (UT2) ................................................................... 50
4.2.1 Physiography and Land Use ......................................................... 50
ii

1

r

Il
it
1
1
1
1

4.2.2 Soils ......................................................................................... 52
4.2.3 Vegetation ................................................................................ 52
4.2.4 Hydrology ................................................................................. 52
4.2.5 Stream Discharge ....................................................................... 53
4.2.6 Channel Dimensions .................................................................... 53
4.2.7 Channel Plan Form and Substrate .................................................. 54
4.2.8 Jurisdictional Wetlands ................................................................ 55
4.3 Mitigation Suitability and Recommendations ............................................. 55
4.3.1 Mitigation for UT1 ...................................................................... 55
4.3.2 Mitigation for UT2 ...................................................................... 56
5.0 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION ............................................................. 57
5.1 Supporting Research ............................................................................. 57
5.2 Functional Assessment Methodology ....................................................... 59
5.2.1 HGM Methodology ...................................................................... 59
5.2.2 WRAP ...................................................................................... 65
6.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................ 68
7.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................... 70
8.0 APPENDICES ...............................................................................................75
Appendix A: General Wetland Functional Assessment Methodology and Forms
Appendix B: DEM Rating Forms
Appendix C: Species Lists for Plant Communities

1
1
1
A
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1 Site Location ..................................................................................2
Figure 2 Aerial Photograph and Site Boundary ...................................................4
Figure 3 Watershed and Sub-Watershed Boundaries ..........................................7
Figure 4 Physiography, Topography, and Land Use ............................................8
Figure 5 Soil Map Units .................................................................................11
Figure 6 Jurisdictional Streams and Wetlands ...................................................14
Figure 7 Buffer Zones ...................................................................................17
Figure 8 Current Land Use .............................................................................19
Figure 9 Future Land Use ...............................................................................20
Figure 10 Plant Communities ...........................................................................31
Figure 11 Regional Corridors, Parks, and Adjacent Natural Areas ...........................40
Figure 12 Preliminary Mitigation Design (UT1) ....................................................44
Figure 13 Preliminary Mitigation Design (UT2) ....................................................51
iv
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Physical Characteristics of Streams ......................................................... 15
Table 2. Mingo Creek Watershed: Current/Future Land Coverage
and Total Nitrogen (TN) Export Coefficients .............................................. 18
Table 3. Total Nitrogen (TN) removal along Mingo Creek On-site
and Upstream ...................................................................................... 23
Table 4. Linear Distances and Acreage of Jurisdictional Wetlands ............................ 25
Table 5. General Wetland Functional Analysis Scores ............................................. 26
Table 6. DEM Wetland Rating System Scores ....................................................... 29
Table 7. Expected Functions for Wetlands in the Mingo Creek Mitigation Site............ 61
Table 8. Conceptual HGM Comparison ................................................................ 62
Table 9. WRAP Comparison of Functional performance .......................................... 66
Table 10. Weighted WRAP Scores ........................................................................ 67
v

DRAFT RESTORATION AND CONSERVATION
MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE
MINGO CREEK MITIGATION SITE
11
US 64 KNIGHTDALE BYPASS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is proposing to construct the
US 64 Knightdale Bypass (Bypass) that will redirect traffic south of the Town of
Knightdale. When constructed, the 10.2-mile, multi-lane section of the Bypass will
connect 1-440 (Raleigh Beltline) to US 64 (Wendell Bypass) near SR 1003 (Rolesville Road).
The Bypass will include seven interchanges (including Hodge Road SR 2516), serving
Raleigh, Knightdale, and Wendell. The completion date was expedited in July 2001 when
the construction was changed to a design-build schedule to start in 2002. The project is
to proceed through five phases, with a completion date in 2005; three years earlier than
originally planned. This project will impact approximately 16 acres of Section 404
jurisdictional wetlands. A 2:1 mitigation ratio has been proposed to offset these
unavoidable wetland losses. For mitigation of these impacts, NCDOT is pursuing a three-
part mitigation plan including 1) a 1:1 credit ratio for approximately 16 acres with the
Wetland Restoration Program (WRP), 2) a 4:1 credit ratio for enhancement/preservation on
Marks Creek, and 3) preservation and stream and wetland restoration opportunities within
approximately 205 acres of wetlands, associated buffers, and adjacent uplands at the
confluence of Mingo Creek (Mango Creek on USGS mapping) and Neuse River. The
combined credits of all three mitigation options will more than fulfill mitigation obligations
for this project.
The Mingo Creek Restoration Site (Site) contains approximately 205 acres located in
central Wake County, adjacent to the east bank of the Neuse River and approximately 1.2
miles south of existing US 64 (Figure 1). The Site is roughly rectangular in shape, with the
long sides extending in a generally east-west orientation. The northern boundary of the
Site is the Norfolk-Southern Railroad bed. The eastern boundary is Hodge Road (SR 2516).
The western boundary is a property line which stretches from the east bank of the Neuse
River to approximately 250 feet east of the riverbank. The Bypass alignment will divide
the Site, as it passes through in diagonal fashion from the northwest corner to the
southeast corners of the Site. Positioned at the lower reaches of an intensely developing
watershed, including the western portion of Knightdale, the Site offers numerous benefits
including the following:
• On-site mitigation for streams and vegetated wetlands,
• Water quality enhancement in an intensely developing watershed,
• Water quality function in the sensitive Neuse River Basin, and located in the proximity
to the main stem,
1

1
1
1

1

2000 ft. 4000 ft.
r
11 `=_?i_ ,'-? ??Z? /?-=-- , •':> ?- 1:24,000 .
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle (Raleigh East. N.C.)

?
? '
'?
•
?
? ?
{` f
?`
? ??
,? c ? lid /
__\ ;,
: ?. 4r.?
,
-°
?-
? ? ? ?/
-
r ?? ?

4 .
Pool

/ •;;
ft'
?I / ii: ? ?? \? ?''' ?? ti`s • J
\ o u ?. 1 ?

Site -
Location i
100
?
? ,/ ? ? ( \1 /'-. / ? ? t ', g rho .: t ? ? \ -? ?
?, , ? i / ? ?!
'\
1-
J,`- L_.11ii v v ?- 9? vr`

EcoScience
Corporation
SITE LOCATION

MINGO CREEK MITIGATION ANALYSIS Dwn. by:
Ckdby: MAF FIGURE
JG
Date:

Raleigh, North Carolina
Wake County, North Carolina JUL 2001
project:
00-046.07

• Opportunity to preserve existing mature forest riparian buffer in the Neuse River Basin,
• Opportunity to maintain and extend buffers beyond regulated limits,
• Preservation of established, mature plant communities in unique proximity to each
other,
• Provide aquatic and terrestrial wildlife habitat/corridor in a suburbanizing area,
• Opportunity to enhance and continue greenway trails and open space, and
• Opportunity for recreation and public education diverse wetland/upland complex.
This document describes natural features within the site including land use, soils, water
resources, plant communities, wildlife resources, jurisdictional streams and wetlands, and
results of a protected species survey. In addition, this report provides a summary of the
amount and type of Section 404 jurisdictional areas (surface waters and wetlands) located
within the Site, discussion of conceptual mitigation options, and a wetland functional
evaluation.
1.2 METHODS
Current (1999) low level aerial photographs were obtained from Wake County
Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and used as base mapping (Figure 2). Additional
layers for topography, soils, city parks, land use, hydrography, roads, and property
boundaries were also obtained through Wake County GIS. The road alignment for the
Bypass was obtained from NCDOT.
Field reconnaissance was performed to validate published resource inventories and identify
areas of particular environmental concern. Field investigations were conducted during
June 2001. Resources utilized in support of the field effort include U.S. Geological Survey
topographic quadrangle maps (Raleigh East, NC, Garner, NC, Clayton, NC, and Knightdale,
NC 7.5 minute quadrangles), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Wetlands
Inventory (NWI) mapping, and Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soils
information concerning Wake County (SCS 1970).
Water quality data for streams and tributaries at Mingo Creek were derived from available
sources (DWQ 1997, DWQ 1998). Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to support
existing data. Section 404 jurisdictional wetlands were identified using the three-
parameter approach (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, wetland hydrology) outlined in
the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (DOA 1987). Wetland functions were
subjectively evaluated using Guidance for Rating Wetlands in North Carolina (DEM 1995).
Vascular plant names follow nomenclature found in Radford et a/. (1968) with exceptions
for updated nomenclature (Kartesz 1998). Wildlife and aquatic life distribution and habitat
use were determined through field observations, evaluation of habitat type distributions,
and available supportive documentation (Lee et a/. 1980, Martof et a/. 1980, Potter et a/.
1980, Webster et a/. 1985, Menhinick 1991, Fish 1968, Hamel 1992, Rohde et a/. 1994,
Wilson 1995, and Palmer and Braswell 1995).
1

m m S i m i m m m m= gy m m m= i
A4?
'?a'1'• ?, i 1 Y '. R ?F•••? i''Sl?•yot'
qk _40
, k4
-IA
_?fi ?=??:?51h'_ f ? ? Pjt?.y? ? h".? rr? 4 ' . ?y' ?, ?,w? ,?' ? ?,?' • ? _ a '??' ? 1 q
?' ??-'M•'t ,ter ? • ,? a"? f. •,? ? r ? K ?' ? ?":w"? y .+t,?.q•?,^? ?ss'f?;? ? }ri
T_ _t If
_ ? 3 ! S ?,' ?; - I it ?'•yf, ? r , ? °? _`
r ? J t si F i i. ? • i? - . ? ,
r. r'iE 4' ,r,c
_, '?. Ll ..? . ?!-j'n ' _ Y_ ?r ? A f R3 W ?t ? .3 ,? '??' - 17r ?? y ? ,r,,} ? , ,. ? ? `?'
o- - t * ` •' ."'+ k ,r, 1' "? r ? t .. • . tom} •' t, •'`
? ?!• # ?k. k . ? ? ? ` s? t '-? • t , r• A ? `, r1` I ? ?. .: y.'4?.?"? „ ?. 4 4 , ` • ? , ?.}Y - `L+I?v.. v i
rf'r4
46.
40,
.i q?4 ,f ? _ -r ? •. rny. ? .?r'• .i e 1F;irk' 4_,-??• =r?y?}?
• r. ' ip'
• ? ? 4 ,? 1 t• ? 4`? r ? . ?`: • . ? ??t? •1 ?ytr 4y;,y? "'? r? .s a: ?} Y?.'+..r Jk
?• +c ?; - t r t ? s- i
? ??#'?°' ? -a<, ''r , ?,`4 • x: 'fit N , , t ?., , ? ?i 5.. _ L '? i ?? :?f r
,rir*''?. .#• :.;N1:....?} s ?,? .4 ?•?''M `"' Vii? ? ?• }.. t .?i'ry._? y G '.'.i'"? f ?l„ ? ?
'1 i I a + Sel "`
14
Ale
a-,i
'w` ? ,-.n L ?"?' <t {l?' k. v i -S ??y ?l 3rry r,rx q. ?k •'?
,. is "°I t?,I7 ? h?y?_ t ti •ai ??' 1 .:SA 'f j 2 ?' S1 ? „? ..?.", ? .. ?? r r'ir{?•? ?'., 1
.''k"? d ` ?y .yt -? l ? ;fir. Y -iti .s• ? ?. ...w .+?' ?F? •y??
Oil
J moo
aL
10 41 IL
?`? `•? s ? ? .?. ?•. ?? 1' ? -??' ? mot.' ~ '. -
1 . N. I
2
.'.'ftti ar R J _ - ?•?.?7 . -
1-4
Awt
F r'
.a ?
M a ? f 4h'?-? ;?
??p ;'rte} r ~ ,?F
1 81,
'M--? F.. tY. ?? ?• ? f 3
3
I'
Ilk
m
n n
n
_1
m
n
z
°
T m OD
coD?rn? z=+czi
=m D Z
n ?c
0 "C3
N ? DO c?
c: o o
_ z??ca
? Do A 0
m o
D D?
z Oz (n?? Q °. A7 r'J
rn
0
0 ?m
D' ?Zm
n
o

v 0

O = C
'J
N
7

A listing of federally protected species whose ranges extend into Wake County was
obtained from FWS (dated April 12, 2001). In addition, files maintained by the N.C.
Natural Heritage Program (NHP) were reviewed for documented sightings of state or
federally listed species and documented locations of significant natural areas. Field
surveys for federally protected plant species were conducted on July 11, 2001. These
surveys focused on identification of potential habitat areas, followed by a systematic
investigation of each identified habitat site. Biologists conducted the surveys by walking
overlapping transects through suitable habitat. Observed plants belonging to the same
genus as the protected plant species were examined and positively identified. Areas of
possible habitat for listed wildlife species were surveyed for suitable nesting and foraging
sites, travel corridors, and any other parameters necessary to confirm a species
occurrence.

1

1

1

LI

J

1

t

C1
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
2.1 PHYSIOGRAPHY, TOPOGRAPHY, AND LAND USE
The Site is situated in the Northern Outer Piedmont Ecoregion. The landscape is
characterized by broad, gently rolling interstream divides with steeper slopes adjacent to
streams and drainages. Local elevations range from a high of approximately 300 feet
National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) along upland ridges to a low of approximately
150 feet NGVD along the Neuse River floodplain. Extensive granite outcrops are
commonly exposed from geologic stream processes. The Site is located between Raleigh
and Knightdale at the confluence of the Neuse River and Mingo Creek. The Site is
bounded to the north by a railroad and to the east by Hodge Road (SR 2516). The Neuse
flows along a portion of the western property boundary (Figure 1).
Mingo Creek flows east to west near the northern property boundary (Figure 1), and is
heavily impacted by beaver. A breached dam associated with a drained impoundment
remains a prominent feature within the Mingo Creek floodplain. The date of the breaching
event has not been determined. The shoreline of the impoundment likely mirrored the
boundary of the fresh water marsh complex. Mingo Creek supports a primary watershed
of approximately 4.4 square miles (Figure 3). Beaver impacts to the Mingo Creek corridor
include extensive ponding of the surrounding floodplain and low terraces, creation of a
multi-threaded channel, and mortality to adjacent bottomland and previous upland tree
communities. The pervasive tree mortality and flooding in the beaver-impacted areas have
created an exemplary freshwater marsh community.
Several tributaries flowing into Mingo Creek dissect the Site. Notable are two larger
tributaries located in the eastern and south-central portion of the Site. The two secondary
watersheds, unnamed tributary to Mingo Creek (UT1) and unnamed tributary to Mingo
Creek (UT2) support drainage areas of 0.30 square mile and 0.16 square mile, respectively
(Figure 3). These unnamed tributaries, designated UT1 and UT2, are described as such for
mitigation purposes. UT1 corresponds to stream System 2 and UT2 corresponds to
Systems 11 and 14, as described in Section 2.3.1.
Two distinct, maintained power line corridors, approximately 100 feet in width, cross the
Site. One corridor extends from the middle eastern Site boundary adjacent to Hodge Road,
along a northeast-southeast axis to the northern Site boundary adjacent to the railroad. A
1 second corridor extends across the southwest corner of the Site, along an east-west axis
from the middle southern Site boundary to the middle western Site boundary adjacent to
the Neuse River. The Site also contains a sewer line easement that extends from the
southwestern corner of the Site, in a northeasterly direction, before turning in a northerly
direction over Mingo Creek, and off-site under the railroad tracks.
Land use within the greater Mingo Creek watershed includes rural undeveloped land, new
light-to-moderate density residential development, and new commercial establishments
associated with expanding Raleigh/Knightdale (Figure 4). Undeveloped property within the
watershed is concentrated around the periphery, away from Mingo Creek. However,
residential development is rapidly encroaching from all sides on the watershed. The
1 6
fl

L
t

1

I

1

U LU
fiV 00
8 LL
C

i Q

? 'rt
7 O
N O
CO

a J
? O
o
f a
",A l e
1

,
?e

?<' w. '." , ? .,,e •?, ?? ? /, I i. a ?U 1 t? /?(. "E K. - LLI
Ii

W Cw? 41
!
•
111
?
?T
??` y ?
. _, .?? / , ?l //?"? •,? ? ;,may
+? !( py)?`.
{
,.? ? ? Z`
ti
.•

r
? x
r )

a
, ) U.- 2

A

_
??-` ???
,??-?
=>b
r
?
? ?? '
,?'
• ? ?
?
?
?
_ ?i
it F--_
`
/4
; U O R

\ ?? , alal?r

it r? r ar rr? r ?r rr r? rr . r¦? rr r? r r. r rr rr

E
J
undeveloped property is occupied by pine/mixed hardwood forest on slopes and ridges,
1 changing to predominantly mesic hardwoods along stream bottoms. In the vicinity of the
Site, development is directed primarily along Hodge Road including several new residential
subdivisions; Hodge Road Elementary School; a gas station; a small grocery/hardware; and
several other small businesses. Most of the region to the west of Hodge Road is
undeveloped, as are certain parcels to the east. The surrounding region is subject to
increasing development pressures and natural communities are rapidly being replaced by
I residential and commercial development with associated maintained environs.

1

1

11
v

1 9

2.2 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The project is located in the Raleigh Belt geological province, which formed through a
' complex series of events beginning with the deposition of sediments in an ancient sea, the
Theic-Rheic Ocean, about 800 million years ago. Over the subsequent 600 million years,
the deposition of thousands of feet of sediment were intruded upon by molten magma and
volcanic flows on several occasions, folded under tight crustal compression, fractured and
vertically displaced during the Altlantic Ocean basin separation, deeply eroded through
hydrological forces, and more recently exposed to erosion from the sea (Parker 1995). The
project area is underlain by medium grained, foliated to massive gray granite rock (Parker
1995).
The Site is located in an Appling-Louisburg-Wedowee association that extends from
Rolesville NC (notheast Wake County), to just north of Auburn, NC (east-central Wake
County). These soils are well drained to somewhat excessively drained soils derived from
granite, gneiss, and schist (SCS 1970). The main creek channel and freshwater marsh
contain Wehadkee and Bibb series (Fiuventic and Typic Hapiaquepts). A small section of
Wehadkee lies adjacent to the Neuse River in the southwest corner of the Site. Within
Wake County, Wehadkee and Bibb, Wehadkee silt loam, and Worsham soils are listed as
hydric (NRCS 1996). Appling sandy loam (Typic Hapiuduits) is the dominant upland series
south of (2 to 6 percent eroded) and adjacent to (10 to 15 percent slope) the marsh.
Durham loamy sand (2 to 6 percent slope, Typic Hapiudu/ts), Louisburg loamy sand (10 to
15 percent slope, Ruptic-U/tic Dystrochrepts), and Wake soils (10 to 15percent slope,
Lithic Udipsamments) are also adjacent to the marsh near Hodge Road. Wake soils extend
and interweave with Appling soil in the Site's uplands establishing the codominant upland
series. Soil mapping is depicted in Figure 5.
' Wehadkee and Bibb series are similar and often occur together. They consist of nearly
level, poorly drained soils on the floodplains of most of the streams in Wake County.
These soils form in loamy alluvium with Wehadkee having finer texture and, consequently,
1 less infiltration. Surface runoff is slow to ponded and the seasonal high water table is at
the surface.
The Worsham series consists of nearly level and gently sloping, deep, poorly drained soils.
Worsham soils formed under forests from translocated material and weathered bedrock.
Infiltration is good, permeability is moderately slow, and surface runoff is slow to ponded.
' The depth to bedrock ranges from 5 to 15 feet (1.5 to 4.6 meters) and the seasonal high
water table is at the surface.
The Appling series consists of gently sloping to strongly sloping, deep, well-drained soils of
the Piedmont uplands formed under forest in material that weathered from granite, gneiss,
schist and other acidic rocks. Infiltration is good and surface runoff is very rapid.
Gently sloping to sloping, deep, well-drained soils on Piedmont uplands make up the
Durham Series. These soils form under forest in material that weathered from granite,
gneiss, and other acidic rocks. Infiltration is good and surface runoff is medium.
The Louisburg series consists of gently sloping to strongly sloping, moderately deep, to
somewhat excessively drained soils on Piedmont uplands. These soils form under forest
10
? = = = m m = m = m = = m = = m = m m m
m
n C)
Fn
o
1
v
n

T D C O = f1jl Z n > o C
,n ?' zr G) O
V, c
;10 g ? > 0 0 0 d -t ... '?
m o D m D O Z U X
O M
N
v o r
No Zm
D on
N
? o

cover in material that has weathered from granite, gneiss, and other acidic rocks.
Infiltration is good and surface runoff is very rapid. Gently sloping to moderately steep,
' somewhat excessively drained soils that are very shallow over hard rock make up the
Wake series. These soils form under forest in material that weathered from granite,
gneiss, and other acidic rocks. Infiltration is good and surface runoff is very rapid.
2.3 WATER QUALITY
' 2.3.1 Water Quality Sampling and Classification
The Site is located in the Neuse River basin (USGS Hydrologic Unit #03020201). The
Neuse River basin is the third largest basin in the state, encompassing 6192 square miles,
' including portions of 19 counties, and containing 3293 miles of streams. Fourteen sub-
basins comprise the Neuse River basin (DWQ 1998). Mingo Creek is located in Sub-basin
03-04-02, which includes the Neuse River and tributaries from an upper extent at Falls
' Lake Dam to a lower extent at the Neuse River confluence with Mill Creek. Raleigh, Cary,
Wake Forest, Garner, Clayton, Selma, and Smithfield and portions of Wake and Johnston
Counties are included in this sub-basin. The sub-basin suffers from severe water quality
problems based upon 63 N.C.Division of Water Quality (DWQ) benthic macroinvertebrate
monitoring sites. Urban stormwater runoff and, to a lesser extent, agricultural runoff and
effluent from wastewater treatment plants are the main contributors to water quality
degradation in this sub-basin (DWQ 1998). The Mingo Creek watershed is located within
a priority sub-basin by the N.C. Wetland Restoration Program (WRP) (WRP 1996)
Mingo Creek is a second to third order stream within a watershed (DWQ HU code
#03020201070110) that is bordered by US 64 to the north, Knightdale to the east, Poole
Road to the south, and Neuse River to the west. The proposed mitigation site is 7.3
percent (205 acres) of the entire watershed (2816 acres). The WRP (1996) has not
designated this watershed as a high priority for restoration; however, because of the rate
of development in this area and the planned future construction of the Bypass,
preservation of this watershed will be instrumental in reducing nutrient inputs and siltation
of the Neuse River.
' Mingo Creek has a State best usage classification of C NSW. The C classification denotes
waters protected for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation, and agriculture. Secondary recreation includes activities involving human body
' contact with water on an infrequent or incidental basis (Eaker 1992). The NSW
designation is intended for waters needing nutrient management due to excessive growth
of microscopic and macroscopic vegetation. Mingo Creek has also been given a use
support rating of Partially Supporting.
Two benthic macroi nverteb rate sampling stations (B-18 and B-19) were located below and
above the Knightdale wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). Since Hurricane Fran
(September 6, 1996), Knightdale wastewater has been routed to the City of Raleigh's
Neuse River WWTP. Biological ratings for both stations were Poor when last sampled in
1987. Removal of the Knightdale WWTP has probably improved water quality
downstream but has not been verified.

12
11
' Location of jurisdictional streams and wetlands are indicated in Figure 6. A jurisdictional
"system" refers to a specific stream or wetland. Physical characteristics of streams within
the Site are provided in Table 1.
2.3.2 Neuse River Nutrient Sensitive Water Management Strategy
Reducing nutrients and sediment loading into the Neuse River and down stream estuaries
has been a top basin-wide priority over the past decade. Eutrophication of estuarine
waters, resulting from both point and non-point sources, has had numerous deleterious
effects including algal blooms, hypoxia, habitat modification, and fish kills. The situation
climaxed during the summer of 1995 when numerous and intensive fish kills occurred in
the Neuse estuary stemming from record rainfalls that delivered tremendous loads of
nonpoint source nutrients. This loading produced large-scale algal blooms and anoxic
conditions throughout much of the water column, which suffocated hundreds of thousands
of fish.
' Over the past several years, increasing urban development and hog industry growth within
the upper and middle reaches of the Neuse is believed to have further degraded Neuse
water quality. In response to this threat, the N.C. Environmental Management Commission
(EMC) revised the Nutrient Management Strategy in December 1997 to address point and
nonpoint sources of nitrogen as well as the already managed phosphate pollution problem
(DWQ 1993). The new rules were devised to meet and maintain a 30 percent reduction of
nitrogen loading within five years. The regulations implement a rigorous manageable
guideline for five specific areas of concern: point source dischargers, urban stromwater
control, protection and maintenance of existing riparian areas, agriculture and nutrient
addition management.
Currently, progress is being made in implementing these control structures to achieve a 30
percent reduction of nitrogen into the Neuse system. The DWQ is investigating the
response of the system to reduced nitrogen loading through a nutrient response model
' developed by state university researchers (Neuse Modeling and Monitoring [MODMOM).
This interdisplinary modeling approach attempts to model the biogeochemical response of
the Neuse River system to variations in nitrogen loading with differing physical forcing
mechanisms (wind, rain/runoff). In this way, the sensitivity of the system to changing
parameters can be evaluated/predicted and used to guide in important managerial
decisions.
' The Site currently receives only limited amount of nitrogen loads, and is slotted to receive
intensive urban development within its watershed. The planned increase of impervious
surfaces within the watershed will undoubtedly add to the magnitude and delivery
response of both sediment and nutrients into the Site following precipitation events. With
its expansive floodplain and slow-flowing waters, the Site encourages sediment deposition
and the initiation of denitrification processes, which effectively remove a portion of the
water column's nutrient load. These advantageous processes associated with the on-site
hydrological conditions make the Site an important contributor to the nutrient management
strategies currently advocated by the state government.
The DWQ Neuse River Riparian Buffer rule applies regulations which, prohibit with certain
exceptions, clearing of existing forest vegetation, filling, and development activities within
' 13
m= i s i m== m= r m= m= m m
k 4 v
f
ire,
V
? r
,1. 4 o
co
At%
.80 all
00
- if
+ ?."? < of y y;, 1 1 s • ^ ' +b
fjr
i s (.T ,
-Alm
* r:? NJ
-:
Alt Ir
If #
lie
-i Jim
y $ w
It,
4L. ti
%
Y t ?
T 7'I
C
m
it '1?
• i?e' t ? ?'?' ? v 3
i
"74 ?wr
.r .-o +
i
' M
Alk 4L
' 4 ; , ' . ' ' i4.? !?.% '. -? 4
m n p
N
n n
m
0
o
. C) D
T
O o
O d
oA D D
C
Cl)
? r
O N
4 0 0
C-
> *c
cnm v
?Dn
C,^!nz
v/ D

o
M
Z
D
°,, z-+O
=m D
O
>o D
-
Oz /
?
V/1X
;? OM
N
D z
m
?' fib. T
Q
0
0
1

0
A
0
0
spa . •
s
t

,`
i
ws.
at. .. ? ... ' ? ? Auk
?1
w:
A ? Cr7
o
A

z
o
? ? O
•.C
o
m
O ? r•
m
N
J r• n
o
T /A
Nr - T' _: b'

i-

?
m
D

cn

m

c
co m

D
z
o

cn
m
z c
0-
m
n

0

m zz
cn
?
m

m

D

? zz
cn
?
m

D

`

,.

+

0

o

0
? ' N-4i
O
¦ b jpm
1
1
Table 1. Physical Characteristics of Streams. Characteristics of streams in the Mingo Creek
Mitigation Site. System numbers are the same used in Figure 9. "UT" indicates an unnamed
tributary. Channel width and depth measurements are given in feet, and water depth
measurements are given in inches.
System Channel Channel Water Observed Benthic
Number System Name Width Depth Depth Flow Composition
2 UT to Mingo 6 6 2 Low Sand/Silt
Creek
4 UT to Mingo 2 2 2 Low Sand/Silt
Creek
5 UT to Mingo 2 2 3 Low Sand/Silt
Creek
7 Mingo Creek 30 3 6 Low to Cobble/Gravel/
9 UT to Mingo 6
Creek
10 Neuse River 80
2-3 6-24
10 --
Moderate Sand
Low Sand/Silt
Moderate Cobble/Gravel/
Sand
11 Perennial UT to 4 1.5 3 Moderate Sand
Mingo Creek
14 Intermittent UT 7 4 0-1 Minimal Sand
to Mingo Creek

50 feet of perennial and intermittent tributaries of the Neuse River. A protected, 50-foot
zone on both sides of stream channels has been designated as the riparian buffer. The Site
provides approximately 22 acres of wetland buffer, under the 50-foot buffer management
zone (Figure 7). However, while the 50-foot buffer may be adequate for maintenance of
physical and chemical protection, habitat suitability index models have demonstrated the
' need for buffers upward of 500 feet for minimum protection of the biological component.
The Site will provide an additional 163 acres of biological buffer, within an ecologically
important regional crossroad. See Section 5.0 for a more detailed account of
upland/wetland buffers and their functional importance.
2.3.3 Nitrogen Loading and Reduction Assessment
' Land-Use and Nitrogen Loading
Nitrogen loading supplied to the Neuse River by the Mingo Creek watershed has been
' estimated under existing and projected, post-development conditions. The nutrient export
model was developed using coefficient values provided by the DWQ.
Currently, the Mingo Creek watershed is primarily dominated by forest,
successional/pasture, and cultivated-field habitats, with limited high- and low-density urban
developments. Each of these land use types is characterized by different nutrient loading
rates that currently export into Mingo/Neuse receiving waters. Planned future development
calls for significant increases of high-density development upon currently forested and non-
developed areas, which will alter loading rates into these waterways. Figures 8 and 9
' depict the projected changes in land-use from current conditions to future build-out
conditions, as allowed under current zoning. Table 2 outlines current and future land-use
coverage for both the Site and the Mingo Creek watershed. The table also includes DWQ's
' (1998) nitrogen export coefficients (ExpCoef) for these specific land types. Nitrogen
exports are given in kilograms per hectare per year (kg/ha/yr). Total nitrogen (TN) is given
in kilograms per year (kg/yr).
' Under existing conditions, nitrogen loading into the Neuse River from the Mingo Creek
watershed is projected to total 5290 kg/year. Future levels are projected to total 8249
kg/yr representing a 64 percent increase in nutrient loads discharged into the River due to
changing land uses. Nitrogen loading from current on-site land use is estimated to total
158 kg/yr. Potential build-out levels total 684 kg/yr, a greater than four fold increase in
TN.

u
16
i i i i i
¦
r-
'Om
°i3

a
.-A i
? f f
.y:
4
.Y .r aW5 94.
* ?p t
J's''
` '4 v ?
lk'
?' ', #. "
6 '?-_ F ff'r iM r •
• Y c
3
.
m n o
m n j 1 v n
? _ l 1
c ` Z ? v
Z Own
NW Z C)
ct - c`) D 0c =m DG)O
?J o o z-n ?D0 p off.
m o y° L ? rn o z cn X 0 °. A? rD
0. ;o
N Z? FOm
o N) D Z
V o
k l CD X
r. ?
p
}.
t + d n if,I` ::
10,
. ? 4
Is I
4
lI

? r .a 17
?y t k
i
4 •+
r
r
??'+??*?Y may, •-'? ^? ?.S'? #?Y -;,? •? is 1`_ k
y ?.
41
??
?;,
714 'r s amp

Table 2 Mingo Creek Watershed: Current/Future Land Coverage and Total Nitrogen (TN)
Export Coefficients.

F1
i

`77
LEI'

1
fl

J

Land
Coverage DWQ Export
Coefficients
(k /ha/yr) Current Land
Coverage
(hectare) Current TN
Load (kg/yr) Future Land
Coverage
(hectare) Future TN
Load (kg/yr)
Mingo Creek Watershed
Forested 1.90 747.8 1421 135.0 257
Cultivated 15.2 151.8 2307 ---- ----
Pasture 4.90 216.1 1059 ---- ----
High Density 9.63 29.6 285 405.6 3906
Low Density 6.39 25.8 165 631.2 4033
Water 9.80 5.4 53 5.4 53
Total ---- 1177 5290 1177 8249
Mingo Creek On-site
Forested 1.90 83 158 9 17
High Density 9.63 ---- ---- 60 578
Low Density 6.39 ---- ---- 14 89
Total ---- 83 158 83 684
*future on-site land use was ascertained from Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (2001)
18

i

T
?ia.
T
1• -1 ?

f
y?l i
r., ? ' l

.
??
?
???
-

it I
y _

r

1 J
PPPPP'
A

l

cn ;o
c
c p-, p C<
fr C rD L7
Q
u a?? 3'"

.g
CL Q

_ I
i
m
a

m
j

z
°

D rn
Dc °D D?z
z?? Z o?
0 C)
" C
"' 0 U
? o
Z D
D n
o z 0 Z ?.
A?
o D ?
m W ti
-4
J p D Z T
/? o
n
j O

Fm m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
' t
6
1 IF I+
I •9:*
r
Il ti - '1
I `
J
I
1r '
1
t ? ?' 11
r-

i
Appppo,
l
i
l

I ?
?r 1r: --
Ill's
ar
r ?
T-? - I
i

m

Dc
Z Z -i? Z
n Z 'sC
"a
? On DG?O
- v
O
c o o O C D o ! 0 r;
m o D ` C? <
O Z (n 0 0 ?.
N m m O
z:-< Fn m o
N c
0
V Cf)
0
O m
o rC

1
' Nitrogen Consumption Percentages
A system's ability to effectively remove nitrogen from the water column is proportional to
' the time exposed to denitrification dynamics along the sediment interface, whose end
product is the release of nitrogen compounds into the atmosphere. The slow-flowing
waters on-site will remove a portion of the nitrogen load entering Mingo Creek, and thus
reduce the amount transmitted downstream into the Neuse River. Currently, the excepted
nutrient consumption/export equation (DWQ 1998) for the Neuse River basin is
approximated by the following equation:
TN = e 100
where,
TN = percentage of total nitrogen exported from a particular stream reach
k = decay coefficient
t = time of travel in days
The current model framework chosen by DWQ assigns a single, global decay coefficient (k
= 0.1) to the entire Neuse basin. It is assumed that this constant attempts to effectively
average for the biochemistry-rate differences associated with high- and low-flow
conditions. Denitrification, related to hypoxia development along the sediment interface is
' most likely to occur during low-flow conditions when there is little turbulent
mixing/advection of water that would physically renew oxygen levels. Based on this
premise, a range of decay coefficients will be utilized in the nitrogen reduction calculations
' for the site. DWQ is currently attempting to refine the decay coefficient within the Neuse
basin to assess the possibility that low-flow conditions can consume more nutrients than
the current model allows.
In order to assess the yearly nitrogen-reduction potential of the stream-wetland complex
(freshwater marsh), it is necessary to determine the time needed for water to flow through
the stream-wetland complex (--- 0.6 miles) under average, annual conditions (average flow
velocity). Unfortunately, computing average velocities within the Site was difficult,
because during fieldwork in support of this project, stream flows were below the threshold
of mechanical, hand-held flow meters. However, annual discharge rates were available
over the Internet from USGS. When this data was analyzed together with field-noted flow-
area cross sections, a determination of an annual flow velocity was calculated and is
' described below.
Comparisons between cross-sectional flow areas within the stream-wetland complex and
the downstream, non-beaver impacted reach, assisted in determining a transit time of
water through the system. It was assumed that annual discharge measurements were
equal upstream and downstream of the beaver-impacted boundary; this implies a continuity
of flow through the downstream site boundary. This assumption is considered valid over
periods longer than the swell/dissipation temporal lag, through which the system responds
t

21

to localized rainfall events. With the measured cross-sectional areas, the following
continuity relation holds:
A,V, = A2V2 = Discharge
where,
Al and A2 = Cross-sectional flow area upstream and downstream of the beaver-
impacted site boundary respectively
V, and V2 = Average velocity through Al and A2, respectively
Cross-sectional areas for Al and A2 were approximated during field visits as 150 and 15
square feet, respectively. Assuming constant discharge, this sets a flow ratio for V, as
equaling only 10 percent of V2 flow velocity.
In order to obtain actual velocities, USGS gauge-station data (1926-1981) for watersheds
ranging from 2.5 to 6.5 square miles within the upper Neuse basin were compiled, which
yielded a average, annual discharge (normalized to 4.4 square miles) of nearly 4.5 cubic
foot/second. Based on field observations (sub-surface thalwag area determination) and
archived reference stream site information, the downstream, free-flowing stream channel
area needed to carry this discharge is nearly 6.0 square feet (A2). Dividing the average
discharge by this flow area gives a flow velocity of 0.75 feet/second (V2), which results in
a 0.075 feet/second (V,) value for an average, annual flow velocity within the stream-
wetland complex under the 1:10 velocity component of the above continuity relationship.
Under this average flow regime (0.075 feet/second), it takes nearly 0.5 day for water
entering the system to flow through the 0.6 mile stretch of on-site stream-wetland
complex. Furthermore, the time increases to nearly 1.3 days if the additional 1.0-mile
reach of stream-wetland complex, directly upstream of the Site, is calculated. Tied
together the entire system makes a significant nutrient management tool for the
watershed.
Nitrogen export percentages and load removal within reaches of Mingo Creek are
computed below (Table 3) using the calculated transit times with a modified export
coefficient value (k=0.15), to extremely slow flow conditions. A 7 percent TN reduction
for the entire watershed can be expected from the stream-wetland, while an 18 percent
reduction of TN occurs with the addition of the upstream floodplain. Better estimates of
basin-specific export coefficients are needed in order to fully explore the Site's nutrient
removal potential.

22

I Table 3: Total Nitrogen (TN) removal along Mingo Creek On-site and Upstream
r

1
I
Section of Mingo Creek with Percent Percent Percent Average Total Nitrogen
Transit Time (days) Export Export Export Removal (kg/yr) ->
(k=0.1) (k=0.15 (k=0.2) k=0.15
Current Land Use: 5290 TN (kg / year)
On-site (---0.5) 95 93 90 370
On-site and Upstream 88 82 77 952
(-1.3)
Future Land Use: 8249 TN (kg / year)
On-site (-0.5) 95 93 90 577
On-site and Upstream 88 82 77 1485
(-1.3)
2.4 JURISDICTIONAL STREAMS AND WETLANDS
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires regulation of discharges into "waters
of the United States." Although the principle administrative agency of the CWA is the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) has
major responsibility for implementation, permitting, and enforcement of provisions of the
Act. The COE regulatory program is defined in 33 CFR parts 320-330.
Water bodies such as rivers, lakes, and streams are subject to jurisdictional consideration
under the Section 404 program. However, by regulation, wetlands are also considered
"waters of the United States." Wetlands are described as:
Those areas that are inundated or saturated by groundwater at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do
support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar
M areas. (33 CFR 328.3(b) [1986]).
Wetlands are defined by the presence of three criteria: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils,
and evidence of wetland hydrology during the growing season (DOA 1987). Open water
systems and wetlands receive similar treatment and consideration with respect to Section
404 review. Site jurisdictional areas include surface waters in bank-to-bank streams or
vegetated wetlands.
Site jurisdictional areas were delineated during the last week of June 2001 and were
located using Global Positioning System (GPS) technology during early July 2001. The
COE (Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, Raleigh regional field office) has not yet approved the delineation,
although a field visit is scheduled with Mr. Alsmeyer's for the end of August 2001. The
location of jurisdictional areas within the Site are numbered from 1 to 15 and indicated on
23
1
Figure 6. Linear distances of streams and areas of wetlands located within the project
corridor are provided in Table 4. In total, the Site contains approximately 28.8 acres of
wetlands and 6590 linear feet (1.25 miles) of stream. Stream acreage, calculated by
multiplying width and length, yielded approximately 0.94 acres stream surface area.
2.5 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION
Wetland functional analyses were conducted using two methods: 1) a general functional
analysis derived through a combination of professional judgement and standard assessment
procedure and 2) a procedure focusing on water quality benefits developed by the DWQ
(formerly, the Division of Environmental Management (DEM), this methodology is referred
to as the "DEM" procedure". Seven jurisdictional wetlands are included as part of this
I analysis (see Figure 6).
2.5.1 General Wetland Functional Analvsis
The goal of this exercise is to evaluate wetland systems in such a manner that allows for
comparative analysis among wetlands. To this end, a direct evaluation methodology was
devised by ESC staff drawing on best professional judgement and general wetland
functional attributes identified in the Wet/and Evaluation Technique (WET /l) (Adamus et al.
1987) and Hydrogeomorphic Approach to the Functional Assessment of Wet/ands (Brinson
et a/. 1994). The methodology, hereafter referred to as "General Functional Procedure",
evaluates each wetland in terms of four, unweighted functional attributes: hydrology, bio-
geochemistry, plant habitat, and animal habitat. Each of these attributes is comprised of
two to five parameters, and each parameter is described by two to five variables that were
assessed and scored during or following a site visit.
Forms and attribute descriptions generated as part of this methodology are presented in
Appendix A. The Wetland Functional Data Sheet lists four wetland functional attributes in
bold type, each of which is followed by the parameters that characterize that attribute. A
value for each parameter is determined by the sum of scores for ecological variables
specific to that parameter. A total of 25 variables were scored for each wetland system
and used to assess wetland functions. An alphabetic letter (A through Y) identifies each
variable. The variables used to determine the score of each parameter are provided in
equation form on the Wetland Functional Assessment Data Sheet. Variables score from
0.0 to 1.0 depending on characteristics of the wetland. The variables and rationale for
scoring are listed on the Wetland Functional Assessment Score Sheet. A total of 41.0
points are possible for each wetland system. Although individual functional attributes are
not weighted, this procedure does inherently allow higher scoring for wetlands associated
with riverine characteristics. The functional assessment scores for each wetland system
are shown in Table 5, and completed data sheets are provided in Appendix A. Table 5 also
provides a column of percentile ranks for the wetland systems.
Wetland Systems 8 and 3 received the highest scores, 32.2 and 31.1 points, respectively.
These wetlands represent two very different community types. System 8 is a bottomland
hardwood characterized by mature canopy trees and sparse understory. This wetland
receives periodic inputs from flooding events from both Mingo Creek (System 7) and the

1 24
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Table 4. Linear Distances and Acreage of Jurisdictional Areas. The acreage of wetlands and
linear distances of streams within the Mingo Creek Mitigation Site are presented in this table.
Linear distance is provided in feet. Wetland Area is in acres. The system numbers are the
same used in Figure 9. "UT" refers to unnamed tributary.
System
Number
System Name Wetland
Area Stream Length
1 Hodge Road marsh 1.19 --
2 UT to Mingo Creek -- 1 175
3 Mingo Creek marsh 26.4 --
4 UT to Mingo Creek -- 267
5 UT to Mingo Creek -- 106
6 Railroad wetland 0.59 --
7 Mingo Creek -- 1385
8 Mingo Creek floodplain wetland 0.20 --
9 UT to Mingo Creek -- 300
10 Neuse River -- 150
11 Perennial UT to Mingo Creek -- 1632
12 Seepage wetlands 0.06 --
13 Headwater wetland to perennial UT 0.16 --
14 Intermittent UT to Mingo Creek -- 1575
15 Headwater to intermittent UT 0.20 --
Totals 28.8 6590
1
1
1
1
1
A
1
1
1
1
1
f
1
i
o Cl)
? s=
0
> s=
c06 (6
y co
N
Cl) ? O U 2? ED CM
LL
> O
N !n O •?
O ? O 4?
•? c0
cB
O O U
0
E c'a c
to U S] (A
a) CU cac 0
O L O o
fQ a U U
(6 U E O 07
O L (a
? 2,
a) Cc r
'CD C Q
c 0 N
? w+ (Q 0
S=
M C .r U
C U
O = co a)
to 3 .O
E
4) cu
4) U U C
O E E
OOaa))cn
v? Ica
t/1 O c
N cc ,? O
? O U 'a
O) U
= O
Q N OL
-0 CD
t6 U >+ tL
C ? r
O O
V O 0
M_ cn
LL?? 0
C Y f6 0
a) _
w a)
O
0U 0-
O o
O 0 N
:3
CD
m (D M o
o a
U)
0
c?
Ea
O S
N
cn
M r l0 In r- rn O

LO m r- M U-) LO LO O
LO N L6 Ids M r?
O M O O N CC) O
C14
00
n
00 LO
In U? M O CO LO
O
(0 n 4 4 LO M ?
N (O 00 l0 Lc) O
N r- N co to O Cif
M M N N N V- d
am m (0 l0 M 00 co O
O
r- O co co ItF d•
00 M LO
r N
r CD M
r
0
4?
y to
c0 c0 c0 C O U

E
E O
0
0
-Y- O
4
4? ++

CD

a) 0
a) (D 7
L C
U 'm L
U O 0
0+
0
-a
0
? !A

o a
o
? 'E
m
0 .
3 0
CL
a) -0 cm -a L a _ C
C O C O 0 0 (6 L y

unnamed tributary to Mingo Creek (System 9). System 3 represents the large freshwater
marsh complex adjacent to Mingo Creek. This wetland in continually inundated or
saturated from beaver activity and a shallow groundwater table. System 3 contains
primarily herbaceous and shrub vegetation. Both systems received high scores for
hydrology and biochemical processes.
I' Ranked intermediately are Systems 1, 15, and 12. The wetlands in System 15 and 12 are
primarily small headwater or toe of slope seeps feeding an adjacent tributary. These
systems are characterized by continuous groundwater saturation, contain mature forest
vegetation, and moderate habitat for wildlife and semi-aquatic insects. These wetlands
feed the intermittent and perennial stream identified as Systems 11 and 14. The wetland
in System 1 is a freshwater marsh found adjacent to Hodge Road. This wetland is similar
to the System 3 marsh wetland but is considerably smaller. System 1 receives regular
flow from the unnamed tributary to Mingo Creek (System 2). According to the analysis
these systems are important both biochemically and hydrologically.
The lowest-ranking wetlands (Systems 6 and 13) both scored a 19.5. System 6 is a
freshwater marsh found adjacent to the railroad tracks and the old impoundment. This
wetland provides low community structure and moderate wildlife habitat and lacks the
plant diversity and structure found in System 3. This wetland receives regular flow from
off-site drainage. The wetland in System 13 is a headwater system with a mature canopy.
This wetland is characterized by seasonal saturation from groundwater seepage and
provides moderate wildlife habitat.
2.5.2 DEM Wetland Rating Procedure
The Water Quality Section of the State Division of Environmental Management (DEM)
prepared a wetlands assessment procedure entitled Guidance for Rating Wetlands in North
Carolina (DEM 1995), and NCDOT is considering this method as a standard procedure for
assessing wetlands proposed for roadway impacts. The "DEM" procedure was used to
rate seven wetland systems identified in the previous section (Table 5). This procedure
focuses on the role of wetlands in the environment, so bank-to-bank stream systems were
not rated unless they were involved in a stream/wetland complex. Completed DEM
Wetland Rating Worksheets and COE Wetland Determination Forms are provided in
Appendix B.
The DEM procedure rates wetlands according to six functional attributes: water storage,
bank/shoreline stabilization, pollutant removal, wildlife habitat, aquatic life value, and
recreational/educational value. Each attribute Js given a rating of from "1" to "5". A
higher rating for a functional attribute indicates a higher value for that attribute to the
environment. A different multiplier is used with each attribute so that the highest possible
sum of the six products is "100". These attributes are weighted (by the multiplier) to
enhance the results in favor of water quality functions. Pollutant removal is weighted to
be the most important wetland attribute. Water storage, bank/shoreline stabilization, and
aquatic life functions are given equal weight as secondary attributes, and wildlife habitat
and recreation/education functions are given minimal credit.
The wetland rating system divided the wetlands in two, between high scores and low
scores. Systems 3, 6, 1, and 8 received the high score (93, 83, 73, 67 respectively) and
27
F
included the three various sized marsh wetlands and the Mingo Creek floodplain wetland.
All the marsh wetlands received surface water inputs from adjacent braided or
discontinuous streams, induced by beaver activity. System 8, the Mingo Creek floodplain
wetland also is impacted from beaver activity in the adjacent unnamed tributary to Mingo
Creek (System 9). These systems generally score high for pollutant removal, water
storage, bank stabilization, and aquatic habitat potential.
Systems 12, 15, and 13 received the lower scores (45, 33 and 29, respectively). These
wetlands are headwater systems that receive little surface flow from adjacent streams and
therefore score low for water storage and pollutant removal. These wetlands generally
provide excellent aquatic and semi aquatic habitat.

1
4
1
28
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
i
1
1
N v N C c
O O
?p 4-
CO (0
C co
M
O
M
O
O
O
cn (D 'tn CD U "O
E (D
w
i C O
in
O
Co LJ.
U
*
V co
_0 O Q- Q m t O O CD O N CO d
cu O C p M N N ?- N r- LO

N C .N
c x
'
in
co
"_ CO
cn
. .-
> O N O M O 00 O N
U) 'O O

E
U) :2 c U =
co

O

C U
N O? O
E a) c: -c c>
?
cu +
O
E O
N Lo
N O
N O
LO
LO
LO LO
o
co
n N
a
In L
c
ca O O
N
o .
c
n
ca m
c
a)

>
0
U.)
O
U O O O N co 00 0 CD d
0*) fn 0

cn CO
M Co
+1
N
N
LO
E CD

W W in
c rn
cn
N
C N C ++ co
co p O
N CO
e- co
.- N
?- N
d ?h
-
U
C
> 1
.? C
O
O N «. in
c

m 0 `O
U M
M M
CO M tl?
CO LO M
M O
N 00
O N M
C

O
O •-
V
C
CD
N
cn O
y E
M
CD
?
co

N

LO

M
N N

0 O O M Z
_
a- 0
U O
N
m p a ? O
_ +=? E O +O+ t t -O
cu cc'X N > C Co 0 O
Co :5
E E m p cu ai
,a
C Y Q O C O -a
O
O +'
~

l4 N-C Q O O .Q
V O U U V O CO N O '? O
OQE 0 O O O a m a
O c o c 0 a CO (D n
W
G 7- m E co
OC
2
y-
cA
2 S? 0)
2 a 0)
m
co
m
cc
H

fl

1

u

1

3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
3.1 PLANT COMMUNITIES
The Site contains several distinct mature plant communities that provide unique mosaic
within close proximity to each other. The mature canopy cover on the upland slopes
provides an important buffer and natural filter for the on-site wetlands. Ten distinct plant
communities have been identified within the topographically diverse Site. Nine of these
plant communities approximate those described by Schafale and Weakley (1990), in the
Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina. The publication by Schafale
and Weakley presents definitions for natural plant communities as defined by vegetation,
composition, and physioignomy. The plant communities recognized as such include mesic-
mixed hardwood forest, dry-mesic oak-hickory forest, Piedmont semi-permanent
impoundment (freshwater marsh), dry oak-hickory forest, Piedmont bottomland hardwood
forest, Piedmont alluvial forest, low elevation seep, Piedmont levee forest, and Piedmont
acidic cliff (Figure 10). Early successional land is the only plant community that was found
on-site but is not described by Schafale and Weakley. See Appendix C for a complete
plant list for each community.
Mesic-Mixed Hardwood Forest
The co-dominant plant community is mesic-mixed hardwood forest. This community
covers 68 acres or 32 percent of the Site. The mesic-mixed hardwood forest, as
documented by Schafale and Weakley (1990) is dominated by mesophytic hardwoods,
including beech (Fagus grandifoiia), red oak (Quercus rubra), red maple (Acer rubrum), and
yellow poplar (Lirodendron tuiipifera). This forest provides a well-stratified canopy, sub-
canopy, and a diverse shrub/herb assemblage. The mesic-mixed hardwood forest serves as
a buffer to over 80 percent of Site jurisdictional streams and provides protection to the
headwaters of several on-site streams including the unnamed tributaries to Mingo Creek,
Systems 2, 11, 14. Similarly, this plant community provides forested cover and buffer to
both the north and south rims of the 27-acre Mingo Creek freshwater marsh community
located in the northeast portion of the Site. Plant species diversity of trees, shrubs, and
vines within the mesic-mixed hardwood forest is high.
Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest
Essentially equal in area to the mesic-mixed hardwood forest, the dry-mesic oak-hickory
forest (75 acres) covers 37 percent of the Site. Dominating the uplands and southern
extent of the study area, the dry-mesic oak-hickory forest adds an additional layer of buffer
to the existing down-slope mesic-mixed hardwood forest, streams, and wetlands. Plant
diversity within the dry-mesic oak-hickory forest is higher than the mesic-mixed hardwood
forest and contains many species not seen in any other Site plant community. The forest
canopy is dominated by white oak (Quercus aiba), black oak (Quercus veiutina), yellow
poplar, and sweetgum (Liquidambar styracifiua). Notably unique, is a high diversity of
blueberry species (Vaccinium spp.) and small shrubs within this community. The
assemblage of herbs and climbing vines provide for a structurally diverse understory with a
thick sub-canopy and a relatively thin canopy.
30
¦
" m w=== m A= m w m m= m 4m m ¦r m

9
n _-
n ^

O
m
M
? ^
A

o
` ?D D
Z Z

c?
C' D
i

DG)O
="'
nC7 ^
" z

s U
m cm) Z z
u
I O ?.
o y
(n C: O
U)
;
O m
? ?
•
v o No D
Z? ^
o ?
U
< °

Freshwater Marsh
One of the most unique and dynamic Site communities is the 27-acre freshwater marsh,
which occurs as a result of anthropogenic and beaver impoundment of Mingo Creek. This
plant community is described by Schafale and Weakley as a Piedmont semi-permanent
impoundment. These communities are typically in flux, as beaver establish and reestablish
their control over the adjacent streams. The ensuing vegetation communities thus, must
contend with frequent changes in hydrology, often leading to dead stems of non-tolerant
trees. The continual procession of early successional renewal within these communities
allows numerous wetland shrub species such as buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis)
and willow species (Salix spp.) and herbaceous species such as rushes (Juncus spp.),
sedges (Carex spp.), and arrow arum (Peltandra virginica) to thrive. The Mingo Creek
freshwater marsh receives water from all but two perennial streams within the 4.4 square
mile Mingo Creek watershed. The freshwater marsh is structurally a stream/wetland
complex, containing a mosaic pattern of braided stream channels. The freshwater marsh
provides both macro and micro habitat for a broad range of aquatic and emergent flora.
Extending for more than 0.5 mile, the marsh borders six of the 10 identified plant
communities. Smaller freshwater marsh communities are found along the eastern Site
boundary adjacent to Hodge Road and down stream of the impoundment structure within
the Mingo Creek floodplain. Isolated trees, shrubs, and snags develop rooting surfaces for
grasses rushes, herbs, and sedges to form thick hummocks. The freshwater marsh fringes
are lined with a rich diversity of shrubs and tree saplings. The freshwater marsh has very
high plant species diversity and a high diversity of structure.
Early Successional Land
Early succesional land transects the mosaic pattern of Site communities in two discrete
locations as maintained power line corridors. Each corridor is approximately 100 feet in
width and together comprise 10 acres, or approximately five percent of the Site. One
corridor extends from the middle eastern Site boundary adjacent to Hodge Road, along a
northeast-southeast axis to the northern Site boundary adjacent to the railroad. A second
corridor extends across the southwest corner of the Site, along an east-west axis from the
middle southern Site boundary to the middle western Site boundary adjacent to the Neuse
River. The periodic maintenance of these corridors maintains a community structure that
varies from short shrubs to young forest, and typically supports dense graminoids and a
herbaceous assemblage. Plant species diversity is particularly high within this community.
The presence of these maintained corridors within the Site increase available food and
cover diversity for wildlife, and promotes wildlife travel corridors from the Neuse River and
railroad across the Site. One unique area within the power line right-of-way along the
south side of the Mingo Creek freshwater marsh is an exposed rocky bluff.
Dry Oak-Hickory Forest
Located at the highest points within Site is a dry oak-hickory forest. Isolated and
surrounded by dry-mesic oak-hickory forest, the dry oak-hickory forest covers
approximately 9 acres (four percent of the Site) and is located in the southeast portion of
the Site. Due to the xeric nature of soils within this community, the species diversity is
lowest of the Site plant communities. Although species diversity is low, the species
makeup is unique and many species are found nowhere else in the Site. As described by
Schafale and Weakley (1990), dominant canopy species include a diverse assemblage of
oaks including white oak, black oak, scarlet oak (Quercus coccinea), southern red oak
1 32
1
(Quercus falcata) and post oak (Quercus stellata). The shrub layer ranges from sparse to
dense including many viburnum (Viburnum spp.) species.
Piedmont Bottomland Hardwood Forest
A bottomland hardwood forest borders the last stretch of Mingo Creek before its
confluence with the Neuse River, in the northwestern corner of the Site. Approximately 9
acres of Piedmont bottomland hardwood forest surround lower reaches Mingo Creek and
its two unnamed tributaries (Systems 9 and 11) that slowly drain adjacent uplands. The
activity of beavers and the resultant periodic ponding has limited the sub-canopy and shrub
layer. The existing vegetation assemblage is a low diversity of mature hardwood canopy
trees including river birch (Betula nigra), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), American elm
(Ulmus americana), box elder (Acer negundo) and cherybark oak (Quercus pagodifolia).
The herbaceous layer is well developed and includes a high diversity of grasses, sedges,
rushes, and herbs.
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
Piedmont alluvial forest occurs at two Site locations where tributary streams and seepages
reach the southern floodplain boundary of Mingo Creek. One occurs in the northeast
portion of the Site where Systems 1 and 2 drain into the freshwater marsh, and the other
occurs in the central portion of the Site where the freshwater marsh receives the flow from
System 5. The area of these communities covers approximately 7 acres and less than four
percent of the Site. Both areas are north facing and the soils remain moist but well
drained. The community contains primarily bottomland hardwood species in the canopy,
high diversity of shrubs, and a dense herbaceous understory. Dominant canopy species
include yellow poplar, sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), sweetgum, and American elm.
The underlying substrate within the alluvial forest is coarse to silty, unconsolidated fluvial
deposition. Stream flow and flood-carried sediments provide nutrients and water to these
lush and well-developed forests. These forested alluvial flats provide a natural filtering
system similar to that of the adjacent wetlands. The alluvial forests exhibit a plant
community transition point between the mesic-mixed hardwood forest and the freshwater
marsh. This transition zone results in a diverse assemblage of species.
Low Elevation Seep
This plant community occurs in numerous locations through the Site in small areas
characterized by ground surface expression of the groundwater table. These communities
typically occur at the base of slopes or edges of floodplains. The Site contains a total of
approximately 1.0 acre of this community. Diversity is high within these seepage
communities, where structure is characterized by a well developed shrub and herbacous
layer. Notable shrub and herbaceous species include netted chanin fern (Woodwardia
areolata), lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus), Jack-in-the-pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum), Fringe
tree (Chionanthus virginicus), and possum haw (Viburnum nudum). These areas are small
' enough to be shaded by canopy tree species rooted in adjacent communities. However,
certain tree species such as winged elm (Ulmus alata), river birch, black willow and sweet
bay magnolia (Magnolia virginiana) are found growing within these areas.
Piedmont Acidic Cliff
Piedmont acidic cliff occurs as two discrete areas totaling approximately 1.0 acre, along
the southern border of the freshwater marsh. This community occurs on exfoliating,
33
1
' exposed granite outcroppings which face north across the Mingo Creek marsh. The range
of soil depths and moisture regime, provided by the underlying terrain, promote a high
species diversity. This community supports a unique plant assemblage for this portion of
the sate. One unique shrub found on these sites is mountain laurel (Kalmia latfolia).
Several mountain laurel thickets were surveyed on the steep slopes of these north-facing
bluffs. Several species that are typically found in dry upland sites were also noted
including blueberries (Vaccinium spp.), various oaks, sassafras (Sassafras alba), and
sourwood (Oxydendron arboreum).
I Piedmont Levee Forest
Piedmont levee forest occurs in the extreme northeastern corner of the site, adjacent to
the Neuse River. This community accounts for approximately 1.0 acre and supports a
mature forest, characterized by well-developed sub-canopy, shrub, and groundcover layers.
The ground surface is elevated well above the river floodplain so the community supports
both bottomland and upland plant species. The dispersal and deposition of seeds from the
Neuse River also adds a plant species component to the levee that is rarely seen on smaller
streams. River oats (Chasmanthium latifolium) occur in thick breaks on the crest and
riverside of the levee, while herbs and other grasses occupy the wetter backwater areas.
The levee is composed of loose alluvial soil, which provides little support for larger, mature
trees. Periodic windstorm events and high water can fell large tree, which creates gaps in
the levee forest. These gaps add a component of early successional flora, which increases
levee forest species diversity.
3.2 WILDLIFE
3.2.1 Terrestrial
The mosaic of Site plant communities provides necessary components (food, water, cover)
to support a number of animal species typical of the Piedmont region of the state. During
field surveys, signs or observations of the following terrestrial mammal species were
documented: white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis),
and raccoon (Procyon lotor). Other species expected include Virginia opossum (Didelphis
virginiana), eastern cottontail (Sylvi/agus floridanus), eastern mole (Sca/opus aquaticus),
southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris), southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys volans), white-
footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys humulis),
cotton mouse (Peromyscus gossypinus), golden mouse (Peromyscus nuttalli), meadow vole
(Microtus pennsylvanicus), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), grey fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus),
striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and longtail weasel (Mustela frenata).
The extensively forested Site bottomland, slopes, and uplands provide habitat for a diverse
bird assemblage. The following species were heard and/or seen: Acadian flycatcher
(Empidonax virescens), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), American robin (Turdis
migratorius), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea),
brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater), carolina chickadee (Poecile carolinensis), Carolina
wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), chimney swift (Chaetura pelagica), common grackle
(Quiscalus quiscula), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), pileated woodpecker
(Dryocopus pileatus) great crested flycatcher (Myiarchus crinitus), hooded warbler
' 34

1
t

1
(Wilsonia citrina), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalfs), pine warbler (Dendroica pinus),
red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carofinus), red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceous), red-
shouldered hawk (Buteo fineatus), ruby-throated hummingbird (Archilochus cofubris),
summer tanager (Piranga rubra), tufted titmouse (Poecile bicolor), yellow-billed cuckoo
(Coccyzus americanus), and yellow-throated vireo (Vireo flavifrons).
Although the majority of the Site is forested or wetland, a power line corridor and adjacent
private holdings provide early successional habitat. red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis),
common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), white-eyed vireo (Vireo griseus), American
goldfinch (Carduefis tristis), northern bobwhite (Cofinus virginianus), indigo bunting
(Passerina cyanea), song sparrow (Melospfza me/odfa), and chipping sparrow (Spizella
Passerina) were seen or heard in early successional land during site visits. Other species
commonly associated with early successional/shrub habitat include eastern kingbird
(Tyrranus tyrranus), prairie warbler (Dendroica discolor), gray catbird (Dumetel/a
carofinensis), eastern bluebird (Sialis sialis), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottus),
brown thrasher (Toxostoma rufum), yellow-breasted chat (lcteria virens), eastern towhee
(Pipifo erythrophthalmus), and blue grosbeak (Guiraca caerulea).
During site investigations, a single terrestrial reptile, five-lined skink (Eumeces faciatus),
was observed. Pine woods treefrog (Hyla femorafis), cricket frog (Acris gryllus), and
American toad (Bufo americanus) were the only terrestrial amphibians observed. Black rat
snake (Elaphe obso/eta), worm snake (Carphophis amoenus), ringneck snake (Diadophis
punctatus), box turtle (Terrapene carolina), green anole (Anofis carolinensis), broadhead
skink (Eumeces laticeps), green treefrog (Hyla cinerea), barking treefrog (Hyla gratiosa),
gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor), chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata), and spring peeper
(Pseudacris crucifer) are common reptiles and amphibians found in similar habitats.
3.2.2 Aquatic
Site aquatic habitats include the third-order stream habitat of Mingo Creek, the freshwater
marsh created by damming of Mingo Creek by beaver (Castor candensis), and several first
order perennial streams (Systems 2, 4, 5, 9, and 11). Mammal species associated with
aquatic habitats expected at this site include beaver, marsh rabbit (Sylvilagus palustris),
rice rat (Orysomys palustris), muskrat (Ondatra zibethica), mink (Mustela vison), and river
otter (Lutra canadensis).
Belted kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon), fish crow (Corvus ossifragus), great blue heron (Ardea
herodius), northern parula (Parula americana), prothonotary warbler (Protonotaria citrea),
red-headed woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus), and common yellowthroat were
detected during field surveys around wetland habitat. Other species that inhabit similar
habitats include green heron (Butorides virescens), wood duck (Aix sponsa), and common
snipe (Gallinago galfinago).
A red-bellied watersnake (Nerodia erythrogaster) and yellowbelly sliders (Trachemys stricta)
were the only reptiles seen in aquatic habitats. Green frogs (Rana clamftans) and southern
35

cricket frogs (Acris gryllus) vocalized near the freshwater marsh. Queen snake (Regina
septemvittata), mud snake (Farancia abacura), cottonmouth (Agkistridon piscivorous),
snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), greater siren (Siren lacertina), southern two-lined
salamander (Eurycea cirrigea) and pickerel frog (Rana palustris) are common to similar
aquatic habitats of the region.
Mingo Creek is potentially a diverse fishery supporting species such as bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus), redbreast sunfish (L. auritus), pirate perch (Aphredoderus sayanus), bluehead
chub (Nocomis leutocephalus), swallowtail shiner (Notropis procne), American eel (Anguilla
rostrata), silver redhorse (Moxostoma anisurum), satinfin shiner (Cyprinella analostana),
white shiner (Luxilus albeolus), flat bullhead (Ameiurus platycephalus), and tessellated
darter (Etheostoma olmstedi). Species expected with the adjacent tributaries include
eastern mosquito fish (Gambusia holbrooki) and Johnny darter (Etheostoma nigrum).
3.3 RARE AND UNIQUE NATURAL AREAS
No NHP-designated Significant Natural Heritage Areas (SNHA) exist within the Site. A
SNHA designation is given to an area due to the presence of rare species, rare or high
quality natural communities, or geologic features. This designation does not confer
protection or regulatory status. The nearest SNHAs include several locations on the Neuse
River. Within 2.0 miles north of the Mingo Creek confluence with the Neuse, two rare
mollusks, the notched rainbow (Villosa constricta) and Roanoke slabshell (Elliptio
roanokensis); and two rare fish, the pinewoods shiner (Lythrus matutinus) and Carolina
madtom (Noturus furiosus) have been found. In addition, approximately 1.25 miles south
of the confluence the dwarf wedge mussel and a rare amphibian, Carolina mudpuppy
(Necturus lewisi) has been found. Another rare mussel the yellow lance (Elliptio lanceolata)
is documented approximately 1.5 miles south of the Site in a small tributary of the Neuse.
Another SNHA is located approximately 1.5 mile south of the Site. This location contains a
population of Rhus michauxii, a Federally Endangered plant.
3.4 PROTECTED SPECIES
1
Cl
11

it

3.4.1 Federal Species
Species with federal classifications of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T) are protected
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The
status of "Endangered" refers to "any species which is in danger of extinction throughout
all or a significant portion of its range"; the status of "Threatened" refers to "any species
which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range" (16 U.S.C. 1532).
The FWS has revised the list of federally protected species as of April 12, 2001 to include
the following protected species for Wake County:
Common Name Scientific Name Wake Status
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus T*
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis E
36

1

1
1

I?I

1

1

1
Dwarf Wedge Mussel Aiasmidonta heterodon E
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii E
' Proposed for de-listing
The status of these species is described below.
Bald Eagle - The bald eagle occurs throughout North America, primarily in association with
large lakes and coastal bays and sounds where food is plentiful. Mature eagles (usually 4
to 6 years and older) are identified by a white tail and head, dark brown to black body and
wings (wingspread to 6 feet), and yellow eyes, bill, and feet. Juveniles are uniformly
chocolate-brown and sometimes have whitish mottling on the tail, belly, and wing linings.
Maturing individuals become lighter in color and the mottling increases until the adult
plumage pattern is acquired. Nest sites occur close to feeding grounds in large trees
(predominately pine or cypress), either living or dead. Eagles are opportunistic hunters and
scavengers, feeding on a wide variety of aquatic-dependent organisms including fish,
snakes, small mammals and large water birds. The primary source of food is carrion and
fish taken from ospreys (Potter et aL 1980).
Red-cockaded Woodpecker - This small woodpecker (7.0 to 8.5 inches long) has a black
head, prominent white cheek patches, and black-and-white barred back. Males often have
red markings (cockades) behind the eye, but the cockades may be absent or difficult to see
(Potter et al. 1980). Primary habitat consists of mature to over-mature southern pine
forests dominated by loblolly, long-leaf (Pious paiustris), slash (P. eiiiottil), and pond (P.
serotina) pines (Thompson and Baker 1971). Nest cavities are constructed in the
heartwood of living pines, generally older than 70 years, which have been infected with
red-heart disease. Nest cavity trees tend to occur in clusters, which are referred to as
colonies (FWS 1985). The woodpecker drills holes into the bark around the cavity
entrance, resulting in a shiny, resinous buildup around the entrance that allows for easy
detection of active nest trees. Pine flatwoods or pine-dominated savannas, which have
been maintained by frequent natural fires, serve as ideal nesting and foraging sites for this
woodpecker. Development of a thick understory may result in abandonment of cavity
trees. This species is known to forage in pine or pine-hardwood stands where the pines
are greater than 30 years old with an open sub-canopy and shrub layer.
No suitable habitat for red-cockaded woodpeckers is located within the mitigation Site.
The nearest red-cockaded woodpecker colony is approximately 4.8 miles east of the Site.
Michaux's Sumac - Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent, deciduous, rhizomatous
shrub, usually less than 3.0 feet high. The alternate, compound leaves consist of 9 to 13
hairy, round-based, toothed leaflets borne on a hairy rachis that may be slightly winged
(Radford et ai. 1968). Small male and female flowers are produced during June on
separate plants; female flowers are produced on terminal, erect clusters followed by small,
hairy, red fruits (drupes) in August and September. Michaux's sumac tends to grow in
disturbed areas where fire or other disturbances reduce competition; the species may grow
along roadside margins or in utility line right-of-ways. In the Piedmont, Michaux's sumac
appears better adapted to clay soil derived from mafic rocks or sandy soil derived from
granite. In the Sandhills, it occurs more in loamy swales (Weakley 1993). Michaux's
37

sumac ranges from southern Virginia through Georgia, within the inner Coastal Plain and
lower Piedmont.
Ground-truthing revealed potential or marginal habitat for Michaux's sumac. Most
potential habitat occurs in the dry, upland portions of power line or telephone/cable right-
of-ways and along railroad shoulders. The roadway and railroad corridors are narrow with
sporadic maintenance, shade and dense growth of perennials, producing marginal growing
conditions for Michaux's sumac. The areas with the most suitable habitat are two power
line corridors located within the Site boundaries. Systematic field surveys were conducted
in July 2001 within potential habitat areas. Stands of winged and smooth sumac (Rhus
copa/iina and R. giabra) were found in several areas, but no Michaux's sumac was
observed. A population of Michaux' Sumac (Rhus michauxii) is presently located
approximately 1.5 miles south of the Site.
Dwarf Wedge Mussel - The dwarf wedge mussel is relatively small, averaging 1.0 to 1.5
inches long. The shells are olive-green to dark brown in color and are subrhomboidally
shaped. The shells of females are swollen posteriorly, while males are generally flattened
' (TSCFTM 1990). The preferred habitats are streams with moderate flow velocities and
bottoms varying in texture from gravel and coarse sand to mud, especially in areas
downstream of debris and on banks of accreting sediment. This species was previously
' known from only a few, disjunct populations in the Neuse River basin (Johnston Co.) and
upper Tar River basin (Granville Co.). State-wide surveys conducted since 1992 have
expanded this species' range in North Carolina; however, the dwarf wedge mussel range is
still believed to be restricted to the Neuse and Tar River basins.
The dwarf wedge mussel prefers deep runs with coarse sands. Other habitats for this
mussel include bottoms of gravel beds, among submerged aquatic plants, and near
overhanging stream banks. The lower reach of Mingo Creek may provide suitable habitat
for the dwarf wedge mussel.

1

38

t

1

r

Federal Species of Concern (FSC) listed for Wake County (list date April 12, 2001), their
North Carolina status, and an indication of whether habitat for each species exists in the
project corridor are listed below (Amoroso 1999, LeGrand and Hall 1999).
Common Name Scientific Name State
Status* * Potential
Habitat
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis SC No
Southern ho nose snake Heterodon simus* SR No
Southern myotis Myotis austroriparius SC Yes
Carolina darter Etheostoma collis lepidinion SR No
Pinewoods shiner Lythrurus matutinus SR Yes
Atlantic pi toe Fusconaia masoni T Yes
Yellow lance Elliptio lanceolata T Yes
Green floater Lasmi ona subviridus E Yes
Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria diana* SR Yes
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata C Yes
Carolina least trillium TruUium pusillum E Yes
* Historic record
**SC = Special Concern; SR = Significantly Rare; T = Threatened; PE = Proposed Endangered; E = Endangered; W =
Watch List
3.4.2 State Listed Species
Species with the North Carolina status of Endangered, Threatened, Special Concern,
Candidate, Significantly Rare, or Watch list receive limited protection under the North
Carolina Endangered Species Act (G.S. 113-331 et seq.) and the North Carolina Plant
Protection Act of 1979 (G.S. 106-202.12 et seq.). A review of NHP records indicates that
two state listed species are known to occur within 1.0 mile of the Site. pinewoods shiner
(Lythrurus matutinus), and notched rainbow (Villosa constricta), both listed as Significantly
Rare, have been documented from the Neuse River above the confluence with Mingo
Creek.
The pinewoods shiner is small fish that prefers the midwater area in sandy runs and pools
in creek sand of small rivers. The lower reach of Mingo Creek may provide suitable habitat
for the pinewoods shiner. The notched rainbow is a mussel, that in Wake County, is
known in the Neuse River, Crabtree Creek, Little River and Middle Creek. Its favored
habitat is clean sand and gravel substrate in shallow waters of upland streams. Mingo
Creek may provide suitable habitat for the notched rainbow. No in stream surveys for
Pinewoods Shiner of the Notched Rainbow were undertaken in support of this document.
3.5 REGIONAL CORRIDORS, GREENWAYS, AND ADJACENT NATURAL AREAS
The Site represents a potentially significant regional recreational and wildlife corridor
providing connectivity to the Neuse River, city parks, and other natural areas (Figure 11).
The Site is located within the rapidly growing Knightdale area, and within the rapidly
developing upper Neuse River basin. As depicted in Figures 7 and 8, local forest corridors
39
¦
II?! ! ! i ! ! ! ! i i ! i i ! i ! ! ! i
m
n
p n
z

> ` ,
>

n

?
n

A

o
L
D 0;0
C
Mo??rn z
°D D
z?0 Z

n o r;
-?
v
>> ?om DG?O o
x
m g y ??cnv0
Z >o ?Dn
o D c D
DZsu O Oz (1)
?z
'
o
o N rn?fl.ccn
D m
D7
T er
m o
o ?'
° (n

i

1

11

t

are expected to become increasingly more isolated as upland development encroaches on
the Neuse River and Mingo Creek floodplains.
The City of Raleigh has recently purchased Anderson Point, as an anchor for the greater
Neuse River Regional Park System. Anderson Point Park is located on the west bank of
the Neuse, at the confluence of Crabtree Creek, and directly opposite the Mingo Creek Site
(Figure 11). This Regional River Park System will offer a variety of recreational
opportunities including river access, greenway connections, corridor preservation, and
wildlife habitat. As described in the Milburnie to Anderson Point Corridor Master Plan, land
surrounding the Park is needed to protect views from the park and to facilitate connections
to other city parks along both sides of the Neuse River.
The master plan also calls for the proposed Bypass bridge over the Neuse to feature a
pedestrian walkway connecting present and future greenways along the east side of the
Neuse and Mingo Creek. The Town of Knightdale has also proposed a Mingo Creek
Greenway to connect urban and residential areas with the Neuse. The Knightdale park
system and open space program currently includes a substantial segment of the Mingo
Creek floodplain upstream of the Site. Auxiliary wetland preservation and management
projects should be considered to conserve the remaining regional wildlife corridor along the
upper reaches of Mingo Creek.
3.6 ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AND PUBLIC INTEREST PROGRAM
An educational program can promote public interest and environmental education to
acquaint the public with the local natural environment. The proximity of Hodge Road
Elementary School to the Site can serve as a catalyst to promote regional conservation
planning in the upper Neuse River Basin.
The combination of wetlands and uplands, as well as the ecotonal boundaries between the
various plant communities, provide a unique view of the ecological relationship between
different species of plants and animals. The Site can provide education and research
opportunities within these unique plant communities that are quickly disappearing in the
region. Preservation of the Site along with long-term management will provide a
contiguous bioreserve and potentially valuable education and research opportunity abutting
the proposed Bypass. In order to assure preservation of a unique combination of
undisturbed natural communities, agencies should consider enhancement ratio credits for
preservation of the wetland/upland buffers.
Educational elements may include:
• Well-developed trails winding through the various ecological communities.
• Access to area greenway trails and the local schools.
• Boardwalks into and over the marsh community.
• Maps and illustrated graphics enclosed in glass-faced boxes.
• Free-standing, multi-sided kiosks.
• Free-standing, threedimensional display units.
41
1
Each of these display options will be designed for easy maintenance and periodic updating.
The educational components would be initiated through cooperative arrangements with
NCDOT, various municipalities, and appropriate educational organizations in order to
promote development of creative aspects of conservation education in the area.
r,

1

1

42

4.0 STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY
The purpose of this feasibility report is to provide a preliminary evaluation of stream and
wetland mitigation potential on Site. Mitigation potential is based heavily on the
professional judgement and visual assessments of hydrology, soils, vegetation, land use
restrictions,, and jurisdictional area status. From initial site assessments, two unnamed
tributaries to Mingo Creek were identified as suitable for stream and wetland mitigation.
Refer to Figure 4 for general site location (UT1 and UT2). UT1, identified as System 2 in
Section 2.3.1 (Figure 6), is a perennial stream located in the eastern portion of the Site.
UT2, identified as System 11 and 4 in Section 2.3.1 (Figure 6), contains both perennial
' and intermittent stream reaches. UT2 is located in the in the western portion of the Site
Additional topographic maps and low-level aerial photographs were obtained from Wake
County GIS. These graphics were utilized to identify primary hydrologic features affecting
the Site and relevant environmental features. Vegetative communities, wetlands, and
surface flow patterns identified on aerial photographs were verified in the field.
Field investigations were undertaken in July 2001. Preliminary characterization of streams
was undertaken by surveying two representative cross-sections along each stream
' channel. The cross-sections were compared to regional curves in an effort to determine
stable channel dimensions. The UT1 and UT2 stream restoration corridors were assessed
based on visual estimations of the floodplain. The corridors were depicted on aerial
' photography relative to topographic features, which affect ease of channel relocation
and/or repair.
A study area profile was developed which categorizes the various factors associated with
stream and wetland mitigation (soils, groundwater flow, overbank flow, vegetation,
jurisdictional wetlands).
4.1 UNNAMMED TRIBUTARY 1 (UT1)
G

1

4.1.1 Physiography and Land Use
The UT1 corridor contains a forested, linear reach supporting an entrenched channel, a
narrow floodplain bench, and an adjacent terrace. Herbaceous vegetation dominates the
narrow floodplain bench area. Mesic and Dry-mesic hardwoods dominate the adjacent
terrace and adjacent upland slopes (see Section 3.3). Elevational gradients extend from
approximately 175 feet NGVD in the Mingo Creek floodplain to approximately 190 feet
NGVD at a headcut within the upstream wetland (Figure 12).
For mitigation planning purposes, the stream corridor has been subdivided into three
primary physiographic landscape units for soil classification and stream restoration
planning: 1) valley escarpment (upland slopes), 2) abandoned floodplain terrace, and 3)
active floodplain bench. The primary variables utilized to segregate wetland landscape
units include land slope, groundwater flow characteristics, soil features, and the primary
hydrologic influence on historic wetland function.
43
r i r r r ?r r? r r r? ?r ?r ? i r? r
J
:* R
4
?. M

? Y
IV-
T " ?'-. j _ Cpl
N ? E i ? T F
rrv
VII
» 4
" + s ? tee.. ,. ?
zfp
all
I y `? -^ #? ? * • ea a '?. q E i a ?6 ?? k?
i'
# ?T k k,
-.IN
s:.

i

ILI
jjF; •?
1 ` a
n

C) c) b ? q
n a ? ? v n
o
W _ ?? ? °D D?z ? Z A ??
c? ?' T Crn?r =m DG?O C7 "G C/
c _
N m o z Oz cnO?? Q met
N ? zOD z:-<
0 Cl) No Z? D ZR1
0 O
A- I
I?mw

1
1

L
1

UT1 originates offsite, east of Hodge Road. Two first order streams converge directly east
of Hodge road before passing through a culvert and entering the on-site wetland. One of
the off-site tributaries originates from an agricultural pond and flows north for
approximately 1000 feet between residential homes and an agriculture field before the
confluence with second tributary (see Figure 3). The second off-site branch appears to
originate from headwater seepage slopes above a second agricultural pond. The stream
channel below the pond is obscured due to beaver impacts. A beaver dam is located
directly above the culvert invert under Hodge Road.
Off-site, upstream land use consists of low-density residential areas and agricultural uses
including livestock grazing, hay, and crop production. Most of this area has been
deforested in support of these land uses. Several agricultural roads cross the tributary,
one across the dam to the first pond and a second fords the channel immediately upstream
of the second pond.
On-site land use includes primarily undeveloped property occupied by dry-mesic hardwood
forest on slopes and ridges, changing to predominantly mesic mixed hardwoods along the
stream bottom. A power line right-of-way intersects UT1 and the associated wetland
(System 1). Vegetation within the right-of-way is mechanically maintained and
subsequently is dominated by herbaceous and shrubby vegetation.
Past land use practices appear to have impacted corridor soil characteristics. Early
agricultural history in the region followed the rapid and near complete removal of forest
covers. Land clearing paved the way for crop and livestock use. In concert with land
clearing activities, large streams and tributaries were straightened and dredged to
ameliorate flooding, drain wet areas, and increase usable agricultural area.
Due to land clearing and lack of erosion control measures, massive amounts of surficial
topsoil were eroded and deposited within the larger stream valleys. With the
implementation of erosion control practices and the conversion of large tracts of previous
crop and pastures into forest, sedimentation rates decreased dramatically. With the
decease in sediment loads, stream channels incised into the valley floor with subsequent
abandonment of adjacent floodplains. These described events were a common occurrence
throughout the Piedmont physiographic province.
The past impoundment of Mingo Creek induced heavy sedimentation behind the dam,
creating a raised, level plain. Upon breaching of the dam, a braided stream system likely
developed within the unconsolidated sediments. Ensuing beaver activity within the Mingo
Creek corridor resulted in extensive ponding of the surrounding floodplain and low terraces,
creation of a multi-threaded channel, and mortality to adjacent bottomland and upland tree
communities.
4.1.2 Soils
UT1 occurs along a landscape gradient characterized as the Appling-Louisburg-Wedowee
catena. The valley escarpment (groundwater slopes) consists of gently to moderately
sloping, somewhat excessively drained soils derived from granite, gneiss, and schist (SCS
1970). This physiographic area typically exhibits lateral groundwater flow and discharge
' toward the low-lying floodplain and stream channel. Soil series on these slopes include
45
n
u
' Appling, Louisburg, and Wake. The valley floor portions of the corridor are dominated by
nearly level, poorly drained soils associated with Wehadkee and Bibb soils. These soils
' form in loamy alluvium with the Wehadkee having finer texture and, consequently, less
infiltration. Surface runoff is slow to ponded and the seasonal high water table is at the
surface
Alluvial deposition was noted within a narrow flooplain bench along portions of the stream
below the wetland, and in adjacent terraces extending to the Mingo Creek Floodplain. The
' terrace areas will be targeted for stream restoration.
4.1.3 Vegetation
' Distribution and composition of plant communities reflect landscape-level variations in
topography, soils, hydrology, and past or present land use practices. Three communities
identified within the area include early sucessional land, freshwater marsh, and mesic
mixed hardwood forest. See Plant Communities (Section 3.1) (Figure 10) for detailed
descriptions.
4.1.4 Hydrology
The corridor is situated in a hydrophysiographic region considered characteristic of the
Piedmont physiographic province, which extends throughout north-central portions of
' North Carolina. This region is characterized by moderate rainfall and moderately steep
valley walls. In central Wake County, precipitation averages approximately 47 inches per
year with rainfall amounts occurring evenly throughout the year.
' Corridor hydrologic inputs are largely the result of surface water flows and precipitation
and to a lesser extent, groundwater seepage. Overbank flooding of UT1 is not likely as the
' stream is entrenched and upstream agricultural and beaver impoundments dampen
hydrologic pulses during storm events. The stream has long since abandoned it historic
floodplain. The abandoned floodplain terrace directly below the upstream headcut,
' currently contains no wetlands.
The UT1 watershed encompasses approximately 150 acres (0.23 square mile). Based on
stream delineations, approximately 1200 linear feet of perennial stream channel has been
identified for restoration. The abandoned floodplain averages approximately 120 feet in
width and, although down-valley slope (0.014 based on USGS quadrangles) is relatively
' steep, the cross-valley slope is relatively flat. Groundwater discharge from adjacent slopes
rapidly infiltrates the floodplain terrace, toward the tributary channel. Once groundwater
reaches the tributary channel, steep down valley slopes rapidly transport surface water to
' the Mingo Creek floodplain.
Headcut migration in the upper reaches of UT1 undoubtedly results in a lowering of the
' adjacent groundwater table and the functional loss of wetland hydrology adjacent to the
stream. The groundwater gradient is expected to extend from near surface saturation
within outer fringes of the floodplain to approximately 6 feet below the land surface
immediately adjacent to the entrenched reach. Based on the preliminary assessment,
restoration of groundwater-induced wetland hydrology may be achievable near entrenched
reaches of the tributary. Although groundwater restoration is not likely to produce

46
?
1
significant wetland acreage, from an ecological perspective, elevated groundwater is an
important component of on-site rehabilitation.
Based on visual assessments, overbank flooding from Mingo Creek is expected at a less
than 1-year return interval. Hydrologic inputs from Mingo Creek are not expected to be
significant in a water budget analysis; however, further studies, including a flood frequency
analysis, may be necessary to quantify flood-flow patterns in Mingo Creek.
4.1.5 Stream Discharge
The drainage area for the UT1 measures approximately 0.23 square mile in size. This
drainage area suggests a tributary that is either marginally perennial or intermittent stream.
' However, stream data measurements and visual observations suggest that the existing
channel exhibits characteristics of a perennial stream. Additional studies will be required
to accurately determine the stream's hydrologic status.
Discharge estimates for stream restoration utilize an assumed definition of "bankfull" and
the return interval associated with the bankfull discharge. For this study, the bankfull
channel is defined as the channel dimensions designed to support the "channel forming" or
"dominant" discharge (Gordon et a/. 1992). Flow resistance reaches a minimum at
bankfull stage as excess discharge is distributed within flood prone areas. Research
' indicates that a stable stream channel may support a return interval for bankfull discharge,
or channel-forming discharge, between 1 to 2 years (Gordon et a/. 1992, Dunne and
Leopold 1978). The methods of Rosgen (1996) indicate calibration of bankfull dimensions
' based on a potential bankfull return interval of between 1.3 and 1.7 years for rural
conditions.
A number of methods have been utilized to estimate bankfull discharge relative to drainage
areas in the Piedmont Province, including regional curves and available research (Nunnally
and Keller 1979, Harman et. a/. 1999). Based on available data, bankfull discharge for a
rural, 0.3 square mile watershed averages approximately 22 CFS (Harman et. a/. 1999). A
bankfull discharge of less than 10 CFS is not likely to support a perennial stream channel.

?I

L
The cross-sectional area of the tributary was measured based on field indicators to predict
bankfull discharge. The average stable, bankfull cross-sectional area in the downstream
reach of UT1 was estimated at 12 square feet, suggesting a bankfull discharge of
approximately 36 CFS. This would indicate that the tributary is 1) discharging a greater
amount of water than predicted by regional curves, 2) storing water in agricultural and
beaver impoundments and releasing water in permanent flow patterns, rather than pulses
associated with rainstorms, and/or 3) impacted by greater than usual sediment imputs,
resulting in poor field indicators of bankfull cross-sectional area. Further studies, including
stream gauge data, may be necessary to determine the effects of the impoundments on
tributary morphology and discharge.
4.1.6 Channel Dimension
Stream geometry and substrate data have been evaluated based on a classification utilizing
fluvial geomorphic principles (Rosgen 1996). This classification stratifies streams into
comparable groups based on pattern, dimension, profile, and substrate characteristics.
47

Primary components of the classification include degree of entrenchment, width/depth
ratio, sinuosity, channel slope, and stream substrate composition.
Regional curves estimate a stable bankfull cross-sectional area of approximately 9 square
feet for UT1, suggesting the presence of an intermittent stream channel. Based on
observations indicating that the system supports a perennial stream, a stable bankfull
cross-sectional area of approximately 9 square feet has been assumed for use in this
preliminary assessment of mitigation potential. Stream flow data will be required to
establish an accurate estimate of bankfull cross-sectional area to be used in further
studies.
' Existing channel dimensions were measured by placement of cross-sections along two
reaches of UT1 (one in the lower reaches not impacted by headcuts and one in an area
entrenched by headcut migration). The channel cross-sectional area measures
approximately 9 square feet in areas not entrenched by headcut and 40 square feet in the
headcut reach.
The reach of the channel impacted by headcutting contains an entrenched stream that
does not support functioning floodplains. The flood prone area is expected to average 9
feet in width with an entrenchment ratio' ranging from 1.0 to 1.4. The channel is actively
' down-cutting and widening. Based on channel dimension estimates, headcut reaches
currently exhibit morphology and dimensions of a G-type (gully) stream channel. Even with
top of bank vegetation, the roots do not extend far enough to reduce erosion, the banks
' are expected to continue eroding until a stable floodplain is established at the lower
elevation.
u

P

11

As the stream enters Mingo Creek floodplain the slope decreases. Currently, this lower
reach appears to support an active floodplain with a flood,prone area averaging
approximately 130 feet in width and an entrenchment ratio averaging 18. This reach
currently exhibits morphology and dimensions of an E/C-type (sinuous) stream channel.
High sediment supply is common for C-type streams in alluvial fans. These streams are
susceptible to shifts in both lateral and vertical stability, caused by disturbance and
changes in flow and sediment regimes upstream.
4.1.7 Channel Plan Form and Substrate
On-site upstream reaches of UT1 did not exhibit characteristics of a stable stream channel,
and the historic nature of the tributary was difficult to ascertain. Under existing
conditions, the channel has been classified as a G5-type (gully) stream in headcut reaches
and E/C5-type (sinuous) stream in the lowest reaches. Current sinuosity (channel
length/valley length) measures approximately 1.1, indicating a relatively steep (0.013
based on USGS quadrangles) and slightly sinuous channel. The channel substrate is
dominated by sands and clays actively eroding from the stream banks, with riffle and pool,
and point bar features developing in portions of the channel.
1 Entrenchment ratio = width of the flood prone area (Wfpa) / width of the bankfull channel (Wbkf). The width of the
flood prone area is defined as the width of the area under the elevation equal to two times the bankfull maximum
depth (D,a,).
48

I
Historically, the floodplain is expected to have supported an E-type (highly sinuous) and/or
C-type (moderately sinuous) stream channel. E-type streams are characterized as slightly
entrenched, low-slope streams with low width/depth ratios (< 12). E-type streams
generally exhibit a sequence of riffles and pools associated with a meandering channel.
Although E-type streams are highly stable, they are sensitive to disturbance and may
convert to other stream types.
C-type streams are characterized as sinuous, low relief channels in well developed
floodplains carved through alluvial sediments. The channels are generally slightly
entrenched, low- to moderate-slope streams with moderate width/depth ratios (>12). C-
type streams exhibit a sequence of riffles and pools, and generally have characteristic point
bars within the active channel. C-type streams are generally stable; however, stability is
dependent upon the natural stability of the stream banks. . The channels may be
' significantly altered and destabilized with changes in bank stability or when watershed
conditions deteriorate.
Currently, the UT1 corridor encompasses approximately 900 linear feet of entrenched G-
type (gully) stream channel and approximately 300 linear feet of degraded E/C-type
(sinuous) stream channel. Retrofitting the G-type channel and a portion of the degraded
E/C-type channel with a stable, sinuous E-type or C-type channel may occur on new
location adjacent to the existing channel. The reconstructed and enhanced channel is
expected to support stable banks which dissipate energy and reduce erosive forces in the
near-bank region. Reintroduction and stabilization of E- and C-type stream channels to on-
site floodplains may restore approximately 1500 linear feet of stream channel.
4.1.8 Jurisdictional Wetlands
Jurisdictional wetlands are defined by the presence of three criteria: hydrophytic
vegetation, hydric soils, and evidence of wetland hydrology during the growing season
(DOA 1987). UT1 corridor wetlands found above the stream headcut are characterized as
a beaver impacted freshwater marsh system. The wetland is located primarily within the
power line right-of-way. The vegetation within this portion of the wetland is therefore
mechanically maintained, supporting the existing freshwater marsh
A recent delineation of adjacent upstream wetlands (System 1) reports 1.2 acres of the
floodplain is currently underlain by hydric soils. No wetlands were observed below the
headcut in the abandoned floodplain terrace. These areas may have at one time supported
forested seepage slope wetlands. Headcut migration along the current stream has
effectively lowered the adjacent groundwater table within the floodplain terrace, potentially
degrading areas where soil saturation has fallen below jurisdictional thresholds. Species
turnover from mesic to hydrophytic vegetation may occur in these low-lying or seepage-
induced wetland areas.
The headcut at the top of UT1 is actively working its way through the upstream wetland.
This condition has already degraded hydrology within adjacent wetland areas. If this
condition continues, the groundwater table throughout the wetland will subside in
response to the entrenched stream. In addition, the resulting entrenched stream will
i abandon its former floodplain and overbank flooding will be reduced significantly
1 49

Restoration of the stream will allow the floodplain to perform wetland functions such as
floodflow suppression, nutrient cycling, pollutant removal, and provide habitat for native
species. Approximately 1.2 acre will be enhanced or preserved through the cessation or
removal of the upstream headcut, and the potential for minimal wetland creation within the
I former floodplain.
4.2 UNNAMMED TRIBUTARY 2 (UT2)
4.2.1 Physiography and Land Use
The UT2 corridor contains a forested linear reach supporting an entrenched channel and a
narrow adjacent terrace. UT2 is completely contained within the Site (Figure 13). Mesic
mixed hardwood forest vegetation dominates the narrow terrace area and the adjacent
uplands (Figure 10). A sewer line right-of-way crosses the lower stream reach. Elevational
gradients extend from approximately 185 feet NGVD in the Mingo Creek floodplain to
approximately 240 feet NGVD at the headcut below the headwater wetland. The stream
contains three major headcuts 1) below the sewer easement; 2) at the transition point
between perennial and intermittent stream (Systems 11 and 14), located near System 11;
3) and just below the headwater wetland (System 15) (see Figure 13).
r For mitigation planning purposes, the corridor has been subdivided into three primary
physiographic landscape units for soil classification and stream restoration planning: 1)
valley escarpment (upland slopes), 2) abandoned floodplain (elevated terrace), and 3)
active floodplain bench. The primary variables utilized to segregate wetland landscape
units comprise land slope, groundwater flow characteristics, soil features, and the primary
hydrologic influence on historic wetland function.
Land use includes primarily undeveloped property occupied dry- and mesic-mixed oak-
hickory on slopes and ridges, changing to predominantly mesic hardwoods along the
stream bottom. Past land use practices appear to have impacted corridor soil
characteristics. Early agricultural history in the region followed the rapid and near
complete removal of forest covers. Land clearing paved the way for crop and livestock
use. In concert with land-clearing activities, large streams and tributaries were
straightened and dredged to ameliorate flooding, drain wet areas, and increase usable
agricultural acreage.
Due to the land clearing and lack of erosion control measures, massive amounts of surficial
topsoil were eroded and deposited within the larger stream valleys. With the
implementation of erosion control practices and the conversion of large tracts of previous
crop and pastures into forest, sediment rates decreased dramatically. The current age class
of adjacent forest cover is estimated at 30-40 years. With the decease in sediment loads,
stream channels incised into the valley floor with subsequent abandonment of adjacent
floodplains. These described events were a common occurrence throughout the Piedmont
physiographic province.
r
1 50

! ?to-
r'{
x i
--
7
?io
' ,.* ? ? > yif?yy ? ice" ?'tt :?.?' -i•_. ,AT ?`. ?' t
W.t
•? 'art- t ? ? I ?.? ' ? • r ! ? .4 t fi • P ? we k /; .
44
. WA
' filar n s 79 : rra? `• Y . • 'MMt p S`

{r
opt
d -

' ?'. ? a ?j L? ?" ? a ? -we, . A + ?r •?. 14 ,#•? ,? . 14 gil?? T`? '4''"XR"`?rR ?. ,??

?'. .?'? `?? • ? ' ?' . -' # ' 4 '? ? • ? °: ? L- : ? -? - ?. .mot
411
OF f' ,tr' lR`T ! ?i ., 1
LA
zA$
4, 4i'
AW C/) rgt { ` ?V .- A,• ,,?" '?{' ? h ,r ? TAD ' akS; ?'? -0 t_. -? i
10
lip,
IM: CM/)
D m m
14,

j,
r *4
.' .rr . ?' . 3-' ' -' Wit. ?? y''?F' . '''i?? ,_`? .

5n. _ ? vy ?1
' Dm cn ?O z z
O? ?
Z n
- O O
Zm
n o
m?
Z ?-
no
cU)
x m
m
mm m
D?
m? O
T
m --j
r
m
.. D O Z D
(
) m 7
.Z z
p m M U

A
? Z CI) Z
a
l ? I,

Q
Z
F$ 4 ?

• s VA
v
?f

m
? p
a o
v
_?
c
M
?Cr

0 .-.vim Z
oD D
z?
z C) Z -r
G) C
o -iz>> >o
(n cm Z { N Z
o

v Cl)

0
O
r
N
X
Z
m
D T

o ?v
O

yp { : r fry - ti yE "
t . 3 ¢ S
•L r a+x a- a'~ r a.{ a } r t`,

4.2.2 Soils
UT2 occurs along a landscape gradient characterized as the Appling-Louisburg-Wedowee
catena. The valley escarpment (groundwater slopes) consist of gently to moderately
sloping, somewhat excessively drained soils derived from granite, gneiss, and schist (SCS
1970). This physiographic area typically exhibits lateral groundwater flow and discharge
toward the low-lying floodplain and stream channel. Soil series on these slopes include
Appling, Louisburg, and Wake. The valley floor portions of the corridor are dominated by
nearly level, poorly drained soils associated with Worsham soils. The Worsham series
consists of nearly level and gently sloping, deep, poorly drained soils. Worsham soils
formed under forests from translocated material and weathered bedrock. Infiltration is
good, permeability is moderately slow, and surface runoff is slow to ponded. The depth to
bedrock ranges from 5 to 15 feet and the seasonal high water table is at the surface.
4.2.3 Vegetation
Distribution and composition of plant communities reflect landscape-level variations in
topography, soils, hydrology, and past or present land use practices. Two plant
communities, Piedmont bottomland hardwood and mesic-mixed hardwood forests, were
identified adjacent to the channel and floodplain. See Plant Communities (Section 3.1) for
detailed description.
1 4.2.4 Hydrology
UT1 hydrologic inputs are largely the result of groundwater seepage and, to a lesser
extent, surface water flows and precipitation. Overbank flooding of UT2 is not likely as
the stream is entrenched along most of its reach. The stream has long since abandoned it
historic floodplain and currently contains few adjacent wetlands. Currently, adjacent
wetlands include two headwater seepage wetlands and several small seepage slope
wetlands in the lower stream reach.
The total drainage area of the UT2 encompasses approximately 106 acres (0.16 square
mile). Based on recent stream delineations, approximately 2500 linear feet of perennial
and "important" intermittent stream channel has been identified for restoration. The
abandoned floodplain averages approximately 30 feet in width and a moderately steep
valley slope of approximately 0.017 (based on USGS quadrangles). Groundwater
discharge from adjacent slopes rapidly infiltrates the floodplain terrace, towards the
tributary channel. Once groundwater reaches the tributary channel, the over-steepened
and straightened channel, rapidly transports surface waters to the Mingo Creek floodplain.
Headcut migration throughout the upper reaches of UT2 has undoubtedly resulted in a
lowering of the adjacent groundwater table and the functional loss of wetland hydrology
adjacent to the stream. The groundwater gradient is expected to extend several feet
below the surface within outer fringes of the floodplain to approximately 5 feet below the
land surface immediately adjacent to the entrenched stream. Based on the preliminary
assessment, restoration of groundwater-induced wetland hydrology may be achievable
near entrenched reaches of the tributary. Although groundwater restoration is not likely to
produce significant wetland acreage, from an ecological perspective, elevated groundwater
is an important component of on-site rehabilitation.

1 52

Based on visual assessments, overbank flooding from Mingo Creek is expected at a less
than 1-year return interval. Hydrologic inputs from Mingo Creek are not expected to
impact the water budget analysis.
4.2.5 Stream Discharge
The drainage area for UT2 measures approximately 0.16 square mile in size. This drainage
area suggests that UT2 represents a marginally perennial or intermittent stream. Stream
data measurements and visual observations suggest that the part of the existing channel
exhibits characteristics of a perennial stream, with the remaining portion, including
approximately 1500 linear feet, considered an "important" intermittent stream. Additional
studies will be required to accurately determine the streams hydrologic status.
Based on available data, bankfull discharge (see 4.1.5 for definitions) for a rural, 0.16
square mile watershed averages approximately 13 CFS (Harman et a/. 1999). This number
is based on discharge at the lower reach of the watershed. Discharge for upper reach
sections would be expected to yield smaller numbers. A bankfull discharge of less than 10
US is not likely to support a perennial stream channel.
The cross-sectional area of the tributary was measured based on field indicators to predict
bankfull discharge. The average stable, bankfull cross-sectional area in the downstream
reach of UT2 was estimated at 5.5 square feet, suggesting a bankfull discharge of
approximately 11 CFS. This would indicate that the tributary is discharging a similar
amount of water as predicted by regional curves.
4.2.6 Channel Dimension
Stream geometry and substrate data have been evaluated based on a classification utilizing
fluvial geomorphic principles (Rosgen 1996). This classification stratifies streams into
comparable groups based on pattern, dimension, profile, and substrate characteristics.
Primary components of the classification include degree of entrenchment, width/depth
ratio, sinuosity, channel slope, and stream substrate composition.
Regional curves estimate a stable bankfull cross-sectional area of approximately 6 square
feet for UT2, suggesting the presence of an intermittent stream channel. Based on
observations indicating that the system supports both a perennial and intermittent stream
channel. A stable bankfull cross-sectional area of approximately 6 square feet has been
assumed for use in this preliminary assessment of mitigation potential. Stream flow data
will be required to establish an accurate estimate of bankfull cross-sectional area to be
used in further studies.
Existing channel dimensions were measured by placement of cross-sections along two
reaches of UT2 (one in the lower reaches not impacted by headcuts and one in an area
entrenched by headcut migration). The channel cross-sectional area measures
approximately 5.5 square feet in areas not entrenched by headcut and 25 square feet in
the headcut reach.
The reach of the channel impacted by headcutting contains an entrenched stream that
does not support functioning floodplains. The flood-prone area is expected to average 8
feet in width with an entrenchment ratio ranging from 1.0 to 1.4. The channel is actively
53
11
down-cutting and widening. Based on channel dimension estimates, headcut reaches
currently exhibit morphology and dimensions of a G-type (gully) stream channel. Even with
top-of-bank vegetation, the roots do not extend far enough to reduce erosion, the banks
are expected to continue eroding until a stable floodplain is established at the lower
elevation.
As the stream enters Mingo Creek floodplain the slope decreases. Currently, the lower
reach appears to support an active floodplain with a flood prone area averaging
approximately 80 feet in width and an entrenchment ratio averaging 50. This reach
currently exhibits morphology and dimensions of an E/C-type (sinuous) stream channel.
High sediment supply is common for C-type streams in alluvial fans. These streams are
susceptible to shifts in both lateral and vertical stability, caused by disturbance and
changes in flow and sediment regimes upstream.
4.2.7 Channel Plan Form and Substrate
Upstream reaches of UT2 did not exhibit characteristics of a stable stream channel and the
historic nature of the tributary was difficult to ascertain. Under existing conditions, the
channel has been classified as a G5-type (gully) stream in headcut reaches and E/C5-type
(sinuous) stream in the lowest reaches. Current sinuosity (channel length/valley length)
measures approximately 1.2, indicating a moderately steep channel slope (0.014 based on
' USGS quadrangles) and slightly sinuous channel. The channel substrate is dominated by
sands and clays actively eroding from the stream banks, with riffle and pool, and point bar
features developing in portions of the channel.

i?
r
t
1

Historically, the floodplain is expected to have supported an E-type (highly sinuous) and/or
C-type (moderately sinuous) stream channel. E-type streams are characterized as slightly
entrenched, low-slope streams with low width/depth ratios (<12). E-type streams
generally exhibit a sequence of riffles and pools associated with a meandering channel.
Although E-type streams are highly stable, they are sensitive to disturbance and may
convert to other stream types.
C-type streams are characterized as sinuous, low relief channels in well developed
floodplains carved through alluvial sediments. The channels are generally slightly
entrenched, low to moderate-slope streams with moderate width/depth ratios (>12). C-
type streams exhibit a sequence of riffles and pools, and generally have characteristic point
bars within the active channel. C-type streams are generally stable; however, stability is
dependent upon the natural stability of the stream banks. The channels may be
significantly altered and destabilized with changes in bank stability or when watershed
conditions deteriorate.
Along its total length, UT2 includes approximately 1500 linear feet of entrenched G-type
(gully) intermittent stream channel, approximately 900 linear feet of entrenched G-type
(gully) perennial channel, and approximately 700 feet of relatively stable E/C-type (sinuous)
stream channel. Retrofitting the G-type channel and a portion of the degraded E/C type
channel with a stable, sinuous E-type or C-type channel on new location is not feasible
because of existing floodplain constraints. Stream restoration options are expected to
include primarily in-place, in-stream measures due to the confined floodplain.
54

1

1

t
t

J

The main objective of stream enhancement is to raise the water surface to within
approximately 1.5 feet of the floodplain surface and to reduce channel size to
approximately 6 square feet. Primary activities designed to achieve these objectives may
include 1) installation of cross-vane weirs, 2) creation of a bankfull bench, and 3) hay bale
bank stabilization revetments, 4) and headwater floodplain berms. In-stream structures
and stabilization of existing channels may enhance approximately 2400 linear feet of
stream channel.
4.2.8 Jurisdictional Wetlands
Wetlands found above the headcut are characterized as forested headwater seeps (low
elevation seeps). A recent delineation of adjacent upstream wetlands reports
approximately 0.25 acres of forested headwater wetlands in the corridor. No wetlands
were observed in the abandoned floodplain terrace, along the entrenched channel. The
floodplain terrace may have at one time supported forested seepage slope wetlands.
Headcut migration along the current stream has effectively lowered the adjacent
groundwater table within the floodplain terrace, potentially degrading areas where soil
saturation has fallen below jurisdictional thresholds. Species turnover from mesic to
hydrophytic vegetation may occur in these low-lying or seepage-induced wetland areas.
Similarly to UT1, the headcut at the top of UT2 is actively working its way through the
upstream wetland. This condition has already affected hydrology within adjacent wetland
areas. If this condition continues, the groundwater table throughout the wetland will
subside in response to the entrenched stream. Opportunities may exist for enlarging the
existing headwater wetland to replace areas proposed to be impacted by the construction
of the Bypass. Through the use of low-slung, extended weirs or berms across the
floodplain, the water table can be manipulated to restore and induce hydrology to former
floodplain areas.
Restoration of the stream will allow the floodplain to perform functions such as floodflow
suppression, nutrient cycling, pollutant removal, and provide habitat for native species.
Approximately 0.25 acre will be enhanced or preserved through the cessation or removal
of the upstream headcut, and the potential for minimal wetland creation within the former
floodplain.
4.3 MITIGATION SUITABILITY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.3.1 Mitigation for UT1
Stream restoration activities may include 1) channel reconfiguration/construction, 2) bank
stabilization (plantings), 3) channel backfilling, and 4) floodplain depression construction
(Figure 12). Reconstructing the channel on a new location, in place of the highly eroded,
downcut channel will 1) reduce sediment and nutrient loading, 2) increase the frequency of
pools and associated micro-habitat for benthic micro and macro invertebrates, and 3)
provide storm water energy dissipation. Increased sinuosity within approximately 1200
feet of reconfigured channel may increase linear footage of restoration and provide the Site
with a stable, self-sustaining reach.
Incorporation of wetland restoration areas in conjunction with stream activities may include
the construction of elliptical, or oval depressional areas adjacent to the abandoned primary
55

tributary channel to provide a wetland functional aspect to the floodplain. Wetland
restoration areas will provide 1) nutrient and sediment/toxicant removal from floodwaters,
2) groundwater recharge in the adjacent floodplain, 3) general habitat diversity, and 4)
additional aquatic habitat. Wetland restoration activities may include excavating shallow
depressions, backfilling with surface soils and vegetative matter, construction of an
embankment adjacent to the tributary, soil surface scarification, floodplain reforestation.
Incorporation of wetland areas may result in the restoration/creation approximately 0.02
acre of jurisdictional wetland. Additional benefit from stream restoration will be the
cessation of headcutting and the subsequent functional loss of the upstream wetland
system. Therefore, approximately 1.2 acres of jurisdictional wetland will be
restored/enhanced.
( 4.3.2 Mitigation for UT2
Stream restoration activities may include 1) installation of cross-vane weirs; 2) excavating
a bankfull bench; and 3) hay bale bank stabilization revetments (Figure 13). Retrofitting the
highly eroded channels to a stable channel configuration will 1) reduce sediment and
nutrient loading, 2) increase the frequency of pools and associated micro-habitat for
benthic micro and macro invertebrates, and 3) provide stormwater energy dissipation. In-
stream structures and stabilization of existing channels may enhance approximately 2400
linear feet of stream channel.
Incorporation of wetland restoration areas in conjunction with stream activities may include
the construction of elliptical, or oval depressional areas adjacent to the abandoned primary
tributary channel to provide a wetland functional aspect to the floodplain. Incorporation of
wetland areas may result in the restoration/creation approximately 0.02 acre of
jurisdictional wetland. Additional benefit from stream restoration will be the cessation of
headcutting and the subsequent functional loss of two upstream wetland systems.
Approximately 0.3 acre of jurisdictional wetland will be restored/enhanced by restoration
activities.

1

1 56

5.0 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION
?i This Mingo Creek Restoration and Conservation Management Plan utilizes an ecosystem
approach to wetland preservation and enhancement, thereby maintaining the array of
habitat opportunities and physical properties historically associated with wetlands including
the adjoining upland buffer matrix. In order to justify allocation of resources toward
preservation of the upland buffer matrix within the Site, appropriate mitigation weight was
determined for upland preservation and management activities. The ecosystem concept
and associated lift associated with upland buffers is particularly relevant to this project
because of the location, extent, and function of the upland buffer matrix in a highly
developing watershed. The evaluation looks particularly at wetland functions that will
change due to potential on-site development should the Site not be preserved. Under
similar conditions, upland buffers have been shown to contribute significantly to wetland
functional enhancement. Therefore, a substantial lift in mitigation credits should be
afforded this Site.
To evaluate the functional value of upland buffers, three strategies have been investigated
1) a literature review of relevant research documenting the value of integrating upland
buffers within wetland systems, 2) the use of a conceptual Hydrogeomorphic Modeling
(HGM), and 3) the use of the Wetland Rapid Assessment Proceedure (WRAP) parameters
specifically applied to this project.
5.1 SUPPORTING RESEARCH
Many of the historical functions performed by upland forest and wetland forest habitat
complexes in the region have been modified by extensive anthropogenic activities,
including farming, urban development, and forestry activities. Wetland buffers and
wetland/upland ecotones are important in reducing sediment and nutrient inputs into local
streams and rivers. In these areas, the scarcity of terrestrial environments may be a
primary factor affecting regional diversity within riparian and wetland systems (Adamus
and Stockwell 1983). The hydrodynamic and biogeochemical functions of wetlands are
directly dependent upon surface and subsurface flow of water from surrounding uplands
I (Richardson 1994, Peterjohn and Correll 1984). In addition, biological functions of
wetlands are influenced by the size and condition of abutting upland communities and of
the upland/wetland ecotone (Brinson et a/. 1981, Brown et aL 1990). The physical and
biological functions of wetlands are invariably affected by land use practices that are both
immediately adjacent and further upstream (up-slope) of wetland ecosystem.
A wetlands ability to stabilize sediment inputs is related to the position of the wetland
relative to uplands, incoming erosive forces, and erodibility of uplands being protected
(Adamus et a/. 1991). Sediment/toxicant/nutrient entry is related to the acreage of cleared
land and soil management measures in uplands immediately adjacent to the wetland (Karr
and Schlosser 1978, Cooper et a/. 1986, Peterjohn and Correll 1984). Considerable
research exists concerning the impacts of elevated sediment and nutrient inputs on
wetland biological functions (Jurik et a/. 1994, Wang et a/. 1994, DEM 1991).
Terrestrial soils, because of their generally higher cation concentrations, are probably more
efficient than wetland soils in removing and retaining phosphorous and nitrogen
57

(Richardson 1985, Jordan et a/. 1986, Ehrenfeld 1987). Therefore, inclusion of upland
buffers may attenuate nutrient inputs and enhance the ability of wetland ecosystems to
sequester and assimilate elements, nutrients, and compounds.
Undeveloped uplands may enhance recharge into adjacent wetlands. Abutting
undeveloped uplands are usually more important than wetlands for groundwater recharge,
groundwater flow rates, and wetland storage capacity (Adamus et a/. 1991). In addition,
undeveloped uplands occasionally have greater flood storage value (greater recharge and
1 less runoff) than adjacent wetlands. Restored wetland buffers also dissipate floodwaters
by frictional resistance and evapotranspiration to desynchronize runoff into wetland
corridors (Young and Klawitter 1968, Chamberlain 1982, Schwan 1985). Subsequently,
' reductions in turbidity may be realized due to increased percolation of runoff into the
underlying sediment of upland buffers (Adamus et a/. 1991).
Criteria for determining adequate buffer size should be based, in part, on the quality of the
wetland and the intensity of adjacent development (Castelle et a/. 1992). The
wetland/upland edge is among the most diverse and productive environments for wildlife
(Brinson et a/. 1981). Based on current research, the proximity and position of upland
habitat influences the value of wetlands for wildlife guilds. In east central Florida, a buffer
zone of 550 feet in width is recommended for flatwood/hammock/hardwood swamp
I wetland associations to protect habitat for wetland dependent species.
Edge effects have been shown to negatively affect native wildlife guilds within 300 feet of
forest boundaries (Brown et a/. 1991, Harris 1984). Many forms of wildlife which utilize
wetland habitat, including neotropical migrant birds, are characterized as forest-interior or
area-sensitive species. Examples include the Acadian flycatcher, prothonotary warbler,
northern parula, and wood thrush (Keller et a/. 1993). Unfragmented wetland forests and
upland forest buffers provide better protection from predators and brood parasites and
offer different food sources than fragmented wetland systems (Whitcomb et a/. 1976).
( Inclusion of uplands within mitigation land will inhibit impacts to wetlands by man-made
disturbances such as noise, visual barriers, dust, or development. Man-made disturbances
' diminish the quality of available cover for wetland-oriented species, including green-backed
heron (Kaiser and Fritzell 1984), ducks, geese, egrets (Burger 1981), bald eagle (Fraser et
a/. 1985), and breeding waterfowl (Korschgen et a/. 1985).
Man-induced disturbances on adjacent uplands affect physical as well as biological wetland
functions. A 50 percent to 99 percent decrease in the deposition of fine sandy
construction sediment in a wetland has been documented by establishing a 150-foot
wetland buffer between construction activities and the wetland (Brown et a/. 1990).
Protected wetland buffers will concurrently inhibit man-induced physical wetland
disturbances and limit encroachment on wetland habitat requirements for characteristic
interior wildlife guilds.
The above-referenced literature represents a limited summary of research, which pertains
to the influences of wetland buffers and the wetland/upland ecotone on wetland
functioning. Data suggests that upland forest restoration areas should be imbedded in or
1 58

1

abutting wetland systems and should extend up to 550 feet from the wetland/waters
edge.
5.2 FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
Research and functional assessment technology indicate that inclusion of appropriate
upland restoration sites within wetland mitigation plans will enhance net physical and
biological functions of restored wetlands to the extent that mitigation lift may be applied to
wetland credits. The wetland/upland ecotone may allow the wetland system to support a
greater distribution and abundance of native wetland species. Consequently, the net
relative increase in a wetlands ability to perform these functions as a result of
buffer/ecotone establishment should help determine the mitigation ratio or percent of total
credit granted for wetland mitigation.
Two methods were used for measuring functional gains from wetland restoration.
Hydrogeomorphic Methodology (HGM) and Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure (WRAP)
assessment methodology have been developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
specifically for this purpose.
' 5.2.1 Hydrogeomorphic Methodology (HGM)
Methodology
HGM models currently have been tested for numerous wetland classes. The HGM
approach assumes that the hydrology and geomorphic setting of a wetland define a
wetland class. Wetland class definitions dictate the types of functions a particular wetland
can perform.
HGM methods are. applied to each wetland class through the identification of reference
wetlands with similar characteristics located in the same physiographic region or
subregion. Reference wetlands define the target for functional performance of their
representative wetland class and represent the variability in functional performance for that
class in a region. Reference wetlands are required to be relatively undisturbed and typical
of the regional land use patterns. Reference wetlands allow for the interpretation of
functional performance relative to maximum sustainable condition and/or attainable
condition for a wetland site.
1 Because functional assessment methodology is designed to provide a rapid assessment,
the ability of a wetland to perform a particular wetland function is evaluated in the field by
using indicators. Indicators are easily observed or measured attributes of a wetland that
1 are evidence that a particular function is occurring. For example, the presence of seeps,
ephemeral channels, water marks, mud stains, or sedimentation along a wetland edge are
indicators of the extent of riparian transport of overland flow and/or subsurface flow into
' the wetland. Indicators seen in the field are supplemented with published information such
as county soil surveys and USGS gage data whenever possible. The information gathered
from the indicators and published information are used to calculate indices of functional
performance.
Performance indices for various wetland functions are scaled so that the maximum
1 sustainable performance of the function is one (1). Wetland sites are evaluated relative to
59

maximum sustainable performance by assigning a rating of 1, 0.5, 0.1, or zero to
ecological predictors of functional performance. Performance variables are entered into a
mathematical formula to provide a performance index for a particular wetland function
within the wetland study site.
Performance indices for a wetland mitigation site would be compared to those of the
reference to determine the degree of functional gain based on a "standard of achievement"
(Brinson et a/. 1994) at which a fully functional site would be expected to perform.
1 Expected functional attributes of wetland classes in the Mingo Creek Mitigation Site are
outlined in Table 7. These types of sites are typically associated with riparian wetlands
and minor stream channels along low to moderate gradient slopes or terraces.

fl
HGM Application and Results
During mitigation planning, wetland specialists evaluated the use of uplands in wetland
mitigation to determine if buffer/ecotone establishment should be included in the wetland
restoration project. Wetlands that contain upland forest buffers or wetland/upland
ecotones, and wetlands isolated within urban/developed areas, were compared for
functional condition. These areas, along with previous site evaluations, represent a
subjective reference wetland set that can be evaluated through HGM functional
assessment technology.
The conceptual HGM model provides a numeric predictor of the functional lift gained from
wetland buffers. For this project, imminent development on adjacent slopes threatens the
integrity of the upland/wetland buffer. The model was used to assess functional loss to
on-site wetlands, should such development take place. The approach utilized in this
assessment should not be considered an HGM functional assessment because a reference
wetland data set has not been systematically sampled to analyze the range of wetland
function. This analysis represents a conceptual evaluation of relative advances in wetland
function that may be realized from buffer/ecotone preservation.
Of those wetland functions expected within the preserved mitigation site (Table 7), a
number are influenced by the presence of wetland buffers. Wetland functions that will be
enhanced by wetland buffer/ecotone restoration include 1) moderation of groundwater
flow or discharge; 2) removal of elements and compounds, 3) retention of particulates
(sediment stabilization), 4) maintenance of characteristic plant communities, 5)
maintenance of spatial habitat structure, 6) maintenance of interspersion and connectivity,
and 7) maintenance of the distribution and abundance vertebrates (Table 7). Other
wetland functions are also expected to be enhanced indirectly by restoration of upland
buffers and ecotones.
Table 8 depicts the relative performance indices predicted for identified wetland functions
for three reference wetland subsets: maximum sustainable performance (attainable
condition), reference wetlands with no upland buffers/ecotones, and reference wetlands
which contain upland buffers and ecotones. These performance index formulas are part of
the HGM evaluation methodology (Brinson et a/ 1994). The potential increase in the
performance of these wetland functions as a result of buffer establishment is also depicted
in Table 8 (column 5).
60

1

I 1
1

1 1]

1
1

o `O c co

m y U co
O
` i U
m rm+
O
y
O
y C Y
co 0
m
Q .?! E ?
y
'
'

C:
2- 0 C +1 ? O

O
"O i
O
O Y
C co
cm O
U
O
° m
¦- E Q

E 3 y

O (D `

O
a 'O

c i

o
CL a E 0) -a cc
co O `

U

y
w
co
co

mn
E m
O
O>
„-
(D
i
m

O O
O
C
w
C YO
O
>
cUl)
C

m
a)
m C
° Y
m ry co
mn ±
x
E C
°

- cm ° E

a)

-
(
(D
°
CL
m
o
N
0)
C
? co
m p ,F
> W Q . 7
h 0 co
O
p
7
•}, O
c
O - () a) 'Y C U O N 7 0.

L N
C
O U C
C m m
gym, U rm+
m y CD
m
O O O C C
-° 0
0 m
7
.Q
CO
C
? E m +1 C:
°
•«- O
?
-C
m
m
m
d E
0 _0 0
co
O -C m
m
an
L
y
C m
t U
E rn
3 O >
_ +
N +
> fl

m (D C C
C
O)
m
?
O
U
O
y
?
m
m
o m

E

E

L O 0

(D .)
C +_C
' m
C O

r O t

c
m _
0 0
C

7 ?

+, C

O

U

0 - C

O _

-C
U m .
Y

O
+! a)

O ±'
E O
H m
V 0) >
C rn
Y 0 r_ °
-0 O
c m
m •C Y
CA Y
fq
Y O c O > O m E m

U m U i m
Y "a Q y
C m a? O
0 N co 7
C c
6 > C
7 v-
O O Q O
m ++
m
? ++
m
m ti O Y 3 0 y
m N
O Y V
1 y +m+
`O o o fl E ayi o C '
e

m °
m
-O cm
i
E
c O
° m U Q m
m} m
0 _

0)
a

° U 0 C O m Y Q m

E E 41
m m
m C
_
N -a m
+• Q '?
O O cC6 "6
C m
C O
L .?
m C .C]
m m C ++
a)
H m U Q m m Qv v i v CD
m O ° C ° O m
O
O .0
O
O>
O
O .? m to > c m
V
C7 > cp > cp
Y C y
m a) m
7 ?- C
m C
m C
m C CU
m C
m O C
m
V) (D CD CD (D 4) 0
m
-! m m
0 4- 0)
O U y O C CO
E C C >
C O C(
m
• +
+ °
C Q
.
m m E co OL .0 x cc O m6 co m , c6 ?
5.. U rn U a Q Q I- W O lo rn
C y
m

y N
O = ?
w O
= r, O
U
H
U

7 C)
a)
y
m
+?+ _
y O _
U O

Y
V L
O i U 1 m ° m m

cn O
Q U C
C
C U O
C

W
0
0
Cm
W
U>
y
U -C
U
M-0
Y ??,
V C N C Q y,.. Q L Q

0 m C
° c
O
O
U +-
m oZf
O U
O E n

E C
O >•
U
O Q
U U
c E
?-
m O U C
O m
o U C V)
O m
m C +' cts E U C O mr = m o
C j C j
J ~ d O U C +m U
Y m _
m N +m+ fl +m+
L 4;
0
Q O) ? L co
°' c i +, `
°) C L
y > C
y
O
2 7 m L a m N
F- J Z cc: co o Q U c? O>
co
C')
Cn
C
O
M
C
m

P

1
iJ

1
1

Table 8
Conceptual HGM Comparison of Functional Performance by Reference Wetlands
With Upland Buffers/Ecotones and Reference Wetlands Without Upland Buffers/Ecotones
Wetland Funrtinn and Parfnrmnnra VnrinhlPs
Attainable Reference Reference Relative
condition Condition Condition Change
(reference Without With Without/
Qnnlpl Ri iffam Ri iffcrc With Pi iffurc
Moderation of Groundwater Flow or Discharge
V,: Subsurface flow into the wetland
V2: Subsurface flow from the wetland to the
_ _confininn layer or base flow
- - - - - -
Performance Index
(V, + V2)/2
1
1

- - - -
1
0.5
1

- - -
0.75
1
1

- - -
1
0.5
---

- - - -
0.25
Removal of Elements and Comr)ounds
V,: Frequency of overbank flooding 1 1 1 ---
V2: Riparian transport/overland flow 1 0.1 1 0.9
V3: Microsite topography 1 1 1 ---
V4: Microbial activity of surfaces 1 1 1 ---
V5: Sorptive properties of soil 1 1 1 ---
_ VL-Sinl in vegetation ---------- 1- -1 - - 1 - -_--
Performance Index 1 0.85 1 0.15
1(V1 + V2)/2 + (V3 + V4 + V5)/3 + V6]/3
Retention of Particulates
V,: Frequency of overbank flooding 1 1 1 ---
V2: overland flow from uplands 1 0.5 1 0.5
V3: surface roughness from woody plants and 1 1 1 ---
debris
V4: Surface roughness from herbaceous plants 1 1 1 ---
V5: Microsite topography 1 1 1 ---
_ VL -Retained sediments - - - - - - - - - 1- 0.5 - - 1 - - 0.5
Performance Index 1 0.8 1 0.20
[(V, + V2)/2 + (V3 + VI + V5)/3 + V6]/3

Table 8: continued

u
H
1

n
I'
iJ

Conceptual HGM Comparison of Functional Performance by Reference Wetlands
With Upland Buffers/Ecotones and Reference Wetlands Without Upland Buffers/Ecotones
Attainable Reference Reference Relative
Condition Condition Condition Change
(reference Without With Without/
Wetland Function and Performance Variables scale) Buffers Buffers With Buffers
Maintain Characteristic Plant Community
V,: Species composition
V2: Species regeneration
V3: Canopy cover
V4:_ Tree density and basal area -
- - - - - - -
Performance Index
M + V2 + V3 + V4)/4
1
1
1
1
- - -
1
1
0.5
1
1
- - -
0.88
1
1
1
1
- - - -
1
---
0.5

- - - - - -
0.12
Maintain Spatial Habitat Structure
V,: Density of standing dead trees 1 1 1 ---
V2: Abundance of nest cavities 1 0.5 1 0.5
V3: The number and structure of vertical strata 1 1 1 ---
V_,:_ :- Vegetation array (patchiness) 1_ _ _0.5_ - 1 - 0.5

Performance Index - - -
- -
IV, + V2 + V3 + VJ/4 1 0.75 1 0.25
Maintain Interspersion and Connectivity
V,: Frequency of flooding 1 1 1 ---
V2: Duration of flooding 1 1 1 ---
V3: Surface roughness/microsite topography 1 1 1 ---
V4: Hydraulic connections between main channels, 1 0.5 1 0.5
feeder tributaries, surface and subsurface
V5: Contiguous vegetation cover and/or corridors
between wetland and upland, between 1 0.5 1 0.5
channels, and between upstream and
- - - downstream sources- -
--------
---
---
----
------
Performance Index
M + V2 + V3 + V4 + Vd/5 1 0.80 1 0.20

Table 8: continued
Conceptual HGM Comparison of Functional Performance by Reference Wetlands
With Upland Buffers/Ecotones and Reference Wetlands Without Upland Buffers/Ecotones
Attainable Reference Reference Relative
Condition Condition Condition Change
(reference Without With Without/
scale) Buffers Buffers With Buffers
Wetland Function and Performance Variables

11
1
u

Maintain Distribution and Abundance of Vertebrates
V,: Distribution and abundance of migratory and 1 1 1 ---
resident fishes
V2: Distribution and abundance of herptiles unk unk unk unk
V3: Distribution and abundance of resident and 1 0.5 1 0.5
migratory birds
V4: Distribution and abundance of permanent and 1 0.5 1 0.5
seasonally resident mammals
V5:_ Abundance of beaver 1 1 1 ---
Performance Index 1 0.75 1 0.25
(V7 + V2 + V3 + V4 + V5)/5
Brinson et aL 1994, ESI 1994b
C?

0

For example, the index for moderation of groundwater flow or discharge quantified in Table
7, is based on two variables; subsurface flow into the wetland and subsurface flow from
the wetland to a confining layer or base flow. Based on field observations, sites that
would maximally perform this function would contain groundwater seeps, ephemeral
channels, and other drainage features at the edge of the wetland; contain meandering wet
swales, which extend into adjacent uplands; and contain a permeable underlying
stratigraphy. The indirect effects of this function on site characteristics include prolonged
saturated soil conditions during summer months and longer growing seasons due to
warmer soil temperatures during fall and winter months.
Performance variables that change based on the condition of abutting uplands and
' wetland/upland ecotones include; the nature and extent of subsurface flow into the
wetland; the condition of riparian transport and overland flow; species regeneration within
approximately 500 feet of the wetland edge; the abundance of nest cavities within the
entire system; hydraulic connections between minor channels and main channels; the
presence of vegetated travel corridors; and the observed and documented differences in
the distribution and abundance of birds and mammals.
Therefore, relative change in performance indices suggests that wetland functions may
decrease in performance by as much as 20 percent relative to a built-out condition (Table
1 8). Based on HGM methodology the capability of mitigation wetlands to perform long-term
functions may decrease by as much as 20 percent if uplands buffers are removed or
otherwise not considered as a total package. These calculations take into account only
those tangible factors which readily have values assigned to them. Therefore, caution
should be exercised in weighting only those functions listed.
5.2.2 Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure (WRAP)
' Methodology
The Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure (WRAP) model was developed by the South
Florida Water Management District to help evaluate wetland mitigation sites. (Miller and
' Gunsalus 1999). The model uses a matrix to establish a numerical score for broad
ecological and antropogenic factors that influence wetland mitigation sites in south Florida.
The WRAP model can be used to document baseline information prior to development.
' The model was modified slightly to account for geographical and biological differences
between regions.
The six WRAP variables (functions) include: wildlife utilization (WU), wetland
overstory/shrub canopy (VO), wetland vegetative ground cover (VG), adjacent upland
support/wetland buffer (AB), field indicators of wetland hydrology (HY), and water quality
input and treatment systems (WQ). Each variable has a corresponding calibration
description and score points. Wetlands are evaluated relative to maximum sustainable
performance by assigning a rating of zero to three (3), among ecological predictors of
functional performance. Incremental scoring by half (0.5) a point is allowed. Performance
indices for various functions are scaled so that the maximum sustainable performance of
the function is three (3).
' 65

' Performance variables are entered into a mathematical formula to provide a performance
index for a particular wetland function within the wetland study site. Each variable is
scored, totaled, and divided by the total of the maximum score for that variable. The final
rating score will be a number between 0 and 1.
' Both WRAP and HGM methodologies evalute changes in functional capacity. Unlike HGM
however, WRAP can weight functions to measure the relative importance between
functions. The anthropogenic value of any given function is a different concept than
' measuring a wetland's capacity to perform a function. The factor includes important
societal considerations not captured by a single function alone. Issues such as
watershed/ecosystem management issues, threatened species, and special adjacent land
' use designations. Relative weights are assigned to wetland functions by a series of
weighting factors and equations.
' WRAP Application and Results
Similar to HGM, WRAP provides a numeric predictor of the functional lift gained from
wetland buffers. For this project, imminent development on adjacent slopes threatens the
' integrity of the upland/wetland buffer. The model was used to assess functional loss to
the wetland, should such development take place. Table 8 depicts the relative
performance values for the identified wetland functions using current and post
' development conditions.
Table 8 WRAP Comparison of the raw functional performance scores and total
unweighted scores using current and post-development conditions.
Fianal
Wildlife Ground Water Unweigh
ighted
Utilization Overstory Cover Buffer Hydrology Quality Scores
' Current Conditions 3 2.5 3 3 3 2.5
(Raw Score)
Individual variable 1.0 0.83 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.83
rating score 0.94
Post-Development 2 2.5 3 1.5 2 1.5
(Raw Score)
Individual variable 0.67 0.83 1.0 0.5 0.67 0.5
' rating score 0.70
' The following list of values was considered to assign relative weights to wetland functions,
to yield a relative weighting criteria matrix.
' • Established watershed issues (water quality and sediment)
• Benefits to Important Adjacent Areas
' • Scarce Habitat
• Educational and Recreation Benefits

66
1

The total weight applied to each variable and final weighted scores are provided in Table 9.
The final rating score assigned the Site wetland under current conditions is 0.93 and a final
rating score of 0.64 post-development. This represents a 31 percent difference in
functional value between current and post-development conditions.
Table 9. Weighted scores for wetland under current conditions and developed conditions.
' Variable Total Weight
Wildlife Utilization 0.205
Overstory 0.1
Ground Cover 0.1
Buffer 0.205
Hydrology 0.164
Water Quality 0.205
' Final Rating Score
Scoring Under Current Conditions
(Pure WRAP Variables)
0.62
0.25
0.30
0.62
0.49
0.51
0.93
Scoring Under Developed
Conditions (Pure WRAP Variables
0.41
0.25
0.3
0.31
0.33
0.33
0.64
' 5.3 CONCLUSION
The Mingo Creek Restoration and Conservation Management Plan utilizes an ecosystem
approach to wetland preservation and enhancement, thereby maintaining the array of
habitat opportunities and physical properties historically associated with wetlands including
the adjoining upland buffer matrix. The functional evaluations and supporting research
indicate that upland buffers and ecotones provide significant functional lift for wetlands.
As suggested in HGM and WRAP, a 20 to 31 percent decrease in wetland functions may
be realized if development occurs on adjacent upland areas. The difference in function
strongly underscores the importance of upland forests as biological buffer for wetlands,
and consequently justifies the allocation of resources toward preservation credits of the
upland/wetland buffer matrix within the Site.

67

6.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
NCDOT proposes to establish the Mingo Creek Mitigation Site as up-front, on-site,
compensatory mitigation for transportation improvements associated with the proposed US
64 Knightdale Bypass. The approximately 205-acre site is located in central Wake County.
The Site contains streams, adjacent wetlands, forested riparian buffers, forested uplands,
and recreational and educational opportunities in a contiguous, relatively undisturbed tract
extending on both sides of Mingo Creek just above its confluence with the Neuse River.
The proposed US 64 Knightdale Bypass is planned to extend eastward from 1-440 (Raleigh
Beltline) across the Neuse River to US 64 (Wendell Bypass) near SR 1003 (Rolesville
Road). The Bypass will cross the Site from the northwest corner to the southeastern
border and to an intersection with Hodge Road (SR 2516) in the vicinity of the
' southeastern corner of the Site. The Bypass will continue approximately another 1.5 mile
east to an intersection with the proposed Wake Outer Loop. An interchange study of the
proposed US 64 Knightdale Bypass (Stantec 2001) indicates likely future development in
this region resulting from these road projects. If the mitigation site is not protected, this
study predicts the eastern portion of the Site will be developed for mixed use (office,
retail/service, hotel, meeting facilities, and multifamily housing) and part of the western
portion of the Site will remain as open space while the majority will be developed as low-
density residential housing.
' Recommendations for mitigation at the Site include 1) purchase and arrangement for long-
term management of the entire tract including a total of 28.8 acres of vegetated wetlands,
a total of 6590 linear feet of streams, and 22 acres of forested buffer (163 acres biological
' buffer) preservation adjacent to these jurisdictional areas; 2) restoration of 1200 linear feet
of stream (2:1 ratio); 3) enhancement of 2400 linear feet of stream (3:1 ratio); 4)
restoration/enhancement of 1.5 acres of vegetated wetland; 5) preservation of the
' remaining 27.3 acres of vegetated wetlands (2:1 ratio) and the remaining 2990 linear feet
of streams (10:1 ratio).
The proposed mitigation will protect and manage a stream/wetland complex and adjacent
riparian buffers and upland forest at a strategic location in the embattled Neuse River
basin. Benefits provided by this mitigation plan include 1) water quality enhancement in an
' intensely developing watershed of the Neuse River basin, 2) opportunity to preserve upland
buffers beyond regulated limits, 3) protection of a variety relatively undisturbed plant
communities and the associated ecotones, 4) protection of diverse aquatic and terrestrial
' wildlife habitat and travel corridor in a rapidly suburbanizing area, 5) opportunities to
connect existing regional, public greenway trails and open space, 6) and opportunities for
recreation and public education concerning regional environmental issues.

J
1 68

1
7.0 REFERENCES
Adamus, P.R., L.T. Stockwell, E.J. Clairain Jr., M.E. Morrow, L.P. Rozas, and R.D. Smith.
1991. Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET), Volume 1: Literature Review and
Evaluation Rationale. Wetlands Research Program Technical Report WRP-DE-2.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
' Adamus, P.R., E.J. Clairain Jr., R.D. Smith, and R.E. Young. 1987. -Wetland Evaluation
Technique (WET), Volume II: Methodology. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
Adamus, P.R. and L.T. Stockwell. 1983. A Method for Wetland Functional Assessment,
Volume I. Critical Review and Evaluation Concepts. Federal Highway
Administration Report no. FHWA-IP-82-23. U.S. Department of Transportation,
Washington, D.C.
Allen, A.W. 1986. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Mink. US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Biological Report 82(10.127), November 1986 (Revised).
Amoroso, J.L. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North
Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources,
' Raleigh, NC.
Brinson, M.M., F.R. Hauer, L.C. Lee, W.L. Nutter, R.D. Smith, and D. Whigham. 1994.
I Guidebook for Application of Hydrogeomorphic Assessments to Riverine Wetlands.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
Brinson, M.M. 1993. Changes in the functioning of wetlands along environmental
gradients. Wetlands 13(2): 65-74, Special Issue, June 1993. The Society of
Wetland Scientists.
Brinson, M.M. 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. Wetlands Research
Program Technical Report WRP-DE-4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways
' Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
Brinson, M.M., B. Swift, R. Plantico, and J. Barclay. 1981. Riparian Ecosystems: Their
ecology and status. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS 81/17.
Brown, M.T., J.M. Schaefer, and K.H. Brandt. 1990. Buffer Zones for Water, Wetlands,
' and Wildlife in East Central Florida. Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations Journal
Series No. T-00061. CFW publ. 89-07.
I Burger Joanna 1981. The effect of human activity on birds at a coastal bay. Biological
Conservation. 21(1981): 231-241.
Carter V., M.S. Bedinger, R.P. Novitzki, and W.O. Wilen. 1979. Water resources and
69
1
wetlands. p. 344-376 in: P.E. Greeson, J.R. Clark, and J.E. Clark (eds.). Wetland
functions and values: the state of our understanding. Am. Water Res. Assoc.
Minneapolis, MN.
Castelle, A.J., A.W. Johnson, and C. Conolly. 1994. Wetland and Stream Buffer Size
Requirements- A Review. Jounral of Environmental Quality. Pp. 878-882.
Chamberlain, T.W. 1982. Timber Harvest. Part 3 of W.R. Meehan (ed.), Influence of
' forest and rangeland management on anadromous fish habitat in western North
America. GTR-PNW-136. USDA Forest Service, Portland, OR.
' Cooper, J.R., J.W. Gilliam, and T.C. Jacobs. 1986. Riparian areas as a control of
nonpoint pollutants. pg. 166-192 in D.L. Correll (ed.), Watershed Research
Perspectives. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Tech. Rpt. Y-87-1, Waterways Experiment Station, COE, Vicksburg, MS
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1991. Biological assessment of water
quality on 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, Water Quality Section. Raleigh, N.C.
' Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1995. Guidance for Rating Wetlands in
North Carolina: Fourth Version. N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources, Water Quality Section, Raleigh, NC. 57 pp.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 1993. Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality
Management Plan. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Water
' Quality Section, Raleigh, NC
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 1997. Classifications and Water Quality Standards
Applicable to Surface Water and Wetlands in North Carolina. N.C. Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
' Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 1998. Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality
Management Plan. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Water
Quality Section, Raleigh, NC.
Dunne, D. and L.B. Leopold. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. W.H. Freeman and
Company, N.Y.
Eaker, W.M. 1992. A Guide to Surface Freshwater Classifications in North Carolina.
Land-of-Sky Regional Council. 84 pp.
' Ehrenfeld, J.G. 1987. Wetlands of the New Jersey pine barrens: the role of species
composition in community function. Am. Midl. Nat. 115:301-313.
70
0
' Environmental Services, Inc (ESI). 1994, unpublished. US 64 Wetland Restoration and
Conservation Management Plan. US 64 Relocation: Martin and Edgecombe
Counties, North Carolina. North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh
N.C.
Environmental Services, Inc (ESI). 1994, unpublished. Northeast Florida Wetland
Mitigation Bank.
Fraser, J.D., L.D. Frenzel, and J.E. Mathisen. 1985. The impact of human activities on
breeding bald eagles in north-central Minnesota. J. Wildl. Manage. 49(3):1985.
' 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.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1985. Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan. U.S.
' Department of the Interior, Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia. 88 pp.
Gordon, N.D., T.A. McMahon, and B.L. Finlayson. 1992. Stream Hydrology: An
Introduction for Ecologists. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. West Sussex, England.
Hamel, P.B. 1992. The Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature
Conservancy, Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437 pp.
Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.A. O'Hara, A. Jessup, and
' R. Everhart. 1999. Bankfull Hydraulic Relationships for North Carolina streams. N.
C. sate University, Raleigh, North Carolina.
' Harris, L. D. 1984. The Fragmented Forest: Island Biogeography Theory and the
Preservation of Biotic Diversity, 1st Edition. The University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.
' Jordan, T.E., D.L. Correll, W.T. Peterjohn, and D.E. Weller. 1986. Nutrient flux in a
landscape: The Rhode River Watershed and receiving waters. pg. 57-76 in D.L.
Correll (ed.), Watershed Research Perspectives. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington D.C.
Jurik, T.W., S. Wang, and A.G. van der Valk. 1994. Effects of sediment loading on
seedling emergence from wetland seed banks. Wetlands 14(3): 159-173,
September 1994. The Society of Wetland Scientists.
' Kaiser, M.S. and E.K. Fritzell. 1984. Effects of river recreationists on green-backed heron
behavior. J. Wildl. Mngmt. 48:561-568.
Karr, J.R. and I.J. Schlosser. 1978. Water resources at the land-water interface. Science
201:229-234.
' Kartesz, J. 1998. A Synonymized Checklist of the Vascular Flora of the United States,
Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Biota of North America Program.
' 71

1
Keller, M.E., C.S. Chandler, and J.S. Hatfield. 1993. Avian communities in riparian
forests of different widths in Maryland and Delaware. Wetlands 13(2): 137-144,
Special Issue, June 1993. The Society of Wetland Scientists.
Korschgen C.E., L.S. George, and W.L. Green. 1985. Disturbance of diving ducks by
boaters on a migrational staging area. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 13:290-296,
1985.
Lee, D.S., C.R. Gilbert, C.H. Hocutt, R.E. Jenkins, D.E.
1980. Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes.
North Carolina Biological Survey. 867 pp.
I

1

F
r

McAlliste, and J.R. Stauffer, Jr.
Publication No. 1980-12 of the
LeGrand, H. E. and S. P. Hall. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal
Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, Raleigh.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel
Hill, NC. 264 pp.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. The Delmar Company,
Charlotte, NC for North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh, NC. 227
pp-
Miller, R.E. and B.E. Gunsalus. 1999. Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure (WRAP),
Technical Publication REG-001, Natural Resource Management Division, Regulation
Department, South Florida Water management District. 84. Pp.
http://www.sfwmd.gov/org/reg/nrm/wrap99.pdf
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 1996. Hydric Soils: Wake County,
Durham County. U.S. Department of Agriculture Technical Guide Section II-A-2.
North Carolina Wetland Restoration Program (NCWRP). 1996. Basinwide Wetlands and
Riparian Restoration Plan for the Neuse River Basin. N.C. Division of water Quality.
76 pp.
Nunnally, N. R. and E. Keller. 1979. Use of Fluvial Processes to Minimize Adverse effects
of Stream Channelization. Water Resources research Institute of the University of
North Carolina. Report no. 144.
Palmer, W.M. and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC for the N.C. State Museum of Natural
Sciences. 412 pp.
1
11 72

' Parker, J.M. 1995. Geology and Mineral Resources of Wake County. North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Resources, Geological Resource Section.
Bulletin 86. 122 pp.
Peterjohn, W.T. and D.L. Correll. 1984. Nutrient dynamics in an agricultural watershed:
observations on the role of riparian forest. Ecology 65(5): 1466-1475, 1984.. The
Ecological Society of America.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The University
of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 408 pp.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1 183 pp.
Richardson, C.J. 1994. Ecological functions and human values in wetlands: a framework
for assessing forestry impacts. Wetlands 14(1):1-9, March 1994. The Society of
Wetland Scientists.
Richardson, C.J. 1985. Mechanisms controlling phosphorous retention capacity in
freshwater wetlands. Science 228:1424-1427.
Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the
Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, & Delaware. The University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, NC. 222 pp.
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology (Publisher). Pagosa
Springs, Colorado.
Schafale, M. P., A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation, NC Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, NC DEM, Raleigh NC.
Schwan, M.W. 1985. A study of land use activities and their relationship to the sport fish
resources in Alaska. Volume 26, Study D-I, Job D-I-B. Alaska Dept. of Fish and
Game, Juneau, Alaska.
Soil Conservation Service (SCS). 1970. Soil survey of Wake County, North Carolina, U.S.
Department of Agriculture. 118 pp.
Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 2001. Final Report: US 64 Knightdale Bypass Interchange
Study. Raleigh, NC. 2001
Sugameli, G.P. 1994. Courts reject wetlands takings. National Wetlands Newsletter
16(2): 10-12, March/April 1994. Environmental Law Institute.
1
1 73

Thomas, J.W., C. Maser, and J.E. Rodiek. 1979. Wildlife habitats in managed rangelands-
the Great Basin of southeastern Oregon: edges. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep.
PNW-85.
Thompson, R.L. and W.W. Baker. 1971. A survey of red-cockaded woodpeckers nesting
habitat requirements (pp. 170-186). In R.L. Thompson ed., The Ecology and
Management of the red-cockaded Woodpecker. Tall Timbers Research Station,
Tallahassee, FL.
The Scientific Council on Freshwater and Terrestrial Mollusks (SCFTM). 1990. A report
on the Conservation Status of North Carolina's Freshwater and Terrestrial Molluscan
Fauna.
Wang, S., T.W. Jurik, and A.G. van der Valk. 1994. Effects of sediment load on various
stages in the life and death of cattail (Typha g/auca). Wetlands 14(3): 166-173,
September 1994.
Weakley, A. 1993. Flora of the Carolinas and Virginia. Working Draft. N.C. Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (DEHNR): Natural Heritage Program,
Raleigh, NC.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas,
Virginia, and Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
255 pp.
Wetlands Restoration Program (WRP). 1996. Basinwide Wetlands and Riparian
Restoration Plan for the Neuse River Basin. N.C. Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality.
Whitcomb R.F., J.F. Lynch, P.A. Opler, and C.S. Robbins. 1976. Island Biogeography and
Conservation: Strategy and Limitations. Science 193:1030-32.
Wilson, L. A. 1995. The land Manager's Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of the
South. The Nature Conservancy, Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC, 360 pages.
Young, C.E. and R.A. Klawitter. 1968. Hydrology of wetland forest watersheds. Pg. 29-
38 in Proceedings: Hydrology in Water Resources Management. Report no. 4.
Water Resources Institute, Clemson University, Clemson S.C.

11 74

1 8.0 APPENDICES
r
t
i

I
Fj

1 75
t

M
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
r
1
1
1
APPENDIX A
General Wetland Functional Assessment Methodology and Forms
76
1
1
1
i
i
t
A
t
r:
t
r
r
WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT
Aynamic Surface Water Storage
- - - A__ Freq. of flooding .
-B. Average depth
C.' Surface roughness
D. Vegetation roughness
Long--term Surface Water Storage
E. Presence-of-water
C. - Topographic relief
Energy Dissipation
F. Reduction flow velocity
G. Freq. of surface water with velocity
C. Surface roughness
Nutrient Cycling - . -
H._ Netpri n. prod. (potential)
1. Detrital turnover (floor debris)
Removal of Elements and-Compounds (long-term accum. of elements from incoming water)
J.- Overbank flooding (from wetland)
K. Riparian transport (from uplands, overland flow and groundwater discharge)
I. Microbial activity
H. Vegetation sink
C. Topographic relief -
Retention of Inorganic Particulates -
J. Freq. of flooding from wetlands
K. Overland flow from uplands
C. -Surface roughness
L. -Retained sediments
Organic Carbon Export
J. Freq. of flooding (from wetland)
K. Riparian transport (from upland) -
M. Surface connection with wetland
1. Organic matter (detrital turnover)
Maintain Characteristic Plant Community (dynamics and structure)
Species composition list (no measurement)
N. Saplings of canopy species
0. Canopy cover .
-P. Tree density/basal area (inidcator of maturity)
Maintain Characteristic Detrital Biomass
Q. Standing dead trees
R. Abundance of down and dead trees
S. Logs in several stages of decomposition
T. Fine woody debris in stream channels
Spatial Habitat Structure
Q. Density-of standing dead trees
U. -Abundance of nest cavities
V. Strata
W. 'Vegetation patchiness
X. Canopy gaps (maturity)
Maintain Interspersion and Connectivity
A. Freq. of flooding
E. Duration of flooding
C. Surface roughness
M. Hydraulic connections
Y. Vegetated corridors (up and wet, up and down)
1

1

I
t
1

1
N
O
U
co
O ca
U_
z O
LL O_
W _ -O
? a
? C
cZ
C 75
U
y N
ui t
Q
Q O
Z O
O (D
Z
n ca
LL N
o?
Z y
J .?
W N
N
a?
c
t
O
O
4+
co
4-
a?
i
N
N
U
c
L
O
a?
U
co
U)
0
+r
a?
co
(o
21
4+
c
m
0
a
c
co
c
0
cu
O
LA
O
>
N
C
i
4-
C N
? U
O y
? N
O O
41 N O'
_p C
cp O
0 co
> co m co
c0 (D
Ea
O =
O 'a
C C
0 E
O
c
co O
0 >
i C)
? O
d 41
O
41
41
> c
7
a
O c
fl. O
N
i y
(o
.Q
O
z
N
C

N 0
(o
v-
C O
O ++
N
fII CD

U c
i? C a
N
a vi .
cm c
Q O
O co

N CM .. M N O'
C >
C y i a U
N Q
O N
y .Q N
=O W
, 00 > N 7 0
O
.C + N L
O
? N U
O >
?
+
+ U t
c
m c c ? a ? c
,p O O ? C i Y U
co ar U fo .Q fo N
c o 0) > N a
cu U> 0 O O

a N co
a ?a co
0) 41 co
O O U N

C
` a c W

O
O
C Q)

.r. C O -0 U

O> C

N
+1
to

y O O
Co
>
N
N
U
p
C t'
a
c .
>, a +1 41 CO

.p
N U
O N U N N N N
U m
' C
O 0 0 0 0
N
>
O O
O
i N

C

?NMCttl?
` a; .;, N N N N N
N CO N N N

~ N c N co co m m co
a a n 000UU
c .
E
_
U O
a)
o 03
cc
>

1
1
F
l
1
1
l
I
w
t
i
t
t
i
r
r
F
W
- W"

c

W-
Y

Z
w

U))

W

Q
J
Q .
Z
O

_ z

LL O
U
O
O
OI
01
O
a)
cc
m
m

Q U -
4? Q) co
° a M
Y N c O 4?
U L
a) C
a)
2?
0- y ? E
=0 () o a) a)
Y
-f Y L L U)
a) O -O i 0 i L C O 0 0 M M N o -
m
.. O O- E N ° w m +• > m m ° E _o '- to m co a LO co
75
7 O Q X a) 0 co tm cm a) O? m d U 0; O N O
cn t a) a --C ?.: E r E n n to >. ca t o
a?
U -
m
w-
L
O a)
?d cu c
a y E o (D ?. co 0
CC CD =+) -0 co LO
(D 0
CU cu To (D E (a =cn E ° "MC cLo E c u U M ° tr' ?C
L l/) fA L L to cu- .C V V M N E N
t?
C _
m m m O m m m ?p m m m m m
C O
a i= y C L C C C C C C C o

d
)
.
a)
a)
N
O O
O
O O
a) O
O O +'C+ a) O OD O O p 0 \ 0 0 0 0
CL
0 a
to o ` CL
m w 00 CL
co
to
C O_
Q) S2 0,
w N CL
N
N CL Q
O N w U CL
0
6 CL
co
m m E iz m E _
-
co 2 m m co m m o m m co r
2 to
ca
.C .C N v7t N L U_ .c t.? t .?p A.Ct? .C 6-2 F, t
()
f6 f0 ?
C C CO
a) (D c`ts a
a) a) a) a) a) a) a) m a) O O
a t1 m
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
c c c c c c c c c c c c c
a) C y
> m a)
+
O m O U
a, 0 w > a E a? Q a? v cn c
C N N U O O N z- O O
.2 1- M cn
Q V) O O U 4- O >. y +L+ .C CL C co
L
(!?
-0 -C O> 'a L jO C O C/3 2C U c U)
C co
^ i
a) C C U > ii E co L -0 a O L-
•L cn O
4+ O O O Q- O E C D U a) m a O w
>C 0 4) > > 4- CD CL
> O O L L +J m° «- rL m O 0 0 y a U co a) += U -C co
a
CL)
(MO ma .- 3: a -E C a) ?>?a) _C Co >,m ?m a -0 (o cc r a -a E -0 o (13 0.
a) o CL .0 CD (D
> ID CU
.t Qcn>ti>tLZOu.t7C? cCAUF-c?QO?Zcn>U>
Q Co U 6 tai ti 6 = _ a Y J ? Z O a: 0 C? O F- » § >C >
?O
i
1
1
1
W
W
N
1--
Q
Z
CW
G
N
N
W
(A
U)
J
Z
O_
H
Z
D
LL
c
J
W

cv
U
J
C
a?

0
^rn
1
co
b
A
v
1

N
a;
Q
H
C
m

MI
C MI?
I? olol ?I?I
11
yl M
II II II II II II II II II II II N

oI , ?-I-1
+ `
ai ?I -I ?I
I 4IoI I
o'I
o

-H -I n l-- I I I ?I I I
II ii II o
II 11 II II II II II II _
X

+ 3: + + +
U U ±U? CL >U

00UC7 -YYY Oi= DW

QLu L
A
N ca
E O

N
j y E
O
m
0
U
c o.

•C
Co ? O.4-0 0
U o
c ?
c?v O o v *' •? U G
0 (n
cn L. U i
-p O
a .a
m H
y
O
4m c CL
t°at
UO- I
;
c
X z
•
•y i • O
O C
U O 0
O
m m W ?
'
+N+ iO+ i
+ O
IC ';= co v •0 N C or- ca L L ea a O
7 (n y W .0
E
0 4a cB c0
m -C ?.+ 4-
V(n N
'Cf U
? V 0
U ,
UU m
== _
O
_
C •? 4-J a V ++ ca O_
O > ++ •? 0 c C
_ +O+ +O•+ c
to ca
i?+
a. ? •L O r Cm D
' O
•?
'
•
>- O c
_ 0 .J W O 0 m a
m z cr cc 0 R
n. c 0. CO
Q cn
>
M .
? I? o 0
II II II II II II II II II II II M
O
M of ol_I
+ +
?I?`I ?I IvI
W + + + + + + + + +
-1
+ + + + + + + + + + +
pl0 GI`"I
O -4- II II II II II II II II II II II
z
W
CO)
S
W X
N U + +
a ?-! o + _ 1- ?: 2
Z U U m C. (A > U
p + + + + + + + + +
O cc O w
m
L) (D
U + + + + + + + + + + +
Q uJ U_ _ n z d d Q
LL -?'
O >.
4- U)
Q N ? co > o
W `a m co O_ U p'
•?
cv. N M. o o N1
v m ` o U± o o O
o ° °_ c'? U _
in U i co m 'C H
- O
N
S ? .r.. cC ++ U U ? ? ??
m 4-0 +J C) 0
C* 0
4-1
-E CL Ag .9
o C o x N i •N 7
i
m
O cC •? E O W U U (n Q
4-J (a N Q. v ,C O C o m m
O
cn M Ca 4-01
0 o -r- -c
H- vm ?•?' ?U o cU :cUU ca ca = o
?tx a_ i
-p V ++ ?p O O O U l0 C __ ,?,
.9 .9
E CD
cc m CL (a
=oJW mzccoc0 a22 Q(n2 >

t
1
1
1
1
1
Sm
T
Vl
w
w
N
i-
Q
O
z
W
N
N
W
N
N
J
z
O_
H
U
z
m
w
O
J
F-
W

E
O
a+
U
O
J
c
co
m

i
1
m
co
D
m
C.
c
ca
m

II II II
L^I
Ln I lf'I
+ + +
II 11 II
O
U U
m U C7
Qww
0
m ?
L
e` 0
*1 co
c
L ?
cc
N C
aiOw o
l0 L t?
? cn 'm
wu Ep
°•E:: a
m
L O >? L
S?-i w
11 II II II
?I.
+
II ii II (I
4 ° I "I
II 11
"I
+
?I of
II II
II II
+ ?
'?I ?fll
of I
+ +
ul
II II
X >-
+
+ J F- +

± V c. cn > U
+ + + + + + +
_
-Z 1&
O CC
D w

zd dQ
> _

O
m UO
CL
E O
U Ta O
o M

o v
c G
U ;r m
c a
U U V , r
N
O
cr c Q• y cc

•L •L +,

` 'vl
c
t (a
W U U N a E
?cmc0 "? «•«` c
E
j p 0 ?° '?' U U 'o
L
s c
-
c c
o
== c
0
a
E 0
E Co
Eza:mo EMM Q62 >
mil,
i

1
1
I
1
1
1
t
H
W
W
N
N
Q
O
H
Z
W
N
N
W
N
N
J
z
O
H
V
Z
m
LL
O
Q
J
W

ry
R
O
c0
U
O
J
'O
C
CO
m

a
C
td
m

Ir"n
II 11 II II II II II 1( II II II ????+
`I?Il,nl ?I ?nl._I
+ + + + + + +
II _IInl
+ + + + + + + + + + +
II I! II II II II 11 II II If II
x}

O +

U U ±L) ?-N >U
+ + + + + + + + +
Ca - Y Y Y O CC O W

QWLL =7?? ZO CJQ

fA = cC O
=
O
m E o_
G m c
V
N m «
' C
o
0 0 0 'r U C
N U z
m
ch
0 .0 a
c CL
a_ O m c
ca m
? ?O
lC 7 O C1 `
??, 'C O U U
ai C
V O
'
C
C m X '`' 'C L
i
4-0 O
m 0
" m E O ui
0 0
n.
E
E
%I-
C ?.
o-
v W
0

r c0 co

+? +O+ O
0
U
O cn 'y .
EE >. 0 0 8
U
U +' U U ea 0 C C
0? O L r- C
2 a C C == C ?,,
o E
cC .
O C >
O
c
•

C
..
? C
i`.r C •? p
=O-iul azlici0 0.22 Qcn2 >
1
1

A
t
1
i
1
i

r
W
W
N
H
Q
O
H
Z
W
2
CO
N
W
N
CA
J
Z
O
V
Z
n
U.
0
Q
J
W

CC
0
'r
U
O
J
C
O

O
a
1•-
C
m
m

I -I -I NI ?I ?I MINI ?I IYNI
N
Il II 11 II II II II II 1I it II ; _?

+ ++

od1`I of
ii I II it '_{,"I °I
II II II II {
II II { {
II II
X }

U U ± U? a m > U
+ + + + + + + + +
mUC7 -YYY Oar W

Q W LL S -? -? -?
d
Z
d Q

.a
O O
G
E c
?
++
it
O_

m
m
d Q. O
U C H
d
O
4-+ O
U
U .r
O O
U G

_

N
4.1
cc
m

-p

a
??
V)
(D
c0
c a
a O
m r i

+y+ O
co ?? .
O U`
'C O
U V
N m
+7+ C
U O
?
r,.
=

V C c0 a
O ? .i •?' L
`
O
v W

C C
C E Cn m

N
?
c
o
V
i 7 2. ai
C7 W ` 6-
•+ to M +
«+
.0+ m O
V
O U) 'y
V (n to U '?'
y V 0 0
0
O
t L
?' U U r.+

ea ca C

C
? U ? ? V ?,. ? p V A C C
'
' S S C
. *,
O N C ? ?,
CD 0 _
ca
cc
C C O O
°
'YO C C ??
E
m
0 :3 0) CD =

O c0 •cII o

c0
'
s0 iu mZa:QO a.22 Q(n2 >
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Cf D `?

W
W
N
F-
Q
Z
W
N
N
W
Cl)
N
J
Z
O
V
Z
n
U.
in
J
W
3.1

II II II II
II II II
Vin, u'I
v
j
i ?

m ? (ill 'I 1 `I ?I ? I
II 11 11 it II II II
U
• U U ± U ?
+ +
CD (D
+ + + + + +
-YYY
+ + + +
-?- Qu,U- 2nn-?

N
?
A
m o m
M
&
E
> -
4
VJ U
^
U)
ca
3 ?o
D ca
N V i

m c
? o•t°x

O 0

o 0 V °
o
"- `W
m E o

cC
N
i ? O. C C o
v l1J
?
0
O CL fA _
8

-j
H
o E
?' m o

sU c
U

M
c
10
c ? U 6.

C •E r ++ O

0 0> «U
.. cs
m
37. m ?. > o C
SD -j w O m y
CDZmcc0
t`? _I N ( NI i??,
II II 11 II ? I
+ +

+ + +

I II II

CL cn > U

O2 Dw
+ + + +
Zd dQ

E o E
v CL
m
?
v ?
O N
r
CO
ao 'D
m ? m
U U
? C
V
1 y O C C
U V Q
coo w
L r +r «• O
U
U U ao ca C
ca = 2 c w
_?;? TQ co ;°
E-o? cc
a?? CO
acn2 >
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

W
W
N
F-
Q
O
Z
W
2
CO)
co
W
N
N
J
Z
O
V
LL
G
Q
J
W

,n
t
O
E
O
U ?
J !-
>CD >0
7
N°
It 11 II
_I
+ +
mill
it It II
NI?I INI
II II II II
II Il II it
U
+J-
U U ±U?
+ + + + +
mL)o -YYY
Q W LL =77?
N
'C

no
p m ?
O

o
o cn E
O

U

L
Cl)
'O c0
a?

c
p
ca
N
gy
.,
m U
n o

C a
C• p X

CD m
O W
C
Co
7 d m C O
° U W
7 cn 'N E >• - ,O c`a

N
E a? U o
U
U
IM
p O c
U C>. U
,
c m E o
c
r (D
m
SO?LU mZcc OCO
NI r? M??I
II 11
II II t

+I nI ±I
II II it 11
X

a cn > U

0 cr Lu

Zd dQ

C ca
E = p
L
E
p
O U C'
U Tc c m

V U
? ? C ?
t
A N U C C
«m+ N OD-
L-
C.D
? C C = = C ?.
T
+ N ?
C _ c 4- ?
C

Cc C13 c
m D
4)
a2
2
Qcn2
>

Cl

u
1-1

1

1

APPENDIX B
DEM Rating Forms
77
Aiy o "Crcc?-
-TC. (I "e_
51sf'm i
' Wetland Rating Worksheet
Project name V%4 n GQ& . Nearest road Q of%G
r Countys WIXV'E Name of Evaluator Esc Date ±-3-at
Wetland location Adjacent land use (within 1/2 mile u stream)
_ on pond or lake forested/natural vegetation %
Yo"n perennial stream agriculture, urban/suburban _10%
_ on intermittent stream impervious surface S %
_ within interstream divide
_ other
Dominant Vegetation
Soil Series V1 t 6AlLee- 06vJ Ci 6 (1) CA YU- SAD .
_ predominantly organic-humus. •-?
muck, or peat (2) JwinGV.45 5 tip.
predominantly mineral- non-sandy
?predominantly sandy (3) :•m bay S Coc MS k
Flooding and Wetness
_ semipermanently to permanently flooded
or inundated
Hydraulic Factors _ seasonally flooded or inundated
_ steep topography _ intermittently flooded or temporary
9ched or channelized surface water
.1/wetland width >/= 50 feet _ no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland Type (select one)
_ Bottomland hardwood forest _ Pine savanna
.. Headwater forest ;/Freshwater marsh
_ Swamp forest _ Bogtfen
_ Wet flat _ Ephemeral wetland
_ Pocosin _ Other
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes
Water storage * 4 = ! &
Bank/Shoreline stabilization * 4 = IZ Total score
Pollutant removal * 5 = 2.0 7
Wildlife habitat
Aquatic life value * 2 =
* 4 b
Recreation/Education * 1
watersh
d
i
if i
i
i
dd I d > 10% di
b
i
/
ve
e
an
nt
n sens
t
po
nonpo
stur
nt
ance within 1
A
2 mile upstream

G
Wetland Rating Worksheet
Sys *1:' 3
Project name Ai njo Oeek- Nearest road }fi p Jag Kpad
County. Wtc14& Name of Evaluator SSG Date -7-3-01
Wetland location Adjacent land use (within M mile upstream)
_ on pond or lake forested/natural vegetation 80 %
ybn perennial stream
_ on intermittent stream agriculture, urban/suburban 190/0
impervious surface S %
_ within interstream divide
_ other
D
i
V
om
nant
egetation
SoiI Series We,hJVA-G "k ?I t ? (1) _ Cara spy.
_ predominantly organic-humus.
muck, or peat (2) Jwv%c ks
_ predominantly mineral- non-sandy
_ predominantly sandy (3) l hytPAh" Ga. POW L-C
Flooding and Wetness
_?sQpemmnently to permanently flooded
or inundated
Hydraulic Factors _ seasonally flooded or inundated
_ steep topography _ intermittently flooded or temporary
_ ditched or channelized surface water
t/wetland width >/= 50 feet _ no evidence of flooding or surface water

Wetland Type (select one)
_ Bottomland hardwood forest _ Pine savanna
.. Headwater forest yPreshwater marsh
_ Swamp forest _ Bogtfen
_ Wet flat _ Ephemeral wetland
_ Pocosin _ Other
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes
Water storage 7t" * 4 = 2.0
Bank/Shoreline stabilization t? * 4 = 20 Total score
Pollutant removal- * 5 = ZO
Wildlife habitat
Aquatic life value 2 = 10
* 4 =
Recreation/Education_ * 1 =
h
d
i
n sensitive waters
e
Add 1 point if
and >10% nonpoint disturbance within 1/2 mile upstream

t
d

1
1

fl
1
1

1
1
Wetland Rating Worksheet

Project name X M<j z? cf ee,i L. Nearest road_IALLci,
County??? e_ Name of Evaluator E5 L Date I - 3 u 1
Wetland location
_,on pond or lake
Von perennial stream
on intermittent stream
_ within interstream divide
other
Soil Series _Wo-kAd Lte' Win.-4.
predominantly organic-humus,
muck, or peat
predominantly mineral- non-sandy
?edominantly sandy
Hydraulic Factors
_ steep topography
ditched or channelized
Zwetland- width >/= 50 feet
Adjacent land use (within 1/2 mile upstream)
forested/natural vegetation --7-5 %
agriculture, urban/suburbanZ 5 O/o
impervious surface %
Dominant Vegetation
(1) A(A.5 he s
(2) e.5
J
(3) Ca +a
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 * 4 = 1 U
Bank/Shoreline stabilization 5 * 4 = 2-0
Pollutant removal .15_ * 5 = 5
Wildlife habitat 1_ * 2 = 2
Aquatic life value 5 * 4 = ? 0
Recreation/Education G * 1 = IC
Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and >I 0% nonpoint disturbance within 1/2 mile upstream

Total score
'3 -3

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
Wetland Rating Worksheet

Project name L i'tl Nearest road 14 P dG ?_7 'V? a
z Name of Evaluator S C. Date ! _-3 -- 01
County
f _J
Wetland location Adjacent land use (within 1/2 mile upstream)
on pond or lake forested/natural vegetation
- ?;Sn perennial stream agriculture, urban/suburbanS
_o , n intermittent stream impervious surface %
within interstream divide
_ other
Dominant Vegetation
Soil Series We-haA Lee nncL 6i bb
_ predominantly organic-humus,
muck, or peat
_ predominantly mineral- non-sandy
predominantly sandy
t
1
1
(1) ,X Id e,

(2)
(3)
Flooding and Wetness
_ ;6,emipermanently to permanently flooded
or inundated
Hydraulic Factors _ seasonally flooded or inundated
steep- topography _ intermittently flooded or temporary
itched or channelized surface water
- 'wetland width >/= 50 feet _ 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 Total score
Pollutant removal * 5 = i 0
Wildlife habitat- * 2 = 9
Aquatic life value * 4 = .21
Recreation/Education 1 * 1 = 1
Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and >l0% nonpoint disturbance within 1/2 mile upstream

1
1
L

Sysk.m 12
Wetland Rating Worksheet
Project name Ki (12n CYFj k . Nearest road O? c 0_ KCL
County "WoL a Name of Evaluator - Date J: ? I
Wetland location
_ on pond or lake Adjacent land use (within 1/2 mile upstream)
forested/natural vegetation r 6o %
Von perennial stream agriculture, urban/suburban
on intermittent stream impervious surface %
=
within interstream divide
other
Dominant Vegetation
Soil Series WJrSlnsltv?? (1)
_ predominantly organic-humus,
muck, or peat (2)?
;predominantly mineral- non-sandy

¦ _ predominantly sandy (3) Qak.
Flooding and Wetness
_ semipermanently to permanently flooded

H
d
li
F
t or inundated
Z
ll
fl
d
d
i
d
d
y
rau
ors
c
ac easona
y
oo
e
or
nun
ate
r _ steep topography _ intermittently flooded or temporary
_ ditched or channelized surface water
_ wetland width >/= 50 feet _ 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 3 * 4 = i
Bank/Shoreline stabilization _ - * 4 = 9 Total score
Pollutant removal 1_ * 5 = 15 4s
Wildlife habitat 4 * 2 = 9
Aquatic life value 4 =
Recreation/Education C * 1 =
Add I point if in sensitive watershed and >10% nonpoint disturbance within 1/2 mile upstream
r
1
1

1
1

'J
F

1

5 y,4,, -k J3
Wetland Rating Worksheet
Project name A(m o ?y&k_ Nearest road RD u _ )9, J .
County-W Name of Evaluator ES Date !- _ 3- 0 i
Wetland location
on pond or lake
;,6"n perennial stream
_ on intermittent stream
_ within interstream divide
other -
Soil Series IAfor56CUvN
predominantly organic-humus,
muck, or peat
VP'redominantly mineral- non-sandy
_ predominantly sandy
Adjacent land use (within 1/2 mile upstream)
forested/natural vegetation 1 C2c'? O/o
agriculture, urban/suburban
impervious surface %
Dominant Vegetation
(1)
(2)
(3)
Flooding and Wetness
_ semipermanently to permanently flooded
or inundated
Hydraulic Factors _ seasonally flooded or inundated
_ steep topography _ intermittently flooded or temporary
ditched or channelized surface water
_
_ wetland width >/= 50-feet Zo evidence of flooding or surface water

Wetland Type (select one)
Bottomland hardwood forest Pine savanna
04eadwater 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 2- * 4 9
Bank/Shoreline stabilization * 4 = i (0 Total score
Pollutant removal J- * 5 = 5 2q
Wildlife habitat * 2 = lei
Aquatic life value 4 =
Recreation/Education c? * 1 = C)
Add I point if in sensitive watershed and >10% nonpoint disturbance within 1/2 mile upstream
1

_ - _ _ -_ - - = Wetland Rating Worksheet
Project name J V l? +r1 u t? +r a ,lL Nearest road ? sZ .
Coun.a- Name of Evaluator C G Date :t _ _
Wetland locatlon - - Adjacent land use (within 1/2 mile upstream)
on-pond or lake - -forested/natural vegetation 00 % -
on perennial stream agriculture, urban/suburban %
- - - on .intermittent stream - impervious surface %
- -
= - _within interstream divide
_
Dominant Vegetation -
-Soil Series O( C? h(Ut\n (1)
? C Z ?Cil1?iV?
predominantly organic humus, _
r
' - muck, or peat (2)
Zpredominantly mineral- non-sandy -
pradominantly sandy (3)
Flooding and Wetness
_.semiperrnanently to permanently flooded
or inundated -
- Hydraulic Factors
steep topography _ seasonally flooded or inundated
_ intermittently flooded or temporary
tched or channelized surface water
_ wetland width >/= 50-feet _ no evidence of flooding or-surface water
- - Wetland Type (select one) _
Bottomland hardwood forest -Pine savanna ` -
Z eadwater-forest _ Freshwater marsh
_ Swamp forest _ Bog/fen
Wet flat
Pocosin _ Ephemeral wetland
Other
*Me rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes
Water storage * 4 = `??`
Bank/Shoreline stabilization 4 Total score
Pollutant removal
Wildlife habitat * 5
2
=
Aquatic life value- 4
Recreation/Education C * 1 = -?
Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and >I 0% nonpoint disturbance within 1 /2 mile upstream

11
1
1

'lJ

1

1
1

APPENDIX C
Species Lists for Plant Communities
78

1

1

1
1

1

j
i
1
I

Mesic-Mixed Hardwood Forest
Sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum)
Red maple (Acer rubrum)
White oak (Quercus alba)
Yellow poplar (Driodendron tulipifera)
Mockernut hickory (Carya alba)
American hazelnut (Corylus americana)
Water oak (Quercus nigra)
Blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica)
Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana)
Parsley hawthorn (Crataegus marshallii)
Elephants foot (Elephantopus tomentosus)
Poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans)
Maple leaf viburnum (Viburnum acerifolium)
Black haw (Viburnum prunifolium)
Muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia)
Black cherry (Prunus serotina)
American holly (Ilex opaca)
Service berry (Amelanchier arborea)
Deerberry (Vaccinium stamineum)
Flowering dogwood (Cornus florida)
Pinxter-flower (Rhododendron periclymenoides)
American beech (Fagus grandifolia)
Southern sugar maple (Acer barbatum)
Hop-hornbeam (Ostrya virginiana)

DELMesic Oak-Hickory Forest
' Black cherry (Prunus serotina)
Flowering dogwood (Cornus florida)
Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda)
Yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera)
Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua)
Hawthorn (Crataegus spp.)
White oak (Quercus alba)
Black oak (Q. velutina)
Scarlet oak (Q. coccinea)
Southern red oak (Q. falcata)
Eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana)
Red mulberry (Morus rubra)
' Ebony spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron)
Rattlesnake fern (Botrychium virginianum)
' Blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica)
St. Johns wort (Hypericum spp.)
Yellow jessamine (Gelsemium sempervirens)
Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia)
Service berry (Amelanchier arborea)
Sparkleberry (Vaccinium arboreum)
' Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana)
Strawberry bush (Euonymous americana)
Snake root (Sanicula canadensis)
Kidney-leaf rosinweed (Silphium compositum)
American hazelnut (Corylus americana)
' Downy arrowwood (Viburnum rafinesquianum)
Poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans)
Paw-paw (Asimina triloba)
Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana)
False foxglove (Aureolaria virginica)
Maple leaf viburnum (Viburnum acerifolium)

1
1

1
11

11

1

F

I
1

? 11

Semipermanent Impoundment (FreshWater Marsh)
Red maple (Acer rubrum)
Arrow-wood (Viburnum dentatum)
Possum-haw (V. nudum)
Arrow arum (Peltandra virginica)
Asiatic dayflower (Murdannia keisak)
Virginia-willow (Itea virginica)
Soft rush (Juncus effusus)
Jewelweed (Impatiens capensis)
Muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia)
Silky dogwood (Cornus amomum)
Wool grass (Scirpus cyperinus)
Lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus)
Arrow-leaf tearthumb (Polygonum sagittatum)
Black gum (Nyssa sylvatica)
American potato-bean (Apios americana)
Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis)
Water hemlock (Cicuta maculata)
Poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans)
Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis)
Poison sumac (Toxicodendron vernix)
Queen-of-the-meadow (Eupatorium fistulosum)
Common boneset (Eupatorium perfoliatum)
Winterberry (Ilex verticillata)
Black willow (Salix nigra)
River birch (Betula nigra)
Tag alder (Alnus serrulata)
Arrowhead (Sagittaria spp.)
Common cattail (Typha latifolia)
False-nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica)
Swamp smartweed (Polygonum hydropiperoides)
Water-horehound (Lycopus virginicus)
Titi (Cyrilla racemiflora)
Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii)
Bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis)

I'
Dry Oak-Hickory Forest
1

1

t

Black oak (Quercus velutina)
Scarlet oak (Q. coccinea)
Southern red oak (Q. falcata)
Post oak (Q. stellata)
Mimosa (Albizia julibrissin)
Black cherry (Prunus serotina)
Flowering dogwood (Cornus florida)
Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda)
Shortleaf pine (P. echinata)
Downy arrowwood (Viburnum rafinesquianum)
False foxglove (Aureolaria virginica)
Maple leaf viburnum (Viburnum acerifolium)
Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia)
Saw-tooth blackberry (Rubus argutus)
Poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans)
Autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellata)
Groundsel-tree (Baccharis halimifolia)
Tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima)

Piedmont Bottomland Hardwood Forest
' River birch (Betula nigra)
Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
American elm (Ulmus americana)
Box elder (Acer negundo)
Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)
Cherrybark oak (Quercus pagodifolia)
' False-nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica)
Asiatic dayflower (Murdannia keisak)

' Arrow arum (Peltandra virginica)
Willow oak (Quercus phellos)
Deciduous holly (Ilex decidua)
Swamp smartweed (Polygonum hydropiperoides)
Poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans)
1
i

0

1

1

E

P
1
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
Crossvine (Bignonia capreolata)
American elm (Ulmus americana)
Yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera)
Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua)
Flowering dogwood (Cornus florida)
Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)
Sweet Bay (Magnolia virginiana)
Trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans)
Winged elm (Mmus alata)
Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia)
Silky dogwood (Cornus amomum)
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica)
Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense)
Arrow-wood (Viburnum dentatum)
Possum-haw (V. nudum)
Greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia)
Southern lady fern (Athyrium filix femina)
Netted chainfern (Woodwardia areolata)
Jewelweed (Impatiens capensis)
Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis)
Black cherry (Prunus serotina)
American holly (Ilex opaca)
Goldenrod (Solidago spp.)
Red maple (Acer rubrum)
False-nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica)
Parsley hawthorn (Crataegus marshallii)

1

n
1
h

L

1

H
Low Elevation Seen
Highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum)
Possum haw (Viburnum nudum)
Netted chainfern (Woodwardia areolata)
False Solomon's seal (Maianthemum racemosum)
Poison sumac (Toxicodendron vernix)
White ash (Fraxinus americana)
Southern lady fern (Athyrium asplenioides)
Greenbriar (Smilax rotundifolia)
Tag alder (Alnus serrulata)
Jack-in-the-pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum)
Winter berry (Ilex verticillata)
Microstegium (Microstegium vimineum)
Winged elm (Ulmus alata)
Lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus)
Jewelweed (Impatiens capensis)
American burr reed (Sparganium americanum)
Poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans)
Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis)
Sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana)
Cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea)
Royal fern (Osmunda regalis)
Soft rush (Juncus effusus)
Yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera)
River birch (Betula nigra)
Black willow (Salix nigra)
Giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea)
Sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis)
Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua)
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica)
Water-horehound (Lycopus virginicus)
False-nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica)
Blackberry (Rubus spp.)
Arrow-wood (Viburnum dentatum)
White fring-tree (Chionanthus virginicus)

Piedmont Acidic Cliff Forest
' American beech (Fagus grandifolia)
Mockernut hickory (Carya alba)
Maple leaf viburnum (Viburnum acerifolium)
Yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera)
Low bush blueberry (Vaccinium pallidum)

0

1

?n

Sassafras (Sassafras albidum)
Flowering dogwood (Corpus Florida)
White oak (Quercus alba)
Black oak (Q. velutina)
Scarlet oak (Q. coccinea)
Sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum)
Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana)
Poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans)
Muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia)
Resurrection fern (Pleopeltis polypodioides)
Mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia)
False foxglove (Aureolaria virginica)
Kidney-leaf rosinweed (Silphium compositum)
Partridge-berry (Mitchella repens)
American holly (Ilex opaca)
Rusty black haw (Viburnum rufidulum)
False Solomon's seal (Maianthemum racemosum)
Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua)
Smooth sumac (Rhus glabra)
Winged sumac (R. copallina)

Piedmont Levee Forest
' Box elder (Acer negundo)
River birch (Betula nigra)
Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
' American elm (Ulmus americana)
Silky dogwood (Cornus amomum)
Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense)
' Parsley hawthorn (Crataegus marshallii)
River oats (Chasmanthium latifolium)

' Trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans)
Poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans)
Greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia)
Giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea)
Sugarberry (Celtis laevigata)
Rusty black haw (Viburnum rufzdulum)
False-nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica)
Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)
Souther sugar maple (Acer barbatum)
' Flowering dogwood (Cornus Florida)
Bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis)
Red mulberry (Morus rubra)

1

1