20071995 Ver 1_Monitoring Report_20161206

Engineering Services Department
B. Keith Pugh, P.E., Director
NC '^oa,':'nvnt of
Environmental Quality
Received
DEC 0 6 2016
Winston-Salem
Regional Office
December 5, 2016
Sue Homewood
NC DENR Winston-Salem Regional Office
Division of Water Resources — Water Quality Programs
450 W. Hanes Mill Rd, Suite 300
Winston Salem NC 27105
RE: Hartley Drive Widening and Extension
Fourth Annual Mitigation Monitoring Report
High Point, North Carolina
Dear Sue:
0­7-ic)9S
NORTH CAROLINA'S INTERNATIONAL CITY"
The City of High Point has completed the fourth annual Mitigation Monitoring Report (enclosed) for the
Hartley Drive Widening and Extension project.
We will continue to monitor the wetland site as required by the Minimum Monitoring Requirements for
Compensatory Mitigation Projects for permit authorization under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Please contact me if you need any additional information or if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Terry A. Kuneff, P.4CF,
Engineering Services Department
City of High Point, P.O. Box 230, 211 South Hamilton Street, High Point, NC 27261 USA
Fax: [phone] Phone: [phone] TDD: 336.883.8517

HARTLEY ROAD WIDENING AND EXTENSION
FOURTH ANNUAL MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT
HIGH POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
December 2016
Prepared by:
CITY OF HIGH POINT
Mr. Keith Pugh, P.E. — Director of Engineering Services
City of High Point
211 S. Hamilton Street
High Point, NC 27261
[phone]
NORTH CMDUNA'SbM WATTONALCn-r

NC Department of
Mitigation Monitoring Report Environmental Quality
Hartley Drive Widening and Extension Received December 2016
High Point, North Carolina.. .
0 q - DEC 0 6 2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Winston-Salem
Regional Office
Page No.
1.0 GENERAL DESCRIPTION....................................................................................1
1.1 BRIEF OVERVIEW....................................................................................... 1
1.2 SIMPLE DESCRIPTION.............................................................................. 2
2.0 BACKGROUND....................................................................................................... 2
3.0 SITE PREPARATION............................................................................................. 4
3.1 CLEARING.................................................................................................... 4
3.2 REGRADING.................................................................................................4
3.3 REESTABLISHMENT OF HYDROLOGY ............................................... 5
3.4 PREPARE SUBSTRATE.............................................................................. 6
4.0 VEGETATION PLANTING PLAN........................................................................ 6
5.0 HYDROLOGY ESTABLISHMENT...................................................................... 8
6.0 MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING................................................................ 8
6.1 PROJECT GOALS........................................................................................ 9
6.2 METHODS...................................................................................................10
6.3 CONTINGENCY.........................................................................................11
7.0 MONITORING LEVEL 1.....................................................................................13
7.1 PLANT SURVIVAL ANALYSIS...............................................................14
7.2 CHANNEL STABILITY ANALYSIS........................................................ 15
7.3 BIOLOGICAL DATA.................................................................................15
8.0 FUTURE ACTIVITIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS....
APPENDIX A - FIGURES
APPENDIX B - PHOTOGRAPHS
ii
......15

Mitigation Monitoring Report.
Hartley Driye•Widening and.Extension December 2016
High Point;North Carolina,
1.0 GENERAL DESCRIP'T'ION
1.1 'Brief Overview
The City of High Point,'NC- has performed, the widening and extension of Hartley Drive
., ,across unnamed tributaries to Rich Fork Creek, and freshwater wetlands in High Point;
NC.. Hartley Drivewas extended.from the existing western terminus of -Hartley Drive in
Guilford County to Westover Drive (SR 1738) in, Davidson County,'NC (Appendix A
Figures 1: and 2). Hartley Drive was widened to. a four lane; highway from the existing
intersection with Main Street (US 311) to Westover Drive (SR 173.8).
The City of High Point; North Carolina" had retained the firm of STV/Ra1ph Whitehead
Associates (STV/R,WA) of Charlotte; ,North • Carolina,, to conduct_ :the 'Section 404,
wetlands • permitting, services for the proposed 'widening and .extension ,of HartleY'Drive `
which was, issued on June 17 2009 (Action - I'D No. SAW -2007-03968): .As an integral
part of the Section 404 permitting, an on-site, mitigation area was proposed, consisting of
a relocated stream and a created forested/erriergent wetland. system.
.This fourth, Mifigation-: Monitoring Report details the .stream and wetland mitigation
progress including_refereilce!phoios, plant,surviyal-'analysis, channel,stability analysis, and
biological_ data as 'outliried in the-,StrdAm'Mitigation Guidelines (April 2003) prepared by
representatives of the. . U;S, Army Corps :of Engineers; Wilmington 'District '(USACE),
;.
..North Carolina Division of.Water Resources (NCDWR), U.S. EnvironmerifaI Protection
g Y gi )� _ ) the
A enc, , Re ion IV SEPA Natural Resourceonce ton.Service CS and
,North .Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission CWRC
STV/RWA's env ironmental• scientists developed the mitigation plan, including .the site
preparation, vegetation plantings, establishment of hydrology, and: the proposed
maintenance and monitoring of the area. Approximately 14.0 linear feet of stream and
10,036 square feet of wetland have ,been ,created for the mitigation required. The final,
determination, for the created wetland size. will. be made at the end of the .five-year
maintenance °and monitoring period.
The responsible party for the mitigation is as follows:
Mr.' Keith Pugh, P.E. Director of Engineering Services
City of High Point
211 S. Hamilton. Street
High Pointy NC 27261
(336.),,88314494
The responsible- party 'is responsible- for the monitoring and remedial activifies at 'tle,
Mitigation site:
-� 1

'Mitigation Monitoring Report,
Hartley Drive Widening and`Extension
High Point, North Carolina.
December 2016
1.2' Simple Description,
The proposed project involved extending Hartley Drive approximately 5800 feet: through
a currently undeveloped wooded area thereby connecting US 34:1 (Main. Street) to
Westover Drive (SR. 1738). The project corridor is `situated between 'US 3.11 and the
intersection of Westover Drive and Shadow Valley Road and crosses Ingleside Drive at
its approximate center point. The project further involved the widening of Hartley Drive
to four lanes which required the expansion of the roadway near the Hartley
Drive/Westover Drive intersection, the Hartley Drive/Ingleside Drive °intersection,, arid'
the section of Hartley Drive west of US 311 to the existing western terminus of Hartley
Drive. The project also .involved the. modification of the existing traffic signal located at,
the intersection of Hartley Drive. and US 341 in order to handle ,the additional two lanes
that will be added to� Hartley Drive west of US :31,1. The .eastern, portion of'the site is
-situated in Guilford County. -whereas the western portion of the s'i'te, is, situated `in
Davidson. County.
The proposed roadway alignment impacted the project area :streams_ and wetlands. The -
jurisdictional boundaries of the project corridor streams' and wetlands had been confirmed.
by the USAGE and' the NCDWR during two field inspections/confirmations. A
jilrisdictional determination request�was submitted to the USACE' on April 24, -2006. The
'first field confirmation, was conducted on May 8h, 2006 by Mr. Todd Tugwell of the
USACE and Mr: Daryl Lamb of'the NCDWR. The boundaries of 'the delineated streams
and wetlands were confirmed, and the subsequent survey of these jurisdictional areas was
submitted in September 2006.
A second:field confirmation. Of the project corridors jurisdictional areas was requested by
the USACE and the `NCDWR•. due to the departures . of the two agency 'personnel who
conducted. the 'initial -field 'inspection/confirmation. The second field confirmation was
conducted. on January 29th, 2008 ,by Mr. Andy Williams of the 'USACE and..Ms. Sue
Homewood- of. the NCDWR. The boundaries of the project .corridor wetlands were again
confirmed, and the proposed on-site mitigation plan was discussed.:
2.0 BACKGROUND
According to aerial photography viewed . on the City. sof 'High Point' Geographical
I"nformation System (GIS); the proposed project corridor was a mix .of woodland with
:four streams in, the central. portion and the western portion of 'the site. 'Surrounding land',,
use is primarily ,residential with a few commercial properties, Residential ;development
abuts the project site to the north,. west, and. southeast. Commercial -properties abut the
project corridor on the eastern portion of the site. The mitigation project area is within a
successional wooded area that; has experienced recent impacts due to the presence of a
sanitary sewer line which crosses the project corridor.
2
t

Mitigation, Monitoring Report
Hartley DriveMidening and Ext'en_sion December Ml( ,
High -Point, North.Carolina
Jurisdictional Streams
Two stream channel's were; located' within, the ..proposed mitigation •area. `Both .of the
strearns were classified as perennial, ,according. to the North Carolina Division of Water
Resources -Stream: 'Identification Form. Both channels are unnamed tributaries to °Ri'ch
Fork Creek in the. Yadkin -Pee; Dee drainage basin.
Stream 1 is a perennial stream located in the western portion of the project corridor
between Ingleside Drive and Westover Drive. This stream begins ;at the Westgate Road
residential development located to. the .north, and, flows to the southwest into'the project
corridor. This first, order" stream received ;a score of 52 on the USACE Stream Quality, -
Assessment, Worksheet.
Stream 2 is;a perennial stream. also located in the western .portion of the; project corridor
between Ingleside Drive and Westover Drive. This• stream begins at the Embers Road. and
Westgate Road. residential development located to the north, and _flows, to the southwest
Where .it. i's joined by an intermittent tributary north.of theproject corridor,'and then flows
south into the project corridor where is joined by Stream 1. This second order stream
:received,a score of -57 on the. USACE Streain;Quality--Assessment Worksheet.
The overstory vegetation'in the area, surrounding;Stream 1 and Stream 2 was previously
dominated by - sweet um "(Puidam'bdr• styraciflua) red maple ,(Acer rubrum), and
American;sycamore (Platanus occidentalis). The area has since been cleared for the
construction of the- roadway, the installation -of the sanitary sewer which :crosses through
the project corridor; and the creation of the mitigation area.
Site. Topography and Geology
In general, both surface.and groundwater flow directions, are controlled by the topography in
the Piedmont, with the flow generally occurring perpendicular to the contours from high to
low elevations. Based oii our' .review of the 1993 USGS 7.5 .Minute Quadrangle
Topographic Map.for:High Point West,'NC, ,the ground 'surface of'theproject area: is
'between: 820 feet to 880 feet, above mean sea level (Appendix A - Figure 2). The
elevation :at the proposed mitigation area is approximately 820 to 822 feet above, mean
sea level. The majority of surface water flows. by- sheet drainage downslope to the east or
west into one of the streams; these streams flow sou'thwest-as tributaries to Rich Fork Creek.
'Soils
According to the! USDA iS`oil 'Survey of Davidson .County (1994) on-site ,soils consist of `
Poindexter and Zion sandy loarns 2 to, 8 percent sl'opes'(PnB); Poindexter and Zion sandy
foams 8 to 15 percent slopes: '(P, D); 'and • Poindexter and Zion sandy loams 15 to 25.
percent slopes (PnE)-(Appendix Figure 3).. According. to the USDA.�SoilSurvey -of
Guilford County "(1977) project corridor soils consist of Chewacla -sandy loam (Ch),
• 3

`Mitigation Monitoring,Report
HartleyDrive'Widening and Extension Decembd 2016
HigK'Point, North Carolina
Wilkes sandy loam 6 to 1'0' percent slopes • (WkC), and Wilkes sandy loam 15 to 45
percent slopes (WkE) (Appendix .A.- Figure 4): Chewacla"sandy loam is listed as a hydric
soil on the North Carolina .Hydric Soils List. Poindexter and 'Zion sandy loam 15 to 25
percent slopes (PnE) are mapped within the corridor of Stream,1 and 2 in the proposed
mitigation area.
3.0 SITE PREPARATION
The preparation of the. _mitigation area involved several :steps that were necessary to
changethe'topography:and hydrological regime within`the stream relocation and wetland
.,creation area. The initial preparafion involved .the clearing and grubbingof the existing
vegetation. This clearing was ,followed by the regrading of the topography 'to match the
design plans., The preparation of the mitigation area coincided with the 'relocation of•tho
sanitary sewer 'that crosses .the project corridor in this, area. Thei hydrology for. the
-mitigation area i's provided by the rerouting of 'the project corridor',s Stream 2 into Stream
1 slightly upstream of 4he existing confluence. The existing: stream flow was maintained
while the mitigation area substrate was prepared and, the wetlands plantings were
established.
3.1 Clearing -
Mechanical clearing of the .area. vegetation was the initial step in the preparation of the
mitigation area. The clearing of the area• vegetation was necessary for the relocation of
- . the sanitary
'sewer that•crosses the project corridor in -this ,portion of the project, as well as
the relocation, of a portion :of Stream 2. Clearing extended from the area where the
'sanitary sewer was, relocated through the; stream relocatlon/mitigation, area, to ',the
proposed roadway.
As mentioned ;in Section, 2, the vegetation of the. ;area -_included sweetgum, red maple, and
American` sycamore. Grubbing of the cleared vegetation roots followed the vegetation
clearing to remove the roots of ,these saplings. Soil erosion and sediment control fencing
was installed at the outer and down slope limits of the proposed wetland mitigation area,
and around the areas of exposed soils.
3.2 Regrading
The area topography was, graded .after the clearing of the. area vegetation., Earthworking •
equipment such, as..bulldozers, backhoes, front-endloaders, and track hoes were used to
initially prepare the site, and remove the topsoil of the area. All large. boulders, rocks and
stones were separated from the soils and stockpiled for later use. No soils, boulders,
rocks; stones; or, any other mater" als: were stockpiled within jurisdictional. areas.
After the boulders; rocks !arid stones weie2 screened out of the regraded project area; site
soils were temporarilystockpiled outside. of 'the project area for use within the mitigation
'area.
4

Mitigation Monitoring;Report
Hariley Drive Widening and Extension
High Point, North Carolina
December 2016
The proposed :mitigation area was regraded to achieve .a level topography. This level
;grading for the mitigation area tied into the ' toposed regrading' of the sanitary sewer
relocation area in order to achieve a'uniform slope from the sanitary sewer relocation area
to the wetland mitigation area.
Bankfull elevations and thalweg elevations were set by surveyors to establish depths for
the relocated stream. The. flood prone area surrounding the relocated' stream was also
established to handle a 50 -year storm event-. Flooding -of the stream channel during
extreme precipitation events provides additiorial.hydro logical input for the, wetland .
nmtigation area.
.3.3Re-establishment of Hydrology
'Upon the completion of the ;site regrading, the new stream channel' was prepared. The
existing Stream 1 and the proposed stream were ,created. with a similar entrenchment
ratio, width/depth, ratio and "sinuosity. The recreated stream meanders are essentially a
reverse of the existing stream .sinuosity. Additionally, since the length of the relocated .
portion of the stream -is less than the impacted.°portion of the stream, the meanders have a
shorter run length between them.. This _is required, to direct the stream into the culvert that..
was built underneath the roadway. This, reduction in `natural stream length prohibited a
cipplication.'of "the existing stream wavelength-.
The portion •of the. stream• reach that, was impacted provided. the representative reference
stream morphology for the relocated stream. The stream morphology in the non -impacted
upstream portion did not provide . the: entrenchment and sinuosity xepresent'ation of the
portion of the stream reach to be impacted.
Approximately 1.40 linear feet of new stream channel was created. This new stream.
channel also conveys the necessary, hydrology to the, proposed wetlands mitigation.area
which is located between'the relocated stream and, the new section, of .the Hartley Drive'
roadway. The relocated stream channel -is drained.'by the culvert under the new'section of
Hartley Drive;, which is connected to the portion of Stream 1 that is located south .of the -
proposed project. corridor.
The ;relocated portion of the stream consists of a 'thalweg which is the deepest portion of
the proposed stream channel and conveys the area stormwater runoff in low flow
conditions, and ' larger bankfull area to handle larger° flows of stormwater from the
upstream, areas. From the bankfull area, the relocated streams associated flood prone
width provides additional .volume for. the design storm and includes the wetland
mitigation area oft the south side of the stream.
Coconut fiber matting was: used. to line the stream banks to assist. in the stabilization of
the ,soils: The; thalweg, of. the "relocated stream channel is unlined. Boulders, and stones
,were placed on top of the matting in designated areas to stabilize the stream banks and
further limit the erosion and scouring- of the stream flow..A rock ,crossvane 'was placed -
5.

Mitigation. Monitoring Report
Hartlev'Drivei Widening and Extension December,2016
High•Point, North Carolina
across the stream as shown on the- mitigation. plan (Appendix. A Sheet '17) to provide
grade control; maintain the thalweg in, the center of the channel, and to provide a ,pool
which wil'1 'help to 'reduce flow velocities, -reduce stream, `bank scour and provide
additional aquatic habitat.
The culvert that has been placed under the roadway takes the- stream flow from the
mitigation site and directs it ,under the proposed roadway to the downstream portion of
Stream 1. The.'invert elevation at, the point where the culvert intercepts both Stream 1 and
-the relocated Stream 2 is at approximately -816.5 feet.
3.4 Prepare Substrate
As previously mentioned, eafthworking equipment such as. bulldozers, backhoes, front-
end',loaders; and track hoes were used, to.initiallyprepare the site, Similar equipment was-
used°to transfer the stockpiled, soils and -boulders from the stockpile areas to, the proposed:
Mitigation area '1Vo heavy earthworking ,equipment was permitted: to •enter existing'
jurisdictional areas; and, was largely limited to the proposed construction and mitigation
areas.
The placement of the• stockpiled boulders at- the :designated areas Along-'* the, stream banks.
was done to armor the stream banks against erosion during high flow periods. A coconut
fiber mat was placed over the stream banks at these areas prior to boulder placement:
The coconut fiber matting helped to, stabilize the stream bank soils, and will be permitted
to decompose naturally after the boulders. have been placed. The boulder revetment will
help° to maintain the stream bank andstill provide a natural stream bank substrate:
The, boulder'revetments along the stream bank were- constructed by f rst; lining the, smaller
boulders; along the °toe, of the stream bank, under the proposed. water table elevation.
Progressive layers,of larger boulders were then ,placed over the smaller boulders, until the.
top of bank was reached.
The substrate soils of the wetland mitigation area were prepared by firstgrading the area
subsoil, (as described in 'Section 3.2) to ,,el'evations approximately onefoot below the final
proposed grade, and then spreading the stockpiled soils over the prepared subsoil.• The
stockpiled soils were then spread over the mitigation area by, hand to ensure that the
compaction of -the soils was minimized. The topsoil was loosely placed over the..subsoil,
and was spread in,:a,,sl'ightly uneven manner creating mounds • and .kettl'es for. .a variable
microtopography in. the• mitigation area.
4.0 ; VEGETATION"PLANT-ING PLAN 4
.After the soils substrate was prepared; 'landscaping 'contractors', began the:' nstallation of
the vegetative plantings for the areasurrounding the. relocated stream and for* the wetland
mitigation area.. Tree species that were planted, in the wetland mitigation area match the
types of speciesfound naturally,'within_the existing forest of the area.

Mitigation;Monitoring. Report
Hai-tleyDrive'Widening and Extension
High Point, North Caiolina
Deceinb'e%2016.
The nurseries that ,are found within the, vicinity of the project were used to provide the
mitigation area -vegetation. All planting was- done by hand. ,Materials were brought to `the
'site in good. conditionand, then placed' ;in a central drop location. The, materials were then
hand -carried, to "their planting locations ,arid in turn,, 'P.anted. by hand. Rounded, shallow
planting, shovels were to be used in this effort..
.Container -grown plant material delivered to the job site was watered to assure moist
.soil/root masses. Any dry `and light weight plants were not accepted. When not planted
immediately, the container was.;stored out of the sun, and wind and kept moist. The trees
planted: were not in leaf and the buds: were, firm and free of damage, discoloration, insects
and _fungus: Containers were a minimum of quart size for shrubs and„gallon size for trees-.-
., .. _ .
''The trees and shrubs wereM planted in- the fall (September 15, to ;October 30). A hole was
dug twice: as, deep as the root ball: The -only shovels allowed were founded;. shallow
spades'. The .hole was then :backfilled with a thin layer .(two- to. four inches)' of rich,
organic topsoil. The .plant was :placed inside the hole, the. hole,;was backfilled to the top,
and -then gently tamped down..
A wetland 'seed mix was chosen based on commercial availability :and the -seed species=
ability to survive in moist areas ,adjacent;to the'road with some sun_. Seeds were broadcast
by knapsack seeder using;, the proper' seeding rate; carefully proportioning seed for the
entire area. The seed was covered vith a light layer ofsfraw-mulch following seeding .
The Overstory 'species planted are considered 'to be facultative and facultative wetland
species. These. include American .sycamore (FACW);, red maple (FAC), sweetgum .
(FAC); and pussy willow (Salix discolor, FACW). Each of 'these tree species were
planted on a raised mound- of soil to create,a varied microtopography within the wetland .
area, and to ensure that the tree could receive adequate air during_ periods of prolonged. .
inundation and floodingvithin the wetland area.
Shrubs,planted. in this wetland mitigation area includedlii'ghbush blueberry (Maccinium
corymbosum, FACW) and winterberry holly (Ilexvertieill_ata, FACW). Herbaceous
wetland species planted as plugs included upright sedge- (Cdrex strcta OBL), soft rush
(Juncus effusus, FACW), woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus, OBL), and Virginia blue flag iris,
(Iris virginiea, OBL). A wetland seed_mixture was also sown into the wetland mitigation
area. A species of Burford holly (Ilex cornuta, NL) was planted at the toe of the slope, of
the proposed roadway 'in place: of the proposed American.hol_ly .(L. opaca, FAC).
The :existing seed bank ri the area :soils that was, used in the ' final grading also have:
germinated and have begun to; colonize the wetland mitigation area. These volunteer
species now, in the wetland .mitigation area include cow vetch, (:Vicia' cracca), hawkweed
(Hieracium sp.), beggars ticks (Bidens sp.), .yellow sweet clover (Melilotus officinalis);,
red clover (Trifolium pretense), and ,Carolina'cranesbill (Geranium carolin'ianum)..
7

Mitigation,Monitoring Report
Hartley Drive Widening and Extension December,.2016
High.Poini, North Carolina'
5.0 HYDROLOGY ESTABLISHMENT'
The relocation of the sanitary sewer; installation of the proposed 60" culvert pipe, and the
preparation of the relocated stream, channel was completed before establishing. the
hydrology to they proposed wetland mitigation area. When .the procedures outlined, `in
-Section 3' (Site P.,reparation) °.and. Section 4 (Vegetation. Planting Plan) were completed,,
the stream was directed frons the existing location to the prepared, relocated stream
channel., The - existing stream flow now, continues within the stream relocation and, the;
mitigation area. The combined streams.drain into the culvert that was placed under the
roadway.
The portion offfie existing stream channel that •has been..dband'oned =and not impacted by
the roadway has. become incorporated.. into the proposed wetland mitigation area. 'The
remaining portion of the .stream channelhas been blocked off by .an embankment.
,protected `by a matting �of coconut fil er,:covered by a row of boulders, or. has; been, filled,
by the roadway .embankment.
The thalweg is partially'bl'ocked (temporarily) at the rock vane within the newly created
stream channel. The. thalweg, has been blocked. using removable sandbags until the
wetland. mitigation- area is fully established. The temporary blocking of this main
drainage -;way for the. strearn has backed the water up into the wetland mitigation area,
creating ,a, pool in this portion of . the .relocated stream. channel. The inundation of the
wetland mitigation area by stormwater eliminated the ,need to water this area as it was
being established. It is also. permitting the fine sediments carried in the water column to
fall out into this stream pool area. Fine sediments and clay particles on the substrate
surface .will' help .to decrease the soil permeability, and increase the surface inundation
within the mitigation area.
6.0 MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING
The Hartley Drive "Opening Ceremony" was held on September 12; 2013. Monitoring
and maintenance efforts for the mitigation plantings will take place over a five-year
period following construction as required by ,the Minimum Monitoring Requirements for
Compensatory Mitigation. Projects for permit authorizations under Section 404 of the.
Clean Water Act. This will include frequent visits for the first growing season, and then
twice .a year for the next two: years; with additional inspections as required depending on
the site conditions: The scientist in. charge will conduct a survey of the site and site
conditions will be .noted and adjusted is necessary. An annual report will be provided to
the NC Division of Water Resources (NCDWR), the City of High Point .and the Army
Corps -6f Engineers everyyear "for each of the five years. This is the fourth of the required
mitigation, monitoring reports, and, has been prepared by Terry Kuneff, P.E'., CFM, of -the
City of High Point Engineering Services during 2016.

Mitigation Monitoring Report
Hartley Drive Widen ing-and`Extension December 2016_
,High Point, North Carolina
'This report includes the .following •information:,
1. All, plant species, along with Their estimated relative: frequency -and, ;percent cover, are
identified.
2., Photographs: showing all areas of the mitigation site have been taken.
Plantings are to .meet or exceed an 85 percent survival_ rate by the end of the third
growing season. If -this goal i9not met, the site will be're-evaluated,. and re -grading and/or
replanting' will'be completed as necessary. Invasive species will not constitute more than
10 percent of the vegetative community.. If this -goal is exceeded; measures will be taken..
to eradicate the invasive species.
6.1 Project Goals
Project.G'oal 1::The- created wetland community should be. a• jurisdictional wetland as"
defined by current federal standards:,
Objective:: The created wetland should. develop the three: characteristics (hydrophytic
vegetation, hydric- soils; and hydrology) that define a wetland: to compensate for a portion,
of the wetlands impacted by the extension. of Hartley Drive. The remaining compensation
at a,2:4 ratio was fulfilled using the 'North •Carol'ina Ecosystem -Enhancement Program in -
lieu fee mitigation program:
Performance Criteria:
a. Predominance of hydroph : is vegetation:, More than 50% of the dominant plant species
must'be hydrophytic. The majority :of the hydrophytic vegetation i!s surviving: It was
mentioned in the 2015 ' annual report that Winterberry :Holly shrubs, AM Holly shrubs,
and the HB 'Blueberry s itubs�'Were mistakenly cut down during m_ owing; of the sanitary
.sewer' easement. These shrubs were re -planted in 2015• along withthe replacement of four
trees and all have.had a successful growth year. As sl own�in the pictures in Appendix B,,
several volunteer species such as Sycamore, Sweetgum, and Tulip -Poplar, continue to.
colonize in:several areas of the. mitigation area. `
RESULT' Although the hydrophytic vegetation that `has been planted in the mitigation
area is thriving, the dominant. -Volunteer herbaceous species that currently covers the
wetland mitigation area consists of 'sedges which have resulted due to the seed planted .in
the surrounding areas.
b". Occurrence of hydric soils; Hydric soil characteristics should be -present, or conditions
favorable for hydric soil°formation should persist at the site..
RESULT: The saturation of the soils in the! wetland mitigation, area continue, to 'deplete
the ironcontent of the ,soils, .lowering the chroman of the subsoils: The saturation of the.
soils in the wetland mitigation area :continues 'to develop redoxi"morphic features through
the spring and summer growing.seasons.
c. ,Presence of wetland hydrologyL_The area must be either permanently or periodically
inundated or have soils that _are saturated to the surface for at_least two weeks during the
growing -season.
9

Mitigation Monitoring Report,
Hartley Drive`W.idening-and:Extension December 2016
High Point, North Carolina.
RESULT: ;Several. areas of inundation; were observed'within the wetland mita atop area,
during the winter of 201.5 and during the spring of 2016, but°not'in late summer and most.
of fall,' 2016 due to -drought conditions iii the Piedmont: The presence of the observed
-amphibian breeding areas within the wetland mitigation area in the spring of 2016
indicates that vernal pool habitat conditions exist within the mitigation areas. This is, a
very good indicator of the presence of wetland hydrology.,
Project Goa12 The. createdwetland plant community should meet standards for planted.
species, survival and floristic composition.
Objective: The planting of trees will create a forested, wetland. Other woody and.
herbaceous vegetation that is planted as'plugs; seeded; -or -develops. from the: natural seed
bank will be allowed to -colonize the site naturally;; which the exception of noxious
invasive weed species that will .be removed'.
Performance; e6teria:
a. Planted species.•suryivorship: At least :85%0 of the: planted trees .and shrubs should be
established and.living byAhe end -of the five=year monitoring period.
RESULT: The trees and shrubs that were planted within the. wetland mitigation area are
currently thriving. Although it will be several years, before the trees, mature, the°,goal of
developing a forested wetland is clearly attainable 'in the future. As .previously noted,_
there are ,several .species of native volunteer growth, throughout the wetland mitigation
area:,
K Native species'_ composition: At least 50% -of the plants present should be
non,-.
native; perennial species:
RESULT: "There were approximately '10 Caftailsi identified as volunteers within the
wetland mitigation area in 2016: Therefore, the native species composition" is well over
the required 50%.
c. Dominance ofye eta: None.of the three, most dominant plant species maybe non-
native or weedy species, such as cattail,. or reed canary grass.
RESULT: No non-native, invasive species have -been identified as volunteers within- the
wetland mitigation area. .Cattail is limited to one area that experienced prolonged
inundation. Therefore, none of the three most dominant plant species are non-native or -
weedy species.
61 Methods
a. 'Predominances of hydrophytic vegetation ,
-.The method for determining dominant vegetation at a wetland site is described. in the
Corps, of 'Engineers, Wetlands Delineation- Manual" (Environmental Laboratory' 1"98.7) and
the RegionalSupplement to :the Corps of Engineers Wetland' Delineation'Manual Eastern
Mountains and Piedmont Region (Version 2:0; -April: 2012). It is. based on aerial coverage
estimates for individual plant species. Each of 'the dominant plant species is- then assigned,
its wetland indicator status rating. Any plant rated, facultative or wetter, .e:, FAC;
FACW, and OBL, is considered a hydrophyte. A predominance of wetland vegetation in
10

Mitigation Monitoring.Report
Hartley Drive Widening and.Extension
High Point, North Carolina.
December 20.16
the" plant community exists if more than 50% of the dominant species present are
hydrophytic.
b: Occurrence -of Hydric soils
The soil will be sampled. in order to monitor hydric soil development: Soil profile -
mo rphology
rofile•morphology includinghorizon color, texture, and 'structure will be, described at. various
points throughout. the mitigation site. Additionally, the - presence, type, size, and.
abundance of redoximorphic features will be noted. Hydric soils may develop slowly,
and characteristics:- may riot be apparent during the first several -years after projects .
construction.
c. Presenceo of wetland hydrology
Wetland, hydrology will. be .assumed if at"least one of the primary indicators of hydrology
is present (i.e., surface water, saturation, water marks, or, water -strained leaves), .or if .at
least two. secondary indicators are present (i.e., drainage patterns, ;geomorphic position,
microtopographic relief and FAC -neutral' test). _
6:3 Contingency
In the event that the area has not 4eveloped wetland characteristics -as determined bly the
project goal methodology, an evaluation of. the ;potential. causes for this 'failure will be
performed and corrective action will be taken. The absence of wetland soil's, hydrology
and/or the absence of the.'prevalence of hydrophyt c vegetation over some or 'all of'the
desired mitigation area will be the trigger to°°perform this corrective action.,
Corrective action's may include minor grading,: soils reworking/amending and replanting
as: described below:
Additional vegetation ,plantings
This is -thel most common contingency plan utilized for wetland mitigation projects:
Replanting is most often used to remedy failures to meet cover or: plant survival.
standards.. If plantings have failed, 'it 'is likely that some und'erlyirig problem (e.g.�' too
much or'too little water) is at fault., Replanting without addressing the x6ot :cause is likely
to result in another failure.
RESULT: No additional plantings are required at thistime:
Invasive species control
This is a necessary contingency when the standard of `success limits the cover of Jnvasiv&
species onthe site. Also, when plant survival. or diversity standards are not being met,
weed control may be needed. The control method(s)-which may be'- used will include
clearing undesirable species by hand, and spot.-pesticide/herbicide application.
RESULT: The invasive species Cattail have become volunteers •within one prolonged
inundated area of the wetland :mitigation area. Removal of these_ volunteers will be,
conducted,by the City of High'Point.
Soil amendment .
If vegetation populations are not responding as expected, .it may be necessary to add
organic matter, .structural components, or, specific, nutrients to the soil.
• 11

Mitigation; Monitoring. Report-.
Hartley Drive Widening and.Extension December2016
High'Point, North:Carolina
RESULT: The wetland mitigation area.has,, achieved,100%o vegetative cover and all of the
planted species are'thrivin No soil amendment will be°netessaiy.
Supplement hydrology
If the site does not have sufficient water supply; ;surface water may need to be, diverted
from a nearby stream or st'ormwatdt system: If such. supplemental sources are not
available; then additional remedial:measures such, as those listed below may be required. .
RESULT: An irrigation ' system, was initially installed during construction within and
around the wetland. mitigation area to provide a supplemental hydrology, if•required. The
precipitation'ainounts`l through 2016 have been intermitient, and the irrigation system was
used periodically from January to June. The irrigation system, was turned off m June at.
the request of Andy Williams, ACOS, and Sue Homewood, DWR, and has not been used
since..
Decrease soil permeability
Fine sediments maybe added or subsoil could be compacted to decrease soil permeability,
and increase water retention time. This'is best used very early,_ after- site construction in
order'to avoid-,the�need,to'replant.
RESULT: The homogenized. surface and subsurface soils from the -excavations of the
area that are now within the wetland :mitigation area have a low, ernieabi'lity allowing :the
'inundation -of the wetland by holding areas of 'stariding water: These';ponded areas within .
the wetland: are similar to vernal- pool habitats and -are ,active amphibian breedings grounds
indicating no change to soil permeability is required.
Grading revisions
Grading may be required. to slow surface water `sheet -flow across the -site or adjust:stream
dynamics of channelized systems.
RESULT:. The;presence of surface waters within the stream znd wetland indicate -that no
grading. revisions are required to the. stream or wetland -area.
Erosion. control
If. surface water drainage channels develop, additional planting might be adequate to
control this. Or,erosion-control matting (e.g., biodegradable fiber mats) or physical
controls (rock, hay ;bales), may be installed as: an interim measure. The ultimate goal
should be. to have erosion controlled by an appropriate :combination of reduced, slope and
-
increased vegetation density:,
RESULT:. The #57 stone on the upstream face .of the rock, vane washed-out between two
of the header rocks. This has been corrected and i's no longer an issue:
Access control
Fencing; blocking vehicle access points, and other -.measures can be employed to prevent
vandalism,. dumping of'trash, and other impacts cause, by humans or domestic animals.
The planting, of a boundary of dense thorny holly -'shrubs may help to provide both access
control as well as providing wildlife habitat.
12

Mitigation Monitoring Report -
Hartley Drive Widening and Extension December 2016. ;
High Point, North -Carolina
RESULT: A guardrail -is located between the sidewalk and the mitigation area to
discourage -pedestrian access. A boundary of holly.shrubs, has been planted. at the toe of
the xoadway embankment �to :further discourage access to'the mitigation area so no, ,further _
access control is roosed There
y -proposed. are no issues with vandalism; trash,, or other impacts
caused b humans or domestic>aniiinal'
_
Pest control
If revegetation is failing, due to, herbivory;, the, wildlife respoinsible, need, to beidentified'
and appropriate `damage control, methods employed'. Possible methods, include deer, .
fencing, rabbit fencing,. goose ' fencing, use ''of repellents,. and temporary, barriers. This
pest control will be'the responsibility of the responsible party to erect and -,maintain
throughout: the, five year nionitoring. period.
RESULT: Vegetation is hot -.failing. Some minor scraping of the tree bark:is,evident from.
the local deer population., Protection, from herb'ivory does. not appear to be necessary due
to the. 100% of hydrophytic species,.
7.0 MONITORING :LEVEL 1
The first f eld ,review for the -first annual, monitoring report was conducted in May 2013
-.:and the stream and 'wetland mitigation areas appeared to be acquiring- the necessary .
characteristics of ,a natural stream and wetland.•ahead of schedule.. The stream channel
Was conveying flow, had volunteer vegetation stabilizing the stream banks, and, had, no
major bank failures. The wetland mitigation area was becoming vegetated and the
plantings -were '100% successful The soils within the wetland mitigation area. had been
altered by the saturated soil °conditions and matrix soil chromas had turned, gray,.. Several
soil borings within the mitigation. °area.'were evaluated and 'indicated that, the, soils are
experiencing prolonged, 'saturated conditions:
The �second-field reviewfor=the first annual. monitoring report was- conducted in August
2013 .,and the stream, and wetland. mitigation. areas were continuing -Aa, develop
successfully. The stream- channel continued to convey flow, had wetland seed and
volunteer vegetation stabilizing the .stream banks, .and had no, major bank. failures The.
wetland seed placed,:in'the wetland mitigation area. was thriving due to the continued
saturation. and inundation .of the area. Sediment transport and deposition by .the stream
flow was covering the crushed knock with material such as leaf 'litter and sediments. This
helped the relocated stream, channel to mimic the conditions .of the stream channel that
was abandoned; and :provided a benthic substrate suitable, for ,macro .'invertebrates.
Various amphibians were colonizing'the area of the relocated stream channel. No fish
populations exist in this portion of the stream.
The ;field. review for the second annual .monitoring :report was conducted -in October of
2014 and the stream and wetland mitigation areas were .continuing to develop
successfully,: The :stream.. channel 'continued to convey -flow, had wetland seed and .
volunteer- vegetation stabilizing, the stream banks, and had, no major bankt failures. The
13

'Mitigation Monitoring Report
Hartley Drive Widening and Extension
High Point, North.Caiolina
December. 2016.
wetland seed placed in the wetland mitigation- area was thriving due to the. continued
saturation and inundation of the area. Sediment transport and deposition by the . stream
flow was covering the, crushed .rock with material such as leaf litter and "sediments. This
helped the relocated stream channel to mimic the conditions of the stream.channel that
was .abandoned, and provided a, benthic substrate suitable for' macro invertebrates.
Various amphibians were colonizing the area. of the relocated stream channel. No fish
populations exist in this portion of the stream:
'The field review,for the third annual monitonhg;report was conducted.in'October of 2015
and the stream and wetland mitigation areas were continuing to -develop successfully. The
stream channel continued ,to convey flow,- had wetland seed and volunteer vegetation
;stabilizing the stream banks, and had no major bank failures. The wetland seed placed in
the wetland mitigation area was thriving, due to -the continued saturation and inundation
of the area: Sediment transport and deposition by the stream flow was covering" the
crushed. rock with material such as leaf litter and sediments. This helped the relocated
stream channel to mimic -the conditions of the stream channel that'was abandoned,: and
provided a benthic substrate suitable for macro invertebrates. Various amphibians:were
colonizing the area of the relocated stream channel: No fish populations' exist in. this
,portion of 'the stream,-.,-
'The field review for the fourth annual :monitoring report was conducted,'in October of
20,16 and, the stream and wetland. mitigation .areas were continuing, to „develop
rr
.successfully: Due, to recent drought conditions the stream was:not flowing,..but-there was
evidence of recent stream flow. The stream',channel had :wetland. seed ,and volunteer
vegetation 'stabilizing the ;stream banks and. had r10 major bank. failures The. wetland geed
placed in the wetland mitigation area was thriving due to -the continued saturation and
inundation of the area. Sediment transport and. deposition by the stream flow was
covering the crushed, rock with material such as'leaf Jitter and sediments. This continues
to help the relocated 'stream channel to: mimic the, conditions of the stream channel; that
was abandoned, and provide a benthic substrate suitable for macro' invertebrates: Various
amphibians were colonizing the area of they relocated stream channel A turtle was also
observed in the area of the relocated stream:channel.in late. fall. No fish populations' exist
.in this portion 'of the stream.
7.1, Plant Survival Analysis
The,plantings within the wetland mitigation, areas are currently thriving as indicated in
the attached photographs: No additional tree or shrub plantings, or'replacement plantings..'
are required based on the current conditions.
The. replacement trees and shrubs that were planted in 2015 have all survived: and are
thriving-. Additional volunteer growth has'imured 100%.
The overall herbaceous cover of the wetland mitigation area had been. estimated to be
approximately 50% in May .2013 and consisted largely of perennial ryegrass (folium
14

Mitigation Monitoring; Report
Hartley Drive Widenirigand Extension
High Point North Carolina
December 2016
perenne) that was used to stabilize the soils post construction. Some areas of'inundation
existed that supported,srriartweeds (Persicaria.sp) and,rushes (Juncus
The overall herbaceous cover.6f-the wetland ri itigation area was estimated to. be .100% in.
October 2016 and, consisted 'largely of sedges (Carex spp.) and bulrushes (&irpus spp)
that were placed in the mitigation. area as the wetland seed mixture. Some areas of
inundation exist that continue to support smartweeds, rushes,: and 'bur -marigold (Bidens
7.2 Channel Stability Analysis
The stream bed and banks are in very good condition. The stream banks that are' not
stabilized by boulder revetments have been stabilized by vegetation throughout the
majorityof the stream. length. There are no :remaining unvegetated portions' of the ;stream.
banks. No additional strearn bed or. bank repair will be -requited at this- time.
7.3 Biological.Data
As per Monitoring Level 1 x1equirements, a 1 -year re-colonization/population adjustment
time of biological monitoring- following construction is. usually warranted. No such
adjustment time, was necessary for the Hartley Drive mitigation. area. 'The stream and
wetland mitigation areas .already possessed an abundance..of invertebrate :and amphibian
life during: the 2013 field ;review. A wide variety of _species was observed , in the
mitigation areas and within upstream areas. Numerous frogs, hundreds of tadpoles and
several egg masses were observed within-. the stream and within the inundated areas
within'the -wetiand. Benthic invertebrate species were limited although.a wider variety of
benthic invertebrates can,'be expected in following years. The ;following were observed.
withitvthe, relocated portion of the stream and/or the: wetland:
Southern leo pardQfrog.:(Rafia.utricularia): — adults,, tadpoles, and egg masses..
Upland `chorus frog (Pseudacrs triseratafer, iarum)' — tadpoles and egg masses.
Water striders (family Gerridae) = dozens of adults on water surface.
Dragonfly riymphs.-(order-Odonata) .— several large nymphs within stream length.,
Bloodworm.rnidges (family Chironomidae) —numerous, throughout the stream length.,
'Water boatman (family Corixidde) — numerous, throughout the stream' length.
8.0 FUTURE ACTIVITIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The completed- :mitigation area will. -require additional monitoring, as well :as the
preparation of at least one more annual Mitigation Monitoring .Report as required by the
Minimum' Monitoring -Requirements for Compensatory Mitigation, Projects for permit
authorizations under,:Section, 404 of the Clean Water Act. Invasive species control is a
necessary contingency when, the, native plant survival or diversity standards are not being
met. The City of ' High Point will continue to monitor for invasive species: within the
wetland mitigation.area. ,
15 ," .

Mitigation Monitoring'Report
Hartley Drive Widehing�and`Extension December :2016
HighliPoint; North Carolina ;
Since the- Weed control by --the City <of High Point ,has been successful in. the. past.by '
clearing the undesirable ;species by hand.; The use of spot.. pesticide/herbicide application
is.not;necessary.

APPENDIX A
FIGURES

MAFQVCST
m�
Ladfurtl Ln �„�eKt+VysV
011 Flank Rd
westo vor
,a:a�sooft
���i
r
a4
Rarrkm Pf 01
1?i�iO Z.
rflvh Or
ke
�, Sl Ann r�eV
4' N
+$Ap = f b
Vro o w, Project Vicinity q4estrldge Dr
�Pine Ridge Of
1,0
.c
a
Davidson Rd �?
C 2006 MapQuest, Inc
aGoljege r;r
OCr�.
Q'�
North Carolina Vicinity Map
I
I
CarotY"don
Or
STV/Ralph Whitehead
Associates, Inc.
Ifedgacack
W Parris Ayr Park
Home4eg'd' I"
Scale as shown
02006 NAVTEQ
Hartley Drive Widening and Extension Site Location Map
Davidson and Guilford Counties, NC FIGURE 1

North Carolina Vicinity Map
N Not to Scale
jo
lei
clot•' r' ��
STV/Ralph Whitehead
Associates, Inc.
Hartley Drive Widening and Extension U.S.G.S. Location Map
Davidson and Guilford Counties, NC FIGURE 2

Mapped Soil Units in Project Area
Poindexter and Zion sandy loams, 2 to 8 percent slopes (PnB)
Poindexter and Zion sandy loams, 8 to 15 percent slopes (PnD)
Poindexter and Zion sandy loams, 15 to 25 percent slopes (PnE)
STV/Ralph Whitehead
Associates, Inc.
N Not to Scale
Hartley Drive Widening and Extension Soil Survey
Davidson County, NC
Davidson and Guilford Counties, NC FIGURE 3

UB �••e �
~V
whET
,i �. s � r Ss •:
artley D v
�; MhBJ
Y v M� F -
yEuB-
JO
EU
.. ..
Mapped Soil Units in Project Area N Not to Scale
Wilkes sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes (WkQ
Wilkes sandy loam, 15 to 45 percent slopes (WkE)
Chewacla sandy loam (Ch)
STV/Ralph Whitehead
Associates, Inc.
Hartley Drive Widening and Extension Soil Survey
Guilford County, NC
Davidson and Guilford Counties, NC FIGURE 4

F."tMI 1 .
PHOTOGRAPHS

Hartley Drive Widening and Extension, High Point, NC
Fourth Annual Mitigation Monitoring Report (2016)
W'
Y
View from Hartley Drive of wetland mitigation area
rA
Closer view of wetland mitigation area

s� r , r -•
t �4.
• % i� \ +fir �'9�►"��i� r
� 1 i �"'"" f •t !
1 f
. � � 'i � !' �- � ��� ��\, � ` r �'k ". � � '•iii «j;. � � �M'
1 40
' 0, w..
• ,f � lig''' ,+ r ,-rs . — .: _ t �'`�. � , ,\ ,

AN
o V
A 5:k
Xv
vp, "Er
�7AMWW