Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20071995 Ver 1_Monitoring Report_20171215Engineering Services Department B. Keith Pugh, P.E., Director December 15, 2017 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 Fifth Annual Mitigation Monitoring Report High Point, North Carolina Dear Sue: D`► -IG 95 NORTH CAROLINA'S INTERNATIONAL CITY— NC Department of Environmental Quality Received DEC 18 2017 Winston-Salem Regional Office The City of High Point has completed the fifth annual Mitigation Monitoring Report (enclosed) for the Hartley Drive Widening and Extension project. The completed mitigation area has been monitored for five consecutive years as required by the Minimum Monitoring Requirements for Compensatory Mitigation Projects for permit authorizations under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. An annual report has been provided to the NC Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) and the Army Corps of Engineers every year for each of the five years. This is the fifth and last of the required mitigation monitoring reports. The City of High Point requests that final determination for the created wetland size be made since we are at the end of the five-year maintenance and monitoring period. Please contact me if you need any additional information or if you have any questions. Sincerely, K4-�-�� A'. Terry A. Kuneff, P.E., CFM Engineering Services Department City of High Point, P.O. Box 230, 211 South Hamilton Street, High Point, NC 27261 USA Fax: 336.883.4118 Phone: 336.883.3194 TDD: 336.883.8517 HARTLEY ROAD WIDENING AND EXTENSION FIFTH ANNUAL MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT HIGH POINT, NORTH CAROLINA December 2017 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 (336) 883-3194 NORTH CAF40LM81NTERNATIONALCrr r NC Department of Mitigation Monitoring Report Environmental Quality Hartley Drive Widening and Extension Received December 2017 High Point, North Carolina DEC 18 2017 1 Winston-Salem Regional Office TABLE OF CONTENTS 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...............................................................15 7.2 CHANNEL STABILITY ANALYSIS........................................................ 15 7.3 BIOLOGICAL DATA................................................................................. 15 8.0 FUTURE ACTIVITIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................... 16 APPENDIX A - FIGURES APPENDIX B - PHOTOGRAPHS ii MitigationMonitoring-Report Hartley Drive Widening and.Extension December 2017 High, Point„North. Carolina 1.0. GENERAL DESCRIPTION 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 Drive was extended' from the existing western terminus of Hartley Drive in. Guilford County to Westover Drive (SR 173 8) 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 31'1) to Westover Drive (SR 1.738). The City of High Point; North Carolina had retained the firm of STV/Ralph Whitehead. Associate_ s (STV/RWA), of Char-lotte, 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 ID 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/emergent wetland system. This fifth . Mitigation 'Monitoring Report details the stream and wetland mitigation progress including reference photos; plant survival analysis, :channel stability analysis and. biological data; as outlined in the Stream Mitigation Guidelines (April 2003): prepared. by representatives of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. (USAGE), North Carolina 'Division of Water Resources (NCDWR), U.S. Environmental' Protection Agency, Region. IV (USEPA),. Natural Resources- Conservation Service (MRCS) and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources_ Commission (NCWRC). STV/RWA's environmental scientists developed the mitigation plan, including the ,site preparation, vegetation. plantings, establishment of hydrology, and 'the proposed maintenance and monitoring of the area. Approximately 1.40 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: 1VIi Keith Pugh, P.E.; — Director. of Engineering. Services City of High Point. 211 S. Hamilton Street High Point, NC 27261 (336) 883-3194 The 'responsible party is responsible for the monitoring and remedial activities at. the mitigation site. Mitigation Monitoring,Report Hartley Drive Wideningand Extension High,Point;North Carolina December'2017 1.2 ;Simple Description The proposed project involved extending Hartley Drive approximately 5800 feet through a currently undeveloped wooded area thereby connecting US 31.1 (Main Street) to 'Westover Drive (SR 1738): The project corridor is situated between US 31.1 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, and 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 311. tot handle the additional. two; lanes ;that will .be added to Hartley Drive west of US 311. The eastern'portion of the site is situated in Guilford County whereas the,western portion of the, site is.situated in:Davidson County. The proposed.roadway alignment impacted the project area streams and wetlands. The jurisdictionalboundaries of°the project corridor streams and wetlands 'had been confirmed by the USAGEand the NCDWR during. two field inspections/confirmations.' A jurisdictional determination request was submitted to the USACE on April 24, 2006. The first field confirmation was conducted on May 8t", 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 ofthe 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 Wi_1_liams 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 of High Point Geographical Information System (G'IS), the proposed project. corridor, was a .mix of woodland, with four stream 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 J Mitigation Monitoring Report Hartley Drive Widening and Extension High Point, North Carolina Jurisdictional Streams December 2017 Two stream -channels were located within the proposed mitigation area.. Both streams were classified- as perennial, according to the North Carolina Division of Water Resources -Stream Identification ,Form. 'Both channels are, unnamed. tributaries to Rich Fork Creek in the Yadkin -Pee, Dee drainage basin. Stream l 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, andflows 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 isa, perennial stream,also:located in .the western portion of ',the protect 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, is joined'by an intermittent: tributary north of the project 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 Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet. -, 'The overstory vegetat"ion in the urea surrounding Stream 1 -and Stream 2'. Was, previously dominated 'by sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple (Acer ru'brrum), 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 isurface and groundwater flow directions are controlled by thetopography in the. Piedmont with the flow generally occurring perpendicular to the contours from high to low elevations. _Based on our review of the 1993 USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Topographic Map for High Point West,, NC, the ground: surface of the project 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 onet of the streams; these streams flow, southwest as tributaries to RichTork Creek. Soils .According to the USDA Soil Survey of"Davidson County, (1994) ori -site soils consist of Poindexter ,and Zion, sandy loam's 2 to. 8 percent slopes (PnB), Poindexter and Zion sandy loam's 8 'to 15 percent slopes ;(PhD), and Poindexter -and Zion, sandy loam 1..5. to 25 percent slopes "(P.nE) (Appendix A — Figure 3). According to the 'USDA Soil Survey of Guilford County (1977) project corridor soils consist of Chewacla sandy .loam (Ch), 3 Mitigation Monitoring Report Hartley Drive Widening anis Extension High Point, North Carolina December 2017 Wilkes sandy loam 5 to 10 percent slopes (WkC), and Wilkes sandy loam .15 to 45 percent slopes (Wl& (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 change the topography and hydrological regime within the stream relocation and wetland' creation area. The initial preparation involved the clearing and grubbing of the existing vegetation. This clearingwas followed by the regrading of the topography to match the design plans. The preparation of the mitigation area coincided with_ the. relocation of the sanitary sewer that crosses the project corridor in this area. The 'hydrology for the. mitigation area is provided by the rerouting. of the project corridor's Stream.2 into Stream 1 slightly upstream of the existing .confluence. The existing stream flow was maintained while the mitigation area :substrate was :prepared andthe 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 relocation/mitigation area,, to the proposed roadway. .As mentioned in Section 2, the vegetation of the area included sweetguin, 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-end loaders, and track hoes were used to initially prepare the site;, and remove the top soil 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 materials were stockpiled within jurisdictional areas. After the boulders, crocks and stones were 'screened out of the regraded project area; site soils were temporarily stockpiled outside of the project area for'use Within the mitigation area. 4 Mitigation Monitoring Report Hartley DnVe'Widening:'and Extension High Point; NorftCarolina. December'201.7 The proposed mitigation area was regraded to achieve a level topography. This level grading for the mitigation. area tied into the proposed _regrading of the sanitary sewer relocation area 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 additional hydrological input for the wetland mitigation area. IS Re-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 entrencl rnent 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,,themeanders 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 duplication,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 representation of 'the portion of the stream reach to. be impacted. Approximately 140 linear feet of new stream channel was, created. This new stream channet'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,11 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 a larger bankfall 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 thewetland mitigation area on.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 cross vane was placed 5 Mitigation: Mon itoring.Report, Hartley Drive Widening and Extension High.Point,.North Carolina December•, 2017 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 will help to reduce, flow velocities, ',reduce stream bank scour., and provide ad'ditional 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:: - 14. Prepare !Substrate As previously mentioned, earthw,orking equipment such as, bulldozers, backhoes, front- end loaders, and track hoes were used to initially prepare the site. Similar equipment was used to transfer the stockpiled soils and boulders from the stockpile :areas to the proposed mitigation area. No 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 batiks. 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 and still provide a natural stream bank substrate. The boulder revetments along'the stream, bank were constructed by first 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 theA smaller`boulders, until the top of bank was reached. The substrate soils of the wetland mitigation :area were prepared by first grading .the area subsoil (as described in Section 12) to elevations, approximately one foot 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 slightly uneven manner creating mounds and kettles fora variable microtopography in the mitigation area. 4.0 VEGETATION PLANTING PLAN After the soils substrate was prepared, landscaping contractors began the installation of the vegetative plantings for,the area surrounding the relocated stream and for the wetland. gation area. Tree species that were: planted in the wetland mitigation area match the types of'species:found.naturally within the.ekisting forest of the area.' - M. Mitigation Moriitoring'Report Hartley Drive Widenipg,and Extension, High Point,,North Carolina December 2017, 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 condition and then. placed in a central drop location: The materials were then hand -carried to their planting locations and in turn, planted 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• forshrubs and gallon size.for frees. The trees and shrubs were 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 :rounded; .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 with a light layer of straw mulch following seeding. The overstoryy species planted are 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 flooding within the wetland' area. .Shrubs planted in this wetland mitigation area. included highbus_h blueberry (Vaccinium, corymbosum, FACW) and winterberry holly (Ilex yerticillata, FACW). Herbaceous wetland species planted as plugs included upright.sedge (Carex stricta, OBL), soft rush (Juncus effusus, FACW); woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus,,OBL), and Virginia blue flag iris (Iris virginica, OBL)`. A wetland seed mixture was also sown'intoAhe 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 holly.(I opaca, FAC). 'The existing °seed bank in the area soils that was used in the, final grading also have germinated :and have colonized, the wetland,mitigation area, These volunteer species now in the wetland mitigation area include cow vetch (Yicia cracca), hawkweed (Hieracium sp..), beggars ticks (Bidens sp.), yellow sweet clover (Melilotus officinalis), red clover (Trifolium pretense), and. Carolina cranesbill (Geranium carolinianum). 7 Mitigation Monitoring.Report Hartley Drive Widening and Extension High.point, North Carolina 5.0 HYDROLOGY ESTABLISHMENT Dece nber'201,7 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 the proposed wetland mitigation area. When :the procedures outlined in. Section 3 (Site Preparation) and Section 4 (Vegetation Planting Plan) were completed, -the stream was directed from the' existing location to the prepared, relocated stream channel. The existing stream flow now continues within thestream relocation and the mitigation area. The :combined streams drain into the culvert that was placed under •the roadway. The portion of the existing stream channel that has been, abandoned and not impacted by the roadway has become incorporated into the proposed wetland mitigation area. The remaining portion of the stream channel has been blocked off by an embankment protected by a matting of coconut fiber covered by a row of boulders,, or has been filled by the roadway, embankment. The thalweg was partially blocked, (temporarily) at the rock vane within the newly created stream channel. The thalweg was blocked using removable sandbags until the wetland mitigation ;area was fully established. The temporary blocking of this main drainage way for the stream 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 also permitted the fine sediments carried in the water column to :fall out into this stream pool area. Finesediments and clay particles on the substrate surface have helped to decrease the soil permeability, and increase the surface inundation within the mitigation area. 60 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 as necessary: ,An annual report will be provided, to the NC Division of Water ,Resources (NCDWR), the City of High Point, and. the Army Corps, of Engineers .every year ;for each of the, five years. This is the fifth ;and final of the required mitigation monitoring reports, and has been prepared by Terry Kuneff, P.E., CFM, of the City of High Point Engineering Services Department during 2017. �8 Mitigation,Monitoring Report Hartley Drive' Widening`and Extension December 2017 ,High Point, North -Carolina This report includes the following;inforrhatiori: 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 is not 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 1,0 percent of the vegetative community. If this goal is exceeded, .measures will be taken to eradicate :the invasive species. 6.1. Project Goals Project Goal 1: The created wetland community` shouldbe 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 weiland•to compensate for aportion of the: wetlands impacted by the extension of Hartley Drive. The remaining compensation. at a 2':,l ratio was -fulfilled using the North Caroliina Ecosystem Enhancement -Program in= lieu fee mitigation program. Performance Criteria: a. Predominance of hydrophytic vegetation:, More than. 50% of 'the dominant plant species must be hydrophytic. The majority of the hydrophytic vegetation is surviving.. It was mentioned in the 2015 annual report that Wiriterberry Holly shrubs, AM Holly shrubs, and the HB Blueberry shrubs were mistakenly cut down during mowing of the sanitary sewer easement. These shrubs were re' -planted lin 2015 along. with the replacement of four trees and all have had two successful growth years. As shown 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 i- thriving . the dominant 'volun'teer- herbaceous species;, that .currently. covers the wetland mitigation area consists of sedges; which have resulted d _ ue 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 iron content of the soils, lowering the chromas of the subsoils. The saturation of the soils in the wetland mitigation area continues to develop redoximorphic features through the springand summer growing seasons. c: Presence of wetland hydrology: 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 Widening and Extension December 2017 High Point; North,Carolina RESULT.:, Several areas of inundation were. observed within. the wetland mitigation area during the'winter of 20.16'and during.the spring, of`12017;, but not in' late summer and most of fall', 2017' due to drought' conditions ,in °thee.Piedmont. The presence, of the observed amphibian, breeding areas within the, wetland rnitigation area in the spring, of 201:7 indicates that vernal pool habitat, conditions exist within the mitigation areas. This i's a -very good indicator of the: presence of wetland hydrology. Project Goal 2: The created wetland 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, with the exception of noxious invasive weed species that will be removed. Performance, criteria:; -a. Planted species survivorship: At least '85% of the planted trees and shrubs should be established and living by the end :of the f ve-year monitoring. period. .RESULT: The trees and shrubs that were: planted within the wetland mitigation area are .currently, thriving.. Although it will. bei several' years'befom the trees: mature, the goal of ..developing;: a forestedwetland is clearly attainable 'in the future. As, previously noted, there are several. °species of native volunteer, .growth -throughoa the- -wetland mitigation area. b. Native species, composition- At least 5.0% ;of the plant's present. shoul'd'be non -weedy, native, perennial species. RESULT- There are approximately only ,9 Cattails- identified. as volunteers (soon to, be removed) currently within the wetland 'mitigation area. Therefore, :the native species composition is well over the required 50% o., C. Dominance of ve etg ation: None of the three most dominant plant -.species may be non- native or weedy species, •such. as cattail, or reedcanary 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. 6.2 Methods, a. Predominance of hydrophytic ve etatiort The <method for determining dominant vegetation at a wetland site is described .in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands,Delineatiom M_ dnual (Environmental Laboratory 1,987) ,and the`Regional. Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland,Delineation,Manual' Eastern' Mountains and Piedmont ,Region (Version 2,0 :April 2_61 2)., It is'based%on aerial coverage estimates for individual plant species. Each.ofthe dominant plant species is then assigned its wetland 'indicator status rating. Any plant rated .facultative, or wetter; i.e., FAC, FAM, and OBL, is considered a hydrophyte.. Apredominance of wetland vegetation in Mitigation, Monitoring, Report Hartley Drive Widenhw-drid,Extension High. Point;. North Carolina December 2017 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 to monitor hydric soil development. Soil profile morphology including horizon 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 -not be apparent during the first several years .after project construction. c;. Presence of wetland hydroloy 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). 63 Contingency In the event that the area has not developed wetland characteristics as! determined by the project goal- methodology, an evaluation of the potenretial causes for this failu,will be _. _ . performed and. corrective action will be taken. The absence of wetland goilg,hydriology and/or the absence of the, prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation over;some or all of the desired,mitigation areavill' be the trigger to perform this corrective action. Corrective actions may include. minor grading, soils reworking/amending and .replanting - as described below: Additional vegetation plantings This is the 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 underlying problem (e.g., too much or too little water) is at fault. Replanting without addressing th.e root cause is likely to result in another failure. RESULT: No additional plantings are required -at this time. Invasive species control This is a necessary contingency when the standard of success limits the cover of invasive species on the 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 (9 plants) have once again 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 December,2017 High: Point, North Carolina RESULT:; The wetland m tigat on,area has achieved 1,00% vegetative cover and all the, planted species° are thriving. No soil amendment will. be necessary. 'Sti.pplement hydrology If the ,site does not have sufficient water . upply, surface water, may need to be diverted, from a nearby stream, or stormwater system. If ,such supplemental sources are not' available; then additional remedial measures such asi those listed below may, be xegtired. RESULT:: An irrigation system was initially installed during construction within and, around the wetland :mitigation area to provide a. supplemental hyd'rol'ogy cif required.. The: precipitation amounts through 20.17 have been average, and the irrigation system was not used from January 2017 to December 2017. The irrigation 'system was turned off in June 2016 at -the, request of And Williams; ACOE,,and 'Sue Homewood, DWR, and has not - been used since. Decrease soil permeability Fine sediments may be added or subsoil could be compactedto decrease soil'permeabi'lity and .increase water retention time. This is best used very early after site construction 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 permeability allowing,, -the inundation of the wetland by holding areas of standing. water. These ponded areas within the wetland are similar to vernal pool habitats and are active amphibian. breeding 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 and 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 :goal. should be to have erosion controlled by an appropriate combination of ,reduced slope and increased vegetation density: RESULT: In 2016, the #57 stone on the upstream face of the rock vane washed -but between two of the header rocks. This'was corrected and is no longer an issue. Access control - Fencing, blocking vehicle access points, and other measures. can be employed to --prevent vandalism, dumping of Arash, and other impacts caused 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: MitigatioivMonitoring Report - 'Hartley `Drive. Widenih&and,Extension December 201'7 High Point; North+Carolina L 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, roadway embankment:to further discourage access to, thei mitigation. area so'no,f irther. access control is proposed. Thereare no issues with yandalism, trash; or other impacts caused by humans or domestic animals. Pest control If revegetation is failing due to herbivory, the wildlife:responsible need to be identified 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 monitoring period. RESULT 'Vegetation is ,not failing. Protection from.:heibivory •does not appear to, be necessary due to the. 100% cover of hydrophytic species. 7.0 MONITORINGLEVEL 1 The first field 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 vegetatedand the plantings were 100% successful. The soils within the wetlandmitigation. -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 review for the first annual monitoring report was conducted in August "2013, .and the ,stream and wetland mitigation areas, were continuing to develop successfully: The ;stream .channel continued to, convey #low, 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 second annual .inonitoring 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 tvegetation 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. 'Mitigation, Monitoring,Report' ;HartleyDiive Widening;and,Eztension High Point,,North,Carolina December 201'7 saturation,and inundation of the area. 'S'ediment 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 mimkc 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. T,he field review for the third annual monitoring report wasp 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 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 vegetationstabilizing 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 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 wore colonizing, the. area of the relocated stream. channel. A turtle was also observed. in the relocated stream channel in late fall. No fish populations exist in this portion of the stream. The field review for the: fifth annualmonitoring report was conducted. in 'October of 2017 and December 2017. As observed. during these site visits; the stream, :and: wetland mitigation ureas, were continuing, to :develop'- successfully. However, due to a period. of dry, conditions. in late summer/early fall, `the stream was hot flowing during the October site, visit. However, there Was evidence of recent stream flow,, and all the plantings were full and., green. The stream was, conveying flow during the December, site visit. The stream channel had wetland seed and, volunteer vegetation stabilizing the stream banks, and there were no: major bank failures: The wetland. seed placed ,in the wetland mitigation area was thriving due to the. continued,saturation:and inundation of ihe,area. Sediment transport�and deposition by the stream flow was covering the crushed rock with material' such asleaf litter and sediments.. This continues to :help the relocated stream channel to 14 Mitigation Monitoring Report Hartley Drive Widening and Extension I- i.gh.Point,'North Carolina December -2017 mimic the conditions. of the stream channel that was abandoned, and provide a benthic substrate suitable for -macro invertebrates. 7A Plant Survival Analysis Theplantings within the wetland mitigation areas &e; 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 'insured 100% growth. The oyerall herbaceous cover of the -.wetland mitigation area ,had been estimated to be approximately 50% in May 2013.and consisted largely of perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) that was used to "stabilize the soils post construction. Some areas of inundation ..existed that supported smartweeds (Persicaria sp.) and rushes (Juncus spJ. -The overall herbaceous° cover of thewetland mitigation, area. was estimated to be 1,00% o in. October 201'`7 ,and consisted, largely of sedges (Carex spp.), and° bulrushes; (& pus �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 majority of the stream length. There are; no remaining unvegetated portions of -the stream banks'. No additional stream bed or bank repair will be .requiredat this time. The June 20.1.6 site visit by Mr. Andy Williams of the USACE and Ms., Sue Homewood. of the NCDWR.revealed that. some of the #57 stone had washed from the ,face of the rock cross 'vane. This was !eorrec"ted 'during the fall of 2016 and has stabilized very well: 73' Biological Data . ,As per Monitoring Level 1, requirements, a1 -year re=colonization/population adjustment time of biological monitoring following. construction is usually warranted. No such adjustment time was necessary for thol 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 wetland. Benthie invertebrate species were limited although a wider variety of benthic invertebrates can be expected in,.following years: The following were observed within the relocated portion of the stream and/.or. the wetland:: Southern leopard frog, (Rana utricularia) :adults,, tadpoles, and, egg masses. Upland chorus frog (Pseudacris: triseridta feriarum) — tadpoles and egg'masse$. '15 11 Mitigation Monitoring'Report 1 Hartley. Drive Wideningand Ezter sign December 2011 .High Point„North Carolina L Water striders (family Gerridde), — dozens of adults; :on water, surface. 'Dragonfly nymphs (order Odonata) —several large , mphs within. stream length. Bloodworm midges;(familyChirohon idae) — numerous throughout the stream length. Water boatman (family Corijddae) - numerous throughout the stream length. 8.0 FUTURE ACTIVITIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS The 'City of High Point understands that '.invasive . species control is a necessary contingency if the native plant survival or diversity standards .are not being met. Weed control by the City of High. Point has been successful in the past by clearing 'the, undesirable species by hand. The City of High ;Point will continue to -monitor for invasive species within the wetland mitigation area,in the future: Including this -2017 annual report; the completed:mitigation area has been monitored for five consecutive years as required by the Minimum Monitoring Requirements for Compensatory Mitigation Projects for permit 'authorizations under Section 404 of the Clean Water, Act. An annual report has, been provided to 'the. NC Division, of Water Resources (NCDWR) and the Army Corps :of Engineers every year for each of the five . years. This is the fifth and, last ,of the required mitigation monitoring reports. The City of ,High Point requests that final determination for the created wetland size be made since we are at°the end.of the five-year°maihtenance and monitoring period'. 16 APPENDIX A FIGURES MAPQVEST _ 10 N �e OS C. y �adFurrt Ln Old Plank Rd zt L .� • a�900ft U Chase ry f �Si Rankin Pf westoOr R d p� Ppr4 At Q GrAVH yr � VN f � v� 4 5t Anrm rdey P Project Vicinity 14cstridge Or > Fine Ridge Qr Q Dov dson Rd �? R •lavtdaon Ct O fi� 2C06 MapQuest, Inc pr North Carolina Vicinity Map I Caro Yhdan Or � Am - 2 �1 ; N-*-- STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates, Inc. Tirtdger-ork IAf F' Park a ns F,vt, HomcsECS(IAHK Seale as shown 02006 N74VTEQ Hartley Drive Widening and Extension Site Location Map Davidson and Guilford Counties, NC FIGURE 1 North Carolina Vicinity Map N Not to Scale ._ JL 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 N 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. Not to Scale Hartley Drive Widening and Extension Soil Survey Davidson County, NC Davidson and Guilford Counties, NC FIGURE 3 Mapped Soil Units in Project Area N 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. Not to Scale r► Hartley Drive Widening and Extension Soil Survey Guilford County, NC Davidson and Guilford Counties, NC FIGURE 4 APPENDIX B PHOTOGRAPHS Hartley Drive Widening and Extension, High Point, NC Fifth Annual Mitigation Monitoring Report (2017) View from Hartley Drive of wetland mitigation area (October 2017) A 3 �I ML- - 47 fftarn W �1 4°p6 " ii' �,. Y 1 ��.t, _.� ., ,. .. ..�_," .h '�' VFW p>,,. n'.(♦'_../ .� Ilk ��� y �'N. h F d .Y • , Y. 1 _ i Hartley Drive Widening and Extension, High Point, NC Fifth Annual Mitigation Monitoring Report (2017) Picture of the soils within the wetland mitigation area (December 2017)