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)