19981128 Ver 1_Complete File_19981222

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
1 ?
Nt, ENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT A?D NATURAL RESOURCES
December
Durham C
DWQ Pro
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification and ADDITIONAL CONI
Treyburn LLC
1214 Rocky Point Lane
Durham, NC 27712
Dear Sirs:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those list
of wetlands or waters for the purpose of constructing a commercial development at Tre
your application dated November 16, 1998. After reviewing your application, we have
Water Quality Certification Number 3108. This certification allows you to use Nation
Engineers issues it. This approval is also valid for the Neuse River buffer rules (15A i
get any other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your project inclt
Erosion Control, Coastal Stormwater, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed rep
the accompanying 404 or CAMA permit expires unless otherwise specified in the Geng
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your
you change. your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new
new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and approval letter and is thereby
conditions. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre
as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to be valid, yot
attached certification and any additional conditions listed below.
1. Deed notifications or similar mechanisms shall be placed on all lots with remaining juri;
and waters or areas within 50 feet of all streams and ponds to notify the state in order to as:
future wetland and/or water impact. These mechanisms shall be put in place within 30 day.
letter or the issuance of the 404 Permit (whichever is later).
2. An additional condition is that a final, written stormwater plan including a wet detentior
approved by DWQ before wetland (or stream) impacts occur.
3. Mitigation shall be done as described in the mitigation plan from Environmental Se
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for a
within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a writ
150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings,
7447. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a he
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section
any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-1786.
ptonoward,Jr
. P.
ttachment
A
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Raleigh DWQ Regional Office
John Dorney
1998
# 981128
IONS and Neuse River Buffer Rules
d below, to place fill material in 0.97 acres
ybum commercial site, as you described in
decided that this fill is covered by General
vide Permit Number 26 when the Corps of
CAC 2B .033). In addition, you should
ding (but not limited to) Sediment and
ulations. This approval will expire when
ral Certification.
application except as modified below. If
application.. If the property is sold, the
responsible for complying with all
compensatory mitigation may be required
must follow the conditions listed in the
fictional wetlands
ire compliance for
of the date of this
basin must be
ices, Inc. dated November 1998.
adjudicatory hearing. You must act
n petition, which conforms to Chapter
.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-
of the Clean Water Act. If you have
Central Files
Kevin Markham; Environmental Services, Inc.
Todd St. John 981128.1tr
Division of Water Quality • Non-Discharge Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
r,
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
PLAN FOR COMPENSATORY WETLAND
TREYBURN PARCELS M1-M8 PERMIT API
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
ESI Project ER98-031
Prepared for:
Hazen and Sawyer, P.C.
Raleigh, North Carolina
on behalf of:
Treyburn Limited Liability Company
Durham, North Carolina
Prepared by:
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
1100 Wake Forest Road, Suite 20C
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Tel [phone] Fax [phone]
November 1998
MITIGATION
'PLICATION
18 tkM
1
1
1
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................!..................1
2.0 METHODS ............................... ..................2
2.1 Preliminary Investigation ............
..... c
................
2
2.2 Detailed Investigation ................... ..
. .................. 2

3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ...................... .............. 4
3.1 Physiography and Land Use History ......... .................. 4
3.2 Hydrology ........................... .................. 4
3.3 Soils ........................... ....
5
. P .................
3.4
3.5 Vegetation .......................... .................. 5
Wildlife ............................. ! ................ 6
3.6 Jurisdictional Waters/Wetlands ............ ................. 7
3.7 Water Quality .........................
i .................. 7
4.0 WETLAND RESTORATION STUDIES ............. ................. 8
4.1 Mitigation Site ......................... .................. 8
4.2 Reference Forest Ecosystems ..............1 .................. 9
5.0 WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN ................... ................. 10
5.1 Hydrology Modification .................. ................ 10
5.2 Soils Modification ..................... . :
................ 11
5.3 Vegetative Community Modification .......... ................. 11
6.0 MON ITORING PLAN .......................... ................. 13
6.1 Hydrology Monitoring .................... ................. 13
6.2 Soils Monitoring ....................... ................ 13
6.3 Vegetation Monitoring ................... ................. 13
6.4 Reporting and Contingency Actions .......... ................. 13
7.0 FINA L DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY .............. ................ 14
8.0 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL REPLACEMENT ........... ................. 15
8.1 M 1-M8 Impacted Wetland Functions ......... ................. 15
8.2 Pre-Mitigation Wetland Functions at the Mitigation Site ............. 15
8.3 Post-Mitigation Wetland Functions at the Mitigatio n Site ............ 16
9.0 SUM MARY ................................ .................17
10.0 REFERENCES .............................. ................18
11.0 FIGURES .................................. .................20
APPENDICES

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Location Map .......................... .
Figure 2. Plan View Showing Proposed Features and Impacts .
Figure 3. Mitigation Site Topography and Site Plan .........
Figure 4. Confirmed Soil Site Map ................... .
Figure 5. Lanscape Ecosystem Site Units ................
Figure 6. Beaver Dam Leveling Device ..................
Figure 7. Typical Planting Plan ..................... .
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A. Supplemnetal Soils Data
Appendix B. Vegetation Sampling
Page
................21
................22
t
................24
................25
.................26
................27

11

11

PLAN FOR COMPENSATORY WETLAND MITIGATION
TREYBURN PARCELS M1-M8 PERMIT APPLIfATION
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Treyburn Limited Liability Company (LLC) is submitting a permit application for Nationwide
Permit Number 26 for unavoidable impacts to 0.970 acre of headwaters on Treyburn
Parcels M1-M8 (Figure 1; figures follow text). The propeed fill is associated with
development of an industrial facility on the site. This report presents a plan to mitigate for
unavoidable wetland impacts resulting from this project. I
Parcels M1-M8 constitute a 123.62-acre site containing 8.572 Icres of delineated Section
404 jurisdictional wetland areas. The planned industrial facility includes three structures
totalling more than 1,000,000 square feet of floor space, as well as associated
infrastructure including access roads and parking lots. The planned industrial facility and
infrastructure have been configured to avoid excavating or pl sing fill in the majority of
wetlands. Of the 8.572 jurisdictional acres, 7.602 acres have been avoided through site
design. Portions of two wetland fingers (identified as Wetland reas 3 and 6 on Figure 2)
extending into the middle of the site can not be avoided due to facility design constraints.
Minimization of wetland impacts has also been accomplished by protecting stream buffers;
with the exception of a minor crossing (at Wetland Area 12) required by the entrance road,
all other riparian buffers required under the Neuse Riparian Area Rules have been avoided.
The entrance road avoids impacts to a perennial stream and ass ciated wetland at Wetland
Area 12 by bridging at a point where the jurisdictional limit arrows to a bank-to-bank
stream channel; bridging will avoid any fill in the stream channel.
The purpose of this report is to present an overview of the proposed approach to create
conditions that will provide wetland functions to mitigate for the unavoidable loss of 0.970
acre of headwater wetlands. Approximately 11.25 acres of he Little River floodplain
located adjacent to Vintage Hill Parkway on the Treyburn property were identified as
containing areas suitable for wetland mitigation. An area (Figure 3) totalling approximately
5.92 acres of non-jurisdictional, alluvial floodplain was determined to meet the criteria to
ensure successful wetland creation. The remaining portion of thIe 11.25-acre site consists
of existing wetlands, streams, pond, and upland buffers.
Treyburn LLC intends to provide compensatory mitigation for the unavoidable 0.970-acre
M1-M8 impact within the 11.25-acre mitigation area. A con eptual mitigation plan is
presented within this report for the entire 1 1.25-acre proposed mitigation site. The 11.25-
acre mitigation site is intended to be implemented as a multi ple-p oject mitigation project to
provide for the current mitigation needs of Treyburn LLC, as well as to plan up-front
mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts associated with future development phases.
Once wetland creation success criteria have been demonstrate, the appropriate acreage
required as compensatory mitigation for impacts on Parcels M1-M8 will be surveyed,
platted, and transferred according to approved final property dispgsition plans.
1

I

2.0 METHODS
2.1 Preliminary Investigation
A preliminary study was conducted to identify potential wetland
the Treyburn property within approximately 250 acres of the Lit
downstream from Vintage Hill Parkway. Initial natural resour
was obtained from available sources. U.S. Geological Survey (U
(Northeast Durham quadrangle, 7.5 minute series), topographi
feet scale, 2 foot contour intervals) provided by Hazen and Sa
Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) (formerly Soil Conser
survey of Durham County (USDA 1976) were utilized to evalu
soil information prior to on-site inspection. Recent (1996, 1
(1972, 1:15840 scale) aerial photography was utilized to i
features located on the Site and to map relevant environmental
investigations undertaken in February 1998 included general
hydrology, and vegetation patterns within the 250-acre floodplair
mitigation opportunities on
le River floodplain located
e information for the Site
ESGS) topographic mapping
mapping (1 inch = 200
v? yer, P.C., and the Natural
Yation Service [SCSI) soil
l: : to existing landscape and
2400 scale) and historic
entify primary hydrologic
features. Preliminary field
confirmation of the soils,
area.
Preliminary evaluations were also conducted to identify any potential "red flag" issues
associated with cultural 'resources, federally protected species, or hazardous materials.
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) files were consulted Ito determine documented
presence and landscape potential for historical or archaeological resources. The most
current U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) list of federally e-Idangered and threatened
species with ranges extending into Durham County was obtaine66d prior to initiation of the
field investigation. In addition, N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP) records were
consulted to check for documentation of federally or state-listed species within the project
vicinity. A Hazardous Materials Screening was conducted to identify recognized
environmental conditions associated with the Site. The term recognized environmental
conditions" refers to identified/recognized hazardous substances or petroleum products that
exhibit the possibility of an existing release, past release, or material threat of release into
the soil, groundwater, or surface water. Methods used to complete the screening include
limited review of available governmental records/databases.
No federally protected species issues or hazardous materials issues were identified that
would preclude the continued consideration of the floodplain area for wetlands mitigation.
The presence of a raw water easement and an easement on a historic trading path crossing
the floodplain placed some restrictions on mitigation site planning.
2.2 Detailed Investigation `
More detailed investigation of this site began in October 1998 to more precisely define
specific areas of the 250-acre floodplain conducive to compensatory wetlands mitigation
activities. The detailed investigation consisted of delineating j I risdictional wetlands and
surface waters, delineating hydric soil boundaries, and deta4d vegetative community
investigation. An 11.25-acre portion of the Little River floodplain has been selected as a
site for development of a specific mitigation plan (Figure 3).
2

1

Wetlands were delineated based upon parameters outlined In the Corps of Engineers
Wet/and Delineation Manual (DOA 1987). The hydric soils delir eation was conducted by a
N.C. licensed soils scientist. Soil profiles were also checked alohg transects across the site
to verify and refine existing soils mapping, and to determine general suitability of
subsurface characteristics for mitigation activities. General ppant communities identified
from aerial photography were field-verified and described 9 by species composition,
structure, and landscape position. I
The purpose for delineating wetlands, soils, and vegetative community patterns was to
determine the mitigation potential for the site in terms of the specific mitigation activity
and subsequent mitigation credit (i.e., restoration, creation, enhancement, and
preservation) generated by mitigation implementation. For exa ple, comparing the extent
of jurisdictional wetlands to the extent of hydric soils provides a basis for determining
wetlands restoration potential. Evaluating the subsurfac l soil characteristics and
hydrologic flow patterns (both surface and subsurface) compate d to the extent of hydric
soils provides a basis for determining wetlands creation potential. Wetlands enhancement
potential can be identified by determining whether hydrologic disturbance in a jurisdictional
wetland has substantially reduced the hydroperiod expected under undisturbed conditions.
Jurisdictional wetlands not exhibiting substantial hydrologic modification or vegetative
community degradation provide potential wetlands preservation o9 pportunity.
3

1
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
3.1 Physiography and Land Use History
The mitigation site is within the Piedmont Physiographic Provini
Little River drainage system in Durham County, North Carolina
converges with the Eno River approximately 4.5 miles downstre
The mitigation site is located on a broad floodplain exte
confluence. Elevations within the mitigation site range from 27;
Interpretation of 1972 aerial photography, USGS quadrangle i
and interviews with individuals familiar with the property indic;
use was agriculture, possibly both cropland and pasture. Remn
are present throughout the floodplain. The floodplain tribut
during the period of agriculture land use. In the late 1980's, c
the Treyburn development and golf course resulted in floodplain
pond was constructed in the uplands near the mitigation site.
the site with an underground utility that conveys raw wat(
irrigation pond.
and is located within the
Figure 1). The Little River
m from the mitigation site.
ding upstream from the
feet to 275 feet.
ap, published soil survey,
:ed that the historical land
nts of barbed wire fencing
ry was likely channelized
nstruction associated with
alterations and an irrigation
water easement transects
from Little River to the
3.2 Hydrology
The mitigation site is occasionally flooded by overbank flow of the Little River. These
flooding events are of short duration 0 day to 3 days) and are not a significant enough
hydrologic input to drive alluvial floodplains to meet the criteria of jurisdictional wetland
hydrology (Hook et aL 1994). Two unnamed tributaries, which would be considered as
"above headwater" streams, converge within the mitigation site I to form a single tributary
which flows directly to the Little River (Figure 3). The surface watershed of the tributary
flowing from the north has been significantly reduced by diversion of storm water into the
upland irrigation pond. The watershed of the tributary flowing from the northeast has been
reduced in area by a railroad right-of-way with a collapsed culvert. Immediately below the
confluence of the two streams, a beaver dam is present. The elevation of the top of the
beaver dam is approximately 6 inches below the top of stream bank elevation. The
presence of the beaver dam has resulted in an elevated water table at an approximate
elevation of 272 feet. I
Soils of the terrace do not exhibit low chroma, iron depletion n
40 inches indicating moderately well drained soils with poter
beginning at depths greater than 40 inches. At the lowest
unnamed tributary, soils of the low floodplain exhibit iron de
upper 12 inches. Saturated conditions at the soil surface ai
common due primarily to an elevated water table as a result of tl
terraces at slightly higher elevations, the low floodplain s
features, including low chroma, iron depletions, and iron accum
than 12 inches but less than 40 inches. Soils are saturated at
for a prolonged period in the winter and spring months when ev
low and ground water is recharged with winter precipitation.
4
iottles at depths less than
tially saturated conditions
-levations adjacent Ito the
pletion mottles within the
id shallow inundation are
he beaver dam. Nearer the
?ils exhibit redoximorphic
ulations, at depths greater
depths of 12 to 40 inches
apotranspiration demand is

1

3.3 Soils
Soils within the mitigation site include both non-hydric and hydric map units on the
published soil survey for Durham County (USDA 1976). Soils adjacent to the Little River
are mapped as the Congaree series (Typic Udifluvents). These soils occupy natural levee
and high terrace landforms. Congaree soils are moderately well drained and moderately
permeable with loamy textures. Adjacent to the unnamed tributary within the floodplain,
soils are mapped as the Cartecay (Aquic Udifluvents) an( Chewacla (Fluvaquentic
Dystrudepts) series in the published soil survey. Cartecay and Chewacla are somewhat
poorly drained, fine-loamy soils of stream valleys and floodplains. Areas adjacent to the
upland slopes on old terraces and toe slope landscape positions are mapped as the
Altavista series (Aquic Hapludults). Altavista is a moderately well drained soil formed from
fluvial sediments of mixed mineralogy origin. Soils of the uplands adjacent to the
mitigation site are mapped as the Granville and Mayodan series (Typic Hapludults) (USDA
1976). These are well drained, residual soils of Triassic sandstone and shale.
An on-site assessment (Figure 4 and Appendix A) has determin ld that a soil catena exists
in response to an elevation gradient of approximately 2 frt and internal drainage
characteristics of the subsoils. The highest elevations are associated with the natural river
terrace adjacent to the Little River, and the lowest elevations are the floodplain adjacent to
the upland toe slopes and adjacent to the unnamed tributary. Soils associated with the
river terrace were correlated to the moderately well drained Congaree series. The improved
drainage is associated with loamy subsoil textures and greater depth to the water table.
The floodplain adjacent to the upland toe slope is 1 to 2 feet I'wer in elevation than the
terrace and the landform is typical of a low, backwater floodplain. The drainage class is
somewhat poorly drained and the series was correlated to the Helena series (Aquic
Hapludults). Soil textures are silty clay, loamy clay to clay, and are slowly permeable
(detailed description provided in Appendix A). On the lower toe lope, adjacent to the low
backwater floodplain and slightly higher in elevation, soils were orrelated to the Altavista
series.
3.4 Vegetation
The vegetation of the floodplain in the vicinity of the mitigation site is in various stages of
old field succession. Adjacent to Little River, a successional bo-:tomland hardwood forest
has developed on the natural levee and high terrace. The ovverstory is dominated by
box-elder (Acer negundo), hackberry (Celtis laevigata), and tulip poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera) with common understory shrubs of pawpaw (Asirnina triloba) and painted
buckeye (Aesculus sylvatica). The herbaceous layer is low in verall cover and species
richness, with Nepal microstegium (Eulalia vimineum) dominating ?,Ihe herbaceous layer.
The majority of the terrace is an old field succession plant c mmunity with scattered
individuals of immature tree species and a dense herbaceous layer. In some areas, a dense
stand of sapling and seedling sized box-elder has developed. Immature tree species include
box-elder, sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana).
The predominant herbaceous species include Nepal microstegium, blackberry (Rubus
5

d

P-i

argutus), yellow crownbeard (Verbesina occidentalis), agnmony (Agrimonia pubescens),
goldenrod (Solidago sp.), and horseweed (Erigeron canadensis). I
The low floodplain adjacent to the small stream between the m itigation areas is occupied
by an herbaceous community dominated by soft rush (Juncus effusus) and marsh mallow
(Hibiscus moscheutos palustris), with other common herbaceous! species including seedbox
(Ludwigia sp.), beggars ticks (Bidens spp.), foxtail grass (Setar'sp.), woolgrass (Scirpus
a
cyperinus), and knotweed (Po/ygonum sp.).
3.5 Wildlife
Wildlife observed on the mitigation site include species comm a my associated with rural,
ecotonal, and disturbed habitats of the Piedmont. Mammals identified from tracks or other
evidence include white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and
Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana). The most commo and conspicuous birds
identified during field work consist of species utilizing ecotonal and disturbed habitats.
Representative species observed during October and November 1998 include eastern
(rufous-sided) towhee (P/pilo erythrophthalmus), song sparrow (Me/osp/za melodia), and
white-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis), which are species common in thickets and
early successional habitats. Eastern mosquitofish (Gambusi holbrooki) and crayfish
(Cambaridae) were observed in the impounded stream channel u the beaver
pstream from
dam.
The floodplain forest along the Eno and Little Rivers may be one of the more important
wildlife habitats in this region, which is undergoing increasing urbanization. Extensive land-
clearing for agriculture was historically undertaken in uplands in this section of Durham
County, resulting in forest fragmentation and wildlife displacement. The remnant forests
are concentrated as riparian strips along river and stream floodplains which increased in
importance as wildlife refugia and travel corridors. Recent vends show lands in this
watershed being converted for residential, commercial, and public (Falls Lake Reservoir,
Little River Reservoir) use. Associated encroachment into these riparian forested corridors
will contribute to further displacement of wildlife onto a decreasf ng amount of increasingly
isolated available habitat. Mitigation associated with wetlands creation and enhancement
activities on the proposed mitigation site will effectively increase and preserve the existing
riparian corridor. Increasing the riparian forest width will incr.g ase its value to resident
wildlife and will increase its utility as a wildlife corridor for tFansient and wide-ranging
species. E
3.6 Jurisdictional Waters/Wetlands
Wetlands in the vicinity of the mitigation site were delineate
parameter approach outlined in the Corps of Engineers Wetlana
1987). The delineation is subject to final Corps verification prior
plan. Jurisdictional wetlands were found fringing small sti
proposed wetland creation areas A and B, and B and C (see Fic
stream channels, jurisdictional waters include a small pond locate
6
J according to the three-
Delineation Manual (DOA
to finalizing the mitigation
eam channels separating
ure 3). In addition to the
?d east of wetland creation

L
1
J

1

ri

11

area B. No impacts to stream channels, pond, and jurisdictions
result from excavation or grading activities associated with mitic
wetlands are proposed to
?tion plan implementation.
3.7 Water Quality
The mitigation site as well as the permit site (Parcels M1-M8) are located within USGS
Hydrologic Unit #03020201, which encompasses the upper ?ortion of the Neuse River
drainage area (Seaber et aL 1987). The site is located within the Falls Lake watershed
which the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) identifies as Neuse subbasin
030401 (DWQ 1996). The mitigation site lies approximately ?.5 miles upstream of Falls
Lake, which serves as the primary supply of drinking water for Ithe City of Raleigh. Little
River Reservoir, located approximately 3500 ft upstream from the mitigation site, is a
water supply reservoir for the City of Durham. I
The Little River drainage below the Little River Reservoir and 6.5 miles upstream of the
mouth to the Eno River arm of Falls Lake is designated as WS-IV NSW (DENR 1998). The
WS-IV designation is applied to "waters protected as water sup?lies which are generally in
moderately to highly developed watersheds" (DWQ 1996). Tjhese waters are used for
drinking water supply and associated rules are designed to control existing and future
sources of water pollution. The supplemental NSW designation indicates that the drainage
is a nutrient sensitive water and is susceptible to excessive irowths of microscopic or
macroscopic vegetation which may substantially impair the best usage classification of the
water.
In general, the rivers within this uppermost segment of the Nei
water quality. This is the result of the Slate Belt geology in the
of disturbance. Benthic macroinvertebrate and fish collections
Excellent index rating for the Little River above the Little River
the mitigation site. The Little River sample location downstream
SR 1004 was rated in 1995 as Fair. No NPDES dischargers werf
River drainage (DWQ 1996). Recent evaluations of water quz
Treyburn development (Garrett and Bales 1995) concluded that
has not had a major effect on the water quality of receiving watE
Implementation of the proposed mitigation plan is consistent
water quality standards of the watershed.
se River Basin have good
region along with the lack
ave resulted in a Good to
ieservoir and upstream of
from the mitigation site at
identified within the Little
ity characteristics for the
he Treyburn development
protecting the existing

I

4.0 WETLAND RESTORATION STUDIES
4.1 Mitigation Site
Wetland restoration studies focused on application of Landscap
(LEC) modeling using data collected during the field investigati(
land classification that identifies the influence of soils and Ian(
statistically acceptable levels. LEC was developed in the n
University of Michigan and by Dr. Steve Jones at Clemson Uni
development of classification procedures for the southeasters
gained wide acceptance by USDA Forest Service, and, becaus
reliable tool for large-scale forest management.
The approach is in use by the USDA Forest Service throughou
been specifically adapted to conditions in the Southeast by Dr. .
analysis to the Piedmont of South Carolina, Georgia, and North
LEC approach to the creation of a wetland system provides a
valid site-specific models to predict species selections for pl
acceptable levels beyond reasonable judgment.
Ecosystem Classification
n. LEC is an approach to
form on vegetation within
id- to late 1970s at the
tersity. After 18 years of
United States, LEC has
of its capabilities, it is a
the eastern U.S. and has
ones, who has applied the
arolina. Application of the
means to use statistically
ntings within statistically
The methodology used in LEC assumes that plants can be (considered integrators of
environmental factors (Jones 1990). In the absence of disturbance, the distribution of
individual species in competition with their associates is a function of environmental
conditions. Species with similar environmental requirements ha,,e overlapping distributions
and form associations. These plant associations are commonly referred to as vegetation
types or communities. Through sampling relatively undisturbed reference stands, the late
successional vegetation types for a given region can be objectiv dly identified and described
through a combination of available statistical procedures.
In undisturbed conditions, the two major environmental factors linfluencing vegetation are
landform and soils. Landform variables may include elevation, land type, slope gradient,
and/or aspect. The soil component may include chemical properties or physical drainage
characteristics, depth to clay, thickness of sandy surface, and amount of clay. Under a
given climate, the interaction of these variables drives the availability of soil water in the
uplands and the presence and duration of saturated soil conditions in the bottomlands. Soil
and landform variables are permanent, easily identifiable and measurable at a single point in
time as opposed to direct measurements of available water or water table levels. Through
acceptable statistical procedures, the significant discriminating soil and landform variables
can be identified; additionally, the strength of the relationship between the discriminating
soil and landform variables and the late successional community t types can be documented.
The final product in the development of an LEC model is the ide tification of the ecological
units. An ecological unit is associated with each successional ve etation type and with the
range of soil and landform conditions related to that vegetation tape.
Once the interrelationships of soil, landform, and vegetation amodeled in undisturbed
reference communities, the LEC model can be applied to disturbed conditions (Jones and-
8

11,

Lloyd 1993). The LEC model inputs the existing conditions of discriminating soil and
landform variables into an equation form to predict the ecological unit and associated
vegetation that was present or that will colonize if the site is left undisturbed. The LEC
model is applicable throughout the physiographic region where t?e model was developed.
The implications for creation of wetlands or lands where the native forest cover has long
since been degraded, is that LEC provides the tool to accurately determine the vegetation
that should be used to restore the site to its preferred natural assgmblage.
LEC can be used with ground water and surface water modelin approaches to design a
constructed wetland. The known drainage conditions and hydrologic regime associated
with each ecological site unit is used as the target conditions for the water budget model.
The water budget model establishes the final grade elevatio to achieve the desired
hydrology.
4.2 Reference Forest Ecosystems
In order to establish a forested wetland system for mitigatii
community needs to be established. According to Mitigation
guidelines (EPA 1990), the area of proposed restoration shot
Reference Forest Ecosystem (RFE) in terms of soils, hydrology
case the target RFEs were composed of relatively undistur
mitigation site which support soil, landform, and hydrolol
restoration will attempt to emulate. All of the RFE sites loca
impacted by selective cutting or highgrading, therefore the spe
plots should be considered of limited value. Target forest com
site reforestation was modeled using LEC, and may be supple
species listed by Schafale and Weakley (1990) for Piedmont S
Bototmland Forest.
Sites were chosen that best characterize expected steady-state
were randomly placed in areas supporting target landform, soil, h
parameters. Species were recorded along with individual tree di
dominance. From collected field data, importance values (Brow
tree species were calculated. The composition of shrub/sap
recorded and identified to species. Hydrology, surface topogr
were evaluated. The vegetative communities targeted were
Floodplain Forest (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Soils targeted
Wehadkee soil series.
' A RFE site was sampled which will serve to characterize the flo
enhancement areas. Two plots are initially located within ti
conditions for the mitigation site wetlands and upland buffer.
' located within the wetlands to be impacted at the permit site (T
facilitate replication of lost functions through mitigation (Figure
tree species within floodplain forest sample plots are depicted in
1
9
n purposes, a reference
Site Classification (MiST)
d attempt to emulate a
and vegetation. In this
red woodlands near the
ical characteristics that
ad have been historically
Jes composition of these
position for the mitigation
mented by characteristic
vamp Forest or Piedmont
crest composition. Plots
irological, and vegetative
ieters, canopy class, and
et aL 1990) of dominant
g and herb strata were
,hy, and habitat features
composite of Piedmont
cluded the Chewacla and
?dplain forest creation and
e RFE to evaluate target
In addition, two plots are
eyburn Parcels M1-M8) to
2). Importance values for
lrmendix B.

F-',

it
0
5.0 WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
The wetland mitigation plan for the proposed 11.25-acre mitigi
components (Figure 3): creation of approximately 5.92 acres of
hydric soils; enhancement of existing herbaceous wetlands; and
buffer surrounding the wetland creation areas, existing wetla
channel, and existing pond. No endangered species, arc
hazardous material sites will be impacted by this effort.
The criteria for defining the boundary of the created wet
permeability and texture of the subsoil and location in relation
In addition, potential for a source of hydrologic input other th
considered as an important factor. Other hydrology sources ev
runoff and interflow from uplands. Elevation was considered
since the mitigation is considered as creation, and excavation
wetland hydrology.
ition site consists of three
wetlands on suitable non-
establishment of an upland
ids, 1250 feet of stream
haeological resources, or
and mitigation areas are
the unnamed tributaries.
n only ground water was
luated were surface water
ut only as a minor factor
vill be required to achieve
In general, the goal of the creation wetland design will not be Limited to achieving hydric
conditions but to achieve a diversity of wetland habitats. This will be accomplished by
constructing areas with final grade elevation both above (drieh and below (wetter) the
desired modeled elevation for prolonged saturation and poorly drained conditions.
Three sites were identified as meeting the defined criteria and having a high probability for
successful wetland creation (Figure 3). The estimated acreage for potential wetlands
creation at the three wetland creation sites are 4.23 acres (Area A), 1:30 acres (Area B),
and 0.38 acres (Area Q. An area of existing jurisdictional wetland adjacent to the
unnamed tributaries located between the three proposed creatio areas was excluded from
the creation area but will be included as part of the overal mitigation site. These
herbaceous and shrubby wetlands will be revegetated with desi fable hardwood species to
enhance existing functions and provide additional mitigation. Total acreage available for
compensatory mitigation credit through enhancement activities w:ll be determined following
Corps verification of the jurisdictional delineation. Buffers proposed along the streams and
around the creation sites will provide additional benefits by consolidating site integrity and
enhancing stream function. i
5.1 Hydrology Modification
Hydrologic functional lift will be gained by creating a water table level and duration ranging
from inundation of 6 inches to 12 inches for 4 months to 6 months in the winter and spring
months to saturation within the upper 12 inches for 2 months o 4 months. In addition,
small areas of inundated pools approximately 100 square feet in area and 12 inches to 24
inches depth will be created to provide microinvertebrate habitat The created system will
be designed using natural relatively undisturbed Piedmont botto I lands as reference. This
is accomplished using the LEC modeling approach (Jones 1990, Jones and Lloyd 1993).
10
'1

J

11

5.0 WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
The wetland mitigation plan for the proposed 11.25-acre mitiga.
components (Figure 3): creation of approximately 5.92 acres of
hydric soils; enhancement of existing herbaceous wetlands; and E
buffer surrounding the wetland creation areas, existing wetlan
channel, and existing pond. No endangered species, arcl-
hazardous material sites will be impacted by this effort.
The criteria for defining the boundary of the created wetly
permeability and texture of the subsoil and location in relation tc
In addition, potential for a source of hydrologic input other tha
considered as an important factor. Other hydrology sources eva
runoff and interflow from uplands. Elevation was considered h
since the mitigation is considered as creation, and excavation v
wetland hydrology.
ion site consists of three
wetlands on suitable non-
stablishment of an upland
9s, 1250 feet of stream
aeological resources, or
nd mitigation areas are
the unnamed tributaries.
i only ground water was
sated were surface water
it only as a minor factor
ill be required to achieve
In general, the goal of the creation wetland design will not be limited to achieving hydric
conditions but to achieve a diversity of wetland habitats. Thisl will be accomplished by
constructing areas with final grade elevation both above (drier and below (wetter) the
desired modeled elevation for prolonged saturation and poorly drai ed conditions.
Three sites were identified as meeting the defined criteria and having a high probability for
successful wetland creation (Figure 3). The estimated acreage for potential wetlands
creation at the three wetland creation sites are 4.23 acres (Area A), 1.30 acres (Area B),
and 0.38 acres (Area C). An area of existing jurisdictional (wetland adjacent to the
unnamed tributaries located between the three proposed creation areas was excluded from
the creation area but will be included as part of the overall mitigation site. These
herbaceous and shrubby wetlands will be revegetated with desirable hardwood species to
enhance existing functions and provide additional mitigation. TDtal acreage available for
compensatory mitigation credit through enhancement activities Will be determined following
Corps verification of the jurisdictional delineation. Buffers proposed along the streams and
around the creation sites will provide additional benefits by consolidating site integrity and
enhancing stream function.
' 5.1 Hydrology Modification
Hydrologic functional lift will be gained by creating a water table
from inundation of 6 inches to 12 inches for 4 months to 6 montl
' months to saturation within the upper 12 inches for 2 months 1
small areas of inundated pools approximately 100 square feet in
inches depth will be created to provide microinvertebrate habitat
' be designed using natural relatively undisturbed Piedmont bottor
is accomplished using the LEC modeling approach (Jones 1990, J
10
evel and duration ranging
s in the winter and spring
o 4 months. In addition,
area and 12 inches to 24
The created system will
lands as reference. This
)nes and Lloyd 1993).
r

11
The LEC model developed by ESI for Piedmont bottomlands includes four ecological site
units (Figure 5). The predominate ecological site unit that will be targeted by the water
budget modeling for this project will be the hydric wet ecological site unit. Reference
conditions are poorly drained to very poorly drained, inundation for four to six months from
December to May, and surface water depths of 6 inches to! 12 inches. A terrace of
approximately 6 inch to 12 inch elevation increase over a 5 foot to 6 foot distance will be
constructed to transition into the hydric dry ecological site unit.
i
I
At an elevation increase of 6 inches to 12 inches, the creation site will transition to the
hydric dry ecological site unit. Reference conditions are ` omewhat poorly drained,
saturated within the upper 12 inches for 2 months to 4 months from January to April.
Finally, the non-jurisdictional non-hydric wet ecological site unit will be modeled as the
upland buffer (Figure 5). These are areas of existing moderately, well drained Congaree and
Altavista series. Elevation will increase approximately 2 to 3 feet over a slope grade not
greater than 5:1.
The northernmost tributary has been channelized and deepened; therefore, in order to
maintain the desired hydrology with a minimum of excavation, it will be necessary to
maintain the existing invert elevation of the beaver dam in the unnamed tributary. As an
assurance that the water table will be maintained, a permanent grade control structure will
be installed behind the existing beaver dam. This structure will be composed of an earthen
plug reinforced on the downstream side with A-jacks. In addition, to ensure the water
table elevation is not raised by beaver activity a Clemson Beaver Pond Leveler will be
installed (Wood et a/. 1994). The invert elevation for the Clemson Beaver Pond Leveler will
be the same elevation as the top of the dam and ditch plug (Figure 6).
5.2 Soils Modification
During excavation, the topsoil will be removed and stockpiled. The excavated grade will be
approximately 6 inches below the final grade and approximately 6 inches of topsoil material
replaced. Final grading will be implemented in a manner that a hances surface roughness
as opposed to a smooth, graded surface. Soils will be amended with a top dressing of
organic hydraseeding mulch and protected as appropriate with a'coir fiber blanket. The coir
fiber blanket will serve to effectively replace the natural ve 'etative root mat which is
destroyed due to the excavation. This results in improved survival of planted material and
enhances the soil surface micro-environment for establishment' of native species. by seed
dispersal. A slow release fertilizer will be applied at a rate of 250 Ibs of N per acre.
5.3 Vegetative Community Modification !
Vegetation will be established in accordance with the results l'f of the LEC model for the
Piedmont floodplains (Figure 5), but may be supplemented by characteristic species listed
by Schafale and Weakley (1990) for Piedmont Swamp Foreo,t or Piedmont Bottomland
Forest. Based on the conceptual design, three ecological site 11 nits will be present within
the proposed creation area. The ecological site units will be upped on the ground and
the appropriate suite of species planted in each site unit (Figu?e 9). The hydric wet site
unit will be planted with tree seedlings of overcup oak (Quercus /yrata), willow oak (Q.
11

1

u

11
fl
phe/%s), green ash (Fraxinus pennsy/vanica), and slippery elm Or
nursery availability possum haw (//ex decidua) and winterberry
planted. The hydric dry site unit will be planted with swamp ch(
willow oak, green ash and slippery elm. In addition, native,
possum haw, winterberry, Virginia willow (/tea virginica),
dentatum), and viburnum (V. nudum), and the herbaceous swat
angustifolius) will be planted as nursery stock availability allows.
be seeded with an appropriate herbaceous mix of hydrophytic sp(
is expected through natural recruitment by native woody species,
depends on available seed sources.
rus rubra). Depending on
(//ex vertici//ata) will be
?stnut oak (Q. michauxii),
woody shrub species of
arrow-wood (Viburnum
np sunflower (Helianthus
Both hydric site units will
cies. Additional diversity
the composition of which
The nonhydric wet ecological site unit will represent an upland buffer approximately 50 feet
in width. Cherrybark oak (Q. pagodaefolia), water oak (Q. nigra),1 and swamp chestnut oak
tree seedlings will be planted. This area will also be seeded with a commercially available
upland wildflower seed mix.
The hydric dry and hydric wet site units and the non-hydric buffer will be planted at a rate
of 400 stems per acre. Planting stock will be 1 /3 inch to 2/3 ineph caliper, 2 foot to 3 foot
tall bare root seedlings. Planting stock will be obtained from stocks originating with 200
miles north or south of the mitigation site. Two release applications of herbicide will be
implemented the first growing season. At the time of planting, the beaver population will
be assessed and the need for population control during establishment or tree protectors
evaluated.
5.4 Mitigation Strategy
The proposed 11.25-acre mitigation site contains adequate mitigation potential to meet a
1:1 replacement strategy for the 0.970 acre of wetland impacts at Treyburn Parcels M1-
M8. Total compensatory mitigation required for the Parcels M1-M8 impact will be
determined by the Corps of Engineers. Once successful wetland creation success criteria
have been demonstrated, the appropriate acreage required as compensatory mitigation for
Parcels M1-M8 will be surveyed, platted, and transferred according to approved final
property disposition plans.
12

6.0 MONITORING PLAN
6.1 Hydrology Monitoring
Within each of three created sites, hydrology will be evaluated at two permanently
established points for a period of five years. At each sampling point, a 20-inch automatic
sampling well programmed to sample water table depth on a dail4 basis will be installed. In
addition, at the time of vegetation sampling, soil saturation and any additional wetland
hydrology indicators will be visually described.
6.2 Soils Monitoring
Soil variables to be assessed include documentation of presence of redoximorphic features
including oxidized root channels, and iron depletions or accumulations.
6.3 Vegetation Monitoring
Vegetation restoration efforts will be evaluated by establishing
sample plot at each hydrology sampling point. Plots will be I
ecological site units within the creation areas as well as
Vegetation will be sampled annually at the end of each growing
years.

L'

Planted stems within the sample plots will be permanently tag
relocation over the monitoring period. Mortality of planted ste
stem counts in each of the 0.01-acre plots. Recruitment c
established on the 0.01-acre plot. Herbaceous species abundant
ocularly estimated within the 0.01-acre plots. Success criteria
will be met if more than 50 percent of the dominant species h
obligate, facultative wet, or facultative and overall survivabilit
minimum of 75 percent. Specifically, a minimum density of 3
desirable woody species must be present after a period of five ye
comprising more than 20% of the total.
series 0.01-acre circular
.ated in each of the two
?ther revegetated areas.
eason for a period of five
ged at planting to ensure
rs will be determined by
f woody species will be
e as percent cover will be
or hydrophytic vegetation
3ve an indicator status of
of planted species is a
?0 individuals per acre of
3rs, with no single species
6.4 Reporting and Contingency Actions
A baseline report and annual monitoring reports will be prepared for the five year period. In
addition, inspections of the beaver activity and functioning of the leveler device will be
conducted as needed or at a minimum on a quarterly basis. Contingency actions will be
implemented if conditions are not conducive to the success criteria. Contingency actions
include 1) re-establishment of the invert elevation for the ditch plug and leveler if found to
be too low or to high, 2) redesign of leveler outfall if a water` noise is created that will
attract beavers, 3) maintenance of leveler intake, 4) inten ified trapping efforts, 5)
additional control of competing vegetation, or 6) supplemental plantings.
13

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7.0 FINAL DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY
Treyburn LLC will be responsible for development, monitoring, and meeting success
criteria. Treyburn LLC will place an appropriate conservation easement or deed restriction
on the mitigation site as part of the mitigation plan. Final dispensation of property will be
determined prior to implementation of the mitigation plan. Treyburn LLC is currently
considering incorporating the proposed mitigation site as a featured segment for a larger
greenway system which is envisioned as linking various natural land historical features of
the Treyburn property and vicinity. This greenway system I will provide educational
opportunities to showcase wetlands conservation and regional history, and provide passive
recreation.
14

1 8.0 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL REPLACEMENT

F

11
L

This assessment subjectively evaluates the proposed industrial ;site on Treyburn Parcels
M1-M8 and the mitigation site wetland functions under existing ,conditions and compares
these functions to potential post-restoration conditions at the mitigation site.
8.1 M1-M8 Impacted Wetland Functions
Parcels M1-M8 constitute a 123.62-acre site containing 8.572 acres of delineated Section
404 jurisdictional areas. Of the 8.572 jurisdictional acres, 7.602 acres have been avoided
through site design. No impacts are proposed for any of the pp tream channels present.
Unavoidable impacts to 0.970 acre of wetlands will occur at two wetlands identified as
Wetland Areas 3 and 6 on Figure 2. Historic aerial photography (1972) shows that these
two wetlands were subject to agricultural activities until fairly recently (USDA 1976).
These wetlands now contain young forest located above the origins of two separate
intermittent streams. Since these headwater wetlands a ?e surrounded by other
undeveloped lands, they provide little pollutant removal value. These wetlands have little
microtopographic relief, probably as a result of historic agricultural activities, and provide
little water storage capacity. These wetlands provide no streaggmbank stabilization value
due to their positions above the origins of the receiving intermittent stream channels.
8.2 Pre-Mitigation Wetland Functions at the Mitigation Site
The 1 1.25-ac mitigation site consists of a section of floodplain containing various stages of
oldfield successional communities. Most of the site contain nonhydric soils and is
nonjurisdictional. Approximately 1.0 acre of the site consis s of intermittent stream
channels, wetlands fringing the streams, and a small pond. The origin of the eastern fork
of the intermittent stream running through the mitigation site has been partially or
completely cut off by an abandoned railroad bed. The origin of the western fork has been
cut off by the irrigation pond. The western fork also appears to have sustained historic
dredging and straightening. A beaver dam located at the confluence of the two forks has
impounded water in the stream channels and adjacent fringing wetlands.
Subsequently, the mitigation site streams represent near linear,
with the beaver dam acting as an in-stream sediment detention
the downstream terminus. The site, under existing condition, ret
of capacity to perform the sediment transport function. TF
sediment over time. Therefore, the ability to sustain long-term rig
threatened. Floodplain features often associated with water q
forest vegetation and soil microbial processes, are no longer p
result, important riverine wetland functions such as nutrient cycli
retention of particulates, and pollutant removal are consider
eliminated within the mitigation stream segment.
15
ggrading stream channels
)asin (impoundment) near
sins particulates in excess
e channel is filling with
erine wetland functions is
aality functions, including
in of the system. As a
ig, organic carbon export,
d effectively reduced or

8.3 Post-Mitigation Wetland Functions at the Mitigation Site
Riparian wetlands in the Piedmont region serve as penultimate receptors of runoff in the
watershed prior to discharge into streams. As a result, these systems serve important
water quality functions. Streams and floodplains filter nutrients, elements, and coarse
sediments transported through the watershed from in-channel flow, riparian discharge, and
overbank flood waters. Important features within Piedmont bottomlands that assist in
pollution filtration, uptake, and processing include stable forested communities, productive
biological activity on wetland surfaces, and a stable (non-eroding) stream channel and
floodplain (Adamus et al. 1991, Brinson et al. 1994, Rosgen 1996).
The present mitigation plan is designed to produce a forested flc
or nearly closed hardwood canopy. Under these conditions,
diverse habitat and niches will result, producing a complexit,
habitats. Mature forests of this type are considered a diminishi
Recovery efforts will result in a transformation of existing oper
oldfield, exposed to high light and air temperatures, to shad
Subsequently, the cooling effect upon stream temperatures wi
dissolved oxygen capacity. Aquatic insects, birds, mammals
adapted to exposed open waters will be replaced by a di)
dependent and in-stream aquatic species populations.
Wetland creation and enhancement at the mitigation site entai
' upland to elevations consistent with adjacent wetland el
approximately 1250 linear feet of stream channel, and reforestai
' The proposed wetland creation activities and reforestation of ul
increasing flood storage capacity and retention time. This miti,
fulfill compensatory mitigation requirements for wetland
development of Treyburn Parcels M1-M8 as well as provide addi
Treyburn LLC development needs.

16
dplain site with a closed
multilayered forest with
of feeding and nesting
3 resource in the region.
expanses of stream and
-producing communities.
result in an increase in
fish, and herptetofauna
rsity of wetland forest
s grading portions of the
vations, stabilization of
on of oldfield community.
land buffers will assist in
ation plan is proposed to
npacts associated with
ional mitigation for future

9.0 Summary

C

C
f
Compensatory mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts associated with planned
industrial development of Treyburn Parcels M1-M8 is proposed within the Little River
floodplain on Treyburn property east of Vintage Hill Parkway. A conceptual plan has been
developed to construct an 11.25-acre mitigation site capable of providing compensatory
mitigation for the Parcel M1-M8 impacts as well as capable of providing up-front mitigation
for future unavoidable impacts associated with future permitting needs. Compensatory
wetland mitigation as creation will be constructed on three sites 'for a total of 5.92 acres.
The three sites will be linked by existing wetlands and upland buffers. The creation sites
are non-jurisdictional but have high potential as successful wetland creation. The proposed
conceptual design utilizes Landscape Ecosystem Classification moJeling in conjunction with
traditional water budget modeling. The vegetation will be restored by planting tree and
shrub species and seeding of herbaceous species. Soils will be amended with organic
mulch, slow release fertilizer, and coir fiber blankets. The 5.92 acres of creation will be
surrounded by existing jurisdictional areas or a 50-foot wide upla d buffer that will also be
revegetated., The existing wetlands, which are associated with approximately 1250 linear
feet of intermittent streams located between the three wetland creation areas, will be
enhanced through hydrologic stabilization and revegetation with desirable hardwood
species.
17

10.0 REFERENCES
Adamus P.R., L.T. Stockwell, E.J. Clairain Jr., M.E. Morrow, L.P. Rozas, R.D. Smith.
1991. Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET), Volume 1: Literature Review and
Evaluation Rationale. Wetlands Research Program Technical Report WRP-DE-2.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
Brinson M.M., F.R. Hauer, L.C. Lee, R.P. Novitzki, W.L. Nutter, an? D.F. Whingham. 1994.
' Guidebook for Application of Hydrogeomorphic Assessments to Riverine Wetlands.
The National Wetlands Science Training Cooperative. Seattle, WA.
' Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Mississippi. 100 pp.
' Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). 1998. Classifications and
Water Quality Standards of the Neuse River Basin (15A NAC 2B.0315). NCDENR
website: http://h20.ehnr.state.nc.us/strmclass/hydro/neus html.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 1996. Draft Basinwide As essment Report Support
' Document: Neuse River Basin. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 402 pp.
I
Garrett, R.G. and J.D. Bales. 1995. Water-quality Characteristics of Streams in the
' Treyburn Development Area of the Falls Lake Watershed, North Carolina, 1988-
1993. U.S. Geological Survey, Water-resources Investigations Report 95-4094. 79
PP. ?
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1990. Mitigation Site hype Classification (MIST).
A methodology to classify pre-project mitigation sites develop performance
etlands. EPA Workshop,
standards for construction and restoration of forested ;nd
August 13-15, 1989. EPA Region IV and Hardwood Research Cooperative, NCSU,
Raleigh, North Carolina.
' Hook, D.D., W.H. McKee, Jr., T.M. Williams, S. Jones, D. Van Blaricom, and J. Parsons.
1994. Hydrologic and Wetland Characteristics of a Piedmont Bottom in South
' Carolina in Water, Air and Soil Solution 77: 293-320.
Jones, S.M. 1990. Landscape ecosystem classification for South Carolina. p. 59-68. In
' D.L. Mengel and D.T. Tew (eds.): Ecological Land Clas ification: Applications to
Identify the Productive Potential of Southern Forests, Pr ceedings. North Carolina
State University, U.S. Forest Service, and Southeastern orest Experiment Station.
' Charlotte, NC.
Jones, S.M. and F.T. Lloyd. 1993. Sustainable Forestry within the Southeastern United
' States. pp. 181-201 in: Gregory H. Aplet et al., Defi ing Sustainable Forestry,
Island Press.
1
18
'

Rosgen D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hy`,drology, Pagosa Springs,
Colorado. 365 pp.
Schafale, M. P. and Weakley, A. S. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina: Third Approximation, N.C. Natural Heritage Program, N.C. Dept. of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh Nort Carolina.
Seaber, P.R., F.P. Kapinos, and G.L. Knapp. 1987. Hydrologic Unit Maps. U.S. Geological
Survey Water-Supply Paper 2294. I
t
United States Department of Agriculture. 1976. Soil Survey kPf Durham County, North
Carolina. USDA Soil Conservation Service, 124 pp. p
Wood, G.W., L.A. Woodward, and G. Yarrow. 1994. The Cle n? son Beaver Pond Leveler.
Department of Aquaculture, Fisheries and Wildlife. Clemson University. AFW
Leaflet 1. 4 pp. I
19

11.0 FIGURES
For convenience in referring to figures cited in several sections, all figures have been
included at the end of the text. Figures include the following:
Figure 1. Location Map
Figure 2. Plan View Showing Proposed Features and Im
Figure 3. Mitigation Site Topography and Site Plan
Figure 4. Confirmed Soil Site Map
Figure 5. Lanscape Ecosystem Site Units
Figure 6. Beaver Dam Leveling Device
Figure 7. Typical Planting Plan
20
i
' ER98031/Site.DWG
LY
I ?
r Areaa 10
$ P
etland Area 1
v'r
wetland TRACT A;' i r
' Area 9
?• i I 1
X, i
Wetland etland Area 2
' Area 11
,? TRAT? B
Wetland ?.
' Area 12 k
Wetland Area 3
*Pi
TRACT C
Wetland Area 6
Wetland Area 4
f -• ?? Wetland
Area 7
Wetland Area s BUFFER /
TRACT i
' Wetland
Area 8
' Wetland Area 13 LEGEND
- Property Boundary
' Wetlands Avoided
Wetlands Impacted
-- Stream
SCALE IN FEET - - -' f Neuse Riparian Area Buffer
' 00 --- Duke Power Easement
Tract Boundary
Plan View Showing Figure: 2
Proposed Features and Impacts
t Environmental
Services, Inc. Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan Project: ER98031
Treyburn Limited Liability Company
Durham, North Carolina Date: Nov 1998

1 ER98031/TREY_ALL.DGN
% 4 -_
\
ox I
290
;? IRRIGATION POND
1 ,-o _ _ ._ -- --mot ` \\\ W/L
287.3
1 28 --_-? ;? ?'??•..? ? ; ; poi
k" I if
\ •r?__?,
CREATION AREA A
.,. /• • . . . • D. 1
• ' ' ' ' • ZREATI N i
° °
A D, D D D
° ° -
' ` ?_ __? _ GREAT ON AREA C°
'?- -- -? Existing
Beaver
Dam .-° °
UPLAND BUFFER
WETLANDS ENHANCEMENT
r F,p/ WITH UPLAND BUFFER
VER CREATION
1 \ ?T 1 l 0 100 200 300 Feet
j' I' k 0 50 Meters
1
Figure 3
Environmental Mitigation Site To ography and Siia Plan
conceptual We land Mitigation Plan Project: ER98031
1 Services, Inc. Treyburn Limited Liability Com any
Durham, North Carolina

i
d

I
I L F?

1
v1 J a

r
:Y
t
' o Mitigation Site Boundary
0 Soil Boring Location
0 100 200 Feet
0 25 50 Meters
' Photo Source: Hazen & Sawyer, 1998
0
m
a:
I W
A
Environmental
H Services, Inc.
o

t
b
? I
l
r

5.
A ?

v

-i

Confirmed Site Soil Map
Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan
Treyburn Llimited Liability Company
Durham, North Carolina
Non-Hydric Soils
Symbol Map Unit Series
AV Altavista
CO Congaree
HE Helena
Figure: 4
Project: ER98031
Date: Nov 1998

U_
•L
C
O
Z
U
•i >,
L
0
2
U
2
c
N C)
?O
E? O
O
Cf)
> ?
Environmental
Services, Inc.
x
a?
? r-
C U
CO E
U q
N :3
: U
E
Z3
NO C
c)
L
L - E
O C
}

U E
:3 ER
C? c
-0
5
C
L
Q

U

}
N
0 =3 C3

;;?
-C -
Q 2 C U
c
>
O U E Q x

a X -

3 l.l_
Landscape Ecosystem Site Urjits
Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan
Treyburn Limited Liability Company
Durham, North Carolina
c 0,
o,
O 4-
0
U c
E ?
N
N
O?
W C
CO
Q. C
a -a
0 a)
rL
C
N
O
_ D
O
CU)
- 4-
10 O
cn
C3
Q
0-0
C: 0
O O
U ?-
a
E >
O
Q
o
0-0
? O
Figure: 5
Project: ER98031
Date: Nov 1998
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
v
c
0
a
3
O
LL

0

E
-o c
d
? N N
> N
? a
m

c
O
.fl
l9
N
w
w
d
N
N
C
c
W
Environmental
Services, Inc.
N
v
tM
>
a?
0
LL
o
Beaver Dam Leveling Device
Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Ian
Treyburn Limited Liability Com 4any
Durham, North Carolina I
m
tS
2
Y
C
N
f0

m
a
'n
U
c ?
v
E,
cc
N
C
O
Cd"
d
Ol
t N
N y
? f6
O
a
Figure: 6
Project: ER98031
Date: Nov 1998
1
1
1

Environmental
Services, Inc.
1 71,11'.1-11
MEE&
V
tG0
m ° e m
+.mtaGimm?'
>;:e
T>>mExx
U
G
m
1 m y a
U_ N G m GGi ? `a
Z'E aasa? a Ga v
G
`
•
Rf y 4
1 Vf
? ? ? C1 •C
V a a 3
C"
N N j ,
g g 0
'p m N X
(
7
= m
(ri
xC7(3rt??»??
0
m Ol ? U i

CO CO
t 2 L E
C N U m
Z C3' C7 a
Typical Planting Plan
Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan
Treyburn Limited Liability Company
Durham, North Carolina
Figure: 7
Project: ER98031
Date: Nov 1998
i
i
Treyburn, LLC
Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan
Appendix A
Supplemental Soils Data
Appendix Contents
• Summary of Soil Confirmation Boring Logs
• Summary of Geological Investigation Boring Logs
• USDA, NRCS Soil Series Description, Helena Series, August 1998
November 1998

Treyburn Conceptual Mitigation Plan
Supplemental Soil Data
Summary of Soil Confirmation Boring Logs
(Locations shown on Report Figure 4)
Location Depth
(inches)
Point A 0-1
1-12
12-18
18-30+
Point B 0-8
8-20
20-30+
Point C 0-11
11-22
22-34+
Point D 0-10
10-25
25-36+
Point E 0-8
8-20
20-30+
Point F 0-2
2-16
16-30
30-36+
Point G 0-5
5-12
12-18
18-30+
Point H 0-6
6-20
20-36+
Horizon Color Texture'
A 10YR3/2 Silt load
E 2.5Y5/3 Silt Io
Btl 2.5Y6/2 Silty cla
Bt2 2.5Y6/2 Clay
A 10YR4/6 Sandy log
Cl 10YR4/6 Sandy log
C2 10YR5/6 Sandy to
A 10YR4/6 Sandy la
C l 10YR5/6 Sandy lo;
C2 10YR5/6 Sandy lo;
A 10YR4/6 Sandy to
Cl 10YR4/6 Sandy to
C2 10YR4/6 Sandy to
A 10YR4/6 Sandy to
C l l OYR5/6 Sandy to
C2 10YR5/6 Sandy to
A 10YR3/2 Silt loam
E 2.5Y5/3 Silt loam
Btl 2.5Y6/2 Silty cla,
Bt2 2.5Y6/2 Clay
A 10YR5/3 Sandy to
E 10YR6/3 Sandy to
Btl 10YR5/6 Sandy cl
Bt2 10YR5/6 Clay
A 10YR4/6 Sandy lc
Cl 10YR5/6 Sandy lc
C2 10YR6 Sandy lc
Mottles
10YR5/8
loam 10YR5/8
10YR5/8
10YR5/4
l OYR5/4
10YR5/4
10YR5/4
l OYR5/6
l 0YR5/6
1 OYR5/6
10YR5/6
l OYR5/6
loam 10YR5/6-5/8
1 OYR5/6-5/8
loam
10YR5/2
l 0YR4

Treyburn Conceptual Mitigation Plan
Supplemental Soil Data
Summary of Soil Confirmation Boring Logs
(Locations shown on Report Figure 4) G
Location Depth Horizon Color Texture Mottles
(inches)

Point I 0-8 A l 0YR6 Sandy low m
8-14 C1 10YR6 Sandy loam
14-30+ C2 10YR5/6 Sandy loam 10YR5/4
Point J 0-10 A 10YR4/6 Sandy lo? m
10-24 Cl 10YR4/6 Sandy lo7 10YR5/4
24-36+ C2 10YR5/6 Sandy loam 10YR5/4
Point K 0-2 A 10YR3/2 Silt loam!
2-14 E 2.5Y5/3 Silt loam
14-18 Btl 2.5Y6/2 Silty clay loam 10YR5/8
18-28+ Bt2 2.5Y6/2 Clay 10YR5/8
Point L 0-1 A 10YR3/2 Silt loamk
1-12 E 10YR5/3 Silt loam;
12-20 Btl 10YR6/2 Silty clay loam 10YR5/8
20-30+ Bt2 10YR6/2 Clay 10YR5/8
Point M 0-10 A 10YR4/6 Sandy to a m
10-22 C1 10YR5/6 Sandy loam
22-36+ C2 10YR5/6 Sandy loam
'u 10YR5/4
Point N 0-1 A 10YR3/2 Silt loam'
1-9 E 10YR5/3 Silt loam/Silty clay loam
9-18 Btl 10YR5/2 Silty clay loam 10YR5/8
18-30+ Bt2 10YR6/2 Clay 10YR5/8
i
Location
Boring-1
Boring-2
Treyburn Conceptual Mitigation Ian
Supplemental Soil Data
Summary of Geological Investigation Boring Logs
(Locations shown on Report Figure 4) 1
Depth (inches) Stratigrahy
i
0-12 Silty CLAY(CL), 2.5YR 5/3 with diffuse heavy
mottling, l OYR 4/4, 10 5/6, 10YR 5/8
12-24 As Above
6
24-36 As Above with less mottling.
36-42 Stiff High Plasticity CLAY(CH), 2.5YR 6/2, with
mottles fewer and more! distinct than above, 10YR
5/8, l OYR 6/6. I
42-48 Stiff High Plasticity CL,.Y(CH), 2.5YR 6/2, mottles
larger and less plastic, high shrink/swell potential in
clay.
48-60 Stiff High Plasticity CLAY(CH), 2.5YR 6/2, mottles
larger and less plastic, high shrink/swell potential in
clay. trace garnetiferrou?.
0-6 Silty fine SAND(SM), 1 ? YR 4/6(-).
6-12 Silty fine SAND(SM), 1`OYR 4/6.
f
12-18 Silty fine SAND(SM),JOYR 4/6 with minor very
diffuse mottling 1OYR 5/6, l OYR 3/6, 1OYR 5/4.
I
18-30 Silty fine SAND(SM),10YR 4/6 with mottling more
pronounced as bands I O?R 5/6, l OYR 3/6, l OYR 5/4.
a
30-36 Silty fine SAND(SM),I YR 4/6 with mottling more
pronounced as bands 1OYR 5/6.
36-42 Silty SAND/Clayey SAA1D(SM/SC), IOYR 4/6, and
10YR 5/4, with weathered rock, very minor mottles
l0YR 7/2.
42-45 Weathered Rock, Auger!Refusal at 45 inches.

Treyburn Conceptual Mitigation Man
Supplemental Soil Data
Summary of Geological Investigation Boring Logs
(Locations shown on Report Figure 4)
Location Depth inches) Stratigraphy
Boring-3 0-18 Low plasticity Silty CLAY(CL), I OYR 5/3 with faint
mottles, l OYR 4/6, 10Yk 5/2.
18-30 Low plasticity Silty CLAY(CL), 2.5YR 6/4, with
diffuse mottles, l OYR 5%8, l OYR 5/6.
r
30-36 Low plasticity Silty CLAY(CL), 2.5YR 6/6, with
better defined mottles, 2.5YR 6/4, 10YR 5/8, 2.5YR
6/3.
36-42 Low plasticity Silty CLAY(CL), 2.5YR 6/3, with
mottles, IOYR 5/8, l OYR 4/6.
42-54 High plasticity Silty CLAY(CH), 2.5YR 6/3, with
mottles, l OYR 5/8, IOYR 6/6, 1OYR 5/6.
54-57 High plasticity Silty CLAY(CH), 2.5YR 6/2, with
mottles, 10YR 5/6, 10YR 5/8.
Boring-4 0-12 Silt LOAM(ML), 2.5YR 6/3, with concretions.
12-30 Clayey SILT to Silty CLAY(ML/CL), 2.5YR 6/2,
with mottles, IOYR 5/6.1
30-45 Silty CLAY(CL), 2.5YR 6/2, with mottles l OYR 5/6.
4
45-54 Silty clay(CL), IOYR 711, with mottles IOYR 5/8.
54-63 Stiff high plasticity Silty CLAY (CH), lOYR 7/1,
with mottles l OYR 5/8. ;
Boring-5 0-18 Silty fine SAND(SM),10YR 4/6 with minor very
diffuse mottling IOYR 5/6, IOYR 3/6, IOYR 5/4.
Boring terminated at 18 inches in Congaree.

Treyburn Conceptual Mitigation Plan
Supplemental Soil Data
Summary of Geological Investigation Bori7g Logs
(Locations shown on Report Figure 4)
Location Depth (inches) StratigraphX
Boring-6 0-21 Loamy CLAY(CL), 7.5YR 5/6, with faint diffuse
mottling.
21-24 Loamy CLAY(CL), 7.5YR 5/6, with faint diffuse
mottling. Auger refusal at 24 inches
Boring-7 0-12 Silty LOAM(ML), 2.5YR 6/4, with relic concretions.
12-30 Clayey SILT(MH), 2.5 6/3, with mottles 2.5YR
6/2.
30-42 Silty CLAY (CL/CH), 1 2.5YR 6/3, with mottles,
2.5YR 6/2. Auger refusal at 42 inches.
i
Boring-8 0-18 Disturbed silty fine SAND, FILL. Boring terminated
at 18 inches.

Boring-9 0-36 k
Silty CLAY(CL), 2.5YJR 5/3 with diffuse heavy
f mottling, l OYR 4/4, l OYR 5/6, l OYR 5/8
36-42 Stiff High Plasticity CLAY(CH), 2.5YR 6/2, with
mottles fewer and mor distinct than above, 10YR
5/6. Mottles larger and 1 ss plastic, high shrink/swell
potential in clay. Auger Refusal at 42 inches
Boring-10 0-24 Silty CLAY(CL), 2.5 6/3, with relic concretions.

24-36 I
Silty CLAY(CL/CH), 2.5YR 6/3, with heavy mottling
comprise of Sandy CLAY(CL), lOYR 5/6. Auger
refusal at 36 inches on roots.
Boring- 11 0-14 Silty LOAM(ML/MH)? 10YR 6/6, with diffuse
mottling l OYR 6/8. Au ° er refusal at 14 inches.

Boring-12 0-12 i
Clayey SILT(MH) 10YR 5/4, with concretions.
Auger refusal at 12 inc4s on roots.
Official Series Description - HELENA Series Page 1 of 5
' LOCATION HELENA NC+AL GA SC VA
Established Series `
' Rev. AG k
8/98
HELENA SERIES
The Helena series consists of very deep, moderately well drained, slowl permeable soils that formed
in residuum weathered from a mixture of felsic, intermediate, or mafic i eous or high-grade
' metamorphic rocks such as aplitic granite or granite gneiss that is cut b dykes of gabbro and diorite,
or mixed with hornblende schist or hornblende gneiss. These soils are on broad ridges and toeslopes
of the Piedmont uplands. Slope is dominantly between 2 to 10 percent but ranges from 0 to 15
' percent. Mean annual precipitation is 46 inches, and mean annual temperature is 61 degrees F, near
the type location.
TAXONOMIC CLASS: Fine, mixed, semiactive, thermic Aquic Hapl dults
TYPICAL PEDON: Helena sandy loam - in a cultivated field on a 4 P rcent slope. (Colors are for
'
moist soil unless otherwise stated.)
Ap--O to 8 inches; grayish brown (IOYR 5/2) sandy loam; weak, medium, and coarse granular
structure; very friable; many fine roots; moderately acid; abrupt smooth boundary. (4 to 10 inches
thick)
' E--8 to 12 inches; light yellowish brown (IOYR 6/4) sandy loam; weak medium granular structure;
very friable; few fine roots; few fine black concretions; strongly acid; c ear wavy boundary. (0 to 10
' inches thick)
BE-42 to 19 inches; brownish yellow (10YR 6/6) sandy clay loam; common fine faint pale brown
' mottles; moderate medium prismatic structure that parts to moderate medium angular blocky; friable;
sticky, plastic; few fine roots; few fine pores; few faint clay films on faces of peds; few medium
quartz gravel; very strongly acid; clear wavy boundary. (0 to 7 inches thick)
' Bt1--19 to 24 inches; Yellowish brown (IOYR 5/8) clay; few fine Prom'wnent light brownish gray
?
(IOYR 6/2) iron depletions; weak coarse angular blocky structure; firm,, sticky, plastic; few fine
' roots; few fine pores; few faint clay films on faces of peds; very strongly acid; clear wavy boundary.
Bt2--24 to 39 inches; yellowish brown (10YR 5/8) clay; many medium prominent gray (10YR 6/1)
' iron depletions; weak coarse subangular blocky and angular blocky structure; very firm, sticky, very
plastic; few fine roots; few fine pores; common distinct clay films on faces of peds; very strongly
acid; clear wavy boundary.
Bt3--39 to 43 inches; light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4) clay ? loam; common medium distinct light
gray (IOYR 7/1) iron depletions; weak medium subangular blocky structure; extremely firm, sticky,
very plastic; common distinct clay films on faces of peds; few brown concretions; very strongly acid;
clear wavy boundary. (Combined thickness of the Bt horizon is 17 to 42 inches.)
http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/cgi-bin/osd/osdname.cgi?-P 11/6/98
Official Series Description - HELENA Series - Page 2 of 5
' BCg--43 to 46 inches; light gray (10YR 7/1) clay loam; many coarse prominent strong brown
(7.5YR 5/6) soft masses of iron accumulation; massive; friable, sticky, plastic; very strongly acid;
clear wavy boundary. (0 to 14 inches thick)
C-46 to 60 inches; strong brown (7.5YR 5/8) saprolite that has a texture of sandy loam; many coarse
'
prominent light gray (10YR 7/1) streaks; massive; friable; few coarse vins of gray clay; common
' fragments of granitic rock; very strongly acid.
TYPE LOCATION: Durham County, North Carolina; 0.4 mile west oflMangum Store on SR 1603;
' 400 feet north on a farm road and 400 feet east in a cultivated field.
' RANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS: Solum thickness ranges from 40 to more than 60 inches. Depth
to bedrock is greater than 5 feet. The soil is extremely acid to strongly acid except where the surface
has been limed. Limed soils are typically moderately acid or slightly acid in the upper part. Gravel
fragments range from 0 to 35 percent by volume in the A and E horizon and from 0 to 35 percent in
the B and C horizons. Some pedons may have few to common dark con retions in the upper part of
the profile.
The A or A p has hue of l OYR or 2.5Y value of 3 to 6 and chr p a of 1 to 4. It is loam
p , , Y
sand, loamy coarse sand, coarse sandy loam, fine sandy loam, sandy loam, or loam in the fine-earth
' fraction. In eroded phases the Ap horizon is clay loam or sandy clay loam in the fine-earth fraction.
The E horizon, where present, has hue of 10YR to 5Y, value of 5 to 8, and chroma of 2 to 4. Texture
' is loamy sand, loamy coarse sand, coarse sandy loam, fine sandy loam, sandy loam, or loam in the
fine-earth fraction.
' The BE or BA horizon, where present, has hue of 7.5YR to 5Y, value of 5 to 8, and chroma of 3 to 8.
It is sandy clay loam or clay loam.
' The Bt horizon has hue of 7.5YR to 5Y, value of 5 to 8, and chroma of .5. to 8. In some pedons, the
lower Bt horizon has 5YR hues or is mottled in shades of yellow, brown, gray, or red. Iron depletions
with chroma of 2 or less occur within 24 inches of the upper boundary of the Bt horizon. Soft masses
' of iron accumulation in shades of yellow, brown, or red may also be present. Texture is dominantly
clay loam, sandy clay, or clay, but some pedons have thin subhorizons of sandy clay loam.
r

[1
The Btg horizon, where present, has hue of lOYR or 2.5Y, value of 4 to 7, and chroma of 1 or 2. Soft
masses of iron accumulation in shades of yellow, brown, or red commo ly are present. Texture is
clay loam, sandy clay, or clay.
The BC or BCg horizons, where present, have colors similar to the Bt
respectively. Texture is clay loam, sandy clay loam, loam, fine sandy
The C horizon has hue of 5YR to 5Y, value of 5 to 8, and chroma of 3
multicolored in shades of gray, yellow, brown, red or white. The Cg he
of 10YR to 5Y, value of 5 to 7, and chroma of 1 or 2 and is typically n
brown. The C and Cg horizons are saprolite that has a texture of sandy
clay loam, or loam. Bodies or seams of clay loam or clay are in some r
)n or the Btg horizon
or sandy loam.
8. It is typically mottled or
,on, where present, has hue
tled in shades of yellow or
am, fine sandy loam, sandy
http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/cgi-bin/osd/osdname.cgi?-P I 11/6/98
Official Series Description - HELENA Series

COMPETING SERIES: These are the Annemaine, Beason, Cid, Cray
Eulonia, Gritnev, Lignum, Maubila, Nemours, Nevarc, Peawick, Sacul,
Annemaine, Benson, Craven, Dogue, Eulonia, Gritney, Maubila, Nemoi
and Wolftever soils lack a C horizon of saprolite. In addition, Annemaii
Newco, and Sacul soils have redder hue, and Beason, Craven and Dogu
Also, Peawick soils commonly have aluminum saturation greater than 5
lithic contact between depths of 20 and 40 inches. Creedmoor soils hav(
extensibility, more exchangeable aluminum than Helena, and the C hori
saprolite. Lignum and Pros eri soils have paralithic contact within 40
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING: The Helena soils are on broad ridges, toe
the Piedmont uplands. Slopes are mostly between 2 and 10 percent and
The soil formed in residuum weathered from a mixture of felsic, interm
high-grade metamorphic rocks such as aplitic granite or granite gneiss t
and diorite, or mixed with hornblende schist or hornblende gneiss. Mea
from 37 to 69 inches, and mean annual temperature ranges from 58 to 6
Page 3 of 5
n, Creedmoor, Doguue,
tnd Telfair series.
rs, Nevarc, Peawick, Sacul,
Eulonia, Nemours,
soils contain more silt.
percent. Cid soils have a
a higher coefficient of linear
on is weathered Triassic
60 inches.
lopes and heads of drains in
Inge from 0 to 15 percent.
hate, or mafic igneous or
?t is cut by dykes of gabbro
annual precipitation ranges
degrees F.
GEOGRAPHICALLY ASSOCIATED SOILS: These are Applin , Cecil, Cullen, Durham, Enon,
Hard Labor, Ireddell, Louisburg, Mecklenburg, Pacolet, Pros eri , Rion; Sedgefield, Vance,
Wedowee, Wilkes, and Worsham series. Appling, Cecil, Hard Labor, Pacolet, and Wedowee soils
have, kaolinitic mineralogy. Cullen and Vance soils are well drained. Durham and Rion soils have
less than 35 percent clay in the Bt horizon. Enon, Iredell, Mecklenburg, Sedgefield, and Wilkes soils
have base saturation of more than 35 percent. In addition, Iredell soils are smectitic, and Wilkes soils
are loamy and shallow. All of these soils except for Iredell, Sedgefield, and Worsham soils are on
landscape positions that have better surface drainage. Iredell, Prosperity and Sedgefield soils are in
similar landscape positions to Helena. Worsham soils are in heads of drains and upland
drainageways.
DRAINAGE AND PERMEABILITY: Moderately well drained; mi
' permeability. There is a perched water table in late winter and early s
USE AND VEGETATION: About two-thirds of this soil is used for
crops are tobacco, corn, soybeans, small grain, and vegetables. Less c
remaining acreage is in forests of mixed hardwood and pine. Native s
shortleaf pine, Virginia pine, sweetgum, willow oak, red oak, white o
' American elm. Understory species include sourwood, flowering dogN
cedar, hophornbean, eastern redbud, and sassafras.
' DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT: Piedmont of Alabama, Georgia,
and Virginia. The series is of large extent; the area is more than 300,(
' MLRA OFFICE RESPONSIBLE: Raleigh, North Carolina
to rapid runoff; slow
,ps and pasture. Common
mon are cotton and hay. The
ies include loblolly pine,
yellow-poplar, and
d, winged elm, eastern
th Carolina, South Carolina,
acres.
SERIES ESTABLISHED: Person County, North Carolina, 1928.
REMARKS: The August 1991 revision changed depth to bedrock from more than 48 inches to
more than 60 inches" to be consistent with one depth to bedrock class as shown on the Soil
' Interpretation Records for Helena.
http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/cgi-bin/osd/osdname.cgi?-P
11/6/98
Official Series Description - HELENA Series Page 4 of 5
f
Diagnostic horizons and features recognized in this pedon are: R
Ochric epipedon - the zone from the surface of the soil to 12 inches (Ap and E horizons)
Argillic horizon - the zone between depths of 12 and 46 inches below the surface (BE, Btl, Bt2, BG
' and BCg horizons)
Aquic conditions - periodic episaturation and redox depletions within 24 inches of the upper
boundary of the argillic horizon (beginning in the Btl horizon)
Revised: RLV 8/14/98
MLRA = 136
' OSD/SIR Report:
SOI-5 Soil Name Slope Airtemp FrFr/Seas Precip Elevation
N00058 HELENA 0- 15 58- 65 85-240 37- 69 350- 900
' NCO176 HELENA 0- 15 58- 65 185-240 37- 69 350- 900
NC0266 HELENA 0- 15 58- 65 185-240 37- 69 350- 900
' SOI-5 F1oodL F1oodH Watertable Kind Months Bedrock Hardness
N00058 NONE 1.5-2.5 PERCHED JAN-APR 60-60
NCO176 NONE 1.5-2.5 PERCHED JAN-APR 60-60
' NC0266 NONE 1.5-2.5 PERCHED JAN-APR 60-60
SOI-5 Depth Texture 3-Inch No-10 Clay% -CEC-
' N00058 0-12 SL FSL L 0- 5 90-100 5-20 1- 6
N00058 0-12 SCL CL 0- 5 95-100 20-35 4- 8
N00058 12-19 SCL CL 0- 5 95-100 20-35 4- 7
N00058 19-43 CL SC C 0- 5 95-100 35-60 7- 13
N00058 43-60 VAR - - - -
NC0176 0-12 GR-FSL GR-L GR-COSL 0- 5 50- 75 5-20 1- 6
' NCO176 0-12 GR-LCOS GR-LS GR-S 0- 5 50- 75 3-12 1- 4
NCO176 0-12 GR-CL GR-SCL 0- 5 50- 75 20-35 4- 8
NCO176 12-19 SCL CL SL 0- 5 95-100 20-35 4- 7
' NCO176 19-43 CL SC C 0- 5 95-100 35-60 7- 13
NCO176 43-60 VAR - - - -
NC0266 0-12 LS LCOS 0- 5 90-100 3-12 1- 4
' NC0266 12-19 SCL CL 0- 5 95-100 20-35 4- 7
NC0266 19-43 CL SC C 0-'5 95-100 35-60 7- 13
' NC0266 43-60 VAR----
S01-5 Depth -pH- O.M. Salin Permeab Shnk-Swll
N00058 0-12 3.5- 6.5.5-2. 0- 0 2.0- 6.0 LOW
' N00058 0-12 3.5- 6.5.5-1. 0- 0 01- 0.6 LOW
N00058 12-19 3.5- 5.5 0.-.5 0- 0 0.2- 0.6 MODERATE
NCO058 19-43 3.5- 5.5 0.-.5 0- 0 0.06- 0.2 HIGH
' N00058 43-60 ----
http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/cgi-bin/osd/osdname.cgi?-P 11/6/98

Official Series Description - HELENA Series
NCO 176 0-12 4.5- 6.5.5-2. 0- 0 2.0- 6.0 LOW
NCO 176 0-12 4.5- 6.5.5-2. 0- 0 6.0- 20 LOW
NC0176 0-12 4.5- 6.5.5-1. 0- 0 0.2- 0.6 LOW
NC0176 12-19 4.5- 5.5 0.-.5 0- 0 0.2- 0.6 MODERATE
NC0176 19-43 4.5- 5.5 0.-.5 0- 0 0.06- 0.2 HIGH
NC0176 43-60 - - - -
NC0266 0-12 3.5- 6.5.5-2. 0- 0 6.0- 20 LOW
NC0266 12-19 3.5- 5.5 0.-.5 0- 0 0.2- 0.6 MODERATE
NC0266 19-43 3.5- 5.5 0.-.5 0- 0 0.06- 0.2 HIGH
NC0266 43-60 - - - -
National Cooperative Soil Survey
U.S.A.
http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/cgi-bin/osd/osdname.cgi?-P
Page 5 of 5
11/6/98

Treyburn, LLC
Conceptual Wetland Mitigatio A Plan
Appendix B
Vegetation Sampling
Vegetation Plot size: 0.05 acres
Reference Site Plot size: 0.10 acre
ESI Project No. 98031
1 ?
?! 1 .1J .

IMPORTANCE VALUE INDICES SUMMARY
r
Treyburn Mitigation Reference and Impact Sites
Reference Site (Wet)
Trees Saplings
Acer rubrum 54.62 Acer r ibrum 59
Quercus phellos 19.98 Carpin us caroliniana 11.83
Liquidambar styraciflua 7.5 Fraxin us pennsylvanica 7.09
Quercus pagogaefolia 7.28 Querc us pagodaefolia 5.55
Ulmus alata 4.12 Junipe lrus virgimana 4.86
Fraxinus pennsylvanica 4.12 Ulmus alata 4.71
Ulmus rubra 3.38 Ilex d cidua 3.14
Nyssa sylvatica 2.23
s
Ulmu rubra 1.57
Reference Site (Upland)
Pinus taeda 45.08 Liquid ambar styraciflua 17.23
Quercus phellos 25.25 Acer r bbrum 13.58
Liquidambar styraciflua 15.48 Querc ?s alba 11.48
Acer rubrum 7.59 Querc us phellos 11.12
Quercus albs 6.61 Nyssal biflora 11.12
Ulmus alata 10.95
Fraxin? s pennsylvanica 6.78
Ilex d cidua 4.7
Carya tomentosa 4.18
Carpi
ru us caroliniana 3.13
Que
Fagus? s nigra
grandifolia 2.61
1.57
Junipe rus virgi.mana 1.57
Treyburn Parcels M1-M8, Wetland Area 6
Liquidambar styraciflua 49.53 Acer r ubrum 64.3
Acer rubrum 18.49 Liquid ambar styraciflua 16.88
Ulmus rubra 13.14 Nyssa sylvatica 9.81
Betula nigra 8.65 Querc us nigra 4.19
Quercus phellos 5.7 Querc us velutina 2.88
Pinus taeda 4.49 Junipe
F rus virginiana 1.94
Treyburn Parcels M1-M8, Wetland Area 3 ;
f
Acer rubrum 40.33 Acer brum 49.36
Quercus phellos 33.7 Liquid ambar styraciflua 31.98
Pinus taeda 8.62 Quera I us phellos 5.51
Quercus velutina 7.5 Querc us nigra 5.05
Quercus nigra 6.57 Nyssa slyvatica 4.93
Liquidambar styraciflua 3.28 Querc us velutina 3.16
lVi2
Treybum Parcel M1-M8
Watland Aran 3 /lmnart Sital
Total Basal Total Relative Relative Importance
Species dbh Frequency Basal Area Area Frequency Basal Are Frequency Value Indite
Trees
Quercus velutlna 8.00 1 0.3490659 0.5454154 2 0.066666 71t 0.08333333 7.5
6.00 1 0.1963495 R
i
-
Quercus nigra 6.00 2 0.3926991 0.39269909 2 0.04 8 0.08333333 6.56666667
Acer rubrum 6.00 11 2.159845 2.50891084 12 0206666 7 0.5 40.3333333
8.00 1 0.3490659
i
Pins laeda 14.00 1 1.0690142 1.06901418 1 0.130666 7 0.04166667 8.61666667
Quercus phellos 6.00 3 0.5890486 3.46884194 6 0.42 0.25 33.7
8.00 2 0.6981317 1
20.00 1 2.1816616
Liquidambarstyraci8ua 6.00 1 0.1963495 0.19634954 1 0.02 4 0.04166667 3 28333333
Totals 24 8.181231 1.01 1 1 00 100.00
AN= 1

Saplings 4
Acerrubrum 1.00 3 0.0163625 0.9599311 23 0.54489 0.44230769 49.3599667
2.00 7 0.1527163 1
3.00 9 0.4417865
4.00 4 0.3490659
Liquidambarstyracilua 1.00 3 0.0163625 0.55086955 17 0.312693 5 0.32692308 31.9808288
2.00 7 0.1527163
3.00 6 0.2945243
+ 4.00 1 0.0872665
Quercus velufina 2.00 2 0.0436332 0.04363323 2 0.024767 8 0.03846154 3.16146702
Quercus nigra 1.00 1 0.0054542 0.07635816 3 0.043343 7 0.05769231 5.05179805
2.00 1 0.0218166
3.00 1 0.0490874 P{
Quercusphellos 2.00 2 0.0436332 0.09272062 3 0.052631 f 0.05769231 5.51619433
3.00 1 0.0490874 I
Nyssa sylvatica 1.00 3 0.0163625 0.03817908 4 0.021671 0.07692308 4.92974518
2.00 11 0.0218166
Totals 62 1.7616917 1.0 0 1.00 100.00
_
Relative
Species Frequency Frequency
Seedlings
Nyssa sylvatica 25 0.18939394
Queicus nigra 1 0.00757576
Quercus velufina 17 0.12878788
Fagus grandifolia 3 0.02272727
Liquidambarstyraciflua 34 0.25757576
Ilex deadua 8 0.06060606
Quercus phellos 31 0.23484848
Prunusserodna 5 0.03787879
Vaccinium corymbosum 7 0.0530303
Juniperus virginiana 1 0.00757576
Totals 132 1.00

Herbs
Gaylussacia frondosa j
Hypendum sp. M
Juncus effsus
Loniceria japonica
Parthenocisssus quinquefolia
Rubus sp.
Smilax bona-nox
Smilax g/abra
Vbs rotundilblia
Snags: 22
Soils
Micro topographic relief: moderate 0-4 10YR 5 /2 sift loa
Macro topographic relief: moderate 4.1510YR5 /3 sift loam444
15+ 10YR 5/3 silly day
Coarse woody debris: 1
Fine woody debris: moderate
1
i
i
? 102
Treyburn Parcels M1-M8
Westland Area 6 flmnarf Sital
Relativd
Basal Total Basal Total Basal Relative Importance
species dbh Frequency Area Area Fre uenc Area F uenc Value Indic
Trees
Pinusfeeds 12 1 0.7853982 0.78539818 1 0.061961 0.02777778 4.4869956
Acerrubrum 10 1 0.5454154 2.57436069 6 0.203098 0.16666867 18.4882387
6 1 0.1963495
8 3 1.0471976
12 1 0.7853982
Betula nigra 6 4 0.7853982 0.78539818 4 0.061962 0.11111111 8.65366227
i
Uquidambarstyracifiua 8 3 1.0471976 6.21773556 18 0.490534 0.5 49.5266781
6 10 1.9634954
10 3 1.6362462
12 2 1.5707964
t
Quercus phellos 10 1 0.5454154 0.74176494 2 0.05852 0.05555556 5.70376745
6 1 0.1963495
N
Ulmusrubra 6 4 0.7853982 1.57079635 5 0.123924 0.13888889 13.1406579
12 1 0.7853982
Totals 36 12 675464 1.0 0 1.00 100.0
0
_
Saplings
1
Acerrubrum 1 11 0.0599957 0.86721049 29 0.59550
6 0.69047619 64.2990904
2 7 0.1527163
3 8 0.3926991
4 3 0.2617994
Liquidambarstyracifiua 1 2 0.0109083 0.28361601 6 0.194757 0.14285714 16.8806849
3 2 0.0981748
4 2 0.1745329
Quercus velu6na 3 1 0.0490874 0.04908739 - 1 0.033708 0.02380952 2.87586945
Nyssa sylvetica 1 2 0.0109083 0.14726216 4 0.101124 0.0952381 9.81806454
3 1 0.0490874
4 1 0.0872665
Quercus nigra 4 1 0 0872665 0087,26646 1 0.059925 0.02380962 4.18673087
Juniperus virginiana 2 1 0.0218166 0.02181662 1 0.01498,1 0.02380952 1.93953986
Totals 42 1.4662591 1.0 0 TWO 100.00
119
Relative
Species Frequency Frequency
Seedlings
Acerrubrum 22 0.18487395
Quercus phellos 17 0.14285714
Querous velubna 26 0.21848739
Nyssa sylvatica 7 0.05882353
Prunus serotina 6 0.05042017
LiquidambarsytraciBua 5 0.04201681
Sassahas albidium 3 0.02521008
Fraxinus sp. 2 0.01680672
Ulmusrubra 23 0.19327731
Quercusnigra 1 0.00840336
Lidodendron fulipifera 1 0.00840336
Vaccinum corymbosum 6 0.05042017
Totals 119 1.00
Herbs
Loniceda japonica
Microstegium vimineum
Rubus sp.
Smilax bona-nox
Smilax glauca
Smilax rotundilolia
Sphagnum sp.
Unidentified moss
Vitis rotundifolia
Woodwardia virginiana Coarse woo dy debris: 2
Fine woody debris: present but Infrequ ent
Snags: 12
Soils
Micro topographic relief: high 0 4 10YR 512 silt loam
Marco topographic relief: moderate 4-1510YR5l3 silt loam
15. 10YR5/3 silty day
I
? w
Reference Site for Treybum Mitigation
wet
Relative
Basal Total Basal Total Basal Relative Importance
Species dbh Frequency Area Area Fre uenc Area F uenc Value Indies
Trees
Acerrubrum 13 1 0.921752 6.83405496 14 0.509143 .5833333 54.6237979
14 2 2.138028
10 2 1.090831
8 6 2.094395
6 3 0.589049
Quercusphellos 10 1 0.545415 2.8579767 4 0.212922 .1666667 18.9794122
8 1 0.349066
18 1 1.767146
6 1 0.19635
Ulmus alata 10 1 0.545415 0.5454154 1 0.040634 0.0416667
I 4.11502777
Fraxinus pennsylvanic 10 1 0.545415 0.5454154 1 0.040634 0s.0416667 4.11502777

Quercus pagodatolia
16
1
1.396263
1.39626342
1
0.104023 I
0.0416667
7.28447108
Liquidambarstyraclflua 10 1 0.545415 0.89448126 2 0.06664 0.0833333 7.49864554
8 1 0.349056
Ulmus rubra 8 1 . 0.349066 0.34906585 1 0.026006 0.0416667 3.38361777
Totals 24 1342267 100 1.00 100.00

Saplings Ilexdeadua 1 2 0.010908 00.09083. 2 0.008772 0.0540541 3.14129919
Quercus pagodalolia 3 1 0.049087 0.070904 2 0.057018 0.0540541 5.5535799
2 1 0.021817
Acerrubrum 1 4 0.021817 0.62903141 19 0.666667 .5135135 59.009009
2 3 0.06545
3 8 0.392699
4 4 0.349066
Ffaxmus pennsyivanic 2 1 0.021817 0.10908308 2 0.087719 0.0540541 7.08866761
4 1 0.087266
Ulmus alata 1 3 0.016362 0.01636246 3 0.013158 0.0810811 4.71194879
Ulmus rubra 1 1 0.005454 0,00545415 1 0.004386 0.027027 1.5706496

Juniparus virginiana
4
1
0.087266
0.08726646
1
0.070175 a
i 0.027027
4.86012328
Carpmus carolrniana 1 4 0.021817 0.09272062 6 0.074561 .1621622 11.8361783
2 1 0.021817 [
3 1 0.049087
Nysss sylvabca 2 1 0.021817 0.02181662 1 e017544 1 0.027027 2 22854433
Totals 37 1.243647 1.00 1 1.00 100.00
_
IL .4
Relative
Species Frequency Frequency
Seedlings i
Fraxinus pennsylvanica 4 0.14814815 E
Querous phellos 1 0.03703704
Ulmusrubra 2 0.07407407
Acerrubrum 11 0.40740741
Ulmusrubra 9 0.33333333
Totals 27 1 1
. .„.1 '..
W=
so=
so=

..

....

.?

i ..

TW ::.
Herbs
Toxicodendron radicans
Carex sp.
Smilax rotundilolia
Smilax glabra 1
1 unidentified

Solis
0-1 10YR412 sandylo sm
1.4 10YR52E day
(
1
4.18 10YR3 IB day
180+ f0YR4/2 w/20 %fOYR 5r6 mottles
Snags: 8 Micro and Macro topogra phic relief
No defined drainage patt ern
Coarse woody debris: 11 Larger tre es are fluting
No defined drainage patt er S
Fine woody debris: present and a bwxWd No recent signs of beave rs

0

Reference Site for Treyburn Mitigation
I Basal Total Basal Total Basal Relative Importance
dbh Frequency Area Area Frequency Area Frequency Value Indice
Liquidambar styraciflua 8.00 3 1.047198 1.59261297 4 10.087321 0.22222222 15.47713982
10.00 1 0.545415
Pinus taeda 18.00 2 3.534292 10.3628926 6 10.568182 0.33333333 45.07575758
20.00 2 4.363323
16.00 1 1.396263
14.00 1 1.069014
Quercus phellos 8.00 1 0.349066 4.14515704 5 227273 0.27777778 25.25252525
10.00 1 0.545415 r
16.00 1 1.396263
12.00 1 0.785398
14.00 1 1.069014
Acer rubrum 10.00 1 0.545415 0.74176494 2 ; 0.04067 0.11111111 7.589048379
6.00 1 0.19635
Quercus.alba 16.00 1 1.396263 1.39626342 1 0.076555 0.05555556 6.605528974
Totals 18 18.23869 1.00 1.00 100.00

Saplings
Acer rubrum 1.00 7 0.038179 0.05999569 8 0.076389 0.19512195 13.57554201
2.00 1 0.021817
i
Ulmus alata 2.00 1 0.021817 0.11453723 3 0.145833 0.07317073 10.95020325
4.00 1 0.087266
1.00 1 0.005454
t
Ilex decidua 1.00 3 0.016362 0.01636246 3 0.020833 0.07317073 4.700203252
Quercus alba 1.00 4 0.021817 0.06544985 6 0.083333 0.14634146 11.48373984
2.00 2 0.043633
Carya tomentosa 1.00 1 0.005454 0.02727077 2 1 0.034722 0.04878049 4.175135501
2.00 1 0.021817
Fraxinus pennsylvanica 4.00 1 0.087266 0.08726646 1 0.111111 0.02439024 6.775067751
Quercus phellos 3.00 1 0.049087 0.13635385 2 0.173611 0.04878049 11.11957995
4.00 1 0.087266
Quercus nigra 2.00 1 0.021817 0.02181662 1 0.027778 0.02439024 2.608401084
Liquidambarstyraciflua 1.00 6 0.032725 0.09817477 9 0.125 0.2195122 17.22560976
2.00 3 0.06545
Nyssa Mora 4.00 1 0.087266 0.13635385 2 0.173611 0.04878049 11.11957995
3.00 1 0.049087
Carpinus caroliniana 1 1.001 21 0.0109081 0.01090831
Fagus gran difolia 1.00 1 0.005454 0.00545415
' Juniperus virginiana 1.00 1 0.005454 0.00545415
Totals 41 0.785398
.. ?, .

t ? .., . _u_
Ivi2

2 0.013889 0.04878049 3.133468835
1 0.006944 0.02439024 1.566734417
1 0.006944 0.02439024 1.566734417
1.00 1.00 100.00
777 T
d
11

r

L

II
Reference Site for Treyburn Mitigation
Upland
Relative
Species Frequency Frequency
Seedlings
Quercus alba 17 0.11409396
Quercus nirga 13 0.08724832
Carya tomentosa 3 0.02013423
Quercus velutina 34 0.22818792
Acer rubrum 30 0.20134228
Fraxinus pennsylvanica 37 0.24832215
Ilex decidua 1 0.00671141
Liquidambar styraciflua 6 0.04026846
Fagus grandifolia 1 0.00671141
Ulmus alata 4 0.02684564
Quercus phellos 1 0.00671141
Ilex opaca 1 0.00671141
Nyssa sylvatica 1 0.00671141
Totals 149 1

Herbs
Carex sp.
Vitis rotundifolia
Smilax glabra
Lonicerajaponica
Mitchella repens
Unidentified moss
Smilax glauca
Ampelopsis arborea
Sphagnum sp.
Snags: 4
Micro topographic relief- low Soils 0-3 10YR 4/2 sandy loam
Macro topographic relief: high 3-2010YR 5/3 w/ less than 5% 5/6 mo ttles
sandy clay lo am
Coarse woody debris: 6 20-30+ 10YR 5/3 w/ 5/6 m ?ttles clay
Fine woody debris: Present but infr equent
Trees somewhat fluted
Ivi2