20031133 Ver 1_Complete File_20040503

4CI ISSUED
°1ources
'Onseivation
May 3, 2004
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
N.C. Division of Water Quality
401 Wetlands Certification Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
WETLANDS/ 401 GROUP
MAY 0 3 2004
WATER QUALITY SECTION
Dear Ms. Karoly:
Please find enclosed a copy of the revised Detailed Mitigation Plan for the Haw
River Wetland Mitigation Site in Guilford and Rockingham counties, DWQ project #
031133.
The plan has been modified by EcoScience by means of an Addendum explaining
the changes, most notable of which is the phasing of the projects into two parts. The
Addendum also addresses the comments from your letter of September 15, 2003.
The Nationwide Permit # 27 was issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for
this project on April 16, 2004 and is attached with this package.
If you have any questions please call Restoration Systems at 919-755-9490.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
John Preyer
Cc Dave Schiller/RS
George Howard/RS
Pilot Mill - 1101 Haynes St., Suite 107 - Raleigh, NC 27604 - www.restorationsystems.com - Phone: [phone] - Fax: [phone]
`-1, . 4 p?'
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Wilmington District
Action ID: 200321283 County: Guilford/Rockingham
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
Property
Owner_ Mr. George Howard
Restoration Systems, LLC
Address_ 1101 Haines Street, Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27604
Telephone Number 919-755-9490
Authorized
Agent Mr. Jerry McCrain
EcoScience Corporation
Address 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27604
Telephone Number 919-828-3433
Size and Location of Property (waterbody, Highway name/number, town, etc.): The project (Phase 1
of the Haw River Swamp Wetland Restoration Site) is approximately 20.9 acres in size, and is located
east of Church Street Extension/Sandy Cross Road, at the Guilford-Rockingham County Line, north of
Greensboro, North Carolina. The site is located adjacent, and north of, the Haw River, in the Cape Fear
River Basin.
Description of Activity: This permit authorizes mechanized landclearing, excavation, the installation of
water control structures (e.g., ditch plugs, levees, weirs) and the placement of fill required for the
construction of Phase 1 of the Haw River Swamp Wetland Restoration Site. Impacts to waters of the U.S.
authorized by this permit total 0.44 acre of waters of the U.S. (backfill placed into canal, approximately
1,900 feet.in length by 10 feet width). See attached Special Conditions.
Applicable Law: X Section 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1344) only. WETLANDS/ 401 GROUP
Section 10 (River and Harbor Act of 1899) only.
Authorization: Regional General Permit Number MAY 0 3 2004
27 Nationwide Permit Number WATER QUALITY SECTION
Any violation of the conditions of the Regional General or Nationwide Permit referenced above may
subject the permittee to a stop work order, a restoration order, and/or appropriate legal action.
This Department of the Army Regional General Permit or Nationwide Permit verification does not
relieve the permittee of the responsibility to obtain any other required Federal, State, or local
approvals/permits. The permittee may need to contact appropriate State and local agencies before
beginning work. If you have any questions regarding the Corps of Engineers regulatory program,
please contact Todd Tugwell at telephone number (919) 876 - 8441 extension 26
Regulatory Project Manager Signature
Authorization Date April 16, 2004 Expiration Date April 16, 2006
SURVEY PLATS, FIELD SKETCH, WETLAND DELINEATION FORM, ETC., MUST BE ATTACHED
TO THE YELLOW (FILE) COPY OF THIS FORM, IF REQUIRED OR AVAILABLE.
CF: Daryl Lamb, NCDWQ Winston-Salem Regional Office, 585 Waughtown Street, Winston-Salem, NC 27107

- ;m
Action ID: 200321283 County: Guilford/Rockingham
Special Conditions
1. This permit authorization letter applies only to Phase 1 of the Haw River Swamp Wetland
Restoration Site as proposed in the Detailed Wetland Restoration Plan and Addendum, dated March 2004.
Additional DA permit authorization, either by nationwide or individual permit, is required prior to
initiation of Phase 2 of the proposed project. Additional information regarding proposed on site activities
may be required by the District Engineer prior to approval of Phase 2.
2. This nationwide permit verification provides authorization for work within waters of the U.S.
associated with Phase 1 of the Haw River Swamp Wetland Restoration Site. A portion of the mitigation
credit generated by this project is being provided to the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(NCEEP) as a Full Delivery project. This permit authorization does not authorize the use or transfer of
any unused portion of mitigation credit generated by this project as compensatory mitigation for any other
project. The utilization of additional mitigation credits, either for an individual site or by a mitigation
bank, will be determined by the District Engineer on a case-by-case basis, and may be subject to
additional requirements, including, but not limited to, review by a Mitigation Bank Review Team.
3. In accordance with the letter of March 4, 2004, from the State Historic Preservation Office with the
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Phase 1 of the Haw River Swamp Wetland Restoration
Site does not require initiation of a archaeological survey and assessment prior to initiation of ground
disturbing activities. However, if any previously unknown historic or archeological remains are
discovered while accomplishing the authorized work, the permittee shall immediately cease all onsite
activities that may disturb the site and notify the Regulatory Project Manager (available at telephone 919-
876-8441 ext. 26) who will initiate the required State/Federal coordination.
4. All water control structures (e.g., weirs, levees, dams, risers, control outlet structures, etc.) shall be
designed and installed in manner that eliminates the requirement for future maintenance (i.e., no metal or
wood structures), and prohibits future manipulation or adjustment of the controlled water level following
installation.

Permit Number: 200321283 - Nationwide Permit Number 27
Name of Permittee: Restoration Systems, LLC (Haw River Swamp Wetland
Restoration Site)
Project Manager: Todd Tugwell
Issuance: April 16, 2004
Upon completion of the activity authorized by this permit and any mitigation required by
the permit, sign this certification page and return it to the following address (retain the
original copy of the General Permit Verification for your records):
US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
RALEIGH REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
6508 FALLS OF NEUSE ROAD, SUITE 120
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27615
Please note that your permitted activity is subject to a compliance inspection by an U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers representative. If you fail to comply with this permit you are
subject to permit suspension, modification, or revocation.
I hereby certify that the work authorized by the above referenced permit has been
completed in accordance with the terms and condition of the said permit, and required
mitigation was completed in accordance with the permit conditions.
Signature of Permittee

DETAILED WETLAND RESTORATION PLAN AND ADDENDUM
HAW RIVER SWAMP WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
GUILFORD AND ROCKINGHAM COUNTIES
Prepared for:
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 107
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Prepared by:
EcoScience
EcoScience Corporation
1100 Haynes Street, Suite 101
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
MARCH 2004

1?

1
?I

7
1

I
Haw River Wetland Restoration Site
Addendum
Guilford and Rockingham Counties, North Carolina
Introduction
Restoration Systems, a private environmental restoration company, has proposed the
restoration of wetlands for the Haw River Swamp Wetland Restoration Site (hereafter referred to
as the "Site") to assist the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) (formerly the North
Carolina Wetland Restoration Program) in fulfilling restoration goals in the region. The Site is
located approximately 8 miles north of Greensboro city limits on the county line between
Guilford and Rockingham counties and encompasses approximately 49.5 acres within the Haw
River floodplain. This Site offers opportunities for riverine wetland restoration and
enhancement, with benefits to water quality and wildlife in a rapidly developing watershed.
A detailed wetland restoration plan was completed for the Site in August 2003. The detailed
restoration plan outlined methods designed to restore approximately 34.9 acres of prior-
converted riverine wetlands and approximately 2.1 acres of wetland enhancement. The plan
outlined restoration procedures including the diversion and reintroduction of two historically
channelized and diverted stream channels back to historic positions, as well as the creation of a
backwater slough in lieu of the canal that currently shunts both groundwater and flow from an
unnamed tributary through the Site.
A pre-construction notification (PCN) was submitted on September 5, 2003 requesting approval
for use of Nationwide Permit 27. The PCN submittal was followed by a site visit on September
25, 2003 attended by Todd Tugwell, representative of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE), Restoration Systems, and EcoScience Corporation (ESC). The meeting was held to
familiarize Mr. Tugwell with the Site and answer technical questions concerning project
implementation. Following the site visit Mr. Tugwell requested that hydric soils delineations be
performed to verify the extent of restoration limits.
A hydric soils delineation was performed by ESC in October 2003. Upon completion of a
detailed soils delineation, a second soils delineation was performed by Soil and Environmental
Consultants to confirm the findings of ESC. The Site has been subdivided into two phases
(Phase I and Phase II) as part of the agreement with the State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) and is described further below. Approximately 29.2 acres of hydric soils occur on the
Site (20.9 acres north of the Haw River and 8.3 acres south of the Haw River). The revised
hydric soils boundary is shown in Figure 8B.
' A second agency site visit was held on November 21, 2003 to confirm the soil delineation work.
The USACE and North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) have requested that
prominent issues from meeting be addressed and submitted as an Addendum to the PCN. The
' issues discussed at the November 21, 2003 site visit are addressed in this addendum and
include the following.

1of10

A

7
11

CI

1) SHPO Concurrence: The USACE requested a concurrence letter from SHPO to
confirm that an agreement had been reached concerning the issue of potential historic
properties within the Site.
2) Midway Creek: Plan revisions to relocate and divert Midway Creek from adjacent
wetland areas.
3) Northern Unnamed Tributary and Canal: Identify the jurisdictional status of the
northern unnamed tributary and the canal and the implications for restoration.
4) Southern Tributary: Determine the potential off-site impacts of relocating the southern
unnamed tributary.
Graphics generated for this addendum mimic the figure numbers provided in the original report
so as to allow integration of information from both documents. Following are the results of
investigations that were implemented as a result of the November 21 meeting.
SHPO Concurrence
A meeting between the staff of Restoration System, ESC, and SHPO was held on
February 20, 2004 to address archaeological issues at the Site. SHPO's review of the project
determined that the 12-acre portion of the Site under contract to EEP, and all areas north of the
Haw River, can be implemented without an archeological survey, but the portion south of the
Haw River can not be implemented until after a survey is completed. In lieu of this request, the
restoration plan will be implemented using a two-phased approach, where all areas north of the
Haw River will be part of Phase I and all areas south of the Haw River will be part of Phase II.
The two phases of the project are shown on Figure A. All applicable figures and acreages
within the addendum will reflect the new, phased approach.
' Concurrence with this two-phased implementation schedule was granted by the issuance of a
letter from SHPO to the USACE (Exhibit A). This will allow the USACE to issue the required
Nationwide 27 Permit for the project (application dated September 5, 2003), including the
' portion of the Site to be constructed for EEP under the first RFP. Phase 1 will therefore be
implemented without an archaeology survey.
Midway Creek
Midway Creek enters the Site from the north and represents a second-order stream supporting
a watershed of approximately 0.9 square mile. The on-site reach of Midway Creek includes
approximately 650 linear feet of a deeply incised dredged channel. The channel is
' approximately 8 to 10 feet wide and 4 to 5 feet deep. Under historic conditions the channel
above the alluvial fan (i.e. prior to braided conditions) is projected to have supported a bankfull
cross-sectional area of approximately 10 to 14 square feet. Based on the same projections, the
' stream would have been approximately 10 feet wide and one foot deep.
Restoration plans, as proposed in the original submittal, include the diversion of Midway Creek
' from adjacent downstream properties to re-hydrate the soils of the historic alluvial fan. From the
November 21, 20CR site visit, several issues were raised concerning the diversion including the
unknown adverse impacts to adjacent wetland communities situated east of the Site. The
' USACE and DWQ will not authorize the relocation of the stream to historic conditions at the
expense of wetlands as they exist today. The modified plan provided in this addendum
n
2of10

proposes to leave the stream channel in its current location and excavate a floodplain on
portions of the on-site reach in order to reestablish over bank flooding. Elevation of the
floodplain will be based on reference data and regional bankfull hydraulic geometry
relationships (i.e. average bankfull depth). Reference data in the region suggests that over-
bank flooding will occur several times a year. Over bank flooding will provide upper portions of
the alluvial fan additional surface and groundwater hydrology, sediments, and nutrient loads
more in line with historic conditions. At the same time, the offsite wetlands will continue to
receive regular flow throughout the year.
' Midway Creek represents an aquatic wildlife reservoir for expansion into restoration areas of the
Site. Therefore, floodplain excavation, and all other construction operations in the vicinity of
Midway Creek will be designed to minimize direct impacts within this 600-foot dredged reach
' extending from the farm road crossing (to be removed) to the exit point along the eastern
boundary (see revised Figure 13B attached).
Northern Unnamed Tributary and Canal
The USACE and DWQ have agreed that the unnamed tributary entering the northwest corner of
the Site (Northern UT; Figure 13B and B) is, at minimum, an intermittent stream. The stream
' drains from a pond north of the Site and connects to the man-made canal which extends in an
east-west direction across the Site, parallel to and north of the Haw River (Figure 1313). Since
the canal connects flow from the northern UT to the Haw River, the canal is considered
jurisdictional by the USACE.
' The USACE and DWQ also agreed that the anastomosed stream environment which occurs in
the hardwood forest northeast of the Site will serve as an appropriate reference system for this
project. In addition, the USACE and DWQ have acknowledged that anastomosed stream
conditions are inherently unstable. Therefore, anastomosed conditions within targeted stream
segments will not require stream monitoring success criteria, particularly since no stream
' restoration is being pursued for any stream work undertaken to support this project.
As depicted in the attached Figure 1313, the main-made canal includes an approximately 2000-
foot length of channel beginning immediately below (east of) Sandy Cross Road. The canal
was constructed to divert and shunt groundwater and intermittent stream flows through prior-
converted farmland which constitutes the primary land use on the Site. Modified restoration
' plans include ditch plugging and ditch backfilling procedures along the entire length of the canal.
The canal will remain open for approximately 150 feet below the bridge at Sandy Cross Road
allowing for capture of upstream runoff and dissipation of storm water velocities. Ditch plugs will
be placed in strategic locations along the canal, and remaining canal segments will be backfilled
with spoil from other areas of the property creating a series of shallow, intermittent swales
(Figure 1313). Waters entering the property will subsequently be encouraged to migrate slowly
down valley within formed depressions and relict channel segments. Eventually, anastomosed
' stream conditions are expected to prevail, allowing for uniform re-hydration of large areas of the
floodplain.
Southern Tributary
The USACE and DWQ expressed concern that the redirection and diversion of flow into the Site
and away from the current dredged southern unnamed channel (Southern UT, Figure 13B) may
result in adverse impacts to adjacent wetland communities situated southeast of the Site. The
following discussion addresses in greater detail the current and future expected conditions
3of10

concerning both this tributary and the off-site wetlands. A site visit was conducted on December
9, 2003 by ESC to revisit these systems and develop appropriate restoration strategies.
Stream Diversion
The Southern UT entering the Site from the south represents a second-order stream supporting
a watershed of approximately 1.4 square miles. Historically, the channel became anastomosed
as it enters the Haw River floodplain. During the 1940's this tributary was relocated into a
dredged channel to bypass the floodplain and permit the use of agriculture production in the
area. This process has been confirmed by extensive aerial photography dating back to 1938.
Channel modifications increased slope, shortened the channel and caused the upstream reach
to entrench. As a result, overbank flows have been limited to very large events and significant
bank erosion has occurred. Based on gauge data, the base flow channel supports an average
discharge of 3 to 4 cubic feet per second (CFS) with the 1.2-year (bankfull) flow exceeding 80
CFS. The on-site reach includes approximately 600 linear feet of open channel (Figure B),
becoming anastomosed as slopes approach zero in the Haw River floodplain (see Figure 1313;
Photos 1-5)). Currently, approximately 50 percent of incoming water remains on Site (Photos 3-
4) with remaining flow being discharged into a large wetland complex east of the Site (Figure B;
Photo 5).
Restoration plans for the Southern UT call for relocation and diversion of the channel onto the
Haw River floodplain. In order to avoid hydrologic trespass to upstream landowners, floodplain
modifications to support the new channel will be required. The current rise near the southern
boundary at the point the stream enters the Site will require excavation. An area encompassing
approximately 1.0 acre will require grading to the 700 foot NGVD (Figure 13B). A single
channel will initially be constructed. However, the system will be allowed to naturally redevelop
or degrade to encourage braiding, ponding, and anastomosed conditions in an effort to restore
historic conditions (as evidenced through discussions with local landowners and review of
historic aerial photography). The relocated reach will extend approximately 600 feet north of the
access easement (Figure 13B). The old channel will be backfilled with approximately 2,000
cubic yards of material derived from on-site grading and the construction depression to be
situated in the southwestern corner of the Site (Figure 13B).
To address concerns that the water budget of the adjacent wetlands will be adversely impacted
by stream modifications, the current restoration plans include the installation of modest levees
(< 2 feet high) along the Haw River. The placement of controlled water outlet structures
(e.g. geocells) within the levees will allow large flows to move back and forth across each levee
and reduce the chance of near-term headcuts and channel formation within the floodplain. The
invert elevation of the outlet structures will also insure that base level lateral surface flows within
the floodplain exit the Site toward and into the adjacent wetlands east of the property.
Adjacent Wetland Investigation
Responding to agency requests, a qualitative assessment was conducted to ascertain the
potential impacts to the wetland complex southeast of the Site. An aerial map showing the
adjacent wetland area is provided on Figure B. The investigation revealed that a single beaver
dam located in the northeast corner was primarily responsible for the inundation occurring in the
floodplain (Figure B, Photo 6). The beaver dam in concert with the levee located adjacent to the
Haw River helps keep the surface water confined within the floodplain. The beaver
impoundment has flooded approximately 50 acres of bottomland hardwood community and
converted the area into open water habitat (Photo 7). Currently, most of the trees and shrubs
4 of 10
I

have died from prolonged inundation (Photo 8). Current vegetation within the impoundment
area includes emergent aquatics and obligate wetland herbaceous species.
Surface water inputs to the impoundment from the immediate watershed surrounding it are
minimal. A small intermittent channel and a groundwater seep enter the Site along the southern
rim (Figure B). As previously described, the impoundment also receives approximately
50 percent of the water being discharged from the Southern UT. However, the primary and
overwhelming source of water is currently coming from the Haw River. A beaver dam located
immediately downstream of the canal and Haw River confluence has elevated water elevations,
such that water is being diverted into the beaver impoundment area at low break points in the
levee (Figure B, Photo 9). The beaver dam in the Haw River has elevated base flow water
elevations to the top of bank and caused massive sediment deposition to accumulate. Channel
depths above the beaver dam are less than a foot, whereas channel depths immediately below
the dam approach 4 feet to 5 feet.
Summary
In summary, the SHPO has confirmed in writing that an agreement has been reached
concerning the issue of historic properties within the Site. Using a two phase approach for
restoration work no survey will be required for work north of the Haw River, however a survey
will be required for areas south of the Haw River prior to any soil excavation within that area.
Revisions to the Site restoration plan include three primary areas.
1) Midway Creek will not be diverted. The new plan will leave the stream channel in its
current location, and a floodplain will be excavated along portions of the southern bank
in order to reestablish over-bank flooding.
2) A defined slough channel in place of the canal is no longer in the plan. The canal will be
' plugged and filled at various locations along its length. The northern UT will enter the
Haw River floodplain and be encouraged to migrate slowly down valley within
depression and relict channel segments. No channel monitoring will be required.

H

11
3) The Southern UT will be diverted as previously proposed and allowed to form an
anastomosed condition. However, measures will be taken to ensure that approximately
50 percent of the stream flow will continue to be diverted toward the off-site wetland
complex. These measures will include grading, levee improvements, and passive outlet
control structures. No channel monitoring of the constructed channel will be required.
Based on plan revisions the Site in includes approximately 26.7 acres of wetland restoration in
prior-converted cropland and 2.5 acres of wetland enhancement. Approximately 8.3 acres of
potential wetland restoration is located in Phase Il. Figure 17B depicts the modified areas of
riverine restoration and enhancement. The remaining on-site acreage includes levees, streams
(open water), upland buffer, and groundwater slope restoration and preservation areas
(approximately 14.7 acres in Phase I and 3.7 acres in Phase II).
5 of 9

Photo 1. Southern Tributary. End of open channel looking south.
Photo 2. Southern Tributary. End of open channel looking north.

6 of 9

III

r
Photo 3. Southern Tributary. On-site anastomosed channel taken from the river levee
lookinq south.
Photo 4. Southern Tributary. Start of anastomosed channel (looking south).
Photo 5. Southern Tributary. Anastomosed channel flowing off-site.

7 of 9

Photo 6. Beaverdam in northeast corner of the impoundment.
Photo 7. Open water and emergent aquatics within the impoundment.
K of 9

' Photo 9. Beaver dam immediately downstream of the confluence of the Haw River and
Canal.

9 of9

Photo 8. The 50 acre beaver impoundment taken from a bluff facing north.

Exhibit A
SHPO Concurrence Letter
I

I

Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
' Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
Office of Archives and History
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Division of Historical Resources
David L. S. Brook, Director
March 4, 2004
George -V Howard
' Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27604
'
Re: Haw River Swamp Wetland Restoration Site, Guilford and Rockingham Counties,
I :804- J652
'
Dear Mr. Howard:
This letter outlines the results of your meeting with the staff of the Historic Preservation
Office (HPO) and the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) on February 20, 2004.
' As the result of a file search by your staff at OSA and subsequent conversations with OSA
staff regarding the proposed wetland restoration project, you are aware that archaeological site
31 GF29 is located within a portion of the proposed project area. This Native American site
' dates to the Archaic and Woodland periods, but no systematic investigation has been
conducted at the site. Specific boundaries of the site have yet to be determined and its
eligibility- for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.
'
Prior to any ground disturbing activities south of the Haw River, an archaeological survey and
assessment of 31GF29 is recommended. This investigation should be conducted by an
' experienced archaeologist and should be of sufficient intensity- to determine the boundaries of
the site as well as its National Register eligibility. As we have no information to indicate that
site 31 GF29 extends to the north side of the Haw River, we do not recommend any
archaeological investigations in that area in connection with this project.
Two copies of the resulting archaeological survey report, as well as one copy of the
' appropriate site forms, should be forwarded to us for review and comment as soon as they are
submitted by the consulting archaeologist and well in advance of any construction activities.
A list of archaeological consultants who have conducted or expressed an interest in contract
work in North Carolina is available at www.arch.dcr.state.nc.us/consults. The archaeologists
listed, or any other experienced archaeologist, may be contracted to conduct the
recommended survey.
www.hpo.dcr.state.nc.us
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
' ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 276994617 (919) 7334763 •733-8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh. NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 276994617 [phone] •715-4801
SURVEYS PL-XNNING 515 N_ Blount St, Raleigh. NC 4617 Mail Service Center. Raleigh. NC 27699-4617 [phone] .715-4801
March 4, 2004
Page 2
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with
Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above-
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:lk
cc: Todd Tugwell, US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), Raleigh, NC
Richard H. Kimmel, Archaeologist, US ACOE, Wilmington District, Wilmington, NC

Oy
v ar C v 009606 N
I I i ? 2y rn
w ?
? r
r
Z /
/
Z

m

-

X k'

U)

m K

K
D

-0

N

r

j
i oo

6 0'ACCESS EASEMEN'
2
I)
3
n O ?I Z
° O ° m m
O
Z X
0 n A
n m
m ?.
r
1 m
r r
m VI Z
C
> __q Z
--I Z

° Z

v y;
m C m o
m o W
O
n z r z
i :
m = - -----
" -----------
-
O - 0000/6 N

I
I,f, rri
r" 0
I

I ?
?I

D
r

vN

. Z ?
rI

? I b.N
Y ' n
?- m
r ? i^-
,

N.O. N ? ? ?'L
0 0 o cn
m Q* = m ;. ?M 3 ?? ..
CD CD r- m 00
-
r
N J m n n 1 .. t, ,eF -53
CO
L') Z
Om 1

?.? it

?

? .?,'

r
0/6
\O\ N

loo r-
N N
c° OD O m
N
0 N
co c° N
Ili NO
J
1+ 1 + 1+ f

J E
r r

,'
'
rrr

C

' ? 000/l6 N
_ r-

-
?f r
r
?9

r ?

005116 N
J
M
• g -.
r

I I c `\

- I

? -
, ao ao 00 ?n m m m w ao ao -
: m co
Fr-

OOOE16 N
Z 3

O W A (P N OD Q7 ? J (D ? N
00
(O Q, M Q N Qp ..

?9?
N

n [n

o n

o o _

_
?
A
0 o _
n

o m
O?m _
ov y:E

co
C)
0. C_ C_
o' m oq

m Zn_

m n ;10 p ?o r >

?° mD?70
l?
° v
O °°g c ?z?< _
L4 N N ? D?° O? j
y 0 O
00 O N Z Z w

o?
rrl
v V a?yC 009606 N
II ??
l l m
M M N M A N r ?, - --- --i ----6r-A,,- ----_ - -- -- -- -- 2
x x A x Z D A r) L' ?..
VI CA m
O O m n
Z Z Z A A m CU -! ? ..
o n rn m
cn A < - z o 0 ,
-, o D A o co
A g m O •?
O c c c l
z A A z x
m 000016 N
------------ z
i
40
40
N Z I
o j - 016 N
o_ Z I? i
Vi/ o\
41 U4 a -m.
W Q, n m
O to U. rn ?-
14
I+ I+
a -7z-
?`
,- - 000116 N
\f -
_- r
005//6 N
t
000,716 N
? cn n o
c? o_ n /A
Z m D m ?. O n
c c`? 2N i=ce O ?mN? ?-yi O
c o oll DM c?°A rny?000[--i ?
? 0?o N ° n
D m K ° mC amDD??v mD Z
?d ?•?
w N'q zzg C ???I<I7 M-4
A .. Z D N Z Z
pip q 0

rr1 r
r O vA m
0r- Al 00
rnrrn:E c 009606 v
rn D<c
?o -4mmCA
0
?rn XCA5 LArn
z m ? amm
i
o pA o
?

I

COO _0 T m 0 X N I ??
I 00 9 n
z A Ei F O Fn p O m 1

-
N
r m z z
m n CO
O 0 z

\
r o
- y O ?,..
Zz
A O
C i
O
A m A
DOD
:j m O m
r V m
x
CD O
z r A cA r N p
A

m A z
O z
m m

m
z O

r^

l\
l4?

??>
?r*+v A. 00 000016 N

10
\ \

O
2Sr*A7Dp
\?
N . D
\ rnC<
'
D

CD /1
0D?
O-4O
?Ag \
\
<M
<
\

cn rn
i ?.
v m I
cnyn
?ZO mn
A -00 co o
D Z? N
-,
40

mcDnN

O1 O 2

mN

m?

n T C)
2

,

?? ?-

ol
-/I -I
\
V9
\

? /
?C
n Ors m AC
n
? r
m c _
d
zcnH
Dmm m
n
c ? o C)

O

?
Zoo o ? .
r m r
=
-

;40
40
016 N
o \

s ' =; T 4'°

\ v

00086"N

4
1-
' - / CD
o ;
co
c

I
l' j -
I 1
I 1
_ -

N
m' 009116 N

MCDO
rn =i
00

D m
:jc0 ( in z
or, 0 --4
r ;o;o
00
rrtO
in m
/ Otn
,
z
rn z
-
J
r O

000016 N
9A

u O
o

c
'
w
o

mc
NCB T
.
o" n m
AZC Q y: y>

m
ycn

?. O n

w
m
z C-
C) C-
0
M?mm
0
2a: p -gym
0
o my

cn0 O

o
m o o ?
ZD
?N ?
?
?
? Gm?D>? m Z '-t

O
`
--
m
Z0
?
_
? n
°Zg C ?G?m D
ti?
"

A
n?
O
N
O O

Z O

D m m z

O
Z on

pp
C?
A DD
U)
.
. . . . . . . . ? 1

i
m

Al-
I. AIO ,
fp
IL ;o _ L
.•.;: mr' O? Zm ?Z 49
Z ,
? ?p Om z
X p;o cop ?r
m
Op zW ?p D
m9 Om DD <m
M
D zD z9 m0
D
? 2m
? r
0
m o o
D
c)m ?D
<?
?r
?X m D
' <N z

<D
1 s -.0' s-rz .11
T
c
00 M
x
m
n
m ?
ci n
N
y
Cl)
? N
O O
F O
A
f
m
z xmv
v(J) cnr-D
??o
>
m
p zzm
N civZ
cy ,
W V/
c m ?:
O
z i K
v
C
z o
C-)
;I0
C-) o
o F x
v co
3
°v cnmv,D
Zm0rDD?
°c ?z-0 m
ic z ;o
°
I -I
m l 1 I'7'y
o
n
o ~C

m I..? ? A
N
V
m
o o

?

009606 N
V ?I
O O
O O
O O

m
?I
M;Q
m<
N M x
Z? A C M
Z X M (n m
L X
Z cn
D
m
0 0 A DS m
Z ? n rD to (n p N p ` r*
co
---- - x

P
D ?, m D Z OZ m 0 n p Z rr,
O Z 000M N
`
1
?m
z? rTi?
?r jCNi
zm O <
D m
O Z
Z O M 01
IZ
\ 1
\
r D
Z m m
\A p 0 m C O
C
r j \
Z
p Z r
Z
m

r
i
I
t \
,?

5
m
?a' _
-
c?
r?
m
?? -
o

CA
s
' l go
I+ I+ It I+ m

N

+ Z

D C+ 2 N
CA 'D
N
I+ 100 ' w

?f
I

I
? OOOII-6 N
?f rte , ,?

/
i r

• i ? _

.
Vk

1 I:=.
lY
`

1 C ?

I

r
300Zl6 N

:1 N n O
?
.?
C1
m m ?I D m 2
on m n?

C-
C- v V? ?
c v fn y D
C fn y ?. O

:7
0
C) m
C

ZNOC r
m
v
SS G
o my0-??2

/?p
r

o U

I?TI
m _ ?o
m ?o r
7o
?
° Z
r?riDD ?o
^9
z O
c

Vv

p

m

ZO? p
3
?
3 OZV?? D r)
?
c Zzo

pAp
C
o z
Z
m
fn
Z
A
I
t
[1
11

1
t
[1
t

u

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1
2.0 METHODS ......................................................................................................................4
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................7
3.1 Physiography, Topography and Land-use ......................................................... .. 7
3.2 Soils .................................................................................................................. 13
3.3 Jurisdictional Wetlands ...................................................................................... 13
3.4 Plant Communities ............................................................................................ 16
3.5 Hydrology .......................................................................................................... 19
3.5.1 Surface Water (Streams) ....................................................................... 19
3.5.2 Groundwater .......................................................................................... 20
3.6 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................ 21
3.7 Wildlife .............................................................................................................. 25
3.8 Regional Corridors and Adjacent Natural Areas ................................................ 26
3.9 Protected Species ............................................................................................. 26
4.0 WETLAND RESTORATION STUDIES .........................................................................28
4.1 Surface Water Analysis ..................................................................................... 28
4.2 Reference Plant Communities ........................................................................... 28
4.3 Reference Physiography and Surface Topography ........................................... 29
5.0 WETLAND RESTORATION PLAN ................................................................................ 33
5.1 Wetland Hydrology and Soil Restoration ........................................................... 33
5.1 .1 Ditch Plugs ............................................................................................ 33
5.1 .2 Ditch Backfilling ..................................................................................... 33
5.1 .3 Backwater Slough Construction ............................................................. 33
5.1 .4 Ephemeral Pool Construction ................................................................ 35
5.1 .5 Controlled Water Outfall Structure ......................................................... 35
5.1 .6 River Levee Removal ............................................................................ 35
5.1 .7 Midway Creek Diversion .......................................................... ..... 35
5.1 .8 Southern Tributary Diversion ................................................................. 36
5.1 .9 Wetland Surface Scarification ................................................................ 36
5.1 .10 Woody Debris Deposition ...................................................................... 36
5.2 Wetland Plant Community Restoration .............................................................. 37
6.0 MONITORING PLAN .................................................................................................... 43
6.1 Hydrology ..........................................................................................................43
6.2 Hydrology Success Criteria ............................................................................... 43
6.3 Vegetation .........................................................................................................45
6.4 Vegetative Success Criteria .............................................................................. 46
1

6.5 Contingency
...................................................................................................... 46
' 6.6 Monitoring Report Submittal .............................................................................. 47
7.0 RESTORATION DESIGN UNITS .................................................................................. 48
8.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 50
9.0 APPENDICES .............................................................................................................. 52

1

1
1
1

1

?I

LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1 Site Location ....................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2 2003 Aerial Photograph ....................................................................................... 5
Figure 3 USGS Sub-Basin 8-Digit Hydro Unit .................................................................... 8
Figure 4 Watershed Boundaries and Regional Corridors .................................................. 9
Figure 5 Watershed Land-Use ........................................................................................ 10
Figure 6 Physiography, Topography, Land-use ............................................................... 11
Figure 7 Natural Resource Conservation Service Soil Mapping ...................................... 14
Figure 8 Hydric / Non-Hydric Soil Boundary Determination ............................................. 15
Figure 9 Approximated Jurisdictional Boundaries and PC Cropland ................................ 17
Figure 10 Plant Communities ............................................................................................ 18
Figure 11 Representative Groundwater Contour Maps (A-B) ........................................22,23
Figure 12 Reference Site: Plan View and Cross-Section ................................................... 31
Figure 13 Wetland Restoration Plan .................................................................................. 34
Figure 14 Target Landscape Ecosystem ........................................................................... 38
Figure 15 Planting Plan ..................................................................................................... 39
Figure 16 Monitoring Plan ................................................................................................. 44
Figure 17 Restoration Design Units ................................................................................... 49
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1 Representative Groundwater Elevations ........................................................... 24
Table 2 Reference Forest Plot Summary (Bottomland Hardwood Forest) ...................... 30
Table 3 Planting Plan ..................................................................................................... 41
iv
DRAFT DETAILED WETLAND RESTORATION PLAN
HAW RIVER SWAMP WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
GUILFORD AND ROCKINGHAM COUNTIES

1
I
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Wetland Restoration Program (WRP) is currently developing wetland
restoration strategies for the Piedmont physiographic region of the Cape Fear River Basin. As
part of this effort, WRP has requested proposals (RFP) for full delivery wetland restoration
within USGS Hydrologic Unit 03030002 of the river basin. This 8-digit hydrologic unit supports a
Category 1 classification by WRP, denoting watersheds that are high priority for wetland
restoration work.
' Restoration Systems, a private sector mitigation company is proposing wetland restoration
plans for the Haw River Swamp Wetland Restoration Site (hereafter referred to as the Site)
designed specifically to assist WRP in fulfilling its restoration goals. The Site encompasses
approximately 49.5 acres within the Haw River floodplain located approximately 8 miles north of
Greensboro city limits on the county line between Guilford and Rockingham Counties (Figure 1).
The Site is positioned primarily within the floodplain of the Haw River and alluvial fans
associated. with tributaries of the Haw. The floodplain has been ditched, leveled, and drained to
support agricultural activities. On-site streams have been dredged, re-routed, and straightened
to further impede surface water impacts to alternate land uses. The Site offers opportunities for
riverine (stream side) wetland and buffer restoration and enhancement, with benefits to water
quality and wildlife in a rapidly developing watershed.

1

The objectives of this wetland restoration plan include the following:
1. Removal of agricultural activities from the floodplain and banks of the Haw River.
2. Removal of the Site from potential land uses associated with encroaching
urbanization.
3. Increase flood storage potential within the Cape Fear Basin.
4. Provide floodplain surfaces to the Haw River for natural redevelopment of
geomophological processes.
5. Re-establish anastomosed stream channels and Piedmont Swamp and Bottomland
forest communities within the floodplain ecosystem.
6. Intercept and assimilate nutrient and sediment laden run-off from adjacent and
upstream watersheds.
7. Assist in establishing a continuous wetland bio-reserve (corridor) between Cone and
Benaja Swamps and the adjacent bottomland ecosytems.
After implementation, the Site is expected to support approximately 34.9 acres of restored
riverine wetlands and approximately 2.1 acres of enhanced riverine wetlands. Enhancement
activities will also be undertaken along the Haw River through levee and riparian
1

r

1
Guilford County
t} T .1/F i I nr-?? ) tt P. 11? ,LMidWaY N 1• ,. ? 'S
NC Hightayjby:
rf/ i N ?/ .: L ?•`- i`-- (1a6r• ,'\i T'f .. ,?1.- t ?;"\?. ?.?t+?:,•?\.
r 'ter. j•` l`?.,?`` •?t/?rl "41? ,?\' r' f\f r l,,\)
1--?? -`
Sa{{_?nCF<iad ilk"
/ ? ' ? ? / ?'t ? f~ ?: •?•` t ?. '_.. ; if?I `,- . i ? \+ ?... ,. ?c-?1 • r / i I S. / ( 'tl ?? '^-? ? ?`.. ? 1 ? ? ...
? I .? . 1 I-
? ?( C'! it j 4'' > -? ? ?? ! f f..l?,/I /d•??)t \il? r!?.I,i ) l I?r- 'J t???ttl ?''`
l t 1' f t ? ? I r•??..? _ ,- ??...??i\4v ,:/?( ` . _ I •,,,,? f °i? i !?? ?-.i?-' ?L N \_- i , f
rlt. ?,I,Y ? - /% t? •.4 `.t .. ?c??? ?? ??? ??? III,.. ?1•il ^\ .-/? l_?, mn. _
• `fi`r ??? _l?. 1 f ,t ^`f~? ..,, ."?'p1Q? `.?; ,`. , ..`f , % ` Vi •, . ? ? 1 '1\-, - - ?S`._-_ }\? -:fir' -??,? 1
e Lodi
t?

Y'Ail
Site Location
Haw River Swamp Wetland Restoration Site
Guilford and Rockingham Counties, North Carolina
EcoScience
r
:'r
DATE: ESC #
June 2003 03-148
SCALE: DWN BY: HJS
As Shown CKD BY: WGL
FIGURE 1

Rockingham County]

forest buffer panting. Upland buffer ecotones, riparian buffers, and groundwater wetland
recharge areas within approximately 10.6 acres will be preserved or restored as upland
management areas. Currently, 12 acres of riverine wetland restoration are proposed for use by
WRP as identified in the RFP response #16-AW3001. The 12 acres of restoration is defined in
the easement boundary included in Appendix A. The additional wetland restoration acreage is
available for use as future compensatory mitigation.
This document represents a detailed plan designed to facilitate implementation and success of
riverine wetland restoration. The plan includes: 1) descriptions of existing conditions, 2) wetland
restoration studies (including groundwater and surface water analyses), 3) reference wetland
ecosystem investigations, 4) a restoration design plan, and 5) a proposed monitoring plan.
Upon approval of this plan, construction activities will be implemented as outlined in the
following text.

L

1
1
CI
1
f

t
2.0 METHODS

Natural resource information was obtained from available sources including USGS topographic
mapping (Lake Brandt and Bethany), United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS [formerly the Soil Conservation Service]) soils
mapping for Guilford and Rockingham Counties (USDA 1977 and USDA 1992), and corrected
aerial infrared orthophotos and topographic maps including topographic point and contour data
(1-foot intervals) (Figure 2). Topographic mapping served as base mapping for field efforts and
subsequent restoration activities.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) data base was consulted for the presence of
protected species and designated natural areas near the Site. A listing of Federally-protected
species whose ranges extend into Guilford and Rockingham counties were also obtained from
the FWS (January 31, 2003). State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) records were reviewed
for the presence of significant cultural resources in the Site vicinity. Characteristic and historic
natural community patterns were sampled and classified according to Schafale's and Weakley's
"Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina" (1990).
EcoScience Corporation (ESC) began preliminary site work in February 2001, at the direction of
' Restoration Systems. Detailed field investigations were performed by ESC personnel from early
May to mid-June 2003 and included hydrological measurements (surface and sub-surface), soil
surveys, and mapping of on-site resources. Project scientists evaluated hydrology, vegetation,
and soil parameters to determine the wetland potential of the Site. Existing plant communities
were delineated, mapped, and described by structure and composition.

1

NRCS soil mapping was used to identify hydric soil boundaries and to predict (target) biological
diversity prior to human disturbances. NRCS soil map units were ground truthed by a licensed
soil scientist to verify existing soil mapping units and to map inclusions and taxadjunct areas. A
taxadjunct area contains soils which cannot be classified in a series recognized in the
classification system. Such soils are named for a series they resemble and are designated as
taxadjuncts to that series.
Hydrologic conditions were characterized by the following activities: 1) excavation of a series of
soil borings; 2) installation of 12 piezometers; 3) collection of periodic water level
measurements; 4) analysis of surface water profiles along drainageways; 5) development of a
groundwater contour map; 5) analysis of groundwater elevations through the use of on-site
groundwater monitoring piezometers; and 7) on-going flood frequency analyses (HEC-RAS)
along the Haw River, incoming tributaries, and on-site ditches.
Floodplain analyses were performed for the Haw River and parallel ditch to predict flood extents
both on- and off-site for the 1-, 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, 50- and 100-year storm events. The analyses
utilized existing and proposed stream geometries along with a HEC-RAS model. The extent of
flooding was performed primarily to determine the potential for riverine wetland restoration on-
site and to verify that there would not be any negative impacts off-site. The model was also
used to verify that the road (Church Street) would not have any additional flooding due to the
proposed design.
4
N
O
O
N
SAW
O ..rr
N ?
°
r .+

't

I^ ! A
A4 {
: '. W4
ak,
'? ?i1i ?,? +?--`? rte' '•.: ?ar
7KI
-40-
r Ap

FF.
C?
k : G
N n { v C
n n ? m T o
M N
o z r
n
o D o D s n 0 G)
R?1
G) 0
c o o O o v cn o -1 ,'p r D .-1 r;
m W Dw 0ED -0 mDD?< ?`
= 1) QJ
A N ?r
( ?z -vm ?
co cn z '? v v N r
0 0 2 Z r,
o
cn .. • . LLB {
O -? ',
'
C m
v
X
'< Yr
Pt
' v '
.40, At
Y
400' AF
V
?v
co D (1)

f`J
I Field survey information was platted an
d compiled on 1 -foot contour mapping and analyzed to
evaluate the Site under existing conditions. Based on field investigations and data analyses, a
wetland restoration and enhancement plan has been developed for WRP and agency review
and approval prior to implementation.

't

'!
ICI

6
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
3.1 Physiography, Topography and Land-use
The Site is located within the Northern Inner Piedmont ecoregion of North Carolina (Griffith and
Omernick 2000). This ecoregion consists of dissected irregular plains, low to high hills, ridges,
isolated monadnocks and low to moderate gradient streams with mostly cobble, gravel, and
sandy substrates (Griffith et al. 2002). The Site watershed is located in the upper reaches of the
Cape Fear River Basin (USGS Hydrologic Unit 03030002) (Figure 3). This region of the
watershed extends from points immediately west of Greensboro east to Morrisville. The Site is
located along the border of Rockingham and Guilford Counties approximately 8 miles north of
Greensboro city limits and two miles south of N.C. Highway 158 and the Midway Crossroads.
The Site comprises approximately 49.5 acres of a broad Piedmont floodplain and groundwater
side slopes, immediately below the confluence of the Haw River and Mears Creek.
Approximately 2000 linear feet of the Haw River flow through and adjacent to the Site in a west
to east direction. Topography within most of the Site is nearly level with an elevation range
between 696 feet and 700 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). Upland slopes in the
northern portion of the property extend to approximately 745 feet NGVD. At the Site outfall, the
Haw River supports a primary watershed of approximately 52.7 square miles. The Site is
dissected by two perennial and one intermittent tributaries flowing into the Haw River (Figure 4).
These secondary watersheds support drainage areas of approximately 1.4, 0.9 and 0.1 square
miles. The on-site canal was constructed along the toe of slope to intercept stormwater and
groundwater flow from a 0.12 square mile area west (upstream) of the Site and from
groundwater slopes immediately adjacent to the Site along the northern boundary (<0.1 square
miles).
Land-use in the upstream watershed is currently comprised of primarily forest and agricultural
land (Figure 5). Based on Geographical Information System (GIS) data (EASC 1997), forests
and agriculture occupy approximately 65 percent and 32 percent of the land area respectively.
Based on field reconnaissance, low-density residential development is expanding into the area.
Increased commercial and residential development pressures from suburban sprawl associated
with the growth of Greensboro and the region are anticipated in the next decade. Therefore,
associated watersheds, including areas surrounding the Site, are expected to undergo
significant land-use changes to more urban, residential, infrastructural, and commercial
conditions. Site land-use is pasture and agricultural corn production, with the last and final
harvest being in the previous year. Site photos taken during a high-flow event in early Spring
2003 and photos taken during field work (June 2003) are shown in Appendix B.
The Site has been subdivided into four primary physiographic units for restoration planning
purposes: 1) river levee, 2) primary floodplain, 3) secondary floodplain, and 4) groundwater
slopes (Figure 6). The primary variables used to segregate the physographic landscape units
include land slope, groundwater flow characteristics, soil features, and the primary hydrologic
influence on historic wetland function.
7
r ?.. r err r r r r ?r r r r r ?r w i ar r s

c

A
s
i
L.
ti

N n 0 1 0
'FD
o cn * D
00 c -n 03 c
> 0 27 S.
o _ d r
c (j) 0 O 03 nT- o = ?r>
Irl ? ODO °' cn m D
m
D L C-1tn? °-`?° m -IZ
co m
z z z O
No Z ,
w
i?
G}
C
„ter
ors ?,

r
m

oc
W o0 ooc
c m
c Cc
Z CA)
D z
pD p po
CD O

;q z zu z
?
I fY ?/
? r.
V I
1t

seam r ? s ¦s an m r m m as r m m M?? m
U N
C
U
C
V
w \?
0
3
,C ? p f
C l\\
d O
o- O
.? O
G1
m
0
'L.
CL
-z
Grp' ?
-_? 0 C)
,
m ;o
r[] rn.-L.Tr
CAS ?• ? _'" I -Y? - I r` ? ? ? ? 1 ?1-
o 1
• C ,
t
<n o
------------------
----- ------------------,?-_
0(nG) (nom
-0 0,
3ca I m'a 3.n29 '?`I y 1F~ 6
M (D
(D (D
} , . ) \ C ;
3 ..
U) 00
= a 1
a --
1 a
1 n S ..
LT (D
1 ? I 4 1
1 - 1
------------------_J-------------------
m n ° n
c o o -pzv? 0 moo
cn ?.(Q v --( ?.
A vzvD rn
m
O
N ?D ?m 3\ ?z?m
Cf)
N cnr cn m° v pv
z m
o
r

O
0
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
O
CD
CD
C'L
cv)®-1
= 0
0 c CD CD < CD CL cn
O
Q Ca- ?-.

CD Z< CD
CD Q- :3
Q ® .?
O
ro
0
3
CD
A
CD I

* = :r 0
C1 r a co
2
N
0
Z
O
O N C D)
W U W (D (D
O N
co C) C)
O O
W

r

a CD

C
m
'
V s m

C
N ?
??(D
O
CD M 93
<J
O Q CD
oA 0
f-r
(? N p ?
7
Z
N N n CD
? (D -
rn 3
N
A C r
m
N (7
W
om
?d?? !i(I
/D j (p-p O M
10 ID O r^
C) U) ? (n?VJ IF
nN nTH~•
N ? ? lV
v O
m o CD
o

a? ar .? rrs ?¦.? r
?. r a M m a. swam

,
w
El m

? - 1 I
-n 2 O"V ZN v m m N m N
F m C;Q_ -',-1 m x x o x z D
n ? y m N 0 FA O m
m F O ? i O

o 2 D j
r-

F-- r

N

m
z

zi

m

n

n A

2
o
-i D N
N ?
m Rr'I O n C
Z
n
2 x
T`
-? N m
O < -i
.L7 z
-A z
D

m
m
g y m O ?
O
? m , C c
n n z r
y D Z
Z 1 m
O
z
Cy
- 00960E
o ?yc
Imo
C
w
M / /, Ll 3 I C7 V)
' _

?
t7 ?

000,

m

r
-14
'ter /
_ I ?\ r
I
\ I?
m co
mZ
> = O000/6 N
O>
D
N ;;q

w o_ n o D - A o
0
-
m Z ? 2

C (n z
70 T ?
i n
?1 z C fn D ?0

cn (n ? !
,I !`zI
Oj'

Cl
o
G7
O
r?O
D --1 M
220 (nO
cn Q
`"
<
2 [j v1
z o
C? a
m YY JJ
Z?pG) o D?o

m
-?
Z
o m o ° 0-
r).

o
L4
7:
z

N

C
o
PL
<
0

o r

0

00 r?
O o
D y
Z
Z
w t t
0 M N
. f ? i 0000/6 N
X11 ?' m O ..
m
m
r
Co/
i I \
- © m
M} I A
r .?
Al
A
A r
A'
G
---- ?----- I-[- ---- - - - -- -•- ----- ---
?? 000116 .N
-
V\? ?A..
? k E, m
All"
rn t -
?• ?? ?v
j n I 1 ? 1
I ,
:
I 1
I
co
------------------------- --------
-?. 009116 N
River Levee
River levees are represented by an approximately 3.5-acre, linear band along the banks of the
Haw River (Figure 6). The physiographic area extends intermittently along an approximately
1000-foot reach of the Haw River, varying in width from approximately 75 feet to less than
20 feet. Under historic conditions, the river levee represented slightly elevated, upland habitat
influenced by the frequent deposition of coarse, sandy alluvium during river floods.
Groundwater flow in the area is characterized by relatively rapid, lateral to radial interflow
towards the river channel, inducing well-drained conditions throughout a large majority of the
year. Based on reference stream reaches, natural river levees are elevated approximately 1 to
3 feet above the adjacent floodplain, with intermittent openings residing at lower elevations.
Prior to 1959, the Haw River was dredged, straightened, and much of the existing levee graded
with the surrounding floodplain. Under historic conditions, the river levee is expected to have
supported Coastal Plain levee forest communities (Schafale and Weakley 1990).
Primary Floodplain
The primary river floodplain encompasses approximately 29.9 acres located in central portions
of the Site (Figure 6). The floodplain historically supported frequent overbank flooding
(estimated at an approximate, 1.5-year return interval) and was periodically re-worked by
alluvial processes and periodic, short term inundation/saturation. Groundwater flow is
dominated by vertical to semi-radial recharge with episodic lateral discharge and surficial
expression of groundwater occurring within seepage areas and ponding in depressional,
backwater sloughs located at the outer edge of the floodplain. Intermittent stream flows in the
vicinity of seeps have been observed disappearing and reappearing in localized portions of
forested reference sites along upper reaches of the Haw River. Under historic conditions,
natural communities are expected to include Piedmont bottomland forest and oval to linear
pockets of Piedmont swamp forest in the vicinity of seepages and sloughs (Schafale and
Weakley 1990). The Haw River was dredged and a drainage canal with associated drainage
network installed to facilitate agriculture production within the floodplain. Many of the primary
floodplain and associated riverine wetland functions (energy dissipation, flood storage, habitat,
etc.) have been modified in this physiographic area through river and floodplain alterations.
Secondary Floodplain
The secondary floodplain (9.4 acres) represents relatively flat to gently sloping, alluvial fans
associated with two tributaries of the Haw River (Figure 6). This area represents depositional
alluvial debris cones as a consequence of long-term bedload transport into the larger Haw River
valley. Groundwater flow is expected to exhibit primarily unidirectional accelerated flow towards
the primary floodplain. Discharge from adjacent groundwater slopes into the secondary
floodplain may provide sustained surface water expression throughout the year, potentially
supporting various intermittent and perennial channels and ponded areas. Under historic
conditions, the area was likely dominated by bottomland hardwood or mesic mixed hardwood
forests (Piedmont subtype) (Schafale and Weakley 1990).
The secondary floodplain is dissected by Midway Creek to the north and an unnamed tributary
to the south. Both Midway Creek and the unnamed tributary historically supported auxiliary
overbank flows from 0.9 and 1.4 square mile secondary watersheds, respectively. However,
12

these tributaries have been diverted into approximately 2000 linear feet of ditches circumventing
the Site (Figure 6). The ditches were installed to facilitate agricultural production and to quickly
convey water from the secondary watershed through the Site. The constructed drainage
network provides direct connectivity of surface waters to the Haw River effectively bypassing
land surfaces and potential floodplain functions on the Site.
I Groundwater (Upland) Slopes
Upland slopes, occupying approximately 5.8 acres of the Site, are situated primarily along the
northern valley wall and include the base of moderately sloped escarpments that rise above the
floodplain floor (Figure 6). Under historic conditions, these slopes are expected to exhibit uni-
directional overland flow and accelerated radial to lateral groundwater flow towards the
floodplain. This physiographic area is currently dominated by early successional plant
communities. Under historic conditions, the area was likely dominated by various upland plant
communities including mesic mixed hardwood and dry-oak hickory forest (Piedmont subtype)
(Schafale and Weakley 1990).
3.2 Soils
Determination of soil types within the Site are based on NRCS soil survey mapping for Guilford
and Rockingham counties (USDA 1977, 1992) and soils mapping of existing conditions
determined by ESC at the Site. Based on NRCS soil survey mapping, soil types within the Site
include Chewacla loam, Cecil sandy loam, and Hiwassee loam (Figure 7). On-site verification
and ground-truthing of NRCS map units within the floodplain identified three soil types including
Congaree, Chewacla, and Wehadkee. Based on NRCS documents (NRCS unpublished),
Wehadkee soils are considered hydric within both Guilford and Rockingham counties.
Chewacla and Congaree are non-hydric map units but have hydric inclusions of the Wehadkee
soil type. Hydric and non-hydric soil boundaries were determined in the field and are shown in
Figure 8. Approximately 36.6 acres of hydric soil have been identified on-site.
Chewacla, Congaree, and Wehadkee soils are part of a general map unit of soils typically found
in large floodplains. These soils are nearly level, deep, well drained to poorly drained soils
depending on their respective relationship with the landscape and the seasonal high water
table. Most of the Site occurs within the floodplain of the Haw River and the hydric Wehadkee
soils are the dominant soil type throughout the Site. All three soils are frequently flooded during
the winter and spring (USDA 1977, 1992).
Upland soils on groundwater slopes include Cecil sandy loam, and Hiwassee loam. These
series comprise approximately 5 acres of the Site and exhibit well drained conditions. Ecotones
between upland and floodplain (hydric) soils are among the most diverse and productive
environments for wildlife (Brinson et al. 1981).
3.3 Jurisdictional Wetlands
Jurisdictional wetlands are defined using the criteria set forth in the Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual (DOA 1987). The wetland determination in non prior-converted
cropland areas was supplemented by groundwater data near ditches and the canal. Based on
13

1

u

Midway P
'
_
e d PcD2.
SeB
RnD m
D
A
•.
m i
p
i1
:
c

P /fy
aD

CdH7
O
dt?,
j O
VaD "'IH:' P? DZ
p2
, o ?
c
CrIB2
WkF pc

GdB? C02 PcE7, a
PcD2
WkF
Wk ?
? -
?
PcD2
Ck
/ PcU2 \
PcE2
kF WkC - '....ft.' ?x.PcE2
aD PcD2 D2
PCE2 '. UH? HWB
WkC VD ?. r;db,' ...
\
Pc02 Cri I W
a
\? PcDZ Bound ry
Pc02
UR,

Ck
Hw8
' PcD2
-
- PcD2 l,
\
?
\
0? PcD?

MbE2
L //
?
We\
Mb02
i? HwB
uxt
?
Ck We
/
PcD2 MA Ck
li?.,y Ck PCDZ
MbE2
Wh. Ch
MbD? MLD2
/ o McC2 1 a tiy:
_ ? c 3 CCU ? 3? ?
Mac
j ff MaD
/
WE2
: Jui
CeB2
/
r
v
Ch
"
D
C
.•
?
c
r.rc

y ?
v

r WkE
LEGEND Cr67
1

CCC
C,
/
ff
\
\
CcD Cecil sandy loam
10-15% slopes \ -
?H
Ch Chewacla sandy loam CCB
MaD
Ck Chewacla loam )
Mt:Ez
Pc? \
?. ,•
C 2000 ti,
HwB Hiwassee loam 120
000
.
2-8°C slopes -.' Sourc•1977 oSDA-SCS soli st r ? Gul t d C', NC
1992 ..SGAsC? sill Sui ,. Rock r -^ G,_ NC?
__ ..?
MJFi 1aE\, ... ., '?
tf ?

CoC'?:lf.,,.-??. f.
1-
J
Corporation
NRCS SOIL MAPPING

aw River Swamp Wetland Restoration Site Dwr. by M
Ckd by: JG

ale JUN 2148

FIGURE

7

? Rale.gY.. ^iorth =are I;na Guilford / Rockingham Counties, North Carolina
Project:
03-148

I
w F v cn n
rn0z CrJ
0
K ;u 03
Z 71000 C) --I rn Z o
00 Cf) c o c v.cQ o rD? n n
ZZ0 o??Q rnDD?< - o wm.
N Doman ?.? - -z m lilt
CD Z ?D v pc o'er
0 No° Zen Z o

I?
ground-truthing and groundwater data, approximately 2.0 acres of jurisdictional wetlands were
!I identified within the Site. Figure 9 depicts the approximate location of existing jurisdictional
wetlands.
NRCS records indicate that farmed portions of the Site are designated as prior-converted (PC)
cropland. A PC cropland is a wetland which was both manipulated and cropped prior to
December 23, 1985 to the extent that it no longer exhibits important wetland functions
(Section 512.15 of the National Food Security Act Manual, August 1988). PC cropland is not
subject to regulation under the jurisdiction of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Approximately 36.3 acres of PC cropland occur within the Site boundary (Figure 9).
3.4 Plant Communities
Distribution and composition of plant communities reflect landscape-level variations in
topography, soils, hydrology, and past or present land-use practices. Five distinct plant
communities were identified within the Site including fallow cropland, hay pasture, streambank/
r ditchside, early successional, and freshwater marsh (Figure 10).
The Site is dominated by land in agricultural production (23.8 acres) that was most recently
used for corn production. Stalks of the last crop remain standing in portions of the Site. The
fields have been left to succession for two growing seasons, and bottomland hardwood species
such as sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), and red maple (Acer rubrum) have begun to emerge. Emergent
wetland species, including sedges (Carex spp.) and soft rush (Juncus effuses), currently
dominate this community.
Hay pasture (12.7 acres) occurs along the northwest boundary and within a large area in the
northeast portion of the Site. The hay pasture community is dominated by fescue (Festuca sp.)
and various other grasses and forbs, such as goldenrod (Solidago sp.), violet (Viola sp.),
plantain (Plantago lanceolata), chickweed (Stellaria media), and wild onion (Allium canadense).
A streambank/ditch-side community (7.4 acres) occurs within buffer areas adjacent to the Haw
River, the canal, and perimeter ditches within the Site. The overstory is dominated by
sweetgum, red maple, green ash, and sycamore. Shrub and herbaceous cover is dense and
includes canopy species as well as greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica), blackberry (Rubus sp.), grape (Vitis sp.), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans).

II??
II
An early successional community (4.0 acres) of young trees, shrubs and briers occurs on the
upland side slope along northern Site boundary. Trees found in this community include black
cherry (Prunus serotina), red maple and various oaks (Quercus spp.). Shrub and herbaceous
cover is dense and includes greenbrier Japanese honeysuckle, blackberry, grape, and poison
ivy.
A freshwater marsh community (1.6 acres) occurs along the north-central portion of the Site, in
an area not designated as PC cropland. The community is dominated by numerous emergent
16

r-n
009606 N

O v
cr)
O O
O O

1 I I l r r r .? .? r r r .. .. r e 1 n
6ACCESS EASEMENT 1

G ur)

` 1 x ?_
m
V) O Ln o
-{ --I - z o
1
mA r? m-
j 1 {

m
Z
Z
coo o 0 p czZo C) o

? z

?

OOOL6 N
y zn
<
0
m 1
?
O
A y
y m p 0 D?]
C p b O
m z
'' f- ,.

m ? p 0
o
m o? z C
o

I
nn
f
?

n Co
A m Z , , Grp

' -.
r CD

S
'
{
1 j
m
, 9

1 00
?
u r.? o i` r?-

I ?
00 %
f It ?,a I
? I
I

SQ?6 N

loo

? y
.
ow_ •(

IiI •?b 1? -?J'?r
ye

a + it
7
. _ l`. OOOll6 N

11
,
r

? r. r r

1 oosll6 N

1 v > ..
CA I - ?)1G IijL

1 N
}
1 ? ,? =
4
f r
S

+.a.f i
?
z

i OOOZl6 N

> m'
m m a
nCc - m 2
o m om!
Z?? c?
o
c cn??D cncn ?-
o C) C)
:vv0
==o c
nO-I??
tA?
m
5
z J v
0

.q
m F 5x _

0
n A Zq
o

m

?-
o z
Z>
Z 00 -1
Z
z o m
tn
N
o ?
ZDm O
D ?
p Z

? r w w mw M M M mom m m i i" M M
i?
m
m
??
m
cn
X
N-,

Z
C)

V)

M x

Z
n

;a p
g ?

D

z X

Z
0

M
m

r

n

0
?
o
C

O

n

O
?
O
c
of
M

0
p
c
Z
°
Z
M
I; CX
' k {
Il; k

m 11 Lf)
A D D
m
V7 In
,
r r
r A
m
a:
> 0

D m LO

m
A C
n
C)
M C)
A

0 co
y
Z
x
p v r g
A

= z

z
g n
o V)
o p
M
D N A W V n
s Q?
r ?1 C
- co
t A cD
to
m
m
r
M
C)
v
O
C
z
m
cn
I,

5 r°
,'r Y
J I •-

c
I n
X =tom
-- Z 0[
O
t.
I
I
I

N

?,
:
Ib I, 000/l6 N
9
-+------------------ ------ -------------- ----- OOS116 N
i
I ?I
I I .I r I- ??t-. .-
I
--------- --- - ------- - _ - ?t ?r ?• OOOZl6 N
I
1 r

ii ,n
o n
n o
?
? A
p o
m
C m
C o
2
o z m
- -

?
cn0
o co
c
M
® o C
z
°
m Z
G

M?

o
?..
o z Z-1
m -0
00
Z° 00 ?O a D r;
N o D

and aquatic species. The community is distinguished b continually flooded by conditions and
small areas of open water habitat.
3.5 Hydrology
The hydrophysiographic region consists of relatively flat, Piedmont floodplain environments
characterized by moderate rainfall (USDA 1992). This region is characterized by moderately
high rainfall with precipitation averaging approximately 42 inches per year (USDA 1977, 1992),
with peak annual precipitation events typically occurring in the summer months.
3.5.1 Surface Water (Streams)
Historically, the Site sustained surface water hydrology from five primary sources: the Haw
River, Midway Creek, two unnamed tributaries of the Haw River, and surface expression of
groundwater from adjacent slopes (Figure 4 and Figure 6).
Haw River
The Site abuts an approximately 2000-foot reach of the Haw River (Figure 6). The Haw River
supports a primary watershed of approximately 52.7 square miles at the Site outfall. The
associated floodplain averages approximately 1300 feet in width and supports a valley slope of
1 approximately 0.0014 rise/run or 0.14 percent. The watershed supports agricultural land
(32 percent), forested land (65 percent), and less than one percent residential development
(based on 1993 GIS mapping). However, commercial, industrial, and residential development is
' expected to expand in the watershed over the next several decades due to urban sprawl
associated with the City of Greensboro.
i Primarily in the first half of the twentieth century, large sections of streams in the Haw River
watershed, including the Haw River, were channelized (dredged and straightened) to improve
agricultural drainage. Currently, the on-site channel supports a bankfull width of approximately
35 feet, an average depth of 3.5 feet, and a cross-sectional area of approximately 130 square
feet (maximum depth of 5.0 feet) (Appendix C). Appendix D provides model results that predict
the Haw River discharge and flood elevations for the 2-, 5-, 10-, 50-, and 100-year storm
(Section 4.1).
Midway Creek
Midway Creek enters the Site from the north and represents a second-order stream supporting
an approximately 0.9 square mile watershed (Figure 5 and 6). Land use is similar to conditions
found in the Haw River watershed including an approximately 50 percent land conversion rate
for agriculture. A majority of Midway Creek has been channelized and moved to the edge of the
valley to facilitate livestock and agricultural production.
The on-site reach of Midway Creek includes approximately 650 linear feet of channel entering
the northernmost portion of the Site, crossing the valley perpendicular to the slope, and exiting
the Site along the eastern boundary (Figure 6). Historically, the Midway Creek channel was
located in central portions of its valley. Upon encountering the alluvial fan at the confluence with
the Haw River valley, the stream became a braided, anasmotosed channel. The current
19

I dredged channel is approximately 8 to 10 feet wide and 3 to 4 feet deep.
Under historic
conditions, the channel above the alluvial fan is projected to have supported a bankfull cross-
sectional area of approximately 10 to 14 square feet. Restoration efforts will divert flows from
adjacent downstream properties to re-hydrate the soils of the historic alluvial fan and allow the
I restoration of a riverine wetland plant community.
Southern Unnamed Tributarv
The unnamed tributary (UT) entering the Site from the south represents a second-order stream
supporting an approximately 1.4 square mile watershed (Figure 5 and 6). Land-use within the
watershed is predominantly forested, with increasing impacts from residential development.
The stream is entrenched along much of its length and is experiencing slight to severe bank
erosion.
The on-site reach of the southern tributary includes approximately 1050 linear feet of channel
that runs along the southeastern property boundary before the confluence with the Haw River.
Excessive sediment deposition in the lower reaches of the stream has caused severe
aggradation within the channel, forcing much of the current flow to exit off-site prior to entering
the Haw River (Figure 6). Under historic conditions, the channel extended through the center of
the southern portion of the Site before entering the Haw River. The current dredged channel is
approximately 15 to 20 feet wide and 4 to 5 feet deep. Historically, the channel is projected to
have supported a bankfull cross-sectional area of approximately 13 to 17 square feet.
Restoration efforts will divert flows from adjacent downstream properties to re-hydrate the soils
of the historic alluvial fan and allow the restoration of a riverine wetland plant community.
Northern Unnamed Tributarv
The UT entering the Site from the north represents a first-order stream supporting an
approximately 0.1 square mile watershed (Figure 5 and 6). Land use within the watershed is
' primarily in pasture and agriculture. The stream is entrenched along much of its length and is
experiencing slight to moderate bank erosion. The stream enters the Site for less than 100 feet
before entering the canal directly below the bridge on Church Street/Sandy Cross Road. This
tributary represents intermittent or marginally perennial flow that is attenuated by a small farm
pond located approximately 700 linear feet upstream of the Site boundary.
1 3.5.2 Groundwater
Periodic river and stream floods, fluvial sediment deposition, and hydraulic energy dissipation
represent important attributes of floodplains and bottomiand hardwood forest in the region.
However, these channels represent base flow, groundwater withdrawal features throughout
most of the year. Therefore, groundwater inputs represent the primary hydrologic factor in the
1 development and maintenance of riverine wetlands at this Site. Wetland hydroperiods are
greatest along the toe of the outer floodplain, immediately adjacent to upland buffers
(groundwater discharge areas). Hydroperiods decrease across the floodplain as the
groundwater table approaches stream channels and drainage features (i.e. groundwater
discharge features). Dredging of the Haw River, construction of a drainage network, and the
rerouting of the tributaries has lowered the groundwater table and steepened the groundwater
' discharge gradient throughout the Site.
20
1 7

Groundwater migration has been further accelerated in croplands by leveling of the soil surface
,
removal of large organic debris and root channels found in mature forests. The induced
groundwater migration is intercepted by a network of interior canals and inter-field ditches which
effectively drains the area (Figure 6). Approximately 3500 linear feet of field ditches and canals
have been constructed and range from approximately 3 feet deep in inter-field ditches to depths
greater than 5 feet in the canal.
1 Groundwater data from piezometer were taken at regular intervals for the period between mid-
June and mid-August, 2002. Representative groundwater flow maps depicting high-water and
low water conditions at the Site for June 17 and July 21, 2003, respectively, are presented in
Figure 11(A and B). Data representative of very deep groundwater conditions were not
available due to continued wet conditions during the study period. The groundwater elevation
data is presented in Table 1.
Standing water was observed throughout most of the Site for extended periods through the
monitoring period. The highest water elevations were encountered in locations surrounding
Wells 5, 7 and 8. These wells represent area within the primary floodplain where prolonged
flooding can be expected. Groundwater within these areas never dropped below one foot below
the ground surface.
During the monitoring period, groundwater at its deepest (driest) was encountered within
1.5 feet of the surface. Wells 1, 4, and 11 represent areas of the secondary floodplain where
' surface elevations are slightly higher and where groundwater gradients are slightly greater. In
general, water table elevations decrease gradually along drainage gradients extending from the
secondary floodplain (edge of floodplain) to the primary floodplain adjacent to the Haw River. A
more rapid decrease in water table elevations occurs in the steeper surface gradients found in
alluvial fans and portions of the Site.
3.6 Cultural Resources
The term "cultural resources" refers to prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, structures, or
artifact deposits over 50 years old. "Significant" cultural resources are those that are eligible or
potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Evaluations of site
significance are made with reference to the eligibility criteria of the National Register
(36 CFR 60) and in consultation with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO). A file search was conducted at the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) in order to
determine whether any cultural resource investigations have been conducted within the Site
' vicinity and to determine whether any significant cultural resources have been documented
within the area. It appears that a significant portion of the Site and surrounding area is
considered to have potential for archaeological resources.
Preliminary investigations have found artifacts from the Lithic (13,000 to 3,000 B.C.), Middle
Archaic (6000 to 3000 B.C.), Early Woodland (900 to 300 B.C.), Middle Woodland (300 B.C. to
900 A.D.), and Ceramic (1,000 to 1,515 A.D.) time periods. Particular lithic tool types include
primary debitage and pecked stone which suggest that the surrounding area was prehistorically
used for long-term and short-term habitation. The Site is currently "Unassessed" and is not yet
listed in the National Register of Historic Places. However, a survey will be required
21

m = m m w w A = w w w w w w w m w w w
I
I
? I j
m
r
r
I`
m
N
0
K:
rn

-i

O
C7 x
(n
i
z

O

m

? x
Ln
-'
z

C)

g 7
O

n
F-
n
z

oi
_ x
LO

Z

O

m
m
m
r z
0
m

n
O

o
A D

n

0
o

0 -i
m

m

O
z
D z
+ m
O
Z -

o

m

D

0
z
c) C) m

00 0

J Q) 01 CO 01 Ul z O
p t?D 0 0?0 ? 0
m
O N O o o nD
?
m
oz
rn
m
z
m

O

C)
z
m
r
m
m
v
C
v
D
m
m
r
m
m
v
O096N
0 0
J f % `60' ACCESS EASEMENT' - T - - - - 2
<9 c 6 , , - - - r - m
- ?I(h
o• ?l ( m O
c / ?? r z 1
t
,`
"
s(r
'ol
m I r V
N
r ..V - ,A-
J
i 000111E N
' ?• rye, f ????? 4??`. `N: .Jl ? S' 11. -
I, Wm
_ Im "
005116 N
_ "' _ ? I 0'669
/. .
I i f
l0 co V 0) Ln ? CN N °
0) 0) 0) 0) 01 01 01 0) 0) J
r
O (D lD lD 0 lD (D lD tD tD o
O V J V J OO J (D 00 cD O m e
Cn tD
J J A tD CP 0, O iv < Z
O.0, N Ut lD c.+ J .p O
J 01 07 07 07 a)
c Cr) J 0) J J
O (D tD
W to CD to
D
W W to (D O lD
tD
to O
O O
m
O f'l
N lD -;l tD CC) O O 0o 01 O <
V Ut J cD V ? cD O O '
C
;u -0
m m
m
Z N
0
N
Z m
M OOOZ16 N
1
Z
<
\„ c ? 1 F\ J i /, D
.. m 0
0ozo m = f ?'
OIQ
2-iCm i;;Q Z ii ?ND
DOZm ° vn0cnp z C?'. {1
i
m C o m 0 G ?0 00 0 m z Z- o n ,?ID C" a
O Z s D D r C Z G
W N ` .? z Z C 50 m ? O °
yy
f
i
0 0 D M D r z z S C

m ?I

r
r r1 ,
m m V) K (n
m
N
c
K

m

0
C) x
cn
+
Z
C7 x
N
?
Z
O

0

g
0

m
r
m

D

0
z x
u

z
C

-
z
r
m
r z
0
m

C7
0

?

c
A
O
0

C)
O

°

A
m

w
CO

O
D
O
Z
C)
m
r
m
m
v
\ 60' ACCESS EASEMENT'
ZE
? / + m :
I 9 ' ? r" O
r
r
_ Z .
u
n
0
z

m
r
m

D
-1
O
z 00 m
00 O
U-) c O
Q) rn O, O)
D D D D cn Z
O
N o m`r O
O o 0 0 0>
?
m
0;0
m
D
Z
m

0
f
m
C
v
D
m
r
m
m
z
v

\
i i
.?
r .f
N

b
r
1
1 l.r
000116 N
-' ° '. ...... rf
A _ - a . LD e-
, co
IM,
?A
00,1116 N
r _
r?

o (D Co v 0) (J, A L4 N O
v rn rn a) rn a) rn rn rn 0) v O
r
O cD 0 cD cD cD 0 0 0 cD O
0 ?7 V V V ou v O N co O m
L,i U, (D J --'
V V A t0 U, a) O N G Z
O A N N t0 (_4 V A C
v 0) Or) C)) Q) Q) a) rn v v m
O (D to o (D (D (.D O ?o 0 0
Co cD 00 CO to (D 0 tD 0 m
N cD A cD OJ O O Oo O] cD 'A G ;-- ;
v C!, V cD V A co o
0
N
C
?m
mzill
O
_9
z m
m m 000016 N
M N
Z
Ov,

O?M
-Z-ICm/A?
cn
0 ooc) m =
AZT ''^^cn*cn>
__ m
tn?

m o Cr

I?
O Z

m m V/ O `

°
?o V^/

m
O J J
z

?
D
i Z0 o0
z cn?
rn- m
D
z z
-v m ?

7?

vi
O U)
c
>
W O
L N
(U
(o
t
.C2 a)
~ 0
0) E
M
C ?
L
N
N ?

1

°° c

mc? N m
M o
00 o
N
I)
0) co
O
N r`
O
O
ti
T.- co
M
N 2 , O O O O O
+ r O O

+ O O
r
D (Q
O

N
N
00
?
a)

0 0
N M
"': O
00 M
O M
0 O
7 N
N ti
7 M
co d'
0
'
Rf a) co co co co O 1` ti N co co

° W O
O O
O O
co O
Co O
O O
CO O
(0 O
O O
co O
O rn
(0

O °° -0 ()
c z
m = R3 (1) M
d' O
- N
CA O
LO N
00 to
00 1-
CD N
00 N
N 00
O ?-
00
Q 2? r O O O O O1 r

co
r
CV L
c
O
co 1~
m co
CO rn
O co O
N O
(0 Lo
M u
O co
It 0
1q'
-0 cu

= 0) co

M
1`
rn
r.-:
O
00
O
r-?
O
1-
O
m
m
m
a)
o
O
o
O
Op
rn
° LlJ CO O O O 0 O O co M O (0
t
V

° "a N?
-? Ln N O O O N O M co O
O O
O O
O
`-
4
(
0 o O
+ O
+ O
+ O
+ O O
+ 6
+ O O O
(3
n
O

00
r L
O a
N ? 0 N ? 0) V M
N LO It
:3 N ` 00 0) m a) m 0) 0) 0 m 0
° W 1` (o (0 m 0 O w o (0 0
C)
W
F- L
a)
°
:

N

O

0

LO 0)

LO m

r

r

r

m

LO

M
o 3m Ear
?
O
0)
0 o
O
N
(7 W N N N CO 7
0
C.0 co O O O O O CO
a
L
c
O ? 0 cq O O 0 0 rn
N 0
0 0
0 N
N a) O O rn O m M rn m 0 rn O
W I- CO I-- O 0 0 0 O O N
a.
L
CU L
N
E f N co It LO Co r- co 0

N Z
n.
a ?
c c
a a
o A
rn rn
o
n
as -0
L a>
?N
O O
c c
a? o
a 'a
c c
o?
i-n a)
co
o aa)
CL c

1
to determine this Site's eligibility
for the Historic Register. Impacts associated with restoration
activities or due to the project's design in its current form will not be known until after the
assessment is made. A detailed assessment of the Site has been contracted with Legacy
Research Associates (Legacy). Legacy is comprised of archaeologists and historians who
' specialize in assessing the effects of construction on historic and prehistoric sites. A letter of
concurrence from SHPO will be obtained prior to any construction activity.
3.7 Wildlife
Forested tracts in the region have been extensively removed for agricultural and silvercultural
purposes, and are increasingly under pressure from urban development. Forests and other
natural areas provide habitat for wildlife and are vital for clean water in our streams and lakes.
Bottomland and swamp forest within the expansive floodplains of the Haw River, in particular,
provide plentiful food, water, and cover for wildlife. The ephemeral drainageways (backwater
sloughs) and ponding within isolated wetland areas provide interaction among riparian and non-
riparian wildlife guilds in the region. Wetland/upland ecotones provide additional habitat
diversity near the Site. These ecotones are among the most diverse and productive
r environments for wildlife (Brinson et al. 1981).
In spite of area-wide changes to forested habitat (agriculture, timber harvesting, etc.), the Haw
River floodplain, including the Site, continues to support large mammals such as bobcat (Felis
rufus), and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Surrounding lands support many smaller
mammals, including character species such as gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), Virginia
opossum (Didelphis virginiana), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), striped skunk (Mephitis
mephitis), and eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus). Numerous small burrows were noted
as, indications of small rodent populations such as eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus), least
shrew (Crypotis parva), and mice (primarily Reithrodontomys humulus).
' Bird species associated with open lands and old fields include American kestrel (Falco
sparverius), field sparrow (Spizella pusilla), eastern bluebird (Salia sialis), prairie warbler
(Dendroica discolor), and yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroica coronata). Characteristic bird
species that can be expected to utilize wetlands in the region include great blue heron (Ardea
herodias), black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos),
wood duck (Aix sponsa), and barred owl (Strix varia). In addition, a high number of passerine
' birds, both permanent and summer resident species, nest in bottomland hardwood forest.
Among these are several neotropical migrants such as northern parula (Parula americana),
yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), and yellow-throated vireo (Vireo flavifrons), and
other forest interior species such as the wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina) and Acadian
flycatcher (Empidonax virescens) that require large tracts of contiguous forest for survival
(Keller et al. 1993).
Isolated areas of standing water, ditches, and canals in the area provide excellent habitat for
reptiles and amphibians. Characteristic species include red-bellied water snake (Nerodia
' erythrogaster), northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon), snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentine),
yellow-bellied turtle (Trachemys scripta), spotted turtle (Clemmys guttata), marbled salamander
(Ambystoma opacum), southern dusky salamander (Desmognathus auriculatus), two-lined
' salamander (Eurycea bislineata), green frog (Rana clamitans), and southern leopard frog (Rana
25

utricularia . Wetland areas and forested riparian corridors are expected to develop, and
improve habitat diversity over time, after the proposed restoration plan is implemented.
3.8 Regional Corridors and Adjacent Natural Areas
The Site is located within a watershed where over 32 percent of the land area has been
' converted for agricultural use, where extensive logging is ongoing, and where future residential
and commercial development has been planned and implemented. As depicted in Figures 4
and 5, local forest corridors are evident along the major streams and floodplains. The Site
represents a potentially significant regional wildlife corridor providing connectivity along the Haw
River, including Cone Swamp to the west and Benaja Swamp to the east (Figure 4). Auxiliary
wetland preservation and management projects may be considered to conserve this important
regional wildlife corridor within a rapidly developing watershed.
3.9 Protected Species
Federally listed species with Endangered (E) or Threatened (T) status receive protection under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program (NHP) has recorded several observations of Endangered (E) and state
species of Special Concern (SC), as well as rare community types, within the Haw River
watershed. These species include the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), federally listed as
Threatened, mole salamander (Ambystoma talpoideum), and Carolina darter (Etheostoma
collis). The mole salamander and is considered a state species of Special Concern by the NHP,
and the Carolina darter is considered a Federal Species of Concern (FSC) in Guilford County
1 and a state species of Special Concern by the NHP. Rare communities include low elevation
seeps, piedmont/low mountain alluvial forest, and piedmont/mountain swamp forest. Other
federally listed species for Rockingham County are green floater (Lasmigona subviridis) (FSC),
' James spinymussel (Pleurobema collina) (E), Heller's trefoil (Lotus hellen) (FSC), and smooth
coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) (E). The figure in Appendix E shows NHP element
occurrences that are within the portion of the Haw River watershed that drain into the Site.
' All occurrences are upstream (>0.5 miles) of the Site, and construction activities associated with
the mitigation project are not expected to negatively affect any of the species or habitats
' mentioned above. Habitat for all the species listed above may occur on or adjacent to the Site.
Bald eagles typically nest in tall, living trees in a conspicuous location near open water and
forage over large bodies of water. The Carolina darter is known to occur within warm pools and
slow runs in streams, over sand and gravel within the Cape Fear River Basin. The mole
salamander breeds in semi-permanent woodland ponds and forages in adjacent woodlands.
' Both the green floater and James spinymussel are considered species of quiet waters that
prefer the quieter parts of streams, specifically the pools and eddies with gravelly and sandy
bottoms. Little is known about the ecology of Heller's trefoil, but it is considered to be highly
threatened by land-use conversion and habitat fragmentation. Smooth coneflower primarily
occurs in openings in woods, such as cedar barrens and clear cuts, along roadsides and utility
' line right-of-ways, and on dry limestone bluffs.

26
1
It is expected that improvements to the existing riparian system and the restoration of new
wetlands, and preservation of existing wetlands will improve existing habitat as well as create
more habitat for these species.
I

t

t

1
D
t

27

4.0 WETLAND RESTORATION STUDIES
' 4.1 Surface Water Analysis
Surface drainage on the Site and surrounding areas were analyzed to predict the feasibility of
' manipulating existing surface drainage patterns into the primary and secondary floodplains
without adverse effects to the Site or adjacent properties. The following presents a summary of
hydrologic and hydraulic analyses along with provisions designed to maximize groundwater
recharge and wetland restoration while reducing potential for impacts to adjacent properties.
The purpose of the analysis is to predict flood extents for the 1- 2- 5- 10-, 50- 100-year storms
' under existing and proposed conditions after wetland restoration has been implemented. The
comparative flood elevations were evaluated by simulating peak flood flows for the Haw River
using the WMS (Watershed Modeling System, BOSS International) program and regional
regression equations. Once the flows were determined, the river geometry and cross-sections
were digitized from a DTM (Digital Terrain Model) surface (prepared by a professional surveyor)
using the HEC-GeoRAS component of ArcView. The cross-sections were adjusted as needed
based on field-collected data. Once the corrections to the geometry were performed, the data
was imported into HEC-RAS.
Watersheds and land use estimations were measured from existing DEM (Digital Elevation
Model) data and an aerial photograph. Field surveyed cross-sections and water surfaces were
' obtained along the Haw River and canal. Valley cross-sections were obtained from both on-site
cross-sections and detailed topographic mapping to 1-foot contour intervals using the available
DTM. Observations of existing hydraulic characteristics were incorporated into the model and
the computed water surface elevations were calibrated by utilizing engineering judgment.
Appendix D provides a figure depicting cross-section locations and a table with results for flood
elevations under existing and proposed conditions for the 1-, 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, and 100-year
storms.
In summary, the model suggests that, under both current and proposed conditions, water
surface elevations for the 100-year storm event will be approximately 706.5 feet NGVD and
703.4 feet NGVD for the upper- and lower-most portions of the Site, respectively. The model
indicates that no significant change in surface water elevations is expected as a result of
wetland restoration activities. Therefore, hydrologic trespass of upstream and adjacent
landowners is not a concern.
' 4.2 Reference Plant Communities
In order to establish a forested wetland system for restoration purposes, a reference community
needs to be established. According to Mitigation Site Classification (MIST) guidelines
t (EPA 1990), the area of proposed restoration should attempt to emulate a Reference Forest
Ecosystem (RFE) in terms of soils, hydrology, and vegetation. In this case, the target RFEs
were composed of relatively undisturbed woodlands in adjacent areas which support soil,
landform, and hydrological characteristics that restoration will attempt to emulate. The RFE
sites have been impacted by selective cutting or high-grading, therefore the species
' composition of these plots should be considered as a guide only. RFE data used in restoration
28

' was modified to emulate stead state climax community structure as described in the
Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina (Schafale and Weakley 1990).
Circular plot sampling was utilized to establish base-line, vegetation composition and structure
in RFEs. Species were recorded along with individual tree diameters, canopy class, and
dominance. From collected field data, importance values (Brower et aL 1990) of dominant
canopy and mid-story trees were calculated. Hydrology, surface topography, and habitat
features were also evaluated.
Mature forest communities were identified in floodplain areas east of the Site that continue to
characterize steady-state forest conditions. The vegetative community sampled was identified
as a Piedmont bottomland hardwood forest (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Four plots located in
the adjacent forested floodplain were sampled. The overstory is dominated by red maple and
green ash. Other highly desirable, late successional canopy species included overcup oak
(Quercus lyrata), red oak (Quercus rubra), shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), and American elm
(Ulmus americana) (Table 2). The RFEs exhibit evidence of past silvicultural practices such as
selective cutting, high-grading, and ditch construction that have resulted in a less diverse, intra-
specific tree assemblage. Therefore, community restoration procedures have been modified to
facilitate a reduction in dominance by disturbance adapted species such as red maple and
1 sweetgum.
4.3 Reference Physiography and Surface Topography
Surface features were mapped within reference Piedmont swamp/bottomland hardwood forest
in order to establish base-line topographic conditions for restoration planning use. This
' community lies within a seasonally to semi-permanently inundated area that has supported
sediment accretion in the past with inundation from stream flows occurring on a frequent basis.
The channel is actively migrating across alluvial fans developed within the aggrading floodplain.
Topographic maps of the accretion area were prepared to 0.5-foot contour intervals by laser
level and tape measure. Abandoned stream channels were mapped along with approximate
jurisdictional wetland extent relative to the water surface within stream channels. A plan view,
cross-sections, and profiles were generated for the channel and adjacent alluvial surface. The
channel dimension, rate of channel migration, and slope of the floodplain floor represent the
' primary features extrapolated for use in restoration planning. One of the objectives of
restoration is to put Midway Creek and the southern tributary back onto the historic alluvial fans
and induce sediment deposition, channel migration, braiding, ponding, and/or anastomosed
stream, resulting in hydration of adjacent wetland areas
Figure 12 depicts a plan view and cross-sections of the alluvial fan, including locations of
abandoned channels that have developed over the last several years. The channel exhibits
active migration across the valley floor as aggradation processes elevate isolated portions of the
floodplain. The active channel is classified as an E5 (highly sinuous) stream type in upper
reaches of the reference Site (Rosgen 1994). Subsequently, the channel transitions into an
anastomosed (DA5/6) channel and subsequent braided (D6) channel immediately prior to the
confluence with a near-permanently inundated section of the primary floodplain.
29

U
N
O
AU
O
IZ
it, U)
CU A
E CL
0
C C
E
U
CL
N d N O
N +• O LL
,Q U- i
H O -0 N
LL O
c 7E cu
N co
2
N
I
E
O
O
m
m
c m
t 3
O
CL
E
N
m
>R
R Q
d
Q V
t6
? r+
m
A
m 7
C'
d
U.
T O I`_ 0 d' ? M M M N N
N N O O O O O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
". O O M m o to 0- tc) I.- M
M N T ?' O O O N T O O
N ~ O M T I,- N T I? M T
6 M M N O T O O O
1-- N e r w w w 0 w 0 q
CO cj ?- r- t6 L6 to uj uj L.
T N ?- T
V
c
G1 o to O O O to 0 to to to
a' v ti to to N N N N N N N
U.

yr M M M M T T M T T T T
.9 M M O O cM M (6 M M on c'i
C
I.i.

4- o y
L ?

ja -0
. O
T O N N T T N T T T T
T
?
E
3
Z C
co

d U
tz
Q
co

U

Q
n
C
To
LL
o
:3
(,
r
?•
U

O
3
U

C(
c?a

cq

U

Q
10

N
U
'co
>)
_«
N f0

T- ? m

y

J
1 T
O
to
T-
1 'w
I O
Co
T
O
O
O
T
N
M
J
H
O
Q
U
t0
O
0
0
E
cn
? ? ? ? ? ? ? m ? A ? ? m ? m m m Ml m
z
O
AD
G -m
C)
0
0°
O
CD
° o'
3
N
O ?
(D n
0 =3 .
Linear (Across Volley) Distance in Feet
O N (n _I O N
cn O cn O (n
-----------------
D
W
O
m Elevation in Feet Elevation in Feet
o O
?O o 0 0
n OD O W 03 O N 4b.
O O
2 O
O
------------- ---------------- ----- - --- --------- -
m +,
r O
N N O
V^ • ^? r/???•?
co V• W
---- ---------- -------- -----
4- _4 0
cn r O
r- 0
O r r
°
v
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
° °
- - - - -- - - - - - -
--------- ------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - -
v W OD
O °
D'
(D
O
w Lo
N O O _
i l O O
O Q1 Ln N
NO
N O O
= ? q o 0
Z
(n 7 JTI
m 0 N
_ m
.. I CD
O N
D N p O O
- ----- - ---------------- -------
(D Z O TI
(D
WO ;? W
O
-------------
p N -r--r--r--r -f f I_ _1-
0
O 0
O
N
O °
Fj ?r ?1_ Ln )F _
v
Q)
'^^ O °
VI _ N
? v C) V
r O °
N M m
tA A-4
O o
°
0 o z
p o
v7 V)
c)
n
N N map
00 o 0 0 ° m° 0 0 0 °
0 N O N cc) O N
ul
m
w
O
m o n ° X n
w m _ ?' .? l
TI z c) .. c) .. p r A G7 r= "'{ D
c_ c_ (A "M flaw,
'? egg ?? ?? ?o??p N o o
N m°< mm ° m37o mD z W ?'
O z m O Fn z rOOD -I Z? ?-? (A IVA,
w N .7 m o N m Dz° O0 yp 0
n
_ r r

I .
I I

I
1 1
1 1

1 1 1 I 1 I
r - ,

r I I I I 1 1

EC' 1
-- 2'69 -' ? -- -?-- I - - -
C) O O

r- -i -L- -r f -?" -r-

?- r r- -r I -i r

o -

_f_

-r- r -r- r -r- -r
r-

- '- _ _

(D
1 - ? f - - f - r r - - r - - f - - r -

r -4- r 4 ?i- -?-

-z

Q _

r? -r r- --r- - -r
I r I 1 I

1
This braided reach and near-permanently inundated area represent projected conditions within
the secondary floodplain area of the Site. The floodplain, throughout this reference reach,
continues to support forest vegetation, including shrub-scrub dominated communities within the
potentially inundated areas.
1

fi

L
1

1

32

1

t

5.0 WETLAND RESTORATION PLAN
5.1 Wetland Hydrology and Soil Restoration
Site alterations to restore groundwater, surface flow dynamics, and wetland hydrology include:
1) ditch plugs, 2) ditch and canal backfilling, 3) backwater slough construction, 4) river levee
removal, 5) tributary realignments, 6) wetland surface scarification, 7) seasonal pool
construction, and 8) woody debris deposition (Figure 13).
5.1.1 Ditch Plugs
Ditch plugs will be installed along ditches and the canal at locations identified in Figure 13. In
addition, all ditch outlets off-site will be effectively plugged to prevent migration of flows back
into the former ditch or canal. The plugs will be constructed of low density material designed to
withstand erosive forces associated with river floods. If earthen material is used, each plug will
backfilled in 2-foot lifts of vegetation free material and compacted into the bottom of the ditch.
The earthen material may be obtained from upland borrow pits or through excavation of shallow
pools along the existing channel or within the primary floodplain.
5.1.2 Ditch Backfilling
1 Ditches will be partially back-filled using on-site, earthen material from excavated depressions
and ephemeral pond construction as depicted in Figure 13. Additional fill will be obtained from
elevated areas within the floodplain, as needed. The ditches and canal backfill locations will be
filled, compacted, and graded to the approximate elevation of the adjacent wetland surface.
Certain, non-critical ditch sections shall remain open to provide habitat, flood storage, and
energy dissipation. Open ditch sections will be isolated between effectively backfilled reaches
to reduce potential for long-term, preferential groundwater migration.
5.1.3 Backwater Slough Construction
Backwater sloughs will be designed to mimic reference wetland conditions found within the Haw
River floodplain. Conditions to be mimicked include: 1) a convoluted interception of
groundwater and flood flows, 2) average slope of upland-wetland interface and the slough
surface, 3) micro-topographic variation along the slough surface, and 4) soil modification and
debris deposition.
1

t

ii
1
Backwater slough construction will occur adjacent to the existing canal in the northeastern
portion of the Site (Figure 13). Construction of the slough will begin approximately 100 feet
below the bridge along Sandy Cross Road and extend approximately 1100 feet downstream
from where the slough will daylight (slope to the existing ground elevation) and migrate naturally
within the existing topography. The backwater slough will be excavated approximately to 75 to
100 feet in width and average depth of approximately 1 foot. Once the design is complete, the
on-site storm flow will be re-modeled to verify that the slough sizing is sufficient. Sections of the
existing canal will be connected to the backwater slough. These sections will remain open and
left as deep water habitat. The remaining sections of canal will be plugged and backfilled as
depicted on the restoration plan. Existing trees along the canal will be preserved to the extent
possible.
33
r? m m a m m m m? A m m m= m! m!
v D<Omc mM:E m D<C vvJVVV
O "Mo m Klnp O !mA
A-v m m(nm U) .Zlm
°o z?r z °o z?
1
I N"
L
2
?-
7 1
0
70
-O C O -u X X O L< Z D ?00 SOD'.. m
M V) r S OD C? 0 vli p p m - i - -- -+
m O N n C7 r C7 n n O ,
p C l T`
w -r-
O Z m
C) ?M 0 Cl) ;a < -i z v X
DC m O O py D OD???, o
z° n r? g o m 0 7jD ,>. a J i 000016 N
t ,
C? g Z z A I; ??o?CD o
m Z ,
Z7m n m m mO
Ar
tntn? D ? mo <
m ??0
G7 1 i n >
m O" (n o <M
z -M mz
x `-
R:•
U) _0
mO D
r
0 X 0 0 =Z C)
< C -o x i J° I ?? ?" 'mod -
mO nO
A N r (n M ;u C r,'
g 1 O O o? )'
m -u m
c m po o _ 51116 N
A O n ?: y \
09000116 N
If
00.9116 N
r- -no
>?
i m c) cn (n
. AO22m ,. _ Ella C:1 - -
(n
;0 0
0z(')DV)
C?O-i0
M Z
Z / P2
m r r r- z }
imm
Ox 0
(n 0
„ 0
Z
ZOL 000?16 N
/
,
a ?
i

C1 v+
o
m n
n
m o
?
m

? 0
rv'
_

L
C)

L
C)
o 0
A
m
m
c m
O Z

p p O
co 4 0

O
C
cn C
M 2
?Q Z C CA N D
cn cn 1
Oq
Oo-i p ?0
mD?D? cnp
m
z-Iz O n o dz
D
t •,.
?•
50
z ZZO 00 m
n z cn?
z

1
1 5.1.4 Ephemeral Pool Construction
Ephemeral pools will be constructed in the primary floodplain along portions of ditches and the
canal and used for additional fill material as needed for the above-described tasks. The pools
will be constructed by excavating shallow, irregularly shaped (oblong) depressions placed
' perpendicular to land slope. The depressions will range to a maximum of 1-foot below the
existing surface elevation in the center of the depression. Depressional areas will extend over a
radius of 50 to 75 feet (long axis). The location and attributes of oval depressions will be
constructed to mimic backwater slough depressions and other depressional features found in
the reference wetlands. Ditches located within depressional areas will be backfilled to the
maximum 1-foot depth below the ground elevation.
5.1.5 Controlled Water Outfall Structure
Controlled water outfall structures are proposed at designated outlets through the river levee or
within low points in the floodplain (Figure 13). As surface water exits the Site, the Haw River
side may experience increased erosive flows from hydraulic head, causing instability to the bank
and the risk for headcuts. The controlled water outfall structures represent a cellular
confinement structure that will reinforce and restrain vegetated topsoils or stone infill, thereby
controlling down-slope movement due to hydrodynamic and gravitational forces.
5.1.6 River Levee Removal
The Haw River levee will be lowered between 699 and 700 feet NGVD along a reach
immediately below Church Street Extension (Figure 13). The lowered levee will extend for
approximately 125 feet. Based on flood studies, lowering of the levee to 700 feet above MSL
will allow bankfull and greater flows access to the floodplain at the top of the Site.
5.1.7 Midway Creek Restoration
Midway Creek will be diverted upon entering the Site to redirect flows onto the historic
floodplain. The floodplain in the immediate area shall be graded to accommodate the restored
stream alignment and accept bankfull flows. Flow from the realigned Midway Creek will be
directed into a depressional freshwater marsh complex (marsh). The marsh will be constructed
' within pasture in the northern portion of the Site (Figure 13) and serve as the mechanism to
divert flow back onto the historic alluvial fan and provide a perennial source for groundwater
recharge to the area. The marsh will be constructed to facilitate passive channel redevelopment
on its historic alluvial fan location. Braiding, ponding, and anastomosed conditions will occur,
similar to reference streams in the region. Reference streams often exhibit braided (alluvial
fan), backwater, or anastomosed features at the confluence with large river floodplains.
The marsh will be constructed by excavating and grading earthen material from a 50- to 75-foot
wide hummock. The marsh shall extend across the floodplain and tie into the existing or graded
side slopes as depicted in the plan. The area will be excavated to an average depth of 1 to 2
feet below the proposed floodplain surface. A series of stabilized outlets will be constructed
through the floodplain to direct water towards the floodplain, with the outlet elevation (and
resultant water surface) fixed at approximately 700 feet above NGVD.

35
I
1

J
1

The planned outlets may be temporarily stabilized with woody debris, cellular confinement
structures, or coarse rock material placed immediately above and below the structure.
However, the marsh and associated outlets do not represent permanent structures. After
successional vegetation colonizes the Site and reforestation is underway, sediment deposition
patterns, debris accumulation, alternative flow pathways, and natural adjustments will be
allowed to develop within the bottomland ecosystem, effectively replacing the pond with a
natural low slope, level spreader. The distributor pond will be constructed to persist until forest
cover and braided stream and surface topography is established. The objective in early years is
to reduce stream flow velocities, encouraging depositions, and consequently allowing micro-
and macro-topography to develop over time within the abandoned farm fields.
5.1.8 Southern Tributary Restoration
At the Site boundary, the southern tributary will be diverted and redirected onto the Haw River
floodplain. Subsequently, tributary flows will be discharged into the historic alluvial fan and
primary floodplain. As with the northern tributary, the southern tributary will be allowed to re-
develop primarily through passive processes to encourage braiding, ponding, and anastomosed
conditions.
The floodplain elevation will be graded to accommodate the slope and anticipated flood flows of
the new channel (Figure 13). The new floodplain and channel will cross the roadway easement.
Construction of a causeway for a future proposed road would require fill and the co-requisite
installation of a properly sized stream, floodplain, and drainage culverts.
5.1.9 Wetland Surface Scarification
' Before wetland plant community restoration is implemented, agricultural fields and graded back-
fill material on the primary floodplain will be scarified. The scarification will be performed as
linear bands directed perpendicular to land slope (surface water flows). After scarification, the
soil surface should exhibit complex microtopography ranging to 1 foot in vertical asymmetry
across local reaches of the landscape. Restored micro-topographic relief is considered critical
to short term hydrology restoration efforts. Therefore, multiple passes along each band is
' recommended to ensure adequate surface roughing and surface water storage potential across
the Site. Subsequently, community restoration will be initiated on scarified wetland surfaces.
1 5.1.10 Woody Debris Deposition
Woody debris cleared during restoration activities or located in adjacent areas should be placed
on restored wetland surfaces to the maximum extent practicable. The absence of large woody
debris represents a limiting factor in the establishment of habitat diversity, nutrient cycling (soil
microbial) functions, and energy dissipation on abandoned farmland (Brinson et al. 1995).
Woody debris jams may also be used as temporary stabilization structures located at controlled
water outfall locations.
r

36
1

' 5.2 Wetland Plant Community Restoration
Restoration of wetland forest communities provides habitat for area wildlife and allows for
development and expansion of characteristic wetland-dependent species across the landscape.
Ecotonal changes between community types contribute to diversity and provide secondary
benefits such as enhanced feeding and nesting opportunities for mammals, birds, amphibians,
and other wildlife. Reference data, on-site observations, and ecosystem classification have
been used to develop species associations promoted during community restoration activities.
' Target plan community associations include: 1) levee forest, 2) bottomland hardwood forest,
3) piedmont swamp forest, and 4) mesic mixed hardwood forest. Figure 14 provides a
conceptual depiction of potential forest communities to be restored. across the landscape.
Figure 15 identifies the location of each target community.
Emphasis has been focused on developing a diverse plant assemblage. This is particularly vital
due to the limited distribution of mast-producing hardwood tree species presently existing in the
vicinity, as evidenced during the reference search. Planting a variety of mast-producing species
will provide a food source for wildlife and will facilitate habitat diversity in a region dominated by
I agricultural fields.
The restoration of upland forest communities has also been proposed. Upland forest restoration
L plans are designed to enhance wetland functions and to restore a wetland/upland forest
ecotone that is considered rare in the region. The target forest community is composed
primarily of upland oaks and hickories, among intermittent stems of black gum, American beech,
and tulip poplar.
Planting Plan
The planting plan is designed to reestablish wetland community patterns across the landscape.
The plan consists of: 1) acquisition of available wetland species, 2) implementation of proposed
surface topography improvements, and 3) planting of selected species on-site. The COE
bottomland hardwood forest mitigation guidelines (DOA 1993) were utilized in developing this
plan.
Species selected for planting will be dependent upon availability of local seedling sources.
Advanced notification to nurseries (1 year) may facilitate availability of various non-commercial
species. Planted species names by community are listed below.
Levee Forest
1. Black Willow (Salix nigra)
2. River Birch (Betula nigra)
3. American Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)
4. Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
5. Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana)
6. Possum-haw (Ilex deciduous)
7. American Elm (Ulmus americana)
8. Willow Oak (Quercus phellos)
9. Tulip Poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera)
37
m m m m ? m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
a m m m? a r Mae a? m M?? m! a Mm

m m (n m to
x
V7

z
G)

U)

m _x
cn

z
0

z

O
DD -o
0

-

y
<
O-i
Z x
N

z
0
i

m
r Z
C

z

n
z

O D

0

0
n
o
z

O
a7
m

co
0
c
z

O
_
Z
m

2 ? 07 "D ? r'
m 0 m Fq
i
u
On

O m
Or ?Z z m
OX
O m m-1 0

mo
° ;:a

o
m cn
N
m
0
n

D

? J
l lD
1+ m
r . fTl
C)
z
m
r
m
m
z
v
z
n
K
C
z
N
V)
O
D
CA

71
1,11

0

rs ? - - - --
?F I
? CICE?a FA,Sctrt'fYT

. I1
r

?
\ i
•w
i

1

\ \ 000116 N
II '\
i

?M
N
0

m a)
rm
mz
<n
> = 000016 N
O>
Z m
N ;rs

\a i I l I I I r? ? /
v

C)
v,
o
n
o
m
o
?
m
°
L
c? °
C o a
m C-
C
O Z
L,1
N N
p O

O
O y
1
W
0
ooC) m D

* y? cyq -1
x O
l
z -
?z
? n ° ?O?D
tt--
° m?D?m
? ?O
?o
m N 0
`F^
T 1 H.
z
z n
z
r C
ZO Ou D

?O w

(7
m
D
m z z w (D

/.
r; .
7
1
'
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
1.
2. Tulip Poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera)
Cherrybark Oak (Quercus pagoda)
3. Sugarberry (Celtis laevigata)
4.
3. Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda)
Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana)
6. Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii)
7. Bitternut Hickory (Carya cordiformis)
8. Shagbark Hickory (Carya ovata)
9. Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
10 American Elm (Ulmus americana)
Piedmont Swamp Forest
1. American Elm (Ulmus americana)
2. Willow Oak (Quercus phellos)
3. Overcup Oak (Quercus lyrata)
4. Cherrybark Oak (Quercus pagoda)
5. Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxu)
6. Swamp Cottonwood (Populus heterophylla)
7. Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
8. Winged Elm (Ulmus alata)
9. Ironwood (Carpinus carofiniana)
Tree establishment within swamp forest communities may be complicated by shallow inundation
in low-lying areas. The stems of planted seedlings must elevate the leaf area above the level of
inundation, ranging from 0.5 to 1.5 feet above the soil surface.
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest
1. Tulip Poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera)
2. Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum)
3 White Oak (Quercus alba)
3. Southern Red Oak (Quercus falcata)
4. American Beech (Fagus grandifolia)

' 5.
6. Northern Red Oak (Quercus rubra)
Pignut Hickory (Carya glabra)
7. Mockernut Hickory (Carya tomentosa)
8.
9. Black gum (Nyssa sylvatica)
Cherrybark Oak (Quercus pagoda)
10. Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana)
r Table 3 depicts the total number of stems and species distribution for each plant community
association. Bare-root seedlings of tree species will be planted within specified areas at a
density of 680 stems per acre (8-foot centers). In summary approximately 31,000 trees will be
planted within the approximately 45.6 acre restoration site.

40
1

Table 3. Planting Plan, Haw River Swamp Restoration Site

1
u

1
1
Vegetation
Association
(Planting area
Levee Forest Piedmont
Swamp Forest Bottomland
Hardwood
Forest Mesic
Hardwood
Forest TOTAL STEMS
PLANTED
Stem Target
Area acres ac 680/ac
1.9 ac 680/ac
22.1 ac 680/ac
17.7 ac 680/ac
3.9 ac
45.6 ac
F SPECIES # planted
(% total) # planted
(% total) # planted
(% total) # planted
(% total) # planted
(% total)
Black Willow 65(5) 65
River Birch 65(5) 65
American Sycamore 195(15) 195
Possum-haw 130(10) 130
Willow Oak 195(15) 2,250 (15) 2,445
American Elm 195(15) 1,500 (10) 600(5) 2,295
Green Ash 130(10) 750(5) 600(5) 1,480
Ironwood 130(10) 1,500 (10) 600(5) 135(5) 2,365
Tulip Poplar 195(15) 1,800 (15) 135(5) 2,130
Swamp Chestnut Oak 3,000 (20) 1,800 (15) 4,800
Cherrybark Oak 1,500 (10) 1,800 (15) 135(5) 3,435
Sugarberry 1,200 (10) 1,200
Loblolly Pine 1,200 (10) 1,200
Bitternut Hickory 1,200 (10) 1,200
Shagbark Hickory 1,200 (10) 1,200
Swamp Cottonwood 750(5) 750
Winged Elm 750(5) 750
Overcup Oak 3,000 (20) 3,000
Sugar Maple 270(10) 270
White Oak 405(15) 405
Southern Red Oak 405(15) 405
American Beech 270(10) 270
Northern Red Oak 270(10) 270
Mockernut Hickory 270(10) 270
Pignut Hickory 270(10) 270
Black gum 135(5) 135
TOTAL 1,300 15,000 12,000 2,700 31,000
1: Some non-commercial elements may not be locally available at the time of planting. The stem count
for unavailable species should be distributed among other target elements based on the percent (%)
distribution. One year of advance notice to forest nurseries will promote availability of some non-
commercial elements. However, reproductive failure in the nursery may occur.
2: Scientific names for each species, required for nursery inventory, are listed in Section 5.2 of the
mitigation plan.

L
41

Planting will be performed between December 1 and March 15 to allow plants to stabilize during
the dormant period and set root during the spring season. Opportunistic species, which typically
dominate early- to mid-successional forests, have been excluded from initial plantings on
interior floodplains. Opportunistic species such as sweetgum, red maple, loblolly pine, and
black willow may become established. However, to the degree that long-term species diversity
is not jeopardized, these species should be considered important components of steady-state
forest communities. Planted stems of black willow, ironwood, and possum haw will be placed
on ditch outlet plugs for stabilization purposes.
The planting plan is the blueprint for community restoration. The anticipated results stated in
the regulatory success criteria (Section 6.0) may reflect vegetative conditions achieved after
steady-state forests are established over many years. However, the natural progression
through early successional stages of floodplain forest development will prevail regardless of
human interventions over a 5-year monitoring period.
t

11
e

t

1
42

11

t
6.0 MONITORING PLAN
The Monitoring Plan consists of a comparison between reference and restoration areas along
with evaluation of jurisdictional wetland criteria (DOA 1987). Monitoring will entail analysis of
two primary parameters: hydrology and vegetation. Monitoring of restoration efforts will be
performed for 5 years or until success criteria are fulfilled.
6.1 Hydrology
After hydrological modifications have been completed at the Site, continuously recording,
surficial monitoring wells will be installed in accordance with specifications in U.S. Corps of
Engineers', Installing Monitoring Wells/Piezometers in Wetlands (WRP Technical Note HY-IA-
3.1, August 1993). Monitoring wells will be set to a depth of approximately 24 inches below the
soil surface. Screened portions of each well will be surrounded by filter fabric, buried in a
screened well sand, and sealed with a bentonite cap to prevent siltation and surface flow
infiltration during floods. Recording devices will be placed above the projected flood elevation.
Wells may be stabilized from flood shear by attaching a reinforcing steel bar (re-bar).
Eight monitoring wells will be installed in wetland restoration areas to provide representative
coverage within each physiographic landscape area depicted in Figure 16. Two wells will also
be placed in reference areas in similar landscape positions to use as comparison with on-site
conditions. In addition, one monitoring well will be placed within the Haw River to provide
stream flow depths and record bankfull events and one well will be placed within the Site to
monitor ponding and inundation of surface water.
Hydrological sampling will be performed in restoration and reference areas during the growing
season (26 March to 6 November) at intervals necessary to satisfy the hydrology success
criteria within each physiographic landscape area (Figure 15).
6.2 Hydrology Success Criteria
Target hydrological characteristics have been evaluated using regulatory wetland hydrology
criteria and reference wetland sites.
Regulatory Wetland Hydrology Criteria
The regulatory wetland hydrology criterion requires saturation (free water) within 1 foot of the
soil surface for 5 percent of the growing season under normal climatic conditions. In some
instances, the regulatory wetland hydroperiod may extend for between 5 and 12.5 percent of the
growing season.
Reference Wetland Sites
Two groundwater monitoring wells will be placed in the reference wetland areas. These wells
will provide reference hydroperiods for the primary and secondary floodplain (bottomland
hardwood and swamp forest) physiographic area.
1
43

009606 N
? V

ACCESS EASEMENT' _
o

O '

m %..
Z _ z OOOOL6 N

K C) -i < r1 m cn m K K: U r
0O C) C N O N Z C_ m r
m Q O n1 1 - J -
Z m-, A W
A
O m Z Z O G7
n C) C)
D C) C7 f
_
T7
Kira'

m

-
r
C7
C7
o m
o
O
?
i
m -
j ?• -
D r
i 0
r
rn
-?
?7 f'1 :j m C QO s l
?l
w t?' '?

"
S0
6 N

40,

v

t5. -

9 L ?m 1 v,
h C:

I `

?J
r'T h

/

Y
r

1

Omi6 N

L

?' ?i ?• ?; OOOZL6 N

w n
n o A v ?

T
m
m
Z O \
O m z C (n C D Cn (? C. u (?
S
`
G7 o C) C) Z S
O cn o
D (n 0 m
C
z
A

m o

? n ?p "
SO '? rD ??oo D 7o
m o
Z
v,
w

Z
m
z
0c0 g
-•? Z
v?m -t
G7 p
D n
z o o m z Z

Success Criteria
' Target hydrologic characteristics include a minimum regulatory criteria or a comparison to
reference data in drought years (years in which reference is within 2 percent of or below the
regulatory wetland criteria).
Under normal climatic conditions, the hydrologic success criterion requires saturation (free
water) within one foot of the soil surface for a minimum of 5 percent of the growing season for
' the secondary floodplain and bottomiand hardwood areas depicted in Figure 15. The primary
floodplain and Piedmont swamp forest quadrants must support saturation (free water) within
1 foot of the soil surface for a minimum of 12.5 percent of the growing season. This hydroperiod
translates to saturation for a minimum, 12-day (5 percent) to 28-day (12.5 percent) consecutive
period during the growing season, which extends from March 26 to November 6 (USDA 1977).
' In atypical dry years, the hydroperiod must exceed 75 percent of the hydroperiod exhibited by
the reference wells located within the same physiographic landscape area. Reference well data
will be used to compare wetland hydroperiods between the restoration areas and relatively
' undisturbed reference wetlands. This data will supplement regulatory evaluation of success
criteria and also provide information that shall allow interpretation of mitigation success in years
not supporting "normal rainfall conditions."
6.3 Vegetation
' Restoration monitoring procedures for vegetation are designed in accordance with EPA
guidelines presented in Mitigation Site Type (MIST) documentation (EPA 1990) and COE
Compensatory Hardwood Mitigation Guidelines (DOA 1993). The following presents a general
' discussion of the monitoring program.
Vegetation will receive a visual evaluations during the periodic reading of monitoring wells to
' ascertain the general conditions and degree of overtopping of planted elements by weeds.
Subsequently, quantitative sampling of vegetation will be performed once annually during the
fall (October / November) for 5 years or until vegetation success criteria are achieved.
Sampling dates may be modified to accommodate river flood events and plot inundation, as
needed.
During quantitative vegetation sampling in early fall of the first year, approximately 15 sample
transects will be randomly placed (stratified) within the Site to equally represent the various
hydrologic regimes and plant communities. Each transect will be 300 feet in length and 8 feet in
width (0.055 acre). Best professional judgment may be necessary to establish vegetative
monitoring plots upon completion of construction activities. In each sample plot, vegetation
parameters to be monitored include species composition and species density. Visual
observations of the percent cover of shrub and herbaceous species will also be recorded but not
used for vegetative success criteria. Sample-plot distributions are expected to resemble
locations depicted in Figure 16.
t
45

6.4 Vegetative Success Criteria
' Success criteria have been established to verify that the vegetation component supports
community elements necessary for floodplain forest development. Success criteria are
dependent upon the density and growth of characteristic forest species. Additional success
criteria are dependent upon density and growth of "Character Tree Species," which include
planted species, those listed by Schafale and Weakley (1990), and species identified in the
RFEs. All canopy tree species planted and identified in the reference forest will be utilized to
define "Character Tree Species" as termed in the success criteria.
An average density of 320 stems per acre of Character Tree Species must be surviving in the
first three monitoring years. Subsequently, 290 character tree stems per acre must be surviving
in year 4, and 260 character tree stems per acre must be surviving in year 5. Planted species
must represent a minimum of 30 percent of the required stem per acre total (96 stems/acre).
Each naturally recruited character species may represent up to 10 percent of the required stem
per acre total. In essence, seven naturally recruited character species may represent a
maximum of 70 percent of the required stem/acre total. Additional stems of naturally recruited
species above the 70 percent threshold are discarded from the statistical analysis. The
remaining 30 percent are not necessarily removed from the Site, but will be left as a reserve and
future seed source for species maintenance during mid-succession phases of forest
' development.
During the first sample event, a visual survey will be performed in the reference wetlands to
' identify all canopy tree species represented within target communities. These reference tree
species will be utilized to define "character tree species" as termed in the success criteria.
During quantitative vegetation sampling in early fall of the first year, approximately five sample
plots will be randomly placed (stratified) within the Site to equally represent the various
hydrologic regimes and plant communities. However, best professional judgment may be
' necessary to establish vegetative monitoring plots upon completion of construction activities. In
each sample plot, vegetation parameters to be monitored include species composition and
species density. Visual observations of the percent cover of shrub and herbaceous species will
also be recorded but not used for vegetative success criteria. Sample-plot distributions are
expected to resemble locations depicted in Figure 16.
In each plot, presence/absence of shrub and herbaceous species will be recorded. A wetland
data form (DOA 1987) will be completed to document the classification and description of
vegetation, soil, and hydrology.
6.5 Contingency
In the event that vegetation or hydrology success criteria are not fulfilled, a mechanism for
contingency will be implemented. If vegetation success criteria are not achieved based on
average density calculations from combined sample plot data, supplemental planting will be
' performed with tree species approved by regulatory agencies. Supplemental planting will be
performed as needed until achievement of vegetation success criteria. No quantitative sampling
requirements are proposed for herb assemblages as part of the vegetation success criteria.
Development of floodplain forests over several decades will dictate the success in migration and
46

establishment of desired understory and groundcover populations. Visual estimates of the
percent cover of herbaceous species and photographic evidence will be reported for information
purposes.
For vegetation contingency, replanting and extended monitoring periods will be implemented if
community restoration does not fulfill minimum species density and distribution requirements.
Hydrological contingency will require consultation with hydrologists, WRP, and regulatory
agencies if wetland hydrology restoration is not achieved. Wetland surface modification,
including construction of ephemeral pools, represents a likely mechanism to increase the
floodplain area that supports jurisdictional wetlands. Recommendations for contingency to
establish wetland hydrology will be implemented and monitored until the Hydrology Success
Criteria are achieved.
6.6 Monitoring Report Submittal
An Annual Wetland Monitoring Report (AWMR) will be, prepared at the end of each monitoring
year (growing season). The AWMR will depict the sample plot and quadrant locations and
include photographs which illustrate Site conditions. Data compilations and analyses will be
' presented as described in Sections 6.1 through 6.4 including graphic and tabular format, where
practicable. Raw data in paper or computer (EXCEL) file format will be prepared and submitted
as an appendix or attachment to the AWMR.

47
1

7.0 RESTORATION DESIGN UNITS
The riverine floodplain physiographic areas encompass approximately 42.8 acres (Figure 6).
Based on restoration analyses (Section 4.0), the area includes approximately 34.9 acres of
wetland restoration in prior converted cropland and 2.1 acres of wetland enhancement.
Figure 17 and depicts the area of riverine wetland restoration and enhancement (i.e. bottomland
hardwood restoration). The remaining on-site acreage (10.6 acres) includes levees, streams
(open water), upland buffer, and groundwater slope restoration and preservation areas.
Restoration plans will re-introduce surface water flood hydrodynamics from a 52.7 square mile
watershed. The plan includes establishment of an array of riverine communities, including levee
forests, bottomland hardwood forests, and riverine swamp forests. Therefore, riverine
hydrodynamic and biogeochemical functions will be restored, including pollutant removal,
organic carbon export, sediment retention, nutrient cycling, flood storage, and energy
dissipation. Physical wetland functions typically associated with water quality will be replaced
within the Cape Fear River basin.
Biological functions associated with the riverine system will also be restored or enhanced
including in-stream aquatic habitat, structural floodplain habitat, and interspersion and
connectivity between the restored stream, floodplain, and adjacent uplands.

t

1

48
? ? r? rr ?s r¦ r? ? ?r r? r rr r? r ?r r¦ rr rr err r?

? t t

O
0
? w
V ?
O1 c0
I+ I+
I + Q' rn
N
Z ?Al
A A m ;;a zl c m m V) m K V7
m z m O X X -0 X Z D
O O m
Vl m yy m V, ryy N V) 0 Eli
OA Z? pZ A m
D m m m > ° In G) rP - c) C) 0
D
Z Z
m: ?C N X -a OZ 00 c
°
Om Z Z? 0 D -i --A
r m m ° M co
g A o A c-<
o ° m z Z ?
Z m
s
?Z
M
M
m
\\\\?? \1?\\\ \ I
--------------------
IT A 1 \
ry ?j? l \
lei ? ?\?\\ \ ??
tv -

1.
? \ I
\C
_°
-------------
> .,. OOOll6 N
77
------------ ------ ---------------- -
----------------------
I ?
I \ t
1
, r
x
} - ,?.?, .ii.
OOOZl6 N
? m m ? C7
U) x Z c Cn D to o4
O
C_ C_ -1 -4 0 F M
?a o c) c) Cm0 2: :E '' N0-1?? CAS n CCf -
c ° 0 :q Z5 m
Z M NZ -_I 00 ?Z-9v<
p ZZ° pv m cn?
Z_ 0 °0 Z Dm Z
JL_
---?.
r
' 8.0 REFERENCES
' Brinson M., B. Swift, R. Plantico, and J. Barclay. 1981. Riparian Ecosystems: Their ecology
and status. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS 81/17.
r Brinson M.M., F.R. Hauer, L.C. Lee, W.L. Nutter, R.D. Smith, and D. Whigham. 1995.
Guidebook for Application of Hydrogeomorphic Assessments to Riverine Wetlands. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
Brower, J.E., J.H. Zar, and C.N. von Ende. 1990. Field and Laboratory Methods for General
Ecology. William C. Brown Publishers, Debuque, IA.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1993 (unpubplished). Corps of Engineers Wilmington District.
Compensatory Hardwood Mitigation Guidelines 912/8/93).
East Satellite Corporation (EASC). 1997. Comprehensive land cover mapping for the State of
North Carolina. Final Report. Rockville, MD.
' Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). , 1990. Mitigation Site Clasification (MIST). A
Methodology to Classify Pre-Project Mitigation Sites and Develop Performance
Standards for Construction and Restoration of Forested Wetlands. USEPA Workshop,
August 13-15, 1989. USEPA Region IV and Hardwood Research Cooperative, North
Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
Griffith, G.E. and J.M. Omernik, 2000. Draft Level III and IV of North Carolina. U.S. Geological
Survey Map and Description, Reston, VA. Scale 1:250,000.
Griffith, G.E., Omernick, J.M., Comstock, J.A., Schafale, M.P., McNab, W.H., Lenat, D.R.
,
MacPherson, T.F., Glover, J.B., and Shelburne, U.B. 2002. Ecoregions of North
Carolina and South Carolina (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables,
and photographs): Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,500,000).
Keller, M.E., C.S. Chandler, and J.S. Hatfield. 1993. Avian Communities in Riparian Forests of
Different Widths in Maryland and Delaware. Wetlands 13(2):137-144, Special Issue,
' June 1993. The Society of Wetland Scientists.
Rosgen, D.L., 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena, 22, 169-199.
' Schafale, M. P., A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation, NC Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, NC DEM, Raleigh NC.
50

I?

1

C
1
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1977. Soil Survey of Guilford County, North Carolina.
United States Department of Agriculture.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1992. Soil Survey of Rockingham County, North
Carolina. United States Department of Agriculture.
51
1

9.0 APPENDICES

1

1

1

52

1

1

1
1

APPENDIX A
RFP response #16-AW3001 easement boundary
1

ti
,60C a .1 3'M.IS 7IMM(S)
006 009 00f 0 091 005 3Na15
tlN1108VJ HLaION ALN(lOJ VNNONINJON dMSNM01 31lIANOSdNIS ONUWX3
U01)611a5U05 $ UDLIClO 3b ?!
M1 -1d 'OLD 'B-0
_
(3119 a3Na 1AM) SO3JO059a IBiOlei( j tl3?NtloJ 6N033tlN1f105
t
s
S
HRISA
3rlrl
?
i
?
7
T
Sr7
\
o
o
Z
1
L
1WV Q
LL
LR
Q =1 -Od
O I 'OLD '9'O
&0
4
q
91 -
WNaOJ
GH033U
? ?
N
¢
A d
9llZ 'Od Y9lL '9Y] °IH s4a '04 '"Li. •6•a
-
?
tZ 'Od i
} MN383:M AWflM WYNONIX)ON
I
J
3JN3a
WYNONWJDa
c
Y19L 'Od 'W6S 'n1, Ma 'Od '6919 1311 a30N
3JN3aifla AINMJ Oa03Lf10 I 3JN3a3d3a ).Lm m Oa0nUl0 MV
0'l'1 'SN6I*c:c NOftVa013'd8 I 3T7 ''-=XC NOTSV807S98
a3Na MVtt
Z9Z 'Od 9162 '9'0 LL'W3L
I
- NOS@IVHOIN M.OY.rs1LS5 3m
NJaO
,
.LB'GiL °?
a31dn9 NV91VNdIN ,09 'C0 B6L JWN
raaD M,zz.LSLLDN
•.n
M

'
,
OZIZ 'Jd 'L911. 's'O N1VA a3Na MYN ` ...:';?
dl3
Y':"
9' Sc
.
3JN3NBm Awnw NVNONWJOa JNN Ny6C.9U 19T
,
609t 'Od '0069 '9'0
''?'?
g9 L1C
\ .
•
30Nififla AWfgJ OaOdllfq OWN _N.6C.WYd9_ -- .'.'. ?^? .. ?."'sd'. $d
NOSONVH>'I78 710Z7=L
S¢I.
15. I?+ \i 11N 96.91A95 .....'.
.
s3uw ZL
LOWOMV I 10VNWOJ aOd Ir? t'%•
r:
*
? .
>
?
30V3aJV Nd1Va01S38 daM m _ \ ?.'.•
:5j1
f9 9d; i
\
•
.
'
'
,"
.
(x331119 NVPMk9I. .
set
/ ON) 0 31UN n(" St
'1130 335

1LZ9-L6-OlY 19U Kid ON
: it
n.\-. .'
•:
19YZ 'm vu
WLZ-IL-MtL6L Kidd CIA!
60£l 'Jd '9901 '8'0 L },r'x. \ Y N t 1' ` •''1N' 9. ri 'Od 'iC 9'd
SOOa3.
1TL t ) iea
- l'J }
{
.

WLL
1VYa3rn0 a307o oM

A IUS a'
3001x6 bi._ y?=
3
\ ??- i6li-l loAaAing O?laq?LaL"•`•
t
\
1 ?p
?'
t
e
S
t
• L ......? dNVls NO WEIS
L
g
+
\ ? '1
' •
'L?OL •
1, ' ?
Au
y
$
V !47
O
W
p
7(9
!w ?pu. •uagwnu avgcl6w 'am)ou6!e !.wBuo Aw vcvuPY popueuro w or-L4 'S.O V.
_
'? tpLOaaP w PwHdad vvr tqd v141 ZiZq7rHood `333 noon 4! Pun., usIx-u-q
4 Mold -WI u
H1q w 4. a1. P--
- -
uno
v
'f0066C
p
p p
q
1
41 1N4
/L
BOOM Iµ1.daP Wo PIg9M Aq Wtolnaloa olopvld to Nw all loot !(n41o) (W
:• "S
a
' •'33.ISHOvd '?3S'VOO9 y PHP•ooal uoad,-sop ;ssp) (u.,sVUadne Aw -i-I so- X-
r'
.?l ` lonloo uv) wo4 uot.Vad- A. m.n -p - told .10 1o4t A/MOa - TMWKg-V- [$1 I
QZ -pVgpgnv o )v u.jjIuU•P
a9 0; u.3dvaxa r+4lo m •AanFn6 palvPm-1.Iwa o 's6oled 5Y9gxo )o uoOoulgwww
•
an vo yarrc
(4o-.3 w3HwawoJ) A On- 1v41ouv W H! f-- H4i 3-41 y'Wv 1

1!e I oy'
-0 puncdl •.pq uo 7AOgv Mq j -av Am 0 oleo
punou6{o.u? u
vaANw
alvw
enoI-N "NOliaH -MVHtauwa AuH otvao
l 1 0l apvw 6 1dwvNO oil uowlolavlP Hfo•(wns
91171, l0'i
1113MSYd NOILVA3135NOO
IVON30 a30Nn OW
SW3 c1c NOLMOLS38 VHOItM
ONlISIX3?-
4,v
0 :LSV{t? ' m
399tZ;iCS; ?' 0 19 "Od 'YC '8'd
140W Na3LSV31U310N
??
? l::•..:: •? -' ? ' E?JIW a3IxOJ 61,0038

?•
LSeZ?ZIKOlL6L NN JN
'e'9 N a O9
L +?' .'. .+•'! L N
y
•''
mtl '6d 906 NVRNadIS la OS
v'?»:. .
,..?`r y:
MM RMLS
.lyLSDO lL9Z-L6-00'196L Nd ON $?

a HRMK
/
..?L?`
t
•
'
,
g9LK•K4LLN- Ntl 'Je ? M
j
De
,
s
?
•
'
JNN
a43N3S/3 S537JV N?l .. .,
Iii; NOR
dI3 t
1LOLRZt 9N'9L?.e.

t ` t, n a OD'6L
9091 'Od

? Mr.6Z99S

TSLL 7d W '0 /e..?
ONIOp
YlR-1140'1[61 tHd ON
d .:{y?;.; ':l:
Sc 62999 JWN 61.995 ?-
y
LR
atmmaod ?
? _, .OLZC9
'4t1dn: .si'YLrr .;t 't,.

R ?I?,w Kid
-aa
'09
YCBY-C9-00'196L Kid ON
a"
:.
3.00,9ZJ105
- 192 389 71'M
d13 f??{?`.5::+:!::.59'?CG+l:%
. .99. dp N381YY
- --
wd a+
sl-tv ,LL"WL JWN
JNN
"'D
yd 6 dp
On"

JNN 11436aSV3 5530JY
.09 SNUSUG
BDLS-/O-EO'LLBL Kid ON
$ 9LZ Jd 'COOI •9'0
` sum
ONN 3M'f ¢uvg 'w xs)3,m 9 STDO LLLOLC ONY I66L
191 AVN :Q3LV9 Y I5)- 8 - 09NZL (5)939NFIN
dVN VY131 Ot ONeaVJJ1 Al7Iomme OYV VN
Z MO'I!

Y Y M 031V0P1 4 1Vld 50LL A9 °1111SiA1 ditl Van SW
0S N .4,0 - W3

/HeJ O.Fa/LS.R n.N v Jg1
a.a o7? 3

,Gw61, )uauabvuvry l ?.'V

HIHd N.g9a an
fik-S - 'Oa0
?? - AMN
v..a .4000 5 009-07 4WN - 2GON
owl 0.A H)HF.u07 - NKJ
uo1JO}ratlsvo j Io
a.au6lodxa 0uyvuJ VY4Y -lOQJN
Hood - 9d
aoag PHHO - B'0
nu
104unJ - J7
'? MN `.

.y.a
HvHHm
7Haw bungx3 - Sda3
lHnuoJ 6u
R
0H
3 - 7X73
cOG ?') As dm \

6HN Yd - Sad
05 0
- Xd 640HH3 - Nd3
P'o4J- 1fJ
Juawnu.ry AI/a aanuo7 6 llg - /YNO?
\ 0:4
\

:
Ao,w.d Jo M w 5V - 3/M
;uvuunnd b H6P3 - 783 \ ,18'LCl
q.d W.0 - on ?
, 11.11-005
9HC)-
/0-1P0a - JIB
'
? q\
y
A
oM-JO-746AY - N/N '1?9

tuownuory HtuaHOO Sunelx3 - rya?
/HUxp pv
uaumu \
;
SW W! - JAN
- d.

mo
O .?
RMS w4 60M
X3 - 93 d,
J
ara?37 a
aandMOO
AS S3aM Zt t00L'O11Y / 1JVaLNOJ
WA BUMPY NOILVa019a da9 71,101
a3111,1KOJ AS S3MV R - (1N3113SV3
5537JV AS M3N 3NL OMOMOM) 1NBR3SV3
NILVA339NOJ lYa3N39 a30Na aNV1
9.N3LSAS NONYSOMM 10 30V3wv WIM

3A1 S6N 1V 03J39anS
JWV 3x1, ow A7NO a31V/L w 3aV 'aw a3N6w (a
:UMM AW AIMOH JON 3N1' (ONNIVNO Will
NO a3a w SO SBwz a311NA NNaYad/a ,05 (C) ,Wu (L
:1WN07 AIMMU M W 031577 XY1 W
ALhMiVHdN9OM33ML3o73N3NW17 A110.7 AYh%JVWiXP31SIa30NVNaMVN 4/AVOW 3N1 i*U
N7WJ 3N1 (9
(11,01 SL--YL An-) A31an5 aucY
M)OH0 3N1 Maw MOO u 3a3M SvAv Mitt SV
31VAWLaddV But, 6NC1 mm aN1, 7W3a16 711, (9
waw
SOU MONS JON 00 Sd AM OI71O Wdai WAINMAF3N
3'1091, 1 6%%3NWV 37x7 a3391o "Mm"
,OS OAMM SV AMC SOU SMONS 19 Sid,YC '8d (r
SM Na0N3A
000".., 7XIdva 0d0I 32MM 13dYd
*661 31117 uw
ONTO Laai
JN 3oNVa0 3MVt
S05n a00N31
zJ-vZo95 0 a30W 4"
OOOYL+t MW10MOdO1 WW" a3dVd
xz maw Own
1861 31W ?
am Wdw
JN aNNO3o
Sdpa CMU
ONN107M1 3NL AOa3 NWvl NOaYAPX1YM NVWVadW (C
J1 OWZ MUM 70WNW7 7VJMZNWl ON (Z
S" 1J31dV AM 1 09l0.17a JO S?a(.iMo a3 0
15GL3 AVry 3717N1 '(SixOail3a 335) Aba3N a310N
3x1' a3 umm amain a x17 S1H3A'nwai 77V WOA31an5
3w at a3NWNan1 3&M NJW3S 3W1 JO S17nvar
a0N WSIUNIIAW 37M WX 3711 L' WSGV ON 31ON (1
Sam
Aat903x AWNW7 AVN1'1YA7GW
3N1 xO /9 Jd W W d M OWMOa3a
XS UWWW JOVW d0 NOOaad V MW
AVNOMNJOa 3N1 d0 9112 " 2911 7110
A7 a3aa0038 A103dOW W U JO 77V OMd3
NWWM A1NN07 AwKsmio JOa
3W 30 *PPC W T66 H•0 NI Maym3a
xis a 8mm J7VW d0 AMMOd V MM
ANTS URY ALNfW MMAM"
3N! i0 (OLIZ *ad 2911 Iola NI a36n1JS30
V1a, 0NN WUG) 8091 Ztl Vs,, W,7
W UWM 7N ALbGdi%W 3N1 Ja 77V 0M3B
7sA7Ni61711 ®7
1
1
1

1

1
1

1
APPENDIX B
Site Photographs

Groundwater slope north of canal facing east (early Spring 2003).
The Haw River, moving east through the Site during high flow (early Spring 2003).
Field south of the Haw River, facing northeast (early Spring 2003).
Field located between the Haw River and the canal, facing east (early Spring 2003).

Photograph taken from bridge over the canal, facing east (early Spring 2003).
Photograph taken near Benchmark 7 (BM7) facing southwest (early Spring 2003).

tw Y : .?Y.1 2 r
\? r-r Sl 1?J ?r •? \ a
' .• r, - ?r _ yam. t ? x ? '?e? ay
.<?`? .r11`i?i "x?+t? •3„?y'+1 _, ? '.,:t t ?? c 4? a? y i_ ''', _ 3 ? ..
Photograph taken from Benchmark 10 (BM10) looking north.

' ?sl ??,_}?-.]rte w ?-?r?'1?_1f.??Yy1?-'r "w4WWr?`tr??E+1?YCTMAh?'I. M?t''?'? ??y." S
l a , rt* .s, t r.1 ?lr '4 r rt r tAC'y j w !r
3 ?: , -his-. `? i r •' %, ? ? h??+S ?t ~ a ??? ? ? rr. _,L• N '' ?+v ?...,,
'?//+?' ??f)? .? ' aa. d \ f ? y>rr. L. . sr,. :' t ` ilR f L •4j
\°¢?rr 4 r`1 -`;?? ifs 1. ?.: `? c J Z _ ?''k 1ta w- l• Y r ` ;' 4 >`
Photograph taken from Benchmark 10 (BM10) looking west.
Photograph taken from Benchmark 2 (BM2) looking southeast.

Photograph taken from Benchmark 2 (BM2) looking southeast.
t.?
y
. ?
3•t
•k?
4• i X
'v
?
y

Photograph taken from Benchmark 4 (BM4) looking northeast.
Photograph taken from Benchmark 4 (BM4) looking west.
w?
?. t c

Photograph taken from Benchmark 5 (BM5) looking northeast.

Photograph taken from Benchmark 5 (BM5) looking west.
Photograph taken from Benchmark 6 (BM6) looking southwest.
!, •. ?. ?.. ? -. ? jam' `4/ -
+ J1
, • L .11 ' ? t s
?`'•.'".P '?` - - ? ?2 t ?'?"'?? 71- := Ni rj`!?t.2'i`ait"y
r 4
e
to ? 'i'1

Photograph taken from Benchmark 6 (BM6) looking northeast.

t ?
yr t ?Rn,f
)?r.? >..t t. _ ..n'1 1 ._..t ..? ,. "?. ?_ ?. ?:??«r'1•.1?A? a ._? ; :?. t.*?
Photograph taker from Benchmark 7 (BM7) looking south.
1

t

I Photograph taker: from Benchmark 7 (BM7) looking east.

t
f
III

,:c ???Yr`n,r?y:??s,..-?s? ?r?sx?x! ....?...r..-.»:.- ?.-s,..... .--; ? ._::.4 -'?, .... " •`rvr-SKr ?[ ' :q.'ty?r?•' • . ?t',z ' -
r ? ` 1
l
iw,
",? ,lf.e ?? .s: -: /.• ..?.? k??=r`.: _ ° _ '?"_-1 -? 7. :?? tvt/ ???,3' .p. t?.^-'frt•.
Photograph taken from Benchmark 8 (BM8) looking south.
1

7-1
<!? ar , f f t y
Z rf ?§ ???.?..F?i ?•x eY.'?? ' t Y rFa ? ? eJt f f f',? j I? ? ?'? ?.
I Photograph taken from Benchmark 9 (BM9) looking south-southwest.

t
it

f
t
P_j
t
1
t
1
w
1
t

APPENDIX C
HAW RIVER CROSS-SECTIONS
t
r
1
1
1
1
1
f
1
1
1
f
t
1
1
1
t
1
f
L
!t?
R$
m
U
O
c
.O
4-1
U
Cl)
O
L
U
O
r
r

O
O

O
O
.O
O
O
00
O
O
~ cu

O
O
M

i 5
O
'
LO c6
I U?
CD

O
CY)
O

I i
O
r

0 0
0
d' N O
O O C)

C 0 0

oo (6 4
0) 0) m
(D CO (D

C) O O

N O 00

cfl co CO

I
t
t
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
O
M
T-
O
N
r
O

s
o
O
O ?-
o
a*)

m C)
O
oo
i
t?
= O c N !
rte. O .?

(0 co
N p =i
3 LO 1 it
T
O C)
d.
O

p 0
CO
,_
C1
O
O

N N
N 0
O
L r'
/
M
V
O

O O O O O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
oo c o 4 N O o o ( 6 4 N
O O O C )
C fl C fl O Cfl
I
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
Y
t
t
1
t
t
t
0
L
Im
V
E
.r
0
0
4-
0
r.
0
v
a?
Cl)
0
V
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
w 0 mot- N O w co d- N
(0 co
? ? ? ? ? Cfl C0

co
CO
Lf

It
O
co Q
M U)
N
N
T-1
O
r

0
L
li
01
l
III
I?
m
t?
U
Ti

7?
1

t
r

1

t

t
r

1

1
C-n
? v
L
O
O
o')

co
O
00
LO

- o

LO
V
O

o C
o
cu
C)
LO U
v Cl)
? d-
Cl) C)

LO
M
O '
.
L M
V
LO

O
O N
/?
V
L

to O
T- i
LO
O

O O O O O O o 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
r- O? M ti Cfl ?? M N
O O O O O O O O O O
f` 1? CU CO Cfl C4 CO Cfl Cfl CO
UOIIBA013

t
t

r
t
e
t
i
t
r
G

co
O
O

0

to L
'
_ U
)
ca
V

O c

? U
0
. co
v LO

V) co
O
M

O
V LO
N

.? i O
N
L
LO

I
j ?
LO
O

O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O
O 0 6 I ` 6 6 4 M

C9 C fl C fl C D C D C D (D
UOIB AG13
t
i
1
1
f
1
1
1
1
t
t
1
1
f
1
f
O L

o o

O
O
O
LO
O

O

O

RS
V
Cfl

0 O
C
LO 0
1.
LO C90.1
0 A
U ;
CD ?
_
V LO co

co O

N LO
O co
O
co
? N i
N

O 'n
U. T-
O
r
L
O

° ° °
CD LO O LO O LO O LO
6 o 0 0 6 r ,: t ` 6 6 L 6

0 ( D C D ( 0 ( D C (
D 0 ( 0
UO IIBA 013 i
i
t
t
s
i
t
i
r
^V+
W
O
a
O
V
0
C.)
LL
O
OD
LO
00
i
O
00

ti i
'
i
O
LO

.O
CD I
LO
LO
O
Lo
=

LO O

CU!
U ;I

°
co .
d.
LO
co
O
co
LO
N
O
N
Lid
T
O

Lid
CD CD CD
LO O Lid
co 00 r`

CO CD co
O Lc7
? O
O Cfl

O Ln O
Cfl Ln Ln

CO Cfl Cfl
O
t
f
t
t
t
1
1
1
1
1
t
O

's?•, :2 1. .:; , ??, ,;

fY:

yC i`?C

\
0

co
2
U)

N

V
,ar
s' 00

sR ++ +
j (0
, ? v •

OEM
O

ok

\C2

r
.,
e N

7C r +i ,

O O O O O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o

o o o o o o
r
` cn
° co cn cn cn !
1
1
t
1
1
f
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
O
O
f:a
T.
Y?. zHY
r?, >:i;:s •.i:+s: "o::?.:i:; '.f `3:k:?2'?{•?:+ ?k, ,/ :dt ,,Nt'•C`?,`i,SS?? ,g'
«.f:?: ;`'ti:,t•"te, ',n?,f,: :..kM y/.y.: y': ?? y:J:?iG^'?`}^!. 'k;6: >s?`tM.
:?".';r;;#?`?:qS:.+.a.<:"?S:Sa';?:'3k?,?"irf. 1. E::?;.,..:., :,3:,n. ,n?;. .?..?, '?'?.,•?,.`..aa•,??".???
't?''??°?'-0'o»?.t"r`„<::'o: ,t:.'i",{'';•.,' f':' ,??'''n???;<'r..'.'W:.f... ?fa'? aa;
"'Es:,v.• :;a: x?':;f.:. _,;?, 4o4'rH eR;:? 5!? ? "za 6.
?'Eci:3 rkYff ..«7`SFkt< J'F:.\' !^?+
atY:i `?::h .,.,$,:lG •CY+t"w`. `i:;i7t? ?>F i€ s,:Y{t'•3:`t: .f.. '?
<'?,1+•:":','y ??t?:`v' . Vii' •'i:9,/'i' ?:v ,
ai
oi€?": :;3.:. ::%KF;.>s??' ????o ,v%??? t.?#?Y%!'? ,:na.;,c?-0•?i. ?£>> I
2!.M. i?w'?:?irk`}%aya ?:> ici?•c>;,a.,' ?.cfp.?}" 'o .; j?:: ?' ,.f,:
:x31<• H "G
<? r
#<'at`a":??:£::
#5::33"Y9.`r':'•` 3::"<;_!"
:2,%i'>% .'`> ?; :vE;v%i#5 :s,F'^ 3?t23fC•%?`'C *'?'o 's.'zH''<'?`::t '8 > ;#'':., / . ?'
'fi::?H• ?'u. ?:?'E.. a.'t+¢;f'?:k..'??(a^^3?*,'t. :,So- ,€; f:r =#?5;'. .'Hk?Y`v.
..ii3 `?.:.y.?%"S7>?t.'.a.Y?.,.?,.'35t../:<.:h;E)F, o.a.SC ri::?Y.9??a ' F;'• x. i???',, fat', O
??>,3 yu : ?;<• ,+cH?„*: ?kn'.???5:;`6 #<K<< 1o- 1?. '?5.. ..o?
k
l3
a??*t:^` :,yes: •?'C,p?, ::*? . ,'e'`s'#?'`?: ttt:a ? ..?i.,
3'<'l'?`r?{5`, ':%:.";g0?•`•(1;:'x,+2' ii:{?:3..1,'fy:??3"+ ? ` • a . ?.: ^ y h'
:::^y:,+,,.,`f.$?,.t 493fr`'s?<$;u'a:'''•,,'?`',tf`:. ..??• 'f:J:l.`/,+... N vj, z•,
;:;j3?i;:(ci}?,'N' •"b€'?.£? Y:3;'??' ?•;t':o;?\xr:?:, m !ta
iv".. 9?fA,`:? ?AS;,3,,3?y,,'•f" £ST+<.,.?'+,SHS ; ? ?"\.'Ay::?5
`sl::i?bk ,'h'E`'.;".;'::?i'3v'.'<i,";ls "a'.!?,• fi£t?>'?9r?•,':: c:?;:,
f„?%'•a ye?<33. ,. F:t:. E+ E:€?3: < '? , .: ,f '
?tt?tc?,,';'':.??s7.ii '?F:El3:#;o„>a1?F? y?2°•':;?`?) cy2?
»:3a?i.'>:t.?''•yE .: ,o.,'?\,('3?:: ;^?kv/1,/?( +<*: %i::,: :vy '<. O
00
2yf ? ' 3?
.)?,H,.a.•:#?.?l%s:a` :?\#i` <?F$`4i,:;?.n?€" ?:)i '?? ih , •?i
Q y/i?..1: d>?y (;>•E::: :3 ofx:`yxG a? , ?3E'p, ^? ;n;:Y/",«. ,.•{'•:,'cf : H<: J?'`. k
a•?A
4
CY)
? fi.?3"1; T?Pd<,:..: fM,'S? .?}kfii"? ?,n}}? ;? f.,t#:»a?`xy?",??/,?k w?a„f, y{Cx",,• L`,): ? ? : %
`7C S
S
4}
,f
6C"
,x$
:<? .:L'tFx ..vf0 (,,9s1
'l yE <k:,,+0,.,6.:? ss4 !•1•F •< 3: Y? tCIF•, '::Ta,.s.???,f.;C 3iS'' ,N? s F;C. "+Y:''?'Ha. O
X >.'9` ::': <€i`(tt1a;?..C#;, f,?, ??fy3y' E tuQF'1 O. v
>JS;: :3l33# i!;:?f,: u,::%C%afv 'Ei4Iv? <f:.c ?/ .`3.3" <k
tX`:)
..r'.Y.2
Ham.
ate:
f.
s}.
uk
x! ? m
1+
ht:
r
v,6?f
j )
f
3 •y l?` t
di9'3:k
,{ 3
n'?f
k
S?,H
f
a
y.E3,ot €7.,
2.:
2?s:::
a>'s
i;? 73:2
fl"
i##x
?F
q
"
2.
? s•
r .
vyY:y3•: ,fk.
n{". ?O N
k
Y'h
.¢ i
k'
3:kG:. .k a33:
Y.
•.f,.
a. r
sf.
{
£c
n
2?sb
.3 t
y 'C
}
tb .
:F3<:', :alp? '1
?.3:£:3::?a?3t%>Y' :. ?A;,`"<:'. ;<'•,#?k?n:,z;?,Y* . .r/y, x ;
Y•,x2;7 ,,yi?rW ;..,.t?„;,:`''>:y° x,ai.:;,?. ,. t'.'. ?'? ?a<.i•'':f xe':i?t
,::;biz., > > `??"`.f six?? '2%>' ,•?'o?: ?;'i?
?`??/•' ll,,^.."'. r?3'"' `t`.:> ri'.rvrf';`> J6:3w. t'%l'? ? t y, ;>MY` a .(s,
'riaGi
`ask{j f;?y
a?7dS9»'%?
2tk<GF 55.. x ),
1#??ts
.r n
FEh,,.
3Yr; x'cy!H:::
o'
uuE?:12:°
#Hihts:. ...fi;a:h H?.,.. "[.35:6%,.
?:. :::...., n:?:s."..:.,....n.::>:;:, ftt ,a for •. :.
::ta:;.s:;:?ss';t:..,.;:.: a .::::?.......n,:.::;; ?..::a,.::?s:: •:... h".u:?.:.....,...:..f' ,:raur .'v6„,al:::s:::,.;
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
co 6 06 ? co ui ?t CYi C i ?
0 o rn rn rn am w 0) rn rn
ti I` O O O CD CD CD CD (D
1
1
1
1
1
f
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
t
O

k0,
t tit. .
r
lhy '?

a
O

U) co

U)

ss.

s
?:4
' O

:.?ke?; \ Q3sy; d

N

.r,
ar y

?
S

O O 0 O O O O O 0 O O O
LO O V) 0 Ul O LO 0 LO 0 LO O
O C) V
c6 c6 t? i
? .ti
/ V
I 6
O
O /
0) 0)
0) /
V/ m /
?
0) m /
p
I
V /
I
0) 0)
A
I- A ,
/
O O O O '
O O '
/'
?
CU /
CO (D
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
f
Riffle Haw River
706
704
iG 702
c
700
wd 698
696
694
a..

:
1
---- --------
rr "'
--------------- -- - ----

r
...........

X..H2..v .... )•;;L:f :. s::4<+':`.Y:s :kr:SS:: k A Y?+ - "
?ZAI
Z
"
'
'
.u- . ...... _.. : _-: .. .... .. ,... ?..

.v.:... :. .:.. .
R
-
.?.. s
?>;.v
xrs s e 's, s.1 q fy?•:s??
..'
:_;>.f,.a::f,tsa.4;;.f .tXS a?:a ..ru :.:::.:: ....::..:..?f:?. ;J.2.[,¢'k?.,? .'?'?.?.? ?. k.•^2a':
_
?............I ty.

0 20
40 .60 80 100 120
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
Riffle
Haw River

G
K?
0
35
K

5.42
5.27 704.58

610,
699.16
699.31

99.38
56 4.38 700.2
65 3.47 701.11 On
69 8.99 695.59 130.91
74 9.99 694.59 35.1
81 9.50 695.08 4.8 d
89 9.43 695.15 0.0 b
94 9.55 695.03 0.0 V
97 7.70 696.88
99 7.10 697.48 kd9jJ <<
103 3.84 700.74 3.8
106 3.57 701.01 499.3 d
110 4.44 700.14 0.30 S
130 , 4.64 699.94 0.39 S
163 4.92 699.66 1.244 u
0.12
9.7 #i
16.1 tl
140 160 180

38.4 Sts
3.4
9.4 ?GIs
ne area 0.0 X111

t
i
r
s
r
i
706
704
702
c 700
0
m 698
w
696
694
692
0
Riffle Haw River
Riffle
Haw River
699.16
699.57 699.45
700.04
699.49
696.81 134.5
694.48 37.9
694.51 5.0
695.19 0.0
695.89 0.0
699.32
699.28 !!.,..,..,. ,
700.01 3.7
699.18 494.5
699.23 0.28
0.38
1.140
0.12
9.6
15.4

*ac 3
5
.
$"`
E3
"? 41
7 F ?' f
s
Y
.... .._<%:.:< .
y x:. 3
2
.
10.
0.0 #t# ra#ifl

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
a
i
1
L
i
1
i
I
1
1
704
703
702
701
c
0 700
699
W 698
697
696
695
0
Riffle Haw River
Riffle
Haw River
uuu.L'i
699.41
69139
699.74
699.86
699.48 96.3
695.47 27.8
695.8 3.9
696.02 0.0
696.04 0.0
699.93
699.11 hyd€1 i «
698.25 0.0
0.0
n nn
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Width from River Left to Right (ft)

11

t
a
1
APPENDIX D
I HEC-RAS REPORT FOR EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS
r

e

r
i
r

t

Li
t

s

U)

y:r

D
>
w

L.
40-
y
.y

to
C

C

0
0

t

4)
N M N O co Co M CD r- CC) LO N O r

C qf Ln CC) cq ti 00 O O cC) r N M M LC)
M M Ch Ch M M M M M Ln CO CC) CD CC)
O O o O O Cl O O O O O O O Q
`
te a
C7 ?
=
M
co
M
m
ti
LO
00
co
00
LO
N
O
r
CA
d V) CC) 1- 00 m m O ? r N M M Ln
N co vi M M M M M 4 m Lo O CC) CC) co
x O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

C)
CA LO O> N CA r N CC) LO d r N M

C r- co m m r r N M r O co O CA r

Q N N N N M M M M M 6 Ln 6 6 Cp
O O O
- O O O O
- O O O O O O
Z O

a r- 1? I
- ? I, I` I
. N ti r- ti t` I
- P-
?,
= Ln O co m M N co m co Ln '' r M
? C? CA r N M M N O O C3) O r
N N N N co N M M M M LO LO LO LO Co
p O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

d
N M ? O ? r O '[h Ict N r ti O cc) LO

0 r N M M LO co (D O I- co M LO LO co
CV CV CV N CV N N N N tai et .4 .4 d'
L. e O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
4) a
4
1
N = M 00 d' N It LO CA Co M st N CO N CA
r N M LO CO N N CA 00 LO M Lf) 00
(AA CN CV N N N N N N tV Ch 4 v 4 4
X O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
W ti I- ti r- I~ ? r- N n N Il- ti P- r-

CU
N CA M ice- eC 'd' r CA N CA O LO N N d•
N v d LO ti 00 CO N r M Ln CO
CL r r r r r r r N N N M M Ch M

m O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
L r !? ti ti

= rn Ln r M O M I- d' O CC) LO M M N
r+ N It LO 1,- C) O O M M t`- M Ln CO O
LA r r r r r N N N N N M M M v
x O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
W ti I? N ti ti ti

CU
N U.) O LO (C) d O O Itt ti r co m ti LO

co Cfl 00 00 Cr CC) 00 CA 'At et co r- 0) r

C L of 0; CA C)) O O O r r r r r N N
CA 0) CA CA O O O O O O O O O O

0) IZ

N tm Ln N O M Il- co r LO 00 r LO CA 00 d
CO 00 0) M to 00 to It d co r- 0) r LO
ffn M m CD O O O O r ?- r r ?- N CV
.x O CA CA O O O O O O O O O O O
Il! (O CO to ti ti ti ti ti ti I- I- I,-
V
CU
N t N CA O LO Co O Ln CO CA 00 r LO CA

0 M LO in LO O r O O O 00 ao O N M
00 a0 00 Cn O O O O O O O r r r-
Cn CA CA CA O O C) O O O O O O O
co co co m ti ? m ? ? ti r ? r` ?
? a

r ct m CA Lo c) r M M Lo ? r-- O CA O
M LO LO to O N O CA M CA M O N Ln
y 00 00 06 6 O O O O O O O r r r
X CA rn o rn O O O O O O O O Co O
W co co co co n ti
t
`
r
ti
C Q7 Q) Lt) M )
Q ?- r CA M to ? OD

CV)
Lo
a;
v;
M a) to

C* 4m

CD -r- to

N c*

00 "m
m
r CMO I
Q~)
r
r
?
N
N
N
N
N N N N M
0
0
Q
O
U
v
Q)
U
U
W
r

s

r
s

t

APPENDIX E
NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM ELEMENTS

F
r
i

? 40 or
?0 v 1E - ? fS f

Pr in

',..:p 'Sir, ZZ,
p -- ..Ab q
qo
Q" °
4

10000 0 10000 20000 Feet
Watershed Boundary
NHP Observations
• AMBYSTOMA TALPOIDEUM (Mole salamander)
ETHEOSTOMA COLLIS POP 2 (Carolina darter)
N
HALIAEETUS LEUCOCEPHALUS (Bald eagle)
• LOW ELEVATION SEEP
PIEDMONT/LOW MOUNTAIN ALLUVIAL FOREST
• PIEDMONT/MOUNTAIN SWAMP FOREST
Hydrology
Land Use for 2002 (%)
Cultivated
j? Developed
Forest S
0 Open Water
Shrubland
Unconsolidated Sediment NHP OBSERVATIONS
EcoScience Corporation
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27604
7nC ? t;r ?o(S ! 5,r??n??Si

i4?p 0 A-

'.) !
?-?-
- --------- ---- -------------
- - --- - -
tea. q

M LTF
Q
i' ? r
00

Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested
George Howard
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 203
Raleigh, NC 27604
Subject:
Dear Mr. Howard:
Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
September 15, 2003
Haw River Swamp Restoration Site
DWQ Project No. 031133
Guilford and Rockingham Counties
The Division of Water Quality has reviewed your submittal for a wetland mitigation site at the subject location. Your
application was not complete since the following information was not provided. Specifically:
A) Please clarify if all of the 36.6 acres of hydric soils are Wehadkee soils. If not, please provide a breakdown.
B) If the saturation of the proposed site exceeds 12.5 % will that not be considered to have met the success criteria?
Please explain.
C) Please provide a copy of the proposed easement or similar mechanism that will be used to permanently protect the
mitigation site.
D) In almost all circumstances the Division of Water Quality does not allow streams to be converted to wetlands for
wetland mitigation purposes. The proposed stream impacts appear to require the filling of 980 feet of perennial
modified, natural stream channel. These impacts require mitigation unless the streams are reestablished in which
case stream mitigation credit may be achieved. As such, in order to avoid the need to mitigate for the stream impacts
you must provide the following information. Also, note that establishing a DA channel may be acceptable as long as it
is designed based on referenced conditions relative tot he drainage areas. However, it is recommended that a C or E
type channel be established that may evolve into a DA type stream.
Basic Information for Stream Design Plan Approval
1. Morphological measurements (see Appendix B) - not all of the measurements are applicable in every instance.
2. Typical stream cross sections - Typically, a riffle cross section and a pool cross section that includes the entire flood
prone area. The bankfull and flood prove area elevations should be indicated. Similarly, a riffle cross section of the
reference stream(s) should be provided.
3. Plan view - Scaled plans that show the location of the proposed (preferably with stationing) and the existing stream.
In most instances, the bankfull contours and flood prone area contours, in stream structures, bank
revetments/stabilization, channel plugs, planting plan, vegetation conditions, stormwater outlets, grade controls,
bridges, culverts, sewer lines, roads, fencing, and easement lines should also be provided.
4. Longitudinal Stream Profile - A scaled profile that indicates the thalweg , bankfull, and top of bank elevations should
be provided for the design and reference streams. In many cases it may also be necessary to show the existing land
elevations for the design stream.
5. Planting Plan - A planting and/or vegetation management plan should also be required. The plan should indicate the
extent, density, and species of plants to be provided.
6. In stream structure, bank revetment/stabilization, and stormwater outlet typicals - Detailed, typical plans should be
provided for all in stream structures, bank revetments or stabilization, and stormwater outlets. The typicals should
include materials and specifications as well as relative lengths, positions, and angles.
7. Sediment transport analysis - A sediment transport analysis should be provided based on the current, relevant,
accepted practices. The sediment transport analysis should be relevant to the stream bed load type and should
predict bed load transport equilibrium.
This information is needed by the Division in order for us to decide whether this project is app rovable.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands/
Page 2 of 2
Please call Todd St. John at 919-733-9584 if you have any questions. Until this information is received, I will place this
project on hold due to incomplete information (15A NCAC 2H .0507(a)).
Sincerely, 14
Lr--14 John R. Dorney
Water Quality Certification Program
cc: Raleigh DWQ Regional Office
Raleigh Regional USACE Office
Todd St. John
File
Central Files
I ?? ?:3 SY
_ 110" :ra}nes Street Suite 10", i.z!leig: , NC 27604 'Pbiep.io„e: 919.828.3433 F%}:: 919.82'8.3518
Ec,o_cience
0811,9
September 5, 2003
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer JI) T
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
- 5
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers sFP 2003
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120 t"IATE QU LITYSECTION
Raleigh, NC 27615
RE: Request for Use of Nationwide Permit Number 27 for the Haw River Swamp Wetland
Restoration Site in Guilford and Rockingham Counties
Dear Eric:
Please find attached to this letter the following items:
1) a completed Pre-construction Notification (PCN) form;
2) agent authorization letter;
3) Exhibit 1: project vicinity map;
4) Exhibit 2: conservation survey easement plat;
5) Exhibit 3: wetland restoration plan;
6) Exhibit 4: restoration design units;
7) Threatened and Endangered species survey report; and
8) Detailed Wetland Restoration Plan.
Project Purpose and Description
The purpose of this letter is to provide you with information concerning the Haw River Swamp
Wetland Mitigation Site. The owner/applicant, Restoration Systems, LLC, is proposing wetland
restoration at the Site to assist the NC Wetland Restoration Program in fulfilling its restoration
goals. A copy of the Detailed Wetland Restoration Plan for this Site is included in this permit
application package. The Site is located east of SR 1001 at the Haw River crossing in Guilford
and Rockingham Counties in the Cape Fear River Basin (USGS Hydrologic Unit 03030002).
The Site occurs primarily within the Haw River floodplain, which was previously ditched, leveled,
and drained to support agricultural activities. The Site is currently characterized as "prior
converted" cropland. Land use within the upstream watershed is currently comprised of
forested and agricultural land with low-density residential development expanding into the
vicinity of the Site as the result of increased commercial and residential development pressures
from urban sprawl associated with Greensboro and surrounding areas.
Mr. Eric Alsemeyer
September 5, 2003
Page 2
Site activities are expected to restore approximately 34.9 acres of prior converted cropland to
riverine forested wetlands and enhance approximately 2.1 acres of riverine wetlands (see
Exhibits 3 and 4). Site alterations to restore groundwater, surface flow dynamics, and wetland
hydrology include:
1) installing ditch plugs to prevent the migration of flows back into the former ditch or
canal;
2) backfilling ditches to prevent groundwater migration to the former ditch or canal;
3) constructing a backwater slough designed to mimic reference wetland conditions
within the Haw River floodplain;
4) constructing ephemeral pools to provide fill material and to mimic backwater slough
depressions and other depressional features found in the reference wetlands;
5) installing controlled water outfall structures at designed outlets within low points of
the floodplain to reinforce and restrain vegetated topsoil or stone infill, thereby
controlling down-slope movement due to hydrodynamic, gravitational forces, and
erosive flows which may cause bank instability and the risk of headcuts;
6) diverting Midway Creek to redirect flows onto the historic floodplain;
7) diverting the southern tributary and discharging flows into the historic alluvial fan and
primary floodplain;
8) scarifying wetland soil surfaces to restore complex microtopography with subsequent
community restoration; and
9) depositing woody debris cleared during restoration activities to aid in the
establishment of habitat diversity, nutrient cycling (soil microbial) functions, energy
dissipation on abandoned farmland, and temporary stabilization at controlled water
outfall locations.
In addition to the above restoration activities, restoration of wetland forest communities will
occur to provide habitat for wildlife and to allow for the development and expansion of
characteristic wetland-dependent species across the landscape. Reference data, on-site
observations, and ecosystem classifications have been used to develop species associations
including 1) levee forest, 2) bottomland hardwood forest, 3) piedmont swamp forest, and 4)
mesic mixed hardwood forest. In addition, upland buffer ecotones, riparian buffers, and
groundwater wetland recharge areas within approximately 10.6 acres will be preserved or
restored as upland management areas.
Proiect Impacts to Jurisdictional Areas
Two degraded and channelized stream reaches, Midway Creek and the southern tributary, will
be impacted in order to return the Site to historic conditions and accomplish restoration efforts.
Impacts will occur on 620 linear feet and 360 linear feet of the stream reaches, respectively (see
Mr. Eric Alsemeyer
September 5, 2003
Page 3
Exhibit 3). The Site is currently cleared and classified as "prior converted" cropland; therefore,
no impacts to wetlands or buffers will occur due to restoration activities.
Justifications for Project Impacts to Jurisdictional Areas
Two stream reaches, Midway Creek and the southern tributary, will be impacted in order to
return the Site to historic conditions and accomplish restoration efforts. These reaches were
previously moved and channelized (dredged and straightened) to improve drainage of the
adjacent property for agricultural use and currently remain in these conditions. Prior to
channelization, the historic stream reaches encountered an alluvial fan at the confluence of the
Haw River floodplain and transitioned to anastomosed, braided channels which discharged into
the Haw River. Reference stream reaches show that similar channels transition from an E-type
(highly sinuous) stream to an anastomosed (DA-type) and subsequently to a braided (D-type)
stream immediately prior to a confluence with a near-permanently inundated section of a
primary floodplain. This condition is common within this region and similar to historic Site
conditions.
Site restoration efforts are expected to restore approximately 34.9 acres of "prior converted"
cropland to riverine forested wetlands and enhance approximately 2.1 acres of riverine
wetlands. Other activities include the restoration of plant communities, riparian buffers, wildlife
and aquatic habitat, in addition to redirecting the flow of Midway Creek and the southern
tributary into newly constructed (restored) stream reaches within the floodplain (totaling
approximately 700 linear feet). Flow from Midway Creek will be directed into a distribution
freshwater marsh, which will serve as the mechanism to divert flow back onto the historic
alluvial fan and provide a perennial source for groundwater recharge to the area. The
distribution marsh will be constructed to facilitate passive channel redevelopment on its historic
alluvial fan location. The southern tributary will be discharged onto its historic alluvial fan and
primary floodplain. Both the stream reaches will then be allowed to develop primarily through
passive processes to encourage braiding, ponding, and anastomosed conditions similar to
historic conditions of the Site and reference streams in the region. The additional stream length
that will be allowed to develop through this process will total approximately 1170 linear feet.
Surface Water Analysis
Surface drainage on the Site and surrounding areas were analyzed to predict the feasibility of
manipulating existing surface drainage patterns into the primary and secondary floodplains
without adverse effects to the Site or adjacent properties. The Site was designed to maximize
groundwater recharge and wetland restoration while reducing potential for impacts to adjacent
properties.
Mr. Eric Alsemeyer
September 5, 2003
Page 4
Hydraulic and hydrologic analyses we utilized to predict flood extents for the 1-, 2-, 5-, 10-, 50-,
and 100-year storms under existing and proposed conditions after wetland restoration has been
implemented. The comparative flood elevations were evaluated by simulating peak flood flows
for the Haw River using the WMS (Watershed Modeling System, BOSS International) program
and regional regression equations. Once the flows were determined, the river geometry and
cross-sections were digitized from a DTM (Digital Terrain Model) surface (prepared by a
professional surveyor) using the HEC-GeoRAS component of ArcView. The cross-sections
were adjusted as needed based on field-collected data. Once the corrections to the geometry
were performed, the data was imported into HEC-RAS.
Watersheds and land use estimations were measured from existing DEM (Digital Elevation
Model) data and aerial photography. Field surveyed cross-sections and water surfaces were
obtained along the Haw River and canal. Valley cross-sections were obtained from both on-site
cross-sections and detailed topographic mapping to 1-foot contour intervals using the available
DTM. Observations of existing hydraulic characteristics were incorporated into the model and
the computed water surface elevations were calibrated by utilizing engineering judgment.
In summary, the model suggests that, under both current and proposed conditions, water
surface elevations for the 100-year storm event will be approximately 706.5 feet NGVD and
703.4 feet NGVD for the upper- and lower-most portions of the Site, respectively. The model
indicates that no significant change in surface water elevations is expected as a result of
wetland restoration activities. Therefore, hydrologic trespass of upstream and adjacent
landowners is not a concern.
Protected Species
Plants and animals with a Federal classification of Endangered or Threatened are protected
under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended. As of February 18, 2003, the US Fish and Wildlife Service lists one species for
Guilford County, North Carolina, and as of February 25, 2003, the US Fish and Wildlife Service
lists two species for Rockingham County, North Carolina (see the following table).
Scientific Name Common Name Status Count
Haliaeetus leucoce halus bald eagle Threatened* Guilford
Pleurobema collina James s in mussel Endangered Rockingham
Echinacea laevi ata smooth coneflower Endangered Rockingham
cnuanyerea -- a species mat is in aanger or extinction tnrougnout an or a signiticant portion or its range.
Threatened -- a species that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.
* -- a species proposed for delisting.
Mr. Eric Alsemeyer
September 5, 2003
Page 5
Surveys of suitable habitat were completed within the Site by EcoScience biologists in August
2003. Biological conclusions of "May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect" were concluded for
bald eagle and smooth coneflower, and "No Effect" was concluded for James spinymussel
within the Site. Additional information for each species, including a species description and
justification of the biological conclusion, can be found in the Protected Species Survey report
included in this permit application package.
Restoration Design Units
Based on restoration analyses, the area includes approximately 34.9 acres of wetland
restoration in prior converted cropland and approximately 2.1 acres of wetland enhancement.
Exhibit 4 depicts the area of riverine wetland restoration and enhancement. The remaining on-
site acreage (10.6 acres) includes levees, streams (open water), upland buffer, and
groundwater slope restoration and preservation areas.
Restoration plans will re-introduce surface water flood hydrodynamics from a 52.7 square mile
watershed. The plan includes establishment of an array of riverine communities, including levee
forests, bottomland hardwood forests, and riverine swamp forests. Therefore, riverine
hydrodynamic and biogeochemical functions will be restored, including pollutant removal,
organic carbon export, sediment retention, nutrient cycling, flood storage, and energy
dissipation. Physical wetland functions typically associated with water quality will be replaced
within the Cape Fear River basin.
Biological functions associated with the riverine system will also be restored or enhanced
including in-stream aquatic habitat, structural floodplain habitat, and interspersion and
connectivity between the restored stream, floodplain, and adjacent uplands.
The applicant should be listed as follows:
Mr. George A. Howard
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27604
Mr. Eric Alsemeyer
September 5, 2003
Page 6
Again, our objective is to obtain authorization for the described Haw River Swamp Wetland
Restoration Site under Nationwide Permit Number 27. In addition, a 401 Water Quality
Certification is being requested from the NC Division of Water Quality. Please call me if you
have any questions or need further information. Thank you for your continued assistance with
this project.
Yours truly,
EC SCIENCE CORPORATION
Jerry Crain, Ph.D., CEP
President
CC: Mr. George Howard, Restoration Systems, LLC
Mr. John Dorney, NC Division of Water Quality
Attachments
Natural Resources
Restoration &Coliservafion
August 27, 2003
Agent Authorization, Letter
To Whore It May Concern
Dear SiAMadam:
By -authority of this agent authorization letter, Restoration Systems, LLC. gives
EcoScience Corporation the authority to conduct all necessary work on the Haw River
Wetland Restoration Site in Guilford and. Rockingham Counties, North Carolina.
Kindest regards.
Sincerely,/
forge/A Ho ar
.
Restoration Systems, L.L.C.
Cc: Dr. Jerry McCrain, Ecoscience Corporation
1101 Haynes St., Suite 203 • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 • www.restorationsystems.com • Fax: [phone] • Phone: 919=755-9490
Office Use Only: Form Vqe ' n May 2002
4V
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If anv narticular item is not annlicable to this nroiect. please enter "Not AUVlicable".or "N/A" .,4
? .
1.
II.
Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ?
? Section 10 Permit ?
® 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwide Permit No. 27
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (verify availability with NCWRP prior to submittal of PCN), complete
section VIII and check here: ?
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
Applicant Information
Owner/Applicant Information
Name: George A. Howard
Mailing Address: Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street. Suite 107
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Telephone Number: 919-755-9490 Fax Number: 919-755-9492
E-mail Address: ?[e-mail]
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: Jerry McCrain
Company Affiliation: EcoScience Corporation
Mailing Address: 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: [e-mail]
rU?9
15
Riparian or Watershed Buffe
Isolated Wetland Permit from D
Page 1 of 9
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Haw River Swamp Wetland Restoration Site
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): Not Applicable
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): See attached Exhibit 2, conservation easement
survey plat.
4. Location Counties: Guilford and Rockingham Nearest Town: Greensboro
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): Not Applicable
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): (From Raleigh) Take I-40 west to
exit 127 Route 29 (heading north). Take Route 29 north for approximately 9 miles to Route
150 (heading west). Follow Route 150 west or approximately 7 miles and take a right onto
SR 1001 (Church Street Extension, heading north). Follow SR 1001 for approximately 2.3
miles to the crossing of the Haw River. The Site is located east of SR 1001 (see Exhibit 1).
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): Longitude 1769318.4882 Latitude
910205.1393 (at the crossing of SR 1001 with the Haw River)
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Property size (acres): 49.5 acres
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Haw River
8. River Basin: Cape Fear River Basin
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/mgps/.)
Page 2 of 9
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: Site occurs primarily within the Haw River flood
plain,
which was previously ditched, leveled, and drained to support agricultural activities. The
Site is currently characterized as "prior converted" cropland. Land use within the upstream
watershed is currently comprised of forested and agricultural land with low-density
residential development expanding into the vicinity of the Site as the result of increased
commercial and residential development pressures from urban sprawl associated with
Greensboro and surrounding areas.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: Site
activities are expected to restore approximately 34.9 acres of prior converted cropland to
riverine forested wetlands and enhance approximately 2.1 acres of riverine wetlands (see
Exhibit 3). Site alterations to restore groundwater, surface flow dynamics, and wetland
hydrology include 1) installing ditch plugs to prevent the migration of flows back into the
former ditch or canal, 2) backfzlling ditches to prevent groundwater migration to the former
ditch or canal, 3) constructing a backwater slough designed to mimic reference wetland
conditions within the Haw River floodplain; 4) constructing ephemeral pools to provide fll
material and to mimic backwater slough depressions and other depressional features found
in the reference wetlands; S) installing controlled water outfall structures at designed outlets
within low points of the floodplain to reinforce and restrain vegetated topsoil or stone in 11
thereby controlling down-slope movement due to hydrodynamic, gravitational forces, and
erosive flows which may cause bank instability and the risk of headcuts; 6) diverting Midway
Creek to redirect flows onto the historic floodplain; 7) diverting the southern tributary and
plain; 8) scarifying wetland
discharging flows into the historic alluvial fan and primary flood
soil surfaces to restore complex microtopography with subsequent community restoration;
and 9) depositing woody debris cleared during restoration activities to aid in the
establishment of habitat diversity, nutrient cycling (soil microbial) functions, energy
dissipation on abandoned farmland, and temporary stabilization at controlled water outer
locations. In addition to the above restoration activities, restoration of wetland forest
communities will occur to provide habitat for wildlife and to allow for the development and
expansion of characteristic wetland-dependent species across the landscape. Reference
data, on-site observations, and ecosystem classifications have been used to develop species
associations including 1) levee forest, 2) bottomland hardwood forest, 3) piedmont swamp
forest, and 4) mesic mixed hardwood forest. In addition, upland buffer ecotones, riparian
buffers, and groundwater wetland recharge areas within approximately 10.6 acres will be
preserved or restored as upland management areas.
Equipment that will be utilized to accomplish the above restoration plan may include track
hoe, front end loader, dump trucks, and bulldozers.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: Restoration Systems, LLC is proposing wetland
restoration at the Haw River Swamp Wetland Restoration Site to assist the NC Wetland
Restoration Program in fulfilling its restoration goals.
Page 3 of 9
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
No previous permits have been requested or obtained for this project.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
A sediment and erosion control permit will be obtained from the Division of Land Ouality prior
to construction. No additional permit requests are anticipated for this Site in the future,
however, additional restoration opportunities may be pursued in areas adjacent to the Site,
which will require additional similar permit requests.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: Two degraded and channelized
stream reaches Midway Creek and the southern tributary, will be impacted in order to
return the Site to historic conditions and accomplish restoration efforts. These reaches will
be diverted and flow will be redirected into newly constructed (restored) channels onto the
historic floodplain. Flow from Midway Creek will be directed into a distribution freshwater
marsh which will serve as the mechanism to divert flow back onto the historic alluvial fan
and provide a perennial source for groundwater recharge to the area. The distribution
marsh will be constructed to facilitate passive channel redevelopment on its historic alluvial
fan location. Braiding, ponding, and anastomosed conditions will occur, similar to reference
streams in the region. The southern tributary will be discharged onto its historic alluvial fan
plain. As with Midway Creek, the southern tributary will develop
and primary flood
Page 4 of 9
primarily through passive processes to encourage braiding, ponding, and anastomosed
conditions similar to reference streams in the region.
The Site is currently cleared and classi aed as "prior converted" cropland, therefore, no
impacts to wetlands or buffers will occur due to restoration activities. The mitigation plan
will result in the restoration and enhancement of additional wetlands and buffers on the Site.
2. Individually list wetland impacts below:
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(es/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
Type of Wetland***

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http://www.fema..gov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.) Indicate if wetland is isolated (determination of isolation to be made by USACE only).
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 2.0 acres
Total area of wetland impact proposed: No wetland impacts are proposed.
3. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
Stream Impact Length of Average Width Perennial or
Site Number Type of Impact* Impact Stream Name** of Stream Intermittent?
(indicate on ma) (linear feet) Before Impact specify)
1 fill 360 Tributary to Haw River 15 to 20 feet perennial
2 fill 620 Midway Creek 8 to 10 feet perennial
* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.usgs.gov. Several intemet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.tWozone.com,
www.mQguest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 980 linear feet
4. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.) below:
Open Water Impact Area of Name of Waterbody Type of Waterbody
Site Number Type of Impact* Impact (if applicable) (lake, pond, estuary, sound,
(indicate on ma) (acres) bay, ocean, etc.)

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Page 5 of 9
5. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): Not Applicable
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): Not Applicable
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
Two stream reaches Midway Creek and the southern tributary, will be impacted in order to
return the Site to historic conditions and accomplish restoration efforts. These reaches were
previously moved and channelized (dredged and straightened) to improve drainage of the
adjacent property for agricultural use and currently remain in these conditions. Prior to
channeli .ation the historic stream reaches encountered an alluvial fan at the confluence of the
Haw River floodplain and transitioned to anastomosed, braided channels which discharged into
the Haw River. Reference stream reaches show that this channel transition from an E-type
(highly sinuous) stream to an anastomosed (DA-type) and subsequently to a braided (D-type)
stream immediately prior to a confluence with a near-permanently inundated section of a
primarx floodplain is common within this region and similar to historic Site conditions.
Site restoration efforts are effected to restore approximately 34.9 acres of "prior converted"
cropland to riverine forested wetlands and enhance approximately 2.1 acres of riverine
wetlands. Other activities include the restoration of plant communities, riparian buffers, wildlife
and aquatic habitat in addition to redirecting the flow of Midway Creek and the southern
tributary into stream reaches constructed within the floodplain (totaling approximately 700
linear feet) and subsequently onto historic alluvial fans and the primary floodplain. The stream
reaches will then be allowed to develop primarily through passive processes to encourage
braiding ponding and anastomosed conditions similar to historic conditions of the Site and
reference streams in the region. The additional stream length that will be allowed to develop
through this process will total approximately 1170 linear feet.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
Page 6 of 9
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
Not Applicable
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCWRP at
[phone] to determine availability and to request written approval of mitigation prior
to submittal of a PCN. For additional information regarding the application process for the
NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wM/index.htm. If use of
the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide the
following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): Not Applicable
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): Not Applicable
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): Not Applicable
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): Not Applicable
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): Not Applicable
Page 7 of 9
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state) funds or the use of public
(federal/state) land?
Yes ? No
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ? No
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ? No
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes ? No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Gone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0260.
Not Applicable
Page 8 of 9
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
No impervious surface currently exists on the Site and no impervious surface is proposed with
th_e_ restoration activities. A sediment and erosion control permit will be obtained from the
Division of Land Quality prior to construction.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
Not Applicable
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ? No
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
•5?0.
Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 9 of 9
1 mile to Midway, NC
\l\
f awl \ ( ??see IoapS, 3e? $ nt slppe?
00
I /
J `
f' ?acole Sa?dvclay loam ,,.8 1:645 eOt slopes:,
- --- - --z? INC
HA.1T? ?? JA
i \J r ?I \ 1 1 \ i 11+1' I +I `J
(c??l
?;/%/ J,1lJJr \; I --}
r // / 1 I
its-
IN, k,
4
1, I? Ji? J? , r `/ ,?V O {
j: / ,. ` 1 ' /`---J •r / - Sp,?' 1 \ `y\ 'Ili
\1 I fi .Q '7' \k (`•CC f.\ ` 11 ,\ /\'}?'+ +i \' ' ra\ `` , l? Y!i i%
/'\?0,/
yt d ?. ! Ti
_
' -m
t .:,\? + `?? i I i / ?? ,,, J '-rte I l ! l ?\? \1 ? ` = ? i' ,r!(?+•-? ? j, 1 , ?1 `l` L•4/ fi _L•?,?5 --
_ 7/ 6°?.
T, ) +( X;
A\ vga°8? asriCL • F t{ ' / li ?/ '1 1 - ! -a\t? / +
It .•.J `,`. l - ?? ?Tr >•. `'7?? i ??? _ - 11 I''/?i? 1 - - t;• L? , POp` c'\\? I?ti,?.l l1 \ i / -
nj/? ?? - ?i I I 1
-0.2 2
0.4 Mir es!
ssJ __-? \ ,- r
- r 7 ,miles Greensboro, NC-
Drawn by CLF
Haw River Swamp Wetland Checked by: GL EcoScience Exhibit
Restoration Site Date:
Corporation Guilford/Rockingham County, August 2003
Raleigh North Carohra Project:
North Carolina 03-148

EXHIBIT 2
DUD RIF9RNCEEE2
BEND ALL OF THE PROPERIi RECORDED N
OB. 115; PG 1406 (EXCLUDNC TRACT A
DESCRIBED IN D.B. 1162 P0. 2120) OF THE
ROCI NGNN COUNTY REGISTRY
BEING A PORTION OF TRACT NUMBER SO
RECORDED IN OR 993, RG. 2454 OF TEEE
ROC-Ni COUNTY REGSTRY.
BEING ALL OF THE PROPERTY RECORDED N
D.B. 1162. PC. 21 ] 6 OF THE ROCION AM
COUNTY REGISTRY.
MAP R39EMME31:
BEING A PORnON OF TRACT NUMBEP SIX
RECORDED IN P.B JA, PG Si OF THE
ROCNIAGHAM COUNTY FEfG5TR1:
GENERALNOTQ
I) A'2TE N2 ABSTRACT TIRE NOR TITLE COMMITMENT, NOR
AESULT_ OF PT[£ SEARCH WERE FUR-ED TO THE
E URA:. ALL DOGIMENTS O< RECORD REVIEWED ARE
A OWED HERON (SEE REFERENCES). THERE NAY EXIST
<TH£R JOCUNENTS OF RECORD DAT MAY AFTEC7 THIS
'URVEYED RARCEI.
2) NO HORIZONTAL CONTROL WITHIN 2000 a
3) gWRARAN INFORMATION TAUTEN FROM THE FULLOWTNG
,y,, NL
TOPO QUAD
O.G. DATE' 1991
GLAD SERIES; 75'
PAPER SOURCE: TOPOGRAPHIC 1:24,000
OUAO ORDER ID: 36079-C7
VENDOR USES
IAYE BRAND, NC
TORG OWD
ORIO. LATE 1994
OUAD SERIES 75'
PAPER SOURCE: TOPOGRAPHIC 1:24,000
GLAD ORDER 10: 18079-97
VENDOR USGS
4. P.S. J4. PG. 64 SHOWS THIS DOCH AS HANG 50'
RWPAR7AN BUTFER Z-F. HOWEVER, THE ABOVE
MEN77ONNED TONG OWO MAPS DO NOT SHOW THIS
DITCH.
E) ALL STREAA AND CRCN LOCARONl ARE A ,IG.GMATE
AS THESE AREAS WERE ROODED DURING THE GROUND
FK D SURVEY (AMRGI 24-26. 2ODLF).
5) THE HAW RIVER IS THE COUNTY LINE BETWEEN
GUILFORD AND ROCAONOIUM CO-DES IRIS PROPERTY
LS TAX LISTED IN ROGYNGHAM COUNTY.
7) THE (2) 50' RIPRARLAN BUFFER ZONES (AS LABELED ON
TIPS ".NG) ARE NOT SIEOWN FOR CLARITY:
8) DAJIED LINES ARE GLCUUTED ONLY AND ARE NOT
SURVEYED AT THIS TIME.
ACREAGE DATA:
TOTAL ACREAGE OF RESTORATION SYSTEM'S
LANG UNDER GENERAL CONSERVATION
EASEMENT (INCLUONG THE NEW 50' ACCE55
EASEMENT) - 22 ACRES BY COMPUTER
TOTAL WRP RESTORATION ACREAGE TOR
CONTRACT 1 AWO3G01 = 12 ACRES 9Y
COMPUTER
1-1 AREA REPR- 11 IN A
HAZARD -- cC -1 -1 O To Icon MAlEO AP
N MBER(5) "'o 0200 B ZONE(5):A. DATED: MAY IS
ANO 3]0111 0015 B ZONE(S): A6. DATED LINE 4,
r Z:
LEIFIS
D.B. 1003. PG. 216
NC PIN 7971.03-M-5109
? c LEGQID..
E6 - C,;w;,g v n -,
c
R
4

Tt?
\p GI - F',.9 Iron P;pv
NAIL - -'w numen(e.C Ci-6,
ECM - EAhHng Loncrcle Mrnu „ent
R/W - R'gnf-Ol-WOy
B/C - BzA-Of-Curb
SOU22'17'E NMC D
137 UP - Util;Ey Pole
MB - Minimum Bo;fd?n9 L;nc
dq. O/ P.
vnf
POP - E

NMC Ed
F
ECRN - Eiisting Cmcre7r R/W M.:..nmen;
CN - CneN
j P

\
rv EPK - fris NoR
PIGS , Y S. t
ITS - Iron PIPV 5ef (I' O.O)
\ P ELM - EAlstin9 Concrete Monument
ERRS - Eiipfinq Roilmod Spike
\ NMC Co
OR ol Comer
. - TAwd Baok
a. - Page
NCDOi - Norm Cerolma Department
oI Tmn.portol%on
CMS = Cgnc c Masonry Unit
NfSR A
Carvlinn Secondnry Rnaa
;oA
HWY - H
R R()Di.e.
BRG - Bverin9
UP U10, Pol.
F
F r FEMA - F
ep I Cmergency
A
anagemenf Agency
¢ center ?
\ NMC • Non MnnumenfM Comer
?w3 EOS - Edge of 5a1
NAPE.
EXISTING 3D'
ACCESS EASEMENT NMC
?
Awf

BATES

Nt1SS 7 OF
7eOt.05-13-zAas -
NMC Ness"'` 76917'

N8555'S/E 538.5;
WAIJCER EP
15' 50D'26'0 0'E
590
EIP

64166
.
N.B. SSE 89E 2"
\ 60.77' .;'
RC NN 7961.0d-83-4834 a S, ii,
N
7fl],? t1
'w
n
4t423'? EP \ =
pau.N R
6317
586'2935 GG o e. noe
'
-- 586'Z9 35 NMC
EXISTING \
:o
o N ]c]1.oa 11-xot
;
`
AXLE RESTORATION
m "- -- -
586'29'35^N SYSTEMS, LLC
?\
\
c "Env

79
00 P
. 1806 pmu1
a
.
- \
\ 11-2D]A
]q7 -
UPN

N NEW 50'
ACCESS EASEMENT
'i
\W -
POO4kB®
r
` 1»1
w HC wN A]1 aY12 xNSS
N/F
AAI
L'ER A,
.
.
NC PW 7961.00-92-2521 EXISTING
$\V STREAM WITH
50'RI
PRMIAN
N
e00@LLEW ]9t

a 979
0
I
;o

? m R
m m; 8
FF

EP
.0
NO o
,
x-zass
b
RECORD CORNER
NORTHEASTERN MOSL
FACT 6 m \ ':
m NMC\'
\`?

y
P.B. 3A, PG. 64
S342355E
\
O 52'
^

IXIP ANC t
MC
N
N
FENCE POST NMC 318.64 `
NNC NMC
"--589'30'S8'E
RESTORATION SYSTEMS
LAND UNDER GENERAL
8 CONSERVATION EASEMENT
7
99 ACRES
h? `r .

'
ti SUGGS
fl
P.B. 34. PG. 61 :
6, PG. Sf,:l
0.9. G5
ANDREWS IP5 E1S EP S8A'.6 s1•L N 9]1.^3 ..2]79
O.B. 993. PG. 20..4
NC PIN 7961.00-91-p27A
SAN
1
]4
8
REST TON MENS
DRMEYORS L311ICAMMM LAND UNDER GENERAL _
GOKSCRJATON WEMEM
Mnreye%p deeb:mer No attempt b made b 1
` orste eny e..neterles, .eaondA, hozpreoMa
? .Ot ACRES
BPS
rwEedO sAee, underground WGl%ee e
any oXfu leaturea abp.G or Ode. 9rouM other
1M \
S
4
n tide fha.n. P5
-
4setr 'Ndt tK ++N<y w d anatner cet.gely (Cad -n - Edam M). pMa1 d the .
Ps
•een?b;ncbon d d -g Panda a eo - d-d s4ANeY, a dNe- etteption to the 4'
xr Rian d a t ?
4 OP
Ir>s ? <o°J ..
?'3 NO YL r
?-
1 ./71P A RUDOI_PM . lKt vss
-y
al
y o .ds eraw? una ?iry n Ho+? (en attic _ _ 117.61
f+ney ee vMer? rtpervnmi (xeo vuc.•Ip'+o? ree> Boot SEC. Pege$? ?" ???
?-? J
.e) :erne.), of d p•ecio^
wle.Aa:M q Er.R:.en and drtM.d n 9R101E =mot
t^ 10 YXIa tI lne AiMMnda Z I?....
x= Aen :ew pb?
v

pM'
romt,t;Pn a In BaoSEE.
us ;
ge X u.pe P•?area .donee +" J
,dd
' HAW RIVER
'
.V, D.S. 47-30 d amended. Wtnesa my original .yrwtMre, reglstrattaP umber, pm seal
b.
I'm 6th day pf -.1
AD
IQA7 A
?9 \2
.
.
\ ?
RESTORATION SYSTEMS. LLC
\U
SEAL OR STAMP c?`?
e?> HAW. GUILFORD COUNTY REFERENCE:
MER
R
7
P
I
O.B. 5
.
G. 2261
ROCXIXGNPM CGIIXTY89 REFERENCE: r

tit I S-y- L-4!94
r
.•o?tN CARO??
r e
D.B. tt PG. 2175 TI N
%
EIP °
,
',fr
?
.`? ?.•:C F-SS((?I'••' ,e' ,
IP
RECORD gl
BRIDGE CORNER
z SEAL n D.B. 970. I
_ L-1194
ED Pc. 1252
?
?
4u44 A. RU
t•A`' RECORD CORNER
50UTHF7
N
5
2
2
D.6- 970G. . PG PG.
. 1252 ?I
DRAWN 6Y: FGR
R E
b
¦' ,
-0 5758 J5. 1hy. 70 Ed t SIDNE
\SEE GEN. ?\ \ o
NOTE 14 (NO \\\\ \ a
RIPRARIAN BUFFER,\
\? \ \\\\????? NMC w /
\ `. \ \ WRP RESTORATION ACREAGE
\ 55? Ia FOR CONTRACT IT AW03001
\?\? \ \ A5? „Im t2 ACRES
56018581V?-wM? ?gN 9N
19577
?\??? _53215 _ TAAYTON RICHARDSON
51_? - - SW4'OS'39'NA n NMG GUILFORD COUNTY REFERENCE-
PG
g NMC O.R. 5900. . 1609
RANG- COUNTY REFERENCE:
563'O6'04'W Y,AW RNER WITH D-B. 1162, PG. 2120
NAG
196 .07 50' RIPRARUN BUFFER
'
559'5140`W RICHARDSON
185.77' D.R. 2945 PG. 262
RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC
GUILFORD COUNTY REFERENCE:
O,P 59IY1 - ,
ROCIONCMAM COUNTY RQERENL:L:
D.R. 1162, PG. 2116
SURVEY
Fra
RESTORATION
SYSTEMS, LLC
(HAW RIVER SITE)
SIMPSONVILLE TOWNSH.P ROCKINGHAM COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA
.TOO 150 0 JOG 600 9?
GRAPHIC SCALE 7' = 300'
a
- rr, r m m t. 0)
r
rl

m or. -1 C) qLJ
v D<Omc mrmf C 005'606 N
rn D<C
- 4 o per - m rrn CA rn
1r Z u°, Z) ? rn
Z1
o
o Z o
V/F

?
?
701
I
\
?
On r, T K "o n m 0 m cn
C O Z D ?l x X X Z y y ?
, \ -1100
mz OO ?O f O
Z Z Z
O
?
J
C
r- Om nm 0 G7 ? G7 n0 n _ 1 ?9
aim ZD 00 N m --I Z O Z
X0 0 > m O? ? 0 v
1 . i.. n
O ,
g s 000016 N
;0 z ;0
D
Mm z
m;u m

r o
?rrn.mo
?.••. V1V?D?
1 D
\ Amrrn
DLA Dp
m

m O
-40
m <
x
1? I I l

nU rwm mn co 0
M C;D Cry -00 D
Uf r0 X00 2Z n n
- <? c? m
rf t i
'

•?-'-
?., !
(n
o
mo M?
T
? ?Lf) r
xIM m? 1
Q -+m m ;0 C r r
o . v

r n ?
IM z C
IM Z -?
?
/
?;
•??
f ?
y ?
fir . r
K a»
.
z z ?.

OP
L
P
. 40
I

000 N

. z
?

00.9116 N
m
I
I rn? Dm D
m0 rrno(ALO;O
? m
?mo? N
??
C)
Z
?
?
mrlm
?;
VOX 00 -L-;
j - ?,
r

ZOO 000016 N

i

' n m

? T

Z n
i M
l+J
°

z
m
?m
Z\
=_ ?my?

?? O

?
O
X _ T o y 0 cn 0 m
< z
Cl?
__ o 0
?
m
Z o
o 0
m
Z
Z
°opz
?Z?<
3={
?.?
LW ZG D
0 Z
v
y0
w o o 2> m Z ..

U4 I 1 1

J
1 ?

009606 N
v ?
o
°
0
0 0
0

A;0 m? Mc m m N m U1
m? z? m-0 x x x Z m \
Z
50
?
Ao
?
m
z oz m c c) O
rz*i
OOOOL6 N

p
?m m? ?? OA < ? Z c
Z
r

A
z?
m
zm
g S M O m ' 1
\k
D
D
M
0 r- m l \
?
\
O O m z m

3: z
Z
° ?. \

L4 %. -
b? i° ? `; ) d
.
1+ 1+ i+ 'D j /
M

lj . ?? S Ol 6. N

l ?
Sif
r1 X- '?Y .- \

?' 00011,6'- N

u, a

OOSll6 N

1 a

-------------

I '
I '
I ,; - OOOZl6 N

rt n m m
m
cn T
o? m i
Mzc cn D
CAI m
m
(n N O l J

n

x v
C

m0
z
F=
__
0- y0

n0

<

z
C/1
F,
44h
W o
0
° m?Z3??
3 N oT f y,
19
o z N
z_ oo
v?m
zz ?
cn CD
O o p ? o
C z D z z " CL
cc 0
W

PROTECTED SPECIES SURVEY
01 11 13 13
Haw River Swamp Wetland Restoration Site
Guilford and Rockingham Counties, North Carolina
Prepared for:

SF P -- ,ry j11!?,

Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 107
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Prepared by:

EcoScience
ECOSCIENCE CORPORATION
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27604
Tel [phone] Fax [phone]
August 2003
PROTECTED SPECIES SURVEY
Haw River Swamp Wetland Restoration Site
Guilford and Rockingham Counties, North Carolina
INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Wetland Restoration Program (WRP) is currently developing wetland
restoration strategies for the Piedmont physiographic region of the Cape Fear River Basin. As
part of this effort, WRP has requested proposals (RFP) for full delivery wetland restoration sites
within USGS Hydrologic Unit 03030002 of the river basin. This 8-digit hydrologic unit supports a
Category 1 classification by WRP, denoting watersheds that are high priority for wetland
restoration work.
Restoration Systems, a private sector mitigation company, is proposing wetland restoration
plans for the Haw River Swamp Wetland Restoration Site (hereafter referred to as the Site)
designed specifically to assist WRP in fulfilling its restoration goals. The Site encompasses
approximately 49.5 acres within the Haw River floodplain located approximately 8 miles north of
the Greensboro City limits, on the county line between Guilford and Rockingham Counties.
EcoScience Corporation (ESC) has been contracted to design and implement a detailed
wetland restoration plan. A draft detailed wetland restoration plan was submitted to Restoration
Systems in August 2003, in which ESC stated that habitat for species listed as "Endangered" or
"Threatened" by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) may occur within the Site. This report
provides information regarding the federally protected species that are listed as "Threatened" or
"Endangered" by the FWS in Guilford and Rockingham counties. "Endangered" status refers to
"any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range,"
and "Threatened" status is defined as "any species which is likely to become an Endangered
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range" (16
U.S.C. 1532). Federally listed species with Endangered (E) or Threatened (T) status receive
protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
The Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is listed as "Threatened" by the FWS in Guilford
County. In Rockingham County, smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) and the James
spinymussel (Pleurobema collina) are listed as "Endangered" by the FWS. During field
investigations, ESC identified two small areas of suitable habitat for smooth coneflower located
on the Site in the form of upland fallow fields. ESC conducted a systematic plant by plant
survey for smooth coneflower in August 2003 during which no smooth coneflower was found.
METHODS
Field surveys were conducted for smooth coneflower in August 2003. The systematic plant by
plant survey was conducted by walking and visually searching for the plant within the two areas
1
identified on the Site as suitable for the smooth coneflower. Areas that did not meet the habitat
criteria were discounted and not surveyed.
The surveys were conducted by biologists Cord Faquin and Heather Saunders. Ms. Faquin is
an ESC Project Scientist with 3 years of experience in the environmental field. Ms. Saunders is
an ESC Project Scientist with 1 year of experience in the environmental field.
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Threatened
Family: Accipitridae
Date Listed: March 11, 1967
The bald eagle is a large raptor with a wingspan greater than 6 feet. Adult bald eagles are dark
brown with a white head and tail. Immature eagles are brown with whitish mottling on the tail,
belly, and wing linings. Bald eagles typically feed on fish but may also take birds and small
mammals. In the Carolinas, nesting season extends from December through May (Potter et al.
1980). Bald eagles typically nest in tall, living trees in a conspicuous location near open water.
Eagles forage over large bodies of water and utilize adjacent trees for perching (Hamel 1992).
Disturbance activities within a primary zone extending 750 to 1500 feet from a nest tree are
considered to result in unacceptable conditions for eagles (FWS 1987). The FWS recommends
avoiding disturbance activities, including construction and tree-cutting within this primary zone.
Within a secondary zone, extending from the primary zone boundary out to a distance of 1 mile
from a nest tree, construction and land-clearing activities should be restricted to the non-nesting
period. The FWS also recommends avoiding alteration of natural shorelines where bald eagles
forage, and avoiding significant land-clearing activities within 1500 feet of known roosting sites.
This Site is characterized by fallow agricultural fields, with limited riparian fringe. In addition, the
nearest open water foraging habitat occurs more than 3.6 miles to the south of the Site, in Lake
Townsend. Although the site has mature forest adjacent to its boundaries and may be subject
to fly-overs during migration, no sightings of nests or individuals were noted during field
investigations. In addition, the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP) records indicate that the
nearest documented bald eagles are 7 miles southwest of the Site on Meads Fork. Therefore,
work associated with this project may affect bald eagles; however, work is not likely to adversely
affect bald eagles.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: MAY AFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT
James spinymussel (Pleurobema collina) Endangered
Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: July 22, 1988
The James spinymussel is a small, subrhomboidal mussel, with an obliquely subtruncated
posterior, that grows to approximately 1.5 inches in length. The external shell of the juveniles
usually bears one to three short spines on each valve. The adult shells usually lack spines.
2
The shell is smooth, straw-colored to brownish-black, with widely spaced concentric striations.
Preferred habitat of the spiny mussel includes relatively fast-flowing, well-oxygenated,
circumneutral water over a silt-free, noncompacted, gravel/coarse sand substrate. Based on
the FWS species recovery plan (FWS 1990), this spinymussel is only known from 10 streams
within the James River basin in Virginia and West Virginia.
In October 2000, an unidentified spinymussel was found in the Dan River (Roanoke River
Basin) in Stokes County, during a survey conducted by personnel of the N.C. Department of
Transportation (DOT), the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC), and the N.C. Division of
Marine Fisheries (DMS). Spinymussels had not previously been identified within the Roanoke
River basin. The mussels found in the Dan River have characteristics similar to the James
spinymussel and the Tar spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansanna). Specimens of the recently
found spinymussel are currently (as of April 2001) undergoing genetic analysis. The finding of
this unidentified spinymussel has resulted in the FWS listing James spinymussel in North
Carolina counties that include tributaries of the Roanoke River basin (as of the February 26,
2001 list).
The Haw River, at the Site, is characterized by low velocity flows over sandy/silty substrate.
Disturbance associated with upstream timber activities and a lack of deep rooted, stabilizing
vegetation has resulted in a high silt content in the Haw River, and possibly elevated water
temperatures, which may hinder the establishment of the James spinymussel. Habitat
limitations, in combination with the limited range of the spinymussel (it is only known to occur in
the James and Roanoke River Basins) indicate that the project will not likely adversely affect
this species. NHP records indicate that no known occurrences of this species have been
documented within 17 miles of the Site. Consequently, the proposed restoration will have no
effect on the James spinymussel.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Smooth coneflower (Echinacea Laevigata) Endangered
Family: Asteraceae
Date Listed: October 8, 1992
Smooth conef lower is a stiffly erect, rarely branched perennial that grows up to 5 feet tall. Basal
and stem leaves are large, glabrous, lanceolate to narrowly ovate blades reaching 3 inches in
length. This coneflower blooms from late May to July, producing solitary, heads of small
purplish disk flowers with long drooping pink to purplish ray flowers (Kral 1983).
Smooth coneflower grows in dry, calcareous, basic, or circumneutral soils on road sides, clear
cuts, and power line right-of-ways where there is abundant light and little herbaceous
competition. Fire-maintained woodlands also appear to provide potential habitat for the
coneflower. Shading of road sides by adjacent forest trees and routine mowing reduce the
suitability of road sides within the study corridor for this species
3
The Site is characterized by fallow agricultural fields, with limited riparian fringe. Suitable
habitat for smooth coneflower does exist on the Site in the form of upland fallow fields.
However, these areas have abundant weedy and competitive species and are periodically
flooded. Systematic plant-by-plant surveys were conducted in August 2003 within on-site areas
that support smooth coneflower habitat and no smooth coneflower was found. In addition, the
NHP documents the nearest smooth coneflower population to be located 20 miles north of the
Site, in Virginia. Consequently, the proposed restoration activities may affect, but are not likely
to adversely affect smooth conef lower.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: MAY AFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT
4
REFERENCES
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1987. Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in
the Southeast Region. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 8 pp.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1990. James Spinymussel (Pleurobema collina) Recovery
Plan. U.S. Department of the Interior, Annapolis Field Office (Region 5). Annapolis,
MD. 35 pp.
Gaddy, L.L. 1991. The status of Echinacea /aevigata N.C. Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources (DEHNR): Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, NC.
Hamel, P.B. 1992. Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy,
Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437 pp.
Kral, R. 1983. A Report on Some Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Forest-related Vascular
Plants of the South. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Technical
Publication R8J-TP 2. 1305 pp.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 408 pp.
5
3
I
AT
Q?
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P. E. Director
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
July 3, 2004
DWQ Project # 03-1133
Guilford and Rockingham Counties
Page 1 of 3
Mr. John Preyer
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27604
Subject Property: Haw River Swamp Wetland Restoration Site
Approval of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions
Dear Mr. Prey( :

You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to
place fill within or otherwise impact 980 feet of streams for the purpose of restoring wetlands at
the Haw River Swamp Wetland Restoration site at the subject property, as described within your
application dated September 5, 2003 and revised on May 3, 2004 and received by the N.C.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) on May 3, 2004. After reviewing your application, we have
decided that the impacts are covered by General Water Quality Certification Number 3399. The
Certification(s) allows you to use Nationwide Permit 27 when issued by the US Army Corps of
Engineers (USAGE). In addition, you should obtain or otherwise comply with any other
required federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not
limited to) Erosion and Sediment Control and Non-discharge regulations. Also, this approval to
proceed with your proposed impacts or to conduct impacts to waters as depicted in your
application shall expire upon expiration of the 404 or LAMA Permit.
.......... ....
This approval is for the purpose and design that you'described in your application. If You dhange
your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application. If the
property is sold, the new owner must.be given a copy of this Certification and approval letter and
is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. If total fills for this project (now or in
the future) exceed one acre of wetland or 150 linear feet of stream, compensatory mitigation may
be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h). This approval requires you to follow the
conditions listed in the attached certification and any additional conditions listed below.
N. C. Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
[phone] (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), (htto://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands)
MEN
Mr. John Preyer:?
Page 2 of 3
July 3, 2004:
The Additional Conditions of the Certification are:
1. Impacts Approved
The following impacts are hereby approved as long as all of the other specific and
general conditions of this Certification (or Isolated Wetland Permit) are met. No other
impacts are approved including incidental impacts:
Amount Approved
(Units) Plan Location or Reference
Stream 980 (feet) Restoration site
2. Erosion & Sediment Control Practices
Erosion and sediment control practices must be in full compliance with all specifications
governing the proper design, installation and operation and maintenance of such Best
Management Practices in order to protect surface waters standards:
a. The erosion and sediment control measures for the project must be designed,
installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the
North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual.
b. The design, installation; operation, and maintenance of the sediment and erosion
control measures must be such that they equal, or exceed, the requirements specified
in the most recent version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control
Manual. The devices shall be maintained on all construction sites, borrow sites, and
waste pile (spoil) projects, including contractor-owned or leased borrow pits
associated with the project.
c. For borrow pit sites, the erosion and sediment control measures must be designed,
installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the
North Carolina Surface Mining Manual.
d. The reclamation measures and implementation must comply with the reclamation in
accordance with the requirements of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act.
3. No Waste, Spoil, Solids, or Fill of Any Kind
No waste; spoih -solids, or fill of any kind shall occur in wetlands, waters, or -riparian areas
beyond the footprint of the impacts depicted in the Pre-Construction Notification. All
construction activities, including the design, installation, operation, and maintenance of
sediment and erosion control Best Management Practices, shall be performed so that no
violations of state water quality standards, statutes, or rules occur.
4. No Sediment & Erosion Control Measures w/n Wetlands or Waters
Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or waters to the
maximum extent practicable. If placement of sediment and erosion control devices in
wetlands and waters is unavoidable, they shall be removed and the natural grade restored

Mr. John Preyer:
Page 3 of 3
July 3, 2004:
within six months of the date that the Division of Land Resources has released the
project.
5. Certificate of Completion
Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification or
applicable Buffer Rules, and any subsequent modifications, the applicant is required to
return the attached certificate of completion to the 401/Wetlands Unit, North Carolina
Division of Water Quality, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1650.
Violations of any condition herein set forth may result in revocation of this Certification and may
result in criminal and/or civil penalties. The authorization to proceed with your proposed
impacts or to conduct impacts to waters as depicted in your application and as authorized by this
Certification, shall expire upon expiration of the 404 or CAMA Permit.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this Certification (associated with the approved
wetland or stream impacts), you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 60
days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition, which
conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General. Statutes to the Office of Administrative
Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 2769916714. This certification and its
conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone Cyndi Karoly in the Central Office in
Raleigh at 919-733-9721 or Daryl Lamb in the DWQ Winston-Salem Regional Office at 336-
771-4600.
Sincerely,
W mek, P.E.
AWKljrd
Enclosures: GC 3399
Certificate of Completion
cc: Todd Tugwell, USACE Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Daryl Lamb, DWQ Winston-Salem Regional Office
DLR Winston-Salem Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
Jerry McCrain; EcoScience Corp., 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101, Raleigh, NC 27604
Filename: 031133HawRiverMitigation(Guilford)401
Haw River 401 Certification Status, DWQ Project # 031133
Subject: Haw River 401 Certification Status, DWQ Project # 031133
From: "Dave Schiller" <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 14:19:02 -0400
40"1
To: <[e-mail]>
Cyndi,
am sending this note to request the status of the Certification for the subject project. On
May 3, we transmitted a Revised Detailed Mitigation Plan to you that addressed the
comments/questions you provided to Restoration Systems in your letter of September 15,
2003 to George Howard. That letter was apparently written by Todd St. John prior to his
leaving DWQ.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 755-9490.
Dave Schiller
PS: A nice presentation you and the others did in Salisbury last week. A very thorough
overview of the whole spectrum of DWQ permitting issues.
;xv__c
? S-S
1 of 1 6/21/04 2:30 PM
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6'j? I , a te
DRAFT DETAILED WETLAND RESTORATION PLAN
HAW RIVER SWAMP WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
GUILFORD AND ROCKINGHAM COUNTIES
Prepared for: SEP ° 5 2003
N T O c SECTIO
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 203
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Prepared by:

EcoScience
EcoScience Corporation
1100 Haynes Street, Suite 101
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
AUGUST 2003
1

i

1

1

1
1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1
2.0 METHODS ......................................................................................................................4
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................ 7
3.1 Physiography, Topography and Land-use ........................................................... 7
3.2 Soils .................................................................................................................. 13
3.3 Jurisdictional Wetlands ...................................................................................... 13
3.4 Plant Communities ............................................................................................ 16
3.5 Hydrology .......................................................................................................... 19
3.5.1 Surface Water (Streams) ....................................................................... 19
3.5.2 Groundwater .......................................................................................... 20
3.6 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................ 21
3.7 Wildlife .............................................................................................................. 25
3.8 Regional Corridors and Adjacent Natural Areas ................................................ 26
3.9 Protected Species ............................................................................................. 26
4.0 WETLAND RESTORATION STUDIES ......................................................................... 28
4.1 Surface Water Analysis ..................................................................................... 28
4.2 Reference Plant Communities ........................................................................... 28
4.3 Reference Physiography and Surface Topography ........................................... 29
5.0 WETLAND RESTORATION PLAN ............................................................................... 33
5.1 Wetland Hydrology and Soil Restoration ........................................................... 33
5.1 .1 Ditch Plugs ............................................................................................ 33
5.1 .2 Ditch Backfilling ..................................................................................... 33
5.1 .3 Backwater Slough Construction ............................................................. 33
5.1 .4 Ephemeral Pool Construction ................................................................ 35
5.1 .5 Controlled Water Outfall Structure ......................................................... 35
5.1 .6 River Levee Removal ............................................................................ 35
5.1 .7 Midway Creek Diversion ........................................................................ 35
5.1 .8 Southern Tributary Diversion ................................................................. 36
5.1 .9 Wetland Surface Scarification ................................................................ 36
5.1 .10 Woody Debris Deposition ...................................................................... 36
5.2 Wetland Plant Community Restoration .............................................................. 37
6.0 MONITORING PLAN .................................................................................................... 43
6.1 Hydrology .......................................................................................................... 43
6.2 Hydrology Success Criteria ............................................................................... 43
6.3 Vegetation ......................................................................................................... 45
6.4 Vegetative Success Criteria .............................................................................. 46

fl
u
...................................................................................
1 6.5 Contingency ................... 46
6.6 Monitoring Report Submittal .............................................................................. 47
7.0 RESTORATION DESIGN UNITS .................................................................................. 48
8.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 50
9.0 APPENDICES .............................................................................................................. 52

1

1
1

f

I

1
1
1

1
1
t

LIST OF FIGURES
Paqe
Figure 1 Site Location ....................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2 2003 Aerial Photograph ....................................................................................... 5
Figure 3 USGS Sub-Basin 8-Digit Hydro Unit .................................................................... 8
Figure 4 Watershed Boundaries and Regional Corridors .................................................. 9
Figure 5 Watershed Land-Use ........................................................................................ 10
Figure 6 Physiography, Topography, Land-use ............................................................... 11
Figure 7 Natural Resource Conservation Service Soil Mapping ...................................... 14
Figure 8 Hydric / Non-Hydric Soil Boundary Determination ............................................. 15
Figure 9 Approximated Jurisdictional Boundaries and PC Cropland ................................ 17
Figure 10 Plant Communities ............................................................................................ 18
Figure 11 Representative Groundwater Contour Maps (A-B) ........................................22,23
Figure 12 Reference Site: Plan View and Cross-Section ................................................... 31
Figure 13 Wetland Restoration Plan .................................................................................. 34
Figure 14 Target Landscape Ecosystem ........................................................................... 38
Figure 15 Planting Plan ..................................................................................................... 39
Figure 16 Monitoring Plan ................................................................................................. 44
Figure 17 Restoration Design Units ................................................................................... 49
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1 Representative Groundwater Elevations ........................................................... 24
Table 2 Reference Forest Plot Summary (Bottomland Hardwood Forest) ...................... 30
Table 3 Planting Plan ..................................................................................................... 41
iv
1
t

DRAFT DETAILED WETLAND RESTORATION PLAN
HAW RIVER SWAMP WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
GUILFORD AND ROCKINGHAM COUNTIES
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Wetland Restoration Program (WRP) is currently developing wetland
restoration strategies for the Piedmont physiographic region of the Cape Fear River Basin. As
part of this effort, WRP has requested proposals (RFP) for full delivery wetland restoration
within USGS Hydrologic Unit 03030002 of the river basin. This 8-digit hydrologic unit supports a
Category 1 classification by WRP, denoting watersheds that are high priority for wetland
restoration work.
Restoration Systems, a private sector mitigation company is proposing wetland restoration
plans for the Haw River Swamp Wetland Restoration Site (hereafter referred to as the Site)
designed specifically to assist WRP in fulfilling its restoration goals. The Site encompasses
approximately 49.5 acres within the Haw River floodplain located approximately 8 miles north of
Greensboro city limits on the county line between Guilford and Rockingham Counties (Figure 1).
1 The Site is positioned primarily within the floodplain of the Haw River and alluvial fans
associated. with tributaries of the Haw. The floodplain has been ditched, leveled, and drained to
support agricultural activities. On-site streams have been dredged, re-routed, and straightened
to further impede surface water impacts to alternate land uses. The Site offers opportunities for
riverine (stream side) wetland and buffer restoration and enhancement, with benefits to water
quality and wildlife in a rapidly developing watershed.
The objectives of this wetland restoration plan include the following:
1. Removal of agricultural activities from the floodplain and banks of the Haw River.
' 2. Removal of the Site from potential land uses associated with encroaching
urbanization.
3. Increase flood storage potential within the Cape Fear Basin.
4. Provide floodplain surfaces to the Haw River for natural redevelopment of
geomophological processes.
5. Re-establish anastomosed stream channels and Piedmont Swamp and Bottomland
forest communities within the floodplain ecosystem.
6. Intercept and assimilate nutrient and sediment laden run-off from adjacent and
upstream watersheds.
' 7. Assist in establishing a continuous wetland bio-reserve (corridor) between Cone and
Benaja Swamps and the adjacent bottomland ecosytems.
After implementation, the Site is expected to support approximately 34.9 acres of restored
riverine wetlands and approximately 2.1 acres of enhanced riverine wetlands. Enhancement
activities will also be undertaken along the Haw River through levee and riparian
1

I

1

l

I
1
Reidsville
`. tJ Rockingham County'
NC Highway 158 C
Midway,,.
Site Locatio r;' .. Tullford County
Rockingham County
G u lfordd Eount
1 11'?, ,',`., '., 1 ?•r i Micwrfay '` ,. -?,: •;;j , -1tiJ•? ,??
NC Hight r$
M7dl?dy
..`. ?- f
,• -`?\ ,: ,',, J i %i'.` f' ?1 ?../? Y V Jiff ? ' It
Sanoy-Ci'cS d
f ?r ? ?.,,'; i1LW, f ?`? l ? : V I\ '`-- J fx\+?• k?" '.. 1,(1?'j ( '?I ?` ` •v ?`j1 Si ?` ...?->J
1
00'i
-Ir M i , i /.%? l 1 f 1 •'' !jY'?, t\.. .\ . `? J ?; !? ?L r? r j 1 I V /y -?? j `?'%
r , *g gas. r', / `?°°? I _ • ??
/ )(? % Ji /r 1 - _ J r SJ? t r + /r? ?1 1 ) ?`\.\? :, JiJ !?
tl `, i f J C ) t
_, J
lo I j?e
J, J
1 7 C d

Site Location
Haw River Swamp Wetland Restoration Site
Guilford and Rockingham Counties, North Carolina
EcoScience
DATE: ESC #
June 2003 03-148
SCALE: DWN BY:
As Shown CKD BY:,
FIGURE 1

' forest buffer planting. Upland buffer ecotones, riparian buffers, and groundwater wetland
recharge areas within approximately 10.6 acres will be preserved or restored as upland
' management areas. Currently, 12 acres of riverine wetland restoration are proposed for use by
WRP as identified in the RFP response #16-AW3001. The 12 acres of restoration is defined in
the easement boundary included in Appendix A. The additional wetland restoration acreage is
available for use as future compensatory mitigation.
This document represents a detailed plan designed to facilitate implementation and success of
riverine wetland restoration. The plan includes: 1) descriptions of existing conditions, 2) wetland
restoration studies (including groundwater and surface water analyses), 3) reference wetland
ecosystem investigations, 4) a restoration design plan, and 5) a proposed monitoring plan.
Upon approval of this plan, construction activities will be implemented as outlined in the
following text.

1

1

1

t

1

t

2.0 METHODS
Natural resource information was obtained from available sources including USGS topographic
mapping (Lake Brandt and Bethany), United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS [formerly the Soil Conservation Service]) soils
mapping for Guilford and Rockingham Counties (USDA 1977 and USDA 1992), and corrected
aerial infrared orthophotos and topographic maps including topographic point and contour data
(1-foot intervals) (Figure 2). Topographic mapping served as base mapping for field efforts and
subsequent restoration activities.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) data base was consulted for the presence of
protected species and designated natural areas near the Site. A listing of Federally-protected
species whose ranges extend into Guilford and Rockingham counties were also obtained from
the FWS (January 31, 2003). State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) records were reviewed
for the presence of significant cultural resources in the Site vicinity. Characteristic and historic
natural community patterns were sampled and classified according to Schafale's and Weakley's
"Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina" (1990).
EcoScience Corporation (ESC) began preliminary site work in February 2001, at the direction of
Restoration Systems. Detailed field investigations were performed by ESC personnel from early
May to mid-June 2003 and included hydrological measurements (surface and sub-surface), soil
surveys, and mapping of on-site resources. Project scientists evaluated hydrology, vegetation,
and soil parameters to determine the wetland potential of the Site. Existing plant communities
were delineated, mapped, and described by structure and composition.

t

F1
1

NRCS soil mapping was used to identify hydric soil boundaries and to predict (target) biological
diversity prior to human disturbances. NRCS soil map units were ground truthed by a licensed
soil scientist to verify existing soil mapping units and to map inclusions and taxadjunct areas. A
taxadjunct area contains soils which cannot be classified in a series recognized in the
classification system. Such soils are named for a series they resemble and are designated as
taxadjuncts to that series.
Hydrologic conditions were characterized by the following activities: 1) excavation of a series of
soil borings; 2) installation of 12 piezometers; 3) collection of periodic water level
measurements; 4) analysis of surface water profiles along drainageways; 5) development of a
groundwater contour map; 5) analysis of groundwater elevations through the use of on-site
groundwater monitoring piezometers; and 7) on-going flood frequency analyses (HEC-RAS)
along the Haw River, incoming tributaries, and on-site ditches.
Floodplain analyses were performed for the Haw River and parallel ditch to predict flood extents
both on- and off-site for the 1-, 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, 50- and 100-year storm events. The analyses
utilized existing and proposed stream geometries along with a HEC-RAS model. The extent of
flooding was performed primarily to determine the potential for riverine wetland restoration on-
site and to verify that there would not be any negative impacts off-site. The model was also
used to verify that the road (Church Street) would not have any additional flooding due to the
proposed design.
4
rr rr r r r r r r r rr ?r r rr rr r r s rr rs
N'
O
O
0 o r;.
o
o -
N „s y
tY a
Y
76%L.
rt?-
ia!F
4?

Field survey information was platted and compiled on 1-foot contour mapping and analyzed to
evaluate the Site under existing conditions. Based on field investigations and data analyses, a
wetland restoration and enhancement plan has been developed for WRP and agency review
and approval prior to implementation.
1
t

i

? 6
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
3.1 Physiography, Topography and Land-use
The Site is located within the Northern Inner Piedmont ecoregion of North Carolina (Griffith and
Omernick 2000). This ecoregion consists of dissected irregular plains, low to high hills, ridges,
isolated monadnocks and low to moderate gradient streams with mostly cobble, gravel, and
sandy substrates (Griffith et al. 2002). The Site watershed is located in the upper reaches of the
Cape Fear River Basin (USGS Hydrologic Unit 03030002) (Figure 3). This region of the
watershed extends from points immediately west of Greensboro east to Morrisville. The Site is
located along the border of Rockingham and Guilford Counties approximately 8 miles north of
Greensboro city limits and two miles south of N.C. Highway 158 and the Midway Crossroads.
The Site comprises approximately 49.5 acres of a broad Piedmont floodplain and groundwater
side slopes, immediately below the confluence of the Haw River and Mears Creek.
Approximately 2000 linear feet of the Haw River flow through and adjacent to the Site in a west
to east direction. Topography within most of the Site is nearly level with an elevation range
between 696 feet and 700 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). Upland slopes in the
northern portion of the property extend to approximately 745 feet NGVD. At the Site outfall, the
Haw River supports a primary watershed of approximately 52.7 square miles. The Site is
dissected by two perennial and one intermittent tributaries flowing into the Haw River (Figure 4).
These secondary watersheds support drainage areas of approximately 1.4, 0.9 and 0.1 square
miles. The on-site canal was constructed along the toe of slope to intercept stormwater and
groundwater flow from a 0.12 square mile area west (upstream) of the Site and from
groundwater slopes immediately adjacent to the Site along the northern boundary (<0.1 square
miles).
Land-use in the upstream watershed is currently comprised of primarily forest and agricultural
land (Figure 5). Based on Geographical Information System (GIS) data (EASC 1997), forests
and agriculture occupy approximately 65 percent and 32 percent of the land area respectively.
Based on field reconnaissance, low-density residential development is expanding into the area.
Increased commercial and residential development pressures from suburban sprawl associated
with the growth of Greensboro and the region are anticipated in the next decade. Therefore,
associated watersheds, including areas surrounding the Site, are expected to undergo
significant land-use changes to more urban, residential, infrastructural, and commercial
conditions. Site land-use is pasture and agricultural corn production, with the last and final
harvest being in the previous year. Site photos taken during a high-flow event in early Spring
2003 and photos taken during field work (June 2003) are shown in Appendix B.
The Site has been subdivided into four primary physiographic units for restoration planning
purposes: 1) river levee, 2) primary floodplain, 3) secondary floodplain, and 4) groundwater
slopes (Figure 6). The primary variables used to segregate the physographic landscape units
include land slope, groundwater flow characteristics, soil features, and the primary hydrologic
influence on historic wetlard function.
7
? sr r s so s sm sly r r sr m m m m r r r r
N
I
i
0

r'
I
it
1
t
X
C
a L fi: ?t?
11
14A
v
1
i
r
i
I
I
1
i
r
,

R?-
S?
.S p
I
1

r
m
w cn 03 c> w o cn
oW 00 w Z
Z c
oD
pD p
? p
p U)

AZ :U :Q

r
_ l-
{

i

i
i

n d O p
cn z m =
p co Z C C7 G7
(n z
Gi > ?OQIC 0, c Cn-OI-mi??
0 ?r>;u ? r
W CD U o O ?G?j C)
m?D? - - v -tet `I
co C/) z Z Z O D r.
0 0 z r
t J rl

O
`F

ti
i t ?r
i
a?
t
?I
Irv
+ CD
1
Z_

0
r' \;\
I T''j ?.TZ i \
M
m i Mr m r rs ??! r m r r m? m@am
? N
O
i
N
L7
O
13
c °
c p
!. o
f7
m
0
1 y _ CD
CL a ?
1 u, O' = .•r
1 - I a 1
1 7 ? 1
-------------------- ----J------------------------.
J
cu CD
CL I

< CL
K:] t
Q

:c m
y
N A ,-- -T-
-M ;o
Z\
I ?
JJ1 e / ? -1
, + r
-7. c rn
i ,.r------- - - ---.--------- -- -----------------A---?¦ St7V INFNN I - - .
1 I` ,
r C N (/1 G I (A G) W 2 1 h, m I i > y
CD 0
N Ol C V C ry F , 1 I R,? I '' ;
0 CL U)
CD 0 M CD
w CL
CA.

n - O o
0 p z rn =
Z D 0rn c-D-{ 0°C)
v
T o
41& c ? rn
m z ox :3
C) 0
N ?r mrn
7 °o U) v Z
?r r? r ws r ?w tr ? ? s ?r r r rr ? it ? ? w
lm:

c
0
0
Cl)
0
0-
v
CD
0-
CD
0_
3
CD

I

M *n 20
n ?a c?

o
N
si
z
O cn
N C
O N
P (D _
CD (D
O N
co O O
Cl)

? ?
m
`r

CD C
mac.. J A!n
N I
n ?.
?T
? c
C

r-F
_ I t1
0 0 CD
:3 -1
o ZJ
(p N p'
n S N -
N ? (D -
OV cn N
O C
A - r
(D
O ?
W
om
dd V>(mj ? '
0 CD
???Cf)
? N n
Z N N
0 m C) r-"
D O (D
N
V'
Y!
m 0
A (D O_ (D
O
m ? am m m m am an m s rm r s m m m M?
,
• ? 1Y ? m r,
m co O -D Z N "D m m N M K: K: W
m c. z -n 1 m x x x Z D i
F_ ?m EA 0 CA O m
> O O
z

o _ ?: ?
r- {
m Z
G? Z
n Z
C?
n CO
O
v; ? m m O n
O z
n
n A cn
? ;a
O <
D -
X Z
-A z
D
r X D m O O
O O O C C
n n z r
y D Z
Z 1 m
O
Z
m 1 ;? ? 1

W
Oy
? zyc
? yC

,
x
i?.cn
;:o m
O rn m
z <O 0 A
{ m
D m C m
m Z O m
zJ m r O
0
r O
O 0 r
m r
m r Z
r) k
z
m
N
I
I )
m z
Dn
= 000216 N
OD
Z?= zn
O z D e. ,
x C,
C_ C_ i F
cr)
m zC) C) no m?DDm m
z °°Z -iz -v< ?-+ C 19
N o ;z° O° V)O s
0 cn . z z w
a ° (A 1 m A

•
/ I
C/) V
r
/
O V
?
?
Ir

n t.
C -

>1y
W
?I
W..
N
f I „,
t ?
f( '

---fir
' cn \\
i.l
• 37??<<? i A,, -
m .I- ?.
.
rn el
r 1 ?G G
--- -- -- ----------- -- -- : .I=..-------± T' 000116 .N
,1' i j
i
-------------------------
p 4 i l? ! 00.9116 N
f w ?' .
- 3E
River Levee
River levees are represented by an approximately 3.5-acre, linear band along the banks of the
Haw River (Figure 6). The physiographic area extends intermittently along an approximately
1000-foot reach of the Haw River, varying in width from approximately 75 feet to less than
20 feet. Under historic conditions, the river levee represented slightly elevated, upland habitat
influenced by the frequent deposition of coarse, sandy alluvium during river floods.
Groundwater flow in the area is characterized by relatively rapid, lateral to radial interflow
towards the river channel, inducing well-drained conditions throughout a large majority of the
year. Based on reference stream reaches, natural river levees are elevated approximately 1 to
3 feet above the adjacent floodplain, with intermittent openings residing at lower elevations.
Prior to 1959, the Haw River was dredged, straightened, and much of the existing levee graded
with the surrounding floodplain. Under historic conditions, the river levee is expected to have
supported Coastal Plain levee forest communities (Schafale and Weakley 1990).
Primary Floodplain
The primary river floodplain encompasses approximately 29.9 acres located in central portions
of the Site (Figure 6). The floodplain historically supported frequent overbank flooding
(estimated at an approximate, 1.5-year return interval) and was periodically re-worked by
alluvial processes and periodic, short term inundation/saturation. Groundwater flow is
dominated by vertical to semi-radial recharge with episodic lateral discharge and surficial
expression of groundwater occurring within seepage areas and ponding in depressional,
backwater sloughs located at the outer edge of the floodplain. Intermittent stream flows in the
vicinity of seeps have been observed disappearing and reappearing in localized portions of
forested reference sites along upper reaches of the Haw River. Under historic conditions,
natural communities are expected to include Piedmont bottomland forest and oval to linear
pockets of Piedmont swamp forest in the vicinity of seepages and sloughs (Schafale and
Weakley 1990). The Haw River was dredged and a drainage canal with associated drainage
network installed to facilitate agriculture production within the floodplain. Many of the primary
floodplain and associated riverine wetland functions (energy dissipation, flood storage, habitat,
etc.) have been modified in this physiographic area through river and floodplain alterations.
Secondary Floodplain
The secondary floodplain (9.4 acres) represents relatively flat to gently sloping, alluvial fans
associated with two tributaries of the Haw River (Figure 6). This area represents depositional
alluvial debris cones as a consequence of long-term bedload transport into the larger Haw River
valley. Groundwater flow is expected to exhibit primarily unidirectional accelerated flow towards
the primary floodplain. Discharge from adjacent groundwater slopes into the secondary
floodplain may provide sustained surface water expression throughout the year, potentially
supporting various intermittent and perennial channels and ponded areas. Under historic
conditions, the area was likely dominated by bottomland hardwood or mesic mixed hardwood
forests (Piedmont subtype) (Schafale and Weakley 1990).
The secondary floodplain is dissected by Midway Creek to the north and an unnamed tributary
to the south. Both Midway Creek and the unnamed tributary historically supported auxiliary
overbank flows from 0.9 and 1.4 square mile secondary watersheds, respectively. However,
12
these tributaries have been diverted into approximately 2000 linear feet of ditches circumventing
the Site (Figure 6). The ditches were installed to facilitate agricultural production and to quickly
convey water from the secondary watershed through the Site. The constructed drainage
network provides direct connectivity of surface waters to the Haw River effectively bypassing
land surfaces and potential floodplain functions on the Site.
Groundwater (Upland) Slopes
Upland slopes, occupying approximately 5.8 acres of the Site, are situated primarily along the
northern valley wall and include the base of moderately sloped escarpments that rise above the
floodplain floor (Figure 6). Under historic conditions, these slopes are expected to exhibit uni-
directional overland flow and accelerated radial to lateral groundwater flow towards the
floodplain. This physiographic area is currently dominated by early successional plant
communities. Under historic conditions, the area was likely dominated by various upland plant
communities including mesic mixed hardwood and dry-oak hickory forest (Piedmont subtype)
(Schafale and Weakley 1990).
3.2 Soils
Determination of soil types within the Site are based on NRCS soil survey mapping for Guilford
and Rockingham counties (USDA 1977, 1992) and soils mapping of existing conditions
determined by ESC at the Site. Based on NRCS soil survey mapping, soil types within the Site
include Chewacla loam, Cecil sandy loam, and Hiwassee loam (Figure 7). On-site verification
and ground-truthing of NRCS map units within the floodplain identified three soil types including
Congaree, Chewacla, and Wehadkee. Based on NRCS documents (NRCS unpublished),
Wehadkee soils are considered hydric within both Guilford and Rockingham counties.
Chewacla and Congaree are non-hydric map units but have hydric inclusions of the Wehadkee
soil type. Hydric and non-hydric soil boundaries were determined in the field and are shown in
Figure 8. Approximately 36.6 acres of hydric soil have been identified on-site.
Chewacla, Congaree, and Wehadkee soils are part of a general map unit of soils typically found
in large floodplains. These soils are nearly level, deep, well drained to poorly drained soils
depending on their respective relationship with the landscape and the seasonal high water
table. Most of the Site occurs within the floodplain of the Haw River and the hydric Wehadkee
soils are the dominant soil type throughout the Site. All three soils are frequently flooded during
the winter and spring (USDA 1977, 1992).
Upland soils on groundwater slopes include Cecil sandy loam, and Hiwassee loam. These
series comprise approximately 5 acres of the Site and exhibit well drained conditions. Ecotones
between upland and floodplain (hydric) soils are among the most diverse and productive
environments for wildlife (Brinson of al. 1981).
3.3 Jurisdictional Wetlands
Jurisdictional wetlands are defined using the criteria set forth in the Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual (DOA 1987). The wetland determination in non prior-converted
cropland areas was supplemented by groundwater data near ditches and the canal. Based on
13
'.137 ? ..- ? I 1 ??J(?
Val
pc0 1 Ol n ??
C 1B.,
"f kF - I \ air
W
/ Vn
-??-PcE7t: ,?
CdP' CdB2
WkF v\ ,..1137
Wk:
Ck ® PcD2
L / PcE2 . \ 1
Ike
aD rAPc02 ?PCE2 f: it >. . Hw8
' WkC O? Ca92
Site
\
Pcn2 c,:R„ /
P.02 \ j Boundary Pc D2
{{{ ( .; k
PcD: ? 1 \ FcD"I. \ Hw8 -?
r n2 I I ??
Ml
1t PW2 - ? F4'vB Ck
,ev WP??G• ?? /,? }1wf3 MDD2
''cD2 rr CkfCk PcDl We
taE / t3 Ck o?? \
k - o j MW
Wh. 'Ch MD07 MhD2
[lll• o e •~'
'?•( - - j' /I rdav f ?• - ` ?f1 Mac
I'd .. ? ' 1• '' .• y'„/ / / _ ? , ?r?' F-
oTlfT / w fl CeB2
A rel
V ? - t
411+1 , ! ? I j
•r ?/' v '
/ WkE
LEGEND 87
?... _ ,. J
/
CcD Cecil sandy loam c`c ?.
10-15% slopes -
.I •H
Ch Chewacla sandy loam
Map 141:f1
Ck Chewacla loam ) w,FZ
0 2coo i;.
HwB Hiwassee loam
1:zo.ooo
1 2-8% slopes ,? /•"' Source: 1977 USDA-SCS Sol' Survey. Guilford CNC }
1992 USDA-SCS Sol. Survey, Rockinghem Co_ NC
Own. by:
MAF
FIGURE
.. , , NRCS SOIL MAPPING Ckd by
JG
Haw River Swamp Wetland Restoration Site
\'C+1
.-, Carol,ra
GU lford Rockin
ham Cc'
-+;e S Date:

JUN 2003
Raleigh. North Carolina g
_
. ?ro ect
03-148
r ?r r? ?r ar rs a. rs ?r rr rri ?r r¦? ?r r rr rr ?r r
mmli

' NI
S•
t ? -
n ° v cn 1 o n
m p
0 o r:
c? D ;oWZ.? ?00,c cn?mN? y?'-? 'mac
c? n ?QZp nc Q?? Vc o o C n? Z3.(D o r D - v
r,
W ZZO 0FsQ m?D?< o ?
N D n °' O '? J rr
°o Z Z

round-truthin9 and groundwater data, approximately 2.0 acres of jurisdictional wetlands were
g
identified within the Site. Figure 9 depicts the approximate location of existing jurisdictional
wetlands.
I' NRCS records indicate that farmed portions of the Site are designated as prior-converted (PC)
cropland. A PC cropland is a wetland which was both manipulated and cropped prior to
December 23, 1985 to the extent that it no longer exhibits important wetland functions
(Section 512.15 of the National Food Security Act Manual, August 1988). PC cropland is not
subject to regulation under the jurisdiction of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Approximately 36.3 acres of PC cropland occur within the Site boundary (Figure 9).
3.4 Plant Communities
Distribution and composition of plant communities reflect landscape-level variations in
topography, soils, hydrology, and past or present land-use practices. Five distinct plant
communities were identified within the Site including fallow cropland, hay pasture, streambank/
_ ditchside, early successional, and freshwater marsh (Figure 10).
The Site is dominated by land in agricultural production (23.8 acres) that was most recently
used for corn production. Stalks of the last crop remain standing in portions of the Site. The
1 fields have been left to succession for two growing seasons, and bottomland hardwood species
such as sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), sweetgum
(Liquidambar styracif/ua), and red maple (Acer rubrum) have begun to emerge. Emergent
wetland species, including sedges (Carex spp.) and soft rush (Juncus effuses), currently
dominate this community.
' Hay pasture (12.7 acres) occurs along the northwest boundary and within a large area in the
northeast portion of the Site. The hay pasture community is dominated by fescue (Festuca sp.)
and various other grasses and forbs, such as goldenrod (Solidago sp.), violet (Viola sp.),
plantain (Plantago lanceolata), chickweed (Stellaria media), and wild onion (Allium canadense).
A streambank/ditch-side community (7.4 acres) occurs within buffer areas adjacent to the Haw
River, the canal, and perimeter ditches within the Site. The overstory is dominated by
sweetgum, red maple, green ash, and sycamore. Shrub and herbaceous cover is dense and
includes canopy species as well as greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica), blackberry (Rubus sp.), grape (Vitis sp.), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans).
' An early successional community (4.0 acres) of young trees, shrubs and briers occurs on the
upland side slope along northern Site boundary. Trees found in this community include black
cherry (Prunus serotina), red maple and various oaks (Quercus spp.). Shrub and herbaceous
cover is dense and includes greenbrier Japanese honeysuckle, blackberry, grape, and poison
ivy.
A freshwater marsh community (1.6 acres) occurs along the north-central portion of the Site, in
an area not designated as PC cropland. The community is dominated by numerous emergent
16

I
?
F I
1 CD

1 lI ?
i
?
^ o
° g m m (/l
- m to
0 m x x o x z D
Wp ?O N O p b m

0

?

0

z
0

p z

0
M
0
o o m o 0 z
?m m00 A o ? m O O 0
z m b c

m
O
? 0
z
r c
X
o y
Z A Z
n ?N m
? o
0 n

r
g 0
z
o
W
(?+ N O
W O ?
I+ I+
--------- - - -
T 1 I
60' ACCESS EASEMENT_
it e 5 1'? , . .. { m
z ?? t { X
m
?; ;' ? 000OL6 N
i
m
i -'
i m? f d i 00
SQL6`.N
00
A N
oo?
I A
lo.
U?
s-. _I?i ? J ?, •
?OOSll6 N
\\
r
! `r
L? e t ?
` + vI f
OOOZL6 N
J r`
m Vl (7 0
N
n
o
n
r,
F i
m
O
c- c-
o

c o 0
A ;
m ?- a
c m
U z
W

p O
cc o 0

L ?
? m v n
OC?
Zcnm Z° ?o =
°zc ?? D

10
?m
am nrrl
n
vvo
0DnX m
o -O-rID
(nO
s
D
m ? a
Z 0
OD
z>
-- -?z?<
00
zzo p?7 m cn0
z
vo> o DN z 70 z w `?

¦r w w? w w r r r ?r r w? w w w¦? w r w
- I
M m (n m V7
L<
(n
-i
?

N
A
M x
V7
-?
0

g T
O

p

m
D

O
Z x
L

n

A
m
m
r z
0

1
0
A n
o
A
n

o
?
o
C
A i
m

O
C
z
0
m

IE

Il;
I

m -0 m -q cn
A D yD D 1
m v 70 r

V)
i c n m
m n D
n Z
m O
L
L r LD
N Z n
=
o N
0 0
m
_ v a v
C)
(r Q? V O Qp ?
A
It I+ + I+ I+ I+ 1n

?i , r ?, c
--_ - - I -C) ?? V)
R1 >> ,"
? I
a, - -- ! --- - -- - - - r---' j -- Z 00001E
I
t ?\
`h
?jj
C -lr---- ---- -------L-----------------? -
z r i; 5011
1 \
I
000,116 N
? \? _ ?? ?\\?\\ k {fie I r, I ,?(/ l
L ? i_ ? 1 Ik!y ,??
'II
--------------------- ------ ------ --------? f
I1
-- ? I - - --- ?I OOSll6 N
,F I L ?
f y\?
lJ?, ,
I ? ? f s
--?---------- ?--
000,716 N
j
I
in

n
? n

o_
?
c
m
o
?
m

' 0
C-
-9 a
c o
®
M ?
C m
c - z
cr
N o
o K
Oo O w y
D

^ - A v
o _ i
T . o n
CZ

z a mDm mO o
0 r)
?

opz -IZ??
o
r- C
°
m
fA m
z Z 0 Q
D
z
z
,! v
m
1I
and aquatic species. The community is distinguished by continually flooded conditions and
small areas of open water habitat.
3.5 Hydrology
The hydrophysiographic region consists of relatively flat, Piedmont floodplain environments
characterized by moderate rainfall (USDA 1992). This region is characterized by moderately
high rainfall with precipitation averaging approximately 42 inches per year (USDA 1977, 1992),
with peak annual precipitation events typically occurring in the summer months.
3.5.1 Surface Water (Streams)
Historically, the Site sustained surface water hydrology from five primary sources: the Haw
River, Midway Creek, two unnamed tributaries of the Haw River, and surface expression of
groundwater from adjacent slopes (Figure 4 and Figure 6).
Haw River
The Site abuts an approximately 2000-foot reach of the Haw River (Figure 6). The Haw River
supports a primary watershed of approximately 52.7 square miles at the Site outfall. The
associated floodplain averages approximately 1300 feet in width and supports a valley slope of
' approximately 0.0014 rise/run or 0.14 percent. The watershed supports agricultural land
(32 percent), forested land (65 percent), and less than one percent residential development
(based on 1993 GIS mapping). However, commercial, industrial, and residential development is
expected to expand in the watershed over the next several decades due to urban sprawl
associated with the City of Greensboro.
Primarily in the first half of the twentieth century, large sections of streams in the Haw River
watershed, including the Haw River, were channelized (dredged and straightened) to improve
1 agricultural drainage. Currently, the on-site channel supports a bankfull width of approximately
35 feet, an average depth of 3.5 feet, and a cross-sectional area of approximately 130 square
feet (maximum depth of 5.0 feet) (Appendix C). Appendix D provides model results that predict
the Haw River discharge and flood elevations for the 2-, 5-, 10-, 50-, and 100-year storm
(Section 4.1).
Midway Creek
Midway Creek enters the Site from the north and represents a second-order stream supporting
an approximately 0.9 square mile watershed (Figure 5 and 6). Land use is similar to conditions
found in the Haw River watershed including an approximately 50 percent land conversion rate
for agriculture. A majority of Midway Creek has been channelized and moved to the edge of the
valley to facilitate livestock and agricultural production.
The on-site reach of Midway Creek includes approximately 650 linear feet of channel, entering
the northernmost portion of the Site, crossing the valley perpendicular to the slope, and exiting
the Site along the eastern boundary (Figure 6). Historically, the Midway Creek channel was
located in central portions of its valley. Upon encountering the alluvial fan at the confluence with
the Haw River valley, the stream became a braided, anasmotosed channel. The current
19
dredged channel is approximately 8 to 10 feet wide and 3 to 4 feet deep. Under historic
conditions, the channel above the alluvial fan is projected to have supported a bankfull cross-
sectional area of approximately 10 to 14 square feet. Restoration efforts will divert flows from
adjacent downstream properties to re-hydrate the soils of the historic alluvial fan and allow the
restoration of a riverine wetland plant community.
Southern Unnamed Tributary
The unnamed tributary (UT) entering the Site from the south represents a second-order stream
supporting an approximately 1.4 square mile watershed (Figure 5 and 6). Land-use within the
watershed is predominantly forested, with increasing impacts from residential development.
The stream is entrenched along much of its length and is experiencing slight to severe bank
erosion.
The on-site reach of the southern tributary includes approximately 1050 linear feet of channel
that runs along the southeastern property boundary before the confluence with the Haw River.
Excessive sediment deposition in the lower reaches of the stream has caused severe
aggradation within the channel, forcing much of the current flow to exit off-site prior to entering
the Haw River (Figure 6). Under historic conditions, the channel extended through the center of
the southern portion of the Site before entering the Haw River. The current dredged channel is
approximately 15 to 20 feet wide and 4 to 5 feet deep. Historically, the channel is projected to
have supported a bankfull cross-sectional area of approximately 13 to 17 square feet.
Restoration efforts will divert flows from adjacent downstream properties to re-hydrate the soils
of the historic alluvial fan and allow the restoration of a riverine wetland plant community.
Northern Unnamed Tributary
The UT entering the Site from the north represents a first-order stream supporting an
approximately 0.1 square mile watershed (Figure 5 and 6). Land use within the watershed is
primarily in pasture and agriculture. The stream is entrenched along much of its length and is
experiencing slight to moderate bank erosion. The stream enters the Site for less than 100 feet
before entering the canal directly below the bridge on Church Street/Sandy Cross Road. This
tributary represents intermittent or marginally perennial flow that is attenuated by a small farm
pond located approximately 700 linear feet upstream of the Site boundary.
3.5.2 Groundwater
Periodic river and stream floods, fluvial sediment deposition, and hydraulic energy dissipation
represent important attributes of floodplains and bottomland hardwood forest in the region.
However, these channels represent base flow, groundwater withdrawal features throughout
most of the year. Therefore, groundwater inputs represent the primary hydrologic factor in the
development and maintenance of riverine wetlands at this Site. Wetland hydroperiods are
greatest along the toe of the outer floodplain, immediately adjacent to upland buffers
(groundwater discharge areas). Hydroperiods decrease across the floodplain as the
groundwater table approaches stream channels and drainage features (i.e. groundwater
discharge features). Dredging of the Haw River, construction of a drainage network, and the
rerouting of the tributaries has lowered the groundwater table and steepened the groundwater
discharge gradient throughout the Site.
20

` Groundwater migration has been further accelerated in croplands by leveling of the soil surface,
removal of large organic debris and root channels found in mature forests. The induced
' groundwater migration is intercepted by a network of interior canals and inter-field ditches which
effectively drains the area (Figure 6). Approximately 3500 linear feet of field ditches and canals
have been constructed and range from approximately 3 feet deep in inter-field ditches to depths
' greater than 5 feet in the canal.
' Groundwater data from piezometer were taken at regular intervals for the period between mid-
June and mid-August, 2002. Representative groundwater flow maps depicting high-water and
low water conditions at the Site for June 17 and July 21, 2003, respectively, are presented in
' Figure 11(A and B). Data representative of very deep groundwater conditions were not
available due to continued wet conditions during the study period. The groundwater elevation
data is presented in Table 1.
Standing water was observed throughout most of the Site for extended periods through the
monitoring period. The highest water elevations were encountered in locations surrounding
Wells 5, 7 and 8. These wells represent area within the primary floodplain where prolonged
flooding can be expected. Groundwater within these areas never dropped below one foot below
the ground surface.
During the monitoring period, groundwater at its deepest (driest) was encountered within
1.5 feet of the surface. Wells 1, 4, and 11 represent areas of the secondary floodplain where
surface elevations are slightly higher and where groundwater gradients are slightly greater. In
general, water table elevations decrease gradually along drainage gradients extending from the
secondary floodplain (edge of floodplain) to the primary floodplain adjacent to the Haw River. A
more rapid decrease in water table elevations occurs in the steeper surface gradients found in
alluvial fans and portions of the Site.
3.6 Cultural Resources
The term "cultural resources" refers to prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, structures, or
artifact deposits over 50 years old. "Significant" cultural resources are those that are eligible or
potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Evaluations of site
significance are made with reference to the eligibility criteria of the National Register
(36 CFR 60) and in consultation with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO). A file search was conducted at the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) in order to
determine whether any cultural resource investigations have been conducted within the Site
vicinity and to determine whether any significant cultural resources have been documented
within the area. It appears that a significant portion of the Site and surrounding area is
considered to have potential for archaeological resources.
Preliminary investigations have found artifacts from the Lithic (13,000 to 3,000 B.C.), Middle
Archaic (6000 to 3000 B.C.), Early Woodland (900 to 300 B.C.), Middle Woodland (300 B.C. to
900 A.D.), and Ceramic (1,000 to 1,515 A.D.) time periods. Particular lithic tool types include
primary debitage and pecked stone which suggest that the surrounding area was prehistorically
used for long-term and short-term habitation. The Site is currently "Unassessed" and is not yet
listed in the National Register of Historic Places. However, a survey will be required
21
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
v

m
?
r r
,
r ,
m U) m K N
fT)
N
c
?

m
A

0 X
V)
f
Z
0
(n

m _X
A
ti
z
7

? -0
0

m
r
<

D

Z X

z
O
-A

?

m

m

r Z
O
A

00
z

O

C
A >
O
0

C1
OZ

O

c
M -i
m

co
CO
z
O
D
-
+ m
O
z

z

I X
m i
r
. I
e <
D

O
Z
no
?
;u ;u
00 O
Cf) C: 0
V 0) rn T rn V) Z O
h
p ! b co ? O
m
{
m
m
O;0
z D
m

O

005606 N
V rn
C) t-0
C) o
O O
j\\ i - - - - - - 2
' 66' ACMES EASEMENT'
m
r m
- 0000/6 N
rrl z
\ 4 r
' ?? ?'?? Cry!
,o I ` ism
LA `
r-V
v I ?_ ' ct Y,
J
m
00 zk,
loo
L7 _ '" (-n
Oo
r \r 00
?y
00
Y-? u
-- ? "- ? ? (o• y r r ? Ifs - ?/• .
,r
000/16 N
qq W
a ,
- - ' O - - ' _ 005//6 N
m - -
"69
6b8- c \

V 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) rn Cr) V C)
O (D (D (D (D (O (D (D (D (D O r-
0 V V V V 07 V W co O O m 0
V
O LA N V Cn (O G+ V .p Q
(
t D (O tD
D
O
o
-- CO to (
N W (D lD O lD
(D O LD O
O O
-' r ?-
m _
N (O A (O OO O O CO W (D 'A < .-
V Cn V (D V P. to O .
C
Km
mz N 1p
- 9
zm
-n m 000016 N
1
Z
?..,,;,.
? n o A v n
0C) m = 0
z - m m OM -V zc? = 70
o " C)
DOZm =o ?0Mr?? cnp o
c
g o rCV DD70 m o
m L 0??? ?n0 mD 3? N n W.
c .. m E:c -IZ ic -1 0 ?.?
° D D
^) No ?Dm-4 zz0 pv?m f/)? J n
D w (p
c 0 O ?, ?70m N z Z

? I

m I

r
r II?1
m m Cn m K to
m
N
r.
m
.i
m
A
F_0
n x
(A
Z
C)

CA
m x
(n
Z
C7

p
g -i
O
m
r
m
D
o

Z x
N
Z
0

M
m

r Z
p

n
p
?
Oc D

n
O

O
C
A +
m

O
C
pDD
A
1
m
0
z
n
O
Z

O
I C
V ?
m
r -
m

0
Z
n c)
;O; r
0
0
0
LA C 0

L (n Z O
LO (D D ° m
1D oo v °) m f °
O
O O O n i
- y
?J
m m
O;0
Z D

O

OOS606
v m
O O
m
m
r 60 ACCESS EASEMENT' T
i J I
> + m
x ?' z 0000/E
ur r O
%rlj
N
?,• f? it `?-_ i ,.;.
a i m ?.
M
m
o0o
ooo
1.0 A,
- _ y r 000116 N
wry)'?; L-`?: - 'iy ? •? 'Y•Y ) .. li \_. : i,,'
•~ F /
t -
T Ir
r I
[ I OOSIl6 N
U.`Gy 1 rm /
f I rtgY
0'969

O c0 co V rn Ln P. L. N O
V 0) 0) 0) O) 0) 0) 0) rn 0) V
r
(C) 0
O cD LD (.0 cD W i0 c0 O r-
0 V V V oo -,! l0 00 cD O m 0
L+ U) l0
V ?! 0 0 (j) O N < Z
O A N N (0 (N V p O
J 0) 0)
0 a) 0) 0)
D
D 0) V G)
D
D V v
? z
c0
0
00 ID c
c
w
00 00 c0 t
O t
l0
l0 O O
J
O O M
N tD A rD ao O O 00 60 cD ? < -
Lri ?l l0 V .p l0 p 01 '
G
c
?O -0
rm
rN
Z0
N
Zm
m m 000016 N
-i m
10 1111111 ?4„?,., <
1
m v, F o ? n n _ o
n z 0 m D m `.
o C_ C_ ^-iCm A 0F ?MN ?N C -
o C) c) 'v C OZm ==o cn0mcnp z U II ?;
N ?
o mV -.4 DD --I
c o x ? w n
W m c- a ???? ? n° m? 9- m
?y
° z m DD °Og ?z?<
w ZZO zv cn0 p ?.
A o o K: Dm;;? m z w
co 11 Q ° •0 m m w

i Nco
c
O c
Lp
0
.
> cu
' L
W 0
L N
N O
t6 ?
cu
.II c
>O

CU ?
E
c
C ?
' L
W

N
N

3

L m s a (D 000 N 0) 00 r
N Imo-
O LO
O Lo
r` r
r ` (fl
M
L
N 2 -) O G O O O+ c- O O+ O O r
D
cu
co >
O
N

N L
O
00 r, M O M co O N r- co -

-0 cu -q-LO N d 00 O 0 r N T- 00 0

S> Cn
0 00
0 06
0 Oo
0 Oo
0 (o
0 r-
0 r.:
0 r,:
0 (6
0 00
0
p W co O O (o O (o (O Co O (o O
(D

O O -a N
O
c U Z

Q m
=; cu a co O

?- r`

0 O

LO N

co LO

00 r-

(0 N

00 N

N co

O
?-
00
O
L
?
1 r-
1 O
1 r- O O O O ?- r
Q ? rn ? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Ce)

1
r
N L
a)_
a 0 r- CC) 0 CO 0 O LO LO (Q 0
N co 0 Co O r N 0 co co d It

C 00 ti r: Oo r,? r: Co m (6 (O Oo
N D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
p W (D CO CO m co (D (o m m m m
(D

U '
'
L m c
N O N
p O ;T M
O r,
N O
O t7
M N
CO O
O O O

L
(U O? a "O -

p

O
+

O
+

O
+

O
+

O

O

O

O O

O O

O

N co
D + t
co

co
T-

I CD L -
04 N r- N N 'It 0 c7
N C
O d
7> O m m m rn m w m m 0)
O W N 0 co co co co (o O O O
C?
W L

_
c a
O- CU
=EN

N

O

coo

?

?

t

r

r

O

> 2 N? O
'
0 ci

0
a
W CO N
' !- co O co O O O O 0
)
co Co
a
? c
a) o .-.
' (0 0 0 ;r t- ?- 0 r- V) N
E
N N d 0 00 00 O O 00 0 0 N

N O S
O
O
?
O 0)
0 0)
0 06
0 06
0 0)
0 06
0 T-:
O
O W r- r- (0 r- 0 0 0 Co CD p r~
d
L
L
a) a)
(V
E f N M d' LO (o N 00 0 d cr-
N a
N Z

-d -a
c c
o P
rn a?
o °
.0
m
Z °
rn N
N 4;
o °
= c
m °
c
'2)
LM
N
m
o
n c

11

t

fl
to determine this Site's eligibility for the Historic Register. Impacts associated with restoration
activities or due to the project's design in its current form will not be known until after the
assessment is made. A detailed assessment of the Site has been contracted with Legacy
Research Associates (Legacy). Legacy is comprised of archaeologists and historians who
specialize in assessing the effects of construction on historic and prehistoric sites. A letter of
concurrence from SHPO will be obtained prior to any construction activity.
3.7 Wildlife
Forested tracts in the region have been extensively removed for agricultural and silvercultural
purposes, and are increasingly under pressure from urban development. Forests and other
natural areas provide habitat for wildlife and are vital for clean water in our streams and lakes.
Bottomland and swamp forest within the expansive floodplains of the Haw River, in particular,
provide plentiful food, water, and cover for wildlife. The ephemeral drainageways (backwater
sloughs) and ponding within isolated wetland areas provide interaction among riparian and non-
riparian wildlife guilds in the region. Wetland/upland ecotones provide additional habitat
diversity near the Site. These ecotones are among the most diverse and productive
environments for wildlife (Brinson et al. 1981).
In spite of area-wide changes to forested habitat (agriculture, timber harvesting, etc.), the Haw
River floodplain, including the Site, continues to support large mammals such as bobcat (Fells
rufus), and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Surrounding lands support many smaller
mammals, including character species such as gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), Virginia
opossum (Didelphis virginiana), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), striped skunk (Mephitis
mephitis), and eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus). Numerous small burrows were noted
as indications of small rodent populations such as eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus), least
shrew (Crypotis parva), and mice (primarily Reithrodontomys humulus).

1

Bird species associated with open lands and old fields include American kestrel (Falco
sparverius), field sparrow (Spizella pusilla), eastern bluebird (Salla sialis), prairie warbler
(Dendroica discolor), and yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroica coronata). Characteristic bird
species that can be expected to utilize wetlands in the region include great blue heron (Ardea
herodias), black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos),
wood duck (Aix sponsa), and barred owl (Strix varia). In addition, a high number of passerine
birds, both permanent and summer resident species, nest in bottomland hardwood forest.
Among these are several neotropical migrants such as northern parula (Parula americana),
yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), and yellow-throated vireo (Vireo flavifrons), and
other forest interior species such as the wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina) and Acadian
flycatcher (Empidonax virescens) that require large tracts of contiguous forest for survival
(Keller et al. 1993).
Isolated areas of standing water, ditches, and canals in the area provide excellent habitat for
reptiles and amphibians. Characteristic species include red-bellied water snake (Nerodia
erythrogaster), northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon), snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentine),
yellow-bellied turtle (Trachemys scripta), spotted turtle (Clemmys guttata), marbled salamander
(Ambystoma opacum), southern dusky salamander (Desmognathus auriculatus), two-lined
salamander (Eurycea bislineata), green frog (Rana clamitans), and southern leopard frog (Rana
25
t

t

11

1

t

utricularia). Wetland areas and forested riparian corridors are expected to develop, and
improve habitat diversity over time, after the proposed restoration plan is implemented.
3.8 Regional Corridors and Adjacent Natural Areas
The Site is located within a watershed where over 32 percent of the land area has been
converted for agricultural use, where extensive logging is ongoing, and where future residential
and commercial development has been planned and implemented. As depicted in Figures 4
and 5, local forest corridors are evident along the major streams and floodplains. The Site
represents a potentially significant regional wildlife corridor providing connectivity along the Haw
River, including Cone Swamp to the west and Benaja Swamp to the east (Figure 4). Auxiliary
wetland preservation and management projects may be considered to conserve this important
regional wildlife corridor within a rapidly developing watershed.
3.9 Protected Species
Federally listed species with Endangered (E) or Threatened (T) status receive protection under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program (NHP) has recorded several observations of Endangered (E) and state
species of Special Concern (SC), as well as rare community types, within the Haw River
watershed. These species include the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), federally listed as
Threatened, mole salamander (Ambystoma talpoideum), and Carolina darter (Etheostoma
collis). The mole salamander and is considered a state species of Special Concern by the NHP,
and the Carolina darter is considered a Federal Species of Concern (FSC) in Guilford County
and a state species of Special Concern by the NHP. Rare communities include low elevation
seeps, piedmont/low mountain alluvial forest, and piedmont/mountain swamp forest. Other
federally listed species for Rockingham County are green floater (Lasmigona subviridis) (FSC),
James spinymussel (Pleurobema collina) (E), Heller's trefoil (Lotus hellen) (FSC), and smooth
coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) (E). The figure in Appendix E shows NHP element
occurrences that are within the portion of the Haw River watershed that drain into the Site.
All occurrences are upstream (>0.5 miles) of the Site, and construction activities associated with
the mitigation project are not expected to negatively affect any of the species or habitats
mentioned above. Habitat for all the species listed above may occur on or adjacent to the Site.
Bald eagles typically nest in tall, living trees in a conspicuous location near open water and
forage over large bodies of water. The Carolina darter is known to occur within warm pools and
slow runs in streams, over sand and gravel within the Cape Fear River Basin. The mole
salamander breeds in semi-permanent woodland ponds and forages in adjacent woodlands.
Both the green floater and James spinymussel are considered species of quiet waters that
prefer the quieter parts of streams, specifically the pools and eddies with gravelly and sandy
bottoms. Little is known about the ecology of Heller's trefoil, but it is considered to be highly
threatened by land-use conversion and habitat fragmentation. Smooth coneflower primarily
occurs in openings in woods, such as cedar barrens and clear cuts, along roadsides and utility
line right-of-ways, and on dry limestone bluffs.
26
1
It is expected that improvements to the existing riparian system and the restoration of new
wetlands, and preservation of existing wetlands will improve existing habitat as well as create
' more habitat for these species.
t
t

t

t
t

27

1

t

1

1

t
1

1
t
t
t
1
4.0 WETLAND RESTORATION STUDIES
4.1 Surface Water Analysis
Surface drainage on the Site and surrounding areas were analyzed to predict the feasibility of
manipulating existing surface drainage patterns into the primary and secondary floodplains
without adverse effects to the Site or adjacent properties. The following presents a summary of
hydrologic and hydraulic analyses along with provisions designed to maximize groundwater
recharge and wetland restoration while reducing potential for impacts to adjacent properties.
The purpose of the analysis is to predict flood extents for the 1- 2- 5- 10-,.50- 100-year storms
under existing and proposed conditions after wetland restoration has been implemented. The
comparative flood elevations were evaluated by simulating peak flood flows for the Haw River
using the WMS (Watershed Modeling System, BOSS International) program and regional
regression equations. Once the flows were determined, the river geometry and cross-sections
were digitized from a DTM (Digital Terrain Model) surface (prepared by a professional surveyor)
using the HEC-GeoRAS component of ArcView. The cross-sections were adjusted as needed
based on field-collected data. Once the corrections to the geometry were performed, the data
was imported into HEC-RAS.
Watersheds and land use estimations were measured from existing DEM (Digital Elevation
Model) data and an aerial photograph. Field surveyed cross-sections and water surfaces were
obtained along the Haw River and canal. Valley cross-sections were obtained from both on-site
cross-sections and detailed topographic mapping to 14oot contour intervals using the available
DTM. Observations of existing hydraulic characteristics were incorporated into the model and
the computed water surface elevations were calibrated by utilizing engineering judgment.
Appendix D provides a figure depicting cross-section locations and a table with results for flood
elevations under existing and proposed conditions for the 1-, 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, and 100-year
storms.
In summary, the model suggests that, under both current and proposed conditions, water
surface elevations for the 100-year storm event will be approximately 706.5 feet NGVD and
703.4 feet NGVD for the upper- and lower-most portions of the Site, respectively. The model
indicates that no significant change in surface water elevations is expected as a result of
wetland restoration activities. Therefore, hydrologic trespass of upstream and adjacent
landowners is not a concern.
4.2 Reference Plant Communities
In order to establish a forested wetland system for restoration purposes, a reference community
needs to be established. According to Mitigation Site Classification (MIST) guidelines
(EPA 1990), the area of proposed restoration should attempt to emulate a Reference Forest
Ecosystem (RFE) in terms of soils, hydrology, and vegetation. In this case, the target RFEs
were composed of relatively undisturbed woodlands in adjacent areas which support soil,
landform, and hydrological characteristics that restoration will attempt to emulate. The RFE
sites have been impacted by selective cutting or high-grading, therefore the species
composition of these plots should be considered as a guide only. RFE data used in restoration
28
1

1

1

was modified to emulate steady state, climax community structure as described in the
Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina (Schafale and Weakley 1990).
Circular plot sampling was utilized to establish base-line, vegetation composition and structure
in RFEs. Species were recorded along with individual tree diameters, canopy class, and
dominance. From collected field data, importance values (Brower et al. 1990) of dominant
canopy and mid-story trees were calculated. Hydrology, surface topography, and habitat
features were also evaluated.
Mature forest communities were identified in floodplain areas east of the Site that continue to
characterize steady-state forest conditions. The vegetative community sampled was identified
as a Piedmont bottomland hardwood forest (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Four plots located in
the adjacent forested floodplain were sampled. The overstory is dominated by red maple and
green ash. Other highly desirable, late successional canopy species included overcup oak
(Quercus lyrata), red oak (Quercus rubra), shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), and American elm
(Ulmus americana) (Table 2). The RFEs exhibit evidence of past silvicultural practices such as
selective cutting, high-grading, and ditch construction that have resulted in a less diverse, intra-
specific tree assemblage. Therefore, community restoration procedures have been modified to
facilitate a reduction in dominance by disturbance adapted species such as red maple and
sweetgum.
4.3 Reference Physiography and Surface Topography
' Surface features were mapped within reference Piedmont swamp/bottomland hardwood forest
in order to establish base-line topographic conditions for restoration planning use. This
community lies within a seasonally to semi-permanently inundated area that has supported
sediment accretion in the past with inundation from stream flows occurring on a frequent basis.
The channel is actively migrating across alluvial fans developed within the aggrading floodplain.
' Topographic maps of the accretion area were prepared to 0.5-foot contour intervals by laser
level and tape measure. Abandoned stream channels were mapped along with approximate
jurisdictional wetland extent relative to the water surface within stream channels. A plan view,
cross-sections, and profiles were generated for the channel and adjacent alluvial surface. The
channel dimension, rate of channel migration, and slope of the floodplain floor represent the
primary features extrapolated for use in restoration planning. One of the objectives of
restoration is to put Midway Creek and the southern tributary back onto the historic alluvial fans
and induce sediment deposition, channel migration, braiding, ponding, and/or anastomosed
stream, resulting in hydration of adjacent wetland areas
Figure 12 depicts a plan view and cross-sections of the alluvial fan, including locations of
abandoned channels that have developed over the last several years. The channel exhibits
active migration across the valley floor as aggradation processes elevate isolated portions of the
floodplain. The active channel is classified as an E5 (highly sinuous) stream type in upper
reaches of the reference Site (Rosgen 1994). Subsequently, the channel transitions into an
anastomosed (DA5/6) channel and subsequent braided (D6) channel immediately prior to the
confluence with a near-permanently inundated section of the primary floodplain.
29

i
i
U
N
O
•U
N
Q
O ?
E CL
O
C C
U) U
`. CL
o U) o
cm d (LD O
M O LL.
,p U- L.
F? O o
LL O
72
ca Q)
Q' ca
O
O
m
m
c d
Cc 0
O ?
Q

cu
N
in o_
> R
Q
L
Q V
cu
in
m r+
C
r.+ d
a o
d
Li
r O I? Cfl t1' ?Y M M M N N
N N O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O
"? O O M O O Lo t 0 M
LO M ti O CO O N r- O O
M N
N I- O M r I- N r I` M ?
6 C'i L6 M M N O O O O
1? N r- r' cp c0 CO CO CO CO c?
6 N r- cci u i cri cri cci u7
T- N
c
41 0 Uc) O O O cn In U-) U.) cn cc) Ur)
a' v f Lo In N N N N N N N
L
LL.
d v
y;, w M M_ M M r r M r r r r
-y = ) co O O M M CO M M M M
? d
0
O W
L 3
O O N N r- N r r r
Z C
O

U) U
t
L
Q
?L
0_
C?'1
Or ?
?
Q
U
U
?1
r
I O
O
T
I co
O
O
O
U')
Ict
O
O
N
M
cn
J
O
O
Q
U
O
O
L
O
0
ccu
C
?? i ??????? m m w m m m m m ?
Z
_ O
??m
m n .
Oo
0
f ?
N N
(D
lD 0
O
3 0
N
O -r?
? O
(D 0
0 _.
Q•?O
Linear (Across Volley) Distance in Feet
O N CII _I O N
Cn O Cn O Un
D
07
O
O
m Elevation in Feet Elevation in Feet
O
0 0 0 0 0 0
(7 00 O N ? L4 00 O N A
2 O W
D O
ZZ
m ,
Y
r O O
(n N _
N
I/ Z ° Z 0
C
y °
Cn r O f 0
O r r O
v
O 0
V 0 00
r_ O O
fD
O
N O Q S
O + : O o
N
O O) U1 N
O C7 O? N O 0
< O C7 O O
o O 0 O O
?. N O Q (n 0 0
o C7 rn m m
O N N _ C) N _
p O O T
(D Z O TI
CD
7 N WO O
TI
(_n
° 0 C
O
N N
O °
v
Q1 Q
O O
Ln
n v n
v
r O O
N m m
o _ _
O Z Z CO
Q ° O Q
N N
n
r O
N N m?0 0 0 o mtD o 0 0 °
D N O N A 00 O N P.
f Ln
m
W
O
w 0 f ° ti v f?
n o_ n
m m Z 0 T n
n ` .. ` T A D ,A 'wi O O
y V, Vl p
o "" N g g cn m ? o cn 0 --4 CI) 0 N z o C/?
X rn 0< m m 0 n m z
s P ?.
N '? 0 _ z n m n mZ 00 m-1Z-?pC
w N N °z m zZ0 pC m cn? p'?
00 L4 r1 N
I I
, I I I
I 1 I I I 1 1
I 1
I
I
I
- 1
?I ?
I
1
1
I
I I ?I
I
I
I I I I
I I

' I I I I I 1 1
i

2'69 = , l

I I
-- - -

I I I I
- -
I I I I I
I

-r-
-?_
r- -r-
?
r -I"-
j
r -r'
L
4 'r

r -r' - -
_L
-? -r-
L
-r

f- 4 L L L L ?
-r- -r -r r r I -r-
?. I L.
4
? ? ? i D
1- -r f' I f r r
7?
`f`^ -f'
a _

?
-I- r -f -f r f" . .'r-

i ? ? ? I r ?
_
-r
f
r
-r L
r- I.
-r
r- _
-r

- 1 j - F _4 I I--

?i r r- I r- -i _?
` i i ?r r r -L -iL?
I I I

- -
z

Z

-
m

This braided reach and near-permanently inundated area represent projected conditions within
the secondary floodplain area of the Site. The floodplain, throughout this reference reach,
continues to support forest vegetation, including shrub-scrub dominated communities within the
potentially inundated areas.

1

1

32

i

1

5.0 WETLAND RESTORATION PLAN
5.1 Wetland Hydrology and Soil Restoration
Site alterations to restore groundwater, surface flow dynamics, and wetland hydrology include:
1) ditch plugs, 2) ditch and canal backfilling, 3) backwater slough construction, 4) river levee
removal, 5) tributary realignments, 6) wetland surface scarification, 7) seasonal pool
construction, and 8) woody debris deposition (Figure 13).
5.1.1 Ditch Plugs
Ditch plugs will be installed along ditches and the canal at locations identified in Figure 13. In
addition, all ditch outlets off-site will be effectively plugged to prevent migration of flows back
into the former ditch or canal. The plugs will be constructed of low density material designed to
withstand erosive forces associated with river floods. If earthen material is used, each plug will
backfilled in 2-foot lifts of vegetation free material and compacted into the bottom of the ditch.
The earthen material may be obtained from upland borrow pits or through excavation of shallow
pools along the existing channel or within the primary floodplain.
5.1.2 Ditch Backfilling
Ditches will be partially back-filled using on-site, earthen material from excavated depressions
and ephemeral pond construction as depicted in Figure 13. Additional fill will be obtained from
elevated areas within the floodplain, as needed. The ditches and canal backfill locations will be
filled, compacted, and graded to the approximate elevation of the adjacent wetland surface.
Certain, non-critical ditch sections shall remain open to provide habitat, flood storage, and
energy dissipation. Open ditch sections will be isolated between effectively backfilled reaches
to reduce potential for long-term, preferential groundwater migration.
5.1.3 Backwater Slough Construction
Backwater sloughs will be designed to mimic reference wetland conditions found within the Haw
River floodplain. Conditions to be mimicked include: 1) a convoluted interception of
groundwater and flood flows, 2) average slope of upland-wetland interface and the slough
surface, 3) micro-topographic variation along the slough surface, and 4) soil modification and
debris deposition.
t
t
t

Backwater slough construction will occur adjacent to the existing canal in the northeastern
portion of the Site (Figure 13). Construction of the slough will begin approximately 100 feet
below the bridge along Sandy Cross Road and extend approximately 1100 feet downstream
from where the slough will daylight (slope to the existing ground elevation) and migrate naturally
within the existing topography. The backwater slough will be excavated approximately to 75 to
100 feet in width and average depth of approximately 1 foot. Once the design is complete, the
on-site storm flow will be re-modeled to verify that the slough sizing is sufficient. Sections of the
existing canal will be connected to the backwater slough. These sections will remain open and
left as deep water habitat. The remaining sections of canal will be plugged and backfilled as
depicted on the restoration plan. Existing trees along the canal will be preserved to the extent
possible.
33

r rn rn m 1:0. (M
r rn
rn
C -+
D<OmC rnm* C OOS606 N
rn D<C
;0 -0 rn rn LA
rn
°
f
ar ' z
o z-
°o z''
e'J-
b
0
.
.

it ' ?I ?'','C?,- -' ', ?IJ,S I i?!N - _ _N;,,•._.._._-. ...,.._.:.V-?.:;1._.?-. ?.?._, _.? __.__ •._. ()
_
111 , - I n I 701-'
--
'

-{O CO M x x -o x z
fTl
00 o

,)
f
? MO z m z A CO
0 z
O
G? n =_;..__ i . !r'
?
[ri \? 1
1
'
-
` HOC (t iy r
'
I
r
n C
C r m I
; I ,
V
•?
_
.. _ } J
rn
'I 3
-0 1
--1 0 D
j 1
.
__j
.ZJO C)
?
o
O
z o n m g a m c • W. o ;l
i :
000016 N
'
C m g Z z r- ;0 A ?
? g'
= ' f =
(
°
ao
1?? ; ;
?
t
r
p
m;O rn -

m

- i
? e

. u, r
n
` °' O
mjm?rn0
2 i r??LD O
n (A
\\ >L L p
?o't•, 1 r
m rn
>Orn
liV . \G m
\ L 01-40
m

% ?
Z

°

t. x
z
?
W i' r r
rn

' ?' o f

%
r- V) -0 m 0 CD 0
C O r -u O D

rO *00 2Z n n
c _D M V)
O
C) O {

\ 0

°• ?r

' '" \
?
M (A 2: V) M;u
M ;0 C: r- m
111 \°
O
m
0

ILI
--1
O
W m
0 D Op
a: C)

?:
?? -- - ? ll, 141 W.
.
O ° -
? `
V .
• ? •°,
, \ ?)?,\ .
It

/ o s• m`? cg,• ¢• s / 1i
Aill %?

.:'_ :,? ` _. ¦ ?, _ -- 000(!6 .N

4 k"
- y
,
,? - - - C ,
`fir -- •? i- ./ `5\ ?' . ? "t. ? ?

N
41
;Orn

;0 OX
y
Z
rr-0;0

V)OX
/rn
/j \

'
' - _ ?\`.\!, i..?`., ?1,`\?`\,?.``1, ,,,1 I'll. u-??'/%% %'•'?
/ CCl`
•
-
` `
`
'
1 b,
\.
`
\
` \\ ` `
\
'
`
`
\
`
Mf l
. -
.. -
,
,
.
? , ,I
I .n l\ 1:1
I
,
11\,
\I,\
\ ,,
\ \,\
11 II
,\

O

A L

p ° 1
Fb'
1 co m m r
7
0
Cl) 0
c? m

0
C_
C_

?0-I

Sao ?0

tn0 C)

o ? C!?

W m

o

m

Z =?5a

0
0

-
i
m

Z

'S ~

Z
z?
m
-?Z?C
0
LA ?
In Q
O
U4 OC7 ZZ OD m C/) p'n
No o Z D M= Z m
Z :n (D

p O
D
N
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
A
1
1
1
1
1
5.1.4 Ephemeral Pool Construction
Ephemeral pools will be constructed in the primary floodplain along portions of ditches and the
canal and used for additional fill material as needed for the above-described tasks. The pools
will be constructed by excavating shallow, irregularly shaped (oblong) depressions placed
perpendicular to land slope. The depressions will range to a maximum of 1-foot below the
existing surface elevation in the center of the depression. Depressional areas will extend over a
radius of 50 to 75 feet (long axis). The location and attributes of oval depressions will be
constructed to mimic backwater slough depressions and other depressional features found in
the reference wetlands. Ditches located within depressional areas will be backfilled to the
maximum 1-foot depth below the ground elevation.
5.1.5 Controlled Water Outfall Structure
Controlled water outfall structures are proposed at designated outlets through the river levee or
within low points in the floodplain (Figure 13). As surface water exits the Site, the Haw River
side may experience increased erosive flows from hydraulic head, causing instability to the bank
and the risk for headcuts. The controlled water outfall structures represent a cellular
confinement structure that will reinforce and restrain vegetated topsoils or stone infill, thereby
controlling down-slope movement due to hydrodynamic and gravitational forces.
5.1.6 River Levee Removal
The Haw River levee will be lowered between 699 and 700 feet NGVD along a reach
immediately below Church Street Extension (Figure 13). The lowered levee will extend for
approximately 125 feet. Based on flood studies, lowering of the levee to 700 feet above MSL
will allow bankfull and greater flows access to the floodplain at the top of the Site.
5.1.7 Midway Creek Restoration
Midway Creek will be diverted upon entering the Site to redirect flows onto the historic
floodplain. The floodplain in the immediate area shall be graded to accommodate the restored
stream alignment and accept bankfull flows. Flow from the realigned Midway Creek will be
directed into a depressional freshwater marsh complex (marsh). The marsh will be constructed
within pasture in the northern portion of the Site (Figure 13) and serve as the mechanism to
divert flow back onto the historic alluvial fan and provide a perennial source for groundwater
recharge to the area. The marsh will be constructed to facilitate passive channel redevelopment
on its historic alluvial fan location. Braiding, ponding, and anastomosed conditions will occur,
similar to reference streams in the region. Reference streams often exhibit braided (alluvial
fan), backwater, or anastomosed features at the confluence with large river floodplains.
The marsh will be constructed by excavating and grading earthen material from a 50- to 75-foot
1 wide hummock. The marsh shall extend across the floodplain and tie into the existing or graded
side slopes as depicted in the plan. The area will be excavated to an average depth of 1 to 2
feet below the proposed floodplain surface. A series of stabilized outlets will be constructed
through the floodplain to direct water towards the floodplain, with the outlet elevation (and
resultant water surface) fixed at approximately 700 feet above NGVD.
n
35
1

t

The planned outlets may be temporarily stabilized with woody debris, cellular confinement
structures, or coarse rock material placed immediately above and below the structure.
However, the marsh and associated outlets do not represent permanent structures. After
successional vegetation colonizes the Site and reforestation is underway, sediment deposition
patterns, debris accumulation, alternative flow pathways, and natural adjustments will be
allowed to develop within the bottomland ecosystem, effectively replacing the pond with a
natural low slope, level spreader. The distributor pond will be constructed to persist until forest
cover and braided stream and surface topography is established. The objective in early years is
to reduce stream flow velocities, encouraging depositions, and consequently allowing micro-
and macro-topography to develop over time within the abandoned farm fields.
5.1.8 Southern Tributary Restoration
At the Site boundary, the southern tributary will be diverted and redirected onto the Haw River
floodplain. Subsequently, tributary flows will be discharged into the historic alluvial fan and
primary floodplain. As with the northern tributary, the southern tributary will be allowed to re-
develop primarily through passive processes to encourage braiding, ponding, and anastomosed
conditions.
The floodplain elevation will be graded to accommodate the slope and anticipated flood flows of
the new channel (Figure 13). The new floodplain and channel will cross the roadway easement.
Construction of a causeway for a future proposed road would require fill and the co-requisite
installation of a properly sized stream, floodplain, and drainage culverts.
5.1.9 Wetland Surface Scarification
Before wetland plant community restoration is implemented, agricultural fields and graded back-
fill material on the primary floodplain will be scarified. The scarification will be performed as
linear bands directed perpendicular to land slope (surface water flows). After scarification, the
soil surface should exhibit complex microtopography ranging to 1 foot in vertical asymmetry
across local reaches of the landscape. Restored micro-topographic relief is considered critical
to short term hydrology restoration efforts. Therefore, multiple passes along each band is
recommended to ensure adequate surface roughing and surface water storage potential across
the Site. Subsequently, community restoration will be initiated on scarified wetland surfaces.
r 5.1.10 Woodv Debris Deposition
Woody debris cleared during restoration activities or located in adjacent areas should be placed
on restored wetland surfaces to the maximum extent practicable. The absence of large woody
debris represents a limiting factor in the establishment of habitat diversity, nutrient cycling (soil
microbial) functions, and energy dissipation on abandoned farmland (Brinson et al. 1995).
Woody debris jams may also be used as temporary stabilization structures located at controlled
water outfall locations.

36
1

5.2 Wetland Plant Community Restoration
Restoration of wetland forest communities provides habitat for area wildlife and allows for
development and expansion of characteristic wetland-dependent species across the landscape.
Ecotonal changes between community types contribute to diversity and provide secondary
benefits such as enhanced feeding and nesting opportunities for mammals, birds, amphibians,
and other wildlife. Reference data, on-site observations, and ecosystem classification have
been used to develop species associations promoted during community restoration activities.
Target plan community associations include: 1) levee forest, 2) bottomland hardwood forest,
3) piedmont swamp forest, and 4) mesic mixed hardwood forest. Figure 14 provides a
conceptual depiction of potential forest communities to be restored across the landscape.
Figure 15 identifies the location of each target community.
Emphasis has been focused on developing a diverse plant assemblage. This is particularly vital
due to the limited distribution of mast-producing hardwood tree species presently existing in the
vicinity, as evidenced during the reference search. Planting a variety of mast-producing species
will provide a food source for wildlife and will facilitate habitat diversity in a region dominated by
agricultural fields.
The restoration of upland forest communities has also been proposed. Upland forest restoration
plans are designed to enhance wetland functions and to restore a wetland/upland forest
ecotone that is considered rare in the region. The target forest community is composed
primarily of upland oaks and hickories, among intermittent stems of black gum, American beech,
and tulip poplar.
Planting Plan
The planting plan is designed to reestablish wetland community patterns across the landscape.
The plan consists of: 1) acquisition of available wetland species, 2) implementation of proposed
1 surface topography improvements, and 3) planting of selected species on-site. The COE
bottomland hardwood forest mitigation guidelines (DOA 1993) were utilized in developing this
plan.
Species selected for planting will be dependent upon availability of local seedling sources.
Advanced notification to nurseries (1 year) may facilitate availability of various non-commercial
species. Planted species names by community are listed below.
Levee Forest
1. Black Willow (Salix nigra)
2. River Birch (Betula nigra)
3. American Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)
4. Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
5. Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana)
6. Possum-haw (Ilex deciduous)
7. American Elm (Ulmus americana)
8. Willow Oak (Quercus phellos)
9. Tulip Poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera)
1
37

m w m ? m m m m m m m m m m m = m = m
r? r? r? ?r rr ¦r rt r rr . rr r¦? r rr r it ?w rr ?r¦
II
m
m
(n
r
In
x
(n
I
Z
c
i

m

m x
cn

o

g

m

n
t

o
Z x
U

,,

m

m
r Z
O
A

n
O
?
O

c `
O
0

O

O 71
m

CO

o
z
°
Z

y m
DLA
°n
oK:
Ox
O M
m p
O

m O F,
?p
iK
K°Z
r

m

;
m
0 Fri
p

Oz

o

m m
<
m
T,
O
A
m

v
v
0 D
nn
m
f \
N
C)
z
m
r
m
n

-- - --_ _.----_.- --_ -- - -- -? z

m

f
N I ? ? Y
:

D

Z

?. \ \ \
I

i; -
t
4; `til
l

„ ? ?
000/l6

* t' (7 `I
t I /

005116

i
• 1?, ?? t \.; t it i?l ,
N
N
m CO
mZ
= 000016 N
0
Z?
cn x
crl? ?\, \\\?l\?\?\\?t\\?., `,t.\?.,1.? ills

n v
o n
n o
- A
o
O n

y1
? m m =
Zn
D
-i "F ?m?? =
m

t
?z o y0?? cn0 o o C?
C
m o o
? n
?
° m
??m
m? '^

O C-
Z
c

m Z

? n
D
g ? ? 'fl m

-? N

n
O D Z
I
L to
co (A I (MA

t
1

Bottomland Hardwood Forest
1. Tulip Poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera)
2. Cherrybark Oak (Quercus pagoda)
3. Sugarberry (Celtis laevigata)
4. Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda)
3. Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana)
6. Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxir)
7. Bitternut Hickory (Carya cordiformis)
8. Shagbark Hickory (Carya ovata)
9. Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
10 American Elm*(Ulmus americana)
Piedmont Swamp Forest
1. American Elm (Ulmus americana)
2. Willow Oak (Quercus phellos)
3. Overcup Oak (Quercus lyrata)
4. Cherrybark Oak (Quercus pagoda)
5. Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii)
6. Swamp Cottonwood (Populus heterophylla)
7. Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
8. Winged Elm (Ulmus alata)
9. Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana)
Tree establishment within swamp forest communities may be complicated by shallow inundation
in low-lying areas. The stems of planted seedlings must elevate the leaf area above the level of
inundation, ranging from 0.5 to 1.5 feet above the soil surface.
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest
1. Tulip Poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera)
2. Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum)
3 White Oak (Quercus alba)
3. Southern Red Oak (Quercus falcata)
4. American Beech (Fagus grandifolia)
5. Northern Red Oak (Quercus rubra)
6. Pignut Hickory (Carya glabra)
7. Mockernut Hickory (Carya tomentosa)
8. Black gum (Nyssa sylvatica)
9. Cherrybark Oak (Quercus pagoda)
10. Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana)
' Table 3 depicts the total number of stems and species distribution for each plant community
association. Bare-root seedlings of tree species will be planted within specified areas at a
density of 680 stems per acre (8-foot centers). In summary approximately 31,000 trees will be
planted within the approximately 45.6 acre restoration site.
11
40

I Table 3. Planting Plan, Haw River Swamp Restoration Site

Vegetation

Association
(Planting area

Levee Forest
Piedmont
Swamp Forest Bottomland

Hardwood
Forest Mesic

Hardwood
Forest
TOTAL STEMS
PLANTED
Stem Target
Area acres ac 680/ac
1.9 ac 680/ac
22.1 ac 680/ac
17.7 ac 680/ac
3.9 ac
45.6 ac
SPECIES # planted
(% total) # planted
(% total) # planted
(% total) # planted
(% total) # planted
(% total)
Black Willow 65(5) 65
River Birch 65(5) 65
American Sycamore 195(15) 195
Possum-haw 130(10) 130
Willow Oak 195(15) 2,250 (15) 2,445
American Elm 195(15) 1,500 (10) 600(5) 2,295
Green Ash 130(10) 750(5) 600(5) 1,480
Ironwood 130(10) 1,500 (10) 600(5) 135(5) 2,365
Tulip Poplar 195(15) 1,800 (15) 135(5) 2,130
Swamp Chestnut Oak 3,000 (20) 1,800 (15) 4,800
Cherrybark Oak 1,500 (10) 1,800 (15) 135(5) 3,435
Sugarberry 1,200 (10) 1,200
Loblolly Pine 1,200 (10) 1,200
Bitternut Hickory 1,200 (10) 1,200
Shagbark Hickory 1,200 (10) 1,200
Swamp Cottonwood 750(5) 750
Winged Elm 750(5) 750
Overcup Oak 3,000 (20) 3,000
Sugar Maple 270(10) 270
White Oak 405(15) 405
Southern Red Oak 405(15) 405
American Beech 270(10) 270
Northern Red Oak 270(10) 270
Mockernut Hickory 270(10) 270
Pignut Hickory 270 10 270
Black gum 135(5) 135
TOTAL 1,300 15,000 12,000 2,700 31,000
' 1: Some non-commercial elements may not be locally available at the time of planting. The stem count
for unavailable species should be distributed among other target elements based on the percent (%)
distribution. One year of advance notice to forest nurseries will promote availability of some non-
commercial elements. However, reproductive failure in the nursery may occur.
2: Scientific names for each species, required for nursery inventory, are listed in Section 5.2 of the
mitigation plan.

41

1
Planting will be performed between December 1 and March 15 to allow plants to stabilize during
the dormant period and set root during the spring season. Opportunistic species, which typically
dominate early- to mid-successional forests, have been excluded from initial plantings on
interior floodplains. Opportunistic species such as sweetgum, red maple, loblolly pine, and
black willow may become established. However, to the degree that long-term species diversity
is not jeopardized, these species should be considered important components of steady-state
forest communities. Planted stems of black willow, ironwood, and possum haw will be placed
on ditch outlet plugs for stabilization purposes.
The planting plan is the blueprint for community restoration. The anticipated results stated in
the regulatory success criteria (Section 6.0) may reflect vegetative conditions achieved after
steady-state forests are established over many years. However, the natural progression
through early successional stages of floodplain forest development will prevail regardless of
human interventions over a 5-year monitoring period.
42

i 6.0 MONITORING PLAN
The Monitoring Plan consists of a comparison between reference and restoration areas along
with evaluation of jurisdictional wetland criteria (DOA 1987). Monitoring will entail analysis of
two primary parameters: hydrology and vegetation. Monitoring of restoration efforts will be
performed for 5 years or until success criteria are fulfilled.
6.1 Hydrology
After hydrological modifications have been completed at the Site, continuously recording,
surficial monitoring wells will be installed in accordance with. specifications in U.S. Corps of
Engineers', Installing Monitoring Wells/Piezometers in Wetlands (WRP Technical Note HY-IA-
3.1, August 1993). Monitoring wells will be set to a depth of approximately 24 inches below the
soil surface. Screened portions of each well will be surrounded by filter fabric, buried in a
screened well sand, and sealed with a bentonite cap to prevent siltation and surface flow
infiltration during floods. Recording devices will be placed above the projected flood elevation.
Wells may be stabilized from flood shear by attaching a reinforcing steel bar (re-bar).
Eight monitoring wells will be installed in wetland restoration areas to provide representative
coverage within each physiographic landscape area depicted in Figure 16. Two wells will also
be placed in reference areas in similar landscape positions to use as comparison with on-site
conditions. In addition, one monitoring well will be placed within the Haw River to provide
stream flow depths and record bankfull events and one well will be placed within the Site to
monitor ponding and inundation of surface water.
Hydrological sampling will be performed in restoration and reference areas during the growing
season (26 March to 6 November) at intervals necessary to satisfy the hydrology success
criteria within each physiographic landscape area (Figure 15).
6.2 Hydrology Success Criteria
Target hydrological characteristics have been evaluated using regulatory wetland hydrology
1 criteria and reference wetland sites.
Regulatory Wetland Hydrology Criteria
The regulatory wetland hydrology criterion requires saturation (free water) within 1 foot of the
soil surface for 5 percent of the growing season under normal climatic conditions. In some
instances, the regulatory wetland hydroperiod may extend for between 5 and 12.5 percent of the
growing season.
Reference Wetland Sites
' Two groundwater monitoring wells will be placed in the reference wetland areas. These wells
will provide reference hydroperiods for the primary and secondary floodplain (bottomland
hardwood and swamp forest) physiographic area.

43

? ? i m ? m= == i = m = w == m m m
rrl
Z 009606 N
:4
o v
ko
0
0 0
\
,
\
`'
?
t`
'
?
'
?
',
\' -
?'--_ _
'
?C
4 1•
.
1
1
1
1 11
1
1
ir n
%
/
\I`
1
1,3 V, _
_-_ -. 1
.
.i,?•%
l,•?k
L.
---- - -- ------ - I
60' ACCES??SEMENT' -NT-- -7-7
-
%'
' ii
.? .
;
? ?,,:'_ _s ?:'
(N? Y/? ? ? •N i
(?

? ?
1 1 Z 8• ? we
\
^\ _ c?• ? ?, - ?, OOOOl6 N
t 1; 2
N',

;oy rn x x -0 x D
Z teO Z O v) cn O v1 p 0
-' -' v J t?
'?

m r
m
f

?

•
t

?

-r
z ?, ?
? 0
Z
?
0D -

W
.
,

1
:
-
i
o C,
-1 c
ig o m
..
., ,
m ?rn DO y
M;o

0 ;o 30
Z 0

` IX]

I ?• ;\

x
p?H
r
(n Z
Q rn
._? r, i
j?` J
, N' w
ya
1 b ' `` iD• ; ''
' ?? _/-.'.._\°' .t f; ? ? T /
. . r =? J I/ I V`,, 1'1.
3?? JFjg'-„i''X ? `'••?-. `, ` \ ? Q
(
?
- ?
'tn .j 'd `' 1 ? n' y
J?,?.`'`'„?"?•_?,'
/ /// ?l 1 1 '1tu
? _'CN F. ?'v^, \

ell

d -

0001?;6 ".N`

„-0 b C)

,

0
ill /?- -- - n

---------

f _ :fin ?? - / .. iJ,, ,'''': /,.; '•?,''' _ ?
I X,

0
n n
9. n
p ?

? ? .TJ v

o' [?

n

n

G ?
co
z
m
= " M
lyJ
0 /?
°ozc CA D N? 0 0
O a O G7 ?Z O dc ??
O m
A z
m
" F ZO
a0 ?o
° mDD??o mD N ?'

o
z
m
QQg ?<
_I 2
0
z
/?-I
?•?
L`4
o oN 2 m
zo 0
Dm Z VIO
Z O f?
00 0 0 cn

' Success Criteria
' Target hydrologic characteristics include a minimum regulatory criteria or a comparison to
reference data in drought years (years in which reference is within 2 percent of or below the
regulatory wetland criteria).
Under normal climatic conditions, the hydrologic success criterion requires saturation (free
water) within one foot of the soil surface for a minimum of 5 percent of the growing season for
the secondary floodplain and bottomland hardwood areas depicted in Figure 15. The primary
floodplain and Piedmont swamp forest quadrants must support saturation (free water) within
1 foot of the soil surface for a minimum of 12.5 percent of the growing season. This hydroperiod
' translates to saturation for a minimum, 12-day (5 percent) to 28-day (12.5 percent) consecutive
period during the growing season, which extends from March 26 to November 6 (USDA 1977).
' In atypical dry years, the hydroperiod must exceed 75 percent of the hydroperiod exhibited by
the reference wells located within the same physiographic landscape area. Reference well data
will be used to compare wetland hydroperiods between the restoration areas and relatively
undisturbed reference wetlands. This data will supplement regulatory evaluation of success
criteria and also provide information that shall allow interpretation of mitigation success in years
not supporting "normal rainfall conditions."
6.3 Vegetation
Restoration monitoring procedures for vegetation are designed in accordance with EPA
' guidelines presented in Mitigation Site Type (MiST) documentation (EPA 1990) and COE
Compensatory Hardwood Mitigation Guidelines (DOA 1993). The following presents a general
discussion of the monitoring program.
Vegetation will receive a visual evaluations during the periodic reading of monitoring wells to
ascertain the general conditions and degree of overtopping of planted elements by weeds.
Subsequently, quantitative sampling of vegetation will be performed once annually during the
fall (October / November) for 5 years or until vegetation success criteria are achieved.
Sampling dates may be modified to accommodate river flood events and plot inundation, as
needed.
During quantitative vegetation sampling in early fall of the first year, approximately 15 sample
transects will be randomly placed (stratified) within the Site to equally represent the various
hydrologic regimes and plant communities. Each transect will be 300 feet in length and 8 feet in
' width (0.055 acre). Best professional judgment may be necessary to establish vegetative
monitoring plots upon completion of construction activities. In each sample plot, vegetation
parameters to be monitored include species composition and species density. Visual
observations of the percent cover of shrub and herbaceous species will also be recorded but not
used for vegetative success criteria. Sample-plot distributions are expected to resemble
locations depicted in Figure 16.

45
r
6.4 Vegetative Success Criteria
Success criteria have been established to verify that the vegetation component supports
community elements necessary for floodplain forest development. Success criteria are
dependent upon the density and growth of characteristic forest species. Additional success
criteria are dependent upon density and growth of "Character Tree Species," which include
planted species, those listed by Schafale and Weakley (1990), and species identified in the
RFEs. All canopy tree species planted and identified in the reference forest will be utilized to
define "Character Tree Species" as termed in the success criteria.
An average density of 320 stems per acre of
p Character Tree Species must be surviving in the
first three monitoring years. Subsequently, 290 character tree stems per acre must be surviving
in year 4, and 260 character tree stems per acre must be surviving in year 5. Planted species
must represent a minimum of 30 percent of the required stem per acre total (96 stems/acre).
Each naturally recruited character species may represent up to 10 percent of the required stem
per acre total. In essence, seven naturally recruited character species may represent a
maximum of 70 percent of the required stem/acre total. Additional stems of naturally recruited
species above the 70 percent threshold are discarded from the statistical analysis. The
remaining 30 percent are not necessarily removed from the Site, but will be left as a reserve and
future seed source for species maintenance during mid-succession phases of forest
development.
During the first sample event, a visual survey will be performed in the reference wetlands to
identify all canopy tree species represented within target communities. These reference tree
species will be utilized to define "character tree species" as termed in the success criteria.
During quantitative vegetation sampling in early fall of the first year, approximately five sample
plots will be randomly placed (stratified) within the Site to equally represent the various
hydrologic regimes and plant communities. However, best professional judgment may be
necessary to establish vegetative monitoring plots upon completion of construction activities. In
each sample plot, vegetation parameters to be monitored include species composition and
species density. Visual observations of the percent cover of shrub and herbaceous species will
also be recorded but not used for vegetative success criteria. Sample-plot distributions are
expected to resemble locations depicted in Figure 16.
M In each plot, presence/absence of shrub and herbaceous species will be recorded. A wetland
data form (DOA 1987) will be completed to document the classification and description of
vegetation, soil, and hydrology.
6.5 Contingency
In the event that vegetation or hydrology success criteria are not fulfilled, a mechanism for
contingency will be implemented. If vegetation success criteria are not achieved based on
average density calculations from combined sample plot data, supplemental planting will be
' performed with tree species approved by regulatory agencies. Supplemental planting will be
performed as needed until achievement of vegetation success criteria. No quantitative sampling
requirements are proposed for herb assemblages as part of the vegetation success criteria.
' Development of floodplain forests over several decades will dictate the success in migration and
46

establishment of desired understory and groundcover populations. Visual estimates of the
percent cover of herbaceous species and photographic evidence will be reported for information
purposes.
For vegetation contingency, replanting and extended monitoring periods will be implemented if
community restoration does not fulfill minimum species density and distribution requirements.
' Hydrological contingency will require consultation with hydrologists, WRP, and regulatory
agencies if wetland hydrology restoration is not achieved. Wetland surface modification,
including construction of ephemeral pools, represents a likely mechanism to increase the
floodplain area that supports jurisdictional wetlands. Recommendations for contingency to
establish wetland hydrology will be implemented and monitored until the Hydrology Success
Criteria are achieved.

7

1

6.6 Monitoring Report Submittal
An Annual Wetland Monitoring Report (AWMR) will be prepared at the end of each monitoring
year (growing season). The AWMR will depict the sample plot and quadrant locations and
include photographs which illustrate Site conditions. Data compilations and analyses will be
presented as described in Sections 6.1 through 6.4 including graphic and tabular format, where
practicable. Raw data in paper or computer (EXCEL) file format will be prepared and submitted
as an appendix or attachment to the AWMR.
47
1

7.0 RESTORATION DESIGN UNITS
The riverine floodplain physiographic areas encompass approximately 42.8 acres (Figure 6).
Based on restoration analyses (Section 4.0), the area includes approximately 34.9 acres of
' wetland restoration in prior converted cropland and 2.1 acres of wetland enhancement.
Figure 17 and depicts the area of riverine wetland restoration and enhancement (i.e. bottomland
hardwood restoration). The remaining on-site acreage (10.6 acres) includes levees, streams
' (open water), upland buffer, and groundwater slope restoration and preservation areas.
Restoration plans will re-introduce surface water flood hydrodynamics from a 52.7 square mile
' watershed. The plan includes establishment of an array of riverine communities, including levee
forests, bottomland hardwood forests, and riverine swamp forests. Therefore, riverine
hydrodynamic and biogeochemical functions will be restored, including pollutant removal,
' organic carbon export, sediment retention, nutrient cycling, flood storage, and energy
dissipation. Physical wetland functions typically associated with water quality will be replaced
within the Cape Fear River basin.
r Biological functions associated with the riverine system will also be restored or enhanced
including in-stream aquatic habitat, structural floodplain habitat, and interspersion and
1 connectivity between the restored stream, floodplain, and adjacent uplands.
1

48
rw ww ww w? w ww wr ww ww ?w ?ww ww ?w w? w ?w wr ?w +w
O
0
A W
?l A
Q1 cp
} It
N O
I f rD
N
m ,
m -
ti V ti /
m z ?.
v
1
?- /
T
c
?L N
I ~
'' I m
I m
I 4
I \
I ? Z L
,4000p, l1w I B ?
y\\? 1 >S?S?S25?!? i
I
000
V7 n G
N
n c n
- m o
0
L
o C) C)
I x?? ?Xk
C: 0
G
m
m C .. m
O Z
(.l
? N N
A O O
0 O
W

AWN,
000116 N
i
\ 1
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
,? ? _ +1 OOSll6 N
` r;l Z
I l:
I
? F
Sx • 000Zl6 N
r

m Z C)
°zc en >
==
?
cncn
p

m

.?

_
D
z
0?
L7 o
-
?o O ?D
70
° m
D ?

m 4 " C)
C

?s .

cnZ:l X
n
D
OOZ Z-uC
r- C
"'1 n ?11 c
.T.
Z zD rzo Ov m
z en 0 0 ror-ee n
In

x x rT :0 A C m m cn m ?7, K: to
m;? ZC mm x x v x ? -1 Z D
I D D V) p p co
XZ (ZZ AO Z Z m Z
y m m m D C) C7 C) 0 n c
?m N A r °z p z
Zm Zm O? A p m o O
\A Q O A O
z r- ;o
O Z Z
= m
g
n
mm
Z

8.0 REFERENCES
' Brinson M., B. Swift, R. Plantico, and J. Barclay. 1981. Riparian Ecosystems: Their ecology
and status. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS 81/17.
' Brinson M.M., F.R. Hauer, L.C. Lee, W.L. Nutter, R.D. Smith, and D. Whigham. 1995.
Guidebook for Application of Hydrogeomorphic Assessments to Riverine Wetlands. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
Brower, J.E., J.H. Zar, and C.N. von Ende. 1990. Field and Laboratory Methods for General
Ecology. William C. Brown Publishers, Debuque, IA.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS.
Department,of the Army (DOA). 1993 (unpubplished). Corps of Engineers Wilmington District.
Compensatory Hardwood Mitigation Guidelines 912/8/93).
' East Satellite Corporation (EASC). 1997. Comprehensive land cover mapping for the State of
North Carolina. Final Report. Rockville, MD.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1990. Mitigation Site Clasification (MiST). A
Methodology to Classify Pre-Project Mitigation Sites and Develop Performance
' Standards for Construction and Restoration of Forested Wetlands. USEPA Workshop,
August 13-15, 1989. USEPA Region IV and Hardwood Research Cooperative, North
Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
Griffith, G.E. and J.M. Omernik, 2000. Draft Level III and IV of North Carolina. U.S. Geological
Survey Map and Description, Reston, VA. Scale 1:250,000.
Griffith, G.E., Omernick, J.M., Comstock, J.A., Schafale, M.P., McNab, W.H., Lenat, D.R.,
MacPherson, T.F., Glover, J.B., and Shelburne, U.B. 2002. Ecoregions of North
Carolina and South Carolina (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables,
and photographs): Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,500,000).
Keller, M.E., C.S. Chandler, and J.S. Hatfield. 1993. Avian Communities in Riparian Forests of
Different Widths in Maryland and Delaware. Wetlands 13(2):137-144, Special Issue,
June 1993. The Society of Wetland Scientists.
Rosgen, D.L., 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena, 22, 169-199.
1 Schafale, M. P., A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation, NC Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
' Recreation, NC DEM, Raleigh NC.
50

1

1
[1,

1

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1977. Soil Survey of Guilford County, North Carolina.
United States Department of Agriculture.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1992. Soil Survey of . Rockingham County, North
Carolina. United States Department of Agriculture.
51

1

1 9.0 APPENDICES

t

t
t

t

1

52
J

1

1

RFP response #16-AW3001 easement boundary
APPENDIX A

. . . . ? ? ? m ? ? w m ? M m ? ? ? ?
ll?
,oor - •L 37VAS O/HdVg9
aas oP9 OW 0 Qsr oar 3X015
aNLL9 3
tlNl'IOHVO HLiION AlNf107 NVNONIN70H dIHSNN01 311IANOSdNIS
Upl)Q,lJ9S'W;) ;j UOC1910r,3 ?j ZSZL 'Jd '045 WO
(311S 213NN MVH) 9J3416Say a130014 0a" 0J 11105 .
3111 `swHJ sXs . )
NolliT aoilsRU ) zszt '?
d god I '6c6 'e'O
p a3Ntl00?
HS AGARTS aao03a
$ miN sux oa YYU e'O
3:13 Y9 {t '80r1D170a x
l - 7JN3a39a AL % *S- ?If -MN3diBS AIM1O7 NVH5NL4XU
Yl9t , '0d *07 '0013'3 C9ZL 'Jd 'WLS '8'0 034
?
.3710N39a AINIIW Otl0311110 I ----0
717 '1 W8ZSA3 NOLLYHO1951H I 771 'sxzlvxv Naullwol3H
a3M .111
Z9Z '0d LY6Z '6'0 ,LL'S9L I
NOSaaYH7)H N?or,YSllss ONN • HOW
0M15UC3
•19'1Y1
=•
a311ne rMwvama as Lt 40w,9'961
7MN N.Z:L.LSaW1 - `"
0161Z 'Od `L9l l '8'a Nlw Yd/W MVN > p0 .,r ,.?
37N3113911 AIN1100 MYN7NDf10N JAN fif.SRY9T5.'' dO
609E '•Jd '0065 'B'0 •gg'IK \.
00N3a39tl AlNn07 Oa0dan0 7NN M.6f,S0.49S ._ -• ...' . ^ ? ro ... d G
NOSQHYWIH MOZ)CYHZ?'?y lStZCS : \\\`.? ..:,.SdF`.S'•.
y+ ,LL56t ? 1;1;a "
SIu \ti WNBS.6tA95 .'.'..'.?f." i;55U
saa7Y xt SIN r• .. In?r;:
ti `r .' :a13 .,,?7:!'.•.?}il
100CoMV i 17VaWa) 803
ml % r
30v3a7v 110LLV110153tl daM
\(Hii4113NYRNadRF.' . '••."t1.o1:t ?L' Sal
oN) Y/ 3LON °•, sal; • .
YLZ9-L6-OUI96L Kid ON
JNN
YZLZ-LL-CO'LL61 NM 7N i%)?..=': •...'r: 1CJ .M _ .d0' Sm SY38QNV
am, '0d '9901 '0 '0d YC '8'
d
St.
S=11s ) 1'~t V 7 381
Sao, Wit
,"(35'a Wubwcm?
1,![3[1'1143161 aNV1 -
SLUISFS VoLr*"s3tl
Nx,ILLxxx,..,
?
b
-'?a??
y?o
t?ns

•
? IUS a
3001Ha :
-

3
"•?'{ Y6lY-l loAPUng 'x ,)Q? N1`,v.
n
?
?
d 8\ \ c°
?
®
1 g 8 C....•_., dr(Vls 80 lV3S
?
,
O
y
?
Z
1°x N, 'uagwnu uagog9!6a1 roLn;PU6ly I..!k. Aw
vv9u
l
yopu9wv
w 0f-L4 5g 4av
oaWquoaav tq Pm dard Om loldd 9141 = ?1 'a UPd NOO8 14 Nno4 uonauuqul
W op -m E-; w Pv49 p ine I- apopunoq a41 1X1 `3:W6OC/L
300m mA.dap N. pMg n 4q N;.IVI.. ao Z.1-al to ,- 9, WW (-019
. `vS
4
-
9B°
'-
.
m
r'(" ?.C 9a P p ) (uoquadn9 Aw l9pun pow (Duns
JWWO9 W PP ° 003
=W
d
IPnim uo) woy uoL9Wadn9 Au •aPun u.NVP 90• ;old 9143 ;04; fjw..
1 a1A o; uo daaxa X+430 ro •Aaunc P1?9nc o to u°ANaaP
A paL9plo-yrroa P 'cpaLad Bupgxo rv ugtNlgwaao?
•41 w 4am •(ryouwvv3 u°A°ruawo7) AoBatoa uo4;vuv W 4 4a?9r Wx 3°41 Ajw- I
utw NnwB -vlaq rv rorwgP 9w,gN1 _,V A_ uo 9on'Xln N_b, .-P -A
anox N '9NONPN fotauaa &U al0°°I q N. 9°o YlwoNO '44 :1owIN0Wp 9 fo4sun5
g? l0"Y
WAUSY3 NO X07
'NN3NM 3a N30Nn ON
Nn
SN3)SAS NOLLVa0IS3S
1S3tl
9NUS0C3__
v m Jcsvt?^?. ?:''
C SS,CZ. p Y9 '0d YC '6'd
IN, •41.:^'':?G't "- ISO" tWO WN
'_-:.%,??•!? q? '! 7YN N3J8p7 OHO03U a073N
y59L-21-GOLL6L Ma 7n \ N3.?N8?L I!t ••'4? l?fl ?y' N4.
e t'ua vm H6 m NYwnldla .0S
I95Z-ZB-00196L Kid ON
$9
-- - ?+ • 0NLLSO4 ?'? :-s.e';?.x:11. F m HEMIL YP
413 DS M3N
9LOZ-CI-LV'U., W 7N 6•w1?•r?i.3 •:: i?' ':
,%Z 9d g99 '69 \ 9091 '0d ?,tr,?,.^• W.4
SWENSON 'SSLL 'e'0 {\? r M•SC,BZA9S
077 smus S `?AI'•'`i?3 `? 31X,
'- -- $ • NOISY807Sde j:,j>,"•:,•.,. ?' 7NNSQ3
YLOZ-ft-iP'I[6L Nd aN ^ .F': OAK 5C 62985
tR a o "9'o QxQ ' {'rv Sf 6x999
.642[9
uCL-ft-X(464 Nd ON 4`F{ • •: ;,6'. ::",:.5, - L! 4 o ff9Y-C8-00'L9GL Nk ON
911 Qip Wo .4CO9 \1: ?!:S?r {: +"':::1. 1?,?f•'o WL 369 'B'N
.sL'oW
413 <e;•<;y5.;s9'6ss'. d(3
H?'IYY
_ -" Lt'WL ONN
fwitl-W'ueC Na ON ONN I
yd t TO dO
63YV0
^\ f
7WN 1mm3 55751,
,09 mus90
cN\\P!?\^ Wtg- -CO'LLSL Kid ON
4d+ 9LZ Od 'TOOt '90
N Sum
J` 0961
JMN Y 3NT 031,0 YV v? 8 S1O0 LLW[f ONE 1664
• '91 AM 44uv6 v QS)3NlQ a opzo 6st9[f (s)a36Nrw
\?, d,n YN31 fil ONmoav AWONi16B WVZYN aOOld
[[i?nn v M g3lV0Oi SI 1Yid 9W AB 031rQ63ad3tl V3aI 6aLL
u?
!oS N aBV3 - SQ3
Au1oJ l+aluu9ar9N n911 • ]NN?
arar app 3
AauaBr 7uaw96onory

°10.4 N.a9n an
? - AMH
'

uaan? n
?onN A
4Y9V - MSJN
,N ALUO Ja: 9VxOJ
Nun aM w
- NYJ
,1P7La4a 1 4P
lOawAadaO au?ia7 YY
-10
06-0d 4 _ 'Dd
ad

+a
i ?
?
8O
A \

^
w
Ua
j -
ia
N
•
a d'
-N
araJ j o74A3 3 - 53
ruawnuory
r - M03 \

('Q'O .r) r9S 944 u % - Shc \
YS B°A' Xd - 9y
' 6oN Jld Bua°73 - Nd3
o
l--n ryyH?
AV, = -I= _ J
IT,
7NN

\
;u9
, w a3 p3 - do3
au i B
ur
n um
to
?4 ^+
.39'451
z.
pp
X -
clod 7lnR - do
n [[[
J X16 7
LL.ZZA09
m-w-? - ?/S \\,? 1

AOM-w-rV6 - /
/W
ru9wnu9ry ar9L0uo7 ft/!.103 _ H? 1

\
wupa Pa;uvuuLwry u0N - JAN
ad
ua
bu
9 ? d\
0 '
d
0
ng
3 -
75 413
030 u0N bun:,p - 93
?J \ d
?
-0(69311

AS SUDY ZI - I00CONV / 17VNljr
aol 30V3LgV NOLLVMOL M daM .1 of
Huriamm As s3sw ZZ - (1N3m3
SSMW A5 M3N 3NL ONIQ="I) 1143113S
NOLLVAHNNW 'WMNM H30Nn oNVI
S.N3L4A5 NOLLVHOLWH Jo 39Y3wv 7V1OL '
•11YO 39V39,Y
3Ma SINE 1Y Q3A31MI15
LON 3MV OW AWO 03r1'X17'IYJ 3nV 937 03619 66
AUWL, Z M"OHS lolv 31W (aNNIYMO sw
NO mum sY) 5, X02 1L3Jd718 NHMVMH OS (Z) 3X1 (L
ALVXp PWMW w N, Qd193 XVL 9
AUGdOYd SN31OUNL76S33UN(I7YIAINnOJ Q7 /11910BB2K3HL 0001l19 6310 MYN WJY NVU02
3HL (9
'(41102 W-K H MWO A31NM 0131
GiNnow 3w SNwnQ 0300014 3&39 SYJW 3S3HL SV
31H0X0addV 3&V SNWYW7 HaW CRY 41'174X5 rn (9
SM MWS ION 00 5dM7 ON70 Oda! 031YAWH3N
390BV 3WL ''AUA UV 3AVZ RUM NIfiffik M
,OS aNN7N SY Nate sm SM16 M w pr '8'd (Y
S09r 4100)39
L0-6LOpr 91 axw 01710
OpOYLI 3HdAPIOdai -wwm N3dw
sY damn aww
fd81 31m vwa
am QdaL
JFI :10.mv 3NV7
5691 U003134
Lo-BL09r q3 mx w am
OOOYZ:r 0NLdYM-d01 3041= UWd
.f'L -s3w3S am
r661 mvo 7wa
am Leal
JN 3 0117 113 8
,A'ILN077Q4 3m MWLI N3XY1 NOuVMM4N1 NYwm w Or
3J 0002 NRM YWLNOJ 7YINOZNOLL ON (Z
'Zom 034346M
SKU 12UN AMY IWO aM0.aW JO SUW, Aswo
19X3 AM 300 YSr L3M3fIM 335 N0 G. a..
37A' a3L3913U 06Q13M Jo SLN3AL1700 771' 'am; ns
3M at a9H5ZMW ! 3"K /J.7A1'3S 3tt4L !0 S11n536
Mori 'JAGM WOO 37M NON 3701 la1'U1561' GN WON (r
AMLO03a A1NNA7 MYIIW AWd
3H! ,n M 9d 'K 9a N Qww:3M
XIS Hi919w 19MI1 JO AOSHOd V BM38
MYN&MMJON 3HL .w 9LLZC"Jdd2911 110
N 008009 AWWW 3X1 JO 77V UMN
ANRLQ3a ALNLr0,7 NYN9MIJOM
3HL JO M.YZ 'Sd 166 9'a N GUMO 3c1
XS Z MMM lavda J0 NOU" V Ar M
Aa1903M ALWW MMwN' OW
3W[ JO (OZLZ nl 2911 769 NI 09w0630
V -W Ml VNIOUVIG) 6061 Jd V91I WV
N Q30M0039 ALM3dadd 31U J0 77V 0M3B
iSA7MiSd73 D?

APPENDIX B
Site Photographs
1

b
¦

t.
?' ?ti " `- ./? s y ? v? r lf? §2?t r`-1 r ?A;Cf ?w err f E sf ` y,.
Groundwater slope north of canal facing east (early Spring 2003).
The Haw River, moving east through the Site during high flow (early Spring 2003).

s •.
? r
Field south of the Haw River, facing northeast (early Spring 2003)
Field located between the Haw River and the canal, facing east (early Spring 2003).
Photograph taken from bridge over the canal, facing east (early Spring 2003).
Photograp'- taken near Benchmark 7 (BM7) facing southwest (early Spring 2003).
,
•`
J

r
r} :-r

1 f ?.
t A
Photograph taken from Benchmark 10 (BM10) looking west.
Photograph taken from Benchmark 10 (BM 10) looking north.
Y .r ?r •1":?l yi/1??

Photograph taken from Benchmark 2 (BM2) looking southeast.
Photograph taken from Benchmark 2 (BM2) looking southeast.
? . 4
r s ?: n }k
1 i- f ? • ? ? F

Photograph taken from Benchmark 4 (BM4) looking west.
r
Photograph taken from Benchmark 4 (BM4) looking northeast

?i.

Photograph taken from Benchmark 5 (BM5) looking west
z T , : 2
1 _J

? A 7 1

Photograph taken from Benchmark 5 (BM5) looking northeast.
Photograph taken from Benchmark 6 (BM6) looking southwest.
C'n
r ? ? Y s -r •yty
1 l 4 C3
Photograph taken from Benchmark 6 (BM6) looking northeast.
y
2 _
Photograph taken from Benchmark 7 (BM7) looking south.
Xr
_ s
R ?ryf? L4 ?? ?. !
_ ? .iii • .. ? ?/

` ,
,•! •? . ?>,
??` any pr ^ ..°
?1,`
?
1 '1

1
i

Photograph taken from Benchmark 7 (BM7) looking east.
L' \ C L
f: r -.3. A.?yeir
_ r t r Y ?
? v
Photograph taken from Benchmark 8 (BM8) looking south.

' t 4 f ?
t
h
l
?, ` f Lf ?
c
u'
r . l
?•
?
i r ?
r
-. x r ?

,
t

Photograph taken from Benchmark 9 (BM9) looking south-southwest.
1
1

1
P
APPENDIX C
HAW RIVER CROSS-SECTIONS

1
1
1
11

A

t

1
1
1
1
L
EE
m
V
O
a
O
v
Cl)
O
L.
0
-ice,
tl ?
L
LL
O
r-I
r
r

O
O

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
~ c
=i

? 0 m'

C6
O co I`

U
C)
O

C
o

0
0

I I
O
O

O O O
O O O
4 N O
O O O
? ? ?
O O O
O O O
06 CO 4
O O O
(D (D CD
O O O
O O O
N O 06
m O co
CD (D Cfl
UOIjeAaIE]
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
I
t
1
r
M

O
N

O

Z
O
O

d o

m O
co 01
i
I?
o Emil

O co
d
L
++
cu
N p =i

O
o O
-
m
o
O
co
O
•_
V
CD
?
N N

N O
O
L
/
M
V
O
i
O O O O O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
oo 6 4 N O o o 6 4 N
O O O O O ? (D ?
(0
I
1
t
d
1
1
f
r
i
m
0
L
co
V
.L
N
0
0
4-
0
0
a?
co
0
t?
g q q q q
0 0 0
w 0 d- N 0 w 0 It N

Cfl
co
Ln

O
j
LO mil
M 0
._
tCj m
M Co

LO
U
N l

O
1
T?
J
-
N
LO
T
O
T
LO
O
1

s
r
r
1
1
1

O O

O
O
.O

00
O
co
LO

U (0
O
O CD

_ U
L CI
Q
m
O
LO U
v LO

C0 C)
It
U) C`7
0 M
U '
U
)
N
O
O N
V U

Cl)
O

O
'
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O a ) 0 0 1` C O L n I t C M N
O O 0 7 O ') ( A 0 ) C ) 0 ) O m
1?- Imo - C U C ? C fl C ? C O C O C O CO

1
1
t
1
1
1
I
1

1
1
1

00
O
00
L
t?-
O

CD
to L

V LO

O LO

p
.
R5
O o c U'
CO T
O ' LO
co
N
co
o

O ? N
V

'O i
N
L
LO

0

LO
i 0

0 0 O 0 O 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 0 6 rte : 6 6 4 M
?
? (D (D (D
uOJe na13
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
O U')
r
O O

O
O
O

00

00

O
_ Ill.-

C
I.
LO 0
(p
.0 0 `Y V
V ? Co
? d-
Cl)
o

N L
O M
O
V M

? N
N

O U")
U. T-
O

LO
C)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O L O C -) U ') OU ? O LO
6 0 0 0 6 r ? ti 6 6 Sri ?
0 0 0
(D ( 0 0 0 C D

1
1
1
1
1
f
r
i
1
1
1
1
1
I
V
4-
O
a
O
C/)
N
N
V
LL.
O
OD

co i
O
0

O

L
CO
O
O
L
L
C )
I
co
Lo = ;
O
LO M cu
d- ca U
C) 1

d-
'
I

co
O
M

N
O
N
Ul)
Ir-
O

LO
0
0 LO
w co r:

C
00 0
U')
r? co
(D (D
u011BAGIE1
O O

C) LO
o
L6 LO

O
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
t
1
f
r
i
i
0

is l
0

0

?'?
^
' .
i.,
`•F?.
to
?
X5:1 \. a.:?

W

X f 0
'
.P^ac
. ??a m

f yc'• n --------------- ------

R . N

"::, :Y;
''•3
L
?? e'•' \ ? ip
?
,
,
. Y

0
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
?
?
J
LO 0 LO V 0 LO 0 LO 0 U')
* C0
M
V
0
J 6 06 M
W A U) U")
/
?
0
J
V
0
0 CY) 0 ? 0 V
/
?
?
/?
A
f '? V /? (0 (D (D ( /?
(
Riffle Haw River
706
704
702
c
700
N
w 698
696
694

- - - - - - - - - - -
--- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-------------------
.
----------- -

LX rJ
I
r^n
' -g
"N
?
_,.. .
- - - -

:
3 LS
.
.
U Tt :%Fn:';:?;' :hJ:b::? :i:Cru'+•j ;:l.:.tfi'4: v, ?'iF...,'i:?x,??:.}:. ,- .
K

L' „e$ r
. N :mzzrf?:....z'
;
g
xzzt:acr
. t
s 3 'w-S'9Y:S .
fi
:
r
r,i
J:?`J?..S3
.
.1....d...
L S '.3..:`.',¢L' .: J
cl
?.GIL` l J
"Li
?
9?+
•?
'
.
_.. . - : - . . -_
y
.._ .. h .;o:;.tzz:;<,e .
.
t
t
..
_
.
.
>
rr r
x
?: .: r•.>::y:.:':.>r:
v :: a. '..".f.. ::f .. ,a%
LG 5: 5 J 5..1 L 4 wL « l 2.„„ ? _

a
MR,
-

0 20
40
60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
Haw River
704.58
0 5.42
35 5.27
56 4.38
65 3.47
69 8.99
74 9.99
81 9.50
89 9.43
94 9.55
97 7.70
99 7.10
103 3.84
106 3.57
110 4.44
130 4.64
1631 4.92
699.16
699.31
699.38 -
700.2
701.11 diietcis ., ,
695.59 130.9 x-section area...,,: 3.7 tl mean
694.59 35.1 Width 38.4 &.Vot P
695.08 4.8 { max 3.4 _yd radi
695.15 0.0 i5anic'ht 9.4 Nld ratio
695.03 0.0 W fiabd rorEe"area 0.0 ent ratio
696.88
697.48
700.74 3.8 locity(ft/te,
701.01 499.3 discharg???:.
700.14 0.30 ear ?tr.49
699.94
699.66 1.244 .Unit strebi
r% .115
Riffle Haw River
706
704
702
c 700
0
$? 698-
.2
696
694
692
0
Riffle
Haw River

699.16 & }
699.57 699.45 -
700.04
699.49 C{ : : 1111 MM Q..
696.81 134.5 3.5 ? fl3eark
694.48 37.9 iffi w <' 41.7
694.51 5.0 won= 3.2 d radi
695.19 0.0 brrJtt :... 10.7 y+fd ratio
695.89 0.0 It fltd'??Sri 0.0 F?ttt ratio
699.32
699.28
700.01 3.7 `, <.
699
18 494
5
. .
699.23 0.28 MN,
0.38
1.140 11¥ .,. >;1F#se
0.12 rtae r?€tz%'x...
9.6?sµtlc3n f2f*,.r
15.4 tSfir?ltl >t?lt.Cmrral
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
r
i
Riffle Haw River
704
703
702
701
0 700
699
Ei 698
697
696
695
Y .r
'H'MV w
N _ _ _. k• . X N M # k. x-?Yd:?wMty*vt .....: ... WN.xx.:NM tl k .. x ....ll.:..N.W.M??WkN w; Mw.KM... #...!(k Y .'kr K n M Rk -;
%

k -_I f 4 i a Y f '.
4 '.t 4vrk,.'i?,itiw?? 'i?v?F:Ki::fi4':t:Y'Y.'ii:t?t
i iii
; i i.i:Rt .•
i !
-
-
i?i?Y
_ __ _ _'a
.?'^.
J ?,.?
C a .i i t+Jww.
:.
"ik :
a
.
?•
;
; , A
:. -
t
A•}i d' M :
KK N N A

we KKR k if :I R
??(??g$
Y ? ?fA ?k? T(n(k X k?'A' -
t
bXt
i
G

--. -. ........ :
,
dR?
N X
. . .
.

_ -

}1
--- ? it K '1M
X A?ffdN KU ? : AH
1. tlM
p
' M rf?< H?H??w xk ? xk R+lyk
?t\ R R:..: •x. x xto-
k __
_ y

-
t
t.fi
}f tt f
xs vl? A° "r.?
i, # ! i r
?±e:':'h
o .
.. . -- ^
-

- ;

- - -' r
N,Ce ,? r z n r
ce tiK mNK n X}X ?I ?«
f?k k
?w
k
>? s r
r
?M.M}P wxNNn-N rXr?< ^r M
X.
NbY.x. M
4
.
r . x:^X. Mk?.44wjfSQ?x «
* !f
n #%. ,N Mx"l k::.Y!tN. .
Y
_ _

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
Riffle
Haw River
u v.9. L•f
699.41 699.39 -
699.74
699.86 alt <F, . y.
699.48 96.3 x?,section ars 3.51 mean'
695.47 27.8 width ` a 33.5
695.8 3.9 rnax 2.9 Ufa
696.02 0.0 bank ht 8.1 yJ
696.04 0.0 W flood rune area 0.0 i
699.93
699.11 fi .
41
698.25 0.0 vloct ff#SB <: :<<?
0.0 tlischar e rate, f cfO
0.00 Shear stress
0.00 sheaf velocity;( ft(sec
0.000 Unit Stream rawer Ibs/ft/sec:
0.00 Froude number
0.0 friction factor u/u"
G4 threshold gxajn size (mm r <.: ...: ......
L

I

1

APPENDIX D
HEC-RAS REPORT FOR EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS

a

1
e

I

c

e
C

w
d
w
I ?
L
49
N
V

Q
C

0
0

•o
CO M N O Co co m co n co LO N O r d'
y 'cr to q q I? co 00 O CD r N M M lf?
L Q M co M M M M M M m LO co co CC) co

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
I? ti 1? I,- I~ P- r- ti ti ? I- I` I-

O
O ?
r
M
co
M
O
ti
LO
co
co
co
LO
N
O
r
Cn
r 'Ict LO co I,- co O CA O I` r N M M Ln
N M M M C'6 M M M 4 M Ln O O Cp O

x
x O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
p- t- p- ti r- p- I- I+ I` p- I` p- ti p-
.a
CI!
y Ln O N O r O N I- CC) LO 'It r N M

o I` 00 O O r r N M r O co O O r
c N N N N M M M ci M Ln Lrj Ln Ln Co
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
d a rl- ti ti ti

tOr! = LO O CC) M M N O O 00 LO 19t ?- M r-
I- O O T7 N M M 'CI' N O M O O r
N N CN CV M CN M Ch CV) M LC) LO LO LO co
x O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
lL N ti ? ? ? p- I- r- p- ? ti p- r- I`
V
0
y M ti O p r O It d' N r I` O CC) Ln

O r N M M LC) co CC) 00 I- co M LO LO co
N CV N CV CV N N N N M 4 4 4 4
O O O O O
- O O
- O O
I` O
` O
` O
r- O
- O
r-
a ti I` I` r- r
- ti t
- ? I t - t
-

N M 00 Nt N ?t LO O CC) M It N CC) N CA
r N M LO CO I? ? O co LO M It to co
N N N N N N N N N N M 4 4 4 .4
.X O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
W ti ti ti ti ti r ti ti
1
d
y O M I-
• lqt ? fl- O N O Cfl LO N N d
N 't d LO I- co co N r I? M LO (C) C)
r r r ?- r r r N CV CV Ch M Crl M
L C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

a
= O LO r M O M r- d O CC) Lo M M N
N d LO 1,- G) O O M M ti M Ln q O
y r r r r r N N N N N M M co Nt
x O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

N
y Ln O LO co 't O O d' Imo- r CC) O I? LO

O to co co O Cfl M O eY C4 1? CP r d

Q' CA to CA ? O O O r r r r r N N
CA CA O O O O O O O O O O O O

` to Co co co 1` I? r I? I Il- I` I- ?
C a
a
N O LO N Cl M I- co r LO co r LO CA co v
CC) 00 O M CC) 00 O ll? CC) 0? r Ln
y 0 M CA CD O O O r r r r r N N
x O O O O O O O O O O O O Co
, O
La.l co co co I- f` I- I- N I- ti ti P- I
- p-

d N O O LO co CC) LO co CA M r Ln O
y
O CO LO LO LO O r co 00 co co 00 O N M

i L 00 00 W O O O O O O O O r r r
O CA OA O O O CA O O O O O O O
Co O co co P- co ti I- r`
a

r C R At M m LO M r M M Lo 1? I? O O O
E M Ln LO co
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
Ln
N 00 co co O O O O O O O O r r r
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
w CC) co Co Co r- N I- I` r- I- I- I• I- p-
=
O O CA O LA O M O r r O Ch IR 00
w 0; M
C* C"
-V-- Lo
m M
a r
le Lp
Cq M
co M
N M
w.
Go N

_
+?' r
w r-
m

r

r

r

10

%-

m

m

LO

N

N

M
y N N N N N
0
0
O
U
U
N
U
O
LLJ

1
s

t

A

APPENDIX E
NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM ELEMENTS

Orr
- ?1a r? 8
. '
`lea ? ,p a J

Am.

tS
be° ,?r: LS
?
'...4F9y?.? L3L7.. aa?Ab\S Fj

9R
:
ry:
f i
10000 0 10000 20000 Feet
U Watershed Boundary
NHP Observations
• AMBYSTOMA TALPOIDEUM (Mole salamander)
ETHEOSTOMA COLLIS POP 2 (Carolina darter) N
HALIAEETUS LEUCOCEPHALUS (Bald eagle)
• LOW ELEVATION SEEP
PIEDMONT/LOW MOUNTAIN ALLUVIAL FOREST
• PIEDMONT/MOUNTAIN SWAMP FOREST
Hydrology
Land Use for 2002 (%)
® Cultivated
Developed
Forest S
Open Water
Shrubland
Unconsolidated Sediment NHP OBSERVATIONS
EcoScience Corporation
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27604
i
i
I

?QgAI'JIS
?Y?iO?L3
_ _ ?sxxdia?x
suopoonoo polsonbai
sluud paloazroo u.rnlag .ro; pau.rnlag sV
asn
•qulstp 1o3 saldoo lnugnS palou se pano.rddV .rnoX jog x
paunugns IEnoidde
Ieno.rdde ro; saldoo llmgnsag se pano.rddV log
:molaq paxoago su Qg. _UWSNVNj gdV gSgH.L

IL,IlpgnS uoiluoilddV jtuuod aoj aAA(j of )IoogD SLV$ 9/6 I
a upud uoijnoii VV I!uuad LZ AiN
alts uoijvSpqq puppoAk du-mmS aanTg mUH
9/6
L
uollduasa(l •oH alra saldo0
sduW
;ollrMs h111wo d3W suor7eoiUpadS saldureS

aaprO aSuegO
sueld sluud
:sural[ 2urmollo3 aql

IJ.V?C) All I VI lU C3.LTIV pagoel7V x
I, aft N1.0
.rallal
;o MoO
ssurmui(I
dogs
ianoO
aleiedoS
:nox Dmumas
9HV gm
Xjilrnb.iojnAk 3o uoiSIATa
I?aujoQ Utlor :oZ
uope3gddV *-Od LZ MN
l7P nTW AaellaM duremS .rand M'H :gOf £0/9/6 :g.LVQ

livi LIwSNVN L d0 NFIl alt

x
11.01 Haynes Street Suitc 101 l aleie!1, NC 2760 Telephone: [phone] Fax: 919.428.351(8'
EcoS cience
SEP
September 5, 2003
01ATER QUALITY SECTION
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer ? ? ?
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office ??ET??,;,:? " re1 ? ?? RAW
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120 Sip ' ;!UU3
Raleigh, NC 27615 MTERQUAUTYSECRON
RE: Request for Use of Nationwide Permit Number 27 for the Haw River Swamp Wetland
Restoration Site in Guilford and Rockingham Counties
Dear Eric:
Please find attached to this letter the following items:
1) a completed Pre-construction Notification (PCN) form;
2) agent authorization letter;
3) Exhibit 1: project vicinity map;
4) Exhibit 2: conservation survey easement plat;
5) Exhibit 3: wetland restoration plan;
6) Exhibit 4: restoration design units;
7) Threatened and Endangered species survey report; and
8) Detailed Wetland Restoration Plan.
Project Purpose and Description
The purpose of this letter is to provide you with information concerning the Haw River Swamp
Wetland Mitigation Site. The owner/applicant, Restoration Systems, LLC, is proposing wetland
restoration at the Site to assist the NC Wetland Restoration Program in fulfilling its restoration
goals. A copy of the Detailed Wetland Restoration Plan for this Site is included in this permit
application package. The Site is located east of SR 1001 at the Haw River crossing in Guilford
and Rockingham Counties in the Cape Fear River Basin (USGS Hydrologic Unit 03030002).
The Site occurs primarily within the Haw River floodplain, which was previously ditched, leveled,
and drained to support agricultural activities. The Site is currently characterized as "prior
converted" cropland. Land use within the upstream watershed is currently comprised of
forested and agricultural land with low-density residential development expanding into the
vicinity of the Site as the result of increased commercial and residential development pressures
from urban sprawl associated with Greensboro and surrounding areas.
Mr. Eric Alsemeyer
September 5, 2003
Page 2
Site activities are expected to restore approximately 34.9 acres of prior converted cropland to
riverine forested wetlands and enhance approximately 2.1 acres of riverine wetlands (see
Exhibits 3 and 4). Site alterations to restore groundwater, surface flow dynamics, and wetland
hydrology include:
1) installing ditch plugs to prevent the migration of flows back into the former ditch or
canal;
2) backfilling ditches to prevent groundwater migration to the former ditch or canal;
3) constructing a backwater slough designed to mimic reference wetland conditions
within the Haw River floodplain;
4) constructing ephemeral pools to provide fill material and to mimic backwater slough
depressions and other depressional features found in the reference wetlands;
5) installing controlled water outfall structures at designed outlets within low points of
the floodplain to reinforce and restrain vegetated topsoil or stone infill, thereby
controlling down-slope movement due to hydrodynamic, gravitational forces, and
erosive flows which may cause bank instability and the risk of headcuts;
6) diverting Midway Creek to redirect flows onto the historic floodplain;
7) diverting the southern tributary and discharging flows into the historic alluvial fan and
primary floodplain;
8) scarifying wetland soil surfaces to restore complex microtopography with subsequent
community restoration; and
9) depositing woody debris cleared during restoration activities to aid in the
establishment of habitat diversity, nutrient cycling (soil microbial) functions, energy
dissipation on abandoned farmland, and temporary stabilization at controlled water
outfall locations.
In addition to the above restoration activities, restoration of wetland forest communities will
occur to provide habitat for wildlife and to allow for the development and expansion of
characteristic wetland-dependent species across the landscape. Reference data, on-site
observations, and ecosystem classifications have been used to develop species associations
including 1) levee forest, 2) bottomland hardwood forest, 3) piedmont swamp forest, and 4)
mesic mixed hardwood forest. In addition, upland buffer ecotones, riparian buffers, and
groundwater wetland recharge areas within approximately 10.6 acres will be preserved or
restored as upland management areas.
Proiect Impacts to Jurisdictional Areas
Two degraded and channelized stream reaches, Midway Creek and the southern tributary, will
be impacted in order to return the Site to historic conditions and accomplish restoration efforts.
Impacts will occur on 620 linear feet and 360 linear feet of the stream reaches, respectively (see
Mr. Eric Alsemeyer
September 5, 2003
Page 3
Exhibit 3). The Site is currently cleared and classified as "prior converted" cropland; therefore,
no impacts to wetlands or buffers will occur due to restoration activities.
Justifications for Project Impacts to Jurisdictional Areas
Two stream reaches, Midway Creek and the southern tributary, will be impacted in order to
return the Site to historic conditions and accomplish restoration efforts. These reaches were
previously moved and channelized (dredged and straightened) to improve drainage of the
adjacent property for agricultural use and currently remain in these conditions. Prior to
channelization, the historic stream reaches encountered an alluvial fan at the confluence of the
Haw River floodplain and transitioned to anastomosed, braided channels which discharged into
the Haw River. Reference stream reaches show that similar channels transition from an E-type
(highly sinuous) stream to an anastomosed (DA-type) and subsequently to a braided (D-type)
stream immediately prior to a confluence with a near-permanently inundated section of a
primary floodplain. This condition is common within this region and similar to historic Site
conditions.
Site restoration efforts are expected to restore approximately 34.9 acres of "prior converted"
cropland to riverine forested wetlands and enhance approximately 2.1 acres of riverine
wetlands. Other activities include the restoration of plant communities, riparian buffers, wildlife
and aquatic habitat, in addition to redirecting the flow of Midway Creek and the southern
tributary into newly constructed (restored) stream reaches within the floodplain (totaling
approximately 700 linear feet). Flow from Midway Creek will be directed into a distribution
freshwater marsh, which will serve as the mechanism to divert flow back onto the historic
alluvial fan and provide a perennial source for groundwater recharge to the area. The
distribution marsh will be constructed to facilitate passive channel redevelopment on its historic
alluvial fan location. The southern tributary will be discharged onto its historic alluvial fan and
primary floodplain. Both the stream reaches will then be allowed to develop primarily through
passive processes to encourage braiding, ponding, and anastomosed conditions similar to
historic conditions of the Site and reference streams in the region. The additional stream length
that will be allowed to develop through this process will total approximately 1170 linear feet.
Surface Water Analysis
Surface drainage on the Site and surrounding areas were analyzed to predict the feasibility of
manipulating existing surface drainage patterns into the primary and secondary floodplains
without adverse effects to the Site or adjacent properties. The Site was designed to maximize
groundwater recharge and wetland restoration while reducing potential for impacts to adjacent
properties.
Mr. Eric Alsemeyer
September 5, 2003
Page 4
Hydraulic and hydrologic analyses we utilized to predict flood extents for the 1-, 2-, 5-, 10-, 50-,
and 100-year storms under existing and proposed conditions after wetland restoration has been
implemented. The comparative flood elevations were evaluated by simulating peak flood flows
for the Haw River using the WMS (Watershed Modeling System, BOSS International) program
and regional regression equations. Once the flows were determined, the river geometry and
cross-sections were digitized from a DTM (Digital Terrain Model) surface (prepared by a
professional surveyor) using the HEC-GeoRAS component of ArcView. The cross-sections
were adjusted as needed based on field-collected data. Once the corrections to the geometry
were performed, the data was imported into HEC-RAS.
Watersheds and land use estimations were measured from existing DEM (Digital Elevation
Model) data and aerial photography. Field surveyed cross-sections and water surfaces were
obtained along the Haw River and canal. Valley cross-sections were obtained from both on-site
cross-sections and detailed topographic mapping to 1-foot contour intervals using the available
DTM. Observations of existing hydraulic characteristics were incorporated into the model and
the computed water surface elevations were calibrated by utilizing engineering judgment.
In summary, the model suggests that, under both current and proposed conditions, water
surface elevations for the 100-year storm event will be approximately 706.5 feet NGVD and
703.4 feet NGVD for the upper- and lower-most portions of the Site, respectively. The model
indicates that no significant change in surface water elevations is expected as a result of
wetland restoration activities. Therefore, hydrologic trespass of upstream and adjacent
landowners is not a concern.
Protected Species
Plants and animals with a Federal classification of Endangered or Threatened are protected
under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended. As of February 18, 2003, the US Fish and Wildlife Service lists one species for
Guilford County, North Carolina, and as of February 25, 2003, the US Fish and Wildlife Service
lists two species for Rockingham County, North Carolina (see the following table).
Scientific Name Common Name Status Count
Haliaeetus leucoce halus bald eagle Threatened* Guilford
Pleurobema collina James s in mussel Endangered Rockingham
Echinacea laevi ata smooth conef lower Endangered Rockingham
ruwanyereu -- a species tnai is in ganger or exuncuon tnrougnout an or a signiticant portion of its range.
Threatened -- a species that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.
-- a species proposed for delisting.
Mr. Eric Alsemeyer
September 5, 2003
Page 5
Surveys of suitable habitat were completed within the Site by EcoScience biologists in August
2003. Biological conclusions of "May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect" were concluded for
bald eagle and smooth coneflower, and "No Effect" was concluded for James spinymussel
within the Site. Additional information for each species, including a species description and
justification of the biological conclusion, can be found in the Protected Species Survey report
included in this permit application package.
Restoration Design Units
Based on restoration analyses, the area includes approximately 34.9 acres of wetland
restoration in prior converted cropland and approximately 2.1 acres of wetland enhancement.
Exhibit 4 depicts the area of riverine wetland restoration and enhancement. The remaining on-
site acreage (10.6 acres) includes levees, streams (open water), upland buffer, and
groundwater slope restoration and preservation areas.
Restoration plans will re-introduce surface water flood hydrodynamics from a 52.7 square mile
watershed. The plan includes establishment of an array of riverine communities, including levee
forests, bottomland hardwood forests, and riverine swamp forests. Therefore, riverine
hydrodynamic and biogeochemical functions will be restored, including pollutant removal,
organic carbon export, sediment retention, nutrient cycling, flood storage, and energy
dissipation. Physical wetland functions typically associated with water quality will be replaced
within the Cape Fear River basin.
Biological functions associated with the riverine system will also be restored or enhanced
including in-stream aquatic habitat, structural floodplain habitat, and interspersion and
connectivity between the restored stream, floodplain, and adjacent uplands.
The applicant should be listed as follows:
Mr. George A. Howard
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27604
Mr. Eric Alsemeyer
September 5, 2003
Page 6
Again, our objective is to obtain authorization for the described Haw River Swamp Wetland
Restoration Site under Nationwide Permit Number 27. In addition, a 401 Water Quality
Certification is being requested from the NC Division of Water Quality. Please call me if you
have any questions or need further information. Thank you for your continued assistance with
this project.
Yours truly,
EC SCIENCE CORPORATION
6
Jerry NfcCrain, Ph.D., CEP
President
CC: Mr. George Howard, Restoration Systems, LLC
Mr. John Dorney, NC Division of Water Quality
Attachments
IM
Natutal Resources
Restoration &Conservation
August 27, 2003
Agent Authorization, Letter
To Whom It May Concern
Dear Sir\.Madam:
By-authority of this agent authorization letter, Restoration Systems, LLC. gives
EcoScience.Corporation the authority.to conduct all necessary-work on the Haw River
Wetland Restoration Site in Guilford and Rockingham Counties, North Carolina.
Kindest regards.
'Sincerely,
e/A Ho ar_d
forg?
Restoration Systems, L.L.C.
Cc: Dr. Jerry McCrain, Ecoscience Corporation
1101 Haynes St., Suite 203 • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 • www.restorationsystems.com • Fax: [phone] • Phone: [phone]
Office Use Only:
USACE Action ID No.
DWO No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ?
? Section 10 Permit ?
® 401 Water Quality Certification
or
on May 2002
??? j ooJ
y?ee J
Riparian or Watershed NkRules
Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwide Permit No. 27
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (verify availability with NCWRP prior to submittal of PCN), complete
section VIII and check here: ?
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
Owner/Applicant Information
Name: George A. Howard
Mailing Address: Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 107
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Telephone Number: 919-755-9490 Fax Number: 919-755-9492
E-mail Address: [e-mail]
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: Jerry McCrain
Company Affiliation: EcoScience Corporation
Mailing Address: 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: [e-mail]
Page 1 of 9
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Haw River Swamp Wetland Restoration Site
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): Not Applicable
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): See attached Exhibit 2, conservation easement
survey plat.
4. Location Counties: Guilford and Rockingham Nearest Town: Greensboro
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): Not Applicable
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): (From Raleigh) Take 1-40 west to
exit 127 Route 29 (heading north). Take Route 29 north for approximately 9 miles to Route
150 (heading west). Follow Route 150 west or approximately 7 miles and take a right onto
SR 1001 (Church Street Extension, heading north). Follow SR 1001 for approximately 2.3
miles to the crossing of the Haw River. The Site is located east of SR 1001 (see Exhibit 1).
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): Longitude 1769318.4882 Latitude
910205.1393 (at the crossing of SR 1001 with the Haw River)
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Property size (acres): 49.5 acres
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Haw River
8. River Basin: Cape Fear River Basin
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/mss/.)
Page 2 of 9
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: Site occurs primarily within the Haw River floodplain,
which was previously ditched, leveled, and drained to support agricultural activities. The
Site is currently characterized as "prior converted" cropland. Land use within the upstream
watershed is currently comprised of forested and agricultural land with low-density
residential development expanding into the vicinity of the Site as the result of increased
commercial and residential development pressures from urban sprawl associated with
Greensboro and surrounding areas.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: Site
activities are expected to restore approximately 34.9 acres of prior converted cropland to
riverine forested wetlands and enhance approximately 2.1 acres of riverine wetlands (see
Exhibit 3). Site alterations to restore groundwater, surface flow dynamics, and wetland
hydrology include 1) installing ditch plugs to prevent the migration of flows back into the
former ditch or canal, 2) back filling ditches to prevent groundwater migration to the former
ditch or canal, 3) constructing a backwater slough designed to mimic reference wetland
plain; 4) constructing ephemeral pools to provide fill
conditions within the Haw River flood
material and to mimic backwater slough depressions and other depressional features found
in the reference wetlands, 5) installing controlled water outfall structures at designed outlets
within low points of the floodplain to reinforce and restrain vegetated topsoil or stone in zf _ll,
thereby controlling down-slope movement due to hydrodynamic, gravitational forces, and
erosive flows which may cause bank instability and the risk of headcuts; 6) diverting Midway
Creek to redirect flows onto the historic floodplain; 7) diverting the southern tributary and
discharging flows into the historic alluvial fan and primary floodplain; 8) scarf in wetland
soil surfaces to restore complex microtopography with subsequent community restoration;
and 9) depositing woody debris cleared during restoration activities to aid in the
establishment of habitat diversity, nutrient cycling (soil microbial) functions, energy
dissipation on abandoned farmland, and temporary stabilization at controlled water outfall
locations. In addition to the above restoration activities, restoration of wetland forest
communities will occur to provide habitat for wildlife and to allow for the development and
expansion of characteristic wetland-dependent species across the landscape. Reference
data on-site observations, and ecosystem classifications have been used to develop species
associations including 1) levee forest, 2) bottomland hardwood forest, 3) piedmont swamp
forest and 4) mesic mixed hardwood forest. In addition, upland buffer ecotones, riparian
buffers, and groundwater wetland recharge areas within approximately 10.6 acres will be
preserved or restored as upland management areas.
Equipment that will be utilized to accomplish the above restoration plan may include track
hoe front end loader, dump trucks, and bulldozers.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: Restoration Systems, LLC is proposing wetland
restoration at the Haw River Swamp Wetland Restoration Site to assist the NC Wetland
Restoration Program in fulfilling its restoration goals.
Page 3 of 9
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
No previous permits have been requested or obtained for this project.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
A sediment and erosion control permit will be obtained from the Division of Land Qualityprior
to construction. No additional permit requests are anticipated for this Site in the future,
however, additional restoration opportunities may be pursued in areas adjacent to the Site,
which will require additional, similar permit requests.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: Two degraded and channelized
stream reaches, Midway Creek and the southern tributary, will be impacted in order to
return the Site to historic conditions and accomplish restoration efforts. These reaches will
be diverted and flow will be redirected into newly constructed (restored) channels onto the
historic oodplain. Flow from Midway Creek will be directed into a distribution freshwater
marsh, which will serve as the mechanism to divert flow back onto the historic alluvial fan
and provide a perennial source for groundwater recharge to the area. The distribution
marsh will be constructed to facilitate passive channel redevelopment on its historic alluvial
fan location. Braiding, ponding, and anastomosed conditions will occur, similar to reference
streams in the region. The southern tributary will be discharged onto its historic alluvial fan
and primary floodplain. As with Midway Creek, the southern tributary will develop
Page 4 of 9
primarily through passive processes to encourage braiding, ponding, and anastomosed
conditions similar to reference streams in the region.
The Site is currently cleared and classified as "prior converted" cropland, therefore, no
impacts to wetlands or buffers will occur due to restoration activities. The mitigation plan
will result in the restoration and enhancement of additional wetlands and buffers on the Site.
2. Individually list wetland impacts below:
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(es/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
Type of Wetland***

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http://www.fema.gov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.) Indicate if wetland is isolated (determination of isolation to be made by USACE only).
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 2.0 acres
Total area of wetland impact proposed: No wetland impacts are proposed.
3. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
Stream Impact Length of Average Width Perennial or
Site Number Type of Impact* Impact Stream Name** of Stream Intermittent?
(indicate on ma) (linear feet) Before Impact specify)
1 fill 360 Tributary to Haw River 15 to 20 feet perennial
2 fill 620 Midway Creek 8 to 10 feet perennial
* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.usgs.eov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
www.mapquest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 980 linear feet
4. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.) below:
Open Water Impact Area of Name of Waterbody Type of Waterbody
Site Number Type of Impact* Impact (if applicable) (lake, pond, estuary, sound,
(indicate on ma) (acres) bay, ocean, etc.)

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Page 5 of 9
5. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): Not Applicable
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): Not Applicable
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
Two stream reaches, Midway Creek and the southern tributary, will be impacted in order to
return the Site to historic conditions and accomplish restoration efforts. These reaches were
previously moved and channelized (dredged and straightened) to improve drainage of the
adjacent prope for agricultural use and currently remain in these conditions. Prior to
channelization, the historic stream reaches encountered an alluvial fan at the confluence o the
Haw River oodplain and transitioned to anastomosed, braided channels which discharged into
the Haw River. Reference stream reaches show that this channel transition from an E-type
(highly sinuous) stream to an anastomosed (DA-type) and subsequently to a braided (D-type)
stream immediately prior to a confluence with a near-permanently inundated section of a
primaa floodplain is common within this region and similar to historic Site conditions.
Site restoration efforts are expected to restore approximately 34.9 acres of "prior converted"
cropland to riverine forested wetlands and enhance approximately 2.1 acres of riverine
wetlands. Other activities include the restoration of plant communities, riparian buffers, wildlife
and aquatic habitat, in addition to redirecting the flow of Midway Creek and the southern
tributary into stream reaches constructed within the flood lain (totaling approximately 700
linear feet) and subsequently onto historic alluvial fans and the primary floodplain. The stream
reaches will then be allowed to develop primarily through passive processes to encourage
braiding`ponding, and anastomosed conditions similar to historic conditions of the Site and
reference streams in the region. The additional stream length that will be allowed to develop
through this process will total approximately 1170 linear feet.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
Page 6 of 9
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmizide.html.
Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
Not Applicable
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCWRP at
[phone] to determine availability and to request written approval of mitigation prior
to submittal of a PCN. For additional information regarding the application process for the
NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wM/index.htm. If use of
the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide the
following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): Not Applicable
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): Not Applicable
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): Not Applicable
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): Not Applicable
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): Not Applicable
Page 7 of 9
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state) funds or the use of public
(federal/state) land?
Yes ? No
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ? No
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ? No
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes ? No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0260.
Not Applicable
Page 8 of 9
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
No impervious surface currently exists on the Site and no impervious surface is proposed with
the restoration activities. A sediment and erosion control permit will be obtained rom the
Division o Land Quality prior to construction.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
Not Applicable
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ? No
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
A__ 1 4avi 9•s-o3
Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 9 of 9
1 mile to Midway,`NC /
-'? a I ??j - ,} v?assee IoapS, 2 Q 6 ent 91' es-
t Q# S
( ?!' ` , '' acgle sa+°rit" clay loam'„8 t& 5 $Ot-51ope5
t
l
? heHr?yrla?? arm, -
I I
%
UNGHAM
Haw I S: ?-
-/ Q\
N
S
1 (?` ? / f ' Iltl l j !+ 1/ _ ?VO 1i r
' via. _,/`? , l / ; l I `, Irk ? ? jr l? ?_ ? A\ V (.. \ I; ? ?• ? .v ? ?. V._ t y r Of?iv ? ?? 1 / ,
?I/---
- i 55tt
_y -? +'`\.• __- ,?1, ( Ill 4 ?? l `? ? ?.I i ! ice! ! Ir ri`l ;? I ?yt Q t? ?• ?ii% ? '?II
t {/ 1 \_ / i \ ?
-??tr?v\II? ?? r1; ) V\ ? AI, - ?./? Old//???IJ
1 } + Y r v? i of -\ v / J r I\. \? \
?. ? \? j I ? \ ? 1 1• ?rn I : C - I JI ?\ \ ? i ?? t - / ?' tl ? ? ?> ? :4 _\\? ?'i __. \ j
r} f i . ` ? 1 t. .? ! 1 •'h? ?? _-?J ? ! J ? t ,A,1 ?A ?A t? V i ? - ? I .
our \\ a 1 r ?, 1 {' l jn L i'\ .jj
\ i •?I. l t, s -,. \ '\ n? G` V/ /' I ,?'?t 'I I i ? ` \O' t? - ' !/
I cs.o/ l i r/ / 1 r?so '? ! t, `1 ?+ ! -?i 1 I ?,?? (t ( j --?' t ?'v li• i/
_ OU -?. fl i ?u4 j t fl ? - ? l? ?.!/ 1' ?? ' ? II ,? ?? r-.. 0(
r,.
?•? { ? . _ :?84?? :?1 ?,\ lK'v?r ? ?_' ` :thy?'fit (? i???\`r I//J/?? /?" J? ?..f ?' ?? ? _
-61
??? ?'+7 i..'? 1 k X11_(- ? ? Ai??C ?? I! ?' ?1 - _ -s???}p .• ? ?? i 1 ?\ ???BIT?.? I ? ?? --
pyr
J J S :/, 1 !?1??? \ ?J
IT- ??\ r o ??* y'!954 ?If r 4\?.. ?C'l
0.2 0.2 - _0 4r Miles
'7 mileslo' eensbbro, N
Drawn by: CLF

i
S
E Haw River Swamp Wetland Checked by: GL
Exhibit
co
c
ence
Corporation Restoration Site
Guilford/Rockingham County Date:
August 2003
Raleigh North Carohra ,
North Carolina Project
03-148
-r
EXHIBIT 2
C® RRm cefsl
SEN. ALL OF THE IR-- RECORDED IN
OB. 1155 PC. 1806 (EXCLUDING TRACT A
DESCRIBED IN D.B. 1162 PG 1120) OF ME
R R;IOMGIMM COUNTY REGISTRY.
L#6VG A RORRON 0" TRACT NUMBER SIX
RECORDED IN O.B 99J, PG 2454 OF THE
ROCMNGIMM COUNTY REGISTRY.
BEING ALL OF THE PROPERTY RECORDED IN
D.B. 1162. PG. 2116 OF THE ROCKINGHAM
COUNTY REL6)RY.
MAP 2 VERENCCSk
BEING A POR00N OF TRACT NUMBER SIX
RECORDED IN P 6. 34, PG. 61 OF THE
ROC AGHAM COUNTY REGG-..
GENERAL NOTE&
1) NOTE NO ABSTRACT TITLE NOR TIRE COMMITMENT, NOR
RESULTS OF TITLE SEARCH NE fURNLSHfD TO THE
SJR'v .. ALL DOCUMENTS OF RECORD REVIEWED ARE
NOTED NERDN (SEE REFERENCES)). MERE -1 EXIST
GMFR DOCUMENTS OE RECORD hMT WY AFFECT MAS
SURVEYED PARCEL.
2) NO HORIZONTAL CONTROL WHIN 2600 FT
J) RPRARIAN INFORMATION TARN FROM THE FOLLOWAG
TWO MAPS:
TORO OU,/D
TORO DS
ORIG. DANE 1991
QUAC E SERIES 75'
-
PAPER SOURCE TOPOLIC -.000
CURD ORDER ID 10: 360799-C7
-L7
VENDOR USGS
LAKE a-D), NO
TOPO GLAD
ORIC. NNE 199{
QUID SERIES 7S'
PAPER SOURCE. TOPOGRAPHIC 1:24,000
DUIO ORDER ID: 760-7
VENDOR USGS
4) P.B. J4, PS 64 SHOWS M5 BI AS HAVING 50"
RPRMIAN GUI ZONE HGWEVER, ME ABOVE
MENTIONNED TOM QUAD MAPS 00 NOT SHOW THOS
DITCH,
5) ALL STREAM AND MCH LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIALATE
AS THESE AREAS WERE FLOODED DURING ME GROUND
FIELD SURVEY (AMAIN 24-26. 20GO.
6) ME HAW RIVER 0 ME COUNTY LINE BETWEEN
GUILFORD AND MOCKINGI{W O7LNDES MIS PROPERTY
IS TAX LISTED IN FYJLXR.GHAM COUNTY
7) THE (2) 50• RIPRARAN BUTTER ZONES (AS LABELED ON
NIS LARALWNG) ARE NOT SHONN MR CLARITY.
8) OALfEO LINES ARE CALCULATED DAILY AND ARE NOT
SURVEYED AT MLS TIME
ACREAGE DATA:
TOTAL ACREAGE OF RESTORATION SYSTEM'S
LAND UNDER GENERAL CCNSERVATION
IA511EIT (INCI1101NG ME NEW 50• ACCESS
EASEMENT) - 22 ACRES BY COMPUTER
TOTAL WR RESTORADCN ACREAGE FOR
CONTRAC- IF AA0300' _ 12 ACRES BY
COMP- ER
RECORD CORNER
NORMEASTERN MOST
TRACT 6
P.9. 34, PG. 64
EXISTING
FENCE PO-
181
P.B. 34, DO, 64
ANDREWS
09 . 993, PG. 20.54
NC IN 7961.00-91-8274
NMC
E%ISONG 50•
ACCESS EASEMENT NMC
EXISTING
AXIS
SUGGS
O.B. 1086, PG. 1309
NC PIN 7971.03-11-2]28

RESTORATION SYSTEMS
SIIRVRpRS CB!l1CAlgWi) LAND UNDER GENERAL
CONSERVATP' EASEMENT
01 ACRES
59rNeyo:A eacmime.: Ne oltemvL .es mvx a locate vny crr,eevrlea..•nonv., nomroom
e a s?4a, underground WTN-n ar aM RtNer feature Steve, a. 6tlo. groum otlw
than Mme Ya.n.
rnfy Mot t wrvey ? of another -9ary (c-otion Easemult), such os the i
m0invM at nWing PI a cant-ordered survey, or other nc b- to the .L
de9nitlon of a -WMIn-
1?IOtW A ?Uf?LR'+ . certly tMt thif ? .e C.a.n under oeitisen ?. ?n (cr b\\
u«ey mo a r'Y see s recerae v e. x'r,a'.
Pas
' ertHOt;en n aeoA SUL. 3ES.
etc.) ?etAer); Ma LNe ra6p or preeion v eae?lotee q Ivu:,e per'uref ;,
1^ 1D[WI4' 12rpt the tnuMnr{n rot sPUeyed a2 sM.n m buNen Imm IV E?M1Om J
fomrt:on IauM in Boe SEE_- Pas - tMt t - pNt . preppred : rdnne ? -
.?[n G.S. 47-30 m nded. W I-II y "Igi l 'q-t.- regntral'an -N.'. M I
Nis 6111 dvy of August AD. 2,=
SEAL OR STAMP
s Surveyor L-4194
SEAL r L-4194
a ADD ?,
WRP RESTORATION ACREAGE
N`55C ir?a FOR CONTRACT j AW03001
ASO <n 12 ACRES
I'1N. .NMC. SSA\ `?\ H.
S3O t5' ?THAXTON RICHARDSON
GUILFORD COUNTY REFER-1
G.B.
R 5900, PG. 1609
C CCK!NGHAA C01;N1Y REFERENCE:
C{1Y HAW PRIER WI'H C.9. 1162, PG. 212C
50' RIPRARIAN RIilIER
yDTC? 6S35a'{_'W RICH
I
A
2 Di ON
\ "A" MAW RNER?
\Z i
RESTORATION SYSTHNS, LLC RESTORATION SYSTEMS. LLC

'?
- GUILFORD COUNTY REFERENCE: GUll1-0R0 COUNTY REFERENCE:
161A
B
5900
PG
?
? .?,?
RN_n
\ n_B. 5799. P:, 2263
ROCKINGHAM CWNtt REFERENCE: f_ .
.
.
.
ROCKINGHAM NTY RCTLNENCL.
COU
4s?
Y Y O.R. 11 N, PG. 2175 ^ N 0.9. ^.15],
PC. 2116
6
' EP

BRIDGE RECORD gm SURVEY
CORNER
O
O
970
FOR
.
.
,
PG. 1252
RESTORATION
SYSTEMS, LLC
a RECORD CORNER 5 (f LA %/ ki/fH SI'E)
SOUTHEASTERN MGST
D. B. 970. PC. 1252
b SIMPSONVILLE TONTSHIP ROCKINGHAM COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA.
EXISTNG
STONE
JO.' 150 0
Jam' 600 1I n
GRAPHIC SCALE I" = JOO
A REPRfSwiEO BY :HIS -T 19 LOCATEG IN A
FLOTO NA ZARO BCU-I ACCLROMG 10 _
NUMBER(S) 3")0]50 0200 R ZONE(s): A. ? AP
1tro1 ANp Y
770111 0035 9 ZONE(S): AS. ACED JINE 4,
WALKER
W.B. 19E 264
NC PIN 7961.40-83-4834
I Zi
LEWIS
O.B. 1003, PG. 216
NC PIN 7971.03-04-5109
Xm NSF
WALKER
NC PIN 7961.00-92-2521
A{ LEGEND:
EIS -
mg Iron Stake
4 $. c-
EIP - Criefing Pipe
-
NMC -Nan AAan
C,omv

\
-
-
•17'E N *d
C -
C
VA, - Rightnq Concrete Ml,nu.?e.n.
R/W - Right-OT-WnY
B/L - 9acA-DT-Curt
!,
lm
nM
1
37
\
y
37.64
' l
NMC \ u
n
MB
um
Mat
- I I Building (ine
EOP - Cdgn Of Povemvnf
N/F - - or Formerly
ECRU - E+istinq Concrete R/W M;rilmnnr
1R[.,?qI

ll
' (n \ LH - Chord
EPK - Eristing PK Nail
PKS - PK N
, Sel
\
n p
PS - ton Ipe sat (!' O.D.)
\ ELM - Eris Ling Manvmenl
P ERRS - E+isfinq Rorlmpd SpiMe
P 4 CC - Control Comer
S" O.B. - Deed Beek
PC. - Page
NLDOi - Nartn Cordinn DeppNmenl
Tmnspprtgtion
C
CMU
Rr
Masonry
Unif
=
h Caro
lina
NGW -
Ne C Seeand:rry .Vr.vd
HWY IIyAWny
R Rpd us
BRG. - Beprrnq
UP Utxty Pole
??n1 fEMA - Federpl Emergency
Monagemenf Agency
FC Center L'ne
`, NMC • Non Manumenfed Ca.mer
C i COS - Edge of Snil
OATES
1
W
N855 " >"
789.1 ]' .
pfd t.
tlo3-t3-t{es

SOD'26'ao'E
60
]7 PIP
OATn 7?
D
a
. '
t3-22]5
aN -e]loJ-
Np
' o Pa1JRNm'R

Ro p
o o. B ] 1]_20]
xc 7s 1.0
RESTORATION
SYS7EN5, LLC

N -
D.e. 1t5s,
PG. 1806 ? p1111®ALBR
8'
'
'
.03-13-201{
796
Ny
NEW 50•
ACCESS EASEMENT "• EIP _ -

?' EOURN 89
A. 906. W. 1791
5
W
w ? ]g11: S-t2-1e5
EXISTING
STREAM AOH
50 RIPRARIAN
?9UFFER

.

m
EIP p0Oett1ER
e, v tsl
Np N 1971x3-12--36+5-
RESTORATION SYSTEMS
1-1 JNDFR GENERAL
CONSERVADON EASEMENT
17.93 ACRES
- r -n m m i. o) rr, r m
r+ n r O ;o ? An
D<OriC Mm
r ? 005606 N
rn D r <C
r
*r rrn(Ar°n
-ir z o ??m
1
o Z
P ? o Z

0-

11
C<-.
7
01
On K-0 K-0 m m N m
0
r O VI p
m
p? (N U
?? O
;u ;o 0 ;o co
z Z Z
m

\•
n
o n n CO
Or On )W, G) c) '
cn r Z o O p m
-1 Z O Z 1
?c O m Z
D
O
CO m g o m C O
n C 000016 N
?m Z z
1F`
t9r?? ??°?W
r
*i MS
gy
A

m? m
r v
m
m \\ ,
p
n
D
":.. ==MDT r
\ ?MM
>;O<
0
m
mZ l ` <
a.
I I ?
1 ?1 Z
1'
X
1
,

m C?1 Ord -00 D
D
<p £Op M(A X n
4
K

('

-
_:.
O mO .,moo
? ?
X m ern
r ;o C:
-U:L m; rrl
?

e
p
p ??p ?
p ? b 1
-t
O
V) -4 co m
;v m = n O p
m C
O y?5 !t N
D x
A n
Z r
M Z
>
•??'
M m m
ma'r' I "?
?y " ? _?

V
_-

_ - oooar ?f

1100
1

_ ? ` Ili. ? ` '/?•/ 1 \/

005//6 N
r

t
.
\
M
r~*mn
'" =m - -
=
NJ -4 ;D 0
C
m
joE
z
rr-0??

X
,

(AOX
00

T
q /
i

ZOl ? OOOZ/6 N

? N
n ut
o_ n
a o
- A ?
O
° ?

m
m T1
/V T1
Z C) N T n l J
+ J l
o
o m
co* ox?, m
3D ZC co* a

?
cn Cl)

W O
X
" 11 0 50M o ? D
?A v o z `71
W o
D 0 r

?D ?
?o

D
° m
?

n o

z o

•

?

o
C)
m Z
?Z
v n
3_
oog ?Z
?C
??
?•?
w Z Dz p ZG y? O n
o
° o
° ;
?
> Z -.
W , N
F TI
009606 N
V v
Q)

i
AX m;7 ;Q C m m N m N
-0 x x -0 x
N? Z :z N m - r
DD
p? Z? OZ -a ? O A m
co
ym mm Do C c pm oz n n p
p
000M N

p Z
5f <:* O CO to m
Z
< m --4
Z
o
i
-p ?
m
m r
Z
p
i Z r- Z ,
j D
-i m O
r
D
m m O m C C r
m
?
D
0 o m z
S m m )?
Z \

w cd\

9016. N

S Y \,

?
?- ? `
? OOOI},Er N

----
?_ 1 009116 N

J
,

i

OM M N
xY X
1
f k

N N
O_
Q O
7 ;o p
°
0 n
? m m m

Cl)
? m =
o
-
M
m
?

x z
c-
c) c) C

m
Z
O __ -
I
p yO
?
-I ?

cn0
m

o p C/)
z
_
44h c ?
O
?
G?D oo
o mD D? m z ?

O
z
m
NZ--1 3
ooog ?Z?C
?
?.?

`.
N
N
0
m
z Z o O
N0 /?
O n

PROTECTED SPECIES SURVEY
Haw River Swamp Wetland Restoration Site
Guilford and Rockingham Counties, North Carolina
Prepared for:
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 107
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
SEN
niiAI rm ttrivrinj
Prepared by:
SEP - 5 &;,
rTERQU
0
w
co
CD
EcoScience
ECOSCIENCE CORPORATION
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27604
Tel [phone] Fax [phone]
August 2003

PROTECTED SPECIES SURVEY
Haw River Swamp Wetland Restoration Site
Guilford and Rockingham Counties, North Carolina
INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Wetland Restoration Program (WRP) is currently developing wetland
restoration strategies for the Piedmont physiographic region of the Cape Fear River Basin. As
part of this effort, WRP has requested proposals (RFP) for full delivery wetland restoration sites
within USGS Hydrologic Unit 03030002 of the river basin. This 8-digit hydrologic unit supports a
Category 1 classification by WRP, denoting watersheds that are high priority for wetland
restoration work.
Restoration Systems, a private sector mitigation company, is proposing wetland restoration
plans for the Haw River Swamp Wetland Restoration Site (hereafter referred to as the Site)
designed specifically to assist WRP in fulfilling its restoration goals. The Site encompasses
approximately 49.5 acres within the Haw River floodplain located approximately 8 miles north of
the Greensboro City limits, on the county line between Guilford and Rockingham Counties.
EcoScience Corporation (ESC) has been contracted to design and implement a detailed
wetland restoration plan. A draft detailed wetland restoration plan was submitted to Restoration
Systems in August 2003, in which ESC stated that habitat for species listed as "Endangered" or
"Threatened" by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) may occur within the Site. This report
provides information regarding the federally protected species that are listed as "Threatened" or
"Endangered" by the FWS in Guilford and Rockingham counties. "Endangered" status refers to
"any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range,"
and "Threatened" status is defined as "any species which is likely to become an Endangered
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range" (16
U.S.C. 1532). Federally listed species with Endangered (E) or Threatened (T) status receive
protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
The Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is listed as "Threatened" by the FWS in Guilford
County. In Rockingham County, smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) and the James
spinymussel (Pleurobema collina) are listed as "Endangered" by the FWS. During field
investigations, ESC identified two small areas of suitable habitat for smooth coneflower located
on the Site in the form of upland fallow fields. ESC conducted a systematic plant by plant
survey for smooth coneflower in August 2003 during which no smooth coneflower was found.
METHODS
Field surveys were conducted for smooth coneflower in August 2003. The systematic plant by
plant survey was conducted by walking and visually searching for the plant within the two areas
1
identified on the Site as suitable for the smooth conef lower. Areas that did not meet the habitat
criteria were discounted and not surveyed.
The surveys were conducted by biologists Cord Faquin and Heather Saunders. Ms. Faquin is
an ESC Project Scientist with 3 years of experience in the environmental field. Ms. Saunders is
an ESC Project Scientist with 1 year of experience in the environmental field.
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Threatened
Family: Accipitridae
Date Listed: March 11, 1967
The bald eagle is a large raptor with a wingspan greater than 6 feet. Adult bald eagles are dark
brown with a white head and tail. Immature eagles are brown with whitish mottling on the tail,
belly, and wing linings. Bald eagles typically feed on fish but may also take birds and small
mammals. In the Carolinas, nesting season extends from December through May (Potter et al.
1980). Bald eagles typically nest in tall, living trees in a conspicuous location near open water.
Eagles forage over large bodies of water and utilize adjacent trees for perching (Hamel 1992).
Disturbance activities within a primary zone extending 750 to 1500 feet from a nest tree are
considered to result in unacceptable conditions for eagles (FWS 1987). The FWS recommends
avoiding disturbance activities, including construction and tree-cutting within this primary zone.
Within a secondary zone, extending from the primary zone boundary out to a distance of 1 mile
from a nest tree, construction and land-clearing activities should be restricted to the non-nesting
period. The FWS also recommends avoiding alteration of natural shorelines where bald eagles
forage, and avoiding significant land-clearing activities within 1500 feet of known roosting sites.
This Site is characterized by fallow agricultural fields, with limited riparian fringe. In addition, the
nearest open water foraging habitat occurs more than 3.6 miles to the south of the Site, in Lake
Townsend. Although the site has mature forest adjacent to its boundaries and may be subject
to fly-overs during migration, no sightings of nests or individuals were noted during field
investigations. In addition, the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP) records indicate that the
nearest documented bald eagles are 7 miles southwest of the Site on Meads Fork. Therefore,
work associated with this project may affect bald eagles; however, work is not likely to adversely
affect bald eagles.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: MAY AFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT
James spinymussel (Pleurobema collina) Endangered
Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: July 22, 1988
The James spinymussel is a small, subrhomboidal mussel, with an obliquely subtruncated
posterior, that grows to approximately 1.5 inches in length. The external shell of the juveniles
usually bears one to three short spines on each valve. The adult shells usually lack spines.
2
The shell is smooth, straw-colored to brownish-black, with widely spaced concentric striations.
Preferred habitat of the spiny mussel includes relatively fast-flowing, well-oxygenated,
circumneutral water over a silt-free, noncompacted, gravel/coarse sand substrate. Based on
the FWS species recovery plan (FWS 1990), this spinymussel is only known from 10 streams
within the James River basin in Virginia and West Virginia.
In October 2000, an unidentified spinymussel was found in the Dan River (Roanoke River
Basin) in Stokes County, during a survey conducted by personnel of the N.C. Department of
Transportation (DOT), the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC), and the N.C. Division of
Marine Fisheries (DMS). Spinymussels had not previously been identified within the Roanoke
River basin. The mussels found in the Dan River have characteristics similar to the James
spinymussel and the Tar spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansanna). Specimens of the recently
found spinymussel are currently (as of April 2001) undergoing genetic analysis. The finding of
this unidentified spinymussel has resulted in the FWS listing James spinymussel in North
Carolina counties that include tributaries of the Roanoke River basin (as of the February 26,
2001 list).
The Haw River, at the Site, is characterized by low velocity flows over sandy/silty substrate.
Disturbance associated with upstream timber activities and a lack of deep rooted, stabilizing
vegetation has resulted in a high silt content in the Haw River, and possibly elevated water
temperatures, which may hinder the establishment of the James spinymussel. Habitat
limitations, in combination with the limited range of the spinymussel (it is only known to occur in
the James and Roanoke River Basins) indicate that the project will not likely adversely affect
this species. NHP records indicate that no known occurrences of this species have been
documented within 17 miles of the Site. Consequently, the proposed restoration will have no
effect on the James spinymussel.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Smooth coneflower (Echinacea Laevigata) Endangered
Family: Asteraceae
Date Listed: October 8, 1992
Smooth conef lower is a stiffly erect, rarely branched perennial that grows up to 5 feet tall. Basal
and stem leaves are large, glabrous, lanceolate to narrowly ovate blades reaching 3 inches in
length. This coneflower blooms from late May to July, producing solitary, heads of small
purplish disk flowers with long drooping pink to purplish ray flowers (Kral 1983).
Smooth coneflower grows in dry, calcareous, basic, or circumneutral soils on road sides, clear
cuts, and power line right-of-ways where there is abundant light and little herbaceous
competition. Fire-maintained woodlands also appear to provide potential habitat for the
coneflower. Shading of road sides by adjacent forest trees and routine mowing reduce the
suitability of road sides within the study corridor for this species
3
The Site is characterized by fallow agricultural fields, with limited riparian fringe. Suitable
habitat for smooth coneflower does exist on the Site in the form of upland fallow fields.
However, these areas have abundant weedy and competitive species and are periodically
flooded. Systematic plant-by-plant surveys were conducted in August 2003 within on-site areas
that support smooth coneflower habitat and no smooth coneflower was found. In addition, the
NHP documents the nearest smooth coneflower population to be located 20 miles north of the
Site, in Virginia. Consequently, the proposed restoration activities may affect, but are not likely
to adversely affect smooth conef lower.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: MAY AFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT
4

REFERENCES
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1987. Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in
the Southeast Region. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 8 pp.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1990. James Spinymussel (Pleurobema collina) Recovery
Plan. U.S. Department of the Interior, Annapolis Field Office (Region 5). Annapolis,
MD. 35 pp.
Gaddy, L.L. 1991. The status of Echinacea laevigata N.C. Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources (DEHNR): Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, NC.
Hamel, P.B. 1992. Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy,
Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437 pp.
Kral, R. 1983. A Report on Some Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Forest-related Vascular
Plants of the South. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Technical
Publication R8J-TP 2. 1305 pp.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 408 pp.
5
1
1
1 081, DRAFT DETAILED WETLAND RESTORATION PLAN %9
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
HAW RIVER SWAMP WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
GUILFORD AND ROCKINGHAM COUNTIES
RUMPS I GROUP
SEP - 5 2003
Prepared for:
MA RNLRYSECTION
STMIllud
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 203
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Prepared by:
EcoScience
EcoScience Corporation
1100 Haynes Street, Suite 101
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
AUGUST 2003

1
t
F

1

1
1
L
1
1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1
2.0 METHODS ......................................................................................................................4
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................ 7
3.1 Physiography, Topography and Land-use ......................................................... .. 7
3.2 Soils .................................................................................................................. 13
3.3 Jurisdictional Wetlands ...................................................................................... 13
3.4 Plant Communities ............................................................................................ 16
3.5 Hydrology .......................................................................................................... 19
3.5.1 Surface Water (Streams) ....................................................................... 19
3.5.2 Groundwater .......................................................................................... 20
3.6 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................ 21
3.7 Wildlife .............................................................................................................. 25
3.8 Regional Corridors and Adjacent Natural Areas ................................................ 26
3.9 Protected Species ............................................................................................. 26
4.0 WETLAND RESTORATION STUDIES ......................................................................... 28
4.1 Surface Water Analysis ..................................................................................... 28
4.2 Reference Plant Communities ........................................................................... 28
4.3 Reference Physiography and Surface Topography ........................................... 29
5.0 WETLAND RESTORATION PLAN ............................................................................... 33
5.1 Wetland Hydrology and Soil Restoration ........................................................... 33
5.1 .1 Ditch Plugs ............................................................................................ 33
5.1 .2 Ditch Backfilling ..................................................................................... 33
5.1 .3 Backwater Slough Construction ............................................................. 33
5.1 .4 Ephemeral Pool Construction ................................................................ 35
5.1 .5 Controlled Water Outfall Structure ......................................................... 35
5.1 .6 River Levee Removal ............................................................................ 35
5.1 .7 Midway Creek Diversion ........................................................................ 35
5.1 .8 Southern Tributary Diversion ................................................................. 36
5.1 .9 Wetland Surface Scarification ................................................................ 36
5.1 .10 Woody Debris Deposition ...................................................................... 36
5.2 Wetland Plant Community Restoration .............................................................. 37
6.0 MONITORING PLAN .................................................................................................... 43
6.1 Hydrology ..........................................................................................................43
6.2 Hydrology Success Criteria ............................................................................... 43
6.3 Vegetation .........................................................................................................45
6.4 Vegetative Success Criteria .............................................................................. 46

1
' 6.5 Contingency ............................................... ............
........................................... 46
6.6 Monitoring Report Submittal ..............................................................................
7.0 RESTORATION DESIGN UNITS ......................................
............................................ 47
48
' 8.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 50
9.0 APPENDICES .............................................................................................................. 52

s

1

t

1

1

1
t

1
I

1
1

t
t
it
1

LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1 Site Location ...................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2 2003 Aerial Photograph ..................................................................................... .. 5
Figure 3 USGS Sub-Basin 8-Digit Hydro Unit .................................................................. .. 8
Figure 4 Watershed Boundaries and Regional Corridors ................................................ .. 9
Figure 5 Watershed Land-Use ........................................................................................ 10
Figure 6 Physiography, Topography, Land-use ............................................................... 11
Figure 7 Natural Resource Conservation Service Soil Mapping ...................................... 14
Figure 8 Hydric / Non-Hydric Soil Boundary Determination ............................................. 15
Figure 9 Approximated Jurisdictional Boundaries and PC Cropland ................................ 17
Figure 10 Plant Communities ............................................................................................ 18
Figure 11 Representative Groundwater Contour Maps (A-B) ........................................22,23
Figure 12 Reference Site: Plan View and Cross-Section ................................................... 31
Figure 13 Wetland Restoration Plan .................................................................................. 34
Figure 14 Target Landscape Ecosystem ........................................................................... 38
Figure 15 Planting Plan ..................................................................................................... 39
Figure 16 Monitoring Plan ................................................................................................. 44
Figure 17 Restoration Design Units ................................................................................... 49
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1 Representative Groundwater Elevations ........................................................... 24
Table 2 Reference Forest Plot Summary (Bottomland Hardwood Forest) ...................... 30
Table 3 Planting Plan ..................................................................................................... 41
iv
1
u
1

DRAFT DETAILED WETLAND RESTORATION PLAN
HAW RIVER SWAMP WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
GUILFORD AND ROCKINGHAM COUNTIES
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Wetland Restoration Program (WRP) is currently developing wetland
restoration strategies for the Piedmont physiographic region of the Cape Fear River Basin. As
part of this effort, WRP has requested proposals (RFP) for full delivery wetland restoration
within USGS Hydrologic Unit 03030002 of the river basin. This 8-digit hydrologic unit supports a
Category 1 classification by WRP, denoting watersheds that are high priority for wetland
restoration work.
Restoration Systems, a private sector mitigation company is proposing wetland restoration
plans for the Haw River Swamp Wetland Restoration Site (hereafter referred to as the Site)
designed specifically to assist WRP in fulfilling its restoration goals. The Site encompasses
approximately 49.5 acres within the Haw River floodplain located approximately 8 miles north of
Greensboro city limits on the county line between Guilford and Rockingham Counties (Figure 1).
' The Site is positioned primarily within the floodplain of the Haw River and alluvial fans
associated. with tributaries of the Haw. The floodplain has been ditched, leveled, and drained to
support agricultural activities. On-site streams have been dredged, re-routed, and straightened
to further impede surface water impacts to alternate land uses. The Site offers opportunities for
riverine (stream side) wetland and buffer restoration and enhancement, with benefits to water
quality and wildlife in a rapidly developing watershed.
The objectives of this wetland restoration plan include the following:
1. Removal of agricultural activities from the floodplain and banks of the Haw River.
2. Removal of the Site from potential land uses associated with encroaching
urbanization.
3. Increase flood storage potential within the Cape Fear Basin.
1 4. Provide floodplain surfaces to the Haw River for natural redevelopment of
geomophological processes.
5. Re-establish anastomosed stream channels and Piedmont Swamp and Bottomland
' forest communities within the floodplain ecosystem.
6. Intercept and assimilate nutrient and sediment laden run-off from adjacent and
upstream watersheds.
7. Assist in establishing a continuous wetland bio-reserve (corridor) between Cone and
Benaja Swamps and the adjacent bottomland ecosytems.
After implementation, the Site is expected to support approximately 34.9 acres of restored
riverine wetlands and approximately 2.1 acres of enhanced riverine wetlands. Enhancement
activities will also be undertaken along the Haw River through levee and riparian
1
I

1

1

t
r,
I1

1

1
Reidsville- . °"
Rockingham County
_ C
NC Highway 158 1
Midway
Site Locatio Guilford County
Rockingham County
77
?u+lford Coun
t
J MicwSa
^(. Y - 1
_IL
NC Hig y J,
Midway "I
,-) 11 l i?l? ``
j\` '? I it-?; `_~•-.
'` \g < SanctCr_d`? F<iad '` ;;
\'
f j i?.?``. ? ? l ipQ? -'-?-/ ?.??, c," I; ` ... - \ ',,: -1 f rre? i ?? rl--?
r r• 1 f ^,jJ t C:.vi-\ t \\? •C r 1111 - 1' t
f}i??t l f?; ?•? "j ,?'c• ,?/?? / ?tf?l, ' {-,..} f,;l?:: cSRe Loca?i
- ??7 t?` . 1. lr?? l ? il?+t I I '.? _ - ? 7 - ''-. ? ?fl/•?G•.?(' ?.. _ "?1i.... ,, ?.i "i'*. `tx?.

i
r ?
.y

Site Location
Haw River Swamp Wetland Restoration Site
Guilford and Rockingham Counties, North Carolina
0
DATE: ESC #
June 2003 03-148
SCALE: DWN BY: H
As Shown CKD BY: W
FIGURE 1

forest buffer planting. Upland buffer ecotones, riparian buffers, and groundwater wetland
recharge areas within approximately 10.6 acres will be preserved or restored as upland
' management areas. Currently, 12 acres of riverine wetland restoration are proposed for use by
WRP as identified in the RFP response #16-AW3001. The 12 acres of restoration is defined in
the easement boundary included in Appendix A. The additional wetland restoration acreage is
' available for use as future compensatory mitigation.
' This document represents a detailed plan designed to facilitate implementation and success of
riverine wetland restoration. The plan includes: 1) descriptions of existing conditions, 2) wetland
restoration studies (including groundwater and surface water analyses), 3) reference wetland
ecosystem investigations, 4) a restoration design plan, and 5) a proposed monitoring plan.
Upon approval of this plan, construction activities will be implemented as outlined in the
following text.

1

11

? 3
f
2.0 METHODS
Natural resource information was obtained from available sources including USGS topographic
mapping (Lake Brandt and Bethany), United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS [formerly the Soil Conservation Service]) soils
mapping for Guilford and Rockingham Counties (USDA 1977 and USDA 1992), and corrected
aerial infrared orthophotos and topographic maps including topographic point and contour data
' (1-foot intervals) (Figure 2). Topographic mapping served as base mapping for field efforts and
subsequent restoration activities.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) data base was consulted for the presence of
protected species and designated natural areas near the Site. A listing of Federally-protected
species whose ranges extend into Guilford and Rockingham counties were also obtained from
the FWS (January 31, 2003). State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) records were reviewed
for the presence of significant cultural resources in the Site vicinity. Characteristic and historic
natural community patterns were sampled and classified according to Schafale's and Weakley's
"Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina" (1990).
EcoScience Corporation (ESC) began preliminary site work in February 2001, at the direction of
Restoration Systems. Detailed field investigations were performed by ESC personnel from early
May to mid-June 2003 and included hydrological measurements (surface and sub-surface), soil
surveys, and mapping of on-site resources. Project scientists evaluated hydrology, vegetation,
and soil parameters to determine the wetland potential of the Site. Existing plant communities
were delineated, mapped, and described by structure and composition.
' NRCS soil mapping was used to identify hydric soil boundaries and to predict (target) biological
diversity prior to human disturbances. NRCS soil map units were ground truthed by a licensed
soil scientist to verify existing soil mapping units and to map inclusions and taxadjunct areas. A
taxadjunct area contains soils which cannot be classified in a series recognized in the
classification system. Such soils are named for a series they resemble and are designated as
taxadjuncts to that series.
Hydrologic conditions were characterized by the following activities: 1) excavation of a series of
soil borings; 2) installation of 12 piezometers; 3) collection of periodic water level
' measurements; 4) analysis of surface water profiles along drainageways; 5) development of a
groundwater contour map; 5) analysis of groundwater elevations through the use of on-site
groundwater monitoring piezometers; and 7) on-going flood frequency analyses (HEC-RAS)
' along the Haw River, incoming tributaries, and on-site ditches.
Floodplain analyses were performed for the Haw River and parallel ditch to predict flood extents
both on- and off-site for the 1-, 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, 50- and 100-year storm events. The analyses
utilized existing and proposed stream geometries along with a HEC-RAS model. The extent of
flooding was performed primarily to determine the potential for riverine wetland restoration on-
site and to verify that there would not be any negative impacts off-site. The model was also
used to verify that the road (Church Street) would not have any additional flooding due to the
proposed design.
4

I
I i

N
O
tit,
?t
N < a.
I +
.t ;

{
I VA,
r?r f
F
I
CD
O r;
?, o D 0D Rc) o 6 ?m?D o c
o C0) C5
mcn o -?:(7rD? O n i
Z -0 M
?..
Cl) z v O 4, r,
0 0 2 Z .=? r
o

Field survey information was platted and compiled on 1-foot contour mapping and analyzed to
evaluate the Site under existing conditions. Based on field investigations and data analyses, a
wetland restoration and enhancement plan has been developed for WRP and agency review
and approval prior to implementation.

1

1
1

1
? 6

1

1

1

n

f

3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
3.1 Physiography, Topography and Land-use
The Site is located within the Northern Inner Piedmont ecoregion of North Carolina (Griffith and
Omernick 2000). This ecoregion consists of dissected irregular plains, low to high hills, ridges,
isolated monadnocks and low to moderate gradient streams with mostly cobble, gravel, and
sandy substrates (Griffith et al. 2002). The Site watershed is located in the upper reaches of the
Cape Fear River Basin (USGS Hydrologic Unit 03030002) (Figure 3). This region of the
watershed extends from points immediately west of Greensboro east to Morrisville. The Site is
located along the border of Rockingham and Guilford Counties approximately 8 miles north of
Greensboro city limits and two miles south of N.C. Highway 158 and the Midway Crossroads.
The Site comprises approximately 49.5 acres of a broad Piedmont floodplain and groundwater
side slopes, immediately below the confluence of the Haw River and Mears Creek.
Approximately 2000 linear feet of the Haw River flow through and adjacent to the Site in a west
to east direction. Topography within most of the Site is nearly level with an elevation range
between 696 feet and 700 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). Upland slopes in the
northern portion of the property extend to approximately 745 feet NGVD. At the Site outfall, the
Haw River supports a primary watershed of approximately 52.7 square miles. The Site is
dissected by two perennial and one intermittent tributaries flowing into the Haw River (Figure 4).
These secondary watersheds support drainage areas of approximately 1.4, 0.9 and 0.1 square
miles. The on-site canal was constructed along the toe of slope to intercept stormwater and
groundwater flow from a 0.12 square mile area west (upstream) of the Site and from
groundwater slopes immediately adjacent to the Site along the northern boundary (<0.1 square
miles).
Land-use in the upstream watershed is currently comprised of primarily forest and agricultural
land (Figure 5). Based on Geographical Information System (GIS) data (EASC 1997), forests
and agriculture occupy approximately 65 percent and 32 percent of the land area respectively.
Based on field reconnaissance, low-density residential development is expanding into the area.
Increased commercial and residential development pressures from suburban sprawl associated
with the growth of Greensboro and the region are anticipated in the next decade. Therefore,
associated watersheds, including areas surrounding the Site, are expected to undergo
significant land-use changes to more urban, residential, infrastructural, and commercial
conditions. Site land-use is pasture and agricultural corn production, with the last and final
harvest being in the previous year. Site photos taken during a high-flow event in early Spring
2003 and photos taken during field work (June 2003) are shown in Appendix B.
The Site has been subdivided into four primary physiographic units for restoration planning
purposes: 1) river levee, 2) primary floodplain, 3) secondary floodplain, and 4) groundwater
slopes (Figure 6). The primary variables used to segregate the physographic landscape units
include land slope, groundwater flow characteristics, soil features, and the primary hydrologic
influence on historic wetland function.
7

y.
L??f

c,
n n j 1 m
_0 U) W ;o
_
U) z m _ T o C?7
c ° in * J) D
z 90 03 c
cc n O W G? cn o r Y` r, i;
o c DC/) o sa m?D?C ?= o
m , N -ifA -cn v -iZ"Om
w Z ' ?.
cn Z Z v
0 0 -? z
w
r
m
c C,
(1) G)
0

c co 00

c c OW

c W
m
Zp D pZ Z Zp °o y O
D? D? D° U)
l
1 \
1
\
- ? N
l

M ¦! r r ! r i r m Mao r do ? m r? MM
N N
C
N
L7
I -
N
3
i
? r
d o ,
o- o
.. o
t7
a
0
`I
N V l C ? \-
` l \ V?
r
I g?`1 > I t?
(A E j
F tYf y? L, ??
------------- --------
N U)
' •. r / 1
e f ?_ _ .! 1
Q r: -
v-
14
-rn c m
-- -----
------- --- ---
------------------
P
O o, d
1 47 p, 1 O C J 0 '0
1 N !D C C N F 1/ I ..-
1 5.
co 0 CD
o °1.m ?•dd a? ' / i.
in fm
i v\ N W,' I r ?a ,
i o o an c O( ?Qmo
3 m 7 N 3 ?3 S 3
°
C CD (D
(A w
(D Cl m m = m
CL n x
f a
1 N a I CD T
1 3 a 1
-------?--- ----------- -----------
rn a ° - v n
? o
cu co
Z
'FD 0;o O?
Z Om c>?0 c? ?m?D ra
z o
G) n
_n, ?ODzm 'O ?. N0-1 v
-? c N o ?Zo70 o - ?rD? O n
m D? o -z ...
o ozaDcn FD' Ca-
N OD °' -iZ -vm - _?
O ?' r
v ?r mo v v
0
z
m r r i? r? r r an m r r? m r ? m m
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
O
-n
CD
CD
I CL
--] r
C
?-0
® S CD to w < ,^
O :3 M -0 CD (a PI.
Q ? CD Q- CL,-, CL D
? O ? c C:
C/) O =3 -3
CD
3
CD
n
Ln (C)
uM gc? xo
(7 G)n U?
o' o
z
o ?CI) L
C) N2 r-
N) 73
W CCn (D
O N
W O O
W

Y.1I
Q
C
V ?
/}1 ?-
/r
C
N 7
S ) T O

r+
VJ Q
//}}??
\V SiJ 3
-0 G'
0 1i \"1
CD
CD CD
M 2 N
Co y
z?'N
N)
N
D -
CD G N
A - r
cD
O ?
W
o ftt
d v In C) yy? - -
CD 0 ,
N ? -a CD
tj
Y
C/) q
OA C ql (? i ?i
'(D tdEa
O
Mon r mwm ¦s m?? a w r
so m m w an ? a
? III
CO Ii
V ll?
CO O T Z L/) :L) m m cA m V7
m m C Z 9 -i m x x -D x Z D
C
r z i m N cn N O N O - m
O CC) D - O O
O z F
N -M
m C m-- z w
1 N
m r
<
z n
z
n
2 cr
- ; Cl)
-? M
O Z7 z
? z O

r
m D D
::j
m
O -
O D
D
A
O O O C <
C) n z r
y D z
Z i m
0
z
F
f

a
F
D -u

n
`
L ?-vy °Z? ccp >

-i C)

T Z
C ° n G7 ?O CC
p yO - C?
P ?Q
c
?'

C

m Y
Z i
O
?n? rnD?Dm
-i Z _

m r)

z
C Z D
ZZO ?D m
D cn i_
w
0 00 D ? Fq z Z ?.
mm
rm
mz
> 2 000016 N
O>
cnp?

- ? of ? .
I,
i
?\ I r
.:L
L
m
?
0
D
I
-

m 3

, 11 a?u ?

2 I

Z

?yc m
o
---i-
m
r
i 0000h
i
j e
? x
!\y Ln
N
N

cn w n i - . QOM..
co a I? ILnn ?" j ?' " i v Ica
.,f.?.?'
1" -
----- - r= ----- --- - -------t ---
?, -
? .' • _ 1" I I rn 00016 .N
,1.'
i
- .• '.•'111 A' ? 5.r ?- / °./ i •.. -
,1.'1
1-
?I A-' r
t: a ?+ ? I
co,
I 'A'
I.
.
I
w
------------ - - - - - -
L4? 00i
to
I
'r- Ll
n
u?
River Levee
River levees are represented by an approximately 3.5-acre, linear band along the banks of the
Haw River (Figure 6). The physiographic area extends intermittently along an approximately
1000-foot reach of the Haw River, varying in width from approximately 75 feet to less than
20 feet. Under historic conditions, the river levee represented slightly elevated, upland habitat
influenced by the frequent deposition of coarse, sandy alluvium during river floods.
Groundwater flow in the area is characterized by relatively rapid, lateral to radial interflow
towards the river channel, inducing well-drained conditions throughout a large majority of the
year. Based on reference stream reaches, natural river levees are elevated approximately 1 to
3 feet above the adjacent floodplain, with intermittent openings residing at lower elevations.
Prior to 1959, the Haw River was dredged, straightened, and much of the existing levee graded
with the surrounding floodplain. Under historic conditions, the river levee is expected to have
supported Coastal Plain levee forest communities (Schafale and Weakley 1990).
Primary Floodplain
The primary river floodplain encompasses approximately 29.9 acres located in central portions
of the Site (Figure 6). The floodplain historically supported frequent overbank flooding
(estimated at an approximate, 1.5-year return interval) and was periodically re-worked by
alluvial processes and periodic, short term inundation/saturation. Groundwater flow is
dominated by vertical to semi-radial recharge with episodic lateral discharge and surficial
expression of groundwater occurring within seepage areas and ponding in depressional,
backwater sloughs located at the outer edge of the floodplain. Intermittent stream flows in the
vicinity of seeps have been observed disappearing and reappearing in localized portions of
forested reference sites along upper reaches of the Haw River. Under historic conditions,
natural communities are expected to include Piedmont bottomland forest and oval to linear
pockets of Piedmont swamp forest in the vicinity of seepages and sloughs (Schafale and
Weakley 1990). The Haw River was dredged and a drainage canal with associated drainage
network installed to facilitate agriculture production within the floodplain. Many of the primary
floodplain and associated riverine wetland functions (energy dissipation, flood storage, habitat,
etc.) have been modified in this physiographic area through river and floodplain alterations.
Secondary Floodplain
The secondary floodplain (9.4 acres) represents relatively flat to gently sloping, alluvial fans
associated with two tributaries of the Haw River (Figure 6). This area represents depositional
alluvial debris cones as a consequence of long-term bedload transport into the larger Haw River
valley. Groundwater flow is expected to exhibit primarily unidirectional accelerated flow towards
the primary floodplain. Discharge from adjacent groundwater slopes into the secondary
floodplain may provide sustained surface water expression throughout the year, potentially
supporting various intermittent and perennial channels and ponded areas. Under historic
conditions, the area was likely dominated by bottomland hardwood or mesic mixed hardwood
forests (Piedmont subtype) (Schafale and Weakley 1990).
The secondary floodplain is dissected by Midway Creek to the north and an unnamed tributary
to the south. Both Midway Creek and the unnamed tributary historically supported auxiliary
overbank flows from 0.9 and 1.4 square mile secondary watersheds, respectively. However,
12
these tributaries have been diverted into approximately 2000 linear feet of ditches circumventing
the Site (Figure 6). The ditches were installed to facilitate agricultural production and to quickly
convey water from the secondary watershed through the Site. The constructed drainage
network provides direct connectivity of surface waters to the Haw River effectively bypassing
land surfaces and potential floodplain functions on the Site.
Groundwater (Upland) Slopes
Upland slopes, occupying approximately 5.8 acres of the Site, are situated primarily along the
northern valley wall and include the base of moderately sloped escarpments that rise above the
floodplain floor (Figure 6). Under historic conditions, these slopes are expected to exhibit uni-
directional overland flow and accelerated radial to lateral groundwater flow towards the
floodplain. This physiographic area is currently dominated by early successional plant
communities. Under historic conditions, the area was likely dominated by various upland plant
communities including mesic mixed hardwood and dry-oak hickory forest (Piedmont subtype)
(Schafale and Weakley 1990).
3.2 Soils
Determination of soil types within the Site are based on NRCS soil survey mapping for Guilford
and Rockingham counties (USDA 1977, 1992) and soils mapping of existing conditions
determined by ESC at the Site. Based on NRCS soil survey mapping, soil types within the Site
include Chewacla loam, Cecil sandy loam, and Hiwassee loam (Figure 7). On-site verification
and ground-truthing of NRCS map units within the floodplain identified three soil types including
Congaree, Chewacla, and Wehadkee. Based on NRCS documents (NRCS unpublished),
Wehadkee soils are considered hydric within both Guilford and Rockingham counties.
Chewacla and Congaree are non-hydric map units but have hydric inclusions of the Wehadkee
soil type. Hydric and non-hydric soil boundaries were determined in the field and are shown in
Figure 8. Approximately 36.6 acres of hydric soil have been identified on-site.
Chewacla, Congaree, and Wehadkee soils are part of a general map unit of soils typically found
in large floodplains. These soils are nearly level, deep, well drained to poorly drained soils
depending on their respective relationship with the landscape and the seasonal high water
table. Most of the Site occurs within the floodplain of the Haw River and the hydric Wehadkee
soils are the dominant soil type throughout the Site. All three soils are frequently flooded during
the winter and spring (USDA 1977, 1992).
Upland soils on groundwater slopes include Cecil sandy loam, and Hiwassee loam. These
series comprise approximately 5 acres of the Site and exhibit well drained conditions. Ecotones
between upland and floodplain (hydric) soils are among the most diverse and productive
environments for wildlife (Brinson et al. 1981).
3.3 Jurisdictional Wetlands
Jurisdictional wetlands are defined using the criteria set forth in the Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual (DOA 1987). The wetland determination in non prior-converted
cropland areas was supplemented by groundwater data near ditches and the canal. Based on
13
Dwn. by:
MAF
FIGURE
NRCS SOIL MAPPING ckdby
JG
n Haw River Swamp Wetland Restoration Site

/ Rockin
ham Counties
North Carolina Date:
JU
2003
N

7
g
, Project: 03--148
148

0
0
:mot
?.f NI
O
? O
F
ti
N

v cn o
m0Z
c U)
M _, U'
0 N
w o T o ??? 7c? p -prD?]
o
° w zzv -0 D?0- rn<
c > m - Lu
:37 N)
0 O ZXn Z o ?.

1 ground-truthing and groundwater data, approximately 2.0 acres of jurisdictional wetlands were
identified within the Site. Figure 9 depicts the approximate location of existing jurisdictional
wetlands.
NRCS records indicate that farmed portions of the Site are designated as prior-converted (PC)
cropland. A PC cropland is a wetland which was both manipulated and cropped prior to
December 23, 1985 to the extent that it no longer exhibits important wetland functions
'II (Section 512.15 of the National Food Security Act Manual, August 1988). PC cropland is not
subject to regulation under the jurisdiction of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Approximately 36.3 acres of PC cropland occur within the Site boundary (Figure 9).
3.4 Plant Communities
Distribution and composition of plant communities reflect landscape-level variations in
topography, soils, hydrology, and past or present land-use practices. Five distinct plant
communities were identified within the Site including fallow cropland, hay pasture, streambank/
ditchside, early successional, and freshwater marsh (Figure 10).
The Site is dominated by land in agricultural production (23.8 acres) that was most recently
used for corn production. Stalks of the last crop remain standing in portions of the Site. The
fields have been left to succession for two growing seasons, and bottomland hardwood species
such as sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), and red maple (Acer rubrum) have begun to emerge. Emergent
wetland species, sedges (arex PP) and so ( ft rush Juncus effuses),
C s pp.) currently
dominate this community.
Hay pasture (12.7 acres) occurs along the northwest boundary and within a large area in the
northeast portion of the Site. The hay pasture community is dominated by fescue (Festuca sp.)
and various other grasses and forbs, such as goldenrod (Solidago sp.), violet (Viola sp.),
plantain (Plantago lanceolata), chickweed (Stellaria media), and wild onion (Allium canadense).
A stream bank/ditch-side community (7.4 acres) occurs within buffer areas adjacent to'the Haw
River, the canal, and perimeter ditches within the Site. The overstory is dominated by
sweetgum, red maple, green ash, and sycamore. Shrub and herbaceous cover is dense and
includes canopy species as well as greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica), blackberry (Rubus sp.), grape (Vitis sp.), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans).
An early successional community (4.0 acres) of young trees, shrubs and briers occurs on the
upland side slope along northern Site boundary. Trees found in this community include black
cherry (Prunus serotina), red maple and various oaks (Quercus spp.). Shrub and herbaceous
cover is dense and includes greenbrier Japanese honeysuckle, blackberry, grape, and poison
ivy.
A freshwater marsh community (1.6 acres) occurs along the north-central portion of the Site, in
an area not designated as PC cropland. The community is dominated by numerous emergent
16
I

N
I
1 °J ?? .?• 60' ACCESS EASEMENT' - -- - 1
1 ?iI 1` U?
71
g m m N m cn rTI ?, l,' a 1
?? m x x x Z D Z 1 ?;; m
L o in o m m \- 1
m ;a
CID o ? -,
o g x Z Z m Z co
z 0000L6 N
P ° c? c, r- o
? W> o z ° ?
o f 1 ?? ?? 1 oz
< rr o D m O
z z m ° O m c m 4, ?/ 'l7
p
70
z z A m 2 1 f (? 0
C7 m Z \? l a y d _
v L 1 4m Y
r
?rf
00 .0
+ 1+ N a ' o . yF M/ 'o 0.
00 ®tl
- ) 00
.0 N
00 00
tp, .0
-grt
/ o 00,
s • Rl l ' ? v'.' r' \
00
00
.- ce, <1
10
yr ?. OOOll6 N
- >dRi??j IS. ? II ?. t;.• -
000
?1 I +?' [(
?? W J
-00
1 L ' OoSll6 N
00
1 v v -
1 nom. I' ?. =
1 y
--
if.
OOOZL6 N
m vi n
F o
n
n o n
m
°

0 °
C o 0

M "
C m
o ? z
L4
•_
N o
o
OD q 0

W` D :i x v n
c 1

C-)
?
0
vv
° Z
? cn? N D

:E a: M
??
cn

cn?

;
t
0> X 0?
o
n ;;o ?o n
70
° mD?
? fnp

m?

Z ?
z
fy',
A
?
n
50 ? ,
Z>Zm
vo?v 2z
m z O
z o r;

I?
i?

T1

II
m

n

m

n
x
n

z

n
a

' x
(n

z
0
m
0
g v
0

m
<
D
o
z x
(n

no

A
m
r z
0
A

0
z
O
A ?
Q
A

O
z z
O ?
m

z

0
x7
m

v m m (n
z D y D i

v r r

> m ?
D

x C
O
n
m n

0 ym
Z

?

U)
= 0

D
- g

0

2
o ( cn
O p
m
D N A W "I
S
t ?m
+ V O
t p7

+ A

r
LA
u
N 1
V "X,
R7
i I
.J
I
000016 N
C \ \\ A
I'd
C _ T -??- --- T-----.- --^---- ----------------- - --
Z 1 9016 N
m
'? ?,. ?, w Avg\\?
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
000116 N
?m
k I( I( ??
7-7
- + ---------------------=------; i---- ------------
C116 N
y .
777 t ?? 7 r I ?T } _ CF ,
I E? ti ? t, F t -
-- - r ---- NP T 000016 N
I I ,
I I Ci;
I I ?
I _ •
;Q T n

O
?? z? m 2
°Z? N? D
_\
O
m
?? (??
C n
z
?
I

CZ -
U)
o m cnc)

m

o C
l?
O
n ?.
IL
?-1 r-C ?Z
?m ?=-? N ?•?
V
D m 0
z
Z

Groundwater migration has been further accelerated in croplands by leveling of the soil surface,
removal of large organic debris and root channels found in mature forests. The induced
groundwater migration is intercepted by a network of interior canals and inter-field ditches which
effectively drains the area (Figure 6). Approximately 3500 linear feet of field ditches and canals
have been constructed and range from approximately 3 feet deep in inter-field ditches to depths
greater than 5 feet in the canal.
Groundwater data from piezometer were taken at regular intervals for the period between mid-
June and mid-August, 2002. Representative groundwater flow maps depicting high-water and
low water conditions at the Site for June 17 and July 21, 2003, respectively, are presented in
Figure 11(A and B). Data representative of very deep groundwater conditions were not
available due to continued wet conditions during the study period. The groundwater elevation
data is presented in Table 1.
Standing water was observed throughout most of the Site for extended periods through the
monitoring period. The highest water elevations were encountered in locations surrounding
Wells 5, 7 and 8. These wells represent area within the primary floodplain where prolonged
flooding can be expected. Groundwater within these areas never dropped below one foot below
the ground surface.
During the monitoring period, groundwater at its deepest (driest) was encountered within
1.5 feet of the surface. Wells 1, 4, and 11 represent areas of the secondary floodplain where
surface elevations are slightly higher and where groundwater gradients are slightly greater. In
general, water table elevations decrease gradually along drainage gradients extending from the
secondary floodplain (edge of floodplain) to the primary floodplain adjacent to the Haw River. A
more rapid decrease in water table elevations occurs in the steeper surface gradients found in
alluvial fans and portions of the Site.
3.6 Cultural Resources
The term "cultural resources" refers to prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, structures, or
artifact deposits over 50 years old. "Significant" cultural resources are those that are eligible or
potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Evaluations of site
significance are made with reference to the eligibility criteria of the National Register
(36 CFR 60) and in consultation with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO). A file search was conducted at the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) in order to
determine whether any cultural resource investigations have been conducted within the Site
vicinity and to determine whether any significant cultural resources have been documented
within the area. It appears that a significant portion of the Site and surrounding area is
considered to have potential for archaeological resources.
Preliminary investigations have found artifacts from the Lithic (13,000 to 3,000 B.C.), Middle
Archaic (6000 to 3000 B.C.), Early Woodland (900 to 300 B.C.), Middle Woodland (300 B.C. to
900 A.D.), and Ceramic (1,000 to 1,515 A.D.) time periods. Particular lithic tool types include
primary debitage and pecked stone which suggest that the surrounding area was prehistorically
used for long-term and short-term habitation. The Site is currently "Unassessed" and is not yet
listed in the National Register of Historic Places. However, a survey will be required
21
mm mm mium" r m m r m r m s m m mm

m i
r _
?l
m (T N m to
m
O
K
m
r0

0 x

Z
n
m h
v
Z
C
O
m
r m
o

z x
?1
Z
n
m

r Z
C)

p
cc D
`O
A
p (7
O
c
A
m
m
c0
1 m

0
z
1 n
z
1 I j
0

1
O I
j
j
1 A I i
m I (
r L

1
I .
1 a <
D

0
z
C) 0 m
70 7, r-
0 O O
Nc O
V 01 0) T 0) N Z 0
00
O
DO
00
?
O
( O m
D
O P O J, n
?
m
-
m
c
);u D
Z
Tl

O

N
m
D \
A
v"1 1 i i
r 60'ACCESS EASEMENT'
CIO
m .Z7.
Z J c. \ m
• ! ?", t 000016 N fill-it
m O
4
r,vy.u
i `
m
wr k
D and
7J -? ? ?:? ?5aht: N
m:.
- r /
m ?r // - 'gt?
r ? JAR
\ _ -- s y?,fr? ; 000116 N
y p? T
r
1 _ m ?CO
l 005116 N
Fl?
r
v _ I 0 669 f
Im

cD CO V rn CP ? C,+ N O
v rn 0) rn rn a) am rn rn 0) V 0
M
O (AD lD CD (AD lD tD CD (D (D O O
O V V V V 00 V tD M lD O M C
(,A Cn tD
V V? D (.n 0) O N < Z
O A N CJ, lD G+ V ;s p
V O? 07
O cD tD O O 0)
tD tD (AD 0) V Q)
cD O tD V
O V
O
r-

CO to
CO W to
to O }D
O m
m m
-
N
co A (D 6 O O '00 60 [D ? r
<
V CP V cD V .p. tD O 0 '
Km
mzN --1
- O
z 9
m
m m 000216 N
rn :0
1
V/
O
O?M - z° m
cnZOm j
C- C- 2-ICm AC) mND C r I
o " DOZm =o ?O(n0 o o C1
LLI
C: C- o o ?CGZ c) o m?DD
Ii'
D 3 m
c z w ?.
m O 11 * -I 0n m n
O J z ??DD E:c -IZ?< ?/?-i
N N -1 ? cn
-Zj O O "? n t
o r. Dm Z Z rl
w 0 0
m
mm w m m ? m ? = we r ? m m m m m mm
I

f I
m
r i
r- i
m m v m cn
m
N
0

m

r
C x
w

z
C)

m _x
N
1
z
O

o
g z
C
-

r
r
D

Z x
N
i
Z
G)

?
m
r z
O

c?
O
o
C

A
O
0

n
O
-
O

C
m

m
O
Z
oD
A
D Z
m
O
Z

i 0

0
I

D

0
z
n0 m
z-M o
00
0
CT rn Q1 Cn Z 0
tD (o cD to n 0 m
D CO '., F, L
::E
0
n
O O cD O >
?
m
m
ox D
z
m
F-
0

M
m
r
m
m
v
m
C
Z
v
D
m
r
m
G)
m
v
009606 N
v ?
C)
O o
n
i .' -= -- ------ S
j 60 'ACCESS EASEMENT'
;l ( I- y
' i I + m
I rJ 4 _ r m
m
3. ? / r x
0000/6 N
m
rT-j
/y r
` of rr cn
1
q
'' y ff-?-1 2

b?f
u?
1
-- r 00011(;' N
1
009//6 N
(' lby i- m
,
m
N _? - v? - -
M.
F
- - -v

!
\
• / / - Sit
??
?
?` 1? ? , r
/

?1

to Co V 0) Ln P, C4 N --' Z
rV
0) 0) CT CT QJ zJ a) M
0 c0 co cD cD (D to co CD O
O au v Co p c0 o M C
W Cn CO
? N
V V? O CP Cn
Cn l0 G+ O
V N < Z
O ? p
V (T (JP
O rD ID O CT) CT
(D t0 t0 Cn V 01
cD O kD V
O V
O
r $
CO (D Co Co Io (D 0 co O r,

N rD A
O 67 O
O Co ?O
cD .
< -
V CI( V tD V p (o O ? '
N
rm
m N
z 0
-9
Z m
d m m OOOZl6 N
1 cn
Z
0? <
v? n o
') n
m m
0
?a 11 o C') C)
C c o
mm
_ C m
C Z
G
o
M "
M Z7 T 0
Om
---ZICm
00
N Zn m
A?F -yi* ND
N
?
= 70
?<?
-
z ?
Z
mC?m O
o
" =1? D
?o
m tn0

m
0 O
DD
?
D ?z?<
00
z z 0 Ov m
cn
?
m
m
.oh D m Z m
A z C

M= M'W == M= MM MW W = M M i
Table 1.
Representative Groundwater Elevations,
Haw River Swamp Wetland Restoration Site.
DATE 6-18-03 7-21-03 8-22-03

iezometer
Number

Piezometer
Elevation
(feet) Ground
Elevation
around
Piezometer
(feet)

Groundwater
Elevation
(feet) Depth of
Water Below
Ground
Surface
(feet)'

Groundwater
Elevation
(feet) Depth of
Water Below
Ground
Surface
(feet)

Groundwater
Elevation

(feet) Depth of
Water Below
Ground
Surface

(feet)
1 701.46 700.24 700.22 -0.02 698.81 -1.43 699.58 -0.66
2 700.90 699.07 699.17 +0.10 697.97 -1.10 698.27 -0.80
3 699.89 698.63 698.77 +0.14 697.66 -0.97 698.43 -0.20
4 700.84 699.59 699.62 +0.03 698.09 -1.50 698.80 -0.79
5 699.07 697.95 698.22 +0.27 697.13 -0.82 698.03 +0.08
6 699.01 698.14 698.14 0.00 697.29 -0.85 696.93 -1.21
7 698.89 697.17 697.51 ±0.34 696.60 -0.67 697.10 -0.07
8 698.97 697.17 697.49 +0.32 696.35 -0.82 697.22 +0.05
9 699.4 697.92 697.92 0.00 696.65 -1.27 697.17 -0.75
10 698.95 697.54 697.54 0.00 696.46 -1.08 696.83 -0.71
11 701.27 700.3 700.3 0.00 698.49 -1.81 698.94 -1.36
positive sign (+) denotes water level above ground.
negative sign (-) denotes water level below ground.
¦w m w= m m m=== m e w =m w ? = =
- CD
Cl) (n 0 CD ° m a 3 p m 0 cn -v c -° W e p
o ° ` N =.y 57 o °a 0 o a (D w CD 5' c°n 3 v°, -o 5 ? c (D v o ai n-" n.
p D CD n o Q. (D cn ? a ? c 3 g CD ? o co 0. ? o ° v O co c y (DD
Q O (D xU ¢? W (D C) W 3 SD W p cD ? ? =3 cD W W O C2 cD N n w cn ?
Cn -0
CD = Cn O -. Sy (D (D 3 7 " =r O n. Q Q O O : W? -a O (D fn * O CD 3 (D 3
cn CD FD 0
CD Fm7 0 _0- CO CL
C O O cCDn k Co O N O O CD Cb,
c O ,y O O Q? O O p O 3
SD CO `? Al O "C3 Q -? T. (p co n O O O W a? ? O- O ?, p W 3 0) p (D
n CD
? 3 p (n
=r -C3 Cr N O ° 0 0 j, 0 °. ? ? N y cQ w n (D ? CD ? C: ? °O ? Q CD CD cn CD -
O w O o cD 9 W
CD C a' s -. (D ? W
a (CD W k CD < O X S? a1
-U
O Q n (n o Q cD c?D = cn CQD .? (o 3 p
3 C
cn' n CAD O CD -0 O (D 0 CQ = Q - =r O CAD O -0 O' ? , co ((DD CD
O ? (Q n C) Q CD D !? 0 O O W O W o CD CD 0 + t- CD
(O C CD W CD CD C) Q ' r tz Q. ;= Al CD CC w (a ZT CD -0
.+ CC2 co (p .-r fn ?. (D CL] D '
D .+ (p O O N Q cD `G 0 O A1' p O Q
M CD O ::r N C O (n ::r CD cn O ::r CD cn - cQ cr CD n (D
_
CD =r
2 CD
A) C co _ " ° -p Q U1 0 O (D ° O `<
O CD ?.
WT. n S1 O 3 7g. (p (D CD -0 - 0 (D -O -p (Q p n ?D O (D CD cQ (D ?. O CD 7 Q O
CD CD CD 0 O (D n (0D Q O= O S31 ? ?, C •? N n O -. ? p' SZ p? Q Q? W t- Q O
CD .y n fv N' . `< . C) CD (D . O CD W CD
, O O "' (Q fn
w O o. O cD -o T3 CD (D O O o O * < .-« . = CD
N =
cn CD ~ "f n p .-+ =r :Z .2. cn C) Co x =t >y CD ^ (D C W O b CD 0 (D Er CD Q n W W (D -0 :3 O cn O p CD CD C to Q^ `CZ (D OL ai Q c _ c co CL Co 0 CD
W O W < O. 2
-0 cn =7 (D j CD O X Q cn CD ?•
CO
W O Q O W C .? Al CD ¢1 C
C o Co
3 Fa*
D W CD Sb D Q O .fir O C) W W N ` p 3 O 07 v CD CL
*- (D O CD XV O
cn S11 3 0 co O (D p W Co k' O (D O -: 0 O C) SD p + W W :3-% -11 '+ of Q N =.
O W CD W Q O w 1 CL n O W Q S `C W SU ? O (D O- O (D CD (n O O •* n
n (2 _ p 3 CL 0 -a w
CWn CD C CD =) - C
n (OD p' O vi O 0 fWn O (D z c j CD C: CD 0 o
Q. CD O O m CD -, CD O- ?• C N Q O C) W ? a (Q W -p p y, (n' CD (o
^^ C ?• 7 p W n (D O O --ft 0 ? (OD cn 0 c O° °< p O C: Cn
(D O O- CD (D ,0+ CL -- CD -1
cn CL 0 CD 0 -0 :3 CL CL 3 :3 CD
0 O 3 w ((DD I o o Q. On p' 0 ccDD 07 c cn CA (D CD 07 CD C= 0 W c p°? a0 (D to CD = 0 00 O (D o
'O `c O a W CD W
n
I (D . ° 6 w o= Q?. C 3 (D CL 0 Q o m o m vim, o ??
?? y -0o
Sb to CD W °? CL °" :3 3 c ^ Q (O-D c (O?'p c^n (Q a 3 (OD o 0 O W N° O Q - n
0 C: :3 ?j7 0 G• a W
0 :3 Q (p cCn p (Cn A? (D cn o w EP 0 0 co n -0 o 0 0 c
C M (Q W O CD _ O ?. 'C3 CD :3
O W
O? (D - CL Q cO ? o c 3 (o (Q !y D 2 3 O y CL Q 0 W Q_ 3 o < CD =r cQ co
CD 2) * (D c
3 °' - ° (D -? a C: ° -+ - ? cr ? sv c c (n ? (p O W ? ? o
c)* W , (D " n p cD m C7 CO 0 cn o a 3 m (° m cn 0 o o m % -0 Sy - ?CZ O CD ° 'pt W ? O o pj " W 0 CO 7' O W (Q o.. < CD O W cn CL CZ
W CD n = cn CCDD 'Q (D 'a Q x- (D cn W >Z -0 W CD W (D O r: CD :3
Q Co Q sv •-' W C >y O =r n sv (D ACi ° vCi 3 07 Z Q = ,. < 3 iz (D =r iz
In O (D .+ to _ p n O W Cn cD -% p cn?-« O =r
CD 0 -N (D -+ 0
?T 07
_-x CD
(D Z cn D O O CD a.. ¢' at
(D W ( D O W W W m W W O
O cD c .y.n•O N a0 ^ <O ( C ? Q o CL Cz0 Cp c r- O
3 W CD (D
o c c m W?
CD N Q < o Sb CA ?' c°n N ° n SD ?- C2. w c(D W2 is °
(D sn' -.
m Q.
(D O Q CD W a O (n (D Cn' FD ' ((D O Sc N 7M O W 0 K (DD
i m m w? m= m w w m= A w w= w=
- o •" pp cn E co
o O 9 o? 0 0 c
= N o CD 0 :E cQ a
0• c3n 3 o w
6 CD CD 0- <
-°o a r- ca ((D `n m (CD
m 6_ C m 3
CD = Cr CC 0
W -- CD ID
? -0 OO m ? 0 O 0
can a
a W ° m cn a?
O o m* m" O CD CD
cn m
a O o o m m < o a
cn :3 C3- co
< O C- -v cn 0
mo 33cD3
co =r a
? m SO cn m
0 cmn ? m m ? m ? 3 ?-
m 0 p D a m
n 0 CC
0 m a O CD cQ 0
C O CM =? 0 SD ,
=' (D
o, m `< ° c o< o m
l< ID 0
(D " m M 0 O Al
co CCDV -O m o N O
3 cn o o •?
Q m " ° m ° W N `n
D ?-
CO m
-D = 2 Q = p C
iU O _ a ((DD a -O O
o= C m 0 0 m .? O
c a - -n o 0
cn , Q (n Co (D
O o
_ m m 0
E O Cn O n cn x r- O
= o * m r- 0
O -« cn <
0 co CD
o o cQ o Q =
w ? a j'
a CD CD SD -0
CD CD CD 0
(D _0
a 0 a (D h m
CD * r. `<
cn CCD p g 3 CD
m c 0 o -4-0
:3 -a m a m o 3 O AD
a M. a m o
cn m
(Q 3 w v
a3a0
3mD c0on`-mm0=); 10 -(On ?w og?o?wu?o?w C
0 3 m m a to Co r+ <Q a =3 m -c
mm- cm vaav;mmc°i M (D CD omm <CD 3
r CD
:3 =:t c/) CD CD =r (n (a ID CL
aw m mw.?.o• ' 0- CD
C) (OD Q.o° _° ° 3 am (D ?S
CL m SD m Q T - o c 3 -?, Fn- 0 O
07 o -- `< m 0 O -? cn o m M Q vOi a Ai O a -- Z3
p (a M 3 a° a o 3 O" -0 ((D a CD m c? -° O O 3 Al
SD - SD :3. CD -0 -
= CDD' m D ° c°n w o 0 ' 3 -o o cn ° o o :3 5, (D (D CL 0 CD Q n m 0
+ C) CD CD CD SD 0 CD
;:v SD ;r+ CL
(D (D - C o -a w wn 3 m o -w g m g a::E m.n o
-?, w w c m a 0 0 m m m co o 3 c :3-% O m
X03 ??O'O?.o?Q03?0 ?n3i3??mmway, m n
CD CD ID :3 (D M = w -0 Sb r. m o o ? m ? 0 n 0-C)- a ?cQ ° ? ? ? ? ? a 3 ?
?x CJ ? 3 n cc O (CD CD n n W 0 m .+ m .. n (D a
m (D <. Cr (D Q o
co COD 3 0^ o <• o CD 3 s o v cQ Q CD cn
omm 0m3a??'?-<`n(D `<3 o'mmo=0 mD
av w n -? 0 ' 0 g a a a-0 w 0
3 m a 3 ..
w o o N M C CD , a CD m co C m m o su w z N Q. :3 0 -0
0 0 a. =3 < CD 0)
CD m W m= m" a .-, cQ cn m to o -p '? Q :3 m, -
o. p D
o z w ?' m SD n --j ?' W Qom ? o '.
? m w
a < (D c a °- = m ° =r cc 3 m m o (CD ? (2 °< m
CD CD ..Q:Sb N CD ?,<< ?.o a: ((D n Q
<%<? mm,o?. m.mc?omw1+ mCr 33 cQ m " o
3 =0 w o -3 oo N 3 SD m N ?0 ° °? Ny (D 0
p 1 O O a
0 =r oSc mCDaR33=o°-cam c moQm0 :3 m5o
CD :3 SD
=t ?Q vciiC 3 m ?no? ° m (D -*? N Q9 (D
00 ?X sv?3?woom-I? omc° wo m
j 0 1 m cD 0 0 r+ ^ n p - fmn CL C ((D O m O 7 CL .?? - X
0 =r n ? N (Q' O cmn ( N O Ali (D o SD :3 Q- CCD ?. N Cl) m m< ?''? o g -00 C ?c? O m =''a=m 3 o+
fn _? O Sb M o v O a 1 3 m a <(D 0 ' c') j p m m 0 -0 -m
w o CD 3* -n v, 3 c 5' - ??. m 3 m m < a °_. m Q m a
3 .?
CD Q. -0 CL CD CL 0-0 (N 0 CD -1 Z 0 a m e N (aD 3 (D (D CD .C+ Ai CD O
CL C -,
(n cn p O n ?=U? Q O0 mQ? =m?o p.. .h can ? 5'(D umi Q(`D
=r 0i a :•• m a w ID o c° T m =• (D
CD w m m co m 0 m o 0 a Z 3? 3 cm L c, -r°o
a 3 o Can O c Z o ° x m m C: C) m O.

N
v
3 * =
O CCDD Fn'
(D SD
=3 (D
CL X
a- _ (D
C
M =5 (D
o a a
?-
- . ? 3
=r (D
CD CD
(D (D
(D 3
CD "p
CD O
N
O 3
(D :
N ?
? O
(D (D
(
X
7 Uj
Q .?
CO ?.
3
O O
CD CD
l<
(D C
x. 1
m
3
M
c? :3
CZ
w (D
CD
(n cl)
O
CD W
S o
CD
0 O
CD
((DD

o S2. F D7 -4 (n m D3p0 o
3 m a m o (D o ^? Q o W ?. ° D -0 m -? o W. o 0
'O 0 0 (p < D Q O w :p c (D n (n W.
CCD CD
O =• " O 0 CD (D 3 O O Cn (D Cn
< 3 3 (D CO o o m CL 0 C m 3 v°, a 3 0 o a m
=0 3o ° =su + CL
W-0 -, U (D cD 0 (n CD (D Z< c - m O 0 0 0
o w ?p m Fn o' (D :3
G) M n° 2 sv CL cn
3CD7'am(DCDCYC) ow?<03 mo 00) 0-a-
(D - 0 (D 07 =3 3
_0 3 O CD SD = SD Sit O 0 (M , ° Q ? w -` O ((DD 0 ? Q
0 (D :3 a =Z =r CD CD Z* CD (a ::k x W- c)
?- a o m o o a CD o = ?-0 c 0 co (D CD FD' CD
•< ?, -0 co v C) (O Q CD (D O -t 3 CD
O 0 O Q- 0 CD O C -0 C2 (0-0 0°
13) - (D 0 CD 0 -0 (a
(n O ° 3 Cc D S O o o< Q Aw o 0-
CD CD
P) CD o ?• c =• (D Q- =J (D m °' O 3 CND = DO 83 0) ? ? ? =3
O 0 c' Q cQ to CDD. ?• 0 02) Q (Q C Al in
l< O o O o TI
Q c<D 0 O (D co 3 V°i o < 0 0
CD 3 (Q O CD =. 3 (D Q Q- Co CD 3 -0 Q CcD
" 0 O 3 3 w O < CD co c" 'a. CD fn
co NS2 - O co ;4: --h (np h j O (D cD :3 `< C 3
(On in -- 0 CT =3 0 0 (a
CD 5 03 w O * •.O 00 W CD -i ((DD W
SD O C< Q. O w - 3 O 0 Co OCD
(? O -` cQ SD O 0? 0 Q• 0 3 O w o -1. 1 O (D
O 5 0 W CD CO CD CD poi (D °O CD ? O
CD w
o co Q m ? cn < CD 0 -a CD ,?, -? ? 3 ( 0 O con p
:3(1 =SD -0 -0 3?` N0 `G (D ° = w 3
< W (oD _ O S11 cn (D x' Q =3 0 C * 0? X
?l (D R CD ? O 0 SD _ C2 N O CD p_
m-0 w? c (D Fn (D o o o o =3
* CD c c (D (D `< -0 O SD N v' W co
(D o ai SD m CD 0 ? q(D CD vo CO Ulm te a- a m
c (-° 3 ?- -COD SD CD CD ^ ((DD m Co 9) 2 ;:v c a 0
CD " r- o Sy 3 (D (D 3 sZ (D N 0 Vp =r ((D O O CD
(D 7 0 (D
a
CD CD 0 CD
3 c (Q
" CD O %< (gyp Q 0 c m ? Co
CD co SD D CD _0 (Q n (p O -? Z CL Cn ._. 3 (D p =rk SD
0
m c 3 0 m p -? a o Sv 5. 0 m
co =r o c?
CD < 0 0 CL CD
0 -o CD :L mm3 m?.0 0
<
a' 0 m co --n ° :' :3 0 ? O W N `< O (3D W Sv ? ? SD
CD CL l< 7 o CD Q CD 0 Q u m m m
=3 C m o' CD Co
poi mcr uci
C cn o :c3: ? (D c ? 3 fA A
N

(D
9
(a CD CD

(D
:3
ED

? Q o =
0 o

=
-0 0
O 7 3 0 0
(D 0 - (D
3 x a cQ O~
CD (Q
0 5 (OD
V)

-
,
4 =3
2 CD Cn' O
CD -.
Sv 0 Cl = Q C
?
•
CD
° CD CD
m Q cn
`° :3 CD
c0 < 0
Q 2) CD (0
Cl)
S d
0
0 o 0 -,. c:
O o
o °
g n sv
0
o
3 n =
CL 3 CD F,•
Fm7 (D
= CD O
:
(D
o
a m
O d
fT7 CD
0
n > w (n

D
D

SD
< O
CL tv 0 CCU
h CCD

CL
Cj)?p
m :-- o? " c 0
° 0 0 c =3-
m D
uDi' o?? a=3 CD
m osv?? ??
p) CD
3 p Q (n Q m 0 0 `G
O S ° 0?= :3 .
A
7 o
Q
CD
-a
CL :3 ;z
m
SD
*
° 3 m 5 _
m m m co
=r °=
-? c

=r
--h 5 O
E :3 w
CD 57 CO
CD D ?. C 0 0 m 0 (D

0 0
0
K (D
1+ W --.
<< (D O
0- co 0 -0
C (0p W
7
c
Cl

0 C O Q
(D S2 CD w CL 0
(D C r Q n. h=
3 (?D :•
CQ

co CD

° (n cn O
'
'
0 0 Q SD " -? CD
. O
+
0 CD O r
CO
CD 3 cQ co
O 3 C
(D CD

CD (D

CA CD -p 0

J CD
CD = CL

CD
3 CD
Sv
3 !' (D =3 -0 (Q o
w
j aCc a
5.
3 N _
M
n a O CD
,? 00 W OQ Can (n *•
3 ':- u? ° 0 C) 0
CD
CD (D W CD
(D =!! CD C)
_ -
w

-a

.,
w o
Ln
o CCD
cQ O

m m
O x 0 O

m
Q
0
c 0 :3
Q
SD
s
O-
"a
N C

3 co

0 0
( _
e
1. tD C) L
0
'O CD +

O (
D
Q 5 p
w (D ? 0
° (Q CD
-.

0) O
N
O. ? ((DD
2
-CD 0 c
m O .
N
S
u
(3D ? .?
(D
(D
C/)
3
O

Q3 Q
CD .

r

CL (
D
O
CD (D = (o
5* 0 In -0
1+
SD CD 0 :3
cl (n 3
SD (D m 0
(D o °
0

I
11

1

was modified to emulate steady state, climax community structure as described in the
Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina (Schafale and Weakley 1990).
Circular plot sampling was utilized to establish base-line, vegetation composition and structure
in RFEs. Species were recorded along with individual tree diameters, canopy class, and
dominance. From collected field data, importance values (Brower et al. 1990) of dominant
canopy and mid-story trees were calculated. Hydrology, surface topography, and habitat
features were also evaluated.
Mature forest communities were identified in floodplain areas east of the Site that continue to
characterize steady-state forest conditions. The vegetative community sampled was identified
as a Piedmont bottomland hardwood forest (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Four plots located in
the adjacent forested floodplain were sampled. The overstory is dominated by red maple and
green ash. Other highly desirable, late successional canopy species included overcup oak
(Quercus lyrata), red oak (Quercus rubra), shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), and American elm
(Ulmus americana) (Table 2). The RFEs exhibit evidence of past silvicultural practices such as
selective cutting, high-grading, and ditch construction that have resulted in a less diverse, intra-
specific tree assemblage. Therefore, community restoration procedures have been modified to
facilitate a reduction in dominance by disturbance adapted species such as red maple and
sweetgum.
4.3 Reference Physiography and Surface Topography
Surface features were mapped within reference Piedmont swamp/bottomland hardwood forest
in order to establish base-line topographic conditions for restoration planning use. This
community lies within a seasonally to semi-permanently inundated area that has supported
sediment accretion in the past with inundation from stream flows occurring on a frequent basis.
The channel is actively migrating across alluvial fans developed within the aggrading floodplain.
Topographic maps of the accretion area were prepared to 0.5-foot contour intervals by laser
level and tape measure. Abandoned stream channels were mapped along with approximate
jurisdictional wetland extent relative to the water surface within stream channels. A plan view,
cross-sections, and profiles were generated for the channel and adjacent alluvial surface. The
channel dimension, rate of channel migration, and slope of the floodplain floor represent the
primary features extrapolated for use in restoration planning. One of the objectives of
restoration is to put Midway Creek and the southern tributary back onto the historic alluvial fans
and induce sediment deposition, channel migration, braiding, ponding, and/or anastomosed
stream, resulting in hydration of adjacent wetland areas
Figure 12 depicts a plan view and cross-sections of the alluvial fan, including locations of
abandoned channels that have developed over the last several years. The channel exhibits
active migration across the valley floor as aggradation processes elevate isolated portions of the
floodplain. The active channel is classified as an E5 (highly sinuous) stream type in upper
reaches of the reference Site (Rosgen 1994). Subsequently, the channel transitions into an
anastomosed (DA5/6) channel and subsequent braided (D6) channel immediately prior to the
confluence with a near-permanently inundated section of the primary floodplain.
29
i
c
e
i
N
O
?U
N
CU a
E O
U `-°
:3
U) a
o
(V a O
+- O U-
,Q U-
FO- `o o
U- O
C 72 cu
O
O
m
d
c m
O
Q.
E
t?
NJ
m o_
> e3
? Q
V
Q
c
t0
N r+
c
? C
+' d o
cu
a-
>+
0
c ^
? o
a
L
O
d
O N
L ?
E ?>
O
Z c
N
d
.U
d
Q
N
m
L
F-
I r O ? O ? qr M M M N N
N N O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O
I ? O O M O O Lo Lo r.- M
O M r ti O O O N r- O O
M N ?-
N I` O M r I-- N h M r
VO N O M M N O O O O
i- N 't- ? CO CU Cfl CO CO CO C?
6 N T- i?j t?j ?!) lfj Ln tfj In
?- N r r
O
i? O O 0 N N N N N N N
M M M M ?- M
M M O O M M 6 M M M M
OO O N N r N r- r- I
co
,U
z
+? (p cQ
y N w to
Q. o
to co co 0
C C V V C 0 cu t h
U i R co U m N cO
Q L1 k of C'1 0 Q U U

I O
O
r
I?
O
0
O
'a.
O
O
r
N
M
J
H
O
O
Q
U
cv
O
i
O
O
O
co
E
O

z
_ 0
rn n ..
0 0
o (n
U)
? r
N V1
?(D
CD n
O O
O
N
-n
CD Q
O
n
0 0.
O ?
Linear (Across Volley) Distance in Feet
O N Cn V O N
Ln O Ln O N
D
DW
-- ----------
Z
O
--------- ----------- --- ----- -------
Elevation in Feet Elevation in Feet
m
0 0
(O o 0 0
C7 CO O ON A W W O N -P W
2
D O O
-- ------------- ------
z
m
r- 0 o
In N .......
------------- --------
CO Vi CO
------ -- ------ --- Le 0 1 O O
- -------------
-------------(3) C
Y
Ln r- 0 r 0)
o r r- 0
----------------
----- - -------
---- ---------
v
- ------------
OMM O
V W 0 CO
r_ W O O
- -- -------- ---------
o "a 2
O O O OS
N O t
N
Ln N
C O C7 O Q O O
ry O 0
---- -----------------
O
N (/) N N N
N
O p N 0 D
N ' 7
rn m
o o - No 5• O o ?.
---- ------ - ----------- ------ - - ---------
z
CD
N WO J W
- ----------------- --------
7
fl O
lD
0 O
- ----------------
----- --------------
''^^
------------ ---------
V• N
O
Ln 0
O O
n v n v
r O O
N m rn
0
0
- 00
o o
0 0
- --------------- --
(7
N N rnO O O O mW O O O O 00 D N O N •A 00 O
N A
N
f
rn
- -- --------- --------------- ----- -
W
O
m L n o A v n
'9 w m N O n. 7
\ `
o Ngg cnm 0 0 ?O-Icnp N o o Ch
??pp m
0 z m o °OP? IZ?C ?-? N ?•?
N N z m zz° pC m y? 0
o o D? N Dm zA z CD
W D N

'
? ?

I I
?
? ', I
I
I I
I I I I
I I I I

I I I I

I
: I

I
I i
I
I I

I I
I

' '
I
? I I
: I
i 1 I
I I 1
i I I I
E I
_ 2'69 - :. -? - - --- _'_ _:.- - -
I - -
I
--r-

Ii - Iti 4 4 4 t_ ti
-r- r r r r I -r
?

---
-r
-r -
-r
r r
-
-r
o _
I I 4 ? ?

-r- -r r r r r -?-
r - r i r r- -4

-r- -r- -r- -r' -r" r -r- -r"
-L- _

I I I I I I I I

-r- -r- -r- -r" 'I'- -r -r- -r

I-
r- -i
-r r- -`-
r r r-
- -i-
--r -L-
-r
r- -r'

Z _

f- 1 - r' - r r- - ?- r

LI
This braided reach and near-permanently inundated area represent projected conditions within
the secondary floodplain area of the Site. The floodplain, throughout this reference reach,
continues to support forest vegetation, including shrub-scrub dominated communities within the
potentially inundated areas.

u

C

32

11

r_1

11
5.0 WETLAND RESTORATION PLAN
5.1 Wetland Hydrology and Soil Restoration
Site alterations to restore groundwater, surface flow dynamics, and wetland hydrology include:
1) ditch plugs, 2) ditch and canal backfilling, 3) backwater slough construction, 4) river levee
removal, 5) tributary realignments, 6) wetland surface scarification, 7) seasonal pool
construction, and 8) woody debris deposition (Figure 13).
5.1.1 Ditch Plugs
Ditch plugs will be installed along ditches and the canal at locations identified in Figure 13. In
addition, all ditch outlets off-site will be effectively plugged to prevent migration of flows back
into the former ditch or canal. The plugs will be constructed of low density material designed to
withstand erosive forces associated with river floods. If earthen material is used, each plug will
backfilled in 2-foot lifts of vegetation free material and compacted into the bottom of the ditch.
The earthen material may be obtained from upland borrow pits or through excavation of shallow
pools along the existing channel or within the primary floodplain.
5.1.2 Ditch Backfilling
Ditches will be partially back-filled using on-site, earthen material from excavated depressions
and ephemeral pond construction as depicted in Figure 13. Additional fill will be obtained from
elevated areas within the floodplain, as needed. The ditches and canal backfill locations will be
filled, compacted, and graded to the approximate elevation of the adjacent wetland surface.
Certain, non-critical ditch sections shall remain open to provide habitat, flood storage, and
energy dissipation. Open ditch sections will be isolated between effectively backfilled reaches
to reduce potential for long-term, preferential groundwater migration.
' 5.1.3 Backwater Slough Construction
Backwater sloughs will be designed to mimic reference wetland conditions found within the Haw
River floodplain. Conditions to be mimicked include: 1) a convoluted interception of
' groundwater and flood flows, 2) average slope of upland-wetland interface and the slough
surface, 3) micro-topographic variation along the slough surface, and 4) soil modification and
debris deposition.

Backwater slough construction will occur adjacent to the existing canal in the northeastern
portion of the Site (Figure 13). Construction of the slough will begin approximately 100 feet
below the bridge along Sandy Cross Road and extend approximately 1100 feet downstream
from where the slough will daylight (slope to the existing ground elevation) and migrate naturally
within the existing topography. The backwater slough will be excavated approximately to 75 to
100 feet in width and average depth of approximately 1 foot. Once the design is complete, the
on-site storm flow will be re-modeled to verify that the slough sizing is sufficient. Sections of the
existing canal will be connected to the backwater slough. These sections will remain open and
left as deep water habitat. The remaining sections of canal will be plugged and backfilled as
depicted on the restoration plan. Existing trees along the canal will be preserved to the extent
possible.
33

m m m m m m r m r m m m m m m m m m !
r- •n •,r m
r
c
_
r
n
c
y <O c 005606 N
D <c
r
n
mr
* rn
A
m
N
?v r
r
n
t
nm
o O o O; Dr
n

I 'IV
'
1
,
1
"
r - ?.
?' ?
?"
f ?: te
il' i ''" "`? ! ',? ?/
? s• ^-
i• -? _ u Q
? '
01,--.-?/
-7
(no OCR 'O m m U) M S < N
-{O CO M X X D X

O to
O N V)

oN

0?

?
cz, lo
n n ? m N X m --I Z O Z
=
j I O U z
f ;00 O
D m i
z° n m 0 m O ?• w }.' c? (;?? ?'
? 000016 N
, o r
n
m ,
rn C)
M;o m
C
in
u
m
0;0
Ln LAM >;o

0
mrn
;;;
'

0
m
`Z

J ism o

N
?C o

`
, D O m
m

%
1 f IT1

ro o
u'•
4 o -+o
;mZ
n 4w,I r I ?, t <
g
'
b

o rcnv mn
n
W p br,
c;o or-;o -00
r -O X 0 0
? Z
r7 n
?'
F.
7
- i
ti _-
I
m? C? N
-n
M;o x 2 '
tt,
G) r v
cil

m

- l!
-
-----
--
I
- -
,
-
-

r
.,- -. , , ? - ,• /rte -_ &

?i,-- ? ..(, it _ ,'•?y `oi Iv - - - - ,- _-.__ -
-
o,

--------------

>

/ j
0, i . 005116` N

'nr

v

-
?
?r rrn

fib '
- ---

000216 N

11,

a a n o X
O
^
? m CD
m 0.
= ? l 1

"

?2 cl)
o?c? m
Z C:: CA
m
C6 cn

a. O r;
-1

)
C-
C- _ _

F
S

n
O

<
m

1?.1 'O^
z v v

`

o
f 5 -
O o O
^,
`" N N 50 zzv p0 m tn0 p'n
0 O z D m z 7° z ??
0 L4 (A

1

5.1.4 Ephemeral Pool Construction
Ephemeral pools will be constructed in the primary floodplain along portions of ditches and the
canal and used for additional fill material as needed for the above-described tasks. The pools
will be constructed by excavating shallow, irregularly shaped (oblong) depressions placed
perpendicular to land slope. The depressions will range to a maximum of 1-foot below the
existing surface elevation in the center of the depression. Depressional areas will extend over a
radius of 50 to 75 feet (long axis). The location and attributes of oval depressions will be
constructed to mimic backwater slough depressions and other depressional features found in
the reference wetlands. Ditches located within depressional areas will be backfilled to the
maximum 14oot depth below the ground elevation.
5.1.5 Controlled Water Outfall Structure
Controlled water outfall structures are proposed at designated outlets through the river levee or
within low points in the floodplain (Figure 13). As surface water exits the Site, the Haw River
side may experience increased erosive flows from hydraulic head, causing instability to the bank
and the risk for headcuts. The controlled water outfall structures represent a cellular
confinement structure that will reinforce and restrain vegetated topsoils or stone infill, thereby
controlling down-slope movement due to hydrodynamic and gravitational forces.
5.1.6 River Levee Removal
The Haw River levee will be lowered between 699 and 700 feet NGVD along a reach
immediately below Church Street Extension (Figure 13). The lowered levee will extend for
approximately 125 feet. Based on flood studies, lowering of the levee to 700 feet above MSL
will allow bankfull and greater flows access to the floodplain at the top of the Site.
5.1.7 Midway Creek Restoration
Midway Creek will be diverted upon entering the Site to redirect flows onto the historic
floodplain. The floodplain in the immediate area shall be graded to accommodate the restored
stream alignment and accept bankfull flows. Flow from the realigned Midway Creek will be
directed into a depressional freshwater marsh complex (marsh). The marsh will be constructed
within pasture in the northern portion of the Site (Figure 13) and serve as the mechanism to
divert flow back onto the historic alluvial fan and provide a perennial source for groundwater
recharge to the area. The marsh will be constructed to facilitate passive channel redevelopment
on its historic alluvial fan location. Braiding, ponding, and anastomosed conditions will occur,
similar to reference streams in the region. Reference streams often exhibit braided (alluvial
fan), backwater, or anastomosed features at the confluence with large river floodplains.
The marsh will be constructed by excavating and grading earthen material from a 50- to 75-foot
wide hummock. The marsh shall extend across the floodplain and tie into the existing or graded
side slopes as depicted in the plan. The area will be excavated to an average depth of 1 to 2
feet below the proposed floodplain surface. A series of stabilized outlets will be constructed
' through the floodplain to direct water towards the floodplain, with the outlet elevation (and
resultant water surface) fixed at approximately 700 feet above NGVD.

35

_1
i

1
1

i

The planned outlets may be temporarily stabilized with woody debris, cellular confinement
structures, or coarse rock material placed immediately above and below the structure.
However, the marsh and associated outlets do not represent permanent structures. After
successional vegetation colonizes the Site and reforestation is underway, sediment deposition
patterns, debris accumulation, alternative flow pathways, and natural adjustments will be
allowed to develop within the bottomland ecosystem, effectively replacing the pond with a
natural low slope, level spreader. The distributor pond will be constructed to persist until forest
cover and braided stream and surface topography is established. The objective in early years is
to reduce stream flow velocities, encouraging depositions, and consequently allowing micro-
and macro-topography to develop over time within the abandoned farm fields.
5.1.8 Southern Tributary Restoration
At the Site boundary, the southern tributary will be diverted and redirected onto the Haw River
floodplain. Subsequently, tributary flows will be discharged into the historic alluvial fan and
primary floodplain. As with the northern tributary, the southern tributary will be allowed to re-
develop primarily through passive processes to encourage braiding, ponding, and anastomosed
conditions.
The floodplain elevation will be graded to accommodate the slope and anticipated flood flows of
the new channel (Figure 13). The new floodplain and channel will cross the roadway easement.
Construction of a causeway for a future proposed road would require fill and the co-requisite
installation of a properly sized stream, floodplain, and drainage culverts.
5.1.9 Wetland Surface Scarification
' Before wetland, plant community restoration is implemented, agricultural fields and graded back-
fill material on the primary floodplain will be scarified. The scarification will be performed as
linear bands directed perpendicular to land slope (surface water flows). After scarification, the
' soil surface should exhibit complex microtopography ranging to 1 foot in vertical asymmetry
across local reaches of the landscape. Restored micro-topographic relief is considered critical
to short term hydrology restoration efforts. Therefore, multiple passes along each band is
' recommended to ensure adequate surface roughing and surface water storage potential across
the Site. Subsequently, community restoration will be initiated on scarified wetland surfaces.
5.1.10 Woody Debris Deposition
Woody debris cleared during restoration activities or located in adjacent areas should be placed
on restored wetland surfaces to the maximum extent practicable. The absence of large woody
debris represents a limiting factor in the establishment of habitat diversity, nutrient cycling (soil
microbial) functions, and energy dissipation on abandoned farmland (Brinson et al. 1995).
' Woody debris jams may also be used as temporary stabilization structures located at controlled
water outfall locations.
1

36

5.2 Wetland Plant Community Restoration
Restoration of wetland forest communities provides habitat for area wildlife and allows for
development and expansion of characteristic wetland-dependent species across the landscape.
Ecotonal changes between community types contribute to diversity and provide secondary
benefits such as enhanced feeding and nesting opportunities for mammals, birds, amphibians,
and other wildlife. Reference data, on-site observations, and ecosystem classification have
been used to develop species associations promoted during community restoration activities.
Target plan community associations include: 1) levee forest, 2) bottomland hardwood forest,
3) piedmont swamp forest, and 4) mesic mixed hardwood forest. Figure 14 provides a
conceptual depiction of potential forest communities to be restored across the landscape.
Figure 15 identifies the location of each target community.
Emphasis has been focused on developing a diverse plant assemblage. This is particularly vital
due to the limited distribution of mast-producing hardwood tree species presently existing in the
vicinity, as evidenced during the reference search. Planting a variety of mast-producing species
will provide a food source for wildlife and will facilitate habitat diversity in a region dominated by
agricultural fields.
The restoration of upland forest communities has also been proposed. Upland forest restoration
' plans are designed to enhance wetland functions and to restore a wetland/upland forest
ecotone that is considered rare in the region. The target forest community is composed
primarily of upland oaks and hickories, among intermittent stems of black gum, American beech,
' and tulip poplar.
Planting Plan
' The planting plan is designed to reestablish wetland community patterns across the landscape.
The plan consists of: 1) acquisition of available wetland species, 2) implementation of proposed
' surface topography improvements, and 3) planting of selected species on-site. The COE
bottomland hardwood forest mitigation guidelines (DOA 1993) were utilized in developing this
plan.
r Species selected for planting will be dependent upon availability of local seedling sources.
Advanced notification to nurseries (1 year) may facilitate availability of various non-commercial
species. Planted species names by community are listed below.
Levee Forest
1. Black Willow (Salix nigra)
2. River Birch (Betula nigra)
3. American Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)
4. Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
5. Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana)
6. Possum-haw (Ilex deciduous)
7. American Elm (Ulmus americana)
' 8. Willow Oak (Quercus phellos)
9. Tulip Poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera)

37

m m m m m m ' ? r m m m m m= == s m
m r m m m m?! m m m m m m m m s s m

1 00.9606 N
I I

o °o 00

m

m m
x x v!
v x z
D - - - - -
T f,
2. .`,
r
CA
i
z z O to p
-+ 'j ;o
m z m
;o

Rr1
p C)
z
UI A C z z m m
)
• V J
m 0 -i m O O Z '
{{
? , Ji (
Z ?
r

000016 N

,. t

-
A

\
? y ' ?\
z .? L' ( J
\

-
Dm Om m m - •'
g0 00 m C •? - - ti
S,

my v m
, ?-
" ilk s N
p
a ?
. - o

-
N m cn % -
l" o
m ?f
m

1+ m
•
It I+ ? 4

-
------ -----

4
I
?.
? -_ _ 1 ?
.
clt, 1
i -_ ?
j

co co o0 co ao CO co co co W = m o0

Q to OD V 01 NP L4 N

`
`
,/?,
'
( ?
?
'
/ O) V V 0 V M ? V 01 V
O O w O w t0 O W O
i
G/
!
/
•,
. \ .\`
,
,?,
u
, /
;? p
p
r'
?, J
; C Z m
/ ? (P N
00 01 N M t V c0 ? (n
CO W CO

ti n
n o
o w m z0 m
= n?

OZO O
?. n
o G) 0 ? _= n
c
n 0?
m

Vp
<

o
°
A o
n o
Z=i _
n
7o
° ??D
m ?o
m N

m
m 3
Op
? D
N
0 z z g
o?m ? ?•?
w ,
° Wo
O o K Z
Dm Z CD
W y
D N
1
r

1

n

Bottomland Hardwood Forest
1. Tulip Poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera)
2. Cherrybark Oak (Quercus pagoda)
3. Sugarberry (Cells laevigata)
4. Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda)
3. Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana)
6. Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii)
7. Bitternut Hickory (Carya cordiformis)
8. Shagbark Hickory (Carya ovata)
9. Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
10 American Elm (Ulmus americana)
Piedmont Swamp Forest
1. American Elm (Ulmus americana)
2. Willow Oak (Quercus phellos)
3. Overcup Oak (Quercus lyrata)
4. Cherrybark Oak (Quercus pagoda)
5. Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxir)
6. Swamp Cottonwood (Populus heterophylla)
7. Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
8. Winged Elm (Ulmus alata)
9. Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana)
Tree establishment within swamp forest communities may be complicated by shallow inundation
in low-lying areas. The stems of planted seedlings must elevate the leaf area above the level of
inundation, ranging from 0.5 to 1.5 feet above the soil surface.
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest
1. Tulip Poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera)
2. Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum)
3 White Oak (Quercus alba)
3. Southern Red Oak (Quercus falcata)
4. American Beech (Fagus grandifolia)
5. Northern Red Oak (Quercus rubra)
6. Pignut Hickory (Carya glabra)
7. Mockernut Hickory (Carya tomentosa)
8. Black gum (Nyssa sylvatica)
9. Cherrybark Oak (Quercus pagoda)
10. Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana)
Table 3 depicts the total number of stems and species distribution for each plant community
association. Bare-root seedlings of tree species will be planted within specified areas at a
' density of 680 stems per acre (8-foot centers). In summary approximately 31,000 trees will be
planted within the approximately 45.6 acre restoration site.

40
1
I Table 3. Planting Plan Haw River Swamp Restoration Site

1

n
1
Vegetation
Association
(Planting area
Levee Forest Piedmont
Swamp Forest Bottomiand
Hardwood
Forest Mesic
Hardwood
Forest TOTAL STEMS
PLANTED
Stem Target
Area acres ac 680/ac
1.9 ac 680/ac
22.1 ac 680/ac
17.7 ac 680/ac
3.9 ac
45.6 ac
SPECIES # planted
(% total) # planted
(% total) # planted
(% total) # planted
(% total) # planted
(% total)
Black Willow 65(5) 65
River Birch 65(5) 65
American Sycamore 195(15) 195
Possum-haw 130(10) 130
Willow Oak 195(15) 2,250 (15) 2,445
American Elm 195(15) 1,500 (10) 600(5) 2,295
Green Ash 130(10) 750(5) 600(5) 1,480
Ironwood 130(10) 1,500 (10) 600(5) 135(5) 2,365
Tulip Poplar 195(15) 1,800 (15) 135(5) 2,130
Swamp Chestnut Oak 3,000 (20) 1,800 (15) 4,800
Cherrybark Oak 1,500 (10) 1,800 (15) 135(5) 3,435
Sugarberry 1,200 (10) 1,200
Loblolly Pine 1,200 (10) 1,200
Bitternut Hickory 1,200 (10) 1,200
Shagbark Hickory 1,200 (10) 1,200
Swamp Cottonwood 750(5) 750
Winged Elm 750(5) 750
Overcup Oak 3,000 (20) 3,000
Sugar Maple 270(10) 270
White Oak 405(15) 405
Southern Red Oak 405(15) 405
American Beech 270(10) 270
Northern Red Oak 270(10) 270
Mockernut Hickory 270(10) 270
Pi nut Hickory 270(10) 270
Black gum 135(5) 135
TOTAL 1,300 15,000 12,000 2,700 31,000
1: Some non-commercial elements may not be locally available at the time of planting.. The stem count
for unavailable species should be distributed among other target elements based on the percent (%)
distribution. One year of advance notice to forest nurseries will promote availability of some non-
commercial elements. However, reproductive failure in the nursery may occur.
2: Scientific names for each species, required for nursery inventory, are listed in Section 5.2 of the
mitigation plan.
1
1
41
r
1
r
U

r

1

1

Planting will be performed between December 1 and March 15 to allow plants to stabilize during
the dormant period and set root during the spring season. Opportunistic species, which typically
dominate early- to mid-successional forests, have been excluded from initial plantings on
interior floodplains. Opportunistic species such as sweetgum, red maple, loblolly pine, and
black willow may become established. However, to the degree that long-term species diversity
is not jeopardized, these species should be considered important components of steady-state
forest communities. Planted stems of black willow, ironwood, and possum haw will be placed
on ditch outlet plugs for stabilization purposes.
The planting plan is the blueprint for community restoration. The anticipated results stated in
the regulatory success criteria (Section 6.0) may reflect vegetative conditions achieved after
steady-state forests are established over many years. However, the natural progression
through early successional stages of floodplain forest development will prevail regardless of
human interventions over a 5-year monitoring period.
42

C?

r
1

n
6.0 MONITORING PLAN
The Monitoring Plan consists of a comparison between reference and restoration areas along
with evaluation of jurisdictional wetland criteria (DOA 1987). Monitoring will entail analysis of
two primary parameters: hydrology and vegetation. Monitoring of restoration efforts will be
performed for 5 years or until success criteria are fulfilled.
6.1 Hydrology
After hydrological modifications have been completed at the Site, continuously recording,
surficial monitoring wells will be installed in accordance with specifications in U.S. Corps of
Engineers', Installing Monitoring Wells/Piezometers in Wetlands (WRP Technical Note HY-IA-
3.1, August 1993). Monitoring wells will be set to a depth of approximately 24 inches below the
soil surface. Screened portions of each well will be surrounded by filter fabric, buried in a
screened well sand, and sealed with a bentonite cap to prevent siltation and surface flow
infiltration during floods. Recording devices will be placed above the projected flood elevation.
Wells may be stabilized from flood shear by attaching a reinforcing steel bar (re-bar).
Eight monitoring wells will be installed in wetland restoration areas to provide representative
coverage within each physiographic landscape area depicted in Figure 16. Two wells will also
be placed in reference areas in similar landscape positions to use as comparison with on-site
conditions. In addition, one monitoring well will be placed within the Haw River to provide
stream flow depths and record bankfull events and one well will be placed within the Site to
monitor ponding and inundation of surface water.
Hydrological sampling will be performed in restoration and reference areas during the growing
season (26 March to 6 November) at intervals necessary to satisfy the hydrology success
criteria within each physiographic landscape area (Figure 15).
6.2 Hydrology Success Criteria
Target hydrological characteristics have been evaluated using regulatory wetland hydrology
' criteria and reference wetland sites.
Regulatory Wetland Hydrology Criteria
The regulatory wetland hydrology criterion requires saturation (free water) within 1 foot of the
soil surface for 5 percent of the growing season under normal climatic conditions. In some
instances, the regulatory wetland hydroperiod may extend for between 5 and 12.5 percent of the
growing season.
Reference Wetland Sites
Two groundwater monitoring wells will be placed in the reference wetland areas. These wells
will provide reference hydroperiods for the primary and secondary floodplain (bottomland
hardwood and swamp forest) physiographic area.
1
43
m m m m m m ' m = m = m m = s m m m m

009606 N
rn
o LA

,- N f ,?, li__ (1,
?`?\\'?\\\\I\\/' ,`YN ;off,-!?;
. --ii'"G,i7 0: ?/ I _____
? I ,
\
z

,
,
',1,111
"

.- 7 7 71

ACCES ASEMEN''

r

? `
• f
?
1 1 ? 1

K C) --I< m m N M K
ox ;yom x x ? x D
zo Zm FA O?
V) C- A o ? g. ?
Z
W
m
N r ?- m
m m

( ?' ?
T.
?n a• n• 000016 N
?' i
a, v
Z to -i

M z z
O
F
m
..
O
o c .? ?. / ?'.: c? ?•
m A o -I m o O
m ?011
r- z

Z
m
3 I , I I1 b 3 ? ?? ? ?' ?i L" ??, io

'-Y•>??I

14

?:-
?' to
;s?? im• ?' ?\ -
? ?
?
? 'r
/ - r,
/ ? -
_
te

.. /;

" b
L
?, JI{ o

.

1 - ,

1

1
7 "
5

,\`'. 5.\\1? ',. ,\?F,`?\' 11 111 ?1'. i?A F%ii
`` \„ \ 1
?
j
.
1 !
''%'','•::' :.-
Now
i ..?,/
'
_ ?_-_ _ , \\?`
111 1 1\ II r''
?
\l\I II 1
?',

c
? H
X n
n n

o n
m
m
3
ZO m =
ao
n?
.. .. O ?Zc v)??n VAN o O
^
a C- cC-
?
Z m
Q ?O-I??
N?

O

A
m
z

'

M
C- °
'
p
ZO ??oo
mt+?y7o ?o
mD
z O
w cP?

°
N
z -? Z
?m
zZ
y0
p•n
L,, N K n o 50
D
A
co p

° 0
0

' + m z z
w n cn

1 Success Criteria
Target hydrologic characteristics include a minimum regulatory criteria or a comparison to
reference data in drought years (years in which reference is within 2 percent of or below the
regulatory wetland criteria).
Under normal climatic conditions, the hydrologic success criterion requires saturation (free
water) within one foot of the soil surface for a minimum of 5 percent of the growing season for
' the secondary floodplain and bottomland hardwood areas depicted in Figure 15. The primary
floodplain and Piedmont swamp forest quadrants must support saturation (free water) within
1 foot of the soil surface for a minimum of 12.5 percent of the growing season. This hydroperiod
translates to saturation for a minimum, 12-day (5 percent) to 28-day (12.5 percent) consecutive
period during the growing season, which extends from March 26 to November 6 (USDA 1977).
In atypical dry years, the hydroperiod must exceed 75 percent of the hydroperiod exhibited by
the reference wells located within the same physiographic landscape area. Reference well data
will be used to compare wetland hydroperiods between the restoration areas and relatively
' undisturbed reference wetlands. This data will supplement regulatory evaluation of success
criteria and also provide information that shall allow interpretation of mitigation success in years
not supporting "normal rainfall conditions."
6.3 Vegetation
Restoration monitoring procedures for vegetation are designed in accordance with EPA
guidelines presented in Mitigation Site Type (MIST) documentation (EPA 1990) and COE
Compensatory Hardwood Mitigation Guidelines (DOA 1993). The following presents a general
discussion of the monitoring program.
Vegetation will receive a visual evaluations during the periodic reading of monitoring wells to
ascertain the general conditions and degree of overtopping of planted elements by weeds.
Subsequently, quantitative sampling of vegetation will be performed once annually during the
fall (October / November) for 5 years or until vegetation success criteria are achieved.
' Sampling dates may be modified to accommodate river flood events and plot inundation, as
needed.
During quantitative vegetation sampling in early fall of the first year, approximately 15 sample
transects will be randomly placed (stratified) within the Site to equally represent the various
hydrologic regimes and plant communities. Each transect will be 300 feet in length and 8 feet in
' width (0.055 acre). Best professional judgment may be necessary to establish vegetative
monitoring plots upon completion of construction activities. In each sample plot, vegetation
parameters to be monitored include species composition and species density. Visual
' observations of the percent cover of shrub and herbaceous species will also be recorded but not
used for vegetative success criteria. Sample-plot distributions are expected to resemble
locations depicted in Figure 16.

45

1
6.4 Vegetative Success Criteria
Success criteria have been established to verify that the vegetation component supports
community elements necessary for floodplain forest development. Success criteria are
dependent upon the density and growth of characteristic forest species. Additional success
criteria are dependent upon density and growth of "Character Tree Species," which include
planted species, those listed by Schafale and Weakley (1990), and species identified in the
RFEs. All canopy tree species planted and identified in the reference forest will be utilized to
define "Character Tree Species" as termed in the success criteria.
An average density of 320 stems per acre of Character Tree Species must be surviving in the
first three monitoring years. Subsequently, 290 character tree stems per acre must be surviving
in year 4, and 260 character tree stems per acre must be surviving in year 5. Planted species
must represent a minimum of 30 percent of the required stem per acre total (96 stems/acre).
Each naturally recruited character species may represent up to 10 percent of the required stem
per acre total. In essence, seven naturally recruited character species may represent a
maximum of 70 percent of the required stem/acre total. Additional stems of naturally recruited
species above the 70 percent threshold are discarded from the statistical analysis. The
remaining 30 percent are not necessarily removed from the Site, but will be left as a reserve and
future seed source for species maintenance during mid-succession phases of forest
development.
During the first sample event, a visual survey will be performed in the reference wetlands to
identify all canopy tree species represented within target communities. These reference tree
species will be utilized to define "character tree species" as termed in the success criteria.
During quantitative vegetation sampling in early fall of the first year, approximately five sample
plots will be randomly placed (stratified) within the Site to equally represent the various
hydrologic regimes and plant communities. However, best professional judgment may be
' necessary to establish vegetative monitoring plots upon completion of construction activities. In
each sample plot, vegetation parameters to be monitored include species composition and
species density. Visual observations of the percent cover of shrub and herbaceous species will
also be recorded but not used for vegetative success criteria. Sample-plot distributions are
expected to resemble locations depicted in Figure 16.
In each plot, presence/absence of shrub and herbaceous species will be recorded. A wetland
data form (DOA 1987) will be completed to document the classification and description of
vegetation, soil, and hydrology.
6.5 Contingency
1 In the event that vegetation or hydrology success criteria are not fulfilled, a mechanism for
contingency will be implemented. If vegetation success criteria are not achieved based on
average density calculations from combined sample plot data, supplemental planting will be
1 performed with tree species approved by regulatory agencies. Supplemental planting will be
performed as needed until achievement of vegetation success criteria. No quantitative sampling
requirements are proposed for herb assemblages as part of the vegetation success criteria.
Development of floodplain forests over several decades will dictate the success in migration and
46

establishment of desired understory and groundcover populations. Visual estimates of the
percent cover of herbaceous species and photographic evidence will be reported for information
purposes.
For vegetation contingency, replanting and extended monitoring periods will be implemented if
community restoration does not fulfill minimum species density and distribution requirements.
' Hydrological contingency will require consultation with hydrologists, WRP, and regulatory
agencies if wetland hydrology restoration is not achieved. Wetland surface modification,
including construction of ephemeral pools, represents a likely mechanism to increase the
' floodplain area that supports jurisdictional wetlands. Recommendations for contingency to
establish wetland hydrology will be implemented and monitored until the Hydrology Success
Criteria are achieved.
' 6.6 Monitoring Report Submittal
An Annual Wetland Monitoring Report (AWMR) will be prepared at the end of each monitoring
I year (growing season). The AWMR will depict the sample plot and quadrant locations and
include photographs which illustrate Site conditions. Data compilations and analyses will be
presented as described in Sections 6.1 through 6.4 including graphic and tabular format, where
practicable. Raw data in paper or computer (EXCEL) file format will be prepared and submitted
as an appendix or attachment to the AWMR.

i

47

7.0 RESTORATION DESIGN UNITS
The riverine floodplain physiographic areas encompass approximately 42.8 acres (Figure 6).
Based on restoration analyses (Section 4.0), the area includes approximately 34.9 acres of
wetland restoration in prior converted cropland and 2.1 acres of wetland enhancement.
Figure 17 and depicts the area of riverine wetland restoration and enhancement (Le. bottomland
hardwood restoration). The remaining on-site acreage (10.6 acres) includes levees, streams
(open water), upland buffer, and groundwater slope restoration and preservation areas.
Restoration plans will re-introduce surface water flood hydrodynamics from a 52.7 square mile
watershed. The plan includes establishment of an array of riverine communities, including levee
forests, bottomland hardwood forests, and riverine swamp forests. Therefore, riverine
hydrodynamic and biogeochemical functions will be restored, including pollutant removal,
' organic carbon export, sediment retention, nutrient cycling, flood storage, and energy
dissipation. Physical wetland functions typically associated with water quality will be replaced
within the Cape Fear River basin.
Biological functions associated with the riverine system will also be restored or enhanced
including in-stream aquatic habitat, structural floodplain habitat, and interspersion and
connectivity between the restored stream, floodplain, and adjacent uplands.
I

48
m ? m m m m? m m m m m m m = m ! m m-

009606 N
o
?

-- ---------------

` T '
7
? I
?
iP??'? ? •lai?
;0;0 m; ;oc m m to m K K to
mC ZC my x x v x Z D _
YJ
m - - "' f
LA m x m V)
r N O v? m
1

z- ;o CO
0
°

• ? w
? ( n

000016 N
'
0
n n ?
Dm MM D
r- 0 8 ?, ? n
N
m f c N ;I < -1 Z Z
Om Zm Om O D ;o -1 °
Z? Z-n X -i m O

1'?
2' tr
o
O
r g m m g m e
z ;o m

S
= m Z Y

1+ 1+

i
01:5 .N?
00

- -
? -
-------- ---
N . R\R\

!'i j?
--__ •`, `
?:??'I\t?"„III IIII? ,r?`?I 'il /•, it/',
10
'/

n
° ti ? n
m
•c
•c
Z
n
le v m x Z
S 'A D ? O
..

o L

c) C-

0
_'1
Cmp
z r

?, cn0? M

Cl) o ?

z Cn
c
?I
m c)

?G)
y? ? ???
a

ao
° rn
i

m?

Z o

• l
"
z m yZ? S
0
o
?z <
p ?
I
O
w o
z
v

V) n
•'
61 0 m
2 z° Q o O (?
z z (D

' 8.0 REFERENCES
Brinson M., B. Swift, R. Plantico, and J. Barclay. 1981. Riparian Ecosystems: Their ecology
and status. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS 81/17.
' Brinson M.M., F.R. Hauer, L.C. Lee, W.L. Nutter, R.D. Smith, and D. Whigham. 1995.
Guidebook for Application of Hydrogeomorphic Assessments to Riverine Wetlands. U.S.
' Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
Brower, J.E., J.H. Zar, and C.N. von Ende. 1990. Field and Laboratory Methods for General
Ecology. William C. Brown Publishers, Debuque, IA.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual.
t Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS.
' Department of the Army (DOA). 1993 (unpubplished). Corps of Engineers Wilmington District.
Compensatory Hardwood Mitigation Guidelines 912/8/93).
t East Satellite Corporation (EASC). 1997. Comprehensive land cover mapping for the State of
North Carolina. Final Report. Rockville, MD.
' Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1990. Mitigation Site Clasification (MIST). A
Methodology to Classify Pre-Project Mitigation Sites and Develop Performance
Standards for Construction and Restoration of Forested Wetlands. USEPA Workshop,
August 13-15, 1989. USEPA Region IV and Hardwood Research Cooperative, North
Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
' Griffith, G.E. and J.M. Omernik, 2000. Draft Level III and IV of North Carolina. U.S. Geological
Survey Map and Description, Reston, VA. Scale 1:250,000.
' Griffith, G.E., Omernick, J.M., Comstock, J.A., Schafale, M.P., McNab, W.H., Lenat, D.R.,
MacPherson, T.F., Glover, J.B., and Shelburne, U.B. 2002. Ecoregions of North
Carolina and South Carolina (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables,
and photographs): Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,500,000).
' Keller, M.E., C.S. Chandler, and J.S. Hatfield. 1993. Avian Communities in Riparian Forests of
Different Widths in Maryland and Delaware. Wetlands 13(2):137-144, Special Issue,
' June 1993. The Society of Wetland Scientists.
Rosgen, D.L., 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena, 22, 169-199.
1 Schafale, M. P., A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation, NC Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, NC DEM, Raleigh NC.
50

n

1

1

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1977. Soil Survey of Guilford County, North Carolina.
United States Department of Agriculture.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1992. Soil Survey of Rockingham County, North
Carolina. United States Department of Agriculture.
51
t
1

9.0 APPENDICES

r?

1

1
I

1

E
52

D

1
1

fl

1

1

1

APPENDIX A
RFP response #16-AW3001 easement boundary

M M M M M M ! M. M M' M M M A! M M M
ti
,dOC e . [ 37YJ5 OIHdYNO
006 009 OOL 0 MI Oor 3NO15
ONMX3
VNIIONYO H1NON ALNn00 NVHONIAOOB dMSNM01 -IAN0S JMIS
001)¢dPsuo) 8 von¢[O)Sda I MI '9d 'OLa '8'0
xa3LSY3HLtas .
saullosay ?¢Ln)6K I 'a,
(31/S s3Alb MYH) I a3NUM ON003a
3TI `swassks
NoILL'vuoLLs2[2I i L9L1 'Dd
M and I 01a 'wo
a3NaOD
.? V ? Daoa3a?
Ia
91IZ "ad Z91L 'e'0 WIG' SLLL A 4111 l3'a
30tLt
'Y 30N3333M A MM MHONNOOa If MEE AM nW 9 'amxDr70a
1 LgL '9d moo; 'am IdM 'ad 'IOD '8'a a3N
37N3a3fla AINrw OaOLNr19 I 37N393[3a AINIIW OaOillll9
017 'gA2:?z3 NOLLV)IOS388 I 014 'cwv7csc NOLLYEOLM
. .i HNltl MVH
ZOE 'Od L SE 'we .4ccet
NOSaBVH01)1 M,DY.19L1S5 OYOII HONG
, ,19'Lil DMIS03
B3LdfN NV9N .OS LW96I
OWN M,ZZ.L9AON t'..
. ,;' .,az•,?
ME "Od Z HIM a3M Na MVH M.1a,90
3JN3t Td *OD NYHo IgN01J0a s
ONN M,Bt.S? a
6Mt 'Od .;il `. .
609 'W65 E'0 .,99'l1C','.
30N3a3d3C AIN1100 Oaadllfw ONy Y`6C.50196 _ - "- .' .' . \?ro ., 'S ?\,.?d G
NOSaamrd NOS1L46.L
? LL'S6L Ni J . fFSL:..e -.
S ?t?._••
S3aOV ZL
tOOCOMV /'OW 03 NOA fil^'- Mp A( fir, !
3 wwv NOLLVaO[SM dam n) /. `SdI F'
fsp tod:R.
J. \ •rf 'Iris.:
\(tLddO) 1NR! ?`.??Shc; Shc
/ 'x30 338 . $ ; .3d1'
14Z9-ta-OP l96L Nd ON
n \? # >j•`3a 1512 •9d 'C66 wo
3MN
9ZLL-lt-£0'lL6L Nd ON 6Y38QNY
6" Jd 9901.
80 .'?•:: ^• - •fl%? ?, n• ,-,1 ,tiy. a`:, ?' y 19 Md '1C 'B'd
BOOM
S WLL
JI[l(iM MOLDPA3S160
VIII ]ts > ONr1
SN3MS NOIIYW[SIB

swy-tL-w'lceL ue 0" , \

Lau 'ad 'ao6 as 1n NYRNadla ,os
L®NeDOL q

•

LISM 1
HIM VMHLS
ONLLSOO
.
ms-zL-taLCCC we aL N \
fiLlo ? \
1N3N3$S?]OV
-
-- dl3 AC M3N

L
'Dd
900I
aazImODL ?
SLI
H'O
Om 'Snum

1L9y-cL-so'L<u Nd as yQQ
Lay 'ad '99a 9'q m
U9<1i6OOd .
-n-to'Ltet xd aN
uzs
40
nL
SgI:B 3.00,92A05
d13 `
-- ,Ll'69L
-
N
L
a
SatLKt-
V?
•L
V
d0
Sam \
.q P ?4p3 - sL'e E???.\\\'?
i+u+eO a•l?•M?n a•N OLa ?
apn ArwJ 3
AS1ubY )paau6ouPM
:(nLOfic 3 lu P J - YMQf y -o?? .
%od gann do
n
buw e -
sn9NN/ - s
AaMy&J[ - .U11I
paoN .Gapaopas o
pan A n -v--o _ "o
o
a% Nadm 1 w
ywuWadaO owapJ yny _LOVON
a6od _ 9d
9roo8 PooO - '9'a
W
?
o
d MN
_
/ 6u a
aLMS P
.Y7 SNL3
uawnuo
a
an
bu 6
)
uo0
r
l7
l
U
lw - A173
sdi \

\
p•s e N Xd - SXd
e•N Xd ?n .? - Xd3
lwwnwN N•4D - {/0
AI/s yaanuo0 bw/q+3 _ ?j?
•W! m .Yry9 _ N
o g
\OYIN
)u-Ad Wwn •bp3
aarl 6 prw Z-7 - mrr ,19Ut
t
M09-
v - 7 e .
\`d
=4
An
- fi
l
,*o fin4-J u

Iuounwp0 P
- Oraaw
u
\
-)- uq
y uqp - Ol
/•ub 6
9 wuown
Als uory 4gCA3 dI3
- dl3
aYOtS uw7 Bu9s!.p - g3

? \
y$ b
vNem
317u sNL IY a3A3taNs
IM 3t/r ONV A'Ix0 17uvwwwO 3a L' s3Nn M/ (9
All" bW MAILS JON A[r (DNn1/9l0 51HL
No a3799Y7 SV) SAM OL1L[g9 KKWdaS M (L) 3)a !L
AMW rM M1XJOM M 03[97 XVL 9
Afs3dMd SM 7BOM OO ANADYIYO'O9 OM aMOJ 9
N3MLL39 3M7 AMM 3H1 w a w MVH 3HL (9
YLroaiL 5L-?L H?aHI) ./319HS a73L4
NtY10a'O 3H1 JNIU1001 HOLM Alus SY
3,rN0oaddY 3sv SNO![IOaI JwAO aw NY IYtltlls rn (9
Walla
SOU MOMS LAN W SdM aM Odat GUMOHN3N
3 aav 3x1 %Mti l Y/ 7AOZ UUM NVMNH.W
,OS DAMN W MW b9O S*aW 19 9d,W 4'd (Y
sm 840639
L9-6LOOF ml K90a0 adw
OWYZ:! ON "20 do a3WW 93drd
S'L S3Mw am
fee[ 304 *Mw
amo !dal
ON 3aNYa9 3XY7
SM NOOAH9
LO-6ZW 7H 6 OW OVW
OOOYN::/ OINdYMJa101 Gum= aGwd
.S 'L s3Mw am
168, 3LVa ?
am Odal
ON AMOr/39
A/XNATIpd 3H! NON! N3XY1 NWLYNWYM SNvwwd (f
3L OOOL NNJ[M VMSOJ 7rLWMW ON (L
-83M 03434&7S
SPIL lA3LfV AYN 1NL{ ONO1 JO SNLNNOaa N3{a0
JAJ3 AYI'I 3s3H! 530W3Y33V3LS 335) AOS3H 0310N
3sY mM37n3s Os07gs 30 SIN311A0W 37Y 'sOl39M175
3i0 OL 03NANdrl4 3s1/1 HOON3S 3'!,/! 30 S1W53s
LION !N3/a1MMW 3711! sM/ 3LI! lAYSi59r ON ]LON !l
SiWNlYN1NYJ
MISI'J3a AN'gW /INI:ANPAx
,a dO
X5 s39NnNf9LA'AdYS!'M!a4N'd OBBOd M 07
L9d1
Y ON
UMMMUM"w
As[5e13s ALAA03
MHONDIOOS 3HL..O 9J[Z `W $9[J '94
M a30soa3s .U93dow 3N[ 30 77V ONO9
AMSFM A[Nl1W FWHSW"
3M[ 30 1SYZ •Jd 'f66 9'O M MaMa7s
XS M39N/IN L2M aV NOSSGd V OA'L7B
Asf923U A[N/Ia7
3N! NI NGUNDS30
f0 ( VN Jd Z9[ 3) L 909'94[ ' 3p
M ¢aaAdOSd 3H[ dV b'91S[1 774
v a)MO03a OH AM9 A[t/3
3a rn 9N139
N? ®O
tea. t? ;yo'..
i ?Y6tS-l?J' -
1V3S a c
3v01ae - 6,. o-?
.\ \? 161i-1 loFaunS Y,hn L."??,
dY(VLS NO lV3S
a+
\ •@ 'CWL 'OY•?IwLI?W Avp -w•!y
V twc v •rgwnu uogogc!6al rom)PL3tc IPw6uP Fw oc•uYM yapuawv m Of-LY 'S•O 41!M
a a oplowP w P.."', aor yqd c!y Wn :;7N-.5.d •-Mr%-8 W vwo/ uM-, !
W P-NOIA •au!1 ualap m uMWC aro pvTaw.nc you cayopunaq o41 ya41 '?O6'OC/1
300W9 a -y,odw WP cplgaq Fq payopppa c0 ugcpoM Lo ogol ay yoy :(layo) (?la
Shc "g33Se6od '-335`Yaae ul WPa uu? dpacaP paw) (w.s ,dna Aw opun apow A-
_'i' ?.Zy `? laryao uo) wW uoloLnMnc Fw npun p cow Lald sly yaVy F/p+w "?-?I
\' 'Ey P/WPgnu o [a ugauu,p
o1R oy uogdoap uayye lP •Fawnc palOp,eea o Ypo»d thpgw )o ugyoolgwoaou
ts. ay w 4w• •(ywwaav3 w•goAU•YO0) . rox loyouo t° c! A " I.%; AAgm I
pyo PUMA Mopq ao Ynoga aalyoal 1a4io Aw to q 'uMOye amy uoy
' PUOnoM •eaualauma Auo vlaao) N apow aoM ydw.aly° n, .--I n 'calf- loxalow
53aOV l0'i anoP -4 ory fowl%p%p afoFwuns
1N377 M NOILVAa3SNO3
Vf 1101 f10A1AlIK
N lc;s vwNn fw
SN31e1S NOOVBDIS311

AB
ll
1000
? lOYa
gJ
W
, 3s
iX)d 30V3tA M
NOLLVSO l.1S dtNt 1V101
Y
a31r ,.M A9 sallov ZZ - (LN3NLSY3
30N3i -'
° -- -- ZOO, X M3N 3H1 oNXLn7aM) 1N3M3SV3
NOLLVA
3SMM
I
YdRw tooNn aNVI
SM3LSlS NOOYMLM JO 3OV3MV 1V101 `
19 'Od 'K 'B'd
9 13Yal Y1V0.7Y _
ISO" NU31,SVaRM
a31aOD aaoalu
IZSZ-Z6-OO't96L Nd ON $?
arn'LYr YX
d/M
31%V
ONLLSIX3-
1C6Y-CB-00'L96L NW ON
19Z 369 VA
REMAL
fiD/9-10-CO'LLac Hid ON
OLZ •Od 'COOL '90
SLAM
(2l
3NT 031V0 4Y S)310Z 6 SSOO LLWLC OHY 1801
?
'S, AYN L03LYa Y x6
3N<Q a 1X28 aseo[c (5)N3aN1w
dYN YlCiy 111 9NNL000V AWONnOB atlYLYH 0001!
Y NI 03LYOOy SI lYld 5aLL A0 mLPa53tld3tl V3W SIHL
1

1
1
n
11

t

1
1

1

APPENDIX B
Site Photographs
1
Groundwater slope north of canal facing east (early Spring 2003).
The Haw River, moving east through the Site during high flow (early Spring 2003).
Field south of the Haw River, facing northeast (early Spring 2003).
I Field located between the Haw River and the canal, facing east (early Spring 2003).

I

t

N

1

r
I
s
i
t

Photograph taken from bridge over the canal, facing east (early Spring 2003).
Photograph taken near Benchmark 7 (BM7) facing southwest (early Spring 2003).

?? -Xt-.sy ...n y.,yj[.s._ .e a = it 3't - : .aY. _ 7.1? {`
41
`t'a
Photograph taken from Benchmark 10 (BM10) looking north.

Photograph taken from Benchmark 10 (BM10) looking west.
Photograph taken from Benchmark 2 (BM2) looking southeast.
I Photograph taken from Benchmark 2 (BM2) looking southeast.
II
I Photograph taken from Benchmark 4 (BM4) looking northeast.

Photograph taken from Benchmark 4 (BM4) looking west.
y Y
?• .. may. ? .
Photograph taken from Benchmark 5 (BM5) looking west.
Photograph taken from Benchmark 5 (BM5) looking northeast.
Photograph taken from Benchmark 6 (BM6) looking southwest.
t ti
. t
1 i [
! ? 1 l ! Lily ',
l.Cti ?t. + F ! c !i.: l rY r7 `. .;?riy?'??'-r+?'•77 ?. ???: ? ?5 ?y,r?, _..?Y
;.-a 1 .Y ,i- n M ^ 3•. F,.. Ij .?' ?!'. fA ?,a'«wi ?? ..,.,. x`?t
'?`" - -- ° '" -:?, •. v fry ?:_ }:? .., ;? ,.?,??3;J ?i ,
Photograph taken from Benchmark 6 (BM6) looking northeast.

11

II?
yp
t
r- 3,t: r
t4 i;jr.?r i • i t.'4?. ,, ;r t. -!r i . u ,r q +? ?,? l 1. ? ? ?{?s F? 9:? :a,.?i J I 42 ?,?t1 1'??
Photograph taken from Benchmark 7 (BM7) looking south.

1
I

I Photograph taken from Benchmark 7 (BM7) looking east.
f

xatr.-r+,..?rs7!?JP.R"s-1?i?'?
i
7
.,r . 1? t • it t t- - i a r- T 1 'r141 S j +t.3 J ,S
•? F ? ii rs f`.:?J^?PA•t?y4?? ey j ?yl ? ?'i r ! ' f ?` ?? -r
?'a ?.•y ?'„ ,} il, b t?tlrN..L rte'. ?.?. _a ,.r...? j `??*?1t?,? t Y`' 1Q?
.<_.o v -? ? r .. tf ? a ? s j ' v 1 sr+.-+ii y.?"?..f' .. j,..:. }. :?• r?'? l ? f . ali , r 9".
Photograph taken from Benchmark 8 (BM8) looking south.

•
h ? nr 5
t?

1

g r ri

Photograph taken from Benchmark 9 (BM9) looking south-southwest.

1
t
a
t
t

t

t

APPENDIX C
HAW RIVER CROSS-SECTIONS
f
0
0
L
L.iT?
or
V
O
r_
O
V
N
C/)
U)
U)
O
V
4mi
U)
L

r-
o
0
0

o
O
? I
O

0 j
00
0
0

0
0 70
cfl O
_
CD co
LO
U:
0
0

0
0
(Y
i
O
O {
N
O ?
O
1

O i
O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
d' N O w (D It N O w

f? f? I? Cfl (fl Cfl Cfl CO CO
UOIIBAal:l

O
ML
W
Q?
L
3
O
0
4-
O
c
O
N
N
N
O
L
U

O
N

O
Ir-

O
O

O
d7

00 0
C
C
O
O
l
O ? '
m

?
o I

o ?

o
N
O

o
O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 j
00 Cfl d' N O w Cfl N
O O O O O m m O O
t? f? f? f` f? 0 Cfl O 0
UOIIBA013
O
L?
ML
W
t?
U
W
L
tJ?
O
4-
O
O
V
O
L
V
LO
(D
O
(D
LO
Ltd
O
LO
LO

O O
i
LO c iN
M p ?

O
A

LO
U
N
O
N
L(7

O
r-
Ln
O
O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O
co (D d' N O co CO NI" N
O O O O O O d) O O
I? I? I? I- I? (D (D (D CD
UOIIBA013
ca
t?
V
y-
O
r.
O
V
Cl)
N
O
L.
U
O
V
Cl)
O O O O O O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7- O rn 0o r? 6 LO 4 M N
O O O O m m O O m m
f` I? 0 CO (D (D (D CO 0 (D
O O
Ir-
LO
rn
O
O
LO
00
O
00
L
r
O
LO
O
O
L-O
LO
O
LO
LO
M
O
I
N
O
N
LO
T-
O
T-
LO
O
0
ca
c?
IU
I?' 1
uOljBAel3
L
C.3
O
O
._
+1
V
O
O
L
U
L
00
O
00
rll-
O
LO
CD
O
CD
LO
O
LO

LO
_
O _
m
co
C:) U
?
(l1 l
T
I'? ?

M
O
N
O
N
T
O
LO
O

O
O
O
O
O
O I
O
O O O O O O O
o? oo ? cfl L (Y)
rn ? rn rn rn rn rn
cD cD cD cD cD (D CD
uOIena1:1
c
ca
U
4-
0
O
V
di
CO
N
O
L.
V
O
LL
O
O
CD
rn
(C)
O
LO
M
rn
(D
O O
O LO
M ?
d7 O
CC) (C)
UO11
O O O O
O LO O LO
f` CC) CC) LO
O d7 O m
CC) CC) CC) CC)
.BA013
O
O O
O
O
rn
M
O
co
LO
ti
O
ti
LO
O
O
cfl
O
O
d-
LO
co
O
M
N
O
N
LO
Ir-
O
T-
O
o
+ it
Cl)
O
ca
cc
0
43
O
O
*NJ
C,
C/)
N
O
L
4-
LL
O
Lr)
00
O
00
L

O

LO
cfl
O
O
LO
LO
O m
LO o
- ca
U

CD a..r 1
U)

O

LO
N
O
N
LO
T-
O

LO
O
O O O O O O O O
L-0 O LO O LO O LO O
co co IN- I-, (D (D LO LO
O O O O O O O O
(D CO (D (D (D (D CO CO
u O IJEA01 =1
O
00
N-
0
0
cB
U)
0
N
U
N
X
i
O
? I
0
N
O
O
O
co
O
O
I
O
O '
N I

O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O
N ?- O O 06 ti o LO
O O O O O 07 O d7 O
ti ti N O O O O O O
O
cD
r
O
?r
r I
M
U)
I)
(Y)
U
N
C)
X
O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O
r O O 00 CD Lf? d C)
O O O O 07 O O O O
I? I` (D CD CD CD CD CD CD
O
N
r
i
i
I
O
O
r
O
00
O
O
I
I
O
I
O
N
1 O
O
O
N
O
O

ff t pE E

?' c E
E € E
i
13
i . i.
4
€ ` I:E
4
pp {
t
! i
° I
O
f i

a

7

E le
x t
jggqq? ? E € t : ttp ?_ t ? 4
( N
33
13 3 ?'
€'
? ? i
f r
I O
i - O

f
E
? 4 E

V J fE € f 00
3 . t _E

I

j _ < E E \3J
j ]]
7 44 E t

I E
7 E c E I
3 i
c
j ? ? € 4EE i

I
? - F' E € II
O
€ N
3 i E_ 4 E
ptE II
?-- E:
E E
E

i E
E

II

a' j t O

O O O O O O O O O O O O
LIB O U') O U') O LO O U') O LO O
O O O O o0 00 I` ti O (.0
O 0 0) O O O O
) O O ?
O O O
r- ? P1 O O (D ^
CO ^
' LO (D ^
W ^
' CO (D
Riffle Haw River
706
704
r 702
c
.? 700
a?
w 698
696
694 ?.
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
bank full {top of
699.38 ---
Riffle
Haw River
description:>
e c-t n,strument (tt): 704.58
?s
35
5.27
699.31
9 56 4.38 700.2
` 65 3.47 701.11
69 8.99 695.59
>- 74 9.99 694.59
=! 81 9.50 695.08
i ? ! 89 9.43 695.15
94 9.55 695.03
97 7
70 696.88
.
( nj 99 7.10 697.48
tom- 103 3.84 700.74
'rte 106 3.57 701.01
110 4.44 700.14
130 4.64 699.94
ft ? "-tom 163 4.92 699.66
140 160 180

dirnersions
133.9 x-section area 3.7 d mean
35.1 width 38.4 wet F
4.8 d max 3.4 h yd radi
0.0 bank ht 9.4 w/d ratio
0.0 W flood prone area 0.0 ent ratio

Riffle Haw River
706 ?-
---------------- ---------- --------
--------- ----- -------------------
704 -- - - --- -
----------- ---------
------ ------- ----- -------- ------ ------ --------
..
702 _ ----------------------------------------
I
- ._.
700 ?-------- --
° -- -
698 t----- - ------ - -----
--------------- --- -----------------------
-
w -
696 r .. -------------
------- --
- - -- - - - -- - - - - - -
694
692 - ;..
0 20 40 60 80 100
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
Riffle
Haw River
:a; ?tt? ci?xauwo!, tisa;nruu; ,v}
?+*r±e?n+? / /
699.16
699.57 69? -
h 700.04
y , ka ..1 699.49 mensians
? f r!
'it ;ft f j
696.81
134.5
x-.c
694.48 37.9 wi+
694.51 5.0 Tr
695.19 0.0 ba
t < , 710011 695.89 0.0 W
699.32
s ,.
-- 699.28 Vtof €iics
r.:
-
700.01
3.7
ve
699.18 494.5 tli:
` 699.23 0.28 sh
0.38 sh
' ;ij 1.140 Lin
7 '7
WIN

0.12

Frl
9.6 frii
15.4 thr
120 140 160

3.5 d mean
41.7 wet 'P
3.2 h yd radi
10.7 w/d ratio
0.0 ent ratio
Riffle Haw River
704
703
702
.. 70'. _ - -
0 70J
699
w 693
697 -_- : - ------------------
696 - ------
695
0 20
699.41
699.74
699.86
699.48
695.47
695.8
696.02
696.04
699.93
699.11
698.25
40 60 80 100
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
Haw River
W®fm?iB?BA?OV?iilJi'uGL'u1?14;4'; f;5??} ???
699.39 --
120
140 160

27.8 width 33.5 wet P
3.9 d max 2.9 h yd radi
0.0 bank ht 8.1 w/d ratio
0.0 W:flood prone area - 0.0 ent ratio

hydraua ic s -
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.00
0.0
8:-9
APPENDIX D
I HEC-RAS REPORT FOR EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS

u
t

t
s
e
183.8820

LL
O
cI
O
0
LO
0
OI
O
0
0
N
O
O'
O

866 - ---..y

II

N

o

w

L

N
l .
N

C

0
0

t
t

d
y M r- O O O M (D I- (D U) N O r
l

0 "t U) (D O N 00 OD CD O r N co C
) U)

0 M M M M M M M M M U7 (O m (6 (D
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

? a
o
0 ?
C
M
CO
M
O
II-
U)
CO
CO
CO
U)
N
O
r
O
U) O ? 00 O) O O r r N M co Ln
y M M M M M M M fit co U) (D (D (D (D
X O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
L11 r I- I` I`
.a
d
y U) O N m r M N I%- 0 Ln r N co
!- co m m r r N co r O co m m ?-

CZ N N N N M M C7 M M U) U) U) U) (D
L
tC O O O
` O O O O O
` O O O O O O

a>
d I? t r t` t r r ti t`

0
Lo
r
U)
O
CD
M
M
N
CD
(T
00
(C')
M
I-
I? O) O) r N M M 't N O 00 O O) r
V) N N N M N M M M M Lri U) U) 6 CD
.X O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
LLI I? r ti r ti r- ti I` r- I- I` r r

y M I- O r- r O c} I-t N r I? O (D LO

C r N M M U) CD O 00 ? (P Cl? U) U) CO

a N N N N N N N N N M ?Y "It
L O O O o 0 0 o O O O O O O O
a
N Cl) Co N U) CA co co d' N co N O
r N M U) CD I? ti CA 00 U) M 'cr U) 00
N N N N N N N N N N Cl) 't I?t v v
X O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
W
ic

y O M Il- It 'T ti 0) N O) (.D U) N N ?
N d ?t U) I-- 00 co N r I- M Ln co 0)

o' r r r r r r r N N N M M M M
C O O O O O O
` O O O O
` O
` O O
` O

d)

a r t ti r t t r r-
O U) r M O M r- O (D U) M M N
N d U) Il- CT O O M M I? M U) O O
w
y r r r r r N N N N N M M M 4
'X O O O O O O O O (D O O O O O
W r r- t` r ti r ti r r r

y U) 0 U) (D It O 0 ? ti r (D O ti U)
CD co 00 O (D 00 O qct (D r- 0) r

Q 6
(1)
(A
O
O
O
O
r
r
r
r
N
N
L Q) O O m O O O O O O O O O O
O co (D co I- I` I` I` r ? ? r- I` I`
? a
N U) N O M I- OD r U) co r U) 0) 00
O OD CA M (D OD 0) '?t (D h O) r U)
N (? fT O O O O r r r ?- r N N
X M (3) O O O O O O O O O O O O
W O CD (D I? ti r r r
m
W
CA N O O
- U) (D O U) (0 O 00 (f ) [?

O M LO LO U
) O r Oo 00 co CO co O N M
00 O O O O O O O O O O r r r
L 0 O O) rn rn O O O) O O O O O O O
m 6- (D CD C.0 (D I-- I- CD r- ? ti ? ? ? r`
4 a
r M m U) M r CO co U) Imo- I? CA m O
M U) U) CD O N O O) O) O) O) O N U)
y 00 O CO O O O O O O O O r r r
X O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
W O CD O (D r- r- ti ti ti I` I` I` r- r-
Oy O) O) LA O) M Ci r r Ql M LO 00
M ti M r M o e} N 00 N T-
c
co
r
m O
O CD Q) M Ca OC) o r M M LO r- N r
r r r N 04 N N N N M
0
0
O
U
N
U
a?
U
O
W

APPENDIX E
NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM ELEMENTS
r
r
I? I
Ili
10000 0 10000 20000 Feet
Watershed Boundary
NHP Observations
AMBYSTOMA TALPOIDEUM (Mole salamander)
ETHEOSTOMA COLLIS POP 2 (Carolina darter)
HALIAEETUS LEUCOCEPHALUS (Bald eagle)
• LOW ELEVATION SEEP
PIEDMONT/LOW MOUNTAIN ALLUVIAL FOREST
PIEDMONT/MOUNTAIN SWAMP FOREST
Hydrology
Land Use for 2002 (%)
Cultivated
Developed
_; Forest
Open Water
j Shrubland
Unconsolidated Sediment 'V
,HP 66ERVATlIONIS

S
E
EcoScience Corporation
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27604