Annual report for... New Light Creek mitigation site, Wake County, project no. 8.U401721, TIP no. R-2000 WM |
Previous | 1 of 4 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
This page
All
|
ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2003 New Light Creek Mitigation Site Wake County Project No. 8.U401721 TIP No. R-2000 WM Prepared By: Office of Natural Environment & Roadside Environmental Unit North Carolina Department of Transportation December 2003TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY..................................................................................................................1 1.0 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................2 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION...................................................................2 1.2 PURPOSE............................................................................................2 1.3 PROJECT HISTORY............................................................................4 1.4 DEBIT LEDGER...................................................................................4 2.0 HYDROLOGY..................................................................................................5 2.1 SUCCESS CRITERIA..........................................................................5 2.2 HYDROLOGIC DESCRIPTION............................................................5 2.3 RESULTS OF HYDROLOGIC MONITORING......................................7 2.3.1 Site Data...................................................................................7 2.3.2 Climatic Data..........................................................................11 2.4 CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................11 3.0 VEGETATION: NEW LIGHT CREEK MITIGATION SITE............................13 3.1 SUCCESS CRITERIA........................................................................13 3.2 DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES............................................................13 3.3 RESULTS OF VEGETATION MONITORING.....................................14 3.4 CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................14 4.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS...........................................................................15 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Site Location Map......................................................................................3 Figure 2. Monitoring Gauge Location Map................................................................6 Figure 3. Monitoring Gauge Hydrologic Results......................................................10 Figure 4. New Light Creek 30-70 Percentile Graph, Raleigh, NC...........................12 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. New Light Creek Hydrologic Monitoring Results........................................8 Table 2. Hydrologic Monitoring Results (1999- 2002)..............................................9 Table 3. Vegetation Monitoring Statistics...............................................................14 APPENDICES APPENDIX A GAUGE DATA GRAPHS APPENDIX B SITE PHOTOS & VEGETATION PLOT LOCATIONS APPENDIX C EXCERPT FROM 1998 MITIGATION PLAN APPENDIX D WETLAND DELINEATION SUMMARY The following report summarizes the monitoring activities that have occurred in the past year at the New Light Creek Mitigation Site. This site was originally constructed in 1998. Monitoring activities in 2003 represent the fifth year of monitoring for the site. The site must demonstrate both hydrologic and vegetation success for a minimum of five years or until the site is deemed successful. In 2002, four additional monitoring gauges were installed, based on agency comments and review. Currently, the site hydrology is monitored with ten groundwater gauges and an onsite rain gauge. This report utilizes rainfall data from both a local weather station and from an onsite rain gauge. The NC State Climate Office provided the historical data for the Raleigh/Durham weather station. For the 2003-year, hydrologic monitoring indicated that four of the ten monitoring gauges (GW-1, GW-2, GW-3, and GW-5) met the optimum saturation (within 12” of the surface for more than 12.5% of the growing season). There were four vegetation plots established to monitor the 13.2 acres planted in trees on the site. The fifth year of monitoring revealed an average density of 548 trees per acre, which is well above the minimum required by the success criteria. A wetland delineation was performed in December 2003 to determine the extent of restored wetlands on the New Light Creek Mitigation Site. The delineation was conducted by the continual sampling of hydric and non-hydric soils until the edges of the wetland units were identified. Previous years hydrology data was used to refine the delineation. Mictrotopography, landscape position, soil textural changes, redoximorphic features, and the presence of a depleted matrix were also considered to determine the extent of hydric soils in transitioning areas. Wetland data sheets and soil profile descriptions (Appendix D) were prepared to support the differentiation between wetland and non-wetland areas. Representatives from NCDOT-ONE met onsite with a representative from the USACOE to get jurisdictional concurrence of the delineated boundary in December 2003. Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) technology was used to survey the flagged boundaries. A boundary map was prepared and is included herein (Appendix D). The 2003-year represents the fifth year that the site has been monitored for hydrology and vegetation. A wetland delineation was conducted in December 2003 to determine the extent of restored wetlands. Following concurrence of the delineated boundary, a total of 6.83 acres of wetlands were mapped on the New Light Creek Mitigation Site. NCDOT has approached the EEP (Ecosystem Enhancement Program) about accepting the 5.44-acre deficit from the New Light Creek Mitigation Site. The resource agencies will be contacted as soon as more information is available. With this determination, NCDOT proposes to discontinue monitoring activities on this site. 1 2 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The New Light Creek Mitigation Site is located east of Mangum Dairy Road (SR 1911) adjacent to New Light Creek in Wake County, near the Granville County Line (Figure 1). This site was constructed to provide mitigation for wetland impacts associated with the Raleigh Outer Loop (R-2000). The site, which totals 19.8 acres in size, consists of bottomland hardwood forest restoration and creation. The site was constructed in 1998 and planted in 1999. 1.2 PURPOSE In order to demonstrate successful mitigation, hydrologic and vegetative monitoring must be conducted for a minimum of five consecutive years or until the site is deemed successful. Success criteria are based on federal guidelines for wetland mitigation. These guidelines stipulate criteria for both hydrologic conditions and vegetation survival. The following report details the results of hydrologic and vegetative monitoring during the 2003 growing season at the New Light Creek Mitigation Site. Activities in 2003 reflect the fifth year of monitoring following the restoration efforts. Included in this report are analyses of both hydrologic and vegetative monitoring results, as well as local climate conditions throughout the growing season and site photographs. Figure 1. Site Location Map 3 1.3 PROJECT HISTORY October 1998 Site Grading Commenced February 1999 Site Planted March 1999 Monitoring Gauges Installed March- November 1999 Hydrologic Monitoring (1 yr.) September 1999 Vegetation Monitoring (1 yr.) March- November 2000 Hydrologic Monitoring (2 yr.) November 2000 Vegetation Monitoring (2 yr.) March- November 2001 Hydrologic Monitoring (3 yr.) July 2001 Vegetation Monitoring (3 yr.) March 2002 Supplemental Planting of Streambank Levee March- November 2002Hydrologic Monitoring (4 yr.) June 2002 Vegetation Monitoring (4 yr.) March- November 2003 Hydrologic Monitoring (5 yr.) June 2003 Vegetation Monitoring (5 yr.) December 2003 Wetland Delineation 1.4 DEBIT LEDGER The entire New Light Creek Mitigation Site was used for projects R-2000EA and R-2000EB to compensate for unavoidable wetland impacts. 4 2.0 HYDROLOGY 2.1 SUCCESS CRITERIA In accordance with federal guidelines for wetland mitigation, the success criteria for hydrology state that the area must be inundated or saturated (within 12” of the surface) by surface or groundwater for at least a consecutive 12.5% of the growing season. Areas inundated for less than 5% of the growing season are always classified as non-wetlands. Areas inundated between 5% - 12.5% of the growing season can be classified as wetlands depending upon factors such as the presence of wetland vegetation and hydric soils. The growing season in Wake County begins March 26 and ends November 10. These dates correspond to a 50% probability that temperatures will drop to 28°F or lower after March 26 and before November 10.1 The growing season is 229 days; therefore, optimum hydrology requires 12.5% of this season, or at least 29 consecutive days. Local climate must also represent average conditions for the area. 2.2 HYDROLOGIC DESCRIPTION In March of 1999, six groundwater-monitoring gauges were installed across the site (Figure 2). Four additional groundwater-monitoring gauges were installed in February 2002. The automatic monitoring gauges record daily readings of groundwater depth. The New Light Creek Site was designed to receive hydrologic input from rainfall. The hydrologic monitoring should show the reaction of the groundwater level to specific rainfall events. 1 Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Wake County, North Carolina. 5 GW-1GW-2GW-3GW-4GW-7GW-8GW-5GW-9GW-10GW-6Figure 2. Monitoring Gauge Location Map 6 7 2.3 RESULTS OF HYDROLOGIC MONITORING 2.3.1 Site Data The maximum number of consecutive days that the groundwater was within twelve inches of the surface was determined for each gauge. This number was converted into a percentage of the 229-day growing season (March 26 – November 10). The results are presented in Table 1. Appendix A contains a plot of the groundwater depth for each monitoring gauge during 2003. The maximum number of consecutive days is noted on each graph. The individual precipitation events, shown on the monitoring well graphs as bars, represent data collected from the onsite Infinity rain gauge In February 2002, four new ground water gauges (GW-7, GW-8, GW-9, GW-10) were installed. These gauges were installed between existing gauges that were either not meeting success or were marginal, with respect to the success criteria, based on previous years monitoring (Table2). Figure 3 provides a graphical representation of the hydrologic results. Gauges highlighted in blue indicate wetland hydrology for more than 12.5% of the growing season. Gauges highlighted in red indicate saturation between 8 and 12.5% of the growing season, while those in green indicate saturation between 5 and 8%. Gauges highlighted in black indicate no wetland hydrology (less than 5% of the growing season). 8 Table 1. 2003 New Light Creek Hydrologic Monitoring Results Monitoring Gauge < 5% 5-8% 8-12.5% >12.5% Actual % Success Dates GW-1+ r 30.9 July 12-Aug 29 Sept 1-Nov 10 GW-2+ r 79.6 March 26-Sept 24 GW-3+ r 100 March 26-Nov 10 GW-4 r 4.3 GW-5+ r 100 March 26-Nov 10 GW-6 r 4.8 GW-7 r 5.2 April 8-April 19 GW-8 r 12.2 March 26-April 22 GW-9 r 8.7 Aug 2-Aug 21 GW-10 r 2.6 + Gauge met success criterion during an average rainfall month (March, July, and October). 9 Table 2. Hydrologic Monitoring Results (1999- 2002) Monitoring Gauge 1999 Results Pre Hurricane 1999 Results Post Hurricane 2000 Results 2001 Results 2002 Results GW-1 2.2 27.8 10.9 7.0 13.1 GW-2 11.3 33.4 100 50.2 30.6 GW-3 12.6 29.1 18.3 17.9 13.5 GW-4 1.3 4.3 7.0 4.4 4.4 GW-5 3.9 29.1 100 43.2 23.1 GW-6 2.2 3.9 3.0 3.1 3.1 GW-7 Not Installed Not Installed Not Installed Not Installed 1.8 GW-8 Not Installed Not Installed Not Installed Not Installed 5.7 GW-9 Not Installed Not Installed Not Installed Not Installed 3.1 GW-10 Not Installed Not Installed Not Installed Not Installed 1.3 Climate Conditions Below Average Rainfall Above Average Rainfall Average Rainfall Below Average Rainfall Below Average Rainfall Table 2 represents hydrologic data in percentages from previous years (1999-2002). 2.3.2 Climatic Data Figure 4 represents an evaluation of the local climate in comparison with historical data in order to determine whether 2003 was “average” in terms of climate conditions. The two lines represent the 30th and 70th percentiles of monthly precipitation for Raleigh. The bars are the monthly rainfall totals for November 2002 through November 2003. The NC State Climate Office provided the historical data. Months with below average rainfall include January and November. November (02’), February, March, July, and October experienced average rainfall. The months of December (02’), April, May, June, August, and September all experienced above average rainfall for the year. Overall, the site experienced average to above average rainfall in 2003. 2.4 CONCLUSIONS The 2003-year represents the fifth full growing season that hydrologic data has been examined. For the 2003-year, hydrologic monitoring indicated that four of the ten monitoring gauges (GW-1, GW-2, GW-3, and GW-5) met the optimum saturation (within 12” of the surface for more than 12.5% of the growing season). NCDOT has approached the EEP (Ecosystem Enhancement Program) about accepting the 5.44-acre deficit from the New Light Creek Mitigation Site. The resource agencies will be contacted as soon as more information is available. With this determination, NCDOT proposes to discontinue monitoring activities on this site. 11 Figure 3. 30-70 Percentile Graph New Light Creek 30-70 Graph012345678910Nov 02'Dec 02'Jan 03'Feb 03'Mar 03'Apr 03'MayJun 03'Jul 03'Aug 03'Sep 03'Oct 03'Nov 03'Dec 03'MonthPrecipitation (in.)2002 Rainfall2003 Rainfall30 Percentile70 PercentileRaleigh, NC30th Percentile70th Percentile 12 3.0 VEGETATION: NEW LIGHT CREEK MITIGATION SITE (YEAR 5 MONITORING) 3.1 SUCCESS CRITERIA NCDOT will monitor the site for five years or until success criteria are met. A 320 stems per acre survival criterion for planted seedlings will be used to determine success for the first three years. The required survival criterion will decrease by 10% per year after the third year of vegetation monitoring (i.e., for an expected 290 stems per acre for year 4 and 260 stems per acre for year 5). The number of plants of one species will not exceed 20% of the total number of planted trees. 3.2 DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES The following species were planted in the Wetland Enhancement/Preservation Area: Bottomland Hardwood Area (12.2 Acres) Quercus phellos, Willow Oak Quercus falcata var. pagodaefolia, Cherrybark Oak Fraxinus pennsylvanica, Green Ash Nyssa sylvatica var. sylvatica, Blackgum Quercus lyrata, Overcup Oak Quercus michauxii, Swamp Chestnut Oak Levee Area (1.0 Acre) Betula nigra, River Birch Quercus lyrata, Overcup Oak Quercus phellos, Willow Oak Platanus occidentalis, Sycamore Juglans nigra, Black Walnut 13 3.3 RESULTS OF VEGETATION MONITORING Table 3. Vegetation Monitoring Statistics 1(BLH/Levee)113106930375512(BLH)53155533385913(BLH)2811223344604(BLH)22561523237588AVERAGE DENSITY548 Site Notes: Volunteer green ash and sycamore were found throughout the site. Heavy grasses and ground cover exist throughout the site including fescue, smartweed, horse-nettle, Juncus sp., poison ivy, pokeweed, stinkweed, and small pines. The swale in the middle of the site with a slightly lower elevation contains various wetland species including Juncus sp., Scirpus sp., Cyperus sp., black willow, and cattail. Standing water is present throughout this middle swale. This swale was established during construction of the site and is described and shown in the attached map taken from the June 1998 mitigation plan. 3.4 CONCLUSIONS Of the 19.8 total acres on this site, approximately 13.2 acres involved tree planting. There were 4 vegetation-monitoring plots established throughout the site. The 2003 vegetation monitoring of the site revealed an average density of 548 trees per acre, which is well above the minimum required by the success criteria. NCDOT and USACE personnel inspected the washout along the streambank in June 2000. It was agreed that NCDOT would repair the washout. This work was not done. A site inspection in September 2000 revealed this washout to be stabilizing on its own. NCDOT has continued to monitor this area to determine if this slope will stabilize given time. The streambank was inspected and photographed during the 2003-monitoring visit and no other signs of erosion were observed (see photos 5 and 6). In 2002, NCDOT performed supplemental planting of the streambank levee due to the beaver damage to existing trees. The following species were planted: sycamore, cherrybark oak, and water oak. NCDOT proposes to discontinue vegetation monitoring on the New Light Creek Mitigation Site. 14 4.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS In 2003, hydrologic monitoring indicated that four of the ten monitoring gauges (GW-1, GW-2, GW-3, and GW-5) met the optimum saturation (within 12” of the surface for more than 12.5% of the growing season). The four vegetation-monitoring plots indicate an average density of 548 trees per acre. The 2003-year, represents the fifth year that the site has been monitored for hydrology and vegetation. A wetland delineation was conducted in December 2003 to determine the extent of restored wetlands. Following concurrence of the delineated boundary, a total of 6.83 acres of wetlands were mapped on the New Light Creek Mitigation Site. NCDOT has approached the EEP (Ecosystem Enhancement Program) about accepting the 5.44-acre deficit from the New Light Creek Mitigation Site. The resource agencies will be contacted as soon as more information is available. With this determination, NCDOT proposes to discontinue monitoring activities on this site. 15 APPENDIX A GAUGE DATA GRAPHS APPENDIX B SITE PHOTOS & VEGETATION PLOT LOCATIONS New Light Creek Photo 1 Photo 2 Photo 3 Photo 4 Photo 5 Photo 6 2003 New Light Creek Photo 7 Photo 8 2003 APPENDIX C EXCERPT FROM 1998 MITIGATION PLAN APPENDIX D WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project Site: New Light Creek Wetland Mitigation Site Date: 12/03/03 Applicant/Owner: NCDOT County: Wake Investigator: S. Stokes, M. Schlegel State: NC Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID: Is there area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: Data Point 1 (wetland) (if needed, explain on reverse.) VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. Fraxinus pennsylvanica 2 FACW 9. 2. Acer negundo 2 FACW 10. 3. Quercus phellos 2 FACW- 11. 4. Acer rubrum 2 FAC 12. 5. Fraxinus pennsylvanica 3 FACW 13. 6. Juncus effusus 3 FACW+ 14. 7. Boehmeria cylindrica 3 FACW+ 15. 8. Polygonum spp. 3 - 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-). 100 % Remarks: HYDROLOGY ___ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators: ___ Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: ___ Aerial Photographs _____ Inundated ___ Other _____ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches X No Recorded Data Available _____ Water Marks _____ Drift Lines _____ Sediment Deposits Field Observations: _____ (in.) _____ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Depth of Surface Water _____ (in.) X Oxidized Root Channels in Upper Inches _____ Water-Stained Leaves Depth to Free Water in Pit: 11.5 (in.) _____ Local Soil Survey Data X FAC-Neutral Test Depth to Saturated Soil: 11 (in.) _____ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Wehadkee variant Drainage Class: Poorly Drained Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Endoaquepts Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No Profile Description: Depth (Inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Moist) Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist) Mottle Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions, Structure, etc. 0-4 A 10YR 5/3 l, 1fgr 4-8 Bw 10YR 5/3 10YR 5/2 f1f scl, 1msbk 4/5b c2p 8-11 Bg1 10YR 5/2 10YR 4/4 f1f scl, 1msbk 5YR 4/6 f1f 11-16 Bg2 10YR 5/2 5YR 4/6 c2p scl, 1fsbk Hydric Soil Indicators: _____ Histosol _____ Concretions _____ Histic Epipedon _____ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils _____ Sulfidic Ordor _____ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils X Aquic Moisture Regime X Listed on Local Hydric Soils List _____ Reducing Conditions X Listed on National Hydric Soils List X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors X Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Gley mottles in 4-8” horizon indicate that the soils are episaturated and transitioning to a wetter soil; redox concentrations are present in the 8-11” horizon; oxidized root channels are present in the 11-16” horizon. WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present Yes No (circle) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Hydric Soils Present? Yes No (circle) Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project Site: New Light Creek Wetland Mitigation Site Date: 12/03/03 Applicant/Owner: NCDOT County: Wake Investigator: S. Stokes, M. Schlegel State: NC Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID: Is there area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: Data Point 2 (nonwetland) (if needed, explain on reverse.) VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. Quercus falcata 2 FAC+ 9. 2. Liquidambar styraciflua 2 FAC+ 10. 3. Pinus taeda 2 FAC 11. 4. Acer rubrum 2 FAC 12. 5. Juncus effusus 3 FACW+ 13. 6. Festuca spp. 3 FAC- 14. 7. 15. 8. 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-). 83 % Remarks: HYDROLOGY X Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators: ___ Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: ___ Aerial Photographs _____ Inundated X Other _____ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches ___ No Recorded Data Available _____ Water Marks _____ Drift Lines _____ Sediment Deposits Field Observations: _____ (in.) _____ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Depth of Surface Water _____ (in.) _____ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper Inches _____ Water-Stained Leaves Depth to Free Water in Pit: 16 (in.) _____ Local Soil Survey Data X FAC-Neutral Test Depth to Saturated Soil: 16 (in.) _____ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Adjacent to monitoring well #1 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Chewacla Drainage Class: Somewhat Poorly Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No Profile Description: Depth (Inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Moist) Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist) Mottle Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions, Structure, etc. 0-9.5 A 10YR 4/3 sl, 1mgr 9.5-12.5 Bw1 10YR 4/3 5YR 4/6 c2p scl, 1fsbk 12.5-14 Bw2 10YR 4/3 5YR 4/6 c2p scl, 1msbk 10YR 5/2 c2f 14-32 Bw3 10YR 5/2 5YR 4/6 c2p sl, 1fsbk Hydric Soil Indicators: _____ Histosol _____ Concretions _____ Histic Epipedon _____ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils _____ Sulfidic Ordor _____ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils _____ Aquic Moisture Regime X Listed on Local Hydric Soils List _____ Reducing Conditions X Listed on National Hydric Soils List _____ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _____ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Water table is at 16”; listed on local hydric soils list as having inclusions of hydric soils; listed on National hydric soils list as frequently flooded. WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present Yes No (circle) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Hydric Soils Present? Yes No (circle) Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project Site: New Light Creek Wetland Mitigation Site Date: 12/15/03 Applicant/Owner: NCDOT County: Wake Investigator: S. Stokes, M. Schlegel State: NC Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID: Is there area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: Data Point 3 (wetland) (if needed, explain on reverse.) VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. Acer negundo 2 FACW 9. 2. Quercus michauxii 2 FACW- 10. 3. Fraxinus pennsylvanica 2 FACW 11. 4. Festuca spp. 3 FAC- 12. 5. 13. 6. 14. 7. 15. 8. 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-). 75 % Remarks: HYDROLOGY X Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators: ___ Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: ___ Aerial Photographs _____ Inundated X Other _____ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches ___ No Recorded Data Available _____ Water Marks _____ Drift Lines _____ Sediment Deposits Field Observations: _____ (in.) _____ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Depth of Surface Water _____ (in.) X Oxidized Root Channels in Upper Inches _____ Water-Stained Leaves Depth to Free Water in Pit: 10 (in.) _____ Local Soil Survey Data X FAC-Neutral Test Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _____ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Water was draining into pit to a depth of 5.5” as a result of rain within 48 hours; <2% oxidized root channels; adjacent to monitoring well #3. DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Chewacla variant Drainage Class: Poorly Drained Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No Profile Description: Depth (Inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Moist) Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist) Mottle Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions, Structure, etc. 0-8 10YR 4/3 l, 1fgr 8-11 10YR 4/3 6/5BG f1d l, 1msbk 10YR 4/2 f1f 11-14 10YR 4/2 10YR 3/6 f1f l, 1msbk 10YR 4/3 c2f 10YR 4/6 c2d 10YR 3/4 f1f Hydric Soil Indicators: _____ Histosol _____ Concretions _____ Histic Epipedon _____ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils _____ Sulfidic Ordor _____ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils X Aquic Moisture Regime X Listed on Local Hydric Soils List _____ Reducing Conditions X Listed on National Hydric Soils List X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _____ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: 10YR 4/2 dries to 10YR 4/3 in 8-11” horizon which shows hydric soils formation; high concentrations of mica in B horizon; many fine and medium root throughout sample. WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present Yes No (circle) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Hydric Soils Present? Yes No (circle) Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Soil is becoming hydric as shown by the gleyed and low chroma colors in the 8-11” horizon. DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project Site: New Light Creek Wetland Mitigation Site Date: 12/15/03 Applicant/Owner: NCDOT County: Wake Investigator: S. Stokes, M. Schlegel State: NC Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID: Is there area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: Data Point 4 (nonwetland) (if needed, explain on reverse.) VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. Quercus phellos 2 FACW- 9. 2. Quercus michauxii 2 FACW- 10. 3. Quercus lyrata 2 OBL 11. 4. Phytolacca americana 2 FACU+ 12. 5. Festuca spp. 3 FAC- 13. 6. 14. 7. 15. 8. 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-). 60 % Remarks: HYDROLOGY ___ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators: ___ Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: ___ Aerial Photographs _____ Inundated ___ Other _____ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches X No Recorded Data Available _____ Water Marks _____ Drift Lines _____ Sediment Deposits Field Observations: _____ (in.) _____ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Depth of Surface Water _____ (in.) _____ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper Inches _____ Water-Stained Leaves Depth to Free Water in Pit: 14 (in.) _____ Local Soil Survey Data X FAC-Neutral Test Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _____ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Rained within 48 hours. DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Chewacla variant Drainage Class: Somewhat Poorly Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No Profile Description: Depth (Inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Moist) Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist) Mottle Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions, Structure, etc. 0-6 A 10YR 4/3 l, 1fgr 6-14.5 Bw1 10YR 4/4 l, 1msbk Hydric Soil Indicators: _____ Histosol _____ Concretions _____ Histic Epipedon _____ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils _____ Sulfidic Ordor _____ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils _____ Aquic Moisture Regime X Listed on Local Hydric Soils List _____ Reducing Conditions X Listed on National Hydric Soils List _____ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _____ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Many fine roots in the A horizon; few fine roots in the B horizon. WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present Yes No (circle) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Hydric Soils Present? Yes No (circle) Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project Site: New Light Creek Wetland Mitigation Site Date: 12/15/03 Applicant/Owner: NCDOT County: Wake Investigator: S. Stokes, M. Schlegel State: NC Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID: Is there area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: Data Point 5 (nonwetland) (if needed, explain on reverse.) VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. Quercus lyrata 2 OBL 9. 2. Fraxinus pennsylvanica 2 FACW 10. 3. Festuca spp. 3 FAC- 11. 4. 12. 5. 13. 6. 14. 7. 15. 8. 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-). 67 % Remarks: HYDROLOGY X Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators: ___ Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: ___ Aerial Photographs _____ Inundated X Other _____ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches ___ No Recorded Data Available _____ Water Marks _____ Drift Lines _____ Sediment Deposits Field Observations: _____ (in.) _____ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Depth of Surface Water _____ (in.) _____ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper Inches _____ Water-Stained Leaves Depth to Free Water in Pit: 14 (in.) _____ Local Soil Survey Data X FAC-Neutral Test Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) X Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Water table in the pit rose to a depth of 4” as a result of rain within 48 hours; adjacent to monitoring well #8. DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Chewacla variant Drainage Class: Somewhat Poorly Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No Profile Description: Depth (Inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Moist) Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist) Mottle Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions, Structure, etc. 0-3 A1 10YR 4/3 10YR 4/2 f2f l, 1fgr 3-6 A2 10YR 4/3 l, 1fgr 6-10 Bw1 10YR 4/4 l, 1fsbk 10-12 Bw2 10YR 4/4 10 YR 4/3 c2f sil, 1msbk 12-13.5 Bw3 10YR 4/4 l, 1fsbk 10YR 4/2 10YR 2/2 13.5-14 Bw4 10YR 5/4 cl, 1fsbk Hydric Soil Indicators: _____ Histosol _____ Concretions _____ Histic Epipedon _____ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils _____ Sulfidic Odor _____ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils _____ Aquic Moisture Regime X Listed on Local Hydric Soils List _____ Reducing Conditions X Listed on National Hydric Soils List _____ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _____ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Black manganese stains in 10-12” horizon and many common 10-15mm concretions at 13” indicate transition to a wetter soil; high concentrations of mica in 12-13.5” horizon. WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present Yes No (circle) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Hydric Soils Present? Yes No (circle) Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project Site: New Light Creek Wetland Mitigation Site Date: 12/15/03 Applicant/Owner: NCDOT County: Wake Investigator: S. Stokes, M. Schlegel State: NC Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID: Is there area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: Data Point 6 (wetland) (if needed, explain on reverse.) VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. Quercus lyrata 2 OBL 9. 2. Festuca spp. 3 FAC- 10. 3. 11. 4. 12. 5. 13. 6. 14. 7. 15. 8. 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-). 50 % Remarks: HYDROLOGY ___ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators: ___ Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: ___ Aerial Photographs _____ Inundated ___ Other X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches X No Recorded Data Available _____ Water Marks _____ Drift Lines _____ Sediment Deposits Field Observations: _____ (in.) _____ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Depth of Surface Water _____ (in.) _____ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper Inches _____ Water-Stained Leaves Depth to Free Water in Pit: 10 (in.) _____ Local Soil Survey Data X FAC-Neutral Test Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _____ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Water was draining into pit to a depth of 4” as a result of rain within 48 hours. DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Chewacla variant Drainage Class: Poorly Drained Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No Profile Description: Depth (Inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Moist) Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist) Mottle Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions, Structure, etc. 0-6 A 10YR 4/3 l, 1mgr 6-11 Bw1 10YR 4/3 5/N f1p l, 1msbk 11-13.5 Bw2 10YR 4/4 5/N c2d cl, 2csbk 10YR 2/2 13.5-14.5 Bwg3 10YR 4/2 10YR 4/4 f1f cl, 2msbk 14.5-18 Bwg4 10YR 5/2 10YR 4/6 c2d cl-c, 1msbk-mass 5/N Hydric Soil Indicators: _____ Histosol _____ Concretions _____ Histic Epipedon _____ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils _____ Sulfidic Ordor _____ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils X Aquic Moisture Regime X Listed on Local Hydric Soils List _____ Reducing Conditions X Listed on National Hydric Soils List X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _____ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: 10YR 2/2 manganese masses in 11-13.5” horizon; many fine roots throughout sample; 3-5mm concretions in 14.5-18” horizon. WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present Yes No (circle) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Hydric Soils Present? Yes No (circle) Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Soil is becoming hydric as shown by the gleyed colors in the 6-11” and 11-13.5” horizons; redox features are also present in the 11-13.5” horizon as shown by the 10YR 2/2 masses. DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project Site: New Light Creek Wetland Mitigation Site Date: 12/15/03 Applicant/Owner: NCDOT County: Wake Investigator: S. Stokes, M. Schlegel State: NC Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID: Is there area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: Data Point 7 (wetland) (if needed, explain on reverse.) VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. Typha spp. 3 OBL 9. 2. Polygonum spp. 3 - 10. 3. 11. 4. 12. 5. 13. 6. 14. 7. 15. 8. 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-). 100 % Remarks: HYDROLOGY X Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators: ___ Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: ___ Aerial Photographs X Inundated X Other X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches ___ No Recorded Data Available _____ Water Marks _____ Drift Lines _____ Sediment Deposits Field Observations: _____ (in.) _____ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Depth of Surface Water 1-2 (in.) X Oxidized Root Channels in Upper Inches _____ Water-Stained Leaves Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) _____ Local Soil Survey Data X FAC-Neutral Test Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _____ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Adjacent to monitoring well #5. DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Wehadkee Drainage Class: Poorly Drained Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Endoaquepts Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No Profile Description: Depth (Inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Moist) Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist) Mottle Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions, Structure, etc. 0-3 A 10YR 4/1 sil, mass 3-6 Bg1 2.5YR 5/2 10YR 3/6 c2d l, mass 6-12 Bg2 10YR 4/1 5/N f1d c, 1msbk-mass Hydric Soil Indicators: _____ Histosol _____ Concretions _____ Histic Epipedon _____ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils _____ Sulfidic Ordor _____ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils X Aquic Moisture Regime X Listed on Local Hydric Soils List _____ Reducing Conditions X Listed on National Hydric Soils List X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _____ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: 10YR 3/6 redox concentrations in pore spaces and oxidized root channels in 3-6” horizon; sampling point was inundated and soil structure was indistinct. WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present Yes No (circle) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Hydric Soils Present? Yes No (circle) Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project Site: New Light Creek Wetland Mitigation Site Date: 12/15/03 Applicant/Owner: NCDOT County: Wake Investigator: S. Stokes, M. Schlegel State: NC Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID: Is there area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: Data Point 8 (nonwetland) (if needed, explain on reverse.) VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. Quercus lyrata 2 OBL 9. 2. Fraxinus pennsylvanica 2 FACW 10. 3. Festuca spp. 3 FAC- 11. 4. Mentha spp. 3 - 12. 5. 13. 6. 14. 7. 15. 8. 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-). 67 % Remarks: HYDROLOGY ___ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators: ___ Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: ___ Aerial Photographs _____ Inundated ___ Other _____ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches X No Recorded Data Available _____ Water Marks _____ Drift Lines _____ Sediment Deposits Field Observations: _____ (in.) _____ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Depth of Surface Water _____ (in.) _____ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper Inches _____ Water-Stained Leaves Depth to Free Water in Pit: >18 (in.) _____ Local Soil Survey Data X FAC-Neutral Test Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _____ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Water table >18”. DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Chewacla variant Drainage Class: Moderately well Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No Profile Description: Depth (Inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Moist) Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist) Mottle Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions, Structure, etc. 0-6 A 10YR 4/3 sl, 1mgr 6-9 Bw1 10YR 4/4 sl-l, 1msbk 9-13 Bw2 10YR 5/4 10YR 4/4 f1f cl, 2msbk 10YR 3/4 c2f 13-18 Bw3 10YR 5/6 5YR 4/6 f1p cl, 2msbk Hydric Soil Indicators: _____ Histosol _____ Concretions _____ Histic Epipedon _____ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils _____ Sulfidic Ordor _____ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils _____ Aquic Moisture Regime X Listed on Local Hydric Soils List _____ Reducing Conditions X Listed on National Hydric Soils List _____ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _____ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: 10YR 3/4 manganese masses in 9-13” horizon. WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present Yes No (circle) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Hydric Soils Present? Yes No (circle) Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project Site: New Light Creek Wetland Mitigation Site Date: 12/15/03 Applicant/Owner: NCDOT County: Wake Investigator: S. Stokes, M. Schlegel State: NC Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID: Is there area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: Data Point 9 (nonwetland) (if needed, explain on reverse.) At monitoring well #4 VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. Festuca spp. 3 FAC- 9. 2. 10. 3. 11. 4. 12. 5. 13. 6. 14. 7. 15. 8. 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-). 0 % Remarks: HYDROLOGY X Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators: ___ Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: ___ Aerial Photographs _____ Inundated X Other _____ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches ___ No Recorded Data Available _____ Water Marks _____ Drift Lines _____ Sediment Deposits Field Observations: _____ (in.) _____ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Depth of Surface Water _____ (in.) _____ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper Inches _____ Water-Stained Leaves Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) _____ Local Soil Survey Data _____ FAC-Neutral Test Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _____ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: No indications of wetland hydrology; adjacent to monitoring well #4. DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Chewacla variant Drainage Class: Somewhat Poorly Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No Profile Description: Depth (Inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Moist) Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist) Mottle Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions, Structure, etc. 0-6 A 10YR 4/3 l, 1fgr 6-13 Bt1 10YR 4/4 scl, 1fsbk Hydric Soil Indicators: _____ Histosol _____ Concretions _____ Histic Epipedon _____ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils _____ Sulfidic Ordor _____ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils _____ Aquic Moisture Regime X Listed on Local Hydric Soils List _____ Reducing Conditions X Listed on National Hydric Soils List _____ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _____ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present Yes No (circle) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Hydric Soils Present? Yes No (circle) Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks:
Object Description
Description
Title | Annual report for... New Light Creek mitigation site, Wake County, project no. 8.U401721, TIP no. R-2000 WM |
Other Title | New Light Creek mitigation site, Wake County |
Date | 2003-12 |
Description | 2003 |
Digital Characteristics-A | 5290 KB; 48 p. |
Digital Format | application/pdf |
Full Text | ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2003 New Light Creek Mitigation Site Wake County Project No. 8.U401721 TIP No. R-2000 WM Prepared By: Office of Natural Environment & Roadside Environmental Unit North Carolina Department of Transportation December 2003TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY..................................................................................................................1 1.0 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................2 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION...................................................................2 1.2 PURPOSE............................................................................................2 1.3 PROJECT HISTORY............................................................................4 1.4 DEBIT LEDGER...................................................................................4 2.0 HYDROLOGY..................................................................................................5 2.1 SUCCESS CRITERIA..........................................................................5 2.2 HYDROLOGIC DESCRIPTION............................................................5 2.3 RESULTS OF HYDROLOGIC MONITORING......................................7 2.3.1 Site Data...................................................................................7 2.3.2 Climatic Data..........................................................................11 2.4 CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................11 3.0 VEGETATION: NEW LIGHT CREEK MITIGATION SITE............................13 3.1 SUCCESS CRITERIA........................................................................13 3.2 DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES............................................................13 3.3 RESULTS OF VEGETATION MONITORING.....................................14 3.4 CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................14 4.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS...........................................................................15 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Site Location Map......................................................................................3 Figure 2. Monitoring Gauge Location Map................................................................6 Figure 3. Monitoring Gauge Hydrologic Results......................................................10 Figure 4. New Light Creek 30-70 Percentile Graph, Raleigh, NC...........................12 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. New Light Creek Hydrologic Monitoring Results........................................8 Table 2. Hydrologic Monitoring Results (1999- 2002)..............................................9 Table 3. Vegetation Monitoring Statistics...............................................................14 APPENDICES APPENDIX A GAUGE DATA GRAPHS APPENDIX B SITE PHOTOS & VEGETATION PLOT LOCATIONS APPENDIX C EXCERPT FROM 1998 MITIGATION PLAN APPENDIX D WETLAND DELINEATION SUMMARY The following report summarizes the monitoring activities that have occurred in the past year at the New Light Creek Mitigation Site. This site was originally constructed in 1998. Monitoring activities in 2003 represent the fifth year of monitoring for the site. The site must demonstrate both hydrologic and vegetation success for a minimum of five years or until the site is deemed successful. In 2002, four additional monitoring gauges were installed, based on agency comments and review. Currently, the site hydrology is monitored with ten groundwater gauges and an onsite rain gauge. This report utilizes rainfall data from both a local weather station and from an onsite rain gauge. The NC State Climate Office provided the historical data for the Raleigh/Durham weather station. For the 2003-year, hydrologic monitoring indicated that four of the ten monitoring gauges (GW-1, GW-2, GW-3, and GW-5) met the optimum saturation (within 12” of the surface for more than 12.5% of the growing season). There were four vegetation plots established to monitor the 13.2 acres planted in trees on the site. The fifth year of monitoring revealed an average density of 548 trees per acre, which is well above the minimum required by the success criteria. A wetland delineation was performed in December 2003 to determine the extent of restored wetlands on the New Light Creek Mitigation Site. The delineation was conducted by the continual sampling of hydric and non-hydric soils until the edges of the wetland units were identified. Previous years hydrology data was used to refine the delineation. Mictrotopography, landscape position, soil textural changes, redoximorphic features, and the presence of a depleted matrix were also considered to determine the extent of hydric soils in transitioning areas. Wetland data sheets and soil profile descriptions (Appendix D) were prepared to support the differentiation between wetland and non-wetland areas. Representatives from NCDOT-ONE met onsite with a representative from the USACOE to get jurisdictional concurrence of the delineated boundary in December 2003. Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) technology was used to survey the flagged boundaries. A boundary map was prepared and is included herein (Appendix D). The 2003-year represents the fifth year that the site has been monitored for hydrology and vegetation. A wetland delineation was conducted in December 2003 to determine the extent of restored wetlands. Following concurrence of the delineated boundary, a total of 6.83 acres of wetlands were mapped on the New Light Creek Mitigation Site. NCDOT has approached the EEP (Ecosystem Enhancement Program) about accepting the 5.44-acre deficit from the New Light Creek Mitigation Site. The resource agencies will be contacted as soon as more information is available. With this determination, NCDOT proposes to discontinue monitoring activities on this site. 1 2 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The New Light Creek Mitigation Site is located east of Mangum Dairy Road (SR 1911) adjacent to New Light Creek in Wake County, near the Granville County Line (Figure 1). This site was constructed to provide mitigation for wetland impacts associated with the Raleigh Outer Loop (R-2000). The site, which totals 19.8 acres in size, consists of bottomland hardwood forest restoration and creation. The site was constructed in 1998 and planted in 1999. 1.2 PURPOSE In order to demonstrate successful mitigation, hydrologic and vegetative monitoring must be conducted for a minimum of five consecutive years or until the site is deemed successful. Success criteria are based on federal guidelines for wetland mitigation. These guidelines stipulate criteria for both hydrologic conditions and vegetation survival. The following report details the results of hydrologic and vegetative monitoring during the 2003 growing season at the New Light Creek Mitigation Site. Activities in 2003 reflect the fifth year of monitoring following the restoration efforts. Included in this report are analyses of both hydrologic and vegetative monitoring results, as well as local climate conditions throughout the growing season and site photographs. Figure 1. Site Location Map 3 1.3 PROJECT HISTORY October 1998 Site Grading Commenced February 1999 Site Planted March 1999 Monitoring Gauges Installed March- November 1999 Hydrologic Monitoring (1 yr.) September 1999 Vegetation Monitoring (1 yr.) March- November 2000 Hydrologic Monitoring (2 yr.) November 2000 Vegetation Monitoring (2 yr.) March- November 2001 Hydrologic Monitoring (3 yr.) July 2001 Vegetation Monitoring (3 yr.) March 2002 Supplemental Planting of Streambank Levee March- November 2002Hydrologic Monitoring (4 yr.) June 2002 Vegetation Monitoring (4 yr.) March- November 2003 Hydrologic Monitoring (5 yr.) June 2003 Vegetation Monitoring (5 yr.) December 2003 Wetland Delineation 1.4 DEBIT LEDGER The entire New Light Creek Mitigation Site was used for projects R-2000EA and R-2000EB to compensate for unavoidable wetland impacts. 4 2.0 HYDROLOGY 2.1 SUCCESS CRITERIA In accordance with federal guidelines for wetland mitigation, the success criteria for hydrology state that the area must be inundated or saturated (within 12” of the surface) by surface or groundwater for at least a consecutive 12.5% of the growing season. Areas inundated for less than 5% of the growing season are always classified as non-wetlands. Areas inundated between 5% - 12.5% of the growing season can be classified as wetlands depending upon factors such as the presence of wetland vegetation and hydric soils. The growing season in Wake County begins March 26 and ends November 10. These dates correspond to a 50% probability that temperatures will drop to 28°F or lower after March 26 and before November 10.1 The growing season is 229 days; therefore, optimum hydrology requires 12.5% of this season, or at least 29 consecutive days. Local climate must also represent average conditions for the area. 2.2 HYDROLOGIC DESCRIPTION In March of 1999, six groundwater-monitoring gauges were installed across the site (Figure 2). Four additional groundwater-monitoring gauges were installed in February 2002. The automatic monitoring gauges record daily readings of groundwater depth. The New Light Creek Site was designed to receive hydrologic input from rainfall. The hydrologic monitoring should show the reaction of the groundwater level to specific rainfall events. 1 Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Wake County, North Carolina. 5 GW-1GW-2GW-3GW-4GW-7GW-8GW-5GW-9GW-10GW-6Figure 2. Monitoring Gauge Location Map 6 7 2.3 RESULTS OF HYDROLOGIC MONITORING 2.3.1 Site Data The maximum number of consecutive days that the groundwater was within twelve inches of the surface was determined for each gauge. This number was converted into a percentage of the 229-day growing season (March 26 – November 10). The results are presented in Table 1. Appendix A contains a plot of the groundwater depth for each monitoring gauge during 2003. The maximum number of consecutive days is noted on each graph. The individual precipitation events, shown on the monitoring well graphs as bars, represent data collected from the onsite Infinity rain gauge In February 2002, four new ground water gauges (GW-7, GW-8, GW-9, GW-10) were installed. These gauges were installed between existing gauges that were either not meeting success or were marginal, with respect to the success criteria, based on previous years monitoring (Table2). Figure 3 provides a graphical representation of the hydrologic results. Gauges highlighted in blue indicate wetland hydrology for more than 12.5% of the growing season. Gauges highlighted in red indicate saturation between 8 and 12.5% of the growing season, while those in green indicate saturation between 5 and 8%. Gauges highlighted in black indicate no wetland hydrology (less than 5% of the growing season). 8 Table 1. 2003 New Light Creek Hydrologic Monitoring Results Monitoring Gauge < 5% 5-8% 8-12.5% >12.5% Actual % Success Dates GW-1+ r 30.9 July 12-Aug 29 Sept 1-Nov 10 GW-2+ r 79.6 March 26-Sept 24 GW-3+ r 100 March 26-Nov 10 GW-4 r 4.3 GW-5+ r 100 March 26-Nov 10 GW-6 r 4.8 GW-7 r 5.2 April 8-April 19 GW-8 r 12.2 March 26-April 22 GW-9 r 8.7 Aug 2-Aug 21 GW-10 r 2.6 + Gauge met success criterion during an average rainfall month (March, July, and October). 9 Table 2. Hydrologic Monitoring Results (1999- 2002) Monitoring Gauge 1999 Results Pre Hurricane 1999 Results Post Hurricane 2000 Results 2001 Results 2002 Results GW-1 2.2 27.8 10.9 7.0 13.1 GW-2 11.3 33.4 100 50.2 30.6 GW-3 12.6 29.1 18.3 17.9 13.5 GW-4 1.3 4.3 7.0 4.4 4.4 GW-5 3.9 29.1 100 43.2 23.1 GW-6 2.2 3.9 3.0 3.1 3.1 GW-7 Not Installed Not Installed Not Installed Not Installed 1.8 GW-8 Not Installed Not Installed Not Installed Not Installed 5.7 GW-9 Not Installed Not Installed Not Installed Not Installed 3.1 GW-10 Not Installed Not Installed Not Installed Not Installed 1.3 Climate Conditions Below Average Rainfall Above Average Rainfall Average Rainfall Below Average Rainfall Below Average Rainfall Table 2 represents hydrologic data in percentages from previous years (1999-2002). 2.3.2 Climatic Data Figure 4 represents an evaluation of the local climate in comparison with historical data in order to determine whether 2003 was “average” in terms of climate conditions. The two lines represent the 30th and 70th percentiles of monthly precipitation for Raleigh. The bars are the monthly rainfall totals for November 2002 through November 2003. The NC State Climate Office provided the historical data. Months with below average rainfall include January and November. November (02’), February, March, July, and October experienced average rainfall. The months of December (02’), April, May, June, August, and September all experienced above average rainfall for the year. Overall, the site experienced average to above average rainfall in 2003. 2.4 CONCLUSIONS The 2003-year represents the fifth full growing season that hydrologic data has been examined. For the 2003-year, hydrologic monitoring indicated that four of the ten monitoring gauges (GW-1, GW-2, GW-3, and GW-5) met the optimum saturation (within 12” of the surface for more than 12.5% of the growing season). NCDOT has approached the EEP (Ecosystem Enhancement Program) about accepting the 5.44-acre deficit from the New Light Creek Mitigation Site. The resource agencies will be contacted as soon as more information is available. With this determination, NCDOT proposes to discontinue monitoring activities on this site. 11 Figure 3. 30-70 Percentile Graph New Light Creek 30-70 Graph012345678910Nov 02'Dec 02'Jan 03'Feb 03'Mar 03'Apr 03'MayJun 03'Jul 03'Aug 03'Sep 03'Oct 03'Nov 03'Dec 03'MonthPrecipitation (in.)2002 Rainfall2003 Rainfall30 Percentile70 PercentileRaleigh, NC30th Percentile70th Percentile 12 3.0 VEGETATION: NEW LIGHT CREEK MITIGATION SITE (YEAR 5 MONITORING) 3.1 SUCCESS CRITERIA NCDOT will monitor the site for five years or until success criteria are met. A 320 stems per acre survival criterion for planted seedlings will be used to determine success for the first three years. The required survival criterion will decrease by 10% per year after the third year of vegetation monitoring (i.e., for an expected 290 stems per acre for year 4 and 260 stems per acre for year 5). The number of plants of one species will not exceed 20% of the total number of planted trees. 3.2 DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES The following species were planted in the Wetland Enhancement/Preservation Area: Bottomland Hardwood Area (12.2 Acres) Quercus phellos, Willow Oak Quercus falcata var. pagodaefolia, Cherrybark Oak Fraxinus pennsylvanica, Green Ash Nyssa sylvatica var. sylvatica, Blackgum Quercus lyrata, Overcup Oak Quercus michauxii, Swamp Chestnut Oak Levee Area (1.0 Acre) Betula nigra, River Birch Quercus lyrata, Overcup Oak Quercus phellos, Willow Oak Platanus occidentalis, Sycamore Juglans nigra, Black Walnut 13 3.3 RESULTS OF VEGETATION MONITORING Table 3. Vegetation Monitoring Statistics 1(BLH/Levee)113106930375512(BLH)53155533385913(BLH)2811223344604(BLH)22561523237588AVERAGE DENSITY548 Site Notes: Volunteer green ash and sycamore were found throughout the site. Heavy grasses and ground cover exist throughout the site including fescue, smartweed, horse-nettle, Juncus sp., poison ivy, pokeweed, stinkweed, and small pines. The swale in the middle of the site with a slightly lower elevation contains various wetland species including Juncus sp., Scirpus sp., Cyperus sp., black willow, and cattail. Standing water is present throughout this middle swale. This swale was established during construction of the site and is described and shown in the attached map taken from the June 1998 mitigation plan. 3.4 CONCLUSIONS Of the 19.8 total acres on this site, approximately 13.2 acres involved tree planting. There were 4 vegetation-monitoring plots established throughout the site. The 2003 vegetation monitoring of the site revealed an average density of 548 trees per acre, which is well above the minimum required by the success criteria. NCDOT and USACE personnel inspected the washout along the streambank in June 2000. It was agreed that NCDOT would repair the washout. This work was not done. A site inspection in September 2000 revealed this washout to be stabilizing on its own. NCDOT has continued to monitor this area to determine if this slope will stabilize given time. The streambank was inspected and photographed during the 2003-monitoring visit and no other signs of erosion were observed (see photos 5 and 6). In 2002, NCDOT performed supplemental planting of the streambank levee due to the beaver damage to existing trees. The following species were planted: sycamore, cherrybark oak, and water oak. NCDOT proposes to discontinue vegetation monitoring on the New Light Creek Mitigation Site. 14 4.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS In 2003, hydrologic monitoring indicated that four of the ten monitoring gauges (GW-1, GW-2, GW-3, and GW-5) met the optimum saturation (within 12” of the surface for more than 12.5% of the growing season). The four vegetation-monitoring plots indicate an average density of 548 trees per acre. The 2003-year, represents the fifth year that the site has been monitored for hydrology and vegetation. A wetland delineation was conducted in December 2003 to determine the extent of restored wetlands. Following concurrence of the delineated boundary, a total of 6.83 acres of wetlands were mapped on the New Light Creek Mitigation Site. NCDOT has approached the EEP (Ecosystem Enhancement Program) about accepting the 5.44-acre deficit from the New Light Creek Mitigation Site. The resource agencies will be contacted as soon as more information is available. With this determination, NCDOT proposes to discontinue monitoring activities on this site. 15 APPENDIX A GAUGE DATA GRAPHS APPENDIX B SITE PHOTOS & VEGETATION PLOT LOCATIONS New Light Creek Photo 1 Photo 2 Photo 3 Photo 4 Photo 5 Photo 6 2003 New Light Creek Photo 7 Photo 8 2003 APPENDIX C EXCERPT FROM 1998 MITIGATION PLAN APPENDIX D WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project Site: New Light Creek Wetland Mitigation Site Date: 12/03/03 Applicant/Owner: NCDOT County: Wake Investigator: S. Stokes, M. Schlegel State: NC Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID: Is there area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: Data Point 1 (wetland) (if needed, explain on reverse.) VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. Fraxinus pennsylvanica 2 FACW 9. 2. Acer negundo 2 FACW 10. 3. Quercus phellos 2 FACW- 11. 4. Acer rubrum 2 FAC 12. 5. Fraxinus pennsylvanica 3 FACW 13. 6. Juncus effusus 3 FACW+ 14. 7. Boehmeria cylindrica 3 FACW+ 15. 8. Polygonum spp. 3 - 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-). 100 % Remarks: HYDROLOGY ___ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators: ___ Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: ___ Aerial Photographs _____ Inundated ___ Other _____ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches X No Recorded Data Available _____ Water Marks _____ Drift Lines _____ Sediment Deposits Field Observations: _____ (in.) _____ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Depth of Surface Water _____ (in.) X Oxidized Root Channels in Upper Inches _____ Water-Stained Leaves Depth to Free Water in Pit: 11.5 (in.) _____ Local Soil Survey Data X FAC-Neutral Test Depth to Saturated Soil: 11 (in.) _____ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Wehadkee variant Drainage Class: Poorly Drained Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Endoaquepts Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No Profile Description: Depth (Inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Moist) Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist) Mottle Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions, Structure, etc. 0-4 A 10YR 5/3 l, 1fgr 4-8 Bw 10YR 5/3 10YR 5/2 f1f scl, 1msbk 4/5b c2p 8-11 Bg1 10YR 5/2 10YR 4/4 f1f scl, 1msbk 5YR 4/6 f1f 11-16 Bg2 10YR 5/2 5YR 4/6 c2p scl, 1fsbk Hydric Soil Indicators: _____ Histosol _____ Concretions _____ Histic Epipedon _____ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils _____ Sulfidic Ordor _____ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils X Aquic Moisture Regime X Listed on Local Hydric Soils List _____ Reducing Conditions X Listed on National Hydric Soils List X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors X Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Gley mottles in 4-8” horizon indicate that the soils are episaturated and transitioning to a wetter soil; redox concentrations are present in the 8-11” horizon; oxidized root channels are present in the 11-16” horizon. WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present Yes No (circle) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Hydric Soils Present? Yes No (circle) Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project Site: New Light Creek Wetland Mitigation Site Date: 12/03/03 Applicant/Owner: NCDOT County: Wake Investigator: S. Stokes, M. Schlegel State: NC Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID: Is there area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: Data Point 2 (nonwetland) (if needed, explain on reverse.) VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. Quercus falcata 2 FAC+ 9. 2. Liquidambar styraciflua 2 FAC+ 10. 3. Pinus taeda 2 FAC 11. 4. Acer rubrum 2 FAC 12. 5. Juncus effusus 3 FACW+ 13. 6. Festuca spp. 3 FAC- 14. 7. 15. 8. 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-). 83 % Remarks: HYDROLOGY X Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators: ___ Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: ___ Aerial Photographs _____ Inundated X Other _____ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches ___ No Recorded Data Available _____ Water Marks _____ Drift Lines _____ Sediment Deposits Field Observations: _____ (in.) _____ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Depth of Surface Water _____ (in.) _____ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper Inches _____ Water-Stained Leaves Depth to Free Water in Pit: 16 (in.) _____ Local Soil Survey Data X FAC-Neutral Test Depth to Saturated Soil: 16 (in.) _____ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Adjacent to monitoring well #1 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Chewacla Drainage Class: Somewhat Poorly Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No Profile Description: Depth (Inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Moist) Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist) Mottle Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions, Structure, etc. 0-9.5 A 10YR 4/3 sl, 1mgr 9.5-12.5 Bw1 10YR 4/3 5YR 4/6 c2p scl, 1fsbk 12.5-14 Bw2 10YR 4/3 5YR 4/6 c2p scl, 1msbk 10YR 5/2 c2f 14-32 Bw3 10YR 5/2 5YR 4/6 c2p sl, 1fsbk Hydric Soil Indicators: _____ Histosol _____ Concretions _____ Histic Epipedon _____ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils _____ Sulfidic Ordor _____ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils _____ Aquic Moisture Regime X Listed on Local Hydric Soils List _____ Reducing Conditions X Listed on National Hydric Soils List _____ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _____ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Water table is at 16”; listed on local hydric soils list as having inclusions of hydric soils; listed on National hydric soils list as frequently flooded. WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present Yes No (circle) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Hydric Soils Present? Yes No (circle) Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project Site: New Light Creek Wetland Mitigation Site Date: 12/15/03 Applicant/Owner: NCDOT County: Wake Investigator: S. Stokes, M. Schlegel State: NC Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID: Is there area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: Data Point 3 (wetland) (if needed, explain on reverse.) VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. Acer negundo 2 FACW 9. 2. Quercus michauxii 2 FACW- 10. 3. Fraxinus pennsylvanica 2 FACW 11. 4. Festuca spp. 3 FAC- 12. 5. 13. 6. 14. 7. 15. 8. 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-). 75 % Remarks: HYDROLOGY X Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators: ___ Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: ___ Aerial Photographs _____ Inundated X Other _____ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches ___ No Recorded Data Available _____ Water Marks _____ Drift Lines _____ Sediment Deposits Field Observations: _____ (in.) _____ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Depth of Surface Water _____ (in.) X Oxidized Root Channels in Upper Inches _____ Water-Stained Leaves Depth to Free Water in Pit: 10 (in.) _____ Local Soil Survey Data X FAC-Neutral Test Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _____ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Water was draining into pit to a depth of 5.5” as a result of rain within 48 hours; <2% oxidized root channels; adjacent to monitoring well #3. DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Chewacla variant Drainage Class: Poorly Drained Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No Profile Description: Depth (Inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Moist) Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist) Mottle Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions, Structure, etc. 0-8 10YR 4/3 l, 1fgr 8-11 10YR 4/3 6/5BG f1d l, 1msbk 10YR 4/2 f1f 11-14 10YR 4/2 10YR 3/6 f1f l, 1msbk 10YR 4/3 c2f 10YR 4/6 c2d 10YR 3/4 f1f Hydric Soil Indicators: _____ Histosol _____ Concretions _____ Histic Epipedon _____ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils _____ Sulfidic Ordor _____ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils X Aquic Moisture Regime X Listed on Local Hydric Soils List _____ Reducing Conditions X Listed on National Hydric Soils List X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _____ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: 10YR 4/2 dries to 10YR 4/3 in 8-11” horizon which shows hydric soils formation; high concentrations of mica in B horizon; many fine and medium root throughout sample. WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present Yes No (circle) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Hydric Soils Present? Yes No (circle) Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Soil is becoming hydric as shown by the gleyed and low chroma colors in the 8-11” horizon. DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project Site: New Light Creek Wetland Mitigation Site Date: 12/15/03 Applicant/Owner: NCDOT County: Wake Investigator: S. Stokes, M. Schlegel State: NC Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID: Is there area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: Data Point 4 (nonwetland) (if needed, explain on reverse.) VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. Quercus phellos 2 FACW- 9. 2. Quercus michauxii 2 FACW- 10. 3. Quercus lyrata 2 OBL 11. 4. Phytolacca americana 2 FACU+ 12. 5. Festuca spp. 3 FAC- 13. 6. 14. 7. 15. 8. 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-). 60 % Remarks: HYDROLOGY ___ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators: ___ Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: ___ Aerial Photographs _____ Inundated ___ Other _____ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches X No Recorded Data Available _____ Water Marks _____ Drift Lines _____ Sediment Deposits Field Observations: _____ (in.) _____ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Depth of Surface Water _____ (in.) _____ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper Inches _____ Water-Stained Leaves Depth to Free Water in Pit: 14 (in.) _____ Local Soil Survey Data X FAC-Neutral Test Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _____ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Rained within 48 hours. DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Chewacla variant Drainage Class: Somewhat Poorly Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No Profile Description: Depth (Inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Moist) Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist) Mottle Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions, Structure, etc. 0-6 A 10YR 4/3 l, 1fgr 6-14.5 Bw1 10YR 4/4 l, 1msbk Hydric Soil Indicators: _____ Histosol _____ Concretions _____ Histic Epipedon _____ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils _____ Sulfidic Ordor _____ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils _____ Aquic Moisture Regime X Listed on Local Hydric Soils List _____ Reducing Conditions X Listed on National Hydric Soils List _____ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _____ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Many fine roots in the A horizon; few fine roots in the B horizon. WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present Yes No (circle) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Hydric Soils Present? Yes No (circle) Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project Site: New Light Creek Wetland Mitigation Site Date: 12/15/03 Applicant/Owner: NCDOT County: Wake Investigator: S. Stokes, M. Schlegel State: NC Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID: Is there area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: Data Point 5 (nonwetland) (if needed, explain on reverse.) VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. Quercus lyrata 2 OBL 9. 2. Fraxinus pennsylvanica 2 FACW 10. 3. Festuca spp. 3 FAC- 11. 4. 12. 5. 13. 6. 14. 7. 15. 8. 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-). 67 % Remarks: HYDROLOGY X Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators: ___ Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: ___ Aerial Photographs _____ Inundated X Other _____ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches ___ No Recorded Data Available _____ Water Marks _____ Drift Lines _____ Sediment Deposits Field Observations: _____ (in.) _____ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Depth of Surface Water _____ (in.) _____ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper Inches _____ Water-Stained Leaves Depth to Free Water in Pit: 14 (in.) _____ Local Soil Survey Data X FAC-Neutral Test Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) X Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Water table in the pit rose to a depth of 4” as a result of rain within 48 hours; adjacent to monitoring well #8. DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Chewacla variant Drainage Class: Somewhat Poorly Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No Profile Description: Depth (Inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Moist) Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist) Mottle Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions, Structure, etc. 0-3 A1 10YR 4/3 10YR 4/2 f2f l, 1fgr 3-6 A2 10YR 4/3 l, 1fgr 6-10 Bw1 10YR 4/4 l, 1fsbk 10-12 Bw2 10YR 4/4 10 YR 4/3 c2f sil, 1msbk 12-13.5 Bw3 10YR 4/4 l, 1fsbk 10YR 4/2 10YR 2/2 13.5-14 Bw4 10YR 5/4 cl, 1fsbk Hydric Soil Indicators: _____ Histosol _____ Concretions _____ Histic Epipedon _____ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils _____ Sulfidic Odor _____ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils _____ Aquic Moisture Regime X Listed on Local Hydric Soils List _____ Reducing Conditions X Listed on National Hydric Soils List _____ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _____ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Black manganese stains in 10-12” horizon and many common 10-15mm concretions at 13” indicate transition to a wetter soil; high concentrations of mica in 12-13.5” horizon. WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present Yes No (circle) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Hydric Soils Present? Yes No (circle) Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project Site: New Light Creek Wetland Mitigation Site Date: 12/15/03 Applicant/Owner: NCDOT County: Wake Investigator: S. Stokes, M. Schlegel State: NC Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID: Is there area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: Data Point 6 (wetland) (if needed, explain on reverse.) VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. Quercus lyrata 2 OBL 9. 2. Festuca spp. 3 FAC- 10. 3. 11. 4. 12. 5. 13. 6. 14. 7. 15. 8. 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-). 50 % Remarks: HYDROLOGY ___ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators: ___ Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: ___ Aerial Photographs _____ Inundated ___ Other X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches X No Recorded Data Available _____ Water Marks _____ Drift Lines _____ Sediment Deposits Field Observations: _____ (in.) _____ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Depth of Surface Water _____ (in.) _____ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper Inches _____ Water-Stained Leaves Depth to Free Water in Pit: 10 (in.) _____ Local Soil Survey Data X FAC-Neutral Test Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _____ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Water was draining into pit to a depth of 4” as a result of rain within 48 hours. DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Chewacla variant Drainage Class: Poorly Drained Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No Profile Description: Depth (Inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Moist) Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist) Mottle Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions, Structure, etc. 0-6 A 10YR 4/3 l, 1mgr 6-11 Bw1 10YR 4/3 5/N f1p l, 1msbk 11-13.5 Bw2 10YR 4/4 5/N c2d cl, 2csbk 10YR 2/2 13.5-14.5 Bwg3 10YR 4/2 10YR 4/4 f1f cl, 2msbk 14.5-18 Bwg4 10YR 5/2 10YR 4/6 c2d cl-c, 1msbk-mass 5/N Hydric Soil Indicators: _____ Histosol _____ Concretions _____ Histic Epipedon _____ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils _____ Sulfidic Ordor _____ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils X Aquic Moisture Regime X Listed on Local Hydric Soils List _____ Reducing Conditions X Listed on National Hydric Soils List X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _____ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: 10YR 2/2 manganese masses in 11-13.5” horizon; many fine roots throughout sample; 3-5mm concretions in 14.5-18” horizon. WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present Yes No (circle) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Hydric Soils Present? Yes No (circle) Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Soil is becoming hydric as shown by the gleyed colors in the 6-11” and 11-13.5” horizons; redox features are also present in the 11-13.5” horizon as shown by the 10YR 2/2 masses. DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project Site: New Light Creek Wetland Mitigation Site Date: 12/15/03 Applicant/Owner: NCDOT County: Wake Investigator: S. Stokes, M. Schlegel State: NC Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID: Is there area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: Data Point 7 (wetland) (if needed, explain on reverse.) VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. Typha spp. 3 OBL 9. 2. Polygonum spp. 3 - 10. 3. 11. 4. 12. 5. 13. 6. 14. 7. 15. 8. 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-). 100 % Remarks: HYDROLOGY X Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators: ___ Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: ___ Aerial Photographs X Inundated X Other X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches ___ No Recorded Data Available _____ Water Marks _____ Drift Lines _____ Sediment Deposits Field Observations: _____ (in.) _____ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Depth of Surface Water 1-2 (in.) X Oxidized Root Channels in Upper Inches _____ Water-Stained Leaves Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) _____ Local Soil Survey Data X FAC-Neutral Test Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _____ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Adjacent to monitoring well #5. DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Wehadkee Drainage Class: Poorly Drained Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Endoaquepts Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No Profile Description: Depth (Inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Moist) Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist) Mottle Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions, Structure, etc. 0-3 A 10YR 4/1 sil, mass 3-6 Bg1 2.5YR 5/2 10YR 3/6 c2d l, mass 6-12 Bg2 10YR 4/1 5/N f1d c, 1msbk-mass Hydric Soil Indicators: _____ Histosol _____ Concretions _____ Histic Epipedon _____ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils _____ Sulfidic Ordor _____ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils X Aquic Moisture Regime X Listed on Local Hydric Soils List _____ Reducing Conditions X Listed on National Hydric Soils List X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _____ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: 10YR 3/6 redox concentrations in pore spaces and oxidized root channels in 3-6” horizon; sampling point was inundated and soil structure was indistinct. WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present Yes No (circle) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Hydric Soils Present? Yes No (circle) Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project Site: New Light Creek Wetland Mitigation Site Date: 12/15/03 Applicant/Owner: NCDOT County: Wake Investigator: S. Stokes, M. Schlegel State: NC Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID: Is there area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: Data Point 8 (nonwetland) (if needed, explain on reverse.) VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. Quercus lyrata 2 OBL 9. 2. Fraxinus pennsylvanica 2 FACW 10. 3. Festuca spp. 3 FAC- 11. 4. Mentha spp. 3 - 12. 5. 13. 6. 14. 7. 15. 8. 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-). 67 % Remarks: HYDROLOGY ___ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators: ___ Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: ___ Aerial Photographs _____ Inundated ___ Other _____ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches X No Recorded Data Available _____ Water Marks _____ Drift Lines _____ Sediment Deposits Field Observations: _____ (in.) _____ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Depth of Surface Water _____ (in.) _____ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper Inches _____ Water-Stained Leaves Depth to Free Water in Pit: >18 (in.) _____ Local Soil Survey Data X FAC-Neutral Test Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _____ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Water table >18”. DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Chewacla variant Drainage Class: Moderately well Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No Profile Description: Depth (Inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Moist) Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist) Mottle Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions, Structure, etc. 0-6 A 10YR 4/3 sl, 1mgr 6-9 Bw1 10YR 4/4 sl-l, 1msbk 9-13 Bw2 10YR 5/4 10YR 4/4 f1f cl, 2msbk 10YR 3/4 c2f 13-18 Bw3 10YR 5/6 5YR 4/6 f1p cl, 2msbk Hydric Soil Indicators: _____ Histosol _____ Concretions _____ Histic Epipedon _____ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils _____ Sulfidic Ordor _____ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils _____ Aquic Moisture Regime X Listed on Local Hydric Soils List _____ Reducing Conditions X Listed on National Hydric Soils List _____ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _____ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: 10YR 3/4 manganese masses in 9-13” horizon. WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present Yes No (circle) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Hydric Soils Present? Yes No (circle) Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) Project Site: New Light Creek Wetland Mitigation Site Date: 12/15/03 Applicant/Owner: NCDOT County: Wake Investigator: S. Stokes, M. Schlegel State: NC Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID: Is there area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: Data Point 9 (nonwetland) (if needed, explain on reverse.) At monitoring well #4 VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. Festuca spp. 3 FAC- 9. 2. 10. 3. 11. 4. 12. 5. 13. 6. 14. 7. 15. 8. 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-). 0 % Remarks: HYDROLOGY X Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators: ___ Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: ___ Aerial Photographs _____ Inundated X Other _____ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches ___ No Recorded Data Available _____ Water Marks _____ Drift Lines _____ Sediment Deposits Field Observations: _____ (in.) _____ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Depth of Surface Water _____ (in.) _____ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper Inches _____ Water-Stained Leaves Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) _____ Local Soil Survey Data _____ FAC-Neutral Test Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _____ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: No indications of wetland hydrology; adjacent to monitoring well #4. DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL) SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Chewacla variant Drainage Class: Somewhat Poorly Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No Profile Description: Depth (Inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Moist) Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist) Mottle Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions, Structure, etc. 0-6 A 10YR 4/3 l, 1fgr 6-13 Bt1 10YR 4/4 scl, 1fsbk Hydric Soil Indicators: _____ Histosol _____ Concretions _____ Histic Epipedon _____ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils _____ Sulfidic Ordor _____ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils _____ Aquic Moisture Regime X Listed on Local Hydric Soils List _____ Reducing Conditions X Listed on National Hydric Soils List _____ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _____ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present Yes No (circle) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Hydric Soils Present? Yes No (circle) Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: |
OCLC number | 780084035 |