20081317 Ver 1_DCM Permit_20091015

Permit Class p$- 13 17 ?crmit'4 tt Iber
NEW _ cL q 83-fl9
STATE OF NORTH CAR+l UNA ------
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
and i j?
Coastal Resources Commission
OCT I V 2009
DENR - WATER QUALITY
for 1N 1UMS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
Y Major Development in an Brea of Environme ital Concern
pursuant to NCGS 113A-118
N , Excavation and/or filling pursuant to NCGS 113-229
Issued to PCS Phosphate Company, Inc., NC Hwy. 306 South, Aurora, NC 27806
Authorizing development in Beaufort County at West side of Seed Tick Neck Road
(SR1714), South of NC 264 and North of SR 99, as requested in the permittee's application dated 4/23/09,
including the attached workplan drawings (63) see condition #1
This permit, issued on October 5, 2009 is subject to compliance with the application (where consistent
with the permit), all applicable regulations, special conditions and notes set forth below. Any violation of these terms may
be subject to fines, imprisonment or civil action, or may cause the permit to be null and void.
Workplan Draawings
1) Figure 1 dated 3/18/09, Figure 2 dated 3/20/09, Exhibit 3A & 313 dated 3/12/09, C2 dated 3/25/09,
C1.1-C4.2 dated 3/18/09, C4.3-C4.7 dated 3/17/09, C4.8 dated 2/23/09, C4.9-C4.16 dated 3/17/09.
Sheet 1 undated, Sheet 1-A, 2, 2-A, 2-13 dated 12/5/08, Sheet 1-13 dated 7/28/08, Sheets 4-23 dated
3/11/09, Sheets 24-25 dated 12/15/08, Sheets 26-27 dated 1/29/09, Figure 2 dated 3/20/09, Figure 3
dated 3/18/09, Figure 4a-4b dated 3/27/09, Figure 5 dated 2/3/09, Figure 6 dated 4/7/09, Figure 7
dated 4/6/09, Figure 8a not dated, Figure 8b dated 3/27/09, Figure 9 & 10 not dated, Figure 11 dated
3/27/09, Figure 12 & 13 dated 3/27/09 and Sheet D-1 and D-2 not dated.
(See attached sheets for Additional Conditions)
This permit action may be appealed by the permittee or
other qualified persons within twenty (20) days of the issuing
date. An appeal requires resolution prior to work initiation or
continuance as the case may be.
This permit must be accessible on-site to Department
personnel when the project is inspected for compliance.
Any maintenance work or project modification not covered
hereunder requires further Division approval.
All work must cease when the permit expires on
March 28, 2014
Signed by the authority of the Secretary of DENR and the
Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission.

ames 11. egson, Director
Dion of Coastal Management
This permit and its conditions are hereby accepted.
In issuing this permit, the State of North Carolina agrees
that your project is consistent with the North Carolina Coastal
Management Program. Signature of Permittee
PCS Phosphate Company Inc.
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Restoration Activities
Permit 453-09
Page 2 of 4
Unless Jpecllil illlY a1LCTel! 11C1Glli, lilts jJelllllt a11t1ior17,GJ all graLLing gnu otllel ictriU d1JtUTUiii aCl1V 111GJ
associated with the restoration of Scott Creels, and the property located adjacent to Scott Creek, all as
expressly and specificaiiy yet forth in the attached permit appl.icaiion and depicted on the attached
workplan drawings. Aay additional land disturbing activities shall be evaluated on a case-by-case basis
by a representative of the Division of Coastal Management to determine additional permit requirements.
Contact a representative of the Division at [phone] prior to the commencement of any such
activity for this determination.
3) In accordance with commitments made by the permittee, double floating and weighted silt curtains shall
be installed at the lower end of the project area to prevent sedimentation outside of the project
boundaries prior to any in water work taking place, and shall remain in place at least 48 hours after
completion of the work. In addition, due to the scope and size of the project area, a secondary sediment
curtain(s) shall be installed immediately downstream of any area(s) actively being disturbed and shall be
relocated as needed to minimize downstream sedimentation.
4) Excavation of the relocated channel shall not exceed the depths of connecting waters.
5) The temporary placement or double handling of excavated or fill materials within waters or vegetated
wetlands is not authorized.
6) No excavated or fill material shall be placed at any time in any vegetated wetlands or surrounding
waters outside of the alignment of the areas indicated on the attached workplan drawings.
7) The permittee shall maintain the authorized work in good condition and in conformance with the terms
and conditions of this permit. The permittee is not relieved of this requirement if he abandons the
permitted activity without having it transferred to a third party.
U.S. Army Corps of Enginners Conditions
8) Authorization of this work in no way obligates the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to accept this project a
compensatory mitigation for the PCS Phosphate Company's mine expansion permit (ORM ID SAW-
2001-10096)
9) The permitte shall full implement the mitigation plan entitled, Compensatory Mitigation Plan for
Restoration of the Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed, Pantego Township, Beaufort County, North
Carolina, dated July 2009, except as conditioned herein.
10) The construction of minor depressions (microtopography) on the site is not authorized.
11) Discing and/or grading to create beds and/or other persistent, earthen features on the site is not
authorized.
12) To ensure that the plugged ditches do not continue to drain the site, the permittee shall ensure that the
final fill elevations of all ditch plugs are packed down and of the same elevation as the adjacent ground.
PCS Phosphate Company Inc. Permit =#83-09
Page a r4 4
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
13) Should any other contingency measuTs be deemed necessary by the Corps, the permittee shall develop
and Submit a remediation plan to the Corps for review and approval prier to implLmentation.
1.T) Final determination of the upper limits from which stream mitigation credits may be calculated will be
made by the Corps at the end of the 5-year monitoring period.
Sedimentation and Erosion Control
NOTE: An Erosion and Sedimentation Ccntrol Plan will be required for this project. This plan must be
filed at least thirty (30) days prior to the beginning of any land disturbing activity. Submit this
plan to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Land Quality Section, 943
Washington Square Mall, Washington, NC 27889.
13) In order to protect water quality, runoff from construction shall not visibly increase the amount of
suspended sediments in adjacent waters.
16) Appropriate sedimentation and erosion control devices, measures or structures shall be implemented to
ensure that eroded materials do not enter adjacent wetlands, watercourses and property (e.g. silt fence,
diversion swales or berms, etc.).
401 Water Quality Certification
17) The Division of Water Quality approval of this project under the rules of the Environmental
Management Commission is covered by way of General Water Quality Certification Number 3642,
which was issued on 8/17/09. Any violation of the permit approved by the DWQ shall be considered a
violation of this CAMA permit.
General
18) The permittee understands and agrees that, if future operations by the United States requires the
removal, relocation, or other alteration of the structure or work authorized by this permit, or if in the
opinion of the Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative, said structure or work shall cause
unreasonable obstruction to free navigation of the navigable waters, the permittee will be required, upon
due notice from the Corps of Engineers, to remove, relocate or alter the structural work or obstructions
caused thereby, without expense to the United States or the state of North Carolina. No claim shall be
made against the United States or the state of North Carolina on account of any such removal or
alteration.
19) The authorized structure and associated activity must not interfere with the public's right to free
navigation on all navigable waters of the United States. No attempt will be made by the permittee to
prevent the full and free use by the public of all navigable waters at or adjacent to the authorized work
for reason other than safety.
20) This pen-nit shall not be assigned, transferred, sold, or otherwise disposed of to a third party without the
written approval of the Division of Coastal Management.
-?CS Phosphate Company Inc. Permit #83-09
Pa e4of4
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
NOTE: This permit does not eliminate the need to clbtain ally additional state, federal or local permits,
approvals or authorizations that may be required.
{
"COTE: The U.S. Arm; Corps of Engineers authorized the proposed project under COE Action Id. No.
SAW-20081-0201.4 which was issued on 0i21/G9.
f frr
f ?
? .L
'f
f tf
APPLICATION
FOR
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
NORTH CAROLINA
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
HELL SWAMP RESTORATION SITE
PANTEGO TOWNSHIP
BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
7 MAY 2009
Prepared for:
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
Environmental Affairs Department
Aurora, North Carolina
Prepared by:
CZR INCORPORATED
Wilmington, North Carolina
Jupiter, Florida
and
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Cary, North Carolina
and
Jonathan T. Ricketts, Inc.
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida
APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
NORTH CAROLINA
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
HELL SWAMP RESTORATION SITE
PANTEGO TOWNSHIP, BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
INDEX
CAMA
FIGURES
Figure 1 -Vicinity
Figure 2 - Site Plan
EXHIBITS - 1, 2, 3a, and 3b
ATTACHMENT A
Description of Land Uses by Parcel Surrounding Project Area
ATTACHMENT B
NCSHPO Letter
ATTACHMENT C
C-1 - Baker Technical Memorandum
C-2 - Site Plan Outfall Exhibit
C-3 - Construction Plans, Jonathan T. Ricketts Engineering, Inc.
C-4 - Construction Plans, Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
ATTACHMENT D
Compensatory Mitigation Plan for the Hell Swamp Restoration Area
Figures
Supporting Document A
Beaufort County Parcel Information
Supporting Document B
Selected Site Photographs including Historic Aerials
Supporting Document C
Agency Correspondence and Additional Information:
1 - Soil Fertility Report
2 - Natural Heritage Report on Reference Forest
3 - USDOI/USFWS Letter
4 - NC NHP Letter
5 - NC SHPO Letter
6 - NRCS PC status Letter
7 - Limits of CAMA Jurisdictional
Supporting Document D
Hell Swamp Site Existing Condition Stream Cross Sections
Supporting Document E
Hell Swamp Site Work Plans
Supporting Document F
Hell Swamp Hydrologic Model Analysis Summary
ATTACHMENT E
Consultant Authorization Form
ATTACHMENT F
Wetland Delineation Summary
PCN
FIGURES
Figure 1 -Vicinity
Figure 2 - Site Plan
Figure 3 - Existing Conditions and Land Cover Classification
Figure 4a - DWQ Riparian Buffers - Temporary Impacts
Figure 4b - DWQ Riparian Buffers - Temporary Impacts Enlarged View
Figure 5 - Acreages and Linear Footage Jurisdictional Wetlands, Waters, &
Streams on Lower Scott Creek
ATTACHMENT A
Agent Authorization Form
ATTACHMENT B
Existing Conditions on the Site
ATTACHMENT C
Description of the Overall Project, including Equipment
ATTACHMENT D
Backer Technical Memorandum
ATTACHMENT E
Wetland Delineation Summary
NOTE: See Attachment "F" of the CAMA
ATTACHMENT F
Additional Stream Impacts
ATTACHMENT G
1. Letters to Beaufort County Floodplain Administrator
2. Letters to Beaufort County Floodplain Administrator
3. NCSHPO Letter
DCM MP-1
APPLICHION for
P
Major Development Permit
(last revised 12/27/06)
North Carolina DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
1. Primary Applicant/ Landowner Information
Business Name Project Name (if applicable)
P C S Phosphate Company, Inc. Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed Mitigation Site
Applicant 1: First Name MI Last Name
Jeffrey C. Furness
Applicant 2: First Name MI Last Name
If additional applicants, please attach an additional page(s) with names listed.
Mailing Address PO Box City State
1530 NC Highway 306 South Aurora NC
ZIP Country Phone No. FAX No.
27806 USA 252 - 322 - 8249 ext. 252 - 322 - 4444

Street Address (if different from above)
City State ZIP
N/A N/A N/A N/A-
Email
[e-mail]
2. Agent(Contractor Information
Business Name
CZR Incorporated
Agent/ Contractor 1: First Name MI Last Name
Samuel Cooper
Agent/ Contractor 2: First Name MI Last Name
James M Hudgens
Mailing Address PO Box City State
4709 College Acres Drive, Suite 2 Wilmington NC
ZIP Phone No. 1 Phone No. 2
28403 - 1725 910 - 392 - 9253 ext. 561 - 747 - 7455 ext.
FAX No. Contractor #
910 -392 -9139
Street Address (if different from above) City State ZIP
N/A N/A N/A N/A -
Email
[e-mail]-, [e-mail]-, [e-mail]-, [e-mail]
<Form continues on back>
Form DCM MP-1 (Page 2 of 5)
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
3. Project Location
County (can be multiple) Street Address State Rd. #
Beaufort West side of SR 1714 (Seed Tick Neck Road), south of NC 1714
Highway 264, north of SR 99
Subdivision Name City State Zip
N/A Pinetown NC 27865-
Phone No. Lot No.(s) (if many, attach additional page with list)
- - ext. N/A 07005048, 15023785, 15024568, 15024842, 15025549
a. In which NC river basin is the project located? b. Name of body of water nearest to proposed project
Tar-Pamlico river basin, Pamlico Hydrologic Unit 03020104 Headwaters of Scott Creek and Smith Creek are both
located within the site.
c. Is the water body identified in (b) above, natural or manmade? d. Name the closest major water body to the proposed project site.
®Natural ?Manmade ?Unknown Pungo River
e. Is proposed work within city limits or planning jurisdiction? f. If applicable, list the planning jurisdiction or city limit the proposed
?Yes ®No work falls within.
N/A
4. Site Description
a. Total length of shoreline on the tract (ft.) b. Size of entire tract (sq.ft.)
7,452 linear feet of shoreline (3,672 linear feet of stream 1,297 acres (Note: 34 acres of Windley Tract, reference
claimed by DCM). forest, have been added to project boundary and other
acreage along the northern boundary have been removed
since the JD.)
c. Size of individual lot(s) d. Approximate elevation of tract above NHW (normal high water) or
N/A, NWL (normal waterlevel)
(If many lot sizes, please attach additional page with a list) Ranges from 0.0 to 9.5 N.G.V.D. ?NHW or ®NWL
e. Vegetation on tract
Agricultural Fields: The majority of the project area (about 1,002 acres) consists of 1-year fallow agricultural rowcrop fields.
Woodland Areas: The main body of Scott Creek on the site is bounded by a ±43 acre mature bottomland forest mostly on
the south side. The canopy of this forest is comprised of bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), red maple (Acer rubrum),
green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua). About a quarter of the creek is forested on
both sides and about a quarter is forested only on the south side. Subcanopy and groundcover species include swamp red
bay (Persea palustris), wax myrtle (Morelia cerifera), greenbriar (Smilax spp.), yellow jessamine (Gelsemium sempervirens),
and rush (Juncus spp). Along a portion of the north side of the main body there is a sparse strip (±4 acres) of common reed
(Phragmites australis), wax myrtle, black willow (Salix nigra), green ash, and sweet gum.
Along both sides of the northern prong of Scott Creek, there are about seven acres of highly disturbed common reed
community, wax myrtle, and scattered young pines and hardwoods.
Along the western boundary, there are approximately 34 acres of mature hardwoods. An additional 14-acre linear strip of
mixed pine/hardwoods separate approximately the northern one third of the site from the balance.
Cleared Area: This referenced northern third of the site includes 157 acres of recently cleared and ditched land, in various
stages of agricultural conversion. This area is vegetated in dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), panic grass species
(Dichanthelium spp.), and red maple, loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), and sweet gum.
Vegetated Nonforested Areas: Areas of unforested vegetation occur in several locations within the proposed project area.
These include areas along some ditch banks, previous interior parcel boundaries, and the north prong of Scott Creek.
Form DCM MP-1 (Page 3 of 5)
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
f. Man-made features and uses now on tract
Except for a small portion at the northern end of the property, the entire site was forested until Scott Creek was dredged and
relocated in the 1960s and 1970s. In subsequent years an extensive system of ditches and canals was added making the
site suitable for agriculture. The majority of the southern and eastern part of the site (approximately 965 acres) has been in
active crop rotation since the 1970s. Farm access roads cross the site at various angles and culverts exist at the road
crossing over Scott Creek.
The northern portion of the site remained forested until the 1990s. This portion of the site was in the process of being
cleared and drained when PCS brought it under contract. This northern portion includes 157 acres of recently cleared and
ditched areas, in various stages of pre-agricultural conversion. This area is vegetated in dog fennel, panic grass species,
and red maple, loblolly pine, and sweet gum.
There remain some wooded areas associated with Scott Creek and Smith Creek. These areas have been logged, but not
manipulated for agricultural production.
All agricultural rowcrop areas of Hell Swamp have been determined to be prior converted by NRCS. (See Supporting
Document B-6 in Attachment D.)
There is a single grave with a headstone that will be relocated off site.
g. Identify and describe the existing land uses adjacent to the proposed project site.
Existing land uses adjacent to the proposed project site include a mixture of agricultural cleared land, forested land, and
small residential areas. The location of these uses is further detailed in Attachment A.
h. How does local government zone the tract? i. Is the proposed project consistent with the applicable zoning?
No zone (Attach zoning compliance certificate, if applicable)
?Yes ?No ®NA
j. Is the proposed activity part of an urban waterfront redevelopment proposal? ?Yes ®No
k. Hasa professional archaeological assessment been done for the tract? If yes, attach a copy. ?Yes ?No ®NA
If yes, by whom? NCSHPO letter is attached at B.
1. Is the proposed project located in a National Registered Historic District or does it involve a ?Yes ®No ?NA
National Register listed or eligible property?
<Form continues on next page>
m. (i) Are there wetlands on the site? ®Yes ?No
Not within impact
(ii) Are there coastal wetlands on the site? ®Yes ?No area. (See Figur
If yes to either (i ) or (ii) above, has a delineation been conducted?
(iii) ®Yes ?No Attachment F . )
(Attach documentation, if available)
n. Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities.
None.
o. Describe existing drinking water supply source.
None.
p. Describe existing storm water management or treatment systems.
There exists a system of agricultural farm field and perimeter ditches. An Erosion/Sediment Control Permit will be obtained.
5. Activities and Impacts
a. Will the project be for commercial, public, or private use? ?Commercial ?Public/Government
Wetland, stream and buffer mitigation for private use, then it ®Private/Community
is intended that the land be conveyed to a public or private management entity (e.g., NCWRC,
d
2,
NC Agricultural Foundation, Inc.)
Form DCM MP-1 (Page 4 of 5)
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
b. Give a brief description of purpose, use, and daily operations of the project when complete.
The proposed Hell Swamp Scott Creek Watershed project will encompass the restoration or enhancement of approximately
20,083 linear feet of stream, including several headwater systems. Approximately 21 acres of Tar-Pamlico riparian buffer is
proposed to be restored or enhanced, with the potential for an additional 21 acres if suitable stream segments form in this
system. Approximately 813 acres of non-riparian forested wetlands will be restored. The balance of the on site wetlands will
be preserved, and the remaining uplands will be planted in appropriate mixed hardwoods. The completed project is
proposed as mitigation to offset impacts from the proposed PCS Phosphate Mine Continuation activities. Figure 2 shows the
proposed yields.
c. Describe the proposed construction methodology, types of construction equipment to be used during construction, the number of each type
of equipment and where it is to be stored.
Site streams have been channelized for most of the historic reaches. Restoration will entail excavating along the alignment
to restore semblance of a natural stream and filling in a few places (see typical cross-sections in Baker Technical
Memorandum, Attachment C-1). Root wads may be used to protect the meanders. The buffer areas and historic riparian
areas now mostly in agriculture will be graded only to remove field crowns, and roughened to mimic the pre-developed
condition and conserve water on site in a natural fashion. The balance of the fields, constituting the majority of the site, will
be graded and roughened as described above to restore areas once in wetland hardwood flats. Upland inclusions will be
treated similarly. All prepared areas will be planted as riparian wetland hardwoods, wetland hardwood flats, and upland areas
in a mixture of hardwood species.
Since most of the site is in agriculture fields, little clearing will be required. The small areas of pine and mixed pine hardwood
will be cleared using standard forestry equipment to include, but not be limited to harvesters, skidders, and loaders, as well
as bulldozers with specialized blades for stump cutting and removal. Most of the wetland restoration areas will be prepared
with bulldozers, pans, and/or graders to remove the field crowns, and excavators to plug ditches and construct check dams.
Stream restoration will employ principally excavators; dump trucks and other equipment as above may be used.
Numbers of each type of equipment cannot reasonably be determined at this time. Equipment as necessary will remain on
site until the work is complete. Overnight and weekend storage will be determined as the work progresses.
d. List all development activities you propose.
Development activities will be stream, wetland, and upland restoration only, and are described above and in the
Compensatory Mitigation Plan for the Hell Swamp Restoration Site, Attachment D.
e. Are the proposed activities maintenance of an existing project, new work, or both? New work
f. What is the approximate total disturbed land area resulting from the proposed project? 1,259 ?Sq.Ft or ®Acres
g. Will the proposed project encroach on any public easement, public accessway or other area ?Yes ?No ®NA
that the public has established use of?
h. Describe location and type of existing and proposed discharges to waters of the state.
Existing discharges: Runoff in the ag fields currently is collected in lateral ditches, flowing to collector ditches and into the
main body of Scott Creek and into the Smith Creek drainage. See Attachment C-2.
Proposed discharges: after removal of lateral and collector ditches, sheet flow will travel through vegetated wetlands into
Scott Creek and the Smith Creek drainage. Some perimeter ditches will remain. See Attachments C2-4.
i. Will wastewater or stormwater be discharged into a wetland? ?Yes ?No ®NA
The majority of the site will be restored sheet flow wetland and swamp/stream systems.
If yes, will this discharged water be of the same salinity as the receiving water? ?Yes ?No ®NA
j. Is there any mitigation proposed? ?Yes ?No ®NA
If yes, attach a mitigation proposal. This is a mitigation site. See Attachment D.
<Form continues on back>
6. Additional Information
In addition to this completed application form, (MP-1) the following items below, if applicable, must be submitted in order for the application
package to be complete. Items (a) - (f) are always applicable to any major development application. Please consult the application
instruction booklet on how to properly prepare the required items below.
a. A project narrative. See Compensatory Mitigation Plan for Hell Swamp Restoration Site, Attachment D
Form DCM MP-1 (Page 5 of 5) APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
b. An accurate, dated work plat (including plan view and cross-sectional drawings) drawn to scale. Please give the present status of the
proposed project. Is any portion already complete? If previously authorized work, clearly indicate on maps, plats, drawings to distinguish
between work completed and proposed. Site Plan, multiple sheets. No work has commenced.
c. A site or location map that is sufficiently detailed to guide agency personnel unfamiliar with the area to the site. Vicinity, Figure 1 .
d. A copy of the deed (with state application only) or other instrument under which the applicant claims title to the affected properties.
e. The appropriate application fee. Check or money order made payable to DENR.
f. A list of the names and complete addresses of the adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners and signed return receipts as proof that such
owners have received a copy of the application and plats by certified mail. Such landowners must be advised that they have 30 days in
which to submit comments on the proposed project to the Division of Coastal Management.
Name NC Department of Transportation Phone No. [phone]
Address Highway Division Two, HQ Office, 105 Pactolus Highway (NC 33), Greenville, NC 27835
Name Phone No.
Address
Name Phone No.
Address
g. A list of previous state or federal permits issued for work on the project tract. Include permit numbers, permittee, and issuing dates.
NONEFOUND
In. Signed consultant or agent authorization form, if applicable.
Signed Consultant of Agent Authorization form is attached at E.
i. Wetland delineation, if necessary.
Wetland delineation is attached at F.
j. A signed AEC hazard notice for projects in oceanfront and inlet areas. (Must be signed by property owner) N/A
k. A statement of compliance with the N.C. Environmental Policy Act (N.C.G.S. 113A 1-10), if necessary. If the project involves expenditure
of public funds or use of public lands, attach a statement documenting compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
7. Certification and Permission to Enter on Land
I understand that any permit issued in response to this application will allow only the development described in the application.
The project will be subject to the conditions and restrictions contained in the permit.
I certify that I am authorized to grant, and do in fact grant permission to representatives of state and federal review agencies to
enter on the aforementioned lands in connection with evaluating information related to this permit application and follow-up
monitoring of the project.
further certify that the information provided in this application is truthful to the best of my knowledge.
Date J 3 April 2009 Print Name Jeffrey C. F mess ?r
Signature
1
Please indicate application attachments pertaining to your proposed project.
®DCM MP-2 Excavation and Fill Information ?DCM MP-5 Bridges and Culverts
®DCM MP-3 Upland Development
?DCM MP-4 Structures Information
* The property is gated and locked. Please contact Applicant -
Jeffrey Furness - [phone] - to arrange access.
Form DCM MP-2
EXCAVATION and FILL
(Except for bridges and culverts)
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major Permit, Form DCM MP-1. Be sure to complete all other sections of the Joint
Application that relate to this proposed project. Please include all supplemental information.
Describe below the purpose of proposed excavation and/or fill activities. All values should be given in feet.
Access Other
Channel Canal Boat Basin Boat Ramp Rock Groin Rock (excluding
(NLW or Breakwater shoreline
NWL stabilization
See Exhibit 1
Length & Attachment
C-1
Width
Avg. Existing NA NA
Depth
Final Project NA NA
Depth
1. EXCAVATION ?This section not applicable
a. Amount of material to be excavated from below NHW or NWL in b. Type of material to be excavated.
cubic yards. top soil (fine sandy loam, and loam)
0
C. (i) Does the area to be excavated include coastal wetlands/marsh d. High-ground excavation in cubic yards.
(CW) submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB), 280,000 cubic yards
or other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the
number of square feet affected.
?CW ?SAV ?SB
OWL 87,600 s.f. ?None
(ii) Describe the purpose of the excavation in these areas:
Relocation of interior ditch to perimeter.
2. DISPOSAL OF EXCAVATED MATERIAL ?This section not applicable
a. Location of disposal area. b. Dimensions of disposal area.
High ground excavation will be disposed in ditches adjacent 600+/- acres
to each field and existing channelized portions of Scott
Creek.
C. (i) Do you claim title to disposal area? d. (i) Will a disposal area be available for future maintenance?
®Yes ?No ?NA ?Yes ?No ENA
(ii) If no, attach a letter granting permission from the owner. (ii) If yes, where?
(i) Does the disposal area include any coastal wetlands/marsh
(CW), submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB),
or other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the
number of square feet affected.
?CW ?SAV ?SB
OWL 736,200 s.f. ?None
(ii) Describe the purpose of disposal in these areas:
Disposal in these areas is for restoring the historic elevations of
the former wetlands.
f. (i) Does the disposal include any area in the water?
®Yes ?No ?NA
(ii) If yes, how much water area is affected?
181,800 s.f. - Fill disposal is required to restore hydrologic
functions of adjacent drained wetlands and historic patterns.
The value shown above includes ACOE and NCDWQ
jurisdictional waters. Filled areas are in the bottom of
constructed field ditches claimed as jurisdictional and in
portions of Scott Creek.
252-808-2808 :: 1-888-4RCOAST :: www.nccoastaimanagement.net revised: 12/26/06
3. SHORELINE STABILIZATION ®This section not applicable
(If development is a wood groin, use MP-4 - Structures)
a. Type of shoreline stabilization:
?Bulkhead ?Riprap ?Breakwater/Sill ?Other:
c. Average distance waterward of NHW or NWL:
e. Type of stabilization material:
g. Number of square feet of fill to be placed below water level
Bulkhead backfill Riprap
Breakwater/Sill Other
i. Source of fill material.
b. Length:
Width:
d. Maximum distance waterward of NHW or NWL:
f. (i) Has there been shoreline erosion during preceding 12
months?
?Yes ?No ?NA
(ii) If yes, state amount of erosion and source of erosion amount
information.
h. Type of fill material.
4. OTHER FILL ACTIVITIES ®This section not applicable
(Excluding Shoreline Stabilization)
a. (i) Will fill material be brought to the site? ?Yes ?No ?NA b. (i) Will fill material be placed in coastal wetlands/marsh (CW),
If yes, submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB), or
other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the
(ii) Amount of material to be placed in the water number of square feet affected.
(iii) Dimensions of fill area ?CW ?SAV ?SB
(iv) Purpose of fill ?WL ?None
(ii) Describe the purpose of the fill in these areas:

5. GENERAL
a. How will excavated or fill material be kept on site and erosion b. What type of construction equipment will be used (e.g., dragline,
controlled? backhoe, or hydraulic dredge)?
An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan will be developed using track dozers, pans, front-end loaders, excavators
BMPs-rock check dams, silt fences, and double top to bottom
silt curtain-baffles to block off entire channel of Scott Creek.
This double curtain will be moved downstream with construction
sequencing.
C. (i) Will navigational aids be required as a result of the project? d. (i) Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equipment to project
?Yes ®No ?NA site? ?Yes NNo ?NA
(ii) If yes, explain what type and how they will be implemented. (ii) If yes, explain steps that will be taken to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts.

Date
Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed Mitigation Site
Project Name
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc., Jeffrey C. Furness
Ap r7A<,rqx&--
Applic Name
l lSi6datu
Form DCM MP-3
UPLAND DEVELOPMENT
(Construction and/or land disturbing activities)
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major Permit, Form DCM MP-1. Be sure to complete all other sections of the Joint
Application that relate to this proposed project. Please include all supplemental information.
GENERAL UPLAND DEVELOPMENT
a. Type and number of buildings, facilities, units or structures b. Number of lots or parcels.
proposed. 1
None
c. Density (give the number of residential units and the units per
acre).
N/A
e. If the proposed project will disturb more than one acre of land, the
Division of Land Resources must receive an erosion and
sedimentation control plan at least 30 days before land-disturbing
activity begins.
(i) If applicable, has a sedimentation and erosion control plan been
submitted to the Division of Land Resources?
?Yes ®No ?NA
(ii) If yes, list the date submitted:
d. Size of area to be graded, filled, or disturbed including roads,
ditches, etc.
1259+/- acres (867 acre proposed wetland: riparian & non-
riparian)
f. List the materials (such as marl, paver stone, asphalt, or concrete)
to be used for impervious surfaces.
Aggregate Base Coarse (ABC) will be used on the
perimeter access roads.
g. Give the percentage of the tract within the coastal shoreline AEC to
be covered by impervious and/or built-upon surfaces, such as
pavement, building, rooftops, or to be used for vehicular driveways
or parking.
0
i. Give the percentage of the entire tract to be covered by impervious
and/or built-upon surfaces, such as pavement, building, rooftops,
or to be used for vehicular driveways or parking.
0.46%
j. Describe proposed method of sewage disposal.
No sewage is generated.
1. Describe location and type of proposed discharges to waters of the
state (e.g., surface runoff, sanitary wastewater, industrial/
commercial effluent, "wash down" and residential discharges).
The majority of the site will be restored to wetlands which
will sheet flow to swamp/stream systems eventually
discharging to Pungo Creek via Scott or Smith Creek.
h. Projects that require a CAMA Major Development Permit may also
require a Stormwater Certification.
(i) Has a site development plan been submitted to the Division of
Water Quality for review?
?Yes ENo ?NA
(ii) If yes, list the date submitted:
k. Have the facilities described in Item (i) received state or local
approval?
?Yes ?No ENA
If yes, attach appropriate documentation.
m. Does the proposed project include an innovative stormwater
design?
?Yes ENo ?NA
If yes, attach appropriate documentation.
252-808-28082 :: 1-888-4RCOAST :: www.nccoastaimana-gement.net revised: 12/26/06
m. Describe proposed drinking water supply source (e.g., well,
community, public system, etc.)
None required.
o. When was the lot(s) platted and recorded?
NIA

Date
Hell Swamp Scott Creek Watershed Mitigation Site
Project Name
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc., Jeffrey C. Furness
Appl'ca t Name
M v
Appli n S a
n. (i) Will water be impounded? ?Yes ®No ?NA
(ii) If yes, how many acres?
p, If proposed development is a subdivision, will additional utilities be
installed for this upland development?
?Yes ?No UNA
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 -Vicinity
Figure 2 - Site Plan
• .. Cam- <Lw, '.?.,..,• •..,,- } T??CU
Tx-
- O46F - Rk[]RA F?eis+nd
I ?..
RT. 284 j SEED TICK NECK ROAP - r
}, r
9 g'. RT. 99 = f,..
1.a4. AI1n Y, ? ?? 1 5 - \-`. may/
ej . r PUNCO g HELL. SWAMP f
CREEK ROAD •r SC07T CREEKS
H A T H ( Via. V -
n ?
R 1a -
- ••Holla C:ev° ?Ijpe
0 5,000 10,000
NORTH CAROLINA
SCALE IN FEET
SITE LOCATION HELL SWAMP VICINITY MAP
HELL SWAMP-SCOTT CREEK
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
LEGEND
HELL SWAMP PROJECT BOUNDARY SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: BFG/TLJ
DATE: 03/ 1 809 FILE: HELLSWAMP-LOC-CAMA
SOURCE: 4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE CP#1 74559.66
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT TRANSPORTATION, USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP SUITE 2
IMAGES, NC STATEPLANE, .
, USGFEET, NGLES-SCALELE, , USGSTOPOTILE0E3.SID, NCORPORATED WILMINGTON, CAROLINA 28403
AND USGSTO WPOTILE1.SID USGS QUADRANGLES RANSOMVILLE AND PANTEGO,
FIGURE 1
WEB SITE: SITE: WWW.NCDOTOT.ORG IENVIRONMENTAL CONSNLTANTS FAX [phone]
A? r C. s
rry,_yl? .R, r ?? fd?`. ? x •, - - r - ?'r ,,,7`{ d -?a +l ? ??n -t tRF
^+R L ±
W ^ f ,'
! U ty?r
+
+
+ +F\ yr w"
A
I r?
}.. RF E E SIT s U
I dF X
?a
? e 1,i91
y •/
41
?sw rx ??., ?_ Yar
• I 4?:yyr t, g
?. -
?' dr
?
Z. -A
?? ?'?'?l?OIM!1t{
r •.y n. a• ''. x 4
r -Ndk.
:GEND

..Y
.??+tG?~,?.'YS.
has ?
4
r .4s
UT2

UT3
UT
N

W
?
..
t
UT4 ` y w W - '1e'

f '
U

' ^
. Y
"
UT ? ?
? t1?
SCOTT CREEK , ?,?, ?w
•a
*0 +>
~
k .
l
ip

yv •'? F 1111 .

r es, Y?" a * (
"?
; & F Ti ry * }
j4
U t >• 7 t 'y
xf t
ppn ;.^ SMITH CREEK # *
14.

f.?

HELL SWAMP PROJECT BOUNDARY
EXISTING SCOTT CREEK
POTENTIAL NON-WETLAND FROM EDGE EFFECT (103 ACRES)
POTENTIAL EXPANSION AREAS
WETLAND ENHANCEMENT (18 ACRES)
PRE-RESTORATION 30 FOOT CAMA COASTAL SHORELINE (5 ACRES)
50 FOOT BUFFER RESTORATION (21 ACRES)
ADDITIONAL 50 FOOT BUFFER RESTORATION (21 ACRES)
SCOTT CREEK STREAM RESTORATION (5,017 LF)
RIPARIAN HEADWATER SYSTEM STREAM RESTORATION (10,845 LF)
1st ORDER STREAM RESTORATION (3,921 LF)
NON-RIPARIAN RESTORATION (808 ACRES)
RIPARIAN RESTORATION (58 ACRES)
RIPARIAN PRESERVATION/ENHANCEMENT (28 ACRES)
(INCLUDES 0.37 ACRES OF COASTAL WETLANDS AND 5 ACRES
OF 30 FOOT CAMA COASTAL SHORELINE)
COASTAL WETLAND (0.37 ACRES)
NON-RIPARIAN PRESERVATION (40 ACRES)
CORPS 2004/2007/2008 JD
UPLAND (200 ACRES)
PRE-RESTORATION UPPER LIMITS (PUBLIC TRUST AREAS)

0 1,200 2,400
SCALE IN FEET
HELL SWAMP AND SCOTT CREEK WATERSHED WETLAND,
STREAM, AND BUFFER MITIGATION SITE
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: BFG/TLJ
DATE: 03/20/09 FILE' HLSWMP-SCTCRK-CAMA-
PTJURISD-CAMA.DWG
CP#1745.59.66
4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SUITE 2
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403
LONSIILI•ANR FAX [phone] FIGURE 2
EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT 1
Attachment to Form DCM MP-2 for Hell Swamp (measurements are in feet)
Access
Other
SHOWN ON EXHIBIT 3A Channel (excluding
& 3B IDENTIFIER 18A -
Farm Road to end of (NLW or Boat Boat Rock Rock shoreline
filled channel NWL) Canal Basin Ramp Groin Breakwater stabilization)
Length 3212
Width -20.5
Avg. Existing Depth NA NA -4
Final Project Depth NA NA -1
Access
Other
SHOWN ON EXHIBIT 3A Channel (excluding
& 3B IDENTIFIER 18B -
End of filled channel to (NLW or Boat Boat Rock Rock shoreline
end of project NWL) Canal Basin Ramp Groin Breakwater stabilization)
Length 460
Width -23
Avg. Existing Depth NA NA -4
Final Project Depth NA NA -4
Access
Other
SHOWN ON EXHIBIT 3A Channel (excluding
& 3B IDENTIFIER 18C -
Upper portions of Scott (NLW or Boat Boat Rock Rock shoreline
Creek (Non LAMA) NWL) Canal Basin Ramp Groin Breakwater stabilization)
Length 1704
Width -9.5
Avg. Existing Depth NA NA -2
Final Project Depth NA NA -1
1 of 1
EXHIBIT 2 TO DCM MP-2 MP-3
Hell Swamp Acreage Totals
Undisturbed Impacted
Parcel Name PCN Number Source Acreage Acreage Acreage
McMullan 7005048 Chiles survey 926.92 4.43 S. of 922.49
Creek
Smith Tract 15023785 Chiles survey 276.13 0 268.4
Less Smith outparcel -7.73
Gaylord 15024842 Chiles survey 24.82 0 24.82
Woolard 15024568 Chiles survey 42.93 0 42.93
Windley(Winfred) 15025549 Chiles survey 33.85 33.85 0
Total 1296.92 acres 38.28 1258.64
USE 1297 acres use 1259 acres
Wetland Acreage from drawing dated 07 2108
Corps 2004 Jurisdictional
Identifier - Refer to Figures 3A and 313 for locations
- 1 G Smith North boundary (1.5 acres removed for possible resale to Smith)
I West boundary
II Tongue
Total
Corps 2007/2008 Jurisdictional Wetlands
Identifier - Refer to Figures 3A and 313 for locations
A South of Pungo Creek Road
B West of farm road - north side of creek
C West of farm road - south side of creek
D Windley Tract
E East of Farm road both sides of creek (less open water in stream 35.77 - 1.58)
Total
Soil Excavation/Regrading that Impacts Wetlands
Identifier - Refer to Figures 3A and 313 for locations
I West boundary Corps 20041D 1.74 acres
Post construction acreage 0.69 acres
E1 50 Foot excavation area adjacent to stream 0.96
Total Excavation/Regrading that Impacts Wetlands
Soil Disposal/Regrading that Impacts Wetlands
Disposal area that impacts wetlands shown above Acreage from
Identifier - Refer to Figures 3A and 313 for locations Above
A South of Pungo Creek Road 0.74
B West of farm road - north side of creek 0.31
C West of farm road - south side of creek 0.28
D Windley Tract 25.05
E East of Farm road both sides of creek (includes stream area) 35.77
less the followingareas that are o/s of construction boundary
and are not in the disposal area
''Donut Hole'' inside Bakerwork area less stream (5.54-.39)
s. side of creek adjacentto NC 99 less stream area(15.65-0.13)
F Tongue Connection
Total Area impacted by fill disposal into wetlands
Acreage
0
1.74
29.38
31.12
Acreage
0.74
0.31
0.28
25.05
34.19
60.57
Acreage
Impacted by
Excavation
1.05
0.96
2.01 acres
87555.6 s.f.
use 87,600 s.f.
Acreage
Impacted by
Disposal
0
0.31
0.28
0
15.1
-5.15
-15.52
1.21
16.9
736,164 s.f.
Fu-se 736,200 s.f.
PAGE 1 OF 3 5/7/2009
EXHIBIT 2 TO DCM MP-2 MP-3
Soil Disposal/Regrading that Impacts Water
DWQ Stream and Waters Lineal Acreage Acreage
Footage Impacted by
Identifier - Refer to Figures 3A and 313 for locations Fill Disposal
1 2381.77 0.440 0.44
Total 2381.77 0.44 acres
use 23821.f.
COE and DWQ Waters
Lineal Acreage
Footage
Identifier - Refer to Figures 3A and 313 for locations
2 1746.96 0.160
3 1484.48 0.100
4 1121.72 0.310
5 1839.69 0.340
6 800.26 0.140
7 424.41 0.060
7A filled where entrance road crosses
8 34.74 0.007
9 980.5 0.230
10 757.88 0.050
11 213.75 0.010
12 630.6 0.040
13 433.95 0.030
14 747.33 0.050
15 441.72 0.030
16 744.49 0.050
17 1059.91 0.070
21 192.73 0.030
22 1975.97 0.360
23 1257.61 0.070
24 filled where entrance road crosses 831.07 0.190
25 390.43 0.030
Total 18110 Lf. 2.357
Use 18110 I.f.* 2.36 acres
The Original Jurisdictional document contained a jurisdictional length of 192.77 feet that has been discovered to be doubt(
counted. Therefore, the value shown above is 193 less than the ACOE/DWQ waters of 18,303 linear feet.
Scott Creek Area
Identifier - Refer to Figures 3A and 313 for locations
Area In Lineal Acreage
sq...ef et Width Footage
18A
65846 20
5 3212 I
f 1
51
.
FARM RDTO END .
. .
OF PEG
18B 92+70 to end 10580 23 4601.f. 0.24
18C uPP,sc-Uk 16188 9.5 17041.f. 0.37
92614 Total 5376 2.13
USE 53761.f.
UT 4
Identifier - Refer to Figures 3A and 313 for locations
19 19 204.34 0.010
20 20 336.57 0.040
Total 540.91 I.f. 0.050
use 5411.f.
GT of length of waters of Scott Creek = 5376 I.f. + 541 I.f. =
GT of length of waters = 2382 I.f. + 18110 I.f. + 5917 I.f. =
Total fill disposal area in water
Acreage
Impacted by
Fill Disposal
0.160
0.100
0.310
0.340
0.000
0.000
0.006
0.007
0.230
0.050
0.010
0.040
0.030
0.050
0.030
0.050
0.070
0.030
0.000
0.000
0.015
0.030
1.558 acres
Acreage
Impacted by
Fill Disposal
1.512
0.243
0.372
2.126 acres
0.01
0.04
0.05 acres
5917 I.f.
26409 Lf.
4.174 acres
181,825 s.f.
use 181,800 s.f.
PAGE 2 OF 3 5/7/2009
EXHIBIT 2 TO DCM MP-2 MP-3
CAMA SHORELINE
CAMAStre..-l i-gh (18A-18e) 3672 linear feet
LAMA Sh-h- =2x St-. +30 o/s @ end= 7452 linear feet total
Impervious Area for Access Roads Total
Centerline Area of
Access Road from Driveway #1 Distance Width Road
centerline distance = 2643 Lf. x 12 ft= 31716
Access Road from Driveway #2
centerline distance = 9125 Lf. x 12 ft= 109500
Access Road from Driveway #3
centerline distance = 6331 Lf. x 12 ft= 75972
Access Road from Existing Drive
centerline distance = 2989 Lf. x 12 ft= 35868
21088 253056
5.809366

P
f I
i use 6 acres
ercentage o
mperv
ousness 6 acres/ 1297 acres=
0.46%
PAGE 3 OF 3 5/7/2009
LEGEND
HELL SWAMP
WETLANDS
WETLANDS NOT IMPACTED BY REGRADING / FILL
C W ] CORPS 2004 JD (31.12 ACRES)
0 2007/2008 JURISDICTIONALWETLAND(60.57ACRES)
COE AND DWQ WATERS (18,110 LF)
(2.36 ACRES)
SCOTT CREEK (5,376 LF)
(2.13 ACRES)
UT4 (541 LF)
(0.05 ACRES)
• , DWQ STREAM AND WATERS (2,382 LF)
(0.44 ACRES)
X COE UPPER LIMIT STREAM
Q COE UPPER LIMIT US WATERS
O DWQ UPPER LIMIT STREAM
DWQ UPPER LIMIT US WATERS
DCM UPPER LIMITS (PUBLIC TRUST AREAS)
?O I I IDENTIFIERS FOR ATTACHED SPREADSHEET
NOTE: COASTAL WETLANDS ARE SHOWN IN FIGURE 1

0 1200 2400
SCALE IN FEET
DRAFT
ACREAGES AND LINEAR FOOTAGE
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS, WATERS, AND STREAMS
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: TLJ/HG
DarE: 3/12/09 FILE: HELLSWMP-AC-LF-JURISD-
WET-MR1
4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
Z R SUITE 2
" CP#1745.59.66
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403
INCORPORATED TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
?-
DMROMMEN`"L OONSULTANTS Exhibit 3A

onathan T. Ricketts, inc.

C-UlfigEng m Cm &ucdm Mm gm 3450 NORTHIAKE BLVD.
SUITE 102
PALM BEACH GARDENS/ FL 33403

56 1 /625-2170
FAX 56
TOLL FREE 877-630-6777
DCM MP-2
LEGEND
•
•
•
•
•
CONNECTION INTO EXISTING
WETLANDS - 1.21 ac
0 1746.96 LF
0.16 ac
34,74 LF
0.007 ac /
0.50 LF O
•• ® 0. ac
•• 757.88 10
• 0.05 ac
NONwCAW I
213.7 LF 11
0.01 ac
630. LF 12
AC 0.0 ac
\ 433.9 13
\ 0 ac
\ 70.053acF
B C14
\
.31 ac
1.72 LF
w D. as 15
0.28 ac 390.43 LF O
0.03 ac 25
E1 WETLANDS NOT
/ IMPACTED - 4.18 ac. \ 16
/ 5376 LF 744X9 LF
/ 2.13 ac C18) 0.05'ac
\
19 10)591 LF \ \
0.0 ac
204.34 LF
0.01 ac
2o 336.57 LF
0.04 ac
92.73 LF-,,,/
03 ac BAKER DESIGN
RICKETTS DESIGN
22
1975.97 LF
0.36 ac
01484.48 LF--?
0.10 ac 11
.31 ac
®1121.72 0,31 ac
0 1839.69 LF-----?
0,34 ac ?
© 800.26 LF
0.14 ac
8b
424.41 LF
0.06
7 0 as
40 LF
0.006 ac WETLANDS OT
IMPACTED 15.52 NO FILL OR
ac. 1257.61 LF CUT AREA
0.07 23
EEV
E '0
?
34.19 ac
35.77 ac
total less
stream
areas of
1.58 ac
HELL SWAMP
WETLANDS
WETLANDS NOT IMPACTED BY REGRADING! FILL
yy CORPS 2004 JD (82.12 ACRES)
0 =7=06 JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND (80.57 ACRES)
- - - - COE AND DWO WATERS (18.110 LF)
('MACRES)
SCOTT CREEK (5,876 LF)
(2.13ACRM)
Lrr4 (541 LF)
(MOO ACRES)
• • • • • • OWO STREAM AND WATERS ($882 LF)
(OA4ACRES)
X COE UPPER LMT STREAM
A COE UPPER LMT US WATERS
0 DWO UPPER LIMIT STREAM
DWG UPPER LIMIT US WATERS
DCM UPPER LIMITS (PUBLIC TRUST AREAS)
?0 o II IDENTIFIERS FOR ATTACHED SPREADSHEET
NOTE: COASTALWEILANDSARE SHOWN IN FIGURE 1

0 700 1400
SCALE IN FEET
DRAFT
ENLARGED VIEW OF ACREAGES AND LINEAR FOOTAGE
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS, WATERS, AND STREAMS ON LOWER
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: TLJ/HG
DATE: 3/12/09 r
-LF-JURISD-
FILE: W
M
r
-2
ET-
? 4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE CP#1745.59.66
?
Z ?] SUITE 2
" WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403
= TEL [phone]
INCORPORATED
EWMN WAL C
O
NSULTANT FAX [phone]
E
hibit 3B
?
I
II 3450 NORTHLAKE BLVD. x
??
?}??? ? 1+ Ricketts

Tgodhi
T
im SUITE 102
PRIM BEACH GARDENS, FL 33403
561 630-67
/
0
DCM MP-2
,
n
.
. FAX 561-
625-27
TOLL FREE 800-630-6777
2381.7 F( 1
0.440.44 ac
•
•
•
ATTACHMENT A
Description of Land Uses by Parcel Surrounding Project Area
Adjacent Property Land Use Description
There are two land uses described by Beaufort County. Those are cleared land
and un-cleared land. The land uses on the parcels surrounding the project area
are described below by project parcel, beginning with the southwest corner of the
project site and continuing clockwise around the boundary.
The parcel identified as PIN 07005048 contains the southwest corner. The
property line angles to the northwest. The land use overlay map identifies the
land use along this boundary to be un-cleared; however, there are three abutting
residential parcels that are partially cleared. The boundary then continues in a
more northerly direction. The land use overlay map identifies the land use along
this boundary to be un-cleared; however, the southern approximate half of that
boundary is adjacent to land that appears to be agricultural rangeland.
The boundary of parcel 15023785 continues project boundary in a slight
northeast direction, then angles several times to create the northern boundary,
followed by several changes in alignments as it continues midway along the
northeastern boarder. The land use depicted on the county overlay along the
entire boundary of this parcel is un-cleared. The northeastern portion of the
boundary of this parcel also appears to have several residential lots that are
partially cleared.
The boundary of parcel number 15024568 continues the project boundary in a
southeastern direction. Land use of this parcel and those adjacent is depicted as
approximately one half cleared and one half un-cleared.
The corner of parcel 15024658 meets the northeastern corner of parcel
07005048. Parcel 07005048 continues to the southeast before angling to the
southwest. The land use for the first portion is un-cleared. The land use for the
second portion is cleared.
The project boundary continues southwest, and then northwest with parcel
15024842. The land adjacent to the southwest portion is cleared. As the parcel
angles west, the adjacent land use is un-cleared.
Parcel 15024658 continues the boundary to the south, then angles to the
northwest, southwest, and southeast. The adjacent land use is cleared. The
boundary then continues southwest, with an un-cleared land use classification.
The final two angles of this boundary are to the southeast and then southwest.
The land adjacent to the first portion is classified as un-cleared and the remaining
is cleared.
ATTACHMENT B
NCSHPO Letter
Lyy'd ygwvh
K
-
Qltya
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator
Michael E. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. ];vans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
November 1, 2007
Julia Kirkland Berger
CZR Incorporated
2151 Alternate A1A South
Suite 2000
Jupiter, FL 33477-3902
Office of Archives and History
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook Director
Re: Mitigation Site, Hell Swamp Wetland Restoration, West of Belhaven, Beaufort County, ER 07-2167
Dear Ms. Berger:
Thank you for your letter of October 2, 2007, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the proposed undertaking and are aware of no historic resources that would be
affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the undertaking as proposed.
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,
contact Renee Gledlvll-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Peter Sandbecki
„0`i - i
CZR Incorocca:Ed
Mrr;inglon, NC
ATTACHMENT C
C-1 - Baker Technical Memorandum
C-2 - Site Plan Outfall Exhibit
C-3 - Construction Plans, Jonathan T. Ricketts Engineering, Inc.
C-4 - Construction Plans, Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
ATTACHMENT C-1
Baker Technical Memorandum
Technical Memorandum
Project: Hell Swamp Restoration Site Prepared By: Baker Engineering
Subject: Narrative Regarding Construction Prepared For: PCS Phosphate
Techniques for Scott Creek Channel
Date: March 11, 2009
The purpose of this document is to provide additional information regarding the construction techniques
to be used in the restoration of the Hell Swamp site, specifically, the approach to filling and restoring
the Scott Creek canal. The overall intent of the restoration plan for the entire site is to restore the
drainage features as closely as possible to their condition prior to drainage and channelization for
agriculture. Therefore, all drainage ditches and canals within the restoration area, including the Scott
Creek canal, will be completely filled and the surrounding topography restored to pre-disturbance
elevations.
A longitudinal profile for the entire Scott Creek system is included in Figure 1, and provides a
comparison between the existing depth and elevation of the canal versus the proposed restoration
design. The example cross-sections that follow in this text are referenced in terms of the longitudinal
profile stationing shown in Figure 1.
At the upstream extent of the Scott Creek restoration, the design has been developed to restore the
functions of a small, braided headwater stream and wetland system. This will be accomplished by
filling the existing ditches and grading the valley bottoms such that flows will be diffuse, spreading
across the restored wetland floodplain (Figure 2). This approach will be used from longitudinal station
10+00 through 43+00, as indicated on the design plan sheets for the site.
Beginning at station 43+00 and continuing through station 55+70, the restoration design for Scott Creek
will involve the construction of a single-thread, meandering sand bed channel. This design approach is
based on analysis of erosive forces and sediment transport, as more thoroughly described in the
Mitigation Plan document for the site. Starting at station 43+00, the channel excavation will begin at a
shallow depth (0.2 - 0.3 feet) and gradually increase to a maximum depth of 1.0 - 1.5 feet for the
middle portions of the reach (Figure 3). Likewise, at the downstream end of the reach, the restored
channel depths will gradually decrease until reaching station 55+70 where the restored channel will lose
definition and will flow back into a braided, meandering stream system across the restored floodplain.
A slope of approximately 30:1 will be used at both ends of the single-thread section to gradually
connect the braided stream sections with the meandering, single-thread channel.
Page 1 of 6
'
0
o
0)
a O C -
_ 1
----- -----
t6
Lb O
0 ?r
O
Q
O N

° O Y O
u'S a` m
1 w U Of
I
0
I t 0
I 0
H

V

? o
0
f ?

H ?

Y ?
-------c- ----
_ -

U ? r

(DO

a _
r H o
0
--- -----;? N 8 IS 7
.

U) Of U C

C -
?z

-r r?

?
l
r?
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
_----
- o

i
f
o
1

'- 00
O co co V N O
(};) UOIIBA813 N V CO
x.
?i

CC
i¦
i.
O
CC '?
?. V
V r"i
O i.
? O
?i
O ?
? O
bA ran
Page 2 of 6
Cross-section 34+00
Headwaters Section
6-

5 --------------
4 - - - - - - -

'
?
0 3
a I I
,
R
i
a I
w
2
? I
1 - - - - - Existing Ground
Proposed Design
0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Station (ft)
Figure 2. Example cross-section from the headwaters section (10+00 through 43+00) of
Scott Creek (looking downstream).
Cross-section 49+50
Single Thread Section of Scott Creek
3
5
.
3
2.5
2
c 1.5 '

o '
y
1 I

I
'

W
0.5

0 1 ,
I ,
' - - - Existing Ground
-0.5 Proposed Design
1
-
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Station (ft)
Figure 3. Example cross-section from the single-thread section (43+00 through 55+70) of
Scott Creek (looking downstream).
Page 3 of 6
From station 55+70 through station 62+00, the restoration approach will be similar to that used for the
headwaters section. The existing Scott Creek canal will be completely filled and the valley bottom
graded to approximate pre-disturbance contours and elevations (Figure 4). This design approach was
chosen due to the very low slope of the valley along this section that is more typical of braided stream
and wetland systems. Along this reach, the low point of the restored valley will be located near the
existing location of the Scott Creek canal. The restored valley bottom will be approximately 2.5 to 3.0
feet higher than the existing canal bottom, and will allow flows to transition to braided floodplain flow
prior to entering the wooded historic floodplain downstream (adjacent to the area of CAMA
jurisdiction).
Cross-section 56+50
Braided Section of Scott Creek, Upstream of CAMA Jurisdiction
3
2.5

1.5 --•-•.---•
•-
1 -
o
} 0.5 '
,

0 '
w
-0.5 ,
-1 '
' - - - Existing Ground
-1.5 - - - - Proposed Design
2
-
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Station (ft)
Figure 4. Example cross-section from the braided section (55+70 through 62+00) of Scott
Creek, directly upstream of CAMA jurisdiction (looking downstream).
Beginning at approximate station 62+00 and continuing to station 88+00, the natural fall of the valley
lies to the south of the existing Scott Creek canal. As shown clearly in historic aerial photographs, the
Scott Creek canal along this reach was excavated sometime between 1964 and 1970. The canal was
excavated along the northern edge of the stream/wetland system and not along the topographic low
point of the valley, most likely due to extremely wet conditions in the center of the system. As a result,
much of the historic floodplain to the south of the canal is too wet for agricultural uses and has been left
wooded.
Beginning at station 64+80, an access lane through the trees follows along the northern side of the
existing Scott Creek channel. The lane has been used over the years to keep the canal clear of
blockages. This lane will be used during restoration to fill this section of the Scott Creek to pre-
disturbance contours. Spoil piles that were created during excavation of the canal will be deposited back
Page 4 of 6
into the canal as fill material. Once filled, water flow along the restored Scott Creek will follow the
topographic low point of the valley through the wooded area to the south (Figure 5). The flow will
follow a braided pattern through the floodplain as the system would have functioned prior to
disturbance.
Cross-section 63+50
Restored Floodplain Connection Near Upper Limits of CAMA Jurisdiction
2
1 ,
0 '
y
`F
-1
'
o_ ,
a.2 -2 ? North South
w ,
-3 ,
-4 Existing Ground
Proposed Design
5
-
0 50 100 150 200 250
Station (ft)
Figure 5. Example cross-section from the historic floodplain section (62+00 through
88+00) of Scott Creek, where flow will be directed onto the relic floodplain of Scott Creek
along its historic flow path (looking downstream).
Beginning at approximate station 92+30, the restored Scott Creek system must transition back to the
channelized canal at the downstream limit of the project. In this area, water surface elevations are
under tidal influence and due to ground elevations near 0. 0, the area is most often under backwater
effect. Beginning at station 92+30, fill of the canal will be tapered down at a 10:1 slope until reaching
the existing bottom elevation of the canal (Figure 6). This fill slope will be completely submerged
under normal water conditions; therefore excessive scour or erosion of the fill material is not expected.
Page 5 of 6
Profile Through Channel Fill at End of Scott Creek Restoration
2
1
0
? -1
0
ca
d -2
w
-3
-4
-5
9210 9220 9230 9240 9250 9260 9270 9280 9290 9300 9310
Station (ft)
Figure 6. Profile through channel fill at the end of the Scott Creek restoration reach.
Tributarv Connections
Six smaller tributaries will flow into the restored Scott Creek system along its length (Figure 1). The
restoration approaches for these tributaries will be comparable to the design approach described for the
headwater sections of Scott Creek (station 10+00 to 43+00). The design approach will restore the
functions of small, braided headwater stream and wetland systems. This will be accomplished by
filling the existing ditches and grading the valley bottoms such that flows will be diffuse, spreading
across the restored wetland floodplain. The downstream grades of the tributary valleys will match those
of the restored Scott Creek floodplain, such that tributary flows enter the system without causing scour
or erosion.
Page 6 of 6
ATTACHMENT C-2
Site Plan Outfall Exhibit
EXISTING PERIMETER
DITCH TO REMAIN
OUTFALL No.3
To Broad Creek (North Under S.R. 1714)
11
EXISTING PERIMETER
DITCH TO REMAIN
i Z
0
EXISTING SCOTT CREEK
;ULVERT TO BE REMOVED
0

T -7

EXISTING PERIMETER
DITCH TO REMAIN
Existing Perimet
Ditch to Remain
0
\\SuntD Doto\Pmj@dsy0701 Hed Swamp\Cod\Conabudbn\Constnullon plan 10.dwq C4W SP
? RGPO
GREE
OUTFALL No.2
Smith Creek to Pungo Creek
0

EXISTING PERIMETER
NM M
O MMgI
w0 N?
FM N
VIN I I
NN
'V M
OI ?\
OO
w0 mm
Uo?
?
O;
a
Lye
N°$
LEGEND
EXISTING GRADE
?81,PROPOSED CONTOUR
EXISTING UTILITY POLE
-? GENERAL DIRECTION OF SURFACE
WATER FLOW

J
a ?
? la
E! -cc
F Z
aZ =
c R
a? z
No g
&J? F-
_s vi
ATTACHMENT C-3
Construction Plans, Jonathan T. Ricketts Engineering, Inc.
WETLAND AND STREAM RESTORATION PLANS
FOR
PCS PHOSPHATE
HELL SWAMP
IN
BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

LOCATION SKETCH
not to scale
t

?X
INDEX OF DRAWINGS
SHEET NO. DESCRIPTION
C1.1 COVER SHEET
C2.1 SITE PLAN
C2.2 SITE PLAN AND MAINTENANCE TRAILS
(NOT INCLUDED)
C3.1 EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL SHEET
(NOT INCLUDED)
C4.1-C4.16 GRADING PLANS
C5.1-C5.37 FIELD CROSS SECTIONS
C6.1-C6.4 PERIMETER CROSS SECTIONS

?
F

1 1
VICINITY MAP
not to scale
PCS
Phosphate AURORA DIVISION
JONATHAN T. RICKETTS, INC.
Ak a Consulting Engineers and
?` 7 ?] 4709 COLLEGE DR., STE 2 Construction Managers PRELIMINARY PLANS
L R WILMINGTON, N.C. 28403 3450 Narthlake Boulevard - Suite 102 NOT FOR
INCORPORATED TEL [phone] Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33403
PHONE: [phone] TOLL FREE [phone] CONSTRUCTION
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS FAX [phone] FAX [phone]
FL CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION: 6173 JONATHAN T. RICKETTS, P.E.
NC CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION C-2761 NC P.E. No. 26154
March 18, 2009 Attachment C-3
A
JJ.85 ACRES
OF PRESERVATION
W17H HYDROLOGIC
ENHANCEMENT

t
t
?M

t
D
OUTFALL No.3
To Broad Creek (North Under S.R. 1714)
f
(/n
11
N
r l ? a4
easy. 181 CLLW RT

GENERAL NOTES
€

1. IT IS THE INTENT OF THIS PLAN TO RESTORE THE SITE'S PREVIOUS TOPOGRAPHIC d
CONTOURS. NO FILL IS TO BE REMOVED FROM OR BROUGHT TO THE SITE. W
2. EXISTING "CROWNS" IN FIELD SHALL BE LEVELED. M1
3. MATERIAL FROM CROWN REMOVAL TO BE PLACED IN ADJACENT FIELD DITCHES.
4. ALL INTERIOR PIPES SHALL BE REMOVED EXCEPT WHERE NOTED.
5. PERIMETER DITCHES TO REMAIN OPEN EXCEPT WHERE NOTED.
6. CONTRACTOR'S FIRST ORDER OF WORK IS TO PLACE ALL EROSION CONTROL
DEVICES (SEE EROSION CONTROL PUN).
7. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE SURFACE ROUGHNESS FROM 2"-3" AFTER COMPLETION V
OF LEVELING. z
S. PROPOSED CONTOUR LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. ACTUAL LOCATIONS WILL VARY.
9. ALL GRADES ARE BASED ON NAD 1983 AND WERE TAKEN FROM A SURVEY BY
MATRIX EAST, PLLC DATED OCTOBER 22, 2007.
10. FOR AREAS SHOWN AS "EXISTING JURISDICTIONAL AREAS TO BE REPLANTED",
SEE SPECIFICATIONS BY CZR
.

DZT 18" RCP

?
o
eaST 18" aLVERT LAM
5 O SEED TICK NECK ROAD
K INV.-291'
S. 1NV.-2.76'
o

t
t
n
t
east 10' x f0' &7Y CIL?ERT
°!::• OUTFALL No.1
Scott Creek to Pungo
i
14 ACRES f
OF W'EnAND AND BUFFER
PRESERVATION AND
STREAM RESTER WN
I
A
°
1 !-
zliif
,Slf?M

3 i

?
n g
?

l
l 2
a

S?
D 500 1000 1500
scale in feet:
LEGEND
EXISTING GRADE
-'r-PROPOSED CONTOUR
EXISTING UTILITY POLE
EXISTING JURISDICTIONAL AREAS
TO BE REPLANTED
HYDROLOGIC ENHACEMENT - NO WORK
HEADWATER VALLEY - STREAM RESTORATION
.? GENERAL DIRECTION OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
STREAM RESTORATION BOUNDARY
F
3? Z
8
<2 N
March 18, 2009 Attachment C-3
TIP OF BDN
EIWNG DB01 TO R
4 PLUG-
TRANSITION TOP OF
BEAM 75' 70 7.0'
DaSrING DITCH TO REMAIN
EXISIIMG JURISDICTIONAL
AREAS TO BE RENAMED
(SEE SPECIFICATIONS BY CZR)
TRANSITION TOP OF
BERM 85 TO B5'-
EXISTING JURISDICTIONAL
AREAS TO BE REPLANTED
(SEE SPECIFICATI NS BY CZR)
BEGIN BEAM
TOP ELEV.=95'
PLUG
I I I I I - 1 1 1 1
I I I I I I I o°
111111 II
IIIII
PROPOSED
PROPOSED
DISIRJG DITCH TO I
ENSTING PIPE TO REMNNA
DUSTING ORCH TO REMAIN,

RLL
EXISTING DACH
0
B' x \
0
0
° 1 1 1 1 1 1 e Y
IIIIIIIII ?
IIIIIIII I
IIII "III(I
I I I I I I III V lI
I I

PEF MM DNDI Q
TO BE HUM
-RLL 101115=
0/r

0
cb
"4
a
1
0
% w
i
?In?
R13 z
S§
a
a
3
Z
J p
LLj
C= CD
March 18, 2009 Attachment C-3
TO 7.5

inr I
r
'S
of ?\
w'm
v
?4B
N
NOTES:
1. REMOVE PIPE (15'-18')
2. REMOVE PIPE (21'-36')
3. REMOVE PIPE (42'-72')
0 100 200 300
scale in feet:
LEGEND
EXISTING GRADE
'-"w-PROPOSED CONTOUR
¦ PLUG- IMPERVIOUS BLOCK
EXISTING UTILITY POLE
CROSS SECTION
1 SILT FENCE
EXISTING JURISDICTIONAL AREAS
® TO BE REPLANTED
Ns GENERAL DIRECTION OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
O SEE NOTE 1
O SEE NOTE 2
O SEE NOTE 3
DEPTH OF CROWN REMOVAL AT CENTER
KEY MAP

TOP OF BERM
DIM BBCH TO RE
w
PI
Ili w.
PROPOSED
4C TOP OF GERM ELEV.=1A'
PROPOSED DITCH
TO CONNECT OUIFNLS
OPLIIO
PLUG
TTO 7.5
D
v' 0,
TRAL
3'
Rapt DRNEJ `\jt\
TELEPHONE •? \ ?? ROCK DRIVE
/ ` ? \\? -RDCK DRIVE
DITCH)
??`?? ??? TELEPONE
\? ? 18' RCP PIPE RP-RIP
DIRT PATH
FIBER OPTIC TELEPHONE
1 ?:\
PROPOSED aATE
DUSTING PPE TO ROM ROCK DRIVE \?` RaDt DRIVE
ROCK DI ?, ??? TELEPHONE
CA] N
PROPOSED `
TOP OF BERM FLFI.•7.7 TM' ? <, 01, 1 y 18" RCP PIPE RP-RIP
ASK ORVE 8-
200 PVCI WAER,UNE
? TRNIL ?\ OFASP?HATNROPDE
VALVE O?BWL
FIBER OPTIC TELEPHONE `y
% LA
%
PFT0P9ZTY LINE
'?°
a MAINTENANCE
BON \ 1 \?

u
1?

?-t
x"
PROPOSED
AND MAINTENANCE
0
BE= offmB
PROPOSED Dom
40
4J

ELE
NOTM:
1. REMOVE PIPE (15"-18")
2. REMOVE PIPE (21'-36')
3. REMOVE PIPE (42"-72")
0 100 200 300
scale in feet:
am
v
No
i
LEGEND
EXISTING GRADE
"W-PROPOSED CONTOUR
¦ PLUG- IMPERVIOUS BLOCK
?Q EXISTING UTILITY POLE
CROSS SECTION
1 SILT FENCE
EXISTING JURISDICTKONAL AREAS
® TO BE REPLANTED
s GENERAL DIRECTION OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
O SEE NOTE 1
O SEE NOTE 2
0 SEE NOTE 3
DEPTH OF CROWN REMOVAL AT CENTER
KEYANP
6
z
?In?
3
Ra z
S§
a
Q
3
N? CD
z
J p
<2 CD
March 18, 2009 Attachment C-3
NOTES:
1. REMOVE PIPE (15"-18")
2. REMOVE PIPE (21"-36")
3. REMOVE PIPE (42"-72")
IPE RIP-RAP
i0R 21,
WATER LINE
9ROM EDGE
ALT ROAD
E C ATE
N
ROCK DRIVE
TELEPHONE

%`?. /-ROOK DRIVE

% 18" RCP PPE RIP-RAP
20
?
W
ER
O
P.SI
T
LINE

%
5' MIN. FROM EDGE
OF ASPHALT ROAD
%
\
FIBER OPTIC TELEPHONE TELEPHONE
?
?
\
\
-ROOK DRIVE
/
EIDSIING ACCESS POINT
AND CULVERT N REMAIN
RECRWE WEST ? \\
EDGE OF ROAD
TO ELF/
6
5" TOP OF BERM ELEV.-SN
.
.
. ?
% PATH
TELEPHONE
_ \\ 'CONCRETE DRIVE
PROPOSED DITCH V ?\

DITCH TO PRO POSED TEL

? EPHONE
IEPROPOSED OTOI
?\ Y INTO EXISTING ROW DITCH
C7 ROCK DARE

DRIVE TELEPHONE
M47MLA
IE

\\ ?
CONCRETE DRIVE 8W /
?t?V4

? REMOVE DRIVEWAY AND CONSTRUCT
DITCH TO MATCH INVERTS AND TOP OF
HANK WIDTHS OF DITCHES ON NORTHWEST
N TOP BEON/EHD M OF
FR04j
AT W 0 ?
N ROpf AND SOUTHEAST SIDE OF DRIVEWAY
\ %
ROAD
OF Exam
ti RDCK DRIVE
%
999 M AL .r
•
_ a

Z.
"
Ra z
S§
a
Q
3
1/? $ C9
Z
-JIM
<2
March 18, 2009 Attachment C-3
r
, ;\
ofS
w'm
v
N
LEGEND
? EXISTING GRADE
"r_PROPOSED CONTOUR
¦ PLUG- IMPERVIOUS BLOCK
EXISTING UTILITY POLE
CROSS SECTION
1 SILT FENCE
I I I I EXISTING JURISDICTIONAL AREAS
TO BE REPLANTED
Ns GENERAL DIRECTION OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
O SEE NOTE 1
O SEE NOTE 2
03 SEE NOTE 3
DEPTH OF CROWN REMOVAL AT CENTER
KEY MAP
VV
04.5 C4
04.9 04.10
C4.7
04.12 CCU_
0 100 200 300
scale in feet:
I I I I??
o
(IIIIIIII
IIIIIIII
IIII I I I I I
IIIIIIIIIIII
I I I I I I I I I?
I I I I I I I
IIIIIIII
II
\\ es

-4'
a

h
tl
aR?l
K4TM!jjL
PEINMErER
Bcr m?
I I I I
IBM pasnw.
BETIM AM PUCE
I I I I `I I?? I IN PEIMMEM ffwn
I I I ?7
I ?S I I ' ,I I I ?I
`, ,? I? I I I I I I I I
?? "I" I ?I I ?I I I I I
-3' 40
0
n
tl
as

L
NOTM: Ip
1. REMOVE PIPE (15'-18") 3 %
40 2. REMOVE PIPE (21'-38") 9
a 3. REMOVE PIPE (42'-72") _
161

0
4y
4
0 100 200 300
scale in feet:
'S
°? o0
$ dil
s3
N.
?B
LEGEND
EXISTING GRADE
^r_PROPOSED CONTOUR
¦ PLUG- IMPERVIOUS BLOCK
EXISTING UTILITY POLE
CROSS SECTION
1 SILT FENCE
EXISTING JURISDICTIONAL AREAS
I -1F1 TO BE REPLANTED
Ns GENERAL DIRECTION OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
0 SEE NOTE 1
0 SEE NOTE 2
03 SEE NOTE 3
-A' DEPTH OF CROWN REMOVAL AT CENTER
KEYMAP
Ct. ? , G.3

04.5 c4
"-+.a C4.A 04.10
C4
7
.
1 04.12
04.14\\ 104?i 04.15
Fa
S?
a
3a
(A$ CD
Z
J p
<2 CD
March 18, 2009 Attachment C-3
. //'6
1 1 ?7m t?
d Z A \ 1 \/'' \-,. ??
wm r _?
•'e

GRRVE
HOE

t

NOTM:
1. REMOVE PIPE (15'-18°)
2. REMOVE PIPE (21'-36")
3. REMOVE PIPE (42'-72°) i
EIJ
0 100 200 300
scale in feet:
r
'S
w'm
v
N
LEGEND
EXISTING GRADE
,-,-PROPOSED CONTOUR
¦ PLUG- IMPERVIOUS BLOCK
EXISTING UTILITY POLE
CROSS SECTION
1 SILT FENCE
EXISTING JURISDICTIONAL AREAS
® TO BE REPLANTED
s GENERAL DIRECTION OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
O SEE NOTE 1
O SEE NOTE 2
O SEE NOTE 3
DEPTH OF CROWN REMOVAL AT CENTER

KEY MAP
Fa
S?
a
a
3
N? CD
z
J p
C.D
<2
March 18, 2009 Attachment C-3
/ \ Q
g g \ Q
4p
-4'
- 3"
N
- 5"
T
\W?
M4 CJH
\ \
-TEIEPHOME
SEESHEETIM3
?CONCRETE DRIVE AMMH NNE
REMOVE DRNEWAY AND CONSTRUCT
TO INVERTS
NO
DITCH
AND
OF
BANK
O
N
R
BANE WIDTHS HS O OF DITCHES ON NORTHWEST
AND SOUTHEAST SIDE OF DRIVEWAY
`\>y\
%% CROCK DRIVE
(1) B" GATE VALVE 4 BOX
/-DIRT PATH

IDfOR TO REM
EXIST. EOUIPMENT \ 'S\\
ISCONNECT AND \ • ? ,
E POWER POLE \ REMOVE DRIVEWAY AND
\\
CONSTRUCT O MATCH
\\ INVERTS AND TOP OF BANK WIDTHS
\ OF DITCHES ON NORTHWEST
?a
\
t \
AND SOUTHEAST SIDE OF DRIVEWAY
\
D `.?
P
POSE
/
TOP OF BEAM
O
D
TELEPHON
\ CAME N \%
\\? ?\
\ \ `?
% 5' MIN. FROM \ N% OF ASPHALT ROAD
\? PROPOSED BEIM \? \\% REMOVE DRIVEWAY AND
.4 O \ \% INVRTS T P OF BANK WIDTHS
% AND SOUTHEAST ?E NORTHWEST
OF DRIVEWAY
%
\ CABLE N/fEIE%RHE \ \\
DISCONNECT EIECDI \\
OECARIRDICPOLES
\ %%
REMOVE CD
EQUIPMENT PADS \ \ Y\
\"?\\
REMOVE
?• \ caecALiE PAD \
1DP OF BEIM EIEVrB3'
-v

NOTES:
1. REMOVE PIPE (15'-18")
2. REMOVE PIPE (21'-38") _
3. REMOVE PIPE (42'-72") _ n
'S
?? oa
v
?4B
N
LEGEND
EXISTING GRADE
^r-PROPOSED CONTOUR
¦ PLUG- IMPERVIOUS BLOCK
CO-) EXISTING UTILITY POLE
CROSS SECTION
E SILT FENCE
EXISTING JURISDICTIONAL AREAS
® TO BE REPLANTED
Ns GENERAL DIRECTION OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
O SEE NOTE 1
O SEE NOTE 2
O SEE NOTE 3
DEPTH OF CROWN REMOVAL AT CENTER
KEYMAP
3 =
Fa
S?
a
a
3
z
J p
<2 CD
March 18, 2009 Attachment C-3
J'°
a
F
F,.
0
Wi2
R15
S?
110? OF Bi =&AY
8" GAZE VALVE t BDX
\ ? r
A T =7-
LEGEND
EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED CONTOUR
I PLUG- IMPERVIOUS BLOCK
EXISTING UTILITY POLE
CROSS SECTION
- SILT FENCE
EXISTING JURISDICTIONAL AREAS
TO BE REPLANTED
GENERAL DIRECTION OF SURFACE WATER FLAW
I SEE NOTE 1
I SEE NOTE 2
1 SEE NOTE 3
X DEPTH OF CROWN REMOVAL AT CENTER
'S
?? oa
v
N
NOTES:
1. REMOVE PIPE (1S'-18") jE
2. REMOVE PIPE (21"-38")
3. REMOVE PIPE (42'-72")

0 100 200 300 ?C
scale in feet:
KEYMAP
04.12
?In?
IQ_
Q
3
N? CD
Z
J ;?p
C+
rew NO. 0701
our n: HAG
wm 3/17/09
XlN90.1 X0. WS C?ApI ?QT
C4.7
March 18, 2009
Attachment C-3
FILL DITCH
-4'
- 8'
DITCH
KTER H ?py,THN?
f AdWNSIOPEN

- 4'
- 8'
\ dJ
-r
MA1LH LM
-r
m \
6"
5.0

- 8'
4h
1
0
0
WIL
I
AN
AM1LH
F
0
<
0 100 200 300
scale in feet:
'S
1\
w'm
s3
N.
LEGEND
EXISTING GRADE
^r_PROPOSED CONTOUR
¦ PLUG- IMPERVIOUS BLOCK
EXISTING UTILITY POLE
CROSS SECTION
1 SILT FENCE
® EXISTING JURISDICTIONAL AREAS
TO BE REPLANTED
--a. GENERAL DIRECTION OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
O SEE NOTE 1
0 SEE NOTE 2
O SEE NOTE 3
DEPTH OF CROWN REMOVAL AT CENTER
'I
KEYMAP
C4.3

I+A 104.6 C4
C4.A 04.10
- = - C4
7
.
1 C4.12
04.14 C4.16
Lu z
R13
z
S?
a
a
3
Z
J p
<2 CD
March 18, 2009 Attachment C-3
NOTES E
1. REMOVE PIPE (15'-16
2 REMOVE PIPE (21"-36') d
3. REMOVE PIPE (42"-72')
LNG NOTE&
T Of. 1. REMOVE PIPE (15"-18")
( 2. REMOVE PIPE (21"-36")
YVNIEXANCE TRAIL 3. REMOVE PIPE (42"-72") pnp
u
-11-?'

h +w
Y ••«e
WY f' b
110-
2
N"
i
1
UT 1 , ? w ?,
-r
we1IwBR
PNINB
Tj
I 1
I
AUTCH L?
ISM SHEET C4.
0 100 200 300
scale in feet:
'S
1\
w'm
?
N4?
o
LEGEND
EXISTING GRADE
^r-PROPOSED CONTOUR
¦ PLUG- IMPERVIOUS BLOCK
c0b EXISTING UTILITY POLE
CROSS SECTION
1 SILT FENCE
EXISTING JURISDICTIONAL AREAS
® TO BE REPLANTED
?.s? GENERAL DIRECTION OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
O SEE NOTE 1
O SEE NOTE 2
3o SEE NOTE 3
DEPTH OF CROWN REMOVAL AT CENTER
KEYLIAP
Ct. ? C4.3
A NA
.8 _ `?- C4.10
= C4
7
.
1 C4.12
C4.14 C4 C4.18
3 =
Fa
S?
a
3a
Nb CD
Z
J p
<2 CD
March 18, 2009 Attachment C-3

' tb
W.X,-

I/

UT6
UT5
S•
J1 ?
f
MATCH L
Sff SlIM-T C&13
A7,11 ?.
SEE SMEET
MA1CH LI

4.0

e?

NOTM:
1. REMOVE PIPE (15"-18")
2. REMOVE PIPE (21"-36")
3. REMOVE PIPE (42"-72") 4
0 100 200 300
scale in feet:
'S
?? oa
N
LEGEND
„ EXISTING GRADE
-"V-PROPOSED CONTOUR
¦ PLUG- IMPERVIOUS BLOCK
EXISTING UTILITY POLE
CROSS SECTION
1 SILT FENCE
EXISTING JURISDICTIONAL AREAS
I I I TO BE REPLANTED
?.s? GENERAL DIRECTION OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
SEE NOTE 1
O SEE NOTE 2
O SEE NOTE 3
2`. DEPTH OF CROWN REMOVAL AT CENTER
KEYANP
Fa
S?
Z
CD
W
a ?
3 ?
W
W O
<2 V
March 18, 2009 Attachment C-3
NOTES: a
1. REMOVE PIPE (15--18")
2. REMOVE PIPE (21'-36")
3. REMOVE PIPE (42"-72") d
EX6ONG
ROAD
-8'

FM
V
^o
-9'
"r
K4WH LW
E SIWT G
0 100 200 300
scale in feet:
0
v
h
7
K
d5
r
'S
w'm
v
N
xxil a,
LEGEND
? EXISTING GRADE
^r-PROPOSED CONTOUR
¦ PLUG- IMPERVIOUS BLOCK
EXISTING UTILITY POLE
CROSS SECTION
1 SILT FENCE
I I I EXISTING JURISDICTIONAL AREAS
TO BE REPLANTED
?s GENERAL DIRECTION OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
SEE NOTE 1
O SEE NOTE 2
O SEE NOTE 3
DEPTH OF CROWN REMOVAL AT CENTER
KEY MAP
Fa
S?
Zp?
F
a
a
3
N? CD
z
J p
<2 CD
March 18, 2009 Attachment C-3

1.5
NOTES:
1. REMOVE PIPE (15'-18')
2. REMOVE PIPE (21'-36') d
3. REMOVE PIPE (42'-72') 6
_
.e \
UT

- 3¦ 0 100 200 300 N.
scale in feet:
w
?/ -60 ?1 Z-6, z -r
?s
?o
d5
-4"

a
MWMW?E TRAIL
OEM DBOI TO RDM
K4TW LW DUN DRCH TD REWM
5
LEGEND
EXISTING GRADE
^r-PROPOSED CONTOUR
¦ PLUG- IMPERVIOUS BLOCK
EXISTING UTILITY POLE
CROSS SECTION
1 SILT FENCE
EXISTING JURISDICTIONAL AREAS
® TO BE REPLANTED
?vs GENERAL DIRECTION OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
Oj SEE NOTE 1
O SEE NOTE 2
03 SEE NOTE 3
DEPTH OF CROWN REMOVAL AT CENTER
KEYMAP
rt.? G3
c4.a G
I+A "--+A C" 04.10
..: G.7
1
C4.14\\ C?i 04.18
Fa
S?
a
a
3
Z
J p
Cp
March 18, 2009 Attachment C-3
Y4?
.q III
83
Sff MEET CA9
MUCH LNN--
//T \

am i wm
eb } ? 1
4s
f
?• ?. a y
ey
on`
"w w

TRAL
-r
tl
'o
D
NOTES:
1. REMOVE PIPE (15'-18')
2. REMOVE PIPE (21'-38')
z
3. REMOVE PIPE (42'-72')
i
a?
WErLMD BOUNDARY
FLOW 0 100 200 300
I
? f
10 7E' HDPE + . I f
IS
WW-.
IN 050 ' ' / `
EXCMJITE MM 10' NORM R SOUTH ' i
OF PROPOSED O TO P ACCCOMODOE + I . I
scale in feet:
'S
?? oa
v
N
LEGEND
EXISTING GRADE
^r_PROPOSED CONTOUR
¦ PLUG- IMPERVIOUS BLOCK
EXISTING UTILITY POLE
CROSS SECTION
SILT FENCE
ff _3 EXISTING JURISDICTIONAL AREAS
I I I TO BE REPLANTED
r.s. GENERAL DIRECTION OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
O SEE NOTE 1
Q2 SEE NOTE 2
Q SEE NOTE 3
DEPTH OF CROWN REMOVAL AT CENTER
/
s^Al
i /
-E%ISIING DITCH TO RENM1 OPEN
/
Dow
AM1M LAIE
SEE MEET CL18 ASPHALT DRIVE
Q1
KEY LAP
Z
Fa
S?
a
a
3
N? CD
z
J p
<2 CD
March 18, 2009 Attachment C-3
MAINTENANCE RDAID
IMp
Dn'CH TO REMAIN
SEE SMSET Col 11

i0•
NNNIENINCE ROAD
r
4
4' PJC SDR 21
1775
200 PSI WATER GE
5 mim. A FROM EDGE
- ? _?_ __ _ ------ OF F ASPHALT ROAD INV
c
--?_ _ ?_-IT1AEINIY ftwfty
DRIVEANY
DRIVE
D
0 100 200 300
scale in feet:
'S
?? oa
v
N
LEGEND
EXISTING GRADE
'V-PROPOSED CONTOUR
¦ PLUG- IMPERVIOUS BLOCK
EXISTING UTILITY POLE
CROSS SECTION
1 SILT FENCE
EXISTING JURISDICTIONAL AREAS
® TO BE REPLANTED
.s GENERAL DIRECTION OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
O SEE NOTE 1
O SEE NOTE 2
O SEE NOTE 3
DEPTH OF CROWN REMOVAL AT CENTER
KEY MAP
Cu
C4.9 04.10
104.7
C4.12 Ctiij_
6
z

_:
X? 'n
Ra z
S§
a
a?
3
ICA CD
z
J p
1ILLJI ;9
< 2 C9
__ = ma+ b 0701
__ :: (i41e our o HAG
wm 3/17/09
XlN90.1 X0. WS C?ApI ?QT
04.14
NOTES:
1. REMOVE PIPE (15'-18")
2. REMOVE PIPE (21'-36")
3. REMOVE PIPE (42'-72")
March 18, 2009 Attachment C-3
- fH7'

8 - 5w
?N 11115t EXS= DITCH TO ROAN IS4
- 8W SItEET C L J2 E165TING DTCH TO REEUN
AMICH LW
RICH TO ROM
1w
NOTE-
1. REMOVE PIPE (15'-18')
2. REMOVE PIPE (21'-38')
3. REMOVE PIPE (42'-72') W

V

(y = C.

DITCH To RE1wN OPEN
MAINTENANCE TRAIL

4-

w
v 0 100 200 300 N
s
- ? \ scale in feet:
N
LEGEND 3
EXISTING GRADE
RO(
8 \ -"v-PROPOSED CONTOUR
MAINTENANCE TRAIL
ROCK DRIVE ¦ PLUG- IMPERVIOUS BLOCK z
8 - HS'
\ EXISTING UTILITY POLE 0 a =
S 13 z
ROCK DRIVE i
g? CROSS SECTION
g \ DIRT DRIVE-\ 3 SILT FENCE
\\ ROCK DRIVE-\ EXISTING
DRIVE ® TO BE REPURISDIC IONAL AREAS
4- SS _ 7w ROCK DRIVE- j / I -,-w GENERAL DIRECTION OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
ROCK DRIVE SEE NOTE 1
g ROCK DRIVE SEE NOTE 2
ROCK DRIVE / 03 SEE NOTE 3
DEPTH OF CROWN REMOVAL AT CENTER
er ROCK DRIVE?,?/1 ? KEYMAP
200 PSIIWWATEERR UNRe FARM us 5' MIN. ROAD / -/ PATH
VALVE OF
& BOX x •
r GATE a -'
~ROCK DRIVE
??Dlffr DRIVE
PROPOSED
D DRNEWkY AND LVERr

a
Q
3
I
CA? CD
z
J
W p
< 2 C9

0701
(SEE ENLARGED VIEW s" HAG
PAGE --) .s N , in me
March 18, 2009 Attachment C-3
mi
DUCH TO REMAIN
`fir
iSff 4<f8 111 ? I a
AN o NOTES: d
1. REMOVE PIPE (15"-18") i d
\AIA 09 2. REMOVE PIPE (21"-38') $
Z' 3. REMOVE PIPE (42"-72')
w
l -4
Z
] XA
ORCH TO REMNN
PIPE TO
4' PVC SDR 21,
200 PSI WATER LINE
5. MIN. FRON EDGE
OF ASHWLT ROAD
•?.
RDCK DRIVE
RDCH DRIVE ••
i
RIVE •?? /?••
0?0
CONC.
DWI

FARM PATH
'S
?? oa
83
N.
LEGEND
EXISTING GRADE
^r„?PROPOSED CONTOUR
¦ PLUG- IMPERVIOUS BLOCK
C-CL, EXISTING UTILITY POLE
J CROSS SECTION
1 SILT FENCE
EXISTING JURISDICTIONAL AREAS
® TO BE REPLANTED
?s GENERAL DIRECTION OF SURFACE WATER FLAW
O SEE NOTE 1
0 SEE NOTE 2
03 SEE NOTE 3
DEPTH OF CROWN REMOVAL AT CENTER

3 =
X? 'n
Ra z
S§
a
a
3
z
-JIM
W
< 2 C9
KEYMAP
C4.8
a C4.6
04.9 04.10
104.7
1 C4.12
0 100 200 300
scale in feet
14'\\N[ FROA NIL 0701
=_ our In' HAG
3/17/09
XaXial X0. WS COZiTApI ?QT
04.16
March 18, 2009
Attachment C-3
ATTACHMENT C-4
Construction Plans, Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
RFAUFORT COUNTY ern ?NVYlNC6Na

3
w
x
NCI 112768

HELL SWAMP RES TORA TION SITE
LOCATION: OFF SEED TICK NECK ROAD NORTHEAST BEAUFORT COUNTY
TYPE OF WORK STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION
VICINITY MAP
INDEX OF SHEETS
1 TITLE SHEET
1-A STREAM CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS
GENERAL NOTES, STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS,
AND PROJECT DESIGN SUMMARY
1-13 CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS
2 TO 2-13 TYPICAL VALLEY POOL AND
RIFFLE CROSS SECTIONS,
STRUCTURE DETAILS
3 QUANTITIES AND CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
(NOT INCLUDED)
4 TO 20 PLAN VIEW OF PROPOSED AND
EXISTING STREAM DESIGN
21 TO 27 PROFILES
?EEK
00
N
1EIIIIIIIIIiIi
llw
L
SCOTT CREEK

1 13011
I
PREPARED FOR THE OFFICES OF. PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF PROJECT ENGINEER
GRAPHIC SCALES N10-111,1- ERRl-ftg Inc.
¦ 6606 Regency P-4

50 25 50 100 6uiW200
C- NORTH CAROLINA 27616
Phone: [phone]
Fm: 212A605120

PLANS
PRELIMINARY PLANS
50 25 0 50 100 1
C
v PCs OO NOT USE FOR CONMUCTION
hFfff?-w?? annArEn
J'.. -
pbwm KEVIN TWEEDY, PE
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL) AURORA DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS LETTING DA7R- PROJECT ENGIREBRBR
10 0 5 10
P8
PROFILE (VERTICAL) .
SIGNATURE.
.
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLANNING AND DESIGN MANUAL
JUNE2006
6.06 TEMPORARY GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
6.62 SILT FENCE
6.63 TEMPORARY ROCK DAM
6.70 TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING
STREAM CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS
SUPERCEDES SHEET 1B
ROOT WAD
0o LOG J-HOOK
® LOG VANE
LOG WEIR
LOG CROSS VANE
FOOT BRIDGE
? TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING
u PERMANENT STREAM CROSSING
r1
LOG STEP POOL
C
m
d
x
N
d
n
N
C
O
C
m
m
-A- SAFETY FENCE
-TF- TAPE FENCE
-FP- 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
- - - - - EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR
EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR
® TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION
TREE REMOVAL
1t3` TREE PROTECTION
DITCH PLUG
® TRANSPLANTS
CHANNEL FILL
GENERAL NOTES
1. THE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO INSTALL INSTREAM STRUCTURES USING
A TRACK HOE WITH A HYDRAULIC THUMB OF SUFFICIENT SIZE TO PLACE
BOULDERS S X 2'X 2', LOGS, AND ROOTWADS.
2. WORK IS BEING PERFORMED AS AN ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PLAN.
THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD MAKE ALL REASONABLE EFFORTS TO REDUCE
SEDIMENT LOSS AND MINIMIZE DISTURBANCE OF THE SITE WHILE
PERFORMING THE CONSTRUCTION WORK.
3. CONSTRUCTION IS SCHEDULED TO BEGIN SUMMER 2008.
4. CONTRACTOR SHOULD CALL NORTH CAROLINA "ON-CALL" BEFORE
EXCAVATION STARTS. (1-800-632.4949)
PROJECT DESIGN SUMMARY
PROJECT ENGINEER
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
Mi9haal8okar EnpnaaRnp lne.
SUM 21 Fv9a
Ca
SUM .N a1H
¦ ' Ph. 03.5488 NA 9]910
.919.498
I.: 91
Fac 919.49'5190
Reach Name Drainage Area
(acres) Design Slope Length Design Channel
Form
Scott Creek (a) 90 0.0009 590 Poor
Scott Creek (b) 130 0.004 850 Moderate
Scott Creek (c) 290 0.0006 1,860 Poor
Scott Creek (d) 350 0.0027 1,300 Well
Scott Creek (e) 800 0.0003 - 0.0008 3,717 Moderate
UT1 251 0.0012 1,283 Moderate
UT2 35 0.0036 609 Poor
UT3 29 0.0014 - 0.0030 1,079 Poor
UT4 25 0.0014 - 0.0043 1,063 Poor
UT5 21 0.0032 845 Poor
UT6 (a) 96 0.0018 1,211 Poor
UT6 (b) 206 0.0008 1,555 Poor
UT7 39 0.0012 - 0.0027 1,120 Poor
UT8(a) 118 0.0005 1,164 Poor
UT8 (b) 240 0.003 1,537 Moderate
''NOTE: ALL ITEMS ABOVE MAY NOT BE USED ON THIS PROJECT
*S.U.E = SUBSURFACE UTILITY ENGINEER
ROADS & RELATED ITEMS
Edge of Pavement ----------------------- ---------
Curb --- ---- ---- ----- ---- ---- ----- - --- -
Prop. Slope Stakes Cut ------------------ ------ C
Prop. Slope Stakes Fill ----------------- ------
Prop.Woven Wire Fence --------------- ------ $E
Prop. Chain Link Fence ............... ...... E3 E3
Prop. Barbed Wire Fence--------------- ------ ?0
Prop. Wheelchair Ramp ---------------- ------CR)
Curb Cut for Future Wheelchair Ramp - - - - - -
Exist. Guardrail ......................... .....
Prop. Guardrail ------------------------- ------
Equality Symbol -- ---- ---- ----- ----- ---- -
Pavement Removal ...................... ......
RIGHT OF WAY
Baseline Control Point------------------ ------
Existing Right of Way Marker ........ ... . ..... Q
Exist. Right of Way Line w/Marker . ...... ...... - ?j- -
Prop. Right of Way Line with Proposed
R/W Marker (Iron Pin & Cap) ........ ......
Prop. Right of Way Line with Proposed
(Concrete or Granite) RNV Marker ..... .-...-
Exist. Control of Access Line .... .... ..... ...... -------- A
Prop. Control of Access Line ............. ......
Exist. Easement Line ..................... ...... -E___.
Prop. Temp. Construction Easement Line ------ E
Prop. Temp. Drainage Easement Line --------- TBE
Prop. Perm. Drainage Easement Line --------- -PK
m
m
N
di
M
HYDROLOGY
Stream or Body of Water ............... .....
River Basin Buffer ......................... .... RBB
Flow Arrow ------- ----- ---- ---- ----- ---- _._...?
Disappearing Stream ..................... ..... ?. _
Spring -- ----- ---- ---- ----- ---- ------ -----
CY'.
Swamp Marsh --------- ---- ---- ------- --- - &
Shoreline -------- ----- ---- ---- ----- -- -- --------
Falls,Rapids --------- ---- ---- ----- -- ---- - -f- -
Prop Lateral, Tail, Head Ditches ......... .....
F FLOW
STRUCTURES
MAJOR
Bridge, Tunnel, or Box Culvert
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ CONC
Bridge Wing Wall, Head Wall
and End Wall ---------------------------- CONC4
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS
MINOR
Head & End Wall ................ coN? C NW
Pipe Culvert ---- ---- ---- ----- ---- ---- --- ?:= _
Footbridge --------- ----- ---- ---- ----- ---- > - ------<
Recorded Water Line ............... , ,-
Designated Water Line (S.U.E.*) ............. -,-,-
Sanitary Sewer -------------------------------- -ss-ss-
Recorded Sanitary Sewer Force Main ------ ?ss_FSS-
Drainage Boxes ................................ ?cs
Paved Ditch Gutter
UTILITIES
Exist. Pole -- ----- ---- ---- ----- --------- - •
Exist. Power Pole ............................... +
Prop. Power Pole ---- ---- ----- ---- ---- --- b
Exist. Telephone Pole .......................... +
Prop. Telephone Pole .......................... -
0-Exist. Joint Use Pole ...........................
Prop. Joint Use Pole ...........................
Telephone Pedestal---------------------------
U?G Telephone Cable Hand Hold .-.........
Cable TV Pedestal ............................ IKI
LPG TV Cable Hand Hold ....................
WG Power Cable Hand Hold ................
Hydrant---- ---- ----- ---- ---- ----- -------- 9
Satellite Dish .................................. 29
Exist. Water Valve ..............................
Sewer Clean Out .............................. 0+
Power Manhole --------- ---- ---- ----------- 0
Telephone Booth .............................. m
Cellular Telephone Tower .....................
Water Manhole ---------- ---- ---- ----------
Light Pole -- ---- ---- ----- ---- ---- --------- R
H-Frame Pole ------ ----- ---- ---- ----- --- H
Power Line Tower ..............................
Pole with Base -------- ----- ---- ----------- 0
Gas Valve -- ----- ---- ---- ----- --------- - 0
Gas Meter -- ----- ---- ---- ----- --------- -
Telephone Manhole ........................... (D
Power Transformer ....... . ... . ........... . ... . . 0
Sanitary Sewer Manhole .......................
Storm Sewer Manhole ........................
Tank; Water, Gas, Oil-------------------------
Water Tank With Legs ........................ O
Traffic Signal Junction Box ....................
Fiber Optic Splice Box ------------------------- f]
Television or Radio Tower ........... .... .....
Utility Power Line Connects to Traffic
Signal Lines Cut Into the Pavement-.-----.--- ?; Ts
Designated Sanitary Sewer Force Main(S.U.E.*)-Fss-Fss
Recorded Gas Line
Designated Gas Line (S.U.E.*) ...............
Storm Sewer ------- ---- ----- ---- --------- s s-
Recorded Power Line ........................ P P-
Designated Power Line (S.U.E.*) ............. _ P
Recorded Telephone Cable .................. -T-T-
Designated Telephone Cable (S.U.E.*) ------- --T- -T- -
Recorded LkG Telephone Conduit ------- -TC-TC-
Designated UG Telephone Conduit (S.U.E.*) --TC--TC--
Unknown Utility (S.U.E.*) ------------------ -TUTL--WL-
Recorded Television Cable ----------------- -TV-TV-
Designated Television Cable (S.U.E.*) ------- --TW--TV--
Recorded Fiber Optics Cable --------------- -FO-FO-
Designated Fiber Optics Cable (S.U.E.*) --- . _ _FO--FO--
Exist. Water Meter . ... . ........... . . 0
U-G Test Hole (S.U.E.*) ----------------------- m
Abandoned According to U4G Record ........ ATTUI
End of Information ............................ Ea,.
BOUNDARIES & PROPERTIES
State Line ---- ----- ---- ---- ----- ---- ---- ------
County Line --------- ---- ---- ----- ---- ----
Township Line - ---- ----- ---- ---- --------- - -- --
City Line ------ ---- ---- ----- ---- ---- ----- - ---
Reservation Line ............................... . ------
Property Line--- ----- ---- ---- ----- ---------
Property Line Symbol .......................... FE
Exist. Iron Pin --- ----- ---- ---- ----- ------- E?
Property Corner -------- ---- ---- ----------- - +
Property Monument ........... .... ............ .
Property Number------------------------------ 123
Parcel Number ................................. 6
Fence Line ---- ----- ---- ---- ----- --------- -x-x-x-

Existing Wetland Boundaries .................. WW & ISBW
--WEB-_
High Quality Wetland Boundary .............. -WO WLB-
Medium Quality Wetland Boundaries......-. -MO WLB-
Low Quality Wetland Boundaries ............. -EO WLB-
Proposed Wetland Boundaries ................ -WLB-
Existing Endangered Animal Boundaries...-.. - - EAB- -
Existing Endangered Plant Boundaries ........ - _EPB- _
BUILDINGS & OTHER CULTURE
Buildings ................................ ......
Foundations .............................. ...... rJ

Area Outline --- ---- ----- ---- ---- -- ------
v

Gate ----- ---- ----- ---- ---- ----- ---- -----
Gas Pump Vent or LPG Tank Cap ------ ----- 0
Church r
School - ---- ---- ----- ---- ---- ----- - ------
Park - ----- ---- ---- ----- ---- ---- --- -- - --
Cemetery --- ---- ----- ---- ---- ----- -- ----- ?r ]
Dam-- ---- ---- ----- ---- ---- ----- -- ------
Sign-- ---- ---- ----- ---- ---- ----- --- - ---

Well --- ---- ----- ---- ---- ----- ---- -- ----- 0
W
Small Mine --- ---- ----- ---- ---- ----- ----- x
Swimming Pool --- ---- ----- ---- ------ -----
TOPOGRAPHY
Loose Surface -- ---- ---- ----- ---- ------- -------
Hard Surface ---------------------------------
Change in Road Surface .................... ..............
Curb ---- ----- ---- ---- ----- ---- ----------
RightofWaySymbol ------------------------ R/W
Guard Post ---- ----- ---- ---- ----- ---- --- E) GP
Paved Walk -------
Bridge - ---- ---- ----- ---- ---- ----- ---- -
Box Culvert or Tunnel - - - - - - -
Ferry ---- ---- ----- ---- ---- ----- --------- -------
Culvert -- ----- ---- ---- ----- ---- --------- >-------------
Footbridge ---- ----- ---- ---- ----- ---- ---- --------------
Trail, Footpath -- ---- ---- ----- ---- ---- -- -
Light House . . . . .
VEGETATION Y
Single Tree --- ---- ---- ----- ---- ----------- fl
Single Shrub -- ---- ---- ----- ---- --------- o
Hedge --- ---- ----- ---- ---- ----- --------- Y,
Woods Line ------ ---- ----- ---- ---- ----- -
Orchard ---- ----- ---- ---- ----- ---- ------- Qt€ts€
Vineyard --- ---- ----- ---- ---- ----- -------
-
RAILROADS (-VINEYARD 1
Standard Gauge
RR Signal Milepost ......................... o
MX&TST M
Switch - ---- ---- ----- ---- ---- ---------- - o
Mcm
TYPE 1 VALLEY
(FOR POORLY DEFINED CHANNEL FORMS)
TYPE 2 VALLEY
(FOR MODERATELY DEFINED CHANNEL FORMS)
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
VALLEY WIDTH
(BASED ON GRADING PLANS
6 TO 10 INCHES
SECTION A - A'
NOTES:
1. GRADE VALLEY TO DESIGN GRADES SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN
2. MICROTOPOGRAPGHY IS TYPICALLY CREATED USING STANDARD
TILLAGE EQUIPMENT CONFIGURED TO FORM MOUNDS AND FURROWS
OF APPROPRIATE SIZE ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION METHODS SHALL
BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
BRAIDED CHANNELS-
WIDTH = 2 TO 4 FT
DEPTH = 0.2 TO 0.5 FT
/ VALLEY SIDE
a SLOPE
(BASED ON
GRADING PLAN)
GRADED VALLEY ELEVATION
PRIOR TO ROUGHING
PROJECT ENGINEER
NIBNnIBBKB7EnRInBBHnR Inc.
¦ 400.200. rFenwry
6.1.200
Cary, NORTH CAROLIM27518
F. F. 91919.IAB.S4BB
'. B1B.485.SIB0
NOTES:
1. GRADE VALLEY TO DESIGN GRADES SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN
2. MICROTOPOGRAPGHY IS TYPICALLY CREATED USING STANDARD
TILLAGE EQUIPMENT CONFIGURED TO FORM MOUNDS AND FURROWS
OF APPROPRIATE SIZE. ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION METHODS SHALL
BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION,
3, BRAIDED CHANNEL ALIGNMENT WALL BE BE LOCATED BY ENGINEER
FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF THE MICROTOPOGRAPGIC ROUGHING.
4. BRAIDED CHANNELS VMLL BE SHAPED TO FORM SMOOTH TRANSITIONS.
5. UPON COMPLETION OF BRAIDED CHANNEL FEATURES, APPLY MULCH
TEMPORARY SEED, AND PERMANENT SEED TO THE CONSTRUCTED VALLEY
ACCORDING TO SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL SPECIFICATIONS.
PLAN VIEW OF MICROTOPOGRAPHIC PATTERN
TYPICAL RIFFLE AND POOL -WELL DEFINED CHANNEL SEGMENTS (SCOTT CREEK 43+00 TO 56+00)
Mkf
Danmx
2,7 i 1r1
RIFFLE
Wbkf
-M.
C 5;1
C
m
N
N
d
a)
n
N
C
a
U,
m
NOTES
1. DURING CONSTRUCTION CORNERS OF DESIGN CHANNEL WILL BE ROUNDED
AND A THALWEG WILL BE SHAPED PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.
2. POOLS SHOWN ABOVE ARE LEFT POOLS ONLY.
VALLEY SIDE SLOPE
a (BASED ON GRADING PLAN)
GRADED VALLEY ELEVATION
PRIOR TO ROUGHING
VALLEYWIDTH
(BASED ON GRADING PLAN)
BRAIDED
CHANNELS
6 TO 12 INCHES- _ SECTIONA - A'
POOL
SCOTT CREEK 43+00 TO 47+63 SCOTT CREEK 47+63 TO 53+00
RIFFLE POOL RIFFLE POOL
8.9 11.0 11.2 14.5
0,8 1.4 1.0 1.6
140 12.7 14.0 13.5
5.7 9.5 9.0 15.5
4.8 2.6 6.0 4.9
WIDTH OF BANKFULL (Vtkl)
MAXIMUM DEPTH (D-04mQ
WIDTH TO DEPTH RATIO (NAB/ D)
BANKFULL AREA (A6BJ
BOTTOM IMDTH(WB)
PLAN VIEW OF MICROTOPOGRAPHIC PATTERN
PROJECT 0.EFEREN(E N0. SHEET NO..
ROOT WADS TYPICAL STRUCTURE PLACEMENT A
WELL DEFINED CHANNEL SEGMENTS PROJECT ENGINEER
(SCOTT CREEK 43+00 TO 56+00)
ROOT WADS WITHOUT TRANSPLANTS
CROSS SECTION VIEW PRELIMINARY PLANS
NTS PLAN VIEW DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
STRUCTURE NOTES: NOTES,
NTS 1, GENERALLY LOG WEIRS, ROOT WADS, 1. COIR FIBER MATTING TO BE INSTALLED ON
COIR FIBER MATTING LOG VANES AND COIR FIBER MATTING ALL RESTORED STREAMBANKS.
WILL
INSTALLED
LOCATION
IN THE

TOP OF BANK
! E
S
HOW
AND SEQUENCE AS SHOWN. 2. IF ROOT WADS DO NOT COVER ENTIRE SLOPE ON OUTSIDE
FLOOD PLAIN BERM (0.5'MAX. HT.) BERM(S) OF MEANDER BENDS, COIR FIBER MATTING IS NEEDED.
NOT TO EXTEND BEYOND 2. ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES OR CHANGES
LIMITS OF ROOT WADS. TO STRUCTURE LOCATIONS MAY BE
MADE
BY THE DESIGN ENGINEER ENGINEER DURING G
DURING
CONSTRUCTION.
Nlehael Bekrt EnElneeHng Ine.
9WSReFeq'FeiWVey
-
BANKFULL STAGE
OPTIONAL sae zoo
¦ c.ry,xomalMS8 UZrste
?
_ COVER LOG rneieaea?swo
BASEFLOW
LOG VANE
1t2: THE TRUNK -FfiICKNE3$
45.BELOW STREAM: BED MAT BANKS WITH COIR FIBER MATTING
(SEE SPECS)

10-15 FEET LONG
.10" DIAMETER
MAT BANKS WITH COIR FIBER MATTING
(SEE SPECS)

ROOT WAD /
LOGWEIR

ROOT WADS WITH TRANSPLANTS GS
CROSS SECTION VIEW TRANSPLANTS

NTS \
MAT
(SEESPECSTH COIR FIBER MATTING

TRANSPLANTS 0

FLOOD PLAIN
BERM (0.5'MAX. HT.) BERM(S) TOP OF BANK v /

p w

NOT TO EXTEND BEYOND ? / \ 0
LIMITS OF ROOT WADS. 0

- BANKFULL STAGE
\
NOTES: / '
\
BASEFLOW TRENCHING METHOD:
/
\
\
/
P = IF THE ROOT WAD CANNOT BE DRIVEN INTO THE BANK OR THE BANK
NEEDS TO BE RECONSTRUCTED, THE TRENCHING METHOD SHOULD / I
ii2'THE TRUNK FHICKNESS BE USED. THIS METHOD REQUIRES THAT A TRENCH BE EXCAVATED

IS BELOW. STREAM: BED FOR THE LOG PORTION OF THE ROOT WAD. IN THIS CASE ,A FOOTER
LOG SHOULD BE INSTALLED UNDERNEATH THE ROOT WAD IN A TRENCH
/ MAT BANKS WITH
COIR FIBER MATTING /
`. EXCAVATED PARALLEL TO THE BANK AND WELL BELOW THE STREAMBED.
ONE-THIRD OF THE ROOT WAD SHOULD RETIAIN BELOW NORMAL BASE (SEE SPECS)
FLOW CONDITIONS.
ROOT WADS
(NUMBERAND
10.15 FEET LONG NOTES: SIZE TO BE
-10" DIAMETER /
DETERMINED
DRIVE POINT METHOD', IN THE FIELD)
SHARPEN THE END OF THE LOG WITH A CHAINSAW BEFORE "DRIVING"
IT INTO THE BANK ORIENT ROOT WADS UPSTREAM SO THAT THE STREAM
FLOW MEETS THE ROOT WAD AT A 90-DEGREE ANGLE, DEFLECTING THE
WATER AWAY FROM THE BANK A TRANSPLANT SHOULD BE TOP OF BANK
PLACED ON THE DOWNSTREAM SIDE OF THE ROOT WAD IF A BACK EDDY
IS FORMED BY THE ROOT WAD.
MAT BANKS WITH COIR FIBER MATTING
(SEE SPECS)
TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING - WOOD MAT
WOOD MAT
CLASS B STONE
. -FIL'TERFABRIC '
NOTES'.
1. CONSTRUCT STREAM CROSSING WHEN FLOW IS LOW.
2. HAVE ALL NECESSARY MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT ON-SITE BEFORE WORK BEGINS.
3. MINIMIZE CLEARING AND EXCAVATION OF CHANNEL BANKS. DO NOT EXCAVATE CHANNEL BOTTOM.
4. LINE CHANNEL BANKS AND ACCESS RAMP AREA NTH NON-WOVEN FILTER FABRIC.
5. INSTALL STREAM CROSSING AT RIGHT ANGLE TO THE FLOW.
6. MAINTAIN CROSSING SO THAT RUNOFF IN THE CONSTRUCTION ROAD DOES NOT ENTER EXISTING CHANNEL.
7. STABILIZE AN ACCESS RAMP OF CLASS B STONE TO THE EDGE OF THE WOW MAT.
B. THE WOOD MAT SHALL BE OF SUFFICIENT SIZE AND WIDTH TO SUPPORT THE LARGEST VEHICLE CROSSING THE CHANNEL.
9. CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE AN APPROPRIATE RAMP ANGLE ACCORDING TO EQUIPMENT UTILIZED, RECOMMENDED ATA
5:1 SLOPE.
m
0
N
N
d
U)
n
N
7
a
d
c
m
m
mm
q?
Nti.
PROJECT RffEREN(E N0. SHEET NO.
LOG WEIR TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION
PROJECT ENGINEER

TRANSPLANTS TRANSPLANTS
TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION, ROOT
MASS, AND SOIL MATERIAL
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DD NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
LL
TOP OF STREAMBANK
CHAN NELVADTH
l
1.5XCHANNELWIDTH ® •
\
TOP OF STREAMBANK *
\ Mlchul Lx
Bx EnplnwdnR Inc.
SCOUR ® ') s.1- penw Pens.-w
sure mo
POOL
1

LOG WEIR
FLOW

\\ TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION, ROOTMASS, AND SOIL

TOE OF BANK MATERIAL cry, noam uxouxn arse
rnone: xieex?seee
r.. e19.ns.MM
STREAMBED \ \ `
. . ' -
_ _ - BOTTOM OF CHANNEL
. ... NOTES:
1. EXCAVATE A HOLE IN THE BANK TO BE STABILIZED THAT WILL
HEADER LOG BACKFILL (ON-SITEALLUVIUM) ACCOMMODATE THE SIZE OF TRANSPLANT TO BE PLACED.

? • BEGIN EXCAVATION AT THE TOE OF THE BANK.
.
.. 2. EXCAVATE TRANSPLANT USING A FRONT END LOADER.
PLAN NEW EXCAVATE THE ENTIRE ROOT MASS AND AS MUCH ADDITIONAL
SOIL MATERIAL AS POSSIBLE. IF ENTIRE ROOT MASS CAN NOT BE
FILTERFABRIC FOR DRAINAGE CROSS SECTION VIEW EXCAVATE IN ONE BUCKET LOAD, THE TRANSPLANT IS TOO LARGE
;.' j$EE SPECS), ,'. AND ANOTHER SHOULD BE SELECTED.
FOOTER LOG 3. PLACE TRANSPLANT IN THE BANK TO BE STABILIZED SO THAT
VEGETATION IS ORIENTATED VERTICALLY.
4'MINIMUM 4. FILL IN ANY HOLES AROUND THE TRANSPLANT AND COMPACT.
5. ANY LOOSE SOIL LEFT IN THE STREAM SHOULD BE REMOVED
TRANSPLANTS SECTION A-A' 6. PLACE MULTIPLE TRANSPLANTS CLOSE TOGETHER SUCH THAT
THEYTOUCH.
TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION AND ROOTMASS

® \\ //
®
HEADER LOG NOTES \ \ ® TOP OF BANK
1. LOGS SHOULD BEAT LEAST 12 INCHES IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT,
FOOTERLOG HARDWOOD, AND RECENTLY HARVESTED.
2. LOGS >24 INCHES IN DIAMETER MAY BE USED ALONE WITHOUTAN ADDITIONAL LOG.
FILTER FABRIC SHOULD STILL BE USED TO SEAL AROUND LOG
PLACE FOOTER LOGS FIRST AND THEN HEADER(TOP)LOG
SET HEADER LOG
3
/ \
® ® TOE OF BANK
CROSS SECTION VIEW .
.
APPROXIMATLEY 3INCHES ABOVE THE INVERT ELEVATION. / - - - - /
4, CUTA NOTCH IN THE HEADER LOG APPROXIMATLEY 50 PERCENT OF THE CHANNEL ?_-- - -' ?/
BOTTOM WIDTH AND EXTENDING DOWN TO THE INVERT ELEVATION.
5. USE FILTER FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE TO SEAL GAPS BETWEEN LOGS.
6. PLACE TRANSPLANTS FROM TOE OF STREAMBANK TO TOP OF STREAMBANK PLAN VIEW
EROSION CONTROL MATTING
LOG VANE
LOG BURIED
BELOW STREAMS 2l3
BANKFULL PLACE COIR FIBER MATTING IN 6INCH DEEP
TRENCH, STAKE, BACKFILL, AND COMPACT
1 \ 113 TRANSPLANTS TOP OF STREAMBANK
\ \ SAW ULL
\ TOP OF STREAMBANK
20°-30° TOE OF SLOPE
FLT
/

®

TRANSPLANTS i
STREAMBED PLACE COIR FIBER MATTING IN 6 INCH DEEP
TRENCH, STAKE, BACKFILL, AND COMPACT
TYPICAL MATTING STAKE
BOTTOM OF CHANNEL THE WOOD STAKE SHALL BE THE NORTH AMERICAN
3 GREEN ECO-STAKE OR APPROVED EQUAL NTH THE
p 1, i FOLLOWING DIMENSIONS:
LEG LENGTH 11.00 IN 7.94C
HEAD WIDTH 1.25 IN .18 CM)
HEAD THICKNESS 0.40 IN 1.02 CM)
CROSS SECTION VIEW LEGWDTH 0.60 IN 1.52C (TAPERED TOPOINT)
LEG THICKNESS 0.401N 1.02
LOG BURIED TOTALLENGTH 12.00IN 0.48C
IN STREAMBANK
AT LEAST6 PROFILE VIEW NOTES,
P LAN VIEW 1. BANKS SHOULD BE SEEDED PRIOR TO
PLACEMENT OF MATTING.
2. PLACE COIR FIBER MATTING ACCORDING TO
MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDATIONS.
3. MATTING STAKES SHOULD BE PLACED
IN A DIAMOND SHAPED PATTERN.
TREN TRENCH
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TOP OF STREAMBANK
QR 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1
NOTES : STREA MBANK - STAKES
1. LAGS SHOULD BEAT LEAST 10" IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT, HARDWOOD, AND RECENTLY HARVESTED. I I
2. SOIL SHOULD BE COMPACTED WELL AROUND BURIED PORTIONS OF LOG. I I 1 I 1
3. TRANSPLANTS ARE PLACED ALONG THE TOP OF THE BANK OVER THE BURIED LOG VANE TO PROTECT AGAINST
EROSION DURING HIGH FLOWS. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 COIR FIBER MATTING TO BE
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 EXTENDED TO TOE OF SLOPE
PLAN VIEW
c
m
TJ
tv
x
N
d
m
N
7
O
d
m
m
mm
q?
Nti.
b// /
Cj)
? // ? 105 ^p / •?, / /
looo,
?• loool? 1
% 0 3*?
/
1000'
C
m
r
a
ci
m
C
\ c6
I
- ?r
I I ?- I 1. ---1_
1?•I/.
1 ? 1 ./• I I
?..? STREAM RESTORATIONBOUN •'•
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION SCd?Tf CREEK (A) o.,Ry I ?i•
TYPE 1 VALLEY STA. 10+00.0 ............ - ----•----_-
- GRADE PLAN MAY BE ADJUSTED BASED

1
/ I
ON ABILITY TO MOVE GRAVE
ao.
1 -7.0--/ /-
ctn
o
0-p (p
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT ONE POR CONNTRumm
MielKel Beker Engineering Inc.
¦ eac]NegNiq ftm ry
suh 100
¦ • ph. NORTI LINA27518
Phlm 919.kl- 8
Pmc 616.8&, W

HELL SWAMP
SCOTT CREEK
50 25 0 50 100
SCALE (FT)
PROJECT ENGINEER

PROJECT ENGINEER
PRELIMINARY PLANS
00 NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
S. 2M
(Baker
Ph... 919.4W.W

C
m
r
a
m
m
N
i
N
.a
?s ^ 1 < y?l? •\ \ X5.0` \ \ \
?s,\
h ?
HELL SWAMP
SCOTT CREEK
5,0 25 0 50 100
SCALE (FT)
INSET
PROJECT ENGINEER
PRELIMINARY PLANS
Rp NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
SWOR lRFEV Enplneeilrg Inc.
Ly FeTrey
s.ft 200
a zao
¦ O q, NORTH ORROL NA 87818
F-9119.6888.61AB
Fu A1A 468.6180
C
m
v
w
m
i
a
m
m
n
a
i
c
.a
i
END CONSTRUC'
21
.00
PROJECT ENGINEER
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT usE POR CONRTRumm
Nieh6el 1410, Engineering Inc.
.. Reaenw Pamxy
0uib00A
• Cary, NO-CAROLINA 27618
Ph.. 010.4005980
Fm:810.981.k00
."?
INSET
Ci
6
LOG WEIR CrYP.)
? I
I
ok I
? o
I
m
r
a
n
a
/V'

?oti
7A
2
em
NO
(•,o P
1
Z
,?o ma
w
IPA
7
o
HELL SWAMP
SCOTT CREEK
c
m
m
r
a
m
m
n
N
7
a
1? S?P",13x00?
le 0-a
I I
N I
H ?
I I
7A / .
N / 1 59-
/ 56+00
58+00
0
Nye // 20\\
k°o END CONSTRUCTION UT2
STA.16+09.11
i
60+00
L
\\ \ /
Nl?l
\
61+00
eye ® \ -X1`.5-` y
\
1.5\ \
2.s\\ \`\Z\\\
\3o_ \
\
\
9o
? 3.5?
I
A' \ 10 \ \
a"00 \\ \\\_/
\ t
\ \ \% 66,00
\ I
PROJECT ENGINEER
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT OSB POR CONSTRIILTJON
Nleh-I Blkll ENRIDwNOR INe.
Seib 2W
CAry,NORD ROLINA27515
Ph- 515.1559158
Fn'. B15.N5.5155

7

s
i
m

5/
0

2

Np
Y

A

IEND CONSTRUCTION UT3 0
STA. 20+78.61 /
000,
lool
100,
/ /
100,
/
/ /ryo /
/
4f,q lNE
G73
SNF? /
?S
Spq '8%0000
D
UNDISTURBED AREA
TYPICAL CHANNEL FILL
23.25'
EXISTING GROUND
T-
5.173'
5.13'
CHANNEL FILL
SEQUENCE
1. INSTALL CHANNEL FILL ALONG ENTIRE SECTION
OF OLD CHANNEL TO BE FILLED.
2. USE PUMP TO DEWATER BLOCKED SECTION.
SECTION A-A'
HE' SWAMP
SCOTT C1uiL'..
50 25 0 50 100
SCALE (FT)
INSET
f.\\A \ \ 3.5\
3.0
?l \
\3a
\ \ BEGIN CONSTRUCTION UT5 I N\`?a \ \
\ \ TYPE 1 VALLEY STA. 10+00.00

X3.0---------I
J
N

ry
I
0
?e
C-2
CID
?u
y
Q<U
U
cllj
Z?
v
r ?
\2.0
70+00
71+00

ge \
_?\ Gs
-a
m
n \
a
m ?
N
I
a
a
CI
C
m 1 1 UNDISTURBED AREA
1
a' I
8
PROJECT ENGINEER
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT ORE FOR CONRTRRI.TION
C,W, NORTH O-OL NA 27518
(Baker
Fm: 919-3-90
I
I
I i
1.5 2.0

w?
l
75+00
72+00 /
73+0p
\ 74+0p
\ ?-0.0-
\7?

w 4yF?.
I
.\ I s
? ? \'? INSET
I I
m
0
\0 I\ \\ ??_// A
i 1
b
a'
91?
>"'00
w
SOO
7hp0
79+00
"Do
] CONSTRUCTION UT5 78+00
k.18+45.43
TYPICAL CHANNEL FILL
EXISTING 1 2790'
?GROUND
SEQUENCE
8.97'. / OFNOLDLCHANNEL ETO BEAFONED ENTIRE SECTION
2.USE PUMP TO DEWATER BLOCKED SECTION.
+ CHANNEL FILL

D
0
x
r
Z
m
N
0
I
0
X
m
71
N
2
m
m
0
-i
D
J
O
O
O
O
O
HELL SWAMP
SCOTT CREEK AND UT5
50 25 0 50 100
SCALE (FT)

PROJECT ENGINEER
PRELIMINARY PLANS
00 NOT 088 POR CONBTROI.TJON
Michael Baker Engineering
8000 Regency ftrk y
Wile 2W
CeT,NOR-H ROLINA21518
Ph,m 210183.5480
Fm: 218.981.X00
MATCHLINE UT6 SHEET 12 ST \ \ ,•\ ? ?S ?
S
? \?? \ \
1
INSET
?v ` ' ??'
40/
1 CV o
\ , \ \ \ \ \ r , l s , J ry.
s `---_
c
m
r
a
m
cnv
7
c
a
s ?
\ I I \ \ IN, I I 91+00 INSTALL (2) I
\ - -2.5- FLOATING SILT
92-00 CURTAINS
I I I `rs--i/ I
03+00
/- -
S `--------2.0---??/
Z ` ------- 1.5--?--?/
END CONSTRUCTION UT6
STA. 37+65.33
rn ??AO END CONSTRUCTION SCOTT CREEK
STA. 92+70
m
NOTE
1
? CHANNEL FILL ENDS AT STA. 92+70.
N FILL SHALL BE SLOPED UPSTREAM
m /"?.•`• AT A MAXIMUM SLOPE OF 5:1. I
M 84+00 85+00 / • • \ ••?.
?.
O 82+00 83+00 /•• •?, I
O /•
O /•
O
/?NOTE:
soT'? SEE PLANS PRODUCED BY JONATHAN T. RICKETTS, INC. FOR
/ sod CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES OUTSIDE THE STREAM RESTORATION BOUNDARY.
•/' S UNDISTURBED AREA
-- -- ooo
/
HELL SWAMP
SCOTT CREEK
50 25 0 50 100
SCALE (FT)
-5.0-? - J50-
III _ /5p/ /
/ V If
\n?
- -- - - - -- - -- -
/ I

1
1 `j6
11 ?\\J/c
/ -q
r
a
m
n
N
7
c
a

1
i
1
1 1 -
91 I
? I
? I
I
NI11 1
1
I 1
'I 1
I
I
I
I
I END CONS
I BEGIN UT6
I
1
i 1
1
co
tiJ
At
v
Z

PROJECT ENGINEER
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT D8R POR CONBTRIIDTAON
WNP1 l"apa Enpin9erinp lne.
. 8000
Pe5NVay
Bu. 2W
3W
¦ Cary,ND5ID ROLINR9I518
Phm.', 919.453.5488
F&'.919.53.5490
STA.
13 18+00.()o
7 SHEET
MATCHLINE UT I 8
I
cl 11 11 1
I 6

HELL SWAMP
UT6 AND U77
50 25 0 50 100
SCALE (FT)

NOTE:
SEE PLANS PRODUCED BY JONATHAN T. RICKETTS, INC. FOR
CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES OUTSIDE THE STREAM RESTORATION BOUNDARY.
UNOAs-1 95
RE.100-Nto' • •

\ - - - - -
/ ?4A X35 J
13+00 \ - -
11 11 li
s 1 11 ;I
'o
1 I ' I
I Il 1 ,I
N 1 I
m
11 ` 41
-- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - --
°o
j BEGIN CONSTRUCTION UT6 A \ \ g N
N1
11+00/ / 12+00 T •p \ \ / I
15+00 ? 3 0
1exPo \ \ \
\ \ 17,0
`90. l
\ l--_---3.5-? ??-? \\\ \\
\ 30\ \ %oo
I \\\ ?? 20-00
'YPE 1 VALLEY STA. 10+00.00 \ \
NOTE:
SEE PLANS PRODUCED BY JONATHAN T. RICKETTS, INC. FOR U?;
CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES OUTSIDE THE STREAM RESTORATION BOUNDARY. 21 '55
INSET
m
N
r
a
a
U y \ \ 0? PROJECT ENGINEER

PRELIMINARY PLANS
00 NOT U88 FO
CONBT
TIC170N
R
R
A. y

z eater nalnwdne inc.
awo
Cary, NORTH CROLINA 27518
4
`_ F. 919.N3.5490

NOTE:
/ SEE PLANS PRODUC ED BY JONATHAN T. RICKETTS, INC. FOR

/ 1
\
CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES OUTSIDE THE STREAM RESTORATION BOUNDARY. \
-
C)C)
o / ?n?
Q \ •`• . STREAM RESTORATION BOUNDARY._ ._ .--.-,
- - - - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -
co 2.5
00 zo-
124,00
\ \
30~00 31-00
2.9-00
? \26 ZSroD / / 2R'W
J ?\
Q
\ \ ` ?.0 - \ \ ?P
? \ °s 5
°a \ \ J
\ HELL SWAMP
UT6
\ \ \ ` 50 25 0 50 100
1 SCALE (FT)
INSET
/ I
I
I
1 I
O 01

c
r
a
n
7
a

0S
/ I
.05? 1
i
I
I
a
I
I
f
L-1 in
\30\

I
?
.` 1
, I
N,
m
1
?I
.I
e I
SIB
I
I
I
l
I
I
/
l
w

O
C,
0
i
'co
H
w
2
W
H
Z
W
9
HELL SWAMP
U779

50 25 0 50 100
SCALE (FT)
r /O
1EET 13 /
/ I
I i ?
O. / O
NOTE:
SEE PLANS PRODUCED BY JONATHAN T. RICKETTS, INC. FOR
CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES OUTSIDE THE STREAM RESTORATION BOUNDARY.
INSET
_ _ /-4.5 by? p
'T • _ _ ES7_ORATION BOUNDARY _ _ _
10+00
91 1I PROJECT ENGINEER
O /
%l PRELIMINARY PLANS
DI DO NOT 098 FOR CON9TRTJC110N
l I I Ill h
O I MkheN BSk99 ED91D1191D911c.
l I /1 moo R_P-e '
r suf. mo
¦ Cary, NORTH OPROLINA 11518
l P-. 919.4616150
a I I I I Fez 919.4615490
?- I I ? III ?
I
C) /
v
1 '
97'n ` \ I

I I 11+00 •3.5-- ---
i I -
12+00 F- 4+00
I 13+00
I I ` BEGIN CONSTRUCTION UT7 15+? _ _ - - -3.0- - '
? \ TYPE 1 VALLEY STA. 10+00.00 1s oD
I \ ` _ \ 7+00 r 2.5 -
-_` _ X4.0\\ \"- I \\\ 1
-cl
° ° I I I ?o
1s j l ? jl i I ?? \\
i / en ! .1
NOTE:`
I SEE PLANS PRODUCED BY JONATHAN T. RICKETTS, INC. FOR
CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES OUTSIDE THE STREAM RESTORATION BOUNDARY.
1 I OI ! 1 ?V I IF PROJECT ENGINEER
I /
I \ \ \ ? / PRELIMINARY PLANS
I I
h NOTE: -4.5 ? DO NOT 088 POR CONBTR CT ON
SEE PLANS PRODUCED BY JONATHAN T. RICKETTS, INC. FOR 11 \ /
CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES OUTSIDE THE STREAM RESTORATION BOUNDARY. /
Nkh-I All E"01-11"o I"l,
1
i ICI mm?.a
\ I 6u1te 100
I / Ch.. 919.4-MOLINAI1518
STREAM REST_ORA_710NBOUND_AR_Y . _ .. _ .. _ .. - ., - ,. - . \ F.919. &e W
- -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - --
l 1 0
0 3.5
1um \ l i
i
BEGIN 131-00
O STRW ION UT1 \ \
°` TYPE 1 VALLEY STA.`tlg-4 00 / 14,E \ _ - - -
\ \ f 1$1-00 \
16-00
s`.
REar`` 1
?e0 ` 1
?Rr ? \
a
a
t.
L7
I
\
\3.0\
2s \\\
17,00 .? V/ ?0
1a
I ?
\ '?
f \ \ 20,00
2
`'0
\ a
\ I ? ? m
r
O
\ O
NOTE: `•,` \ \ \
\ SEE PLANS PRODUCED BY JONATHAN T. RICKETTS, INC. FOR
CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES OUTSIDE THE STREAM RESTORATION BOUNDARY.
I

HELL SWAMP
UTI
50 25 0 50 100
SCALE (FT)
rSHEET 14-,,
A
v
1 \ / I l
INSET
I I
l I
I I
I p
I ?
a
I
I ?
I I
I I
1? AO
0
7
I
1

m
T)
t
a
a

?? i' \ Ft ?? \ \ \ \? i
\ J
o ?
\
NOTE:
EE PLAN
PR
D
ED BY
NATHAN T
RI
KETT
IN
F
R '? \ Ln
\
\ \
\
.
S
S
O
UC
JO
C
S,
C.
O
CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES OUTSIDE THE STREAM RESTORATION BOUNDARY p
?Oa\ \
. \ \

I
/ I I I /
? oYp?
\ \
\
c"' \ \

? 1 ? o \
5n 1 ? ?\
Ci I I / I v \?
PROJECT ENGINEER
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT ORE POR CONRTRucTJON
(Baker
- 919.40-D

HELL SWAMP
U73
50 25 0 50 100
SCALE (FT)
o ? I I
v ?
? M
/ \ O
A 002, ? f I ?, /I ?
0
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION UT3
TYPE 1 VALLEY STA. 10+00.00 3.5
12+00
f3"o X2.5\
/ Z'l
/Ap I \ \ \ \ / /
I \ \
,, / ?pY \ \\ 15100
16,00
CID
I \
/, 1 // 1 \ \\\ \?? 1;1-Op
co
INSET

1
i
i
i
i
i
i

t
a
N
7
a
s`fCP
N./ri \
/ 5' lNV
9 / 58? I 1

., \ \ \$50
\ s\
1
PROJECT ENGINEER
PRELIMINARY PLANS
°0 NOT Oh8 POR CONRTRxmm
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
eno9 B?ea?w Per?wry
qNm
PhT.
C-n1H ceacuxn 2751e
Pho.:rc: 91e193.54Be
Fn:919.W.6199
eeeeeO
INSET

\,0. \ \
f0

' SEE PLANS PRODUCED BY JONATHAN T. RICKETTS, INC. FOR
CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES OUTSIDE THE STREAM RESTORATION BOUNDARY.
u
0
I d
moo.
6 C,
- J /
\ \ _ _
oro'?'
HELL SWAMP
UT4
50 25 0 50 100
SCALE (FT)
r
a
m
n
a
cot
// I 1 / I I s? I
I I I I $'?
cri
p I I I I ?? I
I N N ? zI
lel
0
. -/ ? / ? • cgs ? /
40.E ? ,/• /
/
o. .3.6 I -• / '
-?
\ l' 7 lool I/ loll ..5y /
I 1 ?`
NOTE: X3,0-
1
SEE PLANS PRODUCED BY JONATHAN T. RICKETTS, INC. FOR
CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES OUTSIDE THE STREAM RESTORATION BOUNDARY. ?3.5-

BEGIN CONSTRUCTION UT2 '
/ I I
TYPE 1 VALLEY STA. 10+00.00

I
? l

' I
.d
o I ? l ? r ; I

I

I ,
I I ?

D /

•
I c N /
-
-
?
/' I
- / Jury/ I
/
? to
M
I/ F
H
13 W
I
o CO)
rv
?sue W
1
I
I
?I
/I
II
?I
I
rl
II
?I
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
I?
PROJECT ENGINEER
PRELIMINARY PLANS
IO NOT Opp FOR CONATRRI.TION
Nlchul Baker Enplnaerlnp Inc.
¦ BOWR0Ba YBaAavry
Atld JAO
pry, NORTHC ROLINA21518
F. 01 A.MJ.fiCBn
'. B1A.463.SN10
F.

HELL SWAMP
un
50 25 0 50 100
SCALE (FT)
INSET
INSET
I
?// ?/ice _ ii%?-- ? `: •?? I ?..
NOTE: 1 \ I?
SEE PLANS PRODUCED BY JONATHAN T. RICKETTS, INC. FOR - 1L
CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES OUTSIDE THE STREAM RESTORATION BOUNDARY. - - -
/ / I RFS 0'N BOUND• - - \ \
7- ..pin
'ok
Ut
1 1 o. s.
?i 11 o I I \ d\ \

/
i
1 1 // o
i' , / 1 1 s 1
Cl)
/ X4.0- . ? ? X3.5• /
OT
r X / j1.00 iB W
%e
j6+00 Lu
\ 1( / / / 15+w N
14+00 F
T 11+00
12+00 13+00 1 I 1?
1 ` J
?e O 3.5? Q
i p. h
M \ \ \ \
/ I \ X4.0\
/ / BEGIN CONSTRUCTION UT8 A \ \ \ 1 1
/ TYPE 1 VALLEY STA. 10+00.00 \ \ \
\ p

k'
/ /
m
-° /
o;
a
m
w
v
IV
--•-.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._..y..
`.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._..--STREAM RESTORATION BOUNDARY ••_•
?? _ i i /mss,. 1 1 0 1 1
NOTE:
Ip I
SEE PLANS PRODUCED BY JONATHAN T. RICKETTS, INC. FOR
CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES OUTSIDE THE STREAM RESTORATION BOUNDARY. 1 1 II I 1
1 1 ?
a ` o ? 1 11 1
C) 0.
PROJECT ENGINEER
PRELIMINARY PLANS
00 NOT OSR POR CONSTRIII. m
Michael Baker Engineering
80. PpNe)PeSa
Sui10300
an,NoN7N ROLINA27618
Ph... 919.483.W8
Fr.: a1a.103.kW
HELL SWAMP
UT8
50 25 0 50 100
SCALE (FT)
s
a
m
u
b
/ NOTE:
/ SEE PLANS PRODUCED BY JONATHAN 1
CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES OUTSIDE TH
•__.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._. STREAM RESTORATION BO
I 11 1 ? ? ? ,
1 a I I
c; I
N \ I \ A I h
I
I ?\ I I 1 1
I 1 ,
ICKETTS, INC. FOR
STREAM RESTORATION BOUNDARY.
AR1' ..........
._..
i?
' I
? I
10??
1 PROJECT ENGINEER
I '
PRELIMINARY PLANS
RO NOT ORE FOR CONRTRRI.TJON
4p
/ Mi0 RW ft Enpinwrinp
3000 Rape,,W rq Peibay
3u NO
¦ ? ? c.y...B RTH cn.ouxnsrsle
Ph..:A19.4W.W
Fn'. 91983.3190
----------------
1 ?
i o-?
I-ol
CID
26 cp
y 19-00 3D---? I 9 (m(1
o
2000 n? 2.5-
10 21+00 24+00 A.
22.00 23+00
\ ? Jf I I
O
aa? j l I
1 ? ? ??? V I I I I I II
I ? ? I- ??. 1 1 1 I I I I
I 1 I ? ?\ I I l 1 I
------.--.--------.-----.-----------.-----._.._.._.._.._...._.._.._.._.._.._.
STREAM RESTORATION BOUNDARY
I 21+64 END TYPE 1 VALLEY
w I I I I 1
BEGIN UT8 (B) TYPE 2 VALLEY 1 I I / /
I I I ? I? I ? ? 1 I 1 ( ? I / ?/
I I I 1 I / °
I I I ? ? NOTE:
II II j Sy I I SEE PLANS PRODUCED BY JONATHAN T. RICKETTS, INC. FOR
?' 1 I CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES OUTSIDE THE STREAM RESTORATION BOUNDARY.
I 1 I ? f
HELL SWAMP
cl)
1 I I I I 1 1 I I°b?? A v
hI 1 I I I ?? 50 25 0 50 100
SCALE (FT)
INSET
0
N
tie
m
ti
J
2
2
1U
?
\?5\
\ 39+00 wo / I0 ; . ool
ow ?
c
m
v
m
a
r
a
m
m
cnv
7
a
i
11
/
NOTE:
SEE PLANS PRODUCED BY JONATHAN T. RICKETTS, INC. FOR
CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES OUTSIDE THE STREAM RESTORATION BOUNDARY. i?
''? d y6 A/

ry
/ 411,
/ .to / Mkt
3N , I I ?DM\v / / /// 2 /,
"oo'
de
u
?z.s,
a0,?
END CON
- - - - -••-••-..? TYPE 2 V
-••-••-••-••-••-•• •• •' STREAM RESTORATION E ;I5 RY -
0
9T
Off/ /
ON UT8
PROJECT ENGINEER
PRELIMINARY PLANS
00 NOT OSR POR CONSTRIIC170N
11111,1061 RPkey E"01""rinR Ino.
¦ .. RWNp'--y
SuN 300
Cry, NORTH C.ROLINB I]61B
Phone:61S.180.
F- B18A8B.5190
B0

BELL SWAMP
UT8
50 25 0 50 100
SCALE (FT)
:...................
....................
....................
....................
::::miu
00.00.....
..........
..........
0000.
0000
.....
......
0000.....
0000..
.....
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000.
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
Eakr
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
...................
.... 1.7.a. .....
.......r..nnn10o,

...........................■NOON.
M .......................... ■NOON.
00000 00000 000. ■oo.
MENNEN oo.00.00.o. o.00.
.......�=a..............................
......via ..............................
oo.oi.a 00000 00000 00000
......... ...............................
oo.on v 00000 00000 00000
oo0n'-] 00000 00000 00000
........................................
.......c:■..............................
...............................
mrrrrrrr
mrrrrrrr
.novo
MJEEE
.00NoM
dommma
....i.iii
0000.
iiiiiiiiii
..........
..........
..........
NONE.....
....MOON.
MEEEE...
MOMMM
MEMO.
NOON
NOON
NONE
NOON
.....
0000..
.....NOON
MEEEE.
NONE.
MEMO
MEMO
NOON
....
.....
0000......
..........
0000.....000000000C.
.
0000......
...................
k�
..........
..........
..........
0000......
.......... Ba
MEMO...... ..........
.................
.................:::
....................
....................
....................

................................................................................
................................................................................
------------------------------ ----- -
:::::mw
..........
..........
NONE
MOM..........
NONE.....
NOON.
NOON
NOON
NONE
NOON
NOON.
......
.....NOON
Immo..
NONE.
NOON
NOON
NOON
NOON
NOON.
..........
0000......
..........
..........
..........
..........
.......... Ba k�
..........
mmmmmmmmm.
..........
..........
..........
..........
.................
NON ..............:::
....................
..............................
..........

----------------- J==.==-,C�_,..........,............................c�.,a....I...,.........,. ...
----------NOON.---•-•-..........................M---.---.E-...
............................................Nano.........----__----.----.........00000uor.
:::::mw
..........
..........
NONE
MOM..........
NONE.....
NOON.
NOON
NOON
NONE
NOON
NOON.
......
.....NOON
Immo..
NONE.
NOON
NOON
NOON
NOON
NOON.
...... OM
0000 .........
......
..........
..........
..........
..........
.......... Ba kE
..........
mmmmmmmmm.
..........
..........
..........
..........
.................
NON ..............:::
....................
..............................
..........

....................
NOON..
....................
....................
....................
....illi............
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
.................:::
....................
....................
:::::mw
..........
..........
NONE..........
NONE.....
NOON.
NOON
NOON
NONE
NOON
NOON.
......
.....NOON
Immo..
NONE.
NOON
NOON
NOON
NOON
NOON.
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
Ea
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
.................
NON ..............:::
....................
....................
....................

..........
..........
....
....
NONE..
NONENOON.
NOON. ga kE
NOON
NOON
NOONmomm
....
NOON.
..........
.................
.................:::
....................
....................
....................

............. .............................h__,..............................,__...............................�.__-........................1111................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------..........
iiiiiiiiii................--- ..................................................................■...rr......�.......►..........
MMMMMMMMI moon
MEMO..............................................................................................................................MEN
0000000000 FIMMMWAMMMMMMMMMM
.......0000......;,:::::...........
..............................................................................................■oo. oouoo oouoo oou.oi oouoo o.o:vu. oouoo
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!■............................fid A7.................!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1....1...l1....1...l1....1...l1....1...l1....1...l1....1...l1....1...l1....1...l1....1...l1...l1...l1....1...y!'J...l...11....l...l l....l...l l....l...l l....l...!
............................................................................................................L'9..................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
::::mmlam
..........
..........
..........
NONE.....
....MOON.
....MOON
MOMMM
MEMO.
NOON
NOON
NONE
NOON
.....
0000..
.....NOON
......
NONE.
MEMO
MEMO
NOON
....
.....
0000.....
..........
0000......
..........
..........
..........
0000......
..........Ea k:(
..........
..........
0000......
..........
0000......
MEMO......
.................
.................:::
....................
....................
....................

ATTACHMENT D
Compensatory Mitigation Plan
for the
Hell Swamp Restoration Area
COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN
FOR RESTORATION OF THE
HELL SWAMP/SCOTT CREEK WATERSHED
PANTEGO TOWNSHIP
BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

Prepared for:
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
Environmental Affairs Department
Aurora, North Carolina
Prepared by:
CZR INCORPORATED
Wilmington, North Carolina
and
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Cary, North Carolina
and
Jonathan T. Ricketts, Inc.
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
July 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paqe
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................. .....1
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. .....1
2.0 LOCATION, HISTORY, AND PRE-RESTORATION DESCRIPTION ................. .....1
2.1 Location .......................................................................................................... .....1
2.2 History ............................................................................................................. .....2
2.3 Pre-Restoration Description ............................................................................ .....2
2.3.1 Soils ........................................................................................................ .....2
2.3.2 Pre-restoration Drainage and Section 404 Jurisdictional Status ............ ..... 3
2.3.3 Woodland Areas ..................................................................................... ..... 3
2.3.4 Vegetated Non-forested Areas ............................................................... ..... 3
2.3.5 Cleared Areas ......................................................................................... ..... 4
2.3.6 Agricultural Fields ................................................................................... ..... 4
2.3.7 Protected Species .................................................................................. ..... 4
2.3.8 Cultural Resources ................................................................................. .....4
3.0 SITE SELECTION FACTORS AND JUSTIFICATION ........................................ .....4
3.1 Logistics .......................................................................................................... ..... 4
3.2 Cost and Technology ...................................................................................... ..... 5
3.3 Justification ..................................................................................................... .....5
3.3.1 Jurisdictional Status of Woodland and Cleared Areas ........................... ..... 5
4.0 SPECIFIC GOALS, TARGET FUNCTIONS, AND METHODS ........................... .....5
4.1 Goals .............................................................................................................. .....5
4.2 Target Functions ............................................................................................. .....6
4.3. Methods .......................................................................................................... .....8
4.3.1 Agricultural Areas ................................................................................... ..... 8
4.3.2 Woodland Areas ..................................................................................... ..... 8
4.3.3 Vegetated Unforested Areas .................................................................. ..... 8
4.3.4 Cleared Areas ......................................................................................... ..... 9
5.0 WORK PLAN METHODOLOGY ......................................................................... ..... 9
5.1 Hardwood Flats ............................................................................................... ... 10
5.1.1 Hydrologic Model .................................................................................... ...10
5.1.2 Water Budget .......................................................................................... ...10
5.1.2.1 Meteorology-Climatic Inputs and Evapotranspiration ...................... ...10
5.1.2.2 Water Budget Outputs ..................................................................... ... 10
5.1.3 Proposed Restoration of Surface Contours ............................................ ...11
5.2 Streams and Riparian Headwater Systems .................................................... ...11
5.2.1 Historic Aerials ........................................................................................ ...11
5.2.2 Topographic Data ................................................................................... ...12
5.2.3 Identified Project Reaches ...................................................................... ... 12
5.2.4 Coastal Plain Riparian Headwater Systems Reference Site Analyses .. ...13
5.2.5 Design Approach and Techniques ......................................................... ... 19
6.0 PLANTING DESIGN ............................................................................................ ...22
7.0 DATA COLLECTION FOR MONITORING AND SUCCESS CRITERIA ............. ...23
7.1 Riparian Headwater Systems (Zero to First Order Stream Systems) ............. ... 23
7.2 Vegetation Monitoring Plots ............................................................................ ...24
7.2.1 Volunteer Woody Vegetation Sampling .................................................. ... 24
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan i Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Revised per agency request
July 2009
7.2.2 Vegetation Ecological Performance Standards ....................................
7.3 Hydrology Monitoring ....................................................................................
7.3.1 Wetland Hydrological Ecological Performance Standard and Growing
Season ............................................................................................
7.4 Hydrogeomorphic Monitoring of Streams and Valleys .............................
7.4.1 Hydrogeomorphic Stability ...............................................................
7.5 Reference Forest Wetland .......................................................................
7.6 Reference Stream Reach and Reference Riparian Headwater System..
7.7 Areas Mapped as Upland on the Beaufort County Soil Survey ...............
7.8 Summary of Performance Criteria ...........................................................
8.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES .................................................
8.1 Adaptive Management .............................................................................
8.2 Long Term Management ..........................................................................
9.0 FINAL DISPOSITION OF SITE ....................................................................
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................
... 25
... 25
... 27
....... 27
....... 27
....... 27
....... 28
....... 28
....... 28
....... 31
....... 31
....... 32
....... 32
....... 34
Cover: View of eastern half of Hell Swamp; towards Pungo Creek with Pungo River in
distance.
LIST OF CHARTS
Chart 1 Headwater reference reach data relating channel formation to drainage
area and slope .............................................................................17
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 General functions of Coastal Plain headwater systems .........................18
Table 2 Summary of reach/segment characteristics, lengths, and design channel
forms for project stream reaches ......................................................21
Table 3 Restored wetland or stream functions and measurement
methods ......................................................................................24
Table 4 List of appropriate colonizing woody species within the Hell Swamp
mitigation site (in addition to any volunteers of planted species) ..............25
Table 5 Performance criteria and methods summary ....................................29
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Hell Swamp Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Site Map 1998 Infrared Aerial
Figure 3 Site Map 2006 Aerial
Figure 4a Soils
Figure 4b Soils as Shown in the Beaufort County Soil Survey
Figure 5 LIDAR Hell Swamp
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan ii Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Revised per agency request
July 2009
Figure 6 Jurisdictional Wetlands, Waters, and Streams on Hell Swamp Mitigation
Site
Figure 7 Site Plan with Phase 1 Limits of Disturbance and Access Roads
Figure 8a Cross Section Map
Figure 8b Cross Sections of Lower Scott Creek and UT4- Existing Conditions
Figure 9 Stream Mitigation Plan Map Hell Swamp Site
Figure 10 Stream Reference Site Map Hell Swamp Site
Figure 11 Planting Plan
Figure 12 Monitoring Well Location Map
Figure 13 Hell Swamp and Scott Creek Watershed Wetland, Stream, and Riparian
Buffer Mitigation Site
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
A
B
C
D
E
F
Beaufort County Parcel Information
Selected Site Photographs Including Historic Aerials
Agency Correspondence:
1 - Soil Fertility Report
2 - Schafale Report on Wet Hardwood Forest Preservation Parcel and
Potential Reference Forest
3 - N RCS Letter on PC Status
4 - USDOI/USFWS Letter
5 - NCNHP Letter
6 - NCSHPO Letter
7 - Limits of CAMA Jurisdiction
Hell Swamp Site Existing Condition Stream Cross Sections
Hell Swamp Site Work Plans and Baker Technical Memorandum
Hell Swamp Hydrologic Model Analysis Summary
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Revised per agency request
July 2009
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Hell Swamp Scott Creek Watershed mitigation site will provide a broad
range of wetland and stream mitigation opportunities. The five tracts that make up this
property (1,297 acres) were purchased by PCS Phosphate Company Inc. in 2006, 2007,
and 2008. Since the site encompasses almost the complete Scott Creek watershed and
a portion of the watershed of Smith Creek, it should be resilient to external and upstream
perturbations that can sometimes jeopardize mitigation projects.
Most of the site consists of hydric mineral soils, with some notable examples of
low-lying, albeit non-hydric soil areas. The site drains through channelized stream
remnants and into the disturbed and channelized Scott Creek. Scott Creek, portions of
which are tidal on the Hell Swamp site, empties into Pungo Creek, a Special Secondary
Nursery Area. Approximately 19,783 linear feet (LF) of stream will be restored or
enhanced, including the restoration of several riparian headwater systems.
Approximately 21 acres of Tar-Pamlico riparian buffer will be restored or enhanced, with
additional potential buffer opportunity of 21 acres if suitable stream segments form in the
riparian headwater systems. Riparian forested hardwood wetland will be restored on
about 58 acres with some additional enhancement potential. Non-riparian forested
wetland will be restored on 808 acres, with the balance of the site included as
preservation of existing forested wetland (40 acres) and the planting of 200 acres of
upland to mixed hardwood for a more diverse habitat. Areas underlain by hydric soils
which may be effectively drained by perimeter ditches and which will remain open post-
construction total 103 acres. Approximately 34 acres at the head of the watershed is
mature non-riverine wet hardwood forest, and will be preserved to help mitigate for
impacts to the Bonnerton non-riverine wet hardwood area.
A CAMA major regulatory permit application was submitted in May 2009 for all
work proposed to occur in CAMA, Corps, or NCDWQ jurisdictional areas, including
buffers. This project is expected to be constructed in 2009 and planted in early 2010.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The 1,297-acre Hell Swamp site is proposed to be part of the compensatory
mitigation for future unavoidable impacts to wetlands and waters as evaluated in the
Final Environmental Impact Statement for PCS Phosphate Mine Continuation (US Army
Corps of Engineers 2008) and as described in the Compensatory Section 404/401
Mitigation Plan: Comprehensive Approach In Support of the PCS Phosphate Company,
Inc. L Alternative Mine Continuation (First 15 Years NCPC and Bonnerton Tracts) (PCS
Phosphate Company Inc. 2008, Volume III, Appendix 1). This document describes the
Hell Swamp site and proposed restoration activities (a more detailed version of the draft
plan contained in Attachment 8 of Appendix 1, Volume III of the 2008 PCS FEIS).
2.0 LOCATION, HISTORY, AND PRE-RESTORATION DESCRIPTION
2.1 Location. The Hell Swamp site is located on the southwest side of Seed
Tick Neck Road (SR 1714) south of NC Highway 264 in Beaufort County. There are two
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 1 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Revised per agency request
July 2009
entrances to the site located approximately 1.7 and 2 miles south of Highway 264 on
Seed Tick Neck Road. The site is located approximately 2 miles east-southeast of the
town of Yeatesville, Pantego Township, North Carolina (straight-line distance) and can
be found on the USGS Pantego quadrangle (Figure 1). The approximate center of the
site is located at +35.522856 latitude and -76.680750 longitude (35°31'22.28"N and
76°40'59.70"W). The site is located within the Pamlico Hydrologic Unit 03020104 of the
Tar-Pamlico river basin within the Pungo Creek subbasin and is drained by Scott Creek
and Smith Creek.
2.2 History. The five tracts that make up this property were purchased in 2006,
2007, and 2008 (refer to Supporting Document A). The majority of this site has been in
agricultural production for several decades. Historic aerial photographs indicate that,
except for a small field in the northern part of the property, the site was forested until
Scott Creek was dredged and relocated in the 1960s and 1970s. An extensive network
of ditches and canals was added in subsequent years, rendering the majority of the site
suitable for agriculture. A northern portion of the site remained forested until the 1990s.
This portion of the property was in the process of being cleared and drained when it was
obtained by PCS Phosphate, Inc. In the southeastern corner of the site there are also
some wooded areas associated with Scott and Smith Creek that have been logged, but
never put into agricultural production.
2.3 Pre-Restoration Description. Farm access roads cross the site at various
angles creating a mosaic of fields, which are further divided by canals and ditches
(Figure 2). Scott Creek and Smith Creek carry water southeast from this site, under NC
Highway 99 and Pungo Creek Road (SR 1715), respectively, and into Pungo Creek.
Portions of Scott Creek are ditched and/or devoid of riparian buffer (Figure 3). The
major portion of this site (approximately 1,002 acres) has been in active cultivation since
the 1970's. Approximately 157 additional acres were cleared and ditched within the past
15 years, and approximately 148 acres are covered by timber and/or shrub-scrub
habitat. Crop rotations in the active agricultural fields have included cotton, soybeans,
corn, and winter wheat (refer to photographs in Supporting Document B).
2.3.1 Soils. Most of the site is underlain by hydric mineral soils and low-
lying non-hydric soils. Approximately 85 percent of soils on the site are hydric (1,105
acres). According to the NRCS soil survey for Beaufort County, the major soil series
mapped on the site are comprised of loams and sandy loams in the Arapahoe-Ponzer-
Dare and Augusta-Altavista-Tomotley soil units (Kirby, 1995). Approximate acreages of
the following soils series are on the site: Arapahoe fine sandy loam (419 acres),
Portsmouth loam (196 acres), Dragston fine sandy loam (185 acres), Tomotley fine
sandy loam (184 acres), Cape Fear fine sandy loam (200 acres), Roanoke fine sandy
loam (84 acres), Muckalee loam (15 acres), Augusta fine sandy loam (14 acres), and
Seabrook loamy sand (0.49 acre) (Figures 4a and 4b).
The soils of the site were sampled in March of 2007 and sent to the North
Carolina Department of Agriculture (NCDA) state laboratory for fertility analyses.
Results indicate that soils ranged from a high of 7.7 percent humic matter to a low of
0.92 percent and the average of the 20 samples collected was 3.96 percent. Eight of the
samples were considered to be in the mineral soil class, six were in the organic class,
and the remaining six were considered to be in the mineral-organic class. Soil
amendment recommendations were made by the NCDA for a hardwood crop. Results
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 2 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Revised per agency request
July 2009
of the analyses and a map showing sample locations are provided in Supporting
Document C1.
2.3.2 Pre-restoration Drainage and Section 404 Jurisdictional Status. The
Hell Swamp site encompasses almost the entire Scott Creek watershed and portions of
the Smith Creek watershed. Scott Creek drains the majority of the Hell Swamp site;
however, a small portion of the southern corner of this site drains to Smith Creek (Figure
5). A network of ditches and canals carry water off of the agricultural fields and into two
branches of Scott Creek. The main prong of Scott Creek extends north across two-
thirds of the property (approximately 1 mile), and the northern prong extends
approximately 0.25 mile north from the main prong. The site drains into Pungo Creek,
a Special Secondary Nursery Area designated by the NC Division of Marine Fisheries.
Pungo Creek drains to the Pungo River, which is one of the main tributaries of the
Pamlico River. Most of the Hell Swamp site acreage has been previously drained and
is non-jurisdictional. Remaining Section 404 jurisdictional areas include some
agricultural ditches up to the Ordinary High Water Mark, most of the wooded land
adjacent to Scott Creek and along the western parcel boundary, and some wetlands
along the northern border of the site, and total approximately 87 acres (Figure 6).
Jurisdictional status of the last two last parcels purchased by PCS (forested parcel along
both sides of Scott Creek just upstream of NC99 and the 34-acre forest along the
western parcel boundary) were confirmed by the Corps in May of 2008 and results of the
determination are included in Figure 6 (updated since publication of the PCS FEIS).
2.3.3 Woodland Areas. The dichotomous key II.B.ii.2.b of the North
Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NCWAM) was used to describe which of the 16
wetland types exist on the Hell Swamp site. A mature bottomland hardwood forest
comprised of bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), red maple (Acer rubrum), green ash
(Fraxinus pennsylvanica) and sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua) covers approximately
43 acres along the main body of Scott Creek, primarily on the south side. About one
quarter of the distance along Scott Creek is bottomland on both sides and about one
quarter is forested on only the south side. Subcanopy and herbaceous species include
swamp red bay (Persea palustris), wax myrtle (Morella cerifera), greenbriar (Smilax
spp.), yellow jessamine (Gelsemium sempervirens), and rush species (Juncus spp.).
There is a sparse strip of common reed (Phragmites australis), wax myrtle, black willow
(Salix nigra), green ash and sweet gum along a portion of the north side of the main
body (approximately 4 acres). Approximately 7 acres on both sides of the northern
prong (UT6) is a highly disturbed community made up of common reed, wax myrtle, and
scattered young pine and hardwoods. In addition, there are approximately 34 acres of
mature hardwood flat along the western boundary and a 14-acre linear strip of hardwood
flat containing some pines which separates the northernmost one-third of the site from
the southern portion. The 34-acre hardwood flat was determined by Michael Schafale of
the NC Natural Heritage Program to be an "excellent" representative of a non-riverine
wet hardwood forest. Depending on the fate of similar communities in the state, he also
determined this forest to be of state or regional significance (Supporting Document C2).
2.3.4 Vegetated Non-forested Areas. Existing areas of unforested
vegetation occur along some ditch banks, along previous interior parcel boundaries,
and along the north prong of Scott Creek. The narrow strips of vegetation which occur
along previous parcel boundaries also contain some scattered mature trees (e.g.,
loblolly pines, sweet gum, and swamp chestnut oak (Q. lyrata).
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 3 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Revised per agency request
July 2009
2.3.5 Cleared Areas. The northern one-third of the site includes 157
acres of cleared and ditched areas which never went into agricultural production prior to
purchase by PCS. These areas are covered with dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium),
panic grass species (Dicanthelium spp.), and saplings of red maple, loblolly pine (Pinus
taeda), and sweet gum.
2.3.6 Agricultural Fields. The majority of the southern and eastern
portion of the site (approximately 965 acres) is made up of a mosaic of agricultural fields.
There is also a 37-acre agricultural field in the northern portion of the site which has
been farmed for more than 100 years. The total land that has been in active agricultural
production is approximately 1,002 acres. According to the records of both the Beaufort
and Hyde County Farm Service Agencies, these acres have prior-converted status
(Supporting Document C6).
2.3.7 Protected Species. At the suggestion of USFWS (refer to letter in
Supporting Document C3), the site was surveyed in October of 2007 for the presence of
sensitive joint vetch (Aeschynomene virginica), the only protected species with the likely
potential to occur on the site. No individuals were found during the survey and the
results of the survey and report was submitted to the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS). The NC Natural Heritage Program had no records of any protected
species from this site (refer to letter in Supporting Document C4).
2.3.8 Cultural Resources. The NC State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) was contacted to confirm presence or absence of any known historic or
prehistoric cultural resources on the Hell Swamp site. There are no records within the
SHPO database for this site (refer to letter in Supporting Document C5). A single grave
located on the site will be properly relocated in coordination with NC SHPO and in
compliance with all applicable state statutes.
3.0 SITE SELECTION FACTORS AND JUSTIFICATION
3.1 Logistics. Site selection is of primary importance in any wetland restoration
project since that which was previously a wetland will have a higher likelihood of
feasibility, sustainability, and success if properly restored. The crop fields of the Hell
Swamp site have prior-converted status as determined by NRCS. Also important in site
selection is adjacency to existing wetlands in a similar landscape position whose
presence indicates appropriate hydrological conditions for hydric soil and consequent
vegetation communities. Adjacent wetlands are also able to serve as seed banks,
refugia for mobile animals while the restoration site matures, and reference sites that
may be used to assess restoration success. Remnants of the Scott Creek riparian
corridor are present downstream of the site, and a relatively undisturbed wetland (a
potential reference forest) is present on the western side of the site. Pungo Creek is
designated as a Special Secondary Nursery Area by the North Carolina Division of
Marine Fisheries (NCDMF). The Hell Swamp mitigation site and Scott Creek are in a
similar landscape position to several streams on the NCPC Tract which drain to South
Creek, also a Special Secondary Nursery Area. State-designated nursery areas are
also considered Essential Fish Habitat by the South Atlantic Fisheries Management
Council. Therefore, restoration of the Scott Creek watershed, restoration of portions of
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 4 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Revised per agency request
July 2009
Scott Creek itself, and restoration and enhancement of its associated riparian buffer may
benefit freshwater fishes, estuarine species, and coastal migratory pelagic species.
3.2 Cost and Technology. Restoration of the site will require no special
technology or complex engineering since only ordinary surficial low ground pressure
equipment is necessary to prepare the site. All removal of field crowns, filling of interior
ditches or canals, and contouring will be based on LiDAR (light detection and ranging)
and/or 0.5-foot topographical survey data and informed by preparation of a water budget
and model predictions of soil behavior (based on permeability, texture, and stratigraphy)
by a registered professional engineer. There is no identified source of pollutants other
than what might be present from normal agricultural practices, so pollutant remediation
is not required to restore the site.
3.3 Justification. The agricultural acres of the Hell Swamp restoration site are
documented as prior-converted cropland by NRCS. Based on customary procedures
and field evaluations according to the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual, the Corps of Engineers determined the majority of the site, including those
acres prepared for agricultural use but not yet put into production, was non-jurisdictional
and therefore suitable for mitigation.
3.3.1 Jurisdictional Status of Woodland and Cleared Areas. The majority
of woodland areas on the site are jurisdictional wetland (87 acres). Jurisdictional status
of creeks and waters extends upstream into the agricultural fields or along perimeter
canals in several channelized portions of the streams (ditches) (8,299 linear feet of
stream and 18,110 linear feet of OHW). The cleared areas of the site underlain by
hydric soils that are not currently in agricultural production are assumed to have been
jurisdictional wetlands prior to the removal of wetland hydrology due to ditching (Figure
6). The most upstream area subject to CAMA jurisdiction was determined to be Scott
Creek where it is culverted beneath the existing farm access road (refer to Supporting
Document C7 and Figure 6).
4.0 SPECIFIC GOALS, TARGET FUNCTIONS, AND METHODS
4.1 Goals. The ultimate purpose of mitigation activities of the Hell Swamp site
is to successfully reestablish 808 acres of non-riverine hardwood flats, 58 acres of
riparian forest (headwater forest, bottomland hardwood forest, and riverine swamp
forest), 19,783 LF of zero and 1St order stream channel (2 acres of open water) and
preserve or rehabilitate 40 acres of non-riverine hardwood flat including a 34-acre "state
or regionally significant" mature hardwood flat, 28 acres of riverine swamp
forest/bottomland hardwood forest, 18 acres of non-riverine hardwood flat, and preserve
200 acres of areas mapped as uplands on the county soil survey. An additional 103
acres underlain by hydric soils are included as "potential non-wetland" areas due to
drainage effects from perimeter ditches that must remain open. Wetland
reestablishment will include non-riverine hardwood flats, headwater forests, riverine
swamp forests, and bottomland hardwood forests. Stream mitigation activities will result
in restoration or enhancement of approximately 21 acres of riparian buffer, and up to 21
acres of headwater riparian buffer under the flexible buffer mitigation approach (these
acres are included in the above tally). The entire 1,297-acre site will be put in a
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 5 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Revised per agency request
July 2009
perpetual conservation easement. The goals will be achieved on a multi-spatial scale
with these specific objectives:
¦ To capture and store rainfall which for the past three to 10 decades has been
carried off the site by a system of ditches and canals (site)
¦ To establish a diverse community of vegetation which reflect differences in
soil character, topography, and hydroperiods (site)
¦ To improve water quality and provide watershed protection (site, watershed,
and region)
¦ To provide wildlife habitat (site, watershed, and region)
4.2 Target Functions. Functions of wetlands and waters are the physical,
chemical, and biological processes and attributes of a wetland that in conjunction
operate as guarantors of water quality and are important components of food webs and
habitat. The 1990 Memorandum of Agreement between the Corps and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the Determination of Mitigation Under the
Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, and RGL 02-2, require the replacement
of aquatic functions which are unavoidably lost or adversely affected by an authorized
permitted activity (US Army Corps of Engineers, 2002). Many wetlands and waters have
multiple functions, and while accurate assessment of these functions is a dynamic field,
scientists do agree that all wetlands and waters either increase or decrease a specific
component of the hydrologic cycle.
Replacement and/or uplift of any aquatic functions are driven by proper mitigation
site selection and a design that maximizes what the natural conditions of the site will
support. The specific functions which are targeted for the Hell Swamp site are:
NUTRIENT REMOVAL/TRANSFORMATION- Transformation and removal of
nitrogen and phosphorus will be enhanced with a low gradient and abundant
vegetation of the replanted fields of Hell Swamp and the deceleration of water
removal via Scott Creek with the reconnection of flow to the adjacent
floodplains. Experience at the PCS Parker Farm mitigation site indicates that
volunteer herbaceous wetland vegetation will probably cover the Hell Swamp
site within one year. The planted trees, volunteer herbs and forbs, and the
slope of the site that averages less than 0.2 percent, will enable this function.
Restoration and conversion of agricultural lands to wetlands and forested
systems will remove and/or greatly reduce the source of some potential
nutrients to Scott Creek, Pungo Creek, Pungo River, Pamlico River, and
Albemarle Pamlico Estuary.
ORGANIC MATTER PRODUCTION AND EXPORT- The onsite restored
streams and proximity to Pungo Creek guarantees multiple hydrologic links
for downstream transport of organic nutrients produced on the restored Hell
Swamp site. Productivity of the site will increase and change through time as
the vegetation matures and goes through various stages of succession. The
complex range of elevations and network of natural drainages through the
site provide numerous opportunities for the production and export of organic
material to areas downstream, including Scott Creek, Pungo Creek, Pungo
River, and the Pamlico River/Sound estuary.
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 6 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Revised per agency request
July 2009
¦ FLOODFLOW ATTENUATION AND SURFACE WATER STORAGE-
Portions of the Hell Swamp Site occur within the FEMA 100-year floodplain
and based on elevation alone, would attenuate floods only during an extreme
event. However, restoration of Hell Swamp to functional wetlands will
decelerate the current rapid delivery downstream of stormwater via
agricultural ditches and canals and increase and prolong surface and
subsurface storage capacity on site, relieving downstream flooding that may
currently occur on a more frequent basis. Restoration of Scott Creek
segments and associated riparian headwater systems will provide
topographic diversity, restore and maintain stream evolution processes, and
restore and maintain baseflow.
¦ CAPTURE AND RETENTION OF SEDIMENT AND OTHER POLLUTANTS-
Restoration of the Hell Swamp Site will reduce the aerial suspension of
topsoil that occurs with seasonal agricultural practices and will decrease
erosive velocity within main canals and ditches. A restored wetland will
increase storage capacity and deliver cleaner water downstream with a
decreased sediment load. Depending on crop planted and choice of
chemical, estimated amounts of herbicide, pesticides, and fertilizers applied
yearly to the approximate 1,000 acres under agricultural production at Hell
Swamp range from 1 to 750 gallons of herbicides, 23 to 39 gallons of
insecticides, and 61 to 159 tons of fertilizer (NC Agricultural Chemical Manual
2008). Cessation of agricultural practices on the site will remove these
chemicals from being transported downstream and improve water quality
within the basin. After site restoration of streams and headwaters, less
sediment will be transported downstream due to more topographic diversity
which will cause the sediment load to be deposited before it reaches the
more sensitive estuarine and nursery waters downstream.
¦ GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE AND RECHARGE- Post-restoration,
freshwater runoff will be intercepted and discharged slowly over time at Hell
Swamp. Shallower and longer hydroperiods in areas adjacent to streams
and riparian headwater systems will increase base flow of Scott Creek, its
associated tributaries, and its riparian headwater systems.
¦ WILDLIFE HABITAT-The wetlands (and uplands) at Hell Swamp will provide
more diverse food and cover for a variety of birds, mammals, reptiles, and
amphibians. The large size of the site will have positive effects on water
quality in the Scott Creek watershed and will increase the connectivity
between the existing natural areas of Scott Creek downstream of the site.
Mitigation of large-scale watershed and corridor areas, like Hell Swamp, will
support important habitat to species that are sensitive to community "edges"
and those species requiring contiguous areas of unbroken habitat. The
conversion of agricultural landscapes to forested habitats will serve to benefit
local terrestrial and aquatic wildlife as well as aquatic resources downstream
of these sites.
¦ AQUATIC DIVERSITY- Mitigation design at Hell Swamp will include a
diversity of stream habitats to provide support to a high diversity of
organisms. Habitats will include shallow areas, deeper pools, topographic
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 7 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Revised per agency request
July 2009
differences that alter site velocities and hydroperiods, and multiple
connections to permanent water. Removal of agricultural practices and
attenuation of storm water will contribute to improved water quality in
downstream habitats, including Pungo Creek, a Special Secondary Nursery
Area. Pre-restoration fish and benthos collections occurred in 2007 and 2008
prior to restoration activities.
4.3. Methods. Restorative work is focused on removal of the manmade
drainage features and reestablishment of variable hydrological conditions of a duration
and frequency typical of interstream wet flats and riparian wetlands (including riparian
headwater systems) of coastal North Carolina. The site will then be planted with an
appropriate mix of wetland trees and shrubs commonly found in similar reference sites
or known to historically exist on similar sites.
4.3.1 Agricultural Areas. The field areas between interior ditches have
been graded for optimum drainage and agricultural production. The crowns within the
individual fields will be removed with the fill being placed in the adjacent ditches. After
the removal of the crowns, the field surface will be roughened using tillage equipment to
break up any plow pan and loosen compaction that may have occurred during the first
phase of restoration and to increase surface storage.
4.3.2 Woodland Areas. Any areas of mature or regenerating wetland
forest on the Hell Swamp site will be preserved or enhanced. Filling of the perimeter
canal around the "wetland tongue" in the northwest portion of the site at the headwaters
of the Scott Creek restoration segment and relocating the ditch which surrounds the
small wetland polygon along the western boundary to the perimeter of the site will
rehydrate these areas to a more natural hydroperiod. Removal of nuisance species (red
maple, loblolly pine, and sweet gum) and replanting these areas with more desired wet
hardwood species will enhance the habitat function. Discontinuous areas of disturbed
forest near the northern side of the main prong of Scott Creek will be augmented with
planting of additional riparian tree species. Disturbance to any existing large trees along
the north side of Scott Creek will be avoided and no work is expected to occur within the
majority of the existing forested floodplain on the south side of Scott Creek. However,
the restoration of UT4 and incorporation of an existing drainage ditch that conveys water
from the agricultural field east of the project boundary and south of Scott Creek will
require access for equipment and some manipulation in these narrow segments of the
forested floodplain. These two areas have been included in the major CAMA permit
application as wetland impacts and are shown on Exhibit 2 (Item E- Soil
disposal/regrading that impacts wetlands) and Exhibit 3B of the application. Thin rows of
trees (mostly nuisance species) along the boundaries between the various parcels will
be removed and suitable logs will be utilized where appropriate as large woody debris
within restored stream/valley reaches. Other areas with nuisance species will also be
cleared and replanted with more desirable species of hardwood trees and shrubs.
Disturbed riparian areas (primarily inhabited by common reed) associated with the north
prong of Scott Creek (UT6) will be cleared and replanted with native vegetation. The
common reed will be aggressively controlled as needed.
4.3.3 Vegetated Unforested Areas. The vegetated area associated with
the north prong of Scott Creek is shown as a blue line on Figure 1 (visible on Figures 2,
3, and 4), and occurs within the lower portion of UT6. The upstream half of this
vegetated area is comprised of predominantly forbs and grasses, including common
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 8 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Revised per agency request
July 2009
reed, shrubs, and scattered pine; the downstream half transitions into pine forest. All
vegetation in the area associated with the restoration of UT6 will be removed.
Two primary methods to reduce common reed will be utilized prior to
planting. For areas where only common reed is growing, imazapyr (Habitat@) is
suggested to be used in June. For areas where common reed is growing among other
desired species, a treatment with either glyphosate (Rodeo@) alone or a mixture of
imazapyr and glyphosate in July is the recommended treatment. Where access is not
limited, a tracked vehicle such as a marsh buggy (e.g., ARGO) equipped with a nozzle
sprayer will be deployed. For areas where access is problematic for the ARGO,
backpack sprayers will be deployed. All manufacturers' instructions for application will
be followed, crews will be previously trained and experienced, and the operation will be
supervised by a certified applicator. Both imazapyr and glyphosate have been
developed and approved for weed control in aquatic environments.
Annual treatments for common reed are also recommended after the site is
planted. These treatments will be accomplished with spot treatments and back pack
sprayers in July. It is recognized that eradication of common reed is unlikely, but these
reduction measures are designed to lower the competition pressure and allow the
planted trees time to provide more shade in their first 5 years of growth. Common reed
prefers open sunlight and it has been the experience of PCS in other areas, that once
the canopy closes, the common reed becomes much less of a problem species.
4.3.4 Cleared Areas. The non-agricultural cleared areas between interior
ditches were in the process of being graded for optimum drainage and agricultural
production prior to purchase by PCS. Spoil piles and crowns within the individual fields
will be removed with the fill being placed in the adjacent ditches. After the removal of
the crowns, the fields will be roughened using tillage equipment to increase surface
storage.
5.0 WORK PLAN METHODOLOGY
The concept of the restoration work is to remove the field crowns and drainage
ditches and restore the site's natural topography into a self-sustaining watershed and
wetland/stream complex where any surface flow moves through vegetated wetlands
before reaching any streams. Prior to work plan development, a surveyor prepared a
half-foot contour topographical map of the entire site and LiDAR maps were also
obtained to assist with areas outside of the boundaries of the property. Field testing of
the soil groups was performed using compact constant head permeameters which
measure the lateral conductivities of the soils.
Existing at present are three road entrances into the site from Seed Tick Neck
Road. As part of restoration work activities, the eastern most main entrance road (the
"farm road") from Seed Tick Neck Road will be moved 1,700 feet further east to the
parcel boundary, the minor middle entrance road will be removed, and the other
entrance will remain at its present location (about 5,000 feet from the intersection of
Seed Tick Neck Road with NC99); two additional entrances will be added, one just south
of Scott Creek along NC99 (- 3,000 feet from Seed Tick Neck Road intersection with
NC99) and the second along the southern site boundary off of Creek Road (SR1715)
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 9 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Revised per agency request
July 2009
just west of Smith Creek. These additional entrances and several access roads will be
located on the perimeter of the site, often within the area expected to be effectively
drained by perimeter ditches that must remain open (shown on Figure 7). The access
roads and the interior paths/trails shown on Figure 7 will be used during monitoring and
post-monitoring by the conservation easement holder and others authorized by the
holder.
5.1 Hardwood Flats. The majority of the work on Hell Swamp will occur in
areas that will be reestablished as hardwood flats (interstream wet mineral flats) and will
be planted with species appropriate for this community, landscape position, and soils.
5.1.1 Hydrologic Model. The DRAINMOD program was used to predict
the long term water table elevations and potential hydroperiods. This program was
created by Dr. R. Wayne Skaggs in 1978 at North Carolina State University. It is a
computer simulation model developed for soils with shallow water tables. The model is
based on a water balance in the soil profile and uses approximate methods to quantify
the various hydrologic components such as infiltration, surface roughness, surface
runoff, deep and lateral seepage and evapotranspiration. It has been tested and found
to be reliable for a wide range of soil and climatological conditions (Skaggs et al 1981;
Gayle et al., 1985; Fouss et al. 1987; Rogers 1985; McMahon et al. 1987; and Susanto
et al. 1987).
5.1.2 Water Budget. A water budget is the amount or rate of change in
water stored in a given area or the rate at which water flows into or out of the given area.
The objective of the water budget is to predict whether the existing soils and selected
plants will produce a minimum water table elevation (water stored) during the time period
required to meet the wetland conditions after restoration. The water stored during a
specified time during the year (the growing season) is known as the hydroperiod. The
water budget is used to predict how the seasonal pattern of water budget components
(inflow, outflow, storage) may affect the hydrograph (hydroperiod) at a given site. Basic
components required to evaluate a water budget for a wetland site are the input
components: precipitation, the storage components of the soil: surface storage or
roughness and porosity, and the output components: evapotranspiration - which
includes direct evaporation and plant transpirations, surface runoff, and subsurface flow.
5.1.2.1 Meteorology-Climatic Inputs and Evapotranspiration.
Detailed, long-term records including hourly precipitation and evapotranspiration are
required for use in DRAINMOD. The nearest NOAA weather station is located in
Belhaven, NC approximately 3 miles east of Hell Swamp (NOAA Station Belhaven 3E,
located at 35°34' North, 76°35 West). Rainfall and temperature data in the WETS data
set contain the years 1970 to 2002. Soil samples were collected in the field and were
tested at North Carolina State University to determine the key soil characteristics used in
DRAINMOD, such as drainable porosity and permeability.
5.1.2.2 Water Budget Outputs. Long term water budgets were
calculated using the yearly summary from DRAINMOD. The water budget shows the
total rainfall for a given year (input) and then shows the quantity infiltrated, the quantity
lost to runoff (surface flow), the quantity lost to evapotranspiration, and the quantity lost
to subsurface flow. The difference in the water input and the water output equals the
change in storage (water table elevation). Since the site is bounded mostly by perimeter
ditches that maintain the historic drainage rights of others, the offsite flow into the
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 10 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Revised per agency request
July 2009
system is zero. The volume infiltrated is the volume used to lengthen the hydroperiod of
the site. The site has been designed to increase the surface roughness to -1.5 inches
which will mimic the pre-agricultural conditions and detain rainfall long enough for
infiltration to occur. In years with minimal rainfall the volume infiltrated, as a percentage
of rainfall, is high. Conversely, in years of significant rainfall, the volume infiltrated, as a
percentage of rainfall, is low. The basic relationships between the categories are as
follows:
P= F+RO+ET+Ds
Input to system= Precipitation (P)
Rainfall volume captured by the surface roughness and
local storage = infiltration (F)
Volume in excess of the volume infiltrated = runoff
(surface runoff) (RO)
Two losses can occur to the volume infiltrated: they are
either lost through evapotranspiration (ET), or
subsurface drainage (D,)
5.1.3 Proposed Restoration of Surface Contours. The intent of the
proposed surface work on the interstream flat portions of Hell Swamp site is to restore
as closely as possible, without over-engineering, the natural contours that existed on the
property prior to ditching and/or farming. The methodology used to develop the plan
involved taking a series of cross-sections through the existing fields and calculating the
amount of fill required to be removed from the center, or crown, of each field such that
the ditches on either side of the field would be filled. The resultant elevations of the
fields and ditches after the removal of the agricultural drainage should return the ground
surface to its original topographic contour. Alignment of contours will be highly irregular,
as would be typical of an undisturbed site. After crown removal and ditch filling, the
ground surface will be roughened to reintroduce the varied surfaces of its former natural
state. A large chisel plow will be used to break up any remaining soil compacted from
the agricultural use as well as the compaction from crown removal and filling of ditches.
Once the soil has been loosened, additional tillage equipment will be used to provide a
roughened soil surface. Refer to Supporting Document E for specifics regarding
design/work plan sheets. Supporting Document F contains a summary of the hydrologic
model analysis used to verify that the historic contours, proposed surface roughness,
and soil characteristics would yield wetland conditions at the site.
5.2 Streams and Riparian Headwater Systems. Due to the extensive
drainage network, altered topography, and headwater nature of the Hell Swamp Scott
Creek ecosystem, it is difficult to determine the historic drainage pattern based on
current conditions. However, several methods were employed to identify historic
headwater valleys and develop initial design approaches. These included the use of
historic aerial photographs, LiDAR data, topographic ground surveys, soil profiles within
the valleys, and reference site analysis.
5.2.1 Historic Aerials. Historic aerial photographs for the site were
obtained from the Beaufort County Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) for
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 11 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Revised per agency request
July 2009
1938, 1948, 1955, 1964, and 1970. These aerials were examined to determine the land
use history of the site, and to search for signs of potential stream features. Review of
the historic aerials indicates that most of the project site was wooded into the 1970's,
with the exception of a field area in the northern portion of the project area that has been
in agricultural production since at least 1938. In the early 1960's, a series of roads were
constructed through the site to allow access for subsequent drainage and conversion of
the land to agriculture. The lower portion of Scott Creek was channelized sometime
between 1964 and 1970, as the dredged channel is clearly visible on the 1970 aerial.
The photos also indicate that the lower portion of Scott Creek was channelized along the
northern edge of the historic bottomland wetland system, and the historic alignment of
the reach was altered (1964 and 1970 aerials are included in Supporting Document B).
Clear evidence of distinct stream channels is not evident from the historic
aerial photos; however, the photos do indicate the presence of valleys with apparent
wetland features along the larger tributaries and Scott Creek. The aerials for 1964 had
faint blue pen marks that had been sketched along the major drainages of the site.
When asked what these pen marks indicated, NRCS staff said that these were typically
marks that the field agent would have made on the aerials to indicate the location of
streams on the site during field assessments for soil mapping. The timeline of the site
supports this, since roads were constructed through the site between 1955 and 1964,
indicating that further drainage of the site was being planned and the landowner(s)
would have likely consulted with the NRCS regarding drainage practices and soil
conditions.
5.2.2 Topographic Data. Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data
and data from on-site ground surveys were used to detect the presence of historic
headwater valleys across the project site. The LiDAR data were used primarily at the
onset of the project, prior to actual ground surveys. A topographic ground survey was
conducted to develop a digital terrain model (DTM) for the site. The DTM forms the
base mapping for the design plan sheets, and illustrates the existing drainage ditch
network within the property. Four cross-sections were surveyed on the site, three on the
lower half of Scott Creek and one on a jurisdictional lateral channel that flows into Scott
Creek (UT4) (Figures 8a and 8b). Fluvial stream features such as bankfull indicators
and pool, riffle, run sequences were not observed during field assessments due to past
channel manipulations and backwater conditions. Therefore, the cross-section data
were collected to document the incised condition of the channels, and show that the
channels function more as drainage canals than natural stream systems. Cross-
sections are provided in Supporting Document D.
5.2.3 Identified Proiect Reaches. Information gathered from the historic
aerials was used in combination with detailed topographic data to predict the locations of
historic stream features on the site. The main channel that flows through the site is
labeled as Scott Creek from its headwaters to the downstream extent of the property at
NC Route 99, where the creek flows through a road culvert and eventually discharges to
Pungo Creek, a tributary to the Pungo River. At its headwaters, the historic drainage
area of Scott Creek was approximately 90 acres, increasing to 800 acres at the
downstream end of the project. Based on regulatory guidance provided in Information
Regarding Stream Restoration with Emphasis on the Coastal Plain (USACE and
NCDWQ 2007), the upper portions of Scott Creek would have been considered a
riparian headwater system that transitioned to a low energy single thread stream in the
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 12 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Revised per agency request
July 2009
middle portion of the site and a braided swamp system downstream of the existing farm
access road from Seed Tick Neck Road. Several headwater tributaries were identified
that would have historically drained to Scott Creek (Figure 9), and each is described
below.
Unnamed tributary 1 (UT1) begins at the base of a slight escarpment
feature that runs north to south along the western side of the project site. UT1 was
identified by a prominent topographic valley signature that currently collects excess
surface water and indications of a valley on historic aerials of the site. The historic
drainage area at the downstream end of the reach was approximately 250 acres, and
the system would have been considered a riparian headwater or low energy stream
system.
The UT2, UT3, UT4, and UT5 drainages are small features that flow into
Scott Creek near the middle portion of the project site, where the historic floodplain
valley of Scott Creek begins to widen and becomes well defined. Historic drainage
areas of the four reaches were estimated at 35, 29, 25, and 25 acres, respectively.
Each of the drainages appears as distinct topographic valleys which also collects excess
water on the surface. The drainage feature at UT4 was visible on historic aerials of the
site and a blueline stream is depicted in the vicinity on the USGS Pantego topoquad.
Portions of the drainage ditches and canals that currently drain the locations of UT2,
UT3, UT4, and UT5 were considered jurisdictional by the USACE and NCDWQ.
Historically, each of these drainages would have been considered riparian headwater
systems.
The drainages at UT6 and UT7 were identified based on distinct
topographic valley signatures which collect surface water and historic aerial
photographs. The lower portion of UT6 is also identified as a stream feature on the
Beaufort County Soil Survey. The two tributaries comprise a larger, distinct tributary
system that flows into the lower portion of Scott Creek. The main stem of the system is
labeled UT6, and the smaller tributary that drains into UT6 from the north is labeled UT7.
The drainage areas for UT6 and UT7 are 206 and 39 acres, respectively. The upstream
portion of UT6 and the entire length of UT7 would have historically been considered
riparian headwater systems. It is likely that the downstream portions of UT6 would have
transitioned into a low energy stream system.
The feature at UT8 is the only tributary on the project site that did not
historically drain to Scott Creek. Historic aerials, the blue line on the USGS Pantego
topoquad, and topographic valley signatures indicate that the tributary historically
drained to Smith Creek, another tributary to Pungo Creek to the south of Scott Creek.
The tributary system would have historically drained the entire southern portion of the
project area, and historic drainage area is estimated to have been 240 acres. The
upstream portion of UT8 would have historically been considered a riparian headwater
system, transitioning to a low energy stream further downstream.
5.2.4 Coastal Plain Riparian Headwater Systems Reference Site
Analyses. Since few restoration projects have been implemented to date that make use
of the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the NC Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ) publication Draft Information Regarding Stream Restoration with Emphasis on
the Coastal Plain (2007), technical design information for these systems is very limited.
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 13 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Revised per agency request
July 2009
Therefore, to provide additional design data, a study of Coastal Plain headwater
reference sites was initiated with the following goals:
1) Identify reference systems that represent intact, functional systems
2) Describe the formation of channel features in headwater stream systems
3) Define the general functions that these systems provide
Each of these goals and the methods used are described below:
Goal 1: Identification of Reference Sites
Because headwater sites in the Coastal Plain are small and easily manipulated, it
is difficult to locate systems that have not been altered or impacted by human activities.
Searches were aimed at identifying small catchments (< 300 acres in size) with a mature
wooded canopy and no apparent artificial drainage affecting the reference areas.
Assessments would then be conducted at the most upstream point that showed a
defined valley with periodic surface flow, and continuing downstream until a perennial
flow feature was reached. Data collected from these assessments could then used to
determine the points at which headwater valleys form channel and fluvial features.
An extensive search was conducted of the area surrounding the project site in an
attempt to locate reference stream systems. Many potential sites were identified;
however, the majority of these sites had been drained for agricultural purposes or local
topography had been modified through forestry practices at some point in the past.
Ultimately, four reference reaches along two headwater drainages were identified in
close proximity to Aurora, NC. To provide additional data, eight reference reaches were
identified along three headwater drainages within the Croatan National Forest, south of
New Bern, NC. Locations of the reference sites are shown in Figure 10, and each is
described in the sections below:
UT to Bailey Creek: Two reference reaches were surveyed on an unnamed
tributary to Bailey Creek. Drainage areas for the upstream and downstream reaches
were 88 and 94 acres, respectively. The upstream reach (UTBA-1A) exhibits wrack
lines, scour features, and a somewhat braided flow pattern. In some locations, flow is
confined but the channel is not well defined. Further downstream, the valley slope
increases and the stream flow becomes confined to a single thread, meandering
channel. This area was surveyed as the downstream reference reach (UTBA-1 B).
Channel dimension is relatively consistent, with riffle and pools formed by both channel
meanders and woody debris.
UT to South Creek: Two reference reaches were surveyed on an unnamed
tributary to South Creek. Drainage areas for the upstream and downstream reaches
were 215 and 250 acres, respectively. The upstream reach (UTSC-1A) was surveyed
approximately 600 feet downstream of NC Route 306. Along this upstream reach, flow
patterns are diffuse and braided, with a considerable amount of subsurface flow during
field surveys. Further downstream, the valley slope increases and the stream flow
becomes confined to a single thread, meandering channel. This area was surveyed as
the downstream reference reach (UTSC-1 B), and is located approximately 400 feet
downstream from UTSC-1A, and 400 feet upstream of a powerline transmission corridor.
Channel dimension along this downstream reach is relatively consistent, with riffle and
pools formed by both channel meanders and woody debris.
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 14 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Revised per agency request
July 2009
UTs to Brice Creek: Eight reference reach sites were identified along three
separate headwater tributaries to Brice Creek in the Croatan National Forest, south of
New Bern. These sites were identified as potential references through the help of
NCDWQ staff who have reviewed the sites in the past. The three tributary drainages
were labeled Sites 1, 2, and 3, with Site 1 being the northernmost site and Site 3 being
the southernmost site.
Three reference reaches were identified and surveyed along Site 1.
Drainage areas for the three reaches from upstream to downstream (UTBR-1A, UTBR-
113, and UTBR-1C) are 96, 160, and 230 acres, respectively. UTBR-1A is the most
upstream reach and exhibits diffuse flow patterns across a wetland floodplain, with few
distinct channel features. UTBR-1 B is the middle reach within the drainage and exhibits
a more braided flow pattern with some sections of defined channel bed and banks.
UTBR-1C is the further reach downstream and was located in an area where overall
valley slope increases. The reach exists as a single thread, meandering stream channel
with well defined bed and banks and a relatively constant channel dimension.
Three reference reaches were also identified along Site 2. Drainage areas
were smaller than those identified for Site 1. Drainage areas for the three reaches from
upstream to downstream (UTBR-2A, UTBR-213, and UTBR-2C) are 25, 42, and 61
acres, respectively. The flow characteristics for each reach were similar to Site 1, with
the most upstream reach (UTBR-2A) exhibiting diffuse flow with poorly defined channel
features, the middle reach (UTBR-2B) exhibiting braided flows, and the downstream
reach (UTBR-2C) exhibiting a single thread, meandering channel form.
Two reference reaches were identified along Site 3, which is a separate
drainage just to the south of Site 2. Drainage areas for the two reaches from upstream
to downstream (UTBR-3A and UTBR-313) are 45 and 58 acres, respectively. The most
upstream reach (UTBR-3A) exhibiting braided and diffuse flow with some channel
features that were not consistent and were not well defined along the reach length. The
downstream reach (UTBR-3B) exhibiting a single thread, meandering channel form with
well defined bed and banks.
Goal 2: Determine the Factors Affecting Channel Formation
Most stream restoration projects that have been completed in the Coastal Plain
have involved the construction of a single-thread, meandering stream channel. As
discussed in Information Regarding Stream Restoration with Emphasis on the Coastal
Plain (2007), restoration of a single-thread channel is likely not appropriate for many
headwater systems. In some situations, formation of a wetland valley with braided,
diffuse flow will be more appropriate. By performing assessments on a range of
reference sites (i.e. varying drainage areas, valley slopes, and channel definition), our
goal was to determine the conditions under which different channel features (or no
channel features at all) are formed. Understanding these channel forming conditions
would then form the basis for the restoration approach for a given site.
As discussed previously, several reference sites were identified that began as
defined valleys with indications of periodic surface flows, and developed into more
defined stream systems down valley as drainage area increased. Once these drainages
were identified, specific reference reaches were delineated along the fall of the valley
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 15 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Revised per agency request
July 2009
and surveys were conducted to document channel form (or lack of channel form).
Reference reaches were divided into three categories based on channel form:
Poorly Defined Channel- These systems are areas that exhibit a defined
valley and evidence of periodic surface flow, but lack defined channel
features. Channel bed and bank features cannot be identified, or if they
can be identified, are poorly defined and only evident for short distances
before their definition is lost. These reaches were commonly found at the
upper most portions of the headwater drainage where flow events are not
frequent and do not have sufficient energy to form channel features.
Moderately Defined Channel- These systems exhibit relatively constant
bed and bank features, but the channel dimensions (cross-sectional area
and shape) are highly variable. Flows are confined to one variable size
channel in some areas, and multiple thread channels in other areas.
Channel form appears to be defined mostly through localized scour, small
debris jams, and vegetation.
Well Defined Channel - These systems can be considered typical, single-
thread reference reach quality channels. Channel banks are obvious and
constant, and sandy bed material is common. Channel dimension is
relatively constant, with alternating riffle and pool areas. Some pools are
formed by stream meanders while others are formed by scour from
woody debris. Channel form is defined primarily through fluvial
processes.
Each identified reference reach was surveyed along approximately 200 feet of its
length. Cross-sections were surveyed at representative locations to document the
dimension of any channel features, the width of the valley, and the general topography
of the valley bottom. A longitudinal profile was also surveyed along the apparent center
of the flow pathway, to determine overall slope, depth of a pools and riffles (if present),
and variations in topography. Along reference reaches that exhibited well defined
channels, survey methods followed those used for traditional reference reach stream
surveys that document channel dimension, pattern, and profile.
In simplest terms, the energy of flowing water is determined by its velocity and
depth. Formation of a defined stream channel begins when flowing water has sufficient
energy to begin the processes of scour, headcutting, and sediment transport. Valley
slope was used as a surrogate for flow velocity: the higher the valley slope, the higher
the velocity of flowing water in the stream system during storm events. Drainage area
was used as a surrogate for flow depth and quantity: the higher the drainage area, the
higher the volume of water (and depth of flowing water) for a given storm event. Each
surveyed reference reach was classified as either a poorly defined, moderately defined,
or well defined channel, based on visual observations during field surveys. Valley slope
and drainage area data for each surveyed reference reach are provided in Chart 1
below.
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 16 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Revised per agency request
July 2009
Chart 1. Headwater reference reach data relating channel formation to
drainage area and slope.
0.016-
* Poorly Defined
¦ Moderately Defined
0.014
Well Defined
0
012-
.

0.01
v
a
0 0
008 Well Defined
r
. Channels
A
v
R Moderately Defined
> 0.006 Channels
-
0.004

0.002- Poorly Defined
Channels
0-
10 100 1000
Drainage Area (acres)
The collected data indicate that channel form can be predicted by measurements
of valley slope and drainage area. As valley slope and drainage area increase, the
energy of flowing water also increases and tends to form more defined stream channels.
While boundaries have been placed on the graph to illustrate approximate ranges for
each channel type, these boundaries should not be considered as distinct thresholds
that trigger a change from one channel form to another. The data should be used to
indicate ranges in which a particular channel form is likely to develop. In fact, reference
sites that fell near the boundary of two channel forms were often difficult to classify
distinctly as one of the three defined channel forms based on visual observations. For
example, a reference site that plots near the boundary between a well defined and a
moderately defined channel will usually display some characteristics of both.
Other results that were derived from this analysis are summarized below:
• Drainage area alone is not a good predictor of channel form. For example,
at a drainage area of approximately 100 acres, all three defined channel
forms were identified on reference sites.
The guidance document Information Regarding Stream Restoration with
Emphasis on the Coastal Plain (2007) states that "... According to data
being assembled by NCDWQ (Periann Russell, DWQ, personal
communication) watersheds less than 25 acres in size will not support a
headwater system". Our data agree with this assessment. All identified
reference sites were based on the presence of a defined valley and
upstream drainage area, and evidence of periodic surface flow. The
smallest drainage area of our evaluated reference sites was approximately
25 acres.
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 17 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Revised per agency request
July 2009
• The guidance document Information Regarding Stream Restoration with
Emphasis on the Coastal Plain (2007) also states that "... Typically, sites
with watersheds less than 100 acres would not support a stream with
defined bed and bank." Our data do not support this assessment. We
identified two separate reference sites with drainage areas of 57 and 61
acres that displayed consistent bed and bank features, and well as fluvial
bedform features. These sites were located within relatively steep valleys,
where the small headwater valley transitioned into a deeper valley of a
larger stream system.
Goal 3: Describe the General Functions of Coastal Plain Headwater Stream
Systems
While research regarding the functions of headwater systems in Piedmont and
Mountain physiographic regions has been published, very little information could be
found regarding the functions of headwater systems in the Coastal Plain. By attempting
to describe the general functions that these systems provide, based on observations and
data collected, this goal was aimed at determining important aspects that need to be
incorporated into a restoration design. In addition to design consideration, the
monitoring aspect of these projects requires that functions are identified that are specific,
measurable, attainable, reasonable, and trackable (Mitigation Plan Development
www.saw.usace.army.miI/wetlands/Mitigation/mitplan.htm1).
During reference site assessments, observations were made regarding the
functions that Coastal Plain headwater stream systems provide. These systems are
unique since they provide functions associated with both wetlands and streams. We
conducted a review of pertinent literature and based our functional assessments
primarily on stream and wetland functions that have been defined in these works:
• NC Wetlands Assessment Methodology (NC Division of Water Quality, NC
Division of Coastal Management, US Army Corps of Engineers and US
Environmental Protection Agency)
• Functional Objectives for Stream Restoration (C. Fischenich - US Army
Corps of Engineers)
Using these sources as a guide, the functions that Coastal Plain headwater
systems provide were evaluated and four general classes of functions were developed:
hydrology, water quality, habitat, and geomorphic. Benefits that each of these functions
provides are listed in Table 1, along with field indicators.
Table 1. General functions of Coastal Plain headwater systems.

b • •
' • • •
• • "wA
Hydrology • Runoff reduction Microtopography
• Flow velocity reduction Floodplain vegetation
• Energy dissipation Wrack and debris lines
• Reduced erosion and sedimentation
• Maintenance of baseflow Overbank flooding
Soil moisture
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 18 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Revised per agency request
July 2009
- 1 . 0
0

• Prolonged soil saturation
• Groundwater recharge and discharge
Water Quality . Sediment retention and reductions Vegetative cover
• Nutrient reductions Distance from potential
• Carbon export sources
• Toxicant reductions Increased retention time
• Temperature moderation Sediment deposition
Saturated soil conditions
Habitat . Increased area of terrestrial and System size/area/extent
aquatic habitats Connectivity with other
• Increased fringe habitat between natural areas
upland and lowland habitats Vegetative cover
• Connectivity corridors between Woody debris
different wetland and upland habitats Microtopography
• Increased diversity Specialized native
• Uniqueness species
• Water source for fauna
Geomorphic . Provide topographic diversity and Valley topography
valley corridors Valley slope
• Maintains stream evolution processes
• Maintains valley formation processes
• Variable temperature and moisture
regimes
The functions listed and described above in Table 1 are not meant to necessarily
represent a complete or exhaustive list, but to provide a general description of the
functions that Coastal Plain riparian headwater systems provide. The information
indicates how these systems provide the functions of both wetlands and streams. This
functional list is also intended to provide a guide for developing functional uplift goals for
headwater system restoration projects.
5.2.5 Design Approach and Techniques. After identifying historic valley
and stream features across the Hell Swamp site, assessments were performed to
evaluate the appropriate design approach for each stream reach. The reference site
analyses were used to guide the selection of design approaches. Design approaches
and reach lengths for each stream are summarized in Table 2 (project reach/segments
can be found in the work plan sheets in Supporting Document E). A narrative
description of the work plan for various segments and additional cross sections are
contained in the Baker Technical Memorandum also in Supporting Document E.
One fundamental design question was to determine the channel form (i.e.,
single, braided, diffuse, etc.) that was appropriate for a given reach. The data collected
as part of the reference site study indicated that channel form could be predicted by
estimating valley slope and drainage area. Therefore, the first step in designing the
appropriate channel form was to determine the area and slope of each stream valley.
Topographic information for the site was studied to estimate historic ground elevations,
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 19 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Revised per agency request
July 2009
prior to manipulation of the land for agricultural conversion. Through this exercise,
design contours for the historic stream valleys were developed, forming the basis for the
site grading plan. The grading plan for areas away from the stream valleys focused on
restoring the historic drainage patterns of the site.
Once general grades were developed for each stream valley, valley slope
and drainage area were compared to the data collected during the reference site study.
In this manner, the appropriate channel form was estimated for each stream reach,
based on the form classes that were determined as part of the reference reach study
(poorly defined, moderately defined, and well defined channels). Along some streams,
the channel form varies along the reach based on changes in valley slope and drainage
area. For example, the headwater regions of Scott Creek were predicted to function as
poorly defined channel segments, while the lower portions were predicted to function as
moderately defined channels. Approximately 1,300 feet of channel in the middle portion
of Scott Creek (Reach d) will be designed as a single thread channel, based on a
relatively steep slope in that region. In this area, the streambed elevation must be raised
several feet in order to restore adjacent wetland hydrology and connectivity with
upstream and downstream restored stream reaches. Over the 1,300-foot reach, the
slope of the channel (approx. 0.003 ft/ft) and the drainage area (350 acres) indicate that
erosive forces would be sufficient to promote scour and channel formation; therefore, a
single-thread channel design is warranted.
At the downstream end of the Scott Creek Reach d where the valley slope
flattens and erosive forces are reduced, the design will transition back to a moderately
defined channel form with braided flow patterns. This transition will occur at the upper
limit of CAMA jurisdiction near the existing farm road and flow will be diverted into the
floodplain on the south side of existing channelized Scott Creek. The farm road and
culvert will be removed and the existing channel of Scott Creek will be restored to its
pre-channelized condition for its entire length from the transition area downstream to just
below the area where UT6 joins the main stem (3,500-4000 feet). As described in
Section 5.2.1 and shown in historic aerials contained in Supporting Document B, the
portion of Scott Creek to be filled was excavated for agricultural drainage between 1964
and 1970 at the edge of the bottomland and does not represent the historic location,
size, or aquatic functions of Scott Creek. Fill of the channelized section of Scott Creek
below the transition will use the existing remnant spoil materials deposited on the north
bank of Scott Creek, small remnant spoil piles as available on the south side, and other
suitable fill material from onsite. Reach a in Table 2 describes the braided section
through the floodplain on the south side of Scott Creek.
Filling of the valley of this channelized portion of Scott Creek is necessary
to allow surface and subsurface flow from the north side to form braided flow patterns
throughout the floodplain of Reach e, as the system functioned historically. If Scott
Creek was plugged or only partially filled through this section, the resulting swales or
impoundments would intercept this flow from the northern side of Scott Creek and short-
circuit flow across the floodplain, reducing the aquatic function restoration of Reach e.
It is recognized that filling this segment of Scott Creek will likely move the
upper limit of CAMA jurisdiction on Scott Creek downstream to the vicinity of the existing
coastal marsh (this coastal marsh is downstream from the limits of construction but
above the SR99 bridge). It is also recognized that the existing habitat for fish and
benthos in this section of Scott Creek (a channelized, often turbid, 3- to 4-foot deep
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 20 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Revised per agency request
July 2009
perennial stream almost completely unbuffered on one side) will be replaced with a
shallower (-6 inches to 1-foot deep) braided perennial stream through a mature
bottomland or swamp forest. Restoration of Scott Creek into a well forested and well
buffered shallow stream system will increase shading and contribution of detritus,
increase potential spawning, nursery and foraging areas, and increase the diversity of
refugia for juvenile fish. Restoration will decrease the sediment input and limit the use of
the system by large individuals of piscivorous species to only those floodplain inundation
events resulting from some wind tides or large rainfall events. Over time, the restored
shallow stream system could potentially attract a few spawning individuals of herring or
striped bass. Therefore, restoration and rehabilitation of the historic stream and
floodplain functions of Scott Creek is an overall beneficial change in aquatic function and
is a suitable offset for some of the impacted reaches of NCPC and Bonnerton streams
proposed with continuation of the PCS mine operation in Aurora.
Table 2. Summary of reach/segment characteristics, lengths, and design channel forms
for project stream reaches.
i,
Scott Creek (a) 90 0.0009 590 Poor
Scott Creek (b) 130 0.004 850 Moderate
Scott Creek (c) 290 0.0006 1,860 Poor
Scott Creek (d) 350 0.0027 1,300 Well
Scott Creek (e) 800 0.0003 - 0.0008 3,717 Moderate
UT1 251 0.0012 1,283 Moderate
UT2 35 0.0036 609 Poor
UT3 29 0.0014 - 0.0030 1,079 Poor
UT4 25 0.0014 - 0.0043 1,063 Poor
UT5 21 0.0032 845 Poor
UT6 (a) 96 0.0018 1,211 Poor
UT6 (b) 206 0.0008 1,555 Poor
UT7 39 0.0012 - 0.0027 1,120 Poor
UT8 (a) 118 0.0005 1,164 Poor
UT8 (b) 240 0.003 1,537 Moderate
Construction of poorly defined channel reaches will consist primarily of
grading the valley to design contours, and then the field surface will be roughened using
tillage equipment to break up any plow pan and loosen compaction that may have
occurred during the first phase of restoration and to increase surface storage. Woody
debris will be scattered sparsely across the floodplain to improve habitat diversity
(Supporting Document E). Reaches a and c of Scott Creek, UT2, UT3, UT4, UT5, UT6,
UT7, and reach a of UT8 will be constructed as poorly defined channels.
Construction of moderately defined channel reaches will follow similar
techniques as described for poorly defined channel reaches. The valley will be first
graded to design contours. The floodplain will be roughened utilizing tillage equipment,
but to a greater degree than poorly defined channel segments. Along reference sites
that were evaluated, microtopographic variability was greater along moderately defined
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 21 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Revised per agency request
July 2009
channels as compared to poorly defined channels. This is presumably due to more
scour and deposition as a result of greater energy during flow events. It is also likely
that toppled trees are more prevalent along the floodplains of moderately defined
channels, due to greater surface saturation for longer periods of the year, lending to
more irregular topography. Woody debris was also observed to be a major component
to the function of moderately defined channels, providing grade control, dispersion of
flow into multiple channels, localized scour pools, and increased micro-habitats
(Supporting Document E). Reaches b and a of Scott Creek, UT1, and reach b of UT8
will be constructed as moderately defined channels.
Construction of the well defined channel reach of Scott Creek (reach d) will
follow more traditional stream restoration techniques for restoration of single thread,
meandering channels. The design channel form is based on similar reference reaches,
as well as past project experience under similar drainage area, soils, and slope
conditions. Wood structures will be incorporated into the channel design, to provide
stability and to promote scour in pool areas and improve habitat diversity (Supporting
Document E). Wood for structures will come from trees that must be cleared in order to
fill drainage ditches and canals.
6.0 PLANTING DESIGN
Vegetative restoration of Hell Swamp has been designed to reflect soil
characteristics, elevations, field observations, expected hydrology, and suitable species
found in Beaufort County obtainable from local or regional nurseries. To accommodate
varying hydrologic regimes, planting zones have been designated based on design
topography and soils. In addition to hardwood trees, some small polygons of shrubs
have been incorporated into the plan to promote a diverse suite of habitat, food, and
cover options in the landscape. Restored areas will be planted with bare-root seedlings
and some tublings of native tree and shrub species that are known to have occurred
historically in the area and/or observed on similar or reference sites.
Planting will occur in early spring of 2010. Figure 11 depicts the planting plan
designed for Hell Swamp and is the basis for the "reserve" orders placed with various
nurseries in summer 2009 or earlier. Tables on Figure 11 list the species to be planted
within each zone and the percent of the total represented by each species in each zone.
Trees in the hardwood flats will be planted on a 9 x 12 spacing (density of 403 trees per
acre) and shrubs will be planted on a 9 x 9 spacing (538 shrubs per acre). Areas
mapped as upland on the Beaufort County soil survey will be planted with mesic native
hardwood species. Riparian buffer restoration vegetation planting along the main
segment of Scott Creek will occur in accordance with 15 A NCAC 0213.0260 to ensure
that an adequate riparian buffer is installed at the site. Planting within the 100-foot
riparian buffer along Scott Creek restoration reaches and all riparian headwater systems
will be on 9 x 9 spacing and contain at least two species of hardwood. The low slope
does not warrant planting of live stakes.
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 22 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Revised per agency request
July 2009
7.0 DATA COLLECTION FOR MONITORING AND SUCCESS CRITERIA
While any given mitigation site may actually restore many aquatic functions,
some of these functions are more difficult to quantify within the timeframe of the
monitoring period and therefore are not suggested for use in determination of success
criteria. However, periodic monitoring is necessary to ensure that the restored streams
and wetlands are functioning as intended and to document success criteria for chosen
functions. These monitoring efforts will include installation and data collection of a
continuous rain gauge and semi-continuous water level monitoring wells, stream flow
monitoring, periodic photographic documentation, planted vegetation monitoring, and
stream and riparian headwater valley profile evaluations. Monitoring efforts will last a
minimum of five years, and beyond if necessary, until success criteria have been
successfully documented. Photographs will be taken periodically throughout the
monitoring year to visually document hydrologic conditions, flow events, stability,
vegetation growth, and the establishment of wetland and headwater stream processes at
the mitigation site. Permanent photo point locations will be established and marked to
facilitate a record at the same location each year monitoring takes place.
The performance of the site will be summarized in yearly monitoring reports
submitted by 1 May of each monitoring year. Reports will include a summary of the data
collected during the monitoring year (text, tables, and graphs), comparison to data from
past years and reference locations, and assessments of whether the site is on trajectory
for meeting defined success criteria. Monitoring reports will be in general compliance
with Corps' Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL) 08-03.
7.1 Riparian Headwater Systems (Zero to First Order Stream Systems).
Greater than 70 percent of the total stream miles in most watersheds consist of
headwater streams, which underscore their importance to overall watershed health.
Collectively, small headwater streams and their associated wetlands contribute largely to
the mediation of runoff and sediment, assimilation of pollutants, and carbon production
and delivery for downstream areas (Rheinhardt et al 1999). However, determining
specific, measurable, attainable, reasonable, and trackable success criteria to the
restored functions can be difficult, especially when working with headwater systems in
the Coastal Plain. Because of their small size and location in the watershed, they are
very susceptible to seasonal changes and the effects of drought. Furthermore, while
headwater systems are important for overall watershed health, their functions in the
landscape are variable and baseline data on unaltered headwater streams in the
southeastern Coastal Plain is not currently available.
This project proposes to restore lost headwater aquatic functions as well as
riparian and non-riparian wetland functions (refer to Section 4.2 and Table 1 above).
Headwater streams are similar to and often part of a wetland system. For that reason
these systems share some similar measurable functions and monitoring techniques.
Table 3 below lists the restored functions that are proposed to be tied to success at Hell
Swamp and how those functions will be monitored and measured. These functions were
based on information provided in Functional Objectives for Stream Restoration
(Fishenich 2006).
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 23 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Revised per agency request
July 2009
Table 3. Restored wetland or stream functions and measurement methods.
,. - ® - .> 1.11111*121
Headwater stream processes Upstream/downstream . Valley cross-sections
• Visual documentation
Riparian succession Temporal . Vegetation plots
Surface water storage Vertical and horizontal . Hydrologic monitoring
wells (semi-continuous)
Subsurface water storage Vertical . Hydrologic monitoring
wells (semi-continuous)
Landscape pathway for plant Temporal . Vegetation plots
and animal migration
7.2 Vegetation Monitoring Plots. Vegetation monitoring plots will be
established over -2 percent of the planted restoration area. Individual plots will be 43
feet x 203 feet in size (-0.2 acre). Plots will be located to represent a range of
conditions within the planting zones across the restoration site, and the corner of each
plot will be anchored at a semi-continuous monitoring well. The plots will be oriented
from the well corner using a random table of azimuths; however, azimuths may be
slightly adjusted if necessary to avoid obstructions, avoid crossing of Scott Creek, and/or
remain within the parcel boundaries or within a specific zone, etc. Immediately after
planting has occurred, planted stems within vegetation plots will be marked with poles
and when leaf out has occurred, each tree/shrub will be tagged, identified, and counted.
The planting plan includes small polygons of shrubs scattered across the site to increase
the ecological attributes of the site. While the shrub zones will be monitored with
individual plots, the planted shrub stems will not be counted toward the success criterion
and will be quantified separately.
Each monitoring year prior to leaf fall in autumn, planted trees within the plots will
be sampled for survival. General observations will be made during sampling to describe
the survivability of stems outside the vegetation monitoring plots, and other vegetation
planted across the site (live stakes, transplants, permanent seeding, etc.). Riparian
buffer restoration vegetation monitoring along the main segment of Scott Creek will
occur in accordance with 15 A NCAC 0213.0260.
7.2.1 Volunteer Woody Vegetation Sampling. To further describe composition
of the vegetative community on the site and to assist in the assessment of colonization
by other species (including noxious species), at the fifth year, all living stems of woody
vegetation within each tree and shrub plot will be identified and counted, including
planted stems and volunteer colonizing species. Non-planted individuals of
characteristic wetland species are an important component to the reestablished wetland
as they serve as additional indicators of appropriate hydrologic regimes and vegetative
success and provide increased diversity, density, and cover type. Colonizing volunteers
will be tracked separately from the planted trees and shrubs and not counted toward the
success criterion. Table 4 contains a list of acceptable volunteer species in the
reestablished wetlands at the Hell Swamp site by habitat type.
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 24 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Revised per agency request
July 2009
Table 4. List of appropriate colonizing woody species within the Hell Swamp mitigation
site (in addition to any volunteers of planted species).

American elm Ulmus americana BLH
American holly flex opaca HF
Box elder Acer negundo BLH
Fetterbush Lyonia lucida NRSF
Gallberry flex coriacea RSF
Inkberry flex glabra RSF, NRSF
High bush blueberry Vaccinium corymbosum NRSF, RSF
Coastal doghobble Leucothoe axillaris RSF
Pond pine Pinus serotina HWF, NRSF
Red bay Persea palustris NRSF
Southern bayberry Morella caroliniensis NRSF
Sweetbay Magnolia virginiana NRSF
Sweet pepperbush Clethra alnifolia NRSF
Tulip poplar Liriodendron tulipifera NRSF, RSF, HWF
Wax myrtle Morella cerifera NRSF, RSF, HWF
Habitat types: NRSF=-non-riverine swamp forest; RSF=riverine swamp forest; BLH=bottomland hardwood
forest; HF=hardwood flat; HWF=headwater forest
7.2.2 Vegetation Ecological Performance Standards. Restoration of the
wetland vegetation will be deemed successful if at least 260 planted trees per acre
(using the total acreage planted in trees) are alive after five years, or after performance
criteria have been met, whichever is longest. Riparian buffer restoration will be deemed
successful if at least 320 trees per acre are alive after five years.
7.3 Hydrology Monitoring. Nearly one year of pre-restoration hydrology data
and on-site rainfall (2007-2008) has been collected at Hell. Monitoring wells (e.g., semi-
continuous Ecotones and WLs from Remote Data Systems, Inc. [RDS]) were located
within all major soil series on the site as well as in the existing narrow wetland "tongue"
at the very top of the watershed and the mature section of forest on the Windley tract
(which serves as a reference forest for hardwood flats on the higher elevations of the
site). The wells in the Windley tract, the wetland tongue, and the rain gauge were also
monitored through 2008.
The automated rain gauge will be removed during restoration activities and
reinstalled after completion. The gauge is/will be installed in an open area, a minimum of
100 feet from any tall tree or buildings. On-site rainfall data will be used to correlate
water table response to precipitation events and rainfall data from the NOAA WETS
station Belhaven NC 0674 will be used to determine normal rainfall during the monitoring
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 25 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Revised per agency request
July 2009
period and will be compared with the onsite data to verify the accuracy of the onsite data
(Sprecher and Warne 2000).
Semi-continuous water level monitoring wells (e.g., RDS WM20s) will be installed
across the project site (- 1well/10 acres for the hardwood flats) to document post-
restoration water table (Figure 12). Data from these wells will be downloaded monthly.
These data will determine if the water table at the project site has been elevated
sufficiently to reestablish targeted wetland hydroperiods. Actual well locations and
numbers of wells may differ from what is depicted in Figure 12 because of site conditions
post-restoration or other factors such as agency guidance. Final locations will be shown
in the As Built Report, within 90 days of completion of planting.
In the riparian headwater system valleys, semi-continuous monitoring wells will
also be installed in perpendicular arrays across the valley to assist in identification of the
three types of riparian wetlands (headwater forest, bottomland hardwood, and riverine
swamp forest) and to increase density of data points for analysis of hydrographs up and
across the valley. Arrays will be approximately 500 feet apart (along the long axis) for
each valley (at least 3 arrays per 1,000-foot reach; upstream, center, downstream). The
center well in each array will be in the lowest part of the valley and the number of wells
in the array will be dependent upon width and slope of the valley; the density and
number of arrays will be determined by the perceived length and footprint of each valley.
Documentation of flow in the riparian headwater systems for the success criterion
is not limited to the growing season. Qualitative data will be collected during the on-site
investigations to document surface water flow. This shall be accomplished using
photographic evidence of observed flow coupled with a preponderance of field indicators
of recent flow events in the form of a natural line impressed on the bank; shelving;
changes in soil characteristics; destruction of terrestrial vegetation; presence of litter and
debris; wracking; vegetation matted down, bent or absent; sediment sorting; leaf litter
disturbed or washed away; scour; deposition; bed and bank formation; water staining; or
change in plant community. All field indicators present will be documented in each
monitoring report. Quantitative flow data may also be collected by portable or stationary
flow equipment. All quantitative and qualitative data will be used to document the
upstream limit of flow, which will provide the basis for length of successful zero order
stream restoration (i.e., valley length). Observed events or effects from events will be
used to calibrate, correlate, and infer flow of unobserved events in monitoring well
hydrographs. Success will be achieved if two flow events occur per year in three years
out of five during normal rainfall conditions.
Annual maintenance and calibration tests will be conducted in accordance with
the Corps' ERDC TN-WRAP-05-2 guidance and any well manufacturer's specifications
(US Army Corps of Engineers, 2005). Maintenance checks per TN-05-2 will consist of
manual measurements and comparisons of well casings and unlined boreholes to
determine the impact (if any) of deposition within the well casing. As this unintended
clogging may produce artificially high water table readings, an unlined borehole will be
dug in the vicinity of the test well for comparison. Calibration and maintenance will be
conducted in 33 percent of the wells prior to each growing season of each year of the
monitoring period. The calibrated wells will be representative of each of the major soil
units occurring on the property. Each year maintenance checks will be performed on a
different set of wells. The check will involve bailing out the well, digging an unlined
borehole nearby, and then checking to see if the infill rate of the well and the borehole
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 26 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Revised per agency request
July 2009
are comparable. If not, then the well and casing will be pulled and cleaned. In the event
that several wells are experiencing problems in a particular soil type, then all wells in that
soil type will be pulled, cleaned, and redeployed.
7.3.1 Wetland Hydrological Ecological Performance Standard and
Growing Season. Under the 2008 regional guidance from the Corps of Engineers for
wetland hydroperiods, the growing season for Beaufort County is 28 February to 6
December or 282 days (WETS table for Beaufort County first/last freeze date 28
degrees F 50 percent probability) (US Army Corps of Engineers 2007). At the
suggestion of Corps' Washington regulatory field office, monitoring wells will be installed
no later than 1 February, but the data collected between 1 February and 28 February will
not be part of the hydroperiod calculation for success; however, February data will
provide important information related to analyses of site hydrology during the early
growing season.
Mineral hardwood flats at Hell Swamp will be considered successful with
a minimum of six (6) percent hydroperiods (calculated from consecutive days with water
level no deeper than -12 inches from the soil surface) during the growing season under
normal rainfall conditions. Riparian wetlands adjacent to streams or within riparian
headwater systems will be considered successful with hydroperiods of 12.5 to 25
percent and will be contained within the valley, as determined by LiDAR, as-built survey
data, and agency concurrence. (Equivalent NCWAM communities and appropriate
hydroperiods at Hell Swamp include headwater forests = 12.5 to 25 percent; bottomland
hardwood forests = >12.5 to 75 percent; riverine swamp forests = >75 percent).
Hydroperiods will be evaluated using three-month rolling totals and normal rainfall
conditions will be determined from the WETS tables for Belhaven. Rainfall will be
collected monthly at an electronic rain gauge onsite (records every 0.01 inch of
precipitation).
7.4 Hydrogeomorphic Monitoring of Streams and Valleys. Longitudinal
profiles will be established for each of the riparian headwater system valleys and for the
restored Scott Creek segments during the as-built survey. There will also be three cross
sections established per 1,000-foot reach of stream/valley restoration. For the riparian
headwater systems, these cross sections will be measured for the as-built report and at
years 3 and 5 if channel features form. For the Scott Creek single thread channel
stream restoration segments, the cross sections will be measured for the as-built report
and annually during the monitoring period.
7.4.1 Hydrogeomorphic Stability. Valleys have been designed to
remain stable with minimum changes through the monitoring period; however, these
cross-sections may show minor changes in flow patterns as the headwater riparian
valley systems develop. Contingencies will be addressed pursuant to Section 8.0 of this
plan.
7.5 Reference Forest Wetland. A mature -34-acre forested portion of the Hell
Swamp site, located almost at the top of the interstream divide, provides a reference
forest for the upper portions of Hell Swamp vegetation and hydrology. Two years worth
of hydrology data will have been collected for this site by the time restoration monitoring
is anticipated to begin, although 2007 was a severe drought year. Michael P. Schafale,
biologist with the NC Natural Heritage Program, has identified this site as potentially one
of the best remaining examples of the non-riverine wet hardwood forests depending on
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 27 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Revised per agency request
July 2009
fate of other comparable sites. Although "fairly small", this forest is in "excellent
condition". Supporting Document C2 contains Schafale's site report prepared after his
visit to this forest. A second potential reference forest exists to the northeast of the Hell
Swamp site off of Plum Pit Road, a mixed hardwood forest on similar soils (Arapahoe)
and at similar elevations to much of the downstream portion of the mitigation site. At
present, PCS is in dialogue with the owner about leasing this additional area as a
second reference forest.
Data collected from reference forests (vegetation and hydrology) will be used as
a guide to infer and compare behavior of applicable portions of the mitigation site (similar
soils and landscape position). Because of differences in maturity and disturbance
characteristics of the mitigation site, these data will not be used for strict success or
performance parameters.
7.6 Reference Stream Reach and Reference Riparian Headwater System.
The reference reach analysis performed on coastal headwater systems in NC (refer to
Section 5.0) was used to develop an appropriate design approach for the riparian
headwater valleys on the Hell Swamp site. These reaches vary in slope, watershed
size, landscape location, riparian maturity, and soils, and therefore may not be directly
comparable to the conditions on the newly constructed Hell Swamp site. A well array
will be installed on the poorly and moderately defined valley segments on the UT to
Bailey Creek and UT to South Creek reference sites, due to their close proximity and
similar landscape position. This well data will be used to document surface water and
flow events during the monitoring period.
Data collected from stream reference sites will be used as a guide to infer and
compare flow events of the mitigation site. Because of differences in maturity and
disturbance characteristics of the mitigation site, these data will not be used for strict
success or performance parameters.
7.7 Areas Mapped as Upland on the Beaufort County Soil Survey. There are
approximately 200 acres of non-hydric soils (mostly Dragston and Augusta) shown on
the Beaufort County soil survey within the project (Figure 4). These areas are primarily
located adjacent to and at the upper end of proposed restored stream segments. As
part of the watershed approach to compensatory mitigation as described in CFR
332.3(c)(2), these non-wetland riparian areas and uplands will "contribute to or improve
the overall ecological functioning of aquatic resources in the watershed." These areas
will provide some similar functions to the restored wetlands e.g., groundwater recharge,
nutrient filtration and uptake, and surface runoff attenuation. As these acres will be
planted with a mix of upland and mesic wetland flat hardwood species, they will also
increase habitat variety.
7.8 Summary of Performance Criteria. Based on specific, measurable,
attainable, reasonable and trackable parameters the ecological performance standards
or success criteria required for the types of mitigation provided at Hell Swamp are shown
in Table 5 below.
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 28 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Revised per agency request
July 2009
Table 5. Performance criteria and methods summary.
____
.- . ..
-
W
T
Riparian wetland >_12.5 to 25 and Semi-continuous 28 February - 6
restoration >12.5 to 75 percent monitoring wells December;
(headwater forest hydroperiod within (arrays); onsite rain Belhaven NOAA
and bottomland the topographic gauge; as built WETS data for
hardwood) valley cross sections normal rainfall;
valley dimensions
as indicated by
LiDAR, cross
sections, and
agency concurrence
Survival of 260 Vegetation plots on Annual monitoring
planted trees per 2 percent of the site
acre (using acreage
planted in trees) of
5 year old planted
woody stems

Riparian wetland Increase in wetland Semi-continuous 28 February - 6
enhancement hydroperiod from monitoring wells; December;
pre-restoration onsite rain gauge Belhaven NOAA
conditions WETS data for
normal rainfall

Non-riparian >_6 percent' Semi-continuous 28 February - 6
wetland restoration hydroperiod for monitoring wells (1 December;
(hardwood flats) hydric mineral soils well/10 acres); Belhaven NOAA
onsite rain gauge WETS data for
normal rainfall
Survival of 260 Vegetation plots on Annual monitoring
planted trees per 2 percent of the site
acre (using acreage
planted in trees) of
5 year old planted
woody stems

Non-riparian Increase in wetland Semi-continuous 28 February - 6
wetland hydroperiod from monitoring wells; December;
enhancement pre-restoration onsite rain gauge Belhaven NOAA
(hardwood flats) conditions WETS data for
normal rainfall

Zero to first order Linear feet of credit Photographs of flow Corps and DWQ
stream restoration based on most conditions 2 (e. g., April 2007
within riparian upstream location of sediment deposits, Information;
headwater system flow documented at debris flows, wrack Calendar year;
least twice per year lines, sinuosity, Belhaven NOAA
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 29 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Revised per agency request
July 2009

W

7 in 3 years out of 5 braided features, WETS data for
channel features); normal rainfall; flow
semi-continuous confined to times of
monitoring well normal rainfall
arrays; GPS; open
channel flow
monitoring
equipment.

First or second Two bankfull events Photos winter and Stream Mitigation
order stream in separate years summer; channel Guidelines April
restoration during 5 years of stability analysis 2003
monitoring
..........................................................................................
80 percent survival ................................................................................................................
Established
Stream Mitigation
of planted species vegetation plots; Guidelines April
within 50 feet of plant survival 2003
stream on each side analysis
after 5 years (or 320
trees per acre- per
buffer criteria)

Riparian buffer 50 feet one or both Monitoring for 15A NCAC
restoration sides of stream planted tree survival 02B.0260 Tar-
feature shown on within established Pamlico River Basin
USGS or county soil plots at years 1, 3, Mitigation Program
survey or zero order and 5. for Riparian Buffers;
stream segment DWQ 25 January
with 320 trees per 2008 Clarification
acre at maturity (5 #2008-017; for zero
years) order streams,
flexible buffer
mitigation if
approved by EMC
as stated in 401
certification dated
15 January 2009
(DWQ#2008-0868)
With elevations ranging from 9 feet above MSL to less than 1 foot, the non-riparian mineral flats at Hell Swamp will have
a range of hydroperiods increasing downslope into the riparian wetlands.
z Documentation may be for active or past flow conditions; may include other agency- approved structural elements or use
of technical equipment not on list.
The estimated potential mitigation yield for the Hell Swamp site is shown in Figure 13.
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 30 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Revised per agency request
July 2009
8.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
Principles of adaptive management have become increasingly used as a tool to
elevate the likelihood of success of wetland mitigation projects throughout the United
States. The dynamics of ecosystem behavior and natural disturbances cannot always
be accurately predicted nor can human mistakes always be identified in advance.
However, adaptive management provides a somewhat formalized process for the
iterative and interactive approach to analysis of monitoring results to identify and rectify
potential problems at wetland mitigation projects. It is an attempt to identify those
changes that are likely to occur and to acknowledge that there are changes which may
occur which are unforeseen. In light of these changes, adaptive management identifies
the measures that will be taken to achieve performance and to satisfy the objectives of
the project during the monitoring period.
8.1 Adaptive Management. Certain expected natural hazards which might
affect successful restoration are fire, flood, erosion, invasive species, and herbivory.
Construction deviations could also affect performance and function of the restored area.
Strategies to minimize effects from natural hazards and human mistakes include:
¦ Beaver activity will be noted during the monitoring period and beavers will
be removed by trapper(s) if significant damage (flooding, herbivory, etc.)
appears to be caused by beavers.
¦ Sections affected by wildfire during the monitoring period will be assessed
for degree of damage and replanted at a spacing calculated to restore
specified tree density.
Herbivory on seedlings by rabbits, rice and cotton rats, and field mice will
be reduced by the foxes, feral dogs and cats, hawks and owls resident in
nearby natural areas. Reductions in rodent herbivory will be achieved by
the erection of simple PVC perches at interior locations on the site to
encourage raptor use. If monitoring indicates herbivory by deer is
jeopardizing tree survival, discussions with appropriate agencies will be
initiated to determine an appropriate course of action.
Deviation from construction plans will be identified early in the mitigation
process with an as-built report which contains spot elevations and
topographic data derived from aerial survey. If it appears as though there
are errors which may jeopardize the integrity of the project, then
appropriate remedial action(s) will be identified and submitted to the
Corps for concurrence prior to implementation.
¦ Planting errors in spacing density or diversity will be avoided by diligent
monitoring of and coordination with planting crews to ensure fidelity to the
planting plan. An accounting of planted stems will be provided in the as-
built report and tree plot and monitoring well numbers and locations will
be included in the annual reports.
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 31 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Revised per agency request
July 2009
If monitoring or observation indicates an unanticipated or undesired
outcome (i.e., excessive standing water), remediation options will be
explored with permitting agencies.
Parker Farm monitoring wells were subject to frequent disturbance and
occasional destruction by black bears, despite efforts to armor the wells
against them. It is expected that bear problems will be most pronounced
in the first year or two of monitoring when the animals are becoming
accustomed to the lack of crops on the site. Barbed wire fences will be
constructed around the semi-continuous monitoring wells.
Common reed management will be necessary for the base of UT6 for
several years until the planted species create enough shade. This
species could also appear elsewhere on the site. During the regular
monitoring tasks, biologists will be tasked to be observant of common
reed and any invasive species and notify the project manager of same.
It is expected that the perimeter of the site adjacent to pine plantations
(primarily the western boundary) will have a higher likelihood of volunteer
loblolly pine colonization. Red maples and sweet gum can also become
problematic at some mitigation sites. In the event that red maple, loblolly
pine and/or sweetgum alone or in aggregation exceeds 20 percent of the
total plant composition on the site at monitoring years two and three (2
and 3), a remedial action plan shall be submitted to the Corps for review
and approval prior to implementation. During monitoring years four and
five (4 and 5), none of these three species alone or in aggregation
comprising over 20 percent of the total plant composition on the site may
be more than twice the height of the planted trees. If this occurs, control
measures will be undertaken pursuant to the approved remediation plan.
8.2 Long Term Management. Long term management will be undertaken by
the land stewardship entity identified as best able and best suited to hold a conservation
easement in perpetuity and to ensure sustainability of the resource. Long term
management issues at Hell Swamp include maintenance of four controlled access gates,
access road maintenance depending on level of use, easement enforcement if
necessary, and annual inspection. There are no active engineering features (e.g.,
pumps or Geo-web reinforced stream crossings) at Hell Swamp, but there are perimeter
berms along the boundary of the site parallel to Seed Tick Neck Road and along a
portion of the southeastern boundary which could be considered as passive engineering
features and would need annual inspections. The 34-acre Windley parcel has a deed
restriction that prevents hunting, but there are no other deed restrictions on any of the
other parcels comprising the Hell Swamp mitigation site.
9.0 FINAL DISPOSITION OF SITE
The North Carolina Agricultural Foundation has expressed serious interest in
holding the perpetual conservation easement for Hell Swamp through their Landscapes
of Opportunity program (both entities are within NC State University). If an agreement
cannot be reached with them, other potential easement holders include the North
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 32 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Revised per agency request
July 2009
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program, and/or the Coastal Land Trust. At this time, no formal discussions have been
held with the other potential holders. Permitting agencies will be consulted during the
decision and negotiation of final disposition.
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 33 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Revised per agency request
July 2009
REFERENCES
Fischenich, J. Craig. 2006. Functional objectives for stream restoration. ERDC TN-
EMRRP SR-52. Ecosystem Management and Restoration Research Program,
US Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MS.
Fouss, J. L., R. L. Bengston , and C. E. Carter. 1987. Simulating subsurface drainage
in the lower Mississippi valley with DRAINMOD. Transactions of the ASAE
30:1679-1688.
Gayle, G., R. W. Skaggs, and C. E. Carter. 1985. Evaluation of a water management
model for a Louisiana sugar cane field. Journal of the American Society of Sugar
Cane Technologists. 4:18-28.
Kirby, Robert M. 1995. Soil survey of Beaufort County, North Carolina. US Department
of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
McMahon, P. C., S. Mostaghimi, and F. S. Wright. 1988. Simulation of corn yield by a
water management model for a coastal plains soil. Transactions of the American
Society of Agricultural Engineers 31:734-742.
North Carolina Agricultural Chemical Manual. 2008. College of Agriculture and Life
Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
Rheinhardt, R. R., Rheinhardt, M.C., Brinson M.M. and Faser, K.E. 1999. Application of
reference data for assessing and restoring headwater ecosystems. Ecological
Restoration 7, 241-251.
Rogers, J. S. 1985. Water management model evaluation for shallow sandy soils.
Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 28:785-790.
Skaggs, R. W., N. R. Fausey, and B. H. Nolte. 1981. Water management evaluation for
north central Ohio. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers
24:922-928.
Sprecher, Steven W., and Warne, Andrew G. 2000. Accessing and using meterological
data to evaluate wetland hydrology. ERDC/EL TR-WRAP-00-1. US Army
Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.
Susanto, R. H., J. Feyen, W. Diercloc, and G. Wyseuse. 1987. The use of simulation
models to evaluated the performance of subsurface drainage systems.
Proceedings of the Third International Drainage Workshop, Ohio State University,
Columbus, Ohio, USA. Pp. A67-A76.
US Army Corps of Engineers. 2002. Regulatory guidance letter (RGL) 02-02.
Guidance on Compensatory mitigation projects for aquatic resource impacts under
the Corps regulatory program pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act.
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 34 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Revised per agency request
July 2009
US Army Corps of Engineers. 2005. Technical standard for water-table monitoring of
potential wetland sites, ERDC TN-WRAP-05-2, US Army Research and
Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.
US Army Corps of Engineers and NC Division of Water Quality. 2007. Draft information
on stream restoration with emphasis on the coastal plain. 4 April.
US Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Interim regional supplement to the Corps of
Engineers wetland delineation manual: Atlantic and Gulf coastal plain region. Eds.
J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-. Vicksburg, MS. US
Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
US Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL) 08-03.
Minimum monitoring requirements for compensatory mitigation projects involving
the restoration, establishment, and/or enhancement of aquatic resources.
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 35 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Revised per agency request
July 2009
FIGURES
• .. Cam- <Lw, '.?.,..,• •..,,- } T??CU
Tx-
- O46F - Rk[]RA F?eis+nd
L ?..
RT. 284 j SEED TICK NECK ROAP - r
t, ' r
- L.ONGRUDE. 7C 41' 07,0036 RT. 99 ./
31' 31.41.4188' .
LATRUDE 35
PUNGO g` HELL. SWAMP '
e _ t s j;r CREEK ROAD
•r SCOTT CREEK. q „ q
T H ( Via. V -
n ?
-
PL
1a -
- ••Holla C:ev° ?Ijpe
0 5,000 10,000
NORTH CAROLINA
SCALE IN FEET
SITE LOCATION HELL SWAMP VICINITY MAP
HELL SWAMP-SCOTT CREEK
LEGEND PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
HELL SWAMP PROJECT BOUNDARY SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: BFG/TLJ
DATE: 03/18/09 FILE: HELLSWAMP-LOC-MIT
SOURCE: 4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE CP#1 74559.66
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT TRANSPORTATION, USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP SUITE 2
IMAGES, NC STATEPLANE, .
FEET, NGLES-SCALELE, , USGSTOPOTILE083.SID, INCORPORATED WILMINGTON, CAROLINA0/39128403
AND USGSTOPOTILE113.SID , USG S QUADRANGLES RANSOMVILLE AND PANTEGO,
FIGURE 1
WEB SITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG ENVIRONMENTAL CONSNLTANTS FA)( 910/392-9139
SEED TICK NECK ROAD t y
?..•.. - w
t: 2 b t
' s 1m
k Y? RT. 9 F-
lie
C -
14 6,
A
C? :i# Imol'oot
,,. ,?•
A )p
s a f 4
%
f ?- pNGO CREEK
1 _ ROAD
(SR1715 '
41 r6 r?.. k.i F
.`
P PUNGO CREEK
0 2,000 4,000
NORTH CAROLINA SCALE IN FEET
SITE LOCATION SITE MAP - HELL SWAMP
HELL SWAMP-SCOTT CREEK 1998 INFRARED AERIAL
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
LEGEND
HELL SWAMP PROJECT BOUNDARY SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: BFG
DATE: 03/18/09 FILE: HELLSWP-1998AER-MIT.DWG
CP# 1745.59.66
4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SOURCE: AERIAL IMAGE PROVIDED BY: NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT SUITE 2
OF TRANSPORTATION, 1998 COLOR-INFRARED DIGITAL ORTHO IMAGES, WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 TEL WEBSTEF WWW NCDOT.ORG?NE, 35076E63.TIF AND 38076E64.TIF, exvixoxMExo R co su >•Axis FAX [phone] FIGURE 2
ti ,f{ P, ?-1, 177}? 'o-
$•
M ? ?4`,rr ?a L
'.r a 4
?' ? y ^iY ?LSa
? a, PAY ?.? ..
RT. 99
*04
SC0TT3iGREEK
Lf.' L. . ? Y Y k , l L.'??aG•
I ?
PUNGO CREEK
ROAD
(SR1715)
1
h r? PUNGO CREEK
SMITH CREEK air y
0 2,000 4,000
NORTH CAROLINA SCALE IN FEET
SITE LOCATION SITE MAP - HELL SWAMP
HELL SWAMP-SCOTT CREEK 2006 AERIAL
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
LEGEND SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: BFG
HELL SWAMP PROJECT BOUNDARY DATE: 03/ 1 809 FILE: HELLSWP-2006AER-MIT.DWG
CP# 1745.59.66
4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SUITE 2
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403
SOURCE: AERIAL IMAGE PROVIDED BY: PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC. INCORPORATED TEL [phone] FIGURE 3
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSNLTANTS FAX [phone]
7 ..
S ?r
c ? r !:
To h
Sb
TO Cf
Ap
Cf At a/ 1 =fir
{ Ap
t TO
Ap Ds
To Me
Ds FF?
Ap N'"
t H 4 N
6,
Y f +` r TO s ..
i' 't T? . E+ r..
'u A
N it ;1?i Me =- ; rr
lffiw
s ; '?`*?. ?"1 Ak ? V .,`F . 'Y•` ,.x,?c.? . 4 f?_ . ?G!4 71?? ? `i?F ?,t..
LEGEND O 1,500 3,000
HELL SWAMP PROJECT BOUNADRY
SOILS
SYMBOL SOIL NAME
SCALE IN FEET
Ap ARAPAHOE (MINERAL)(418.54 ACRES)
At AUGUSTA (14.41 ACRES)
Cf CAPE FEAR FINE SANDY LOAM- (200.41 ACRES)
Ds DRAGSTON 184.84 ACRES) SOILS
Me MUCKALEE (MINERAL) (14.86 ACRES)
Pt PORTSMOUTH (MINERAL)(196.04 ACRES) Sb SEABROOK(NLOAMY LSAND6(0 49RACRES) HELL SWAMP
To TOMOTLEY (MINERAL)(183.63 ACRES)
SITE TOTAL: 1,296.87 ACRES PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
HYDRIC SOILS
® NON-HYDRIC SOILS SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: BFG/TLJ
NOTE: ONLY ILS RE DESIGNATED
SOURCE: MINERAL OR ORGANIC DATE: 03/27/09 FILE: HELLSWP-SOILS-MIT-NRCS
SOILS DATA: NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE, BEAUFORT COUNTY, CP#? 745.59.66
NORTH CAROLINA, NAD83, METERS, NC STATE PLANE, bfcodsl.e00
WEBSITE: WWW.SOILDATAMART.NRCS.USDA.GOV 7 4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
AERIAL IMAGE PROVIDED BY: NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT SUITE 2
, WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403
OF TRANSPORTATION, 1998 COLOR-INFRARED DIGITAL ORTHO IMAGES Z
91-9253 TE WWW NCDOT.ORGNE, COLORTILE113.SID AND COLORTILE140.SID,
WEBS FEET. ? R CO SU TnxTS TEL [phone] FIGURE 4a
To
a
Pt ' - Ap Ds
r
AaA
DS
Ap G
' c; A p
A
At
D
D5 e
Ds
y .'
At Ro
At Do s2 Ta?
Ds
To Me Ds
u
To Cu
LEGEND 0 1,500 3,000
HELL SWAMP PROJECT BOUNADRY
SOILS
SYMBOL SOIL NAME
SCALE IN FEET
Ap ARAPAHOE (MINERAL)
At AUGUSTA
Cf CAPE FEAR FINE SANDY LOAM
Ds DRAGSTON
Me MUCKALEE (MINERAL) SOILS A
Pt PORTSMOUTH (MINERAL)
Ro ROANOKE (MINERAL) BEAUFORT COUNTY SOIL SURVEY
Sb SEABROOK LOAMY SAND HELL SWAMP
To TOMOTLEY (MINERAL)
WATER FEATURES PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
- ?? PERENNIAL
INTERMITTENT SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: BFG/TLJ
DATE: 03/27/09 FILE: HELLSWP-SOILS-BW-MIT
SOURCE, C P # 1745.59.66
SOIL SURVEY OF BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA 4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES SUITE 2
CONSERVATION SERVICE WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403
ISSUED: SEPTEMBER 1995 ENVIRONM NO R CONSNLTANIS TEL [phone] FIGURE 4b

IL
:'
'?
F
LJ nCLL 0Vw-uVir

ELEVATION (FEET)
?0
?0-1
?1-2 {$-,
2 - 3
?3-4
?4-5
5 6
® - LIDAR
0 800 1
600 3
200 HELL SWAMP
JU6 - 7 ,
,
® 7 - 8 PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
Scale in Feet
8 - 9 .
SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY DRAWN BY BFG
09- 10

Q 10 - 11 DATE: 2/03/09
SOURCE: NORTH CAROLINA FLOODPLAIN MAPPING PROGRAM, SEPTEMBER 2004, 4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
11 - 12 BEAUFORT COUNTY, LIDAR, NC STATEPLANE, NAD 83, FEET, VVWW.NCFLOODMAPS.COM AND .,et. a g SUITE 2 CP#174559.66

2- 13 NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY, BEAU20.ZIP, NC STATEPLANE, NAD 1983, FEET,
HTTP:HGISDATA.LIB.NCSU.EDU/DEM/NC 20F 7

WILMINGTON, NC 28403
r CL R
T N ::oeA i iD TEL: [phone]

IGURE5
-T'm-n FAX: [phone]
-!
x
.,
x k
?.- it ?L ?h b= ? ` \ h
k
ob.
LEGEND vim` ^r
HELL SWAMP PROJECT BOUNDARY
x x x DITCH EFFECT (2.69 ACRES) a , a_ f
i ?' ) Pr jy
AlW'
W CORPS 2004 JD (31.13 ACRES) a -
f4* 4p,
2007/2008 JURISDICTIONAL
WETLAND (63.59 ACRES)
0 1,600 3,200
COASTAL WETLAND (0.37 ACRES)
- - - - COE AND DWQ WATERS (18,110 LF) SCALE IN FEET
SCOTT CREEK (5,376 LF)
UT4 (541 LF)
DWQ STREAM AND WATERS (2,382 LF) JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS, WATERS, AND STREAMS
PRE-RESTORATION 30 FOOT CAMA ON HELL SWAMP MITIGATION SITE
COASTAL SHORELINE (5 ACRES)
X COE UPPER LIMIT STREAM PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
A COE UPPER LIMIT US WATERS SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: TLJ
-JURISD-
O DWQ UPPER LIMIT STREAM DATE: 04/07/09 FILE: HELLSWMP
WETMIT
? DWQ UPPER LIMIT US WATERS CP# 1745.59.66
4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
PRE-RESTORATION UPPER LIMITS 5228E 2
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403
(PUBLIC TRUST AREAS) ENVIRONM NO lotu CONS AN15 FAX 910%392-9139 FIGURE 6
LEGEND
s
0
r .,
. rl
X
A
0
?
HELL SWAMP PROJECT BOUNDARY
PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD
PHASE I (OUTSIDE OF CORPS, DWQ AND
CAMA JURISDICTION)
CORPS 2004 JD
200712008 JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND
COASTAL WETLANDS
PRE-RESTORATI ON 30 FOOT CAMA
COASTAL SHORELINE
PHASE 1 LIMITS OF DISTURBED AREA
COE AND DWQ WATERS
SCOTT CREEK
DWQ STREAM AND WATERS
COE UPPER LIMIT STREAM
COE UPPER LIMIT US WATERS
DWQ UPPER LIMIT STREAM
DWQ UPPER LIMIT US WATERS
DCM UPPER LIMITS (PUBLIC TRUST AREAS)

0 1,200 2,400
SCALE IN FEET
SITE PLAN WITH PHASE 1 LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
AND ACCESS ROADS
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: BFG/TLJ
DATE: 04/06/09 FILE' HLSWMP-SCTCRK-SITE-
PHASE-MIT.DWG
CP#1745.59.66
4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SUITE 2
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403
LONS L ANR FAX [phone] FIGURE 7
S ?
Sr' ? `YN ='
V? .
f i
?r*,k
* i . ti y{
c, ek
Legend
O Cross-section Locations
Property Boundary
r
F
Cross-section 1 - Scott Creek
4
3
2-
1
A2
> 0
-2
-3
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Station (ft) e- - - Bankfull - - -e--- Floodprone
Cross-section 2 - Scott Creek
4
3

0 2
1
> 0
N
w -1
-2
3
-
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Station (ft) o- - - Bankfull - - -e--- Floodprone
Cross-section 3 - Scott Creek
4
3-
2
0 1
> 0
w -1 --
-2
-3
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Station (ft) o- - - Bankfull - - -9--- Floodprone
Cross-section 1 - UT4
2.5
2-
1.5-
> 1
0.5
Mu 0
-0.5
-1
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Station (ft) I - -o- - - Bankfull - - -9--- Floodprone
} f` PIl. '
1 }
Project Site 64
} }
Reference Ma 1J,
S
13
� I
17 I--~-----------~----------------------}Y-----�--
~kms
x �
nOle �}
Greenville.—
. Hell Swamp
ngton Restoration Site Hyde
Upper Back Creek
Restoration Site 64
y
Porter
k. UT to Site 1 Creek UT to Porter Creek At ki~{ L-"
w
Site 2 sA
Jones
Hofmann State
UT to Bailey Creek r
k
UT to South Creek
P mlico
UT to Brice Creek
Site 1
UT to Brice Creek
UT to Brice Creek Site 2�
Site 3
Camp Lej '► �} '_-~s --�= —
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8999 Regency P.—y 0 2.5 5 10 15
Sei e,09
Cary, North Carolina 27518
Ph— 919.463.5488
F. 919 463.5490 Miles
Figure 10
Reference Sites Map
Hell Swamp Site
dQ rf
x
� f mfr
0 e
Lookout Natl Seast,
4q
1! el
Figure 10
Reference Sites Map
Hell Swamp Site

ZONE2
5.76 ac
ZONE 4A
3.09 ac
ZONE 4.1
17.12 ac
0 0 00°
00000000
ZONE4A °00000
1.77 ac 0
000° 0°0
ZONE 4-2 UPLAND
49.43 ac 11,98 ac
ZONE4A
1.13 ac
ZONE 4A
5.73 ac
0 0
o°o°o°0°o°0°ocUPLANDA 0°
00000000000000 0.79 ac 0000
0^0^0^0 0 0 0-0 0 0 q
°0 ZONE4-1 0°0°0°0°0°^°^°
°0 120.14ac000000000 ZONE 3A 0
00U0U0U000000000(129ac00
000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000
0000000000000 0000000
O°00000000000 ?0 n00
3A
ZONE 3A
00000° o CONE
0°00000 000000000
0 Ono ?Ij o 0 0 0
oZONE4A'0o0ZONE 4A 0000
O 1.86 ac 000o120ac 0000
0000000 0" "00000
000 0 0 ZONE
47.06
ZONE4A
9.0 ac
ZONE4A ZONE 31
1.29 ac 3.01 acre
ZONE 4.2 0
88.83 ac 000
O„0
ZONE 3A 0
2.41 acs 0 0
ZONE4A 00° 0
4.72 ac 00 0
000000000
0000
0000
0000
0°0°
000
000000°0
0
ZONE 3.1
33.89 ac
ZONE 3A ZONE 1A
2.79 ac 2.76 ac
ZONE 1A
2.44 ac
ZONE3A
3.0 ac
ZONE 3-2
85.42 ac
ZONE2 ZONE3A
2.45 ac 4.27 ac
ZONE3A
0 0 3.04 ac
/ 00

2.93ac ZONE2A
2.93 ac 0
00p0000
o 0 0 0
3.17 ac °
°
ZONE 3A
(0.42ac00 00
ZONE 3.1
00000° 0000 73.25 ac
ZONE 3A
0
0
0
01 ac 0
1
0
0
0
.
°
00
0
0
0
0
°
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ZONE3A000000000000
0 0

ZONE 0 0.54 ac o 0 0 0
0"0"0 ZONE3A) 0 0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
2.0 ac ,1.67ac0
0
0
0
0
0
-
0 0
0
0
0

2629ac ONE1 0
0
0
ZONE2A o 000 0
14.76 ac 2.46 ac
ZONE 2A VALLEY 2
2.05 ac ZONE IA 16.13 ac
0.88 ac ZONE 1A
2.27 ac VALLEY2 ZONE1
7.57 ac 6.17 ac
ZONEIA ZONEIA
04 ac
3
.38 ac .
ZONE 1
ZONE 2 92.19 ac
10.26 ac
ZONE1 ZONEIA
ZONE2 88.1 5 ac 2.74 ac
1.48 ac VALLEY 2
1
1.76 ac ZONEIA
UPLANDA 0.54 ac
4.44 ac
ZONE 1A
ZONE IA 1.45 ac
3.0 ac VALI
D UPLANDA
ac 2.90 ac

A
UPLAND
5 9 .70 ac
0
0.70 ac
NE2 UPLA
1
47
5 ac '

2.78ac
ZONE2
6.11 ac
VALLEY 2
6.38 ac
ZONE 3.2
2.88 ac
ZONE1
73.92 ac

2
NOTE:
Q. m
ichaueii
Q. lyrata
Nyssa aquatica
Taxodium distichum
Fraxinus pennsytvar
Zone 3
Quercus nigra
Q. michauiii
Q. laudfolia
Ulmus american
Nyssa sylvatica var.
Zone 4
Quercus michauxii
Q . pagoda
Q. nigra
Q. laudfolia
Fraxinus pennsytvar
Ulmus american
Nyssa sylvatica var.
ZONE2
59.69 ac
:2A
SIC
dE 1A
53 ac
NE1
53 ac
ZONE 1A
0.34 ac
ZONE 1A
0.56 ac
0
c 7? 11
0.6'1 c c T11r
1/ 1
TREE ZONES 1 THRU 4 - ACRES AT 9' x
12" OR 403 TPA (1,077.11 ACRES)
SHRUB ZONES 1A THRU 4A - ACRES AT
9 x 9 OR 538 SPA (120.31 ACRES)
VALLEY 1 AND VALLEY 2 - ACRES AT 10'
x 10' OR 456 STEMS PER ACRE
(60% TREES/40% SHRUBS) (65.60
ACRES)
chestnut oak
oak (FAC) 0 0 0 27 36.
ACREAGE: LEGEND
ZONE 1 (275.19 ACRES) HELL SWAMP
PROJECT BOUNDARY
ZONE 2 (167.69 ACRES) PLANTED AREAS:
ZONE 3-1 (107.14 ACRES) 0 ZONE 1 - LESS THAN OR
EQUAL TO 4 FT
ZONE 3-2 (135.36 ACRES)
® ZONE 1A
ZONE 4-1 (137.26 ACRES)
0 ZONE 2 -BETWEEN 4 FT
ZONE 4-2 (138.26 ACRES) AND 5 FT
® ZONE 2A
UPLAND (116.21 ACRES)
- ZONE 3-1
TOTAL: 1,077.11 ACRES
- ZONE 3-2
ZONE 1A (29.01 ACRES) ZONE 3A - BETWEEN 5 FT
AND 7 FT
ZONE 2A (21.69 ACRES)
0 o a ZONE 4-1
ZONE 3A (29.52 ACRES) ZONE 4-2
ZONE 4A (29.79 ACRES) ® ZONE 4A - 7 FT AND
OVER
UPLAND A (10.30 ACRES)
0 UPLAND
TOTAL: 120.31 ACRES
® UPLAND A
VALLEY 1 (30.60 ACRES) 0 VALLEY 1
VALLEY 2 (35.00 ACRES) 0 VALLEY 2
® PRESERVATION
TOTAL: 65.60 ACRES
PRESERVATION (33.85 ACRES)
SITE TOTAL: 1,296.87 ACRES
0 1,200 2,400
SCALE IN FEET
dvanica Green ash(FACW}10 1.8
Water tupelo (OBL}30 5.E
Quercupoak(OBL)-20 3.1
rum Bald cypress (OBL}35 7.4
Acreage
dvanica Green ash(FACW}10 2.
American holly (FAC}5 1.C
var. bifiora Swamp tupelo (OBL}15 3.1
racemosa
m
racemosa
benzoin
4A
foemina
vedicillata
nudum
racemosa
rose (W L)-z:
Thaw Nbumum
3.3 1775
ige #shrubs
2.7 1452.6
5.4 2905.2
2.7 1452.6
5.4 2905.2
5.4 2905.2
5.4 2905.2
ige #shrub
s
3 1614
6 3228
6 3228
3 1614
6 3228
6 3228
ige #shrubs
1.65 888
2.2 1184
2.2 1184
1.65 888
1.65 888
1.65 888
ige #shrub
s
3.1 1414
1.86 848
1.86 848
3.1 1414
2.48 1131
ige #shrubs
2.1 958
2.1 958
PLANTING PLAN
HELL SWAMP
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY
SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: TLJ
DATE: 03/27/09 FILE: GRAPH1CS\HLS MPWPLAN MB
NIT. WG
CP#1745.59.66
4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SUITE 2
lot" TEL WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403
rrrvi?muu a°u xvA ems FAX 91 0/392_9139 FIGURE 11

HSR1
HSR2
iR3

•
LEGEND
HELL SWAMP PROJECT BOUNDARY
STREAMS
RIPARIAN PRESERVATION/ENHANCEMENT
• PROPOSED WELL LOCATIONS
¦ STREAM VALLEY PROPOSED WELL LOCATIONS
(STREAM ARRAY WELL LOCATIONS MAY BE MO
DENSE AND MORE NUMEROUS DEPENDING ON
CONDITIONS POST-CONSTRUCTION)
REFERENCE WELL LOCATIONS
D VALLEY 1
D VALLEY 2
® PRESERVATION

/T
J.1
0 1.500 3,000
RE
SCALE IN FEET
MONITORING WELL LOCATION MAP
HELL SWAMP
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY
SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: TLJ
DATE: 03/27/09 FILE: HLSWMP_PLANTING_
PLAN_MIT.DWG
CP# 1745.59.66
4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SUITE 2
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403
ENVIRONM NO lotu CONSUL AN15 FAX 910%392-9139 FIGURE 12
A? r C. s
rry,_yl? .R, r ?? fd?`. ? ? •, - - r - ?'r ,,,7`{ d -?a +l ? ??n `G tRF
?+R L ±
W
! U ty?r
+
+
+ +F\ yr w"
A
I r?
}.. RF E E aIT s U
I dF X
?a
? e 1,i91
r
N
002P Ic
.14
1
r k?tyy?' g
?• dr
?
Oar
+ ty ''? Y a 9 R¦
?:Yy
r -Ndk.
:GEND
C==

"i
UT2

U
UT3 UT

?
_ U .

UT4
W

' . Y
"
UT ? ?
? t1?
SCOTT CREEK , ?,?, mow.
•a
k

yv •'? F 1111 .

r es, Y?" a * (
"?
; & F Ti ry * }
j4
U r >• 7 ty
af t
prY ;.^ SMITH CREEK # *
14.

f.?

HELL SWAMP PROJECT BOUNDARY
EXISTING SCOTT CREEK
POTENTIAL NON-WETLAND FROM EDGE EFFECT (103 ACRES)
POTENTIAL EXPANSION AREAS
WETLAND ENHANCEMENT (18 ACRES)
50 FOOT BUFFER RESTORATION (21 ACRES)
ADDITIONAL 50 FOOT BUFFER RESTORATION (21 ACRES)
SCOTT CREEK STREAM RESTORATION (5,017 LF)
RIPARIAN HEADWATER SYSTEM STREAM RESTORATION (10,845 LF)
1st ORDER STREAM RESTORATION (3,921 LF)
NON-RIPARIAN RESTORATION (808 ACRES)
RIPARIAN RESTORATION (58 ACRES)
RIPARIAN PRESERVATION/ENHANCEMENT (28 ACRES)
(INCLUDES 0.37 ACRES OF COASTAL WETLANDS AND 5 ACRES
OF 30 FOOT CAMA COASTAL SHORELINE)
COASTAL WETLAND (0.37 ACRES)
NON-RIPARIAN PRESERVATION (40 ACRES)
CORPS 2004/2007/2008 JD
UPLAND (200 ACRES)

0 1,200 2,400
SCALE IN FEET

HELL SWAMP AND SCOTT CREEK WATERSHED WETLAND,
STREAM, AND RIPARIAN BUFFER MITIGATION SITE
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: BFG/TLJ
DATE: 03/27/09 FILE' HLSWMP-SCTCRK-RESTOR
'
-ENHANC-MIT.DWG
CP#1745.59.66
4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SUITE 2
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403
53
/
2
1
FIGURE 13
392-91
3
9
LONS L1•ANR FAX 91
SUPPORTING DOCUMENT A
BEAUFORT COUNTY PARCEL INFORMATION
Pale I of I
Site. 926.5 AC HARRY MCMULLAN JR IIRS
75

y
y Ir i
;, 5?
K

?
# rf•
,• ,? ail, .? ?'? I.?

j'i
@?/ ? --\ 1 1 1 I l 1 !
I g 3 e '1. tir. ti', :T q

•
?' '
?1
1 '
?
? ?
I
?C? ?„
?
1,.?.
III

Property Dctails:
AIM 87005948 GPIN 6685.72•BT52
GPINLONG 6885-72-8752 NAME? PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY INC
HAME2 ADDRi
PC) BOX 425
11
ADUR2 CITY AURORA
STATE NC ZIP 27896
PROP-ROAD BET $714 A 1715 ACRES 927.79
ACCT MBR 864017 MRP_SHEE7 668500
NOR-BLDG 4 DATE 972512006
Inn PG 154710222 LANn VAL 1219256
1
BLDGVAL 1200 DEFR_VAL ?
iOT_VAL
1220456 MBHD CDE A
BBHD_0ESC AVERAGE SUB CDE
5UB_DESC STAMPS 7412
'SAI.E_PRICE 3700000 ZONE
LAHD_US>= DISTRIG7 07
PR4P_DESC 926.5 AC HARRY ALCM ULLAN JR HRS MBL ? = 88850046
EXMPT_PROP E%MPT_AMT 8
IROAn TYPE P
CENSUS_BLR
-PREVASSESS 0
CLAIMER lflt`$h in]AS tlM irYfdmaliwl 4ilhh in tlgil5l M1@fIX@yf fOf%ldl dfC p°@v100 58'@II 89 8 Pu@IC 9PM[8 etd lFdy tlo aol mgOt SLhey!'Ig 9LCUf3Ly 5!midards Tn S mip
ixp 711
horn Ino irc vln:dy N rc.il poperly !a n Ilils jUiivJ-cliu i anJ -5 co iigl:e0 frUin 3ew3J@J 4eeds, yli[s, sntl N.n@r pl?p?L IK6f4f eli4 031] llSeis aF any maps
µ
veypy nUlri? [ndl tnq drv<pr p
liomn p:iU!r fximxy „furirawr sU .s smuts nc cU,sullc0 rvr rnnn?dlgn U' Inc irifUiriiyliui mr?air:nn yh d1Y rtldp5 ird
ti .
Ire
!T M oe
a
es
e
e
s iiaegel respons :11I V we ir'o malo, mnla net nn h. map,
x
-I
b
-
hltp://www2.undersys.cons/scripts/tcsladvlusiwehhpd.dIVusi?formis=ptmap&N10USeX 22--. 511612009

PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan A-1 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Supporting Document A
Page l of l
Site: 276.09 AC P C AN l4'Is (;Itl{14811'001) SIMI 11 At

i

'
. ,, 4S
r r
1
e
l
? r
? ) t r Y y
S 7 t L 1 '?1
$ -
.
f
10
X

;
, -K
'
.i , n3r18Z £P'
l ry l y "7. f l ?7y 7""
?
C J,+,?1y s
? i ry.
Y 4
f ?
t
. ,.t
A
`
c
yr r
4?
?' `
I1 + f
h ?
?f4°q•Y- f., r e d
ns.
??i
,
? ti' sr y ?5 - . r 4
-
I
r '
?ti: r ? l .: ?? ? rte`
?? ? .... \ 4 ,? .
I

1
'i ? K .. I
1,
1 .

Property Det:3ils:
PIN 15420T85 GPIN 6665861167
GPINLONG 8995-89-1 }fi7 HAME7 PCS PH pSPFIATE COMPANY INC
NAMEZ ADDR7 PO 8OX 425
ADllR2 CITY AUROHA
STATE NC 21P 2'?m
PROP-ROAD SR 1710 ACRES 27&.63
ACCT_N6R 664447 MAP _SHEET 689594
NBR_8LOG 0 DATE 121280106
DB_PG 155110316 LAND_VAL 1F,29d3
BLOC VAL F DEFR VAL. 0
TOT VAL 1132943 NBHD CDE A
NBHD DESC AVERAGE SUB CDE
Su8_DESC STAMPS 2210
[SALE PRICE 1195999 ZONE
(LAND-USE DISTRICT 09
PROP DESC 1 1 27649 AC P7 JUSTICE GREENWOOD SMITH !R MBL 6685d04D
EXIMPT_PROP EXMPT_AMT 9
ROAD TYPE P
CENSL9_BLH
PREVASSESS 0
q lSl LRr'.SLU rl'ese ma05 arva Imo-1- carter n 6gnal or narecc;,y Immal. are Pmvloeo w'Cy as a puhnc eemca am 1my tle nol m601 sun•eyrv,l a[cura:y 51aMaros Taa m.,,"
J::l.r la pll:?:l•i., fruln u.c:l,mlory o1 reel plcycrly fol,l a x:lhn lr:n ;.Il lsa c[:rl -d a culr:y'co lrnn rem•eoa v'ceo5.. 0- a• rr
?
? pl. N•[ re[o:65 are ?filry Uscly of a?Y rrvips
o::re•a•••u,:nrl,ss•v:?.,,.aler n,.nr•n.•.,.lll•,.Irorc-Ic.?.:,cn?,,l?c r•:,rr '.I.c .n sc es sno,.l.?ne o;nallca wl,?
I
:..rl•?IL. mc...n... r.., ce .la..n ?I, ,-,.,p... 1.?
m [l., ole;Y rn:;onst• iiilnrinal.o:, ro:,la?r•l.,rv,•gsu Etttp:Ilwww2.tindersys.com/scriptsltestady/usiwebbpd.dll/tisi?fornlis=ptn3ap&MouseX=27.,, 5/16/2008

PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan A-2 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Supporting Document A
Page 1 of 1
Site: 43.56 AC: DANIFL F WO OLAIII) TRACT

r `,

a l
or
: 4 1 ?.

f f .' S t.; \ ? i a s rld.1

I ?g I

.f [ 11'F?I 5 G } V %
( f • ^Ml J ,. T I'. r

;I d I I
,I
I, vl

? f .

Property Details:
PIN 15024588 GPiN 8885-05-130
GPINLONG 771 ;695-06-6430 NAME? PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY
NAME2 ADDR7
ADOR2 P 0 BOX 425 CITY AURORA
STATE NC ZIP 27 B0B
PROP ROAD 5R 171d ACRES 42.93
ACCT -NOR 656222 MAP-SHEET 669500
NBR_BLDG 2 DATE 712-012 0 07
OB_PG 159710046 LAND OVAL 1 16CW
8LDG_VAL 0 1 1 DEFR-VA L 0
TOT_VAL 64033 NBHO COE A
NBHD_DESC AVERAGE ' SUB CDE
SuB_uESC STAMPS 344
SALE-PRICE 172000 POH@
LAND _USE DISTRICT 09
PROA_DESC 43756 AC DANIEL F MOLARD TRACT MBL 689500125
EXMPT-PROP EICMPT_AMT ?_
ROAO_TYPE P
CENSUS BLR
PREVASSESS ?
015Al ITR irate iaaps an.] o.- nw am.e. m mgdal or harabopy formal are provided scaly as a puhac worn[ a no- Amy nn not meet A-eying amwacr slamards. Tna map
bw
¢ata" -'npse.i' ?rnm SFU msenlory d roar pcpemy found wilNn Isis ry6M,CMn and la aomp led Fr l _
daeGa, pelt, and m9ier pulaK -rd, -4 daW users of any maps
• bwMy notilee inatthe afaremamianed pwep. PMrary dnbmre:Pn so- s M WO be ca -"W for vmfrcelrond aye infarma.wn ppnlainpp on an'p maps. The
l
5
T
:issuines m legal respdmsibkV Irr the informelide Qmlaiead Om ladle m,;
w fly 11 F3ea
:oi{
lit[ pJlwww2.undersys.con,IFseriptshestadvlusiwebbpd.dI1/usi'?lormis=ptmap&MouseX=5 I ... 5I16/2008
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan A-3 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Supporting Document A
Page 1 of 1
Site: 43.56 AC: DANIFL F WO OLAIII) TRACT

r `,

a l
or
: 4 1 ?.

f f .' S t.; \ ? i a s rld.1

I ?g I

.f [ 11'F?I 5 G } V %
( f • ^Ml J ,. T I'. r

;I d I I
,I
I, vl

? f .

Property Details:
PIN 15024588 GPiN 8885-05-130
GPINLONG 771 ;695-06-6430 NAME? PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY
NAME2 ADDR7
ADOR2 P 0 BOX 425 CITY AURORA
STATE NC ZIP 27 B0B
PROP ROAD 5R 171d ACRES 42.93
ACCT -NOR 656222 MAP-SHEET 669500
NBR_BLDG 2 DATE 712-012 0 07
OB_PG 159710046 LAND OVAL 1 16CW
8LDG_VAL 0 1 1 DEFR-VA L 0
TOT_VAL 64033 NBHO COE A
NBHD_DESC AVERAGE ' SUB CDE
SuB_uESC STAMPS 344
SALE-PRICE 172000 POH@
LAND _USE DISTRICT 09
PROA_DESC 43756 AC DANIEL F MOLARD TRACT MBL 689500125
EXMPT-PROP EICMPT_AMT ?_
ROAO_TYPE P
CENSUS BLR
PREVASSESS ?
015Al ITR irate iaaps an.] o.- nw am.e. m mgdal or harabopy formal are provided scaly as a puhac worn[ a no- Amy nn not meet A-eying amwacr slamards. Tna map
bw
¢ata" -'npse.i' ?rnm SFU msenlory d roar pcpemy found wilNn Isis ry6M,CMn and la aomp led Fr l _
daeGa, pelt, and m9ier pulaK -rd, -4 daW users of any maps
• bwMy notilee inatthe afaremamianed pwep. PMrary dnbmre:Pn so- s M WO be ca -"W for vmfrcelrond aye infarma.wn ppnlainpp on an'p maps. The
l
5
T
:issuines m legal respdmsibkV Irr the informelide Qmlaiead Om ladle m,;
w fly 11 F3ea
:oi{
lit[ pJlwww2.undersys.con,IFseriptshestadvlusiwebbpd.dI1/usi'?lormis=ptmap&MouseX=5 I ... 5I16/2008
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan A-4 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Supporting Document E
http:lbw^+r2.underyt.tbmf5crobA=h}driLeiwebbF+9.d1{uii7Farm..AU515.3?7 5459 projrmrt????Fa aryl=Ptirdeb
Site: 33.8 ABC GLORIA W W1NDLEYTR
'1 ?'" n f}A ,? w
3
ray K 4' b 2f '?-
r R+"
,•
,
[
1
it; 4r
LA
'4
416
F:. 4 Zl 1?f* 2 #
'
'
N '?' S •
,'4 .? r ,.ff.'s ' 1'1 J 'rYr 1'S Y y.
'7 r *1
y fJ
T
.

y y;
4 4
1
At I n
TJ i , •. P' 5 •1k. ?' 7. ?'l} 5 1 ,y r .
, r. yqq ?°? fc

a
j
t ?
1
p S p
i

-U t•

?f r

l
A0 '
I
tVM -R-IL
1.
.•
f
j'?l 4 rr 1 ? . ._
? ? zz ,?* •'4,'?•iT Fly .. } ''}}??T? ??. . ..
r
y._??'..
_
4
e
333 {
T
? d
L
a 7J
r'
L
E IirjLr
?S ,
Property Details:
PIN 15]25549 SPIN 66054L-K65
GPINLONG 669544K64 NANE7 PCSPIOS3HAT=oamPAWINC
wANF2 AODR7
AODR2 PO DOX425 CITY AJRORA
STATE NC ZIP 278G5
PROP ROAD 2R 1715 OFF ACRES 31.22
ACCT NBR 92"53 MAP SHEET 69040"
NBR BLDG G DATE &2C2"09
dE PG 115515M T-2 LAND VAL 0
BLDG VAL 0 DEFR_VAL 0
TDT VAL 0 NBND CdE A
NBNa DESC PY=-RAGE SUB CBE
SUB DESC STAMPS 372
SALE PRICE 18753" ZONE
LAND USE U DISTRICT 07
PROP DESC 33.95 AC GL0:UA W KN,-L=r' -R MBL M04001" .1
E7T PROP E7UIYPT {KNIT 0
ROAD TYPE P
h[[p:fb 2.undemys.m ipbA=kadviusiwehh...&pr*ae =6muFort$leyc0== i=Pzi o 6 (I dF2) [iX(2N!; 0:34: SAM]
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan A-5 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Supporting Document A
Fik,7ff]CI;.My ]466F1745F1745-55KfiFn n alaWswparting doca+scppartirq doc E-bddlbntrl it Fg7ga"yla-d p-l.htn
Site: 24.16 AC PT LECILA M GAYLORD PROP

J.
l
•E
?F
i :'a
?
,r q?
K
a
?
i
1??7
'

%
+. y:
s 7x? 1 ?r r} *T• ?
of '
y
_
M".rH`
%

_1Y 47

J
yy??f R f
??}}FF
Property Details:
PIN 15024EI42 GPIN 15595-21124.9
GPINLONG 6695.21-4245 NAAW'1 PCS PAO6'HAT-- COMPA14Y INC:
NAME2 ADDR7 PO DaX425
ADD61:2 OITY WJRORR
STATE rJ:. ZIP 21906
PROP ROAD W- 99 ACRES 2 .16
ACOT NBR Eb4G4:' MAP SHEET 66950
NBR BLDG G DATE 1-3v=00T
DO PG 161=231 LAND VAL 16131
BLDG VAL 0 DE,FR VAL G
TOT VAL 16131 NBND CDE. A.
NBND DESC SUB ODE
SUB_DE.SC STAMPS 0
SALE PRICE 0 ZONE
LAND USE DISTRICT 07
PROP DESC 24.16 AC P- LEO-A Fd CAY_DR6 mRO' MBL &99570105
E)UVPT PROP
J :L APT AMR G
ROAD TYPE
P
F
FileVl MIfT`F3' File3J]OB6F17-05F1745-5 Ef,Fnrogavon_..Js rPParcirq doc e-addeonal Irrra/gavlord parmd.hL- f i or 21 [2+iiV2W9 11:06:04AM7
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan A-6 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Supporting Document A
SUPPORTING DOCUMENT B
SELECTED SITE PHOTOGRAPHS INCLUDING HISTORIC AERIALS
(Note: 1964 and 1970 aerials depict an earlier project boundary)
N
Legend
Property Boundary
k ~R? x Y \ b \.'? b
f"?y, „? `rte' ? ?T s '#Jb
(y f... as1 Vii' l ,tyy : r??. 9! 81, ,
?r1 SY;' - ? •"i' 1 R .h.d t S.': t57 t ? 1, ? ?? ?.
f'l` W'1 ? ?"? ?' 5k +F S? ! f eri E - ? 41*?3 1r ail rs _y t f ? .,
S??-?,2 ? ?_ •fi1?'J? r'i 5 4 ?? ^Y ?i .? ? r"-7C ri -P'=}}??,! ?.'.rf 4
'?
^?i? >;l r' `! !13}Yw: r ? A? t x if ?+e5 ? f LL?l" Y?- ?f 7 y' 1,4
f, k.
r f. 'r ,?"?;: ` "k ??' ? .p?° g ! i ? a,?•Yr:? Y.Sr"fa '` a , rx.'`r t
??? f ? ? ? t ^'r '?Y? Fi ?,#,??? ??I??. Ji 4 ? t?"? ``?? ?vrali.4.', r-l,j??? f+?r` , s-r
?w???"S ?.gAe?rf,. ?''yy??? a?tr?.t??r?i *,?? ye?7? r?,? .y z<t? \ ?.
.,•C w t i ?'a y P s ?. ,^'f 't i r'Z at, ?.y. R5.f.:,,•, y'f" ?•'•§h! .
41
.r_ `? w c xM y-„/"!?, s °.u+ } tea 1f
Alt
T f [fir
TfA t r4 i, ""?" ra " . y31ti f ` yr,
4tr ?e ^?ui6lbr } ? r x X"'1- ? .'1-cr l
°"ysra"4e? 1? 4 r 4 ,? ??x :ffA'f. 6 y?y?r
j ;i:?? ttix'. 7 ? ;•it#ar t _ 4?.L°,? ? ??'r'',r p ?fr:r? ?{j{r. ?t ,o F
it rl
ff ..? 111 t ! r r ?1r.t +?: _.,
Baker Engl„eerl?g NY, inc.
0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 Hell Swamp
Feet 1964 Aerial
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan B-1 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Supporting Document B
N
? v
•
ti
'?1'., * ? S_. ?' ?-t i?s'?.,,{ r { -y w`_ it y ?'? Y : ?`:•
r ' 4 '.
Y ^x. ? ?? ??'Cfr.;14f4?.4Vf HU .i+, ads
4w i I ? a y,f?y; i. I
it r- `fr•I iJirfaN?? d A'#I?,f -.?,i?,r}i?'??. ..r y ?
r -?•
r rya.
Legend
Property Boundary
.. 's . .rya:
a
? 4 r

Pit
?
'
? ..•
?? ? 'k :
{
r
. r1
j
. - f ..
. Y?
.x
.. l 1 ?
X
4+^ ..- .Y r ~, ??
.??t
P f? .
x i
-L? •-l. "4 f. .?..r? ` . ,• ' ? S?' •ti ? .
t T ,x ,4 _ y .s _ e • ? ' if ?? i.?I' il?? r..?.` ti°'kTbn???? Ve 'a:.
Tp'

• a.

?kmcEnplMaMp MY. Inc.
0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000
Feet
Fa: 9f4,5, YR
Hell Swamp
1970 Aerial

PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan B-2 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Supporting Document B
crossing.
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan B-3 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Supporting Document B
Photo 1: View NW (upstream) of Scott Creek flooding into field at farm entrance road
Photo 2: View SE (downstream) of Scott Creek at farm entrance road crossing.
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan B-4 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Supporting Document B
Photo 3: View south along upper UT7 towards UT6 (main tributary to Scott Creek).
Photo 4: View south along border of Woolard and Smith Tracts.
CAL
e
::sr
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan B-5 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Supporting Document B
Photo 5: View north east along main ditch entering Scott Creek at road crossing.
Photo 6: Aerial view to SE showing Scott Creek (center across) and lower UT6
(forested point) in proximity to open water of Pungo Creek (May 2007).
SUPPORTING DOCUMENT C
AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
1 - SOIL FERTILITY REPORT
2 - NATURAL HERITAGE REPORT ON REFERENCE FOREST
3 - USDOI/USFWS LETTER
4 - NC NHP LETTER
5 - NC SHPO LETTER
6 - NRCS PC STATUS LETTER
7 - LIMITS OF CAMA JURISDICTION
-1-
Soil Fertility Report
r
t
a
N
.n O
a ? H
a
4
M
a
CG ??
G ?
C,i N
V • ?
J
•y C
L
e
U
U •i
r c? -R
? yr .-. cr c3 v] •cs '-?'?' .O 73
g] a c" o, . T d A
O G. .a tr] C]. '^ V T O LJ 76
s rJ C ,?-• ? yr `"
pip c3 J Q tr. r ? K c? w ?L -'?,?^-.
o a o c? c cn o
sue., ` _ ? ? ? o -°d ? ? Or ? ? -° • ?
u -' c o
s o G. .n o E H v
r a ° D n 7 a
a -D acs y U °' 2.
con z_-
fly ? r, •°-' ? c •? ? ? °' ? a ° •°
y ZA 0. nl _b - rn ? Q v d
O Q Q r '?
W a a Z E C ?? d 4 .y o
2.0
Yom{ q a ^ Gl ' C L •v: :n .O„ V 4. C
o v w urn o w' cl u x
v .' r O V v G .i Id Gj

V

U C]
L- x

•
? C
C
Z a
N -? it, W N Z

? 4
v C

v
a.
_
s

5 ^a

o n
?? ? z z
•o
4 ? v
?o o = 5n '-'

E"- ?
o .n o_ ?_ T
4
6 4
?-
?
V; cC .-? ni ?
0
U
`m
N
a
Q
0
0
d
d
C
°o
v
n
O
Rf
U
0
0
0
L2
M
0
a
chi

PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan C-1 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Supporting Document C

v m _ m s i

m _ _ v
AM
?,

n.
ro

y m
an o

S,
?q °

y rn
W

cd
v, -c
9]
? _-
N°
N° o
ti o o
y a a
c
U ` °
^ r _
?` ti r ?
m y
o o ? rn
rn
V o a ? ?? V v a o ? U ?

rh
N v V'?
N .? N
N ..S T
N
N m ?? ? c N
N Q I? n , D,y1 Q P ,O3 can ? Q ?+ U'

z
k -tr

? C ? C ?0 4 `O O
i ?. V Q ? a 'a o y 3°. C
U ?n ?j r ej ?n rj v,

c ti .S o ti c. ?p r v. 4 u [-.
[ V

? ? ? O b_ ? ^J q 4
' 'L ni '_ .y. C -
U `L' to '? ?•' N
(? ? r
? te U ? r-] f? U C -- . U ?
`til 67- '? . O 0.1 "` ? Q1 ? • ? G ? .o O
? ei
p ?.. F_.? _ E Lr 3 G _ .? ? _
i? m
1
, 1
W ?
1 3 :
P
o
V] 41O
3
x
L•l
d] 3 .? ? y y C m y `^ C v .C Vi v

go
G
GJ
C 7
ti]
a]
C v
y o
as
C
??^
5 F i i
t
A ?S

PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan C-2 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Supporting Document C
N
0
c nl
o
C 4
o
? } Z
? C ?
I ? Rl 7 C t L '?

? W

rn
h

O d

y cn T

? 4?i

y

? Obi

y?
:e;

C

^y
y

'?

I K+ _rr,? GGrrxp rr?? ??rr
Z
O Aq 4 ti AM 4 ti Q7 o ti
VA 6 V d V
Cry M

U .,, c ? ?? ? c c ^ j o o ? V o o U ro v? V .-.
L
l t V

?
? c o Gt
?
? G G
??
? G G
N
? a o
N
? o a _
N
V
[ ?
iv ?
N` ?
N ? to
N r
v 4 ° ° v D oco u°? ,Oy ° ?°+ `d3 4 ry ?d? n
L ? °V
L ? fi
CS
I D G G ti N C
O [?Y f1 w?j O rS ? ? d ? ? h O N O
mo,
v

L ? 4 ? ? ? ? 4 ? ? Q ? ? o G r

v 23 o
? a
? c Q
±
V ? P v ? O 4] ^ ? G G
V iz° _
yj V G V G V V 6

r
cis
:? `-r'
Ir -
yG `.
^
`?'ry
?`
?^ C _
? ? 1 -er• C. ? ? V rG C _
.G r.r C. ? A ? U Q ti Q

.L. n }• ?n
.q ? r? .n ? ?n ? .. v'i
N G
rR+ o G ? ? G. ? y C C ? ? C ?
_ C 0 ^r b C
1 ?
tol 2
` .r i
C C
s
rm ° F'2 c oa '- o as '-^ o as r

0
SC:?
•? ti a C 4
..
12 C N C y C G
' o w
cp c ? ? y .o ? n ? ,o v?i cn w c w ?., ,? e ? y

PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan C-3 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Supporting Document C

ti
G
y ^.
?
O
?
y y
G
?
Ai
y?
??.
?
Cl
?
?
y
y?

S7
4 c C ? ? C
m

e
(?:? M
[7 V°
V} vti
? n
raj rn

V ti 1 ? ? r?

7 ? C t

G Q r?

cm?
e1 C r
"'1 O rq
'1 O
t J 6 D°
r?x
"1
L
O "G C 'C

? ? _ ° err _ ° ?r a a ~ "_' o "•`? o ^?'. ?i

A
' P ?. 1
z p r ti r p - ? a ? ?
\?

N W

K y

C ?'

?? 3] G?i W Z:; V7

?? V y

C "tr

bra y

? y

ce
v0
tz?
C1
M
xi
L C a L o -? L C i
.
r ? a ? 'r U 1 ? O ? ? V G1 ?? O V 7 V G1 ? ? V ? V V ? C `] :J U -ems

•?• ? L L
0. ^ V -zr
y L7 ? o
w '^? [C'tt-?'? rr.
V ^ ? .a
V ?
C:6 W o
U
mo w r a o ? ? w u ? .

pp
e c v `-' e
o c r- ?CC
? ,?
" ?.
^ N C= C C) ? 4? C V ,? ? .-. d C p ? m r d _C ? ,? cx r- cx ti v-

e

1 -Cl
Z, ?,
„

R-I G
l
1
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan C-4 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Supporting Document C
c.

C

cn
27

? N c N ? LV ° ° N o o ? c o

N tQ N

c? '? m
? c
?
\ ti
N N -
N -e- 4 m
v
a`,, [y 09 w L
i o o•ry M a`SS x ?
_

c+i ni

? ? ? ? ti r G d ? ? V• p s ti?
y O oc O ? O G ? C ?

` hS
C
`~_' ' ' hz =
?" A
® w
?• :-: !`
?r •?ari :..a -
L p n
V A.
S'?•' = _
fr C G tq o A C °
R.
tr C rn

m a q o .o a ?_ q o o ,
a J
E r
--
C+
? o :a
V •--? c
'? "~
?-? a :?
C7 - ?l U
? ?
F•?i a v
U - n1 'y.
?"
L, o c:
U ,--C c
4? 'n
CC o _ -?
U -. n c? ?°
?, •y ? Iti ni
? "r' O it
? 'C Cr' s'?` cti ?.
? Cr' ? •n 8
v
G P l ?l :?
V ti G. O V '-`3 R• ti V rh Y9 Sr .? Q A Cj L9

0
C L C r •• C
o a y
n q ? s P
n c y ,e
' a '? ?
n o `+ .a
V3
•? •O
` r
m ?
S.1 ti
? c0
O ?
m -- m
W ?
= 7 •_°
? ?
m ?
r+ u
v ? ?
? r
ui y
N „?
C O c°
.-r-' ?
9a G ?
a? y
C ?
r
1 - R ? - _
Lz:

..:
.

a

. -

J
-

,

v
-

PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan C-5 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Supporting Document C
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan C-6 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Supporting Document C

To
115NIPT Al
To
•
135 T
C1 12SMTO At

•
10SM

R0 Pt •

145MT0
0

'f 2MCCF

Cf •
MCR

i
ie
TO
Ap
?
? lg 18MCCF
!
1"F •
12MCPT

To
_ w erg,
Sb
96AAP x!- ,
8MCAP
At
•
AP 20MCAP
*MCAP
o:%
. BMCDR;
.. 3MCPT ?¢
off AP
s
?1
r
r '' Y TO Da
4MCTD ?
PROJECT BOUNDARY ?"? ?y}ygs ,
• SAMPLE LOCATION
?.
NOTES: -
-SAMPLES TAKEN BY CZR INCORPORATED, 2,3 MARCH 2008 0 1,500 3,000
-EACH SAMPLE CONSISTS OF 3(THREE) SUB-SAMPLES
Sf?' LE IN FEET
INCH DEPT -SAMPLE TAKEN WITH HAND AUGER AT AN Bf DRAFT
SYMBOL SOIL NAME SOIL-SAMPLE LOCATIONS FOR FERTILITY ANALYSIS
AP ARAPAHOE (MINERAL) HELL SWAMP
At AUGUSTA
Ds ?RRAAEGSTTN FINE SANDY LOAM PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
Me MUCKALEE (MINERAL)
Pt PORTSMOUTH (MINERAL)
Ro ROANOKE (MINERAL SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY. BFG/TW
SEABROOK LOAMY SANG
TO TOMOTLEY (MINERAL) DATE: 06/09/08 FILE: HELLSWP-SOIL-FERT-MR
TO
D HYDRIC SOILS CP#1745.59.66
® NON-HYDRIC SOILS J 4709 COLLEGE ACR O
SUITE R s
NOTE: ONLY HYDRIC SOILS ARE DESIGNATED ( WILMWOTON, NORTH CARgJNA 2!103
MINERAL OR ORGANIC 11ROORPOR?TR9 FAL 9110/392-9253
aRweRenw enmvwaR A% 910/392-H 39
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan C-7 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Supporting Document C
-2-
SITE SURVEY REPORT FORM
NC Natural Heritage Program
SITE NAME: Hell Swamp Hardwood Forest
DATES VISITED: March 26, 2007
INVESTIGATORS: Mike Schafale, Julia Berger (CZR), Lorne Laliberte CZR)
REPORT AUTHOR: Mike Schafale
OWNER: The Windley family owns the most significant portion. PCS Phosphate owns 900 acres
adjacent to the east, including part of the Scott Creek headwaters.
OWNER CONTACT: Contact through Julia Berger
COUNTY: Beaufort QUAD: Pantego
SIZE: primary 44.24 acres, secondary 26.12
HOW DETERMINED: GIS.
LOCATION: Located in far eastern Beaufort County, north of Pungo Creek, northwest of the community
of Smithtown and southwest of Pantego. It lies midway between US 264, Seed Tick Neck Road (SR
1714), NC 92, and Creek Road (SR 1715), near the headwaters of Scott Creek.
PROVINCE: Coastal Plain WATERSHED: Pungo River
GENERAL DESCRIPTION: This site is a remnant of the extensive nonriverine wetland known as Hell
Swamp. It is a patch of Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest in very good condition. The community
remnant is fairly small, but is in excellent condition.
SIGNIFICANCE OF SITE: Regional or State, depending on the fate of other comparable sites. Examples
of Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest sites continue to be lost or reduced at a rate of several per year. If
this site is not one of the few best examples in the state at present, it may be in the future.
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
ASPECT: Flat.
SLOPE: Essentially flat.
ELEVATION:
TOPOGRAPHY: Essentially flat, but with a very gentle slough oriented north-south through the middle.
The highest part of the Windley tract is the far northern end.
HYDROLOGY AND MOISTURE: Seasonally saturated in most.
GEOLOGY: Yorktown Formation - unconsolidated sediments
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan C-8 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Supporting Document C
SOIL (from USSCS soil map): Cape Fear (Fine, mixed, semiactive, thermic Typic Umbraquults)
COMMENTS ON PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION:
NATURAL COMMUNITY DESCRIPTION
Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest: Occurs near the north end of the triangular forest remnant on the
Windley tract. Most of the community is the Oak Flat Subtype, with a canopy dominated by Quercus
michauxii, Quercus pagoda, Quercus laurifolia, Liquidambar styraciflua, and Acer rubrum. Pinus taeda
and Quercus nigra are present in some parts. The understory is dominated by Ilex opaca, with Persea
palustris common in parts. Carpinus carolimana is absent. The shrub layer is patchy, with Arundinaria
tecta and Leucothoe axillaris dominating. Herbs are sparse - mainly scattered Woodwardia areolata.
The canopy is very mature in the best portion, with trees averaging 14" dbh or more and large trees
frequent. Several oaks were measured at 90 cm dbh and more. This very mature portion has a scattering
of recent canopy gaps and a scattering of old tip-up mounds, suggesting little past cutting and old-growth
or near old-growth condition. This portion is just south of the northern end of the tract. Farther south, as
well as at the north end, the forest is of successional composition, with large Pinus taeda dominating.
Another hardwood patch present farther south shows evidence of more recent logging. Canopy trees
average 10-12" dbh, but Quercus nigra is dominant and the more characteristic oaks are scarce. There are
visible skidder ruts, and the shrub and understory are less diverse.
A small area of the Oak-Gum Slough Subtype is present, in a wet swale in the middle of the forest. There
is extensive shallow standing water in this section, in contrast to the other subtype. The canopy in this
subtype is dominated by Liquidambar styraciflua, and has more Quercus laurifolia and a little Nyssa
biflora. Quercus michauxii and . pagoda are absent or scarce in this subtype. The understory and shrub
layer are sparse. Herbs are scarce, at least those that would be visible this early. Saururus cemuus was
seen in one slough.
Swamp at the head of Scott Creek: This is a community of uncertain interpretation. It occurs in a gentle
swale that connects to the head of the more obvious course of upper Scott Creek. It shows up as a
somewhat discontinuous line of hardwoods in a matrix of pine stands. The ground in this band is wetter
that the area surrounding it. There is no defined channel, and disjunct deeper pools are scattered along it.
The deepest pool has only a sparse canopy consisting of sprout clumps of Acer rubrum and Nyssa biflora,
and the water looks like it might be 2 feet deep. Julia Berger reports that the Lidar-based topography
shows this band to be a lower swale running upstream from Scott Creek, but that there appears to be a
divide just west of the deepest pool. I would guess the natural community would be Nonriverine Swamp
Forest, but it might be the Oak-Gum Slough subtype of Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest. It is an
incipient drainage, however.
OTHER NATURAL COMMUNITIES PRESENT:
Young successional area in a recent clearcut in Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest: Some Liquidambar
and Pinus saplings are establishing. The Leucothoe and Arundinaria shrub layer appears to have survived
and occurs at about the same density as in the forest. There is a fairly dense tall herb layer that includes
Saccharum sp., Andropogon sp., and Eupatorium capillifolium.
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan C-9 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Supporting Document C
ANIMAL HABITAT FACTORS
HABITAT HETEROGENEITY: Artificially high. Fields and recent clearcuts contrast with the small
forest and presumably create edge effect.
AMPHIBIAN BREEDING SITES: Abundant seasonally puddles.
DENNING SITES: Large old trees.
BIG TREES/LARGE CAVITIES: Trees up to near a meter in diameter, with buttresses even larger, are
present.
SNAGS AND LOGS: Moderate numbers, probably near natural abundance.
MAST PRODUCING SPECIES: Abundant. Oaks are dominant. Soft mast may be scarce.
NECTAR SOURCES: Leucothoe.
PRESENCE OF WATER: Abundant at this time, but may become scarce later in the season, except for
ditches.
AQUATIC HABITAT FACTORS
HYDROLOGY (order, flow rate, persistence): No real stream present in this area. The secondary area
has a faint drainage which must flow at times of high water. It has a ponded area along it which appears
to sit at the drainage divide, with slope going east and west out of it.
SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES PRESENT: Julia Berger says that the Windleys report Crotalus horridus is
present.
Listera australis (W1) is present both in the Nomiverine Wet Hardwood Forest and in the swamp.
POTENTIAL FOR OTHER SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES: Low for most. Black-throated green
warbler is a possibility.
OTHER NOTEWORTHY SPECIES OR FEATURES PRESENT:
SITE ECOSYSTEM INTEGRITY: Moderate. The community is in excellent condition, but the intact
patch is small and is subject to edge effect. It is connected to an area of mature successional pine forest,
but most of the surrounding landscape is pine plantation and fields.
AVERAGE DBH OF CANOPY TREES: 14-16" in the most mature Nomiverine Wet Hardwood Forest.
MAXIMUM DBH OF CANOPY TREES: 36"+.
DISTURBANCE-SENSITIVE SPECIES: Rattlesnakes.
FIRE REGIME: A little charring on one stump, probably caused by lightning. Forest fire is unlikely.
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan C-10 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Supporting Document C
OTHER DISTURBANCES OR IMPACTS
LOGGING: Most of the surrounding landscape has been altered by logging. The pine-dominated
successional forests presumably represent the result of past logging, long ago. The younger hardwood
forest was clearly logged several decades ago.
FARMING: A large field is adjacent.
DITCHES: Ditches border the most significant community patch on both sides. Ditches also line both
sides of the timber road that runs up into the Windley tract from the south.
ROADS: One well-built timber road on the Windley tract.
ALTERED FLOOD REGIME: Altered by ditches and regional drainage to some degree. It is difficult to
tell how much.
EXOTIC/WEEDY SPECIES: None noted in the intact communities. Weedy species are common in the
more disturbed areas. No serious invasive species were seen.
UNDERSTORY CLEARING: No.
DIRECT HUMAN INTRUSION: Some hunting occurs. Deer stands are present.
LANDSCAPE FACTORS
BOUNDARY INTEGRITY/SHAPE: The natural part of the site is small and subject to edge effect.
ADJACENT LAND USE/OFFSITE STRESSES: A cultivated field bordering the site on the east side is
planned for restoration. A young pine plantation borders on the west side. Older successional pine stands
border to the south and north, and a recent clearcut is nearby.
RELATION/CONNECTION TO OTHER SITES:
DEGREE OF THREAT/POTENTIAL FOR CHANGE:
BOUNDARY JUSTIFICATION: The primary boundary encompasses the remaining intact Nonriverine
Wet Hardwood Forest. It is marked by fields, young pine plantation, and old loblolly pine stands. The
boundary with the older pine is somewhat indistinct.
A secondary boundary is drawn to encompass the drainage system north of the primary area, with its
distinctive ponded area. This area is of scientific interest but is not in good enough condition to be
considered primary area. A connection of this drainage to the primary area is also included in the
secondary boundary.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROTECTION: This site would be worthy of acquisition for
conservation, or protection by conservation easement.
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan C-11 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Supporting Document C
MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS: No specific management needs are known. The site is
presumably affected by drainage in the adjacent fields, as well as by edge effect. Study of these effects or
measures to mitigate them would be appropriate. Restoration of the adjacent field for wetland mitigation
is being considered.
NEED FOR FURTHER STUDY: Low.
PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED
Thoroughness of list: Moderate (mostly winter aspect)
W = Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest
S = swamp at head of Scott Creek
c = recently clearcut area
canopy
Acer rubrum W, S c
Liquidambar styraciflua W c
Lin odendron tulipifera W c
Nyssa biflora W, S c
Pinus taeda W c
Quercus falcata (W) c
Quercus laurifolia W c
Quercus michauxii W c
Quercus nigra W c
Quercus pagoda W c
understory
Acer rubrum W u
CyriIla racemiflora W u
Ilex opaca W u
Magnolia virginiana W u
Persea palustris W u
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan C-12 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Supporting Document C
shrub layer
Arundinaria tecta W, c s
Clethra alnifolia c s
Leucothoe axillaris W, c s
Symplocos tinctoria W s
Vaccinium formosum? W s
vines
Berchemia scandens W v
Smilax (rotundifolia?) W v
herb layer
Andropogon glomeratus c h
Andropogon sp. c h
Carex spp (at least 4 spp.) W h
Chasmanthium laxum W h
Eupatorium capillifolium c h
Listera australis W, S h
Mitchella repens W h
Rhexia alifanus c h
Saccharum sp. c h
Saururus cenmus W h
Sphagnum spp. W h
Thelypteris palustris? W h
Woodwardia areolata W h
ANIMAL SPECIES OBSERVED
Thoroughness of list: Casual
White-tail deer (numerous tracks)
Black bear (likely claw marks on tree)
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan C-13 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Supporting Document C
Wild turkey
Pileated woodpecker
Common crow
Carolina chickadee
Tufted titmouse
Pine warbler
Yellow-throated warbler
Crayfish
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan C-14 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Supporting Document C
-3-
1 ILK, 51, G(1 l41e!41)t/
"T°` United States Department of the Interior
Q F R,
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
a P°s[ Office B01,'337)6
qq R.alch-h.. Nvith ['arolina 27636-:726
October 18, 2047
Julia Berger
CGR Incorporated 2=
4709 College Acres Drive, Suite 2
Wilmington, NC 28403-1725
Hi Julia,
Thank you for your October 2, 2007 letter regarding the Bay City Farm and Hell Swamp
Mitigation Sites in Beaufort County. I compared your site maps with our N.C. Natural Heritage
Program (NCNHP) data and, to the best of my knowledge, no federal or state listed species have
been observed on or near these properties. I would, however, encourage you to conduct sun=eys
on these properties for the federally threatened sensitive jointvctch (Aescltyttotttette ),irgittic.a).
There are several historic records for this species in Beaufort and Hyde counties. While sensitive
joinnvetch is typically found in brackish marshes around the Chesapeake Bay, many of the N.C.
populations were found in moist roadside ditches and along the edges of farm fields. Based on
the aerial photography that you provided, it looks like your sites might have this type of suitable
habitat.
Given the limited work that I've done with this species, it seems to be late to genrrinate so I
wouldn't do surveys before late July, however, you should be able to conduct surveys through
the first hard frost. After looking at a bunch of Aeschynotnene specimens in herbaria and the
field, I believe that there is considerable overlap in some of the key characteristics, especially
leaflet size and flower color. The best character that I've been able to use to distinguish A.
virginica frorn A. indira i5 stipc length. The stipes of mature fntits on A. vitginica tend to be
greater than 10 in in and for 1. indica, less than 10 mm.
Good luck with your surveys and please let us know what you find, In August of this year,
Misty Franklin and I revisited most of the NCNHP sites for sensitive jointvctch and we didn't
find any plants at any of the historic locations. We would be happy to work with you and PCS
Phosphate to protect any sensitivejointvetch that you may find while allowing you to meet your
wetland mitigation goals.
Please contact me at [phone] extension 18 or Date Suiter60ws.eov if you have any
questions regarding sensitive jointvctch.
CC? tae??('?trrzss
WeA,
Regards
a Date niter
Endangered Species Biologist
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan C-15 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Supporting Document C
-4-
1-A1rJ'7b('
AMAN
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
November 7, 2007
Julia Kirkland Berger
CZR Incorporated
4709 College Acres Drive, Suite 2
Wilmington, NC 28403-1725
Dear Ms. Berger:
I have checked the Natural Heritage Program records for the Bay City Farm and Hell Swamp
mitigation sites- We have no records of any rare species from these specific sites. The red wotf
(Canis rujus) is a wide-ranging animal that occurs in Beaufort County, and could potentially use
the sites. The pygmy rattlesnake (Sistrurus miliaris) is known within a couple of miles of the
Hell Swamp site and could also potentia]ly he present there. In addition, a remnant of the very
rare Nonrivcrinc Wet Hardwood Forest community tyrpe is present in the Hell Swamp area, and is
a significant feature ofthat site-
Sincerely,
Michael P. Schafale
Natural Heritage Program
p ?C?I_StJC]i?
NOV 12 2007
CZR hcorpoea.2d
Wil-anotan, NC,
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.enr.state-nc.uslENR
An Equal Opporlumly i AiGrmadve AcUm Employer - 50% RecydM l 10% Pas[ Consumer Paper
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan C-16 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Supporting Document C
-5-
I??ff
&
UMN-,
Atichad F G ilcy, G---
Icrtxcyi. C-' apury ti-rc y
November 1, 2007
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State flisioric Preservasion Office
I'?nr 13. tionellx-i k, .;lcla:inisfrneor
t If- rr!'A0,-,.rod IIixlr,
D wiston nC Hie wA,.1 aesw-
David Bmok, Di ror
Julia Kirkland Berger
C%R Incorporated
2151 Alternate AlA South
Suite 2000
Jupiter, PL 33477-3902
Rc; Mitigation Site, Hell Swamp Wrdand Restoration, West of Belhaven, Beaufort County, ER 07-2167
Dear Nis. Berger:
Thank you for your letter of October 2, 2007, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the proposed undertaking and are awarc of no historic resources [hat would be
affected by the project, Therefore, wv have no continent on the undertaking as proposed,
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preseivation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFTC
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
co3uact Renee Gledlull-Farley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
p. sp
Peter Sandbeck {
r, i7I cu'ocrzi
L-u ! 109 Egin J.- Sian, R.Ido NC: 27601 Muting Add- 4617 Mali Scvv C-M,, R.,%Th NC 27699A417 Te1cph-1F-: (11 r4 807-657GiW7-&,%"
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan C-17 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Supporting Document C

USDA United States Farm
_ Department of Service
Agriculture Agency
July 9, 2008
Mr. Curtis H. Brown
Land Supervisor
PCS Phosphate Company Inc
Post Office Box 425
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Dear Mr. Brown:
With assistance from NI
researched the "PC" (prior convel
3726, 3728 and 40674. We have
"PC"•
For tract 40674, we can not verify a
this property had been cleared after 1985.
however, there are a few isolated wetlands
the Beaufort Soil & Water Office. Also, trac
records.
155 B Airport Road
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Tel: [phone], Extension 2
Fax: [phone]
V\X
Conservationist Rodney Woolard, I have
I determinations on FSA tract numbers 1002,
tracts 1002, 3726 and 3728 are determined
C" determination. Mr. Woolard stated that
fe majority of the property is non-wetland;
(sent. Further documentation is available at
1674 is no longer a valid tract number in FSA
If we can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact us.
Regards,
J nie E. Setser
County Executive Director
A-W
The US DEpadment of Agncullure (USDAI prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activitas on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and
where applicalo!e, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual onentau'on, genetic inlamration, pelifical beliefs, reprisal, or because all or
part of an individual's income is derived form any public assistance pprogram. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who
require allemalive means (or communication or program into ma on {Braille, large print audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720.
2500 (voice & TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S. W., Washington, DC
20250-9410, orcall [phone] (voice) or (202) 7205382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan C-18 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Supporting Document C
-7-
Julia Berger
From: Sam Cooper [[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 1:12 PM
To: [e-mail]; 'Julia Berger'; 'Jim Hudgens'; Norton Webster
Cc: 'Steve Trowel['; Jones, Scott SAW; Kyle Barnes
Subject: CAMA AEC jurisdictional areas - Scott Creek
All,
l talked with Steve Trowell (Washington County rep for Division of Coastal Management) yesterday regarding CAMA AEC
jurisdictional areas associated with Scott Creek, Beaufort County. He and Terry Moore visited the site on 16 May 2007
and determined that public trust areas extend upstream to the 1s' road/culvert crossing north of NC 92199. This is the
main farm road crossing of Scott Creek in the McMullan Tract. He also said they would claim some coastal marsh north
of NC 92/99. AEC shoreline would conform to a 30-foot offset of public trust areas, since this is an "inland" creek.
Samuel Cooper
CZR Incorporated
4709 College Acres Dr., Suite #2
Wilmington, NC 28403
910 392-9253 - phone
910 392-9139 - fax
[e-mail]
cp# 1745.59.66
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG -www.ayq.com
Version: 8.0.233 / Virus Database: 270.10.14/1918 - Release Date: 01/27/09 07:26:00
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan C-19 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Supporting Document C
SUPPORTING DOCUMENT D
HELL SWAMP SITE EXISTING CONDITION STREAM CROSS SECTIONS

Feature Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width BKF
De th Max BKF
De th
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Drainage
Ditch
F
10.1
11.72
0.8E
1.18
13.58
2.7
1.2
-0.7
1.34
Cross-section 1- Scott Creek
4
3
V 2
r-
0
0
m
w
2
3
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Station (ft) -0... Bankfull ...0- - • Floodprone

Feature Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width BKF
De th Max BKF
De th
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Drainage
Ditch
F
12
24.13
0.5
0.99
48.44
2.8
1.2
-1.3
0.5
Cross-section 2 - Scott Creek
4-
3-
2-
c 1
0
0
m
w -1
-2
-3-
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Station (ft) .••o•••Bankfull •.-v--•Floodprone
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan D-1 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Supporting Document D

Feature Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width BKF
De th Max BKF
De th
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Drainage
Ditch
F
13.1
23.5
0.56
1.12
42.07
2.4
1.3
-0.9
0.71
Cross-section 3 - Scott Creek
4
3
$ 2
0
ro a ••-
W -1
-2
-3-
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Station (ft) • • •o• • • Bankfull • • •0... Floodprone
Stream BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area BKF Width De th De th W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Drainage
Ditch F 1.9 6.64 0.28 0.52 23.46 2 1.5 -0.28 0.26
Cross-section 1- UT4
2.5-
2
$ 1.5
=
0 1
z
0.5
w o
-0.5
-1
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Station (ft) • • •?• • • Bankfu II • • -o• • • Floodprone
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan D-2 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Supporting Document D
SUPPORTING DOCUMENT E
HELL SWAMP SITE WORK PLANS
Technical Memorandum
Project: Hell Swamp Restoration Site Prepared By: Baker Engineering
Subject: Narrative Regarding Construction Prepared For: PCS Phosphate
Techniques for Scott Creek Channel
Date: March 11, 2009
The purpose of this document is to provide additional information regarding the construction techniques
to be used in the restoration of the Hell Swamp site, specifically, the approach to filling and restoring
the Scott Creek canal. The overall intent of the restoration plan for the entire site is to restore the
drainage features as closely as possible to their condition prior to drainage and channelization for
agriculture. Therefore, all drainage ditches and canals within the restoration area, including the Scott
Creek canal, will be completely filled and the surrounding topography restored to pre-disturbance
elevations.
A longitudinal profile for the entire Scott Creek system is included in Figure 1, and provides a
comparison between the existing depth and elevation of the canal versus the proposed restoration
design. The example cross-sections that follow in this text are referenced in terms of the longitudinal
profile stationing shown in Figure 1.
At the upstream extent of the Scott Creek restoration, the design has been developed to restore the
functions of a small, braided headwater stream and wetland system. This will be accomplished by
filling the existing ditches and grading the valley bottoms such that flows will be diffuse, spreading
across the restored wetland floodplain (Figure 2). This approach will be used from longitudinal station
10+00 through 43+00, as indicated on the design plan sheets for the site.
Beginning at station 43+00 and continuing through station 55+70, the restoration design for Scott Creek
will involve the construction of a single-thread, meandering sand bed channel. This design approach is
based on analysis of erosive forces and sediment transport, as more thoroughly described in the
Mitigation Plan document for the site. Starting at station 43+00, the channel excavation will begin at a
shallow depth (0.2 - 0.3 feet) and gradually increase to a maximum depth of 1.0 - 1.5 feet for the
middle portions of the reach (Figure 3). Likewise, at the downstream end of the reach, the restored
channel depths will gradually decrease until reaching station 55+70 where the restored channel will lose
definition and will flow back into a braided, meandering stream system across the restored floodplain.
A slope of approximately 30:1 will be used at both ends of the single-thread section to gradually
connect the braided stream sections with the meandering, single-thread channel.
Page 1 of 6
'
0
o
0)
a O C -
_ 1
----- -----
t6
Lb O
0 ?r
O
Q
O N

° O Y O
u'S a` m
1 w U Of
I
0
I t 0
I 0
H

V

? o
0
f ?

H ?

Y ?
-------c- ----
_ -

U ? r

(DO

a _
r H o
0
--- -----;? N 8 IS 7
.

U) Of U C

C -
?z

-r r?

?
l
r?
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
_----
- o

i
f
o
1

'- 00
O co co V N O
(};) UOIIBA813 N V CO
x.
?i

CC
i¦
i.
O
CC '?
?. V
V r"i
O i.
? O
?i
O ?
? O
bA ran
Page 2 of 6
Cross-section 34+00
Headwaters Section
6-

5 --------------
4 - - - - - - -

'
?
0 3
a I I
,
R
i
a I
w
2
? I
1 - - - - - Existing Ground
Proposed Design
0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Station (ft)
Figure 2. Example cross-section from the headwaters section (10+00 through 43+00) of
Scott Creek (looking downstream).
Cross-section 49+50
Single Thread Section of Scott Creek
3
5
.
3
2.5
2
c 1.5 '

o '
y
1 I

I
'

W
0.5

0 1 ,
I ,
' - - - Existing Ground
-0.5 Proposed Design
1
-
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Station (ft)
Figure 3. Example cross-section from the single-thread section (43+00 through 55+70) of
Scott Creek (looking downstream).
Page 3 of 6
From station 55+70 through station 62+00, the restoration approach will be similar to that used for the
headwaters section. The existing Scott Creek canal will be completely filled and the valley bottom
graded to approximate pre-disturbance contours and elevations (Figure 4). This design approach was
chosen due to the very low slope of the valley along this section that is more typical of braided stream
and wetland systems. Along this reach, the low point of the restored valley will be located near the
existing location of the Scott Creek canal. The restored valley bottom will be approximately 2.5 to 3.0
feet higher than the existing canal bottom, and will allow flows to transition to braided floodplain flow
prior to entering the wooded historic floodplain downstream (adjacent to the area of CAMA
jurisdiction).
Cross-section 56+50
Braided Section of Scott Creek, Upstream of CAMA Jurisdiction
3
2.5

1.5 --•-•.---•
•-
1 -
o
} 0.5 '
,

0 '
w
-0.5 ,
-1 '
' - - - Existing Ground
-1.5 - - - - Proposed Design
2
-
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Station (ft)
Figure 4. Example cross-section from the braided section (55+70 through 62+00) of Scott
Creek, directly upstream of CAMA jurisdiction (looking downstream).
Beginning at approximate station 62+00 and continuing to station 88+00, the natural fall of the valley
lies to the south of the existing Scott Creek canal. As shown clearly in historic aerial photographs, the
Scott Creek canal along this reach was excavated sometime between 1964 and 1970. The canal was
excavated along the northern edge of the stream/wetland system and not along the topographic low
point of the valley, most likely due to extremely wet conditions in the center of the system. As a result,
much of the historic floodplain to the south of the canal is too wet for agricultural uses and has been left
wooded.
Beginning at station 64+80, an access lane through the trees follows along the northern side of the
existing Scott Creek channel. The lane has been used over the years to keep the canal clear of
blockages. This lane will be used during restoration to fill this section of the Scott Creek to pre-
disturbance contours. Spoil piles that were created during excavation of the canal will be deposited back
Page 4 of 6
into the canal as fill material. Once filled, water flow along the restored Scott Creek will follow the
topographic low point of the valley through the wooded area to the south (Figure 5). The flow will
follow a braided pattern through the floodplain as the system would have functioned prior to
disturbance.
Cross-section 63+50
Restored Floodplain Connection Near Upper Limits of CAMA Jurisdiction
2
1 ,
0 '
y
`F
-1
'
o_ ,
a.2 -2 ? North South
w ,
-3 ,
-4 Existing Ground
Proposed Design
5
-
0 50 100 150 200 250
Station (ft)
Figure 5. Example cross-section from the historic floodplain section (62+00 through
88+00) of Scott Creek, where flow will be directed onto the relic floodplain of Scott Creek
along its historic flow path (looking downstream).
Beginning at approximate station 92+30, the restored Scott Creek system must transition back to the
channelized canal at the downstream limit of the project. In this area, water surface elevations are
under tidal influence and due to ground elevations near 0. 0, the area is most often under backwater
effect. Beginning at station 92+30, fill of the canal will be tapered down at a 10:1 slope until reaching
the existing bottom elevation of the canal (Figure 6). This fill slope will be completely submerged
under normal water conditions; therefore excessive scour or erosion of the fill material is not expected.
Page 5 of 6
Profile Through Channel Fill at End of Scott Creek Restoration
2
1
0
? -1
0
ca
d -2
w
-3
-4
-5
9210 9220 9230 9240 9250 9260 9270 9280 9290 9300 9310
Station (ft)
Figure 6. Profile through channel fill at the end of the Scott Creek restoration reach.
Tributarv Connections
Six smaller tributaries will flow into the restored Scott Creek system along its length (Figure 1). The
restoration approaches for these tributaries will be comparable to the design approach described for the
headwater sections of Scott Creek (station 10+00 to 43+00). The design approach will restore the
functions of small, braided headwater stream and wetland systems. This will be accomplished by
filling the existing ditches and grading the valley bottoms such that flows will be diffuse, spreading
across the restored wetland floodplain. The downstream grades of the tributary valleys will match those
of the restored Scott Creek floodplain, such that tributary flows enter the system without causing scour
or erosion.
Page 6 of 6
SUPPORTING DOCUMENT F
HELL SWAMP HYDROLOGIC MODEL ANALYSIS SUMMARY
Hydrologic Model Analysis
Wetland hydrology is one of three determinant factors in the attainment of restored
wetlands. The Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Wetlands Research Program
Technical Report Y-87-1) provides the minimum criteria that all types of wetlands possess. This
minimum definition is that wetland hydrology exists if, during the growing season, the water
table is normally within 1 foot of the soil surface for a continuous period of 5 to 12.5 percent of
the growing season. The growing season is accepted to mean the period of time between the
average last day in the calendar year having an air temperature of 28° Fahrenheit in the spring
and the first day having an air temperature of 28° Fahrenheit in the fall. Since the water table is
typically rainfall dependant, and rainfall and temperature vary by location, the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) has published data that lists the average rainfall and the growing
season for a given region. This data, also known as the WETS data, shows the Aurora weather
station in Beaufort County has a growing season of 282 days and a normal rainfall of 50 inches.
DRAMMOD is a computer program that can be used to predict the water table depth on
a day-to-day basis over several years, thus allowing the model to predict hydrology for dry,
average and wet years. The program was written by Dr. Wayne Skaggs in 1978 at the North
Carolina State University and has been found to be reliable on a wide range of crops, trees, soils
and climatological conditions. The program is recognized by the NRCS and is used by their staff
for work in predicting the water table elevations in drained and undrained soils. Data needed for
the model includes hourly rainfall amounts and temperatures, soil properties including lateral
permeabilities, site drainage geometry, and crop type. A minimum of 20 years of rainfall and
temperature data should be used to capture dry, average and wet years.
Key parameters for each condition (existing, post construction riparian, and post
construction non-riparian) were used in the modeling. The key pre-restoration parameters for
modeling the existing system are: ditch spacing 200 feet, ditch depth 2 feet, surface storage 0.5
inch and average rooting depths representing typical crops.
For post restoration modeling, two types of wetlands were modeled: riparian and non-
riparian. Modeling for the post restoration, non-riparian areas are for those areas of the site that
are at least 200 feet from the stream or headwater valley invert which, from this distance, would
leave this location with no detectable drainage. The following parameters were used to represent
the non-riparian portion of the site: ditch spacing 400 feet with a ditch depth of 2 inches, surface
storage representative of the restored site was set at approximately 1.2 inches, and average
rooting depths typical of a forested condition.
Modeling for the riparian sections of the site represents those areas of the site that are
adjacent to the proposed headwater valleys. Valley width for this type of system can vary
between 100 and 200 feet. An average distance of 150 feet was used for the ditch spacing in the
model. The model will predict the water table depth at the midpoint between the 150 foot ditch
spacing; 75 feet. A ditch depth of 4 inches was used for the valley invert and a surface
roughness of 1.8 inches was used for the surface storage.
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan F-1 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Supporting Document A
Thirty-seven (37) years of data from the Belhaven weather station were used in the
model. Data from adjacent stations was used to supplement missing records of hourly
temperature or rainfall in the Belhaven set.
One indicator of the hydrology present is the longest number of consecutive days that the
water table is within the range of the wetland criteria. The table below shows the longest number
of consecutive days for the riparian and the non-riparian wetlands. In the time period modeled,
the riparian areas calculate to be wetter in 25 of 36 years, while the non-riparian areas are wetter
in 2 out of 36 years.
160

N
° 140
p t7
R
° 120
L ?+
d
M 100
zo
d ?a
80

S-0
V i N
y
60
c

o
V
m
ayi ? 40

o
0
•- 20
J y
d
0

r- r- r- r- r- 00 00 00 00 00 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) O O O O
0) ? ? (2 ? ? ? ? 2 ? ? ? ? O O O O
Model Year
'Does not include overbank flooding or wind tides
While these scenarios were modeled to represent average conditions across the restored
wetland site, it is important to note that the model predicts conditions at a specific location and
that the hydrology across the sit e is expected to be variable, based on topography, soils, and
varying water inputs. It is also important to note that DRAINMOD does not account for
overbank flooding events or wind tides and, therefore, model simulations for floodplains may be
conservative (i.e., actual conditions will likely be wetter than predicted). The modeled scenarios
provide a basis for estimating the average hydrologic condition over the restored site; however it
is important to note that the hydrology of the targeted restored wetland system (Coastal Plain
small stream swamp) is highly variable across a given site, supporting the ecological and
functional diversity that makes these systems valuable. Areas of the restored site that are drier
than the conditions predicted but still exhibit jurisdictional wetland hydrology should be
considered successful and part of a diverse wetland community.
¦ Riparian ?Non-riparian

O N (O 0 0 V (O O
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan F-2 Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
Supporting Document A
ATTACHMENT E
Consultant Authorization Forms
A??
...?._.
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor James H. Gregson, Director William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Date 24 April 2009
Name of Property Owner Applying for Permit:
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Mailing Address:
1530 NC Highway 306 South
Aurora, NC 27806
I certify that I have authorized (agent) w CZR Incorporated to act on my
behalf, for the purpose of applying for and obtaining all CAMA Permits necessary to
install or construct (activity) stream and wetland restoration
at (my property located at) Hell Swamp Restoration Site, SR174, Pantego Township,
Beaufort Couty.
This certification is valid thru (date) 31 December 2009

Property Owner Signature Vef f r6y C. Furness Date
400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone] I FAX; 252-247-33301 Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer -50% Recycled 110% Post Consumer Paper
ATTACHMENT F
Wetland Delineation Summary
1. Areas of coastal marsh AEC and coastal shoreline AEC were added subsequent to
submittal of this package to Corps. These AECs are depicted on Figure 2 of this
application.
2. The parcel boundary has changed since the JD. The current boundary is depicted
on Figure 2 of this application.
3. Original JD double counted a 193-foot stream segment (total 26,602 linear feet as
shown in JD package figures). Accurate linear feet of jurisdictional stream on Hell
Swamp total 26,409.
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
.. .... .
Action Id. SAW-2008.02014 County: Beaufort U.S.G.S. Quad: Pantego
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERM

Property Owner/Agent:
PCS Phosphate, lneo coated {_v? _
- --
Address: c/o Mr. Jeff Furness
1530 North Carolina I1iglri ;tv 306 South
!
?U l 2008
Aurora North Carolina 27806
Telephone No.: [phone]_

Property description: CZR incoroora:ad
Witn,lnot. ri, NC
Size (acres) 1,266 acres Nearest Town Belhaven
Nearest Waterway Scott Creels River Basin Tar-Pamlico
USGS IIUC 03020104 Coordinates N 35131.'20" W 76°40'49"
Location description An approximate 1.266 acre site located west of the Seed Tick Neck Road and North Carolina
IIi yltwav 99 intersection adiacent to Scott and Smith Creeks south of the Town of Belhaven in Beaufort Countv. North
Carolina.
Indicate Which of the Followin14 Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
Based on preliminary infonnation, there may be wetlands oil the above described property. We strongly suggest you have
this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Army (DA) jurisdiction. To be considered final, a
jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action
raider the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33 CFR Part 331).
B. Approved Determination
X There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law or
our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
X There are wetlands on the above described property subject to the permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (CWA) (33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the late or our published regulations, this determination may be
relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
We strongly suggest you have the wetlands on your property delineated. Due to the size of your property and/or our
present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner. For a more timely
delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any delineation must be ved fled by the Corps.
X The wetland on your property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by the Corps. We strongly
suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed and verified by the Corps.
Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA jurisdiction on your property
which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied upon for a period not to exceed
five years,
_ The wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the Corps
Regulatory Official identified below on . Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from (lie date of this notification.
_ There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands. present on the above described property which are subject to the
pennit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
Page 1 of 2
Action Id. SAW-2008-02011
.........
X The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Washington, NC, at [phone] to detennine
their requireme tits.
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). If you have any questions regarding this
determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Scott Jones at [phone], extension 27.
C. Basis For Determination
This site exhibits Nvetland criteria as described in the 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual and is art of a broad
continuum of wetlands connected to Scott and Smith Creeks, tributaries of the Pamlico River. Waterbodies exhibit an
Ordinarv High Water Marl: as indicated by than es in soil character and absence of terrestrial ve etation and are
livda•olo ically connected to the Pamlico River.
D. Remarks
Previous lurisdietionaI determination revised and re-issued for 287-acre portion of this tract on 7/28/2001 to a previous
property owner, 1 I r. J. G. Smith. Jr. Action 1D 2001101.29 .
E. Appeals Informations (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in
B. above)
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site. If you object to this
determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR part 331. Enclosed you will find a
Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this
determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division
Attn: Scott Jones, Project Manager,
Washington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Cotes must determine that it is complete, that it ineets the criteria for
appeal under 33 CFR part 331.5. and that it has been received by the District Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP.
Should you decide to submit an RFA forni, it must be received at the above address by September 29, 2008.
"It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the District Office if you do not object to the determination in this
correspondence,**
Corps ?
Regulatory Official:
Date 0 712 912 0 0 8
Expiration Date 07/29/2013
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we continue to
do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at our website at litt ://reaulatorv.usacesurve .coni/ to
complete the survey online.
Copy furnished:
Sam Cooper, CZR Incorporated
4709 College Acres Drive
Suite 2
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403-1725
Page 2 of 2

Nn
O0
C+
LE
HELL SWAMP
X_ x DrrCH EFFECT (2.69 ACRES)
C {N ] CORPS 2004 SD (32.63 ACRES)
2007/2008 JURISDICTIONAL WFTLAND (6057 ACRES)
- - - - COE AND DWO WATERS (18,305 LF)
SCOTT CREEK (5,917 LF)
• • • • • DV4Q STREAM AND WATERS (2,302 LF)
X COE UPPER LIMIT STREAM
Q COE UPPER LIMIT US WATERS
0 1,200 2,400
SCALE IN FEET
DRAFT
ACREAGES AND LINEAR FOOTAGE
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS, WATERS, AND STREAMS
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROV
0 DWQUPPER LIMITSTREAM DATE: 06 25 O8
DWO UPPER LIMIT US WATERS
DCM UPPER LIMITS (PUBLIC TRUST AREAS) 4709 COUEGE
M'rt.uiNVON, WrH CA
INCOII?GRAT EO TEL 9
?y FAX 0
DRAWN BY: TLJ
FILE: NWSW -AC-LF-auRrs
rffT-urr
CP# 1745.59,66
FIGURE 2B
140TIFICATTON OF ADNIINISTR,-TIVE APPEAIOPTIONS AND PROCTSS ANI:)
R'EQL EST FOR APPIT At
Applicant: PCS Phosphate, Inc. File Number: SAW-2008-02011 Date: 7/29/2008
Attached is:D See Section below
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of
permission) A
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) B
PERMIT DENIAL C
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E
SECTION I The followi g idCntifcs ?t?ttt'flghts and oplions regai-dlii;- an administi t#itie appeal of the abo-vc
decision. Additionat information may be I'OLlid at l?itl?..'?t ?ti ?y.u5<tee.ainly.milt'inet.`fttncti??n5 ctitiiocc?v? t?'g oi-
Corps ireg-uht'tions at 3 ; CFR Part-",")],
_
..
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or ct ? -- - -
object to the permit.
e ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
e OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request that the
permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district engineer. Your
objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal
the permit in the fi€ture. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the
pen-nit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify the permit
having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the district engineer
will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: if you received a Standard .Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Penmission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Pennit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its tenu and conditions; and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you
may appeal the declined pennit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form
and sending the fonn to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of
this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a pennit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section II of this form and sending the fonn to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer
within 60 days of the date of this notice. 4
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or
provide new information.
ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify [lie Corps within 60 days of the date of
this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by completing Section IT of this fonn and sending the forni to the district engineer. This form must be received by
the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps
regarding the preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not ap{sealable If you wish you may request an approved
JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new
information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD.
SECTION 11 - REQ(-i Sl FORAllPEA1_, or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PP,,0FFERFD PCRN41T'
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your
objections to an initial proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to
this forrn to clarify where your reasons or objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps
memorandum for the record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the
review officer has determined is needed to clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps
may add new information or analyses to the record. However, you may provide additional information to clarify
the location of information that is already in the administrative record.
POTNT OF CONTACT FOR QIJESTIONIS OR T? FORMATTON:

If you have questions regarding this decision _
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you
and/or the appeal process you may contact: may also contact:
Mr. Scott Jones, Project Manager Mr. Mike Bell, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
CESAW-RG-W CESAD-ET-CO-R
Post Office Box 1000 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
Washington, North Carolina 27889 60 Forsyth Street, Room 9MI5
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any
government consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You
will be provided a 15 day notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site
investigations.
Date: Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits and approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this
form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn: Scott Jones, Project Manager,
Washington Regulatory Field Office, Post Office Box 1000, Washington, North Carolina 27889
For Permit denials and Proffered Permits send this form to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Mike Bell,
Administrative Appeal Officer, CESAD-ET-CO-R, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 9MI5, Atlanta,
Georgia 30303-8801
Corps Submittal Cover Sheet
27 June 2008
1. Project name: Hell Swamp
2. Property owner/Applicant: PCS Phosphate, Jeff Furness
[phone]
3. Consultant: CZR Incorporated
4. Site address: Seed Tick Neck Rd and Pungo Creek Rd
5. Easting: 2690065 Northing: 652204.9
6. Lat/Long: 35.31.20N 76.40.49W
7. Quadrangle: Pantego
8. Nearest named water body to which the site is hydrologically
connected: Scott Creek and Smith Creek
9. Drainage basin: Tar-Pamlico (HUG 03020104)
10. Requested Action: Jurisdictional Determination

A_

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
Mr. Scott Jones
Corps of Engineers,
P. O. Box 1000
Washington Field Office
Washington, NC 27889
4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SUITE 2
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1725
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
czrwllm@czr-inc,com
27 June 2008
RE: Request for Corps jurisdictional determination of Section 404 wetlands and
other waters on the Windley, McMullan, Smith, Woolard, and Gaylord tracts at
the PCS Phosphate Hell Swamp Mitigation Site, Beaufort County, NC.
Dear Scott,
Enclosed you will find supporting documents for a jurisdictional determination on
the above-mentioned properties. PCS Phosphate owns all tracts (totaling 1,266
acres) except for the approximately 30-acre Windley tract, which they have an
option to buy. CZR biologists have completed a wetland delineation of all tracts
and would like your approval. Included with this letter are routine wetland
delineation forms, Rapanos forms, stream forms and a map of the site depicting
the wetland boundaries that have been flagged, as well as all waters of the US,
and their upper limits if applicable, that are being claimed by the Corps. For your
reference also included are topographic, soils, and LIDAR maps of the area.
You visited the site 29 January 2007 to confirm Section 404 jurisdictional areas
around Scott Creek. After that visit PCS added additional tracts of land which
had more wetland areas near Scott Creek and a small section near Smith Creek.
Those areas were delineated by CZR and confirmed by you, except for a few
areas, 8 May 2008. Additional waters of the US were also identified at that time.
The additional wetland boundaries were adjusted according to your direction and
upper limits of waters of the US were flagged, You confirmed the alterations 21
May 2008 as well as evaluated the Windley tract. A small section in the northern
corner of the Windley tract was identified and later flagged as upland. There is
also a narrow ditch effect along the eastern border of this tract from a 3-foot deep
ditch in Cape Fear soil. Based on NRCS's Scope and Effect guidance which
takes into account soil type and ditch dimension, and our onsite inspection with
you, we propose an 85-foot non-jurisdictional area in the Windley tract parallel
with the ditch, representing drained wetland.
2151 Alternate AlA South • SUITE 2000 • JUPITER, FLORIDA 33477-3902
TEL [phone] • FAX [phone] - [e-mail] • www,CZRINC.com
Mr. Scott Jones
27-Jun-08
1745.59.66
We are requesting Corps approval of the jurisdictional features on these tracts of
land as identified on the attached figures 2A and 2B.
Sincerely,
CZR INCORPORATED
'J' ". ?'
Lorrie Laliberte
Biologist, CZR Incorporated
Cc: Sam Cooper, Julia Berger, Jim Hudgens-CZR Incorporated
Jeff Furness, PCS Phosphate
Enclosures:
6 figures: topo, Section 404 Jurisdictional Features (two parts), aerial, soil,
LIDAR
Routine wetland determination forms
Corps stream forms (4 pages)
Rapanos JD forms (8 pages)
X"
1 F.r P.nu'
1 .'? Rii t1AD s _
f
!1 1
• rl
R9•. 264 SERA TICK NFGK ROAD x
l
as RT. 49
HELL SWAMP-
?C> ?[ Row r SCOTT CREEX
z . ,
:+ 7 Ii I
r.
- IIYti 1
A
- ILA¢1 i - -'I
0 5,000 10,000
NORTH CAROLINA 1
SCALE IN FEET
SITE LOCATION HELL SWAMP VICINITY MAP
HELL SWAMP-SCOTT CREEK
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
SCALE: AS SHOWN APPRO BY: DRAWN BY: BFG
DATE: 4/2.3/08 FILE: HELLSWAMP-LOC-FEES
CP#174559.66
ZR 4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
D R A F T S IITE 2
WILNMGT6N, NORM CARQLENA 2H403
O.C.-PORATED TEL [phone] FIGURE 1
d.mww.wra? Cn ULT_ FAY 910/392-9139

W x

A
a'
-'1 4
? f
A
I
r

.i -
. Qv

f •i
.j .
w •
LEGEND
HELL SWAMP 1,$00 3,000
X ?( DITCH EFFECT (2.69 ACRES) ii?
..-?
W
CORPS 2[]04 JD (32.63 ACRES) SCALE IN FEET
O R A F T
20 07 121108 JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND (60.57 ACRES)
-? -- --- COEAND DWQ WATERS {18,303LF) JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS, WATERS, AND STREAMS
917LE) ON HELL SWAMP MITIGATION SITE
SCOT GREEK (5
,
DWQSTREAMANDWATERS (2,392LF} PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
COE UPPER LIMIT STREAM
SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROY BY: DRAWN BY: TLJ
COE UPPER LIMIT US WATERS
DATE. 06/27/08
FILE: EL %i"URISD-
DWQ UPPER LIMIT STREAM
CP#1745.59.66
DWQ UPPER I ]MIT US WATERS 1 r1 a705 cauEGE ACRES DRIVE
0

DCM UPPER LIMITS (PUBLIC TRUST AREAS) L K SUITE 2
7YIw.7014, NORM CAROLINA 26TO3
--romrGRA7ED TEL [phone]

FIGURE 2A
1 oms?.n FAX [phone]
01. 0o?
pm
LEGEND
cx---?
HELL SWAMP
DITCH EFFECT (2.69 ACRES)
CORPS 2OC4 JD (32 63 ACRES)
2007rAM JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND (60.57 ACRES)
COF AND DWO WATERS (18,303 LF)
SCOTT CREEK (5,917 LF)
DWQ STREAM AND WATERS (2,382 LF)
0 1,200 2,400
SCALE IN FEET
DRAFT
X
A
O
ACREAGES AND LINEAR FOOTAGE
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS, WATERS, AND STREAMS
COE UPPER LIMIT STREAM PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
COE UPPER LIMIT US WATERS SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROV DRAWN BY. TLJ
DWQ UPPER LIM IT STREAM DATE: 06/23/08 FILE: HELLSIWNP-AC-LF-JURe
WEF-NIT
DWQ UPPFR LIMIT US WATERS CP# 1745.59.6 6
Z R 4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE 7I
DCM UPPER LIMITS (PUBLIC TRUST AREAS) SUITE 2
0 4u-------F0RAT ED WRi11NOTON, NIXi TELL 980139 2398403 FIGURE 28
om?u.cirt i ?? j,Rn FAX [phone]
0 Ao
i

A ? 4L i4?
r
m_

¦

1 r?
..y, P
1

T To
f
o C

Cf - At

A'
Ro

Cf

To
Ap Ds

r
Sb
v ?? {fie r
At
Ap
. Kr.4 1 Pt ~?•/ i
./i * 4
H-
y. t Ds wq
Y To
4hp
LEGEND 0 1,500 3,000
SITE BOUNDARY
SCALE IN FEET
SOILS DRAFT
SYMBOL SOIL NAME
Ap ARAPAHOE FINE SANDY LOAM SO11
ILS
At AUGUSTA FINE SANDY LOAM
Cf GAPE FEAR FINE SANDY LOAM
Ds DRAGSTON FINE SANDY LOAM PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
M0 MUCKALEE LOAM
Pt PORTSMOUTH LOAM
Ro ROANOKE FINE SANDY LOAM SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROV Y: DRAWN BY: BFG/TLJ
Sb SEABROOK LOAMY SAND
DATE: 4/23 08 FILE: HEnSWP-50ILS-?IS.Dwc
To TOMOTLEY FINE SANDY LOAM
n CP1745.59.66
f'C 4709 COLLEGE ACRES ORI YE
SWTE 2
wILWINGTaN, NORTH CAROUNA
0r"""PORATEC TEL ?50i 392-9253 3 FIGURE 4
= FA -',Iv2-9139
1
C"3
i

J
I'A
_ S
4 YI
a r * fw6:-
'AWFAIR
Legend LIDAR
SWAMP
O SiTE HELLSW
NCDOT LIOAR PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
Value
?.ligh. t3a 0 we 1,600 3.200 sc E: ns sltovrta waovtuJ eaAV?n sY e G
6 I I ? J
- 9123810
-?L-: 60 Scale in Feet 1I1 ` OEACWS Me E
CPF1]455955
H-
. rw,NC xwn
a
f CZR
DRAFT TE{ ql nrag? 53 riGURES
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: r .?iF? r s ro Date' 5/7 /0
Applicant/Owu er: C 5 County:
Investigator: •,,,,,,,,( Z - /? r r r Lnf r & State: A)C
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Do No Community 1D:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes to Transect ID: All
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes 6o Plot ID: 41 - 64%'gfrFr ,II.-,j
(if needed, explain on reverse.) VEGETATION

- 1
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator "Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. V" 0. !rAl11Af ?rTa Il s. An,rP.i1r, (4610[ i..
2.Ayyi'yiIna ia !_iinnr)PQ !1S ?1Y,41V 10.
3.fi)ra l(V.S VtidfGt I? ? 11.
+4. y t.r ? f ltl?a nn)-1oI-, (_i ? 1' 1`lC_ 12.
t
5. 1Q0Qf'tNnr rkkn 0. •? r?4 Lid,n 1
Ili ?^?[ 9
t? l?
13.
[
6.?C?G..6A rtr•?? ?w.?m?-1 eli04 r
14.
J9b 15,
8. \.rrllq='t#'r? Tn ir 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAG). 0c, 747
Remarks:
E 4M
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks); Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs Inundated
Other ?turated In Upper 12 Inches
_ No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Feld Observations: _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
fj
` Secondary Indicators 12 or more required):
Oxidized Rout Channals In Upper 12 inches
Depth of Surface Water: 1 fin.}
1 _
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water In Pit: I (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
T
FAC-!Neutral Test
v
Depth to Saturated Soil: ? (in_)
Other !Explain In Remarks)
Remarks:
qy : 1 5 6.
aq
SOILS
Map Unit Name VPr`I
(Series and Phase) :Aur/a rlr`l1141P, `I_I y'r --,o 41[lr / I -'a pin Drainage Class: F-Y101 16 dFLd:
Field Observations 1 '
Taxonomy (Subgroup): # 5,? } T 'o a c/ bie Confirm Mapped Type? Yes N,,,
Profile descrintion:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Morstl tMunsell_Moist} Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histasol _ Concretions
Histic Epipadon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor ?gsnic Streaking in Sandy Soils
- Aqulc Moisture Regime Listed an Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions - Listed on National Hydric Solis List
Ieyed or Low-Chroma Colors - Other IExpteln in Remarks)
Remarks: '
G-t afew syvloll s4TlpP<01, GdtG C 3 1
WETLAND DETERMINATION
I I Hydrophytir Vegetation Present? YNo [Circle) I (Circle) II
Wetland Hydrology Present? Y No
Hydric Sails Present? A. No Is this Sampling Paint Within a Wetland? No
Remarks:

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: ( S W L"t Wi €=3 Date: 1 17
ApplicantlOwner: PC-?? County:'13A,,U{wt
Investigator, C-ZT State: 1VC.
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Y ' ? Community 1D:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? YesC Transect 1D: /Il-
ls the area a potential Problem Area? Ye t Plot 1D: LI?? 1121j '
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
tt
1. 1?isf? V'altfwi'€RlilF l !Jul. 8.
2. eJ Yuh(€,f'nn 1a-
3. An (Io"Yflt'PVI ZAC 11.
4.L IQi I!#(?iFi;i1 41 .1 `?l f 1"" _ 12.

t i"?
5. Si I oy- V-0? I Sir. ! G7
13.
7 ,l Ifl'??? 40r0 G, IG0 vt?-wU
G. i'."i rl vv 14.
'
;1 .i
7. C:JLAe1LJr(<
'7
15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-).
Remarks;
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Watland Hydrofogy Indicators:
_ Stream, fake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs
^ _ Inundated
_
Other _ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
I. ND Recorded Data Avaifabfe
V ND _ Water Marks
t? Dr€ft Lines
J
Sediment Deposits
Feld Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surfaee Water: A !-A (in.) Oxidized Root Channels In Upper 12 inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water In Pit: A/ A (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutrat Test
Depth to Saturated Soil; t'I (in.) - Other (Explain In Remarks)
Remarks:
V1 ur t
[L

SOILS
Map Unit )Name
(Santis and Phase); 1' +l
G OAA w ?.. Dreinage Class:
Field Observations
"taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped 'type? Ye No
Prof€le Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
tu
rn, etc.
inches Horizon IMunself Moistl (Munsell Moist) AbundancelControst Struc
-s f
?)
?Gl7rlr llYiA
-3 loo l - ?off 'C?r
'5Y (0,1L-,1 SOY, OIV'Aro I,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histasol _ Concretions
Hlstic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
W
_ Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Bandy Sails
_ Aquic Moistu re Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Sails List
r
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
r eS In wive hVirl C S?r€
WETLAND DETERMINATION
I1 Hydrophytlc Vegetation Present? Ye ' No_ Circ[e] (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Itl
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Ye No
Remarks:
o z Ss 000 vw--,? Q' I
CY ( `Tiny ,,
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Soeoies Stratum Indicator
{
J rr?l,?IiF1!rill?rr ?,rnfr ?llr?
?
f-A(4
` 1
s. Ai um W,P.j/
?yfE'
2.1 V11s A 1?:][ f fTltQ _
? _
I
0 &L rr
ZD.0.S ??wc-idG{frr'Cc
i
3?I P l e'll f) d f 1 S
r 1s f_ f
Ill . / f
11.
?l! VPQ f0r'rCP167 T 1 12. -
t
5.1(a}CIL'6&-A9QVN y --
13.
s..i s? ?.?1? r',fl= 3rd' ??Yf4 1 k r ? 14.
GA?{r(7re Il a 15.
8. V-'?wsil??G1 t'r i1 T?fJ I/ f11? t lL is.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excfuding FAC-1. / (JLfC?
Remarks: t
VV L i I rr !r s}?I kin
}
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data Pescr€bo in Remarks)- Watiand Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
- Primary Indicators:
Aarlal Photographs Inundated
/ _ Other t?ureted in tipper 12 Inches
IL No Recorded Data Available _ Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: _
_ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators {2 or more required),
Depth of Surface Water: (in.)
Alb Oxidized Root Channels In Upper 12 inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water In Pit: ` (in.) _ Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: Jim) _ Other {Explain in Remarks)
Remark
tl ?, i7 ffYtklSy( f ? R l
j , '
qnn q
Map Unit Name jj
{Series and Phase): r 0 f]Ul it rr ` Drainage Class:
f Feld Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes o
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon IMunsell Moist) Munsell Moist Abundance /Contrast Structure, eta.
14? k

Hydric Sail Indicators:
_ Hlstosol _ Concretions
Hlstic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
5ulfldic Odor ?Organlc Streaking In Sandy Solis
_,Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed an Local Hydric Suits List
Reducing Conditions _ Listed an National Hydric Soils List
Gloyad or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: J r r r ,,I
G?rj rnt??? v+.! 111,.('?-? CJCJ7o ? CGtcPC? cj'r u h R C JY,a'l'i'; e!" ?
?rf I G
?
SD I
?
Q S
arg4nlC, S?.r >` (bl rn?iw? ''n frail Qv?-S
WPTLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytlc Vegetation Present? es No (Cirala) iCircle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? es Na ?^
Hydric Solls Present? ?Ylel) No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? V No
Remarks:
/?{ X15 Gt l 3 wr! (a d u i ri ?,
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: ?-Irp Soi0yAP Date:-
Applicant/Owner: PGS County' L?g?ir?fri
Investigator: L State: 11A?
Do Normal Circumstances exist an the site? Ye No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes Transact ID: A11,?-Q
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yeses Plot ID: P---7,Y ..<_,,.r1r. rJ

(If needed, explain an reverse.) r
\/F=r, FTATInNI
Dominant Plant Species
I' Stratum Indlestor Dominant Plant 5aacies Stratum Indicator

_t (?
I
1. 1? 1'l tlfi 1 dTq+1 L#i'1!J? O
C
8.
z. 10.
3. 11.
4. 12.
5. 13-
5. 14.
7- 115.
El. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-).
Remarks:?Fh$ d? !V L,:? -r 1L?k7G VG?( V7S j/(?}?ivf{r'1
\ngi5 1Pld f c J d. ur alAoA ! a>)
HVr Rn1 r3GY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indinators:
_ Aerial Photographs _ Inundated
_ Other u Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
ZNo Recorded Data Available Water Marks
^
_ Drift Lines
_ Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns In Wetlands
Field Observations: _
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: f /?
!J A 0n.1 oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water In Pit: k A (in.) _ Local Soil Survey Date
_ FAC-Nautral Test
d S
il (i
) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
o
:
Depth to Saturate n.
r
Remarks: k [
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Prase): G1 l1 i
::lylF/
Drainage Class:
i Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon fMunsell Moistj (Munsall Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure etc.
Corn
r
_a AI X
o{ °, 5 Y Lila GS3 r?fiGdir,',,
" U 1 o rlI Li

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol
y _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipadon _ Hlgh Organic Content In Surface La yer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfldlc Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Sails
_ Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils list
Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Guyed or Low-Chrome Colors _ Other (Explain In Remarks)
Remarks:

1/y ?' ?llriut
i -
bil
tAY t C I
4? 5
WETLAND DETERMfNATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? es No-(Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? as o
Hydric Soils Present? YaeNo Is this Sampling Point Within a Weiland? Yes No
Remarks:
-pVe 5 l/) CA. V?\t=k Q11

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Vb' ll 'S" .1Rap mate: q
Applicant/Ovvner: B 4 County:
Investigator: GZL- L oCr CL L r2t i f:x`e 1"P State: 1
Qo Normal Circumstances exist on the site? (6s
No
Community 11:
Is the site significantly disturbed (A-typical Situation)? Yes 11?o Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes , of
0 Plot ID: rldnr 14'
(If needed, explain on reverse.) LlPGA?1sU
%/1=G F=TATIn M
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator

NVC?SLir a
1 ?
L
9.
.
A t 1 i
r--A
10.
st7 f? Ca
l `JL
41
.l r
3 I 1 1 .
.
.
,
,
J
Y? j-?I1[Jf'reiiA
sr)iA'l fiAb1t
4 / t.
4"{It I 12.
.
.
nn i
y iA1'3?41 lfl?
5
r' 1?
?? may.
i'tr'°
13.
.
.
{
(
1?)li #(:i/ 1r??{?ir?i 1f1?1r l
6 ft 14.
. _
00Prr(t <-' F.,
7 e 15.
.
1
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC l t•
!excluding FAC-).

Remarks:

I-1Vr7Rni nr;V
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aarial Photographs r Inundated
_ Other - Saturated in Lipper 12 Inches
v No Recorded Data Available T Water )Marks
Drift Lines
r
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary indicators (2 or more required):
Oepth of Surface Water: A /A (In.) __Oxidized Root Channels In Upper 12 inches
Water-Stained Leaves
^
Depth to Free Water In Pit: A/A (in•) Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: 1?
IV (In,) - Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: 1
SOILS
Map Unit Name r, I_
I
-
-
[Series and Phase):
ol
r'1
0 drainage Class:
Fluid Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? YesrN_
Pro€ile Description-,
Depih Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon iMunsell_Molst) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast structure, etc.

Hydric Soll Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
^
Hist(c Epipedon
High Organic Content in Surface Layer In Sandy Soils
T
_ 5ulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Bandy Soils
^Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils Llst
W
_ Reducing Conditions
_ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Law-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Rema
ks;
r
9- . }
-5 §n C F f
1J0
WETLAND DETERMINATION
HydrophyticVegetatIon Present? Ye No (CircLls (Circle[
Wetland ]hydrology Present? Yes
Hydric Soils Present? Yes Lo s Sa mpling Point Within a Welland? Yes 'r10
Remarks:
ILV
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE= Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: 1'?slG.1`vlF? Date:
Applicant/Owner: PQ-S County: [*O vff?l,
'
Investigator: t^
State: A/
Do )Normal Circumstances exist on the site? c Community ID:
2k
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Transect 1D: -,,- T-
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes ?ih3do Plot ID:
(if needed, explain on reverse.) t. , j-Lr?ND
ti tr_r±c^[^n-rirlt"
P
t S
i St
atum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
lan
pec
es
Dominant
'
-
ir, C1 -1 -4 f
t
t tAi-
YI
n r -
8. 1"V UimlJoi;1'
.
,
,
.
i
"
I
1.M
Gt
1i' { Pa C e r i lee
c, !
A(r V 1 r.
10. /zf`', r"° l:si•I r!1 C7 -ts
1
151?
.t
2.
r.?? IljtifiT? ?;' "1? i1UF{?is rlt?lryL?;aif r G tr'
3.
L°f Yl???IF ,,?5
f? ?- 12.
,.
?.
13.
S.
14.

9
1'r?rf 1''is:TS%r7r'i ttd', y,; r
1,4
7

?^

r 31{ tf?

15.
.
fF rr ? L
.
r'ti 1 B.
_
am
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
1 C? f
/
--
(excluding FAC-)
Remarks:
i _
uvnoni nr_v
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks), Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs Inundated
_
_ other (Saturated In Upper 12 Inches
1! No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
-
V Drift Lines
r.
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns In Wetlands
Field Observations: ^
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
1 f Iln
) Oxidized Root Channels In Upper 12 inches
.
Depth of Surface Water Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water In Pit: - ? „ (In,) Local Soil Survey Date
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Solt: (in.) - Other {Explain In Remarks)
Remarks:

1
?n
PA?
SOILS

Map Unit Name
f

(Series and Phase): t?Cr y

Drainage Class: L W L
/ ?z 1 r?: :`t f
Observations i r
Field
Taxonomy (Subgroup): \I D U 11101,1 Lla 7L S. Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inchas Horizon (Munsnll M
oist, (Mansell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
o
• 1 - ? ?'i'{r
?
?'.L?` LFi Ils'??rn:-?
?]7 r
I
1
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
_ HEstic Ep€pedon _ High Orgen€c Content in Surface La yer In Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidlc Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_Aquia Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
j,ZGlayed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
R 1 oars i11 , -Ioo
c+
y1ILl l1^ d ?'? t ?. 7 ?. % ' 7 3 t1L .c._5
Wt: I LANU Ut I LhMINATION
Hydraphytir Vegetation Present? Yqs-No (Circle) ICIrcle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? es No
Hydric Sells Present? (Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? l Yesl No
Remarks:
?V6& S G`i l I S \N e. 'I t G- vr6
\V)' ? V?C?'1CtV[tL i e
?N qtr t?«...•"I'1-.. f,.. SfyL?-??j L+?
C r it i> to s , rc 'p7(ACL CL

i ?srr
j.
DATA-FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1887 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)

Project/Site: /Vi r /W, r l l no ?;C Date: !//?/07 '
Applicant/Owner: County: `
Investigator: L_1771 L'T State-_
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: ?1Cr?cFy,;?
4-i -
Is the site significantly 'disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Y? No Transect ID: _
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Ye' No Plot ID: I. - UdoIM
(It needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant 5 Odes Straturn Indicator Dominant Plarrt Species Stratum Indicat
or
2.(fy VrCVll7f? ref I fJ
Tt4_
• I-i IQ.
(
.r 't4'1JL J
3. 11.
A. 12-
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 16.
13. 18.
Percent of Dominant Species that are DEL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAG).
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Watford Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or ride Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Plwtographs Inundated
Otter Saturated in Upper 12 inches
? Na Recorded Data Available Water Martcs
Drift Lines
_ Sediment Deposits
Held Observations:
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
--
Secondary indicators 12 or more requiredl:

Depth of Surface Water, lin'1 _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Walor-Stained Leaves
J
Depth to Free Water in Pit: {in.) Local Sail Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
3

SOILS
Map Unit Name a gyp} eLL??
{Series and Phaso): !O t/] _II!u- cy1f?1C1 j1da'li y Drainage Class: a/h?
Field Observations /.
Taxonomy (Subgroup): 4herm i C e f IC [ 1G??G! ,i LI ??-S Confirm Mapped Type? Yes .No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle TexhKo, Concretions;
inr es Horizon 1Munsell Moist} ItAunseil Mdlst) AburdancelCorttrast Structure- etc.
t. o i nl/ ryrrf?] C?
Hydric Soil lndicators_
Hislosoi _ Concretions
W Hisiic F.pipedon High Qrganic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sutfidic Odor ` Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
-Agvic Mat-ture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions Listed an National Hytiric Sails List
Gleyed or Low-aroma Colors Utl?er (Main in Remarks)
Remarfcs:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circ1?91ls (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? e-D No
Hydric Soils Present? Ye 1do Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks;
DO ?,je.-V-u-? cv.-
LAM f Q.i ?n a d?5?y e??i` ! owl
3 -

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
01987 COE Wetfands Delineation Manual}
I?rotectl5ite: f v1 _ I yr iA 110 Date:?.?//f J
Applicant/Ow_ner: Caunty: T
Investigator: State-. A ?,
Do Norrnaf Circumstances exist on the site? Yes Q Community ID:
Is the site signit3tttnt[y'distvrbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes-) Nv Transec# ID: C?
Is the area a potential Problem Areal es No Plot ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant S ecie``s
1
G?I`oI Y1? f YIi IUr(?
A( Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum
FA C
f Indicator
. _
,
2
llryf IIr L t-W l _
s.
? 10
`V'S
. .
.
L
11.
A3;o6, t.1M _r?_AC 12.
5.?Jirl' ?t?'•?f4 t?LVi/ 13.
k
6_ ?fi t ?i( ?tiGl ?lfC? l; ?rr
14 N 14.
cc, 15.,

16,

Percent of Dominant spedes that are OHL, FACW or FAC
(exdudinq FAG]. ,r
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Welland Hydrology Indicators:
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary indicators:
_ Aerial Photographs Inundated
_ Other faturated in tipper 12 Inches
? IVv Recorded Data Available Water Marks
Draft Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
nn Secondary indicators (2 or more required):
Depth or Surface Water: / (In.) Oxidired Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: M.1 _ Local Soll Survey Data
_ FAC-Tleutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: -other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name II __ ?'
(Series and Phase) : rn k ^i f VI Q?yV?
??r`! d
Drainage Class:
LF Meld Observations
Taxonomy [Subgroup): 16y all C - ? t IJI ' I 1 O Wl CI O f P n} ! Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description : I' I .
Depth Mutrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions;
mdtes Horizon Wunsell Moist) JiMunseq_Mofst) Abundan oe/Cawast Structure etc
.

Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
Histic Epipadan `liigh,[}rpanic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
;aUlfidlC Odor _ Organic Strealdng in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Loral Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Condidons _ Listed on National tiyddo; Soils List
_ Gieyed or Low-Drama Colors Mor (Explain in Remarks}
Remarks-?
Gkl[117?? yhI??S????? Gal
a
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytia Vegatation Present? No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Prasent? 4 A, No
Hydric Soils Present? T[o is this Sampling Point Within a wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
/?'? 5 I 7 vv'IQ nr i t Pir i q
°l . co A Cz 3 1 `rte 6t' Vt'? t ?ft?

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1967 COE Wetlands Delineation Manua!)
Project/Site. 1" I r, ["I U I I G Date: 1 {1 ' -?_
Applicant/Owner: County: 1 Ir/?.
Investigator: Lt. -C7Z . State:_ r'
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes dp Community ID.-
Is the site significantly'disturbed (Atypical Situation)? 4N? No Transect ID• ?T
Is the area a potential Problem Area? t s No Plot ID: R- RI r?
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator

2!Yk ron'( Il P e-, U';1rrJ1'K S A
Q ,o.
11 A, `
4. " I "P V. 000 C 4 1 12.

S. CP ij f d? L?1 'f 1 _ tr? 14.
7N tv?p ys.

Lli ? _
f3. i ? •l V In 1,
1
091-
1 s.

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBE, FACW or FAC
lexcluding FAG).
Remarks,-
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gouge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs Inundated
_
_ Othex J:-'Sraturated in tipper 12 Inches
I'to Recorded Data Available Water Marks
Drift Lines
_ Sediment Deposits

Field Observations: _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary indicators 12 or more requiredl:
Depth of Surface Water: AV ' {in.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
-

W
i
Pit:
D
h
F
t _ Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
ree
a
er
n
ept
to FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil. {in.) _
other (Explain in Remarks)
-
Remarks:
SOILS
Main Unit Name
{Series and Phase}: D A r l ?1 ?I [ ,f 0 Q a Y1) Drai
G
-
nage
ass
Field Ob
R
Taxonomy (Subgroup): servations
Mir
I 1D1r IA 11111 01` ,f Confirm Mapped Type? Yes NE)
PrafiTo Descri lion: ? l
Depth
finches Horizon

o
H Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle
Munsell Moi
s? LMunseG Most) 'an -f Teulure, Ce
ncretions,
Structure, ore
-
. I a? r a r_

Hydric Soil Indicators:
. HISSQ50l
Histic 9pipedon CpnQBliailS
- 1-ii9h Organic Contort in Surface Layer in Sandy
Solis
SulFdic Odor - Organic Streaking in Sandy 59115
Atjuie Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Eondi ions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
eyed or Low-CMoma Colors _ Other {Main in Remarks}
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Flydrophytio Vegetation Present?
Welland Hydrology P(esent? Ye No;Cudel
NO (Circle)
Hydric Solis Present? Yes Na Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Y No
Remarks: ??

E)ATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1867 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)

VEGETATION
odes
Dominant Plant Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
S
1,? r MV-r 'f ' (-fJ Lat} nf4 V1 t S 4 B.
2. ini r (A . 10.
3_ 111Li??(b?C?V_N 1 17.
4. 12-
5- 13.
6. 14.
7_ 15.
El 16.

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or PAC
(excluddn$ FAG).
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Dewnbe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, take, or Tide Gouge Primary I"cators:
Aerial Photographs _ Inundated
_ Other W Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks
_ _ Drift Lines
_ Sediment Deposits

Feld Observations. _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary indicators 12 or more requiredl:
A- Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
(in.)
Depth of Surface Water: _
_ Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Pree Water in Pit: I hn,1 _ Local Soil Survey Data
PAC-Neutral Test
44
Depth to Saturated Sell: _
other (Explain in Remarks)
--
Remarks:
SO ILS
`_ rtif
(Series
Phasel-
Y p n toPSV) ka
in j
'
F
7 j ora
rwge Class: / j l / {
Fi
,
eld Observations
p): Confirm Mapt? Type? Yss No LOJI ?'? ) 1 IN ) r., r S
li tion: l
Depth
inches Horizon Matrix color Mo ttle Colors Mottle Texture. Concretions,
???ts?ll
M
ai JM Tscll MnIsU Abundance/92WEa_g Structureetc
[
s?
71
/10
ltl Lr
1.lJN
v, d
Hyclric Soil Indicators:
Histosot _ Concrefons
Histic Eplpedon
_ r 1-tiWOrganic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Sells
5ul6dic Odor
T A4-ulc Moisture Regime ft3flic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Listed on Local Hydric Soils i ist
`
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils LLst
Gleyed or LOW-Chrama Colors ` Other )L-xpi in in €temaftj
Remarks:
t
WETLAND DETERMINATION
hytic Vegetation Present?
Hydrology Present? Yes Nd (Circle) (CircEe)
Ye Rol
Soils Present?
Hydric Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes
r
s: j I L 3 Y
?, jai u A50T-J'10
_N
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
{1967 COE Wetlands De ineation Mbniual)
ProjectlSite:_ / yi i t yi r r if o w ,;r yDate: 11 KA07
Applicant/Owner: County:
investigator. Vtl fi:';:r 212- State: NC-
do Normal Circurrfstances exist on the site? Yes Nom Community Ip:.P]?elf ? rd? t r?f?
Is the site slgnlf-tcantly'disturbed (Atypical Situation). No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? L s No Plot ID;
r
(if needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
QQmiirrvant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Incricator
1. i IVIIr flw/. $.
r
2.? IriJf(Iff,`i ('f11•
on Vl71nIA 7
f
10_
E
4. 12.
5. 13. - .
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAG).
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Descrbe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrvlagy Indicators;
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs
11 _ Inundated
_Other Saturated In Upper 12 inches
No Recorded Data Available
Z Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits

Reid Observations-, Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary indicators (2 or more required?:
n
Depth of Surface Water: A (In.) - Oxidized Root Channels in tipper 12 inches
Water-Stained Leaves
r
Depth to Free Water in fit; AJA- (art.) Local Sail Survey Data
T
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth TO Saturated Soil: (in.? Other (Explain
-- -in Remarks)
Remarks,
SOILS
Map Emil Narne f/Pel. r- 'S:Y i
f
{Series and Phase?: ifG1°{?
f 1je- 4 1 4
1;,.y L, On llfl
I
_
-
drainage Class:
srGi1 Vt .
J Field Observations
Taxonomy {Subgroup?: Nv w o [ T ?, ?] I l' LEI W q CI f uJ c•,1 Confirm Mapped Type? Yes Igo
Profile Description : .
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Textwe, Concretions;
Inches Harizan I
Mu
nseil MoisU IMunseil M0101 AhuWancelCo?ast Structure r
e
c
gtt
1
lI
/
?
y
21. f_? ??Cla d
tiydrTG Soil Indicators:
Histosai Concretiens
-
T
Hislic t=pipadon
_ High CUrganic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Sails
Suffidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy snits
-Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Solis List
-
_ Reducing Conditions
Lrsled on National Hydric Sails List
^ Glcyed or Low-Ctuoma Colors _ Ulmer (Explain in Remarks}
Flame
UYte-A
T
J
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present7
Hydric Solis Present?
Remarks-
-
t i)U 1
f U !lam ,.r off A
Yes Nocircle? (Circle)
Yes No
e No is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes' No

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WET(-AND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manilal)
Project/Site: ll? I' I Vt r A f 1 ff vs ?r Date: f/SC?a r ]
Applicant/Owner: County- `
Investigator: `7 j LL r(Z _ State: Ik r
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID:_
Is the site significantly'diisturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID: -? C.
Is the area a potential Problem Areal Yes No Plot 1D: _ ( { (rqf
(if needed, explain on reverse.}
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
rpi. Icy
2 P1 4114 4'11,P P131 10.
3. ?I.itriti?[(W119, (11driit?101 11_
vJ"
4r-) P.V,-P W N 1 L 'M 'alp 1U11
12.
5.9 Y 11 LIC1 Vyll Flt ((; "?/(4 t I i 13.
6. IFY l1 (1'i_f _I 1 6) 14.
7 15.
-
a. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAG).
Remarks-
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (De-scn'be in Remarks): Watiand Hydrology Indicators:
Stroam, lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs Inundated
Other ?aturated in Upper 12 Inches
t
_
I l
No Recorded Data Available
Z Water Marks
Drift tines
Sediment Deposits

Field Observations; Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary indicators I2 or more requiredi:

Depth of Surface Water: /? ]
?' tl c Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Water-Stained Loaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: A (in-I - Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test

Depth to Saturated Soil: Other (Explain in Remarksi
Remarks:

SOILS
Mag Unit Name
(Series and Drainage Class
t Field Observations ---------
-??
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes i4c
Prol'ila Descri lion:
Depth Matrix Cotor Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
anc-lm?s Horizon Munsell Mois?tj lMurue[I MaisU Abundancefgegrt ast Structure, etc
a-D 5 a lrrJm( ?c
2t J-r 5 rInl !?`?rrr?f
r 1' .? l CjVlr?•
--------------------
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol Concretions
_ Himic Epipedon _T 1 iigh.Orpanic Content in Surface Layer -M' Sandy Soils
_ SuEfidic Dolor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
-Aqu3e Mcistm Regima _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils last
`Reducing Comff ions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
L,rGleyed or Lcw-Chrome Cvtors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks (?w s 7_13
0)((A I7_2? f k!ZD?1Y1 ?j
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ; No (Cirde) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? No
Hydrlc Soils Present? Na k this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? r y No
Remarks:
C,
I wrn ?f CAI 3h cx-? I t npj cT? ??' ?Ci ?Jr! ? ! o/I

?__.-.. _ ....... _ _ .. _... .... _.._..__........ - -.._.... ..... ......... .. __ ......
USACE AID# D Wig? 9 site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET .?
.4,
Provide the following information for the strum reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: ?6 `,? I'n ti!kn ( 2. Evaluator's name: Z -LL
3. Date of evaluation: i ??1?t ? 4. Timc of evaluation: "36 l'I
5. Name of stream:, a'_ A-`7 Cr??-L 6. River basin: -- po iv., I i r ,,
7. Approximate drainage area:
9. Length of reach evaluated: ;?Z e)6T0+
11. Sitc coordinates (if known): prefurin dechnnl degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.8723 12):
9. Stream order. 15 4-
r
1t1. County_f2g0el X",v t - _-
12. Subdivision name (if any
Longitude (ex. -77.5566€ €):_
Method location determined (circle): GP5 Topa Sheol Ortho (Aerial) PhotolGIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
( I -I- ec? Si
&1vvl5l ViO ti- W - of C LA if vl' rr"r tr[7tlfj i.. (:N t C' o"I (-,o C ? . (rl
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather
16. Site conditions at time of
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES 1 Q If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? aS NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: -% Residential % Commercial ° Q Industrial E n_%' Agricultural
nL% Forested % Cleared I Logged `% Other
22. Bank-full width: A-' 064-1, 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): rn
24. Channel slope down center of streaml,!?fFlnt (0 to 2/°) -Gentle (2 to 4%) ____ Moderate {4 to 100 ) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight t/lOcoasional bends Frequent meander -Very sinuous ----Braided channel
Instructions for completion of iorksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based can
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign paints
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores-should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and i00, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): HI Commen
- ? .,
E,valuator's Signature r_f '. A Date 'i) R /
This channel evaluation form is intended to "lie used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of strum
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular miligation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change-version 06/03. Ti) Comment, please call 919-876-9441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

.-a-----
!x K

' } ra
-.,.f - t r--{ ?`t,T x (3??r?fRT?
! 4 ??! yq V.l1SJ.t?4 E is LTl?vp`.s'_•!y_ly'•
9. MON
I'reseQr a aF tlnw / persistent pabis In strettm -
(110 ilaiv or saturat[an q strap flaw mae Dints
- x-?vxl

r

!
? ?vtdeiice.of past hnmiiis?s?iternt[on
-. textcnsiVe alteration _;O:nn altorateon, max Qints 0 - ? p?? - ? $' 3
a, AZip?ri?nzoiie
x o-? a a 5
(no I?ir?'er p Cp[ti3 uus ??'i?e'6uLCer mnx ginfs) ''= t ??
1vt ldenae nl r?nlrlent ar clremial+ilucll;Lrr
:

p CXtenSLYL+d[sG}1Hr 05' 4 na3[sona S rQaJL a]niSa, { p t '¢ Q
r
5 } GNOR Watt Aiscltarg?
'
(n0'fcf[cu e 0 s nn s sues 1 e (a'ds a

p; 3' 0 `I p 4 ?
PjDtn(
'

6x een?;ilnatip'l??n ti ? T ? r t?- ? 4 ? -., ry
Eres?t?eeoflni7?n
i
i
a
v
3i
=?
ll
4?
p `1 , q ?1
a; (
ta
f
oiplain Q,e Cns[
e
a6d IiL[zin rilnl5?`
t
?
_
° 3
v
:
?i' s'
EtztrencEzment /laa[lplpfn ?iccess y
7
`-'R'{?• ' x dcc ? `e?[trenCh'ecL t}, 1'tc uct[t+flaod[n khax``d[n{s p $ t) ' ? p '

? iPresence"ofa?jacefiEaweilntlds Y L `
4 -G
,p 4
t
`
`
?
T
??
1
#liiiids= U ltir a a
(nR?ve
t!]acank?vetiands
ni??pplni3'?;
'
i S

`7 4
z CfiQnnijsumpsity
g
- -
i- Y
?easLV?chanzii }ititLnn 'ana{uriil meaner
tnax 61 [?ts7-_ t] 5 p

z x
to =
77
S9 RMCUKlzipu
`
• , n
?r p b 4
0
l?xtensly?de os[f?az[ 0 ?ltt?ie.orna se'dlin?nt mgx?oiats} ?
F -

a '
__,
,
; ', ?Sii?1 tLverslfy'of ChuQnel bed st?sfrnte ' 1 `- J' ti+
? i
w , ?[I19]1110n70 en0u5 t) ei[j[ e-dlVel'SE', S?ZeSTr[ax; ants)„ ,"-' ^??
.•>:i"?'- +
•
u
?.%-?

y Y? ?
. _ .
._ :
_
''
+ ?venced?,channcl lnc?sianxorianing ^' [
?' _ t
=? p 5
ff
Y rcldea i InGIS? t};Sta?l:rbe?c &l?a47}cSr 1I[ iA[nfs? - - '
[ ; r` Tp?' r c?

f
?
+PrescncCdCsln ocbttnkft'i?d[sces?r ` '
' = 1 4 ,
,
s
, _ p'S (1 5 pxX S +'
Cseyerererios[on t} no erosion, 5tsnle bas r?ifa orris) L?
,
Raptldepth ttna densttyan[inn7+s
p d l) 5
bl
1) d
(n
?
t
s
``
?

?
v
ns[
ran
s
en
eoo? tTitqu hautRin
e 3
pmts
? - j
?
I
j
?
R
1? ?1?iin?,b??ggrleulture,.INesFaalr or"= r?? ?
"-
4
:#rmbet?" r
atl?'chan?-

_ ?
?
5 :wCt-
i {suGsiautraLni ;np>eVatlenoe Cs'} p ?+ p
' - Presence oftrifltt?pnaflrltflle-pawl cn le cs ` ; , ,`
r
F
r
n8 rti?esln T?ldr5!-(5 'job
d magic omLs 1 0 S U
ols p yell deve[' a

-

r
? plg
i -' lit; nr'na flabltatt?'?q I.fr? neat' vaied
h?bitats, Amax Olf[lS? }
iS
" n : f:
z 4tfi
s
r? -
-
?F ?
Qanop vers't ii nXcr?`strenmlirax r r +
f j, s : ?, '?? }
s 0 x s p Fr
! ?ftlar5ftadrnQ Ve et3t1D71 't)'?CQI[ht[
?
[i
15Y CI
'
ht
L
-
t ?
u
t
Ii1
0 may
01
s
olj
„ ,?
+
t t 5ulstr'ute eQtlicdden?,
1
t
Fr r
?,
-
dee i eoi6edded Q `laas?s?r[tcture'--?miLx ?
? j
,
'y w •1 r t? sa f 'F -r - l !...?? 'pr-r• '? F• r _ - 4
Presence ot'strealn_in?erfEUraiest se?piige ??="__

p? - - -
l ? na?eVitler[ce Q `common s?umnrau? es =irina. cs[nfs? `p 4 ` Q ? i ?°? SE ,
"

Presence a
f nmplli6Ffins
171
"' na eyfdencC'= [74.common-fnumtrouS i
`1 p *
` Q `t `':
es= rnax "`o[nts
?
:
- _
.. _
_
Testae
If0.CVldenCB = 4; Coftin[Onmu[neraGs es =mast xOlnts) ?l
_, s
' 23: ' .,. ;' -EVidcnce'rif<EVildlife use _.. ° , _ :: - • :
1

{na cvideaoe =1], ab[[ndant eViderice.:maepoliils}
. _ 'e 1?
CCU

r NILS
rTa?,0iF1'tflll??i? [v
? N
f?'
?

a
_ ? rr?.., ?"
Y.
r~ rr'; ,r?z ??-??•? fr-'r ??._.:_S?ir-,
' a?1r?.i E
s' F?-? ?.•t. ?!
r -h -"- .
"'r su .r??T=.N ?Y•.ti..,. ??-- ?,-O
MOI
x.[m
e {-
1 o m,
II
7?I o
?
?y
'
' _ ?
N
2
Q
x??
` `
"T.?•
i-..
"''
- ••
?
•..,u, u,..1.114„ - "- „L,l o»waCu 111 1_U,L11111 ,1l aaj!IS.
USACE A1D4 DW(1 m site h, (indicate on attached map.)
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach tinder assessment:
1. Applicant's name: FG S 1 y1?? ?1?' 2, Evaluator's name:
3. Date of evaluation: Mg ,r 107" 4. Time ofevaluation: a 00 P M
5. Name of stream: Ct s, ? 6_ River basin: - P,7 ?1 .
7. Approximate drainage area: S. Stream order: 14t
_
9. Length of reach evaluated: .r-f ml a _ 10. County:
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decanal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.H72312):
Longitude (ex. --77.555611
Method location determined (circle): GPs Topo Sheet 0rtho (Aerial) Phnto/G1S Other GIS Other
13, Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby ronds and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
[AD,Arlrn.+i end] N.,i i?? P, r-,C r-LAuprrt 1AvAp." Arn%AtE- ? C)M
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions:
16. Site conditions at time
0 t.5
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat :.
-Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters - Water Supply Watershed (I-1V)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO fyes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential % Commercial Industrial T?U °/n Agricultural
9?^ % Forested _% Cleared I Logged Other
22. Bankfull width: 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):. 1r3 i` _
24. Channel slope down center of stream: ? lat (0 to 21/6) ,Gentle (2 to 4%) ____Mad erate (4 to 101A) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: te?Stmight -Occasional bends Frequent meander Very sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of ivarksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ccoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecarcgion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified fn.the worksheet. Scores-should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g,, the stream flaws from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing`a stream ?f the
highest quality.
Total Scaret yfrom reverse}: Comments:
Evaluator's Signature /_Uf_., Date
This channel evnluntfon orm is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Carps of Engineers to malte a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change- version 176103. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
} o,r- tai4CIns
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
State:North Carolina County/parish/borough: Beaufort City:
Center coordinates of site (]at/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 552204.9° N, Long. 2690065 ° E.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Scott Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Scott Creep
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (I-IUC): Tar-Pamlico (HUC 03020104)
® Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
® Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different ]D form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
El Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
0 Field Determination. Date(s): 29 Jan 07, 8 May 08, and 21 May 08
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the review
area. [Required]
® Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There ,Are "waters of the U.S " within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): 1
TNWs, including territorial seas
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
Z Relatively permanent waters' (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
0 Nan-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands directly abutting RP Ws that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
[] Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
El Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
EE Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: linear feet: 3 width (fl) and/or acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on Eekiblished by OHWM
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain: Many other field ditches were evaluated but were determined to not be jurisdictional due to non-aquatic
vegetation growing in the channel and no OHWM.
Boxes checked below shall he supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
For purposes ofthis form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
1 Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section M.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland ndjacent to a TNW, complete Sections M.A.1 and 2
and Section M.D.I.; otherwise, see Section HLB below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW: Scott Creek
Summarize rationale supporting determination: The creek is canoeable, even in it's upper reaches during the entire year, shows up
on the Beaufort County soil survey and is subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent": The wetland surrounds Scott Creek with no upland between
the wetland and the creek.
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section UI.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section HI.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that dues not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody4 is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody bas a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section M.C below.
Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: Pick List
Drainage area: 1200 -'acres
Average annual rainfall inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
® Tributary flows directly into TNW.
® Tributary flows through 2 tributaries before entering TN W.
Project waters are 1 (or less) river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Fick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
4 Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
Identify flow route to TN W5: The ditch either flows directly into Scott Creek or a perimeter ditch that flows into Scott
Creek.
Tributary stream order, if known:
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that app_ly?
Tributary is: ? Natural
® Artificial (man-made). Explain: Field ditch.
? Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: 3 feet
Average depth: 3 feet
1 or less}.
Average side slopes: Vertical 0
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
® silts ® Sands ? Concrete
? Cobbles ? Gravel ? Muck
? Bedrock ? Vegetation. Type/% cover:
? Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: slightly sloughing banks in some areas.
Presence of run/riffle./pool complexes. Explain: None.
Tributary geometry: Relatively straight
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): <2 %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for Seasaual-flow
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: 20 (or, greater)
Describe flow regime: frequent flow, influenced by rain events.
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Confined. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow. UP known. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
® Bed and banks
® OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
® clear, natural line impressed on the bank ?
? changes in the character of soil
? shelving ?
® vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ?
® leaf litter disturbed or washed away ?
? sediment deposition
® water staining ?
? other (list):
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
? Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determ
High Tide Line indicated by:
? oil or scum line along shore objects
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
? physical markings/characteristics
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
ine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? survey to available datum;
? physical markings;
? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain: Some ditches have clear water, but others have cloudy water,
5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TN W.
6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.
Identify specific pollutants, irknown:
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
® Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
® Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: Fish other than mosquito fish have fregently been seen in some of the ditches.
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
® Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: Aquatic invertebrates, reptiles and amphibians have frequently been
seen in and around some of the ditches.
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TM that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: PickList. Explain:
Surface flow is: P.ickList
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pi-&L st. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Nan-TNW:
? Directly abutting
? Not directly abutting
? Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
? Ecological connection. Explain:
? Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick Liist
Approximately { } acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (YIN) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (YIN) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flaw
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TN Ws, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for lash and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section 11I.D:
Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERSIWETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area;
[] TNWs: linear feeti5-25 width (ft), Or, acres.
El Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
El Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdiedonal. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial:
® Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally: Water is fregently seen in the ditches and see details in Section 11.8.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
El Tributary waters: linear feet width (13).
0 Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
0 Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2_ above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
El Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section 111.13 and rationale in Section III.D 2, above, Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
El Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): 10
which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
Q Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
? Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
?Scc Footnote It 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Juriad1cdan Fallowing Rapanos.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
? Wetlands: acres.
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)-
If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
? Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SIhfINCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
? Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required foe jurisdiction (check all that apply):
Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
Maps, plans, plats or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicantlconsultant:
? Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the appl icant/consultant.
? Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
? Office does not concur with data sheeWdelineation report,
Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
Corps navigable waters' study:
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
? USGS NHD data.
? USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:
USDANatural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
0 State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
FEMAIFIRM maps:
I00-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1429)
Photographs: ? Aerial (Name & Date):
or ? Other (Name & Date):
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
Applicable/supporting case law:
Applicablelsupporting scientific literature:
Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL CONIlHENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
5tate:North Carolina County/parish/borough: Beaufort City:
Center coordinates of site ([at/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 652204.9°N, Long. 2690065'k.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Scott Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Scott Creek
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (I-IUC): Tar-Pamlico (I-IUC 03020104)
® Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
Z Check if other sites (e.g., offsitc mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
23 Field Determination. Date(s): 29 Jan 07, 8 May 08, and 21 May 08
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
Thcrc Are "navigable waters ofthe U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the review
area. [Required]
® Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or maybe susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Arg "waters ofthe U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply):1
® TNWs, including territorial seas
® Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
? Relatively permanent waters' (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
f ? Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Nan-wetland waters: linear feet: 15-25 width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on X99-7: Delineation ]Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
® Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to he not jurisdictional.
Explain: Many field ditches were evaluated but were determined to not be jurisdictional due to non-aquatic vegetation
growing in the channel and no OHWM.
1 Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
'- For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
a Supporting documentation is presented in Section III. F.
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TN W: Scott Creek
Summarize rationale supporting determination: The creek is canoeable, even in it's upper reaches during the entire year, shows up
on file Beaufort County soil survey and is subject to the ebb and flow of the tide,
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent": The wetland surrounds Scott Creek with no upland between
the wetland and the creek.
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBU'T'ARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY);
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section 1H.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is ndjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody4 is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.C below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: Pick List
Drainage area: Pick List
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
? Tributary flows through Pick )List tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
'Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
Identify flow route to TNW5:
Tributary stream order, if known:
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that applv):
Tributary is: ? Natural
? Artificial (man-made). Explain:
? Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of hank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Pick List.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
? Silts ? Sands ? Concrete
? Cobbles ? Gravel ? Muck
? Bedrock ? Vegetation. Type/'/D cover-
El Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence ofrun/riflle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Pick List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year Pick'Lrst
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics:
.........................
Subsurface flow: Pick-List. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
? Bed and banks
? OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
? clear, natural line impressed on the bank ?
? changes in the character of soil ?
? shelving ?
? vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ?
? leaf litter disturbed or washed away ?
? sediment deposition ?
? water staining ?
? other (list):
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
? Discontinuous OHWM? Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to deterrrt
High Tide Line indicated hy:
? oil or scum line along shore objects
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
? physical markings/characteristics
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
ine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? survey to available datum;
? physical markings;
? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
'Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.
6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look far indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings-
F1 Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquaticlwildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Welland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Pick List. Explain:
Surface flow is: Pick=List
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick LExplain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adiacency Determination with Non-7NW:
? Directly abutting
? Not directly abutting
? Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
? Ecological connection. Explain:
? Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location orwetland as within the Pick List floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick-List
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? YIN Size (in acres) Directly abuts? YIN Size in acres
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidunce and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Nate. the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section 11I.D:
Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNW9. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section I11.1):
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
TNWs: linear feet 15-25 width (ft), Or, acres.
Q Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
0 Tributaries ofTNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial:
Q Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e. g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Nan-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RP W, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section II1.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
'T'ributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
0 Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
F1 Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RP W:
El Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary
seasonal in Section 111.13 and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
EJ Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters .9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
[] Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):Io
El which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
from which Fsh or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
? Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination.
BSee Footnote # 3.
'To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (11).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands: acres.
F. NON-JMSDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce,
? Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SYlrt1NCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
Non-wetland waters (i,e„ rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft),
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (!f).
? Lakeslponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
[] Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
? Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
? Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
[? Corps navigable waters' study:
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
? USGS N14D data.
? USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
State/Locai wetland inventory map(s):
0 FEMA/FIRM maps:
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: ? Aerial (Name & Date):
or ? Other (Name & Date):
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
? Applicable/supporting case law:
0 Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
0 Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
?tlr S r ?-r??nse c ? I we -} 1? ?
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
State:North Carolina Countylparish/borough: Beaufort City:
Center coordinates of site (latilong in degree decimal format): Lat. 6522049°N, Long. 2690065 °.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Scott Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Scott Creel:
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Tar-Pamlico (HUC 03020104)
® Check ifmap/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
ER Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Field Determination. Date(s): 8 May 08 and 21 May 08
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "navigable maters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the review
area. [Required]
® Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
[] Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): 1
® TNWs, including territorial seas
[f Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
Relatively permanent waters' (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Nan-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flaw directly or indirectly into TNWs
[] Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
[] Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: linear feet: 6-10 width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: acres,
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation lYlanual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable)?
0 Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
' For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a "INW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally-
(e.g., typically 3 months).
3 Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is it TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is n wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.I.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW: Smith Creek
Summarize rationale supporting determination: The creek is canoeable, even in it's upper reaches during the entire year, shows up
on the Beaufort County soil survey and is subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent": The wetland is bordered by Smith Creek with no upland
between the wetland and the creek, except for spoil piles from the creek.
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanas have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody4 is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section M.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section HI.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section HI.C below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: Pick List
Drainage area: 1200 `acres
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
? Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
a Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
Identify flow route to TNW5:
Tributary stream order, if known:
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ? Natural
? Artificial (man-made). Explain: Field ditch.
? Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Pick List.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
? silts ? Sands ? Concrete
? Cobbles ? Gravel ? Muck
? Bedrock ? Vegetation. Type/% cover:
? Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: slightly sloughing banks in some areas.
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain: None.
Tributary geometry: Pick List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): <2 %
(c) Flow:
........ . ...
Tributary provides for: Pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pck'Zist
Describe flow regime: frequent flow, influenced by rain events.
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
? Bed and banks
? OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
? clear, natural line impressed on the bank ?
? changes in the character of soil ?
? shelving ?
? vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ?
? leaf litter disturbed or washed away ?
? sediment deposition ?
? water staining ?
? other (list):
? Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain:
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
[Q High Tide Line indicated by: Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? oil or scum line along shore objects ? survey to available datum;
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ? physical markings;
? physical markings/characteristics ? vegetation lines/changcs in vegetation types.
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain: Some ditches have clear water, but others have cloudy water.
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.
`A natural or man-mnde discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: Fish other than mosquito fish have fregently been seen in some of the ditches.
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: Aquatic invertebrates, reptiles and amphibians have frequently been
seen in and around some of the ditches.
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Pick.List. Explain:
Surface flow is: Pickll#
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: P1ck st. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
? Directly abutting
? Not directly abutting
? Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
? Ecological connection. Explain:
? Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW,
Project waters are Pick-Xis t aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: P ckldsL
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the PickLrst floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, irlcnown:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (YIN) Size in acres
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with nil of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Xapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TN W?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
L Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section IILD:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section IILD:
D. DETERNIINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERSIWETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
TNWs: linear feet 6-10 width (ft), Or, acres.
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
El Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial:
E? Tributaries of TN W where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section 111.13. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally: Water is fregently seen in the ditches and see details in Section ]LB.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
El Tributary waters: linear feet width (]i).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Q Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW9.
Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
Wetlands directly abutting an RP W where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
? Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
Q Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
? Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):"
which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
0 from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
0 Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
sSee Footnote # 3.
v To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ ror
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands: acres.
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL, WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
? Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SJEANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
[] Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (11.).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
Nan-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply -checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
[] Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
? Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
? Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
? Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
? Corps navigable waters' study:
[] U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
? USGS NHD data.
? USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
FEMA/F'1RM maps:
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: ? Aerial (Name & Date):
or ? Other (Name & Date).
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
Applicable/supporting case law:
? Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
? Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
PCN
`QapF W R r?AQG
? H
a -c
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.4 January 2009
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps: ?Q Section 404 Permit ? Section 10 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 27 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? ? Yes ?K No
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
?X 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular ? Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
? 401 Water Quality Certification - Express ?X Riparian Buffer Authorization
le. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required? For the record only for DWQ
401 Certification:
? Yes NX No For the record only for Corps Permit:

? Yes ?X No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for
mitigation of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank
or in-lieu fee program.
? Yes NX No
1g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1h
below. N Yes ? No
1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? NX Yes ? No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: Hell Swamp Scott Creek Watershed Restoration
2b. County: Beaufort
2c. Nearest municipality 1 town: Pinetown
2d. Subdivision name: NIA
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no:
3. Owner Information SEE ATTACHMENT A
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
3b. Deed Book and Page No. 15471222, 16131031, 15611310, 16561772, 1597/646
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable): NIA
3d. Street address: 1530 NC Highway 306 South
3e. City, state, zip: Aurora, NC 27806
3f. Telephone no.: 252-322-8249
3g. Fax no.: 252-322-4444
3h. Email address: [e-mail]
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.4 January 2009
4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ? Agent ? Other, specify:
4b. Name:
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
4d. Street address:
4e. City, state, zip:
4f. Telephone no.:
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name: Samuel Cooper
5b. Business name
(if applicable): CZR Incorporated
5c. Street address: 4709 College Acres Drive, Suite 2
5d. City, state, zip: Wilmington, NC 28403-1725
5e. Telephone no.: 910-392-9253
5f. Fax no.: 910-392-9139
5g. Email address: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Page 2 of 10
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): 07005048, 15023785,15024568,15024842, 15025549
1b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Latitude: 35313141 Longitude: -76.4107
1 c. Property size: 1,296.92 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water to proposed project: Pungo Creek
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: SC; NSW
2c. River basin: Tar-Pamlico
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
Please see Attachment B, "Existing Conditions on the Site'.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property: 91.69
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property: 26,409
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The proposed project purpose is to restore the site to wetland and swamplstream systems to be used as private mitigation.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Please see Attachment C, "Description of the Overall Project, Including Equipment", and Attachment D, "Baker Technical Memorandum".
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property 1
project (including all riot phases) in the past? ?X Yes ? No ? Unknown
Comments:
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made? E9 Preliminary ? Final
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): Scott Jones, Washington Field Office Agency/Consultant Company:
Other: CZR Incorporated
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
2004, 2008, Attachment E.
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for ? Yes ?X No ? Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ?x Yes ? No
6b. If yes, explain.
Phase 1, Areas Outside Jurisdictional Areas
Phase II, Areas inside CAMA Jurisdiction with CAMA Permit Authorization
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.4 January 2009
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
?X Wetlands Streams - tributaries 0 Buffers ? Open Waters ? Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
Wetland impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary 2b.
Type of impact 2c.
Type of wetland 2d.
Forested 2e.
Type of jurisdiction
Corps (404,10) or
DWQ (401, other) 2f.
Area of
impact
(acres)
W1 T Excavation Choose one Yes Corps 1.05
N12 T Excavation Choose one Yes Corps 0.96
W3 T Fill Choose one Yes Corps 0.31
W4 T Fill Choose one Yes Corps 0.28
W5 T Fill Choose one Yes Corps 15.01
W6 T Fill Choose one Yes Corps 1.21
2g. Total Wetland Impacts: 18.82
2h. Comments:
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
Stream impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T) 3b.
Type of impact 3c.
Stream name 3d.
Perennial (PER) or
intermittent (INT)? 3e.
Type of
jurisdiction 3f.
Average
stream
width
(feet) 3g.
Impact
length
(linear
feet)
S1 T Soil disposal, regrading INT DWQ 8 2,381.77
S2 T Soil disposal, regrading PER DWQ 4 1,746.92
S3 T Soil disposal, regrading PER DWQ 3 1,484.48
S4 T Soil disposal, regrading PER DWQ 12 1,121.72
S5 T Soil disposal, regrading PER DWQ 8 1,839.69
S6 T Soil disposal, regrading PER DWQ 8 800.26
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
3i. Comments:
Please see Attachment F, "Additional Stream Impacts". See Figure 5 for location of numbered lengths.
Page 4 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.4 January 2009
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individual) list all open water impacts below.
4a.
Open water
impact number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary 4b.
Name of waterbody
(if applicable) 4c.

Type of impact 4d.

Waterbody
type 4e.

Area of impact (acres)
01 Choose one Choose
02 Choose one Choose
03 Choose one Choose
04 Choose one Choose
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If and or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a.
Pond ID number 5b.
Proposed use or
purpose of pond 5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres) 5d.
Stream Impacts (feet) 5e.
Upland
(acres)
Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated
P1 Choose one
P2 Choose one
5f. Total:
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required? ? Yes ?X No if yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If an impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a. Project is in which protected basin? ? Neuse X? Tar-Pamlico ? Catawba ? Randleman ? Other:
6b.
Buffer Impact
number -
Permanent (P) or
Temporary 6c.
Reason for impact 6d.
Stream name 6e.
Buffer
mitigation
required? 6f.
Zone 1
impact
(square
feet 6g.
Zone 2
impact
(square
feet
61 T 9 No 0.31 0.17
B2 T 13 No 0.08 0.03
B3 T 18b No 0.32 0.56
B4 T 20 No 0.27 0.11
B5 T 22 No 0.06 0.05
B6 T No
6h. Total Buffer Impacts: 1.04 0.92
6i. Comments: See Figure 4 "DWQ Riparian Buffers"
Page 5 of 10
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
NIA - Proposed project is mitigation.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
NIA - Proposed project is mitigation.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State? ? Yes Q No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ? DWQ ? Corps

2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project? ? Mitigation bank
? Payment to in-lieu fee program

? Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:

3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type: Choose one
Type: Choose one
Type: Choose one Quantity:
Quantity:
Quantity:
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Makin a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. ? Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: Choose one
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 6 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.4 January 2009
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) - required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation? ? Yes ?X No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.

Zone 6c.
Reason for impact 6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier 6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 7of10
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified ? Yes ? No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
Project is mitigation and will restore buffers. All flow will be diffuse across vegetated wetlandsluplands to
d
? Yes ?X No
rece streams.
iving buffered restore
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? 0,49%
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ? Yes X? No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this ro'ect? NIA
? Phase II
? NSW
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs ? USMP
apply (check all that apply): ? Water Supply Watershed
? Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ?Yes ?X No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
?Coastal counties
?HQW
4a. Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply ?ORW
(check all that apply): ?Session Law 2006-246
?Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ? Yes ? No
attached?
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? ? Yes ? No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? ? Yes ? No
Page 8 of 10
PCN Form -Version 1.4 January 2009
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federallstate/local) funds or the ? Yes ?Q No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ?Yes ? No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPAISEPA)?
1 c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
? Yes
? No
letter.)
Comments:
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, ? Yes ?X No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? ?Yes ?X No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in ?Yes ?X No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in ac cordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. 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.
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.4 January 2009
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
habitat? ? Yes ?X No
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act 0 Yes ? No
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted. Raleigh
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
N.C. Natural Heritage Program Data and USFWS website
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a, Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? F ?X Yes ? No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
USFWS, on site sampling, habitat mapping, "Final Habitat Plan for the South Atlantlc Region: Essential Fish Habitat Requirements for Fishery
Management Plans of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, The Shrimp Fishery Management Plan, (continued below)`
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project Occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation ? Yes Z No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
Letter received from N.C. SHPO Is attached. (Attachment G)
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? ?X Yes ? No
fib. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
Protect has been coordinated with Beaufort County Floodplain Administrator. The Floodplain Administrator concluded that the project would not result
in significant changes to the regulated floodplain, and additional analysis was not required.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
Letters to and from Beaufort County Floodplain Administrator, Attachment G.
C. T r f e l,l 1?,1`! F S.?i t

Applicant/Agent's Printed Name A I a t/Agent's Signature
(Agent s, ignalA is valid only if an authorization Date
letter from the applicant is provided,)
*The Red Drum Fishery Management: Plan, The Snapper Grouper Fishery Management
Plan, The Coastal Migratory Pelagics Fishery Management Plan, The Spiny
Lobster Fishery Management Plan, The Coral, Coral Reefs, and Live/Hard Bottom
Habitat Fishery Management Plan, and The Calico Scallop Fishery Management
Plan", October 1998, South Atlantic Fishery Management Council.
Page 10 of 10
FIGURES
Figure 1 -Vicinity
Figure 2 - Site Plan
Figure 3 - Existing Conditions and Land Cover Classification
Figure 4a - DWQ Riparian Buffers - Temporary Impacts
Figure 4b - DWQ Riparian Buffers - Temporary Impacts Enlarged View
Figure 5 - Acreages and Linear Footage Jurisdictional Wetlands,
Waters, & Streams on Lower Scott Creek
• .. Cam- <Lw, '.?.,..,• •..,,- } T??CU
Tx-
- O46F - Rk[]RA F?eis+nd
I ?..
RT. 284 j SEED TICK NECK ROAP - r
}, r
9 g'. RT. 99 = f,..
1.a4. AI1n Y, ? ?? 1 5 - \-`. may/
ej . r PUNCO g HELL. SWAMP f
CREEK ROAD •r SC07T CREEKS
H A T H ( Via. V -
n ?
R 1a -
- ••Holla C:ev° ?Ijpe
0 5,000 10,000
NORTH CAROLINA
SCALE IN FEET
SITE LOCATION HELL SWAMP VICINITY MAP
HELL SWAMP-SCOTT CREEK
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
LEGEND
HELL SWAMP PROJECT BOUNDARY SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: BFG/TLJ
DATE: 03/ 1 809 FILE: HELLSWAMP-LOC-CAMA
SOURCE: 4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE CP#1 74559.66
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT TRANSPORTATION, USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP SUITE 2
IMAGES, NC STATEPLANE, .
, USGFEET, NGLES-SCALELE, , USGSTOPOTILE0E3.SID, NCORPORATED WILMINGTON, CAROLINA 28403
AND USGSTO WPOTILE1.SID USGS QUADRANGLES RANSOMVILLE AND PANTEGO,
FIGURE 1
WEB SITE: SITE: WWW.NCDOTOT.ORG IENVIRONMENTAL CONSNLTANTS FAX [phone]
A? r C. s
rry,_yl? .R, r ?? fd?`. ? x •, - - r - ?'r ,,,7`{ d -?a +l ? ??n -t tRF
^+R L ±
W ^ f ,'
! U ty?r
+
+
+ +F\ yr w"
A
I r?
}.. RF E E SIT s U
I dF X
?a
? e 1,i91
y •/
41
?sw rx ??., ?_ Yar
• I 4?:yyr t, g
?. -
?' dr
?
Z. -A
?? ?'?'?l?OIM!1t{
r •.y n. a• ''. x 4
r -Ndk.
:GEND

..Y
.??+tG?~,?.'YS.
has ?
4
r .4s
UT2

UT3
UT
N

W
?
..
t
UT4 ` y w W - '1e'

f '
U

' ^
. Y
"
UT ? ?
? t1?
SCOTT CREEK , ?,?, ?w
•a
*0 +>
~
k .
l
ip

yv •'? F 1111 .

r es, Y?" a * (
"?
; & F Ti ry * }
j4
U t >• 7 t 'y
xf t
ppn ;.^ SMITH CREEK # *
14.

f.?

HELL SWAMP PROJECT BOUNDARY
EXISTING SCOTT CREEK
POTENTIAL NON-WETLAND FROM EDGE EFFECT (103 ACRES)
POTENTIAL EXPANSION AREAS
WETLAND ENHANCEMENT (18 ACRES)
PRE-RESTORATION 30 FOOT CAMA COASTAL SHORELINE (5 ACRES)
50 FOOT BUFFER RESTORATION (21 ACRES)
ADDITIONAL 50 FOOT BUFFER RESTORATION (21 ACRES)
SCOTT CREEK STREAM RESTORATION (5,017 LF)
RIPARIAN HEADWATER SYSTEM STREAM RESTORATION (10,845 LF)
1st ORDER STREAM RESTORATION (3,921 LF)
NON-RIPARIAN RESTORATION (808 ACRES)
RIPARIAN RESTORATION (58 ACRES)
RIPARIAN PRESERVATION/ENHANCEMENT (28 ACRES)
(INCLUDES 0.37 ACRES OF COASTAL WETLANDS AND 5 ACRES
OF 30 FOOT CAMA COASTAL SHORELINE)
COASTAL WETLAND (0.37 ACRES)
NON-RIPARIAN PRESERVATION (40 ACRES)
CORPS 2004/2007/2008 JD
UPLAND (200 ACRES)
PRE-RESTORATION UPPER LIMITS (PUBLIC TRUST AREAS)

0 1,200 2,400
SCALE IN FEET
HELL SWAMP AND SCOTT CREEK WATERSHED WETLAND,
STREAM, AND BUFFER MITIGATION SITE
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: BFG/TLJ
DATE: 03/20/09 FILE' HLSWMP-SCTCRK-CAMA-
PTJURISD-CAMA.DWG
CP#1745.59.66
4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SUITE 2
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403
LONSIILI•ANR FAX [phone] FIGURE 2
.a . • SMITH CREED
LEGEND
HELL SWAMP
NORTH CAROLINA NORTH CAROLINA
LAND COVER
CLASSIFICATION COVER TYPE
SITE LOCATION 201 AGRICULTURAL ROW CROPS
HELL SWAMP-SCOTT CREEK 311 MANAGED HERBACEOUS COVER
412 MIXED HARDWOOD MESOPHYTIC UPLAND
413 BOTTOMLAND AND WET HARDWOODS
425 LOBLOLLY PINE
530 LINEAR DRAINAGE
0 2,000 4,000
SCALE IN FEET
HELLSWAMP EXISTING CONDITION AND
LAND COVER CLASSIFICATION
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: BFG
DATE: 04/27/09 FILE: HELLSWP-LDCOVER-CAMA.DWG
CP#1745.59.66
4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SUITE 2
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403
SOURCE: AERIAL IMAGE PROVIDED BY: PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC. INCORPORATED TEL [phone] FIGURE 3
ENVIRONNENTAL LONSNLTANTS FAX [phone]
f
I ` ?y1
SSS
ivs
, Alm
41
rx ! { r ? • .}.,fir y r q ?? ! ,$ ? ,,
l` L 41 ?F Y" l
7:?" F•; ? S fS
mot-'- t?rF,• ''? t 1
? s I W
? nl
X _
ZONE 1
0.31 ac
ZONE 2
0.17 ac
ZONE 1
0.08 ac
ZONE 2
- 0.03 ac
/ ZONE 1 a
0.27 ac
.. / ZONE 2
0.43 ac
VN ZONE 1 \ F.
0.
\
t 05ZONE 2
ZONE 2 0.13 ac \p
0.11 ac ZONE a
P' > ZONE 1
0.27 ac ZONE 1
0.06 ac -
SCOTT CREEK
;e r
. ?. er v '? sf "-•? 1+.' sr? ' +? ?.p,sf ?, ?, i?1 +'?? ?.. ? ?rti ,t
F rrrl +
w 4%;
zr,
LEGEND
HELL SWAMP PROJECT BOUNDARY
E W ] CORPS 2004 JD
0 , 2007/2008 JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND
ZONE 1 - 30 FOOT RIPARIAN BUFFER

jjjjj ? ZONE 2 - 20 FOOT RIPARIAN BUFFER
ZONE 1 TEMPORARY IMPACTS (1.04 ACRES)
ZONE 2 TEMPORARY IMPACTS (0.92 ACRES)
0 1,000 2,000
WOODY VEGETATED AREAS
- - - - COE AND DWQ WATERS SCALE IN FEET

SCOTT CREEK
DWQ STREAM AND WATERS WQ RIPARIAN BUFFERS-HELL SWAMP
COE UPPER LIMIT STREAM TEMPORARY IMPACTS
Q COE UPPER LIMIT US WATERS

LIMIT
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
O DWQ UPPER LIMIT STREAM
DWQ UPPER LIMIT US WATERS SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: TLJ
DATE: 04/09/09 36A R_BUF_
FILE: E
DCM UPPER LIMITS (PUBLIC TRUST AREAS)
CAMA.

CP#1745.59.66
4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SUITE 2
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403
%
2
O
R

FIGURE 4a
392-91
39
LONS LTANR FAX 91
ENVIRONNENT
A
LEGEND
HELL SWAMP PROJECT BOUNDA s
=K
ZONE 1 - 30 FOOT RIPARIAN BUFFER
ZONE 1
0
31 ac ZONE 2- 20 FOOT RIPARIAN BUFFER
.
ZONE 1 TEMPORARY IMPACTS (1.04 ACRES)

e' V
V ZONE 2 TEMPORARY IMPACTS (0.92 ACRES)
i
i
ZONE 2
7
0
WOODY VEGETATED AREAS
cc
.1 - - - - - COE AND DWQ WATERS

SCOTT CREEK
DWQ STREAM AND WATERS

\ COE UPPER LIMIT STREAM
\ ® 0 COE UPPER LIMIT US WATERS
\ O DWQ UPPER LIMIT STREAM
ZONE 1 \ \ ? DWQ UPPER LIMIT US WATERS
0.08 cc 7?z DCM UPPER LIMITS (PUBLIC TRUST AREAS)

®
ZONE 2
0
03 ac
.
_ ZONE 1 ,r
0.27 ac
ZONE 2
j 0.43 ac
AL,
vvv X '
11 \
ZONE
05
0 { s
. \
ZONE 2 ZONE 2
0.13 ac

0
11 cc \ n_
. alI

F.
ZONE 2
0.05 ac
E?,Ir
0 600 1,200
NORTH CAROLINA SCALE IN FEET
SITE LOCATION DWQ RIPARIAN BUFFERS-HELL SWAMP
HELL SWAMP-SCOTT CREEK TEMPORARY IMPACTS ENLARGED VIEW
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
LEGEND SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: TLJ
HELL SWAMP DATE: 04/10/09 FILE' IM P_HELLSWCAMA.D6AER_BUF_
DWG
CP# 1745.59.66
4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SUITE 2
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403
SOURCE: AERIAL IMAGE PROVIDED BY: PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC. INCORPORATED TEL [phone] FIGURE 4b
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSNLTANTS FAX [phone]
LEGEND

2381.7 F ( 1
0.44 ac

1746.96 LF \
0 0.16 ac
34.74 LF,
0.007 ac
18c
NON-CAMA
0.50 LF n
0. 3 ac \??/J
757.88 1 O
0.05 ac
HELL SWAMP
WETLANDS
WETLANDS NOT IMPACTED BY REGRADING / FILL
X X DITCH EFFECT (2.69 ACRES)
by ] CORPS 2004 JD (32.12 ACRES)
0 2007/2008 JURISDICTIONALWETLAND(60.57ACRES)
- - - - COE AND DWQ WATERS (18,110 LF)
(2.36 ACRES)
SCOTT CREEK (5,376 LF)
(2.13 ACRES)
LI (541 LF)
(0.05 ACRES)
• • • • • • DWQ STREAM AND WATERS (2,382 LF)
(0.44 ACRES)
X COE UPPER LIMIT STREAM
213.7 LF (ii)
0.01 ac
/ COE UPPER LIMIT US WATERS

6
30
F
O Bq??S
F Q DWQ UPPER LIMIT STREAM
0
®
0 12
ac RO °FS DWQ UPPER LIMIT US WATERS
\ \ 433.9 13 DCM UPPER LIMITS (PUBLIC TRUST AREAS)
\
y 0.0 ac
V? 747.33 LF 1 A
14 o?????? ?O II IDENTIFIERS FOR ATTACHED SPREADSHEET
NOTE: COASTAL WETLANDS ARE SHOWN INFIGURE 1
B \ 0.05 ac P
?
\ 0
?
.31 ac ..
W -, //\
\? 1.72ac
0 F 1

5
0.28 ac 390.43 LF ®
0.03 ac 25 975.97 LF\
0.36 ac y
01484.48 LF?
0.10 ac
31 ac
®N
ac
n 1839.69 LF
ICJ 1 0.34 ac ??
© 800.26 LF
0.14 ac
I
E1 WETLANDS NO T
16 '
/ IMPACTED - ?
4.18 ac.
/
)a/ 5376 LF
2
13 ac 744.9 LF
0
05v
VN

........ .. .

....... .
.
cc
18

\ 1 .......
1039.91 LF \
I
0? ac ... ..
0
I
34 LF ..
204 . :: .
\ \ ::::::..
.
? 0.01 ac
LF
5
18b
20 \ .
0
ac
.04 :..
92.73 LF?
03 ac
l BAKER DESIGN
..

RICKETTS DESIGN
...............
.
424.41 LF
0.06 ac
O
40 LF
7
0.006 ac

WETLANDS

OT C O
IMPACTED 15.52 NO FILL OR
ac. 1257.61 LF CUT AREA 34.19 ac
0.07 35.77 ac
total less
23 stream
areas of
1.58 a c

0 700 1400
SCALE IN FEET
DRAFT
ACREAGES AND LINEAR FOOTAGE
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS, WATERS, AND STREAMS ON LOWER
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY:
DATE: 3/12/09
4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SUITE z
ZR WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403
ecoRaDRnTeD TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
DMRMMENra cannururts
II?? 3450 NORTHLAKE BLVD
SUITE .
..VII
SUITE 102
PALM BEACH GARDENS / FL 33403
Jonathan T. Ricketts, l[iC. FAX [phone]
c?.wmgE,?wemM. TOLL FREE 800-630-6777
DRAWN BY: TLJ/HG
FILE: HELLSNMP-AC-LF-JURISD-
WEf-MR1
CP#1745.59.66
FIGURE 5
ATTACHMENT A
Agent Authorization Forms
SAMPLE AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOT NO.
STREET ADDRESS:
PLAN NO. PARCEL ID: 0 7 0 0 5 0 4 8
Please print:
Property Owner:
Property Owner:
The undersigned, registered property owners of the above noted property, do hereby authorize
C of - ?c
(Contractor /(?gent (Name of eonsuk4 )
to act on my behalf and take all actions necessary for the processing, issuance and acceptance of
this permit or certification and any and all standard and special conditions attached.
Property Owner's Address (if different than property above):
Telephone:
We hereby certify the above information submitted in this application is true and accurate to the
best of our knowledge.
SAMPLE AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOT NO.
STREET ADDRESS:
PLAN NO. PARCEL ID: 15023785
Please print:
Property Owner:
Property Owner:
The undersigned, registered property owners of the above noted property, do hereby authorize
C of - ?c
(Contractor /(?gent (Name of ee ul# )
to act on my behalf and take all actions necessary for the processing, issuance and acceptance of
this permit or certification and any and all standard and special conditions attached.
Property Owner's Address (if different than property above):
Telephone:
We hereby certify the above information submitted in this application is true and accurate to the
best of our knowledge.
SAMPLE AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOT NO.
STREET ADDRESS:
PLAN NO. PARCEL ID: 15024568
Please print:
Property Owner:
Property Owner:
The undersigned, registered property owners of the above noted property, do hereby authorize
C of - ?c
(Contractor /(?gent (Name of eonsuk4 )
to act on my behalf and take all actions necessary for the processing, issuance and acceptance of
this permit or certification and any and all standard and special conditions attached.
Property Owner's Address (if different than property above):
Telephone:
We hereby certify the above information submitted in this application is true and accurate to the
best of our knowledge.
SAMPLE AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOT NO.
STREET ADDRESS:
PLAN NO. PARCEL ID: 15024842
Please print:
Property Owner:
Property Owner:
The undersigned, registered property owners of the above noted property, do hereby authorize
C of - ?c
(Contractor /(?gent (Name of eonsuk4 )
to act on my behalf and take all actions necessary for the processing, issuance and acceptance of
this permit or certification and any and all standard and special conditions attached.
Property Owner's Address (if different than property above):
Telephone:
We hereby certify the above information submitted in this application is true and accurate to the
best of our knowledge.
SAMPLE AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOT NO.
STREET ADDRESS:
PLAN NO. PARCEL ID: 15025549
Please print:
Property Owner:
Property Owner:
The undersigned, registered property owners of the above noted property, do hereby authorize
C of - ?c
(Contractor /(?gent (Name of eonsuk4 )
to act on my behalf and take all actions necessary for the processing, issuance and acceptance of
this permit or certification and any and all standard and special conditions attached.
Property Owner's Address (if different than property above):
Telephone:
We hereby certify the above information submitted in this application is true and accurate to the
best of our knowledge.
ATTACHMENT B
Existing Conditions on the Site
EXISTING CONDITIONS ON THE SITE
Existing conditions are reflected in the attached graphic "Hell Swamp Existing Condition and Land Cover
Classification", and summarized below.
Agricultural Fields: The majority of the project area (about 1,002 acres) consists of 1-year fallow agricultural
rowcrop fields.
Woodland Areas: The main body of Scott Creek on the site is bounded by a ±43 acre mature bottomland
forest mostly on the south side. The canopy of this forest is comprised of bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), red
maple (Acer rubrum), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua). About a quarter
of the creek is forested on both sides and about a quarter is forested only on the south side. Subcanopy and
groundcover species include swamp red bay (Persea palustris), wax myrtle (Morelia cerifera), greenbriar (Smilax
spp.), yellow jessamine (Gelsemium sempervirens), and rush (Juncus spp). Along a portion of the north side of the
main body there is a sparse strip (±4 acres) of common reed (Phragmites australis), wax myrtle, black willow (Salix
nigra), green ash, and sweet gum.
Along both sides of the northern prong of Scott Creek, there are about seven acres of highly disturbed
common reed community, wax myrtle, and scattered young pines and hardwoods.
Along the western boundary, there are approximately 34 acres of mature hardwoods. An additional 14-acre
linear strip of mixed pine/hardwoods separate approximately the northern one third of the site from the balance.
Cleared Area: This referenced northern third of the site includes 157 acres of recently cleared and ditched
land, in various stages of agricultural conversion. This area is vegetated in dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium),
panic grass species (Dichanthelium spp.), and red maple, loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), and sweet gum.
Vegetated Nonforested Areas: Areas of unforested vegetation occur in several locations within the
proposed project area. These include areas along some ditch banks, previous interior parcel boundaries, and the
north prong of Scott Creek.
Adjacent Property Land Use Description
There are two land uses described by Beaufort County. Those are cleared land and un-cleared land. The
land uses on the parcels surrounding the project area are described below by project parcel, beginning with the
southwest corner of the project site and continuing clockwise around the boundary.
The parcel identified as PIN 07005048 contains the southwest corner. The property line angles to the
northwest. The land use overlay map identifies the land use along this boundary to be un-cleared; however, there
are three abutting residential parcels that are partially cleared. The boundary then continues in a more northerly
direction. The land use overlay map identifies the land use along this boundary to be un-cleared; however, the
southern approximate half of that boundary is adjacent to land that appears to be agricultural rangeland.
The boundary of parcel 15023785 continues project boundary in a slight northeast direction, then angles
several times to create the northern boundary, followed by several changes in alignments as it continues midway
along the northeastern border. The land use depicted on the county overlay along the entire boundary of this parcel
is un-cleared. The northeastern portion of the boundary of this parcel also appears to have several residential lots
that are partially cleared.
The boundary of parcel number 15024568 continues the project boundary in a southeastern direction. Land
use of this parcel and those adjacent is depicted as approximately one half cleared and one half un-cleared.
The corner of parcel 15024658 meets the northeastern corner of parcel 07005048. Parcel 07005048
continues to the southeast before angling to the southwest. The land use for the first portion is un-cleared. The land
use for the second portion is cleared.
The project boundary continues southwest, and then northwest with parcel 15024842. The land adjacent to
the southwest portion is cleared. As the parcel angles west, the adjacent land use is un-cleared.
Parcel 15024658 continues the boundary to the south, then angles to the northwest, southwest, and
southeast. The adjacent land use is cleared. The boundary then continues southwest, with an un-cleared land use
classification. The final two angles of this boundary are to the southeast and then southwest. The land adjacent to
the first portion is classified as un-cleared and the remaining is cleared.
ATTACHMENT C
Description of the Overall Project, including Equipment
DESCRIPTION OF THE OVERALL PROJECT. INCLUDING EQUIPMENT
The proposed Hell Swamp Scott Creek Watershed project will encompass
the restoration or enhancement of approximately 19,783 linear feet of stream,
including several headwater systems. Approximately 21 acres of Tar-Pamlico
riparian buffer is proposed to be restored or enhanced, with the potential for an
additional 21 acres if suitable stream segments form in this system.
Approximately 808 acres of non-riparian forested wetlands will be restored. The
balance of the on-site wetlands will be preserved, and the remaining uplands will
be planted in appropriate mixed hardwoods. The completed project is proposed
as mitigation to offset impacts from the proposed PCS Phosphate Mine
Continuation activities. Figure 2 shows the proposed yields.
Site streams have been channelized for most of the historic reaches.
Restoration will entail excavating along the alignment to restore semblance of a
natural stream and filling in a few places (see Attachment D, "Baker Technical
Memorandum"). Root wads may be used to protect the meanders. The buffer
areas and historic riparian areas now mostly in agriculture will be graded only to
remove field crowns, and roughened to mimic the pre-developed condition and
conserve water on site in a natural fashion. The balance of the fields, constituting
the majority of the site, will be graded and roughened as above described to
restore areas once in wetland hardwood flats. Upland inclusions will be treated
similarly. All prepared areas will be planted as riparian wetland hardwoods,
wetland hardwood flats, and upland areas in a mixture of hardwood species.
Since most of the site is in agriculture fields, little clearing will be required. The
small areas of pine and mixed pine hardwood will be cleared using standard
forestry equipment to include, but not be limited to harvesters, skidders, and
loaders, as well as bulldozers with specialized blades for stump cutting and
removal. Most of the wetland restoration areas will be prepared with bulldozers,
pans, and/or graders to remove the field crowns and furrows, and excavators to
plug ditches and construct check dams. Stream restoration will employ principally
excavators; dump trucks and other equipment as above may be used. Numbers
of each type of equipment cannot reasonably be determined at this time.
Equipment as necessary will remain on site until the work is complete. Overnight
and weekend storage will be determined as the work progresses.
Also, see Attachment D, "Baker Technical Memorandum".
ATTACHMENT D
Baker Technical Memorandum
Technical Memorandum
Project: Hell Swamp Restoration Site Prepared By: Baker Engineering
Subject: Narrative Regarding Construction Prepared For: PCS Phosphate
Techniques for Scott Creek Channel
Date: March 11, 2009
The purpose of this document is to provide additional information regarding the construction techniques
to be used in the restoration of the Hell Swamp site, specifically, the approach to filling and restoring
the Scott Creek canal. The overall intent of the restoration plan for the entire site is to restore the
drainage features as closely as possible to their condition prior to drainage and channelization for
agriculture. Therefore, all drainage ditches and canals within the restoration area, including the Scott
Creek canal, will be completely filled and the surrounding topography restored to pre-disturbance
elevations.
A longitudinal profile for the entire Scott Creek system is included in Figure 1, and provides a
comparison between the existing depth and elevation of the canal versus the proposed restoration
design. The example cross-sections that follow in this text are referenced in terms of the longitudinal
profile stationing shown in Figure 1.
At the upstream extent of the Scott Creek restoration, the design has been developed to restore the
functions of a small, braided headwater stream and wetland system. This will be accomplished by
filling the existing ditches and grading the valley bottoms such that flows will be diffuse, spreading
across the restored wetland floodplain (Figure 2). This approach will be used from longitudinal station
10+00 through 43+00, as indicated on the design plan sheets for the site.
Beginning at station 43+00 and continuing through station 55+70, the restoration design for Scott Creek
will involve the construction of a single-thread, meandering sand bed channel. This design approach is
based on analysis of erosive forces and sediment transport, as more thoroughly described in the
Mitigation Plan document for the site. Starting at station 43+00, the channel excavation will begin at a
shallow depth (0.2 - 0.3 feet) and gradually increase to a maximum depth of 1.0 - 1.5 feet for the
middle portions of the reach (Figure 3). Likewise, at the downstream end of the reach, the restored
channel depths will gradually decrease until reaching station 55+70 where the restored channel will lose
definition and will flow back into a braided, meandering stream system across the restored floodplain.
A slope of approximately 30:1 will be used at both ends of the single-thread section to gradually
connect the braided stream sections with the meandering, single-thread channel.
Page 1 of 6
'
0
o
0)
a O C -
_ 1
----- -----
t6
Lb O
0 ?r
O
Q
O N

° O Y O
u'S a` m
1 w U Of
I
0
I t 0
I 0
H

V

? o
0
f ?

H ?

Y ?
-------c- ----
_ -

U ? r

(DO

a _
r H o
0
--- -----;? N 8 IS 7
.

U) Of U C

C -
?z

-r r?

?
l
r?
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
_----
- o

i
f
o
1

'- 00
O co co V N O
(};) UOIIBA813 N V CO
x.
?i

CC
i¦
i.
O
CC '?
?. V
V r"i
O i.
? O
?i
O ?
? O
bA ran
Page 2 of 6
Cross-section 34+00
Headwaters Section
6-

5 --------------
4 - - - - - - -

'
?
0 3
a I I
,
R
i
a I
w
2
? I
1 - - - - - Existing Ground
Proposed Design
0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Station (ft)
Figure 2. Example cross-section from the headwaters section (10+00 through 43+00) of
Scott Creek (looking downstream).
Cross-section 49+50
Single Thread Section of Scott Creek
3
5
.
3
2.5
2
c 1.5 '

o '
y
1 I

I
'

W
0.5

0 1 ,
I ,
' - - - Existing Ground
-0.5 Proposed Design
1
-
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Station (ft)
Figure 3. Example cross-section from the single-thread section (43+00 through 55+70) of
Scott Creek (looking downstream).
Page 3 of 6
From station 55+70 through station 62+00, the restoration approach will be similar to that used for the
headwaters section. The existing Scott Creek canal will be completely filled and the valley bottom
graded to approximate pre-disturbance contours and elevations (Figure 4). This design approach was
chosen due to the very low slope of the valley along this section that is more typical of braided stream
and wetland systems. Along this reach, the low point of the restored valley will be located near the
existing location of the Scott Creek canal. The restored valley bottom will be approximately 2.5 to 3.0
feet higher than the existing canal bottom, and will allow flows to transition to braided floodplain flow
prior to entering the wooded historic floodplain downstream (adjacent to the area of CAMA
jurisdiction).
Cross-section 56+50
Braided Section of Scott Creek, Upstream of CAMA Jurisdiction
3
2.5

1.5 --•-•.---•
•-
1 -
o
} 0.5 '
,

0 '
w
-0.5 ,
-1 '
' - - - Existing Ground
-1.5 - - - - Proposed Design
2
-
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Station (ft)
Figure 4. Example cross-section from the braided section (55+70 through 62+00) of Scott
Creek, directly upstream of CAMA jurisdiction (looking downstream).
Beginning at approximate station 62+00 and continuing to station 88+00, the natural fall of the valley
lies to the south of the existing Scott Creek canal. As shown clearly in historic aerial photographs, the
Scott Creek canal along this reach was excavated sometime between 1964 and 1970. The canal was
excavated along the northern edge of the stream/wetland system and not along the topographic low
point of the valley, most likely due to extremely wet conditions in the center of the system. As a result,
much of the historic floodplain to the south of the canal is too wet for agricultural uses and has been left
wooded.
Beginning at station 64+80, an access lane through the trees follows along the northern side of the
existing Scott Creek channel. The lane has been used over the years to keep the canal clear of
blockages. This lane will be used during restoration to fill this section of the Scott Creek to pre-
disturbance contours. Spoil piles that were created during excavation of the canal will be deposited back
Page 4 of 6
into the canal as fill material. Once filled, water flow along the restored Scott Creek will follow the
topographic low point of the valley through the wooded area to the south (Figure 5). The flow will
follow a braided pattern through the floodplain as the system would have functioned prior to
disturbance.
Cross-section 63+50
Restored Floodplain Connection Near Upper Limits of CAMA Jurisdiction
2
1 ,
0 '
y
`F
-1
'
o_ ,
a.2 -2 ? North South
w ,
-3 ,
-4 Existing Ground
Proposed Design
5
-
0 50 100 150 200 250
Station (ft)
Figure 5. Example cross-section from the historic floodplain section (62+00 through
88+00) of Scott Creek, where flow will be directed onto the relic floodplain of Scott Creek
along its historic flow path (looking downstream).
Beginning at approximate station 92+30, the restored Scott Creek system must transition back to the
channelized canal at the downstream limit of the project. In this area, water surface elevations are
under tidal influence and due to ground elevations near 0. 0, the area is most often under backwater
effect. Beginning at station 92+30, fill of the canal will be tapered down at a 10:1 slope until reaching
the existing bottom elevation of the canal (Figure 6). This fill slope will be completely submerged
under normal water conditions; therefore excessive scour or erosion of the fill material is not expected.
Page 5 of 6
Profile Through Channel Fill at End of Scott Creek Restoration
2
1
0
? -1
0
ca
d -2
w
-3
-4
-5
9210 9220 9230 9240 9250 9260 9270 9280 9290 9300 9310
Station (ft)
Figure 6. Profile through channel fill at the end of the Scott Creek restoration reach.
Tributarv Connections
Six smaller tributaries will flow into the restored Scott Creek system along its length (Figure 1). The
restoration approaches for these tributaries will be comparable to the design approach described for the
headwater sections of Scott Creek (station 10+00 to 43+00). The design approach will restore the
functions of small, braided headwater stream and wetland systems. This will be accomplished by
filling the existing ditches and grading the valley bottoms such that flows will be diffuse, spreading
across the restored wetland floodplain. The downstream grades of the tributary valleys will match those
of the restored Scott Creek floodplain, such that tributary flows enter the system without causing scour
or erosion.
Page 6 of 6
ATTACHMENT E
Wetland Delineation Summary
1. Areas of coastal marsh AEC and coastal shoreline AEC were added subsequent to
submittal of this package to Corps. These AECs are depicted on Figure 2 of this
application.
2. The parcel boundary has changed since the JD. The current boundary is depicted
on Figure 2 of this application.
3. Original JD double counted a 193-foot stream segment (total 26,602 linear feet as
shown in JD package figures). Accurate linear feet of jurisdictional stream on Hell
Swamp total 26,409.
NOTE: See Attachment "F" of the CAMA
ATTACHMENT F
Additional Stream Impacts
ADDITIONAL STREAM IMPACTS
3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f. 3g.
Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of jurisdiction Average
number - (PER) or (Corps - 404, 10 stream Impact
Permanent (P) or intermittent width length
Temporary (T) (I NT)? DWQ - non-404, (feet) (linear
other) feet)
S7 ? P ®T ®PER ? Corps
? INT ® DWQ 6 424.41
S8 ? P ®T ®PER ? Corps
? INT ® DWQ 10 34.74
S9 ? P ®T ®PER ? Corps
? INT ® DWQ 10 980.50
S10 ? P ® T ®PER ? Corps
? INT ® DWQ 3 757.88
S11 ? P ® T ®PER ? Corps
? INT ® DWQ 3 213.75
S12 ? P ® T ®PER ? Corps
? INT ® DWQ 3 630.60
S13 ? P ® T ®PER ? Corps
3
433
95
? INT ® DWQ .
S14 ? P ® T ®PER ? Corps
? INT ® DWQ 3 747.33
S15 ? P ® T ®PER ? Corps
? INT ® DWQ 3 441.72
S16 ? P ® T ®PER ? Corps
? INT ® DWQ 3 744.49
S17 ? P ® T ®PER ? Corps
? INT ® DWQ 3 1059.91
S18A ? P ®T ®PER ® Corps
? INT ® DWQ 20 3212.00
S18B ? P ®T ®PER ® Corps
? INT ® DWQ 23 460.00
S18C ? P ®T ®PER ® Corps
F1 INT ® DWQ 9.5 1704.00
S19 ? P ® T ®PER ® Corps
? INT ® DWQ 2-4 204.34
S20 ? P ® T ®PER ® Corps
? INT ® DWQ 6 336.57
S21 ? P ® T ®PER ® Corps
? INT ® DWQ 6 192.73
S22 ? P ® T ®PER ® Corps
? INT ® DWQ 8 1975.97
S23 ? P ® T ®PER ® Corps
F1 INT ® DWQ 2.5 1257.61
S24 ? P ® T ®PER ® Corps
2
831
07
? INT ® DWQ .
S25 ? P ® T ®PER ® Corps
? INT ® DWQ 3 390.43
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts 26,409
ATTACHMENT G
1. Letters to Beaufort County Floodplain Administrator
2. Letters to Beaufort County Floodplain Administrator
3. NCSHPO Letter
Baker Engineering
8000 Regency Parkway
Suite 2000
Cary, NC 27518
919-463-5488
FAX [phone]
January 15, 2007
Mr. Paul Spruill
Beaufort County Manager
121 W. 3rd St.
Washington, NC 27889
Dear Mr. Paul Spruill:
Baker Engineering is assisting PCS Phosphate in the development of stream and wetland
restoration designs for two separate compensatory mitigation sites within Beaufort County. The
location of each of these sites is presented in the enclosed Figure 1. The purpose of this letter is
to address the floodplain management issues related to each one of these projects.
Hell Swamp Project Site. This mitigation site is located roughly three miles southwest of the
town of Belhaven and extends across approximately two square miles of the Scott Creek
watershed, a tributary to Pungo Creek. The mitigation plan for this site includes
approximately 19,100 linear feet of stream restoration and enhancement for the portions of
Scott Creek and its unnamed tributaries that cross through the site as well as wetland
restoration for the adjacent farm fields. The natural stream design proposed for some of these
channel reaches will include reshaping of channel geometry, realignment of channel pattern,
and some increase in channel bed elevation (profile) to re-connect incised channels back to
their floodplains. The conceptual restoration plan for this site is shown in Figure 2.
The confluence of Scott Creek and Pungo Creek lies 4,000 feet downstream of the project
location. Discharges through Pungo Creek are substantially large, and its wide floodplain
includes the majority of the Hell Swamp project site, as shown on the FEMA FIRM Panel in
Figure 3. This indicates that flood levels throughout the sections of Scott Creek and its
unnamed tributaries that lie within the project site are controlled by the larger flood levels
along Pungo Creek, and not by the slope and cross-sectional geometry of those channels.
Therefore, any changes to the slope and cross-sectional geometry of these channels will not
affect flood levels throughout the area, as long as these changes do not represent an
obstruction to the Pungo Creek floodplain.
The type of modifications to channel geometry, pattern, and profile involved in the type of
work proposed for the Hell Swamp site will not represent any type of obstruction to the Pungo
Creek floodplain, and hence will not affect flood levels throughout the area. For this reason,
the Baker Engineering team feels that a detailed flood study is not warranted for this site in
order to evaluate the hydraulic influence of the project.
Back Creek Project Site. This smaller stream and wetland restoration site is located two
miles east of the town of Bath and covers approximately 180 acres of the upper Back Creek
watershed. The mitigation plan for this site includes approximately 5,400 linear feet of stream
restoration and enhancement for the portions North Prong Back Creek, South Prong Back
Creek, and East Prong Back Creek that cross the site, as shown in Figure 4. These streams all
drain small watersheds less than 224 acres (0.35 square miles) in size and all discharge at the
same point into the main stem of Back Creek. Back Creek discharges into Bath Creek
approximately 2.7 miles downstream of the site, and Bath Creek in turn discharges into the
Pamlico River at a point approximately 6,000 feet downstream of the confluence of Back
Creek and Bath Creek. As presented in Figure 5, the effective FEMA FIRM map for the area
shows flood flows along the main stem of Back Creek are regulated by flood flows along
Back Creek and the Pamlico River up to the Possum Hill Road crossing, which lies
approximately 3,900 feet (0.74 miles) downstream of the Back Creek project site. The FIRM
map also shows that Back Creek flood levels from Possum Hill Road upstream to the project
site are equivalent to flood levels along the lower Back Creek and Pamlico River, indicating
that flood levels throughout the upper Back Creek section and throughout the project site are
controlled by backwater conditions from the lower Back Creek, Bath Creek, and the Pamlico
River, and not by local drainage conditions. The small drainage areas of the streams through
the project site have insignificant influence on flood levels throughout the area, relative to the
influence of backwater from the lower Back Creek and the Pamlico River. The current
wetland conditions of many portions of this flat project site further support the backwater
hydraulics that occur throughout the site.
The natural stream design proposed for some of these channel reaches will include reshaping
of channel geometry, realignment of channel pattern, and adjustment of channel bed elevation
to re-connect incised channels back to their floodplains. However, because backwater
conditions prevail throughout the site during large flows, changes to the slope and cross-
sectional geometry of these headwater channels such as those proposed by this stream
restoration project will not affect hydraulics throughout the area. This project would not have
an influence on flood flows in the area, and for this reason the Baker Engineering team feels
that it does not require a detailed flood study.
Construction of the Hell Swamp and the Back Creek stream restoration projects would have no
negative effects on base flood elevations in the vicinity of either of the project areas. The Baker
Engineering team feels no detailed hydraulic studies are needed in order to demonstrate the
projects are consistent with Beaufort County's floodplain management requirements, and would
like to know if Beaufort County would concur on this matter.
If you have any questions regarding this issue, please feel free to contact me at [phone].
Cordially
, ,
2feParnlla Casteilar, Y.E.
N
i
i
ego
Y 264
--,r? Be ven
ee ick Nec Rd
Hell Swamp
264 0
G
o
TMs.
mp
o s 99
a
I
` R
? Back Creek Savarra
U 0
m
0o
er p
17
(y -?? •..? Baker Engineering NY, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway
4 Ah Suite 200
Cary, North Carolina 27518
Phane: 919.463.5488
"Z Fax.. [phone]
26.
92 C3
i ?
Figure 1. PCS Project Vicinity Map
Beaufort County Project so
Vicinity ! 0 0.5 1 2 3
-----' Miles
N ey.j *a, Legend
ILA
Property Boundary
1 7 - 1st Order Stream Restoration (4,760 LF)
4b,`? { f" Headwater Stream Restoration (10,380 LF)
Scott Creek Stream Restoration (3,965 LF)
50 ft Stream Buffer (50 Acres)
Possible Wetland Enhancement (30 Acres)
Non-riverine Wetland (800 Acres) I Now _._*v + Wetland Preservation (41Acres)
Aw:
9 r r r# f "f Y# Riverine Wetland (80 Acres)
r., S / X a q {?Tf ® Upland
w ..

Y'

L ? t?M

.. T +r *F8?p1''q

4
#
• G "mss' ._ ..
.r . _
+.
fi
4 w
s
wtt,.,
BakerEngineering NY,Inc. Figure 2. Mitigation Concept Plan
800° Regency Parkway
s° °a z°° 0 500 1,000 2,000 Cary North Carolina 27518 Hell Swamp Site
Phone [phone]
Fax:[phone] Beaufort County, NC Feet
?m
" ? ? Property Boundary
f
N 3y 1
a g=
?N?
,
? ,..tip
a
"
,
ti - Flood Zone
Flood Zone AE1
,
+Ik"
,
?.i
" 1P m ,
"
1 '
., i
s.
„
Note:
* fir
W. K
Pungo Creek
k
Baker Engineering NY, Inc. Figure 3.
Sit,20Oe°eYPa.hwaY Partial reproduction of FEMA FIRM Panel 370013-6684 0 1,000 2,000 3,000
Cary, North Carolina 27518
P—
hore 9919 463 463 54 5499488 Hell Swamp Site Feet
Fax: [phone]
Beaufort County, NC
O!v
s Legend
Stream Channel Restoration (-2,700 ft)
Cdr ??.
Headwater Stream Restoration (-2,700 ft)
Stream Channel Preservation (-2,200 ft)
Riparian Buffer Preservation (-4.5 acres)
Riparian Buffer Restoration (-4.4 acres)
® Riparian Buffer Enhancement (-1.7 acres) .r ??. 4A_ , , , i .
r.
® Headwater Riparian Buffer Restoration (- 5.5 acres) °'? •` ' ?"+ TM # '"ti'y ':?, ,,*e
®Headwater Riparian Buffer Enhancement (- 1.2 acres)
Non-Riparian Wetland Preservation (-15 acres)
Non-Riparian Wetland Restoration (-120 acres) }L, t '`1 .y
Riparian Wetland Enhancement (-7 acres) r ~ ..
_ Riparian Wetland Restoration (-3 acres) * ;fir,y. +`y - "?#• ?? t*
Parcel Boundary
+4y i F ?"
r
--
Baker Engineering NY, Inc. Figure 4. Mitigation Concept Plan N
8000 Regency Parkway
G-"y°
Cary, N Back Creek Site 0 150 300 600
, orlrt Carolina 2]518
Phone:[phone]
Fax 9,9.4639° Beaufort County, NC
Feet
r w
a
Id
th Creek 7zp
x
' "', t alp, ! `r _ ..
} ?ht'.
. Pamlico River -
Baker Engineering NY, Inc. Figure 5. Partial reproduction of FEMA FIRM Panels
- 8000 Regency Parkway
s ae zoo 370013-6642 and 370013-6662 0 1,000 2,000 3,000
? Cary, North Carolina 27518
Ph- 9194635488
Fax [phone] Back Creek Site Feet
'.
Beaufort County, NC
(7/16/2008) Jessica rohrbach - Written Approval of Stream Restoration Page 1
From: "Paul G. Spruill" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Date: 7/16/2008 10:47 AM
Subject: Written Approval of Stream Restoration
Dear Jessica
Please accept this correspondence as Beaufort County's approval of the
written submittal from Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. detailing your
efforts to restore stream and wetland acreage specific to Hell Swamp and
Upper Back Creek.
Beaufort County's review of the proposal resulted in my staff concluding
that impacts to the floodplain would not be so significant as to warrant
further study.
Sincerely,
Paul Spruill,
Beaufort County Manager
Lyy'd ygwvh
K
-
Qltya
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator
Michael E. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. ];vans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
November 1, 2007
Julia Kirkland Berger
CZR Incorporated
2151 Alternate A1A South
Suite 2000
Jupiter, FL 33477-3902
Office of Archives and History
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook Director
Re: Mitigation Site, Hell Swamp Wetland Restoration, West of Belhaven, Beaufort County, ER 07-2167
Dear Ms. Berger:
Thank you for your letter of October 2, 2007, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the proposed undertaking and are aware of no historic resources that would be
affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the undertaking as proposed.
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,
contact Renee Gledlvll-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Peter Sandbecki
„0`i - i
CZR Incorocca:Ed
Mrr;inglon, NC