Haws Run Mitigation Site (2)

DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION
June 20, 1996
MEMORANDUM
c'S, o
TO: Dave Robinson, Planning and Environmental ?f?gls d-
NC Department of Transportation
o?
s
FROM: Linda Pearsall 1=
NC Natural Heritage Program
ms's
SUBJECT: Report on Rare Plant Occurrences at Hai-is Run Mitigation
Site, Onslow County
Attached is a preliminary report on the results of the visit to the
Hall's Run Mitigation Site. I do not know when Heritage staff will
be returning to the site, but Richard LeBlond, our Southeast
Inventory Specialist, is happy to join DOT staff or consultants for
a visit to the site. You may contact Richard at 910-326-1440 (in
Swansboro) or through this office. Heritage staff would like to
receive a copy of any information you have on the site and we are
interested in participating in development of a mitigation plan.
I enjoyed talking with you this morning and look forward to working
with you on other mitigation projects.
I
MOTES ON HA999 RUN MITIGATION SITE, ONSLOV COUNTY
R.J. LeDlond - 6/18/96
This parcel, now owned by DOT. is located along the Onslow.%-'Pender
Co. line west of the Hancock property and south of Sandy Run
I -:'ieit.t.3 t l«.
'1wamp on the Maple Hill and Maoda H111 SW Quads:
site on June 13 and 17, and have found 8 rare plant species,
including one Federal Endangered (Thalictru_m cooler-i) and 4
Federal Candidate species <Carex lutea, Plantauo sn-arsiflcra,
Rhynchospora _decurren_s, R. th_ornei). Among these are 4 State
Endangered species. Other rare species include Arnoglossum
ovat.um, _Cladi_u_m _mariscoides, and Rhynchospora -.-lobularis var.
pinetorum. The parcel is large, totaling 540 acres. More than
90% of it was clear-cut with serious ground disturbance,
including surface regrading over large areas. I have tentatively
determined that the clear-cutting took place between 1977/79-
1983. The site does not appear as cleared on the 1981 topos
(based on 1977 photo with 1979 field check), but does show up as
cleared on 1983 photographs used for the 1992 Onslow Co. soils
atlas.
So far, my exploration has been mostly limited to a 35-acre area
at the southeast end of the site, south of the access road from
the Hancock property. Soils are wettest in this area, and the
surface does not appear to have been regraded, at least not
entirely. The west and south sides of this area are forested
with a mix of species, including Taxodiu_m ascendens,
Liriodendron, Nyssa biflora and adventive (or failed plantings
of) Pinus taeda. There is remnant Pine Savanna Very Wet Clay
Variant within the west side forested area. I have so far seen
1-2 acres of savanna, but there may be more based on the aerial
photo. The flora is fairly diverse in the cleared area south of
the access road, with Carex lutea dominating a 30x30' patch, and
Rhynchospora thornei a patch dominant to dominant for 20 (-100+?)
acres. Thalictrum coole i, Plantago s?arsiflora, and Cladium
mariscoides so far are restricted to two ditches at the site,
which also contain C_arex_ lutea and Arnoglos_s_um (the latter also
occurs in the savanna remnant). Rhynchospora lobularis var.
piinetorum appears to be abundant in the cleared areas north and
soutFi of the access road. R. decurrens was found on a raised
(but wet) 'abandoned roadbed off the south end of the cleared
area.
The significance of the site is at least statewide and probably
national. It contains the 11th currently known global population
of Thalictrum c_oole i, the 6th globally known population of Carex
tea, the 5th currently known population of P_lanta o sparsiflora
lE-'lrth Carolina, one of few ?_.ur r ently known g o"aT p E' ula3 IO21s
for the little-known Rhvnchospora decurrens, and the world's
largest known population ofYRhynchospora thornei. Pine Savanna
Very Wet Clay Variant is a very rare natural community type
restricted to the Maple Hill and Old Dock areas of eastern North
Carolina. It is a likely site for Allium sp. 1, and would be the
6th known global site for that species--
Hmre f'work is required to determine the full number and
1
extent of rare species here. It is important to determine
whether rare species currently known only from two large ditches-
-particularly Thalictrum cooleyi and Plantago snarsiflora--also
occur in remnant savanna, or in recovering cleared areas. It is
my understanding that DOT would like to flood the ditches, which
may be desirable for natural community restoration, but may be
disastrous for the ditch-confined rare species. Perhaps ditch
flooding can be phased in with judicious habitat restoration.
?• it
i \

?-
qy.
I p/
ys•

.e - ' _?-w_?k'•? II j 1

//
-WA
It
II
11
' 11
II
11 tc=

?? ,Spring 50 'Cem

•? emp
-? ?' ? S
- _. - ?_?•y
?
-
ue
?
.
s
-

l?%t0 ... i ? - ems.
_

1100
1.5

11 eca.ws 1(vY\

II
-.
In
,n

---

-
Y
II 4 r ....y. - -V?
r -t' ...yo- -"s"' -,o- -4- - .,m..,: i,. -
""t'
' ••
- y. - 1. ;rte "'r?
y
- •-r- •...- _ • _? -
II -

© Parcel 70$-(, 5-qo 2cre5? Ne'D&f T
?a-Hs lzuh M(+l gzfloLA 5,-&e
O Paeced 70?-33).,5--3 9cres,
Ne,+(oKs (,ak K FL%AaL clal 5d%"V LCCS
LCsC???///1 W O O?? ?Y e z 5

O\?

i # I
i? %
.? i %
s (? vv? %

'a
a
It \
II
11
11
II '
O Car (vfca? Gl2c?iuwt vhZrts?ecdcs?
91`K 2to sh?rSi??or?t 21+?(kc(idSPcrz
O 2?Y?tcL10$Ppra ?(a?ovlar?S V?.r.
O CareX )Ufe2, 2k.(ucllosPara -F?or1
O ?}rtio?lossvw, ovafvw,,
?2l i c f r??., Sao (?Y i
O P?Ke, S?vzKKy V?r7 We+ C-(aY
ti ? ?rrtoc?lasSv?h OVZtur•.
© R.?tYv1c(?oSPerz ?ec?v??reu5

11 ,11
II ?t1
».0 _
_ ?'?-• .'.?? :?? I??? 'mow ? ?'...
°l . u.. dl
0
-4-
?'? - +rw r+tt. ..
Pzrcevl 70-1, SYO 2cre5?
I: ?z,ooo
R

Compensatory Mitigation Plan
for
Haws Run Mitigation Site
Prepared for:
'? . North Carolina Department of Transportation
k Planning and Environmental Branch
Raleigh, North Carolina
Prepared by:
Land Management Group, Inc.
Wilmington, North Carolina
April 1997
Job # 96-351

• Y
4
L.
r
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................... 3
LIST OF TABLES ..................................................... 4
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................ 5
1.1 Mitigation Site Description ................................... 5
1.2 Site History ............................................... 6
1.3 Plant Community Types ..................................... 6
1.4 Soils .................................................... 7
2.0 PRELIMINARY STUDIES ......................................... 7
2.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands ...................................... 7
2.2 Soil Sampling ............................................. 7
2.3 Vegetation Surveys ......................................... 8
2.4 Consultation With Resource Agencies .......................... 9
2.5 Cooley's Meadowrue Recovery Plan ........................... 9
3.0 MITIGATION PLAN .............................................. 9
3.1 Swamp Forest Mitigation ..................................... 9
3.1.1 Swamp Forest Restoration ............................. 10
3.1.1.1 Hydrological Restoration ......................... 10
3.1.1.2 Plant Community Restoration ..................... 11
3.1.2 Swamp Forest Enhancement ........................... 11
3.1.3 Swamp Forest Preservation ............................ 11
3.2 Savanna Mitigation .......................................... 12
3.2.1 Wet Savanna Restoration .............................. 12
3.2.1.1 Hydrological Restoration ........................ 12
3.2.1.2 Plant Community Restoration .................... 13
3.2.2 Wet Savanna Enhancement ............................ 13
3.2.3 Wet Savanna Preservation ............................. 13
3.2.4 Dry Savanna Enhancement ............................ 13
4.0 MITIGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE ................... 14
5.0 MONITORING PLAN ............................................ 14
5.1 Swamp Forest Monitoring ........... . ...................... 14
5.1.1 Hydrological Monitoring ............................... 14
5.1.2 Plant Community Monitoring ............................ 14
5.2 Savanna Monitoring ....................................... 14
5.2.1 Hydrologic Monitoring ................................. 14
5.2.2 Plant Community Monitoring ............................ 15
6.0 AS-BUILT REPORT AND DRAWINGS .............................. 15

Y 7.0 CONTINGENCY ............................................... 15
8.0 DISPENSATION OF PROPERTY .................................. 15
9.0 LITERATURE CITED ............................................ 16
10.0 FIGURES, TABLES, AND APPENDICES ............................ 18

'r
3
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Vicinity map of Haws Run Mitigation Site ........................ 19
Figure 2. Haws Run Mitigation Site .................................... 20
Figure 3. Historical pattern of ecosystems identified in interior portion of the site 21
Figure 4. 1966 NRCS aerial photo showing logging path ................... 22
Figure 5. NRCS soils map ........................................... 23
Figure 6. NWI map of site ........................................... 24
Figure 7. NCDSWC hydric soil delineation of the interior portion of the site ..... 25
Figure 8. Well location and wetland delineation of the interior portion of the site . 26
Figure 9. Observed distribution of Thalictrum cooleyi ...................... 27
Figure 10. Restoration areas of Sandy Run Swamp ........................ 28
Figure 11. Restoration, enhancement, and preservation areas
of Shelter Creek Swamp Forest ............................... 29
Figure 12. Ditches to be filled in savanna mitigation area .................... 30
Figure 13. Savanna mitigation areas .................................... 31
Figure 14. Well locations, vegetation plots and planting areas
of Restoration Areas 1-3 .................................... 32
Figure 15. Vegetation plot locations in Restoration Areas 4 and 5 ............. 33
Figure 16. Savanna well locations and vegetation plots ..................... 34
Figure 17. Location of Lanier Quarry Savanna ............................ 35
4
. Y
4
LIST OF TABLES
4
Table 1. Characteristics of soils of the Haws Run Mitigation Site ............ 36
Table 2. Summary of chemical and physical characteristics
of soils from the Haws Run Mitigation Site . ...................... 37
Table 3. Information on samples taken from lime piles
at Haws Run Mitigation Site .................................. 38
Table 4. Information on rare plants found at Haws Run Mitigation Site. ....... 39
Table 5. Description of mitigation areas at Haws Run Mitigation Site ......... 40
Table 6. Summary of Cooley's Meadowrue recovery plan . ................. 41

.V 5
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Mitigation Site Description
The Haws Run mitigation site is located approximately 28 miles northeast of the
city of Wilmington, North Carolina, and straddles the Pender-Onslow County line
(Figure 1). The site is 595 acres in size, approximately rectangular in shape, and is
geographically positioned between Sandy Run Swamp Creek to the north and Shelter
Swamp Creek to the south (Figure 2).
The site is located in the Lower Coastal Plain, an area of wide, level interstream
divides separated by small streams. Topographic relief of the region is low, and
elevations at the site range from about 40 ft above mean sea level (MSL) in the middle
to about 25 ft near the creeks at the northern and southern ends. Because of the low
topographic relief of the of the region, stream velocities are low and water seasonally
floods into adjacent wooded areas.
Sandy Run Creek originates in western Onslow County approximately five miles
north of the Haws Run Mitigation Site. It flows southward, then turns westward, and
forms the northern boundary of the site. The creek then flows southwestward until it
drains into Holly Shelter Creek, which then flows into the Northeast Cape Fear River.
The headwaters of Shelter Swamp Creek are in Great Sandy Run Pocosin,
approximately six miles east of the Haws Run Mitigation Site. The creek flows
westward, forming the southern boundary of the site, and ends at its confluence with
Sandy Run Creek, approximately two miles west of the site.
The north and south portions of the site consist of approximately 200 acres of
swamp forest associated with the two creeks. The average width of Sandy Run Swamp
is approximately 1,600 feet and that of Shelter Swamp is 1,700 feet. Two earthen
causeways and associated canals extend into both swamp forests at each end of the
site, terminating at the respective creeks (Figure 2). Also, an approximately 2,300 foot-
long logging access road extends through the Sandy Run Swamp connecting the
property with NC Highway 50.
Approximately 390 acres of the site was cleared and sub-soiled between the
early 1960's and 1983 for silvicultural harvest and creation of pasture land. That area
currently supports a dense stand of herbaceous vegetation (mostly grasses, sedges,
and rushes) and scattered patches of broadleaf trees and shrubs. Aerial photographs
dating back to 1949 indicate that the interior portion of the site historically consisted of
approximately 138 acres of wet savanna, approximately 40 acres of dry savanna,
approximately 169 acres of pine flatwoods, and approximately 44 acres of cleared
swamp forest (Figure 3).
6
The Haws Run Mitigation Site was purchased in 1995 by the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to provide compensatory mitigation for
unavoidable impacts to wetlands resulting from highway construction in the region.
1.2 Site History
Silvicultural activities appear to have been initiated prior to 1966, based on
NRCS aerial photographs (Figure 4). Logging concentrated on selective harvest of
long leaf pine (Pinus palushis) from the interstream divide portion of the tract and much
of the larger cypress (Taxodium distichum) from the swamp forests where large
remnant stumps are still visible.
During the early 1970's, an effort was undertaken to convert the interior (mostly
non-swamp forest) portions of the site into pasture land with the intent of raising
American Bison. Site preparation included removal of all remaining trees and
excavation of an extensive ditch and canal system with canals and causeways
extending through the swamp forests to both creeks. The canal system was also used
to make the potential pasture area more symmetrical. The wet nature of the property
made drainage difficult; approximately one foot of water reportedly stood over 60% of
the interior portion during the conversion effort. Once the canal system was complete,
the entire interior portion was sub-soiled and approximately 900 tons of lime were
applied to increase soil pH. Several remnant lime piles remain on the site.
1.3 Plant Community Types
The swamp forests at each end of the site are classified as Coastal Plain Small
Stream Swamp (Blackwater Subtype) (Schafale and Weakley, 1990). Dominant tree
species are swamp tupelo (N.yssa biflora), bald cypress, pond cypress (Taxodium
ascendens), sweet-gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), yellow poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera), red maple (Aces rubrum), willow oak (Quercus phellos), loblolly pine (Pinus
taeda), and pond pine (P. serotina). One causeway at the north end of the site is
continuous to NC 50, with the exception of an opening approximately 25 feet wide. The
entire flow of water through the swamp is restricted to this narrow opening.
At present, the cleared, interior area supports a diverse herbaceous community
dominated by grasses, sedges, and rushes. Scattered patches of woody shrubs and
small trees occur throughout, with most concentrated in the northern half of this area.
The most common species.present are sweet-gum, black gum (Nyssa sylvatica var.
biflora); wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana), ti-ti (Cyrilla
racemiflora), and red maple.
I
7
1.4 Soils
The soils of the swamp forests are mapped as Muckalee. Soils of the interior
portions include Woodington, Torhunta, Foreston, Stallings, and Grifton (USDA 1990,
1992). Muckalee soil is generally found along flood plains and is frequently flooded for
brief periods. The other soils of the site are generally found on uplands, interstream
divides, or near drainage ways. The distribution of the soils of the site is shown in
Figure 5 and a summary of their pertinent characteristics is found in Table 1.
2.0 PRELIMINARY STUDIES
2.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands
National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps identified the majority of the interior
portion of the site as upland (Figure 6), although the USDA mapping indicates the
presence of hydric soils throughout the site (Figure 5 and Table 1). A soil survey
conducted in 1994 concluded that 92% of the cleared portion of the site consisted of
hydric soils (Figure 7) (DEHNR 1994). The majority of the non-hydric soils identified in
that survey generally correspond to the distribution of the Foreston series mapped by
the Soil Conservation Service (USDA 1990, 1992). The wetland areas mapped by NWI
generally coincide with the swamp forests. These wetland types are mostly identified
as PF01 C (Palustrine, Forested, Broadleaf Deciduous, Seasonally Flooded) (Cowardin
et a/. 1979).
Ten Remote Data System WL40 groundwater monitoring wells (WI-40s) were
installed on the site prior to the 1995 growing season by Land Management Group, Inc.
Six additional wells were installed in December 1995. The locations of these wells are
shown in Figure 8. A wetland delineation map was developed (Figure 8) in
consultation with the Regulatory Branch of the USACOE, Wilmington District, based on
daily groundwater levels at these wells, and the mapping of hydric soils by DEHNR
(1994) (Figure 7). One hundred and ten acres of the interior cleared portion of the tract
were determined to be jurisdictional wetlands, based on this delineation. The majority
of the wetlands occur in two irregularly shaped areas near the center of the tract. A
drained area separates the two jurisdictional wetland areas. This drained area is
approximately 200 feet wide and is centered on the large canal extending from the
north end of the site to the south end. The length of that area is approximately 4,500
feet. One smaller area of jurisdictional wetlands was also identified near the southern
end of the site.
2.2 Soil Sampling
Soil sampling was conducted in June 1996. Samples were collected at eight
8
locations throughout the interior portion of the site. Sample locations generally
correspond to the locations of the groundwater monitoring wells (Figure 8). At each
location, three sub-samples were collected from an area of approximately 100 ftz,
mixed, and a composite sample taken. One set of samples was collected from the
surface to a depth of 6 inches. Another set of samples was collected from a depth of
12 to 18 inches. The samples were then analyzed by the Agronomic Division of the NC
Department of Agriculture (NCDA). A copy of the results is attached and summarized
in Table 2. The analyses indicated that the soils of the site are acidic to circumneutral,
with an arithmetic mean pH of 5.1.
Samples from suspected remnant lime piles were taken in January 1997.
Analyses of the samples for calcium carbonates are shown in Table 3. Results of the
analyses support previous statements that lime was applied to interior portion of the
site in an effort to convert it to pasture land.
2.3 Vegetation Surveys
On June 13 and June 18, 1996, personnel of the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program visited the Haws Run Mitigation Site in the process of conducting an
inventory of rare plants and vegetative communities in Onslow County. During the
surveys of the site, eight species of rare plants were found. These included Cooley's
Meadowrue (Thalictrum cooleyt), a federally listed as Endangered species.
Supplementary plant surveys were conducted throughout the remainder of the year. A
total of seventeen rare species, including four C2 Federal Candidate species, were
confirmed to occur on the site (Memorandum from Mr. Richard LeBlond, North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program [NCNHP], attached). Summary information on the
species found is given in Table 4.
During the surveys, efforts to determine the distribution of Cooley's Meadowrue
were conducted by NCDOT personnel in coordination with Mr. LeBlond. The
distribution and estimated numbers of plants found is shown in Figure 9. In addition to
the listed species, remnants of Pine Savanna Very Wet Clay Variant were identified at
the southern end of the site between the cleared area and the swamp forest.
Pine Savanna Very Wet Clay Variant is a very rare community type that
Schafale (1994) has identified as one of five savanna types. The dominant tree canopy
is composed of a mixture of pond pine, long leaf pine, and pond cypress. This variant
occurs on clayey soils usually underlain by marl. Only five other examples of this
ecosystem are known. The nearest example is the Lanier Quarry Savanna,
approximately two miles.west of the Haws Run Mitigation Site. That site is partially
owned by The Nature Conservancy; however, various inholdings result in a patchwork
of ownership.
.
9
2.4 Consultation With Resource Agencies
Because of the occurrence of a federally listed as Endangered species (Cooley's
Meadowrue) on the mitigation site, NCDOT contacted the US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) to discuss the status of this occurrence and how it may affect the
implementation of hydrologic and vegetative restoration of the site. Discussions
between NCDOT and USFWS are ongoing to ensure that implementation of the
mitigation plan will not adversely affect populations of Cooley's Meadowrue on the
mitigation site. Comments from Mr. Richard LeBlond (NCNHP) and Dr. John Taggart,
Coastal Reserve Coordinator of the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management,
were also included in the development of the plan.
2.5 Cooley's Meadowrue Recovery Plan
After implementation, the Haws Run Mitigation Site will be a valuable component
in fulfilling many of the tasks that have been outlined in the Recovery Plan for the
species (USFWS, 1994). The site will provide for the protection of a large, newly
discovered population of the species. Also, the site will provide a location for research
related to the reestablishment of the species in areas that have been disturbed.
Specific tasks noted in the recovery plan that will be supported by the Haws Run
Mitigation Site are given in Table 6.
3.0 MITIGATION PLAN
A total of 415 acres of Haws Run Mitigation Site is proposed for wetland
mitigation. This will consist of restoration, enhancement, and preservation of both wet
savanna and swamp forest as shown in Table 5. An additional 113 acres of dry
savanna will be enhanced. A total of 67 acres of the site will not be manipulated.
3.1 Swamp Forest Mitigation
A total of 28 acres of swamp forest will be restored (Table 5). For descriptive
purposes, swamp forest restoration will be divided into five areas. Restoration will
consist of one area in the interior portion of the site that has been cleared and filled,
and four areas within in the swamp forests where previously constructed causeways
will be removed (Figures 10 and 11). In addition, the canals adjacent to the causeway
at the north end of the site (Restoration Area 3) will be filled. These activities will lower
the elevations of the causeways and raise the elevations of the canals to those of the
adjacent swamp. Swamp and bottomland hardwood tree species will be planted in all
five restoration areas.
The swamp forest areas of Shelter Creek Swamp and Sandy Run Swamp
10
provide important hydrologic, biogeochemical and habitat functions for the Cape Fear
River watershed. The areas provide water storage, both at the surface and subsurface
levels. This aids in decreasing extreme flood energy by attenuating a portion of flood
flow volume. As low order riverine streams, the swamp forests are effective in
removing non-point source pollution, nutrient cycling, and maintenance of characteristic
vegetative conditions. The swamp forests also provide habitat for a variety of
invertebrate and invertebrate species.
3.1.1 Swamp Forest Restoration
3.1.1.1 Hydrological Restoration
Restoration Area 1 (Figure 10) consists of the removal of one half acre of filled
causeway extending into Shelter Creek Swamp. Approximately 1,200 cubic yards of fill
material will be removed and placed into the central canal. This will lower the elevation
of the causeway approximately 1.5 feet to the elevation of the adjoining swamp forest.
Since microtopography has been shown to be important in tree establishment and
distribution (Beatty 1984; Huenneke and Sharitz 1986), small hummocks will be left
undisturbed or created to serve as microsites for seedling establishment.
Restoration Area 2 (Figure 10) consists of approximately 22 acres which was
cleared and filled during past conversion activities. Examination of existing ground
elevations, soil profiles (by hand auger), and historical aerial photography indicate that
this area was filled during the conversion of the interior portion of the site to pasture.
Approximately 53,000 cubic yards of fill will be excavated from this area and used to fill
the central canal. This will lower the elevation of the area approximately 1.5 feet and
will result in the area being similar in elevation to that of the adjacent swamp forest.
Restoration Area 3 (Figure 10) consists of approximately 4 acres of canal and
causeways created to give site access during the previous conversion area. The
causeway will be used to fill the adjacent canals.
Restoration Area 4 (Figure 11) consists of approximately one half acre of
causeway extending into Shelter Creek Swamp. The causeway fill material
(approximately 1,210 cubic yards) will be removed and used as fill in the central canal.
Small hummocks will be left for planting.
Restoration Area 5 (Figure 11) consists of approximately one acre of an
improved logging path created during past silvicultural activities. Approximately 2,420
cubic yards will be removed as with Areas 1 and 4. This will bring the area to a similar
grade of the adjacent swamp forest.
?` 11
3.1.1.2 Plant Community Restoration
As described in Restoration Area 1, small hummocks will be left or created for
tree seedling establishment in all swamp forest restoration areas. Trees will be planted
systematically on these hummocks on approximately eight foot centers. This will
establish a planting density of 680 trees per acre.
A total of nine species of wetland trees, in two mixtures, will be planted in
Restoration Areas 1-5. Species included in the two mixtures are based upon on-site
observations, Schafale and Weakley (1990), and regulatory agency guidelines (DOA,
1993).
Mixture # 1 generally corresponds with the composition of Coastal Plain Small
Stream Swamp (Blackwater Subtype). Species include swamp tupelo, bald cypress,
pond cypress, laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), overcup oak (Q. lyrata), and swamp
chestnut oak(Q. michauxii). This mixture will be planted in the half of each restoration
area nearest the creek; that is, those areas subject to a greater frequency of flooding.
Mixture # 2 more closely corresponds with Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods and
includes swamp chestnut oak, laurel oak, overcup oak, pond cypress, yellow poplar,
and cherrybark oak (Q. pagodaefolia). This mixture will be planted in the remaining
portions of the restoration areas further from the creeks which are subject to less
flooding.
3.1.2 Swamp Forest Enhancement
Shelter Creek swamp forest enhancement will be created by the removal of the
logging road (Restoration Area 5) which currently isolates 25 acres of Shelter Creek
Swamp (Figure 11) from the creek. The removal of this road will restore the hydrologic
connection between the enhancement area and adjacent swamp forest.
The removal of the causeways, particularly the large causeway in Restoration
Area 3 is expected to enhance Sandy Run Swamp both upstream and downstream of
the site. These enhancement effects will be addressed through a functional
assessment which will be conducted at a later time. If approved by appropriate
agencies, this assessment will yield additional enhancement mitigation credits.
However, no additional enhancement mitigation is proposed at this time.
3.1.3 Swamp Forest Preservation
Approximately 171 acres of the remaining swamp forest will be preserved.
These wetlands are divided approximately equally between Sandy Run and Shelter
Creek Swamps. Appropriate deed restrictions will ensure that the area will be
preserved in perpetuity.
. I
12
3.2 Savanna Mitigation
Based on the historical mosaic of pine-dominated ecosystems in the interior
portions of the mitigation site, savanna will be the primary target ecosystem of all non-
swamp forest areas. This mitigation plan proposes restoring 81 acres of wet savanna,
enhancing 99 acres of wet savanna, and enhancing 113 acres of dry savanna (Figure
13 and Table 5).
The term savanna has been used by many to describe grass-dominated
communities that contain scattered trees. Originally covering millions of acres in the
southeastern United States, this ecosystem has been reduced to a series of small and
scattered islands within a highly managed and manipulated landscape by silvicultural
practices, alternate land use, suppression of naturally occurring fires, and drainage
activities. The remaining, unprotected savannas are few in number and small in area
and are subject to further loss from growth and development in the region.
A specific, agreed-upon definition for savanna has not been developed;
however, for the purpose of this project, the definition used by Taggart (1994) in a
study of southeastern savannas will be used. That definition is as follows:
U. . . a naturally occurring, bi-layered (tree and herb), fire-maintained
ecosystem of the southeastern United States coastal plain that exhibits
greater that 50% cover by a herbaceous, graminoid-dominated
undergrowth, shrub (woody plants less than 2 m in height) cover less
than 10% and scattered pines (less than 50% canopy cover) as the
overstory dominant".
The functions and values of savannas are numerous. Noted for their beauty,
they provide habitat for many species of rare flora and fauna. Among the most
biologically diverse ecosystems in the world, savannas support more species per unit
area than any ecosystem in temperate North America. They provide habitat diversity
within the landscape and ecotones favorable to certain wildlife species. Savannas also
are of special importance for education and research purposes due to high biological
diversity.
3.2.1 Wet Savanna Restoration
3.2.1.1 Hydrological Restoration
The canal through the central portion of the site will be filled from a point near
the electric transmission line (approximately 1,800 feet north of the northern occurrence
of Cooley's Meadowrue) to the northern end of the canal. The length of the proposed
fill is approximately 4,600 feet. In addition, all smaller interior ditches and canals (total
.. 13
length of approximately 5,500 feet) will be filled. Fill material will consist of soil
originally excavated from the ditches which currently form berms adjacent to these
ditches and material excavated from the swamp forest restoration areas. Ditches to be
filled are shown in Figure 12. The eastern and western boundary canals will not be
filled to prevent flooding adjacent properties which are not owned by NCDOT. These
activities will restore wetland hydrology to approximately 81 acres (Figure 13) which
are currently drained.
3.2.1.2 Plant Community Restoration
Because the herbaceous and shrub layers of the savanna community are
largely in place, planting activities will concentrate on the reestablishment of the
canopy tree species. An equal mixture of pond pine, long leaf pine, and pond cypress
will be planted at a total density of 40 trees per acre.
Reestablishment of wet savanna grasses will be attempted. Species proposed
for planting include wiregrass (Aristida stricta), Carolina dropseed (Sporobolus sp. 1),
toothache grass (Ctenium aromaticum), and savanna muhly (Muhlenbergia expansa).
Depending on availability, these species will be established in plots at scattered
locations throughout the interior portion of the site and allowed to naturally repopulate
suitable areas.
3.2.2 Wet Savanna Enhancement
The goal of savanna enhancement will be the restoration of a typical plant
community over 99 acres of remnant wet savanna area that has maintained
jurisdictional wetland status (Figure 13). The planting. strategy will be identical to that
of the wet savanna restoration area.
3.2.3 Wet Savanna Preservation
Approximately eleven acres of wet savanna will be preserved (Figure 13). This
area is a remnant pine savanna very wet clay variant described by LeBlond. Since
Cooley's Meadowrue is found in this area, no manipulation is proposed for this area.
3.2.4 Dry Savanna Enhancement
, Dry savanna plant community species will be reestablished over 113 acres in the
remnant dry savanna areas of the site (Figure 13). Long leaf pine seedlings will be
planted at a ratio of 40 seedlings per acre in these areas. Wiregrass will be
established in plots at scattered locations throughout dry savanna areas of the site and
allowed to naturally repopulate these areas.
• 14
4.0 MITIGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Grading and shaping of the restoration areas and filling all ditches and canals
will take place during the summer and fall of 1998. Planting will occur during the
dormant season of 1998-1999. So 199 ? { o w ?? S e cts b-N
5.0 MONITORING PLAN
5.1 Swamp Forest Monitoring
5.1.1 Hydrological Monitoring
Three groundwater monitoring wells will be established in Restoration Area 2
(Figure 14). Data will be collected by these wells on a daily basis during the growing
season. No wells are proposed for installation in other swamp forest restoration areas
because of their small size. These other areas will be assumed to meet hydrology
criterion due to the high water tables of adjacent areas.
In addition to the wells installed in Restoration Area 2, three groundwater
monitoring wells will be installed in adjacent areas of Sandy Run Swamp. Data
collected by these wells will provide a reference for determining the hydrologic success
of Restoration Area 2.
Success criteria for Restoration Area 2 will be the restoration of the water table
similar to that of the reference wells. Groundwater levels will be monitored for five
years or until success criteria are met.
5.1.2 Plant Community Monitoring
One 50' x 50' vegetation plot will be established adjacently to each
groundwater monitoring well In Restoration Area 2. One plot will be established in each
of the other restoration areas (Figures 14 and 15). Sampling will be conducted
annually. Success criteria will be the survival of 320 trees per acre at the end of the
fifth growing season, including acceptable volunteer species. Non-acceptable
volunteer species are red maple, sweet gum or any pine species.
5.2 Savanna Monitoring
5.2.1 Hydrologic Monitoring
Six groundwater monitoring wells will be installed in the wet savanna restoration
area as shown in Figure 16. Data will be collected from these wells on a daily basis. In
• 15
addition, three groundwater monitoring wells will be installed in the Lanier Quarry
Savanna, approximately two miles east of the Haws Run Mitigation Site (Figure 17).
Data collected by these wells will provide a reference for determining the hydrologic
success of wet savanna restoration.
Success criteria for wet savanna restoration will be the establishment of the
water table similar to that of the reference wells. Groundwater levels will be monitored
until success criteria are met.
5.2.2 Plant Community Monitoring
Due to the low density of planted species in the savanna area, large sample
areas will be required. Three 500'x 500' (5.7 acres) sample plots will be established
(Figure 16): one in the wet savanna restoration area, one in the wet savanna
enhancement area, and one in the dry savanna enhancement area. Each plot will be
sampled annually. To facilitate locating each tree within the low densities of these
large plots, the position of each tree planted in the monitoring plots will be marked by
either permanent stakes or Global Positioning System. Success criteria will be the
survival of 20 trees per acre of the species planted at the end of the fifth growing
season after planting.
6.0 AS-BUILT REPORT AND DRAWINGS
As-built drawings, photographs, plans, and specifications will be provided to the
appropriate regulatory agencies within 90 days after the Haws Run Mitigation Site is
completed. Annual monitoring reports, including data, photographs, and locations of
any identified problem areas, will be submitted by the end of January each year until
the site is deemed successful.
7.0 CONTINGENCY
Should vegetation success criteria not be met within the specified period,
replanting and extended monitoring will be implemented. Should hydrological success
not be achieved, consultation with appropriate resource agencies will be held to outline
specific measures, including regrading, to be undertaken.
8.0 DISPENSATION OF PROPERTY
NCDOT will maintain ownership of the property until all mitigation activities are
completed and the site is determined to be successful. Although no plan for
16
dispensation of the Haws Run Mitigation Site has been developed, NCDOT will deed
the property to a resource agency (public or private) acceptable to the appropriate
regulatory agencies. Covenants and/or restrictions on the deed will be included that
will ensure adequate management and protection of the site in perpetuity.
9.0 LITERATURE CITED
Beatty, S.W. 1984. Influence of microtopography and canopy species on spatial
patterns of forest and understory plants. Ecology: 65:1406-1519.
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Goblet, and Edward T. Laroe. 1979. Classification of
Wetland and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.
S. Department of Interior.
DEHNR, 1994. Hydric Soils Investigation. Haw Run Tract, Onslow and Pender
Counties. NC Department of Health, Environment, and Natural Resources.
Division of Soil and Water Conservation, Technical Services Branch.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual. Tech. Rpt. Y-87-1, Waterways Experiment Station, COE,
Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1993 (Unpublished). Corps of Engineers -
Wilmington District. Compensatory Hardwood Mitigation Guidelines
(12/8/93)
FHWA, 1991. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Smith Creek
Parkway and Downtown Spur, Wilmington, New Hanover County, North
Carolina. State Project Number 8.2250102, U-92, Federal Project No. M-5851(2).
Huenneke, L. F. and R. R. Sharitz. 1986. Microsite abundance and distribution of
woody seedlings in a South Carolina cypress-tupelo swamp. The American
Midland Naturalist 115:328-335.
Schafale, Michael P. 1994. Inventory of Longleaf Pine Natural Communities in North
Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation. NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
Schafale, Michael P., and Alan S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural
Communities of North Carolina, Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation. NC Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
17
Taggart, John B. 1994. Ordination as an Aid in Determining Priorities for Plant
Community Protection. Biological Conservation: 8(1994):135-141.
U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1990. Soil Survey of Pender County, North
Carolina, USDA Soil Conservation Service.
U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1992. Soil Survey of Onslow County, North
Carolina, USDA Soil Conservation Service.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1994. Cooley's Meadowrue Recovery
Plan. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlanta, GA. 29 pp.
18
10.0 FIGURES, TABLES, AND APPENDICES
A
Haves Run Mitigation Site

1 2.5 miles
Figure 1. Vicinity neap of LAND MANAGEMENT NC DOT
[haws Run Mitigation Site. GROUP, INC Haws Run Mitigaje
April, 1997 Fender/Onslow
20

Figure 2. Haws Rain
Mitigation Site.
LAND MANAGEMENT
GR®UP9 INC
April, 1997
880 1 720 3"0
Scales 1" a 1720'
NCD®T
Haws Rua Mitigation Site
Pander/Onslow Counties, N
21
1Ay
lF
LEGEND
r Swamp forest (-44 acres)
Wet savanna (-738 acres)
Dry savanna (-40 acres)
Pine fiatwoods (-159 acres)
Figure 3. Historical patterns
of ecosystems identified in tl
interior portion of the site.
LAND MANAGEMENT
GROUP, INC
April, 1997
"I
Jne
e
Transmission
SCALE i" = 1300'
NCDO i
Haws Run Mitigation Site
Fender/Onslow Counties, NC
22
h
to site boundary
SCALE 1" = -1300'
Figure 4. 1966
NRCS aerial photo
showing logging path.
LAND MANAGEMENT
GROUP, INC
NCDOT
Haws Run Mitigation Site
Pender/Onslow Counties, N
April, 1997
23
S
SCALE 1 " = 2000'
Figure 5. NRCS soil map. LAND MANAGEMENT NCDOT
GROUP INC Haws Run Mitigation Site
April, 1997 Pender/Onslow Counties, NC
24
U t °L .?ti .
SCALE 1" = 2000'
Figure 6. NWI map of site.
L
LAND MANAGEMENT
GROUP, INC
April, 1997
NCDOT
Haws Run Mitigation Site
Pender/Onslow Counties, NC
25
t
?• t4 ? ,;?? Vim,
e -
. { SAN
Non-hydric soil

SCALE 1" = 1500'
Figure 7. NCDSWC hydric LAND MANAGEMENT NCDOT
soil delineation of the interior GROUP INC Haws Run Mitigation Site
portion of the site. ' Pender/Onslow Counties, NC
April, 1997
e ? .r4 ?
23
/h
?i
LEGEND
Uplands (282 acres)
404 wetlands (110 acres)
Letters indicate well locations
x = wells installed at 50` and
250@ intervals from ditches
Delineation is based on two years well c
historical photography.. and soil mappin
IP&L
ransmission Line
600
SCALE 1" = 1300'
Figure 8. Well location and
wetland delineation of interior
portion of tract.
LAND MANAGEMENT
GROUP, INC
April, 1997
NC DOT
Flaws Run Mitigation Site
PenderfOnslow Counties, NC
27
Dots indicate plants
Numbers indicate # of plants present
Figure 9. Observed
distribution of
Thaiictrum cooleyi.
LAND MANAGEMENT
GROUP, INC
April, 1997
860 9720 3440
Scale: 1" = 1720°
NCDOT
Flaws Run Mitigation Site
order/Onslow Counties, NC
28
i

LO

- I
LLI

-
- _ eEs

cis
O 0
I- ?' C3
? aQ
E?L' L
M 0
= CL
H
z
LU
2 u
0 -
<13:
a)
L
® <t
W
^E
W
O Y
C
O
O
L
O (D
L
O_
t
O
e- O O
LI.
?CU0
?0U)E
O +w cu cu
LL i c6 f!3
3Q

'F
i
"h1
iI
?r
I
CP&L Transmission
Line
4000
LEGEND
Dticheslcanals to be let open 650 1300 2600
-- Ditches.=canals to be filled SCALE I" = 1300'
Figure 12. Ditches to be
filled in the savanna
mitigation area.
LAND MANAGEMENT
GROUP, INC
April, 1997
NCDOT
Haws Run Mitigation Site
Pender/Onslow Counties, NC
31
F
o'
it
CP&L Transmission Line
LEGEND
wet Savanna Restoration (31 acres)
wet Savanna Enhancement (99 acres)
Preservation (11 acres)
® Dry Savanna Enhancement (113 acres)
Swamp Forest Restoration (22 acres)
® Non impacted areas (67 acres)
Figure 13. Savanna
mitigation areas.

650 '300 2600
SCALE 1" = 1300'
NCDOT
Haws Run Mitigation Site
Pender/Onslow Counties, NC
LAND ©MANAGEMENT
G, INC
April, 1997
32

T

t
p
? ?

LEGEND
= Monitoring wells
X I =Vegetation plots
Figure 14. Well locations,
vegetation plots, and
planting mixtures for
Restoration Areas 1-3.
LAND MANAGEMENT
GROUP, INC
April, 1997
SCALE 1'= 500'
NCDOT
Haws Run Mitigation Site
Pender/Onslow Counties, NC
c?
I
- k
r

- -
7 7
`
-
..
0
{E
LU
u
V7
O
CL
key
(D N
as
2 ?
M?
cp
L1J
u
sm
T
z m
<0
"L
z
N
!6
d
_ L
Q.
O t6
L
l? o
T
Q?
L J.+ 3
?ma
a8 U e6
34
if
?L
•
CP&L Transmission Line
LEGEND
Restoration sample plot
Enhancement sample plot
Upland enhancement sample plot
Swamp Forest Area
Well location
Figure 16. Savanna
well locations and
vegetation plots.

650 1300 2600
SCALE 1" = 1300'
NCDOT
Haws Run Mitigation Site
Pender/Onslow Counties, NC
LAND MANAGEMENT
GROUP, INC
April, 1997
35

1'l=~2.5miles
Figure i?. Location of LAND MANAGEMENT NC DOT
Lanier Quarry Savanna. GROUP, INC Haws Run Mitigation Site
April, 1997 PencleriOnslow Counties
36
Table 1. Characteristics of soils of the Haws Run Mitigation Site.
Soil Series Drainage Location Hydric (Y/N) Community
Type
Foreston Moderately Interstream N Various
well divides Pine/HW
Grifton Poor Shallow Y Various
depressions Pine/HW
Muckalee Poor Flood Plains Y Swamp Forest
Stallings Somewhat Interstream Inclusions Various
poor divides Pine/HW
Torhunta Very poor Interstream Y Various
divides Pine/HW
Woodington Poor Interstream Y Various
divides Pine/HW
37
Table 2. Summary of chemical and physical characteristics of soils from Haws Run
Mitigation Site.
Location Wetland
(Y/N) Depth Class HM (%) WN CEC BS (%) pH
A N 0-6" Mineral 1.55 1.20 3.4 59 5.4
A N 12-18" Mineral 1.31 1.12 2.5 40 5.0
B Y 0-6" Mineral 1.94 0.91 10.6 92 6.2
B Y 12-18" Mineral 1.25 1.13 6.4 97 6.4
D Y 0-6" Organic 5.53 0.82 6.1 31 4.4
D Y 12-18" Organic 5.85 0.92 5.0 22 4.3
E N 0-6" Min/Org 4.69 0.97 8.3 70 5.4
E N 12-18" Min/Org 4.69 1.14 4.9 43 5.0
F N 0-6" Mineral 2.76 1.07 7.2 82 5.8
F N 12-18" Mineral 1.67 1.22 5.2 92 6.4
H Y 0-6" Organic 10.00 0.88 6.3 14 4.3
H Y 12-18" Organic 7.96 0.71 17.1 78 5.3
J Y 0-6" Mineral 1.31 1.03 5.2 54 4.7
J Y 12-18" Mineral 0.92 1.23 3.0 60 5.2
K N 0-6" Min/Org 4.95 0.78 6.8 21 4.2
K N 12-18" Organic 7.96 0.79 7.7 13 4.1
Notes:
Wetland (Y/N) - Denotes whether sample was collected in an area designated as
wetland
Depth = Depth from which sample was collected
Class = Soil type
HM (%) = Humic matter content
WN = Weight per volume (g/cc), Soil density
CEC = Cation exchange capacity
BS (%) = Percent base saturation
pH = Acidity
co
M
am
C
O
ca
m
c
O
Q.'
3
cu
(III
cn
a?
.Q
O
E
E
O
L
v-
C
O
Y
cu
cn
a>
CL
E
w
co
c
O
c
O
co
E
L
C
M
O
cu
m
0U

U

0
lK
a)
co
M
M
M
M
'D
N
U
c
Q
L
W ?
L (D N CO N
CL
a?
D

Q)
N
E Q m m
ca

rn
M
N
C
O
m
C
N
N
(0
.O
C
O
O
O
C
cu
a
O
(0
C
O
c
O
cu
vO-
a)
c?
H
N
U
3

c
O
:: N 7 fQ ::::'•:'•r' N :: lII :::%
o o a
a a viii:}: j::::':;: cx
c ::.> 3
O 'Y O # :i O ::#<?: >: Y i:'•: E i Y O .....E i:`• :: > is i> o
r N C
ZZ ::
.. C . < Y

46
0 4D

am N
U U U) it W1 a? w U U W1 w a U w w U U
N +-? ;;:i?i::: N 1; EIEI'E I N ?"#'' N
Ill E?E?ri UEEEi?'EE` U?': U
LL Cn
N E#> <»< N
O (, r '0 e- In N C7 N

U) C
U C
Q ro j U N o C
'y l?0 C > _
co
y
ro U OU
m O CO
•C n (Q CCU 4) u zi
ro ? a?roi ? o o C ? ? .? ? •? ?
0) C)
N y O. C Q E ro
C
ro
.73 rz
j O C U O j' co ro
E ro m c o r
Q Q Q U U ? ? ? ? ? ? ? vi cn E - k k
0
v
E
v
Z
N
c O1
? c
v 1O
v
U m y
z 79 F0
?o
B ?v? o
ww0a
N
(/
V)to iUa
7i
ar
c
io
C
v?
c
C `o
c 'b
N
g
H
0
79 LLWa.
?0
E
D?o1o
U E :f'
O W
???? 8

0
IT
N
U)
C
O
to
rn
C
O
0
U)
cu
cu
C
O
rn
4-
O
C
O
Q.
U)
0
L6
a)
.n
M to r- ?- m c? oo t?
N N t70 r
M U)
CO)
a)

U
to
W
a)

Q
a)
Q.

i--
C
O
-
(
u

C C C
O
CO C
E C
O C
E a) »

>' #''• O
a)
cu
(II O
tit

O
0
C

cu
s

w

)

L w

O
0

c

n
a) U
C

cu

w
a)

)

a`. U
C

cu

w
:':

"

E

0

z

cn
cu
a) a)
CL cu
a)
E
co
U)
U
LU

N

O
LL
E

N

O
LL
E

O

LL
E

C

C
M
U)

>

C

C
M
?

>

C

c
M

a)

u
C
N
can Z
0
~
Q
C7
f-

Q U
?

O
?Cp
U
'v
c°
s
U
w

Q
W
I-
(A
Q
C
to
C
a)
E
U
c
co
.C
C
a)
C
O
a3
L
O
N
()
O
cn
a)
U
to
0
N
LO
cn
cu
O
tT
a)
cu
a)
(u
C
O
E
m
0
I-
C
O
m
rn
E
co
v
cu
0
U
a)
C
O
p
U C?
O
0
m
cu ?
a) a)
cn
a)
Q
d'
c
N
a
U
a)
a)
0
'D
cu
a)
a
a)
6
O
U
Lf--
O
LN
cu
E
E
0
cn
CO
m
(II
F-
a)

«? co

N U)

N
L
L
L
o E
a) U a)
E c
LB cn O U

L O p
cl 7
4- D
4- O a) a) c a)
O co . . co
cn
a)
U
p
N
N
O
cc1

E

C

N
?o
a)
r
0
0
C
C
a3
C
j
L
O ?.
`
O
O
p

C (n

O
-0 O `= O
U p a)
p
(n to cu cm
:3 a) v O -p N c
n 0 L a) L
3 v ° ° 0 c
0 c
0 "
CL -° - aa)i axi om o CL 0
= c ? -
° o o o - o o U 0
c
o c 0 c
O a) n L p II
p CL L
p N .n L
'
a) C a) c O cn O
L p
CL
= ax
_ a) S o p a

E c t ?
clL >1
cv

E O O a) a`)

a O O 3
0
Q
_ co O ° a) a) O o
cv

C:

-0 a) co

0 0
O

0

o
p
a)
CD CU a) (n J J J Z
CA
O =

`
) N

-C cn

m
O

p

U

c

C O

N

o

? U

N

U
a)

U

C

N
=
O
0
-0
C

O
>
L
co

C CL
co
'p
p
c:
O
L
U

cu
L
to
C
U CU
` L
'p
a) O
x- .. c?9

75 4 a)

u)

u) O

L p

O 0
L 00 c co

o ?c
(Q -
a U O

° c
() a) a)

a)
ca
U a)
c
0 3 °
CL o (n
M
o E u)
a) O
cu
`
c
o E
a) c a
) c
0 ?= a)

' 0 C: 0
U '
O
t0 c
(Q
o o
-0 c

C E

r- M

a) c

E c
(D
• o

a)
i.
a
c (n
U
?
U
p
4T
a c
Q
L
,
(U
C
W
_
L-
U
U
?
i
a) a) o ° o = ° -a o (U
?, E -0M o c O
E L- CL c ° o E (n v°) a) u) c -0 cu cn
cn
cn ° o m o ° L- o y- (II a) o 0
(II to U C -p

i O

? a)

cn 0
N U
I- C C 0 O L E L cu 0 a) 0p O
OL 0 - U) 0

CU
.
0
C"
L -
V
+-
c
4-
m

ca

c 5

C
1

a CL
to
?
co .
(a a)
in .
p U
c
E
L
O .
N
O a)
L :3 a) L a)
c`o ° > °
c ° o a) `-
V o
a (n
3 a) Q
a) -?e
c w
W v 0 0 a)
a) U
cn
= ° Z Q
of U) E
a)
.n

7 ? M V N N M Lr) (fl f?
M ?- N
Z ?- ?- .- N N CV N N N N (n t()
Y
N

O ?- ?- ?- •- N N N N N N N M M M M M

O
?i
4-4
'N
J

Cyyi
c,
z
G
N_
F
U
c7
z
wl
yl
V
v
N
U
R ?
O 'y .C
r G
b ? O
C G C
L O G ld
R
yN? o
pGj U U U V
V 00 y ? R
C
c°Oi =? c d C
is
u u w v
C
[[ u to
C7 C
C C` N O
U G u
o E v N c'?
o 0 G,
cn o
n u cc o
v C c c
° C: o a
u
u c. c E E
? u eo
c ° °
o u G G? oy
_u c u 2 u
O U OO C C
.b N O G R
N V Rv? U O
o U R ` C
C N
u o° e e c
?.. N L U •? O
'Ei
C
?. R E
``O of =• w V iv
v ° ? c u
v ° ? ?-. 'u Eo
U N N
U e0 C ? V
t+ ` o L
C R
G
N
E
u `ab
O O = V `
I-j
cEa c ° u '?
v 4J c. ? v ?
E E c
Ly E c c E -
V
V
U V
.. .. E
V
d E E ' C
o v .; on
.14 -
G o u u G h
Y U N R
_ u
oC o
N O t? C G
,p R
0 C-
G yG E O ab
V ` C E
R
V Ql (?j V
N ?- G

-

^
_ u
C u
C u
C
z z z

u
C u
C u
C

? = X 2 Z
? y
t
e
u
Z
5, = -a ICU:
Z WC
z lai
Z

h . >
c ?
N
u 4 - *
E u
o
u
0.' - Z C
° ? ? = v a z
v
?
E u u

_.
s
L- xt
c
c
= '$ z z

r
- v ^
> .c u
N
u +MS '
p N O
h jC p
.?y
V
xC
N
0
v
u
C
g.
..: ff o
V L
.`W C
O 'V 0;1
C
C
a cg z
. `f O
U
W =' N
N U
'^ z
N
_ u
M z < ? CC
M
r
n ?
L '-
u ?
- N
G N ? G7
C.)
C h y
C o 0 =.
V C O r
z-cG
IZ,
L,

CIS o ?t \
Ln
r
-o O
r
N

C
_ O
v
' L
V
a?
0
.o
.C
C
cz
C
C
L-Icz-)

po?
N
O
c ?
H C U
o ?
O _ C
G ?
a.., to
O ?
C C U
O - r
r c
o u ?.
C- c _ '•
G G K
K K a
N ^ y
K _ q
u -
cl G O
U U N
N L V
CJ N °
c u ?
H h E ` U ..?.
c_
V y
CZ
K
U C v
o .?
r E p o
c C- E °
L r E
..C h K.
cs C ^ O
C GO
C•
U p ?,•, C 1 v
cs =
U c_ O C
u 1 G o
N V Q
u O --- F
•N r y .c ¢?
V U O y O
u r. G H
_u K°•-
L
C = u r_
c E N
u
o
E o c ?n
r NQ rj >.
c
G V U U .7 ` V
L _
tz:
C4 •? ;!? K 4) w _
C
_ v C' Q O O
o g V
5i 4) Q E o
K F v, V = cC
C Y U
G O ? h O
C c`o a O
V- u
y ` ` ^
- K 77- ?
L
o a >-.,r
r co c
C V ? C C
a..? o
u = V
C c o G or+ "' h
U a h _O `O^ o 14
h = C K
.. ` cN.' C O L O
O in C' CS .- C CJ <
O C V 'C ti
C O
C
V
C
h
0
V:
C
r
C
C
C
L'.
F
C:
z
c:
z
i.
U
N ? .ss
v-.
N M o
00
N ?
'r -
Q
h
O
L Q ? o
Q
O\ C
ti? ? 61
-C F
vv'•
c
r
C C =
fn E "` c
v o V .Usr
v '? a?
'? GY+ V = N

V -
v M -r
C
N O
O C
oe
l!'? GfS
'r -- E
?z,?•61 S
C
W
O N
c
?.
00
? M
V ? N
N N - ? o
N
N p o
? O
h
' p Co
? v ? Qo
.C
O\ Q
ti Q t)
-C
? c
V N
c
C
C C
C O ? G
C OG O
; =
C
?Qa
N ?
N
? U
h
o 'J
M K
? o
h
N 4
v
N p o
.? O
N - ?
L .tip
O
-ti
?N
'R C?
f' q)
? y O
V ?
c
C C =
N G
?`' E y G C
E O O
O
00 V V v
u
Q' ONi V ? N
V O
j G\ .,? . OL
h
•'C C
O N
"' h O
W ? N
C o
? c
ti
? C\
v cc
N NI
N N
N
-C

-c
N
6\ Q
'C
C N
v ?
?G
ti
C] N
O
r;
?Q
cQ c`
V
r M
oe N
N
to `r ^
? v
i
N `
o C o C° o o ?= c
Z?
{ C o o o
z
Q ^ I 1 ~ M ?• V "?I
x p N p Ci] V• (,i? p to W ~ M ..? (? ~
N N N N
CD
Ca.1 U +.a •.` U +n .`"° 'w;.may ('. " •4a
.a N ?y C M'='r w
r q- N - v p G?
O N O c lV O p N o v
o
09
?x C)
N ?. v' ?. v ? ? o ?. ; r^• ? ? ti ' ? ? p ti
o - o ?. '.
cc co
: O C N p In
~ ?• ZZ
C7 V N V v ?M^.. vY. v M.»;,. C co
z
Co
e •? _ , C N
ti 'b L ai 'r3 i. ci 4 4.
. y o? c cCi ,oCi C C o G C G 4-, C- o
0 L. tn E5 %A
Q o
o v u° 41 c? °u 41 c3 c v o o ° u
v rJ .?-. C V N Cd L C V G1 d C V O b 00 - V O U -C
-.V U N -,v .Q. ?-. U N Q" M Rai U N cr QV'. N u V .yy. N C? M
?p Gd Q
N 1-a
-N CD 00
U `n V cc
f '?> O , •'? N ?O g r1-. ^d. a, `tf' .are; .11
1544
' C C C ,C "? h
' o y o ? C ?? C 'Q
1 C14
?0 4) cz:
O,?^°'?? u CZ
U Cyr ?Uz.y.c y ? r-
Z HBO ^ oo Hr O? v +' ?? o`
G:. ° F C' ` G7 N I ° C O y p C N O C O yNj ~O
Fh w? Fh w? Fc., w?
E-
M C C ti C O 1C O tt o? C C
L
C'l
00
1; C,
q y N b? h-
N N
cq N ° tV ° 00
co
. t _ ^ M ;;, '.` v n •. `T to
F-' ?G a s N ~° w N d o N ti°o .,, N BOO 6¢ N
to ti
en tl-l
w° N N O N O^ N v p N c
is o o o 09
;; 3 :? to ^1 H, N o N o
to O C> z ,,, C h o „?
^? '' O n •C p to ^C O cc ~C p c°,
M ,
. C\ O tT t1
Ci Y C
• t j•`
°?o :c oe o o o, o
ev i c? .°? M y m oe o
., N V °0 U U V v
C
O C .?•. G .. "~ti ? : ? ? , , „?? M ? i•r C .. "~r M O :-. G .. "r ? ? t, '+. N
• c o o U o c ° 4' ?r o o ° ?' C o o at ?r ' O o
Iz,
v -. o v
"IV 61 N U CU
C V N N C O v N
• LNi V N O V N 'S. V N N Z N (Y. U N
F? o
i .I? y ""? \ ? tV o-•7 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? O ? ? o O
c y cG 0 ^ :b cq
N 00 194
O V a p L
I y : y C y r
? <? C C C C '? "+ h
C C
tz to) V)
TU ".. 4t ? C-. V Z ?'• ? C ? V V '-C. ? ? GG ?. V t-. ?. C ? .y ?. t? 4;.??. ? ,y Z
N y O y +. .,c ^ ?.
x-. N O C O O C ?+ CO
41
C7 F GL F w &- -1 k. to O C N O
F. h w ? E. h

O
Z p o
• ?T
i V X; ' ON
y i
L
- ? •47
v N
N .;.
;
r,77
? O
. v
C'i
N
U
z -
y
., y G
tC ?
... 'O 3. ?
(O
C: E O O ?
V
v
V
L V •rN N
V w
1tQ .. 4
Q V
C
O 4
•E
L O
U _
z v C o
V
h N _
C; 00
? •
?' N o
N ?
K•
N
N ? p o
+ h
^C :? O h
r z O
N ?
°
4
C
v?
i?
N
N
4, cs ?
"O
^ L
C C

g? .O L G C
?
C O O
U
.? ? O TJ

V
E
IOR
a ?
p N ,?

V L
?
C.? 00
V ;p
00
C h
C
r ~ ? E
.+.. L p
y ti Z 00
d N
V ?•
?.
? N ?
C.; N
• o
.n
o
~ M
N ? o
N
:i: rr c
'G
O\ o !
.O ,+ N
y N
o? C ?-
v O°
y
C
? O
b 3. C
C C
a? E O p O
Q' ?' Cr V = N
.Z
•ec EE\,
V ?

(.d1 y C
C i-
O ?
L

O
h O
ti c a:
1 G
?

?S •.Y
?!
? oo
N M p o
O
N
h
"~C
c'i
O •
U o0
y
C
'r N
.-. CC
C C
M ..
C
E o ` o
u Q V
Ntr .d
M r7
Ly ^ .d L
U N
VW ?.j 'f

M O y
V1 W

.?
^
y t L
? C
?a. a
? n
vl
F= .•.
h O
c: N
?
? b
" o
N ? vs
"? {L M
• N
- O ?
ti
'C
N C
OR C .
n0
v
V ?
h
C
? O
"~ti ? d O G
`V V N
d
° E\
d
O
V M ~
[ C G
y
'C ?' CSf
wy.. it
v c,
Ey h w c' o
c
.r
N
M
S c?
v
N M
? N
N M
N
ti
ti
"~C
ti M
'G
oe O
a. °
C ?
ti G\
'r N
V ?
-C? N
o
N
.1.. O
O
G\
h
hVV ..C
E- ?

a:

:..r; L? Cry

.? T.
: M
M
t
00

•
n.

h
? .fV ti
.:
i cq w4 M

r-. .:

y ?
h
YI O
to

O

N CJ `n
U ;?.
Jz cq

C

t O
C4 ?
E L ? O
o o ? V?
.? 4, V CJ
N n

., 00
w
v

A
;:CZ
?C

v ? Cco v ,
.z C N
O
PRELIMINARY REPORT
FOR
HAWS RUN MITIGATION SITE, ONSLOW COUNTY
10/3/96
R.J. LEBLOND, BIOLOGIST, NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM
NATURAL RESOURCE SECTION, DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, AND NATURAL RESOURCES
INTRODUCTION
Haws Run Mitigation Site is located in western Onslow County along the boundary with Pender
County southeast of Maple Hill. The site is comprised of two parcels totaling 593 acres, and it is
owned by the N.C. Department of Transportation (NC DOT). NC DOT acquired the site "to
provide compensatory mitigation to offset unavoidable impacts to wetlands as a result of
[roadway] construction" (NC DOT 1996). The site is located on an interstream terrace and is
bounded on the north by Sandy Run Swamp and on the south by Shelter Swamp Creek. About
400 acres of the site were clear-cut and apparently grubbed in the early 1980's, and the canopy
still has not recovered. Herb vegetation indicates that the cleared area once supported the very
.
rare Pine Savanna Very Wet Clay community variant (Schafale 1994). Remnants of Pine Savanna
habitat persist at the site, and several rare plant species associated with the Very Wet Clay variant
occur at the site, including a few globally rare endemics restricted to this variant. Thalictrum
cooleyi (Cooley's meadowrue), federally listed as Endangered, is among the globally rare
endemics. Many problems are posed by the protection of rare species populations, restoration of
natural community habitat and processes, and restoration of the site's natural hydrologic and
edaphic conditions. But the site also presents an excellent opportunity to study the dynamics of
the Pine Savanna Very Wet Clay community variant, to learn the survival requirements of the
globally rare endemic plant species, to develop successful restoration techniques, and to ultimately
protect a site that, in spite of the degradation, is nationally significant.
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
Haws Run Mitigation Site lies along the Onslow/Pender county line approximately four miles
southeast of Maple Hill and 10 miles northwest of Holly Ridge. According to the U.S.G.S. Maple
Hill and Maple Hill SW topographic quads, the site is bisected from northwest to southeast by the
county line. However, the Onslow County Assessor's property map shows the boundary as
coinciding with the west side of the NC DOT property; thus, all of the site is located within
Onslow County, at least for tax purposes. The county line in this area is described as an
"indefinite. boundary" on the U.S.G.S. topographic quads.
W
The NC DOT property is composed of two parcels: 708-1 (540.20 acres) and 707-33 (53.08
acres). As of June 17, 1996, the Onslow County Tax Office computer records showed parcel
708-1 as owned by NC DOT, but parcel 707-33 as- owned by Nationsbank Financial Services.
NC DOT claims ownership of both parcels (Schiller 1996). Parcel 707-33 is located at the
extreme northwest end of the site, along the south side of Sandy Run Swamp.
The site is located on a low terrace about 2 miles broad between Sandy Run Swamp to the north
and Shelter Swamp Creek to the south. Both creeks drain into Holly Shelter Creek, a tributary of
Northeast Cape Fear River. The topography is essentially flat, with the highest elevation (about
43 feet) near the middle, and grading downslope to about 27 feet elevation in the stream
floodplains to the northwest and southeast. Some portions of the site within or adjacent to the
stream floodplains are wooded, and total about 200 acres, most of which are located at the
southeast end adjacent to Shelter Swamp Creek. Floodplain forest supports the Coastal Plain
Small Stream Swamp (Blackwater Subtype) community (NC DOT 1996). Wooded areas
between the Shelter Swamp Creek floodplain and the cleared area to the northwest support pine
plantation and remnant Pine Savanna Very Wet Clay Variant habitat. The cleared area totals
about 400 acres and is dominated by herbs associated with the Pine Savanna variant, and with
shrubs and low trees occurring in scattered patches.
Several soils have been documented at the site. The cleared area is dominated by Stallings,
Foreston, Woodington, and Torhunta soils. Muckalee is the dominant floodplain soil, and Grifton
occurs in a wooded area between the Shelter Swamp Creek floodplain and the cleared area.
According to soil sampling conducted in June 1996, "soils of the site are acidic to circumneutral,
with an arithmetic mean pH of 5.1" (NC DOT 1996). Although the 1996 NC DOT report (i i )
states that the soils "are reasonably normal and have not been significantly altered," sample soil
probes made during the June 25 site visit indicated a uniform light gray fine silt or clayey soil to a
depth of three or more feet without characteristic layering, lacking a dark surface layer, and with
buried undecomposed vegetation. These sample probes were made in the southeast portion of the
site, and may not be characteristic of the entire site. But they suggest that at least in the
southeastern portion of the cleared area, the soil was turned over to a considerable depth
subsequent to clearing.
All of the Pine Savanna Very Wet Clay Variant habitat and most of the rare plant species
populations identified to date are located in the southeastern portion of the site. The most
significant area is bounded along the northwest by the access road from the adjacent Hancock
property; along the northeast by the parcel boundary ditch; along the southeast by an abandoned
roadbed parallel to and about 1200 feet southeast of the access road from the Hancock property;
and along the southwest by a flooded canal that centrally bisects the site from northwest to
southeast.
2
MITIGATION
In its July 1996 report, NC DOT recommends the following mitigation projects at the site:
(1) filling of the central NW/SE canal in the cleared interior of the site;
(2) causeway removal, ditch filling, and swamp forest re-establishment in the creek
floodplains;
(3) Pine Savanna Very Wet Clay Variant canopy and dominant ground-cover grass re-
establishment in the cleared interior; and
(4) hydrologic and vegetation monitoring.
Filling of the central canal. Towards the goal of hydrologic restoration, NC DOT proposes to
fill this canal southward from its northern terminus to a point "200 feet north of the northern
occurrence of Cooley's Meadowrue," a distance of about 5,200 feet. In addition, another 7,400
feet of axillary ditches in this area are also proposed for filling. It has been proposed (Schiller
1996) that original spoil paralleling the ditches and canal be used for the fill.
Prevention of runoff and erosion associated with these ditches and the canal is highly desirable.
However, due to erosion, the amount of spoil paralleling the proposed fill areas has decreased,
and fill will have to be transferred from elsewhere on-site or imported from off-site. To avoid
undesirable impacts from these options, consideration should be given to damming rather than
filling the canal and ditches, or to a combination of filling and damming.
Creek floodplain causeway removal, ditch filling, and swamp forest re-establishment.
Towards the goals of hydrologic and vegetation restoration, NC DOT proposes to remove to
original elevation about 8,200 linear feet of causeways in the Sandy Run Swamp and Shelter
Swamp Creek floodplains, and to fill to original elevation about 5,400 linear feet of canals parallel
to the causeways. These areas will then be planted with swamp hardwood and cypress trees, with
a species composition that "will approximate those of nearby areas." "Trees will be established at
a density of 680 trees/acre (8'x8' spacing)."
Pine Savanna canopy and dominant grasses re-establishment. Towards the goal of plant
community restoration, NC DOT proposes to plant pond pine, longleaf pine, and pond cypress
trees throughout most of the interior area with a density and pattern based on the proposed
reference system, Lanier Quarry Savanna. Re-establishment of wiregrass (Ari i ri ) and
Carolina dropseed (S orb sp. 1) will also be attempted at scattered locations.
The goal is highly desirable, but it is recommended that canopy and dominant grass re-
establishment first be conducted on study plots to determine which soil types and/or hydrologic
conditions are most favorable for active restoration efforts. It is also recommended that fire
A
management be introduced into the area of remnant Pine Savanna Very Wet Clay Variant in the
southeastern portion of the property; woody vegetation is naturally recovering in the remnant
habitat in this area.
Hydrologic and vegetation monitoring. NC DOT proposes to establish wells to monitor
hydrologic restoration, and to establish vegetation sampling plots to monitor plant community
restoration. NC DOT is seeking to establish reference system plots at Lanier Quarry Savanna "to
determine the species composition and densities of canopy trees to be planted in the interior areas
of the mitigation site." However, if such data already exist, they can be used in place of the plots.
Sampling plots will be established in both the cleared interior and in swamp forest "to monitor the
success of tree planting."
It is recommended that wiregrass and Carolina dropseed densities also be studied in the mitigation
site plots, and in the Lanier Quarry Savanna plots if such data are not already available.
SIGNIFICANCE OF RARE PLANT POPULATIONS
M

As of September 19, 1996, the following rare plant taxa have been documented as occurring at
the Haws Run Mitigation Site:
STATUS
TAX ON NC
Ag=alini as hhylla C
Allium sp. I C
Arnoglossum va m SR
arex lutea PC2 PE
la i m mariscoides SR
Plantago snarsiflora C2 E
Rhynchospora r vi e C
R. ec rr n C2 C
R. divergens SR
R. glo lari var. pinetorum SR
R. thornei C2 PE
cl rig georgiana SR
S. verticillata C
lidag lchra C2 E
Thalictrum coolevi E E
Xyrisf flabelliformis 1
X O e;0t- ;S \1 ?10?-i-- C
C Csf? ?i5?0?;c9?1
(11C2" taxa are currently treated as "Species of Concern" by the U.S. Fish and Wil dlife Service.)
4

• The site contains the 12th currently known global population of US Endangered Thalictrum
coolevi, the 6th globally known populations of arex lutea and Allium sp. 1, one of few currently
known global populations of the little-known Rh, ny chospora decurrens, and the world's largest
known population of Rhynchospora thornei. In addition, the Pine Savanna Very Wet Clay
Variant is a very rare natural community type restricted to the Maple Hill and Old Dock areas of
eastern North Carolina. Based on these critical populations for globally rare plant species, and the
presence of a remnant of a very rare natural community type, the site has been determined to be
nationally significant by N.C. Natural Heritage Program.
REFERENCES CITED
NC DOT. 1996. Preliminary compensatory mitigation plan for Haws Run Mitigation Site.
Permits and Wetland Mitigation Unit, Planning and Environmental Branch, NC DOT,
Raleigh.
Schafale, M.P. 1994. Inventory of longleaf pine natural communities in North Carolina. N.C.
Natural Heritage Program, DPR, DEHNR, Raleigh.
Schiller, D. 1996. NC DOT biologist. Personal communications of June 25 and July 10 with
R.J. LeBlond, N.C. Natural Heritage Program, DPR, DEHNR, Raleigh.
it

\ ??? t'r Ili k71. k?sril /
NORTH CAROLINA
NATURAL HERITAGE
PROGRAM
N.C. Department of Environment, -
Health, and Natural Resources,
Division of Parks and Recreatior4
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
919 / 733-7701
Here's the Information
You Requested
nn
In response io'your r t c`?t, we forward the
enclosed information and hope it will serve your .
purpose. If we may be of further service, please call
upon us.
?
0
1
I
Compensatory Mitigation Plan
for
Haws Run Mitigation Site
Prepared for:
? North Carolina Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
Raleigh, North Carolina
1
?

Prepared by:
Land Management Group, Inc.
Wilmington, North Carolina
February 24, 1997
Job # 96-351

I
1
1
1
1

1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................... 4
LIST OF TABLES ..................................................... 5
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................ 6
1.1 Mitigation Site Description ................................... 6
1.2 Site History ............................................... 6
1.3 Plant Community Types ..................................... 7
1.4 Soils .................................................... 7
2.0 PRELIMINARY STUDIES ......................................... 7
2.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands ...................................... 7
2.2 Soil Sampling ............................................. 8
2.3 Vegetation Surveys ......................................... 8
2.4 Consultation With Resource Agencies .......................... 9
3.0 MITIGATION PLAN .............................................. 9
3.1 Swamp Forest Mitigation ..................................... 9
3. 1.1 Swamp Forest Restoration ............................. 10
3.1.2 Swamp Forest Enhancement ........................... 11
3.1.3 Swamp Forest Preservation ............................ 11
3.2 Savanna Mitigation .......................................... 11
3.2.1 Savanna Restoration ................................. 12
3.2.1.1 Hydrological Restoration .................... 12
3.2.1.2 Plant Community Restoration ................ 12
3.2.2 Savanna Enhancement ............................... 13
3.2.3 Savanna Preservation ................................ 13
3.2.4 Upland Enhancement ................................. 13
4.0 MITIGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE ................... 13
5.0 MONITORING PLAN ............................................ 13
5.1 Swamp Forest Monitoring ................................... 13
5.1.1 Hydrological Monitoring ............................... 13
5.1.2 Plant Community Monitoring ........................... 14
5.2 Savanna Monitoring ....................................... 14
5.2.1. Hydrologic Monitoring ................................ 14
5.2.2. Plant Community Monitoring ........................... 14
6.0 AS-BUILT REPORT AND DRAWINGS .............................. 14

8.0 LITERATURE CITED ............................................ 15
/ 9.0 FIGURES, TABLES, AND APPENDICES ............................ 17
1

1

1
p
1
D

4
1
1
1
1
1
1
C
1
0
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Vicinity map ................................................ 18
Figure 2. Haws Run Mitigation Site ...................................... 19
Figure 3. Ecosystems identified in interior portion of tract .................... 20
Figure 4. 1966 NRCS aerial photo ...................................... 21
Figure 5. NRCS soils map ............................................. 22
Figure 6. NWlmap .................................................. 23
Figure 7. NCDSWC hydric soil delineation ................................ 24
Figure 8. Well location and wetland delineation ............................ 25
Figure 9. Observed distribution of Thalictrum cooleyi ........................ 26
Figure 10. Restoration areas of Sandy Run Swamp ......................... 27
Figure 11. Restoration, enhancement, and preservation areas
of Shelter Creek Swamp .............................................. 28
Figure 12. Ditches to be filled in savanna mitigation area .................... 29
Figure 13. Savanna mitigation areas ..................................... 30
Figure 14. Well locations and sample plots in Restoration Areas 1-3 ............ 31
Figure 15. Well and sample plot locations in Restoration Areas 4-7 ............ 32
Figure 16. Savanna well locations and sample plots ........................ 33

5

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Characteristics of soils ........................................ 34
Table 2. Summary of chemical and physical characteristics of soil .............. 35
Table 3. Information taken from lime piles ................................. 36
1 Table 4. Information on rare plants ...................................... 37
Table 5. Description of mitigation areas .................................. 38
1
1
1
1
1
1
0

6
1 1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Mitigation Site Description
The Haws Run mitigation site is located approximately 28 miles northeast of the
1 city of Wilmington, North Carolina, and straddles the Pender-Onslow County line
(Figure 1). The site is 600 acres in size, approximately rectangular in shape, and is
geographically positioned between Sandy Run Swamp Creek to the north and Shelter
Swamp Creek to the south (Figure 2). The north and south portions of the site consist
of approximately 200 acres of swamp forest associated with the two creeks. The
1 average width of Sandy Run Swamp is approximately 1,600 feet and that of Shelter
Swamp is 1,700 feet. Two earthen causeways and associated canals extend into both
swamp forests at each end of the site, terminating at the respective creeks (Figure 2).
Also, an approximately 2,300 foot-long logging access road extends through the Sandy
Run Swamp connecting the property with N.C. Highway 50.
1 Approximately 390 acres of the site was cleared and sub-soiled between the
early 1960's and 1983 for silvicultural harvest and creation of pasture land. The area
currently supports a dense stand of herbaceous vegetation (mostly grasses, sedges,
and rushes) and scattered patches of broadleaf trees and shrubs. Historical aerial
1 photographs dating back to 1949 indicate that the interior portion of the site consisted
of approximately 138 acres of wet savanna, approximately 40 acres of dry savanna,
approximately 169 acres of pine flatwoods, and approximately 44 acres of cleared
swamp forest (Figure 3).
1 1.2 Site History
Silvicultural activities appear to have been initiated prior to 1966, based on
NRCS aerial photographs (Figure 4). Logging concentrated on selective harvest of
long leaf pine (Pinus palustris) from the interstream divide portion of the tract and much
of the larger cypress (Taxodium distichum) from the swamp forests where large
1 remnant stumps are still visible.
During the early 1970's, an effort was undertaken to convert the interior
(interstream divide) portions of the site into pasture land with the intent of raising
American Bison. Site preparation included excavation of an extensive ditch and canal
1 system with canals and causeways extending through the swamp forests to both
creeks. The canal system was also used to make the potential pasture area more
symmetrical. The wet nature of the property made drainage difficult; approximately one
foot of water reportedly stood over 60% of the interior portion during the conversion
effort. Once the canal system was complete, the entire interior portion was sub-soiled
/ and approximately 900 tons of lime were applied to increase soil pH. Several remnant
lime piles remain on the site (Figure 2).
7
1.3 Plant Community Types
The swamp forests at each end of the site are classified as Coastal Plain Small
Stream Swamp (Blackwater Subtype) (Schafale and Weakley, 1990). Dominant tree
species are water tupelo (Nyssa aquatica), bald cypress, pond cypress (Taxodium
ascendens), sweet-gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), yellow poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera), red maple (Acer rubrum), willow oak (Quercus phellos), loblolly pine (Pinus
taeda), and pond pine (P. serotina). One causeway at the north end of the site is
continuous to NC 50, with the exception of an opening approximately 25 feet wide. The
entire flow of water through the swamp is restricted to this narrow opening.
At present, the interior area supports a diverse herbaceous community
dominated by grasses, sedges, and rushes. Scattered patches of woody shrubs and
small trees occur throughout, with most concentrated in the northern half of this area.
The most common species are sweet-gum, black gum (Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora),
wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana), ti-ti (Cyrilla racemiflora),
and red maple.
1.4 Soils
The soils of the swamp forests are mapped as Muckalee. Soils of the interior
portions include Woodington, Torhunta, Foreston, Stallings, and Grifton (USDA 1990,
1992). Muckalee soil is generally found along flood plains and is frequently flooded for
brief periods. The other soils of the site are generally found on uplands, interstream
divides, or near drainage ways. The distribution of the soils of the site is shown in
Figure 5 and a summary of their pertinent characteristics is found in Table 1.
2.0 PRELIMINARY STUDIES
2.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands
National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps identified the majority of the interior
portion of the site as upland (Figure 6), although the USDA mapping indicates the
presence of hydric soils throughout the site (Figure 5 and Table 1). A soil survey
conducted in 1994 oncluded that 92% of the cleared portion of the site consisted of
hydric soils (Figure ) (DEHNR 1994). The majority of the non-hydric soils identified in
that survey general) correspond to the distribution of the Foreston series mapped by
the Soil Conservati n Service (USDA 1990, 1992). The wetland areas mapped by NWI
generally coincide ith the swamp forests. These wetland types are identified mostly
as PF01C (Palustri e, Forested, Broadleaf Deciduous, Seasonally Flooded) (Cowardin
et al. 1979).
8
Ten Remote Data System WL-40 groundwater monitoring wells (WL-40s) were
installed on the site prior to the 1995 growing season by Land Management Group, Inc.
Six additional wells were installed in December, 1995. The locations of these wells are
shown in Figure 8. A wetland delineation map was developed (Figure 8) in
consultation with the Regulatory Branch of the USACOE, Wilmington District, based on
daily groundwater levels at these wells, and the mapping of hydric soils by DEHNR
(1994) (Figure 7). One hundred and thirteen acres of the cleared portion of the tract
were determined to be jurisdictional wetlands, based on this delineation. The majority
of the wetlands occur in two irregularly shaped areas near the center of the tract. A
drained area separates the two jurisdictionally wetland areas. This drained area is
approximately 200 feet wide and is centered on the large canal extending from the
north end of the site to the south end. The length of that area is approximately 4,500
feet. One smaller area of jurisdictional wetlands was also identified near the southern
end of the site.
2.2 Soil Sampling
Soil sampling was conducted in June, 1996. Samples were collected at eight
locations throughout the interior portion of the site. Sample locations generally
correspond to the locations of the groundwater monitoring wells (Figure 8). At each
location, three sub-samples were collected from an area of approximately 100 ftz,
mixed, and a composite sample was taken. One set of samples was collected from the
surface to a depth of 6 inches. Another set of samples was collected from a depth of
12 to 18 inches. The samples were returned to the Agronomic Division of the NC
Department of Agriculture (NCDA) for analysis. A copy of the results is attached and a
summary of the results is given in Table 2. The analyses indicated that the soils of the
site are acidic to circumneutral, with a arithmetic mean pH of 5.1.
Samples from suspected remnant lime piles were taken in January 1997.
Analyses of the samples for calcium carbonate are shown in Table 3. Results of the
analyses support previous statements that lime was applied to interior portion of the
site in an effort to convert it to pasture land.
2.3 Vegetation Surveys
During 1996, personnel of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program visited
the site in the process of conducting an inventory of rare plants and vegetative
communities in Onslow County. During the survey of the Haws Run Mitigation Site,
seventeen species of rare plants were found. These included Cooley's Meadowrue
(Thalictrum cooleyt), a federally listed endangered species. Other species found
include four Federal Candidate species and four rare species (Memorandum from Mr.
Richard LeBlond, attached). A summary of the species found on the site is given in
Table 4.
9
During June, 1996, surveys to determine the distribution of Cooley's Meadowrue
at the site were conducted by NCDOT personnel. Results of that survey are shown in
Figure 9. In addition to the listed species, remnants of Pine Savanna Very Wet Clay
Variant were identified in a wooded area at the southern end of the site between the
cleared area and the swamp forest.
Pine Savanna Very Wet Clay Variant is a very rare community type that
Schafale (1994) has identified as one of five savanna types. The dominant tree canopy
is composed of a mixture of pond pine, long leaf pine, and pond cypress. This variant
occurs on clayey soils usually underlain by marl. Only five other examples of this
community type are known. The nearest example is the Lanier Quarry Savanna,
approximately two miles west of the Haws Run Mitigation Site. That site is partially
owned by The Nature Conservancy; various inholdings result in a patchwork of
ownership.
2.4 Consultation With Resource Agencies
Because of the occurrence of a federally listed endangered species (Cooley's
Meadowrue) on the mitigation site, NCDOT contacted the US Fish and Wildlife Service
to discuss the status of this occurrence and how it may affect the implementation of
hydrologic and vegetative restoration of the site. Discussions will continue to ensure
that implementation of the mitigation will not adversely affect Cooley's Meadowrue on
the mitigation site.
The restoration of areas adjacent to Shelter Creek Swamp is complicated by the
nearby presence of Cooley's Meadowrue in the central canal and adjacent cleared
area. During discussions between NCDOT and appropriate resource agency
personnel, concerns were raised that the filling of the large central canal downstream
of the plants may possibly drown them. In order to protect the Cooley's Meadowrue in
the central canal, a culvert will be installed from the central canal to the eastern canal
(Figure 9). This will insure existing drainage of the central canal area containing
Cooley's Meadowrue and will allow for mitigation efforts to proceed.
3.0 MITIGATION PLAN
A total of 528 acres of Haws Run Mitigation Site will be used for wetland
mitigation. This will consist of restoration, enhancement, and preservation of both
savanna and swamp forest as shown in Table 5. An additional 40 acres will be used as
-upland enhancement. A total of 67 acres will not be manipulated.
3.1 Swamp Forest Mitigation
10
3. 1.1 Swamp Forest Restoration
A total of 40 acres of swamp forest will be restored (Tables 5). For descriptive
purposes, swamp forest restoration will be divided into seven areas. Restoration will
consist of two areas that have been cleared and filled, and five areas where causeways
and canals will be removed. Canals will be filled using the material originally used to
create the causeways. This will also bring the causeways to the level of the adjacent
swamp. The swamp forest which has been cleared and filled will be regraded and
shaped to the level of the adjacent remaining swamp forest. Swamp hardwood plant
species will be established in all restoration areas.
Restoration Area 1 (Figure 10) consists of the removal of one half acre of filled
causeway extending into Shelter Creek Swamp. A total of 2178 cubic yards of fill
material will be removed and placed into the central canal. This removal will restore
the elevation of the causeway to a level grade with the adjoining swamp forest. Since
microtopography has been shown to be important in tree establishment and distribution
(Beatty 1984; Huenneke and Sharitz 1986), small hummocks will left undisturbed to
create microsites for seedling establishment.
Six species of swamp hardwood trees will be planted on eight foot centers for a
total of 680 trees per acre. An equal number of water tupelo, bald cypress, pond
cypress, willow oak, water oak (Quercus nigra), yellow poplar and green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvatica) seedlings will be planted. Seedlings will be planted on the hummocks
for greater seeding survival.
R oraation Area 2 (Figure 10) consists of approxima ly 22 acres which was
cleared i?flled during past conversion activity. Approximate ,873 cubic yards of fill will
be excavated from the area and used to fill the central canal. This should level the
area to a similar elevation of the adjacent swamp forest.
The six hardwood species mentioned previously will be planted systematically
on eight foot centers. This will establish a total of 7,480 trees in this Restoration Area
2.
Restoration Area 3 (Figure 10) consists of approximately 4 acres of canal and
causeways created to give site access during the previous conversion area. The
causeway fill material will be used to fill the adjacent canals. Small hummocks will be
left for seedling establishment. Hardwood canopy species will be planted in an
identical manner to Restoration Area 1.
Restoration Area 4 (Figure 11) consists of approximately one half acre of
causeway extending into Shelter Creek Swamp. The causeway fill material (1,210
cubic yards) will be removed and used to help fill the central canal. Small hummocks
q.,
4t .
1\
will be left for planting. Hardwood canopy species will be planted in a manner identical
to that in Restoration Area 1.
Restoration Area 5 (Figure 11) consists of approximately 11 acres of cleared
and filled swamp forest adjacent to Shelter Creek Swamp. Approximately 26,620 cubic
yards of fill material will be excavated and used to help fill the central canal. Swamp
hardwood canopy species will be planted in an identical manner to those in Restoration
Area 2.
Restoration Area# (Figure 11) consists of approximately one half acre of an
improved logging path created during past silvicuitural activities. Approximately 2,420
cubic yards will be removed as with Areas 1 and 4. This will bring the area to a similar
grade of the adjacent swamp forest. Plantings will be identical to those of Restoration
Areas 1 and 4.
LO -?
Restoration Area (Figure 11) consists of approximately 1.5 acre of canal and
causeway associated with the central canal running through Shelter Creek Swamp.
The causeway material will be removed and used to fill the adjacent canal. Plantings
will be identical to those of Restoration Areas 1,4, and 6. }
4, g r
3.1.2 Swamp Forest Enhancement Mitigation n4 f
-- ?6?e j
Shelter Creek swamp fore enhancement will be created b he removal of the
logging road in Restoration Area 6 whic c isol a 25 acres of Shelter
Creek Swamp (Figure 11). The removal of this road will restore the hydrologic
connection between the enhancement area and adjacent swamp forest.

r.
The removal of the causeways, particularly the large central causeway is also
expected to have an enhancement affect on the hydroperiod of Sandy Run Swamp. (?L
These enhancement effects will be addressed through a functional assessment which
will be conducted at a later time. If approved by concerned agencies, this assessment
will yield appropriate enhancement mitigation credits.
3.1.3 Swamp Forest Preservation
Approximately 179 acres of remnant swamp forest will be preserved Six acres
are adjacent to Restoration Area 6 (Figure 11) and have maintained wetland hydrology.
Due to the close proximity of this area to the area containing Cooley's Meadowrue, to
there is no proposed grading or planting activity proposed for this area.
The remaining 173 acres are portions of both Sandy Run and Shelter Creek Swamps.
3.2 Savanna Mitigation
12
The term savanna has been used by many to describe grass-dominated
communities that contain scattered trees. A specific, agreed-upon definition has not
been developed; however, for the purpose of this project, the definition used by Taggart
(1994) in a study of southeastern savannas will be used. That definition is:
". . . a naturally occurring, bi-layered (tree and herb), fire-maintained
ecosystem of the southeastern United States coastal plain that exhibits
greater that 50% cover by an herbaceous, graminoid-dominated
undergrowth, shrub (woody plants less than 2 m in height) cover less
than 10% and scattered pines (less than 50% canopy cover) as the
overstory dominant".
This mitigation plan proposes restore, enhance, and preserve a total of 244
acres of wet savanna (Table 5). This includes the remnant area of savanna and pine
flatwoods identified in Figure 13. Due to the patchwork of previous ecosystems, wet
savanna will be the target ecosystem of all non-swamp forest areas.
3.2.1 Savanna Restoration
Y es -00
1 , (7
3.2.1.1 Hydrological Restoration / 1 ?
n
The canal from the central portion of the site will be filled from a point
approximately 200 feet north of the northern occurrence of Cooley's Meadowrue to they
northern end of the canal. The length of the proposed fill is approximately 5,200 feet.
In addition all smaller interior ditches and canals (combined length approximately 2,200
feet will be filled. Fill material consisfof material originally excavated from the ditches
which currently form berms adjacent to the ditches and material excavated from swamp
forest restoration areas. The filled ditches are shown in Figure 12. The eastern and
western boundary canals will not be filled since doing so may flood adjacent property
not owned by NCDOT. These activities will restore wetland hydrology to approximately
137 acres (Figure 13) which are currently drained.

3.2.1.2 Plant Community Restoration
Because the herbaceous layer of that community is largely in place, planting
activities will concentrate on the re-establishment of the canopy tree species . Pond
-pine, long leaf pine, and pond cypress will be planted at a density of 10 trees of each
species per acre. All seedlings will be randomly planted on hummocks, however.30
seedlings will be planted within one acre blocks. Due to the wide planting spacing, all
trees will be marked with surveying stakes.
Re-establishment of wiregrass (Aristida stricta) and dropseed (Sporobolus sp. 1),
two species of grass, will be attempted. Plants will be transplanted from the remnant
13
wet savanna defined by LeBlond (1996) to scattered locations throughout the site and
allowed to naturally repopulate suitable areas.
3.2.2 Savanna Enhancement
N
The goal of savanna enhancement will be the restoration of a typical plant
community to 99 acres of remnant savanna area that has maintained its jurisdictional
status (Figure 13). The planting strategy will be identical to that of the savanna
restoration area.
3.2.3 Wet Savanna Preservation
Approximately eight acres of wet savanna will be preserved (Figure 13 ). This
area is a remnant.,pine savanna very wet clay variant described by LeBlond. This area
contains Cooley's Meadowrue. No manipulation of this area is proposed due to the
presence of and other threatened plants
3.2.4 Upland Enhancement
Savanna plant community species will be re-established in those remnant dry
savannas on the site (Figure 13). Long leaf pine seedlings will be planted at a ratio of
seedlings per acre in these areas.
4.0 MITIGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
0
11
0
The mitigation plan will be implemented in two phases. The first phase will
involve Swamp Forest Restoration Areas 1,2, and 3. Grading and shaping of theses
areas will take place in the summer and fall of 1998 with planting during the dormant
season of 1998-1999. Implementation of the remaining sections will be conducted in
consultation with appropriate agencies.
5.0 MONITORING PLAN r ' tcl
5.1 Swamp Forest Monitoring
5.1.1 Hydrological Monitoring
Three WL-40s will be established in Restoration Area 2 (Figure 14). Two
identical wells will be established in Restoration Area 5 (Figure 15). Data will be
collected from these wells on a daily basis. No wells will be installed in other Swamp
Forest Areas. The other areas will be assumed to meet hydrology criterion due to the
high water tables of adjacent areas. Success criteria will be the restoration of a

N
94
1 groundwater table at or above 12 inches from the soil surface for 12.5% of the growing
season during reasonably normal periods of precipitation. Precipitation data will be
obtained from the public works office at Holly Ridge, North Carolina. Groundwater
levels will be monitored until the success criteria is met.
1
1
1
1
1
/
5.1.2 Plant Community Monitoring
5.2 Savanna Monitoring
50'x 50' sample plots will be established adjacent to each well In Restoration
Areas 2 and 5; with one plot established in each of the other restoration areas (Figures
14 and 15). Sampling will be conducted annually. almaple, ss criteria will be the
establishment of 320 trees per acre at the end of th it year, including acceptable
volunteer species. Non-acceptable species will be sweet gum or any pine
species.
5.2.1. Hydrologic Monitoring '
5

15 WL40s will be installed as shown in Figure 16. Data
these wells on a daily basis. Success criteria will be the establ
saturation within 12 inches of the soil surface for 12.5% of the i
will be monitored until the success criteria is met.
5.2.2. Plant Community Monitoring
Due to the low density of planted species in the savanna al
areas will be required. Three ten acre sample plots will be establi
one in each of the savanna restoration area, savanna enhanceme
enhancement area. Entire plot density sampling will be conductec
criteria will be the survival of 20 trees per acres by the end of th&4
f
LLB
6.0 AS -BUILT REPORT AND DRAWINGS
7
Z - 4%la
1
1

As-built drawings, photographs, plans, and specifications will be ptovided to the
appropriate regulatory agencies within 90 days after the mitigation project is completed.
Monitoring reports, including photographs and problem areas, will be submitted within
30 days of annual sampling.
ti ? A
7.0 DISPENSATION OF PROPERTY
j P.
:.i

I be collected from
;ient
of inundation or
ng season. Wells
large sample
1(Figure 16):
rea, and upland
nualiv. Success
15
NCDOT will maintain ownership of the property until all mitigation activities are
completed. Although no plan for dispensation of the Haws Run Mitigation Site has
been developed, NCDOT will deed the property to a resource agency (public or private)
acceptable to the appropriate regulatory agencies. Covenants and/or restrictions on
the deed will be included that will ensure adequate management and protection of the
site in perpetuity.
8.0 LITERATURE CITED
Beatty, S.W. 1984. Influence of microtopography and canopy species on spatial
patterns of forest and understory plants. Ecology: 65:1406-1519.
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Goblet, and Edward T. Laroe. 1979. Classification of
Wetland and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Fish and Wildlife Service,
U. S. Department of Interior.
DEHNR, 1994. Hydric Soils Investigation. Haw Run Tract, Onslow and Pender
Counties. NC Department of Health, Environment, and Natural Resources.
Division of Soil and Water Conservation, Technical Services Branch.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual. Tech. Rpt. Y-87-1, Waterways Experiment Station, COE, Vicksburg,
Mississippi.
FHWA, 1991. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Smith Creek
Parkway and Downtown Spur, Wilmington, New Hanover County, North Carolina.
State Project Number 8.2250102, U-92, Federal Project No. M-5851(2).
Huenneke, L.F. and R.R. Sharitz. 1986. Microsite abundance and distribution of
woody seedlings in a South Carolina cypress-tupelo swamp. The American Midland
Naturalist 115:328-335.
Resource Southeast, Ltd. 1995. Wetland Delineation Report, Proposed Section C and
the 23rd Street Connector, Smith Creek Parkway.
Schafale, Michael P. 1994. Inventory of Longleaf Pine Natural Communities in North
Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation. NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
Schafale, Michael P., and Alan S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural
Communities of North Carolina, Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural
16
1 Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation. NC Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
1
Taggart, John B. 1994. Ordination as an Aid in Determining Priorities for Plant
Community Protection. Biological Conservation, 8(1994):135-141.
U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1990. Soil Survey of Pender County, North
Carolina, USDA Soil Conservation Service.
U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1992. Soil Survey of Onslow County, North
1 Carolina, USDA Soil Conservation Service.

1
/
1
1

18
I•
I•
I•
I•
I•
•

I•
is
r -:
/Jj ? ? J/y 1
1 A ..
- T Site
? ^; CF
1 = 1 Ef
Y,
gh-
2 A ? 1h:?? 1. ?` ?mil 4 Y fy?, ??t? ?(l.?? ? ? < R .. ? ,?
12.5miles
Figure 1. Vicinity map of LAND MANAGEMENT NC DOT
Haws Run Mitigation Site. GROUP, INC Haws Run Mitigation Site
February 17, 1997 Pender/Onslow Counties
I•
J

J
4
I0
I
I•
•
•
I•
19
N

Sh#Ater Creek ?wa*

h`
t i

Figure 2. Haws Run
Mitigation Site.
LAND MANAGEMENT
GROUP, INC
Febraury 17, 1997
SCALE 1` _ -1667'
NCDOT
Haw's Run Mitigation Site
Pender/Onslow Counties, NC
le
3
I ?
20
I•
'•
I•

I•
I•
I•
I•

LEGEND
Swamp forest (-44 acres)
Wet savanna (-138 acres)
® Dry savanna (-40 acres)
Pine flatwoods (-169 acres)
Figure 3. Ecosystems
identied in the central
portion of the site.
LAND MANAGEMENT
GROUP, INC
February 17, 1997
?P&L
_ine
e
Transmission
SCALE 1" = 1300'
NCDOT
Haws Run Mitigation Site
Pender/Onslow Counties, NC
19

21
II

I•
I•
!•
i•

site boundary
SCALE 1" = -x1300'
I•
Figure 4. 1966
NRCS aerial photo
showing logging path.
LAND MANAGEMENT
GROUP, INC
February 17, 1997
NCDOT
Haws Run Mitigation Site
Pender/Onslow Counties, N
I•
22

'I
'J
I•
'•
19

Figure 5. NRCS soil map.
LAND MANAGEMENT
GROUP, INC
February 17, 1997
SCALE 1" = 2000'
NCDOT
Haws Run Mitigation Site
Pender/Onslow Counties, NC
I0

23

•
I•
I•
I•
?9
I0
I•
4FpV4q /•
PFOIl4A ..

U"
SCALE 1 2000'
Figure 6. Nwl map of site. LAND MANAGEMENT NCDOT
GROUP INC Haws Run Mitigation Site
February 17, 1997 Pender/Onslow Counties, NC
N

- 11
A y I -- Q 1/4C
?- - PFOil4? -
Haws Run Mitigation Site .
? QtlBFx
l U 1?p
PFO?B ?Vol,

24
?J
'J
I?
I
YIN
? 54K
I I \\„\\
oa
,,r

iI
I .
11
0
I•
J
Non-hyd-ric soil
*000

SCALE 1" = 1500'
Figure 7. NCDSWC hydric LAND MANAGEMENT NCDOT
soil delineation of the interior GROUP, INC Haws Run Mitigation Site
portion of the site. February 17, 1997 Pender/Onslow Counties, N
I0
0
25
•
I•
I•
'•
I•
I•
I•
LEGEND
® Uplands (-282 acres)
. 404 wetlands (-110 acres)
Letters indicate well locations
x = wells installed at 50' and
250' intervals from ditches
Delineation is based on two years well d
historical photography, and soil mappini

i0
P&L
ransmission Line
e
SCALE 1" = 1300'
I•
Figure 8. Well location and
wetland delineation of interior
portion of tract.
LAND MANAGEMENT
GROUP, INC
February 17, 1997
NC DOT
Haws Run Mitigation Site
Pender/Onslow Counties, NC

26

I•
1•
• '
Figure 9. Observed
distribution of
Thalictrum cooleyi.
LAND MANAGEMENT
GROUP, INC
February 17, 1997
2
1320'
NCDOT
Haws Run Mitigation Site
Pender/Onslow Counties, NC
I0

i
I0
27

I(D
I(v
I•

4i, -ok 0,
' r
Re"s. ration Area 1
f
Restoration =
g , Area 3 ,
Re!% .2tion Area 2 f
SCALE 1 500'
I•
Figure 10. Restoration Areas
of Sandy Run Swamp
LAND MANAGEMENT
GROUP, INC
February 17, 1997
NCDOT
Haws Run Mitigation Site
Pender/Onslow Counties, NC
;1
I1
I•
I•
•
I•

I•
0
le
N z
k
-? tilt
4 ? er
t' .. x
S

1 S-

_ 1
t ?a
sF'-
7c ,R
? Qr• sae: x aa? . ?+ -.,?r:...:r_ •x-•
L r?Y
rI

0
0
LO
W
J
U
N
? a)
Cf) I=
.C O
F- ? U
0 o
Z
=0
C4
V/
M 0
=a
Z
20 0)
W Z am
_ .-
C? ti
r
z m
C 0/ t?
G LL
O LL
Q
J
C
C
d
ow
O?0
oa
0 E
7 ?., ?Q ca
O)N d 3
LL L mu)
0
r
29
I•
•
•
I•
I•
i•
Q
Cleared boundary
N
LEGEND
Non-impacted diches/canals
Dtiches/canals to be filled
Figure 12. Ditches to be
filled in Savanna mitigation
area.
LAND MANAGEMENT
GROUP, INC
February 17, 1997
CP&L Transmission
Line
r
SCALE 1" = 1300'
NCDOT
Haws Run Mitigation Site
Pender/Onslow Counties, NC
I0

30
1
I?
I•
I•
I•
I•
•
I•

LEGEND
Restoration Area (137 acres)
Enhancement area (-99 acres)
. Preservation Area (-8 acres)
® Upland Enhancement (-40 acres)
. Swamp Forest Restoration
. Cooley's Meadowrue Area (not impacted
Figure 13. Savanna
mitigation areas.
LAND MANAGEMENT
GROUP, INC
February 17, 1997
SCALE 1" = 1300'
NCDOT
Haws Run Mitigation Site
Pender/Onslow Counties, NC
I0
0
31
I•
I•
I0
I•
I•
1•
I•
?tesoration Area 1
Restora-
k Area 3
N
•1 k?
? e
.b
t n,
= Re,
s- - - 1 .a -
r
. f-
, } tyF'ty v
r:
LEGEND
® = Monitoring wells
X =Sample Plots
Figure 14. Well locations
and sample plots in
Restoration Areas 1-3.
LAND MANAGEMENT
GROUP, INC
February 17, 1997
SCALE 1 " = 500'
NCDOT
Haws Run Mitigation Site
Pender/Onslow Counties, NC
140

•
0
I9
•

10
I
•
N
CV)
*J L)
40
r ?
F
: :r tit
Nt. .?f1 = _ 1' \: ? ?yjF ?r-tf r ? 'r•? ? O O
` L-
AW
sT L ?' tm
S.
R O iL W.-
le +. .{??t 4 1,?, V+ a
0 1
I•
33
I•
i•
•
I•
•
I•

I•
'•

LEGEND
Numbers indicate well locations
® Restoration sample plot
Enhancement sample plot
? Upland enhancement sample plot
® Swamp Forest Area
I Figure 16. Savanna well
locations and sample plots.
LAND MANAGEMENT
GROUP, INC
February 17, 1997
CP&L
Transmission
Line
Ale
Non-impacted
area
SCALE 1 " = 1300'
NCDOT
Haws Run Mitigation Site
Pender/Onslow Counties, NC
10
34
Table 1. Characteristics of soils of the Haws Run Mitigation Site.
Soil Series Drainage Location Hydric (Y/N) Community
Type
Foreston Moderately Interstream N Various
well divides Pine/HW
Grifton Poor Shallow Y Various
depressions Pine/HW
Muckalee Poor Flood Plains Y Swamp Forest
Stallings Somewhat Interstream Inclusions Various
poor divides Pine/HW
Torhunta Very poor Interstream Y Various
divides Pine/HW
Woodington Poor Interstream Y Various
divides Pine/HW
35
Table 2. Summary of chemical and physical characteristics of soils from Haws Run
Mitigation Site.
Locatio
n Wetland
(Y/N) Depth Class HM (%) WN CEC BS (%) pH
A N 0-6" Mineral 1.55 1.20 3.4 59 5.4
A N 12-18" Mineral 1.31 1.12 2.5 40 5.0
B Y 0-6" Mineral 1.94 0.91 10.6 92 6.2
B Y 12-18" Mineral 1.25 1.13 6.4 97 6.4
D Y 0-6" Organic 5.53 0.82 6.1 31 4.4
D Y 12-18" Organic 5.85 0.92 5.0 22 4.3
E N 0-6" Min/Org 4.69 0.97 8.3 70 5.4
E N 12-18" Min/Org 4.69 1.14 4.9 43 5.0
F N 0-6" Mineral 2.76 1.07 7.2 82 5.8
F N 12-18" Mineral 1.67 1.22 5.2 92 6.4
H Y 0-6" Organic 10.00 0.88 6.3 14 4.3
H Y 12-18" Organic 7.96 0.71 17.1 78 5.3
J Y 0-6" Mineral 1.31 1.03 5.2 54 4.7
J Y 12-18" Mineral 0.92 1.23 3.0 60 5.2
K N 0-6" Min/Org 4.95 0.78 6.8 21 4.2
K N 12-18" Organic 7.96 0.79 7.7 13 4.1
Notes:
Wetland (Y/N) - Denotes whether sample was collected in an area designated as
wetland
Depth = Depth from which sample was collected
Class = Soil type
HM (%) = Humic matter content
WN = Weight per volume (g/cc), Soil density
CEC = Cation exchange capacity
BS (%) = Percent base saturation
pH = Acidity
co
CV)
1

r
ai

C
0

cc
rn

c
7
w

cts

u
N
N
.Q

E
E
0

N

Q
E

N
c

c
0

ct:
E
,°
c
1 ch
N
F-
Cl)
UO
v
rn
.
°?
co
r`'
ch
v
ch
M
0
M
•?
X C)
W
L

co -

N

co -

N
Q
0
O
L
U-
M
0
¢
¢
m
m
L
x
w
m
a
m

E
Q
(may

Q
co

N
m
cc
N

M
1
1
1
1

c
O

c

1
?

0
1 r

Rf
Q..
N

M

c
O
/
c
O

E
O

N
B
m
H
N N

L

0 3
+.
c c
O c
°
E
E ° °
O
U ° o
3 3
O
c °
°
'Y
Y
_ t
co
v v cU) CL. cU) w U U U) U) a U w w U U

of to
?
a
U
U
U 'CV
U
w
O U)
U-
(? (7 r LO N LO M - tt V-
o m cn 0 0 0 m o o h C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7

M :I
O cri
1
Co
° vOi
_ O
co
C
CEI
3 S?l
N
> .4
co
O
E 0
O
N
L
O
>
c -
V
.?
p
-C
cB
a O Z tq
c o
. L V
E E
k
O O O O U O i O
_
Co
v °
x
°?'
Z3
: a

c

v

a

a

s

Cz
Q Q Q ? 0 cr. co (o n ? x -
k
0
v
m
a
L
aci
C ? 0)
co
awUa`
m
215e....w
G9fnwUIL
78
d c
m
? co
o ??p
N.8U
3 d1
?:0
\ ?J
waU?
T
fC
> d
f0 7 -8 U
N N ?+ « ip N O
?5>.m
7 T$ ? C y
?Uw?Ow
? N C7 ? jvj
C9 C7 0 0 C?1 0
IN
0

0
1

0

ao
M
C
O
C
3
ca
S
O
m
ca
a?
L
O
tm
E
0
O
a.
.U
N
0
N
F"

C)
d LO
cV M r`
M m w 0 w rl- w
W La

C
ca
N
d
L C
N
E
V
co QD
U
cc
m
.C
Q O
N
C
O
N
O
.r
N
aN
L
W
O
N
U
(if
LO
14,

d
CL LO
N
H cr
_
O _
N am

?

U N
tB
O 0 a 0
O E +. O E +•
f4
w ciS
O) co
rn
O
. U
=
c4 am O
+r U
O
co N c E
+
N
C N
C cn ca
a.
O
of w a w w a =3 z 0

c
O
4-
m
rn
?F+
w,
W
CL CO)
(D N
-°

E
U 3
z
O
N O
m
Q O

W N CO) N H U F- U
C?
LL LL LL Rf ca as ca c!J O O
ca
CL
E a.
E a.
E ca c
cv c
m c
ca Q t Q i>
Rf c6 Rf > > > > U
o ~
? '- co
Q
co co co U) co co co

Vj
1230TES OA 14 0 RUN -XITI1GATIOR SITE, ON2LOW COUNTY
R. J . LeP2 ono - 6/18/96
s pnr! , row owned b;: DOT, is located along the Onslow/pander
1 Co! lire west of the Hancock property and south of
:,'w fm") ar,' the XAp2e Mill and Maple Hill GW ouQ4e, Sandv Run
site nn i Tune 13 and 17 and htsva found' 8 rare plant.. sspeciee+?e
i1iip.ludi:,s? one Federal Endangered (Thalictrum c.ooleyi) and 4
F*deraI nad1 date speccies (Carey lute p
P, a 7jc:hcr cra decurren? _y lantagQ snarsilo2-tt,
1 E;,,n7,_._._ R. Lhorne) . Amon these a
.E rr ecies, 3 are 4 State
a at.tzrn, ;Cln IJ Other re:re species include, Arno Ioesum
dium mariscoides, and Rh nchcsqpP--- cra rff-`---.
P retort:7n. '-f 2:e parcel-is urge, total in , ElobLla. is var.
9?7--ni it woo c:l. i$ acr aa. Ro
ar-cut than
ear-cut with serious ground disturbance,
ja` i'-'•c?ir eurfn,:e regradinfi ° over lac
d?te7-_,i r.aC large
- areas. I have tentatively
that the clear-cutting took place betwsen 1077/79-
1 193 'jha site does not MpDsar as cleared oil the 1981 topos
(baa.ed on, 1977 photo with 1978 field
check), but ands show up as
c•l,enred o.n 1983 photographs used for the 1492' Onelow Co. toils
at.`las.
i
Sa f ar•, any exploration hers been most.l
the bin 1..hen v "sited to a 35-ware area
?at end cf the c1te, south of the access road from
i'ht t# _Ir property.
e U Sail.a are wettest in this area, and the
nalce . <l es nOt aPPenr to have bee:i riggrcded, at least not
}.i
en ry. The west e%ncl sou;.h side
s of this area are fcrastad
a xnix of s sale
Li+ F s, including Taxodium asc
odendron, Xv a _biflorc a _endvn-,
1 of.1 :`PTr _t.aec+?, -" There. --- and advenr.iva Cur -*'eilsd pl!,ntin-B
is remnant Pine Savanna Very Wet Clay
Variant"rr-?t.hiin- the west side forested area. I have so far seen
1` ''erg's Hof savanna, but. there.'
here may be more based on the aerial
photo. The flora is fairly diverse its the claar9ci a.rera south of
T.h road, with Carex lutea do:aint%ting a 30x3' patch and
kh1 nchnsa;?cra thorriei ---_--h-___ ??
?•--------? a pc _ dominant to dominant for 20
(-lOta t?)
1 ac-e- s, T?ialic:trun coalev i, Planta?o anaraiflora
o -_
0 1 dQ s , and Clactiu_m
c ar are r ri' ed to
est• t. two ditches at the sits,
whi.oh als,.3: contain Carey lutem and A_r_ncxlcssum (the latter also
i ati: the savan"Ia remnant),
i Rh?nohoancra 1 obu p_
't arum Pppeare to be abundant in the c1e d areas north Lan.
scu F a3'_ t;,e Access road, R. dec_u_rrens wasfound cnaisQd
1 (bA.? wet.) ?%bar,doned roadbed off the booth end of the cleared
area. .
i
The Yignif kance of the mite is at least statewide and p: obab •
nat.k )atal . !it %nontaine the 11th currently known global population
__ _ ttrn G_oo_1 tIi , the 6th globally known population of C_a_re_X
1 I`nt C31 t. t,hetrbt h currently ;cnawn population of P i an , sparBl f l cra
CarolaRo
ina, ?ne or rew currently lcnowr?-KToc,a2` FO-TT, yrcig
f or, the 1 1 i.t• 1 e-•ltnown ?rkL?ch__
ost>Q^s decurrez:s
• :.?,I•??;,.t l:t? ??::: ;• , and the world' e
c
a ? .,„ .:".11ntion of Rh 7ic:r,oopora +harnei. Pine Savanna
Very C' iy v a r i n nt. le. - ---
?= n very rare na 4ur-R 1- community
I -'rtr;`_tF it.c: tha Maple Hill. an? Old Dock areas of eas. ar n No -?h
1 ti-:?r 71n. ;s a likely sits for Allitim sp.
6th kr,riIlcabal e.ita for that species 1' a nd would be the
i
•I
?'?''' f {?d worl: is re?ufi•Ed to determine the L'i1 num
ex't.gnf• c, rare species here. f ber and
1 Hl:$t3,er??re sl,ecies ct:rrentl It is important to determine
-'kt?rtiu:: ui 1 Thalictrulr y known only from two jar se
ditches--
oc.GUr fn, remi;art?envsniac?oleYi and
Plania _o s arei#lorrr-- i
in recovarin c Qarad't?raae. a-so
1ny under st.aadi r:g that DOT would 411ke to ' It is
sy desirable for nat.urnl corL?unit f`oed the ditches, Iwhich
d?e?aetratje: for the ditch-canf inad rare apecieEtlt1 .1, but may be
1 {lU"dJ" c::-%n be phtsaed in with J13dicloua habitat restPerhapa oratio d
n.
1 I
i
1
1

1
I
j
C?OT
r- ?-.rte- ?_ 'S,! _ ?,/._.. /) ? _ ^'h ,; -:'. 1 s ? '.r ' ^, ?_- „4' V? ///?` ?rl ?? ? •^? ?! ? ?_.
?- ?/? Imo- ?? ' `,.?? r ?r •? {
1 J ay 719
It
Ci d? ,+•?
{?? 1 ,a'l?'?i? X11! t`?6? tc^ ??
it
.. 1 1t ! ;? t dG%`? ti' `? t + 1 ?•? lias?"t°"? . ? 1 C ? ,t
' 1 •.? , - ? ?, 1 ? ., 1t ? ? i' } 41.4 j, I , 1'\ ! J ! t ..
i ;llt
?`--^'•-^--? --max ` wt yy ? ? .. •' :., ?
w ?r• ! it / ! ?t .y i _ .v. _ _ `L.
x • f F" F _ _
lit
,?. - _ ? ter' ? b •]
/y?• .. jr?.:..,-?-?M •.0.I" ?. ?" ?1 r?ar'ce?j ioFr1, 5 ?0 a?Yes? NG ??
*+•'r;r ?•'• ! • I , *''??„'ww•• u8'WS Ruh 1`'1t?'l?ga•l°?o?t .? •'t."Qr
1.
j ? P8Yce1 -7o?-33, c-3 acres,
• u 1 4,• \M.rrrbr•-nr..- .- Na,'?'iv?'tS !rJB+tik ?l?.t,3?lCi?d-? Sr:St.,('V?CGS
1
1.5 '.1 Of
/ {R? O Ck?.? $r E 8
i
f
77
lop
62.rcx f'vfCa GLtc?tUU? ttit:irtsCnc,lcS
' 'i"? 01`Iti$ F 1 `i G+td 5?}vro'i
•'? i it ? T?s?li<l?'rvr+-, caal? i
02,
i?' it .^?- - t u?ttLt05 r, Gi<.?V?'2rt1 vay%
j ?? Q ?(.?L°a! ?wYLtG?Ws?dr? 'f'?t.ov?Y'.L
1 `?1 ? ?? it ,,,... -?
/
opicy;
? it ! 1
.1 V81
i
??: ? , ?1 ? ??•j?cl?vspdY? d3t~v?r,??us
t ; . .5 ? ?? ,.? • t tit ????" ?. ?I? .
? ? 11 { . ?, t .- "'•• •• li- •!y'.v-
olro
, ..yam .•_ t ?. ?{ .?}?... ^"il`_ -?},,, + ••.+i?• -^w,•- r..''?
- • ti'- r.----_ - -it=?Y- ..?. -,:?•-?• -- _,,=;`?•
lip.
1 I ! .:Ll.;? "{y. • 'wt ?1?. »Mwy •'-•??• .,y_ .J•+.
'Ito t
Pare e`'i r- ' a
1 i LA st ti
«?.,.Epfp:,.
W W W
W W W W W W W W
soil Test Report
I N.C. CITIZENS T(
How To Interpret Your Soil Test
A critical part of your soil test report is the pH and the amount of lime and fertilizer required for optimum tree and seed production. The target pII for crops In this category is 5.5, except for hardwood seed
where the target pll is 6.0. The amount of lime recommended is based the target pII, amount of acidity in the soil, soil class and the target pII of the crop. Lime and fertilizer rates are given in tons and
Ibs/acre, respectively. Maximum benefit from lime and phosphorus application is obtained when they are incorporated into the soil prior to planting. Surface application on established sites Is appropriate
when recommended. Under extremely acid conditions, lime is just as Important and may have just as much benefit as applying the proper amounts of fertilizer.
The amounts of phosphorus and potassium recommended decreases as the soil test level increases. Guidelines for evaluating soil test index and crop response are shown in the table below.
Local agricultural advisors can assist you in selecting a fertilizer grade that fits the recommendations. Additional Information regarding lime and fertilizer Is contained in Note 11 that accompanies this
report.
Soil Test Index
*Rain ° RdttriW` Crop Response to Nutrient Application
""„`1Jifrni a;f'i4Elrkt Frga '"'>
0-10 Verv Low Very H' Very Hi Very Ili Very Hi Very Ifigh
11-25 Low Hi Hi Ili Hi Hi
26-50 Medium Medium* Medium* None None None
51-100 Ili h None Low-None None None None
100+ Very 11101 None None None None None
* Response decreases as soil test index increases
NCDA Agronomic Division 4300 Reedy Creek Road Rale gi

• W W W W W
'-6465 (919).733-2655
Grower: NCDOT - REU
Attn:Randy Wise
1'0 Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
??? 3 oil Replort Test Farm:
6/25/96 SERVING N.C. CITIZENS FOR OVER 50 YEARS Onslow County
Report No: 34626
Copies to: County Extension Director
NCDOT - P&E
NCDOT-P&E
Attn:Dave Schiller
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Agronomist Comments:
Most areas have low levels of phosphorus and potassium. Soil p1i of most of the mineral soil sites should be adequate for pine or related species. In these areas application of phosphorus
and potassium should be adequate for tree growth. The organic areas are quite acidic and have low levels of phosphorus and potassium. In areas where the plI is approaching 5.0,1 would not
see any need to apply lime. However in areas where the pH is below 4.0, lime application should benefit. I would think a maximum of two tons lime /acre should be adequate. In most cases
a ucauon Or ou-bu iDS of nos naie anQ oiasn Snoma De aue uate ror estaDnSnmem. M. Ka IUCKer Agronomist.
Tield Information ` lied Lime Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop o Yr TlA Crop or Year Lime N R05 ICO Mg Cu Zn B Mra See Note
06HRA 1st Crop: Pine,E 0 0.0 60-80 50-70 0 $ 0 11
2nd Cro :
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V CEC BS% Ac pH P-1 K -I Ca% Mg% Mu-1 Mn-AI (1)Mn-AI (2) Zn-I Zn-AI Cu-I S-1 SS-1 Not-N NIL-N Na
MIN 1.55 1.20 3.4 59.0 1.4 5.4 6 7 43.0 15.0 10 35 35 16 30 9 0.1
Field Information App fi6d. Lime Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop No Yr TIA Crop or Year Lime N R05 Kz0 Mg Cu Zn B Mn See Note
28HRA 1st Crop: Pine,E .5T 0.0 70-90 60-80 $ $ $ 11
2nd Cro :
Test Results
Soil Class IIM% 1VIV CEC BS% Ac pH P-I K-I Ca% Mg% Mn-I Mn-AI (1)Mn-AI (2) Zn-I Zn-AI Cu-1 S-1 SS-1 NQt-N NIL-N Na
MIN 1.31 1.12 2.5 40.0 1.5 5.0 0 5 28.0 10.0 4 25 25 6 31 8 0.1
Field Information lied Lime .Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop o Yr T/A Crop or Year Lime N R05 KO Mg Cu Zn B Mn See Note
0611RB 1st Crop: I'ine,E 0 0.0 60-80 50-70 0 $ 0 11
2nd Cro :
Test Results
Soil Class HM% iVIV CEC BS% Ac pH P-1 K -I Ca% Mg% Mn-I Mn-AI (1)Mn-AI (2) Zn-I Zn-AI Cu-1 S-I SS-I NQt-N NIL-N Na
MIN 1.94 0.91 10.6 2.0 0.8 6.2 5 10 86.0 7.0 62 46 46 13 25 11 0.1
.Field°1nf6rmati6n lied Lime Recornmendatious
Sample No. Last Crop Ho Yr T/A Crop or Year Lime N R05 Ka0 Mg Cu Zn B Mn See Note
281-IRB 1st Crop: Pine,E 0 0.0 70-90 60-80 $ $ $ 11
2nd Cro :
Test Results
soil class IIM% iVIV CEC BS'rb Ac p1l P-1 K-1 Ca% Mg% Mn-I Mia-AI (1)Mn-AI (2) 7n-1 Zn-AI Cu-1 S-1 SS-1 NQt-N NIA-N Na
j MIN 1.25 1.13 6.4 97.0 0.2 6.4 1 4 92.0 4.0 27 21 21 8 16 9 0.0

NCDA Agronomic Division 4300 Reedv Creek Road RAleinh: W. 17MM6,iC,; toiM Iii-,)Kcc r-,- ..?On?IV nn JEF"Ll
1 ield4nformatiou App lied Lime Recommendations
Sample No, Last Crop o Yr T/A Crop or Year Lime N h05 K20 Mg Cu Zn B Mn See Nate
0611RD 1st Crop: Pine;E LIT 0.0 40-60 40-60 0 $ 0 11
2nd Cro :
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V CEC BS% Ac pH P-1 K-I Ca% Mg% Mn-I Mn-AI (1)Mn-AI (2) Zn-1 Zn-AI C11-1 S-I SS-I N0j-N NIlt-N Na
ORG 5.53 0.82 6.1 31.0 4.2 4.4 12 12 22.0 9.0 8 43 71 25 0
1
Field information > )lied Lime Recommendations .
Sample No. Last Crop o Yr T/A Crop or Year Lime N h05 1W Mg Cu Zn B Mn See Note
281-IRD. 1st Crop: Pine,E 1.2T 0.0 40-60 50-70 $ $ 0 11
2nd Cro :
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V CEC BS% Ac pH P-1 K-1 Ca% Mg% Mn-1 Mn-AI (1)Mn-AI (2) Zn-I Zn-AI Cu-I S-1 SS-1 NO
t-N N1b-N Na
ORG 5.85 0.92 5.0 22.0 3.9 4.3 14 11 14.0 7.0 6 56 93 10 26 9 ,
0
0
'Field information lied Lime Recommendations .
-
Sample No. Last Crop o Yr T/A Crop or Year Lime N R05 IW Mg Cu Zn • B Mn See Note
061-IRE 1st Crop: Pine,E 0 0.0 40-60 50-70 0 $ 0 11
2nd Cro :
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V CEC BS% Ac pI1 P-I K-1 Ca% Mg% Mn-I Mn-AI (1)Mn-AI (2) Zn-I Zn-AI C:t-I S-I SS-I NO
t-N N1b-N Na
M-0 4.6 0.97 8.3 70.0 2.5 5.4 12 7 63.0 7.0 18 44 55 11 20 8 .
0
0
Field Information ?pp fied Lime Recommendations .
Sample No. Last Crop o Yr T/A Crop or Year Lime N h05 K0 Mg Cu Zn B Mn See Note
28HRE 1st Crop: Pine,E 9T 0.0 60-80 60-80 $ $ 0 11
2nd Cro :
Test Results
Soil Class 11M% W/V CEC BS% Ac PH P-1 K-1 Ca% Mg% Mn-1 Mn-AI (1)Mn-AI (2) Zn-I . Zn-AI Cu-1 S-1 SS-1 NQt-N NIf-N Na
M-0 4.69 1.14 4. 43.0 2.8 5.0 6 3 37.0 5.0 5 28 35 7 23 7 0
0
Field Information a ' lied Lime Recommendations .
Sample No. Last Crop o Yr T/A Crop or Year Lime . N h05 JW Mg Cu Zn B Mn See Note
061IRP 1st Crop: Pine,E 0 0.0 50-70 50-70 $ $ 0 11
2nd Cro : '
i esi xesuits
Soil Class IIM% W/V CEC BA' Ac pH P-1 K-1 Ca% Mg% Mn-I Mic-Al (1)Mn-AI (2) Zn-I Zn-AI Cu-I S-I• SS-1 Not-N N11i-N Na
MIN 2.76 1.07 7.2 82.0 1.3 5.8 9 8 78.0 4.0 15 49 49 11 24 9 0.1

NGDA`Agronomic Division 4300 Reedv Creek Roars RAIvinh NV. 1'790-7_E:iG; rnio? -722`_vj1cc t,? .., .,? .,.,I _
Field;Information " lied Lime Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop o Yr r/A Crop or Year Lime N h05 ICO Mg Cu Zn B Mn See No{e
281-IRF 1st Crop: Pine,r o 0.0 70-90 6o-8o $ $ 0 11
2nd Cro :
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V CEC BS% Ac pH P-1 K-1 Ca% Mg% Mn-I Mn-AI (1)Mn-AI (2) Zn-I Zn-AI C11-1 S-1 SS-1 N03-N NIL-N Na
MIN 1.67 1.22 5.2 2.0 0.4 6.4 2 3 89.0 3.0 6 35 35 9 41 12 0
0
FieldInformation lied Lime Recommendations .
Sample No. Last Crop o Yr r/A Crop or Year Lime N R05 Kz0 Mg Cu Zn B Mn See Note
06HRII 1st Crop: Pines 1.6T 0.0 50-70 50-70 $ $ 0 11
2nd Cro :
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V CEC BS% Ac PH P-1 K-1 Ca% Mg% Mn-1 Mn-Al (1)Mn-AI (2) Zn-1 Zn-AI Cu-1 S-1 SS-I NQt-N NIL-N Nit
ORG 10+ 0.88 6.3 14.0 5.4 4.3 9 9 11.0 3.0 9 5 158 10 1 4 0
1
Field Information 4 lied Lime .Recommendations .
Sample No. Last Crop o Yr r/A Crop or Year Lime N R05 KO Mg Cu Zn B Mn See Note
28HRH 1st Crop: Pines 0 0.0 30-50 30-50 0 $ 0 11
2nd Cro :
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V CEC BS% Ac pH P-I K-1 Ca% Mg% Mn-1 Mn-AI (1)Mn-AI (2) Zn-1 Zn-AI Cu-I S-1 SS-1 N0
1-N NIL-N Na
ORG 7.96 0.71 17.1 78.0 3.8 5.3 20 1 73.0 4.0 29 103 171 8 24 12 ,
0
1
Field information 1 lied Lime Recommendations .
Sample No. Last Crop Mo Yr r/A Crop or Year Lime N h05 ICO Mg Cis Zn B Mn See Note
06FIRJ 1st Crop: Pine,E IT 0.0 60-80 50-70 $ $ 0 11
2nd Cro :
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V CEC BS% Ac pH P-1 K-1 Ca% Mg% mil-I Mil-AI (1)Mn-AI (2) Zn-1 Zn-AI Cit-I S-1 SS-I N01-N NIL-N Nit
MIN 1.31 1.03 5.2 54.0 2.4 4.7 4 9 48.0 6.0 10 47 47 11 26 0
1
Field Information fed Lime Recommendations .
Sample No. Last Crop o Yr r/A Crop or Year Lime N h05 &0 Mg Cu Zn B Mn See Note
28HRJ 1st Crop: Pine,E .3T 0.0 70-90 60-80 $ $ 0 l l
2nd Cro :
rest itesults
MIN 0.92 123 (1 (n n 1 2 S 9 ! e/ n c n •- - - °- - - t??....... JJ-1 /V(B-N NtC,-N Na

NCDA Agronomic Division 4300 Reedv Creels Road Raleigh. NC 27607-6465 [phone]: Grower: NCDOT - RRIi Rennrt Na- 14626 Ptr Zi
Field: Information , " lied Lime Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop 1o Yr T/A Crop or Year Lime N h05 KO Mg Cu Zn B Mn See Note
06HRK 1st Crop: Pine,E 2.9T 0.0 50-70 20-40 $ $ 0 1.1
2nd Cro :
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V CEC BS% Ac pH P-1 K-I Ca% Mg% Mn-I Mn-AI (1)Mn-AI (2) Zn-I Zn-AI Czi-1 S-I SS-I N($-N NIb-N Na
M-0 4.95 0.78 6.8 21.0 5.4 4.2 11 22 14.0 4.0 12 51 64 11 28 2 0.1
Fleld`Information Ap lied Lime Recommendations ,
Sample No. Last Crop Ho Yr T/A Crop or Year Lime N A05 ILO Mg Cu Zn B Mn See Note
28HRK 1st Crop: Pine,E 2AT 0.0 50-70 40-60 $ $ 0 11
2nd Cro :
Test Results
Soil Class HM' W/V CEC BS% Ac pH P-1 K-1 Ca% Mg% Mn-1 Mn-AI (1)Mn-AI (2) Zn-I Zn-AI Cu-1 S-I SS-1 N03-N NIf-N Na
ORG 7.96 0.7 7.7 13.0 6.7 4.1 11 15 8.0 4.0 6 63 105 7 26 2 0.1
FieldInformatio?i 1 ' lied Lime Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop Ho Yr T/A Crop or Year Lime N n05 K0 Mg Cu Zn B Mn See Note
061iRP Pine,E 1st Crop: Pine,E 2.2T 0.0 40-60 40-60 $ $ 0 11
2nd Cro :
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V CEC BS% Ac pH P-I K-I Ca% Mg% Mn-I Mn-AI (1)Mn-AI (2) Zn-I Zn-AI Cu-1 S-I SS-1 N03-N NIh-N Na
ORG 5.53 0.0 6.2 13.0 5.4 3. 12 12 8.0 4.0 4 38 63 9 15 3 0.1
Field information App lied Lime Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop MO Yr T/A Crop or Year Lime N R05 ICO Mg Cit Zn B Mn See Note
28HRP Pine,E 1st Crop: Pine,E 23T 0.0 50-70 50-70 $ $ 0 11
2nd Cro :
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V CEC BS% Ac pH P-1 K-I Ca% Mg% Mn-I Mn-AI (1)Mn-AI (2) Zn-1 . Zn-AI Cu-1 S-1 SS-1 N($-N N115-N Na
M-0 +44 1.12 5.1 10.0 4.6 3. 9 7 5.0 4.0 2 55 69 8 M 11 0.1
FteldInformatlon ' lied:Lime Recommendations - - -
Sample No. Last Crop Ho Yr T/A Crop or Year Lime N R05 KO Mg Cu Zn B Mn See Note
06HRS Pine,E 1st Crop: Pine,E iAT 0.0 40-60 30-50 $ $ 0 11
2nd Cro :
'Pest Results
Soil Class IIM% W/V CEC BS% Ac PH P-I K-I Ca% Mg% Mn-I Mn-AI (1) Mn-AI (2) Zn-1 Zn-AI Cu-I S-I• SS-I NQ3-N NII-N Na
MIN 1.94 1.00 3.7 24.0 2.8 4.4 12 19 16.0 5.0 3 35 35 9 37 2 0.1

NCDA Agronomic Division 4300 Reed Creek Road; Ralc h, NC 27607-6465 [phone] Grower; NCDOT - RI:1l Report No 34626 P 5
Field Information Applied Lime Recommendations
-
Sample No
last Crop o Yr T/A C
Y
. rop or
ear Lime N R05 Ko Mg Cu Zn B Mn See Note
28 Pine,C 1st Crop: Pine,C 0 0.0 30-50 40-60 $ $ 0 11
2nd Cro :
Test Results
Soil Class IIM% IVIV CEC BA' Ac pH P-1 K-1 Ca% Mg% Mja-I Mn-AI (1)Mn-AI (2) Zn-I Zn-AI Cu-I S-I SS-1
NOj-N NIA-N Na
M-0 3.98 1.04 4.8 65.0 1.7 5.6 16 12 58.0 5.0 4 41 51 8 33 11 0.1

NCWRC,HCP,FALLS LAKE

TEL:[phone] Jun 26'97 8:53 No.002 P.02
-- -0 Norffi Cataluna W 'fe Resources Commission 10
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 276044188, 919-733_3391 - -
Chades R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Scott McLendon, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program'
DATE: June 10, 1997
SUBJECT: Comments on the wetland mitigation plan for the Haws Run Site in Ponder
County, North Carolina.
Staff biologists with the N., C. Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the subject
mitigation plan and have the following commcnta, Our comments are provided in accordance
with certain provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d).
Our comments and questions are as follows.
1. We did not find a water budget in the mitigation plan. We assume that the savanna
habitat is rainfall driven and if so, is thare'a treed to install low berms across the site
to better distribute surface water.
2. Is there a clay lens that underlies the site and if so, has the extensive agriculture
punctured this barrier?
3. The plan states that Lanier Quarry Savanna is the basis for plant community
restoration. However, little information on the Lanier Quarry Savanna is included in
the document. We request that the Lanier Quarry site be the Reference Ecosystem for
the Haws Run restoration unless another site can be identified, The vegetative and
NCWRC,HCP,FALLS LAKE TEL:[phone] Jun 26'97 8:53 No.002 P.03
f ?
2 June 10, 1997
Ivlemo
the hydrologic success criteria should be based on the existing conditions in the
reference ecosystem.
4. Vegetation management is key to the health of savanna vegetation. Since fire is 80
integral part of these communities, we would expect any mitigation and long term
management plan to use prescribed burns control herbaceous competition.
5. If a seed source for savanna vegetation remains adjacent to the dry savanna
enhancement area, we reconuaend that the area be allowed to revegetatc naturally and
use prescribed burns to control nuisance species such as Loblolly pine.
6. Since the site was extensively limed, i® the soil chemistry suitable for the restoration
of savanna vegetation? Although the soil was analyzed, no information was provided
regarding the nwd for site preparation.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this mitigation plan. If we can be of any
further assistance please contact me at [phone].
cc: David Shillcr, planning and Environmental-Branch, NCDOT
Cyndi Bell, DWQ, Raleigh
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
d nN O (p O' "? O 0 d C7 n ".3 ` n' C 'C" ?
y cnc o ? ?+? o ?-s ? o o °' 5• 0 -% > o n a.. p
o wo no (ND p ?+.. ~
p"
C ?D
n
o O ai C O (?D O O ?G Oq O A? ?c Q S Z C
O ((D ^"+ ro 'C3 e' w Oro p n O ('D 01 CD ? N•r: ? ai. ?r • Z
Cm b y CD roC ro Ax rC CD
0. CA _n L71 w
m? a° CCD (D o 0 o vii n
C. Q e•. fw9 ro (p (D 2 r0 0 n (D ? "O `'"? Q7 y ?• ? ?,"O, n x ?'C i/? !p = ?. A ?.?
Ot ?'CS f3. W Won O l] O O (n O "t2? ?3' K 't7 0?1 eA+ ^' 'v ?• N OEM • 2
pry) = CD (v . a 2)
C? (D (p A p N Q =? a
ch 5:1
y y CD
R C eOT
(n C..-.?e`? ?(p O n a'ro O ro 7..r Co <a ?N •p
(D m (D w CD o ° ?0'u° m x o CL C2
?RZ c 0- v
(D = z 5* = CD PI
ro , Ot3 m O. e+ C. ?-. CA OR (D O' V
`e `e n
v SIP 00 O CT ^O "b O f_(p?, a7 R ?- 0 y n (n 0 C 0
n V? o P=5.- pop??^a ? 23
.? rG CV
M'o m voi p,Fn'?°i,, cep N?a m,? = RR
n O y ro C.y O O m NC. ro Rm ?(D
ca N 0. yc ?cZC.rronro o0> El 2 :1 oy oP (D =0,0
`e-?'suu`?•?'
•
,• ro )NEW
!-? C n a: as sr (p )NEW
C ro
`Ca (ID y• e°'y. ?- as O (RD -fi
? 0 ^: C CA
ro
M CA M-
m cn CI' CL
CL cn (D c, r RD, M= 0
0 0
zs °' ro Er A o -it
t o
0 ? 2:,n
CD ro gy ?. ? n (p ? r d 9s ?
O W
A (Op ro O C? OT S r !'j e+ .+i O (p "? ms
7 .O' e" OtC (n a' A .ia ?• A. O' O T?
"?! fe9e '°-., 07 C. S (9 O. (D - r^S (D R O ^' Vi .^Si LT' y :n O Lt. Q+ CD Q? Vl ,°,y V1
y a y O e" rA (n C.OR as ro rA OR ro C. t+ (n ,.._.O ?i
0 ,.:, s°• . s?UR t+ p a n o`DO ° (D
mID (D In ? u0a Z M Z : S Sr
g?
`C y? c ?e O' C G ?. C. k y CD S"O ro ro ? ?• co y w Cron rC+ _• ??
?n CL .v?i A C ro Cn by?C.., p C C-, Q
fl'ro_o ro o m
o ro _ =°'o ° ro °c c?° vn, C°R G G!-s m
&n m `s
°' o o . $. e+ pa o- (?,r su ? n _ co o m °
CL 0.
'A Z M to 0 5-0 =:3
C `-• ?, O (AD O S. "6' n C R tD v' C ^ C C C lD n -
(p y oO-n O C= ° C O O'(D w ro v, O C.Sy O
?^?'°? ro (D = p
F'j N C Cn? .,ervi "O*+d O'O O M ?ro A? m
rrr????yyy y I? ^' ' G 'O e0i ?. trop 50
^°. t (AD O' Orv OR 0Q Cn ea % y Vt (nD e?+ b ?, '?R (RD m
vR1 .
Cn rs ro (7 O (D ?-. . ro O e. C. p n
O'° " C.cyD `.c eT+x?C m ^°t ro,c.b mw S0.0 ?0Q ""'Cn q "C
?..,?C was poi Ors CC.w R ?o°a Oi (gyp
c g m ? $ ?, o ° sn w t7" ?-+ :v. o+ ? o R a. CD ?q o n
Omwmd
° Cron = z2:2'S'?FF?' m SB'? m s0?o ?1w Mrs rn 0.
O O C'O'O 0 Cn ?O o ?O (n ti ? C' rn ?ro O
° ..° m to RC C ra / ro ro n Oro ro scD? ?jR
CD a.
Co TQ
ORC as rro O a'?yro? O z)? f0 O - 0 C'? (ro? ? ro Rye r/?
0. m as w niv' O rSR m CD ee' sr 0 0 -= r-L
0 CO
?n ?s ?s' vi o m .
p
lRD .??„°.s R I .?CC(np R?. CU4 ? =ro (S ° O' „"3 p C C
G
O m ?'" vCI iFp n C?.0 :? ?3 G `"'roG ?? G C.C?Rp
fy e* O 07 Cn Sa O ` m ?'
F cDaoem.1 a )OW
CD (ep? n CD CD Ei o 2 p, ° °° er "' m
Fi'io?7r 'ClCDD4?C. C'LSro?sa. ?Sro7?c ?' °roa.o+' ro?nr- Ir
dNS.51'A}p o-,
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
MEMO TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
March 6, 1997
FROM: David Schiller D&V4-
SUBJECT: Haws Run Mitigation Plan
Please review this draft of the Haws Run Mitigation Plan. I realize that there are several
typo's and small errors, but the overall plan is pretty much what NCDOT will submit in final
form.
The important point to note is that the southern end of the site will be developed in Phase
II. This is the southern end of the site, where Cooley's Meadowrue is located. We would
proceed with development of that end of the site only after close coordination with USFWS and
Richard LeBlond of NHP. Incidentally, I'm enclosing a copy of an article that was in last
Sunday's N&O, in case you missed it. Although the exact location is not identified, the site is
Haws Run.
I realize this is a late request, but I would appreciate your prompt review and comments.
Give me a call at 733-7844, Extension 280 if you have any questions.

?r

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
July 16, 1997
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch
Action ID No. 199706104, Haws Run Mitigation Plan
Mr. Frank Vick
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
NC Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:

LV/
Fiy?/RQNM1
Reference your letter dated April 28, 1997, requesting comments on the
Haws Run Mitigation Plan. By copy of letter dated May 21, 1997, we requested
that interested state and Federal resource agencies provide comments regarding
the technical merits of this plan no later than June 13, 1997. It is our
understanding that the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
proposes to develop Haws Run as a multi-project mitigation site. By
developing the site in this manner, we will evaluate the merits of an
individual mitigation proposal independent of how the overall site may
eventually be developed.
As a general comment, we feel that the goals and objectives and specific
success criteria were not clearly stated in the mitigation plan. This
component of a plan is essential in the evaluation of the success or failure
of a particular mitigation site.
Overall, we feel that the site has merit as providing compensatory
mitigation for swamp forest impacts relative to the causeways and canals that
extend north and south of the property into Sandy Run Creek and Shelter Swamp
Creek. However, due to the extensive amount of disturbance that has occurred
in the proposed savannah restoration and enhancement area, use of this portion
of the site for compensatory mitigation will be limited until such time that
specific success criteria can be demonstrated. The following comments address
these issues in greater detail:
a. Page 6. Section 1.3; Plant Community Types. Specific information
regarding dominant herbaceous species in the "interior" portions of the site
should be provided.
b. Page 11, Section 3.1.1.2, Plant Community Restoration. The plan
should contain a specific description of the plant community in adjacent swamp
forest to serve as a reference for proposed plant community restoration.
C. Page 11, Section 3.1.1.2, Plant Community Restoration. Planting
mixture #2 implies that the swamp forest restoration sites will have a slope
built into the restored area. Is one proposed?

-2-
d. Page 11, Section 3.1.2 Swamp Forest Enhancement. A specific area of
this site that has been utilized for a particular project should not be
"reassessed" at a later date to determine if additional enhancement mitigation
is appropriate.
e. Page 11, Section 3.1.2, Swamp Forest Enhancement. What specific data
or information will be collected to demonstrate that the hydrological
"integrity " of the area isolated by the logging road will be enhanced?
f. Page 12, Section 3.2. Savannah Mitigation. Wet pine savannahs also
function to store water over the short and long term and may moderate
groundwater discharge into Sandy Run Creek and Shelter Swamp Creek.
g. Page 12, Section 3.2. Savannah Mitigation. Is the definition by
"Taggard" as referenced in the plan the goal of the savannah restoration?
h. Page 12, Section 3.2.1.1 Hydrological Restoration. Was any
information regarding the occurrence of "B" horizons determined. We are
concerned that the amount of subsoiling that has apparently occurred on this
site may have greatly compromised the site's hydrological "integrity".
i. Page 12, Section 3.2.1.1 Hydrological Restoration. Was a water
budget prepared for this site? On what basis have you determined that 81
acres of this site will meet the hydrologic criteria for wetlands if the
central canal is filled?
j. Page 12, Section 3.2.1.1 Hydrological Restoration and Figure 8. If
the central canal has resulted in the drainage of interior portions of the
site, why are the remaining wetlands centered about the axis of the canal?
k. Page 13, Section 3.2.1.2, Plant Community Restoration. This section
is vague. Regarding wet savannah grasses, the plan indicates that
reestablishment will be "attempted". We infer this to mean that if the
plantings fail that further attempts at establishment will not be made. Where
and how many of the plants will be planted?
1. Page 13, Section 3.2.1.2, Plant Community Restoration. The plan
states that the herbaceous and shrub layers of the savannah community are
"largely in place", yet no information is provided regarding what species
currently populate the area.
M. Page 13, Section 3.2.1.2, Plant Community Restoration. Reference
sites should be included in this section.
n. Page 13, Section 3.2.2 Wet savannah Enhancement. You should define
what is meant by the term "A typical plant community". Also see comment "k"
above.
o. Page 14, Section 5.0, Monitoring Plan. Will the proposed wells also
measure frequency and duration of inundation of the site?
p. Page 14, Section 5.0, Monitoring Plan. The description of the
success criteria is vague. "Similar" should be defined.
q. Page 14, Section 5.2.1, Hydrologic Monitoring. Will the hydrologic
success criteria for the savannah restoration will be tied to the hydrologic
regime at the Lanier Quarry?

-3-
r. Page 15, Section 5.2.2 Plant Community Monitoring. We are concerned
that the number of sample plots will not adequately characterize success (or
failure) of the site. Your monitoring plan must reflect what is occurring on
the site.
S. Page 15, Section 5.2.2 Plant Community Monitoring. No mention of the
monitoring of planted or volunteer herbaceous species is made.
t. Page 13, Section 3.2.4, Dry Savannah Enhancement. The use of upland
portions of the property for wetland mitigation may be suitable provided some
justification and information is provided as to how these uplands contribute
to the overall "functional integrity" of the site. Would you propose to
include portions of the uplands in future mitigation proposals from this site?
U. It is our understanding that the savannah ecotype described in the
plan requires fire for growth and regeneration of several species of resident
plants as well as for the control of noxious species. Will a fire management
plan be included as part of the overall management of the site?.
V. Individual mitigation parcels within the overall site will need to be
physically located, that is, identified with a metes and bounds survey or
Global Positioning System (GPS) location.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this plan. I may be
contacted at [phone] should you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Scott McLendon
Regulatory Project Manager
Copies Furnished:
Mr. David Cox
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
1142 I-85 Service Road
Creedmoor, North Carolina 27522
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
F y
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch
May 20, 1997

Action ID No. 199402926, Jacksonville Bypass, TIP R-2107
w
Mr. Frank Vick
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
Reference the Public Notice dated April 25, 1996, describing the proposal
by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to place fill
material into approximately 33 acres of wetlands to construct the B, BA, and C
sections of the Jacksonville Bypass, Jacksonville, onslow County, North
Carolina.
After review of your latest mitigation proposal, the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) by copy of
letters dated April 28, 1997, April 25, 1997, and April 28, 1997,
respectively, again recommended denial of your application (copies enclosed).
These recommendations are due to the following deficiencies in the proposal:
a. The Haws Run mitigation plan containing a description of Restoration
Area 2 has not been reviewed by any of the agencies.
b. Camp Lejeune cannot guarantee preservation of the Big Shakey Swamp and
Pocosin areas at Greater Sandy Run.
c. The "site analysis" for the coastal marsh mitigation site is deficient
in detail regarding success criteria, monitoring requirements, and disposition
of property.
d. Stability of the marsh site relative to boat wakes should be
addressed.
In addition, we have reviewed the subject proposal and also offer the
following additional comments:
e. It appears the proposed coastal marsh mitigation site will adequately
compensate for unavoidable coastal marsh and estuarine bottom impacts
associated with this project. However, the "site analysis" is not a
mitigation plan and will not be considered as such until the following

-2-
deficiencies have been corrected:
1. It is unclear if proposed elevations on the restored site and
plant species targeted for establishment correspond to the reference marsh
colonized with the same target species and at the same elevations.
2. A monitoring plan that includes the location of monitoring site(s)
must be included in the final plan.
3. Success criteria for the site must be clearly stated.
4. It is unclear from figure 9 of the site analysis if adequate
drainage will occur on the site after final grading. Development of "salt
pans" on the site will inhibit germination and growth of desirable plant
species.
5. As built plans will need to be provided to the Corps of Engineers
and interested resource agencies.
6. Remediation measures relative to planting failure and erosion of
the site must be described.
f. A mitigation plan for the Haws Run Site will need to be reviewed and
approved prior to utilizing any portion of this site for any project.
1. Restoration Area 2 will need to be physically located on the Haws
Run site with a metes and bounds survey or Global Positioning System methods.
g. The ultimate disposition of the Greater Sandy Run Mitigation area and
assurances that the site will be preserved in perpetuity have not been
resolved. The Corps of Engineers is not prepared to accept this mitigation
proposal until these issues have been addressed.
I am available to discuss these concerns with you and to assist in
coordination with the agencies to resolve these objections. I may be
contacted at [phone].
Sincerely,
Scott McLendon
Regulatory Project Manager
Enclosures
a
-3-
Copies Furnished (without enclosures):
Mr. Larry Hardy
National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. Haynes Johnson, Acting Chief
Wetlands Protection Section-Region IV
Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta Georgia, 30303
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
.w ?Eo
?a saw
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
Mr. Scott McLendon
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Dear Mr. McLendon:
August 3, 1998
AUG _ 7 ,ggg
x
SUBJECT: Haws Run Mitigation Plan, Pender-Onslow Counties, Action ID No. 199706104
Your letter of July 1, 1998, expressed concern that the proposed wasting of fill material
and associated road construction on the mitigation site would represent a major alteration to the
approved mitigation plan. The wasted soil will be used to construct combination access roads/fire
lanes around portions of.the site. These will have breaks or openings in them at various locations
to allow for surface drainage while maintaining vehicular access for monitoring, fire protection,
and other maintenance activities. It is my understanding that this issue was discussed with you at
a meeting in Wilmington on July 30, 1998.
I trust this matter was resolved to your satisfaction at that meeting. If you have any
questions, please contact Mr. Phil Harris or Mr. David Schiller of my staff. They can be reached
at [phone], Extension 301 or 294, respectively.
Sincerely,
W. D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
cc: Mr. David Cox (NCWRC)
Mr. John Dorney (NCDWQ)
Dr. V. Charles Bruton
Mr. Phillip Harris, P.E.
Mr. David H. Schiller