The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20070747 Ver 1_Mitigation Plans_20080707DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY •?,? ?? WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS (? I (J y \\ Washington Regulatory Field Office Post Office Box 1000 Washington, North Carolina 27889-1000 IN REPLY REFER TO July 2, 2008 Regulatory Division JUL 7 2008 ORM ID SAW-1999-11312 / Flat Swamp Mitigation Bank WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH Dear Mr. /Kulz, Stream and Buffer Mitigation Review Coordinator: This correspondence is in reference to the Flat Swamp Mitigation Bank that is being developed by Dr. Doug Frederick and Mr. Doug Lashley, GreenVest, on a 386 acre tract of land located off of Dover Road, near the community of Dover, adjacent to Flat Swamp, in Craven County, North Carolina. The purpose of this letter is to provide you with an electronic copy of the document entitled, The Flat Swamp Mitigation Bank, Draft Phase II - Preliminary Mitigation Plan, Riparian Headwater Stream System Restoration in the Coastal Plain, Craven County, North Carolina, dated June 2008, and to request your review and comment on this report. Please review the attached document and provide me with your comments within 30 days of your receipt of this letter. Please be advised that Mr. Scott Jones of my staff, Flat Swamp Bank IRT Chair, is currently detailed to Regulatory Headquarters in Washington, D.C. Accordingly, please direct all questions and comments regarding this bank to me. Mr. Jones will reassume IRT Chair responsibilities for this bank upon his return in January 2009. Thank you for your time and cooperation. If you have any questions, please contact me at the Washington Regulatory Field Office, telephone (252) 975-1616, extension 22. Sincerely, An -7? David M. Lekson, P.W.S. Chief, Washington Regulatory Field Office Enclosure DISTRIBUTION (with enclosure): Ms. Kathy Matthews United States Environmental Protection Agency Wetlands Regulatory Section Mail Code: E143-04 Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 Mr. Ron Sechler National Marine Fisheries Service Habitat Conservation Division 101 Pivers Island Road Beaufort, North Carolina 28516 Mr. Howard Hall United States Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services - Raleigh Field Office Post Office Box 33726 Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726 Ms. Maria Dunn, N.E. Permits Coordinator North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 943 Washington Square Mall Washington, North Carolina 27889 Mr. Eric Kulz, Stream and Buffer Mitigation Review Coordinator North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality - Wetlands and Stormwater Branch Mail Service Center 1650 Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650 Mr. Guy Stefanski North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Coastal Management 1638 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1638 Copy Furnished (without enclosure): Dr. Douglas J. Frederick Department of Forestry College of Natural Resources Campus Box 8008, 3128 Jordan Hall North Carolina State University Raleigh, North Carolina 27695-8008 Mr. Doug Lashley, President GreenVest 726 Second Street, Suite 3B Annapolis, Maryland 21403 THE FLAT SWAMP MITIGATION BANK Draft Phase II - Preliminary Mitigation Plan Riparian Headwater Stream System Restoration in the Coastal Plain Craven County, North Carolina Prepared By: QW Quality Woods LLC 4405 DeWees Court Raleigh, NC 27612 June 2008 Qom' Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................................................1 2.0 Site Description .......................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Existing Watershed Conditions ........................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Hydrology ............................................................................................................................................... 3 2.3 Soils ................................................................................................................................................... 5 2.4 Existing Plant Communities ................................................................................................................ 6 2.5 Jurisdictional Streams and Wetlands .................................................................................................. 7 2.5.1 Existing Stream Conditions ...................................................................................................... 8 2.5.1.1 Rosgen Stream Classification ..................................................................................... 8 2.5.2 Ecological Processes and Functions ........................................................................................ 8 2.6 Site History ............................................................................................................................................. 9 3.0 Mitigation ............................................................................................................... 10 3.1 Goals and Objectives ..........................................................................................................................10 3.2 Proposed Actions: Stream Restoration ............................................................................................10 4.0 Restoration Techniques ............................................................................................ 11 4.1 Stream Restoration .............................................................................................................................. 11 4.1.1 Reference Stream ...................................................................................................................... 12 4.2 Detailed Site Plans ............................................................................................................................... 12 4.3 Riparian Buffer Restoration ............................................................................................................... 13 4.4 Functional Uplift of the Proposed Project ...................................................................................... 15 5.0 Monitoring Plan (Biological and Physical) ............................................................. 15 5.1 Stream System ......................................................................................................................................15 5.2 Vegetation .............................................................................................................................................16 6.0 Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 16 7.0 References ............................................................................................................... 18 Appendices Appendix A Figures Appendix B Site Photographs Appendix C Soil Boring Data QW. 1.0 INTRODUCTION This Mitigation Plan describes the proposed actions for establishment of the Flat Swamp Mitigation Bank (FSB) - Phase II - Small Stream Coastal Plain Stream Restoration for offsetting unavoidable coastal plain stream losses associated with projects requiring Clean Water Act (Section 404) Dredge and Fill permits within the proposed General Service Area (GSA). 1.1 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES It is anticipated that Phase II of FSB will generate approximately 15,985 Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs) per United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Stream Mitigation Guidelines. In order to generate the anticipated number of SMUs, the following goals and objectives will be met. Goals Reestablish natural hydrology at the Site by restoring a riparian headwater stream system as close to its historic location as possible. Improve the overall water quality of streams at the Site by reducing the input of sediment and pollutants (i.e., agricultural run-off and nutrient loading) into the aquatic system. Improve the richness and diversity of the plant species within the riparian zone and upland buffers along the project reaches. Improve the overall wildlife habitat across the entire conservation easement Ob ec? tines Restore 15,985 linear feet of headwater stream system based on high resolution aerial photography from 1959, 1964, 1970, and present as well as current LIDAR, USGS, and Site specific soil data showing the presence of historical headwater stream systems. Information collected from an undisturbed reference site will be used as well as appropriate grading techniques to create a new, flowing riparian stream network and fill existing on-site agricultural ditches. Promote the natural establishment of the proposed riparian headwater system by connecting the proposed stream network to the existing off-site ditches therefore facilitating the movement of water across the Site. Reestablish a native plant community by implementing a site specific planting plan addressing all zones of the riparian stream corridors and associated buffers. Improve water quality by reducing soil erosion and increasing nutrient uptake through increased root mass along the restored stream system. Reestablish a natural floodplain adjacent to the restore stream system to attenuate flood flows. The goal of improving water quality will be accomplished in two ways: first, by returning the streams on- site to a natural system near their original location and second by restoring riparian buffers. Restoring the streams on-site to a natural function and appearance will reduce sedimentation by minimizing channelized flow within ditches and therefore reducing erosion. Restoring a floodplain and forested riparian buffer will provide an area of filtration for surface and ground water from the adjacent land use practices including row crop agriculture and timber management. The historic stream and floodplain will be reestablished by restoring a natural stream system in its original location and reconnecting it to the historic floodplain. The proposed restoration will be based on information collected from an undisturbed reference stream nearby. This restored system will provide a much larger area to attenuate flood flows. 1 QW. Another important goal of this project is the restoration of wildlife habitat at the site. The existing condition of the streams and riparian buffers at the site provide limited available habitat for aquatic and terrestrial species in and around the ditches that are currently conveying water off the site. The proposed project will restore and enhance in-stream habitat by minimizing channelized flow within ditches and restoring flow through a natural stream system. The restoration of a forested riparian buffer will also provide stream shading, as well as cover areas and travel corridors that are vital for traveling, foraging, loafing and nesting for many wildlife species. The Site provides an excellent opportunity to restore and preserve a substantial riparian zone on lands that are currently cleared and being used for agriculture. The riparian buffers, of at least 50 feet in width, will be established along both sides of all of the restored streams at the site. Combined with the restoration and enhancement of the wetlands on this site (Phase I), this project will complete the mitigation on the entire 386-acre site. 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The FSB is located in North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) subbasin 03-04-08 of the Neuse River Basin. More specifically, the site is located within US Geologic Survey (USGS) 8-dig1t hydrologic unit code (HUC) 03020202 and 14-dig1t HUC 03020202080020. Flat Swamp creek originates approximately 3.2 miles southwest of Fort Barnwell and 4.5 miles northeast of Dover in Craven County, North Carolina. Flat Swamp Creek is a tributary of the Neuse River and flows east from the project site intersecting Core Creek before emptying into the south side of the Neuse River. The FSB is located in the headwaters of Flat Swamp Creek (Latitude 35 degrees 15 minutes 10.96 seconds N and Longitude 77 degrees 22 minutes 04.05 seconds E). The site is bounded by Dover Fort Barnwell Road (SR 1262) to the north and west, Jonestown Road (SR 1258) and Camp Oak Road (SR 1261) to the east, and Dover Bay to the south (Appendix A-Figure 1). The FSB is located entirely on two adjoining parcels in Craven County, NC (Appendix A-Figure 2). The site and its watershed encompass extensive areas of cleared and drained wetlands currently in agriculture and forestry production. Total area of the site is approximately 386 acres which includes 360 acres of prior- converted (PC) agricultural land and approximately 26 acres of partially drained forested wetlands based on a March 2008 survey. Quality Woods holds an option to purchase both parcels in their entirety to encompass all of the stream restoration and associated buffer requirements at the site. Approval has already been received by Quality Woods for Plat Savamp Mitigation Bank Phase I - Vetland Restoration and Enhancement on 366 acres in 1999. Land adjacent to the FSB is being managed for timber production by timber corporations as well as timber and agriculture production by private individuals. Based on the characteristics of remaining forested wetlands both on-site and on adjacent land, the site once supported a rich diversity of habitats including wet flat hardwoods and pine swamp hardwoods, as well as cypress and riverine hardwoods along the historic Flat Swamp Creek system. Much of this habitat, including the original Flat Swamp Creek has been destroyed or altered during the past 30-40 years as a result of ditching, draining, channelization, and road building associated with the conversion of the land to agricultural production. It is estimated that the watershed to the Flat Swamp Creek is approximately 25% cultivated crop or pasture land, 70% forested/wetland, and 4% urban/residential. Only 1% of the watershed is estimated to be impervious. The FSB exhibits characteristics of a riparian headwater system as described in guidance set forth by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and NCDWQ titled Information Regarding Stream Restoration Faith Emphasis on the Coastal Plain (2007). All streams on-site exist as zero order or first order jurisdictional streams. Zero order streams are referred to as ` jurisdictional waterways that do not appear on a county Soil Survey" and a first order stream is "that portion of a waterway from its identified origin downstream to the first intersection with another waterway" (USACE, 2005). The original Flat Swamp Creek system no longer exists, having been obliterated by land clearing for agriculture, ditching and road building. What was once a 2 QW. natural stream network now exists in the form of zero order agricultural stream ditches located along gravel farm roads on the project site. These man-made ditches are now direct unnamed tributaries (UTs) to Flat Swamp Creek and are potentially jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The combined drainage area of these tributaries is approximately 1.8 square mile (1,141 acres) which is more than adequate to develop stream features in this area of the coastal plain (Appendix A-Figure 3). Topography at the site has very minimal variation, as would be expected on the lower coastal plain. Ground elevations of the FSB range from approximately 16 feet above mean sea level to approximately 17.5 feet above mean sea level, with elevations around the manmade ditches being slightly lower. 2.1 Existing Watershed Conditions The Flat Swamp watershed has been extensively impacted by clearing, ditching and road building over the past 50 to 100 years (Appendix B-Photos 1-8). These activities have obliterated many of the historical stream and wetland systems, including the riverine and nonriverine wetlands, as well as small coastal plain first and second order streams that flow to the Neuse River. The project area is in the upper reaches of the Flat Swamp Creek watershed and therefore has a large influence on the water quality and habitat in Flat Swamp Creek, Core Creek, and ultimately the Neuse River. 2.2 Hydrology The FSB is part of the Neuse River Basin, situated within USGS 8-dig1t HUC 03020202 and 14-digit HUC 03020202080020, and NCDWQ subbasin 03-04-08. Flat Swamp Creek flows east from the site intersecting Core Creek before emptying into the Neuse River (Appendix A-Figure 4). According to the Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan (2002), there is no indication that Flat Swamp Creek has been assessed for a use support rating. Core Creek, which Flat Swamp Creek flows into, is listed on the North Carolina Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2006 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report) due to impaired biological integrity from Grape Creek to the Neuse River (NCDWQ, 2006). This impaired section of Core Creek begins at Grape Creek, continuing 16.4 miles to its confluence with the Neuse River and includes the watershed for Flat Swamp. Potential sources of impairment are unknown (NCDWQ, 2002). Researchers from the North Carolina Cooperative Extension's Neuse Education Team (NET) undertook the Core Creek Project in 2000 to improve water quality within the Core Creek watershed. The project, funded by the Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF), was initiated as a 5-year, $1.3 million project to restore degraded lands for the ability to protect and restore water quality in Core Creek and ultimately the Neuse River. The project initially only studied the headwaters of Core Creek, but was eventually expanded to include Core Creek's downstream section which drains more land and hosts more potential pollution sources. As of 2004, the project has completed management plans for approximately 27,000 acres in the Core Creek watershed. A more recent review of the upper watershed portion of the Core Creek Project was held in the spring of 2008. This review revealed successful restoration of over 1,600 feet of stream channel utilizing a Priority II approach (Bass, 2008). As mentioned above, Flat Swamp Creek is a direct tributary to Core Creek, intersecting Core Creek less than 0.5 miles from the Neuse River. Water quality improvements within the Flat Swamp Creek watershed would aid in the continued success of restoration efforts of the Core Creek Project and ultimately improve water quality in the Neuse River as well. QW. Flat Swamp maintains an NCDWQ surface water classification of C; Sw, NSW. Class C waters are protected for secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation and survival, agriculture and other uses suitable for Class C. Flat Swamp also maintains a supplemental Swamp Waters (Sw) classification intended to recognize those waters that generally have naturally occurring very low velocities, low pH and low dissolved oxygen. An additional supplemental classification of Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) is also applied to Flat Swamp. This supplemental classification is intended for waters needing additional nutrient management due to their being subject to excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation. In general, management strategies for point and nonpoint source pollution require control of nutrients (usually nitrogen and/or phosphorus) such that excessive growth of vegetation is reduced or prevented and there is no increase in nutrients over target levels. The FSB is adjacent to and upstream of the Lower Neuse Hydrologic Unit 03020204, which includes Support-Threatened areas in the Neuse and Pamlico Sounds. The entrance to Pamlico Sound is a particularly degraded area because it is the Neuse River terminus, and at this location, the water becomes slow, stagnant and subject to algal blooms. Extensive fish kills due to low oxygen levels and Pfstena outbreaks have also become commonplace during the summer in this area. In addition to the water quality classifications assigned to Flat Swamp Creek by the NCDWQ, American Rivers, a non-profit conservation organization dedicated to protecting and restoring America's rivers, recently released a statement listing the Neuse River as one of the ten most endangered American rivers for 2007. The Neuse River currently ranks eighth on the 2007 list. American Rivers cites explosive growth trends, inadequate control of runoff from industrial hog and poultry farms, and "woefully" inadequate sewage treatment as the primary conditions endangering the Neuse River (American Rivers, 2007). This restoration project should assist with providing water quality improvements to the overall Flat Swamp watershed, as well as the Core Creek and Neuse River watersheds downstream of the site. The primary hydrologic inputs of the FSB tract are precipitation and groundwater discharge. The tract is in the headwaters of Flat Swamp Creek and therefore has a large influence on the water quantity and quality downstream. Historically, the entire area was forested and undisturbed which maintained very high water quality in Flat Swamp Creek. Now, much of this headwater area is cleared and ditched resulting in more rapid surface runoff and an increased risk of sediment and nutrient pollution going into Flat Swamp Creek and eventually the Neuse River. Based on historical aerial photography (prior to agriculture conversion) and field inspection, the historic Flat Swamp Creek system bisected the southern and northern portions of the FSB tract. Currently, the creek is confined to a roadside ditch that crosses the property from west to east (Appendix B-Photos 9-10); exits the tract on the southeast side and eventually reaches the existing Flat Swamp Creek channel approximately one- half mile from the FSB property. A small portion of the drainage from the FSB exits the tract on the northeast side via a roadside ditch and eventually reaches another tributary to Flat Swamp Creek. Drainage within the tract is controlled by 4 flashboard risers. The ditch and drainage system currently existing within the FSB is connected with adjacent parcels to the north and west but there are no water control structures on these parcels allowing water to flow freely through the FSB. Existing flow patterns associated with the existing drainage ditch network is depicted in Appendix A-Figure 5. The Quality Woods team has determined through field reconnaissance that our proposed modifications to restore wetland hydrology to the agricultural fields and to reestablish Flat Swamp Creek will have no impact on any adjacent landowners. Furthermore, a field inspection at the Site was conducted by Quality Woods and Weyerhaeuser, the majority upstream landowner. This inspection, held on March 25, 2008, revealed that the proposed restoration design would not result in hydrologic trespass on Weyerhaeuser property. Weyerhaeuser is interested and supportive of the project and is considering cooperating formally. 4 QW. 2.3 Soils Most of the site is located within the Rains-Pantego-Torhunta association according to the Craven County General Soil Map (USDA, 1989). Soils within this association are described having nearly level, poorly drained, and very poorly drained soils that have loamy subsoil. This association consists of predominantly mineral soils and can be found on broad interstream flats and in depressions. Based on the Soil Survey of Craven County, North Carolina, soils mapped within the FSB include the Torhunta and Pantego Series which are both classified as hydric soils (Appendix A, Figure 6). These soils typically are poorly drained and are found in broad interstream flatwoods locations and along slow moving coastal plain streams. Torhunta mucky fine sandy loam is formed in loamy sediments and is frequently ponded during wet periods. The upper part of the surface layer is black mucky fine sandy loam about 3 inches thick. The lower horizon to a depth of 18 inches is very dark clay fine sandy loam. Infiltration is moderate and surface runoff is slow. Torhunta soils are extremely acidic to strongly acidic except where lime has been added to the surface (USDA, 1989). Pantego mucky fine sandy loam is also frequently ponded during wet periods. The surface layer is black mucky fine sand about 10 inches thick with a lower horizon of very dark gray and grayish brown fine sandy loam. Infiltration is medium and runoff is very slow. Pantego soils are strongly acidic except where lime has been added (USDA, 1989). A summary of the soil mapping units, their hydric status and depth and duration of water table is shown in Table 1. Table 1. Summary of Soil Mapping Units Within the Flat Swamp Stream Restoration Site Craven County MAP SOIL TYPE SOIL SUBGROUP HYDRIC DEPTH AND DURATION PROJECT UNIT STATUS OF HIGH WATER TABLE EXTENT (%) Pa Pantego mucky fine Umbnc Paleaquults Hydric A 0 - 18 inches 76% sandy loam November - April To Torhunta mucky fine thermic Typic Humaquepts Hydric A 0 - 18 inches 24% sandy loam November - April Additional soil investigations were conducted within the FSB by North Carolina Licensed Soil Scientist (NCLSS) Scott Frederick in March and April of 2008. These investigations were conducted utilizing existing soil characteristics to locate and verify the historic presence of a headwater stream system within the FSB. These investigations resulted in identifying approximate locations of stream corridors as indicated by detailed soil descriptions as well as through examination of present and past aerial photography and LIDAR data. Using historic aerial photography, relic stream threads were identified by vegetation and open water. The aerials were then georeferenced and coordinates were assigned to the relic stream corridors. Using VRS surveying equipment, these relic corridors were located in the field and used as a baseline for soil sampling and evaluation. In addition, visible soil staining evident on current aerial photographs shows the location of where the main relic corridor of Flat Swamp Creek connects to the present day channehzed feature. Soil descriptions and evaluations were conducted in this location as well. Figure 7 in Appendix A shows the locations where soil investigations occurred. Coastal plain soils are often quite uniform, particularly Pantego and Torhunta type series soils. Pantego soils are very deep, very poorly drained, moderately permeable soils that formed in thick loamy sediments on the Southern Coastal Plain and Atlantic Coast Flatwoods. Torhunta soils are very poorly drained soils in upland bays and on stream terraces in the coastal plain. Both soils are characteristic of headwater swamp and stream systems of the lower coastal plain. Soil sampling proceeded by advancing 4 and 7 foot dutch and bucket augers to depths ranging from 0 to > 48 inches. Soils found on site were most similar to Pantego and 5 QW. Torhunta series soils as described in the Soil Survey for Craven County (USDA, 1989). Soils were described and noted for any variances within the transect that would help further identify the location of any relic stream corridors (Appendix C). Several soil samples within the transect revealed large pieces of decaying woody debris as well as smooth quartz pebbles (1-5 mm). With the idea that large woody debris is more prone to slow decay in permanently saturated anaerobic conditions such as those found in streams, it is quite possible these soil borings indicated relic water conveyances. In addition, the smooth quartz pebbles, which were found in highest concentration along the eastern boundary spoil road, provide evidence of historic and geologic stream flow patterns across the headwater system. Photographs of the soil investigations conducted at the FSB are included in Appendix B (Photos 11-20). 2.4 Existing Plant Communities The existing plant communities within the FSB are representative of both natural communities and communities resulting from human disturbance. Only about 7 percent (26 acres) of the FSB is currently in forest cover with the remaining 93 percent (360 acres) in agricultural fields. The main agricultural crops grown on this tract since clearing have been corn, soybeans, cotton and forage grasses. The extensive clearing, ditching, channelization and road building have eliminated or significantly altered the natural plant communities. However, based on sampling of the forested portions on and around the tract, the existing natural plant communities are indicative of the Wet Pine Flatwoods, the Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest and the Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp communities described in Schafale and Weakley (1990). These plant communities have been more recently characterized by the North Carolina Wetland Functional Assessment Team during their production of the North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM) Draft Users Manual (version 5.0). Based on NC WAM, Wet Pine Flatwoods and Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forests are consolidated into a larger Pine Flat community. The Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp community described by Shafale and Weakley is included in the Headwater Wetland plant community described by NC WAM (2007). In addition, aerial photography taken in 19595 1964 and 1970 clearly shows a demarcation between the three community types. Descriptions of the existing natural plant community types are described below. • Wet Pine Flatwoods and Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest (Pine Flats) These community types occur on somewhat poorly to poorly drained sites on broad interstream divides. They support second growth forests and have been influenced by road building and accelerated drainage via nearby perimeter field ditches and creek channelization. Soil series include Torhunta and Pantego. Fire has been excluded and this has resulted in the development of a very heavy woody understory. Overstory species in the wet pine flatwoods type is primarily loblolly pine (Pines taeda) and mixed hardwoods. Dominant overstory tree species in the non-riverine wet hardwood forest includes sweetgum (La'guidambav styvaaflua), green ash (Pvaxinus pennsylvanica), red maple (Acev vubvum), water oak (Quevcus nigva), willow oak Q. phellos), laurel oak (Q. launfo§a), swamp chestnut oak Q. michauxiz), cherrybark oak (Q. pagodifolz'a) an d swamp blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica var. biflova). Subcanopy woody species include: loblolly bay (Govdonia lasianthus), red bay (Pevsea bovbonia), American holly (Ilex decidua), gallberry holly (I. conacea), inkberry holly (I. glabva) and sweet pepperbush (Cletheva alnzfo§a). Non-woody understory species include giant cane (Avundinana gigantea), netted chain fern (lY?oodavavdia aveolata), Virginia chain fern (1V vivginica), and cinnamon fern (Osmunda annamomea). Woody vines include: poison ivy (Toxicodendvon vadicans), wild grape (Vitus spp.) and greenbrier (Smilaxspp.). 6 QW. Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp (Headwater Swamp) This community type occurs on very poorly drained sites on both Pantego and Torhunta series soils within natural drainages in the FSB. This type was more extensive in the project area before it was cleared, graded, ditched and converted to agriculture. The overstory tree species that dominate this type include: swamp black gum, red maple, bald cypress (Taxodium distichum var. distichum), green ash, black willow (Salix nigva) and sweetgum. The understory species include: red bay, sweet pepperbush, inkberry holly and sweetgum. Understory ferns and vines include: netted chain fern, Virginia chain fern, cinnamon fern, greenbrier, poison ivy and wild grape. Table 2. Summary of Existing Plant Communities Within the Flat Swamp Mitigation Bank Craven County COMMUNITY DESCRIPTION' ESTIMATED AREA MITIGATION ACTIVITY WETLAND TYPE2 HGM TYPES Agricultural Fields (PC) 360 acres Restoration not described --- Wet Pine Flatwoods 5 acres Enhancement Pine Flat Mineral Flat Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest 21 acres Enhancement Pine Flat Mineral Flat Coastal Plain Small Stream Swam Adjacent Properties n/a Headwater Swamp Riverine/Headwater Complex 1 follows Schafale and Weakley (1990) 2 follows NC WAM (2007) 3 follows Brinson (1993) 2.5 Jurisdictional Streams and Wetlands As is the case with the streams on-site, many outer coastal plain riparian headwater systems have been channehzed or ditched in the past, making it difficult to determine whether a true intermittent or perennial stream was historically present. These existing "man-made" channels have, in most cases, intercepted surface runoff and/or groundwater to the extent that they now possess intermittent or perennial flow and exhibit functions commonly associated with natural streams. These systems are often considered jurisdictional waters of the US and, in many cases, are classified as "other waters of the United States" under the CWA (USACE, 2005). Recent research by Tweedy (2008) attempted to identify the formation of channel features in headwater stream systems. He divided headwater systems into three categories: Poorly Defined, Moderately Defined, and Well Defined. Based on this scheme, the features most likely to have historically occurred on the FSB property were poorly defined. Poorly defined systems have stream reaches contained within a defined valley that show evidence of periodic flow. Channel bed and bank features are not identifiable, or are poorly defined and present for only short distances. These systems appear more as linear wetlands with occasional flow. The reference site chosen to aid in the preliminary design of the FSB displays characteristics of a poorly defined headwater system. Quality Woods will request the US Army Corps of Engineers and NC Division of Water Quality to verify the existing streams at the site prior to permitting and construction. Wetlands on-site have previously been verified as part of Phase I of the FSB. The Flat Swamp Stream Restoration Site will fall under the jurisdictional requirements issued by both the USACE and NCDWQ. 7 QW. 2.5.1 Existing Stream Conditions The original stream system no longer exists having been obliterated by land clearing for agriculture, ditching and road building. The original location of the stream was determined using 1959, 1964 and 1970 high resolution aerial photography that show the area before disturbance. From the aerial photography, location and extent of the hardwood drains and small stream swamp areas could be identified by locating distinct vegetation breaks, patterns and features, as well as open water in ponded and braided patterns. Using this information, conceptual stream alignments were located as close as possible to their historic alignments while at the same time allowing for connectivity with existing ditches on adjacent properties. 2.5.1.1 Rosgen Stream Classification The stream classification for Flat Swamp Creek using the Rosgen System would most closely resemble a DA stream type which is a broad, low gradient stable system with alluvium soils and an anastomosed pattern. Deposition is very fine textured material in a broad flat floodplain and associated wetland environment. Bedloads are low with high wash load sediment. The upper reaches of Flat Swamp Creek within the project area are zero to first order drainage ditches, which convey water during the dormant season from adjacent and extensive broad wetlands. The primary source of water for these waters is from groundwater and precipitation. 2.5.2 Ecological Processes and Functions A variety of ecological processes and functions can be attributed to the wetland types within the proposed FSB. These functions are directly related to the geomorphic / landscape setting and hydrologic attributes of the wetland types (Brinson, 1993). The characteristic hydroperiod of these wetland types varies from seasonally saturated (mineral and organic flats) to semi permanently flooded (small Coastal Plain stream swamp). The fluctuating hydroperiods promotes alternating cycles of aerobic and anerobic soils conditions and increases the potential primary productivity, organic matter decomposition, nutrient mineralization and denitrification functions (Brinson et al., 1981; Mulholland, 1981, Reddy and Patrick, 1975). Prior to conversion, the characteristic hydroperiod within the extensive mineral soil flats resulted in short term surface water storage and long term subsurface water storage to support base flow augmentation in this headwater riverine system. Currently, the presence of a ditch network increases peak runoff rates, decreases the retention time of precipitation and surface water, alters natural groundwater flow patterns, and increases the mean depth to the seasonal water table (Crownover et al., 1995; Maki et al., 1980; Skaggs et al., 1980 and WRP, 1993). The agricultural conversion activity also results in the following: ¦ Decreased dissolved carbon export and food chain support due to decreased contact time between shallow groundwater and soil matrix / organic matter. ¦ Increased primary productivity and transpirational losses due to soil drainage and reduction of anaerobic soil conditions. ¦ Increased nitrogen mineralization and decreased denitrification due to soil drainage. ¦ Decreased short-term surface water storage and long-term subsurface water storage. ¦ Habitat interspersion of uplands and wetlands. 8 QW. Seasonally saturated wetlands are usually located at relatively higher landscape positions and exhibit high subsurface water storage functions. Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp wetlands are located at relatively low landscape positions and exhibit floodflow retention functions. The degree of microrelief across the wetland types will determine the degree of surface water retention and the amount of sediment and nutrient trapping within the wetlands. This short-term surface water retention results in increased contact time between organic matter and surface water, which increases carbon export function. Because of the conversion to agriculture, most of the organic functions of these wetlands and Flat Swamp Creek have been lost. In addition to the above-described functions, other functions such as biogeochemical transformations and habitat functions have similarly been adversely affected or eliminated. For example, there has likely been a large increase in sediment and nutrient export from this site into Flat Swamp Creek. There is no longer a natural occurrence of fire , which affects the long-term biogeochemical functions and wildlife habitat values of the site. Due to the decline of open, fire-maintained flatwoods habitat throughout eastern North Carolina, there are now over 87 species of rare vascular plants dependent upon remnants of this habitat type (Walker, 1993). There are 36 species of mammals, 34 amphibian species, 38 reptilian species and 86 bird species including the red cockaded woodpecker associated with longleaf pine ecosystems throughout the Southeast (Engstrom, 1993; Guyer and Bailey, 1993). Additional game species favored by wet pine and pine / hardwood ecosystems include bobwhite quail (Co§nus vivginianus), wild turkey (Meleagn's gallopavo) and fox squirrel (Sciuvus nigev) (Sharp, 1998; Still and Baumann, 1989; Loeb and Lennartz, 1989). Additional game species such as whitetail deer (Odocoileus vivginianus), black bears (Uvsus ame?icanus), and waterfowl will be favored by restoration and maintenance of the Wet Pine Flatwoods, Nonriverine Hardwood Forest and small Coastal Plain Swamp forest. In addition, all of these wetland types provide grazing and browsing habitat and soft mast production. A review of the benefits of restoring PC agricultural lands to forest has been summarized by Frederick (2008). 2.6 Site History The FSB is located entirely on two adjoining parcels in Craven County, NC. The site encompasses extensive areas of land that was cleared and drained for agriculture and forestry production in the early 1970's. Total area of the site is approximately 386 acres which includes 360 acres of PC agricultural land and approximately 26 acres of partially drained forested wetlands. Based on the characteristics of remaining forested wetlands both on-site and on adjacent land, the site once supported a rich diversity of habitats including wet flat hardwoods and pine swamp hardwoods, as well as cypress and riverine hardwoods along the historic Flat Swamp Creek system. Much of this habitat, including the original Flat Swamp Creek system has been destroyed or altered during the past 30 to 40 years. Quality Woods has reviewed available databases to determine the proximity of areas eligible for the National Register of Historic Places at the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). There are no known cultural resource locations on the site. Quality Woods will obtain a clearance letter from the SHPO before any ground disturbance activities begin on-site. Quality Woods has also reviewed available North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) databases to determine the proximity of federally or state protected species and natural resources to the site. This cursory data review revealed two significant natural heritage areas within a one mile radius of the site. These two areas are both terrestrial natural communities. One is listed as a Xenc Sandhill Scvub community which was last observed in September of 1997, the other is listed as a Pine/Scrub Oak Sandhill community which was also last observed in September of 1997 (NCNHP, 2007). Quality Woods will obtain a clearance letter from NCNHP and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) before any ground disturbance activities begin on- site. 9 QW. A Phase I Environmental Assessment conducted in June, 2008 revealed no contamination and/or environmentally sensitive or hazardous waste sites on the property. 3.0 MITIGATION The USACE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), a mitigation policy which embraces the concepts of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological, and physical integrity of Waters of the United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoidance of impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time, and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation) must be considered in sequential order. After all practical attempts to avoid and minimize wetland losses have been accomplished, compensatory mitigation in any of the forms (i.e. wetland creation, restoration, enhancement and / or preservation) should be developed. 3.1 Goals and Objectives Goals Reestablish natural hydrology at the Site by restoring a riparian headwater stream system as close to its historic location as possible. Improve the overall water quality of streams at the Site by reducing the input of sediment and pollutants (i.e., agricultural run-off and nutrient loading) into the aquatic system. Improve the richness and diversity of the plant species within the riparian zone and upland buffers along the project reaches. Improve the overall wildlife habitat across the entire conservation easement Ob ec? tines Restore 15,985 linear feet of headwater stream system based on high resolution aerial photography from 1959, 1964, 1970, and present as well as current LIDAR, USGS, and Site specific soil data showing the presence of historical headwater stream systems. Information collected from an undisturbed reference site will be used as well as appropriate grading techniques to create a new, flowing riparian stream network and fill existing on-site agricultural ditches. Promote the natural establishment of the proposed riparian headwater system by connecting the proposed stream network to the existing off-site ditches therefore facilitating the movement of water across the Site. Reestablish a native plant community by implementing a site specific planting plan addressing all zones of the riparian stream corridors and associated buffers. Improve water quality by reducing soil erosion and increasing nutrient uptake through increased root mass along the restored stream system. Reestablish a natural floodplain adjacent to the restore stream system to attenuate flood flows. 3.2 Proposed Actions: Stream Restoration Stream restoration credits will be generated within the FSB through the analysis, design and implementation of approximately 15,985 linear feet of a new riparian headwater system for Flat Swamp Creek. According guidance set forth by the USACE and NCDWQ (2007), the limit of credit for stream and riparian wetland mitigation in the outer coastal plain will be decided on a case-by-case basis and will typically depend on the 10 QW. width an d extent of a clearly visible valley in the landscape. Normally, a 50-foot buffer is required for stream mitigation projects in the coastal plain. Therefore, stream credit may only be awarded where the discernible valley is a minimum of 100 feet wide. The width of the valley would usually be defined using the edge of the valley slope. In-field confirmation of the presence and limits of the valley may be needed in order to determine the extent of riparian wetland and stream mitigation (USACE, 2007). Quality Woods has followed these guidelines in developing this stream restoration plan for the FSB. Following USACE and NCDWQ guidance, detailed topographic data, historic aerial photography, and field evaluations were utilized to determine the location of the historic headwater stream system. Aerial photographs taken in 1959, 1964 and 1970 distinctly show the historic location of the Flat Swamp Creek network and its associated vegetative buffers (Appendix A-Figures 8a, 8b, and 8c). Currently, topography at the Site is extremely flat, with the historic location of the Flat Swamp Creek system no longer evident due to prior conversion of the Site to agriculture including the grading and crowning of fields between lateral ditches. Examination of LIDAR imagery (Appendix A-Figure 9) reflecting existing conditions at the Site showed no discernable stream valley throughout the Site, which is further testament that a headwater system restoration is most appropriate for the FSB site. Imagery indicated a more distinct valley farther east on the adjacent property as Flat Swamp Creek becomes more defined. This information was critical in the development of this restoration plan for the FSB. Additionally, soil sampling was conducted on-site during field reconnaissance and revealed variation in the depth and extent of organic materials and smooth quartz pebbles where the historic stream valleys were located. A detailed description of soil information gathers at the Site is included in Section 2.3. 4.0 RESTORATION TECHNIQUES 4.1 Stream Restoration Restoration activities at the FSB will follow guidelines set forth by the USACE and NCDWQ (2007). Unaltered riparian headwater systems with smaller watersheds and lesser defined topography, often possess a braided, diffuse flow pattern across a narrow floodplain of riparian, wooded wetlands (USACE, 2007). To restore Flat Swamp Creek to this type of natural system in the coastal plain of North Carolina, stream restoration involving the development of pattern, dimension, and profile would not be appropriate. The FSB would likely not support engineered stream channels due to its sandy terrain and extremely flat topography. Restoration of riparian headwater systems can still be accomplished to provide both stream and wetland mitigation credit without physically constructing a distinct stream channel. Utilizing information collected from an appropriate reference site, Quality Woods proposes to restore the stream system as closely as possible to its historic location. Detailed topographic data, historic aerial photography, soil investigations and field evaluations were utilized to determine the location of this historic stream corridor. Quality Woods consulted with a number of experts in developing this stream restoration plan and design including, Dr. Martin Doyle from the University of North Carolina (UNC), Dr. Greg Jennings from North Carolina State University (NCSU), Kris Bass from NCSU, Kevin Tweedy from Baker Engineering, and Norton Webster from EBX, in addition to Mulkey Engineers and Consultants. Construction of the FSB will be conducted in phases to ensure maximum success for vegetation survival and establishment, system stability, and effective erosion and sedimentation control. The number of stream crossings, haul roads, and staging areas will be carefully selected in order to minimize disturbance at the site. Low pressure equipment will be used when possible to reduce compaction and to allow access across the site during construction. Quality Woods anticipates great success with regards to construction implementation for this project due to the lack of complicated physical constraints at the site. It is also anticipated that all of 11 QW. the excavated soil material produced during grading can be contained on-site and used to plug or fill sections of existing drainage ditches. There are no anticipated conflicts with the proposed restoration. 4.1.1 Reference Stream The conceptual designs for the FSB were developed by the Quality Woods Team using reference reach data from an internal reference reach database in addition to reference reach data provided by the NCSU Stream Restoration Program for the Croatan National Forest and NCSU Hofmann Forest. These sites are located within watersheds of similar size and exhibit similar characteristics to those of the proposed streams within the FSB. If a reference reach in addition to or in lieu of those already found is needed for this site, the Quality Woods Team will locate such a reach and obtain permission for the purposes of conducting existing condition surveys and analyses. Using the appropriate site(s) as a reference site helps to insure restoration of the streams within the FSB to a natural state. The riparian headwater system for FSB will most closely mimic a reference riparian headwater system located in the Croatan National Forest. This reference area was chosen for the Flat Swamp Stream restoration project because of its similarities in topography, soils, vegetation, landscape position and watershed size. The site is located at the headwaters of an unnamed tributary to Brice Creek approximately six miles south of New Bern and 23 miles southeast of the FSB (Appendix A-Figure 10). Characteristics at the reference site resemble those of a poorly defined headwater system. This reference site was visited by Quality Woods team members on May 23, 2008. Photographs of the reference site are included in the Photographic Log found in Appendix B (Photos 21-23). The UT to Brice Creek reference site is a riparian area ranging from 100 to 250 feet wide and 800 to 1,000 feet long. This riparian corridor is located between slightly higher land that is currently in pine plantation and/or mixed pine-hardwood community types. There is no evidence of man-caused disturbance occurring within the past 50 years, and the only historic disturbance observed exists in the form of scattered windthrows which have occurred over many years. The reference site is forested and lacks a discernable stream channel. There was evidence of surface flow with debris dams and wrack lines 10 to 30 feet from the lowest elevations within the riparian zone. Standing water was present in the low areas, primarily in the windthrow stump holes and water-caused depressions. Soils are hydric, similar to Pantego Series, being mixed mineral with an organic surface of 8 to 12 inches. Water moves freely through the soil and only reaches the surface during occasional rain events and during the dormant season. Many downed logs and other woody debris were observed within the riparian zone. The drainage pattern of surface water that flowed across the site was heavily influenced by the location of stumps, woody debris, and exposed roots. The reference site is best described as a poorly defined headwater system with a braided pattern showing considerable subsurface flow. The watershed for this stream was estimated at several hundred acres, based on the topography and hydrological evidence observed. 4.2 Detailed Site Plans Because this project involves the restoration of a riparian headwater system, traditional stream restoration methodologies involving the restoration of dimension, pattern, and profile may not be employed. Instead, designs for streams within the FSB will mimic characteristics of a reference site(s) with similar watershed size and landscape conditions. The proposed design will involve the restoration of a more diffuse surface flow pattern. Specific criteria including valley and stream slope, width and depth of natural flow, valley width, and other stream feature characteristics were studied and measured at the reference site(s) to ensure that the same natural relationships can be restored at the project site. 12 QW. Minor grading will be conducted at the Site to establish initial stream corridors for the proposed system. This work will involve creating low swale areas with a bulldozer and allowing the flow of water to find its own way across the site. Allowing natural processes to take over as early as possible is the primary objective of the Quality Woods Team. In all, Quality Woods proposes to restore six stream corridors as close as possible to their historic locations within the Flat Swamp Creek riparian headwater system. Additionally, the long north to south flowing ditch along the eastern project boundary will be realigned to promote a more natural flow of water across the Site. Some sections of existing ditches will remain functional to prevent water backup on adjacent properties. Conceptual plans include connecting the proposed swales to off-site and existing drainage ditches via culverts and hardened overflow structures such as log weirs or modified ditch plugs. These structures will be placed at predetermined elevations matching the existing stream bed elevation of the upstream ditches. Quality Woods also proposes to place ditch plugs or weirs in existing ditches at the site as outlined in Phase I of the FSB (the exact number and location of Phase I plugs may be modified to support the proposed Phase II restoration plans). These strategically placed ditch plugs or weirs will ensure concentrated water flow into the restored system. Preliminary designs call for swales approximately 50 to 150 feet wide (or larger) and one to two feet deep (dimensions will be adjusted based on upstream drainage areas). These swales will intercept the realigned north to south ditch to facilitate the movement of water across and off of the Site and most closely restore its historic stream flow pattern. In order to promote habitat at the Site, Quality Woods proposes to create an open water Bottomland Swamp community at the confluence of the two northernmost swales and north to south ditch. This is one of the lowest elevations on the Site and is extremely wet even in its existing agricultural state. It is anticipated that this area of the restored Site will have permanent standing water throughout the year and will be planted with species such as bald cypress and swamp black gum. In addition, Quality Woods proposes to create three small areas of upland habitat by utilizing spoil material to construct hummocks immediately north of and adjacent to the existing east to west roadside ditch. It is anticipated that sections of the existing dirt road will be included in these upland areas after construction is complete. The proposed design will promote a fluctuation in water levels within the system as the seasonal high water table changes throughout the year. It is anticipated that during the summer months, when the water table is at its lowest, a more diffuse or braided surface flow pattern will exist within the swales. Grade control structures may be placed at the extreme upstream and downstream ends of the project; however, additional structures and bankfull benching are not anticipated as part of this project. As additional information is collected from the site and from reference reach sites, plans will be adapted accordingly to produce the most functional and successful restoration possible. Official monitoring of the Site will not take place until permanent hydrological modifications have been completed. A conceptual drawing of the proposed restoration is reflected on Figure 11 in Appendix A and a typical cross section of the proposed swale design is included on Figure 12 in Appendix A. 4.3 Riparian Buffer Restoration Restoration of the riparian buffer using strategic vegetation planting practices will provide stream bank stability, stream shading, water quality improvements through nutrient uptake and sediment filtering, as well as providing wildlife habitat. The riparian buffers will be restored by planting appropriate native species, trees, shrubs, and herbaceous vegetation in zones specific to landscape position, topography and hydrology. Vegetation data was collected from the UT to Brice Creek reference site for use in development of preliminary planting plans for the FSB. Dominant species within the canopy were recorded and their percent of canopy coverage documented. Data recorded for species present in the canopy is as follows: black gum 13 QW. (40%), red maple (20%), swamp chestnut oak (15%), willow oak (10%), sweetgum (5%), green ash (<5%), holly (<5%), black willow (<5%), and bays (<5%). Additionally, dominant understory species were recorded as well as their abundance within the reference site. Understory species in order of abundance are as follows: giant cane, dog hobble (Txucothoe racemosa), netted chain fern, poison ivy, royal fern (Osmunda rega§s), spicebush (L indera ben.Zoin), arrow arum (Peltandra virginica), cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), false nettle (Boehmena g§ndfica), and miscellaneous sedges. Quality Woods has also identified two significant natural areas (SNA) proximal to the FSB to use as additional reference plant communities if necessary. These two SNAs are recorded in the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database (2008). Both sites are located within 20 miles of the FSB and contain applicable reference quality plant communities should additional vegetative information be required. Tree and shrub species will be planted in specific planting zones. These planting zones will accommodate plant species which have specific requirements for growth. Hydrology and topography are the main factors that dictate a plant's ability to survive and to thrive following planting. These planting zones will be created around these requirements and will include the following zones: Zone 1 (Bottomland Vegetation), Zone 2 (Riverine Buffer), and Zone 3 (Non-Riverine Buffer). A list of species recommended for each Zone can be found in Table 3. A conceptual vegetation plan is shown on Figure 13 in Appendix A. Table 3. Designed Vegetative Communities by Zone for the Flat Swamp Mitigation Bank Craven County Planting Zone Area Zone Recommended Plant Species Zone (Acres) Description Scientific Name Common Name Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush Bottomland Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green ash 1 18.3* Vegetation Nyssa sylvatica Swamp Blackgum Salix nigra Black willow Taxodiurn distichurn Bald cypress Betula nigra River birch Celtis occidentalis Hackberry Riverine Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green ash 2 27.5** Buffer Quercus rnichauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak Quercus nigra Water oak Quercus phellos Willow oak Gordonia lasianthus Loblolly bay Persea borbonia Red bay 3 TBD*** Non-Riverine Quercus rnichauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak Buffer Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak Quercus nigra Water oak Quercus phellos Willow oak * Area calculated based on a Zone width of 50' (final Zone width not yet determined) ** Area calculated based on a Zone width of 75' (final Zone width not yet determined) *** Vegetation listed in Planting Zone 3 will be planted as part of Phase I of the FSB. Any non-native exotic vegetation species will be removed or treated with appropriate herbicides in order to promote the establishment and protection of desired native species vegetation. All vegetation related design 14 QW. and construction implementation services, including exotic vegetation removal, as well as site planting and associated site preparation will be led and coordinated under the supervision of Quality Woods. 4.4 Functional Uplift of the Proposed Project The wetland and stream mitigation activities associated with the proposed FSB will result in an uplift of existing water quality and habitat functions. Minimizing channehzed flow within existing ditches and restoring flow through a natural headwater system will increase water quality functions by reducing sedimentation from existing and adjacent land uses. Restoration practices will reduce in-stream bank erosion and lessen the transport of sediment both on-site and further downstream in the watershed. Additionally, buffer enhancement will increase nutrient uptake due to increased root mass along the restored stream system. The proposed ditch plugging and filling will result in increased short-term surface and subsurface water storage and subsequent increase in the duration and elevation of the seasonally high water table. The increased retention time of surface and subsurface water on the broad interstream flats will result in reduced peak flows and augmented base flow within Flat Swamp Creek. Increased retention time will also facilitate a variety of biogeochemical transformations such as denitrification and dissolved organic carbon export. Reduced nitrogen export and increased carbon export will benefit downstream areas in Flat Swamp Creek and the Neuse River. The restoration of PC agricultural lands has immediate and long-term benefits to water quality. Eliminating nutrient runoff from fertilizers and pesticides as well as reducing sediment inputs into surface waters will improve ecosystem health. Full restoration involves the return of natural hydrology, restoration of plant cover and enhancement of soils, such as relief from soil compaction, reduction of nutrient inputs and restoration of soil micro biota. The objective of PC agriculture land restoration is to return sites to natural, fully-functioning forested wetland systems that are permanent, self-sustaining, and provide maximum water quality benefits (Frederick, 2008). The combination of Phases I and II of the FSB will restore all PC agriculture land at the Site to a natural state, reversing the negative effects of the Site's prior conversion discussed in Section 2.5.2. 5.0 MONITORING PLAN (BIOLOGICAL AND PHYSICAL) 5.1 Stream System A physical monitoring plan for the proposed stream design will be implemented for a five-year duration following construction. Monitoring reports will be submitted to State and Federal regulatory agencies three times (first, third and fifth years of monitoring). These reports will contain detailed assessments of the restored riparian corridors and at a minimum will document measurable stream characteristics such as stream flow and vegetation growth. Additionally, photo reference points will be recorded and included with the monitoring reports. Physical monitoring may also include the following: L Permanent transects/cross sections IL Plan view mapping of stream system III. Permanent photo locations IV. Water quality a. Precipitation b. Temperature c. Staff gauges d. Turbidity e. Transported Phosphorus 15 QW. f Nitrogen (TKN, N03-NO2) V. Benthic macroinvertebrate sampling In addition, according to the USACE and NCDWQ, projects involving the restoration of riparian headwater systems should include success criteria commensurate with the restoration of a bottomland riparian (wetland) community (USACE, 2005). The Quality Woods team proposes to install various monitoring devices as well as conduct visual inspections of the FSB to ensure these criteria are met. Proposed monitoring devices include continuous or semi-continuous monitoring wells, staff gauge measurements, and strategically placed flow meters. Water quality conditions will be documented downstream of the Site prior to construction of the project and following implementation no sooner than years 3 through 5. Water quality sampling may be conducted above, within, and below the project site. Visual inspection will be conducted to record the movement of wrack materials as evidence of flow and to document the growth and distribution of faunal species as a means of verifying the shift from a terrestrial to an emergent aquatic community. As a whole, the proposed monitoring activities will provide documentation of an adequate flooding regime and evidence of periodic flow. The Quality Woods Teams may also conduct benthic macroinvertebrate sampling as part of monitoring activities at the Site. Sampling would be conducted prior to the beginning of the project for comparison with post construction monitoring. If conducted, benthic monitoring will follow the North Carolina Department of Environmental Resources (NCDENR) Standard Operating Procedures for BenthZC Macrroinvertebrates (2006) and BenthZC Macvoinvevtebvate Monitoring Protocols for Compeonsatog Stream Restoration Projects (2001). 5.2 Vegetation Stem counts will be conducted within strategically placed 10m x 10m plots. When choosing the location for each plot, the primary goal will be to obtain a representative sample of the entire area of disturbance. Therefore, plots will be scattered throughout the project and will capture all habitat variations. The total area of sample plots will equal a minimum of 5% of the total mitigation type area. Based on the preliminary planting areas shown in Table 3, Phase II of the FSB will require 37 sample plots spaced throughout Planting Zone 1 and 56 sample plots spaced throughout Planting Zone 2. The minimum density of plant stems within each sample plot established during construction will be 460 stems per acre. Vegetation success will be measured for survivability over a five year monitoring period. Survivability will be based on achieving at least 320 stems per acre after five years. A survey of vegetation during the growing season (mid-March to early November) will be conducted annually over the five year monitoring period in order to verify survivability of the installed plantings. This survey will track the total mortality on an annual basis and be used to calculate survivability at the end of three and five years. Survivability of less than 320 stems per acre at the end of the three and five year monitoring periods may require the installation of additional plantings as replacement for the mortality. Note the stem count procedure only applies to planted and transplanted woody vegetation. For shrubby species with multiple branching stems, the base will be considered one stem. Trees with two or more main stems branching from the base or near the ground will be considered one stem. Planted individuals will be kept separate from volunteers by loosely tied flagging. All flagging material will be designed to degrade within a couple years and will not be tied tightly or in a manner that would inhibit plant growth. 6.0 CONCLUSION This restoration of Flat Swamp Creek will result in the reestablishment of a natural riparian headwater stream system on a site that has been previously converted to agriculture. The project will reconnect the ditched and 16 QW. channelized upper reaches of Flat Swamp Creek with its lower reach, which is currently intact. The project will result in an uplift of existing water quality and habitat functions by minimizing channehzed flow within manmade ditches. It will also restore water quality functions, increase surface and subsurface water storage, reduce sedimentation from overland flow and in-stream bank erosion, and provide an extensive riparian buffer along the restored stream corridors. Increased flow retention time will result in reduced nutrient and sediment export from the site and ultimately less export to the Neuse River downstream of the site. 17 QW. 7.0 REFERENCES American Rivers. 2007. Press Release: America's Most Endangered Rivers of 2007. http: / /www.americanrivers.org/site /News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10199 Accessed April 17, 2007. Bass, Kris and Greg Jennings. 2008. Core Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Project. Presentation: Coastal Stream Wetland Restoration: Implementation and Evaluation. NCSU Stream Restoration Program, May 1-2,2008. Brinson, M.M., A.E. Lugo and S. Brown. 1981. Primary productivity, decomposition and consumer activity in freshwater wetlands. Ann. Rev. Syst. 12:123-161. Brinson, M.M. 1993. A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands. US Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Wetlands Res. Prog., Tech. Rpt, WRP-DE-4, 79pp. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F,C. Golet, E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biol. Serv. Prog., Biol. Rpt. FWS/OBS- 79/31, 103pp. Crownover, S.H., N.B. Comerford, D.G. Neary and J. Montgomery. 1995. Horizontal groundwater flow patterns through a cypress swamp-pine flatwoods landscape. J. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer., 59:1199-1207. Daniels, R.B., Buol, S.W., Kleiss, H.J. and C.A. Ditzler. 1999. Soil Systems in North Carolina. North Carolina State University, Soil Science Department. Raleigh, NC. Technical Bulletin 314. January 1999. Emmons, Ebenezer. 1857. American geology; Part VI: Albany, NY, Sprague and Co., 152p., (Reprinted in 1974, Natural Sciences in America Series) Engstrom, R.T. 1993. Characteristic mammals and birds of longleaf pine forests. Proc 181h Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conf, S.M. Hermann (ed): The Longleaf Pine Ecosystem: Ecology, Restoration and Management, Tall Timbers Research Inc., Tallahassee, H. FEMA. 2004. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). Craven County, North Carolina (Unincorporated Areas). Panel 4584, Community Panel Number 370072 4584J, Effective Date July 2, 2004. Frederick, D.J. 2008. Water Quality Benefits of Restoring Prior-Converted Agriculture Lands. Unpublished NCSU Manuscript. 7pp. Griffith, G.E., Omernik, J.M., Comstock, J.A., Schafale, M.P., McNab, W.H., Lenat, DR., MacPherson, T.F., Glover, J.B., and V.B. Shelburne. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina, (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston, Virginia, USGS (map scale 1:1,500,000). Guyer, C. and M.A. Bailey. 1993. Amphibians and reptiles of longleaf pine communities. Proc. 18d? Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conf, S.M. Hermann (ed): The Longleaf Pine Ecosystem; Ecology, Restoration and Management, Tall Timbers Research Inc, Tallahassee, FL. 18 QW. Loeb, S.C. and M.R. Lennartz. 1989. The fox squirrel (S(zurus nigev) in southeastern pine-hardwood forests. In: T.A. Waldrop (ed): Proc of Pine-Hardwood Mixtures: A Symposium on Management and Ecology of the Type. USDA For. Serv., SE For. Expt.Sta., Gen. Tech Rpt. SE-58, Asheville, NC, pp 142-148. Maki, T.E., A.J. Weber, D.W. Hazel, S.C. Hunter, B.T. Hyberg, D.M. Flinchum, J.P. Lollis, J.B. Rognstad and J.D. Gregory. 1980. Effect of stream channelization on bottomland and swamp forest ecosystems. NC Water Res. Res. Instit. Rpt 147, Raleigh, NC. Mulholland, P.J. 1981. Organic flow in a swamp stream ecosystem. Ecol. Mono. 51(3):307-322. NCDENR. 2001. Interim, Internal Technical Guide: Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Protocols for Compensatory Stream Restoration Projects. NCDWQ 401/Wetland Unit. 46 pp. NCDENR. 2006. Standard Operating Procedures for Benthic Macroinvertebrates. NCDWQ Environmental Services Section; Biological Assessment Unit. 42 pp. NCDWQ. 2002. Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Division of Water Quality. Raleigh, NC. NCDWQ. 2006. North Carolina Waterbodies Reports. Basinwide Information Management System. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Division of Water Quality. Raleigh, NC. Classification 11/07/2006. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/csu/swc.html NCDWQ. 2006. North Carolina Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2006 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report). Public Review Draft. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Division of Water Quality. Raleigh, NC. NCNHP. 2007. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Element Occurrence Search. Craven County. Database Review, March 2007. NRCS. 2005. Hydric Soil Series Lists, Hydric Soils of North Carolina. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. ftp: / /ftp-fc. sc.egov.usda.gov/N SSC/Hydrlc_Soils /Lists /nc.xls. Rosgen, David. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs Colorado. Schaefale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina: Third Approximation. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. Raleigh, NC, 325pp. Sharp, T. 1998. The sandhills quail mystery. Wildlife in North Carolina. 62(2):9-12. Skaggs, R.W., J.W. Gilliam and J.S. Barnes. 1980. Effect of agricultural land development on drainage waters in the North Carolina Tidewater region. Water Res Res. Instit. Rpt. 159. Raleigh, NC. 19 QW. Still, H.R. and D.P. Baumann. 1989. Wild turkey activities in relation to timber types on the Francis Marion national forest. In: T.A. Waldrop (ed), Prod Pine-Hardwood Mixtures; A Symposium on Management and Ecology of the Type. USDA For. Ser. SE For.Exp.Sta. Gen Tech Rpt. SE-58, Asheville, NC Tweedy, K. 2008. Headwater Valleys in the Coastal Plan - Characteristics and Channel Formation. Presentation: Coastal Stream Wetland Restoration: Implementation and Evaluation. NCSU Stream Restoration Program. May 1-2, 2008. USACE, USEPA, NCWRC, and NCDWQ. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. April 2003. USACE and NCDWQ. 2005. Information regarding stream restoration in the outer Coastal Plain of North Carolina. Draft Guidance - Version 1, 4pp. USACE and NCDWQ 2007. Information regarding stream restoration with emphasis on the Coastal Plain. Draft Guidance - Version 2, 10 pp. USDA. 1989. Soil Survey of Craven County North Carolina, NC Soil conservation Service, 157 pp. USFWS. 2007. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Craven County Endangered Species, Threatened Species, and Federal Species of Concern. http://www.f\vs.gov/nc-es/es/countyfr.html. Updated 1/29/2007. Walker, J. 1993. Rare vascular plant taxa associated with longleaf pine ecosystems: Patterns in Taxonomy and Ecology. In: M.S. Hermann (ed), Proc. of the 18th Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conf: The Longleaf Pine Ecosystem: Ecology, Restoration and Management. Tall Timbers Research Inc. Tallahassee, FL, pp. 105-125. W.R.P. 1993. Installing monitoring wells / piezometers in wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Expt.Sta., Wetland Research Program Tech. Note HY-IA-3.1, 14pp. 20 Qw. APPENDIX A FIGURES 1 6. .,. ,ice .,_< \•",??? ?? . ? `cp I .,}? ? ?s' r (`/? ?,... I ?? .. f r{ ,' SITE LOCATION I i I ? of 1 '?-. % , Iz s I r a e- - r 7-7 R .. ti;i:~• ?+ Ala % \ k z\ zzz 0 0.25 0.5 1 N - -???•. " - .._. - 1:50,000 Miles - USGS 7.5- Minute Topographic Quadrangle: Cove City, Dover, Fort Barnwell, & Griffon Contour Interval 2 Meters Prepared For: PROJECT VICINITY MAP Figure al FLAT SWAMP MITIGATION BANK 1 usACE CRAVEN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA LEGEND Project Boundary I f 0 250 500 1,000 1:12,000 Feet USGS 7.5- Digital Orthographic Quadrangle: Cove City NW, Dover NE, Fort Barnwell SW, & Grifton SE Prepared For: USACE r PROJECT BOUNDARIES Figure FLAT SWAMP MITIGATION BANK 2 CRAVEN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Prepared For PROJECT DRAINAGE AREA m FLAT SWAMP MITIGATION BANK UsACE CRAVEN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Figure 3 Prepared For EXISTING SITE HYDROLOGY m FLAT SWAMP MITIGATION BANK UsACE CRAVEN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Figure 4 LEGEND Project Boundary -? lk ? 1 _ k 10! ? 1'7iY •117 • ,? Cove City NE & NW, `111111111 0 375 750 1,500 1:14,000 ???Veet milt JSGS 7.5- Digital Orthographic Quadrangle: Dover , Fort Barnwell SE & SW, & GriftonSE Prepared For: EXISTING AGRICULTURAL DRAINAGE Figure al FLAT SWAMP MITIGATION BANK 5 usACE CRAVEN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA LEGEND Soil Mapping Units Pa To Project Boundary 0 s s 0 250 500 1,000 1:12,000 Feet USGS 7.5- Digital Orthographic Quadrangle: Cove City NW, Dover NE, Fort Barnwell SW, & Grifton SE Prepared For: EXISTING SOILS Figure FLAT SWAMP MITIGATION BANK 6 USACE CRAVEN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA a x py. ? "'?-?. ? Rw'• si ?;" w. r ? £ Y"` Ji ? ?`'# ? t ?'[ .a •1 e - r r. LEGEND '? d >k 3. ,C r ?' ,..,;'lr?.. y '.". ,• ?'"r rt• `rM'°'MY f• t - r 1? M w + `i '. 't '?+ '">'^r.fi; .,f r??? i[?WfY*„? ?rk??, ?.dl "'"?._ ? ?,R*, ?. a,-st..r.mi.,,.-•+?. ?,a `.. t iq `W. ?! .'.a?, ?_r??? ,,,? , ? :P ,,? x. 4• k ?? ? ? Soil Boring Locations j• h ? L Historic Headwater System Project Boundary '? F & s?,e ?.. :+`^" fa?":fh t r r y??i[ cr'rr r } 'f. "'(+#'iy,+ .wf. r,,,[.+.tiwr.°'? r l.. u t '. ?`b } 1.. ;+p +•!?!? f.ry -fy: a? .yrY d' V`sm ° r (,?" •rr }+ro ri k t4~M'??.?, '? S`B-1 F-,yt',.cF''`k',?/ if-k +?"y? ` C+? f} :y T la'f .,y7? q{ k y , Tv ? ? ? ?fi c r f ?-eIt a '?tA?f "yj . '. L? ? M1 WY jh r k A, V. A' r r'r. l' ° P J yir? .Fjy-y Y, r J. -50 + IV. Apt c? - ' t ?r (# ti _ _.J 7? sr r r, a ?S°? ?r'el?A r a " " ??? r r # wfY*- SB-WMK_2 •tr ;' j.v! 41 r}+'Lr.Y '.#?,`. ' 1fA1# d yt}*j i w w r 'C, I 1J Y r , F •? y ,, ? ;gyn."'? ?'?? ?? ? r> _ `' r y? ' f?? 1 - ? r? / ..#7r ' SB WMK 1 ?r _g r w dW`?r?-?'.?`?rC'?J ?ry ??NN es rr'? k ?nT! #y?°? It { ro - tea it. k ,r?r'?,, / fl of C' ,,+ A L `4y h Afr -/)` / i`,! M - i l'.. Fb" ti? rdFr .[ r? wJMkkr s ;t 4'?`? al ls? if ?:i+ Xl' w _ t ?''i ti'.?r Jr K .+N Jr•'' ?' ry tyy c.it s 9 d `rna f fikf.J s kV, Sl`?1 A. "!' fr f tv, fr s tr` r t,1" r `t° s r<y n 7A` z.r r 9 `?vW "aS ?i 7l !, ?4 4?!y 1 f/A. ! ?j• ?y 3f -+' f t'R.AY f?'. Y .1, 'jr } y,?.y? ' y , •Y' ?.31r'° jpd SB_3 t 4a- e lo, s'?r,??y,uk s 'S' LLL1r w / _r.,y 8W4 ?'? ; ?,? t :? "?" v ? 1 ?y'AAr,.,? t A a r rrra ?. .t°'°5• w:4='S? .%. Jr a -?..uRy ?f ? r ? r ? ? _. ?'?, .} Y•'.. r 1i,'tT,x"'1:,? r ?-vsa Ill +.?t s, f r +ri ?'' -! Jt',. 'i`? f t r ?j,?•-0} ? F i 'Sr ?it?r a`-+? '• .L"s"{,1a>?, ?' °`,?,",," r's•*? A W (??7`w a ' d(?.iy'` ., ,_ - _ ??".}'F 9't .; 'rye: fr,?'.s {, G Sir as - S ; K A _.t'r'? r t s +. ?y?. >• a r + f° ` ham, r !3 ?' > `. -rrlt > t:.lti. r:^+h'?. r yA. X h >?: - #[ `R ' ?, d• ::. f 1 ear _'"? +' ,?# ' a -4 ..;t•?tt L??1 r 5 '^1S' L-•?' .- *a=!.?v- V ? ?r `r y h?e'f Yta-?7',''`t4" J t :_. _ vsr o zso soo 1,000 r 1:12,000 Feet ?.?? ?_..? ? ?? • l ¢.. ?1t?Y..'. < #a+yy' Aerial Photography Provided by: Craven County NRCS Prepared For: SOIL BORING LOCATIONS Figure FLAT SWAMP MITIGATION BANK 7 USACE CRAVEN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA ? r- `'.Yr''f!'?' I w {'t r r 1gb?A J? ??y +?'?'is.ir c1rf?y.'i .' f s?..4.. '?' .+ "'kid,' ir,; Y. ?.,r.'J??'?".. r?•?'+, M? rF ". LEGEND r'rd C ? ? 4,'! '? ,'?,? !M1d." ? °•11N i a.1 ay. 4 p.r.: ? r ,' ?' r. a i?''tiy'. { 4 : ? 4? A C rl4 ?'`° "! 4 rF? aY"b''nv,y# q n mil iF w q Y . 50 i?t ?,; r •?{r? b,, ,? Historic Stream Corridors ? ! ` r z , r !? 4 I4 } ?1Y 4' r i q ,4k ?'? r' ?, sCy `Ffr,• Yy ay G 'r a r '"",,,,??+? 7 ,v ?f v M ' } ?} `°°++?''4' E Y Y?`,r .V s A rA is y4 Project Boundary + 4"d 1+ F fa Tern; ' Y;4 (' k vyM .`r'? i4q '4°-,•?^N?'0, ,._ t F mrF a .R'rR or3ry . .? {, t 6 y,`, rl 7', ?.? 44. y 6, ?zL:.T J''JYSY R•ti,r M,tv4?' a'y Mf .•rfL?d a+ {h ' i f k.._,d X 'i Y ??ry+ ' eMa,'4,i•-d ; 4r &7 .. a ?;r r ' i? ?,a>- xn ?, 1? t dw?' +? rL,f. '' J.: Rn r T ?:iKG"" no- -1. Tr Err+° ' ? 4 xj?'`? ,u,71{+?{g?}Y!''r?•'k. +t,h 4 _ it i.y ; '1 ??' • , ?k 4?",+??{? dry ? _' y „? j ?! F ? xt' `L• ??, ?? r •. i 't {?? ? r '? 4 ra?? ? r..l rJ u + ,. 0., { i" ?•t,':k1A' ~?•??' 1 ,?[. `1 ??w.?, tFr r''r+{47 'ry ,'?"`, ''? •Y+'? ,r,Lc q ""ir?! •* - q ,; d. - +r i ?, 'e ?1 '1 ra- r ,- i _ i ?.xry r+?+l'?'i . r'!1' i -r+`. •;K•t.' t h " i r y ?', d. A'`' 'd a '4 T rp??'''n . n"+' •'v?:1 ?"1}? t * r`,rrL r 4 Ph i'{r?._ • ,? .,?tr?i>* i'?e'ji?wl?'pr ?h? ? ??•?{., p '?,+. '? `. ?? r?R?3,??'' r 3 ,?•'. + • r??,?? a? ``8•cr ?,t.?'r?, t'om' +r' 40?} - ;y ? ,p.. dM W4 der 1 5 c " fn F'yr+'t z y tr??,A?,i`t 4 r r, $rl. ? d f '?Y`r? ? •F?1?'P, ??? ? rq SM?,ly'i ? I?dgV ? q?}"y°t w,,,?' '?,+?' •?.k ?' r i r ? - r c.' ? r r 5 ?rI 40P ?dr *,x- #J 4: Irr,i f?? fr M is Ili yti T dQ7': J? i°{ sg? y yrt i?,Jr?'A W N{L T"i ?'• Y1. ftyr: ipxi r ?? r } ei ,tif'?f._ ?f J /" * ?' -$ , rl _,4 a°'X ` .{•7?f kx `Z rd-? -'?? "s rlyn, ir,".p 4F a Y. i•{ ° .n + h i A / 4-f Lirr?? ik"f ?i 1 r ' K ° P*,avz i i+ i 1 p ! *. '' +,u+ rids r d, ra `?•eJ y f• [ r it ?S`I' +I0 IM 1{FViY { !. rd + 4sfi 9 .P,i?p kp NISrt?+,MxY';r`+'`i'' 1?41Y ?" a '` i r ? p. Sl?zztiyar' "aC . ' 1!Y ! d;4 ? + ? Y . 4 ? ( ?y s ter'. ° ?p '` 9t4 '' x !a ? i?:,r ?,r? a '•?iS'a +? ? ? f''i ?! ?' {`?? ?a? ?'!" ? +r,a ? ti ^4'°'' _???r?.,a ?• ' r. ? •"?+F-' ? i ?g *rr?°, r 4. w c "1]#r?`'r 4,, v i t?tkdYrf?dtrt ua `r h r! ? fir. .?.,.,,. ,Nfr..! f , a1r?I''?'i?y,?a ,f r'!+?`4 r"` yJ az,'g. ' lrr ?!d .^s,,y +s ?.1'? ? , :' J 4,. ley r'•"lr5^?a'„f ?! Mi,jA ?£? 3? ??l,r vl'R'?+y r?i ? 7 tY r .i ?e +?.? 'T la (tf???,'S ?r 4 t*Tr?. r f l:fl i,4„d ?'.^ .+.':. '4'?4?..'???@'. `t;'Y{?4i 1 `{ '4 r !1},r ,rr •?.. *. ? ? 7 raA y?lA { F t''4; ?r."t .r "?1 SSfxy?` yzX {t ' Li ,? a 'i `???? ??r „?•? ??''??. 1. i?+',tiY i1 e, ?a L 1 IL` y .?,re i'4? r. ye L Y ,y, 7",.s_v,Cd s:? F ?,K?r-rS4G+,Ky,fY+i cad 44,L°'Gbd rf' ,?"i{ r?E„?-.kr`1+ar i0'- ? S .f rp} t a Cys ;T'S •'rC 3r . + G .T fir1? 4 f .., i?;" r, ?J F • re;•' kr ,N 4 y ",?jy., i ; ' ??1 A° 4r Fyr"'i fi - r,0 t {?'' C 1?. . ,'7'? a r r`.'?,^? ?r w , ,2frj?;i' ? , ? , i'r R ,, , c i? >?a S ¦ ?d'd, # ?y`w,+ r S Y° ? r 4li ; . w -, ak.s 1 'i .i;'k l +r ',: h 4 .:; ? 5 ? S r55"t tf 1'? r n,•?s "[ i ? -. d, , ,,-s4• r• 4,-1..? 4 ? '? ? t ?!+ 5?? ?f4'' x, , r a r;?? ??d ,'a r'?'*4 ?'•^i r? ? 7?+a?'e s. 1 1 '?: r-. f ?4.? ? ? • ? a r?B?r ?`t"?'t? A?IF ? ?'?, 1'?? ?1? 4 +??' 'r e.t=?' a i' _ 9, i'?`t ' r a d a '•;? r r }?, . Y .,, a t r t '.1mr 4 Zrl'' r' (?.? .. ?tt •'t" ? V ?• .y 1 K "? ?w` ?"6 ^Y ! ".' i'? d'y "d ?Sy'i., !'?'j}?'J b 1 ri ? '•7 A ?" F,?:t'' w {a c r 1 [!, d? 7•'} V GY^.''? a y r?' x' ?i.'4Ih$ J ?iAI' •?' 1 r+w Y 4 `Se .r k 'A r?`1'?F?114SP f??}'? f 'ter ? 9 w \{.'° { .?4 ?(A"1 a`°.ti: f ?tFtyl? r? ?4r "+tfi.!! j3? !,!?,?. `^r Ar' ' 'r Af* a"idr" If 1 r .!• i 4?h - .'1Y , r } _','? ??: is fM"?? ifF?l 7..k?"? l?b?.?T1. A` ?t. ?i ? ?• s'r?"?, •%,r, ? ". d, r 5 ? ?,5.tfi 4 ?e{ ,-:r? IY_. era r 'R-°? +T 1 i r Y Sri ,/ ? yap 1.7,dlrhi!r?' ... ,'Y ?$??•SY ??r'•.1 .1 r i A Fxf, _ + ??ffi?'' 1 ?° y?. . 1.' F}? q" - ,., ? ha. ? 1+ ? r,r-€ {^r' f.<? J R? -r ? r;+ ?" t+La?`?•yrn ?., i ?3.?" ? r '+?r ` t r 4% P,^r f' X_ J,f'. M l {k4o -r f }' ,r. 1 f S ?4 _ I Y J h. 4 •. a y?? ? .YZ ?, y.? ? yY e- .re ._A?.. k .rcr? Y E'^ 7f {•" ?,w '!3,? tl ?, F ,?.i ',.Y 14. lvo rr, f1` ?t ', ° brw?? a ?+'y?, i,4.. 4??' .,Z n??w ?` ,t ; t r,' + _ r 4 't 'fir ?? v?,,. ?.o? 1? t , ,' f X t . !'.? {.1•N •."r7e G 'S"?/yi.s ?_u,.4? .?t +'?'?j:;? tt$4 y' ik•'' i'?'?S r,'->,o a ?djt'v?i"`w I v:. ?1•.R?p r.. ty?>w ,?b i< ' i [•. s, ?',; v.,r_ Fj "? - k t.z° ,.1 °y„ r, a ,q ' Y ': c'-• ih ?' 1r L '? ?.Y.+ ? ',r x!.v ? d r• r 1? g ?? u??'"14 I??'t ???, 5 '?P ? r ? ? r ? ?'. r yf?;?sy, 1y H 'ti .? . 1{ s n AMY `rr tiY? i " P e 3?F+ d KpF1?? ?vj?Lcr rG7w{.r pow r3*¢1? ?;. ?1.! 1, r' + 1?1 . it rd vac _ F °''++• -d a ay"d{ ',7x tw , n+''cj { ! rh•+ tr_ .,,s~yor +}A ., N * c'" A• 'r'dr?.£ J .,. 9I t, -+ .t',.f?^r ' ,{? ..?- i+, .-,r ??.ql(.' C . 'y.? i 'gip '?7., >.•F'r, _ . r * f ?.tr<y,. y't,y„ [d A14, , 0 250 500 1,000 }0 Ar 1:12,000 Feet iXwi Aerial Photography Provided by: ^'@M+?` ??,v {= b p'•;l;:? Craven County NRCSy`,?`?G.`i ?` 4F""ry1'r,?'•'r Prepared For: HISTORIC AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY - 1959 Figure FLAT SWAMP MITIGATION BANK 8a USACE CRAVEN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA t''V`? r L rlr.+??.?j l?'t`''?,•. ." r w?4`xr"-ar?f??'+ i, nit?,?'r+.#2't " ixr*d*fF?M? ,?? ??; t, *E t p ?f?, •r??; aW?> 1 LEGEND ,y '?: #y l:{ !# ''?l•rS k?yF? S ,? .r .a,.?ti, t ?'? `L 5 xr'ikr ° v ' a rr1 F F4as4"hsvR !? a r" ' r ?.? L t* ;?h Historic Stream Corridors ??'# f >' `'rye' ?, 5 r? Project Boundary I. J- _ ?? rr, '•w?- ?+y?.: -(#' ? 4,r.,: f+lc fir: y s,.i? r ?c?4 ^y f."t' y 5 Y q-?i''? ? r'i?J r ,r w J?r f' e;•tr . ? . 'tt?y„' 1 'k. S` Z ?,,,/ rt r" :. V ?,, idt .J' S ??3^ t? °-r r r 4 r# r s tit, ' • ` r'.?iS d, ;, _ 'W4 ,0,f.AG i ? JM ? +"? ? ?! t'r4 ,hh', ? . T z,r?.^ ?. 'Sr'a?F {-. •+°a "?'- y- ? 't , ? ? -? x. R ? 'y, 10 n1 -i f•r3 .4 i; ,? ; '' 1 ,:,?,a tr ? t j. rs '+k ,?tR t .! r , ?? ? rSY .r ti '?Sx"1? £1 ?{,i.' C ' J.•/Yy?h r 1 '?. 'r'` r ?xx? 4 (, ? f i r .? i iv *?Jfi #' ,.+,«y.r * '?•'? 2 t -. 'nAr r[ 3 r {? € ? 4. Ir ???..'1? 1IR' ?? ;r ? 'k \"J a ?! 'k Qr rf! r? +?r Yet;. FY,? ?Adf. N • F ?f a1'?.Cr4 t`, s '4 4y;? . zn f g *e,f r:4 s 'w } wQr? wf dh IL r^? 1a. A f YpfJ^i? 'x .r r ' x t '?? rrt r dr " f,, ;'g'ad +b' x N, - R. r v 4 ? 1 i rt:. f e a k }T? r - r Yr?.lsa t= ? S a ? '.'? x a "'? ?. i ?,.= ] r r L s +?T' ?a } ?.? •? ." , +? ? ,* ? rt _ °.rZ ?, Ili ? 1{?' ? ?9i ? r'?•v ?r 4'??r'' ,?r• ?F ?" 1# 4` rVv F?r?t s rr aw?r r + * r. m"sYri rywl °? rde .j ry a VT rYr. ? ? ?$ ? 7` j 'R ? r ? ?,,. rk? iS1/ e : ",,`?y ?' ??xc•?,?r 4 -"" ? ,?s,?, ?.?, i? _ .? -. r-; •? 8 as ``art ? ?,?#"1?? .ir ?.".? rr, ••{ ?'ri'Y7' .r<? 4? . p d-J r •l•t'?,?.? r ;_ a..ti iS; ifs €JJY 'Y• 4? as .,.5' "r f)3a •ir"?t+i s? " .:Yys ,t ; !e 7 ri r - r f• ?' dTr +_Jf=.tr. - ` .-'"M r "?!'.'M'Fi 1: v C.>vt '? '.r e ? .° - f „+?,- 1} _i+t .'.'7 !''!r , r ? '..,? ( .^ .' °? rya.• ? .?? 1 !i%( w f+.. a°&;4' j?HI?,?k Lr? Svz" Ary. y?!ty4 sSi .r ?«r c n1F "'„'. '?1y ,r ?, v. rr ?ltr? y.'f ,.s?$?r+. -'?'• Y:ty ! k` 5 J-" t _4 f r ell'' r 1 r r7t., '.1 ,?" tr Y '",i ''` i r g nJ w { ?y?} ? ac'r ,?x•:--tl/rr r,r ? ... ° 7i7 r x ,? r , +. f n `.s ;• v 9w `,: ?S ' ? ,ti ? ? ? ?a i y?h ?t _ , r r? r' ,?u ?r K ?w ?,r fi r +' y J'r1? ?^t ,'sac•rr a ,g ?f !.? t _ •k .yam c a`,vJt 1 to J" T ??? ' 3 , , "..ft aye.(?'?/dr 1g? C f _ r yfi#C"kv . r.¢ «_' ff/. r t !i? :?' r e,C` r'y? .R':! er' `,Im Yl.. .rP:;Fy " a'r ?- if .e_i. r -:i?'.;f+.UYt4,. r fic,gt; ,?x.5..r °° >^?•t." ?,;rrrglu`? J#.'.. ,.,' ] ,3 ?®..?1? j I". F ?•y -,J"' ?}, ;? _O.' ! 7'aY i:? A` F'.?T t` tk Y1"??'.r`??? ^ -.? j' _ 01 44 .Ys: i' ?i f ?gF esf Y °a c'Y* rA""?_?i5r,t ? 'r Yt 1 ?T'x_.,, `7r< t3 vJ a;F vir"Y? ti i ?i V wrt+7 ?_. 4r ' { ?7 _ a.a 4: a r AL t, °•iE.?".?,y ? -" a :W A f w, . M a a? ee",`;;'r rk . , ?" Z ?"` ?'" '4;'?S,r "-?, +,}.` :Try a ik*°?e } y :ate f! .r a: + ?4'r{* ' tr 'xf x`'t}`i f t ti. r + r •Ta'k , rr., tee"" :. , .i,. - x /?'4y` W?? i (!• r d w c r,? -- '?'"?+1?:?- r w'T : ,rt •? '„ a Y+x;?l rlr .` #YfJ.-' 1,IL ayrje 4 f.'b`y 3?r'6 + ,,; 1 ar.r ?// - 2 ?,? t f y . {90 rr15 JA ! l ::. W ??+ Y '?tl.n:, /+ •. r'fi+.•?t1;. lb p,..t y?', w ' ' Nl .? ? +? ; ?"..l rx *^GT? Ai Y{ i?,.;yfpr? .,.1 ?...'•?+.. ? `? 2 r,.fv? e t 'i ,r ? t n F. , ti a r j' td rd}, ?j'.,` - ? 3. t t c'• 4 jJ w r 3? ,.' ' " .' ,r' it .>rt-,?'e ? r?, ?r?..?.,+?. t S ao. k " a ,r y r • d r +? t rr."gy??{ err r' 1 J,#X;? .. r"''?'"= ;. ,"?`,? ?f?+jt'?t•:i ? ??` fir, 3V -G K->"' ir' ( r sr? t y?. e ti. ><•. } t x.r a C1'14 6 } f * a. x rJ•?.d-.-S8' ^'1'M1: 1` .Z may'.,` R Y .,,pt. `? -s1•,?,?„'?°.., g J i"! -t '• 4qq 'fit r yT °r?S ,t„ x?}g '" s .,, ? ; *`'!'?? ?? { _ , F?. r `k..' ' 1 "' ' r ? ... R A ?` ?44,r •'--15^. .*fr` 'F - r 7'?+s?? ? it ': Y.. `,, JR _ eY#'Y+ `t ? _ s t w??N s r r .5 r ' r 4A, - 0 255 510 1,020 1 r '' ?, '7 1 a '-•: { A•"?' ..zr i° 1:12,000 N «: fF 'y;..,. r , Aerial Photography Provided by: .r ? • Craven County NRCS - - AIL Prepared For: HISTORIC AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY - 1964 Figure FLAT SWAMP MITIGATION BANK 8b USACE CRAVEN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA ,,, s•?1.?'??'?l "?% ? , ?rrsSFF''?a Tr?i 1,'t.4 ,t? 'r ?"r "`y r?h'p ?` .. ? T` LEGEND r t tr 1! *?r S. I r '7^rr i" qr Sr . it a .r Urfa .. ,? u +• ? ???;?" . yk K .l e i ".+?r ?' I 4?A .'"a"'?'? "y?4 ?1 ?.A?!?•r r ., t? '?° '.. ?.. ,t?,?a?r Historic Stream Corridors r,f a r,' '^r r ? S ¦M 9? q r f a ?.J ? Mrs r ? i , 4 .yk}. v.. - rah' ,? ??? tir r? Project Boundary 9 k 4 r ,r Y "?. $t?t r5 ? y l`hti /J , ra .? r '•??? WSJ r 4? w ? '4 ? t ?°Ty? t [ "' ?. A ti S., + + r, a ??d f ? . r ! r ?dr7 ? •«hf#?, I .: J ? ??? 1? w+,A S J y 4 ??-, , c 7 x ??' ?.; 9 : i Y "a*^ i. ro• rrf .>? #? ?? +t• y .+ r. `+5i 4 7t"y, ti ?. i5y,?f •s? 4y'^Kt th. .,4}J?" or, < r a^'r"ry;.:n i ' v.d A . ?, Cj .? I r r r ?' '?. "x7 'S? ,Y3 j' ?Fir•^ a'X e? ,? i.. [c .4 !,i ?r '?j r s4, a .«fi, ti?{p 1" r,.,rrT+? r -. w - ^..r. T^ t +r 'd ? ? Mr Or :,.. r it . s I .,?, r3•"'? . s'? i Ky p . _"1 r A? •+r,?'` r l`?f? r ,?,'er ? b N f.1 aye W w? `?..I;'??•iyai ((fi?rr+p1 ssss````???? 4r 91 'r'?JI-h 1ri t. ?• " ?. .,,e .. i. t -#•f. f.?: 14= 'ms's r;a'?-' Y rq `,,.s+,r a rrY r -+3'r. r?.v3 ? sr 5' r ! ? ? S yw .'? fi? ? 6;' r C?t , ?R 1 rJ n i.(?:'?.`?s{? 1. ? w., ? 7.`r• ,p.?ir`•?+ y ?Nt t s 1' A 9?. p ?Jr ti'i? Jl" '?"` f,.; J•, .J .G. ti t- cr r !! ? x }, t r+4M a P 1 ti i rr3Nwy,+ :.TM!`r .,i 5}" f J Ve. ty;. K tv '.. U .-. - ' y., ,? ,r ::? b w 'S a r fi-! r • y? 1j, ', i ? ,? - a ns?^ y; r 1 ''E^"„i ? ? r s - }7 9.#?ar _ a:• 'T , a -s! h ? i"d 1t r `-''?.,.t ', y r* c't ,,4, 14 A W, :k -#h r ta'r r. ,r. > ^:? 5 r '?, u? r. - .-a• _?w Pt`Y .. .z ryyx a . rr 'v r r per: r d rcSrt '? 71 3'. r? t 5. Y x, ?'?p'?p'r r T f ' r' x ?'?S?"spy? ? /?. 4r,- r'? ? F - - L"', y *r rtit 7 d??a. , wJ a a a :;,, ?'^? , w ?, .w,., e .r? ? r ,F."r?• [..'?-°? ? ?rrp,,r ++ ?`s. +4. ? - ?% er i5 r .n r a _ , t' p r.. d r}r T Ifi n?{. ? S"' ^1r'J s t '?, 9: ?$vykl??r? dd ??r r 1 ? t?}..., r., /?. krx'r '?, P ? a r?.:, 1r yip 1? 1 r' i:'' n C?•?"rr .q; ..; .,9? _., .yc, ! f?°'n r? ,_ ? rl' fSi. +^ r 1 Y J's t ,rc•..r+k '"p J', t d fi J'^P - .c. +t.'?`? , r? J ram` -r,- a A 3?,-.• 7 , --_r-•• ? w ?" - i rl;. ?.''rr /! / ? y r I' t t /? a' 5 1a?\S wa+ ?,.? '1 A'a+,,?jH,! y r r ? _ ??,?.?ti: r d s 't . ? ? 'sJ 'i" ' v '!•1• i; r ya , J•r ? ? y r'+1 y?"? r,•x:-i- w r -{ .! - -°i ,<#?' x; + • r fK t 7?, ,.; ri 5?? ?' ? '4- S i •? :'j5 ?+ i X Jd„9 sJr ? ?J' M1lJ ii 5 r 7, . ? + .? ?`? °r'r ?9 i• ...k. Ah ? #, . ? Ai' 3. ? r , .,L ... a: „y,_ ?t `t ,?'1? r +r r 3 -A ?ry•F J rf +'+ t r .,5 r i 7f .b/ f ,l"•".a r (4 7 F ???'^ ! `.r 5' t:•. }, 31'.4^I+ e!"?'??! Z ?ti?. ¢? a .. !: -.??. t ` fv ,? r• ? d ? ye L'. '06r 4' ?' ~ a'rl ::•w Tr r. x`x'1' + y Y4.t,' s r> :xr, ,`w,?a, rp ,1 'rt i'•' ! ?L rs rat -kk J ?: 4 s'6l y^ A? tG",.a`" 'vA,Ra ?.' .ey r, i' 7"'!y " ?': + i ?. tf. , r t ti r ray i+?,.,,ir?'°. ir'rf' ..3 X :• „^ 51 .kr Yrr P.•' j 9t° +. • ?s a .19+? i e?A 9 0 <+ ,. 9} ?ttg p^?,. .r J q..? f b? ir• r.y r ,!. - `i5 .?i1 1 Mr 1"-f ^" r 'L`„y'? `X?- '? T ShC3Sepr ,e r r+r '? ?1c .i. r'-, w y ,•? ? 54 L. ? ? ri r ?}[ r ?_ 5 t b ?r y "`a? ? t jti ? r+ • { ? 4?'';.;s+- t . ? a 7 . ..4 ; 'S•1'r r a 'h+ ,' ^rf f? A C; r i r t3'°.-. {'?1' r'9?r r r f 'r ?'.;. y .;`tlaF M9:F ?`'7 a. a `,s ?.?. tr x? ? 5r. } 5. ,. r ^t?`? .?, 4?_.„t ; ?' M 5 / Jr r + .r•- ?r''Sv ,.rs .wt ,i,, I r QFr?1 ?a,q l $ r, b ^"W p tlY7» ' 9 `fc, r y ,,#S a' rr. s r ;f`.Ih PyS,. .z .? ? tr4 aw.a ... t•, ? r# ?4:i{ R* r .? + 4 r .f' I 4?fr z" r. Y'SA *Y-"?r r ? +?S'. i'r- * cr` .. e f ly c'fr., f ;r •. °?9 3.f X ?Y r~yr ri,<y,?r' ,. +1r ?f A d ,y ., At r c 4'??SLt:, ^^TF,rr p a 1 S!? J',:' '`r'>f.65:r+.?` r,p•fC'c •, ?, "1'^.r? .' -.,A-,t 1. i,.+r^ -+}y,e,. `? >? r'r k t - }k T.+Y tr'/''? f .•.. ?,.e•,i ' . 4 ,{•y. + _ ,! r },?,yo:: ''ah I ? r 4;4" 7 7. h 0 250 500 1,000 1:12,000 Feet t s4 - .r rA' ?., l? ,a f r ,r 4 9L, 4?7` Aerial Photography Provided by: s r i a+ p ,rw 9e r , ,, r Craven County NRCS ?r[r t.."h LJr?y??H• yj y , :.,i ?r • ?' x5!;'din ., , Prepared For: HISTORIC AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY - 1970 Figure M FLAT SWAMP MITIGATION BANK SC USACE CRAVEN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA 0 250 500 1,000 _ - - -\ 1:12,000 Feet USGS 7.5- Digital Orthographic Quadrangle: Cove City NW, Dover NE, Fort Barnwell SW, & Grifton SE Prepared For: HISTORIC AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY - 2008 Figure al FLAT SWAMP MITIGATION BANK 8d usACE CRAVEN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA LEGEND Existing Streams 1 Project Boundary (386 Ac) =a tr ¦ & M- NOT TO SCALE LIDAR Imagery Provided by Craven County wwwolp ME- Prepared For: LIDAR IMAGERY Figure M FLAT SWAMP MITIGATION BANK 9 USACE CRAVEN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Prepared For REFERENCE SITE VICINITY MAP m FLAT SWAMP MITIGATION BANK UsACE CRAVEN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Figure 10 Prepared For CONCEPTUAL STREAM DESIGN al FLAT SWAMP MITIGATION BANK UsACE CRAVEN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Figure 11 FLAT SWAMP STREAM RESTORATION CONCEPTUAL PLAN EXISTING GRADE PROPOSED RIPARIAN BUFFER/ RIVERINE WETLAND AREA WIDTH MAY VARY SEASONAL HIGH WATER TABLE PROPOSED SWALE PROPOSED RIPARIAN BUFFER/ RIVERINE WETLAND AREA WIDTH MAY VARY 30-100' SEASONAL AVERAGE WATER SEASONAL TABLE LOW WATER TABLE NOT TO SCALE EXISTING GRADE Prepared For: TYPICAL CROSS SECTION FIGURE FLAT SWAMP MITIGATION SITE 12 uSACE CRAVEN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA FLAT SWAMP STREAM RESTORATION VEGETATION CROSS SECTION .P L Non-Riverine Hardwood Forest Species: Willow Oak Water Oak Swamp Chestnut Oak Cherrybark Oak Sweetgum Loblolly Bay Red Bay Riverine Hardwood Forest Species: ^Sweetgum Cherrybark Oak Swamp Chestnut Oak Willow Oak Water Oak Green Ash River Birch Hackberry Swamp Hardwood & Bald Cypress Forest Species: Bald Cypress Swamp Blackgum Red Maple Green Ash Buttonbush q Riverine Hardwood Forest NOT TO SCALE Prepared For: PROPOSED VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES FIGURE i ¦ i FLAT SWAMP MITIGATION SITE 13 uSACE CRAVEN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA t< < 0 A Non-Riverine Hardwood Forest Qw. APPENDIX B SITE PHOTOGRAPHS QW PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Client Name: Project Name: USACE Flat Swamp Mitigation Bank - Phase II Stream Restoration Photo No. Date: 1 Feb 2007 Perspective: Unknown Iq Description: Current land use at the Site after previous conversion of the original riparian system - for a riculture g . - 3 .rte.-:7+,• „,?._w _ _ „?q_J: ;?.w•.JC" -".:. _ _ , s ?+• y 74 Photo No. Date: 2 Apr 2008 Perspective: Facing West Description: PC agricultural field with straight-line drainage ditch on right. ?. '? . ;. >, --:.?•r - M#.lr'r ?•? _.:a.,? ' ;y''.a M,.' a?`e-""#'^? +f t 7V-77i. 1 QW PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Client Name: Project Name: USACE Flat Swamp Mitigation Bank - Phase II Stream Restoration Photo No. Date: 3 Feb 2007 Perspective: Facing West ;w 1 Description: rr Typical appearance of smaller drainage ditches on-site. _ -- Photo No. Date: 4 Apr 2008 Perspective: Facing South Description: 3Y ?` North to south flowing ditch acting as eastern '- f ?t? r property boundary for the FSB Site. }i ±_ -+ Y•,.,• ,? a ]`;a a 2 QW PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Client Name: Project Name: USACE Flat Swamp Mitigation Bank - Phase II Stream Restoration Photo No. Date: 5 Apr 2008 Perspective: Facing West kk- Description: 3 y •? Large east to west ditch r € t"?_ •'" ;r •?'? ?dy ? bisecting center of FSB , `: ? sc+.. ;?F Site. Likely a remnant ;. yr+ =* of the historic Flat Swamp system. .. 1. '1s`T- '' r ' L'S? _? •a• y k .. / • r '17????} . ? ? ? t a h.-:: ad... ?r S '?? ? ?, ? , ?y .? ? - q a{?'Y a? 1 ti? _ Photo No. Date: 6 Apr 2008 Perspective: ,1, ? }l Tr ';i f ? - ??p 7 w 4 ? 1 „ ?Flj^ , r I 1 I ? 1R ?' ?,,? „ark .'} V:171 4411^ `- Unknown Description: Existing Flat Swamp Creek approximately 0.5 mile downstream of the project site. >?y 4 1 H?F - Y9f,- ,A S : F 1PFb _ N?` : :iY pi N 3 i k QW PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Client Name: Project Name: USACE Flat Swamp Mitigation Bank - Phase II Stream Restoration Photo No. Date: V 7 Apr 2008': Perspective: ate` , ?S,.``?? ?"` ` s ws=" ` _ ??` -k. Looking upstream WWI Rn air ??r Description: ;=r?.:,.a "?{ r.,?}? ?'+ l« Existing Flat Swamp Creek approximately 0.5 mile downstream of the Site. Note the sediment load resulting from Y _ upstream agricultural land use. 25ti- - 1?T ? - Im- tia Y .a_I Photo No. Date: ?t? . ? ?r ' 8 Apr 2008 I `' - rat ?y,_•t ?. i Perspective: Looking downstream q r 9 a .ds?:, Description: .6`C qP'; pt I r T, 1A ; 10, Existing Flat Swamp ' ?? lit Creek approximately 0.5r mile downstream of the p. Ff Y r?'_ ?.,- tl. Site. Note the sediment r' •? _ load resulting from upstream agricultural r'?J?` ??^• ;'??; y=` ,..? _ land use.? s ^ 4 QW PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Client Name: Project Name: USACE Flat Swamp Mitigation Bank - Phase II Stream Restoration Photo No. Date: 9 Feb 2007 Perspective: Facing West Description: Farm road bisecting the FSB from east to west. -` - 1' Existing Flat Swamp Creek in ditch on left of _.= road. _ _- a-.. Photo No. Date: 10 Feb 2007 Perspective: Facing West n 5 QW PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Client Name: Project Name: USACE Flat Swamp Mitigation Bank - Phase II Stream Restoration Photo No. Date: 11 Apr 2008 +x Perspective: Description: Photograph of general Pantego soil appearance within the FSB. L, 14 t ~' , y J V Photo No. Date: 12 Apr 2008 Perspective: Unknown 3 V "J;' Yr R?ur ?Y " I? d R Description: ,n Stained soils on adjacent parcel in the location of historic Flat Swamp Yh Creek corridor. y 3 ?? T 14 6 QW PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Client Name: Project Name: USACE Flat Swamp Mitigation Bank - Phase II Stream Restoration Photo No. 13 Date: Apr 2008 k'., R a Perspective: F Description: far-1.}. . , ?ti;1? ? sV y? Soil appearance at sampling location SB-1. ?' t_ ?` r'a•• 14 " T 1 - rlq 4 J ,?r. ti.,+ti ?.?+^ ti•`,rn ... w.l '; -_ ? elm. •.P"' .`. vM ;4 lrIF. `+y 7 Photo No. Date: 14 Apr 2008 Perspective: = t ' ( ? 'S ?L` 4 5 - r 711 Description: it J Soil appearance at ?`3 . ,w ,? ; " ? 41 sampling location SB-2. . s* eow M d ? G Y f• - `w yr a ll ? '1 y 7 QW PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Client Name: Project Name: USACE Flat Swamp Mitigation Bank - Phase II Stream Restoration Photo No. Date: ' 15 Apr 2008 r? !? ,j 1.` ,` . 1,'??? a, ', Perspective: ;s .s ,_ y } 44'? i? Description: Woody debris present in soil boring taken from sampling location SB-2. Photo No. Date: 16 Apr 2008 Perspective: I I Description: Representative example of quartz pebbles found in soil boring taken at sampling location SB-2. 8 QW PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Client Name: Project Name: USACE Flat Swamp Mitigation Bank - Phase II Stream Restoration Photo No. 17 Date: A r 2008 ?, . v r „. a Perspective: " n ?.:' x } 4 , t I t ' N A T l . t Description: S Soil appearance at ' -' # sampling location SB-3. + V t ' } i.. ? a y ,.,j}f??'' j ej• i. ,? ? tY 9.4, `')?'r,? rT-+ M1l ?_*.,f ? y Ju. 1I Y < d ? i'' ?[ sN S S..T 31 'Y Y_? x Ilk Photo No. Date: 18 Apr 2008 Perspective: ?; ,• ` 1.,4,E K?` -? „? ?r Aim Descri tion: -?V _ •? , N,,A-, x =# x. '?r 1``4? Soil appearance at " sam lin location Ire SBWMK-1. 8 , 4 f i ?5 '444- 4 9 QW PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Client Name: Project Name: USACE Flat Swamp Mitigation Bank - Phase II Stream Restoration Photo No. Date: 19 A r 2008 b ' - Perspective: ' w v 'ter -4 AWN k ? Description: ( Soil appearance at ? w ' sampling location e'_?;? r S.? t , ? SBWMK-2. r r^` k'? ; '.rte y i ?rX J Or .`•? °? :i+•b ar ? .' 7 s -. ,. , . j }y .-. t? \? r wJlm {Y.. 'M • S } ,'M1 "I'y{L?t ?.v c L -F v . ?96P' .fi nj s Photo No. Date:` 20 Apr 2008 R' ''~ w Perspective: :F,? w Description: Woody debris found in soil stained area on , adjacent east parcel. I _ 10 QW PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Client Name: Project Name: USACE Flat Swamp Mitigation Bank - Phase II Stream Restoration Photo No. Date: "f * °a 21 May 2008 Perspective: i s Unknown . , VIg Description: _4 ' NN, NOW Headwater riparian corridor associate with a -z 7 . "Ala UT to Brice Creek. t Riparian corridor is approximately 150' wide. Vv t-- VIOL m R ° ?F s '>rc+?+?11d.?, '}Y'77 -..?, ,y??+ ?y`} yrJ'"y?4 +r..s'm? ? rv?.r ?'r `+.-?_y,,?'rk :M •` r-.$!r? 1: ? +? ?.. +1" F- ?i ?. k+' I i?y:. ? -?...Y .c ? ' 2 ga.- k . §"?" 'P `r 11 QW PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Client Name: Project Name: USACE Flat Swamp Mitigation Bank - Phase II Stream Restoration Photo No. Date: " 23 May 2008 T V7 _ ' s ° ? ° Perspective: i,? ^? a, ??p; .a ? r ' ? a;or ,,.` :? ° ? Y tea Y? ¦ y ` Unknown Description: Representative shot of a headwater stream braid ' present within the UT to Brice Creek riparian i corridor. The lowest point of the swale intercepts the water ? table at the surface. . i l i Photo No. I Date: Perspective: Description: 12 Qw. APPENDIX C SOIL BORING DATA Sail,SSatcr, & Eni !Wnment (;Mug, Soil Investigation Data Sheet Soil Borina: SB-1 Location: Flat Swamp, 30' from main ditch Date: 3/25/2008 County: Craven Investigator(s): SJF, BEJ Lat./Long.: 35 15 33.26N 77 21 51.76W Elev.: 48 ft. Parent Material: Coastal Plain sediments Drainage (Wetness) Class: poorly drained Moisture Status: moist Slope (%): < 1 % Classification: Pantego Vegetative Cover: none, cut corn Aspect: E Water Table: 36 in. Landscape Position: interstream divide Structure Main Colors Moist & Wet Ped Hoizon Horiz. Depth lin.1 moist Mottles Texture Grade Class Type Consist. Coatings Boundary Other Remarks 10YR2/1 subangular Ap 0-18 black - sandy loam moderate medium blocky friable stains, high organic matter, slick oily sheen 10YR7/1 gray, slightly 10YR4/1 dark 10YR2/1 sandy clay subangular sticky, 131 18-26 gray black loam strong medium blocky slightly firm - some roots, mixing of om, charcoal 10YR6/2 10YR4/1 dark light brown subangular firm, slightly B2 26-36+ gray gray sandy clay strong medium blocky sticky water table - 33" l? r.VXI.tm & E'.n3'6PanmenC CMUP Soil Borina: SB-2 Soil Investigation Data Sheet Location: Flat Swamp, 150' from main ditch Date: 3/25/2008 County: Craven Investigator(s): SJF, DJF Lat./Long.: 35 15 32.14N 77 21 51.34W Elev.: 48 ft. Parent Material: Coastal Plain sediments Drainage (Wetness) Class: poorly drained Moisture Status: moist Slope (%): < 1% Classification: Pantego Vegetative Cover: none, cut corn Aspect: E Water Table: 36 in. Landscape Position: interstream divide Structure Main Colors Moist & Wet Ped Hoizon Horiz. Depth lin.1 moist Mottles Texture Grade Class Type Consist. Coatings Boundary Other Remarks 10YR2/1 subangular high organic matter, woody debris, inclusions at 18", Ap 0-18 black - sandy loam moderate medium blocky friable occassional round quartz pebbles 10YR7/1 gray, slightly 10YR4/1 dark 10YR2/1 sandy clay subangular sticky, 131 18-26 gray black loam strong medium blocky slightly firm - slick oily sheen, most woody debris at 18-26", pebbles as above 10YR6/2 10YR4/1 dark light brown subangular firm, slightly more buried OM, brown, undecomposed, pebbles at 30" b-b B2 26-36+ gray gray sandy clay strong medium blocky sticky size, abundant pebbles in road, road fill from field ditches l? r.VXI.tm & E'.n3'6PanmenC croup Soil Borina: SB-3 Soil Investigation Data Sheet Location: Flat Swamp Date: 3/25/2008 County: Craven Investigator(s): SJF, DJF Lat./Long.: 35 14 55.38N 77 21 59.51W Elev.: 48 ft. Parent Material: Coastal Plain sediments Drainage (Wetness) Class: poorly drained Moisture Status: moist Slope (%): < 1 % Classification: Torhunta Vegetative Cover: none, cut corn Aspect: E Water Table: 36 in. Landscape Position: interstream divide Structure Main Colors Moist & Wet Ped Hoizon Horiz. Depth lin.1 moist Mottles Texture Grade Class Type Consist. Coatings Boundary Other Remarks 10YR4/1 dark coarse subangular Ap 0-23 gray - sandy loam moderate medium blocky friable fine roots, a few pebbles, no oily sheen 10YR3/1 dark gray, 10YR8/1 white, 10YR4/2 dark 10YR7/2 coarse subangular 131 23-35 gray brown light gray sandy loam strong medium blocky friable 10YR3/2 very coarse dark grayish sandy clay subangular slightly firm, B2 35-46+ brown - loam strong medium blocky slightly sticky - saturated, water table 36" Sail,SSatcr, & Eni !Wnment (;Mug, Soil Investigation Data Sheet Soil Borina: SB-WMK1 Location: Flat Swamp Date: 4/10/2008 County: Craven Investigator(s): SJF, DJF Lat./Long.: 35 15 08.98N 77 21 26.48W Elev.: 48 ft. Parent Material: Coastal Plain sediments Drainage (Wetness) Class: poorly drained Moisture Status: moist Slope (%): <1 Classification: Pantego Vegetative Cover: agriculture field Aspect: SE Water Table: 7 in. Landscape Position: Interstream divide Structure Main Colors Moist & Wet Ped Hoizon Horiz. Depth lin.1 moist Mottles Texture Grade Class Type Consist. Coatings Boundary Other Remarks 7.5 YR 2.5/1 subangular abundant woody debris, organic muck, coarse textured OM, Ap 0-6 black - loam -muck weak fine blocky friable saturated from overland flow 7.5 YR3/1 very dark 7.5 YR 4/6 subangular organic debris- wood 35% of profile, individual white sand 131 6-14 gray strong brown loam weak moderate blocky friable grains common 7.5 YR 2.5/1 10YR 5/4 subangular ground water saturated streaks of coarse sand similar to B2 14-Jan black yellow brown loam weak moderate blocky friable adjacent stream, wood 45% Sail,SSatcr, & Eni !Wnment (;Mug, Soil Investigation Data Sheet Soil Borina: SB-WMK2 Location: Flat Swamp Date: 4/10/2008 County: Craven Investigator(s): SJF, DJF Lat./Long.: 35 15 10.39N 77 21 26.96W Elev.: 49 ft. Parent Material: Coastal Plain sediments Drainage (Wetness) Class: poorly drained Moisture Status: moist Slope (%): <1 Classification: Pantego Vegetative Cover: agriculture field Aspect: SE Water Table: >2' Landscape Position: Interstream divide Structure Main Colors Moist & Wet Ped Hoizon Horiz. Depth lin.1 moist Mottles Texture Grade Class Type Consist. Coatings Boundary Other Remarks 10YR 3/1 subangular Ap 0-6 dark gray - sandy loam weak fine blocky very friable - fine roots, sand grains, organic matter 10 YR 3/2 very dark subangular 131 6-16 grayish brown - sandy loam moderate moderate blocky friable 2.5Y 6/4 light yellowish brown and 10YR 5/2 2.5Y3/1 very subangular B2 16-24 grayish brown dark gray sandy loam moderate moderate blocky friable mottled, rounded quartz pebbles on soil surface