20080868 Ver 2_Mitigation Plans_20080731

4") A OF?
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, North Carolina 27511
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Letter of Transmittal
To: USACE - Washington Regulatory Field Project Baker Project #113309
Office No:
107 Union Drive, Suite 202 Project: PCS Phosphate - Upper Back Creek
Washington, North Carolina 27889 Mitigation Site, Beaufort County
[phone] Beaufort, County
Attn: Mr. David Lekson Date: July 30, 2008
We are forwarding the following: ® Attached ? Under Separate Cover ? Other
DWG. NO. NO. COPIES TITLE OR DESCRIPTION COMMENTS
1
1 DRAFT Mitigation Plan Report - Upper Back Creek Site
DRAFT Plan Sheets - Upper Back Creek Site
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
? As requested ? No exception taken ? Revise and resubmit
® For review and comment ? Rejected - See remarks ? Submit specified items
? For your information ? Proceed subject to corrections noted ? Other
GENERAL COMMENTS:
Mr. Lekson - Per your request, we are forwarding copies of the draft Upper
Back Creek Site mitigation plan report and plan sheets to the distribution list
below. These are the same plans that you received in our July 23, 2008
transmittal. Please call if you have questions (919-459-9004).
cc: Jeff Furness, Heather Jacobs, John Dorney, Richard Peed, David Moye,
Ron Sechler, Becky Fox, Sean McKenna, Mike Wicker, Maria Dunn, Eric Kulz,
Amy Chapman, Julia Berger
ChallengeUs.
?od??
JUL 3 1 2008
DENR - WATER QUAWY
yyET WS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
By: Kevin Tweedy, PE (919-459-9004)
Tale: Project Manner
Page: 1 of 1
• DRAFT
COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN FOR THE
UPPER BACK CREEK RESTORATION SITE
BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared for:
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
Environmental Affairs Department
Aurora, North Carolina
• Prepared by:
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
CARY, NORTH CAROLINA
JULY 2008
?uL 312008
WA'?R?p RB??
_?, n?pS PN? SSOR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Upper Back Creek site is proposed for stream and wetland mitigation for impacts associated with
mine continuation of the PCS Phosphate facility. The location of the Upper Back Creek site relative
to the PCS Phosphate facility is shown in Figure 1. The site is located in Beaufort County and is a
tributary to Bath Creek, which discharges to the Pamlico River. The site consists of several
headwater tributaries and the associated wetland areas at the headwaters of Back Creek. The site
currently drains through channelized stream remnants and a series of lateral field ditches. The
purpose of the project is to restore wetland functions to agriculture fields on the site and to restore
headwater stream and buffer functions to the impaired stream channels. Examination of the available
hydrology and soil data indicate that there is excellent potential for the restoration of a productive
stream and wetland ecosystem.
Wetland restoration of the farm fields on the site will involve filling drainage ditches and restoring a
natural topography to raise the local water table and restore a natural flooding regime. The stream
systems on the site will be restored to a stable condition through the restoration of more natural valley
topography and allowing channel forms to develop over time. Riparian wetland functions will be
restored adjacent to the stream systems, and non-riparian wetlands will be restored on the higher
elevation interstream divides. Drainage ditches within the restoration areas will be filled to decrease
surface and subsurface drainage and raise the local water table. In addition, scarification of the fields
and breaking of the local plow pan will provide increased surface storage of water and provide
favorable conditions for a variety of native wetland plant species.
0
A recorded conservation easement approximately 217 acres in size will protect all stream reaches,
wetlands, and riparian buffers in perpetuity. Components of the project will include headwater
stream restoration, riparian buffer restoration and enhancement, and riparian and non-riparian wetland
restoration, enhancement, and preservation. Expected mitigation amounts are summarized in Table
ES. 1.
Table ESA
Summary of Proposed Mitigation Amounts and Types for the Upper Back Creek Site.
Mitigation Type Amount Description
Streams 8,215 ft Restoration of headwater tributaries and preservation along the
main stem of Back Creek
Riparian Wetlands 46.2 acres Restoration, enhancement, and preservation.
Non-riparian 126.7 acres Restoration and enhancement

Wetlands .
Riparian Buffers 5.3 acres Restoration and enhancement.
Riparian Buffers

(Headwater) 12.7 acres Restoration and enhancement.
•
PCS PHOSPHATE
UPPER BACK CREEK MITIGATION PLAN REPORT - DRAFT
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................1
2.0 PRE-RESTORATION SITE DESCRIPTION ...................................................................... 2
2.1 Historical Land Use ............................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Site Hydrology ....................................................................................................................... 2
2.3 Vegetation ..............................................................................................................................5
2.4 Soils ....................................................................................................................................... 5
2.5 Existing Stream Systems ........................................................................................................ 6
2.6 Existing Wetlands .................................................................................................................. 8
2.7 Endangered / Threatened Species .......................................................................................... 8
2.8 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................. 8
2.9 FEMA .................................................................................................................................... 8
2.10 Potentially Hazardous Environmental Sites ........................................................................... 8
3.0 REFERENCE SITE ANALYSES ........................................................................................... 9
3.1 Reference Stream Analyses ................................................................................................... 9
3.2 Reference Wetlands ............................................................................................................. 14
4.0 RESTORATION PLAN ........................................................................................................ 15
4.1 Restoration Project Goals and Objectives ............................................................................ 15
4.2 Target Functions .................................................................................................................. 16
4.3 Mitigation Overview ............................................................................................................ 17
4.4 Headwater Stream and Buffer Restoration .......................................................................... 18
4.5 Wetland Restoration ............................................................................................................. 20
4.6 Wetland Enhancement and Preservation .............................................................................. 22
4.7 Natural Plant Community Restoration ................................................................................. 22
5.0 MONITORING AND SUCCESS CRITERIA ..................................................................... 25
5.1 Vegetation Monitoring Plots ................................................................................................ 26
5.2 Hydrology Monitoring ......................................................................................................... 26
5.3 Geomorphic Monitoring ...................................................................................................... 27
5.4 Reference Wetlands ............................................................................................................. 27
5.5 Reference Stream Reach and Reference Riparian Headwater System ................................ 27
6.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES ................................................................... 28
6.1 Adaptive Management ......................................................................................................... 28
6.2 Long Term Management ...................................................................................................... 29
• 7.0 FINAL DISPENSATION OF SITE ...................................................................................... 29
8.0 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 30
PCS PHOSPHATE
UPPER BACK CREEK MITIGATION PLAN REPORT - DRAFT
List of Figures
All Figures are located at the back of the report, immediately preceding the appendices.
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2 USGS Topographic Map
Figure 3 1938 Aerial Photo
Figure 4 LIDAR Map with Project Watershed Boundaries
Figure 5 NRCS Soil Survey Map
Figure 6 Hydric Soils Delineation Map
Figure 7 Jurisdictional Determinations
Figure 8 Cross-section and Well Location Map
Figure 9 Reference Site Location Map
Figure 10 Mitigation Plan
•
List of Charts
Chart 2.1 Hydrographs of the Groundwater Monitoring Wells (March 2008 through June
2008).
Chart 2.2 Comparison Between Modeled and Observed Hydrographs (Well #7).
Chart 3.1 Headwater Reference Reach Data Relating Channel Formation to Drainage Area
and Slope.
Chart 3.2 Water Table Depths Recorded Within the Reference Sites.
Chart 4.1 Fifty-seven Year Model Simulations for the Longest Period of Consecutive Days
Meeting Wetland Criteria for Conditions Predicted at the Restoration Site.
0
PCS PHOSPHATE
UPPER BACK CREEK MITIGATION PLAN REPORT - DRAFT
i List of Tables
Table ESA Summary of Proposed Mitigation Amounts and Types for the Upper Back Creek Site.
Table 2.1 Water Balance Data for Existing Conditions of Drained Field Areas (Well #7).
Table 2.2 Soil Series Present as Mapped by the NRCS Soil Survey (from Beaufort County Soil
Survey, USDA-SCS, 1995).
Table 2.3 Summary of NCDWQ Jurisdictional Determinations.
Table 3.1 General Functions of Coastal Plain headwater systems.
Table 4.1 Summary of Proposed Mitigation Amounts and Types for the Upper Back Creek site.
Table 4.2 Headwater Reach Characteristics and Design Approaches.
Table 4.3 Proposed Revegetation Species.
Table 4.4 Proposed Permanent Herbaceous Seed Mixture.
List of Appendices
is Appendix 1 Project Site Photographs
Appendix 2 Pre-restoration Stream Cross-sections and Geomorphic Classifications
Appendix 3 Hydrographs for Fifteen Wells Installed on the Upper Back Creek Site - March 2008
through June 2008.
Appendix 4 Agency Correspondence and EDR Transaction Screen Report
r\
L_J
PCS PHOSPHATE
UPPER BACK CREEK MITIGATION PLAN REPORT - DRAFT
Iv
1.0 INTRODUCTION •
This document describes proposed restoration and mitigation activities proposed for the Upper Back
Creek site, located in northern Beaufort County. The 217-acre Upper Back Creek site is proposed to
be part of the compensatory mitigation for future unavoidable impacts to wetlands and waters as
evaluated in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for PCS Phosphate Mine Continuation (US
Army Corps of Engineers [USACE], 2008) and as described in the Compensatory Section 404/401
Mitigation Plan: Comprehensive Approach In Support of the PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. L
Alternative Mine Continuation (First 15 Years NCPC and Bonnerton Tracts) (PCS Phosphate
Company Inc., 2008).
The Upper Back Creek site is located at the end of Ormond Road off of Possum Hill Road (Figure 1)
approximately 2.5 miles east of the town of Bath, North Carolina. The main entrance road lies at
35.4615°N, 76.7692°W, and the site is located within the Pamlico Hydrologic Unit 03020104 of the
Tar-Pamlico river basin within the Bath Creek subbasin. The site comprises much of the headwaters
for the Back Creek system.
The site is made up of three tracts that have been purchased or have option agreements held by PCS
Phosphate. Much of the historic wetlands on the site were previously cleared and drained, and
headwater streams were channelized to increase the acreage of arable land. Figure 2 shows the USGS
topographic map of the area. The site has been actively farmed prior to 1938 according to historic
aerials (Figure 3), and the incised streams and ditches act as a conduit for sediment, nutrient and
possible toxic contamination to Back Creek, Bath Creek, and the Pamlico River. Figure 4 shows the
approximate drainage areas for the site reaches. The ultimate goal of the project is to successfully
restore and enhance wetland and stream functions on the site, which will include restoring the non-
riparian and riparian wetlands and the headwater streams to what most likely existed prior to
development for agriculture. Functional uplift will include increased water storage, runoff and flow
velocity reduction, reduction of sediment, nutrients, and toxicants delivered downstream, and
increased and improved wetland terrestrial and stream aquatic habitats.
•
PCS PHOSPHATE
UPPER BACK CREEK MITIGATION PLAN REPORT - DRAFT
• 2.0 PRE-RESTORATION SITE DESCRIPTION
2.1 Historical Land Use
The land cover within the project area consists primarily of row crop agriculture and forest. The
project site encompasses much of the headwaters of the Back Creek watershed. The site is made up
of three tracts that have been purchased or have option agreements held by PCS Phosphate. The
majority of the wetlands on the site were previously cleared and drained, and headwater streams were
channelized to increase the acreage of arable land. The site has been actively farmed for many years
(prior to 1938 according to historic aerials, see Figure 3), and the incised streams and ditches act as a
conduit for sediment, nutrient, and possible toxic contamination to Back Creek, Bath Creek, and the
Pamlico River.
2.2 Site Hydrology
As is the case in much of the Coastal Plain, local drainage patterns have been altered in the past to
increase drainage and promote agricultural production. During conversion of the site, wetlands were
ditched and headwater stream systems were channelized to improve drainage. The extent of ditching
and channelization that has been performed on the Upper Back Creek site can be seen in recent aerial
photographs of the site (Figure 7). Based on historic aerial photographs and topographic data, three
distinct headwater valleys (referred to here as the North, East, and South Prongs of Back Creek) were
channelized, and lateral field ditches were constructed to drain to these three primary outlets. There
is one man-made duck impoundment within the project area (approximately 2.5 acres in size) that
• will be removed as part of the project (Figure 7).
Fifteen automated groundwater wells were installed in the project area to evaluate current hydrologic
conditions on site, as shown in Figure 8. These wells provide a basis for comparing pre- and post-
restoration hydrology on the site. Water table data were collected from early March 2008 through
June 2008, except for wells #14 and #15 that were installed in early May 2008 to provide additional
data from the existing forested wetland areas along the South Prong. The fifteen wells were installed
in existing field areas targeted for restoration, cleared wetland areas targeted for enhancement, and
existing forested wetland areas that will be preserved as part of the project. Wells were installed
across a range of elevations and locations to evaluate the range of hydrologic conditions on site. The
wells were installed to a depth of 40 or 80 inches below ground surface, and the automated loggers
(RDS EcotoneTM WM units) were programmed to record water table levels every 12 hours.
Hydrographs from the fifteen wells (Chart 2.1 and Appendix 3) show two distinct groupings: wells
located in drained field areas (#1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, and 12), and wells installed in existing
wetland areas (#8, 9, 13, 14, and 15). Wells located within existing wetlands generally documented
wetland hydrology with water table depths of approximately 12 inches or less from early March
through mid-May. Wells located within the drained field areas exhibited much drier conditions, with
water table depths rapidly dropping deeper than 12 inches following rainfall events. These data
indicate that wetland hydrology is no longer present within the drained fields that are targeted for
wetland restoration.
I :
PCS PHOSPHATE
UPPER BACK CREEK MITIGATION PLAN REPORT - DRAFT
Chart 2.1
Hydrographs of the Groundwater Monitoring Wells (March 2008 through June 2008).
o
Ground
0
M-10
_..._._._._ __
._._._._._._._. _.-.
12 inch depth
-20
-30
1
y
C
2-40

Well 1

Well 2
MNM±NI-
- - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - -
3 ., Well 3 - - Well 4
-50 Well5 -- Well6 -------- - - - - -- -- ----------
r? • Well7 - •- Well8
-60 -Well 9 --?--- Well 10 - -
--.---Well 11 -?-- Well 12 NOTE: Wells located in existing wetland areas are
-70 - Well 13 -Well 14 colored blue. Wells located in drained field areas are
- -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-Well 15 Ground colored red.
-80

3/4/2008 4/3/2008 5/3/2008 6/2/2008 7/2/2008
Date
2.2.1 Hydrologic Modeling and Site Water Budget
•
To further investigate the current hydrologic status of the site and provide a means for evaluating
proposed restoration plans, hydrologic models were developed to simulate site hydrology.
DRAINMOD (version 5.1) was used to develop hydrologic simulation models to represent conditions •
across the proposed restoration area. DRAINMOD is considered an approved hydrologic tool for
assessing wetland hydrology by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) (1997).
Model parameters were selected based on field measurements and professional judgment about site
conditions. Rainfall and air temperature information were collected from the nearest automated
weather stations where long-term data were available (primarily Aurora, NC, Pamlico Agricultural
Field Lab). Measured field parameters were entered into the models, and initial model simulations
were compared with data collected from the monitoring wells. To calibrate the model, parameters not
measured in the field were adjusted within the limits typically encountered under similar soil and
geomorphic conditions until model simulations most closely matched observed well data.
In order to capture the full range in hydrologic, soil, and topographic conditions within the area
targeted for restoration, four well locations (wells #2, 4, 7, and 10) from across the site were used to
calibrate preliminary models to predict observed conditions on site. Well #4 represents one of the
wettest locations within the drained fields, well #10 represents one of the driest locations, and wells
#2 and 7 approximate average conditions.
Trends in the observed data were represented favorably by the model simulations (Chart 2.2). It is
important to note that DRAINMOD uses simplifying assumptions in the estimation of water table
depths. The model can be used to assess overall trends and relationships but is unlikely to offer exact
predictions of water table hydrology.
DRAINMOD computes daily water balance information and produces summaries that describe the
loss pathways for rainfall over the model simulation period. Table 2.1 summarizes the average
PCS PHOSPHATE
UPPER BACK CREEK MITIGATION PLAN REPORT - DRAFT
annual amount of rainfall, infiltration, drainage, runoff, and evapotranspiration estimated for the
existing condition of the wetland restoration areas, respectively, based on 57-year simulations. The
average amounts for the simulated areas are presented in the table. Infiltration represents the amount
of water that percolates into the soil and is lost via drainage or evapotranspiration. Drainage is the
loss of infiltrated water that travels through the soil profile and is discharged to drainage ditches or
underlying aquifers. Runoff is water that flows over land and reaches the drainage ditches.
Evapotranspiration is water that is lost through direct evaporation of water from the soil or through
the transpiration of plants.
171
•
From the data provided, it is clear that a significant amount of the rainfall on the site is lost to
evapotranspiration, which is typical for farm fields in the Coastal Plain. For the Upper Back Creek
farm fields, runoff is a more significant loss pathway that drainage through the soil, due to the
crowned shape of the farm fields which directs rainfall to the ditches via overland flow rather than
infiltration and drainage. Restoration of the site will involve restoring the natural topography of the
site, filling the network of drainage ditches, and increasing the amount of surface storage available to
pond water. In this way, the respective amounts of drainage and runoff are decreased, and the excess
water allows the water table to remain higher throughout the year, thus restoring wetland hydrology.
Chart 2.2
Comparison Between Modeled and Observed Hydrographs (Well #7).
10 _. _ _ _. __.-_ _ _._ -._ - _- --•
0 Ground
M
s
-10

-

- ----- -------
-
-
----- - -- - ----------------------------------------------- - ------- -
12 inch depth
1-20
(a
Note: Water table
9.30 depth is below 40
inch depth of well
?'^
p
3-40 t
after June 13, 2008.
--- ---
?-
Observed Water Table Depth
-
-50
-Modeled Water Table Depth
- Ground
-60

3/4/2008 4/3/2008 5/3/2008 6/2/2008 7/2/2008
Date
Table 2.1
Water Balance Data for Existing Conditions of Drained Field Areas (Well #7).
?AEF
r e i Amount over 57-Year Simulation
Period (in of water)
Annual Amount over 57-Y
Simulation Period (% of av

Precipitation
51.1 rainfall)
100
Drainage 3.8 7.4
Runoff 14.1 27.6
Evapotranspiration 33.2 65.0
PCS PHOSPHATE
UPPER BACK CREEK MITIGATION PLAN REPORT - DRAFT
2.3 Vegetation 0
Approximately 68 percent of the project area consists of agricultural fields. The remaining 32 percent
is wooded or recently timbered. Approximately 23 percent of the site consists of existing wetlands
and 9 percent uplands. The wooded portions of the site will be preserved as part of the project
easement. Photographs of the project area are included in Appendix 1, and a general description of
each community follows.
2.3.1 Agricultural Fields
This community is the most dominant and covers approximately 68 percent of the project area. In the
recent past, agricultural fields have been used for corn production. Vegetation within open fields is
primarily comprised of grass species and Dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium). Restoration efforts
will be focused in these agricultural fields.
2.3.2 Cleared Riparian and Non-riparian Wetland Areas
These areas contained a mature forest canopy until approximately one year ago when the areas were
timbered. These cleared wetland areas cover approximately 13 percent of the project area and are
located along the East and South Prongs. These areas do not contain ditches, except for perimeter
ditches where the communities transition to open agricultural fields. Species present in these areas
have been determined by examining sprouts that have begun to grow on stumps, and includes Red
maple (Ater rubrum), Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), Yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera),
Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii), and American holly
(flex opaca). Herb species include various Carex and Juncus species, as well as Lizard's tail
(Saururus cernuus).
2.3.3 Wooded Riparian Wetland Areas 0
These forested areas cover approximately 10 percent of the project area and are located along the
western side of the South Prong and the main stem of Back Creek. These areas have been cut over in
the past and consist of a successional small-stream swamp system that grades to more of a bottomland
hardwood forest at the downstream end. The canopy in the small-stream swamp community is
comprised of Red maple, Sweetgum, Yellow poplar, Green ash, Swamp chestnut oak, Laurel oak
(Quercus laurifolia), American holly, and Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana). Giant cane
(Arundinaria gigantea) is the dominant shrub species. Herb species include but are not limited to
Chain fern (Woodwardia areolata) and Lizard's tail.
2.3.4 Wooded Upland Areas
These forested areas comprise approximately 9 percent of the project area along the western
boundary, outside of the delineated wetlands. The canopy is dominated by Sweetgum (Liquidambar
styraciflua), Yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and Black cherry (Prunus serotina). Shrub and
vine species include Giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), woodbine (Parthenocissus vitacea), and
Muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia).
2.4 Soils
Soils on site were evaluated by a Licensed Soil Scientist using hand auger borings and NRCS Soil
Survey data for Beaufort County, North Carolina (USDA, 1995). A map depicting the boundaries of
each soil series as mapped by the NRCS Soil Survey is presented in Figure 5. Figure 6 depicts the
boundaries of hydric soils delineated on site. The majority of the proposed wetland restoration area is
mapped as Tomotley fine sandy loam. The Tomotley series is a hydric soil that is poorly drained and
formed from loamy marine and/or fluvial sediments. Smaller areas of the Altavista, Augusta, Cape •
Fear, Muckalee, and Portsmouth series are also mapped on site and are described in Table 2.2 below.
PCS PHOSPHATE
UPPER BACK CREEK MITIGATION PLAN REPORT - DRAFT
•
•
Table 2.2
Soil Series Present as Mapped by the NRCS Soil Survey (from Beaufort County Soil Survey, USDA-SCS,
1995).

Hvdric ?
l Name Landform Description
Soi
oil
Altavista Marine and No Moderately well drained soils formed in loamy marine and fluvial
stream terraces sediments. Slope ranges from 0 to 2 percent. Permeability and
available water capacity are moderate.
Augusta Marine and No Somewhat poorly drained soils formed in loamy marine and
stream terraces fluvial sediments. Slope ranges from 0 to 2 percent. Permeability
and available water capacity are moderate.
Cape Fear Marine terraces Yes Very poorly drained soils formed in loamy marine sediments.
Slopes range from 0 to 2 percent. Permeability is slow and
available water capacity is moderate or high.
Muckalee Floodplains along Yes Poorly drained soils formed in loamy fluvial or marine sediments.
small streams Slopes range from 0 to 1 percent. Permeability and available
water capacity are moderate.
Portsmouth Marine and Yes Very poorly drained soils formed in loamy marine and fluvial
stream terraces sediments. Slopes range from 0 to 1 percent. Permeability and
available water capacity are moderate.
Tomotley Marine and Yes Poorly drained soils formed in loamy marine and fluvial
stream terraces sediments. Slopes range from 0 to 1 percent. Permeability is
moderate and available water capacity is moderate or high.
Hydric soils on the project site were identified by a Licensed Soil Scientist according to criteria
specified by USDA NRCS (2006), and areas of hydric soils were flagged in the field and located
using Magellan'" Mobile Mapper Pro GPS hardware. The boundaries of delineated hydric soils on
site are shown in Figure 6. Hydric soils present within the proposed restoration areas are dominated
by, but not limited to, the Tomotley, Roanoke, Portsmouth, and Cape Fear series. Soil profiles
typically exhibit Ap - Btg - BCg - Cg horizon sequence that often includes multiple clayey and/or
loamy Btg horizons. Cg horizons typically have upper boundaries at depths of 48 to 72 inches and
have loamy sand textures. While investigations indicated some spatial variation in soil profile
characteristics across the site, areas proposed for restoration were found to exhibit one or more hydric
soil indicator(s). Typical hydric indicators include "Depleted Below Dark Surface" (indicator All),
"Thick Dark Surface" (indicator A12), "Depleted Matrix" (indicator 173), and "Umbric Surface
(indicator F13)" (USDA NRCS, 2006). The above soil properties indicate that these soils were
formed under reducing conditions and that the site once functioned as a wetland system.
2.5 Existing Stream Systems
2.5.1 Channel Classification
Stream channel assessments of the Upper Back Creek site were conducted during August 2007 and
included the survey of seven cross-sections on the three channelized headwater reaches (North, East,
and South Prong Back Creek). The data collected were used to classify the stream reaches using the
Rosgen Level II (1994) methodology, and to quantify the level of stream incision. The locations of
PCs PHOSPHATE
UPPER BACK CREEK MITIGATION PLAN REPORT - DRAFT
stream reaches with cross-section locations are provided in Figure 8. The surveyed cross-section
data are provided in Appendix 2, and a photographic log is shown in Appendix 1.
The data collected document the channelized, incised conditions of the streams within agricultural
areas of the site. These reaches are degraded and are classified primarily as incised Rosgen "G"
channels. For the upstream portion of the South Prong that flows through a wooded portion of the
site, channel incision is reduced and the stream is connected to its floodplain with an adjacent
riparian wetland area.
2.5.2 Jurisdictional Determinations
A field review meeting regarding jurisdictional stream determinations and stream mitigation potential
was performed on August 9, 2007. The meeting was attended by representatives from: PCS
Phosphate (Jeff Furness), CZR Inc. (Julia Berger & Steve Beck), Baker Engineering (Kevin Tweedy
& Ward Elis) and the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) (Eric Kultz & Kyle
Barnes). Perennial/intermittent stream determinations were made by NCDWQ on stream reaches for
the North Prong (NP1), East Prong (EP1), and South Prong (SP1). Jurisdictional determinations are
summarized in Table 2.3 below.
Table 2.3
Summary of NCDWQ Jurisdictional Determinations.
Stream Reach Length Approximate
Drainage Area
North Prong 1,600 ft 54 acres Ephemeral
(NP1)
East Prong 1,177 ft 43 acres Ephemeral
(EP1) 877 ft 67 acres Intermittent
357 ft 69 acres Perennial
South Prong 1,045 ft 250 acres Ephemeral
(SPl) 553 ft 282 acres Intermittent
515 ft 298 acres Perennial
TOTALS 3,822 ft ----- Ephemeral
1,430 ft ----- Intermittent
872 ft ----- Perennial
The watershed areas for the project reaches were determined using a combination of LIDAR (Light
Distance and Ranging) data and onsite investigations. The drainage area of North Prong at its
confluence with Back Creek is approximately 54 acres; East Prong at its confluence with Back Creek
is approximately 69 acres; and the South Prong at its confluence with Back Creek is approximately
298 acres. Figure 4 shows the subwatershed boundaries for the project area.
•
It should be noted that the site visit took place during the summer months, when the local water table
is typically lower than at other points during the year. Also, the site area, like much of North
Carolina, had encountered drought conditions throughout the summer. For these reasons, it is
possible that the transition between ephemeral/intermittent and intermittent/perennial was made
further downstream than would have occurred had the area experienced normal rainfall conditions, or
if the determinations were made during a wetter period of the year.
PCS PHOSPHATE
UPPER BACK CREEK MITIGATION PLAN REPORT - DRAFT
0 2.6 Existing Wetlands
Under existing conditions, the fields proposed for wetland restoration are drained by a network of
ditches that allow these areas to be used for agricultural production. The majority of wetland areas
once present on site were drained and manipulated to improve surface and subsurface drainage,
decrease flooding, and promote agricultural land uses. At present, former wetland areas contain
hydric soils but lack wetland hydrology and hydrophytic vegetation.
2.6.1 Jurisdictional Wetland Findings
Jurisdictional wetlands and waters were delineated on site based on the USACE 1987 Wetland
Delineation Manual (USACE, 1987) and indicators of ordinary highwater mark (OHWM) specified in
USACE Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 05-05. Jurisdictional wetlands were flagged in the field and
located using a combination of field sketches, MagellanTM Mobile Mapper Pro GPS hardware, and
total station survey methodology. Baker Engineering is preparing wetland maps for USACE
concurrence with jurisdictional determinations for the project site. Therefore, jurisdictional wetland
boundaries depicted in Figure 7 and in the plan sheets should be considered preliminary.
2.7 Endangered / Threatened Species
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) and the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) were contacted via a letter regarding the potential of federally endangered
and state listed protected species which may be impacted by potential mitigation construction.
Correspondence is included in Appendix 4. Responses from NCWRC and USFWS were not
received, but we do not anticipate any potential concerns regarding endangered or protected species
on the project site. A review of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Database conducted on February
29, 2008 indicated two documented occurrences of federally protected species within one mile of the
Upper Back Creek site: the Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) and the Red wolf (Canis
rufus). There is no suitable habitat for the Shortnose sturgeon within the project study area.
Although the Red wolf is known to occur in pocosin swamp habitat similar to that found north of the
study area, the species is considered to have been extirpated in Beaufort County. There is currently
an experimental population located within the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge.
2.8 Cultural Resources
The North Carolina Historical Preservation Office (HPO) was contacted via a letter regarding
possible affects to potential historical artifacts that may be impacted by potential mitigation
construction. Based on their reply, dated September 21, 2007, there are no known historic resources
that would be affected by the project. Correspondence is included in Appendix 4.
2.9 FEMA
The Beaufort County Floodplain Manager (Paul Spruill) was contacted via a letter regarding
floodplain management for the wetland and stream restoration design on the Upper Back Creek Site.
Electronic correspondence dated July 16, 2008 indicates that changes to the existing floodplain are
minimal and no further study for this project is needed. Correspondence is included in Appendix 4.
2.10 Potentially Hazardous Environmental Sites
• A Transaction Screen Report was requested from Environmental Data Resources (EDR). This report
evaluates environmental risk levels of a targeted property and its surroundings and summarizes
PCS PHOSPHATE
UPPER BACK CREEK MITIGATION PLAN REPORT - DRAFT
available records from Federal, State, and local sources for hazardous materials, underground storage
tanks, brownfields, etc. The reported environmental risk level of the Upper Back Creek site was
determined to be "Low Risk" and no hazardous materials sites were identified within one mile of the
project area. Correspondence is included in Appendix 4.
3.0 REFERENCE SITE ANALYSES
3.1 Reference Stream Analyses
3.1.1 Identification of Reference Sites
Because headwater sites in the Coastal Plain are small and easily manipulated, it is difficult to locate
systems that have not been altered or impacted by human activities. Searches were aimed at
identifying small catchments (< 300 acres in size) with a mature wooded canopy and no apparent
artificial drainage affecting the reference areas. Assessments would then be conducted at the most
upstream point that showed a defined valley with periodic surface flow, and continuing downstream
until a perennial flow feature was reached. Data collected from these assessments could then used to
determine the points at which headwater valleys form channel and fluvial features.
An extensive search was conducted of the area surrounding the project site in an attempt to locate
reference stream systems. Many potential sites were identified; however, the majority of these sites
had been drained for agricultural purposes or local topography had been modified through forestry
practices at some point in the past. Ultimately, four reference reaches along two headwater drainages
were identified in close proximity to Aurora, NC. To provide additional data, eight reference reaches
were identified along three headwater drainages within the Croatan National Forest, south of New
Bern, NC. Locations of the reference sites are shown in Figure 9, and each is described in the
sections below:
UT to Bailey Creek: Two reference reaches were surveyed on an unnamed tributary to Bailey Creek.
Drainage areas for the upstream and downstream reaches were 88 and 94 acres, respectively. The
upstream reach (UTBA-1A) exhibits wrack lines, scour features, and a somewhat braided flow
pattern. In some locations, flow is confined but the channel is not well defined. Further downstream,
the valley slope increases and the stream flow becomes confined to a single thread, meandering
channel. This area was surveyed as the downstream reference reach (UTBA-113). Channel dimension
is relatively consistent, with riffle and pools formed by both channel meanders and woody debris.
UT to South Creek: Two reference reaches were surveyed on an unnamed tributary to South Creek.
Drainage areas for the upstream and downstream reaches were 215 and 250 acres, respectively. The
upstream reach (UTSC-1A) was surveyed approximately 600 feet downstream of NC Route 306.
Along this upstream reach, flow patterns are diffuse and braided, with a considerable amount of
subsurface flow during field surveys. Further downstream, the valley slope increases and the stream
flow becomes confined to a single thread, meandering channel. This area was surveyed as the
downstream reference reach (UTSC-1B), and is located approximately 400 feet downstream from
UTSC-1A, and 400 feet upstream of a powerline transmission corridor. Channel dimension along
this downstream reach is relatively consistent, with riffle and pools formed by both channel meanders
and woody debris.
•
PCS PHOSPHATE
UPPER BACK CREEK MITIGATION PLAN REPORT - DRAFT
UTs to Brice Creek: Eight reference reach sites were identified along three separate headwater
10 tributaries to Brice Creek in the Croatan National Forest, south of New Bern. These sites were
identified as potential references through the help of NCDWQ staff who have reviewed the sites in
the past. The three tributary drainages were labeled Sites 1, 2, and 3, with Site 1 being the northern
most site and Site 3 being the southern most site.
Three reference reaches were identified and surveyed along Site 1. Drainage areas for the three
reaches from upstream to downstream (UTBR-1A, UTBR-1B, and UTBR-1C) are 96, 160, and 230
acres, respectively. UTBR-1A is the most upstream reach and exhibits diffuse flow patterns across a
wetland floodplain, with few distinct channel features. UTBR-1B is the middle reach within the
drainage and exhibits a more braided flow pattern with some sections of defined channel bed and
banks. UTBR-1C is the further reach downstream and was located in an area where overall valley
slope increases. The reach exists as a single thread, meandering stream channel with well defined bed
and banks and a relatively constant channel dimension.
Three reference reaches were also identified along Site 2. Drainage areas were smaller than those
identified for Site 1. Drainage areas for the three reaches from upstream to downstream (UTBR-2A,
UTBR-2B, and UTBR-2C) are 25, 42, and 61 acres, respectively. The flow characteristics for each
reach were similar to Site 1, with the most upstream reach (UTBR-2A) exhibiting diffuse flow with
poorly defined channel features, the middle reach (UTBR-2B) exhibiting braided flows, and the
downstream reach (UTBR-2C) exhibiting a single thread, meandering channel form.
Two reference reaches were identified along Site 3, which is a separate drainage just to the south of
Site 2. Drainage areas for the two reaches from upstream to downstream (UTBR-3A and UTBR-3B)
are 45 and 58 acres, respectively. The most upstream reach (UTBR-3A) exhibiting braided and
diffuse flow with some channel features that were not consistent and were not well defined along the
reach length. The downstream reach (UTBR-3B) exhibiting a single thread, meandering channel
form with well defined bed and banks.
3.1.2 Factors Affecting Channel Formation
Most stream restoration projects that have been completed in the Coastal Plain have involved the
construction of a single-thread, meandering stream channel. As discussed in Information Regarding
Stream Restoration with Emphasis on the Coastal Plain (2007), restoration of a single-thread channel
is likely not appropriate for many headwater systems. In some situations, formation of a wetland
valley with braided, diffuse flow will be more appropriate. By performing assessments on a range of
reference sites (i.e., varying drainage areas, valley slopes, and channel definition), our goal was to
determine the conditions under which different channel features (or no channel features at all) are
formed. Understanding these channel forming conditions would then form the basis for the
restoration approach for a given site.
As discussed previously, we identified several reference sites that began as defined valleys with
indications of periodic surface flows, and developed into more defined stream systems down valley as
drainage area increased. Once these drainages were identified, specific reference reaches were
delineated along the fall of the valley and survey were conducted to document channel form (or lack
of channel form). Reference reaches were divided into three categories based on channel form:
Poorly Defined Channel - These systems are areas that exhibit a defined valley and evidence of
• periodic surface flow, but lack defined channel features. Channel bed and bank features cannot be
identified, or if they can be identified, are poorly defined and only evident for short distances before
PCS PHOSPHATE
UPPER BACK CREEK MITIGATION PLAN REPORT - DRAFT
10
their definition is lost. These reaches were commonly found at the upper most portions of the
headwater drainage where flow events are not frequent and do not have sufficient energy to form
channel features.
Moderately Defined Channel - These systems exhibit relatively constant bed and bank features, but
the channel dimensions (cross-sectional area and shape) are highly variable. Flows are confined to
one variable size channel in some areas, and multiple thread channels in other areas. Channel form
appears to be defined mostly through localized scour, small debris jams, and vegetation.
Well Defined Channel - These systems can be considered typical, single-thread reference reach
quality channels. Channel banks are obvious and constant, and sandy bed material is common.
Channel dimension is relatively constant, with alternating riffle and pool areas. Some pools are
formed by stream meanders while others are formed by scour from woody debris. Channel form is
defined primarily through fluvial processes.
Each identified reference reach was surveyed along approximately 200 feet of its length. Cross-
sections were surveyed at representative locations to document the dimension of any channel features,
the width of the valley, and the general topography of the valley bottom. A longitudinal profile was
also surveyed along the apparent center of the flow pathway, to determine overall slope, depth of a
pools and riffles (if present), and variations in topography. Along reference reaches that exhibited
well defined channels, survey methods followed those used for traditional reference reach stream
surveys that document channel dimension, pattern, and profile.
In simplest terms, the energy of flowing water is determined by its velocity and depth. Formation of
a defined stream channel begins when flowing water has sufficient energy to begin the processes of
scour, headcutting, and sediment transport. We used valley slope as a surrogate for flow velocity: the
higher the valley slope, the higher the velocity of flowing water in the stream system during storm
events. We used drainage area as a surrogate for flow depth and quantity: the higher the drainage
area, the higher the volume of water (and depth of flowing water) for a given storm event. Each
surveyed reference reach was classified as either a poorly defined, moderately defined, or well
defined channel, based on visual observations during field surveys. Valley slope and drainage area
data for each surveyed reference reach are provided in Chart 3.1 below.
0
PCS PHOSPHATE
UPPER BACK CREEK MITIGATION PLAN REPORT - DRAFT
•
Chart 3.1
ieaawater Keterence Keacn Uata Ketattng Lnannet rormatton to Uratnage Area ana Mope.
0.016 -- -
• Poorly Defined
i
014
0 Moderately Defined
.
Well Defined
0
012
.
0
01
.
0
008 Well Defined
. Channels

0.006 Moderately Defined - i
Channels

0.004

0
002 P
l
i
D
. oor
y
ned
ef
Channels
0
10 100 1000
Drainage Area (acres)
The collected data indicate that channel form can be predicted by measurements of valley slope and
drainage area. As valley slope and drainage area increase, the energy of flowing water also increases
and tends to form more defined stream channels. While boundaries have been placed on the graph to
illustrate approximate ranges for each channel type, these boundaries should not be considered as
distinct thresholds that trigger a change from one channel form to another. The data should be used to
indicate ranges in which a particular channel form is likely to develop. In fact, reference sites that fell
near the boundary of two channel forms were often difficult to classify distinctly as one of the three
defined channel forms based on visual observations. For example, a reference site that plots near the
boundary between a well defined and a moderately defined channel will usually display some
characteristics of both.
Other results that were derived from this analysis are summarized below:
• Drainage area alone is not a good predictor of channel form. For example, at a drainage area
of approximately 100 acres, all three defined channel forms were identified on reference sites.
• The guidance document Information Regarding Stream Restoration with Emphasis on the
Coastal Plain (2007) states that "... According to data being assembled by NCDWQ (Periann
Russel, NCDWQ, personal communication) watersheds less than 25 acres in size will not
support a headwater system. Our data agree with this assessment. All identified reference
sites were based on the presence of a defined valley and upstream drainage area, and
evidence of periodic surface flow. The smallest drainage area of our evaluated reference sites
was approximately 25 acres.
• The guidance document Information Regarding Stream Restoration with Emphasis on the
Coastal Plain (2007) also states that "... Typically, sites with watersheds less than 100 acres
would not support a stream with defined bed and bank." Our data do not support this
assessment. We identified two separate reference sites with drainage areas of 57 and 61 acres
that displayed consistent bed and bank features, and well as fluvial bedform features. These
PCS PHOSPHATE
UPPER BACK CREEK MITIGATION PLAN REPORT - DRAFT
12
sites were located within relatively steep valleys, where the small headwater valley
transitioned into a deeper valley of a larger stream system.
3.1.3 General Functions of Coastal Plain Headwater Stream Systems
While research regarding the functions of headwater systems in Piedmont and Mountain
physiographic regions has been published, very little information could be found regarding the
functions of headwater systems in the Coastal Plain. By attempting to describe the general functions
that these systems provide, based on observations and data collected, this goal was aimed at
determining important aspects that need to be incorporated into a restoration design. In addition to
design consideration, the monitoring aspect of these projects requires that functions are identified that
are specific, measurable, attainable, reasonable, and trackable (Mitigation Plan Development
www.saw.usace.army.mil/wetlands/Mitigation/mitplan.html).
During reference site assessments, observations were made regarding the functions that Coastal Plain
headwater stream systems provide. These systems are unique since they provide functions associated
with both wetlands and streams. We conducted a review of pertinent literature and based our
functional assessments primarily on stream and wetland functions that have been defined in these
works:
NC Wetlands Assessment Methodology (NC Division of Water Quality, NC Division of
Coastal Management, USACE and US Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA})
Functional Objectives for Stream Restoration (Fischenich, 2006)
Using these sources as a guide, the functions that Coastal Plain headwater systems provide were
evaluated and four general classes of functions were developed: hydrology, water quality, habitat,
and geomorphic. Benefits that each of these functions provides are listed in Table 3.1, along with
field indicators.
The functions listed and described above in Table 3.1 are not meant to necessarily represent a
complete or exhaustive list, but to provide a general description of the functions that Coastal Plain
riparian headwater systems provide. The information indicates how these systems provide the
functions of both wetlands and stream. This functional list is also intended to provide a guide for
developing functional uplift goals for headwater system restoration projects.
PCS PHOSPHATE
UPPER BACK CREEK MITIGATION PLAN REPORT - DRAFT
13
•
•
•
•
•
•
Table 3.1
General Functions of Coastal Plain headwater systems.
Hydrology
Water Quality
Habitat
Geomorphology
• Runoff reduction
• Flow velocity reduction
• Energy dissipation
• Reduced erosion and sedimentation
• Maintenance of baseflow
• Prolonged soil saturation
• Groundwater recharge and discharg
• Sediment retention and reductions
• Nutrient reductions
• Carbon export
• Toxicant reductions
• Temperature moderation
• Increased area of terrestrial and
aquatic habitats
• Increased fringe habitat between
upland and lowland habitats
• Increased diversity
• Connectivity corridors between
different wetland and upland habita
• Uniqueness
• Water source for fauna
• Provide topographic diversity and
valley corridors
• Maintains stream evolution
processes
• Maintains valley formation process
• Variable temperature and moisture
Microtopography
Floodplain vegetation
Wrack and debris lines
Overbank flooding
Soil moisture
Vegetative cover
Distance from potential sources
Increased retention time
Sediment deposition
Saturated soil conditions
System size/area/extent
Connectivity with other natural areas
Vegetative cover
Woody debris
Microtopography
Specialized native species
Valley topography
Valley slope
3.2 Reference Wetlands
Two reference wetland sites for the project have been identified on site, with one reference site
representing riparian wetland areas, and one reference site representing non-riparian wetland areas
(Figure 7).
The riparian reference site is located along wooded wetland Foodplain areas of the South Prong of
Back Creek. This reference site was chosen to represent reference hydrologic conditions for the
riparian wetland areas that will be restored adjacent to the on site streams and headwater valleys.
Soils within the area are mapped as the Augusta series by the county soil survey; however, areas have
been confirmed to be hydric by on site investigations (see Figure 6). The area has been timbered in
the distant past and as a result, has both mature successional species (such as Red Maple and
Sweetgum) and climax species (Swamp Chestnut Oak and Laurel Oak), as discussed in Section 2.3.3.
Groundwater monitoring wells #14 and 15 are located within this area, and both appear to exhibit
wetland hydrology although data for these locations are limited (Chart 3.2), as discussed in Section
2.2.
PCS PHOSPHATE
UPPER BACK CREEK MITIGATION PLAN REPORT - DRAFT
14
The non-riparian reference site is located in a relatively flat, interstream divide area, far from the
influence of any drainage ditches. The site was chosen to represent reference hydrologic conditions
for non-riparian wetland areas that will be restored on the site. While timber was harvested from the
site one year ago, hydrophytic vegetation is re-establishing in the area, and a groundwater well (#13)
installed in this area confirms that wetland hydrology is present with a hydroperiod during the spring
of 2008 of approximately 12% (Chart 3.2).
Chart 3.2
Water Table Depths Recorded Within the Reference Sites.
10
0
Ground
S
-10
t -•- --•-------- --------• -•-•-•---- - ------- ---------------------
U)
v 12 inch depth
C

u
-20
3
0
i
m -30 - Well 13 - Nonriparian Reference Site
t
-Well 14 - Riparian Reference Site

-Well 15 - Riparian Reference Site
-40
- Ground
-50

3/4/2008 4/3/2008 5/3/2008 6/2/2008 7/2/2008
Date
4.0 RESTORATION PLAN
4.1 Restoration Project Goals and Objectives
The ultimate purpose of mitigation activities of the Upper Back Creek site is to successfully restore
and enhance wetland and stream functions on the site. Wetland mitigation activities will result in the
restoration and enhancement of non-riverine wet hardwood forest and riparian Coastal Plain small
stream swamp areas. Stream mitigation activities will result in the restoration and enhancement of
riparian buffers and headwater stream systems (Figure 10). The entire 217-acre site will be protected
under a perpetual conservation easement. The project goals and objectives will be achieved on a
multi-spatial scale, and include the following:
•
¦ To capture and store rainfall that currently is carried off the site by a system of ditches and
canals (site)
¦ To establish a diverse community of vegetation which reflect differences in soil character,
topography, and hydroperiods (site)
¦ To improve water quality (site, watershed, and region)
¦ To provide wildlife habitat (site, watershed, and region)
PCS PHOSPHATE 15
UPPER BACK CREEK MITIGATION PLAN REPORT - DRAFT
4.2 Target Functions
Functions of wetlands and waters are the physical, chemical, and biological processes and attributes
of a wetland that, in conjunction, operate as guarantors of water quality and are important components
of food webs and habitat. The 1990 Memorandum of Agreement between USACE and the USEPA
on the Determination of Mitigation Under the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, and
RGL 02-2, require the replacement of aquatic functions that are unavoidably lost or adversely
affected by an authorized permitted activity. Many wetlands and waters have multiple functions, and
while accurate assessment of these functions is a dynamic field, scientists do agree that all wetlands
and waters either increase or decrease a specific component of the hydrologic cycle.
Successful replacement and/or uplift of any of the aquatic functions are driven by proper mitigation
site selection and a design that maximizes what the natural conditions of the site will support. The
specific functions which are targeted for the Upper Back Creek site are:
NUTRIENT REMOVAL/TRANSFORMATION- Transformation and removal of nitrogen
and phosphorus will be enhanced by filtration through restored dense vegetation and
decreased in runoff and drainage as a result of hydrologic restoration. Restoration and
conversion of agricultural fields to wetlands and forested systems will remove and/or greatly
reduce the source of some potential nutrients to Back Creek, Bath Creek, and the Pamlico
River/Sound estuary.
¦ ORGANIC MATTER PRODUCTION AND EXPORT- The onsite restored streams and
connection to Back Creek provides hydrologic links for downstream transport of organic
nutrients produced on the restored Upper Back Creek site. Productivity of the site will
increase and change through time as the vegetation matures and goes through various
successional stages. The range of elevations and network of natural drainages through the
site provide numerous opportunities for the production and export of organic material to areas
downstream, including Back Creek, Bath Creek, and the Pamlico River/Sound estuary.
FLOODFLOW ATTENUATION AND SURFACE WATER STORAGE- Much of the Upper
Back Creek site occur within the FEMA 100-year floodplain and based on elevation alone,
would attenuate floods only during an extreme event. However, restoration of functional
wetlands will decelerate the current rapid delivery downstream of stormwater via agricultural
ditches and canals and increase and prolong surface and subsurface storage capacity on the
site, relieving downstream flooding that may currently occur on a more frequent basis.
Restoration of headwater stream segments and associated riparian wetland systems will
provide topographic diversity, and restore and maintain stream evolution processes.
CAPTURE AND RETENTION OF SEDIMENT AND OTHER POLLUTANTS-Restoration
of the site will reduce the aerial suspension of topsoil that occurs with seasonal agricultural
practices and will decrease erosive velocity of runoff and channel flows. Restored wetland
areas will increase storage capacity and deliver cleaner water downstream with a decreased
sediment load. Also cessation of agricultural practices on the site will remove the seasonal
application of herbicide, pesticides, and fertilizers that in the past were transported
downstream.
¦ GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE AND RECHARGE- After restoration of the Upper Back
Creek site, runoff will be reduced and infiltration will be increased. Shallower and longer
hydroperiods in areas adjacent to streams and riparian headwater systems will prolong base
flow of Back Creek and the restored riparian headwater systems.
PCS PHOSPHATE
UPPER BACK CREEK MITIGATION PLAN REPORT - DRAFT
16
WILDLIFE HABITAT- The restored areas of the site will provide more diverse food and
cover for a variety of birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. The large size of the site
will have positive effects on water quality in the Back Creek watershed and will increase the
connectivity between the existing natural areas of Back Creek downstream of the site.
Mitigation of large-scale corridor areas, like the Upper Back Creek site, will support
important habitat to species that are sensitive to community "edges" and those species
requiring contiguous areas of unbroken habitat. The conversion of agricultural landscapes to
forested habitats will serve to benefit local terrestrial and aquatic wildlife as well as aquatic
resources downstream of these sites.
• AQUATIC DIVERSITY- Mitigation design at
habitats to support a high diversity of organisms
pools, topographic differences that alter site
connections to permanent water. Restoration
important downstream habitats.
the site will include a diversity of stream
Habitats will include shallow areas, deeper
velocities and hydroperiods, and multiple
f the site should improve water quality in
4.3 Mitigation Overview
Table 4.1 below is provided as a summary of the proposed mitigation amounts and types that are
proposed for the Upper Back Creek site. This information is illustrated graphically in Figure 10, and
the mitigation approaches are described in detail in the sections that follow.
Table 4.1
Summary of Proposed Mitigation Amounts and Types for the Upper Back Creek site.
Mitigation
Mitigation Type
Description
Amount
Headwater Restoration of headwater stream systems and valleys, using NCDWQ and
Stream 7,066 ft
USACE Guidance (2007).
Restoration
Stream The main stem of Back Creek, downstream of the confluence of the three
Preservation 1,149 ft prongs will be preserved through a perpetual easement that protects a
minimum of 50-foot buffers on both sides of the creek.
Riparian Restoration of wetland hydrology and vegetation within drained hydric soils
Wetland 9.4 acres along headwater valleys. Restoration will involve raising streambed
Restoration elevations, filling drainage ditches, increasing surface storage, and planting
of hardwood wetland species.
Riparian Enhancement of existing riparian wetlands along the East and South Prongs,
Wetland 18
3 acres which have been recently timbered. Wetland hydrology will be enhanced
Enhancement . by the filling of perimeter ditches and vegetation will be replanted to climax
species.
Riparian
18
5 acres Existing riparian wetlands along the South Prong and the main stem of Back
Wetland . Creek will be preserved through a conservation easement.
Preservation
E
•
•
PCS PHOSPHATE
UPPER BACK CREEK MITIGATION PLAN REPORT - DRAFT
17
?J
E
C?-l
Non-riparian Agricultural field areas adjacent to the headwater valleys, but at higher
Wetland 106.8 acres elevations and containing drained hydric soils. Restoration will involve
Restoration filling drainage ditches, removing field crowns and increasing surface
storage, and planting of hardwood wetland species.
Non-riparian Enhancement of existing non-riparian wetlands that have been recently
Wetland 19.9 acres timbered. Wetland hydrology will be enhanced by the filling of perimeter
Enhancement ditches and vegetation will be replanted to climax species.
Riparian Restoration of at least 50-foot buffers along perennial and intermittent
Buffer 3.6 acres stream systems. Buffer areas will be replanted to hardwood wetland
Restoration species.
Riparian Enhancement of wooded buffers along the South Prong. Hydrology will be
Buffer 1.7 acres restored to promote higher water table conditions and improved buffer
Enhancement function, and supplemental plantings will improve numbers of climax
species and buffer diversity.
Headwater Restoration of at least 50-foot buffers along restored headwater stream
Buffer 11.8 acres systems that were not considered intermittent or perennial by NCDWQ.
Restoration Credit will depend on a buffer variance from the EMC.
Headwater Enhancement of headwater wooded buffers along the South Prong.
Buffer 0.9 acres Hydrology will be restored to promote higher water table conditions and
Enhancement improved buffer function, and supplemental plantings will improve numbers
of climax species and buffer diversity.
TOTALS 8,215 ft Stream Restoration
46.2 acres Riparian Wetlands
126.7 acres Non-riparian Wetlands
5.3 acres Riparian Buffers
12.7 acres Riparian Buffers (Headwater)
4.4 Headwater Stream and Buffer Restoration
For design purposes, Baker Engineering divided the project streams into three major reaches labeled
the North Prong (NP1), East Prong (EP1), and South Prong (SP1). Several subreaches were also
identified and designed (EP2, SP2, and SP3), based on drainage area and indications of a historic
valley, and were labeled sequentially based on the major reach that they flow into. The reach
locations are shown in Figure 10. Selection of a general restoration approach was based on the
potential for restoration as determined during the site assessments, and on data developed from
headwater reference systems, as described in Section 3.1. Data indicate that historically all of the
reaches on the Upper Back Creek site would have likely functioned as poorly to moderately defined
headwater stream systems, and that it is unlikely that well-defined single-thread stream segments
would have been present. Reach characteristics and design approaches are summarized in Table 4.2
below.
PCS PHOSPHATE
UPPER BACK CREEK MITIGATION PLAN REPORT - DRAFT
18
Table 4.2
Headwater Reach Characteristics and Design Approaches.
Reach Approximate
Drainage Area Design Slope (ft/ft)
North Prong (NP1) 50 0.0030 - 0.0067

Vallev
Length'(ft)
1,614

esign Channel Form
moderately defined
East Prong (EP1) 69 0.0020 - 0.0040 2,440 poorly - moderately defined
East Prong (EP2) 24 0.0025 - 0.0050 869 poorly - moderately defined
South Prong (SP1) 298 0.0016 - 0.0034 2,417 moderately defined
South Prong (SP2) 40 0.0034 459 None - system intact
South Prong (SP3) 23 0.0040 - 0.0070 397 None - system intact
•
As discussed in Section 3, headwater streams on the site have been channelized to improve drainage
of the site for agriculture. Restoration of these reaches will seek to restore historic flow and flooding
processes. Based on valley slopes and drainage areas, it is our belief that these systems most likely
functioned prior to disturbance as headwater swamps, or small braided stream systems. Restoration
will focus on filling in the drainage ditches and channels, and restoring the pre-disturbed topography
of the valleys. The valley bottom will then be roughened to restore the natural microtopographic
variability that is common within braided headwater systems. The systems will primarily be allowed
to form braided channels and flow patterns on their own over time.
4.4.1 Stream Preservation
The main stem of Back Creek, downstream of the confluence of the three prongs, will be preserved
and protected as part of the proposed work. The proposed conservation easement will protect a
minimum of 50-foot riparian buffers along both banks of the creek for a distance of approximately
1,149 ft downstream of the confluence of the three prongs.
4.4.2 Riparian Buffer Restoration and Enhancement
Minimum 50-foot riparian buffers will be restored or enhanced along all stream segments. For stream
reaches that have been determined to be intermittent or perennial, these buffer areas will qualify for
buffer restoration or enhancement under 15A NCAC 02B .0260. Buffers planted along stream
reaches that are currently devoid of woody vegetation will be considered buffer restoration. Along
the western side of the South Prong, buffer enhancement is proposed since the western edge of the
existing South Prong is wooded, but functions have been impaired due to the channelized nature of
the stream. Restoration will restore flooding functions and higher water table conditions, and
supplemental planting in this enhancement area will improve buffer density and diversity. Riparian
buffer restoration and enhancement areas are shown in Figure 10.
4.4.3 Headwater Buffer Restoration and Enhancement
Minimum 50-foot riparian buffers will also be restored or enhanced along all headwater stream
segments. Buffers planted along restored headwater valleys in open field areas are proposed for
buffer restoration. Along the southwestern edge of the South Prong, headwater buffer enhancement is
proposed since this edge of the existing South Prong is wooded, but functions have been impaired due
PCS PHOSPHATE
UPPER BACK CREEK MITIGATION PLAN REPORT - DRAFT
19
to the channelized nature of the stream. Restoration will restore flooding functions and higher water
table conditions, and supplemental planting in this enhancement area will improve buffer density and
diversity. Developing mitigation credit for buffers along headwater streams will require a buffer
variance from the NC Environmental Management Commission. Headwater buffer restoration and
enhancement areas are shown in Figure 10.
4.5 Wetland Restoration
4.5.1 Riparian Wetland Restoration
The existing agricultural fields across the site are currently drained by the channelized streams and
lateral ditches. To restore wetland hydrology to the site, the channelized streams and ditches will be
filled. Grading activities will focus on restoring pre-disturbance valley topography by removing any
field crowns, surface drains, or swales that were imposed during conversion of the land for
agriculture. In general, grading activities will be minor, with the primary goal of filling the drainage
features on the site back to natural ground elevations.
The topography of the restored site will be patterned after natural floodplain wetland reference sites,
some of which are located in the riparian wetland preservation areas on the site, and will include the
restoration of minor depressions (microtopography) that promote diversity of hydrologic conditions
and habitats common to natural wetland areas. These techniques will be instrumental to the
restoration of site hydrology by promoting surface ponding and infiltration, decreasing drainage
capacity, and imposing higher water table conditions across the restoration site. In order to improve
drainage and increase agricultural production, farmed wetland soils are often graded to a smooth
surface and crowned to enhance runoff (Lilly, 1981). Microtopography contributes to the properties
of forest soils and to the diversity and patterns of plant communities (Lutz, 1940; Stephens, 1956;
Bratton, 1976; Ehrnfeld, 1995).
The restoration design for the riparian wetland areas is based on a targeted "Coastal Plain small
stream swamp" riparian wetland type, as identified by Schafale and Weakley (1990). Hydrology of
this system will be palustrine, "intermittently, temporarily, or seasonally flooded".
The revegetation plan for the overall system, including riparian wetland restoration areas, is discussed
in Section 4.7.
4.5.2 Non-Riparian Wetland Restoration
As mentioned above, the intent of the riparian wetland restoration practices is to restore a "Coastal
Plain Small Stream Swamp" wetland system along the historic stream floodplain. Other areas of
drained hydric soils are disconnected from streamflow events and active floodplain areas, with the
exception of large flood events. These areas will be restored as non-riparian wetland systems, and are
located on the higher elevation portions of the site. Whereas the hydrology of the riparian wetland
restoration areas is influenced primarily by streamflows and groundwater discharge, the hydrology of
the non-riparian areas will be driven almost entirely by rainfall.
Drained hydric soils within the non-riparian open field areas of the site are mapped primarily as the
Tomotley series and contain smaller inclusions of other hydric soils. In order to restore hydrology to
these areas, drainage ditches will be filled and the natural topography of the areas restored, which will
increase surface storage and raise the local water table. Restored areas will be roughened to restore a
more natural topography and provide increased surface storage. Non-riparian wetland restoration
• areas will be planted with native wetland vegetation that is slightly to highly tolerant of flooded
conditions, depending on the expected hydrology of planting areas.
PCS PHOSPHATE
UPPER BACK CREEK MITIGATION PLAN REPORT - DRAFT
20
The revegetation plan for the overall system, including riparian wetland restoration areas, is discussed
in Section 4.7.
4.5.3 Hydrologic Model Analyses
The DRAINMOD simulations developed to evaluate the current hydrologic status of the restoration
site (Section 2.2.1) were used to estimate the hydrologic conditions of the site under the proposed
restoration practices. For riparian areas, model parameters that describe the depth of the stream
conveyance and topographic surface storage were changed to values representative of the described
restoration practices. For example, drain depths were reduced to approximately 4 to 6 inches to
represent the water level in the restored, braided channel systems. Surface storage parameters were
increased from 0.5 to 1.5 inches to represent surface roughing practices. Input files that describe
cropping conditions were changed to represent forested conditions. For non-riparian areas, model
parameters were altered to evaluate a system with essentially no ditches and increased surface storage
(typically 1 to 1.5 inches).
To estimate the average hydrologic condition of the restored riparian areas, a model scenario was
evaluated for an average distance from the restored headwater stream with a surface storage of four
centimeters. Since riparian wetlands valleys along the restored headwaters range from approximately
125 to 200 feet wide, an average distance of 75 feet from the restored headwater stream was
evaluated by spacing drains at a distance of approximately 150 feet. For non-riparian wetland areas, a
model was developed with very shallow drains spaced at 400 feet, to simulate a system with
essentially no subsurface drainage.
Fifty-seven year simulations were run for both the riparian and non-riparian models following the
procedure described in Section 2.2.1. Results of the simulations are presented in Chart 4.1. 0
•
PGS PHOSPHATE
UPPER BACK CREEK MITIGATION PLAN REPORT - DRAFT
21
Chart 4.1
Fifty-seven Year Model Simulations for the Longest Period of Consecutive Days Meeting Wetland Criteria for
Conditions Predicted at the Restoration Site.
• The simulation runs for both the riparian and non-riparian areas indicate that wetland hydrology will
be met for a majority of years. The non-riparian areas of the site are completely dependent on rainfall
and therefore are predicted by the model to have drier conditions than the riparian areas. Precipitation
will be held onsite for extended periods of time, promoting high water table conditions.
While these scenarios were modeled to represent average conditions across the restored wetland
areas, it is important to note that the model predicts conditions at a specific location and that
hydrology across the site is expected to be variable, based on topography, soils, and varying water
inputs. It is also important to note that DRAINMOD does not account for overbank flooding events,
and therefore model simulations for floodplains may be conservative (i.e., actual conditions will
likely be wetter than predicted). The modeled scenarios provide a basis for estimating the average
hydrologic condition over the restored site; however, it is important to note that the hydrology of the
targeted restored wetland system (Coastal Plain small stream swamp) is highly variable across a given
site, supporting the ecological and functional diversity that makes these systems so valuable. Areas
of the restored site that are drier than the conditions predicted but still exhibit jurisdictional wetland
hydrology should be considered successful and part of a diverse wetland community.
4.6 Wetland Enhancement and Preservation
4.6.1 Riparian Wetland Enhancement
Riparian wetland enhancement areas are located portions of EP1, and SP1, SP2, and SP3 (Figure 10).
These are areas of existing wetlands along the channelized stream systems that still function to some
degree as wetlands, but have been impacted by drainage and/or recent timber removal. Through the
stream and wetland restoration practices described above, these areas will experience a more natural
hydrology and flooding regime once the project is completed. Since these areas were timbered within
the past year, the areas will also be planted with native wetland tree species that are tolerant of
flooded conditions and more representative of a climax community, as discussed in Section 4.7.
4.6.2 Non-Riparian Wetland Enhancement
Two areas of existing non-riparian wetlands have been delineated on the site (Figure 10). Until one
year ago, these areas were wooded in mature trees and had not been ditched for agricultural
conversion. As a result, these areas still function to some degree as wetlands, but have been impacted
to some degree by drainage ditches around their periphery, and recent timber harvest. Through the
stream and wetland restoration practices described above, drainage losses near the perimeter of these
areas will be reduced. Since these areas were timbered within the past year, the areas will also be
planted with native wetland tree species that are tolerant of flooded conditions and more
representative of a climax community, as discussed in Section 4.7.
4.6.3 Riparian Wetland Preservation
Existing wooded, riparian wetlands along the South Prong and the main steam of Back Creek will be
preserved through a perpetual conservation easement that will be placed over the site (shown as the
project boundary in Figure 10).
4.7 Natural Plant Community Restoration
The vegetative components of this project include streambank, floodplain, wetland, and upland
planting, and have been separated into two primary planting zones described as riparian and non-
riparian zones. These zones are shown on the revegetation plan sheets for the site, and include areas
PCs PHOSPHATE
UPPER BACK CREEK MITIGATION PLAN REPORT - DRAFT
22
targeted for both restoration and enhancement. In addition, any areas of the site that lack diversity or
are disturbed or adversely impacted by the construction process will be replanted.
Bare-root trees and permanent seeding will be planted and applied within designated areas of the
conservation easement. Planting will be conducted during the dormant season, with all trees installed
between the first week of November and the first week of March.
Selected species for hardwood revegetation are presented in Table 4.3. Tree species selected for
restoration areas will be weak to tolerant of flooding. Weakly tolerant species are able to survive and
grow in areas where the soil is saturated or flooded for relatively short periods of time. Moderately
tolerant species are able to survive in soils that are saturated or flooded for several months during the
growing season. Flood tolerant species are able to survive on sites in which the soil is saturated or
flooded for extended periods during the growing season (USACE, 1997).
Once trees are transported to the site, they will be planted within two days. Soils across the site will
be sufficiently disked and loosened prior to planting. Trees will be planted by manual labor using a
dibble bar, mattock, planting bar, or other approved method. Planting holes for the trees will be
sufficiently deep to allow the roots to spread out and down without "J-rooting." Soil will be loosely
compacted around trees once they have been planted to prevent roots from drying out.
Permanent seed mixtures will be applied to all disturbed areas of the project site. Table 4.2 lists the
species, mixtures, and application rates that will be used. Mixtures have been specified that are
suitable for streambank, floodplain, and wetland areas. Mixtures will also include temporary seeding
(rye grain or browntop millet) to allow for application with mechanical broadcast spreaders. To
provide rapid growth of herbaceous ground cover and biological habitat value, the permanent seed
mixture specified will be applied to all disturbed areas.
Temporary seeding will be applied to all disturbed areas of the site that are susceptible to erosion.
These areas include access roads, side slopes, and spoil piles. If temporary seeding is applied from
November through April, rye grain will be used and applied at a rate of 130 pounds per acre. If
applied from May through October, temporary seeding will consist of browntop millet, applied at a
rate of 40 pounds per acre.
Table 4.3
Proposed Revegetation Species.
Percent Scientific Name Common Name by Species
Non-riparian Wetland Zones - 9'x12' Spacing - 403 stems/acre

uercus michauxii Swam Chestnut Oak 25% FACW-
uercus lauri olia Laurel Oak 20% FACW
uercus alcata var. a odi olia Cherr bark Oak 15% FAC+
uercus ni ra Water Oak 5% FAC
Liriodendron tuli i era Tulip Poplar 5% FACU
N ssa s lvatica var. bi ora Swam Tupelo 15% FACW+
Ulmus americana American Elm 15% FACW
•
PCS PHOSPHATE
UPPER BACK CREEK MITIGATION PLAN REPORT - DRAFT
23
•

•
Understory - Non-riparian Wetland Zones - 18'x 15' spacing - 161 stems/Acre
Asimina triloba Paw Paw 20% FAC
Persea alustris Swam Bay 20% FACW
Clethra alni olia Sweet Pe erbush 20% FACW
Ilex o aca American Holly 20% FAC-
Car inus caroliniana Ironwood 20% FAC
Riparian Wetland Zones - 9'x12' spacing - 403 plants/acre

Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 10% FACW
Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora Swam Tupelo 15% FACW+
Quercus michauxii Swam Chestnut Oak 20% FACW-
Quercus laurifolia Laurel Oak 20% FACW
Quercus lyrata Overcu Oak 10% OBL
Taxodium distichum Bald Cypress 5% OBL
Ulmus americana American Elm 20% FACW
Understory - Riparian Wetland Zones - 18'x 15' spacing - 161 stems/Acre
Clethra alnifolia Sweet Pe erbush 10% FACW
Carpinus caroliniana Ironwood 10% FAC
Cyrilla racemiflora Titi 15% FACW
Ilex opaca American Holly 15% FAC-
Persea palustris Swam Bay 20% FACW
Leucothoe racemosa Swam Do hobble 15% FACW
Lyonia lucida Fetterbush 15% FACW
Table 4.4
Proposed Permanent Herbaceous Seed Mixture.
Scientific Name Common Name Percent of Wetness
Mixture Tolerance
Andro 0 on erardii Bi blue stem 10% FAC
Andro 0 on lomeratus Bush blue stem 10% FACW+
Carex lu ulina Ho sedge 10% OBL
Carex vul inoidea Fox sedge 10% OBL
El mus vir inicus Virginia wild rye 10% FAC
Juncus a sus Soft rush 15% FACW+
Panicum vir atum Switch grass 10% FAC+
Pol onum ens lvanicum Smartweed 5% FACW
Schizach rium sco arium Little blue stem 10% FACU
Sor hastrum nutans Indian grass 10% FACU
PCS PHOSPHATE
UPPER BACK CREEK MITIGATION PLAN REPORT - DRAFT
24
5.0 MONITORING AND SUCCESS CRITERIA •
While any given site may restore many wetland functions, some of these functions are more difficult
to quantify within the monitoring period and therefore are not suggested for use in determination of
success criteria. However, periodic monitoring is necessary to ensure that the restored streams and
wetlands are operating as designed and to document success criteria for chosen functions. These
efforts will include installation and data collection of a continuous rain gauge and semi-continuous
water level monitoring wells, stream flow monitoring, periodic photographic documentation,
vegetation monitoring, and stream and riparian headwater valley profile evaluations. Monitoring
efforts will last a minimum of five years, and beyond if necessary, until success criteria have been
successfully documented. Photographs will be taken periodically throughout the monitoring year to
visually document hydrologic conditions, stability, vegetation growth, and the establishment of
wetland and headwater stream processes at the restoration site. Permanent photo point locations will
be established and marked to facilitate a record at the same location each year monitoring takes place.
The performance of the site will be summarized in yearly monitoring reports submitted by May 1 of
each monitoring year. Reports will include a summary of the data collected during the monitoring
year (text, tables, and graphs), comparison to data from past years and reference locations, and
assessments of whether the site is on trajectory for meeting defined success criteria. Reports will be
in general compliance with RGL 06-03.
Greater than 70 percent of the total stream miles in most watersheds consist of headwater streams,
which underscore their importance to overall watershed health. Collectively, small headwater
streams and their associated wetlands contribute largely to the mediation of runoff and sediment,
assimilation of pollutants, and carbon production and delivery for downstream areas (Rheinhardt et al.
1999). However, determining specific, measurable, attainable, reasonable, and trackable success
criteria to the restored functions can be difficult, especially when working with headwater systems in
the Coastal Plain. Because of their small size and location in the watershed, they are very susceptible
to seasonal changes and the effects of drought. Furthermore, while headwater systems are important
for overall watershed health, their functions in the landscape are variable and baseline data on
unaltered headwater streams in the southeastern Coastal Plain are not currently available.
This project proposes to restore lost headwater aquatic functions as well as riparian and non-riparian
wetland functions (refer to Section 3.1.3). Headwater streams are similar to and often part of a
wetland system. For that reason these systems share some similar measurable functions and
monitoring techniques. The following table lists the restored functions that are proposed to be tied to
success at the project site and how those functions will be monitored and measured. These functions
were based on information provided in Functional Objectives for Stream Restoration (Fischenich
2006).
Restored Function Measurement

Headwater stream processes • Valley cross-sections
• Visual documentation
Riparian succession • Vegetation lots
Surface water storage • Hydrologic monitoring wells (semi-
continuous
Subsurface water storage • Hydrologic monitoring wells (semi-
continuous
Landscape pathway for plant and animal • Vegetation plots
migration
PCS PHOSPHATE
UPPER BACK CREEK MITIGATION PLAN REPORT - DRAFT
25
•
• 5.1 Vegetation Monitoring Plots
Vegetation monitoring plots will be established over approximately one to two percent of the planted
restoration area. Individual plots will be 43 feet x 203 feet in size (0.2 acre). Plots will be located to
represent a range of conditions within the planting zones across the restoration site and the corner of
each plot will be anchored at a semi-continuous monitoring well. The plots will be oriented from the
well corner using a random table of azimuths; however, azimuths may be slightly adjusted if
necessary to avoid obstructions and/or remain within the parcel boundaries or within a specific zone,
etc. Immediately after planting has occurred, planted stems within vegetation plots will be marked
with poles and when leaf out has occurred, each tree/shrub will be tagged, identified, and counted.
Each monitoring year prior to leaf fall in autumn, planted trees within the plots will be sampled for
survival. At the fifth year, all living stems of woody vegetation within each plot will be identified
and counted, including planted stems and colonized species. Colonized stems will be tracked
separately from the planted trees, although both may count towards achievement of success criteria.
General observations will be made during sampling to describe the survivability of stems outside the
vegetation monitoring plots, and other vegetation planted across the site (permanent seeding, etc.).
5.1.1 Vegetation Success Criteria
Restoration of the vegetation will be deemed successful if at least 260 trees per acre (woody stems-
planted and colonized) are alive after 5 years (or the end of the required monitoring, whichever is
first). Riparian buffer restoration will be deemed successful if at least 320 trees per acre are alive
after 5 years (or the end of the required monitoring, whichever is first).
5.2 Hydrology Monitoring
Monitoring wells (semi-continuous Ecotones from Remote Data Systems, Inc.) are currently installed
across the site, and distributed in all major mitigation areas of the site. One automated rain gauge was
installed prior to restoration in conjunction with the wells and will be removed during construction
activities and reinstalled after completion of restoration activities. The gauge is/will be installed in an
open area, a minimum of 100 feet from any tall tree or buildings. On site rainfall data will be used in
conjunction with data from the PCS Aurora weather station to determine rainfall during the
monitoring period.
Semi-continuous water level monitoring wells will be installed across the project site (approximately
1 well per 10 acres for restored wetlands) to document post-restoration water table conditions. Data
from these wells will be downloaded monthly. These data will be used to assess whether the water
table at the project site has been elevated sufficiently to restore wetland conditions.
In the riparian headwater system valleys, semi-continuous monitoring wells will also be installed in
perpendicular arrays across the valley to assist in identification of riparian wetlands and to increase
the density of data points for analysis of hydrographs up and across the valley. Arrays will be
approximately 500 feet apart (along the long axis) for each valley. The center well in each array will
be in the lowest part of the valley and the number of wells in the array will be dependent upon width
and slope of each valley.
• Flow in the riparian headwater systems will be documented using a variety of parameters and simple
techniques including photographic evidence of observed active flow conditions and evidence of past
PCS PHOSPHATE 26
UPPER BACK CREEK MITIGATION PLAN REPORT - DRAFT
flow conditions including, but not limited to sediment deposits, debris flows, movement of wrack, •
sinuosity, braided flow features, and development of channel features. Flow events will be monitored
during the growing and dormant seasons.
5.2.1 Hydrological Success Criteria
For wetland hydroperiods, using the new regional guidance from the USACE, the growing season for
Beaufort County is 28 February to 6 December (WETS table for Beaufort County first/last freeze date
28 degrees F 50 percent-282 days). Soil temperature data collected by Washington, NC USACE
personnel over the past several years indicate that the growing season may actually begin 1 February
in Beaufort County. At the guidance of the Washington, NC USACE, the growing season for
calculation of hydroperiods at the Upper Back Creek site will be 1 February to 6 December, or 309
days.
Non-riparian mineral wetland flats will be considered successful with 6 percent or greater
hydroperiods, and riparian wetlands will be considered successful with hydroperiods of 10 percent or
greater. Hydroperiods will be counted during normal rainfall (rainfall within one standard deviation
of the 30-year average). Hydroperiods will be evaluated using three-month rolling totals and the 30-
year average will be derived from the NOAA Aurora weather station at PCS plant site. On site
rainfall data will be collected and compared to long-term averages for hydroperiods.
For riparian headwater systems, surface flow must be documented through well data, photographs,
debris lines, sediment deposition or other means at least twice per year for 3 years out of the 5-year
monitoring period.
5.3 Geomorphic Monitoring 0
Longitudinal profiles will be established for each of the riparian headwater valleys. There will also
be three cross-sections established per 1,000-foot reach of stream/valley restoration. For the riparian
headwater systems, these cross-sections will be measured for the as-built report and at Years 3 and 5
if channel features form.
5.3.1 Geomorphic Success Criteria
Valleys should remain stable with minimum changes through the monitoring period; however, these
cross-sections may show minor changes in flow patterns as valleys develop.
5.4 Reference Wetlands
Two reference wetland areas have been identified on site, and are described in Section 3.2.
Hydrologic data collected from these reference areas will be used to compare behavior of applicable
portions of the mitigation site (similar soils and landscape position). Because of differences in
maturity and disturbance characteristics of the mitigation site, these data will not be used for strict
success or performance parameters.
5.5 Reference Stream Reach and Reference Riparian Headwater System
The reference reach analysis performed on Coastal Plain headwater systems in NC (see Section 3.1)
was used to develop an appropriate design approach for the riparian headwater valleys on the Upper
Back Creek site. These streams vary in slope, watershed size, landscape location, riparian maturity, •
PCS PHOSPHATE
UPPER BACK CREEK MITIGATION PLAN REPORT - DRAFT
27
• and soils, and therefore may not be directly comparable to the conditions on the newly constructed
Upper Back Creek site. A well array will be installed on the poorly and moderately defined valley
segments on the UT to Bailey Creek and UT to South Creek reference sites, due to their close
proximity and similar landscape position. These well data will be used to document surface water
and flow events during the monitoring period.
Data collected from stream reference sites will be used as a guide to infer and compare flow events of
the mitigation site. Because of differences in maturity and disturbance characteristics of the
mitigation site, these data will not be used for strict success or performance parameters.
6.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
Principles of adaptive management have become increasingly used as a tool to elevate the likelihood
of success of wetland mitigation projects throughout the United States. Since ecosystem behavior and
natural disturbances cannot always be accurately predicted nor can human mistakes always be
identified in advance, adaptive management provides a somewhat formalized process for the iterative
and interactive approach to assessment and management of wetland mitigation projects. However,
adaptive management does not equate to perpetual maintenance.
6.1 Adaptive Management
Certain expected natural hazards which might affect successful restoration are fire, flood, erosion,
invasive species, and herbivory. Construction mistakes could also affect performance and function of
the restored area. Strategies to minimize effects from natural hazards and human mistakes include:
• Any flooding from beaver activity will be noted during the monitoring period and beavers
will be removed by trapping.
• Sections affected by wildfire during the monitoring period will be assessed for degree of
damage and replanted at a spacing calculated to restore specified tree densities.
Herbivory on seedlings by rabbits, rice and cotton rats, and field mice will be reduced by the
foxes, feral dogs and cats, hawks and owls resident in nearby natural areas. Reductions in
rodent herbivory will be achieved by the erection of simple log perches at interior locations
on the site to encourage raptor use. If monitoring indicates deer numbers are jeopardizing
tree survival, decisions will be made, in coordination with appropriate agencies on what, if
anything, can be done.
• Construction errors will be identified early in the mitigation process with an as-built report
which contains spot elevations and topographic data derived from aerial survey. Any
correction effort will be coordinated with permitting agencies such that the intended water
regime is met.
• Planting errors in spacing density or diversity will be avoided by careful coordination of
planting crews to ensure fidelity to the planting plan. An accounting of tree plot and
monitoring well numbers and locations will be included in the as-built.
•
PCS PHOSPHATE
UPPER BACK CREEK MITIGATION PLAN REPORT - DRAFT
zs
• Design flaws may not be caught as early in the process, but if monitoring or observation (i.e.,
excessive standing water) indicates a potential design problem, remediation options will be •
explored with permitting agencies.
• Parker Farm monitoring wells were subject to frequent disturbance and occasional destruction
by black bears, despite efforts to armor the wells against them. It .is expected that bear
problems will be most pronounced in the first year or two of monitoring when the animals are
becoming accustomed to the lack of crops on the site. Barbed wire fences may be
constructed around the more expensive continuous monitoring wells.
• During the regular monitoring tasks, biologists will be tasked to note any invasive species
that may take root. Similar to practice in Florida against the invasive Melaluuca, during well
checks or vegetation plot set up and monitoring, biologists will be instructed to uproot any
seedling loblolly pines.
6.2 Long Term Management
Long term management will be aided by a controlled access gate on the entrance road of the property.
It is anticipated that once the area begins to naturalize, that no long term management will be needed.
7.0 FINAL DISPENSATION OF SITE
With agency concurrence of success of the site, arrangements with a suitable non-governmental
organization or government agency will be made such that a conservation easement in perpetuity is
transferred to such organization or agency. Permitting agencies will be consulted during the decision
and negotiation of final dispensation.
E
PCS PHOSPHATE 29
UPPER BACK CREEK MITIGATION PLAN REPORT - DRAFT
• 8.0 REFERENCES
Bratton, S. P. 1976. Resource Division in an Understory Herb Community: Responses to Temporal
and Microtopographic Gradients. The American Naturalist 110 (974):679-693.
Ehrnfield, J. G., 1995. Microsite Differences in Surface Substrate Characteristics in Chamaecyparis
Swamps of the New Jersey Pinelands. Wetlands 15(2):183-189.
Fischenich, J. Craig. 2006. Functional objectives for stream restoration. ERDC TN-EMRRP SR-52.
Ecosystem Management and Restoration Research Program, US Army Corps of Engineers,
Vicksburg, MS.
Lilly, J. P. 1981. The blackened soils of North Carolina: Their characteristics and management for
agriculture. North Carolina Agricultural Research Service Technical Bulletin No. 270.
Lutz, H. J., 1940. Disturbance of Forest Soil Resulting from the Uprooting of Trees. Yale University
School of Forestry Bulletin No. 45.
Rheinhardt, R. R., Rheinhardt, M.C., Brinson M.M. and Faser, K.E. 1999. Application of reference
data for assessing and restoring headwater ecosystems. Ecological Restoration 7, 241-251.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley, 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina, Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks
and Recreation, NCDEHNR, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Stephens, E. P., 1956. The Uprooting of Trees: a Forest Process. Soil Science Society of America
Proceedings 20:113-116.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, WRP, July 2000. Technical Notes ERDC TN-WRAP-00-02.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory, 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual," Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 2007. Information
Regarding Stream Restoration in the Outer Coastal Plain of North Carolina.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement for PCS Phosphate
Mine Continuation, Aurora, North Carolina.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1995. Soil Survey for Beaufort County, North Carolina.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1997. Part 650, Chapter 19
of the NRCS Engineering Field Handbook: Hydrology Tools for Wetland Determination.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Field Indicators of
Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 6.0. G.W. Hurt and L.M. Vasilas (eds.).
USDA,NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils.

PCS PHOSPHATE
UPPER BACK CREEK MITIGATION PLAN REPORT - DRAFT
30
r?
LJ
FIGURES
•
0
•
N
A
A
8ry???co
Ripe
r
•
•
69dw
Beaufort County
Wch- Baker Engll-"g, Inc.
- 8000 Re9e^cY P.?.,
Suee 200
- Cary. North Carolina 27518
PMna 919453.5488
Fax: 919 "35490
I Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map I
Upper Back Creek Site
0 0.5 1 2 3
Mils°s
Project Location
PCS Phosphate `
Mine Location
I 0

Legend

Proposed Project Boundary

WO
I .......

'? ?? •• ?
?? tf
..T??'C'.? refl.:
?
- ' - ?''
`:
;
' ?y ?,
-
•' ? :SAL

? R
' ;
QC00
?

{
f a
.. -,L......•
La
r
_

let
ILI
,.
- ?,--
." sir.

°?..: .,'.t:?.4-•• '.?,???? X11

Mkn••r Wk•, Es....?.9. ??.
B00°2GG_ P•hw•y
• C° Nr CINIII27518
0
375 750 1,500 Figure 2

Topographic Map
Pt.- 919 163 W8
a9t9 ?'Sd30 Feet
Upper Back Creek Site
•
•
N
A
Y, IV.
R ?ta Rn y ? ?•
` r .
r ?
w
{ , ?R-.4
'
Legend
r„R M Proposed Project Boundary
R
d
oa
A 4v,

'' 1rt-
# ! +sF K ? jet k', ,?'g :. ; .I ,'
?" '
?i
r X ?
F °w
.?
r'R' ..
. a
~
r Y
8 Yd
. ?S
; y?
c
. IV,
s x
x T y4`? ; '' r w ?tP`{yd
d ` ? ? a ? t i'r y?
4, N't.

r y? ,
Y i
,f.aj r
[ dkc R
lµ.. lK 15 ?
S ?A IR ?F ?? A4
L
•

i
! 7
}R F a et i
(Sal
r r
t
11 It t «?j ?jy • volt' ` Fly. ? cl 7? '
a
., '£ R f f f _ t' ar.._yrlP 9 4 '?1' 4 a2
,?? Ice
!R
.t
•f ?"* Nam 1,k
ym??I
•._•+.` ` . ?¢. +el= v .'# 6 °?, ! ?(xT•5? T R."?,".?. ?, pi..: ?C +ar? d,or1
"`
tS+.:„ »p yk ,r ..` r "` ,,} €> .} i r g' ?"7R `+aS " 1R"Y .1 (fi }F'? `Ri ^
A A, .a 4^1 `r t+9
',,i'At` 9t:e 72{4?,
'' ; . ? ? ? ? t?• ? `' ?. s ? ? ,?_+ ? ? y?,«.._."??? 1;,?.??t '> ? ?.. ? ? : ??,, ,?5 +e . } ;tit k "?f"'?...
ff.'s
} m ?+ { -.Y.*, r 6 ,?.yx4r- r w 'af" q+ n xla 44, a .`-
?
r"r. y ?' X f? '; "€ 4 .1'' # .+°° °*tA" s'R'.{a + Re,R+?•+M.n^'.?c'sY ?.?,l ?.?` s Yj .'¢r9i
R w n f ; .?k e Y ?. o?. zwe, ,' € ,. R /'µty,« lk # ,.y;?p. a * +r`y cpr
•#r ° ? #?`; 4 f.nim i. S _?'sA €' - ?v y?'y #qr ' ? ? ii[? 1?J' 1yi`?"
r + ,.; N.:. '?, { t * r G Y d + ixRTF"``?`'`Rr<,.'k,•.# A y, s . ,
. IS
R B P a mm..Rmo, m?. Figure 3
8..mo ""°'* " 0 375 750 1,500
. , _ GryNwmGmiie2RSta 1938 Aerial Photo
Rgro: 919.493NB9 Feet
F-919A83NW Upper Back Creek Site
? 0
•
0
•
•
0
? 0

•
1.. V

Michel SAW Engin-ing. Im. Figure 6
800°R°?° "''"- 0 300 600 ,
1200
• . ' CaryN-MCarolina27518 Hydric Soils Delineation Map
P-. 919453.5688
Fa. 9'9A 3W Feet
Upper Back Creek Site
? 0
•
? srs? .+r fiR'+'d?.--.?sr a?rK' ?,:? + ?.a.?- ?-F:?
Legend
-SAW { '. ? ti i {x} A,A t„ p _ 1''' :,F" •?...
` 'sir 3f, A.. Ephemeral Stream
_1W "At -
Intermittent Stream
•r '?+. i v r
'q (Ij '" `? Perennial Stream
7f1Y -M _ T - l i-JhT' M f ..
Delineated Wetlands
Proposed Project 3oundary
? Y?? i ?f f¢ ?t?p ? ??•?,;" $' fi,??b?htl?ri?CdrfR?,i 1 +?'>r',tv? + r
°:'?v ?I.,.A.:pA ry?tt'i?J 1 4_ 1`t,'I'fR
?' (s.. /'. 'y?#' 4S"j ?^'.1'F'?gf: f??. H4I'i'• ? cL?n 1'2 r'itt,
t y?? „?tY '-k• ???? / '?' • p ,, ,`tom,.
5! IIl?ese?, ? I •? /? '? _ 3i 04N
f lJ ? 1 •+? ?. JJ
y y
fr itt.{ ! •T ?, °.. ? d ?? ??y?J s5 ? '? Mf.'.- y..'X
`*?? ' ?r? mss" ° ! f a a y , 41 ?± "7¢ " 41? C?;4
av 1d? Y :, ?'r f +? rid `f.! f}?hr?y'`
!a7lK -0.h'dJ ,? /, r.Y':?f %
}tit Riparian Wetland
r s + Reference Site p Duck sF `
Impoundment j31, J4 i,
w?
r 1l,r ? ° J ?f r p1 t r'
9k' w s ff» _ _ _ v ' ? +?
,`! ?? a 3?+ z.. .•?^ ,'"i. +. ?-tf.:r.??1 fJW'' .: ? r .?r?.? 4 ? r° x.' .,
,. ^.
;•i ?rwR"w` ?'F s???. s s;4R
A r!. dr ] _ 4? •dk p1.16' - ? t+ Yom, ?'Kt
4 iy
Note: Stream determination from : ?! st
August 9, 2007 onsite meeting with NCDWQ. Ff
• -0R -y+ Enyin++ffnq InG.
°°°°?°^?o -+y 0 250 500
2
W . C can. Nord, cam;^. 27518
P- 910 a3 . 8
Fa-: 9,9.43.5C9°
Non-Riparian Wetland
Reference Site
1,000 Figure 7
Jurisdictional Determinations
T Feet Upper Back Creek Site
I 0
•
•
1 ra. .tp S n a9{^. p ors F'k+t f9? ??n .,.+ ;!
t ?'e yq ;s m ? en ? ,?k?*f.???? Y '? ?xT,s?v>r ? ?F i r Tx 1 Fx,, +.T• ? ? T v
a F ? . _ L .k-'?` •' ? 'cat al €1?.,. ,11" .? " i '? N i .yip
Pt{ A. . ?4r j a -1 ;..,. : "h { ?T?" reams ' si?K ..saw by Mt ws ?'? --t? ell
,•?} I j .', _t_s1 t i?'{ ; J F qt.. .,.? 4 "" ri 'vlr t vrM 'fs W c
04
kliehael Baker E Figure 8
..?ee.l_.
0000 0 250 500 1,000
Regency PaMVrey Cross-section and
- Stye 00
Gry. se,e, caeaire 27518
Faa F1 9119 919 38.3 3035198 Feet Well Location Map
: 9..5190
Upper Back Creek Site

Project Site
J
Reference
N
L_
- Y% '-lyde r
-JUTS to Bailey
UT to South Cr
•
UT to Brice Creek
Site 3
Hofmann State F eSt
`-Jacksonville
4
'ice ?9 Camp Lejeu
UT to Brice Creek
Site 1
UT to Brice Cre
Site 2

Lookout Natl
W RqFigure 9
?
!OWRe9enryPo? kway 0 2.5 5 10 15
- GIryNwPCadnall5lB Reference Site Location Map
P" 919835e99 Miles
9t9a635a9G Upper Back Creek Site
•
•
•
rer ? s -:
T0+0 ?.R. Legend
Headwater Stream Restoration Non-Riparian Wetland Enhancement
Stream Preservation Non-Riparian Wetland Restoration
°'?f* r ®Headwater Buffer Enhancement j Riparian Wetland Enhancement
Headwater Buffer Restoration Riparian Wetland Preservation
V
,, r ® Riparian Buffer Enhancement - Riparian Wetland Restoration
®Riparian Buffer Restoration Q Proposed Project Boundary
- 3q'e J t. G £r j+` R y rtx 1y``D t t't' . Y ?a?. y S ?"i ,?- -: P c `3 ; i q l• +dr':
,siia>ni+'.. "Y`?a Vii; ~ Tyr: tG Z t' ^/A fir$ 1
IV ; r f + # Cf P r ,?}> r t AG .?'`v+ s as.b; to •S` S ,?
h 4
'? I r`+`. a?TE- ? { t ? i'*I''t•'vR ? ?w'r:l?J? 4,x
72? `t ,?'• 'mil ?,e 4?'?T ? .? §F ? a f++,Y k G '?
r if f? titAr,1 ,sir r'f + ,?c?g ?t'w. *k+? ,? ,e.A 3??R ? e 'r ? •: • '?`?,. a. ? GSCir r y?'h` ? a.?` 4.t
iAIIJ." L"
?Iv A""
1 as •y. y'f
i ?
,
a
i
5"r t r •,? , ?
4 0 AM1 ? w
? ? f js ayu
r
v?U#.r.'.6? rxe[ '^i?a.•?X•i Y?f,.v?ti ,.:1?.<yK w •r ,? ?,.
AA

at, `?+ia.• 1 ?a? ?i?N ? '`. + s a. 1'f? ???? JRf r$?''?;f
?", "' ? w ? +?• t t , ,'.?+. ?,??i.'?7 y?'Z, f:. "fJ? ;t?.rl`Z, #• :?. ?^?. 7S"?'°..rt?' r :^>,
F?'r?t-$,?,. ,zY f!'u? +ty Yom.. c, ?1?'s4ta yi?,4 i.arf rr?'?t
5`M ?" +J i :,y?'?Y`3'r1?i .. LL'r tar l" '?' .?C ??^aYr'9.r??.4.h?•C.?`A:.,4ip?tNr
,h, yY y? ', i?ft 14s t R°? r 'r4Y ?'iaF1G f G ?. r '? fy ,?.
A? `?q ?_ ?4c t'? F r ` X " , '„a'sr.."`%`; ? p7• 4`+{?-?r 1' w,. 1? A .j, r??2 \., A..
` 1+. ?:ti'r r+r` ?, .kk± k ti??I.S`. {?s$,. `.'l lala? "'S,t?yr?,,`?• ?r +t?)){`0''
1? 'ya r y+1Jti Fib' G F ?` "ITf Vii` ? ~„r(? .t. ,{ lY M f4+?A• ?3 O A.a 14 { ',
?9"i ,a; y, -," r4? "?`} ?n+ x -*``.•• .. f +..ti, ?` r}+SeN,.. `f+?; "r '+;? g4'";1e tr t
xN
w^B t tyc?+ ?x Aa f t .? i
f 3S. 'i. 1?ix? ^?'Ga . rr i'br' i A r s g .;•?#'4?' R` '1a q v t? +d•2,?.. f•,.
y m??r y31 sYYyd , -' t tr'i{i' ?' `P 4 t a t' 't X ?ti k (e !' ?,, f r?7a??'
}, 4 Y4_ r r.. c. x f ; a t 4
,2 ar'"av`&C_? :3 < Gt F ti, M"r'SA F ; r,.,..;•
5.$C:4
y-' ' y{ : „y a i t.n ?te"'t yy vr• r't ??#.?'7 ti ( ?"A C + E: t +4f.?..
y, y nh. n +f. . a. i ? f. a + thr az' ?,.., 'k
4A
? -G al. •r, i.,, ,,?..v #f ? 1"` ?t ? ?, 'rte. 1 ?:r '? '.t ?,J.j 3 1}?'?' Al ?'..
MO R Bk., Enyinaerinp, Int. O 2 50 500 1,000 Figure 10
0000 egmcY Parkway
• ' Czry'b0i0Ca-2,5,9 Mitigation Plan
F-9194 9303 5108 Feet
Pav:9r94fi0.0a90 Upper Back Creek Site

APPENDIX 1
Upper Back Creek Photo Log
C]
0
•
•
?s
4 try', t+ l ^ '?? 't r `i
S?Ft
Upstream end of the South Prong looking downstream. Stream South Prong and adjacent wetland areas after a rain event.
is connected to its floodplain.
South Prong looking downstream, approaching agricultural
field area. Further downstream, the stream system has been
chan4ynelized for drainage. f?
y T
. 4W
toot"
-Till
A.L
? '' 'v' pVr
Back Creek system near the confluence of the South and East
Prongs. Area has been channelized and partially cleared.
Back Creek, just downstream of the confluence of the North,
East, and South Prongs. System has been channelized but is
relative) functional.
0
Smaller duck impoundment which will be removed and
restored as part of the proposed project.
•
YT ?
-441A-t; JI,
East Prone looking upstream. NCDWQ delineated limit of
intermittent channel is at the woodline in the distance, which has
since been timbered and cleared
i.
"N' AOW?. k
Smaller duck impoundment which will be removed and restored as
part of the proposed project. Woods in the distance have since
been cleared.
. .
OMW
17
Lateral field ditch within field areas

4¢
S - J. R :? F+Ye
Area along the historic valley and floodplain of the East Prong,
that has been drained and graded to form an ATV course.

UjiW.

:kI
!
?y {"jam #h *rt
Larger duck impoundment. This area has been CxcludCd tFoln tile
project boundary and will remain as a seasonal impoundment.
•
0
Lateral field ditch within field areas.
•
•
yy $? ? x
A L
V??ti??xx,
Lower cnd of the I"ast Prom,, looking upstream. North Prong, looking Upstream. °
kip
yy }?
t .,.+®
Lateral ditch through existing wetland areas adjacent to the South I Signs of periodic surface flows within wetland area adjacent to the
A- AWk-
y
1
Lateral field ditch.
41,
r
a
Middle portion of the East Prong, looking downstream at culvert
within ATV course area.
\J

CJ
APPENDIX 2
Upper Back Creek
Existing Condition Stream Cross-sections
0
•
•
Cross-section Data: Upper Back Creek Site - North Prong
102
101
c
° 100
m 99
W
98
97
Cross-section - X1
0 10 20 30 40
Station
Pt # North East Elevation Note Station
120 4975.344 5014.722 101.201577 X1 0
119 4985.71 5008.387 100.569116 X1 12.14315
118 4992.714 5004.276 100.122279 X1 20.26339
1 5000 5000 100 X1 LPIN 28.71049
117 5000 5000 100 X1 LPIN 28.71049
116 5002.935 4998.388 100.317755 X1 32.05842
115 5006.747 4996.295 100.021211 X1 36.40641
114 5010.239 4994.378 99.538259 X1 LTB 40.3907
113 5010.974 4993.974 98.161548 X1 41.22865
112 5011.42 4993.729 97.712129 X1 41.73712
111 5012.433 4993.173 97.498818 X1 TWG 42.89349
110 5013.903 4992.366 97.541523 X1 44.57011
109 5015.095 4991.711 97.755336 X1 RCH 45.92957
108 5015.552 4991.46 98.482716 X1 46.45149
107 5016.1 4991.159 99.143882 X1 47.07644
106 5016.755 4990.8 99.504374 X1 47.8232
105 5017.303 4990.499 99.872013 X1 48.44828
104 5018.183 4990.016 100.003917 X1 RTB 49.45168
103 5019.003 4989.565 100.098302 X1 50.38808
102 5022.124 4987.851 100.204052 X1 53.94775
101 5030.294 4983.365 100.430441 X1 63.26773
100 5036.984 4979.692 100.453749 X1 RSTK 70.89895
50 60 70 80
Bankfull o - - Floodprone
Bankfull Line Flood prone Line
Station Elevation Station Elevation
41.14 98.3 40.66 99.1
46.32 98.3 47.04 99.1
0
r1
LJ

Cross-section Data: Upper Back Creek Site -East Prong

Fea
ture Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width BKF
Depth MaBKF
Dx th
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Run Gc 3.2 4.57 0.71 1.06 6.45 3.4 1.6 97 99.51
Cross-section - X2
1
10
100
0 99
w
98
...
d
w
97
96
95

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 9 0
Station O Bankfull o • • Floodprone
Pt # North East Elevation Note Station
150 19954.18 19961 100.353399 X2 LSTK 0
151 19964.7 19969.96 100.14427 X2 13.79822
152 19973.56 19977.5 100.193832 X2 25.41383
153 19976.22 19979.83 100.151987 X2 28.93802
154 19977.77 19981.15 99.606188 X2 LTB 30.97658
155 19979.05 19982.21 98.976601 X2 32.63343
156 19979.91 19982.93 97.971256 X2 33.75957
157 19980.65 19983.56 97.681596 X2 34.7242
158 19981.12 19983.95 96.996364 X2 LCH 35.33582
159 19981.64 19984.4 96.199291 X2 36.01707
160 19982.5 19985.04 95.94077 X2 TWG 37.09362
161 19983.38 19985.95 96.176974 X2 38.34325
162 19984.22 19986.59 96.5544 X2 39.39866
163 19984.75 19987.04 97.180583 X2 40.10081
164 19985.37 19987.53 97.923997 X2 40.8842
165 19986.23 19988.27 98.642921 X2 42.02049
166 19987.29 19989.1 99.514663 X2 RTB 43.36643
167 19989.85 19991.29 99.930962 X2 46.7265
168 19995.87 19996.46 99.876166 X2 54.65107
171 20000 20000 100 X2 RPIN 60.08285
2 20000 20000 100 X2 pin 60.08285
169 20008.68 20005.59 100.088476 X2 70.37392
170 20018.93 20010.43 99.916292 X2 81.45612
Bankfull Line Flood rone Line
Station Elevation Station Elevation
35.33 97 33.66 98.06
39.9 97 41.1 98.06
0
•
E
Cross-section Data: Upper Back Creek Site -East Prong
100.5
C 99.5
0 99
m 98.5
Cross-section - X3
100
W 98
97.5
97
0 10 20 30 40 50
Station
60 70 80 90 100
o Bankfull o • • Floodprone
Bankfull Line Flood prone Line
Station Elevation Station Elevation
46.88 98.1 46.61 98.8
51.39 98.1 52.49 98.8
Pt # North East Elevation Note Station
180 29938.78 29927.36 99.319302 X3 LSTK 0
181 29942.56 29932.18 98.693195 X3 6.119028
182 29949.06 29939.37 98.780932 X3 15.80481
183 29954.52 29946.17 98.998369 X3 24.52029
184 29960.45 29953.48 99.168456 X3 33.93128
185 29964.4 29958.27 99.441753 X3 40.1462
186 29967.23 29961.81 99.896015 X3 44.67282
187 29968.43 29962.95 99.566663 X3 LTB 46.31683
188 29968.75 29963.43 98.078444 X3 46.88415
189 29968.91 29963.62 97.671689 X3 RCH 47.13622
190 29970.25 29965.21 97.400649 X3 TWG 49.21713
191 29970.81 29966.05 97.476477 X3 50.21938
192 29971.23 29966.46 97.718243 X3 50.8057
193 29971.87 29967.09 98.30325 X3 51.69685
194 29972.39 29967.77 98.841463 X3 RTB 52.55327
195 29973.4 29968.83 99.208971 X3 54.01684
196 29977.61 29973.66 99.380435 X3 60.42407
197 29984.21 29981.61 99.592251 X3 70.75071
198 29991.99 29990.6 99.824461 X3 82.64003
3 30000 30000 100 X3 RPIN 94.99182
200 30000 30000 100 X3 RPIN 94.99182
0
0
•
Cross-section Data: Upper Back Creek Site -South Prong

Feature Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width BKF
Depth Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Run C 5.9 10.44 0.56 0.8 18.62 1.6 9.6 98.4 98.86
100.5
100
99.5
0 99
m 98.5
W 98
97.5
97
Cross-section - X4
20 40 60 80
Station
100 120 140 160
1 0 Bankfull • • o • • Floodprone
Pt # North East Elevation Note Station
201 4043.471 3876.365 99.507911 X4 LSTK 0
202 4039.959 3885.99 99.224825 X4 10.24281
203 4037.41 3893.077 98.569461 X4 17.77403
204 4034.138 3901.704 98.342237 X4 26.99532
205 4032.07 3908.554 98.286783 X4 34.14536
206 4029.495 3916.191 98.971961 X4 42.20547
207 4027.71 3921.263 98.857444 X4 47.58159
208 4026.199 3925.196 98.658938 X4 51.7927
209 4023.675 3933.052 98.47832 X4 60.04229
210 4022.417 3937.189 98.191162 X4 64.36376
211 4021.51 3939.36 98.058379 X4 66.71146
212 4020.821 3941.303 98.309259 X4 68.77237
213 4020.198 3943.06 98.744303 X4 70.63703
214 4019.614 3944.707 98.948916 X4 72.38469
215 4018.786 3946.318 98.636536 X4 LTB 74.1766
216 4018.554 3947.006 98.196669 X4 74.90296
217 4018.434 3948.027 97.940773 X4 75.90757
218 4017.633 3950.266 97.761045 X4 TWG 78.28547
219 4016.926 3952.164 98.013022 X4 RTB 80.30975
220 4016.198 3954.222 98.274507 X4 82.49265
221 4014.88 3957.599 98.571865 X4 86.11468
222 4013.931 3960.303 98.487984 X4 88.97997
223 4012.435 3963.846 98.878221 X4 92.81669
224 4011.041 3967.514 98.855908 X4 96.73824
225 4010.375 3969.476 98.707348 X4 LTD 98.81052
226 4009.876 3970.311 98.035507 X4 99.76206
227 4009.235 3971.875 97.70989 X4 101.4491
228 4008.594 3974.278 97.76482 X4 CLD 103.9302
229 4008.03 3976.187 97.601025 X4 105.9188
230 4007.444 3978.417 97.930433 X4 108.219
231 4006.886 3980.035 98.47659 X4 109.9305
232 4006.317 3981.444 99.268192 X4 111.4481
233 4005.901 3982.666 99.799874 X4 RTD 112.7381
234 4004.457 3987.317 100.054553 X4 117.6068
235 4001.409 3995.042 100.076256 X4 125.9024
4 4000 4000 100 X4 RPIN 131.0495
237 4000 4000 100 X4 RPIN 131.0495
238 3994.642 4019.074 100.252263 X4 150.8305
Bankfull Line Flood rone Line
Station Elevation Station Elevation
99.25 98.4 10.54 99.2
109.69 98.4 111.32 99.2
0
•
•
Cross-section Data: Upper Back Creek Site - South Prong

Feature Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width BKF
Depth Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool 3.9 11.97 032 0.58 36.93 1 4.4 99.47 99.48
100.4
100.2
100
c 99.8
99.6
U 99.4
99.2
99
98.8
Cross-section - X5
10 20 30 40
Station
50 60 70 80
O - -Bankfull - - o - - Floodprone
Pt # North East Elevation Note Station
250 5525.464 5448.98 100.248948 X5 LSTK 0
251 5521.894 5458.52 99.979973 X5 10.14895
252 5519.824 5463.065 99.688774 X5 15.14318
253 5518.022 5466.422 99.544062 X5 18.9482
254 5514.926 5471.404 99.462884 X5 24.7766
255 5512.292 5476 99.40069 X5 30.05799
256 5511.026 5478.471 99.514055 X5 32.83287
257 5509.981 5480.782 99.476813 X5 LTB 35.36936
258 5509.315 5482.128 99.178347 X5 36.87038
259 5508.831 5483.183 99.007759 X5 38.03135
260 5508.188 5484.239 98.886534 X5 TWG 39.26061
261 5507.5 5485.562 98.970845 X5 40.75131
262 5506.474 5487.269 99.080317 X5 42.73316
263 5505.722 5488.585 99.186849 X5 44.24505
264 5504.979 5490.067 99.372506 X5 45.90229
265 5503.504 5492.665 99.570417 X5 48.88126
266 5501.633 5496.186 99.722795 X5 52.86467
5 5500 5500 100 X5 RPIN 57.01025
267 5500 5500 100 X5 RPIN 57.01025
268 5495.946 5511.198 100.18353 X5 68.86487
Bankfull Line Flood prone Line
Station Elevation Station Elevation
35.4 99.47 7.38 100.05
47.37 99.47 60.46 100.05
0
•
Cross-section Data: Upper Back Creek Site - South Prong

Feature Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width BKF
Depth Max BKF
Depth
W!D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle C 3.1 8.02 0.38 0.64 21.06 1 7.4 98.77 98.77
Cross-section - X6
101
100.5
C 100
99.5
m
w 99
98.5
98
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Station o Bankfull o - • Floodprone
•
Pt # North East Elevation Note Station
300 5997.101 5932.151 99.367307 X6 LSTK 0
301 5997.513 5941.804 99.336351 X6 9.661289
302 5997.758 5947.531 99.213022 X6 15.39416
303 5997.904 5950.941 99.184527 X6 18.80738
304 5998.037 5954.832 99.193103 X6 22.70006
305 5998.318 5957.186 98.927704 X6 LTB 25.0642
306 5998.381 5958.79 98.521926 X6 26.66942
307 5998.277 5960.156 98.44982 X6 TWG 28.02924
308 5998.329 5961.369 98.185362 X6 29.2433
309 5998.516 5962.791 98.131441 X6 30.67256
310 5998.45 5963.846 98.245622 X6 31.7236
311 5998.488 5964.74 98.490368 X6 32.61825
312 5998.535 5965.831 98.770244 X6 RTB 33.71073
313 5998.577 5970.576 98.87519 X6 38.45289
314 5998.974 5980.024 99.106317 X6 47.90926
315 5999.533 5990.906 99.386092 X6 58.80539
316 6000 6000 100 X6 RPIN 67.91084
6 6000 6000 100 X6 RPIN 67.91084
317 6000.792 6016.029 100.387368 X6 83.95951
Bankfull Line
Station Elevation
25.69 98.77
33.71 98.77
Flood rone Line
Station Elevation
0 99.41
59.14 99.41
•

APPENDIX 3
Well Hydrographs
March 2008 - June 2008
0
1?

Hydrograph for Well t
•
Ground
1? -'-'-'-'-'- - -'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-12 inch depth
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[E] Well depth=40 inches - - - - - - - - -
3/4/2008 4/3/2008 5/3/2008 6/2/2008 7/2/2008
Date
10
0
44 -t0
i
-20
30
-40
-50
-60
70
so
Hydrograph for Well 2
io
Ground
o
-----------------'------ ---------------------------------'--

-to _-

_._._._._._._._._._._._._. _•-
.
_ _._. _. _-_._-_._
12 inch depth
!t -20

C I
i

s Bo
+p
O

?
-70 -Well 2 Well depth = 80 inches
I
I
fio
3/4/2008 4/3/2008 5/3/2008 6/2/2008 7/2/2008
Date
Hydrograph for Well 3
10
0
-Well 3 Well depth = 40 inches
3/4/2008 4/3/2008 5/3/2008 6/2/2008 7/2/2008
Date
-10
-20
-30
-40
$ -fi0
O
-70
0
•
Hydrograph for Well 4
Ground
----------------------------------------------------------- -------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - -- - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
................ _....... _._-_._._._._._._._._--[2 inch depth
- - - - - - - - - - - -
------------------------------------ --- ---- ---------------------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- Well 4 Well depth = 80 inches - - -
3/4/2008 4/3/2008 5/3/2008 6/2/2008 7/2/2008
Date
to
0
F.
-20
30
-40
-50
-80
C
-70
so
Hydrograph for Well 5
0 -20
10
0
e
? -to
-30
-40
-50
60
70
3/4/2008 4/3/2008 5/3/2008 6/2/2008 7/2/2008
Date
80
Hydrograph for Well 6
0
10
0
W
? -ro
i?
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
70
-80
3/4/2008 4/3/2008 5/3/2008 6/2/2008 7/2/2008
Date
•
Hydrograph for Well 7
Ground
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -
_._._._._._._._ .......... _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._.....
11 inch depth .....
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -
Well 7 I Well depth = 40 inches - - - - - - - -
3/4/2008 4/3/2008 5/3/2008 6/212008 7/2/2008
Date
10
0
q -t0
i
20
-30
-40
-50
-60
O
-70
-80
Hydrograph for Well 8
r
3/4/2008 4/3/2008 5/3/2008 6/2/2008 7/2/2008
Date
10
0
to
-20
-30
-40
-50
$, -60
D
-70
-80
Hydrograph for Well 9
0
10
0
•
-10
-zo
30
-40
{ -50
Z 60
Ci -70
-80
3/4/2008 4/3/2008 5/3/2008 6/2/2008 7/2/2008
Date
•
Hydrograph for Well 10
Ground
------------------------------------------------------------------
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _._._._._ _._._ _._._-_._ _-_._- inch depth -
12
- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
_ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ -- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-Well 10 Well depth = 80 inches - -
3/4/2008 4/3/2008 5/3/2008 6/2/2008 7/2/2008
Date
10
0
-to
¢?yJ -20
N!3 -30
P -40
-50
-60
O
-70
80
Hydrograph for Well 11
0 -20
10
0
-30
-40
0
.2 -50
it
i
3 -s0
0
-70
3/4/2008 4/3/2008 5/3/2008 6/2/2008 7/2/2008
Date
e0
Hydrograph for Well 12
0
10
0
-zo
-30
-40
{. -50
Ti -60
Gi -70
-80
3/4/2008 4/3/2008 5/3/2008 6/2/2008 7/2/2008
Date
•

Hydrograph for Well 13
10 -
Ground
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
10 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
............. ._ _._.--------- ._. ._. _ -•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•_'_'
12 inch depth
20 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
M -30 .- _ _ _ _ ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- _ -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - .- - - - - - -' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _- - -
-60 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
C
-Well 13 Well depth = 40 inches
-70

80
3/4/2008 4/3/2008 5/3/2008 6/2/2008 7/2/2008
Date
Hydrograph for Well 14
10

0
-- - -
__Ground
1-10 ........................ _. _. _. _._-_
12 inch depth
1 -21
ra -30
.40

-70 -Well 14 Well depth = 40 inches
fio

3/4/2008 4/3/2008 513/2008 6/2/2008 7/2/2008
Date
Hydrograph for Well 15
0
10
U.
20
M -30
-40
-50
I-
-70
-70
-80
Ground
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
_-_-_._._._._._._._._._-_._._._._._._._._. _ _-_-_._._._._._._._._._._._•- 12 inch depth - -
-Well 15 Well depth = 40 inches
314/2008 4/3/2008 5/3/2008 6/2/2008 7/2/2008
Date
•

APPENDIX 4
Upper Back Creek
Correspondence
0
? r
•
•
Renee Gledhill-Earley
State Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4617
August 30, 2007
Subject: Stream and wetland mitigation project in Beaufort County
Dear Ms. Gledhill-Earley,
We are requesting review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge with
respect to archaeological or cultural resources associated with a potential stream and
wetland restoration project on the attached site (a vicinity map, USGS site map with areas
of potential ground disturbance, and a soils map are enclosed).
The Back Creek site has been identified for the purpose of providing in-kind mitigation
for unavoidable stream channel and wetland impacts. The project will involve the
restoration of unnamed tributaries and prior converted wetlands in the Tar-Pamlico River
Basin, which include sections of channel that are identified as significantly degraded.
Project goals include the restoration of approximately 4,000 linear feet of stream channel
and 229 acres of wetlands.
• It is assumed that Priority 1 restoration activities will be undertaken for the project's
streams and wetlands. Excavation will be limited to the stream restoration area, which is
shown in Figure 3. In the wetland restoration area, activities will be limited to removing
two farm ponds, filling in ditches, disking the soil, and planting native wetland species.
A review of the National Register Information System (NRIS) database was conducted
and no sites were found in the vicinity of the project area. The proposed restoration
activities will not impact any on-site structures, and landowner interviews indicate that no
prehistoric artifacts have been found in the project area.
The majority of the site has been disturbed by agricultural practices such as tilling. The
tributary appears to have been straightened for agricultural purposes during the last few
hundred years. As the enclosed aerial photograph shows, the majority of the area within
the construction limits of the site consists of floodplain, farmland, or straightened stream
channel. As the enclosed topographic map shows, the channel and floodplain through the
project area are flat, the project relief was less than 10 feet.
We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine the
presence of any historic properties. Thank you in advance for your timely response and
cooperation. Please feel free to contact us with any questions that you may have
concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project.
Sincerely,
U

Ken Gilland
Baker Engineering NY, Inc.
8004 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27511,
Phone: [phone], Email: killand mbakercorp.com
E
E

N
A
1%,
?v
U;
A
a1,14co
R4'11r
•
dEl4w
Beaufort County
Project Location
lk*W LRGVWN"W*sm.
8mq@OwwP--r
s". 2m
cry, ""Cwdn, 2?sU
PA.- M443.54
frc 20.46154"
"a Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
' _ Back Creek Site
0
Project
Location 0 0.5 1 2 3
--- Miles
•
? 0
•

kFt
". 4 s r
41
• r' X
Ilk
f ,
7', o

<.
AaA
k;
At o,,`,B?G?C` v t?
t
AaA
TO n
41
!! Pt
Soil Types
,.
AaA - Altavista fine sandy loam, 0-2 % slopes
At - Augusta fine sandy loam t 'Pr % x
_ Cf - Cape Fear fine sandy loam.
Me - Muckalee loam, frequently flooded at 3
Pt - Portsmouth loam
To - Tomotley fine sandy loam
.AKx.'kw. Figure 2
5A. 709aI-v 0 375 750 1,500
. ,._7•*• Soils Map
hw 1"A"Im
F- ,>W»_ Feet Back Creek Site

N
A

10
-a
O
to

lot w.
Olt
'.:fie,,, ... . '? _ ... ..?. ..
4
h.•1 .-Y
• sawrmvN An. NY. in. Figure 3
UftN"""°""" 0 375 750 1,500
.. , Cagr.N?a,mCarax?r ..,:..e :rs?e Topographic Map
Feet
Back Creek Site
Legend
Project Boundary
Stream Restoration Area (13 acres)
Wetland Restoration Area (179 acres)
...w. ~o ft. II?IY
t ?je

•

•
Vxhwl F. Ladey, Govemor
I With C Beam, Sammy
)ems I Cray, Deply S-Kn7
September 21, 2007
Ken Gilland
Baker Engineering NY, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27511
Offin of Mchiva and Hiswq
Division of HisaodW Rewm a
DwW Daeok, Dimme
Re: Back Creek Site, Stream and Wetland Mitigation, Beaufort County, ER 07-1929
Dear Mr. Gilknd:
Thank you for your letter of August 30, 2007, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the proposed undertaking and are aware of no historic resources that would be
affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the undertaking as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763, ext. 246. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Peter SandbeckQ
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preserwdon Office
Pew n Ssalm k. Ma idssrswr
AOMDCXMTM SM N. Dionne 39MMk Rddelk Mc 4617 Mai scnim QnM RskWa NC 7769}4617
ISSMaAT10N sis N. Ow"t $M a, Rdd& Plc 4617 htai1$CCtiaC Cenur. Ra0.O NC 27690.4617
SURVEY a PLAMIM Sts N. BkMO swab, Rde4b, Nc 4617Mail Ssnira G Rsk NC 21b9S46?T
•
Dale Suiter August 31, 2007
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh Field Office
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636
Subject: Stream & wetland mitigation project in Beaufort County
Dear Mr. Suiter,
The Back Creek site in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin has been identified for the purpose
of providing in-kind mitigation for unavoidable stream channel and wetland impacts.
Several sections of channel have been identified as significantly degraded and the fields
in this farm property are prior converted wetlands.
We have already obtained an updated species list for Beaufort County from your web site
(http://nc-es.fws..eov/es/countyfr.html). The threatened or endangered species for this
county are: the Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Kemp's Ridley sea turtle
(Lepidochelys kempii ), Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), the Red wolf
(Canis rufus), the West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), the Sensitive joint-vetch
(Aeschynomene virginica), and Rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia).
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) includes the Shortnose •
sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) in its list of Beaufort County species.
We are requesting that you please provide any known information for each species in the
county. The project site is currently being farmed and is surrounded by plantation pines.
Based on the preferred habitats described for the listed species in the project area, there is
no habitat for any federally listed species in the project area. A review of the Natural
Heritage Program (NHP) database indicates that the USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle in which
the project site is located (the Bath quadrangle) has documented occurrences of Rough-
leaved loosestrife, shortnose sturgeon, Sensitive joint-vetch, Red wolf, Bald eagle, and
Red-cockaded woodpecker
Please provide comments on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to
endangered species, migratory birds or other trust resources from the construction of a
wetland and/or stream restoration project on the subject property. A vicinity map and a
USGS map showing the approximate areas of potential ground disturbance are enclosed.
If we have not heard from you in 30 days we will assume that our species list is correct,
that you do not have any comments regarding associated laws, and that you do not have
any information relevant to this project at the current time.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to
contact us with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance
associated with this project. 0
0 Sincerely,
Ken Gilland
Baker Engineering NY, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
Phone: [phone], Email: kgilland"mbakercorp.com
0
C7
•
Shannon Deaton August 31, 2007
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Division of Inland Fisheries
1721 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Subject: Stream & wetland mitigation project in Beaufort County.
Dear Ms. Deaton,
The purpose of this letter is to request review and comment on any possible issues that
might emerge with respect to fish and wildlife issues associated with a potential stream
restoration project on the attached site (vicinity map and USGS site map with
approximate areas of potential ground disturbance are enclosed).
The Back Creek site in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin has been identified for the purpose
of providing in-kind mitigation for unavoidable stream channel and wetland impacts.
Several sections of channel have been identified as significantly degraded and the fields
in this farm property are prior converted wetlands.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to
contact us with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance
associated with this project.
Sincerely,
Ken Gilland
Baker Engineering NY, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
Phone: [phone], Email: kgilland(c?mbakercorp.com
0
Baker Engineering
' 8000 Regency Parkway
Suite 2000
Cary, NC 27518
919-463-5488
FAX [phone]
January 15, 2007
Mr. Paul Spruill
Beaufort County Manager
121 W. 3`d St.
Washington, NC 27889
Dear Mr. Paul Spruill:
Baker Engineering is assisting PCS Phosphate in the development of stream and wetland
restoration designs for two separate compensatory mitigation sites within Beaufort County. The
location of each of these sites is presented in the enclosed Figure 1. The purpose of this letter is
to address the floodplain management issues related to each one of these projects.
Hell Swamp Project Site. This mitigation site is located roughly three miles southwest of the
town of Belhaven and extends across approximately two square miles of the Scott Creek
watershed, a tributary to Pungo Creek. The mitigation plan for this site includes
approximately 19,100 linear feet of stream restoration and enhancement for the portions of
Scott Creek and its unnamed tributaries that cross through the site as well as wetland
restoration for the adjacent farm fields. The natural stream design proposed for some of these
channel reaches will include reshaping of channel geometry, realignment of channel pattern,
and some increase in channel bed elevation (profile) to re-connect incised channels back to
their floodplains. The conceptual restoration plan for this site is shown in Figure 2.
The confluence of Scott Creek and Pungo Creek lies 4,000 feet downstream of the project
location. Discharges through Pungo Creek are substantially large, and its wide floodplain
includes the majority of the Hell Swamp project site, as shown on the FEMA FIRM Panel in
Figure 3. This indicates that flood levels throughout the sections of Scott Creek and its
unnamed tributaries that lie within the project site are controlled by the larger flood levels
along Pungo Creek, and not by the slope and cross-sectional geometry of those channels.
Therefore, any changes to the slope and cross-sectional geometry of these channels will not
affect flood levels throughout the area, as long as these changes do not represent an
obstruction to the Pungo Creek floodplain.
The type of modifications to channel geometry, pattern, and profile involved in the type of
work proposed for the Hell Swamp site will not represent any type of obstruction to the Pungo
Creek floodplain, and hence will not affect flood levels throughout the area. For this reason,
the Baker Engineering team feels that a detailed flood study is not warranted for this site in
order to evaluate the hydraulic influence of the project.
0 Back Creek Project Site. This smaller stream and wetland restoration site is located two
•
miles east of the town of Bath and covers approximately 180 acres of the upper Back Creek
watershed. The mitigation plan for this site includes approximately 5,400 linear feet of stream
restoration and enhancement for the portions North Prong Back Creek, South Prong Back
Creek, and East Prong Back Creek that cross the site, as shown in Figure 4. These streams all
drain small watersheds less than 224 acres (0.35 square miles) in size and all discharge at the
same point into the main stem of Back Creek. Back Creek discharges into Bath Creek
approximately 2.7 miles downstream of the site, and Bath Creek in turn discharges into the
Pamlico River at a point approximately 6,000 feet downstream of the confluence of Back
Creek and Bath Creek. As presented in Figure 5, the effective FEMA FIRM map for the area
shows flood flows along the main stem of Back Creek are regulated by flood flows along
Back Creek and the Pamlico River up to the Possum Hill Road crossing, which lies
approximately 3,900 feet (0.74 miles) downstream of the Back Creek project site. The FIRM
map also shows that Back Creek flood levels from Possum Hill Road upstream to the project
site are equivalent to flood levels along the lower Back Creek and Pamlico River, indicating
that flood levels throughout the upper Back Creek section and throughout the project site are
controlled by backwater conditions from the lower Back Creek, Bath Creek, and the Pamlico
River, and not by local drainage conditions. The small drainage areas of the streams through
the project site have insignificant influence on flood levels throughout the area, relative to the
influence of backwater from the lower Back Creek and the Pamlico River. The current
wetland conditions of many portions of this flat project site further support the backwater
hydraulics that occur throughout the site.
The natural stream design proposed for some of these channel reaches will include reshaping
of channel geometry, realignment of channel pattern, and adjustment of channel bed elevation
to re-connect incised channels back to their floodplains. However, because backwater
conditions prevail throughout the site during large flows, changes to the slope and cross-
sectional geometry of these headwater channels such as those proposed by this stream
restoration project will not affect hydraulics throughout the area. This project would not have
an influence on flood flows in the area, and for this reason the Baker Engineering team feels
that it does not require a detailed flood study.
Construction of the Hell Swamp and the Back Creek stream restoration projects would have no
negative effects on base flood elevations in the vicinity of either of the project areas. The Baker
Engineering team feels no detailed hydraulic studies are needed in order to demonstrate the
projects are consistent with Beaufort County's floodplain management requirements, and would
like to know if Beaufort County would concur on this matter.
If you have any questions regarding this issue, please feel free to contact me at [phone].
Co di lly,
E sie Pam*lla Castel ar, .E.
0
•
N
A
rick Neck Rd
Hell Swamp
e ?
ee
G?
0
0
?a
Back Creek
Sava
A
a?/ico
Riper
•
694W
Beaufort County
Project
Vicinity
Bak. Engln-dnp NY, Inc.
- 6000 Regency Parkway
- Su4e 200
Cary, NWh Cardin. 27516
Ph- 919.463.5466
Fek: 919.463.5190
Figure 1. PCS Project Vicinity Map
0 0.5 1 2 3
Miles
I•
I•

•'ORx?
Legend
Property Boundary
A+ - 1st Order Stream Restoration (4,760 LF)
Headwater Stream Restoration (10,380 LF)
-Scott Creek Stream Restoration (3,965 LF)
50 It Stream Buffer (50 Acres)
Possible Wetland Enhancement (30 Acres)
-, Non-rivenne Wetland (800 Acres)
Wetland Preservation (41 Acres)
Rivenne Wetland (80 Acres)
®Upland
I

UT3
Ayx

Ya- 4 -3 11?
1 0
? 0
A
0
? 0
•
•

Legend x ??' y s
.y? _ ;...
- Stream Channel Restoration (-2,700 R) ?~ 1.\\4 "".? c•'
Headwater Stream Restoration (-2,700 lh 'l" r { fir 1r.,r_ M"
Stream Channel Preservation (-2,200 ft) ,,;`?•rA
Riparian Buffer Preservation (-4.5 acres)
® Riparian Buffer Restoration (-4.4 acres) "? ih.t • "?, `,
® Riparian Buffer Enhancement (-1.7 acres) ? ?.6I.? I? • a -a!
® Headwater Riparian Buffer Restoration (- 5.5 acres) ?• ys?"a. °';t,, t ?r ^•a,?, ^r` « ?`;?c , -`
® Headwater Riparian Buffer Enhancement (- 1.2 acres) ry rr aar+ 4 * « * ':`
i ,• as
,, Non-Riparian Wetland Preservation (-15 acres)
'-s ?, ,.? 1 ,a•.-f •?; w y ,y, t?«--
h
_Non-Riparian Wetland Restoration (-120 acres) ?;+,r-..' _,#t'? _ yy?r y-+ • `
Riparian Wetland Enhancement (-7 acres) ?`"r . `1iy "?'.x ,A^•-4 µ - '"a?« `
_ Riparian Wetland Restoration (-3 acres) ?• 'rRrMe i i?` -.W.it ?4 %
Parcel Boundary ? ??? -?'.' S •. J'i a •i ? ? T
"? • 11..?11'? ?? 1 1. •,? ? • . ~
Ut-E,4 riR,N,,lnc. Figure 4. Mitigation Concept Plan N
- 8000 Regency Pa y
dop Cary IN Cemi-21618 Back Creek Site 0 150 300 600
Pi-i 919463.5166
Fa, 9194635490 Beaufort County, NC
?? Feet
10
•
0
(7/16/2008) Jessica rohrbach - Written Approval of Stream Restoration Page 1
• From: "Paul G. Spruill" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Date: 7/16/2008 10:47 AM
Subject: Written Approval of Stream Restoration
Dear Jessica:
Please accept this correspondence as Beaufort County's approval of the
written submittal from Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. detailing your
efforts to restore stream and wetland acreage specific to Hell Swamp and
Upper Back Creek.
Beaufort County's review of the proposal resulted in my staff concluding
that impacts to the floodplain would not be so significant as to warrant
further study.
Sincerely,
Paul Spruill,
Beaufort County Manager
is
0
EDR LoanCheckg Basic: Environmental Risk Review August 24, 2007
Property Name 440 Wheelers Farms Road
Milford, CT 06460
ORMOND RD STREAM AND WETLAND SITE Phone: [phone] (EDIR Environmental
100 ORMOND RD Fax:[phone] Data Resources Inc
BATH NC, NC 27808 Web:www.edmet.com
ENVIRONMENTAL RISK LEVEL I
To help evaluate environmental risk, the EDR LoanCheck%asic provides an Environmental Risk Level,
based on a search of current government records requested to be searched by
Baker Engineering.
1-1 ELEVATED RISK Based on the records found in this report, the environmental risk level for this
property is elevated.
O LOW RISK Based on the records found in this report, the environmental risk level for this
property is minimal.
User Instructions
For more information regarding this Environmental Risk Level, please refer to page 2 and other supporting reports.
User Comments
Reports and Databases
The following reports an/or databases were requested by customer and were included in the Environmental
Risk Level where available:
• EDR Radius Map Report
Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice
This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data
Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from
other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL
DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION,
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE,
ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL,
CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY
LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings,
environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor
should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any
property. Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.
Copyright 2007 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole
or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission.
EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other
trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners.
•
0
2013332.1s Page 1 0
•
EDR LoanCheckO Basic: Environmental Risk Review
FINDINGS CONTRIBUTING TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL RISK LEVEL
The environmental LOW RISK is based upon the findings listed below. Refer to the supporting report(s) for
additional detail.
TARGET PROPERTY
Current Govt. Records
No records identified (if any) were determined to be of elevated risk.
EDR Proprietary Records
No records identified (if any) were determined to be of elevated risk.
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
Current Govt. Records
No records identified (if any) were determined to be of elevated risk.
EDR Proprietary Records
No records identified (if any) were determined to be of elevated risk.
•
2013332.1s Page 2
•
EDR LoanCheck®
Basic
with Geocheck®
Ormond Rd Stream and Wetland Site
100 Ormond Rd
Bath NC, NC 27808
Inquiry Number: 2013332.1s
August 24, 2007
EDR® Environmental
Data Resources Inc
The Standard in
Environmental Risk
Information
440 Wheelers Farms Road
Milford, Connecticut 06461
Nationwide Customer Service
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Internet: www.edrnet.com
FORM-NULL-SIL
•
L?
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
Executive Summary ------------------------------------------------------ ES1
Overview Map---------------------------------------------------------- 2
Detail Map------------------------------------------------------------- 3
Map Findings Summary --------------------------------------------------- 4
Map Findings----------------------------------------------------------. 6
Orphan Summary ------------------------------------------------------- 7
Government Records Searched/Data Currency Tracking- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - GR-1
GEOCHECK ADDENDUM
Physical Setting Source Addendum-----------------------------------------. A-1
Physical Setting Source Summary ------------------------------------------- A-2
Physical Setting SSURGO Soil Map------------------------------------------ A-5
Physical Setting Source Map----------------------------------------------- A-10
• Physical Setting Source Map Findings---------------------------------------. A-11
Physical Setting Source Records Searched ------------------------------------ A-13
Thank you for your business.
Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050
with any questions or comments.
•
Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice
This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data
Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from
other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL
DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION,
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE,
ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL,
CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY
LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings,
environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor
should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase
Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any
property. Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.
Copyright 2007 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole
or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission.
EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other
trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners.
TC2013332.1 s Pagel

N
?V
W
I@
OU
Kw
a?

w a dJW Mai
z
? lsn NVIaNI
I
a 0 Ism NVIaNI
AN3S3M NVIaNI
S3adN
lOM1NOO lSNI
c 1SV

o lsn
W lsnalIsm
ism
dl 1SIH
110
° 119Pue1 -IMS
LU SaSH ON
F aWl
y GPM •ZeH WIS
S1VVM
S1lW
SaVd
Z SN311
OdNIa"
laa
Slld 1SIH
SO
SdO 100
slant
S1SS
Slld
VaSl
SIMl
Ia0
0 VM1Wn
W a0a
1N3SNOa
ui Sa131dNMONS Sn
sand

a0a
lOM1NOO 1SNI Sn
S10M1NOO ON3 Sn
SMIWH
m SNM3
uep •uenp •wS VMOM
•uap •uenp Bl VMaM
c
w
aSl VMOM
n SlOVMMOa
$ dVMdN-OM3a
SlIOM30
SN311 ldN
ldN Pelsllea
3 ldN PesOdad
&L LL ldN
w ?

? a66
a

Z ?
m16 °
z N
O S $2
d w
G
1 N
L Dig
1
L. 0-

z
m
E
E
m
x
w
N
N
r?
N
F
•
r l
J
0
W i argot rroperty
A Sites at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property
• Sites at elevations lower than
the target property
A Manufactured Gas Plants
National Priority List Sites
Dept. Defense Sites
114 1/2 1 Miles
-Ei
E] Indian Reservations BIA Hazardous Substance
Oil & Gas pipelines Disposal Sites
® 100-year flood zone
El 500-year flood zone
National Wetland Inventory
State Wetlands
SITE NAME: Ormond Rd Stream and Wetland Site CLIENT: Baker Engineering
DDRESS: 100 Ormond Rd CONTACT: Ken Gilland
Bath NC NC 27808 INQUIRY #: 2013332.1s
LAT/LONG: 35.4607 / 76.7656 DATE: August 24, 2007 10:59 am
OVERVIEW MAP - 2013332.1 s
DETAIL MAP - 2013332.1 s
x I arget Property 1/4 Miles
Sites at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property Indian Reservations BIA Hazardous Substance
• Sites at elevations lower than
the target property Oil & Gas pipelines Disposal Sites
l Manufactured Gas Plants 100-year flood zone
0 500-year flood zone
t Sensitive Receptors
National Priority List Sites National Wetland Inventory
-
Dept. Defense Sites ] State Wetlands
F
SITE NAME: Ormond Rd Stream and Wetland Site CLIENT: Baker Engineering
DDRESS: 100 Ormond Rd CONTACT: Ken Gilland
Bath NC NC 27808 INQUIRY #: 2013332.1s
LAT/LONG: 35.4607 / 76.7656 DATE: August 24, 2007 10:59 am
Copyright =, 2007 EDR. Inc. 2007 Tsle Atlas Rel_ 07/2006_
•
MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Database
FEDERAL RECORDS
Search
Target Distance Total
Property (Miles) < 1/8 1/8 - 1/4 1/4 - 1/2 1/2 - 1 > 1 Plotted
NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
Proposed NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
Delisted NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
NPL LIENS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
CERCLIS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
CERC-NFRAP 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
CORRACTS 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
RCRA TSD 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
RCRA Lg. Quan. Gen. 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
RCRA Sm. Quan. Gen. 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
ERNS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
HMIRS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
US ENG CONTROLS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
US INST CONTROL 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
DOD 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
FUDS 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
US BROWNFIELDS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
CONSENT 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
ROD 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
UMTRA 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
ODI 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
TRIS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
TSCA TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
FTTS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
SSTS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
LUCIS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
DOT OPS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
ICIS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
HIST FTTS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
CDL TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
RADINFO TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
LIENS 2 TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
PADS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
MLTS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
MINES 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
FINDS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
RAATS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
STATE AND LOCAL RECORDS
State Haz. Waste 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
IMD 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
NC HSDS 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
State Landfill 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
OLI 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
HIST LF 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
LUST 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
LUST TRUST 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0

TC2013332.1 s Page 4
MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Search
Target Distance Total
Database Property (Miles) < 1/8 1/8 - 1/4 1/4 - 1/2 1/2 - 1 > 1 Plotted
UST 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
AST 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
INST CONTROL 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
VCP 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
DRYCLEANERS 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
BROWNFIELDS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
NPDES TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
TRIBAL RECORDS
INDIAN RESERV 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
INDIAN LUST 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
INDIAN UST 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
EDR PROPRIETARY RECORDS
Manufactured Gas Plants 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
NOTES:
TP = Target Property
NR = Not Requested at this Search Distance
Sites may be listed in more than one database
•
TC2013332.1s Page 5 0
•
Map ID
Direction
Distance
Distance (ft.)
Elevation Site
MAP FINDINGS
NO SITES FOUND
•
•
EDR ID Number
Database(s) EPA ID Number
TC2013332.1s Page 6
PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP - 2013332.1s
i
li
?- - j NC
V wunry aounaary 1iz 1 Miles
Major Roads
A/ Contour Lines Groundwater Flow Direction, j Wildlife Areas
O Earthquake epicenter. Richter 5 or greater Q D Indeterminate Groundwater Flow at Location Natural Areas
® Water Wells (G D Groundwater Flow Varies at Location Rare & Endangered Species
© Public Water Supply Wells
Cluster of Multiple Icons
ITE NAME: Ormond Rd Stream and Wetland Site CLIENT: Baker Engineering
DDRESS: 100 Ormond Rd CONTACT: Ken Gilland
Bath NC NC 27808 INQUIRY #: 2013332.1s
LAT/LONG: 35.4607 / 76.7656 DATE: August 24, 2007 10:59 am
Copyright '% 2007 EDR. Inc. c 2007 Tole Atlas Rel. 0712006