20080868 Ver 2_Restoration Plan_20080801

RUTMAN CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
HYDE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
IN SUPPORT OF THE
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
L ALTERNATIVE MINE CONTINUATION
AS REQUIRED BY:
US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
NC DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Prepared for:
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Environmental Affairs Department
Aurora, North Carolina
Prepared by:
Wetlands Resource Center
Canal Winchester, Ohio
Land Management Group, Inc.
Wilmington, North Carolina
o?
cr
D ygTF ?008
sT?? Air
US Army Corp
of Engineers
Wilmington District
(FIRST 15 YEARS-NCPC AND BONNERTON TRACTS)
AURORA, BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
r ?
•
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................
1.0. SITE IDENTIFICATION AND LOCATION ...................
2.0. WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION
1
.2
2
3.0 MIGITATION GOALS .......................................................................................................4
A. Replacement of Wetland Functions ............................................................................. ..4
B. Replacement of Stream and Buffer Functions ............................................................. ..5
4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................ ..5
A. Land Use and Vegetation ............................................................................................. ..5
B. Soils .............................................................................................................................. ..6
C. Drainage Network ........................................................................................................ ..7
D. Threatened and Endangered Species ............................................................................ ..7
E. Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................ ..8
F. Existing Conditions of Rutman Creek .......................................................................... ..8
5.0 RESTORATION PLAN .................................................................................................... 10
A. Overview ...................................................................................................................... 10
B. Zero Order Stream Restoration .................................................................................... 12
C. Stream Enhancement .................................................................................................... 15
D. Riparian Buffer and Wetland Restoration .................................................................... 16
E. Riparian Wetland Enhancement ................................................................................... 18
F. Non-Riparian Wetland Restoration .............................................................................. 18
G. Non-Riparian Wetland Enhancement and Preservation ............................................... 22
6.0 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE ..................................................................................22
7.0 POST-CONSTRUCTION MONITORING AND MANAGEMENT ...............................23
A. Wetland Restoration Success Criteria ..........................................................................24
B. Zero Order Stream Success Criteria .............................................................................26
8.0 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................28
9.0 SOURCES OF INFORMATION ......................................................................................29
?f?@ 9_016R p
AUG 1 _ 2008
DENR . WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS AND STORMWAIER BRANCH
C.
E
LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES, AND APPENDICES
Figure l ...................
Figure 2 ..................
Figure 3 ..................
Figure 4 ...................
Figure 5 ..................
Figure 6a ................
Figure 6b ................
Figure 6c ................
Figure 7 ..................
Figure 8 ..................
Figure 9 ..................
Figure 10a ...............
Figure l0b ...............
Figure I1 .................
Table 1. .
Table 2..
Table 3. .
Appendix A.
Appendix B.
Appendix C.
Appendix D.
Appendix E.
...................................................................................Project Vicinity Map
............................................... Protected Gamelands/Wildlife Refuge Map
..................................................................................HUC Watershed Map
......................................................................... NRCS Determination Map
................................................................... Hyde County Soil Survey Map
.................................................................................. LID-AR Contour Map
....................................................................1951 USGS Topographic Map
....................................................................1983 USGS Topographic Map
.........................................................................Existing Drainage Network
............................................................... Proposed Mitigation - Plan View
...................................................Proposed Mitigation - Stream Plan View
............................................................................... Proposed Grading Plan
................................................................... Grading Plan - Cross-Sections
............................................................................. Construction Phase Map
............ Mitigation Plan - Community Type and Quantity
........Planting Plan for Small Stream Swamp Community
... Planting Plan for Non-Riparian Wetland Communities
Site Photographs
Wetland Delineation Narrative
Soil Boring Logs
DrainlAod Assessment
Reference Wetland and Zero Order Stream Narrative
0
•
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On behalf of PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. (PCS), Wetlands Resource Center LLC
(WRC) has identified and secured (via option contracts to purchase) over 4,300 acres of
land formerly consisting of nearly an entire headwater stream and wetland system in the
Pungo River watershed. The Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project is intended to
provide suitable, high-quality Coastal Plain wetland and stream mitigation to offset
authorized impacts associated with the PCS mine continuation project in Aurora,
Beaufort County (NC). The objective of the Rutman Creek project is to provide for the
functional restoration and ecological up-lift of wetland and stream habitat via the re-
establishment of characteristic hydrologic conditions and vegetative assemblages.
Anticipated functions and values resulting from the restoration project include increased
nutrient retention/transformation, sediment retention, floodwater storage/flood abatement,
and groundwater recharge. Given the scale of the restoration effort, the project will
provide considerable habitat benefits on a watershed and regional level. The project
offers a truly unique opportunity to provide habitat connectivity between vast acreage of
wildlife refuge areas (to the north and east) and the Pungo River Estuary (to the south and
west).
The Rutman Creek property is principally managed for agricultural production (soybean,
cotton and corn rotation). The project site consists nearly entirely of prior-converted
(PC) agricultural fields. Remaining acreage of forested land (jurisdictional and non-
jurisdictional areas) exist toward the southern limits of the project site. Under contract
with PCS, WRC will restore and preserve approximately 4,187 ac of stream and wetland
habitat located at the headwaters of Rutman Creek (a second-order tributary of the Pungo
River) in Hyde County, NC.
•
Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project
Cataloging Unit 03020104

• The following site-specific restoration plan provides information related to existing site
conditions, watershed characteristics, proposed restoration activities, monitoring criteria,
and long-term site management and protection.
1.0 SITE IDENTIFICATION AND LOCATION
The 4,303-ac property targeted for system restoration is located at the headwaters of
Rutman Creek, a second-order tributary of the Pungo River within the Tar-Pamlico River
Basin (USGS 8-digit Hydrologic Unit 03020104; DWQ Subbasin 03-03-07). The project
site is located between New Lake Road (SR 1303) and the Atlantic Intracoastal
Waterway (AIWW) in Hyde County, NC (Figure 1).
The site is bounded to the north and west by Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
(NWR) (an approximate 110,000 ac refuge located in Hyde, Tyrell, and Washington
• Counties). Figure 2 depicts the location of the restoration site relative to the NWR and
the Pungo River. The property is located approximately ten miles west of Belhaven, NC
and lies just to the east of the junction of US Highway 264 and the AIWW.
2.0 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION
The project site is located within the lower Tar-Pamlico River Basin (USGS 8-digit
Hydrologic Unit 03020104; DWQ Subbasin 03-03-07) (Figure 3), a watershed
experiencing relatively limited population growth over the last thirty years. Much of the
subbasin consists of managed forestry tracts and expansive cultivated cropland.
Municipalities of the watershed include Washington, Belhaven, Bath, and Aurora. Of
these, Washington is the largest incorporated town with approximately 10,000 residents.
Even though population density for the Subbasin is relatively low (44 persons/mil as of
2000), the waters are susceptible to impairment from nutrient loading, high fecal coliform
counts, and low ambient dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations. Based upon the 2004
Tar-Pamlico River Basinwide Water Quality Plan (NC DWQ 2004), the Pungo River is
• currently `Impaired' in the recreation category because the Department of Environmental
Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project 2
Cataloging Unit 03020104
• Health (DEH) had posted swimming advisories for greater than 61 days of the assessment
period. In addition, the Town of Belhaven has been assessed for sanitary sewer
overflows and fecal coliform violations at the outfall of its wastewater treatment plant.
The surface water body classifications for Rutman Creek and the Pungo River are SC
NSW and SB NSW, respectively. SC waters are defined as freshwater bodies protected
for secondary recreation, fishing, and aquatic life including propogation, survival, and
wildlife. SB waters are freshwater bodies protected for primary recreation including
swimming on a frequent or organized basis. Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) are
subject to growths of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation requiring limitations on
nutrient inputs (NC DWQ 2000). Best management practices (BMPs), including riparian
buffer setbacks, are implemented within NSW basins to help offset or minimize nutrient
loading to susceptible waters.
Prior to conversion to cultivated cropland, the tract of land encompassing the limits of the
• restoration project area consisted of wetland and stream habitat characteristic of the outer
Coastal Plain. In particular, a majority of the site consisted of non-riverine swamp forest,
bay forest, and mineral hardwood flat wetlands forming the headwater complex of
Rutman Creek (a second-order tributary of Pungo River). These types of wetlands
support a number of functions/values including, but not limited to the following:
groundwater recharge; flood water storage and attenuation; filtration and storage of
nutrients, sediments, and/or toxic substances; and refuge/feeding habitat for resident and
migratory fauna. At the present time, these functions have been compromised through
the extensive conversion practices (clearing and prescribed drainage improvements) as
well as silvicultural management of the site (ditching, bedding, clear-cutting, etc.). The
Pungo River and its tributaries, in particular, have exhibited significant water quality
impairments associated with low dissolved oxygen (DO), high total nitrogen (TN), and
high total phosphorus (TP). High nutrient concentrations originate from non-point source
loading associated with intensive agricultural and silvicultural practices common
throughout the watershed. These impairments are likely exacerbated by channelization of
• local streams and ditching of headwater wetlands, resulting in diminished nutrient uptake
Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project 3
Cataloging Unit 03020104
• and nutrient/sediment loading to down-gradient waters. Furthermore, hypoxic/anoxic
conditions and toxic algal blooms have contributed to various fish kills reported in the
Pungo River over the past two decades.
3.0 MITIGATION GOALS
The goal of the Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project is to provide for
replacement of lost functions at the impact site via the restoration, enhancement, and
preservation of self-sustaining stream, wetland, and buffer habitat. The project offers a
unique opportunity for the restoration of a large headwater wetland complex that will
benefit not only the local watershed (i.e. Rutman Creek), but the regional lower Tar
Pamlico River Basin as well. These benefits are expected in light of the tangible and
well-documented functions and values attributed to headwater wetland systems. Natural
hydrologic and vegetative conditions of nearly the entire headwater system will be
• restored and/or enhanced.
A. Replacement of Wetland Functions
Nutrient loading (in the form of excess nitrogen and/or phosphorous) may manifest in a
variety of water quality problems including hypoxia/anoxia, aquatic weed infestations,
and toxic algal blooms. Water quality impairments, in turn, can negatively affect resident
macroinvertebrate and fish assemblages. Predominant land-use practices associated with
intensive agriculture (e.g. ditch excavation, fertilization, and pesticide/herbicide
application) are sources of impairment that may negatively impact faunal communities
downstream. Restoration of natural groundwater and surface water conditions will
promote enhanced uptake/filtration of potentially nutrient-enriched run-off and associated
contaminants. The restored wetland will increase the buffering capacity of storm water
runoff, thereby reducing the danger of flooding downstream. Episodic peak runoff will
be intercepted and discharged slowly over time. Existing site conditions do not provide
this flood attenuation value.
•
Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project 4
Cataloging Unit 03020104
• It is expected that the restoration and preservation of such a large tract will promote
watershed health both in terms of water quality and habitat connectivity. The restored
headwater wetlands will provide for a protected corridor between Rutman Creek and
protected lands to the northeast (including the NWR and Ducks Unlimited conservation
areas). Restoration and protection of this expansive system will provide unique habitat
benefits to resident and migratory fauna.
B. Replacement of Stream and Buffer Functions
Like other small, blackwater streams of the Coastal Plain, Rutman Creek and its
tributaries are susceptible to water quality impairment resulting from non-point source
discharges of contaminants - including nitrogen (N), phosphorous (P), and a suite of
organophosphate-based herbicides and pesticides. Currently, intensive agricultural
practices contribute to decreased water quality of downstream waters. Ditches,
channelized tributaries, and canals drain an approximate six square mile watershed.
These surface waters serve asdirect conduits for sediment, nutrients, and other pollutants
• entering both Rutman Creek and the Pungo River. The physical alteration of headwater
valleys adversely effect biological communities through direct mortality, habitat loss, and
shifts in species composition.
Zero-order stream restoration will assist in the maintenance of an elevated water table
throughout the headwater valley. Re-establishment of characteristic hydroperiods will
aid in the transformation and sequestration of pollutants. The restoration of zero-order
stream conditions will reduce flow velocities and attenuate downstream flooding.
4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
A. Land Use and Vegetation
Clearing and drainage of the Rutman Creek property was first initiated in the 1950s.
Subsequent to site clearing, block drainage on 330-ft spacing was installed for conversion
to cropland. Conversion activities continued through the 1960s and 1970s. Areas not
• actively farmed have been historically managed for silvicultural production. The existing
network of canals and roads has eliminated many of the hydrologic functions of
Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project 5
Cataloging Unit 03020104
• headwater wetlands. In addition, land use practices (including herbicide, pesticide, and
fertilizer application) serve as potential contributors to decreased water quality of surface
waters flowing into Rutman Creek. Much of the site consists of actively farmed cropland
(in production for corn, soybean, cotton, and winter-wheat). Forested areas consist of
loblolly pine (Pines taeda), pond pine (Pines serotina), red maple (Ater rubrum), red bay
(Persea borbonia) and sweet gum (Liquidainbar styraciflua). Hardwood species
characteristic of headwater swamp communities of the Coastal Plain are either absent
entirely or occur only in sparse locations. Typical canopy species of an undisturbed
headwater swamp forest would include swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora), bald cypress
(Taxodium distichum), pond pine, and Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides).
Understory species typical of nonriparian swamp forest communities would include
American titi (Cyrilla racemiflora), sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana), red bay, fetterbush
(Lyonia lucida), red maple, and catbrier (Smilax species). These shrubs and saplings are
prevalent in more undisturbed forested areas of the tract just north of the AIWW.
Photographs documenting existing conditions are provided in Appendix A.
• •
The majority of the project site consists of cultivated cropland designated as prior-
converted (PC) fields by NRCS (Figure 4). Additional acreage on the southern portion of
the tract is classified as non-jurisdictional ("non-wetlands") by the NRCS due to
prescribed drainage improvements. Remaining forested areas are considered to be
predominantly jurisdictional wetlands as evidenced by observed field indicators.
Inclusions of non-jurisdictional areas (e.g. road-beds and areas influenced by lateral
drainage effect of ditches) have been identified within these forested block areas. A
comprehensive wetland delineation has been conducted for the site. The findings of this
delineation are summarized in Appendix B. Results of the delineation effort have been
used to identify appropriate areas for wetland preservation.
B. Soils
The Rutman Creek site consists nearly entirely of hydric soils generally comprised of
organic material underlain my marine or fluvial sediments. Dorovan muck occupies
lower landscape positions associated with zero-order and first-order stream valleys.
Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project 6
Cataloging Unit 03020104
• Other deep organic soils occupy broader flats across the site. Very poorly drained muck
soil units include Wasda muck, Ponzer muck, Roper muck, and Belhaven muck. Poorly
drained mineral soils (with organic surface either absent or thin) occur on the edge of
headwater valley systems and in interstream areas. These soil types include Argent loam,
Yonges loam, Portsmouth mucky sandy loam, and Pettigrew muck. Refer to the Hyde
County Soil Survey Map (Figure 5) for the location and extent of mapped soil units.
Licensed soil scientists of Land Management Group, Inc. (LMG) have conducted site-
specific soil mapping to identify appropriate wetland communities and corresponding
vegetative assemblages for restored wetland areas (Appendix Q. Under natural
conditions (i.e. not drained), the seasonal high water table for all the mapped soil units is
within 1-ft of the soil surface.
C. Drainage Network
Elevations of the project area range from 2.0 ft to 10.0 ft above mean sea level (MSL)
(refer to LIDAR contours in Figure 6a). Prior to site alteration, headwater streams and
• riparian wetlands extended into the site (Figure 6b). Subsequent drainage efforts have
included the excavation of several large canals (4-6 ft deep) that drain toward the primary
outlet canal (aka Mooney Canal) (8-10 ft deep). Mooney Canal transects the entire
length of the property from New Lake (formerly Alligator Lake) to Rutman Creek (refer
to Figure 6). The drainage network also includes a number of lateral and interior ditches
ranging in depth to 1.5 ft to 6 ft. General topographic and drainage conditions are
depicted on the current USGS topographic quadrangle (Figure 6c). Existing ditches serve
to lower groundwater levels and intercept surface water - manifesting in increased
stormwater velocities down-gradient near the outlet into Rutman Creek and the AIWW.
Refer to Figure 7 for a more detailed map of the drainage network of the mitigation site.
D. Threatened and Endangered Species
A review of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database was conducted to
identify rare species known to occur within the project area. The Rutman Creek property
is located within the Ponzer and the New Lake USGS topographic quadrangles. The
Heritage database documented four rare animal species having identified occurrences
Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project 7
Cataloging Unit 03020104
within a one square-mile area of the project site. The bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus; federally protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act) has
been sited in the vicinity of the project area with documented active nests south of the site
on the Pungo River Estuary. In addition, the red wolf (Canis rufus; federally-listed as
Endangered) has been identified as occurring throughout the mainland of Hyde County.
The glossy crayfish snake (Regina rigida; state-listed as Significantly Rare) has
documented occurrences within the NWR and in forested lands to the south of the site.
The shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum; federally-listed as Endangered) has
been identified to occur within open waters of the Pungo River. Since all documented
occurrences of these species have been in undisturbed forested areas (or in open waters
well off-site from the property in the case of the shortnose sturgeon), it is anticipated that
the wetland and stream restoration effort will not have any adverse effects on threatened
and endangered species. Rather, the project will likely serve only to expand habitat
suitable for refuge, feeding, and/or migration.
• D. Cultural Resources
The project will not have an effect on any structures/properties eligible or listed on the
National Register of Historic Places. Based upon a review of maps at the North Carolina
Office of Archives and History, there are no known significant archaeological resources
on the restoration site. The project area is of relatively low landscape position with
numerous drainage canals. As such, the Historic Preservation Office has determined the
area to be of low probability in terms of significant archeological resources.
E. Existing Conditions of Rutman Creek
The Rutman Creek watershed has been significantly altered to provide improved drainage
for expansive agricultural operations to the north and east. As a result of these intensive
land-use practices, the Rutman Creek watershed has been reduced to a fraction of its
original size. Much of the surface water once draining through riparian wetlands and
stream reaches is now diverted through a series of canals that outlet to different locations
(such as the AIWW and New Lake Canal). As such, flow is generally bypassed around
0 Rutman Creek and its associated riparian wetlands. In addition to the drainage network,
Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project 8
Cataloging Unit 03020104
• silvicultural site management has further degraded wetlands adjacent to the existing zero-
order stream reach. These areas have been ditched, bedded, and planted with loblolly
pine - resulting in altered species composition and hydrology.
The reduction in watershed size has impacted the system in several ways, limiting its
ability to perform key wetland and stream functions. The redirection of flow by both
Alligator and Mooney Canals over the past three decades has altered the hydroperiod of
the system, manifesting in reduced base flow and removal of characteristic diffuse sheet
flow. The resultant aerobic conditions have led to significant oxidation of surface
organics as evidenced by ground subsidence in the current forested reaches of Rutman
Creek.
In addition to hydrologic impacts associated with the drainage network, Rutman Creek is
bisected by two dirt roads that impede surface water flow to downstream waters. Since
both roads lack culverts, flow is compartmentalized throughout the lower reaches of
• Rutman Creek. Water tends to stack on the up-gradient side of these roads. The existing
conditions restrict pulsed flooding of the system which in turn may alter characteristic
surface water exchange, chemical/nutrient cycling, niche habitat, and trophic exchange.
The vegetative community along lower portions of the Rutman Creek system is defined
as a Cypress-Gum Swamp (Blackwater Subtype) (Shafale and Weakley, 1990). Tree
canopy within these systems are dominated by bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) and
black gum (Nyssa biflora). While logging activities have removed a majority of the large
bald cypress, several trees with DBH >36" were observed. The shrub layer is sparse to
absent in ponded areas (particularly up-gradient of existing road beds). Characteristic
shrub species include American titi (Cyrilla racemiflora), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera),
and red bay (Persea palustris) in the floodplain.
The Cypress-Gum Swamp community transitions into a Small Stream Swamp in the
upper reaches of the existing stream/wetland complex. In these areas, a more diverse
401 assemblage of hardwoods is evident. Observed species include American elm (Ulnas
Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project 9
Cataloging Unit 03020104
americana), river birch (Betula nigra), and sweet gum. Loblolly pine and red maple are
more prevalent in areas affected by prior site timber harvesting (particularly along the
edge of the natural drain). Thick stands of blackberry (Rubes spp.) and giant cane
(Arundinaria gigantea) are evident in the transitional zone between the two community
types.
5.0 RESTORATION PLAN
A. Overview
Based upon available map resources (i.e. soil surveys, GIS-based maps, aerial
photography, and LIDAR), on-site evaluations (including soil profile descriptions and
hydrologic assessments), and site-specific topographic survey work, approximately 3,446
acres and 8,793 if ft are suitable for wetland and stream restoration, respectively. An
additional 131 acres of wetlands and 7,994 if of stream are targeted for enhancement
. (Figure 8). On-site preservation will include 608 acres of wetlands. Based upon detailed
site investigations, LMG has identified the following mitigation community types and
quantities considered suitable for the site as depicted in Table 1.
Table 1. Mitigation Plan - Mitigation Type and Quantity
•
Community Type Mitigation Type Quantity (ac/10
First Order Stream Enhancement 3,000
Zero Order Stream Restoration 8,793
Zero Order Stream Enhancement 4,994
Riparian Buffer Restoration 20
Riparian Wetlands - Small Stream Swam Restoration 42
Riparian Wetlands - Cypress-Gum Swam Enhancement 65
Non-Riparian Wetlands - Swam Forest Restoration 1,188
Non-Riparian Wetlands - Bay Forest Restoration 1,889
Non-Riparian Wetlands - Wet Hardwood Forest Restoration 327
Non-Riparian Wetlands - Bay Forest Enhancement 66
Non-Riparian Wetlands - Bay Forest Preservation 608
Total Stream 16,787 If
Total Buffer and Wetland 4,187 ac
Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project
Cataloging Unit 03020104
10
• Further assessment of site hydrology was conducted through the use of DrainMod
analysis. DrainMod is a field-scale hydrologic model originally developed for the design
of subsurface drainage systems. Its application is now widely used for the purposes of
evaluating lateral drainage effects of existing ditches and modeling for wetland
restoration purposes. The model incorporates long-term climatological data in concert
with site-specific model inputs. In this particular case, the model has been run utilizing
published conductivity rates for various soil series identified by licensed soil scientists of
LMG. In order to determine the drainage response relative to existing ditch size, multiple
DrainMod analyses were conducted utilizing various input parameters (Appendix D).
These models incorporated typical channel geometry observed for the large collector
canals (Barra, Mooney, etc.). The smaller lateral drainage features were also modeled to
determine conditions within the interior fields. Soil permeability measurements ranged
from 0.6in/hour to 6.Oinlhr. Long term climate data from Plymouth, NC was used to
prepare the 40- and 60-year hydrologic assessments.
0 Models can be divided into two principal geomorphic soil conditions: (1) very poorly
drained organic flats exhibiting moderate to thick organic surfaces and (2) poorly to very
poorly drained mineral flats with absent to thin organic surfaces. The organic flats tend
to be situated in lower landscape positions with representative soil types including
Belhaven, Conaby, Pungo, Pamlico, and Wasda. The mineral flats tend to be in slightly
higher landscapes of very broad interstream divides. Representative soil types of these
areas include Argent, Acredale, Rains, Roper and Pettigrew.
DrainMod utilizes Reference Wetland Simulation (RWS) in which typical reference soil
and drainage inputs are used to determine minimum hydrology requirements satisfying
404 wetland jurisdictional criteria. Separate runs are then analyzed to determine current
drainage alterations. On the basis of the RWS method, DrainMod simulations indicate
that organic flats on the Rutman Creek site are effectively drained by block ditching on
330-ft spacing provided ditch depths are equal to or greater than 2.5 ft. Conversely, if the
effective freeboard is raised to within 2.5 ft of the soil surface or less, then the wetland
0 hydrologic criterion is met. Mineral flats of the site are effectively drained given existing
Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project 11
Cataloging Unit 03020104
• ditch spacing provided ditch depths are 2 ft or greater. Conversely, if the effective
freeboard in these areas is less than 2 ft, then wetland hydrologic criterion is met. These
model results were consistent with observed water tables within unlined bore holes across
the site. LMG staff documented physical water table depths between 36" and 47" during
periods of normal rainfall.
Figure 8 depicts the location and extent of the viable restoration, enhancement and
preservation opportunities on the tract. A majority of the wetland restoration will be
accomplished through the installation of clay plugs within the main collector canals, the
removal of small lateral ditches, and re-contouring in areas of existing spoil material
and/or field crowns. In the lower reaches of the project, these collector canals will be
filled and returned to natural grade - thus restoring sheet flow conditions in the riparian
headwater valley of Rutman Creek. Zero order stream restoration techniques will be
applied to the entire 8,793 if within the project area (Figure 9). This approach focuses on
the re-establishment of characteristic hydroperiods via restored groundwater and surface
40 water inputs. Generally, these systems resemble linear riparian wetlands with channels
either absent or poorly defined depending upon slope, soil texture and conductivity, and
watershed size. Please refer to Table 1 for a list of community types to be restored,
enhanced, and preserved. The following narrative describes the methods for achieving
the proposed restoration and enhancement goals for each mitigation type.
B. Zero Order Stream Restoration
Low-gradient blackwater streams of the outer Coastal Plain tend to low in dissolved
oxygen (DO) and high in tannins. Low-flow conditions provide suitable habitat for a
variety of amphibians, reptiles, and aquatic invertebrates. Larger woody debris tends to
provide structure for niche habitat, serves as a source for detrital material for trophic
exchange, and increases roughness within the stream system. Site-specific topographic
survey information and LIDAR imaging indicate the presence of a valley slope of 0.0014.
This slope is consistent with other headwater systems in the outer Coastal Plain
supporting zero-order stream restoration (Figure 10). The low-gradient longitudinal
• profile will support a slow moving, backwater environment with high organic content.
Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project 12
Cataloging Unit 03020104
• The valley restoration is intended to simulate linear riparian wetland conditions. As such,
hydrology will be supported by saturation and periodic inundation resulting from
elevated groundwater levels. Soil profile descriptions indicate the presence of organic
muck within a more linear landscape position and bordered by mineral soils on the valley
shoulder. In light of these conditions, it is estimated that 8,793 if of zero-order stream
valley length (combined for two reaches) can be restored.
Zero-order stream restoration will be achieved via the re-establishment of braided, diffuse
flow conditions through the identified valley corridor. Restoration will not include the
construction of a defined channel. Rather, prescribed backfilling and/or plugging of the
larger canals in the vicinity of these reaches and re-direction of sheetflow to the restored
riparian wetlands will provide the surface water component. In addition, groundwater
elevations will be raised via the removal/plugging of drainage ditches. Within a 100-ft
wide valley corridor, stream restoration is viable. The length of the valley will be used to
determine the final linear footage of zero-order stream restoration. Areas outside of the
• 100-ft wide corridor (but still within the valley) are targeted for riparian wetland
restoration. Plantings consistent with small stream and riparian wetland communities of
the outer Coastal Plain will be established as part of the restoration effort. Figure 9
depicts the layout of the stream component of this project.
Construction of the stream will be implemented in a multi-phase approach. The initial
phase will involve removal of field crowns and contouring the stream valley corridor to
the appropriate grades. This will include back-filling of smaller lateral field ditches
within the footprint of the valley corridor. The bottom of the valley will range between
+3.5 ft to +5.0 ft MSL. Elevations of the adjacent riparian wetland areas will range from
+4.0 ft to +5.5 MSL. The valley will transition gently to interstream headwater flats and
mineral flats. In addition, disking of the fields and introduction of larger woody debris
will create appropriate microtopgraphy and surface roughness across the valley corridor.
It is anticipated that smaller, dendritic channels may form (particularly at the down-
gradient segments near Alligator Canal). The field work will be conducted prior to back-
0
Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project 13
Cataloging Unit 03020104
filling and/or plugging of Alligator Canal. This will allow for equipment to operate in
dry conditions prior to connection of the valley to up-gradient surface flow inputs.
Subsequent to grading in the field, Alligator Canal will be back-filled. Alligator Canal
currently bisects the former stream valley and re-directs surface flow toward Mooney
Canal and Old State Canal. The canal is approximately 6-ft deep and 18-ft wide. Final
elevations of the back-filled canal will range from +3.5' MSL within the bottom of the
valley to +4.5' MSL in the adjacent riparian wetlands. An estimated 20,800 cubic yards
of fill material will be required to achieve these elevations. A majority of this material
will be removed from the adjacent road bed.
The final phase of construction will involve the back-filling of the segment of Mooney
Canal in the vicinity of the stream valley corridor. Approximately 3,000 if of the canal
will be filled from its intersection with Alligator Canal and extending north and east to
the areas of proposed hardwood swamp forest restoration. Final elevations within the
• back-filled canal will range from +3.5' MSL (at the bottom of the valley) to +4.5' MSL
(in adjacent riparian wetlands). An estimated 18,500 cubic yards of fill material will be
required to achieve these elevations. A majority of this material will be removed from
the adjacent roadbed and from the re-contouring of the farm fields as described above.
All design elevations are intended to maximize water retention within headwater
wetlands, while concurrently allowing for sufficient surface water inputs to down-
gradient valley corridors. Ditch plugs will be located at existing outlets to Old State
Canal and the AIWW. The elevations of these plugs (and other properly sited plugs
throughout the property) will result in the re-establishment of characteristic groundwater
hydrology. However, during abnormally high flow events, surface water will be able to
spill over these plugs and outlet to off-site drainage canals (serving as emergency
overflow outlets). The primary emergency flow outlet for the project site will be located
at the down-gradient terminus of Bama Canal (just north of the AIWW). The current
invert elevation of Bama Canal (near its intersection with the AIWW) is -1.0' MSL. A 7-
ft clay plug is proposed for this area and will be installed approximately 800' from the
Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project 14
Cataloging Unit 03020104
• intersection with the AIWW. This will increase the invert elevation to +6.0 MSL. The
up-gradient terminus of Bama Canal (near its intersection with Old State Canal) will be
plugged to an elevation of +7 ft MSL. Doing so will allow for water retention within the
site. During abnormally high flow events, surface water will be directed toward the
AIWW outlet. Final elevations for each of the two plugs maybe adjusted during the
course of the project depending upon observed flooding duration and frequency. During
the projected three-year construction period (for the entire mitigation site), outlets will be
closely monitored to ensure that seedling growth and development is not compromised by
extended periods of site inundation.
C. Stream Enhancement
Stream enhancement is targeted for 7,994 linear feet of the lower Rutman Creek system.
This enhancement will include both of the existing reaches between the restored zero-
order portion of the project and the existing first-order channel that will be preserved
(Figure 9). Given the extent of the canopy coverage within this zone, enhancement goals
• will focus primarily on the restoration of a natural hydroperiod. Planting of an
appropriate hardwood community would likely be confined to areas of road bed removal
and/or spoil pile removal.
As identified above, the entire reach of Rutman Creek from existing agricultural fields to
the down-gradient terminus of the project has been affected by adjacent land use
practices. The natural hydroperiod of the system has been altered via the disconnection
of expansive headwater wetlands, re-routing of much of the headwater surface water
inflow, adjacent ditching and bedding, and prior road construction. Collectively these
practices have significantly reduced the frequency and duration of saturation and
inundation. This is evidenced by the oxidation of surficial organics and lack of observed
water tables in portions of the stream reach and adjacent wetlands. Other areas of the
stream are subject to ponding due to the presence of road beds impeding flow. Alteration
of the hydroperiod and compartmentalization of the stream compromises the functional
integrity of the system.
•
Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project 15
Cataloging Unit 03020104
• Actions implemented to promote stream and wetland enhancement include: 1) connection
of the stream to headwater wetlands and restored zero-order stream reaches; 2)
backfilling and/or plugging of adjacent drainage ditches; 3) removal of one road bed; and
4) installation of properly sized culverts (including installation of floodplain culverts) of
another road bed. Characteristic flow and wetland hydrology will be restored along this
section of the creek. In doing so, nutrient uptake/transformation, surface water storage,
and wildlife refuge functions within the system will be enhanced.
At the present time, flow is restricted at the two existing road crossings. The road bed
that bisects the northeastern branch of Rutman Creek would be removed and the adjacent
ditches will be filled and contoured to the natural grade. Via removal of the 2-ft road
bed, an unobstructed hydrologic connection to downstream waters will be reestablished
for this portion of the reach. Approximately 150 bald cypress and black gum seedlings
would be planted along the former road bed area.
• The remaining access road, near the intersection of the two tributaries of Rutman Creek,
will be redesigned to provide for drainage of the upstream reaches. A total of three (3)
36" culverts will be installed to handle base flow within the system. Two additional 24"
floodplain culverts will be installed at elevations 12 to 18 inches above the invert of the
natural channel to facilitate drainage during high flow events. Re-establishment of
natural hydroperiods will ameliorate effects of temperature change, enhance energy flow
and nutrient cycling with downstream waters, increase primary productivity (highest in
pulsed flood conditions), and enhance habitat for aquatic species.
D. Riparian Buffer and Wetland Restoration
A total of 42 acres associated with the restoration of the zero-order stream have been
targeted for riparian wetland restoration. These areas are most accurately characterized
as small stream swamp communities as defined by Schafale and Weakley (1990). The
dominant canopy species will include bald cypress and swamp tupelo. Other sub-canopy
species will include ironwood (Carpinus carolinium) and American holly (Ilex opaca).
Representative species will be planted within the lower elevations of the valley and will
Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project 16
Cataloging Unit 03020104
• transition into the non-riparian swamp forest community. A 100-ft corridor along the
zero-order stream restoration reach (50 feet on either side) will be identified as riparian
buffer restoration as part of PCS's proposal for flexible buffer mitigation. These re-
forested areas will provide for the same nutrient retention functions as riparian buffers
along blue-line streams. The zero-order buffer restoration will encompass approximately
20 acres.
Gradingy and Hydroloizic Restoration: Activities associated with the riparian wetland
restoration will be conducted in concert with the zero-order stream restoration.
Contouring and grading associated with the stream will establish the appropriate
elevations throughout the valley that will allow for connectivity to the riparian floodplain.
Characteristic hydroperiods will be re-established via plugging and/or backfilling of
ditches, re-directing overland sheetflow to the valley features, and increasing surface
roughness. Initial grading work will focus on the filling of interior ditches on the tract.
Plugs consisting of finer, compacted material will be used at prescribed intervals to
• reduce potential subsurface drainage within the larger backfilled ditches. Final elevations
of plugs will promote water retention within the site under most hydrologic conditions,
but will allow for an outlet under abnormally high flow conditions. Doing so will
balance the goals and objectives for re-establishment of characteristic hydroperiods while
mitigating the potential for hydrologic trespass.
Site preparation will include disking of existing fields to increase roughness and diffuse
flow conditions across the site. Areas that are graded will also exhibit microtopographic
breaks to enhance diffuse flow. Low-elevation earthen berms will be installed
perpendicular to backfilled ditches to decrease surface runoff and prevent gully erosion of
the former ditch pathways. Water-control structures may be maintained at critical outlet
points during construction of the project reduce the risk of prolonged flooding
particularly within the early stages of plant growth/development.
Vegetative Restoration: Restored riparian wetlands will be planted with species typical
• of the small stream swamp system. Plantings will likely include bald cypress, swamp
Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project 17
Cataloging Unit 03020104
tupelo, ironwood, river birch, and red bay. Tree species will be planted on 10-ft spacings,
•
corresponding to 435 trees per acre. Planting will be conducted during the winter or early
spring (i.e. January 15 to March 15). It is expected that other characteristic species will
recruit naturally into these restored areas upon successful hydrologic restoration. Table 2
provides more information regarding species quantities and composition for the small
stream swamp community.
Table 2. Planting Plan for Small Stream Swamp Community
Small Stream Swam 42 ac Riparian Restoration
Common Name Scientific Name % Composition # Planted
River Birch Betula nigra 20 3,654
Red Bay Persea borbonia 20 3,654
Pond Pine Pinus serotina 10 1,827
American Holly Ilex opaca 10 3,654
Swamp Tupelo Nyssa biflora 20 3,654
Bald Cypress Taxodium distichum 20 3,654
TOTAL 20,097
E. Riparian Wetland Enhancement
Approximately 65 ac of existing riparian wetlands associated with the run of Rutman
Creek will be enhanced via the removal of drainage features, removal of road beds, and
installation of culverts. Such actions will result in the re-establishment of characteristic
hydrology. In addition, the restoration of headwater wetlands and zero-order streams will
re-establish the original watershed size and extent. Flow from the contributing watershed
and removal of barriers to flow will promote increased nutrient uptake/filtration,
sediment retention, energy exchange, habitat complexity, and primary productivity - all
documented functions for unaltered pulsed-flooding systems.
F. Non-Riparian Wetland Restoration
A total of 3,404 ac have been targeted for non-riparian wetland restoration. A majority of
this acreage is currently managed for agricultural production. Additional restoration
• areas occur in locations affected by prior silvicultural management. Restoration will
Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project 18
Cataloging Unit 03020104
0 include the plugging and/or backfilling of small lateral ditches within the fields and
plugging of the larger collector ditches and canals. The following types of nonriparian
wetland communities will restored as part of the comprehensive watershed restoration
project: (1) bay forest, (2) headwater swamp forest, and (3) hardwood mineral flats. The
location and extent of these communities has been identified based upon the presence of
suitable soils and landscape position.
Areas directly adjacent to the small stream swamp and zero order stream restoration will
transition to swamp forest wetlands located at the headwaters of the riparian wetlands.
The remaining swamp forest acreage will be located in the vicinity of New Lake, in the
northern portion of the project area. The swamp forest will transition into the bay forest
community, occupying the broad, organic flats in the central portion of the project. The
nonriparian wet hardwood forest community (327 ac) will be restored in areas consisting
of poorly drained mineral soils just south of New Lake Road. This habitat is currently
considered one of North Carolina's most threatened natural communities, with less than
• 6,000 acres remaining due to systematic drainage impacts and intensive logging
practices.
Grading and H dy rologic Restoration: Prior-converted (PC) fields of the remaining
acreage of the tract provide for approximately 1,889 ac of bay forest restoration and
1,188 ac of headwater swamp forest. Both of these community types occupy broad
headwater landscape positions and consist of deeper organic soils. The transition
between community types is often subtle - with swamp forests generally situated near
stream heads or in slightly lower landscape positions of interstream areas of the outer
Coastal Plain. Swamp forests can be distinguished from other peatland communities by
the presence and dominance of species such as bald cypress and swamp tupelo (Schafale
and Weakley 1990). An additional 327 acres have been identified as suitable for the
restoration of mineral hardwood flats based upon soil types and landscape positions.
Generally, these areas occur along slightly higher elevations and broad interstream
divides. As a result, much of the proposed restored habitat on the project site is located
• in elevations of +8 MSL near New Lake Road.
Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project 19
Cataloging Unit 03020104
Characteristic hYdroperiods will be re-established via plugging and/or backfilling of
ditches and removal of most of the road beds currently serving as points of ingress/egress
to the siite. Initial grading work will focus on the filling of interior ditches on the tract.
Plugs consisting of finer, compacted material will be used at prescribed intervals to
reduce potential subsurface drainage within the larger backfilled ditches. Final elevations
of plugs will retain surface water under most conditions. During extreme flow events
surface water will be able to outlet to the emergency outlets. Providing for overflow
outlets helps to ensure the growth and development of young seedlings susceptible to
mortality from prolonged periods of inundation. At the same time, it minimizes
hydrologic trespass concerns for adjacent property owners. Water-control structures at
critical outlet points will also be maintained through the course of site construction.
Monitoring of water elevations during this period will help to determine final invert
elevations suitable for the long-term viability of the restored wetland. Earthen berms
(approximately 12" to 18") will be installed perpendicular to backfilled ditches to
decrease surface runoff and prevent gully erosion of former drainageways. Site
. preparation will also include disking of existing fields to increase surface roughness and
promote diffuse flow conditions.
Vegetative Restoration: Restored non-riparian wetlands will be planted with species
characteristically occurring in unaltered sites. Plantings within the headwater swamp
forest component will likely include bald cypress, swamp tupelo, red bay, and Atlantic
white cedar. Restored bay forest wetlands will be planted with higher densities of pond
pine, sweet bay, red bay, and Atlantic white cedar. Plantings within the mineral
hardwood flats will include swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii), laurel oak
(Quercus laurifolia), and cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda). Additional hardwoods such
as black gum (Nyssa biflora), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and ironwood
(Carpinus caroliniana) will also be planted in these areas. Stems will be planted on 10-ft
spacings, corresponding to 435 trees per acre. Table 3 identifies the proposed species
composition by community type. Note that final seedling quantities will be dependent
upon nursery availability. Planting will be conducted during the winter or early spring
• (i.e. January 15 to March 15). It is expected that other characteristic species (i.e.
Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project 20
Cataloging Unit 03020104
• American titi, loblolly bay, and fetterbush) will recruit naturally into these restored areas
upon successful hydrologic restoration.
Table 3. Planting Plan for Non-Riparian Wetland Restoration

•
Swam Forest 1,188 ac. Non-Riparian Restoration
Common Name Scientific Name % Composition # Planted
Swamp Tupelo Nyssa biflora 20 103,356
Bald Cypres Taxodium distichum 20 103,356
Atlantic White Cedar Chamaecyparis thyoides 20 103,356
Pond Pine Pinus serotina 20 103,356
Red Bay Persea borbonia 10 51,678
Tulip Poplar Liriodendron tulipifera 10 51,678
TOTAL 516,780
Bay Forest 1,889 ac. Non-Riparian Restoration
Common Name Scientific Name % Composition # Planted
Loblolly Bay Gordonia lasianthus 15 123,257
Red Bay Persea borbonia 15 123,257
Sweetbay Magnolia virginiana 15 123,257
Pond Pine Pinus serotina 25 205,429
Atlantic White Cedar Chamaecyparis thyoides 15 123,257
Swamp Tupelo Nyssa biflora 15 123,257
TOTAL 821,715
Wet Hardwood Forest 327 ac. Non-Riparian Restoration
Common Name Scientific Name % Composition # Planted
Swamp Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii 20 28,449
Laurel Oak Quercus laurifolia 25 35,561
Cherrybark Oak Quercus falcata 15 21,337
Swamp Tupelo Nyssa biflora 15 21,337
Ironwood Carpinus carolinium 15 21,337
American Elm Ulnus americana 10 14,225
TOTAL 142,245
GRAND TOTAL 1,480,740
Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project
Cataloging Unit 03020104
21
• G. Non-Riparian Wetland Enhancement and Preservation
As described above, prior site management practices have altered wetland hydrology to
varying degrees. Areas influenced by the lateral drainage effect of ditches but meeting
the criteria for jurisdictional wetlands have been identified for wetland enhancement.
Wetland enhancement is proposed in existing forested areas that no longer exhibit
saturation to the surface and periods of inundation (characteristic hydrology for bay forest
wetlands). Re-establishment of characteristic groundwater hydrology will be
accomplished via the removal of the drainage ditches. Generally, wetland enhancement
areas will not be planted due to the existing stand of bay forest vegetation. Based upon
site evaluations and modeling of drainage effect of ditches (given hydrologic
conductivity of soil types), it is estimated that approximately 66 acres of bay forest
wetlands can be enhanced.
Approximately 608 ac of existing non-riparian bay forest wetlands will be preserved
within existing relatively unaltered forested areas of the tract. Dominant canopy and sub-
canopy species of this community type include pond pine, red bay, loblolly bay,
American white cedar, and red maple. Common species comprising the dense understory
include sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana), fetterbush (Lyonia lucida), inkberry (Ilex
glabra), and American titi. These areas will be protected via the conservation easement
deed to be recorded for the entire mitigation site. Together with other restored wetland
and stream areas, the wetland preservation component is integral for system-level
restoration and functional uplift. The combined acreage of the restoration and
preservation effort will provide a unique opportunity for expansive habitat protection and
connectivity to adjacent refuge areas.
6.0 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Given the scope of the proposed work, a three year construction schedule is proposed.
Phase 1 (Fall 2008/Winter 2009) construction will begin at the northern terminus of the
project (near New Lake) and will include approximately 320 acres of bay forest and 680
• acres of swamp forest habitat, totaling 800 acres. Phase 2 (2009-2010) work will
Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project 22
Cataloging Unit 03020104
• encompass approximately 1,200 acres, consisting primarily of bay forest habitat and
areas of wet hardwood flats. Phase 3 (2010-2011) will include the remaining 1,500 acres,
including the zero order stream portion of the project (Figure 10).
In order to meet the demands for plant material generated from this project, coordination
with regional nurseries was initiated in June 2008. These nurseries have expressed
interest in providing WRC with the requested quantities on an annual basis. Given the
significant amount of plants required for this project, seedling quantities and composition
will be subject to change pending nursery availability.
Subsequent to concurrence of the mitigation plan by the US Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) and the NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ), WRC will submit a Nationwide
#27 permit application for authorization to backfill and plug field ditches and canals. A
multi-phase sediment and erosion control plan will also be developed and submitted to
the Division of Land Quality. Upon receipt of appropriate permit authorizations from
0 respective agencies, earthwork for Phase I of the mitigation site will be initiated.
The projected timeline for this project is subject to change based upon agency
concurrence and receipt of subsequent permit authorizations.
7.0 POST-CONSTRUCTION MONITORING AND MANAGEMENT
Upon agency concurrence of the final wetland mitigation plan, mitigation site activities
will be initiated. Staff environmental scientists will be present during project
construction to ensure that the work is consistent with the proposed design. An `as-built'
survey will be prepared to document site conditions immediately post-construction. Each
phase of the site will be monitored annually for a period of 5 years (or until such time
deemed successful) whichever is longer, to document site development over time. Each
annual monitoring report (AMR) will be submitted by December 31St of that year and will
contain detailed monitoring information for the progress of each phase to date.
•
Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project 23
Cataloging Unit 03020104
Based upon the current timetable, it is anticipated that Phase 1 will be completed in early
2009. Thus, the corresponding as-built report is anticipated to be submitted in Spring
2009. Subsequent phases will be completed in 2010 and 2011.
Monitoring reports (submitted annually to reviewing agencies) will include results of
vegetative monitoring and photographic documentation of site conditions. As part of an
adaptive management approach, monitoring reports will identify any contingency
measures that may need to be employed to remedy any site deficiencies..
A. Wetland Restoration Success Criteria
The wetland restoration effort will be evaluated based upon performance criteria related
to vegetative density and wetland hydrology. The primary success criteria for the
Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project will be:
. (1) Demonstrated density ofplanted species to meet or exceed 320 trees per acre at the end
of 3 years (post planting) and 260 trees per acres at the end of 5 years (post planting). l
(2) The hydrologic criterion will is premised on the specific community type to be restored.
(a) For the nonriverine wet hardwood forest community (mineral soils), the
hydrologic criterion will be the establishment of a static water table at, or within,
12 " of the soil surface for 6% of the growing season`' (equivalent to 15 days
based upon SCS-established growing season March 13'h through November 20th)
during periods of normal rainfall.
(b) For the nonriverine bay forest and swamp forest communities (organic soils),
the hydrologic criterion will be the establishment of a static water table at, or
within, 12" of the soil surface for 8% of the growing season' (equivalent to 20
days based upon SCS-established growing season March 13`h through November
20th) during periods of normal rainfall.
• I Volunteer species may be counted toward meeting the success criteria upon evaluation of site-specific conditions and
concurrence by USACE staff.
2 As defined by the Soil Conservation Service, the growing season for Hyde County is 252 days.
Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project 24
Cataloging Unit 03020104
(c) For the small stream swamp (riparian) community, the hydrologic criterion will
be the establishment of a static water table at, or within, 12 " of the soil surface
for 10% of the growing season2 (equivalent to 25 days based upon SCS-
established growing season March 13`h through November 20th) during periods
of normal rainfall.
Vegetation Monitoring: The vegetation monitoring protocol is adapted from the accepted
methods used for wetland restoration sites within North Carolina. Given the size of the
project, 1% of the planted wetland areas will be monitored via the establishment of
permanent 0.10-acre plots. These areas include approximately 3,446 acres in four
different habitat types. Given the proposed acreage, a total of 345 plots will be
established. Approximately 80 will be included in Phase 1, 120 in Phase 2, and 145 in
Phase 3. GPS coordinates for the centers of each sampling plot will be recorded and
included with the `as-built' survey and subsequent annual monitoring reports. During
monitoring, surviving planted individuals and volunteer individuals will be identified and
• enumerated within each plot.
Hydrology Monitoring: Shallow groundwater hydrology will be monitored via one
hundred seventy (170) automated wells (RDS, Inc. WM-20s) located within the
restoration and enhancement areas. This equates to approximately one well for every 20
acres of wetland area to be restored. Wells will be installed in accordance with
installation methods outlined in the Wetlands Regulatory Assistance Program (WRAP)
Technical Note 00-02 (Sprecher 2000). Water levels will be recorded once daily. Data
will be downloaded from the wells every three months (i.e. once quarterly). Data from
well downloads will be compiled and graphically displayed to demonstrate hydroperiods
of monitored areas.
Annual monitoring reports will provide quantitative data of vegetative success,
comparative hydrographs (restoration area vs. reference area), qualitative observations,
and conclusions pertaining to mitigation site development. Monitoring reports will be
•
Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project 25
Cataloging Unit 03020104
0 submitted no later than December 311h of each year. Monitoring will be initiated upon
completion of each phase of the project.
If the site does not fulfill established success criteria, contingency measures will be
employed to remedy site deficiencies. Remedial actions may include but are not limited
to the installation deer tubes to reduce herbivory and mechanical/physical removal of
invasive or exotic species. Mechanized earth-work (e.g. selective re-grading) may also
be conducted if targeted hydrology is not achieved. In addition, supplemental planting
may be necessary in areas that do not fulfill the vegetative success criteria.
The recorded conservation easement deed will ensure the protection of the watershed
restoration project in perpetuity. The easement will prohibit any activities (e.g.
timbering, farming, building, etc.) that would alter the environmental state of the
restoration project. The conservation easement deed will be conveyed to an approved
land trust or conservation entity. Potential easement holders include the NC Coastal
• Federation, the NC Agricultural Foundation (a non-profit 501(c)3 charitable and
educational entity of NC State University) , or the NC Wildlife Resources Commission.

B. Zero-Order Stream Success Criteria
Construction of the zero-order stream/headwater wetland system will occur during Phase
3 of construction (tentatively scheduled for 2011). In addition to the wetland restoration
information, the Phase 3 as-built report will also include cross-sectional and longitudinal
profile data for the restored valleys associated with the lower reaches of Rutman Creek.
Cross-sectional data will be collected at 1,000' intervals throughout the restored reach.
Longitudinal data will be provided along the entire length of the restored reaches,
approximately 8,800 linear feet.
Monitoring of these riparian headwater systems will focus on wetland hydrology,
vegetative survival, and precipitation-driven flow events. While the methods regarding
the monitoring of hydrology and vegetation are well established, flow documentation
• within zero-order stream systems is the topic of on-going research throughout the Coastal
Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project 26
Cataloging Unit 03020104
• Plain. Both qualitative and quantitative information will be used to properly document
the occurrence of flow within the proposed restored zero-order stream valley.
Quantitative data will be collected using automated shallow groundwater monitoring
wells. Several well transects (lower, middle, upper) will be established throughout the
two valleys to document inundation. Data collected from these wells will then be
correlated with elevation data from the longitudinal profiles to infer flow. Site visits will
also be conducted following rain events to document the upstream extent of observed
flow within each reach. GPS data will be collected to mark this location. These data will
also be used to calibrate a regression analysis which will establish a relationship between
rain event size and stream flow. This analysis will then be extrapolated to future rain
events to highlight the number of flow events on an annual basis.
Qualitative data will be collected during the on-site investigations. Any evidence of flow
such as sediment scour, wrack line deposition, or channel formation will documented
• with GPS photo-points and included in the AMR. All quantitative and qualitative data
will be used to document the upstream limit of flow, which will provide the basis for
length of successful zero order stream restoration (i.e. valley length).
The primary success criteria for the Riparian Headwater/Zero Order Stream system will
be:
1) Documentation of 2 flow events within a normal rainfall year in 3 of the S years of
monitoring; and
2) Demonstrated density of planted species to meet or exceed 320 trees per acre at the
end of 3 years (post planting) and 260 trees per acres at the end of S years (post-
planting). s

3 Volunteer species may be counted toward meeting the success criteria upon evaluation of site-specific conditions and
concurrence by USACE staff.
Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project 27
Cataloging Unit 03020104
• 8.0 CONCLUSION
The Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project will effectively replace identified
stream and wetland functions of those areas impacted by the PCS mine continuation
project. This restoration effort provides a unique opportunity to re-establish and protect a
vast headwater wetland/stream complex contiguous with Pocosin Lakes National
Wildlife Refuge and the Pungo River Estuary. In doing so, discernable water quality and
habitat benefits may be realized on both the local watershed level and within the lower
Tar-Pamlico River Basin. The connectivity of preserved lands will contribute
significantly to refuge, feeding, and breeding habitat for resident and migratory fauna.
The site will be protected in perpetuity via a conservation easement deed. The grantee of
the deed will be an approved land trust or conservation entity responsible for long-term
site management and protection. Over time, the protected headwater stream and wetland
complex will develop into a self-sustaining community providing functions characteristic
of unaltered wetland and streams systems of the region.
•
•
Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project 28
Cataloging Unit 03020104
• 9.0 SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Griffith et al. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Corvallis, OR.
Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands (Second Edition). Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 2000. Classifications and Water Quality
Standards Applicable to Surface Water and Wetlands of North Carolina. Raleigh,
NC.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 2004. Tar-Pamlico River Basinwide Water
Quality Plan. Raleigh, NC.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakely. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina. Third approximation. N.C. Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh,
N.C.
Skaggs, R.W. et al. 1995. Reference Simulations for Evaluating Wetland Hydrology, in
Campbell, K. (ed.), Versatility of Wetlands in the Agricultural Landscape.
• American Society of Agricultural Engineers, pp. 1-10.
Sprecher, S. W. (2000). "Installing Monitoring Wells/Piezometers in Wetlands," ERDC
TN-WRAP-00-02, U.S. Army Research and Development Center, Vicksburg,
MS.
Thornwaite, C.W. and J.R. Mather. The Water Balance. Philadelphia, PA; Drexel
Institute of Technology, Climatological Laboratory, Publication No. 8.
Thom, B.G. 1967. Coastal and Fluvial Landforms: Horry and Marion Counties, South
Carolina. Louisiana State University Coastal Studies Institute. Coastal Studies
Series 19, Technical Report 44. Baton Rouge, LA.
USDA-SCS. 1981. Soil Survey of Washington County, North Carolina.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2001. Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL) 01-01.
Guidance for the Establishment and Maintenance of Compensatory Mitigation
Projects under the Corps Regulatory Program Pursuant to Section 404(a) of the
Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. 13 pp.
Walbridge, M.R. 1993. Functions and values of forested wetlands in the southern United
States. Journal of Forestry 91: 15-19.
is
Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project 29
Cataloging Unit 03020104
• Walton, W.C. 1989. Analytical Groundwater Modeling. Lewis Publishers: Chelsea,
Michigan. 173 pp.

•
Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project 30
Cataloging Unit 03020104
•
APPENDIX A.
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
40
0
•
0
•

Z
Rutman Creek Land Management Group, Inc.
Watershed Restoration Project Environmental Consultants
Wilmington, N.C.
February 2008
Site Documentation
Photos
A view of project area adjacent to Mooney Canal.
A view of a typical lateral drainage ditch throughout property.
s
•
•
Rutman Creek Land Management Group, Inc.
Watershed Restoration Project Environmental Consultants
Wilmington, N.C.
February 2008
;nlr-_
Site Documentation
Photos
A view of active farmfields.
•
0
0

Rutman Creek Land Management Group, Inc.
Watershed Restoration Project Environmental Consultants
Wilmington, N.C.
February 2008
Site Documentation
Photos
A view of typical water control structure in Mooney Canal.
A view of Bama Canal flowing towards the ICWW.
•
•

A view of flooding adjacent to Mooney Canal adjacent to Rutman Creek.
•
Rutman Creek Land Management Group, Inc.
Watershed Restoration Project Environmental Consultants Site Documentation
Wilmington, N.C. Photos
February 2008
A view of Clay Canal draining into Mooney Canal.
•
•
A view of Rutman Creek near the southwestern property boundary .
•
Rutman Creek Land Management Group' Inc. Watershed Restoration Project Environmental Consultants Site Documentation
Wilmington, N.C. Photos
February 2008
A view of Alligator Canal draining into Mooney Canal.
•
•
A view of large bald cypress found in Cypress-Gum Swamp (lower Rutman Creek)
•
Land Management Group, Inc.
Rutman Creek Environmental Consultants Site Documentation
Watershed Restoration Project Wilmington, N.C. Photos
June 2008
Evidence of aerobic decomposition in lower Rutman Creek
•
•
•
Rutman Creek Land Management Group, Inc.
Watershed Restoration Project Environmental Consultants Site Documentation
Wilmington, N.C. Photos
June 2008
View of roadbed scheduled for removal during Phase 3 construction.
A view of Cypress-Gum Swamp (lower Rutman Creek)

APPENDIX B.
WETLAND DELINEATION NARRATIVE

• Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project
Wetland Delineation Narrative
June 2008
1. Introduction
Land Management Group, Inc. (LMG) conducted wetland delineation work on the 4,539-acre
Rutman Creek project area. Approximately 3,400 acres of the property has been historically
ditched and cleared for conversion to agricultural fields. Additional wooded areas in close
proximity to existing ditches have been affected via prescribed drainage improvements and prior
silvicultural practices. The balance of the property consists of relatively undisturbed wooded areas
exhibiting characteristic wetland hydrology and vegetative assemblages.
The wetland delineation work included an assessment of the existing drainage network transecting
• the property. Field ditches and canals were examined for the presence or absence of a ordinary
high water mark. Routine wetland delineation methods were employed in accordance with the
1987 COE Wetland Delineation Manual for relatively undisturbed wetland areas (particularly along
the lower reaches of Rutman Creek on the southwestern portion of the project area). Additional
information was collected with respect to MRCS Prior-Converted (PC) determinations. In wooded
areas affected by site drainage, additional assessments included the use of the North Carolina
Scope and Effect Guide, DRAINMOD analysis, analysis of short-term groundwater level data, and
observed field indicators. The following is a summary of findings for use in obtaining a final
jurisdictional determination.
II. Results
Approximately 65 acres of wetlands were delineated in the vicinity of lower Rutman Creek,
beginning at the intersection of Higginsport Road and extending 5,700 feet to the northeast. The
wetland boundary has been marked with pink and black-striped flagging. The delineation is based
is upon the presence of hydric soils (Dorovan muck), hydrophytic vegetation, and observed
hydrologic indicators (including drainage pattern in wetlands, water marks on trees, and saturation
. within 12 inches of the soil surface). Please refer to attached COE routine wetland determination
forms documenting observed site conditions. Figure 1 depicts the location and extent of delineated
wetlands.
Forested areas located north of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW) were also evaluated as
part of the delineation effort. Nearly all these areas are comprised of relatively undisturbed bay
forest wetlands. In certain locations, 4- to 5-ft ditches have been historically excavated. Belhaven
muck is the predominant mapped soil unit in these locations. Based upon the NC Scope and
Effect Guide, the calculated lateral effect for this soil group (Group D, non-sandy) is 415 ft to 460 ft.
LMG believes this to be not supported by observed field indicators (i.e. muck surface and
prevalence of FACW or wetter species). More conservative lateral drainage estimates of 100 ft
have been used based upon available well data (see Appendix - of the mitigation plan) and
DRAINMOD analysis (see Appendix D). Therefore, existing roads and 100-ft zones adjacent to
each side of existing ditches have been identified as non-jurisdictional areas. The remaining 608
acres of bay forest have been delineated as jurisdictional wetlands (refer to Figure 1). These
• wetlands will be targeted for preservation within the Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project.
Agricultural fields have been historically cleared and drained via prescribed drainage
improvements. The existing network of ditches and canals directs surface water to the west
(toward Rutman Creek). Some of the flow is diverted south to the AIWW. Existing ditches range in
depth from 2-ft to 12-ft. All of the agricultural fields have been effectively drained as evidenced by
observed field indicators, short-term well data, and DRAINMOD analysis. The current owner of the
property obtained NRCS PC determinations for those areas actively farmed for soybean, corn, and
winter wheat crop production.
Field ditches and canals were evaluated using field indicators for determination of jurisdictional
waters. In particular, Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL) 05-05 for ordinary high water mark
(OHWM) identification was utilized. It should be noted that nearly all of the collector ditches and
main outlet canals have existing water-control structures. Adjustments to flashboard risers of these
• structures have significant effects on the water surface elevation and flow. It is evident that the
smaller lateral ditches within the fields do not have indicators of an OHWM. However, larger
i collector ditches and the primary outlet canal (Mooney Canal) exhibit scour, wracking, matted
vegetation, and water staining. Based upon these observed physical indicators of flow, these
canals have been identified as jurisdictional relatively permanent waters (RPWs). This includes
approximately 53,688 linear feet of collector ditches and canals (refer to Figure 1). The major
ditches and canals that were considered jurisdictional typically carry high flow volumes given the
degree of manipulation and size of the watershed. At the time of assessment, water levels varied
from 3' to 6' depending upon the invert elevation of the water control structures. All ditches and
canals exhibit deep, incised banks with varying degrees of sloughing. None of the man-made
ditches exhibited characteristics of manipulated streams.
•
0
•
•
0
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: PCS Mitigation - Rutman Creek Watershed Date: June 12, 2008
Applicant / Owner: Cal Miller / PCS Phosphate County: Hyde
Investigator: Donald Beale / Wes Fryar State: N.C
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes X No. Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No- X Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes. No.X Plot ID:
(explain on reverse if needed) Pt. 1 Wetland (flag A-7)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1, Taxodium distichum tree Obl g, Osmunda regalis herb Obl
2. Nyssa aquatica tree Obl 10 Vitus rotundifolia herb Fac
3. Liquidambar styraciflua tree/sh Fac+ 11 parthenocissus quinquefolia herb Fac
4. Acer rubrum tree/sh Fac 12.
5. Persea borbonia shrub Fac 13.
6. Baccharis halimifolia shrub Fac 14.
7 oxico en ron ra scans herb Fac 15.
8 oo war is areolata herb Obl 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 91 %
Remarks: Wetland Vegetation Present Based Upon Greater than 50% of the Plant Specie are a not
Classified as FAC-OBL in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands. Sample p of was taken...
HYDROLOGY
X Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
x Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other Inundated
x Saturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available X Water Marks
Drift Lines

Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.) Secondary Indicators:

Depth to Free Water in Pit: 8 (in.) Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
x Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 8 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
•
C,
Map Unit Name DoA - Dorovan
(Series and Phase): Drainage Class: Very poorly drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): thermic Typic Haplosaprists Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_ NoX
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-8 10YR 2/2 fine sandy loam
8-18 10YR 3/1 fine sandy loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon - High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Within a Wetland? Yes X No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes X No
Remarks: Location (descri e) is ' not classified as a wetland based upon the criteria set forth in the 1987
Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Investigator: Donald Beale / Wes Fryar
Land Management Group, Inc.
PO Box 2522
Wilmington, NC 28402
Applicant: Cal Miller
Wetland Resource Center
3907 Bowen Road
Canal Winchester, Ohio 43110
0

r?
0
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: PCS Mitigation - Rutman Creek Watershed Date: June 12, 2008
Applicant / Owner: Cal Miller / PCS Phosphate County: Hyde
Investigator: Donald Beale / Wes Fryar State: N .C.
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes X No. Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No-_ Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes• No •X Plot ID:
(explain on reverse if needed) Pt. 1 Upland (flag A-7)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Quercus falcata tree Facu- g,
2. Pinus taeda tree Fac 10.
3, Liquidambar styraciflua tree Fac+ 11.
4. Quercus nigra tree Fac 12.
5. Myrica cerifera shrub Fac 13.
6. Baccharis halimifolia shrub Fac 14.
7 Smilax ro un i o is herb Fac 15.
$ mi ax bona-nox herb Fac 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 75%
a not
Remarks: Wetland Vegetation Present Based Upon Greater than 50% of the Plant Specie 7
npotvwas
Classified as FAC-OBL in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands. Sample taken...
HYDROLOGY
X Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
x Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: _ Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: none (in.) Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: '18 (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: >18 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: No apparent indicators of hydrology.
SOILS
•
•
Map Unit Name
AcA - Acredale
(Series and Phase):
Drainage Class: Poorly drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): thermic Typic Endoaqualfs Confirm Mapped Type? Yes NoX
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-8 10YR 5/2 silt loam
8-18 10YR 6/2 silt loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors x Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No indicators of hydric soils.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
Hydric Soils Present? Yes
Remarks: Location (describe)
Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands
No X Is the Sampling Point
No X Within a Wetland? Yes_ No X
NoX
ssified as a wetland based upon the criteria set forth in the 1987
Manual.
Investigator: Donald Beale / Wes Fryar
Land Management Group, Inc.
PO Box 2522
Wilmington, NC 28402
Applicant: Cal Miller
Wetland Resource Center
3907 Bowen Road
Canal Winchester, Ohio 43110
0
•
•
•
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: PCS Mitigation - Rutman Creek Watershed Date:June 2008
Applicant / Owner: Cal Miller/ PCS Phosphate County: Brunswick
Investigator: Brent Manning/Nick Howell State: N.C.

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes X No- Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No- X Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes- No •X Plot ID:
(explain on reverse if needed) Bay Forest Wetland
(Drained)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Persea borbonia Tree FACW 9
2. Magnolia virginiana Tree FACW+ 10.
3. Liquidambar styraciflua Tree FAC+ 11.
4. Pinus taeda Tree FAC 12.
5. Vaccinium corymbosum Shrub FACW 13.
6. Lyonia lucida Shrub FACW 14.
7. Acer rubrum Tree FAC 15.
8. Smilax laurifolia Vine FACW+ 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 100%
Remarks: Wetland Vegetation Present Based Upon Greater than 50% of the Plant Spec' s e not
Classified as FAC-OBL in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands. Samp of was taken...
lat: 35.5736
Ion: -76.3861
HYDROLOGY
x Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
x Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other Inundated
-Saturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: None (in.) Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
X24 Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No indicators of hydrology present. Data point collected within 200' of drainage ditch
(DRAINMOD results -Appendix D).
SOILS
•
•
Map Unit Name
Pungo muck
(Series and Phase):
Drainage Class: very poorly drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup):Typic Haplosaprists Confirm Mapped TYpe? Yes NoX
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-12 Oat 10YR 2/1 muck
12-55 Oa2 10YR 3/3 muck
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors - Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Within a Wetland? Yes_ No X
Hydric Soils Present? Yes X No
Remarks: Location (describe) is s not assified as a wetland based upon the criteria set forth in the 1987
Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Investigator: Brent Manning
Land Management Group, Inc.
PO Box 2522
Wilmington, NC 28402
Applicant: Cal Miller
Wetland Resource Center
3907 Bowen Road
Canal Winchester, Ohio 43110
is
•

0
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: PCS Mitigation - Rutman Creek Watershed Date:June 2008
Applicant / Owner: Cal Miller/ PCS Phosphate County: Brunswick
Investigator: Brent Manning/Nick Howell State: N.C.
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes X No. Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No- X Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes- No.X Plot ID:
(explain on reverse if needed) Bay Forest Wetland
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Persea borbonia Tree FACW 9
2. Magnolia virginiana Tree FACW+ 10.
3. Gordonia lasianthus Tree FACW 11.
4. Nyssa sylvatica Tree FAC 12.
5. Vaccinium corymbosum Shrub FACW 13.
6. Lyonia lucida Shrub FACW 14.
7. Cyrilla racemiflora Tree FACW 15.
8. Smilax laurifolia Vine FACW+ 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 100%
Remarks: Wetland Vegetation Present Based Upon Greater than 50% of the Plant Spece not
Classified as FAC-OBL in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands. Samp of was taken...
lat: 35.5820
Ion: -76.3797
HYDROLOGY
x Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
X Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other Inundated
X Saturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available x Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: None (in.) Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Water-Stained Leaves

12 Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil:
(in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
•
E
Map Unit Name
Pungo muck
(Series and Phase):
Drainage Class: very poorly drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup):Typic Haplosaprists Confirm Mapped Type? Yes NoX
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-11 Oat 10YR 2/1 muck
11-55 Oa2 10YR 3/3 muck
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks) .
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes x No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x No Within a Wetland? Yeses No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes X No
Remarks: Location (describ is/is t classified as a wetland based upon the criteria set forth in the 1987
Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Investigator: Brent Manning
Land Management Group, Inc.
PO Box 2522
Wilmington, NC 28402
Applicant: Cal Miller
Wetland Resource Center
3907 Bowen Road
Canal Winchester, Ohio 43110
0
a
02
t •: i o- I c , I �o-y,�yi� a � `�`Iy�,A �.} '�'" � 41''`'1' •7 I,
9�`
+� ��t�,'� +{6;ti �''4ri�1nJ4�,llau`.r/� Z; "r���•�.IFP�t�N 'hie ,",I�',� yr' a.�^�
_ i iL! 1',t ! t 1 n,��•a 14�Itl'[�,•;>� Is 1 - �y i��Y.• o
r,! t 4 .•'1 wi � A�`S,.f3 t V tr''�?
13Nh?:,`�.., m
�{ ^, 131 i 1 •�. �\ ,•ti�Y
•• e I :l 1 ' v 1 to �y i fy ,7 �N �,�a�,1M ;�y �'r 1� 1 ,�7f X71 A�W. x o �:
,t't - a d li Ila a #'`a 1>•/ � wq/ y i`��� �ti. ;?' �'
-
. m a �
ILL
TD
6 ME
EL a
� d
1 t�;t 7�r,1 4• ' t �,�brS�',��1,.{a, P".r r ��,a � _`�ic_4
' � ��r � 1 " 1 { t a✓l�,1„ n �1,"sr�;3 '��t� � { �� � s �}{;��� �y� *'C` '• . ' '. { � m° U o_
o�
`\ rtVl 4r{,�' 7x 7 j` . J i L• v � , 1. > v; t .., 5 Z v g o
• � , � 1 t ,+ ,, t��11 rr1,7!'�7• u'yt t ,S' t, � ,I,ti.t� '�.1�1�i i� * �;' ._.,'�i_ �iF � � n
ao d
E
.. 11111111 -
pW
17111 IIS /. O
itllltitl I I f n;, 'I. �F a4,
11111111 6p
'1i'1'; Il `'llll 11i1i71117i71 .I, 111 •./' .. 'x rn N p lu
II111111 I1I
1/� O
illl`lia
lilt 1 t) lit77l1ltllltlti 17171t1t1�.11J `,/ 'C Q U
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 J.
1 I l l iI11l l �'' f •�� p� W Z
Ill till l
-
'
III 611111111111111111 II111111 - t � O11�� n0
' 111111 tltltltltltltltltltltltltl7ltltltltltll t Itltlt1111717 1 .. .. ,; � �f
•,,, 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 1 I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7+111! a p m+� O
III II111111111111111111III 1111 111:
!yi
7ll,l. 111111111,ttltltltltltltllllt7lll1l1t7lltltltltlt Itltl-,11111,7717 r r'.; - `111
l Q , • l i 1 1 1
tlt Itltltliltltllltltltltltltitl7l117771711171717171711771 11111 t, 1, tt 1717171 .,-:
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I( l i t l l i l l l l l I 1 1 '1'171'711'1'1'111'1 � �
', -. Illillltlt111t111titltltltltl7ltltitltltltltltltlt111t1 711 1111111111711111111, '��. �t LYS;•S'.a
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t l l i t l l l l l 1 1 1 1 1 1111111 71' 111' 1' 11111 7111 7 1 � •"" ; p s U
I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 77117111117 11111111111111111,1, y�-.t,•t '. ��
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O V
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 71117111711171, 11'1 11111 t'7'1111171'11t �: �•� � �• ° - - m O
' I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 11111111111 1111111111 �1 S
I I I I I I i l l l l l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 it lit 1111111 1I111I1111' -„E^' �'.7 z Q
I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 71,17111t1,1,1,1,i717111771 1, Illit 717171, 111,;
�', t
:•1 1
' 1 1 1 ( 1,1 11,1,1 11,1 1 I111111111111111'S 111114�
1111•:
' .4 i l 1 l 1 1 t t ' t t! ,1717!,111 i11'i'f'I'.'1'171'l htl'1'f' 11'111 111�1 �7�1� •; � ��'/+'/"1
i .
I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1,1'111111111711I7i'I171717111,111117I7 1111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1' :: 1•
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I •• :::' l+ 111
I I I I I 7 I I I 1 1 1 111171, 111711 lt1711111,1,1,1lit 11111,1,1,11 1111111,111111111, :�••Y 1`111 •.
. Itlt lilt 17111t1t1t111 1111111111111111111111 111111111��:.' 1 11•• 1117111
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1117111'1'1'1'1'11111'1'1'1'1'1'1'111'1'1'1 ,11'1 '1'1'111'1'1111111 ' 11111111111••• ••-•
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1171711+7+717711,111,1171'1'I'171'll 1'1'1'1'171'11171 71'111'11717171 111111111.1117`lit +•'•:':•� y••j�11j11111
`` � �( I lit ill 111 ill 11;1'111111111/i171117177i t111t71711,it171,111117 /71/111,1, 11111111111 71717171117 117171717y,•: ,. •• 1117171111111'17111 ..
li f 1111111111111111111111111111111 1111 1111111111111 III IIII tII
riY I 1 1 1 1111111'111'1'111'1'1'1'1,1'11111111111'1111111117t11'I11111111'I 11111 111'1'I'111111111111111'1111t '.1111111'I'I111, 111 t1 i1
_ I tlt) 111111ilililil t11111i111111111i1111111,1111111111'111111111111/111111 1 1'1'1'111'1111111'1'1'1'1'1'11111 11111'1'1'1'1'1'1'1111111
I 111111111111111'17111'171'171'1'171'1'111'11171'111111111111111111111111 717171717171 ,1717171717171117171 ilii 1111111111111111111111'111
I'� //js 111111111111111111111111111711111111 1111111111111111111111111111111
\ � 1111111/,1711111,1111111,111111'11,1,1, 11111,771171711171117171717171 111 17/7171717171, 1,11111111111111+1111111177111111111111,11'11111
1111111,111,1111111,111117171'111,1,1111111/1,11111111 t7111111i1' 1711111 '171'J'711'1't'1'1't111it 11111111 11'1'1 1711, 111'1'I'I'711111
�`- �'� 11111111111111111111111111111 11 11111 11111111111111111111111111111
f 7711, 111711111111111111111711111, 1, 17171711t7177711711177�t ,1111171,1111 111117111711171, I7a111111111717171717171711111,1111'111
I.' '. f IIIIIII111111111111111111111 Illillll 1171111111111117111111111111
,I 1111111717711111771117171717777 it 1711117 i11171I71111111 1717111711111111111 ,11171777171,1111111111711111717171111111111111.1171111
1117171117771717'711, 717171717171717t7t717111t771 t7 71171171,77717111171111 71711,7777,117111117111111111111171711111111111111111
71�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�{�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1 �I�I�17 1i�1 �I�I�I�I�t�1�1�1�1�1�1�17 '1�1 �1�1�1�1�1�1�1�I�I�I�Ij1�1j1j7jljljlj ljljljll
•. ��;� 1111111111111111111111 11111111111111111 111111111111111111'(111 I
S' ' ' 711111117I'l'1'1'1'171'1'171'1'1'1'I'1111 111111111717711117'1111111111111711 1111177'''111'171711117111111111711111117 1�
1717111711771717111711111717171717771 7711771717177777777771171177171117111, 171 117171171171,717111111111111171111111
'1 °�4i: '17171'1'111'11111111171111117111 1'1'1'1'1111111'II1711i1111171711111,11171711 17171t171117111117111111171111111 1�1
� 111111111111111 111111111111111111111111 111111111711111 / I
':.5'r ,17171+1,771,71111117111,77 71,1,7,7117117111117111111171117171111111711171117 111711171717171177171117'17 1 17
"' � 111111111111 1111111 1111111111111111111 111111111111 II 11 I
11'1'11111'1'111'111' 77111'1'777777117717 i7777177711i1t 17171717171'17171'171 111111'111'1/11111111 7'1'1'1 111711 I
�' : -I"" 111111111 1111111111111111111111.1111111 1111111/1 11111 111 1
1 1717171,17111 ,11171,1,111717171717171117171111111111171711171711171111111, 1 1717111,11111 11,1,1111111,1711111
r � 1 11111,171 ,1,1,1,171717171717171,111717111717111117171717171717111111111111 11'111'11 I'lll'1'1'1'1'lll'17111 I
�':'' 11111'7 ,1717171711171711111717171117111111111,1111171111111717171,1111171717 11111 71117171711'I'I'1'1'1'171 I
lit
: ,1, ,1, t, 1, 7, 177, 71111171, 111,11111,17171111111711171111171717171111171777771 '111'1'111'1'1'1'1'1'1'1'1'1'1 I I
\\!. 11,7,717,777,7,777117771117'111171,17771711771711711171717171717171/171,1
1,1117711,1,1,1111'171'111'171117111117171'171'171777
! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 11 11 11111 1 11 11 I I I '7�1�7�1�1�1�1�1�1' I I
�� _ '1'1'1'1'1'1'1'1'1'111'171117171'171711171711111111111711171111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
111111111111111111111111117111
171,I,11171111I, 1, 17171711'111','1'7'1'1111111'1711111111 '+�+�1�1�1�+� .y � I I m
' ',+71,1,1,1711'1'1'1'111'1'111'111'17771111171111 '77 �
' ,ti ,17117171117111,171,1117171,17{11,1717171 '1
' '�' �'`� 111111111111111111 - ^ �
yyy``` II111111111111111 Q
• ��t�r, 1'1'1717111'171'1'1'1'1'1'1'171717 � •,
l L -
-; 1111111111111111 .. �`, V
.. ,, 111111111111111 - �
11111111111111 �� �
' ... 1,1,171,1711171,1,171,171 •,\. � �
• 111717171,1,1717171,1 0 -� -• V _5_
', 11',1,1,1,111,1,1 l.•• CR' O (a
N O
rF�,:
} 'fit ✓ � S, 0. > i
PIT
Y
tf s� a
1-
,, tt
0
N
{dkyt*+ �0 • ' � vii
li7-�!4'�i•
a
N n
z
ca co
cu
v
CL
+ C N
1
Z >, �N
1 > m� Q
O C Ed

•
APPENDIX C.
SOIL BORING LOGS
0

PCS Mitigation Site
Detailed Soil Profile Descriptions
February 7, 2008
BI 0-1% -100' from ditch. Argent Series.
Ap - 0-9" Loam, granular friable non sticky non plastic, l OYR 2/2.
Btgl - 9-21" Sandy Clay Loam, weal, medium subangular blocky friable slightly sticky
slightly plastic, 2.5Y 4/2 with I OYR 3/6 mottles.
Btg2 - 21-35" Clay weak very coarse subangular blocky firm very sticky very plastic, 5y
4/1 with 6Y 6/1.
Cg - 35-48" Sand, single grained, loose non sticky non plastic, 2.5Y 6/2 with 2.5Y 6/4
mottles.
Physical Water: 40"
B2 0-1% moved boring 50' from ditch. Stockade Series.
A - 0-9" Loam, granular friable non sticky non plastic, 1 OYR 2/2.
Bt - 9-15" Sandy Clay Loam, weak medium subangular blocky friable slightly sticky
slightly plastic, 2.5y 513 with 2.5Y 6/2 and 2.5y 6/4 mottles.
Btg -15-34" Clay Loam, weak medium subangular blocky, moderately sticky
moderately plastic, 2.5Y 5/2 with 1 OYR 5/8 and 7.5YR 518 mottles.
• B/C - 34-41" Sandy Loam with inter-bedded layers of Loamy Sand, weak medium
subangular blocky, friable slightly sticky non plastic, 2.5Y 6/2 with 7.5YR 518 mottles
Cg - 41-48" Loamy Sand, single grained, loose non ticky non plastic, 2.5Y 6/2 with 2.5Y
5/4 and 7.5YR 5/8 mottles.
Physical Water: 43"
B3 0-1°/, --100' from ditches. Conaby Series.
Oap - 0-10" Mucky Loam, granular friable non sticky non plastic, IOYR 3/1.
Oa - 10-20" Muck, granular friable slightly sticky non plastic, I OYR 2/1.
2Cgl -')0-28" Loamy Sand, single grained, loose non sticky non plastic, 2.5Y 4/2.
2Cg2 - 28-48" Sandy Single grained, loose non sticky non plastic, 2.5Y 6/2.
Physical Water: 32"
B4 0-1% --50' from ditch. Belhaven Series.
Oa - 0-10" Muck, granular friable slightly sticky slightly plastic, l OYR 2/1.
ZCgI - 10-21" Clay, massive, firm very sticky very plastic, 3/N with 2.5Y 6/2 mottles.
2Cg2 - 21-40" Clay, massive, firm very sticky very plastic, 5Y 6/2 with 7.5YR 518 and
5Y 5/4 mottles.
2Cg3 - 40-48" Clay Loam, massive friable moderately sticky moderately plastic, 511 OG
with 5Y 5/4 and 7.5YR 5/8 mottles.
Physical: 42" (perched rr 12")
• B5 0-1 % Bay Forrest. Dorovan Series.
Oal - 0-1 1" Muck, granular friable slightly sticky non plastic, IOYR 2/1.
Oat - 11-54" Muck, massive, friable slightly sticky slightly plastic, IOYR 3/3.
2C - 54-60" Sand, single grained, loose non sticky non plastic, 2.5Y 5/4.
Physical Water: 47"
B6 0-1 % --100' to ditch. Belhaven Series.
Oap - 0-14" Mucky Loam, (granular friable slightly sticky non plastic, I0YR 2/1.
Oa - 14-22" Muck, granular friable slightly sticky slightly plastic, I OYR 3/1.
Bgl - 22-36" Clay, weak very coarse subangular blocky firm very sticky very plastic,
3/N with 7.5YR 518 mottles.
Bg2 - 36-48" Clay, weal: very coarse subangular blocky firm very sticky very plastic, 5Y
6/3 with 7.5YR 5/8 mottles.
Physical Water: 33"
B7 0-1% -75 from ditch. Belhaven Series.
Oap - 0-15" Muck, granular friable slightly sticky slightly plastic, l OYR 2/1.
Bgl -15-35" Clay weak coarse subangular blocky finis very sticky very plastic, YN with
7.5YR 5/8 mottles.
Bg2 - 35-48" Clay weak very coarse subangular blocky firm very sticky very plastic, 5Y
6/2 with 3/N and 7.5YR 5/8 mottles.
Physical Water: 41"
• BS 0-1% ---75' from ditch. Conaby Series.
Oap - 0-11" Mucky Loam, granular friable slighlsty sticky non plastic, 10YR 2/1.
Oa - 11-19" Muck, granular, friable slightly sticky slightly plastic, l OYR 3/1.
A - 19-24" Loam, granular, friable slightly sticky non plastic, l OYR 3/3.
BE - 24-37" Sandy Loam, weak medium subangular blocky, friable slightly sticky non
plastic, 5y 5/2 with 7.5YR 5/8 mottles.
Bt- - 37-48" Sandy Clay Loam, weak medium subangular blocky friable moderately
sticky slightly plastic, 5/10Y with 7.5Yr 5/8 mottles.
Physical Water: 37"
B9 0-1% -60' from ditch. Conaby Series.
Oap - 0-11" Mucky Loam, granular, friable slightly sticky non plastic, l OYR 2/1.
A- 11-15" Loamy Sand, granular friable non sticky non plastic, IOYR 3/1.
E - 15-24" Sand, granular, friable non sticky non plastic, l OYR 3/4.
Btg - 24-28" Sandy Loam with sand on the faces of peds, weak medium subangular
friable slightly sticky non plastic, 2.5Y 6/2.
Cg - 28-4S" Sand, single (rained, loose non sticky non plastic, 2.5Y 6/1.
Physical Water: 32"
0
• BI O 0-1%-60' from ditch. Roper Series.
Oap - 0-8" Mucky Loam, granular friable slightly sticky non plastic, l OYR 2/1.
Oa - 8-16" Muck, granular friable slightly sticky slightly plastic, l ORY 3/1.
A - 16-21" Silt Loam, granular, friable non sticky non plastic, l OYR 3/3.
2Eg - 21-25" Sandy Loam, granular, non sticky non plastic, 2.5Y 6/2.
2Btg - 25-36" Clay, weak coarse subangular blocky firm very sticky very plastic, 3/N
with IOYR 5/8 mottles.
2B/C - 36-45" Clay with Loamy Sand on the faces of peds, weak coarse subangular
blocky firm very sticky very plastic, 3/N with 7.5YR 5/8 mottles.
2 - 45-48" Loamy Sand, single `rained, loose non sticky non plastic, 5y 4/2.
Cg
Physical Water: 36"
B11 0-1% Bay Forest. Dorovan Series.
Oat - 0-11" Muck, granular friable slightly sticky non plastic, l OYR 2/1.
Oat - 11-55" Muck less noticeable plant parts and debris <5% rubbed fibers, massive,
friable slightly sticky slightly plastic, l OYR 3/3.
2C - 55-60" Sand, single grained, loose non sticky non plastic, 2.5Y 5/4.
Physical Water: NA
B12 0-1% Bay Forrest. Belhaven Series.
Oi - 0-5" Roots and organic debris.
Oal - 5-21" Muck, granular friable slightly sticky slightly plastic, 10 YR 2/1.
Oa2 -21-37 Muck, granular fi-iable slightly sticky slightly plastic, I OYR 3/2.
Bg - 37-48" Sandy Clay Loam, weak rrredium subangular blocky friable slightly sticky
slightly plastic, 2.5Y 6/2 with 7.5YR 5/8 mottles.
Physical Water: NA
B13 0-1 % -150' fi'orn ditch. Belhaven Series.
Oap - 0-10" Muck, granular friable slightly sticky non plastic, l OYR 2/1.
Bw - 10-19" Sandy Clay Loam, weak medium subangular blocky, friable slightly sticky
slightly plastic, l OYR 513 with 2.5y 6/2 mottles.
Bg - 19-33" Sandy Clay Loarn, weak medium subangular blocky friable, moderately
sticky slightly plastic, 2.5Y 5/2 with 7.5YR 5/8 and I OYR 5/8 mottles.
Btg - 33-48" Clay, weak coarse subangular blocky, firm very sticky very plastic, 5Y 6/2
with IOYR 3/6 and 2.5Y 5/4 mottles.
Physical Water: 45"
B14 0-1 % -100' from ditch. Conaby Series.
Oap - 0-9" Mucky Loarrr, granular friable slightly sticky non plastic, I OYR 2/1.
A - 9-14" Loam, granular friable non sticky non plastic, l OYR 3/1.
E - 14-30" Loam, granular friable non sticky non plastic, 2.5y 4/4 with l OYR 3/6
• mottles.
Bt - 30-41" Fine Sandy Loam weak medium subangular blocky friable slightly sticky
non plastic, 2.5Y 513 with 2.5Y 6/2 mottles.
• Cg - 41-48" Fine Sand, single grained, loose non sticky non plastic, 5Y 6/2.
Physical Water: 46"
B15 o-i% -loo' from ditch. Petigrew Series.
Oap - 0-6" Mucky Loam, granular friable non sticky non plastic, lightly sticky slightly
plastic l OYR 2/1.
Bg - 6-27" Silty Clay Loam, weak medium subangular blocky friable moderately sticky
slightly plastic, 2.5Y 4/2 with 2.5Y 5/6.
2Cg1 - 27-38" Clay, massive firm very sticky very plastic, 3/N with 7.5YR 5/8 mottles.
3Cg1 - 38-48" Sand, single grained, loose non sticky non plastic, 2.5Y 6/2.
Physical Water: 32"
B16 0-1% -75 from ditch. Wasda Series
Oap - 0-4" Mucky Loam, Granular friable slightly sticky non plastic, I OYR 2/2.
Oa - 4-16" Mucky Loam, granular friable slightly sticky non plastic, 10YR 2/1.
Bgl - 16-26" Clay Loam, weak medium subangular blocky friable moderately sticky
moderately plastic, 5Y 4/1 with 2.5Y 6/2, 1 OYR 5/6 and 5YR 5/8 mottles.
Bg2 - 26-35" Sandy Clay Loam with inter-bedded layers of Loamy Sand and Sandy
Loam, weak medium subangular blocky friable moderately sticky slightly plastic, -15Y
5/2 with 7.5YR 5/8 and 5Y 4/1 mottles.
BC- -35-4)" Sandy Loam, weak medium subangular blocky friable slightly sticky
slightly plastic, 5Y 5/2 with 7.5YR 5/8 and 5YR 5/8 mottles.
• Cg - 42-48" Sand single rained, loose non sticky non plastic, Loose non sticky non
plastic, 2.
5Y 7/1.
Physical Water: 40"
B17 0-1%-75' from ditch. Wasda Series.
Oap - 0-12" Muck, granular friable slightly sticky non platic, 10YR 2/1.
Bg - 12-34" Clay Loam with few stratified pockets of Loamy Sand, weals coarse
subangular blocky friable moderately sticky moderately plastic, 2.5Y 5/2 with 7.5YR 518
mottles.
Cg - 34-48" Sand, single grained, loose non sticky non plastic 2.5Y 6/2 and l OYR 518
mottles.
Physical Water: 47"
B18 0-i% --100' from ditch. Belhaven Series.
Oap - 0-7" Muck, granular, friable slightly sticky non plastic, l OYR 2/1.
Oa - 7-I6" Mucky Loam, granular friable slightly sticky non plastic, I OYR 3/1.
C-I - 16-29" Clay, Massive, firm very sticky very plastic, 3/N with 7.5YR 5/8 mottles.
Cg2 -29-46" Clay, Massive, firm very sticky very plastic, 5Y 6/2 with 7.5YR 5/8 and
3/N mottles.
2Ca3 - 46-48" Loamy Sand, single grained, loose non sticky non plastic, 5Y 6/2 with
• 7.5YR 5/8 mottles.
Physical Water: 44"
•
B19 0-i % -so, from ditch. Roper Series.
Oa - 0-10" Muck, granular friable slightly sticky non plastic, 10YR 2/1.
A - 10-15" Silt Loam, granular friable non sticky non plastic, l OYR 3/4.
Btgl - 15-28" Silty Clay Loam, weak medium subangular blocky, friable moderately
sticky moderately plastic, 3/N with 7.5YR 5/8 mottles.
Btg2 - 28-43" Clay, weak coarse subangular blocky fine very sticky very plastic, 5Y 6/2
with 7.5YR 518 mottles.
2Cg - 43-48" Sand single gained, loose non sticky non plastic, 2.5Y 6/2 with 2.5Y 5/4
mottles.
Physical Water: 44"
B200-1% -100' from ditch. Roper Series.
A - 0-9" Loam, granular very friable non sticky non plastic, l OYR 3/3.
Btgl - 9-18" Silty Clay Loam, weak medium subangular blocky friable moderately
sticky moderately plastic, 3/N with 7.5YR 5/8.
Btd2 - 18-37" Clay, weak coarse subangular blocky firm very sticky very plastic, 5Y 6/2
with 7.5YR 518 mottles.
2Cg - 37-48" Sand, single gained, loose non sticky non plastic, 2.5Y 6/2 with 2.5y 5/6
mottles.
Physical Water: 39"
• B21 0-1% -75' from ditch. Roper Series.
Oap - 0-9" Muck, granular friable slightly sticky non plastic, 1 OYR 2/1.
Oa- 9-12" Mucky Loam, granular, friable slightly sticky non plastic, lOYR 3/3.
Bgl - 12-16" Silty Clay Loam., weak medium subangular blocky, friable moderately
sticky moderately plastic, 5Y 4/2 with 7.5YR 5/8 mottles.
281-2 - 16-40" Clay, weak very coarse subangular blocky, friable very sticky very
plastic, 3/N and 7.5YR 5/8 mottles.
213g3 - 40-48" Clay, weak coarse subangular blocky firm, very sticky very plastic, 5y 6/2
with 7.5YR 5/8 and 3/N mottles.
Physical Water: 21"
B22 0-1% -60' fi-om ditch. Roper Series.
Oap - 0-6" Mucky Loam, granular fi-iable slightly sticky non plastic, l OYR 2/1.
A - 6-11 Silt Loam, granular friable non sticky non plastic, 10YR 3/3.
BtgI - 11-19" Silty Clay Loam, weal: medium subangular blocky, friable moderately
sticky moderately plastic, 2.5Y 4/2 with 7.5YR 518 mottles.
Bt-2 - 22-36" Silty Clay, weal: coarse subangular blocky firm very sticky very plastic,
2.5Y 511 with 5Y 6/1 and 7.5YR 5/8 mottles.
ZCg - 37-48" Sand with few Sandy Loam bodies, single grained, loose non sticky non
plastic, 2.5Y 6/2 with 2.5Y 5/4 mottles.
• Physical Water: 40"
B23 0-1% --75' from ditch. Roper Series.
Oap - 0-7" Muck, granular friable slightly sticky non plastic, I OYR 2/1.
A - 7-14" Silt Loam, granular fi-iable non sticky non plastic, l OYR 3/3.
2Eg-14-22" Loamy Sand with few Sandy Loarn bodies, granular friable non sticky non
plastic, 2.5Y 6/2 with 2.5Y 514 mottles.
21341; - 22-36" Clay Loam, weal: medium subangular blocky fi-iable moderately sticky
moderately plastic, l OYR 2/1 with 2.5YR 6/2 Loamy Sand on faces of peds.
2C - 3648" Sand, single grained, loose non sticky non plastic, 5Y 6/1 with 5Y 512
mottles.
Physical Water: 31"
B24 0-1% -75' from ditch. Roper Series
Oap - 0-12" Mucky Loam, granular, friable non sticky non plastic, 1 OYR 2/2.
A - 12-19" Silt Loam, weak medium subangular blocky friable slightly sticky non
plastic, I OYR 3/3 with l OYR 3/6 mottles.
Btu, - 19-40" Silty Clay Loam few inter-bedded layers of Loamy Sand, weak medium
subangular blocky friable moderately sticky moderately plastic, 2.5Y 4/1 with 2.5Y 6/2
mottles.
2Cg - 40-48" Sand, single grained, loose non sticky non plastic, 15Y 6/2 with 2.5Y 5/4
mottles.
Physical Water: 39" .
B25 0-1 % -60 from ditch. Acredale Series.
Ap - 0-10" Loam Granular friable non sticky non plastic, l OYR 3/1.
Bt - 10-21" Sandy Loam, weak medium subangular blocky friable slightly sticky non
plastic, 2.5Y 4/4 with 2.5Y 6/3 mottles.
Bt- - 21-32" Sandy Loam, weak medium subangular blocky friable slightly sticky non
plastic, 2.5Y 6/2 with IOYR 3/6 and 2.5Y 5/3. y
Cg - 32-48" Loamy Sand, single grained, loose non sticky non plastic, 2.5Y 6/2 with
l OYR 5/8 and 5Y 5/4 mottles.
Physical Water: 38"
NOTE: Believed Erosional Loss of Muck layer, 4 croma color of Bt most likely due to
oxidation of horizon from prescribed drainage with rapidly permeable textures creating
the effect of a lower seasonal high watertable, natural seasonal high is still believed to be
<12".
0
' - wc
ol
0
Af
AN
C:) U-
Tl-
Qc)
C6
cliII
Tl-

•
APPENDIX D.
DRAINMOD ASSESSMENT
0
E
Putman Creek - Bama Canal (Lateral)
EXisting Conditions (330' lateral spacing)
• Belhaven muck - MRCS conductivity values
PCS-BAMALATI.WET
---------------------------- -------------------------
DRAINMOD version 5.1 "
Copyright 1980-04 North Carolina State University
-----------------------------------------------------
Rutman Creek, Hyde county
Bama Canal (Lateral), Plymouth NC Data
----------RUN STATISTICS ----- ----- time: 5/26/2008 @ 12:41
input file: C:\DRAINMOD\INPUTS\PCS\PCS-BAMALATI.PRJ
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculated
drain spacing = 10058. cm drain depth = 91.0 cm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D R. A I N M 0 D--- HYDROLOGY EVALUATION
• °• INTERIM EXPERIMENTAL RELEASE `* '
Number of periods with water table closer than 30.00 cm
for at least 13 days. Counting starts on day
75 and ends on day 321 of each year
YEAR Number of Periods Longest consecutive
of 13 days or Period in Days
• --more with W
-<-30.00 cm
cm
---------- --------------------
1945 1. 15.
1946 0. 11.
1947 1. 15.
1948 1. 13.
1949 0. 9.
1950 1. 14.
1951 0. 4.
1952 0. 9.
1953 0. 6.
1954 0. 5.
1955 0. 10.
1956 0. 7.
1957 0. 10.
1958 0. 9.
1959 0. 6.
1960 0. 7.
1961 0. 10.
1962 0. 10.
1963 0. 6.
1964 0. 12.
1965 1. 16.
1966 1. 14.
1967 0. 9.
1968 0. 10.
1969 0. 9.
1970 0. 0.
1971 1. 17.
1972 0. 12.
• 1973 1. 14.
1974 0. 9.
Page 1
•
PCS-SAMALATI.WET
1975 0. 9.
1976 0. 5.
1977 1. 19.
1978 1. 15.
1979 1. 13.
1980 0. 6.
1981 0. 8.
1982 0. 8.
1983 1. 28.
1984 2. 23.
Number of Years with at least one period = 13. out of 40 years.
•
•
Page 2
Putman Creek - Bama Canal
• Existing Conditions (500' lateral drainage)
PCS-BAMAI.WET Belhaven muck - FRCS conductivity values
-----------------------------------------•
DRAINMOD version 5.1
Copyright 1980-04 North Carolina state university
-----------------------------------------------------
Rutman Creek, Hyde County
Bama Canal, Plymouth NC Data
----------RUN STATISTICS ---------- time: 5/26/2008 @ 12:28
input file: C:\DRAINMOD\INPUTS\PCS\PCS-BAMAI.PRJ
parameters drfre ain spacinge= 15240. cm andrainldeptht_ca198.0tcm
--------------------------------------------------------------------
D R A I N M 0 D--- HYDROLOGY EVALUATION
INTERIM EXPERIMENTAL RELEASE
Number of periods with water table closer than 30.00 cm
for at least 13 days. Counting starts on day
75 and ends on day 321 of each year
YEAR Number of Periods Longest consecutive
of 13 days or Period in Days
more with W
• < 30.00 cm
cm
------------------ --------------------
1945 0. 10.
1946 1. 13.
1947 1. 15.
1948 1. 13.
1949 1. 23.
1950 1. 21.
1951 0. 0.
1952 0. 10.
1953 0. 6.
1954 0. 4.
1955 0. 9.
1956 0. 10.
1957 1. 13.
1958 1. 31.
1959 0. 6.
1960 0. 12.
1961 1. 13.
1962 0. 11.
1963 0. 2.
1964 2. 15.
1965 1. 17.
1966 0. 12.
1967 0. 11.
1968 0. 11.
1969 0. 11.
1970 0. 0.
1971 1. 18.

• 1972
1973
1974 1. 14.
1. 16.
0. 5.
Page 1
•
PC5-BAMAI.WET
1975 0. 10.
1976 0. 1.
1977 1. 19.
1978 1. 16.
1979 1. 15.
1980 1. 21.
1981 0. 2.
1982 0. 5.
1983 1. 43.
1984 2. 45.
Number of Years with at least one period = 19. out of 40 years.
C,
•
Page 2
•
RUtman Creel: - Mooney Canal
Existing Conditions (700' Lateral drainage)
Belhaven muck - FRCS conductivity Values
PCS-MOONEYI.WET
-----------------------------------------------------
DRAINMOD version 5.1
Copyright 1980-04 North Carolina State University
-----------------------------------------------------
Rutman creek, Hyde County
Bama Canal (Lateral), Plymouth NC Data
drain spacing = 21336. cm drain depth = 304.0 cm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------RUN STATISTICS ---------- time: 5/26/2008 @ 12:53
input file: C:\DRAINMOD\INPUTS\PCS\PCS-MOONEY1.PRa
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculated
D R A I N M 0 D--- HYDROLOGY EVALUATION
••' ° ••* INTERIM EXPERIMENTAL RELEASE *° • ° ° •-
•
•
Number of periods with water table closer than 30.00 cm
for at least 13 days. counting starts on day
75 and ends on day 321 of each year
YEAR Number of Periods Longest Consecutive
of 13 days or Period in Days
more with WTD
< 30.00 cm
------------------ --------------------
1945 0. 8.
1946 1. 23.
1947 1. 15.
1948 1. 13.
1949 1. 23.
1950 1. 25.
1951 0. 0.
1952 0. 9.
1953 0. 2.
1954 0. 3.
1955 1. 15.
1956 0. 10.
1957 1. 16.
1958 1. 33.
1959 0. 6.
1960 1. 13.
1961 1. 13.
1962 1. 17.
1963 0. 1.
1964 2. 28.
1965 1. 17.
1966 0. 12.
1967 0. 11.
1968 0. 12.
1969 0. 10.
1970 0. 0.
1971 1. 20.
1972 1. 15.
1973 1. 17.
1974 0. 6.
Page 1
•
PCS-MOONEYL WET
1975 0. 11.
1976 0. 0.
1977 1. 13.
1978 1. 16•
1979 1. 27.
1980 1. 24.
1981 0. 0.
1982 0. 5.
1983 1. 43.
1984 2. 45.
Number of Years with at least one period = 22. out of 40 years.
C7
•
Page 2
Rutman Creek - BAMA Canal (proposed)
2' Ditch - <400' lateral drainage
• 12.5% of GS -3"l Days
PCs-BAMARI. WET Belhaven muck - NRCS conductivity values
---------------------------- -------------------------
DRAINMOD version 5.1
Copyright 1980-04 North Carolina State University
-----------------------------------------------------
Rutman creek, Hyde county
Bama canal (Post Restoration), Plymouth NC Data
----------RUN STATISTICS ---------- time: 5/26/2008 @ 13:38
input file: C:\DRAINMOD\INPUTS\PCS\PCS-BAMARl.PRJ
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculated
drain spacing = 12192. cm drain depth = 61.0 cm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D R A I N M 0 D--- HYDROLOGY EVALUATION
H°°• * INTERIM EXPERIMENTAL RELEASE ~'•°••°
Number of periods with water table closer than 30.00 cm
for at least 31 days. Counting starts on day
75 and ends on day 321 of each year
YEAR Number of Periods Longest consecutive
of 31 days or Period in Days
• --more-with W
< 30.00 cm
cm
--------- --------------------
1945 0. 23.
1946 0. 29.
1947 0. 23.
1948 0. 22.
1949 1. 38.
1950 1. 34.
1951 0. 25.
1952 0. 15.
1953 0. 9.
1954 0. 17.
1955 1. 35.
1956 0. 30.
1957 0. 28.
1958 1. 35.
1959 0. 17.
1960 0. 14.
1961 0. 24.
1962 0. 19.
1963 0. 12.
1964 1. 34.
1965 0. 19.
1966 0. 18.
1967 0. 25.
1968 0. 13.
1969 0. 17.
1970 0. 10.
1971 1. 40.
1972 0. 25.
• 1973 0. 23.
1974 0. 27.
Page 1
• PCS-BAMARI.WET
1975 0. 16.
1976 0. 7.
1977 1. 36.
1978 0. 26.
1979 1. 52.
1980 0. 25.
1981 0. 10.
1982 0. 24.
1983 1. 44.
1984 1. 46.
Number of Years with at least one period = 10. out of 40 years.
•
0
Page 2
Rutman Creek - BANTA Canal (proposed)
2' Ditch - <400' lateral drainage
5% of GS - 13 Days
• PCS-BAMARI.WET Belhaven muck - NRCS conductivity values
-----------------------------------------------------
DRAINMOD version 5.1
Copyright 1980-04 North Carolina state university
-----------------------------------------------------
Rutman Creek, Hyde County
Bama Canal (Post Restoration), Plymouth NC Data
----------RUN STATISTICS ---------- time: 5/26/2008 @ 13:46
input file: C:\DRAINMOD\INPUTS\PCS\PCS-BAMARI.PRJ
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculated
drain spacing = 12192. cm drain depth = 61.0 cm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D R A I N M 0 D--- HYDROLOGY EVALUATION
*** * INTERIM EXPERIMENTAL RELEASE =**** '
Number of periods with water table closer than 30.00 cm
for at least 13 days. counting starts on day
75 and ends on day 321 of each year
YEAR Number of Periods Longest consecutive
of 13 days or Period in Days
• more with W
<-30.00 cm
cm
------ ---------- --------------------
1945 1. 23.
1946 2. 29.
1947 2. 23.
1948 2. 22.
1949 2. 38.
1950 1. 34.
1951 1. 25.
1952 1. 15.
1953 0. 9.
1954 1. 17.
1955 1. 35.
1956 3. 30.
1957 1. 28.
1958 2. 35.
1959 1. 17.
1960 1. 14.
1961 2. 24.
1962 3. 19.
1963 0. 12.
1964 2. 34.
1965 2. 19.
1966 1. 18.
1967 2. 25.
1968 1. 13.
1969 2. 17.
1970 0. 10.
1971 2. 40.
1972 2. 25.
• 1973 1. 23.
1974 2. 27.
Page 1
• PCS-BAMARLWET
1975 2. 16.
1976 0. 7.
1977 2. 36.
1978 2. 26.
1979 1. 52.
1980 1. 25.
1981 0. 10.
1982 1. 24.
1983 2. 44.
1984 2. 46.
Number of Years with at least one period = 35. out of 40 years.
•
•
Page 2
Rutman Creel. - BAM A Canal (proposed)
3' Ditch - <500' lateral drainage
• 12.5% of GS - 31 Days
PCS-BAMAR1.WETBelhaven muck - FRCS conductivity values
-----------------------------------------------------
DRAINMOD version 5.1
Copyright 1980-04 North Carolina state university
-----------------------------------------------------
Rutman creek, Hyde County
Bama Canal (Post Restoration), Plymouth NC Data
----------RUN STATISTICS ---------- time: 5/26/2008 @ 13:34
input file: C:\DRAINMOD\INPUTS\PCS\PCS-BAMARI.PRJ
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculated
drain spacing = 15240. cm drain depth = 91.0 cm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D R A I N M 0 D--- HYDROLOGY EVALUATION
°°~°` INTERIM EXPERIMENTAL RELEASE •*
Number of periods with water table closer than 30.00 cm
for at least 31 days. counting starts on day
75 and ends on day 321 of each year
YEAR Number of Periods Longest consecutive
of 31 days or Period in Days
more with WTD
• < 30.00 cm
---- --------------------
1945 0. 18.
1946 0. 29.
1947 0. 24.
1948 0. 14.
1949 1. 39.
1950 1. 34.
1951 0. 9.
1952 0. 16.
1953 0. 10.
1954 0. 17.
1955 1. 36.
1956 0. 30.
1957 0. 29.
1958 1. 35.
1959 0. 17.
1960 0. 14.
1961 0. 24.
1962 0. 20.
1963 0. 12.
1964 1. 34.
1965 0. 19.
1966 0. 16.
1967 0. 25.
1968 0. 13.
1969 0. 17.
1970 0. 10.
1971 1. 41.
1972 0. 25.
• 1973 0. 23.
1974 0. 27.
Page 1
PCS-BAMARI.WET
1975 0. 16.
1976 0. 8.
1977 0. 23.
1978 0. 18.
1979 1. 52.
1980 0. 25.
1981 0. 11.
1982 0. 24.
1983 1. 44.
1984 1. 46.
Number of Years with at least one period = 9. out of 40 years.
0
•
Page 2
RUtMan Creek - BAMA Canal (proposed)
3' Ditch - <500' lateral drainage
5% of GS - 13 Days
• PCS-BAMARI.WET-Belhaven muck - MRCS conductivity values
--------------------------------------- ------------
DRAINMOD version 5.1
Copyright 1980-04 North Carolina state University
-----------------------------------------------------
Rutman Creek, Hyde County
Bama Canal (Post Restoration), Plymouth NC Data
----------RUN STATISTICS ---------- time: 5/26/2008 @ 13:25
input file: C:\DRAINMOD\INPUTS\PCS\PCS-BAMARI.PRJ
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculated
drain spacing = 15240. cm drain depth = 91.0 cm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D R A I N M 0 D--- HYDROLOGY EVALUATION
••°°°`` INTERIM EXPERIMENTAL RELEASE * °"
Number of periods with water table closer than 30.00 cm
for at least 13 days. cou nting starts on day
75 and ends on day 321 of each year
YEAR Number of Periods Longest consecutive
of 13 days or Period in Days
more with WTD
• -----<-30.00 cm
---------
--------------------
1945 1. 18.
1946 1. 29.
1947 2. 24.
1948 2. 14.
1949 2. 39.
1950 1. 34.
1951 0. 9.
1952 1. 16.
1953 0. 10.
1954 1. 17.
1955 1. 36.
1956 2. 30.
1957 1. 29.
1958 1. 35.
1959 2. 17.
1960 1. 14.
1961 2. 24.
1962 3. 20.
1963 0. 12.
1964 2. 34.
1965 2. 19.
1966 1. 16.
1967 2. 25.
1968 1. 13.
1969 2. 17.
1970 0. 10.
1971 2. 41.
1972 2. 25.
1973 1. 23.
1974 2. 27.
Page 1
• PCS-BAMARI.WET
1975 2. 16.
1976 0. 8.
1977 2. 23.
1978 2. 18.
1979 1. 52.
1980 1. 25.
1981 0. 11.
1982 1. 24.
1983 1. 44.
1984 2. 46.
Number of Years with at least one period = 34. out of 40 years.
•
•
Page 2

APPENDIX E.
REFERENCE WETLAND AND ZERO-ORDER
STREAM NARRATIVE
0
0
0 Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project
Reference Wetland and Zero-Order Stream Narrative
1. Introduction
The proposed Rutman Creek restoration project will restore approximately 3,400 acres of swamp
forest, bay forest, small stream swamp, and mineral hardwood flat wetland communities
contiguous with the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge (PLNWR). Approximately 9,400 linear
feet of zero stream restoration is proposed within the restoration footprint. One of the goals of the
restoration project is to provide functional uplift of these degraded areas via restoration of
characteristic wetland hydroperiods and vegetative assemblages. As such, relatively undisturbed
reference wetland/stream systems will be evaluated and monitored to provide a comparative
assessment of the mitigation areas over time. These reference areas should exhibit similar soil
types, landscape positions, and hydroperiods of the target restoration communities. Identification
• of these reference areas has been initiated in Hyde County and surrounding areas (Beaufort,
Tyrell, Washington, and eastern Dare counties). GIS data sets including NRCS soils maps, USGS
topographic maps, and aerial photography have been assembled to facilitate the selection of
appropriate reference wetlands and zero-order stream reaches.
Much of the proposed wetland restoration site consists of organic (muck) soils of varying depths
underlain by loam to sandy loam substrata. Representative mapped soil units include Wasda
muck, Pettigrew muck, Ponzer muck, Roper muck, and Belhaven muck. These soil types are
generally consistent with headwater swamp forest and bay forest community types. These areas
grade to zero-order small stream swamp communities consisting of alluvial or organic soils such as
Masontown, Croatan, Dorovan, or Muckalee series. Poorly-drained hardwood mineral flat
communities occur on boarder, interstream areas consisting of loam soils such as Argent loam,
Yonges loam, Brookman loam or Portsmouth mucky. sandy loam. Landscape positions within the
Rutman Creek project range from intact cypress-gum swamp areas (-+2' MSL) to hardwood
mineral flats and bay forest communities located in higher elevation interstream areas (-+8' MSL).
Wetland/stream complexes within the Outer Coastal Plain often follow this same gentle sloping
pattern. Reference areas should exhibit similar soil types and occur within the same landscape
• positions as the restoration areas. In addition, the reference areas need to be relatively unaltered
by past or current land use practices.
Anthropogenic impacts, primarily from prescribed drainage improvements and silvicultural
management have altered a large percentage of the Outer Coastal Plain wetland and stream
habitats. Over the past 50 years, drainage projects have been designed to reduce flooding within
farm fields by channelizing existing streams and ditching headwater wetland areas. More
expansive interstream areas have been affected by networks of canals and installation of water-
control structures to manipulate flow. The result has been systematic degradation of wetland
vegetative assemblages, alteration of natural hydroperiods, and associated loss of characteristic
functions and values commonly attributed to these systems. For this reason, identification of
suitable reference wetlands and streams is often deemed problematic.
Given the size of the proposed project and the degree of disturbance within the surrounding
watersheds, location of a suitable reference presented several challenges. Field reconnaissance
• efforts were also limited due to air quality and safety concerns generated by the Evans Road fire
which burned over 40,000 acres within the PLNWR during June 2008. Two sites are currently
proposed as potential reference locations for the Rutman Creek project. These sites exhibit similar
soil types and landscape positions as the target restoration communities. However, no access
agreements have been secured for either location which may limit the ability of LMG staff to collect
groundwater monitoring data on a long-term basis. The following narrative provides more detailed
information regarding the two identified reference sites.
II. Site 1 - Trask Property (Wilkerson Creek)
The Trask reference site is located on the southeastern side of the Intercoastal Waterway (ICWW)
and includes the upper reaches of Wilkerson Creek and an additional 1,200 acres of forested
wetland habitat (Figures 1-4). Based on an analysis of available GIS-based data, the headwaters
of this system appear to be minimally impacted by surrounding land uses (primarily silvicultural).
is While one silvicultural drainage feature is directed towards this reach, it appears to be have
generated little negative impact on the dimensions of the existing channel. Furthermore, the 350-
• ac headwater forest maintains an appropriate mixture of hardwoods, as this area has not been
managed for silvicultural production.
Approximately 3,600 linear feet of zero order stream is present within the headwaters of Wilkerson,
with 2,800' located within a natural hardwood stand. Several small tributaries flow towards the
creek as it approaches the ICWW, although recent clear-cuts within this area have likely degraded
habitat and water quality within these reaches.
Soils within the natural headwater stands are mapped as Pettigrew muck while the areas adjacent
to the stream channel are classified as Doravan muck. Brookman loam and Argent loams are
found along the valley shoulders and within the interstream flats adjacent to Scranton Creek. This
assemblage is nearly identical to the series found within the proposed project area. Elevations
• range from +7.0' MSL in the headwaters to +2.0' MSL along the stream channel.
A majority of the tract is owned by the Trask family. Prior to accessing the property, LMG will
contact the owners and negotiate an access agreement. Terms of this agreement will allow
installation of monitoring equipment within the stream channel and adjacent headwater wetlands
for the duration of the project (8-10 years).
Following approval of the access agreement, LMG will conduct vegetative assessment of the
headwater system. At this time 2-4 groundwater monitoring wells will be installed at strategic
locations within the stream channel and adjacent floodplain. All wells will record groundwater
levels on a daily basis. Collected data will be reviewed and presented in the annual monitoring to
report to allow for a comparison with the restored system.
•
• III. Site 2 - Northwest Fork/Hollow Ground Swamp (PLNWR)
This site is located along the eastern boundary of the PLNWR and contains over 35,000
undeveloped acres of habitat. The Northwest Fork watershed occupies approximately 6,500 acres
in the headwaters of the Alligator River (Figures 5-8). Based on infrared aerial photography
interpretations, this creek appears to be minimally impacted by surrounding land uses (primarily
agriculture) as a 1-2 mile buffer is present. While some agricultural drainage is directed towards
this reach, it appears to be concentrated in the area south of the reference location. Drainage
directed towards the headwaters appears to be in the form of shallow, poorly maintained ditches
which are not likely to significantly alter the hydrology of a watershed.
The Northwest Fork, a zero order channel, flows approximately 14,000' south before intersecting
with Juniper Creek. The upper 4,000 linear feet likely maintain diffuse flows characteristic of
headwater wetland systems. As the drainage area expands downstream, a discernable channel
becomes visible approximately 10,000 feet north of Juniper Creek. Sinuosity within this section is
• estimated at 1.18.
Soils within a majority of the watershed are mapped as Pungo muck, with Doravan mucks shown
adjacent to the stream channel. While similar to the soils present throughout the project site, the
Pungo series typically exhibits a much deeper organic horizon, possibly extending 5' or more below
the soil surface.
Prior to accessing the site, LMG will contact PLNWR staff to discuss logistics and project goals.
Any research project conducted within state or federally owned land must submit a formal
application and brief narrative prior to installing equipment. Due to the anticipated conditions and
limited access, it is anticipated that no logging within the area is planned and that the project will be
allowed to proceed. Access to the site is limited to an unpaved farm road off of HWY 94 near
Frying Pan Road.
• Following approval of the access agreement, LMG will conduct vegetative assessment of the
headwater system. At this time 2-4 groundwater monitoring wells will be installed at strategic
locations within the stream channel and adjacent floodplain. All wells will record groundwater
levels on a daily basis. Collected data will be reviewed and presented in the annual monitoring to
report to allow for a comparison with the restored system.
•
0
.. [A,r rJ?.lll..rf rir., 1.rr.,
,
pr)v r lti(N f r,r f c 7+H7lUNiat W11 I ri P H19-IJt;F
,EV is
li•:utul Idd.1t ?:. ,?I
I?tljLvu ,? 11
Inrelt.ill, 1. i.,,. I:,i?r,.,. 1E. __ JaLt IG?7Y1?. ,+ I ,
AkA
tiotrr - ? - - - is .,r
:fir .nrl _ - '
1
SITE
` z5•s
till
ti 1 1 rn-1
st: a ., y
.1•: It Wit DU I
u
F,
I -
c Jo ?? t f`' 2)
- ? ' ?I ''LUapnal t':SIJIih 0-nu,
un,Iah co ?' ``
t .„I
N
W +E
;. S
SCALE 1 2 Miles
?P Source: North Carolina Atlas & Gazetteer. Pg 67. 2006
Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Figure 1
Reference Wetland Vicinity Map
Site 1 - Trask Property

ti

r N
0 2,000
Figure 2.
Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration 1998 Aerial Photography
Reference Wetland
Site 1 - Trask Property
4,000
Feet
-
r
` 1 7
7 1Z,
c:.. '7 `.? nt?},? ?~{: ?•?. ? • a allt'? +,?frl..1 .a ,.? t ?y. ty j.. r .? K ?.r -? ?'>(.
a? fir, c•q?'. 14.;` os r'
may{ - ,.Jr ?a2?"?????_ ; ""• .,?j `' _', ?l, ?t ?Tx .? •, ,.? 1.,
i ?? G . I`''1• i' ?'T,? l?y? r ?.xYw , ; >t • ? ': " 3''`' t 5 ?S , r. + i. s ? a - •, i `? t- ? .t;N Z +r •. ?.
' STi / • yL? '?? i ?? 4(14 ? j1-r 6 ? ? L
. ? ?? .ri a ' tir r -7Y? ??n?y,' 11?j?-' ' + ?' ?_yt •'• ? ? _"c y _ ,r t .. ? ' ?1.?.`?.w t ILA ?•??' ?,
,?> ??.r J r _'' ?yX? I t`.:? _ 1 .. 1arl.i? ?. T ,?'- l : ? ?.,. ?L IT'^••Sr ''' - ?`_-'}?,^^,?'i....•
s '.?.-..1 "'?!• ,1 ., 7X 7 ' 't, 1 { I ,a t, 911rr• r't :
\'' f: ~ {::'s. ?.? ri .x.x.,jnaa? ?_, t i ?' a•lctr'' P ?_, /? l ?I ' 1dl `;IfJ + Z
wyA2 1 t itr Z1h 1r, I1„a 1'
xr .' -'f t -• ' Mt' ?y . ?«$ .,5ta ?`` 4h?' r? i .. Ij? J • r ?• ?, ' ? ? ? ,,'?, y 1 ?'.t 1" ?+ Its ??t'? !i' ?!3 ?y 1, 1j i_. ,
,'?: e. ?,x=aJV ?i? ^?-+1...Z. tsA.c•t-1 .?i j., .. >, M:.?G
n.%,, l f ' r• r 4y > ra.: t E i? >'?''l Ait .?,.. •.¢?, r tyT??•? f ? _.: =. ?. ?. ?. rl ?t. y`.? + ~ ??
z `•? ,L'1?' 11'? Y4"r ''?- i V • '1 ` *s? ' F~? Rid`.
:v..1.•- "" ?` ?-1• '?57' t P w'y ,rtti?ii[ ?' c '" rr yi " -•?1i?•r?""" `i' rK•c 11 J, ?- f? I??
h: Aw
r r? °? 5 -?1:'T ,.t•i.Y{nL. t?. :.b +??-•nt- f?: S<.. x 'te'a ckx
ti M rr ?a't+ ?`xr `a?^?*
,,ti,.... ??`. 't •n ?'•YCI Jli y??,1E'?' S`r'i 4, v 1.i- ? :. 1'yijlr _ rr 3 ,r..,?Y,.? ",?+•1 `• -Z''l:t
fir: y ri!'.?{? ' '?,t,,.• '? I+?94 F?' ? ?yy` 4 ?? c `? fSr 1 ?.
'' Y<f?.. ?'!l ???'4 ,i 4?t??rv? ? ? ? 'r? •?i.? r 'ir'!1 -??l'•-fy'.'4.'a .?.,"?.??j??t.
'.r.'.i?t - - - ----- - _,.,._'.d.J"'• ?.rC•'7 k, w?V:' ,. y?,.,?. '+' 1' C Y- -?°;•;
tti ?w= ` , t`?. "? • ;,.?'i??'">h's'? ?..,;?.
ArA -Argent loam
BoA - Boiling loam fine sand
`t
BrA - Brockman loam " Ow t
DoA- Doravan muck
FkA- Fork fine sandy loam =t„?p;r:•, ' C ,?? .-t` '?? r'yr,
K.?Pr??•, :4 n?Fv,?%
PeA-Pettigrew muck
•
.
PoA - Portsmouth mucky fine sand" F 4r" s 5r ?``?'y#` ' " ?,,,
Lid - Udorthents ? r t i ` I ?l* 1 a r V,fir
w ` q. :
YeA - Yeopim silt loam
YoA- Yonges loam r „ xj,- . , ..? `.r• ,?r t?•
N Figure 3.
Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration NRCS Soil Survey
Reference Wetland (Hyde Co.)
Site 'I - Trask Property
0 2,000 4,000
Feet

f
u,A
f ?•;? Lranj017
izW 15 VE:R.P
r
tNrvA`?PS? P?Nr?
t
VhAkorpn Creep
(jlid
C^ ?n6ttii•,
era tral
7?xcr ? °G
fl
I -.
•r
t,
P tt
I
i
t ?
I N Figure 4.
Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration USGS Topographic Map
Reference Wetland (Ponzer)
Site 1 - Trask Property
0 2,000 4,000
Feet
`. SITE
n
1 1 _ (4AlI NAI ae ,l ,d .
_ i +.('ILUL!FE RlF11C;E
a GVY kl CA pY
hE RFFII ;f - --- - ?`
eu' l.nkr U
(1Jllyntor ! aA, ? ? ''
f r
SITE
*Boundaries are appra. :n 4
of !'?"leant tr, he Ahsolm,
Cap Source: North Carolina Atlas & Gazetteer. Pg 47-48. 2006
y G 4NAf .
sa
i ? .
N
W E
S
SCALE 1" = 2 Miles
Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Figure 5.
Reference Wetland Vicinity Map
Site 2 - Northwest Fork/Hollow Groun Swamp

R
w
. 46 f.. ?j4 - ,1. ...gip * ^ ??J ¢
;y+
F` y rX -? ~
k?L- i, ? Of? kz r.
?r
.Rk
.

... \
1
`
,
.jam!
V.J ?
r e.

Northwest Fork
L ?-
P _ i

WAA
vzi7
'?.?r ? ? Fem. .i ?.?, •?, _ ,.

7- c,
•
`
4
? .i.. )i .'``_?.?
-.'ak.
? ` ' ti-y.
s
.mil ,.l1 ?yT'y
tYi?

?";`" Juniper
` r

j
W_' ,
Y {1
_ Southwest Fork

v
•

r
? ?
t
. r Ts

#
? +?"" .E '? '? ,
?
' Asa
?y •H?Y
a??rSR` a,
' ?
.
?
S.r ?
,
m.,
N f=igure 6.
Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration 1998 Aerial Photography
Reference Wetland
Site 2 - Northwest Fork/Hollow Ground Sw amp
0 1 2
Miles

? y 4
4 J\•1 •r`1'Y M"r ra4 ? t. L e • i a _ - _ !?.
t

i?

Sr i
Pu - Pungo muck -,
Do - Doravan muck
Po - Ponzer muck ?`.
Ba - Belhaven muck
N
Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration
Reference Wetland
Site 2 - Northwest Fork/Hollow Ground Swamp
0 1 2
Miles

Figure 7.
MRCS Soil Survey
(Tyrell Co.)

•

R- D

-

- - _ •_ - -...._ y' .. - .` ' - ? _ -- `? .` ? ?' _ _ - X11 _ ±.? +... . ... _ y - ? `1?

I
U
+
N Figure 8.
Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration USGS Topographic Map
Reference Wetland (Scotia Quad)
Site 2 - Northwest Fork/Hollow Ground Swamp
0 2,000 4,000
Feet
All
nl
S? ? 1 a t
.
i
°S'
?I
i D TFIUMAL
WIL'WIIISVAI ip
z is
x
i
.` j
r 1 ?..?
r
J #
3 I G ! F
?. j.
-®- 455
z
U)
Cfl
a?
E
C) co
r
O
1* 0 0

E ; (D
a?
?• Q
N ?
y CA
L 4-
LL
4-
0
U
m
O
IL
C
O
O
O p
N ?, O
? C O
O O C
E2 m =
m 0 C1
O
Y I?L
? U
U
co
m
E
o
rt
rim
L-
C
cyi
fly
D V
1
J?
.i
0

CL

L Y
Z
¢

o

z O

L) E

ca

65

,
W

D- Cl)
(4 Z
C a z
d O

Z
Q Q
a

Q
w

E
z
t
-
N
N
r
N

co co
Ii
I oI
'i
1
? L
_ ? ? -r? ? f - ,1 r ? 1 0
_. .?.. .? - j cV
N
(D D
a) T) CO
3
C
r
I? I
TWIN
l?W,

9 0
0
Ile v ( I ? o
a
y
< W
0
z -A,
N:; N
4
µ S >? ?7-
I n 0
S O
0
, a
a r
w / ' p M
cvj II
CZ
a'
F
< I m
1 S '^ t
? d
i -ell 0
0
1
c
akJk. a ?. '1. co
a m
Y ?YU? E
< < r. Y U U O
x a :ED E C j O N
C 3 m ` O
075 (1) (o
0) 0.
m -3
1 CLZ
C?c
U0U°azacn>°_
00% <=cQiQ
r E 4rk +$ ??. 3
J m a
! I ,?1.1,,, a a
-- - 8 0 1 E O
t a = O '(o Y U
m ! m' - < U 7
n? s m LL?k 3 N p> (Q U E N a) E
a _0 f0 E fA N -p
0) o mmli???
QQ
a 3J ? ? ? Ot ,,Q,,,,Q
,?.
EQ o c o
/ n a e Q Q m in LL a W
ICJ' \C
a
< Z
a CD
6 . O
r
U D
a t ?, `? a ( ?,, m ?i O
\\ C a .F
a (vl np a ? 03 1 ? ` ',??i C U
g m 1 ?
i S\ U y a ? 1 ??
^y` ?a Y
a ? u a
\ su??? ? $ .:t= ? Yy
m
4 ?. m *` ? Q Y C m
L 1,
cyi
-r;

•? 7
?? y J `? ?' y`Ya
•a?r -

G ae !
? , yt
r' 1-
a
{
?•; s ? ?.ip i`
4L !
..? Ki,T• J 1;,"r
_ CL Z
N Q
V- Q o
N? a ?+.' i J CV
t
,of
f
y?
ie ?
'
`
r
U
;t
"?j 1?c'?.
? i ± r ? r ?
'?
? y d

r' Y o

coo

4` ? i a J
r r ?,

1 t Y,
?41 '? a
? ?

Y

0
z
o?
\ O LL
te'! ° 1 \\
i I \
' 1 1 \
`? c! \ O
t 3 \ \ C)
?D' v\vv O
cli
14
T O r
O
m
I y U
q R
?Z
7
I
C `
V
7 '- Ire- --... -.._.. .?.... _. ?..._.-. _. .... ..._?
r I
'? 11
1
r.t
5
tyl
A
it
4
-? Q.
- O)m
L oO
mg
1 LL ?
1 ?1
0
' ?L U
? O
•+ . C
i 4.-. aj I 1 ?1. ' r L U D
14. +. I ? m
cis
f r i t • e u?, `.
1 V\.,i' $ Irv
=3
i •
j awl.,
1 ? 4
0 0 0
• • •
-(I I co co 'T "1 01 "1 1
c- m? o c,?? o a
°a Oam e° ?3? + C
U o +o }, ; } U o O Y
O ?? O `B V c " ° N `mom (0 0O
U) m } (n U f ? ? m ? c4i ? U ? c Q O ?+
(J) 0
(n o O U p N O '' + r ??
0 m O O; O L + 0 m } L m O
U W ` 0 O U W ?„' 'Q co
(W V W ?,
ppi-
0 0
} o c? L T
?o VJ (o •O j co
A: A: -1 N O
C ti N
^ , . •.' r•1 °•, r i ty. f "? X ? 1.'ITI' °t ? • x } M ly ? 1 e 1 i ;;( Ex,} rti?.1 j(F? r F?{: • '..'- --- ? ? ?
.. d ;.!!, t y k'4 1 9, Y k. ht F s :? y h+1'}. iVJ F/ .? `1?5+.?. '1 y? ~ LL
? ???.? ? ? fi b '? ? 1 d?t^ ,L ?Y^. f... fe?`Y.,:?,??f? k ? t ?? ?'.?'t?? ???• -
S
w'
S
A
y l 6
f
?Y I t t t L I '?i t, : is . 9 "t 4 N
,t j Y - ' P; •s? ! Y ?' f `, +, 4 .tt }? ` ? '.? t11« 3?. ? }+''a rR S}vo?6P ?'1. z
1. f IS ? d i r'i t .«^> r '^ ? ?* t??' I
e
' i
1
C x r ? o
41
r
A,, , I fR e y ,. ..4 f k ?•?,1 F -F I l v f?,? ?l ??, '1 •? p?y w i?4 , mil'
1 ,
,4' yMs? {
W1? .4? ? P ? Y p r•,yM 7ra1 ? t ( w ?? ?"r ?? - o u ??[ w `Ya ??
f 7 ?+ y wf } t I ti r E ?' R fi x'. i? a'R, ?t
?p? - ?w? `,: It 11 °?9 h khl?rtti '"r ti c ? ?? ?I d '1'? •? V
.1 If y i rf Y t t r f 5 7F i s Y V i C f ; Ya -
, r
r '? J F N '_' ? r ?
1n 1 4 ? ( 6i ? kl ??, ? ;? ? ?? ? p '? d Y •• t yY
it r ?? ?^. II ? ,? ? 4 ? 'F" ? ?.?' ?' '
.t Y; ' • 1 ; i t {? 1
I
c 4 r \ a e
It.
yv ?? ,."1ip v?atr T? Y"I. 1,x
u'?y?? ? ,/ ?Y ? ?p?? ?r4.? i q.,e¢Zt+? L •' i yti! 4i ?+I ???'* ? 4.
V \\ ? _ ? y- rr I ? y s ? "
4 ? W l+' i ? Try R ? 1 X ? 7?n I? ':1 y T t ? p Mfi?? 4ry1
LL ? /f }7? it ? P -1 Y S r'r ? .. t
O `?+'? 1 L (Y '% a 'Pn
ef,
?? ? { Sir ? ? ? t ?•- ? 5 t ? . , R i t.
•
'w?
N
I, v. / v
I
cc
?ti
1
•, P LL ?? .. .• }
,
,,LL
w f,
d q hI c; " ?y x "? O N N
??' oW 1 "I fly.. ?? al w fn
?t ?Wltr ?, C C
r Y
nWR? W + 'III ?? ?1? "?u ly 4. ?k.. ? +S ? ?•.? r ! e?°., ?' ? ?V f p? s - LL l11 LLJ
ID yu. rsr?'?" ? > ,?., ?, h? ° _ ?i \?SK,?.rr .?' a(', •? ? .? ? a?,,,. ? , i
u .a f?I d 9 1 - I'?! C
?r fi i'•h^t 1??¢I '^?,II? 1?? ?1 I 7 '... r"?1 , ,? m'?'?
yy ` F
, A41!
?. 1 r ff C V
a Y g? fr r.y, w.w;. k! • h$yA
J ?y '
f0 f0
t S .` 1? ry :• t.4 4 J d J J
C
co
a
C C
O
o a
0 0
c
Z O
af o
U t ?
c
U) 3 c_
Z E
Y
0U a?i d o0
U °o
O C ao N
LL m N
H E T
0 7
Z Of LL
J
F '
euo.? w_
,oooo°°CCC? r
° 0000 ` `
00o d ? z
a ..........
° o °°oori c° o
.°.°...000000°00°0 Z c
0 0° .0°00°0. o <
°°° o o° o o° o°PP°o o°o d
°°a° ° co ooo
...........................
oooo°o°°ooP °
°..00000ooo0POOOPOO o00
o°.ooooo o ooeooaooe°°°
.......... ..........
° °°°ooooooo°oooo°oooo°v
,9?. oooo°o°o ooooo°o°o i s°o°o°a t O
°0 0°°°0°°°ooooo°o°o.ao OD
Ak. 0 0° o n o °o° °i ° o o.° o°n°o o°d
ooooo.°P° ooo + 00
00...00000 oooo°o°°°ooooo°o°? .?
o . o o° 0 0 ooooo. o
P°.°o..-o.
o °0°00.000000000ooo0oc POOo
0
° O b°° 00 o c o..°a° o a o°0 0 0 0 0 o°o` '? ? o
u............ o nq
°.o°o o.a o 00 oc?..
;.
o O
,, oPPa4PO0o
0000 i.,
vj O o...00Q0000 OOP 0 oPe00?°pO?Of
V 0O ooo./ CD
0, "'?, ?? 0044 .O Oa 0..40 ?OOD 0 ° O
r*'?'? P COOO 9009. 40 C''r N
C y' ? x S??i ?'? O OO eo ooV OO.OU A4u? ?
F x
k
F
r
C9
'aj
co
U C N O
m ? n E
E
O 0 O C f0 C c N
a' p E C O co u co
m m C IL R'
p O O co 0 c00 W OC] y
m mm
N
co N L L N C ? '- C
O C W O N - O
N d a. W C C N a
N W C .cc CO N 'y .X O
w O. CL N .O N O 6 °' 0 W W O.
E E c -
N N O O N O p d O
c l6 w O O
y y 3 LL yr p O)
E E m c O d a W C,
8
Z
m r C7 m v LL d w v 72
aci .? m = io E LL E v O O
c a d c d T m m m 2 O d d
m U H Z M C:o CO m in N N
Now 'ROW
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
l
l
l
l IIIIIilllllllllllllli
l
l
l
i
l
l
l
i
l
i
I
I
I
I
I
i
l
l
l
l
l
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIililllllilllll
I I! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIillllll
IIIlillllllllllil
I lIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
1 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
! IIIIIIIIIIIIIII
I?illllllllllllll
i lllllllllllllll
I?IIlilllllllllll
II!IIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIlilllllllllllll
Illilllllllllllllll
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
?I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
I l l l l l l i l
l?llll IIIIIIIIil
i;ill ' IIIIII
III I, l
l
l
l
l
l
l
i
i
l\
IIIIIIIIIIIililllll
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
illllllllllllllll
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIilllllll
lllllllllllll
lllllllllll,
IIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIII
IIIIIIII
llllllll
lllllll
lllllll
IIIIII
llllll
lllll
IIIII
IIII
l
lll
III
I
lull 11
ll 11
tl It
illll llllll
1111111 llllll
llllll llllll
lllllli 11111
illli 1111
illl till
,lllli lli
llllll 1111
1 llllll 111
llilllllllll ll
llitlllllll 11111
liltl llllllll
ills llltlii
lilt 11111
1111 lilt
11111 llli
llllll tll
lull ill
llllll ill
ilillll lit l
llllll lull
1111 1111
1111 lull
till 11111
llllll 111
llllllll it
llllllllll Ili
lllllllll 111
tllllll ll
illlill B ill
llllll lull
c
(0
c d
m
CL o
c ?p
O
C13 y
O
E
m
v a?
L fn
j c
> E_
Y N
N `
U a
c of
m 2
7
?
it
? a
2 c
? U
00
0
0
N
A
7
y u a
f`'/1 4
z v
G E
L C
? O
Z '>
G
I
FFi
C C
v
m f0
m
-- U
CO
n E
dN,
Z .NM.. -i U
l0 p)
O C
m O
O 0) 0
N O u CO
C
W
'
2
1
o o o rn
OD W rn p
?

w
N
m
-C
c
12

N
ao

C1
c i

O

of
CL
W
CL O

M

o O

m y

W .
p
CL
E y
m .9 X
W w w

y
m
o
7
a 0

LL

y y
a)

O

n
c
cc (n

E fn

E

m

°o

d

H o

o
0)
v

ao
3 cc 0
v

-0 m
c
o

°

a co v

=

10 Li

E

m P 'Do

O v

O
a
i
:3 M CL M

:
0.
2
2
Jl m fn U F Z 3: m A ? ? N N
C
_N
CL
C
O C
N ?
O IL
N O)
O G
'O
a TO
s
? m
a
m o
? o
o`
m
°' co
U m °o
C N
E ?
? T
7 ?
S 5
o ?
- ? u
F M
J w o
V? t
z ;
°O
J ° N
s _ y
N
a
m
Li
s
Ca O
s ` \? )
1 ? cn
_ C N U)
?p
f w O
U
u
o xx
0 .0
ro
1
C) m
EL m w
a) a>i a)
o w o
CL Q.
o COL o
a U) d
T
}
1.
ro
CU
ro >
0
m
C !D mro
U w ry
k;,
L
J C
C =U
CL v o'
JMM? a` o J
J

N
R

c

$ m
Q N
c
.
c
O
>•+ U
a3

- lu U)
$ LL m D
N
N
) O
U ?

_ a- L m
_ B Q N a
a) ?

3 N

9 ++ a)
a) W
C r0 N

1!
L 5

p
O

C
O re
?
F r
is u°
It O
<
co
I1??
g
I
0
c
Q +
N
l z W
n co
? a)
CL1 ,?

O g f
l

VJ Q Q
(n O W O

N
O

o
v
U
a
a)
ro
a >

C
(J) o

a X
W
m

J
U)
2

C
O
;F,
o0

Q >
aw
C
o

a) U ?

N n
to fA
o
(on
I
s

U
O
Yl
? O
l - r
II
U ro
o r 11
L +
Q) r
N
;m
V
r
^
(Q co

N
ml m .: N o D
=
}

0
0
N

O
I j
i e

a o
m

W
o

1
a U,

a C ?
co
U
q
?

a7 `c e
a
"
U J
U C
n
C ?
O C 1 - o

c
a) +

e a
) a
O I
N
-?--
o 2 0 w
U i
co
I
'
U r N _ O I ;

N II
r
_ ?.
O ( '
? j
Q
c
0 _
r 11 a I
LO
CV
- U ;? i r II
co ; a) r
? I

_ (a to

e
C
a)
U
CA
_
co
0
0
. C) a3 U)
O a) ) O
> L L'

Ira O N
_>

v
r
C
W'
CD
Q
m
ti
U
N
U
c
c
d
7
00
o
o
N
0
0
N
Q
W
01
O
O
"I
C
Q
O
O
O
N
41
N
N
m
N
co
m
UI
C
O
N
L
f0
L
N
L
v a a a