20081317 Ver 1_Mitigation Plans_20080527

•

T
08 1 3 1 'fi
Prepared for:
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
Environmental Affairs Department
Aurora, North Carolina
Prepared by:
CZR INCORPORATED
4709 College Acres Drive, Suite 2
Wilmington, North Carolina
April 2008
d

0 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................1
1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... ............1
2.0 LOCATION, HISTORY, AND PRE-RESTORATION DESCRIPTION ....... ............1
2.1 Location ................................................................................................. ............1
2.2 History ................................................................................................... ............2
2.3 Pre-Restoration Description .................................................................. ............2
2.3.1 Soils ............................................................................................... ............2
2.3.2 Pre-restoration Drainage and Section 404 Jurisdictional Status ... ............ 2
2.3.3 Woodland Areas ............................................................................ ............ 3
2.3.4 Cleared Areas ................................................................................ ............ 3
2.3.5 Agricultural Fields .......................................................................... ............3
3.0 SITE SELECTION FACTORS AND JUSTIFICATION .............................. ............3
3.1 Logistics ................................................................................................ ............3
3.2 Cost and Technology ............................................................................ ............4
3.3 Justification ................................................................................................ ............4
3.3.1 Jurisdictional Status of Woodland and Cleared Areas .................. ............4
4.0 SPECIFIC GOALS, TARGET FUNCTIONS, AND METHODS ................. ............4
4.1 Goals ..................................................................................................... ............4
4.2 Target Functions ................................................................................... ............5
4.3. Methods ................................................................................................. ............6
4.3.1 Agricultural Areas ..........................................................................
0 4.3.2 Woodland Areas ............................................................................ ............6
............6
4.3.3 Cleared Areas ................................................................................ ............ 7
5.0 WORK PLAN METHODOLOGY ............................................................... ............ 7
5.1 Hydrologic Models ................................................................................. ............7
5.2 Water Budget ........................................................................................ ............7
5.2.1 Meteorology-Climatic Inputs and Evapotranspiration .................... ............7
5.2.2 Water Budget Outputs ................................................................... ............ 8
5.3 Proposed Contouring Plans .................................................................. ............8
6.0 PLANTING DESIGN .................................................................................. ............8
7.0 DATA COLLECTION FOR MONITORING ................................................ ............9
7.1 Vegetation Monitoring Plots .................................................................. ............9
7.2 Hydrology Monitoring ............................................................................ ............9
7.3 Reference Forest Wetland .................................................................... ..........10
8.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES .............................................. ..........10
8.1 Adaptive Management .......................................................................... ..........10
8.2 Long Term Management ....................................................................... ..........11
9.0 FINAL DISPENSATION OF SITE ............................................................. ..........11
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... ..........12
Cover: View of eastern half of Hell Swamp; towards Pungo Creek with Pungo River in
distance.
•
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan i FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 8
•
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Hell Swamp Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Site Map 1998 Aerial
Figure 3 Site Map 2006 Aerial
Figure 4 Soils
Figure 5 LIDAR Hell Swamp
Figure 6 Jurisdictional Wetlands, Waters, and Streams on Hell Swamp Mitigation Site
Figure 7 Hell Swamp and Scott Creek Wetland, Stream, and Buffer Mitigation Site
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
0
•
A Hell Swamp Restoration Site Stream Mitigation Plan Report, Baker Engineering
B Schafele Report on Wet Hardwood Forest Preservation Parcel/ Potential
Reference Forest
C Selected Site Photographs
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan
Attachment 8
FEIS Appendix I
•
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Four of the tracts that make up this property (1,266 acres) were purchased in
2006 and 2007 and the fifth tract (40 acres) is controlled by a purchase option obtained
in 2008, and will provide a broad range of mitigation opportunities. Most of the site
consists of hydric mineral soils, with some notable examples of low-lying, albeit non-
hydric soil areas. The site drains through channelized stream remnants and into the
disturbed and channelized Scott Creek. Scott Creek, portions of which are tidal on the
Hell Swamp site, empties into Pungo Creek, a Special Secondary Nursery Area. The
site encompasses almost the complete Scott Creek watershed. Approximately 19,480 If
of stream will be restored/enhanced, including the restoration of several riparian
headwater systems. Approximately 20 acres of Tar-Pamlico buffer will be restored or
enhanced, with additional potential buffer opportunity of 21acres if suitable stream
segments form in the riparian headwater systems. Riparian forested hardwood wetland
will be restored on about 59 acres with some additional enhancement potential. Non-
riparian forested wetland will be restored on 822 acres, with the balance of the site going
to preservation of existing wetland and planting of the upland to mixed hardwood for
preservation and a more diverse habitat. Approximately 40 acres at the head of the
watershed are in old growth forest, and will be preserved to help mitigate for the
Bonnerton hardwood area. Design of the Hell Swamp site is underway. Earthwork is
expected to be completed by the end of 2008, and planting accomplished in the first
quarter of 2009.
0 1.0 INTRODUCTION
The 1,306-acre Hell Swamp site is proposed to be part of the compensatory
mitigation for future unavoidable impacts to wetlands and waters as evaluated in the
Final Environmental Impact Statement for PCS Phosphate Mine Continuation and as
described in the Compensatory Section 404/401 Mitigation Plan: Comprehensive
Approach In Support of the PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. L Alternative Mine
Continuation (First 15 Years NCPC and Bonnerton Tracts) (PCS Phosphate Company
Inc. 2008). This document describes the Hell Swamp site and proposed restoration
activities.
2.0 LOCATION, HISTORY, AND PRE-RESTORATION DESCRIPTION
2.1 Location. The Hell Swamp site is located on the west side of Seed Tick
Neck Road (SR 1714) south of NC Highway 264. There are two entrances to the site
located approximately 1.7 and 2 miles south of Highway 264 on Seed Tick Neck Road.
The site is located approximately 2 miles east-southeast of the town of Yeatesville,
Pantego Township, North Carolina (straight-line distance). It can be found on the USGS
Pantego quadrangle (Figure 1). The main entrance road lies at 35.5277°N, 76.6719°W.
The site is located within the Pamlico Hydrologic Unit 03020104 of the Tar-Pamlico river
basin within the Pungo Creek subbasin. The site is drained by Scott Creek and Smith
Creek.
0
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 1 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 8
• 2.2 History. Four of the tracts that make up this property (1,266 acres) were
purchased in 2006 and 2007 and the fifth tract (40 acres) is controlled by a purchase
option obtained in 2008. The majority of this site has been in agricultural production for
several decades. Historic aerial photographs indicate that, except for a small field in the
northern part of the property, the site was forested until Scott Creek was dredged and
relocated in the 1960's and 1970's. An extensive network of ditches and canals was
added in subsequent years, rendering the majority of the site suitable for agriculture. A
northern portion of the site remained forested until the 1990's. This portion of the
property was in the process of being cleared and drained when it was obtained by PCS
Phosphate, Inc. In the southeastern corner of the site there are also some wooded
areas associated with Scott and Smith Creek that have been logged, but never put into
agricultural production.
2.3 Pre-Restoration Description. Farm access roads cross the site at various
angles creating a mosaic of fields, which are further divided by canals and ditches
(Figure 2). Scott Creek and Smith Creek carry water southeast from this site, under NC
Highway 99 and Pungo Creek Road (SR 1715), respectively, and into Pungo Creek.
Portions of Scott Creek are ditched and/or devoid of buffer (Figure 3). The major portion
of this site (approximately 1,002 acres) has been in active cultivation since the 1970's.
Approximately 157 acres were cleared and ditched within the past 15 years, and 148
acres are covered by timber and/or shrub-scrub habitat. Crop rotations in the active
agricultural fields have involved crops such as cotton, soybeans, corn, and winter wheat
(see also Photographs in Supporting Document B).
• 2.3.1 Soils. Most of the site is underlain by hydric, mineral soils and low-
lying non-hydric soils. Approximately 85 percent of soils on the site are hydric (1,111
acres). According to the NRCS soil survey for Beaufort County, the major soil series
mapped on the site and their approximate acreages are: Arapahoe fine sandy loam (426
acres), Portsmouth loam (196 acres), Dragston fine sandy loam (184 acres), Tomotley
fine sandy loam (193 acres), Cape Fear fine sandy loam (197 acres), Roanoke fine
sandy loam (84 acres), Muckalee loam (14 acres), Augusta fine sandy loam (14 acres),
and Seabrook loamy sand (less than an acre, Figure 4).
2.3.2 Pre-restoration Drainage and Section 404 Jurisdictional Status.
Scott Creek drains the majority of the Hell Swamp site; however, a small portion of the
southwestern corner of this site drains to Smith Creek (Figure 5). A network of ditches
and canals carry water off of the agricultural fields and into two branches of Scott Creek.
The main prong of Scott Creek extends north across two-thirds of the property
(approximately 1 mile), and the northern prong extends approximately 0.25 mile north
from the main prong. In fact, the Hell Swamp site encompasses almost the entire Scott
Creek watershed. Water from the site drains into Pungo Creek, a Special Secondary
Nursery Area designated by the NC Division of Marine Fisheries. Pungo Creek drains to
the Pungo River, which is one of the main tributaries of the Pamlico River. Most of the
Hell Swamp site acreage has been previously drained. Remaining Section 404
jurisdictional areas include some ditches up to the Ordinary High Water Mark, most of
the wooded land adjacent to Scott Creek and along the western parcel boundary, and
some wetlands along the northern border of the site all totalling approximately 97 acres
(Figure 6). Jurisdictional status of the two last parcels optioned by PCS (forested parcel
along both sides of Scott Creek just upstream of SR99 and the 40-acre forest along the
• western parcel boundary) have not been confirmed by the Corps. These two parcels
have been quantified as wetland using the soil survey.
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 2 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 8
11
2.3.3 Woodland Areas. A mature bottomland forest comprised of bald
cypress (Taxodium distichum), red maple (Acer rubrum), green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica) and sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua) covers approximately 43 acres
along the main body of Scott Creek. About one quarter of the creek is bottomland forest
on both sides and about one quarter is forested on only the south side. Subcanopy and
herbaceous species include swamp red bay (Persea palustris), wax myrtle (Morelia
cerifera), greenbriar (Smilax spp.), yellow jasmine (Gelsemium sempervirens), and rush
species (Juncus spp.). There is a sparse strip of common reed (Phragmites australis),
wax myrtle, black willow (Salix nigra), green ash and sweet gum along a portion of the
north side of the main body (approximately 4 acres). Approximately 7 acres on both
sides of the northern prong is a highly disturbed community made up of common reed,
wax myrtle, and scattered hardwoods. In addition, there are approximately 40 acres of
regenerating hardwoods along the northern border of the site, 40 acres of mature
hardwoods along the western boundary, and a 14-acre linear strip of mixed
pine/hardwood which separates the northern-most one-third of the site from the southern
portion. The 40-acre hardwood forest was determined by Michael Schafale of the NC
Natural Heritage Program to be an excellent representative of a non-riverine wet
hardwood forest. Depending on the fate of similar communities in the state, he also
determined this forest to be of state or regional significance.
2.3.4 Cleared Areas. The northern one-third of the site includes 157
acres of recently cleared and ditched areas and is in various stages of conversion to
agricultural land. Cleared areas are covered with dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium),
• panic grass species (Dicanthelium spp.), saplings of red maple, loblolly pine (Pinus
taeda), and sweet gum.
2.3.5 Agricultural Fields. The majority of the southern and eastern portion
of the site (approximately 965 acres) is made up of a mosaic of agricultural fields. There
is also a 37-acre agricultural field in the northern portion of the site which has been
farmed for more than 100 years. The total land that has been in active agricultural
production is approximately 1,002 acres.
3.0 SITE SELECTION FACTORS AND JUSTIFICATION
3.1 Logistics. Site selection is of primary importance in any wetland restoration
project since that which was previously a wetland will have a higher likelihood of
feasibility, sustainability, and success if restored. The crop fields of the Hell Swamp site
have prior-converted status as determined by NRCS. Also important in site selection is
adjacency to existing wetlands in a similar landscape position whose presence indicates
appropriate hydrological conditions for hydric soil and consequent vegetation
communities. Adjacent wetlands are also able to serve as seed banks, refugia for
mobile animals while the restoration site matures, and reference sites that may be used
to assess restoration success. Remnants of the Scott Creek riparian corridor are
present downstream of the site, and a relatively undisturbed wetland (a potential
reference forest) is present on the western side of the site. Pungo Creek is designated
as a Special Secondary Nursery Area by the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries
(NCDMF). The Hell Swamp mitigation site and Scott Creek are in a similar landscape
• position to several streams on the NCPC Tract which drain to South Creek, also a
Special Secondary Nursery Area. State-designated nursery areas are also considered
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 3 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 8
• Essential Fish Habitat by the South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council. Therefore,
restoration of the Scott Creek watershed, restoration of portions of Scott Creek itself,
and restoration and enhancement of its associated riparian buffer may benefit freshwater
fishes, estuarine species, and coastal migratory pelagic species.
3.2 Cost and Technology. Restoration of the site will require no special
technology or complex engineering since only ordinary surficial land-moving equipment
is necessary to prepare the site. All removal of field crowns, filling of interior ditches or
canals, and contouring will be based on LIDAR (light detection and ranging) and/or 0.5-
foot topographical survey data and informed by preparation of a water budget and model
predictions of soil behavior (based on permeability, texture, and stratigraphy) by a
registered professional engineer. There is no identified source of pollutants other than
what might be present from normal agricultural practices, so pollutant remediation is not
required to restore the site.
3.3 Justification. The agricultural acres of the Hell Swamp restoration site are
documented as prior-converted cropland by NRCS. Based on customary procedures
and field evaluations according to the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual, the Corps of Engineers determined the majority of the site, including those
acres prepared for agricultural use but not yet put into production, was non-jurisdictional
and therefore suitable for mitigation.
3.3.1 Jurisdictional Status of Woodland and Cleared Areas. The majority
of woodland areas on the site are jurisdictional wetland. There are a few, small areas of
• wooded upland in the northeast portion of the site. Jurisdictional status of creeks
extends upstream into the agricultural fields or along perimeter canals in several
channelized portions of the streams (ditches). The cleared areas of the site underlain by
hydric soils that are not currently in agricultural production were probably jurisdictional
wetlands prior to the removal of wetland hydrology due to ditching (Figure 6).
4.0 SPECIFIC GOALS, TARGET FUNCTIONS, AND METHODS
4.1 Goals. The ultimate purpose of mitigation activities of the Hell Swamp site
is to successfully restore 822 acres of non-riparian interstream wet flats, 59 acres
riparian wetlands, 32 acres of non-riparian preservation or enhancement, over 19,700 If
of headwater and 1St order stream channel, preserve or enhance 32 acres riparian
wetlands and 18 acres of non-riparian wetlands, and preserve 55 acres of non-riparian
wetlands, including a 40-acre "state or regionally significant" mature forest. Wetland
restoration will include non-riparian wet hardwood forests and riparian bottomland
hardwoods. Stream mitigation activities will result in restoration or enhancement of
approximately 20 acres of riparian buffer, and up to 25 acres of headwater riparian buffer
under the flexible buffer mitigation approach (Figure 7). A full discussion of plans for
stream mitigation is given in Supporting Document A. The entire 1,306-acre site will be
put in a perpetual conservation easement at the end of the monitoring period. The goals
will be achieved on a multi-spatial scale with these specific objectives:
¦ To capture and store rainfall which for the past three to four decades has
been carried off the site by a system of ditches and canals (site)
¦ To establish a diverse community of vegetation which reflect differences in
• soil character, topography, and hydroperiods (site)
¦ To improve water quality (site, watershed, and region)
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 4 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 8
• ¦ To provide wildlife habitat (site, watershed, and region)
4.2 Target Functions. Functions of wetlands and waters are the physical,
chemical, and biological processes and attributes of a wetland that in conjunction
operate as guarantors of water quality and are important components of food webs and
habitat. The 1990 Memorandum of Agreement between the Corps and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the Determination of Mitigation Under the
Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, and RGL 02-2, require the replacement
of aquatic functions which are unavoidably lost or adversely affected by an authorized
permitted activity. Many wetlands have multiple functions, and while accurate
assessment of wetland functions is a dynamic field, scientists do agree that all wetlands
either increase or decrease a specific component of the hydrologic cycle.
Successful replacement and/or uplift of any of the wetland functions is driven by
proper mitigation site selection and a design that maximizes what the natural conditions
of the site will support. The specific functions which are targeted for the Hell Swamp site
are:
¦ NUTRIENT REMOVAL/TRANSFORMATION- Transformation and removal
of nitrogen and phosphorus will be enhanced with a low gradient and
abundant vegetation of the replanted fields of Hell Swamp. Experience at
the nearby Parker Farm mitigation site indicates that volunteer
herbaceaous wetland vegetation will probably cover the Hell Swamp site
• within one year. The planted trees, volunteer herbs and forbs, and the
slope of the site that averages less than 0.2 percent, will enable this
function. Restoration and conversion of agricultural lands to wetlands and
forested systems will remove and/or greatly reduce the source of some
potential nutrients to Scott Creek, Pungo Creek, Pungo River, Pamlico
River, and Albemarle Pamlico Estuary and also serve to buffer and absorb
nutrients from other sites in the watershed.
ORGANIC MATTER PRODUCTION AND EXPORT- The onsite restored
streams and proximity to Pungo Creek guarantees multiple hydrologic links
for downstream transport of organic nutrients produced on the restored Hell
Swamp site. Productivity of the site will increase and change through time
as the vegetation matures and goes through various successional stages.
The complex range of elevations and network of natural drainages through
the site provide opportunities for the production and export of organic
material to areas downstream, including Scott Creek, Pungo Creek, Pungo
River, and the Pamlico River/Sound estuary.
• FLOODFLOW ATTENUATION AND SURFACE WATER STORAGE-
Portions of the Hell Swamp Site occur within the FEMA 100-year floodplain
and based on elevation alone, would attenuate floods only during an
extreme event. However, restoration of Hell Swamp to functional wetlands
will decelerate the current rapid delivery downstream of stormwater via
agricultural ditches and canals and increase and prolong surface and
subsurface storage capacity on site, relieving downstream flooding that
• may currently occur on a more frequent basis.
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 5 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 8
¦ CAPTURE AND RETENTION OF SEDIMENT AND OTHER
POLLUTANTS-Restoration of the Hell Swamp Site will reduce the aerial
suspension of topsoil that occurs with seasonal agricultural practices and
will decrease erosive velocity within main canals and ditches. A restored
wetland will increase storage capacity and deliver cleaner water
downstream with a decreased sediment load. Also cessation of agricultural
practices on the site will remove the seasonal application of herbicide,
pesticides, and fertilizers that in the past were transported downstream.
¦ GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE AND RECHARGE- Post-restoration,
freshwater runoff will be intercepted and discharged slowly over time at Hell
Swamp. Shallower and longer hydroperiods in areas adjacent to streams
and riparian headwater systems will increase base flow of Scott Creek, its
associated tributaries, and its riparian headwater systems.
¦ WILDLIFE HABITAT-The wetlands (and uplands) at Hell Swamp will
provide more diverse food and cover for a variety of birds, mammals,
reptiles, and amphibians. The large size of the site will have positive
effects on water quality in the Scott Creek watershed and will increase the
connectivity between the existing natural areas of Scott Creek downstream
of the site. Mitigation of large-scale watershed and corridor areas, like Hell
Swamp, will support important habitat to species that are sensitive to
community "edges" and those species requiring contiguous areas of
unbroken habitat. The conversion of agricultural landscapes to forested
habitats will serve to benefit local terrestrial and aquatic wildlife as well as
aquatic resources downstream of these sites.
AQUATIC DIVERSITY- Mitigation design at Hell Swamp will include a
diversity of stream habitats to provide support to a high diversity of
organisms. Habitats will include shallow areas, deeper pools, topographic
differences that alter site velocities and hydroperiods, and multiple
connections to permanent water. Restoration of the Hell Swamp site
should improve water quality in important downstream habitats, including
Pungo Creek, a Special Secondary Nursery Area.
4.3. Methods. Restorative work is focused on removal of the manmade
drainage features and re-creation of the surface roughness that will reestablish variable
hydrological conditions of a duration and frequency comparable to adjacent similar
wetlands. The site will then be planted with an appropriate mix of wetland trees and
shrubs commonly found in similar reference sites or known to historically exist on similar
sites.
4.3.1 Agricultural Areas. The field areas between interior ditches have
been graded for optimum drainage and agricultural production. The crowns within the
individual fields will be removed with the fill being placed in the adjacent ditches. After
the removal of the crowns, the fields will be roughened using a series of techniques to
increase surface storage.
4.3.2 Woodland Areas. Areas of mature or regenerating wetland forest
• will be preserved or enhanced. The thin strip of disturbed forest along the northern side
of the south prong of Scott Creek will be augmented with planting of additional, riparian
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 6 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 8
• tree species. Filling of the perimeter canal around the wetland regeneration area may
rehydrate it to a more natural hydroperiod. Disturbed riparian areas (primarily inhabited
by Phragmites) associated with the north prong of Scott Creek will be cleared and
replanted with native vegetation.
4.3.3 Cleared Areas. The non-agricultural cleared areas between interior
ditches were in the process of being graded for optimum drainage and agricultural
production. Spoil piles and crowns within the individual fields will be removed with the
fill being placed in the adjacent ditches. After the removal of the crowns, the fields will
be roughened using a series of techniques to increase surface storage.
5.0 WORK PLAN METHODOLOGY
The concept of the restoration work is to remove the manmade drainage facilities
and restore the site's natural topography. Prior to work plan development, a surveyor
prepared a half-foot contour topographical map of the entire site and LIDAR maps were
also obtained to assist with areas outside of the boundaries of the property. Field testing
of the soil groups was performed using compact constant head permeameters which test
the lateral conductivities of the soils.
5.1 Hydrologic Models. DRAINMOD will be used to predict the long term water
table elevations and potential hydroperiods. This program was created by Dr. R. Wayne
Skaggs in 1978 at North Carolina State University. DRAINMOD is a computer
• simulation model developed for soils with shallow water tables. The model is based on a
water balance in the soil profile and uses approximate methods to quantify the various
hydrologic components such as infiltration, surface roughness, surface runoff, deep and
lateral seepage and evapotranspiration. It has been tested and found to be reliable for a
wide range of soil and climatological conditions (Skaggs et al 1981; Gayle et al., 1985;
Fouss et al. 1987; Rogers, 1985; McMahon et al. 1987; and Susanto et al. 1987).
5.2 Water Budget. The objective of a water budget is to document the soil
characteristics relative to climatic inputs and evapotranspiration at Hell Swamp in order
to understand the expected hydrology during the growing season post-restoration. The
water budget is used to calculate how the seasonal pattern of water level fluctuations
(inflow, outflow, storage) may affect the hydrograph (hydroperiod) at a given site. Basic
components required to evaluate a water budget for a wetland site are meteorology,
soils, vegetation, hydrology, and hydraulic components of the soils.
5.2.1 Meteorology-Climatic Inputs and Evapotranspiration. Detailed, long-
term records are required for use in DRAINMOD including hourly precipitation and
evapotranspiration valuesl. The nearest NOAA weather station is located in Belhaven,
NC approximately 3 miles east of Hell Swamp (NOAH Station Belhaven 3E, located at
35°34' North, 76°35 West). Rainfall and temperature data have been collected daily at
this station since 1948, however, data are incomplete from 1991-1998 and 2005.
Weather data from the NOAA weather station located at the PCS Phosphate plant
facility at Aurora, NC located approximately 11 miles to the south (NOAA Station Aurora
6N) will most likely be used to calibrate the model and fine tune the soil parameters
measured in the field.
•
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 7 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 8
5.2.2 Water Budget Outputs. Long term water budgets will be calculated
using the yearly summary from DRAINMOD. The water budget shows the total rainfall
for a given year (input) and then shows the quantity infiltrated, the quantity lost to
evapotranspiration, the quantity lost to drainage(subsurface flow), and the quantity lost
to runoff (surface flow). The basis relationships between the categories are as follows:
Input to system=Rainfall
Rainfall volume captured by the surface roughness and
local storage = infiltration (F)
Volume in excess of the volume infiltrated = runoff
(surface runoff) (RO)
Two losses can occur to the volume infiltrated: they are
either lost through subsurface drainage or
evapotranspiration.
The volume infiltrated is the volume used to lengthen the
hydroperiod of the site. The site has been designed
to increase the surface roughness that will detain the
rainfall long enough for infiltration to occur. In years
with minimal rainfall the volume infiltrated, as a
percentage of rainfall, is high, conversely, in years of
significant rainfall, the volume infiltrated, as a
percentage of rainfall is low.
5.3 Proposed Contouring Plans. The intent of the proposed construction on
the Hell Swamp site is to restore the natural contours that existed on the property prior to
ditching and or farming. The methodology used to develop the plan involved taking a
series of cross-sections through the existing fields and calculating the amount of fill
required to be removed from the center, or crown, of each field such that the ditches on
either side of the field would be filled. The resultant elevations of the fields and ditches
after the removal of the agricultural drainage should return the ground surface to its
original topographic contour. Alignment of contours will be highly irregular, as would be
typical of an undisturbed site. After crown removal and ditch filling, a series of methods
will be used to roughen the ground surface and reintroduce the varied surfaces of its
former natural state. A large chisel plow will be used to break up any remaining soil
compacted from the agricultural use as well as the compaction from field re-contouring.
Once the soil has been loosened, a modified plow will be used to increase the surface
roughness of the soil.
6.0 PLANTING DESIGN
A strategy for vegetative restoration of Hell Swamp is currently under
development, and final planting plans will be designed to reflect soil characteristics,
elevations, field observations, expected hydrology, and seedling availability. To
accommodate varying hydrologic regimes planting zones will be designated based on
• topography and soils.
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 8 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 8
A variety of wetland hardwood tree species will be considered for planting. In
addition to trees, some shrubs will be incorporated into the plan to promote and offer a
diverse landscape. Restored areas will be planted with bare-root seedlings and some
tublings of native tree and shrub species that are known to have occurred historically in
the area and on similar sites.
7.0 DATA COLLECTION FOR MONITORING
Periodic monitoring is necessary to ensure that the restored streams and
wetlands are operating as designed and to document success criteria. These efforts will
include installation and data collection of rain gauges and groundwater wells, stream
flow monitoring, periodic photographic documentation, vegetation monitoring, and
stream profile evaluations. Efforts will last a minimum of five years, or until success
criteria have been successfully documented. Photographs will be taken periodically
throughout the monitoring year to visually document hydrologic conditions, stability,
vegetation growth, and the evolution of the restoration site. Permanent photo point
locations will be established and marked to facilitate photographs being taken at the
same locations each year monitoring is taking place.
The performance of the site will be summarized in yearly monitoring reports.
Reports will include the data collected during the monitoring year, comparison to data
from past years and reference locations, and assessments of whether the site is on
trajectory for meeting defined success criteria.
7.1 Vegetation Monitoring Plots. Vegetation monitoring plots will be
established over 2 percent of the restoration areas. Individual plots will be 43 feet x 203
feet in size (approx. 0.2 acre). Plots will be located to represent a range of conditions
across the restoration site. Immediately after planting has occurred, planted stems
within vegetation plots will be flagged and counted. Each year after restoration and prior
to leaf fall in autumn, vegetation plots will be sampled. All living stems of woody
vegetation within each plot will be identified and counted, including planted stems and
colonized species. General observations will be made during sampling to describe the
survivability of stems outside the vegetation monitoring plots, and other vegetation
planted across the site (live stakes, transplants, permanent seeding, etc.). This will
ensure that an adequate riparian buffer is installed at the site.
7.2 Hydrology Monitoring. Monitoring wells are currently located at Hell
Swamp, and distributed in all major soil series on the site. More than a year of pre-
restoration hydrology data will be available for Hell Swamp and will be used to fine tune
the model and water budget.
One automated rain gauge will be installed on the site after restoration has been
completed. The gauges will be installed in an open area, a minimum of 100 feet from
any tall tree or buildings. Data will be used in conjunction with data from nearby
automated weather stations to determine rainfall during the monitoring period.
Groundwater monitoring wells will be installed across the project site (-r 1well/10
acres) to document post-restoration water table and stream flow data. Data from these
is wells will be downloaded monthly during the growing season and every sixty days during
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 9 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 8
the dormant season. These data will determine if the water table at the project site has
been elevated sufficiently to restore wetland conditions.
Monitoring gauges will also be installed in headwater stream valleys to document
the occurrence of flow conditions. Success criteria will include documented flow from a
variety of methods in the restored headwater reaches during significant rainfall and
runoff events.
7.3 Reference Forest Wetland. A 40-acre mature forested portion of the Hell
Swamp site, located almost at the top of the divide, provides a potential reference forest
for restoration of the upper portions of Hell Swamp vegetation and hydrology. A year's
worth of hydrology data will have been collected for this site by the time of restoration
monitoring. Michael P. Schafale, biologist with the NC Natural Heritage Program, has
identified this site as potentially one of the best remaining examples of the nonriverine
wet hardwood forests that once covered a large portion of North Carolina's coastal plain.
Supporting Document B contains Shafale's site report prepared after his visit to this
forest.
8.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
Principles of adaptive management have become increasingly used as a tool to
elevate the likelihood of success of wetland mitigation projects throughout the United
States. Since ecosystem behavior and natural disturbances cannot always be
accurately predicted nor can human mistakes always be identified in advance, adaptive
management provides a somewhat formalized process for the iterative and interactive
approach to assessment and management of wetland mitigation projects. However,
adaptive management does not equate to perpetual maintenance.
8.1 Adaptive Management. Certain expected natural hazards which might
affect successful restoration are fire, flood, erosion, invasive species, and herbivory.
Construction mistakes could also affect performance and function of the restored area.
Strategies to minimize effects from natural hazards and human mistakes include:
¦ Any flooding from beaver activity will be noted during the monitoring period
and beavers will be removed by trapper(s).
¦ Sections affected by wildfire during the monitoring period will be assessed
for degree of damage and replanted at a spacing calculated to restore
specified tree density.
¦ Herbivory on seedlings by rabbits, rice and cotton rats, and field mice will
be reduced by the foxes, feral dogs and cats, hawks and owls resident in
nearby natural areas. Reductions in rodent herbivory will be achieved by
the erection of simple PVC perches at interior locations on the site to
encourage raptor use. If monitoring indicates deer numbers are
jeopardizing tree survival, decisions will be made, in coordination with
appropriate agencies on what, if anything, can be done.
¦ Construction errors will be identified early in the mitigation process with an
as-built report which contains spot elevations (i.e., plugs and inverts of any
pertinent culverts). Any correction effort will be coordinated with permitting
0 agencies such that the intended water regime is met
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 10 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 8
N Planting errors in spacing density or diversity will be avoided by diligent
monitoring of and coordination with planting crews to ensure fidelity to the
planting plan. An accounting of tree plot and monitoring well numbers and
locations will be included in the as-built.
¦ Design flaws may not be caught as early in the process, but if monitoring or
observation (i.e., excessive standing water) indicates a potential design
problem, remediation options will be explored with permitting agencies.
• Parker Farm monitoring wells were subject to frequent disturbance and
occasional destruction by black bears, despite efforts to armor the wells
against them. It is expected that bear problems will be most pronounced in
the first year or two of monitoring when the animals are becoming
accustomed to the lack of crops on the site. Barbed wire fences may be
constructed around the more expensive continuous monitoring wells.
8.2 Long Term Management. Long term management will be aided by a
controlled-access gate on the main entrance road of the property. It is anticipated that
once the area starts to naturalize, that no long term management will be needed.
9.0 FINAL DISPENSATION OF SITE
With agency concurrence of success of the site, arrangements with a suitable
non-governmental organization or government agency will be made such that a
conservation easement in perpetuity is transferred to such organization or agency.
Permitting agencies will be consulted during the decision and negotiation of final
dispensation.
CJ
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 8
•
REFERENCES
Fouss, J. L., R. L. Bengston , and C. E. Carter. 1987. Simulating subsurface drainage
in the lower Mississippi valley with DRAINMOD. Transactions of the ASAE
30:1679-1688.
Gayle, G., R. W. Skaggs, and C. E. Carter. 1985. Evaluation of a water management
model for a Louisiana sugar cane field. Journal of the American Society of Sugar
Caner Technologists. 4:18-28.
McMahon, P. C., S. Mostaghimi, and F. S. Wright. 1988. Simulation of corn yield by a
water management model for a coastal plains soil. Transactions of the American
Society of Agricultural Engineers 31:734-742.
Rogers, J. S. 1985. Water management model evaluation for shallow sandy soils.
Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 28:785-790.
Skaggs, R. W., N. R. Fausey, and B. H. Nolte. 1981. Water management evaluation for
north central Ohio. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers
24:922-928.
Susanto, R. H., J. Feyen, W. Diercloc, and G. Wyseuse. 1987. The use of simulation
models to evaluated the performance of subsurface drainage systems.
Proceedings of the Third International Drainage Workshop, Ohio State University,
Columbus, Ohio, USA. Pp. A67-A76.
•
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 12 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 8
? 0
•

nrfl ? 1
Pt
j
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: BFG
DATE: 5/05/08 FILE: HELLSWAMP-LOC-FEIS
CP# 174559.66
4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
D R A F T SUITE 2
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403
INCORPORATED TEL [phone] FIGURE 1
nrvx?aacrrtAL c WLTU FAX [phone]
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 8 1
•
•
•
SEED TICK NECK ROAD
V
.
r,
t
¢s
.
_ RT. 9M!
y
" Q
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 8 2
? 0

z
LEGEND
HELL SWAMP
DRAFT
I? 4#

.
-
.

?

P
y
#

0 2,000 4,000
SCALE IN FEET
SITE MAP - HELL SWAMP
2006 AERIAL
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: BFG
DATE: 5 05/08 FILE: HELLSWP-2006AER-FEIS.DWG
4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE CP#1 745.59.66
SUITE 2
ZR WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 26403
INCOroen-°e TEL [phone] FIGURE 3
omAO/wenu? ;:owvi?r.xx?s FAX [phone]
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 8 3
? 0
A
•
ear «
44
Gf
A
154.18 « At
0.13 «
:< Ap _
424." m -..; ,
s
h?
/ a.
To
.>.. 4; 27.90 2.42
Ap Ds
Fes: p ,-
To M
Pt CRF
DS
?.?196'" «
a. 4
01
;
Ap
2.20
u•?
rs
To / Ds
'. . ' > 79.92 «
a
1.: Me
A
LEGEND
0 1.500 3,000
HELL SWAMP (1,311.75 ACRES)
SCALE IN FEET
SOILS DRAFT
SYMBOL SOIL NAME
Ap ARAPAHOE (MINERAL)-426.84 ACRES SOILS
At AUGUSTA-14.41 ACRES HELL SWAMP
Cf CAPE FEAR R FINE SANDY LOAM-206.56 ACRES
DS DRAGSTON-184.84 ACRES
Me MUCKAL (MINERAL)-14.86 ACRES PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY INC.
Pt PORTSMOUTH (MINERAL)-196.04 ACRES , Ro ROANOKE (MINERAL)-83.65 ACRES
Sb SEABROOK LOAMY SAND-0.92 ACRES SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: BFG/TLJ
To TOMOTLEY (MINERAL)-183.63 ACRES
0 HYDRIC SOILS DATE: 05/05/08 FILE: HELLSWP-SOILS- FEIS.DWG
® NON-HYDRIC SOILS CP#1745.59.66
1709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
NOTE: ONLY HYDRIC SOILS ARE DESIGNATED SUITE z
MINERAL OR ORGANIC ATED WILMINGTON, NORTH TEL 91CAROLINA0/392 9253 28403 FIGURE 4
Vc.-A-
olv.al../rtu C9NSULTANn FAX [phone]
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 8 4

PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 8 5
•
•
•
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 8 6
0 0 0
LEGEND
` +g„'
w
HELL SWAMP
EXISTING SCOTT CREEK
POTENTIAL NON -WETLAND FROM EDGE EFFECT (104 ACRES)
POTENTIAL EXPANSION AREAS
WETLAND ENHANCEMENT (18 ACRES)
WETLAND PRESERVATION (15 ACRES)
50 FOOT BUFFER RESTORATION (16 ACRES)
ADDITIONAL 50 FOOT BUFFER RESTORATION (25 ACRES)
SCOTT CREEK STREAM RESTORATION (4,817 LF)
RIPARIAN HEADWATER SYSTEM STREAM RESTORATION (10,613 LF)
1 st ORDER STREAM RESTORATION (4,050 LF)
NON -RIPARIAN RESTORATION (822 ACRES)
RIPARIAN RESTORATION (59 ACRES)
RIPARIAN PRESERVATION/ENHANCEMENT (32 ACRES)
NON -RIPARIAN PRESERVATION (40 ACRES)
CORPS 2004/2007 JD
WETLAND LINES DRAWN FROM SOIL SURVEY
AND ARE NOT CONFIRMED BY THE CORPS
UPLAND (184 ACRES)
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan
Attachment 8
7
.pcy„n
L-1Cu4--t­- 4c) ccy
c- i-
��c5 7
u
Soy
b
�a c4- Lo; <
<
0
1,000 2.000 k' -e tom -
�-
SCALE IN FEET
cc, fhn� ccs
reh�
D R A F T
-S
HELL SWAMP AND SCOTT CREEK WETLAND, STREAM,
AND
BUFFER MITIGATION SITE
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC. W c b
o� -(D
scn-k,
SCALE: AS SHOWN
APPROVED BY:
DRAWN BY: BFG/TLJ
DATE: 5/06/08
FILE: HLSWMP-SCTCRK-RESTOR�
-ENHANC_FEIS.DWG
d
�t
Z
4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SUITE 2
CP# 1 745.59.66
� u�
�f (' Eft`
1" l/ b u
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403
INCORPORATED TEL [phone]
ENvwoNlrHru Ca"I TAM FAX [phone]
FIGURE 7
FEIS Appendix I 5�

SUPPORTING DOCUMENT A
HELL SWAMP RESTORATION SITE STREAM MITIGATION PLAN REPORT
BAKER ENGINEERING
go
U
0 HELL SWAMP RESTORATION SITE
Beaufort County, NC
Stream Mitigation Plan Report
Prepared by:
Baker Engineering
Cary, North Carolina
•
Prepared for:
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Aurora, North Carolina
April 2008
•
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan A-1 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 8 Supporting Document A
•
Existing Condition
The location of the Hell Swamp Site is shown in Figures 1 and 2. On-site stream and wetland
systems at the Hell Swamp site have been severely altered though conversion of the site to
agricultural land uses (Figure 3). Historic aerials show that a small farm parcel in the northern
portion of the site was under cultivation prior to 1938. However, the rest of the site remained
primarily wooded until the large-scale agricultural conversion of the property began in the late
1960's and early 1970's. It appears from historic aerials that the lower reach of Scott Creek was
dredged and relocated sometime between 1964 and 1970. Since that time, the site has been
cleared of most woody vegetation and extensive drainage networks have been excavated to lower
the local water table, eliminating wetland hydrology over most of the site and altering stream
flow patterns. Between most drainage ditches and channels, the land has been crowned to
promote increased surface drainage.
Field assessments focused on documenting the impacted and manipulated nature of the site. Site
data collected included a biological assessment of fish and macrobenthic communities, soils and
wetland delineations, water table hydrology data, and a geomorphic assessment which included
cross-sections and topographic surveys.
A topographic ground survey was conducted to develop a digital terrain model (DTM) for the
site. The DTM forms the base mapping for the design plan sheets, and illustrates the existing
drainage ditch network within the property. Four cross-sections were surveyed on the site, three
on the lower half of Scott Creek and one on a jurisdictional lateral channel that flows into Scott
Creek (Figure 3). Fluvial stream features such as bankfull indicators and pool, riffle, run
sequences were not observed during field assessments due to past channel manipulations and
backwater conditions. Therefore, the cross-section data were collected to document the incised
condition of the channels, and shows that the channels function more as drainage canals than
natural stream systems. Cross-sections are provided in Appendix A.
f.
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan A-2 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 8 Supporting Document A
•
Reference Site Analyses
Since few restoration projects have been implemented to date that make use of the US Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) publication
Information Regarding Stream Restoration with Emphasis on the Coastal Plain (2007), technical
design information for these systems is very limited. Therefore, to provide additional design
data, a study of Coastal Plain headwater reference sites was initiated with the following goals:
I) Identify reference systems that represent intact, functional systems
2) Describe the formation of channel features in headwater stream systems
3) Define the general functions that these systems provide
Each of these goals and the methods used are described below:
Goal 1: Identification of Reference Sites
Because headwater sites in the Coastal Plain are small and easily manipulated, it is difficult to
locate systems that have not been altered or impacted by human activities. Searches were aimed
at identifying small catchments (< 300 acres in size) with a mature wooded canopy and no
apparent artificial drainage affecting the reference areas. Assessments would then be conducted
at the most upstream point that showed a defined valley with periodic surface flow, and
continuing downstream until a perennial flow feature was reached. Data collected from these
assessments could then used to determine the points at which headwater valleys form channel and
fluvial features.
An extensive search was conducted of the area surrounding the project site in an attempt to locate
reference stream systems. Many potential sites were identified; however, the majority of these
sites had been drained for agricultural purposes or local topography had been modified through
forestry practices at some point in the past. Ultimately, six reference reaches along four
headwater drainages were identified in close proximity to Aurora, NC. To provide additional
data, eight reference reaches were identified along three headwater drainages within the Croatan
National Forest, south of New Bern, NC. Locations of the reference sites are shown in Figure 7,
and each is described in the sections below.
UT to Bailey Creek: Two reference reaches were surveyed on an unnamed tributary to Bailey
Creek. Drainage areas for the upstream and downstream reaches were 88 and 94 acres,
respectively. The upstream reach (UTBA-IA) exhibits wrack lines, scour features, and a
somewhat braided flow pattern. In some locations, flow is confined but the channel is not well
defined. Further downstream, the valley slope increases and the stream flow becomes confined to
a single thread, meandering channel. This area was surveyed as the downstream reference reach
(UTBA-1 B). Channel dimension is relatively consistent, with riffle and pools formed by both
channel meanders and woody debris.
UT to South Creek: Two reference reaches were surveyed on an unnamed tributary to South
Creek. Drainage areas for the upstream and downstream reaches were 215 and 250 acres,
respectively. The upstream reach (UTSC-IA) was surveyed approximately 600 feet downstream
of NC Route 306. Along this upstream reach, flow patterns are diffuse and braided, with a
considerable amount of subsurface flow during field surveys. Further downstream, the valley
slope increases and the stream flow becomes confined to a single thread, meandering channel.
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan A-3 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 8 Supporting Document A
• This area was surveyed as the downstream reference reach (UTSC-1B), and is located
approximately 400 feet downstream from UTSC-IA, and 400 feet upstream of a powerline
transmission corridor. Channel dimension along this downstream reach is relatively consistent,
with riffle and pools formed by both channel meanders and woody debris.
UTs to Porter Creek: Surveys were conducted on two headwater drainages to Porter Creek.
These sites have been reviewed by the regulatory agencies and are currently being monitoring by
PCS Phosphate and CZR, Inc. Site 1 (UTPC-1) has a drainage area of approximately 145 acres.
The site has been channelized in its upper reaches; however, channelization apparently ended in
the downstream portion of the site, where flows become braided and diffuse across a defined
headwater valley. This braided section was chosen as the reference reach location. Site 2
(UTPC-2) is located on a separate headwater drainage, further downstream along Porter Creek,
and has a drainage area of approximately 180 acres. Like UTPC1, UTPC-2 has been channelized
in its headwaters, but channelization apparently ended before its confluence with a larger stream
system. Downstream of the past channelization, the stream is a single thread, meandering
channel with well defined channel and bank features. This was the reach that was chosen as a
reference reach and was surveyed.
UTs to Brice Creek: Eight reference reach sites were identified along three separate headwater
tributaries to Brice Creek in the Croatan National Forest, south of New Bern. These sites were
identified as potential references through the help of NCDWQ staff who have reviewed the sites
in the past. The three tributary drainages were labeled Sites 1, 2, and 3, with Site 1 being the
northern most site and Site 3 being the southern most site.
Three reference reaches were identified and surveyed along Site 1. Drainage areas for the three
reaches from upstream to downstream (UTBR-IA, UTBR-1B, and UTBR-1C) are 96, 160, and
230 acres, respectively. UTBR-1 A is the most upstream reach and exhibits diffuse flow patterns
across a wetland floodplain, with few distinct channel features. UTBRA B is the middle reach
within the drainage and exhibits a more braided flow pattern with some sections of defined
channel bed and banks. UTBR-1C is the further reach downstream and was located in an area
where overall valley slope increases. The reach exists as a single thread, meandering stream
channel with well defined bed and banks and a relatively constant channel dimension.
Three reference reaches were also identified along Site 2. Drainage areas were smaller than those
identified for Site 1. Drainage areas for the three reaches from upstream to downstream (UTBR-
2A, UTBR-213, and UTBR-2C) are 25, 42, and 61 acres, respectively. The flow characteristics
for each reach were similar to Site 1, with the most upstream reach (UTBR-2A) exhibiting diffuse
flow with poorly defined channel features, the middle reach (UTBR-213) exhibiting braided flows,
and the downstream reach (UTBR-2C) exhibiting a single thread, meandering channel form.
Two reference reaches were identified along Site 3, which is a separate drainage just to the south
of Site 2. Drainage areas for the two reaches from upstream to downstream (UTBR-3A and
UTBR-313) are 45 and 58 acres, respectively. The most upstream reach (UTBR-3A) exhibiting
braided and diffuse flow with some channel features that were not consistent and were not well
defined along the reach length. The downstream reach (UTBR-3B) exhibiting a single thread,
meandering channel form with well defined bed and banks.
•
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan A-4 HIS Appendix I
Attachment 8 Supporting Document A
Goal 2: Determine the Factors Affecting Channel Formation
Most stream restoration projects that have been completed in the Coastal Plain have involved the
construction of a single-thread, meandering stream channel. As discussed in Information
Regarding Stream Restoration with Emphasis on the Coastal Plain (2007), restoration of a
single-thread channel is likely not appropriate for many headwater systems. In some situations,
formation of a wetland valley with braided, diffuse flow will be more appropriate. By performing
assessments on a range of reference sites (ie. varying drainage areas, valley slopes, and channel
definition), our goal was to determine the conditions under which different channel features (or
no channel features at all) are formed. Understanding these channel forming conditions would
then form the basis for the restoration approach for a given site.
As discussed previously, we identified several reference sites that began as defined valleys with
indications of periodic surface flows, and developed into more defined stream systems down
valley as drainage area increased. Once these drainages were identified, specific reference
reaches were delineated along the fall of the valley and survey were conducted to document
channel form (or lack of channel form). Reference reaches were divided into three categories
based on channel form:
Poorly Defined Channel - These systems are areas that exhibit a defined valley and evidence of
periodic surface flow, but lack defined channel features. Channel bed and bank features cannot
be identified, or if they can be identified, are poorly defined and only evident for short distances
before their definition is lost. These reaches were commonly found at the upper most portions of
the headwater drainage where flow events are not frequent and do not have sufficient energy to
• form channel features.
Moderately Defined Channel - These systems exhibit relatively constant bed and bank features,
but the channel dimensions (cross-sectional area and shape) are highly variable. Flows are
confined to one variable size channel in some areas, and multiple thread channels in other areas.
Channel form appears to be defined mostly through localized scour, small debris jams, and
vegetation.
Well Defined Channel - These systems can be considered typical, single-thread reference reach
quality channels. Channel banks are obvious and constant, and sandy bed material is common.
Channel dimension is relatively constant, with alternating riffle and pool areas. Some pools are
formed by stream meanders while others are formed by scour from woody debris. Channel form
is defined primarily through fluvial processes.
Each identified reference reach was surveyed along approximately 200 feet of its length. Cross-
sections were surveyed at representative locations to document the dimension of any channel
features, the width of the valley, and the general topography of the valley bottom. A longitudinal
profile was also surveyed along the apparent center of the flow pathway, to determine overall
slope, depth of a pools and riffles (if present), and variations in topography. Along reference
reaches that exhibited well defined channels, surveys methods followed those used for traditional
reference reach stream surveys that document channel dimension, pattern, and profile.
In simplest terms, the energy of flowing water is determined by its velocity and depth. Formation
of a defined stream channel begins when flowing water has sufficient energy to begin the
processes of scour, headcutting, and sediment transport. We used valley slope as a surrogate for
• flow velocity: the higher the valley slope, the higher the velocity of flowing water in the stream
system during storm events. We used drainage area as a surrogate for flow depth and quantity:
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan A-5 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 8 Supporting Document A
the higher the drainage area, the higher the volume of water (and depth of flowing water) for a
given storm event. Each surveyed reference reach was classified as either a poorly defined,
moderately defined, or well defined channel, based on visual observations during field surveys.
Valley slope and drainage area data for each surveyed reference reach is provided in Chart 1
below.
•
sloe.
Chart 1. Headwater reference reach data relating channel formation to drainage area and
0.016
• Poorly Defined
0.014 ¦ Moderately Defined
Well Defined
0.012
_ 0.01
m Well Defined
0 0.008 Channels
y
T
m
0.006 Moderately Defined
Channels
0.004
0.002
Poorly Defined ¦
Channels
0
10 100 1000
Drainage Area (acres)
The collected data indicate that channel form can be predicted by measurements of valley slope
and drainage area. As valley slope and drainage area increase, the energy of flowing water also
increases and tends to form more defined stream channels. While boundaries have been placed
on the graph to illustrate approximate ranges for each channel type, these boundaries should not
be considered as distinct thresholds that trigger a change from one channel form to another. The
data should be used to indicate ranges in which a particular channel form is likely to develop. In
fact, reference sites that fell near the boundary of two channel forms were often difficult to
classify distinctly as one of the three defined channel forms based on visual observations. For
example, a reference site that plots near the boundary between a well defined and a moderately
defined channel will usually display some characteristics of both.
Other results that were derived from this analysis are summarized below:
• Drainage area alone is not a good predictor of channel form. For example, at a drainage
area of approximately 100 acres, all three defined channel forms were identified on
reference sites.
• The guidance document Information Regarding Stream Restoration with Emphasis on the
Coastal Plain (2007) states that "... According to data being assembled by NCDWQ
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan A-6 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 8 Supporting Document A
(Periann Russel, DWQ, personal communication) watershed less than 25 acres in size
will not support a headwater system. Our data agree with this assessment. All identified
reference sites were based on the presence of a defined valley and upstream drainage
area, and evidence of periodic surface flow. The smallest drainage area of our evaluated
reference sites was approximately 25 acres.
• The guidance document Information Regarding Stream Restoration with Emphasis on the
Coastal Plain (2007) also states that "... Typically, sites with watersheds less than 100
acres would not support a stream with defined bed and bank." Our data do not support
this assessment. We identified two separate reference sites with drainage areas of 57 and
61 acres that displayed consistent bed and bank features, and well as fluvial bedform
features. These sites were located within relatively steep valleys, where the small
headwater valley transitioned into a deeper valley of a larger stream system.
Goal 3: Describe the General Functions of Coastal Plain Headwater Stream Systems
While research regarding the functions of headwater systems in Piedmont and Mountain
physiographic regions has been published, very little information could be found regarding the
functions of headwater systems in the Coastal Plain. By attempting to describe the general
functions that these systems provide, based on observations and data collected, this goal was
aimed at determining important aspects that need to be incorporated into a restoration design. In
addition to design consideration, the monitoring aspect of these projects requires that functions
are identified that are specific, measurable, attainable, reasonable, and trackable (Mitigation Plan
Development www.saw.usace.army.tniliwetlandsiMitigation;'mitplan.htmt).
During reference site assessments, observations were made regarding the functions that Coastal
Plain headwater stream systems provide. These systems are unique since they provide functions
associated with both wetlands and streams. We conducted a review of pertinent literature and
based our functional assessments primarily on stream and wetland functions that have been
defined in these works:
NC Wetlands Assessment Methodology (NC Division of Water Quality, NC Division of
Coastal Management, US Army Corps of Engineers and US Environmental Protection
Agency)
Functional Objectives for Stream Restoration (C. Fischenich - US Army Corps of
Engineers)
Using these sources as a guide, we evaluated the functions that Coastal Plain headwater systems
provide and developed four general classes of functions: hydrology, water quality, habitat, and
geomorphic. Benefits that each of these functions provides are listed in Table 1, along with field
indicators.

PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan A-7 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 8 Supporting Document A
•
•
Tahle 1. General functions of Coastal Plain headwater svstems.
General Function Benefits of System/Restoration Indicators
Hydrology • Runoff reduction Microtopography
• Flow velocity reduction Floodplain vegetation
• Energy dissipation Wrack and debris lines
• Reduced erosion and sedimentation Overbank flooding
• Maintenance of baseflow Soil moisture
• Prolonged soil saturation
• Groundwater recharge and discharge
Water Quality . Sediment retention and reductions Vegetative cover
• Nutrient reductions Distance from potential
• Carbon export sources
• Toxicant reductions Increased retention time
• Temperature moderation Sediment deposition
Saturated soil conditions
Habitat • Increased area of terrestrial and aquatic System size/area/extent
habitats Connectivity with other
• Increased fringe habitat between upland natural areas
and lowland habitats Vegetative cover
• Increased diversity Woody debris
• Connectivity corridors between different Microtopography
wetland and upland habitats Specialized native
• Uniqueness species
• Water source for fauna
Geomorphic • Provide topographic diversity and valley Valley topography
corridors Valley slope
• Maintains stream evolution processes
• Maintains valley formation processes
• Variable temperature and moisture
regimes
The functions listed and described above are not meant to necessarily represent a complete or
exhaustive list, but to provide a general description of the functions that Coastal Plain headwater
systems provide. The information indicates how these systems provide the functions of both
wetlands and stream. This functional list is also intended to provide a guide for developing
functional uplift goals for headwater system restoration projects.
Stream System Design
Due to the extensive drainage network, altered topography, and headwater nature of the Hell
Swamp system, it is difficult to determine the historic drainage pattern based on current
conditions. However, several methods were employed to identify historic headwater valleys and
develop initial design approaches. These included the use of historic aerials, LIDAR data,
topographic ground surveys, and reference site analysis.
Historic Aerials
Historic aerials for the site were obtained from the Beaufort County Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) for 1938, 1948, 1955, 1964, and 1970. These aerials were
0
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan A-8 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 8 Supporting Document A
• examined to determine the land use history of the site, and to search for signs of potential stream
features. Review of the historic aerials indicates that most of the project site was wooded into the
1970's, with the exception of a field area in the northern portion of the project area that has been
in agricultural production since at least 1938. In the early 1960's, a series of roads were
constructed through the site to allow access for subsequent drainage and conversion of the land to
agriculture. The lower portion of Scott Creek was channelized sometime between 1964 and
1970, as the dredged channel is clearly visible on the 1970 aerial. The photos also indicate that
the lower portion of Scott Creek was channelized along the northern edge of the historic
bottomland wetland system, and the historic alignment of the reach was altered.
Clear evidence of distinct stream channels is not evident from the aerial photos; however, the
photos do indicate the presence of valleys with apparent wetland features along the larger
tributaries and Scott Creek. The aerials for 1964 had faint blue pen marks that had been sketched
along the major drainages of the site. When asked what these pen marks indicated, NRCS staff
said that these were typically marks that the field agent would have made on the aerials to
indicate the location of streams on the site, during field assessments for soil mapping. The
timeline of the site supports this, since roads were constructed through the site between 1955 and
1964, indicating that further drainage of the site was being planned and the landowner(s) would
have likely consulted with the NRCS regarding drainage practices and soil conditions.
Topographic Data
Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) data and data from on-site ground surveys were used to
detect the presence of historic headwater valleys across the project site. LIDAR data was used
• primarily at the onset of the project, prior to actual ground surveys. Once ground surveys were
completed and a Digital Terrain Model (DTM) was created for the site, this information was used
to evaluate the presence of historic valleys (Figure 4).
Identified Project Reaches
Information gathered from the historic aerials was used in combination with detailed topographic
data to predict the locations of historic stream features on the site. The main channel that flows
through the site is labeled as Scott Creek from its headwaters to the downstream extent of the
property at NC Route 99, where the creek flows through a road culvert and eventually discharges
to the Pungo River. At its headwaters, the historic drainage area of Scott Creek was
approximately 90 acres, increasing to 800 acres at the downstream end of the project. Based on
regulatory guidance provided in Information Regarding Stream Restoration with Emphasis on the
Coastal Plain (USACE and NCDWQ, 2007), the upper portions of Scott Creek would have been
considered a riparian headwater system that transitioned to a low energy stream in the middle
portion of the site. Several headwater tributaries were identified that would have historically
drained to Scott Creek (Figure 5), and each is described below.
Unnamed tributary 1 (UT1) begins at the base of a slight escarpment feature that runs north to
south along the western side of the project site. UT1 was identified by a prominent topographic
valley signature, and indications of a valley on historic aerials of the site. The historic drainage
area at the downstream end of the reach was approximately 250 acres, and the system would have
been considered a riparian headwater or low energy stream system.
UT2, UT3, UT4, and UT5 are small drainages that flow into Scott Creek near the middle portion
of the project site, where the historic floodplain valley of Scott Creek begins to widen and
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan A-9 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 8 Supporting Document A
become well defined. Historic drainage areas of the four reaches were estimated at 35, 29, 25,
and 25 acres, respectively. Each of the drainages appears as distinct topographic valleys. UT4
was visible on historic aerials of the site. Portions of the drainage ditches and canals that
currently drain the locations of UT2, UT3, UT4, and UT5 were considered jurisdictional by the
USACE and NCDWQ. Historically, each of these drainages would have been considered riparian
headwater systems.
UT6 and UT7 were identified based on distinct topographic valley signatures, and historic aerial
photographs. The lower portion of UT6 is also identified as a stream feature on the Beaufort
County Soil Survey. The two tributaries comprise a larger, distinct tributary system that flows
into the lower portion of Scott Creek. The main stem of the system is labeled UT6, and the
smaller tributary that drains into UT6 from the north is labeled UT7. The drainages areas for
UT6 and UT7 are 206 and 39 acres, respectively. The upstream portion of UT6 and the entire
length of UT7 would have historically been considered riparian headwater systems. It is likely
that the downstream portions of UT6 would have transitioned into a low energy stream system.
UT8 is the only tributary on the project site that did not historically drain to Scott Creek. Historic
aerials and topographic valley signatures indicate that the tributary historically drained to another
tributary to the Pungo River, to the south of Scott Creek. UT8 is also identified as a stream
feature on the Beaufort County Soil Survey. The tributary system would have historically
drained the entire southern portion of the project area, and historic drainage area is estimated to
have been 240 acres. The upstream portion of UT8 would have historically been considered a
riparian headwater system, transitioning to a low energy stream further downstream.
Design Approach and Techniques
After identifying historic valley and stream features across the site, assessments were performed
to evaluate the appropriate design approach for each stream reach. Very little technical design
guidance is currently available that described appropriate design practices and approaches for
Coastal Plain headwater stream systems. For this reason, the reference site analyses, described in
a previous section, were used to guide the selection of design approaches.
One fundamental design question was to determine the channel form (ie. single, braided, diffuse,
etc) that was appropriate for a given reach. The data collected as part of the reference site study
indicated that channel form could be predicted by estimating valley slope and drainage area.
Therefore, the first step in designing the appropriate channel form was to determine the area and
slope of each stream valley. Topographic information for the site was studied to estimate historic
ground elevations, prior to manipulation of the land for agricultural conversion. Through this
exercise, design contours for the historic stream valleys were developed, forming the basis for the
site grading plan. The grading plan for areas away from the stream valleys focused on restoring
the historic drainage patterns of the site.
Once general grades were developed for each stream valley, valley slope and drainage area were
compared to the data collected during the reference site study. In this manner, the appropriate
channel form was estimated for each stream reach, based on the form classes that were
determined as part of the reference reach study (poorly defined, moderately defined, and well
defined channels). Along some streams, the channel form varies along the reach based on
changes in valley slope and drainage area. For example, the headwaters regions of Scott Creek
were predicted to function as poorly defined channel segments, while the lower portions were
predicted to function as moderately defined channel's. Approximately 700 feet of channel in the
II
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan A-10 1 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 8 Supporting Document A
• middle portion of Scott Creek will be designed as a single thread channel, based on a relatively
steep slope in that region. Design approaches and reach lengths for each stream are summarized
in Table 2 below.
Table 2. Summary of reach characteristics, lengths, and design channel forms for project
stream reaches.
Reach Name Drainage
Area (acres) Design Slope Length Design Channel
Form
Scott Creek (a) 90 0.0009 570 Poor
Scott Creek (b) 130 0.004 850 Moderate
Scott Creek (c) 290 0.0006 1,870 Poor
Scott Creek d 350 0.0027 700 Well
Scott Creek (e) 800 0.0003 - 0.0008 4,610 Moderate
UTI 251 0.0012 1,280 Moderate
UT2 35 0.0036 610 Poor
UT3 29 0.0014 - 0.0030 1,080 Poor
UT4 25 0.0014 - 0.0043 1,060 Poor
UT5 21 0.0032 845 Poor
UT6 (a) 96 0.0018 1,520 Poor
UT6 b) 206 0.0008 1,245 Poor
UT7 39 0.0012 - 0.0027 1,120 Poor
UT8 (a) 118 0.0005 1,164 Poor
UT8 (b) 240 0.003 1,538 Moderate
Construction of poorly defined channel reaches will consist primarily of grading the valley to
design contours, and then roughing the floodplain areas to provide microtopographic variability
that is typical of these reaches under reference conditions. Woody debris will be scattered
sparsely across the floodplain to improve habitat diversity.
Construction of moderately defined channel reaches will follow similar techniques as described
for poorly defined channel reaches. The valley will be first graded to design contours.
Microtopography will be added to the floodplain, but to a greater degree than poorly defined
channel segments. Along reference sites that were evaluated, microtopographic variability was
greater along moderately defined channels as compared to poorly defined channels. This is
presumably due to more scour and deposition as a result of greater energy during flow events. It
is also likely that tip mounds (toppled trees) are more prevalent along the floodplains of
moderately defined channels, due to greater surface saturation for longer periods of the year.
Woody debris was also observed to be a major component to the function of moderately defined
channels, providing grade control, dispersion of flow into multiple channels, localized scour
pools, and increased micro-habitats.
Construction of the well defined channel reach of Scott Creek will follow more tradition stream
restoration techniques for restoration of single thread, meandering channels. The channel
dimension, pattern, and profile are based on similar reference reaches, as well as past project
experience under similar drainage area, soils, and slope conditions. Wood structures will be
incorporated into the channel design, primarily to promote scour in pool areas and improve
habitat diversity.
•
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan A-1 I HIS Appendix I
Attachment 8 Supporting Document A
All stream reaches and riparian valleys on the project site will be planted with native tree and
shrub species that are suited to headwater Coastal Plain systems. Planted species will likely
include American holly (Ilex opaca), swamp tupelo (Nyssa sylvatica var.biora), sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis), overcup oak (Quercus lyrata), swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii),
willow oak (Quercus phellos), and bald cypress (Taxodium distichum). These species have been
observed on reference sites, and some species can be found within the floodplain areas along
lower Scott Creek.
Restoration of Functions
As part of the reference site study that was conducted on Coastal Plain headwater systems,
general functions that these systems provide were listed and described. The intent of the
reference study was not to provide an exhaustive list of all functions that are provided by Coastal
Plain headwater systems, but to establish functional uplift goals that should be incorporated into
restoration designs.
The functions developed from the reference site analyses are summarized in Table 3 below, along
with the restoration techniques that will be used to address functional uplift.
•

PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan A-12 HIS Appendix I
Attachment 8 Supporting Document A
•

Table 3. Techniques for addressing the restoration of Coastal Plain headwater stream
functions.
General Benefits of System/Restoration Restoration Techniques to Achieve
Function Functional Uplift
Hydrology . Runoff reduction • Incorporating appropriate levels of
• Flow velocity reduction microtopography
• Energy dissipation • Establishing floodplain vegetation
• Reduced erosion and • Channel design based on energy of
sedimentation the system
• Maintenance of baseflow • Restoration of historic valley
• Prolonged soil saturation gradients
• Groundwater recharge and
discharge
Water • Sediment retention and • Establishing vegetative cover
Quality reductions e Design of stable channel forms
• Nutrient reductions based on energy of the system
• Carbon export • Designing of periodic out-of-bank
• Toxicant reductions flows
• Temperature moderation
Habitat e Increased area of terrestrial and * Minimize impacts to functional
aquatic habitats portions of the site
• Increased fringe habitat e Incorporating woody debris
between upland and lowland . Incorporating appropriate levels of
habitats microtopography
• Increased diversity . Removing fish passage barriers
• Connectivity corridors between . Design for variable and appropriate
different wetland and upland hydrologic regimes
habitats • Incorporating pools into channel
• Uniqueness design
• Water source for fauna
Geo- • Provide topographic diversity • Restoration of historic valley
morphic and valley corridors gradients and topography
• Maintains stream evolution
processes
• Maintains valley formation
processes
• Variable temperature and
moisture regimes
Mitigation Potential
Stream Mitigation Potential
Stream mitigation potential is available on all nine identified stream reaches. Stream restoration
techniques are proposed for all stream reaches, based on current stream conditions and
replacement of lost functions. Stream restoration on the tributaries and the upper and middle
portions of Scott Creek will focus on reforming the historic floodplain valleys and raising
channelized stream segments to reconnect to these floodplains, restoring adjacent riparian
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan A-13
Attachment 8
FEIS Appendix I
Supporting Document A
•

E
wetlands. Restoration of the lower portion of Scott Creek will focus on reestablishing a flooding
regime for the adjacent wetland areas by restoring braided flow patterns across the existing
floodplain. Proposed stream mitigation approaches are shown in Figure 5, and are summarized
in Table 4.
Table 4. Summary of Potential Mitigation Approaches and Credits.
Stream Mitigation (see Figure 5)
Stream Reach Mitigation Approach Length
Scott Creek Headwater restoration
Channel restoration 3,195 ft
5,130 ft
UTI Headwater restoration 1,280 ft
UT2 Headwater restoration 610 ft
UT3 Headwater restoration 1,080 ft
UT4 Headwater restoration 1,060 ft
UT5 Headwater restoration 845 ft
UT6 Headwater restoration
Channel restoration 1,465 ft
1,285 ft
UT7 Headwater restoration 1,120 ft
UT8 Headwater restoration 2,700 ft
Total Restoration 19,770 ft
Riparian Buffer Mitigation (see Figure 6)
Stream Reach Mitigation
Approach Length Area
Scott Creek Restoration
Enhancement 4,420 ft
3,155 ft 10.2 ac
7.3 ac
UT6 Restoration 1,285 ft 2.9 ac
Total Restoration
Total Enhancement 13.1 ac
7.3 ac
Headwater Riparian Buffer Mitigation (see Figure 6)
Stream Reach Mitigation
Approach Length Area
Scott Creek Restoration 750 ft 1.7 ac
UTI Restoration 1,280 ft 2.9 ac
UT2 Restoration 610 ft 1.4 ac
UT3 Restoration 1,080 ft 2.4 ac
UT4 Restoration 1,060 ft 2.4 ac
UT5 Restoration 845 ft 1.9 ac
UT6 Restoration 1,465 ft 3.5 ac
UT7 Restoration 1,120 ft 2.5 ac
UT8 Restoration 2,700 ft 6.4 ac
Total Restoration 25.1 ac
Riparian Buffer Mitigation Potential
Proposed buffer mitigation approaches are shown in Figure 6, and amounts are summarized in
Table 4. Riparian buffer mitigation will be available along stream reaches that are identified on
the USGS topographic quadrangle or the County soil survey, and have been field verified as
jurisdictional by the regulatory agencies. In open field areas, buffer restoration credits will be
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan A-14
Attachment 8
FEIS Appendix I
Supporting Document A
. available, while buffer enhancement will be used in existing wooded areas where buffer
functions are degraded.
Areas proposed for headwater riparian buffer restoration may produce riparian buffer credits, if
approved by the Environmental Management Commission through a buffer variance. These
potential buffer mitigation amounts are also summarized in Table 4.
Post Construction Monitoring
Periodic monitoring is necessary to ensure that the restored streams and wetlands are operating as
designed and to document success criteria. These efforts will include installation and data
collection of rain gages and groundwater wells, stream flow monitoring, periodic photographic
documentation at stationed cross-sections, vegetation monitoring, and stream profile evaluations.
Efforts will last a minimum of five years, or until success criteria has been successfully
documented.
One automated and one manual rain gage will be installed on the site after restoration has been
completed. The gages will be installed in an open area, a minimum of 100 feet from any tall tree
or buildings. Data will be used in conjunction with data from nearby automated weather stations
to determine rainfall during the monitoring period. Groundwater monitoring wells will be
installed across the project site to document post-restoration water table and stream flow data.
Data from these wells will be downloaded monthly. These data will determine if the water table
at the project site has been elevated sufficiently to restore adjacent wetland conditions.
Monitoring gages will also be installed in headwater stream valleys to document the occurrence
of flow conditions. Success criteria will include documented flow in the restored headwater
reaches during significant rainfall and runoff events.
Photographs will be taken periodically throughout the monitoring year to visually document
hydrologic conditions, stability, vegetation growth, and the evolution of the restoration site.
Permanent photo point locations will be established and marked to facilitate photographs being
taken at the same locations each year monitoring is taking place.
Vegetation monitoring plots will be established over 2 percent of the restoration areas.
Individual plots will be approximately 43 feet x 203 feet in size (approx. 0.2 acre). Plots will be
located to represent a range of conditions across the restoration site. Immediately after planting
has occurred, planted stems within vegetation plots will be flagged and counted. Each year after
restoration and prior to leaf fall in autumn, vegetation plots will be sampled. All living stems of
woody vegetation within each plot will be identified and counted, including planted stems and
colonized species. General observations will be made during sampling to describe the
survivability of stems outside the vegetation monitoring plots, and other vegetation planted
across the site (live stakes, transplants, permanent seeding, etc.). This will ensure that an
adequate riparian buffer is installed at the site.
The performance of the site will be summarized in yearly monitoring reports. Reports
will include the data collected during the monitoring year, comparison to data from past
years and reference locations, and assessments of whether the site is on trajectory for
meeting defined success criteria.
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan A-15 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 8 Supporting Document A
0
? 0

P
264

ri

264
Project Location
v
?
Rd ?

m

m
C,
r

R ,

t

-?~: pa?7liCO River
...
PCS Phosphate
Mine Location
i k
x
t
P
Av
51
a
n• v..
Aurvr
h vv,?
rv
v ?vR
fV
17
26
r 92 ? Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
Hell Swamp Site
Beaufort County P oiect
Location 0 0.5 1 2 3 4
J
'?--- -- Miles
CS Compensatory Mitigation Plan A-16
ttachment 8
FEIS Appendix I
Supporting Document A
•
? 0

Attachment 8 ti-1' Supporting Document A
•
•
•
.'
_77
0 5001,000 2,000 3,000
Feet
Figure 3
Cross-Section Map
Hell Swamp Site
Attachment 8 ti- 10 Supporting Document A
i•
•
•
'AM
N s -
- 11 10 11-111_?,
z _a `
M
51
Legend
'? Q
NMI
z Property Boundary
Proposed Streams
i
i »
N
w
'X
z '? °"M uJ,
- ZERO M?
ON 10,
\,
MOG
T - Tom. `;? s
?- i"N
60
"Ma
M
R,
f.. T ?
t -a,
Attachment ? h-1' Supporting Document A
•
i
•
Attachment 8 Supporting Document A

•
}t
i
T-"'
•

PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan A-21 FEIS Appendix [
Attachment 8 Supporting Document A
•
Project Site t~'� 64,r
Reference
5 ,
13-- 17 C� -- - ---= ---- --
r -i l 1� r
t -
Sr 1"�4
i _
J 5
Hofmann State
�� -- H = -
ell Swamp
a
<,ir ,t;-, Restoration Site r'
`./ t f.
- Upper Back Creek
Restoration Site 26
i UT to Porter Creek
Site 1 UT to Porter Creek
Site 2
UT to Bailey Creek
17
T
ti 17 UT to South Creek
1-k IS
'I UT to Brice Creek + f t y
�. Site 1 J -e
UT•to`Brice Creek �-=� -'-'' � }�,
Site 2 �J !
UT to Brice Creek r y�
rte. -•4 -
Site 3 �' 1 i':�1 ;J6— fi w`
I yt r'
i it _ �� 4.t � /✓_
0 2.5 5 10 15 Figure 7
Miles Reference Sites Map
r M
Hell Swamp Site
Attachment N
A -2L
Supporting Document A
C Lookout Nat/ Seasl
0 2.5 5 10 15 Figure 7
Miles Reference Sites Map
r M
Hell Swamp Site
Attachment N
A -2L
Supporting Document A

•
APPENDIX A
Hell Swamp Restoration Site
Existing Condition Stream Cross-sections

•
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan
Attachment 8 A-23
FEIS Appendix I
Supporting Document A

•
•
Stream BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area BKF Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Drainage
Ditch F 10.1 11.72 0.86 1.18 13.58 2.7 1.2 -0.7 1.34
41
3
_ 2
0
`0 0
m
w -1
-2
-3
0
Cross-section 1 - Scott Creek

20 40 60 80
Station (ft)
100 120 140
•--o•-•Bankfull ---o•- Floodprone
Stream BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area BKF Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Drainage
Ditch F 12 24.13 0.5 0.99 48.44 2.8 1.2 -1.3 0.5
4?
2
0 1
0
R 0
d
w -1
-2
-3
0
50 100
Cross-section 2 - Scott Creek
150 200 250 300 350400
Station (ft) c)-- Bankfull - - -o- - Floodprone
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan
Attachment 8
A-24 FEIS Appendix I
Supporting Document A
•
E
•
Stream BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area BKF Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Drainage
Ditch F 13.1 23.5 0.56 1.12 42.07 2.4 1.3 -0.9 0.71
4-
3
2
1
w0
m 0
m
w -1
-2
-3
0
Cross-section 3 - Scott Creek

50 100 150 200
Station (ft)
250 300 350 400
F-0-- Bankfull - - -o- - Floodprone
Stream BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area BKF Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Drainage
Ditch F 1.9 6.64 0.28 0.52 23.46 2 1.5 -0.28 0.26
2.5
2
w 1.5
1
0
r
0.5
m
w 0
-0.5
-1
0
Cross-section 1 - UT4
50 100 150 200 250 300
Station (ft) o Bankfull - - -o.. Floodprone
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan
Attachment 8
HIS Appendix I
A-25 Supporting Document A
•
SUPPORTING DOCUMENT B
NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM SITE REPORT
HELL SWAMP HARDWOOD FOREST

0
•
1]

SITE SURVEY REPORT FORM
NC Natural Heritage Program
SITE NAME: Hell Swamp Hardwood Forest
DATES VISITED: March 26, 2007
INVESTIGATORS: Mike Schafale, Julia Berger (CZR), Lorrie Laliberte CZR)
REPORT AUTHOR: Mike Schafale
OWNER: The Windley family owns the most significant portion. PCS Phosphate owns 900
acres adjacent to the east, including part of the Scott Creek headwaters.
OWNER CONTACT: Contact through Julia Berger
COUNTY: Beaufort QUAD: Pantego
SIZE: primary 44.24 acres, secondary 26.12
HOW DETERMINED: GIS.
LOCATION: Located in far eastern Beaufort County, north of Pungo Creek, northwest of the
community of Smithtown and southwest of Pantego. It lies midway between US 264, Seed Tick
Neck Road (SR 1714), NC 92, and Creek Road (SR 1715), near the headwaters of Scott Creek.
PROVINCE: Coastal Plain WATERSHED: Pungo River
GENERAL DESCRIPTION: This site is a remnant of the extensive nonriverine wetland known
as Hell Swamp. It is a patch of Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest in very good condition. The
community remnant is fairly small, but is in excellent condition.
in the future.
SIGNIFICANCE OF SITE: Regional or State, depending on the fate of other comparable sites.
Examples of Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest sites continue to be lost or reduced at a rate of
several per year. If this site is not one of the few best examples in the state at present, it may be
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
ASPECT: Flat.
SLOPE: Essentially flat.
ELEVATION:
TOPOGRAPHY: Essentially flat, but with a very gentle slough oriented north-south through the
middle. The highest part of the Windley tract is the far northern end.
HYDROLOGY AND MOISTURE: Seasonally saturated in most.
GEOLOGY: Yorktown Formation - unconsolidated sediments
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan B-1
Attachment 8
FEIS Appendix I
Supporting Document B
0 SOIL (from USSCS soil map): Cape Fear (Fine, mixed, semiactive, thermic Typic Umbraquults)
COMMENTS ON PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION:
NATURAL COMMUNITY DESCRIPTION
Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest: Occurs near the north end of the triangular forest remnant
on the Windley tract. Most of the community is the Oak Flat Subtype, with a canopy dominated
by Quercus michauxii, Quercus pagoda, Quercus laurifolia, Liquidambar styraciflua, and Acer
rubrum. Pinus taeda and Quercus nigra are present in some parts. The understory is dominated
by Ilex opaca, with Persea palustris common in parts. Carpinus caroliniana is absent. The shrub
layer is patchy, with Arundinaria tecta and Leucothoe axillaris dominating. Herbs are sparse -
mainly scattered Woodwardia areolata.
The canopy is very mature in the best portion, with trees averaging 14" dbh or more, and large
trees frequent. Several oaks were measured at 90 cm dbh and more. This very mature portion
has a scattering of recent canopy gaps and a scattering of old tip-up mounds, suggesting little
past cutting and old-growth or near old-growth condition. This portion is just south of the
northern end of the tract. Farther south, as well as at the north end, the forest is of successional
composition, with large Pinus taeda dominating. Another hardwood patch present farther south
shows evidence of more recent logging. Canopy trees average 10-12" dbh, but Quercus nigra is
dominant and the more characteristic oaks are scarce. There are visible skidder ruts, and the
• shrub and understory are less diverse.
A small area of the Oak-Gum Slough Subtype is present, in a wet swale in the middle of the
forest. There is extensive shallow standing water in this section, in contrast to the other subtype.
The canopy in this subtype is dominated by Liquidambar styraciflua, and has more Quercus
laurifolia and a little Nyssa biflora. Quercus michauxii and pagoda are absent or scarce in this
subtype. The understory and shrub layer are sparse. Herbs are scarce, at least those that would
be visible this early. Saururus cernuus was seen in one slough.
Swamp at the head of Scott Creek: This is a community of uncertain interpretation. It occurs in
a gentle swale that connects to the head of the more obvious course of upper Scott Creek. It
shows up as a somewhat discontinuous line of hardwoods in a matrix of pine stands. The
ground in this band is wetter that the area surrounding it. There is no defined channel, and
disjunct deeper pools are scattered along it. The deepest pool has only a sparse canopy
consisting of sprout clumps of Acer rubrum and Nyssa biflora, and the water looks like it might
be 2 feet deep. Julia Berger reports that the Lidar-based topography shows this band to be a
lower swale running up stream from Scott Creek, but that there appears to be a divide just west
of the deepest pool. I would guess the natural community would be Nonriverine Swamp Forest,
but it might be the Oak-Gum Slough subtype of Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest. It is an
incipient drainage, however.
•
PCS Compensatory !Mitigation Plan B-2 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 8 Supporting Document B
• OTHER NATURAL COMMUNITIES PRESENT:
Young successional area in a recent clearcut in Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest: Some
Liquidambar and Pinus saplings are establishing. The Leucothoe and Arundinaria shrub layer
appears to have survived and occurs at about the same density as in the forest. There is a fairly
dense tall herb layer that includes Saccharum sp., Andropogon sp., and Eupatorium
capillifolium.
ANIMAL HABITAT FACTORS
HABITAT HETEROGENEITY: Artificially high. Fields and recent clearcuts contrast with the
small forest and presumably create edge effect.
AMPHIBIAN BREEDING SITES: Abundant seasonally puddles.
DENNING SITES: Large old trees.
BIG TREES/LARGE CAVITIES: Trees up to near a meter in diameter, with buttresses even
larger, are present.
SNAGS AND LOGS: Moderate numbers, probably near natural abundance.
MAST PRODUCING SPECIES: Abundant. Oaks are dominant. Soft mast may be scarce.
NECTAR SOURCES: Leucothoe.
PRESENCE OF WATER: Abundant at this time, but may become scarce later in the season,
except for ditches.
AQUATIC HABITAT FACTORS
HYDROLOGY (order, flow rate, persistence): No real stream present in this area. The
secondary area has a faint drainage which must flow at times of high water. It has a ponded area
along it which appears to sit at the drainage divide, with slope going east and west out of it.
SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES PRESENT: Julia Berger says that the Windleys report Crotalus
horridus is present.
Listera australis (W1) is present both in the Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest and in the
swamp.
POTENTIAL FOR OTHER SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES: Low for most. Black-throated
green warbler is a possibility.
OTHER NOTEWORTHY SPECIES OR FEATURES PRESENT:
SITE ECOSYSTEM INTEGRITY: Moderate. The community is in excellent condition, but the
intact patch is small and is subject to edge effect. It is connected to an area of mature
successional pine forest, but most of the surrounding landscape is pine plantation and fields.

PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan B-3 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 8 Supporting Document B
AVERAGE DBH OF CANOPY TREES: 14-16" in the most mature Nonriverine Wet
Hardwood Forest.
MAXIMUM DBH OF CANOPY TREES: 36"+.
DISTURBANCE-SENSITIVE SPECIES: Rattlesnakes.
FIRE REGIME: A little charring on one stump, probably caused by lightning. Forest fire is
unlikely.
OTHER DISTURBANCES OR IMPACTS
LOGGING: Most of the surrounding landscape has been altered by logging. The pine-
dominated successional forests presumably represent the result of past logging, long ago. The
younger hardwood forest was clearly logged several decades ago.
FARMING: A large field is adjacent.
DITCHES: Ditches border the most significant community patch on both sides. Ditches also
line both sides of the timber road that runs up into the Windley tract from the south.
ROADS: One well-built timber road on the Windley tract.
ALTERED FLOOD REGIME: Altered by ditches and regional drainage to some degree. It is
difficult to tell how much.
EXOTIC/WEEDY SPECIES: None noted in the intact communities. Weedy species are
common in the more disturbed areas. No serious invasive species were seen.
UNDERSTORY CLEARING: No.
DIRECT HUMAN INTRUSION: Some hunting occurs. Deer stands are present.
LANDSCAPE FACTORS
BOUNDARY INTEGRITY/SHAPE: The natural part of the site is small and subject to edge
effect.
ADJACENT LAND USE/OFFSITE STRESSES: A cultivated field bordering the site on the
east side is planned for restoration. A young pine plantation borders on the west side. Older
successional pine stands border to the south and north, and a recent clearcut is nearby.
RELATION/CONNECTION TO OTHER SITES:
DEGREE OF THREAT/POTENTIAL FOR CHANGE:
BOUNDARY JUSTIFICATION: The primary boundary encompasses the remaining intact
Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest. It is marked by fields, young pine plantation, and old
loblolly pine stands. The boundary with the older pine is somewhat indistinct.
A secondary boundary is drawn to encompass the drainage system north of the primary area,
with its distinctive ponded area. This area is of scientific interest but is not in good enough
condition to be considered primary area. A connection of this drainage to the primary area is
also included in the secondary boundary.
r?
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan B-4 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 8 Supporting Document B
• RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROTECTION: This site would be worthy of acquisition for
conservation, or protection by conservation easement.
MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS: No specific management needs are known. The
site is presumably affected by drainage in the adjacent fields, as well as by edge effect. Study of
these effects or measures to mitigate them would be appropriate. Restoration of the adjacent
field for wetland mitigation is being considered.
NEED FOR FURTHER STUDY: Low.
PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED
Thoroughness of list: Moderate (mostly winter aspect)
W = Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest
S = swamp at head of Scott Creek
c = recently clearcut area
canopy
Acer rubrum W, S c
• Liquidambar styraciflua
Liriodendron tulipifera W
W c
c
Nyssa biflora W, S c
Pinus taeda W c
Quercus falcata (W) c
Quercus laurifolia W c
Quercus michauxii W c
Quercus nigra W c
Quercus pagoda W c
understory
Acer rubrum W u
Cyrilla racemiflora W u
Ilex opaca W u
Magnolia virginiana W u
Persea palustris W u
shrub layer
Arundinaria tecta W, c s
Clethra alnifolia c s
Leucothoe axillaris W, c s
Symplocos tinctoria W s
Vaccinium formosum? W s
•
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan B-5 HIS Appendix I
Attachment 8 Supporting Document B

vines
Berchemia scandens W v
Smilax (rotundifolia?) W v
herb layer
Andropogon glomeratus c h
Andropogon sp. c h
Carex spp (at least 4 spp.) W h
Chasmanthium laxum W h
Eupatorium capillifolium c h
Listera australis W, S h
Mitchella repens W h
Rhexia alifanus c h
Saccharum sp. c h
Saururus cernuus W h
Sphagnum spp. W h
Thelypteris palustris? W h
Woodwardia areolata W h
ANIMAL SPECIES OBSERVED
Thoroughness of list: Casual
•
White-tail deer (numerous tracks)
Black bear (likely claw marks on tre e)
Wild turkey
Pileated woodpecker
Common crow
Carolina chickadee
Tufted titmouse
Pine warbler
Yellow-throated warbler
Crayfish
CJ
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan B-6 HIS Appendix 1
Attachment 8 Supporting Document B
NONRIVERINE WET HARDWOOD FORESTS IN NORTH CAROLINA
STATUS AND TRENDS
Michael P. Schafale, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
January 2008
INTRODUCTION
Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forests are among the most threatened of North Carolina's natural
communities, and in some ways among the least well known. Also called oak flats, they were
once widespread in the outer Coastal Plain of northeastern North Carolina, but were long ago
reduced to a small fraction of their presettlement abundance. Today few citizens of North
Carolina have seen and appreciated this part of the state's natural heritage.
Definition and Description
Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forests, as defined in Schafale and Weakley (1990), are wetland
forests of poorly drained, mineral soils on broad interstream flats. They correspond to the
Quercus michauxii-Quercus pagoda/Clethra alnifolia-Leucothoe axillaris Forest and Quercus
laurifolia-Nyssa Mora Forest associations of the International Classification of Ecological
Communities (NatureServe 2007). They would be classified as type 91, Swamp Chestnut Oak-
Cherrybark Oak in the Society of American Foresters system, where they represent a small
minority amid the more common bottomland hardwoods along rivers (Eyre 1980).
Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forests are naturally dominated by some of the same trees as
bottomland hardwood forests along large brownwater rivers: swamp chestnut oak (Quercus
michauxii), laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), and cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda). Water oak
(Quercus nigra), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), loblolly pine (Pines taeda), red maple
(Ater rubrum), and tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) have increased with past logging and
are often abundant. Unlike the canopy, the understory, shrub, and herb layers consist primarily
of plants shared with pocosins and nonriverine swamp forests, with some shared with blackwater
river floodplains, but only the most widespread species also shared with brownwater rivers. The
most typical understory trees are red bay (Persea palustris), red maple (Ater rubrum), and
ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana). Common shrubs are sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia),
evergreen dog hobble (Leucothoe axillaris), and cane (Arundinaria gigantea ssp. tecta). The
dominant herbs are netted chain fern (Woodwardia areolata), Virginia chain fern (Woodwardia
virginica), and royal fern (Osmunda regalis). Peat moss (Sphagnum spp.) is usually present in
small amounts. There is natural variation in composition clearly related to wetness, with swamp
black gum (Nyssa biflora) and laurel oak increasing in wetter sites and swamp chestnut oak and
cherrybark oak increasing in less wet sites. Variation in the amount of ironwood versus red bay,
and in sweet pepperbush versus fetterbush, may be related to soil base status or fertility, as may
be the presence of unusual species such as shagbark hickory (Carya ovata) and Shumard oak
(Quercus shumardii) in a few examples. Variation in amount of red maple, sweetgum, and pine
appears to relate primarily to logging history.
Animals include widespread species such as white-tailed deer, black bear, and gray squirrel. The
large oak component makes Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forests excellent habitat for wild
0
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan B-7 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 8 Supporting Document B
turkeys. The multi-layered structure characteristic of mature Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forests
supports high densities and diversities of neotropical migrant birds such as wood thrush,
ovenbird, Swainson's warbler, worm-eating warbler, prothonotary warbler, hooded warbler,
white-breasted nuthatch, and the Coastal Plain black-throated green warbler. In the outer Coastal
Plain, where large river floodplains with bottomland hardwoods are absent, the once-extensive
Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forests may once have supported much larger populations of these
species than now occur in this region. Invertebrates of these communities have not been studied,
but it is likely that a suite of insects specialized to feed on oaks and a suite of soil organisms
adapted to the unique hydrological conditions are present.
In contrast to bottomland hardwood forests along rivers, wetland conditions in Nonriverine Wet
Hardwood Forests are caused by seasonal high water tables and limited runoff of rainfall, due to
flatness and natural absence of streams. Rheinhardt and Rheinhardt (1998a) found that soil
drainage class in this type did not correlate with soil texture as is common in many places, but
was more subject to topography and landscape position. However, the continued wetness of
small remnant sites despite the drainage in the surrounding landscape suggests that perching of
water by impermeable soils may be partly responsible for the wetness in some sites. The soil is
generally saturated or flooded with a few inches of water through most winters and well into the
early summer, and the lower soil probably remains moist through most summers. The water
never gets as deep as it may in river floodplains, but the soil undoubtedly stays saturated longer
than in bottomland hardwoods. Furthermore, no additional nutrients are brought in by flowing
water, and aquatic animals cannot move in from the river during flooded times. Thus, debris
processing and nutrient cycling are likely very different from floodplain communities.
A number of other natural community types occur on wet nonriverine flats and share some
characteristics with the Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest type. Most similar are Nonriverine
Swamp Forests, which are wetter and lack oaks, but share some of the shrubs and herbs. Mesic
Mixed Hardwood Forests contain some of the same tree species but are drier than Nonriverine
Wet Hardwood Forests and have beech (Fagus grandifolia) as a major component. Often the
centers of nonriverine flats are so wet that organic matter has accumulated, burying the mineral
soils. These peatlands support either pocosin communities (Low Pocosin, High Pocosin, or Pond
Pine Woodland, or Bay Forest), Nonriverine Swamp Forests, or Peatland Atlantic White Cedar
Forests (all names from Schafale and Weakley 1990). Fires were an important part of the natural
dynamics of the pocosin and white cedar communities. Fire is believed to have been much less
frequent in Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forests, due to the limited flammability of the leaf litter
and lack of continuous live fuel layers, but they certainly would have burned with low intensity
surface fires at times. Fire has not been believed to be important to Nonriverine Wet Hardwood
Forests or Nonriverine Swamp Forests, but Rheinhardt and Rheinhardt (1998a) suggest it may
play a significant role in maintaining dominance of oaks over other hardwoods.
A typical natural landscape pattern on the largest nonriverine flats is a complex of peatland
communities in the center of the flat, with a fringe of Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest where
the peat gives way to wet mineral soils, then a band of upland communities on the gentle slopes
closer to the streams, then stream swamps and tidal swamps and marshes along the drainages.
On some of the smaller flats farther inland, no peat may be present, and Nonriverine Swamp
•
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan B-8 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 8 Supporting Document B
Forest and Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest on mineral soils may be in the center of the flat.
Because the easiest lands to drain and convert to other uses are the least wet and those close to
slopes, the Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forests were generally among the first wetlands to be put
into agriculture and later intensive silviculture.
The primary range of Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forests is northeastern North Carolina. They
range from Craven County north into the southeastern counties of Virginia. None are definitely
known south of North Carolina or north of Chesapeake Bay. Although one example was known
inland nearly to Tarboro, the vast majority of acreage was, and is, on the outermost terrace of the
Coastal Plain, east of New Bern, Washington, and Plymouth.
Composition and Quality of Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forests
Most early and more recent qualitative descriptions of Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forests
describe them as being dominated by oaks. The only extensive quantitative study of Nonriverine
Wet Hardwood Forest composition is that of Rheinhardt and Rheinhardt (1998b). They
measured canopy and understory basal area and density in most of the known remaining
examples in North Carolina. They noted that, in contrast to earlier qualitative descriptions, most
stands were dominated by sweetgum, red maple, or tulip poplar. Oaks were abundant, but only
in a few places were they codominant.
Sweetgum, red maple, and tulip poplar are, ecologically speaking, weedy species, producing
abundant, small, widely dispersed seeds, and able to take advantage of disturbance much more
readily than oaks. It is clear that, although these native species have always been present, they
have increased in absolute and relative abundance as a result of logging. Thus, although the
precise composition of the earlier natural forests is not well known, examples with more oak are
believed to be closer to natural composition. This belief is supported by the abundance of oak
saplings in examples that contain a strong minority of oak in the canopy, suggesting that over
time without severe disturbance oaks will increase in the forest. The presence and abundance of
oaks therefore serves both as an indicator that a community is a Nonriverine Wet Hardwood
Forest rather than a Nonriverine Swamp Forest and as an indicator of its natural condition. In the
best remnants known, Rheinhardt and Rheinhardt (1998a, 1998b) found oaks to be 1.2% to 50%
of basal area and 1.5% to 42.9% of canopy stem density. Given current conditions, examples
with oaks comprising more than 10% of the basal area or of the canopy cover should be
considered good examples. They have the best potential to recover to natural oak abundance in
time, and are most likely to retain species associated with oaks.
Observations of areas clearcut in recent years indicate that the tree regeneration is primarily
weedy hardwoods or loblolly pine, with little or no oak component. Given the abundance of
weedy tree species and the scarcity of oaks in the landscapes where they once were abundant, it
is unlikely that oaks will ever again become abundant on these sites. Any animal species which
are dependent on oaks are presumably eliminated. Although all remaining stands with oak have
been logged in the more distant past, many probably by clearcutting, it appears that these
communities no longer have the ability to recover readily from clearcutting. The reason is likely
some combination of altered seed rain, the cumulative impact of repeated logging events, and
•
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan B-9 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 8 Supporting Document B
perhaps subtle changes in hydrology or fire regime. Therefore, Nonriverine Wet Hardwood
Forests that are clearcut at present must be considered lost. Those that are selectively cut may be
expected to recover if a substantial amount of oak is left in the stand. However, oaks are
generally the most desirable species for removal.
Besides abundance of oaks in the canopy and understory, other indicators of good condition in
Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forests are canopy maturity, canopy age structure, extent, and
connection to other natural communities. The most mature examples known have many trees
16-24 inches in diameter, with some exceeding 36 inches. However, given the scarcity of these
communities, examples with trees averaging 12 inches in diameter are considered significant
examples. Even those with trees averaging 8 to 10 inches in diameter are significant if the
canopy composition is good and the example is extensive. As with most North Carolina
hardwood forests, the natural canopy is believed to be uneven-aged, with trees reproducing
primarily in small to medium canopy gaps that formed periodically from storms and possibly
fires, and with old trees abundant. In no remaining examples is this structure well developed, but
it can be expected to develop over time in the oldest examples. Examples with some canopy
gaps containing oak saplings, or with large old trees that will form canopy gaps in the near
future, will have more of the characteristics of natural forests than those with uniform younger
canopies. Nonriverine Wet Hardwoods naturally occurred in large patches, and some aspects of
ecosystem function probably depend on large extent. Therefore, large examples are more likely
viable and are more significant than small examples.
is CURRENT STATUS AND TRENDS IN NONRIVERINE WET HARDWOOD FORESTS
Methods
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program first started recording occurrences of Nonriverine
Wet Hardwood Forest in the 1980s. The most concentrated survey work occurred as part of the
Albemarle/Pamlico Estuarine Study (Frost, LeGrand, and Schneider 1990; LeGrand, Frost, and
Fussell 1992), which covered all of the range of Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest in North
Carolina. Additional examples have been added continuously to the database as they were
discovered. To assess the current status of the community type, all known examples were
checked against current aerial photography (2006 NAIP DOQQs). While Nonriverine Wet
Hardwood Forests cannot be definitively identified on aerial photography, the loss of known
stands by clearcutting or conversion can usually be recognized with confidence. Acreages were
estimated and ratings (EO ranks) were updated. The EO ranks are based on a combination of
condition, size, and landscape context, using the criteria described above. Condition, primarily
based on stand maturity and composition, was assumed to be the same as initially described, but
size and landscape context were re-evaluated using the aerial photos.
To assess trends, the current status was compared to two previous times when a reasonably
complete picture of the status of the community type was determined. A study by Pheinhardt
and Pheinhardt (1998b) reviewed the status of all known sites. They attempted to sample
vegetation at every known example, and examined aerial photos and consulted with foresters to
determine the status of examples they were unable to visit. In the few cases where Pheinhardt
and Pheinhardt's report did not give the condition of the site, I attempted to determine its status
•
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan B-10 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 8 Supporting Document B
i by personal communication and by consulting aerial photos. Sites not confirmed to be destroyed
were assumed extant, possibly resulting in an overestimate of the amount remaining. The results
of this comprehensive picture were recorded at that time.
To obtain an earlier picture of the status of the community type, I reconstructed the status of
Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest around 1990 by estimating acreage for all the examples we
have evidence of having existed at that time. This reflected the Albemarle/Pamlico Estuarine
Study surveys, for which most field work was conducted in 1989 and 1990. More of the known
occurrences were found during these studies than at any other single time. The occurrences were
recorded in the Natural Heritage Program database when the studies were completed, and some
occurrences were visited and the records updated over the years. This time is labeled 1990, but it
really represents a range of last observation dates from 1990 through 1998, with information on
the state before the most recent data no longer readily accessible.
It is clear that not all of the Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forests were found in the 1990s.
Several additional sites have been discovered. In addition, the extent of the community in some
previously known sites has become better known more recently. To make the analysis of trends
as accurate as possible, newly discovered sites and more accurate estimates of acreage were used
to adjust the earlier data. Thus, sites discovered since 1998 were added to the figures for 1990
and 1998, since they clearly existed at those times as well. Because these sites may have been
reduced in size between 1990 and 2007, the figures for acreage lost in that time period are an
underestimate. Some additional sites likely were destroyed in that time period without ever
having become known to the Natural Heritage Program, making the trend figures more of an
underestimate. Sites that were thought to be Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest at the time and
were later determined to be other community types were not included for any of the times.
To get an indication how much Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest may have once been present,
I analyzed digitized soil survey maps for two sample counties: Hyde and Currituck (USDA-
NRCS 1996 and 1997). Acreage of all soil series believed to support Nonriverine Wet
Hardwood Forest in the past was determined by GIS. The list of soils to include in the acreage
included those series mapped under known remnant Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest
occurrences, plus a few closely related series that are not known to support other natural
community types. Series were rated as high (most supporting this community in natural
remnants), medium (supporting this community but also substantial amounts of other natural
community types), and low (supported this community only in small patches that probably
represent inclusions). Series with high and medium potential are listed in Table 3. Acreage
totals were calculated for high rated soils alone and for high and medium rated soils together.
The former can be expected to be a serious underestimate of the amount of Nonriverine Wet
Hardwood Forest once present, the latter an overestimate.
Results
Table 1 lists the known remaining sites, with their estimated acreage of Nonriverine Wet
Hardwood Forest and current EO rank. Map I shows their distribution. A total of 25 separate
extant sites are known to the Natural Heritage Program. These occurrences total approximately
5576 acres. Of these, three sites have EO ranks of A, seven have rankings of B or possibly B
E
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan B-11 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 8 Supporting Document B
(BC), 14 have rankings of C, and one is too little known to rank. Only eight sites are 100 acres or
larger. Though patches of this community once covered thousands of acres, only two remnants
are as large as 500 acres. Of the 25 sites, seven have some kind of land status that may protect
them from future destruction. Only one of these, however, is of substantial size. About 600
acres total are protected.
In the study period, the total acreage of Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest went from 35 sites in
1990 to 25 sites in 2006. The area went from 13,885 acres in 1990 to 7907 acres in 1998 to 5576
acres in 2006. This represents an acreage decline of 43% in the first 8-year period and 42% in
the next eight years. Of the 35 occurrences known to have existed in 1990, nine (26%) are
completely destroyed and another 13 (38%) were reduced in acreage, most by more than half.
Six sites (17%) are known not to have declined. The other seven sites (20%) were newly
discovered since 1990, and may or may not have been larger in 1990. Some of the remaining
sites had selective cutting or other damage that reduced their EO rank. The loss has been
particularly heavy for large occurrences. Of six occurrences of 500 acres or more in 1990, only
two remain over 500 acres. There were 19 occurrences of at least 100 acres in 1990, and now
there are only six.
Based on soil mapping, it appears that Hyde County once had between 34961 and 50,586 acres
of Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest. Currituck County had 15,317 to 43,941 acres. The most
extensive of the medium-rated series, Roanoke, probably supported Nonriverine Wet Hardwood
Forest on a majority of its acreage, but is also known to support significant amounts of Mesic
Mixed Hardwood Forest. It is likely that the true estimate, at least for Currituck County, is
closer to the higher figure. This is more difficult to evaluate for Hyde County, where several
abundant soil series were not mapped in other counties.
Discussion
The results indicate a community type in serious decline. While there is high uncertainty in the
estimates of original acreage based on soils, this analysis shows the drastic loss of Nonriverine
Wet Hardwood Forest. Currituck County alone, one of the smallest counties in North Carolina,
once had several times, perhaps ten times, as much Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest as now
remains in the whole state. Much of the loss occurred long ago, as the most easily converted
lands were put into agriculture or repeatedly logged. However, recent losses are still
proportionally high. While comparable figures do not exist for other community types, this
appears to exceed that of virtually all other community types in North Carolina. In overall
portion lost from original extent, it is comparable to the losses of wet and mesic longleaf pine
savannas, and probably exceeds that of any other wetland community type. In percentage of
remaining examples unprotected and likely to be lost in the near future, it far exceeds longleaf
pine communities and virtually all other community types in the state.
This rapid decline comes from a unique combination of vulnerabilities. The mineral soils on
which they occur are more easily drained than the organic soils that cover much of the
nonriverine wet flats, and the drained soils are productive for agriculture and growing of planted
pines. Their occurrence around the edges of nonriverine wet flats, or in smaller flats, also makes
them easier to drain than most wetlands. Finally, their vegetation is very vulnerable to loss with
•
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan B-12 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 8 Supporting Document B
logging. More extreme wetlands often have a limited range of tree species that can regenerate if
a forest is logged, and are more likely to regenerate in the characteristic species of the natural
community. Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forests rarely regenerate to the characteristic oak
species and tend to become stands of weedy tree species that show little tendency ever to return
to an oak canopy. Although Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forests are jurisdictional wetlands,
occurrences can be destroyed by common activities that are fully legal. In this situation, only
active land protection in the form of public acquisition or conservation easements is likely to
save any example in the long run.
The fate of land formerly supporting Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest varied. A few sites
appeared to have been developed or converted to cropland. A number were found to have been
converted to pine plantations. Many sites that had been recently clearcut at the time the aerial
photos were taken were likely converted to pine plantation later. Other sites presumably are
regenerating with weedy canopies. It is likely that lands in the last category could be restored,
and a few might recover spontaneously. Some pine plantations may also have good restoration
potential, but common practices of bedding, fertilization, and herbicide treatment mean that less
of the characteristic flora and local fauna can be expected to remain present.
Given the limitations of Natural Heritage inventories, some additional examples of Nonriverine
Wet Hardwood Forest probably remain undiscovered. During the eight years after 1990, four
new occurrences were found. Since 1998, six new examples have been discovered, and a couple
other examples have been found to be larger than realized. There is therefore some hope that
additional occurrences will be found, but these are unlikely to be anywhere as large individually
or collectively as the sites now known. Without substantial effort at protecting remaining
examples, the expected trend for this endangered community is continued rapid decline.
REFERENCES
Eyre, F.H., ed. 1980. Forest Cover Types of the United States and Canada. Soc. Am. For.
Washington, D.C. 148 pp.
Frost, C.C., H.E. LeGrand, Jr., R.E. Schneider. 1990. Regional Inventory for Critical Natural
Areas, Wetland Ecosystems, and Endangered Species Habitats of the Albemarle-Pamlico
Estuarine Region: Phase 1. Report to NC Natural Heritage Program. A/P Study Project
No. 90-01.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr., C.C. Frost, and J.O. Fussell III. 1992. Regional Inventory for Critical
Natural Areas, Wetland Ecosystems, and Endangered Species Habitats of the Albemarle-
Pamlico Estuarine Region: Phase 2. Report to NC Natural Heritage Program. A/P Study
Project No. 92-07.
NatureServe. 2007. International Ecological Classification Standard: Terrestrial Ecological
Classifications. NatureServe Central Databases. Arlington, VA. U.S.A. Data
current as of December 2007.
•
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan B-13 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 8 Supporting Document B
• Rheinhardt, M.C., and R.D. Rheinhardt. 1998a. Canopy and woody subcanopy composition of
wet hardwood flats in eastern North Carolina and southeastern Virginia.
Manuscript submitted to Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society.
Rheinhardt, M.C., and R.D. Rheinhardt. 1998b. Canopy and Woody Subcanopy Composition of
Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forests in Eastern North Carolina. Report to North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
Schafale, M.P., and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina. Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation.
U.S. Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1996. Detailed
County Soils - Currituck County, North Carolina. Digital soil map. USDA-
NRCS, Raleigh, NC.
U.S. Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1997. Detailed
County Soils -Hyde County, North Carolina. Digital soil map. USDA-NRCS,
Raleigh, NC.
•
r?
U
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan B-14 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 8 Supporting Document B
•
c:
•
Table 1. Remaining Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest sites in North Carolina. EO ranks are
from the December 2007 Natural Heritage Program database. A is excellent, B very good, C
fair, E uncertain, X destroyed. Size figures are in acres.
site name county EO
rank size protection status
Bonnerton Road Wet Hardwood Forest and Seeps Beaufort B 198
Drinkwater Creek Wet Hardwood Forest Beaufort C 130
Hell Swamp Beaufort C 44
Jackson Swamp Remnants Beaufort C 20
Sparrow Road Wet Hardwood Forest Beaufort B 40
Roquist Pocosin Bertie A 500 State Ecosystem Enhancement Program
wetland mitigation land
Whitehall Shores Hardwood Forest Camden C 30
Gum Swamp Bottomland Hardwoods Craven B 40 National Forest, Special Interest .Area,
Registred
Sea Gate Woods Craven C 85 Land trust preserve
Buckskin Creek/Great Swamp Currituck C 73
Lower Tull Creek Woods and Marsh Currituck C 30
Indiantown Creek/North River Cypress Forest Currituck B 30 State Game Land, Dedicated
Gibbs Woods,Tull Bay Marshes Currituck C 135
Troublesome Point/Gibbs Point Forests and
Marshes Currituck C 10
Alligator River'Swan Lake Swamp Forest Dare C 15 National Wildlife Refuge
Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge Gates CD 5 National Wildlife Refuge, Registered
Scranton Hardwood Forest Hyde A 3580
Gull Rock Game Land Hyde BC 20 State Game Land
South Prong Natural Area Pamlico B 60
Light Ground Pocosin Southeast Section Pamlico C 55
Little Flatty Creek Forests Pasquotank C 40
Big Flatty Creek Forests and Marshes Pasquotank E 50
Belvoir Carolina Bays and Flats Pitt C 30
Bethel/Grindle Hardwood Flats Pitt A 216
East Dismal Swamp Washington C 125 State Agricultural Experiment Staton
Palmetto- Peartree Swamp Forest Washington C 15
total 25 sites 12 counties 5576
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan B-15
Attachment 8
FEIS Appendix I
Supporting Document B
•

•
Table 2. Change in Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest from 1990 to 1998. EO ranks are based on 1998
condition.
site name county ED rank 1990
size 1998
size 2006
size status change since discovery
Bonnerton Road Wet Hardwood Forest and Seeps Beaufort B 198+ 198 198 newly discovered in 2000s
Drinkwater Creek Wet Hardwood Forest Beaufort C 130 130 130 newly discovered in 2000s
Hell Swamp Beaufort C 44 44 44 newly discovered in 2000s
Jackson Swamp Remnants Beaufort C 165 165 20 part destroyed in 2000s
Sparrow Road Wet Hardwood Forest Beaufort B 40 40 40 newly discovered in 2000s
Roquist Pocosin Bertie A 500+ 500- 500 part destroyed in 1990s, part
newly discovered in 2000s
Whitehall Shores Hardwood Forest Camden C 100 100 30 part destroyed in 2000s
Forest Wet Hardwood Forest Craven x 138 0 0 destroyed in 1990s
Gum Swamp Bottomland Hardwoods Craven B 40 40 40
Sea Gate Woods Craven C 280 85 85 part destroyed in 1990s
Buckskin Creek/Great Swamp Currituck C 420 100 73 part destroyed in 1990s and
2000s
Lower Tull Creek Woods and Marsh Currituck C 120 30 30 part destroyed in 1990s
Indiantown Creek/North River Cypress Forest Currituck B 30 30 30 affected by rising sea level
Gibbs Woods/Tull Bay Marshes Currituck C 135 135 135 selectively cut in 1990s
Maple Swamp Gordonia Forest Currituck X 40 0 0 destroyed in 19905
Northwest Backwoods Currituck x 900 0 0 destroyed in 1990s
Troublesome Point/Gibbs Point Forests and Marshes Currituck C 40 40 10 part destroyed in 2000s, part
selectively cut in 1990s
Alligator River/South Lake Swamp Forest Dare C 15 15 15 newly discovered in 1990s
Mildred Wet Hardwood Flat Edgecombe X 40 0 0 destroyed in 1990s, restoration
occurring
Black Mingle Pocosin Gates x 150 0 0 destroyed in 1990s
Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge Gates CD 5 5 5 heavy blow down has degraded
Scranton Hardwood Forest Hyde A 5700 4100 3580 part destroyed in 1990s and
2000s
Gull Rock Game Land Hyde BC 20 20 20
South Prong Natural Area Pamlico B 100 70 60 part destroyed in 1990s and
2000s
Light Ground Pocosin Southeast Section Pamlico C 60 60 55 part destroyed in 1980s and in
2000s
Merritt Hardwoods Pamlico X 1400 900 0 last remnant destroyed in 2000s
Little Flatty Creek Forests Pasquotank C 185 40 40 part destroyed in 1990s
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan B-16
Attachment 8
FEIS Appendix I
Supporting Document B
?J
C

Big Flatty Creek Forests and Marshes Pasquotank E 1500 300 50 part destroyed in 1990s and
2000s
Menzies Pond Perquimans x 20 20 0 destroyed in 2000s
Belvoir Carolina Bays and Flats Pitt B 85 30 30 part destroyed in 1990s
Bethel/Grindle Hardwood Flats Pitt AB 1080 530 216 part destroyed in 1990s and
2000s
Lewis Point Swamp Forest Tyrrell x 15- 15 0 destroyed in 2000s
Highway 99 Nonriverine Hardwood Flat Washington x 50 25 0 part destroyed in 1990s, rest in
2000s
East Dismal Swamp Washington C 125 125 125 part damaged by logging
Palmetto-Peartree Swamp Forest Washington C 15 15 15 newly discovered in 2000s, may
be larger

total 35 sites 15 counties, 12
remaining 13885 7907 5576
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan B-17
Attachment 8
HIS Appendix I
Supporting Document B
•
•

Table 3. Soil series of Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest occurrences and additional
series likely to have supported Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest. Rating is an estimate
of the fraction of the soil series acreage that would have supported Nonriverine Wet
Hardwood Forest.
series taxonomy sites rating
Acredale Typic Endoaqualf Scranton high
Arapahoe Typic Humaquept Merritt Hardwoods low
Argent Typic Endoaqualf Light Ground Pocosin Southeast, South Prong, Scranton Hardwoods high
Brockman Typic Umbraqualf Scranton med.
Cape Fear Typic Umbraquult Highway 99 Hardwood Flats, Belvoir Carolina Bays high
Deloss Typic Umbraquult Sea Gate Woods low
Hydeland Typic Umbraqualf Scranton med.
Leaf Typic Albaquult Roquist Pocosin, Gum Swamp low
Pantego Umbric Paleaquult Gum Swamp low
Pasquotank Typic Endoaqualf high
Portsmouth Typic Umbraquult Jackson Swamp Remnants low
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan B-18
Attachment 8
FEIS Appendix I
Supporting Document B
0
10
•
Roanoke Typic Endoaquult Whitehall Shores, Sea Gate Woods, Gibbs WoodsiTull Bay, med.
Troublesome Point, Lower Tull Creek, Buckskin Creek;'Great Swamp,
Big Flatty Creek, Little Flatty Creek, Menzies Pond, Bethel'Grindle,
East Dismal Swamp
Tomotley Typic Endoaquult Indiantown Creek, Lewis Creek high
Yonges Typic Endoaquaf high
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan B-19
Attachment 8
HIS Appendix I
Supporting Document B

Map 1. Locations of Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest community occurrences
remaining in North Carolina in 2006.
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan B-22
Attachment 8
FEIS Appendix I
Supporting Document B
•
•
•
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan C-1
Attachment 8
FEIS Appendix I
Supporting Document C
Photo 1: View north west (upstream) of Scott Creek flooding into field at road
crossing.
Photo 2: View south east (downstream) of Scott Creek at road crossing
•
•
•
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan C-2
Attachment 8
FEIS Appendix I
Supporting Document C
Photo 3: View south along UT1 and main tributary to Scott Creek.
Photo 4: View south along border of Woolard and Smith Tracts.
•
0
•

Photo 5: View north east along main ditch entering Scott Creek at road crossing.
Photo 6: Aerial view south east showing Scott Creek (center, right), UT1, and
main tributary (center left) in proximity to Pungo Creek (May 2007).
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan C-3
Attachment 8
FEIS Appendix I
Supporting Document C

Page 1 of 1
JIM HUDGENS
• From: "Sam Cooper" <[e-mail]>
To: Julia Berger"' <[e-mail]>; "'JIM HUDGENS"' <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 11:18 AM
Subject: FW: CAMA AEC jurisdictional areas - Scott Creek
Samuel Cooper
CZR Incorporated
4709 College Acres Or., Suite #2
Wilmington, NC 28403
910 392-9253 - phone
910 392-9139 - fax
[e-mail]
From: Sam Cooper [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 1:12 PM
To: '[e-mail]'; 'Julia Berger'; 'Jim Hudgens'; Norton Webster
• Cc: 'Steve Trowell'; Jones, Scott SAW; Kyle Barnes
Subject: CAMA AEC jurisdictional areas - Scott Creek
All,
I talked with Steve Trowell (Washington County rep for Division of Coastal Management) yesterday
regarding CAMA AEC jurisdictional areas associated with Scott Creek, Beaufort County. He and Terry
Moore visited the site on 16 May 2007 and determined that public trust areas extend upstream to the 1st
road/culvert crossing north of NC 92/99. This is the main farm road crossing of Scott Creek in the
McMullan Tract. He also said they would claim some coastal marsh north of NC 92/99. AEC shoreline
would conform to a 30-foot offset of public trust areas, since this is an "inland" creek.
Samuel Cooper
CZR Incorporated
4709 College Acres Dr., Suite #2
Wilmington, NC 28403
910 392-9253 - phone
910 392-9139 - fax
scooper@cz__r-inc_.c...o.m.
• cp# 1745.59.66
5/19/2008
Page i of I
? 0
•
•
tzdv!iisi. Chbpd.dII' si`f6rmISs ?tnlapl&.IM LISCX-`"... 5/16/2008
Page t of t
•
•
•
LAND USE
PROP_DESC 276.09 AC PT JUSTICE GREENWOOD SMITH JR [M@L 7 fi6850040
IEXMPT_PROP EXMPT_AMT-? 0
ROAD-TYPE
PREVASSESS
E DISCLAIMER These maps and Irfonnaton either in digital or hardeopy format are provided solely as a public service and they do not meet surveying acciracy stande°ds. This map
data is prepared from the inventory of real property found vnthn this Iunsdiction and is compiled from recorded deeds. plats. and Other public records and data Users of any maps
generated on this Me are hereby notified that the aforementioned pudic primary information sources should be consulted for venficakon of the iraormabon coma ned on any maps
county of Beau`ort assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained on these maps
lath,:.'tvZ? v?.iltadclS,Ys.intniscript ite ta??:'u;i?ebbi?ti.clll;'E??i'.'f ?re??i - ptmal?? I?[c?t?se?: ,?... 5'16/2008
Page I of I
? 0
•
•

Details:
PROP_DESC-1 43 56 AC DANIEL F WOOLARD TRACT MBL 669500125
EXMPT PROP EXMPT_AMT 0
ROAD-TYPE 11P
CENSUS_BLK i--?
PREVASSESS 110
DISCLAWER These maoS and ?nformabon either !n diglta, or herdcopy format are prowded solely as a public service and they do not meet surveying accuracy standards This map
data is prepared from the in,*ntory of real property found -thin thus tunsdction ar?d -s compiled from recorded deeds, piats and other public records and data users of any maps
generated an this s1e are hereby robbed thal the atotemanbdred ptdxtc pnmarr in(crmaton Sou(ces SWOJ he ccn5ulted 'ot venkal€on CI the information contained on any maps
county of Beaufort assumes no legal respensibd,ty for the ototmation contained on these maps
PIN 1 1 15024568 J IGPIN H6695-05-6430
GPINLONG 6695-05-6430 NAME1 PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY
NAME2 7 =1 ADORi
ADDR2 P 0 BOX 425 CITY AURORA
STATE NC ZIP 27806
PROP ROAD SR 1714 ACRES 42.93
ACCT_NBR 886222 MAP, SHEET
669500
NBR_BLDG I DATE 1712412007
DB_PG 1 11597/0646 LAND_VAL 64033
BLDG VAL 0 DEFR_VAL 0
TOT_VAL 1 64033 NBHD_COE A
NBHD_DESC AVERAGE SUB_CD£
SUB_DESC s STAMPS -1 344
SALE-PRICE 1 1172000
ZdNE
LAND_USE DISTRICT - ? 109
i
I1ttp: ti??vtiv?.un?lel hrs.cc?l??'stirillt;;'testacfv%1 i%4ebbpd.dll%usi`'t<>I s-{tTZ7?E??C Tr>tiseX=?1... 5/10/2008
Page T of 1

•
•
(t le:"!,(-, J) ci.?niert?" s?_'i)and" ??f)` ttin<7s' ?d?nir?istfatc?r?OOC?-T'R(?-.1[?1`,l1}",?ODti?cEU?etit... ?<"[{?"?(}t?ti