20061819 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_20061120

0? WArFROG
> r
O i '<
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
November 29, 2006
Mr. Edward Samanns
Louis Berger Group
30 Vreeland Road
Florham Park, New Jersey 07932-1904
Dear Mr. Samanns:
RE: Division of Water Quality comments on Black Gum Stream Restoration Project
Robeson County
DWQ # 2006-1819
As you know, staff of the NC Division of Water Quality and the US Army Corps of Engineers
visited the site on October 20, 2006 at your and the Ecosystem Enhancement Program's request to make
a decision regarding the amount of stream and riparian wetland credits that may be available on this site
if EEP continues to pursue its development as a compensatory mitigation site. In addition to our
observations that day, we have reviewed LIDAR maps, local topographic maps and aerial photos as well
as the information contained in your November 8, 2006 letter. I have met with Scott McLendon with the
US Army Corps of Engineers to discuss these findings and the Corps concurs with the conclusions in this
letter.
We believe that there is no stream credit and no riparian wetland credit available on this site. The
site is characterized by non-riparian soil series (especially Rains, Pantego and Rutledge series) and is
located in an interstream divide (between the Lumber River and Gum Swamp). The LIDAR data show an
ill-defined low area at the southernmost part of the site - however, this feature lacks the clear crenulation
shape indicative of small stream valleys elsewhere in the area. The Plummer-Osier soil series occurs
primarily on second terraces of larger streams such as the Lumber River and Gum Swamp and is also
found surrounding interstream flats and Carolina Bays (which is the location of this series on this site). In
short, the site is an interstream divide and therefore would only provide non-riparian wetland mitigation.
We also believe that this is an excellent non-riparian wetland mitigation site since it will serve to
tie together two large, previously segmented wetlands. If you or EEP has the need for non-riparian
mitigation in this cataloging unit, we believe that this site is an excellent candidate to meet that need.
I can be reached at 919-733-9646 if you have any questions.
Sincerely yours,
*JoDorneyp
Cc: Scott McLendon, Wilmington District US Army Corps of Engineers
Mike O'Rourke, Louis Berger Group, 1513 Walnut St., Suite 250, Cary, NC 27511
Jeff Jurek, NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Central files
Ken Averitte, Fayetteville Regional Office
File copy
401 Oversight(Express Review Permits Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX [phone] / Internet: hnp://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
Nom` Carolina
Naturally
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
oL.0-tskq
THE Louis Berger Group, INC.
30 Vreeland Road, Florham Park, New Jersey 07932-1904
Tel [phone] Fax [phone] www.louisberger.com
November 8, 2006
Mr. John Domey
NC DENR
Division of Water Quality
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27604 r-?
RE. NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program. Project No. D05019. t???1
Black Gum Stream Restoration Protect, Lumber River Basin. N O V j q 2006
Cataloging Unit 03040203, Robeson County, NC. (JR5029)
irEN'? - AAT1_R QUALiTY
Dear Mr. Domey: cTi' -f: ti;; 7 STC '?'.-;TE t BRANCH
On behalf of the Louis Berger Group, Inc., I want to express my appreciation for your attendance
at the October 20th site meeting to discuss the above referenced project. Enclosedylease find the
material you had requested at that meeting. In preparation for your November 16 meeting with
the Wilmington District of the USACE, I would like to reiterate our understanding of several key
points made during the Oct. 20`h field meeting and to further express our view as to why stream
restoration is a viable mitigation approach for the Black Gum site. My discussion is arranged
below by topic.
0 Existing Conditions
The proposed 150-acre Black Gum Creek site was identified and selected by Berger to provide
10,000 linear feet of stream restoration. The site is composed of prior-converted cropland,
reverted PEM wetlands, drainage ditches, ponds, berms and forested wetlands. This agricultural
property has been subject to more than 15,000 linear feet of extensive ditching in the past and the
clearing of forested habitat. Remnants of the original channel are no longer visible; however,
evidence for its prior existence was inferred from three sources.
USGS Mapping
The Wakulla USGS topographic map (1981) shows a blue-line stream entering the site at
the northwest corner of the site (see Figure 1), a blue-line stream on the west side of the
site, and a blue line stream existing the southern portion of the site, indicating that a
stream was likely present on-site prior to conversion of the site for agricultural purposes.
Soil Survey
A large portion of the site is underlain by Plummer and Osier soils, which traverse down
slope in a mildly sinuous manner (see enclosed Figure 2). This soil mapping unit consists
of nearly level, poorly drained soils located in depressions and along drainageways on
uplands and stream terraces. Since Plummer and Osier soils are typically found on
floodplains or stream terraces, indicating that a stream was historically located on-site,
the restored channel was designed to meander through this soil mapping unit to the extent
possible.
Site Hydrology
The on-site ditches and canals exhibit evidence of perennial flow, including observable
surface flow and groundwater discharge and the presence of submerged aquatic
vegetation, fish and benthic invertebrates. The existence of perennial flow supports the
hypothesis that historically a stream was located on-site.
• Drainage Area
The point of inception for the restored stream channel will have a 150-acre drainage area (0.23 sq.
mi.) which is sufficient for a perennial headwater stream, as evidenced by the reference reaches
evaluated as to support the design. A reference reach used in developing the coastal plain regional
curves (UT of Salmon Creek No.l) has a smaller drainage area (0.22 sq. mi.). In addition, the
reference reach identified for this project also has a single thread channel with a drainage area of
0.23 sq. miles.
• Reference Reach
Berger conducted a preliminary reference reach site search by locating areas within the Upper
Coastal Plain Sub-province which exhibit similar drainage areas, soil types, watershed
characteristics and landscape position as the project site. Two reference sites, only one of which
was considered for the original design, were identified. Both of these sites had segments of
diffuse flow pattern intermixed with single thread channel. The reference reach chosen for
consideration in the design had a reach of single thread channel acceptable for assessment using
geomorphic survey practices. The reference reach is a headwater stream with a drainage area of
130 acres (0.20 sq. mi.) and located on an area of Rains soils. The channel characteristics
included pools and ripples, high interspersion with woody vascular plants and woody debris, a
channel slope of 0.0015 and a measured sinuosity of 1.2. Photos of the reference stream and
associated maps are attached.
• Stream Restoration Design Approach
Using the data collected from the reference reach Berger proposed constructing 10,000 linear feet
of blackwater type stream within an E-channel. The proposed stream would have an average
sinuosity of 1.6 and a slope of 0.0005. For the majority of the project length we propose to follow
the natural valley slope associated with the Plummer and Osier soil series. Blackwater stream
types are typically highly sinuous with very slow flow rates that capable of transporting dissolved
and particulate organic matter and very little sediment if at all.
As a comparison, the Privateer Farms Full-Delivery Project for the NCDOT also has a sinuosity
that ranges from 1.4 to 1.9 and passes through a former pocosin. In comparing this permitted and
credit producing site to the Black Gum site, we propose to provide stream restoration within an
appropriate landscape setting with both a steeper slope (0.0005) and lower sinuosity (1.6).
The goal for the Black Gum stream restoration project is the replacement of stream and wetland
functions, both of which will be obtained with the proposed design. The existing ditch network
lacks naturally occurring facets, interspersed woody material, and an accessible floodplain that
are key components for a fully functioning blackwater stream type.
As an option to this approach we also discussed the potential to incorporate the Corps and DWQs
guidance for stream restoration on the Outer Coastal Plain. While the guidance was not
specifically developed for use in the Inner Coastal Plain, the site has areas of flat slopes that may
be conducive to its implementation - i.e., within the upper (northwest) part of the site. Berger
supports the original proposed design for a first-order stream as we believe it meets the
exceptions noted in the guidance document; namely, sufficient watershed size and a soil series
that traditionally supports a stream.
• Stream Credit
At the end of the meeting a general consensus was held that stream restoration is appropriate for
this site. We maintain that a single thread stream channel can be successfully constructed which
will meet performance standards. The proposed project would also satisfy the definition of stream
restoration as defined in the April 2003 Stream Mitigation Guidelines and should offer 1:1 credit.
In consideration of stream credit, there was some discussion regarding how to handle an
approximately 800-ft section where the channel has to be shifted out of the existing valley and
placed into a new valley due to an inaccessible land parcel. While the concept will require
between 1 to 2 feet of excavation to create a new channel and associated valley, this approach
does not diminish the future function of a restored stream channel or adjoining riparian zone and
should be credited at a 1:1 credit ratio subject to meeting performance standards during the
monitoring period.
Additional benefits from this stream restoration project will be the restoration of approximately
40 acres of prior-converted wetlands which are not included in the request for credits.
We look forward discussing the outcome of your meeting with the USACE and receiving further
guidance. As you well appreciate, we need DWQ and the Corps to provide us with direction on a
stream restoration approach that will be acceptable to both agencies.
Sincerely,
THE LOUIS BERGER GROUP, INC.
Edward S6xfanns
Manager, Wetland Resources
Cc: M. O'Rourke, Berger
Photo of the first-order reference reach (tributary to Shoe Heel Creek) used to guide the
design. Note interspersion of tree roots and branches within shallower ripple segment.
Photo of a pool segment of the reference reach. Note interspersion of tree roots and
branches, a key habitat feature not present within on-site ditches within project site.
sf } ( 1
Oik 46 Z;12
s,5• ",. ? a?: ?,'. W ib:.. ter-----r"•--? ?, t \4
Ali.
f,,' - . r?lM1 ':`? ilk., ... ? :?,.. 't - .• - '>?,.. •'- .w.-?'• ..... `. ,. ?, '`..4\ \? i ? ?-?
??? _ ? .?;.....?? -.?• ? ?.• _?„? ^ ??, ... "?`" ?"..?? L °:. - ? ' ? ' ?" X44 ,
i so- _ o!x R!i ak.. ik.
?l',? ?.t• ? •R#?,._? ?t ?r ,S?i?. ?'?.,.. ?? -'Ui c? y?,`?`.ar.H• ? 1• f _,`? '. .--
? "' ;? Viz.' .. -- ?, - w ? • ", ?, ,•? "? r" , ' ?, , ?' f` ? I `. ?
i ow. ,
44
ilk
77-
qj,
%
0
Ad.

-Al

;' _ fib. ?? > ° _ •-S ,p41

Ale,
AWt
°°°FFF .
i

0 500 1,000 2,000
Feet
Black Gum Creek Stream Restoration:
Restoration Site Photos
r

s.. ` 4 '?'??`'x "t.'` `-•_ ^-. ?t ? ?; 4? -`t?om ;?'?'9?t-tt.'', ,
Photo 1. Photo taken facing across the pond and large drainage ditch at the site access road. The proposed
construction entrance will be approximately 200 feet from the bend in the road. Note the difference in water
levels between the pond, the wide ditch and the field. The field is at the proposed channel floodplain elevation.
.4"
A,
...E k `
iY r`1n?
ALI
s,
Photo 2. Photo taken facing opposite of Photo 1. The proposed pond overflow structure and chaimel inception
area will be in the immediate foreground. The channel will be cut through the berm in the wide ditch and flow to
the left of the photo.
Page I of 5
Black Gum Creek Stream Restoration:
Restoration Site Photos
Photo 3. Photo taken looking south across the length of the project site. A large drainage ditch runs from left to
right across the photo just in front of the SUV. This photo is taken facing "down the valley" of the proposed
stream aligrnent. Note the standing water in the adjacent crop field in pantego soils.
Photo 4. Photo taken facing east across the site at the drainage ditch which bisects the site. This is the same ditch
mentioned in the preceding photo narrative. Note the difference in water levels on either side of the culvert
crossing. A ditch plug is proposed to fill the majority of this ditch. The proposed stream alignment would flow
from left to right across the photo.
Page 2 of 5
k k%I?'? ?4?? k
ilk 14
Black Gum Creek Stream Restoration:
Restoration Site Photos
Photo 5. Photo taken facing east up the drainage ditch at the south end of the site. This ditch is plugged by a
beaver dam and has elevated the water level in wetland complex B. The proposed stream alignment would
converge with this ditch at its terminus before exiting the site.
Page 3 of 5
Legend
Property Boundary
Existing Wetland
Existing Ditch Network
Powerline Right of Way
Source: NCDOT Digital Orthophotos, Robeson County, 1998.
BLACK GUM CREEK SITE
Project Site
Existing Hydrological Features
a THE LOUIS BERGER GROUP FIGURE 3
rt 1513 Walnut Street, Suite 250
Cary, NC 27511
August 2006
Legend
Project Site Location
A. Reference Site Location
? Stream Gauge Location
0 HUC Boundary
BLACK GUM CREEK SITE
Reference Site Vicinity Map
THE LOUIS BERGER GROUP FIGURE 4
1513 Walnut Street, Suite 250
Gary, NC 27511
August 2006
Source: USGS Topographic Quadrangle, Silver Hill and Wakulla, NC. 1 1
I
Legend
g=3= Reference Site
Soils
AuB - Autryville sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes
GoA - Goldsboro loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes
LyA - Lynchburg sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
NoA - Norfolk loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes
PaA - Pactolus loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes
RaA - Rains fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
WaB - Wagram loamy sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes
Source: NCDOT Digital Orthophoto, Robeson County, 1998;
NRCS Soil Survey, Scotland County, NC.
BLACK GUM CREEK SITE
Reference Site
NRCS Soil Survey Map
e THE LOUIS BERGER GROUP FIGURE 5
1513 Walnut Street, Suite 250
Cary, NC 27511
August 2006
ail
lFt
y 4t-.
3r « r y 7
"? `11 t If xa 'ctt 'r ?' ?"
J,
ti
?. s 1? tl tl
-Oa-,07 Tr
IN-t
F?' hItiood Holcr, ?\ t it
It
0-07-55 `~r 11
/ O REFERENCE REACH
11
-53 7.!
-07
_.BLACK GUM SITE ` X05-52
JSTREAM GAUGE
71) 03-07-51 N
er It
LUMBER `\'? fiobes?pq, -~ •``? ?, ,f
RIVER BASIN ;l.
L1 0 500 1,000 2,000
03-07-54 i, Feet
Legend
i Reference Site
I Drainage Area (131 acres)
Source: USGS Topographic Quadrangle, Silver Hill, NC.
BLACK GUM CREEK SITE
Reference Site
Watershed Map
+•? THE LOUIS BERGER GROUP FIGURE 6
1513 Walnut Street, Suite 250
Cary, NC 27511
August 2006
4. Ali
ALP il!12?
z
a
4e-
fl
"
t
4

-??7
0 150 300 600
Feet

`
JA
4 A
Legend
Reference Site
Vegetative Community
Crop Field
Non Riverine Hardwood Swamp
Pine Plantation
Stream Head Pocosin
Source: NCDOT Digital Orthophoto, Scotland County, 1998.

BLACK GUM CREEK SITE
Reference Site
Vegetative Community Map
THE LOUIS BERGER GROUP FIGURE 7
1513 Walnut Street, Suite 250
Cary. NC 27511 August 2006
Legend
ifs Property Boundary
Soils
t
Pg - Pantego fine sandy loam
Pm - Plummer and Osier soils
Pt - Portsmouth loam
Ra - Rains sandy loam
Ru - Rutlege loamy sand
WaB - Wagram loamy sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes
Source: NCDOT Digital Orthophoto, Robeson County, 1998;
NRCS Soil Survey, Robeson County, NC.
BLACK GUM CREEK SITE
Project Site
NRCS Soil Survey Map
• THE LOUIS BERGER GROUP FIGURE 9
1513 Walnut Street, Suite 250
Cary. NC 27511
i? August 2006
Legend
Property Boundary
Soils
Fig, Pantego fine sandy loam
J Pm - Plummer and Osier soils
Pt - Portsmouth loam
Ra - Rains sandy loam
Ru - Rutlege loamy sand
1 WaB - Wagram loamy sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes
Source: NCDOT Digital Orthophotc, Robeson County, 1998;
J NRCS Soil Survey, Robeson County, NC.
BLACK GUM CREEK SITE
Project Site
NRCS Soil Survey Map
FIGURE
THE LOUIS BERGER GROUP
1513 Walnut Street, Suite 250
fly Cary. NC 27511
August 2006
I

b
Property Boundary
3 1
d
?., •`.., ` 1. vii . ..
Ditch Plug
200 LN. FT.
Outlet
Ditch Plug Structure
600 LN. FT
Fill Pond
Fill Pond 100 LN. FT.
400 LN. FT. Fill Pond
200 LN. FT. y
Ditch Plug &.
.rr.. 100 LN. FT. 1
Ditch Plug c
200 LN. FT.
Ditch Plug
~?, 100 LN. FT.
IJ
Proposed Stream ?i? "? M!! 1
Center Line
12,000 LN. FT.
Surface Regrading J`+
25 Acres . e
_..k
Ditch Plug
100 LN. FT
ti - k ? t
Ditch Plug
,Y 100 LN. FT.
i?.
:- Ditch Plug
200 LN. FT.
5DO 250 5w
Robeson County Stream Restoration Site The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
1,
r S
T
a'
b
�s
C
1
J`
�jq F E
Of
rys��yy '�
, icy 4 ',414h A xx d

Feet
2,000 1,000 0 2,000 Robeson County

'. ,
4 i
i-t 7
A
il=
Iart? ? 4, t T' A

N

3 1
;?
f? ? „Y1q
??

&Mori
AIT am

a e `'
a!
,max ?.,

t+
0 250 500 1,000
Feet

Legend
Property Boundary
------ Bench width
Channel width
-°,_rrr_rrr Centerline
Source: NCDOT Digital Orthophoto, Robeson County, 1998;
a
BLACK GUM STREAM
RESTORATION PROJECT
Proposed Stream Alignment
THE LOUIS BERGER GROUP
1513 Walnut Street, Suite 250
Cary, NC 27511
September 2006
ROBESON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA - SHEET NUMBER 9

INFORMATION REGARDING STREAM RESTORATION IN THE OUTER
COASTAL PLAIN OF NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared By:
US Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District, Regulatory Division
And
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality
December 1, 2005
This document is intended to provide information to compensatory mitigation providers
for use when planning or evaluating potential stream mitigation projects in the outer
coastal plain (defined as the Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain Ecoregion as shown on
Griffith, et. al. 2002). This document is meant to complement the April 2003, Stream
Mitigation Guidelines, prepared by the Corps of Engineers Wilmington District,
Environmental Protection Agency, the North Carolina Division of Water Quality and the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (US Army Corps of Engineers, 2003).
Riparian headwater system are for purpose of this guidance, those systems that either do
not appear or appear as first order streams on the appropriate county soil survey as
published by the Natural Resources Conservation Service or its predecessor, the Soil
Conservation Service. The term "stream" as used in this guidance, means that the flow of
water is contained in a natural channel or bed with identifiable banks and, in its unaltered
state on the coastal plain, usually has adjacent wetlands.
The majority of compensatory stream mitigation completed to date in North Carolina has
been in the Piedmont and Mountain Regions. Mitigation site selection efforts in these
areas target degraded sites where the main problems are instability and unnatural
sediment transport. Maximum mitigation credits are achieved by using natural channel
design techniques to return the stream to its most probable natural state by restoring
proper pattern, dimension and profile.
Many outer coastal plain riparian headwater systems have been channelized or ditched in
the past, making it difficult to determine whether a true intermittent or perennial stream
was historically present. These existing "man-made" channels have, in most cases,
intercepted surface runoff and/or groundwater to the extent that they now possess
intermittent or perennial flow and exhibit functions commonly associated with natural
streams. These systems are often considered jurisdictional waters of the US and, in many
cases, are classified as "streams". Permits to impact these systems usually require some
form of stream mitigation as compensation.
1 A first order stream is that portion of a waterway from its identified point of origin downstream to the first
intersection with another waterway.
.l
There is an increasing need for compensatory stream mitigation in the outer coastal plain
of North Carolina. Many sites selected to provide compensatory mitigation are
channelized or ditched riparian headwater systems. There is debate over the necessity
and/or appropriateness of traditional channel design techniques in these systems.
Typically, intermittent and perennial streams with well-defined bed and bank
characteristics are associated with specific soil series (Table 1) and are present in those
unaltered riparian headwater systems having relatively large watersheds draining into a
well-defined topographic feature. Here, natural channel design techniques may be
appropriate.
Often however, unaltered riparian headwater systems with smaller watersheds and less
definite topography possess a braided, diffuse flow pattern across a narrow floodplain of
riparian, wooded wetlands. In these instances, stream restoration involving the
development of pattern, dimension, and profile would not be appropriate. These sites
would likely not support engineered stream channels due to the lack of slope and sandy
terrain. Restoration of these riparian headwater systems could still be accomplished to
provide both stream and wetland mitigation credit without physically constructing a
distinctive stream channel.
The NCDWQ is currently working with researchers from NC State University and the
N.C. Center for Geographic Information and Analysis to develop a stream mapping
methodology. This methodology should provide scientifically valid predictions for the
origin of coastal plain streams. However, it is likely that it will be several years before
this data is available. In the interim, those involved in the development of compensatory
stream mitigation projects on the outer coastal plain of NC should use the following
criteria to decide what design is appropriate for the proposed mitigation site.
Zero2 to first order headwater streams: Restoration of stream pattern, dimension and
profile is often not appropriate in features appearing as zero to first order, headwater
streams in the outer coastal plain. Projects constructed in these areas may still qualify for
stream restoration even though they may not include construction of an actual channel.
These projects should include success criteria commensurate with the restoration of a
bottomland riparian (wetland) community. Additional considerations for success criteria
may include documentation of diffuse flow and inundation of adjacent wetland. Credit
will be calculated based on the length of the valley rather than an exact length of the
channel.
The limit of credit for stream and riparian wetland mitigation credit will be decided on a
case-by-case basis and will typically depend on the width and extent of a clearly visible
valley in the landscape. A 50-foot buffer is typically required for stream mitigation
projects in the coastal plain. Therefore, stream credit may only be awarded where the
discernible valley is a minimum of 100 feet wide. Areas outside this 100 foot corridor
but within the valley feature may be used as riparian wetland mitigation. The width of
the valley would usually be defined using the edge of the valley slope. Mitigation outside
z For the purposes of this guidance, jurisdictional waterways that do not appear on a county Soil Survey are
considered zero order
2

of and/or above this valley could be considered non-riparian wetland mitigation assuming
restoration of wetland hydrology, hydric soils and appropriate wetland plants. In-field
confirmation of the presence and limits of the valley may be needed in order to determine
the extent of riparian wetland and stream mitigation. Local topographic information
(USGS quad sheets, LIDAR imaging, site-specific topographic surveys, etc.), site-
specific soil mapping (for instance, linear mucky soil features bordered by mineral soils)
and information on flood frequency and duration are often helpful tools in identifying
these valleys in the outer coastal plain.
Second and higher order streams: Traditional stream mitigation methods using natural
channel design to predict and restore pattern, dimension and profile are typically
appropriate in systems indicated as second and higher order streams. Credit for this type
project would be calculated based on the actual length of the channel restored or
enhanced. The restoration of wetlands adjacent to the restored channel should be given
strong consideration.
This document is intended as a general guide. The preparers realize there may be
exceptions to the above information. Natural channel design may, for instance, be
appropriate when a zero or first order stream is located in a soil series that traditionally
supports streams (Table 1) and sufficient watershed area is available. The converse is
also true in that there may be larger watersheds where stream mitigation as described for
zero to first order streams may be more appropriate. It is also likely that large mitigation
sites may have both zero/first order streams and higher order streams as well as wetland
complexes thereby requiring multiple mitigation design techniques. Designers are
strongly encouraged, in all cases, to use reference sites with similar watershed size and
topographic conditions to determine the type of restoration that is appropriate for the site
Planning documents must adequately support the mitigation work proposed.
The guidance found in this document is subject to change if and when additional
information becomes available. The most current version of this document as well as
information on its applicability will be posted on the websites of both the Corps of
Engineers (http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/wetlands/notices.html) and Division of Water
Quality (http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/rd pub not.html).
Citations
Griffith, G.E., et al. 2002. Ecoregions of North and South Carolina. Reston, VA. United
States Geological Survey.
US Army Corps of Engineers, et al. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. Wilmington,
NC
3
?, .
. ,
?;?a? ??
(?,?1? ?? 1??
(?c?.rnlt? ? fn. Pry-+?, -sl?`??
? ?? ??,? I???
P
Table 13
Soils series in the coastal plain of NC which typically can contain streams
Beaufort Bertie New Craven
soil series Hanover
Name
Altavista X X
Augusta X
Autryville X
Bibb X
Chewacla X
Craven X X
Currituck X
Doravan X X X X
Exum X
Goldsboro X
Johnston X
Lafitte X
Masontown X
Muckalee X
Norfolk X X
Onslow X
Seabrook X
State X
Suffolk X
Tidal Marsh X
Wahee X X
Wasda X
Wehadkee X
Winton X X
3 These features normally occur on soils that typically contain streams. This table lists examples of some of
these soil series for several coastal plain counties and is intended to serve as a general guide for this
determination.
4

?Q. sfrP?.-
h
C5
,e-r
7
a,MLit
r?> U"1 31,, e ?Pde C4 SF r„wa?
a* VIA
1
RE: site visit Friday
Subject: RE: site visit Friday
From: "O'Rourke, Michael" <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 08:49:15 -0400
To: "John Domey" <[e-mail]>
John,
Absolutely, this site visit is something we need to get done. Ed is
down from NJ and Liz Hare from the USACOE will be meeting us there. My
offer to drive all of us still stands; however, would you mind meeting
me at my office since we will take US-1 South and it is more easily
accessible from our office than yours is. I will include directions.
Thanks. Please call me if you have any questions or concerns. Thanks
again for making this happen on short notice John.
Michael
Directions:
1: Start out going SOUTH on REEDY CREEK RD toward DUBLINWOODS DR. 1.1
miles
2: Turn LEFT onto NE MAYNARD RD / NC-54 E. Continue to follow NE MAYNARD
RD. 2.0 miles
3: Turn SLIGHT LEFT onto WALNUT ST. 0.8 miles Map
4: End at 1513 Walnut St
Cary, NC 27511-5972, US
John we are in a brick building just beyond the reach o the new
construction for the interchange of US-1 & Hwy-64 between a church and
another brick building and a cookout restaurant. The entrance to our
building has a little blue sign labeled 1st center. I'll have my cell
on me if you have any trouble.
MO
Michael O'Rourke
Senior Environmental Scientist
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
1513 Walnut Street
Suite 250
Cary, NC 27511
Office: [phone] ext. 27
Fax: [phone]
Cell: [phone]
[e-mail]
-----Original Message-----
From: John Dorney [mailto:[e-mail])
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 2:45 PM
To: O'Rourke, Michael
Subject: site visit Friday
are we still on for the site visit in Robeson County this Friday? I am
being pulled toward another meeting but am fighting mightily to go to
your field visit. please advise. thankx
1 of 1 10/19/2006 6:22 PM
. - I '.aip, - _
_ . ~171I k3_ ~x
iir w G ~
it 4I, ' ~ iS - _ _ n_~~-~.
Orv cDN~
N~ Cp ~ ® o- O ~ C~ !
cO N ~ h
~ ~ 1l 9 h\ T 1 \y a`ry I ~ 17~a
J n °I alzp u
.y!" 1/. h y/ t7.5 1125/ 1 h 0- ` ~
_ ~ o ,'0 11.5 ~ h
1t~5 11R~ 5 ~ 1lJ5 M1\0
7/5 \7 y \ry u
0 111:5 \ya 4 ~ y\\~ ~ 1rr. 114 21{. y h\\' o ~i a\ 4 ~ 2
1t lJ.S los-~ ~1l5. 113 ~ ~ ~ ' . _ _ e...~...^~ N.5
2t"~ 4j15 5 yo
1tSp 4115 -
115 ~ 2 p ~ dd
112 -h tl \C4 1720 ryh t15
?~p5
o s \{5 lQ ® M
n
n
© ~s

Z70s_ n s
.a +5'

° } \ 1J. ~ 1 4 u ~s
10 ° a
a o 0 Q 0
' ~ ® . O ~
o \ ,2 na M1 ~ 6 o n © ~ o
h ry
~5 ~ ~d
~ ~ 9 ®®Q 1j05 e ~ o SCALE IN FEET
a
s '}0 ' p ~ ° 200 y~'~. h ° ~o 0 100 0
pv.
~1 ' 't~ a •b~ J u
'J y ~
'C ° 1~' 7qs ~M1. O
' S ZDI 1~ 00~
4T ~y s 5 5 ~ ~ a ~ ~ yo5 ~ Y 00(~ CONF-
5 ~ ~ y'`-'~ o
~~0 5 ~ _
~ /t'o 'N i
0 0 ~ ~ 106 .
p p 107 m iTM }
~i ~ 106:5 % ~ m a°'S p 5 ~ ~ n
~ 7065
a p ~ ~ 5 h e ry pp ~ry. ~5 a~ , ~ -s
~ y ro ~ b 5 ~6's - ~ry. l°° M106. p y
~--1050 ~ 200
9 C1Q5'S~ .0 ~Og.S 1 5 ° 0 ~ -
y(~ xk0 _ 5 -70L° u ~ a7 N
_ a65 ~ g, ~ ° 107 p 5
_ 10~'S 'Pry .5 B ~ T0i5 ~ !.5 ~ s 207
hy. 10615 ~ ~p q ?0.! 'i ~ 106:5 0 ~ ~rJ h0~ ° . 0 V ~5 " ~ 9 101.
u 107 y _ 5 y05~ pS0 105 ° . zal ~ . T+ks 4 ~ ~
~.5 707~5~ R 7lA55 1~0 5 c h q ~ ° 1070 1~,5 1 5 ~ 1 _ 9 - pq. o a ~ ° ~ m
M1pS. `C~f c ~ S 0 14x u 6 D 0~, ~o ` ~ y uB ® o ~
2 0 C ~ 1tlL5 ~5c ~ I~L ~ - ~ ~ ~ y0~ ~ry. qp 9 'C r~' ~ SCftBB N 1• 'v, c ~ ~
0 4 ~ za9.° h _ u 7~l. _ _ ~ ,.5 - - w
~ ~ R. 7 ~ 7 `3. 105.0 y~,. 1a, ~ a 1°y5 ~.J 1p~ 5 ~ ~ ~ h p4 - Tp30 ~ ~ .M1 ~
~ ~(7 1(J7.5 ~ y "'V5 10~ "Kx3 S o pt. ~5 ~ g' ~ ° ~o n o p Tats ~ zoT. M~jS $ 70} 0 5 0
0 0 i J 103 1 1 11tra y0} li° ~,.,A ~ h ® 0.53 .+Q 'C ~ 10A0 inAB D
~ p s ,{r I o 10A 1pQ5 ~ 5 1075 L.i \qOt' mob) L~w'.'~ `C Z ~ jll o p ~7Ai5 °3.5 PpJ~° 0
° ~ 109.0 P09.0• 107. c ° 5 ZO9.5 i ~ - i o k a 7a. 1 `~o l./ ~~s j'S p0yp6~ ~ III 1' S, 5 ~ ~o i 5' ~ p
n' yp9~ '2119.0' ~5 y, Z7M~ `E o h ?~5 l~~ 705 ,6 't~. ~ p 1p7' . .5~ .20.9. / ~ 1a ~4s 'o .pj 70za
w id 1o~pt^~10.9 75 yp1 ~ .5 N 1yp5~" ` 9" ~ °}5 lip ~~-S /~~9,~~ I ~~ii33 g ~ 1050 106. h ~ o v V 1
\ v X750 ~ 107•°P 0 1 pOS.5 u a 2~. I._J Tai To7 _ N `o J 5 ~
ti ~7y, / ~,1fF'" ~`'bs0) ~ r~ 1P1. " ~ 109.5 117.55 fJ`J 0 ~ 101.5 5 7050 5 ~ b ~ 5 707
7Y17„5 ~ ( 1p1 p6 1"~ 1 ~ N a ~ ry 9 ~h 5 P07 T ~ ~ `bi ~J p / S 2025 ~S ~h 202 M1p 0 p ~ TO.iO ~
~ p7 ~,T' •r n `'bP'S / B} 7075 h °
0 2 0 M1. o P ,`p45 .0 0 ~y5 ,yp 5 , g0g5 y ~ ry" 'C 4 0 10T. ~ ~ do - p 1oT s h S .
`A77„1i~n h *y\ ~ 7fN.5 M1 5 u O 0 1~ 5 ~ 5
105 ( ~ ~ 10x0 5 ry" ~ u 1°1.5 1050 `-F S n p p 2~Wl5
~ ~.1 5 Y Flo 5 2oJ ~ ~ X07.5 5 u 2010 ~C"
~ ~ 5 ~ z°5s ~ ° py3 5 ~ w.a ~ 2S D
yW` r u ' ~ g' o i ° ~ o .s O 9~ ,`OM1 Y ~-b2 V0 N nn ~
1~.5 uB ~ ro I 70"~R,S p5.5 0~ h ~Z,9 `I
~p 1 ~ p - ~ SgNB h 55 ~ ~ ~ 10F.5 O D~ rq
y 7~ 1~ Q" 5 C.tp ~ ~ T~~""
,,~y N U 41'6' ~ O o !7 ah R'H. 5 T' ,o h n v CM1~ - / ~ p ~ o ~ 5 N~V
1p6A 1055 D `\'s ?~0.. _ ' J J ~ 1,~ ~ r X00
20.5.0 ._~~0 u wF ~ry~. 6 x ~n~os ~~ar
~DSrn~R ~U .R,y~,~ gUry
o o C70G0_ 1a5s .s • ~ ~ G FRB ~'h
o ^ ° T''.5 / 42~
405.0" ~ ~i ~
S
n.'_ ~ 4 r - h~
ter - ~ i
.4 1. a ~ .
. 'ii k i~ J i i . e
g rlf I 1 i 4~'.. a I t., wdW - -
h1w l~~ . _
7~I~~~~~Ll~~ ~ a